MonteZuma Posted March 13, 2006 Report Posted March 13, 2006 Well. He didn't invade the 'Middle East'. He invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. Afghanistan and Iraq are in the Middle East. That's all i was referring to; either definition is valid. Invading "parts" of the Middle East is still invading the Middle East.Not realy, but it doesn't matter. Necessary by what motives? Lust for vengeance or a genuine threat?Partly They never found Osama Bin Laden, was he actually in Afghanistan at all? (i might have missed where we got the proof of this in the news but other than him being there "at some point" he could have spent the majority of his time anywhere.)He was base in Afghanistan. No doubt about it. That is enough of a reason to want to get rid of the taliban. I've not heard anything about this? Is that a question or a statement? An Iranian Muslim in America drove an SUV into a crowd of students at a popular campus gathering point at some university in America i can't remember the name of. He has told the police that he used the SUV to inflict maximum damage, he had been planning the attack for months, and had carried out the attack in revenge for Western policies and the Muslims who have perished. The incredible thing is this wasn't called a terrorist attack (to hush up the media who will catch on to the keyword: terrorist) when this is no different to 9/11, except he used a car instead of a plane here.A statement. I can't remember the story at all. Humpf. But my questions are was this purely vengeance? Is that the right way to go about invading an entire country? Was Afghanistan chosen because they were an easy target?It probably was because Afghanistan was an easy target and it probably was a matter of vengeance. Another word for it though might be justice. Al Qaida needed to be eliminated - or at least damaged as much as possible. That happened. I have no compassion or sympathy for people that think its great to fly planes full of innocent people into buildings full of innocent people. Retribution needed to be swift and effective. Things might not have turned out perfectly and Bin laden might have escaped, but that's life. US intelligence seems to suck and the US military isn't a perfect tool. Was the wiping out of opium exports by the Taliban a secondary reason for Bush to invade?No.
Dr.Worthless Posted March 14, 2006 Report Posted March 14, 2006 So, your opinion isn't based of any facts and the justification for it is that the president is keeping the facts from you? Do you realize how completly !@#$%^&*ing stupid that sounds?
SeVeR Posted March 14, 2006 Report Posted March 14, 2006 So, your opinion isn't based of any facts and the justification for it is that the president is keeping the facts from you? Did i say that? No. My opinion is based on facts. The things i cited in the previous post are facts that form my opinion of Bush's motives for the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. I'm not saying my opinion is a fact! I'm not justifying anything by saying Bush is keeping the facts from me. I'm saying that i'm not likely to get proof of my opinion any time soon. Where did "justification" come from? If you want to learn a little about making gross-generalisations on this forum then read your own ridiculous post back to yourself.
Dr.Worthless Posted March 14, 2006 Report Posted March 14, 2006 Possibly, i don't have anything to link Bush to the drugs-business. I only know of Bush's dealings to understand he is a business man above all-else, i only know about the rebuilding of the drugs-outflow from Afghanistan since the invasion, and i only know about the companies affiliated with members of the Bush Adminstration who make packet-loads of money off the war. I only know a bit about how a democracy in Iraq will help America's oil interests in that country for years to come. The pieces come together to form my opinion, but you're certainly right that i don't have any proof. With Bush doing everything in his power to stop anyone getting proof i don't estimate getting it anytime soon (if it exists). If you have no proof that bush has links to the drug-business, and you admit that your opinion isn't based on facts (proof), how is what I said incorrect? My opinion is based on facts. The things i cited in the previous post are facts that form my opinion of Bush's motives for the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. I'm not saying my opinion is a fact!You can't jump to C from A, like I said. A = drug production increased since invasion. B = Bush has links to the drug business (which you said you have no proof of. C = Bush invaded afghanistan for drugs and profit. Stop while you're ahead dude.. Where did "justification" come from? If you want to learn a little about making gross-generalisations on this forum then read your own ridiculous post back to yourself. In order for me to assign any value to your opinion, it needs facts or proof to back it up. The justification you use for not having those facts to tie Bush to drugs is "With Bush doing everything in his power to stop anyone from getting proof". So what you are saying is, Bush is keeping the facts hidden that would make your opinion correct. /boggle. You've shown me that your opinions aren't based on anything but the "gross generalisations" you accuse me of using. Opinions not based upon facts are worthless, so I'll continue to file your opinion in the "not worth my time or consideration" category. Good day.
