i couldnt of laughed hard enough when he was giving the finger to everyone bloody bastard
so whats your stand with this guy...please explain?
I saw the whole segment on HBO last night....unfortunately that clip is a bit too short. Basically he points out that Bush is right in regards to the Worldwide War on Terror and that liberals will be quick to point out how "evil" Republicans are to besmerch Jack Murtha, for example, but don't see the hypocricy in liking President Bush to Adolph Hitler. It was great stuff.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:46 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Medford, Oregon Gender: Male
LeninFlux wrote:
Yield05 wrote:
i couldnt of laughed hard enough when he was giving the finger to everyone bloody bastard
so whats your stand with this guy...please explain?
I saw the whole segment on HBO last night....unfortunately that clip is a bit too short. Basically he points out that Bush is right in regards to the Worldwide War on Terror and that liberals will be quick to point out how "evil" Republicans are to besmerch Jack Murtha, for example, but don't see the hypocricy in liking President Bush to Adolph Hitler. It was great stuff.
At least Jack Murtha actually served his country instead of being a chickenhawk piece of shit like, well, like just about everybody in the White House these days.
_________________ Deep below the dunes I roved Past the rows, past the rows Beside the acacias freshly in bloom I sent men to their doom
i couldnt of laughed hard enough when he was giving the finger to everyone bloody bastard
so whats your stand with this guy...please explain?
I saw the whole segment on HBO last night....unfortunately that clip is a bit too short. Basically he points out that Bush is right in regards to the Worldwide War on Terror and that liberals will be quick to point out how "evil" Republicans are to besmerch Jack Murtha, for example, but don't see the hypocricy in liking President Bush to Adolph Hitler. It was great stuff.
At least Jack Murtha actually served his country instead of being a chickenhawk piece of shit like, well, like just about everybody in the White House these days.
I don't hear Republicans slamming Jack Murtha for a lack of patriotism. What I do hear is sharp criticism for his plan to immediately pull all of our troops out of Iraq and redeploy them to Okinawa. Opinions vary, but this is a senseless proposition. He also received a lot of flak for his Haditha reporting, where he acted as judge and jury and said tht the Marines involved had "killed in cold blood" before they were given a chance at a trial, no less an investigation. Again, opinions vary, but he deserved whatever criticism he received.
As far as the whole "chickenhawk" philosophy - I think it's a load of b.s. Although he never saw combat, President Bush served his country, did he not? What about Bill Clinton? He ordered several military operations during his time in office, yet he wasn't in Vietnam. Is he a "chickenhawk" as well? Did his lack of combat experience make Clinton unfit to be Commander-In-Chief? I don't think so. But to you I guess he's a "chickenhawk."
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:18 am Posts: 3920 Location: Philadelphia
But I think giving the finger to an audience because they agree with a statement about the leader of the free world thinking a messiah will fly from the sky is lame. I would clap too if I was there. Maher was 100% correct.
Let me say it again... The Leader of the World believes a man will fly from the sky with trumpets and a tongue that is a sword.
_________________ I remember doing nothing on the night Sinatra died
And the night Jeff Buckley died
And the night Kurt Cobain died
And the night John Lennon died
I remember I stayed up to watch the news with everyone
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:32 pm Posts: 6527 Location: NY. J Gender: Male
LeninFlux wrote:
Yield05 wrote:
i couldnt of laughed hard enough when he was giving the finger to everyone bloody bastard
so whats your stand with this guy...please explain?
I saw the whole segment on HBO last night....unfortunately that clip is a bit too short. Basically he points out that Bush is right in regards to the Worldwide War on Terror and that liberals will be quick to point out how "evil" Republicans are to besmerch Jack Murtha, for example, but don't see the hypocricy in liking President Bush to Adolph Hitler. It was great stuff.
yes i seen the whole show as well .. im a big bill maher fan
when shit goes bad they aall sayits liberal.. i say whats black is black and whats white is white.. and in black in white . bush is an asshole and he has even high jacked YOUR mind with all this...its sad really
Its time to put the pieces together people .. before long we are going to be too fucked to even SPEAK on message boards about this
_________________ Take care of all your memories .For you cannot relive them. "Bob Dylan"
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:46 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Medford, Oregon Gender: Male
LeninFlux wrote:
meatwad wrote:
LeninFlux wrote:
Yield05 wrote:
i couldnt of laughed hard enough when he was giving the finger to everyone bloody bastard
so whats your stand with this guy...please explain?
I saw the whole segment on HBO last night....unfortunately that clip is a bit too short. Basically he points out that Bush is right in regards to the Worldwide War on Terror and that liberals will be quick to point out how "evil" Republicans are to besmerch Jack Murtha, for example, but don't see the hypocricy in liking President Bush to Adolph Hitler. It was great stuff.
At least Jack Murtha actually served his country instead of being a chickenhawk piece of shit like, well, like just about everybody in the White House these days.
I don't hear Republicans slamming Jack Murtha for a lack of patriotism. What I do hear is sharp criticism for his plan to immediately pull all of our troops out of Iraq and redeploy them to Okinawa. Opinions vary, but this is a senseless proposition. He also received a lot of flak for his Haditha reporting, where he acted as judge and jury and said tht the Marines involved had "killed in cold blood" before they were given a chance at a trial, no less an investigation. Again, opinions vary, but he deserved whatever criticism he received.
As far as the whole "chickenhawk" philosophy - I think it's a load of b.s. Although he never saw combat, President Bush served his country, did he not? What about Bill Clinton? He ordered several military operations during his time in office, yet he wasn't in Vietnam. Is he a "chickenhawk" as well? Did his lack of combat experience make Clinton unfit to be Commander-In-Chief? I don't think so. But to you I guess he's a "chickenhawk."
Hahaha leave it to a chickenhawk neocon to bring Bill Clinton into it.
Show me any of the military actions that Bill Clinton ordered that even come close to what Bush has done in Iraq, i.e. a full-scale ground/air invasion of a foreign soverign nation with the direct goal of toppling its government.
_________________ Deep below the dunes I roved Past the rows, past the rows Beside the acacias freshly in bloom I sent men to their doom
i couldnt of laughed hard enough when he was giving the finger to everyone bloody bastard
so whats your stand with this guy...please explain?
I saw the whole segment on HBO last night....unfortunately that clip is a bit too short. Basically he points out that Bush is right in regards to the Worldwide War on Terror and that liberals will be quick to point out how "evil" Republicans are to besmerch Jack Murtha, for example, but don't see the hypocricy in liking President Bush to Adolph Hitler. It was great stuff.
At least Jack Murtha actually served his country instead of being a chickenhawk piece of shit like, well, like just about everybody in the White House these days.
I don't hear Republicans slamming Jack Murtha for a lack of patriotism. What I do hear is sharp criticism for his plan to immediately pull all of our troops out of Iraq and redeploy them to Okinawa. Opinions vary, but this is a senseless proposition. He also received a lot of flak for his Haditha reporting, where he acted as judge and jury and said tht the Marines involved had "killed in cold blood" before they were given a chance at a trial, no less an investigation. Again, opinions vary, but he deserved whatever criticism he received.
As far as the whole "chickenhawk" philosophy - I think it's a load of b.s. Although he never saw combat, President Bush served his country, did he not? What about Bill Clinton? He ordered several military operations during his time in office, yet he wasn't in Vietnam. Is he a "chickenhawk" as well? Did his lack of combat experience make Clinton unfit to be Commander-In-Chief? I don't think so. But to you I guess he's a "chickenhawk."
Hahaha leave it to a chickenhawk neocon to bring Bill Clinton into it.
Show me any of the military actions that Bill Clinton ordered that even come close to what Bush has done in Iraq, i.e. a full-scale ground/air invasion of a foreign soverign nation with the direct goal of toppling its government.
No, Clinton did not take the action that Bush did. On the other hand, Clinton did not have 9/11 on his plate. Sure he had a string of attacks that he took meager action against. But that's beside the point.
It might interest you to know that Clinton had said (before 9/11) that regime change in Iraq should be the ultimate goal in US foreign policy. Seriously - look it up.
Nice way to dodge the fact that, going by your definition, Clinton would be a "chickenhawk."
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:18 am Posts: 3920 Location: Philadelphia
I see what you are trying to say leninflux, it is true clinton did not have a 9/11 on his hands and bush did. But what does iraq and 9/11 have to do with each other? iraq was going to be attacked regardless and there are credible sources that have stated this. There is truth in saying that 9/11 would force any president into war, but fighting the wrong country really doesn't do anything but inspire hatred towards the aggressors.
