Conquer Club

President Bush should step down

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: He deserves his rant

Postby Iz Man on Sun May 20, 2007 10:16 am

Iz Man wrote:
Stopper wrote:Or more to the point, you live in what is supposed to be a democracy, so by definition, a significant minority, or for Bush what is by now a majority, will disagree with the choice of president.


We live in a Representative Republic.


Guis,
This is what was said.
Stopper said "supposed to be a democracy".
I said, no, we live in a Representative Republic.
That is all. The U.S. is NOT a democracy. Pure democracy is mob rule.
Was I being "technical" just to be a pain in the a**? Yes.
But that's all it was.
User avatar
Lieutenant Iz Man
 
Posts: 788
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 11:53 am
Location: Western Mass

Postby unriggable on Sun May 20, 2007 10:35 am

Nobunga care to pots links to your syria story?
Image
User avatar
Cook unriggable
 
Posts: 8037
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:49 pm

Postby Iz Man on Sun May 20, 2007 10:42 am

Guiscard wrote:No, actually... You have yet to give me any reason for why you believe your government would either:
a) Lie in their reports when they say there were no WMDs and no capability of manufacturing WMDs in the near future
or

b) Despite all their power and resources, and with a greater need than any other party to FIND WMDs and validate the war, fail to find any evidence whatsoever when some mysterious source you will not cite can categorically prove they were taken over the border by the russians or are still hidden under a rock somewhere...


Actually, we must agree to disagree, because both you (and I) are convinced of our side of the argument. It does not matter what proof I bring forth, it will be cast aside as "bollocks", no matter what the source.
WMD's were not the only reason for the ousting of Saddam. The U.N. refused to back up its own resolutions which Saddam repeatedly ignored. (another example of the incompetence of the U.N., see my post above).

I find it ironic (eh, Stopper?) that the left will tout the British & American gov'ts as liars when it concerns the evidence to the buildup of the war, and yet uses reports from these same "liars" to further the agenda that no WMD's ever existed.
Just like those that spout that Bush is an idiot, dumbass, bumbling fool, etc. When somehow this complete moron suddenly had an attack of genius when he was able to fool all the lefties (in the U.S. in particular) into signing on to eliminate the Saddam regime.
Once it looked like the war wasn't going to be over in 100 hours (like the lefties think how long a war should take, with no civilian casualties), those same politicians who voted for Iraq, now claim to have been "duped" by this incompetent, illiterate, bumbling foolish moron.....
If that is the case, then who are the real "idiots"?
User avatar
Lieutenant Iz Man
 
Posts: 788
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 11:53 am
Location: Western Mass

Postby unriggable on Sun May 20, 2007 11:11 am

Iz Man wrote:
Guiscard wrote:No, actually... You have yet to give me any reason for why you believe your government would either:
a) Lie in their reports when they say there were no WMDs and no capability of manufacturing WMDs in the near future
or

b) Despite all their power and resources, and with a greater need than any other party to FIND WMDs and validate the war, fail to find any evidence whatsoever when some mysterious source you will not cite can categorically prove they were taken over the border by the russians or are still hidden under a rock somewhere...


Actually, we must agree to disagree, because both you (and I) are convinced of our side of the argument. It does not matter what proof I bring forth, it will be cast aside as "bollocks", no matter what the source.
WMD's were not the only reason for the ousting of Saddam. The U.N. refused to back up its own resolutions which Saddam repeatedly ignored. (another example of the incompetence of the U.N., see my post above).

I find it ironic (eh, Stopper?) that the left will tout the British & American gov'ts as liars when it concerns the evidence to the buildup of the war, and yet uses reports from these same "liars" to further the agenda that no WMD's ever existed.
Just like those that spout that Bush is an idiot, dumbass, bumbling fool, etc. When somehow this complete moron suddenly had an attack of genius when he was able to fool all the lefties (in the U.S. in particular) into signing on to eliminate the Saddam regime.
Once it looked like the war wasn't going to be over in 100 hours (like the lefties think how long a war should take, with no civilian casualties), those same politicians who voted for Iraq, now claim to have been "duped" by this incompetent, illiterate, bumbling foolish moron.....
If that is the case, then who are the real "idiots"?


Wow. Bush Lied. okay. To make his argument impossible to go against. Nobody is going to say no to an attack when this motherfucker saddam with his pal Osama has the US in his crosshairs with nuclear bombs. How the f*ck do you say no to that without sounding unpatriotic? Obviously when we found out that nothing Bush said about WMDs was true, Bush had to change his argument. Freedom, motherfuckers.

You are taking everything liberals say about the administration, and you say it right back about liberals. Was it not Dick Cheney who said that the war would take six days, six weeks, but not six months? At least the democrats who voted to send troops to Iraq where not so arrogant as to deny that it was a bad idea.

Besides, how ethical do you think it is, to accuse people in the way 'guilty until proven innocent'? Because by blaming Syria of having Iraq's WMDs, you are essentially doing that. You have no proof. We may as well say Iraq gave the weapons to Mexico.
Image
User avatar
Cook unriggable
 
Posts: 8037
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:49 pm

Postby Backglass on Sun May 20, 2007 11:15 am

Guiscard wrote:I think staying the course might be one area where me and Iz agree!


George W. Bush wrote:"We will stay the course; we will complete the job in Iraq." - August 3rd, 2005


Lyndon B. Johnson wrote:"America is committed to the defense of South Vietnam until an honorable peace can be negotiated...We shall stay the course." - March 15, 1967


Our history of "staying the course" isn't very good, especially when our elected navigators have no map and compass.
Image
The Pro-Tip®, SkyDaddy® and Image are registered trademarks of Backglass Heavy Industries.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Backglass
 
Posts: 2212
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 5:48 pm
Location: New York

Postby vtmarik on Sun May 20, 2007 11:22 am

Nobunaga wrote:... Bush should step down! Lies! Lies! Lies! Bush lied while good men died! Etc... etc... Halliburton! Cheney! Oil! Where are the WMDs?! Where is Osama?! etc.. etc..

... It's frightening how little people pay attention to what's actually going on in the world. You signed up with your pals in the "I Hate Bush" club and facts become irrelevant. Just keep repeating the lines, "No WMDs!", "Halliburton is Evil!"... etc... and that will get it done.

... I dislike President Bush, to rather a large degree, but I refuse to sign on with the club and strap on the blinders. Here is some food for thought, eh...

... 1. Halliburton and Bush designed this war well in advance to take huge oil profits? .... No. The frightening fact of the matter is, the vast majority of Iraqi oil forthcoming has already been promised to the People's Republic of China, sold not through American corporations, either.
... It IS possible that this was the intent from the very beginning. China possesses enough USD and holds them ransom against the US to sway US policy. The PRC could crash the American economy on a whim, if they so chose. That is the problem with having so much US currency in foreign banks - esp. government controlled banks. At the moment, China is too valuable to the US in trade, and the US too valuable to them to actually see this kind of economic attack, but it's a huge stick (as opposed to a carrot) that moves US foreign policy a great deal more than anybody wants to admit.
... Halliburton is making a fortune on construction contracts, yes, this is true enough.


Honestly, I could care less about the whole "It's a war for oil" inanity.

...2. No WMDs! BUsh Lied! .... yeah yeh yeah.... Saddam did in fact have WMDs, and GW Bush was not the first to warn about them. Bill Clinton also warned us about them, as did Senator John Kerry, and hundreds of other US politicians. You see, we KNOW he had them because we sold them to him.


Why not use that line then? Just "My fellow Americans, the weapons sold to Iraq in a deal some 30 years ago by a less intelligent man are missing, and we demand that Iraq produce proof that they were destroyed rather than sold."

Then the UN would've written a nasty letter to Saddam rather than us. ;)

Reminds me of an old joke, "How did the US know Iraq had WMDs? Because they had the receipt."

... It was the late 70's and this upstart little country of Iraq was willing to fight those evil Iranians for us. We couldn't go fight the Iranians, in spite of the fact that they committed an act of war by taking the US embassy and hundreds of Americans as hostages... Vietnam was still much too fresh in people's memories and the very thought of any foreign war was absurd. So... the US sold Saddam the weapons to gas those Iranians back to Islamo-Heaven.
... And when the war ended, he (Saddam) used them on his own people.
... Selling Saddam those WMDs was not the best idea, and one that no doubt many have come to regret.
... It is pretty much known now that what remained of these WMD stores were trucked over the border to be hidden in Syria before the Americans arrived.
... But yet, the whole Nuclear Weapon scare was bad intelligence, I agree. It does not look like Saddam had any reputable nuclear weapons program in progress... though he surely wanted one.



So he had WMDs but couldn't hit us with nukes. What was he going to do? Build a giant sling shot and launch anthrax-filled balloons at us? The point is, if the war was about liberation, why not just use that as a case?

If Bush had come on TV and said, "Look, it's a Texas thing. This man is a threat to the world, and we're gonna go get him like my Dad tried to back in the 90s," he would've had me at hello.

It has all the ABCs of Spin,
  • Assign blame
  • Be adamant that your way is the only right way
  • Commit to your line


... 3. Bush's approval rating is the lowest ever! Well... it IS very low, and deservedly so. Interestingly enough, the new Congress has even a lower approval rating at the moment.


I don't listen to polls. I don't care what everyone else thinks, I only care what I believe. That's why the only times I have voted, I voted for a third party candidate.

... This should everybody, I don't care if you love or hate the President, this should scare you....
... Since 1822, in the United States Congress, dissenting opinions to Bills presented on the floor have taken the form of revised bills, to foster debate. These revised bills simply represent, "If THIS is what it looked like, we would go for it... can we debate this thing and find some common ground?"
... The New House Speaker has put forth a motion to abolish this activity completely. This, if it passes, will effectively eliminate 80% of debate in Congress. When your government stops being about debating ideas and finding common ground, and starts to look like power-hungry politicians doing all they can to cement their power bases... you shold worry.


I am worried, why do you think I didn't vote?

To quote Douglas Adams, "The people who most want to be in power, are ipso facto the least suited for the job."

I don't vote because people who want to rule over others are fundamentally corrupted at a very basic level.

Look at every bill that gets passed. They're all crammed full of deals and sales and transactions that have nothing to do with the bill at hand. They snuck the Real ID act into a bill meant for defense funding. Anyone who would then veto the bill based on that action would instantly be "against the troops."

It wouldn't happen if the Line-Item Veto wasn't declared unconstitutional. But, c'est la vie.

... And why doesn't anybody know any of this stuff? It's not on CNN, FOX, ABC, etc... It's not "In Your Face!" enough to sell commercials, maybe? Or maybe you don't even care. I do...


Because facts get lost in the crossfire and everyone eventually simply resorts to slogans to substitute for debate.
Initiate discovery! Fire the Machines! Throw the switch Igor! THROW THE F***ING SWITCH!
User avatar
Cadet vtmarik
 
Posts: 3863
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 9:51 am
Location: Riding on the waves of fear and loathing.

Postby Iz Man on Sun May 20, 2007 11:39 am

unriggable wrote:Wow. Bush Lied. okay. To make his argument impossible to go against. Nobody is going to say no to an attack when this motherfucker saddam with his pal Osama has the US in his crosshairs with nuclear bombs. How the f*ck do you say no to that without sounding unpatriotic? Obviously when we found out that nothing Bush said about WMDs was true, Bush had to change his argument. Freedom, motherfuckers.

You are taking everything liberals say about the administration, and you say it right back about liberals. Was it not Dick Cheney who said that the war would take six days, six weeks, but not six months? At least the democrats who voted to send troops to Iraq where not so arrogant as to deny that it was a bad idea.

Besides, how ethical do you think it is, to accuse people in the way 'guilty until proven innocent'? Because by blaming Syria of having Iraq's WMDs, you are essentially doing that. You have no proof. We may as well say Iraq gave the weapons to Mexico.


Ah, so the bumbling foolish moron manipulated you too....
I don't recall Cheney saying it would take 6 days. He may have, but it matters not. Saddam was ousted in a very short time. The handling of the conflict afterwards is where many mistakes have been made, no doubt. Which is why I make no claim to be a mouthpiece for the Bush Administration. There are many things that he has done (or refuses to do) that really piss me off. He is extremely lax on the border, his P.R. people are completely incompetent, and he spends like a drunken liberal. So I am by no means a "Bush can do no wrong" guy.

There are many reports alleging weapons were moved to Syria:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... wstop.html

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialRepor ... 0202a.html

http://washingtontimes.com/national/200 ... -1667r.htm

Now I know you may not want to believe this, as Syria is obviously an honorable, trustworthy nation. :roll:
Just ask Nancy Pelosi. :lol:

Just because you hate Bush doesn't mean you should put the blinders on.
User avatar
Lieutenant Iz Man
 
Posts: 788
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 11:53 am
Location: Western Mass

Postby Guiscard on Sun May 20, 2007 12:06 pm

Iz Man wrote:There are many reports alleging weapons were moved to Syria:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... wstop.html

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialRepor ... 0202a.html

http://washingtontimes.com/national/200 ... -1667r.htm

Now I know you may not want to believe this, as Syria is obviously an honorable, trustworthy nation. :roll:
Just ask Nancy Pelosi. :lol:

Just because you hate Bush doesn't mean you should put the blinders on.


Fine. We're never going to agree on the authenticity of the claims that they were moved. I know Syria does an awful lot of dodgy stuff, but I must say that these rumours surfaced before the publication of the government reports so, in my mind, they are overruled as transportation was something which the investigators looked into in depth... It was a matter of concern, it was investigated and proven wrong.

You still haven't told me why the government would lie about it, however...

No-one has, actually...

However many times I make this argument nobody seems to be able to tell me why the hell the government, with the most need of anyone to find WMDs, will not give support to these crackpot theories. Answer this and I'll shut up... Why does their report not see transportation as a viable option when they need more than anyone to find where those god-damn WMDs went and, in the process, create a massive boost of public opinion. We went into Iraq and he DID have WMDs... No more 'Bush and Blair are liers' or 'This war is immoral.' Why would they have not exhausted every fucking possibility in their investigations?

The answers are either that the government are covering it up, which makes zero sense, or that there were no WMDs in the first place.

Bush: We're going to war because Saddam has WMDs.

Advisor: OK. Our intellegence indicates that is true.

Bush: We've invaded now. People are a bit annoyed, though, so we really need to find those WMDs to show everyone we were right.

Advisor: We're having problems sir, but we think they might have been shipped to Syria.

Bush: OK produce a report that says we can't find them at all. Make sure it denies the fact that they could have been shipped to Syria.

Advisor: Err... Why? That would clearly defeat the object of the investigation... Should we not say 'We have evidence they were shipped to Syria' so that at least some of the public think we haven't lied?

Bush: No, obviously not. Lets just let it look like we went to war on a complete lie so that our standing in international circles decreases, people accuse us of imperialistic warmongering and the UN can sit smugly in their seats saying 'we were right all along'.

Advisor: Errr....
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
User avatar
Private 1st Class Guiscard
 
Posts: 4103
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 7:27 pm
Location: In the bar... With my head on the bar

Postby Jenos Ridan on Sun May 20, 2007 3:25 pm

unriggable wrote:On a side note, Dick Cheney called Donald Rumsfeld the best secretary of state the nation has ever had, the same man who said that we must give up liberty to gain freedom. Ben Franklin said that any man who gives up liberty to gain security deserves neither.

Ok, I'll bit. This is a good point, since Washington wanted the US to stay out of world affairs as much as possible. If the Founding Fathers were to visit us now, I'm afraid they'd all have heart-attacks because they're so :x mad at how we have stretched, twisted and compressed things. Time to reassess the situation a bit.
"There is only one road to peace, and that is to conquer"-Hunter Clark

"Give a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life"- Something Hunter would say
User avatar
Private Jenos Ridan
 
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:34 am
Location: Hanger 18

Postby b.k. barunt on Sun May 20, 2007 5:19 pm

Iz Man wrote:
unriggable wrote:Wow. Bush Lied. okay. To make his argument impossible to go against. Nobody is going to say no to an attack when this motherfucker saddam with his pal Osama has the US in his crosshairs with nuclear bombs. How the f*ck do you say no to that without sounding unpatriotic? Obviously when we found out that nothing Bush said about WMDs was true, Bush had to change his argument. Freedom, motherfuckers.

You are taking everything liberals say about the administration, and you say it right back about liberals. Was it not Dick Cheney who said that the war would take six days, six weeks, but not six months? At least the democrats who voted to send troops to Iraq where not so arrogant as to deny that it was a bad idea.

Besides, how ethical do you think it is, to accuse people in the way 'guilty until proven innocent'? Because by blaming Syria of having Iraq's WMDs, you are essentially doing that. You have no proof. We may as well say Iraq gave the weapons to Mexico.




Just because you hate Bush doesn't mean you should put the blinders on.
Would someone please explain to this idiot how much he sounds like xtratabasco? You guys ought to get together and hit the campaign trail yourselves. All you need is a phony Texas accent and a few bucks.
User avatar
Cook b.k. barunt
 
Posts: 1270
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 11:33 pm

Confession time

Postby luns101 on Mon May 21, 2007 12:52 am

Guiscard wrote:And Luns, will you STOP with the sarcasm thing. WE GET IT! They say sarcasm is the lowest form of wit...


...and yet it's used frequently by the leftists here at CC against political convervatives, capitalists, Christians, theists, Bush supporters, or those who believe America is a good country...so what does that say about your side of the aisle? One needs only to take a trip down memory lane to the Sanctification thread started by Abishai to see this for themselves. You were not clamoring for the sarcasm to stop then, were you?

Liberals here act as if sarcasm, cynicism, or mockery are their own exclusive domain. A conservative does it and here come the cries of "stop it"!

Guiscard wrote:We know you hate liberals and those who don't ascribe to your world view, but its wearing really thin and it just brings you down to the level of those who either pop up in threads and say 'America Rules, you all suck and are jealous' or those who shout 'Bush is an ignorant monkey who can't speak... Iraq is stupid we should get out now!' with no real argument. I dislike both those stereotypes equally, but don't drag us all into that quagmire. Some of us enjoy debating with at least a semblance of reason and logic, and I thought you did too...


I don't hate liberals, but I do hate liberalism in general. I've grown tired of the usual berating of my values, so when I saw the newest version of it here I decided to just have a little fun. Yeah, I'm a human being who has my limits. You've seen both sides of me, Guis - the guy who likes to argue logically and present points...and then the other guy who's had his fill of liberal hate-speech. I'll stop now as I believe I've made my point.

For the record, I agree with Iz Man who said:

Iz Man wrote: It does not matter what proof I bring forth, it will be cast aside as "bollocks", no matter what the source.


I did pretty much the same thing in the Who's the worst leader thread. I was given the good old "bullocks" line as well. Conservatives here are constantly asked to back up the sources for their beliefs. When we do, we're told "not good enough", "you're grasping at straws", or something to that effect...so what's the use if it's just dismissed.
User avatar
Major luns101
 
Posts: 2196
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 11:51 pm
Location: Oceanic Flight 815

Re: Confession time

Postby Jenos Ridan on Mon May 21, 2007 2:21 am

luns101 wrote:
Guiscard wrote:And Luns, will you STOP with the sarcasm thing. WE GET IT! They say sarcasm is the lowest form of wit...


...and yet it's used frequently by the leftists here at CC against political convervatives, capitalists, Christians, theists, Bush supporters, or those who believe America is a good country...so what does that say about your side of the aisle? One needs only to take a trip down memory lane to the Sanctification thread started by Abishai to see this for themselves. You were not clamoring for the sarcasm to stop then, were you?

Liberals here act as if sarcasm, cynicism, or mockery are their own exclusive domain. A conservative does it and here come the cries of "stop it"!

Guiscard wrote:We know you hate liberals and those who don't ascribe to your world view, but its wearing really thin and it just brings you down to the level of those who either pop up in threads and say 'America Rules, you all suck and are jealous' or those who shout 'Bush is an ignorant monkey who can't speak... Iraq is stupid we should get out now!' with no real argument. I dislike both those stereotypes equally, but don't drag us all into that quagmire. Some of us enjoy debating with at least a semblance of reason and logic, and I thought you did too...


I don't hate liberals, but I do hate liberalism in general. I've grown tired of the usual berating of my values, so when I saw the newest version of it here I decided to just have a little fun. Yeah, I'm a human being who has my limits. You've seen both sides of me, Guis - the guy who likes to argue logically and present points...and then the other guy who's had his fill of liberal hate-speech. I'll stop now as I believe I've made my point.

For the record, I agree with Iz Man who said:

Iz Man wrote: It does not matter what proof I bring forth, it will be cast aside as "bollocks", no matter what the source.


I did pretty much the same thing in the Who's the worst leader thread. I was given the good old "bullocks" line as well. Conservatives here are constantly asked to back up the sources for their beliefs. When we do, we're told "not good enough", "you're grasping at straws", or something to that effect...so what's the use if it's just dismissed.


luns, I fear that no matter what, it will never end. Some people just never learn. They don't want to hear it and they think that if they hound us enough, we'll cave in. Sorry, ain't gonna happen.
"There is only one road to peace, and that is to conquer"-Hunter Clark

"Give a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life"- Something Hunter would say
User avatar
Private Jenos Ridan
 
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:34 am
Location: Hanger 18

Postby Iz Man on Mon May 21, 2007 7:54 am

Thanks for expanding the point Luns.
Its really why I have waited to respond to Guiscard.
Once again though, it's ironic (there we go again Stopper) that there have been no responses to my assertion that the U.N. is worthless. Yet I keep getting hounded for more and more proof of WMD's. It keeps to this thread because its one of the big criticisms of Bush, and one that was pointed out here, that he does not bow to the U.N.'s every whim.

I even tried to "agree to disagree" on the topic of WMD's, which I believe is now where it should stay, as it will go nowhere. To no avail.

I don't think I'm going to discuss WMD's anymore. I would like to hear someone on the left come up with some kind of logical reason why the U.N. should even exist, let alone why the world needs its "blessing" for any action taken to protect oneself or others. It won't even abide by its own resolutions.

A worthless organization.
Last edited by Iz Man on Mon May 21, 2007 9:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Lieutenant Iz Man
 
Posts: 788
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 11:53 am
Location: Western Mass

Postby Iz Man on Mon May 21, 2007 8:56 am

b.k. barunt wrote:Would someone please explain to this idiot how much he sounds like xtratabasco? You guys ought to get together and hit the campaign trail yourselves. All you need is a phony Texas accent and a few bucks.


What we have here is another example of this simpleton's method of constructive debate.
User avatar
Lieutenant Iz Man
 
Posts: 788
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 11:53 am
Location: Western Mass

Postby Guiscard on Mon May 21, 2007 4:31 pm

Iz Man wrote:Thanks for expanding the point Luns.
Its really why I have waited to respond to Guiscard.
Once again though, it's ironic (there we go again Stopper) that there have been no responses to my assertion that the U.N. is worthless. Yet I keep getting hounded for more and more proof of WMD's. It keeps to this thread because its one of the big criticisms of Bush, and one that was pointed out here, that he does not bow to the U.N.'s every whim.

I even tried to "agree to disagree" on the topic of WMD's, which I believe is now where it should stay, as it will go nowhere. To no avail.

I don't think I'm going to discuss WMD's anymore. I would like to hear someone on the left come up with some kind of logical reason why the U.N. should even exist, let alone why the world needs its "blessing" for any action taken to protect oneself or others. It won't even abide by its own resolutions.

A worthless organization.


I wanted to move on to the UN once you'd given me ANY kind of answer whatsoever over my question about WMDs.

I'm perfectly willing to give those sources time, and I have both read and investigated them in the past, but I still come back to the fact that both governmental reports, which post-date the claims made by members of the Iraqi military and others, declare that, after investigation, this line of thought is unfounded. They are good sources and it is obviously an option which needs to be considered from the evidence they give, but I think that the CIA probably has more resources and manpower than you or me, or even CNN, in investigating the matter.

Answer me this one question and I'll leave WMDs well alone:

Why would the governments of the US and the UK, who both need desperately to validate the war by finding WMDs, rule out transportation to Syria? Why would they lie about it?

I don't want more proof. I'm happy with the sources you've given, but I just want you to answer that one question. I'll take any further dodging of the question as an admission that your argument is flawed and you just won't admit it when those holes are pointed out.

Then we can spar over the UN. Deal?
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
User avatar
Private 1st Class Guiscard
 
Posts: 4103
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 7:27 pm
Location: In the bar... With my head on the bar

Re: Confession time

Postby Guiscard on Mon May 21, 2007 4:34 pm

luns101 wrote: One needs only to take a trip down memory lane to the Sanctification thread started by Abishai to see this for themselves. You were not clamoring for the sarcasm to stop then, were you?


I wasn't involved in that thread. Hard to clamour for anything when I wasn't there!
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
User avatar
Private 1st Class Guiscard
 
Posts: 4103
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 7:27 pm
Location: In the bar... With my head on the bar

Postby parno4u on Mon May 21, 2007 6:25 pm

i like bush
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class parno4u
 
Posts: 599
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 6:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma

Postby safariguy5 on Mon May 21, 2007 6:27 pm

Here's the problem Iz, the issue here is whether or not Bush should step down. As we have seen, he really didn't listen to the UN in going to war in Iraq. So I really don't see how his general not listening to the UN is relevant here, because we are discussing what Bush has done and not what he has gone to the UN and told them.

Having said that, I think that the UN is good at getting multilateral support. In Afghanistan, the US is working together with other nations brought together by the UN. And frankly, the UN runs several other humanitarian agencies like WHO. They may be inefficient and perhaps underpowered to mediate disputes, but they provide other services that benefit humanity.

However, I don't see how your labelling of the UN as "worthless" justifies keeping Bush in office.
Image
User avatar
Captain safariguy5
 
Posts: 1449
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 9:42 pm
Location: California

Postby vtmarik on Mon May 21, 2007 9:22 pm

The only reason the UN can be qualified as worthless is because their edicts have no teeth.

The UN is entirely dependent on the US, if you don't believe me maybe you should visit their headquarters in New York City. If they were to align themselves with the World Court in The Hague, then maybe we'd see some progress. Until that happens, they're going to continue to be an international, glorified, blue ribbon commission.
Initiate discovery! Fire the Machines! Throw the switch Igor! THROW THE F***ING SWITCH!
User avatar
Cadet vtmarik
 
Posts: 3863
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 9:51 am
Location: Riding on the waves of fear and loathing.

Postby Backglass on Mon May 21, 2007 10:17 pm

parno4u wrote:i like bush


I too am a big fan of the bush. It's George I don't care for.
Image
The Pro-Tip®, SkyDaddy® and Image are registered trademarks of Backglass Heavy Industries.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Backglass
 
Posts: 2212
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 5:48 pm
Location: New York

Postby Jenos Ridan on Mon May 21, 2007 10:53 pm

Iz Man wrote:Thanks for expanding the point Luns.
Its really why I have waited to respond to Guiscard.
Once again though, it's ironic (there we go again Stopper) that there have been no responses to my assertion that the U.N. is worthless. Yet I keep getting hounded for more and more proof of WMD's. It keeps to this thread because its one of the big criticisms of Bush, and one that was pointed out here, that he does not bow to the U.N.'s every whim.

I even tried to "agree to disagree" on the topic of WMD's, which I believe is now where it should stay, as it will go nowhere. To no avail.

I don't think I'm going to discuss WMD's anymore. I would like to hear someone on the left come up with some kind of logical reason why the U.N. should even exist, let alone why the world needs its "blessing" for any action taken to protect oneself or others. It won't even abide by its own resolutions.

A worthless organization.


According to some I've talked with at length on the topic, the UN fails because the US is not doing enough or without their consent.
"There is only one road to peace, and that is to conquer"-Hunter Clark

"Give a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life"- Something Hunter would say
User avatar
Private Jenos Ridan
 
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:34 am
Location: Hanger 18

Re: Confession time

Postby luns101 on Tue May 22, 2007 11:56 am

Guiscard wrote:I wasn't involved in that thread. Hard to clamour for anything when I wasn't there!


I'll take it back then. Too bad...you missed another wonderful Spuzzelism.

My larger point remains, Guis. Sarcasm and other forms of banter are used quite frequently here against those who don't bow down and worship at the altar of Hegel, Marx, Darwin, Huxley, Engels, Voltaire, and Nietzsche. Let one conservative get up and do it for awhile to blow off a little steam and the cries of "stop it" come out.
User avatar
Major luns101
 
Posts: 2196
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 11:51 pm
Location: Oceanic Flight 815

Re: Confession time

Postby unriggable on Tue May 22, 2007 12:22 pm

luns101 wrote:My larger point remains, Guis.


That's what SHE said!
Image
User avatar
Cook unriggable
 
Posts: 8037
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:49 pm

Postby Guiscard on Thu May 24, 2007 1:18 pm

Guiscard wrote:
Iz Man wrote:Thanks for expanding the point Luns.
Its really why I have waited to respond to Guiscard.
Once again though, it's ironic (there we go again Stopper) that there have been no responses to my assertion that the U.N. is worthless. Yet I keep getting hounded for more and more proof of WMD's. It keeps to this thread because its one of the big criticisms of Bush, and one that was pointed out here, that he does not bow to the U.N.'s every whim.

I even tried to "agree to disagree" on the topic of WMD's, which I believe is now where it should stay, as it will go nowhere. To no avail.

I don't think I'm going to discuss WMD's anymore. I would like to hear someone on the left come up with some kind of logical reason why the U.N. should even exist, let alone why the world needs its "blessing" for any action taken to protect oneself or others. It won't even abide by its own resolutions.

A worthless organization.


I wanted to move on to the UN once you'd given me ANY kind of answer whatsoever over my question about WMDs.

I'm perfectly willing to give those sources time, and I have both read and investigated them in the past, but I still come back to the fact that both governmental reports, which post-date the claims made by members of the Iraqi military and others, declare that, after investigation, this line of thought is unfounded. They are good sources and it is obviously an option which needs to be considered from the evidence they give, but I think that the CIA probably has more resources and manpower than you or me, or even CNN, in investigating the matter.

Answer me this one question and I'll leave WMDs well alone:

Why would the governments of the US and the UK, who both need desperately to validate the war by finding WMDs, rule out transportation to Syria? Why would they lie about it?

