Author Topic: Bush Ducks  (Read 5632 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bush Ducks
« Reply #30 on: December 16, 2008, 04:18:18 PM »
Again, it is not the province of the US government or of my tax dollars to provide Iraqis with a government they sort of like.

And again, this has nothing to do with geography, nor why we went into Iraq in the 1st place


===============================

Of course it has to do with geography. Iraq is too far away to harm the US, and they have no delivery systems, and had none at the time.

"We" went into Iraq supposedly because Iraq had every sort of weapons of Mass Destruction ever made and suppoesdly they were about to drop them all on us, despite the total lack of delivery systems. "We" went into Iraq because a lot of really stupid people in the population thought that conquering Iraq would be a piece of cake, and that if "we" did not invade Iraq, Saddam would de;liver another 9-11 to our doorstep. "we" believed this although there was zero evidence that this was even physically possible (it wasn't).

Once "we invaded Iraq and destroyed their aryt and police and everything and brought chaos to the place, then none of the famous WMD's was found, and the pretext was invented that our mission was to bring democracy to the place. Strangely, the same people who are most in favor of "democracy" in Iraq are the ones always spouting off the rightwing crypto-fascist line that the US is a "republic, not a democracy".

But I knew from the git-go that it was a dumbass idea, as did lots of others. It is my belief that those who thought otherwise are fools, because it was totally obvious to me that Saddam as a threat was a fiction, and that all we were getting was a barrage of propaganda. Perhaps those years in Mexico made me more perceptive to govt. propaganda.

Iraq was totally unrelated to 9-11, but without 9-11, there is no way the Iraq invasion would have been authorized by Congress.

Iraq was a terrible, costly and stupid idea and in addition was stupidly done until the administration finally started listening to the professional military. Juniorbush will go down in history as the worst president ever just for this. It might well be the event that marked the beginning of the end of US world domination, like  Trafalgar was for the French Navy, Lepanto was for the Turks, or WWII for the British.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2008, 04:55:47 PM by Xavier_Onassis »
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bush Ducks
« Reply #31 on: December 16, 2008, 04:29:13 PM »
Again, it is not the province of the US government or of my tax dollars to provide Iraqis with a government they sort of like.  And again, this has nothing to do with geography, nor why we went into Iraq in the 1st place
===============================
Of course it has to do with gerography.

No, it doesn't.  It has everything to do with the effects upon the populace, be it here in the U.S., or in Iraq


Iraq is too far away to harm the US, and they have no delivery systems, and had none at the time.  "We" went into Iraq supposedly because Iraq had every sort of weapons of Mass Destruction ever made and suppoesdly they were about to drop them all on us.

That would be a lie, or at the bare minimum a gross distortion, since it was never about what Iraq was about to unleash on America.  So best, nip that in the bud, right now.  So, that'd be 0 for 2, with this at bat


Once "we invaded Iraq and destroyed their aryt and police and everything and brought chaos to the place, then none of the faous WMD's was found, and the pretext was invented that our mission was to bring democracy to the place.

Strike 3, since again it was never a pretext, simply a consequence of our actions.  You may return to sitting on the bench, as your flailing continues to generate nothing but hot air vs any substantive dialog

"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bush Ducks
« Reply #32 on: December 16, 2008, 04:57:12 PM »
That is the way it was. I am right, you are the rest of you clowns are dead wrong.

Accept it or don't.

If you don't allow me to point out that you don't know sh*t.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2008, 05:21:06 PM by Xavier_Onassis »
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bush Ducks
« Reply #33 on: December 16, 2008, 05:17:10 PM »
That is the way it was.

No, it wasn't


I am right, you are the rest of you clowns are dead wrong.

No, you're not.  You will not find 1 quote or 1 executive order that EVER referenced some impending attack on U.S. soil by the nation of Iraq, or that we went to Iraq primarily to bring democracy to the people.  All you have is the gross out-of-context misrepresentation of a "mushroom cloud" quote.  And that's it


Accept it or don't.

I accept your use of the standard BDS playbook of distortion, if not outright lying, as it relates to the left's hatred of anything & everything Bush


If you don't allow me to poinht out that you don;pt know sh*t.

LOL....don't "allow" you to spew your idiocy & incivility??  By all means, lemme move out of your way.  Please, continue   
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

richpo64

  • Guest
Re: Bush Ducks
« Reply #34 on: December 16, 2008, 05:27:46 PM »
>>That is the way it was. I am right, you are the rest of you clowns are dead wrong. Accept it or don't.<<

The problem here is in the face of all, or nearly all, your democratic masters assurance that Saddam's Iraq was an immenant threat and needed to be dealt with, you stick your fingers in your ears and hope he'll just go away peacefully despite his past performance. You can certainly be against war everytime if that's your position, but to condemn Bush for doing what he was urged to do by democrats is dishonest and frankly stupid to the extreme.

