Best Thing Pres. Bush Has Done?

[quote]effR0 wrote:
reckless wrote:

You didn’t know Al Zarqawi before the invasion, and he would have been a nobody if you hadn’t invaded.

Ok, muffin man, I’m feeling particularly nasty tonight.

I’m going to hit you quite hard.

Here is Colin Powell addressing the united nations on February 5th, 2003.

From Briefing Room - The White House

muffin man, please work harder.

JeffR [/quote]

effr0, I got you right where I wanted you.

From your link:

This is the artists impression of mobile biological weapons factories. This was presented as evidence

Are you still pimping the Al-Quada - Iraq connection? Even the Bushies have given up on it!

You shouldn’t haven gone there effr0. Even Powell admits it was probaby his worst moment.

[quote]m00se wrote:
I can’t stand W…BUT I will give him credit for one thing…

He does not seem to be a coward…

Even with many/most in the U.S. turning against him…lowest rated president…blah blah blah…he sticks to his guns. Even when the majority of people think he’s DUM, stoopid or otherwise…he has this “I don’t care what everyone else thinks…I’m gonna do what I want to do”

Again…I’m not saying any of this is right…and if ONLY we could have gotten him to use that stubbornness for good…he COULD have done a LOT of good…

but didn’t.

[/quote]
He’s not sticking to his guns. He’s living in a bubble.

[quote]lixy wrote:

Why do you Yanks always have to bring up WWII?
[/quote]

Because they won that war singlehandedly. On their own. Without any help from anybody.

Everybody was picking their noses, and they defeated the Nazis.

That’s what they’re tought in school.

[quote]John S. wrote:

The pope to me is just another man, Im not catholic. And really Violence and arms can’t solve problems? Why not tell that to the Jews who were saved from concentration camps by America using Violence and arms.[/quote]

What about Jezus? Was he just another man?

What did he have to say about violence and arms?

[quote]John S. wrote:
It was a great start, We got something set up and in a while you will start to see debates and everything like that.[/quote]

You’ll need a little more peace and quiet before the population is interested in political debates.

For now, I think they’re just happy if they can get home without being blown to bits by an exploding car.

Saddam had 100% of the vote, the biggest majority possible.

Do you think he was the best example of democracy?

[quote]reckless wrote:
effR0 wrote:
reckless wrote:

You didn’t know Al Zarqawi before the invasion, and he would have been a nobody if you hadn’t invaded.

Ok, muffin man, I’m feeling particularly nasty tonight.

I’m going to hit you quite hard.

Here is Colin Powell addressing the united nations on February 5th, 2003.

From Briefing Room | The White House

muffin man, please work harder.

JeffR

effr0, I got you right where I wanted you.

From your link:

This is the artists impression of mobile biological weapons factories. This was presented as evidence

Are you still pimping the Al-Quada - Iraq connection? Even the Bushies have given up on it!

You shouldn’t haven gone there effr0. Even Powell admits it was probaby his worst moment.[/quote]

Muffin Man,

I refuse to refute your silliness until you admit your error.

Remember when you said we hardly knew anything about al-zarqawi?

I’m not going to educate you for free any longer.

Either you admit error, or continue to wallow.

JeffR

[quote]Fitnessdiva wrote:
He and his administration presented apparently falisfied information to the Congress prior to the invasion of Iraq… which is a felony.

Just a thought, just a thought…[/quote]

And a brilliant thought at that! Did Bush make the shit up in the hallway before he entered the hallowed halls of Congress? Did Cheney pull him aside and whisper the whole fabricated plan to him before stepped up to the podium? OR was there credible intelligence from multiple (and non-American) sources that said ‘WMDs’, etc.? I mean cirucmstances and REALITY has a BIT to do with what may or may not be a felony.

[quote]pookie wrote:
John S. wrote:
It was a great start, We got something set up and in a while you will start to see debates and everything like that.

You’ll need a little more peace and quiet before the population is interested in political debates.

For now, I think they’re just happy if they can get home without being blown to bits by an exploding car.

And maybe im mistaken but isn’t a democracy chosen by the majority?

Saddam had 100% of the vote, the biggest majority possible.

Do you think he was the best example of democracy?

