NationStates Jolt Archive

Gee, he sounds like Bush did before the war on Iraq...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0409250111sep25,1,4555304.story

Does this sound familiar:

Obama said the United States must first address Iran's attempt to gain nuclear capabilities by going before the United Nations Security Council and lobbying the international community to apply more pressure on Iran to cease nuclear activities. That pressure should come in the form of economic sanctions, he said.

But if those measures fall short, the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said.

"The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?" Obama asked.

Let's reword this, and see if it sounds familiar to you...

Bush said the United States must first address Iraq's attempt to gain nuclear capabilities by going before the United Nations Security Council and lobbying the international community to apply more pressure on Iraq to cease nuclear activities. That pressure should come in the form of economic sanctions, he said.

But if those measures fall short, the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iraq, Bush said.

"The big question is going to be, if Iraq is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?" Bush asked.

He's wrong on this one, because it will be a decade before Iran has nuclear arms. On the other hand, if Bush had made a real attempt before the UNSC, he would have discovered that Iraq was not developing weapons of mass destruction, and stayed his hand.

But if those measures fall short, the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iraq, Bush said.
And then Bush started making up evidence and bullying Collin Powell to deliver it to the UN and started ignoring all reports he didn't like from his own intelligence agency.
And then changed his tune once we got there and realized the gold at the end of the rainbow was fake.

And isn't that story 3 years old, when Iran was dicking around with nuclear capabilities. Not a new story that would be relevant to any changes that have happened since then.

As amusing as your ability to time travel is, DK, I think it should give Jules Verne his time machine back.

Sounds like Obama is doing the same thing.

Oh, and while we're at it - don't "bring the troops home".

Let's invade and occupy Pakistan

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/14/ap3914419.html
Oh you mean, do what we actually went to the Middle East to do - track down and destroy al-Queada? Despicable.
And I could be wrong but I didn't think the Pakistan-Afghanistan border was wholly in Pakistan. Maybe you should imply more that we are going to air drop into the streets of Islamabad.


We would have to kill millions of al-Q sympathizers and tribesmen.
Well considering killing is what we are good at as opposed to occupying and rebuilding.

Nice idea in theory - even harder than occupying Iraq in practice.

We would have to kill millions of al-Q sympathizers and tribesmen.

Right up your alley, RO! I'm suprised you're not cheerleading already.

And then Bush started making up evidence and bullying Collin Powell to deliver it to the UN and started ignoring all reports he didn't like from his own intelligence agency.
And then changed his tune once we got there and realized the gold at the end of the rainbow was fake.

Sounds like Obama is doing the same thing.

Oh, and while we're at it - don't "bring the troops home".

Let's invade and occupy Pakistan

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/14/ap3914419.html

"We cannot win a war against the terrorists if we're on the wrong battlefield," Obama said. "America must urgently begin deploying from Iraq and take the fight more effectively to the enemy's home by destroying al-Qaida's leadership along the Afghan-Pakistan border, eliminating their command and control networks and disrupting their funding."

Nice idea in theory - even harder than occupying Iraq in practice.

We would have to kill millions of al-Q sympathizers and tribesmen.

It doesn't sound really at all familiar because if Bush had taken the time to go to the international community (you know, the thing Obama should be done FIRST) he would have found out that Iraq didn't have nuclear capabilities.

So Obama is saying that every action should be taken to ensure that the nation IS a threat, and to non militarily remove that threat first, BEFORE committing to military action. That doesn't sound like Bush at all come to think of it.

Failed

I think I'll vote for Obama.

It will take a lot more troops to invade and occupy Pakistan and bomb Iran (and probably occupy that, too), even if we leave Iraq.

So, a lot of you on this forum will be drafted.

I can hardly wait.

I was seriously thinking about taking RO off of ignore to see what he was blathering about this time. Glad I didn't. Someone might want to explain to Ro the meaning of the phrase "should not rule out." It certainly doesn't mean "let's drop bombs now!"
I think some one needs to tell him that Doc Brown called and he wants his DeLorean back.

And then Bush started making up evidence and bullying Collin Powell to deliver it to the UN and started ignoring all reports he didn't like from his own intelligence agency.
And then changed his tune once we got there and realized the gold at the end of the rainbow was fake.

And isn't that story 3 years old, when Iran was dicking around with nuclear capabilities. Not a new story that would be relevant to any changes that have happened since then.

As amusing as your ability to time travel is, DK, I think it should give Jules Verne his time machine back.

I was seriously thinking about taking RO off of ignore to see what he was blathering about this time. Glad I didn't. Someone might want to explain to Ro the meaning of the phrase "should not rule out." It certainly doesn't mean "let's drop bombs now!"

It doesn't sound really at all familiar because if Bush had taken the time to go to the international community (you know, the thing Obama should be done FIRST) he would have found out that Iraq didn't have nuclear capabilities.

So Obama is saying that every action should be taken to ensure that the nation IS a threat, and to non militarily remove that threat first, BEFORE committing to military action.

That doesn't sound like Bush at all come to think of it.

Ah, you forget the dog and pony show at the UN, and the years of UN sanctions...

it's not like we invaded Iraq right after the first Gulf War...

I was seriously thinking about taking RO off of ignore to see what he was blathering about this time. Glad I didn't. Someone might want to explain to Ro the meaning of the phrase "should not rule out." It certainly doesn't mean "let's drop bombs now!"

But, but, but. All options are on the table means, "The nukes are already in the air!" doesn't it?

I was seriously thinking about taking RO off of ignore to see what he was blathering about this time. Glad I didn't. Someone might want to explain to Ro the meaning of the phrase "should not rule out." It certainly doesn't mean "let's drop bombs now!"

Look at his idea for Pakistan. He means that part "right now".

Ah, you forget the dog and pony show at the UN, and the years of UN sanctions...
Then the dog and pony show in the UN and White House over pictures of places housing "weapons of mass destruction" and attempts to "import yellow cake."

Ah, you forget the dog and pony show at the UN, and the years of UN sanctions...

it's not like we invaded Iraq right after the first Gulf War...

No, but it is like there were UN Weapons Inspectors still working in Iraq who were going to find no conclusive proof of WMDs when Bush decided to invade.

Look at his idea for Pakistan. He means that part "right now".
Let's not mention the fact that everyone can read your link and knows that the Pakistan-Afghanistan border is the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. I don't see anywhere that he implies we should invade Pakistan.

Exactly.

And what CIA director ever says, "NO" to a President?

No! They say, "It's a slam dunk!"
I fail to see what you are getting at. Unless you are intending to again make my point for me.

Then the dog and pony show in the UN and White House over pictures of places housing "weapons of mass destruction" and attempts to "import yellow cake."

Exactly.

And what CIA director ever says, "NO" to a President?

No! They say, "It's a slam dunk!"

In fact, one could assume that Obama was talking about working in concert with Pakistani forces and Afghani forces, seeing as they're both ostensibly allies. Hardly an invasion.
And the only place he mentions specifically is actually Afghanistan.

The way DK here talks, people would think we are going to carpet bomb Islamabad. Of course if he was in charge, we would.

Let's not mention the fact that everyone can read your link and knows that the Pakistan-Afghanistan border is the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. I don't see anywhere that he implies we should invade Pakistan.

In fact, one could assume that Obama was talking about working in concert with Pakistani forces and Afghani forces, seeing as they're both ostensibly allies. Hardly an invasion.

If Iran tries to get nukes and economic sanctions don't work then we should consider invading and destroying their nuke production cababilities

=/=

Iraq has WMDs right now aimed at America. We have to invade or we'll be attacked! No wait, we're freeing the Iraqi people from an evil tyrant! No wait, we're securing the oil, I mean, no, we're spreading democracy. WHY DO YOU HATE FREEDOM?!

I used to BE secretary of state and I know that Bush followed every possible avenue before invading. He really wanted to ensure it was the right course of action. Remember, I know because I used to be secretary of state.

I used to BE secretary of state and I know that Bush followed every possible avenue before invading. He really wanted to ensure it was the right course of action. Remember, I know because I used to be secretary of state.

Pffft, I used to be George Bush and I know I threw a dart and a map of the middle east and sent the army at where it hit.

Sounds like Obama is doing the same thing.

Oh, and while we're at it - don't "bring the troops home".

Let's invade and occupy Pakistan

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/14/ap3914419.html



Nice idea in theory - even harder than occupying Iraq in practice.

We would have to kill millions of al-Q sympathizers and tribesmen.

Where does he say that they should go over en-masse into Pakistan...?

Aaah, glad to see that RO is still spouting bullshit and not bothering to read his own sources. It gives me a warm and cozy feeling to see that some things don't change. :)

Aaah, glad to see that RO is still spouting bullshit and not bothering to read his own sources. It gives me a warm and cozy feeling to see that some things don't change. :)

I think he reads them and just does it anyway. No-one can be that out all the time unless they're deliberately so.

Look at his idea for Pakistan. He means that part "right now".

If our troops werent bogged down in Iraq, it would be high time to put some more in Afghanistan, and assist the Pakistanis in hunting down the AL-Qaeda hideouts that are thriving along the border, and now would be a perfect time to do it since Pakistan would possibly accept our help since Al Qaeda just lifted their truce with the Pakistani government, and had declared a new holy war on the Pakistani government. Going into Pakistan and working WITH the Pakistani military, would mean good news for Afghanistan.

I used to BE secretary of state and I know that Bush followed every possible avenue before invading. He really wanted to ensure it was the right course of action. Remember, I know because I used to be secretary of state.

And I was the Secretary of Defense, though I preferred to be called SecDef by everyone. Bush did indeed follow every course of action.

Remember, I know, because I was SecDef.

I was seriously thinking about taking RO off of ignore to see what he was blathering about this time. Glad I didn't.

Why would you view this thread if you had no intention of reading the original post?

I think he reads them and just does it anyway. No-one can be that out all the time unless they're deliberately so.

It's not unthinkable...

Why would you view this thread if you had no intention of reading the original post?

why would you post in this thread if you had no intention of responding to the topic?

why would you post in this thread if you had no intention of responding to the topic?

Bushevik Hivemind at work. When one is being refuted by reality, the rest of the swarm comes in to the rescue.

Perhaps if Bush had identified all the WMD sites he talked about and hit them with strikes instead of launching a full-blown invasion, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now.

Perhaps if Bush had identified all the WMD sites he talked about and hit them with strikes instead of launching a full-blown invasion, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now.

How dare you suggest that? You're just like Bush. Warmonger.

Bushevik Hivemind at work. When one is being refuted by reality, the rest of the swarm comes in to the rescue.

...

Did you just call Neo Art a Bushevik?

He's not supporting it, he's saying the way Bush is going about it is wrong and how soon will it be befor Bush stomps off into Iran.

...

Did you just call Neo Art a Bushevik?

Not NeoArt, F'n'G.

Not NeoArt, F'n'G.Oh.

Apparently my reading comprehension subroutines are functioning even worse than usual today.

Oh.

Apparently my reading comprehension subroutines are functioning even worse than usual today.

This is what happens when you program in LOLCODE.

This is what happens when you program in LOLCODE.

Yes, well...that was entirely my fault.

Why would you view this thread if you had no intention of reading the original post?

Because other posters often have intelligent and meaningful things to say. There are, obviously, exceptions.

Perhaps if Bush had identified all the WMD sites he talked about and hit them with strikes instead of launching a full-blown invasion, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now.

Something like this, maybe? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Fox)

Because other posters often have intelligent and meaningful things to say. There are, obviously, exceptions.

Are we on the same NSG? :p

How dare you suggest that? You're just like Bush. Warmonger.

What can I say, I love to see thousands die needlessly.

It's my thing.

What can I say, I love to see thousands die needlessly.

It's my thing.

Well, it's hardly a unique hobby, but there's a lot of tradition behind it. Have you joined an association yet?

Gee, he sounds like Bush did before the war on Iraq...

Amazing how little difference there is between the two parties. :(

Right up your alley, RO! I'm suprised you're not cheerleading already.

He's only happy when it's republicans killing Muslims.

Amazing how little difference there is between the two parties. :(

Why don't you actually read the thread before just accepting RO's position? Hell, you've been burned by him enough times, you ought to know better by now.

It doesn't sound really at all familiar because if Bush had taken the time to go to the international community (you know, the thing Obama should be done FIRST) he would have found out that Iraq didn't have nuclear capabilities.

So Obama is saying that every action should be taken to ensure that the nation IS a threat, and to non militarily remove that threat first, BEFORE committing to military action. That doesn't sound like Bush at all come to think of it.

Failed

(Nods)

Well, it's hardly a unique hobby, but there's a lot of tradition behind it. Have you joined an association yet?

I cannot afford the dues. Maybe someday I will be able to collect taxes and get myself into the club.

I think he reads them and just does it anyway. No-one can be that out all the time unless they're deliberately so.
Naw, I think it's more he reads them and just blanks out the bits that don't conform to his previously formed opines and then fills in those blanks with his own fantasies.
I'm sure there's a medical name for this condition.
bullshitspinningitis. Something like that.

I'm sure there's a medical name for this condition.
bullshitspinningitis. Something like that.

Rectoalarism? (A cookie to the first person who figures out what I was trying to do there.)

Gee, he sounds like Bush did before the war on Iraq...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0409250111sep25,1,4555304.story

Does this sound familiar:



Let's reword this, and see if it sounds familiar to you...

Bush said the United States must first address Iraq's attempt to gain nuclear capabilities by going before the United Nations Security Council and lobbying the international community to apply more pressure on Iraq to cease nuclear activities. That pressure should come in the form of economic sanctions, he said.

But if those measures fall short, the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iraq, Bush said.

"The big question is going to be, if Iraq is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?" Bush asked.

Let's all recall Bush's efforts with the international and intelligence communities on the nuclear Iraq issue shall we?

GW: "Hey guyz! I'm hearing that a-hole Saddam may be trying to get all nukular on our @sses! That would be the suxor! Check it out!"

Hans Blix: "We checked it out dude. Feet on the ground and everything. Think someone's been slipping you a line of sh*t."

GW: "F*ck you a-hole. What do you know about it? For that, we're gonna lobby all over your @ss to try and see that you never work again!"

Joe Wilson: "Dude - I checked into that supposed purchase, and man - it just never happened. Not only that, but that evidence was forged on a fricken exosketch. Sorry, but it just ain't true"

GW: "F*ck you! And f*ck your wife too!!"

GW: "Listen a-holes. None of you know how to cooperate with me. I KNOW it happened. We'z goin' to war!!!"""

*several months, a few hundred billion dollars, and multi-thousand lives later....*

US Inspection Report: "There wasn't any nuclear activity ongoing in Iraq. Period."

GW: "Well, how the f*ck was I supposed to know that?"


Somehow, I don't think that Obama is advocating quite the same sort of "cooperation" with the international community. But, that's just a guess....

Hmmm....

Bush did not used the military as a last resort, but essentially as a first resort, after going through the motions. He had decided to go to war for regime change even before elected. [1 (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/index.html)]

Obama says he will use the military as a last resort against Iran and for the purpose of canceling an actual threat. He also says he'll send more troops to the borderin a fight against someone who attacked us first. (OP sources)

You really want to call the second a warmonger? Here, have a dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/warmonger).

Meh. I've never liked him.

Let's reword this, and see if it sounds familiar to you...You know, this could have been convincing.

If you didn't have to "reword" it to make it "sound familiar." Even then, I think you get the translation wrong.

Bush said the United States must first address Iraq's attempt to gain nuclear capabilities by going before the United Nations Security Council and lobbying the international community to apply more pressure on Iraq to cease nuclear activities.He did say something like that, yes. The difference is that he had surrounded himself by hawks who had been drooling over Iraq for years, his presentations to the U.N. were clearly already making the case for war a priori, and he refused to allow the U.N. any reasonable timeline to exert pressure and renew weapons inspections. It was completely transparent to anyone who was paying attention that he decided to invade a long time before ever addressing the U.N. That was just the PR campaign.

When Obama says we should go to the U.N. and try to make economic sanctions work, somehow it's just a lot easier to believe him.

But if those measures fall short, the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iraq, Bush said.Actually, I remember Bush saying things more like, "But when--I, I mean "if"... yeah, "if" the U.N. doesn't succeed by... say, next Thursday... well, then we're going in with guns blazin'. We're gonna git 'em."

"Not rule out" means something like "last resort." Bush, on the other hand, was all too eager.

"The big question is going to be, if Iraq is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?" Bush asked.Obviously not a direct quote... unless you want to offer a source. While this particular attempt was rather transparent, in general it's considered deceitful to attribute a quote as if a person actually said it when, in fact, he did not.

Gee, he sounds like Bush did before the war on Iraq...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0409250111sep25,1,4555304.story

Does this sound familiar:



Let's reword this, and see if it sounds familiar to you...

Bush said the United States must first address Iraq's attempt to gain nuclear capabilities by going before the United Nations Security Council and lobbying the international community to apply more pressure on Iraq to cease nuclear activities. That pressure should come in the form of economic sanctions, he said.

But if those measures fall short, the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iraq, Bush said.

"The big question is going to be, if Iraq is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?" Bush asked.

So, because Obama might have sounded like Bush, that makes him worse than Bush? That logic doesn't jive with me...

Sounds like Obama is doing the same thing.

Oh, and while we're at it - don't "bring the troops home".

Let's invade and occupy Pakistan.You know what your problem is, RO? You wholeheartedly subscribe to the myth that Democrats are supposed to be such skittish doves that they wait to be invaded before fighting, or such blind pacifists that they would never go to war.

The fact of the matter is that Democrats, on the whole, are not afraid of war. They just don't like it. That means that when security concerns genuinely demand that we send American troops into combat, Democrats (and other members of the Left) do not shrink from the challenge.

Now, I'm not saying I agree with the proposal that we should refocus our efforts on tracking down al Qaeda. Frankly, I just don't think a military approach to fighting terror will ever produce results... it really seems only to produce as many (or more) enemies than we can destroy.

That objection notwithstanding, at least we can say that Obama understands who the real enemy is. At least we can say that he's not planning to send American troops to invade a country that had never attacked us, had already paid dearly for attacking a neighbor a decade before, showed few signs of posing a threat in the near future, and did not directly support organizations that had done any harm for which we could justify an invasion.

No one disputes that al Qaida is extremely strong on the Afghan-Pakistani border--perhaps stronger there than anywhere else in the world. No one disputes that top leaders and training camps are in this area... and there is some consensus that Osama bin Laden himself may be hiding there--at least, so say the best leads we have.

Now, I may think that "more troops" is a lousy response to these facts. But at least I can say that Obama is responding to the right facts.

You know what your problem is, RO? You wholeheartedly subscribe to the myth that Democrats are supposed to be such skittish doves that they wait to be invaded before fighting, or such blind pacifists that they would never go to war.


They've mastered the false dichotomy. If the paint the Democrats as people who want to abolish the military and end war with love-so they're weak on security and don't live in the 'real world where sometimes force happens,' so if they advocate peaceful resolutions they're delisiunal and if they acknowledge that some times it does come down to force they're 'just as bad.'* Never mind that that all or nothing is not anyone's policy-they've just managed to have that much control over the debate. It'd be impressive if...

*To have reached a position, as a side note, where 'just as bad' is a defense for what this country does? What the fuck? What the hell happened to fucking dignity? Are you fucking kidding me? We no longer measure ourselves at our best but by everyones worst? What a fucking joke.

*To have reached a position, as a side note, where 'just as bad' is a defense for what this country does? What the fuck? What the hell happened to fucking dignity? Are you fucking kidding me? We no longer measure ourselves at our best but by everyones worst? What a fucking joke.Appropriately, I happen to be watching the episode of "South Park" in which the children vote for a new school mascot.

Their choices are a giant douche and a turd sandwich.

In the debate, of course, they each say things like, "But come on, look at my opponent: he's a giant douche."

To quote the OP, "Sound familiar?"

;)