As I said in the second post back, I believe, couldn't all three of them have gotten a fourth opinion from a NEUTRAL party?tycoonmikeYou just keep raising the bar. You ask for a third party, and now a fourth. FACT; Three of the world's most renowned intelligence agencies were breathing down Presiden't Bush's neck. Thats more than enough sway to have actionable intelligence. Even if one other agency had stepped up, the sway of Mossad, MI6, and CIA would have overridden it. Bush acted amicably based on the recommendations of three great intelligence agencies.
Obama's broken promises: A checklist
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]As I said in the second post back, I believe, couldn't all three of them have gotten a fourth opinion from a NEUTRAL party?VandalvideoYou just keep raising the bar. You ask for a third party, and now a fourth. FACT; Three of the world's most renowned intelligence agencies were breathing down Presiden't Bush's neck. Thats more than enough sway to have actionable intelligence. Even if one other agency had stepped up, the sway of Mossad, MI6, and CIA would have overridden it. Bush acted amicably based on the recommendations of three great intelligence agencies.
Yeah, three great intelligence agencies that all got it WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! Isn't that just a little suspicious? If they were so great, then how did they all get the answer wrong?
And I asked for a fourth party because my demand for a third party had already been answered, by the Israelis. The demand for a neutral Nth party came before this tangent, so it still stands.
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]A politician who is capable of compromise will always bend over backwards for lobbyists? That is the most absurd statement I've ever heard and is just a baseless claim. Notice how I said responsible compromising and not brash submission? tycoonmike
Then why are there these controversies about pork spending and pointless attachments to bills that all of five people read about on page 12B of section E in the newspaper?
Yes I must of forgotten when the likes of Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth bent over backwards just for some temporary monetary gratification.Yeah, three great intelligence agencies that all got it WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! Isn't that just a little suspicious? If they were so great, then how did they all get the answer wrong? And I asked for a fourth party because my demand for a third party had already been answered, by the Israelis. The demand for a neutral Nth party came before this tangent, so it still stands. tycoonmikeSuspcious? Look, conspiracy theories aren't proof of Mossad being biased. The facts of the matter are that three of the greatest itnelligence agencies said Iraq posed a threat. If you want to start claiming Israel isn't trustworthy you better DANG WELL have proof. Mossad is in the top five agencies in the world. And none of your suppositional conspiracy theories either. Give me evidence that the Mossad people engaged in a conspiracy.
If you want to start claiming Israel isn't trustworthy you better DANG WELL have proof.Vandalvideo
How about the fact that Israel has been at war with damn near every country that makes up the Middle East, with the exception of Iran? That couldn't possibly be the starting point for some form of bias?
How about the fact that Israel has been at war with damn near every country that makes up the Middle East, with the exception of Iran? That couldn't possibly be the starting point for some form of bias? tycoonmikeMore supposition. You're challenging the credibility of one of the five greatest intelligence agencies in the world. Give me cold, hard proof that these people engaged in a conspiracy to have Iraq invaded. No more supposition, I demand proof.
[QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]A politician who is capable of compromise will always bend over backwards for lobbyists? That is the most absurd statement I've ever heard and is just a baseless claim. Notice how I said responsible compromising and not brash submission? -Sun_Tzu-
Then why are there these controversies about pork spending and pointless attachments to bills that all of five people read about on page 12B of section E in the newspaper?
Yes I must of forgotten when the likes of Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth bent over backwards just for some temporary monetary gratification.Before I begin, I deleted my previous post because I felt it was a bit crude.
I have already specified a time period (from the late 19th century onward) during which such activities would most likely have taken place as well as could have been reported on far more efficiently. Notwithstanding activities during this country's birth, why are there controversies like those I have named before?
[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]How about the fact that Israel has been at war with damn near every country that makes up the Middle East, with the exception of Iran? That couldn't possibly be the starting point for some form of bias? VandalvideoMore supposition. You're challenging the credibility of one of the five greatest intelligence agencies in the world. Give me cold, hard proof that these people engaged in a conspiracy to have Iraq invaded. No more supposition, I demand proof.
