the leaders that are the most popular during their reign/term/etc are often regarded as failures in the annals of history, I don't want some goody two shoes pussified twink in my white house, give me a baddass with some inside men and a few favors to call in when needed anyday, these guys get things done
Please define your idea of Badass. I'm sorry Bush and Badass are world's apart in my book.kr@cker wrote:
the leaders that are the most popular during their reign/term/etc are often regarded as failures in the annals of history, I don't want some goody two shoes pussified twink in my white house, give me a baddass with some inside men and a few favors to call in when needed anyday, these guys get things done
Favors, what nation is going to return any favors to us right now?
On a side note, I really like your sig!!!
Last edited by GATOR591957 (2006-07-05 14:41:32)
this is the same shit you have been saying all along, you just now put it in one post......Before you move on to the patriot act, how about showing facts instead of opinions about all the "lies"? and don't even get me started on hurricane Katrina!!splixx wrote:
+1 for you. Good posts.Spumantiii wrote:
Bush lied to Congress and the American public about the reasons for invading Iraq.
*If Saddam Hussein was an immediate and serious threat to America, as the White House claimed, then Bush might have been justified in invading Iraq. But it appears that Bush misled the public, the Congress and the UN by consistently overstating the threat from Iraq. By lying to Congress, Bush violated US Laws related to Fraud and False Statements, Title 18, Chapter 47, Section 1001 and Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, Title 18, Chapter 19, Section 371.
Lie #1 - Uranium from Niger - Bush said "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." in his State of the Union Address.
Lie #2 - Iraq and 9/11 - Bush led people to believe that Iraq was involved with 9/11 by repeatedly linking them in his speaches. This was so effective that at one point 70% of Americans actually believed Saddam was behind 9/11. Bush has since admitted that this was not true.
Lie #3 - Congress Knew - Bush has stated that Congress had access to all the same information that the White House had. Thus he should not be blamed for making the mistake of going to war. But Bush was briefed many times about the falsehood of various stories and this information never reached Congress. [ZNet]
Lie #4 - Aluminum Tubes - Bush, Cheney, Rice and Powell said that aluminum tubes Iraq attempted to buy were intended for use in a uranium centrifuge to create nuclear weapons. These were the only physical evidence he had against Iraq. But it turns out this evidence had been rejected by the Department of Energy and other intelligence agencies long before Bush used them in his speeches. [NYTimes] [MotherJones] [CNN]
Lie #5 - Iraq and Al Qaeda - Bush still insists that there was a "relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. But the 9/11 Commission released a report saying, among other things, that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Al Qaeda and Iraq. The nature of the relationship seems to be that Al Qaeda asked for help and Iraq refused. Al Qaeda was opposed to Saddam Hussein because Saddam led a secular government instead of an Islamic government. [ZNet] [CNN]
Lie #6 - Weapons of Mass Destruction - Bush insisted that Iraq posessed weapons of mass destruction but his "evidence" consisted mostly of forged documents, plagiarised student papers, and vague satellite photos. The United Nations was on the ground in Iraq and could find nothing. After extensive searches Bush was finally forced to admit that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.
Lie #7 - Mobile Weapons Labs - Bush and his team repeatedly claimed that Iraq posessed mobile weapons labs capable of producing anthrax. Colin Powell showed diagrams of them at his speech before the UN to justify invading Iraq. These claims originated from Curveball, a discredited Iraqi informer who fed Bush many of the stories related to WMD. On May 29, 2003, two small trailers matching the description were found in Iraq. A team of bio-weapons experts examined the trailers and concluded they were simply designed to produce hydrogen for weather balloons. But, for over a year, Bush claimed these were part of Iraq's bio-weapons program. The expert's report was suppressed and only recently made public. [WashPost]
Lie Factory - The Secret Propaganda Team - Bush wanted so much to convince people of the need to invade Iraq that the White House set up a secret team in the Pentagon to create evidence. The Office of Special Plans routinely rewrote the CIA's intelligence estimates on Iraq's weapons programs, removing caveats such as "likely," "probably" and "may" as a way of depicting the country as an imminent threat. They also used unreliable sources to create reports that ultimately proved to be false.
Bush conducted illegal wiretaps of American citizens.
*unfinished
Bush violated International Law by invading a sovereign country for illegal purposes.
* "A preemptive attack on Iraq violates the United Nations Charter, which is a treaty and part of the supreme law of the United States under Article 6, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. signed the UN Charter and we are obligated to uphold the law according to our own"
Chapter 1, Article 2 of the UN Charter states:
3.All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4.All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
Bush lied to the UN and to Congress about the seriousness of the threat from Iraq, and invaded Iraq in defiance of a vote from the UN Security Council. His actions inflamed the Arab world and set a dangerous precedent for any other country that wants to defy the UN and start their own war.
Principle Vl of the Nuremberg Charter states:
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law:
a. Crimes against peace:
i. Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or
a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
ii .Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment
of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
Bush's invaded a sovereign country that had not threatened the United States and had no ability to do so. Bush had been making plans to invade Iraq even before 9/11.
Bush violated the Geneva Convention by torturing prisoners of war.
Bush held prisoners without formal charges and without legal representation.
Bush used government funds for domestic political propaganda.
The Bush team used uniformed military personnel for Republican party political purposes.
Bush was negligent in his slow response to help victims of Hurricane Katrina.
Bush shows contempt towards the Constitution and democratic ideals.
As you can see, it will take some time to finish as there are plenty of reasons justified by American and international law. I want to fit more about the patriot act in here****
please ask me if you are interested in hearing any of the unfinished points I would make, as to save anyone's concentration, I'll finish here
sounds even better when you hear it for the 100th timelowing wrote:
this is the same shit you have been saying all along
lowing, I've given you plenty of facts. This is the same thing you always say. The above are facts, unpleasant but true.
The rest of the world doesn't expect George Bush to get impeached and is not paying a great deal of attention to this kind of chatter. There has been very little coverage here in Europe of any threats of impeachment. Irrespective of this I and other Europeans don't just see Bush as the problem but rather the Republican party as a whole. So impeaching Bush is no fast-track to restoring USA's good name. Europeans are far more cynical than that.GATOR591957 wrote:
Cameron, I'll ask you this question because I believe you have a unique perspective on our problems. If we sit back and do nothing how would your react? It is my belief that in order for the USA to restore our good name and reputation as a fair country, which has been lost in this administration , the people of the USA need to speak out and act against this.CameronPoe wrote:
WHat's the point in impeaching him? He'll just be replaced by another tyrannical christ-fascist oligarch.
In your response of replacing Bush, I hope you are referring to Mr. Cheney. To which I would agree, but if he repeats the mistakes of his predecessor, he will also face the same fate.
It is my belief that there has been somewhat of a watershed post 9-11 in terms of the opinions of all or most 'US allied' nations. We began to question why someone would feel compelled to fly a plane full of ordinary people into a building full of ordinary people. We then began to realise that USA has *shock horror* ulterior motives in it's international dabblings. Conflicts initiated or clandestinely supported by USA in the past fifty years were then viewed through a Cold War-free prism and we began to realise the truth wasn't as pretty as we had been led to believe. I'm from Ireland - one of the most pro-US countries you could possibly get up until the Iraq war. Then centuries of good will between our countries and our unqualified public support for the US as bastion of 'democracy' were severely damaged. The US adminstration didn't help by actually using Shannon as a rendition airport. Our good will gesture was to not search the military planes, which we had rights to carry out, but our gesture was repaid with a proverbial kick in the teeth.
To restore the good name of the US it would be a far more worthwhile exercise to close the likes of Guantanamo Bay detention centre or for the Republican party to reinvent itself and to tone down it's imperialistic rhetoric (Project for the New American Century to name an example of such rhetoric). Trust in the incumbent adminstration among most Europeans is nil. We cannot predict where Bush & co. will dabble next and it scares us. The actions of the people currently in control in America today reflects onto all of us westerners, not just Americans. It's a bad day when American tourists across the world have to pretend they're from Canada.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-07-05 16:29:01)
http://www.williambowles.info/iraq/2006 … arges.html
must run in the family. lets see if we can get them both to The Hague.
must run in the family. lets see if we can get them both to The Hague.
