West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: Trauma-san on March 01, 2004, 04:13:58 PM
-
Mighta misspelled that. LOL
Anyways... When the U.N. passed 15 or whatever it was resolutions saying Iraq was in violation of the U.N.'s peace treaty with Iraq.... therefore ending the peace, lol.... America goes to war "uni-lateraly" (with 50 other nations) to attack Iraq.
EVVVVVERY Democrat voted for it (the war)... but now that it's election time, and we haven't found any Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, EVVVVVVERY Democrat talks shit about the president going in.
Now.
Haiti. A corrupt leader placed in power by our former, Democratic, President, gets overthrown by his people. EVERY Democrat around (since this is an election year) is saying "I WOULD HAVE WENT IN, WE NEED TO GO TO HAITI, WE SHOULD BE THERE, IF I WAS PRESIDENT BLAH BLAH BLAH".... Now, explain that shit to me.
Kerry & Co. are criticizing Bush, for consulting the fucking UNITED NATIONS! I thought they were bitching In Iraq we acted Unilaterally and should have waited on the United Nations? Well, now that we've waited on the United Nations, Bush gets criticized for that, also.
Which is it? This shit gets me disgusted to my stomach, how these fuckers pander to people. I'll tell you the simple answer, but you DONT WANT TO BELIEVE IT.
The truth is, the Democrats pander to the Black vote. They were behind the war in Iraq, every fucking one of them voted for it. Once they saw it as a chance to Attack Bush, they came up with "Oh, we should have used the U.N."... Now that the Haitian thing has came up, and Bush didn't go in without the United Nations, they see it as another chance to attack him. Now they're bitching that we DIDN'T go in, and waited to the United Nations. Why? Because the Haitians are black, and they think if they raise enough hell about this, they'll secure the Black Vote.
Also, interesting to note, they changed their tune, they all claim, about Iraq because we didn't find any Weapons of Mass Destruction. The logic they're exuding is that it was O.K. to go to Iraq unilaterally (which they voted for!) if it was over WMD's. Since there are no WMD's, Bush lied and cheated them.
However, they'll jump right into Haiti, or so they say (AFTER Bush has already made his decision public). Why? I thought WMD's were the stick by which you measured whether or not to act Unilaterally?
WOULDN'T THE CONSISTANT THING, FOR AN HONEST PARTY, BE TO PLAY THE SAME SIDE OF THE CARD FOR EACH CRISIS?
You know I'm right, but you won't admit it, so let the name calling, bitching, and fighting begin, I won't even read the replys to the thread, because it disgusts me to see politicians act like this, AND THEIR LOYAL SERVANTS DEFEND THEM.
(before you call me a hypocrit, notice, before the rage and blindness consumes you, that I didn't defend Bush at all in this post... now go ahead and defend Kerry).
-
Of course. I agree. But please dont equate Democrats with the Left.
I been sayin that the whole system is garbage, its corrupt man.
Kerry is a fuckin stooge, this man supported the war to the fullest. Now, hes graspin at straws to find something to attack Bush with re: the war.
As for the Haiti/Iraq comparison, I understand the context in which ure making the comparison, but i dont think its that simple to compare the two.
As for the Democrats complaint re: Bush's actions in Haiti. I dont think their main argument is that Bush waited, arent they pissed that Bush faciliatated Aristides ouster? Thats what Jesse Jacksons panties are gettin wet over.
-
^ That's a different matter, Jackson & Others are claiming the Marines kidnapped him, etc... and again, I'm not really commenting on what's happened in Haiti, and I agree, they're two totally different stories, that need two totally different approaches... but like you mentioned, I'm simplifying the situation to make a point.
The comments I'm talking about are Kerry saying he would have went in 2 weeks ago if he was president. Isn't that hypocritical? And please understand when I use general terms like "the left" and even "democrats" I'm not talking about everyone, I'm mainly talking about the elected U.S. leaders on the left, they're all a bunch of idiots. I've said before, also, that the problem is similar on the right side of the aisle, people (politicians) act like fucking idiots, although I don't agree with you on which issues (lol)... for instance, I believe Bush actually thought Saddam did have wmd's, which you would never agree to, but we both agree that the right and left play games consistantly.
-
Hypocrisy.
-
The Democrats don't fully represent the left, as the left would only use war as a tool of peace, and the further left you go, you start to favor no war. The Democrats favor war for political gain, and since the left is the least likely to go to war, the Democrats use that to their advantage.
