Bad political losers.
- Thread starter smutt butt
- Start date
TooDrunkToFuck
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
ToriAllen said:
Um, there were already several 9/11 attempts prior to 9/11.
ToriAllen said:
Oh, really? When the focus switches from a myriad of issues to "security, security, security", virtually every speech is about war, he defines himself as a "war president", talks about freeing "outlaw regims" around the world, comes up with ****amamie conspiracy theories about an "Axis of Evil" involving people that dislike each other (Osama and Saddam, for instance), etc., you don't think that raises the people's fear?
ToriAllen said:
So ... Dealing with the problem and going after REAL terrorists, as opposed to wasting time in Iraq and constant fear-mongering is "coddling terrorists?"
ToriAllen said:
... Um, yeah, because talking 24/7 about "outlaw regimes", "axis of evil", etc. really makes people safer. OTOH, actually stopping terrorist attacks, like the attempts on the WTC that were prevented pre-9/11 "leaves us open to attack."
ToriAllen said:
It's amazing how people here will just listen to what idiots like Hugo say, without actually researching things for themselves.
Bush, October 14, 2002 in Dearborn, Michigan:
"This is a man that we know has had connections with al Qaeda. This is a man who, in my judgment, would like to use al Qaeda as a forward army."
Press conference in November, 2002:
"Some people say, 'Oh, we must leave Saddam alone, otherwise, if we did something against him, he might attack us.' Well, if we don't do something he might attack us, and he might attack us with a more serious weapon. The man is a threat... He's a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda... And we're going to deal with him."
And I guess you missed his "Axis of Evil" speeches.
ToriAllen said:
The reasons for invasion were his claims that they had WMDs and were linked to Al Queda. The fact that Saddam Hussein is a bad guy is well know; hell, we have a guy in our own government (Ashcroft) who'd like nothing more than to create a theocracy (research the group he's in if you don't beleive me). But we don't go around invading every "bad guy" in the world any time we feel like it. Otherwise, we'd have already invaded China, North Korea, Iran, etc. Which would lead to our forces being stretched thin, and most likely the rest of the world rebelling against the US.
ToriAllen said:
Given how poor they are and how crappy their navy is compared to ours, I doubt they'd reach us. They don't have ICBMs; as I recall, their nukes arre left over from the 50's. This is aside from the fact that they wouldn't want to lose China's support by doing something stupid, for instance declaring war on us. Likewise, we don't want to piss China off by invading North Korea. Which is why it's unlikely that we're going to do anything to China beyond economic sanctions.
ToriAllen said:
Oh yeah, because Kim Jong Il is a member of Al Qaeda, too.
ToriAllen said:
You tell me. You're the one who's trying to pretend the Iraq war was justified. It seems all your knowledge of world events comes from what you hear on the US news. Why don't you actually do some research on the cold, hard facts before you come in preaching?
ToriAllen said:
Oh, yes, because actually having a war in Iraq, adding a new country to US imperialism, gaining oil money, getting revenge on the guy who "tried to kill [his] dad", etc. are all secondary concerns compared to "liberal trash talk."
TooDrunkToFuck
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
hugo said:
Except that I'm ... Not a Marxist. I'm closer to an anarchist. I'm just not an idiot like you, therefore I'm mentally capable of reading the works of Marx and Lenin, and distinguishing one from the other.
hugo said:
... Are you going to cling to me adding something that WAS part of Bush's warmongering agenda to the list of things that clearly DID take place as a result of 9/11, without disputing the rest of the list, and pretend you're doing anything other than nitpicking and dodging the point? Bush was rambling about "war" this and "war" that before 9/11, and appointed someone who reflected his views ("security" over civil rights), then the Patriot Act came out right after 9/11.
If you really think pointing out that Ashcroft was appointed before 9/11 (same year, and after Bush had already talked about invading Iraq) somehow invalidates everything I pointed out, you're dumber than I thought.
Hugo said:
Yeah, because I'm the one who still maintains nukes were neccessary in WW2, and only "liberal pinkos" disagree, even when several of the leading government/military leaders of the time say otherwise.
