2 Faced Mutha Fuckas

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Chongo Blanco, May 10, 2004.

  1. Chongo Blanco

    Chongo Blanco Banned

    "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
    - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

    "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
    - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

    "Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."


    - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

    "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
    - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

    "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
    Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass
    destruction programs."
    - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin,
    Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

    "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
    - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

    "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
    - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

    "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of an ilicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
    - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

    "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
    - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

    "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
    weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
    - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
    - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

    "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."
    - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002



    "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
    - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002



    "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
    - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002



    "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep.
    - Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

    "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members
    It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
    - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

    "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
    - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

    "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
    miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real.”
    - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

    SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE
    ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES???
     
  2. bluegill

    bluegill Member

    all that sounded good at the time, but did the dem's invade iraq...no, because they were waiting for conclusive evidence, not speculative evidence, this is what seperates a good administration from a shitty one, a shitty one acts on suspicions and rumors, while a good one will go on conclusive evidence, somoething the bush admin has absolutely no concept of
     
  3. Chongo Blanco

    Chongo Blanco Banned

    The democrats didn't take us to war??? The top democrat in congress, Tom Daschle, voted "yes" to give Bush war powers. You fuckers are all the same, just like the point of this thread stated.
     
  4. why the fuck are you here then????


    If everyone who doesnt blindly baaaaahhhh behind Bush like you makes you sick...why the fuck are you here??

    go away or go fight in Iraq.

    do something more productive then coming to a liberal forum and insult the members for not buying into propaganda.
     
  5. booshnoogs

    booshnoogs loves you

    Chongo inadvertantly made a point though. I think many of the Dems who are against this war are only against it because a Republican is in the whitehouse. It's political expediency more than ethical integrity. Many of the politicians in Washington who are currently yelling the loudest were earily silent when innocent people were being bombed in Kosovo.
     
  6. Chongo Blanco

    Chongo Blanco Banned

    I should go fight in Iraq? Funny you should say that.......

    Booshnoogs, you hit the nail on the head. Finally my point was understood. We need to stop pointing fingers and get this mess taken care of before our credibility is ENTIRELY gone within the world community. It really doesn't matter who fucked up, we are all in this together and we need to solve this problem together.
     
  7. God

    God Member

    Chongo Blanco, you sound like someone that has been hired to stir up trouble in a 'free' forums.


    CHONGO BLANCO, HOW LONG HAVE YOU WORKED FOR THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT?!?!?!?!?!?!?!????
     
  8. Jozak

    Jozak Member

    It seems to me your insecure about your own intelligence and views so you have to throw ridiculous claims at chongo. If you truly believe this is a "Free Speech site" then you would have no problem with chongo or anyone else expressing their views in a civil and intelligent manor.

    Unless of course, you were just joking.
     
  9. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Booshnoogs, you hit the nail on the head. Finally my point was understood. We need to stop pointing fingers and get this mess taken care of before our credibility is ENTIRELY gone within the world community. It really doesn't matter who fucked up, we are all in this together and we need to solve this problem together.

    CHONGO BLANCO,

    Oh I think it is very important to understand who fucked up because it also can show why they fucked up.

    The neo-cons that pushed the war and occupation

    Based their views on wishful thinking rather than rational assessment.

    Have had a dogmatic approach to a situation that was in need of a pragmatic one.

    They never had the best interests of the Iraqi people as there paramount concern.

    These fuck ups need to be removed from any more involvement in Iraq so they cannot fuck up even more.

    JOZAK

    As you know I don’t mind people airing their opinions here but as you also know there are people here that hold view that they don’t seem to understand and are unable to defend when asked to.

     
  10. Congo stated facts at the beginning of the post.

    The Republican Party is to the right as much as the Democratic Party is to the left in opposite opinion.

    America was attacked! The UN debated Iraq. Like the UN went to South Africa and debated world hunger with 500 new white Mercedes in the parking lot. They drank thousands of liters of French wine, ate steak and lobster by tons as they debated.

    Like the last thirty years both parties watched terrorist take out small targets until it built up to a catastrophe. I had a tour of duty extended in Germany in 1982 because of Al Queda shooting RPG’s at US and German General Officers on their way to work.

    Neo-con is a translation for “enough debate” knock it off or get your ass kicked.

    War sucks! Debating sucks more when the targets getting larger and larger.

    Changeyourlatitude
     
  11. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Quote from Change-

    Neo-con is a translation for "enough debate" knock it off or get your ass kicked.

    So was Nazism but most people don’t exactly celebrate the fact. Debating is part of being in a free society, if you remove it and replace it, as you seem to be suggesting with ‘agree with me or get your ass kicked’ then freedom has gone. If this is your viewpoint then I think you are little different than one of fascism’s blackshirted goons.


     
  12. Balbus

    Be nice! You took my comments out of context. I said more than just that, and there was no rush to war...

    The UN and Congress were asked for confidence.

    Sadam was given chance after chance to hold out open hands. You make it sound like one day W woke up and pressed a red button and I thought that was cool.

    Changeyourlatitude
     
  13. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Changeyourlatitude

    OUT OF CONTEX, HOW?

    I mean you go on to reinforce your view of debate "War sucks! Debating sucks more when the targets getting larger and larger."

    You can clarify that statement but like the previous one about "Neo-con is a translation for "enough debate" knock it off or get your ass kicked" it seems to say that in your view debate is not good (as you say it sucks more than war). You give as the excuse for this view that debate should stop because of perceived threats. Well my little blackshirt that was also used by the fascists, after the burning down of the Reichstag, they used the excuse of the perceived threat to bring in measures to curtail previously established freedoms as the one view puts it -

    "the
    Reichstagsbrandverordnung (similiar to Patriot Act) was set in power.

    This Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of the People and State abrogates the following constitutional protections.

    • Free expression of opinion
    • Freedom of the press
    • Right of assembly and association
    • Right to privacy of postal and electronic communications
    • Protection against unlawful searches and seizures
    • Individual property rights
    • Federal States' right of self-government"
    http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Burning_the_Reichstag

    **

    As to being ‘nice’ just ask those who regularly come to this forum they will tell you I’m always ‘nice’ I’m just a fluffy kitten, hear me purr.

     
  14. Prrrrrrrrrrrrrr Don’t get a hairball.

    Maybe we misunderstood each other. I was not talking about people debating, I was talking about the UN debating. How many resolutions, how many years? The US congress didn’t debate the damn thing enough apparently. Citizens may continue to debate decisions the leaders make because all are not correct and they may want to change a leader for that fact. Therefore debate is a good thing! I was talking about the UN and congress debating about how “oh Sadam is cooperating a little bit more now…yes with a 150,000 soldiers on the ready” but did he hold out empty hands? No, just waited for more debate and for the soldiers to go home.

    changeyourlatitude
     
  15. Chongo Blanco

    Chongo Blanco Banned

    Saddam defied what, 17 UNSC resolutions ????? How many times can you threaten force and back down before you destroy credibility???? Just to get under you democrats skins, I believe 15 of those 17 resolutions were under the Clinton Administration. Which by the way did decide to go to war without the world communities "approval". Operation Desert Fox.
     
  16. Angel_Headed_Hipster

    Angel_Headed_Hipster Senior Member

    Booshnoogs, i rarely agree with you, but i do agree with you in this case. I thought more people on this forum would understand that republicans AND democrats are bad, with a few exceptions. There are good republicans and good dems, but the majority of ALL politicians are corporate, greedy people who think only of themselves, democrat or republican. They are both politically motivated, and i am sure MANY of the democrats are against the War in Iraq just as an excuse to make the republicans look bad.

    Peace and Love,
    Dan
     
  17. Eugene

    Eugene Senior Member

    I dunno, maybe this reflects the differences in the parties for going after threats.
    The democrats seemed back then to think that world problems could not be solved with military invasion and occupation, instead they built international support and put pressure on 'rouge nations' using diplomatic means. Then, if that failed for whatever reason we would fly over them and bomb this shit out of them. If that didn't work then we just waited for the inevitable collapse of the dictatorship.
    We stopped the genocide in Kosovo without losing a single american life.
    The republicans, however, see a problem, then defy world opinion (not in itself a bad thing, but not advisable because of credibility and other matters) invade, putting us boots on the ground in the line of fire. Then, if that fails they pick some other target to distract us from our failures elsewhere (do you people even remember afghanistan).

