Downing Street Memo- thoughts? - Page 3

Buck Fush · 06-15-2005, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Root

I imagine thats what everyone was saying when the US and UK put the taliban in power not that long ago....

Root

LOL. Exactly!

**USN_Squid** · 06-15-2005, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokerface

On a list of growing threats to our nation, Iraq MIGHT have cracked the top five. MIGHT. But we bowled in because it was non-nuclear, had a leader we all knew the name of (because we learned to hate it before), country borders, and was smack in the middle of an area we'd LOVE to have a foothold in.

I support Bush in the current effort, just so you know where I stand (as if you didn't already). There's a lot of truth to the statement above Pokerface. But when I hear the argument that Bush should have just left the WMD issue alone, and stated your reasons for war then the world would be behind him I can't disagree more. There would have been NO support for the war.

Dozens of countries around the world believed that the WMDs were there, and from many different sources of intelligence. As a matter of fact it has not been extablished if in fact there may have been more weapons that were moved. And, of course you do realise that some have been found along with the mechanisms to make them, although not in the huge stockpiles predicted. I have yet to see any proof that Bush lied about that (but would be happy to read whatever you got). And I don't think that a memo which amounts to heresay and is as yet uncorroborated is proof at all. Bush hardley ever responds to specifics like these, so his lack of response is not implicit of guilt.

**CingularDuality** · 06-15-2005, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buck Fush

I've seen absolutely no evidence of that. You? Which terrorists was he supporting? The CIA SAID that because there were terrorist living in Iraq, we had(and still have) terrorist in the States before 9/11 does that mean that Clinton and Bush support terrorists?

Saddam Hussein had set up a program to pay the families of Palestinian suicide bombers for one thing. AlQueda also had formal talks with Saddam Hussein's government and was allowed to set up training camps in Iraq. Al Queda leaders were also protected in Iraq after September 2001.

Quote:

And you don't think that Bush believes we're fighting Muslim heathens?

Are you implying that President Bush simply wants to "kill all the muslims"? I think that's ridiculous.

Quote:

No, but we'll probably get an elected leader that imposes Islamic law. I guess we'll have to remove him eventually also.

I don't think that you'll find the United States removing a popularly elected leader anytime soon...

Quote:

Speak for yourself. I know exactly what my freedom is worth.

Are you sure?

**TheFeniX** · 06-15-2005, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Root

I see your point, but my point was more that both are evil.

Bush isn't evil. Misguided: yes. Blinded by his religious fanatacism: yes. Two cans short of a six pack: yes. Evil: no.

The great folly of many leaders is the notion that their way is the only right way. This view would make them seem evil to some, a great savior to others (look at Hitler).

Quote:

Of course you had to lower the tone of the thread by bringing darth mule into it.

I'll save my bitching about how dark jedi never used to be darth <insert dumb ass name here> back in the good old days for another thread.

Not all Dark Jedi are Sith, but all Sith are dark Jedi. And the only place where you could be arguing that from would be the EU, which should all be burned and the authors castrated.

Not that I still don't get annoyed everytime I play Jedi Academy and see 50 different people named "Darth Gansta," "Darth Bob," and "Darth Asshat." Anyways, we're way off topic.

**USN_Squid** · 06-15-2005, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Root

I imagine thats what everyone was saying when the US and UK put the taliban in power not that long ago....

Yeah, damn us for helping them defend their country from a Russian invasion and not insisting on some form of Colonialism.

This sums up my thoughts:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buck Fush

The environment over there now actively gives terrorist a bleeding ground.

**Pokerface** · 06-15-2005, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by USN_Squid

I support Bush in the current effort, just so you know where I stand (as if you didn't already). There's a lot of truth to the statement above Pokerface. But when I hear the argument that Bush should have just left the WMD issue alone, and stated your reasons for war then the world would be behind him I can't disagree more. There would have been NO support for the war.

That's right. There wouldn't have been support for the war, because from the beginning EVERYONE would have seen that we were marching onto foreign soil not out of some sense of pre-emptively striking against a growing threat, but because it's the most convenient target available. No support for that kind of war is a good thing. The fact that he leveraged fear and half-truths to get support, and the fact that after the full truth has come out and people are STILL supporting it bugs the hell out of me.

Quote:

Dozens of countries around the world believed that the WMDs were there, and from many different sources of intelligence. As a matter of fact it has not been extablished if in fact there may have been more weapons that were moved. And, of course you do realise that some have been found along with the mechanisms to make them, although not in the huge stockpiles predicted. I have yet to see any proof that Bush lied about that (but would be happy to read whatever you got). And I don't think that a memo which amounts to heresay and is as yet uncorroborated is proof at all. Bush hardley ever responds to specifics like these, so his lack of response is not implicit of guilt.

The CIA says there weren't any there. *WE* gave up looking for them. There were pieces of things, certainly, but pieces aren't WMDs, no more than the bag of fertilizer in my shed is a bomb.

Clinging to a "they probably moved them" stance is well and good, I suppose, and lack of denial ISN'T a confirmation of guilt, yes. But thus far, the facts are unfolding otherwise.

Buck Fush · 06-15-2005, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Saddam Hussein had set up a program to pay the families of Palestinian suicide bombers for one thing.

Unproved, and only "discovered" AFTER the war started by the very people who lied to us about the other reasons for
a war.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ABC NEWS

...the man considered the leader of Ansar al-Islam, Majamuddin Fraraj Ahmad, who is also known as Mullah Krekar, denied all allegations that he is in any way linked to al Qaeda. "They are our enemy," he said, adding that his group opposes Saddam Hussein because, unlike Osama bin Laden, Saddam is not a good Muslim."

Ansar al-Islam was the supposed connection between Iraq and AlQueda. Saddam was secular and therefore not a friend of Muslim extreemists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

AlQueda also had formal talks with Saddam Hussein's government and was allowed to set up training camps in Iraq.

Shall I begin to list the "talks" between the Bushes and terrorists? Talks do not friends make.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Al Queda leaders were also protected in Iraq after September 2001.

Proof?

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Are you sure?

OOP. No, you're right. Glad you made me realize it.....

I'm absolutely positive.

You remind me of the lady I saw the other day with a "No Dissent" bumpersticker who obviously thought she knew what patriotism was. Do you blindly follow all presidents, or just this one?

rs_al · 06-15-2005, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buck Fush

You remind me of the lady I saw the other day with a "No Dissent" bumpersticker

If it was Dissent with a big O / through it (put those all on top of each other for the full effect), I would be all over it.

But, aside from Iraq and our difficulty telling A-rabs apart (Saddam bin Laden was it?), are any of you bothered that this memo was first published a month and a half ago in a british paper, and you are just hearing about it now in a forum post?

**Pokerface** · 06-15-2005, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rs_al

If it was Dissent with a big O / through it (put those all on top of each other for the full effect), I would be all over it.

But, aside from Iraq and our difficulty telling A-rabs apart (Saddam bin Laden was it?), are any of you bothered that this memo was first published a month and a half ago in a british paper, and you are just hearing about it now in a forum post?

I am. But being a liberal, I've come to expect it of things regarding the current administration.

Buck Fush · 06-15-2005, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rs_al

If it was Dissent with a big O / through it (put those all on top of each other for the full effect)

That's exactly what it was. By all over it, I hope you don't mean you'd want one. To me, without dissent, you have no freedom.

**leejo** · 06-15-2005, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rs_al

If it was Dissent with a big O / through it (put those all on top of each other for the full effect), I would be all over it.

But, aside from Iraq and our difficulty telling A-rabs apart (Saddam bin Laden was it?), are any of you bothered that this memo was first published a month and a half ago in a british paper, and you are just hearing about it now in a forum post?

Nope, because I read the news and saw all about this last month.

Google "Downing Street Memo" and you'll see many articles were out there for anyone to read and discuss.

**leejo** · 06-15-2005, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buck Fush

To me, without dissent, you have no freedom.

Without teamwork and hard men suffering and commiting unspeakable horrors in war, you have no freedom. Dissent is a BENEFIT of, not a cause of, freedom.

From Our Spoiled and Unhappy Global Elites:

Quote:

It is not that we ... are mad at what you say. It is just that you have all become so hypocritical, then predictable, and now boring — you are all so boring.

IceCold · 06-15-2005, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buck Fush

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Saddam Hussein had set up a program to pay the families of Palestinian suicide bombers for one thing.

Unproved, and only "discovered" AFTER the war started by the very people who lied to us about the other reasons for
a war.

Are you serious? Saddam Hussein was proud of this little program of his and he bragged about it to the media. It was all over the press before September 2001. I don't know whether to even take you seriously after some of your statements.

**leejo** · 06-15-2005, 06:55 PM

Abu Nidal had cozy quarters in Baghdad.

**USN_Squid** · 06-15-2005, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

Nope, because I read the news and saw all about this last month.

Google "Downing Street Memo" and you'll see many articles were out there for anyone to read and discuss.

Ditto, I was wondering why Luna was bringing it up now. It's kind of old news.

06-15-2005, 06:55 PM	#44 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: Downing Street Memo- thoughts? Abu Nidal had cozy quarters in Baghdad.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Mishkan's thoughts on PassNights	Mishkan	Battlefield 2 - Ranked Vanilla	21	10-16-2005 01:16 PM
Loose thoughts on the basics of BF2 Combat	AzrealDarkmoon	Battlefield 2 - Tactics and Missions Discussion	1	06-30-2005 06:55 PM

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

Sponsored links

Sponsored links