Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post - Bush takes large lead on Kerry: latest polls

Lanny_MacDonald · 09-06-2004, 01:14 PM

Are you suggesting your tune would be one single bit different if the UN had given the nod of agreement?

Hell yes, I would be 100 percent behind that because there would have been world concensus and participation on this military action. If the Americans were fighting along side the Russians, the Germans, the Chinese, the French, etc. (the other Security Counsel members) I would be completely behind this action. The fact that none of these countries could find the evidence presented convincing was more than enough to say it was nothing but BS. The UN is there as mechanism to protect the countries that cannot protect themselves from the world superpowers, and their decisions must be followed by ALL countries, including the United States, no matter what the transgression was against them.

What about the 50+ countries that DID agree and still have troops over there?

And just how many swimmers in the pool are there from each of these countries? And what is their resolve? It seems that events of the past few months has scared off a few nations and their massive commitment to this action. Who is participating in this action anyways? Here's your answer.

Afghanistan (the puppet government), Albania, Australia (Bill O'Reilly's new best friends), Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait (the lone Arab state), Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands (a US Territory), Micronesia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, Philippines (turned tail and ran), Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands (proberly don't want any more of their islands nuked), South Korea (needing protection fron the US from the North Koreans), Spain (turned tail and ran), Turkey, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Uzbekistan.

Is this seriously the type of support that the US was hoping for? Banana republics and nations in dire need of US foreign aid?

but what right did Hussein have to invade Iran...or Kuwait....

Interesting that you bring up Iran. It was the US that backed Iraq in their attack of Iran. Doesn't seem like they should be pointing fngers in that regard. And Hussein was punished and declawed for his attack on Kuwait. There was no threat from Iraq. There was no need for an invasion. NOt on any of the excuses that Bush and Co. have trotted out, and continued to shift in an attempt o buy some credability in the invasion.

The US isnt there to take over the country, they went in and removed a dangerous dictator whom reigned terror over an entire region that was unable to fight back...

If this is the course of action that the US wishes to take, then why the hell are they not in Sudan? Why are they not in North Korea, where a manaical dictator IS killing his own people and DOES have weapons of mass destruction? Removing a dangerous dictator? That's a bullsh*t answer and you know it Tranny. The US military said that Hussein was no threat. It was the civilian group that forced the issue. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were the drivers behind this invasion. Not the intelligence community. Not the military. It was the civilains in the pentagon. The two motivations that have been floated have been proven to be false. That leaves others, which are greed and a grudge. Neither is a good motivation for making an illegal military intervention into a country.

I have another question for you. Even IF Bush is re-elected and continues this vast right wing conspiracy you claim he is on, what happens in 4 years when he HAS to step down?

That's a simple answer. Another Bush (Jeb) runs for office. He's the guy that the PNAC has been grooming. He'll be a popular candidate as well, especially with the Hispanic community. If Bush feels he isn't ready, the PNAC finds another candidate they can easily control as Bush 43. It probably doesn't take a lot find a dim wit like Bush that would want to be President.

I'll say this. If the 2008 or 2012 elections are won by a Republican, and you see a lot of the names that are PNAC members, then I think you can come back and apologize then. If these guys disappear from the scene all together, then I'll come back and say just how wrong I was in accusing them of a clandestine operation to control the Whitehouse.

you use a whole bunch of media links to try and backup your outlandish claims!!

Really? I don't use links much because I don't believe what the mainstream media is telling us. The stories just don't add up. The media is way too fickle and doesn't follow through on stories so you never get the complete picture. You have to continue to dig yourself and find the information from other sources (you do remember what books are, right?). Unless you can look at a paper trail front to back then I can't believe what the sensationalistic press have to say on a topic. The perfect example is Afghanistan. WTF is going on there? We haven't heard jack as to what is going on there because it is no longer sexy to the American media, the front line reporters have moved on to Iraq and because the government has choked off reports coming out of there. Should that not be the primary front on the "War against Terror"? You speak of credability, but what credability does the media have when they can't follow a story through to its finish? What credability do you have in repeating everything that comes out of the press, even though it doesn't add up? Hell, at least I was proven right that the Americans were indeed lying in regards to WMD and their motivations of going into Iraq. Or do you still cling to the hope that WMD are going to be found?

Believe what you want Tranny. But I think you are placing way too much faith in the media and in believing that the Whitehouse is going to give the full story on soemthing that could be completely humiliating to them. The Whitehouse is in damage control and has been since going into Iraq. Every day they find a new excuse to ignore domestic affairs and focus on international affairs. Of course the media jumps on this because foreign affairs is much more interesting, and more of a distraction, than domestic affairs and what troubles America. Its a great strategy for keeping the Republicans in office. Get them watching the left hand so they don't worry about what the right hand is doing. But that is something you won't see in the media. It doesn't sell. And selling is what America is all about.

09-06-2004, 01:14 PM	#62
Lanny_MacDonald Lifetime Suspension Join Date: Oct 2001 Exp:	Are you suggesting your tune would be one single bit different if the UN had given the nod of agreement? Hell yes, I would be 100 percent behind that because there would have been world concensus and participation on this military action. If the Americans were fighting along side the Russians, the Germans, the Chinese, the French, etc. (the other Security Counsel members) I would be completely behind this action. The fact that none of these countries could find the evidence presented convincing was more than enough to say it was nothing but BS. The UN is there as mechanism to protect the countries that cannot protect themselves from the world superpowers, and their decisions must be followed by ALL countries, including the United States, no matter what the transgression was against them. What about the 50+ countries that DID agree and still have troops over there? And just how many swimmers in the pool are there from each of these countries? And what is their resolve? It seems that events of the past few months has scared off a few nations and their massive commitment to this action. Who is participating in this action anyways? Here's your answer. Afghanistan (the puppet government), Albania, Australia (Bill O'Reilly's new best friends), Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait (the lone Arab state), Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands (a US Territory), Micronesia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, Philippines (turned tail and ran), Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands (proberly don't want any more of their islands nuked), South Korea (needing protection fron the US from the North Koreans), Spain (turned tail and ran), Turkey, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Uzbekistan. Is this seriously the type of support that the US was hoping for? Banana republics and nations in dire need of US foreign aid? but what right did Hussein have to invade Iran...or Kuwait.... Interesting that you bring up Iran. It was the US that backed Iraq in their attack of Iran. Doesn't seem like they should be pointing fngers in that regard. And Hussein was punished and declawed for his attack on Kuwait. There was no threat from Iraq. There was no need for an invasion. NOt on any of the excuses that Bush and Co. have trotted out, and continued to shift in an attempt o buy some credability in the invasion. The US isnt there to take over the country, they went in and removed a dangerous dictator whom reigned terror over an entire region that was unable to fight back... If this is the course of action that the US wishes to take, then why the hell are they not in Sudan? Why are they not in North Korea, where a manaical dictator IS killing his own people and DOES have weapons of mass destruction? Removing a dangerous dictator? That's a bullsht answer and you know it Tranny. The US military said that Hussein was no threat. It was the civilian group that forced the issue. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were the drivers behind this invasion. Not the intelligence community. Not the military. It was the civilains in the pentagon. The two motivations that have been floated have been proven to be false. That leaves others, which are greed and a grudge. Neither is a good motivation for making an illegal military intervention into a country. I have another question for you. Even IF Bush is re-elected and continues this vast right wing conspiracy you claim he is on, what happens in 4 years when he HAS to step down?* That's a simple answer. Another Bush (Jeb) runs for office. He's the guy that the PNAC has been grooming. He'll be a popular candidate as well, especially with the Hispanic community. If Bush feels he isn't ready, the PNAC finds another candidate they can easily control as Bush 43. It probably doesn't take a lot find a dim wit like Bush that would want to be President. I'll say this. If the 2008 or 2012 elections are won by a Republican, and you see a lot of the names that are PNAC members, then I think you can come back and apologize then. If these guys disappear from the scene all together, then I'll come back and say just how wrong I was in accusing them of a clandestine operation to control the Whitehouse. you use a whole bunch of media links to try and backup your outlandish claims!! Really? I don't use links much because I don't believe what the mainstream media is telling us. The stories just don't add up. The media is way too fickle and doesn't follow through on stories so you never get the complete picture. You have to continue to dig yourself and find the information from other sources (you do remember what books are, right?). Unless you can look at a paper trail front to back then I can't believe what the sensationalistic press have to say on a topic. The perfect example is Afghanistan. WTF is going on there? We haven't heard jack as to what is going on there because it is no longer sexy to the American media, the front line reporters have moved on to Iraq and because the government has choked off reports coming out of there. Should that not be the primary front on the "War against Terror"? You speak of credability, but what credability does the media have when they can't follow a story through to its finish? What credability do you have in repeating everything that comes out of the press, even though it doesn't add up? Hell, at least I was proven right that the Americans were indeed lying in regards to WMD and their motivations of going into Iraq. Or do you still cling to the hope that WMD are going to be found? Believe what you want Tranny. But I think you are placing way too much faith in the media and in believing that the Whitehouse is going to give the full story on soemthing that could be completely humiliating to them. The Whitehouse is in damage control and has been since going into Iraq. Every day they find a new excuse to ignore domestic affairs and focus on international affairs. Of course the media jumps on this because foreign affairs is much more interesting, and more of a distraction, than domestic affairs and what troubles America. Its a great strategy for keeping the Republicans in office. Get them watching the left hand so they don't worry about what the right hand is doing. But that is something you won't see in the media. It doesn't sell. And selling is what America is all about.