So did anyone go to the Anti War/Bush rallies this weekend?

[CheapyD]

There was a big one in Manhattan (right by my apartment), so me and the future Mrs. CheapyD checked it out.

It was pretty neat to see all the people so fired up about something, some even were in costume.

We walked a bit with the protestors, it was just like being in a parade, except people were a lot more serious. Along the route, I stopped off at a game store and found a mint copy of N20 for the Playstation for $9.

I'll post a few pictures later tonight.

[sm04as]

I actually forgot about it until I saw it in the news. What was it, close to 100,000 people walking? or 30,000 as according to Bloomberg?

What kind of costumes could they possibly wear I wonder?

Did you get back to the walking after you got your game? :D

[carlagyrl]

I would have liked to go , but I was running a temp of 102. :(

[poormojo]

I saw cops beat some people here in SF. The people were doing nothing at all, just marching, and the cops turned on them and started swinging their nightsticks.

My friend got some ghastly pics of it.

[RBM]

Let's hear it for our brave lads in blue. Serving and protecting your rights to life, liberty, and getting your ass whaled on with a nightstick.

[CheapyD]

There was a HUGE police presence here in NYC, but they seemed pretty friendly.

I think they are practicing for the Republican convention that is coming here this summer.

[Scrubking]

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12652

[PsyClerk]

Scrubking, I'm all for pointing out inconsistencies and fallacies of liberals, but that article was a bit overboard. I got to the part about Earth Day and Lenin and thought "oh my" then stopped. :lol:

[Scrubking]

Scrubking, I'm all for pointing out inconsistencies and fallacies of liberals, but that article was a bit overboard. I got to the part about Earth Day and Lenin and thought "oh my" then stopped. :lol:

Read the whole article before judging it. The article is not about liberals per se, but about revealing the truth about the protest organizers.

[Quackzilla]

Holy shit, scrubking, is that a real article?!?!
It looks like it was written by Joseph Stalin during WW2! (against the free speech and pro democracy activists)

Its like Vietman all over again.

If the right wing fanatics had their way there would be Tiananmen Square style massacres all over the US.

Just FYI, the anti war rallies were organized by families of soldiers and various peaceful anti war protest groups.

[Arya]

I went to the NYC protest. I have a lot of images up on webshots, for the curious, but I have to say that there were too many interesting sorts for me to catch on film. Moving crowds = bad photo timing. Wish I'd have known you two were there, CheapyD. I might have begged for an autograph.

I think the most interesting turnout were the people who showed up for the sole purpose of protesting the protestors. Ah, good times.

[PsyClerk]

I read the rest of the article. It's still abrasive. Comparing people whose ideas or action you dislike to a dictator (such as Lenin, Kim Il Sung , et al) is never a good idea. It comes off as fanatical.

If the right wing fanatics had their way there would be Tiananmen Square style massacres all over the US.

And if the left wing fanatics had their way, US citizens would be speaking German. Or Arabic. Or simply be dead.

[KingDox]

my sister was going to go to one, but it was my grandma's 80th B-day on Sat. I would have liked to go to one.

[Scrubking]

I read the rest of the article. It's still abrasive. Comparing people whose ideas or action you dislike to a dictator (such as Lenin, Kim Il Sung , et al) is never a good idea. It comes off as fanatical.

If the right wing fanatics had their way there would be Tiananmen Square style massacres all over the US.

And if the left wing fanatics had their way, US citizens would be speaking German. Or Arabic. Or simply be dead.

I agree, but the point is that the protest organizers ARE supporting people like Lenin, Kim jong, etc.

[Quackzilla]

I just don't understand why people are fanatics.

It is just sadism, their whole existence is just to hurt people.
Why is there so much hatred?
And why in the hell would people support the destruction of the environment? What the fuck? That is the dumbest thing I have ever even heard of!

And Scrubking, the protestors are NOT supporting communists, okay. Just drop it. Nobody cares about your hateful "conspiracy theories".

[poormojo]

"And if the left wing fanatics had their way, US citizens would be speaking German. Or Arabic."

Some US Citizens do speak German and Arabic. So what?

The 1st amendment gives us all the right to peaceable, public assembly.

And that article was hilarious, like a parody of kooky right-wing dogma. I almost can't believe it's real.

[PsyClerk]

Some US Citizens do speak German and Arabic. So what?

Forgot where I was. I'LL SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU.

ALL US citizens would be speaking German. Or Arabic. Or would be dead. You know, crushed under the heels of the Third Reich in WWII. Or maybe it would be Japanese, since they were closer.

The point is refusing to do nothing 'in the name of peace' is often the worst thing that can be done. Or not done.

[carlagyrl]

What was the purpose of posting that article?

[Quackzilla]

Scrubking is an ultra conservative.

He want us to beleive his crap.

[Atreadon]

http://homepage.mac.com/stopbush/.Pictures/nyc3.20.04march/DSC_0113.JPG

[evilmax17]

http://homepage.mac.com/stopbush/.Pictures/nyc3.20.04march/DSC_0113.JPG

I'm glad to see that defender took some time out of his busy day to make that sign. Good for him!

[ElwoodCuse]

And if the left wing fanatics had their way, US citizens would be speaking German.

What left-wing fanatics are these? There was a hell of a lot more reason to go to war against Germany and Japan than Iraq.

[bjschre]

Thats me trying to bum a few bucks for a game at that gamestop back there! :lol:

[Scrubking]

http://www.frontpagemag.com/media/Homepage/hateamericaX.gif
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12670

[E-Z-B]

So I guess what you're saying is this, Scrubking:

http://www.dubyasworld.com/obedience.jpg

[E-Z-B]

I got more pictures for you, too:

http://www.dubyasworld.com/war-good-for-dubya.jpg

Or 'bout this?

http://www.dubyasworld.com/dubya-troop-home.jpg

[meteors]

I went to the rally - it was by no mean as big as NYC - in Chicago. Chicago police are notorious for arresting those that protest but it seemed like there were just too few police around to make any big problems.

It really was amazing to see all those people marching with you for peace!

[Scrubking]

So I guess what you're saying is this, Scrubking:

http://www.dubyasworld.com/obedience.jpg

It is funny when you guys can't handle the facts you quickly turn to bashing or the sheep theory. That is why I don't bother to discuss these topics and just post links.

And for you guys who are too dumb or too radical to understand the links point to how these rallies are organized and sponsored by people who support communism, marxism, U.S. hatred and other bad things. The major group is called ANSWER - you should check up on them.

[CheapyD]

Here are my pics:

Herald Square (near Macy's)
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/cheapyd/billionaires.jpg

Looking down Madison Ave at 33rd Street
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/cheapyd/rally.jpg

Here is where I picked up N20 (PS1) along the rally route
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/cheapyd/store.jpg

[E-Z-B]

And Scrubking, you're saying that the articles you posted are facts?! Then what's this:

Foremost among the groups planning and coordinating this March 20 hatefest is International A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism). Even hyper-Lefty economist Robert Kuttner, co-editor of The American Prospect, admits that this organization “can be described fairly as Marxist.”

Or this:

It is no surprise that the press in countries hostile to the United States have nothing but kind words for this Marxist rabble rousing

Or this:

International ANSWER has been outstanding at masking its true, totalitarian goals. The Workers World Party front group, which has ties to North Korea, saw itself in the vanguard of last year's "peace" marches.

If you think this crap are "the facts", then that goes to show how our country right now is either drugged, hypnotized, or in some sort of nightmare.

[JimmieMac]

I demand you post pictures every 20 minutes. For educational purposes only, of course.

[The-Bavis]

WTF is that pink thing back by the "Billionaires" in the first picture?

[blackjaw]

thats cool you got to see that cheapy

i went to the one in DC last february before the 'war' started...it was cool seeing so many types of people against a common cause

[Mr Unoriginal]

WTF is that pink thing back by the "Billionaires" in the first picture?

It's clearly a puppet with a gigantic dildo on its head.

[JimmieMac]

"Oh my god, it's coming right for us"

[The-Bavis]

WTF is that pink thing back by the "Billionaires" in the first picture?

It's clearly a puppet with a gigantic dildo on its head.

Obviously, Bush is the least of our worries when these protestors possess the Pig-Dil-Beast and force it to do their bidding!