Personally, I didn't agree with the war in Iraq because the people there were not begging us to go in, in Haiti, there is huge civil unrest, and Haiti is a very close neighbor to us. Iraq is further from us, were as Haiti is right under us. I would favor action in Haiti because it is the right thing to do. Were is in Iraq, we were using WMD to justify the war, but never had solid proof. Pre-emptive attack does not work, as Iraq had no actual weapons. We never had solid proof. I don't care if Russia, Germany and France were with us, I needed solid evidence to support the war. I supported the Afganistan War, I supported the Bosnia War, the first Gulf War, and action in Haiti I would support, but the 2nd Gulf War had no solid proof.
-
and actions in Haiti have much more ramifications for the US, ex. boat people by the thousands invading florida
iraq meant nothing to the us
-
iraq meant nothing to the us
First it's a Secret American plan to steal oil, now Iraq means nothing to the US?
Come on!!! If you're gonna bash the US, at least stick with one thing!
-
^ Wait, I'm confused. I thought it was a plot to get revenge for the assasination attempt on Pres Bush the 41st...?
-
Mighta misspelled that. LOL
Anyways... When the U.N. passed 15 or whatever it was resolutions saying Iraq was in violation of the U.N.'s peace treaty with Iraq.... therefore ending the peace, lol.... America goes to war "uni-lateraly" (with 50 other nations) to attack Iraq.
EVVVVVERY Democrat voted for it (the war)... but now that it's election time, and we haven't found any Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, EVVVVVVERY Democrat talks shit about the president going in.
Now.
Haiti. A corrupt leader placed in power by our former, Democratic, President, gets overthrown by his people. EVERY Democrat around (since this is an election year) is saying "I WOULD HAVE WENT IN, WE NEED TO GO TO HAITI, WE SHOULD BE THERE, IF I WAS PRESIDENT BLAH BLAH BLAH".... Now, explain that shit to me.
Kerry & Co. are criticizing Bush, for consulting the fucking UNITED NATIONS! I thought they were bitching In Iraq we acted Unilaterally and should have waited on the United Nations? Well, now that we've waited on the United Nations, Bush gets criticized for that, also.
Which is it? This shit gets me disgusted to my stomach, how these fuckers pander to people. I'll tell you the simple answer, but you DONT WANT TO BELIEVE IT.
The truth is, the Democrats pander to the Black vote. They were behind the war in Iraq, every fucking one of them voted for it. Once they saw it as a chance to Attack Bush, they came up with "Oh, we should have used the U.N."... Now that the Haitian thing has came up, and Bush didn't go in without the United Nations, they see it as another chance to attack him. Now they're bitching that we DIDN'T go in, and waited to the United Nations. Why? Because the Haitians are black, and they think if they raise enough hell about this, they'll secure the Black Vote.
Also, interesting to note, they changed their tune, they all claim, about Iraq because we didn't find any Weapons of Mass Destruction. The logic they're exuding is that it was O.K. to go to Iraq unilaterally (which they voted for!) if it was over WMD's. Since there are no WMD's, Bush lied and cheated them.
However, they'll jump right into Haiti, or so they say (AFTER Bush has already made his decision public). Why? I thought WMD's were the stick by which you measured whether or not to act Unilaterally?
WOULDN'T THE CONSISTANT THING, FOR AN HONEST PARTY, BE TO PLAY THE SAME SIDE OF THE CARD FOR EACH CRISIS?
You know I'm right, but you won't admit it, so let the name calling, bitching, and fighting begin, I won't even read the replys to the thread, because it disgusts me to see politicians act like this, AND THEIR LOYAL SERVANTS DEFEND THEM.
(before you call me a hypocrit, notice, before the rage and blindness consumes you, that I didn't defend Bush at all in this post... now go ahead and defend Kerry).
Your right. I agree. Kerry is a hypocrite and a fraud. As I have stated before, I am voting for Ralph Nadar.
-
I don't have any dirt on Nadar. He's a much more stand up man than Kerry, I just don't agree with his beliefs, WHICH I CAN RESPECT. I can respect somebody with different beliefs... someone who's a total fraud though, I can't stand.
-
voting for Ralph Nader is a plain waste of your vote.
not saying he sucks, but, hands straight, he wont win anyway. and you KNOW thiS!
ironically he might be the reason for bush (the exact opposite) to win! now fuck wit that!
cause EVERY person who votes for Nader, would rather want Kerry than Bush as the less of two evils.
therefore Nader is a dumbass for runnin for president, cause he knows he wont win shit but take a lot of potential Kerry-Votes. What a fag.
