Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
144 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Wake up People!!!

Everybody is so concerned whether or not the claims about WMDs are true. Why? The fact is I believe Bush and his administration lied about the WMDs, and I'm not one bit offended or feel betrayed. Look, sometimes it’s not in the best interest to tell the truth. I can hear the gasps as I write this. Let me explain if the light bulb is not already going off. Since we are dealing with terrorism the rules about honesty have changed. I believe the administration came up with a plan to deter terrorism and realized Iraq would be an easy and good regime to take out. It sends a message to terrorists that we're crazy. The downside is that the American people and other allies think the Bush administration is crazy too. It shows other countries that if we even think you're up to bad stuff we will take you out. Libya's dicktator is scared and is now complying, and other countries will continue to shape up in fear we will not put up with countries that suppress freedom, infringe on human rights, or support terrorism. We knew North Korea had WMDs, so why didn't we go after them? I'll tell you why? Because they could have used them against us, that's why!!! Hello!!! We went after Iraq because we knew they probably didn't have them so what’s the worst they could do to us? Is that deceitful? Yes! But, Smart! If your honest and try using diplomacy the terrorists and countries who support terrorism laugh because they know just what to expect. Bush is using the tragedy of 9/11 to shape up the world any way he can. I would rather be looked at as crazy/dishonest and be alive, than sane/honest and be dead.

Why haven't we caught Osama then? It might be beneficial to let him flee to another country to see if we are dealing with a friend or foe? If he is in Pakistan, this will be another opportunity to shape up another country? Bush will say to Pakistan, "Give Osama up, because you're either for us or against us." Pakistan will think, "We better do our best to find him or who knows crazy old Bush might attack us." Pakistan then might be motivated to give up more terrorists just to prove to Bush they truly are for the US.

Don't focus on whether or not Bush lies or looks crazy, focus on the results!!! No major terrorist attack in the US since 9/11, seeds of democracy planted in Iraq and Middle East, creeps like Gadhafi and other countries becoming nervous and starting to cooperate, Hussein and Co out of business

I realize this is very conspiracy theory driven, but even if Bush doesn't have a strategic wag the dog plan it is still working. Not perfectly, but pretty darn well!

Do I support Bush? It might surprise you, but some days I do and some days I don't. I have my issues with economic policies, but I believe the economy has done much better than any fiscal or monetary policy change could ever make. The fact is for whatever reason the US has not suffered another attack and that is by far the biggest help to the economy. Is Bush responsible for keeping America safe? Who knows, but I like the results. The world is kept on their toes thinking Bush is some crazy, trigger happy, cowboy.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,685 Posts
Man they're gonna' tear ya' a new one for this, around here

I made this argument a long time ago - sort of. I don't think Bush wants to look crazy to anyone. He wants to look deliberate. He wants the terrorists of the World that we will come after you.

Iraq was the perfect target because they placed themselves within the crosshairs. Now we have a large information gathering machine on the ground right between two other states that sponsor terrorism. What better place to monitor their actions? And, what better place to capture Al Queda and others who use terrorist tactics? They have sustained a great deal of losses to their ranks as a result. It also allows ME Muslims to see what these people are capable of. Maybe they will act against these terrorists to help stem the tide that has been swelling for years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,750 Posts
JohnnyCat said:
Wake up People!!!

Everybody is so concerned whether or not the claims about WMDs are true. Why? The fact is I believe Bush and his administration lied about the WMDs, and I'm not one bit offended or feel betrayed. Look, sometimes it’s not in the best interest to tell the truth.
I don't have as much problem with Bush deliberately lying about WMD as I do the 500+ soldiers that died going to an unneccesary war as a result of that lie. You go ahead and live in your testosterone-laden fantasy that being the world's bully makes us more respected. I, on the other hand, will continue to believe that starting wars with countries that tick us off makes us much less safe and much less respected in the world community.
 

