FAKE CONSPIRACY -> Bush-wackedStart A New Topic | Reply
Post InfoTOPIC: Bush-wacked
Posted By: Beth

Posted On: Jan 28, 2004
Views: 674
RE: Bush-wacked

Stupid American:
LOL!!


Posted By: Aurora

Posted On: Jan 28, 2004
Views: 672
RE: Bush-wacked

Stupid American, you're right. If it was my mom making those statements, I would be embarrassed at myself for posting such a rudimentary argument, however the case is not such. Those statemenst came from David Kay, the CIA guy who was in charge of the intelligence department that went to Iraq to search for weapons. He is the one who said there are no weapons. Nice try though.


Posted By: Concerned

Posted On: Jan 28, 2004
Views: 671
RE: Bush-wacked

Gas prices have gone up $0.20 per gallon in the last 2 weeks in Houston. Bush sounds and looks like a "Boss from Hell" with a 5th grade education. I'm afraid to try and cash my tax refund check cause it might bounce. I can't remember the last time a ticket to a football game or concert was reasonable. When CD's first came out I read an article about how much cheaper it cost's to make a CD instead of a tape and then I noticed the price of them tripled. My car was made in mexico where labor is cheaper, but the cost was higher than ever. Clinton LOOKED like he knew what he was doing. Should I put 50% into a 401k and eat tuna from the can for 50 years and send my kid to a university or spend my money while I'm alive to make me and the people around me happy? Maybe I should get caught trying to rob a bank and get a college degree from jail and be a surgeon to mobsters when I get out. Lawns are stupid. Green concrete is more practical. The ice age is over, it's gonna get hotter. Don't blame the hair spray. God drinks Coke just like Santa. None of the above should be added to all voting ballots. Always vote "NO" on everything, if it was such a great idea it would already be in place. "Yes" just means, "Ok, you've found a new way to screw me, I'll take it." Give your gently worn shoes to the homeless. With some dental products and some can's of tuna. Let them fight for an opener.


Posted By: The Doc

Posted On: Jan 28, 2004
Views: 669
RE: Bush-wacked

Aurora,

Your argument doesn't make sense at all. People working in the intelligence community know that the information they receive might not always be correct. Their sources might not be as good, whatever the reason may be. So the people making the decisions have to make a choice as to whether the information is reliable, well still keeping in mind that the intelligence that they've received may be untrue.


Posted By: leroy

Posted On: Jan 28, 2004
Views: 665
RE: Bush-wacked

wow, kudos on cracking that case guys. But to any bush suporters, how about that deficete huh? the biggest ever right?


Posted By: ChroMolly

Posted On: Jan 28, 2004
Views: 660
RE: Bush-wacked

1) Iraq has the second largest oil reserves on the planet, behind Saudi Arabia (where we already have military bases).
2) Iraq has threatened to restrict or flood the oil market in an attempt to affect the global economy. This does work, see energy crisis 1972.
3) The global, and therefore the US economy is based on oil.
4) For decades, the foreign policy of the US has been to maintain the high standard of living and economic superiority of the US and it's citizens.
5) In order to ensure the stability of the price of oil, stability in the region around the majority of the world's oil reserves must be ensured. (See no. 2)
6) To ensure stability (in the favor of the US) of the region surrounding Iraq's oil fields, US or allied (Britain, Madagascar, Borneo, the axis of um, non argument) military bases need to be permanently established there.
7) Zimbabwe, North Korea and Myanmar are all higher on the list of ruthless, evil governments than Iraq. These countries don't have anywhere close to as much oil as Iraq, and these governments haven't been bumrushed by the Bushes. Twice.

Oil IS the focal point of this war.


Posted By: VOid

Posted On: Jan 28, 2004
Views: 658
RE: Bush-wacked

" bumrushed by the Bushes. Twice."

LOL. that has to be the greatest and easiest way to explain this whole mess ever.


Posted By: Aurora

Posted On: Jan 28, 2004
Views: 655
RE: Bush-wacked

The Doc,

I will AGAIN state that this is not my argument. Nor do I think it's an argument of any standing, it is merely presenting you with some information that is available to the general public. The information comes from DAVID KAY. For those of you who don't know who DAVID KAY is, here is a website you can check. http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text2003/0612cia.htm

b/c I’m sure most of you wont go to the website I will give you the briefest of details. David Kay was been appointed as a special advisor for strategy to assist the United States in searching for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, he has since resigned. He has claimed that the intelligence agency failed on this and need an overhaul, ... I even found you guys an american website talking about what DAVID KAY said, http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2 004/01/28/david_kays_concession/
Again, I will even give you a quote cause I know it’s a lot for you to click,

“'I'm personally convinced that there were not large stockpiles of newly produced weapons of mass destruction," the outgoing chief of the Iraq Survey Group, David Kay, has told The New York Times. Kay's conclusions illuminate a glaring failure of intelligence that must be corrected”

So there you go, there really is no way you can attack my argument, b/c there is no argument for you to attack, it is a stating of facts.


Posted By: Stupid American

Posted On: Jan 29, 2004
Views: 651
RE: Bush-wacked

So Kay isn't convinced that there are "large stockpiles of newly-produced weapons of mass destruction".

Does this mean that there are large stockpiles of old weapons of mass destruction? Or that there are small stockpiles of newly-produced weapons of mass destruction? Personally, it doesn't matter to me if they're newly-produced or not. Do those things have an expiration date?

"Use Mustard Gas before 12/05/02 for best effects..."

or

"This Smallpox virus expires on Jan 28, 2003"

And I'm also not comfortable with the idea of small stockpiles of newly produced weapons of mass destruction. Sounds to me like Kay isn't really ruling out that the weapons are there. He's just saying he can't find large production facilities.

The global community knows the weapons were there. We saw Saddam use them on his own people and also on the Iranians. The destruction of his arsenal has never been documented. To pretend that they just magically disappeared is dangerous. I'm not a weapons expert, but I'm pretty sure they don't just evaporate.


Posted By: Mr Pink

Posted On: Jan 29, 2004
Views: 631
RE: Bush-wacked

Just wanted to add that just because the WMD weren't there, and the government (under Bush) used some sketchy and faulty intelligence (if such a word can be used for anything related to the President) does not mean that Bush and his people didn't believe there were WMD in Iraq in the first place. The most common explanation when someone makes up Data is that they "already knew the answer." I think this is the case with the Bush administration: they figured they already knew the answer, they just couldn't prove it. After all, there were tons of WMDs around the last time the inspectors were in Iraq, and Saddam gave no evidence for their distruction, so Bush's people figured they still existed. They then fudged up some data, told the UN to go F themselves invaded. To their complete surprise and utter embarassment, when the smoke cleared, there were no WMDs, the population weren't all that thrilled about being occupied by a foreign power, and they were left spending billions (trillions?) to rebuild a nation that HATES them.

As to why Iraq and not the North Korea, which we KNOW has (or is very close to having) WMDs? North Korea could wipe Soul of the face of the map, causing billions in damage and killing tens of thousands within minutes of any invasion of the North. And that's with only conventional weapons. Iraq, on the other hand, couldn't really hurt anyone in response to an invasion.

One last thing: immagine what the second term of the Bush presidency is going to be like, when he doesn't have to worry about ****ing off the moderates and losing re-election. Things could get ugly. . .


Posted By: Beth

Posted On: Jan 30, 2004
Views: 615
RE: Bush-wacked

PLEASE no second term for Bush!! Seen the article in Rolling Stone about the Alskan Chainsaw Massacre? http://www.rollingstone.com/features/featuregen.asp?pid=2761
And that's just ONE thing he's doing!


Posted By: yakpak

Posted On: Feb 1, 2004
Views: 606
RE: Bush-wacked

Im with you on this one Aurora,

Whether or not weapons of mass destruction exist in Iraq should not be the issue here, the issue is was there compelling enough evidence that they exist to attack Iraq at the time of the attack, or was it all for alterior motives. Im gonna have to go with the latter. Fine, Bush can say he can't reveal the evidence to the public, that makes sense, but after claming to share his 'evidence' with the UN's security council and having the support of all of 1 country, I think I'll side with a roomfull of world leaders as opposed to our president, who has been quite prone to lie. If you look at his state of the union address from last year, 99% of everything in that speach has been shown to be lies. Anyway, David Kay and all the important decision makers vs. the 2 to 3 guys in America who are keeping the truth to themselves, I dont think its a particularly hard choice...


Pages [ 1 2 ]