Fahrenheit 9/11...

[Untouchable1]

Wow Surian, there are a lot of points in your post that I do agree on. Like I said before, there are a few things I would have put into my first post that would tie up any loose ends anyone could grab hold of (I see you've caught a few too). Without getting into the Quote war again (I saw how sloppy a job it was last time) I just want to give people a bit of advice (do i smell something burning already?) Just take a step back and examine world affairs from a third person view, without alliances to one particular faction, country, or person. It's a lot easier to see whats going on that way and wether or not it is right or wrong (not in relation to one side or the other but general wrong/right) and also depending on it has any application to youself or anyone else determines wether you should pick at it or not. You just have to admit that its human nature to bicker and argue not matter what somebody does or says (relating to Bush's actions and the response from America).

 

Plus I just have a damn good sense predicting when and where people are going to flame someone...

[surian]

EDIT:: Untouchable's last post came while i was typing this out. I want to say this to untouchable though first before he starts to read this. You made some really stupid posts here today and I'm serious when I say that I'm not angry or anything about it. I just hope that you can look at what i"m saying and really understand that I"m not lying to you here. I'm trying to educate you so you don't make such ignorant staments anymore. However, I guess it's not completely true to say that I'm not annoyed at the ignorance you have shown, so any flames here are just from that annoyance.

 

I would also like to say that I do look at these things from a 3rd person viewpoint without any alliances. I'm an American. My allegence is to the USA but I can take a step outside my comfortable world and see what we're doing to other countries. IF you actually did what you are suggesting and took a look at things while forgetting you are an American for a while you would see these things too.

 

END EDIT

 

I'm gonna keep adding to this for a while but I just saw some things you said that are completely not true:

 

SCORE! another preemptive flame intercepted by Untouchable1 (just like now when you are most likely thinking of going through my backposts to prove me wrong?) reading too fast again, tsk, tsk.

 

I could start calling your mom all sorts of nasty names and then say something like "I predict a flame against me coming". This doesn't make me superior to others, it just means I'm perceptive enough to know that my post is going to make people angry. Don't toot your own horn for being mildly perceptive.

 

and like yourself would just assume they have nothing when they deny your inspectors important documents and access to some rooms of the facility. im not talking about forged evidence or what not, but rather the denial of evidence by Iraqi weapons facilities.

This isn't true, plain and simple. Blix said over and over again that the Iraqis WERE being very supportive and letting them see anything and everything they wanted to. Even while Bush was going on about how the Iraqis were not letting UN inspectors do their job Blix, the head of the inspectors, was screaming that they WERE being helpful and if he just could have a little more time he could conclude that there was no threat. Bush didn't want that and he just yelled louder that there were weapons and that the iraqis were not helping the UN inspectors. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!

 

the thread went from Farenheit 9-11 to a Bush flame war.

Oh come on, don't try this one... you're involved too. LOL

 

instead just trying to put a stop to people hating bush and not really knowing why or understanding how really all of this could have happened to anyone. like if Gore was pres it would be generally the same way except youd all be whinin about him. anthrax has almost nothing to do with saddam but more with how the pres that ur flaming handled it

I think that after 2 exceedingly long posts (or as you wrote this one long post) saying exactly WHY we don't like bush you'd know better than to write something like this. Gore isn't the issue either, he's NOT the president (he should be but that's another issue) if he WAS the president then we would have something to talk about. Stop trying to shift focus.

 

we have Saddam in custody

Where's Osama?

 

Seriously, it's great that Saddam is caught, no one can say that at least a little good didn't come out of this war. However, I remember being told that we would get Osama... the man is hooked up to so many machines to stay alive that he's almost incapable of being moved. It just can't be that hard to find this guy...

 

if not then why the hell are we doin it? and why did we look so hard for saddam? and why are the Iraqu children singing and dancing and burning flags of him? and why did Bush SPECIFICLY SAY were going in there to liberate them? (too busy mast... or flaming bush again to see huh?)

Do you belive EVERYTHING that the president says to you? That's not just nieve that's dangerous. Let's examine your questions the way you SHOULD have done so a long time ago:

 

"Why go into iraq if not to remove Saddam and the terrorists?"

ANS: Well, the answer is that we did go in to remove Sadam, however not because he was a threat to our country or even a significant threat to our allies but rather because we were losing a LOT of money on him. Ever since he invaded Kuwate we couldn't trade oil with him. Iraq has the second most oil in the world and Saudi Arabia is number1. We are already on good terms with the Saudis but Iraq and the US havn't been seeing eye to eye for a while. So get rid of Saddam and put up your own government and you get all the oil trade you ever wanted. NOw look at what has happened in Iraq so far and you'll see that this is exactly what's going on.

 

"Why do we see people happy about the US getting rid of Sadam?"

ANS: There are several issues here. One is that they truely are happy to be rid of Saddam, the other is that the US media doesn't show anything that it doesn't want to show. There are PLENTY of people there that arn't happy about the US being in their country, it's just htat in the US we don't show THOSE tapes. The Iraqi news channel (whose name slips my mind) was enjoying it's new found freedom when it printed an article condeming the US government for it's actions in Iraq. The Army seized control of them and now they can only print what the US says they can print... much like it was under Saddam.

 

"Why did Bush say that we were going there to liberate them?"

ANS: Because Bush is a liar. Simple enough? It's more complicated than just that but it's about right. Liberating Iraqis was a consequence of ousting Sadam and gaining control of the oil wells. I would actually argue, however, that the Iraqi people are not now, nor ever will be, free.

 

well if it does we can always ask em if they want more help to start anew. they even tossed around the idea of putting whites in office there but that would be an atrocity. unless they specifically asked us to.

They themselves have been asking us to stay longer! It's an odd predicament they are in. The general population wants the US to leave right now but they also understand that if the US does leave that their new freedom is gone also unless a strong government is established. The general idea right now that most of the iraqis have is that the US needs to stay a little longer to make sure that the governement is working right before it just pulls out completely. That doesn't mean that they like us being there though... However, this isn't the Iraqi's fault, it's a consequence of Bush's war.

 

Also... what's that about "whites"? Do you mean Americans? Or have you forgotten that not all of America is white?

 

yes it was his call to go into iraq.... so? again if you wouldnt do the same thing given the situation you would have reached an even greater pennacle of hatred from the american people. especially if something worse happened as a result.

Exactly, it WAS his call to go into Iraq. Therefor the blame for what's going on rests on his shoulders. That's what we call responsiblilty. Again I point out to you that Bush knew that there were no WMDs in Iraq. So... who has reached that level of hatered for the American people then?

 

have you ever had anyone say something they thought was really bad@zz but really its so moronic and pointless that you are left speechless because nothing ever said in any language can negatively match the severe braindeadness of the statement that just entered your ears? yeah, thats how i feel right about now

God... this is just too easy. I'm not even going to say the obvious remark except to say this: Who is acting "bad@zz" here? Immortal? Me? Or the guy who consistantly says he's saving us from idiot posters and spam posts yet doesn't actually have a single fact right and instead of just admitting he's wrong keeps posting completely false staments? Yet even so, I'm not really too angry with you. You represent a large portion of the US right now. You are ignorant, angry and willing to believe anything that the President says. I'm telling you the truth and you really should listen.

[ImmortalSnafu]

I was about ready to take a nap and you had to post two more posts... Oh well, here we go.

 

have a cow... (does he always pick apart people's posts like this?):

Rarely does a post contain such foolish and ignorant things that it requires picking apart. Your post is one of the few that fits the bill.

 

...hold onto something, because you're about to recieve a lyrical V2 counter-attack

If the Nazi's V2s were as weak as yours...there'd be a whole lot less dead civilians in London at the end of World War II ;).

 

also true. EVERYONE had to make up for ignoring Laden's threats. *a petty handclap* arent you proud

I didn't have to make up for ignoring Bin Laden's threats...nor did you. That was solely the responability of the government that we elect into office to protect us from attack, they failed us miserablely. They were the ones with access to information that told of incoming attacks.

 

attacks which probly lulled the government into an 'oh another terrorist attack, overseas again' kind of attitude. if someone on the street mugs at you every day on your way to work but doesnt take any real action you area going to naturally assume he is harmless. untill he pulls a knife on you then it actually becomes a story.

Lol...if someone comes up and mugs me, he'll get the $20 I'm carrying, and he'll spend a few years in prison. I'm not going let him mug me every day. Or if a new mugger mugged me every day...I'd invest in a handgun. He'd pull a knife, get a .44 magnum round in his chest. The point is that if you are always attacked, you must always be prepared to defend. The US was not prepared to fight an attacker off, even though we'd been "mugged" in the past and we knew we'd ge "mugged" in the future. Inexcusable.

 

guess you missed that didnt you? his FIRST action in office was the tax cut. yes i agree it was wasteful and perhaps even just a ploy to get people to like him. but it was working and he had already promised and signed on the next one when 9-11 happened. turning the tax cut plan against him. but again, that wasnt his doing.

You need desperately to straighten out your facts. Bush's first tax cut was in 2001 like you said, but his second one was all the way in 2003. So the real series of events is:

Tax Cut 1 -> 9/11 -> War 1 -> Tax Cut 2 -> War 2.

(I added the 2 wars as planes of reference tot he time this is occuring in)

The point being, Bush's original tax cut did nothing but add 1.3 trillion to the national debt; and the second, whose goal was to turn the economy back up after 9/11, also failed.

 

SCORE! another preemptive flame intercepted by Untouchable1 (just like now when you are most likely thinking of going through my backposts to prove me wrong?) reading too fast again, tsk, tsk.

You are truly a master...*rolls eyes*

 

do you remember in Morrowind when you probly asked a guard 'why dont you go kill all the bandits' and he replies 'the legion doesnt have the manpower or the funds to undertake such a task and weed them all out' or something to that extent. I suppose YOU have several Billion $ to give to the government to start programs of global liberation, especially after they suffered such a huge blow? no? well then leave it.

Money will not buy those countries freedom. It would be the blood of Americans that would be spilt...Where would those soldier come from? Our military is sorrowfully over-stretched. It is always a terrible sign when a nation has its army stretched to the limits. The mightiest empires that ever existed fell (Rome) when their armies could not fight all their enemies at once. If our army is stretched too much for too long, we will fall too. As hard as it may seem to fathom, America is not immortal.

 

and like yourself would just assume they have nothing when they deny your inspectors important documents and access to some rooms of the facility. im not talking about forged evidence or what not, but rather the denial of evidence by Iraqi weapons facilities.

Those weapon facilities were eliminated a decade ago. There was nothing left that Iraq had they could use against us.

 

^ please refer to the above verbal AK assault ^

Huh? I assume by "AK assault" you are refering to an AK47 assault. An AK47 packs a real punch and can kill. Non of your previous statements packed a deadly punch, or killed anyone. That leaves me confused :huh:.

 

the thread went from Farenheit 9-11 to a Bush flame war. dont get me wrong im not tryna defend bush but instead just trying to put a stop to people hating bush and not really knowing why or understanding how really all of this could have happened to anyone. like if Gore was pres it would be generally the same way except youd all be whinin about him. anthrax has almost nothing to do with saddam but more with how the pres that ur flaming handled it.

No, this couln't have happened to anyone, none of us are president. I sincerely believe that had Gore been president, we'd all be unimaginably better off. There are so many things, that after seeing Gore perform 8 years as Vice President., that I know he could have handled better. About the Anthrax...Bush handled it dismally, on par with he other accomplishments.

 

so... you're telling me and all the americans in this room that after 9-11 you, as pres, would just sit back, arms crossed and let all hell break loose over there and in here. if thats the case im sure anyone would pick bush over you for prez.

I could write a book on what I would have done, but that wouldn't change anything. That's not the point. I simply said that the way Bush went about executing the attack on Afganistan was so utterly foolish that even at the time I though he was crazy(Special Forces deployment was delayed, we sent so few troops).

 

apparently you were too busy flaming bush back in 02 to see all his speeches on tv. hes trying to appeal to two audiences. first the survivors of 9-11 with words of compassion and patriotism. then to the military and political critics with the 'shock and awe' routine.

I was definately busy flaming back in '02, but not too busy to see his ever enlightening speeches. Most didn't have the slightest to do with religion at all...

 

no duh the terrorist groups were outraged at this. but why would Saddam act like he's hiding something when hes not? why wouldnt he allow inspectors to make a full survey of the facilities?.

...I'm confused. You said in your previous post that we should "go into iraq and rid them of dangerous weapons of mass destruction". But now you're saying "no duh" that they didn't have weapons. Did I miss something?

 

oh and in case you havent noticed (still u are too busy flaming bush to see) we have Saddam in custody. accomplishment? i think so.

Who cares if we have Saddam or not? Seriously, we are no safer with him in our custody than when he ruled Iraq.

 

if not then why the hell are we doin it? and why did we look so hard for saddam? and why are the Iraqu children singing and dancing and burning flags of him? and why did Bush SPECIFICLY SAY were going in there to liberate them? (too busy mast... or flaming bush again to see huh?)

I'm not exactly sure what Bush's motivation was for wanting the war so much, it was probably for either oil or revenge. Out of the two, I'd say oil is more likely the motivator. About the search for Saddam, it was a publicity stunt. We captured him, and subsequently displayed him, just so the American public actually though the was going somewhere. The flags the Iraqi children were burning...were American flags. Chances are they've been programmed since birth to hate America, and if Americans suddenly attack their home you think that'll make them happy? If you've lived your life entirely under a dictatorship, chances are you won't understande the ideas of liberty of freedom.

 

well if it does we can always ask em if they want more help to start anew. they even tossed around the idea of putting whites in office there but that would be an atrocity. unless they specifically asked us to.

If we withdraw, I can guarantee that we won't be going back. People will just think "what's the point?".

 

^ revisit the 'hiding weapons' and 'if you were pres' post because i bet you didnt read it the first time ^

As a matter of fact, i did read them, both were as weak as usual ;).

 

yes it was his call to go into iraq.... so? again if you wouldnt do the same thing given the situation you would have reached an even greater pennacle of hatred from the american people.

I'm sure that Americans would be outraged if hundreds of American lives and thousands of Iraqi lives were spared from death.

 

especially if something worse happened as a result.

Are you refering to a massive invasion of the US by Iraq? What could Iraq possibly do to us? They were completely harmless in every way: Their army was still in shambles, they had no weapons of mass destruction, they harbored no terrorists.

 

oh you mean like by trying to prevent another 9-11 while simultaneously liberating a severely over-oppressed country?

Bush is trying to prevent another 9/11, but so far he's doing it dismally. He's cut money to essential programs to the defence of the homeland. Not to mention the grip of fear his alert system places on Americans. Iraq's liberation will probably turn out to be worse for us than we can imagine...

 

are you John Walker Lindh by any chance?

*Sigh* That's about as relevant to the conversation as what I had for breakfast.

 

when someone flames you so bad your like above

I haven't really been flaming, I've been exceptionally cordial to you. Flaming is more like "OMFG YO ARE SO LAME!!!1!!!1" I've jus been trying to carry on an educated discussion.

 

  and i come in and lyracly save the day, effectively demoralizing that user from ever posting such nonsense again,

Looks like another victory for you ;).

 

humans...

Just because not all of us have been sent here by god to enlighten the mortals doesn't mean you have to rub it in...*rolls eyes*

 

well it looks like you effectively sucked my post to death and picked it apart easy enough without capitalization. and thats all you really need to feed, righ Post Vamp?

*Looks at Untouchable1 pick apart his post, unsuccessfully* You don't make a very good post vamp ;).

 

*works hard to pull the bloody Warhammer of Verbal Smiting out of the carcass of Post Vamp and walks off*

You should look into buying a "bloody Warhammer of Verbal Smiting" that works.

 

Btw...Nice job Surian. I love reading your posts, they are suprisingly empty of foolish or ignorant remarks.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On to your second post Untouchable1

 

Without getting into the Quote war again (I saw how sloppy a job it was last time)

Henceforth, there was the edit button. With this enchanted object, people could correct their mistakes.

 

Just take a step back and examine world affairs from a third person view, without alliances to one particular faction, country, or person. It's a lot easier to see whats going on that way and wether or not it is right or wrong (not in relation to one side or the other but general wrong/right) and also depending on it has any application to youself or anyone else determines wether you should pick at it or not. You just have to admit that its human nature to bicker and argue not matter what somebody does or says (relating to Bush's actions and the response from America).

I always try and look at things from third person perspective. That's why I've tried to answer your posts without the same arrogance that I received in your responses. It seems to me that it is you who lacks the ability to look at something from another person's perspective. Of course I bicker over what Bush did/does/will do. I see the impact his incrediblely foolish actions have on us all and i cringe. This is the very reason I've spent an hours writing a response to your posts in the hopes that you'll hear how foolish and down right arrogante your statements are.

 

Unfortunately I've too tired now...maybe I'll add on to this post in a few hours of just wait for the enlightening response I know I'll get...

 

---------------------------------------------------------------

Look below for an example of a flame.

 

The only real advice I have for you is to get your facts straight, to know what you're talking about before you start talking. In the meantime, go back to the Morrowind forums where you have an inkling of what's going on around you when you post. ;)

[surian]

Ok, I'm gonna call off my dogs now. I think untouchable1 has been humiliated enough by this. I feel bad now :(. I'm certainly willing to continue this debat though if someone else wants to add to the discussion, I just don't want to continue humiliating untouchable1, he's been marginalized after this. I extend the olive branch of peace to him though and say this: *surian is now a jedi knight* Come back to the light side untouchable1, you have good in you still I can feel it, it's not too late for you to change.

[ImmortalSnafu]

Same here Surian....unless a new player shows up I'm done wit this debate.

[Mojlnir]

Ahh, spirited and wide ranging debate! Excellent. Most of my opinions have already been pretty clearly stated, so I am going to focus on providing factual background information to bolster the righteous claims of Messrs. Surian & ImmortalSnafu:

 

1. Bush/Cheney have added significant numbers of new jobs to the economy.

 

Yes and no. True, jobs have been added over the past year but not nearly at the rate required to replace the jobs lost at the hands of the current administration during the early part of said administrative activities. Nearly every state in the union has seen either increased umemplyment of lathargic job growth. The best that Colorado, for example, has been able to manage in the 30+ plus months since the recession was declared over is 1,600 jobs in one month (May 2004). The fact of the matter is that Colorado has 36,800 fewer jobs now than it did when the recovery was supposed to have started. The jobs that have been added tend to be part-time/temporary and pay significantly lower wages. This kind of "growth" is niether sustained nor sufficient to revive the labor market.

Resource 1

Resource 2

Resource 3

 

2. Tax cuts have benefitted the U.S. economy.

 

Absolutely not true. The plan, which has not changed regardless of the the status of the economy, is illogical and poorly conceived. The average tax cut for about 60% of America was $304. For those making over $1 million a year, the average tax cut was over $110,000. Additionally, the tax cut plan has exacerbated the deficeit enormously. Currently, with the tax cuts included the federal deficeit for 2004 stands at approximately 4.2% of GDP ($11,021 billion), which equals a whopping 462.8 billion dollars. Without the tax cuts the federal deficeit for 2004 would stand at around 1.6% or 176.3 billion dollars. The tax cuts, along with greatly increased military spending and spending on homeland defense which worsens the situation.

Resource 1

Resource 2

Resource 3

Resource 4 - this is the actual budget from the Whitehouse site...read it all if you want...

 

Okay, this is more work than I thought. I am tired and going to bed. I will tackle the war issue tomorrow if anyone really wants but I think we're all pretty square on where that would go.

 

'night all,

 

-M

[Zmid]

Right, ImmortalSnafu, surian and Mojlnir have effectively said the rest of what I was going to say, so I will restrict myself to this:

 

Just take a step back and examine world affairs from a third person view, without alliances to one particular faction, country, or person. It's a lot easier to see whats going on that way and wether or not it is right or wrong (not in relation to one side or the other but general wrong/right)

 

OK, I will:

 

Two countries (call them A and B) loudly and repeatedly claim that another country (call it I) has Weapons of Mass Destruction, which violates a 'law' created by a large international organisation (call it U). U already has a Weapons Inspection team in I, specifically searching for WMD, and has done for the past 12 years or so. They are reporting that they are receiving 'high levels of cooperation' from I and that 'there is no smoking gun' - no WMD, despite the fact A had passed on information of alleged WMD sites to this team and they had investigated them.

 

The response from A and B is just continuing the WMD claims and asking U to authorise a war. U refuses. A and B then ignore this, try to twist previous resolutions by U against I into authorising a war, and goes to war, breaking Article 46 (and possibly a few other articles) of the charter that U was founded on. The objectives of this war are based on the unproven, unlikely claim that I has WMD (if you don't belive me see this document for the objectives of 'B' (you will need Adobe Reader) and this document for the objectives of 'A').

 

When it begins to become obvious that this simply won't wash, the leader of A starts telling his people that it was really to 'liberate' I and both leaders hope their people forget about the WMD claims.

 

 

 

Hmm - guess this just completely fails to prove your point, doesn't it?

[ImmortalSnafu]

What excellant and well thought-out posts Wolf and Mol. If Untouchable1 tried posting his views in the same manner as you guys did, I'd have a great deal more respect for him :).

[tyjet3]

Look.... I don't support everything bush does... BUT I AM SO TIRED OF BUSH BASHING!!! JUST LET IT GO!!! In all honesty, Gore couldn't of handled this 9/11 stuff at all!!

 

If you hate bush so much just vote him out next election!! Quit writing books, making movies, and started potential bush bashing posts... It's been going on for 4 years, do you people have no lives?!?! Just let it vulking go!!!!!

[surian]

:huh:

Tyjet, the point to this "Bush bashing" isn't to annoy you or to insight anti-americanism. It's to inform people of what is ACTUALLY going on in hope of getting Bush out of the oval office this november.

 

f you hate bush so much just vote him out next election!!

I intend to. I also intend to keep telling everyone who will listen about why this man should not be re-elected. People just don't know how bad it really is and once they do that's one more person in addition to me that will vote against Bush. I'm using my constitutionally granted freedom of speech (Granted that doesn't hold much ground on the internet or on this forum as they have other rules, but in my every day life it's different). If you do not like to hear these things then don't listen, or if you disagree you can give me your opinion and we can have a discussion about it. Don't just tell me that you don't like me disagreeing with you and that I should keep quiet about it.

 

It's been going on for 4 years, do you people have no lives?!?!

I have to point out the obvious here... what are you insinuating? That people who focus on political debates (especially those that concern the entire country and in some cases the world as this one does) are wasting their life? By discussing these things we are learning and we are developing our country. I would argue that this is about as productive as you can be in a democracy... You are just upset that people are doing a very good job of disproving your views.

 

So, either put up or shut up, don't waste my time and tell me not to tell people what is going on in the world.