|
 zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
|
Quote:
trippindad82 said:
Quote:
Which specific part is bullshit? Your entire position on everything seems to be that anything the government or the media says is a lie and the only people who can be trusted are the most outrageous and marginal blatherers who support their arguments with pretty much zero or distorted "facts". For instance this from a previous post of yours.
When will we all finally admit that the war in Iraq was NEVER based on terrorism? Operation Iraqi Liberation (why not just use freedom???) or OIL for short. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and many others planned this attack before "facts" were lined up about the WMD.
That's real specific there, pal, cut right to the bone. My god (zappa) I wish I had your focus. You're citing CBS News? And I thought the media were all liars. Oh, now I get it. They're liars if they don't support your preconceived notion of truth. No problemo. Sorry pal you're just wrong and there is no evidentiary support for your nonsense. But carry on. Quote:
Also, here as an excerpt from everybody's favorite site, wikipedia which also explains that Bush had preinauguration plans on attacking Iraq, whether or not they had ties with alQaida. It was just part of his administrative policy. IMO, more like he wanted to impress daddy.
Quote:
The United States Republican Party's campaign platform in the U.S. presidential election, 2000 called for "full implementation" of the Iraq Liberation Act and removal of Saddam Hussein with a focus on rebuilding a coalition, tougher sanctions, reinstating inspections, and support for the pro-democracy, opposition exile group, Iraqi National Congress then headed by Ahmed Chalabi.[16] Upon the election of George W. Bush as president, according to former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill, an attack was planned since the inauguration, and the first security council meeting discussed plans on invasion of the country. O'Neill later clarified that these discussions were part of a continuation of foreign policy first put into place by the Clinton Administration.[1
I might point out there pumpkin that that was a Clinton signed policy. Clinton. You know, the president before. Oh wait it said that didn't it. I should fucking hope they didn't wait until the last minute to draw up some sort of plan. I bet Clinton had a plan ready too, even though all he gave a shit about was scoring snapper and "legacy".
--------------------
|
 AlteredAgain
Visual Alchemist
Registered: 04/27/06
Posts: 11,181
Loc: Solar Circuit
|
 Re: Iran attack by spring?  [Re: zappaisgod]
#6568152 - 02/14/07 06:43 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Almost none. How about you?
30min a week on average. i don't subscribe to network television in my home.
i kind of lost track of what's actually being debated here.
@main topic: iran attack by spring? i don't know, but i would definitely not rule it out. there are aircraft carriers in the gulf after all.
--------------------
|
trippindad82
Trusted Cultivator of Trich
Registered: 01/07/07
Posts: 1,087
Loc: down, down the hole
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
I might point out there pumpkin that that was a Clinton signed policy. Clinton. You know, the president before. Oh wait it said that didn't it. I should fucking hope they didn't wait until the last minute to draw up some sort of plan. I bet Clinton had a plan ready too, even though all he gave a shit about was scoring snapper and "legacy".
It still doesn't downplay the fact that some of our politicians had plans on attacking Iraq before 9/11 even occurred. Why did we then blame (incorrectly I might add) our war policy on the 9/11 attacks when the policy was chosen long before 9/11 even happened?
--------------------
Trying to explain a journey to someone who has never experienced it is like trying to explain what a zebra looks like to blind person who has never seen a horse.
^^^The above matter may be a complete fantasy that I concocted out of possible boredom.^^^
--------------------------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 8 months
|
|
Who blamed the war policy on 9/11?
Certainly Congress didn't when they authorized the use of military force in Iraq. Certainly Bush didn't when he chose to exercise that authorization.
Phred
--------------------
|
Alex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
|
Re: Iran attack by spring? [Re: zappaisgod]
#6569705 - 02/15/07 02:26 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Defending by military action our territory and citizenry which had been attacked by Iran. But he was to cowardly to respond.
So what was Operation Eagle Claw?
If they were so eager why was saddass given so many chances?
Because Bush's father realised Saddam was a better option than fundamentalist shias and civil war?
I have very little doubt that had he still been active and not President he would have been flying that day, but that is useless speculation.
Are you joking? Would Dwight Eisenhower have gone awol on 9/11 and hid down a fucking hole in Nebraska? He wouldn't have put his foot outside Washington.
And why didn't the gutless coward go to Vietnam when he had the chance?
Blah blah blah "chickenhawk".
Well it's clear that Bush, Blair - the two leaders with no combat experience - were the most keen to start war. Chirac - a guy who has actually seen combat - didn't.
|
trippindad82
Trusted Cultivator of Trich
Registered: 01/07/07
Posts: 1,087
Loc: down, down the hole
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
|
Re: Iran attack by spring? [Re: Alex213]
#6570042 - 02/15/07 08:39 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
If they were so eager why was saddass given so many chances?
Because Bush's father realised Saddam was a better option than fundamentalist shias and civil war?
Quote:
Well it's clear that Bush, Blair - the two leaders with no combat experience - were the most keen to start war. Chirac - a guy who has actually seen combat - didn't.
And don't we all remember Colin Powell? Isn't he another who knows the cost of war? Wasn't he adamantly against the war in Iraq? Whatever happened to Powell? Seems to me he didn't fit Bush's agenda after election. Wasn't there also the tension between Rumsfeld, another war hungry individual with ZERO war involvement, and Powell? Why was someone who had never seen or experienced battle in his life put in charge of the military (Pentagon)???
