Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Bush Pledges to Restore Honor to the White House

Humor Satire GW Bush

  • Please log in to reply
91 replies to this topic

#41 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 02 February 2004 - 08:15 PM

tennyson, on Feb 2 2004, 07:58 PM, said:

French Mirage F1s with Exocet missiles.
Bless the French!  Such Humanitarians. ;)
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#42 aphrael

aphrael
  • Islander
  • 282 posts

Posted 02 February 2004 - 08:41 PM

tennyson, on Feb 2 2004, 07:06 PM, said:

Iraq has never to my knowledge or in any of my sources deployed biological weapons, it has deployed chemicals such as VX nerve gas and mustrard gas against both the Kurds and in battle with Iran and in 1990 Saddam made a speech where he threatened to "loose fire that would eatup half of Isreal" but these acts were all committed with various poison gases.
OOps! I meant chemical.  Either way the people he used them are dead.

#43 Shalamar

Shalamar

    Last Star to the Left and Straight on till Morning

  • Forever Missed
  • 17,644 posts

Posted 03 February 2004 - 02:37 AM

I, for one am glad that we finally stood up and did what we should have -and yes the lies gall me ( if indeed thay are lies not miss information)

Please remember the President did not do this in a vaccume - just as the US did not do this alone) The resident can only go so far in sending in troops. He has to have the backing of the people WE ( as Americans ) elected to the House and the Senate to go any further...

And since WE elected those people, all of us, backed him to one degree or another.
The three most important R's
Respect for One's Self / Respect for Others / Responsibility for One's Words & Actions.

Posted Image

#44 Shalamar

Shalamar

    Last Star to the Left and Straight on till Morning

  • Forever Missed
  • 17,644 posts

Posted 03 February 2004 - 02:39 AM

And yes Aphrael they are and now he and his regime will never murder more.

That's enough for me.
The three most important R's
Respect for One's Self / Respect for Others / Responsibility for One's Words & Actions.

Posted Image

#45 aphrael

aphrael
  • Islander
  • 282 posts

Posted 03 February 2004 - 09:20 AM

Shalamar, on Feb 3 2004, 01:35 AM, said:

I, for one am glad that we finally stood up and did what we should have -and yes the lies gall me ( if indeed thay are lies not miss information)

Please remember the President did not do this in a vaccume - just as the US did not do this alone) The resident can only go so far in sending in troops. He has to have the backing of the people WE ( as Americans ) elected to the House and the Senate to go any further...

And since WE elected those people, all of us, backed him to one degree or another.
Sorry but I didn't elect those people to congress and surely this president was not elected either.  I know some of you consider it a tired old argument but its the truth.  

I did not back going to Iraq and I still don't.  I still believe its a mistake.  My only concern now is that we don't make the same mistake once more by attacking the two other so called "axis of evil" countries left.  We may win in Iran but we will surely not survive a fight with North Korea.

#46 aphrael

aphrael
  • Islander
  • 282 posts

Posted 03 February 2004 - 09:22 AM

Shalamar, on Feb 3 2004, 01:37 AM, said:

And yes Aphrael they are and now he and his regime will never murder more.

That's enough for me.
Now someone new take his place.  Take a good look at the past regimes we've toppled.  The new ones we've helped set up are even worse than the ones we toppled.  Cuba and Chile come to mind.

#47 Munrock

Munrock

    As for the monkey there is a wood

  • Islander
  • 166 posts

Posted 03 February 2004 - 11:39 AM

aphrael, on Feb 2 2004, 11:54 PM, said:

mystic, on Feb 2 2004, 05:50 PM, said:

Rhea, on Feb 2 2004, 04:45 PM, said:

jon3831, on Feb 2 2004, 04:17 PM, said:

^So, the fact that we were slow off the bat means we shouldn't *ever* do it?
It means we had ample justification back then, but not now.

So..... Saddam should just get away with it then?  :blink:

mystic
get away with what?
A whole lot of other dictators did/are.  A good protion were friends of America and their actions were no more justifiable than Saddam's.  It's never done 'because it's the right thing to do.'

Edited by Munrock, 03 February 2004 - 11:41 AM.

Lies: the real WMDs

"When minds have fed on falsehood for generations, these falsehoods constitute a prison from which it is difficult and painful to break out."
-Renato Constantino

#48 Dev F

Dev F

    Straighten your pope hat!

