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 720
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

23012 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»



720 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2003-03-13 01:40:01 AM  
03-13-03 01:38:24 AM Weeflerunner

SCOTUS is really a pretty impressive bunch of people - with the exception of Clarence Thomas, who really doesn't belong on the court. He isn't half the legal mind that Marshall was.


Thomas is an oftly good tool, though.
 
2003-03-13 01:40:03 AM  
"For every thousand chopping at the branches of evil, there is one chopping at the root."
 
2003-03-13 01:43:00 AM  
WarOnReality:

So, I guess Bush is a root man, right?

/heh...heh heh
 
2003-03-13 01:43:12 AM  
But there your acting under the mistaken assumption that you are a good man KnightShyfte.

Quite frankly Bush means little to me, I would support this war if Gore was president and pushing for it too. Unlike most of you Ive risked my life for this country before and if I wasnt old and out of shape and a single dad Id go back for this one.
 
2003-03-13 01:43:38 AM  
Big Al: Thomas is one of the reasons that I oppose the current administration's effort to limit the advice and consent function of Congress.

Regardless of the merit of the current candidates, the barrier to entry for a federal judge should be higher, not lower.
 
2003-03-13 01:46:34 AM  
And Id appreciate the Fag stuff stopping, I may be a heartless Right Winger but I have a gay Uncle, sister and some gay friends as well. I find it ironic that I have to ask yall that considering
 
2003-03-13 01:47:11 AM  
Weefle: This electoral system is a joke. I dont know how easy it would be to change it, since technically, nothing in the constitution can be unconstitutional. What we need to count is the popular vote. PERIOD. Thats all that matters. Our electoral system, one of the MANY reasons why this country is so far from being a democracy.
 
2003-03-13 01:47:39 AM  


I so want that on a t-shirt!

How much trouble could I get in? (thanks Smoking Gun for the picture)
 
2003-03-13 01:48:04 AM  
HomestarJunior-

Mistaken assumption? I don't hit people, I help my fellow man and I believe in the phrase 'Live and let live'
 
2003-03-13 01:48:47 AM  
And let it die Big Al, I think we all heard enough about Clarences "tool" during his confirmation hearings.

We dont need to bring out Long Dong Silver again
 
2003-03-13 01:48:54 AM  
HomestarJunior:

Unlike most of you Ive risked my life for this country before and if I wasnt old and out of shape and a single dad Id go back for this one.

Well, if you can't find an intelligent reason to not go to war, then your reasons are good enough.
 
2003-03-13 01:49:24 AM  
dont take the fag shiat to heart. No one means to insult you, just like no one means to insult someone w/o a dad by calling them a bastard. The word now has a different meaning and you cant take that shiat seriously.
 
2003-03-13 01:49:37 AM  
1. Put in the Ba'ath party to stop commies taking over Iraq.

2. Put in the Shah and a General as Prime Minister to stop commies taking over Iran and nationalising oil. Result - popular revolt of the citizens in which the Islamic Party step into the power vacuum and you end up with the Iran of today.

Not to mention a million dead in the Iran Iraq war.

3. Indonesian President Suharto responsible for the deaths of 500,00 - 1,000,000 following his US-sanctioned coup against Indonesian President Sukarno in 1965, and the deaths of 200,000 during Indonesia's US-sanctioned invasion and occupation of East Timor in 1975. US was primary arms supplier to Indonesia at this time.

4. Henry Kissinger, Secretary of State under Richard Nixon, directed the CIA to overthrow the democratically elected government of socialist President Salvadore Allende in Chile, 1973.

5. Dominican Republic - overthrow of elected President Juan Bosch in 1963 in a US-supported coup.

6. Cuba. Enough said.

7. Regan screwing with the socialist government of Nicaragua.

8. The 1964 military takeover overthrow of Brazil's parliamentary democracy by generals backed by the United States. Described by Lincoln Gordon, Ambassador to Brazil under John Kennedy, as "the single most decisive victory for freedom in the mid-twentieth century"

General Pinochet was the dictator installed.