I also like how you bring up your little book, Myth of The Robber Barons, and yet any time someone goes against the traditional US version of history, and you disagree, you accuse them of "revisionist history." Basically, any time someone disagrees with the most 'traditional' US version of a historial event and you AGREE, you go on about how the liberal media has distorted things over the years. OTOH, when someone goes against a traditional view and you DISAGREE, even if they have direct quotes from multiple experts, you accuse them of "liberal revisionist history."
****ing hypocrite.
TooDrunkToFuck
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
hugo said:
Because we all know the KKK never killed anyone.
TooDrunkToFuck
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
eddo said:
I recall a prominent American Muslim leader on Glenn Beck a few months ago doing just that; he was speaking out for the cause of peace. As for 'normal' Muslims, you can find them everywhere. I knew a Muslim guy in high school who spoke out against the Jihadists.
TooDrunkTo**** said:
I just thought that was funny. If I have to explain why, you still wont get it.
I guess, that you believe that the thinktank that is Bush, designed this intricate plan to line the pockets of haliburton, get his daddies attempted assasin, and pass the Patriot Act, which he drafted... stay with me... by convincing the worlds intelligence agencies that Saddam had WMDs (of which 400 tons of anthrax catalogued by the UN as recently as '97 was not even claimed to have been destroyed)... stay with me... The profoundly brilliant Bush then just set everything in motion and waited for a catalyst... and then after 9/11 IMPLANTED Al Zaquari and his Al Queda forces in Iraq... and convinced congress to go to war... because you do realize that congress sends us to war right? Wait... back to the long and winding plot by the most brilliant criminal meglomaniacle mastermind of the millennium... after implanting insurgant forces to fight against us... He did all of this NOT to pit these AQ forces against the best fighting force to ever walk the planet instead of trying to bring the war here to us... He did it all to get Hussain back for an assasination attempt.
Smart guy... wouldn't you agree?
Msixty
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2005
TooDrunkTo**** said:
and i knew a muslim kid in military school, here's a convo i had with him...
Me: after arguing over ****ing terrorists, NOT muslims so you're saying that you support al Qaeda?
Him: no, i'm saying that i don't look down on them
What?
well, do you look down on a redneck that screws his sister and beats his wife?
YES! wtf would that have to do with anything?
well, you shouldn't look down on a man like that, he's a white man just like you.
so your saying, just becouse he's the same race as me i should think of him as equel?
yes
uh, no, that's retarded, if i were to do that i would be classifying everyone by race, and that is stupid, you're not a terrorist, even if you ARE muslim (and he's middle estern) and do you think i'm the same as a redneck wifebeater just becouse i'm white?
yes
and you think that a person who kills an innocent person and rapes and kills and opresses is your equel just becouse they are muslim?
yes, we are brothers...
ok, i don't think there is a point in this, your veiws are totally ****ed up the way i see it, so you keep that whole insanity thing going, later TAHA (his last name)
the point, many people don't see 'right' and 'wrong' like we do, that ( IMO ) is why they are not understood by us, we think they support the action, but they just don't NOT support it (if that made sence) many muslims won't say 'good job al Qaeda' but at the same time, they won't look down on their 'brothers' that commited the actions. but then again, that just makes them silent to the ****ing masses of radical muslims crying victory in the street when al Qaeda or another organisation does ****.
so what do i think? good job supporting people like yourself, but i totally ****ing disagree.
