Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: midnight Target on October 28, 2004, 10:34:43 AM
-
a [person] who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your commander in chief.
My favorite quote of the campaign so far.
-
I know it a good one you goof. And I’m actually not sure! This is insane! Tell me! You are holding out till I go crazy, lol! S! You nut! Tee hee.
-
Is this a witty way of saying Bush jumped to conclusions about Iraqi WMD? Pretty lame. He had the best intelligence info available and made his decisions. What would you have done? What would Kerry have done?
-
"Our military is now investigating a number of possible scenarios, including that the explosives may have been moved before our troops even arrived at the site," Mr. Bush told a Republican crowd in Lancaster, Pa. "This investigation is important and it's ongoing, and a political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your commander in chief."
Some might compare Bushs belief regarding WMD in Iraq as comparable to Kerry and the explosives nonsense, but that would too simplisitic. Bush was relying on the information provided by the nations top intelligence gathering agency, later felt to be faulty, while Kerry was relying on the NYT, a newspaper that has been proving to be less than a honest bastion of reporting.
-
hehe. Bush said it. A perfect pot-->kettle moment.
-
The way things are shaking out..... who knows what was in iraq? Seems iraqis took american troops to sites that they claimed had WMD and those sites were empty. Does that mean that they never were there? don't know.
If you go by all the intellegence from several countries and then act the way more than 80% of the country wants you to act after getting the best coalition of countries you can manage (all those who don't have some illegal dealings with iraq) well....
That seems somewhat different than a candidate going ballistic based on the report of... wait for it.... cbs news.
in the former example.... even today new evidence is coming out .... In the latter case.... he was made to look like a fool allmost as the words left his mouth...
so far as irony goes.... kerrie is the big winner of the irony prize with his statement about how Bush "rushed" to war without any evidence.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Creamo
I know it a good one you goof. And I’m actually not sure! This is insane! Tell me! You are holding out till I go crazy, lol! S! You nut! Tee hee.
And here all this time I thought I was too subtle for the room. Thanks for your insight and depth Creamo... I am vindicated by your intelligent response. All those people who say you suck are wrong.. ALL of them.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
If you go by all the intellegence from several countries and then act the way more than 80% of the country wants you to act after getting the best coalition of countries you can manage (all those who don't have some illegal dealings with iraq) well....
lazs
That's just down right funny, even more so coming from Laz.
-
I suck? Who said that?
List them. I'd be happy to discuss any topic with them, and discuss why YOU just can’t make any new thread in the O’Club that is fun. In fact, just idiotic political boring crap.
-
it's a good thing bush didn't "rush to war" any faster than he did or our troops might have found the WMD and 380 tons of bangbang. how embarrassing it would have been to find our russian allies loading trucks with the stuff.
-
Boy the nerve of that John sKerry trying to insinuate that our great leader George Bush disregarded the military’s advise and sent less than 1/3 the number of troops to secure the country and it’s 995 known ammo dumps.
Everybody’s nose that the oil ministries had to be secured first!... Ammo Dumps?.. he should know Iraq is a dangerous place!
That Jon Kerry is such a poppyhead.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heya Toad, I was up here about a month ago briefly. Saw your post about health issues, your in my prayers bro.
-
10bears , you silly , john heinz-kerry has been saying Iraq was no threat, now he says it was such a big threat that bush should have sent in more troops to fight "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time".
john heinz-kerry::" bush should have sent in more/no troops, later/sooner, to fight/not fight the threat/no threat of Iraq and i JFK(war hero/protester of 3 months with many medals that i did/did not throw away) will do what bush is doing but will do it better because i "have a plan","
yess, it is very clear now
-
this is really funny.... Bush led probly the most sucessful and least expensive in American lives, war of all time and now some of you wussies are saying he didn't do enough?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
this is really funny.... Bush led probly the most sucessful and least expensive in American lives, war of all time and now some of you wussies are saying he didn't do enough?
lazs
Define successful? AFAIK the war is still ongoing...unless of course you're referring to the declaration regarding the end of hostile activities in April 2003.
-
Originally posted by Creamo
I suck? Who said that?
List them. I'd be happy to discuss any topic with them, and discuss why YOU just can’t make any new thread in the O’Club that is fun. In fact, just idiotic political boring crap.
You cut me to the quick. So much so that I actually looked to see if my "new threads" were political. Since October 1st they have covered the following topics:
1. Mr Wizard
2. Cool WW2 Trivia
3. Famous people in WW2
4. Eagler's health (political)
5. Stem Cell research
6. The right to party
7. Bush's support by Iranian minister
8. This here thread.
I will accept your apology in writing.
Oh wait.. :aok <--- signifies what is up your ***.
-
Originally posted by john9001
10bears , you silly , john heinz-kerry has been saying Iraq was no threat, now he says it was such a big threat that bush should have sent in more troops to fight "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time".
when did he say Iraq was no threat?
I remember him saying we should have exhausted the other options to deal with Iraq
-
red bottom.... most wars are considered successful when the enemy can no longer raise an army.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
red bottom.... most wars are considered successful when the enemy can no longer raise an army.
lazs
I stand corrected, the American forces are merely engaged in war games with the innocent, law abiding citizens of Fallujah, who are only posing as insurgents that have occupied the city.:rolleyes:
-
LOL, is “information resistance” a polite way of saying... um.. never mind. John Iraq was not a threat to anyone they couldn’t launch an attack on Lichenstine.. If they had any WMD at all it would be a couple of buckets of bug spray left over from ... well from when Reagan gave it to them in the 80’s.
Of course if you insist on adapting the Japanese foreign policy of the early 40’s, you should at least have the where with all to have the correct number of troops to do the job. One job description would be to secure “all” the ammo dumps just in the slight chance, as remote as it may be, that some folks might object to being overthrown and occupied by a foreign power.
this is really funny.... Bush led probly(sic) the most sucessful (sic) and least expensive in American lives, war of all time and now some of you wussies (sic) are saying he didn't do enough?
lazs
Absolutely correct Lazs.. well if you take away Operation Desert Storm or Operation Allied Force.. Operation Allied Force was 1,125 times MORE successful. You probably don’t remember that.. At the time you were fixated on another man’s genitals.
-
10bears, reports say there were/are 500 ammo dumps in Iraq, how many troops do you need to "secure" them?
i need a number, 200,000, 500,000, 1 million, 2 million?
-
If they had any WMD at all it would be a couple of buckets of bug spray left over from ... well from when Reagan gave it to them in the 80’s.
It's already been shown that chemicals the US sold to Iraq were sold to them for agricultural uses. Some of the chemicals had a dual-use. None of the chemicals we sold them were critical ingredients for the manufacture of chemical weapons.
We also sold Iraq Anthrax spores to use in making Anthrax vaccine for livestock.
-
Well John that was the question put to General Shasikilli (spelling) by Sen. Levin during the Senate Foreign relationship committee meeting.. He said between 400 to 500 thousand troops.. The administration got beet faced mad and had him early retired.
(source: “Rumfield’s War” pbs.org)
-
Elfie number one the guy that laid a reef on the graves of SS soldiers did not sell he gave Saddam these chemicals.
Number two this is a cover story.
Number three these chemicals came at the same time the Iran/Iraq war was flaring up
Number four we wanted to punish Iran for that business back there with the embassy
-
Originally posted by Elfie
It's already been shown that chemicals the US sold to Iraq were sold to them for agricultural uses. Some of the chemicals had a dual-use. None of the chemicals we sold them were critical ingredients for the manufacture of chemical weapons.
We also sold Iraq Anthrax spores to use in making Anthrax vaccine for livestock.
Yeah sure, hmmm...i know the Brits asked you to do it again, LaRf!
http://www.gulfwarvets.com/news12.htm
-
Any real supporter of Bush that knew him and his record and supported him for who he is wouldnt make up crap about their being evidence to support WMD. The whole point of the man is that he does what he wants and he says what he has to to get to do what he wants.
There is no policy, evidence or rational behind what he does. He does it because he wants to.
All these clowns that insist there must have been good evidence really must not support who Bush is. Evidence, plans, rational, consensus, constraints.
Those of for the other guy. No honest Bush supporter would require them, or imply that Bush had or valued them.