>>If you don't allow me to poinht out that you don;pt know sh*t.<<

It's debates like this that prove you to be insipid loser who should never be taken seriously when discussion real world problems and solutions. You can't get past your petty hatred of people who disagree with your socialist philosophy to take a realistic view of the world and place your country and your fellow citizens first in order to protect them from enemies anyone with cognitive brain functions can see.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bush Ducks
« Reply #35 on: December 16, 2008, 05:33:23 PM »
And I'm also betting that history will see as Lincoln was to the slaves, Bush was to the Iraqis
===========================================================================
Since f*cking when is it the province of the government of this country to "free" the citizens in a country with an utterly alien culture half a world away?



Since 1918?

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bush Ducks
« Reply #36 on: December 16, 2008, 05:40:33 PM »
Again, it is not the province of the US government or of my tax dollars to provide Iraqis with a government they sort of like.


This seems like a good point , but it can be a good idea to attack the root causes of terrorism, and produceing a government controlled from the peoples vote in the middle of a region ruled by autocrats might really sap the strength of terrorism.

If one accepts the theroy that the people are miserable being poor and under the heal of autocrats is a root cause .

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bush Ducks
« Reply #37 on: December 17, 2008, 06:40:15 PM »
If one accepts the theroy that the people are miserable being poor and under the heal of autocrats is a root cause .

===================================================
But this is not true. Not one of the 9-11 hijackers, and not one of the Al Qaeda honchos was poor. All were middle class and fairly well educated. Nearly all revolutionaries, all leaders of coups d'etat thoughout history have been members of the middle class. The only ones that I can think of who were not were Pancho Villa, Emiliano Zapata and his brother and Antonio Maceo. Come to think of it, the Zapatas owned some land, and it was taken away by some rich hacendado.

Fidel, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho, Pol Pot, the Ayatollah Kholmeini, Ataturk, Naploeon, Marat, Robespierre--all were middle class and better educatred than the peasantry. If poverty were the cause of armed revolution, then Haiti would be Revolution Central of the Americas.

Iraq was not the cause of 9-11, and posed no threat to anyone in the USA before the invasion.

Of course, Saddam was a hateful wretch, and Iraq is well rid of him.

Juniorbush is an incompetent wretch, and soon we will be rid of him as well, but I do not believe that it is the province of Canada, France, or Togo to remove him. It is the job of Americans to get rid of leaders we dislike, just as it was the job of Iraqis to remove Saddam.
 
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bush Ducks
« Reply #38 on: December 17, 2008, 06:51:31 PM »
It is the job of Americans to get rid of leaders we dislike, just as it was the job of Iraqis to remove Saddam.

Ahhh, so Iraq was just on the verge of removing their "wretched" military dictator, and we just happened to get in the way.  Boy, glad you got that cleared up Xo.  In fact, that last Iraqi election had Saddam winning by something along the lines of 99.999% of the vote.  They were soooooo close at getting rid of him, then we got in the way, dammit
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bush Ducks
« Reply #39 on: December 18, 2008, 12:21:11 PM »
Whether the Iraqis were on the verge of removing Saddam or not is immaterial. You seem to believe that God or some other Greater Moral Authority had decreed that Saddam be removed, and being as the Iraqis were not up to the task, it fell to the Americans to do this. I disagree. While perhaps bombing Serbia, which was moderately expensive and only somewhat threatening to human life was perhaps justifiable in removing Milosovic, and the South African embargo was definitely useful in bringing true democracy to the majority of the people of the RSA, and cost the US nothing in weapons or casualties. It is not a case of pure good and evil or black and white. All actions have their costs and benefits, and these need to be weighed carefully. It is my opinion that the costs of invading Iraq were greater than the benefits, certainly to the people of the US.

Removing Saddam by conquering Iraq, I believe, was far too expensive in lives and money. I do not believe that the US should take upon itself the burden of removing evil or incompetent governments unless the security of Americans living in America is threatened and no other means can be used. This was not the case in Iraq.

The dictatorships of North Korea, Burma and Turkmenistan certainly are as bad for their citizens as Saddam was in Iraq. The main difference seeems to be that Iraq has more oil.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bush Ducks
« Reply #40 on: December 18, 2008, 12:45:27 PM »
Whether the Iraqis were on the verge of removing Saddam or not is immaterial. You seem to believe that God or some other Greater Moral Authority had decreed that Saddam be removed

Well, if you want to declare the prior Clinton administration as being God-like, then yea, I guess your right.  The official position was regime change, which is largely a decree he be removed.  Of course, that's NOT why we went in under Bush, but please, continue the gross misrepresentation


The dictatorships of North Korea, Burma and Turkmenistan certainly are as bad for their citizens as Saddam was in Iraq.

The difference being we never went into Iraq because Saddam was a really bad guy, so why would we in the other scenarios?  You have reference of their connections to miltant Islamic radicals, bent on attacking the West?
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11159
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bush Ducks
« Reply #41 on: December 18, 2008, 03:13:58 PM »
"Iraq....posed no threat to anyone in the USA before the invasion"

and then again....there is reality!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwqh4wQPoQk



"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bush Ducks
« Reply #42 on: December 18, 2008, 03:54:37 PM »
Suppose the shoe thrower targeted Saddam
December 18, 2008
 
The name: Muntadhar al-Zeidi ? a new hero to many in the Muslim world.

President Bush ? in a surprise, end-of-term visit to Iraq ? held a press conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Al-Zeidi, an Iraqi "reporter," shouted, "This is your farewell kiss, you dog," and threw a shoe at Bush. The reporter quickly threw a second. The shoes missed their target only because an agile President Bush managed to duck. And with his typical self-deprecating humor, he later joked, "It was a size 10."

"(Al-Zeidi's) a rather nervous type," al-Zeidi's brother later said, "and above all hates violence and the bombing." Al-Zeidi's employer, Iraqi-owned but Egypt-based Al-Baghdadia television, refused to apologize for its reporter's behavior, calling him a "proud Arab and an open-minded man."

The violence-hating al-Zeidi, according to reports, displays a picture of the "revolutionary" Che Guevara on his wall. Cuban ?migr? Humberto Fontova, author of "Exposing the Real Che Guevara," credits Guevara with 14,000 executions. Witnesses say this icon for many radicals personally murdered hundreds ? including children and pregnant women. But we digress.

Many Iraqi reporters in the room apologized to the president. One journalist observed, "It was a reporter (emphasis added) who yanked (al-Zeidi) to the ground before Iraqi or American guards could reach him."

Meanwhile, stateside, many in the Bush-hating news media seemed almost giddy ? no doubt considering the shoe throwing a vindication of their own hostility to the war.

Chris Cuomo of ABC's "Good Morning America" said: "Remember when the statue of Saddam Hussein was brought down? When it happened, all the people there started throwing shoes at it. ? Why? Disrespect. It is a high form of insult."

A CBS "Early Show" reporter said: "Mr. Bush's message of progress was eclipsed in Baghdad by a sign of his unpopularity. ? The symbolism wouldn't have been lost on Iraqis, for whom shoes can be used to show extreme contempt, as with the footwear beaten against the statue of Saddam Hussein toppled by Marines five years ago."

The Los Angeles Times wrote: "In the few seconds it took Iraqi journalist (Muntadhar al-Zeidi) to wing a pair of shoes at President Bush, the Middle East got its own version of Joe the Plumber. Just as Joe Wurzelbacher's gripes to Barack Obama ? catapulted him to fame, (al-Zeidi's) burst of rage toward Bush ? has made him a household name across the Middle East."

"Joe the Plumber"?

Would that be the working-class citizen who politely questioned then-candidate Barack Obama about his spread-the-wealth philosophy?
Or was the reference to the lost video of Joe the Plumber hurling a couple of pipe wrenches at Obama's head while calling the now-president-elect a "dog"?

Let us pose a few questions.

Suppose one or both shoes hit their mark. What if President Bush had been struck in the eye and been seriously injured? After all, in the chaos, press secretary Dana Perino was injured when a microphone struck her in the eye. Would some in the media have considered it as comical had the reporter targeted Barack Obama? It is, after all, quite reasonable that the incoming president will be the subject of a greater than usual number of threats.

This raises another question ? how did the Secret Service allow the man to get off not one, but two attacks? "I realized one of the reporters behind me was shouting and, in a way, reloading, with a second shoe," wrote Adam Ashton of California's Modesto Bee, the only American reporter in the room. "Off it went, just as fast as the first. I couldn't believe he had time to get a second one off (emphasis added)."

Suppose the Iraqi reporter had thrown his shoes at Saddam Hussein.

During the dictator's 24-year reign, Saddam killed an estimated 300,000 Iraqi citizens. Some place the number at more than a million. This means that, on the low end, over the past six years, a still-in-power Saddam would have killed 75,000 people. Since the March 2003 coalition invasion of Iraq, the Iraq Body Count ? which many consider reliable ? puts the number of violent Iraqi civilian deaths at between 89,000 and 98,000, a number that includes "insurgents" and civilians killed by them. But Iraq now has a fledgling multi-sectarian democratic government, a better economy ? and a free press.

"All over central Iraq," wrote the BBC mere months after Saddam Hussein's fall, "independent radio and television stations are suddenly emerging to fill the void left by the destruction and collapse of the old national broadcaster. ? Iraqis are enthusiastically embracing the possibilities of a free media after years of heavy censorship. Alongside these do-it-yourself radio and TV stations, dozens of newspapers representing every kind of political viewpoint are suddenly available."

What of the fate of the shoe thrower in today's Iraq? Eyewitness and NBC news producer Ghazi Balkiz put it this way: "(Under Saddam) any insult to the president or the president's guests used to be punished by death." So while al-Zeidi remains in custody, he faces no feet-first visit to the wood chipper.

Who knows? Maybe he'll even get his shoes back.   

"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bush Ducks
« Reply #43 on: December 18, 2008, 08:05:32 PM »
While perhaps bombing Serbia, which was moderately expensive and only somewhat threatening to human life .........



Quote

somewhat.........



Hahahahahahahahahahaha!


Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bush Ducks
« Reply #44 on: December 19, 2008, 03:44:51 PM »
Compare the number of casualties in Serbia to those in Iraq.

No real comparison.

I don't think there were ANY American casualties in Serbia.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."