Why DID Bush go to war?

[LogicaLunatic]

"with the "try again." real asshol-ish"

I never denied that I am, in fact, an asshole.

[Comrade]

How can I rebut things that you misunderstood in the first place? Fine, I will go through, and point out my opinions...

Originally posted by Scribbler1, True, Iraq lost a dictator.  The world is full of them, but we chose Iraq and fabricated evidence of WMD.  Spin it anyway you like but I kinda trust my own eyes and ears.  I saw Powell at the UN and heard Bush's speeches (among other things) and the focus was on WMD's and the danger to US by Iraq.  What came later was different, period. Bush lied about WMDs. Sure. I believed him when he first said it, and I supported us going in. It has since been proven that Saddam has no WMDs. So, had I known he had no WMDs, I wouldn'tve supported us going in, in the first place. But now that we are in, it would be wrong to just leave. If a vast majority of Iraqis said, "We got things now, leave please," I'd be fine with that. Terrorists lost someone who gave them moral support?  We invaded a soverign country and lost many lives on both sides because someone gave them moral support?  I think we'd take away more moral support if we bombed France and all the terrorist sympathizers there.  Besides, you have ZERO evidence that the terrorists (which is too general a term anyway) have derived any moral support from Saddan Hussein or have been in any way DEmoralized by his removal.  This weak bullshit always comes out when Bush supporters don't have anything factual to offer. What's wrong with being glad that someone who told terrorists it was okay to hate America isn't doing that anymore? He paid money to Palestinian suicide bombers, I don't think its all that hard to believe that he condoned terrorism. And stop assuming I support Bush, you call MY arguements weak, if you are trying to gain cheap points by painting me as a stereotypical Bushite, I think you should reassess your own debating style The Middle East gains a democracy?  You might find SOMEONE to buy that crap, but last I looked Iraq was a beaten, occupied country which hasn't even been given sovereignity yet.  I doubt it, but Iraq might possibly BECOME a democracy, some day.  But not today, so quit creating reality here just to pump up a President who hasn't shown us anything real about this war he can hang a reason for starting it on. Once again, what's wrong with wanting a democracy in Iraq, now that we are there?

I'll say it again...I support the war, and immediately I am Bush's spokesman, rather than my own. So chill and stop hating (and assuming).

As for Logica not denying you are an asshole, doesn't create a need for you to be one.

[Comrade]

Originally posted by PatrickHenry, I sometimes think that folks are just ruminating on the page and don't really mean what they are writing.

I am partly to blame, because I word my questions in exactly the way someone being sardonic or sarcastic would, but I can't figure out how else besides adding "I wanna know!" or something lame to the end.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Why is it people like you lunatic subscribe to the most inane notions just to satisfy your own personal hate?

[Mia]

Originally posted by Mr.Vicchio, Why is it people like you lunatic subscribe to the most inane notions just to satisfy your own personal hate?

Was there an argument in this post written in invisible type? Please loan me the decoder ring.

[Comrade]

Originally posted by Mia,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mia,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Mr.Vicchio, Why is it people like you lunatic subscribe to the most inane notions just to satisfy your own personal hate?

Was there an argument in this post written in invisible type? Please loan me the decoder ring.[/b][/quote]


Was there an arguement in this post written in invisible type? Or was it just Mia being a hypocrite, doing the same thing to Vicchio that Vicchio did to lunatic, criticizing?
Is there an arguement in this post? No, but I'm not the one with the problem with it.

[Mia]

Then what is your problem, exactly? Read the etiquette lately?

We are expected to point out to others when they are not following it, and not with personal attacks and insults.

If it doesn't apply to you, don't worry about it. I wasn't talking to you anyway.

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by Comrade, How can I rebut things that you misunderstood in the first place? Fine, I will go through, and point out my opinions... Bush lied about WMDs. Sure. I believed him when he first said it, and I supported us going in. It has since been proven that Saddam has no WMDs. So, had I known he had no WMDs, I wouldn'tve supported us going in, in the first place. But now that we are in, it would be wrong to just leave. If a vast majority of Iraqis said, "We got things now, leave please," I'd be fine with that.

I'll leave that intil I see how they are when and if they are given full control over the country, including the ability to, kick us out.

What's wrong with being glad that someone who told terrorists it was okay to hate America isn't doing that anymore? He paid money to Palestinian suicide bombers, I don't think its all that hard to believe that he condoned terrorism. And stop assuming I support Bush, you call MY arguements weak, if you are trying to gain cheap points by painting me as a stereotypical Bushite, I think you should reassess your own debating style

He paid money ($5,000 each I believe) to the families of the dead bombers. Regardless, the Palestinian issue is different than ours and you can't paint their terrorists with the same brush. Remember, Menachem Begin called himself a terrorist when he fought the arabs. Although I was not attacking you personally, I still maintain your post was very weak in the points I brought up.

Once again, what's wrong with wanting a democracy in Iraq, now that we are there? I'll say it again...I support the war, and immediately I am Bush's spokesman, rather than my own. So chill and stop hating (and assuming).

You can't support a war any president started without supporting that president. Any president is the sum of his actions.

I don't believe I assumed anything, as I was pointing out the flaws in your post. Also, I don't hate ANYONE on this forum (although a very large chunk of the REST of the world is another matter)

[Comrade]

Originally posted by Scribbler1, You can't support a war any president started without supporting that president.

Since when? More importantly, why not?

And I belive you DID assume, you were speaking that since I support continuing the liberation, I agree with everything Bush says, and you were giving me the exact same arguements I've seen over and over to people who DO support the things Bush says.

[Leopard]

The article is very good at pointing out one of the major incentives for going to war: keeping the dollar backed by oil. The other 'shoe' is that currently china is pegging its currency to the dollar which means that US consumers are not feeling the effects of inflation, China, along with OPEC, are basically subsidizing our standard of living. If EITHER of these two factors change then it will induce a very quick and long drop for the dollar. We have used our military to threaten OPEC by soundly defeating their neighbor, so what about China? Do we threaten them also?

Over the weekend I heard about China starting to make contingency plans in the event that Taiwan were to succeed and be suported by the US - these are war plans AGAINST US troops. Note, it will take an aggressive act on our part (coming to the defense of Taiwan) to foster such a confrontation, but, confrontation looms. Why? Pure economics. As the article above has stated, we have been able to force other countries (mostly third-world) into financing our debt (and lifestyle), now Europe has said 'Enough!' and Iraq did also. The military is only effective when it can be used with public support so we are not doing anything militarily against Europe. But if China stops allowing us to shove our inflation onto its citizens - then all hell will break loose and the dollar and our government will lash out at all costs to protect the status quo... but a status quo of force cannot continue indefinitely...

7-10 years... and finally we will have to face economic realities and lose 'Pax America'...

The Dollar Crisis
Ron Paul's Predictions from 2002

unfortunately I can't find the article I most want to link to which describes (outlines) the above theory...

michael

[Comrade]

Originally posted by Leopard, Note, it will take an aggressive act on our part (coming to the defense of Taiwan)

Coming to the defense of Taiwan would be an aggressive act...? How so

[Mia]

Comrade...you're taking this word choice thing too far..."liberation" to replace "occupation"? Come on...next the Abu Grahib will be referred to as a resort we gave Iraqi's free access to...lol...

[Comrade]

uh...huh.

Fine, our "occupation," if you really want to look at it that way. I guess being optimistic isn't in style.

[giuliano]

Originally posted by Scribbler1, He paid money ($5,000 each I believe) to the families of the dead bombers.

just a point on that... so does the UNRWA

he didn't actually assist the terrorists themselves, just their families. this is arguably justified, given the cruel treatment handed out to them by the israeli govt (flattening their house).

of course i'm sure saddam didn't worry if it encouraged more terrorism. but are we playing Mind Police?

[Mr.Vicchio]

Originally posted by Mia,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mia,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Mr.Vicchio, Why is it people like you lunatic subscribe to the most inane notions just to satisfy your own personal hate?

Was there an argument in this post written in invisible type? Please loan me the decoder ring.[/b][/quote]

Amazingly Mia to the rescue only when a bush basher is called out. Of course, she is the objective one right?

[Paavo]

Coming to the defense of Taiwan would be an aggressive act...? How so

I'm sure he meant to use a military term rather than anything else.
In a war, attacking someone - even if you're "right" - is still an attack, if you know what I'm saying?

Oh, and the Mia vs MrV flamings are tiring, there are enough "couples" here fighting each other in all threads. Take it to f***ing email / MSN or something, nobody else wants to read that crap. (Applies to all, not just Mia and MrV!)

Mia = "Mee tooooo"

[LogicaLunatic]

Mr.Vicchio,

Do you even know what inane means?

Here...
========================
Main Entry: 1 inane
Pronunciation: i-'nAn
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): inan·er; -est
Etymology: Latin inanis
1 : EMPTY, INSUBSTANTIAL
2 : lacking significance, meaning, or point : SILLY
====================

So my "notions" are meaningless or insubstantial? My thought that people dying is wrong is fucking insubstantial? Oh PLEASE explain that one!

The word "inane" is better suited for a description of your post.

Sorry, my "notion" came before my anger. I didn't dream this shit up to SUPPORT my hatred of Bush. This crap LED me to despise that pig.

Now, are you going to post something of significance?

the way i see it, bush went to war


A) out of vengeance for Bush 1
B) to garner support for himself with a war he thought would be quick and easy. [his popularity was flagging because his mishandling of everything was apparent.]
C) because he assumed Saddam was behind 9/11, despite lack of evidence
D) because he assumed Saddam was breaking UN WMD laws, though the UN did not think so
E) because he was attacking all his/america's 'enemies' out of paranoia from 9/11. "one of them probably did it!" iran and NK had better defences and were less attackable. so iraq is first.

reelect george W bush for the next installment of "WHEN AMERICA ATTACKS!!"

[Mia]

Originally posted by Mr.Vicchio, Amazingly Mia to the rescue only when a bush basher is called out. Of course, she is the objective one right?

Apparently I am since I jumped in on your side against people I agreed with!

They were not debating according to etiquette and neither were you, in a particular topic a while back. I spent an hour mediating between you and your attackers. The conversation finally started going somewhere :)