|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,118
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,118 |
Why was this stupid thread started by an idiot brought back to life????
"Moore has also accused the American people of being the stupidest, most naive people on the face of the Earth. And after last weekend, he's got the box office numbers to prove it!"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637 |
Originally posted by BP:
Originally posted by JaTo:
...blind themselves to facts and reality.
that's exactly what i'm talking about. you guys want to have an excuse for all the facts and results that don't add up. blame it on intelligence failure, blame it on clinton, blame it on islam. the way i see the facts and reality is that the bush admin knew their case for war in iraq was suspect and over-stated the facts...even used laughable evidence (saddam = al qaeda? lol!)..to gain support. up to now the war has been very badly planned and managed and the stated reasons haven't panned out, yet the bush admin escapes all blame from you all. that simply astounds me! talk about being blind to facts and reality.
^^ Well said.
caltour: "JaTo, do you see the pink elephant in that photo?"
JaTo: "Your asinine question about the so-called "elephant" reveals your complete lack of education and morals. Everyone - except liberal slime like you - knows that elephants are gray."
caltour: "JaTo, I only asked if you see the photo of the pink elephant posted in this thread. I didn't ask you what color elephants really are."
JaTo: "Are you stupid or what? Elephants cannot be PINK. You are a brain-dead idiot if you say otherwise. It's just like you to bring up such a idiotic point anyway, since you apparently know nothing about the Boer War of 1898. If you had even gone to school at all, you would know that the Boers attacked the Swazi tribes to quell a rebellion in Oogadoogoo . . . . [blah blah inky dinky blah on and on for two or three pages] . . . . . .
. . . [many pages later]. . .
caltour: "So you are really not going to admit that you see the photo of the pink elephant?"
JaTo: "Are you still sniveling about that stupid elephant? Even if the "elephant" in the so-called "photo" maybe does kind of look a little pinkish in color, that doesn't prove anything. Besides, I would definitely say it is more of a chartreuse color, not really a true pink at all. I guess you left-coast nutjobs are imagining there is a conpiracy by photographers to make elephants look pink now? . . .
caltour: [clutches head and moans]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,045
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,045 |
i see a pink heffalump, but what is this elephant thingamawhatsit that you are rambling about?
00 black/tan svt, #2052 of 2150, born 2/1/00
formerly known as my csvt
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -Martin Luther King, Jr.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 4,899
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 4,899 |
Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
Why was this stupid thread started by an idiot brought back to life????
Because another idiot decided to add his two cents to the first idiot then the first idiot had to give props to the second idiot.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637 |
Originally posted by JaTo:
This "fact fixing" that you keep trying to hang an argument on (of which there are a decades worth) was little more than the Bush administration trying to build a case and shine evidence in a light that would get the UN behind them, as IT was the main audience that was pushing against invasion, despite decree after decree. . . . I don't like the entire "song and dance" that was given to the UN, either as invasion stood on it's own merits without having to "dress it up" . . . [for example] the insistence of Al-Qaeda and Hussein being cohorts, for one. This is the biggest piece, though by no means the only one. I don't like it and I think it was rather reckless.
You seem to agree that the Bushmen used a certain amount of deception to build support for the war. You seem to acknowledge they used some false evidence, overstated some evidence, and used the CIA as a "fall guy." Yet you seem to excuse this, since the war was a worthy cause in your opinion. Can't you see the huge moral problem with that? How can you be so blase about such a huge breach of trust by our president? How can you excuse such illegal and immoral means, even if you think the ends were worthy of support? Even if I supported the war, I would never tolerate such deception because of the long-term harm to our nation (mainly, the loss of trust in government, and the erosion of democracy).
Originally posted by JaTo:
[You] ignore a decade of deceit, subterfuge and "hide and seek" by Iraq with . . . weapons inspectors . . . it seems that some still want to pretend that the Oval Office woke up one morning, put a thumbtack on Iraq and said "Let's invade. How can we justify it?", all the while ignoring a decade of BS that was heaped up on the UN and the US by Hussein and his lackeys, and escalating efforts world-wide to gain enforcement of UN mandates. . . .
