Senator Kerry in '04! - Page 2

**CingularDuality** · 10-19-2004, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turbinator

UN council yes, where they vetoed the military move on iraq, but not part of nato. Intel concurred for the benefit of getting the cash from iraq in one form or another

So, now you would blame President Bush because Russia gave us false intel?

Turbinator · 10-19-2004, 09:03 AM

no, regardless of any intel, the reason going to iraq was not WMD's, well sure thats what they telll you, cause other reasons would not get any support from UN or other allies all that well. It was an excuse, Sadamm, although a bad guy, was a scapegoat in this situation.

There are civil wars in africa, i forget which country specifically, but that country is not 2nd largest oil deposit on the planet, so wats the point going there.

They will get to it eventually ofcourse.

thing im getting to is money, too many times any conflict is leaning towards cash.

IceCold · 10-19-2004, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turbinator

no, regardless of any intel, the reason going to iraq was not WMD's, well sure thats what they telll you, cause other reasons would not get any support from UN or other allies all that well. It was an excuse, Sadamm, although a bad guy, was a scapegoat in this situation.

There are civil wars in africa, i forget which country specifically, but that country is not 2nd largest oil deposit on the planet, so wats the point going there.

They will get to it eventually ofcourse.

thing im getting to is money, too many times any conflict is leaning towards cash.

What an illogical post...

If you had two bad situations in front of you, and you could only take care of one at a time, wouldn't you choose to work on the one that would benefit you the most first, and after you're finished with that one, then work on the second bad situation?

Interesting how when faced with facts, the "Bush is a liar" line goes out the window...

**leejo** · 10-19-2004, 11:38 AM

It amazes me that the same people who demand that I understand (and set government policy about!) how an owl leads to global warming leads to global disaster demand an instant connection totally devoid of nuance between our actions in Iraq and whatever their current beef is: WMD, 9/11, whatever.

Furthermore, they seem to demand that we play chess by marching every piece directly at the king at all times.

**Pokerface** · 10-19-2004, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IceCold

What an illogical post...

If you had two bad situations in front of you, and you could only take care of one at a time, wouldn't you choose to work on the one that would benefit you the most first, and after you're finished with that one, then work on the second bad situation?

Interesting how when faced with facts, the "Bush is a liar" line goes out the window...

If I had two bad situations in front of me, I'd call a spade a spade, and then deal with the one that mattered most.

If we're going to save countless people from genocide, then let's say that. Let's not take a buzzphrase like "terrorist threat" and make it apply to anyone and everyone.

This article sums up my feelings well.

The following interview except I also found funny:
---------
Q: If the people in Iraq, in a free, democratic election, someday choose an Islamic fundamentalist government, is that all right with you?

BUSH: I will be disappointed, but democracy is democracy. They have now got a -- the beginnings of a constitution, the TAL, which sends a different message, that there will be tolerance and an open society. But people -- if that's what the people choose, that's what the people choose.
----------

**luna** · 10-19-2004, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turbinator

the head quarters of which are in NY, based on intelligence provided by CIA, and concured by MI6 perhaps, for the benefit of both nations and anyone who participated.
Clinton was in the office for 2 terms, no one heared of sadam, bush gets in the office sadam is public enemy numero uno again.

not biased towards anything, just a thought.

No one heard of Saddam? Clinton HIMSELF ordered the bombing of Baghdad! Educate yourself- Operation Desert Fox

Were you paying any attention to the news during the Clinton years?

Quote:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

Here, let me offer you a nice and easy compare and contrast of Clinton and Bush regarding Iraq:

Quote:

Clinton, Dec. 19, 1998: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. ... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. ... Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

George W. Bush, Jan. 28, 2003: "Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks, to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons is to dominate, intimidate or attack. With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region."

Clinton: "Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. ... Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability. ... Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection."

Bush: "The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving. From intelligence sources, we know for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves."

Clinton: "Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. ... I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."

Bush: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."

Clinton: "The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. ... Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. ... But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."

Bush: "Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a president can make. The technologies of war have changed; the risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans, this nation fights reluctantly because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come. We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes, peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means, sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military."

See the difference? I sure as hell don't.

