Cost of War
LOL ... don't make me laugh now ... diversion is not an argument (you've tried more than once) again I do not support my gov ... (understand !!!)
first off, i wasnt even addressing you. secondly, how is that creating a diversion? roy pointed out (and rightly so) that there is plenty of finger pointing and very few solutions being offered.....so i provided the latest peaceful solution thats been brought to the table by europe. incidentally, now that youve said you dont agree with that plan either....what plan do you agree with?
first off, i wasnt even addressing you
who cares ? it's still diversion !!! ...
Seeing things as they are, how about this "deal"...
Europe send Tehran all their excess wine and beer, and Iran will defuse their enrichment programs. As likely, as either side agreeing here.
heres the european solution....give them gifts and ask nicely:
VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- Iran vowed anew to continue enriching uranium, dealing a potential setback to a European plan to ease the nuclear standoff with Tehran by offering sales of nuclear fuel and a trade deal as incentives.
That's my point. It's like "Ok, I get it, war sucks. Mistakes happen and innocent people die. Please tell your option and how you support it." For years the U.S. tried it the "european way" with North Korea (asking them nicely to please stop developing nukes and then getting blackmailed). It didn't work. Now we have North Korea with nukes. Great job Mr. Clinton. Ok, so what do we do this time around? Obviously the Europeans are worried about a nuke armed Iran or they wouldn't be trying to prevent it. My question to all the anti-Bush people is "What is your solution and what will it cost and will it work?"
Hey frenchbabyface you have a great smile. Don't let things get to serious. Ok, back to arguing.
Roy ... ... NO SHIT ... No debate with you either ... (you know why !!! of course)
eddited to add just for the fun : your diversion are not even elaborate (even on purpose and obviously funny) !!!
I see youve taken the path of six and teejay.....picking the one debateable statement from my post and ignoring the true point.
Nope, I looked at it too see how the resolution was phrased and came to the conclusion one could argue both ways as far as whether further authorisation was needed. This is (I believe) a fact, whereas our speculation on whether person a knew in their mind what it meant is speculation.
I did find the fact that there is clear reference to Iraq being a threat to the USA and responsible for terrorist attacks including 911 in the resolution interesting. We both know both these qualifying conditions were, in hindsight, not met, and were widely disputed at the time. If there was any proof that Bush knowingly took part in a deception to make it appear those conditons were filled, then I guess he would be answerable under law.
I believe anyone can figure out (in view of the fact 'they' pulled the same game in the '70's and '80's) that this is absurdly unlikely to have been an 'intelligence' accident and was likely deliberate (and that even though the monkey is a monkey, he probably knew it was a load of nuts). I know there's no proof, but all other explanations require an excessive trust in convenient coincidences being purely accidental.
any point you are trying to make about deceit doesnt differentiate bush from kerry
Hang on. Bush was President. He made claims. Kerry, based on those claims did what he did. Those claims were false. You are taking the actions of a man at the;
- centre of the claims with
- greater responsibility as being the
- same level of wrong as a
- less responsible person
- agreeing that the false claims justified certain actions.
Come on. You know that is an absurd argument.
Can you please provide me with some evidence of this? Something besides an editorial from the Washington Post.
I provided this link; http://www.consortiumnews.com/Print/102203.html
Now, if you can find lies or distortions in this, go ahead and point them out. If you can't prove it wrong, then you'd better change your mind or get used to being taken for a fool.
The journalist reporting on this is putting together a wide variety of sources and covered the Iran-Contra affair from the early days; that really happened, but maybe he's just making it up this time? Along with all the others who say the same thing?
If they're making it up roy, it shouldn't take too long to find the evidence for it. You don't even have to do much research yourself as there are plenty of sites backing right-wing perspectives where they have surely got catagoric refutations of such widely spread lies?
Of course, he may have made all this up, but you doubt him based on political affiliation (the 'Washington Post comment) rather than on reading the article and fiding inaccuracies; well, it says a lot.
If you're argument is that big governments do currupt things, who's arguing with you on this? Show me any government and I'll show you some corruption.
Is anyone disputing this? My point is merely that;
- the USA is under the control of a self-elected elite who believe it is okay to lie to the population to get the population to go along with what the elite want.
Of course there are other places where this happens, no one said otherwise, but the concequences of that deciet can be far greater on account of America being a World Power. And are you telling me you like being a member of the masses that the elite lie to? Just burn your voter's registration, if that's the case.
What I find funny is how people try to limit this to 'right wing republicans" when in fact the Clinton administration was one of the most corupt administrations in US history. Another example is this "Bush oil connection." People like Michael Moore claim all these connections and how they helped him win the election in 2000. Um..then why aren't helping him now?
Will you not just research the claims made and decide whether it is true?
If it is the Cold War Arms Build-up of the '70's and '80's was a put-on. The Iraq war was a put-on.
And they will carry on screwing you like that as long as you let them back in.
Other people being nearly as bad is not the point unless you've given up on politics and live in a cave wiping your ass with leaves.
What are we going to do to sort out the problems in the world is not the point either.
Being complacent about greed and corruption in our leaders simply means it will continue.
"It's easy to say "Bush sucks" but it's hard to come up with your own solution." is a non-argument.
There were other solutions, both to the Cold War arms build-up engendered by the lies then (the USSR wanted detante and interdependance and PEACE), and to the Iraq war (wait for Arab nations to join the consortium, pressure them to do so, and have far less of a problem with the invasion aftermath due to the presence of Arab forces).
Do yourself a favour; check my facts. As fbf says; "again you are missing the point ... facts are facts ...".
If you are happy being ruled by criminals we have nothing in common.
Getting rid of the worst and most devious politicians is a good idea; I don't think you'd argue otherwise.
I suppose those who will not even try to show that the allegations made against the Republican Reagan, Bush I and Bush II reigemes are false, and would rather gibber about OTHER COUNTRIES THAT ARE BEING PORTRAYED AS A THREAT TO OTHER NATIONS WHEN THEY ARE NOT (THUS FALLING FOR EXACTLY THE SAME PROPOGANDA DEVICE THEY FELL FOR LAST TIME) are the people who are missing the point.
They've got you... you poor suckers... the 'fear' they create, and the 'solutions' they provide have you in a junkie-dealer cycle.
What was that you said Thi Chi? I didn't hear you?
Anyway, I've provided evidnce and built an argument, counter the evidence and stop the 'tilting at windmills' routine. It may work on you but it doesn't work on me and other people prepared to examine their preconceptions and dismantle them (even if they'd rather not) as the facts require.
Some of the behaviour in this discussion is so like Witnesses, presented with UN scandal data, going off on one about "all the goods things the organisation does"... to stop thinking about the corrupt mess within... or dealing with the dissonance in any constructive fashion.
Hang on. Bush was President. He made claims. Kerry, based on those claims did what he did. Those claims were false.
ah, i was hoping someone would use this baseless argument. i was contending that kerry and bush both believed saddam was a serious threat to our nation.....now you are arguing that kerry only believed this based on claims bush made, which is completely incorrect. kerry, in the second debate, stated that his beliefs about the threat posed by iraq have been the same since clinton was in office......and if you compare clintons speech on iraq with kerrys, they are nearly identical....so it is in fact your argument that is absurd. in light of that...who can the kerry backers blame for misleading him? clinton?
bottom line, either kerry and bush both believed (as they still state they did) that saddam had wmds, or they both lied. i know this is a difficult thing for bush haters to wrap their head around, but theres really no other conclusion that can be made without partisan speculation.
Dubla : did you read the sentences ? I wonder
Bush was President. He made claims. Kerry, based on those claims did what he did. Those claims were false.
Can you make a difference in between the position of those 2 men here ? (you believed to, but had no means to verify by yourself what Bush were saying about the iminent threat !!! ... just like Kerry ... he was not the President or hired to investigate ...)