President Bush - about bush

AltToWar · 2003-01-01 17:20:00

because the atrocities we are claiming as rationale for invasion happened over a decade ago.

soph · 2003-01-01 17:28:09

no, the invasion a decade ago was a justification for our action.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-01 19:28:18

Do I hear an echo?

AltToWar · 2003-01-01 21:55:04

no, the invasion a decade ago was a justification for our action.

So what exactly is our justification for the current attack? What has saddam done lately? be sure to omit things done a decade a go and see how far you get.

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-01 22:21:15

So what exactly is our justification for the current attack? What has saddam done lately? be sure to omit things done a decade a go and see how far you get.

Do you have ADD? Can you focus on the news for 10 minutes? We're going to go to war if we find that Saddam started his nuclear weapons program again. We're going to go to war if he shoots down one of our patrol aircraft over the no-fly zone. This war isn't about the Kurds, or the Iranians back in the 1980's; it's about keeping Iraq out of the nuclear arena and protecting our troops that are enforcing a cease-fire treaty.

On previous comments (pg. 24,25)

Soph:
Maybe the government actually does know something we dont.
Echus_Chasma:
They know much more than they care to tell us.
El scorcho:
The government does know more than they tell us. I admire Israel for the way they handle things. They tend to not take crap off of anyone. If I had my way, this war on terrorism would have been going on in '93 after the first WTC bombing.

el scorcho, thank you. I'm speechless. I've tried to express my sentiment about the Clinton administration and terrorism before, but you hit the nail on the head. God bless you...

And yes, I told you before, the government has WAY more information about Iraq than any media outlet does. I'll trust their information on this one.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-02 00:13:08

Um, it wasn't called the ?War on Terrorism? before, and it wasn't in the media as much as it is now, when Clinton was in office- that's really the only difference. Do you realize how silly it would have been for Clinton to wage an attack on Afghanistan? It would have been quickly considered a Wag the Dog scenario. But anyway, as I was saying, there really is no difference between now and then. This is why fighting terrorists tends to be futile. Israel is not getting anywhere blowing up crowds of people to get at a few terrorist. Those actions are only breeding more suicide bombers. You cannot fight terrorism with another kind of terrorism (unless you manage to bribe those you terrorize afterwards with many gifts).

Personally, I don't think Clinton did enough to insure peace. He should have freaking kept at it throughout his term in office, rather than going to the tables in the last year. I am confident there wouldn't have been any attacks had we made Israel get along with their neighbors.

And you're a fool if you think the government has information about currently made bio-weapons or WMDs, it's all speculation. If they did, of course, and we all know this, Iraq would be bombed to bits. That's what I find funny about this. The Bush admin. picks and choses who argues for them. There are inspectors (most notably Scott Ritter) who say that Iraq has no capablity, yet, the Bush admin. happily ignores him. Fortunately Iraq didn't, when he traveled there to tell them to allow inspections.

AltToWar is trying to point out, that while the inspectors have found nothing, and will likely find nothing, the mass media, and indeed, the country, is being told that we're going to war with Iraq every single night. Ever watch the national news? ?War with Iraq? is the new, irrational trend we're seeing. It should be, ?Iraqi inspections still going smoothly for the nth day,? as any sane society would portray it.

Iraq won't be able to shoot down our aircraft- we all know he's just shooting to show off- he knows he can't hit us, not with the technology he has. The only thing that could happen, is we crash our own airplane as per some CIA thought up scheme. And if you don't think such a scenario is plausible, you need to read up on the CIA a bit.

AltToWar · 2003-01-02 03:28:51

So what exactly is our justification for the current attack? What has saddam done lately? be sure to omit things done a decade a go and see how far you get.
Do you have ADD? Can you focus on the news for 10 minutes? We're going to go to war if we find that Saddam started his nuclear weapons program again. We're going to go to war if he shoots down one of our patrol aircraft over the no-fly zone. This war isn't about the Kurds, or the Iranians back in the 1980's; it's about keeping Iraq out of the nuclear arena and protecting our troops that are enforcing a cease-fire treaty.
On previous comments (pg. 24,25)
Soph:
Maybe the government actually does know something we dont.
Echus_Chasma:
They know much more than they care to tell us.
El scorcho:
The government does know more than they tell us. I admire Israel for the way they handle things. They tend to not take crap off of anyone. If I had my way, this war on terrorism would have been going on in '93 after the first WTC bombing.
el scorcho, thank you. I'm speechless. I've tried to express my sentiment about the Clinton administration and terrorism before, but you hit the nail on the head. God bless you...
And yes, I told you before, the government has WAY more information about Iraq than any media outlet does. I'll trust their information on this one.

I bet you $100 that we go to war mid febuary at the latest, no matter what the UN says.

The UN has turned up nothing. Saddam has practically rolled over onto his belly and asked the CIA to come in and show the UN where the weapons are.

With the troop buildup we have in the gulf, it would take bigger cahonies to pull out and admit we were wrong than bush has.

There is no evidence of a Nuke program in Iraq. Not one shred of evidence has been produced. We have no real justification for going to Iraq that can be backed up with solid evidence.

soph · 2003-01-02 05:21:02

oh, im sure they have something. and ill laugh if and when it comes out.

of course, everybody will say we framed them.

AltToWar · 2003-01-02 06:07:56

oh, im sure they have something. and ill laugh if and when it comes out.
of course, everybody will say we framed them.

1: If they find "Somthing" that does not instantly justify a war.

2: The administration has made false claims in the very recient past about Iraq.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-02 06:15:35

I hope you're wrong AltToWar. I like how Iraq continues to get more and more inspectors every week. Like, what, nearly 200 now? We can't rightly go to war as long as inspectors are there. You gotta pull 'em out, etc.

And if the inspectors don't find anything, I find it impossible to see how Bush would justify attacking completely and utterly unprovoked. The American people, and indeed, the international community, will not look upon such actions lightly.

At least, this is how I feel. Maybe I'm wrong.

soph · 2003-01-02 07:48:46

And if something is nuclear and biological weapons?

just because you dont believe a claim doesnt make it false. i think youd be very surprised to know what the government keeps secret...what they know that we dont.

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-02 14:42:09

And you're a fool if you think the government has information about currently made bio-weapons or WMDs, it's all speculation. If they did, of course, and we all know this, Iraq would be bombed to bits.

Who says we don't have good evidence right now? Who says we're not sharing with the inspectors and waiting for them to find it? Why would the government need to have the public on its side with information about the war when the majority of the public is already okay with war? It would be a sensless uncovering of sensitive information.

As much as you hate to admit it, the CIA does have a very broad reach, and has the best intelligence in the world.

AltToWar is trying to point out, that while the inspectors have found nothing, and will likely find nothing, the mass media, and indeed, the country, is being told that we're going to war with Iraq every single night. Ever watch the national news? ?War with Iraq? is the new, irrational trend we're seeing. It should be, ?Iraqi inspections still going smoothly for the nth day,? as any sane society would portray it.

The mass media is fundamentally flawed. Its purpose in our society is to regulate the government, but at the same time its a private industry that needs to make a profit to survive. It can't just provide fair-and-balanced news if that type of broadcast doesn't sell. It's a sad fact, but the only way to get "sane" news is if the public actually likes normal, decent news. Unfortunately, we're a nation of Jerry Springer type people, and I hope that changes soon.

Josh wrote:
And if the inspectors don't find anything, I find it impossible to see how Bush would justify attacking completely and utterly unprovoked. The American people, and indeed, the international community, will not look upon such actions lightly.
Alt wrote:
I bet you $100 that we go to war mid febuary at the latest, no matter what the UN says.

This is a point I've been wanting to bring up for a long time. Yes, we can't attack without a basis for it, but at the same time there is a window for when we can feasibly attack in the middle east. If Iraq can hide their weapons until April at least, what are we going to do? Send our bio-hazard protected troops in thick rubber suits into the desert to fight? All they have to do is hide their weapons until the desert heats up and they're safe until September. How can we possibly fight a war of this type in 120 degree temperatures?

And let's keep that bet at $20 Alt... just to remain friendly.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-02 16:07:53

Who says we don't have good evidence right now?

Scott Ritter, and common fucking sense...

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-02 16:11:13

Who says that Scott Ritter is the 100% right authority in the issue? And my common sense is that ANYBODY who had the chance to develop nuclear weapons would leap at it, especially if it gave them international leverage.

soph · 2003-01-02 16:37:56

common sense says the guy does, josh. thats arrogant, to assume your view is right because you say so.

scott ritter said they found anthrax tipped biological weapons back before they were thrown out. i dont know what interview youre talking about.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-02 16:49:41

I didn't say I'm right because I say so. Isay I'm right because no one has been able to refute the logic in what I've said these past few pages, throughout this thread.

Sure, anyone would want nukes, to give them international leverage, especially if it would avert certain countries from attacking (completely unprovoked, and all that). But can Iraq, under all the sanctions, pull such a thing off? And would Iraq (Saddam in particular) risk losing their power and wealth (as controlled as it may be) by getting caught with the means to produce such a capablity?

Scott Ritter is the only inspector who has cited actual evidence. The rest is hearsay, and speculation.

Why isn't anyone condemning Bush's outright misrepresentations about Iraq?

soph · 2003-01-02 17:01:37

Like what? The misrepresentations that you have claimed to be such? You have no evidence that they are?

And can they pull it off? Well, he built a dozen palaces. Funny how one day, "No, you cant look there" and the next "Oh sure, come in!" And those arent cheap palaces. Im sure if he went to the UN and said, here, i have a billion dollars, Id like to buy bread for my people, they wouldnt have stopped him.

We also have pictures of Russian garbage trucks that Iraq has converted into mobile missle launchers...for what? To sprinkle peace dust on israel?

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-02 17:39:26

Um, so you deny that Bush basically played Tony Blair with ?evidence? only for it to come the same day as compltely untrue? Do I really need to get you sources? I'm going out soon, but all it takes is an informed Google search.

It's not like I'm saying the speculation itself is invalid. But since they have failed to substantiate that speculation, I can't see any reason to be warmongering.

It's funny how these arguments go into circles. You guys can't help but bring up points you made on the first few pages. Like I said before, Saddam was just seeing how far he could go with the inspections, toying if you will. Iraq knew that the inspectors would get full reign. Scott Ritter said as much himself (laughing at the reactionary news reports that Saddam was hiding something). Saddam just doesn't want to be around when the inspectors come because he doesn't want to be assinated or whatever. Can't blame him.

soph · 2003-01-02 17:42:29

You saw a different interview than i did.

second, saddam wasnt toying. he used the months when bush was blustering around to hide the weapons somewhere else.

and i could find a source that says bush and saddam were having beer together last night...does that prove anything? the media can write whatever it wants, ill believe it when i see the context of the source.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-02 17:46:23

Oh, and BTW. I see no reason why Iraq can't defend itself from foreign aggressors as long as they abide by the UN. And as far as I know, mobile rocket launchers don't come into play here.

But notice your reactionary position... typical of a young uneducated American. The position that Iraq has wepaons to attack Israel... have you ever thought they had them, to... you know... uh... protect themselves? Where's the rationality in attacking Israel when you are 1) underpowered, 2) going to get one hell of a beating afterwards and 3) have a lot of natural wealth to lose? There is none.

Please, guys. Rationalize why Iraq is such this great aggressor. I bet you can't.

soph · 2003-01-02 17:48:21

Youre calling me uneducated because i disagree?

Jee, if thats not condescending, i dont know what is.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-02 17:52:28

See? You already have decided that Iraq has WMDs... ?he used the months when bush was blustering around to hide the weapons somewhere else,? and you clearly can't take another position, or at least a middle of the road position, even when you've been given common sense arguments. You pretend like you can't trust media sources, yet you clearly trust the mainstream, because that's the drivel that's being fed to you.

Cheney did ?have a beer? with Saddam, though (not literally). Which I'm sure we'd find funny. In fact, I bet we can show that Cheney actually had connections with Iraqi weapon deals back in the day (which could explain why the recent Iraq weapon admission was dumbed down from 10k pages to some 3k if I recall correctly).

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-02 17:54:44

Note that I didn't call you stupid. In the context here, I am saying that you are uneducated about American foreign policy.

soph · 2003-01-02 18:03:19

Actually, I dont trust the mainstream, or i do trust what they have, but its not the most current news. what you see on TV is old news.

Your "common sense" is not so logical to me. and vice versa, i suppose. at least on this issue.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-02 18:19:21

You need to form rational counter-arguments instead of just saying, ?I disagree.? Otherwise ya won't get anywhere with me.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#376 2003-01-01 17:20:00

Re: President Bush - about bush

#377 2003-01-01 17:28:09

Re: President Bush - about bush

#378 2003-01-01 19:28:18

Re: President Bush - about bush

#379 2003-01-01 21:55:04

Re: President Bush - about bush

#380 2003-01-01 22:21:15

Re: President Bush - about bush

#381 2003-01-02 00:13:08

Re: President Bush - about bush

#382 2003-01-02 03:28:51

Re: President Bush - about bush

#383 2003-01-02 05:21:02

Re: President Bush - about bush

#384 2003-01-02 06:07:56

Re: President Bush - about bush

#385 2003-01-02 06:15:35

Re: President Bush - about bush

#386 2003-01-02 07:48:46

Re: President Bush - about bush

#387 2003-01-02 14:42:09

Re: President Bush - about bush

#388 2003-01-02 16:07:53

Re: President Bush - about bush

#389 2003-01-02 16:11:13

Re: President Bush - about bush

#390 2003-01-02 16:37:56

Re: President Bush - about bush

#391 2003-01-02 16:49:41

Re: President Bush - about bush

#392 2003-01-02 17:01:37

Re: President Bush - about bush

#393 2003-01-02 17:39:26

Re: President Bush - about bush

#394 2003-01-02 17:42:29

Re: President Bush - about bush

#395 2003-01-02 17:46:23

Re: President Bush - about bush

#396 2003-01-02 17:48:21

Re: President Bush - about bush

#397 2003-01-02 17:52:28

Re: President Bush - about bush

#398 2003-01-02 17:54:44

Re: President Bush - about bush

#399 2003-01-02 18:03:19

Re: President Bush - about bush

#400 2003-01-02 18:19:21

Re: President Bush - about bush

Board footer