Posts: 21362
-
Karma: 5,143
The point is, I wasn't arguing. I only replied to SUPilot's posts to point out the logical flaw in his method of argument. Like I originally said, he made a few good points, but made a bunch of stupid statements. Of course, he's way to arrogant to understand that. If he's actually as smart as he seems to think, maybe he should be president... but realistically, you need to listen to hucksterjibber, you look dumber every time you say anything; most recently you've shown yourself to b a racist idiot with a discriminatory perspective on half the people on this site.
I'll say it again. You can't argue. Your arguments look like this: after repeating what the previous poster said, you say 'Open your eyes. look at the facts. Fucking assmonkey stereotype of anti-war people'. Explain to me how that can possibly be regarded as a political argument?!? Stop being a retard.
I wasn't going to bother arguing with you, because you seem to think the president's God, and I already said what I was going to say about Bush in another thread. Plus I'm not sure I like the democratic cantidates any better. But since you people seem to want one, I'll repost my statements here. You want to talk about facts, apparently; you keep posting 'Look at the facts, look at the facts!' (conveniently neglecting to post any).
Sorry to anyone who already read this a month and a half ago.
''I'm pretty sure noone died as a result of Clinton's sex life. However, the fact that the republican party diverted over 200 FBI agents assigned to some portion of the witch hunt to find evidence against Clinton may have-those agents could have been better used to talk to texan flight instructors who complained of foreigners in their schools who didn't want to learn how to take off or land, or how about investigating URGENT reports of planned Al Qaeda attacks? Clinton lied to a court and no one got hurt. Bush lied to a nation and over 9,000 people died. How did he lie?
1. 'Iraq has nuclear weapons.'
Remember that yellow cake uranium from Nigeria Saddam was supposed to have? The head of a a CIA directed mission to investigate concluded the following 'I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the threat'. He submitted this to the CIA and it was ignored. The whole hoax wasn't even well executed: the nigerian foreign minister who signed documents involved in the case not only was no longer in power, but hadn't been for over 10 years.And the aluminum tubes that were supposed to be used in making centrifuges nukes? It was concluded by agents of the UN security council that the tubes, 'unless modified, would not be suitable for manufacturing centrifuges.' But Bush didn't let the facts stand in his way, he told his story despite having had his own people report that it was entirely inaccurate un a State of the Union address before 62 million Americans.
2 'Iraq has ties to Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda'
This was said so much that everyone just believes it. In fact, the two of them tried to get to form an alliance in the past, but, as it turned out, they HATED each other; bin Laden completely disagreed with Hussein's religious and political views. That Al Qaeda poison and explosives factory in northern iraq that Bush officials said Saddam had been harbouring? it belonged to a fundamentalist group who had officially declared Hussein their 'enemy'. The truth is there was no connection; there was not even one Iraqi among the 9/11 hijackers. In fact, 15 of them were Saudis, but you didn't hear anything about 'Saudi Arabia attacking the US'. Why not? Hell, Osama himself is a Saudi! Who does have a connection with Osama? How about George W. Himself! Osama's family has been investing in bush family texas oil ventures since 1977. Little known fact, the Bin Ladens are one of the richest families on earth, and worked closely with the bushes. When George Sr. became a consultant for the carlyle group, they immediately donated 2$million. In fact, another of Osama's brothers was at a carlyle group conference in washington DC the morning of, you guessed it, 9/11. but here's another reason you wont hear it implied that the Saudis were the attackers: Bush has a very close relationship witht eh Saudi royal family. For god's sake, George Sr. calls the prince of Saudi Arabia by a nickname: Bandar Bush! Now, you'd think THIS regime would be good enough to take out; according to Amnesty International, In SArabia, 'Gross human rights violations continued...hundreds of suspected religious activists and critics of the state were arrested...Torture and ill treatment remained Rife'. In 2000, 125 people were beheaded in Riyadh, the capital city. Sounds likea nasty place. Guess we need their oil.
Less than a week after the september 11 attacks, Bush went out on his balcony at the White House to relax and smoke a cigar. He had afriend join him out there, and told him 'If we can't get them (The Al Qaeda operatives suspected of being involved in the attack) to cooperate, we'll hand them over to you.' The man joining him was his good friend, the Prince of Saudi Arabia. Bandar Bush.
