|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Jan 29th, 2004 07:47 PM | ||||
| Abcdxxxx |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Pee Wee - rather then ask me what I know, go ahead and google the words "free lebanon" and find out what you don't know. |
|||
| Jan 29th, 2004 11:41 AM | ||||
| mburbank | Have they scheduled their actual election yet? I mean, the Loyal Jurgens or however you spell it hardly counts. Hey, let's makle the Pakastanis have an election after the big suprise military operation we're apparently scheduling for this spring. | |||
| Jan 29th, 2004 11:31 AM | ||||
| Pee Wee Herman | Can we ask the Afghanis? | |||
| Jan 29th, 2004 11:28 AM | ||||
| mburbank | I'm not sure, but we can ask the Iraqis sometime in the next year or so. | |||
| Jan 29th, 2004 11:18 AM | ||||
| KevinTheOmnivore | Lebanon is essentially a puppet regime of Syria. How "democratic" can your elections be with foreign troops on your soil...? | |||
| Jan 29th, 2004 11:15 AM | ||||
| Pee Wee Herman |
Quote:
Seriously, why do you want to liberate Lebanon? Show me that you know what the hell you are talking about. |
|||
| Jan 29th, 2004 11:04 AM | ||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
OAO, you're particularly bright for a guy your age, but your little tap dance with "language can't be perfect, post-modernism, big word, I'm smart, big word, I'm smart" shit is getting old. I think the last thing you want to do is have a discussion about language and who said what, because I'm sure Max alone has enough incriminating quotes from the Bush administration to keep you busy for hours. You're better off sticking to the "Saddam WAS the WMD" argument. It carries more weight..... Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
| Jan 28th, 2004 06:09 PM | ||||
| Abcdxxxx |
Kay's contradicted himself all over the place. You can pull quotes from him supporting just about any argument you have for or against war, and it's pretty much useless due to the source. Nobody commited acts of mass murder in Texas. When you make that argument it's almost as if saying Saddam had the right to posess such weapons. I do agree that if we're liberating people, there are some locales where people really would like some liberation, and Lebanon is one of them. With that said, I'm not seeing many "Free Lebanon" posters from anyone. |
|||
| Jan 28th, 2004 02:44 PM | ||||
| ranxer |
oao - If we were in it for oil, we would have lifted the embargo. Think, people, think. rofl the clincher to war on iraq was saddams move to trade oil for euros, the corporate american government had no interest in supporting europe or anything that didn't give them the edge so a lifting of the embargo was out of the question. i'd like to assert that a strengthening of the euro was a direct threat to corporate american hegemony making a move by the pnac in the direction of imperialist takeover almost inevitable.. twas a direct challenge by a maniac to a manaic and the second took him up on it. |
|||
| Jan 28th, 2004 02:42 PM | ||||
| The One and Only... | We agreed on the Patriot Act, didn't we? | |||
| Jan 28th, 2004 02:40 PM | ||||
| mburbank |
"I'm a fucking asshole!" -OAO Finally, something we can agree on. |
|||
| Jan 28th, 2004 02:37 PM | ||||
| The One and Only... |
How about... E) W. was wrong, but cannot be blamed for it because of faulty intelligence. But all of this is irrelevant. Why? Because I'm a fucking asshole! Do you honestly think I want to kill Chavez? Lighten up, folks. Lighten up. That said, I seriuosly doubt option E is correct. Because we would have to be pretty damn idiotic to go to war with a country that has nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. Putting a leader with WMD into a corner where he might just decide to go out with a bang is not any rational person's style. So what do I really think? Well, I don't think Bush is some evil imperialist scumbag. At the same time, I doubt he did this out of the good of his heart. I imagine that there was some sort of mix between the two. He's got to keep the neocons happy. |
|||
| Jan 28th, 2004 02:28 PM | ||||
| mburbank |
"I'll just use postmodern theoretical tools to point out that perfect communication is impossible, and therefore, you have no idea what he was trying to say." -Once is Enough Uh huh. I get what you're saying. You're being ironic with the whole post modern thing because you don't believe in it and talking theory gives you a chubby. But you're using that irony to support the idea that Bush didn't mean what I think he meant, which is kind of not how you use irony. That abuse of language aside, when W said: "There is no doubt the Iraqi regime continues to possess the most lethal weapons ever devised," W, 3/17/03 What do you figure he meant? By 'No Doubt' I guess he might have meant, 'I'm not totally sure but I think so. I guess I'm pretty sure'. Or maybe he meant 'There is no doubt this is what I've been told by people who told me they have no doubt'. Or maybe by 'most lethal', he meant 'most lethal except for other more lethal weapons.' I think I can give him that one, cause, like, if a pointy stick kills you, that's lethal, right? So a nuclear warhead in't reallly more lethal than a pointed stick. I guess what your saying is that when the President speaks, we both know it doesn't mean anything at all in any way, and he should be no more accountable for saying there was no doubt than he would be if he'd just said "Cow cow cow cow cow cow cow." Here are the possabilities as I interpret them. A.) W. was wrong about the WMD, which was the major reason we went to war. B.) W. was wrong about the WMD, but he thought there were lots of good reasons to go to war and he only played up the WMD becuase it sold the idea. But he really did believe there were WMD. C.) W. didn't give a crap if there were WMD or not. We were going, and if the American public could latch on to the whole WMD thing, so be it. It didn't matter much to him one way or the other. D.) W. lied. All of those options suck. Only B is tolerable, and only IF he says "We were wrong about the WMD, and we were wrong to sell that as the primary reason for going to war". I think B even might be true, for W. I don't think for a second it's true for Chenney or Rumsfled or any of the other actually smart people in the inner circle. |
|||
| Jan 28th, 2004 02:25 PM | ||||
| Cosmo Electrolux | uh huh...that's what I thought. | |||
| Jan 28th, 2004 02:10 PM | ||||
| The One and Only... | If we were in it for oil, we would have lifted the embargo. Think, people, think. There are easier, cheaper ways to make your friends happy than taking over the White House. | |||
| Jan 28th, 2004 01:07 PM | ||||
| Protoclown | I knew One Size Fits All was a pompous ass, but I didn't realize he was so gullible. | |||
| Jan 28th, 2004 12:36 PM | ||||
| Cosmo Electrolux | Bush and Cheney are both liars and criminals. They stated that Saddam had WMD's and none exist. The war in Iraq is for oil and to make Bush's friends even more wealthy. Prove me wrong. | |||
| Jan 28th, 2004 11:42 AM | ||||
| The One and Only... | Your abuse of language is pathetic. I'll just use postmodern theoretical tools to point out that perfect communication is impossible, and therefore, you have no idea what he was trying to say. | |||
| Jan 28th, 2004 11:39 AM | ||||
| mburbank |
Cheney said Sadaam had 'reconstituted' Nuclear weapons and no one even bothered to ask him what the hell he meant by 'reconstituted'. Journalists all went "Oh, gol, he used it like it was a word that had some kind of meaning. I'll look stupid if I ask." Bush said "He had no doubt". NO. DOUBT. As in none. That would mean that he was at very least wrong and might like to leave room for doubt in his future work, kind of like you, OAO. |
|||
| Jan 28th, 2004 11:12 AM | ||||
| Dole | There were SPECIFICALLY the promise of those two things by the UK government in the pre-war Iraq dossier, but they still get off the fucking hook because the Hutton enquiry is a complete whitewash. | |||
| Jan 28th, 2004 10:58 AM | ||||
| The One and Only... | There was no promise of an assault in 45 min, and there was no promise of stockpiles. I love to see lefties shove words down Bush's throat. | |||
| Jan 28th, 2004 10:40 AM | ||||
| AChimp |
Just wait until the globalution, Kev. 
|
|||
| Jan 28th, 2004 12:13 AM | ||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
imminent means immenent. "Only imminent if you mean not so imminent at all" isn't imminent. We were promised an assault within 45 minutes. We were promised "stockpiles" of WMD. If they're in Syria, why isn't Syria being pursued? Truth is, that's all speculation and wishful thinking on the part of the Bush administration. They misled the American people, not that it will matter much. They found more WMD in Noonsday, TX a couple of weeks ago than they did in Iraq, yet Americans still buy this facade of a war. But hey, we got Libya to dismantle a WMD program that was years away from any kind of substance. I'll bet the people of Libya are elated. When do we liberate them? I hear it sucks to live in Lebanon these days, too. I heard Iraq was the catalyst, at least that's what Thomas Friedman promised me.... |
|||
| Jan 27th, 2004 11:58 PM | ||||
| Pee Wee Herman | Please not that Kay did not define "imminent" with a numerical value. | |||
| Jan 27th, 2004 10:27 PM | ||||
| The One and Only... |
David Kay: "IRAQ POSED AN IMMINENT THREAT" Exerpt from David Kay's NPR interview: Liane Hansen: Knowing what you know now, though, did Iraq pose an imminent threat? Kay: Liane, I think this is one of the questions the American public and politicians are going to have to grapple with. "Imminent" depends -- it's a risk assessment. How risky are you to run? And in the shadowing effect of 9/11, it seems to me that you recalculate what risk based on the intelligence that existed. I think it was reasonable to reach the conclusion that Iraq posed an imminent threat. Now that you know reality on the ground, as opposed to what you estimated before, you may reach a different conclusion -- although I must say I actually think Iraq, what we learned during the inspection, made Iraq a more dangerous place potentially than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war. Hansen: Maybe we should define "imminent." Was it, you know, 45 minutes, a year or two, five or six, seven or eight? Kay: Well, it's quite clear, before the war, it was reasonable for people to think "imminent" meant "a very short order," because you assessed that they had those weapons. After the war, and with the inspection effort that we have carried out now for nine months, I think we all agree that there were not large amounts of weapons available for "imminent" action. That's not the same thing as saying it was not a serious imminent threat that you're not willing to run for the nation. That is a political judgment, not a technical judgment. [Emphasis added.] |
|||
