Jeffy posts news reports that are pro-administration wrt executing the war on terror. He then questions when, or to what degree, the liberal press would turn this around into an anti-Bush bash-a-thon.
vroom runs in out of left-field, does his standard nobody-knows-what-the-hell-he’s-talking-about monologue, then promptly runs off, patting himself on the back for being so enlightened that he’s the only one that can follow his logic.
ProfX gets on and does his trademark “Bush Lied - People Died” lament.
JTF posts totally unrelated and outdated B.S.
Elk - who’s been a bit of a stranger of late - Stops juuuuuussst short of his patented “If you haven’t fought, shut the hell up” defense.
Thunder uses words that no one on the other side can understand and turns phrases that make me jealous - leaving the ABB/Antiwar crowd looking like a bunch of third graders in Lord of The Flies.
Prof X, Hi,
Of course it was related to 911. That event changed everything about the way we have to think about threats. What I am saying is that I was NEVER under the impression, neither any of my military colleagues, that the Prez. substituted Saddam for Osama. Connections between Al Queida and Saddam’s regime existed, but Saddam didn’t participate in 911, as soome have said GW has maintained. Again, I agreed with the things Clinton said about Iraq and our need to disarm him.
Thunder uses words that no one on the other side can understand and turns phrases that make me jealous - leaving the ABB/Antiwar crowd looking like a bunch of third graders in Lord of The Flies.
Talk about sycophantic cheerleading!
You guys on the right never own up to the propoganda that was spewed leading up to the invasion of Iraq. There was never a direct statement that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 Dubya just talked about the Iraq and 9/11 simultaniously every chance he got.
It was manipulation to the masses that were willing to eat it up. Its the association game that they played brilliantly. Now that it’s not needed anymore Iraq’s a done deal you guys try to down play it. I also remembering dubya holding up the vial and stressing WMD’s every opportunity he had back in 01, and 02. Slick Willy’s got nothing on this administration.
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Gee veg, don’t let me get to you like that. You’re going to need to toughen up when you make the move out of mom and pops place. Oh yeah, Lance said you sound like a whiney liberal with your little pout session above.
[/quote]
I was just having a bit of sarcastic fun with ya big guy. I try to keep the pouting to a minimum, though I admit at times I am at my wits ends with some of you.
I guess my main qualm was that folks like BB and thunder on the conservative side are generally well read and don’t just gurgle up conservative talking points. I also view some of the libs in that light and say prof X and some of the other boys can at least absorb a bunch of media and then make up thier own minds on the issues. Not just like i’m sure you envision us all doing, watching fox news 24/7 and spewing anything ann coulter says as the truth.
By diminishing thunders points and opinions to merely scripted administration garbage, you effectively kill the debate because then those of us on our side have to prove our worth to even begin having our ideas heard.
Shit I feel like a friggin conservative version of vroom.
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
You guys on the right never own up to the propoganda that was spewed leading up to the invasion of Iraq. There was never a direct statement that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 Dubya just talked about the Iraq and 9/11 simultaniously every chance he got.
[/quote]
Was it propaganda when Clinton said the exact same things?
Was it propaganda when the UN passed resolution 1441?
The only difference I see is that Bush DID something about it, and Clinton, the U.N., and the Frenchies thought tough talk would do the job.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
PtrDR, Hi,
What I am saying is that the mighty search for Saddam was very much a cover up for the failure of finding Osama. Discuss.
[/quote]
I don’t agree with this but I can’t in all honesty say that it was not viewed as an added bonus by some in the administration. I think there were probably 100 or more reasons as to why the administration and many of the rest of us thought it was finally time to take military action against this good.
The way I viewed it as an individual, was that here is a guy who has proven himself to be a terrible violent leader. He has launched cruise missles all over the freaking middle east and has been involved in about 4 wars. He WANTS weapons of mass destruction, he has had WMD in the past and used them on his own people, and he has had programs to develop further ones. He kicked out the inspectors in 1998 who were there to make sure he was not doing anything WRT WMD and has been ruling with no watch for 4 or 5 years. He has also been (his army) shooting at US and coalition planes in the no fly zones for many years with no retaliation or hostile actions from our airforce. All of the world inteligence communities believed very strongly, that he had WMD’s, many wanted to give him a chance to disclose them and disarm them.
Now here is where the decision gets made, we agree to give him one more friggin chance, he has to disclose 100% of the weapons of his country that are not supposed to be thier including other weapons not only WMD’s. So he says his country is 100% clean of any weapons that they aren’t supposed to have and in a few weeks we find that he has missiles that can go much farther than missiles he is allowed to have.
Therefore he lied about having them. What are we supposed to think, oh, he just forgot he had this high profile missile program out there? No he’s hiding (or attempting to hide) weapons that he should not have even after we gave him the chance to disclose anything that he did have with no consequences. And that my friends is where you pull the friggin trigger, you cannot give someone like that another chance.
So in a short dissertation, you have my views of why we justifiably went to war in Iraq. Sure there have been other good and bad things discovered or as a result of our actions, but those are all side effects and not reasons why we went in. I will say, we did not go into Iraq to bring freedom to an oppressed people, but it is damn nice that we are staying there and seeing that it is done.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:
You guys on the right never own up to the propoganda that was spewed leading up to the invasion of Iraq. There was never a direct statement that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 Dubya just talked about the Iraq and 9/11 simultaniously every chance he got.
Was it propaganda when Clinton said the exact same things?
Was it propaganda when the UN passed resolution 1441?
The only difference I see is that Bush DID something about it, and Clinton, the U.N., and the Frenchies thought tough talk would do the job.
[/quote]
Would you have accepted the many American casualties if Clinton had rushed into that situation over a decade ago? I seriously doubt it. Bush used 9/11 as his gate to pursuade the American public to accept “war” and all that comes with it. He used the tragedy to his advantage on that point. Had Clinton rushed in previously without this common tragedy and without using it as a justification for the war, it would not have been accepted publicly. You know that as well as I do. Quit playing as if it isn’t truth. The history books won’t be as forgetful.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:
You guys on the right never own up to the propoganda that was spewed leading up to the invasion of Iraq. There was never a direct statement that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 Dubya just talked about the Iraq and 9/11 simultaniously every chance he got.
Was it propaganda when Clinton said the exact same things?
Was it propaganda when the UN passed resolution 1441?
The only difference I see is that Bush DID something about it, and Clinton, the U.N., and the Frenchies thought tough talk would do the job.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Would you have accepted the many American casualties if Clinton had rushed into that situation over a decade ago? I seriously doubt it. Bush used 9/11 as his gate to pursuade the American public to accept “war” and all that comes with it. He used the tragedy to his advantage on that point. Had Clinton rushed in previously without this common tragedy and without using it as a justification for the war, it would not have been accepted publicly. You know that as well as I do. Quit playing as if it isn’t truth. The history books won’t be as forgetful.
[/quote]
What you doubt or don’t doubt is completely irrelevant. I presented facts - and you comeback with what you think probaly might have happened?
Gimmee a fucking break. I could give a shit about what you doubt might have happened.
The republicans in congress stood behind Clinton. The same can’t be said for the current left-wingers in Washington.
But please give me your best ‘Karnac’ on what I was thinking ten years ago.
That’s the lamest bullshit response you’ve ever ejaculated, Prof. Try again.
Hey Prof X,
I don’t see it that way mainly because, up to this point, finding Osama has not happened, but to say it won’t and it is a failure is to speak prematurely. Besides, its not at though GW himself is out there scouring the mountains and badlands. My military brothers are doing that and the hunt is still on, as difficult as it is.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Gimmee a fucking break. I could give a shit about what you doubt might have happened.[/quote]
I asked you a question. You didn’t answer. I didn’t claim that you thought anything. I asked if you did and the represented my doubts. Why not simply answer the question? Why the hostility? I’m crushed.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
There is indeed nothing new under the sun.
Jeffy posts news reports that are pro-administration wrt executing the war on terror. He then questions when, or to what degree, the liberal press would turn this around into an anti-Bush bash-a-thon.
vroom runs in out of left-field, does his standard nobody-knows-what-the-hell-he’s-talking-about monologue, then promptly runs off, patting himself on the back for being so enlightened that he’s the only one that can follow his logic.
ProfX gets on and does his trademark “Bush Lied - People Died” lament.
JTF posts totally unrelated and outdated B.S.
Elk - who’s been a bit of a stranger of late - Stops juuuuuussst short of his patented “If you haven’t fought, shut the hell up” defense.
Thunder uses words that no one on the other side can understand and turns phrases that make me jealous - leaving the ABB/Antiwar crowd looking like a bunch of third graders in Lord of The Flies.
Am I missing anything?
[/quote]
Your missing a bunch of stuff.
Hedo giving us his “reports from the ground”.
Hedo and/or JeffR instantly labeling anyone that responds who isn’t named Zeb, Rainjack, or Thunder as a lunatic ultraliberal, and then apologizing to someone that is a republican/voted for Bush/supported the war and admitting they don’t even read posts.
Both sides using the words “conservative” and “liberal” as if they’re insults.
You pretending that anyone that disagrees with you is an idiot.
It’s amazing how much you guys fabricate. I mean you guys literally just make up shit about each other. It’s disgusting. Look at the Jane Fonda thread, it’s just unbelieveable. I do not think I’m exagerating when I say that people literally do not even read posts before they respond, they look at the username and just make some shit up. I’ve decided I’m going to start doing the same. If I can’t get a serious discussion on issues at least I’ll have some fun.