What's wrong (or right) with Bush's statement?

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

September 22, 2005
Bush Firm on Iraq Policy as Antiwar Forces Plan Protest
By MARIA NEWMAN
President Bush said today that even though Hurricanes Rita and Katrina had dominated national attention and resources in the last few weeks, "our focus on defending our country remains undiminished" and that he had no intention of heeding critics' calls to withdraw American troops from Iraq anytime soon.

My question, how does our war in Iraq "defend our country?" We have now lost over 1,900 men and women of our military, and it's still costing us five billion every month. How does this "defend our country?"

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 3,911 • Replies: 101

No top replies

An hour and a half later , your question still stands undefeated, my friend. The "compassionist republicans" in your country are either still asleep, or just avoiding your questioning....

0 Replies

C.I.
There is one individual who keeps writing that if we had not invaded Iraq they would soon be bombing our cities. No names
IMO what the invasion of Iraq has done was to heighten the threat of terror rather than lessen it.
I will agree however as a result of Bush's incredible stupidity, Invasion of Iraq, we cannot now cut and run.
History will record Bush as being the most inept and ignorant president this nation has ever endured.

0 Replies

Pretty much the same question Cindy Sheehan has asked that is still unanswered.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

C.I.
There is one individual who keeps writing that if we had not invaded Iraq they would soon be bombing our cities. No names
IMO what the invasion of Iraq has done was to heighten the threat of terror rather than lessen it.
I will agree however as a result of Bush's incredible stupidity, Invasion of Iraq, we cannot now cut and run.
History will record Bush as being the most inept and ignorant president this nation has ever endured.

As usual, you misunderstand. The theory is that if the general category of rogue states which have WMD programs are not treated seriously, then eventually a WMD will be used, at least for blackmail. If WMD were no longer in Iraq by the time we invaded, then the next time we have the same situation, or the next, the WMD will still be there. That's what it means to talk about a probability. Even one such device used in a population center could exterminate a half million people. It would be one thing if you folks quoted my position accurately and then argued with it, but you almost always quote it inaccurately.

0 Replies

Brandon
I noticed that, it seems that people in general can not understand your 1+1=3 reasoning. I wonder why. Could it be you are all wet.

0 Replies

Brandon, when are you going to realize that your argument is akin to a flat earth theory to most of the lucid?

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Brandon
I noticed that, it seems that people in general can not understand your 1+1=3 reasoning. I wonder why. Could it be you are all wet.

Great minds think alike!

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Brandon
I noticed that, it seems that people in general can not understand your 1+1=3 reasoning. I wonder why. Could it be you are all wet.

Perhaps, but a null post like this and the next one certainly don't show it. Why don't you sometime, just for laughs, argue with your opponent's specific logic?

0 Replies

People have responded to your ridiculous argument, the one you have posted on many threads, time and time again. And all they get in a response from you is the incessant whine that they don't understand. Brandon, they understand, they just do not agree and have taken to ignoring it.

0 Replies

Brandon, North Korea has atomic bombs - without question - with the ability to delivery them to the west coast of the US. Your 1+1=3 is not logical nor common sense. You should learn to evaluate danger and fear on their merit, not by the rhetoric of this president and administration that are the height of incompetence never seen in this country before.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

People have responded to your ridiculous argument, the one you have posted on many threads, time and time again. And all they get in a response from you is the incessant whine that they don't understand. Brandon, they understand, they just do not agree and have taken to ignoring it.

Let's see.....C.I. asked a question, AU responded by paraphrasing Brandon, who then comes on and posts what his belief is, then people bash Brandon for responding with the same answer all the time.

I guess if y'all keep asking the same question, you will keep getting the same answer from Brandon. If you don't like it, then my suggestion would be to stop asking the same question. Doesn't that make sense?

0 Replies

There seems to be a lot of those circular discussions on this forum, CoastalRat. Initiated on both sides of the fence.

0 Replies

I agree J_B, I agree completely. Smile

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Brandon, North Korea has atomic bombs - without question - with the ability to delivery them to the west coast of the US.

Yes, and? You have a point? Maybe your point is to ask why we don't attack NK, an absolutely certain threat of WMD. The answer is because we waited too late. Now NK has the bomb. Now, if we invaded, they would have the option of killing a million people in the first hour of the war. It was to prevent Hussein from achieving this near invulnerability that we invaded Iraq.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Your 1+1=3 is not logical nor common sense. You should learn to evaluate danger and fear on their merit,....

You still haven't made a single logical point to show this. You hope to prove it by repetition?

cicerone imposter wrote:

...not by the rhetoric of this president and administration...

You have no idea, except to the extent I may have referred to it here, how I make my decisions. I cannot think of an occasion when I have decided in my position on any issue because of something the president said. Rather, he says things that I already believe.

cicerone imposter wrote:

...that are the height of incompetence never seen in this country before. that are the height of incompetence never seen in this country before.

Well, if so, why can't you offer any evidence of it?

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

au1929 wrote:
Brandon
I noticed that, it seems that people in general can not understand your 1+1=3 reasoning. I wonder why. Could it be you are all wet.

Perhaps, but a null post like this and the next one certainly don't show it. Why don't you sometime, just for laughs, argue with your opponent's specific logic?

I agree. I think we owe you that.

Go ahead. Say something logical...and I promise I will argue with it.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
au1929 wrote:
Brandon
I noticed that, it seems that people in general can not understand your 1+1=3 reasoning. I wonder why. Could it be you are all wet.

Perhaps, but a null post like this and the next one certainly don't show it. Why don't you sometime, just for laughs, argue with your opponent's specific logic?

I agree. I think we owe you that.

Go ahead. Say something logical...and I promise I will argue with it.

I see. You have no intention of addressing your opponents' arguments. You will simply say they're not logical and claim victory. Very, very honorable way of arguing. Something to be proud of.

Some of us only think we've won if we've faced our opponent's argument point by point.

0 Replies

Brandon, Try your point-by-point argument, and let's see what happens. LOL

0 Replies

BrNDON, YOUR POST IS BUILT UPON THE ssumption that had WMDs been there in Iraq we had some moral imperative to invade them.
OK, we invaded them and guess what, No WMDS were found in the years leading up to the war or since weve been the occupying force.
So the argument now is "We must complete the job and provide a stable govt over there"\

With civil war a sure thing and a country in shambles which, whether it had any Al Qaeda ties before the war, certainly has them now.

I dont see any logic worth supporting in our adventure. Even Daddy Bush is critical.

Did we start a war on false pretenses? Probably

Did we "cook" the intelligence? I think we agree on that

Did we disrupt a flow of crude oil thus causing artificial shortages and expanding profits of Bush's oil buds--Of that there is no doubt

0 Replies

Being mindful of farmerman's previous post. Wink

0 Replies

What's wrong (or right) with Bush's statement?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know