Celtic Radio Community [Powered by Invision Power Board]

Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format

Celtic Radio Community > Politics & Current Events > The Thread That Was Spawned From Another Thread

Posted by: SCShamrock 01-Nov-2005, 09:04 AM

QUOTE (Emmet)

SCShamrock, Are you high!? Your denial's so deep it's bordering on a dissasociative disorder. You sound like Dorothy clicking her heels and endlessly repeating "There's no place like home..."

I feel the same about you. I think you are one of the typical "angry Floridians" that couldn't cast a simple ballot, that wants not only the Constitution of the United States to be "interpreted", but also your vote. You are ever clinging to the hanging, dangling, dimpled chad, and so bitterly angry over your "messiah's" failure to acquire the White House, that you will eagerly glom on to any and all myths, placing all blame for Iraq squarely on the shoulders of Bush, Cheney, Rummy, and Rice. It is pitiful to see such anger being misplaced, and by such an intelligent person. Now, according to your own post:

QUOTE

LIE: President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized force against “nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”

LIE: Iraq-Al Qaeda connections “go back a decade.”
George Bush, October 7, 2002

LIE: Saddam Hussein ”is a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaeda. . . . A true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaeda-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and not leave one fingerprint.”
George Bush, November 7, 2002

LIE: “Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda” (George Bush, 2003 State of the Union Address)

But what's the truth here? I mean, you say that Hussein was not threat, and only Bush's proclamation; that he perpetuated lies that resulted in a senatorial "yea" on declaring war in that nation, but what is the truth?

QUOTE

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

The evidence refuting the blame you place on Bus is compelling. You are a hate monger. You and everyone like you attempt at any and all costs, regardless of how silly it makes you look, to demonize Bush because of your anger over the 2000 election. That is how I see it. I'll leave it at that for now, but there is more....much more. Do I think our continued involvement in Iraq is the right thing to do? It depends. I feel much the same as John Kerry when he said "Our troops have served with extraordinary courage and commitment. For their sake, for America's sake, we have to get this right. We have to do everything in our power to complete the mission and make America stronger at home and respected again in the world."

Posted by: Shamalama 01-Nov-2005, 05:57 PM

In the 2000 Presidential election we had the following "other" candidates:

- CONSTITUTION PARTY & INDEPENDENT AMERICAN PARTY: Howard Phillips (Virginia)
- GRASSROOTS PARTY: Denny Lane (Vermont)
- GREEN PARTY & AMERICAN REFORM PARTY: Ralph Nader (Connecticut)
- LIBERTARIAN PARTY: Harry Browne (Tennessee)
- NATURAL LAW PARTY: John Hagelin (Iowa)
- PROHIBITION PARTY: Earl Dodge (Colorado)
- REFORM PARTY & RIGHT TO LIFE PARTY: Pat Buchanan (Virginia)
- SOCIALIST PARTY USA: David McReynolds (New York)
- SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY: James Harris (Georgia)
- WORKERS WORLD PARTY: Monica Moorehead (New Jersey)

And then there are the write-ins:

- Randall A. Venson (Tennessee): Venson says he is a progressive with views very similar to those of Green Party nominee Ralph Nader -- but added that "Nader's brand of progressivism attracts mostly white liberals [and is] not ethnically diverse enough."
- Louie G. Youngkeit (Utah): claims he is "the Heir Apparent of the [late billionaire] Howard R. Hughes' Estate."
- A.J. "Victor" Albritton (Mississippi): An unknown entity for which it appears he is the only party member.
- Paris C.L. Alvarez (Florida): As for an occupation, he describes himself as "Liason to Christ's Father."
- Clifford R. Catton (New York): "US Postal employees had been stealing my mail since 1981 -- suppressing my First Amendment rights to raise up a NEW Christian denomination -- so I decided to be a candidate for President," explains Catton.
- Robert W. Gottier (California): "I have 51 inventions but I do not have enough money to get [even] one patent" -- and lists one of his inventions as "a gravity engine."
- Jack Grimes (Delaware): "Leader and Director of the United Fascist Union." Grimes believes that "the psychic is the next great step in the evolution of humankind on this planet." And it gets more weird: as far as a platform, Grimes wants to address "the dilemmas now facing America and the whole of Western civilization: Democracy, Christianity, International Capitalism, Earth Changes, U.F.O.'s, government cover-ups, and others."
- Donald Sauter (Maryland): He plans to set up 1-900 phone lines and have the American people call and register their views on any action he needs to take. Whatever the majority wants -- even if he disagrees -- he promises to do.
- Thomas "Tom" Wells (Florida): Wells is running for President for the same reason that he founded the ultra-conservative, theocratic party: because -- explains Wells on his campaign site -- God directly spoke to him in his bedroom on December 25, 1994 at 2:00 a.m. and commanded him to do so.
- David E. Wyatt (Florida): While typical candidates claim Reagan, JFK or FDR as heroes, Wyatt writes that "nothing in this world that has had a greater influence on my mind" than the rock band Pink Floyd's movie and album The Wall.
- Michael Mannichewitz (New York): He claims to be a practicing lawyer, judge, "Biblical Agent," a British Secret Service agent, an FBI agent, the Commandant of the US Marine Corps, Admiral of the Navies, a security guard, the owner of the P.T. Barnum & Bailey Circus, the "former King of England, France, Germany, Austria & Italy," a former two-term US President ... and the father of 149 children.
- Martin J. McNally (Illinois): A convicted felon currently serving a federal prison sentence. On his FEC paperwork, McNally even listed his mailing address as "U.S. Penetentiary, Marion, Illinois."
- Storm Bear Williams (North Carolina): Williams praises third parties in general for promoting new ideas. A self-described "Druid" who works as a "lab monkey for a local home healthcare pharmacy" (i.e., a clinical coordinator), he vows to protect the religious rights of "Neo-Pagans in the military."
- Mark "The Whip" Wippler (California): He writes that "the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and the King James Authorized Version 1611 Bible" are his political platform.