[Knuckles913]

What exactly are they protesting? The liberation of an oppressed people? The ousting of a brutal dictator? Maybe all these people LIKE the fact that Hussein housed Al-Qaeda training camps, and supported terrorist organizations like Hamas and the Al Aska Martyrs Brigades.Simply stated, if you opposed the war, you would rather have Saddam in power right now, with all of the human suffering that that entails.

I think that most people are staging an Anti-Conservative rally, and found Bush's strongest point to rally against.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Never understimate the stupidity of the American people. Answer is obviously a centrist organaization and the Worker's World Party just wants reasonable things like a "living wage".

[The-Bavis]

What exactly are they protesting? The liberation of an oppressed people? The ousting of a brutal dictator? Maybe all these people LIKE the fact that Hussein housed Al-Qaeda training camps, and supported terrorist organizations like Hamas and the Al Aska Martyrs Brigades.Simply stated, if you opposed the war, you would rather have Saddam in power right now, with all of the human suffering that that entails.

I think that most people are staging an Anti-Conservative rally, and found Bush's strongest point to rally against.

I agree with you for the most part. Bush & Co. screwed up by focusing on the WMDs as the selling point. That was THE reason and now people are pointing to it and saying we were lied to. They should have focused on the huge number of reasons for us to go in, since there was the potential for the WMD hunt to not be all that impressive.

What is the anti-war crowd's general idea on what we should do now if they don't like the way things are proceeding? If they are just protesting going to war, then that's a waste of time. I assume most people that are anti-war have some sort of idea of what to do now. I don't hear about it since I don't get the Al Franken radio network, but just all sorts of right-wingers.

[E-Z-B]

What exactly are they protesting? The liberation of an oppressed people? The ousting of a brutal dictator?

No, they're protesting our involvement with Iraq. The american people were mislead into believing that Iraq had WMD. Even Bush's advisor, Richard Clarke, who served under Clinton, Bush Sr., AND Reagan, said that Bush was intent on taking out Saddam as soon as he took office. Shortly after 9/11, he wanted Clarke to come up with evidence that linked Iraq to 9/11 to justify an attack. Nearly 700 american lives have been lost for what Bush now simply calls "a brutal dictatorship", but you know what? North Korea, Cuba, many african nations, China, etc. have just as bad human rights abuses.

Maybe all these people LIKE the fact that Hussein housed Al-Qaeda training camps.

There was never a direct link between Saddam and al-Qaeda.

and supported terrorist organizations like Hamas and the Al Aska Martyrs Brigades.

So why don't we take out Hamas and company too?

Simply stated, if you opposed the war, you would rather have Saddam in power right now, with all of the human suffering that that entails.

And if you oppose going to war with North Korea, you would support the human suffering there, too?

[goatindaruffness]

Maybe the people are protesting because they know that Bush had involvement in 9/11 and everytime it comes time to release the documents "something" happens, like how they "caught" Sadaam Hussein around the same time the heat was on them to release anything showing prior knowledge to the attacks...
Bush is a disgusting man, and needs to be done away with in one way or another, there's way too much he's hiding...
There are no arguments to that, you can't bring up what you saw on CNN about Iraq housing terrorist groups, when the point of the matter is, NOTHING was found while there...
"We" liberated people by murdering them, forcing them to fight for "our" cause, so good ol' Dick/Bush/Colon and their oilrigs could benefit from a new grease job...
And you can't take ANYTHING Bush says into consideration because we all know he's a liar, he's proven it time and time again...
Besides why the hell are we so concerned in COUNTRIES, why can't we all just be considered HUMANS and all live the way HUMANS should live.
I don't consider myself American, and if being against what America stands for is anti-american, communist, or whatever you want to call it, then call me Mr. Flag Burner, because what this country stands for sickens me...
I also like that the conservative Bushwick over here is displaying his love for Dave Chappelle's show, even though after Bush's new censorship laws come into order, he'll no longer be viewable, nor will half the video games you like to play, he's passing bills to the house floor in record time just to get Howard Stern off the air, do you think anything that isn't based on Jesus and his mother will be allowed in our homes within the next year?? If so, then you're crazy...
Unless we Push out the Bush...
So you see there's more to protest than just the war on Iraq, a WHOLE lot more, deceit, trickery, seizure, murder, robbery, need I go on...
-Goatman

[suprsaiyanMAX]

I wasn't going to weigh in on this, but wow I can't begin to think of all the things that are wrong in that entry.

[RBM]

Well put, E-Z-B. In the midst of posts spouting inflamed rhetoric, yours is a small vote for common sense. Odd how posts like yours are usually in the (extreme) minority.

[E-Z-B]

Well put, E-Z-B. In the midst of posts spouting inflamed rhetoric, yours is a small vote for common sense. Odd how posts like yours are usually in the (extreme) minority.

What's important is to not become "party blinded". Just as I support a flat tax, not a increase in tax percentages for the wealthy, a welfare overhaul, and gun ownership (but not assault weapons), I hope too that republicans view social issues with a level head, and not just what their party tells them to think. We're entering a political hurricane right now that is sharply dividing this country, and it's important that we listen to our own hearts through this mess.

[flizmo007]

I could not resist to giv my two cents here. It disgusts me and I am getting really sick of all the bush bashing by the left wing lunatics. It is not about Iraq, it is about hating Bush. Where were all you stop the war freaks when Clinton was bombing Kosovo? I did not hear a peep from any of the activists then. It just goes to show that it is not about the Iraq war. It is about hating Bush. I applaude Bush because he is standing firm on his stance against terrorism. Do you liberal freaks realize that the only thing that would make those Islamic extremists happy is if your throat were slit and your entire family was dead? It doesn't matter if you are anti-Bush or anti-Iraq war, given the opportunity the would slit your throat and the throat of you entire family. I think it is clear to me that Bush understands this this and will do what he has to in order to prevent another 9/11. Are we going to sit back and wait for them to attack us again? If Kerry or Clinton were president, maybe, but I thank God that ther is a man in office that is willing to get critisised day after day in order to protect the freedoms of this country.
"Liberalism is a mental disorder"

[Scrubking]

Well put, E-Z-B. In the midst of posts spouting inflamed rhetoric, yours is a small vote for common sense. Odd how posts like yours are usually in the (extreme) minority.

BWAHAHAHA

[E-Z-B]

Where were all you stop the war freaks when Clinton was bombing Kosovo? I did not hear a peep from any of the activists then.

Milosevic was undergoing "ethnic cleansing" in Kosovo. Muslims were being slaughtered simply for the purpose of making room for a different ethnic race. Iraq was taking out political opponents, much like the other dictatorships I mentioned.

Do you liberal freaks realize that the only thing that would make those Islamic extremists happy is if your throat were slit and your entire family was dead? It doesn't matter if you are anti-Bush or anti-Iraq war, given the opportunity the would slit your throat and the throat of you entire family. I think it is clear to me that Bush understands this this and will do what he has to in order to prevent another 9/11. Are we going to sit back and wait for them to attack us again?

So you propose going to war with Saudi Arabia, too? They hate us just as much as Iraq does. Remember when the Palestians were cheering when they learned that the planes hit the World Trade Center towers? They want us dead too, so let's go to war with them, too, right? I think the real solution is to repair our country's reputation with the world. Then maybe people won't hate us anymore.

[meteors]

It doesn't matter if you are anti-Bush or anti-Iraq war, given the opportunity the would slit your throat and the throat of you entire family.


Remember to buy gas masks and tape your windows too! And look under your bed for scary MONSTERS!!!!

[Scrubking]

So you propose going to war with Saudi Arabia, too? They hate us just as much as Iraq does. Remember when the Palestians were cheering when they learned that the planes hit the World Trade Center towers? They want us dead too, so let's go to war with them, too, right?

I think the real solution is to repair our country's reputation with the world. Then maybe people won't hate us anymore.

So it is our fault terrorists want to kill all Americans and Israelis?

You are such a Fucking idiot.

And if you had any political sense you would realize that you can't just attack anyone whenever you want. We hit Iraq cause they were weak, politically and militarily so the surrounding countries were not going to mind very much. If we go into saudi arabia or N Korea the world will end cause everyone will start to launch nukes.

