Printable View
Explain?Quote:
Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@27 April 2004 - 22:49
Busy you still don't believe that the WMD's were ever there? What about the terror attacks of recent that were stopped where the terrorist were planning to use chemical weapons? Where do you think they got these weapons?
Yesterday or day before there were terrorist arrest who were planning to use chemical weapons in their attack. It was on the front page of CNN's website but I can't find a link for you ATM, but I'll keep looking.
Edit: Found it. Link
There are too many things to respond to here just now; I think I'll wait for some thoughts to coalesce before I post. :blink:
Hank,Quote:
Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@27 April 2004 - 20:15
Clocker I think that your wrong on this one. President Bush inherited a big time problem when he took over office from Clinton.
Every President inherits big time problems...it's the nature of the beast.
Just try to imagine the morass that Bush's successor will wade into.
Oddly enough, Clinton was generaly liked and respected around the world.Quote:
Each and every time that Clinton got into some kind of personal scandal he would attempt to divert attention from that by lobbing cruise missiles at a country. Then to make it look good he would give some bullshit speech and talk in circles.
Still is, actually.
Pretty galling, eh?
And this proves what?Quote:
Yesterday or day before there were terrorist arrest who were planning to use chemical weapons in their attack.
Sadly, the world is awash with WMD ( including chemical and biological), and the appearance of same in the Middle East hardly conclusively proves that Iraq had the stockpiles we were lead to expect.
Trying to channel Cheney, j2?Quote:
There are too many things to respond to here just now; I think I'll wait for some thoughts to coalesce before I post.
Yeah, Bush must have fucked up big time for that to happen.Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4@27 April 2004 - 16:25
I find it a bit disconcerting that everyone hates Bush so much that they would, quite literally, rather elect (Kerry aside) absolutely anybody, without the slightest concern for his/her views on any issue whatsoever, just to be rid of Bush.
Oh, wait a minute...
:D
Yeah, Bush must have fucked up big time for that to happen.Quote:
Originally posted by Alex H+28 April 2004 - 01:25--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Alex H @ 28 April 2004 - 01:25)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@27 April 2004 - 16:25
I find it a bit disconcerting that everyone hates Bush so much that they would, quite literally, rather elect (Kerry aside) absolutely anybody, without the slightest concern for his/her views on any issue whatsoever, just to be rid of Bush.
Oh, wait a minute...
:D[/b][/quote]
Actually, those of us old enough to remember Ronald Reagan are struck by the similarity of the level of hatred and polarization evoked by Bush.
Conservatives, amongst themselves (this is a secret, don't tell anybody) have the opinion that Bush (although he doesn't begin to approach Reagan's brand of Conservatism) is very clearly perceived as a threat to liberalism in America, vis a vis the fact they are so "exposed" in their efforts to unseat him.
The fact of his having co-opted certain issues (education, prescription drugs, etc.) and done so in the manner of your standard-grade liberal has the effect of depriving them of the Democrat establishment's bread-and-butter (witness the eye-popping vitriol exhibited by such liberal stalwarts as Edward Kennedy-he's scared! :lol: ).
The media has gone off it's nut, too:
Witness the spanking ABC news is giving Kerry right now; it is happening because they are punishing him for lessening his viablity by making such a hash of this "medal" thing; it's not "much ado about nothing", otherwise they'd be giving him a pass on it, as is/was their habit with Democrat candidates.
That is actually how things work in this country; the media exerts it's influence by ruining a candidate it deems unelectable, just in time to consider other prospects-and let's face it, all you Americans: Absent FOXNEWS, talk radio, the New York Post, and the Washington Times, the entire media package domestically is NOT Conservative.
The plain fact of the matter (as regards the upcoming election) is that Bush drives the Libs right up the fucking wall with the fear that a continuance of the Republican majority through the next election cycle will further cement their status as a retrograde party, and will render them as ineffective and feckless as the Republicans were for 40 years prior to the '98 and '02 mid-term elections.
Democrats fear nothing quite so much as being condemned to suffer the embarrassment of belonging to the political second-class, where their "message" (to the extent they can claim to have one) will die the horrible death it deserves.
They are not aided by their unexplainable aversion to re-assessing their message or methods, and if they fail to adapt to a different reality, they will gradually fade until their mere existence will come to signify triviality.
BTW-The above sentiment has been expressed by many, many Democrats; it is not a conservative rant against Liberalism, but a considered assessment of the real situation; the fact is, if the Democrats don't retrieve their party from the pervasive Liberal influence, they are toast!
What this proves is that the terror threat is real and is very dangerous. That fact that they were planning to use chemical weapons scares the shit out of me. What's even more freighting is estimates of how many were going to die.Quote:
Originally posted by clocker@28 April 2004 - 01:01
And this proves what?Quote:
Yesterday or day before there were terrorist arrest who were planning to use chemical weapons in their attack.