9. Venezuela - a work in progress.

10. The CIA Phoenix Program, in which allegedly 20,000 South Vietnamese civilians suspected of being Communists were executed without trial.

Comments made by Foreign Affairs office at that time:

"Although the Phoenix Program did undoubtedly kill or incarcerate many innocent civilians, it did also eliminate many members of the Communist infrastructure."

11. Vietnam's national election of 1956. The election was scheduled by the Geneva Accords of 1954, but later cancelled by the US and the US-led government in South Vietnam, for fear that Ho Chi Minh would defeat the US-backed Chief of State.

12. Covert U.S. bombing of Laos. From 1965 to 1973, the U.S. dropped more than 2 million tons of bombs on Laos, more bombs than the U.S. dropped on Japan and Germany during World War II, combined. An estimated 750,000 Laotian civilians were killed by U.S. bombing.

U.S. Under Secretary of State, U. Alexis Johnson had this to say about that bombing in testimony before the US Senate Armed Services Committee:

"[The Laos operation] is something of which we can be proud as Americans. It has involved virtually no American casualties. What we are getting for our money there . . . is, I think, to use the old phrase, very cost effective"

Source: Hearings on Fiscal Year 1972 Authorizations, 22 July 1971, p. 4289.

13. U.S. State Department Under Secretary directed Colonel Robert Heinl to provide U.S. support for 'Papa Doc' Duvalier, whose government killed between 20,000 and 50,000 Haitians from 1957 to 1971

14. "President Rios Montt [is] a man of great personal integrity and commitment who wants to improve the quality of life for all Guatemalans, and [is] getting a bum rap on human rights."

--President Ronald Reagan, praising Guatemala's military dictator in 1982; during the 17 months of Rios Montt's "Christian" campaign (1982-83), 400 villages were destroyed, 10,000-20,000 Indians were killed, and over 100,000 were forced to flee to Mexico

Source: Press conference, Dec. 4, 1982, New York Times, 7 December, 1982; America's Watch: Report on Human Rights & U.S. Policy (1985), p. 199


I know there are more I could have listed.

Yet we are to believe the US cares about civilians and has the thought of democracy in mind in the coming attack.

LOL !

Source of the next terrorist attacks, millions of freaking pissed of South Americans ?
 
2003-03-13 01:49:48 AM  
electoral system is a joke? I think take it away and it'll be a bigger joke, people togather are stupid. Like I said earlier, I don't like bush one bit, but gore would have been quite a bit worse I'm willing to bet...
 
2003-03-13 01:51:25 AM  
was a joke KnyteShyft to counter yours, I dont even know you
 
2003-03-13 01:52:51 AM  
Doh. Was General Pinochet the dictator installed in Brazil or Chile ?

Think I made a mistake there.
 
2003-03-13 01:56:09 AM  
And Id appreciate the Fag stuff stopping, I may be a heartless Right Winger but I have a gay Uncle, sister and some gay friends as well. I find it ironic that I have to ask yall that considering

What? Everyone's talking about sticks and you come out with that admission. :)
 
2003-03-13 01:57:18 AM  
I wasn't exactly joking. If the nukes fly while Bush is in power, then my statement will be true.
 
2003-03-13 01:58:09 AM  
Weeflerunner writes: If you want to measure the effectiveness of the current electoral system by the degree to which it reflects popular opinion...

I was thinking of something more elemental. The election process did not work as it was designed to work. We don't even need to ask the question of whether the current system is the best for our wants and needs.

Most of the Republican appointees come from a legal perspective similar to that argued by Bush's lawyers, so they are naturally more likely to agree.

Actually, the Republican justices ruled in a way completely inconsistent with their judicial philosophy. In case after case after case, they have dismissed equal protection claims unless it can be proved that the discrimination was purposeful. No one even made that argument in this case. It is little wonder that the majority stipulated that the reasoning used to reach the decision was to be limited to the present circumstances. The majority obviously didn't want anyone else to receive the kind of protection they were giving to Mr. Bush.
 
2003-03-13 02:01:01 AM  
KnightShyfte:

If our nukes fly while Bush is in power there should be a massive revolt and Bush should be publicly executed.
 
2003-03-13 02:01:19 AM  
HomestarJunior: Wout its funding Axisted no, they wouldnt have for decades longer

From what I understand, ARPA's contracts were very small. ALL they needed to do was design a standard for network communication. The technology was there, the specifications were not. If you know what you're talking about, let me know. Of course, ARPA was the result of the cold war's nuclear proliferation. I suppose you are suggesting that having to answer the question "How the fark are we going to communicate following a war of nuclear attrition?" gives the military an A+ for effort?
 
2003-03-13 02:01:31 AM  
Tadlette : Chile
 
2003-03-13 02:01:52 AM  
OK Tadlett but lets remember that WWI and WWII could have been drastically shortened if not stopped had we not been isolationist at the time. Inaction can be as dangerous as action sometimes.

If we invade Iraq now and the region gets worse then it was a bad idea. If we let it ride and 2 years from now Saddam tests his first nuke then tells Saudi Arabia that its second is ready to land on Al Riyadah if they sell us any more oil then I guess you folks will feel pretty dumb.


You can't go back, after WWII we were expected to be the worlds policemen, and like the real police the US will be hated by those countries that live outside or on the edge of the law.
 
2003-03-13 02:05:15 AM  
It's been fun, everybody. But, it's time for me to get some shut-eye. Later.
 
2003-03-13 02:06:09 AM  
Kinda off topic, but this is actually a pretty funny SNL skit. I can't believe Robert Deniro just said "Moustaf Herod Apyur Poupr".
 
2003-03-13 02:06:46 AM  
Deny and lie; We are attacking Iraq soley for retribution and saying to the world "someone has to pay for 9/11 and Iraq truly sux in all aspects of human interaction"

Deny and lie; We are saying to the world " We are the Farking leaders and if you Fark with us there will be grave consequences"

Deny and lie; I originally riled against an unrecalled Farker who swore we were going in and taking Iraq's oil reserves but I have to contend that will be another logical outcome of this war.
 
2003-03-13 02:08:02 AM  
you people must be on drugs. Do you really think nuclear weapons will be launched over this? please wake up and smell the clue.

Yes Im aware that Bush said he would consider it if Saddam used Chem warfare. but if you have a gun pointed at someone with a knife would you tell them "I wont use this if you stab me" ?

No if you have the bigger weapon you have to keep the threat out there otherwise its useless. For people that claim to be intelligent you don't have much common sense
 
2003-03-13 02:11:38 AM  
and Culov,

I didnt take it to heart, just asked it to stop. Fag has no other meaning unless your British though, in which case it means cigarrette.

and Vrax, what admission? Should I be ashamed to be open minded and accepting of people for who they are rather than who they sleep with?
 
2003-03-13 02:14:19 AM  
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand." - Bertrand Russell
 
2003-03-13 02:14:55 AM  
HomestarJunior:

If we invade Iraq now and the region gets worse then it was a bad idea. If we let it ride and 2 years from now Saddam tests his first nuke then tells Saudi Arabia that its second is ready to land on Al Riyadah if they sell us any more oil then I guess you folks will feel pretty dumb.

Yup. We'll feel pretty dumb. In fact, so we don't ever have to feel dumb, we should just nuke every little upstart now so that there is no question about feeling dumb in the future. Cause feeling dumb is bad and war is the only way to be sure we won't have to endure the shame of dumbness. Oh, BTW, can you describe what, exactly, dumb feels like so we'll know what to expect? You seem to be an expert.

/feeling mean tonight...not dumb...mean :)
 
2003-03-13 02:19:04 AM  
This war is going to open so much crap on us that we will literally worry about bending down to tie our shoes. This could easily accellerate into apocolyspe size dimensions in the scope of 6 to 12 months. We could be invading Turkey to protect the Kurds who backed us against Iraq while Korea supplies em with weapons which opens the door for China...who really wants to have anything to do with this conflict?

Freaking box him and forget him.
 
2003-03-13 02:23:34 AM  
Pinoche was from Chile. He was installed at the insistance of jackass at large Henry Kissinger.
 
2003-03-13 02:25:45 AM  
HomestarJunior:

and Vrax, what admission? Should I be ashamed to be open minded and accepting of people for who they are rather than who they sleep with?

Uhhh...Noooo. Facetious comment there. I happen to live in an area, and always have, where sexual orientation is about as important/unimportant, take your pick, as having a nose. I don't want to or mean to offend, especially with a term used in a rediculous manner with virtually no context. Anyway...
 
2003-03-13 02:26:54 AM  
HomestarJunior, Just to reconcile some differences here I'd just like to say that I am, despite voicing opposition on Fark, basically on the fence when it comes to Iraq. I just don't subscribe to any of the adminstration's justifications. Certainly a unilateral US-inforced regime change may have some immediate material benefits to the region, but so would allowing his compliance to continue and lifting sanctions that are damaging his people (and not him, I don't see why Saddam should be prevented from aquiring elementary educational textbooks or diapers, but maybe he's stranger than I thought.)
 
2003-03-13 02:27:07 AM  
It's fun Gozer114. Besides, I'm trying to win the hearts and minds of the people in order to start a new world empire, and what are you doing? Learning a language? Why set your sights so low?
 
2003-03-13 02:28:04 AM  
Tadlette - "Peaceful protest has gotten them nothing but ever further encroaching settlements and a gradual takeover of Jerusalem. "

As opposed to terrorism, which has gotten them.. er... help me out, here.

The utter lack of improvement over the past 50 years PROVES MY FREAKING POINT. Terrorism screws you. It cancels out concurrent peaceful protest.

Without exploded dance clubs, images of shredded teenagers, and airplane-cum-craters to point at, how on earth could Israel justify its actions?

It couldn't.

Israel is in the position of power here. Israel has the ability to wipe out the Palestinians. If you excuse the actions of the terrorists, because they are fighting the best they can with what they've got (an excuse I reject because of the nature of their targets), then you must also excuse the Israelis if they defend themselves to the best of their ability.

I'm glad that Israel hasn't. This could all be academic.
 
2003-03-13 02:29:29 AM  
Tonguedepressor:

This could easily accellerate into apocolyspe size dimensions in the scope of 6 to 12 months.

Speaking of which, where are the Nostradamus links when we need them. Good comments they can produce!
 
2003-03-13 02:29:50 AM  
Confabulat
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?



Actually, yes, there is such thing as the Liberal Party, just as there is the Communist and Socialist Parties.

If you insist on using the term "liberal" in the looser sense, then also take the term "party" in the looser sense of a group of people who share the same opinion on a given set of topics and insist on referring to themselves under a particular name, not capital "Party" as in the Democratic or Republican Party.

By the way, I don't assign the term "liberal" haphazardly to anyone I disagree with, as you so politely imply. Many people refer to themselves as "liberal" as their school of thought, unrelated to the Liberal Party) and are proud of it, so that's what I will call them. However, if they agree with that school of thought on a particular subject, and I debate the validity of their argument, I will also be debating the validy of the "party's" school of thought on this topic, and thus that fact will very likely play into the debate. When it does, I will refer to my opponent's "party" however s/he wishes.

I don't use the term "liberal" as a pejorative term, unlike who when you imply that a "good white Christian Republican" is intolerant to other people's views. I have friends who match that description, and they're some of the most level-headed people I know.

And I've got plenty of friends who are in the gray area; liberal on some topics, conservative on others, and everything in between. I know there are plenty of shades of gray in any political school of thought. Think about that next time you call someone a "good white Christian Republican" as a euphemism for "intolerant idiot."
 
