Opinions wanted

Not even in the same league of drivel, by a long way.

In fact a couple of them actually make sense. It's more your bad that you can't see it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Not even in the same league of drivel, by a long way.

In fact a couple of them actually make sense. It's more your bad that you can't see it.

---

No, they don't.

The only one I can see that you might think possibly questionable is the following, but I'll break it down since you didn't get it.

"The last time I checked, the Constitution said, 'of the people, by the people and for the people.' That's what the Declaration of Independence says."

Clinton insinuates that these two documents are the same one. They are not. I learned this in elementary school. If that were the only mistake, it wouldn't be that be of a deal, but the quote comes from the Gettysburg Address ffs! "Last time I checked"? Check again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skizo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Not even in the same league of drivel, by a long way.

In fact a couple of them actually make sense. It's more your bad that you can't see it.

---

No, they don't.

The only one I can see that you might think possibly questionable is the following, but I'll break it down since you didn't get it.

"The last time I checked, the Constitution said, 'of the people, by the people and for the people.' That's what the Declaration of Independence says."

Clinton insinuates that these two documents are the same one. They are not. I learned this in elementary school. If that were the only mistake, it wouldn't be that be of a deal, but the quote comes from the Gettysburg Address ffs! "Last time I checked"? Check again.

---

Thanks for breaking that down for me but I can see the mistake he made there. FFS even I can see that and my knowledge of your history is as near to non-existant as makes no difference.

Like I said earlier the fact that you can't see the sense in some of the things the man said is more your shortcoming than his.

Skizo

I am with JP on this. Clinton's are for the most part slippery slidey politician/lawyer speak (apart from the faux pas regarding Afro Americans not being ordinary). W's are actually just plain funny.

One of my favourite W lines is

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful - and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people - and neither do we."

All people in the public eye mis-speak from time to time but Bush has generated books of this stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

Skizo

I am with JP on this. Clinton's are for the most part slippery slidey politician/lawyer speak (apart from the faux pas regarding Afro Americans not being ordinary). W's are actually just plain funny.

One of my favourite W lines is

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful - and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people - and neither do we."

All people in the public eye mis-speak from time to time but Bush has generated books of this stuff.

---

One of my absolute faves. :lol:

The bugger only opens his mouth to change feet.

I'm fond of this one-

"No question that the enemy has tried to spread sectarian violence. They use violence as a tool to do that."



"You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on."

which is telling because you have to be an "on the list fully paid up and sworn oath of loyalty supporter" to attend his "town hall meetings" on any subject. Otherwise security will have you removed...... So is he concentrating on fooling someone in particular?;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

"You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on."

---

:glag: :earl:

Genious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ram82082

WTC "bomb" in which u speak of was like 92 n had no terror in it. it was in the fucking garage. dunno about u but i was scared n there was no so-called "war on terrorism. if a car bomb in a garage and blowing up a boat count as terrorism, then what was it laden did?

i aint insinuating shit, im stating what the post asked MY OPINION. the current admin is just as bad as al queda, they're fearmongers.

and i c u left out the part about how many countries we were enemies of pre-bush and present.

---

Ah yes, how could I forget? Bombs in garages do no damage.

Too bad Timothy McVeigh didn't know that.

lol hey Skiz Tim's was in a parking lot and it was alot f*ckin bigger. btw what damage are u talkin about from 92'..... all that smoke really weaked the foundation. thats why it fell so ez on 9/11 right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ram82082

lol hey Skiz Tim's was in a parking lot and it was alot f*ckin bigger. btw what damage are u talkin about from 92'..... all that smoke really weaked the foundation. thats why it fell so ez on 9/11 right?

---

You really don't know what the fuck you're talking about, do you?

The bomb exploded in the underground garage at 12:17 P.M., generating a pressure estimated over one GPa and opening a 30-meter-wide hole through four sublevels of concrete. The detonation velocity of this bomb was about 15,000 ft/s (4.5 km/s).

http://www.answers.com/topic/wtc-1993-atf-jpg

A little smoke, eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ram82082 View Post
lol hey Skiz Tim's was in a parking lot and it was alot f*ckin bigger. btw what damage are u talkin about from 92'..... all that smoke really weaked the foundation. thats why it fell so ez on 9/11 right?

---

You really don't know what the fuck you're talking about, do you?

---

While I agree that ram is wrong to discard the first attack, this from the man that did the same with the anthrax letters that killed 5 and left many more seriously ill :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

You really don't know what the fuck you're talking about, do you?

---

While I agree that ram is wrong to discard the first attack, this from the man that did the same with the anthrax letters that killed 5 and left many more seriously ill :rolleyes:

---

Now, that was "a little smoke".

you cats can say what you will... but somewhere in your minds you have to understand that a 30 meter hole and the COMPLETE destruction of 2 of the biggest buildings in the world is apples n oranges.

If the 92' bombing was so huge(as you guys are making it seem), then how come nobody knew or even gave a shit about terrorism/al queida/jihad 'til 9/11?

Vidcc its really not a good idea to bring up death tolls of our ppl, when comparing the clinton and bush admins. 9/11 had more dead than pearl harbor dude(a day that will live in infamy, might i add). which is more than double now, with the "war on terror"

and besides thats not even the point of this thread. i do believe its about forgien policies. so which prez had more problems with the rest of the world? tell me im wrong now, and say Clinton did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ram82082

you cats can say what you will... but somewhere in your minds you have to understand that a 30 meter hole and the COMPLETE destruction of 2 of the biggest buildings in the world is apples n oranges.

---

The rest of your post aside, I think we understand the difference between the apples of '93 and the oranges of 9/11.

That you have tumbled to the difference yourself, though, is a major moment.

We are happy for you. :whistling

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ram82082

you cats can say what you will... but somewhere in your minds you have to understand that a 30 meter hole and the COMPLETE destruction of 2 of the biggest buildings in the world is apples n oranges.

If the 92' bombing was so huge(as you guys are making it seem), then how come nobody knew or even gave a shit about terrorism/al queida/jihad 'til 9/11?

Vidcc its really not a good idea to bring up death tolls of our ppl, when comparing the clinton and bush admins. 9/11 had more dead than pearl harbor dude(a day that will live in infamy, might i add). which is more than double now, with the "war on terror"

and besides thats not even the point of this thread. i do believe its about forgien policies. so which prez had more problems with the rest of the world? tell me im wrong now, and say Clinton did.

---

An act of terrorism is an act of terrorism. The death toll is only part of the shock factor and the higher the better if you are the terrorist. However the definition remains the same even if nobody dies.
In the UK the IRA were carrying out acts of terrorism when they phoned in their hoax bomb warnings just as much as they were when they phoned in real bomb warnings.
The purpose is to create fear of the act.
I merely raised the fact that the anthrax letters post 911 killed 5 and made many seriously ill because j2 dismissed it as "nothing" because he didn't get one. The fact is we did suffer another attack post 911, just not on the same scale.

J2, I find it strange that you invite comparisons between the two administrations, then try to show that there is almost no difference.

I suspect that Busy was right that the following method is the way to get people to ignore what you've written, but I went ahead and read it anyway. Except I ignored your emboldening.

I've reproduced it here but with my own emboldening, which shows the marked difference between their policies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

One of the things we've heard over and over again, ad nauseum, is the complaint that the U.S., under Bush, has developed this nasty habit of pre-emptory and unilateral foreign policy.

The overarching message is that this "tendency" began with Bush.

Well, the message is bullshit.

Read, with special attention to the parts I have emboldened:

Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright
Interview on NBC-TV "The Today Show" with Matt Lauer
Columbus, Ohio, February 19, 1998
As released by the Office of the Spokesman
U.S. Department of State

MR. LAUER: On "Close Up" this morning -- the showdown with Iraq. As UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan heads to Baghdad in a last-ditch diplomatic effort to end the standoff, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is traveling around the United States making the administration’s case for a possible strike against Saddam Hussein. Madame Secretary, good morning to you, good to see you.

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Good morning, Matt, nice to see you.

MR. LAUER: Thank you. To put it bluntly, you were heckled yesterday. What was your reaction to the reception you received?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, actually, I thought it was a very interesting meeting. There were a couple of dozen hecklers. But for the most part, there were some very serious people in the audience who had serious questions that we tried to answer. And we’ll continue to do so.

MR. LAUER: That’s true. You did have people who stood up and expressed their concern over military action against Iraq. Did you walk away from the meeting, Madame Secretary, with a different point of view, a different perspective on the situation?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Absolutely not. I think that we know what we have to do, and that is help enforce the UN Security Council resolutions, which demand that Saddam Hussein abide by those resolutions, and get rid of his weapons of mass destruction, and allow the inspectors to have unfettered and unconditional access. That’s what we have to do.

Matt, we would like to solve this peacefully. But if we cannot, we will be using force; and the American people will be behind us, and I think that they understand that.

MR. LAUER: I’m just curious. Do you think yesterday’s session helped or hurt your case? I mean, back in the early 1990s, Madame Secretary, you used to appear on this show as an analyst for foreign affairs with William Hyland. And you’d come on and talk about the Administration’s reaction to foreign affairs. If you were analyzing yesterday’s performance by you and your colleagues, how would you rate it?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: I thought our performance was great. But I think that the issue here is that there were people who disagree. I would probably say that there were a few dozen hecklers who disagreed. But what I would have said, actually, is that there were more people that asked questions and directed their thoughts about the fact that we ought to send in ground forces.

That’s what I found interesting -- that there are more Americans who really would like us to go in and finish off Saddam Hussein. That was the message that I got from that meeting.

MR. LAUER: And you lead me right into my next question, because one man you heard from yesterday was a retired serviceman named Mike McCall, whose son died during the Vietnam War. Here’s what he said.

(Audio clip.)

Madame Secretary, Secretary of Defense William Cohen attempted to answer that question yesterday. Why don’t you give it a shot for me today.

