The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-21-2013, 10:30 PM   #26
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,935

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt View Post
Honestly I'm not sure what the point if this thread is. I mean, I know many of you still are full of burning hatred for Bush and Cheney but really, are either of them going to be arrested anytime soon? Probably not.

I personally learned a few lessons from this episode however the war is over and I'm through debating it.

So why continue with this? What do you hope to accomplish?
So, now you are willing to admit that they lied us into that war?
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2013, 11:11 PM   #27
baja
Headmaster
 
baja's Avatar
 
The Fixer

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 61,391

Adopt-a-Bronco:
C J Anderson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
As I have already pointed out, Obama's drones are CURRENTLY wiping out civilians while you rattle on something about a previous administration, THUS you undermine your own argument with the same "past doesn't matter" argument that you just tried to use as a weapon against me.

You're a MENSA member, aren't you?

Does the past matter or not?

Why is Gitmo still open? Where are the war crimes charges that I kept hearing about were forthcoming in the summer of '08?
Bush bad

Obama bad

therefore they cancel out


Is that your argument?
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2013, 11:12 PM   #28
The Lone Bolt
Ring of Famer
 
The Lone Bolt's Avatar
 
GO CHARGERS!!!!

Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The Boredom Capital of the Universe (Everett, WA)
Posts: 3,317
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
So, now you are willing to admit that they lied us into that war?
Sure, when you can provide indisputable evidence that:

A) Bush knew/believed for certain beyond all reasonable doubt that there were no WMD in Iraq, and

b) He deliberately misled the public on this isssue.

But you can't prove that of course. Which brings me back to my original post. If you can't prove your claims in a court of law, if you don't have irrefutable evidence that meets legal requirements, if you don't have completely conclusive evidence to back up your accusations, then why are you continuing with this tirade? Seems pointless to me.

And if you do then where is it? When are you and the rest of the "Bush Lied" crowd going to pool your resources, hire an army of lawyers, and prove your case in a court of law?

Last edited by The Lone Bolt; 03-21-2013 at 11:15 PM..
The Lone Bolt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 07:12 AM   #29
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt View Post
Sure, when you can provide indisputable evidence that:

A) Bush knew/believed for certain beyond all reasonable doubt that there were no WMD in Iraq, and

b) He deliberately misled the public on this isssue.

But you can't prove that of course. Which brings me back to my original post. If you can't prove your claims in a court of law, if you don't have irrefutable evidence that meets legal requirements, if you don't have completely conclusive evidence to back up your accusations, then why are you continuing with this tirade? Seems pointless to me.

And if you do then where is it? When are you and the rest of the "Bush Lied" crowd going to pool your resources, hire an army of lawyers, and prove your case in a court of law?
Since when should it have to be proven that Bush and Cheney knew there weren't any WMDs? Isn't it bad enough to lead a nation to war on the notion that there maybe, somewhere, MIGHT be WMDs, even though there is a lot of conflicting information? Maybe for some of us, we don't believe war should be the result of patchwork information and half-hearted sanctions. Maybe some of us are asking why, when 9/11 happened, there was a directive to find a connection between SH and OBL, even though intelligence had already suggested there weren't any.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 07:33 AM   #30
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,935

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt View Post
Sure, when you can provide indisputable evidence that:

A) Bush knew/believed for certain beyond all reasonable doubt that there were no WMD in Iraq, and

b) He deliberately misled the public on this isssue.

But you can't prove that of course. Which brings me back to my original post. If you can't prove your claims in a court of law, if you don't have irrefutable evidence that meets legal requirements, if you don't have completely conclusive evidence to back up your accusations, then why are you continuing with this tirade? Seems pointless to me.

And if you do then where is it? When are you and the rest of the "Bush Lied" crowd going to pool your resources, hire an army of lawyers, and prove your case in a court of law?
You failed to read my previous post. The evidence shows that the intent to go to war in Iraq predates the discussion of WMDs. Prima facie: WMDs were not the reason for the war. Ergo, the whole WMD ruse had an entirely different purpose. A reasonable person would assume that purpose was to stir up fear in order to drive the country to war. The Plame Affair is proof enough that the administration was willing to engage in illegal and treasonous action to prop up the lie. Why haven't they been prosecuted? Because the other side of the aisle is either complicit or gutless, as the case may be.

The purpose of the soldier's letter is not to prosecute anyway. It's to warn. It's to accuse. Of course, when there are enough apologists around to rewrite events after the fact, the warning is doomed to failure, and the accusation won't gain any ground in our current state of political cowardice. History, however, is a different courtroom, with different rules.

Last edited by Rohirrim; 03-22-2013 at 07:38 AM..
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 08:02 AM   #31
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt View Post
Honestly I'm not sure what the point if this thread is. I mean, I know many of you still are full of burning hatred for Bush and Cheney but really, are either of them going to be arrested anytime soon? Probably not.

I personally learned a few lessons from this episode however the war is over and I'm through debating it.

So why continue with this? What do you hope to accomplish?
Political brownie points, why else?
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 08:03 AM   #32
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baja View Post
Bush bad

Obama bad

therefore they cancel out


Is that your argument?
Read my posts closer and you may see my argument.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 08:19 AM   #33
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt View Post
Sure, when you can provide indisputable evidence that:

A) Bush knew/believed for certain beyond all reasonable doubt that there were no WMD in Iraq, and

b) He deliberately misled the public on this isssue.

But you can't prove that of course. Which brings me back to my original post. If you can't prove your claims in a court of law, if you don't have irrefutable evidence that meets legal requirements, if you don't have completely conclusive evidence to back up your accusations, then why are you continuing with this tirade? Seems pointless to me.

And if you do then where is it? When are you and the rest of the "Bush Lied" crowd going to pool your resources, hire an army of lawyers, and prove your case in a court of law?
This is pure political horse ****. Frankly, this thread belongs in The Butt.

1) That Saddam had WMD was Clinton's assertion throughout his 8 years in office



and no Democrats disputed this assertion.

2) Former weapons inspector Scott Ritter stated throughout the Clinton years that there were no WMDs there AND that the Clinton administration had been stonewalling inspectors. See this speech.

3) Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act setting in motion US policy to remove Saddam Hussein from office and supported multiple coup attempts.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 08:33 AM   #34
baja
Headmaster
 
baja's Avatar
 
The Fixer

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 61,391

Adopt-a-Bronco:
C J Anderson
Default

The United States hasn't had a president that worked on behalf of we the people since John F. Kennedy. You all should start from that point it will save a lot of party prejudice
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 09:45 AM   #35
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,758

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

The Iraq invasion was being promoted by future members of the Bush administration well before 911. It's to the Democrats shame....as well as Republicans, that they voiced little opposition to a war that clearly had nothing to do with 911.

If we can spend $40 million investigating a Presidential bj, we can certainly afford the time to look closely at a war that has crippled our economy and cost the lives of thousands of our young men and women.

And no, Gaffney, this is not evidence that Bush orchestrated 911.

Project for the New American Century (PNAC)


Calls for regime change in Iraq during Clinton years

The goal of regime change in Iraq remained the consistent position of PNAC throughout the 1997-2000 Iraq disarmament crisis.[6][7]

Richard Perle, who later became a core member of PNAC, was involved in similar activities to those pursued by PNAC after its formal organization. For instance, in 1996 Perle composed a report that proposed regime changes in order to restructure power in the Middle East. The report was titled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm and called for removing Saddam Hussein from power, as well as other ideas to bring change to the region. The report was delivered to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.[8] Two years later, in 1998, Perle and other core members of the PNAC - Paul Wolfowitz, R. James Woolsey, Elliot Abrams, and John Bolton - "were among the signatories of a letter to President Clinton calling for the removal of Hussein."[8] Clinton did seek regime change in Iraq, and this position was sanctioned by the United Nations. These UN sanctions were considered ineffective by the neoconservative forces driving the PNAC.

The PNAC core members followed up these early efforts with a letter to Republican members of the U.S. Congress Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott,[9] urging Congress to act. The PNAC also supported the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (H.R.4655), which President Clinton had signed into law.[10]

On January 16, 1998, following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections, members of the PNAC, including Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Robert Zoellick drafted an open letter to President Bill Clinton, posted on its website, urging President Clinton to remove Saddam Hussein from power using U.S. diplomatic, political, and military power. The signers argue that Saddam would pose a threat to the United States, its Middle East allies, and oil resources in the region, if he succeeded in maintaining what they asserted was a stockpile of Weapons of Mass Destruction. They also state: "we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections" and "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council." They argue that an Iraq war would be justified by Hussein's defiance of UN "containment" policy and his persistent threat to U.S. interests.[11]

On November 16, 1998, citing Iraq's demand for the expulsion of UN weapons inspectors and the removal of Richard Butler as head of the inspections regime, Kristol called again for regime change in an editorial in his online magazine, The Weekly Standard: "...any sustained bombing and missile campaign against Iraq should be part of any overall political-military strategy aimed at removing Saddam from power."[12] Kristol states that Paul Wolfowitz and others believed that the goal was to create "a 'liberated zone' in southern Iraq that would provide a safe haven where opponents of Saddam could rally and organize a credible alternative to the present regime ... The liberated zone would have to be protected by U.S. military might, both from the air and, if necessary, on the ground."

In January 1999, the PNAC circulated a memo that criticized the December 1998 bombing of Iraq in Operation Desert Fox as ineffective, questioned the viability of Iraqi democratic opposition which the U.S. was supporting through the Iraq Liberation Act, and referred to any "containment" policy as an illusion.[13]

Associations with Bush administration

After the election of George W. Bush in 2000, some of PNAC's members or signatories were appointed to key positions within the President's administration:
Name Position(s) held
Elliott Abrams Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Democracy, Human Rights, and International Operations (20012002), Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Near East and North African Affairs (20022005), Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy (20052009) (all within the National Security Council)
Richard Armitage Deputy Secretary of State (20012005)
John R. Bolton Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs (20012005), U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (20052006)
Dick Cheney Vice President (20012009)
Eliot A. Cohen Member of the Defense Policy Advisory Board (20072009)[64]
Seth Cropsey Director of the International Broadcasting Bureau (12/2002-12/2004)
Paula Dobriansky Under-Secretary of State for Global Affairs (20012007)
Aaron Friedberg Deputy Assistant for National Security Affairs and Director of Policy Planning, Office of the Vice President (20032005)
Francis ***uyama Member of The President's Council on Bioethics (20012005)
Zalmay Khalilzad U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan (11/2003 - 6/2005), U.S. Ambassador to Iraq (6/2005 - 3/2007) U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (20072009)
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby Chief of Staff to the Vice President of the United States (20012005)
Richard Perle Chairman of the Board, Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee (20012003)
Peter W. Rodman Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security (20012007)
Donald Rumsfeld Secretary of Defense (20012006)
Randy Scheunemann Member of the U.S. Committee on NATO, Project on Transitional Democracies, International Republican Institute
Paul Wolfowitz Deputy Secretary of Defense (20012005) 10th President of the World Bank (2005-2007)
Dov S. Zakheim Department of Defense Comptroller (20012004)
Robert B. Zoellick Office of the United States Trade Representative (20012005), Deputy Secretary of State (20052006), 11th President of the World Bank (20072012)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project...erican_Century
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 11:13 AM   #36
gunns
I WANT DEFENSE!
 
gunns's Avatar
 
Defense, defense, defense

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Always Hoping
Posts: 12,713

Adopt-a-Bronco:
TJ Ward
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
I did argue the point by pointing out the moral blind spot. It wasn't deflecting in defense of anyone in the least. You just take it that way.

I find such moral blind spots effing hilarious.

Seriously - if you don't like "murder," then b**** when ANYONE does it, not just when anyone with a different letter behind his name does it. When you behave that way, you come off as a seriously disingenuous a-hole trying to politically cash in on corpses.
So what you are saying is that the man in the opening post is a disingenuous a-hole trying to politically cash in on corpses?
gunns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 01:09 PM   #37
The Lone Bolt
Ring of Famer
 
The Lone Bolt's Avatar
 
GO CHARGERS!!!!

Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The Boredom Capital of the Universe (Everett, WA)
Posts: 3,317
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
You failed to read my previous post. The evidence shows that the intent to go to war in Iraq predates the discussion of WMDs. Prima facie: WMDs were not the reason for the war. Ergo, the whole WMD ruse had an entirely different purpose. A reasonable person would assume that purpose was to stir up fear in order to drive the country to war. The Plame Affair is proof enough that the administration was willing to engage in illegal and treasonous action to prop up the lie.
Well great! You have solid evidence of a conspiracy that will hold up in a court of law. Congratulations! Time to pool your resources with all the other folks in the "Bush Lied" crowd, hire lawyers, and get that conviction!

Quote:
Why haven't they been prosecuted? Because the other side of the aisle is either complicit or gutless, as the case may be.
Oh. Of course. You can't get a conviction. Not because you don't have a case but because there's another conspiracy to hide "da twoof."

You're sounding more like Gaffney every day.
The Lone Bolt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 01:14 PM   #38
baja
Headmaster
 
baja's Avatar
 
The Fixer

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 61,391

Adopt-a-Bronco:
C J Anderson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt View Post
Well great! You have solid evidence of a conspiracy that will hold up in a court of law. Congratulations! Time to pool your resources with all the other folks in the "Bush Lied" crowd, hire lawyers, and get that conviction!



Oh. Of course. You can't get a conviction. Not because you don't have a case but because there's another conspiracy to hide "da twoof."

You're sounding more like Gaffney every day.
How does it feel Ro? Frustrating?

That's how I feel when I read responses to my take from posters in denial.
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 01:17 PM   #39
The Lone Bolt
Ring of Famer
 
The Lone Bolt's Avatar
 
GO CHARGERS!!!!

Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The Boredom Capital of the Universe (Everett, WA)
Posts: 3,317
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baja View Post
How does it feel Ro? Frustrating?

That's how I feel when I read responses to my take from posters in denial.
I'm not the one in denial here. Is it possible that Bush deliberately misled the public? Sure. Has it been proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Nope.
The Lone Bolt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 01:37 PM   #40
baja
Headmaster
 
baja's Avatar
 
The Fixer

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 61,391

Adopt-a-Bronco:
C J Anderson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt View Post
I'm not the one in denial here. Is it possible that Bush deliberately misled the public? Sure. Has it been proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Nope.

5000 Americans dead

100,000 Americans maimed

uncountable Iraqis dead or maimed

One trillion + spent

NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION EVER FOUND AND NO EVIDENCE OF THEM EVEN WORKING ON THEM

Several credible sources saying Bush was told the information was not confirmed.

Just what else do you need?
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 01:51 PM   #41
The Lone Bolt
Ring of Famer
 
The Lone Bolt's Avatar
 
GO CHARGERS!!!!

Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The Boredom Capital of the Universe (Everett, WA)
Posts: 3,317
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baja View Post
5000 Americans dead

100,000 Americans maimed

uncountable Iraqis dead or maimed

One trillion + spent

NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION EVER FOUND AND NO EVIDENCE OF THEM EVEN WORKING ON THEM

Several credible sources saying Bush was told the information was not confirmed.

Just what else do you need?
A conviction in a court of law. What part of "presumed innocence" do you not understand? Or do you just not believe in it?
The Lone Bolt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 01:55 PM   #42
Requiem
~~~
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
~ ~ ~

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth Division
Posts: 24,315

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Princes of Tara
Default

You know why that conviction will never come. Stop being ridiculous. The whole premise behind the Invasion of Iraq was a ****ing farce. Even retards know that.
Requiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 02:04 PM   #43
The Lone Bolt
Ring of Famer
 
The Lone Bolt's Avatar
 
GO CHARGERS!!!!

Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The Boredom Capital of the Universe (Everett, WA)
Posts: 3,317
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Requiem View Post
You know why that conviction will never come. Stop being ridiculous.
No I don't. Please educate me.
The Lone Bolt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 02:12 PM   #44
Requiem
~~~
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
~ ~ ~

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth Division
Posts: 24,315

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Princes of Tara
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt View Post
No I don't. Please educate me.
I suggest you start learning about how the ICC works and go from there.
Requiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 02:24 PM   #45
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,384
Default

It takes all kinds, I suppose. Lone Bolt has just adopted the Wolfowitz "so we made a mistake... whaddya gonna do?" approach to things.

And again, to Lone Bolt's question of what is the point...do you really believe it pointless to investigate (and make public knowledge) the mistakes (or purposeful misleadings) of a previous administration, if for no other reason than, oh I dunno, making sure we don't. ****ing. Do it. Again?
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 02:36 PM   #46
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,356

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Requiem View Post
You know why that conviction will never come. Stop being ridiculous. The whole premise behind the Invasion of Iraq was a ****ing farce. Even retards know that.
Waste of time,The bush apologists will never accept the fact that bush started a war on lies.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 02:38 PM   #47
baja
Headmaster
 
baja's Avatar
 
The Fixer

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 61,391

Adopt-a-Bronco:
C J Anderson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt View Post
A conviction in a court of law. What part of "presumed innocence" do you not understand? Or do you just not believe in it?
This country will never prosecute an ex president and I think you know that

Lesser of two evils thingy.
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 03:15 PM   #48
The Lone Bolt
Ring of Famer
 
The Lone Bolt's Avatar
 
GO CHARGERS!!!!

Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The Boredom Capital of the Universe (Everett, WA)
Posts: 3,317
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baja View Post
This country will never prosecute an ex president and I think you know that

Lesser of two evils thingy.
Why not? They would have done it to Nixon had he not been pardoned by Ford.

And how about Cheney? He's not en ex-president right?

Honestly sounds to me like you're making excuses.

But lets just assume you're right for a moment. Does that mean we should just abandon presumed innocence?

Last edited by The Lone Bolt; 03-22-2013 at 03:26 PM..
The Lone Bolt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 03:17 PM   #49
The Lone Bolt
Ring of Famer
 
The Lone Bolt's Avatar
 
GO CHARGERS!!!!

Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The Boredom Capital of the Universe (Everett, WA)
Posts: 3,317
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Requiem View Post
I suggest you start learning about how the ICC works and go from there.
What specifically about how the ICC works prevents a trial in the US under US laws?
The Lone Bolt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 03:21 PM   #50
The Lone Bolt
Ring of Famer
 
The Lone Bolt's Avatar
 
GO CHARGERS!!!!

Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The Boredom Capital of the Universe (Everett, WA)
Posts: 3,317
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
Waste of time,The bush apologists will never accept the fact that bush started a war on lies.
And you will never accept the fact that your accusation of "lies" is unproven. Bad intelligence? You bet. Incompetence? Absolutely. But deliberate deception is nothing but political spin.
The Lone Bolt is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:51 PM.


Denver Broncos