Hating Bush Is Like Hating Paris Hilton

[checkymcfold 0]

my god, there are a lot of outright lies in this thread, lol.oh, LLY, you would probably like susan jacoby's the age of american unreason. i'm almost done with it now, it's really, really good. look on amazon for a review/summary if'n you like reading political books. henry, you might like it too.

[DelftDragons 0]

Tell you what Deft ( you're the non American right? )

Nope Dutch all the way, we'll apart from the Year I lived in CA.

You pink your single bestest argument why Bush is to be hated, just one, so make it good.

The main reason is that he got the US and most of the Western world involved in an unjust war. 9/11 was an monstrosity. Going after Bin Laden in Afganistan,fine.Then came Iraq. There are multiple problems with this. WOMD where claimed to be there and that was the main reason that Iraq should be attacked. That and the fact that UN inspecters where not allowed in the country. Not really surprising since but a few years agao they where at war with the rest of the world.Anyways the alliances in Europe and the US population where lied to in both claiming WOMD AND a link between Iraq and 9/11. A big portion of the hijackers where Saudia nationals, why not invade them?There where IMO two main reasons for going in Iraq WITHOUT an UN saction:1) Bush needed a succes since he was unable to locate Bin laden and that IS an major embarrsement.2) The US government wanted to establish a solid power base in the most Oil rich region of the world.So as ou requested the main reason is:Bush invaded a sovereign nation without motive other than personal (for US government) gain.

[GillFinigan 0]

IF you were Saddam Hussein... and you inevitably knew the United States was going to invade for like SIX MONTHS... would you keep the weapons there?I wouldn't, I'd try to make America look as asinine as possible. SHIP 'em to Syria or Iran!

Yeah if I was going to be attacked i'd get rid of my weapons first. That's like the school bully is going to fight me after school. I better tie my hands behind my back and put on a blindfold. Boy he'll look stupid beating me up then.

[Balloon guy 158]

Nope Dutch all the way, we'll apart from the Year I lived in CA.The main reason is that he got the US and most of the Western world involved in an unjust war. 9/11 was an monstrosity. Going after Bin Laden in Afganistan,fine.Then came Iraq. There are multiple problems with this. WOMD where claimed to be there and that was the main reason that Iraq should be attacked. That and the fact that UN inspecters where not allowed in the country. Not really surprising since but a few years agao they where at war with the rest of the world.Anyways the alliances in Europe and the US population where lied to in both claiming WOMD AND a link between Iraq and 9/11. A big portion of the hijackers where Saudia nationals, why not invade them?There where IMO two main reasons for going in Iraq WITHOUT an UN saction:1) Bush needed a succes since he was unable to locate Bin laden and that IS an major embarrsement.2) The US government wanted to establish a solid power base in the most Oil rich region of the world.So as ou requested the main reason is:Bush invaded a sovereign nation without motive other than personal (for US government) gain.

I like the Dutch, great culture etc.I would start by saying that to imply that Bush's reasons were personal require you to know the thinking of Bush. Better for you to say they weer not in the best interest of the country. Your side seems to want to be able to tell us what is in the man's soul and that makes you come across as arrogant, please leave arrogance to Americans, we do it much better.The UN had weapon's inspectors in Iraq. these guys were kicked out by Saddam. the UN screamed bloody murder, and placed a referendam on the table demanding that Saddam allow them back in. Saddam was given a deadline, and he ignored it. Now the UN was in a pickle, what do you do when a country doesn't obey you? The whole point of the UN is for all nations to speak as one. They spoke, Saddam said pound sand.Meanwhile We were attacked. We invaded Afghanistan and began kicking the Taliban into the hillsides. We made a statement that any country that isn't on our side against terrorism is on the terrorist's side. If you harbor them, we will kick your butt too. Saddam is still launching missle at our planes that were on station to enforce the UN sanctioned No-Fly Zones. They were telling other countries that they had WMD and would use them if we attacked.So we attacked. Partly because the UN had forced us all into a corner with regards to Iraq, partly because we were still hurting from 9-11, and mostly because a major source of oil in the world was in the hands of an unstable dictator. Later we found out that he was bribing Germany, Russia and France as well as Koffi Anons son with oil money to subvert the oil for food program. So some of the UN's main characters were bought and paid for by Saddam. Hence the 'opposition' to the war.Had Saddam said the UN weapon's inspectors would be allowed to return before the deadline, maybe we wouldn't have invaded. who knows.In 1991 we invaded Iraq, and the left screamed Blood for oil. Well we never got any oil.Then we invade Iraq and the left again says Bush wants to invade for their oil. But again, 5 years and no oil.In fact America gets little to no oil from Iraq, we get most of ours from Canada. Hopefuly we invade those smart alecks, but that's a different subject.So what does the US gain by protecting the oil fields of Iraq? A stable world economy. This helps you guys a lot more than it helps us.Britian agrees so that's why they sided with us, along with australia and 30+ other countries.Funny but recently I played golf with a Marine General that said that one of his battalions was being sent into Afghanistan to take over from the UN their area of responsibility. they have so far established a fort, and stayed inside for their entire time in country. the area has never seen a friendly troops becuase the UN has never left their compound. The UN works on paper, in real life they are as useful as a French Army division.

[akoff 0]

On a thread somewhere it was posted. “why do you argue with this man?”…seems appropriate again. Carry on or just you are way overmatched

[SlapStick 0]

and mostly because a major source of oil in the world was in the hands of an unstable dictator. Later we found out that he was bribing Germany, Russia and France as well as Koffi Anons son with oil money to subvert the oil for food program. So some of the UN's main characters were bought and paid for by Saddam. Hence the 'opposition' to the war. In 1991 we invaded Iraq, and the left screamed Blood for oil. So what does the US gain by protecting the oil fields of Iraq? A stable world economy. This helps you guys a lot more than it helps us.

You're unbelievable. Its almost painful to read some of that post.You're unbelievable. Its almost painful to read some of that post.

[checkymcfold 0]

On a thread somewhere it was posted. “why do you argue with this man?”…seems appropriate again. Carry on or just you are way overmatched

speaking lies with a well-mannered tongue doesn't mean you won an argument. js.

[Jeepster80125 0]

You're unbelievable. Its almost painful to read some of that post.You're unbelievable. Its almost painful to read some of that post.

why don't you post a rebuttal?

[SlapStick 0]

why don't you post a rebuttal?

Why don't you read the thread

[checkymcfold 0]

weeeeee revisionist history. allow me to fix a few things:

I like the Dutch, great culture etc.

agree.

I would start by saying that to imply that Bush's reasons were personal require you to know the thinking of Bush. Better for you to say they weer not in the best interest of the country. Your side seems to want to be able to tell us what is in the man's soul and that makes you come across as arrogant, please leave arrogance to Americans, we do it much better.

fair enough. not really that important, though.

The UN had weapon's inspectors in Iraq. these guys were kicked out by Saddam. the UN screamed bloody murder, and placed a referendam on the table demanding that Saddam allow them back in. Saddam was given a deadline, and he ignored it. Now the UN was in a pickle, what do you do when a country doesn't obey you? The whole point of the UN is for all nations to speak as one. They spoke, Saddam said pound sand.

lie #1: the weapons inspectors left AFTER we issued the "disarm or die" ultimatum to saddam. it would have been a little suicidal for them to stick around as a war was starting, dontcha think?

Meanwhile We were attacked. We invaded Afghanistan and began kicking the Taliban into the hillsides. We made a statement that any country that isn't on our side against terrorism is on the terrorist's side. If you harbor them, we will kick your butt too. Saddam is still launching missle at our planes that were on station to enforce the UN sanctioned No-Fly Zones. They were telling other countries that they had WMD and would use them if we attacked.So we attacked. Partly because the UN had forced us all into a corner with regards to Iraq, partly because we were still hurting from 9-11, and mostly because a major source of oil in the world was in the hands of an unstable dictator. Later we found out that he was bribing Germany, Russia and France as well as Koffi Anons son with oil money to subvert the oil for food program. So some of the UN's main characters were bought and paid for by Saddam. Hence the 'opposition' to the war.

als;dkfjasl;dfkjasld;f JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN SAY 9/11 AND IRAQ IN THE SAME SENTENCE DOESN'T MEAN THEY BELONG IN THE SAME SENTENCE. JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN SAY THAT THE WORLD IS DIVIDED INTO US/THEM DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT ACTUALLY IS. the world is complicated, nuanced, and doesn't lend itself to binary, simplistic thinking. having a leader who recognizes this would be pretty nice.also, i don't think that you understand how the UN works. kofi annan doesn't have the power to just say "the un is against us action" all on his own. there has to be, like, votes and shit. you know, where the voices of, like, dozens of countries are heard. moreover, the links between annan, germany, russia, france, and the oil for food "scandal" are much, much less documented than the ones between cheney and iraqi oil. don't open pandora's box when it's gonna eat you alive, kiddo.

Had Saddam said the UN weapon's inspectors would be allowed to return before the deadline, maybe we wouldn't have invaded. who knows.

the inspectors were there when we gave the "disarm or die" LOLumatum. see above.

In 1991 we invaded Iraq, and the left screamed Blood for oil.

que?

So what does the US gain by protecting the oil fields of Iraq? A stable world economy. This helps you guys a lot more than it helps us.

like the one that exists today, led by the burgeoning US economy, an iraqi powerhouse in the global economy, and $3.50 a gallon gas. rrrriiiiiight.

Britian agrees so that's why they sided with us, along with australia and 30+ other countries.

30 (lie, but i'll grant it to ya cuz you're still LOL on this one) of 189-194 (depending on what you want to recognize) countries. what a fucking majority that is. hell, that's why i shove 16% shots all day at poker. oh, wait.

Funny but recently I played golf with a Marine General that said that one of his battalions was being sent into Afghanistan to take over from the UN their area of responsibility. they have so far established a fort, and stayed inside for their entire time in country. the area has never seen a friendly troops becuase the UN has never left their compound. The UN works on paper, in real life they are as useful as a French Army division.

you do realize that the UN does things other than fight wars, right? and that politics is about stuff other than fighting wars, occasionally?

[checkymcfold 0]

why don't you post a rebuttal?

done.

[coesillian 0]

Coesillian, don't be such a fucking baby.

How do you bypass the ****ing swear filter!

You presented what you thought was a valid fact. It was then shown to you that the number MM presents as the number of uninsureds in America isn't quite as clear an example as you thought. MM just used this statistic because it was the most outrageous he could find. He looked for a statistic that included every possible person without insurance at any point during the year, to help out his shock movie making.No one is going to question this statistic, and MM knows he won't ever have to explain it. Go ahead and present another argument, preferably one from Sicko. Please?

My intention wasn't to support MM but to point out that people were dismissing a point based upon the fact that is was also presented by MM.

As far as 45 million people being uninsured, "So, how many are truly uninsured? Around eight million. Just 18% of the 45 million that we hear about so often."**David Gratzer, The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care (New York: Encounter Books, 2006), page 87.

k, but 8 million is still more than the Province of Quebec.and these people don't count: "And then there are the young invincibles. Over 18 million of the uninsured are people between the ages of 18 and 34. (4) They spend more than four times as much on alcohol, tobacco, entertainment and dining out as they do for out-of-pocket spending on health care.(5) They represent 40% of the uninsured in America."just because they are stupid doesn't mean they don't count as truly uninsured.

[SlapStick 0]

done.

Good stuff, but I'm already cringing at the re-rebuttal.It will be either a horrible distortion of facts or a very "funny" responseI wasnt sure whether to write that^ or just "sucker"

[hblask 1]

"And then there are the young invincibles. Over 18 million of the uninsured are people between the ages of 18 and 34. They spend more than four times as much on alcohol, tobacco, entertainment and dining out as they do for out-of-pocket spending on health care.( They represent 40% of the uninsured in America."just because they are stupid doesn't mean they don't count as truly uninsured.

No, but it does mean that they can't be counted as some part of a national crisis. Yet they are. Why do you think this is? Ask yourself, what kind of philosophy needs this type of intellectual dishonesty to support it?

[checkymcfold 0]

Good stuff, but I'm already cringing at the re-rebuttal.It will be either a horrible distortion of facts or a very "funny" responseI wasnt sure whether to write that^ or just "sucker"

meh, i fully expect to be responded to with a handful of made up lies and revisionist history. it's pretty much the only way to argue that iraq wasn't a colossal bumblefuck.

[checkymcfold 0]

No, but it does mean that they can't be counted as some part of a national crisis. Yet they are. Why do you think this is? Ask yourself, what kind of philosophy needs this type of intellectual dishonesty to support it?

it provides a decent framework from which one could argue that making decisions for others ain't such a bad thing all the time, however.

[hblask 1]

it provides a decent framework from which one could argue that making decisions for others ain't such a bad thing all the time, however.

No, it doesn't. The first question you have to ask if you really believe this:Are *you*, personally, willing to let a random stranger decide which of the things *you* value in *your* life are important enough for *you*?I am willing to bet the answer is no. And if the answer is yes, then why not just let somebody do it, without subjecting everyone else to such nonsense?See, the thing about people who insist that the government must save us from ourselves are nevert actually referring to themselves, it's always to some mysterious "other people", someone who lives in another part of the country and makes lots of bad choices. The person advocating such paternalism never needs this kind of oversight for themselves, you see, but it's those others. They are ruining America. It's in the national interest to stop *those other people* from doing what *they* are doing.

[checkymcfold 0]

No, it doesn't. The first question you have to ask if you really believe this:Are *you*, personally, willing to let a random stranger decide which of the things *you* value in *your* life are important enough for *you*?I am willing to bet the answer is no. And if the answer is yes, then why not just let somebody do it, without subjecting everyone else to such nonsense?See, the thing about people who insist that the government must save us from ourselves are nevert actually referring to themselves, it's always to some mysterious "other people", someone who lives in another part of the country and makes lots of bad choices. The person advocating such paternalism never needs this kind of oversight for themselves, you see, but it's those others. They are ruining America. It's in the national interest to stop *those other people* from doing what *they* are doing.

i knew you'd say something along those lines. our arguments about libertarianism don't really go anywhere, so i'm gonna concentrate on BG lying about iraq for a while

[Jeepster80125 0]

done.

Don't remember why I quoted this. Hi checky!

How do you bypass the ****ing swear filter!My intention wasn't to support MM but to point out that people were dismissing a point based upon the fact that is was also presented by MM. k, but 8 million is still more than the Province of Quebec.and these people don't count: "And then there are the young invincibles. Over 18 million of the uninsured are people between the ages of 18 and 34. (4) They spend more than four times as much on alcohol, tobacco, entertainment and dining out as they do for out-of-pocket spending on health care.(5) They represent 40% of the uninsured in America."just because they are stupid doesn't mean they don't count as truly uninsured.

I'm not saying they aren't uninsured. They shouldn't be lumped in with the chronically ill and those who can't afford access to care. It's completely unfair to have an argument like MMs and throw this statistic, UNEXPLAINED, and have it presented as true uninsured. That's why people have a problem when people use MM as a source for statistics. They're all cherry picked and taken out of context. Coesillian, I'm not going to hold your hand here, but quote the post where I bypassed the filter. You should be able to figure it out from there. PM me if you're still stuck.

No, it doesn't. The first question you have to ask if you really believe this:Are *you*, personally, willing to let a random stranger decide which of the things *you* value in *your* life are important enough for *you*?I am willing to bet the answer is no. And if the answer is yes, then why not just let somebody do it, without subjecting everyone else to such nonsense?See, the thing about people who insist that the government must save us from ourselves are nevert actually referring to themselves, it's always to some mysterious "other people", someone who lives in another part of the country and makes lots of bad choices. The person advocating such paternalism never needs this kind of oversight for themselves, you see, but it's those others. They are ruining America. It's in the national interest to stop *those other people* from doing what *they* are doing.

I really like the way you worded this.

[checkymcfold 0]

Don't remember why I quoted this. Hi checky!

*gay wave*

I really like the way you worded this.

it's well said, but it's also worth saying that it's not the starting point that most liberals work from. in more specific terms relative to henry's post, i *don't* think that that is the first question you need to ask. put differently, i'd rather be alive and taken care of than be free in the sense that he means it.if you start from the point that freedom to do whatever whenever is the first and biggest concern, then of course you're a libertarian. it would be inconsistent to be otherwise. if, however, you start from the standpoint that people need to have access to basic human services, etc. as your foundation, then you usually end up a liberal. that's why henry and i don't really end up going anywhere, because we don't seem to agree on precisely where to start. both places are perfectly valid, but it's hard to convince someone to change their primary concern with respect to politics, so things don't tend to really go anywhere fruitful. libertarians tend to think that if we start from freedom in an absolute sense, then the basic services things can be taken care of in a secondary manner or work themselves out. liberals tend to think that if we start by taking care of everyone, then things like freedom to be a dipshit or whatever can be considered in a similarly secondary way.

[Nimue1995 1]

No, it doesn't. The first question you have to ask if you really believe this:Are *you*, personally, willing to let a random stranger decide which of the things *you* value in *your* life are important enough for *you*?I am willing to bet the answer is no. And if the answer is yes, then why not just let somebody do it, without subjecting everyone else to such nonsense?See, the thing about people who insist that the government must save us from ourselves are nevert actually referring to themselves, it's always to some mysterious "other people", someone who lives in another part of the country and makes lots of bad choices. The person advocating such paternalism never needs this kind of oversight for themselves, you see, but it's those others. They are ruining America. It's in the national interest to stop *those other people* from doing what *they* are doing.

The fact is that whether or not these people choose to be uninsured for selfish reasons or monetary ones, when they end up in the hospital after a car accident or catastrophic illness, who do you think foots the bill? The hospital and doctors. Do you see a connection between this and the rising cost of healthcare for the ones that can afford health insurance? Do you think that this might be reduced somewhat, if the people with catastrophic illness get diagnosed more quickly by going to the doctor's office instead of the emergency room? Do you think that maybe just maybe some of those illnesses might actually be prevented by such visits? And how much does a doctor's visit cost as opposed to a hospital stay. I can tell you that my recent hospital stay of 4 days cost in excess of $40,000. In this case, it was a necessary operation. But how many doctor visits do you think that $40,000 would cover? Regardless of what you may think, we do pay for the uninsureds health care. And we pay more than should be necessary in most cases. Because many emergency room visits by those who are uninsured are for things that could easily be taken care of in a doctor's office if they had health insurance.

[Balloon guy 158]

weeeeee revisionist history. allow me to fix a few things:agree.fair enough. not really that important, though.lie #1: the weapons inspectors left AFTER we issued the "disarm or die" ultimatum to saddam. it would have been a little suicidal for them to stick around as a war was starting, dontcha think?

I think one of us is confused, and it's not me.

The story centers on the Iraq crisis that broke out on December 16, 1998.Richard Butler, head of the United Nations weapons inspection team in Iraq,had just released a report accusing the Iraqi regime of obstructing U.N.weapons checks. On the basis of that report, President Clinton announced hewould launch airstrikes against Iraqi targets. Out of concern for theirsafety, Butler withdrew his inspectors from Iraq, and the U.S.-Britishbombing proceeded.

Link to storyWhat happened was under Clinton the Weapons inspectors were given the job of planting intelligence gathering devices in secret Iraquis facilities, and Clinton withdrew them.you weren't mistaking the two events were you?

[checkymcfold 0]

I think one of us is confused, and it's me.

yup. can you pull out inspectors that aren't in there? i really can't believe you don't remember how all of this crap went down. like, you have to be committed to SOME SEMBLANCE of the truth for there to even be a discussion to have. right now you're telling weird, satanic fairy tales.http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/20...tors-iraq_x.htm

[Balloon guy 158]

weeeeee revisionist history. allow me to fix a few things:als;dkfjasl;dfkjasld;f JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN SAY 9/11 AND IRAQ IN THE SAME SENTENCE DOESN'T MEAN THEY BELONG IN THE SAME SENTENCE. JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN SAY THAT THE WORLD IS DIVIDED INTO US/THEM DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT ACTUALLY IS. the world is complicated, nuanced, and doesn't lend itself to binary, simplistic thinking. having a leader who recognizes this would be pretty nice.Yet your side continually makes the argument hat the whole world hates us now because of Bush, and I'm the one saying no they don't and even if they did they stilltrade with us etc. So you are stealing my lines here.also, i don't think that you understand how the UN works. That's funny, you imply that the UN actually works.kofi annan doesn't have the power to just say "the un is against us action" all on his own. there has to be, like, votes and shit. you know, where the voices of, like, dozens of countries are heard. moreover, the links between annan, germany, russia, france, and the oil for food "scandal" are much, much less documented than the ones between cheney and iraqi oil. don't open pandora's box when it's gonna eat you alive, kiddo.I am stilll waiting for Cheney's secret barrels of oil he is shipping to Wyoming.Is it anything at all like Clinton's giving the US oil reserves to friends? Anything like that?the inspectors were there when we gave the "disarm or die" LOLumatum. see above.Actually they were invited back to Iraq in Sept 16 of 2002 by Saddam, weeks after the bombs had started falling. Last ditch effort is not the same as compliance.que? Paso?like the one that exists today, led by the burgeoning US economy, an iraqi powerhouse in the global economy, and $3.50 a gallon gas. rrrriiiiiight.Ah to be allowed to simplify the world's economy and then accuse others of not understanding the nuances of international governmental policies. 30 (lie, but i'll grant it to ya cuz you're still LOL on this one) of 189-194 (depending on what you want to recognize) countries. what a majority that is. hell, that's why i shove 16% shots all day at poker. oh, wait.Random number pulled out of air. sorry the actual number was probably higher, but you are right, it's an American war, America and Britain, Australia, and Denmark really.you do realize that the UN does things other than fight wars, right? and that politics is about stuff other than fighting wars, occasionally?

You do realize that the UN has failed at most of it's efforts. The corruption levels are so high that the only ay to deal with it now os to remove it from American soil and sit back and just veto everything.

[Balloon guy 158]

yup. can you pull out inspectors that aren't in there? i really can't believe you don't remember how all of this crap went down. like, you have to be committed to SOME SEMBLANCE of the truth for there to even be a discussion to have. right now you're telling weird, satanic fairy tales.http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/20...tors-iraq_x.htm

After a 4 year absense they were allowed back in. After the coalition bombing runs in Northern Iraq, after the obvious build up. A last ditch attempt by Saddam to comply after 4 years of not letting them in.But you are correct and I was wrong, the actual event of the last time the UN inspectors were their was removal by US suggestions.So I will grant you I was wrong about that.But not really.