Clinton's bidness actually got taken to court though. That's not a bias. If Bush had one of these totally true stories flesh out into a court case things would be different.

I'll agree it was Clinton's fault to either a) not kill everyone he raped / groped / molested / etc. or b) raped / groped / molested too many people to kill.

MODERATION people. Sheesh.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Man, oh man. We are so fucking far off the point right now. Look, Clinton lying to a grand jury about whether or not the Presidential Knob was cowhandled by a beastly intern has nowhere near the same gravity as the President lying about reasons to go to war. It is irresponsible to compare these two issues with the same weight. As for the intelligence issues, as the FUCKING PRESIDENT it is his responsibility to make sure these facts are rock-fucking-solid before committing our resources and LIVES to this shit. Fuck Saddam, fuck his regime. There are seriously much more dangerous military threats to the U.S., not the least of which actually, is China. The threat of a NUCLEAR attack from China has actually been quite serious for at least the last 10 years. This war is bullshit, the reasons are bullshit, and leave Clinton the fuck out of this. Clinton was a bad president as well, and I will not defend him, but let's stick to the facts here. We aren't going to sit here and bash Stalin in defense of Gorbachev, so let's not bash Clinton in defense of Bush. No one is comparing Clinton to Bush, because Clinton's regime is over. That does not mean it is irrelevant, however, but let us not digress, okay?

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

But legally, lying has different conseqences if it's under oath. That was my point.

And I said Bush didn't really lie.

And Spankling brought up Clinton, I was just trying to make him feel involved.

And it is relevant.

And the only nuclear threat we face is from a rogue state / terrorist action because of our massive nuclear deterence. China isn't going to nuke us unless they are just tired of living.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

China has had its collective finger hovering over the button for years. You see, once again, there was no proof that Iraq was linked to any terrorism. Most of the terrorists are Saudi, which just happens to be our 'ally'. Now, don't try to hit me with the 'Iraq is a terrorist training ground' argument, because guess what? So is the U.S. China has been, and will continue to be a nuclear threat. More recent info

I could provide a bunch of articles on the Chinese nuclear threat throughout the last couple of decades. We 'accidentally' bombed one of their embassies in Belgrade, remember. All our antimissle systems aren't going to be able to take out every one that comes our way. The whole world is fucked up and the U.S. is unquestionably making it worse.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

Maybe we could get bogged down in another cold war, but when two nations have so much to lose and so much capacity to do harm a direct conflict seems unlikely. Remember the whole Soviet Union thing? If you don't, try doing some research on the subject! Then, apply that research to current, real-world scenarios. It's fun for the whole family!

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

I lived through the cold war, ignoramus. You're still coming at this from a 'they are out to get us' standpoint. They ARE us, MaKK, and that isn't some existential bullshit. You are also assuming that there is always going to be evil in the world, and that there are too many examples of greed and evil for us to stay quiet like a submissive puppy. When you understand that so much of the strife in the Middle East was wrought by the U.S. endeavors, as well as South America, you'll understand that these are all problems that WE could solve. We are the most powerful country in the world, and it should be our responsibility to lead by example. The example we are setting right now is that another country with our 'best interests at heart' can sponsor a leader in this country, then when that leader doesn't act like the puppet they want, they can declare war on us, kill tens of thousands of innocent Americans (although at this point that may be an oxymoron), and use lots of our natural resources. Iraq was NO threat to us whatsoever, and that has been quite established. If anything, they were about as much a threat to us as Poland is. Was it anyone's job to rebel against the British in the War of Independance? NO. It was our job. As it is the Iraqis job to rebel if they so choose. Every demagogue can be brought down, and many have by their own people. Give this pro-war shit a rest, because none of you have any valid reasons for it. Every point made has been disputed with fact, and every 'fact' cited has been rebutted and squashed.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

What do you mean out-to-get us point of view? I just advocated a policy on non-escalation with the Chinese.

And if I really thought the universal "they" were out to get us, why bother freeing the Iraqi people at all? Wouldn't then "they" be out to get us again if I were coming from that mentality? It's pretty clear when a government's stance is to be anti-American, it usually goes over well with their powerbase so they announce it pretty loud and clear.

It hasn't been established. Lack of proof isn't proof of the contrary. That is what some people call argumentum ad ignorantiam [ for fun, look it up! ;) ].

And (whether or not you agree with it) a long time ago I said Iraq fit the bill of a potential threat in a non-traditional military conflict.

Also another fun historical fact: France aided us in the Revolutionary War, we didn't win alone! (Oui, c'est vrai!). Quick, abandnon ship, I think I hear the sound of your metaphor sinking. Also, escaping the grips of a colonial power seperated by an ocean can be much easier than overthrowing a local tryant.

This is kind of sad, where did boorite go? I feel like I am figthing a strawman.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

I think the conviction rate from one presudent to the next would be the same. The courts and the right-wing press just aren't following up on the Bush stories.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

These terrorist actually sound scary. So what are we gonna do to Texas?

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

quote:

---

Also another fun historical fact: France aided us in the Revolutionary War, we didn't win alone! (Oui, c'est vrai!). Quick, abandnon ship, I think I hear the sound of your metaphor sinking. Also, escaping the grips of a colonial power seperated by an ocean can be much easier than overthrowing a local tryant.

quote:

---

Are you sure you're not arguing this from the short bus? France AIDED us in the war. They didn't start it or finish it, you fucking moron. Dude, if you are going to try to make a smug little point, at least be accurate. The Iraqis did not revolt. WE took down Saddam. Kind of a different scenario, hmm? Doing the whole thing for someone rather than merely providing arms and resources? Shut the fuck up already.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

Hey Spankling, isn't that in....America? Wouldn't that mean that there are...*gasp*...TERRORISTS in America? Wouldn't that mean that they are...*shudder*...AMERICAN terrorists? Holy shit! Stop the presses!

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

I can understand how you get mad when you make a point based on over-simplified facts and someone points out this error. I'm sure that is embarrasing.

The Shiites did attempt to revolt at one point, we didn't help them as promised, and they were slaughtered. Who would rise up after something like that happening? Are you seriously comparing the ease of forming a new government while your colonial power is over two weeks away by boat with trying to overthrow a local dictator who has firepower, money, men, and a meat grinder he throws dissidents into? Also the American revolution wasn't a governmental fresh-start, it was very much an evolution of Great Britain's long history of law and order. Saddam's regime was in no way fertile grounds for a fledgling democracy.

Why don't you look into exactly how much France helped us win the war before you explode in self-proclaimed righteousness again.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

*sigh* There is no comparison between the two. The Revolutionary War is a perfect example as to why Americans should not HATE the French, and cut the 'Freedom Fries' bullshit. As for the similarities between it and the war in Iraq... Are you on drugs? Seriously, what kind of substance are you on? If none, perhaps you need some. You're really grasping at straws on this one. The French helping us declare independance from an imperial country has no practical comparison whatsoever to us INVADING A COUNTRY and unseating its leader. NONE WHATSOEVER. We didn't back a revolution. It was an INVASION. Cut the crap. Learn the English language before you attempt to use it. You make no sense whatsoever.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

I find it tremendously ironic that I've been told to study history by the very same people who can't produce any solid facts about their own nations herritiage and France's involvment in it.

But this is not my battle, so I'll stay out of it.

But a direct conflict seemed very likely at some stages in the Cold War!

Before MaKK says it: this is known as argumentum ad hominem. ;)

I can understand people's distrust of American motives and opposition to the way the "war" was waged. I can see why many believe what the US did has made things worse and they should have just left Iraq alone.
But what you've said is something different. You, unless I greatly misunderstand, said that it's somehow inherently only right, or appropriate, to destroy oppression if you're the one who's being subjected to it. I suspect you don't really think that. If you do, I'd wonder how you could construct a coherent moral framework around it.

MikeyG, you're the one who put this in the context of the Revolutionary War in the first place.

Yes. I hope that in the future a cold war might be even colder (maybe we're in one now). But I was really speaking to the nuclear deterrence / limited nuclear strike scenarios that MikeyG said China was now "threatening" us with, and not a military engagement.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Then we agree.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

Another bold leadership decision by Bush to cut benefits for those he sends to war.

That was Dickens, but I guess he didn't mean Bush. Uncanny tho...

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

No, no, I was merely arguing against the reason for the war being that Iraqis were oppressed. Oppression is wrong, no matter how you look at it. Issues need to be addressed, not oppressed. Just like people. I was not arguing that it is wrong to fight oppression. I was arguing against the opinion that we had to go in there because the Iraqi people were oppressed. There is tons upon tons of oppression happening everywhere. Why all of a sudden are we in Iraq for oppression? The Saudis are pretty heavily oppressed and they actually have a quite a reputation for providing the international terrorist network with some highly-trained, efficient terrorists. I'm sorry, but the Iraqis were oppressed far, far worse much earlier in Saddam's reign, and we still supported him. My point is that there are people oppressed ALL OVER THE WORLD. Why now? It has been argued that there were valid reasons for going in there OTHER than that, but no proof has been submitted. The oppression thing has been disputed. Why choose Iraq? We weren't AIDING a revolution, people. That's the point. We started it. And it wasn't exactly a revolution. IT WAS AN INVASION. It quite fits the definition. There didn't seem to be quite as many insurgents as the U.S. would have liked. Whose job is that? Is it really ours to make sure that every revolution needs to happen? You are all missing the point. We are not talking about whether it is right or wrong to fight oppression. We are talking about the reasons for this stupid-ass war. Your whole 'oppression' theory gets blasted, so then you retreat to what? WMDs? The threat factor? Every point gets shot down by actual articles and information, but none of you have come up with anything to prove your own points. Every point you make about actual reasons is disputed accurately, so you just jump to another until you think it's been a long enough time since you brought up the first reason. Then you hop back on the first reason and round and round we go. Its interesting how fact never seems to get in the way of what you believe.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

I never really had an "opression theory". Boorite and I went over this, and the meat of my argument for going in was that the Saddam regime was a threat. It is a bonus that the Iraqi people would be freed. And I've said over and over why I felt going in was neccessary DESPITE the weapons of mass destruction issue. I really don't know who you are talking to at this point, maybe you are drinking so much you are hallucinating words as you read forum posts.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Er, I never said we were.

Well, I wouldn't oppose removing the House of Saud either. Presumably you would, since it wouldn't be any of our business.

That makes it wrong to help some of them?

I'd guess oil was the main factor in the decision. But since you already knew that, why ask?

Well, you claimed that the America "created" Saddam (a slight exaggeration), so you could at least make a case that yes, it's America's business to get him out.

I didn't say anything about WMD or "the threat factor". It's a funny joke to suggest that Iraq was a threat to America. I've never tried to justify the invasion on any other grounds than getting rid of the tyrant.

MikeyG's posts make my eyes hurt.

I think MikeyG is someone's poor imitation of me.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008