[/quote]

Well I seem to remember reading about a country raved with war when it first started out(wasn’t civil but they got to that later) And I seem to remember reading about this country becoming the most powerful country in the world.(Can you guess what country that was, I’ll give you a hint it wasn’t canada). Meaning they may be bad now but they have the option to get a lot better.

Saddam was not democracy, he was a dictator, The government they have now, Thats a democracy. Oh and actually 70% did show up for this one on free will, A lot different. Oh and why can’t they be worried about a bunch of different things, or do you just think those Arab’s can’t think of more then one thing at a time?

[quote]DS 007 wrote:
And a brilliant thought at that! Did Bush make the shit up in the hallway before he entered the hallowed halls of Congress? Did Cheney pull him aside and whisper the whole fabricated plan to him before stepped up to the podium? OR was there credible intelligence from multiple (and non-American) sources that said ‘WMDs’, etc.? I mean cirucmstances and REALITY has a BIT to do with what may or may not be a felony.[/quote]

There’s plenty of evidence that the invasion of Iraq was pretty much decided the same week of 9/11. Officials on all sides of the spectrum say that the decision was taken before consulting any evidence. The WMD scam was most likely nothing but a pretense. I can’t assume otherwise given his PNAC connections.

Bush went to war, killed countless (literally) people and wrecked a country. Is rock solid evidence too much to ask for when numerous lives are at stake? Answer that!

[quote]lixy wrote:
DS 007 wrote:
And a brilliant thought at that! Did Bush make the shit up in the hallway before he entered the hallowed halls of Congress? Did Cheney pull him aside and whisper the whole fabricated plan to him before stepped up to the podium? OR was there credible intelligence from multiple (and non-American) sources that said ‘WMDs’, etc.? I mean cirucmstances and REALITY has a BIT to do with what may or may not be a felony.

There’s plenty of evidence that the invasion of Iraq was pretty much decided the same week of 9/11. Officials on all sides of the spectrum say that the decision was taken before consulting any evidence. The WMD scam was most likely nothing but a pretense. I can’t assume otherwise given his PNAC connections.

Bush went to war, killed countless (literally) people and wrecked a country. Is rock solid evidence too much to ask for when numerous lives are at stake? Answer that![/quote]

In the wake of the biggest mass murder in U.S. history I’d say that the administration, while listening to the liberal cries of ‘how could this happen on your watch’ and ‘BUSH KNEW!’, acted on what it THOUGHT was rock-solid evidence in that it was confirmed from multiple sources. Turned out that the intelligence was faulty. Far from a conspiricy.

[quote]John S. wrote:
Well I seem to remember reading about a country raved with war when it first started out.[/quote]

Ravaged. Ravaged with war.

The difference is that the people of that country were doing it for themselves. They revolted against what they saw as unjust rule.

In fact, if you want to draw an analogy between the Iraq war and your war of independence, in Iraq, you’re the British.

Finally, you get it.

That was exactly my point. Just because you have elections doesn’t mean you have a democracy.

It takes a lot more than people going into a voting booth to make a democracy. Things like debates, discussion of policies, exchange of ideas, etc. Iraq had none of that for the past election. People, for the most part, voted for the candidate who followed the same religion they did.

They showed up and voted without knowing what each party proposed to do once elected. It was a lot closer to a popularity contest than it was to a political election. If you look at the numbers of vote per party, they split pretty close to the population percentage of Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis. The Sunnis numbers are lower than the rest because a lot of Sunnis boycotted the election.

It’s hard to follow political debates on TV when you have no electricity. It’s probably difficult to think about less pressing issues when the safety of your family is not assured; when there is violence in the street everyday.

[quote]pookie wrote:
John S. wrote:
Well I seem to remember reading about a country raved with war when it first started out.

Ravaged. Ravaged with war.

(wasn’t civil but they got to that later) And I seem to remember reading about this country becoming the most powerful country in the world.(Can you guess what country that was, I’ll give you a hint it wasn’t canada). Meaning they may be bad now but they have the option to get a lot better.

The difference is that the people of that country were doing it for themselves. They revolted against what they saw as unjust rule.

In fact, if you want to draw an analogy between the Iraq war and your war of independence, in Iraq, you’re the British.

Saddam was not democracy, he was a dictator,

Finally, you get it.

That was exactly my point. Just because you have elections doesn’t mean you have a democracy.

