Sweet christ, are you for real?
BWAhahahahahaahahahahaha!!!
They say laughter adds years to your life, Mr. Moto just added about 6 centuries to mine with that nonsense!!! Good show!!!
And that whole WMD thing. “We have to invade Iraq, because they’ve got WMDs that might fall into the hands of terrorists.” That was the story Bush told to the UN, to Congress, and to the American people. Here’s my nitpicks:
- No WMDs.
- Minimal links at best between Saddam and terrorists.
- When we invaded, we left the alleged WMD sites unprotected from looters.
Trivial stuff like that.
Sure, there were some of us who were willing to give the president the benefit of the doubt, and consider the likelihood that he was mislead on these issues, and thus just mislead the nation into war, rather than flat out lied his ass off in order to justify conquering Iraq. But now that I see how he lies over even trivial issues, like the origin of a campaign banner, there’s no way that he merits continued slack on these more important issues.
The very triviality of the matter, which Mr. Moto trumpets on as somehow excusing the lie, in actuality emphasizes the banal dishonesty of this so-called “leader of the free world.”
Hell, I’d feel safer buying a used car from Nixon, than from this joker.
This argument has never made sense to me. Having some bumbling idiot that can be taken advantage of in office is just as bad as some evil fuckscum who wants to conquer the world.
Either the war was started because he was manipulated, which is very bad, or the war was started because he knowingly lied to us and he just happens to be an asshole.
The American people lose both ways.
You’re missing the point, RTF. Bill Clinton got a blowjob. Bet you feel pretty stupid now!
You know, Mr. Moto, you raise a valid point about security. How did the Bush administration’s decision to invade a nation without WMDs or the terrorist connections it was claimed to have “address our pressing security concerns”?
Just more more of the big bottomless pack of lies this administration seems to reach into so often.
No YOU are missing the point. Bill Clinton got a blowjob from one woman who consented. Millions of Americans are getting blown by this asshole without their consent. How come your knees aren’t sore? Caught with your “presidential kneepads” on? Bet you feel pretty stupid now! :rolleyes:
Wait. Who’s getting blown? I’m askin’ 'cause I likes me some head and I feel I may have been cheated.
But my knees never get sore; am I receiving it incorrectly? And I think you got whooshed.
Ohhh, never mind.
If I did get whooshed, it wouldn’t be the first time. Geezerhood ain’t all it’s cracked up to be.
Unfortunately, yes; another proud product of the Conservative Media Propaganda Factory…
It’s banal, but I don’t consider it a lie. Merely a misunderstanding or miscommunication. I frankly don’t see why the Administration sees the need to keep the issue in the news with half-assed replies.
“It was a gesture of thanks to the crew of the Abraham Lincoln after a long deployment, and in no way reflected the end of our war on terrorism.” Then shut up about it, and let your opponents grouse.
I admire much of what President Bush stands for and is trying to accomplish but he can frustrate me greatly with his communications skills.
That said, though, he is to be preferred to Bill Clinton, who could glibly talk his way through a speech and make whatever nondecision he made that day sound good.
A classic false dillemma, the “My Idiotic Plan Is Better Than Nothing” gambit. It’s complete nonsense. Opposing a stupid idea does not necessarily require an alternative plan. In the specific case of the Iraq war, it is entirely possible that the better alternative to invading Iraq was simply not invading Iraq. Iraq did not pose a threat to the United States or any of its neighbours and there wasn’t a casus belli anyway. Not invading Iraq would likely have saved lives in the long run, at least at the rate they’re dying now, which does not seem to be improving.
The logical endpoint of the “My Idiotic Plan Is Better Than Nothing” gambit is that no idea, no matter how crazy, can ever be opposed if you disagree with the intended result. The key is to imply the ends are non-negotiable, in this case operating on the assumption that the argument is over “What to do about the Iraqi security threat.” You’re presenting the debate as if it’s agreed by all concerned that there IS an Iraqi security threat and ergo something had to be done about it. What’s next?
REPUBLICAN: Let’s attack Belgium with nuclear weapons!
DEMOCRAT: That’s a terrible idea, let’s not.
REPUBLICAN: Well, if you don’t have a better idea on how to deal with the Belgian cheese-missile threat, I must be right!
DEMOCRAT: Let’s build $10 million mansions for every homeless person in America!
REPUBLICAN: That’s crazy. We can’t possibly afford that.
DEMOCRAT: Do you have a better idea for building mansions for the homeless? No? Well, I guess we’ll go with my idea!
GREEN PARTY GUY: Let’s ban absolutely everything that produces pollution!
SANE PERSON: But, then we would all die starving in the cold, because everything produces some pollution.
GREEN PARTY GUY: Well, do you have a better plan for avoiding the inevitable global armaggeddon of 2006?
Also, Grelby, you’re going pretty far out on a limb claiming that it was a nation without WMD’s or terrorist connections. There is considerable evidence pointing the other way.
Saddam Hussein provided safe haven for international terrorists in Baghdad, including notorious figures like Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas. He also funded and trained terrorist elements in the Palestinian movement.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2951615.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4387178-103550,00.html
Saddam Hussein possessed and used chemical weapons, which are classified as a weapon of mass destruction, in his war against Iran and against the Kurdish population of Iraq.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/18714.htm
There were also strong indications of research into nuclear weapons. The dismantling of these programs was a condition of the cease-fire of Gulf War I, but the inspections process to verify compliance was never carried out to anyone’s satisfaction.
So, Grelby, let’s set up for an honest debate if you really want one, about Iraq’s threat to the Middle East and to the U.S. But if you claim categorically that Iraq had no WMD’s or terrorist connections, you are a liar.
Mr Moto, don’t be such a fucking idiot.
Abu Nidal was fucking dead. (He died in an unfortunate accident. Had his head knocked off by a golf ball while playing with the duke of Buckley 
) How can you use a dead person as justification to invade a country?
Abu Abbas, had renounced terrorism many years ago and had condemned the 9/11 attacks. He was no terrorist any more.
I get fucking tired of debunking the same things over and over again. Recently manhattan mentioned the same litany of stupidities in a GD thread and when they were debunked he never had a comment. Just look the other way and pretend nothing was said. The same thing gets debunked over and over again and idiots like you keep repeating them like nothing was said.
Not true. And even if true it may give Israel a reason to act but not the USA.
Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons with the active cooperation and support from the USA which provided him with the necessary intelligence so it does not seem quite fair for the USA to use that argument against him now. In any case, no matter how bad Saddam was (and he was bad) , the USA has no right under international law to attack him except in self defense which was not the case no matter how much the US government lies.
Not a false dilemma, RickJay. There needed to be a response after 9/11, or our country would have invited future terrorist attacks.
Doing nothing wasn’t an option. The administration is doing something.
The opposition, to be taken seriously, needs to say that they agree with what is being done, or that thay don’t, and could do it better, and explain how.
Mr. Moto
The US Government sold the precursors of those nasty chemical weapons to SH. I believe we also supplied his military with satellite intelligence to help him in his war against the Iranians.
Have you seen the photo of Rumsfeld shaking Hussein’s hand during a vist there about 20 years ago.
Here it is: http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2002/US/09/30/sproject.irq.regime.change/rumsfeld.80s.jpg
If there were any WMDs in Iraq, we would have known by now, just by checking the f**king receipts and shipping addresses.
You saying it ain’t so don’t convince me, sailor, considering your half-thought out bullshit in the past.
I provided citations. Kindly do the same.
International law is rather anarchic, and the state is the primary player, NGO’s notwithstanding. The United States has the right to act in its own interest, and that of our allies.
I see sailor said it for me, and rather more coherently too…must switch to decaf. Mr. Moto might find it useful to do a Google search for “rumsfeld hussein” there’s a CNN story there that goes with my cited image.
Not to cleave to tightly to the topic in the OP or anything, but I suspect that the reason they keep going on about the banner is because they really want to use carrier footage in campaign ads next year. Of course, what with the stink the affair has aquired, it’s now a case of the administration feeling compelled to throw good money after bad.