The Iraq Thread 2

[Major Fubar 0]

FS, just an honest question (not trying to be sarcastic): when you say "heresay" do you mean "hearsay", as in second hand information, or do you mean "heresy", as in an affront to your religion?

[FSPilot 0]

RalphWiggum

Quote[/b] ]proof?

"maybe".  I was speculating, don't have proof either way.  Then again, neither do you.

now you're going to point to the claims about uranium from nigeria right?

well because they're pointing it out and not covering it up means that... well it means there's no coverup.

Major Fubar

Quote[/b] ]FS, just an honest question (not trying to be sarcastic): when you say "heresay" do you mean "hearsay", as in second hand information, or do you mean "heresy", as in an affront to your religion?

Typo, I meant to say "hearsay".

...

<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>heretic</span>

[ralphwiggum 6]

RalphWiggum

Quote[/b] ]proof?

"maybe".  I was speculating, don't have proof either way.  Then again, neither do you.

now you're going to point to the claims about uranium from nigeria right?

well because they're pointing it out and not covering it up means that... well it means there's no coverup.

where's proof of that?

[FSPilot 0]

RalphWiggum

Quote[/b] ]where's proof of that?

Proof of what? That you don't have any proof either, that you're going to point to the uranium claims, that they're not covering it up or that there's no coverup?

[FallenPaladin 0]

The proof that Bush and his goons lied is everywhere. TV, news magazines, internet,... .

Just take what he and his staff said back then and take what they say now.

[FSPilot 0]

I didn't claim that Bush lied. Why would I provide evidence to something I didn't say?

Are you even reading this?

Purple monkey dishwasher?

[brgnorway 0]

I didn't claim that Bush lied.  Why would I provide evidence to something I didn't say?

Are you even reading this?

Purple monkey dishwasher?

Hey comical ali - your reasoning is as credible as the thief in chief's arguing. Is it really so hard for you to accept the fact that Bush lied? If you can't manage to see through the charade - can't you at least admit that the "evidence" that paved way for US opinion to go to war was a result of "very selective and uncritical" use of information?

[theavonlady 2]

Purple monkey dishwasher?

He looks sorta green on my monitor.

[theavonlady 2]

Is it really so hard for you to accept the fact that Bush lied?

Being easy to accept doesn't make it true. To the best of my knowledge, no one in the general public knows whether Bush lied, unlike knowing that Clinton did in his time.

You can assume and distrust all you want. That doesn't stamp your opinion as the truth.

[brgnorway 0]

Is it really so hard for you to accept the fact that Bush lied?

Being easy to accept doesn't make it true. To the best of my knowledge, no one in the general public knows whether Bush lied, unlike knowing that Clinton did in his time.

You can assume and distrust all you want. That doesn't stamp your opinion as the truth.

Well, I generally don't claim to be the source of truth, but then again it doesn't take much creativity to understand this either:

Quote[/b] ]can't you at least admit that the "evidence" that paved way for US opinion to go to war was a result of "very selective and uncritical" use of information?

[FallenPaladin 0]

Purple monkey dishwasher?

He looks sorta green on my monitor.

...

[theavonlady 2]

Purple monkey dishwasher?

He looks sorta green on my monitor.

...  

Your avatar! Your avatar!

[theavonlady 2]

Well, I generally don't claim to be the source of truth, but then again it doesn't take much creativity to understand this either:

Quote[/b] ]can't you at least admit that the "evidence" that paved way for US opinion to go to war was a result of "very selective and uncritical" use of information?

There definitely is a big difference between a US President outrightly lying to lead his country into a war of any kind versus an intelligence snaffu (blunder).

How much was blunder still remains to be seen. There were enough intelligence and policy missteps years ago that lead up to 9/11 as well.

[Tamme 0]

Are you guys reminded of anyone by any chance....it just struck me:

That guy should really have his own talkshow.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]That guy should really have his own talkshow.

He already has. FS is his coverup name here on the board

[USSoldier11B 0]

Quote[/b] ]You can assume and distrust all you want. That doesn't stamp your opinion as the truth.

Avon is my hero(ine) <3

Do you have any daughters?