If you want to contribute valuable discourse on this topic, you need to get your facts straight.

**leejo** · 10-19-2004, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokerface

This article sums up my feelings well.

Got a username and login for that bad boy?

IceCold · 10-19-2004, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

Got a username and login for that bad boy?

www.BugMeNot.com

**Pokerface** · 10-19-2004, 05:06 PM

Ooo, ooo, I see the difference!

In 1998, we attacked Iraq to rid them of WMDs, specifically targeting places with precise airstrikes. In 2003, we just SAID that's why we're going over there.

What do I win?

**leejo** · 10-19-2004, 05:08 PM

Nice!!!

!!!

**Pokerface** · 10-19-2004, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

Got a username and login for that bad boy?

Sorry, didn't even noticed I was logged in.

Turbinator · 10-19-2004, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IceCold

What an illogical post...

If you had two bad situations in front of you, and you could only take care of one at a time, wouldn't you choose to work on the one that would benefit you the most first, and after you're finished with that one, then work on the second bad situation?

Interesting how when faced with facts, the "Bush is a liar" line goes out the window...

nothing illogical about my post, its more like ethical, simple breakdown
Iraq=Cash
Africa= i dont know, ahh good will if u like.

also like i said just a thought, whoever said bush is a liar, was not me.

Ill say this though, a leader that takes a country into unnecessary war is a leader with limited diplomatic abilities.

I didnt see JFK send trops on soviets cause of cuban missle crisis, during and or before it.

**leejo** · 10-19-2004, 07:25 PM

Fascinating posts. Nice flag.

Turbinator · 10-19-2004, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by =luna=

No one heard of Saddam? Clinton HIMSELF ordered the bombing of Baghdad! Educate yourself- Operation Desert Fox

Were you paying any attention to the news during the Clinton years?

no i was playing too much CS.

did clinton send troops to iraq, like bush Sr and Jr did?

Turbinator · 10-19-2004, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

Fascinating posts. Nice flag.

hehe, yeah its getting rough hehe

.

I should go easy about bush, many people like him in TG hehe, one of the reasons people always say dont talk about subjects that are not concrete and have too many opinions

10-19-2004, 09:03 AM	#17 (permalink)
Turbinator Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Vancouver Posts: 1,082	Re: Senator Kerry in '04! no, regardless of any intel, the reason going to iraq was not WMD's, well sure thats what they telll you, cause other reasons would not get any support from UN or other allies all that well. It was an excuse, Sadamm, although a bad guy, was a scapegoat in this situation. There are civil wars in africa, i forget which country specifically, but that country is not 2nd largest oil deposit on the planet, so wats the point going there. They will get to it eventually ofcourse. thing im getting to is money, too many times any conflict is leaning towards cash. __________________

10-19-2004, 11:38 AM	#19 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: Senator Kerry in '04! It amazes me that the same people who demand that I understand (and set government policy about!) how an owl leads to global warming leads to global disaster demand an instant connection totally devoid of nuance between our actions in Iraq and whatever their current beef is: WMD, 9/11, whatever. Furthermore, they seem to demand that we play chess by marching every piece directly at the king at all times.

10-19-2004, 05:06 PM	#24 (permalink)
Pokerface Join Date: May 2003 Location: MD, USA Age: 30 Posts: 5,787	Re: Senator Kerry in '04! Ooo, ooo, I see the difference! In 1998, we attacked Iraq to rid them of WMDs, specifically targeting places with precise airstrikes. In 2003, we just SAID that's why we're going over there. What do I win? __________________ NS Game Officer. TF2 Admin. BF2 Admin / Scripter. PM with issues. Tempus: Pokerface is nailing it right on the head. Everyone who is arguing against him is simply arguing against reality. <anmuzi> it is not permitted to have privacy or anonymity <LazyEye> yeah when I play on TG the server digs though my trash Arm yourself with knowledge: TG NS TF2 BF2

10-19-2004, 05:08 PM	#25 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: Senator Kerry in '04! Nice!!! !!!

10-19-2004, 07:25 PM	#28 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: Senator Kerry in '04! Fascinating posts. Nice flag.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links