Yeah, you're right, I am challenging the credibility of one of the five greatest intelligence agencies in the world. Just like Bush should have before committing this country's military resources to a war that it could not win. I have no other proof to provide you other than supposition. Then again, unless you have access to classified Israeli, American, or British dossiers on the subject, you have no other option than supposition either.
That is no excuse, though, for me to say that I am right. Indeed, I haven't said that I was right. All I am giving you is my opinion on the matter. Indeed, on at least one occasion, other than this, I have openly admitted I have no evidence other than supposition. That doesn't mean, though, that you are right because I can't provide evidence for my opinion.
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"]Yes I must of forgotten when the likes of Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth bent over backwards just for some temporary monetary gratification.Then why are there these controversies about pork spending and pointless attachments to bills that all of five people read about on page 12B of section E in the newspaper?
tycoonmike
Before I begin, I deleted my previous post because I felt it was a bit crude.
I have already specified a time period (from the late 19th century onward) during which such activities would most likely have taken place as well as could have been reported on far more efficiently. Notwithstanding activities during this country's birth, why are there controversies like those I have named before?
The controversies that you have stated are the result of brash submission rather than responsible compromise. There is a stark difference between the two, and one does not lead to the other.[QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Yes I must of forgotten when the likes of Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth bent over backwards just for some temporary monetary gratification. -Sun_Tzu-
Before I begin, I deleted my previous post because I felt it was a bit crude.
I have already specified a time period (from the late 19th century onward) during which such activities would most likely have taken place as well as could have been reported on far more efficiently. Notwithstanding activities during this country's birth, why are there controversies like those I have named before?
The controversies that you have stated are the result of brash submission rather than responsible compromise. There is a stark difference between the two, and one does not lead to the other.Well then, where do you draw the line between brash submission and responsible compromise?
Yeah, you're right, I am challenging the credibility of one of the five greatest intelligence agencies in the world. Just like Bush should have before committing this country's military resources to a war that it could not win. I have no other proof to provide you other than supposition. Then again, unless you have access to classified Israeli, American, or British dossiers on the subject, you have no other option than supposition either.That is no excuse, though, for me to say that I am right. Indeed, I haven't said that I was right. All I am giving you is my opinion on the matter. Indeed, on at least one occasion, other than this, I have openly admitted I have no evidence other than supposition. That doesn't mean, though, that you are right because I can't provide evidence for my opinion. tycoonmikeYour supposition is simply not enough to prove that Mossad, in any way, engaged in a conspiracy with the intent of invading Iraq. You have not even began to meet such a burden of proof. If you can't even do so seven seven years later, how did you expect Bush to do so in the heat of the momment, where the threat of Nuclear war was looming over his shoulder? He made the right choice. He listened to three of the greatest intelligence agencies in the world. Being obtuse and ignoring the greatest intelligence minds in the world isn't going to help any situation.
[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]Yeah, you're right, I am challenging the credibility of one of the five greatest intelligence agencies in the world. Just like Bush should have before committing this country's military resources to a war that it could not win. I have no other proof to provide you other than supposition. Then again, unless you have access to classified Israeli, American, or British dossiers on the subject, you have no other option than supposition either.That is no excuse, though, for me to say that I am right. Indeed, I haven't said that I was right. All I am giving you is my opinion on the matter. Indeed, on at least one occasion, other than this, I have openly admitted I have no evidence other than supposition. That doesn't mean, though, that you are right because I can't provide evidence for my opinion. VandalvideoYour supposition is simply not enough to prove that Mossad, in any way, engaged in a conspiracy with the intent of invading Iraq. You have not even began to meet such a burden of proof. If you can't even do so seven seven years later, how did you expect Bush to do so in the heat of the momment, where the threat of Nuclear war was looming over his shoulder? He made the right choice. He listened to three of the greatest intelligence agencies in the world. Being obtuse and ignoring the greatest intelligence minds in the world isn't going to help any situation.
You're right, my supposition isn't proof that MOSSAD was involved in a conspiracy. I am ready, willing, and able to admit that. I haven't once said I was right, as I have said before. What I post on here, unless I can readily find evidence for it, is solely opinion using whatever form of insane logic I have crafted.
Even though, as you had admitted before, if he had gone to either India or Pakistan looking for another opinion he could have just as easily changed his mind about the invasion?