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, we had a half-a-million troops there in 1991. And the decision was that they could not take out Saddam Hussein. And I don’t think, frankly, that if we got into it, that the American people would want us to send in huge numbers of forces. So we are doing what must be done.

First of all, we would like to have a diplomatic, peaceful solution and have him give unfettered access to these places, so that we could tell what is happening with his weapons of mass destruction. But otherwise, the purpose of a very substantial strike will be to substantially reduce his weapons of mass destruction threat and his threat to the neighbors. We think that is an appropriate goal, and our goal -- and we’ve said this, Matt -- may not seem really decisive; but what we’re trying to do here is contain Saddam Hussein. We’ve managed to do that for seven years. This has been a successful policy. Whenever he puts his head up, we push him back.

MR. LAUER: Let me bring in the man who asked that question in Columbus yesterday, Madame Secretary. Mike McCall, good morning to you.

MR. MCCALL: Good morning, sir, how are you?

MR. LAUER: Oh, thank you, I’m fine. It was a bit impersonal and somewhat raucous in that room yesterday, so let me give you a chance to ask a question one-on-one to the Secretary of State.

MR. MCCALL: Good morning, Madame, how are you?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Good morning, good to see you again.

MR. MCCALL: Thank you, kind of early in the morning. My question is, actually, more of a statement. I’m not a warmonger; I don’t want to see a war; and I don’t think there was any man in that room that was in uniform yesterday, if I’d have asked the question, who wants a war, who would have stood up.

My thought was, if we send in troops after a saturated bombing run and get this thing neutralized to where the troops could almost walk in there in parade formation as more or less of a police force to support the inspectors that come in; get those weapons; destroy them and then turn around to Saddam Hussein and say, "Hey, run your country now, run it like a human being, take care of your people, we’ll buy your oil, we’ll give you money for your oil, and make this country for your people." I don’t want to hurt those people.

MR. LAUER: Let me ask the Secretary of State, is that feasible?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, first of all, let me say how much I admire the gentleman who asked the question; I did yesterday; he is clearly a great patriot.

I think the problem with the idea is that we would have to end up being an occupying force. The Americans don’t want to do that. I don’t think the American people would want us to do that. But after the substantial strike, I think we have a much better chance of having the inspectors go back in or make sure that these weapons are not reconstituted by being willing to do another strike.

This is a very serious problem. None of us are saying that there are easy solutions to it, but we have to contain Saddam Hussein. And, as I’ve said many times, we are prepared to deal, ready to deal with a post-Saddam regime.

But I appreciate what he’s saying, because I think he’s a very brave American and a patriotic American who understands why we have to do this.

MR. LAUER: Mike, let me ask you to stand by, and let me ask a couple more questions to Madeleine Albright.

Madame Secretary, your trip to the Middle East several weeks ago was not as successful as I think you would have liked, in building a coalition against Saddam Hussein at this point -- certainly not as successful as the coalition in 1991. Have you spoken to President Bush or former Secretary of State Baker and asked for any advice on gaining support from the Arab world?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: First of all, I think my trip actually went pretty well, because this is a very different situation from ’91, when there was a cross-border invasion of one Arab country into another. And frankly, I got a lot more support than is publicly visible, because these people live in the region.

MR. LAUER: So they’re saying one thing in public, and saying something else to you in private?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Yes, yes. And we feel comfortable that should we have to use military force, that they will be very cooperative.

And as a matter of fact, I did talk to both former President Bush and former Secretary of State Baker; and they both agreed that we have a much more complicated situation than they had on their hands. And they were very supportive, and I especially enjoyed -- well, I enjoyed talking to both of them, because they do have some very good points.

MR. LAUER: Will you speak for me, Madame Secretary, to the parents of American men and women who may soon be asked to go into harm’s way, and who get the feeling that many countries in the rest of the world are standing by silently while their children are once again being asked to clean up a mess for the rest of the world?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, let me say that there are, a couple of dozen countries that are with us on this that are providing a variety of equipment, support and are willing to be with us. So there is a misunderstanding about saying that there is no coalition; there is. And the truth is that in the Gulf War, we did most of the work, too. There’s no question that we, with the British and French, did a large proportion of the work.

Let me say that we are doing everything possible so that American men and women in uniform do not have to go out there again. It is the threat of the use of force and our line-up there that is going to put force behind the diplomacy. But if we have to use force, it is because we are America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us. I know that the American men and women in uniform are always prepared to sacrifice for freedom, democracy and the American way of life.

MR. LAUER: Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Thank you so much again.

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Thank you.

---

It seems to me that the Clinton administration told Saddam Hussein to comply with the UN resolutions or face action. Since he ultimately complied the action taken was relatively small compared to what it could have been.

Compare that with the actions of the Bush administration. They also told Saddam Hussein to comply with the UN resolutions or face action. The UN weapons inspectors said that by and large he was cooperating, but the Bush-Blair conspirators went ahead and invaded anyway.

What message does that give to the rest of the world? Seems to me like it's "comply or not, we'll attack anyway". The answer which seems to be resulting is "Fuck you, we may as well carry on with what we are doing".

