Bush lies - says no one told him Iran halted

[Princess Serenity]

Ok. Fair enough.

I wasn't calling you far left, Silver. ^^;;

The people you hear on the news. The whackos.

[Lt_Ripley]

Nope, Bush was not lying for Iran had a Nuke program after all and they did stop it.

We just found out now that it has been halted, the fact is they had a nuke program.

so who lied now?

hello mcfly ------------ bush was told over 2 months ago. yet still kept yapping ...... that's lying.

[The Silver Thong]

hello mcfly ------------ bush was told over 2 months ago. yet still kept yapping ...... that's lying.

What lies?

[Lt_Ripley]

Can we all just remember that Sadaam sent all of his planes to Iran during the Kuwait War? Why is it so hard to conceptualize that maybe the Intel was correct about WMD and that they are now in Iran?

lets see - bitter enemies Saddam and Iran..... Iran will cover for Saddam ? lol.

intel was correct about WMD's in Iraq --- there wasn't anything and bushco chose to ignore that and go with what ifs , rumors and a bs artist who claimed there were when intell was saying otherwise.

[AROCES]

hello mcfly ------------ bush was told over 2 months ago. yet still kept yapping ...... that's lying.

Who? Who told him about it over 2 months ago, is this another of your sorces says so?

[AROCES]

What lies?

Yes, what lies indeed????

[The Silver Thong]

Yes, what lies indeed????

All the lies you choose to ignore,those lies.

[Bob26003]

Can we all just remember that Sadaam sent all of his planes to Iran during the Kuwait War? Why is it so hard to conceptualize that maybe the Intel was correct about WMD and that they are now in Iran?

Conceptualizations are no excuse for killing hundreds of thousands of people.

""""""""Waging a war of aggression is a crime under customary international law and refers to any war not out of self-defense or sanctioned by Article 51 of the UN Charter.

The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, called the waging of aggressive war "essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."[1]""""""""""""""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression

[Bob26003]

Lt. Ripley and Bob,

Do either of you believe Iran is dangerous to the world. If you do...what would you do with the situation if were you President of the USA.

Well, you definitely don't pre emptively and illegally attack their neighbor. You don't make threats of use of force "which is against International law btw"

It's a real shame. Because of Bush, the Iranians have a valid argument for the moral highground.

For instance, we torture, we kill civilians, we use chemical weapons, we wage aggressive Wars.......... we leave our citizens without healthcare, we have huge economic disparities etc etc.

Now the argument for moral highground should mean nothing as no Gov or culture is moral or somehow ordained........... ..............

============

What it comes down too: With the US and Israel having nukes, and War criminals like the neocons in charge, what do you expect?

Iran has a right to self defense

That little line works both ways

As I said the US has lost all credibility as an enforcer of just ideals................ Thanks to the neocons.

We are now just bullies.

Edited December 5, 2007 by Bob26003

[+joc]

Well, you definitely don't pre emptively and illegally attack their neighbor. You don't make threats of use of force "which is against International law btw"

In your opinion, what should be done to those who pre emptively and illegally attack their neighbor?

[Bob26003]

In your opinion, what should be done to those who pre emptively and illegally attack their neighbor?

No, not my opinion, International Law. ie The UN charter.

Edited December 6, 2007 by Bob26003

[+joc]

What do you suggest?

I suggest you answer the question:

In your opinion, what should be done to those who pre emptively and illegally attack their neighbor?

[Bob26003]

I suggest you answer the question:

In your opinion, what should be done to those who pre emptively and illegally attack their neighbor?

Why? I don't trust you.

Edited December 6, 2007 by Bob26003

[Ins0mniac]

...and so the hypocrisy of your thought process shines through...thank you for sharing.

In your opinion, what should be done to those who pre emptively and illegally attack their neighbor?

I think I know your game. I think you are trying to get "pacifists" to show that deep down they are really violent. However, you completely fail to realise that just because someone does not support a particular war or course of action, does not imply that they are always pacifists at any cost, but rather simply disagree with the current course of action.

Disagreeing with the war in Iraq or Iran does NOT necessarily mean you disagree with the use of force in any situation.

And if you go on again about "anger" being against Jesus like you did before, can you please also examine the anger from the other side of the fence.

Matthew 7:5 "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye ?

As for "what should be done to those who pre emptively and illegally attack their neighbor?" (The U.S attacking Iran's neighbour, Iraq). Although this quesiton wasn't directed to me, I hope you don't mind me answering.

Personally, I don't think a lot actually CAN (or should) be done realistically against the U.S as some sort of punishment for Iraq. A military solutions or sanctions against the U.S is totally unrealistic and would merely cause more problems for the whole world due to U.S's status as the single world power.

But I think the thousands of wasted American lives and financial costs hurting the U.S economy for a completely unsatisfactory outcome in a situation that is difficult for them to get out of is more than enough punishment in itself.

