Impeaching of Cheney and Possibly Bush 2007

Sorry but more armor is not going to allow them to just drive over bombs and shit and not even be phased by them......and they dont need new shit, maybe, they should take care of their equipment like I do. You know, maybe check the oil once in a while instead of throwing out that humvee cause it needs an oil change.....

And sorry, No Armor whatsoever is just going to make you immune to bombs....
 
China Bought out US Debt so how you can you say they have no economic influence? Most of our big corporations have factories over there. Including like all of the biggest technological places are over there too.

Alot of countries probably have WMD's, get over it. ARe we invading them? No.

Yea, im sure their biological warfare program back in the 1980s was just off the hook with technology...... we have all kinds of bio weapons in this country and are any other countries invading us to take them from us? No.

Alot of the US cities have shitty life quality so dont give me that shit either....
 
Do you guys seriously think the people in Iraq sit around all day every day thinking about how to destroy the USA? ahahhahahhah..

What is happening right now could be related to the Civil War in the US back in the day and some other country coming into our land to "help" out whatever side they choose to be on.

And innocent people will always die no matter what, thats the way the world works. Life isnt fair. Why should our US Troops die to save an innocent life that is not even part of our country?
 
compared to china.... eeeeehhhhh not so much.

Sure, there's poverty in the USA, lots of it. But if you want to compare countries, meaning generalities, China is waaaaaay further down the shitter than the USA is. People in China as a whole make far less money than people in the USA.

Im not an economics buff, but im pretty sure the yen has yet to take over any major currency. Their system is backwards, and their "capitalist" economy is not in line with their communist government: there's extremely rapid growth, but with little to show for it in the population.

Companies outsource to China because it's effing cheap to do it, not because China is powerful; it's the exact opposite. Corporations make bank outsourcing because they don't have to pay as much to get the same job done because purchasing power makes everything comparatively cheap. By your logic, Taiwan is a major world power.

Nevermind the social and environmental problems China is bringing on itself... 30 000 000 single men with no female counterpart and rising. Damming of major rivers with no thought about the environment, destroying farm lands, cities... China is poor, with a huge ass economy. Not a superpower yet.

As for McCain saying "we are where we are", that's actually a very intelligent thing for him to say. He's been a staunch opposer of the war (until recently, for some reason), and he is running under the realization that he cannot change what could have been, but what is.

Ill say more later...
 
Right, our corporations are over there. That means they are owned by citizens of this country. Thus giving them and the public of THIS country the power to determine where they are located. Your whole first argument is wrong.

So you just admitted that they had WMD's when a few posts ago you were denying it? I never said we should invade them, I clearly said in my argument that I was against invading them, and I was just stating that they had them. It doesn't matter what technology they have, chemical weapons use natural technologies to spread, not computer. Again, you have proven yourself wrong.

Are you fucking kidding me? Do you know what the Per Capita income is for a Chinese average citizen? It's about $8,000. When the US is about $35,000. Our GDP and every financial statistic is so much higher than China's. God you are so fucking stupid. I know plenty of teachers of have taught in China and know from personal experience what the country is like. Shanghai is a shitland outside of its historical section. Beijing has the air quality of a sewage drainer. So on and so on.

Look you have no idea what you're talking about. Every one of your posts contains faulty information and misconception.
 
Exactly, thus the reason our corporations will only STUNT their economic growth and keep wages down.

You see it works like this...

Companies are in China for cheap labor. Once the Chinese economy grows on its own and they start getting internal corporations, wage rates will raise. When wage rates raise, corporations move out and move to countries where wage rates are lower. When the corporations move out, China loses a ton fo productivity.

 
um, sorry again, but yes, armor CAN make it so you can drive over bombs. not the armomr they can put on a humvee, but there is a new vehicle that can drive over whatever the fuck it wants. the armor issue isnt to make an invincible hummer, its to make a humvee that will resist the bomb enought to no KILL everyone inside of it. your lack of intelliegence is scary. honestly. and believe me, its not that theyre throwing out the humvees becuase of oil.
 
While I hate to disagree with you, I watched a documentary called Iraq for Sale and there were a few vets from this war that said that they were required to burn their vehicle if anything prevented it from going like normal, even if it was just a flat tire. Who knows how true it is, as it was clearly biased against Haliburton and KGB, but the soliders interviewed were pretty clear and concise about their expectations for downed vehicles.
 
So...

He's saying he is the race to fix what is going on. A lot of people tend to go on and on about what went wrong, what could have been done better, which is a great thing to do; but it doesn't fix the problem. Don't bash him on that, bash him on what we tried to do: answer all of Jon's questions with preprepared nonsense that doesn't fly.

Anyways, Irak had WMD's, and they got moved to Syria and other countries before the US arrived, and this happended likely during the weapons inspections, when there was satellite surveillance showing long conveys of trucks into Syria. They simply weren't there when we got there, they did, however, exist.

The war is flawed because they lied about the reasons and manipulated the people to get support when we weren't entirely sure of the threat. It was flawed because it squandered the virtually unanimous support the USA had after 9/11 and Afghanistan. More obvious now is that we had absolutely no friggin clue about what to do after Saddam left. We completly missunderstood the culture, the real driving forces of violence and the real influencial movements of Irak, namely the incompatibility of Islam and democracy as we would have it.

Without a violent and authoritarian government like was under Saddam, the country went into civil war. We got rid of a horrible man, but his terror was what kept the country inline. Our "terror", like Abu Ghraib, pales in comparison, and is nowehere near: we are unable to keep the peace, because to do so means to rule like a dictator, which we don't want to do. Bringing democracy to a region inherently incapable of democracy was our biggest problem.

Now that we are there, we need to support the troops financially. We musn't always agree with what they're doing, for what reasons, but you damn well better believe that if they need new equipment, they should get it. These are still american people over there, not just some entity you oppose. You oppose the government and their involvment, never should we oppose the well being of out fellow people.

i mean, you just saying that they should take better care of their equipment by oiling it or whatever is beyond all possible levels of retardedness i've ever come across on here... Better shielding and armor will most certainly protect them from the blasts of IED's. It won't save the equipment, but it will save them...

But then again... you actually laughed at your own "pull out" innuendo... your maturity level reeks of uninformed moron 3rd grader.
 
Agreed Patty. Cheney's interview with Stewart was the highlight of this week for me, soooo telling.

Stewart had a point too - the US is basically moderating a civil war between Sunni and Shiite in that country. Our soldiers are getting killed trying to slow a age old conflict that will never have a resolution. The country was a mess for years after its creation, and the one person who was able to actually quell the two groups... well, we just hung him.

Lets face it, we, as Americans, have no idea whats good for Iraq.
 
McCain* :P

We know what would be better for Irak, but it just doesn't work in the society and culture present in the country. It's a crossroads for so many potentially destabilizing elements, mainly race and religion, that there is no way that anyone but a tyrant could keep them in line.

We did a good thing in getting rid of a tyrant, but as far as naive things go, that's way up there if only a tyrant can rule the country. The USA does not wish to be a tyrant, but i suppose that's either what's going to happen, or someone will step up and do it for us...

There's no hope for democracy with their sectarian violence (and, essentially, where there is an Islamic theocracy dying to happen).

I don't know what we should do. The problem is absolutely immense. We pull out now, the country bleeds until a new dictator is found, then continues to bleed until his opposition is wiped out. We don't pull out, more americans die as bystanders to a war out of our control, with no end in site.

I agree to some extent that timetables are useless and dangerous. Timetables will only make the violence subside until we leave, when a full blown civil war, beyond what we see now,will be unleashed. We need goals to be achieved until we can pull out. Not timetables, goals.
 
http://www.nfowars.net:443/stream1.pls

Listen to this. Tune away from the government controlled media for once and wake the fuck up!
 
Bahaha, dude just stop it already. Fucking paranoid, conspiracy filled babble. Let me guess... it was a missile that hit the Pentagon?
 
you are a fucking idiot if you actually think a normal person like yourself has any idea on what is truly happening in the world. Seriously, all u must do is watch fox news and take everything they say word for word....Do you really think that you as an individual have any say in what happens in this country as far as the government is concerned? And dont say "well yep i sure do, i get to vote!!" hahahhah...

Hrmmm, since you mention the pentagon though, wow its such a coincidence that where the pentagon was hit was where all the documentation was that was being prepared to attack the corruption of big corporations.....

 
I'm interested to hear what makes you above the 'normal' person, since you seem to have an amazing and insightful grasp of how the government and corporate America are conspiring evil plots. Its it because you peruse a website full of paranoid ramblings every day?
 
Im a normal person too. I never said I was above anyone. I just dont take anything the government says or the media says to heart. A website full of paranoid ramblings? You ever think that these people are actually the only ones standing up against the new world order? I see them as people who are actually motivated (unlike the majority of NS who thinks that the government actually cares about them, they only care about your money) and they are working their hardest to make changes in the world. Unlike alot of people on NS who just sit on their ass and babble away at shit they have no idea at all since they are in no position of power or any governmental position. I always see shit on here like "Well so and so told me this so it must be true!!"

And seriously what is wrong with being Paranoid in the world we live in today?

And Rowen, your right, life isnt a Mel Gibson Movie. (See you sound like a brainwashed american relating everything to a fucking movie...).

THE REAL LIFE IS WAY FUCKING BIGGER AND WAY MORE EXCITING THAN ANY MOVIE WILL EVER BE.
 
FuckThePolice, is this your bastard love child?

Kid, give up... You reeeeaaaallly think you're above and beyond everyone because you go to similarly biased sites and opinions, only on the opposite political spectrum? Guess again, you're still a sheep, only grazing with a bunch of "rebellious", and apparently dillusional retarded ruminants.

Please, spare us the childish ramblings and paranoia. If you want to live your life in insecurity and think that the "government" is out to get you, so be it. But when you join the real world, let us know.

Oh, yeah: "I always see shit on here like "Well so and so told me this so it must be true!!" Hmm... and you, of course, don't believe anyone else says, no matter how informed they may or may not be, and don't quote anyone else but yourself as authoritative.... oh wait, yeah...

byt the way, save yourself the brainwashed american FOX NEWS OMG! spiel. i've lived virtually my entire life in france/sweden, and i don't get fox news or anyone else but the bbc...
 
This is nothing new. The same four-five people on NS attacking me and anyone else who actually speaks what they think rather than just mimic a bunch of bullshit they saw on tv or what their teacher told them. FUCK YOU for trying to tell me what I am and what I should think about this life.
 
exactly. chances are, because saddam had plenty of warning that we we prolly gonna come in he moved all of them to syria and they are prolly burried in a sand dune in the desert or something.

as for china, the only thing the beat the US on is more people and crappier quality of life. and if we were to get in a conflict/war with china, there numbers wouldn't matter because we could take that entire country off the map with the pressing of a few button if we really wanted to. so as he said, you conceptkid are a tard.
 
Wow. The sheer volume of bullshit being passed off for fact in this thread could fill an ocean. No viable chemical, biological or nuclear weapons (the latter, by the way, is what Bush assured us of in separate State of the Union adresses, not the first two) were found in Iraq. No evidence was found to suggest that there were any there before the invasion and occupation. Any weapons which remained were old, damaged and unusable. They may have had weapons in the 80s or early 90s, but they didn't have any by the 21st century. The ISG determined this clearly. Anyone who says "well they must've moved them to Syria" is speculating. Stop trying to pass off speculation as fact.
 
I mean what the fuck. Why is this level of stupidity allowed to go on in your country? People who say these kinds of things should be laughed at and slapped until they wake the fuck up. You're talking about starting world war 3. Your strategy would result in the end of just about all human life in both countries, if not the entire world.
 
They're actually right in line with the conservative emphasis on small government. They're trying to make it just small enough to fit in the bedroom.
 
Yeah, but for anybody to be blaming it all on Bush is wrong. everybody had the same intelligence and both democrats and republicans were saying it was good to go into Iraq to remove Hussein.

Where the democrats are wrong is that they want to cut and run and pull out of Iraq which could have even worse consequences.

Lets finish what we sarted here.

Also we are only getting half the story from the media....you ask the troops that come home and they tel you that for the most part people are genuinly greatful that we are there and booted saddam out of power.
 
I'm now just randomly pulling posts by people who have no idea what they're talking about. Shit like this is an argument for a philosopher kingdom, because God help us if you have any decision-making power in this world. No, he wasn't really elected, he was appointed by a supreme court decision. Kerry has nothing to do with it, GORE would've done a better job, because even if he's a bit of an oddball, I'm pretty much positive he wouldn't have started the Iraq war, and it's hard not to doa better job when the main point of difference is NOT committing the biggest foreign policy error in your country's history. Yes, most people agreed with a military response to 9/11... in Afghanistan, which Iraq has nothing to do with. Turning on the president has nothing to do with turning on the soldiers, nothing could be more supportive of the troops than the position that if they're going to die, it should be for a good reason in a well-managed war, which doesn't describe the current situation at all. Other countries aren't laughing at you, they're angry about unilateral decisions, and yes, this is the administration's fault. A civil war has already started. This administration is a failure. Arguably the biggest failure in history.
 
Legitimate position. I was against it from the start, because the info was out there that the rationales were extremely questionable, which is why the UN was unconvinced by Powell's address to them. The dems who weren't made a huge mistake. However, the mismanagement of the war and the setting it as a part of the agenda in the first place is certainly the administration's fault. And after all, the buck stops with the commander in chief.

