O'reilly Vs. Moore

[hobbes]

@Busyman,

Your wrong, I'm right, 'nuff said, sit down.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by hobbes@2 August 2004 - 09:12
@Busyman,

Your wrong, I'm right, 'nuff said, sit down.

Ok you win mang.

I think at this point as far as the election goes, one must ask himself,

Is GW a sharp leader?

I think it's wash that Kerry has already won.

If GW wins it would have to be fixed.

There has been no President with such a public outcry of dislike.
(He probably beats Nixon)

[clocker]

hobbes,

I do not subscribe to the (conspiracy) theory that Bush invaded Iraq to benefit Big Oil.
As vile as that scenario might be, I find it less troubling than his stated mission that he feels directed by God to spread democracy to the world.
His democratic jihad seemed then ( and still does) to be poorly thought out and merely a convenient way to don the mantle of "War President"...a role he seems particularly inept at fulfilling.
Even granting that he completely believed the (faulty) intelligence he was presented and that removing Saddam was a worthy goal, the fact that he has failed to accept any responsibilty at all for the quagmire he has lead us into ( in fact, according to him things are going well) is reason enough for me to classify him as a failure as a leader.

The current situation is untenable and I do not believe that Bush has the vision or talent to extricate the US.
His administration seems to be fatally adept at skewing their worldview to fit a preconceived agenda rather than accepting what is and dealing with the realities of the situation.
Given this disconnect, I see no way that another four years can make matters anything but worse.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by spinningfreemanny@2 August 2004 - 08:01

Sorry, maybe its just my tiny newbe brain trying to grasp this heavy revelation that your laying down, but, He didn't oblige and inspectors never had free reign, so now he's gonna die.

aaaand, you don't have to act like an ass to get your point across; whatever that might be.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but he did oblige.

The UN inspectors said he was complying fully, and even offering suggestions as to how the amount of Destroyed shells could be verified.

Its the Coalition that wasnt obliging, in that they blocked the technological equipment necessary to do this.


I can think of another Middle East country with a number of outstanding UN resolutions, and is currently bulldozing houses belonging to an ethnic grouping in its population.

In addition they kill members of that ethnic grouping with missiles and tanks...



So are you suggesting the US should also invade Israel?

I'd have to disagree with you there.

If you arent suggesting that, then your a hypocrite, pure and simple.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by spinningfreemanny@1 August 2004 - 23:21
I don't know what your talking about when you infer that the U.S. is not paying the price; our soldiers are dying every day for Iraq's freedom, with the reward simply being that there is no longer a dictator in Iraq that will disrupt freedom.

As unfortunate as it is our soldiers being killed in a mistaken conflict is not what i am talking about when i say that our leaders should accept responsibility.

lets make it a hyperthetical war and take Iraq out of the issue ( sorry j2 ) and make it dessertland. We think they have weapons and they don't like us. Let's ignore the fact that we have weapons far greater than theirs and we don't like them.

We invade and find that they in fact just have some rocks and sticks and in fact they really held no thoughts about us one way or the other untill we invaded them.

So we clearly have made a mistake.

Do you think that the troops we lost when we mistakenly went in is retribution enough? (forgetting the troops of the country that we invaded that died).

Now let's ask another hyperthetical question.
After we invade that country mistakenly the UN passes a resolution that we not only withdraw but we dissarm and we should allow inspectors in to make sure.
Do you think the USA could comply?.

I heard on the news the other day but can't find the story on the net (perhaps someone could help here...it was on cnn) that we are refusing to sign an international nuclear agreement that means we would have to have inspectors in our power plants... the reason for refusing...national security...yet we don't accept any other countries that have the same idea.

[spinningfreemanny]

Originally posted by Rat Faced+2 August 2004 - 15:31--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rat Faced @ 2 August 2004 - 15:31)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-spinningfreemanny@2 August 2004 - 08:01

Sorry, maybe its just my tiny newbe brain trying to grasp this heavy revelation that your laying down, but, He didn&#39;t oblige and inspectors never had free reign, so now he&#39;s gonna die.

aaaand, you don&#39;t have to act like an ass to get your point across; whatever that might be.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but he did oblige.

