ADVERTISEMENT

Remember This? Could It Happen Again?

So, I ask you to present the massive evidence you said existed. You failed to present when called. And then you point fingers at me? Dude, get fitted for a straight jacket asap. Such a weak defense.

I have done that before. Multiple times. And here you are, asking for the evidence AGAIN. You didn't read it the previous 5 times this debate has come across so why should I waste two seconds doing it again? I'm tired of having the exact same debate over and over and over and I refuse to do it anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa
Please.

Team Bush MADE UP their justifications for this war
. Not saying Kerry or Gore wouldn't have gotten us into conflicts, but do you really see them totally lying us into a full-scale criminal invasion in violation of international accords?

I'm pretty cynical, but that Bush-Cheney cabal was into black swan territory.
I know. I said so in post #13.

We know from Wikileaks that Hillary & Co. were plotting all kinds of trouble. We are in Syria in violation of international law. Look at all the countries we are in presently and tell me which one attacked our country.
 
I have done that before. Multiple times. And here you are, asking for the evidence AGAIN. You didn't read it the previous 5 times this debate has come across so why should I waste two seconds doing it again? I'm tired of having the exact same debate over and over and over and I refuse to do it anymore.
You're a kook. Direct me to this evidence. The Afghanis asked for it and it WAS NOT presented BECAUSE it did not exist. But, you have it?
 
I know. I said so in post #13.

We know from Wikileaks that Hillary & Co. were plotting all kinds of trouble. We are in Syria in violation of international law. Look at all the countries we are in presently and tell me which one attacked our country.
Fair point, but a significantly different scale from the outright invasion and occupation of Iraq.

And let's not forget that - whether you approve or not - there were actual reasons to be involved in Afghanistan and Syria. Whereas there were no true reasons for invading Iraq.

That's why I don't see Kerry or Gore invading Iraq. Not saying they are saints, just not as bad as Bush - by a large measure.
 
Fair point, but a significantly different scale from the outright invasion and occupation of Iraq.

And let's not forget that - whether you approve or not - there were actually reasons to be involved in Afghanistan and Syria. Whereas there were no true reasons for invading Iraq.

That's why I don't see Kerry or Gore invading Iraq. Not saying they are saints, just not as bad as Bush - by a large measure.
Come on, Man. It was Clinton/ Gore who killed over 500,000 women and children in Iraq in the 90's that led up to our invasion. General Wesley Clark told the story on Democracy Now with Amy Goodman that he was told 11 days after 9/11 that we were going to take down 7 countries in 5 years. The plans were drawn up years prior.

What were the reasons for Afghanistan? The massive deposits of lithium? Cobalt? Opium for the Sackler family of Purdue Pharma so we can create an opioid crisis in the US? To surround China?
 
Come on, Man. It was Clinton/ Gore who killed over 500,000 women and children in Iraq in the 90's that led up to our invasion.
Another fair point. But you are talking about sanctions and no-fly zones. Bad, but an order of magnitude different. And although I disagreed with those policies, they were sanctioned by the UN. The Iraq invasion went well beyond the UN-approved actions, which were centered on inspections.
 
What were the reasons for Afghanistan? The massive deposits of lithium? Cobalt? Opium for the Sackler family of Purdue Pharma so we can create an opioid crisis in the US? To surround China?
These are pretty clearly reasons why we didn't leave when we completed the original mission. But not really the point in this conversation.
 
Stonemasons? Yeah...they build concrete to solidify their reign. Dolt! It's the Freemasons. Maybe if you read a book on the Skull and Bones like America's Secret Establishment by Antony Sutton, you'd have a frigging clue instead of spouting off crazy shit to pretend you know what you're talking about, poser.

You say the evidence was massive. Preach on Bull Shitter. Where is it? Kind of funny though that they NEVER presented it when asked.
So the luggage left at the airport found that day was fabricated. I'm sure you have a book written by a whack job exploring that.
 
Only one of them took us into the Iraq War.

Kerry brought up taking out Hussein in the week following 9/11 on O’Reilley’s Fox show. I used to link the YouTube video for the incredulous, but don’t find it anymore.

“...very first question at the Democratic presidential debate on May 3, 2003:

"Sen. Kerry, the first question goes to you. On March 19, President Bush ordered Gen.Tommy Franks to execute the invasion of Iraq. Was that the right decision at the right time?"

Kerry said, "George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him."
 
Kerry brought up taking out Hussein in the week following 9/11 on O’Reilley’s Fox show. I used to link the YouTube video for the incredulous, but don’t find it anymore.

“...very first question at the Democratic presidential debate on May 3, 2003:

"Sen. Kerry, the first question goes to you. On March 19, President Bush ordered Gen.Tommy Franks to execute the invasion of Iraq. Was that the right decision at the right time?"

Kerry said, "George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him."
Well that's disappointing.

I still see no evidence that President Kerry would have invaded Iraq, but that's disappointing.
 
Another fair point. But you are talking about sanctions and no-fly zones. Bad, but an order of magnitude different. And although I disagreed with those policies, they were sanctioned by the UN. The Iraq invasion went well beyond the UN-approved actions, which were centered on inspections.
To be clear, I have called Bush, Cheney, Powell and the whole admin. war criminals. Completely unforgivable and you can throw the lying media scum in with them. They should all be tried at The Hague.

Watch this! You'll like it.

The true story of a British whistleblower who leaked information to the press about an illegal NSA spy operation designed to push the UN Security Council into sanctioning the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5431890/
 
  • Like
Reactions: William Bonney
To be clear, I have called Bush, Cheney, Powell and the whole admin. war criminals. Completely unforgivable and you can throw the lying media scum in with them. They should all be tried at The Hague.

Watch this! You'll like it.

The true story of a British whistleblower who leaked information to the press about an illegal NSA spy operation designed to push the UN Security Council into sanctioning the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5431890/
Looks good. Thanks for the recommendation.
 
Please.

Team Bush MADE UP their justifications for this war. Not saying Kerry or Gore wouldn't have gotten us into conflicts, but do you really see them totally lying us into a full-scale criminal invasion in violation of international accords?

I'm pretty cynical, but that Bush-Cheney cabal was into black swan territory.
Making a case from available intelligence is not making it up. EVERYBODY knows what all the intel agencies thought. Blaming Bush for going war is fine, but come on
 
Daily-Mirror-front-page--Bush-reelected.jpg

You continue to prove that no matter who the GOP candidate or POTUS, the hate from the left is there.
 
Making a case from available intelligence is not making it up. EVERYBODY knows what all the intel agencies thought. Blaming Bush for going war is fine, but come on
Yeah, pretty much all - except for Cheney's shadow intelligence boys - were skeptical. That's why Cheney had to gin up his own intelligence team.

Let's face it, the lies were transparent in the fall of 2002. Which is why most of the world and a lot of Americans weren't buying it. After months of heavy-handed propaganda and lies, a majority of Americans - but pretty much only Americans - came around.

We had to bribe and arm-twist in the Security Council to get their limited authorization. Bush never went back to get authorization to invade, because he knew he would lose, even if no one exercised a veto.

Let's keep in mind that even if the WMD "intelligence" had been true, it still did NOT justify invasion, war, and occupation. Yet that's what Team Bush delivered.
 
Do you accept the premise that the Russian govt is trying to interfere with our elections?
Every capable government, including ours, meddles in other countries affairs, including elections. That is not the issue, the issue is whether Donald Trump or Joe Biden are soliciting or willingly colluding with foreign agents to change election results. I've yet to see evidence for that.
 
Every capable government, including ours, meddles in other countries affairs, including elections. That is not the issue, the issue is whether Donald Trump or Joe Biden are soliciting or willingly colluding with foreign agents to change election results. I've yet to see evidence for that.
No, actually that isn't the issue. So we have step one. Do you agree that they are interfering with the ideas that Trump better serves their purposes? They are "supporting" his re-election?
 
In other words, do Americans want government or not? Do they want civility or continued chaos? Not a hard choice IMO.

Are you naive enough to think that Democrats won't continue to riot and engage in chaos even if Biden wins?
 
Ahhh...so you don't think the US interferes in an election to try and tip the scales for a particular favored candidate?
Of course the US does, the CIA is the most prevalent meddlers in international affairs maybe in history. Trump, however, is reaming Russia 6 ways from Sunday on multiple fronts. Increased defense spending by Nato members, US oil exports cramping their own exports, Isolating Iran and defusing Syria. They hate him, but they'll sow dissention and misinformation, like facebook memes, and you guys will eat that shit up.
 
Of course the US does, the CIA is the most prevalent meddlers in international affairs maybe in history. Trump, however, is reaming Russia 6 ways from Sunday on multiple fronts. Increased defense spending by Nato members, US oil exports cramping their own exports, Isolating Iran and defusing Syria. They hate him, but they'll sow dissention and misinformation, like facebook memes, and you guys will eat that shit up.
Ohhh...so YOU think they would prefer Biden and are, in fact, supporting him? You don't think that Russia loves the fracturing of the NATO alliance that has occurred under Trump? Or are you going to contend that it's not happening?
 
Ohhh...so YOU think they would prefer Biden and are, in fact, supporting him? You don't think that Russia loves the fracturing of the NATO alliance that has occurred under Trump? Or are you going to contend that it's not happening?
Let me talk to my supervisor. I'll get back with you in a few days. Communications difficulties and all that jazz.
 
Let me talk to my supervisor. I'll get back with you in a few days. Communications difficulties and all that jazz.
No...you don't get to run and hide again. You already ducked your stupidity when you banned both public AND private scientific research. Answer the question.
 
Let's keep in mind that even if the WMD "intelligence" had been true, it still did NOT justify invasion, war, and occupation. Yet that's what Team Bush delivered.

How did Hillary, Kerry, and every other Democrat who ever dreamed of being president (besides the gadflies like Sanders and Kucinich) vote for the war?
Was Hillary and the rest expected to stand up and say the 8 years of official pronouncements about Saddam’s WMD desires by her hubbies administration, and the bombing they carried out to allegedly thwart him, was really all just lies?
Regime change in Iraq became US policy under a law signed in 1998 by Bill Clinton.
Trying to pretend today that whole thing was a GOP caper is profoundly ignorant.
 
Are you naive enough to think that Democrats won't continue to riot and engage in chaos even if Biden wins?
Naive? No.

I guess someone will have to show me that the "rioters" are actually "democrats". They are Americans, though, and a good president will listen to their grievances and not label them blue or red Americans to increase the divide we have in this country. Besides, a lot of the rioters have been found to be people from outside groups, and not locals.

I am smart enough to know that the demonstrations would more than likely come to an end, at least in the short term (barring another needless shooting), because they would have a lot more faith in Biden being able to address their problems, rather than sending in unidentifiable federal secret police that just fan the flames.

Every new president has a period of time that the public will give him/her to see what they will do. Biden will be given the same. He will not fan the flames. However, if Trump is re-elected, he will continue his divisive policies, we know that for sure. Americans, I believe, want a new direction.
 
Naive? No.

I guess someone will have to show me that the "rioters" are actually "democrats". They are Americans, though, and a good president will listen to their grievances and not label them blue or red Americans to increase the divide we have in this country. Besides, a lot of the rioters have been found to be people from outside groups, and not locals.

I am smart enough to know that the demonstrations would more than likely come to an end, at least in the short term (barring another needless shooting), because they would have a lot more faith in Biden being able to address their problems, rather than sending in unidentifiable federal secret police that just fan the flames.

Every new president has a period of time that the public will give him/her to see what they will do. Biden will be given the same. He will not fan the flames. However, if Trump is re-elected, he will continue his divisive policies, we know that for sure. Americans, I believe, want a new direction.

You typed multiple fallacies but the most ludicrous one was when you claimed every president is given a period of time before the public makes a decision on how good a prez he might be...


Just for kicks and giggles, tell us when the period for Donald Trump began and ended
 
You typed multiple fallacies but the most ludicrous one was when you claimed every president is given a period of time before the public makes a decision on how good a prez he might be...


Just for kicks and giggles, tell us when the period for Donald Trump began and ended
Multiple fallacies? Maybe you can list a "few"?

Unfortunately for Trump, his honeymoon ended on day one when his press secretary attacked the media for saying that the inauguration crowd was a lot larger than it actually was. People saw what he was all about at that point. Such a small hill to die on, too.
 
Multiple fallacies? Maybe you can list a "few"?

Unfortunately for Trump, his honeymoon ended on day one when his press secretary attacked the media for saying that the inauguration crowd was a lot larger than it actually was. People saw what he was all about at that point. Such a small hill to die on, too.

Well there you go.

Of course even there, you’re lying...

because Liberals hated him well before even the election took place
 
Ohhh...so YOU think they would prefer Biden and are, in fact, supporting him? You don't think that Russia loves the fracturing of the NATO alliance that has occurred under Trump? Or are you going to contend that it's not happening?
Russia would be foolish to not desire the destruction of the NATO. Every decent human should thirst for this. It's a rabidly xenophobic organization in search of an enemy. They threaten civilization. It was set up to defend western Europe from the Soviet Union. Ummm...it does not exist anymore. They lost half their population and a 1/3 of their territory. Their government collapsed twice in a hundred years. The threat to peace is NATO. The West broke the agreement promising that NATO would not move one inch to the East should Gorby allow German reunification. Since then, the NATO has swallowed up 13 former Warsaw Pact members in violation.

Trump just attempted the overthrow of Lukashenko on 8/9/20 with the intent on flipping them into NATO where they would have to buy weapons from Lockheed, Raytheon and Boeing and directing those missiles at Moscow. But, Russia is the aggressor.

What about the multiple coup attempts in Venezuela where Russia and China have business interests?

I have no doubt Putin would have preferred Trump vs Hillary. She threatened Russia with nukes and compared Putin to Hitler. What a diplomat! Of course, that came after Hillary laughing in hysterics while Ghaddaffi was being sodomized with a bayonet. Putin has also said that after dealing with 4 US presidents, the foreign policy never changes. It is always belligerent towards Russia. So, he really doesn't care one way or the other.

So, where is this fracturing of NATO that has occurred under Trump? 2 more members have been added to NATO under his reign.
 
Let me talk to my supervisor. I'll get back with you in a few days. Communications difficulties and all that jazz.
You've posted many times since this. What's the problem? You ran away after you idiotically banned both privately and publicly funded scientific research. It appears you're trying to run and hide again. People are going to start thinking you're not as intellectually advanced as you claim.

Answer the question.
 
You've posted many times since this. What's the problem? You ran away after you idiotically banned both privately and publicly funded scientific research. It appears you're trying to run and hide again. People are going to start thinking you're not as intellectually advanced as you claim.

Answer the question.
I refuse to let you gish gallop all over me.
 
I refuse to let you gish gallop all over me.
JFC...you don't even know what a Gish gallop is. What I'm doing is the exact opposite of a Gish gallop, moran. A single question requiring a simple, straightforward response.

BTW, have you yet figured out who's going to pay for scientific research if neither public nor private entities can manage it to your satisfaction?
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT