# Al Gore throws fuel on the fire...



## busyLivin (Feb 13, 2006)

JIDDAH, Saudi Arabia -- Former Vice President Al Gore told a mainly Saudi audience on Sunday that the U.S. government committed "*terrible abuses*" against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and that most Americans did not support such treatment.

Gore said Arabs had been "*indiscriminately rounded up*" and held in "unforgivable" conditions. The former vice president said the Bush administration was playing into al-Qaida's hands by routinely blocking Saudi visa applications.

"The thoughtless way in which visas are now handled, that is a mistake," Gore said during the Jiddah Economic Forum. "The worst thing we can possibly do is to cut off the channels of friendship and mutual understanding between Saudi Arabia and the United States."

Gore told the largely Saudi audience, many of them educated at U.S. universities, that Arabs in the United States had been "indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa or not having a green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just unforgivable."

"Unfortunately there have been terrible abuses and it's wrong," Gore said. "I do want you to know that it does not represent the desires or wishes or feelings of the majority of the citizens of my country."

---------------------------------------------------------



I wonder if Gore notices that with his blind hatred of Bush, he may be convincing Saudis to launch more attacks against us?!?!  Remember, 16/19 of the terrorists on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia.  Absolutely irresponsible. *Treasonous.*


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 13, 2006)

Do you think a Republican would not do the same if a dem was in power?


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 13, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> Do you think a Republican would not do the same if a dem was in power?


Hope not.. it's way over the line to say this in the lion's den....

I don't see this as a republican-democrat thing... Al Gore has gone off the deep end.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 13, 2006)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> I don't see this as a republican-democrat thing...




Everything is a republican/democrat thing.


----------



## musclepump (Feb 13, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> Everything is a republican/democrat thing.



Don't forget Nader.


----------



## GFR (Feb 13, 2006)

Post makes no sence...if the Saudi Arabians were our enemy then why didnt we attack them????? Might be because the Bush family is and has been making millions with them for decades..


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 13, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Post makes no sence...if the Saudi Arabians were our enemy then why didnt we attack them????? Might be because the Bush family is and has been making millions with them for decades..



The government is not in bed with Al Qaeda, but there are many sympathetic within the country.  What doesn't make sense?  

I'm not a fan of Saudi Arabia.. but this has nothing to do with the post.


----------



## GFR (Feb 13, 2006)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> The government is not in bed with Al Qaeda, but there are many sympathetic within the country.  What doesn't make sense?
> 
> I'm not a fan of Saudi Arabia.. but this has nothing to do with the post.


I never mentioned Al Qaeda.....please stop changing the subject son.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 13, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I never mentioned Al Qaeda.....please stop changing the subject son.


 

Who said anything about the Saudi's being our enemy?

bottom line is Gore is inflaming the anti-American sentiment in the middle east.


----------



## GFR (Feb 13, 2006)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> Who said anything about the Saudi's being our enemy?


I think it's clear that they are.


----------



## THEUNIT(XXL) (Feb 13, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I never mentioned Al Qaeda.....please stop changing the subject son.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 13, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I think it's clear that they are.


how clear?


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 13, 2006)

THEUNIT(XXL) said:
			
		

>


run along now.. let the adults talk.


----------



## GFR (Feb 13, 2006)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> how clear?



When 16/19 of the terrorists are from America and they crash 2 planes into  Saudi Arabian citys we will see what they call us..


----------



## THEUNIT(XXL) (Feb 13, 2006)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> run along now.. let the adults talk.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 13, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> When 16/19 of the terrorists are from America and they crash 2 planes into  Saudi Arabian citys we will see what they call us..


Muslims


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 13, 2006)

THEUNIT(XXL) said:
			
		

>


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 13, 2006)

It's all 100% true.  Bush is god.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 13, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> It's all 100% true.  Bush is god.


True Story. 

Seriously though, it isn't like that.  I've been a pretty staunch supporter of him, but this Al Gore thing I find serious... no matter how you feel about Bush.


----------



## Bazooka Tooth (Feb 13, 2006)

it sounds to me like he more than not just told them the truth...I believe what he told them, I believe him 99% more than anything I believe coming out of Bush's mouth


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 13, 2006)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> it sounds to me like he more than not just told them the truth...I believe what he told them, I believe him 99% more than anything I believe coming out of Bush's mouth


and you don't think broadcasting that in Saudi Arabia will do any damage?

Don't make it about Bush.


----------



## GFR (Feb 13, 2006)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> Muslims


Republican Christians 


True Story


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 13, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Republican Christians
> 
> 
> True Story


----------



## Bazooka Tooth (Feb 13, 2006)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> and you don't think broadcasting that in Saudi Arabia will do any damage?
> 
> Don't make it about Bush.




I dont know what it will do...I think they already pretty much know what goes on, even more so than our citizens do.

I HOPE they dont take it out on our troops, but try some way to assassinate Bush.


and I am going to make this a Bush issue, because he is the one who sent our troops over there and kept our troops there.

Our troops are bored. They know nothing is there, and they know they shouldnt be there, so they are entertaining themselves by sadly treating their citizens like garbage.


----------



## brogers (Feb 13, 2006)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> it sounds to me like he more than not just told them the truth...I believe what he told them, I believe him 99% more than anything I believe coming out of Bush's mouth


 
Spew your partisan hate somewhere else please.  If you'd like to bash the man, do it with some substance.


----------



## brogers (Feb 13, 2006)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> I dont know what it will do...I think they already pretty much know what goes on, even more so than our citizens do.
> 
> I HOPE they dont take it out on our troops, but try some way to assassinate Bush.
> 
> ...


 
Clear example of what's wrong with this country:  morons like this.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 13, 2006)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> I dont know what it will do...I think they already pretty much know what goes on, even more so than our citizens do.
> 
> I HOPE they dont take it out on our troops, but try some way to assassinate Bush.
> .




that's brilliant... isn't even talking about killing the president illegal?


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 13, 2006)

regardless.. you obviously don't have a functioning brain cell to discuss anything if your solution is killing the president.

And how would you know what the troops think?


----------



## Bazooka Tooth (Feb 13, 2006)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> regardless.. you obviously don't have a functioning brain cell to discuss anything if your solution is killing the president.
> 
> And how would you know what the troops think?




are you fucking serious?

I know alot of troops first of all.

Second of all, what is there to say about our President?

Im not saying Id try to kill him, but if something happens to him then Im not shedding a tear over it.

you started a bash post about Al Gore, so why can't I bring Bush into this? USE YOUR BRAIN.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 13, 2006)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> are you fucking serious?
> 
> I know alot of troops first of all.
> 
> ...




because the thread has nothing to do with Bush!


----------



## Bazooka Tooth (Feb 13, 2006)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> because the thread has nothing to do with Bush!



It is about the war, which is about Bush.

Put two and two together.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 13, 2006)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> It is about the war, which is about Bush.
> 
> Put two and two together.


wrong... it was about Gore inflaming potential terrorists. You've admittedly turned this into a Bush-Bash....


----------



## DOMS (Feb 13, 2006)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> Muslims



That was my thought as well.


----------



## Bazooka Tooth (Feb 13, 2006)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> because the thread has nothing to do with Bush!



You really can't talk about the war without someone bringing up Bush, because the war seems to be a product solely of his, and his alone.

So you say that Al Gore is fueling the fire?

and I say the Fire was started by Bush....Not much to argue about there...


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 13, 2006)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> and I say the Fire was started by Bush....Not much to argue about there...



I disagree...


----------



## DOMS (Feb 13, 2006)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> You really can't talk about the war without someone bringing up Bush, because the war seems to be a product solely of his, and his alone.
> 
> So you say that Al Gore is fueling the fire?
> 
> and I say the Fire was started by Bush....Not much to argue about there...



Unless you're into history.


----------



## Witmaster (Feb 13, 2006)

In all candor... ANYONE who takes Al Gore seriously need to have thier head examined.  Even the Saudis.


----------



## Bazooka Tooth (Feb 13, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Unless you're into history.




Ohhh the history about former President George Bush started the first war with Iraq?

Im familiar with that.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 13, 2006)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> and I say the Fire was started by Bush....Not much to argue about there...


I get your point, but this doesn't really concern Iraq.  Gore was talking about post 9/11 treatment of Arabs.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 13, 2006)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> Ohhh the history about former President George Bush started the first war with Iraq?
> 
> Im familiar with that.



I didn't say _*selective *_history.  I mean the history that people use in the real world.


----------



## Bazooka Tooth (Feb 13, 2006)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> I get your point, but this doesn't really concern Iraq.  Gore was talking about post 9/11 treatment or Arabs.




I know, Im just saying that it seems to be true based on the News...Im not trying to argue whether that was smart of him, he doesnt seem like that smart of a man either...

Im just saying that I think that the Arabs already know about all of that, I bet they know more about what is going on than the citizens in the U.S. do...


----------



## Witmaster (Feb 13, 2006)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> Ohhh the history about former President George Bush started the first war with Iraq?
> 
> Im familiar with that.


You're kidding, right?  I mean... seriously.... untill now I really didn't think your grasp was that shallow.


----------



## Bazooka Tooth (Feb 13, 2006)

Witmaster said:
			
		

> You're kidding, right?  I mean... seriously.... untill now I really didn't think your grasp was that shallow.