It takes a lot more than people going into a voting booth to make a democracy. Things like debates, discussion of policies, exchange of ideas, etc. Iraq had none of that for the past election. People, for the most part, voted for the candidate who followed the same religion they did.

The government they have now, Thats a democracy. Oh and actually 70% did show up for this one on free will, A lot different.

They showed up and voted without knowing what each party proposed to do once elected. It was a lot closer to a popularity contest than it was to a political election. If you look at the numbers of vote per party, they split pretty close to the population percentage of Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis. The Sunnis numbers are lower than the rest because a lot of Sunnis boycotted the election.

Oh and why can’t they be worried about a bunch of different things, or do you just think those Arab’s can’t think of more then one thing at a time?

It’s hard to follow political debates on TV when you have no electricity. It’s probably difficult to think about less pressing issues when the safety of your family is not assured; when there is violence in the street everyday.

[/quote]

First off, America is not the british if anything there more like the french in that war(Pick up a history book and read about that war). We are not trying to take over Iraq. We are trying to establish a democracy.

And really, so I guess every election held here before t.v. was retarded because as we know according to your logic no t.v. no way to know any information. Hell I guess even the greeks never had one(They are the founders of democracy if you didn’t know that).

[quote]pookie wrote:
John S. wrote:
Well I seem to remember reading about a country raved with war when it first started out.

Ravaged. Ravaged with war.

(wasn’t civil but they got to that later) And I seem to remember reading about this country becoming the most powerful country in the world.(Can you guess what country that was, I’ll give you a hint it wasn’t canada). Meaning they may be bad now but they have the option to get a lot better.

The difference is that the people of that country were doing it for themselves. They revolted against what they saw as unjust rule.

In fact, if you want to draw an analogy between the Iraq war and your war of independence, in Iraq, you’re the British.

Saddam was not democracy, he was a dictator,

Finally, you get it.

That was exactly my point. Just because you have elections doesn’t mean you have a democracy.

It takes a lot more than people going into a voting booth to make a democracy. Things like debates, discussion of policies, exchange of ideas, etc. Iraq had none of that for the past election. People, for the most part, voted for the candidate who followed the same religion they did.

The government they have now, Thats a democracy. Oh and actually 70% did show up for this one on free will, A lot different.

They showed up and voted without knowing what each party proposed to do once elected. It was a lot closer to a popularity contest than it was to a political election. If you look at the numbers of vote per party, they split pretty close to the population percentage of Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis. The Sunnis numbers are lower than the rest because a lot of Sunnis boycotted the election.

Oh and why can’t they be worried about a bunch of different things, or do you just think those Arab’s can’t think of more then one thing at a time?

It’s hard to follow political debates on TV when you have no electricity. It’s probably difficult to think about less pressing issues when the safety of your family is not assured; when there is violence in the street everyday.

[/quote]

pookie, cut the nonsense.

In the analogy between our War of Independence and Iraq, we are the Americans in both scenario.

We are fighting for freedom and independence from a monarch/dictator.

For instance, if we were the British, we would be quartering our soldiers in homes, using Iraqi resources to fund the effort. We certainly wouldn’t be offering to leave if asked.

Horrible, terrible, reprehensible garbage, pookie.

Further, when 70% percent of the populace freely, uncoerced, openly, and willingly votes (especially with the know it alls predicting mass violence) you call that THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS.

It surely isn’t facism, communism, monarchial rule, etc.

Further, I’m fully aware of your intentions. You are trying to make the election illegitimate. How else can you explain the Iraqi’s asking publicly and privately for the Americans to stay? How do you explain their elected leaders lobbying the weenie democrats in Congress a couple of weeks ago.

Remember that the observers/u.n. openly praised the elections. Even jacques chirac grudgingly praised them.

In summary, the Americans are there at the behest of a democratically elected government. They are fighting for the noblest of causes: Freedom.

You are on the wrong side of this argument. The sooner you see it, the less angst you’ll have.

Good luck,

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:
reckless wrote:
effR0 wrote:
reckless wrote:

You didn’t know Al Zarqawi before the invasion, and he would have been a nobody if you hadn’t invaded.

Ok, muffin man, I’m feeling particularly nasty tonight.

I’m going to hit you quite hard.

