PDA

View Full Version : For Those Who Support Bush Invading Iraq:



nhp
12-04-2003, 08:36 AM
If you are open-minded, hopefully you will read this FULLY, don't cheat yourselves when you start to feel a little erm...naive?

http://www.theboywhocriediraq.com/

Might take a few minutes to read the whole thing, plus the guy listed tons of sources for you skeptics to feed on.

Come back and post what you think about it /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Wally_in_Cincy
12-04-2003, 08:52 AM
Well call me naive.

I didn't read the whole thing. It's just the same old stuff. The guy goes back to WWII, the 70's, ad nauseum to say what bad people we are. Blah blah blah.

It's his opinion and he's entitled to it. But he can't really prove anything he says about the motivation for the war.

nhp
12-04-2003, 08:57 AM
It's actually not the same old stuff... read the entire thing, like the author requests, then tell me what you think.

eg8r
12-04-2003, 09:08 AM
[ QUOTE ]
don't cheat yourselves when you start to feel a little erm...naive?
<hr /></blockquote> Without reading it, I already see you are being condescending, so I wonder what your article has to offer. If while reading (and not finished) and I disagree with something, you will define that as naive? Give me a break, it would be naive of yourself to consider such a thing.

eg8r

eg8r
12-04-2003, 09:21 AM
LOL, Wally, you get to the first paragraph of the body... [ QUOTE ]
George Bush Junior had it easier than most presidents - his father effectively demonized Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War. He ignored the fact that Hussein up until very recently was an ally that America armed with conventional and chemical weapons. Instead he is now focusing on the horrible things Hussein has done with the weapons we gave him.<hr /></blockquote> and the liberal is already giving opinion. Without going through the cited documents at the end, I can hardly believe this liberal could prove this first paragraph. C'mon, what has happened in the past as far as Iraq as an ally had nothing to do with the fact that Saddam was trying to take over Kuwait in an effort to control all the oil. If the liberal fool starts out the article twisting the facts in an effort to prove his point, then where will the rest of the article go.

More of the same liberal mantra.

While reading some more, I get to this little piece... [ QUOTE ]
The American government has no interest in saving Iraqi lives any more than necessary for public support. Sadly, it has always been like this, which shouldn't surprise you considering most of our leaders' great grandparents owned your or your friends' great grandparents. Well, except for Colin Powell's, but I'm sure they got to work inside the house.
<hr /></blockquote> It appears the author only intended for blacks to read this article. Wonder what the point of this was for, surely it was not said in an effort to dispel what Bush has done since he became President, and I don't really think it had anything to do with the subject!!! Before I continue, could you please tell me if the author has any more brainfarts throughout the rest of the article.

eg8r &lt;~~~will read the rest and try to get over my naivete

eg8r
12-04-2003, 09:44 AM
I got tired of editing the other post, so here is a new one.

Does the author purposely skip relevent events in the timeline to discredit Bush, or was this a mistake.... [ QUOTE ]
In the late 1970s, When Iran's Islamic government threatened oil domination, the United States and Britain empowered Hussein even more to attack the neighboring country. Empowerment included massive arms shipments and plans for the manufacturing of chemical and biological weapons. When Hussein turned around and used the chemicals on the Kurds, the CIA turned a cold shoulder and even went so far as to increase funding.

The White House next tried to tie Hussein to the real threat to America, Al Qaeda. George Bush Junior began telling us that Saddam Hussein is supporting and arming terrorists and we need to get him before its too late. Any opposition is "supporting the terrorists," and what American would want to do that?
<hr /></blockquote> What happened to the invasion of Kuwait and Desert Storm? What happened to the UN and its resolutions in which Saddam chose to ignore? Why is he skipping all this relevant information? It is plain to see, he is not trying to save space, since the article is HUGE, so I don't understand why not tell it all if he is going to go through so much trouble finding only parts.

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, the only country really arming the terrorists is America.
<hr /></blockquote> If the author truely believes what he wrote, then why is there any confusion about whether Iraq has WMDs. He is plainly saying we are giving them away, surely Iraq did not get rid of the weapons when they found out the weapons are really WMDs! No Saddam has stored them somewhere (who knows where, in Iraq, in Syria, they are all over the place).

The author suffers foot in mouth disease... [ QUOTE ]
To the dismay of na´ve politically correct optimists everywhere, racism is still a fundamental part of this country. Not near where it was but it's still here. If you don't believe me, you're probably white. <hr /></blockquote> Isn't the last sentence a bit racist, or is the author just trying to prove his point on racism by acting racist?

As you can imagine I am struggling to get through this article. Here is another quote. [ QUOTE ]
George Bush has always been careful in reassuring us that "not all Arabs are terrorists," but if Iraq was not an Arab country, he would not have been able to use that excuse to invade and conquer the oil rich country.

The news talks about Al-Qaeda fighting along with Iraq. Kind of like the French helping us win the Revolutionary War I guess. Oops. If that shows us anything, it's that a lot of Iraqi nationalists will be joining Al-Qaeda very shortly, if not already.

And if you need to be reminded, Al Qaeda is our real threat. <hr /></blockquote> Does the analogy work? Did a lot of the colonists join the French at the end of the Revolutionary war in an attempt to terrorize the new free colonists? I am guessing that is what the Iraqis will be doing when they join the Al Qaeda. I just don't even think the analogy works. This is why liberal radio will never happen, the liberals cannot answer the questions. The liberals feel more comfortable with print media because they can say what they want and then hide.

[ QUOTE ]
As the war is waged, the media does everything possible to demonize the "evil" enemy. <hr /></blockquote> What media was this liberal reading/watching???? In all the news, I saw the media doing its best to attack Bush. After a week, the media was on Bush's back asking, "How much longer, this is taking too long". They never had time to demonize evil, they were busy trying to demonize Bush.

[ QUOTE ]
What sort of "terrorist" would oppose taking a "regime" out of power? (I mean besides our government when it's making money) <hr /></blockquote> Does the author pay any attention to the REAL news. I have not heard anything about the US government making any money. Instead I have heard of quite large amounts of expenditures (some of which I feel should be a loan instead of a gift).

[ QUOTE ]
Why is it that I have to go to other counties' news sources to get accurate information? Why doesn't CNN show, or even talk about, all of the 1000+ Iraqi civilian casualties? <hr /></blockquote> The liberal author is so far out in left field. He is trying to make a point that the media is quite conservative. In this quote he states that he has to go to a foreign news source to get "accurate" information. The author likes to throw around the word "naive" and I guess this is where nhp learned the word also. I will continue the trend, the author is quite naive to think he is getting "accurate" information. The author feels the world is against the US, so would it not make sense that the news and media outside the US would be biased also. Sounds naive to me. nhp, thanks for the article.

eg8r

Cueless Joey
12-04-2003, 09:52 AM
OF course Clinton bombed Iraq too but who remembers?

Qtec
12-04-2003, 09:55 AM
Wally [ QUOTE ]
I didnt read the whole thing. <hr /></blockquote>

eg8r [ QUOTE ]
Without reading it <hr /></blockquote>

/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
LOL, Wally, you get to the first paragraph of the body...
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

George Bush Junior had it easier than most presidents - his father effectively demonized Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War. He ignored the fact that Hussein up until very recently was an ally that America armed with conventional and chemical weapons. Instead he is now focusing on the horrible things Hussein has done with the weapons we gave him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and the liberal is already giving opinion. Without going through the cited documents at the end, I can hardly believe this liberal could prove this first paragraph. <hr /></blockquote>

GW did have it easy. His dad was President,Vice President and head of the CIA.
The USA was an ally and did provide him with most of his weapons.

Q

eg8r
12-04-2003, 10:11 AM
[ QUOTE ]
GW did have it easy. His dad was President,Vice President and head of the CIA.
The USA was an ally and did provide him with most of his weapons.
<hr /></blockquote> What is your point? This does not follow what the author or I were talking about (I could be reading it wrong, not sure which "him" you are referring to).

eg8r

eg8r
12-04-2003, 10:18 AM
[ QUOTE ]
In fact, it makes you the opposite. It makes you complacent. Policies will not change, or be created, because you put two flags on your car. Instead, it tells the government that they can do whatever they want right now and you will stand by it and wave your flag proudly while you fill up your 10 mile to the gallon road-brontosaurus with gas that is coming directly from the country where the real terrorists came from.

Let's hear it for irony!
<hr /></blockquote> This the second time the author has used the word irony, and it is the second time he has screwed it up. He has about as much knowledge of the correct use of this word as does Alannis Morrisette (sp?).

eg8r &lt;~~~Figured I would mention it

Wally_in_Cincy
12-04-2003, 10:36 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote article:</font><hr>
George Bush has always been careful in reassuring us that "not all Arabs are terrorists," but if Iraq was not an Arab country, he would not have been able to use that excuse to invade and conquer the oil rich country.

<hr /></blockquote>

I guess the writer forgot that Afghanistan was neither "Arab" nor "oil-rich".

I guess we invaded that country for the opium poppies. I'm surprised I haven't heard that one yet. The CIA is flooding south-central LA with opium, yeah, that's it, that's the ticket.

eg8r
12-04-2003, 10:57 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally:</font><hr> I didn't read the whole thing. It's just the same old stuff. <blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr> It's actually not the same old stuff <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> This got me thinking so I decided to take a look at the references.

[list] Howard Zinn - radical/leftist 10 Steps To Start A War taken from Anatomy of Your Enemy (Antiflag) - This is some music CD /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Commondreams.org - liberal website FPIF - Never heard of them Globalpolicy.com - without searching much, it is a global corporate consulting company Hitler.org - self explanatory Left-turn.org - A search engine??? NY Times - self explanatory Tompaine.com - Liberal site www.villagevoice.com - did check Washington Post - self-explanatory

After looking at the sources, I don't see anything "new" as nhp would suggest. These are all the same liberal ideas that have floated around forever (I would say there is nothing new on the conservative side either).

Also, with all these sources, why doesn't the author identify them somewhere in the article? I found a spot where he credits Zinn for the work, but not a whole lot else. It seems that we are to just guess which source he is using.

As far as what Wally said, I agree. There is nothing new and it is the same liberal crap that has been spewed for years. nhp, what did you find new and exciting with this article, we are obviously missing it?

eg8r