SeVeR Posted March 14, 2006 Report Posted March 14, 2006 If you have no proof that bush has links to the drug-business, and you admit that your opinion isn't based on facts (proof), how is what I said incorrect?My opinion is based on facts but i don't have any proof that bush has links to the drugs business. That's why my opinion is... an opinion, and not a fact. You can't jump to C from A, like I said. A = drug production increased since invasion. B = Bush has links to the drug business (which you said you have no proof of. C = Bush invaded afghanistan for drugs and profit. That would be a very good method of ascertaining C as a fact. However all i need is A to form an opinion about C. Stop while you're ahead dude..Hey, you started calling me "!@#$%^&*ing stupid" so i'm going to see this through to the end and point out every dumb!@#$%^&* comment you make. In order for me to assign any value to your opinion, it needs facts or proof to back it up. The justification you use for not having those facts to tie Bush to drugs is "With Bush doing everything in his power to stop anyone from getting proof". So what you are saying is, Bush is keeping the facts hidden that would make your opinion correct. /boggle Notice after i said that i put in brackets "if it exists" referring to the possible existence of proof, scroll up and you'll see it. Here it is: With Bush doing everything in his power to stop anyone getting proof i don't estimate getting it anytime soon (if it exists). Is this justification? If Bush has gone to Afghanistan for the drugs business then he would of course try and cover it up, i'm just stating the obvious. I'm not using this as a excuse to back up my opinion, i'm not saying that my opinion is true because of this, its not justification. I put the "if it exists" in for good reason and i'm glad now because it proves i'm not using it as justification because i'm not saying it is certain to have happened in the first place. You've shown me that your opinions aren't based on anything but the "gross generalisations" you accuse me of using.No, because i haven't said its a fact. Nowhere in your statement did i see the a hint of uncertainty. Opinions not based upon facts are worthless I guess you missed all the facts i used to form my opinion of Bush's motives. I put them all in one nice little paragraph... actually you quoted that paragraph "not worth my time or consideration" category. Well you seem to be veering in the opposite direction with this post. Have a good one and try not to throw !@#$%^&* at the fan, it doesn't help.
MonteZuma Posted March 14, 2006 Report Posted March 14, 2006 Yeah. While I disagree with SeVeR about some of his conclusions, we are never going to have access to all of the facts, including many facts that might be said to cons!@#$%^&*ute 'proof'. We can all analyse the available facts and formulate opinions with varying degrees of certainty !@#$%^&*ociated with those opinions. Makes sense to me. Sorta.
LearJett+ Posted March 14, 2006 Report Posted March 14, 2006 You can't just speculate. There have been no statistics based on Bush's drug lust whatsoever. I believe that Saddam Hussein was the anti-Christ and Bush knew this. Therefore, he invaded Iraq, which is really inhabited by aliens, to stop him before The Rapture. You don't know it yet, but Bush saved the world. Just wait until the facts come out.
MonteZuma Posted March 14, 2006 Report Posted March 14, 2006 You can't just speculate.Sure you can. In fact we must speculate, otherwise we learn nothing. We enquire about nothing. The best journalists speculate all the time. There have been no statistics based on Bush's drug lust whatsoever.I agree. That is why I don't support SeVeR's conclusions. But to assume that we peons have access to facts that can tell us what was in GWBs mind when he said 'ok boys, lets kick some Iraqi !@#$%^&*', is fantasy. All we can do is look at the available facts and formulate our own opinions. Most of us find SeVeR's conclusions to be codswallop, but he is en!@#$%^&*led to his opinion.
Dr.Worthless Posted March 15, 2006 Report Posted March 15, 2006 I mean ok, if the ground your standing on is "I can develop an opinion based on anything" then thats cool, good for you. Though, you better get used to people ignoring your opinion =). THREAD CLOSED!
SeVeR Posted March 15, 2006 Report Posted March 15, 2006 I don't believe unequivocally that Bush went to Afghanistan to revitalise the drugs business. I was throwing it out there as an opinion and making sure everyone knew about the 95% eradication of opium crops by the Taliban shortly before 9/11. I have also formed the opinion (separately) that Bush is a very well-connected business man and in the case of the ports deal is seemingly putting business above security although there are varying opinions on how much of a threat there would be. I then also have the fact that some of Bush's friends have profited quite nicely from the war on terror. Then there's the fact the opium production has gone up greatly with no intervention by the US forces a full 5 years after the invasion begun. Things just added up to form my opinion and i wanted others to know about the facts that formed the opinion. I certainly don't think its likely that Bush is linked to the drugs business, i just think that the probability he is has to be enough for consideration.
Recommended Posts