View Full Version : Bush lost sight
G7HEU
09-13-2006, 03:21 PM
On many occasions people on this forum have told me that the U.S.A. is a mighty country, and that I should be grateful that I don't speak German* and that George Bush is a great president, (and so on).
Could one of those people please explain to me why the U.S. is APPEALING for more troops from other countries to assist in the war on tribesmen, um terror, in Afghanistan?
"US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice earlier warned that Afghanistan was at risk of becoming a "failed state".
From my memory G.W. and his cronies dismissed the UN and it's inspectors some years ago because the U.S. was desperate to invade Iraq to search for weapons of mass non existence. How do Bush supporters explain this American return to the U.N. - with hands greedily thrust out for assistance?
Perhaps I have missed something.
Steve.
*I only mention the German language / WW2 thing to save some fool the trouble #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
Quote[/b] ]Could one of those people please explain to me why the U.S. is APPEALING for more troops from other countries to assist in the war on tribesmen, um terror, in Afghanistan? We don't value lives of foreigners like they value their own lives. If we can get Palau to join with us, we have another ally in our failed battles. This is how we gain support in our own nation for failed decisions. Blame it on someone trying to help and buy into the lie.
Quote[/b] ]
"US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice earlier warned that Afghanistan was at risk of becoming a "failed state". Here, she shows the most intelligence she has shown in a long time. Name one thing she has been truly successful at doing besides choosing properly coordinated high heels with her array of skirts.
Quote[/b] ]From my memory G.W. and his cronies dismissed the UN and it's inspectors some years ago because the U.S. was desperate to invade Iraq to search for weapons of mass non existence. How do Bush supporters explain this American return to the U.N. - with hands greedily thrust out for assistance? Rhetoric. Respond with pure rhetoric, because there is no good explanation.
Quote[/b] ]Perhaps I have missed something.
Steve.
You need to start thinking like a 'tard to begin to understand it.
G7HEU
09-13-2006, 03:50 PM
Jerry
I have made a typo. I'll correct it now. Please would you be kind enough to edit your reply text to change that word?
Many thanks,
Steve.
Quote[/b] ]From my memory G.W. and his cronies dismissed the UN and it's inspectors some years ago because the U.S. was desperate to invade Iraq to search for weapons of mass non existence. How do Bush supporters explain this American return to the U.N. - with hands greedily thrust out for assistance?
Wrong, as usual.
It was Saddam who "dismissed" the UN inspectors and the 17 UN Security Council resolutions. The US did go to the UN trying to get them for once to stand up and enforce one of their pronouncements. Of course that failed because, it turns out, that two of the permanent menbers, France and Russia to be specific, and the UN's own "food for oil program" were taking kickbacks from Saddam.
The US acted to enforce UN resolutions.
As for the UN in Afghanistan,
Quote[/b] ]On October 7, 2001, the United States and its allies launched military strikes against the Taliban regime in retaliation for the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, said to have been masterminded by bin Laden from his base in Afghanistan. Shortly after the September 11 attacks, the UN Security Council demanded the Taliban surrender Bin Laden. But the Taliban rejected the ultimatum. US military intervention followed, after which the six nations surrounding Afghanistan joined Russia and the US to discuss the country’s future. At the UN-supported Bonn conference, representatives from four Afghan factions agreed to establish a broad-based interim government. The US-backed Pashtun leader Hamid Karzai, exiled under the Taliban, was installed as Afghanistan’s new interim leader.
Link (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/afgindx.htm)
Once again your "memory" is wrong.
ad4mg
09-13-2006, 04:15 PM
Quote[/b] ]AC0H: #Wrong, as usual.
It was Saddam who "dismissed" the UN inspectors and the 17 UN Security Council resolutions. The US did go to the UN trying to get them for once to stand up and enforce one of their pronouncements. Of course that failed because, it turns out, that two of the permanent menbers, France and Russia to be specific, and the UN's own "food for oil program" were taking kickbacks from Saddam.
Hmmm... I agree about France and Russia, but I seem to remember the UN Inspectors having to hustle their a$$e$ out of Iraq to prevent being bombed by US warplanes. #Is this incorrect?
We only enforced the UN resolutions because it was convenient for Bush to do so. #If we're so big and bad, why don't we enforce UN resolutions against, say, North Korea? #Too inconvenient?
Invading Afghanistan to end Taliban rule and get Osama was just. #Invading Iraq was just BS.
G7HEU
09-13-2006, 04:21 PM
Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Sep. 13 2006,09:01)]Quote[/b] ]From my memory G.W. and his cronies dismissed the UN and it's inspectors some years ago because the U.S. was desperate to invade Iraq to search for weapons of mass non existence. How do Bush supporters explain this American return to the U.N. - with hands greedily thrust out for assistance?
Wrong, as usual.
It was Saddam who "dismissed" the UN inspectors and the 17 UN Security Council resolutions. The US did go to the UN trying to get them for once to stand up and enforce one of their pronouncements. Of course that failed because, it turns out, that two of the permanent menbers, France and Russia to be specific, and the UN's own "food for oil program" were taking kickbacks from Saddam.
The US acted to enforce UN resolutions.
As for the UN in Afghanistan,
Quote[/b] ]On October 7, 2001, the United States and its allies launched military strikes against the Taliban regime in retaliation for the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, said to have been masterminded by bin Laden from his base in Afghanistan. Shortly after the September 11 attacks, the UN Security Council demanded the Taliban surrender Bin Laden. But the Taliban rejected the ultimatum. US military intervention followed, after which the six nations surrounding Afghanistan joined Russia and the US to discuss the country’s future. At the UN-supported Bonn conference, representatives from four Afghan factions agreed to establish a broad-based interim government. The US-backed Pashtun leader Hamid Karzai, exiled under the Taliban, was installed as Afghanistan’s new interim leader.
Link (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/afgindx.htm)
Once again your "memory" is wrong.
'Wrong as usual'?
I'm sure I'm often wrong but have we spoken / typed to each other many times before? 'As usual' you say - I don't understand why.
I haven't got time to trawl the internet for links which suit my memory or opinion. I do though recall Coffee Annan, (for he was Secretary General of the UN), saying that more time was needed for the weapons inspectors to do their work. I think Bush then decided he could not wait and sent the soldiers in. Am I wrong?
Reference your blurb on Afghanistan. I clearly remember that Bush and Co said it was crucial for the war on terror that Osama Bin Laden be quickly captured. He was apparently in Afghanistan.
If it was so crucial that the guy was apprehended why the failure to direct military resources?
Keen to understand, your freind in England,
Steve.
Quote[/b] ]but I seem to remember the UN Inspectors having to hustle their a$$e$ out of Iraq to prevent being bombed by US warplanes. #Is this incorrect?
I too remember Hans Blix and his inspectors. With all of the corruption between the UN and Iraq coming to light in hindsight, do you really think they were going to find anything? Saddam paraded them around town for weeks stalling.
BTW, I'm all for the UN enforcing resolutions against N. Korea and Iran as long as the rest of the world participates.
ad4mg
09-13-2006, 04:35 PM
Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Sep. 13 2006,12:26)]Quote[/b] ]but I seem to remember the UN Inspectors having to hustle their a$$e$ out of Iraq to prevent being bombed by US warplanes. #Is this incorrect?
I too remember Hans Blix and his inspectors. With all of the corruption between the UN and Iraq coming to light in hindsight, do you really think they were going to find anything? Saddam paraded them around town for weeks stalling.
BTW, I'm all for the UN enforcing resolutions against N. Korea and Iran as long as the rest of the world participates.
I don't question the corruption angle either, but wouldn't it have been a bit better to continue with inspections (which never found anything significant) rather than go to war and kill so many and spend billions, all in a grand effort to achieve the same result (no significant dicovery of WMD's)?
All we accomplished was fishing one rat out of a hole, and pissing most of the civilized world off, and making corrupt companies like Haliburton wealthier. #All done at the expense of the American taxpayers.
Before we went into Iraq, I stated here on QRZ that it was a mistake, and was blasted for it. #I was 110% behind the president when we went into Afghanistan. #So I was right, and it's way past time for me to say:
I told ya so.
Steve,
Please. I beg your pardon for the chicanery at your expense. I have edited my post.
You come here to seek good answers, but there are none. These are the days in this nation where right is wrong, the powerful blame those out of power, and the demise is in full swing.
Bush had said that it was important that Osama be quickly captured, then he said he wasn’t concerned about him, now he recites speeches nearly totally written by Osama. I mean, we are only the United States. How can we find a way to track somebody?
Earlier, I said rhetoric. But misdirection is in store as well.
G0GQK
09-13-2006, 09:50 PM
The capturing of Osama bin Laden would be the worst thing that the military from a none muslim military could do. This man is regarded as a symbol of defiance against the infidels, as a #sort of "second coming".
Capturing the man and putting him in #prison would create a vast army of suicide bombers ready and willing to avenge his capture, from every moslem country in the world. Exile him in his cave.
G0GQK
G0GQK
09-13-2006, 09:52 PM
The capturing of Osama bin Laden would be the worst thing that the military from a none muslim military could do. This man is regarded as a symbol of defiance against the infidels, as a #sort of "second coming".
Capturing the man and putting him in #prison would create a vast army of suicide bombers ready and willing to avenge his capture, from every moslem country in the world. Exile him in his cave.
G0GQK
Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Sep. 13 2006,09:26)]Quote[/b] ]but I seem to remember the UN Inspectors having to hustle their a$$e$ out of Iraq to prevent being bombed by US warplanes. #Is this incorrect?
I too remember Hans Blix and his inspectors. With all of the corruption between the UN and Iraq coming to light in hindsight, do you really think they were going to find anything? Saddam paraded them around town for weeks stalling.
BTW, I'm all for the UN enforcing resolutions against N. Korea and Iran as long as the rest of the world participates.
The rest of the world isn't with us on this, Kevin....
Linkage... (http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/11/world.reax.ap/index.html)
Quote[/b] (G0GQK @ Sep. 13 2006,08:52)]The capturing of Osama bin Laden would be the worst thing that the military from a none muslim military could do. This man is regarded as a symbol of defiance against the infidels, as a #sort of "second coming".
Capturing the man and putting him in #prison would create a vast army of suicide bombers ready and willing to avenge his capture, from every moslem country in the world. Exile him in his cave.
G0GQK
If Bush needs to replace Rove for any reason, you have got yourself a job.
You have my head spinning so bad.
How bad is it spinning?
It is spinning so bad that I had to watch Faux news to get it to slow down.
I know for a fact we have had Muslims in the US military. I have not heard that they have all been banned.
KA8DKT
09-16-2006, 02:33 AM
Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ Sep. 13 2006,12:15)]Quote[/b] ]AC0H: #Wrong, as usual.
It was Saddam who "dismissed" the UN inspectors and the 17 UN Security Council resolutions. The US did go to the UN trying to get them for once to stand up and enforce one of their pronouncements. Of course that failed because, it turns out, that two of the permanent menbers, France and Russia to be specific, and the UN's own "food for oil program" were taking kickbacks from Saddam.
Hmmm... I agree about France and Russia, but I seem to remember the UN Inspectors having to hustle their a$$e$ out of Iraq to prevent being bombed by US warplanes. #Is this incorrect?
We only enforced the UN resolutions because it was convenient for Bush to do so. #If we're so big and bad, why don't we enforce UN resolutions against, say, North Korea? #Too inconvenient?
Invading Afghanistan to end Taliban rule and get Osama was just. #Invading Iraq was just BS.
Correct.
And, as it happens, I had opportunity to talk with one of the inspectors and work with his group. #From what I could tell they were highly skilled, well equipped with the right technology, and were very dedicated.
Saddam did not kick them out, the US did.
-gary
K0RGR
09-16-2006, 02:56 AM
Talk about "dead enders". Even the president himself has acknowledged that there were no WMD's. The question is whether or not he knew that before the war. I don't know the answer to that, but it's clear that he was really, really hoping to find anything that could be construed as supporting evidence, and twisted every arm avaialble.
To those of you who thought going into Iraq was a bad idea, well, you were right. Like most Americans, I was fooled by the speech Colin Powell gave at the U.N. - a speech he now regrets, as he believes he was misled by the CIA. I very grudgingly agreed that we had to invade. But yes, I was deceived, either by bad intelligence or manipulated intelligence. I really believe it was more the latter. I think the administration expected to find some WMD's but I think they had good reason to know that it was not what they made it out to be.
When they used our troops to protect the oil wells and the oil ministry building, but not the museums, and none of the basic infrastructure that we are now paying Halliburton billions to pretend to repair, I knew we'd been had. It had all the earmarks of a con job to make certain people rich.
Putting all of that aside, we are now in the thick of it up to our necks. "We broke it, we bought it". We now have a cesspool to clean up, and all indications are that it is not working. If we leave, the world will almost certainly be worse off for it. The Middle East will become even more unstable. But if we stay, we continue to aggravate the situation.
I don't want to see my kids drafted to go fight over there, but that's where this is leading. I don't want to see WWIII.
I don't want to see people I know die in a senseless war.
If we as a nation have to get down on our knees and plead for peace, we should do it and get it over with.
K6UEY
09-16-2006, 03:38 AM
G7HEU,
Steve , I am curious are you getting paid to bashbush like the ones in the US or are you doing it for some personal reason.
Of course not all the bushbashers are being paid by George Soros, but the chief ones are. The others are volunteers, you know like the ones who march in a parade simply because it is going by.
I was curious if George Soros was making it an International Campaign or just spending his millions here in the US.
Is the economy in Britian that bad that you guys have to interfere in foriegn politics ? # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
kc7jty
09-16-2006, 03:53 AM
Quote[/b] (K6UEY @ Sep. 14 2006,21:38)]Is the economy in Britian that bad that you guys have to interfere in foriegn politics ? # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
The US interferes in the politics of most of the countries world wide. What harm is an English ham on QRZ going to do?
G7HEU
09-16-2006, 04:35 PM
Quote[/b] (K6UEY @ Sep. 15 2006,20:38)]G7HEU,
Steve , I am curious are you getting paid to bashbush like the ones in the US or are you doing it for some personal reason.
Of course not all the bushbashers are being paid by George Soros, but the chief ones are. The others are volunteers, you know like the ones who march in a parade simply because it is going by.
I was curious if George Soros was making it an International Campaign or just spending his millions here in the US.
Is the economy in Britian that bad that you guys have to interfere in foriegn politics ? # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
In this country I'm able to have an opinion without being suspected of receiving payment. You might know that My Prime Minister is very keen on your President. Because of that my country became embroiled in Bush's war. Many of my countrymen are now dead. I'm certain that entitles me to have and voice an opinion on Bush and his antics.
By the way OM I think you will find the U.K. economy is healthier than that of the U.S.
But that's only if you go by the Shilling, Bob, Farthing, Hay Penny, and Quid. In terms of DOLLARS, your economy is IN THE LOO!
heh http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
k9kxq
09-16-2006, 04:49 PM
Quote[/b] (K6UEY @ Sep. 15 2006,22:38)]G7HEU,
Steve , I am curious are you getting paid to bashbush like the ones in the US or are you doing it for some personal reason.
Of course not all the bushbashers are being paid by George Soros, but the chief ones are. The others are volunteers, you know like the ones who march in a parade simply because it is going by.
I was curious if George Soros was making it an International Campaign or just spending his millions here in the US.
Is the economy in Britian that bad that you guys have to interfere in foriegn politics ? # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
I just received a check for $20.00 bashing Bush is paying off. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
kxq
G7HEU
09-16-2006, 04:54 PM
Quote[/b] (w3sy @ Sep. 16 2006,09:39)]But that's only if you go by the Shilling, Bob, Farthing, Hay Penny, and Quid. In terms of DOLLARS, your economy is IN THE LOO!
heh # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Try not to be flippant Steven. These are serious issues:
BBC says Europe's economy is growing faster than the US. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5305698.stm)
Mind you I'm sure a short Google will find another web site that shows the U.S. to be better off than the U.K. I do though think it's important that some of your countrymen understand that the third world does not commence 50 miles east of New York.
G7HEU
09-16-2006, 05:10 PM
Just testing my new 'signature'.
G7HEU
09-16-2006, 05:13 PM
Quote[/b] (G7HEU @ Sep. 16 2006,18:10)]Just testing my new 'signature'.
Excellent - it not only works but seems to apply itself to every post I have ever made.
ab8ma
09-16-2006, 05:16 PM
Quote[/b] (G7HEU @ Sep. 16 2006,17:13)]Quote[/b] (G7HEU @ Sep. 16 2006,18:10)]Just testing my new 'signature'.
Excellent - it not only works but seems to apply itself to every post I have ever made.
Vas ist "keen"?
G7HEU
09-16-2006, 05:22 PM
Quote[/b] (ab8ma @ Sep. 16 2006,18:16)]Quote[/b] (G7HEU @ Sep. 16 2006,17:13)]Quote[/b] (G7HEU @ Sep. 16 2006,18:10)]Just testing my new 'signature'.
Excellent - it not only works but seems to apply itself to every post I have ever made.
Vas ist "keen"?
Sein?
Quote[/b] (G7HEU @ Sep. 16 2006,12:54)]Quote[/b] (w3sy @ Sep. 16 2006,09:39)]But that's only if you go by the Shilling, Bob, Farthing, Hay Penny, and Quid. In terms of DOLLARS, your economy is IN THE LOO!
heh http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Try not to be flippant Steven. These are serious issues:
BBC says Europe's economy is growing faster than the US. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5305698.stm)
Mind you I'm sure a short Google will find another web site that shows the U.S. to be better off than the U.K. I do though think it's important that some of your countrymen understand that the third world does not commence 50 miles east of New York.
Actually, 'my countrymen' think New York isn't even part of the US. Many of 'my countrymen' have been known to cheer when New York has been destroyed at movies. I think it would be more apt to say they feel the third world commences 50 miles West of New York (sorry K2WH). http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif