Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » How Bush will steal the 2004 Election...
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #105309] |
Sat, 31 July 2004 19:01   |
 |
Nodbugger
Messages: 976
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Javaxcx |
Wow, I misjudged your ignorance. I really didn't think that you would not be able to comprehend the difference between LAW and MORALITY.
| Nodbugger |
How is it flawed? If we gave up on the first 15 min of d-day because of some casualties Europe would be one big Nazi love fest.
|
Don't speak for the French, or anyone for that matter. Any objecters are entitled to their reasons. You CANNOT just say "Yeah, the French (meaning ALL the French) said it was acceptable" because you do not speak for an entire population. You speak for ONE person, yourself.
| Quote: |
Actually no it wasn't "against the law", it was perfectly within the law. 11 Security resolutions. Remember those? Every one broken? Every one calling for severe and immediate action against Saddam?
|
It was against the law. Read the UN Charter: The Charter of the United Nations
Just because Saddam Hussein violated the 11 Security resolutions you keep bringing up DOES NOT GIVE THE UNITED STATES THE AUTHORITY TO TAKE MATTERS INTO THEIR OWN HANDS. This is a concept that you cannot seem to grasp. When the police pull you over for speeding and decide to give you a warning instead of a ticket, does that mean that a civilian can legally flag you down and force the ticket on you? It might surprise you, but the United States is NOT the legal police authority of the world just because they have the biggest army.
| Quote: |
This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.
|
Remember what I told you to watch for when I said context? Can't you read or comprehend? This is NOT a reason for war.
| Quote: |
Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them: If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you.
|
This is NOT a reason for going to war, either.
| Quote: |
As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free.
|
Remember what the difference between REASON and REPERCUSSION is? This is a REPERCUSSION, not a REASON. THINK, KID!
| Quote: |
In free Iraq there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms.
|
These are not REASONS for going to war, either! These are the REPERCUSSIONS of removing Saddam from power.
| Quote: |
The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.
|
Should I be surprised? This is a repercussion as well.
| Quote: |
It is too late for Saddam Hussein to remain in power. It is not too late for the Iraq military to act with honor and protect your country, by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Our forces will give Iraqi military units clear instructions on actions they can take to avoid being attack and destroyed.
|
My God, THIS PROVES MY POINT INSTEAD!
| Quote: |
Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty, and when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation.
|
This too, is NOT a reason for going to war. This is a belief that your government has NO authority to impress on any other nation. As cold as it sounds, THAT IS WHAT THE LAW SAYS. This is just one example of morality and law conflicting. Even more so, these are REPERCUSSIONS to removing Saddam from power, not justification.
| Quote: |
The United States with other countries will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land, and the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace. That is the future we choose.
|
Where is the reasoning? These are goals, not reasons. There is a key difference.
| Quote: |
Free nations have a duty to defend our people by uniting against the violent, and tonight, as we have done before, America and our allies accept that responsibility.
|
This isn't a reason for going to war either! Hell, this is just a reiteration of "We are going to protect ourselves". Oh, which by the way is NOT a reason for going to war on shakey grounds.
| Quote: |
Ya...that speech mentions NOTHING about liberating the Iraqi people....
|
Too bad the challange wasn't to find quotes of reference to the reprecussions of going to war. I asked you to find REASONS for war that were not WMD. You failed.
| Quote: |
How is terrorism not the reason? You don't need to be al-qeda to be a terrorist. Terrorists come in all shapes and sizes. Saddam was most definitely a terrorist.
|
Terrorism is not a reason because it was never stated that terrorism was the reason to go to war.
Oh, and are you enjoying being force fed what FOXnews tells you? Saddam Hussein is not a terrorist. He is a heartless, remorseless, cruel person and dictator, but he is not a terrorist.
ter·ror·ism
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Saddam Hussein, whether to want to believe it or not, was the LEGAL head of the sovreignty of Iraq. Anything he does in the context of "coercing societies or governments" is an act of the government of Iraq, not of "Saddam Hussein" exclusively. Notice how Bin Laden was not the ruler of any nation but used unlawful force and violence against GOVERNMENTS for his own idelogical reasons?
| Quote: |
What do you mean by legal reasons? There are tons of them that you just like to skip overt. In no way was it illegal. No where in American or UN law does it say war is illegal. There is no law anywhere, that the US adheres to, that says you cannot pre-emptively attack a country.
|
The Charter of the United Nations says otherwise. The link is provided for you above. Oh, and it might startle you, but the US is supposed to adhere to the UN Charter. I mean, they DID agree to it, afterall.
| Quote: |
We had information, we acted on it. It may be bad but we don't know. As president you simply cannot ignore that information. Especially when you have several countries telling you the same exact things.
|
I am not debating who's to blame for the misinformation. I'm telling you that the action was illegal. And according to international law, it was.
| Quote: |
everything down from that is just bull.
|
lol. And you're the one saying that I skip over facts. Tell you what, why don't you try not bouncing around an issue with your "UR RONG BUT I WONT SAY Y" logic.
|
A 'repercussion' is a reason you jackass.
If we go in this will happen.
That is a reason.
No you not fucking understand that?
They are reasons whether you like it or not.
Everyone knew Saddam did horrible things. He did not need to make that case as often.
What many people did know his his use and willingness to use wmd. So that was pointed out many times.
Like I said before, If you are a president and England, Russia, CIA, and many other countries tell you Saddam has wmd. Do you just ignore that?
|
|
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #105311] |
Sat, 31 July 2004 19:12 |
 |
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
re·per·cus·sion
n.
An often indirect effect, influence, or result that is produced by an event or action
^
That is not a reason. That is an effect to an act. The act must be justified with a reason.
rea·son
n.
The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction. See Usage Note at because.
A declaration made to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction
I've made it fairly clear that the act is not justified. It's not my fault that you don't understand that. But hey, you didn't know what "objective" meant either, so this is hardly surprising.
Not only that, but I have never said that Saddam's actions were not horrible. You're still bouncing around the issue.
Not only THAT, but I never blamed Bush for acting on misinformation. I said that I DIDN'T blame him. LEARN HOW TO READ.
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #105316] |
Sat, 31 July 2004 19:41 |
|
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Nodbugger |
So we then what is your problem?? what are you bitching about?
|
Remember kid, you were the one who thought a reprecussion was a reason. I merely corrected you, as I've been doing all night.
| Quote: |
Lets go back before we invaded. We know nothing about what is happening now.
|
Gladly. I'll go to March 17th, 2003.
| Quote: |
Many countries say Saddam has wmd, no evidence point opposite.
|
I could argue that, but I'll humour you.
Undisputable. But not a reason to go to war. It wasn't stated this was a reason to go to war on the 17th OR before.
| Quote: |
We can liberate Iraqi people.
|
Again, not a reason to go to war. Read the transcripts. At no point does Bush even infer that "we are going to Iraq for the reason to liberate the people."
| Quote: |
What do you do? You have 3 reasons to go to war.
|
I have "1" reason to go to war as of the 17th of March, 2003.
| Quote: |
2 endanger you and the people you were hired to protect. The other is a good deed that will benefit millions of people.
|
One reason endangers people. The other two "reasons" are repercussions of the first.
| Quote: |
There is no way to not justify Iraq.
|
I've stated many times now that the International Law that the United States AGREED to proves this war is not justified. Also the lack of WMD that were promised in stockpiles, but I see no need to kick a dead horse.
| Quote: |
And where are you getting this repercussion shit from.
Liberating the Iraqi people is a reason to go to war.
|
No it was not. You are taking information from those speechs that was not ever there.
| Quote: |
Same with freeing the French, Chinese, Austrians, Polish, Russians, Korean, Vietnamese and countless other countries taken over by Hitler.
|
The reasons for going to Iraq and the reasons for taking out Hitler are completely different. This point is moot.
| Quote: |
They were not just a bi-product. They were a reason to go to war.
|
No, they were not. Stop arguing in a circle, it grows tiresome.
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #105320] |
Sat, 31 July 2004 20:14 |
|
Nodbugger
Messages: 976
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Javaxcx |
And people such as yourself are the reasons that Bush should not get a second term. 
Oh, and by the way, he didn't. You're making up information... again.
|
| Quote: |
This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.
Quote:
Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them: If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you.
Quote:
As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free.
In free Iraq there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms.
The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.
It is too late for Saddam Hussein to remain in power. It is not too late for the Iraq military to act with honor and protect your country, by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Our forces will give Iraqi military units clear instructions on actions they can take to avoid being attack and destroyed.
Quote:
Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty, and when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation.
Quote:
The United States with other countries will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land, and the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace. That is the future we choose.
Quote:
Free nations have a duty to defend our people by uniting against the violent, and tonight, as we have done before, America and our allies accept that responsibility.
Good night, and may God continue to bless America.
|
Yep, Bush never mentioned liberating Iraq nor did he mention freeing them....
Are you really that stupid....?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #105324] |
Sat, 31 July 2004 20:27 |
|
Nodbugger
Messages: 976
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Quote: |
rea·son ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rzn)
n.
The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction. See Usage Note at because. See Usage Note at why.
A declaration made to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction: inquired about her reason for leaving.
An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence: There is reason to believe that the accused did not commit this crime.
The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence.
Good judgment; sound sense.
A normal mental state; sanity: He has lost his reason.
Logic. A premise, usually the minor premise, of an argument.
|
We want to go to war.
Why?
To free Iraqis.
It is a reason jackass.
| Quote: |
re·per·cus·sion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rpr-kshn, rpr-)
n.
An often indirect effect, influence, or result that is produced by an event or action.
A recoil, rebounding, or reciprocal motion after impact.
A reflection, especially of sound.
|
The liberation of Iraqis is no no way indirect.
Once again you lose.
|
|
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #105326] |
Sat, 31 July 2004 20:38 |
 |
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
He's got you there Nodbugger. Not once did any quote you provide state that the REASON for going to war was to free them. All that you quoted was him saying that because of the war, the Iraqi people would be free. Bush is basically saying "Saddam is a bad man, this war will remove him from power and you will be free". He did NOT say "We are going to war in order to free you from Saddams tyrrany".
Had that been the case, any presumtions of WMD's, terrorist connections or whatever, would not have been needed.
As for the whole "justification" of it, sure you can justify it, but most arguements of any value lean towards the side that it was an illegal war in the first place. I don't care how much you justify what was done, or the good that came out of it, it was still illegal. The UN said not to invade, yet America did it anyways. I could also care less if you agree with it or not. You're a part of the group, you obey their rules. Don't like it, leave. But until then, you have no choise. It's the same regardless of any group you belong to.
You belong to these forums, you obey the rules. You live in America, you obey it's rules. You live in Iraq, you obey it's rules. Now that's not to say that rules can not be changed, but in order to do that you have to be in power. You can't just end up getting caught breaking the rules (lets say, creating a resistance in Iraq under Saddam), then state that "We had good intentions". I highly doubt that would have any chance of freeing you, even in America.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #105330] |
Sat, 31 July 2004 20:50 |
|
Nodbugger
Messages: 976
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| warranto |
He's got you there Nodbugger. Not once did any quote you provide state that the REASON for going to war was to free them. All that you quoted was him saying that because of the war, the Iraqi people would be free. Bush is basically saying "Saddam is a bad man, this war will remove him from power and you will be free". He did NOT say "We are going to war in order to free you from Saddams tyrrany".
Had that been the case, any presumtions of WMD's, terrorist connections or whatever, would not have been needed.
As for the whole "justification" of it, sure you can justify it, but most arguements of any value lean towards the side that it was an illegal war in the first place. I don't care how much you justify what was done, or the good that came out of it, it was still illegal. The UN said not to invade, yet America did it anyways. I could also care less if you agree with it or not. You're a part of the group, you obey their rules. Don't like it, leave. But until then, you have no choise. It's the same regardless of any group you belong to.
You belong to these forums, you obey the rules. You live in America, you obey it's rules. You live in Iraq, you obey it's rules. Now that's not to say that rules can not be changed, but in order to do that you have to be in power. You can't just end up getting caught breaking the rules (lets say, creating a resistance in Iraq under Saddam), then state that "We had good intentions". I highly doubt that would have any chance of freeing you, even in America.
|
The UN never voted, get your head out of your ass.
|
|
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #105331] |
Sat, 31 July 2004 20:52 |
|
Nodbugger
Messages: 976
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Javaxcx |
President Bush never inferred that "we are going to war to liberate Iraqi people". You're misundertanding those transcripts. The liberation of the Iraqi people is a REPERCUSSION of invading Iraq to disarm.
The Bush ideology is here: "Saddam's weapons are a threat, and he refuses to disarm them. So we will disarm these weapons for him (<-- WARNING: REASON FOR WAR). By doing this, Saddam's regieme will be toppled because he will go down fighting. And because of that, the Iraqi people will be free."
That does NOT mean that freeing the Iraqi people is a reason. It means that freeing the Iraqi people is an EFFECT from the CAUSE of going to war on the premise of finding weapons that Saddam is not supposed to have.
I've proven myself logically, etymologically, and legally. You have done nothing but misinterpret information, misconstrued the meaning of simple words (even with definitions provided), and pertained to this awfully emotional stance to justify your leader's violation of international law.
Let me put it in simple terms for you: YOU CANNOT BREAK LAWS BECAUSE YOU THINK THEY ARE UNJUST. IF YOU DO YOU WILL STILL SUFFER THE REPERCUSSIONS (OMG! There it is again!) OF VIOLATING SAID LAWS.
|
No laws were broken, There were no laws saying though shalt not invade Iraq.
And yes they were reasons.
e want to free Iraqi people. That is a reason. You can argue that as a result of the invasion this will happen. Which is true. But it is not a repercussion as you state. It is a result, it is a product, and it is a reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #105345] |
Sat, 31 July 2004 21:17 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Nodbugger |
| warranto |
So a reason for going to war was to free the Iraqi people. Interesting. Though I would have to see some proof to evaluate that statement. Oh, and don't bother quoting what you did before, because as Javaxcx and I have shown, those aren't reasons for going to war, but rather a side effect of it.
|
Repercussion, the Freedom of Iraqis is not an in-direct affect.
|
And what does that have to do with my statement of wanting proof that the reason for going to war was so that the citezens of Iraq would be freed? I also never once mentioned the word "in-direct effect", I said side effect. These is a difference there. An In-direct effect would be one that occured where it was related to, but not as a result of the actions taken. An imaginary example would be, Because of the war on Iraq, the son of a freed citezen grows up to discover Cold-Fusion. It could of only happened because of the war, but was not a result of the war. A side effect on the other hand, is an expected result of an action taken. The next time you watch a comercial for a new type of medicine, listen to it. What phrase is uttered when they state things that could happen to you if you take it. That's right, "side effects may include..." They're expected to occure because of the action taken.
In this case, the "War on Terrorism" (note not 'War to free Iraq') is to remove Saddam from power. A side effect (as it was not the initial reason for going to war [WMD's and terrorism were]) of this is that the Iraqi people will be free from Saddam.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon Nov 11 14:48:25 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01266 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