Polls in iraq don't reflect the interviews you've conducted with returning soldiers. I assume you have conducted them? You seem to be implying as much. Anyway, direct statements from the Iraqis say they want the US gone.
 
you are a fucking retard, i mean did your dirty hippie parents drop you on your head when you were young? Your probably one of those kids who believes that all our presidents have been "shape shifters" or some shit (look it up). It was pretty funny at first watching you get destroyed by everyone else on this topic, but now your just making yourself look like a complete douche bag. I really hope that you don't ever have kids, we don't need more people like you in this world, especially raising a kid to have the same beliefs you do.
 
My goodness, I suppose they must have been WMDs! Thank you, x-ray vision man. I'm shocked they started moving things out of the country upon realizing it was about to be invaded. I wonder why they wouldn't want a bunch of their stuff destroyed, stolen or "reappropriated" by an occupying force! If Germany invaded France right now, half the Louvre would be on its way across the channel.

Again. Speculation. Fact. Two different things. It has been concluded by separate commissions that Iraq had no WMDs and no connection to Al Qaeda. A bunch of unidentified trucks fleeing the country before an invasion doesn't exactly count as proof to the contrary.
 
No connection to Al Qaeda: yes... i didn't advance that, and i never thought Saddam had any such ties. Saddam was a Shi'ite, Al Qaeda is entirely Sunni. THAT connection was made in the French news in 2003 before the invasion.

Iraq had no WMD's upon the invasion. We knew that he had some before, which, along with the rest of his stuff (SCUDS et al.), like you said, were probably out of commission or in serious need of new launching systems. However, we knew he had the crap in the 90's, and we had cause to believe he still had some, which, for some reason justified the war to the administration and the rest of the senate. By that logic, we should have invaded dozens of countries before Iraq. Anyways.

Seriously, i understand it's speculation, but it's the most probable explanation for the convoys as well. Explain to me what you think was in those convoys, what would they have had reaosn to remove? We set out to invade to find WMD's. We don't find WMD's + large convoys leaving the country = what the heck else is supposed to have been in there? The fine and irreplaceable art was left in place and subsequently vandalized. Saddam and co obviously didn't leave with them. Gold and such was found en masse. The one thing he had to hide were weapons if anything.

Seriously, if you were to be on a search for something you think someone had, you see them passing something to a neighbor right before you show up, and then it isn't in his possession, i assume the only thing you think is "Hmm, well, i did see him move stuff before i got here, and there doesn't seem to be anything here now, and a lot of people have since confirmed that it isn't here... I suspect no foul play".

There was absolutely NO immediate threat from Saddam on the USA when we invaded. The urgency of the situation and "dire consequences" of inaction were entirely fictitious, and many of them outright lies. The link between Saddam and Al Qaeda was entirely made up, and who knows why we actually went there (revanchism/"prove daddy i can do something right"ism, oil, political/military influence in the region, whatever). However, we knew he had the junk. The amount was exaggerated, the threat it posed was exaggerated, but even what we KNEW he had, was not to be found...

No one is arguing the war was justified, even with WMD's present that we knew he had for decades.
 
I think the problem here is that your perspective is being affected by the initial goal. Essentially what you're saying is that if the invasion hadn't been based on the existence of WMDs, it wouldn't be so clear that that's what was in the trucks. The fact is, if the drum of WMDs hadn't been beaten so repeatedly (Republican political strategy- say something enough and people start thinking it's true), you wouldn't be making these assumptions. The way it is, everyone who hasn't been paying very close attention to the findings of washington commissions sees ANY piece of news and immediately thinks, "WMDs! There they are!" When in all likelihood, it isn't so. In fact, many of the weapons known to be there post-Gulf-War-I were found, but in so deteriorated a state that they couldn't have caused more damage than a well-placed mortar shell. The yellowcake from Africa that the Iraqis were supposedly using to produce weapons-grade materials for bombs never existed, and the documents used as evidence before the UN on that point were determined later to be forgeries. The components mentioned explicitly by Bush in his 03 State of the Union were known from the outset to be incapable of use in the production of the kinds of weapons we were assured were there. Read the commission reports, read the ISG conclusions, they simply didn't exist. The likelihood of those weapons having been transferred to neighbouring states has been concluded by these study groups to be very low.
 
Basically, we both agree on the end point: the goal was never the weapons. The point was to invade Iraq. I dunno why, most logically oil revenue and military presence or whatever.

I firmly believe that the weapons that Saddam had are in Syria, given the fact that:

a)we didn't find any of the weapons we knew about in the country

b)we observed convoys heading massively across the boarder

c)that was the one thing he would have had to hide in case of invasion

No one went after them, no one went after Iran or any other country that was potentially far more dangerous than Iraq. That obviously means we're there for some other reason, or were supposed to be there for some other reason.
 
And I can't believe this debate is still going on when both sides of the political isle in Congress, and even White House representatives, have admitted, conceded etc that the WMDs didn't exist.
 
*sigh* This argument is circular. I know I'm not going to convince you that conspiracy theories dont exist as much as I know you will never be able to convince me that they do. Why do I believe that such conspiracies do not exist? Here are a few reasons off the top of my head:

-The government fumbles everything. Wars, laws, policies, its all fair game for them to fuck up. They consistently fuck up enough that I am assured that anything they try to keep secret will eventually get out.

-Mass involvement. Conspiracies like you suppose exist would take the combined cooperation and vows of strict silence for hundreds, if not thousands of people. That just doesnt happen, even in wartime.

-Party Politics. Political parties are basically always waiting to uncover some dirt or break a scandal on the other side. Dems pounced on the Watergate scandal when it broke, and would do the same with even the smallest scandal. And I wouldnt ever expect that both parties would be unilaterally deceiving the American public. One side would inevitably hand the other over for more power.

-The Media. The media is a beast. It feeds off of stories. If conspiracies existed between corporate companies or within the government, the media would be first on the scene, quickly followed by the opposing party. These networks compete with each other so much that any sort of coverup and proof of coercion would be exposed and blasted by the other networks.

The fact is, even the most secret projects in history have been exposed in some way or another. Even the Manhattan project was leaked before its conclusion. Keeping secrets is far harder than you might expect. Even if you doled out the work to many different people and kept everyone focused on only one small piece of the grand scheme, human curiosity would ensure that eventually someone would piece it together or find out. Simply put, I there are too many check's and balances that ensure that no mass conspiracies could exist in this country.

You can get your information from wherever you wish. I honestly cannot prove that the BBC is completely unbiased and legit. However, if you take a anti-depressant pill that's really just a sugar placebo, you will feel better. I think that if you really want to see these connections, you will, no matter what. I could probably make a very convincing argument that Global Warming is being caused by aliens. Just because the argument has been voiced does not give it any authenticity however. You can believe what you want, sure, but I at least would expect people to give me a weird look when I tell them that humanity was descended from a line of aliens caught in a galactic war.

Should we believe everything the government and media tells us? Hell no. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and I believe that every institution needs some system of checks and balances. I also believe a system currently exists (see points above) so I at least feel somewhat confident in the BBC reports on. If you stop trusting everyone, then who should you trust? Wacko's that run a website dedicated to 'exposing' hidden agenda's instead of a long trusted news agency that prides itself on unbiased reporting?
 
who gives a shit? getting worked up about politics is so fucking gay, i dont care who is president cause they are all ass holes nomatter who it is.
 
Words can't explain the ignorance of this statement. All presidents are ass holes no matter what? Abe lincoln giving blacks freedom is being an asshole? JFK stopping a nuclear war from happening is being an asshole? LBJ (Not Lebron) passing soo many civil rights bills and making blacks have a better life is being an asshole? Christ I'm scared to see where our generation is going to end up with ignorant fucks like these.
 
wow 3 out of how many presidents? sorry i just dont care. i just dont see the point in getting all worked up about it when you cant make a difference, theres just no point.
 
Oh I'm sorry I don't want to list 43 presidents and every accomplishment they've made in their presidency. And I'm glad you don't want to vote because you're so fucking dumb you probably would vote for whoever had the coolest name.
 
Name all of presidents that have been bad for America. In fact, name more than 15 of our presidents without looking.
 
with every president we have, half the nation, hell half the world is aways bitching and complaning. almost every polititian is fake, what we see them as and what they are realy like is totally different, my dad has a patient that worked with clinton and he was in his limo a couple times before some of his speeches, he said him and his wife would be screaming at eachother every time they were together, they would say how much they hated eachother, sometimes they had to have people holding them away from eachother. then 5 seconds later they get out of the limo, holding hands, smiling and waving. and his attitude was totally different in private, he's really sarcastic and has a bad attitude, would cuss all the time, even talk about how he was bullshiting the public in his speeches.

i know this is only clinton, but im sure 90% of them are all this way. thats one thing i kinda like about bush, he isnt so fake, he dosent try to change his personality totally when he is in public, either that or he is a really good actor. and knowing bush, im pretty sure he cant act.

politics is just a dirty shitty issue id rather not be involved with, i dont have a problem with other people spending so much time arguing and bitching about politics, i just dont see the point when all that effort does absolutely nothing. so i dont vote, and i dont see why some people have a problem with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top