Edited December 6, 2007 by Ins0mniac

[+joc]

I think I know your game. I think you are trying to get "pacifists" to show that deep down they are really violent. However, you completely fail to realise that just because someone does not support a particular war or course of action, does not imply that they are always pacifists at any cost, but rather simply disagree with the current course of action.

Disagreeing with the war in Iraq or Iran does NOT necessarily mean you disagree with the use of force in any situation.

And if you go on again about "anger" being against Jesus like you did before, can you please also examine the anger from the other side of the fence.

Matthew 7:5 "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye ?

As for "what should be done to those who pre emptively and illegally attack their neighbor?" (The U.S attacking Iran's neighbour, Iraq). Although this quesiton wasn't directed to me, I hope you don't mind me answering.

Personally, I don't think a lot actually CAN (or should) be done realistically against the U.S as some sort of punishment for Iraq. A military solutions or sanctions against the U.S is totally unrealistic and would merely cause more problems for the whole world due to U.S's status as the single world power.

But I think the thousands of wasted American lives and financial costs hurting the U.S economy for a completely unsatisfactory outcome in a situation that is difficult for them to get out of is more than enough punishment in itself.

I was actually referring to Iraq's illegal attack against first Iran and then Kuwait. And I don't have 'a game'.

I was asking Bob's opinion of what should be done since he thinks it is so reprehensible. Typical liberalism...no real solutions ever offered...just finger pointing.

[Ins0mniac]

I was actually referring to Iraq's illegal attack against first Iran and then Kuwait. And I don't have 'a game'.

I was asking Bob's opinion of what should be done since he thinks it is so reprehensible. Typical liberalism...no real solutions ever offered...just finger pointing.

Well I thought you were responding to Bob26003's comment, given the quotation of him. And if you read the thread carefully, he was talking about the U.S invading Iran's neighbour, Iraq.

I could say "typical conservative. Always confused." But I'm not into lazy generalisations like some. I know people are too diverse for such generalisations.

Edited December 6, 2007 by Ins0mniac

[+joc]

Well you were responding to Bob26003's comment, given the quote. And if you read the thread carefully, he was talking about the U.S invading Iran's neighbour, Iraq

I could say "typical conservative. Always confused." But I'm not into lazy generalisations like some. I know people are too diverse for such generalisations.

I wasn't confused. I knew what Bob was talking about.

So, since Bob remains silent (as I knew he would)...let me ask you your opinion about Iraq. Do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing that Sadaam is dead and gone? It isn't a trick question. It isn't a hard question. Ten bucks says you can't (won't) answer it.

[Ins0mniac]

let me ask you your opinion about Iraq. Do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing that Sadaam is dead and gone? It isn't a trick question. It isn't a hard question. Ten bucks says you can't (won't) answer it.

Well I would disagree with the statement that it isn't a hard question. Unless you want to be simplistic about it. Just because it's simply worded, does not necessarily make a question less complex. Some of the seemingly simplest questions are the hardest to answer.

I'm certainly not going to cry any tears over Saddam. If that's what you mean. He was a brutal dictator and deserved to be overthrown.

But whether the situation in Iraq is better now that he's gone? I'm not so sure about that.

I go for results not idealism. Ideally, sure it would have been better if Saddam was overthrown and Iraq became peaceful and democratic. But that was never going to happen. Not with the way this war was planned and implemented. Too few troops, no consideration for tensions within the country or internal politics. And with no decent justification, it was simply not worth it.

It's all a question of balance and objective, non idealist results.

On balance, it would have been better off if the U.S had not invaded Iraq, and if that means Saddam would still be alive, I guess that would be so. It would have been nice if he could have been overthrown without the screwed up situation we have now. But I guess that's the way things went.

Edited December 6, 2007 by Ins0mniac

[+joc]

Well I would disagree with the statement that it isn't a hard question. Unless you want to be simplistic about it. Just because it's simply worded, does not necessarily make a question less complex. Some of the seemingly simplest questions are the hardest to answer.

I'm certainly not going to cry any tears over Saddam. If that's what you mean. He was a brutal dictator and deserved to be overthrown.

But whether the situation in Iraq is better now that he's gone? I'm not so sure about that.

I go for results not idealism. Ideally, sure it would have been better if Saddam was overthrown and Iraq became peaceful and democratic. But that was never going to happen. Not with the way this war was planned and implemented. Too few troops, no consideration for tensions within the country or internal politics. And with no decent justification, it was simply not worth it.

It's all a question of balance and objective, non idealist results.

On balance, it would have been better off if the U.S had not invaded Iraq, and if that means Saddam would still be alive, I guess that would be so. It would have been nice if he could have been overthrown without the screwed up situation we have now. But I guess that's the way things went.

That's about what I expected from you: It's a good thing he's gone...It's a bad thing that Bush is the one that did it.