2003-03-13 02:35:59 AM  
My thinking is that terrorism is great fuel for further Israeli colonization, kinda like 9/11 is great fule for the American right. Both justify military reactions and nationalism. Of course, I can't find an American equivilent to Rabbis proposing the complete extermination of the Palestinian people so that the Biblical borders of Israel may be restablished.
 
2003-03-13 02:36:38 AM  
Gozer114:

You know...Why do you people insist on arguing online like this? Does it really make you feel beter to be "right"? And do you really think you will be able to convince all the "wrong" people how "right" you are? Is this fun? Is this advancing you all as humans? Couldn't you be doing something more constuctive with you time, such as learning a foreign language or something? I mean, really, what do you guys see in this?

Apparently you've missed the Centrino thread. We're making a difference. The President is reading right now, I know it!
 
2003-03-13 02:37:01 AM  
Gozer114: I have a rule to never join a club that would would have me as a member, if that helps at all.
 
2003-03-13 02:42:06 AM  
VideoVader:

Think about that next time you call someone a "good white Christian Republican" as a euphemism for "intolerant idiot."

Yeah, but those two. I mean, not the best example to prove your point there. :)
 
2003-03-13 02:44:53 AM  
03-12-03 08:18:12 PM Fb-
Ivan,
Haha.. good one.. thanks for taking care of that for me.. everybody cries like a biatch about 3000 people in the US dying.. but nobody cries about the 20,000 Iraqi civilians that are going to die in Iraq.. strange world..



Fb- has obviously been taken captive by dirty hippies who are now posting under his name to undermine the effort to free Iraq from saddam and the burden of so much oil. So mark my words, if you harm one hair on Fb-'s head, I'll be mildly displeased!
 
2003-03-13 02:45:52 AM  
 
2003-03-13 02:47:31 AM  
Actually, I think that the palestinians have the right idea. (keep in mind that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.) The suicide bombings are raising hell with Israel's economy and have caused a fair amount of instability within the Israeli government. The palestinians have nothing to lose at this point and everything to gain. Israel is in a no-win situtation as long as it continues with it's current support of militant zionist expansion into the palestinian territories.

Middle east in a nutshell: On one side, militant zionist extremists, and on the other side suicidal muslim extremists. I say we quit supporting either side and let them duke it out till they either decide to make peace, or kill each other off. The winner can send us a post card when they're done.
 
2003-03-13 02:50:27 AM  
The Christian Right are usually neither.
 
2003-03-13 02:54:16 AM  
Gozer114:
this is fun, that's why

Interesting note about this whole thread:

My parents are in their mid/late 60's, and are very conservative--to the extent that they can't hide their disgust when my hair is bleached or the wrong length. Dad has been in banking his whole professional career. He's a Hotchkiss/Princeton/OCS/Stanford grad. My mom worked at SRI and is super intelligent. They visited me last weekend (and hassled me into getting a haircut). Bush Sr. had a fundraiser at my house when he was running against Reagan. My parents, when asked, told me their opinions about Bush Jr.:

Dad: "I really can't tell you what's going through his head. I don't think anybody can. I'm glad you're not in the military. I think he really has the potential to get this country in a lot of hot water."

Mom: "He seems like a kook."

For me, the wild child of conservative (but smart and fantastic) parents, enough said.
 
2003-03-13 02:56:42 AM  
Infectious_brain_disease:

That is one of my all time favorite quatrains. :)
 
2003-03-13 02:58:16 AM  
(keep in mind that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.)

That depends on the person, I guess. I always figured the difference was that one sticks to targets of military significance, the other goes out of its way to kill innocent civilians.

As was said earlier, conventional warfare was invented for a reason. Terrorists are giving the developed world little choice but to go back to treating combatants and civilians as one and the same.
 
2003-03-13 03:07:33 AM  
 
Displayed 50 of 720 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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report