|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 536 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 449 of 536:
| 
Dec 17 04:24 UTC 2003 |
We know he did. Even if Iraq does have hidden WMD that will not change
the fact the Bush did not have incontrovertable evidence he did, as he
said he did.
In any case, why don't you apply your criticism of Dean, for flip-flopping,
to Bush's flip-flopping? Bush's prevarications are certainly MUCH more
serious than any mistatements from Dean. Bush took us into a war killing
people on the basis of his lies.
|
bru
|
|
response 450 of 536:
|
Dec 17 04:36 UTC 2003 |
You keep forgeting that teh previous administration believed he had those
weapons as well. Why do you keep forgeting that Clinton thought Iraq had WMD?
That the Clinton intelligence officers passed that information on to the Bush
administration? That Hillary Clinton just this week addressed the Council
on Foreign relations adn Supported President Bush's decision to invade Iraq.
"We owe a great debt of gratitude to our troops, to the president, to our
intelligence services, to all who had a hand in apprehending Saddam," she
said. "Now he will be brought to justice, and we hope that the prospects for
peace and stability in Iraq will improve." said Mrs. Clinton
|
mcnally
|
|
response 451 of 536:
|
Dec 17 04:40 UTC 2003 |
It's not Bush's fault he deliberately deceived the country to
get us to go to war. It was those "Clinton intelligence officers."
Is that really your explanation, Bruce?
|
klg
|
|
response 452 of 536:
|
Dec 17 04:44 UTC 2003 |
bru,
Don't forget, also, the congressmen who were shown the same evidence
as the President and who came to the same conclusion. (Do you
understand what Mr. rcurl is saying??? "If the evidence the President
saw was correct, it cannot be incontrovertable"?? --This man calls
himself a scientist?)
|
richard
|
|
response 453 of 536:
|
Dec 17 05:36 UTC 2003 |
Again, the reason for removing Saddam was that he was said to have weapons
of mass destruction. He did not turn out to have them. Either the
information was wrong or Bush lied. But regardless of that, the real question
is whether the ends justified the means. Bru and klg do not seem to care how
many hundreds of billions of dollars it cost and how many american lives it
cost (and will continue to cost as the troops are still over there) and how
many countries we have relations with that we pissed off. The means don't
matter to them, only the "ends" They are like Hitler, who told the German
people that he would make them great again, that was the "end", and the means,
exterminating the jews, wiping out other countries, just didn't matter.
Well as the German people found out, the ends DON'T always justify the means.
Sometimes the cost is too high. Dean said he would have supported the removal
of Saddam unilaterally IF and ONLY IF there was an imminent threat to national
security, such as we were about to be attacked. This was not the case. So
even though we all wanted Saddam out of power (and I think everyone agrees
on that), the end wasn't going to justify the means unless it happened the
right way. This was NOT the right way to go about it. But Bru and Klg don't
care, they simply don't. They don't care how much blood was shed or what the
longterm diplomatic damage was. There will be longterm repercussions because
of this. And we are now running a huge national defecit again. But Bru and
klg don't care. They just don't. Because to them the end ALWAYS justifies
the means, whatever those means are.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 454 of 536:
|
Dec 17 07:33 UTC 2003 |
re #453:
> Again, the reason for removing Saddam was that he was said to have weapons
> of mass destruction. He did not turn out to have them.
On what do you base this evidently firm conclusion? As they say, absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence.
Whether or not Hussein had WMD or not is a separate issue from whether or
not the Bush administration had the "proof" it claimed to have (but could
not show us) regarding WMD. But while there might be many reasons why
the Iraqis might have hidden or destroyed any forbidden weapons in their
possession it's much harder to imagine reasons why the Bush administration
can't produce evidence of WMD despite the proof they claimed to have before
the war.
> Bru and klg do not seem to care how many hundreds of billions of dollars
> it cost and how many american lives it cost (and will continue to cost as
> the troops are still over there) and how many countries we have relations
> with that we pissed off.
Again, I'd love to know how you reached this surprising conclusion.
The fact that they don't set the decision point at the same place you
do doesn't give you license to assume that they don't recognize any
limits at all.
> The means don't matter to them, only the "ends" They are like Hitler,
> who told the German people that he would make them great again, that
> was the "end", and the means, exterminating the jews, wiping out other
> countries, just didn't matter.
They disagree with you, therefore they are like Hitler. Way to win the
argument, Richard.
Can we all take a deep breath for a second and think about how pathetic
it is to compare an opponent in a BBS argument to Hitler? <pause>
Thank you. We now return you to your regularly scheduled drivel.
|
gull
|
|
response 455 of 536:
|
Dec 17 14:38 UTC 2003 |
I vote that if jp2 is going to use 'How-weird', from this point on Bush
shall be referred to as 'The Shrub' in this item.
|
bru
|
|
response 456 of 536:
|
Dec 17 14:47 UTC 2003 |
"matter to them, only the "ends" They are like Hitler, who told the German
people that he would make them great again, that was the "end", and the means,
exterminating the jews, wiping out other countries, just didn't matter."
well, seig heil to you too! Nice of you to bring up hitler though. Would
you rather we had waited until SAddam rebuilt his army, massed his weapons,
adn moved on Isreal by cutting through Jordan with the support of Syria to
liberate Palestine thus bringing the entire middle east into war? Should we
have kept on appeasing him as we did Hitler until millions of innocent people
had died, the world economy collapsed, adn people started tossing nuclear
weapons around?
Now wouldn't that have been fun. I mean, we would have won, certainly. But
how many billions would have died and how much would we have lost?
Would that have made you happier richard?
|
twenex
|
|
response 457 of 536:
|
Dec 17 15:00 UTC 2003 |
It would have been easier to just say "we are going to depose Saddam".
at least then you would only have broken international law, instead of
breaking international law, lying through your teeth, and leaving the
generations alive today wide open tothe charge of imperialism in the
future.
|
gull
|
|
response 458 of 536:
|
Dec 17 15:08 UTC 2003 |
I don't object to Saddam being removed, but I wish the Shrub had given
us the honest reasons for doing so instead of a series of trumped-up
justifications.
|
twenex
|
|
response 459 of 536:
|
Dec 17 16:44 UTC 2003 |
Re: 458: This guy reads my mind.
|
klg
|
|
response 460 of 536:
|
Dec 17 17:18 UTC 2003 |
Herr bru-
Did you see dat Herr richard tinks vee are like der Fuhrer??? Und vee
don't even speek Gehrmann! Iz dat a joke? Unless Herr richard can
show dat ze quote in response 445 are incorrect, den he looks pretty
foolish. No? (Herr doctar Dean beleift dat zhee Iraquis vere
an "imminent threat", jah??)
(Go, How-veird!!)
|
twenex
|
|
response 461 of 536:
|
Dec 17 17:24 UTC 2003 |
Mazel tov.
|
klg
|
|
response 462 of 536:
|
Dec 17 17:26 UTC 2003 |
Gesundheit.
|
flem
|
|
response 463 of 536:
|
Dec 17 17:37 UTC 2003 |
Well *somebody* here sure looks foolish...
|
mcnally
|
|
response 464 of 536:
|
Dec 17 17:52 UTC 2003 |
re #464: the word "somebody" seems inappropriately singular..
|
twenex
|
|
response 465 of 536:
|
Dec 17 17:55 UTC 2003 |
Hooray for the gifts of humor and laughter (laghter?)
|
klg
|
|
response 466 of 536:
|
Dec 17 17:56 UTC 2003 |
Gut *jemand* hier sicheres Aussehen unklug. . .
|
bru
|
|
response 467 of 536:
|
Dec 17 23:26 UTC 2003 |
ja mein heir.
|
bhoward
|
|
response 468 of 536:
|
Dec 18 00:38 UTC 2003 |
(Mike, your response is recursing...)
|
mcnally
|
|
response 469 of 536:
|
Dec 18 01:03 UTC 2003 |
s/464/463/
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 470 of 536:
|
Dec 18 03:51 UTC 2003 |
Re #467: "Ja, mein Herr."
|
richard
|
|
response 471 of 536:
|
Dec 18 05:12 UTC 2003 |
klg in #445, you quote Dean as saying there was no question Saddam was a
threat. But as Dean has said, he would never have supported such drastic
action unless he was an IMMINENT threat. There is a difference between a
"threat" and an "imminent" threat. An imminent threat means we are about to
be attacked and we are vulnerable to that attack, which we were not attacked
nor were we vulnerable to such attacks. Iraq HAD NO WEAPONS OF MASS
DESTRUCTION. Get that through your head. They had none. Therefore Bush
lied, Cheney lied, and we went to war under false pretenses.
And klg, you did not answer the question I asked, which is WHAT COST IS TOO
HIGH? IS THERE EVER A TIME WHEN THE ENDS DON'T JUSTIFY THE MEANS? You don't
care, you just don't. Thats why I compared you to Hitler. When you hate so
much that no price is too high, when you hate so much that you'll mortage your
children's futures or do whatever else is necessary to get to the "ends", that
is when you border on irrationality. Which is what happened with Hitler
|
mcnally
|
|
response 472 of 536:
|
Dec 18 06:44 UTC 2003 |
<sigh>
|
twenex
|
|
response 473 of 536:
|
Dec 18 10:41 UTC 2003 |
/agree jmsaul.
|