2. It's not JUST the U.S. Going to war, it's a coalitiioin of the 'willing'
Some of the participants in this 'coalition' are a joke. listed among them is Palau, and Island with 20,000 people. They sent no troops. Albania, a rural backwater farm country. They sent no troops. Afghanistan. You gotta be kidding me! Thanks to bush, their whole country is on average about 2 feet lower! They sent no troops. Poland did offer to send 200 men! I'm sure that helped. Oh, and morroco offered 2000 monkeys to help detonate landmines (an offer which was refused).
Larger countries who volunteered weren't really worth calling 'willing'. 70% of Australian citizens opposed the war, but for a little incentive, or threatening, the US shut New Zealand (who refused to join the coalition) out of trade talks. Aussies, you better join up, or else! How about Italy? 69% opposed. Japan? 70% opposed. Spain! only 13% of spaniards were in favour of war, and that was only if it had UN support! Turkey, 95% opposed. How about the U.K.? The steadfast ally of the US? Polls showed that only 9% of UK citizens were in favour of war if it meant the US and UK going it alone. Well put whoever you want on a list, you WERE in it alone.
3. 'We are doing everything in our power to minimize civilian casualties.'
How's this for an idea. If you want people around the world to stop hating the US, stop killing their civilians and calling it 'collateral damage'! Gee, sorry we blew up your home, but hey, shit happens, ok? Is that what they told the child they caught on film who lost his parents and both of his arms when a US missile struck his home, as he begged reporters to help him find his arms? Oh sorry, I guess they don't show that kind of footage on Fox. You probably didn't see Razek al-Kazem al-Khafaji, either, who, as he stood in the rubble of his home amidst the scattered body parts of his wife, six children, father, mother and two brothers (all killed by one U.S. attack), asked God to 'Take our revenge on America'.
Gee, I wonder why they're so hateful! Ingrates.
4. The war is getting fair and accurate coverage.
While we're on the subject of what you may have seen on TV, how's this: the White house field office, AKA Fox news, wasn't exactly impartial. In fact, FAIR, an independant media research group, reported the following statistics after seeing over 1600 sources appearing in on camera stories about Iraq.
-You were 25 times more likely to see a pro-war US source than an anti-war one.
-Military sources were featured twice as frequently as civilians
-Only 4% of sources were affiliated with Universities or other non-governmental organizations.
-of 840 US sources who were current or former government or military officials, 4 were identified as opposing the war. Yeah, 4.
-Anti-war statements were consistently limited to 1 second sound bites.
-None of the six major telecasts conducted a sit-down interview with anyone who opposed the war.
You want to argue that Bush has been a model President? then argue against the facts. And those are facts, backed up by documented sources. And did he lie to America? Well, the Bush administration doesn't think so. Condoleeza rice said that 'The president's state of the union said something inaccurate...if you notice, the president's statement says 'sought'. (sought that yellow cake uranium, she means)-it didn't say he received or acquired.' Hey, that's true. So Bush TRICKED his country into thinking Saddam had nuclear weapons? The blame-passing for the innacuracies in that speech went on until Bush finally said that he was responsible for any words that came out of his mouth. Sad that he actually had to say that, it seems pretty obvious.
So the next time the Bush administration gives you something like what Powell gave us when he said 'every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we are giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid Intelligence', you should take it with a grain of salt. Especially since two days earlier, while reviewing that 'solid intelligence' concerning Saddam with CIA officials, Powell threw the papers in the air and announced, 'I'm not reading this. This is bullshit!'
So spew all you want about Bush doing a 'good job', being a moral guy, and an upstanding President. The facts are in opposition, and US allies are dwindling right along with support for its beloved leader, King George. God bless America, because America needs all the help it can get.''
J.D.'s Hall of Fame for Stupid Posts:
''mad trix is a gay name. go with the k2's.'' -Linepunk
''Dude, Americans or Canadians didn't invent english, the British dudes did.'' -Chauncy
On San Francisco: ''that was like the starting place of gayness and aids in the eighties.'' -Tandan83
