would someone tell scott ian there was an al qaeda and hussein

[ThraxDude]

Hmmmmmmmm....... let's see..... vote for someone who's offensive in the war on terror and who is taking action, or somebody who is defensive and indecisive about the war on terror...

Let me think...... should we have a president who goes after evil doers who refused (16 times) to let weapons inspectors in, or a tree-hugging pussy...
Hmmmm.......

 

[mrthrax]

Hmmmmmmmm....... let's see..... vote for someone who's offensive in the war on terror and who is taking action, or somebody who is defensive and indecisive about the war on terror...

Let me think...... should we have a president who goes after evil doers who refused (16 times) to let weapons inspectors in, or a tree-hugging pussy...
Hmmmm.......

hahaha,bush is great he has just signed a free trade agreement with australia that will do great things for both countries for years to come,a first time for everything so bush cant be that bad,most aussies love bush jnr too!

 

[TD]

you say this with the same cocky attitude you had when you said the Lakers would win it all we all know how that turned out...

Yada, yada, yada. Kindly tell me the last time your Bengals made the playoffs, and we'll switch from politics to sports.
"No child left behind is soon to replaced by one president left behind."

 

[AjDeath]

Hmmmmmmmm....... let's see..... vote for someone who's offensive in the war on terror and who is taking action, or somebody who is defensive and indecisive about the war on terror...

Let me think...... should we have a president who goes after evil doers who refused (16 times) to let weapons inspectors in, or a tree-hugging pussy...
Hmmmm.......

Dude. No real offense here, but I have to say this. You are a fucking idiot to use the term "evil". What fucking year is this 1312? This isn't the wild west. Human existence and reality are not based on your perspective, and to this point, just because you believe something to be true does not mean that it is true. Being objective is not a hindrance to your mind. Being subjective is. To make my argument clearer I will give you a viewpoint on Dogmatism.

"On Dogmatism- Free and open debate is impossible unless both parties acknowledge they could be in the wrong. Anyone who makes their conclusion the immovable point of their arguments has ceased to reason and has started to rationalize. More importantly they have closed down all hope of learning or expanding their view points."

This is what you have been doing, you have given me no proof of why Bush is better, you have stated opinion and made that the basis of your argument. This is, in a word, childlike. A child will say, "Cookies are good." but cannot tell you why. Likewise, GOP and DNP assholes say the same things, without any actual proof or reasoning as to why what they say is true. Saying that Bush is going after "evil-doers" and using this to explain that he is great is utter idiocy. For one thing, if he is going after "evil-doers', why hasn't he really gone after Bin Laden. Could be becuase his family has ties with the Bin Laden family going back to Bush's Great-Grandfather and the two families own a defense contract company together. Instead of using credible intelligence, he is now using four year old information to scare the piss out of the residents of NY/NJ. Is this going after "evil-doers"?

Also, regarding the "No Child Left Behind" bullshit. Bush has put a freeze on the amount of funding going into this campaign promise, he did this about two years ago. The funding does not adjust for inflation, so if you do the math and consider your findings, consider the millions that are being left behind.

 

[muffytheVampirelayer]

a 3 pointer at the buzzer for AjDeath.

Dude. No real offense here, but I have to say this. You are a fucking idiot to use the term "evil". What fucking year is this 1312? This isn't the wild west. Human existence and reality are not based on your perspective, and to this point, just because you believe something to be true does not mean that it is true. Being objective is not a hindrance to your mind. Being subjective is. To make my argument clearer I will give you a viewpoint on Dogmatism.

"On Dogmatism- Free and open debate is impossible unless both parties acknowledge they could be in the wrong. Anyone who makes their conclusion the immovable point of their arguments has ceased to reason and has started to rationalize. More importantly they have closed down all hope of learning or expanding their view points."

This is what you have been doing, you have given me no proof of why Bush is better, you have stated opinion and made that the basis of your argument. This is, in a word, childlike. A child will say, "Cookies are good." but cannot tell you why. Likewise, GOP and DNP assholes say the same things, without any actual proof or reasoning as to why what they say is true. Saying that Bush is going after "evil-doers" and using this to explain that he is great is utter idiocy. For one thing, if he is going after "evil-doers', why hasn't he really gone after Bin Laden. Could be becuase his family has ties with the Bin Laden family going back to Bush's Great-Grandfather and the two families own a defense contract company together. Instead of using creadible intelligence, he is now using four year old information to scare the piss out of the residents of NY/NJ. Is this going after "evil-doers"?

