Forums Index >> General >> Iraq is like a sinking ship: Should the Captain go...
@ Vash
In the situation you outline above, the common denominator are the intel services.
I was going more for the line of "we wouldn't have taken the fight to the enemy / we would have most likely attempted to negotiate with fanatical Islamic who want to wipe us off the map."
Rabban: hey! We agree! Lol
Chief: um, about your asking me to defend nationalization: I'll get right to work on that after you offer me a sane defense of its antecedent: colonialism....good luck!
I think gore would have gone after radical islam...so I believe he would have gone into afghanistan. In fact, I believe he would not have gone into iraq...but then again, iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11, and in fact, top brass types have been all over the news lately saying that iraq was a DIVERSION against the war on terror. Our true enemy....are we forgetting?....is osama bin somethingorother....and his band of scumbags.
Gore is not a babbling monkey. He's very intelligent. Here's my question to you: how can an intelligent person like you follow a babbling monkey like bush? He exhibits below average functioning every time he attempts to communicate. How does that inspire confidence?
Ps. Just read a report that said al queda's ranks are swelling....oooops, I guess we shoulda been focussing on him instead of bush's pet project...
Oh yeah: Chief, you offered katie couric as an example of the increasingly left leaning media??? Katie freaking couric? First of all, she's about as relevant to the media as is the show "friends". What the hell does she mean when she says she leans to the left? That she traded in her suv for a subaru? That she wipes her but on recycled paper? That she provides health insurance for her child's nannies?
I don't see her casting aspersions on the character of our leaders...i see her discussing fondue recipes with the hottest new chef from whereever...
Have you ever read/heard of the book by pulitzer prize winner, professor of journalism ben bagdikian called "media monopoly?" this book - and many other books - (and an excellent piece by bill moyers I saw on truthout.com today) discuss the general trends toward monopolization in the press...the increasing forces of business interests to suppress critigue and so on. Don't give me that liberal press crap...press is big business, and big business always leans to the right...with all the money hungry, war-mongering, race baiting, xenophobic, mysogynistic, gun toting, nascar watching, numb-nuts you seem to want to throw in with.
Ps. Nbc (katie's boss) is owned by GE...one of the world's largest defense contractors...don't think for a freaking minute that GE would let katie do a piece about their profitting through the sale of tech. During this war...they prefer her coverage on fondues...
Katie couric he says....
Last edited: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 at 12:22:31 AM
You crack me up stinky. Very funny.
Like a midget at a urinal, I was going to have to be on my toes.
Invite a retard to a picnic and you'd better expect to get drool in the potato salad.
Ooh goodie...sometimes my medication gets the best of me, and I miss my mark!
(just had an ACL reconstruction and im muching lots of "pain killers"....as my friend DA CLEANER would say "DELISHOUS")
Stinkfactor
(Picture a television image of Bush slowly swinging a pocket watch back and forth, like a hypnotist, and chanting)...
Osama Bin Laden
Osama Bin Laden
Osaddam Bin Laden
Osaddam Bin Laden
Osaddam Bin Sein
Osaddam Bin Sein
Osaddam Hussein
Osaddam Hussein
Saddam Hussein
Saddam Hussein
(P.S. You leave that nice Katie Couric alone. I've seen her colon.)
Last edited: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 at 7:44:47 AM
WONDER WHAT BUSH WOULD THINK IF HIS DAUGHTER WENT TO IRAQ IT MUST BE AMUSING FOR HIM TO WATCH ALL THESE GOOD PEAPLE DIE.
Let's get one thing straight. The American government does not want to establish democracies in the Middle East. We can't control democracies as they are driven by the people of that country. We can however , control individuals.
We ousted the democratic government of Iran so that the Shah could come to power and be manipulated by the US / CIA. We helped Saddam gain/maintain power in the 80's, we supplied arms to Bin laden's muhijadin to kill Russian troops, we continue to support the ROYAL frickin family of Saudi Arabia and NOT the efforts of Saudi citizens to establish a muslim based, democratic government. Why do you think most of the 9/11 terrorists were from SAUDI ARABIA? Because we empower the royalty there and keep the citizens from establishing their muslim governments that they want.
Now I realize that a muslim centric government is not a perfect democracy, but neither is our Anglo-centric Christian-based democratic republic here. The point is that we are directly responsible for the constant turmoil in the area, behind the scenes we throw gasoline on the small fires/conflicts that erupt over there so that the only stability over there, is our kind of stability, that which benefits the US.
Iraq should be the second wealthiest country in the world. It's their land, their oil, and had we not interfered they would probably be a democracy today and the wealth would be distributed among it's people. Read up on Americans travelling in Iraq in the 1950's.
Everyone was well educated, it was a democratic society very reminiscent of America, and then we decided we needed more oil and in steps the 'Coup department " of the CIA.
The rest is history, but you won't be able to read about the details until they become unclassified 100 years from now.
Sniper
@chief
"we wouldn't have taken the fight to the enemy / we would have most likely attempted to negotiate with fanatical Islamic who want to wipe us off the map."
You wouldnt need to negotiate if it didnt happend in the
First place, the denominator is if u choose to actuate
Or not, and deny it after.
(that is if gore was in office he couldnt say he did not know about it cuz
The previous office didnt tell him.)
Last edited: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 at 4:14:09 PM
@ Vash & Stinky
Sorry I haven't replied yet - have been busy with end of month. Great points - want to ponder.
You're right Treavis; Bush does enjoy watching good people die, especially over a bowl of fresh baby parts (from the local abortion clinic) sprinkled with the blood of illegal immigrants and Palestinians followed by a glass of cool, refreshing crude oil and minority sweat. 8o
Sniper: FANTASTIC post...where have you been hiding. That is hitting the nail on the head....bravo.
HELLO, this would have been nice a few years ago.
WASHINGTON - Al-Qaida is determined to launch a U.S. Attack in the next few months that could be linked to a major event
Thats nice of WASHINGTON to share information to the public of a possible attack,
This time.
No iraq to blame...
Good post sniper
Thats the ticket....too bad we only know 30% of the information and the media pushes the 5% of truth and makes people believe what the money holders want...
B
" There was then, there is now and there would have been regardless of what Bush did, a threat of terrorism that we would have to deal with. But instead of making it better, he has made it infinitely worse. We are less safe because of his policies. He has created more anger and righteous indignation against us as Americans than any leader of our country in the 228 years of our existence as a nation - because of his attitude of contempt for any person, institution or nation who disagrees with him.
He has exposed Americans abroad and Americans in every U.S. Town and city to a greater danger of attack by terrorists because of his arrogance, willfulness, and bungling at stirring up hornet's nests that pose no threat whatsoever to us. And by then insulting the religion and culture and tradition of people in other countries. And by pursuing policies that have resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children, all of it done in our name. "
Wow, imagine if we had elected a literate president...the one we have now is definitely a shit-flinging monky who has no idea what the word "faustian" refers to and worse -- no curiosity to find out.
What does he have? Confidence born of ignorance, the belief that he is serving god's will, and millions of angry, rich, fear-driven, or stupid americans who continue to support him despite the fact that his policies are now proven failures, and his visions for america are clearly out of wack with the constitution, principals of democracy, and the interests of the american people.
Last edited: Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 3:45:15 AM
For people who like things simple, bush is definitely your go to guy.
Last edited: Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 1:01:04 AM
Here's a challenge: quit seeking comfort in your news sources...turn off the defenders of status quo, Faux News, and try out a little skepticism...it just might save us all.
Ps. Just found a fantastic faux news parody
Last edited: Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 8:43:29 AM
For those who think we would have been in worse shape after 9/11 had Al Gore (and the will of the people) been elected...
Check out Al's speech at NYU yesterday -- unbelievably impressive. There's a guy with a head on his shoulders and good ideas.
nixon transcript just released
Nixon and kissinger transcripts released: they discuss their role in over-throwing a democratically elected - but leftist -president of chile....scary.
Read the last couple of lines...seems some things never change.
We absolutely must question authority...to do that, you need some skepticism....if your news is making you feel all warm and fuzzy inside....change the channel. Think. If the platitudes pres. Bush speaks in stir your patriotism....stop and think.
The neocons who've hijacked democracy these past four years are betting you won't start thinking now. Lets send these incipient fascists packing.
I miss democracy.
Last edited: Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 8:17:53 AM
Don't know if any one caught the Venezuela bruhaha earlier this year. Kind of scary
I just don't trust the current administration in Washington. I feel like they're perpetuating the cold war.
Az
Is it dead yet...
(as I poke at it with a stick in a jabbing motion.)
Man, I think its dead...no more buzz from the right...?
Ok...good. The right wing ideology operating in this thread was dealt a death blow. It could not stand up to the steady presentation of facts that tore away its foundations. Ideology is no match for analyis. It may be easy to repeat the criticisms you hear on fox news "liberal press" etc., but much harder to reconcile these criticism once the facts roll in. The lefties in this post demonstrated a strength not seen in abundance in the right: the power of rational, skeptical thinking.
I love it when reason prevails!
Whaddya think of this President's words:
"Together with our friends and allies, we will work together to shape change, lest it engulf us. When our vital interests are challenged or the will and conscience of the international community is defied, we will act with peaceful diplomacy whenever possible, with force when necessary. "
Heh heh
His usage of "together" is redundant. I guess his ideas of "the possible" and "the necessary" is vastly different from mine...is he saying oil is a "vital" interest?
That was from Clinton, his inaugural address.
Last edited: Friday, May 28, 2004 at 4:55:09 AM
Well, what's your point? His actions were different from bush's...though they both use the same jargon...i assumed since you said it was bush, it was back-peddaling toward the idea of building international consensus to deal with iraq...
But, since when did bush ever give a shit about consensus building? Home or abroad...the ultimate unilateralist.
But it being clinton doesn't change my question: is he saying oil is a "vital" interents?
On second reading, I completely misread you jj...you never implied it was bush...i just read it that way...like bush was backpeddaling toward the ol US policy of international consensus....coming from clinton...it has to be read differently...not so much as subterfuge as literal....
Sorry
From Al Gore's recent speech:
"The unpleasant truth is that President Bush's utter incompetence has made the world a far more dangerous place and dramatically increased the threat of terrorism against the United States. Just yesterday, the International Institute of Strategic Studies reported that the Iraq conflict" has arguable focused the energies and resources of Al Qaeda and its followers while diluting those of the global counterterrorism coalition." The ISS said that in the wake of the war in Iraq Al Qaeda now has more than 18,000 potential terrorists scattered around the world and the war in Iraq is swelling its ranks."
Great strategy you incompetent monkey.
Stink, just for the record, I don't have television access, so I can't watch ANY news. What I do get I gleen from the Internet.
Al sez...
Stirring up hornet's nests that pose no threat whatsoever to us.
No threat whatsoever?
As for the search for WMD...
Now do you think Saddam only had the one shell?
Now I would like to know what 44 recommends we do. Of course the terrorists are going to get fired up and gain recruits, but that doens't mean they're going to be successful in their attacks (but it does give them more chances to succeed). But had Bush done nothing to "stir the hornets", we still would have be under a threat of attack from the terrorists that already hated America. It doesn't really matter how many there where. Wasn't there just 20 directly involved in pulling off 9-11? So far, only 2 guys have stood trial for the Oklahoma City bombing.
What concerns me is another article I read at the World Tribune. US diverted
While Saddam's intentions may have been thwarted, North Korea and Iran are still developing nuclear capabilities.
This is the Dems chance to sway me. Tell me what you propose to do rather than telling me what Bush did wrong. 20/20 hindsight is easy and so is name calling.
Now I would like to know what 44 recommends we do.
1. Capitalize on the support (since squandered) of the world to build a strong coalition
2. Avoid attacking a country like Iraq under false pretenses that you are fighting a war on terrorism.
3. Partner with (instead of enrage) average muslims in a shared fight
4. Seek and destroy the roots of radical islamic ideology (there are many -- some require guns and bombs to fight; others dollars and aid)
5. Place decision making authority in the hands of a commander in chief with intellectual curiosity and competence.
That's where I'd start.
What next?
1. Show the world that the average american rejects the strategies of our past administration by not re-electing Bush.
2. Make a fresh start at building a coalition with apologies for the mistakes of our recent past.
3. Allow true democracy to flourish in Iraq by permitting elections that truly reflect the will of the people (whatever that may bring)
4. Gradually relinquish decision making authority in Iraq to the U.N.
5. Re-engage the Israeli-Palestinian peace process with less Israeli bias.
6. Work to re-establish our image in the world as a righteous nation
7. Go after radical islamic ideology and real terrorists with fervor and international support.
8. Promote democracy and freedom throughout the middle-east.
Fukin aye, I nominate 44 fo PRESIDENT.
Only if we had a candidate that spoke his
Mind with out fear of loosing some votes.
Better yet bushy sould be allowed a second
Chance, after successful graduation of the school
Of 44 university...
@rabbin of course the gop wants everyone to think
It was a just cause for killing 800(+) of our own, and
The reason they are dead was because we let them
Fool us (not all of us), now that same information
They used for war, are now using for there defense.
Also they always known about the wmd's we gave them
To iraq (iran, iraq war), I think the reason we went there was
Because iraq was trying to develop more and advanced their wmd's.
No evidence of that yet...
I wanna move to the UsA to vote bubush and save the world. %)
All hail 44...
Very nice, very nice. And why we're at it, lets re-examine our relationship with saudi arabia...i know they are in deep with the bush family....but they have an absolutely horrendous human rights record. Helping bring parity to the israeli/palestinian conflict with give us tremendous credibility...
Also add: seek to develop viable alternative fuel sources....so we lesson our dependency on the mid-east
Rabban: good post. A couple of points...terrorism has roots...this may be hard for you to accept. We've brought alot of this onto ourselves...peruse this thread for the incredible amount of US intervention in the middle-east that was not "people friendly" and don't forget israel-palestine...our bias is so painfully obvious, and we've lost the ability to regulate the israelis at all ever since we engaged in our "preempitive war". Now, the israelis use our rationale any time it suits their needs. The palestinians and their plight are a symbol for the attitudes of the west toward the islamic world...more cynical bastards...saddam and bin laden....use this symbol to recruit more disenfranchized militants...even though, I doubt they give much of a shit about the palestinians.
Korea and iran are a problem...we need to look at those places intently....with an international body.
Sarin gass...easy to develop, so, are they sure it was there before? We know he used it before...also easy to hide...remember when that nutjob used sarin to kill abunch of folks here in japan in the subways? Frightening. Remember, some of those foreign militants could be bringing in some nasty stuff too...but it could be part of a stock pile. But sarin, as I said, is easy to develop. Kinda low on the weapons of mass destruction list.
Hindsight is 20/20...but what is foresight? Remember, bush brought this attack iraq agenda in with him...it did not develop out of 9/11....9/11 allowed him to prey on people's fear and anger, to promote the neo-con agenda of establishing a mighty us presence in the area (which they felt would help stabilize the region...and it didn't...which is why...you need to use established, rigorous protocols to test your theories, and consult actual military experts before putting them in place...remember, bush kept most of his staff, most of the military minds out of the loop when he planned this mess...which is why the colin powell split occured, which is why you hear the grumbling from the military about how much they all despise rumsfeld, and wolfowitz).
For the record, I don't have tv either...and im not a democrat!...and I would have voted for mccaine, if given the chance!
Anyway, great posts 44 and rabban.
Last edited: Friday, May 28, 2004 at 8:23:05 PM
Stinky for V.P.
9. Lessen ties to the Saudi royal family
10. Promote alternative energy sources and environmental responsibility (get back into Kyoto and apologize again)
I'd happily serve. Hillary for VP. Stink would you be my Karl Rove?
I'd ask Bill and Hillary to help us with the ceremonial exit of the departing president. Would it be wrong to 'accidentally' trip Bush as we were walking him down the steps of the white house?
@44
Just, if u do...
One word:
Pastry. :)
I'd make a great karl rove! Typical, your fondness for lesbians sways your choice of V.P.!!!
Hey, who we gonna bomb first? I got a long list of threats....lets get em.
I say we bomb the japanese. They eat too much seafood XD (no offense meant)
I have credible, but non-specific, information that the Canadians are trying to buy aluminum tubes for use in developing weapons-grade plutonium. Further, they have mobile weapons labs and strong ties to Al Qaeda.
We could eliminate a terrorist threat and help control a large portion of the world's syrup supply.
Very wit-tah, 44.
This thread is so much fun. Saying something Republican here is like throwing a rock at a hornet's nest. Out comes Stinky, 44, and Tally buzzing.
Here's a rock: Voters are watching the heckling by the Dems right now. If they don't do more positive contributing soon then it will be backlash city. And there will be Republican control, locked down tight continuing. Nothing irritates the average person more than someone or some group or organization taking advantage of others in difficult situations for the sole purpose of boosting their own future. Ah, did I say future?
Hey, hear the one about the bumper stick that reads "Run, Hillary, Run!"? The Democrats put it on the back bumper and the Republicans put on the front...
Last edited: Monday, May 31, 2004 at 2:47:37 PM
@JJ
Bumper sticker joke is funny.
I think your comment about potential backlash has some merit. This election is going to be decided by the 5-10% of voters who are independent/undecided. Both the republicans and the democrats have their bases locked up firmly. The battle for both campaigns is to sway the middle. Too much negativity could push the middle away from the Democrats.
However, I like the aggressiveness of the attacks on Bush. I think they are well justified and keep the Republican party on it's heels -- responding to, as opposed to setting, the agenda.
Kerry is doing a good job of playing rope-a-dope right now while those around him throw the punches. I think it's too early for him to be offering specifics on what he would do differently (too much risk of a surprise between now and November).
I expect him to continue to try to weaken Bush's support until the later rounds and then come on strong in the end with a lot of well-thought, positive messages.
It's still so, so early, and any thing can happen to flip things quickly. Osama Bin Laden captured. Some big successes with power transition in Iraq, a big terrorist attack at home, etc., etc.
I hate Bush and really want to see him lose. I'm contributing to MoveOn.org. I like Kerry.
But, I wouldn't bet against Bush.
@jj
I didn't know that the war in iraq has gotten so bad that the republicans would turn on bush and support hillary, things r worse than I thought...
@44
I have to confess that I like the criticism too.
An irritation for me with the Bush administration is the tendency to be uninformative in critical situations, an occasional and typical conservative problem. Donald Rumsfeld is someone I would have booted a long time ago, just because of his arrogance. He seldom looks at the camera during TV interviews. I have always wondered if he is trying to make it appear that he is sneering at the reporters. He could just put out one-line statements: "You don't know how complicated this is, so don't ask questions, stupid."
I miss James Baker. I like Colin Powell.
Of course, then there is the liberal ability to be truly informative, but always confuse the issues. XD
PS: Please put a copy of your post about invading Canada over on daisy duke's Canada thread.
Last edited: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 at 12:51:48 AM
@JJ
It was a typical week in the life of the Bush reelection machine.
Last Monday in Little Rock, Vice President Cheney said Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry "has questioned whether the war on terror is really a war at all" and said the senator from Massachusetts "promised to repeal most of the Bush tax cuts within his first 100 days in office."
On Tuesday, President Bush's campaign began airing an ad saying Kerry would scrap wiretaps that are needed to hunt terrorists.
The same day, the Bush campaign charged in a memo sent to reporters and through surrogates that Kerry wants to raise the gasoline tax by 50 cents.
On Wednesday and Thursday, as Kerry campaigned in Seattle, he was greeted by another Bush ad alleging that Kerry now opposes education changes that he supported in 2001.
The charges were all tough, serious -- and wrong, or at least highly misleading. Kerry did not question the war on terrorism, has proposed repealing tax cuts only for those earning more than $200,000, supports wiretaps, has not endorsed a 50-cent gasoline tax increase in 10 years, and continues to support the education changes, albeit with modifications.
Scholars and political strategists say the ferocious Bush assault on Kerry this spring has been extraordinary, both for the volume of attacks and for the liberties the president and his campaign have taken with the facts. Though stretching the truth is hardly new in a political campaign, they say the volume of negative charges is unprecedented -- both in speeches and in advertising.
Three-quarters of the ads aired by Bush's campaign have been attacks on Kerry. Bush so far has aired 49,050 negative ads in the top 100 markets, or 75 percent of his advertising. Kerry has run 13,336 negative ads -- or 27 percent of his total.
Interesting perspective, huh?
Full article at: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5100453/
Last edited: Monday, May 31, 2004 at 5:34:55 PM
@jj
I didn't know that the war in iraq has gotten so bad that the republicans would turn on bush and support hillary, things r worse than I thought...
Do u get it j. Funny yes no.
WOW
Bush so far has aired 49,050 negative ads in the top 100 markets, or 75 percent of his advertising. Kerry has run 13,336 negative ads -- or 27 percent of his total.
Nice info fo fo...
This thread has been locked
I was all for going into Iraq and ousting the evil dictator Saddam Hussein, but I think enough is enough. We got him out of there and need to stop getting our boys/girls killed! All over what? A God forsaken rat infested dessert that will never change! I think the UN (along with the USA) should help with rebuilding this nightmare region, but we have to get our arses out of there!
If we insist on staying there, then we need to send enough force in order to make the place stable enough for our troops and the people living there! Doing this half-assed is insane!!!
Will this cost Bush in the elections? Should it?