A failure? How come? He achieved everything that companies like Halliburton wanted. Great job.
1. So Bush didn't know that security memos was important because he was a nOOb 9 months into his presidency? And how is Clinton to be blamed for that? ... please elaborate.lowing wrote:
1. That is not what I said. He was president for 9 months, compared to Clintons 8 years. I give Bush a little more lattiude as to not appreciating the severity of the threats until it was too late. Clinton, ( who you all blame for nothing ) was in a postion to prevent every bit of this.Varegg wrote:
1. So since the plans were made before he took office he could just discard the security memos handed to him and not followed up, great reasoning lowing.lowing wrote:
1. AQ planned 911 along with the other attacks that were carried out on Clinton's watch
2. The world agreed with this administration as to the threat posed by Iraq at that time. He was the only one with balls to do something about that perceived threat.
3. The president has nothing to do with the economy. This ball was rolling decades before he too office.
No terror attacks since 911 in the US after several attempts. If there was one, you would be on here bitching about how his initiatives failed and he was a failure and blame him for it. Since his initiatives didn't fail, you will keep your mouth shut and not give him credit for any of it.
You all blamed Bush for the fuckin' weather. Can't wait to see who you blame when it rains on Obama's watch.
Yup several plot were foiled do some googling.
2. The world did not agree lowing, remember how the UN did not sanction this invasion?
3. So you basicly blame Bush Sr.?
If Obama ignore information crucial to US security and fail to act upon it you are correct ... we will blame him for it.Several attempts? ... really?lowing wrote:
No terror attacks since 911 in the US after several attempts.
2. Actually, the world did agree on the threat. It was only those that were in bed with Iraq that didn't agree on doing anything that might hurt their financial interests in the region.
3. All the way back to that weak ass, apologist, Jimmy Carter. His election was the turning point marking the starting decline of the US
2. Actually the world did not agree, some of the world was forced to act with the US because "either you are with us or you are against us"
3. A petty attempt lowing, you can do better ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
He was only made aware of the fact that AQ wanted to attack, not the specifics. And what did Clinton do after the attack on the USS Cole?Varegg wrote:
So since the plans were made before he took office he could just discard the security memos handed to him and not followed up, great reasoning lowing.
Actually the UN absolutely did sanction the invasion. It was the UN who mandated the weapons inspectors to have access for inspection in the early 90's. Him not allowing it was a breach of the cease fire agreement that the UN imposed in the first place.Varegg wrote:
2. The world did not agree lowing, remember how the UN did not sanction this invasion?
So you basicly dismiss Clinton?Varegg wrote:
3. So you basicly blame Bush Sr.?
Lets not forget we had the worst Congress in history either.
Last edited by deeznutz1245 (2008-12-30 05:12:42)
Malloy must go
Wonder if the Republicans are going to give Obama a 9 month period of grace.
Think you misunderstand some fundamentals concerning how the UN works ... that Iraq didn't allow the weapon inspectors does not automatically mean the US can invade.deeznutz1245 wrote:
He was only made aware of the fact that AQ wanted to attack, not the specifics. And what did Clinton do after the attack on the USS Cole?Varegg wrote:
So since the plans were made before he took office he could just discard the security memos handed to him and not followed up, great reasoning lowing.Actually the UN absolutely did sanction the invasion. It was the UN who mandated the weapons inspectors to have access for inspection in the early 90's. Him not allowing it was a breach of the cease fire agreement that the UN imposed in the first place.Varegg wrote:
2. The world did not agree lowing, remember how the UN did not sanction this invasion?So you basicly dismiss Clinton?Varegg wrote:
3. So you basicly blame Bush Sr.?
Lets not forget we had the worst Congress in history either.
Bush had plenty of info available that told him basically the exact 9/11 plot taking place except the date.
I don't dismiss Clinton entirely, his line against terror as far as i know was too weak.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Are you saying that defying UN mandates automatically sanctions invasions?deeznutz1245 wrote:
Actually the UN absolutely did sanction the invasion. It was the UN who mandated the weapons inspectors to have access for inspection in the early 90's. Him not allowing it was a breach of the cease fire agreement that the UN imposed in the first place.
I know the UN is a bunch of pussies. And besides, knowing when something is going to happen is pertinent to its demise I would think. After all, these terrorists had no bombs or weapons so were we supposed to not let any middle eastern men on any flights? That would be profiling I reckon.Varegg wrote:
Think you misunderstand some fundamentals concerning how the UN works ... that Iraq didn't allow the weapon inspectors does not automatically mean the US can invade.
Bush had plenty of info available that told him basically the exact 9/11 plot taking place except the date.