    Also, it is not right to blame clinton for not invading afghanistan or Iraq. Remember: Afghanistan (and Iraq somewhat) would have never been possible without 9-11. If the US in 1998 invaded a sovergn muslim country, for whatever reason, without international support (from other muslim countries too) we would have nearly touced off wwIII (remember India and Pakistan at this time were having a nuclear tiff, these actions could have set it off)
     
  18. Here is how I see it. Democrats as a rule argue exactly like Showmet in the discussion on thread “which is worse”. An exception is when the nation feels otherwise, like when over 3,000 persons are brutally murdered by terrorist. Now terrorist are brutally murdering thousands of persons in Iraq and the Democrats spout the opposite and the country rally behind them. 9-11 Kill the terrorist! Terrorism in Iraq, give them a lawyer and protect their civil rights!

    Let the terrorist win with this rush to international law and the problem worsens. We withdraw and then another attack on America with thousands more innocent victims. If it comes from Iraq we will not return! We will make it glow in the dark and like they danced in the street on 9-11 we will!

    Changeyourlatitude
     
  19. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Changehisstory

    Your defence of your position does not seem to fit the facts. How is debate in the UN, connected with the idea that neo-cons say when debate can take place to quote-

    Neo-con is a translation for "enough debate" knock it off or get your ass kicked.

    Are you saying that you believe that the countries of the UN should accept the will of the neo-cons or get their asses kicked? That congressmen that disagree with the neo-cons and demand to have questions asked should get their asses kicked?

    Those still sound like fascistic viewpoints to me.

    **

    Changetofacism, can you tell us what the al qaida attack on 9/11 has to do with invading Iraq?

    Oh I have thought of one connection but not with terrorism, that is the cynical use by the neo-cons of the tragic death of so many of their fellow citizens to promote one of their own ill conceived pet projects.

    **
    Yes there are terrorists in Iraq but the reason why there are so many and that they are able to operate and have been so affective is due in no small measure to the actions of the US occupation force.

    It has often seemed to me that they are reading from the book ‘How NOT to win friends and influence people’.

     
  20. Balbus

    ”Are you saying that you believe that the countries of the UN should accept the will of the neo-cons or get their asses kicked? That congressmen that disagree with the neo-cons and demand to have questions asked should get their asses kicked?”


    ”Those still sound like fascistic viewpoints to me.”

    That is not what I said at all! I said, I was talking about the UN and congress debating about how “oh Sadam is cooperating a little bit more now…yes with a 150,000 soldiers on the ready” but did he hold out empty hands? No, just waited for more debate and for the soldiers to go home.” That is what I said! The UN unanimously voted in agreement of resolution 1441. I said, “The US congress didn’t debate the damn thing enough apparently.”

    That doesn’t sound like fascistic viewpoints to me. I said nothing of dissenting voices from Congress or the UN. Senator Kerry and Senator Byrd made very dissenting voices prior to the vote leading up to war. Byrd begged all senators to walk down to the Viet Nam Memorial and think for a while as part of his beg for more debate. The debate was closed when Senator Kerry and a majority, after many gave dissenting voices spoke with majority status to say they didn’t believe what they had just said. THEY VOTED IT IS A GOOD IDEA TO GO TO WAR. Like in a murder trial you can deliberate and bring up all the doubts you want but if when it comes to your vote the choice is innocent or guilty. No majority of dissenting voices asked for more time, DNA or any amendments to the “question lying on the table!” And the question lying on the table was do you agree with President Bush that the United States go to war with Iraq? The majority, including many with reservations voted “it’s a good idea to go to war and we don’t even desire to place any restrictions on Mr. Bush."

    For the UN to restart debate after having their vote on 1441 based on Sadam raising his middle finger slowly from his one closed hand in cooperation with war on his doorstep I said, Neo-con is a translation for "enough debate" knock it off or get your ass kicked. Not meaning the UN or Congress member countries or Senators get their ass kicked but Sadam will get his ass kicked. Guess I need to take an effective writing class.

    Changetofacism, can you tell us what the al qaida attack on 9/11 has to do with invading Iraq?

    No, I can’t! I didn’t say to go to war with Iraq the representatives of the civilized world and the majority of the US congress said to go to war with Iraq. I know many people seemed to think there was a connection, I never did. I thought possibly “your enemy is my enemy” thing may play out in the future and the motive was there with the northern and southern no fly zones. But, I never saw a connection! I really support the US’s decision to go to war with Iraq though, only because Sadam gave the UN and the US the finger. He begged for war and he got his wish.

    Changeyourlatitude
     

Share This Page


  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice