Bush has kept us safe...

[TheDarkHorse]

I won't even finish it. The argument is that Bush has done the right thing because we have not had another terrorist attack since.

Its a preposterous argument, and I've yet to see it refuted in mainstream.

In fact, I just watched Chris Matthews tell some hack that she was "absolutely right" on that point. But I don't get it: Before then, we haven't had a foreign attack on our soil since 1941. Using their own logic, measuring success by attacks we haven't had, didn't the Bush administration do something wrong by allowing the country to be attacked?

Second item: Does the end justify the means? Are any of these measures, be they immoral or 'wrong,' justified because of the outcome?

Free response. Criticize my critical argument, or answer the question.

[Mr. Ron]

I won't even finish it. The argument is that Bush has done the right thing because we have not had another terrorist attack since.

Its a preposterous argument, and I've yet to see it refuted in mainstream.

In fact, I just watched Chris Matthews tell some hack that she was "absolutely right" on that point. But I don't get it: Before then, we haven't had a foreign attack on our soil since 1941. Using their own logic, measuring success by attacks we haven't had, didn't the Bush administration do something wrong by allowing the country to be attacked?

Second item: Does the end justify the means? Are any of these measures, be they immoral or 'wrong,' justified because of the outcome?

Free response. Criticize my critical argument, or answer the question.
Well, there IS a possibility that Bush's plans stopped another attack, but we probably would never know. Plus I think if they did the government would have touted it as a glorifying victory on "war on terror". Plus it would add to the mindset of "omg they stopped an attack DIS ADMINISTRATION IZ G00D".


However, like you pointed out, we have never suffered a foreign attack on U.S. soil since we booted the Japanese out of Alaskan territory. So we cannot really say that Bush has really done anything.


In this situation, the ends do not justify the means. Bush & Co. expanding the powers of the executive to "make us safer" in my eyes does not justify this at all. All we have now is bigger guvmunt and no real proof that any of it actually keeps us safer.

[JohnXDoe3]

i think in many cases the end(s) do justify the means. but the "means" must be justified by an end that is conclusive and clear about the impact and effect of said means

in this case there is just no way of knowing. although i would expect any administration to take credit for it, another administration may have had just as much success thwarting terrorist attacks using different means

[McP3000]

i dont think we can objectively view Bush's presidency for another 20 or so years

not saying itll turn out to be good, or even worse...im just saying trying to look at his administration as of right now seems to be a bit pointless.

[Iskandar]

It's pretty clear it's been terrible, at least in foreign policy. I mean between his approval ratings, criticism from the international community and the opinions of the Iraqis.

[McP3000]

oh because the approval rating has anything to do with how good of a president he is.

again, with the iraqis, how is that relevant.

[Mr. Ron]

well, I'd say a very low approval rating is pretty much a sign that he's doing something wrong.

[Murdererer]

we will get attacked as soon as we pull out of iraq, but what are we gonna do stay there forever? we never should have invaded in the first place bush is hella stupid and attacked the wrong ppl

[McP3000]

well, I'd say a very low approval rating is pretty much a sign that he's doing something wrong.
there have been various presidents with low approval ratings during their presidencies but are now viewed positively

[Mr. Ron]

there have been various presidents with low approval ratings during their presidencies but are now viewed positively
do you seriously think Bush is going to be one of those people? He's done very, very little to better our nation.

[McP3000]

no i dont

but i dont think he will be as negatively viewed as he is now. He'll be viewed as unlucky, with many mistakes throughout the eight years, versus being some hateful warmongerer.

[TheDarkHorse]

i think in many cases the end(s) do justify the means. but the "means" must be justified by an end that is conclusive and clear about the impact and effect of said means

I'm not so clear on this. Are you saying that intent matters over outcome?

i dont think we can objectively view Bush's presidency for another 20 or so years

This is not an "evaluate Bush" Thread or an attempt to criticize Bush's foreign and domestic policy. This is a dissecting of an argument which has been made time and time again but never looked at realistically. Forget Bush in this. If anyone were to make this argument, can we say that the logic is consistent?

