Bush at 36%, how low can he go?

[TCPluto]

Oh, I don't know. The gorillas in the next cage thought is was funny. There you go, I gave you a free opening. Let's see what you can do with it, or perhaps instead you could post that WMD proof you are gathering.

Leaving the proof to the pro's, not so much to the couch potato sugar eatin', arm chair quarterbacks with all the answers with the benefit of hindsight.

 

[eclectics]

Leaving the proof to the pro's, not so much to the couch potato sugar eatin', arm chair quarterbacks with all the answers with the benefit of hindsight.

Oh my. Hit a nerve did I? Sorry I didn't let you bully me, if that's what you were looking for. Been around too long for that sort of nonsense. Happy hunting!

 

[dcentity2000]

Leaving the proof to the pro's, not so much to the couch potato sugar eatin', arm chair quarterbacks with all the answers with the benefit of hindsight.

Experts? You mean like all those official bodies who said that there were no WMD stockpiles before the invasion?



Rich::

 

[Captain Capslock]

Leaving the proof to the pro's, not so much to the couch potato sugar eatin', arm chair quarterbacks with all the answers with the benefit of hindsight.

HEAR MY WORDS: I AM AN EXPERT AND YOU HAVE POOR PERSONAL HYGIENE. I DEMAND THAT YOU TAKE A BATH. NOW.

 

[What the Heck]

[EDIT]: Post looked stupid no matter what I did to it. Carry on



Rich::

Ok, so I'm went back to see what I missed and lost it on this one.

 

[What the Heck]

Experts? You mean like all those official bodies who said that there were no WMD stockpiles before the invasion?



Rich::

No, no no, not those experts...the experts who proclaimed that not only did Iraq not have Weapons of Mass Destruction, Hussein also didn't have any type of banned weapons - 30 minutes after he launched a (banned) scud missle attack against US forces. Those experts.

 

[Charade]

It's a simplistic way of stating what the other side keeps saying. In other words, the comments about how jutified it is that Sadaam is gone because he treated his people brutally and so on. Yes, that is a case of not liking a leader. Again, perhaps the ends justify the means in some ways. However it was still an invasion of a sovereign nation.

Of course, there's the bit with WMD too but that's been hashed and rehashed with both sides still at odds. It's another issue entirely.

Truthfully, I don't believe that either is at the very least the only reasons for the invasion. I'm simply responding to what the Right claims to be true.

I don't like Chirac but he doesn't mass kill his own people. I don't think he should be removed by force. The people will take care of that by democratic means. The problem with SH is that he DID kill his own people and they couldn't do much about it.

So they are not worthy of being helped?

 

[TCPluto]

Oh my. Hit a nerve did I?

Heaven's no!! Let a strange stranger push a button? Nah, not today.

Capn' Crap O'Crock, another one's ready!! Beam him (her?) up!

 

[eclectics]

Heaven's no!! Let a strange stranger push a button? Nah, not today.

Capn' Crap O'Crock, another one's ready!! Beam him (her?) up!

Good. I'm glad you're not upset. I was so worried.

 

[eclectics]

I don't like Chirac but he doesn't mass kill his own people. I don't think he should be removed by force. The people will take care of that by democratic means. The problem with SH is that he DID kill his own people and they couldn't do much about it.

So they are not worthy of being helped?

Of course they are worthy of being helped, but so are half a dozen other soverign nations oppressed citizens.

 

[Saxsoon]

CITIZENS OF THE INTERWEB, HEAD MY WARNING!

THIS POSTER IS INCAPABLE OF COHERENT THOUGHT AND MANY HIGHER BRAIN FUNCTIONS INCLUDING THE ABILITY TO RATIONALLY DEBATE - HOWEVER, THE ABILITY TO INSULT APPEARS FUNCTIONAL.

THIS POSTER IS TO BE APPROACHED WITH CAUTION AS HIS BOUTS OF IRRATIONAL RAGE MAY POSE A HEALTH HAZARD TO THOSE AROUND HIM, MUCH LIKE AN EXPLODING HEDGEHOG.

Danger Will Robinson Danger! By the way, it is heed.
So what do you call what you are doing to this person right now. Hmm. . .

Also turn it down, I want to keep my hearing past 25.

 

[DawnCt1]

I repeat you don't get it. Don't bring other world leaders into it, Bush is YOUR commander in chief not anyone else. He should be on trial for crimes against humanity along with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz and Perle.

Of course you know that those charges are absolutely ludicrous and it makes it hard to conduct a serious discussion with you.

 

[What the Heck]

No-one misses the old regime or it's tyrannical leaders; that is not our objection when it comes to the war. Rather, it has been fabricated by the hysterical right in order to shame away people who question the short-fallings of the war.

It's a bit like saying "those right wing nutters, they eat babies and must be evil" - it's just not true.



Rich::

A little off topic, but where was this reason from the left when I was being spit on in the 70's just because I was in uniform?

 

[What the Heck]

Oh my, now you went and did it, LOG. You had to remind them who's been running things for the 11 years. They've been living with the fantasy "it's the evil Democrats" who's done them wrong, made them spend all that money, lied about the war, etc.

To paraphrase Kilroy, they've met the enemy and it's them.

I must have missed that headline in 1995, when Clinton became a Republican.

 

[bimshire]

did not hit the quote button. Will start again/

 

[dcentity2000]

No, no no, not those experts...the experts who proclaimed that not only did Iraq not have Weapons of Mass Destruction, Hussein also didn't have any type of banned weapons - 30 minutes after he launched a (banned) scud missle attack against US forces. Those experts.

Oh yah, I totally concede that, but the point still stands - the majority of these so-called "experts" declared that the 45 minute launch window for vast stockpiles of WMDs was unfounded, being based on "thin" evidence.

I guess I just found it odd that TCPluto said that we should leave "the proof to the pro's" when the majority of "pros" were of the opinion that the invasion was both unlawful but also unwise overall. Note that I'm not saying "nyer nyer nyer, Hans was right" - just that it was a perculiar thing to say.



Rich::

 

[TCPluto]

Of course you know that those charges are absolutely ludicrous and it makes it hard to conduct a serious discussion with you.

The delusional beliefs that these people hold, such as the belief you quoted, are exactly why they are in the minority, and will never be taken seriously. Neither in this country nor the world.

They're not looking for serious discussion, only to spew their garbage. These folks don't live in the real world, the interent is the only place they can come together and find such wacked out companionship.

 

[Captain Capslock]

By the way, it is heed.

YOU HAVE PASSED THE TEST.

 

[eclectics]

A little off topic, but where was this reason from the left when I was being spit on in the 70's just because I was in uniform?

No soldier should ever be spat at. A bad patch in our history for sure. I think a lot of people back then were under the impression (wrongly so) that all the soldiers in Vietnam ever did was to set innocent children on fire with napalm and bomb civilian targets. I'm sure a lot of bad things happened but the soldiers did get a bad rap for the actions of a few. The troops should never be blamed for having to obey the (sometimes misguided) orders of their superiors.

 

[bimshire]

I think it is erroneous to even suggest that we entered Iraq because of a "personality conflict". It has nothing to do with likeing or disliking a leader. It had to do with the repeated violations of a multitude of UN resolutions. Either resolutions mean something or they don't.

You have to make up your mind. You deride the UN as worthless repeatedly and those that give you the talking points at Faux News do the same. Yet, you stressed that it was important to invade a souvereign country due to violations of UN resolutions. Mind boggling!
By the way, Israel has been in violation of UN resolution 242 for more than 3 decades.