This is true Drake. But if I may add this, when someone in our military murders innocents in war and is caught, we charge them with crimes. When someone murders innocents under orders from a dictator, they are rewarded.
Whether you agree or disagree with GW Bush’s policies is one thing, but calling the man a dictator, murderer, etc is just ridiculous. If he is so bad, his detractors should be able to show that without resorting to ridiculous name calling like that.
[QUOTE=BJJ-Blue;1042421]This is true Drake. But if I may add this, when someone in our military murders innocents in war and is caught, we charge them with crimes. When someone murders innocents under orders from a dictator, they are rewarded.
Whether you agree or disagree with GW Bush’s policies is one thing, but calling the man a dictator, murderer, etc is just ridiculous. If he is so bad, his detractors should be able to show that without resorting to ridiculous name calling like that.[/QUOTE]
..and is caught?
You mean when someone lets someone else know.
Here’s how it is. If you got a guy in your company who is a murdering psycho, you don’t want him to have your back, because really, he doesn’t, he’s a frickin psycho.
There are hundreds of criminal actions that go on in fog of war.
G.W BUSH operated a dictatorship of the majority and never acted in the capacity of a democratically elected president. His actions in the view o many were criminal. In my view, his entire administration was criminal in intention and in actions carried out.
You better believe I’m not the only one that thinks this.
He’ll pay eventually, as soon as America grows a pair.
[QUOTE=BJJ-Blue;1042382]Look guys, I do not compare collateral damage in war with gas chambers, firing squads, and political prisons. If you do, we are honestly just not going to see eye to eye.
To me the big difference is the collateral damage is accidental, while gas chambers, etc are intentionally done. Do you not agree?[/QUOTE]
not all of it is coincidental… they target an apartment building with a living target inside, they know very well that the whole area is densely populated…
also, colleteral damages, in a war that we have no buisness being involved in, is alot different than, say, ww2… look at all the attrocities that came to light over the decades proceeding vietnam… do you think that wont happen with iraq and afghanistan???
look at what we found out after desert storm… uranium tipped munitions creating mutant babies and all sorts of absolutely horrifying consequences… acceptable collateral damages??? decades after the shellings, we still see people suffering because of it??? cant heap all that on saddam… besides, your scapegoat is dead… bush declared the war won… people are still dying for no other reason than being born there and living there… most muslims are normal day to day people… not guerilla opium freaks reading a koran then shooting anyone that looks disagreeable… they are a small percentage… yet they are armed to the teeth and freakin nuttz… obviously the citizens are caught in the middle and when forced to choose, they lose no matter what… choose jihad nuttcases, your a terrorist… choose the allies? your whole family is shot dead and left to rot in a pit because the US forced you to choose and then pulled back leaving them exposed and vulnerable… how many times have the US said they would back some insurgency against the enemy and then backed off and left them flapping in the wind, cut off and soon to be dead… like, oh i dunno, the kurds… saddam isnt the only reason they died, they mobilized and went offensive under the immpression they had help comming, and once they were fully committed some politicians decided it wouldnt look good in the next election and backed off and left them all to die…
i’ll adress the castro thing later…
Syn,
It’s really much more complex than that, at all levels, from day to day conflict to strategic level planning. Wouldn’t it make more sense to blame George Tenet, who told Fmr Pres. Bush that SH was developing WMDs? Or would it make more sense to blame SH, who admitted he was bluffing us because of pressure from not just us, but also Iran? Maybe it would make more sense to blame the ground level analysts, who dtermined that building X, with it’s activity and past history as a WMD site, was reactivated?
They weren’t “uranium tipped” rounds. It’s depleted uranium, which is mostly harmless unless continually exposed to it. I would attribute much more of the health problems over there to the massive oil field fires set by SH. The common citizenry of Iraq is also not completely innocent. They have sheltered and covered for the militants on several occasions, one of which led to an unacceptable level of brutality by our ground forces. There are unarmed spotters, unarmed fighters who only can be PID’d once they grab the AK-47 and start firing. There are militants who spur us into attacking one of their enemies. There are those who fire and hide in mosques, knowing either they’ll be safe or we’ll do something to get us on CNN.
The level of tribal and sectarian chess-playing is mind-boggling, and that’s small change compared to what we’re dealing with in Afghanistan.
[QUOTE=David Jamieson;1042431]..and is caught?
You mean when someone lets someone else know.[/QUOTE]
I don’t care how they are caught. My point is that if they are caught, they face punishment, not rewards.
[QUOTE=David Jamieson;1042431]G.W BUSH operated a dictatorship of the majority and never acted in the capacity of a democratically elected president. His actions in the view o many were criminal. In my view, his entire administration was criminal in intention and in actions carried out.[/QUOTE]
Just stop. The man was not a dictator, he was elected TWICE by the people of this country in the manner prescribed by our laws. Period.
And this may come as news to you, but in our country we don’t bring people to trial because their actions are viewed by many as criminal. We bring them to trial when there is a crime committed and there is enough evidence to charge someone with the crime in question. Again, you may hate the man, but calling him a dictator, etc is ridiculous and uncalled for.
[QUOTE=David Jamieson;1042431]He’ll pay eventually, as soon as America grows a pair.[/QUOTE]
Actually the next group to pay the piper is going to be Congressional Democrats on November 2nd.
[QUOTE=BJJ-Blue;1042446]
Just stop. The man was not a dictator, he was elected TWICE by the people of this country in the manner prescribed by our laws. Period.
[/QUOTE]
Second time was more of an appointment than an election.
[QUOTE=Drake;1042442]Or would it make more sense to blame SH, who admitted he was bluffing us because of pressure from not just us, but also Iran? [/QUOTE]
Of course that makes sense, because that’s the truth. Saddam signed a treaty saying he would allow UN weapons inspectors unfettered access inside Iraq, and if he did not, force could be used against him. He threw them out, and thus GW Bush did what the treaty Saddam signed allowed/called for. And don’t forget, Bush even gave Saddam time to reconsider as well.
All the talk about the CIA, WMDs, terrorism, etc really is moot when you look at the simple fact that Saddam broke his word and by doing so his country could be ‘legally’ invaded.
Is this pretty much correct Drake?
[QUOTE=Drake;1042442]Syn,
It’s really much more complex than that, at all levels, from day to day conflict to strategic level planning. Wouldn’t it make more sense to blame George Tenet, who told Fmr Pres. Bush that SH was developing WMDs? Or would it make more sense to blame SH, who admitted he was bluffing us because of pressure from not just us, but also Iran? Maybe it would make more sense to blame the ground level analysts, who dtermined that building X, with it’s activity and past history as a WMD site, was reactivated?
They weren’t “uranium tipped” rounds. It’s depleted uranium, which is mostly harmless unless continually exposed to it. I would attribute much more of the health problems over there to the massive oil field fires set by SH. The common citizenry of Iraq is also not completely innocent. They have sheltered and covered for the militants on several occasions, one of which led to an unacceptable level of brutality by our ground forces. There are unarmed spotters, unarmed fighters who only can be PID’d once they grab the AK-47 and start firing. There are militants who spur us into attacking one of their enemies. There are those who fire and hide in mosques, knowing either they’ll be safe or we’ll do something to get us on CNN.
The level of tribal and sectarian chess-playing is mind-boggling, and that’s small change compared to what we’re dealing with in Afghanistan.[/QUOTE]
regardless, they would be better off without the munitions having been there at all…
i know ive generalized… i feel i have to gloss over alot of points because it would just be soooo much typing to get into the finer details of everything… i dont heap it on bush the man, i heap it on bush the administration… and his dad… and clinton… and reagan… and alot more…
some citizens are sympathetic… alot dont even know the truths, they just fight with the people they are familiar with against the people they are unfamiliar with… but alot are caught in the middle… not everyone who harbours fighters and weapons does it by choice… not everyone recruited to fight does it by choice… there is alot of pressure from all directions… and many many reasons why any iraqi would choose any of the paths available to them…
and afgahnistan is different than iraq… alot of people see them as the same wars but they arent…
i was watching a news show today and there was supposedly this video showing militantys stoning a woman for being seen with a man… a large part regular citizenry of pakistan is outraged and are being very vocal about their outrage at this type of treatement… things are changing over there fast… people are seeing options they didnt believe they would ever have even 10 years ago… alot of youth is quite moderate… i watched a show on bin ladens old #1 security guy who left bin laden but still believes in jihad, just a different way… his kids watch tom and jerry… he doesnt like it but he tolerates it and realises that with globalization will come outside influence… the trick isnt to resist outright like fundamentalists feel, the trick is to find ways to apply your beliefs and principles to the changing modern world… and more and more people are waking up to that fact…
[QUOTE=Drake;1042447]Second time was more of an appointment than an election.[/QUOTE]
Lets not go there. He was elected as called for by the US Constitution, and this was backed up by the Judicial Branch of our Government.
And the second election was quite clear cut anyway.
[QUOTE=BJJ-Blue;1042451]Lets not go there. He was elected as called for by the US Constitution, and this was backed up by the Judicial Branch of our Government.
And the second election was quite clear cut anyway.[/QUOTE]
No, we absolutely should go there. The election was questionable. Would I put it past a democrat to have done the same thing were the tables reversed? Not at all.
[QUOTE=BJJ-Blue;1042451]Lets not go there. He was elected as called for by the US Constitution, and this was backed up by the Judicial Branch of our Government.[/QUOTE]
was it the first or second election where the republican judge ruled in bush favor??? man that was awhile ago, i guess i could look it up… my memory is fading… fukcin weed…:o
[QUOTE=BJJ-Blue;1042449]Of course that makes sense, because that’s the truth. Saddam signed a treaty saying he would allow UN weapons inspectors unfettered access inside Iraq, and if he did not, force could be used against him. He threw them out, and thus GW Bush did what the treaty Saddam signed allowed/called for. And don’t forget, Bush even gave Saddam time to reconsider as well.
All the talk about the CIA, WMDs, terrorism, etc really is moot when you look at the simple fact that Saddam broke his word and by doing so his country could be ‘legally’ invaded.
Is this pretty much correct Drake?[/QUOTE]
Yes, but as the only remaining superpower in the world, we had other options available. We chose in haste, and now we repent in leisure. In the end, the war was not worth it. At all.
And what REALLY ticks me off is that while engaged in a pretty much pointless conflict, we ended up ignoring the war that DID count, and WAS working. Instead, we directed everything to Iraq, and because of that, and because of the limited support to Afghanistan, crap like Wanat had to go down.
[QUOTE=Drake;1042452]No, we absolutely should go there. The election was questionable. Would I put it past a democrat to have done the same thing were the tables reversed? Not at all.[/QUOTE]
no doubt… to say there was no bias there is just rediculous… i cant believe how some people have been getting away with lying so often so much that they sometimes expect people to believe things that is basically insulting everyones intelligence…
clearly a democrat would have done the same and it would be just as rediculous and insulting… but a democrat didnt do it, a republican did… yall gotta live with that stain…
[QUOTE=BJJ-Blue;1042449]e threw them out, and thus GW Bush did what the treaty Saddam signed allowed/called for. And don’t forget, Bush even gave Saddam time to reconsider as well.
All the talk about the CIA, WMDs, terrorism, etc really is moot when you look at the simple fact that Saddam broke his word and by doing so his country could be ‘legally’ invaded.
Is this pretty much correct Drake?[/QUOTE]
I’m not Drake, but…no.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/17/iraq/main544280.shtml
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Monday ordered all U.N. inspectors and support staff, humanitarian workers and U.N. observers along the Iraq-Kuwait border to evacuate Iraq after U.S. threats to launch war.
So, the inspectors were withdrawn due to US threats, not thrown out. As I’ve pointed out to you before.
https://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=901399&postcount=520
But Saddam made a last-minute bid to avert war, admitting that Iraq had once possessed weapons of mass destruction to defend itself from Iran and Israel - but insisting that it no longer has them.
Which, of course, was true.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/feb2003/blix-f15.shtml
The Bush administration reacted bitterly to the second report delivered Friday by the chief weapons inspectors, Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, in which they declared that no evidence had been found that Iraq currently possesses nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.
US Secretary of State Colin Powell listened stone-faced as the reports of Blix and ElBaradei explicitly contradicted the basic premises upon which the Bush administration’s drive to war is based.
Their report was immediately cited by diplomats from France, Russia, China and Germany as the basis for rejecting a US demand for the UN Security Council to authorize military action against Iraq.
Blix cited improved cooperation on the part of Iraq in recent weeks, including the first private interviews with Iraqi weapons scientists and permission for the UN to operate U-2 spy plane flights across Iraq’s territory. Iraq was continuing to give full access to UN inspectors to visit whatever site in the country they chose, he said.
[QUOTE=BJJ-Blue;1042446]I don’t care how they are caught. My point is that if they are caught, they face punishment, not rewards. [/quote]
Just stop. The man was not a dictator, he was elected TWICE by the people of this country in the manner prescribed by our laws. Period.
he was placed into office twice by the electoral college. The people didn’t elect him. He really enjoyed his inaugeral egging too I bet. Lol at blind guy here.
And this may come as news to you, but in our country we don’t bring people to trial because their actions are viewed by many as criminal. We bring them to trial when there is a crime committed and there is enough evidence to charge someone with the crime in question. Again, you may hate the man, but calling him a dictator, etc is ridiculous and uncalled for.
Dude, grab a brain, they’re over there on the table. We’re talking about people who put themselves above the law and don’t answer to anybody, not even to the american peolpe and to this day do not do so.
Actually the next group to pay the piper is going to be Congressional Democrats on November 2nd.
yeah you figure thirty teabaggers are gonna make a difference?
Your country is a mess because the right refuses to do things within the framework of a democracy. The entire right has been usurped by fascists and morons for the most part and all they have is rants that are either racists, exclusionary or over the top with references to imaginary sky gods.
the whole country is a joke at this point and it’s the right wing goofs like palin and teabaggers and beck and their ilk taht have made america this strange curiosity of babbling fools on tv 24/7.
why do you give in to this superficial crap? lol ridiculous. almost as ridiculous as my givernment.
modern democracy is a joke. It doesn’t exist. It is absolutely nothing more than a dictatorship of the majority and there is no more representative democracy in North America.
get used to it, because as long as there is no unity there’s no real nation. just a bunch of states hanging around doing their own thing getting poorer and poorer, languishing in how it use to be.
Nice. Now we have two completely opposite, yet completely wrong, opinions on what happened. I say I give one of you a chainsaw, the other a katana, and just let the left and right have at it.
Kool-aid is bad, regardless of what color it is.
[QUOTE=Drake;1042922]Nice. Now we have two completely opposite, yet completely wrong, opinions on what happened. I say I give one of you a chainsaw, the other a katana, and just let the left and right have at it.
Kool-aid is bad, regardless of what color it is.[/QUOTE]
i get the katana…
[QUOTE=Syn7;1042457]no doubt… to say there was no bias there is just rediculous… i cant believe how some people have been getting away with lying so often so much that they sometimes expect people to believe things that is basically insulting everyones intelligence…
clearly a democrat would have done the same and it would be just as rediculous and insulting… but a democrat didnt do it, a republican did… yall gotta live with that stain…[/QUOTE]
Bush won EVERY recount in Florida in 2000, and every recount done in Ohio in 2004. It’s not a case of a judge annointing or picking the winner. The judge simply confirmed that the repeated counts were ligitimate. And in every State I believe it’s the Secretary of State who signs off on the results, not a judge. The judge(s) simply agreed that the Sec of States of those States had the right to sign off on the results.
You want to read about an election that was corrupt, look up Al Franken’s victory in Minnesota in 2008.