War, Casualties, Saddam, Bush, Etc.

[Pangloss]

I'm sorry you feel that way, but it was not my intention to threaten you, just to point out that the fact that I mis-spelled his name doesn't mean I know nothing about him. If I gave you that impression then I humbly apologize.

 

I don't understand why you feel a need to continue to insult me and my opinion, but that's your prerogative and I respect your position on the issue, if not your method of defense. You asked me to defend my assertion, and I've done so (as did another person). I don't know what else I can really tell you.

 

You're obviously looking for a hate partner, but I can't help you with that. It's not what I do.

[atinymonkey]

I'm sorry you feel that way, but it was not my intention to threaten you, just to point out that the fact that I mis-spelled his name doesn't mean I know nothing about him. If I gave you that impression then I humbly apologize.

It's not that I'm threatened, but don't see why you would post "It's probably not a good idea for you to assume I'm not familiar with his background." and then claim it wasn't a warning. It doesn't sound all warm and fluffy, really.

I don't understand why you feel a need to continue to insult me and my opinion, but that's your prerogative and I respect your position on the issue, if not your method of defense. You asked me to defend my assertion, and I've done so (as did another person). I don't know what else I can really tell you.

Syke was not agreeing with you. I was not agreeing with you. Nether was I insulting you. What I was doing was discussing your opinion, which in a complete coincidence is what we do around here. The threads, by and large, are not here for the members to pander to each others egos. I'm heartily sorry that our opinions differ, as I am sorry that my perception of events do not tally with yours. The point of discussion is to find some middleground, or for one side to convince another. You have to understand that every single post that you make is open to critique, dismissal, incomprehension and the myriad of events that reading statments may illicit from any browsing user.

 

You're obviously looking for a hate partner, but I can't help you with that. It's not what I do.

 

I'm obviously open to political discussion, debate and conversation. I am not open to character assassination, even when peoples theories don't happen to correlate with reality. In the real world shouting "you are mean" is not a persuasive method of debate, nor is it here.

[Pangloss]

Sorry, just not interested in the ad hominem.

 

As for whether I have given evidence that Hans Blix believed in 2003 that there might still be weapons in Iraq, I again refer you to this quote, *in his own words*.

 

Another matter - and one of great significance - is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. To take an example, a document, which Iraq provided, suggested to us that some 1,000 tonnes of chemical agent were "unaccounted for". One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist. However, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented.

Do you have a refutation for this, or do you not?

[r1dermon]

well, it was cheyney himself that said "it is unlikely that a connection between saddam hussein and al quida existed" now, in this he didnt say never, but he did say that if there was a connection, it was way before the war in iraq. also, why iraq? why not north korea? they have nukes! oh yeah...we actually KNOW they have nukes...not only that...we are ALREADY stationed close by in south korea AND japan. its a no brainer...why not iran? why not jordan?? all these other countries have nukes, and yet we go after iraq....why any of them? our mission is to stop osama bin laden, he took our towers out...its him that we want. we dont give a crap about saddam. well, maybe some misguided bush loyalists who blindly follow him to the death because of religious reasons do. but as a whole, we would be a lot more pleased if osama had been caught instead of saddam. and i'll guarantee that bush starts saying that we're close to getting him, or he comes out and says that we got him, just to get re-elected. we probably have had him for a year, but they wanted to wait until elections to tell everyone so that support goes through the roof. typical.

[atinymonkey]

Sorry, just not interested in the ad hominem.

 

Again, questioning your opinions is not a personal attack and hamfisted attempts to deflect discussions through character assassination do not add to your arguments in any way. You don't like my point of view, fine. Discussions upset you, fine. It's not really my fault though, is it?

 

As for whether I have given evidence that Hans Blix believed in 2003 that there might still be weapons in Iraq' date=' I again refer you to this quote, *in his own words*.

 

Do you have a refutation for this, or do you not? [/quote']

 

I'm not refuting Blix. At no point have I refuted Blix. I support Blix's ascertains, which is why I brought up his opinions in the first place. You simply picked one statement out of context and ignored the continuing explanation presented by Blix as to the actions being undertaken to find the missing weapons.

 

The article is describing the continuing activities and exactly why the search should be allowed to continue:-

As the absence of adequate evidence of that destruction has been and remains an important reason why quantities of chemicals have been deemed "unaccounted for", the presentation of a list of persons who can be interviewed about the actions appears useful and pertains to cooperation on substance. I trust that the Iraqi side will put together a similar list of names of persons who participated in the unilateral destruction of other proscribed items, notably in the biological field.