-
voting for Ralph Nader is a plain waste of your vote.
not saying he sucks, but, hands straight, he wont win anyway. and you KNOW thiS!
ironically he might be the reason for bush (the exact opposite) to win! now fuck wit that!
cause EVERY person who votes for Nader, would rather want Kerry than Bush as the less of two evils.
therefore Nader is a dumbass for runnin for president, cause he knows he wont win shit but take a lot of potential Kerry-Votes. What a fag.
at least in 2000 he ran for the Green Party but this year as an Independent. Now as an Indy runner it will be hard for him to be on the ballot for each state
-
I don't have any dirt on Nadar. He's a much more stand up man than Kerry, I just don't agree with his beliefs, WHICH I CAN RESPECT. I can respect somebody with different beliefs... someone who's a total fraud though, I can't stand.
I kind of feel what your saying. I wouldn't say that I like or respect Bill O'Riely but he does have some respectable qualities. Even though I disagree with him on the key issue's, he's a stand up guy and doesn't go back and forth pandering to one group or another. He let's his guests get on his show and present their conflicting viewpoints. Also, I love hip-hop, but in some ways I respect him for taking a stand against the part of hip-hop music which is very exploitative of it's community.
-
^ Yup. I'm glad you see it that way. He may be dead wrong, 100% wrong in his views... but you still have to appreciate that he's not a liar.
-
Mighta misspelled that. LOL
Anyways... When the U.N. passed 15 or whatever it was resolutions saying Iraq was in violation of the U.N.'s peace treaty with Iraq.... therefore ending the peace, lol.... America goes to war "uni-lateraly" (with 50 other nations) to attack Iraq.
stop spreading mis-information. no u.n. resolution ever ended the peace. what the u.n. resolution stated was that iraq was in violation of the previous resolutions and that the matter should be brought before the security council to be dealt with.
saying that the u.n. resolution ended the peace is either dishonest or ignorant.
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/15016.htm
read sections 4, 11 and 12. section 12 clearly states that if iraq does anything else (violate 4 or 11) the matter gets kicked back to the security council. bush and the americans clearly skipped that step.
EVVVVVERY Democrat voted for it (the war)... but now that it's election time, and we haven't found any Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, EVVVVVVERY Democrat talks shit about the president going in.
the war was not about weapons of mass destruction. the same weekend that bush and blair went off for their romantic getaway in the mountains, the iraqi govt released a document detailing how they had destroyed the anthrax, and stated they would have a document ready by the end of the week detailing how the vx nerve agent had been destroyed.
bush & blair completely ignored this and later that nite issued their decry that saddam hussein must step down within 48 hours or whatever. the national media completely ignored the iraqi document once bush made his ultimatum because at that point it didn't matter.
now in 2004, with the power of hindsight, i don't see how anyone can honestly say this was a war about wmd when none have been found, and the american president completely ignored both the u.n.'s resolutions about wmd as well as the iraqi minister of informations report on how the wmd's that did exist had been destroyed.
Haiti. A corrupt leader placed in power by our former, Democratic, President, gets overthrown by his people. EVERY Democrat around (since this is an election year) is saying "I WOULD HAVE WENT IN, WE NEED TO GO TO HAITI, WE SHOULD BE THERE, IF I WAS PRESIDENT BLAH BLAH BLAH".... Now, explain that shit to me.
that is a silly analogy. haiti and iraq are different situations. do you treat every girlfriend you ever had exactly the same? no. do you treat everyone of your homeboys the same? no.
haiti is a problem america helped to create with a leader america propped up and put in power.
iraq was simply a nation america couldn't control that had been thumbing their nose at america for some time; and bush decided to do something about it.
america used force to destroy the stability in iraq, and withheld using force to help maintain stability in haiti (a nation whose leader america had propped up).
and that is the point kerry was making.
Kerry & Co. are criticizing Bush, for consulting the fucking UNITED NATIONS! I thought they were bitching In Iraq we acted Unilaterally and should have waited on the United Nations? Well, now that we've waited on the United Nations, Bush gets criticized for that, also.
hey, i don't argue with that. the u.n. should be more than consulted, u.n. should have completely handled both situations. however, what was the rush in iraq? it's clear that the u.n. has taken too long with haiti, and there was no rush in iraq. so if there were a time to act unilaterally, it would have been haiti and not iraq. the iraq situation wasn't going anywhere.
The truth is, the Democrats pander to the Black vote. They were behind the war in Iraq, every fucking one of them voted for it. Once they saw it as a chance to Attack Bush, they came up with "Oh, we should have used the U.N."...
i don't see how that is an instance of pandering to the black vote. bush has failed in iraq for the most part (fighting took too long, peace has taken too long, there isn't any sort of stability, body counts on the u.s. side are too high; and bush's main argument of wmd has been proven to be a sham), and the democrats sense that he is weak there. business as usual.
Now that the Haitian thing has came up, and Bush didn't go in without the United Nations, they see it as another chance to attack him.
your notion of consistency in policy is baseless here.
Now they're bitching that we DIDN'T go in, and waited to the United Nations. Why? Because the Haitians are black, and they think if they raise enough hell about this, they'll secure the Black Vote.
that's a stretch. were the democrats bitching about sending troops into liberia? no. and they are also black over there.
why do the democrats need to pander to the blacks when 92% of the blacks voted against bush in the last election. it doesn't make sense.
Also, interesting to note, they changed their tune, they all claim, about Iraq because we didn't find any Weapons of Mass Destruction. The logic they're exuding is that it was O.K. to go to Iraq unilaterally (which they voted for!) if it was over WMD's. Since there are no WMD's, Bush lied and cheated them.
at the state of the union address, bush stated that the reason invading iraq was necessary was that saddam might give terrorists weapons of mass destruction. however, bush later ignored the u.n. resolutions regarding wmd, and iraq's claims of having destroyed their wmd. it is now readily apparent that wmd->terrorists was completely wrong and possibly a lie.
However, they'll jump right into Haiti, or so they say (AFTER Bush has already made his decision public). Why? I thought WMD's were the stick by which you measured whether or not to act Unilaterally?
is that even a serious statement? you should be a politician yourself, trying to twist facts to confuse people. can you appreciate the concept that every situation is not identical? what does one have to do with the other?
WOULDN'T THE CONSISTANT THING, FOR AN HONEST PARTY, BE TO PLAY THE SAME SIDE OF THE CARD FOR EACH CRISIS?
no, that would be silly.
(before you call me a hypocrit, notice, before the rage and blindness consumes you, that I didn't defend Bush at all in this post... now go ahead and defend Kerry).
personally i deplore bush, kerry and american democracy in general, but that's another issue altogether.
and fuck bill o'reilly. he spreads misinformation. he trivializes political issues into moral issues of right and wrong, which they are not. bill o'reilly's message is tailored to deceive the lesser intelligent members of society.
-
When i say Iraq means nothing, im sayin Iraq does not directly involve the US, it doesn directly affect them, the way a country in the same hemisphere does.
-
When i say Iraq means nothing, im sayin Iraq does not directly involve the US, it doesn directly affect them, the way a country in the same hemisphere does...
...or a country that has WMD's
Iraq has none... and they KNEW thiS!
but the USA gots some...
wonder why rumsfeld, powell, rice etc arent in jail yet?! it's said you go to court for offensive war for no reason.
if the government brakes the law, what are its ppl 'posed to do?
-
The war on Iraq found no WMD. But Bill Clinton formed the intelligence that Bush used to justify it. The more you complain, the more hypocritical you look.
-
The war on Iraq found no WMD. But Bill Clinton formed the intelligence that Bush used to justify it. The more you complain, the more hypocritical you look.
Bush used 5 year old information as his excuse. A lot can change in 5 years. As we see.
-
The war on Iraq found no WMD. But Bill Clinton formed the intelligence that Bush used to justify it. The more you complain, the more hypocritical you look.
a) what makes you think that guy gives a damned about bill clinton?
democrats are 85% republican. on most issues they say the same thing, they just change the % of the budget allocated to the issue.
fuck both sides.
b) iraq clearly had weapons of mass destruction at some point in time. it's common knowledge. iraq admitted to destroying their wmd. they openly acknowledge the existence of the wmd; the only problem is that they destroyed them, and bush went to war anyway.
stop trying to cloud the issues. you're critizing clinton's intelligence for concluding that iraq possessed wmd??? iraq readily admitted to that?
the key issues are:
a) bush ignored the fact that iraq destroyed them and provided proof of that matter
b) bush lied about the terrorist connections between iraq and al qaeda...et al.
you can read the u.s. state departments reports and see that while nations like syria and iran are cited for supporting, harboring and exporting terrorism, iraq has not had active terrorist groups within their borders or supported terrorist groups in over 15 years.
the fact that terrorist groups are now active in iraq is a direct result of the american invasion and the instability it has caused.
-
Some of you need to stop dickryding Bush. Well, at least you're not Dickryding Dick, but fuck man, don't vote Republican whatever the case. Nader shouldn't even run, i agree. He's gonna spoil it for the Dems again. I'd pick Kerry over Bush anyday.
-
Bush used 5 year old information as his excuse. A lot can change in 5 years. As we see.
"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 a licit missile program to
develop long-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), Cot 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
-
Who cares, they're all pawns