First smart thing Clinton has ever done [Archive]

Agentic

07/23/03, 08:42 AM

We went to war because we felt that Iraq posed a nuclear threat. We felt they posed a nuclear threat because bushy told the world so in his state of the union adress. After that speech, the appoval polls for the war skyrocketed, as pretty much every american believed that Saddam was going to nuke the world. There was widespread support for the war, both democrats and republicans backed it completely. There was still a percentage of the population that wanted peace and wanted weapons inspectors to do their jobs, but more or less everyone feared that Iraq had nuclear capabilities, thus the reason why almost everyone supported the war, some just wanted to inspectors to do their jobs, and this was the main issue of conflict.

So don't fucking tell me that Bush's speech didn't affect weather we went to war or not. It was the god damn deciding factor.

chubb9

07/23/03, 11:42 AM

Hahaha... wow were do i start...

How many times are you people going to ignore the several OTHER reasons for going to war?

We went to war because we felt that Iraq posed a nuclear threat.

K your wrong about the nucs... but i think you were going for the whole wmd thing?
You know, the one you say is completly faulse but have yet to PROVE IT.

How about the FACT that they harbored terrorism?
How about the FACT that they were oppressing they're people?
How about the FACT that they didn't follow the conditions of several cease fire agreements and resolution upon resolution?

You disreguard all facts about the war and you spit out rediculess non truths.

BustaNutz

07/23/03, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by chubb9
Hahaha... wow were do i start...

How many times are you people going to ignore the several OTHER reasons for going to war?

K your wrong about the nucs... but i think you were going for the whole wmd thing?
You know, the one you say is completly faulse but have yet to PROVE IT.

How about the FACT that they harbored terrorism?
How about the FACT that they were oppressing they're people?
How about the FACT that they didn't follow the conditions of several cease fire agreements and resolution upon resolution?

You disreguard all facts about the war and you spit out rediculess non truths.

Here's a few FACTS right back at you...

If the USA had the world's best interests in mind we wouldn't have gone after Iraq, we'd have gone after North Korea. Kim Jong IL makes Saddam look like barney. He's a communist (which was enough to justify our actions in Vietnam). He oppresses his people. He admits to having Nuclear warheads, three right now, and up to seven by the end of year. He's capable of hitting the west coast of the US, he's threatened us with all out war. He has a standing army of over 1 million troops. He broke countless numbers of UN decry's and declarations, including (among others) the nuclear proliferation treaty, the test ban treaty, the chemical and biological weapons convetion and he has comitted countless human rights violations. This man doesn't harbor terrorists, he is one.

Saddam doesn't have nukes, he doesn't pose an imminent threat to the US and he has never threatened us with all out war... But he did break a few rules in the UN, and we suspect he may have weapons of mass destruction.

Seing these FACTS which of these two pose more of an immediate threat?

BrandNewRock05

07/23/03, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by BustaNutz
Here's a few FACTS right back at you...

If the USA had the world's best interests in mind we wouldn't have gone after Iraq, we'd have gone after North Korea. Kim Jong IL makes Saddam look barney. He's a communist (which was enough to justify our actions in Vietnam). He oppresses his people. He admits to having Nuclear warheads, three right now, and up to seven by the end of year. He's capable of hitting the west coast of the US, he's threatened us with all out war. He has a standing army of over 1 million troops. He broke countless numbers of UN decry's and declarations, including (among others) the nuclear proliferation treaty, the test ban treaty, the chemical and biological weapons convetion and he has comitted countless human rights violations. This man doesn't harbor terrorists, he is one.

Saddam doesn't have nukes, he doesn't pose an imminent threat to the US and he has never threated us with all out war... But he did break a few rules in the UN, and we suspect he may have weapons of mass destruction.

Seing these FACTS which of these two pose more of an immediate threat?
Wasnt Barney like a child molester?

BustaNutz

07/23/03, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
Wasnt Barney like a child molester?

That's Pee-Wee Herman, but you miss my point...

BrandNewRock05

07/23/03, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by BustaNutz
That's Pee-Wee Herman, but you miss my point...
no i got your point...but to make a better point you should have said, I dunno, Big Bird...I know that Barney did something wrong where he got into trouble, or atleast the guy who played barney, underage porn perhaps?

BustaNutz

07/23/03, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
no i got your point...but to make a better point you should have said, I dunno, Big Bird...I know that Barney did something wrong where he got into trouble, or atleast the guy who played barney, underage porn perhaps?

Ok, whatever, I don't keep up with puppet scandal like I used to. But thanks for that...

BrandNewRock05

07/23/03, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by BustaNutz
Ok, whatever, I don't keep up with puppet scandal like I used to. But thanks for that...
I was just saying, to make a clearer point you should have said Mr. Rogers....

BustaNutz

07/23/03, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
I was just saying, to make a clearer point you should have said Mr. Rogers....

Heehee, since they're both dead (well I'm guessing Saddam probably is) that would have been quite appropriate...

chubb9

07/23/03, 04:24 PM

If the USA had the world's best interests in mind

Stop right there. The worlds best intersts? I might sound like an asshole here, but when talking about NATIONAL security and threats on the AMERICAN people, we consider ourselves first. Our presidents job is to make the US people safe, then appease the world. Get that straight.

About NK, that will most likely be a UN operation. The US would need to go through the UN first anyway. They may pose a greater threat, but I HIGHLY doubt one would come anytime soon, and especially aimed at the US. China is a bigger target. Don't worry, NK will get theirs, but honestly if NK attacked anyone, it would be suicide. The second they do anything their shit will be ruined, hands down.

We're fighting a war on terrorism. Iraq supported terrorism. In my eyes, a terrorist attack would be more likely at this time. Its easier to pull off. But we dont have to worry about that anymore, atleast from iraq.

Settle down, NK will get theres...

BrandNewRock05

07/23/03, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by BustaNutz
Heehee, since they're both dead (well I'm guessing Saddam probably is) that would have been quite appropriate... except saddam never really changed his clothes....mr rogers wore like 8 sweaters an episode

Charlito Cafe

07/24/03, 06:06 AM

Originally posted by chubb9
Stop right there. The worlds best intersts? I might sound like an asshole here, but when talking about NATIONAL security and threats on the AMERICAN people, we consider ourselves first. Our presidents job is to make the US people safe, then appease the world. Get that straight.

About NK, that will most likely be a UN operation. The US would need to go through the UN first anyway. They may pose a greater threat, but I HIGHLY doubt one would come anytime soon, and especially aimed at the US. China is a bigger target. Don't worry, NK will get theirs, but honestly if NK attacked anyone, it would be suicide. The second they do anything their shit will be ruined, hands down.

We're fighting a war on terrorism. Iraq supported terrorism. In my eyes, a terrorist attack would be more likely at this time. Its easier to pull off. But we dont have to worry about that anymore, atleast from iraq.

Settle down, NK will get theres...

If his job is to make sure the American people are safe, then why didn't he go after North Korea first? They have the ability to attack American soil and cities, whereas Saddam did not. At most, he could have damaged Israel.

The evidence linking Saddam to terrorism is speculative at best. Al-Quaeda most likely considers Saddam an infidel for not having a fully Islamic state, and the only way Saddam would even think of teaming with terrorists was if he was really desperate, which we just made him if he's not dead.

Furthermore, an attack on Iraq would provoke terrorists and give terrorist organizations a very persuasive argument to convince young people to join up. An attack on Iraq is not going to help with the war on terror. Think of September 11th as a small bee-sting to America. Think of Operation: Iraqi Freedom as swatting the hornet's nest.

chubb9

07/25/03, 05:50 AM

If his job is to make sure the American people are safe, then why didn't he go after North Korea first?

Yes, NK is a threat, but chances are they wont attack now or soon if that. The whole world is watching their every move. If they attack, its suicide for them.

The evidence linking Saddam to terrorism is speculative at best.