[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]Yeah, you're right, I am challenging the credibility of one of the five greatest intelligence agencies in the world. Just like Bush should have before committing this country's military resources to a war that it could not win. I have no other proof to provide you other than supposition. Then again, unless you have access to classified Israeli, American, or British dossiers on the subject, you have no other option than supposition either.That is no excuse, though, for me to say that I am right. Indeed, I haven't said that I was right. All I am giving you is my opinion on the matter. Indeed, on at least one occasion, other than this, I have openly admitted I have no evidence other than supposition. That doesn't mean, though, that you are right because I can't provide evidence for my opinion. VandalvideoYour supposition is simply not enough to prove that Mossad, in any way, engaged in a conspiracy with the intent of invading Iraq. You have not even began to meet such a burden of proof. If you can't even do so seven seven years later, how did you expect Bush to do so in the heat of the momment, where the threat of Nuclear war was looming over his shoulder? He made the right choice. He listened to three of the greatest intelligence agencies in the world. Being obtuse and ignoring the greatest intelligence minds in the world isn't going to help any situation.
funny how the greatest minds in the world were all wrong, shows how much they actually know.
Even though, as you had admitted before, if he had gone to either India or Pakistan looking for another opinion he could have just as easily changed his mind about the invasion? tycoonmikeI admitted no such thing, and there is no evidence Pakistan and India were not contacted, and if they had been, there is no proof that they wouldn't have agreed with the other agencies. The facts of the matter are simple. Bush had evidence presented to him by three of the greatest agencies in the world. He had every incentive to act, with the thr eat of nuclear winter in his coutnry. Second guessing your establishment when there is such imminent danger isn't going to help the situation. He simply HAD to act. The combined credibility of these three agencies were astronomical. Unless you can PROVE conspiracy, you don't have a case.
funny how the greatest minds in the world were all wrong, shows how much they actually know. links136They aren't infallible.
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"]The controversies that you have stated are the result of brash submission rather than responsible compromise. There is a stark difference between the two, and one does not lead to the other.Before I begin, I deleted my previous post because I felt it was a bit crude.
I have already specified a time period (from the late 19th century onward) during which such activities would most likely have taken place as well as could have been reported on far more efficiently. Notwithstanding activities during this country's birth, why are there controversies like those I have named before?
tycoonmike
Well then, where do you draw the line between brash submission and responsible compromise?
Concerning legislation, Responsible compromise is when agreements are reached that are intended to better society. Brash submission on the other hand is when agreements are reached that are only intended to better the lives of those who negotiated in the first place.I admitted no such thing, and there is no evidence Pakistan and India were not contacted, and if they had been, there is no proof that they wouldn't have agreed with the other agencies. The facts of the matter are simple. Bush had evidence presented to him by three of the greatest agencies in the world. He had every incentive to act, with the thr eat of nuclear winter in his coutnry. Second guessing your establishment when there is such imminent danger isn't going to help the situation. He simply HAD to act. The combined credibility of these three agencies were astronomical. Unless you can PROVE conspiracy, you don't have a case.Vandalvideo
I don't think so:
France and Japan's credibility aren't anywhere near as high as MI6. They didn't give slamdunk evidence to the contrary either. It would have taken Pakistan or India to sway the president.Vandalvideo Page 19
Yes, Bush had evidence presented to him by the three greatest agencies in the world. Agencies that couldn't have warned him about an offensive action taken by a terrorist organisation against American targets. As I said, it makes no sense, considering this, that Bush didn't call in for another opinion from the other two, as of yet unnamed, intelligence organisations to see if these three were correct.
I was speaking completely figuratively. I did not admit that Bush would have BEEN swayed by Pakistan or India. I'm merely saying that they are on par with the other agencies. Not to mention there is no evidence that they would have disagreed. These people have credibility. they have people on the ground. They are the foremost authority on threats to our nation. You don't just ignore them and wait for a feraking bomb to drop on an American city. You act. You're looking at this from the jaded perspective of current settings.Yes, Bush had evidence presented to him by the three greatest agencies in the world. Agencies that couldn't have warned him about an offensive action taken by a terrorist organisation against American targets.