Nice going.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

J2, I find it strange that you invite comparisons between the two administrations, then try to show that there is almost no difference.

I suspect that Busy was right that the following method is the way to get people to ignore what you've written, but I went ahead and read it anyway. Except I ignored your emboldening.

I've reproduced it here but with my own emboldening, which shows the marked difference between their policies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

One of the things we've heard over and over again, ad nauseum, is the complaint that the U.S., under Bush, has developed this nasty habit of pre-emptory and unilateral foreign policy.

The overarching message is that this "tendency" began with Bush.

Well, the message is bullshit.

Read, with special attention to the parts I have emboldened:

Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright
Interview on NBC-TV "The Today Show" with Matt Lauer
Columbus, Ohio, February 19, 1998
As released by the Office of the Spokesman
U.S. Department of State

MR. LAUER: On "Close Up" this morning -- the showdown with Iraq. As UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan heads to Baghdad in a last-ditch diplomatic effort to end the standoff, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is traveling around the United States making the administration’s case for a possible strike against Saddam Hussein. Madame Secretary, good morning to you, good to see you.

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Good morning, Matt, nice to see you.

MR. LAUER: Thank you. To put it bluntly, you were heckled yesterday. What was your reaction to the reception you received?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, actually, I thought it was a very interesting meeting. There were a couple of dozen hecklers. But for the most part, there were some very serious people in the audience who had serious questions that we tried to answer. And we’ll continue to do so.

MR. LAUER: That’s true. You did have people who stood up and expressed their concern over military action against Iraq. Did you walk away from the meeting, Madame Secretary, with a different point of view, a different perspective on the situation?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Absolutely not. I think that we know what we have to do, and that is help enforce the UN Security Council resolutions, which demand that Saddam Hussein abide by those resolutions, and get rid of his weapons of mass destruction, and allow the inspectors to have unfettered and unconditional access. That’s what we have to do.

Matt, we would like to solve this peacefully. But if we cannot, we will be using force; and the American people will be behind us, and I think that they understand that.

MR. LAUER: I’m just curious. Do you think yesterday’s session helped or hurt your case? I mean, back in the early 1990s, Madame Secretary, you used to appear on this show as an analyst for foreign affairs with William Hyland. And you’d come on and talk about the Administration’s reaction to foreign affairs. If you were analyzing yesterday’s performance by you and your colleagues, how would you rate it?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: I thought our performance was great. But I think that the issue here is that there were people who disagree. I would probably say that there were a few dozen hecklers who disagreed. But what I would have said, actually, is that there were more people that asked questions and directed their thoughts about the fact that we ought to send in ground forces.

That’s what I found interesting -- that there are more Americans who really would like us to go in and finish off Saddam Hussein. That was the message that I got from that meeting.

MR. LAUER: And you lead me right into my next question, because one man you heard from yesterday was a retired serviceman named Mike McCall, whose son died during the Vietnam War. Here’s what he said.

(Audio clip.)

Madame Secretary, Secretary of Defense William Cohen attempted to answer that question yesterday. Why don’t you give it a shot for me today.

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, we had a half-a-million troops there in 1991. And the decision was that they could not take out Saddam Hussein. And I don’t think, frankly, that if we got into it, that the American people would want us to send in huge numbers of forces. So we are doing what must be done.

First of all, we would like to have a diplomatic, peaceful solution and have him give unfettered access to these places, so that we could tell what is happening with his weapons of mass destruction. But otherwise, the purpose of a very substantial strike will be to substantially reduce his weapons of mass destruction threat and his threat to the neighbors. We think that is an appropriate goal, and our goal -- and we’ve said this, Matt -- may not seem really decisive; but what we’re trying to do here is contain Saddam Hussein. We’ve managed to do that for seven years. This has been a successful policy. Whenever he puts his head up, we push him back.

MR. LAUER: Let me bring in the man who asked that question in Columbus yesterday, Madame Secretary. Mike McCall, good morning to you.

MR. MCCALL: Good morning, sir, how are you?

MR. LAUER: Oh, thank you, I’m fine. It was a bit impersonal and somewhat raucous in that room yesterday, so let me give you a chance to ask a question one-on-one to the Secretary of State.

MR. MCCALL: Good morning, Madame, how are you?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Good morning, good to see you again.

MR. MCCALL: Thank you, kind of early in the morning. My question is, actually, more of a statement. I’m not a warmonger; I don’t want to see a war; and I don’t think there was any man in that room that was in uniform yesterday, if I’d have asked the question, who wants a war, who would have stood up.

My thought was, if we send in troops after a saturated bombing run and get this thing neutralized to where the troops could almost walk in there in parade formation as more or less of a police force to support the inspectors that come in; get those weapons; destroy them and then turn around to Saddam Hussein and say, "Hey, run your country now, run it like a human being, take care of your people, we’ll buy your oil, we’ll give you money for your oil, and make this country for your people." I don’t want to hurt those people.

MR. LAUER: Let me ask the Secretary of State, is that feasible?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, first of all, let me say how much I admire the gentleman who asked the question; I did yesterday; he is clearly a great patriot.