No, its proven. He was proud of it. He openly encouraged, harbored, and sponsored terrorism. The link with al qaeda is speculative. Dont twist the facts.

Furthermore, an attack on Iraq would provoke terrorists and give terrorist organizations a very persuasive argument to convince young people to join up. An attack on Iraq is not going to help with the war on terror. Think of September 11th as a small bee-sting to America. Think of Operation: Iraqi Freedom as swatting the hornet's nest.

Who's going to sponsor them though? Who will harbor them? If anything, going to Iraq proved something to the world. It showed that We're not going to sit around and take this shit anymore. If your known to harbor terrorists, get rid of them or your next. We're NOT joking around.

And personally, i dont think of 9/11 as a small bee sting. I'm sorry if you do, but some take it a little more personal than that. And when i look at the situation, i see 9/11 as them swatting the hornet's nest and us going to iraq being the first bee sting.

Ronin

07/25/03, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by chubb9
Yes, NK is a threat, but chances are they wont attack now or soon if that. The whole world is watching their every move. If they attack, its suicide for them.

Iraq wasn't about to attack America, but you bombed the fuck out of them anyways, why wouldn't you do it to North Korea? Some consistency would be nice.

And don't tell me that Iraq was trying to get their weapons of mass destruction up and running so that they could fight America, they couldn't have bombed Turkey if they wanted to.

No, its proven. He was proud of it. He openly encouraged, harbored, and sponsored terrorism. The link with al qaeda is speculative. Dont twist the facts.

So you're saying that the US needs to invade every country that sponsors any kind of terrorism? That's a long fucking list pal. When are the tanks rolling into Chechnya? When are Special Forces going to raid Basque seperatist hideouts?

If anything, going to Iraq proved something to the world. It showed that We're not going to sit around and take this shit anymore. If your known to harbor terrorists, get rid of them or your next. We're NOT joking around.

Funny, but you've been "taking this shit" for years. September 11th wasn't the dawn of terrorism

NOFXdesendents5

07/25/03, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by Ronin
Funny, but you've been "taking this shit" for years. September 11th wasn't the dawn of terrorism

Wow, a liberal who admits that. That is fucking amazing.

It is about time we, the United States of America, defended ourselves from the terrorists. During the 80s thousands died from all their constant detonation of planes, hijackings and kidnappings.

And we don't need to look out for the world's intentions. The terrorists are attacking us so of course other countries won't care. There are things called countries and ours is being targeted by terrorists.

I would rather the terrorists die far away than on some landmark or in some plane or building when they detonate their bombs.

Ronin

07/25/03, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by NOFXdesendents5
Wow, a liberal who admits that. That is fucking amazing.

Why wouldn't I admit that? It's not a moral point, it's a fact. Who the hell has argued that there was no terrorism before September 11th?

chubb9

07/25/03, 05:20 PM

Iraq wasn't about to attack America

Iraq wasn't? Were the terrorist that the harbored? No? So i assume you know when 9/11 was going to happen as well. You can't tell me that Iraq wasnt going to.

And don't tell me that Iraq was trying to get their weapons of mass destruction up and running

Well we did find two chem labs...

So you're saying that the US needs to invade every country that sponsors any kind of terrorism? That's a long fucking list pal. When are the tanks rolling into Chechnya? When are Special Forces going to raid Basque seperatist hideouts?

Hopefully we wont need to. They'll get the hint. If not, we'll see what happens.

Funny, but you've been "taking this shit" for years. September 11th wasn't the dawn of terrorism

No i dont think thats funny. Yes we've been taking shit for years. Way to point that out. Lets look at why we've been taking shit for year. Could it be for the fact that they think we wouldn't retaliate? I think so. With Clinton in charge terrorism saw no consiquences. They would hit us with an attack and we would attempt to apease them.
Your mom tells you not to go to the concert. You do anyways. When you get home she doesn't say anything. Next time you want to go to a concert and she says no, are you gunna go? Probably.
Now bush is trying something new. Maybe they'll get the point now. You go to the concert, you get home and get dropkicked. Do you go to the concert next time????

BustaNutz

07/25/03, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by chubb9
Iraq wasn't? Were the terrorist that the harbored? No? So i assume you know when 9/11 was going to happen as well. You can't tell me that Iraq wasnt going to.

Well we did find two chem labs...

Hopefully we wont need to. They'll get the hint. If not, we'll see what happens.

No i dont think thats funny. Yes we've been taking shit for years. Way to point that out. Lets look at why we've been taking shit for year. Could it be for the fact that they think we wouldn't retaliate? I think so. With Clinton in charge terrorism saw no consiquences. They would hit us with an attack and we would attempt to apease them.
Your mom tells you not to go to the concert. You do anyways. When you get home she doesn't say anything. Next time you want to go to a concert and she says no, are you gunna go? Probably.
Now bush is trying something new. Maybe they'll get the point now. You go to the concert, you get home and get dropkicked. Do you go to the concert next time????

A few small discrepencies in your arguments. First no we didn't find tow chem labs, they were actually for filling hydrogen balloons.

Next, Iraq, as a nation wasn't going to attack us. Saddam has no spine, and we know that. Does he sponsor terrorism, probably. But is his country attacking us, no? So we need to deal with the man, not the nation. And let me share something with you. We have comitted terrorist acts as a nation as well. Ever heard of Patrice Lumumba, just one of many leaders we assasinated. So it's not like they're the only country who ever supported terrorism we do it too. Hell a better example is saudi arabia. Did we attack them? No! They harbor more terrorists than ANY OTHER NATION. Every single 9-11 hijacker was Saudi. Yet we don't seem to mind them... And Chechnya isn't going to stop harboring terrorists because we bombed Iraq. They're fighting Russia for god's sake, we're not touching that situation. To even infer we may get involved is a little bit ridiculous.

BustaNutz

07/25/03, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by cal1082
If you believe what the Iraqi gov. says, then yes those labs were for hydrogen balloons. We even got the info. on those trucks from an Iraqi who was detained. Also why the hell would you wash down and sterelize a truck used to make hydrogen balloons.

No no, weapons inspectors from the UN said it was for hydrogen balloons. And you would wash and sterilize the truck because hyrdogen is incredibly flammable. Ever heard of the Hindenburg? It was hydrogen zepplin (I think it was called the hindenburg, 99% sure). Anyways the zeppelin caught fire almost without reason and exploded, the zepplin started to go down, it never hit the ground, it incinerated within seconds. So I believe the UN. Not Baghdad Bob and this Iraq government (they told me they were winning once and I just can't take them seriously).

Ronin

07/26/03, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by chubb9
Iraq wasn't? Were the terrorist that the harbored? No? So i assume you know when 9/11 was going to happen as well. You can't tell me that Iraq wasnt going to.

No, and you can't tell me that they were going to.

Not once did the Bush administration claim that an attack on America by Iraq was imminent. Iraq didn't ever have the capabilities to launch an attack on the US.

And some time ago, we discussed the harboring of terrorists. No link to Al-Queda has been found, and the terrorists that Iraq aided and abetted fought mostly for Palestinian liberation. Harboring terrorists isn't a good thing, and I'm sure they had no love lost for America, but they weren't a direct threat.

Well we did find two chem labs...

You MAY have found two chem labs, the jury's still out.

No i dont think thats funny.

I wasn't trying to be funny, it's a figure of speech

chubb9

07/26/03, 05:00 PM

First no we didn't find tow chem labs, they were actually for filling hydrogen balloons.

Never heard that. Show me a link...

But is his country attacking us, no?

You have to remember this is a war against terrorism. We attacked Iraq not because we were afraid Iraq was going to attack us directly, but more because they fuel terrorism that could very easily attack us.

Hell a better example is saudi arabia

And if they continue to pose a threat then something will be done about it. It would probably be a UN thing though. You're forgetting that there are several reasons for going to Iraq other than the WMD and terrorism. They went against cease fire agreements and many resolutions. Do we have these against saudi arabia?