 

What Blix is not describing is a country where he expects to find a nuclear missile in each cupboard. I'm not sure whether this is wishful thinking on your part, or you just didn't read past the statement you quoted. You seem to be pulling completely different assertions from what appears to be a very straightforward view of Hans Blix, that the search to confirm Iraq was complying with regulations was allowed to finish.

 

Blix even takes time to dismiss allegations that weapons were being 'hidden' from inspectors. This is a clear indication that Blix did not believe that WOMD were being stashed out of sight:-

The presentation of intelligence information by the US Secretary of State suggested that Iraq had prepared for inspections by cleaning up sites and removing evidence of proscribed weapons programmes. I would like to comment only on one case, which we are familiar with, namely, the trucks identified by analysts as being for chemical decontamination at a munitions depot. This was a declared site, and it was certainly one of the sites Iraq would have expected us to inspect. We have noted that the two satellite images of the site were taken several weeks apart. The reported movement of munitions at the site could just as easily have been a routine activity as a movement of proscribed munitions in anticipation of imminent inspection. Our reservation on this point does not detract from our appreciation of the briefing.

 

Honestly that must be enough evidence, even limited to the one article, to convince even the most dogmatic of opposing views.

[Pangloss]

We agree on this, atinymonkey. In fact I've not said anything to the contrary, and quite a bit to support that position.

[Kingpin1989]

as far as the (term of service)/(casualties) equation is, you forgot to factor in that George W. Bush had a general purpose in that Iraq is closer to being free than before, and he also is not a slacker. (and as to who is worse than Bush, you forgot Hitler, Benito Musselini, and others like Yamamoto and Joseph Stalin, Yassier Arafat, Oprah Winfrey and John Kerry(the horse-faced lier that flip-flops more than anyone).

________________________________________________________________

I'm not crazy...

[budullewraagh]

define "free". the dead aren't free. the "freed" are busy hoping they dont get blown up anytime soon. the "freed" are pissed off at our occupation. bush is a slacker; look at his national guard records...wait, he refuses to release almost all of them. apparently he has things to hide. i'd actually say that arafat is less dangerous to the world than bush, and as for kerry, you actually didnt justify your statement at all. if you want to talk about appearance, bush is a monkey and kerry is horse-faced. if you want to talk about "flip-flopping", why dont you just check out bush's "justifications" (or rather attempts at justifying) for war in iraq?

[Phi for All]

as far as the (term of service)/(casualties) equation is, you forgot to factor in that George W. Bush had a general purpose in that Iraq is closer to being free than before

True freedom can only be won by the people being oppressed in the system. Being handed "freedom" from an outsider is merely trading oppressors.

and he also is not a slacker.

Vacation time spent in office: Carter=79 days in 4 years' date=' Reagan=335 days in 8 years, [b']Bush I=543 days in 4 years[/b], Clinton=152 days in 8 years, Bush II=250 days as of 8/03 (2 years, 7 months). Maybe not a true measure of slackerhood, but interesting nonetheless.

and as to who is worse than Bush' date=' you forgot Hitler, Benito Musselini, and others like Yamamoto and Joseph Stalin, Yassier Arafat, Oprah Winfrey and John Kerry[/quote']My list would also put Bush way below Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin. I don't care for Oprah much, but I don't think she is the spawn of Satan whose success is a surrendered compliance to governance by demonic spirits.

 

Is that why she's on your list?

[Pangloss]

What, you guys don't think it's possible that they appreciate being freed from Hussein AND are pissed about still being occupied?

 

Come on.

[Pangloss]

My list would also put Bush way below Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin.

 

Much more reasonable.

 

 

Vacation time spent in office: Carter=79 days in 4 years, Reagan=335 days in 8 years, Bush I=543 days in 4 years, Clinton=152 days in 8 years, Bush II=250 days as of 8/03 (2 years, 7 months).

 

That sounds interesting. Do you have a source on that?

[Phi for All]

That sounds interesting. Do you have a source on that?

http://www.counterbias.com/017.html

And since I found that to be from a biased source, I found it backed up by a Yahoo letter with more links. http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20031001.html

[Pangloss]

Thanks.

[Kingpin1989]

Oprah is on my list because 1)She critisizes people too much (and I realize by saying this that I am critisizing her, so I know what I'm talking about,)2) She creates a distorted and "socially acceptable" example for others to follow, and 3)I just don't like her....and the hell spawning is plausible too....

 

and everyone needs a vacation every once in a while, and we didn't "hand" Iraq Freedom, we paid dearly to end the regime....tell that to the families of dead or wounded soldiers who fought for freedom and their country.

_____________________________________________

Speaker for the Dead

[Phi for All]

Oprah is on my list because 1)She critisizes people too much

Something no respectable talk show host ever does.

2) She creates a distorted and "socially acceptable" example for others to follow' date='[/quote']Unlike anybody else in the entertainment field.

and 3)I just don't like her....and the hell spawning is plausible too....

Ah' date=' see, I knew there was a reason she's on the Hitler/Mussolini/Stalin list, seeing as how she's killed fewer people.

 

and everyone needs a vacation every once in a while,

Or a vacation day every 3.75 days.

and we didn't "hand" Iraq Freedom' date=' we paid dearly to end the regime....tell that to the families of dead or wounded soldiers who fought for freedom and their country.[/quote']Freedom that goes unappreciated, that was not asked for in the first place, regardless of the hideous costs in lives, is hollow at best. What we did, in the name of Iraqi Freedom, was to force democracy on a country that was not ready or willing to pay the price for true freedom. It is one thing to go in and take out a leader who is a threat to world peace and a nuclear danger to our security, but it is quite another to pretend we did it so the Iraqis could be free.

[Pangloss]

Have you run across anything about how those "vacation days" were calculated? I'm wondering how they're counting those up. Some questions that come to mind:

 

1) Is Sunday a "vacation day"? I.E. if he's in the White House but doesn't go down to the Oval Office, is that a "vacation day", or just a "day off"? How was this counted for previous presidents?

2) In recent years Presidents have begun to mix business with pleasure by doing fundraisers and campaign stops during trips to home ranches and vacation spots. How are these tallied?

 

I think perhaps that even on a true vacation day the President still probably gets a briefing, so that kinda complicates matters. Not saying he isn't truly taking more vacation than previous presidents, I'm just saying I want to know more before I rush to judgement.

 

(I'm surprised I haven't looked into this earlier, but it's been a busy election cycle. Any help would be appreciated.)

[john5746]

Bush isn't as smart as Clinton. I mean Clinton could carry on foreign affairs while carrying on his own "affair" if you know what I mean.

 

He had some vacation while working!

 

Very efficient!

 

Bush has Cheney - he runs the place remember? Bush doesn't need to be there much.

[Phi for All]

Have you run across anything about how those "vacation days" were calculated? I'm wondering how they're counting those up.

I better not find out that they calculated it diferently between the Dems and the Reps. http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_04_04.php#002829 From this site:

"This is Bush's 33rd visit to his ranch since becoming president. He has spent all or part of 233 days on his Texas ranch since taking office, according to a tally by CBS News. Adding his 78 visits to Camp David and his five visits to Kennebunkport, Maine, Bush has spent all or part of 500 days in office at one of his three retreats, or more than 40 percent of his presidency."

This is twice the vacation days number and sounds like days off were included, so maybe the other numbers really are actual vacation.

1) Is Sunday a "vacation day"? I.E. if he's in the White House but doesn't go down to the Oval Office' date=' is that a "vacation day", or just a "day off"? How was this counted for previous presidents?[/quote']I'm with you, Sundays are not a vacation.

2) In recent years Presidents have begun to mix business with pleasure by doing fundraisers and campaign stops during trips to home ranches and vacation spots. How are these tallied?

I would hate to think the extra vacation time is spent trying to keep himself in office, although you may be right.

I think perhaps that even on a true vacation day the President still probably gets a briefing' date=' so that kinda complicates matters. Not saying he isn't truly taking more vacation than previous presidents, I'm just saying I want to know more before I rush to judgement.[/quote']I know he has a pretty outrageous videoconferencing system at the ranch, however he was at the ranch when he reviewed that PDB about Al Qaida using jets as weapons against US targets, the one he admits he should have read more closely. I don't think his mind was on his work.

[Pangloss]

Gotcha. Yup, we're on the same page here. Thanks man.

[Luminol]

the real question for bush is...who is the enemy? who? can you tell me blike? can anyone tell me who the actual enemy is? for a second i thought it was osama, but, we've spent more time in iraq "liberating" the iraqis than we've spent looking for osama...it has already been stated BY the bush administration that there is no reason to believe that saddam hussein had any connections with al quida. well then, what's this whole iraq thing about? personally, im a little pissed off that two towers fell because some asshole had the bright idea of hi-jacking a couple jets...and personally, im also a little pissed off that we've spent billions of dollars in a different country for different reasons...i bet if you asked bush who the real enemy was, he'd have nothing to say. but it remains to be seen. we'll see if kerry grows a sack before sept 30'th for the 1st debate. until then, we'll just have to wait.

 

 

There are more terrorist groups than Al-Qaida and Bin Laden. Islamic Jihad, Hizbolla, Hamas, The army of the Black Flag, Tawhid and Jihad, Ansar Al Sunnah, Ansar Al Islam (which was headed by Abu Musab Al Zarqawi who is part of Al Quadea). I don't understand the idea that if we catch Bin Laden that the terrorists will stop. I'm guessing that it will cause many in the Middle East to start fighting against us since they see Bin Laden as a hero for attacking the US. We are fighting against Islam (which is/has become an arrogant, ignorant and violent religion)...that's what the terrorists think but we are too politically correct to come to our senses. If you don't believe it here are some quotes from them:

 

"Jihad and the rifle alone. NO negotiations, NO conferences and NO dialogue."

 

--Sheikh Abdullah Azzam, Join The Caravan

 

"In reality Islam is a revolutionary ideology and programme which seeks to alter the social order of the whole world and rebuild it in conformity with its own tenets and ideals. 'Muslim' is the title of that International Revolutionary Party organized by Islam to carry into effect its revolutionary programme. And 'Jihad' refers to that revolutionary struggle and utmost exertion which the Islamic Party brings into play to acheive this objective."

--Sayeed Abdul A'la Maududi, Jihad in Islam p8

 

"Whoever says that Islam is free from terrorism or wants to differentiate between Islam and terrorism is committing Al Juhoud and that is Kufr Akbar – and will take them out of the fold of Islam.

 

The one who says ‘we should fight against terrorism’, he is fighting against Islam. We know very well that USA meant no one else by the term ‘terrorists’ but Islam and Muslims and the one who wants to avoid terrorism is avoiding Islam."

 

-- Al Muhajiroun (Bakir School of Thought) 6-21-2004

 

"Since lawful warfare is essentially Jihad and since its aim is that religion is entirely for Allah and the word of Allah is uppermost, therefore, according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought."

 

--Sheikh Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah, The Religious and Moral Doctrin of Jihad, p28

 

"And you will not find any organization past or present, religious or non-relgious as regards ordering the whole nation to march forth and mobilize all of them into active military service as a single row for Jihad in Allah's Cause so as to make superior the Word of Allah (i.e. none has the right to be worshipped but Allah), as you will find in the Islamic Religion and its teachings."

 

--Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad Humaid, Jihad in the Quran & Sunnah, p29

 

 

 

We need to help truly moderate muslims reform their religion worldwide or this will never end. We take out Al Qadia and Bin Laden there will be another group of brainwashed muslims to take its place. The last time I checked Iraq is right in the middle of the Middle East...that's where radical Islam is coming from...hmmmmmm...we are waisting our time there how

 

Maybe you should try to go over to Afghanistan and Pakistan and search for him yourself. We have special forces over there now looking for him...the mountains are very tough to navigate through or find anyone in...plus Bin Laden has been in Pakistan guarded by the border tribes there...the Pakistani army is helping him with medical treatment for his kidneys...are we going to invade Pakistan? Others say that Bin Laden has been in Iran...

 

As for John Kerry I heard him say during the debates that we should give Iran nuclear fuel to see what they do with it and then put santions on them if they use it for non nuclear energy activities (although there have been sanctions on Iran since Carter...but who cares about the facts?). This sounds a lot like what Clinton did with North Korea...and now they have nuclear weapons. Appeasment is not going to work with these people.

[Phi for All]

Gotcha. Yup, we're on the same page here. Thanks man.

Anytime.

 

It occured to me that it must cost a fortune to fly Bush back and forth from all those vacations to his three retreats since he has to use Air Force One for security reasons. I couldn't find the actual per trip costs of Air Force One with the Secret Service detail and all the high security screening measures.

 

Apparently, when he's campaigning, he has to pay the equivalent of a first class ticket for every member of his capmaign staff out of the campaign budget, but that's just a token payment, since the incumbent is forced to use the plane. One official said $170 million wouldn't be enough to campaign on if the real costs of using Air Force One were added in.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/22/perks/

[Pangloss]

That doesn't bother me as much, except in a more general/impartial way (or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that it's more familiar ground). It's certainly a valid concern, but the biggest problem you run into long-term in these kinds of discussions is oversight, vis-a-vis determining checks and balances in the three-branch system. I've come to the general conclusion (not objective conclusion, just in terms of forming my opinion) that the best we can do is try to improve general House spending oversight, party ethical practices, and, of course, making informed ballot choices (but in all positions, not just Prez).

 

Not objecting to the point, though.

[budullewraagh]

i certainly hope im not paying for the president's plane rides with my taxes:\

[Pangloss]

We probably wouldn't believe how much money we spend keeping the president alive.

[budullewraagh]

yeah, i suppose that's true...especially with this president:\

 

side note: check out the vp debate in 25 mins