No these are YOUR opinions. Just because you adopted the views of some left wing nut job or newspaper ( the washington post and NY Times come to mind) does not make them facts.Spumantiii wrote:
lowing, I've given you plenty of facts. This is the same thing you always say. The above are facts, unpleasant but true.
Last edited by lowing (2006-07-05 16:06:22)
Two points to make:
1. The last US President to be impeached was Andrew johnson, the reason i didnt put clinton in there is he served
99.9% of his term only to resign form office a few days before his term was up. Never truly impeached, wasnt removed from office he left.
2. It takes alot of effort to impeach a president, and it will probably never happen.
Close this post, cuz it keeps getting brought back up and i finally had to write something!
I accidentally put grant as an impeached president, becuase he was a worthless piece of shit, that should have been impeached. "Grant wasn't impeached and the last president to be impeached was Clinton you ignorant waste of space! " You pussy footing little bitch, that left no name, wow you would have gotten plus one back with sorry i made a mistake you fucking hippie. J HANEM KANA, GYOTE! Merret Kunem kezi.
Don't think for one second that im ignorant, i made a simply stoned mistake!
1. The last US President to be impeached was Andrew johnson, the reason i didnt put clinton in there is he served
99.9% of his term only to resign form office a few days before his term was up. Never truly impeached, wasnt removed from office he left.
2. It takes alot of effort to impeach a president, and it will probably never happen.
Close this post, cuz it keeps getting brought back up and i finally had to write something!
I accidentally put grant as an impeached president, becuase he was a worthless piece of shit, that should have been impeached. "Grant wasn't impeached and the last president to be impeached was Clinton you ignorant waste of space! " You pussy footing little bitch, that left no name, wow you would have gotten plus one back with sorry i made a mistake you fucking hippie. J HANEM KANA, GYOTE! Merret Kunem kezi.
Don't think for one second that im ignorant, i made a simply stoned mistake!
Last edited by xGBlitzkrieg (2006-07-06 14:17:58)
So which newsagency would have to print these things for you to bring your head out of the sand? Phox news?lowing wrote:
No these are YOUR opinions. Just because you adopted the views of some left wing nut job or newspaper ( the washington post and NY Times come to mind) does not make them facts.
Answer me this...why, with all their millions of $$ in budgets, did mainstream newsagencies miss the lies in the lead up to war with Iraq.
And, how, with their shoestring budgets, did internet blogs uncover the lies.
Surely this makes all the mainstream newsagencies either grossly incompetent or, more likely, in cahoots with Bush and his merry men.
The government is corrupt, its obvious.
Ill just take 1 part, the voting:
There was 1 state left to count the votes over again after they did it the first time, But bush requests them to not be re-tailed by a judge and he grants it. That is how he won the election. Then after the re-counted the votes they made a huge error in advance for Bush
loads more but its too hard for the ''typical'' american to get. [im half american but fuck bush]
and I laugh at the - karma that say ''for being a liberal''
Ill just take 1 part, the voting:
There was 1 state left to count the votes over again after they did it the first time, But bush requests them to not be re-tailed by a judge and he grants it. That is how he won the election. Then after the re-counted the votes they made a huge error in advance for Bush
loads more but its too hard for the ''typical'' american to get. [im half american but fuck bush]
and I laugh at the - karma that say ''for being a liberal''
You're a liberal...enough said you stupid nagga!Bubbalo wrote:
Tell me where I have said I am in support of terrorism?
Which was the whole discussion in the first place, dumbass.pdanrichey wrote:
You're a liberal...enough said you stupid nagga!
lol see? if u are a Liberal in the US, u are now a Terrorist that could go bomb up a mall.
Whats that suppossed to mean?
It’s easy for them to dismiss liberals as terrorist lovers and conspiracy theorists so they don’t have to deal with the issues we bring up. Classic defence - Discredit your attackers, make that the issue, slip out the back door.[n00b]Tyler wrote:
lol see? if u are a Liberal in the US, u are now a Terrorist that could go bomb up a mall.
I thought about saying that but [yes im'a say it agin ] the ''typical'' American woun't understand ^_^BN wrote:
It’s easy for them to dismiss liberals as terrorist lovers and conspiracy theorists so they don’t have to deal with the issues we bring up. Classic defence - Discredit your attackers, make that the issue, slip out the back door.[n00b]Tyler wrote:
lol see? if u are a Liberal in the US, u are now a Terrorist that could go bomb up a mall.
American that supports bush: Redneck
Alexanderthegrape wrote:
Whats that suppossed to mean?
He's impling that Libirals are as bad as Terroristspdanrichey wrote:
You're a liberal...enough said you stupid nagga!Bubbalo wrote:
Tell me where I have said I am in support of terrorism?
EDIT:
You freaking liberal idiot. Get Michael Moore's titties and cock out of your mouth...stupid faggot!
lmao I love how they are such pussys to - karma u but not post here
Last edited by [n00b]Tyler (2006-07-05 17:46:23)
Ding ding ding...what do we have for her Johnny???!!![n00b]Tyler wrote:
Alexanderthegrape wrote:
Whats that suppossed to mean?He's impling that Libirals are as bad as Terroristspdanrichey wrote:
You're a liberal...enough said you stupid nagga!Bubbalo wrote:
Tell me where I have said I am in support of terrorism?
Go ahead, leave me negative karma! It truly only demonstrates how pathetically, liberally biased this forum is. You had your chance in 2000 and 2004 to vote for someone else...guess what??...YOU LOST!! DEAL WITH IT! FYI, you don't get voted back into office for a 2nd term unless you're doing a good job! Although, based on some of the negative karma and posts in many of the threads I've read, I'm beginning to believe that most of you were too young to vote then. It only goes to show that America's youth is going down the tubes. Hopefully I'm not around 30 years from now to see what you will do to this awesome nation as it stands now.
Norris 08'
compilation of several dozen accusations in one post makes them irrefutable fact, duhlowing wrote:
this is the same shit you have been saying all along, you just now put it in one post......Before you move on to the patriot act, how about showing facts instead of opinions about all the "lies"? and don't even get me started on hurricane Katrina!!splixx wrote:
+1 for you. Good posts.Spumantiii wrote:
Bush lied to Congress and the American public about the reasons for invading Iraq.
*If Saddam Hussein was an immediate and serious threat to America, as the White House claimed, then Bush might have been justified in invading Iraq. But it appears that Bush misled the public, the Congress and the UN by consistently overstating the threat from Iraq. By lying to Congress, Bush violated US Laws related to Fraud and False Statements, Title 18, Chapter 47, Section 1001 and Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, Title 18, Chapter 19, Section 371.
Lie #1 - Uranium from Niger - Bush said "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." in his State of the Union Address.
Lie #2 - Iraq and 9/11 - Bush led people to believe that Iraq was involved with 9/11 by repeatedly linking them in his speaches. This was so effective that at one point 70% of Americans actually believed Saddam was behind 9/11. Bush has since admitted that this was not true.
Lie #3 - Congress Knew - Bush has stated that Congress had access to all the same information that the White House had. Thus he should not be blamed for making the mistake of going to war. But Bush was briefed many times about the falsehood of various stories and this information never reached Congress. [ZNet]
Lie #4 - Aluminum Tubes - Bush, Cheney, Rice and Powell said that aluminum tubes Iraq attempted to buy were intended for use in a uranium centrifuge to create nuclear weapons. These were the only physical evidence he had against Iraq. But it turns out this evidence had been rejected by the Department of Energy and other intelligence agencies long before Bush used them in his speeches. [NYTimes] [MotherJones] [CNN]
Lie #5 - Iraq and Al Qaeda - Bush still insists that there was a "relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. But the 9/11 Commission released a report saying, among other things, that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Al Qaeda and Iraq. The nature of the relationship seems to be that Al Qaeda asked for help and Iraq refused. Al Qaeda was opposed to Saddam Hussein because Saddam led a secular government instead of an Islamic government. [ZNet] [CNN]
Lie #6 - Weapons of Mass Destruction - Bush insisted that Iraq posessed weapons of mass destruction but his "evidence" consisted mostly of forged documents, plagiarised student papers, and vague satellite photos. The United Nations was on the ground in Iraq and could find nothing. After extensive searches Bush was finally forced to admit that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.
