OT: FactCheck continues to debunk the Bush Lied crowd

[PorscheNGuns]

http://www.factcheck.org/article349.html

Enjoy

-Matt

_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com

[PokerBaller]

Quoted from your website:

"And while much of what the ad calls lies was indeed wrong, there's evidence
that the President and his advisers believed the falsehoods at the time."

LOL, ok that makes it all alright!  Imagine that... the Bush administration
claiming ignorance.



On Oct 6 2005 4:47 PM, PorscheNGuns wrote:

>
> http://www.factcheck.org/article349.html
>
> Enjoy
>
> -Matt

And while much of what the ad calls lies was indeed wrong, there's evidence that
the President and his advisers believed the falsehoods at the time.

_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com

[DP75089]

On Oct 6 2005 5:41 PM, PokerBaller wrote:

> Quoted from your website:
>
> "And while much of what the ad calls lies was indeed wrong, there's evidence
> that the President and his advisers believed the falsehoods at the time."
>
> LOL, ok that makes it all alright!  Imagine that... the Bush administration
> claiming ignorance.

Sorry, but the ignorance here is all yours. The quote said that "there's
evidence" that they believed it (as said the bi-partisan 9/11 Commission),
not that the Bush admin "claimed" it. Learn to read, Skippy.


- "So she says, "You wanna' be evil?" And I say, "Yeah, baby. Yeah!
'Cuz I'm the Midnight Bomber...what bombs at midnight!!!"

______________________________________________________________________ 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com

[Gary Carson]

On Oct 6 2005 3:47 PM, PorscheNGuns wrote:

>
> http://www.factcheck.org/article349.html
>
> Enjoy
>
> -Matt

Did you actually see Powell's dog and pony presentation to the UN?

Did you believe a word of it?  Do you think Powell did?
Gary Carson
http://garycarson.blogspot.com
http://www.killtherake.com
http://www.pokermagazine.com
http://www.garycarson.com



_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com

[SwampMidget]

facts:
Saddam came to power by assassination and public executions of his
political opponents.

Saddam begins attempts to refine weapons grade plutonium. The
reactors are destroyed by Israel.

Saddam uses nerve gas weapons against the Kurds wiping out entire
villages.

Saddam went to war with Iran and used chemical weapons in a campaign
to expand Iraqi territory.

Saddam staged an unprovoked invasion of Kuwait in a campaign to
expand Iraqi territory.

Saddam attacked Israel with 39 Scud missiles aimed at civilian
targets during first Gulf War.

Saddam committed mass genocide against Shi'it civilians using
chemical weapons which killed tens of thousands of innocent people.

Saddam fired HY-2 Silkworm missiles at US troops during second Gulf
War. These missiles were illegal under Saddam's agreement from first
Gulf War.

Saddam continually violated UN inspections for ten years after first
Gulf War. Several occasions inspectors were threatened with automatic
weapons.

so, whatever problem you have with our President, whether you're pissed
off because you're gay and you and your domestic partner dressed in
leather buttless chaps wish to adopt little boys from Cambodia, or you
think there's nothing morally wrong with sucking babies out of the womb
of their mother's with industrial vacuum cleaners, whatever.....the
above are the facts on the issue at hand. if you can't get behind our
country's effort to build a democracy in Iraq, you're fucked.

[Hoosier Player]

"SwampMidget" <webmaster@101click.com> wrote in message
news:1128643302.716794.136880@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> facts:
> Saddam went to war with Iran and used chemical weapons in a campaign
> to expand Iraqi territory.
>>

Hey Swampy, what nation sided with Iraq in the war against Iran?

OK, he wasn't the greatest national leader. But with the mess there in Iraq
now, who's better off? At what price? And by what justification?

[FL Turbo]

On Thu, 06 Oct 05 23:02:39 GMT, Gary Carson
<garycarson@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote:

>
>
>
>On Oct 6 2005 3:47 PM, PorscheNGuns wrote:
>
>>
>> http://www.factcheck.org/article349.html
>>
>> Enjoy
>>
>> -Matt
>
>Did you actually see Powell's dog and pony presentation to the UN?
>
>Did you believe a word of it?  Do you think Powell did?
>Gary Carson


How about putting it this way.

In Iraq, we are getting ready to see the turn and the river cards.

