Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Off-Topic Discussion > Parking Lot


Wacks the political Bee's Nest

Parking Lot


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-22-2004, 08:31 PM   #61
Playmaker
 
illdefined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: nyc
Age: 38
Posts: 2,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by That Guy
i'm not listening to bush, sorry to disappoint , clinton bombed him, clinton called him a threat many times, but if you're going to put him on a pedestal, i'll challenge it, because, at least in this instance, I don't think its at all justified.
yeah i'm not going to argue about clinton, i dont doubt for a fact he said those things, but if he (or anyone else besides bush) decided it was a REAL imminent threat, they would've made sure first, and NOT dismiss our allies and gone it alone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by That Guy
so continuing to say that only bush thought that way is in blatant disregard of the facts.
wow. did you really say that? BUSH = BLATANT DISREGARD OF FACTS!

regardless of what whoever believed, this is the only administration who had a big enough agenda with iraq to OVERLOOK the need for REAL evidence, risk billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and our relationship with our allies around the world. dont disregard THIS fact.
illdefined is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 07-22-2004, 09:49 PM   #62
Uncle Phil
 
SmootSmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 44,678
I don't remember Clinton seeking approval from allies or the UN when he bombed Kosovo and Bosnia. And I don't remember him seeking permission when he bombed Iraq because of unsubstantiated rumors of an assassination attempt on former President Bush. But this isn't meant to be some anti-Clinton post, because I think he was right in intervening. He might have said it best when he said in 1998 that "Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction."

And now, it's like offiss says, the point is to avoid another 9/11. I still can't fully grasp many of the same people who complain that we weren't proactive enough in terms of Bin Laden argue that we should have just taken a wait and see approach with Hussein because he had never actually invaded our soil.
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You
SmootSmack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2004, 10:37 PM   #63
Living Legend
 
That Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Springfield, VA
Age: 31
Posts: 16,278
Quote:
wow. did you really say that? BUSH = BLATANT DISREGARD OF FACTS!

regardless of what whoever believed, this is the only administration who had a big enough agenda with iraq to OVERLOOK the need for REAL evidence, risk billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and our relationship with our allies around the world. dont disregard THIS fact.
no, that's not what i said at all... please read before firing off reactionary remarks... i said that thinking that bush was alone in his thoughts of an iraqee threat is wrong, as in NOT TRUE. please don't try to pull that kind of crap.

as far as the being the only one to decide on acting in a major way, that's true, and i have never said otherwise.

again, before shooting shit at me, please read what you're responding to, thanks.
That Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2004, 10:38 PM   #64
Playmaker
 
illdefined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: nyc
Age: 38
Posts: 2,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by smootsmack
But this isn't meant to be some anti-Clinton post, because I think he was right in intervening. He might have said it best when he said in 1998 that "Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction."

And now, it's like offiss says, the point is to avoid another 9/11. I still can't fully grasp many of the same people who complain that we weren't proactive enough in terms of Bin Laden argue that we should have just taken a wait and see approach with Hussein because he had never actually invaded our soil.
sigh. awfully circular huh? iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. nothing. why do you guys insist it does? there was nothing bubbling, no real evidence of ANY plans (unlike with bin laden). al-qaeda isnt a nation, thats what makes them dangerous. if iraq as a nation attacked us, the entire world would come down on them along with us. if we had stuck only to afghanistan, the world would come down on al-qaeda and afghanistan because there was PROOF there was a relation. none of that exists for iraq. N O N E.
illdefined is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2004, 10:52 PM   #65
Playmaker
 
illdefined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: nyc
Age: 38
Posts: 2,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by That Guy
no, that's not what i said at all... please read before firing off reactionary remarks... i said that thinking that bush was alone in his thoughts of an iraqee threat is wrong, as in NOT TRUE. please don't try to pull that kind of crap.

sorry, if i was unclear. 'BUSH = BLATANT DISREGARD TO FACTS' was MY retort to you claiming we disregarded clinton and others thinking saddam was dangerous. i just couldnt believe you used that phrase, because thats exactly what bush did. he blatantly disregarded the FACTS.


Quote:
Originally Posted by That Guy
as far as the being the only one to decide on acting in a major way, that's true, and i have never said otherwise.

yup, and then he ACTED on that disregard for the truth. thats the difference. cant believe you're comfortable with that.
illdefined is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2004, 10:52 PM   #66
Living Legend
 
That Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Springfield, VA
Age: 31
Posts: 16,278
problem with afghanistan is that a lot of people slipped across into a fairly lawless portion of pakistan that don't really have permission to go in to... but i agree that iraq is completely seperate, its pretty the first instance of a pre-emptive war... whether you feel it was morally justified is a different subject altogether.
That Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2004, 10:54 PM   #67
Living Legend
 
That Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Springfield, VA
Age: 31
Posts: 16,278
Quote:
yup, and then he ACTED on that disregard for the truth. thats the difference. cant believe you're comfortable with that.
who said i was? you? man, please stop thinking for me...
That Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2004, 10:57 PM   #68
Living Legend
 
That Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Springfield, VA
Age: 31
Posts: 16,278
and if you think he blatantly disregarded facts, you realize that nearly all of congress agreed that iraq was a threat, they maybe didn't have the facts, cause our intel isn't used to dealing with arab threats and we don't have the networks like we did with the soviets..

its nice that hindsight is 20/20, now to work on that foresight...

you insinuated that bush was acting alone, and then when it was brought up that people supported his position, you ignored it... all i've been saying, is many many people thought he was dangerous... that's it... i don't where this other crap came from.
That Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2004, 11:06 PM   #69
Living Legend
 
That Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Springfield, VA
Age: 31
Posts: 16,278
another quick side note is that, saddam had been found guilty of possessing WMD, and it was up to him to prove they were gone. whether you think we should have gone to war is seperate from whether he was thought of as a threat. but, since you obviously do think it was wrong, just remember, bush was not in any way alone is deciding to invade, kerry was there with him, among many others. If you disagree with the decision, the blame belongs to much more than bush alone.
That Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2004, 12:07 AM   #70
Playmaker
 
illdefined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: nyc
Age: 38
Posts: 2,631
well man its gotten pretty chaotic. but i dont think anyone ever argued that Bush sucks because he thought Saddam was dangerous. he sucks because he didnt bother to see that he wasn't dangerous ENOUGH (not even a fraction of how dangerous osama is) to brazenly commit our lives, our money and our friends to this war. he IS the commander and chief, and the public, the congress and the soldiers SHOULD be able to trust him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by That Guy
and saddam had plenty of time to send the good stuff to iran or bury it in the sand (good luck finding that)... but it is strange that you'd argue bush sucks cause he wanted saddam out, but not clinton or kerry or hillary, who (at the time) also thought he was worth going after...
illdefined is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2004, 12:34 AM   #71
Living Legend
 
That Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Springfield, VA
Age: 31
Posts: 16,278
My first post was just saying that many other people thought he was a threat and he's not the only culprit in the invasion, thats all, but i guess my intentions were misunderstood.

as far as personal opinions, I don't usually get into those unless asked, cause its pretty pointless. I really don't care what anyone believes, I just rather opinions not be based on flawed reasoning.
That Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2004, 09:28 AM   #72
Playmaker
 
illdefined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: nyc
Age: 38
Posts: 2,631
al-qaeda bombed the WTC already once before. and the uss cole. intelligence knew of the plans to use planes against us before 9/11 as well. bin laden's al-qaeda had already attacked US. not iran, not his own people. US.

saddam neither had the means (WMD) the history (prior attacks) nor the intent (plans) to attack the US, although im sure he hated us. he had already been dealt with.
illdefined is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2004, 10:40 AM   #73
Uncle Phil
 
SmootSmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 44,678
Ramzi Yousef and Abdul Rahmin (I think that was his name) were the "masterminds" behind the 1993 WTC bombing. Both were definitely given sanctuary in Iraq after the bombings and Yousef at least was reportedly an Iraqi intelligence agent.
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You
SmootSmack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2004, 12:18 PM   #74
Playmaker
 
skinsfanthru&thru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Richmond, VA
Age: 34
Posts: 3,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by illdefined
al-qaeda bombed the WTC already once before. and the uss cole. intelligence knew of the plans to use planes against us before 9/11 as well. bin laden's al-qaeda had already attacked US. not iran, not his own people. US.

saddam neither had the means (WMD) the history (prior attacks) nor the intent (plans) to attack the US, although im sure he hated us. he had already been dealt with.
what about the reports that came from russian intel that saddam had begun making plans for attacks on US civilians and troops both in the US and internationally shortly after 9-11?
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20040618_1258.html
and that saddam in the monthes right before we invaded iraq and forced saddam's regime out of power, Saddam had been in negotiations with North Korea not only for missiles, but the rights to North Korea's entire production line.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/01/in...e8487f&ei=5070

has Bush been perfect in his tenure thus far? no, but he's done a pretty good job given the circumstances of what has happened to our country over the last 4 years. and I'd rather keep a person in office I know isn't going to wilt under pressure both internally and from the masses.
skinsfanthru&thru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2004, 12:40 PM   #75
Playmaker
 
illdefined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: nyc
Age: 38
Posts: 2,631
those ar old links, the russian intelligence was later proven wrong. as was our own. Bush wont even take accountability for our shoddy intelligence nor acting based on it.

korea is a real threat, waving missiles in our faces and our enemies. if Bush is so 'tough' and 'decisive' why isn't this a bigger issue? probably because not all conflicts are solved by invading. and iraq wasn't even a conflict.
illdefined is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.30692 seconds with 10 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25