I don't want more proof. I'm happy with the sources you've given, but I just want you to answer that one question. I'll take any further dodging of the question as an admission that your argument is flawed and you just won't admit it when those holes are pointed out.

Then we can spar over the UN. Deal?


Bumpety bump Iz!
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
User avatar
Private 1st Class Guiscard
 
Posts: 4103
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 7:27 pm
Location: In the bar... With my head on the bar

Postby Iz Man on Thu May 24, 2007 2:17 pm

Guiscard wrote:Answer me this one question and I'll leave WMDs well alone:

Why would the governments of the US and the UK, who both need desperately to validate the war by finding WMDs, rule out transportation to Syria? Why would they lie about it?
Then we can spar over the UN. Deal?

Bumpety bump Iz!


Alright alright Guis... :)

I've read the report now (well, parts of it, it gets a bit dry after a while).
It states throughout the report Saddam's desire to obtain & develop WMDs.
It also confirms the use of the same in both the Iran/Iraq war, AND after the Gulf War in 1991.
In the years following Iraq’s war with Iran and invasion of Kuwait, Saddam’s Regime sought to preserve the ability to reconstitute his WMD, while seeking sanctions relief through the appearance of cooperation with the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the UN Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC). Saddam’s initial approach under sanctions was driven by his perceived requirements for WMD and his confidence in Iraq’s ability to ride out inspections without fully cooperating. Interwoven into this basic fabric of Iraq’s interaction with the UN were equally significant domestic, international, and family events, all influenced by and reflective of Saddam’s strategic intent. These events can be divided into five phases that cover the entire period 1980 to 2003.

Then it goes into defining the 5 phases.

The report also states:
Many former Iraqi officials close to Saddam either heard him say or inferred that he intended to resume WMD programs when sanctions were lifted. Those around him at the time do not believe that he made a decision to permanently abandon WMD programs.
Saddam’s primary concern was retaining a cadre of skilled scientists to facilitate reconstitution of WMD programs after sanctions were lifted, according to former science advisor Ja’far Diya’ Ja’far Hashim.


And:
Baghdad reluctantly submitted to inspections, declaring only part of its ballistic missile and chemical warfare programs to the UN, but not its nuclear weapon and biological warfare programs, which it attempted to hide from inspectors.

Now here's a good one:
Saddam initially expected the sanctions would last no more than three years, and many Iraqis doubted the sanctions would be so comprehensive, according to several detainee interviews. Following unexpectedly thorough inspections, Saddam ordered Husayn Kamil in July 1991 to destroy unilaterally large numbers of undeclared weapons and related materials to conceal Iraq’s WMD capabilities. Iraq attempted to balance competing desires to appear to cooperate with the UN and have sanctions lifted, and to preserve the ability to eventually reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction.
These are not the only assertions outlined in the report.

Now couple those statements with this:
From 27Jan06:
An Iraqi air force general with information on Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction is scheduled to meet with Senators Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and James Inhofe (R-Okla.) next week. It seems that the Iraq WMD controversy is about to crack open once more. In a book titled Saddam’s Secrets, Gen. Georges Sada claims that Saddam Hussein moved weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) to Syria prior to the American invasion. According to Sada, two cargo aircraft made 56 flights to Syria. They were carrying “yellow barrels with skull and crossbones on each barrel.” There was also a truck convoy.

Sada is not the first person to make this claim. On 23 December 2002, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon publicly stated, “Chemical and biological weapons which Saddam is endeavoring to conceal have been moved from Iraq to Syria.” Last month, former Israeli Defense Force chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Moshe Yaalon, claimed that Saddam Hussein moved chemical weapons to Syria six weeks before American forces entered Iraq.


Now I will not deny what you're saying, I can't find it in the report, but I assume you're not making it up.
But I will also not deny my contention that they were there (WMDs), we did not find stockpiles (even though we did find caches of over 500 chemically armed artillery shells), and that it is not that unreasonable to assert that they were moved out of the country, most likely to Syria.

Can we now agree to disagree? :wink:
My apologies for taking a long time to respond to your legitimate question. I admit I had to do some research to give you an educated response. We can debate the U.N. if you like. I think it would be best to start it in another thread though.

Here's an idea. How 'bout Luns & I team up against you and (pick your lefty partner :wink: ) in a no cards doubles game in the Middle East? All in fun.
Strictly for bragging rights.
Last edited by Iz Man on Fri May 25, 2007 8:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Lieutenant Iz Man
 
Posts: 788
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 11:53 am
Location: Western Mass

PreviousNext

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users