Arguments about if you should have played the cards you got are now a
moot point.

The only question remaining is how you play the hand you got, given
the flop you got, the opponents you have, and the odds, given the
remaining cards in the deck.

All of these backward looking WhatIfs are now just meaningless blather
from the railbirds.

At least one of the factions of your Democrat Party has woken up.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Democratic Leadership Council has rejected the 'cut and run'
strategy from Iraq that is being heavily advocated by a percentage of
the anti-war/anti-military left in America. I believe this is a strong
rebuke against the Cindy Sheehan brigade that showed up in Washington
D.C. two weeks ago.

"While the Bush Administration has committed a long series of mistakes
in the aftermath of the removal of Saddam Hussein, America must remain
committed to success in Iraq. A failed state in Iraq would destabilize
the entire region, hand our jihadist enemies a major victory and
result in a devastating blow to our national security credibility and
interests."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FL Turbo]

On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 19:59:19 -0500, "Hoosier Player" <nono@noway.com>
wrote:

>
>"SwampMidget" <webmaster@101click.com> wrote in message
>news:1128643302.716794.136880@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> facts:
>> Saddam went to war with Iran and used chemical weapons in a campaign
>> to expand Iraqi territory.
>>>
>
>Hey Swampy, what nation sided with Iraq in the war against Iran?
>
>OK, he wasn't the greatest national leader. But with the mess there in Iraq
>now, who's better off? At what price? And by what justification?
>

If I thought for a microsecond that you wanted an answer to those
questions, I would try to answer them.

But both of us know damn well, you don't want to listen to any
answers, you just want to ask the same questions over and over and
over again.

Pfffft

You are Stuck on Stupid.

Go back to the Moonbat Caves and have another drink of KoolAid.


---------------- FL Turbo, President SJIU, Inc. -------------------
--- Serving the Otherwise Mandibly Enabled since 2005 --

[dave_1]

Folks,lets face it..George Bush and his advisors werent sitting around
one day and all the sudden decided to gin up stuff on saddam in order
to start a war.Anyone who thinks the President would endanger our
troops lives just for the hell of it is seriously unhinged..

[dave_1]

sorry bill but that seems to be the tone of several posters on here(see
Gary Carsons post above)...I just think its time for people to say what
they really mean..Either President Bush just on a lark decided to put
our troops in harms way or he decided that the time had come to
confront terrorism..there doesnt sem to be much middle ground...

[Rich Shipley]

dave_1 wrote:
> sorry bill but that seems to be the tone of several posters on here(see
> Gary Carsons post above)...I just think its time for people to say what
> they really mean..Either President Bush just on a lark decided to put
> our troops in harms way or he decided that the time had come to
> confront terrorism..there doesnt sem to be much middle ground...

There was no terrorism in or from Iraq before the invasion so that
couldn't be it. It was about removing an irritant left over from his
father's administration. He was assured it would be easy and 911
provided the opportunity to sell it to the public.

Rich

[BillB]

"dave_1" <david_370@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128653376.930566.119730@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> sorry bill but that seems to be the tone of several posters on here(see
> Gary Carsons post above)...I just think its time for people to say what
> they really mean..Either President Bush just on a lark decided to put
> our troops in harms way or he decided that the time had come to
> confront terrorism..there doesnt sem to be much middle ground...


It had little or nothing to do with terrorism. I think they made their
motives pretty clear in their letter to Clinton in 1998. They wanted to
protect Israel and secure the oil. Personally, I tend to think the oil was
the decisive factor. Of course, with all those close ties to the defense
industry, billions in profit for their friends didn't exactly hurt either.

[bub]

On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 23:20:57 -0400, Rich Shipley <rich@rtgames.com>
wrote:

>There was no terrorism in or from Iraq before the invasion so that
>couldn't be it.


i'm sure the hundred of thousands in mass graves and those torture and
beat and raped and had their tongues cut out and their arms cut off
will be relieved to hear that.


>He was assured it would be easy and 911
>provided the opportunity to sell it to the public.

and the fact every intelliegence agency in the world said he had wmds
and violated every international punishment imposed on him had nothing
to do with it

[O-PGManager]

> if you can't get behind our
> country's effort to build a democracy in Iraq, you're fucked.

Our?  Where the hell are you logging into RGP from swampfuckmidget chickenhawk? 
Fallujah?  LOL.   Enlist your punk ass in the army.



