Guantanamo: the American Gulag - Page 9 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-31-2005, 04:15 PM   #121
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:34 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars


You are ridiculing yourself because we didn´t even mention the fucking resolutions, authorizations, who had to be removed and why and so on.

We are simply talking about the fact that the Bush and Blair administration lied. Do you have the ability to see that this is another issue. Or do I have to explain it to you like to a 5 y.o.

We ALL watched TV and we saw the pictures Rumsfeld showed us, some satellite photos with wishy washy trucks that were moving around. Apart from that, he could´ve painted them himself.

Please understand we are not discussing about the reasons and if they were right or not. The simple fact is that it was said there are huge stockpiles of WMDs, its a threat to all the world, we have to go and find´em. There WEREN´T any. So that´s why those BASTARDS were intentionally lying. This is not a particular viewpoint. That´s just plain fact. NOBODY bought it when they were BLAMING the intelligence for that (again, Bastards).

STING2, on a personal note I can´t believe you are too stupid to understand that. I think you want to turn the attention away from the fact that some of your favorite politicians were OPENLY BETRAYING the free and democratic world they "intend to spread".

Stop talking like Nixon. Your posts sound like one of his half-hearted dementis.
1. SADDAM's regime has still not Verifiably disarmed of all WMD. There are still thousands of stocks of WMD that are unaccounted for. That is a FACT that no one can dispute. There are many theory's as to what may have happened to the unaccounted for stockpiles, but that is all they are, theory's! Saddam was required to verifiably disarm of ALL WMD! Can you name one resolution that SADDAM complied with according to the United Nations? The UN inspectors in November of 1998 listed a large number of problems and failings by Saddam as far as verifiably disarming of all WMD. Saddam did NOTHING in the years since November 1998 to reverse the failures in disarmament listed by that UN inspectors report!


2. For someone to have lied, they must say something that they factually know to be false. No one in the administration has ever done that. Rumsfeld, as supporting evidence for the central case for war which was Saddam's failure to verifiably disarm, listed some intelligence that they had on Saddam's current WMD arsonal. Much of this intelligence was later proven to be wrong as often happens with intelligence on such matters that are difficult to probe. BUT, that did not change the fact, and the central case for war, that SADDAM failed to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD and was in violation of 17 different UN resolutions past under chapter VII rules of the United Nations!

3. The AMERICAN PEOPLE have looked at all of this and decided to re-elect Bush because they supported the war and the central case made for it, despite the fact that various pieces of intelligence, used to support the central case for war, turned out to be inaccurate.


4. Read the "FAQ/RULES" of this forum and see what it says about refering to people as 5 y.o. , stupid, or saying their posts sound like Nixon's "half-hearted dementis"
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-31-2005, 04:23 PM   #122
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:34 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Earnie Shavers
Didn't Tony Blair have to go on national tv and apologise because he lied and said the resolutions gave them legal backing to invade Iraq, when his advise all along was that they didn't?

STING, do you really think the average Joe in Middle America supported the Iraq war because of UN resolutions, or because the Bush Administration did a great job of scaring the bejesus out of tens of millions people who probably can't even locate Iraq on a map?
The Average Joe in Middle America did support what was embodied in the UN resolutions which was that Saddam should not have thousands of stocks of Anthrax, Mustard Gas, Nerve Gas, Biological weapons or the capability to produce them just to name a few things. Few would say that it would be ok to take Saddam's at his word that he had disarmed of such things and most realized the need for VERIFIABLE DISARMAMENT. In fact, many would go further and say he should have just been removed in 1991.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-31-2005, 04:35 PM   #123
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:34 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonosSaint
Would the American people have supported going to war over broken resolutions and removal of Saddam without the US spoken threat that he had the capability to injure us and without the implied promise that this would be a piece of cake?

Maybe we would have, I don't know. Were we led by implication that Iraq had something to do with 9/11? Were we so disappointed by our inability to get Osama that we were ready to kick some serious butt in a place we were pretty sure we could prevail?
Many Americans were disappointed when Bush Sr. did not remove Saddam in 1991. These are not just "broken resolutions". What is embodied in them is very important. Americans were willing in 1991 to remove Saddam's military from Kuwait as well as require Saddam to verifiably disarm of all WMD or face renewed military action. Saddam continued in power longer than anyone thought back then and the inspections failed in their goal of 100% verifiable disarmament of all WMD. The threat to the planets economy let alone the American economy with Saddam in power, with WMD, sitting along side the planets main energy reserves is an intolerable threat that most Americans understood.

No one promised it would be a "piece of Cake". Liberals falsly accused Republicans of implying that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. What the United States military has done in Afghanistan is amazing. The American people have not been disapointed by the success there and although Bin Ladin's status is unknown, most people understand that Al Quada is much bigger than simply one man.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-31-2005, 04:40 PM   #124
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:34 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by pax


No, Dubya, "disassemble" means to take apart.

"Dissemble" means to lie or to conceal the truth, yes.

But then again, those of us who had better than C averages in college already knew that.
I think a lot of us would be surprised how many similar mistakes we would make if we were always on camera all the time. Bush's father was NOT a C student but made many of the same mistakes when speaking.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-31-2005, 04:44 PM   #125
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 03:34 AM
STING2:

1. But soldiers apperently haven´t found those huge piles of WMD. One thinks that by now the coalition troops must have searched all of Saddam´s palaces. There is enough technology to trace nuclear material.

2.
a. No, it is also a lie if you say "I am sure of something" "I guarantee you..." when you are not sure and can´t guarantee nothing at all.
b. Political leaders have to trust their intelligence reports when they are trying to manipulate public opinion.
c. Another lie is to make intelligence responsible for wrong informations. It is obvious those reports were constructed. if I would be an intelligence agent, I would be disgusted with that administration trying to blame the agency after the manipulations are uncovered. If I was an American citizen, such an administration would hurt my patriotic feelings.

3. The last elections were regulated by a computer system. You are happy your President got so many votes, that´s fine. But I talked to a computer technician and he told me it´s easier than ever to manipulate an election. Just enter your favorite number on the screen. So, it is highly questionable that the American people re-elected Bush.

4. In case you haven´t realized it, several people are worried about your mental state, and only for one reason. Generally you´re a nice guy and everyone likes you (that said so the truth doesn´t kick in too hard), but you always repeated the same lines like a robot for the last three years. Do not take this offensive (you will, but I am asking you not to), but allow me the question why you engage in that weird repetition of "verifiably disarming" and "UN resolutions"? Did someone brainwash you, or is it your personal mantra you meditate with (I could accept this, even if that would be a weird mantra, but maybe it just makes you feel good), or are you kinda unbalanced mentally?
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 05-31-2005, 04:45 PM   #126
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:34 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by pax
Support for Iraq war down to 41%, according to a USA Today poll taken less than a month ago.

EDITED TO CLARIFY: Poll had a margin of error at plus or minus 5 points. Respondents were asked if the war was "worth it" or not.

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition...trip04.art.htm
A presidential election where 100 MILLION people voted is a far better guage of what America thinks than a random poll of a thousand people. A poll who's numbers change on a monthly basis.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-31-2005, 04:47 PM   #127
Blue Crack Addict
 
phanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the darkness on the edge of town
Posts: 25,064
Local Time: 08:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

What the United States military has done in Afghanistan is amazing. The American people have not been disapointed by the success there and although Bin Ladin's status is unknown, most people understand that Al Quada is much bigger than simply one man.
We discussed this in another thread before, and while most people know that Al Quaida is more than one man, the significance of not capturing or killing Osama bin Laden cannot be denied.

And I very much disagree with your assertion that the American people have not been disappointed by what has happened so far in Afghanistan. It is not considered a success at this point, and I don't think one can say it is until bin Laden is gone.
__________________
phanan is offline  
Old 05-31-2005, 04:47 PM   #128
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 09:34 PM
And a poll whose numbers have been slipping steadily for, what, two years?
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 05-31-2005, 04:50 PM   #129
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 03:34 AM
pax, you got mail
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 05-31-2005, 04:53 PM   #130
Blue Crack Addict
 
phanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the darkness on the edge of town
Posts: 25,064
Local Time: 08:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


A presidential election where 100 MILLION people voted is a far better guage of what America thinks than a random poll of a thousand people. A poll who's numbers change on a monthly basis.
Unfortunately, in a two-party system, sometimes the weaknesses of an opponent are more of a reason to vote for the other person.

And people seem to forget what happened in 2000, when the majority of people did not vote for Bush. When one goes down in history as one of the only presidents not to win the popular vote, it's not exactly a ringing endorsement.
__________________
phanan is offline  
Old 05-31-2005, 04:54 PM   #131
Blue Crack Addict
 
phanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the darkness on the edge of town
Posts: 25,064
Local Time: 08:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Many Americans were disappointed when Bush Sr. did not remove Saddam in 1991.
Now this we all can agree on.
__________________
phanan is offline  
Old 05-31-2005, 05:10 PM   #132
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:34 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars
STING2:

1. But soldiers apperently haven´t found those huge piles of WMD. One thinks that by now the coalition troops must have searched all of Saddam´s palaces. There is enough technology to trace nuclear material.

2.
a. No, it is also a lie if you say "I am sure of something" "I guarantee you..." when you are not sure and can´t guarantee nothing at all.
b. Political leaders have to trust their intelligence reports when they are trying to manipulate public opinion.
c. Another lie is to make intelligence responsible for wrong informations. It is obvious those reports were constructed. if I would be an intelligence agent, I would be disgusted with that administration trying to blame the agency after the manipulations are uncovered. If I was an American citizen, such an administration would hurt my patriotic feelings.

3. The last elections were regulated by a computer system. You are happy your President got so many votes, that´s fine. But I talked to a computer technician and he told me it´s easier than ever to manipulate an election. Just enter your favorite number on the screen. So, it is highly questionable that the American people re-elected Bush.

4. In case you haven´t realized it, several people are worried about your mental state, and only for one reason. Generally you´re a nice guy and everyone likes you (that said so the truth doesn´t kick in too hard), but you always repeated the same lines like a robot for the last three years. Do not take this offensive (you will, but I am asking you not to), but allow me the question why you engage in that weird repetition of "verifiably disarming" and "UN resolutions"? Did someone brainwash you, or is it your personal mantra you meditate with (I could accept this, even if that would be a weird mantra, but maybe it just makes you feel good), or are you kinda unbalanced mentally?
1. The case for war was never conditioned on what would be found afterwards. It was based on Saddam's failure to verifiably disarm. It would be rather easy for Saddam to bury such materials hundreds of feet underground in the middle of Iraq some where so that no one would find the materials for thousands of years if ever.

2. a. It is not a lie to say "I am sure of something" based on the best intelligence we had as well as the intelligence of other organizations. The President was sure based #1 on the fact that SADDAM failed to verifiably disarm and #2 we had intelligence that showed he had WMD. Again, NO one lied!

b. The Bush administration was trying to defend the United States and the planet by removing Saddam. They made the best case they could for that action because they felt Saddam was an intolerable threat. The intelligence was not the central case for the war, but a supporting case. UN resolution 1441 lays out the administrations central case for war.

c. The intelligence information was the best we had at the time, but once again it was not the #1 case for war. The #1 case for war was the FACT that Saddam had failed to verifiably disarm of over 1,000 liters of Anthrax, hundreds of pounds of Mustard Gas, hundreds of pounds of Sarin gas, and over 20,000 bio/chem capable artillery shells as well as other violations of the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement.

The intelligence community did the best it could on a matter that is very difficult to investigate. The administration used the intelligence information that the community had. That is not a lie.


3. Great, another conspiracy theory. Bush won and most people did not vote through a computer including myself. I understand that many Europeans having difficulty understanding and accepting the fact that the American people re-elected Bush, but they did and not conspiracy dreaming is going to change that.

4. Great, your now telling me that I'm mentally insane for stating my informed opinion on a particular point! You refer to me as being stupid and a 5 y.o..



Do you understand the RULES you agreed to when you became a member of this forum? Are the MODS reading this?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-31-2005, 05:17 PM   #133
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:34 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by phanan


We discussed this in another thread before, and while most people know that Al Quaida is more than one man, the significance of not capturing or killing Osama bin Laden cannot be denied.

And I very much disagree with your assertion that the American people have not been disappointed by what has happened so far in Afghanistan. It is not considered a success at this point, and I don't think one can say it is until bin Laden is gone.
Afghanistan has been huge success by almost any measure. The United States has removed the Taliban/Al Quada government from power and installed a democracy in Afghanistan in just 3 years. If one understands the history of Afghanistan, one understands just how successful this operation has been. Afganistan has never had a democratically elected government in its 5,000 year history. The United States has succeeding in accomplishing this great goal with a very small number of cuasualites. So far less than 100 US troops have been killed in Afghanistan by hostile fire. Compare that to the Soviet Occupation at this point in the 1980s when the Soviets had suffered over 6,000 killled by hostile fire and not succeeded in their goals.

The American people indeed agreed and re-elected President Bush.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-31-2005, 05:18 PM   #134
Blue Crack Addict
 
phanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the darkness on the edge of town
Posts: 25,064
Local Time: 08:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars


3. The last elections were regulated by a computer system. You are happy your President got so many votes, that´s fine. But I talked to a computer technician and he told me it´s easier than ever to manipulate an election. Just enter your favorite number on the screen. So, it is highly questionable that the American people re-elected Bush.
I'll be the first to admit that I don't care for President Bush, and I did not vote for him either time, but this statement is very much incorrect.

The computer system has been implemented in parts of the country, but most places still vote the old fashioned way - with a paper ballot. I have never voted on a computer.

As for the 2004 election itself, Bush won. It wasn't even as close. It's certainly not what I wanted, but that's what happened. There is no conspiracy.
__________________
phanan is offline  
Old 05-31-2005, 05:20 PM   #135
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:34 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by phanan


Unfortunately, in a two-party system, sometimes the weaknesses of an opponent are more of a reason to vote for the other person.

And people seem to forget what happened in 2000, when the majority of people did not vote for Bush. When one goes down in history as one of the only presidents not to win the popular vote, it's not exactly a ringing endorsement.
Bush's re-election after 4 years in office washes the 2000 election a way except for hardcore liberals.

Lets remember that the Majority of Americans did not vote for Clinton in 1996 or in 1992!
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com