[Ins0mniac]

That's about what I expected from you: It's a good thing he's gone...It's a bad thing that Bush is the one that did it.

That's not what I said at all. Compared to the situation we find ourselves in now, things would have been better off with Saddam in power. Frankly, the situation in Iraq now is even worse than when Saddam was in power. And it has caused massive instability and huge cost to the U.S. And no sufficient reason. If Bush had told the American public they were going to war JUST to take out Saddam (no wmds), I'm not sure they wouldn't have been as supportive.

It's bad that it was done the way it was. Due to a war that has proven to have even worse results than if Saddam had still been alive. I couldn't care less if Bush carried it out, or Clinton or George Washington for all I care. Why should I? What's Bush "the individual" to me? Seems like a nice bloke apart from his poor choices while doing his job. And frankly, I've never really cared that much about U.S domestic politics or political parties. They're nothing to do with me. I just care that it was a messed up international plan with unsuccessful results because I care about world issues.

Edited December 6, 2007 by Ins0mniac

[The Silver Thong]

I wasn't confused. I knew what Bob was talking about.

So, since Bob remains silent (as I knew he would)...let me ask you your opinion about Iraq. Do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing that Sadaam is dead and gone? It isn't a trick question. It isn't a hard question. Ten bucks says you can't (won't) answer it.

I'll be blunt in my answer, I do believe Iraq was better off under the cruel thumb of Saddam. I by no means think Saddam was a good man, not at all ! However he did hold Iraq together. Iraq has never been more divided then now. If you like I could post deaths to Iraqi's under Saddam vs Iraq under coalition/ U.S. control. Can't really compair the numbers as it's in your face and you should know the numbers. Or we can go, how many Iraqi's killed American soldiers prior to the invasion? Thats simple ZERO. Now the number is what? 4000. What ever goverment the U.S. decides to put in place (this time) will most likely fail or not conform to America's wants and needs and this will happen all over again. When the U.S. does leave Iraq do you think Iraq will forever be saved?

[CiCi]

Lets face reality, iran is ruled by a bunch of sadistic apes. Their treatment of women and teenage girls is proof of that but are they a danger to the US itself? No.

Bush knows this and has known this for a long time. I don't think bush has been planning an all out invasion because what is he going to invade with? I suspect air strikes have been on the books and this media rhetoric has been building up for that.

[+joc]

That's not what I said at all.

It's bad that it was done the way it was. Due to a war that has proven to have even worse results than if Saddam had still been alive. I couldn't care less if Bush carried it out, or Clinton or George Washington for all I care. Why should I? What's Bush "the individual" to me? Seems like a nice bloke apart from his poor choices while doing his job. I just care that it was a messed up plan with unsuccessful results.

In fact...it wasn't a messed up plan. It was shock and awe and it worked amazingly. No, the planning for what would come after wasn't poorly planned..it wasn't planned at all...you just can't plan everything that way. I don't think anyone could have taken out Sadaam's army with precision and lethality of the shock and awe...and according to the latest report it scared the pants off Iran to the point they stopped their nuclear program.

It is in fact a simple question...I'll answer it since you wont. It is a good thing Sadaam is gone. Period. We took the battle of Terrorism to the Terrorists and now we are fighting it on their turf. Iran is surrounded and isolated. Damn good thing, all the way around.

[+joc]

I'll be blunt in my answer, I do believe Iraq was better off under the cruel thumb of Saddam. I by no means think Saddam was a good man, not at all ! However he did hold Iraq together. Iraq has never been more divided then now. If you like I could post deaths to Iraqi's under Saddam vs Iraq under coalition/ U.S. control. Can't really compair the numbers as it's in your face and you should know the numbers. Or we can go, how many Iraqi's killed American soldiers prior to the invasion? Thats simple ZERO. Now the number is what? 4000. What ever goverment the U.S. decides to put in place (this time) will most likely fail or not conform to America's wants and needs and this will happen all over again. When the U.S. does leave Iraq do you think Iraq will forever be saved?

That was blunt...and while I wholeheartedly disagree...I applaud you for at least answering the damn question!

[The Silver Thong]

Lets face reality, iran is ruled by a bunch of sadistic apes. Their treatment of women and teenage girls is proof of that but are they a danger to the US itself? No.

Bush knows this and has known this for a long time. I don't think bush has been planning an all out invasion because what is he going to invade with? I suspect air strikes have been on the books and this media rhetoric has been building up for that.

WOW you say "sadistic apes" and yet your country loves to kill people strapped to an electric chair, or hanging, well till recently. So now it's a gas chamber, leathal ingection ect. You allow citizans to own hand guns or guns in general that kill 27,000 people a year. How many people did Saddam kill each year? Befor the invasion how many Iraqi's killed Iraqi's. 4000 troops have been killed in 5 years and yet at home 27,000 americans die from each other due to guns. What does that say?