I think the problem with the idea is that we would have to end up being an occupying force. The Americans don’t want to do that. I don’t think the American people would want us to do that. But after the substantial strike, I think we have a much better chance of having the inspectors go back in or make sure that these weapons are not reconstituted by being willing to do another strike.

This is a very serious problem. None of us are saying that there are easy solutions to it, but we have to contain Saddam Hussein. And, as I’ve said many times, we are prepared to deal, ready to deal with a post-Saddam regime.

But I appreciate what he’s saying, because I think he’s a very brave American and a patriotic American who understands why we have to do this.

MR. LAUER: Mike, let me ask you to stand by, and let me ask a couple more questions to Madeleine Albright.

Madame Secretary, your trip to the Middle East several weeks ago was not as successful as I think you would have liked, in building a coalition against Saddam Hussein at this point -- certainly not as successful as the coalition in 1991. Have you spoken to President Bush or former Secretary of State Baker and asked for any advice on gaining support from the Arab world?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: First of all, I think my trip actually went pretty well, because this is a very different situation from ’91, when there was a cross-border invasion of one Arab country into another. And frankly, I got a lot more support than is publicly visible, because these people live in the region.

MR. LAUER: So they’re saying one thing in public, and saying something else to you in private?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Yes, yes. And we feel comfortable that should we have to use military force, that they will be very cooperative.

And as a matter of fact, I did talk to both former President Bush and former Secretary of State Baker; and they both agreed that we have a much more complicated situation than they had on their hands. And they were very supportive, and I especially enjoyed -- well, I enjoyed talking to both of them, because they do have some very good points.

MR. LAUER: Will you speak for me, Madame Secretary, to the parents of American men and women who may soon be asked to go into harm’s way, and who get the feeling that many countries in the rest of the world are standing by silently while their children are once again being asked to clean up a mess for the rest of the world?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, let me say that there are, a couple of dozen countries that are with us on this that are providing a variety of equipment, support and are willing to be with us. So there is a misunderstanding about saying that there is no coalition; there is. And the truth is that in the Gulf War, we did most of the work, too. There’s no question that we, with the British and French, did a large proportion of the work.

Let me say that we are doing everything possible so that American men and women in uniform do not have to go out there again. It is the threat of the use of force and our line-up there that is going to put force behind the diplomacy. But if we have to use force, it is because we are America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us. I know that the American men and women in uniform are always prepared to sacrifice for freedom, democracy and the American way of life.

MR. LAUER: Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Thank you so much again.

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Thank you.

---

It seems to me that the Clinton administration told Saddam Hussein to comply with the UN resolutions or face action. Since he ultimately complied the action taken was relatively small compared to what it could have been.

Compare that with the actions of the Bush administration. They also told Saddam Hussein to comply with the UN resolutions or face action. The UN weapons inspectors said that by and large he was cooperating, but the Bush-Blair conspirators went ahead and invaded anyway.

What message does that give to the rest of the world? Seems to me like it's "comply or not, we'll attack anyway". The answer which seems to be resulting is "Fuck you, we may as well carry on with what we are doing".

Nice going.

---

It must be acknowledged that the only difference between the two administrations was one of will.

I am very interested, however, in your (and others') tendency to forego any mention of 9/11.

This is not to say there was any other than an empathetic connection between Iraq and the terrorists who perpetrated the event, but 9/11 gave the U.S. a different lens through which to view the entire situation in the mideast.

As there is no shortage of our stateside citizenry willing to forget 9/11 ever happened, though, I certainly cannot blame you for being unimpressed by it.

Nonetheless, 9/11 had a predicate effect on U.S. foreign policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ram82082

lol hey Skiz Tim's was in a parking lot and it was alot f*ckin bigger. btw what damage are u talkin about from 92'..... all that smoke really weaked the foundation. thats why it fell so ez on 9/11 right?

---

You really don't know what the fuck you're talking about, do you?

The bomb exploded in the underground garage at 12:17 P.M., generating a pressure estimated over one GPa and opening a 30-meter-wide hole through four sublevels of concrete. The detonation velocity of this bomb was about 15,000 ft/s (4.5 km/s).

http://www.answers.com/topic/wtc-1993-atf-jpg

A little smoke, eh?

---

Tim's truck was in front of the building. I remember bomb experts concluding that the ammonium nitrate in the truck wasn't enough to cause that much damage and that there had to bombs placed around columns of the building.

ram probably is forgetting about "other" bombs besides the truck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

J2, I find it strange that you invite comparisons between the two administrations, then try to show that there is almost no difference.

I suspect that Busy was right that the following method is the way to get people to ignore what you've written, but I went ahead and read it anyway. Except I ignored your emboldening.

I've reproduced it here but with my own emboldening, which shows the marked difference between their policies.




It seems to me that the Clinton administration told Saddam Hussein to comply with the UN resolutions or face action. Since he ultimately complied the action taken was relatively small compared to what it could have been.

Compare that with the actions of the Bush administration. They also told Saddam Hussein to comply with the UN resolutions or face action. The UN weapons inspectors said that by and large he was cooperating, but the Bush-Blair conspirators went ahead and invaded anyway.

What message does that give to the rest of the world? Seems to me like it's "comply or not, we'll attack anyway". The answer which seems to be resulting is "Fuck you, we may as well carry on with what we are doing".

Nice going.

---

It must be acknowledged that the only difference between the two administrations was one of will.

I am very interested, however, in your (and others') tendency to forego any mention of 9/11.

This is not to say there was any other than an empathetic connection between Iraq and the terrorists who perpetrated the eventNO CONNECTION AT ALL , but 9/11 gave the U.S. a different lens through which to view the entire situation in the mideast.

As there is no shortage of our stateside citizenry willing to forget 9/11 ever happened, though, I certainly cannot blame you for being unimpressed by it.

Nonetheless, 9/11 had a predicate effect on U.S. foreign policy.

---

Different lens? But jay, Bush lied. Even you don't think he lied, he was the leader of being wrong.

So wrong that he has plunged our soldiers into the crap we are in.

Taking action for taking action's sake is idiocy. We don't need that in the nuclear age.

I remember Repubs saying, "Well at least Bush did something."

IDIOTS! Take correct action or STFU!

this is not a post about 9/11 or how many dam bombs timmy had. i only mentioned these things as a way to explain MY opinion on the topic. every1's argueing over details of specific events, but we're all pretty much sayin the same dam thing.

Sh*t.... what do you think about the 2 policies as compared to each other and why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

It must be acknowledged that the only difference between the two administrations was one of will.

I am very interested, however, in your (and others') tendency to forego any mention of 9/11.

This is not to say there was any other than an empathetic connection between Iraq and the terrorists who perpetrated the eventNO CONNECTION AT ALL , but 9/11 gave the U.S. a different lens through which to view the entire situation in the mideast.

As there is no shortage of our stateside citizenry willing to forget 9/11 ever happened, though, I certainly cannot blame you for being unimpressed by it.

Nonetheless, 9/11 had a predicate effect on U.S. foreign policy.

---

Different lens? But jay, Bush lied. Even you don't think he lied, he was the leader of being wrong.

So wrong that he has plunged our soldiers into the crap we are in.

Taking action for taking action's sake is idiocy. We don't need that in the nuclear age.

I remember Repubs saying, "Well at least Bush did something."

IDIOTS! Take correct action or STFU!

---

Don't fuck with my posts; you can't even handle your own.

Bush lied, huh?

He must have been very convincing, because he fooled John Kerry, Hillary, Schumer, et. al. into supporting him.

Even your pal Billy-dick-suck thought we needed to go in, and he's the smartest politician who ever lived.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Don't fuck with my posts

---

I thought it was Ok as long as one used blue :shifty:

@busy............there's supposed to be two "at all"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Different lens? But jay, Bush lied. Even you don't think he lied, he was the leader of being wrong.

So wrong that he has plunged our soldiers into the crap we are in.

Taking action for taking action's sake is idiocy. We don't need that in the nuclear age.

I remember Repubs saying, "Well at least Bush did something."

IDIOTS! Take correct action or STFU!

---

Don't fuck with my posts; you can't even handle your own.

Bush lied, huh?

He must have been very convincing, because he fooled John Kerry, Hillary, Schumer, et. al. into supporting him.

Even your pal Billy-dick-suck thought we needed to go in, and he's the smartest politician who ever lived.

---

Agreed and I'll fuck with your posts as I see fit.

John Kerry flip-flopped by voting for it then against funding it.

Bush still lied and as I said, he was the ring leader so he takes the fall....as he should.

Who led the charge....your pick for Prez that's who.

Who had no plan after "mission accomplished"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Don't fuck with my posts

---

I thought it was Ok as long as one used blue :shifty:

@busy............there's supposed to be two "at all"

---

Why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

I thought it was Ok as long as one used blue :shifty:

@busy............there's supposed to be two "at all"

---

Why?

---

will this give you a hint at all (at all) ;)

@j2k4 - If you think Bush did not lie, are you saying that Iraq still has WMD's hidden somewhere?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manofstyle

@j2k4 - If you think Bush did not lie, are you saying that Iraq still has WMD's hidden somewhere?

---

Do you see getting something wrong as being the same as telling a lie.

As I understand it, from my own Country, the PM was told by intelligence departments that it was likely there were weapons of mass destruction there. He acted on that.

If they were wrong, which now appears likely, then that does not make him a liar.

Oh and there's absolutely no need for the possessive apostrophe in your post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

It seems to me that the Clinton administration told Saddam Hussein to comply with the UN resolutions or face action. Since he ultimately complied the action taken was relatively small compared to what it could have been.

Compare that with the actions of the Bush administration. They also told Saddam Hussein to comply with the UN resolutions or face action. The UN weapons inspectors said that by and large he was cooperating, but the Bush-Blair conspirators went ahead and invaded anyway.

What message does that give to the rest of the world? Seems to me like it's "comply or not, we'll attack anyway". The answer which seems to be resulting is "Fuck you, we may as well carry on with what we are doing".