I don't dismiss Clinton entirely, his line against terror as far as i know was too weak.
Malloy must go
No I am saying the UN reckognized there was an issue by setting sanctions in the first place. Would you disagree with that?mikkel wrote:
Are you saying that defying UN mandates automatically sanctions invasions?deeznutz1245 wrote:
Actually the UN absolutely did sanction the invasion. It was the UN who mandated the weapons inspectors to have access for inspection in the early 90's. Him not allowing it was a breach of the cease fire agreement that the UN imposed in the first place.
Malloy must go
How is that sanctioning an invasion?deeznutz1245 wrote:
No I am saying the UN reckognized there was an issue by setting sanctions in the first place. Would you disagree with that?mikkel wrote:
Are you saying that defying UN mandates automatically sanctions invasions?deeznutz1245 wrote:
Actually the UN absolutely did sanction the invasion. It was the UN who mandated the weapons inspectors to have access for inspection in the early 90's. Him not allowing it was a breach of the cease fire agreement that the UN imposed in the first place.
1. I said he didn't understand the urgency and seriousness of the threat. Clinton did, which leads one to ask why he refused Bin Laden when Syria offered him to the US.Varegg wrote:
1. So Bush didn't know that security memos was important because he was a nOOb 9 months into his presidency? And how is Clinton to be blamed for that? ... please elaborate.lowing wrote:
1. That is not what I said. He was president for 9 months, compared to Clintons 8 years. I give Bush a little more lattiude as to not appreciating the severity of the threats until it was too late. Clinton, ( who you all blame for nothing ) was in a postion to prevent every bit of this.Varegg wrote:
1. So since the plans were made before he took office he could just discard the security memos handed to him and not followed up, great reasoning lowing.lowing wrote:
1. AQ planned 911 along with the other attacks that were carried out on Clinton's watch
2. The world agreed with this administration as to the threat posed by Iraq at that time. He was the only one with balls to do something about that perceived threat.
3. The president has nothing to do with the economy. This ball was rolling decades before he too office.
No terror attacks since 911 in the US after several attempts. If there was one, you would be on here bitching about how his initiatives failed and he was a failure and blame him for it. Since his initiatives didn't fail, you will keep your mouth shut and not give him credit for any of it.
You all blamed Bush for the fuckin' weather. Can't wait to see who you blame when it rains on Obama's watch.
Yup several plot were foiled do some googling.
2. The world did not agree lowing, remember how the UN did not sanction this invasion?
3. So you basicly blame Bush Sr.?
If Obama ignore information crucial to US security and fail to act upon it you are correct ... we will blame him for it.
Several attempts? ... really?
2. Actually, the world did agree on the threat. It was only those that were in bed with Iraq that didn't agree on doing anything that might hurt their financial interests in the region.
3. All the way back to that weak ass, apologist, Jimmy Carter. His election was the turning point marking the starting decline of the US
2. Actually the world did not agree, some of the world was forced to act with the US because "either you are with us or you are against us"
3. A petty attempt lowing, you can do better ...
2. In a way it did. the UN sanctiomned resolution that Iraq broke was the only thing that brought a cease fire. When that resolution was ignored, so was the ceasefire, and that was afyter 10 years of diplomatic attempts at peaceful compliance and 10 years of UN threats if compliance was not complied with.
3. No need it is a fact. Carter is the symbol of the beginning of the pussification of the US.
9/11 happened on Bush's watch, he was made fully aware AQ planned to attack the US, probably by hijacking aircraft, in the near future.
He chose do to ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
If the simple and obvious steps taken the day after 9/11 had been taken the day before, 9/11 wouldn't have happened, like locking cockpit doors and not letting people take knives on board.
Duhbya chose to find an excuse to invade Iraq, the excuse turned out to be complete bullshit.
Hardly a great achievement.
Just looking at the stated facts, Duhbya was supposedly concerned abotu WMD falling into the hands of terrorists.
Iraq had no WMD and negligible links with terrorists so why invade them?
Iran on the other hand had stacks of WMD, an advanced nuclear program and was/is the principal sponsor of multiple Islamic terror groups. Why not invade them?
Launching a war and bypassing the UN.
The UN put in place sanctions, they were apparently working, the inspectors found nothing. No need to panic.
If the US really had evidence that Iraq had WMD and wasn't cooperating with the UN then they could have put it before the UN and it might have been dealt with.
UN 'are a bunch of pussies'. Hmmm who is on the UNSC exactly?
France, China, Russia, Britain and of course the US. All nuclear armed pussies?
Weren't you guys shit scared of Russia for 30-40 years? Are you scared of pussies?