[E-Z-B]

So you propose going to war with Saudi Arabia, too? They hate us just as much as Iraq does. Remember when the Palestians were cheering when they learned that the planes hit the World Trade Center towers? They want us dead too, so let's go to war with them, too, right?

I think the real solution is to repair our country's reputation with the world. Then maybe people won't hate us anymore.

So it is our fault terrorists want to kill all Americans and Israelis?

You are such a f*#king idiot.

Nice post, Scrubking. :roll: Maybe you should stick to your own advice:

That is why I don't bother to discuss these topics and just post links

[RBM]

If you can not argue your viewpoint without resorting to personal invectives against those who disagree with you, Scrubking, then that makes you....the average American, I'm afraid. Heh.

Well, that's okay. CheapAssGamer is not a particularly appropriate venue for political discussion anyways, so one can not expect much good to come of this thread here. Guess a little harmless venting is good for communal blood pressures.

[madmofo]

So we only attack the "weak" countries. I thought we went to Iraq because they were a threat to us and our allies. We went because we thought they had WMDs, which wouldn't make them weak. What kind of country would we be if we attacked any weaker country that got on our nerves. Evil dictatorship is just that, whether the dictator rules Iraq, Iran, or North Korea. So if we take onto our selves to stop evil dictators we should stop them all right.

[Scrubking]

If you can not argue your viewpoint without resorting to personal invectives against those who disagree with you, Scrubking, then that makes you....the average American, I'm afraid. Heh.

Well, that's okay. CheapAssGamer is not a particularly appropriate venue for political discussion anyways, so one can not expect much good to come of this thread here. Guess a little harmless venting is good for communal blood pressures.

It's amusing how my personal invectives bother you, but EZB's don't. Can you say hypocrite? :wink:

[starman9000]

[quote=E-Z-B]

And if you had any political sense you would realize that you can't just attack anyone whenever you want. We hit Iraq cause they were weak, politically and militarily so the surrounding countries were not going to mind very much. If we go into saudi arabia or N Korea the world will end cause everyone will start to launch nukes.

Hmm so we can only invade countries that dont have WMDs. Sounds good.


I love how these discussions get so lame, with people spouting out crap from both sides. Face it, 90% of us are arguing for or against the war just because its what our party affiliations think we should. Bush is in office, so somehow Dems are anti-american. When Clinton was in office, the GOP cetrainly didnt support him, so they were anti-american. Its a great place to live... and if you disagree with me you can get out. :)

[RBM]

It's amusing how my personal invectives bother you, but EZB's don't. Can you say hypocrite? :wink:[/quote]

...you caught me by surprise with that one. I looked over the posts in this thread again in case I'd missed a post in which EZB insulted you personally. ....he didn't. You were the first one to throw a punch directly at the other person instead of addressing his arguments.

Starman9000, don't oversimplify man. I voted for Bush, although I'm not a registered Republican and now have serious doubts as to his actions as President. And I don't belong to either party and am not faithfully regurgitating party-specific stances.

[Scrubking]

Spin, spin, spin the room. It's your turn to spin the room. Spin, spin spinen!

[Scrubking]

It's amusing how my personal invectives bother you, but EZB's don't. Can you say hypocrite? :wink:

...you caught me by surprise with that one. I looked over the posts in this thread again in case I'd missed a post in which EZB insulted you personally. ....he didn't. You were the first one to throw a punch directly at the other person instead of addressing his arguments.

Um, I never said he attacked me personally, but he sure did a number on GW. But that was all common sense right? :roll:

[E-Z-B]

It's amusing how my personal invectives bother you, but EZB's don't. Can you say hypocrite? :wink:

...you caught me by surprise with that one. I looked over the posts in this thread again in case I'd missed a post in which EZB insulted you personally. ....he didn't. You were the first one to throw a punch directly at the other person instead of addressing his arguments.

Um, I never said he attacked me personally, but he sure did a number on GW. But that was all common sense right? :roll:

Scrubking, I don't think you know what RBM's "personal invectives" means. It means directed to YOU, not GWB.

[RBM]

"Um, I never said he attacked me personally, but he sure did a number on GW. But that was all common sense right?"

Ah, I see. This was a grammatical misinterpretation. A personal invective, you see, is a personal insult. That is, an insult directed at you and not somebody else. Thus, if I were to call President George Bush a weenie, that would be an insult. But if I were to call Scrubking (that's you) a weenie, then *that* would be a "personal invective." #-o

[PsyClerk]

[quote="E-Z-B"]Even Bush's advisor, Richard Clarke, who served under Clinton, Bush Sr., AND Reagan, said that Bush was intent on taking out Saddam as soon as he took office.[\quote]

I'd trust Richard Clarke's assessment of any situation about as far as a five year old could throw him. This is the same guy that insisted back in the mid 90s that all future terrorist attacks would be computer based and pushed for 'cyber defense.' Not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer, and a good example of someone who was just left in a position for too long (when he was out of touch) because no one had the guts to let him go and risk hurting his feelings.

This is also the same guy who claims Condie Rice had never heard of al Qaeda, because when he mentioned the name 'she got a strange look on her face.' Uh huh.

Just a coincidence that his book is out now. Also just a coincidence that 60 Minutes is pushing his story out there. Also just a coincidence that 60 Minutes is aired on CBS, which is owned by Viacom, whose publishing arm publishes Clark's book. Nothing fishy there, no sir. Move on, nothing to see here...

These guys that are writing books that criticize the current administration get zero credibility with me. If they saw something wrong, why not speak up BACK WHEN IT WOULD HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE?!? And I don't buy any crap about 'it would have cost them their job.' If it's so important that we can scream about it NOW, it was important enough to lose a damn job over THEN.

[E-Z-B]

Even Bush's advisor, Richard Clarke, who served under Clinton, Bush Sr., AND Reagan, said that Bush was intent on taking out Saddam as soon as he took office.

I'd trust Richard Clarke's assessment of any situation about as far as a five year old could throw him. This is the same guy that insisted back in the mid 90s that all future terrorist attacks would be computer based and pushed for 'cyber defense.'
These guys that are writing books that criticize the current administration get zero credibility with me. If they saw something wrong, why not speak up BACK WHEN IT WOULD HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE?!?

It's easy to say this when you have 20/20 hindsight. At that time, no one knew 9/11 was going to happen. A few events like that can forever change this country.

[Scrubking]

"Um, I never said he attacked me personally, but he sure did a number on GW. But that was all common sense right?"

Ah, I see. This was a grammatical misinterpretation. A personal invective, you see, is a personal insult. That is, an insult directed at you and not somebody else. Thus, if I were to call President George Bush a weenie, that would be an insult. But if I were to call Scrubking (that's you) a weenie, then *that* would be a "personal invective." #-o

Come on now. Don't be so quick to avoid the issue.

The fact is that personal attacks on GW are considered common sense by you, but a personal attack on anyone who personally attacks GW is wrong.

Now please continue to spin and act intellectually superior. :roll:

[starman9000]

Poor scrubking, always being picked on by the elitists. :( Too bad this isnt a no spin zone or fair and balanced.

[meteors]

"if I were to call Scrubking (that's you) a weenie, then *that* would be a "personal invective." #-o


Are you saying Scrubking's a weenie or just making a point? Because if you're saying Scrubking's a weenie, that would be mean, but if you're saying Scrubking's a weenie to illustrate the difference between an insult and invective, that's okay I guess.

[RBM]

Well...if you insist. You see, the Nth degree of the fourth term of the previous argument clearly specifies that all parties involved in this discussion--hereafter referred to as Bull Donkey--shall not engage in rhetorical fisticuffs on behalf of said representatives, unless pre-established parameters of argument resolution are adhered to, according to CAG post #442231 (see list of works cited, pgs. 221-223 in Appendix VIII.)

Meteors: for heaven's sake I'm not actually calling him a weenie. *snicker* ...if you'll notice my first posting in this thread, you can guess that I don't take a very serious (much less emotionally charged) attitude here.

[E-Z-B]

"Um, I never said he attacked me personally, but he sure did a number on GW. But that was all common sense right?"

Ah, I see. This was a grammatical misinterpretation. A personal invective, you see, is a personal insult. That is, an insult directed at you and not somebody else. Thus, if I were to call President George Bush a weenie, that would be an insult. But if I were to call Scrubking (that's you) a weenie, then *that* would be a "personal invective." #-o

Come on now. Don't be so quick to avoid the issue.

