0
   

President Bush: Is He a Liar?

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Sep, 2006 04:25 pm
An inability to answer some of the most basic question about one's position shows a real weakness in an argument, Fox et others.

It is easy for you to make affirmative, general statements without ever providing details of exactly how things are supposed to happen, and then accusing those who wish to know the details (and why things aren't going well) of being negative. But that's an intellectual copout.

I expect such things from Fox, but from you, Ash?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Sep, 2006 05:45 pm
Bush said, and a lot of people believed him, that the democracy he installed in Iraq would spread throughout the ME, and would even bring Israel and the Palestinians together.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-lieven23jul23,0,1433816.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

I am afraid the opposite has happened -- ME countries looking at Iraq are saying if this is democracy, we want no part of it.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Sep, 2006 08:40 pm
Asherman wrote:
Not much faith in the lure of democracy, huh Cyclopitrichorn? See thats were we differ a lot. The conservatives and this administration do believe that any People would prefer living with the same rights as Americans enjoy. Of course, some may freely choose to be enslaved to religious despots.


If we're so interested in spreading democracy through our military than why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia. The people in Saudi Arabia, especially women, are far more oppressed than those in Iraq. And they supported terrorist as well.

And as I and others have said democracy in the Middle East is a double edged sword. You can get something far more dangerous than what you toppled.

Bet you wouldn't want to see the royal family in Saudi Arabia replaced by an elected leader, would you. Chances are you will get something more anti-American than whats there now. Remember the president of Iran was elected to office. He's not a dictator by any means of the word.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Sep, 2006 10:58 pm
xingu wrote:
Asherman wrote:
Not much faith in the lure of democracy, huh Cyclopitrichorn? See thats were we differ a lot. The conservatives and this administration do believe that any People would prefer living with the same rights as Americans enjoy. Of course, some may freely choose to be enslaved to religious despots.


If we're so interested in spreading democracy through our military than why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia. The people in Saudi Arabia, especially women, are far more oppressed than those in Iraq. And they supported terrorist as well.

And as I and others have said democracy in the Middle East is a double edged sword. You can get something far more dangerous than what you toppled.

Bet you wouldn't want to see the royal family in Saudi Arabia replaced by an elected leader, would you. Chances are you will get something more anti-American than whats there now. Remember the president of Iran was elected to office. He's not a dictator by any means of the word.

Because Saudi Arabia didn't either attempt to annex neighbors or have WMD development programs. It didn't sign a war surrender promising to provide clear verefication that these weapons and programs would be dismantled verifiably, and then violate such agreement for years. This is like talking to children.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Sep, 2006 12:36 am
Brandon9000 wrote:

Because Saudi Arabia didn't...attempt to annex neighbors


LOL I thought that was taken care of in the Gulf War. Brandon, you jst keep losing more crediblity with each post. And you call other people children?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Sep, 2006 04:59 am
Roxxxanne wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:

Because Saudi Arabia didn't...attempt to annex neighbors


LOL I thought that was taken care of in the Gulf War. Brandon, you jst keep losing more crediblity with each post. And you call other people children?

He asked why Saudi Arabia wasn't a target for invasion, and I pointed out that Saudi Arabia doesn't wasn't an exansionistic country seeking WMD.

You have no room to criticize, since your sole method of debate is the insult. You support opinions you post here, not with citations or arguments, but by insulting people with other views. Not that's childish.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Sep, 2006 05:06 am
Asherman's "we believe in liberty and democracy" is entirely meaningless as anything other than a broad ideal. And though Wolfowitz probably holds that ideal close to his heart, there's no compelling reason to think that Cheney does. See present US support for republics which are demonstrating no interest at all in such ideals. Their perceived value is strategic or related to resources, mainly oil.

But even assuming such idealism as the main motivator of this administration, we are all now still left with the incredible mess which this untempered idealism has led us to. Arrogance and incompetence and self-delusion of this magnitude wedded to power is always tragic in consequence. Tragic of course for everyone but those wealthy, spoiled, oligharchies which set them in motion and who personally will suffer nothing but some threat to their narcicissm. Chickenhawks with bullhorns and a lack of REAL human empathy so pronounced in absence that it looks autistic.

Fox said "you can't unring a bell". Yeah. The metaphor presumes that you didn't want the bell rung, that ringing it caused a big problem. Then just maybe your next thought ought to be something related to removing the twit who rang it before he rings it again and again and again.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Sep, 2006 06:33 am
The Child wrote:
Because Saudi Arabia didn't either attempt to annex neighbors or have WMD development programs. It didn't sign a war surrender promising to provide clear verefication that these weapons and programs would be dismantled verifiably, and then violate such agreement for years. This is like talking to children.

None of these are a reason to attack another country.

Iraq was contained. There was a no fly zone in the north and the south. There were areas in his country that Saddam was not allowed to take his troops. One of those ares was where Zarqawi had his camp, near the Iranian border. Containment worked. General Zinni said so.

Iraq was not a threat to anyone and no one considered Iraq a threat. General Zinni said so. Bush said Iraq was a threat. Bush lied.

Iraq gave a list of its weapons. There were no WMD on the list because Saddam had destroyed them. Bush said Saddam had WMD, was hiding them and Saddam was lying by not listing them. Subsequent events show Saddam was telling the truth and Bush was lying.

Bush said he will give peace every chance and war is the very last option. Bush lied. Inspectors in Iraq, given free access, failed to find a hint of WMD's so Bush kicked them out and proceeded with what he intended to do from the start, invade Iraq.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Sep, 2006 06:49 am
blatham wrote:
Asherman's "we believe in liberty and democracy" is entirely meaningless as anything other than a broad ideal. And though Wolfowitz probably holds that ideal close to his heart, there's no compelling reason to think that Cheney does. See present US support for republics which are demonstrating no interest at all in such ideals. Their perceived value is strategic or related to resources, mainly oil.

But even assuming such idealism as the main motivator of this administration, we are all now still left with the incredible mess which this untempered idealism has led us to. Arrogance and incompetence and self-delusion of this magnitude wedded to power is always tragic in consequence. Tragic of course for everyone but those wealthy, spoiled, oligharchies which set them in motion and who personally will suffer nothing but some threat to their narcicissm. Chickenhawks with bullhorns and a lack of REAL human empathy so pronounced in absence that it looks autistic.

Fox said "you can't unring a bell". Yeah. The metaphor presumes that you didn't want the bell rung, that ringing it caused a big problem. Then just maybe your next thought ought to be something related to removing the twit who rang it before he rings it again and again and again.


It's rare one can see so many words that basically say nothing.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Sep, 2006 07:09 am
McGentrix wrote:
blatham wrote:
Asherman's "we believe in liberty and democracy" is entirely meaningless as anything other than a broad ideal. And though Wolfowitz probably holds that ideal close to his heart, there's no compelling reason to think that Cheney does. See present US support for republics which are demonstrating no interest at all in such ideals. Their perceived value is strategic or related to resources, mainly oil.

But even assuming such idealism as the main motivator of this administration, we are all now still left with the incredible mess which this untempered idealism has led us to. Arrogance and incompetence and self-delusion of this magnitude wedded to power is always tragic in consequence. Tragic of course for everyone but those wealthy, spoiled, oligharchies which set them in motion and who personally will suffer nothing but some threat to their narcicissm. Chickenhawks with bullhorns and a lack of REAL human empathy so pronounced in absence that it looks autistic.

Fox said "you can't unring a bell". Yeah. The metaphor presumes that you didn't want the bell rung, that ringing it caused a big problem. Then just maybe your next thought ought to be something related to removing the twit who rang it before he rings it again and again and again.


It's rare one can see so many words that basically say nothing.

Not really, we have hundreds of your posts to examine containing moronic ignorance. (please report this post to document your stalking)
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Sep, 2006 07:29 am
Asherman wrote:
Not much faith in the lure of democracy, huh Cyclopitrichorn? See thats were we differ a lot. The conservatives and this administration do believe that any People would prefer living with the same rights as Americans enjoy. Of course, some may freely choose to be enslaved to religious despots.


Much has been said about the "clash of cultures", and those who generally don't believe in dialogue categorically see "western culture" as superior.

I really wonder what people in the Middle East - those enslaved by religious despots - think about the democracy the USA represent. To them, it must seem that democracy stands for an unprovoked war, for a worldwide secret prison system, for people who are being "disappeared" and "extraordinarily rendered" to regimes who hold the Geneva Conventions in about as much esteem as the USA seem to do, for detainees who are being held (despite the established fact that they are innocent) and "interrogated" (interrogation methods short of organ failure aren't torture, after all) for years, for a President who states that torture is an important tool that the military can't do without, for a Secretary of Defense who states that the Geneva Conventions don't apply to people captured by the US, etc. etc.

And I haven't mentioned the "few bad apples" - US soldiers who torture, rape and murder - and the ridiculous sentences of a couple of weeks they received.

I, personally, believe that democracy is superior to any form of theocracy or dictatorship (or combination thereof) we witness in the Middle East. What I don't understand is the constant whining that we can't fight them without employing their methods. How do you demonstrate the "moral superiority" without refraining from using these methods, without showing a valid alternative, without showing that we do care about human rights, that we believe someone is innocent until proven guilty, that the Geneva Conventions are important?

What was all that talk about "winning the hearts and minds"?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Sep, 2006 07:38 am
Good posts, blatham and OE, it falls on willful blinded eyes, but good reasoning nonetheless.

I am probably a little jonny come lately but I just ordered this book The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq on Amazon, has anyone else read it?

Excerpts
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Sep, 2006 08:14 am
The Child wrote:
He asked why Saudi Arabia wasn't a target for invasion, and I pointed out that Saudi Arabia doesn't wasn't an exansionistic country seeking WMD.

Perhaps the stupidity of the response left her no option.

You see we were talking about bringing democracy to Iraq as a justification for invading Iraq. Once all of Bush's original reasons were shown to be false, wrong and cooked intelligence he resorted to finding new ideas that could justify his little war. Bringing democracy to Iraq was one of them. My only comment was if bringing democracy to a Middle East country is the reason to go to war with that country than Saudi Arabia is the one that should have been invaded.

I guess this was a little bit over your head so you decided to put up your deflector shields and switch to another subject, that being invading another country and WMD's. That answer alone shows your total incompetence to deal with this subject.

But to carry on. Since Saudi Arabia treatment of its citizens, especially its women, is tolerated by the Bush administration, with the exception of some pointed remarks that pissed off Saudi Arabia, we can assume that Bush is again lying when he tried to make the case that we were bringing democracy to Iraq via our military. He has especially showed his duplicity by declaring Iran an enemy. This is a country that elects its leaders. Iran may not be as democratic as us but it is far more democratic than Saudi Arabia.

OH, you respond. But Iran is trying to make nuclear weapons and when she gets them the great conservative prophets, a gift given only to conservatives by God, has stated that Ahmadinejad, who you conservatives all know with complete certainty will be in power when they are created, will use them to destroy Israel.

Did you know that Saudi Arabia may also be trying to acquire nuclear weapons? Did you know Saudi Arabia has two missile bases? They're called the al-Joffer Missile Base and the Al Sulayyil Missile Base.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/saudi/images/al-sulayyil_ik26.jpg
Al Sulayyil Missile Base

Do you know why Saudi Arabia may be trying to acquire nuclear weapons?

It would like to have them as a deterrent against any future enemies. Due to Bush's invasion of Iraq Saudi Arabia feels a little less secure in the Middle East. Also, thanks to Bush's remarks about Saudi's lack of freedom, the relationship between the two country has deteriorated since 9/11. There is also the issue of Israel having nuclear weapons, about 200 of them, and, like Iran, not cooperating with the UN. As we can see it's all right for Israel to ignore the UN but not Iran.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Sep, 2006 08:20 am
dyslexia wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
blatham wrote:
Asherman's "we believe in liberty and democracy" is entirely meaningless as anything other than a broad ideal. And though Wolfowitz probably holds that ideal close to his heart, there's no compelling reason to think that Cheney does. See present US support for republics which are demonstrating no interest at all in such ideals. Their perceived value is strategic or related to resources, mainly oil.

But even assuming such idealism as the main motivator of this administration, we are all now still left with the incredible mess which this untempered idealism has led us to. Arrogance and incompetence and self-delusion of this magnitude wedded to power is always tragic in consequence. Tragic of course for everyone but those wealthy, spoiled, oligharchies which set them in motion and who personally will suffer nothing but some threat to their narcicissm. Chickenhawks with bullhorns and a lack of REAL human empathy so pronounced in absence that it looks autistic.

Fox said "you can't unring a bell". Yeah. The metaphor presumes that you didn't want the bell rung, that ringing it caused a big problem. Then just maybe your next thought ought to be something related to removing the twit who rang it before he rings it again and again and again.


It's rare one can see so many words that basically say nothing.

Not really, we have hundreds of your posts to examine containing moronic ignorance. (please report this post to document your stalking)


dyslexia, this was another one of those responses that was way over McGentry's head. That's why it didn't make sense to him. Like reading Shakespear to a third grade class.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Sep, 2006 08:28 am
revel

Haven't read it, I'm afraid. Sorry.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Sep, 2006 09:13 am
When Bush was first elected, he said that he did not believe in regime changing and nation building. Moreover, he didn't invade Iraq to bring it democracy. He invaded for oil and political capital, and possibly to get revenge on Saddam's attempt on his father's life. It is just more Bush lies.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Sep, 2006 04:00 pm
Advocate wrote:
When Bush was first elected, he said that he did not believe in regime changing and nation building. Moreover, he didn't invade Iraq to bring it democracy. He invaded for oil and political capital, and possibly to get revenge on Saddam's attempt on his father's life. It is just more Bush lies.


Do you have even one piece of evidence to show that Bush said "He invaded for oil and political capital, and possibly to get revenge on Saddam's attempt on his father's life."?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Sep, 2006 04:02 pm
You're right, because if someone doesn't say something, they can't possibly do something, right?

Right.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Sep, 2006 04:03 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
You're right, because if someone doesn't say something, they can't possibly do something, right?

Right.

Cycloptichorn


Advocate said that those were Bush's words,so I am curious to see the evidence of that.
Do you object to that?

To damn bad if you do.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Sep, 2006 04:11 pm
You should work on the reading comprehension.

Quote:
When Bush was first elected, he said that he did not believe in regime changing and nation building. Moreover, he didn't invade Iraq to bring it democracy. He invaded for oil and political capital, and possibly to get revenge on Saddam's attempt on his father's life. It is just more Bush lies.


First topic:

Quote:
When Bush was first elected, he said that he did not believe in regime changing and nation building.


Word used to indicate a shift of topic:

Quote:
Moreover,


second topic:

Quote:
he didn't invade Iraq to bring it democracy. He invaded for oil and political capital, and possibly to get revenge on Saddam's attempt on his father's life. It is just more Bush lies.


The first is what Bush said. The second is the opinion of the poster on why Bush invaded Iraq.

This should be obvious.

Cycloptichorn
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 © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.17 seconds on 11/24/2024 at 10:00:16