Im guessing you are Pro Iraqi war? and think there is some meaning to it and believe all the guff told to us?


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 13, 2006)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> Im guessing you are Pro Iraqi war? and think there is some meaning to it and believe all the guff told to us?


ever hear of Kuwait?


----------



## Bazooka Tooth (Feb 13, 2006)

Let's be human here. Not just American.

Let's assume that the news is telling the truth and not the government(which seems VERY likely the case)

So it seems that what Al Gore is saying is true. The Arabs have a right to know that...

So IF everything he is saying is correct, then it is wrong what are troops are doing. 

You know that if they are doing the same thing to our troops that our government is going to do anything to get them to admit it.

So if we have a right to know what is happening to our POW's then so do they..

The only humane thing to do is tell them.

Otherwise stop doing it.

This happens to be a case where the American troops are in the wrong, NOT Al Gore.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 13, 2006)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> ever hear of Kuwait?



It's not in his version of history.


----------



## GFR (Feb 13, 2006)

Looks like another Republican gang bang.....too bad you guys can't fight one on one.....


----------



## brogers (Feb 13, 2006)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> You really can't talk about the war without someone bringing up Bush, because the war seems to be a product solely of his, and his alone.
> 
> So you say that Al Gore is fueling the fire?
> 
> and I say the Fire was started by Bush....Not much to argue about there...


 
Right, Congress and the Senate didn't approve it.  Fool.  Get your head out of your god damn ass.  George Bush is not a dictator, blame the entire government, not one man.


----------



## Bazooka Tooth (Feb 13, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> It's not in his version of history.



yea, because I was in a coma during that part of history  

you believe everything the government force feeds you?

and believe that our government officials are glowing angels with little halos on their heads?

Im not a conspiracy theorist, but I do believer there is alot of foul play in this war, and the previous war with Iraq.

I believe they were both 90% over oil.


----------



## Witmaster (Feb 13, 2006)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> Im guessing you are Pro Iraqi war? and think there is some meaning to it and believe all the guff told to us?


Look.  Pro-Iraq or not.... to make the claim that George Senior "started the first Gulf War" is a complete misnomer.  It was Sadaam who invaded Kuwait and it was an International Coalition that drove him out.

Of course.. Busy and DOMS already eluded to this but aparently they didn't include this little factoid in your history


----------



## DOMS (Feb 13, 2006)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> yea, because I was in a coma during that part of history
> 
> you believe everything the government force feeds you?
> 
> ...



Do you even know what precipitated the first Gulf War?


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 13, 2006)

Witmaster said:
			
		

> Look.  Pro-Iraq or not.... to make the claim that George Senior "started the first Gulf War" is a complete misnomer.  It was Sadaam who invaded Kuwait and it was an International Coalition that drove him out.
> 
> Of course.. Busy and DOMS already eluded to this but aparently they didn't include this little factoid in your history



We gave Saddam authorization to invade Kuwait.


He invaded.

We acted suprised, and attacked.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 13, 2006)

Witmaster said:
			
		

> Look.  Pro-Iraq or not.... to make the claim that George Senior "started the first Gulf War" is a complete misnomer.  It was Sadaam who invaded Kuwait and it was an International Coalition that drove him out.
> 
> Of course.. Busy and DOMS already eluded to this but aparently they didn't include this little factoid in your history



I wanted to see if he knew about it.


----------



## Bazooka Tooth (Feb 13, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> Right, Congress and the Senate didn't approve it.  Fool.  Get your head out of your god damn ass.  George Bush is not a dictator, blame the entire government, not one man.




Bush elects his own party, anyone who has spoken up about the war seems to mysteriously been fired.

I blame the whole Bush administration. but who was the mastermind that pushed  this war to what it is today?

I believe it was Bush, because his dad did the same thing, doesnt seem suspicious that Bush #2 did the same thing his dad did? You think that if any other Republican president would have started the same thing?

Think a little bit, come on now...You dont think Bush had anything to do with this? Let alone MOST of it?


----------



## Witmaster (Feb 13, 2006)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> I believe they were both 90% over oil.


Now, you're not all that wrong here.  Sadaam did invade Kuwait with full intentions of securing a solid percentage of the world's oil supply.  That's for certain.


----------



## GFR (Feb 13, 2006)

The 4 dogs continue to attack........looks like it takes 4 Republicans to beat one free man.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 13, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> We gave Saddam authorization to invade Kuwait.



Where in the _world _did you get that bit of conspiracy?


----------



## Witmaster (Feb 13, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> I wanted to see if he knew about it.


Ahhh my bad.  I'll hush and let the lesson continue


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 13, 2006)

Witmaster said:
			
		

> Now, you're not all that wrong here.  Sadaam did invade Kuwait with full intentions of securing a solid percentage of the world's oil supply.  That's for certain.


I'm sure that's what he was referring to...


----------



## Witmaster (Feb 13, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> The 4 dogs continue to attack........looks like it takes 4 Republicans to beat one free man.


Oh hush bitch.  I'm about to draw another cartoon in your honor


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 13, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Where in the _world _did you get that bit of conspiracy?



How is that a conspiracy?

There are official documents that prove this.


----------



## GFR (Feb 13, 2006)

Witmaster said:
			
		

> Oh hush bitch.  I'm about to draw another cartoon in your honor


Go clean your gun


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 13, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> The 4 dogs continue to attack........looks like it takes 4 Republicans to beat one free man.


jump in the ring :bounce:

Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V


----------



## GFR (Feb 13, 2006)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> jump in the ring :bounce:
> 
> Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V


I won....thats why you and your crew are attacking the lamb


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 13, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I won....thats why you and your crew are attacking the lamb


you won? you never engaged!


----------



## Bazooka Tooth (Feb 13, 2006)

ok well since you wanted to get back on subject so bad, tell me why Al Gore TELLING the Arabs what our troops are doing to theirs is worse than what our troops are doing to theirs...


----------



## Bazooka Tooth (Feb 13, 2006)

also tell me what you like about GW since you want to stick up for him.

I have said why I dislike him, and even if you dont want to blame him for the bad things that happend, and even if you think that he had a good reason to start the war, what is there to LIKE about him? what has he done that makes him deserving of a pat on the back?


----------



## DOMS (Feb 13, 2006)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> ok well since you wanted to get back on subject so bad, tell me why Al Gore TELLING the Arabs what our troops are doing to theirs is worse than what our troops are doing to theirs...



He has a political agenda.  That, and he's still on a persona high after creating the Internet.


----------



## GFR (Feb 13, 2006)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> you won? you never engaged!


I smoked you bitch....all you did was make a joke  as your responce to my post....


----------



## GFR (Feb 13, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> *He has a political agenda*.  That, and he's still on a persona high after creating the Internet.


And you don't


----------



## Witmaster (Feb 13, 2006)

** EDIT**  Sorry for the delayed response here.  I just flipped back a couple pages and am getting caught up


			
				Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> are you fucking serious?
> 
> I know alot of troops first of all.


Well enough to speak for all of us? Hardly, but thanks for your concern 



			
				Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> Second of all, what is there to say about our President?
> 
> Im not saying Id try to kill him, but if something happens to him then Im not shedding a tear over it.
> 
> you started a bash post about Al Gore, so why can't I bring Bush into this? USE YOUR BRAIN.


No one is suggesting that Al Gore be killed.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 13, 2006)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> ok well since you wanted to get back on subject so bad, tell me why Al Gore TELLING the Arabs what our troops are doing to theirs is worse than what our troops are doing to theirs...


not our troops.. he said the US government was committing "terrible abuses" against arabs after 9/11.  His intentions are clearly against Bush, but he's to dumb to realize the impact it could have. He took it upon himself to potentially risk lives to get out his Bush-hating message.  Now I'm probably reading too much into it, but who's to say?


----------



## DOMS (Feb 13, 2006)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> also tell me what you like about GW since you want to stick up for him.
> 
> I have said why I dislike him, and even if you dont want to blame him for the bad things that happend, and even if you think that he had a good reason to start the war, what is there to LIKE about him? what has he done that makes him deserving of a pat on the back?



I think he's a dumb ass.  I just don't think he's as bad as liberals would like to believe.  He's also better than anything that the Democrats put forth.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 13, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> And you don't



Yeah, but I'm not running around the Middle East trying to get more American's killed.


----------



## brogers (Feb 13, 2006)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> Bush elects his own party, anyone who has spoken up about the war seems to mysteriously been fired.
> 
> I blame the whole Bush administration. but who was the mastermind that pushed this war to what it is today?
> 
> ...


 
Did George Bush elect every person who voted for the war in the Senate and house?  OPEN YOUR EYES MAN, one man isn't the sole reason for Iraq.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 13, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I smoked you bitch....all you did was make a joke  as your responce to my post....



Foreman, most of your "wins" only happen in your mind.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 13, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> Did George Bush elect every person who voted for the war in the Senate and house?  OPEN YOUR EYES MAN, one man isn't the sole reason for Iraq.



That kind of reasoning makes it easier for some people to feel like martyrs.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 13, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I smoked you bitch....all you did was make a joke  as your responce to my post....


 the only thing you said was Saudi Arabia was our enemy!


----------



## Witmaster (Feb 13, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Foreman, most of your "wins" only happen in your mind.


Yea... I'm still trying to figure out what the hell he's talking about.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 13, 2006)

You're saying that Al Gore making a statement is going to inflame the Middle East more than Bush invading Iraq?


