Liberals Eat Babies

[gr8fuldaniel]

Straw Man, Clinton is irrelevant. I was responding to Kyrans statement:

Originally posted by Kyran, Bush did not say that Iraq was an imminent threat.

Can I get a moderator to delete Dievals last post? We need to clean this place up!

[kharmajunkie]

I have to play deivals advocate on this one. (sorry, I couldn't resist
Gr8ful) Seriously though, why does the post need to be deleted?
I don't see why you and Kyran feel this place needs to be "cleaned up"
all of a sudden. Maybe I'm missing something but compared to other boards, this one is the most troll free, spam free, asshole free site
on the net.

[gr8fuldaniel]

ooops! Sorry, I should have used a smiley, I was just kidding. Just lazy on my part. I am strongly opposed to censorship except in persistent and blatant abuse of ettiquette.

[kharmajunkie]

Knowing you, that makes more sense. I'm still new to the nuance of picking up on sarcasm when posting on a message board. I always forget to use the little smileys too.

[Dieval]

Originally posted by gr8fuldaniel,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (gr8fuldaniel,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Straw Man, Clinton is irrelevant. I was responding to Kyrans statement: <!--QuoteBegin-Kyran, Bush did not say that Iraq was an imminent threat.

Can I get a moderator to delete Dievals last post? We need to clean this place up![/b][/quote]
So Bush being in agreement with Clinton(and the other prominent people listed in the quotes) is irrelevant?

They may not have been an "imminent threat" in that they were going to launch an invasion of the US mainland, but it is common knowledge that they were perceived of as a threat to the US(and other) countries.

[gr8fuldaniel]

I have personally experienced the wrath of Kyran, he has editted a topic of mine to make it more aesthetically pleasant to his particular position, (bland) Sean reversed it for me. Kyran also added a sub-topic right inside one of my posts. Creepy. I have no prob with him adding subtopics in his own little real estate, in any of my threads, just dont go hacking my posts. (To the tune of: Elton John/Kiki Dee "Dont go breakin my heart" in background).

I wouldnt respond to Moderator Priveledge, in this thread except it sounds like he is threatening to strike again.

Speaking of On/Off-Topic, Has this thread evolved to this plateau because Bush is responsible for killing babies and liberals are accused of eating them?

[Dieval]

Originally posted by gr8fuldaniel, ooops! Sorry, I should have used a smiley, I was just kidding. Just lazy on my part. I am strongly opposed to censorship except in persistent and blatant abuse of ettiquette.

A smiley makes all the difference! :)

[Gorgo]

No one seriously saw Iraq as a threat to anyone. Even Kuwait wasn't worried.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Originally posted by Dieval,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Dieval,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by gr8fuldaniel,@ Straw Man, Clinton is irrelevant. I was responding to Kyrans statement: <!--QuoteBegin-Kyran, Bush did not say that Iraq was an imminent threat.

So Bush being in agreement with Clinton(and the other prominent people listed in the quotes) is irrelevant?

They may not have been an "imminent threat" in that they were going to launch an invasion of the US mainland, but it is common knowledge that they were perceived of as a threat to the US(and other) countries.[/b][/quote]
A lot of time had passed since your sources had made there admissions. Yes, Iraq was a threat, we supplied Iraq with most of the WMDs in question; however, Iraq complied with UN resolutions and there where none to be found up until 10 minutes before the Unsanctioned bombing raids began.

Edit to cleanup quotes... superfluous to the point

[Dieval]

Originally posted by gr8fuldaniel, A lot of time had passed since your sources had made there admissions. Yes, Iraq was a threat, we supplied Iraq with most of the WMDs in question; however, Iraq complied with UN resolutions and there where none to be found up until 10 minutes before the Unsanctioned bombing raids began. Edit to cleanup quotes... superfluous to the point

Here's a few quotes from someone in 2002..

With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents? Saddam Hussein signed that agreement. Saddam Hussein is in office today because of that agreement. It is the only reason he survived in 1991. In 1991, the world collectively made a judgment that this man should not have weapons of mass destruction. And we are here today in the year 2002 with an uninspected 4-year interval during which time we know through intelligence he not only has kept them, but he continues to grow them. The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.

Anyone know who said this?

Saying that no one saw Iraq as a threat, before the war, is re-writing history.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Waldo?

[Nono]

Originally posted by Kyran The Geneva Convention does not cover persons who are not in the direct service of a nation.

Can you quote chapter and verse on that, or is it just another toss-away?

[Sonart]

Bush did not say that Iraq was an imminent threat.

The hell he didn't. You're not debating with your half-wit brother-in-law here, Kyran...

--"This is about imminent threat."--
White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

--"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."--- George W. Bush, 10/2/02

--"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."--
- George W. Bush, 10/7/02

--"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."--- George W. Bush, 10/28/02

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
- George W. Bush, 11/1/02

--"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."--- George W. Bush, 3/19/03

--"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."--- Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

--"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."--
- Dick Cheney, Speech to VFW National convention, Aug. 26, 2002

--"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent…. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."--
- George W. Bush, State of the Union Address

--"U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents."--
- George W. Bush, State of the Union Address

--"We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."--
- George W. Bush, State of the Union Address

--"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."--- Donald Rumsfeld, testimony to Congress

--"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."--- George W. Bush, address to the U.S

And please, Kyran, save your breath. Don't play semantics by telling us he didn't use the word "imminent".

The point of pre-empitive striking was to attack before it was. Your conditional statement never happened.

Number one, we don't attack sovereign nations for what we THINK they may be THINKING about doing in the future. We could end up attacking them BY MISTAKE! Ooops, too late.

And number two, read the above quotes. Never happened?

Part of my argument style is to reduce the playing field in which my opponent positions himself through refutation.

No, it's a desperate attempt to rationalize the fact that weapons that were promised by Bush to be there weren't by citing the exception that, in fact, merely proves the rule.

Circumstantial evidence:

Interesting. You have an aerial photograph pointing out 'stuff'. Yet once on the ground, we never found any of the 'stuff' that was supposed to be there.

All your 'Circumstantial Evidence' merely points to intellegence analysis - likely run through Rumsfeld's Pentagon OSP - that Bush wanted to believe was one thing yet turned out to be nothing.

Why is the 9/11 Commission looking for a connection between a terrorist organization and a foreign country? Isn't that the job of our intelligence agencies?

You don't think they had access to information from our intellegence agencies? You people are simply cherry-picking little tidbits of inconsequential "so'n'so met so'n'son" to make a grander conspiracy out of it. Yet you have all this intel about big meetings, training camps, travel records, weapons shipments. There's Saudis everywhere, Afghanis, Pakistanis, Jordanians, Palestinians, Sudanese, Indonesians by the hundreds. And one Iraqi here and there. That does NOT add up to a working relationship, Kyran.

It's fine to ask why we're not attacking Iran or Syria, but I don't have those answers.

Quite simple. We have nothing to attack it with.

What happens when you reduce the supply of currency? The value increases.

So? I pointed out a clear fact of history, and you answer with economic theory. What's your point?

1. Define "win" in your quagmire scenario.

Achieve any of the goals we set out to achieve with a new 'Democratic' Iraq.

2. Substantiate your claim that Afghanistan is coming back under the control of the Taliban.

Go here. That's a 2003 report.

Or here.

or here.

or here.

3. Substantiate your claim that terrorism is increasing.

"Worldwide terrorism-related deaths on the rise"

Names please?

You brought them up. I'm sure you can name them.

[Nono]

Originally posted by Kyran I am going to take a break from this forum for a day or so. When I get back, I expect to see a drastic change in attitudes.

So do we all have our earmuffs on? Galoshes? OK boys, I guess we can go out now, but no talking to any left-handed monsters or anything. Otherwise Mom will be really mad when she gets back.

So go ahead, plan, scheme, get the whole forum against me, accuse me of everything under the sun you can think of...do whatever you want to. Because in the end, I am going to win.

Yeah, now there's an idea. Hundreds of PMs -- in special code of course -- to arrange things just so. He'd never know what hit him. And there's a point...

[gr8fuldaniel]

Originally posted by Dieval Anyone know who said this?

Osama Bin Laden? Brilliant, thats how he got Dubya off his tail!!

[Nono]

Originally posted by Dieval Anyone know who said this?

John Kerry? He's already on record chastising himself for being prepared to believe those lies on the grounds that they came from the pres. He's not the only one who's learned his lesson.

[Dieval]

Originally posted by Nono,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nono,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Dieval Anyone know who said this?

John Kerry? He's already on record chastising himself for being prepared to believe those lies on the grounds that they came from the pres. He's not the only one who's learned his lesson.[/b][/quote]
It was Kerry...(not Waldo or OBL, gr8)....

he chastised himself for being prepared to believe those lies?? how do you become prepared to believe lies?
He believed, at the time, just like everyone else, that Saddam was a serious threat and continued to persue WMD's, with a passion.

I would like to see what he went on record as saying though...

[gr8fuldaniel]

Blognarik Jimmy Carter Is Right by Michael Badnarik Read the entire Anti-War.com article here. Former president Jimmy Carter recently issued a gutsy call on the U.S. government to pull out of Iraq as soon as possible. While a distinct minority in Congress has voiced this sentiment, it’s refreshing to hear an ex-president say what almost no one else in the political mainstream dares say. Even many in the “antiwar” movement, to say nothing of the leadership of his party, don’t see Carter’s call for withdrawal as a reasonable option. Not only is it reasonable, it’s the only sensible course of action for the U.S. government to take. Most Americans now realize that the Iraq War is a tragic mistake that has failed to make us any safer. It has only inflamed anti-American sentiment in the Middle East, made us more vulnerable to terrorism, and served to distract us from the fact that the 9/11 terrorists are still out there. Al-Qaeda’s ranks have swollen as a result of a war that has left many thousands dead. The Abu Ghraib prison scandal was the last nail in the coffin – we are out of chances to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. The Bush administration has found no weapons of mass destruction, and is finally backing away from the notion that Saddam had any serious links to al-Qaeda. Its one final rationalization of war – the liberation of the Iraqi people – has been proven a farce, as the Iraqis now suffer under a brutal regime of martial law backed by U.S. support and deceptively referred to as “self government.” It is time to leave.

[Nono]

Originally posted by Dieval he chastised himself for being prepared to believe those lies?? how do you become prepared to believe lies?

You don't yet know they're lies, that's how. You say to yourself things like "It's on CNN so it must be true." He chastised himself for trusting someone in such a responsible position not to lie.

I would like to see what he went on record as saying though...

As quoted by William Rivers Pitt:

The way Powell, Eagleberger, Scowcroft, and the others were talking at the time, I felt confident that Bush would work with the international community. I took the President at his word. We were told that any course would lead through the United Nations, and that war would be an absolute last resort. Many people I am close with, both Democrats and Republicans, who are also close to Bush told me unequivocally that no decisions had been made about the course of action. Bush hadn't yet been hijacked by Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney and that whole crew. Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? No. Did I think he would make such an incredible mess of the situation? No. Am I angry about it? You're God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake.

Jeez, I wonder who these people-close-to-Kerry-close-to-Bush are. Among them no doubt was John ("He has a black daughter!!") McCain.

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by Gorgo, No one seriously saw Iraq as a threat to anyone. Even Kuwait wasn't worried.

I feel the major reason for invading Iraq was because Bush saw what Daddy did to Iraq previously and figured he could run in, kick some imaginary terrorist ass and go home smelling like a rose, always mindful he was halfway into his first term and eyeing a second.

The problem was that Afghanistan, where the REAL terrorist acts originated would not be so easy, with all the warlords and other factions hating each other and slobbering over a chance to grab the big prize. Iraq was easy. Knock off a dictator already weakened by our own 10 year semi-occupation and just drink in all the adoration of the "liberated" people, and of course be seen as a reg'lur John Wayne at home.

It didn't quite turn out that way.