[McP3000]

we would still have to wait a little to be able to look at the claim objectively to see if anything done actually effected terrorism towards America or not.

otherwise its more based on speculation and opinion

[TheDarkHorse]

the "Truthiness" of the claim is one side; the logic of it is another.

[jaredong]

i think a primary problem with proving that something worked because "nothing happened" because it is difficult to know if something was "going to happen" in the first place.

In other words, we can never know the effectiveness of Bush's war on terror unless we knew whether terrorists were planning attacks at all. Save for going up to some terrorist HQ and asking them, i'd say its pretty tricky. Maybe the reason there isnt another 9/11 is because there hasnt been planned one.

Its the same with nuclear deterrence during the cold war. America could say all it wanted by saying "hey, there were no nuclear weapons fired." But the question really is, did the Soviet Union actually *want* to fire nuclear weapons in the first place?

In terms of ends and means, i think it shouldnt be "do ends justify the means" but "does *this* end justify *this* mean?" Its like saying "killing is wrong"; its rather broad. You should ask "does the end justified?" in the first place.

[Rocksta71]

He's not still president is he?

[JohnXDoe3]

I'm not so clear on this. Are you saying that intent matters over outcome?

i think what i mean to say is intent matters if if the methods used are proven somehow effective and precisely targeted in the end. or it led to something tangible, i guess

i guess its just hard to tell without specific info. i mean i know Bush and the Admin enacted some controversial security policy since 9/11 (Patriot Act, Gitmo, interrogation methods, etc) but they also swear these things have prevented terrorism in very real ways. which says nothing of covert ops, clandestine services, etc

this is a world i have no knowledge of. i think Spielberg put a glimpse of it on film in Munich, and also in movies like Charlie Wilson's War. we in the general public, we like to think we know better, how things work, how they should and how we want them to work. but then their is how things actually work and get done. those things i know very little about, and would be hard pressed to tell the people who do how to do that job.

so does the ends justify the means? i guess that depends on how it all ends or doesn't end, and when things happen and when they don't. i suppose for me its not a matter of has Bush and his guys kept the country "safe," but how safe? or how much "safer" then we would have been otherwise. and how will we ever really know when all it takes is one terrorist attack to blow your idea of security, past and present, out of the water?

their is one fact here: we have had no terrorist attacks since 9/11. another fact: we most likely will have another relatively soon

[Iskandar]

Words cannot describe how goddamn sick I am of people claiming there's going to be another terrorist attack. They've been saying that since 9/11 and it hasn't happened yet. Even if there were another attack, there would be no way to know until it happened or had been foiled.

[Det_Nosnip]

Its a preposterous argument, and I've yet to see it refuted in mainstream.
That's because it's completely irrefutable. It's also completely unprovable; there's no way of establishing (or...dis-establishing?) any sort of causal link between our safety after 2001 and Bush's Presidency.


In fact, I just watched Chris Matthews tell some hack that she was "absolutely right" on that point. But I don't get it: Before then, we haven't had a foreign attack on our soil since 1941. Using their own logic, measuring success by attacks we haven't had, didn't the Bush administration do something wrong by allowing the country to be attacked?


Well, considering the fact that Bush had been in Office for about 8 months by that point...not really. It's nonsense logic either way, though...after all, one could also "prove" by the same thinking that Bush saved us from:

Alien attacks (as there were none)
Orcs (I didn't see any, at least)
Goblins (same vein)
The boogie man

After all...none of these took place. Of course, this doesn't prove that Bush's policies DIDN'T prevent at least the terrorist attacks example.

Second item: Does the end justify the means? Are any of these measures, be they immoral or 'wrong,' justified because of the outcome?
Well, I guess Mill would probably take each measure individually and gauge whether the cost outweighs the benefits. Either way, I would say "yes for some, no for others."

[Sk0rpi0n]

But I don't get it: Before then, we haven't had a foreign attack on our soil since 1941. Using their own logic, measuring success by attacks we haven't had, didn't the Bush administration do something wrong by allowing the country to be attacked?


Sept. 11th wasn't really a "foreign attack" in the classical sense. It was not carried out by one nation against another, but allegedly by an organization against the United States. The last attack before that was in the early 1990s (when Al Qaida also bombed the WTC) rather than in 1941 -- not to mention the many attacks against US embassies in other nations.

i dont think we can objectively view Bush's presidency for another 20 or so years

not saying itll turn out to be good, or even worse...im just saying trying to look at his administration as of right now seems to be a bit pointless.

It is impossible to judge any president or administration objectively: neither the study of politics or history is ever unbiased. Besides, we will NEVER have access to all the information surrounding a presidential term (in fact, Reagan and/or his staff shredded and burnt most of his presidential record after the Iran-Contra affair) as much of it remains classified. Instead we have to rely on what biased governments, intellectuals and media sources tell us.

My point: Its a world of perfect information but lousy record keeping and transparency. Complete objectivity is virtually impossible.

[Faceless_AtJ]

I won't even finish it. The argument is that Bush has done the right thing because we have not had another terrorist attack since.

Ok, seriously with that statement you are dead wrong!

No **** there hasn't been another terrorist attack because 9/11 was pretty well planned.

Agree/disagree?

[siva_chair]

Well, considering the fact that Bush had been in Office for about 8 months by that point...not really. It's nonsense logic either way, though...after all, one could also "prove" by the same thinking that Bush saved us from:

Alien attacks (as there were none)
Orcs (I didn't see any, at least)
Goblins (same vein)
The boogie man

Didn't you know that GWB is really a shapeshifting alien lizardman, though? He didn't save us from alien attacks, he WAS an alien attack! :p

And Cheney is the boogie man.

[interviewer02]

I won't even finish it. The argument is that Bush has done the right thing because we have not had another terrorist attack since.

Its a preposterous argument, and I've yet to see it refuted in mainstream.

In fact, I just watched Chris Matthews tell some hack that she was "absolutely right" on that point. But I don't get it: Before then, we haven't had a foreign attack on our soil since 1941. Using their own logic, measuring success by attacks we haven't had, didn't the Bush administration do something wrong by allowing the country to be attacked?

Second item: Does the end justify the means? Are any of these measures, be they immoral or 'wrong,' justified because of the outcome?

Free response. Criticize my critical argument, or answer the question.Well, its seems like there was a hike in terrorist activity after 2000 (I could be wrong) and the fact that he has kept us safe after 9/11 is true, we havn't been attacked again. But we don't know if his policies actually kept us safer or not, we'll never know.

And no, I don't think the ends justify the means in this. Iraq was a bad choice that cost us billions of dollars, many years and countless american casualties, and THAT is his big mistake, and the reason I don't like the guy.

[VomitStainedCretin]

Well, its seems like there was a hike in terrorist activity after 2000 (I could be wrong) and the fact that he has kept us safe after 9/11 is true, we havn't been attacked again. But we don't know if his policies actually kept us safer or not, we'll never know.There wasn't a hike, there was just more media attention; the US wasn't too concerned when Al-Qaida was just bombing East African embassies. And Bush certainly hasn't made the US safer, he's further aggrivated traditional Middle Eastern grievances through his belligerent and unwaveringly pro-Israeli foreign policy.

[Det_Nosnip]

Didn't you know that GWB is really a shapeshifting alien lizardman, though? He didn't save us from alien attacks, he WAS an alien attack! :p

And Cheney is the boogie man.

Oh.

I guess GW DID keep us safe, afterall! :eek:

[withintention]

haha 9/11 was an inside job, there are several reasons why, and there are countless sources that reveal it to you in different ways.
Look into how many corporations profited from 9/11 for starters.

Bush as a president was a joke, and a growing amount of people are aware along with him.

[DBoons Ghost]

Troll spotted!

[withintention]

haha whatever makes you sleep at night

[DBoons Ghost]

haha whatever makes you sleep at night

Likewise.

:thumb:

[djap101]

ha are you kidding me????

[withintention]

who are you talking to?

[DBoons Ghost]

Please don't feed this troll. This argument is sooo 4 years ago. Go away. We believe you. Inside job.

Etc etc..

[withintention]

Intrigue me on what your opinion is.

Haha 4 years ago? What was 4 years ago?

[DBoons Ghost]

My opinion? Jews did 9/11 dude.

4 years ago was the last time we discussed "Inside Job" or "Loose Change" or "Zeitgeist" or any of the other moron videos convincing ignorant nubs of a conspiracy that our belligerent and idiotic government could come anywhere close to pulling this off and managing to keep it covered up for 8 years and counting. That's what happened to our economy. The billions in hush money!

Please don't retort. I'll only ignore you. Nothing you say can convince me. You're probably a too stupid to formulate your own opinion and you'll regurgitate what the loose change morons told you.

I'll say this. No one remotely involved in any of the movies are experts in anything.

[siva_chair]

No dude Illuminati, not the Jews.

Though there are probably lots of Jews in the Illuminati.

[VomitStainedCretin]

Anyone who thinks it was the Jews is a moron.







It was the Pope, seriously.

[withintention]

My opinion? Jews did 9/11 dude.

4 years ago was the last time we discussed "Inside Job" or "Loose Change" or "Zeitgeist" or any of the other moron videos convincing ignorant nubs of a conspiracy that our belligerent and idiotic government could come anywhere close to pulling this off and managing to keep it covered up for 8 years and counting. That's what happened to our economy. The billions in hush money!

Please don't retort. I'll only ignore you. Nothing you say can convince me. You're probably a too stupid to formulate your own opinion and you'll regurgitate what the loose change morons told you.

I'll say this. No one remotely involved in any of the movies are experts in anything.

You didn't answer my question friend-o. Sure you can say anything is idiotic, and make it sound stupid but in the end what do you really believe?

Also I have actually formed an opinion, and could back it up immensely, but I doubt you'd like to go there. Maybe you should just stick to watching CNN and base your intellect off of there.

[Mister_Che]

No dude Illuminati, not the Jews.

Though there are probably lots of Jews in the Illuminati.

And here I thought the Illuminati was nothing but Jews.

Well, Jew lizard people.

[DBoons Ghost]

You didn't answer my question friend-o. Sure you can say anything is idiotic, and make it sound stupid but in the end what do you really believe?

Also I have actually formed an opinion, and could back it up immensely, but I doubt you'd like to go there. Maybe you should just stick to watching CNN and base your intellect off of there.

Lol this kid accused me of watching CNN!!! Friend-o? You're this unoriginal? Awful!

You gotta be kidding me you dopey schmuck. You formed this opinion that 9/11 was an inside job based on a movie a couple of college kids made because they were too ignorant to accept the truth.

But I'm the one who bases his intellect off CNN. Way to go!

[Mister_Che]

Lol this kid accused me of watching CNN!!! Friend-o? You're this unoriginal? Awful!

You gotta be kidding me you dopey schmuck. You formed this opinion that 9/11 was an inside job based on a movie a couple of college kids made because they were too ignorant to accept the truth.

But I'm the one who bases his intellect off CNN. Way to go!

Fun fact: Dylan Avery started the movie with the intentions of making it a work of fiction. :lol:

[DBoons Ghost]

Fun fact: Dylan Avery started the movie with the intentions of making it a work of fiction. :lol:

Yeah and this poor disillusioned sheep fell for it.

But I'm the one with his head in the sand. This kid should have spent more time lurking.

[DBoons Ghost]

Also, you gotta give Bush props for dodging the shoe. That was clearly the best thing he did in 8 years in office.

[withintention]

You still haven't answered the question.

I have another you can avoid to make yourself even more special than you already are. What makes you think that this belief is ignorant? Oh and your limited opinion depicting only college students believe this is probably the most upsetting aspect of your whole ****-filled opinion.

[K oko]

even if he did the price we have paid for it has been so high we have lost more than we have gained and we have not made peace only created more hatred in the world

[withintention]

what price, and who? believe me, the war in Iraq has made corporations millions, some billions even. Ever hear of contractors?

[K oko]

besides all the millions of dirty innocent iraqi towel heads killed in a war that was never really even justified to begin and our deficit doubling to 11.6 trillion and our economy prety much destroyed and about to go into massive recession and everyone out of a job and the rest of the world really hates us hmmm idk i guess it would be that we had some retarded texas guy as our president for 8 years and now the world thinks we're all ****ing retarded rednecks who want to have some kind of holy war over oil or sum shi idk really you tell me im glad somebody made a bit of money out of it all

[interviewer02]

You didn't answer my question friend-o. Sure you can say anything is idiotic, and make it sound stupid but in the end what do you really believe?

Also I have actually formed an opinion, and could back it up immensely, but I doubt you'd like to go there. Maybe you should just stick to watching CNN and base your intellect off of there.

I have to admit, I believed it 9/11 was an inside job after watching Zeitgeist, but then I realized something. This is a movie made by a guy. You can make a movie about just about anything and make it seem real. I've even watched 9/11 movies that contradict other 9/11 movies.

For example, I watched Zeitgeist and they brought up a bunch of "factual information" about the pentagon trying to prove it was not a plane that hit it.

I then watched another video where countless people were interviewed that say they saw the plane hit the pentagon, and they showed video of the lightposts knocked over that the plane hit on its way into the pentagon, and also plane debris.

There's a lot of information out there, not all of its true. In my opinion, its good to take a step back and ask yourself, "Does it sound believable?"

[Iskandar]

If you believed 9/11 was an inside job because of some movie some guy made, maybe you're too gullible for politics.

[DBoons Ghost]

You still haven't answered the question.

I have another you can avoid to make yourself even more special than you already are. What makes you think that this belief is ignorant? Oh and your limited opinion depicting only college students believe this is probably the most upsetting aspect of your whole ****-filled opinion.

I'm not saying only college students believe it. It's sad anyone believes it. In all honesty it's sad that college kids made it. That makes it even worse.

I would kindly ask you to search these forums for the arguments had over the last 6 or 7 years. I refuse to type it all out again and argue with you as if you're special. You're not. But the argument has been had over and over. If after you've read the 10 or 11 threads and you still have issue, then and only then would anyone here gladly educate you.

I realize many adults still believe this rubbish. I see them every day on my way to work. Sometimes I stop for a chuckle. It's funny how they all seem to be jaded unemployed people who need this to be true to verify their inability find a job and give them someone tangible to blame. I dunno the true psychology behind why so many of them still believe it even though it's been completely and totally debunked. You can still blame Uncle Sam though. It's still his fault. It's still his policies that led to the catastrophe that occurred that day. It's American incompetence that led to so many errors and oversights. All that is easy to point out in hindsight though right? Easy to point fingers after the fact isn't it?


Anyways, the inside job theory has been debunked already. Many times. Google it. Though, so much misinformation is out there by people who aren't even qualified to push a mop in an adult movie theater but whatever.

[Apostle7]

What's this crap about no attacks since 1941? That's retarded. What about the 1993 WTC attack? And what about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was the principle architect of many terrorist attacks--the '93 WTC bombing, 9/11, and numerous failed attempts--?

So let's look at this - this guy bombed the World Trade Center in 1993. Bill Clinton was the current president and was for eight more years. He failed to capture this guy. Bush became president and the terrorist was caught.

And, lo, Bill Clinton was offered Osama Bin Laden--who, in Clinton's own words, "had commited no crime against America...though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America." He declined the offer and pleaded with the Saudis to take him.

So Clinton had bin Laden in his hands, figuratively speaking, with the knowledge that this man wanted to terrorize the country, and he did nothing. HE should have prevented 9/11.

And yes, Bush has kept us safe.

[Iscariot]

And yes, Bush has kept us safe.

And coincidentally, the extreme measures he went to in order to do this have ensured a plethora of dangerous situations and attacks in our future. Defending someone because they sacrificed international relations for the sake of a few years of safety is pretty odd, to say the least.

Let's just hope Obama can clean up Bush's mess.

[Jude]

I actually felt pretty bad for Bush getting booed at the inauguration and then having Obama thank him for his service or whatever and then spend his whole speech rip into everything Bush did.

I mean, the guy killed how many tens of thousands of people? But he has to be aware of what a failure his presidency was and how much everyone hates him. :(

[Iskandar]

That would be why he made those trips to Africa last year. He figured if he did some humanitarian work he'd be remembered as not a total asshole.

