So George... Where's Osama? Hmm?

  • Thread starter milefile
  • 175 comments
  • 4,760 views
Originally posted by jay wilkie
just because the weapons haven't been found dosen't mean sh## .
Click to expand...

bloody hell Jay....what does that mean?...

i agree with Milefile, the whole pretext to war was the overwheling evidence of weapons of mass destuction and the imminet threat to the west...according to the white house....

of course it matters....people here are dying to see those weapons and hope that British and American lives were not taken in vain....not to mention the innocent Iraqi women and children...
 
Originally posted by Talentless
if we would have put that as plan a, turbo, why bother even going to the UN?
Click to expand...

with respect Talentless....i didnt know you were going with the UN...America made it quite clear that they were going to war with or without the backing of the UN and now that the UN are withdrawing from Iraq....whos fault it that?
 
listen milefile i understand everything is not perfect but nothing is... if george had done nothing you would then be saying "why dosen't he do something?" and when he does you expect everything to happen overnight.. when it doesn't you lay into him. i dont think you understand the magnitude of what has been achieved so far.. i mean c'mon an elite force?? this is no movie !! do u think its so simple?
 
i never said we were or had. what i'm asking is if it makes sense to use your alternative and also seek UN approval.
 
Originally posted by Talentless
i never said we were or had. what i'm asking is if it makes sense to use your alternative and also seek UN approval.
Click to expand...


err....what was the question again....?:lol:

you mean about the elite force?...i dont think its so far fetched, a group of 50 SAS soldiers could have infiltrated the royal palaces of baghdad undercover...or taken him with a sniper....

the weapons could have been found before they were destroyed and Iraq would be rendered unable to counter attack....


instead all we got were the biggest war planes, biggest ships biggest bombs and biggest army and blew the country to hell....

hell yeah, the american way..
 
Originally posted by jay wilkie
if george had done nothing you would then be saying "why dosen't he do something?"
Click to expand...

No I wouldn't. I originally accepted this war based on the Bush administration's spin. My opinion has changed.

I think Bush is as big a liar as Clinton. They both contrive words into convincing arguemnts, but always contruct it in such a way as to be able to deny it and be"honest". For instance. Bush now says there was never any link between Iraq and September the Eleventh. But 70% of the American public thought there was. Did they make that up themselves? Of course not. They got it from the fact that Bush melded the two issues together and never talked about one without talking about the other. He used the terms "terrorism" and "Iraq" interchangeably without ever saying what he wanted people to believe. It worked. Now that there are no weapons of mass destruction to be found and terrorism is just as bad, if not worse than it was, he can say "I never said there was a link between Saddam and 9-11."

It reminds me of "I never had sex with that woman."

At least Clinton was probably smart enough to orchestrate his own tangled web. Bush is probably too stupid to. I can't wait until next November.
 
Originally posted by milefile
I can't wait until next November.
Click to expand...

what happens then..?


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


who ever said i was egotistical?
 

Attachments

  • love.gif
    love.gif
    887 bytes · Views: 70
What I feel is this.

Those challenging the war are right to, based on the lack of evidence for its premise.

The weapons must be found, the possible strategic consequences if they are not are high.

WMD programs are not enough unless the weapons can be readied quickly.

But there are important moral issues, whether or not they are equal to war's direct consequences and those of its aftermaths may be subjective.

For how long can promises, statements of condemnation and debate be used in place of firm action?

Is it fair to defer to a suffering people to use their "option" of a coup?

Always remember that there is the hypothetical and reality. Hypothetically, presumably, etc., war will make things worse, but the state of how things are cannot be changed by perception. The issue is whether diplomacy is better. From a cautious stand point, yes, but diplomacy can fail terribly.

I don't want to preach for war, but I do not accept the implied, by the lack of equal criticism of the alternatives, that diplomacy has a great moral superiority.

It can take decades, give people a slow death, and result in letting evil leaders stay whom could, one hopes not, resume his evils after whatever collective will there was against them dissapates.
 
Originally posted by Talentless


For how long can promises, statements of condemnation and debate be used in place of firm action?
Click to expand...

As long as we've given North Korea? There's no question it had to happen. I agree with that. But the way in which it happened and the way it was sold to the world is dispicable.
 
It appears so, doesn't it.

I'm not an absolutist, so I don't put my moral problem with containment as the final determiner of policy.
 
Originally posted by Talentless
i just wanted to get the question submitted. if i messed it up, sorry.
Click to expand...

i understand what you are saying Talentless....the decision for war must surely be taken only after all parties are agreed that diplomacy and dialogue will not resolve the issue...its shouldnt be taken lightly...it is a grave and weighted decision.
 
well, quality of resolution is important, perhaps the most important. which will give the better result?

i commend you, turbo, for the way you phrased that. another version commonly stated is that diplomacy must be exhausted, which is theoretically impossible. your way disallows the inherent trap of exhaustion. at least, that's how i interpret exhaustion. anytime the olive branch is submitted, diplomacy resumes as an option.
 
Originally posted by milefile
Talentless: Have you given up on capitalization? Noooo.... not you!
Click to expand...


non-capitaliSation is the way forward....sooner or later you'll succum to my way of thinking...and also the twitch full-stop thing (can't seem to shake that off).....damn...........
 
Originally posted by milefile
No I wouldn't. I originally accepted this war based on the Bush administration's spin. My opinion has changed.

I think Bush is as big a liar as Clinton. They both contrive words into convincing arguemnts, but always contruct it in such a way as to be able to deny it and be"honest". For instance. Bush now says there was never any link between Iraq and September the Eleventh. But 70% of the American public thought there was. Did they make that up themselves? Of course not. They got it from the fact that Bush melded the two issues together and never talked about one without talking about the other. He used the terms "terrorism" and "Iraq" interchangeably without ever saying what he wanted people to believe. It worked. Now that there are no weapons of mass destruction to be found and terrorism is just as bad, if not worse than it was, he can say "I never said there was a link between Saddam and 9-11."
Click to expand...


Wait - the administration never linked the two, indirectly or directly, just Saddam and terrorism - and he was responsible for a good deal of that. Sorry - gotta side with the president and his staff on this one.

It reminds me of "I never had sex with that woman."
Click to expand...

My all-time favourite quote was "That depends on what your definition of 'is' is."

What was he thinking!?
 
Okay folks....


today a leaked report from the inspectors currently in Iraq looking for the WOMD have just hit the papers and the media...

(this actually came out last week here in the UK)

anyway...apparently, they havent found a single minute piece of biological weaponry or substance....they havent found a site that would have been suitable for such manufacturing and there is utterly no scientific evidence that the weapons every existed in te first place...

most people beleve that they did exist but were destroyed before the US invasion.....according to the experts, this is not so..

what now?
 
Thats all thats left to be done now....forget about it...

funny how the planet is not allowed to forget 9/11 but we are expected to forget about an unjustified and bloody war....
 
unjustified?? today a report came out that they have found a factory in neighboring Iran that contains all the chemicals needed to make womd. when asking the owners of the factory about this their answer was : "the previous owners left it here..." thats the kind of run around answers we are all dealing with, and it is also the kind of bullsh#t answers you would get from saddam ! come on guys and start thinking about what could happen if you do nothing about people like saddam, someone with so much power in his area of the world, who only lies and decieves people around the rest of the world to cover his tracks. all this paid for by money he steals from people and business who have their money in iraqi banks. eg. sending his men into the national bank 1 day before the troops attacked and making of with some crazy amount of money. i'm sure it was $700 million and also 100 million euros all in cash. what do u all think this cash is for? building schools?? hospitals??
 
there are no weapons of Mass Destruction...why dont you and your friends stop sitting under the table ****ting yourselves and face facts....

if the factory was in Iran....why invade Iraq when there is NO PROOF, acording to the weapons instectors yesterday, that the weapons existed even before the war....

if you think a country like Iran would help Saddam then you are one very misguided fool....and if i were you i would stay under your table quaking in your boots...
 
listen turbo smoke i'm not here to get into a little personal war with anyone, thats just plane pointless and childlike ! so stop talking about people sh#tting themselves under any table and try and grow up a little bit.. did i ever say that iran would have helped saddam? why dont you get of your lazy ass and look back at what i said? i said that it was the similar type of answers that saddam has given over the years... you say there are NO weapons of mass destruction... think before you speak .. how can u be so sure.. are you? 100%??

if your neighbor to your house started bring out of his car all the components one by one that where needed to build something, i don't know anything, a garden shed for example. would you just say to yourself oh he just wants to have the parts there in his house, for no reason... or would u think he wanted to build that garden shed???you follow? just let me know and i'll explane it to you if u don't understand .

if u are the type of person that would trust a guy that has murdered so many of his own people in the ways that he did then YOU are the very misguided fool... i'll tell you what if it where up to people like you ,who do nothing about their problems, we'll all be quaking in our boots one day (under whatever table your on about). i pray to god that we will always have someone in power that has a lot more balls than you !!
 
Originally posted by jay wilkie
(under whatever table your on about)!!
Click to expand...

the table was a metaphor to the american govt and media...i thought would would have spotted that...

no matter...

i dont start personal wars...i just talk my mind, some people hate that because thier not used to a certain 'freedom of speech' outside of thier own pre-defined boundaries....i havent directly offended anyone...my views may have but thats thier problem...

Jay were all friends on here...

also...i didnt say that there were no weapons of mass destruction...the inspectors said that, and i dont trust the former President of Iraq....he was a 'brutal dictator' and obviously needed to go...i disagree with the way the soon to be former President of the United States of America dealth with it and the UN and the rest of the member states when they decided to execute an unauthorised pre-emptive strike on Baghdad and missed completely...

Saddam is still alive...America is convinced and for once, i agree...

in doing so Bush alienated the UN, alienated the entire arabic and muslim world from Morocco to the Philippines, alienated most of his European allies including the British public, his strongest ally and Russia, China and India...three large nuclear bearing nations....

and all this beacuse America was scared of another 9/11...

am i the only one that disagreed with a such an inspiring piece of leadership?
 
of course freedom of speach is a thing that everyone should have.. and now the people of iraq are there too. if bush and tony blair had waited for the un and the rest of those other nations then i just feel the people of iraq would still be without that freedom today...

maybe i am wrong but someone had to start the ball rolling and bush and tony waited months and months for the un and because of all this red tape , if saddam did have these weapons, ( because be honest no one knows) then he sure as hell had plenty time to get them moving.
 
Originally posted by TurboSmoke
the table was a metaphor to the american govt and media...i thought would would have spotted that...

no matter...

i dont start personal wars...i just talk my mind, some people hate that because thier not used to a certain 'freedom of speech' outside of thier own pre-defined boundaries....i havent directly offended anyone...my views may have but thats thier problem...

Jay were all friends on here...

also...i didnt say that there were no weapons of mass destruction...the inspectors said that, and i dont trust the former President of Iraq....he was a 'brutal dictator' and obviously needed to go...i disagree with the way the soon to be former President of the United States of America dealth with it and the UN and the rest of the member states when they decided to execute an unauthorised pre-emptive strike on Baghdad and missed completely...

Saddam is still alive...America is convinced and for once, i agree...

in doing so Bush alienated the UN, alienated the entire arabic and muslim world from Morocco to the Philippines, alienated most of his European allies including the British public, his strongest ally and Russia, China and India...three large nuclear bearing nations....

and all this beacuse America was scared of another 9/11...

am i the only one that disagreed with a such an inspiring piece of leadership?
Click to expand...


Scared of another 9-11? I don't know if we are scared. If we were we would have acted more like France. We don't want another 9-11 but scared wouldn't exactly describe how we feel. I'm thinking more along the lines of pissed off.
I don't entirely like that we went into Iraq without backing from the UN or that we had no proof of WOMDs there and still don't. Frankly I personally don't particularly care whether they did have them or not. We should have finished off what we started in Afghanastan first before we went after Sadaam. Then onto Korea.(Make it a parking lot wherever their gov't holds up). After that move on any other country that harbors and supports terrorism. Russia would be a good bet for those who help pay for them and supply them.

One more thing. I see no inspiring piece of leadership in the world let alone here in the U.S. They are all scavangers out for whatever they and their cohorts can get. U.S. leaders suck. French leaders suck. Russian leaders suck. Australian leaders suck. British leaders suck. Palastanian leaders suck. Iranian leaders suck.....ect.

The point is that the world looks at the U.S. with contempt because we are the greatest military nation in history. The world fears us because they think we will set our targets on them next.
I don't like that that is the way we are viewed but that's the way it is. Our leaders haven't been of any help to change the worlds views but the worlds leaders haven't been any help to make us change our views of them.
 
... we went into Iraq without backing from the UN or that we had no proof of WOMDs there and still don't.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

We had the backing of a decade of UN sactions and resolutions for action against Iraq. Last time Iraq acted up it was up to us because the UN was too cheap to handle it. This time is no different. They say that they don't like iraq and that iraq should quit but then don't want to enforce. The US doesn't work like that. We mean what we say.

aaaaaand we do have proof that Saddam had WMD's and used them against his own people. That proves that he had them to me.
 

Similar threads

toyomatt84
President George W. Bush: Literacy Failure
Replies
15
Views
531
skip0110
skip0110
ledhed
Transcript of Bushes speech
Replies
6
Views
795
milefile
milefile
Cano
A bed time story
Replies
14
Views
685
Jpec07
Jpec07
Duke
Arafat's... legacy?
Replies
21
Views
942
Carl.
Carl.
Sauc3
The reasons why Bush's government is corrupt
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
Solid Fro
Solid Fro

Latest Posts

Back