Also, regarding the "No Child Left Behind" bullshit. Bush has put a freeze on the amount of funding going into this campaign promise, he did this about two years ago. The funding does not adjust for inflation, so if you do the math and consider your findings, consider the millions that are being left behind.

 

[muffytheVampirelayer]

So Tad, you think that letting Osama Bin Laden, (the man who is responsible for the first World Trade Center Attack, the Black Hawk Down incident in Somolia, the bombings of 2 US embassys in Africa, the bombing of the USS Cole, and finaly the attack on Sept 11), escape and go into hiding, is defensive. Attacking a soverign nation that has never attacked, threatend to attack, or would have never attacked the US is not defensive, its cowardly bullshit.

We are no safer today that we were when Saddam was captured, I would even argue that we are less safe. What is Bush and Company doing to make America safer. Fuck the war in Iraq, attacking Iraq has not made America any safer. It actually fueled the hatred of America even more, and has made us more of a target.

Who cares about saddam. what did he do to America. He was an evil, evil ruthless dictator, but he was no way a threat to the United States of America. Your statements are exactly how AjDeath put it. You can tell me you like cookies, but you offer no explanation as to why.


PS. ....I support our troops 100%, they are a brave bunch. I do not support a war based on lies.

Hmmmmmmmm....... let's see..... vote for someone who's offensive in the war on terror and who is taking action, or somebody who is defensive and indecisive about the war on terror...

Let me think...... should we have a president who goes after evil doers who refused (16 times) to let weapons inspectors in, or a tree-hugging pussy...
Hmmmm.......

 

[AjDeath]

We are no safer today that we were when Saddam was captured, I would even argue that we are less safe. What is Bush and Company doing to make America safer. Fuck the war in Iraq, attacking Iraq has not made America any safer. It actually fueled the hatred of America even more, and has made us more of a target.

Funny tidbit, in a recent stump speech, Bush ran down a list of his so called "accomplishments" and after stating each said the phrase, "and America is safer." He said this phrase about twenty times. A week ago, a daring reporter asked why there was a new terror alert (which just so happened to be announced just after the DNP's national convention) an alert in which information that was the basis for the alert was four years old? He said, "America is in danger." So which is it? As Jon Stewert so eloquently put it, "Isn't that called flip flopping?"

 

[muffytheVampirelayer]

Exactly.

Funny tidbit, in a recent stump speech, Bush ran down a list of his so called "accomplishments" and after stating each said the phrase, "and America is safer." He said this phrase about twenty times. A week ago, a daring reporter asked why there was a new terror alert (which just so happened to be announced just after the DNP's national convention) an alert in which information that was the basis for the alert was four years old? He said, "America is in danger." So which is it? As Jon Stewert so eloquently put it, "Isn't that called flip flopping?"

 

[ThraxDude]

muffy- First of all, thanks for not calling me a "fucking idiot". We have our opinions here, and I personally have been waiting for Saddam Hussein to be taken out of power for well over a decade now.
And we will find Osama eventually.

AjDeath- You call me a "fucking idiot" for refering to Saddam as 'evil'. Well, that makes me wonder how many other people on this board are "fucking idiots"???
Anyone else think Saddam is evil? Anyone?
Also, I wouldn't call you a "fucking idiot" for your statement below (notice it contains the word "evil"):

Choosing between Bush and Kerry is choosing between the lesser of two evils.

I await your apology.

 

[AjDeath]

muffy-
AjDeath- You call me a "fucking idiot" for refering to Saddam as 'evil'. Well, that makes me wonder how many other people on this board are "fucking idiots"???
Anyone else think Saddam is evil? Anyone?
Also, I wouldn't call you a "fucking idiot" for your statement below (notice it contains the word "evil"):

I await your apology.

First of all, I read and respect your opinions, and as I said, I really meant no offense. It came off wrong and I appologize. I hope you will read and have read the rest of my points, but this seems unlikely. What I meant was that the term "evil" has sort of become archaic and trite. Shades of grey as Overkill would say, make up our world, and what is right and wrong is a matter of whos eyes you are looking through. You cannot (actually, you can but it is a base intelligence that does so) call something evil. Because in his/it's mind he is is doing good, and his enemy is doing bad. It isn't a form of fact, or even opinion, it is a thought process of rationalization. For Bush to style himself as a crusader of God is just idiotic and disrespectfull of the many Muslim citizens that live here in the states, for Bush to say this in Public he mind as well of said, 'I am bringing back the Holy City into Christian hands, and smite the heathen hordes." It is as irresponsible as going to war with someone because they are "evil". To me this shows Bush and co.'s contempt for the citizens of America, dumb something down until it reaches ignorance level and we will eat it up. Worked every time in history's myriad Crusades.


As to your last point, there is a hell of a difference between conveying something figuratively and litereally.

 

[ThraxDude]

Thank you. And for the record, I read and re-read your comments.
You have strong opinions, which I can respect as well, yet I still stand by my own opinions.

And I knew you were speaking figuratively, I was just trying to make a point.

 

[muffytheVampirelayer]

I would never call you a fucken idiot Tad. I just dont understand how someone can think taking out Saddam was more important that going after Osama Bin Laden.

muffy- First of all, thanks for not calling me a "fucking idiot". We have our opinions here, and I personally have been waiting for Saddam Hussein to be taken out of power for well over a decade now.
And we will find Osama eventually.

QUOTE]

 

[SCott308]

I like cookies, especially chocolate chip and peanut butter. They have a pleasing taste sensation that makes my mouth happy.

Scott

 

[SCott308]

I would never call you a fucken idiot Tad. I just dont understand how someone can think taking out Saddam was more important that going after Osama Bin Laden.

Who said we were not going after Osama? I work with people who have served in Afghanistan. Trust me, we are going after him. The difference is that in Iraq, it is a flat, desert country. This is conducive to bringing in large numbers of troops and tanks. It also makes it easier for media sources to go there and cover events. The search for Osama, however, takes place in inaccesible, rugged, mountainous terrain. As a result, the large forces and armor cannot be used like in Iraq. Also, You don't have a large city with hotels for media, like in Bagdad.

Scott

 

[AjDeath]

I am exiting this discussion until people stop confusing opinion and unreferenced "information" with actual facts and researched information.


I may add to the crap I have posted. But I won't be replying to anything specific.

 

[ivankoloff]

dammit ajdeath, bill clinton got that same presidential daily briefing about bin ladden wanting to hi-jack planes for terror attacks, BILL CLINTON GOT THE SAME DAMN WARNING YEARS BEFORE BUSH. so how about asking how slick willy reacted to it as well. CROWBAR FOREVER

 

[Arg_Hamster]

I wonder how the world would look if neither Bush or Osama were religious or saw themselves as religious persons.

 

[AjDeath]

dammit ajdeath, bill clinton got that same presidential daily briefing about bin ladden wanting to hi-jack planes for terror attacks, BILL CLINTON GOT THE SAME DAMN WARNING YEARS BEFORE BUSH. so how about asking how slick willy reacted to it as well. CROWBAR FOREVER

IF you have read some of my earlier posts, you would have read about Richard Clarke.

After the attack on the USS Cole, Clinton decided to end Al Qeada and Bin Laden, Richard Clarke, whom Clinton had appointed as the first ever national antiterrorism coodinator, was in charge of coming up with a plan to destroy Al Qeada. This plan was clompleted only a few weeks before G. W.'s inauguration. If this plan had been put into action a Clinton aide told Time, "we would be handing the new administration a war when they took office.' Clinton decided to turn the plan over to the Bush administration. Ooops! Bush and co. ignored the whole thing. Oooops X 100! BTW, reading Dick Clarke's book on this subject might be benificial to all.

Here is an excerptfrom a different book. "Clintons National Security Advisor Sandy Berger remembered how little help the previous Bush administration had provided to his team. Believing that the nation's security should transcend political bittierness, Berger arranged ten briefings for his successor, COndi Rice, and her deputy, Stephen Hadley. Berger made a special point of attending the briefing on terrorism. He told Dr. Rice, "i believe that the Bush administration will spend more time on terrorism in general, and on al Qeada specifically, than on any other subject."

Condi decided to either lie, or be totally incompetent and forget about such important meetings, because she denied the whole thing took place. As I mentioned before, NY Time's covered the meetings.

Here is the TIme's article. "As he prepared to leave office last January, Mr. Berger met with his successor, Condi Rice, and gave her a warning. According to both of them, he said that terrorism-and particularly Mr Bin Laden's brand of it-would consume far more of her time than she had ever imagined."

Here is my point, Bill Clinton eventually sacked it up and decided to do something about Bin Laden and co. Unfortunately it takes time in Washington to get things done, after the attck on the Cole on October 12 of 2000, Clinton's last few months in office, it was almost too late to implement his/Clarke's plan(January) and instead of handing Bush a war, he decided to let the Bush administration handle it. Wrong, the first defense meeting that ever occured in Bush's administration he asked his people, "What do you have for me about Saddam?" And they proceeded to come up with a plan to attack Iraq three years before thay actually did. Where were Bush's priorities I wonder? Richard Clarke became so disgusted with how the Bushies blames this attack on CLinton, HE WROTE A BOOK ABOUT IT.

Here is another quote. As a senior Bush administration official told Time,Clarke's(Clinton's) plan amounted to, "everything we've done since 9/11."

 

[muffytheVampirelayer]

AJDEATH is hit another 3 at the buzzer to win. God I love it when people know what the fuck they are talking about.

Thanks Aj (and I am not being sarcastic)

IF you have read some of my earlier posts, you would have read about Richard Clarke.

After the attack on the USS Cole, Clinton decided to end Al Qeada and Bin Laden, Richard Clarke, whom Clinton had appointed as the first ever national antiterrorism coodinator, was in charge of coming up with a plan to destroy Al Qeada. This plan was clompleted only a few weeks before G. W.'s inauguration. If this plan had been put into action a Clinton aide told Time, "we would be handing the new administration a war when they took office.' Clinton decided to turn the plan over to the Bush administration. Ooops! Bush and co. ignored the whole thing. Oooops X 100! BTW, reading Dick Clarke's book on this subject might be benificial to all.

Here is an excerptfrom a different book. "Clintons National Security Advisor Sandy Berger remembered how little help the previous Bush administration had provided to his team. Believing that the nation's security should transcend political bittierness, Berger arranged ten briefings for his successor, COndi Rice, and her deputy, Stephen Hadley. Berger made a special point of attending the briefing on terrorism. He told Dr. Rice, "i believe that the Bush administration will spend more time on terrorism in general, and on al Qeada specifically, than on any other subject."

Condi decided to either lie, or be totally incompetent and forget about such important meetings, because she denied the whole thing took place. As I mentioned before, NY Time's covered the meetings.

Here is the TIme's article. "As he prepared to leave office last January, Mr. Berger met with his successor, Condi Rice, and gave her a warning. According to both of them, he said that terrorism-and particularly Mr Bin Laden's brand of it-would consume far more of her time than she had ever imagined."

Here is my point, Bill Clinton eventually sacked it up and decided to do something about Bin Laden and co. Unfortunately it takes time in Washington to get things done, after the attck on the Cole on October 12 of 2000, Clinton's last few months in office, it was almost too late to implement his/Clarke's plan(January) and instead of handing Bush a war, he decided to let the Bush administration handle it. Wrong, the first defense meeting that ever occured in Bush's administration he asked his people, "What do you have for me about Saddam?" And they proceeded to come up with a plan to attack Iraq three years before thay actually did. Where were Bush's priorities I wonder? Richard Clarke became so disgusted with how the Bushies blames this attack on CLinton, HE WROTE A BOOK ABOUT IT.

Here is another quote. As a senior Bush administration official told Time,Clarke's(Clinton's) plan amounted to, "everything we've done since 9/11."

 

[ivankoloff]

thats nice but richard clarke himself has recanted things in that book, and was exposed for his dishonesty, george bush did not give him the job he wanted and he got mad, if all of these things in his book happened when they did, why did clarke wait 3 years to tell people? he should have held a press conference or something. americas official policy of regime change in iraq was put into place by bill clinton. he came up with our nations policy of getting rid of saddam, he didn't do anything about it because he didn't have the balls, he was a poll driven president. george bush does what bill clinton put in place and he is the bad guy/ warmonger. the u.n., russia, africa, england, and france all said he had wmd's, now they act like they didn't to make bush look bad. john kerry himself expressed concerns about saddam " passing them along to terrorists", whatever bush does he is wrong, if bush invaded iran for their ties to al-qaeda, the democrats and michael moore would be saying he should go after iraq because they have wmd's. THE NEW CROWBAR DROPS ON FEB. 8TH 2005 I BELIEVE!!!!