ToriAllen
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2004
Exactly, they were attempts. 9/11 was the wake-up call that we were not invincible.TooDrunkTo**** said:
Do you listen to all of his speeches? The war isn’t the only issue that is discussed, but since it seems to be the one America is interested in, it gets the most focus. And, no, I don’t feel a raised amount of fear.TooDrunkTo**** said:
Again they are separate issues and we are doing both.TooDrunkTo**** said:
Oh boy, this is fun. You realize that the WTC was bombed in 1993, right? Not an attempt, but an actual bombing. It was also during the year Clinton took over. There is always a period of transition during such years. What a coincidence. Terrorist attacks are stopped a lot more often than you seem to think.TooDrunkTo**** said:
You don’t know me very well. Every opinion I have is thoroughly researched. Ignorant assertions about topics, you know like yours, get on my nerves. Here is a post from a few years ago that I made on the topic. Maybe it can clear up how the two events affected each other but did not cause each other.TooDrunkTo**** said:
“This conflict with Saddam has continued since the early nineties. UN inspectors were allowed access to Iraq following the Gulf War to insure that Iraq destroyed all Weapons of Mass Destruction and missiles with a range of more than 100 miles. The Weapons were supposed to be destroyed in the presence of UN inspector per Resolution 687. Instead Saddam claimed that he had already destroyed them all on his own. Saddam became increasingly difficult and uncooperative during the nineties. From ’91 to ‘95 Iraq acquired equipment that would enhance the capability to make biological weapons. They claimed this equipment was to make animal-feed supplement, but it was not the correct equipment for this purpose. Iraq denied the production of any biological weapons. Then in 1996 and 1997 they began to deny having the smaller weapons that the UN already had documented (www.nationalreview.com). During 1997 Iraq began to deny the UN officials access to many suspicious sites. On November 12, 1997 the UN placed foreign travel restrictions on top Iraqi officials. In March of 1998 Resolution 1154 was passed. This was an agreement that the use of automatic force would not be used against Iraq if it did not comply with inspection requests. During 1998, Bill Clinton talked about the certainty of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. On December 16, 1998 Bill Clinton launched a massive attack on Iraq; in doing this he violated the Constitution by bypassing Congress’ power to declare war. Clintons attack was as follows:
“Warplanes aboard the USS Enterprise, combined with more than 200 cruise missiles from eight Navy warships, converged on Iraqi targets at 5:06 p.m. EST (1:06 a.m. Baghdad time). Over a four-day period, reports U.S. Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, who oversaw the Iraq attack, 300 strike fighters, bombers and support aircraft flew 600 sorties, more than half of them at night. Another 40 ships took part in the attack, with 10 of them firing cruise missiles. More than 600 bombs were dropped, 90 cruise missiles fired from the air and another 300 from ships at sea.” Quote from www.twf.org/News/. Iraq continued to deny Weapons of Mass Destruction.
During the time that all of this was occurring we, as Americans, felt safe and distant from any threat this country may pose. This brings us to George W. Bush’s presidency. The UN was still dealing with the ever difficult Iraq. Iraq continued to deny having weapons but also continued to deny inspectors unlimited access. Then the treat hit home with 9-11. The view that our enemies were somewhere far away from our sheltered world disappeared. We did not act with such force before only because, in our own pride, we did not see the imminent threat that Iraq caused. Americans cried out for the government to make America safer. Not only did the government decide to increase security at home, but also to seek out and eliminate the threat. Al-qaida is the enemy that got to us first. This does not mean that we do not have other enemies. It also does not mean that we should ignore the threat of our other enemies. Bush allowed the UN fourteen months to correct the problem that had been going on for over ten years. Resolution after resolution was passed by the UN and ignored by Iraq. Finally, with 80% of America backing war with Iraq, Congress declared war.”
Is there something else you would like to say about my lack of research on the subject, because I really haven’t seen much of your ‘research’?
Well, didn’t you just answer your own question about why we invaded Iraq, but haven’t bothers with North Korea?TooDrunkTo**** said:
I think this is the stupidest thing you have said. You don’t have to be a member of an organization to sell weapons to them. You just have to like money. Wasn’t it you that said North Korea is poor? I don’t see that there is a big leap from making weapons to selling them, or the technology to make them, or the knowledge of how to make them.TooDrunkTo**** said:
I’ve done the research. You obviously haven’t. Here I’ll give you some links from the UN to get you started…TooDrunkTo**** said:
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/1996/19960612.sc6231.html
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/1996/19961028.ga9143.html
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/1997/19970621.SC6387.html
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/1997/19971112.SC6441.html
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/1997/19971023.SC6432.R1.html
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/1997/19971203.SC6450.html
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/1997/19971023.SC6432.html
After Clinton’s attack: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/1998/19980420.SGSM6531.html
Security-General’s comments on the attack by Clinton, along with US and UK responses:
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/1999/19990112.sc6626.html
Same old Iraq:
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7664.doc.htm
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7644.doc.htm
Gaining oil money? Where the hell are you getting that from? That is another one of those nonsensical reasons for the war that the ignorant try to push. Same with ‘getting revenge on the guy who tried to kill his dad’. You need to do more research.TooDrunkTo**** said:
hugo
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2005
A true anarchist would understand how someone can not support the minimum wage. A Marxist does not. In the real world commie boy is a Marxist. In his fantasy world, where everyone is a Marxist, he is an anarchist. He is a fool who actually thinks others are stupid enough to believe Lenin is the cause of all the calamnities which have struck true socialist nations (nations that make a strong attempt to have the state control productive assets). He is an ignoramous. Did not know Ashcroft was appointed before 9/11, a total fool.
ClassyMissFancy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2006
OK... What gets to me is this..
The same Dem leaders who say Bush is an idiot.. Bush is stupid... Blah blah blah.... are also saying about their vote to give Bush power to invade Iraq...
"We were DUPED!!!
Tell me... What the hell kind of retarded monkey can be duped by a stupid idiot ?
They need to make up their minds. Either he is a stupid ****ing idiot and they are intelligent... which means a bunch of intelligent Dems who are about to battle for the Dem presidential candidacy knowingly voted to give a stupid ****ing idiot the power to invade Iraq and topple the government of a sovereign nation... or Bush duped them and they are stupid ****ing idiots.
Ya can't have it both ways.
Which is it, Dems?
The same Dem leaders who say Bush is an idiot.. Bush is stupid... Blah blah blah.... are also saying about their vote to give Bush power to invade Iraq...
"We were DUPED!!!
Tell me... What the hell kind of retarded monkey can be duped by a stupid idiot ?
They need to make up their minds. Either he is a stupid ****ing idiot and they are intelligent... which means a bunch of intelligent Dems who are about to battle for the Dem presidential candidacy knowingly voted to give a stupid ****ing idiot the power to invade Iraq and topple the government of a sovereign nation... or Bush duped them and they are stupid ****ing idiots.
Ya can't have it both ways.
Which is it, Dems?
TooDrunkToFuck
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
Ctrl said:
1. I never stated he "planted" Al Qaeda in Iraq. However, his actions certainly made Iraq into a hot spot for AQ to recruit followers. Before he came there, Bin Laden's followers were AGAINST Saddam due to the fact that he's not very devoutly religious.
2. Aside from the fact that most of the government was controlled by Bush' party at the time, are you seriously acting like Bush had no influence in going to Iraq? Just because other politicians went along doesn't mean he didn't spearhead the whole thing. A president having extreme influence on the decision to go to war is nothing new, especially when they have several powerful friends in the government.
3. I think in large part his actions are for profit or appointing his friends as much as getting back at Saddam.
"You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie!"
"Don's been doing a great job"
And you don't have to be brilliant to get idiots into a war frenzy. Yet AGAIN, as Goering said and so many have failed to comprehend:
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
That quote explains pretty much the majority of Bush apologists on this board.
TooDrunkToFuck
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
hugo said:
I can understand not supporting a certain minimum wage, but I think in our atmosphere, one is neccessary. And I'm an anarchist in ideal. I don't think people are responsible enough to handle anarchy right now, but I want the social structure to be as close to anarchy as possible. When it comes to the economy, I'm more of a centrist, or even "conservative." I support a minimum wage (enough of one that across America organizations couldn't make all workers start at $1.00 per hour, for instance), but I agree that we need to start letting foreign medicine and such be purchased in the US.
hugo said:
Sigh Lenin is the cause of dictatorship under the banner of "communism." This is a historical fact. Marx beleived the "people" would cause their own rebellion, without a specific government agency enforcing it.
But are you basically saying that anyone who supports a minimum wage is a communist?!?!?!?!?
hugo said:
Sigh I didn't take the time to look up the exact date Ashcroft was appointed, and I'm a "fool" ...? And yet you claim to be intelligent, despite your ignorance of basic historical facts that you can look up in any textbook.
TooDrunkToFuck
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
ToriAllen said:
No one beleived we were invincible to begin with.
ToriAllen said:
TooDrunkToFuck
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
ClassyMissFancy said:
I'm not a Dem, but it's obvious that Bush acts dumb so that he sounds more relatable. He lost a race back in the 70's because he sounded TOO smart and his Democratic opponent made him out to be a stuck up preppie. The guy was a C student at Yale even though he was basically partying more than studying. Bush is a smart guy who acts dumb so that the Bible-thumping, gun-toting rednecks that make up a sizable portion of America will assume he's one of them.
phreakwars
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2005
I totally agree with that assessment, Bush likes to "PLAY DUMB" in the public eye. I don't believe for one second he is as stupid as he portrays himself.
.
.
.
.