You keep excusing Bush's deceit by saying there were grounds for the war other than the false ones that Bush used to fool us. You say Saddam's violation of UN resolutions provided adequate legal grounds, so Bush cannot be blamed for starting the war. This completely igores the fact that THE UN OPPOSED THE WAR. You can't justify the war by using the UN resolutions, because the UN vehemently opposed the war. Bush lost any right to UN "cover" when the UN itself refused to approve the invasion.
Bush clings to the UN resolutions because there is no other possible legal justification for the invasion. International law (obviously) does not allow a country to start a war without UN approval just because another country is failing to disclose its weaponry. Bush acted without UN aproval and without any other legal grounds. That's called anarchy.
Originally posted by JaTo:
I swear, given the bile that crops up, sometimes it amazes me that some liberals haven't held "Free Sadam" fundraisers here Stateside and aren't pushing to have him re-instated as Dictator of Iraq...
Attaboy, JaTo. Accuse us anti-war folks of being Saddam lovers. If we are against the war, we must be for Saddam, right? We obviously cannot be good patriotic Americans if we oppose Bush's war.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 706
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 706 |
You know, I had a nice post all typed up for caltour, then I realized, its just not worth it. You can accuse us of twisting the facts all you want, but you have such a distorted view of history, and what actually went on, that I seriously have no desire to even attempt to make a point with you any longer. My only hope is that idiots like you never run our country.
Semper Fi
E1
1999 Cougar - Supercharged 3L
1992 Talon TSi - AWD Turbo
1992 Eclipse GSX - AWD Turbo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637 |
Originally posted by EternalOne:
You know, I had a nice post all typed up for caltour, then I realized, I have nothing but bias and conjecture to refute his arguments. I dislike your view of history, but I have no substantial evidence to contradict a single factual historical statement of yours. I seriously have no desire to even attempt to make a point with you any longer, as I know of no hard facts to disprove what you said. My only hope is that people with a clue never run our country.
Semper Fi
E1
[ Eternal One's last post, edited for veracity by caltour]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489 |
it seems this thread is headed towards the usual name calling. whenever you guys can't bring yourself to concede a point you turn into 5 year olds. lol. rather than call names i'll just let the below picture describe the bush faithful when it comes to the war... 
'03 Saab 9-5 Aero
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 706
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 706 |
No, the point is this exact argument has been rehashed over and over. Neither side is going to budge, so why bother?
You seem to like to take todays knowledge and apply it to pre-war history (Ala, "Bush Lied".) We have proven this over and over, yet you still bring up the same lame points in every thread that is even remotely Bush-related.
If anyone would come up with new arguments, or something worth a damn, then perhaps I'd spend the time, otherwise it futile.
E1
1999 Cougar - Supercharged 3L
1992 Talon TSi - AWD Turbo
1992 Eclipse GSX - AWD Turbo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637 |
OK, so you want to give the Bushmen a pass on the so-called intelligence failures. You want to believe that the impossibly sketchy case they layed out was somehow good enough to justify the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of U.S. troops. You see no deception in it, just a charmingly naive belief in erroneous CIA intel. Fine. Apparently Bush could nuke Denmark based on unsubstantiated reports that something shiny was seen there in 1995, and you would find some way to excuse it. But what about this: Originally posted by caltour:
1. Bush said Iraq had purchased uranium for nuclear weapons from Nigeria in his State of the Union Address. But he had been informed by intelligence officials months before his speech that the documentary evidence had been forged. U.S. embarassed by fake documents
6. Bush said that aluminum tubes imported by Iraq were intended for use in a uranium centrifuge to create nuclear weapons. These were the only physical evidence he had against Iraq. But it turns out this evidence had been rejected by the Energy Department and other intelligence agencies long before Bush used them in his speeches.
The tubes were never a threat.
So far as I know, nobody here has even tried to explain away these points (which I made on page 6 of this thread). Nobody has explained how those bolded sentences do not demonstrate outright lies by the Bushmen.
These are just two of the many lies I documented. They stand on their own as proof of the Bushmen's campaign of deception. They also show a pattern of amorality and ruthlessness. They show that for Bush, the ends justified any means at all, no matter how illegal or immoral (just like our own JaTo!).
Note: The uranium and the aluminum tubes were centerpeices of Bush's case for going to war, so please don't bother saying these lies were no big deal. That would get me mad.
|
|
|
|
|