Lie #7 - Mobile Weapons Labs - Bush and his team repeatedly claimed that Iraq posessed mobile weapons labs capable of producing anthrax. Colin Powell showed diagrams of them at his speech before the UN to justify invading Iraq. These claims originated from Curveball, a discredited Iraqi informer who fed Bush many of the stories related to WMD. On May 29, 2003, two small trailers matching the description were found in Iraq. A team of bio-weapons experts examined the trailers and concluded they were simply designed to produce hydrogen for weather balloons. But, for over a year, Bush claimed these were part of Iraq's bio-weapons program. The expert's report was suppressed and only recently made public. [WashPost]
Lie Factory - The Secret Propaganda Team - Bush wanted so much to convince people of the need to invade Iraq that the White House set up a secret team in the Pentagon to create evidence. The Office of Special Plans routinely rewrote the CIA's intelligence estimates on Iraq's weapons programs, removing caveats such as "likely," "probably" and "may" as a way of depicting the country as an imminent threat. They also used unreliable sources to create reports that ultimately proved to be false.
Bush conducted illegal wiretaps of American citizens.
*unfinished
Bush violated International Law by invading a sovereign country for illegal purposes.
* "A preemptive attack on Iraq violates the United Nations Charter, which is a treaty and part of the supreme law of the United States under Article 6, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. signed the UN Charter and we are obligated to uphold the law according to our own"
Chapter 1, Article 2 of the UN Charter states:
3.All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4.All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
Bush lied to the UN and to Congress about the seriousness of the threat from Iraq, and invaded Iraq in defiance of a vote from the UN Security Council. His actions inflamed the Arab world and set a dangerous precedent for any other country that wants to defy the UN and start their own war.
Principle Vl of the Nuremberg Charter states:
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law:
a. Crimes against peace:
i. Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or
a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
ii .Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment
of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
Bush's invaded a sovereign country that had not threatened the United States and had no ability to do so. Bush had been making plans to invade Iraq even before 9/11.
Bush violated the Geneva Convention by torturing prisoners of war.
Bush held prisoners without formal charges and without legal representation.
Bush used government funds for domestic political propaganda.
The Bush team used uniformed military personnel for Republican party political purposes.
Bush was negligent in his slow response to help victims of Hurricane Katrina.
Bush shows contempt towards the Constitution and democratic ideals.
As you can see, it will take some time to finish as there are plenty of reasons justified by American and international law. I want to fit more about the patriot act in here****
please ask me if you are interested in hearing any of the unfinished points I would make, as to save anyone's concentration, I'll finish here
impeachment......... so what now Bush hates FRUIT?.......or just peaches.....
FYI, nagga is a word I made up...take it for what it is! There's no reason to get panties up in a wad over it! However, if y'all weren't so niggardly with your time, you'd probably realize that! Get off these liberal forums, get off Welfare and cut the liberal rope your hanging from because you didn't pick enough cotton that day!
hey guys, what does liberal mean to you?
the ideology, what do you know about it?
why are you a conservative? What is it that causes you to hate when someone has a valid point?
Is it beyond you to have a proper argument? Must you start saying "liberal" without understanding what it really means? Did you vote in the fascist/communist poll? Last I checked it was 2-1 left rather than right. Is it beyond you to look out for your own good, and that of your family, neighbors, community? Is there something fundamentally wrong with making sure rich powermongers don't step out of line? (WWII for example) I didn't think so. Stop name calling based on ideology it's so dumb. If we're so wrong can't you tell us why?
(evidence that he should not resign, good reasons why the exec branch should have unilateral power even internationally)
some people, like cows, prefer to be led blindfolded into the slaughterhouse.
the ideology, what do you know about it?
why are you a conservative? What is it that causes you to hate when someone has a valid point?
Is it beyond you to have a proper argument? Must you start saying "liberal" without understanding what it really means? Did you vote in the fascist/communist poll? Last I checked it was 2-1 left rather than right. Is it beyond you to look out for your own good, and that of your family, neighbors, community? Is there something fundamentally wrong with making sure rich powermongers don't step out of line? (WWII for example) I didn't think so. Stop name calling based on ideology it's so dumb. If we're so wrong can't you tell us why?
(evidence that he should not resign, good reasons why the exec branch should have unilateral power even internationally)
some people, like cows, prefer to be led blindfolded into the slaughterhouse.
Last edited by Spumantiii (2006-07-05 18:27:17)