President Bush is a Weenie!
- Thread starter 1X83Z
- 64 comments
- 1,726 views
By not supporting us, France and Germany proved just how much they don't matter. So did the UN. If you want to talk about national powers that don't matter, let's start a thread on the utter ineptitude of the UN. By not enforcing their own resolutions, they made themselves irrelevant. So did France and Germany, and the other little nations that you think matter.
Nobody knows the size of the oil reserves in Alaska, because we haven't drilled there yet. The environmentalists haven't allowed it. So no, not a single person can "know" that they are insignificant.
Well, if you don't think actions in Iraq are evidence of anything, I don't know what you think evidence is.
Meanwhile, you still haven't provided any.
Back in March, the list of countries supporting the war included:
Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan.
That list has grown since then.
Yeah. Turkey was real cooperative. And you listed the United Kindom again. And I, for one, sure am glad to have Latvia on our side.Not true.
My evidence includes: the list of countries supporting us, the fact that Saddam broke 17 UN resolutions, the fact that British intelligence did have evidence exactly as Bush said they did, the actions we're taking in Iraq now (hospitals, etc, despite your claim that somehow our actions are not evidence), the fact that Saddam had banned weapons (chemical agents, missiles with long ranges, drones, etc), and more...this is all evidence.
Show me yours.
Okay, I found the current list of countries that support the war:
Afghanistan
Albania
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Costa Rica
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Kuwait
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Mongolia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Palau
Panama
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Rwanda
Singapore
Slovakia
Solomon Islands
South Korea
Spain
Turkey
Uganda
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan
Afghanistan
Albania
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Costa Rica
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Kuwait
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Mongolia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Palau
Panama
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Rwanda
Singapore
Slovakia
Solomon Islands
South Korea
Spain
Turkey
Uganda
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan
- 10,832
They have to rebuild the country. It is required. It is not a gesture of kindness. We also rebuilt Japan and Germany. It is in our best interest to not leave it the way it is. And I can guarantee you that is more important to Bush then the comfort of Iraqis. Iraqis are not stupid and know this.
UN resolutions? So you wanted to go to war the whole eleven years then, huh?
Show me the weapons.
You asked. The point is we're not in it alone. Are we going to share oil with 45 other countries? Are they all in on the conspiracy?
And no, we don't HAVE to rebuild their country. We didn't destroy it. Our attacks were incredibly precise and inflicted very little damage. We're rebuilding their country after the damage done by Saddam. So we don't have to. I agree it's in our best interest not to leave it the way it is. My point is that our actions are evidence of our motives--establishing a stable country, not pumping out oil.
What does this mean? Do I want an 11 year war? No. Should we have enforced our terms 11 years ago? Probably.
How about the unmanned drone they had that they were expressly forbidden from having? The missle they fired at our troops in Kuwait, farther away than the longest range missle they were allowed to have? How about the stockpiles of chemical and biological agents they had and haven't shown they destroyed? How about the biological labs, with centrifuge tubes?
Or, how about the possibility that more weapons are still buried and hidden in Iraq and we haven't found them yet?
Or, how about the possibiity that the weapons were taken out of the country before we got there?
Now, again, what evidence do you have?
- 10,832
What conspiracy? You obviously trust the government.
Yes we do.
Compared to what? Dresden? Nagasaki? It's a war.
No we're not. They had electricity and running water and jobs before the war. Saddam's damage had nothing to do with infrastructure.
There are a few facts and a bunch of maybes in that claim, maybes that Bush swore up and down were certainties He's the one with egg on his face. Not me. Show me the weapons.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
Jesus you're dense mile.
Give us more than 10 weeks. Goddam impatient ADD people can't wait any time at all for anything can you? It's a COUNTRY!!!!! Not a building. If there were weapons of mass destruction in a building, I would expect them to be found within a few weeks if they were there. A building might take that long because maybe they were hidden really well and it took x-ray scans or something. We have a WHOLE FREAKIN COUNTRY TO LOOK THROUGH!
and oh yea, this is totally beside the point!!!
Because we went to war because he didn't live up to the UN sanctions. He didn't SHOW US the destoryed weapons. He didn't PROVE that he had eliminated the weapons we knew he had. Maybe he's gotten them out of the country by now, but it doesn't matter. If he wants to uphold the cease fire agreement of the first gulf war, he HAS to live up to our terms. He didn't! Can you honestly claim that he did? That's cause for war. We have to enforce our terms or nobody will take any future terms given by the US seriously.
You're completely missing the point and it's because you have allowed your personal dislike for the president to interfere with your interpretation of the facts. Try taking a step back and looking at this objectively. Look at it based on facts alone. And remember that we've only had 10 weeks to invade, stabalize, and search an entire country for a few truckloads of materials. We may never find them, but that doesn't mean they're not there. You cannot claim that that last statement isn't true. It is not possible to claim that that last statement is false. Don't even try it! I know you want to, but don't.
Westside... you are totally correct.
and oh yea,
No we don't. Prove to me that we do.
Give us more than 10 weeks. Goddam impatient ADD people can't wait any time at all for anything can you? It's a COUNTRY!!!!! Not a building. If there were weapons of mass destruction in a building, I would expect them to be found within a few weeks if they were there. A building might take that long because maybe they were hidden really well and it took x-ray scans or something. We have a WHOLE FREAKIN COUNTRY TO LOOK THROUGH!
and oh yea, this is totally beside the point!!!