_________________ I remember doing nothing on the night Sinatra died
And the night Jeff Buckley died
And the night Kurt Cobain died
And the night John Lennon died
I remember I stayed up to watch the news with everyone
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
LeninFlux wrote:
It might interest you to know that Clinton had said (before 9/11) that regime change in Iraq should be the ultimate goal in US foreign policy. Seriously - look it up.
And then Bush said, "Policy, schmolicy. Where's ma gun?"
It may interest you to know that there's more than one way to accomplish regime change, and driving tanks into Baghdad was probably not the smartest way to do it, at least if you care that new regime is actually BETTER than the old one.
Quote:
Nice way to dodge the fact that, going by your definition, Clinton would be a "chickenhawk."
No.
A commander-in-chief who never served in combat but does lead a military campaign is not a "chickhawk".
A commander-in-chief (and his entire crew) who never served in combat but LAUNCHES A WAR OF CHOICE when other options were available, and I think we can all see now preferable, that is a chicken hawk. This president WANTED a war with Iraq, long before he had any nominal excuse to wage it. That is a HAWK. Clinton could never be called a HAWK.
And don't try to fool yourself inot thinking that a chicken is worse than a chickenhawk. Chickenhawk won't risk his own skin, but he'll send thousands upon thousands of less fortunate Americans to die for nothing.
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
It might interest you to know that Clinton had said (before 9/11) that regime change in Iraq should be the ultimate goal in US foreign policy. Seriously - look it up.
And then Bush said, "Policy, schmolicy. Where's ma gun?"
It may interest you to know that there's more than one way to accomplish regime change, and driving tanks into Baghdad was probably not the smartest way to do it, at least if you care that new regime is actually BETTER than the old one.
Quote:
Nice way to dodge the fact that, going by your definition, Clinton would be a "chickenhawk."
No.
A commander-in-chief who never served in combat but does lead a military campaign is not a "chickhawk".
A commander-in-chief (and his entire crew) who never served in combat but LAUNCHES A WAR OF CHOICE when other options were available, and I think we can all see now preferable, that is a chicken hawk. This president WANTED a war with Iraq, long before he had any nominal excuse to wage it. That is a HAWK. Clinton could never be called a HAWK.
And don't try to fool yourself inot thinking that a chicken is worse than a chickenhawk. Chickenhawk won't risk his own skin, but he'll send thousands upon thousands of less fortunate Americans to die for nothing.
Sure, there's more than one way to accomplish regime change. But take into consideration that a decade of sanctions did nothing to pursue Saddam Hussein's behavior.
Since you posed the alternative - what should we have done versus military invasion to prompt regime change?
Well, you know something that everyone else doesn't - that President Bush "WANTED" the War in Iraq. Yeah, he was foaming at the mouth for it. That's why he went back to the U.N. and received no support from half of the Security Council....despite the prior 16 resolutions that Hussein was in violation of.
But then again you say that Iraq was "for nothing." Yeah, I suppose removing a dictator that still possessed WMD (fact), supported terrorism (fact) and had a history of agression against neighboring countries (fact) is "nothing." So I suppose we should pull all our troops out, declare defeat and wait for the next round of planes to crash into more buildings on our soil.
But what does iraq and 9/11 have to do with each other?
Exactly. Neocon tactic #2--If you can't bring Bill Clinton into the debate, bring up 9/11! Bawkbawkbawk!!
No, why would anyone bring up 9/11? Perhaps because almost 3,000 Americans died as a result of an act of terrorism, and our actions today are directed at ending that threat in the future. See the link?
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:46 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Medford, Oregon Gender: Male
LeninFlux wrote:
meatwad wrote:
ranting in e-minor wrote:
But what does iraq and 9/11 have to do with each other?
Exactly. Neocon tactic #2--If you can't bring Bill Clinton into the debate, bring up 9/11! Bawkbawkbawk!!
No, why would anyone bring up 9/11? Perhaps because almost 3,000 Americans died as a result of an act of terrorism, and our actions today are directed at ending that threat in the future. See the link?
The link between Iraq and 9/11? No, actually, I don't.
_________________ Deep below the dunes I roved Past the rows, past the rows Beside the acacias freshly in bloom I sent men to their doom
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:32 pm Posts: 6527 Location: NY. J Gender: Male
meatwad wrote:
LeninFlux wrote:
meatwad wrote:
ranting in e-minor wrote:
But what does iraq and 9/11 have to do with each other?
Exactly. Neocon tactic #2--If you can't bring Bill Clinton into the debate, bring up 9/11! Bawkbawkbawk!!
No, why would anyone bring up 9/11? Perhaps because almost 3,000 Americans died as a result of an act of terrorism, and our actions today are directed at ending that threat in the future. See the link?
The link between Iraq and 9/11? No, actually, I don't.
i lost 3 people that day , and i still dont blame the Sand rat...im not that niave to believe a guy in a cave who works for the CIA pulled this off...no thanks i like reality better
_________________ Take care of all your memories .For you cannot relive them. "Bob Dylan"
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:18 am Posts: 3920 Location: Philadelphia
LeninFlux wrote:
meatwad wrote:
ranting in e-minor wrote:
But what does iraq and 9/11 have to do with each other?
Exactly. Neocon tactic #2--If you can't bring Bill Clinton into the debate, bring up 9/11! Bawkbawkbawk!!
No, why would anyone bring up 9/11? Perhaps because almost 3,000 Americans died as a result of an act of terrorism, and our actions today are directed at ending that threat in the future. See the link?
I'm confused as to where we are fighting terrorism. I think it was somthing like 15 of 19 hijackers came from saudi arabia? maybe im too logical, but to me that would say, hey something is up in saudi arabia, not iraq.
as to bush "wanting" the war in iraq never being said, I guess Richard Clarke doesn't count... or the memos to Tony Blair already timing it all out before all info was completed.
_________________ I remember doing nothing on the night Sinatra died
And the night Jeff Buckley died
And the night Kurt Cobain died
And the night John Lennon died
I remember I stayed up to watch the news with everyone
But what does iraq and 9/11 have to do with each other?
Exactly. Neocon tactic #2--If you can't bring Bill Clinton into the debate, bring up 9/11! Bawkbawkbawk!!
No, why would anyone bring up 9/11? Perhaps because almost 3,000 Americans died as a result of an act of terrorism, and our actions today are directed at ending that threat in the future. See the link?
I'm confused as to where we are fighting terrorism. I think it was somthing like 15 of 19 hijackers came from saudi arabia? maybe im too logical, but to me that would say, hey something is up in saudi arabia, not iraq.
as to bush "wanting" the war in iraq never being said, I guess Richard Clarke doesn't count... or the memos to Tony Blair already timing it all out before all info was completed.
True, the vast majority of 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia...but the government looked into this and concluded that the government did not have a hand in it and there were no training camps or the like in the country. The problem with this logic is this - the latest plot that was discovered before it was executed involved British citizens....we aren't going to assume that we should be fighting Britian, not Iraq.
As far as Richard Clarke and the Downing Street Memos and the like, I've heard from Mr. Clarke and read the documents. All that the aforementioned told me was that Prime Minister Blair and President Bush worked on the assumption that Saddam Hussein would not comply with the last UN Resolution he faced. Of course they have to plan for the worst and hope for the best. In this case, the worst happened.
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:18 am Posts: 3920 Location: Philadelphia
I guess my biggest problem is this. 9/11 happens, and the bush admin. focuses most of its resources and energy on saddam and iraq. I think if we would of focused them towards the real threats and enemies, we would of had bin laden and most of al-Qaeda would of crumbled.
My thinking is this. We are attacked by enemy A is country 1, so let's go after enemy B in country 2. It just doesn't add up.
Also, Bush will use his talking point of an evil dictator and the need to bring democracy to these lands. But when there is a list of dictators making his people suffer even more than saddam and more lands in need of democracy (most of which we love to do business with) this is just misguided rhetoric and talking points thrown at americans that you filled with needless fear. (sorry, I'm sure that was a run on sentence.)
_________________ I remember doing nothing on the night Sinatra died
And the night Jeff Buckley died
And the night Kurt Cobain died
And the night John Lennon died
I remember I stayed up to watch the news with everyone
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:32 pm Posts: 6527 Location: NY. J Gender: Male
Ive offically learned the meaning of saying ..the two things you dont talk to people about, Politics and religion...good luck with it cause i dont know if i can understand how common sense escapes the human mind of some posters on here...we will all see the evil dictator show his face even to those who STILL cant see its ugly head already.
God bless you all
_________________ Take care of all your memories .For you cannot relive them. "Bob Dylan"
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum