US Government has No Honor

[anonemouse 1]

Sorry. Those were three hijacker terrorists from 9-11

WHich has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation in question. SH had nothing to do with 9/11, so putting up the pictures of the 9/11 hijackers does nothing but confuse the issue. It's what Bush did.

[TommyO 5]

FYI, I have been away but I can't let you re-define the word

par·a·phrase (păr'ə-frā)

n.

1. A restatement of a text or passage in another form or other words, often to clarify meaning.
   
2. The restatement of texts in other words as a studying or teaching device.

At no time have I attempted to paraphrase your comments, I simply stated that when you disagree with someone it's hard not to imply that you are disagreing with their premise.

I thought this was a discusion, you can most certainly disagree but telling me you will "call me on it" infers something different. I think in both cases we may have misinterpreted each other but there has been no paraphrasing by either one of us.

Cheers

TommyO

[TommyO 5]

Did you read the definition?

I may have to start calling you on things each and every time you do something like that.

I know it's hard to admit your wrong but I understand, Hey I guess it's a good thing we don't sterilize people who use words incorrectly!!

[Lap_dancer 8]

WHich has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation in question. SH had nothing to do with 9/11, so putting up the pictures of the 9/11 hijackers does nothing but confuse the issue. It's what Bush did.

?

your point?

...............

Oh wait,

sorry if the photos threw everyone into a tail spin of confusion.

[anonemouse 1]

My point is that the conversation is about Iraq and the US government's actions there. The 9/11 hijackers have nothing to do with that conversation. What I meant by saying "it's what Bush did" is that Bush used 9/11 to stir up patriotic feelings and make us want to go after people. He used our need for revenge against the people who attacked us to get approval to go into Iraq, when the 9/11 hijackers and bin Laden had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq or Saddam Hussein.

[Lap_dancer 8]

My point is that the conversation is about Iraq and the US government's actions there. The 9/11 hijackers have nothing to do with that conversation. What I meant by saying "it's what Bush did" is that Bush used 9/11 to stir up patriotic feelings and make us want to go after people. He used our need for revenge against the people who attacked us to get approval to go into Iraq, when the 9/11 hijackers and bin Laden had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq or Saddam Hussein.

I don't think Grumpy and I were trying to hijack the thread we were just playing point-counterpoint (Janeyouignorantslut). If you re-read the flow of conversation you will see we went into terrorist discussion and how Sadam Hussein paid the families, actually I think it was said that he took care of the families, and this was compared to translators who have been hired to interpret for English speakers in Iraq. The threads go on you can read them for yourself. As far as the 9-11 terrorists, I did state they were 9-11 and I did note they looked like individuals I was familiar with.

I was putting a face with terrorism. I think we can do that in the off topic forums (add pictures for point)

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Let's see we are debating two points here:

#1. Was BuSh right to invade Iraq?

Before the March 16, 2003 Invasion of Iraq, BuSh (or his people) claimed that Hussein had WMD and Iraq was tied to 911, and the administration continued to say it for years after.

I said for at least 6 months prior to the March 16, 2003 Invasion of Iraq, that they would find no WMD in Iraq and Iraq had nothing to do with 911, and in fact Hussein and Bin Laden did not like each other.

Recently BuSh has said regarding the reason for the Invasion of Iraq, mistakes were made, Hussein had nothing to do with 911 and there were no WMD.

So why are you debating me? Debate with BuSh. I was right and he was wrong. His statement of "Mistakes were made" didn't mean that TOM made mistakes. It means that BuSh and/or his advisors made mistakes.

So that leaves one other excuse for throwing away the lives of 3200 US servicemen: "The world is a better place with Saddam Hussein gone".

Well, that is not true either. Hussein was the safety valve holding Iran in check. The USA's military is at its breaking point, but now we may have to fight with Iran. Where are we going to get the people for that?

Hussein was a scumbag, but he kept a 1400 year religious dispute under control. Now the USA has to figure a way out of the mess in Iraq. That mess may spill over into the rest of the Middle-East igniting WW3.

#2. Is it right to leave the Translators to die?

Part of that "The world is a better place with Saddam Hussein gone" statement is the addendum that the people of Iraq will be better with Saddam gone. Well the people who have helped the USA the most in Iraq, the translators, are being left to die by the USA. There lives will not be better. Where is the compassion of the “US State department”? Where is your compassion? We are teaching the people of the Middle-East that the USA has no honor. If the USA turns its back on their few friends, how can the USA be trusted?

[Lap_dancer 8]

Let's see we are debating two points here:

#1. Was BuSh right to invade Iraq?

Before the March 16, 2003 Invasion of Iraq, BuSh (or his people) claimed that Hussein had WMD and Iraq was tied to 911, and the administration continued to say it for years after.

I said for at least 6 months prior to the March 16, 2003 Invasion of Iraq, that they would find no WMD in Iraq and Iraq had nothing to do with 911, and in fact Hussein and Bin Laden did not like each other.

Recently BuSh has said regarding the reason for the Invasion of Iraq, mistakes were made, Hussein had nothing to do with 911 and there were no WMD.

So why are you debating me? Debate with BuSh. I was right and he was wrong. His statement of "Mistakes were made" didn't mean that TOM made mistakes. It means that BuSh and/or his advisors made mistakes.

So that leaves one other excuse for throwing away the lives of 3200 US servicemen: "The world is a better place with Saddam Hussein gone".

Well, that is not true either. Hussein was the safety valve holding Iran in check. The USA's military is at its breaking point, but now we may have to fight with Iran. Where are we going to get the people for that?

Hussein was a scumbag, but he kept a 1400 year religious dispute under control. Now the USA has to figure a way out of the mess in Iraq. That mess may spill over into the rest of the Middle-East igniting WW3.

#2. Is it right to leave the Translators to die?

Part of that "The world is a better place with Saddam Hussein gone" statement is the addendum that the people of Iraq will be better with Saddam gone. Well the people who have helped the USA the most in Iraq, the translators, are being left to die by the USA. There lives will not be better. Where is the compassion of the “US State department”? Where is your compassion? We are teaching the people of the Middle-East that the USA has no honor. If the USA turns its back on their few friends, how can the USA be trusted?

Would you say that Sadam Hussein was a good President in keeping these folks under control?

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

I don't think Grumpy and I were trying to hijack the thread we were just playing point-counterpoint (Janeyouignorantslut). If you re-read the flow of conversation you will see we went into terrorist discussion and how Sadam Hussein paid the families, actually I think it was said that he took care of the families, and this was compared to translators who have been hired to interpret for English speakers in Iraq. The threads go on you can read them for yourself. As far as the 9-11 terrorists, I did state they were 9-11 and I did note they looked like individuals I was familiar with.

I was putting a face with terrorism. I think we can do that in the off topic forums (add pictures for point)

Why didn't you put any pictures of IRA members in your post? They are terrorists.

Why didn't you put any pictures of Stealth Bomber Pilots in your post? They are terrorists. If you don't think that "Shock and Awe"; an attack on civilian targets in the night with invisible planes is terrorism, then you should look up the meaning of the words terrorism and terrorist.

#1. George W. BuSh in his first cabinet meeting in February 2001 asked how the USA could take out Hussein.

#2. George W. BuSh in his first cabinet meeting in February 2001 was told that he should worry about Al-Quaida instead of Iraq by Richard Clark.

#3. George W. BuSh surrounded himself with members of PNAC who in 1998 wrote Bill Clinton a letter demanding that Clinton take out Hussein.

#4. George W. BuSh in his first cabinet meeting after 911, asked Richard Clark if Hussein had anything to do with 911. Clark said "No!" BuSh said look some more.

#5. George W. BuSh in his first cabinet meeting after 911, asked CIA director George Tenent if Hussein had anything to do with 911. Tenent said "No!" BuSh said look some more.

#6. George W. BuSh was going to give a speech in October of 2002, saying that Hussein tried to buy Uranium for WMD in Africa. The statement was taken out of the speech because the CIA said they could not verify it.

#7. George W. BuSh used the statement saying that Hussein tried to buy Uranium for WMD in Africa in the 2003 "State of the Union Address" even though the CIA said they could not verify it.

#8. The evidence that Colin Powell presented at the UN to prove that Hussein had mobile poison gas trucks was given to the USA by an exile from Iraq who wanted to be president of Iraq when the USA threw Hussein out. The CIA said they could not verify it.

#9. US Diplomat Joe Wilson reported to the USA that Hussein had not tried to buy Uranium for WMD in Africa in February 2002, so the US government outed his CIA wife putting her and many other CIA agents' lives at risk.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Would you say that Sadam Hussein was a good President in keeping these folks under control?

Would you say that Marshal Tito was a good president for keeping his country's people under control?

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Would you say that Sadam Hussein was a good President in keeping these folks under control?

Would you say that George H W Bush was a good president for realizing that taking Hussein out would be a stupid move by the USA in 1991 (Gulf War 1)?

[Lap_dancer 8]

Apparently I'm the only one in this forum who believes that A president all by himself cannot declare a war and go to it. The last president who did not consult congress/Senate and just did it was Thomas Jefferson who spent 15K for lands west of the Mississippi. He did not ask. Bush asked.

I do not make a connection between actions of this administration and the world and previous wars because frankly, I think the unfolding of this event is unparalleled.

Why don't you post pics of the IRA you seem swelled with admiration for them?

This person is not a terrorist, this person is an American.

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c169/Patty_Lane/Seattle232.jpg?t=1174262520

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Apparently I'm the only one in this forum who believes that A president all by himself cannot declare a war and go to it. The last president who did not consult congress/Senate and just did it was Thomas Jefferson who spent 15K for lands west of the Mississippi. He did not ask. Bush asked.

BuSh lied to congress about Husseins WMD and then asked for permission so that he could hold war over Hussein's head as a bargaining chip. BuSh lied to congress about that too. He did not use it as a last resort. He used it as soon as he felt like it, before the troops had the proper protection. He was in a hurry to do PNAC's bidding.

How do I know if the picture you showed me is a terrorist or not. She looks no more, nor no less a terorist that the pictures you posted. Being an American does not make a person a terrorist, nor disqualify a person from being a terrorist.

Timothy McVeigh was an American. Timothy McVeigh served his country.

[BJean 16]

Did Bush go to Congress and say I want to "shock and awe" downtown Bagdad? Did he say I think we'll need to be over there for years and years? Did he say it's going to cost more lives than we lost on 9-11? Did he say not only do I want you to give me the authority to wage war on Iraq, I want you to allow me to do anything else that I think may be necessary, even if it means that I will wind up holding people without charges for years?

Well no, he didn't actually say all those words, but that's exactly what he decided to do when they gave him the ability to "shock and awe" at his own discretion. And his reign of terror continues and many people in the U.S. still believe that it was all necessary and important. How can they?

I read a piece that gave a chronological order of events in Iraq and it included the things that we did to help Saddam Hussein become the leader of Iraq. It is complicated the way things have all unfolded in Iraq and the Middle East, but we've become no better than many of them, and I am the very most upset about him using American citizens as pawns in this game of Bush's. Yes, most of the pawns are military and yes, they know they are trained to go to war and to not ask questions of their leaders but that they just must follow orders, at all costs. And of course their families and loved ones want, NEED, to believe that their sons and daughters are risking their lives for very good reasons. It continues to tear this country apart!

Arguing that what Bush has done up to this point in time is right, when it is so completely obvious that what Bush did was and is wrong, is very sad to me. It makes my heart hurt.

[TommyO 5]

Deal with what?

I don't have any sense that there is anything that I need to deal with. Your issues are your issues don't ask me to deal with them. I will leave that to you and your vastly superior intelect.