Because we went to war because he didn't live up to the UN sanctions. He didn't SHOW US the destoryed weapons. He didn't PROVE that he had eliminated the weapons we knew he had. Maybe he's gotten them out of the country by now, but it doesn't matter. If he wants to uphold the cease fire agreement of the first gulf war, he HAS to live up to our terms. He didn't! Can you honestly claim that he did? That's cause for war. We have to enforce our terms or nobody will take any future terms given by the US seriously.
You're completely missing the point and it's because you have allowed your personal dislike for the president to interfere with your interpretation of the facts. Try taking a step back and looking at this objectively. Look at it based on facts alone. And remember that we've only had 10 weeks to invade, stabalize, and search an entire country for a few truckloads of materials. We may never find them, but that doesn't mean they're not there. You cannot claim that that last statement isn't true. It is not possible to claim that that last statement is false. Don't even try it! I know you want to, but don't.
Westside... you are totally correct.
and oh yea,
No we don't. Prove to me that we do.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
let's see you've called me....
brainwashed, fanatic, extreme, dangerous, cynical, weak, self-righteous, and embarrassing.
I'm sure there are more, but I just went to that one thread where you called my political philosophy diarrhea and figured that would create a good list.
I don't get to call you dense? Even when you refuse to address my points?
brainwashed, fanatic, extreme, dangerous, cynical, weak, self-righteous, and embarrassing.
I'm sure there are more, but I just went to that one thread where you called my political philosophy diarrhea and figured that would create a good list.
I don't get to call you dense? Even when you refuse to address my points?
But Colin Powell stood up in front of the UN Security Council and told us point blank that Iraq had WMD, that they were an immediate threat and that they were the main cause for war.
And it isn't beside the point - it's entirely the point. This is the primary cause for war.
Here's your 'point':
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
Dick Cheney
August 26, 2002
Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
George W. Bush
September 12, 2002
If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
Ari Fleischer
December 2, 2002
The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it.
Ari Fleischer December 6, 2002
We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.
George W. Bush
January 28, 2003
We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.
Colin Powell
February 5, 2003
We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.
George W. Bush
February 8, 2003
So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? . . . I think our judgment has to be clearly not.
Colin Powell
March 7, 2003
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
George W. Bush
March 17, 2003
Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.
Ari Fleisher
March 21, 2003
There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.
Gen. Tommy Franks
March 22, 2003
I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.
Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman
March 23, 2003
One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.
Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark
March 22, 2003
We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
Donald Rumsfeld
March 30, 2003
Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty.
Neocon scholar Robert Kagan
April 9, 2003
I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found.
Ari Fleischer
April 10, 2003
We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.
George W. Bush
April 24, 2003
There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.
Donald Rumsfeld
April 25, 2003
We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.
George W. Bush
May 3, 2003
I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.
Colin Powell
May 4, 2003
We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.
Donald Rumsfeld
May 4, 2003
I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.
George W. Bush
May 6, 2003
U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.
Condoleeza Rice
May 12, 2003
I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden.
Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne
May 13, 2003
Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.
Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps
May 21, 2003
Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.
Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff
May 26, 2003
They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.
Donald Rumsfeld
May 27, 2003
For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.
Paul Wolfowitz
May 28, 2003
It was a surprise to me then it remains a surprise to me now that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there.
Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force
May 30, 2003
I don't know anybody that I can think of who has contended that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons I don't know anybody in any government or any intelligence agency who suggested that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons. That's fact number one.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - June 2003
The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his nuclear mujahideen -- his nuclear holy warriors Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. George W. Bush October 2002
-----------------------------
Clock's ticking, boys - and in the meantime, GI's are dying.
- 10,832
You say that like your opinion of me matters.
As your last few posts abundantly deomonstrate, it gets ugly and unpleasant quickly once the name calling starts. A regratable mistake I care not to repeat, and one you apparently didn't learn anything from. I'll leave you and your tag-team to ridicule me at your liesure.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
In waves of 1s. We would be there still even if we had found WMD anyway. So this point is moot.
Like I said, small numbers, not a big deal - small price to pay to UPHOLD OUR CEASEFIRE AGREEMENT. Which was the real reason we went to war. The primary cause for war. The primary cause for war was Saddams unwillingness to agree to UN terms. Bush and co. spun the war the wrong way to get public support. That doesnt mean that the war wasnt justified, even justified correctly.
I continue to say that just because we havent found them doesnt mean they arent there.
I continue to say that even if they arent there doesnt mean they werent there.
I continue to say that we were just in going in as we must uphold our terms. We trusted the UN to do that, but they proved themselves untrustworthy.
Basically nothing I have said has been refuted yet.
(Westside too for that matter.)
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
It matters to me.
Holier than thou when it's convenient eh? I didn't learn not to start a bunch of unwarranted name-calling from you. If you'll recall, when you started your rant about me back then it was me who would not get dragged in. I called you dense because you are being dense and I have evidence. My evidence is that you refuse to address my posts. You didn't have evidence to back up your name-calling fits.
- 10,832
Every point you have made I have addressed somewhere in this thread. My treatment of them is obviously unsatisfatory to you. It is blatently obvious this upsets you, while I remain mostly indifferent. And I won't waste half my day going back and forth, endlessly paraphrasing myself, just to watch your posts become increasingly hostile and presumptuous.
Sorry. You'll just have to fight with someone else. That is all you really want.
Do you actually think the amount dying per day matters? Come on. They're piling up. This is getting serious. The fact that you so casually shrug off the deaths of hundreds of soldiers really puts into perspective your viewpoint on the whole issue for me.
I agree, but how can the Bush administration actually get us to believe he had them and didn't destroy them five years ago? Hell, I no longer believe anything the man says. Look at vat_man's last post!
Especially when you don't listen to what your opponents say.
Similar threads
