1
   

HOW MANY TIMES WILL EDWARDS SAY "HALLIBURTON" TONIGHT?

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Oct, 2004 11:00 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
You know what's even harder, Larry? Admitting that you failed to make the right call in the environment of uncertainty.

This is what the admin did re: WMD intelligence. That's not an opinion, it is fact. If the admin would admit that, they would go a lot farther with a lot more people.

But I doubt they will.

Cycloptichorn


I think they have acknowledged they acted on what they now know to be faulty intelligence.

Hell, even Bush has said his choice was between believing Saddam or the intelligence agencies of nations such as GB, Germany, France, Russia, Israel, etc.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Oct, 2004 11:02 am
There is a significant amount of evidence that the intel presented to the president, Larry, was a lot shakier than the intel he presented to the American people. This is where the mistake was made.

The admin's drive to war was based upon faulty intelligence, but they still say they were justified in going. How can that be? Are they claiming the ends justified the means?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Oct, 2004 11:07 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
There is a significant amount of evidence that the intel presented to the president, Larry, was a lot shakier than the intel he presented to the American people. This is where the mistake was made.

The admin's drive to war was based upon faulty intelligence, but they still say they were justified in going. How can that be? Are they claiming the ends justified the means?

Cycloptichorn


Yes, I believe they are saying that it was in our national interest to despose Saddam for many reasons other than that he had deployable WMD.

And I have not heard anyone credible disagree that the world is a better place and that Iraq will be better off without the Saddam regime.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Oct, 2004 11:08 am
Yes, Saddam was a very bad man, but it does not justify a preemptive attack that killed over 10,000 innocent people to get at Saddam.
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Oct, 2004 11:20 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
Yes, Saddam was a very bad man, but it does not justify a preemptive attack that killed over 10,000 innocent people to get at Saddam.


Your elected representatives, almost unanimously, thought it did when they authorized the President to do just that if he deemed it necessary to protect our national interests.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Oct, 2004 11:31 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
Yes, Saddam was a very bad man, but it does not justify a preemptive attack that killed over 10,000 innocent people to get at Saddam.


That's true. Those 10,000 might have been spared, but another 10,000 would have taken their place in the form of brutal slaughter, torture, starvation, etc because Saddam remained in power.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Oct, 2004 11:34 am
Quote:
That's true. Those 10,000 might have been spared, but another 10,000 would have taken their place in the form of brutal slaughter, torture, starvation, etc because Saddam remained in power.


This statement is conjecture. We have no idea how many would have died in the future, ESPECIALLY if the attention of the world and the UN was focused upon Iraq.

Conjectured deaths vs. actual ones. Which are worse? Let's ask the families over there and see what they say, hey?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Oct, 2004 11:37 am
Only if you ask the families of the thousands that Saddam already killed how they feel about it.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Oct, 2004 11:46 am
Two wrongs don't make a right; in many cases, McG, they are the same families.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Oct, 2004 11:49 am
Nah, most of the casualties of the war were Sunnis arount the coveted "sunni triangle". Saddam liked to pick on the Shia. Please ask them if they are sad to see Saddam gone.
0 Replies
 
padmasambava
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Oct, 2004 12:36 pm
The number is 10,000 and rising.

Using body counts to try to justify further stupidity is evil.

It's a day later. To answer your original question - not too many times.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Oct, 2004 01:13 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Nah, most of the casualties of the war were Sunnis arount the coveted "sunni triangle". Saddam liked to pick on the Shia. Please ask them if they are sad to see Saddam gone.


And you know this because of all of the US practice of carefully tracking and documenting Iraqi casualties.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Oct, 2004 01:16 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Nah, most of the casualties of the war were Sunnis arount the coveted "sunni triangle". Saddam liked to pick on the Shia. Please ask them if they are sad to see Saddam gone.


And you know this because of all of the US practice of carefully tracking and documenting Iraqi casualties.


No, because that's where most of the fighting is/was and I pay attention to the news and read a lot.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Oct, 2004 01:23 pm
Is Baghdad in the Sunni triangle?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Oct, 2004 01:24 pm
Never mind, I see that it is.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Oct, 2004 02:02 pm
This administration F***ked up royally and just do not want to admit it. As for who got killed because of Bush's war. I would ask is Sadr and his army are Shi'a or Sunni, are the 1000 plus American dead Sunni's, are the 27000 American wounded Sunni's.
Bush kept saying it was a hard job. He seemed to find no hardship sending American youth to die for his folly. Were he a CEO, coach of a sports team or in any other position of authority he would have been fired . However, as president of the US his party saw fit to support him for reelection. I guess politicians play by different rules than the rest of us.
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Oct, 2004 02:06 pm
au1929 wrote:
I guess politicians play by different rules than the rest of us.


BINGO!
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Oct, 2004 02:39 pm
Prag./ larry

BINGO!
What do you mean by bingo? You believe that politicians do not have to be held accountable for their errors and misdeeds. That SOB belongs in jail right along that "bad" guy. Saddam. They should be sharing a cell since they both sent people to their deaths callously and needlessly
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Oct, 2004 02:45 pm
au1929 wrote:
Were he a CEO, coach of a sports team or in any other position of authority he would have been fired . However, as president of the US his party saw fit to support him for reelection. I guess politicians play by different rules than the rest of us.



Right on the money, Au.
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Oct, 2004 02:47 pm
au1929 wrote:
Prag./ larry

BINGO!
What do you mean by bingo?

I mean I think you spoke the truth re: politicians.

You believe that politicians do not have to be held accountable for their errors and misdeeds.

No, but some of them seem to believe they are not held to the same standards as their constituents.
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
AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND - Discussion by Foxfyre
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
Fellow Bostonians: How many of us wished we had an assault weapon last night? - Question by maxdancona
What should be first on the agenda of the winner in November? - Discussion by Frank Apisa
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » HOW MANY TIMES WILL EDWARDS SAY "HALLIBURTON" TONIGHT?
  3. » Page 6
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 09/20/2024 at 07:05:04
▲ ▼