·
off the back
Joined
·
15,584 Posts
the first post was obviously a joke to get a rise from people. but i gotta ask steam a question.

doesn't the news about the pakistanis involvement in the spread of nuclear weapons design and technology to axis of evil powers such as iran and north korea bother you? all information indicates that this was not just some rogue scientist acting on his own, but with the full and complete consent of the pakistani government. and i know that pakistan is supposed to be an ally of ours, but as the president has so brilliantly stated it, "you're either with us or against us".

now you have a state exporting weapons of mass destruction to other states, a threat to world peace and the safety of the united states far greater than iraq ever presented(after all, it was only the possibility that iraq would one day have nuclear weapons, or export those weapons to another state or terrorist group, that was enough to justify full military invasion of the country). here you have a state that possesses WMD's, and has willfully and purposely exported them to terrorist supporting rogue nations. and yet, we do nothing. musharref, despite almost certain knowledge of what was going on, almost as certainly complicit in the action, simply gives the scientist a slap on the wrist and a pardon, the US sits back and approves quietly, and all is well.

now don't give m,e this spiel about political realities, pakistan is an important ally in the region, and whatnot. this president has gone out of his way to take a bold stand on terrorism, that states that harbor terrorist groups, or support them, will face the harshest consequences for doing so. again, "you're either with us or against us". by their actions, not just in this case, but also with regard to osama bin laden being allowed to operate within their borders, it is obvious to anyone with a brain that pakistan is against us. and yet, we do nothing about them.

is the president serious about war against terrorism, wherever it should be found? why do we tolerate the saudis or pakistan willingly supporting terrorism, with much evidence to document so, while manufacturing reasons to move against other states? or do we pick and choose our targets in the war on terrorism based solely on whether they are convenient or not? or is the war against terrorism simply a convenient cover for another, more sinister agenda?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,706 Posts
you dont have any idea how to face or respond to different threats in a different manner do you? you remind me so much of our democratic contenders.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
301 Posts
Go bill! Now THERE'S the intellectual meat and sinew

bill105 said:
you dont have any idea how to face or respond to different threats in a different manner do you? you remind me so much of our democratic contenders.
we've been missing
 

·
off the back
Joined
·
15,584 Posts
bill105 said:
you dont have any idea how to face or respond to different threats in a different manner do you? you remind me so much of our democratic contenders.
no, i do. but our president has said "you're either with us or against us and if you're against us, you are gonna face the consequences". pakistan has been actively engaged in the proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world, and bush isn't doing anything about it. not even responding in a different manner, he's just accepting the fact and doing nothing. what consequences are they facing? shouldn't we have regime change?

so tell me, if iraq was such a threat because they might do something that we needed to militarily invade their country and destroy their government, what kind of threat does that make pakistan, who already have been doing what we were afraid iraq might do?

boy, you can excuse any action, or in this case inaction, by georgie boy, can't you?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
144 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Ok maybe not crazy. Maybe his goal was to look dishonest.

The terrorists have lied to us for years, obviously because that’s what they have to do. There not going to be honest, but they always expect us to take the high moral ground and be truthful. Now that they think we're liars, they can't be so confident that their little song and dance will work. They start to think, "We better comply for real this time or Bush will make up anything to take us out." I know this seems wrong, but you have to use tactics that don't sit well in the moral stomach. The reason is liars must be dealt with lies. The natural reaction is to know the truth, but that is the equivalent of saying I’m setting up a straight, oh shoot I didn’t get the card I wanted, and oh yeah I’ll now raise you a thousand. You have to look at the war on terrorism as a high stakes poker game. Meaning we need to bluff and deceive. It's just how you catch the bad guys. Don't focus on what Bush says; rather focus on what he does and the results of it. Even if his goal was not to look dishonest, it doesn't change things one bit. He appears to be dishonest which worries terrorists and that is beneficial. Also, its not like we went after France, we took out Iraq. Was the war justifiable? Yes and No. If you base your beliefs on what Bush “said” was the reason we needed to go to war; you would answer No. You have to decide if there were other justifiable reasons to go to war with Iraq. I believe there were dozens of reasons. He just happened to sell the wrong one, but like I’ve been saying maybe his intent was to sell the wrong one. To judge if we are moral or not is not by what we say, but by the results we are striving for. If we are to truly take the high moral ground and achieve the best results we flat out need to lie sometimes. What people think could very well be a pawn used to win this chess game. It appears that Bush is striving for peace and democracy throughout the world. We should only start to worry if his actions and results would suggest otherwise. So far I like the results.

Thanks John

Live Stream
I want them to come after me, if I didn't I wouldn't have written this. Heated debate is always fun.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,750 Posts
JohnnyCat said:
The terrorists have lied to us for years, obviously because that’s what they have to do. There not going to be honest, but they always expect us to take the high moral ground and be truthful. Now that they think we're liars, they can't be so confident that their little song and dance will work. They start to think, "We better comply for real this time or Bush will make up anything to take us out." I know this seems wrong, but you have to use tactics that don't sit well in the moral stomach. The reason is liars must be dealt with lies. The natural reaction is to know the truth, but that is the equivalent of saying I’m setting up a straight, oh shoot I didn’t get the card I wanted, and oh yeah I’ll now raise you a thousand. You have to look at the war on terrorism as a high stakes poker game. Meaning we need to bluff and deceive. It's just how you catch the bad guys. Don't focus on what Bush says; rather focus on what he does and the results of it. Even if his goal was not to look dishonest, it doesn't change things one bit. He appears to be dishonest which worries terrorists and that is beneficial. Also, its not like we went after France, we took out Iraq. Was the war justifiable? Yes and No. If you base your beliefs on what Bush “said” was the reason we needed to go to war; you would answer No. You have to decide if there were other justifiable reasons to go to war with Iraq. I believe there were dozens of reasons. He just happened to sell the wrong one, but like I’ve been saying maybe his intent was to sell the wrong one. To judge if we are moral or not is not by what we say, but by the results we are striving for. If we are to truly take the high moral ground and achieve the best results we flat out need to lie sometimes. What people think could very well be a pawn used to win this chess game. It appears that Bush is striving for peace and democracy throughout the world. We should only start to worry if his actions and results would suggest otherwise. So far I like the results.

Thanks John

Live Stream
I want them to come after me, if I didn't I wouldn't have written this. Heated debate is always fun.
Heated debate? Sorry...but you scare me. I can only hope your views are in the minority for all of our sakes. Rome took 200 years to fall. The USA could fall much quicker if this becomes the popular opinion.
 

·
off the back
Joined
·
15,584 Posts
JohnnyCat said:
The terrorists have lied to us for years, obviously because that’s what they have to do. There not going to be honest, but they always expect us to take the high moral ground and be truthful. Now that they think we're liars, they can't be so confident that their little song and dance will work. They start to think, "We better comply for real this time or Bush will make up anything to take us out." I know this seems wrong, but you have to use tactics that don't sit well in the moral stomach. The reason is liars must be dealt with lies. The natural reaction is to know the truth, but that is the equivalent of saying I’m setting up a straight, oh shoot I didn’t get the card I wanted, and oh yeah I’ll now raise you a thousand. You have to look at the war on terrorism as a high stakes poker game. Meaning we need to bluff and deceive. It's just how you catch the bad guys. Don't focus on what Bush says; rather focus on what he does and the results of it. Even if his goal was not to look dishonest, it doesn't change things one bit. He appears to be dishonest which worries terrorists and that is beneficial. Also, its not like we went after France, we took out Iraq. Was the war justifiable? Yes and No. If you base your beliefs on what Bush “said” was the reason we needed to go to war; you would answer No. You have to decide if there were other justifiable reasons to go to war with Iraq. I believe there were dozens of reasons. He just happened to sell the wrong one, but like I’ve been saying maybe his intent was to sell the wrong one. To judge if we are moral or not is not by what we say, but by the results we are striving for. If we are to truly take the high moral ground and achieve the best results we flat out need to lie sometimes. What people think could very well be a pawn used to win this chess game. It appears that Bush is striving for peace and democracy throughout the world. We should only start to worry if his actions and results would suggest otherwise. So far I like the results.

Thanks John

Live Stream
I want them to come after me, if I didn't I wouldn't have written this. Heated debate is always fun.
all well and good. unfortunately, that's not how democracies are supposed to work. get back to us when bush dissolves the congress and the courts and appoints himself dictator for life.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,706 Posts
you operate under the same assumption most bush haters like czar do, that you know everything our government is doing and all pressure put on an adversary or any actions taken are reported in the nyt. you dont seem to realize that there are solutions or actions available other than those you think of. i doubt very seriously that bush "isnt doing anything about it" and i hope youre not that clueless.

as far as iraq i am satisfied we did the right thing for a number of reasons hashed out endlessly on this board which doesnt change anyones mind anyway. it was feared iraq, with or without wmd but definately, with the intention of harm towards the us, could/would/did have the capability to arm terrorists with wmd or wmd technology. pakistan hasnt been proven of selling or equipping al qaeda with wmd. the proliferation of wmd technology between nations is another story and subject.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
144 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Rufus you're absolutely right.

If this does become the popular opinion we are doomed. I love the fact that most everybody thinks we should always be honest, and the real debate is whether or not Bush lied. Again a wag the dog strategy only works if you’re fooling the people. Otherwise it appears to be blatant arrogance to say lying is ok. You have to decide which country is striving for the best moral results. Sometimes the best way to achieve them is through deceit. The plan fails if the majority starts advocating lying is ok to achieve results. Yes, I realize that is what I'm doing. The reason is because other countries will feel offended if we start putting into question what is right and wrong. They will get ticked off to say the least that we think we have some high moral superiority on issues, and that we will lie to achieve our agenda. I bet you’re thinking I contradicted myself. You see if they or we truly "know" what the administration is up to it doesn't work. There just has to be a seed of doubt about whether or not Bush lied or intended to lie. The fact that nobody knows is perfect. I thought I'd present this idea because I knew many would disagree. The fact that a lot of people disagree shows that if this truly was the intentions of the administration it is proving to work flawlessly. The key to this wag the dog philosophy is doubt. I'm only speculating on what could be happening. I'm pretty much saying focus on the results, and not at the tactics. The results are what you should base your opinions on. I know there is always the debate that he just got lucky, or the results could be better, or whatever.

Thanks John
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,685 Posts
No one has to tell me how fun ...

"heated debate" can be ;) I guess rufus was wrong about you not being serious!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,750 Posts
JohnnyCat said:
< snip > I'm pretty much saying focus on the results, and not at the tactics. The results are what you should base your opinions on. I know there is always the debate that he just got lucky, or the results could be better, or whatever.

Thanks John
Hitler was a pretty effective leader then if this is your sole guiding priciple.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,685 Posts
What is this "respect" you are speaking of?

Since when does any country feel the need to be "respected" by another? Did the French and other nations respect the fact that they signed onto UN res. 1441 and yet did not feel the need to see it enforced properly? Did the French and others thumb their nose at UN Res. 1441 and engage in illicit business with Iraq? Are the French and others members of NATO and as such, are bound to assisting other member nations if and when threatened? They said they would not defend Turkey, a member of NATO, if Turkey allowed access to airspace for US planes? What respect are you talking about?

The reality of things are nations only respect what is good for their own interests. Period. End of sentence. That includes the US too. However, there was a coalition of countries that participated in Desert Freedom. Just because a few others didn't agree or participate does not mean the entire World community was against what happened. You know all of these facts, but your partisanship doesn't allow you to admit any of this.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
144 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Bo. Jones give me a freakin break!

No, you're right Bush is Hitler. Stupid of me that I forgot.

I might be a little out there at times, but the whole Bush is the next Hitler analogies are so pathetic.

The tactics of Hitler was to convince people a certain race was superior. The results of Hitler was a bunch of dead innocent people. Oh let me guess, Bush too kills innocent people and feels that rich white people are the only pure race.

Besides, Hitler was elected with a majority of the vote, so Bush is nothing like Hitler. Only kidding right wingers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
251 Posts
so you think we need

to blanketly and blindly apply one line of commentary by the president to be policy in and of itself regardless of any other circumstances or considerations or even thoughts?

Man, you're the only one.

Thank goodness none of us have you in charge.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
301 Posts
Wow, that was even more incoherent than usual.

Troyboy said:
to blanketly and blindly apply one line of commentary by the president to be policy in and of itself regardless of any other circumstances or considerations or even thoughts?

Man, you're the only one.

Thank goodness none of us have you in charge.
You're deep into the word salad today, my good friend. Paint thinner must be on sale at Tool Barn.
 

·
off the back
Joined
·
15,584 Posts
Troyboy said:
to blanketly and blindly apply one line of commentary by the president to be policy in and of itself regardless of any other circumstances or considerations or even thoughts?

Man, you're the only one.

Thank goodness none of us have you in charge.
but that's the basis of his entire war on terrorism: any nation who harbors terrorists, or aids terrorists or terrorist supporting nations, are acting in ways detrimental to world peace and the safety and security of the united states of america.as a result, the united states will view them as part of the axis of evil, and treat them accordingly.

so which is more dangerous? iraq under saddam, who may or may not possess wmd's, and could develop a nuclear weapon, and might, just might, pass them on to another rogue nation or terrorist group, or pakistan, who possess beyond a doubt wmd's, including nuclear weapons, and have passed that nuclear weapon technology onto axis of evil mamber north korea, iran, and also libya and who knows who else.

so i guess it's not really that big a deal to pass nuclear weapons on to rogue nations who might use them against the united states, or united states interests. i guess it's just a bad thing if you might consider it someday.

you guys are so spinelessly bush apologists you sicken me. yeah, if i wqs in charge, i might be doing something about the threats that are present now, not fabricating things to invade countries who might someday, if they get lucky and the entire world community ignores their actions, actually start producing weapons again.
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top