Nice going.

---

It must be acknowledged that the only difference between the two administrations was one of will.

I am very interested, however, in your (and others') tendency to forego any mention of 9/11.

This is not to say there was any other than an empathetic connection between Iraq and the terrorists who perpetrated the event, but 9/11 gave the U.S. a different lens through which to view the entire situation in the mideast.

As there is no shortage of our stateside citizenry willing to forget 9/11 ever happened, though, I certainly cannot blame you for being unimpressed by it.

Nonetheless, 9/11 had a predicate effect on U.S. foreign policy.

---

I post a rebuttal of your position, in which you make absolutely no mention of 9/11, and you chastise me for not mentioning it.

Amazing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manofstyle

@j2k4 - If you think Bush did not lie, are you saying that Iraq still has WMD's hidden somewhere?

---

Do you see getting something wrong as being the same as telling a lie.

As I understand it, from my own Country, the PM was told by intelligence departments that it was likely there were weapons of mass destruction there. He acted on that.

If they were wrong, which now appears likely, then that does not make him a liar.

Oh and there's absolutely no need for the possessive apostrophe in your post.

---

Manipulating the evidence so as to persuade others of the validity of one's case comes far nearer to lying that getting it wrong.

That's one reason why those who say "look - the other side all agreed too" are deluding themselves. They agreed on the basis of the "evidence" presented to them. Whether they would have disagreed had they seen the raw evidence is a subject for a different debate, but in my book if you twist the truth you can't then claim the support of others based on those distortion's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Do you see getting something wrong as being the same as telling a lie.

As I understand it, from my own Country, the PM was told by intelligence departments that it was likely there were weapons of mass destruction there. He acted on that.

If they were wrong, which now appears likely, then that does not make him a liar.

Oh and there's absolutely no need for the possessive apostrophe in your post.

---

Manipulating the evidence so as to persuade others of the validity of one's case comes far nearer to lying that getting it wrong.

That's one reason why those who say "look - the other side all agreed too" are deluding themselves. They agreed on the basis of the "evidence" presented to them. Whether they would have disagreed had they seen the raw evidence is a subject for a different debate, but in my book if you twist the truth you can't then claim the support of others based on those distortion's.

---

So you are saying that they just looked at the evidence from the intelligence agencies and took that on faith, believeing the people who were paid to do that job and were presumably experts in doing it.

Surely that's exactly what the PM did as well.

Or do you think it's the case that the Govt got material from the agencies and manipulated it to garner support from others.

Have you some evidence of this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

Manipulating the evidence so as to persuade others of the validity of one's case comes far nearer to lying that getting it wrong.

That's one reason why those who say "look - the other side all agreed too" are deluding themselves. They agreed on the basis of the "evidence" presented to them. Whether they would have disagreed had they seen the raw evidence is a subject for a different debate, but in my book if you twist the truth you can't then claim the support of others based on those distortion's.

---

So you are saying that they just looked at the evidence from the intelligence agencies and took that on faith, believeing the people who were paid to do that job and were presumably experts in doing it.

Surely that's exactly what the PM did as well.

Or do you think it's the case that the Govt got material from the agencies and manipulated it to garner support from others.

Have you some evidence of this.

---

Yes, it came out in the Hutton inquiry, but obviously didn't make it into his stifled report. Perhaps you missed it.

The intelligence agencies were concerned about the emphasis and importance that was being placed on uncorroborated information, a fact that was omitted from the published documents presented to Parliament. Do you really believe that the same result would have been forthcoming from a parliamentary vote if such concerns had been expressed? As far as I can see that comes down to misleading parliament, a euphemism for lying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

So you are saying that they just looked at the evidence from the intelligence agencies and took that on faith, believeing the people who were paid to do that job and were presumably experts in doing it.

Surely that's exactly what the PM did as well.

Or do you think it's the case that the Govt got material from the agencies and manipulated it to garner support from others.

Have you some evidence of this.

---

Yes, it came out in the Hutton inquiry, but obviously didn't make it into his stifled report. Perhaps you missed it.

The intelligence agencies were concerned about the emphasis and importance that was being placed on uncorroborated information, a fact that was omitted from the published documents presented to Parliament. Do you really believe that the same result would have been forthcoming from a parliamentary vote if such concerns had been expressed? As far as I can see that comes down to misleading parliament, a euphemism for lying.

---

Sorry to appear obtuse, how could it come out without being in the report. If it wasn't in the report then how did it come out.

And also, who supplied this uncorroborated information. Presumably someone other than the intelligence agencies, if they were concerned about it. I find it bizarre that the Govt sought intelligence other than via it's own intelligence agencies if that's what you are suggesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Don't fuck with my posts; you can't even handle your own.

---

Agreed and I'll fuck with your posts as I see fit.

---

I'll remember that, thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

I post a rebuttal of your position, in which you make absolutely no mention of 9/11, and you chastise me for not mentioning it.

Amazing.

---

My point is "How can you overlook 9/11 as the most significant single event as regards American foreign policy in the past 65 years; it shouldn't even need to be reiterated".

