T1B

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:03 am**

3. "Flypaper" ? You have to be kidding me. We already make our troops fight with their hands tied behind their back. Yes, OUR people get killed so that THE PEOPLE BACK HOME don't have their "sensibilities" and sensitivity towards the proper ways to defend yourself .... cast forward from safe havens in office buildings and college campuses .....

RAAAAAAAAAACCCCK

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 1:01 am**

mvscal wrote:Saddam was ... possibly involved in the OKC bombing as well.

Link, gullible fool?

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 1:02 am**

show me them, then. All I see is "sources said"

You try to paint this picture as if those of us who call bullshit are not loyal americans, when the reality is that I see this crap as just another twisting of facts to justify the invasion of Iraq, and that worldwide terror will move forward no matter what occurs over there.

Bushice, there's a difference between healthy skepticism and a refusal to accept or admit to anything that does not support your predetermined conclusions.

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 1:04 am**

Mister Bushice wrote:You try to paint this picture as if those of us who call bullshit are not loyal americans, when the reality is that I see this crap as just another twisting of facts to justify the invasion of Iraq, and that worldwide terror will move forward no matter what occurs over there.

Bushice,

Actually, I believe there are some whose loyalty SHOULD be questioned. I mean we all have rights and dissent is key to our country's survival but the crime of "TREASON" exists for a reason.

Most people, that support and contend what we discuss, I believe are sincere, heartfelt people that can't reconcile the fact we live in a dangerous world where actions speak louder than rhetoric. I believe their intentions to be nothing but golden.

I also believe there is some truth to the law of unintended consequences and the notion that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".

It's time we stopped thinking, what we as Americans think of each other, and started thinking how our actions and words are being interpreted and exploited by those that would seek our demise.

If what I've read of them is any indication, the liberal stance on this war is hardly scoring brownie points with them. Especially in light of the fact the other 90% of the liberal "platform" out and out disgusts them.

Oh, but they'll use the liberals, if they can.

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 1:05 am**

Variable wrote:Bushice, there's a difference between healthy skepticism and a refusal to accept or admit to anything that does not support your predetermined conclusions.

Did you fell that way with each of the previous "justifications" for war?

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 1:23 am**

If you're referring to the WMD justification for going to war, I, along with everyone else on the planet thought he had them.

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 1:44 am**

Even the New Yorker knew the reasons for war before the fact.

Has a war ever been as elaborately justified in advance as the coming war with Iraq? Because this war is not being undertaken in direct response to a single shattering event (it's been nearly a year and a half since the September 11th attacks), and because the possibility of military action against Saddam Hussein has been Washington's main preoccupation for the better part of a year, the case for war has grown so large and variegated that its very multiplicity has become a part of the case against it. In his State of the Union address, President Bush offered at least four justifications, none of them overlapping: the cruelty of Saddam against his own people; his flouting of treaties and United Nations Security Council resolutions; the military threat that he poses to his neighbors; and his ties to terrorists in general and to Al Qaeda in particular. In addition, Bush hinted at the possibility that Saddam might attack the United States or enable someone else to do so. There are so many reasons for going to war floating around—at least some of which, taken alone, either are nothing new or do not seem to point to Iraq specifically as the obvious place to wage it—that those inclined to suspect the motives of the Administration have plenty of material with which to argue that it is being disingenuous.

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 1:53 am**

Variable wrote:If you're referring to the WMD justification for going to war, I, along with everyone else on the planet thought he had them.

That was the presented reason, but the fact is that he would have gone in had there been too many fireworks stands in baghdad.

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 2:01 am**

Mister Bushice wrote:
Variable wrote:If you're referring to the WMD justification for going to war, I, along with everyone else on the planet thought he had them.
That was the presented reason...

No, it wasn't.

In his State of the Union address, President Bush offered at least four justifications, none of them overlapping: the cruelty of Saddam against his own people; his flouting of treaties and United Nations Security Council resolutions; the military threat that he poses to his neighbors; and his ties to terrorists in general and to Al Qaeda in particular.

Whether he had said weapons or not is irrelevant, it was incumbent on him to prove he didn't.

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 2:04 am**

Diogenes wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:
Variable wrote:If you're referring to the WMD justification for going to war, I, along with everyone else on the planet thought he had them.
That was the presented reason...
No, it wasn't.

In his State of the Union address, President Bush offered at least four justifications, none of them overlapping: the cruelty of Saddam against his own people; his flouting of treaties and United Nations Security Council resolutions; the military threat that he poses to his neighbors; and his ties to terrorists in general and to Al Qaeda in particular.

Whether he had said weapons or not is irrelevant, it was incumbent on him to prove he didn't.

That was the reason Colin powell presented to the UN in Bushs name, and one fo the resolutions WAS to destroy all WMDS and allow inspection to prove the same.

Don't nit pick.

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 2:05 am**

mvscal wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:That was the presented reason, but the fact is that he would have gone in had there been too many fireworks stands in baghdad.
And he would have been right to do so. As long as Saddam (and his psycho kids after him) was in power, he was a threat to the stability of the region.

That "region" is not our sole job to monitor, police, and invade.

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 2:10 am**

Mister Bushice wrote:
mvscal wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:That was the presented reason, but the fact is that he would have gone in had there been too many fireworks stands in baghdad.
And he would have been right to do so. As long as Saddam (and his psycho kids after him) was in power, he was a threat to the stability of the region.
That "region" is not our sole job to monitor, police, and invade.

Neither was Europe in the fourties.

So fucking what?

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 2:14 am**

Mister Bushice wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote: That was the presented reason...
No, it wasn't.

In his State of the Union address, President Bush offered at least four justifications, none of them overlapping: the cruelty of Saddam against his own people; his flouting of treaties and United Nations Security Council resolutions; the military threat that he poses to his neighbors; and his ties to terrorists in general and to Al Qaeda in particular.

Whether he had said weapons or not is irrelevant, it was incumbent on him to prove he didn't.
That was the reason Colin powell presented to the UN in Bushs name, and one fo the resolutions WAS to destroy all WMDS and allow inspection to prove the same.

Which was nessecary because of said flouting of treaties and resolutions.

And it was A reason, not the reason.

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 2:23 am**

Tom In VA wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:You try to paint this picture as if those of us who call bullshit are not loyal americans, when the reality is that I see this crap as just another twisting of facts to justify the invasion of Iraq, and that worldwide terror will move forward no matter what occurs over there.
Bushice,

Actually, I believe there are some whose loyalty SHOULD be questioned. I mean we all have rights and dissent is key to our country's survival but the crime of "TREASON" exists for a reason.

Most people, that support and contend what we discuss, I believe are sincere, heartfelt people that can't reconcile the fact we live in a dangerous world where actions speak louder than rhetoric. I believe their intentions to be nothing but golden.

I also believe there is some truth to the law of unintended consequences and the notion that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".

It's time we stopped thinking, what we as Americans think of each other, and started thinking how our actions and words are being interpreted and exploited by those that would seek our demise.

If what I've read of them is any indication, the liberal stance on this war is hardly scoring brownie points with them. Especially in light of the fact the other 90% of the liberal "platform" out and out disgusts them.

Oh, but they'll use the liberals, if they can.

You see, I don't agree that our dissent over the way things are done supports terrorists. Because of the voices of dissent pointing out the flaws in this administration, they have increased port security, increased production of armed vehicles and equipment flow to Iraq, and looked to improving border security.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The founding fathers allowed for peaceful assembly to demonstrate. Free speech is still an option, if not a neccessity. I'm not a party mook. I think either side would be just as bad in managing this stuff, and I also think that the only way we can possibly keep them in check is to make sure we express ourselves and let our voices be heard.

Also, I think If anything our voices of dissent serve as an example to oppressed people how things could be, rather than living under a regime that punishes those who speak out we have one that allows us to express what we think.

There is nothing the terrorists can do to counter that freedom.

The only true way we as a people can secure ourselves from future terror attacks on American soil is to always stay alert HERE in the US, continue to pursue the leaders of groups like al queda, constantly improve and upgrade our security, and try to out think our enemies future course of actions. At this point, shooting insurgents in Iraq does little to accomplish those goals.

There are several hundred tons of weapons-grade uranium in Russia that is not secured from access by terror groups. Russia has broken up 601 attempted transactions since 1998. The International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna reports 376 since 1993, and Turkey has recorded 104 cases of non-weapons grade smuggling in that same time. Moreover, for every trafficker who has been caught, chances are that many more are still in the game, trying to buy it. Getting that under control in my mind, is a much higher priority than Iraq. While we're shooting at ragheads, good ol' OBL & co. may be succeeding at purchasing a few pounds of nuclear material that will have one primary destination - The US.

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 2:28 am**

Diogenes wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:
mvscal wrote: And he would have been right to do so. As long as Saddam (and his psycho kids after him) was in power, he was a threat to the stability of the region.
That "region" is not our sole job to monitor, police, and invade.
Neither was Europe in the fourties.

So fucking what?

We weren't policing Europe in the forties. Not until after WWII anyway, and were part of a coalition by then. Early in the decade we stayed hands off, until after Pearl Harbor.

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 2:48 am**

Mister Bushice wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote: That "region" is not our sole job to monitor, police, and invade.
Neither was Europe in the fourties.

So fucking what?
We weren't policing Europe in the forties. Not until after WWII anyway, and were part of a coalition by then. Early in the decade we stayed hands off, until after Pearl Harbor.

Hitler didn't have anything to do with Pearl Harbor.

And FDR ran for re-election on a peace platform, then did everything he could to get us involved in the war.

FDR lied, boys died.

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 6:18 am**

Diogenes wrote:
Hitler didn't have anything to do with Pearl Harbor.

Did I say that? No I did not. Read the fucking post next time. I said we did not get involved in the euro war until AFTER Pearl Harbor.

If you're going to open up your piehole, try not to let ignorance spew out.

And FDR ran for re-election on a peace platform, then did everything he could to get us involved in the war.

FDR lied, boys died.

You are so ignorant. Just stop posting.

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 6:25 am**

Hey, hey, not so hasty. If it weren't for a few ancillary ignorant posters to attack, this place would be BSmack vs. Dr. Detroit 24/7. Uh...no thanks

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 6:34 am**

Just got a little tired of his bullshit. I'm better now. :)

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 9:52 am**

Mister Bushice wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
Hitler didn't have anything to do with Pearl Harbor.

I said we did not get involved in the euro war until AFTER Pearl Harbor.

If you're going to open up your piehole, try not to let ignorance spew out.

And we didn't get involved in the WOT until after 9/11.

So fucking what?

And FDR ran for re-election on a peace platform, then did everything he could to get us involved in the war.

FDR lied, boys died.

You are so ignorant. Just stop posting.

Link?

Either you are too fucking stupid to follow what I'm saying, or are simply ignorant of history.

Or maybe you need to bookmark dictionary.com.

Either way, if you don't want me posting, ban me.

Otherwise, go fuck yourself.

Ignorant twinkie.

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 11:29 am**

Diogenes wrote:Ignorant twinkie.

Speaking of ignorance, did you read the entirety of the New Yorker article you cited, Dio?

Don't exactly paint a rosy picture of your position.

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:32 pm**

Mister Bushice wrote:
Tom In VA wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:You try to paint this picture as if those of us who call bullshit are not loyal americans, when the reality is that I see this crap as just another twisting of facts to justify the invasion of Iraq, and that worldwide terror will move forward no matter what occurs over there.
Bushice,

Actually, I believe there are some whose loyalty SHOULD be questioned. I mean we all have rights and dissent is key to our country's survival but the crime of "TREASON" exists for a reason.

Most people, that support and contend what we discuss, I believe are sincere, heartfelt people that can't reconcile the fact we live in a dangerous world where actions speak louder than rhetoric. I believe their intentions to be nothing but golden.

I also believe there is some truth to the law of unintended consequences and the notion that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".

It's time we stopped thinking, what we as Americans think of each other, and started thinking how our actions and words are being interpreted and exploited by those that would seek our demise.

If what I've read of them is any indication, the liberal stance on this war is hardly scoring brownie points with them. Especially in light of the fact the other 90% of the liberal "platform" out and out disgusts them.

Oh, but they'll use the liberals, if they can.
You see, I don't agree that our dissent over the way things are done supports terrorists. Because of the voices of dissent pointing out the flaws in this administration, they have increased port security, increased production of armed vehicles and equipment flow to Iraq, and looked to improving border security.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The founding fathers allowed for peaceful assembly to demonstrate. Free speech is still an option, if not a neccessity. I'm not a party mook. I think either side would be just as bad in managing this stuff, and I also think that the only way we can possibly keep them in check is to make sure we express ourselves and let our voices be heard.

Also, I think If anything our voices of dissent serve as an example to oppressed people how things could be, rather than living under a regime that punishes those who speak out we have one that allows us to express what we think.

There is nothing the terrorists can do to counter that freedom.

The only true way we as a people can secure ourselves from future terror attacks on American soil is to always stay alert HERE in the US, continue to pursue the leaders of groups like al queda, constantly improve and upgrade our security, and try to out think our enemies future course of actions. At this point, shooting insurgents in Iraq does little to accomplish those goals.

There are several hundred tons of weapons-grade uranium in Russia that is not secured from access by terror groups. Russia has broken up 601 attempted transactions since 1998. The International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna reports 376 since 1993, and Turkey has recorded 104 cases of non-weapons grade smuggling in that same time. Moreover, for every trafficker who has been caught, chances are that many more are still in the game, trying to buy it. Getting that under control in my mind, is a much higher priority than Iraq. While we're shooting at ragheads, good ol' OBL & co. may be succeeding at purchasing a few pounds of nuclear material that will have one primary destination - The US.

Not really within the context of what we're discussing.

"What are you doing about the Port Security Mr. President ?" is hardly "dissent" and hardly anything that gets people labelled as traitors.

It's a valid point raised about an exposed flank.

Unfortunately CNN isn't covering the steps being taken to do just that. It's not as "glamorous". It's mostly involving the re-engineering of existing systems, the deployment of new gadgets, and quite frankly it's probably best that nothing much is said about the techniques used to secure ports, cargo bays, etc.. etc.. Half the battle of security is not letting on what you have implemented, cause if it was known ... steps could be taken to counter those mechanisms.

Michael Moore, Sean Penn, about 90% of the DNC and 2% of the REP aisle is what I'm talking about. Irresponsible comments made by the likes Dick Durbin, Charles Hagel, etc.. etc..

They might mean well, all of them, Moore, Penn, etc.. etc.. but they provide something to the enemy:

1. Encouragement.
2. Psychological vulnerabilities in the psyches of Americans and American soldiers.
3. It just makes them happy.

I look at the movies of the beheadings and the last thing in the world I want is for these cocksuckers to be "happy".

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 4:15 pm**

He trying to make some claim that FDR ran on a "Peace" Platform, and apparently deviously planned 10 years ahead of time to go to war.

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 4:17 pm**

essentially, yes.

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 4:46 pm**

Now you're getting it.

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 4:49 pm**

mvscal wrote: The truth of the matter is that you are not. It's too late for "calling bullshit". We're in the war right now and the only thing that matters is winning it.

Thanks for the update. Now I need to chage my wallpaper from this:

To something more like this:

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 4:53 pm**

He must have caught it from Diogenes.

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 5:16 pm**

mvscal wrote:Are you attempting to make a point or is this just random incoherence?

After all the board drama lately, I cracked up. Hard.

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 5:58 pm**

I thought Dio was resurrecting the notion that FDR somehow goaded the Japs, knew the Japs were coming, did nothing to prepare for the Japs, so Pearl Harbor would look like a surprise.

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 6:02 pm**

I'm more apt to believe that FDR should have known it was coming, did plenty to piss the Japs off, and should never have had the entire fleet (other than the carriers) in one port. Dumb some?

BTW, I'm thinking that Bush wishes he could have that "Mission Accomplished" photo op back now.

Even if the insurgency never happened, it was 100% gloating. The only thing people hate more than getting their ass kicked by a complete badass is have said badass stand over your corpse and yell, "Scoreboard, bitch!" We're America for Christ's sake. Act like you've been to the end zone before.

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 6:08 pm**

Variable wrote:We're America for Christ's sake. Act like you've been to the end zone before.

Best criticism of that picture I've seen.

RACK

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 6:21 pm**

Variable wrote:I'm more apt to believe that FDR should have known it was coming, did plenty to piss the Japs off, and should never have had the entire fleet (other than the carriers) in one port. Dumb some?

Well, who would have thought Bin Laden woudl have managed to bring down the twin towers? I think your hindsight is working over time.

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 6:22 pm**

Tom In VA wrote:
Variable wrote:We're America for Christ's sake. Act like you've been to the end zone before.
Best criticism of that picture I've seen.

RACK

Second.

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2005 1:11 am**

Bizzarofelice wrote:
Diogenes wrote:Ignorant twinkie.
Speaking of ignorance, did you read the entirety of the New Yorker article you cited, Dio?

Don't exactly paint a rosy picture of your position.

My point exactly.

Even the left knew the reasons for war, I was quoting the New Yorker, after all.

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2005 1:15 am**

Mister Bushice wrote:He trying to make some claim that FDR ran on a "Peace" Platform, and apparently deviously planned 10 years ahead of time to go to war.

I was refering to the 1940 election.

Ignorant twit.

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2005 1:20 am**

mvscal wrote:
Variable wrote:I'm more apt to believe that FDR should have known it was coming, did plenty to piss the Japs off
The only thing we did to piss the Japs off was fail to suck them off while they rolled over Asia.

Preparing for a war everyone knows is coming while doing our best to stay out of it without compromising our values or national interests is not lying.

Except that FDR ran on the promise that he would not go to war unless attacked.

He failed to mention he was going to do everything he could to provoke said attack.

Whether he actually knew about Pearl Harbor beforehand is questionable and irrelevant.

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2005 2:04 am**

Bullshit.

Cutting off their oil gave them no options but to retreat or attack.

Stiffing their ambassador the week before PH was unessecary, except as a snub and provocation.

And any Japanese politician suspected of embracing pacifism in the thirties/fourties ended up dead.

FDR understood Bushido and knew exactly what he was doing.

And besides,Germany (his real target) was no imminent threat.

And Japan no long term threat at all, manpower or material wise, and was badly overextended.

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2005 2:04 am**

On top of that, the dude knew NO ONE wins an election by promising to go to war. Hell, Woodrow Wilson ran on the campaign slogan of "He kept us out of the war", then barely 4 months into his second term he asked congress for a declaration of war against Germany.

FDR went to war when the time was right.

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2005 4:03 am**

Mister Bushice wrote:On top of that, the dude knew NO ONE wins an election by promising to go to war. Hell, Woodrow Wilson ran on the campaign slogan of "He kept us out of the war", then barely 4 months into his second term he asked congress for a declaration of war against Germany.

FDR went to war when the time was right.

A war the American people didn't want that was based on a lie.

Ignoring our Real Enemy, Japan, who actually did attack us to divert resources to conquer Europe.

Fucking war mongerer.

And Tommy Wilson was a lying warmongering POS too.

Then again, you ignorant fuckstains have yet to demonstrate that Bush lied about anything.

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2005 12:22 pm**

Mister Bushice wrote:
Variable wrote:I'm more apt to believe that FDR should have known it was coming, did plenty to piss the Japs off, and should never have had the entire fleet (other than the carriers) in one port. Dumb some?
Well, who would have thought Bin Laden woudl have managed to bring down the twin towers? I think your hindsight is working over time.

Ironic that Bushice would post this considering that he was among several here who declared that Bush and his administration ignored the warnings...

T1B

LMAO!!! Democrats melting over Bush's speech last night...