Aren't you shit scared of China and Russia right now?
The US was too much of a pussy to put it to a vote in the UNSC, simple as that.
I don't see why the UN is being criticised now when the Iraq invasion has been such a fiasco, 5,000 americans dead and not one single atom of WMD to show for it.
The UN was right, the US was wrong, you should be criticising the team of vegetables who implemented this fuckup not the UN.
Besides that not only were AQ allowed to attack the US but in the haste to get into Iraq Bin Laden was allowed to slip away
The mastermind of the single most serious terrorist attack in world history was allowed to escape in the rush to invade a country which had nothing to do with anything? Incredible.
And you're still saying its all Clinton's fault?
I'm not seeing any good news here.
He chose do to ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
If the simple and obvious steps taken the day after 9/11 had been taken the day before, 9/11 wouldn't have happened, like locking cockpit doors and not letting people take knives on board.
Duhbya chose to find an excuse to invade Iraq, the excuse turned out to be complete bullshit.
Hardly a great achievement.
Just looking at the stated facts, Duhbya was supposedly concerned abotu WMD falling into the hands of terrorists.
Iraq had no WMD and negligible links with terrorists so why invade them?
Iran on the other hand had stacks of WMD, an advanced nuclear program and was/is the principal sponsor of multiple Islamic terror groups. Why not invade them?
Launching a war and bypassing the UN.
The UN put in place sanctions, they were apparently working, the inspectors found nothing. No need to panic.
If the US really had evidence that Iraq had WMD and wasn't cooperating with the UN then they could have put it before the UN and it might have been dealt with.
UN 'are a bunch of pussies'. Hmmm who is on the UNSC exactly?
France, China, Russia, Britain and of course the US. All nuclear armed pussies?
Weren't you guys shit scared of Russia for 30-40 years? Are you scared of pussies?
Aren't you shit scared of China and Russia right now?
The US was too much of a pussy to put it to a vote in the UNSC, simple as that.
I don't see why the UN is being criticised now when the Iraq invasion has been such a fiasco, 5,000 americans dead and not one single atom of WMD to show for it.
The UN was right, the US was wrong, you should be criticising the team of vegetables who implemented this fuckup not the UN.
Besides that not only were AQ allowed to attack the US but in the haste to get into Iraq Bin Laden was allowed to slip away
The mastermind of the single most serious terrorist attack in world history was allowed to escape in the rush to invade a country which had nothing to do with anything? Incredible.
And you're still saying its all Clinton's fault?
I'm not seeing any good news here.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-12-30 05:51:48)
Fuck Israel
I'm not saying the US was justified. What I am saying is that the UN at one point felt there was enough threat to impose sanctions and never revoked them. Yes, the US took it upon themselves to invade with or without support but the according to the UN's standards that they set a decade prior intervention was justified. Its how the intervention happened that was the problem, not the fact that someone intervened in the first place.mikkel wrote:
How is that sanctioning an invasion?deeznutz1245 wrote:
No I am saying the UN reckognized there was an issue by setting sanctions in the first place. Would you disagree with that?mikkel wrote:
Are you saying that defying UN mandates automatically sanctions invasions?
Malloy must go
As it turns out, as many people believed at the time, there was no reason to intervene.Deeznutz wrote:
Its how the intervention happened that was the problem, not the fact that someone intervened in the first place.
The US jumped the gun on bogus intel and fucked up totally.
Which part isn't a failure?
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-12-30 05:55:41)
Fuck Israel
No shit they're going to say that, fuck ske. Mrs Bush is his fucking wife, and Rice was the secretary of state under him. It's not like they were fucking going to say anything else now are they.
Condoleeza Rice probaly bears as much responsiblility as Duhbya, which is why she tried to bury the AQ memo.
Fuck Israel
1. Clinton was offered Bin Laden AFTER' WTC '93, and he didn't take him, so you tell me which is worse.Dilbert_X wrote:
9/11 happened on Bush's watch, he was made fully aware AQ planned to attack the US, probably by hijacking aircraft, in the near future.
He chose do to ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
If the simple and obvious steps taken the day after 9/11 had been taken the day before, 9/11 wouldn't have happened, like locking cockpit doors and not letting people take knives on board.
Duhbya chose to find an excuse to invade Iraq, the excuse turned out to be complete bullshit.
Hardly a great achievement.
Just looking at the stated facts, Duhbya was supposedly concerned abotu WMD falling into the hands of terrorists.
Iraq had no WMD and negligible links with terrorists so why invade them?
Iran on the other hand had stacks of WMD, an advanced nuclear program and was/is the principal sponsor of multiple Islamic terror groups. Why not invade them?
Launching a war and bypassing the UN.
The UN put in place sanctions, they were apparently working, the inspectors found nothing. No need to panic.
If the US really had evidence that Iraq had WMD and wasn't cooperating with the UN then they could have put it before the UN and it might have been dealt with.
UN 'are a bunch of pussies'. Hmmm who is on the UNSC exactly?
France, China, Russia, Britain and of course the US. All nuclear armed pussies?
Weren't you guys shit scared of Russia for 30-40 years? Are you scared of pussies?
Aren't you shit scared of China and Russia right now?
The US was too much of a pussy to put it to a vote in the UNSC, simple as that.
I don't see why the UN is being criticised now when the Iraq invasion has been such a fiasco, 5,000 americans dead and not one single atom of WMD to show for it.
The UN was right, the US was wrong, you should be criticising the team of vegetables who implemented this fuckup.
Besides that not only were AQ allowed to attack the US but in the haste to get into Iraq Bin Laden was allowed to slip away
The mastermind of the single most serious terrorist attack in world history was allowed to escape in the rush to invade a country which had nothing to do with anything? Incredible.
And you're still saying its all Clinton's fault?
I'm not seeing any good news here.
2. Bush and the world agreed on the same intel. Like it or not. The world viewed Iraq as a threat. Period. There is no denying this and you can show nothing that dismisses this fact.
3. Iran will get theirs, better we do it than to wait for you appeasers to allow another Hitler take a foothold in the region.
4. The US deemed a threat to its own national security. We waited for the UN 10 years, they did nothing and were never going to anything.
5. Never called the UN pussies, I call them ineffective, bias3ed and corrupt. I wish they were pussies.
6. The US waited a decade for the UN to act, they did not and the reason they didn't was because all on th UNSC had finacial ties to Iraq.
7. 5000 soldier dead this is true, I guess another 2 million at the hands of Saddam is more to your liking.
8. Bin Laden was allowed to slip away under Clinton, do some googling. So yeah I can blame Clinton
1. Bin Laden wasn't believed to be a threat at that time.
2. No they didn't. The world was looking at the intel concocted by the US and the Israelis.
3. But why not hit Iran instead of Iraq? Iran had WMD and was working directly with terror groups.
4. Please point out at what point Iraq was deemed a threat to US security, and I'll show you the videos of Powell and Rice saying Iraq was no threat to anyone.
5. Correct, Deeznutz did.
6. Everyone has financial ties to everyone, US included.
7. Saddam was not a threat to the US, not sure where you get 2 million from.
8. And allowed to slip away AFTER 9/11 by Bush - Seems like a smidgen of a failure to me.
2. No they didn't. The world was looking at the intel concocted by the US and the Israelis.
3. But why not hit Iran instead of Iraq? Iran had WMD and was working directly with terror groups.
4. Please point out at what point Iraq was deemed a threat to US security, and I'll show you the videos of Powell and Rice saying Iraq was no threat to anyone.
5. Correct, Deeznutz did.
6. Everyone has financial ties to everyone, US included.
7. Saddam was not a threat to the US, not sure where you get 2 million from.
8. And allowed to slip away AFTER 9/11 by Bush - Seems like a smidgen of a failure to me.
Fuck Israel
You said that the UN sanctioned the US invasion of Iraq, word for word, on the grounds of defying UN resolutions. Israel is by far and wide the most prolific violator of UN resolutions. Are you saying that this establishes UN sanction for, say, Russia invading Israel? Or even Russia invading the US?deeznutz1245 wrote:
I'm not saying the US was justified. What I am saying is that the UN at one point felt there was enough threat to impose sanctions and never revoked them. Yes, the US took it upon themselves to invade with or without support but the according to the UN's standards that they set a decade prior intervention was justified. Its how the intervention happened that was the problem, not the fact that someone intervened in the first place.mikkel wrote:
How is that sanctioning an invasion?deeznutz1245 wrote:
No I am saying the UN reckognized there was an issue by setting sanctions in the first place. Would you disagree with that?
Last edited by mikkel (2008-12-30 06:27:46)
What I am saying is that by not allowing in weapons inspectors, whether he even had WMD's is irrelevant. It was a violation of the UN imposed sanctions. I don't have to agree with why we went in, the fact still remains that he violated a cease fire agreement. As for Isreal, I don't care.mikkel wrote:
You said that the UN sanctioned the US invasion of Iraq, word for word, on the grounds of defying UN resolutions. Israel is by far and wide the most prolific violator of UN resolutions. Are you saying that this establishes UN sanction for, say, Russia invading Israel? Or even Russia invading the US?
Malloy must go
But the fact of the matter is that, contrary to what you said, violating UN resolutions does not constitute the UN sanctioning a free-for-all on your territory. Far from it.deeznutz1245 wrote:
What I am saying is that by not allowing in weapons inspectors, whether he even had WMD's is irrelevant. It was a violation of the UN imposed sanctions. I don't have to agree with why we went in, the fact still remains that he violated a cease fire agreement. As for Isreal, I don't care.mikkel wrote:
You said that the UN sanctioned the US invasion of Iraq, word for word, on the grounds of defying UN resolutions. Israel is by far and wide the most prolific violator of UN resolutions. Are you saying that this establishes UN sanction for, say, Russia invading Israel? Or even Russia invading the US?
But saying the UN was against action is incorrect as well. The UN didnt want to go the route that was went, at least with out more evidence. But to say the UN felt no intervention was necessary is irresponsible.mikkel wrote:
But the fact of the matter is that, contrary to what you said, violating UN resolutions does not constitute the UN sanctioning a free-for-all on your territory. Far from it.deeznutz1245 wrote:
What I am saying is that by not allowing in weapons inspectors, whether he even had WMD's is irrelevant. It was a violation of the UN imposed sanctions. I don't have to agree with why we went in, the fact still remains that he violated a cease fire agreement. As for Isreal, I don't care.mikkel wrote:
You said that the UN sanctioned the US invasion of Iraq, word for word, on the grounds of defying UN resolutions. Israel is by far and wide the most prolific violator of UN resolutions. Are you saying that this establishes UN sanction for, say, Russia invading Israel? Or even Russia invading the US?
Malloy must go
Hey you, you violated UN resolution 666, here have a cruise missile bitch.deeznutz1245 wrote:
What I am saying is that by not allowing in weapons inspectors, whether he even had WMD's is irrelevant. It was a violation of the UN imposed sanctions. I don't have to agree with why we went in, the fact still remains that he violated a cease fire agreement. As for Isreal, I don't care.mikkel wrote:
You said that the UN sanctioned the US invasion of Iraq, word for word, on the grounds of defying UN resolutions. Israel is by far and wide the most prolific violator of UN resolutions. Are you saying that this establishes UN sanction for, say, Russia invading Israel? Or even Russia invading the US?
Isreal? I dunno lol.
Get a backbone.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Although I sort of hate you, I laughed at that. Props.m3thod wrote:
Hey you, you violated UN resolution 666, here have a cruise missile bitch.
I really don't give a shit about Isreal, honestly. Not my problem.m3thod wrote:
Isreal? I dunno lol.
Suck a dick.m3thod wrote:
Get a backbone.
Malloy must go
Shame. You're kinda alright in my book even though you're stoopid neo con slag. You have something between your ears unlike you know who.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Although I sort of hate you, I laughed at that. Props.m3thod wrote:
Hey you, you violated UN resolution 666, here have a cruise missile bitch.I really don't give a shit about Isreal, honestly. Not my problem.m3thod wrote:
Isreal? I dunno lol.Suck a dick.m3thod wrote:
Get a backbone.
Let me put it this way. You see a man on the street, you don't know him but from his swagger he thinks he's a hard man. He then stabs a random guy in the chest and kills him there outright. You call the cops and he gets his ass busted after all he's violated the law, right?
You walk further down, you see your mate across the street. He also walks past some guy and stabs the guy in the chest. Poor guy dies there and there. But, you do nothing and look the other way and continue on your journey. You mummer to yourself "honestly. Not my problem".
If you're going to preach the violation of resolutions, try to be consistent. After all integrity is everything.
Last edited by m3thod (2008-12-30 08:14:13)
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Thats the point though. I wouldnt be friends with someone who randomly stabs people, just like I don't agree with our support for Isreal. I think the people of Isreal have gotten a raw deal and would agree with their leave us the hell alone attitude. However, I don't think the US should support or even be involved. Many make the assumtion that because I am a neo con slag that I am a proponent of our support towards Isreal.m3thod wrote:
Shame. You're kinda alright in my book even though you're stoopid neo con slag. You have something between your ears unlike you know who.
Let me put it this way. You see a man on the street, you don't know him but from his swagger he thinks he's a hard man. He then stabs a random guy in the chest and kills him there outright. You call the cops and he gets his ass busted after all he's violated the law, right?
You walk further down, you see your mate across the street. He also walks past some guy and stabs the guy in the chest. Poor guy dies there and there. But, you do nothing and look the other way and continue on your journey. You mummer to yourself "honestly. Not my problem".
If you're going to preach the violation of resolutions, try to be consistent. After all integrity as part of your argument is everything.
Malloy must go