President Bush announced plans to create a permanent lunar space station. President Bush said if the lunar space station works out, they'll build one on the moon.
- 01.20.04
_________
bah pic wont work... still a good quote tho
Printable View
President Bush announced plans to create a permanent lunar space station. President Bush said if the lunar space station works out, they'll build one on the moon.
- 01.20.04
_________
bah pic wont work... still a good quote tho
bush senior = omg iraq sucks, then otm to space exploration
george w = omg i got saddam, otm to space exploration
Please post the actual quote, with source.. or feel free to take your seat left of the aisle with the rest of the short bus riders.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tanerus
http://slate.msn.com/id/76886/Quote:
Originally Posted by Elidroth
You Republican Jackass.
Sorry, you elected--I'm sorry, appointed by judicial coup--a total moron.
3 years later and you Democrat babies STILL can't get over the fact that your boy lost.
Bet those damn Native Americans feel the same way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elidroth
Hrrm,
Coral hates Bush, is abusive to people, yells a lot and is lives in the northeast.
OMG he is Howard Dean! YEEAARRGHH!!
zing!
"I'm the master of low expectations."—Aboard Air Force One, June 4, 2003
"I'm also not very analytical. You know I don't spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things."—Aboard Air Force One, June 4, 2003
How do I love thee, politicians, let me count the ways!
I am not a big fan of finding every little error in our articulately challenged President’s speeches, yet I do concern myself with the constant flow of lies flowing out of the Bush Administration. It amazes me how big of a deal people made when President Clinton lied about having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, because when Bush lied about the reasons for going to war with Iraq the public outcry was far less. I am not sure how many people Clinton killed with his sex scandal, yet Bush’s war scandal has claimed over 500 American servicemen’s deaths, 97 deaths of coalition troops, and well over 13,000 Iraqi deaths (estimated in October 03 - http://www.comw.org/pda/0310rm8.html). Yet this is just one lie of many lies that Bush has told the American people in his years as President and the funny part is that he still has supporters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elidroth
Some quotes from a "creditable" source on the issue.
Quote:
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us. And there is no doubt that his aggressive regional ambitions will lead him into future confrontations with his neighbors -- confrontations that will involve both the weapons he has today, and the ones he will continue to develop with his oil wealth.
Dick Cheney - August 26, 2002
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20020826.html
Quote:
Q Sir, in honor of your guest, I'll ask it in Australian, if that's all right. (Laughter.) Is there a possibility that you may never find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? And how would that square with your rationale for going to war?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes -- the question is about weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The United States -- United Nations Security Council voted 1441, which made the declaration it had weapons of mass destruction. It's well-known it had weapons of mass destruction. And we've also got to recognize that he spent 14 years hiding weapons of mass destruction. I mean, he spent an entire decade making sure that inspectors would never find them. Iraq's the size of the state of California. It's got tunnels, caves, all kinds of complexes. We'll find them. And it's just going to be a matter of time to do so.
- May 3, 2003
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030503-1.html
Quote:
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
George W. Bush - January 28, 2003
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030128-19.html
Quote:
Q Mr. President, a year ago you said the dictator of Iraq has got weapons of mass destruction. Are you still confident that weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq, given what Dr. Kay has said?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Let me first compliment Dr. Kay for his work. I appreciate his willingness to go to Iraq and I appreciate his willingness to gather facts. And the Iraq Survey Group will continue to gather facts.
There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a gathering threat to America and others. That's what we know. We know from years of intelligence -- not only our own intelligence services, but other intelligence gathering organizations -- that he had weapons -- after all, he used them. He had deep hatred in his heart for people who love freedom. We know he was a dangerous man in a dangerous part of the world. We know that he defied the United Nations year after year after year. And given the events of September the 11th, we know we could not trust the good intentions of Saddam Hussein, because he didn't have any.
There is no doubt in my mind the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein. America is more secure, the world is safer, and the people of Iraq are free.
-January 27, 2004
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040127-3.html
Well said, I question the same issues. I find politics my side of the border in a somewhat similar state. Allthough politics here in Canada aren't facing the same repercussions due to war, the liberals are a bunch of outright liars, and I really dislike dealing with political people that lie to the public.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarwin
While I think bush is a psyco religous nutball, I think things sometimes happen for the best. He kinda had his wet dream of revenging his father handed to him with 911 and my guess (and hope) is that 10 years from now some long term issues will get resolved. I can't imagine things being worse than if a liberal was in office and totaly fucked up in the opposite directon of bush, not that I know that would have happend but I would not have been suprised. Doing little or nothing would have been awful.
I find it funny how Clinton's gets none of the credit for his fuckups or lies (no, not the stupid sex stuff, I kinda though that was funny).
In 911 we had ~3000 americans die in one day. No one really will ever know that in the 2 years or so after 911 we have adverted a similar disaster due to our psyco president, if so even 3000 servicemen is cheep at the price of lives. I know that with how easy it is to do damage to ppl and places if one buys into the argument that bush has done more harm that good at this point those same people would have to think its unbelievable we have not had another 911. I do think it likely that at least some of terrorist resources have been deverted to iraq and in general I would rather stupid people blow things up in other contries than in mine. If in 5 years iraq is a stable democracy of any type (have no idea how likely that is) then there is a good chance for real progress in that region.
I still think we are better off that some other contries wrt our top leader, at least weather you love or hate bush he will last a max of 5 more years.
My Guess is gore would have said "lets be nice and say we love all people of the middle east and give them lots of money and hope they start liking us back". Sounds like when I was in 1st grade and gave the bully candy every day so he would not hit me, guess what, after a few weeks he started hitting me again. When I sicked my older brother on him he never hit me again.
anything that shits the bed on fundamentalists is a-ok by me.
nothing quite drives people to kill quite like brainwashed followers of a religion. its like mass hypnosis
I like how it goes from "OH MY GOD HE HAS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION THAT HE CAN USE IN 45 MINUTES" to "THERE IS NO DOUBT HE WAS A GATHERING THREAT, HE COULD REALLY HURT US IN LIKE 10 YEARS!"
I won't argue on the WMD issue. It was a stupid thing to hang your entire motivation upon. Saddam was a bad guy.. so him being removed is fine..
I have no doubts honestly that the guy was pursuing WMD's..
It's hard to say though. David Kay himself is saying that it looks like Iraq was destroying their chemical and bio weapons secretly, so that they could get rid of the expense of maintaining them but still Saddam could swing his dick around pretending he had them. That was obviously not the smartest choice of action.
Of course, I am sure Saddam would have loved to get a nuke into his hot little hands. But it looks like they had given up on that as well. I don't doubt that if Pakistan walked up and said "trade you 10 million barrels of oil for a nuke" that Saddam would have jumped at the chance.
And I also agree that Saddam needed to get gone, it's just the timing and way that it was done that will haunt the US for a long time.
Are you referring to the Arab/Islamic Fundamentalists here, or the American/Christian Fundamentalists? Or both? =pQuote:
Originally Posted by Tarissa
Thats what I absolutely love most in the Iraq debate...that people just can't get it in their head, Iraq was the only state in the whole area with a government that was not based on religion.
There were no fundamentalists in Iraq's government a year ago, I am almost sure there will be fundamentalists in Iraq's government in two years.
I guess no religion makes it easier to gas your own people. Anyone who opposes the war should go watch the history channel's documentaries on Saddam, then come back and tell me removing him was wrong.
Bush may be bad, but Gore's woman tried to censor the music I listen to. They also want to ban firearms. Maybe if Democrats wern't so busy trying to take away my consitutional rights, I'd be more inclined to sway their way.
Of course I can't fucking stand A) rich people, because its impossible to contribute enough to society enough to have earned that much money, and B) raping the environment.
Which is why I don't vote.
Torrid=I. The Bush administration has taken away more constitutional rights than any president in the past 120 plus years. I think Dubya has the right intentions but his cronies around him yank his chain when they want something.
I don't believe anything I see on TV, it's only what they WANT us to see. My favorite example of this is Waco, TX. I saw it live, it was a grenade the police launched in that started the fire, not the people inside, but you'll never see that on TV again.Quote:
Anyone who opposes the war should go watch the history channel's
As for voting, I always do write in votes, "eliminate this government position", "pay all government jobs minimum wage", etc. Fen
Are you sure it was the police, since you did see it on TV......Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenudwin
The patriot act and banning heavy metal and rap music are two different things. Hopefully they'll vote not to renew that un-patriotic piece of shit though.
nt
My impression is that it took a hell of a lot of killing to get THAT so-called religion-free government in Iraq.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lydia
I am speaking more specifically about the entire area -- it's just an explosive mixture with religions battling it out like middle-aged feudal lords.
It's not that I'm saying religion is the source of all evil in the world -- I think the line of Soviet dictators has proven that one. But it sure does give evil an excuse to breed, if I can use such an irresponsibly final word like evil in this case.
There are right and wrong ways to go about doing things Torrid. The ends do not justify the means. And giving the world and the UN the middle finger and going ahead with the war, and then 8 months later coming back and asking for debt relief for Iraq, military help, and election help from the UN is NOT the right way to do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Torrid
I've seen many people say similar things. What is the right way to go about removing dictators?Quote:
There are right and wrong ways to go about doing things Torrid.
Send Vidle over for an evening, with threats that more are to follow if they don't abdicate!Quote:
Originally Posted by Vidmer
The problem is, the UN is too pussy to enforce their own fucking rules. Saddam blatently breaks serveral, and the UN does nothing. So we did. It sends the wrong message when you ignore blatent treaty violations.
Frankly, nations who give a shit about human rights should not leave people like Saddam in power. Doing nothing is exactly what evil wants. Good needs to stop being stupid.
While I agree Bush could have handled the situation better, and missed several opportunities to be the "bigger man," I am glad the people of Iraq are free from that psychopath.
but now they are being ruled by another psychopath....Quote:
people of Iraq are free from that psychopath.
Hey, I agree that it's good for damn near everyone that Saddam is gone. But believe it or not, there are worse dictators out there doing worse things, and nothing will be done about them. It's nice to get all idealistic and say we won't let any governments abuse their own citizens, but unfortunately that would mean being at war with a dozen countries at a time.
Not to mention that if your main goal was humanitarian, the hundreds of billions that will eventually spent in Iraq would probably have helped an order of magnitude more people if spent on food and medicine for the tens of millions of people starving and dieing every year in Africa.
You didn't even come close to answering my question.
Is your solution to this problem simply that since we can't help all we should help none? That we shouldn't prioritize help? To me it seems like you just want us to sit on our thumbs and hope these dictators will just "magicaly" disapear.
As a side note a one time cash contribution will not help africa in any way shape or form. If anything it may make them even more dependant on the West and further hinder necessary political, economic and cultural reforms.
Like I said, if we wanted to prioritize who needs humanitarian help the worst, Iraq is way the hell down the list. And I don't think you should just throw money at Africa, but like it or not, they could use an awful lot of help. Most countries can't even be bothered to relax drug patents so they can access cheaper generic medicines, let alone give them significant monetary help. Yet it's possible to spend hundreds of billions on a largely discretionary war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vidmer
That depends entirely on how you rank need. Some may feel the need to be free to be a greater need then material poverty is. I am one those.Quote:
Like I said, if we wanted to prioritize who needs humanitarian help the worst, Iraq is way the hell down the list.
As for Africa I believe the saying "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime" is appropriate. Handouts will not cure poverty in Africa anymore then it does in the US.
Now you still haven't addressed my question on what is the "right" way to go about removing dictators; I guess you just keep missing it.
Its the US's refusual to budge that is causing 3rd world nations to walk out of discussions on getting drugs in the hands of those who need, actually. Capitalism at work.
I absolutely agree with Vidmer in that throwing money isn't the way to go. Sometimes I wonder why shitty countries can't just "start at the bottom and work their way up" so to speak, and: farm enough to feed the population, build enough shelter, educate the population, etc. then they can worry about everything else. If we send them anything, it should be farming equipment and water purifiers.
i think that sentiment is in the right place torrid, but in overlord run parts of the world, who is going to enforce who actually uses said equipment? and what in the hell do you farm in africa, i really have no idea.
i think the real foundation of a nation is its government, which must be constructed with at least some form of economic model that doesn't rely too heavily on one thing (see: banana republics)
Bush is alright, but I prefer women who shav... Oh wait a second... Nevermind.
This thread is getting more and more ignorant. Just repeating old phrases over and over.
That depends entirely on how you rank need. Some may feel the need to be free to be a greater need then material poverty is. I am one those.
I am 100% sure, after you lose your first child to starvation that would change.
Sometimes I wonder why shitty countries can't just "start at the bottom and work their way up" so to speak, and: farm enough to feed the population, build enough shelter, educate the population, etc.
Have you ever wondered where some of the products we use come from? Starving people don't farm coffee for themselves.
The people who rule those countries care very little about their people. They want wealth and power. So they sell us coffee, bananas, ananas, tropic woods, to buy weapons from us. On other products, that we can produce ourselves, we put high trade tax to protect our own interrests.
On top of that we export our own waste to those countries, so they can pollute theirs.
We live on top of the foodchain there. The situation in africa, etc is not changing, because we are pretty happy with it.
For Vidmer: I'd define the "right" way to remove a dictator, as the best way to remove a dictator. Quite a lot of people would think it a good heuristic to define "best" as "least people harmed", maybe putting a second value on "least innocent people harmed". If someone agrees to that definition, I highly doubt that the war was the "right" way.
IF you define "best" as "least of our own people harmed" with a second value on "minimizing the complete cost of operation", then the war might valued differently.
I personally see little wrong in what I see to be the reason for the war: The cost of stationing military around Iraq to keep Iraq from becoming a threat again, was too high to sustain over years and years. The area had to be protected because the western world needs the oil there. So to minimize the costs and to still keep the oil, Iraq had to be invaded.
If you seriously think oil was not the most important reason why the war took part, send some gratulation cards to the media; your brainwash was a success.
Oh just a short add-on.
I personally am a person used to luxury. I use cloth that is made with child labor, I eat food that is produced by people who are starving just because they produce it. I use electronic devices and other luxury goods that are produced in a way that brings on a major climatic change with massive effects on the world. I drive a car, well knowing that the terrorism in the world is almost exclusively funded by the profit on oil trade.
Knowing all this, I am still currently not willing to change my way of living.
I am even happy the US invaded Iraq and even more happy that I don't have to pay for it. That still does not mean I believe the US moved in there to "help" the iraqui people.
My bad, I guess I did. There is no "right" way to remove a dictator, really. At least not realistically. But there ARE better and worse ways, and pissing off nearly the entire world while in the process of doing it is probably not one of the better ways. Like I said, I agree that Saddam had to go sooner or later. But the timing and manner of this war was based solely on politics and oppurtunism, nothing more.Quote:
Now you still haven't addressed my question on what is the "right" way to go about removing dictators; I guess you just keep missing it.
So what you are saying is, it's more important to save 20-30 million people from an admittedly brutal dictator, than it is to help an entire continent survive from disease, starvation, and civil war? Just because the people in Africa are supposedly free? How do you exercise freedom when you are born with AIDS and dead before your first birthday. How do you exercise freedom when *insert another tragic commonplace thing in Africa here*? Not to mention that many in Africa are also not "free", what with all the warlords, rebels, and militias running around.Quote:
Some may feel the need to be free to be a greater need then material poverty is. I am one those.
It's not as simple as that. For one thing, most of Africa was more or less taken over by various European powers. Most of their valuable farm land was owned by rich white farmers (see Zimbabwee or however you spell it) and passed down through the generations (also see Zimbabwee for a perfect example of how NOT to redistribute land). Most of their resources were or are getting raped from the land while the people see little benefit (see Nigeria and it's oil), not even jobs to extract their own wealth. It's tough to develop your nation's economy when it's rife with civil war, disease, and starvation. And your three neighbours are all on the verge of collapse and civil war, and might just happen to decide to fuck with you will they are at it (see the Congo).Quote:
I absolutely agree with Vidmer in that throwing money isn't the way to go. Sometimes I wonder why shitty countries can't just "start at the bottom and work their way up" so to speak, and: farm enough to feed the population, build enough shelter, educate the population, etc. then they can worry about everything else. If we send them anything, it should be farming equipment and water purifiers.
Not to mention that most of the world's current "developed" economies got to where they are not only through making enough goods and food for themselves, but also by selling them to other countries. Problem is, as they passed through the door they locked it behind them, and have spent the past 100 years adding more locks. Hundreds of billions are spent every year by developed nations to subsidize their own farmers, thereby making third world farmers completely unable to compete on the market. And there is trade barrier after trade barrier after trade barrier. Of course, the developed countries are perfectly happy to talk "free trade" as long as they don't lose jobs to China/India/whatevercountryisinvoguetocomplainabout.
Yes, they have made a lot of their own problems. That doesn't mean we don't have some sort of obligation to help. And judging from how eager the US was to "help" Iraqi's, you would think it would be willing to do the same in Africa. But it was like pulling teeth to even get a few dozen marines into Liberia, when both the rebels and the government were asking for it.