Give me evidence Bush DID NOT contact Pakistan or India. You just made the claim, NOW GIVE ME EVIDENCE.As I said, it makes no sense, considering this, that Bush didn't call in for another opinion from the other two, as of yet unnamed, intelligence organisations to see if these three were correct.
[QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] The controversies that you have stated are the result of brash submission rather than responsible compromise. There is a stark difference between the two, and one does not lead to the other.-Sun_Tzu-
Well then, where do you draw the line between brash submission and responsible compromise?
Concerning legislation, Responsible compromise is when agreements are reached that are intended to better society. Brash submission on the other hand is when agreements are reached that are only intended to better the lives of those who negotiated in the first place.OK, then, in a hypothetical situation, if such things like the Kyoto Protocol, a piece of international legislation that would help promote a cleaner environment (which I'm pretty certain we all would benefit from) are going to be shot down by lobbyists, especially from industries, would you want to compromise with them?
I'm glad you're not the president of the united states. They have to act in situations of a perceived iminent threat. Walk softly but carry a big stick. International Relations 101.I was speaking completely figuratively. I did not admit that Bush would have BEEN swayed by Pakistan or India. I'm merely saying that they are on par with the other agencies. Not to mention there is no evidence that they would have disagreed. These people have credibility. they have people on the ground. They are the foremost authority on threats to our nation. You don't just ignore them and wait for a feraking bomb to drop on an American city. You act. You're looking at this from the jaded perspective of current settings.Yes, Bush had evidence presented to him by the three greatest agencies in the world. Agencies that couldn't have warned him about an offensive action taken by a terrorist organisation against American targets. Vandalvideo
Give me evidence Bush DID NOT contact Pakistan or India. You just made the claim, NOW GIVE ME EVIDENCE.As I said, it makes no sense, considering this, that Bush didn't call in for another opinion from the other two, as of yet unnamed, intelligence organisations to see if these three were correct.
You're right. I'm glad I'm not the president either because I'd probably be assassinated by either the Democratic or Republican parties.
And yet they couldn't prevent the 9/11 attacks... And don't give me any crap about how it was an unprecedented attack. If these organisations were as good as you claim, they should have easily have taken down the idiots who were training for their bombing runs.
I made no claim. If you had read more closely, I said that it makes no sense that Bush did would not have gotten another opinion from India or Pakistan, NOT, "Bush DID NOT get another opinion from the likes of India or Pakistan."
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"]Concerning legislation, Responsible compromise is when agreements are reached that are intended to better society. Brash submission on the other hand is when agreements are reached that are only intended to better the lives of those who negotiated in the first place.Well then, where do you draw the line between brash submission and responsible compromise?
tycoonmike
OK, then, in a hypothetical situation, if such things like the Kyoto Protocol, a piece of international legislation that would help promote a cleaner environment (which I'm pretty certain we all would benefit from) are going to be shot down by lobbyists, especially from industries, would you want to compromise with them?
There are times when compromise is inherently irresponsible. I'm not suggesting that politicians and other figures of authority should always compromise their beliefs; I'm saying that the inability to even consider compromise is a major folly, and that it is a folly that can be applied to most, if not all political figures associated with third parties that are based solely on a particular ideology.yet they couldn't prevent the 9/11 attacks... And don't give me any crap about how it was an unprecedented attack. If these organisations were as good as you claim, they should have easily have taken down the idiots who were training for their bombing runs. tycoonmikeThese people were splinter groups in our own society. It WAS an unprecedented attack. And I'm not claiming these people are infallible. They make mistakes. I'm not denying that, but just because of a few prior mistakes you don't ignore them when they come telling you that a nuclear bomb is going to drop on your door step and kill one hundred thousand people. Not to mention the fallout affecting millions of people. You cannot wait. If you wait, and you're wrong even ONCE, the ramifications are too large.
Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. There are no reasons in arguing hypotheticals. The facts of the matter are simple. These are the three greatest intelligence agencies in the world. Not to mention there was no evidence to the contrary. If I was in President Bush's shoes at that exact momment in those circumstances, I would have proposed to invade Iraq.I made no claim. If you had read more closely, I said that it makes no sense that Bush did would not have gotten another opinion from India or Pakistan, NOT, "Bush DID NOTget another opinion from the likes of India or Pakistan."
[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]yet they couldn't prevent the 9/11 attacks... And don't give me any crap about how it was an unprecedented attack. If these organisations were as good as you claim, they should have easily have taken down the idiots who were training for their bombing runs. VandalvideoThese people were splinter groups in our own society. It WAS an unprecedented attack. And I'm not claiming these people are infallible. They make mistakes. I'm not denying that, but just because of a few prior mistakes you don't ignore them when they come telling you that a nuclear bomb is going to drop on your door step and kill one hundred thousand people. Not to mention the fallout affecting millions of people. You cannot wait. If you wait, and you're wrong even ONCE, the ramifications are too large.
Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. There are no reasons in arguing hypotheticals. The facts of the matter are simple. These are the three greatest intelligence agencies in the world. Not to mention there was no evidence to the contrary. If I was in President Bush's shoes at that exact momment in those circumstances, I would have proposed to invade Iraq.I made no claim. If you had read more closely, I said that it makes no sense that Bush did would not have gotten another opinion from India or Pakistan, NOT, "Bush DID NOTget another opinion from the likes of India or Pakistan."
You're absolutely right. They do make mistakes. And that is exactly why we should call them into question. These three, or five if you want to count India and Pakistan, organisations made a mistake that cost and is costing us brave souls who shouldn't have even been deployed to Iraq. These organisations also made the mistake of underestimating the power of the terrorist group behind the 9/11 attacks, which again cost us thousands of lives. Men and women whose only crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Any mistake that causes innocents to lose their lives is more than enough justification, at least for me, to call into question the validity of such a statement as "the greatest minds in the intelligent world."
Well, unfortunately for you, the only thing we can argue at this moment in time are hypotheticals. That is a fact because, unless you are a high ranking member of an organisation like MI6 or the CIA, you won't have access to the files, assuming of course that they exist, that would prove either one of us right definitively.
Wow i am just shocked at all the obama love in here. Im sorry but he will not change anything at all. So he closed gitmo GG obama free the people who attacked or tried to set up a plan to attack our country. Next i see obama as i see any other person in politics and that is that he is a liar just like bush, clinton, everybody else in washington in the last 30 years. So Obama=fail just like the last 30 years next president please.....njean777He was quick to release gitmo prisoners but he's a little more reluctant to release people from prison in america who carried the wrong form of vegetation in their pocket.
LOOOOOOOOL Obama won and your election prediction (269-269) got totally OWNED. He's been in power less than a month, and he's already made a few good changes. Give the guy a break. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7857276.stm Quote: "Passed by 244 votes to 188, no Republicans backed the plan" Guess it's republicans holding the world back now.Stumpt25you do realize that many of the stipulations by the stimulus plan will not take effect for nearly a decade right? and are you aware of hte fact that the stimulus bill allocates 200 million taxpayer dollars to fund contraception and abortion in southern africa?
HOW THE **** IS THAT SUPPOSED TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY? The stimulus bill is not stimulating anything, it's social re-engineering, its a waste of scarce taxpayer dollars, and is total bull****. I was absolutely ecstatic and am still pretty ecstatic about not a single house republican backing this bull**** stimulus bill. The Republicans are finally growing a pair.
funny how he talked about government being honest and what not and the guy he appoints to oversee the IRS didn't pay his taxes.shoeman12I'm more suspicious of all the Illinois politicians he brought along. Are we to assume they're the only clean ones to come out of that cesspool?
[QUOTE="shoeman12"]funny how he talked about government being honest and what not and the guy he appoints to oversee the IRS didn't pay his taxes.mysterylobsterI'm more suspicious of all the Illinois politicians he brought along. Are we to assume they're the only clean ones to come out of that cesspool? Illinois? A cesspool? Great. Now every person in Chicago's gonna be putting out a wanted poster with your name on it. Illinois isn't that bad - there are good people there too, y'know. Besides, I have to agree with DDroymac, change doesn't happen overnight. Just because Obama's president doesn't mean he's king or something. There are legal proccesses and hurdles that any guy has to go through to make a difference.
*major facepalm* Not even a month and theres a checklist from mysterylobster...Tjeremiah1988
I concur. It's WAY too early to start this madness. He hasn't even closed Guantanamo yet. Give him time.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment