0
   

2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

 
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2003 07:13 pm
Hobit--

It appears that our challenge isn't popular in these quarters. Your work deserves response.

I am ready with #1. If you want to move it, I'll respond in a more appropriate location.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2003 07:16 pm
hobitbob wrote:
Brand X wrote:
hobitbob wrote:
Hey, kids...spot the lie:
"We gave him the chance to let the inspectors in, but he refused, so we had to go to war."-Bush
After hostilities ahd commenced, with Annan at his side.
"For those who say we haven't found WMD, they are wrong. We have. " -Bush
To Polish TV, in reference to the H2 trailers, when even captive DOD analysts were saying these were not WMDs.
"We know exactly where they are. They are in Tikrit, to the North, South, East,and West."-Rumsfeld
Saying you know "exactly" where something is, imlplies one will tehrfore produce it after the bang bang phase, no?
"Mission Accomplished."-Bush
Doesn't even deserve further comment.
"We didn't start this war..."-Wolfowitz
Apparently he's been reading Anne Coulter.

The alternative to these statements being lires is that our "leaders" are complete and total barking idiots. I prefer to think they are liars.


You only left out one minor thing, proof. You still can't and never will be able to prove what knowledge was actually in hand at the moment the statements were made. If you can't prove that and compare it to each particular outcome, it is wrong to say someone is a liar as a fact, you can only have it as an opinion, that doesn't make it so.

Again, for people like Brand x who rode the short bus:

"We gave him the chance to let the inspectors in, but he refused, so we had to go to war."-Bush
Bush made this statement well after hostilities were under way. I fact, Hussein was not the one unwilling to let inspectors in. Bush was the one who was unwiling. Inspectors went into Iraq. This is what is called a "fact." Please prove me wrong here...I beg you.

"For those who say we haven't found WMD, they are wrong. We have. " -Bush
To Polish TV, in reference to the H2 trailers, when even captive DOD analysts were saying these were not WMDs. Again.., prove me wrong.

"We know exactly where they are. They are in Tikrit, to the North, South, East,and West."-Rumsfeld
Saying you know "exactly" where something is, imlplies one will tehrfore produce it after the bang bang phase, no? This is what is know as "a lie."

"We didn't start this war..."-Wolfowitz
Apparently he's been reading Anne Coulter. Wolfy said this to congress last week whilst trying to cajole $87 billion from them. If the US didn't start the war in Iraq...who did? I'm waiting.

Can anyone help brand x out here?


Your 'proof' still taste like toothpaste. For example, neither Rumsfeld or Bush were there on the ground in Iraq, they were making statements based on second hand info, not what they experienced personally. Planes were flown into our WTC, that's an attack, that's when the war was started by the enemy, not by us, duh. Give up, and don't let the door of the short bus hit you in the ass when you exit.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2003 07:19 pm
Sofia wrote:
Hobit--

It appears that our challenge isn't popular in these quarters. Your work deserves response.

I am ready with #1. If you want to move it, I'll respond in a more appropriate location.

gohere
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2003 07:19 pm
I get it! All Arabs are our enemy! Why didn't you say so? I think, though, that our troops should have struck at Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2003 07:20 pm
CI, he can't even defend his own position. What a truly sad little mammal. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2003 07:20 pm
If we really wanted a good war, we should have struck at China. That would have been more interesting.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2003 07:29 pm
I'll probably oughtta lock this thread here for a while, but instead, I'm going to say it ...

EVERYBODY knock off slappin' an' grabbin' each other's asses, dammit!
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2003 07:29 pm
brand x wrote:
Planes were flown into our WTC, that's an attack, that's when the war was started by the enemy, not by us, duh.

And what nationality were the hijackers? Where did they get their training? Which ME country that starts with an I and ends with a Q had they never been to? Which contry that starts with an I and ends with a Q had bin-Laden referred to as 'evil," and called for the downfall fo its government? Which news stationt that starts with an F and ends with an X do you seem to get all of your info from?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2003 07:32 pm
Now, c.i. ... I'm shocked .... SHOCKED, I tell you! How terribly prejudicial and cold heartedly cynical an attitude toward the Chinese! Why, that's positively Japanese of you Twisted Evil :wink:
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2003 07:35 pm
Would those be shitake mushroom clouds? Wink
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2003 07:40 pm
I'm glad I shocked somebody! Common sense seems to have left some posts back, and I thought I'd join the "fun."
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2003 07:49 pm
hobitbob wrote:
brand x wrote:
Planes were flown into our WTC, that's an attack, that's when the war was started by the enemy, not by us, duh.

And what nationality were the hijackers? Where did they get their training? Which ME country that starts with an I and ends with a Q had they never been to? Which contry that starts with an I and ends with a Q had bin-Laden referred to as 'evil," and called for the downfall fo its government? Which news stationt that starts with an F and ends with an X do you seem to get all of your info from?


If you buy a book which has a two thousand page story in it, are you going to read 500 hundred and assume you know the rest of the story? Well, we don't know the rest of what will come out of this war at 500 pages in do we? You want to go ahead and write the other 1500 yourself, and you could be totally wrong, ever consider that? I'll admit I could be wrong about anything I've ever said. For you to be so sure of yourself on this stuff that you won't allow for another view is very unreasonable. You seem to think you own truth and full knowledge of the rest of the story, you don't.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2003 08:05 pm
Scroll
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2003 08:09 pm
Saddam started the war when he invaded Kuwait. He defied the Gulf War treaty and UN resolutions. Regardless of 911, the war never ended due to Saddam's refusal to comply with the agreements made that ceased the hostilities.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2003 08:17 pm
the UN resolutions were instilled by the Security Council of the United Nations, not by the United States, ergo it was the UN that was to determine the status of Iraq's compliance. When the US proposed to the Un that Iraq was not in compliance and sought a specific action against Iraq, it was denied by the Security Council pending further non-hostile ameloriation via weapons inspections. The US usurped authority which makes the US also in violation of UN resolutions.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2003 08:44 pm
I won't argue with dys' statement.
We did choose to go at it without the UN.
I have an opinion about that--but so does everybody else.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2003 09:26 pm
Some, like Kerry, have had and voiced differing positions at various times.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2003 09:58 pm
The big problem with the US position is that by saying that the UN is irrelavent before the war, then ask for their help 'post' war, after defying the UN, seems a bit half-cocked.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2003 09:59 pm
Bush's famous saying, "you're with us or against us." Now that he's in a pickle, he wants UN help?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2003 10:21 pm
Might it not be said the US is interested enough in the surval of the UN to allow it one more chance before pulling the plug on the concept? I would submit that the UN without the US is about like a television without electricity.

Just off the top of my head, I would guess that either there will be no resolution, which effectively removes the UN from involvement, assuring US control with no international oversight whatsdoever, appart from the cooperaton of established economic partners, or, should a resolution acceptable to the UN and the US be passed, it will be of a nature which further amplifies French and German marginalization within the world politico-economic community.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 02/01/2025 at 09:01:14