  • Islander
  • 3,757 posts

Posted 03 February 2004 - 12:48 PM

Munrock, on Feb 3 2004, 11:37 AM, said:

A whole lot of other dictators did/are.  A good protion were friends of America and their actions were no more justifiable than Saddam's.  It's never done 'because it's the right thing to do.'
But that doesn't change the fact that it was the right thing to do. (Maybe not the right way to do it, but that's another question.)

Here's what it comes down to for me: Yes, there are a lot of horrible governments in the world. Yes, it would be nice if we could clean up every single one of them. But of course we can't. We have neither the resources nor the popular will to support intervention in every screwed-up nation on Earth.

But does that mean we shouldn't do what we can in the situations where our resources and the popular will do support it? Isn't it still morally right to save some innocent lives from oppression and genocide, even if we can't save all of them?

#49 aphrael

aphrael
  • Islander
  • 282 posts

Posted 03 February 2004 - 02:01 PM

Dev F, on Feb 3 2004, 11:46 AM, said:

Munrock, on Feb 3 2004, 11:37 AM, said:

A whole lot of other dictators did/are.  A good protion were friends of America and their actions were no more justifiable than Saddam's.  It's never done 'because it's the right thing to do.'
But that doesn't change the fact that it was the right thing to do. (Maybe not the right way to do it, but that's another question.)

Here's what it comes down to for me: Yes, there are a lot of horrible governments in the world. Yes, it would be nice if we could clean up every single one of them. But of course we can't. We have neither the resources nor the popular will to support intervention in every screwed-up nation on Earth.

But does that mean we shouldn't do what we can in the situations where our resources and the popular will do support it? Isn't it still morally right to save some innocent lives from oppression and genocide, even if we can't save all of them?
At what cost to us?  I don't  mean money I mean lives.  How many American lives are you ready to lose to "clean up horrible gov'ts".  I say no American life is justifibly worth losing when we go in under the pre-emptive strike motive.  Don't give the 911 rhetoric - no connection between 911 and Iraq.

#50 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 03 February 2004 - 02:26 PM

So you would propose allowing a hostile and dangerous enemy time to prapare his defenses. To arm agents outside  his country with what weaposn( Political economic or military) and then do something towards him.  That will get more killed in  larger numbers than decapitating the enemy.

#51 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 03 February 2004 - 02:30 PM

always assuming the deadly enemy actually does anything at all

surprisingly, a great many 'evil regimes' try once, fail and spend the rest of their time trying to pretend they are still the big bad, when really they aren't.

No weapons of mass destruction, no modern airwarfare capability, no long range missile capacity, no navy worth speaking of, troops without serious morale.

Iraq is a good example of that. It took, what less than a month to capture and secure the three main cities of the country, break the back of the republican guard and begin mopping up the strays?

#52 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 03 February 2004 - 02:43 PM

Quote

aphrael: Sorry but I didn't elect those people to congress and surely this president was not elected either.

Well a significant portion of the rest of us did so they are in power and they will stay in power until those people decide to vote them out.  So either vote against them, give their opponents funding, or become active in politics. And if you still don’t like that I suggest you move since this country is a democratic republic with representatives elected by electoral college or majority not a dictatorship of who you want in power.  

Quote

Aphrael:I know some of you consider it a tired old argument but its the truth.

Oh I consider it to be the biggest joke ever.  That people can seriously still buy that one.;)

Quote

Aphrael: We may win in Iran but we will surely not survive a fight with North Korea.

North Korea can inflict significant damage to the West Coast of the US maybe and it is a big maybe.  We’d take heavy casualties in such a war but the US would be standing afterward battered and bloodied.  North Korea though would be a glassed self lighting parking lot.

Quote

Aphrael:
At what cost to us? I don't mean money I mean lives. How many American lives are you ready to lose to "clean up horrible gov'ts". I say no American life is justifibly worth losing when we go in under the pre-emptive strike motive.

How many Iraqi lives was it worth letting Saddam continue to kill by not intervening?  How many innocent Iraqi men, women, and children should have died in the future if we had continued to sit on our hands?  Answer that one please.

Quote

Gode:
No weapons of mass destruction, no modern airwarfare capability, no long range missile capacity, no navy worth speaking of, troops without serious morale.

And still plenty of capability to kill thousands of innocent Iraqis.

Edited by CJ AEGIS, 03 February 2004 - 02:43 PM.

"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#53 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 03 February 2004 - 02:55 PM

Quote

And still plenty of capability to kill thousands of innocent Iraqis.

neither here nor there, i was responding to the specific assertion made by G that any dictatorial regime that opresses it's own people will arm to attack the US.

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#54 Dev F

Dev F

    Straighten your pope hat!

  • Islander
  • 3,757 posts

Posted 03 February 2004 - 02:57 PM

aphrael, on Feb 3 2004, 01:59 PM, said:

Dev F, on Feb 3 2004, 11:46 AM, said:

But does that mean we shouldn't do what we can in the situations where our resources and the popular will do support it? Isn't it still morally right to save some innocent lives from oppression and genocide, even if we can't save all of them?
At what cost to us?  I don't  mean money I mean lives.  How many American lives are you ready to lose to "clean up horrible gov'ts".  I say no American life is justifibly worth losing when we go in under the pre-emptive strike motive.
I find it hard to consider the lives of Americans to be more important than the lives of the Iraqis who would've continued to suffer under Hussein's regime. A life is a life, and in my opinion our government only has greater responsibility to American life because it has a greater ability to protect it.

I deeply regret the possibly preventable deaths, American and Iraqi, that've resulted from the Bush administration's poor planning. But the fact that people die tragically in war is not, in and of itself, a reason not to go to war. Good people die in the most righteous of wars, as well in as the most unjust.

Quote

Don't give the 911 rhetoric - no connection between 911 and Iraq.
:Oo:

Did I at any point mention 9-11 or indicate that I thought Hussein was involved with it? Please don't assign stereotypical opinions to me just because you think that's what people who "support the war" believe.

#55 aphrael

aphrael
  • Islander
  • 282 posts

Posted 03 February 2004 - 02:58 PM

G1223, on Feb 3 2004, 01:24 PM, said:

So you would propose allowing a hostile and dangerous enemy time to prapare his defenses. To arm agents outside  his country with what weaposn( Political economic or military) and then do something towards him.  That will get more killed in  larger numbers than decapitating the enemy.
Yep - We and the Soviets sat there for years with nukes pointed at each other, nothing happened.   Waiting to see what happens is preferable to striking first, thats MHO.

#56 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 03 February 2004 - 03:02 PM

aphrael, on Feb 3 2004, 02:56 PM, said:

Yep - We and the Soviets sat there for years with nukes pointed at each other, nothing happened.   Waiting to see what happens is preferable to striking first, thats MHO.
Cuban Missile Crisis anyone? :blink:  This is why you take out threats before they become big enough to menace the entire world.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#57 aphrael

aphrael
  • Islander
  • 282 posts

Posted 03 February 2004 - 03:03 PM

CJ AEGIS, on Feb 3 2004, 01:41 PM, said:

How many Iraqi lives was it worth letting Saddam continue to kill by not intervening?  How many innocent Iraqi men, women, and children should have died in the future if we had continued to sit on our hands?  Answer that one please.
So now that no WMDs will ever be found the rhetoric changes to we are defending the innocent Iraq people.  Give me a break!

#58 aphrael

aphrael
  • Islander
  • 282 posts

Posted 03 February 2004 - 03:04 PM

CJ AEGIS, on Feb 3 2004, 02:00 PM, said:

aphrael, on Feb 3 2004, 02:56 PM, said:

Yep - We and the Soviets sat there for years with nukes pointed at each other, nothing happened.   Waiting to see what happens is preferable to striking first, thats MHO.
Cuban Missile Crisis anyone? :blink:  This is why you take out threats before they become big enough to menace the entire world.
I don't recall us invading and attacking Russia during that time period.   Did I miss something?

#59 eryn

eryn

    So, a baby seal walks into a club...

  • Islander
  • 1,638 posts

Posted 03 February 2004 - 03:06 PM

^^The Berlin Crisis of 1961 as well.

I'd say that was a pretty big something.

mystic
If you watch the news and don't like it, then this is your counter program to the news.
Jon Stewart

My Flickr

#60 aphrael

aphrael
  • Islander
  • 282 posts

Posted 03 February 2004 - 03:07 PM

Dev F, on Feb 3 2004, 01:55 PM, said:

Quote

Don't give the 911 rhetoric - no connection between 911 and Iraq.
:Oo:

Did I at any point mention 9-11 or indicate that I thought Hussein was involved with it? Please don't assign stereotypical opinions to me just because you think that's what people who "support the war" believe.
I don't think, I know people who actually believe there is a connection.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Humor, Satire, GW Bush

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users