New Documents - Saddam hid WMD

[cnredd]

So what mental disorder do you think I have? I will wait with baited breath for you to diagnose me.

Liberalsim. I can cure you but you need to want help first. The first step to recovery is admit that you have a maental disorder and then its the eagerness to want help.

[Moderator mode]
:smash:

This forum has had quite enough of your personal attacks using this term.

You have repeatedly abused fellow members of this forum with this style and
have continued to do this without concern for the offensiveness it portrays.

Thus, you are being given a five day vacation from this forum...

In that time, reflect on your actions and realize that purposefully attacking members will NOT be tolerated...

[Moderator mode]

 

[ANAV]

Yeah, well, I am not the serious "War President" I don't Command and order Millions fo US soldiers, who will go into harms way upon my command. If I f-up royally a couple people may die, if he f's up MILLIONS MAY DIE.

You want George Bush to be treated Like other people? Instead of the President? Well, what the hell is he doing sleeping in the white house for starters!? Kick the bum out and tell him to get a real job.

The Man is the President, he should start fricken acting like it! If he can't do the job, he could at least pretend or get the hell off the stage and let a real leader get to work.

His "jokes" would be like Roosevelt goosestepping and throwing up the Nazi Salute during WWII. I mean seriously, no sense of decroum or propriety. If he wants to act like an idiot, let him do it in his bedroom with his wife, not with TV cameras everywhere. Drunken lout.

Furthermore lightweight I am not a liberal.

I've never seen such an attack on somebody. Geez.

You want him out of the White House? Then Democrats (or any other party) should of put up a serious candidate. We live in a democracy and the people had there say. They re-elected Bush, both by majority populous vote and electoral college vote.

He's in office for another three years wether you like it not. So keep on venting to this board if it makes you feel better.

On a serious note, who do you propose the Republicans and the Democrats put up in 08'. Personally I want to see a Clinton/Kerry cat fight in the primaries.

 

[MSgt]

See bold in my prior post. You were calling words/senarios I wrote "stupid" and you implied that I don't care to learn about certain subjects. I am sure you didn't those as compliments, right? Or is this how you come onto someone on a message board? *bats eyelashes*

Exactly so. I called your point stupid and I stated that you don't care to learn about a subject. I fail to see where I called you a name. You're reaching.

 

[MSgt]

Yeah, well, I am not the serious "War President" I don't Command and order Millions fo US soldiers, who will go into harms way upon my command. If I f-up royally a couple people may die, if he f's up MILLIONS MAY DIE.

You want George Bush to be treated Like other people? Instead of the President? Well, what the hell is he doing sleeping in the white house for starters!? Kick the bum out and tell him to get a real job.

The Man is the President, he should start fricken acting like it! If he can't do the job, he could at least pretend or get the hell off the stage and let a real leader get to work.

His "jokes" would be like Roosevelt goosestepping and throwing up the Nazi Salute during WWII. I mean seriously, no sense of decroum or propriety. If he wants to act like an idiot, let him do it in his bedroom with his wife, not with TV cameras everywhere. Drunken lout.

Furthermore lightweight I am not a liberal.

Well, whether or not he "f-up" royally is a matter of perspective. I believe he did exactly what was needed to get us into the Middle East. Something that has been inside the Washington think tank since the 80's as an important necessity to our future securities. This could have easily been Clinton if he decided to listen to his military advisors instead of ignoring them like the President before him did. The only way to effectively attack Islamic terrorism is to allow the Middle East to change. Knocking Saddam off of the block was extremely strategically sound towards this goal. Iraq posed as the only country that could not change on its own and Saddam maintained a certain image to all those dictators and extremist leaders. Iran and Syria have the power to allow a successful Iraq to influence them.

 

[kal-el]

You guys make fun of buh constantly while soldiers are dying in iraq and we dont give you slack for it. But noooooooooooo when bush makes jokes about WMD's everyone has a hissy fit. You see the hpocrisy in your debate bud?

That's because we don't hold in our hand the lives of 140,000 US soliders.:lol: Every President that was ever in office, got made fun of, get over it. I'm sure you did your fair share of bellyaching when Clinton was in office, now it's our turn. It's not hypocracy at all. And why the hell is he making jokes about WMDs? They were the most prominent reason for invading Iraq, and it dosen't matter what your source says, we never found any.

 

[aps]

I've never seen such an attack on somebody. Geez.

You want him out of the White House? Then Democrats (or any other party) should of put up a serious candidate. We live in a democracy and the people had there say. They re-elected Bush, both by majority populous vote and electoral college vote.

He's in office for another three years wether you like it not. So keep on venting to this board if it makes you feel better.

On a serious note, who do you propose the Republicans and the Democrats put up in 08'. Personally I want to see a Clinton/Kerry cat fight in the primaries.

So what's your point, ANAV? Some of us cannot stand Bush, and we do vent here. Why would you make it seem as though we can't vent, or mock our venting?

Really? We live in a democracy? OMG, I had no idea! Interesting that you pointed out we re-elected Bush and that he received the populous vote, since you know he didn't get it in 2000.

He's in office for another three years? Say it isn't so! OMG!

All I saw in your post was attack attack attack. You criticize Libertarian for attacking our president but then attack him/her? LOL

 

[aps]

Originally Posted by aps
See bold in my prior post. You were calling words/senarios I wrote "stupid" and you implied that I don't care to learn about certain subjects. I am sure you didn't those as compliments, right? Or is this how you come onto someone on a message board? *bats eyelashes*

Exactly so. I called your point stupid and I stated that you don't care to learn about a subject. I fail to see where I called you a name. You're reaching.

So you were coming onto me? Aww, shucks, GySgt. I'm flattered.

 

[libertarian_knight]

I've never seen such an attack on somebody. Geez.

You want him out of the White House? Then Democrats (or any other party) should of put up a serious candidate. We live in a democracy and the people had there say. They re-elected Bush, both by majority populous vote and electoral college vote.

He's in office for another three years wether you like it not. So keep on venting to this board if it makes you feel better.

On a serious note, who do you propose the Republicans and the Democrats put up in 08'. Personally I want to see a Clinton/Kerry cat fight in the primaries.

I never suggested Bush was not the president, I suggested he all too often forgets he's supposed to act liek one in front of the cameras at least. This was in response to what a person said to me regarding the Presidents Joking about WMD.

 

[libertarian_knight]

Well, whether or not he "f-up" royally is a matter of perspective. I believe he did exactly what was needed to get us into the Middle East. Something that has been inside the Washington think tank since the 80's as an important necessity to our future securities. This could have easily been Clinton if he decided to listen to his military advisors instead of ignoring them like the President before him did. The only way to effectively attack Islamic terrorism is to allow the Middle East to change. Knocking Saddam off of the block was extremely strategically sound towards this goal. Iraq posed as the only country that could not change on its own and Saddam maintained a certain image to all those dictators and extremist leaders. Iran and Syria have the power to allow a successful Iraq to influence them.

Though I do think he did f-up, that's not what I wrote, that you responded to. I was making a comparison between myself and GWB for the benefit of Skilmatic. Somehow he imagined teh President is just a noraml guy, doing a normal job. People tend not to make light of things they think are serious, and a President making light of the most adressed reason for war is far beyond inappropriate.

Looking under tables for WMD, I mean come on..... It would be Funny *IF* people he commands weren't dying over it. I know a lot of people who would beat the snot out of anyone else doing that in front of them.

 

[ANAV]

I never suggested Bush was not the president, I suggested he all too often forgets he's supposed to act liek one in front of the cameras at least. This was in response to what a person said to me regarding the Presidents Joking about WMD.

If the Libertarian party put forth a viable candidate I would definitely do my homework on the man (or woman). Although I do not know much about the party, I like their views on limiting big government, immigration, and its economic policies (lowering of taxes and reducing government welfare). So I support the Libertarian party in bringing on a candidate in 08'. It will give America another option.

I have no opinion on the President making a stupid joke. At worst it was in poor taste and it gives the critics something to talk about (if there's not enough already). Next week something else will come up and it will be forgotten.

 

[libertarian_knight]

If the Libertarian party put forth a viable candidate I would definitely do my homework on the man (or woman). Although I do not know much about the party, I like their views on limiting big government, immigration, and its economic policies (lowering of taxes and reducing government welfare). So I support the Libertarian party in bringing on a candidate in 08'. It will give America another option.

I have no opinion on the President making a stupid joke. At worst it was in poor taste and it gives the critics something to talk about (if there's not enough already). Next week something else will come up and it will be forgotten.

As far as the joke, at best it was poor taste, at worst it shows total disregard for the Office and the Troops.

As far as the LP goes, they have run a Presidential candidate every year, in all 50 states and DC for quite some time. Never seem to be able to get the airtime for mass public exposure. They run however. But the LP strategy is grassroots, win local, win state, then worry about federal. The LP is in for the long haul, despite the obstacles dems and reps throw up to prevent competition.

This is a kind of long article I am reading, I have not finished it (it prints at 27 pages), but it goes a long way, from what I have read thus far, into explaining the libertarian mindset.

The Nature of Man and His Government by Robert LeFerve
http://www.mises.org/story/1970

What is Government?

Clearly, all governments are simply groups of men or women which are put together for the purpose of finding strength, of providing protection. Every possible combination of rules, codes, laws, charters, constitutions, regencies, protectorates, treaties, contracts, specifications, and customs has gone into the tens of thousands of governments which have been devised during history's meteoric course. But however the framework is made, however the structure is built, the fact remains that government is a tool of man's devising, neither better nor worse than the men who devise and use it, and calculated to make man stronger and better able to protect himself in his weaknesses, by the use of force, exerted by some over others. That is all.

 

[MSgt]

Though I do think he did f-up, that's not what I wrote, that you responded to. I was making a comparison between myself and GWB for the benefit of Skilmatic. Somehow he imagined teh President is just a noraml guy, doing a normal job. People tend not to make light of things they think are serious, and a President making light of the most adressed reason for war is far beyond inappropriate.

Looking under tables for WMD, I mean come on..... It would be Funny *IF* people he commands weren't dying over it. I know a lot of people who would beat the snot out of anyone else doing that in front of them.

Yeah, I know. I just responed to the one sentence. I guess I butted in.

As for the "joke"...meh. I see it as a lot of things he has said. A mundane occurrence used as ammo for the political opposition. My frustrations lie in the things he has not said, although, being the international leader of the free world, I also realize that he cannot say the things that military analysts can say. He's binded by diplomacies and future dealings that involve current American interests.

 

[libertarian_knight]

Yeah, I know. I just responed to the one sentence. I guess I butted in.

As for the "joke"...meh. I see it as a lot of things he has said. A mundane occurrence used as ammo for the political opposition. My frustrations lie in the things he has not said, although, being the international leader of the free world, I also realize that he cannot say the things that military analysts can say. He's binded by diplomacies and future dealings that involve current American interests.

I think, the subtle and mudance acts of men run deep within their character. It's easy to remember to pay attention to the big important things, but hard to stop all the small acts from illuminating flaws. For all the faults I have with this Preisdent, this one really stuck with me, more so than many others. It's as if before, I felt he was not trying hard enough, though he was trying, and now, I think he may not care. I know he's Human, I know he's not perfect, I can forgive him his mistake, but I don't think I can trust him.

 

[MSgt]

I think, the subtle and mudance acts of men run deep within their character. It's easy to remember to pay attention to the big important things, but hard to stop all the small acts from illuminating flaws. For all the faults I have with this Preisdent, this one really stuck with me, more so than many others. It's as if before, I felt he was not trying hard enough, though he was trying, and now, I think he may not care. I know he's Human, I know he's not perfect, I can forgive him his mistake, but I don't think I can trust him.

The problem with trusting any President in this situation is that you have to trust that the right things are being done regardless of how he must portay things to the public. I am willing to bet that you know on some level what the real problems are with regards to Islamic extremism. There is no way any President can make those problems public from his mouth on international television. There is no way that he can publicly address the "House of Saud" while still receiving oil for American interests. There is no way to publicly condemn the Islamic perversion that millions of Muslims in the Middle East subscribe to without needlessly infuriating the masses. YET, we must deal with these problems for our security. It is from these masses, Islamic extremism have organized into groups. There is no way to deal with these problems without causing a lot of controversy, because it is "politically incorrect" to declare what we all know. In the mean time, there are Democratic politicians that know better also, but choose to act stupid on television just to wreck as much credibility as possible. These politicians do not have your security in mind. They are merely looking towards 2008.

His joke was just in poor taste and a frustrated reaction to the media who salivate over creating as much controversy as possible and continue to bombard with the same boring questions.

 

[libertarian_knight]

The problem with trusting any President in this situation is that you have to trust that the right things are being done regardless of how he must portay things to the public. I am willing to bet that you know on some level what the real problems are with regards to Islamic extremism. There is no way any President can make those problems public from his mouth on international television. There is no way that he can publicly address the "House of Saud" while still receiving oil for American interests. There is no way to publicly condemn the Islamic perversion that millions of Muslims in the Middle East subscribe to without needlessly infuriating the masses. YET, we must deal with these problems for our security. It is from these masses, Islamic extremism have organized into groups. There is no way to deal with these problems without causing a lot of controversy, because it is "politically incorrect" to declare what we all know. In the mean time, there are Democratic politicians that know better also, but choose to act stupid on television just to wreck as much credibility as possible. These politicians do not have your security in mind. They are merely looking towards 2008.

His joke was just in poor taste and a frustrated reaction to the media who salivate over creating as much controversy as possible and continue to bombard with the same boring questions.

Not really much wrong with your statement, clear conscise and polite, thanks.

However, I do take exception to the idea that governments, even ours, are really providing "security." Furthermore, I have some disdian for the word and it's usage. The Security governments should provide, especially our, is that of securing our Human rights, of life, liberty and property. The Problem of course, is the tool and insitution of government is a **** poor mechanism for actually doing that, and often results in abuse of our rights, and of others.

"We hold these turths to be self-evident:

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

Really, there is no security worth having, than the security to protect the rights of Life, Liberty and Property. Mind you, these are not the right to be alive, wave your arms, and buy stuff. These are rights, meant in that, a person with the right to life, is not the right to merely be alive, but rather the right not to be killed by other men. The right to liberty is not the right to go wherever one wants, but the right to go wherever one is allowed without restraint (assuming not interfering with other people's rights). The right to property is not a right to have things, but a right to not have the things you have taken from you without consent. These are the negative rights.

People seem to have lost sight that governments quickly loose focus, and instead of controlling the bad people who violate others' rights, they control all people, and in turn become the violators. The Sevant becomes the Master, and the Cure becomes the Disease. Simply putting new people in office won't change that, but the insitution has to be "reset." back to it's original princples, otherwise it becomes a monster, with a effectively a will of it's own. This is way off topic I just realized, and not much of a continuation of the side topic we were on. Sometimes it just flows out of me.

Anyway, LeFerve had some of the points I was making, and I might suggest you take a look. http://www.mises.org/story/1970#

 

[MSgt]

Not really much wrong with your statement, clear conscise and polite, thanks.

However, I do take exception to the idea that governments, even ours, are really providing "security." Furthermore, I have some disdian for the word and it's usage. The Security governments should provide, especially our, is that of securing our Human rights, of life, liberty and property. The Problem of course, is the tool and insitution of government is a **** poor mechanism for actually doing that, and often results in abuse of our rights, and of others.

"We hold these turths to be self-evident:

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

Really, there is no security worth having, than the security to protect the rights of Life, Liberty and Property. Mind you, these are not the right to be alive, wave your arms, and buy stuff. These are rights, meant in that, a person with the right to life, is not the right to merely be alive, but rather the right not to be killed by other men. The right to liberty is not the right to go wherever one wants, but the right to go wherever one is allowed without restraint (assuming not interfering with other people's rights). The right to property is not a right to have things, but a right to not have the things you have taken from you without consent. These are the negative rights.

People seem to have lost sight that governments quickly loose focus, and instead of controlling the bad people who violate others' rights, they control all people, and in turn become the violators. The Sevant becomes the Master, and the Cure becomes the Disease. Simply putting new people in office won't change that, but the insitution has to be "reset." back to it's original princples, otherwise it becomes a monster, with a effectively a will of it's own. This is way off topic I just realized, and not much of a continuation of the side topic we were on. Sometimes it just flows out of me.

Anyway, LeFerve had some of the points I was making, and I might suggest you take a look. http://www.mises.org/story/1970#

Nice sentiments, but mostly a dream. Always was. Complete freedom and liberty is anarchy. I think you just have a negative spin on things. Even the free need protection, which means others must die before you do. Your vehicle needs oil and gasoline. This means your government must do certain things that you may not approve of. There is more to your securities than your personal safety. Do people and companies make money along the way? Of course. Our freedoms allow for free enterprises and trade - also something that needs protected.

 

[libertarian_knight]

Nice sentiments, but mostly a dream. Always was. Complete freedom and liberty is anarchy. I think you just have a negative spin on things. Even the free need protection, which means others must die before you do. Your vehicle needs oil and gasoline. This means your government must do certain things that you may not approve of. There is more to your securities than your personal safety. Do people and companies make money along the way? Of course. Our freedoms allow for free enterprises and trade - also something that needs protected.

Read that link I posted for you, it's a little long, but if I respond to this now, i will end up repeating a lot of what's there anyway. It's in my signature also.

 

[MSgt]

Read that link I posted for you, it's a little long, but if I respond to this now, i will end up repeating a lot of what's there anyway. It's in my signature also.

I scanned it. There's a lot of common sense in it and a lot of needless opinionated print. A perfect government only exists on paper. If you want a real government...go live in Antarctica and start a new one. See what it inevitably becomes.

 

[libertarian_knight]

I scanned it. There's a lot of common sense in it and a lot of needless opinionated print. A perfect government only exists on paper. If you want a real government...go live in Antarctica and start a new one. See what it inevitably becomes.

Well, you quite missed the point of the booklet.

As for antartica, that's not even let for the freedom lovers. Even if it were habitable permanently, it wouldn't be allowed by the worlds governments anyway.

 

[MSgt]

Well, you quite missed the point of the booklet.

As for antartica, that's not even let for the freedom lovers. Even if it were habitable permanently, it wouldn't be allowed by the worlds governments anyway.

Well, what was the point? From what I gathered, it was about how governments should be. It's way too much to read on the Internet. It's something I would print out and take to the field with me to read.

 

[Stinger]

Just because President Bush does not speak up as much as he should in my opinion to clarify and defend his policies... wait well he does actually, just not well enough... but anyway, this administration has press conferences every day just about by the White House, DOD, and Various Generals. Particularly Concerning the War Rusmfeld and the Generals have been quick to point out sucesses. Don't pretend they are simple Humble men, unwilling to tout their achievements.

Well basically they are. I too am amazed that people keep demanding that "the president tell the people why we went to war", he did many many many times and everyone is free to go and reread those speechs which are available on the interent. As far as the accomplishments, the media would not report it anyway. Suggest you read

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/monacharen/2005/11/25/176731.html

It says it all.

And that all goes with the topic here. Anyone reading the Kay or Duelfer reports or the conclusions of the 9/11 commission of Senate Intelligence report could see quite clearly that for the most part we, the government and our intelligence agency;s, were correct in their accesment of Saddam and we properly removed him. And WMD were a key issue in that.

 

[Stinger]

Especially if these same people rely on such gimic shows such as "FOX news" and such, who just propogate what the Bush Administration tells them.

And you have evidence that the Bush Administration tells them what to say? Or is it that your position is so weak all you have are these little hyperboles?

Quite frankly you would do yourself some good to get informed and FOX is a good place to start. They give BOTH sides of the issue, yes the anti-war anti-Bush sides gets full vetting on FOX, unlike the other networks which just feed the leftist propaganda.

 

[Stinger]

Did you read the post above you? I cited 5 sources that say FOX news is radicalized. O, and here's another interesting tidbit:

Why do you have to post from other sources? Why not just watch it yourself and give your own opinion?

 

[KCConservative]

And you have evidence that the Bush Administration tells them what to say? Or is it that your position is so weak all you have are these little hyperboles?

Quite frankly you would do yourself some good to get informed and FOX is a good place to start. They give BOTH sides of the issue, yes the anti-war anti-Bush sides gets full vetting on FOX, unlike the other networks which just feed the leftist propaganda.

I asked kal-el this same question earlier. It seems the kitty has got his tongue.

 

[Stinger]

George Bush was looking for them in his oval office. Remember that?

Not really, what does that have to do with the reality I posted? Perhaps all those who keep claiming as fact that Saddam had no WMD and had no intention of having or that Bush lied should refrain in view of the evidence still coming forth.