It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush's latest gem of a statement!

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by RWPBR
Passivist neo hippies...


I needed a good laugh! Thanks. I assume you mean "pacifist", but what's a "neo hippie"???



Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
CAPTAIN OBVIOUS!


I can't wait to see the tights and cape that someone makes up for this...
Are you sure you don't mean Captain Oblivious?


Yeah, Bush has always had 'a way' with statements.



Passivist :www.wordwebonline.com...

Passivist : This is distinct from a pacifist, who may believe that force is justified when all other means have failed.

The astonishing thing about self-proclaimed passivists is that they are happy to use force (eg via police enforcement of gun control) to prevent others from defending themselves, all in the name of compassion. See also : Leftist


A Neo Hippie is the polar opposite of a Neo Conservative

[edit on 31-12-2006 by RWPBR]




posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by RWPBR
A sub human monster was made to dance on the end of a rope. Justice was served.
Bush made that happen. Passivist neo hippies didnt.

Bush Akbar !
America Akbar !


And a happy New Year to you too..



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Well,I don't think we went into Iraq at the right time.I do think that it was an eventual inevitability.

What gets me is how soft my generation is. Look, we have been in Iraq..what 3-4 years now. We have lost a little over 3000 soldiers. Hell, in the first and second world wars we lost more than that in a single day sometimes. What I want to ask everyone who is 30 and under, how would you react if that happened again? I mean, Americans are already crying over the loss of a few thousand in a matter of a few years.What if a war between say,America and china broke out and we lost 5,000 in a matter of weeks? I am really concerned about the tenacity of the people in our country.

[edit on 30-12-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

It was an illegal and unnecessary war. It was 3000 unnecessary deaths of young men and innocent civilians.
War will happen and most cases are justified but this one wasn't.
3000 soldiers dead for what?
What has this war done for the US?
How has this war protected the US?
Do you feel any safer?
I find your attitude more disconcerting than the tenacity of the general population. Maybe they have more rational and compassionate thought!



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 09:31 AM
link   
I've heard that this was an illegal war, over and over again.
What exactly was illegal about going to war with Iraq?

If it was illegal, what, and who's law was broken?



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt
I've heard that this was an illegal war, over and over again.
What exactly was illegal about going to war with Iraq?

If it was illegal, what, and who's law was broken?


The Anglo-US coalition broke the law. International law.
The invasion went against article 1441 of the UN security council. The invasion was pre-emptive and NOT in self-defensive. That is illegal.



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by RWPBR
Passivist : This is distinct from a pacifist, who may believe that force is justified when all other means have failed.


Thank you! I had no idea that was a word. As it turns out, I'm not a passivist, either.




A Neo Hippie is the polar opposite of a Neo Conservative


Neo-Hippie Quiz

I scored 63.

"There may be a neo-hippie streak in you, if that sounds like a good thing to you (and it should) you should explore that more."


I proudly proclaim my hippie-ness, but I don't really fit very nicely into the box because my beliefs run the gamut from liberal to conservative, depending on the issue.

Sorry for the slight sidetrack, but I learned something, which is Good Thing. Thanks again, RWPBR.



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murphs

Originally posted by spacedoubt
I've heard that this was an illegal war, over and over again.
What exactly was illegal about going to war with Iraq?

If it was illegal, what, and who's law was broken?


The Anglo-US coalition broke the law. International law.
The invasion went against article 1441 of the UN security council. The invasion was pre-emptive and NOT in self-defensive. That is illegal.


That resolution was broken the first time Saddam redirected UN inspectors, and rescheduled their inspections. Sorry Saddam.



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murphs

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Well,I don't think we went into Iraq at the right time.I do think that it was an eventual inevitability.

What gets me is how soft my generation is. Look, we have been in Iraq..what 3-4 years now. We have lost a little over 3000 soldiers. Hell, in the first and second world wars we lost more than that in a single day sometimes. What I want to ask everyone who is 30 and under, how would you react if that happened again? I mean, Americans are already crying over the loss of a few thousand in a matter of a few years.What if a war between say,America and china broke out and we lost 5,000 in a matter of weeks? I am really concerned about the tenacity of the people in our country.

[edit on 30-12-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

It was an illegal and unnecessary war. It was 3000 unnecessary deaths of young men and innocent civilians.
War will happen and most cases are justified but this one wasn't.
3000 soldiers dead for what?
What has this war done for the US?
How has this war protected the US?
Do you feel any safer?
I find your attitude more disconcerting than the tenacity of the general population. Maybe they have more rational and compassionate thought!


What this war has done for the US, has kept the fight on foreign shores, and I don't recall any terrorist attacks having happened since 9/11.



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by GT100FV
What this war has done for the US, has kept the fight on foreign shores, and I don't recall any terrorist attacks having happened since 9/11.

Ah but this is why this War was/is illegal.
Iraq was never a threat to the US and therefore a War would never have been fought on your shores.
It was Al Queda who waged the Terror Attacks..Not Iraq. Al Queda had no connection with Baghdad. Infact Saddam and Bin Laden hated each other.



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt

Originally posted by Murphs

Originally posted by spacedoubt
I've heard that this was an illegal war, over and over again.
What exactly was illegal about going to war with Iraq?

If it was illegal, what, and who's law was broken?


The Anglo-US coalition broke the law. International law.
The invasion went against article 1441 of the UN security council. The invasion was pre-emptive and NOT in self-defensive. That is illegal.


That resolution was broken the first time Saddam redirected UN inspectors, and rescheduled their inspections. Sorry Saddam.



Dood, Hans Blix said they had no weapons of Mass "what ever" and he got sacked and they replaced him with someone who toed the line.



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Why didn't Iraq give full cooperation when the WMD inspectors were looking, or give evidence that they'd destroyed the known WMD they'd had after Desert Storm? Could it be they were stalling to hide the stuff? That's at least as plausible as any theories I've heard about the USA blowing up the WTC, etc...

After 9/11 the war on terror was against terrorists, and terrorist states. Iraq had been known to A-possess WMD B-support terrorists C-have ambitions of greater power in the mid east.



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by GT100FV
Why didn't Iraq give full cooperation when the WMD inspectors were looking, or give evidence that they'd destroyed the known WMD they'd had after Desert Storm? Could it be they were stalling to hide the stuff? That's at least as plausible as any theories I've heard about the USA blowing up the WTC, etc...

After 9/11 the war on terror was against terrorists, and terrorist states. Iraq had been known to A-possess WMD B-support terrorists C-have ambitions of greater power in the mid east.


But they did!!
You are sooooooo listening to propoganda....



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murphs

Originally posted by GT100FV
Why didn't Iraq give full cooperation when the WMD inspectors were looking, or give evidence that they'd destroyed the known WMD they'd had after Desert Storm? Could it be they were stalling to hide the stuff? That's at least as plausible as any theories I've heard about the USA blowing up the WTC, etc...

After 9/11 the war on terror was against terrorists, and terrorist states. Iraq had been known to A-possess WMD B-support terrorists C-have ambitions of greater power in the mid east.


But they did!!
You are sooooooo listening to propoganda....


At what point did inspectors have free reign to do unannounced inspections anywhere and anytime they liked. At what point did Iraq give detailed proof that they'd destroyed their WMD?



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by GT100FV

Originally posted by Murphs

Originally posted by GT100FV
Why didn't Iraq give full cooperation when the WMD inspectors were looking, or give evidence that they'd destroyed the known WMD they'd had after Desert Storm? Could it be they were stalling to hide the stuff? That's at least as plausible as any theories I've heard about the USA blowing up the WTC, etc...

After 9/11 the war on terror was against terrorists, and terrorist states. Iraq had been known to A-possess WMD B-support terrorists C-have ambitions of greater power in the mid east.


But they did!!
You are sooooooo listening to propoganda....


At what point did inspectors have free reign to do unannounced inspections anywhere and anytime they liked. At what point did Iraq give detailed proof that they'd destroyed their WMD?

If they had destroyed them what was the issue???
They didn't have free reign--granted!! But these guys could test the soil or anything for evidence (not the right word but it is NY
) They weren't just looking for missiles



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murphs
this is why this War was/is illegal.


Once again ...

The war is NOT illegal. It was approved though our government channels. This is NOT an 'illegal' war.
Seriously ya'll. Just because you don't like it, or you don't think Iraq was a problem, doesn't make any difference in if the war is 'legal' or not. It has to do with government approval and like it or not, it was fully approved.

Oh .. and the UN has no moral or legal authority to decide who we go to war with or not. The UN Security council voted against war because they were paid off in bribes from Saddam. They have no say in what our country does or doesn't do. Ever.

Here is some information that you may find interesting regarding things George Bush has said - biblical coded information that he used in a few of his speeches.

politics.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 12/31/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 06:09 PM
link   
en.wikipedia.org...

On December 7, 2002, Iraq filed its 12,000-page weapons declaration with the UN in order to meet requirements for this resolution. The five permanent members of the Security Council received unedited versions of the report, while an edited version was made available for other UN Member States. On December 19, Hans Blix reported before the United Nations and stated in regards to Iraq's December 7 report (unedited version): "During the period 1991-1998, Iraq submitted many declarations called full, final and complete. Regrettably, much in these declarations proved inaccurate or incomplete or was unsupported or contradicted by evidence. In such cases, no confidence can arise that proscribed programmes or items have been eliminated." By March, Blix declared that the December 7 report had not brought any new documentary evidence to light.

Iraq continued to fail to account for substantial chemical and biological stockpiles which UNMOVIC inspectors had confirmed as existing as late as 1998. Iraq claimed that it had disposed of its anthrax stockpiles at a specific site, but UNMOVIC found this impossible to confirm since Iraq had not allowed the destruction to be witnessed by inspectors as required by the pertinent Resolutions. Chemical testing done at the site was unable to show that any anthrax had been destroyed there.

Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei presented several reports to the UN detailing Iraq's level of compliance with Resolution 1441.[1] [2]. On January 30, 2003 Blix said that Iraq had not fully accepted its obligation to disarm, and by mid-February the issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles remained unresolved. Blix's March 7 report stated "Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programmes. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections."

At this point, the US Administration asserted that Iraq remained in material breach of the UN Resolutions, and that, under 1441, this meant the Security Council had to convene immediately "in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security".

The point is that had Iraq been cooperative and not tried to obfuscate things, then the outcome may very well have been different.



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murphs

Originally posted by GT100FV
What this war has done for the US, has kept the fight on foreign shores, and I don't recall any terrorist attacks having happened since 9/11.

Ah but this is why this War was/is illegal.
Iraq was never a threat to the US and therefore a War would never have been fought on your shores.
It was Al Queda who waged the Terror Attacks..Not Iraq. Al Queda had no connection with Baghdad. Infact Saddam and Bin Laden hated each other.


Saddam was a global threat to human rights and humanity in general.

Dont let your hatred of Bush blind you to the reality of what he was. Try and keep one foot grounded in reality.



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 01:50 AM
link   
I don't hate Bush--hate is a wasted emotion..!!
But I do dislike him...He has alot to answer for.



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by RWPBR
Saddam was a global threat to human rights and humanity in general.
Dont let your hatred of Bush blind you to the reality of what he was. Try and keep one foot grounded in reality.


So you're saying the hatred of Bush is blinding our reality?

Then I'll also make a wild and illogical claim, your hatred of Saddam blinds you to the reality of what Bush was, or is...


Edit: Speelling

[edit on 1/1/2007 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 10:57 PM
link   
So you're comparing a guy whose entire career was notable for him being a despotic tyrant( that had his citizens(and those of Iran and Kuwait)murdered, tortured, kidnapped, raped, etc... and had ties with terrorist organizations, had developed WMD and used them against his people and the Iranians)with a guy who responded to an attack on the USA, and is fighting the ideology that was behind that attack? There are 2 less despotic governments in the world as a result, and free elections have occurred in those countries, which hadn't happened before. Those that oppose freedom in the middle east will stop at nothing to try to throw a monkey wrench into the plans. Iran and Syria are destabilizing Iraq(and Lebanon), because it's not in their interest to have a democratic government succede(as they have a lot of disgruntled citizens themselves that might get ideas).



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join