Quote:
Originally Posted by bhkad
We have a representative government. Much less messy than a strict Democracy. We elect representatives who are free to do whta they feel best represents our wishes or our best interests.
That is what Bush has done...act in our best long term interests.
|
And his capability to do so effectively is reflected in his abysmal "approval" rating.
His capability to do so effectively is reflected by the fact that our very own intelligence documents show an INCREASE in terrorism because of our actions in Iraq.
He is trying, but he is failing.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bhkad
And what's more, he got Congressional approval for going into Iraq, so the war is YOUR WAR TOO! (Vomit loving beyotch.)
|
Yes. We got Congressional approval.
But "secret" reasons of "we want to stop Israel from attacking Iraq" were NEVER a part of any "congressional approval".
So kindly STFU in trying to reference "Congressional approval" when talking about your self-proclaimed "secret" reasons.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bhkad
You are the kind of guy who would have insisted that FDR reveal his knowledge that we had broken the Japanese secret communications code in WWII.
There are some things you just do not reveal, dummy.
|
Hopefully you have the intelligence necessary (mostly hoping) to see the difference in revealing REASONS for going to war, versus intelligence on the enemy DURING war.
No. I would not ask FDR to reveal that we had broken Japanese secret communication.
But if FDR had ULTERIOR motives for wanting to go to war, then he better damn reveal those.
The real stupid part of your complaint (and I mean MIND-BOGGLINGLY STUPID) is that the U.S. took its intelligence on Iraq, and PARADED it in front of the U.N. and the American public.
We SHOWED what we thought Iraq was doing with WMDs.
And here you are insisting on secrecy on reasons for going to war?
Kindly STFU and stop looking stupid.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bhkad
This should be the sign over your avatar.
|
I love how I want to have the FACTS about the REASONS for going to war, and you try to paint me as "ignorant"???
Truly hilarious.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bhkad
I read and think, therefore I post.
You just post.
Israel would not have been strategically well advised to announce their intentions to the world, dummy.
You know that real life is quite different that TV, right?
|
The U.S. "announced our intentions to the world", didn't we?
The U.S. announced its intentions to invade Iraq. We WENT TO THE UN about it, right?
Does that make us "dummy"?
Or just YOU and idiot for bringing up the comparison?
And to think you had the gall to claim you read and think.
I question if either are appropriate.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bhkad
We didn't NEED there to be WMD's to justify invading.
|
You want to try to persuade people to think that, but anybody who can remember history knows you're full of sh!t.
When Bush and his administration pressed the case for why we should go to war. WHAT did they say over and over and OVER again?
It was about WMDs!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bhkad
Tony Blair suggested GWB go to the UN a second time with the WMD info. If GWB had just taken the bull by the horns after telling the UN we were going to enforce the UN resolutions (and invalidate them before the world if they didn't enforce their own resolutions) and after getting the approval of Congress none of the crap that has gone on since then would have been possible.
|
I laugh at the notion of us "enforcing the UN resolution" when the UN clearly does not support our action.
The number of contradictions you casually gloss over, and the way you try to rewrite history, is amazing!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bhkad
Here's something you should know: "...that's the whole point of the Bush Doctrine and of the war that we are fighting in Iraq. And 9/11 told us that a weak and fragile and whatever, unstable nation, a very poor nation, if it supports terrorists, can strike the American mainland, something the Nazis never did, the Germans could not do, something the Japanese could never do, something no enemy in the last 150 years could do . And that's why Saddam Hussein was a threat. Because Saddam Husein, after the Gulf War had put "Allahu Akbar" into the flag as a calculated effort to join the forces of the Islamo fascist crusade because they shared a common enemy - America, the Great Satan. He had tried to assassinate the President of the United States. He had held international conferences for terrorists. He had hosted Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ansar al-Islam, all of this Saddam Hussein had done. And so if you look out at the world with any modicum of responsibility, on 9/11, you'll see that Iraq was the next big threat to the United States.
David Horowitz |
"and that's why Saddam Hussein was a threat"?
Because of 9/11?
An attack by somebody ELSE that was NOT Saddam Hussein, showed us that Saddam was a threat, probably for his potential for attacking us with WMDs he NEVER HAD.
You guys have your heads so far up your ass it's amazing!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bhkad
He was a bad man who needed to go DOWN!
|
Then why didn't Bush Sr do it?
WHY did Cheney and DOZENS of other Republicans INSIST that NOT taking down "a bad man" at that stage was the way to go?
And can you get it through your head that the U.S. IS NOT RESPONSIBLE for taking "bad man" out of office.
If we were, we would have a LONG list of countries we would have to invade then.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bhkad
The following is part paraphrased and partially quoted from the same video comments by Horowitz.
|
You aren't even talking about what I am saying, nor are you defending what you previously said.
You're trying to change the subject, and I'm not interested in letting you weasel out of defending the atrocity you previously discussed.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bhkad
But if you want to talk about WMD and whether and how the WORLD came to believe Saddam had WMD's you ever heard of the TV News magazine show called 60 (fuckin) Minutes???
|
Did 60 Minutes demand we invade Iraq?
No.
And let's look at that story. One thing GLARES out at me.
Did you see it? Did you mean to quote me FURTHER evidence that the WMDs weren't there?
"He told me that most of the WMD had been destroyed by the U.N. inspectors in the '90s. And those that hadn't been destroyed by the inspectors were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq," Piro says.
Yeah. Further evidence he never had the WMDs when we invaded...
Thanks for that!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bhkad
You called the part of the story when the Three Little Pigs took shelter in the brick house, convoluted!
|
And the prize for meaningless non-sequitur responses, totally ignoring the previous point, goes to.....
BHKAD!!!!
I have asked you before to give a citation for this graphic.
You refused previously.
I'm thinking it's further indication of how you love to make shit up, pretending it's "evidence".
The fact that WMDs are NEVER MENTIONED on the graph is obvious proof the graphic is just plain bullsh!t.