1
   

100 FACTS AND 1 OPINION

 
 
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 12:00 pm
The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration

[How can anyone read this and still vote to re-elect the little freak puppetboy?]
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041108&s=facts


This is amusing but true and tragic:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/6562575?pageid=rs.Home&pageregion=single7
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 6,046 • Replies: 138
No top replies

 
Synonymph
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 02:16 pm
So......silence = acquiescence?
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 02:34 pm
Yes
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 02:40 pm
No, just rare to see you on a political thread. must be serious.
0 Replies
 
Synonymph
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 03:00 pm
I don't really get into discussing politics, but the thought of four more years under the "leadership" of that shithead is scary and disgusting.
0 Replies
 
knnknn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 03:18 pm
There are basically 2 reasons why people vote for Bush:

1) They are Christians and are against gay marriage (or some equally non-important religious reason)

2) They have no clue. A new study proves that Bush supporters have much less clue about the truth than Democrats:
Quote:
A new study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) shows that supporters of President Bush hold wildly inaccurate views about the world. For example, "a large majority [72%] of Bush supporters believe that before the war Iraq had weapons of mass destruction." Most Bush supporters [57%] also believe that the recently released report by Charles Duelfer, the administration's hand-picked weapons inspector, concluded Iraq either had WMD or a major program for developing them. In fact, the report concluded "Saddam Hussein did not produce or possess any weapons of mass destruction for more than a decade before the U.S.-led invasion" and the U.N. inspection regime had "curbed his ability to build or develop weapons."

According to the study, 75% Bush supporters also believe "Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda." Most Bush supporters [55%] believe that was the conclusion of the 9/11 commission. In fact, the 9/11 commission concluded there was no "collaborative relationship" between al-Qaeda and Iraq.

Bush supporters also hold inaccurate views about world public opinion of the war in Iraq and a range of Bush's foreign policy positions.


Here is the poll: http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Report10_21_04.pdf

Here is some info about it: http://www.misleader.org/daily_mislead/Read.asp?fn=df10222004.html
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 03:21 pm
Saw it...definitely a major reason.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 04:32 pm
Re: 100 FACTS AND 1 OPINION
Cinnesthesia wrote:
The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration

[How can anyone read this and still vote to re-elect the little freak puppetboy?]



Basically, when somebody claims to have 100 non-arguable claims and the first one turns out to be flagrant BS, I stop reading and don't bother to read the other 99. The claim that Iraq was a "war of choice" is BS. The item I posted a week or two back is a better description of what took place:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=36704
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 04:38 pm
This is gungasnake's flagrant BS

The Bush Administration has spent more than $140 billion on a war of choice in Iraq.

Source: American Progress
0 Replies
 
knnknn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 04:43 pm
Acquiunk wrote:
The Bush Administration has spent more than $140 billion on a war of choice in Iraq.

This is true

Let's compare it to some other wars:
Quote:
Yale University economist William D. Nordhaus estimated that in inflation-adjusted terms, World War I cost just under $200 billion for the United States. The Vietnam War [8 years] cost roughly $500 billion from 1964 to 1972, Nordhaus said. The cost of the Iraq war could reach nearly half that number by next fall, 2 1/2 years after it began.

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=4013
0 Replies
 
knnknn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 04:48 pm
Re: 100 FACTS AND 1 OPINION
gungasnake wrote:
Basically, when somebody claims to have 100 non-arguable claims and the first one turns out to be flagrant BS, I stop reading and don't bother to read the other 99.

Is this the reason why Bush supporters still think that Saddam trained Al-Qaeda or similar nonsense?

gungasnake wrote:
The claim that Iraq was a "war of choice" is BS.

It's not. Iraq was not a threat.


It's full of outdated claims and pre-war deceptions. Please cite from the 9/11 commission only. And guess what they say? Saddam REFUSED to work with Al-Qaeda.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 04:54 pm
Acquiunk wrote:
This is gungasnake's flagrant BS

The Bush Administration has spent more than $140 billion on a war of choice in Iraq.

Source: American Progress
Well when it comes to issues such as the war it is more of an opinion then it is a fact. We went to war and I happen to think it was not a war of choice. While we didn't find any WMD's, I still think it was important to remove Saddam to prevent any future attempts to obtain WMD's. It was either go now or in 5 or 10 years. The basic fact of the matter is this; we would have ended up going into Iraq at some point anyways.
0 Replies
 
knnknn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 05:05 pm
Baldimo wrote:
We went to war and I happen to think it was not a war of choice. While we didn't find any WMD's, I still think it was important to remove Saddam to prevent any future attempts to obtain WMD's.

