Bush Was Right

[couchcommander]

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)

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]

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.

OK, whatever helps you feel bigger.

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

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.

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. 

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?

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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:

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.  

I meant who it should Concern.

Fair enough.

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?

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.  

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.  

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

Oh, its a given.  The BUSH-GEY MAN!!!

Compared to what we have now? Absolutely.

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

You sure about that?

Debate amongst people of intellect.  Yep.

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."

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]

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]

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]

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.

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. 

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. 

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:

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". 

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. 

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]

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]

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]

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.     

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Taylor187]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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.