_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com

[art_classmn]

Iraq never launched a terrorist attack against the US. The 9/11
attacks were used and continue to be used as an excuse to attack a
contained Iraq.

The bungling Bush Administration's miscalculations turned Iraq into a
terrorist's dream - American troops as sitting ducks waiting to be
blown up while the Iraqis who are supposed to be defending their own
country stand around watching with their thumbs up their asses.

Another kid from my state died the other day. 21 years old and blown
up on the street in Iraq. And for what?

Iraq did need to be dealt with, but the containment measures worked.
An invasion was not warranted.

[SwampMidget]

don't expect a response from this guy. they usually just drop the one
liner bumper sticker response straight from the left-wing "america is
the bad guy" sound bites....but here goes:

Hey Swampy, what nation sided with Iraq in the war against Iran?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We sided with Iraq. Guess we should blame our current President
because our crystal ball wasn't working properly twenty years ago? I
suppose we shouldn't have allied with Stalin to fight Nazi Germany
during WW2?

OK, he wasn't the greatest national leader.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you fucking kidding me? ARE YOU FUCKING JOKING WITH THAT?
Yhea, "he wasn't the national leader." Just a Pol Pot had made some
slight over reactions and Edi Amin was quirky. WTF SADDAM GASSED ENTIRE
VILLAGES YOU FUCKING SPOILED COWARD ASSHOLE!

But with the mess there in Iraq now, who's better off?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These people have risked their lives to vote with a greater turn out
percentage than our country. Will we be better off with a country that
founds the first democracy in an Islamic middle eastern country instead
of a despot who invades neighbors, had plans to unite the middle east
against Israel like Nasser except he would use force? On the
humanitarian fron, perhaps you should consult with the families who
lost people buried in the mass graves. Consult the political
prisoners, consult the families of the f'n soccer team that had the
members tortured and killed for losing.

At what price?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every one of our soldiers is priceless. I would pray that there
would be zero price for freedom for an entire nation and we'd lose no
soldiers. But we have casualties and that is sad. The entire
casualties of freeing this nation over the past several years is
roughly equal to the first hour minutes of the Normady landing in WW2.

[Rich Shipley]

bub wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 23:20:57 -0400, Rich Shipley <rich@rtgames.com>
> wrote:
>
>>There was no terrorism in or from Iraq before the invasion so that
>>couldn't be it.
>
> i'm sure the hundred of thousands in mass graves and those torture and
> beat and raped and had their tongues cut out and their arms cut off
> will be relieved to hear that.

Any evil deed is now terrorism? If you want to fight evil dictators,
there are plenty of others ahead in the line.

>>He was assured it would be easy and 911
>>provided the opportunity to sell it to the public.
>
> and the fact every intelliegence agency in the world said he had wmds
> and violated every international punishment imposed on him had nothing
> to do with it

I don't remember every intelligance agency saying that. Iraq was trumped
up because Bush & co. wanted to go there. How can you not see that?

Rich

[FL Turbo]

On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 21:21:46 -0700, "KilgoreTrout"
<a4a263c@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

>On Oct 6 2005 9:05 PM, FL Turbo wrote:
>
-----------------------
>>
>> How about putting it this way.
>>
>> In Iraq, we are getting ready to see the turn and the river cards.
>>
>> Arguments about if you should have played the cards you got are now a
>> moot point.
>>
>> The only question remaining is how you play the hand you got, given
>> the flop you got, the opponents you have, and the odds, given the
>> remaining cards in the deck.
>>
>> All of these backward looking WhatIfs are now just meaningless blather
>> from the railbirds.
>>
>
>What backward looking "WhatIfs"? Your analogy is apt; the problem is that
>Bush is holding 2d-7c, and the flop came A Q J, all hearts. He raised
>from the button pre-flop thinking that it was an easy spot to steal the
>blinds, but they have proven to be remarkably stubborn about defending.
>He has a bet and a raise in front of him; the raiser is pot committed.
>And he is thinking of pushing all in, just to prove that his cajones
>aren't as small as his father's.
>

Oh, backward looking railbirds like "What about the WMDs?"
There are plenty of those tired old chant from the Lefties.
At this stage it's a moot point.

You think the American and British militaries are the equivalent of a
2-7 hand?

