If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(London Times)   Bush Sr. says no to unilateral war on Iraq   (timesonline.co.uk) divider line 721
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

23010 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Mar 2003 at 6:39 PM (11 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



721 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2003-03-12 08:33:22 PM
CashMoney:

You can't justify Dubya's lie-based slaughter on some nebulous "Master Plan" to "stabilize" (read: pacify) the Middle East.

If that theory were valid, we'd be nuking dicators world-wide, not just the one who's sitting on the oil.....

You're grasping at straws to support a losing team.
 
fb-
2003-03-12 08:33:55 PM
Ender_rpm,

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
 
2003-03-12 08:34:18 PM
'dictators'

Finally the voice of reason speaks through... if dubya doesnt listen to his daddy then we are all screwed.
 
2003-03-12 08:34:27 PM
Some people should stay president for life, like the Pope.
Correction: until they can't walk on their own anymore.
 
2003-03-12 08:34:46 PM
Gelatinous...

I am not throwing the term around loosely. If you will recall, the dictionary definition of fascism is "A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism."

Hm. Consolidation of federal agencies under the Homeland Security department, severe limitations of freedom under 'Patriot' Acts I and II, centralization of economic authority with the new econ package, arrest of hundreds of protesters nationwide for 'disorderly conduct', confinement of immigration statute violators with no access to lawyers or phones, and a policy of belligerent nationalism (criticism of France, Germany, Russia, Pakistan, Syria, Turkey, etc.- plus the aggressive spying Condoleeza Rice ordered on the U.N.) and racism- Kill those Sand nubianz!! We got Michael Savage calling underdevoloped countries 'turd world countries' and promoting the elimination of blacks and browns on FARKIN MSNBC!!!!! Plus, the last time a national flag was hauled out and displayed with such prominence was indeed under Adolf Hitler.

So sorry bro, but I do think before I speak.
 
2003-03-12 08:35:28 PM
Fb-
True, unfortunate, but true. Any thoughts on the rest of the post?
 
2003-03-12 08:35:29 PM
... not that the Pope is president of course.

/in case of wise-asses
 
2003-03-12 08:35:48 PM
Unexpected this is, and unfortunate.. Hear you nothing that I say?
 
2003-03-12 08:36:08 PM
I pointed this out yesterday and NOBODY wanted to argue about it. Now, now, it's a big deal.

Harrumph!

/goes off and pouts in corner

03-11-03 08:48:28 PM ZipBeep
Daraymann
George Bush Sr. tried to kill Saddam when he was in power, so they're even.

If he had tried to kill Saddam, he would be dead right now.

Bush I made a speech at Tufts University recently and he said it would is a mistake not to build a strong coalition before going to war in Iraq.

Quote:
"Incidentally, the Madrid conference would never have happened if the international coalition that fought together in Desert Storm had acceded the U.N. mandate and gone on on its own if the United States had gone on on its own, had gone into Baghdad after Saddam and his forces had surrendered and agreed to disarm. The coalition would have instantly shattered. And the political capital that we had gained as a result of our principle restraint to jumpstart the peace process would have been lost. We would have lost all support from our coalition, with the possible exception of England. And we would have lost all support from the smaller nations in the United Nations as well."

The whole speech: http://enews.tufts.edu/stories/030303BushSpeech.htm

Sounds like there have been some arguments at the Bush family meetings.
 
2003-03-12 08:37:07 PM
xtremehkr
you mean Impaler's post from the "International Action Center" and the "Military Toxics Project" that don't show any numbers as to how radioactive depleted uranium really is? .. yeah, I'm just going to disregard those .. flame away
 
2003-03-12 08:37:17 PM
I am just sick of the whole argument to go to war.

-Saddam is an evil man-

Well guess what. The world is not a very pretty place and there are going to be lots of evil people that will say bad things against America.

-By defeating Iraq we will be stopping terrrorism-

Now this is a better arugument, but it is based upon the assumption that Iraq has ties to terrorists. It is true that Saddam is giving money to the Palestinian cause, but so are a majority of people in the Middle East.
Terrorism will be a problem for many years to come. And by inflmaing the entire region for the purpose of routing out terrorism, it seems to be bad circular reasoning.

-Saddam has WMDs and plans to use them against allied nations-

HOW? His missle capacity is rextricted to a 93-mile limit. The al-soumad missles, which are currently being destroyed are the only ones capable of breaking that barrier. There are only nine of them and if one or two even survive and/or get of the ground then nations such as Israel and Europe have a missle defense to prevent them from reaching the nation.
lets be reasonable about this. The WMD that Iraq has cannot be used unless they are transmitted in some way. As I said before his missle technology is limited. The only other possible way is through "human weapons" in the same context of suicide bombers. I think little of a humans ability to do such a thing and acctually succeed. Most likely is the "HW" will die from exposure or will be shot dead before the mission succeeds.

I do not want this war because it does not fall in the category of National defense or Betterment of the world.

I do not support Saddam but at least I know what he is thinking. Bush keeps everything secret and has not come up with a good excuse why we should press forward in Iraq.
 
2003-03-12 08:38:19 PM
03-12-03 08:26:07 PM Impaler

what is depleted uranium

that link was really interesting. I was surprised to learn that much of the DU in Iraq was left there by the U.S. during the first Gulf War. thanks for posting it.

A lot of people are saying depleted uranium is the next agent orange

that has to be the least readable site I've ever seen. Jesus it's hard on the eyes.
 
2003-03-12 08:38:34 PM
Anyone have a pro depleted uranium (from now on referred to as DU) site? I fear I might be posting the "we didn't land on the moon" equivalent for DU.
 
2003-03-12 08:39:02 PM
ANCALAGON

What about that report that talks about depleted uranium from "weapons" (like the depleted uranium left in the Gulf) as opposed to the depleted uranium used in Smoke Detectors.

Maybe you should check your smoke detector, or pull the wool from over your eyes.
 
2003-03-12 08:39:08 PM
Ich_bin_ein_Rama_affe: one of the better reasoned posts I've read in a while.
 
fb-
2003-03-12 08:39:12 PM
Alright.. I think I've got this all settled.. EVERYBODY will be happy.

We drag out Bush, his cabinet, the house of reps and senate. We blow their brains out execution style.

We do the same exact thing in Baghdad with their political leaders.

We then elect a rational, sensitive, internationally cooperateive regime in both countries.

Problem solved. No further discussion needed.
 
2003-03-12 08:40:04 PM
and we all know how sucessful the Madrid Conf was. Israel offers peace for land and Arafat blows up a bus.
 
2003-03-12 08:40:24 PM
Xtremehkr: Sorry, it makes no sense, no one reported the amount of harmless trash left there after the war, only the 40 tons of depleted uranium.

that's because it's called DEPLETED URANIUM !! .. it's a good word to use in a news headline to hook in the people who don't know how harmless depleted uranium actually is (except when being fired out of an A-10 of course)
 
2003-03-12 08:41:37 PM
Ancalagon

You can lead a Horse to water but damned if he can be learned anything.
 
2003-03-12 08:42:16 PM
xtremehkr
please read my posts before responding

it's Americium in smoke detectors, not depleted uranium. I used that as an example because it's the same type of radiation
 
fb-
2003-03-12 08:43:12 PM
Anacalagon,

I got a deal for you.. you sleep in a bed made of spend depleted uranium casings for the next month.. I'll sleep on a bed of smoke detectors. After the month, we go out and have a soda.
 
2003-03-12 08:43:19 PM
xtremehkr
You can lead a Horse to water but damned if he can be learned anything.

horses tend to be pretty stuburn .. especially when you try and talk science to them
 
2003-03-12 08:44:01 PM
I do not support Saddam but at least I know what he is thinking.

May I ask how you know what Saddam is thinking?
 
2003-03-12 08:44:11 PM
If you are going to ignore factual posts and reduce your argument to semantics there is really no point. You may as well just start the name calling and complete the stereotype.
 
2003-03-12 08:44:56 PM
Oh you did that already, I'm done.
 
daz
2003-03-12 08:45:12 PM
[Headline]

Well, that's good since it's not unilateral since we have U.K., Spain, Poland, and about 20 other nations at least that will have troops and boots on the ground, not to mention dozens of others who will provide monetary, and logistical support (chemical detection and cleaning equipment, electronic monitoring, etc)
 
2003-03-12 08:45:29 PM
VideoVader

If I believe the mantra of an entire party (i.e. liberals

Liberals are a Party? I had no idea. Please define what the word "liberal" means for me. Listening to talk radio, I can tell that:

If you are anti-war, you are a liberal. If you are a follower of Krishnamurti instead of Jesus, you are a liberal. If you are a homosexual, you are a liberal. If you are black, you *probably* are a liberal. If you are in favor of the First Amendment, you are a liberal. However, if you are against the Second Amendment, you are also a liberal. If you are against the drug war, you are a liberal. If you are a feminist, you are a liberal. If you are in favor of American due process for those suspected of terrorism links, you are a liberal. If you respect Jimmy Carter, you are a liberal. If you think Rush might sometimes be wrong, you are a liberal.

I mean, liberals have a hell of a platform! It seems a bit disjointed to me, though.

Have you ever thought that the word "liberal" has no meaning at all? Except to mean, you AREN'T a good white Christian Republican.

Does it blow your mind that there might be shades of gray out there? Or is the world really that simple, black and white, us versus them?
 
2003-03-12 08:46:25 PM
The only other possible way is through "human weapons" in the same context of suicide bombers. I think little of a humans ability to do such a thing and acctually succeed. Most likely is the "HW" will die from exposure or will be shot dead before the mission succeeds.

And we all know how hard envelopes and stamps are to come by.
 
2003-03-12 08:47:28 PM
Bush said he supports GWB's Iraq policy. If you didn't read the whole speech then shut up. That's why nobody is is reporting on this story.
 
2003-03-12 08:47:56 PM
HighHardOne
It was in all the American newspapers two weeks ago when he gave the speech. Those papers also reported that Bush Sr. said he supports his son's Iraq policy and that the circumstances of the first Gulf War necessitated a coalition.

Here's the lead from the Boston Globe's story:

In a speech at Tufts University interrupted twice by protesting audience members yesterday, former President George H.W. Bush supported his son's present policy toward Iraq, but also declared that during the Gulf War, it was essential to regional stability that the United States was able to maintain a coalition of 32 Western and Arab nations.

Doesn't quite jibe with The Time's story, does it?


But the Boston Globe is just SLIGHTLY to the left of NewsMax, isn't it?
 
daz
2003-03-12 08:48:16 PM
Oh, and to the misguided people who were posting "facts" about how we supplied biological and chemical materials, you're completely wrong.

I believe who you're talking about is France, Germany and Russia.

Remember the French Osiris Reactor that the Israelis destroyed in 1981 (of course not, because Liberals can't remember history, which is why they're liberals), that was the FRENCH Osiris reactor.

French corporations and the government itself have been supplying and equiping the Iraqi WMD program since the 1980's and didn't event stop during the Gulf War!

Reason #1 why France doesn't want to go to war is because they know we will be able to trace 90% of Iraq's weapons back to France itself.
 
2003-03-12 08:48:23 PM
xtremehkr
how is it that you're accusing me of not reasonably arguing the point when you haven't refuted a single piece of data I've put up here. Meanwhile all you've posted are first person stories, and links to organizations that are obviously anti-military, sensationalist organizations that do not have any numbers of their own to support the claims.

I'm not saying we didn't leave depleted uranium shell casings lying around .. I'm saying that they're harmless, and so far, I'm the only one with any sort of scientific data on my side.
 
2003-03-12 08:48:24 PM
Confabulat
well said.

The two party system is weird isnt it. A "liberal" can be anything from a granola eating lesbian in san francisco to a rural black in mississippi to an auto worker in detroit.

What do you MEAN you cant tar all those people with the same brush?!?! Dont you go thinking them big edjumacated thoughts, just know that those guys who arent for the war hate america and are "pussies".
 
2003-03-12 08:48:52 PM
HI I'M AN IMPORTANT LIBERAL MECHANIC WITH SHOCKING VIEWS!
PEACE IS WHAT WE NEED!
USA IS ONLY GOING TO WAR FOR OIL CAUSE OIL IS GOOD!
FRANCE IS ABSOULTELY RIGHT FOR BEING COMPLETE ASSHOLES
I OWN AN OLD SCHOOL VW VAN AND A GUITAR!
 
2003-03-12 08:49:17 PM
Bbcrackmonkey
Bush said he supports GWB's Iraq policy. If you didn't read the whole speech then shut up. That's why nobody is is reporting on this story.


Except for the part about building a coalition, right?
 
2003-03-12 08:49:17 PM
Ich_bin_ein_Rama_affe: George Bush ist ein eingebildete affe
 
2003-03-12 08:49:36 PM
What Saddam is thinking is:

How can I stay alive and still remain in power?

No matter what happens to me I still have two insane sons who will gain power after I die.

I know that the US has a bad track record of placing leaders in nations and it is likely that in a few years people will look back and think well of me. Just like Bokasa, Duvalier, adn Mengitsu.
 
2003-03-12 08:51:53 PM
If you are against depleted uranium, you are a liberal.
 
2003-03-12 08:52:09 PM
FB- Depleted Uranium is safe and is no more radioactive than glow sticks. The bad part is when you fire a uranium shell and it hits a tank, it shatters into a million pieces and the pieces melt into plasma and a lot of radioactive particles are thrown up into the air and in the tank. The spent shell casings have no uranium residue, as Uranium ammunition is always coated with other materials.
 
2003-03-12 08:53:17 PM
Fb-
I'm starting a fund to buy you a new computer to replace the one the secret service will be confiscating.

Ssssssh...Poindexters listening.
 
2003-03-12 08:55:15 PM
BTW, DU ammunition will actually light on fire and liquify after it hits a target. The liquid particles are still traveling with enough speed to punch right through the other side of the tank but since the ammo lights on fire when it hits something, it ignites the deisel fumes in your tank and will often burn you alive. BTW if you are struck with ANY piece of DU get it out of your body ASAP.
 
2003-03-12 08:57:05 PM
I'm a bit surprised that no one has held an updated Geneva Convention to ban depleted uranium amunition... I mean, you can't knotch up your bayonet, or torture POWs, but you can use that shiat? Damn.
 
fb-
2003-03-12 08:57:06 PM
I wanted to see a show of hands of the people that would still be supporting Bush if he told you he had to sexually mutilate toddlers, drink their blood and smash in the skulls of puppies with tack hammers in order to protect you from 'terrah' and 'evil dooooooers.'
 
2003-03-12 08:57:19 PM
Ancalagon

But your not, just because you choose to ignore other people's reports doesn't mean that you are right. You didn't answer my earlier questions about the uranium either. So this is not really a discussion and there are only so many times I can hear the same catch phrase before I lose interest. False information used in an attritious manner while ignoring other facts as liberal nonsense is not going to make you right.

Remember when Agent Orange didn't cause Cancer?
 
2003-03-12 08:58:21 PM
Fb-: would he be covering old-school Metallica while doing so?
/trying to add some levity to this bleeding clusterfvck of a thread
 
2003-03-12 08:58:39 PM
----Remember the French Osiris Reactor that the Israelis destroyed in 1981 (of course not, because Liberals can't remember history, which is why they're liberals), that was the FRENCH Osiris reactor.---

Well, if were going to play the stupid and completely irrelevant "he armed him so his stance on the war is irrelevant" game (which, i must add, is totally stupid), lets not forget who armed saddam in the mid 80s! U! S! A! U! S! A!

Does that have any relevance at all to the current crisis? nope, not a bit. Nor does france's dealings with iraq in the 80s, or even now. Hell Dick Cheney's Haliburton Oil company dealt with saddam hussein IN THE NINETIES.

EVeryone arms everyone theyre not at war with. Everyone does business with everyone else. IT DOESNT MATTER. We armed saddam, now we want to invade him. The french made money off him. . the brits, too, the germans, the russians,....HEY! IRAQ IS ENGAGED IN TRADE! WHODA THUNK IT? Its called world trade. Everyone does it and has done it since the time you could put stuff in a boat and sell it somewhere else. It has no relevance to the current situation.

This whole "theyre worried about weapons being traced argument" is hot air. Every country arms everyone they're not at war with. It bites you on the ass later from time to time, but everyone does it anyway. Russia armed afghanistan. We armed Iraq in the 80s. Germany armed most of europe before ww1. etc etc. WHO CARES.

France's stance is France trying to wrangle more concessions and get a better piece of the Current Crisis Pie than they deserve. Its called POLITICS. They've always done it, they Clemenceau and Foch did it during the negotiations at Versailles, they did it again at the end of ww2, all the way back to the partitioning of germany after the Thirty Years War in 1648. They always do it, as all countries which take an active participation in world affairs do.

Oh, but of course you knew that, since republicans like you are real smart and know all their history, right?
 
2003-03-12 08:59:13 PM
What a joke. I don't think I've seen spin like this since Carville hung up his cleats.
 
2003-03-12 08:59:32 PM
FYI holding an already fired Uranium bullet is safe. The bullet is not very radioactive. But equipment struck by DU rounds will probably be full of Uranium oxide dust, and if you breath it in it will get into your lungs and make you very sick from heavy metal poisoning and radioactivity. Its not very radioactive but if its actually inside your body then its effects are very much multiplied, obviously.
 
2003-03-12 09:00:33 PM
How does anybody supporting this war look past the fact that most of the world is opposing it? Greed I guess.

When gas prices went up in the past we used to get something from Opec on the news. OPEC has not cut production but gas prices are at a record high. What's the official Republican story for this fiasco?
 
2003-03-12 09:02:00 PM
Father Jack, thank you. Just thanks. Amen bruthah.
 
Displayed 50 of 721 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report