The fact is that personal attacks on GW are considered common sense by you, but a personal attack on anyone who personally attacks GW is wrong.

Now please continue to spin and act intellectually superior. :roll:

:-k Does anyone know how this relates to the meaning of "personal invectives" against another CAG?

[meteors]

Meteors: for heaven's sake I'm not actually calling him a weenie. *snicker* ...if you'll notice my first posting in this thread, you can guess that I don't take a very serious (much less emotionally charged) attitude here.


Okay good, calling Scrubking a weenie isn't going to solve anything :twisted:

[coffman]

Just accept that Scrubking has no idea what he is talking about and all of you will be much better off!

[E-Z-B]

Even Bush's advisor, Richard Clarke, who served under Clinton, Bush Sr., AND Reagan, said that Bush was intent on taking out Saddam as soon as he took office.

These guys that are writing books that criticize the current administration get zero credibility with me. If they saw something wrong, why not speak up BACK WHEN IT WOULD HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE?!?

O'Neille tried to tell bush that his tax cuts plus the deficit spending wouldn't help our economy, and consequently, he was fired. The person who estimated that the cost of going to war with Iraq, top economic adviser, Lawrence Lindsey, said it would cost $80-100 billion was consequently fired, even though the final count was $87B. The Bush administration isn't listening to its advisors, and that's what's getting them in hot water. And if you don't listen to people like O'Neille, Lindsey, and Clarke (and I'm predicting Colin Powell within one year), then what does it take?

[Quackzilla]

Uh, you all are missing the biggest point, the environment.

We all have to live in it and the Bush admin is messing it up.

How could you possibly vote AGAINST the environment? It makes no sense at all!


And only weak minded fools associate themselves with a political party.
Damn conformists.

[coffman]

Uh, you all are missing the biggest point, the environment.

We all have to live in it and the Bush admin is messing it up.

How could you possibly vote AGAINST the environment? It makes no sense at all!


And only weak minded fools associate themselves with a political party.
Damn conformists.

Personally, I base all of my votes on environmental issues. Bush is destroying the environment for the sake of profit margins for his political contributers. Kerry, on the other hand, has something like a 97% League of Conservation Voters rating. That is, whenever there was a vote involving an environmental issue, Kerry voted pro-environment 97% of the time. That's why I'll be voting for him in November.

[flizmo007]

Hey Quack, I am curious as to how the Bush admin is messing up the environment. Anyways, what good is the environment is we aint alive to enjoy it?

"Liberalism is a mental disorder"

[blackjaw]

i agree with most of what EZB said...its also the fact that its a 'US-pushed' war....i mean, wasnt the UN placed to stop these little wars and keep peace.....US goes around the UN w/ the backing of england in order to force the war?

world opinion of the war is so shoddy (meaning nobody thinks it was necessary...not even the weapons inspectors)...cmon, its a false war

if we were so intent a year ago on getting rid of WMD we wouldve gone after people we knew had them or were distributing them...IE libya, saudi arabia, north korea, etc

and if we were in this war to get rid of dictators and liberation of people...well, lets just say there are FAR WORSE and more brutal dictators in africa

this war was for personal vengeance and for getting a foot in the door of the middle east...its obvious the administration thought that they could 'spread democracy' through taking over iraq...oh, i mean 'liberating' iraq...and found the perfect excuse in the 'war on terrorism' and trying to make a false link between al queda and sadaam husein (which is ridiculous if you know anything about the muslim religion and the history of the kurds...osama's religious beliefs conflict with sadaams...and osama is still sore over the killing of his kurdish brethren so many years ago)

so there we have it...my views of htis whole thing...im out

[Quackzilla]

Hey Quack, I am curious as to how the Bush admin is messing up the environment. Anyways, what good is the environment is we aint alive to enjoy it?

"Liberalism is a mental disorder"

Loosening ALL of the EPA regulations on power plants, factories, cars, agricultural facilities, etc.

And you are a peice of crap conformist.

Liberalism is a mental disease?
I suppose you want a single party system and restrictions on the first ammendment (freedom of speech and symolic expression), right?
Well, that would make you a communist. =]

Btw, if we were going to liberate an oppressed country than China would be first on the list, not Iraq.

[coffman]

Hey Quack, I am curious as to how the Bush admin is messing up the environment. Anyways, what good is the environment is we aint alive to enjoy it?

"Liberalism is a mental disorder"

Where to begin?
1. Refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Even though the Bush Administration admitted that global warming is a serious issue (and the pentagon is drawing up emergency plans to deal with global warming), he refuses to do anything about it.
2. Initially refused to accept Clinton's rule for arsenic levels in drinking water. He later changed his mind, but never did lower it to where Clinton had set it.
3. Increased timber harvesting in the name of "fire prevention". A clear giveaway to one of Bush's major contributers, most of the harvesting is done far away from communities and removes the most fire-resistant trees.
4. Refuses to enforce the clean water act. He is allowing pollution levels exceeding what is allowed by the act, especially mercury levels. Mercury is mainly produced via the burning of coal (the coal industry is another major campaign contributer).
5. Refuses to enforce the clean air act. He is allowing power plants to pollute in excess of what is allowed. His administration has directed the EPA to drop lawsuits against power plants and to revise "safe" pollution levels upwards.
6. Mountain top removal mining. He is allowing mining companies to strip away the tops of mountains and to dump the waste into valleys and streams. Thousands of miles of streams have been lost to this practice.

I have to get back to work now, but if you want more examples, I'll gladly provide them at my next break!

[Knuckles913]

Okay, I'm not online much, so here's a response to my detractors so far:

No, they're protesting our involvement with Iraq. The american people were mislead into believing that Iraq had WMD. Even Bush's advisor, Richard Clarke, who served under Clinton, Bush Sr., AND Reagan, said that Bush was intent on taking out Saddam as soon as he took office. Shortly after 9/11, he wanted Clarke to come up with evidence that linked Iraq to 9/11 to justify an attack. Nearly 700 american lives have been lost for what Bush now simply calls "a brutal dictatorship", but you know what? North Korea, Cuba, many african nations, China, etc. have just as bad human rights abuses.

There was never a direct link between Saddam and al-Qaeda.


So why don't we take out Hamas and company too?

And if you oppose going to war with North Korea, you would support the human suffering there, too?
-E-Z-B

Americans were not mislead on the WMD issue. We know he had them because hed had them in the mid 90s and refused to destroy them. He used them on his own people, for Christ's sake! Do you really think all the chemical and biological weapons dissapeared into thin air when the inspectors came in? They are either hidden o moved to the likes of Iran or Serbia.

There was never an OFFICIAL lnik between Hussein and al-Qeada. This is, of course, difinitive evidence that they NEVER, EVER spoke. I'm sure Hussein never even knew about the terrorist camp in norther Iraq-with an airliner's fuselage for training exercises.

I don't oppose going to war with North Korea. If anything, Kim Ill Jong is a greater threat than Iraq. Personally, I would have liked to see him ousted in the late 90s... but we know how effective the military was under Mr. Clinton.

As for what goatindaruffness wrote... god grief. I won't even dignify it with a response, other than to remind him of the Bush=Hitler add MoveOn.org was so happy about.

In conclusion, I do not completely agree with the president (his position on immigration sucks, and he could be spending less) but he's a lot better than the alternative. Given the choice, I would have gone into Iraq (and several other places) long ago.

[bfg9k]

Hey Quack, I am curious as to how the Bush admin is messing up the environment. Anyways, what good is the environment is we aint alive to enjoy it?

To let other animals have a chance to enjoy it. This planet was doing just fine before you humans showed up ;)

[bob_the_goon]

I don't feel like joining the argument, but one issue that hasn't yet been brought up is the draft. There are currently bills in both the house and the senate that would start the draft in June of 05, conveniently after the election. Anyone, male or female, ages 18-26 will be draftable. College will not be the shelter it was in Vietnam, and thanks to the smart border agreement, it will be very difficult to go to Canada should you choose that route. The Department of Defense had a notice on their webpage months ago calling for volunteers to staff the appeal boards, which haven't been staffed since the end of Vietnam, in preparation for the bills if they pass.

[poormojo]

What was in Tom Wolfe said?