And you think that AQ and the leftover Baathist thugs are the
equivalent of a 3-suited board?

And you think that Dubya's greatest concern is how he looks compared
to his father?


>We are watching on TV via those cool hole-card cams; the audience is
>either laughing, scratching their collective heads, or screaming "fold,
>you moron!"
>

You got that one right.
A whole bunch of TV Railbirds giving their invaluable advice to people
who actually are in the game.


----------------- "Don't get stuck on stupid, reporters" -------------
-- Lt.Gen. Honore to reporters preparing to ask stupid questions ---

[DP75089]

On Oct 7 2005 8:12 AM, Rich Shipley wrote:

> > i'm sure the hundred of thousands in mass graves and those torture and
> > beat and raped and had their tongues cut out and their arms cut off
> > will be relieved to hear that.
>
> Any evil deed is now terrorism?

According to Webster (the dictionary, not the sitcom character):

Terrorism: "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion"

Sounds like a match to me.

> > and the fact every intelliegence agency in the world said he had wmds
> > and violated every international punishment imposed on him had nothing
> > to do with it
>
> I don't remember every intelligance agency saying that.

That's "intelligence" (not to be pedantic, but I just love the irony).
And your memory could use some Gingko Biloba. "Every" is an exaggeration,
but the major players said as much (including the intel agenies in France
and Germany).

> Iraq was trumped up because Bush & co. wanted to go there. How can you not
see that?

Just because you want to believe something doesn't mean there's anything
to see. Let me know when you're ready and we'll have that talk about
Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny.


- "So she says, "You wanna' be evil?" And I say, "Yeah, baby. Yeah!
'Cuz I'm the Midnight Bomber...what bombs at midnight!!!"

____________________________________________________________________ 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com

[fffurken]

>i'm sure the hundred of thousands in mass graves and those torture and
>beat and raped and had their tongues cut out and their arms cut off >will be relieved to hear that.

You realise that Bush and co do not give a shit about the Iraqi people
and their "liberation" was in no way a motive for the American
invasion?

So spare us the empty-headed rhetoric, it makes me want to puke.

And what of the countless Iraqi's who have been killed by the American
military or those that have been tortured and killed while in American
custody?

>and the fact every intelliegence agency in the world said he had wmds

You must not live on the same planet as me if that's a fact. By the
way, he didn't have any WMD. Your president, a war criminal, lied to
you.

[Company Man]

"art_classmn" <art_classmn@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128660368.797405.23900@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Iraq never launched a terrorist attack against the US.


You REALLY need to take another look at '95 OKC.

[KilgoreTrout]

On Oct 7 2005 9:34 AM, FL Turbo wrote:

> On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 21:21:46 -0700, "KilgoreTrout"
> <a4a263c@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
> >On Oct 6 2005 9:05 PM, FL Turbo wrote:
> >
> -----------------------
> >>
> >> How about putting it this way.
> >>
> >> In Iraq, we are getting ready to see the turn and the river cards.
> >>
> >> Arguments about if you should have played the cards you got are now a
> >> moot point.
> >>
> >> The only question remaining is how you play the hand you got, given
> >> the flop you got, the opponents you have, and the odds, given the
> >> remaining cards in the deck.
> >>
> >> All of these backward looking WhatIfs are now just meaningless blather
> >> from the railbirds.
> >>
> >
> >What backward looking "WhatIfs"? Your analogy is apt; the problem is that
> >Bush is holding 2d-7c, and the flop came A Q J, all hearts. He raised
> >from the button pre-flop thinking that it was an easy spot to steal the
> >blinds, but they have proven to be remarkably stubborn about defending.
> >He has a bet and a raise in front of him; the raiser is pot committed.
> >And he is thinking of pushing all in, just to prove that his cajones
> >aren't as small as his father's.
> >
>
> Oh, backward looking railbirds like "What about the WMDs?"
> There are plenty of those tired old chant from the Lefties.
> At this stage it's a moot point.
>
> You think the American and British militaries are the equivalent of a
> 2-7 hand?
>
> And you think that AQ and the leftover Baathist thugs are the
> equivalent of a 3-suited board?
>

No, I think we started with AK suited, and flopped the royal.

I think when Bush declared "Mission Accomplished", the mission was indeed
accomplished.

I don't believe the liberal media when they talk about US soldiers dying
over there every week.

I think things went as easy and smooth as Bush's yes-men told him it would.

When I have any doubts, I just squeeze my eyes shut, turn off the news,
and chant "Bush is our leader, he is always right" over and over.

To do anything else would be unpatriotic... indeed, would be treasonous.

> And you think that Dubya's greatest concern is how he looks compared
> to his father?

Greatest? I don't know. I definately think it is part of his
thought-process.

You don't?


>
>
> >We are watching on TV via those cool hole-card cams; the audience is
> >either laughing, scratching their collective heads, or screaming "fold,
> >you moron!"
> >
>
> You got that one right.
> A whole bunch of TV Railbirds giving their invaluable advice to people
> who actually are in the game.
>
>
> ----------------- "Don't get stuck on stupid, reporters" -------------
> -- Lt.Gen. Honore to reporters preparing to ask stupid questions ---


"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really
talking about peace." —George Bush, Washington, D.C. June 18, 2002

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our
number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." —George
Bush, Washington, D.C., Sept. 13, 2001

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care.
It's not that important. It's not our priority." —George Bush, Washington,
D.C., March 13, 2002

"See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each
other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction." —George
Bush, Milwaukee, Wis., Oct. 3, 2003

------- 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com

[ML]

Thanks Swampy! Keep that soapbox out, you're doing great!

Regards,
ML

[bub]

On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 08:12:37 -0400, Rich Shipley <rich@rtgames.com>
wrote:

>Any evil deed is now terrorism?

evil deed? like blowing bus loads of kids? or mosques?tose are just
evil deeds? murdering hundreds of thousands of your own innocent
civilians? secret police raping and maiming your own civilians?
gassing your own people?just evil deeds only i guess.
yeah, you're right. bush is president , so it's all his fault and
it's not terrorism.





>I don't remember every intelligance agency saying that. Iraq was trumped
>up because Bush & co. wanted to go there. How can you not see that?


you "it's all bush's fault" ilk are laughable. even france and
germany said they had wmds. hell, even your precious bubba clinton &
algore,while in office not orfice, said they had wmds.of course billy
boy, worried about his legacy , did nothing.
the friggin u.n. said they had them. they gassed their own people.
they used missles against israel , missles they were suppose to be
banned from having. of course, it's bush's fault.

[Rich Shipley]

bub wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 08:12:37 -0400, Rich Shipley <rich@rtgames.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Any evil deed is now terrorism?
>
> evil deed? like blowing bus loads of kids? or mosques?tose are just
> evil deeds? murdering hundreds of thousands of your own innocent
> civilians? secret police raping and maiming your own civilians?
> gassing your own people?just evil deeds only i guess.
> yeah, you're right. bush is president , so it's all his fault and
> it's not terrorism.

Since when is evil not a strong enough condemnation? There was no
terrorist threat against us or out allies. That's what I meant.

>>I don't remember every intelligance agency saying that. Iraq was trumped
>>up because Bush & co. wanted to go there. How can you not see that?
>
> you "it's all bush's fault" ilk are laughable. even france and
> germany said they had wmds. hell, even your precious bubba clinton &
> algore,while in office not orfice, said they had wmds.of course billy
> boy, worried about his legacy , did nothing.
> the friggin u.n. said they had them. they gassed their own people.
> they used missles against israel , missles they were suppose to be
> banned from having. of course, it's bush's fault.

What is unquestionably Bush's (and his cronies) fault is the pitiful
excution of the war. If they were willing to risk our blood and
reputation (even if dishonest about their intentions), they should have
listened to the people that told them it wasn't going to be a walk in
the park. They made an incredible number of mistakes that have cost tens
of thousands (at least) of lives because of their arrogance.

Rich

[bub]

On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 13:27:53 -0400, Rich Shipley <rich@rtgames.com>
wrote:

>Since when is evil not a strong enough condemnation? There was no
>terrorist threat against us or out allies. That's what I meant.

you said
>>>There was no terrorism in or from Iraq before the invasion so that
>>>couldn't be it.


so blowing up a bus of kids is now terrorism but gassing thousands of
your own people is just evil? blowing up a mosque is now
terrorism but using secret police to rape and maim and kill your own
citizens over decades is just evil? of course, it's all george bush's
fault, right?

>What is unquestionably Bush's (and his cronies) fault is the pitiful
>excution of the war. If they were willing to risk our blood and
>reputation (even if dishonest about their intentions),

their intentions along with most of the world's intentions were the
wmds. oh, i'm sorry, all the evidence and intentions
that germany and france and the un and congress
etc.went along with just because
bush wanted the oil or whatever you tinfoiled cap wearing mutants
think.

>They made an incredible number of mistakes that have cost tens
>of thousands (at least) of lives

oh damn, more of the "100,000 thousand casultiesthat has no data to
back it up" crap. same old tripe over and over.

[bub]

On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 18:18:26 GMT, "BillB" <bogus@shaw.com> wrote:

>So in your opinion it had nothing to do with oil?

it had nothing to do with iraq's oil. it was about the middle east and
it's oil and saddam and wmds.i don't think anyone was worried about
saddam too much even though he would try and invade neighbors every
now and then and try and shoot down one of our jets and violate every
un sanction imposed on him. i don't think saudi arabia, one of our
bigger suppliers was too worried. or other neighboring countries were.
but when you add saddam and wmds together, you have a combination to
mess up the entire global economy. and don't say it was bush's grand
scheme. clinton was told of the wmds back in the 1990s.every major
world power was convinced he had them. and saddam unleashes a wmd in
the saudia oil fields and kuwaitii oil fields and it would affect even
you , unless you have a hamster in a wheel generating your electricity
and live in a wood hut buring dead leaves and using a wooden
computer. but of course it's never common sense. it's a super secret
plan by the government, which everone knows is just out to get us,
the citizens. (see chris robin on how dick cheney was behind 9-11)


hell, if it was just about oil, invade canada, they are our biggest
supplier of oil last i heard.

[bub]

On 7 Oct 2005 07:51:11 -0700, "fffurken" <fffurken@hotmail.com> wrote:
>You realise that Bush and co do not give a shit about the Iraqi people
>and their "liberation" was in no way a motive for the American
>invasion?

wow, a true mind reader able to know what others are thinking.

>So spare us the empty-headed rhetoric, it makes me want to puke.

ingesting all that semen is probably making you nausated. lay off it
for a few hours.

>You must not live on the same planet as me if that's a fact. By the
>way, he didn't have any WMD

all that gassing of his own people and the iranian troops was done by
bush and cheney cuz it's all bush's fault.

>Your president, a war criminal, lied to
>you.

gosh, you're shocking and confrontational and uhhhhhhh...

[Rich Shipley]

bub wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 13:27:53 -0400, Rich Shipley <rich@rtgames.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Since when is evil not a strong enough condemnation? There was no
>>terrorist threat against us or out allies. That's what I meant.
>
> so blowing up a bus of kids is now terrorism but gassing thousands of
> your own people is just evil? blowing up a mosque is now
> terrorism but using secret police to rape and maim and kill your own
> citizens over decades is just evil? of course, it's all george bush's
> fault, right?

Why do you say "just" evil? Evil is as bad as it gets. Terrorism is a
specific kind of evil and you seem to have defined it pretty well above.
Why would any of it be Bush's fault? Are you hearing voices in your head?

>>What is unquestionably Bush's (and his cronies) fault is the pitiful
>>excution of the war. If they were willing to risk our blood and
>>reputation (even if dishonest about their intentions),
>
> their intentions along with most of the world's intentions were the
> wmds. oh, i'm sorry, all the evidence and intentions
> that germany and france and the un and congress
> etc.went along with just because
> bush wanted the oil or whatever you tinfoiled cap wearing mutants
> think.

He probably wanted to get rid of the constant headaches that Iraq caused
by breaking the sanctions, disrupting the inspectors, etc. It pissed him
off that Sadaam claimed to have won the previous Gulf War. If WMD were
the only reason, there are other countries that are more dangerous and
capable in that regard. I'm not a tinfoil cap conspiracy theorist just
because I don't buy the steady stream of crap coming out of the White House.

>>They made an incredible number of mistakes that have cost tens
>>of thousands (at least) of lives
>
> oh damn, more of the "100,000 thousand casultiesthat has no data to
> back it up" crap. same old tripe over and over.

Tens of thousands are backed up completely. As this drags on, it will
get bigger.

Rich

[DP75089]

On Oct 7 2005 12:36 PM, KilgoreTrout wrote:

> No, I think we started with AK suited, and flopped the royal.
>
> I think when Bush declared "Mission Accomplished", the mission was indeed
> accomplished.
>
> I don't believe the liberal media when they talk about US soldiers dying
> over there every week.
>
> I think things went as easy and smooth as Bush's yes-men told him it would.
>
> When I have any doubts, I just squeeze my eyes shut, turn off the news,
> and chant "Bush is our leader, he is always right" over and over.
>
> To do anything else would be unpatriotic... indeed, would be treasonous.

Way to demonstrate a complete inability to think in any terms other than
extremes.


- "So she says, "You wanna' be evil?" And I say, "Yeah, baby. Yeah!
'Cuz I'm the Midnight Bomber...what bombs at midnight!!!"

____________________________________________________________________ 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com

[bub]

On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 15:22:02 -0400, Rich Shipley <rich@rtgames.com>
wrote:

>It pissed him
>off that Sadaam claimed to have won the previous Gulf War. If WMD were
>the only reason, there are other countries that are more dangerous and
>capable in that regard.


ok read realllllllll slooooooooow and feel free to move your lips as
you do.

"it had nothing to do with iraq's oil. it was about the middle east
andit's oil and saddam and wmds.i don't think anyone was worried about
saddam too much even though he would try and invade neighbors every
now and then and try and shoot down one of our jets and violate every
un sanction imposed on him. i don't think saudi arabia, one of our
bigger suppliers was too worried. or other neighboring countries were.
but when you add saddam and wmds together, you have a combination to
mess up the entire global economy"

[bub]

On 7 Oct 2005 12:35:08 -0700, "fffurken" <fffurken@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Do either of you, bubba and DP75089 actually have anything of any
>substance to say to me?


don't know about DP or "bubba" but since you are unable to defend your
position, i say you're weak.

[DP75089]

On Oct 7 2005 3:35 PM, fffurken wrote:

> Do either of you, bubba and DP75089 actually have anything of any
> substance to say to me?

I'd say that going to the trouble of repeating and explaining things to
you after you've demonstrated a complete inability to comprehend even
simple, direct English is quite substantive.

Oh, and "...makes me want to puke" and "You're not living on the same
planet as me" don't exactly qualify as substantive, insightful
observations.


- "So she says, "You wanna' be evil?" And I say, "Yeah, baby. Yeah!
'Cuz I'm the Midnight Bomber...what bombs at midnight!!!"

------- 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com

[bub]

On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 16:02:27 -0400, Rich Shipley <rich@rtgames.com>
wrote:

>If they really believed the WMD story, then they only have themselves to
>blame for this mess.

and if it was true as believed by everyone and they were used then
they would be to blame then too. but the whole world would be in chaos
then and you wouldn't be sitting in your climate controlled abode
after driving back from the climate controlled supermarket getting
food from the firdges and freezers there and then coming on here and
bitching.

>So what if Clinton, France, and Germany thought he
>probably had them.

this involves common sense so you may not get it , but if everyone
tells you the building is one fire maybe you should look for an exit.

>The
>buck stops somewhere, right?

i have never heard bush say different.

[FL Turbo]

On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 22:48:12 GMT, "BillB" <bogus@shaw.com> wrote:

>
>"bub" <bub@plottus.com> wrote in message
>news:7efdk1t8ul4uhuakmle5n219pehot2tr6n@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 18:18:26 GMT, "BillB" <bogus@shaw.com> wrote:
>>
>>>So in your opinion it had nothing to do with oil?
>>
>> it had nothing to do with iraq's oil.
>
>My God man, they admitted it was about the oil and you still claim it
>nothing to do with oil?
>
> >it was about the middle east and
>> it's oil
>
>Uhhhh bub, Iraq *is* in the Middle East and Iraq *has* oil. Are you really
>trying to say they cared about all the oil in the Middle East *except* the
>oil situated in the country they invaded? That is quite the mental backflip
>OF COURSE they cared about Iraq's oil. Theres tens of trillions of dollars
>worth there. It is the world's third largest reserves, second largest by
>conventional extraction methods. Stop being so damn naive.
>

The thing you have to understand is this.
Oil producing countries have to sell their oil.
They can't eat it; they don't have farm land (unlike Canada) that they
can use it for fertilizer on their crops. they can't pay their
citizens with it.
The only thing they can do is sell it.

It is what we call a commodity.
It is placed on the world market, and it brings the price that is
commands, depending on who wants it, and the price they are willing to
pay to get the oil.

The price depends on the quality of the oil.
The oil from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, or Canada brings a price
that depends on the qualities that the buyer wants.

Iraq is in the same boat.
Their oil is no more or less valuable than any other country's oil.
The USA had a wonderful opportunity, even under Saddam to get Iraqi
oil the old fashioned Capitalistic Way: namely to buy it from him.

The way that Bush and Cheney went about getting Iraqi oil makes that
oil the most damn expensive oil on the entire planet.

If you think that those despised oil barons in this country are so
damn stupid that they didn't realize that truth from the getgo, you
win my award.

Ferchrissakes, don't you think that the USA could have outbid the
French and Germans for Iraqi oil from Saddam?

If you don't understand any of this, you are the one that is naIve.

>
>>and saddam and wmds.i don't think anyone was worried about
>> saddam too much even though he would try and invade neighbors every
>> now and then and try and shoot down one of our jets and violate every
>> un sanction imposed on him. i don't think saudi arabia, one of our
>> bigger suppliers was too worried. or other neighboring countries were.
>> but when you add saddam and wmds together, you have a combination to
>> mess up the entire global economy. and don't say it was bush's grand
>> scheme.
>
>bub it was so obviously not about wmds I have to question the sanity of
>anyone who continues to believe such nonsense. Why do you think Bush ordered
>all the weapons inspectors out of Iraq and commenced the invasion as soon as
>it started to look like there might be none? What was the big rush? Take a
>wild guess.
>

Yes, with the perfect 20-20 hindsight of the Railbird, it is all
obvious.

A big rush?
You gotta be kidding.
Personally, I remember seeing all the troops sitting in the sand in
Kuwait whilst Bush and Powell were speaking to the UN.
That had to be the most telegraphed invasion in world history.
My VRWC colleagues were totally pissed to see Bush expecting anything
from the UN.

Personally, I remember the oncoming summer in Iraq, worrying about the
high temperatures there, and simultaneously about the amount of gear
they had to carry to guard against chemical or biological warfare.

All your Leftie cronies now whinge about no WMDs, but at that time,
they were all convinced that there was a real threat.
So very conveeeeniently, they don't remember now.

You must have forgotten a whole lot to get so smug about the absence
of WMDs.

Pfffft.

>
>> hell, if it was just about oil, invade canada, they are our biggest
>> supplier of oil last i heard.
>
>
>I don't recall ever saying it was "just" about oil. Oil was a major
>consideration and they said so. I proved it to you conclusively with their
>own words and you are in a state of denial.
>

So then tell me.

What is it about, then?
Write your answer here ===> [ ____ ]
Print legibly.

[Rich Shipley]

bub wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 16:02:27 -0400, Rich Shipley <rich@rtgames.com>
> wrote:
>
>>If they really believed the WMD story, then they only have themselves to
>>blame for this mess.
>
> and if it was true as believed by everyone and they were used then
> they would be to blame then too. but the whole world would be in chaos
> then and you wouldn't be sitting in your climate controlled abode
> after driving back from the climate controlled supermarket getting
> food from the firdges and freezers there and then coming on here and
> bitching.

Sounds like you are ready to believe any scary story told to you and
support any stupid action in response to it. Sorry, I'm not a sheep.

Rich

[fffurken]

I didn't think so.

[DP75089]

On Oct 7 2005 10:07 PM, Rich Shipley wrote:

> Sounds like you are ready to believe any scary story told to you and
> support any stupid action in response to it. Sorry, I'm not a sheep.

Maybe not, but I hear you're overly fond of them.


- "So she says, "You wanna' be evil?" And I say, "Yeah, baby. Yeah!
'Cuz I'm the Midnight Bomber...what bombs at midnight!!!"

______________________________________________________________________ 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com

[DP75089]

On Oct 7 2005 11:48 PM, fffurken wrote:

> I didn't think so.

Well, you didn't think, that's for sure.


- "So she says, "You wanna' be evil?" And I say, "Yeah, baby. Yeah!
'Cuz I'm the Midnight Bomber...what bombs at midnight!!!"

________________________________________________________________________ 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com