Total Motorcycle Community Forums

Nibblet99 wrote:Prehaps we should send them a truck load of clowns to take out their frustration on.... Unlucky for the clowns, but it might just work

or we could just give them gw....

Prehaps we should send them a truck load of clowns to take out their frustration on.... Unlucky for the clowns, but it might just work

We've done that. Or rather, Bush did that. And I think they'd take offense at being called clowns. But the effect is the same. Osama is training terrorists using our children as live-fire targets, and terror isn't decreasing.

BTW, recent analysis of those captured entering Iraq with the intent of joining the "insurgents" shows that nearly all of them had no terrorist affiliation before we attacked Iraq.

As predicted, Bush's rush to judgment and selfish grab for faux glory has killed nearly 2,000 Americans, ceded moral authority in the Arab world to al Quaeda, recruited hundreds of thousands of terrorists where formerly there were a few thousand, and made the problem far, far worse.

So you would have done nothing?

Or given them all a million dollars each if they promise to leave us alone? They would just buy more weapons with it.

Once agin- quick to criticize but unable to come up with a real solution. typical of the Bush haters.

So you would have done nothing?

Reductio ad absurdum. Strawman argument.

I would have attacked Iraq, for the right reasons.

I was all for attacking Iraq, then Sudan, then Syria, then Iran, then whoever hadn't got the point. Until Bush started lying.

The point depended on being 100% forthright in the reasons for the invasions.

Bush relied on lies, and abrogated moral authority.

He did so because he knew he didn't really care about the right reasons for the attack, and believed they wouldn't carry any weight.

But in the post-9/11 world, they would have.

So it didn't matter that Iraq was the right target. Attacking it for the wrong reasons made attacking anyone a disastrous mistake.

Or given them all a million dollars each if they promise to leave us alone? They would just buy more weapons with it.

Strawman argument. In this case, self-defeating.

GW Bush gave the Taliban $43 million in May of 2001. And encouraged them to keep on with their "faith-based" government (the money wasn't supposed to make them democratic, it was only supposed to help them increase their nationalist power by funding the decimation of the poppy fields). I have no doubt (but no proof) that some of that cash ended up funding Atta and his comrades through the end of their mission.

Once agin- quick to criticize but unable to come up with a real solution. typical of the Bush haters.

Diversion. Irrelevancy. Empty, unoriginal demonization.

Bush's "solutions" are the wrong ones. Getting rid of der Fuhrer is the first step to instituting the right ones. And his detractors have solutions (read above for mine), but nobody on the Right can peel their ears from their propaganda pipes (Limbaugh, FOX News, etc.) long enough to listen. Supporting Bush simply because you refuse to believe anyone else is treacherously stupid.

So you would attack Iraq based on what? Based on the intelligence gathered by the CIA? For the right reasons?

So what were his reasons? Oil? don't lay that crap on me- we attacked because he wasn't living up to the peace agreement set forth by the UN and he was training terrorists, or have you conveniently forgotten the plane in the terrorist training camp they found. I know you remember it, it was one of the few finds that our liberal news media actually reported.

Sorry- your the one that won't listen - the ties btween Iraq and Al queda HAVE been proven again and again, both political and financial. and illegal weapons of mass destruction have been found again and again, but the liberal media refuses to report it as such. the bulk of it has been moved to Yemen and that has been proven as well. Calling Bush a liar is bull dinky. You know that he relied on the same intelligence as everyone else, and the yellow cake uranium purchase has yet to be disproved and British intelligence still insists its true.

Typical of the left when confronted with the truth to call it a "straw man argument" and their opponents liars.

So you say you know why we attacked? Well, the terrorists do, too, and it wasn't just because of the valid reasons.

Bombs won the war. The LIES are what lost the peace.

Get that through your head.

Lying to start a war is losing the war before its started.

The war on terrorism is as unwinnable as the war on drugs. Does that mean we do nothing? Hell no. We should do all we can to stop it, but to say we can win the war on terrorism (as Bush has said we will) is so unrealistic it's stupid. If you believe we can win, you are unrealistic and stupid.

You see the thing we all have to realize is that conducting war(s) is a part of what it is to be human. Like all other species of animal we need (or think we need) certain resources to survive and if we have to we will fight for access/control of those resources. To strive for "world peace" is a useless waste of time - we have always warred and always will.

We are not civilized - we are not specail - we are the same decaying organic matter as everything else.

Deal with it, move on, and enjoy life as long as you have it.