----------



## Bazooka Tooth (Feb 13, 2006)

Witmaster said:
			
		

> ** EDIT**  Sorry for the delayed response here.  I just flipped back a couple pages and am getting caught up
> Well enough to speak for all of us? Hardly, but thanks for your concern
> 
> No one is suggesting that Al Gore be killed.




ok well maybe I was a little harsh saying Bush SHOULD be assasinated, but if he were I strongly don't believe Id shed a tear over it...

I really dont feel safe with him leading our country at all, and he surely isnt stepping down, and hasnt been impeached yet, so the only option to rid him of command seems to be the death of him....

Maybe he will choke on a fry again, but choke to death...?

hahah but seriously, I dont WISH death upon him, I truly dont, that isnt humane either, but I really would like him out of office, at any cost to him.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 13, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> You're saying that Al Gore making a statement is going to inflame the Middle East more than Bush invading Iraq?


I'm saying going to an area that is already against America & telling them that our government committed _unforgiveable terrible abuses _against their people could easily tip people over the edge & convince more people to take action against us, yes.


----------



## Bazooka Tooth (Feb 13, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> Did George Bush elect every person who voted for the war in the Senate and house?  OPEN YOUR EYES MAN, one man isn't the sole reason for Iraq.




Did he pull the wool over their eyes to make them believe we had more reason to go over their than we did?


----------



## DOMS (Feb 13, 2006)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> ok well maybe I was a little harsh saying Bush SHOULD be assasinated, but if he were I strongly don't believe Id shed a tear over it...
> 
> I really dont feel safe with him leading our country at all, and he surely isnt stepping down, and hasnt been impeached yet, so the only option to rid him of command seems to be the death of him....
> 
> ...



I'm going to have to revoke your Democrat card.  Sorry, but you're just not extremist enough.

I can't wait for his term to be over either.  I just doubt the next president will be much better.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 13, 2006)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> Maybe he will choke on a fry again, but choke to death...?



It was a pretzel, damn it!


----------



## DOMS (Feb 13, 2006)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> Did he pull the wool over their eyes to make them believe we had more reason to go over their than we did?


That's what I've been saying!  The Democrats were lied to!  

It's not that they supported the war, it's that they're stupid.


----------



## Witmaster (Feb 13, 2006)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> ok well maybe I was a little harsh saying Bush SHOULD be assasinated, but if he were I strongly don't believe Id shed a tear over it...
> 
> I really dont feel safe with him leading our country at all, and he surely isnt stepping down, and hasnt been impeached yet, so the only option to rid him of command seems to be the death of him....
> 
> ...


Hey, no harm no foul.  President Clinton sent me to war (Bosnia) as well but I didn't wish to see him any harm for it


----------



## Bazooka Tooth (Feb 13, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> I'm going to have to revoke your Democrat card.  Sorry, but you're just not extremist enough.
> 
> I can't wait for his term to be over either.  I just doubt the next president will be much better.




Im not a democrat or a republican, am not thinking in black and white, Im thinking as a human being, not under a political parties box.

Im not even flip flopping.

You truly dont think anyone will be better than Bush?

The only people who seem to say that is the ones who dont think that any other President will make the war better than it is.

Which means they dont think anyone will be able to fix all of the mistakes Bush made while he is in office.

So yea, maybe no one can come in and sort out the mess made by Presidany Bush and sweep it all under the table and fix it 100%.

I do however believe that no one can make things WORSE than Bush has the potential to do.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 13, 2006)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> I do however believe that no one can make things WORSE than Bush has the potential to do.



New to politics, huh?


----------



## Bazooka Tooth (Feb 13, 2006)

Witmaster said:
			
		

> Hey, no harm no foul.  President Clinton sent me to war (Bosnia) as well but I didn't wish to see him any harm for it



Alright well I see you are a troop, the only troops that I have heard say that they like Bush in office are the ones who like seeing the checks they are getting now that they are at work.

No offense but that is the truth, and Ive had people admit it.

Bush being in office and keeping them deployed is keeping the money coming in because they are on duty....

BUT

I guess before I jump to that conclussion that the same holds for all troops who like Bush, can you give me a reason you like him otherwise? Something he did good for our nation that no other president could have done?


----------



## Bazooka Tooth (Feb 13, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> New to politics, huh?




You could say that if you want, I wouldnt even say that far, I am not political, politics are a joke, its a label just like Republican and Democrat...

Im a thinker if you want to say that...

and Im free...Im an American, I am not forced to believe whatever political party that is the head of our government at the time believes, how great is that?


----------



## GFR (Feb 13, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Yeah, but I'm not running around the Middle East trying to get more American's killed.


Is that what  *Bazooka Tooth is doing?*


----------



## DOMS (Feb 13, 2006)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> You could say that if you want, I wouldnt even say that far, *I am not political*, politics are a joke, its a label just like Republican and Democrat...
> 
> Im a thinker if you want to say that...
> 
> and Im free...Im an American, I am not forced to believe whatever political party is the head of our government at the time believes, how great is that?


WTF???


----------



## GFR (Feb 13, 2006)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> the only thing you said was Saudi Arabia was our enemy!


When you answer my post in an intelligent fashion I will continue to smoke you son.


----------



## GFR (Feb 13, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Foreman, most of your "wins" only happen in your mind.


Prove it son.


----------



## Bazooka Tooth (Feb 13, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> WTF???




I am a free thinker, understand?

Im not thinking based on what I have to think because I am a republican or a democrat...

If I am wrong here I will apologize, but dont republicans and democrats stick together as if there is some guideline to the way they should and have to think about every matter?


----------



## brogers (Feb 13, 2006)

I don't even like George Bush, he's closer to a liberal than a conservative.  However, I can't stand it when people mindlessly bash him, and blame him for anything and everything.


You're blinded by your hatred of him, or whatever you've been fed.  You've failed to produce a rational statement regarding George Bush's mistakes, and this is an easy task.  You need to read up on how the government works.  It seems you lack a lot of basic knowledge about it.


----------



## Bazooka Tooth (Feb 13, 2006)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> I am a free thinker, understand?
> 
> Im not thinking based on what I have to think because I am a republican or a democrat...
> 
> If I am wrong here I will apologize, but dont republicans and democrats stick together as if there is some guideline to the way they should and have to think about every matter?




If I am wrong Im sorry, but I was under the impression that all Republicans think alike, and all Democrats think alike... :/


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 13, 2006)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> I'm saying going to an area that is already against America & telling them that our government committed _unforgiveable terrible abuses _against their people could easily tip people over the edge & convince more people to take action against us, yes.



If he is not lying about the abuses then I would figure that actually committing the abuses would be a bigger crime.

Going to war in an area against America to find WMDs that apparently do not exist also would be high up there.


----------



## Bazooka Tooth (Feb 13, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> I don't even like George Bush, he's closer to a liberal than a conservative.  However, I can't stand it when people mindlessly bash him, and blame him for anything and everything.
> 
> 
> You're blinded by your hatred of him, or whatever you've been fed.  You've failed to produce a rational statement regarding George Bush's mistakes, and this is an easy task.  You need to read up on how the government works.  It seems you lack a lot of basic knowledge about it.




Here is what I am saying:

I believe that George Bush had a plan against Iraq for a long time. I believe he played Americans like puppets, maybe Im giving the moronic baboon more credit than he deserves, maybe he really isnt that smart...

Otherwise he just looks like he is a jackass, and underneath he is quite intelligent is scheming people, and the reason he stumbles over words is because he is catching himself in a web of lies?


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 13, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> Going to war in an area against America to find WMDs that apparently do not exist also would be high up there.



Agreed... hence the thread name "Al Gore throws fuel on the fire"


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 13, 2006)

touche.

Wait, are you actually admitting those were mistakes?  Holy shit.


----------



## brogers (Feb 13, 2006)

It was obviously a mistake (unless they were shipped to Syria). However, it isn't solely George Bush's mistake. Bill Clinton believed Iraq had WMD programs, and launched air strikes against them. Numerous people on both sides of the aisle from the intelligence committee believed that the intelligence said Iraq was trying to develop WMDs. British intelligence agreed. Keeping out inspectors for... 12 years? didn't really help Sadaam's cause either.

It was a mistake, but I can't stand it when people try and pin it on one person, or even one party.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 13, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> touche.
> 
> Wait, are you actually admitting those were mistakes?  Holy shit.



of course not.   The WMD's will be found.. or at least their trail will be, IMO.

I'm saying the situation is ugly.. Gore is potentially making it uglier.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 13, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> It was obviously a mistake (unless they were shipped to Syria). However, it isn't solely George Bush's mistake. Bill Clinton believed Iraq had WMD programs, and launched air strikes against them. Numerous people on both sides of the aisle from the intelligence committee believed that the intelligence said Iraq was trying to develop WMDs. British intelligence agreed. Keeping out inspectors for... 12 years? didn't really help Sadaam's cause either.
> 
> It was a mistake, but I can't stand it when people try and pin it on one person, or even one party.



Russian Intelligence also believed it and told Washington.


----------



## brogers (Feb 13, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Russian Intelligence also believed it and told Washington.


 
Yeah, I knew that several other countries' intelligence agencies shared our view, but I didn't know specifics other than the Brits, thanks.  People always forget the UN resolutions passed by the security council too.  Bush was not alone in his thinking, America was not alone in it's thinking.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 13, 2006)

Bush has made plenty of mistakes..I just don't think anyone else could have done any better under the circumstances.   No one can deny, Bush has had to deal with more shit than most presidents ever will.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 13, 2006)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> of course not.   The WMD's will be found.. or at least their trail will be, IMO.
> 
> I'm saying the situation is ugly.. Gore is potentially making it uglier.



Who gives a rat's ass about WMDs?  That was only one reason to be there.  The main reason was that the US had never ended the war from the first Gulf War, Iraq had not complied with the terms of the cease fire, and we stomped their ass into the ground.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 13, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> Yeah, I knew that several other countries' intelligence agencies shared our view, but I didn't know specifics other than the Brits, thanks.  People always forget the UN resolutions passed by the security council too.  Bush was not alone in his thinking, America was not alone in it's thinking.


Agreed... but the democrats are just as guilty as the rest at spreading that message.


----------



## Bazooka Tooth (Feb 13, 2006)

Im not trying to pin EVERYTHING on one person, but I think he played a very big deal in our decision to goto war.

and to make matters worse, he also personally lied about why we were there in the first place.

and I dont believe for one second that he truly ever believed that is why we are over there, I think he knew if not even helped plan an alternative motive to attack Iraq.


And Ill explain to you why Im bashing Bush.

Bush is our president, he is the "face" of our nation, he is simply there to take the heat for what we do, whether or not he planned it. So I am simply bashing the cover boy of America, Mr. Commander in chief...


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 13, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Who gives a rat's ass about WMDs?  That was only one reason to be there.  The main reason was that the US had never ended the war from the first Gulf War, Iraq had not complied with the terms of the cease fire, and we stomped their ass into the ground.


I agree.. I just think the WMD's were there.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 13, 2006)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> I agree.. I just think the WMD's were there.



I think that he saw the end coming and either destroyed them or moved them.  It really doesn't matter though.  If we had let him off the hook we would have another Iran.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 13, 2006)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> of course not.   The WMD's will be found.. or at least their trail will be, IMO.
> 
> I'm saying the situation is ugly.. Gore is potentially making it uglier.




Yeah, and if they are not found, they will be found, or planted that is.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 13, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> I think that he saw the end coming and either destroyed them or moved them.  It really doesn't matter though.  If we had let him off the hook we would have another Iran.


Agreed.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 13, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> I think that he saw the end coming and either destroyed them or moved them.  It really doesn't matter though.  If we had let him off the hook we would have another Iran.



You are really smarter than this.  Why would they care about moving WMD's when shock and awe was happening to them?  I think there is a point at which they abandon the WMD's, you know, when bombs are going off near you...WMD's which were apparently 99.9% accounted for by Scott Ritter and UNSCOM....


----------



## DOMS (Feb 13, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> You are really smarter than this.  Why would they care about moving WMD's when shock and awe was happening to them?  I think there is a point at which they abandon the WMD's, you know, when bombs are going off near you...WMD's which were apparently 99.9% accounted for by Scott Ritter and UNSCOM....


His plan would have been to ditch the WMDs and invite the UN Weapons Inspectors back into the country with unfettered access to "prove" that he didn't have any and thus avert war.  Which would have left him in place.


----------



## GFR (Feb 13, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> I think that he saw the end coming and either destroyed them or moved them.  It really doesn't matter though.  If we had let him off the hook we would have another Iran.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 13, 2006)

If they had WMD's I highly doubt they would have cared what happened to them.... how well could they possibly hide them?


----------



## GFR (Feb 13, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> If they had WMD's I highly doubt they would have cared what happened to them.... how well could they possibly hide them?


Why hide the WMD's and then burry yourself in a hole  these Republicans have no shame.


----------



## Witmaster (Feb 13, 2006)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> Something he did good for our nation that no other president could have done?


This is a pretty broad request.....  I mean, it's pure speculation to assume "no other president" could do what he has done but I'll give you a couple of reasons why I (at least) respect Bush...

He lead us through and out of an unprecidented terrorist attack that no other president has had to endure.

He boldly took the position against terrorism and has remained consistant on his position to destroy our enemies here and abroad.

You say "he lied".  Well, let's not forget that the Republicans AND the Democrats all agreed on the same Data and supported the invasion into Iraq.  (hell even Pres Clinton bombed them a few times during his tenure).

Now, I won't belabor this post with a host of redundant reasons that are sure to get attacked by those who oppose my views... but (Like DOMS stated) George W is a far sight better than anything the Democrats produced and, frankly, deserves a helluva lot more respect and credit than he's been getting.


----------



## Witmaster (Feb 13, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Why hide the WMD's and then burry yourself in a hole  these Republicans have no shame.


You are so blinded... it's just sad.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 13, 2006)

Witmaster said:
			
		

> This is a pretty broad request.....  I mean, it's pure speculation to assume "no other president" could do what he has done but I'll give you a couple of reasons why I (at least) respect Bush...
> 
> He lead us through and out of an unprecidented terrorist attack that no other president has had to endure.
> 
> ...




You're not biased because you're a Marine or anything.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 13, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> His plan would have been to ditch the WMDs and invite the UN Weapons Inspectors back into the country with unfettered access to "prove" that he didn't have any and thus avert war.  Which would have left him in place.




So, he hid the WMDs, but decided to wait on letting the UN inspectors in to allow us to attack him?


----------



## Bazooka Tooth (Feb 13, 2006)

Witmaster said:
			
		

> This is a pretty broad request.....  I mean, it's pure speculation to assume "no other president" could do what he has done but I'll give you a couple of reasons why I (at least) respect Bush...
> 
> He lead us through and out of an unprecidented terrorist attack that no other president has had to endure.
> 
> ...




I personally believe he pulled the wool over the eyes of those who supported the decision to goto war.

but the biggest reason that myself and Im guessing others always point to Bush is because he is the face of our nation like I said, he is like the Coach or GM of a sports team, when a whole team loses, people point to the Coach and say its his fault, even though he didnt play in the game, and sometimes they point to the GM or owner who didnt even write the plays, they just hired the guy who did...

Bush is merely a face to throw people's anger(or support if the case may be) at...Surely no one can list all the names of those who are to blame, so to simply put a face and a label on things, its easier to either say Bush, or the Bush administration...

I also presonally think that his mistakes greatly out weigh the positive things he has done, and I think any other president could have done the positives without the huge mistakes and seemingly unscrupulous lies.


----------



## GFR (Feb 13, 2006)

Witmaster said:
			
		

> You are so blinded... it's just sad.


 Please slave take your chains off. To think he was so worried that he hid or destroyed the WMD's yet didn't even have an escape plan, or didn't just submit, is case and point that you're brain dead. Hide the WMD's and then dig a hole and hide  nice logic son.


----------



## Bazooka Tooth (Feb 13, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Please slave take your chains off. To think he was so worried that he hid or destroyed the WMD's yet didn't even have an escape plan, or didn't just submit, is case and point that your brain dead. Hide the WMD's and then dige a hole and hide  nice logic son.




I agree, he had many heads-up....Bush gave him so many chances, and proceeded to tell him exactly when he would attack. Yet Iraq didnt use their weapons before our attacks, or have a proper escape plan.

Saying they hid their weapons is almost comparable to a bank robber who hid his pistol under his car seat and went in with a paper bag over his hand expecting to point at the security officer to death who has his gun in plain view pointed at the robber.

if you knew your were going to be attacked, you wouldnt simply hide your weapons...

why arent they using these weapons against our troops right now? They are already being attacked, surely they dont have to hide them anymore, and surely these weapons would help them while in war...?


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 13, 2006)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> I agree, he had many heads-up....Bush gave him so many chances, and proceeded to tell him exactly when he would attack. Yet Iraq didnt use their weapons before our attacks, or have a proper escape plan.
> 
> Saying they hid their weapons is almost comparable to a bank robber who hid his pistol under his car seat and went in with a paper bag over his hand expecting to point at the security officer to death who has his gun in plain view pointed at the robber.
> 
> ...




They're hidden in a secret underground lair...


----------



## GFR (Feb 13, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> They're hidden in a secret underground lair...


They shipped them to Al Gore's house, so he could hold them till the war blew over.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 13, 2006)

This thread has officially been,


*CONSERVATIVOWNED!!!*


----------



## DOMS (Feb 13, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> If they had WMD's I highly doubt they would have cared what happened to them.... how well could they possibly hide them?



That would have been the "destroy or move" part of my post.  It costs a lot of money to buy or manufacture WMDs.  Besides, unless you saw no recourse, why get rid of perfectly good weapons?


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 13, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> That would have been the "destroy or move" part of my post.  It costs a lot of money to buy or manufacture WMDs.  Besides, unless you saw no recourse, why get rid of perfectly good weapons?




If they had perfectly good weapons, why didn't they use them?


----------



## DOMS (Feb 13, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> So, he hid the WMDs, but decided to wait on letting the UN inspectors in to allow us to attack him?



No, he moved or hid them before we attacked and was screaming to get the UN inspectors in, but by that point we'd already committed to finishing the war.  He did it too late.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 13, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> They're hidden in a secret underground lair...




Myesssssssssssss....Muahahahahahahahahahahahaha


----------



## GFR (Feb 13, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> If they had perfectly good weapons, why didn't they use them?