Yours seems to be "Oh, that! Big fuckin' deal...everyone else has suffered terrorist attacks for years, and it's all your fault anyway".

The quality of your rebuttal is questionable into the bargain.

manofstyle-

You're new here, aren't you? :yup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Why?

---

will this give you a hint at all (at all) ;)

---

No I got that part....but what's the point of that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

I post a rebuttal of your position, in which you make absolutely no mention of 9/11, and you chastise me for not mentioning it.

Amazing.

---

My point is "How can you overlook 9/11 as the most significant single event as regards American foreign policy in the past 65 years; it shouldn't even need to be reiterated".

Yours seems to be "Oh, that! Big fuckin' deal...everyone else has suffered terrorist attacks for years, and it's all your fault anyway".

The quality of your rebuttal is questionable into the bargain.

manofstyle-

You're new here, aren't you? :yup:

---

I didn't overlook it.

I was responding to your post, and since you didn't see fit to mention it I assumed you didn't think it relevant.

If you'd mentioned it I would probably have pointed out that WRT to Iraq it isn't relevant to the start of that conflict.

And what's more your diversion away from the content of your post isn't going to work. You tried to show common ground, yet the quote you used clearly indicates a yawning gulf between their respective policies.

I suspect you thought no-one would bother to read such a long piece, other than the bits you'd highlighted. Didn't work, did it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

And what's more your diversion away from the content of your post isn't going to work. You tried to show common ground, yet the quote you used clearly indicates a yawning gulf between their respective policies.

I suspect you thought no-one would bother to read such a long piece, other than the bits you'd highlighted. Didn't work, did it.

---

Your post made me yawn.

That last sentence is a fast exercise in illogic, isn't it? :whistling

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

Yes, it came out in the Hutton inquiry, but obviously didn't make it into his stifled report. Perhaps you missed it.

The intelligence agencies were concerned about the emphasis and importance that was being placed on uncorroborated information, a fact that was omitted from the published documents presented to Parliament. Do you really believe that the same result would have been forthcoming from a parliamentary vote if such concerns had been expressed? As far as I can see that comes down to misleading parliament, a euphemism for lying.

---

Sorry to appear obtuse, how could it come out without being in the report. If it wasn't in the report then how did it come out.

And also, who supplied this uncorroborated information. Presumably someone other than the intelligence agencies, if they were concerned about it. I find it bizarre that the Govt sought intelligence other than via it's own intelligence agencies if that's what you are suggesting.

---

As I said, you must have missed it.

The information was given in the evidence to the inquiry, I believe the transcripts are available if you care to look. Hutton decided that such information was not relevant to his conclusions hence it is not in his report, although I suppose that technically the transcripts are probably part of his report if you want to be so picky.

I have no idea who supplied the uncorroborated information to the intelligence agencies, and I hardly think it matters. If you think it matters, I suggest you contact Tony Blair and demand full disclosure.

I did not suggest that the Government had gone outside its own intelligence agencies to obtain this information. The point is that the intelligence agencies were concerned that so much emphasis was being placed on the information when they did not have a corroborating source, yet it was presented to parliament as sound irrefutable evidence.

The evidence presented to the Hutton inquiry showed that their were plenty of people, not least the late Dr David Kelly, who believed the information to be unsound. Consequently the format of its presentation deliberately misled parliament. In other words, they lied.

Need I spell it out any further?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Sorry to appear obtuse, how could it come out without being in the report. If it wasn't in the report then how did it come out.

And also, who supplied this uncorroborated information. Presumably someone other than the intelligence agencies, if they were concerned about it. I find it bizarre that the Govt sought intelligence other than via it's own intelligence agencies if that's what you are suggesting.

---

As I said, you must have missed it.

The information was given in the evidence to the inquiry, I believe the transcripts are available if you care to look. Hutton decided that such information was not relevant to his conclusions hence it is not in his report, although I suppose that technically the transcripts are probably part of his report if you want to be so picky.

I have no idea who supplied the uncorroborated information to the intelligence agencies, and I hardly think it matters. If you think it matters, I suggest you contact Tony Blair and demand full disclosure.

I did not suggest that the Government had gone outside its own intelligence agencies to obtain this information. The point is that the intelligence agencies were concerned that so much emphasis was being placed on the information when they did not have a corroborating source, yet it was presented to parliament as sound irrefutable evidence.

The evidence presented to the Hutton inquiry showed that their were plenty of people, not least the late Dr David Kelly, who believed the information to be unsound. Consequently the format of its presentation deliberately misled parliament. In other words, they lied.

Need I spell it out any further?

---

Spell it out as much as you want mate.

You're basically saying that the information he relied upon came from the intelligence services which were employed to advise him. That's what he based his decisions on.

If there were subsequent enquiries that's really not the point. He could only base his decision on what the intelligence services put in front of him at the time.

There is also the great chance that he wanted certain intelligence before it was reality.

I have heard from many sources (can't remember names) that after 9/11, Bush wanted to turn attention to Iraq soon after before intelligence ever came about.