The UN inspectors said he was complying fully, and even offering suggestions as to how the amount of Destroyed shells could be verified.

Its the Coalition that wasnt obliging, in that they blocked the technological equipment necessary to do this.


I can think of another Middle East country with a number of outstanding UN resolutions, and is currently bulldozing houses belonging to an ethnic grouping in its population.

In addition they kill members of that ethnic grouping with missiles and tanks...



So are you suggesting the US should also invade Israel?

I&#39;d have to disagree with you there.

If you arent suggesting that, then your a hypocrite, pure and simple. [/b][/quote]
Israel is not committing genocide, and Palestine is actively using terrorism as a utility. In the last year or so in fact; its Israel that has taken the casualty beating over Palestine.

RF, I know that you like to associate scenarios (ie; Bush is Hitler and Israel is Iraq). Every situation is unique.

Iraq came up because they kicked the inspectors out in the first place. Iraq was freaked by the threat of war so they let the Inspectors in with good graces; but even then there was coverups that Colon Powell laid before the U.N. that lead to believe that Iraq was fickle in their obedience.

[Rat Faced]

They threw one inspector out, because it turned out he was an American Spy.

The rest were withdrawn as Iraq, understandably under the circumstances, wouldnt allow another American.. which the Americans were insistant upon.

To me, that means that it was the US&#39;s fault the UN inspectors stopped in 1998.

Im bloody sure that I would have thrown a spy out if i&#39;d been in charge. And certainly every other country throws them out as and when.

Indeed, he was lucky he wasnt arrested, as the Inspectors didnt have Diplomatic Immunity.

Edit:

I dont know where your getting your info from re: Casualties in the Israel/Pallestine fiasco...but your wrong.

There are a lot more Palestinian Casualties. They dont have Tanks and missiles, which cause a lot of damage...they have themselves, with a cpl of pounds of explosives attached.

In case you missed where i stand on this: I think the leaders of both sides are a bunch of bastards.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by spinningfreemanny@2 August 2004 - 10:12
Israel is not committing genocide, and Palestine is actively using terrorism as a utility. In the last year or so in fact; its Israel that has taken the casualty beating over Palestine.

Hold on a moment.... Are you suggesting that genocide has to be comitted before action is just. You just poo pood 90% of your arguement for invading Iraq because Rat made it Isreal.....

Were the french resistance terrorists in WW2 ?

Now don&#39;t get me wrong here. I abhore killing and terrorist type actions but i find the way you choose decide what is rightious is just a tad uneven.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by spinningfreemanny@2 August 2004 - 16:12

Israel is not committing genocide, and Palestine is actively using terrorism as a utility.

Iraq was not committing genocide (unlike Sudan), and the Kurds/Al Queda were actively using terrorism as a utility.


Of course, unlike Israel.... when Iraq went after the terrorists (located in Northern Iraq), they got bombed from the US and UK

Your arguments are spacious...


In addition to what i said in the last post:

Israel is known to both have WMD and proliferate it.

Indeed, its one of only 2 nations known to sell the technology....(the other being Pakistan). There are plenty that peope suspect of proliferating, these are only 2 known to have.

Israel also will not sign the non-proliferation agreement and will not allow International Inspectors...


You want more?

[Snee]

Originally posted by Busyman@2 August 2004 - 15:45
There has been no President with such a public outcry of dislike.
(He probably beats Nixon)

Wasn&#39;t there a famous Nixon/Kennedy debate where the people who watched tv thought kennedy had won, whereas the people who&#39;d listened to the radio thought Nixon had won?

I doubt Bush could ever had beaten Kennedy in a debate, no matter the medium.

If only it it hadn&#39;t been for Watergate...