"A Conservative is a Liberal who has been mugged, and a Liberal is a Conservative that has been arrested."

[Quackzilla]

It was me who said:

"Consevatives and liberals are just conformists with no real independence that follow like sheep and beleive every sensationalist lie they hear."

[coffman]

This in hot off the presses...

Medicare will be bankrupt by 2019. This means that anyone currently 50 or younger will not have access to Medicare when they retire. Thank you so much GW for killing Medicare! I'm sure I won't really need it when I retire.

[Venkman]

I've always thought marches were horribly ineffective. EVERYONE does them now to support every cause (Moms, gay rights, education, AIDS, world hunger, anti-war, you get the point). It's what some have called the siren effect- yes the siren really gets your attention, but if you hear them every day you learn to tune them out.

[starman9000]

It was me who said:

"Consevatives and liberals are just conformists with no real independence that follow like sheep and beleive every sensationalist lie they hear."

So are you a nihilist? Say what you want about the tennents of Conservatism and Liberalism, at least they are some type of ethos.

[Knuckles913]

He sounds like some neo-hippie to me. Even liberals are at least informed enough to make a decision, as opposed to punk-ass kids who think they're wise because they don't know anything about their own country.

[E-Z-B]

Americans were not mislead on the WMD issue. We know he had them because hed had them in the mid 90s and refused to destroy them. He used them on his own people, for Christ's sake! Do you really think all the chemical and biological weapons dissapeared into thin air when the inspectors came in? They are either hidden o moved to the likes of Iran or Serbia.

Perhaps we should've given the inspectors more time to verify that Iraq dismantled their WMD program like they said.

There was never an OFFICIAL lnik between Hussein and al-Qeada. This is, of course, difinitive evidence that they NEVER, EVER spoke. I'm sure Hussein never even knew about the terrorist camp in norther Iraq-with an airliner's fuselage for training exercises.

Not sure where you're going with this. He couldn't control the people (Kurds, I think) in northern Iraq. I'm trying to remember......that was the one area where his dictatorship couldn't reach. Ultimately, they helped the U.S. invade Iraq one year ago. So it was doubtful that al Qaeda was helping us launch an offensive attach on Saddam. Saddam was far from religious, which infuriated radical Muslims. They believed that religion should play a major role in the government, which Saddam opposed, and for that, he was hated by Iran, the Kurds, and al Qaeda.

I don't oppose going to war with North Korea. If anything, Kim Ill Jong is a greater threat than Iraq. Personally, I would have liked to see him ousted in the late 90s... but we know how effective the military was under Mr. Clinton.

No, I don't know. Our role in yugoslavia seemed effective to me. It stopped the ethnic cleansing taking place there in 1998.

Given the choice, I would have gone into Iraq (and several other places) long ago.

Which is what the current administration has wrecklessly done, and which is why america, in less than 2 years, has gone from worldwide sympathy after 9/11 to one of the most hated countries today.

[munch]

I've always thought marches were horribly ineffective. EVERYONE does them now to support every cause (Moms, gay rights, education, AIDS, world hunger, anti-war, you get the point). It's what some have called the siren effect- yes the siren really gets your attention, but if you hear them every day you learn to tune them out.

i really agree with this. People will get fired up one day, then move on. It seems to me that Liberals will take their voice to the streets, while Conservatives will take their voice to the polls. Which is more effective?


also, in case you guys haven't noticed, arguing over the internet is gay. Anyone who says, "Fuck Bush" is a moron, as well as anyone who blindly abides to what he says.

[Mr Unoriginal]

[quote]also, in case you guys haven't noticed, arguing over the internet is gay. Anyone who says, "f*#k Bush" is a moron, as well as anyone who blindly abides to what he says.

It's really hard to take someone's argument seriously if they describe something as 'gay'. Unless that thing does actually like to have sexual intercourse with members of its own gender, which I don't think arguments over the internet like to do.

[Quackzilla]

Lets not forget the blatant lies in Bush's new TV ads.

"Kerry want a 900 billion dollar tax raise"

No, he just wants to cancel the tax cuts for the rich. He is actually planning to lower taxes for the middle and lower classes.

[E-Z-B]

Here's today's great accomplishment:

The Bush administration on Tuesday eased restrictions on logging old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest, completing a rules change that will allow forest managers to begin logging without first looking for rare plants and animals.

The change was prompted by a timber industry lawsuit and is intended to increase logging on 24 million acres of public land.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/24/forest.plan.ap/index.html

[Quackzilla]

Hey Scrubking, I'd like to hear you put a positive spin on THAT! ^

[evilmax17]

Hey Scrubking, I'd like to hear you put a positive spin on THAT! ^

I'll do it for him.

"You see Stan, If we don't hunt the animals, they'd keep reproducing and eventually starve to death. So to help nature out a bit, we have to...'thin out their numbers'..."

[The Cheapest Ass Gamer]

Stop picking on Scrubking, guys. Yes, he seems a bit conservative, but someone needs to defend Bush from wild accusations about the war in Iraq. It was a simple intelligence failure; Saddam's WMD developers lied to him, he believed them, therefore the CIA believed them, and Clinton believed the CIA. Clinton launched his bombing campaigns to keep Iraq in check, and Bush tried to take it a step further the next time Saddam breached the resolutions. So I guess the WMDs didn't exist (at least recently--we know they did in the early 90s when he used them), but using the available intelligence, Bush's (and Clinton's) Iraq strategies were the only responsible thing to do.

^^My $0.02^^

[E-Z-B]

I'm glad that after 700 lives, Bush can still find humor in this:

President Bush poked fun at ... himself Wednesday night at a black-tie dinner where he hobnobbed with the news media.

There was Bush looking under furniture in a fruitless, frustrating search. "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere," he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/25/bush.broadcasters.ap/index.html

Pretty funny man! Hey, maybe it'll be even funnier when it's up to 1,000 american lives lost.

[speedracer]

Scrubking's accusation about Leninist/Marxist/wingnuts organizing these kinds of events, if by organizing he means getting the permits, is true. Other than that, they really don't do squat. People find out permits have been taken out, and bring their own personal government beef with em. I've been to a good coupla protests, and I've never talked to someone that was there to forward any kind of hard socialist/communistic agenda directly.

Your basic underlying fact is correct, but any extrapolation on that fact is absolutely incorrect.

Other than that, this thread is a little too hot for me.

[Quackzilla]

Have you ever noticed that the government doesn't count civilian deaths?
They should do a civilian casualty report with 3 categories: young children, 13-17 year olds, and adults.

Al thse kids getting shot and bombed for something they were never involved in is pretty funny too.

[DPawlik349]

People who are too much of a fanatic one way are not to be trusted and are off their rocker for a lot of things. If you're too far left you get hitler, and if you're too far right you can still end up like hitler except with trees and kamikazi whales blowing themselves up in the name of your cause. The most sensible person is the one who looks at each and every subject and makes up their mind for themselves after giving a serious nonbiased review of it. I'm not saying that being a republican or a democrat is wrong but please make up your own mind and understand the subject completely.

[DPawlik349]

Have you ever noticed that the government doesn't count civilian deaths?
They should do a civilian casualty report with 3 categories: young children, 13-17 year olds, and adults.

Al thse kids getting shot and bombed for something they were never involved in is pretty funny too.

I read Michael Moore's new book and in it he had Iraqi and Pakistani civilian casualties of above 6,000 by a reliable source that I forget. May I remind you the 9/11 casualty of U.S. citizens was 3,000...just something to ponder. Oh and we have killed many more civilians since that book has been out for a long while.

[DPawlik349]

Stop picking on Scrubking, guys. Yes, he seems a bit conservative, but someone needs to defend Bush from wild accusations about the war in Iraq. It was a simple intelligence failure; Saddam's WMD developers lied to him, he believed them, therefore the CIA believed them, and Clinton believed the CIA. Clinton launched his bombing campaigns to keep Iraq in check, and Bush tried to take it a step further the next time Saddam breached the resolutions. So I guess the WMDs didn't exist (at least recently--we know they did in the early 90s when he used them), but using the available intelligence, Bush's (and Clinton's) Iraq strategies were the only responsible thing to do.

^^My $0.02^^

I disagree with this. This is a huge step up in sending in troops to get rid of sadaam put in a whole new style of government and do this all on America's dollar. We needed the support of the rest of the world to do this AND remember Hans Blitz, one of the most greatly respected and truthful men around the world, said that he could not find any traces of the WMD. Bush overstepped his boundary with this. I like your arguement and a lot of it makes sense, but bottom line is is that Hans Blitz had more Intelligence than our agency and he couldn't find them. If America knew why not tell Mr. Blitz where to look or test to see if he had any traces?

[Scrubking]

Have you ever noticed that the government doesn't count civilian deaths?
They should do a civilian casualty report with 3 categories: young children, 13-17 year olds, and adults.

Al thse kids getting shot and bombed for something they were never involved in is pretty funny too.

I read Michael Moore's new book and in it he had Iraqi and Pakistani civilian casualties of above 6,000 by a reliable source that I forget. May I remind you the 9/11 casualty of U.S. citizens was 3,000...just something to ponder. Oh and we have killed many more civilians since that book has been out for a long while.

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/

[Quackzilla]

May I remind you the 9/11 casualty of U.S. citizens was 3,000...just something to ponder.

Al Qaeda has NO affiliation with any government. They are fanatical fundamentalists much like Americas own Religious Right. The 9/11/01 casualties DO NOT JUSTIFY THE KILLING OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS.


And Scrubking, we all know Michael Moore is an ass, but that site has no relevance to the current topic of conversation.

[PsyClerk]

The 9/11/01 casualties DO NOT JUSTIFY THE KILLING OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS.

Ok then. What would you have done? Give in to terrorist demands? Attempt to placate foreign religous zealots? History shows appeasement doesn't work (see: World War II). I'm curious as to what all the doves think ought to be done, other than turning the other cheek.

[flizmo007]

You cant even and shouldnt compare Al Qaeda to America's Religious Right. Are you out of your mind? I dont beleive how immature and naive you are. What is it going to take for you and the rest of the Liberal lunatics to wake up. Where you complaining when Clinton was killing innocent civilians in Kosovo with his bombings? No. Once again, if Bush does it, whether it makes sense or not, you and all the other commies will be against it. Plain and simple. Why dont you look at the facts and judge by what makes sense. I will guarantee that if Bush didnt attack Iraq, and we were attacked by Iraq first with a suicide bomber, or an event similar to 9/11, you would be first in line asking why Bush didnt take him out when we had a chance. Then there would be another inquiry into why we didnt act first, just like the 9/11 hearings going on now. With you people, we can never win.

[Quackzilla]

What the fuck?
Are you guys fucking serious?

Terrorists kill our civilians, and that gives us the right to go into 2 contries and kill thousands of civilians?!?!

You don't give into the terrorists demands, you attack the fucking terrorists! You don't kill civilians!
Sadam could have been assasinated, and bin Laden could have been tracked down and killed.
(But then Halliburton wouldn't get Iraqs oil and Bush wouldn't get his money.)

THE CIVILIANS DIDN'T DO ANYTHING!

[flizmo007]

"THE CIVILIANS DIDNT DO ANYTHING", which is exactly why they are releived to have Sadaam out. You cant deny that he killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Its not about the civilians and you know it. Why do you think GW was nominted for a Nobel Piece Prize. He freed the Iraqi people from the fear of Sadaam. If its about innocent civilians, you lose, because we are saving thousand of civilian lives by getting rid of Sadaam.

[Scrubking]

What the f*#k?
Are you guys f*#king serious?

Terrorists kill our civilians, and that gives us the right to go into 2 contries and kill thousands of civilians?!?!

You don't give into the terrorists demands, you attack the f*#king terrorists! You don't kill civilians!
Sadam could have been assasinated, and bin Laden could have been tracked down and killed.
(But then Halliburton wouldn't get Iraqs oil and Bush wouldn't get his money.)

THE CIVILIANS DIDN'T DO ANYTHING!

I'm sure you would prefer to have 100 U.S. soldier deaths to 2 Iraqi civilian deaths when trying to take out a target in the middle of a war. :roll:

Sadam could have been assasinated, and bin Laden could have been tracked down and killed.
Exactly. How many times did Clinton have Bin Laden, but chose not to do anything?

[Quackzilla]

How many times did Clinton have Bin Laden, but chose not to do anything?

zero

[RBM]

I don't know....I had been pretty critical of Bush's time in the white house, but Scrubking's made a lot of good points. I am kind of swaying to his side now. I can feel a change of heart coming on. Ohhhh.. there it is.... O mama.....

[Quackzilla]

Ends justify means?

So if you were in a store and there has a hold-up, you wouldn't object to the police shooting into the store and killing everybody including yourself?

I didn't think so.

[PsyClerk]

How many times did Clinton have Bin Laden, but chose not to do anything?

zero

BZZZZZZZZTT! Wrong answer! But we have some nice consolation prizes, thanks for playing!

Seriously, Clinton knew about bin Laden (anyone remember the first WTC attacks? anyone?) but not much got done. I do believe he attempted to take out bin Laden but failed as bad as we are failing now. It just wasn't front page news then because 9-11 had not occured.

If you want to lay blame on someone for civilian deaths, look no further than one Saddam Hussein. He's the one who used chemical weapons against the Kurds and in the Iraq-Iran war, thus showing the world he had such weapons AND would use them. He's the one who invaded Kuwait without provocation and certainly for no good reason. He's the one who waffled between allowing weapons inspectors in Iraq, then throwing them out. He's the one played chicken with the US.

To use your own example, if I show up in a store and CLAIM to have a gun, while my hand is in my pocket, what do you do? You can either submit to my demands or hope that I'm bluffing. In that situation, if you had the chance to ENSURE that I either didn't have a gun or you could for sure get the gun I had away from me, would you take it? Keep in mind that if you don't act and I DO have a gun, I could flip out and start killing people. If you DO act, people could still get hurt, but you could greatly reduce the damage. It's not quite as simple as my example (or yours for that matter) but it's along those lines.

It was a hard choice, one I would not trust to John Kerry, and certainly not to Al Gore. I won't say Bush made the right choice, but at least he made a choice and stuck to it. When you're choosing the lesser of two evils, it's usually a matter of perspective.

If you're really as partisan as you appear in your posts, I imagine that had Bush not touched Iraq and we were still dealing with weapons inspectors, you would rail on Bush for not making any progress.

/way too long post

[E-Z-B]

How many times did Clinton have Bin Laden, but chose not to do anything?

zero

BZZZZZZZZTT! Wrong answer! But we have some nice consolation prizes, thanks for playing!

Seriously, Clinton knew about bin Laden (anyone remember the first WTC attacks? anyone?) but not much got done. I do believe he attempted to take out bin Laden but failed as bad as we are failing now. It just wasn't front page news then because 9-11 had not occured.

One problem that clinton had though was getting support to launch an offensive inside afghanistan. It would've been a political nightmare inside the muslim world, much like bush faced with launching an attack on iraq.

If you want to lay blame on someone for civilian deaths, look no further than one Saddam Hussein. He's the one who used chemical weapons against the Kurds and in the Iraq-Iran war, thus showing the world he had such weapons AND would use them.

But remember, Saddam got those chemical weapons from Bush Sr. himself during the Reagan administration during the Iran contra affair. So in effect, we were Saddam's dealer.

He's the one who invaded Kuwait without provocation and certainly for no good reason. He's the one who waffled between allowing weapons inspectors in Iraq, then throwing them out. He's the one played chicken with the US.

Saddam Hussein sent the U.S. government a memo that they were going to invade kuwait. Our response? "The U.S. Government has no opinion on the affairs of the middle east" more or less. So we basically gave Saddam the green light. However, our tuned changed AFTER he invaded kuwait. I never quite understood that myself.

To use your own example, if I show up in a store and CLAIM to have a gun, while my hand is in my pocket, what do you do? You can either submit to my demands or hope that I'm bluffing. In that situation, if you had the chance to ENSURE that I either didn't have a gun or you could for sure get the gun I had away from me, would you take it? Keep in mind that if you don't act and I DO have a gun, I could flip out and start killing people. If you DO act, people could still get hurt, but you could greatly reduce the damage. It's not quite as simple as my example (or yours for that matter) but it's along those lines.

OR...we could NOT have gone into iraq in the first place, and thus avoided this whole mess.

[E-Z-B]

I will guarantee that if Bush didnt attack Iraq, and we were attacked by Iraq first with a suicide bomber, or an event similar to 9/11, you would be first in line asking why Bush didnt take him out when we had a chance. Then there would be another inquiry into why we didnt act first, just like the 9/11 hearings going on now. With you people, we can never win.

If iraq attacked us like al-qaeda did, or were in fact responsible for 9/11, there would be little doubt in most american's minds that he must be eliminated. But he had no ties to al-qaeda, and bush's goal since he took office was to take saddam out. NOT to deter terrorists. That was a lesser priority. And after 9/11 happened, he wanted Richard Clarke to come up with some evidence to tie iraq to it.

[Mr. Anderson]

I'm not really sure how this correlates to other fascets of this thread, but every time I think of the U.S. Army, I think of a bunch of rednecks with buzz cuts and M16s, no offense. Am I the only who has this mental image?

[Mr. Anderson]

I'm not really sure how this correlates to other fascets of this thread, but every time I think of the U.S. Army, I think of a bunch of rednecks with buzz cuts and M16s, no offense. Am I the only who has this mental image?

[DPawlik349]

I think you aren't the only one but I am not one of them. I think of people looking for their weekend a month two weeks a year type of a thing. I mean these people need money for college and stuff. And bottom line is killing twice as many civilians in Iraq does not justify 9/11 when Sadaam didn't have a thing to do with it even though to get America's back to go into Iraq. Bottom line is, is that he was caught in a lie and has been COMPLETELY proven to be false and admitted by the Bush administration. And please do not back up your opinion by some wacko site that is more than obviously so biased and copmletely backed by false facts to justify your means.

[DPawlik349]

How many times did Clinton have Bin Laden, but chose not to do anything?

zero

BZZZZZZZZTT! Wrong answer! But we have some nice consolation prizes, thanks for playing!

Seriously, Clinton knew about bin Laden (anyone remember the first WTC attacks? anyone?) but not much got done. I do believe he attempted to take out bin Laden but failed as bad as we are failing now. It just wasn't front page news then because 9-11 had not occured.

If you want to lay blame on someone for civilian deaths, look no further than one Saddam Hussein. He's the one who used chemical weapons against the Kurds and in the Iraq-Iran war, thus showing the world he had such weapons AND would use them. He's the one who invaded Kuwait without provocation and certainly for no good reason. He's the one who waffled between allowing weapons inspectors in Iraq, then throwing them out. He's the one played chicken with the US.

To use your own example, if I show up in a store and CLAIM to have a gun, while my hand is in my pocket, what do you do? You can either submit to my demands or hope that I'm bluffing. In that situation, if you had the chance to ENSURE that I either didn't have a gun or you could for sure get the gun I had away from me, would you take it? Keep in mind that if you don't act and I DO have a gun, I could flip out and start killing people. If you DO act, people could still get hurt, but you could greatly reduce the damage. It's not quite as simple as my example (or yours for that matter) but it's along those lines.

It was a hard choice, one I would not trust to John Kerry, and certainly not to Al Gore. I won't say Bush made the right choice, but at least he made a choice and stuck to it. When you're choosing the lesser of two evils, it's usually a matter of perspective.

If you're really as partisan as you appear in your posts, I imagine that had Bush not touched Iraq and we were still dealing with weapons inspectors, you would rail on Bush for not making any progress.

/way too long post

Bush had just as much intelligence, if not more than Clinton and the security advisors just said this past week under oath that it was not a very high priority on Bush's list while it was among the top of Clinton's. Oh and may I remind you that within Bush's first year of taking office took the longest vacation of any president. Hrmmm.

[PsyClerk]

One problem that clinton had though was getting support to launch an offensive inside afghanistan. It would've been a political nightmare inside the muslim world, much like bush faced with launching an attack on iraq.

Remember the 'missile in the camel's butt' incident? That was Clinton lauching the missiles at bin Laden.



But remember, Saddam got those chemical weapons from Bush Sr. himself during the Reagan administration during the Iran contra affair. So in effect, we were Saddam's dealer.

The US government has given to aid to MANY countries and then later realized the mistake in doing so. I don't see how this relates. Saddam was developing his own weapons, and before the war he either
A-was still developing them
B-Creating the illusion that he was developing them
C-Believed he was developing them, when his scientists were only appeasing him and not actually working towards that goal


Saddam Hussein sent the U.S. government a memo that they were going to invade kuwait. Our response? "The U.S. Government has no opinion on the affairs of the middle east" more or less. So we basically gave Saddam the green light. However, our tuned changed AFTER he invaded kuwait. I never quite understood that myself.

You'll need to show me hard evidence of this. The US Government has VERY MUCH had an opinion on Middle Eastern affairs for a loooooong time. I call shenanigans.


OR...we could NOT have gone into iraq in the first place, and thus avoided this whole mess.

Which, in my example, is the equivalent of doing nothing and hoping that I'm bluffing about having a gun. Good luck on that.

[PsyClerk]

Bush had just as much intelligence, if not more than Clinton and the security advisors just said this past week under oath that it was not a very high priority on Bush's list while it was among the top of Clinton's. Oh and may I remind you that within Bush's first year of taking office took the longest vacation of any president. Hrmmm.

No one gave it super high priority, no matter how much you want to canonize Clinton, until 9-11. Americans have died before overseas due to terrorist actions and sure, it makes the papers when it happens, but it wasn't a big deal for the general public. It only became a priority when it was demonstrated that we can be attacked on home soil. Before 9-11, we had no need for serious anti-terrorism measures because foreign terrorism had very little impact.

Ponder this: Where was the huge investigations and anti-terrorism measures after the first WTC bombing? Or Oklahoma City? Not enough people died to start up our 'who takes the blame' mentality, I suppose.

And what does a vacation have to do with any of this? That just makes no sense in this context. Grasping for straws?

[RedvsBlue]

Sadam could have been assasinated, and bin Laden could have been tracked down and killed.

Actually if you've paid attention to this little topic you would know that the US has stated that our policy is to not engage/assist in assasinations. Don't start the conspiracy theories on this now either. In addition to this if we had simply assasinated either of them there would be a huge public outcry that we sentenced someone to death without a trial.

ALSO, and most importantly, Saddam was given 24 hours to leave Iraq, had he actually cared about his people he could have ended the situation peacefully by taking political asylum in one of the dozen nations that offered it to him. How come no one ever criticizes that of Saddam, but Bush is criticized because everyone believes he did it for a family vendetta or oil.

The reason we attacked Iraq\for suspected weapons of mass destruction was quite ingenious in my opinion. Look no further than North Korea, everyone says we should have gone after them for WMDs first but that war would have been much higher in casualties, EASILY. However by easily taking down Saddam we sent a message to countries that were attempting to create WMDs (like North Korea, Iran, Libya) that they could be next. You know what happened? Each of those countries, since the war has softened their stance, and in the case of Iran, has actually allowed weapons inspectors in since then.

Everyone seems to want to look at the negatives from the war. Yes I will admit that there were negative aspects, there always is with war. Believe me I don't like it but it is a necessary evil, but its like it was eluded to earlier, pacifism only ends with defeat. Who wants to be speaking japenese or german right now? I think that in the long run the war's positives will far outweigh the negatives).

[E-Z-B]

One problem that clinton had though was getting support to launch an offensive inside afghanistan. It would've been a political nightmare inside the muslim world, much like bush faced with launching an attack on iraq.

Remember the 'missile in the camel's butt' incident? That was Clinton lauching the missiles at bin Laden.

The missile in th camel's butt incident was GWB, not Clinton. You're getting your facts mixed up. Look here: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/bush.htm


But remember, Saddam got those chemical weapons from Bush Sr. himself during the Reagan administration during the Iran contra affair. So in effect, we were Saddam's dealer.


Saddam Hussein sent the U.S. government a memo that they were going to invade kuwait. Our response? "The U.S. Government has no opinion on the affairs of the middle east" more or less. So we basically gave Saddam the green light. However, our tuned changed AFTER he invaded kuwait. I never quite understood that myself.

You'll need to show me hard evidence of this. The US Government has VERY MUCH had an opinion on Middle Eastern affairs for a loooooong time. I call shenanigans.

Psyclerk, I strongly recommend you watch this video on Hussein: http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html

Then come back and argue with knowledge of history.


OR...we could NOT have gone into iraq in the first place, and thus avoided this whole mess.

Which, in my example, is the equivalent of doing nothing and hoping that I'm bluffing about having a gun. Good luck on that.

So let's wage war on NOrth Korea, Libya, Syria, and Iran now. We don't want to take that chance that they "have a gun".

[E-Z-B]

what does a vacation have to do with any of this? That just makes no sense in this context. Grasping for straws?

I think he's saying that instead of taking such a long vacation, he could have been addressing Richard Clarke's concerns about terrorism instead.

[E-Z-B]

ALSO, and most importantly, Saddam was given 24 hours to leave Iraq, had he actually cared about his people he could have ended the situation peacefully by taking political asylum in one of the dozen nations that offered it to him. How come no one ever criticizes that of Saddam, but Bush is criticized because everyone believes he did it for a family vendetta or oil.

If North Korea gave bush 24 hours to leave the U.S. before launching nuclear weapons at us or japan, would you blame bush for the deaths of thousands of people? This arguement is absurd.

The reason we attacked Iraq\for suspected weapons of mass destruction was quite ingenious in my opinion. Look no further than South Korea, everyone says we should have gone after them for WMDs first but that war would have been much higher in casualties, EASILY. However by easily taking down Saddam we sent a message to countries that were attempting to create WMDs (like South Korea, Iran, Libya) that they could be next. You know what happened? Each of those countries, since the war has softened their stance, and in the case of Iran, has actually allowed weapons inspectors in since then.

I think you mean NORTH korea. But North Korea actually HAS WMD, and they admit it. Sounds like priorities here were squashed under a vendetta.

Everyone seems to want to look at the negatives from the war. Yes I will admit that there were negative aspects, there always is with war. Believe me I don't like it but it is a necessary evil, but its like it was eluded to earlier, pacifism only ends with defeat. Who wants to be speaking japenese or german right now? I think that in the long run the war's positives will far outweigh the negatives).

That sounds like Bush when he said "When we're talking about war, we're really talking about peace". :roll:

Again, people, watch this before arguing about Saddam: http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html

[PsyClerk]

The missile in th camel's butt incident was GWB, not Clinton. You're getting your facts mixed up. Look here: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/bush.htm

You're confused. GWB makes reference to the incident. Clinton was the one with the failed cruise missile attack on bin Laden. GWB's quote is a jab at Clinton's failed attempt.

Psyclerk, I strongly recommend you watch this video on Hussein: http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html

I hope you'll excuse me if I don't get my 'facts' from a website called www.bushflash.com. :roll:


So let's wage war on NOrth Korea, Libya, Syria, and Iran now. We don't want to take that chance that they "have a gun".

Different situations.

North Korea is definitely a threat, and I am worried about the current lack of attention they get. Kim Jong-il is a certified nutcase and should be a huge cause for concern. The only thing keeping us from more North Korea aggression is "The Sleeping Giant" China. Also, Russia, Japan, and South Korea seem to think they can solve things diplomatically. We can hope, but I doubt one can negotiate with the insane.

Libya has gotten better, and has made concessions, even recently. Syria is borderline, and even I've noticed that Iran has improved. If the kids in Iran can ever take over that government, that entire region will improve.

[PsyClerk]

I think he's saying that instead of taking such a long vacation, he could have been addressing Richard Clarke's concerns about terrorism instead.

Maybe his crystal ball was broken and couldn't see into the future. I think we'll find out that Clarke wasn't as distressed as he now claims to have been over things. It helps to paint yourself as a victim...just ask Clarke's NYTimes #1 best-selling book.

Kids, don't trust people whose books are just getting published. Just wait until Clinton writes his memoirs and we see all the great things he did behind the scenes but couldn't make public due to national security. :roll:

[RedvsBlue]

I think he's saying that instead of taking such a long vacation, he could have been addressing Richard Clarke's concerns about terrorism instead.

Maybe his crystal ball was broken and couldn't see into the future. I think we'll find out that Clarke wasn't as distressed as he now claims to have been over things. It helps to paint yourself as a victim...just ask Clarke's NYTimes #1 best-selling book.

Kids, don't trust people whose books are just getting published. Just wait until Clinton writes his memoirs and we see all the great things he did behind the scenes but couldn't make public due to national security. :roll:

Exactly! It is definetly suspect that the guy makes a big deal out of this, gets his name put out everywhere, and happens to publish a book about it that has sold enough to make it a number 1 selling book. That's a lot of money in his pocket. Please don't anyone say that he is telling the public about his concerns over national security for a purely altruistic reason. If he was, he would donate all the proceeds from his book to help fight terrorism.

[E-Z-B]

The missile in th camel's butt incident was GWB, not Clinton. You're getting your facts mixed up. Look here: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/bush.htm


You're confused. GWB makes reference to the incident. Clinton was the one with the failed cruise missile attack on bin Laden. GWB's quote is a jab at Clinton's failed attempt.

Alright, I guess I didn't know where you were going with that. I thought you were saying that Clinton said that.

Psyclerk, I strongly recommend you watch this video on Hussein: http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html

I hope you'll excuse me if I don't get my 'facts' from a website called www.bushflash.com. :roll:

I saw that video a long time ago, and quickly did a search on altavista to find it again. I could've just as easily posted links to www.betterworldlinks.org or www.ccmep.org. It just so happens that that guy liked the video and posted it on his website too. The point was the history about Saddam over the past 30 or so years. If you don't like those "facts", then prove me wrong.


So let's wage war on NOrth Korea, Libya, Syria, and Iran now. We don't want to take that chance that they "have a gun".

Different situations.

North Korea is definitely a threat, and I am worried about the current lack of attention they get. Kim Jong-il is a certified nutcase and should be a huge cause for concern. The only thing keeping us from more North Korea aggression is "The Sleeping Giant" China. Also, Russia, Japan, and South Korea seem to think they can solve things diplomatically. We can hope, but I doubt one can negotiate with the insane.

Libya has gotten better, and has made concessions, even recently. Syria is borderline, and even I've noticed that Iran has improved. If the kids in Iran can ever take over that government, that entire region will improve.

But should we take a chance that they have "a gun" like you said? According to you, we shouldn't take that chance no matter what. Why did we stop at Iraq?

[E-Z-B]

I think he's saying that instead of taking such a long vacation, he could have been addressing Richard Clarke's concerns about terrorism instead.

Maybe his crystal ball was broken and couldn't see into the future. I think we'll find out that Clarke wasn't as distressed as he now claims to have been over things. It helps to paint yourself as a victim...just ask Clarke's NYTimes #1 best-selling book.

Kids, don't trust people whose books are just getting published. Just wait until Clinton writes his memoirs and we see all the great things he did behind the scenes but couldn't make public due to national security. :roll:

Exactly! It is definetly suspect that the guy makes a big deal out of this, gets his name put out everywhere, and happens to publish a book about it that has sold enough to make it a number 1 selling book. That's a lot of money in his pocket. Please don't anyone say that he is telling the public about his concerns over national security for a purely altruistic reason. If he was, he would donate all the proceeds from his book to help fight terrorism.

Richard Clarke said on Meet the Press today, that his friends in the White House have told him that those on the taxpayer's payroll working for the administration are actively assassinating his character, and vow to make sure he never makes another dime in washington again. He said he needs to take that into account, but also said he would make contributions to the victims of 9/11 and the families of soldiers who died in Iraq. Let's see texas-millionaire GWB make that sort of promise to those families. Maybe he's still laughing at the whole "soldiers are dying in Iraq because I told them there were WMD!!!" joke.

I'm waiting for the day when Colin Powell will quit, say something about Bush, then find a character assassination against him too. It's like a mafia, where you don't go against the family. (Fredo?)

[Mr. Anderson]

This topic is never going to end. Just call it a draw folks! Be the bigger person!

[E-Z-B]

Yeah, this topic is boring me. PEACE OUT!

[Quackzilla]

This topic is never going to end. Just call it a draw folks! Be the bigger person!

Seriously.

Lets just say politicians on both sides suck. The end.

[RedvsBlue]

This topic is never going to end. Just call it a draw folks! Be the bigger person!

Seriously.

Lets just say politicians on both sides suck. The end.

There's no doubt about that. I can't stand politics.