--------------------
Trying to explain a journey to someone who has never experienced it is like trying to explain what a zebra looks like to blind person who has never seen a horse.
^^^The above matter may be a complete fantasy that I concocted out of possible boredom.^^^
--------------------------------------
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
|
Quote:
Alex213 said:
Defending by military action our territory and citizenry which had been attacked by Iran. But he was to cowardly to respond.
So what was Operation Eagle Claw?
A half-assed rescue mission. No courage on Carter's part required there. The courageous and proper choice would have been to tell them to release the hostages immediately or we lay waste to your entire country. And then do it. But no, he chose the politically correct non action.Quote:
If they were so eager why was saddass given so many chances?
Because Bush's father realised Saddam was a better option than fundamentalist shias and civil war?
He did, huh? And you know this how? Actually, the so many chances I was referring to were strictly those offered by Bush junior, and not Daddy or Clinton. But no, he kept playing games when America was clearly not willing to fool around with his nonsense anymore. Bad move.Quote:
I have very little doubt that had he still been active and not President he would have been flying that day, but that is useless speculation.
Are you joking? Would Dwight Eisenhower have gone awol on 9/11 and hid down a fucking hole in Nebraska? He wouldn't have put his foot outside Washington.
He fucking damn well better have done exactly the same thing or he wouldn't have been fit to be president. As I stated earlier, the president is more than the man, and no matter what his predilection for personal bravery might be it is not an option for him to put himself at risk. Maybe you think any president in an armored car is a coward. That's pretty stupid, isn't it? "Fuck yeah, he should ride right out front so any jagoff loser who wants can take their best shot." True genius there alex, what we most expect from you.Quote:
And why didn't the gutless coward go to Vietnam when he had the chance?
He chose to defend the homeland from direct attack by commie elements looking to strike on US soil. And you have done what?????? to defend your country????? Far less, I'm sure. Like me.Quote:
Blah blah blah "chickenhawk".
Well it's clear that Bush, Blair - the two leaders with no combat experience - were the most keen to start war. Chirac - a guy who has actually seen combat - didn't.
Chirac was bought and paid for. As was Putin and Annan.
--------------------
|
trippindad82
Trusted Cultivator of Trich
Registered: 01/07/07
Posts: 1,087
Loc: down, down the hole
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
|
Re: Iran attack by spring? [Re: zappaisgod]
#6571860 - 02/15/07 06:27 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
He fucking damn well better have done exactly the same thing or he wouldn't have been fit to be president. As I stated earlier, the president is more than the man, and no matter what his predilection for personal bravery might be it is not an option for him to put himself at risk. Maybe you think any president in an armored car is a coward. That's pretty stupid, isn't it? "Fuck yeah, he should ride right out front so any jagoff loser who wants can take their best shot." True genius there alex, what we most expect from you.
If that sorry loser had been shot down, our constitution already provides for the next leader. There is ZERO bravery in asking every other parent out there to send their kid to war when his own two daughters are running around playing party girls. Had there been a true attack on American soil by another country, I would have no problem stepping up and defending my country (even though I am against war) but defending one's borders is a far different activity than attacking non threatening country.
--------------------
Trying to explain a journey to someone who has never experienced it is like trying to explain what a zebra looks like to blind person who has never seen a horse.
^^^The above matter may be a complete fantasy that I concocted out of possible boredom.^^^
--------------------------------------
|
Alex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
|
Re: Iran attack by spring? [Re: zappaisgod]
#6573884 - 02/16/07 08:31 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
A half-assed rescue mission
It was only half-assed because the US special forces planned and executed in a half-assed way. Didn't they run out of petrol? What the fuck? The SAS would have done the job correctly.
Actually, the so many chances I was referring to were strictly those offered by Bush junior
What were these "chances"? The same kind of "chances" Hitler gave Poland? By chances do you mean "bullshit propaganda to justify a half-assed invasion"?
America was clearly not willing to fool around with his nonsense anymore. Bad move.
You think plunging Iraq into civil war was worth 3000 american dead and hundreds of thousands of dead civilians? Honestly?
He did, huh? And you know this how?
Because he encouraged the shias to rebel and then when they did he left them hanging with their ass in the wind and allowed Saddams helicopter gunships to break the no-fly zone and mow them down?
He fucking damn well better have done exactly the same thing or he wouldn't have been fit to be president
Bullshit. The presidents job is to be there in times of emergency and set an example. What example does it set to your country when in the slightest danger you run like a coward with water between your legs for a fucking hole in Nebraska?
What risk was there really? Didn't Cheney stay in the White house?
He chose to defend the homeland from direct attack by commie elements looking to strike on US soil
He did what?? How many of these "commie" attacks were there? Let me guess...none? Yeah, that's really brave of you shrub 
|
zorbman
blarrr
Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
|
Re: Iran attack by spring? [Re: zappaisgod]
#6577148 - 02/17/07 02:45 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
He [Saddam] was a bona fide threat willing to aid and abet terrorists. That fact cannot be denied
A threat to whom?
Do you have any evidence that he was aiding terrorists who were seeking to attack the United States?
--------------------
“The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
|
Alex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
|
Re: Iran attack by spring? [Re: zorbman]
#6577263 - 02/17/07 05:09 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Not to mention the undeniable fact that the USA has aided and abetted a list of terrorists and vicious dictators as long as several peoples arms.
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 all )
Diploid
SirTripAlot
Basilides
Alex213
wingnutx
Great_Satan
relativexistance
lonestar2004