[Against Miik!]

There have only been a handful of attacks on US soil in the history of the country and one of them happened on George W. Bush's watch. So maybe you can say he kept us safe, but I would say that at least 40 or so guys did it better than him.

I understand the whole Clinton thing, how he coulda gotten Bin Laden years ago. But hindsight is 20/20 now, isn't it? Maybe if we had done a better job of fixing Afghanistan after the war with the Soviets, there would be less hostility. Maybe if we didn't support Israel (even when they are in the wrong), there would be less hostility. Maybe a lot of things.

But it was during the Bush regime that a Presidential Daily Briefing slid across that desk in the oval office saying that an attack in the US was imminent, and, well, the rest is history. In that footage of him sitting in that classroom, receiving the news, you can almost see him recalling that briefing, and wondering what he had gotten himself into. You can see it in his eyes, and I think that is more powerful than any other shred of evidence.

So 9/11 happens, and of course, it's somebody's fault, and they must be dealt with. Not one person would deny that. We think we know who did it, this Osama Bin Laden guy. Simple enough.

But noooo, it wasn't. 8 years later, we still have not found this man. There have been reports that he is dead, perhaps he died of boredom while the US was rolling around Afghanistan doing seemingly everything but their jobs. We have brought one evil brown man to justice, but as it turns out, he really wasn't all that evil (at least not in the way we thought). We have 5,000 more Americans dead, and if you are one of those people that cares about humans who happen to not be American, well, quite a few others have died as well.

There has actually been a pretty significant RISE in the amount of terrorist attacks around the world since we have gone into Iraq, just luckily not in the US. Actually, one could argue that most of the problems in the middle east and made worse by US intervention, not better. And when it was middle easterners that attacked us in the first place, the last thing I would want to do is get up in their business and mess things up. No, thats not called appeasement, its called not being a fusty walrus!ing moron.

This isn't our Grandpa's war. This war did not create jobs, it did not bring about a sense of national pride for more than a few seconds. It did nothing. In fact, it did so little, people seem to have forgotten all about it as they are too busy depositing their last paycheck from that job they used to have.

The fact that anybody would try to claim Bush has kept us safe is just astounding to me, but more importantly, its irrelevant. The man is gone, and the only time his name should be brought up again is when he is on trial for all the horrible things he has done.

[Apostle7]

And coincidentally, the extreme measures he went to in order to do this have ensured a plethora of dangerous situations and attacks in our future. Defending someone because they sacrificed international relations for the sake of a few years of safety is pretty odd, to say the least.

Let's just hope Obama can clean up Bush's mess.

This amuses me. People who claim they hate Bush and despise his choices can't really go into detail, because they really don't know anything. You know that Obama is going back on most of his promises on foreign policy, opting instead to maintain Bush's policies, correct? Bush has gotten rid of Saddam Hussein, who some other dunce has said is just a brown guy that didn't really do anything. No, in all actuality, Hussein was a sponsor of terrorism, a producer of WsMD, and a committer of genocide. And do you know who hanged him? The Iraqi Police. Bush has liberated the Iraqi people from an awful dictator and the awful Baathist Regime. We now have an ally in Iraq, which is crucial in stabilizing the Middle East.

[Jude]

You know that Obama is going back on most of his promises on foreign policy, opting instead to maintain Bush's policies, correct?

Apparently you know a lot of things from the future

can you tell me what stocks to invest in while you're at it

Hussein was a sponsor of terrorism,
No worse than many US leaders tbh

a producer of WsMD,
lololololololololololol
i guess he was also a consumer of "WsMD" since he apparently ate them all before being caught

We now have an ally in Iraq, which is crucial in stabilizing the Middle East.

You do know the entire country despises us besides the puppet government we installed, right?

[Apostle7]

Apparently you know a lot of things from the future

can you tell me what stocks to invest in while you're at it

It's in the news, pal. And do you know who his Secretary of Defense is? Robert Gates.

No worse than many US leaders tbh

That is just pure hyperbole, nonsense. Did you get that from P. Diddy?

lololololololololololol
i guess he was also a consumer of "WsMD" since he apparently ate them all before being caught
Wow, you should be a comedian. The UN located and destroyed large amounts of WsMD in Iraq throughout the early '90s. And who ruled Iraq? He also used chemical weapons during the 1980s against Kurdish civilians, during and after the Iran-Iraq war. He also pursued an extensive biological weapons program in the 1980s. So, yes, he produced WsMD.

You do know the entire country despises us besides the puppet government we installed, right?

That's simply what the anti-Bush media would have you believe. And besides, the government is what's important, isn't it?

[Iskandar]

Hussein was not a threat, dammit. It was proved years ago that the WMD did not exist.

[Apostle7]

Hussein was not a threat, dammit. It was proved years ago that the WMD did not exist.

Where's the proof?

Dammit?

[Iskandar]

Maybe that they didn't find any ... ?

[Jude]

It's in the news, pal.
The KKK news?



That is just pure hyperbole, nonsense. Did you get that from P. Diddy?

Idk I'm pretty sure we just sponsored this http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7848768.stm

to name the most recent of innumerable examples


Wow, you should be a comedian. The UN located and destroyed large amounts of WsMD in Iraq throughout the early '90s.

I guess we should have trusted that they did a good job then because apparently they did

That's simply what the anti-Bush media would have you believe.

I if the truth is anti-Bush, then you could call most of the media anti-Bush

[Iskandar]

The UN destroyed "large amounts of WMD" in Iraq? That's news to me because I thought the whole of sanctions and inspections and stuff was to prevent Iraq from developing such weapons.

[spitfirejunky]

In their first trip, yes.

[Iskandar]

Regardless there were no such weapons at the time of the invasion. Nor did Hussein pose a threat to the US or even to neighbouring nations.

[spitfirejunky]

100%

[Iskandar]

You on the other hand I'm not so sure about.

[spitfirejunky]

The only airport where I was racially profiled was in France.

[Apostle7]

Regardless there were no such weapons at the time of the invasion. Nor did Hussein pose a threat to the US or even to neighbouring nations.

Well, in your eyes, I suppose it's okay for a man to be a genocidal maniac just as long as he doesn't harm you personally.

[Apostle7]

The KKK news?



Are you calling me a racist?

Another bit of comedic genius.

[Iskandar]

When did I ever say that? Saddam was a madman and he needed to go. But invading Iraq proved to be create more problems than it solved.

[DBoons Ghost]

Well, in your eyes, I suppose it's okay for a man to be a genocidal maniac just as long as he doesn't harm you personally.

I beg you to look into the history of the Kurds in Iraq before you make snap judgements about who is a genocidal maniac.

I'm not saying I don't think Saddam was a bit of a loon, but he had nothing to do with anything worthy of attacking his country.

It was a convenient villain to justify making war to try to fix the economy and gain a foothold in the Middle East by way of an illegal war meant to give the people someone's head on a plate to restore dying national pride and nothing more. It backfired so bad that it could ruin this country.

The people who drove those planes into the targets on 9/11 came from all over the region yet they attacked Afghanistan and eventually Iraq as if those countries were directly responsible.

The man who allegedly organized the attacks is still at large and is no closer to being caught then he was the day after 9/11.

Think about that.

[DBoons Ghost]

When did I ever say that? Saddam was a madman and he needed to go. But invading Iraq proved to be create more problems than it solved.

The UN could have eventually accomplished this without war.

[Iskandar]

It would have been just as logical to attack Saudi Arabia, another state sponsor of terrorism and represser of freedom. But wait, they're an ally, and they supply your oil.

[DBoons Ghost]

It would have been just as logical to attack Saudi Arabia, another state sponsor of terrorism and represser of freedom. But wait, they're an ally, and they supply your oil.

:thumb:

Let's be grateful those days are over for now, at least for the next 4 years, hopefully 8.

[siva_chair]

:thumb:

Let's be grateful those days are over for now, at least for the next 4 years, hopefully 8.

Umm how are they over? Obama is going to suck King Abdullah's dick just like those before him.

[Iscariot]

Obama is against reliance on foreign fuel supplies.