# Bush Was Right



## cameron_highlander (3 Apr 2006)

For all my fellow President Bush supporters....

http://youtube.com/watch?v=o762HKxYMeA

I thought this should go in Radio Chatter, but it seemed kind of political. Mods please move this if it's in the wrong spot.


----------



## COBRA-6 (3 Apr 2006)

Good find, thanks!


----------



## spr. mackinnon (3 Apr 2006)

;DThat made my day! Thanks for posting.


----------



## Fry (4 Apr 2006)

THAT IS SO AWESOME! Seriously! I was a Bush supporter from the start.


----------



## Blue Max (4 Apr 2006)

Bush was right, too bad they couldn't execute better after they kicked in the door to Iraq.

It opened to door to any detractor pundent, if you pardon the pun.


----------



## Britney Spears (4 Apr 2006)

What was he right about? Other than "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11"?


----------



## zipperhead_cop (4 Apr 2006)

He was right in that we have passed a mile stone in the world where wishing upon a star is not going to cut it in the terrorism/security game.  Somebody had to do something.  Granted, the "git 'er done" style of diplomacy tends to honk some people off, but when you see how self serving many of major countries were in opposing an action in Iraq, I don't think you can make the blanket statement that "they should not have gone".  It's taking too long, if it was worth it will be up for debate for decades and it has crushed him in the polls.  But none the less, Iraq had to be sorted out.  
Yes, there are worse terrorism targets, but look at what a big player in regional instability has been taken out.  I still feel that the end will justify the means in the long run.


----------



## couchcommander (4 Apr 2006)

*must... resist.... urge... to... get... involved in.... topic... damn*

For those with short memories (a selection from various Bush speeches circa 2002-2003):



> Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.



Wrong



> From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.



Wrong



> The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.



Wrong



> Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.



Wrong



> Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.



Wrong



> In the case of Iraq, the Security Council did act, in the early 1990s. Under Resolutions 678 and 687 -- both still in effect -- the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.



Wrong



> Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power



Wrong



> Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons



Wrong



> We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.



Wrong



> The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.



Wrong

If you review Bush's speeches leading up to the War in Iraq his main points center on four things. Firstly, and primarily, WMD. These occupy the vast majority of his reasons. He was just plain wrong about this. 

Secondly, that Iraq was a threat, and is (in 2003) a threat to middle east stability. Well, he was half right. Iraq *was* a threat, before sanctions and massive allied bombings. 

Third, Iraq sponsors terrorism, including Al-Qaida. Once again, half right. Iraq has not been shown to have any meaningful links to Al-Qaida, but they did sponsor terrorists in Palestine and provide safe haven for others. 

Fourth, Saddam Hussein was a bad dude and deserved to be taken down. Well he got this right. Too bad it usually only got 4 sentances out of a 10 minute speech. I find it interesting how this has become "the causes" rallying cry when it occupied such a marginal aspect of the pre-war justification. Don't even get me started on his 2004-2005 attempt to to link 9/11 and Iraq...

/rant on

I don't have a problem with "git 'er done" diplomacy.... however that doesn't make Bush correct in anything that he said (in fact, he was wrong a lot more than he was right). I know the argument that is going to come at me, "Well it doesn't matter, Saddam Hussein was a tyrannical rights abuser. Removing him has bettered the Iraqi people, and brought democracy to the middle east."... yea sure ok fine.... once again... doesn't make Bush right....it doesn't make the Bush administration's pre-war justificatios any better or any more moral... Bush was still wrong... Bush still lied.... Bush still attacked a nation without provocation. If iraq does pull itself together, and the middle east does become utopian democratic society..... Bush was still wrong... Bush still lied...he would just be the luckiest mother fucker in the world IMO.

It's like some guy murdering someone in cold blood on the street, who just happened to be another murderer.... doesn't change the fact that this guy murdered someone in cold blood on the street. 

/rant off (ie not meant to offend you zipperhead... unfortunately I can't think of a witty running metaphor right now...)


----------



## Britney Spears (4 Apr 2006)

[quote author=zipperhead_cop]He was right in that we have passed a mile stone in the world where wishing upon a star is not going to cut it in the terrorism/security game. [/quote]

Ah, of course. Before Bush, Nobody did ANYTHING about terrorism. But of course before 9/11 no one had ever experienced terrorism either. 

[quote author=zipperhead_cop]Granted, the "git 'er done" style of diplomacy tends to honk some people off, [/quote]

Honk some people off? You mean, like triggering <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15%2C_2003_global_anti-war_protest>*The Largest Protest in Human History?*</a> The whole world hates Bush and the US! Osama Bin Laden is a small-time people honking off-er by this standard.

[quote author=zipperhead_cop]but when you see how self serving many of major countries were in opposing an action in Iraq, I don't think you can make the blanket statement that "they should not have gone". [/quote]

What?  ???

[quote author=zipperhead_cop]It's taking too long, if it was worth it will be up for debate for decades and it has crushed him in the polls.  But none the less, Iraq had to be sorted out. [/quote]

Not that it particularly <a href=http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/03/22/bush_says_iraq_pullout_up_to_future_presidents/>concerns Bush</a>.

[quote author=The Boston Globe]President Bush suggested yesterday that US troops might stay in Iraq beyond his presidency, which ends in 2009, saying at a press conference that the issue of removing troops from the country ''will be decided by future presidents and future governments of Iraq."[/quote]

[quote author=zipperhead_cop]Yes, there are worse terrorism targets, but look at what a big player in regional instability has been taken out.[/quote]

Yes, the region is SOOOOO much more stable today than it was in 2002.


[quote author=zipperhead_cop] I still feel that the end will justify the means in the long run.[/quote]

How long is this "long run"? The question is entirely academic to me, but it seems to be a rather nagging concern to many Americans who are footing the bill in blood and treasure, and of course, they are the ones who will decide how long the run will be.


[quote author=couchcommander]Well it doesn't matter, Saddam Hussein was a tyrannical rights abuser. Removing him has bettered the Iraqi people, and brought democracy to the middle east.".[/quote]

What democracy? 

<a href=http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/06/20050624.html>President Welcomes Iraqi Prime Minister Jaafari to the White House.</a>

[quote author=George W. Bush] Thank you very much. Mr. Prime Minister, I am honored to welcome you to the White House. As the leader of Iraq's first democratically elected government in more than 50 years, you are helping to lift your country from decades of fear and oppression.

The Prime Minister is a great Iraqi patriot, he's a friend of liberty, he's a strong partner for peace and freedom. For more than two decades, he served the cause of Iraqi freedom in exile as a fierce opponent of Saddam Hussein's tyranny. Today this medical doctor now serves his people as he works to build a new Iraq. [/quote] 

But then, <a href="http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-03-27T191932Z_01_L27605414_RTRUKOC_0_UK-IRAQ.xml>Iraq parties demand U.S. cede control.</a>



> "The Alliance calls for a rapid restoration of (control of) security matters to the Iraqi government," Jawad al-Maliki, a senior spokesman of the Shi'ite Islamist Alliance and ally of Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, told a news conference.




So of course, <a href=http://www.neworleansvfp.org/node/1887>Shiites Say US Is Pressuring Iraqi Leader to Step Aside.</a>



> Ambassador Khalilzad said that *President Bush "doesn't want, doesn't support, doesn't accept" Mr. Jaafari to be the next prime minister*, according to Mr. Taki, a senior aide to Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, the head of the Shiite bloc. It was the first "clear and direct message" from the Americans on the issue of the candidate for prime minister, Mr. Taki said.



And that was all last week.

I'm having a delightful discussion on a liberal board about whether GW Bush or Andrew Jackson was the worst president of the USA, ever, but I won't burden you good folks with the details. I am interested to know how Bush was "right", and how anyone could still believe this. Of course, I could be wrong.

So go ahead, enlighten me. 



Man, I am having a crap day today and by god someone's going to get it


----------



## couchcommander (4 Apr 2006)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Man, I am having a crap day today and by god someone's going to get it



Yea same here. Poor zipperhead... I think he picked the wrong day.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Apr 2006)

Just so you guys have a memory check, most of what George W Bush said about Iraq pre OIF was *also* said by *Bill Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Ted Kennedy, Tony Blair, Gerhardt Schoeder.....*

Oh yeah, those guys are Liberal Democrats, Labour and Social Democratic pols. I guess it really does matter who the messenger is.


----------



## Rory (4 Apr 2006)

Britney Spears, did you recently take a world wide vote on how many nations do in fact hate the U.S.? Did you also exact a poll to make sure that everyone on God's green earth despises Americans? Really now think things through a little more before you go onto blanket the world in your statements. I happen to enjoy the company of America on this continent as well as the Bush administration. Apparently so do a few people on Army.ca.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 Apr 2006)

I guess since we don't go screaming and jumping in the streets,....we don't count.


----------



## GAP (4 Apr 2006)

It always amazes me how the very same people who live in the comfort and security of the umbrella of the west, seem to think that it's was someone else who created that security blanket.  Criticize the method, the rhetoric, but the end result...not yet


----------



## Britney Spears (4 Apr 2006)

> Just so you guys have a memory check, most of what George W Bush said about Iraq pre OIF was also said by Bill Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Ted Kennedy, Tony Blair, Gerhardt Schoeder.....



Like what? And why does it matter? I know I would have opposed OIF if Chirac was POTUS.




> Britney Spears, did you recently take a world wide vote on how many nations do in fact hate the U.S.? Did you also exact a poll to make sure that everyone on God's green earth despises Americans? Really now think things through a little more before you go onto blanket the world in your statements. I happen to enjoy the company of America on this continent as well as the Bush administration. Apparently so do a few people on Army.ca.



Well good for you sunshine, but you see, YES, people actually DO polls like you said, and guess what, a single google search will turn up:

<a href=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/27/opinion/polls/main1350874.shtml>Most Americans hate Bush</a>

<a href=http://www1.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=77491DF3-8EDF-40C8-93E90BAE590BD840> Most people in the world hate Bush, America after 2003</a>

<a href=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2994924.stm>Two thirds of world hate Bush, believe he was wrong about Iraq</a>

<a href=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/28/opinion/polls/main1168408.shtml> American hates Bush in 2005</a>

<a href=http://www.ahora.cu/english/SECTIONS/opinion/2006/abril/04-04-06.htm> Latin America hates Bush</a>

<a href=http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0616-06.htm> 8 out of 11 people in 2003 thought US more dangerous than Syria</a>

<a href=http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9193BAAF-1B83-4DE6-A38B-3C9A667BB189.htm> Wolrld REALLY hates Bush</a>

<a href=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6705821/</a> Europe hates Bush, America.</a>

It beggars the imagination that you could somehow be ignorant of this, with the wealth of information resources at your disposal.So it is not suprising that you enjoy Bush's company. Maybe you can apply for a job at the White House?



> It always amazes me how the very same people who live in the comfort and security of the umbrella of the west, seem to think that it's was someone else who created that security blanket.  Criticize the method, the rhetoric, but the end result...not yet



Wha?  ???


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 Apr 2006)

Google search..."hates Clinton".........2 260 000 hits........
                       "hates ice cream"......1 770 000 hits....
                        "hates Britney Spears"...4 000 000  hits....

...next stupid google point?


----------



## GAP (4 Apr 2006)

didn't figure you would get it... :


----------



## Britney Spears (4 Apr 2006)

I suppose actually doing a search, trying to find a few facts and coming up with an honest answer makes me the "intellectual" around here.  

