With his poll numbers slipping, it looks like Bush is laying the groundwork for an 'October Surprise' next year...

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush, Speaking to Veterans, Says Iraq May Not Be Last Strike
By DAVID STOUT
But my favorite line is this one: Unless of course being AWOL is considered fighting under the flag [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Has your approval ratings dropped? Call 1-900-HELP to start a war. ;) So who's the threat now? The quotes you posted sounds like he's proposing a world wide guerilla war...

Jumpin Jeezus...they havent even finished with Afghanistan and now they are lookin at another country???

Not *they*, it is *HE*--Mr. GWB. Someone should hand that idiot a M16 and put him on the front for a change.

Not *they*, it is *HE*--Mr. GWB. Someone should hand that idiot a M16 and put him on the front for a change. </font>[/QUOTE]Or maybe he could pull patrol duty in Bagdad [img]smile.gif[/img]

You know, that is a great idea! Just to be on the safe side, he should be given extra clips just "in case" if the natives become "hostile". [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

Rokenn, maybe you could read that last line once more. Bush is not saying HE fought under the flag, he was adressing that statement to the audience.

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Khazman [img]smile.gif[/img] You are in the wrong thread [img]smile.gif[/img] this place is strictly for the Anti-Bush and Bush the anti-christ set [img]smile.gif[/img]
</font>

oh no you caught me! Or maybe I looked a little deeper and saw a very cleverly constructed sentence that, if you deconsruct it comes out as you say. But to the person listening to the 15 second sound bit on the evening news makes it look like George did his bit for God and Country.

If I was a christain I would strongly suspect the George is the anti-christ. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

If I was a christain I would strongly suspect the George is the anti-christ. [img]tongue.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
LOL [img]smile.gif[/img] I was afraid someone might complain about my joking about religious matters [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>

<font color=cadetblue>Tsk tsk, I can just see Bush planning another attack.

"Hmmm, we haven't been attacked by Canada in so many years...they must be planning something! Nuke them!"

"But Sir, we're at peace with them, they're our allies."

"NO! Pre-emptive action must be taken! We must wipe them out before they send their awesome moose army after us!"</font>

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Khazman [img]smile.gif[/img] You are in the wrong thread [img]smile.gif[/img] this place is strictly for the Anti-Bush and Bush the anti-christ set [img]smile.gif[/img]
</font> </font>[/QUOTE]Sounds like my cue. :D

If I was a christain I would strongly suspect the George is the anti-christ. [img]tongue.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]<font color='white'> Wrong there too Rokken. The Anti-Christ comes as a man of peace, and obviously Dubya is a hateful war monger. ;) </font>

<font color=cadetblue>Tru dat, Iron_Ranger.</font>

If I was a christain I would strongly suspect the George is the anti-christ. [img]tongue.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]<font color='white'> Wrong there too Rokken. The Anti-Christ comes as a man of peace, and obviously Dubya is a hateful war monger. ;) </font> </font>[/QUOTE]Actually Satan is the father of lies, so Bush qualifies since he said that he wasnt going to do any nation building while campaigning for President in 2000. So he did come as a man of peace with that regards and now he is a nation building war-monger.

Eeeerm Chewie.... Satan doesn't really excist. You know that, don't you ? :D

Yeah, but as a metaphor device...quite fitting ;)

Man I can practically feel the partizan politics OOOZing from this forum...

If I was a christain I would strongly suspect the George is the anti-christ. [img]tongue.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]<font color='white'> Wrong there too Rokken. The Anti-Christ comes as a man of peace, and obviously Dubya is a hateful war monger. ;) </font> </font>[/QUOTE]Actually Satan is the father of lies, so Bush qualifies since he said that he wasnt going to do any nation building while campaigning for President in 2000. So he did come as a man of peace with that regards and now he is a nation building war-monger. </font>[/QUOTE]<font color='white'> Oh boy.

So No. 1: Any president that has lied is allegable to be the Anti-Christ? Well thats all 43 of them then.

No.2: Do you study much history Chewbacca? If you do, you would know that various presidents have changed there policies depending on what happened during there term. Yes it would be nice if presidential canidates had second site, but they dont. ;) </font>

Why Azimaith, I dare you to show me where there's ANY partisanship here. :D

#1 I wasn't speaking about any other president than the current one. I would say a lie that has led to the deaths of thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of Americans is a big one...so I will take presidential lies on a one-on-one basis.

#2 What changed during GWB's term that called for the invasion, occupation, and nation building of Iraq?

9/11? Prove a definite link to Iraq and 9/11 and I will concede the point.

Otherwise it was a nice try at making a point but doesn't sway me one bit nor deplete the validity of my own. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 08-28-2003, 09:08 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

<font color='white'> Same here. [img]tongue.gif[/img] </font>

Actually I didnt miss the point at all. I think the analogy is valid exactly how I wrote it. Besides, I didnt accuse anyone of being an anti-christ, actually another poster coined the term "antichrist Bush" a few posts before mine. I simply rebuked your rebukement of someone elses post where you refered to Bush as a "hateful warmonger" to disqualify him as being "anti-christ like" because the antichrist supposedly comes as a man of peace.

I merely illustrated how Bush did come as a man of peace, like the anti-christ does according to your own words, and did lie, one of the things the anti-christ is supposed lord of, and turned to war and nation-building.

If anything I would go rebuke the poster who originated the analogy if I were you. Also...if you didnt like the comparison in the first place why did you play along with it and not discredit it more specifically before I got involved in the discussion?

Oh, and I dont beleive in the anti-christ, so my use of the term is purely in the context of metaphor. So even if I did compare someone to the anti-christ it would be because they have behaved in a way that is traditionally associated with the mythical entity, like lying or being deceptive. So my analogy is perfectly valid from where I am sitting.

[ 08-29-2003, 12:14 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

I'll take your avoiding the question as not having an answer... for now.

Every primary reason given to nation build in Iraq has been debunked, dismantled or discredited. Props can be given for removing a inhumane dictator, but that reason doesn't stand up to the consistency test and was not given as a primary reason for invasion.

Bush blatantly lied when he said in his campaign that he wouldn't do nation building. If this was truly his stance he would not have put a bunch of neocons, who have advocated nation-building in the middle east since the end of gulf war I, in key positions through out his administration.

That's why this forum is known affectionately as the Circular Discussion Forum [img]graemlins/laugh2.gif[/img]

You know I think you have a point there! We could also add 25 PMs to that list. :D

MagiK, this discussion does not have to turn into an anti-Bush thread. But it is interesting that most wars America (possibly most other countries as well?) has been involved have boosted the president's approval ratings at first then to die down... Why should the next one (if there'll be a next one) be any different? All that's needed is some timing. ;)

Actually I didnt miss the point at all. I think the analogy is valid exactly how I wrote it. Besides, I didnt accuse anyone of being an anti-christ, actually another poster coined the term "antichrist Bush" a few posts before mine. I simply rebuked your rebukement of someone elses post where you refered to Bush as a "hateful warmonger" to disqualify him as being "anti-christ like" because the antichrist supposedly comes as a man of peace.

<font color='white'> Here are you exact words </font> 'Actually Satan is the father of lies, so Bush qualifies since he said that he wasnt going to do any nation building while campaigning for President in 2000. So he did come as a man of peace with that regards and now he is a nation building war-monger.' <font color='white'> Sounds accusing too me. </font>

I merely illustrated how Bush did come as a man of peace, like the anti-christ does according to your own words, and did lie, one of the things the anti-christ is supposed lord of, and turned to war and nation-building.

<font color='white'> It goes something like this. The anti-chirst comes as a man of peace, sufferes a massive head wound, recovers in expectional time, thus people start worshipping him. That may not be exact, but thats the gerneral idea.</font>

If anything I would go rebuke the poster who originated the analogy if I were you. Also...if you didnt like the comparison in the first place why did you play along with it and not discredit it more specifically before I got involved in the discussion?

<font color='white'> Play along with it? I quoted Rokken, saying he was incorrect, because the Anti-Christ comes as a man of peace. And then your quoted me, and so on. And IMO Bush didn't necessarily come as 'man of peace'. Man of peace would be more like a Ghandi or Martin Luther King Jr. type. </font>

Oh, and I dont beleive in the anti-christ, so my use of the term is purely in the context of metaphor. So even if I did compare someone to the anti-christ it would be because they have behaved in a way that is traditionally associated with the mythical entity, like lying or being deceptive. So my analogy is perfectly valid from where I am sitting. </font>[/QUOTE]

I'll take your avoiding the question as not having an answer... for now.

<font color='white'> Sure, buddy, sure </font>

Every primary reason given to nation build in Iraq has been debunked, dismantled or discredited. Props can be given for removing a inhumane dictator, but that reason doesn't stand up to the consistency test and was not given as a primary reason for invasion.

Bush blatantly lied when he said in his campaign that he wouldn't do nation building. If this was truly his stance he would not have put a bunch of neocons, who have advocated nation-building in the middle east since the end of gulf war I, in key positions through out his administration. </font>[/QUOTE]<font color='white'> Look, if you want another the war is just, the war is injust debate, go look through the archives, I sure as hell am not doing it again. I have made all the points (in the past) about what I thought about the war. They have been some mistakes, but I, along with the majority of the population, support the war.

As far as the nation building, would you like us too leave it like it is, no building at all. Wait,wait,wait, lemme guess. This wouldn't have happened if we had a througly thought this out, and didn't rush too war. There wouldn't have been riots and looting if was had our allies to help. There wouldn't be gurilla attacks if Bush didn't go in looking the rape the country of its oil. Or all of the above? Your choice.</font>

[ 08-29-2003, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: Iron_Ranger ]

Most the past reasons to go to war have been debunked so there is no debate to have when one side ( pro-war) has nothing but a bunch of hot air. Besides the point I'm making isnt about the justification for war but the justification for a leader to say one thing and then do the opposite. BTW If the majority of people jump off a bridge, is it wise to follow along just because a majority is doing so?
Hey we made our bed and now we can sleep in it, some of us will never wake up either. I never once argued we were going to rape any land for oil. There are/were far better principled reasons to delay conflict and still no good reason not to delay it, no matter how much you spin it.

I know for a fact that we wouldnt be doing any nation building in Iraq if we hadn't taken it upon ourselves to invade the country. Bush wouldn't be facing a bold faced campaign lie concerning nation building and he wouldnt need a bunch of rabid apologists for it either.

[quote]Originally posted by Chewbacca:
Most the past reasons to go to war have been debunked so there is no debate to have when one side ( pro-war) has nothing but a bunch of hot air. Besides the point I'm making isnt about the justification for war but the justification for a leader to say one thing and then do the opposite. BTW If the majority of people jump off a bridge, is it wise to follow along just because a majority is doing so? [/b]
<font color='white'> With the bed comment, you are saying that we should stay and do the nation building, correct? But that seems to go against your previous statements. Frankly I don't see how this was possible with out nation building. Was Bush's comment before or after the UN debacle? </font>

You forget the pre-war claims were along the lines of imminent threat to U.S. security, womd's were ready to launch in 45 minutes, etc. Try to ignore history to suit your position all you want but most the pre-war claims coalition leaders made have been de-bunked and are now known to be a bunch of hot air.

Where as the reasons not to invade hastily and unilaterally, or at least the ones I proffered before the war, still stand solid. Almost like the 20/20 of hindsight, but better. I think someone coined the term "hind-foresight" a while back to describe the amazing ability to draw conclusions of the consequences of the war actions before-hand rather than after.

I discredit your insinuation that I, as one of the pro-peace folks, would stoop to claiming any evidence of WMDs found in Iraq is planted without any factual evidence of this being so. Regardless, I'm willing to bet this supposed report due out in near future will not support the rhetoric used to scare people into supporting the war.

I am also mature enough to admit when I am wrong and if this report does indeed reveal a direct and imminent threat to U.S. security and WMDs ready to launch in 45 minutes, etc. then I will have no problem saying I was wrong. Too bad it seems this attitude isn't prevalent on all sides of this debate. ;)


So what previous statements are you referring too specifically? Obviously if I was against this war then I was against nation building in Iraq, duh. My position now is we made our bed so we should sleep in it. That means since we created the current situation in Iraq we should stick around until at least an Iraqi government, water, electricity and a decent police force is restored in the country as much as I want my family, friends, and fellow countrymen to return home from that shooting gallery now. Its called the philosophy of finishing what you started. This is a tough position for me to take considering the U.S. rate of 1/death 12/injured a day that has yet to noticeably decline.

What "U.N. debacle" are you referring too? And what does this "U.N. debacle" have to do with a leader doing what they said they would not do?

So what previous statements are you referring too specifically? Obviously if I was against this war then I was against nation building in Iraq, duh. My position now is we made our bed so we should sleep in it. That means since we created the current situation in Iraq we should stick around until at least an Iraqi government, water, electricity and a decent police force is restored in the country as much as I want my family, friends, and fellow countrymen to return home from that shooting gallery now. Its called the philosophy of finishing what you started. This is a tough position for me to take considering the U.S. rate of 1/death 12/injured a day that has yet to noticeably decline.

What "U.N. debacle" are you referring too? And what does this "U.N. debacle" have to do with a leader doing what they said they would not do? [/QB][/QUOTE]

<font color='white'> Upon reviewing the thread I see that I misinterpeted one of your posts, sorry (the bed comment). I will agree that tactics need to change, start using more SF personel too combat the guriella fighters. We have done it before successfully, and I believe we can do it again. What UN debacle? Hmm, were you asleep all last winter and spring? My point was, if Bush said "No nation building." before the mess with the UN (You know the whole French,German,Russian thing) perhaps it was assumed the UN was going to participate and they were going to handle the mess we are in now. It won't really surprise me if his comment was taken out of context. </font>

Sorry Iron Ranger I am not flame baiting you or anyone, but if you feel that way hit the little report post button and let a mod decide.

If you are not ignoring history then you either missed much of the pre-war rhetoric from coalition leaders or you have forgotten. Or maybe you still believe it all. Whatever the case its your position to have so I'll refrain from further comment.

Also my comment on admitting when wrong was directed at civic and political leadership on all sides of the debate, not directed at you in anyway, shape, or fashion. Hence my use of the words "all sides of the debate".

Any figures I have posted concerning casualties in Iraq have come from media reports, the one site I refer to uses at least two credible reports for each instance of civilian deaths and gives a min/max number to clarify discrepancies. I wont claim it is 100% accurate but its better than not counting at all. Last count was 6-8 thousand dead civilians and an untold amount injured. I have yet to find any other source of information to counter this range of numbers.

One of my myriad of reasons I opposed the war was civilian deaths and injury as well as military, I didn't toss any 50,000 figures around nor support any pre-estimates of that kind. I did quote some gulf war I figures for comparative purposes, but opinion differs on the accuracy of those. My take on the issue was and is that exact the number of civilian/military deaths is irrelevant to the fact that they happen and could/can be avoided. My stance is if you kill an innocent person it is usually unjustifiable no matter what the intentions. The best intentions pave the road to hell is how the old saying goes.

I am unclear how the international communities position against hasty war on Iraq justifies Bush going against his pre-election statement concerning nation building. I just don't see the connection.

Also the link you provided concerning factual evidence of WMDs pointed to an article about Japans use of them in in WW2. How does this relate or did you post the wrong link?

<font color='white'> I think its a bit naive too think they were against 'hasty war making'. They were against any action at all, imo.

So Bush said no nation building pre-presidency, that kind of adds a whole new dimintion to things. Of course that brings me back too my point of presidential policies changing. And brings you back your point of no need at all for nation building, and so on and so on. Here is how I see it. Bush went into the 2000 election's not expecting to go to war. Sept 11th happened, went to war in Afghanistan, for the sake of preventing more terror to the US we attacks Iraq with out UN support (Or at least, with out support of alot of big names.), thus is forced to 'nation build'. And so we are back too wether we should have attacked at all. My answer is yes, because evidence seems factual as of now. Yours is vice versa. Circular Disscuison anyone?

As for the link I posted, my point was, China found Japaness wmd's 60 years (!) after the Japaness were leaving the country. Iraq could be more of the same. </font>

Yeah we are better off to agree to disagree Iron Ranger lest we are caught forever (or at least until differing facts results in a change of either of our opinions) in a circular debate. I wonder if circular debates go around the other direction in the southern hemisphere like flushing toilets do?