Sadly, the world is awash with WMD ( including chemical and biological), and the appearance of same in the Middle East hardly conclusively proves that Iraq had the stockpiles we were lead to expect.
So the appearance of chemical weapons in the same region as Iraq still doesn't convince you that Saddam had anything over there? Where do you think all the weapons went when he knew that we were coming?
this my friend is what's known as circumstantial evidence and is worth absolutely....nothing.Quote:
Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@28 April 2004 - 08:29
So the appearance of chemical weapons in the same region as Iraq still doesn't convince you that Saddam had anything over there? Where do you think all the weapons went when he knew that we were coming?
i have no doubt that saddam did have a certain amount of weapons at some point but not the amount that we have been told he had.
Here's a question. If Saddam had all these weapons and was such a threat, why didn't he use them to defend against the invasion ?. If a hostile force is telling you that they are going to invade (we gave him plenty of warning) your country what would you do ?
a) put your army on high alert and equip them with the best weapons you have
B) send all your weapons away or hide them in a hole in the middle of nowhere
Something just doesn't seem right.
I support our troops, may they all return home safely, and i am glad to see the back of Saddam, but i feel this war is more about oil than any other thing.
Bush told us Saddam had to go because of WMD...none were found, he does actually admit now that the intelligence was flawed ( i will give bush credit for not trying to cover up that one). To save face the war changed it's reason to being the fight to liberate the Iraqi people ( the jury is out as to if we made things better or worse).
We (our troops) went in. We can't change that, but why are you clinging to a reason that even Bush has admitted was based on flawed intelligence?
What this proves is that the terror threat is real and is very dangerous. That fact that they were planning to use chemical weapons scares the shit out of me. What's even more freighting is estimates of how many were going to die.Quote:
Originally posted by BigBank_Hank+28 April 2004 - 16:29--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigBank_Hank @ 28 April 2004 - 16:29)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-clocker@28 April 2004 - 01:01
And this proves what?Quote:
Yesterday or day before there were terrorist arrest who were planning to use chemical weapons in their attack.
Sadly, the world is awash with WMD ( including chemical and biological), and the appearance of same in the Middle East hardly conclusively proves that Iraq had the stockpiles we were lead to expect.
So the appearance of chemical weapons in the same region as Iraq still doesn't convince you that Saddam had anything over there? Where do you think all the weapons went when he knew that we were coming? [/b][/quote]
As Al Queda hated Hussain as much as the USA (They were reportedly fighting alongside their allies The Kurds during the invasion, btw .... ie on the Side of the Coalition) its not very likely he gave them the weapons now is it?
There is no shortage of places in the world unfortunatly; where they could get hold of these, or even Nuclear, weapons. Its reportedly quite easy to get hold of a lot of Russian equipment, as an example.
J2k4,
Not internationally.Quote:
Actually, those of us old enough to remember Ronald Reagan are struck by the similarity of the level of hatred and polarization evoked by Bush
Reagan was good for a laugh mainly as he was obviously senile in his 2nd term, which although not funny in itself, came just after the release of an awful lot of comedy talk/satire shows from the USA calling the Russian Premier the same...
"Pot calling the Kettle Black" sort of thing.
He might have had few friends in places like Libya and other places that usually dont like the USA anyway, but he didnt cause the same distrust in his Allies...
Bush is unique in turning the Sympathy of a planet (less some very minor players) into the largest anti-US feelings worldwide ever, in less than 1.5 years.
He has not recovered any of that anti-US feeling in the following year, indeed he managed to make it even worse.
You really feel safer now?
To the contrary, Rat; I fear I shall never feel safe again, though I attribute the fact to parties other than George Bush.Quote:
Originally posted by Rat Faced@28 April 2004 - 11:15
You really feel safer now?
That you feel differently is clear.
Let me try to clarify something.
Bushes (and therefore the U.S.'s) stated mission is to fight terrorism of any and every stripe.
Associations (other than the "passive" support provided by the likes of Saddam, which benefitted Al Qaeda, no matter what the status of their relationship) between the various terrorist groups notwithstanding, the U.S. wants to eradicate terrorists, and mitigate any inclinations (such as exist) to support them in any way.
Some of the fruit of this tactic can be seen in the unilateral move by Libya to give up WMD and forego the harboring/sheltering of terrorists; this didn't require a single soldier.
That is the kind of success that will breed more of the same.
You, in the U.K., are more at risk from terrorists than from any collateral event resulting from the Israeli/Palestine conflict, for example.
I don't think you are at risk due to your proximity to Denmark, Norway, Sweden or Iceland.
You might be considered to have primacy in your geographic corner of the world, then, although France being just across the way might give you pause, or even Germany, for that matter, but, hey-the E.U. is burgeoning, right?
So: No real worries, eh?
Terrorism is the biggest threat, and the practitioners of that particular art are our targets.
What exactly is it that you are afraid of?