Here is Colin Powell addressing the united nations on February 5th, 2003.

From Briefing Room - The White House

muffin man, please work harder.

JeffR

effr0, I got you right where I wanted you.

From your link:

This is the artists impression of mobile biological weapons factories. This was presented as evidence

Are you still pimping the Al-Quada - Iraq connection? Even the Bushies have given up on it!

You shouldn’t haven gone there effr0. Even Powell admits it was probaby his worst moment.

Muffin Man,

I refuse to refute your silliness until you admit your error.

Remember when you said we hardly knew anything about al-zarqawi?

I’m not going to educate you for free any longer.

Either you admit error, or continue to wallow.

JeffR

[/quote]

Horse shit.

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
JeffR wrote:
reckless wrote:
effR0 wrote:
reckless wrote:

You didn’t know Al Zarqawi before the invasion, and he would have been a nobody if you hadn’t invaded.

Ok, muffin man, I’m feeling particularly nasty tonight.

I’m going to hit you quite hard.

Here is Colin Powell addressing the united nations on February 5th, 2003.

From Briefing Room | The White House

muffin man, please work harder.

JeffR

effr0, I got you right where I wanted you.

From your link:

This is the artists impression of mobile biological weapons factories. This was presented as evidence

Are you still pimping the Al-Quada - Iraq connection? Even the Bushies have given up on it!

You shouldn’t haven gone there effr0. Even Powell admits it was probaby his worst moment.

Muffin Man,

I refuse to refute your silliness until you admit your error.

Remember when you said we hardly knew anything about al-zarqawi?

I’m not going to educate you for free any longer.

Either you admit error, or continue to wallow.

JeffR

Horse shit.[/quote]

Wow, Wreckless you sure showed him, Brought all the data to the table on that one huh? Really showed the rest of your hand there(stop before you say anything stupider).

[quote]Wreckless wrote:

Horse shit[/quote]

…as usual.

[quote]John S. wrote:
It was a great start, We got something set up and in a while you will start to see debates and everything like that. And maybe im mistaken but isn’t a democracy chosen by the majority?[/quote]

Holy shit. Get your head out of your ass.

There is a lot more to having a stable democracy than casting a fucking vote.

Rah rah rah… you look great in that skirt little cheerleader.

When the vote happened I was enthused too, at first. Stop hanging on to the words “democracy” and “vote” like a kid with a chocolate bar. There are serious fucking problems with the government, and voting on who gets to dump who in the river is not really the purpose of a democracy…

[quote]lixy wrote:
Why do you Yanks always have to bring up WWII?
[/quote]

It’s a free pass allowing the bearer to be an arrogant asshole due to the behavior of his or her ancestors…

[quote]JeffR wrote:
We are fighting for freedom and independence from a monarch/dictator.
[/quote]

Jerffy, I thought this was part of the war on terror.

Wow, you do realize there are a lot of monarchs and dictators left on the planet right?

You are one of those idiots who will accept varied and changing reasons for being at war every time the direction of the wind changes.

I’m not sure you do it personally, but on of the contradictions I like is the hatred of the UN on one hand, such that the US need not listen to it, but that old UN dictates justify this war.

Oh, wait, that would be yet another reason.

Wasn’t the reason the sample vial held up by poor old Colin Powell, or perhaps the mobile bio labs, or the long range missile sites, or maybe the nuclear weapons program… that all magically evaporated once the US showed up to verify their presence?

Stop picking a new fucking reason to match every discussion. All that does it make it painfully obvious that there was no legitimate reason.

Oops, sorry, I hope I didn’t let the cat out of the bag!

[quote]vroom wrote:
John S. wrote:
It was a great start, We got something set up and in a while you will start to see debates and everything like that. And maybe im mistaken but isn’t a democracy chosen by the majority?

Holy shit. Get your head out of your ass.

There is a lot more to having a stable democracy than casting a fucking vote.

Rah rah rah… you look great in that skirt little cheerleader.

When the vote happened I was enthused too, at first. Stop hanging on to the words “democracy” and “vote” like a kid with a chocolate bar. There are serious fucking problems with the government, and voting on who gets to dump who in the river is not really the purpose of a democracy…[/quote]

Your so full of shit, There’s problems with every government, does not mean they are not getting better.