OK, with all this said, one of the reasons so many people will brave shark-infested waters while clinging to a life raft to get here is that the US will welcome all types of people, and that everyone has a voice. Even the wackos.

Maybe someone here can use our Freedom Of Speech, not available in so many other countries, and claim to be a practicing lawyer, judge, "Biblical Agent," a British Secret Service agent, an FBI agent, the Commandant of the US Marine Corps, Admiral of the Navies, ...

Laughter, and not anger, is great medicine. And it can easily be found at Celtic Radio.

Posted by: Sonee 06-Nov-2005, 09:02 PM

I'm a bit confused here. (no great surprise, eh?!) Where are the Emmet quotes coming from? I don't remember having read them, did I miss a topic somewhere?

Also, did he mean that Bush DIDN'T send a letter to congress or that the letter itself was a lie? Was he saying that Iraq had no connection to al-Qaeda or that Bush lied about how long they have been in cahoots?

To what does this particular thread refer? Forgive me if I'm sticking my electronic nose into someplace you all would rather it not be, and if so just let me know, but I'd really like clarification so as to add my own thoughts, if applicable!

Posted by: stevenpd 06-Nov-2005, 09:52 PM

Sonee,

There are several threads that the quotes may have come from. They are probably in the political forum. Review of the more active threads, some are long and some are very acrimonious, would reveal not only the participants, but their views as well.

If my memory serves me, Emmet's main thrust, in relation to this thread, is that President Bush lied to go to war with Iraq, the war is not justified and therefore illegal. Contact Emmet directly, if you wish, and get his views.

Questions are encouraged but don't be too surprised at some of the responses though. Some people take their politics very seriously and the forum is not moderated.

Posted by: SCShamrock 07-Nov-2005, 01:01 AM

QUOTE (Sonee @ 06-Nov-2005, 10:02 PM)

Sonee,

The quote at the beginning of this thread is from Emmet. I didn't place his name there because I had initially tried to forestall the intentional corruption of another thread entitled "Military recruiters, parents battle at high school." So that was just a capture of a few lines from that thread, with no real relevance to it other than the vein of the argument. Thanks for showing an interest, and by all means, if you can shed any light onto why Bush is to blame for "lying" his way into war considering the consensus of politicians from both sides of the aisle for nearly a decade, then by all means I would love to hear it. Sadly, the give and take I had hoped for with Emmet concerning this issue has not yet materialized.

Posted by: stoirmeil 07-Nov-2005, 11:37 AM

I'm not saying anything about your privilege of disagreeing with Emmet, but I have to say it makes me uncomfortable that you would dedicate a whole thread to disagreeing with him, including his name and something of an insult in the thread title. I'm afraid I don't think it's appropriate.

Posted by: SCShamrock 07-Nov-2005, 01:00 PM

QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 07-Nov-2005, 12:37 PM)

The thread and the title of it pales in comparison to the things Emmet has said. Anyone that can be so crass and hateful has to be thick skinned. Funny how you are getting offended for him. Perhaps you agree with all his comments and choice of expression???? That would explain a lot.

Posted by: stoirmeil 07-Nov-2005, 01:52 PM

QUOTE (SCShamrock @ 07-Nov-2005, 02:00 PM)

Face value, my friend. I am not comfortable with someone setting up a thread expressly to go after another member of this site by name. And I'm not baitable about my motivation for saying so, nor can you put words in my mouth about it. I think this sets an unwise precedent, and that's that.

Posted by: Sonee 07-Nov-2005, 04:52 PM

Thank you for the clarification steven and shamrock. Apparently I missed reading that particular thread last night and will remedy that shortly. I do understand stoirmeil's point of setting up a thread with the express purpose of attacking another member, but......(there's always a but isn't there?!?!) it has been my experience in other threads (basically every one that Emmet has participated in) that he always resorts to ad hominem attacks on the poster with very little discussion of the post itself or anything the post contains. As was referenced by shamrock's original quote he (meaning Emmet) is forever calling other members foul and derogatory names because of their opinions, and, in some cases, just for reporting facts that they have found elsewhere. I have yet to see him actually argue the merits of a case presented here or to offer up his own facts or opinions about the subject, only his opinions of the poster. He calls people ignorant, stupid, accusing them of having any number of mental or physical disorders, simply because they don't think, feel, or believe the exact same way that he does. That, to me, is more reprehensible, uncomfortable and inappropriate than anything I've seen on this particular thread. Shamrock didn't resort to name calling in this thread, as per the actual quote by Emmet, and I believe at one point shamrock even said that Emmet was an intelligent person! That doesn't sound to me like someone attacking another person, only that person's apparent lack of resonable, rational argument based on a specified topic.

If we are all entitled to our opinions....that's mine!

Posted by: SCShamrock 07-Nov-2005, 06:13 PM

QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 07-Nov-2005, 02:52 PM)

I didn't intend to be coming across as an attack dog. I do wish to attack those points made by Emmet which, let's face it, are shared by many people in this country, much less this forum. I have taken your opinion into consideration, Lynn, and have renamed the thread. I hope it conveys my strong stance without singling anyone out. Thanks.

Posted by: sniper 07-Nov-2005, 06:33 PM

Stormeil owes me a new irony meter.

Posted by: Shadows 07-Nov-2005, 06:38 PM

QUOTE (SCShamrock @ 07-Nov-2005, 08:13 PM)

Well done friend.... that is more like it!