In other words: It was a war of choice (because you didn't have to go now).

And please don't argue with a fantasy future. Or I will argue that Bush will cause the 3rd world war if reelected.
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 05:07 pm
Baldimo wrote:
The basic fact of the matter is this; we would have ended up going into Iraq at some point anyways.


This is my opinion but, I disagree. From everything I've read Hussain was becoming increasingly detached from reality and I doubt he would have lasted 5 years, left to his own devices. Whether what would have followed would have been better or worse is speculation.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 05:12 pm
knnknn wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
We went to war and I happen to think it was not a war of choice. While we didn't find any WMD's, I still think it was important to remove Saddam to prevent any future attempts to obtain WMD's.

In other words: It was a war of choice (because you didn't have to go now).

And please don't argue with a fantasy future. Or I will argue that Bush will cause the 3rd world war if reelected.


The Dulfer report even stated that Saddam was working to undermine the sanctions and still had aspirations to obtain WMD's. If this was indeed true as we have no reason to doubt the report, then we would have ended up fighting Saddam anyways.


Acquiunk wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
The basic fact of the matter is this; we would have ended up going into Iraq at some point anyways.


This is my opinion but, I disagree. From everything I've read Hussain was becoming increasingly detached from reality and I doubt he would have lasted 5 years, left to his own devices. Whether what would have followed would have been better or worse is speculation.


Not much speculation when you look at how his sons were. They were worse then their father in every way.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 05:15 pm
Quote:
The Dulfer report even stated that Saddam was working to undermine the sanctions and still had aspirations to obtain WMD's. If this was indeed true as we have no reason to doubt the report, then we would have ended up fighting Saddam anyways.


The same report that called Saddam a 'waning threat?'

Shouldn't we be focusing on REAL threats? Like Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaeda?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
knnknn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 05:22 pm
Baldimo wrote:
The Dulfer report even stated that Saddam was working to undermine the sanctions and still had aspirations to obtain WMD's.

Wow, had _plans_ to _preserve_ the _capability_ to _start_ a _program_ _if_ sanctions were lifted.

A load of "ifs" there. Let's hope China doesn't attack the US because they feel threatened.

Let's see what the Duelfer Report says:
"The fact remains, the sanctions combined with inspections were working and Saddam was restrained."

Hey, no necessity for war = war of choice

Let's see what the report further says:
"[Saddam] wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted," a summary of the report says.

Clear words
0 Replies
 
knnknn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 05:24 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Shouldn't we be focusing on REAL threats? Like Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaeda?


Exactly.

Or as the terrorism expert Dick Clarke says: "There are a lot of dictators where the US would be better off without. The question is just whether it's worth the price"
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 06:16 pm
knnknn wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
The Dulfer report even stated that Saddam was working to undermine the sanctions and still had aspirations to obtain WMD's.

Wow, had _plans_ to _preserve_ the _capability_ to _start_ a _program_ _if_ sanctions were lifted.

A load of "ifs" there. Let's hope China doesn't attack the US because they feel threatened.

Let's see what the Duelfer Report says:
"The fact remains, the sanctions combined with inspections were working and Saddam was restrained."

Hey, no necessity for war = war of choice

Let's see what the report further says:
"[Saddam] wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted," a summary of the report says.

Clear words


The last part of your post was in favor of what I said.

Quote:
Exactly.

Or as the terrorism expert Dick Clarke says: "There are a lot of dictators where the US would be better off without. The question is just whether it's worth the price"


When we have 12 years of sanctions on other dictators and they don't provide proof that the sanctions have worked then we might invade. Don't make it sound like the sanctions were new and we ignored them.

I guess bin Laden wasn't worth the price for Clark to go after. After all he was offered to the US and Clinton at least twice and he did nothing. Talk about a faliure.
0 Replies
 
knnknn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 06:30 pm
Baldimo wrote:
When we have 12 years of sanctions on other dictators and they don't provide proof that the sanctions have worked then we might invade. Don't make it sound like the sanctions were new and we ignored them.

Wrong. The sanctions worked 100%. The purpose was that Saddam gets rid of WMDs. And guess what? No WMDs.

Baldimo wrote:
I guess bin Laden wasn't worth the price for Clark to go after. After all he was offered to the US and Clinton at least twice and he did nothing. Talk about a faliure.

1) Another falsehood. You are repeating Foxnews spins.
2) Has Bush with an extensive military force and 70+ member coalition captured Bin Laden? No. And you dare to accuse Clinton.
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
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » 100 FACTS AND 1 OPINION
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/01/2022 at 04:23:59