The Bush Economy

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Bush Economy

Abuse is one thing but that's sick.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Bush Economy

whatever dude, yamablow doesn't want that to ever happen, but he's not about to sanction what it takes to do it. so, if indeed it did happen, not a tear from these eyes.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Bush Economy

nope, they're too full of urine and bile

 

Exactly.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Bush Economy

...wow can you feel the love in the room.....

What I'm really pissed about is the DEMS in Washington did nothing before the War started, absolutely NOTHING!!!

Bush bluffed everyone into this War! Until he has any WMD evidence, he lied to US plain and simple.

I find Brad's and your reason as tired as Georgie's. Why must you bash the UN and French for standing up to Bush? Why can't you produce a valid reason for entering the war? He didn't have the evidence and the UN knew it.

I thought this thread about the economy anyway??

 

poor poor saddam. you fucking the guy chuck? who cares? i don't. he falls under the "needed killin" law if you ask me. now i'm ready to pull out of there, and let those fuckers destroy themselves entirely. i truly do not give a shit about those people. 3 months ago they dance in the streets, now they attack us. level the place, pave it, and put up "MID EAST DISNEY".

 

right next to the GP track Qatar..... wonder what the e-ticket ride will be.... run through a mine field, with live mines??? toss hand genades at your favorite foreign leader?? strap explosive to your brother and call him a martyr??

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Bush Economy

Actually I'm more interested in bashing the UN and French for not standing up to Saddam.

I'm so tired of the "Bush lied mantra". I have heard so many times that "Bush lied when he said Saddam was an imminent threat" and yet I have NEVER seen anyone point to a specific instance when he said such a thing.

And for proof of WMD you just have to go back to Saddam. He himself threatened to use those weapons against us. Should we have assumed he was threatening to use non-existent weapons?

Try walking into a police station with your hand in your pocket, point it at the desk sargeant and tell him it's a gun and you're going to shoot him. If you get lucky and they just tackle you instead of blowing you away, what do you think your legal liability will be when they take you to court? Maybe one of the lawyers here would comment on how valid or useful a defense it would be to claim you were just bluffing and actually had no gun so there was, in fact, no reason for the sargeant to feel threatened and certainly no reason for them to tackle and handcuff you. If anything, the police should be publicly ridiculed for treating you with such disrespect!

UN inspectors reported the existence of some WMD years before the war (which are now nowhere to be found) and plenty of evidence has been found concerning his programs to develop chemical and biological weapons. His use of chemical weapons against his own people is well documented. Or don't weapons that kill thousands of people within minutes qualify as WMD?

The UN, French and Democrats all specialise in doing nothing and then second-guessing those who do with all the authority of the Monday morning quarterback selling you scratch tickets at the
7-11.

Fact is, no reason would ever be "valid" for the Saddam apologists. Lucky for you all that you also benefit from the protection afforded by those with the sack to take action instead of intellectualising inside some ivory tower.

Some people are just too intelligent and sophisticated to recognise the evil in the world when they see it, or the need to put a stop to it before it shoves a knife between their ribs.
Learn a lesson from Half Zantop. With all his education he didn't have as much common sense as the backwoods Vermonter who slammed the door in the faces of Half's two killers when they showed up at his door. He was living in the real world, and thanks to seeing it for what it was, he still is. Maybe if Half had spent a few days in the real world, he'd be here too.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Bush Economy

You must be kidding. Do you mean that Bush went to war against Saddam when Saddam did not pose an imminent threat?!?! That was the whole supposed basis for the war.

And what did Bush say in the State of the Union message about Saddam's nuclear weapons plans?

And Bushes lacky Powell's speach to the UN.

Your best argument has gone unstated I think: Bush got bad intel pre-war but reacted rationally to it.

That is probably a false assumption, but at least its a cogent argument!



Rodger

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Bush Economy

Damnit Roger, stop that, yer teachin' 'em how ta be rational. It's like giving a pinless hand grenade to a hyperactive monkey

 

i love how CERTAIN people tip-toe in and out of these discussions.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Bush Economy

The two World Economic Forum study rankings are useful indicators but DO NOT actually measure how competitive those economies are (misnomer.) Hands down the most competitive economy on this planet is China, but China only ranks 45th in the BCI behind the likes of Mauritius, Slovakia, and Tunisia. I mean, really, Mauritius more competitive than China?

Similary Germany's economy has been atrocious when compared to say, our competitive Canadian economy. Yet Germany still ranks far ahead of Canada in the study. Doesn't make sense.

The WEF study attempts to index-in things like social justice, stregth of public institutions, the environment, etc., though in reality it mostly measure just one factor: GDP per capita (productivity.) But GDP per capita is very skewed towards small industrialized countries, which is why Scandinavian countries do so well in these studies. Doesn't mean they're actually any more competitive.

-peekay

 

If the US troops pull out now it just becomes a question of whether the new Iraqi dictator/regime will be worse than the old one. Yah, yah I know, you don't care.

 

i care man, i really do. i should mourn one of the oldest civilzations in the world that doesn't know right from wrong, or how to say thank you. i do care, i swear.

i suppose you would keep on feeding a stray dog that bit you every time you put food in the bowl?

that 87Billion would be better spent leveling other middle eastern countries.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Bush Economy

Your lawyerness is showing through here.

I said that BUSH NEVER USED THE WORDS IMMINENT THREAT.
That phrase, attributed to Bush but never, in fact, said by him was then translated to mean that Saddam was about to launch some sort of attack on the continental US using nuclear or other weapons. As a lawyer you certainly understand the tactic of phrasing the argument in terms which allow the greatest leeway for instilling doubt. Sort of the way you rephrased what I said to mean something completely different and then disagreed with what I hadn't, in fact, said.
Are you asserting here that Saddam was not a threat?
Would the rational course of action be to wait until after an attack of some sort occurred on US soil and then react to that?
Do you really believe Saddam was a benign leader interested only in living peacefully with his neighbors? Kuwaiti citizens might disagree with you there.
Isn't 12 years of refusing to comply with the mandates imposed under the politically correct, diplomatic cease-fire sufficient time to decide that his intentions were other than good?
That 12 years of enforcing a no-fly zone to protect citizens of his own country from further slaughter coupled with his refusal to abide by the terms of the cease-fire and mounting indications that he was working to increase armaments brought about an ultimatum that he comply with terms and open the country to inspections or be made to do so with force. That is why Bush went to war in Iraq. Saddam wouldn't open the door when the cops showed up with a search warrant, so they kicked the door in.

As far as the intel on attempting to obtain yellow cake, the supposed investigation by a democratic diplomat which consisted of asking around at an embassy is hardly conclusive. It was also only a small part of the picture.

I would remind you that, regardless of who was behind the WTC attacks, it was the intent coupled with financing that allowed a few evil people with weapons no more threatening than box cutters to take 3000 American lives.
On Sept 10, 2001 any first year law student could have made a reasoned argument that none of those people represented any sort of threat to even their next door neighbors, never mind the citizens of NYC or people working in the Pentagon.

And they would have been completely wrong.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Bush Economy

Bush said: "The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide. "

All of which are factually correct. The IAEA did find Saddam had a nuclear weapons program in the 1990s. The British continues to stand behind the uranium intelligence, even without the supposedly forged document. Iraq never disputed purchasing those high-strength aluminum tubes.

-peekay

 

someone put a bullet in my head....

 

okay.

 

Before the invasion the UK and USAs major points were

1. Saddam had failed to disarm
2. He was actively pursuing WMD programs
3. He was involved with Al Queda

Why split hairs over semantics now?

 

don't worry canada, you are proctected by US actions too.