What about my FEELINGS? why doesn't anyone care about MY feelings? 



> Google search..."hates Clinton".........2 260 000 hits........
> "hates ice cream"......1 770 000 hits....
> "hates Britney Spears"...4 000 000  hits....
> 
> ...next stupid google point?



How do I put this...... Bruce, read the topic title, and try to stay on topic? What exactly are you trying to prove with this? that most of the world hates Clinton? Ice Cream? Would you like to start another thread where we can discuss the results of your search in detail? I'm more than willing to do so with mine. 




> Thought I'd hone on this comment before I run off to class. The regional instability is the fault of Iraqis, mostly Sunni's, who are incapable of adapting to the new environment of 'freedom' as it were (I know, sounds like good ol' political rhetoric, but thats the best I could describe it), or are afraid of losing power over the majority Kurds and Shia's. The US has handed them freedom and a heck of alot of money on a silver platter, what Iraq does with it is their own fault.
> 
> But that's life. Although I guess the US should not have gone in to Iraq, heck, why bother with Afghanistan? Gulf War One was probably a mistake to eh? Phh, and what was with that 'going over' in World War Two? Why does the US just not bugger off and stay on it's own.



What the devil are you talking about? I mean, Bush/Co obviously had a pretty good handle on all of this (socio-economic conditions in Iraq, world support, etc) and were making sound, knowledgable decisions, right?   Were the Germans and Japanese "incapable of adapting to the new enviroment?" 



> Because they, being the most powerful free nation on earth, has an obligation to do what it can to help oppressed people around the world. As we, and every other western nation, does as well. Britney, your attitude reeks of my school's students who don't mind sitting under the protection offered by the local police department and don't mind letting them to the dirty work...but will attack what they do with a vengence whenever they PERCIEVE something to be slightly wrong. My student union is hiring, would you be interested?



So of course the next time you get your ass kicked by the popo, it's all OK, because "what about all the good things they do?"

How about you try extending the Xbox attention span a little bit and answer my question? What was Bush RIGHT ABOUT? Give me an example and let's discuss it with facts and concrete evidence, shall we?



> didn't figure you would get it... Roll Eyes



Yeah, sorry. I guess the rest of the world isn't quite up on the same existentialist level. Too bad Bush got elected on the platform of being a clueless but lovable dolt. You wouldn't get very far with him. Did you like the band?


----------



## Kal (4 Apr 2006)

Piper said:
			
		

> Britney, your attitude reeks of my school's students who don't mind sitting under the protection offered by the local police department and don't mind letting them to the dirty work...but will attack what they do with a vengence whenever they PERCIEVE something to be slightly wrong.



To those to which the protection is provided have every right and a responsibility to question where that protection comes from and how it is attained.  To not, would be derelict in ones responsibility as a citizen and a voter.  Does the end justify the means if the methods were proven to be unjust?  Is it right to overlook unethical or even questionable behaviour and actions of an individual or group because they also do some good?  



			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> So of course the next time you get your *** kicked by the popo, it's all OK, because "what about all the good things they do?"



I would really like to see this question answered...


----------



## Fry (4 Apr 2006)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> Hey B.S.
> see even us transplanted 'Mericans have a sense of humor.  I always find it interesting the level of harshness of "intellectuals" like you.  Are you so filled by hate and anger that you cannot see anything good about the world?  Everyone in the World hates the President and the U.S?, I suppose the same could be said about Harp Seal lovers and how all of them hate Canada and Canadians.
> 
> My advice to you is that you expand your horizons, get out more often, relax and read a good book, hope and pray that freedom and love for fellow man reigns because if it doesn't the world is in serious trouble.



I'm backing S_Baker on this one. B.S, where are you getting this rubbish? We've never experienced terrorism prior to 2003?

Seems you just have it out for President Bush. Also seems to me that you're just another one to buy the bullshyte that Michael Moore dished out in Farenheit 9/11. 

Get a grip.


----------



## Rory (4 Apr 2006)

Well stated Piper. Britney I honestly think your about as volatile as the whole Middle East at the moment. I like how everyone just rags and rags on about Bush being wrong and etc etc. Ever think he's got a solid plan in motion? I mean once Iraq is stabilized and is setup in the democratic world hey guys look a valid staging point in case any Middle Eastern nation decides to do something they will regret. I am not saying this is his plan but who knows were not Bush.

Britney also if *most* Americans hated Bush how come I don't see articles upon articles constantly streaming in of constant protesting outside the White House? Wheres the public outcry? I mean I am positive if most Americans were ranting and raving about how bad Bush is I would be hearing the chatter up here in Sask. It's a quiet day here, I should be able to hear it.... I mean millions upon millions upon millions of Americans ranting and raving in the streets in protest constantly...


----------



## Fry (4 Apr 2006)

If most Americans hated President Bush, he would NOT have been RE-ELECTED.


Doesn't take an IQ of 160 to know that.


----------



## Thirstyson (4 Apr 2006)

Stop putting words in BS's mouth. She's certainly the most elegant poster on this site when it comes to getting a non-conservative point of view across. There's a reason why most people don't even try.


----------



## Britney Spears (4 Apr 2006)

> Alrighty. Iraq is not unstable because the US is making it so? Do we agree on this? US troops are not going around to destabalise the country.



Well, was Bush RIGHT?



> However, the reasons for going in in the first place were, IMHO, honourable.



You mean the ones that Bush put out to the public? Well, sure. But do you believe him?



> Thats why there are official channels to report such incidents. I was referring to people who villify the police for anything they do (whether it really is wrong, like a butt kicking, or percieved, like getting pulled over for speeding by 'those lazy cops with nothing better to do but pull us over') while at the same time living under their protection and complaining when something does happen, even though they villify the police for doing what could have prevented said bad incident from happening...



Where did I say anything even remotely resembling this? Let's start again. Was Bush right about Iraq? 



> You know, I am just not sure how to take these comments, on one hand lefties point out that GW is stupid, etc and then on the other hand they are trying to say that he leads some super secret plot to rule the world.



I never said any of that, but it is my suspicion that Bush himself is not the brains behind the operation. Was he right? 



> Britney also if most Americans hated Bush how come I don't see articles upon articles constantly streaming in of constant protesting outside the White House? Wheres the public outcry? I mean I am positive if most Americans were ranting and raving about how bad Bush is I would be hearing the chatter up here in Sask. It's a quiet day here, I should be able to hear it.... I mean millions upon millions upon millions of Americans ranting and raving in the streets in protest constantly...



I'm not you, so who the heck knows why you do or don't hear anything? I just gave you ELEVEN(11) different links from 2003-2006 to support my assertion, but I can't make you or Fry read them, so Rory, Fry, I'm afraid our correspondence must now come to an end.


----------



## Fry (4 Apr 2006)

I bet I could find links about how great Bush is... it's not a matter of what websites say or not. 

I'll repeat myself, because it seems that in your ranting, you're glancing, not reading.

If so many Americans hate President Bush, why did the majority vote him BACK INTO OFFICE?

Iraq had already begun, so answer that one.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Apr 2006)

Although I can't say I an 100% accurate with the lyrics of the song, they make reference to such things as:

1. The hot economy, low unemployment and increasing revenues coming into the treasury department; all spurred by the tax cut. (given the time frame of the tax cut and impact of these effects, not to mention past economic history, the correlation is as close to 100% as you are likely to get).

2. The marginalization of Syria in Lebanon. The Lebanese have detested the occupation of their country by Syria for decades, but have been unable to do anything about it until after OIF. Why is that?

3. The overthrow of despotic regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq. The people of these nations are making efforts to build consensual states where none existed before, a project that is literally the work of a generation or more. So far we have seen 3-4 years of work which is being opposed by armed groups with no interest in consensual societies. Although the jury is out (and even consensual societies can fall off the rails), the progress and prognosis is far better than most people predicted.

4. The exposure of various WMD/nuclear weapons programs and proliferation such as North Korea, Pakistan, Lybia, Iran. Lybia has publicly given up its program (especially surprising since it was unknown for the most part) after OIF. Unfortunately, there has not been as much progress on the other fronts.

I would certainly take the Bush administration to task for many failings, mostly to do with domestic policy and by far the greatest one being the lack of restraint in domestic spending, followed closely by the feeble efforts to modernize the entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid (where are the personal accounts and Health savings plans?), with the out of control immigration situation being number three on my list. Good thing I am not a voter in the United States, I see one party with a coherent foreign policy and one without, and both parties without any clear leadership or management of domestic issues. 

No wonder people are confused.


----------



## Fry (4 Apr 2006)

Piper said:
			
		

> Right in what? Invading Iraq? I'll assume that is it, seeing it seems to be the discussion at hand.
> 
> I am of two minds. Yes, he was right. Saddam was a bad man, running a cruel regime under which the Sunni minority was persecuting the majority Shia's and Kurds. He had to go, as did the current Iraq. However, the current Iraq war could have waited, IMHO. There are other more pressing issues to deal with (Iran, and radical Islam). Saddam was not a radical Islamist, just an 'evil' (I use that in a none-religious way) tyrant. Therefore, I say, the US should have waited...knowing what we know now. But at the time, the US was justified in invading. They suspected WMD's, had what they thought was enough proof, and Saddam's time was up.
> 
> ...



I agree as well. Many people here say that Bush had no right to capture Sadaam. Why they think this, I do not know. He was wanted for years for the crimes he's committed, and I'm sure there are many that are relieved that he isn't  in power anymore.

The step to developing nations such as Iraq is to dismantle this 'every man for himself' warfare that's been going on overthere for years. The people want a stable government and a safe place for their children, but the guns do the talking. Anyone who argues that  the liberation of Iraq and the capture of Sadaam Hussein was wrong, unjustified, and stupd... Is just as bad as Sadaam himself. Period.


----------



## Britney Spears (4 Apr 2006)

> 1. The hot economy, low unemployment and increasing revenues coming into the treasury department; all spurred by the tax cut. (given the time frame of the tax cut and impact of these effects, not to mention past economic history, the correlation is as close to 100% as you are likely to get).



I will respectfully disagree with this. The style of tax cuts a la Reagan has not proven to be effective as an economic stimulus, hence the reason why the economy went to the crapper during the Bush I Administration resulting in Clinton's election. In particular, the underlying premesis of Reaganomics, the Laffer Curve, is of questionable applicability to the real world. See <a href=http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/69xx/doc6908/12-01-10PercentTaxCut.pdf>This report</a>(PDF file) for some more in depth analysis.  In any case, I am of the opinion that the ability of any one president to meaningfully influence the economy during his term is very limited. There are just too many external factors beyond his control, and measurable macroeconomic effects are not apparent until some time into the future. In short, I don't think Bush is any more responsible for the current moderate economic growth than Clinton was reponsible for the longest (8 years) period of sustained economic growth in US history. Let us wait and see. 



> 2. The marginalization of Syria in Lebanon. The Lebanese have detested the occupation of their country by Syria for decades, but have been unable to do anything about it until after OIF. Why is that?



Lebanese politics is... complex, to say the least. Why could the Lebanese(The anti-Syrian ones anyway) themselves not have simply decided they'd had enough? Do you have any evidence that the US led invasion of Iraq, or any particular action on the part of Bush, was responsible for this? To say that "The Lebanese have detested the occupation of their country by Syria for decades, " is a rather simplistic viewpoint. 



> 3. The overthrow of despotic regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq. The people of these nations are making efforts to build consensual states where none existed before, a project that is literally the work of a generation or more. So far we have seen 3-4 years of work which is being opposed by armed groups with no interest in consensual societies. Although the jury is out (and even consensual societies can fall off the rails), the progress and prognosis is far better than most people predicted.



The jury is indeed out, but would you agree that the occupation of Iraq has been grossly mismanaged? I'm sure you've read that recent army war college study. Also many people, myself included, are of the opinion that concentrating on Afghanistan first would have been a vastly better route. 



> 4. The exposure of various WMD/nuclear weapons programs and proliferation such as North Korea, Pakistan, Lybia, Iran. Lybia has publicly given up its program (especially surprising since it was unknown for the most part) after OIF. Unfortunately, there has not been as much progress on the other fronts.



Don't you think the proliferation could be a RESULT of the threat of unilateral military intervention by the US? Do you think that Iraninan progress on attaining a nuclear capability was sped up, or slowed as a result of OIF? I'm not seeing a great deal of progress with wither Pakistan or NK, So Libya giving up their non-existent nukes would be the only "victory" here.




> They suspected WMD's, had what they thought was enough proof, and Saddam's time was up.



No they didn't. The AMERICAN people may have thought there was enough proof, until they found out that Bush co. had pulled most of the "proof" out of their @ss. It was a big deal a while ago so I trust you won't need a link for that. So was he still right?



> Survey's are never accurate and stats can be screwed with easily, especially by the media.



So all 8 of the surveys I put up are inaccurate? Since it's been a while since my stats course, why don't you pull out the stats texbook and show me how they are inaccurate? I don't understand why we are getting stuck on this point. Even the Bush admin doesn't pretend that their actions are wildly popular around the world, when was this ever a matter of debate?


----------



## couchcommander (4 Apr 2006)

Oh wow Britney...

I leave for a monring... wow, talk about a hornets nest. Anywho, good luck to you sir.

Re: my bit of responsibility for this..

a_majoor, you are right in saying that many democrats (and others) bought what the US administration was saying. They were wrong as well, as should be ashamed for being so gullible, when even Chretien (*snicker*) asked for more evidence. 

Re: the song. I was aware of excactly what the lyrics said. However, it appeared to me that the message the song was trying to encapsulate was "We were right all along, so "... my point was that well, actually, you (Bush & Co.) were wrong about a whole lot of things, and quite possibly shouldn't be dancing around to the opposit effect just because some good things happened. 


*edit*... well I am trying to squeeze myself out of this topic, I would just like to point out, rather unpartisanly at this point, that the stats that Britney was referring to re: the hate are pretty solid (unfortunately... I love the states, just not Bush.... or their border guards... *grumble*).


----------



## Britney Spears (4 Apr 2006)

> And yes, Bush is still right.



You mean he was right to lie and deceive his people into a war they would otherwise have opposed, or right to think "they'll fall for it, for sure"?


----------



## Britney Spears (4 Apr 2006)

> Sorry, where were the lies?



I just asked if you needed a link. Are you telling me you are unaware of the Downing Street Memo? Or the NigerYellowcake forgery?


----------



## Fry (4 Apr 2006)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> I just asked if you needed a link. Are you telling me you are unaware of the Downing Street Memo? Or the NigerYellowcake forgery?



Even though this is a great healthy debate.. you've still failed to answer my question. 

If the majority of Americans detest Bush so much, then why did they *Vote him back into office?*


----------



## Centurian1985 (4 Apr 2006)

Just to stir things up a bit more...

Previously, (page 1 of this thread) a person listed all the things that Bush lied about.  I dont know where youve been looking but even open sources have corroborated that Saddam was trying to acquire WMDs.  Just because Saddam was unsuccessful does not mean he would not have been successful in the future.  What it does indicate is that Bush firmly believed Saddam was guilty and was willing to manipulate available information to support those beliefs (as any politician would normally do!). 

Further many people dont understand the burden of proof involved.  If you want to declare a person is guilty of criminal acts you need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (over 95%)  that a person likely did what they are accused of.  The problem is that intelligence does not work on the reasonable doubt theory it works on the reasonable probability theory.  Thats why you dont see intelligence used in courts of law, it is only a theory unless supported by hard evidence collected by investigators.  So, when Bush went to the UN to present his case, he misused the information available, trying to present only probabilities as certainities. Thats why the investigation teams were in Iraq in the first place, trying to find positive proof that would prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Problem is they were never able to find the 'smoking gun'.  For the evidence that they did find, it was all dual-use technology; which is acceptable for reasonable probability but not for investigations that need beyond a reasonable doubt.  

In the end, evidence existed, but not enough to convince the UN who were demanding beyond a reasonabe doubt before they could act.  What Bush was stupid about (and his advisors) was trying to manipulate intelligence and information so that probabilities looked like certainties.  The resulting backlask discredited ALL the information gathered so that no one was certain what was true and what had been manipulated!


----------



## couchcommander (4 Apr 2006)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> Previously, (page 1 of this thread) a person listed all the things that Bush lied about.  I dont know where youve been looking but even open sources have corroborated that Saddam was trying to acquire WMDs.  Just because Saddam was unsuccessful does not mean he would not have been successful in the future.  What it does indicate is that Bush firmly believed Saddam was guilty and was willing to manipulate available information to support those beliefs (as any politician would normally do!).



I'm sorry, are these the same sources that said he was trying to get Nigerian uranium? You have to understand two things here. Firstly, the difference between thinking about having weapons of mass destruction, ie such as having a project on the books with a name that was previously associated with said program, and actively seeking them, ie actually having a program to develop weapons of mass destruction. And Saddam HAD weapons of mass destruction... interestingly given to him, in part, by the US (along with France and some others). 

Secondly, if you read said post, you'll notice that bush makes very very specific allegations. These were all, ALL, *ALL*, *ALL* wrong when it came to WMD and Iraq.  

To repeat what I had already posted, in summary (and these ARE Bush's words):



> in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors



Wrong



> He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country.



Wrong



> Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction



Wrong



> Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.



Wrong

...so on which of these, or any on my previous post, was I wrong? Please post a reputable source that provides realtively firm evidence (ie not "recently posted documents, show that in 2002 the Iraqi dictator had a program running that had a name that was similar to one that was previously running that might have been associated with something to do with a chemical weapons program back in the 1980's"... or..."on one line of a 15,000 word document, recently uncovered, and when taken completely out of context of the document of a whole, showed that there was a proposal, that, had it actually ever been accepted, would have led to a program that might have explored, what it called "the effects of biological weapons".)



> Further many people dont understand the burden of proof involved.  If you want to declare a person is guilty of criminal acts you need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (over 95%)  that a person likely did what they are accused of.  The problem is that intelligence does not work on the reasonable doubt theory it works on the reasonable probability theory.  Thats why you dont see intelligence used in courts of law, it is only a theory unless supported by hard evidence collected by investigators.



Which is why it's probably unwise to...



> when Bush went to the UN to present his case, he misused the information available, trying to present only probabilities as certainities.



bingo! When he knew damn well that these were only possibilities, and evidence is emerging that he may well have known some of them to be factually inaccurate! Kind of a shitty reason to go on a rampage that has ended up killing hundreds of thousands of people (once again, there ARE good ones... but this was not one). 



> Thats why the investigation teams were in Iraq in the first place, trying to find positive proof that would prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Problem is they were never able to find the 'smoking gun'.  For the evidence that they did find, it was all dual-use technology; which is acceptable for reasonable probability but not for investigations that need beyond a reasonable doubt.


You mean like the kind required to produce medication that almost every country on the face of the planet has?



> In the end, evidence hopeful conjecture existed, but not enough to convince the UN who were demanding beyond a reasonabe doubt before they could act.  What Bush was stupid about (and his advisors) was trying to manipulate intelligence and information so that probabilities looked like certainties.  The resulting backlask discredited ALL the information gathered so that no one was certain what was true and what had been manipulated!



There we go. 

And to end it off, my favorite, again:



> Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves *no doubt *  that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.



Now THAT is a lie! Even by your standards!

*edit* I mean come on! The Republicans wanted to impeach Clinton because he said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"... he at least had the benefit of "sexual relations" being an ambiguos term..."no doubt", IMO, is a pretty firm statement.


----------



## Centurian1985 (4 Apr 2006)

Have to go out and do some yard - I'm not running away, I will be back to answer this!
(the problem is how to phrase my reply in a convincing manner yet still cause maximum irritation...hmmm....)  ;D


----------



## Centurian1985 (4 Apr 2006)

Okay, if I was nasty, I would say where's your proof that he was WRONG, and make you find and quote all the sources that proves he's wrong.

However, to be fair, you challenged first, plus that would just be avoiding the issue.  

But first, your post confuses me; first you say he DID have WMDs ("given by US France and others"), then later you say he didnt have them. Can you clarify that for me?


----------



## couchcommander (5 Apr 2006)

During the 1980's and early 90's Saddam Hussein possessed a number of chemical and quite possibly biological weapons. He used chemical weapons against Iran, and his own civilian population. If you want a source for this, I can definitely get it, but just google "Iran-Iraq War Chemical Weapons" and you will get more sources than I can possibly provide.

However, these weapons were later destroyed in compliance with UN obligations (as was claimed by the Iraqi administration, and as is now verified by the fact we can't find any left over). 

Thanks,


----------



## Centurian1985 (5 Apr 2006)

Oh, you dont have to quote sources for me.  

To paraphrase, you mean he used to have WMDs.

Now, your going to nail me for not quoting sources because it would take me a few hours to track down all the on-line ones.  For some of this stuff, you cant find it on-line because they are unclassified but not posted on the web, or they are from magazines that you either need a precscription or dyou need an account to access. 


Quote: In the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors; 
"I can neither confirm nor deny".

Quote: He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country.
True: I think it was in macleans or another digest where they interiewed one of Saddams leading scientisits published about two months aafter the current war, who admitted that Saddam was pursuing CBN weapons even while they were in the country.   

Quote: Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction
Half-true: same article, went to elaborate lengths, spent a lot of money, nothing gained.  End of sentence is political rhetoric, you cant build and keep what you dont have, but you would if you had it (deliberate confusion of a fact as outlined by Hughes in the book 'Critical Thinking'). 

Quote
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. 
True, but filled with political rhetoric; unclassified news reports did say a few rusty leftover CB shells were found in isolated areas which were a threat to persons in the immediate vincinity. Note the use of the world 'lethal',meaning that a person can die, rather than 'mass-destruction', meaning many would die from the same weapon.  

Quote: Further many people dont understand the burden of proof involved.  If you want to declare a person is guilty of criminal acts you need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (over 95%)  that a person likely did what they are accused of.  The problem is that intelligence does not work on the reasonable doubt theory it works on the reasonable probability theory.  Thats why you dont see intelligence used in courts of law, it is only a theory unless supported by hard evidence collected by investigators.  
Your Quote: Which is why it's probably unwise to...
Exactly: Thats why we used to get very panicky when politicians and investigators started grabbing our stuff.  Real int work develops theories from facts and tosses a theory if the facts contradict it (the good ones do anyway!); police and investigators form theories, then fit facts to the theory and discard facts that dont fit the theory (sorry boys in blue, proven fact); Politicians on the other hand scare the hell out of us; they break agreements, bury the truth if it doesnt fit their political agenda, cast aspersions, piss off allies, and just do whatever the hell they want with our stuff. they're as bad as CNN. 

Quote: when Bush went to the UN to present his case, he misused the information available, trying to present only probabilities as certainities. 
Your quote: bingo! When he knew damn well that these were only possibilities, and evidence is emerging that he may well have known some of them to be factually inaccurate! Kind of a shitty reason to go on a rampage that has ended up killing hundreds of thousands of people (once again, there ARE good ones... but this was not one). 
We agree on something!

Quote: Thats why the investigation teams were in Iraq in the first place, trying to find positive proof that would prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Problem is they were never able to find the 'smoking gun'.  For the evidence that they did find, it was all dual-use technology; which is acceptable for reasonable probability but not for investigations that need beyond a reasonable doubt.  
Your response: You mean like the kind required to produce medication that almost every country on the face of the planet has?
Confusion: What are you refering to? What medication? 

Quote: In the end, evidence hopeful conjecture existed, but not enough to convince the UN who were demanding beyond a reasonabe doubt before they could act.  What Bush was stupid about (and his advisors) was trying to manipulate intelligence and information so that probabilities looked like certainties.  The resulting backlask discredited ALL the information gathered so that no one was certain what was true and what had been manipulated!  
Your quote: There we go. 
We agree again.

Quote
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. 
Now this one you got me on.  I believe they based this on the fact that several different materials were unaccounted for, which could be explained by 'this is what happens when a war occurs'.  I would have to agree that the absence of a possible weapon from a list of items cannot be used to support an argument that they have something hidden.  Overall he might have believed this was true, but there was no evidence to support it (rather 'a lack of evidence' which can be used in other examples i.e. a missing hatchet might be the weapon that killed the grandma, but not very good in this case).  

But is it a lie? A lie is when you say something that you know to be untrue, and Bush probably thought this was true.  If Bush really thought this was true then he's only unbalanced. So there's your choice, was he lying or unbalanced? But dont worry, the truth is out there...somewhere..


----------



## zipperhead_cop (5 Apr 2006)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> Yea same here. Poor zipperhead... I think he picked the wrong day.



Hah.  The day that hippies and socialists can give me even a moment of pause is the day I stop tossing out my knuckle dragging unsubstantiated opinions.  



			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Ah, of course. Before Bush, Nobody did ANYTHING about terrorism. But of course before 9/11 no one had ever experienced terrorism either.



I will take that as sarcasm.  If you are so pedantic as to suggest that 9-11 was not the most significant terrorist effort to date, then I bet you are one of the ones who thinks that the Towers coming down was from pre planted explosives and it was a controlled demolition?  Try to remember even Michael Moore admitted that he lies for the sake of entertainment.
http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2003_09_21_archive.html



			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Honk some people off? You mean, like triggering <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15%2C_2003_global_anti-war_protest>*The Largest Protest in Human History?*</a> The whole world hates Bush and the US! Osama Bin Laden is a small-time people honking off-er by this standard.



Opinions are like a$$holes.  Everyone has them.  Just because a bunch of kum-bay-ah peaceniks can't handle how things are going to be operating from now on and have a need to take their unshaven hemp-clad carcasses into the streets, doesn't deter from the fact that the shadows and sewers these clowns are hiding in need to be scoured.  



			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> What?  ???



Post GW2 main attack, once they started sifting through all the papers, they started to see the little side arrangements, like the Oil for Food scam where Russia was getting nice cheap oil, and France was getting billions routed through their banks brokering the deals.  
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52682-2004Oct21.html
Gee, who was all against the war in the first place?  Oh, right.  France and Russia.  Hmmmm, seems there was another big player saying no that I'm missing,  mmm, OH YEAH, it was Germany.  Guess they must just hate conflict.  Or:
http://cns.miis.edu/research/iraq/iraqmi91.htm
Or maybe they just didn't want the US seeing the "Made with Pride in Germany" stamps on the scuds. 



			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Not that it particularly <a href=http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/03/22/bush_says_iraq_pullout_up_to_future_presidents/>concerns Bush</a>.



So who should it concern?  Seems the world was pretty happy to turn their backs on Iraq for quite some time.  Do you really think they should have waited until the UN pulled their heads out of their bureaucratic asses?  Who do you think stopped them from doing the job right the first time during GW1?  



			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Yes, the region is SOOOOO much more stable today than it was in 2002.



Yeah, and we should have let Hitler run the show in Europe, because he was all about nice roads and tidy houses.  I think it has been covered, but the instability is because of the terrorists and resistance.  I'm betting that it isn't the Americans blowing up oil pipe lines and water plants.  The agitators over there know that if the region can be turned into a chaotic cluster f**k, then the US will fail, and after the dust settles, the thugs and tyrants will be running the show again.  



			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> How long is this "long run"? The question is entirely academic to me, but it seems to be a rather nagging concern to many Americans who are footing the bill in blood and treasure, and of course, they are the ones who will decide how long the run will be.



I guess it is until the Iraq government can pull its crap together and run it's own country.   I think we have seen the US and Brit Secretaries of State making those sort of noises.  
Britney, I imagine you have a time limit for us in Afghanistan too?  "Jeez, all those pesky cave dwellers.  I gotta get back to Canada for the new season of 'Corner Gas'.  Screw this place".  Once committed, you take as long as it takes.  How long have we been in Cypress?  Do we need to be there?  You think they would have been better off if we had said "you guys got eight years.  Then we're off like a prom dress".  If the States sets a pull out date, the insurgents will just screw off for x-years and as soon as the last C-17 is gone, guess who will be back?  



			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> What democracy?



The fact that the people got to vote in an election with a ballot that had more than one name on it.  The might not have been great choices, but they still got to choose.  Kind of like here. ;D



			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> I'm having a delightful discussion on a liberal board about whether GW Bush or Andrew Jackson was the worst president of the USA, ever, but I won't burden you good folks with the details. I am interested to know how Bush was "right", and how anyone could still believe this. Of course, I could be wrong.
> 
> So go ahead, enlighten me.



No doubt you are a hero-god amongst the nay sayers.  
I met a woman a few weeks ago that was a refugee from Bagdad.  She took the first chance to jet after the US arrived and took over.  Her English was halting, but I asked her directly if she thought the "USA in Iraq, is that good?".  She clasped her hands as praying and she said "Every day I pray George Bush, he a great man.  He save the Iraqi people.  I love him for always".  I also asked her "but people say the USA is bad.  Are they bad?".  She said to me "tell people to live Iraq like me.  Then say USA go out".  She was a full blown George Bush lover and I had half a mind to get her info and put her in contact with Fox News (and collect a modest finder fee  )
Enlightenment comes from being open to ideas.  You don't appear to be.  Anyone can sit back and shoot down ideas, criticize others for their actions.  



			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> So of course the next time you get your ass kicked by the popo, it's all OK, because "what about all the good things they do?"



For a guy who likes to hold everyone else to task for making dead accurate statements, you like to throw out your own jackhole bombs from time to time.  So "where is your link" to back up your statement?  Since finding tripe on broadband is apparently the only mark of an informed person.
Besides, nobody gets their ass kicked for no reason.  Just some people don't like the reason.  



			
				Thirstyson said:
			
		

> Stop putting words in BS's mouth. She's certainly the most *elegant poster * on this site when it comes to getting a non-conservative point of view across. There's a reason why most people don't even try.



Spit or...


So fire up the way back machine, Sherman.  Lets go back to pre-Iraq invasion and you uber-brain liberals tell us what should have been done about Saddam Hussein that hadn't been done over and over the preceding years after the cease fire from GW1?  No crabbing, whining or questions with questions.  Just tell us in your opinion what should have been done.  I am certainly ready to be "enlightened".


----------



## Britney Spears (5 Apr 2006)

> I will take that as sarcasm.  If you are so pedantic as to suggest that 9-11 was not the most significant terrorist effort to date, then I bet you are one of the ones who thinks that the Towers coming down was from pre planted explosives and it was a controlled demolition?  Try to remember even Michael Moore admitted that he lies for the sake of entertainment.



Yes, 9-11 was the most significant terrorist effort to date, and many other countries have been fighting terrorists before the US existed. What is your point? That Bush lies for the sake of entertainment? 



> Opinions are like a$$holes.  Everyone has them.  Just because a bunch of kum-bay-ah peaceniks can't handle how things are going to be operating from now on and have a need to take their unshaven hemp-clad carcasses into the streets, doesn't deter from the fact that the shadows and sewers these clowns are hiding in need to be scoured.



OK, whatever helps you feel bigger.



> Post GW2 main attack, once they started sifting through all the papers, they started to see the little side arrangements, like the Oil for Food scam where Russia was getting nice cheap oil, and France was getting billions routed through their banks brokering the deals.
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52682-2004Oct21.html
> Gee, who was all against the war in the first place?  Oh, right.  France and Russia.  Hmmmm, seems there was another big player saying no that I'm missing,  mmm, OH YEAH, it was Germany.  Guess they must just hate conflict.  Or:
> http://cns.miis.edu/research/iraq/iraqmi91.htm
> Or maybe they just didn't want the US seeing the "Made with Pride in Germany" stamps on the scuds.



How does any of this justify the invasion? 



> So who should it concern?  Seems the world was pretty happy to turn their backs on Iraq for quite some time.  Do you really think they should have waited until the UN pulled their heads out of their bureaucratic asses?  Who do you think stopped them from doing the job right the first time during GW1?



BUSH, of course.



> Yeah, and we should have let Hitler run the show in Europe, because he was all about nice roads and tidy houses.  I think it has been covered, but the instability is because of the terrorists and resistance.  I'm betting that it isn't the Americans blowing up oil pipe lines and water plants.  The agitators over there know that if the region can be turned into a chaotic cluster f**k, then the US will fail, and after the dust settles, the thugs and tyrants will be running the show again.



So is there stability or not?



> I guess it is until the Iraq government can pull its crap together and run it's own country.   I think we have seen the US and Brit Secretaries of State making those sort of noises.
> Britney, I imagine you have a time limit for us in Afghanistan too?  "Jeez, all those pesky cave dwellers.  I gotta get back to Canada for the new season of 'Corner Gas'.  Screw this place".  Once committed, you take as long as it takes.  How long have we been in Cypress?  Do we need to be there?  You think they would have been better off if we had said "you guys got eight years.  Then we're off like a prom dress".  If the States sets a pull out date, the insurgents will just screw off for x-years and as soon as the last C-17 is gone, guess who will be back?



Was that what Bush told the American people in 2003? What DID he tell them? *Was he right?* 



> The fact that the people got to vote in an election with a ballot that had more than one name on it.  The might not have been great choices, but they still got to choose.  Kind of like here. Grin



I guess over in your riding the US consulate gets to dismiss MPs they don't like?



> I met a woman a few weeks ago that was a refugee from Bagdad.  She took the first chance to jet after the US arrived and took over.  Her English was halting, but I asked her directly if she thought the "USA in Iraq, is that good?".  She clasped her hands as praying and she said "Every day I pray George Bush, he a great man.  He save the Iraqi people.  I love him for always".  I also asked her "but people say the USA is bad.  Are they bad?".  She said to me "tell people to live Iraq like me.  Then say USA go out".  She was a full blown George Bush lover and I had half a mind to get her info and put her in contact with Fox News (and collect a modest finder fee  Wink)
> Enlightenment comes from being open to ideas.  You don't appear to be.  Anyone can sit back and shoot down ideas, criticize others for their actions.



I see, so accordng to you, the only way to enlightenment is to cease all critical thinking and accept everything that Dear Leader feeds us without firing a synaps? Obviously, you and I have some rather different ideas about this matter.

Oh, and needless to say, there's a whole bunch of Iraqis who don't share your friend's enthusiasm. I'm not sure if by "took the first chance to jet after the US arrived and took over" you mean she fled Baghdad in the wake of the US invasion and is now a refugee, or something else, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.



> For a guy who likes to hold everyone else to task for making dead accurate statements, you like to throw out your own jackhole bombs from time to time.  So "where is your link" to back up your statement?  Since finding tripe on broadband is apparently the only mark of an informed person.
> Besides, nobody gets their *** kicked for no reason.  Just some people don't like the reason.



I haven't a clue as to what you are blubbering about here. Maybe you and *Piper* need to get together and figure out who wrote what. If you have a problem with any of my sources, say so and we'll sort it out. Maybe I'll ask you for a source when I can't find 10 sources to prove you wrong with a single search? 



> So fire up the way back machine, Sherman.  Lets go back to pre-Iraq invasion and you uber-brain liberals tell us what should have been done about Saddam Hussein that hadn't been done over and over the preceding years after the cease fire from GW1?  No crabbing, whining or questions with questions.  Just tell us in your opinion what should have been done.  I am certainly ready to be "enlightened".



Of course, the old "well sure we're a bunch of fskups, but let's see YOUR plan then?" argument. Yeah, actually I DO have a plan (hint: a major part of it being NOT invading Iraq),  and I'll tell you what it is, right after you admit (go start a different thread because this one is about Bush being right) that your man Bush is a lying mass murdering sack of $hit. If he wasn't you wouldn't need my plan right? Go ahead,  I'll be waiting.


----------



## couchcommander (5 Apr 2006)

> Couchcommander, I'm calling BS, you refute all the above points with one word...'wrong'.



... I was under the impression it was commonly held knowledge... but anywho

I'll see you're sources, and raise you a few.. 

(Just telling me where to look is good enough, thanks Centurian1985)



			
				Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> Quote: In the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors;


Balloon filling trucks:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,973012,00.html



> Quote: He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country.



http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/

"Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes." 

This is *THE* official, US government sponsored, report as a result of the ISG investigation in Iraq. 

It goes on...
"The U.S. official said he believes Saddam decided to give up his weapons in 1991, but tried to conceal his nuclear and biological programs for as long as possible. Then in 1995, when his son-in-law Hussain Kamal defected with information about the programs, he gave those up, too."

The report goes on to say that Saddam Hussein would have, maybe, started a program again, had the sanctions been lifted.... reminder this is the same CIA that said he had them in the first place.



> Quote: Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction



See above. 

..and (edit, found what I was looking for) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/

"In his final word, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has “gone as far as feasible” and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion."

Another, offical, US government sponsored report. 



> Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.



From the Downing Street Memo:

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

There was indeed doubt, and Bush knew it. 

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html

..and (edit addition, as I found what I was looking for):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3890961.stm

"The evidence of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction was indeed less certain and less well-founded than was stated at the time," Mr Blair said"

This is in response to the official British report into pre-war intelligence handling. 



> Confusion: What are you refering to? What medication?


http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/iraq/bal-te.iraq29nov29,0,7541577.story?coll=bal-iraq-storyutil

This story is actually pre-war

"The al-Dawrah plant, which Iraq says is used for making animal vaccines, produced deadly botulinum toxins in the 1980s, earlier United Nations inspections determined. British intelligence officials say they suspect anthrax was also developed at the site."

It was later confirmed... animal vaccines (though indeed it had previously been used for biological weapons)



> But is it a lie? A lie is when you say something that you know to be untrue, and Bush probably thought this was true.  If Bush really thought this was true then he's only unbalanced. So there's your choice, was he lying or unbalanced? But dont worry, the truth is out there...somewhere..



It's beginning to emerge, ie with the downing street memo, that he knew what was going on. 

There you go! A whole lot of conjecture and hopeful speculation, possibly (we don't know yet) purposeful manipulation of the facts... all wrong. 

Cheers!

*edit*

I just saw the challenge re: the plan.

.... to stir the hornets nest... or to not stir the nest... ah what the hell...

What would I have done? Well are far are we going back?

...I wouldn't have supported a tyrannical dictatoriship in the 80's to begin with.....

But assuming we already fucked that up, and it's Feburary, 2003...containment. Restrict the flow of people and goods to those which are required for the nation to provide food, shelter, and medical resources. It's the same policy I would use towards NK, towards Iran, towards Zimbabwe, Swaziland, Somalia, Vietnam, Sudan, Myanmar, etc. 

Should these countries engage in fresh hostilities, atrocities, or actively try and develop weapons of mass destruction, I would advocate only the level of force required to maintain the status quo. IE destory suspected weapons sites, take out military resources and infrastructure, capture or kill those responsible for atrocities, actively deny any military presence in areas where atrocities are taking place (whether through physical occupation or by airpower..whatever will work). If there is an active rebellion, of course support it with men and materials as long as it agrees to the establishment of a democratic regime (ie Afghanistan) after they are sucessful. 

And yea, you're right, it would take a lot longer.

This is all IMHO, however. So I wouldn't take it as fact, it's just what "I" would have done. 

*edited a whole bunch for stuff and things... probably should re-read it*


----------



## zipperhead_cop (5 Apr 2006)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Yes, 9-11 was the most significant terrorist effort to date, and many other countries have been fighting terrorists before the US existed. What is your point? That Bush lies for the sake of entertainment?



No, just pointing out that your belittling of the seriousness of the 9-11 massacre does not change the fact that a lot of policy changed that day because it had to.



			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> OK, whatever helps you feel bigger.



As opposed to feeling empowered by a bunch of bored conspiracy theorist cry babies?



			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> How does any of this justify the invasion?



None of that was to justify the invasion.  My point was that the major countries that opposed the UN resolution has a lot to loose by the US screwing up their nice under the table arrangements in Iraq.



			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> BUSH, of course.



No, the UN.  The US wanted to push through when they had the Iraqi's shredded to hell's half acre.  Sadam cleverly inked the cease fire in time, and the US was obliged to honour it, since regime change wasn't something the UN could stomach.  



			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> So is there stability or not?



Of course there isn't stability.  But again, whose fault is that?  I'm pretty sure the Americans aren't blowing up the water plants and pipe lines.  
So I guess it would have been better to leave Sadam alone, so there would be quiet streets, running water and electricity 24/7 and the Iraqi people could continue to kiss the boots of a mad man?  Leave him free to do god knows what within his own borders?  Forever flaunt the will of the United Nations, regardless of what a toothless relic they are?



			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Was that what Bush told the American people in 2003? What DID he tell them? *Was he right?*



Whether Bush all out lied will be up for debate for a long time.  I believe that there was a good chance there were left over WMD chemicals from the last time they were used, and that given the chance, Sadam would have loved to be a nuclear power.  Remember, it was Sadam that was dicking around with the documentation being turned over, and not allowing inspectors to conduct proper checks.  Palaces off limits my arse.  Maybe he was running a bluff to try to look like a tough guy to his people or the other Middle Eastern countries.  Either way, he's looking like the chump now.  
Was it a bit of a sell job?  Yeah, I would say so.  Was it necessary for SOMEBODY to do something about Iraq?  I would say yes to that too.  



			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> I guess over in your riding the US consulate gets to dismiss MPs they don't like?



Oh, cripes, I wish!  Then we wouldn't have the highest concentration of NDP this side of Vancouver.  
None of us knows what was going on while they were putting together that election.  It doesn't strike me as too smart to allow a guy who was months previously a heavy for Sadam to be on a ballot.  There is a good chance he will get in on sheer intimidation.  Of course the US is going to try to install people who are US friendly.  The knew they would have to be there for a while, so the Iraqi's can vote in all the US hating candidates it wants after they're gone.  In the mean time, the people just have to get their head around the idea of even having a choice, as opposed to the one name ballots they were used to.  



			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> I see, so according to you, the only way to enlightenment is to cease all critical thinking and accept everything that Dear Leader feeds us without firing a synaps? Obviously, you and I have some rather different ideas about this matter.



Oh, I'm all for the thinking.  That sounds pretty funny coming from you though, since through your posts here you have painted yourself as a closed minded anti-Bush zealot.  



			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Oh, and needless to say, there's a whole bunch of Iraqis who don't share your friend's enthusiasm. I'm not sure if by "took the first chance to jet after the US arrived and took over" you mean she fled Baghdad in the wake of the US invasion and is now a refugee, or something else, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.



Heh.  Good one.  No, she has only been in Canada from Iraq for 15 months, well after the main battle had ceased.  



			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> I haven't a clue as to what you are blubbering about here. Maybe you and *Piper* need to get together and figure out who wrote what. If you have a problem with any of my sources, say so and we'll sort it out. Maybe I'll ask you for a source when I can't find 10 sources to prove you wrong with a single search?



Okay, I'll try to figure out who wrote that.   Here we go:



			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> So of course the next time you get your ass kicked by the popo, it's all OK, because "what about all the good things they do?"



All the rhetoric blends into one, doesn't it?



			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Of course, the old "well sure we're a bunch of fskups, but let's see YOUR plan then?" argument. Yeah, actually I DO have a plan (hint: a major part of it being NOT invading Iraq),  and I'll tell you what it is, right after you admit (go start a different thread because this one is about Bush being right) that your man Bush is a lying mass murdering sack of $hit. If he wasn't you wouldn't need my plan right? Go ahead,  I'll be waiting.



Okay, so you are saying that until I make a vulgar put down of a man whom I respect, you will hold hostage your special "plan".  I guess you will be waiting, then.  Of course,  knowing that, it would be pretty easy to say, and as such you wouldn't need to actually have a plan.  Nice origami tiger.  Very life like.

For Couchcommander--hind sight is always 20/20.  All of that stuff came out after the US got in there and started looking around for themselves.  If Sadam wasn't being such a dink about inspections and documentation, he might still be wasting time in Bagdad.


----------



## Kal (5 Apr 2006)

I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that Saddam was a bad dude and needed to go.  The problem is that some think the way Saddam was taken out was underhanded and the "proof" that was provided to solidify their cause, was more of possibilities and dare I say speculation than actual proof.

To believe this, does that make one a bored conspiracy theorist cry baby or Michael Moore's personal mouthpiece?


----------



## couchcommander (5 Apr 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> For Couchcommander--hind sight is always 20/20.  All of that stuff came out after the US got in there and started looking around for themselves.  If Sadam wasn't being such a dink about inspections and documentation, he might still be wasting time in Bagdad.



lol... that I can agree too.


----------



## Britney Spears (5 Apr 2006)

> No, just pointing out that your belittling of the seriousness of the 9-11 massacre does not change the fact that a lot of policy changed that day because it had to.



Oh yes, now I'm "belittling the seriousness of the 9-11 massacre".  Were you waving your little flag when you typed this?  :



> My point was that the major countries that opposed the UN resolution has a lot to loose by the US screwing up their nice under the table arrangements in Iraq.



And a lot of American companies who happen to have powerful influence within the White House also stood to gain a lot with the US occupation. So where does that put us?



> No, the UN.  The US wanted to push through when they had the Iraqi's shredded to hell's half acre.  Sadam cleverly inked the cease fire in time, and the US was obliged to honour it, since regime change wasn't something the UN could stomach.



I meant who it should Concern.




> Oh, I'm all for the thinking.  That sounds pretty funny coming from you though, since through your posts here you have painted yourself as a closed minded anti-Bush zealot.



The very fact that we are still corresponding would seem to indicate the opposite, despite your relentless frothing at the mouth ad hominem attacks. I imagine the readers I am trying to reach can decide for themselves who has the closed mind here.



> Okay, I'll try to figure out who wrote that.   Here we go:



So what exactly is your dispute then? Do you or do you not agree that police brutality is completely justified as long as the police also do some good once in a while? I was trying to point out one of Piper's non sequiturs (That since the Americans were on the right side during WW2, their cause must also be just today) with a hypothetical example, and you ask me for a link? Are you honestly unable to keep up with the discussion, or are you just muddying the water with non-sensical sophistry?



> Of course there isn't stability.  But again, whose fault is that?



Well I think you know what my answer to that will be.



> I'm pretty sure the Americans aren't blowing up the water plants and pipe lines.
> So I guess it would have been better to leave Sadam alone, so there would be quiet streets, running water and electricity 24/7 and the Iraqi people could continue to kiss the boots of a mad man?  Leave him free to do god knows what within his own borders?  Forever flaunt the will of the United Nations, regardless of what a toothless relic they are?



Compared to what we have now? Absolutely. 



> Whether Bush all out lied will be up for debate for a long time.



You sure about that?



> In the mean time, the people just have to get their head around the idea of even having a choice, as opposed to the one name ballots they were used to.



Are you unfamiliar with the definition of the word "choice"? If I asked you "Chicken or Fish", and you said "Chicken", and I said "You know what, Chicken's no good for you, pick something else.", What are your choices?



> Okay, so you are saying that until I make a vulgar put down of a man whom I respect, you will hold hostage your special "plan".  I guess you will be waiting, then.  Of course,  knowing that, it would be pretty easy to say, and as such you wouldn't need to actually have a plan.  Nice origami tiger.  Very life like.



I am perfectly serious. Why would you need my "better" plan if Bush is already doing such a wonderful job, being right and all? Alternatively you can stop trying to derail the discussion and stick to the topic, which is about Bush, not me.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (5 Apr 2006)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Oh yes, now I'm "belittling the seriousness of the 9-11 massacre".  Were you waving your little flag when you typed this?  :



Actually, it is a big flag, it has a big red maple leaf in the middle and is red and white.  I'm betting I do more to protect it that you do.



			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> And a lot of American companies who happen to have powerful influence within the White House also stood to gain a lot with the US occupation. So where does that put us?



Like who?  Haliburton?  I would be interested to see what their profit margins are these days with the mess over there.  Hummer and ammunition companies?  I would have to venture that if there is a war, perhaps goods may be consumed in theatre.  Sorry I couldn't find a link to "things get used in a war".  Guess my point is invalid.  By that line of thinking, Canada is only in Afghanistan as an excuse to support Canadian companies.  Maybe if a country is going to war, they should have to have a country assigned to them that they have to buy all their war goods from, rather than buy domestic.  Brit, there is a thread about buying new equipment for the CF, and one member is advocating buying Russian transport jets.  Maybe you can go give him a hand.  



			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> I meant who it should Concern.



Fair enough.



			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> The very fact that we are still corresponding would seem to indicate the opposite, despite your relentless frothing at the mouth ad hominem attacks. I imagine the readers I am trying to reach can decide for themselves who has the closed mind here.



Frothing at the mouth?


			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Of course, the old "well sure we're a bunch of fskups, but let's see YOUR plan then?" argument. Yeah, actually I DO have a plan (hint: a major part of it being NOT invading Iraq),  and I'll tell you what it is, right after you admit (go start a different thread because this one is about Bush being right) that your man Bush is a lying mass murdering sack of $hit. If he wasn't you wouldn't need my plan right? Go ahead,  I'll be waiting.


I'm pretty sure that I'm not the one starting to slide.  Or do you mean that you are so stuck on your own rhetoric that you could not possibly tolerate a challenge to it?  If you are feeling "attacked" I would suggest that you feel pretty insecure in your views.  You tossed the gauntlet, remember.  I figured you wanted a discussion, not just the last word.  



			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> So what exactly is your dispute then? Do you or do you not agree that police brutality is completely justified as long as the police also do some good once in a while? I was trying to point out one of Piper's non sequiturs (That since the Americans were on the right side during WW2, their cause must also be just today) with a hypothetical example, and you ask me for a link? Are you honestly unable to keep up with the discussion, or are you just muddying the water with non-sensical sophistry?


"Police brutality" is not a thing that does or does not exist.  It is an opinion as to the justification of force used.  I'm sure your superior intellect could have come up with a better metaphor.  



			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Well I think you know what my answer to that will be.



Oh, its a given.  The BUSH-GEY MAN!!!



			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Compared to what we have now? Absolutely.



Nice!  "Screw the planet, baby.  I'm doing just fine here in Castle North America"



			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> You sure about that?



Debate amongst people of intellect.  Yep.



			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Are you unfamiliar with the definition of the word "choice"? If I asked you "Chicken or Fish", and you said "Chicken", and I said "You know what, Chicken's no good for you, pick something else.", What are your choices?



Wow, way to trivialize a incredibly complex situation.  By your example, the question would be "here are several types of fish" and when you picked "Chicken" then you would be told "chicken is not available.  The chicken was recently involved in unlawful detentions, organized crime and racketeering, was a direct lieutenant to the insane King Chicken we just deposed, and the chicken appears to still have a strong network of other chicken thugs ready to come out of the wood work as soon as you pick it.  Also, even letting on that chicken may be on the menu will embolden many other bad chickens to try to force their way onto the menu.  The menu was recently cleaned up of many undesirable dishes, and at this time we only have these fish.  I realize it seems like we are forcing you to eat fish, and you may not even like fish.  However, the alternative is to pick the chicken, which may ultimately end up eating you down the road."



			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> I am perfectly serious. Why would you need my "better" plan if Bush is already doing such a wonderful job, being right and all? Alternatively you can stop trying to derail the discussion and stick to the topic, which is about Bush, not me.



Nice cop out.  The discussion was a pro-Bush one, and you had the burning need to come in and start blasting away.  
You are being called out.  You claimed to have a plan, so lets see it.  Or make another snide, condescending re-direct and slink away.  Anything posted other than your "great plan" to have sorted out Iraq better than the United States did with GW2 will be your admission that you were talking out of your ass.  

And remember, please, when you drink, don't post.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Apr 2006)

There is an interesting dynamic going on here, which reflects the larger culture as well. Several times in the past few years, "Atlantic Monthly" has published articles about wargaming Iran, Korea and even one called "How We will Fight China".

The common denominator of all these articles was the "experts" who ran the simulations all agreed these were very dangerous festering problems, but always came to the conclusion that it was too hard/dangerous/risky to take action in any of these cases. In other words, no matter how bad things are, no matter how much evidence is accumulating that the situation is growing more unstable, no matter that the current situation is unsustainable, the preferred end result was to maintain the status quo.

People hate change, and are reluctant to try something new even when it is pretty obvious keeping to the same course is not working. This is probably why we kept electing Liberal governments in the face of constant and ever growing scandals, higher taxation, eroding government programs and services and a stagnant standard of living for most Canadians. After all, if we wanted to change this set of conditions we might have to unleash the "Hidden AgendaTM" 

Similar conditions have obtained in Iraq, the evidence was pretty compelling in the 1990s for President Clinton and members of his administration to publicly warn of Saddam Hussein's WMD program. His actions certainly did not match his rhetoric, but the American public, Federal agencies, intelligence organs and military had been seeing the same picture for over a decade by the time of OIF. President Bush looked at the situation, the available intelligence materials and chose to take action to resolve the situation.

Of course the Ba'athist regime also had a decade or more to play "peek a boo" with the UN, and the amount of unexplained activities (such as truck convoys heading into Ba'athist Syria) prior to OIF need to be looked into more than has been so far. As noted, post war there have been discoveries of vast operations like "Oil for Food" being used to manipulate the UN, and I am sure the picture that will be painted when the trove of Ba'athist era documents is translated will probably have right wingers commissioning operas rather than rock bands to tell the tale; not being an opera fan, I'll pass on that one


----------



## Britney Spears (5 Apr 2006)

> Al Qaida and Radical Islam Co. are providing the most fighters and causing the most trouble. Not Iraqis themselves (at this point), unless the Iraqis have been recruited into their ranks (mostly ex-soldiers with nothing to do) and often under duress. Or is Frontline not a credible source for you?



Your source doesn't say that the majority of the insurgents are foreign, although it is focused on the foreigners. In fact the exact opposite is true.

<a href=http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9103.htm>U.S. Military Chief Admits, 'Good and honest' Iraqis Are fighting US forces </a>



> General Taluto said "99.9 per cent" of those captured fighting the US were Iraqis, but was also adamant most people in Iraq wanted a free, democratic and independent country.



<a href=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/04/wirq04.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/12/04/ixportal.html> US Army admits Iraqis outnumber foreign fighters as its main enemy</a>



> Of 1,300 suspected insurgents arrested over the past five months in and around Ramadi, none has been a foreigner. Col John Gronski, senior officer in the town, Anbar's provincial capital, said that almost all insurgent fighting there was by Iraqis. Foreigners provided only money and logistical support.



And don't forget the Shia and Sadr's Mahdi Army.

In any case, how does any of this vindicate Bush or the invasion? All this is obviously a result of his actions.




> People hate change, and are reluctant to try something new even when it is pretty obvious keeping to the same course is not working. This is probably why we kept electing Liberal governments in the face of constant and ever growing scandals, higher taxation, eroding government programs and services and a stagnant standard of living for most Canadians. After all, if we wanted to change this set of conditions we might have to unleash the "Hidden AgendaTM"
> 
> Similar conditions have obtained in Iraq, the evidence was pretty compelling in the 1990s for President Clinton and members of his administration to publicly warn of Saddam Hussein's WMD program. His actions certainly did not match his rhetoric, but the American public, Federal agencies, intelligence organs and military had been seeing the same picture for over a decade by the time of OIF. President Bush looked at the situation, the available intelligence materials and chose to take action to resolve the situation.



A complete non sequitur. Just because I oppose the current course of action doesn't mean I am in favor of inaction. Sort of like this:



> Nice!  "Screw the planet, baby.  I'm doing just fine here in Castle North America"





> I'm betting I do more to protect it that you do.



Yes, and now we start on the Mcarthyism. What's next? "Why do you hate Canada?" If you are incapable of carrying on a conversation without the whining personal insults and flag waving, I fear this is going to get tiresome rather quickly.



> Like who?  Haliburton?  I would be interested to see what their profit margins are these days with the mess over there.  Hummer and ammunition companies?  I would have to venture that if there is a war, perhaps goods may be consumed in theatre.  Sorry I couldn't find a link to "things get used in a war".  Guess my point is invalid.  By that line of thinking, Canada is only in Afghanistan as an excuse to support Canadian companies.  Maybe if a country is going to war, they should have to have a country assigned to them that they have to buy all their war goods from, rather than buy domestic.  Brit, there is a thread about buying new equipment for the CF, and one member is advocating buying Russian transport jets.  Maybe you can go give him a hand.



YOU are the one who started us down on the "But the French were making money off the status quo" tangent. I am done with this point, you can keep screaming if you want, wake me up when you have something relevent.



> I'm pretty sure that I'm not the one starting to slide.  Or do you mean that you are so stuck on your own rhetoric that you could not possibly tolerate a challenge to it?  If you are feeling "attacked" I would suggest that you feel pretty insecure in your views.  You tossed the gauntlet, remember.  I figured you wanted a discussion, not just the last word.



Do you need me to draw you a picture? "Well let's see your great plan" is simply a cop out (pardon the pun) and I'm not going to play that game until we have determined that the current course of action is inadequate. That (Bush) is the only matter under discussion here and your attempts at hijacking will not work. I am tired of repeating myself and if you still are unable to/refuse to understand, then I guess you "win". Have a lollipop, I hope it makes you feel better.  But as I have already stated, my offer is still good whenever you decide to come around and see the light.



> "Police brutality" is not a thing that does or does not exist.  It is an opinion as to the justification of force used.  I'm sure your superior intellect could have come up with a better metaphor.



Explain to me how my metaphor was inappropriate. Does "police brutality" exist or not?



> Wow, way to trivialize a incredibly complex situation.  By your example, the question would be "here are several types of fish" and when you picked "Chicken" then you would be told "chicken is not available.  The chicken was recently involved in unlawful detentions, organized crime and racketeering, was a direct lieutenant to the insane King Chicken we just deposed, and the chicken appears to still have a strong network of other chicken thugs ready to come out of the wood work as soon as you pick it.  Also, even letting on that chicken may be on the menu will embolden many other bad chickens to try to force their way onto the menu.  The menu was recently cleaned up of many undesirable dishes, and at this time we only have these fish.  I realize it seems like we are forcing you to eat fish, and you may not even like fish.  However, the alternative is to pick the chicken, which may ultimately end up eating you down the road."



No, it isn't, and I have already demonstrated this on page one. The leader in question, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, is a Shia leader who was a) democratically elected, according to Bush anyway and b)a long time opponent in exile of sadam, making you "king chicken" comparison complete nonsense, and c) is now an enemy of the US because he disapproves of US actions. This is all abundantly obvious to anyone who has a short term memory, so I won't belabour the point any more. Once again, I am tired of repeating myself. If you want to continue with this endless circular argument, you are on your own. I have presented my case and I am perfectly willing to let our readers judge who's comparison is more apt.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (5 Apr 2006)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> A complete non sequitur. Just because I oppose the current course of action doesn't mean I am in favor of inaction.



Oh, lordy.  If you don't feel that inaction is appropriate, then PLEASE share with us what you think is a proper action.



			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Yes, and now we start on the Mcarthyism. What's next? "Why do you hate Canada?" If you are incapable of carrying on a conversation without the whining personal insults and flag waving, I fear this is going to get tiresome rather quickly.



OH, KING OF IRONY!!  You don't have one mirror in your place, do you?  If anyone is flying off the handle, I am pinning that on you.  I'm pretty sure I haven't cornered the market on "whining personal insults" and sorry flag waving is so offensive for someone like you.  BTW, we both probably became tiresome a couple of posts ago.  



			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> YOU are the one who started us down on the "But the French were making money off the status quo" tangent. I am done with this point, you can keep screaming if you want, wake me up when you have something relevent.



My point, which you stoically refuse to see, was that other nations had a reason to oppose the invasion based on their own self interests.  Mindlessly ignoring the point being brough across is not a new tactic for you, just not an effective one. I am so glad, though, that you have dismissed me and that you are "done" with this point.  



			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Do you need me to draw you a picture? "Well let's see your great plan" is simply a cop out (pardon the pun) and I'm not going to play that game until we have determined that the current course of action is inadequate. That (Bush) is the only matter under discussion here and your attempts at hijacking will not work. I am tired of repeating myself and if you still are unable to/refuse to understand, then I guess you "win". Have a lollipop, I hope it makes you feel better.  But as I have already stated, my offer is still good whenever you decide to come around and see the light.



Wow.  A flip flop and a retreat in one block.  Nice.  Remember this:


			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Of course, the old "well sure we're a bunch of fskups, but let's see YOUR plan then?" argument. *Yeah, actually I DO have a plan (hint: a major part of it being NOT invading Iraq),  and I'll tell you what it is*, right after you admit (go start a different thread because this one is about Bush being right) that your man Bush is a lying mass murdering sack of $hit. If he wasn't you wouldn't need my plan right? Go ahead,  I'll be waiting.


Nice control attempt with the hijack accusation too.  So you will still childishly maintain that until I post that I feel that "*Bush is a lying mass murdering sack of $hit*. " you will not reveal your "secret plan"?  You are starting to drift into the realm of "pathetic".  



			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Explain to me how my metaphor was inappropriate. Does "police brutality" exist or not?



In a word, no.  It does not exist.  There will be some people who will argue it does, because they have the marks and skull creases.  There will be some that will say it does not, because they were the ones handing out the use of force, and felt justified.  In your example, you use "police brutality" as a thing unto itself that you infer is known to exist as an entity, which is what I don't agree with.  



			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> No, it isn't, and I have already demonstrated this on page one. The leader in question, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, is a Shia leader who was a) democratically elected, according to Bush anyway and b)a long time opponent in exile of sadam, making you "king chicken" comparison complete nonsense, and c) is now an enemy of the US because he disapproves of US actions. This is all abundantly obvious to anyone who has a short term memory, so I won't belabour the point any more. Once again, I am tired of repeating myself. If you want to continue with this endless circular argument, you are on your own. I have presented my case and I am perfectly willing to let our readers judge who's comparison is more apt.



Tired of repeating?  The only thing being repeated is "was he right, was he right, was he right".  The rest has been an attempt at explaining, which you don't seem up to the task of, if it seems so burdensome to you.  You have no issue trying to shred other peoples posts and demanding they prove and back up their opinions, but when called to task, you appear to throw the broad band equivalent of a temper tantrum.  
As far as Ibrahim al-Jaafari, it doesn't appear that Bush's opinion mattered to much, does it?  Politicians make comments about other politicians all the time.  Not the end of the world.  Maybe because al-Jaafari has been linked by some to Iran is what the problem is.  

I maintain that I can be open minded.  I really would love to hear somebody come up with a good way to have sorted out Sadam and the issues in Iraq pre-GW2.  Lob out your super secret plan which you SAY THAT YOU HAVE and we'll all take a look at it.  
Bet you'll feel pretty naked, being the one putting out ideas and everyone taking shots at them.  Scary stuff.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (5 Apr 2006)

Piper said:
			
		

> Step up or step out. I know it's hard when Infanteer isn't here to back you up (fun having a mod on side eh?), but let's try to spread our wings and fly on our own eh?



http://www.ladynwavs.com/icanfly.html


----------



## Britney Spears (5 Apr 2006)

> My point, which you stoically refuse to see, was that other nations had a reason to oppose the invasion based on their own self interests.  Mindlessly ignoring the point being brough across is not a new tactic for you, just not an effective one. I am so glad, though, that you have dismissed me and that you are "done" with this point.



 I saw your point the first time, you're not the king of subtlety,  but you are apparently incapable of seeing mine, which is "so what?". Does that make Bush any more or less right? Read the thread title again? Oh, right, never mind.  :



> Nice control attempt with the hijack accusation too.  So you will still childishly maintain that until I post that I feel that "Bush is a lying mass murdering sack of $hit. " you will not reveal your "secret plan"?  You are starting to drift into the realm of "pathetic".



Hey, my offer still stands.



> In a word, no.  It does not exist.  There will be some people who will argue it does, because they have the marks and skull creases.  There will be some that will say it does not, because they were the ones handing out the use of force, and felt justified.  In your example, you use "police brutality" as a thing unto itself that you infer is known to exist as an entity, which is what I don't agree with.



So police brutality does not exist? Ever? Well, I can see we're not going to come to a meeting of minds here. 



> Tired of repeating?  The only thing being repeated is "was he right, was he right, was he right".



Read the thread title.

[/quote]
The rest has been an attempt at explaining, which you don't seem up to the task of, if it seems so burdensome to you.  You have no issue trying to shred other peoples posts and demanding they prove and back up their opinions, but when called to task, you appear to throw the broad band equivalent of a temper tantrum. 
[/quote]

Thank you for your concern about my welfare, our previous posts will speak for themselves. 




> As far as Ibrahim al-Jaafari, it doesn't appear that Bush's opinion mattered to much, does it?  Politicians make comments about other politicians all the time.  Not the end of the world.  Maybe because al-Jaafari has been linked by some to Iran is what the problem is.



That's funny, I thought the point was to bring democracy to the people of Iraq? 



> Bet you'll feel pretty naked, being the one putting out ideas and everyone taking shots at them.  Scary stuff.



Keep going, we're doing just fine. 



> Provide a solid argument please. All you have done is a) google some neat statistics and b) belittled people and their arguments.



You have yet to;

-Present your view (apart from 'he's a murdering sack of poo')
-Present legit counter-arguments (not 'your wrong' or 'BUT WAS HE RIGHT???)
-Present your 'grand plan' as it were.

Step up or step out. I know it's hard when Infanteer isn't here to back you up (fun having a mod on side eh?), but let's try to spread our wings and fly on our own eh?[/quote]

You're right, that is the way it usually works. So, when you present an argument, in this case, "Bush Was Right"(Hey, it even says in the title!), you have defend it with facts and solid arugments. You're going to have to get over the crying and calling people traitors when they ask for evidence prove you wrong phase before we can discuss alternatives. Otherwise, why waste my time?  But keep up with the screaming, I'm sure there are some people out there who get won over by it. 

There's nothing preventing any of the mods from jumping in, too bad you don't have any mods on your side, as you seem to be implying, eh? Might have something to do with you being wrong.


----------



## ROTP Applicant (5 Apr 2006)

I've been observing this thread since it had started a couple of days ago. Piper, it seems as if your main response to Brit's arguments is "present your grand plan." Well if you've read the statement below, you would realize why he hasn't presented his grand plan. He makes a fair proposition, admit that Bush is a liar (which he and couch_commander have attempted to prove and you have yet to refute) and he would present his "grand plan" in another thread. You haven't done what he requested, so why should he do what you've requested? Another observation, it appears that both Britney Spears and couch_commander have done a pretty good job of proving that Bush acted on improper intelligence and misled the American people into invading Iraq. I don't think they're arguing that Sadam deserved to be taken out, but they are in fact against Bush administration's strategy of legitimizing the invasion. In case you're wondering, I'm on the fence on the whole "Bush was Right" issue, so I don't particularly support either side and am simply providing a third-person point of view to this particular debate.      



			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Of course, the old "well sure we're a bunch of fskups, but let's see YOUR plan then?" argument. Yeah, actually I DO have a plan (hint: a major part of it being NOT invading Iraq),  and I'll tell you what it is, right after you admit (go start a different thread because this one is about Bush being right) that your man Bush is a lying mass murdering sack of $hit. If he wasn't you wouldn't need my plan right? Go ahead,  I'll be waiting.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Apr 2006)

WHAT ARE YOU DRIVELING ABOUT??

One must admit that they are wrong in order to continue....what kind of stupid discussion method would that be?
Get real.


----------



## Britney Spears (5 Apr 2006)

Sorry, I don't subscribe to the "If you keep repeating it, it eventually becomes the truth" theory of epistemology like you and Bush do, so I guess you're on your own from here. Rest assured I'll  keep reading the thread and exposing your lies as soon as they leave your keyboard. 

Since I'll still be reading, why not throw out some more insults? Your audience really gets worked up with that kind of thing.  Better yet, put it to music! ;D


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Apr 2006)

Alright President Bush was right on some things and wrong  on some things.........lets hear the plan!!!!


----------



## Taylor187 (5 Apr 2006)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Ah, of course. Before Bush, Nobody did ANYTHING about terrorism. But of course before 9/11 no one had ever experienced terrorism either.
> 
> Honk some people off? You mean, like triggering <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15%2C_2003_global_anti-war_protest>*The Largest Protest in Human History?*</a> The whole world hates Bush and the US! Osama Bin Laden is a small-time people honking off-er by this standard.



Good to see you can have your orginization kill 3000 people and not honk off more people then bush.


----------



## Britney Spears (5 Apr 2006)

> Alright President Bush was right on some things and wrong  on some things.........lets hear the plan!!!!



I can't give you a solution if I don't know your problem, so which particular aspect of the Bush Administration do you have a problem with? His foreign policy? domestic policy? response to Hurricane Katrina?


----------



## Jungle (5 Apr 2006)

This is getting very personal... how about taking it to PMs ??
The subject has been beaten to death already...

Quote from: Britney Spears on Today at 17:15:50


> Rest assured I'll  keep reading the thread and exposing your lies as soon as they leave your keyboard.


Do you do this everytime someone disagrees with you ?? You must be very busy.


----------



## Kal (5 Apr 2006)

Piper said:
			
		

> What? You kidding me?
> 
> Go away, let those of us with something useful to say continue our debate.



Dude, it was just his opinion and a casual observation at that, don't take it so personally.  His assessment was rather accurate though, Britney has shown some proof to support his argument, you however, have called continual BS and haven't shown any type of proof to support your argument which has not been much more than saying Britney is wrong, but not stating why.  

I think Britney repeating "Was he right?" is just an attempt to see whether you and others believe the way Bush ousted Saddam was ethical, not that he chose to do it.  We all seem to agree Saddam needed to go.

Piper, you seem to be rather passionate about world issues, which is great seeing as most people your age don't really care or aren't informed about the issues.  You seem to be a smart guy, just try to show some proof as Britney has.  This post isn't a knock on you either.

All this calling BS for the sake of calling it without backing of your own argument is just plain dumb and the attacks at one another sure are not helping...  This isn't only you Piper

Cheers guys


----------



## Kal (5 Apr 2006)

Piper said:
			
		

> My points are easy to source, watch the news. But because I'm feeling generous, I'll use google too.



Well, thank you for your compassion and the sentiment... ;D



			
				Piper said:
			
		

> Good article, describes what Bush did right (and his mistakes too). Bush was right in WHAT he did, but there were some ways in HOW he did it that I think could have gone better;



I think that is something a lot of us can agree on.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (5 Apr 2006)

Bush was an idiot.  The US had been carrying out attacks on Iraq since the beginning of the first Gulf War, and waiting for Saddam to collapse on his own under the economic hardship of sanctions.  Newsflash, dictators never cared about how the have nots are doing, so it didn't work.  The war in Afghanistan was necessary in response to the 9-11 attack, there was no link to Iraq.  Iraq didn't mind seeing NYC take it on the chin, but neither did Bolivia, and he didn't invade them.
     As far as the weapons of mass destruction, CIA, NSA, MI6, and Mossad all agreed that he didn't have any beyond the chemical weapons the US gave him (he used those up on those pesky Kurds).
     As far as support for Terrorism goes, the Taliban was financed using Saudi money that the CIA taught them how to launder and multiply working with the drug smugglers and arms dealers of the region.  The CIA taught them how to beat the KGB in building, training and equipping terrorist cells to destabilize an occupied Afghanistan.  Good work boys, it worked so well, after finishing training in the Soviet Occupation, they took the Jihad for a road trip to the big apple.
      If you wanted to bomb the source of the 9-11 attacks into the stone age, then its a tossup as to wether you drop the first one on the Saudi Royal house, or the Langley loyal loons.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (6 Apr 2006)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Sorry, I don't subscribe to the "If you keep repeating it, it eventually becomes the truth" theory of epistemology like you and Bush do, so I guess you're on your own from here. Rest assured I'll  keep reading the thread and exposing your lies as soon as they leave your keyboard.
> 
> Since I'll still be reading, why not throw out some more insults? Your audience really gets worked up with that kind of thing.  Better yet, put it to music! ;D



How about just taking care of your own lie, the one about having a plan that could have avoided GW2 and still sorted out Iraq?  For the most part, you have been a worthy adversary and well spoken.  When you said it, I actually believed that you had some switched on idea, and I would have listened to it.  Despite the on going pissing match, I really thought you could deliver.  Believe it or not, I learn a great deal from these forums, and I was hoping to get something usefull at the end of this.  
Now you slink away under the pretext of being too superior and mature to continue to "repeat" yourself.  The only thing I saw repeated was a bitter individual that was trying to goad a person of principle to renounce his beliefs out of idle curiosity.  That tells me what you think about me.  I will adjust my  respect for you accordingly.


----------



## Centurian1985 (6 Apr 2006)

John Thomas; you forget to mention how UBL and others revolutioned terrorist organizations by introducing business management concepts; plus the lessons the early left-wing guerilla conepts that groups from egypt and north africa brought in (that were taught to them by Russian intelligence), and the targeting and tactics brought in by the Chechen mujahideen groups (many of whom were former Russian military).


----------



## Centurian1985 (6 Apr 2006)

Ha! "Road trip to the big apple"

Hilarious.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (6 Apr 2006)

Since it appears that the US went to a lot of time and expense to train these guys, only to have it bite them in the arse, would it stand to reason that it is really their responsibility to round them up?  Hind sight is 20/20 as always, but somebody needs to sort them out.  Shouldn't it be the country that created them?  Kind of Dr. Frankenstein going after his monster.


----------



## Fry (6 Apr 2006)

mainerjohnthomas said:
			
		

> Bush was an idiot.  The US had been carrying out attacks on Iraq since the beginning of the first Gulf War, and waiting for Saddam to collapse on his own under the economic hardship of sanctions.  Newsflash, dictators never cared about how the have nots are doing, so it didn't work.  The war in Afghanistan was necessary in response to the 9-11 attack, there was no link to Iraq.  Iraq didn't mind seeing NYC take it on the chin, but neither did Bolivia, and he didn't invade them.
> As far as the weapons of mass destruction, CIA, NSA, MI6, and Mossad all agreed that he didn't have any beyond the chemical weapons the US gave him (he used those up on those pesky Kurds).
> As far as support for Terrorism goes, the Taliban was financed using Saudi money that the CIA taught them how to launder and multiply working with the drug smugglers and arms dealers of the region.  The CIA taught them how to beat the KGB in building, training and equipping terrorist cells to destabilize an occupied Afghanistan.  Good work boys, it worked so well, after finishing training in the Soviet Occupation, they took the Jihad for a road trip to the big apple.
> If you wanted to bomb the source of the 9-11 attacks into the stone age, then its a tossup as to wether you drop the first one on the Saudi Royal house, or the Langley loyal loons.



Sounds like someone else who bought the male bovine excrement in the  Michael Moore one-sided joke of a documentary.  :


----------



## Kal (6 Apr 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> How about just taking care of your own lie, the one about having a plan that could have avoided GW2 and still sorted out Iraq?



Well, it ain't no lie, yet...  Britney, A_majoor already said it, and I'll say it too for the hell of it, George Dubya is an idiot.  We all want to hear what your plan would've been, so please tell us.  Just let your pride go for a bit and educate us on your take of world politics and foreign policy for this matter.  pretty please? 



			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Since it appears that the US went to a lot of time and expense to train these guys, only to have it bite them in the arse, would it stand to reason that it is really their responsibility to round them up?  Hind sight is 20/20 as always, but somebody needs to sort them out.  Shouldn't it be the country that created them?  Kind of Dr. Frankenstein going after his monster.



Agreed


----------



## zipperhead_cop (6 Apr 2006)

My plan would not have differed from the POTUS'.  I was all for getting in there and digging the mad man out.  If it was up to me, I would have said "all ahead and damn the torpedo's" back in GW1, and sorted it out then.  They would have found a lot more damning evidence that way, rather than give Sadam ten odd years to play silly buggers.  I didn't think I needed to put up a plan, because I agree with the one in effect.  
Brit claims to have a different and better one.  We were all hoping it existed.


----------



## Kal (6 Apr 2006)

Fry said:
			
		

> Sounds like someone else who bought the male bovine excrement in the  Michael Moore one-sided joke of a documentary.  :



Nah-uh, not all of it, bro.  Yeah, the Taliban did recieve training and equipment from the CIA.  Economic sanctions and pressure didn't do much for Iraqi regime change.  Going after the Taliban and AQ in Afghanistan was justified for the 9/11 attack.  There wasn't any hard evidence of the AQ operating in and cooperating with Iraq, although Iraq did/does support terrorism.


----------



## Kal (6 Apr 2006)

Piper said:
			
		

> Ok, this is getting rediculous.
> 
> Britney said he had a brilliant plan, not zipperhead_cop. So the onus is on Britney to explain the plan he claimed he had, not zipperhead_cop to explain he never claimed to have.
> 
> ...



Piper, never once did I say whether I was for or against the actions and methods Bush took.  

I am aware what Zipper has said, I was asking Britney to tell us his plan.  Okay, reading over my post it sorta sounded like I meant Zipper had a plan.  My appologizes for not being clear enough.  What I meant was "Britney, can you please tell us your plan.  A_Majoor said it already and I'll said it too if it help.  George Bush is an idiot."  

Am I clear now?


----------



## couchcommander (6 Apr 2006)

Piper said:
			
		

> We have all educated ya'll on world politics and foreign policy, you and Britney and your supporters have yet (with the exception of marinerjohnthomas) to provide any type, any at all, explanation of your view of foreign policy and you could have done it better.



....? 

*sniffle* I feel so invisible right now...  :'(


----------



## Fry (6 Apr 2006)

Kal said:
			
		

> Nah-uh, not all of it, bro.  Yeah, the Taliban did recieve training and equipment from the CIA.  Economic sanctions and pressure didn't do much for Iraqi regime change.  Going after the Taliban and AQ in Afghanistan was justified for the 9/11 attack.  There wasn't any hard evidence of the AQ operating in and cooperating with Iraq, although Iraq did/does support terrorism.



... I wasn't quoting you.


----------



## Kal (6 Apr 2006)

Fry said:
			
		

> ... I wasn't quoting you.



I know...   

What marinerjohnthomas was saying wasn't any of Michael Moores fluff, or "male bovine excrement" well at least not all of it.  I just decided to add my own two cents on that piece.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Apr 2006)

Well after ANOTHER 7 pages of chasing our tails its time to close this one too.

Ya know what?...No one will know who is right or wrong untill many more decades have passed and history makes its judgement.


----------