[Longinius 1]

"Being easy to accept doesn't make it true. To the best of my knowledge, no one in the general public knows whether Bush lied, unlike knowing that Clinton did in his time"

Thats the wonderful thing about plausible denial I think. The President can always say he didnt know, he didnt lie because that was the info that someone gave him.

The fact still remains, someone DID lie, or make up information, or falsify reports. Call it what you want, someone wasnt playing by the rules, thats for sure.

[theavonlady 2]

The fact still remains, someone DID lie, or make up information, or falsify reports. Call it what you want, someone wasnt playing by the rules, thats for sure.

It could be any of those things you mentioned. It could also be poor judgements, assessments and post-9/11 paranoia.

Don't get me wrong. If nothing eventually turns up, I think the entire decision making process should be investigated thoroughly. If anyone lied and such lies lead to government policy decisions, they should be put on trial. If definitive blame can be assigned to agencies or individuals for sub-standard performance, those directly responsible should be asked to resign or relieved of their positions.

However, if there were no such lies and if the information gathered was legitimate, then what's happened is simply history.

The truth may lie somewhere between those two scenarios. Right now, who knows?!

[theavonlady 2]

Avon is my hero(ine) <3

Do you have any daughters?

Yes. Do I have to place them in a Federal protection program now?

[turms 0]

Well we can say that comical ali wasnt lying when he said that no US tanks are in Baghdad. He was simply giving information provided to him by his superiors... :P

[Tovarish 0]

Well we can say that comical ali wasnt lying when he said that no US tanks are in Baghdad. He was simply giving information provided to him by his superiors... :P

Even though the tanks were clearly visible in the distance and a journalist interviewing him pointed them out . That was classic.

[theavonlady 2]

Well we can say that comical ali wasnt lying when he said that no US tanks are in Baghdad. He was simply giving information provided to him by his superiors... :P

Even though the tanks were clearly visible in the distance and a journalist interviewing him pointed them out . That was classic.

Even his hair color was a lie.

[walker 0]

Hi all

If no WMD is found then both the Bush and Blair adminstrations will have to resign or face impeachment or in the case of Blair a vote of No Confidence it leads to new elections.

Whether an administration lies or is stupid (it was all a mistake equals stupid) the result is the same. A wrong decision such as going to war for the wrong reason is sufficient.

To those who say well it was all about regime change fine; I have a list of many countries that need regime change even the Bush administration is suspect on those grounds since it it could be argued to have rigged an election. The UK government before the recent Northern Ireland Agreement could be there as could Israel, France for its Foriegn Policy in the Pacific etc, etc. Why has no one invaded Zimbabwe, North Korea, Burma, Siria, The UAE, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, China? All have Regimes which need changing. Heck why has the US and UK not invaded themselves for invading another soverign country on a trumped up pretext? As you see the regime change argument is a slipery slope.

And if the WMD is not found there will be a hell of a lot of reperations due to IRAQ. The US and UK can say goodbye to any tax cuts or health care improvements for the next decade. If the worlds police man smashes up the wrong countries home they had better have good public liability insurance.

Or maybe the first port of call to be sued are the members of the administrations. I hear many of the Bush adminstration are quite rich I dont think Blair is the same league but his being reduced to a council house in Totenham rather than nice houses in the country and Islington is not out of the question

The US may not have signed up to the world court but the UK has I think and any way I dont think most of the criminal governments who are idicted did either.

I would suggest Bush and Blair pull their fingers out FIND THE WMD or get the sack.

Kind Regards Walker

[bn880 5]

However, if there were no such lies and if the information gathered was legitimate, then what's happened is simply history.

Even so, how do you attempt to turn around the damage that has been done? Iraq is in shambles, hundreds of people have died, and there is still a battle ensuing... like Walker said, this can not be forgiven for the adminstrations, US and UK, this is beyond comprehension what happend.

[Longinius 1]

"And if the WMD is not found there will be a hell of a lot of reperations due to IRAQ. The US and UK can say goodbye to any tax cuts or health care improvements for the next decade. If the worlds police man smashes up the wrong countries home they had better have good public liability insurance."

How is anyone going to get America to pay anything, when they wont even pay the UN what they owe in membership fees?