----------



## GFR (Feb 13, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> No, he moved or hid them before we attacked and was screaming to get the UN inspectors in, but by that point we'd already committed to finishing the war.  He did it too late.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 13, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

>


prove him wrong. It's just as likely as anything you can come up with.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 13, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> If they had perfectly good weapons, why didn't they use them?



It was the smarter move to ditch them, allow the inspectors in, thus complying with the terms to end the war than keep them, defy the US, and then try to use them in the war.  The first option only costs him some weapons (expensive weapons, though) and the later option would cost him his rule and possibly his life.  He just did it too late.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 13, 2006)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> prove him wrong. It's just as likely as anything you can come up with.



You're asking _*way *_too much.


----------



## brogers (Feb 13, 2006)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> I personally believe he pulled the wool over the eyes of those who supported the decision to goto war.
> 
> but the biggest reason that myself and Im guessing others always point to Bush is because he is the face of our nation like I said, he is like the Coach or GM of a sports team, when a whole team loses, people point to the Coach and say its his fault, even though he didnt play in the game, and sometimes they point to the GM or owner who didnt even write the plays, they just hired the guy who did...
> 
> ...


 
Stop making excuses for the senators/congressman.  So they just vote on things without even looking into them (according to you), and you blame the PRESIDENT?  The only reason many of their stances have changed is because of POLL NUMBERS.  If this was a popular conflict every politician in washington would be all over it with support.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 13, 2006)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> prove him wrong. It's just as likely as anything you can come up with.




Why would Foreman have to prove him wrong, there is no evidence to substantiate what DOMS is saying, it is a theory with zero evidence.  Burden of proof is on the state...On...the...State.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 13, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> It was the smarter move to ditch them, allow the inspectors in, thus complying with the terms to end the war than keep them, defy the US, and then try to use them in the war.  The first option only costs him some weapons (expensive weapons, though) and the later option would cost him his rule and possibly his life.  He just did it too late.




So what weapons are we talking about here? I have seen no evidence...


Also, you are making broad statements which completely ignore the UNSCOM weapons inspection process circa 1993-1997.  UNSCOM had completed a thorough search through IRAQ and concluded that they had disarmed all nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons (which in fact were given to them by the US and Allies---this is how we knew what they had, plus used advanced technology to sniff the rest out)....


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 13, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> Why would Foreman have to prove him wrong, there is no evidence to substantiate what DOMS is saying, it is a theory with zero evidence.  Burden of proof is on the state...On...the...State.


You're right.... just pointing out it's possible.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 13, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> Stop making excuses for the senators/congressman.  So they just vote on things without even looking into them (according to you), and you blame the PRESIDENT?  The only reason many of their stances have changed is because of POLL NUMBERS.  If this was a popular conflict every politician in washington would be all over it with support.





Apparently they're alot of Bills that get passed without even being read......................................................


----------



## DOMS (Feb 13, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> Why would Foreman have to prove him wrong, there is no evidence to substantiate what DOMS is saying, it is a theory with zero evidence.  Burden of proof would is on the state...On...the...State.



I'm not saying it happened that way, it's just a sound strategy (except for the timing).  I really don't care if there were WMDs.  Saddam had to meet certain goals to keep the US from finishing the Gulf War and he didn't. Not even after a decade.  He didn't do his part, so we finished the war.


----------



## Bazooka Tooth (Feb 13, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> It was the smarter move to ditch them, allow the inspectors in, thus complying with the terms to end the war than keep them, defy the US, and then try to use them in the war.  The first option only costs him some weapons (expensive weapons, though) and the later option would cost him his rule and possibly his life.  He just did it too late.



but why dont they use them now? When at war, how many lives can be taken before it makes sense to defend yourself and spare the money it cost for the weapons?

If Im not mistaken our intelligence seems to think they were planning to use those weapons on the U.S. anyways...

why not use them then?

Iraq is sure loosing alot of money getting the whole country bombed and shot up...


and where could they possibly hide them that they thought 100% sure that after we bombed the country that the weapons wouldnt ignite as well?

like I said, Bush gave them a heads up that we were attacking...Why would you want to call his bluff after we already went to war with them once before?


I mean you cant really bury the weapons anywhere, and just hope and pray that we dont bomb that area and the weapons back fire on the entire country...


----------



## GFR (Feb 13, 2006)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> prove him wrong. It's just as likely as anything you can come up with.


Give me the Republican or Democrat leaders names who have said this publically as of late


----------



## DOMS (Feb 13, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> So what weapons are we talking about here? I have seen no evidence...
> 
> 
> Also, you are making broad statements which completely ignore the UNSCOM weapons inspection process circa 1993-1997.  UNSCOM had completed a thorough search through IRAQ and concluded that they had disarmed all nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons (which in fact were given to them by the US and Allies)....



Hanz Blix is on record saying that Saddam had WMDs.  Like I care.  My hypothesis is just that, an hypothesis.  I'm not stating them as facts.  Like I've said before, I don't care about WMDs.


----------



## brogers (Feb 13, 2006)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> but why dont they use them now? When at war, how many lives can be taken before it makes sense to defend yourself and spare the money it cost for the weapons?
> 
> If Im not mistaken our intelligence seems to think they were planning to use those weapons on the U.S. anyways...
> 
> ...


 
The problem was not Iraq using the weapons on the United States.  The problem was the threat of Iraq giving those weapons to terrorists who would use them in the United States.


----------



## Bazooka Tooth (Feb 13, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> Stop making excuses for the senators/congressman.  So they just vote on things without even looking into them (according to you), and you blame the PRESIDENT?  The only reason many of their stances have changed is because of POLL NUMBERS.  If this was a popular conflict every politician in washington would be all over it with support.




You are still making excuses that Bush played a big part is starting the whole thing...

You dont think Hitler had a lot of supporters who didnt know what he had in store?

Hell Ill admit I was pro-war when it seemed like it was necessary, and when it seemed like it would be a cake walk that would take about two weeks to get in and out and win the war...?

You can't deny that Bush played a big part in the decision to goto war, and to rally up supporters, even if he was the only one, so stop being a sandy vagina over the fact that I dont like Bush.


----------



## brogers (Feb 13, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> Apparently they're alot of Bills that get passed without even being read......................................................


 
This is true, but don't you think the Senators/Congressmen would inform themselves about a major conflict?  If not, they should be considered "worse" in the bush-basher's eyes, since they're pathetic, useless puppets.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 13, 2006)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> but why dont they use them now?



Who knows? Like I've said before (again), maybe they were destroyed or moved (to another country) before the second Gulf War started?  Maybe he hasn't had WMDs since around 1990 and was just posturing?  It doesn't matter.


----------



## brogers (Feb 13, 2006)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> You are still making excuses that Bush played a big part is starting the whole thing...
> 
> You dont think Hitler had a lot of supporters who didnt know what he had in store?
> 
> ...


 
Hitler comparison?  Nice one.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 13, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Give me the Republican or Democrat leaders names who have said this publically as of late


You're right.. they've all ditched it.. they didn't really have a choice when they weren't found.  I still believe, maybe foolishly, that their trail will be.

Didn't an Iraqi general just release a book saying they were sent to Syria?


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 13, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Hanz Blix is on record saying that Saddam had WMDs.  Like I care.  My hypothesis is just that, an hypothesis.  I'm not stating them as facts.  Like I've said before, I don't care about WMDs.




We'll in this case, I think my hypothesis is more plausible.


What is more likely......?

I'm going to have to side with Law of Parsimony on this one.   



See min0's rules of debate thread.  It's ok to lose sometimes.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 13, 2006)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> You are still making excuses that Bush played a big part is starting the whole thing...
> 
> You dont think Hitler had a lot of supporters who didnt know what he had in store?
> 
> ...



Try to understand what he's saying.  You're saying that _*one *_politician sucks, he's saying _*most *_(if not _*all*_) politicians suck.  You're creating an argument with yourself.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 13, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> We'll in this case, I think my hypothesis is more plausible.
> 
> 
> What is more likely......?
> ...



I prefer to call it Ockham's Razor.  

Try to understand this: it was just an hypothesis.  I wasn't stating it as fact.

If it's OK to lose sometimes, what does it mean when _*you *_lose all the time?


----------



## Bazooka Tooth (Feb 13, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> Hitler comparison?  Nice one.



Yea, as a matter of fact, killing innocent people in mass amounts whether it be for oil or for hate is wrong no matter how you look at it.


You keep telling me to blame congressman, but you are still ignoring me when I say that Bush is the GM and Coach of America, did you not see that response?

He is the coverboy of America, do you seriously expect me to name other names of congressman?

Bush is the face of the nation, understand? He is the commander-in chief, he takes the beef for everything we do, his job is to take the heat....

deal with it.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 13, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> I prefer to call it Ockham's Razor.
> 
> Try to understand this: it was just an hypothesis.  I wasn't stating it as fact.
> 
> If it's OK to lose sometimes, what does it mean when _*you *_lose all the time?




I don't lose.  I win.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 13, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> I don't lose.  I win.



De Nile, it's not just a river in Egypt.


----------



## Bazooka Tooth (Feb 13, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Try to understand what he's saying.  You're saying that _*one *_politician sucks, he's saying _*most *_(if not _*all*_) politicians suck.  You're creating an argument with yourself.




My God, I have to repeat myself alot because people are skipping over some of my posts.

BUSH IS MERELY A FACE AND A NAME!

Who takes the heat when the Lakers loose? Phil Jackson does...did he play the game? Nope.

Who takes the heat when the Mavs loose. Mark Cuban does.

Did he play the game? or even write the plays? nope.

He simply owns the team and is the face of the team, he is the "leader" so when something goes wrong, you get a domino effect that leads back to him, so everyone is to blame, but its much easier to just say one name.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 13, 2006)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> Yea, as a matter of fact, killing innocent people in mass amounts whether it be for oil or for hate is wrong no matter how you look at it.



If you think that Hitler's government was really like modern American government, you're either misinformed or you have a screw loose.  I know it's fashionable to compare GWB to Hitler, but doing so only makes the speaker sound like a insensitive ass.


----------



## Witmaster (Feb 13, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> If you think that Hitler's government was really like modern American government, you're either misinformed or you have a screw loose. I know it's fashionable to compare GWB to Hitler, but doing so only makes the speaker sound like a insensitive ass.


----------



## Bazooka Tooth (Feb 13, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> If you think that Hitler's government was really like modern American government, you're either misinformed or you have a screw loose.  I know it's fashionable to compare GWB to Hitler, but doing so only makes the speaker sound like a insensitive ass.



Sure it does, if you are a Republican....


----------



## DOMS (Feb 13, 2006)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> My God, I have to repeat myself alot because people are skipping over some of my posts.
> 
> BUSH IS MERELY A FACE AND A NAME!
> 
> ...



*sigh*

Be ignoring the real root of the problem you're only trying to "cure" the symptom, not the cause.  The problem is not just GWB, the Republicans, or even the Democrats.  It's the whole political system.  If you feel the need to get all hot and bothered by the actions of our government, it only makes sense to get mad at the whole of the problem, not just a piece of it.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 13, 2006)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> Sure it does, if you are a Republican....



What?  Your post is either poorly worded or you've ceased to make sense.


----------



## Bazooka Tooth (Feb 13, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> *sigh*
> 
> Be ignoring the real root of the problem you're only trying to "cure" the symptom, not the cause.  The problem is not just GWB, the Republicans, or even the Democrats.  It's the whole political system.  If you feel the need to get all hot and bothered by the actions of our government, it only makes sense to get mad at the whole of the problem, not just a piece of it.




yea but you seem to be trying to tell me he played no part in the decision to goto war.

and I happen to believe he played a big part, I can blame the whole government, but I personally think that Bush personally had alot to do with lying to our nation and blindly taking us into a war that he wasnt CERTAIN would be necessary.

You seem to think he had nothing to do with it...which is why I keep bringing him up....You dont think he does anything? He sits around and picks his ass all day?

Maybe you are right, maybe he goes on vacations and leaves our nation un-presidented....seems to be true there...

But I think he at least calls in some shots to the oval office, and has played a big part in this plan of attack on Iraq, whatever the reason is...which hasnt been admitted yet...


----------



## Bazooka Tooth (Feb 13, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> but doing so only makes the speaker sound like a insensitive ass.





			
				Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> Sure it does, if you are a Republican....




saying what I did might make me seem like and insensitive ass if the person calling me one is a Republican.


I dont blame you for thinking Im an insensitive ass...


----------



## DOMS (Feb 13, 2006)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> yea but you seem to be trying to tell me he played no part in the decision to goto war.
> 
> and I happen to believe he played a big part, I can blame the whole government, but I personally think that Bush personally had alot to do with lying to our nation and blindly taking us into a war that he wasnt CERTAIN would be necessary.
> 
> ...


The President cannot go to war without the backing of the Senate and the House of Representatives.  All branches* of the government gave the OK.  Do you see how that works?  Let's do the numbers:

The President: 1
The Senate: 100
The House of Reps: 435

Do you see how the numbers play out?  It wasn't just the President who choose to go to war.  It took the majority vote from the Senate (51) and the House of Reps (218) for a total of 269 people to agree with the President to enable the US to go to war.


* This isn't entirely true.  The Judicial Branch isn't involved in the process of going to war.  But it's good enough for our conversation.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 13, 2006)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> saying what I did might make me seem like and insensitive ass if the person calling me one is a Republican.
> 
> 
> I dont blame you for thinking Im an insensitive ass...



I'm gonna have to go with the second option.


----------



## brogers (Feb 13, 2006)

You've demonstrated you 
1) don't have a clue about the events leading up the the Iraq war 
2) don't have a clue how the US government operates.
3) Are completely out of touch with reality (Hitler reference)
4) spew partisan hatred, not an argument with substance  "George Bush is the coverboy of America" is not an acceptable reason for the ridiculous amount of hatred you've spoken, including your assassination reference.


----------



## Bazooka Tooth (Feb 13, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> The President cannot go to war without the backing of the Senate and the House of Representatives.  All branches of the government gave the OK.  Do you see how that works?  Let's do the numbers:
> 
> The President: 1
> The Senate: 100
> ...




so he lied to the senate and the house as well...big deal?

He told everyone that they had weapons he knew damn well that they didnt...and got support rallied around the war, good work Pres.


----------



## Bazooka Tooth (Feb 13, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> You've demonstrated you
> 1) don't have a clue about the events leading up the the Iraq war
> 2) don't have a clue how the US government operates.
> 3) Are completely out of touch with reality (Hitler reference)
> 4) spew partisan hatred, not an argument with substance  "George Bush is the coverboy of America" is not an acceptable reason for the ridiculous amount of hatred you've spoken, including your assassination reference.





omg, stfu.

you have demostrated:

you dont read half of what I post, and make assumptions based on what your closed Republican mind can fathom.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 13, 2006)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> He told everyone that they had weapons he knew damn well that they didnt...and got support rallied around the war, good work Pres.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 13, 2006)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> so he lied to the senate and the house as well...big deal?
> 
> He told everyone that they had weapons he knew damn well that they didnt...and got support rallied around the war, good work Pres.


This is where you claims of impartiality fall apart.  You're a closet Democrat.  You're trying to ignore (rather successfully) that the people of the Senate and the House of Reps had access to the same information that Bush had and either believed it or didn't read it and just voted.  You're also ignoring that these people had free will.  They could choose to answer however they liked and only had to answer to their constituents.

Let's say (for the sake of our conversation) that the Democrats were lied to by Bush.  They fell for it.  That's not really the sort of people you want to entrust your well-being to, is it?


----------



## brogers (Feb 13, 2006)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> omg, stfu.
> 
> you have demostrated:
> 
> you dont read half of what I post, and make assumptions based on what your closed Republican mind can fathom.


 
I'm a pro-life libertarian.


----------



## Bazooka Tooth (Feb 13, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Let's say (for the sake of our conversation) that the Democrats were lied to by Bush.  They fell for it.  That's not really the sort of people you want to entrust your well-being to, is it?




Are you serious?

Hell yea Id rather entrust someone who fell for a lie that came from our ohhh so trusting government over that one who told the lie...What kind of question is that?


----------



## DOMS (Feb 13, 2006)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> Are you serious?
> 
> Hell yea Id rather entrust someone who fell for a lie that came from our ohhh so trusting government over that one who told the lie...What kind of question is that?


Sadly, I believe that you do.

I've been told that driving with a blindfold on is the best way to do it.  Care to go for drive?


----------



## Bazooka Tooth (Feb 13, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Sadly, I believe that you do.
> 
> I've been told that driving with a blindfold on is the best way to do it.  Care to go for drive?




Good analogy ol' wise one....  


 

Its very intelligent to rally around a liar, because we all knew he was lying, I mean we have no reason to believe the President of our Nation...

Man you make no sense...


----------



## GFR (Feb 13, 2006)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> so he lied to the senate and the house as well...big deal?
> 
> He told everyone that they had weapons he knew damn well that they didnt...and got support rallied around the war, good work Pres.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 13, 2006)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> Good analogy ol' wise one....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You really are a Democrat:  "Maybe if I ignore reality, it'll go away."

The purpose of the Senate and the Reps aren't to be yes-men.  They're supposed to think about what they are asked, look at the facts, and make an *informed *decision.  If they didn't to that they weren't doing their jobs.


----------



## Witmaster (Feb 13, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

>


You know..... Watching the two of you support each other is like watching a couple of porcupines fuck a pinecone.




It's disturbing, makes absolutely no sense, an abomination to some and yet still strangely entertaining


----------



## brogers (Feb 13, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

>


 


Are you clapping at the ridiculous idiocy and ignorance he shows?

Perhaps he was in a coma before the Iraq War started.  The President didn't fucking lie, proof please.  His statements were made based on intelligence from the United States and other nations, which the congress and the senate saw, and agreed with.  Using that information, they then voted for engaging Iraq, the same thought process the President went through.

I think my 4th grade cousin knows more about the mechanisms of the US government than this clown.


----------



## GFR (Feb 13, 2006)

Witmaster said:
			
		

> You know.....  Watching the two of you support each other is like watching a couple of procipines fuck a pinecone.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Read a book not given to you by the United States Government slave.......*Pathetic!!*


----------



## Witmaster (Feb 13, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Read a book not given to you by the United States Government slave.......*Pathetic!!*


Can I just watch an Oliver Stone flick instead?


----------



## DOMS (Feb 13, 2006)

Witmaster said:
			
		

> Can I just watch an Oliver Stone flick instead?



That's pretty good.


----------



## Bazooka Tooth (Feb 13, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> Are you clapping at the ridiculous idiocy and ignorance he shows?
> 
> Perhaps he was in a coma before the Iraq War started.  The President didn't fucking lie, proof please.  His statements were made based on intelligence from the United States and other nations, which the congress and the senate saw, and agreed with.  Using that information, they then voted for engaging Iraq, the same thought process the President went through.
> 
> I think my 4th grade cousin knows more about the mechanisms of the US government than this clown.




perhaps your 4th grade cousin knows more than Bush as well....hahah you like that one you conservative wanna-be fruit loop?

spare me the "Im so smart I check my posts with Microsoft Word's spell check feature for spelling and grammar errors before I post so I dont look unintelligent...." act.

Talk to me like a human being and not like someone who thinks they are sitting in a board room at some sort of meeting full of important people where you have to pretend you are the smartest person on the planet, its making me laugh...


----------



## GFR (Feb 13, 2006)

Witmaster said:
			
		

> Can I just watch an Oliver Stone flick instead?


No!


----------



## brogers (Feb 13, 2006)

I don't use spell check, I use my brain.  You should try it sometime.


----------



## Bazooka Tooth (Feb 13, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> I don't use spell check, I use my brain.  You should try it sometime.




I should try using your brain sometime?

Oohhhh you like that one again smarty? Man you are so smart, I can't believe how smart you are to make such smart posts. OMG OMG


----------



## DOMS (Feb 13, 2006)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> perhaps your 4th grade cousin knows more than Bush as well....hahah you like that one you conservative wanna-be fruit loop?
> 
> spare me the "Im so smart I check my posts with Microsoft Word's spell check feature for spelling and grammar errors before I post so I dont look unintelligent...." act.
> 
> Talk to me like a human being and not like someone who thinks they are sitting in a board room at some sort of meeting full of important people where you have to pretend you are the smartest person on the planet, its making me laugh...



He can do that and you can pretend to spell.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 13, 2006)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> I should try using your brain sometime?



Hey, if you don't have one of your own...


----------



## GFR (Feb 13, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> I don't use spell check, I use my brain.  You should try it sometime.


----------



## Bazooka Tooth (Feb 13, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Hey, if you don't have one of your own...



Yea, I can share my brain with the whole Republican party! As if they don't already share the same brain!

Think for yourself doggy.


----------



## brogers (Feb 13, 2006)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> Yea, I can share my brain with the whole Republican party! As if they don't already share the same brain!
> 
> Think for yourself doggy.


 
Great minds think alike...

I find the "share the same brain" comment pretty ironic, considering the people you're referring to have all been able to establish their own argument.  Whereas you have yet to produce anything of substance, or even a coherent post.  IMO, you've been fed this information by either your parents, professors, or a media outlet.  I've come to this conclusion, because you can only regurgitate it.  You can't justify anything you say, nor can you refute anything I've said.

The only thing we've "shared" is the idea that George Bush isn't the sole reason America went into Iraq.

I wouldn't care that much about your ignorance of the topic here, but you flaunt your baseless claims as if they were accepted fact, which is disturbing.


----------



## Witmaster (Feb 13, 2006)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> ...Think for yourself doggy.


HEY NOW!!!!  You just watch who the hell you refer to as "doggy" there mister...


----------



## Bazooka Tooth (Feb 13, 2006)

Witmaster said:
			
		

> HEY NOW!!!!  You just watch who the hell you refer to as "doggy" there mister...



Im not saying it to you, Im saying it to the people who like to throw criticism in while trying to make a point, because they are having troubles explaining their point otherwise.

So if they can dish the criticism, they sure as hell better be able to take it.


----------



## Witmaster (Feb 13, 2006)

Apparently you missed my sarcasm....  Sorry.  It's late.


----------



## The Monkey Man (Feb 14, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> Clear example of what's wrong with this country: morons like this.


 
 
Clear example of what's wrong with this country: morons like this.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 14, 2006)

Bazooka Tooth said:
			
		

> Im not saying it to you, Im saying it to the people who like to throw criticism in while trying to make a point, because they are having troubles explaining their point otherwise.
> 
> So if they can dish the criticism, they sure as hell better be able to take it.


You're the one who start to liberally throw the criticisms around.  Many other posters have provided compelling arguments, whereas all you've done is say the only person to blame is the president.

Your arguments are the standard fare of liberals, even though you claim to be impartial.  You're just another closet Democrat.


----------



## Decker (Feb 14, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> Are you clapping at the ridiculous idiocy and ignorance he shows?
> 
> Perhaps he was in a coma before the Iraq War started. The President didn't fucking lie, proof please. His statements were made based on intelligence from the United States and other nations, which the congress and the senate saw, and agreed with. Using that information, they then voted for engaging Iraq, the same thought process the President went through.
> 
> I think my 4th grade cousin knows more about the mechanisms of the US government than this clown.


*White House 'cherry picked' Iraq intelligence: ex-CIA agent*

A former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) official who coordinated US intelligence on the Middle East during the Iraq invasion accused the White House of misusing prewar intelligence to justify its case for war. 
Paul Pillar, who was national intelligence officer for the near east and south Asia from 2000 to 2005, also said the Senate intelligence committee and a presidential commission overlooked evidence that the Bush administration politicised the intelligence process to support White House policymakers. 
Mr Pillar, a widely respected intelligence analyst who spent 28 years at the CIA, said it has become clear since the 2003 invasion that the White House did not use official intelligence analysis in making even the most significant national security decisions. 
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200602/s1567574.htm

Or does this guy have a self-interested bone to pick w/ old Honest George too?


----------



## DOMS (Feb 14, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> *White House 'cherry picked' Iraq intelligence: ex-CIA agent*
> 
> A former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) official who coordinated US intelligence on the Middle East during the Iraq invasion accused the White House of misusing prewar intelligence to justify its case for war.
> Paul Pillar, who was national intelligence officer for the near east and south Asia from 2000 to 2005, also said the Senate intelligence committee and a presidential commission overlooked evidence that the Bush administration politicised the intelligence process to support White House policymakers.
> ...


Three interesting facts about Mr. Pillar:

1) He writes and sell book and controversy sells very well.
2) His own personal beliefs are to negotiate a settlement with the opposition, first and foremost.  Bush does not share this view.
3) Some of his most ardent attacks came just before the 2004 elections.  Interesting timing for someone without an agenda.

Sounds like he's as pure as the driven snow...


----------



## Decker (Feb 14, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Three interesting facts about Mr. Pillar:
> 
> 1) He writes and sell book and controversy sells very well.
> 2) His own personal beliefs are to negotiate a settlement with the opposition, first and foremost. Bush does not share this view.
> ...


One does not have to be pure as the driven snow to criticize the bunch currently in the white house....or to recognize a pattern of whistleblowers and reactionary character assassins at work.

1)What book did Mr. Pillar write? The link refers to an article he wrote. If I missed it, tell me. Believe me, Pillar did not start this controversy--Bush did w/ his illegal invasion.
2)His personal beliefs are that Bush and company cherry picked intelligence and leaned on agencies to provied predetermined answers to their questions. His profession is that of intelligence analyst and coordiantor of intelligence. I don't see settlement negotiator in that mix, do you?
3)There will always be election cycles....every 2, 4 and 6 years. Your argument is weak...sort of like blaming the LIBERAL MEDIA. It's a convenient fall-back position where nothing substantive can be said on the issue.

Attack the motives and forget the arguments raised. To me proving Bush lied is an uphill battle b/c no one seems to care about it but people like me and those concerned about the integrity of our country, constitution and office of presidency. It's evident that he's lied on multiple occasions about the war--e.g., we gave Hussein the chance to cooperate and he didn't; umanned Iraqi attack drones; active Al Qaeda connection; reconstitution of Iraqi nuclear capabilities--but it's usually 1/2 truths--Hussein sought Yellowcake.

I've always felt the best way to go about showing Bush's lack of respect for the Constitution is by showing him breaking the law such as his violation of UN authorization for use of force or (FISA) spying on US citizens.

Here's his curricular vitae:
Mr. Pillar was appointed National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia in October 2000 upon returning to the Intelligence Community from the Brookings Institution, where he was a Federal Executive Fellow. He joined CIA in 1977 and has served in a variety of analytical and managerial positions, including as chief of analytic units covering portions of the Near East, the Persian Gulf, and South Asia. He previously served in the National Intelligence Council as one of the original members of its Analytic Group. He has been Executive Assistant to CIA???s Deputy Director for Intelligence and Executive Assistant to DCI William Webster. He headed the Assessments and Information Group of the DCI Counterterrorist Center, and from 1997 to 1999 was deputy chief of the center. 
Mr. Pillar is a retired officer in the U.S. Army Reserve. He served on active duty in 1971-1973, including a tour of duty in Vietnam.
Mr. Pillar received an A.B. _summa cum laude_ from Dartmouth College, a B.Phil. from Oxford University, and an M.A. and Ph.D. from Princeton University. He is the author of _Negotiating Peace_ (Princeton, 1983) and _Terrorism and U.S. Foreign Policy_ (Brookings, 2001).

Damn if he doesn't look like a shady individual.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 14, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> Your argument is weak...sort of like blaming the LIBERAL MEDIA. It's a convenient fall-back position where nothing substantive can be said on the issue.


 


			
				Decker said:
			
		

> To me proving Bush lied is an uphill battle b/c no one seems to care about it but people like me



Martyrdom is the fall back position of the liberal.



			
				Decker said:
			
		

> Damn if he doesn't look like a shady individual.



He's an individual who sells books.  Controversy keeps him in the spotlight.  Just watch, as time goes by his books will get more and more controversial because he'll need to keep outdoing himself to sell books.

You're the one who presented him as an fair, unbiased, source.  He's not and that's my point.


----------



## brogers (Feb 14, 2006)

Those poor Senators and Congressman... tricked by big bad George Bush, the evil mastermind. I find it amazing that liberals are so willing to absolve the Senate and House of any responsibility. 

I don't believe they were tricked. Even if they were, that would make them incompetent, not innocent.

The comments about the intelligence... do people not realize it wasn't just our intelligence? Did Bill Clinton also not see Iraq as a threat and launch airstrikes? Maybe George Bush tricked Clinton too.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 14, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> Those poor Senators and Congressman... tricked by big bad George Bush, the evil mastermind. I find it amazing that liberals are so willing to absolve the Senate and House of any responsibility.
> 
> I don't believe they were tricked. Even if they were, that would make them incompetent, not innocent.
> 
> The comments about the intelligence... do people not realize it wasn't just our intelligence? Did Bill Clinton also not see Iraq as a threat and launch airstrikes? Maybe George Bush tricked Clinton too.



Rumor has it that Bush owns a specially modified Delorean.


----------



## brogers (Feb 14, 2006)

> Rumor has it that Bush owns a specially modified Delorean.


 
Great Scott!


----------



## brogers (Feb 14, 2006)

that one's for you, bigdyl


----------



## Decker (Feb 14, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> Those poor Senators and Congressman... tricked by big bad George Bush, the evil mastermind. I find it amazing that liberals are so willing to absolve the Senate and House of any responsibility.
> 
> I don't believe they were tricked. Even if they were, that would make them incompetent, not innocent.
> 
> The comments about the intelligence... do people not realize it wasn't just our intelligence? Did Bill Clinton also not see Iraq as a threat and launch airstrikes? Maybe George Bush tricked Clinton too.


The buck stops here...(the president's desk). It was Bush in the state of the union that rang the war bell, not the House or Senate or Bill Clinton. Bush, not the Congress, alleged that Iraq's reconstituting its nuclear program, the unmanned drones that could deliver WMDs to the US, the Al Qaeda ties. Unfortunately shortly after the towers fell the US was still in mild shock and the Congress was deferent to the president's will. Bush took the next to invisible threat Iraq posed and made them world beaters that could take us down. Bush fucked up, he took the congressional grant of authority to use force and ran away with it.


----------



## brogers (Feb 14, 2006)

Ok, you're saying Congress and the Senate are spineless pathetic humans, I can agree with that.

Like I said though, it doesn't mean their innocent. Their stance didn't change because they were lied to, it changed because the poll numbers changed.

Your charges of invisible threat are ridiculous.  You don't understand that the United States was not the only one with Intel showing weapons programs.  If the UN wasn't a joke, Iraq would have been taken care of by then for not complying, years before.

I could go on about how Clinton crippled our Intelligence agency, but nah.


----------



## Bazooka Tooth (Feb 14, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> Great Scott!





1.21 GIGGAWATTS!!!!!!


----------



## DOMS (Feb 14, 2006)

It's never the wrong time for Brokeback to the Future.


----------



## Decker (Feb 14, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> Ok, you're saying Congress and the Senate are spineless pathetic humans, I can agree with that.
> 
> Like I said though, it doesn't mean their innocent. Their stance didn't change because they were lied to, it changed because the poll numbers changed.
> 
> ...


I understand your questioning the level of threat Hussein/Iraq posed to the US, but the Weapons Inspectors were finding nothing regarding WMDs when they searched Iraq. Why did Bush attack?

The WMD inspectors were substantiating the conclusion that Iraq posed no threat to the US from WMDs yet Bush kicked them out of the country and attacked IRaq anyways (in contravention of the grant of UN authority).


----------



## DOMS (Feb 14, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> I understand your questioning the level of threat Hussein/Iraq posed to the US, but the Weapons Inspectors were finding nothing regarding WMDs when they searched Iraq. Why did Bush attack?
> 
> The WMD inspectors were substantiating the conclusion that Iraq posed no threat to the US from WMDs yet Bush kicked them out of the country and attacked IRaq anyways (in contravention of the grant of UN authority).


What I'd like to know is how the Inspectors could declare that no WMDs existed if they _*never*_ had full, unfettered, access to the country.


----------



## brogers (Feb 14, 2006)

I'd have to find it, but I had read a statement from one of the weapons inspectors saying the inspections Iraq allowed were a joke.

Before we entered Iraq, I thought it was a good idea.  Apparently it wasn't, but you can't trust a madman who's shown in the past he has the capacity to produce chem/bio weapons, and more importantly, that he isn't afraid to use them.

Essentially, we had to see for ourselves.  The UN is a joke, IMO, and many others share that opinion.  Why did he keep out inspectors for over a decade?  That's some pretty suspicious activity.


----------



## Decker (Feb 14, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> What I'd like to know is how the Inspectors could declare that no WMDs existed if they _*never*_ had full, unfettered, access to the country.


The WMD inspectors did not declare that Iraq had no WMDS. They did declare that as they were doing their inspections, no evidence of WMDs could be found. Since Bush kicked them out of the country, they could not complete their investigations.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 14, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> The WMD inspectors did not declare that Iraq had no WMDS. They did declare that as they were doing their inspections, no evidence of WMDs could be found. Since Bush kicked them out of the country, they could not complete their investigations.



Yeah, because they were kicked out so soon. It had only been over a decade.


----------



## Decker (Feb 14, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> I'd have to find it, but I had read a statement from one of the weapons inspectors saying the inspections Iraq allowed were a joke.
> 
> Before we entered Iraq, I thought it was a good idea. Apparently it wasn't, but you can't trust a madman who's shown in the past he has the capacity to produce chem/bio weapons, and more importantly, that he isn't afraid to use them.
> 
> Essentially, we had to see for ourselves. The UN is a joke, IMO, and many others share that opinion. Why did he keep out inspectors for over a decade? That's some pretty suspicious activity.


The weapons inspectors are world class scientists. They believed in their methodology--read the report to the UN by Hans Blix (I lost all my links when my computer died yesterday)--In fact one of the inspectors . . .Mohamed ElBaradei, won the 2005 Nobel Prize for Peace for efforts to prevent the spread of atomic weapons and promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/07/AR2005100700179.html

The proof is on the ground in Iraq as far as WMDs are concerned: there are none. The inspectors were vindicated and you and the other detractors have been proven wrong. True that's hindsight, but that's all Bush permitted.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 14, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> I'd have to find it, but I had read a statement from one of the weapons inspectors saying the inspections Iraq allowed were a joke.
> 
> Before we entered Iraq, I thought it was a good idea.  Apparently it wasn't, but you can't trust a madman who's shown in the past he has the capacity to produce chem/bio weapons, and more importantly, that he isn't afraid to use them.
> 
> Essentially, we had to see for ourselves.  The UN is a joke, IMO, and many others share that opinion.  Why did he keep out inspectors for over a decade?  That's some pretty suspicious activity.



Besides, he had a history of using and building WMDs.  And he had started to build a nuclear reactor (thanks to the Israelis for destroy it!) and had the plans to rebuild it.


----------



## Decker (Feb 14, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Yeah, because they were kicked out so soon. It had only been over a decade.


When it comes to mass loss of lives and property, I'm willing to go that extra mile. Grudging compliance is still compliance.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 14, 2006)

*We did go the extra mile. * 

We stopped at the end of the first battle and gave them the chance to end it without further loss of life.  We even gave them over a decade to comply.  The didn't do their part and the war resumed.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 14, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> *We did go the extra mile. *
> 
> We stopped at the end of the first battle and gave them the chance to end it without further loss of life.  We even gave them over a decade to comply.  The didn't do their part and the war resumed.




Why all of a sudden, after 10 years, was an ultimatum laid down?  I'll tell you why, they had a pretext from 9/11 which actually had nothing to do with Iraq.  It was a bad pretext at that, especially considering we have North Korea and now Iran who are essentially saying, "We are pursuing nukes and there ain't shit you can do about it because you are spread to thin, infidels."

If ya ask me, the best way to get them to understand why they can't have nukes is to drop one on them.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 14, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> Why all of a sudden, after 10 years, was an ultimatum laid down?  I'll tell you why, they had a pretext from 9/11 which actually had nothing to do with Iraq.  It was a bad pretext at that, especially considering we have North Korea and now Iran who are essentially saying, "We are pursuing nukes and there ain't shit you can do about it because you are spread to thin, infidels."
> 
> If ya ask me, the best way to get them to understand why they can't have nukes is to drop one on them.



Why after (over) 10 years?  Hell, why didn't we do it after 5 years? Why not wait for 20?

Drop a nuke on North Korea? All we have do to is *stop feeding them.  *The US is the largest financial contributor to North Korea (through the IMF) on the planet.  We stop feeding them and they starve.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 14, 2006)

I was talking more wrt to Iran, but starving the Koreans would be fine too.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 14, 2006)

I think we should just nuke everyone.


----------

