Lies Lies Lies - Closed

Message boards : Politics : Lies Lies Lies - Closed
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 . . . 18 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Qui-Gon
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 2940
Credit: 19,199,902
RAC: 11
United States
Message 704668 - Posted: 27 Jan 2008, 0:50:19 UTC - in response to Message 704641.  
Last modified: 27 Jan 2008, 1:00:19 UTC

Weapons inspectors were in Iraq until a day or two before the start of hostilities.
Iraq was not violating anything other than squatting over top of Bush's friend's oil fields and being strategically placed to position military bases within easy reach of all Asia.

This is not true. If you insist it is, then give proof. If you have no proof, then you are lying.
The Bush administration has been lecturing the American people about Iran's desire to produce an atomic weapon and their support of terrorist groups, just like the speeches on Iraq.

Were I an Iranian citizen, I'd be running for the hills.

Were I the Iranian Minister of Defence, I'd be weighing options in case the American president stepped up his war talk.

If the war talk escalates I see no option for Iran other than a first strike because it'll be the only strike they'll get before being overwhelmed.

Don't lay all that after the fact mumbo jumbo about Iraq violating any treaties on us either.
The day Bush was sworn in he started making plans to invade Iraq.
Sept 11 was simply a good excuse in his mind, nothing else.

This is not true. If you insist it is, then give proof. If you have no proof, then you are lying.
Reason 1 for invading
Iraqi involvement in Sept 11
Reason 2
Nuclear program
Reason 3
WMD's
Reason 4
Saddam kills his own people
Reason 5
Spread democracy

Gimme a break

Gimme a break, yourself. Here is what the president said about the reasons to go to war back in October, 2002. He does not say Iraq was involved in 911. He said we did not know how far along they were on nukes. He said what all the intelligence agencies believed, at the time, were Saddam's WMD capabilities and talks about his use of WMD in the past. Show me where Bush said anything that he knew was was false but was deliberately presented as being true anyway. I don't know where you got your list of five reasons for going to war, but you are clearly wrong about them.

As for violating treaties, what do you disagree with? Do you think Saddam did not invade Kuwait? Do you think he did not sue for peace? Do you think there were no conditions placed on him for the cease-fire? You call all this "mumbo jumbo" but don't say why. If you are simply going to parrot your ignorant, liberal anti-war sources, you must at least give reasons why the things I have laid out are wrong, instead of simply calling them "mumbo jumbo". If you don't have any facts to support your opinion, your opinion is worthless. I have given you historical facts--where are yours?
ID: 704668 · Report as offensive
Profile Qui-Gon
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 2940
Credit: 19,199,902
RAC: 11
United States
Message 704671 - Posted: 27 Jan 2008, 1:09:40 UTC - in response to Message 704651.  
Last modified: 27 Jan 2008, 1:17:01 UTC

Everyone knows Bush lied about WMDs..I don't care how much you argue about dictionary definitions..that's just a refuge of someone who thinks that arguing a point on technicalities is the same as actually making a valid contribution to a discussion.

Here you go Robert NEWSMAKER: HANS BLIX

Now you are the final arbiter of what a word in English means? We're supposed to believe Bush lied because "you sez so"? You may think that making up stuff has weight in this argument, but that is only evidence of your inability to grasp reality. "Everyone knows" is not proof. And in fact, not "everyone" knows, since there are some in this thread and on these boards who don't think Bush lied . . . BECAUSE THEY KNOW WHAT A LIE IS! They know what a lie is because the definition is in the dictionary. Sheesh.

From your link:

JIM LEHRER: So was it clear to you and your inspectors and clear to others that you talked to at the time that there probably were no weapons of mass destruction there to be found?

HANS BLIX: No, that is going too far. I mean we...there were lots of question marks. You see, there were lots of things that were unaccounted for. We knew that they had had quantities of mustard gas and anthrax and other things, and they could not tell us with any evidence of where it had gone. Therefore, it was labeled unaccounted for. However, there was a tendency on both the U.S. side and the U.K. side to equate unaccounted for with existing. And that was an error.
ID: 704671 · Report as offensive
Profile Jeffrey
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 704687 - Posted: 27 Jan 2008, 1:58:05 UTC - in response to Message 704668.  

This is not true. If you insist it is, then give proof. If you have no proof, then you are lying.

hmm... ;)
It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .
ID: 704687 · Report as offensive
Profile Atlantian Technologies_Mr Young

Send message
Joined: 6 Apr 02
Posts: 71
Credit: 109,721
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 704696 - Posted: 27 Jan 2008, 2:42:50 UTC
Last modified: 27 Jan 2008, 2:46:40 UTC

hi guys, just thought i would add my tuppence worth.

Ok, i dont know the specifics of bush's life as he is your leader not mine, but the general impression we, your special friends across the pond get of the man is that he is a bit of a cowboy with a speciality in quick fire policy making. the iraq war has been the downfall of our primeminister blair, and has caused a lot of misery for the planet...

i suspect that blair and bush had a nice little chat, probably with too much whiskey, and said how nice it would be to 'fix' the worlds troubles, a quick seige here and a quick 'shock and awe' there, and they can be written down in the book of history along side the likes of churchill.

didnt quite go like that tho did it=/

these middle eastern problems we are facing can be split into 3 distinct issues.
iraq - al quieda - islam..

well our troubles with islam in general are the consequence (among others) of the other two issues.

as to al quieda (appologies, i probably am spelling it wrong), well there is always some nasty little group out there looking for its path to glory and we certainly gave them a target for their wrath =(

finaly we have iraq.. all i hear is WMD this and NBC that..the option to invade that country with conventional armies should never have arrisen.
when all is said and done, we the west and the majority of iraq itself had a problem with saddam. if i was the leader of the UK (or USA for that matter) i would not have even tried this whole hype about how vunerable we are and how dangerous that country is...i would have gone the humanitarian route and simply explained to my people that he is a very evil man that kills his own people and we would like to remove him..then i would have held a referendum, if it failed i would keep appealing to the populous again and again till they said yes...then i would have just authorised a massive (massive by the standards used in covert terms) covert operation to assasinate saddam..no destruction no civilian death e.t.c now i know a lot of people would say that just creates a power vacuum and yes that is true, but its not like the iraq people WANT to be ruled over by this kind of person...sooner or later with their own desire for good leadership, backed up by our removal of those tyrants willing to risk their own life by harming their citizens the country would self right..all the iraq people ever needed from us is to dislodge the tyrant(s) that have grown too strong for themselves to remove.

using this style of liberation, backed up with regular contact with the lesser leaders ( to understand what the people want), we may never of had a problem with 'islam' at all...now we are just starting to bully our way through the situation. prime example is the iran situation.

wait america has the ability to nuke us all in a few mins, should we pre empt them? no...abolish ALL nbc warfare or let all genuine nations have the right to build it too..IF they decide to use them againt us the 'allies' then we will just blast them from existence....in short friends..if it isnt freedom and liberty for all nations then it isnt really freedom at all.
ID: 704696 · Report as offensive
Profile Knightmare
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Aug 04
Posts: 7472
Credit: 94,252
RAC: 0
United States
Message 704736 - Posted: 27 Jan 2008, 4:54:08 UTC - in response to Message 704351.  

This is off topic, but I saw a reference to Michigan in the post below. I think the Democrates are cutting off a limb by excluding Michigan the way they did. I would call it disenfranchisement. I appears the Democrates don't have anything to offer a rust belt state like Michigan. Same goes for the Dems and Florida. I think the Dems don't want to win the Presidency. They seem not go give a hoot about states in trouble.


No. The Dems don't give a rat's ass about the problems here...but guess what...neither do the Republicans.

As I have stated...Romney won here because he told people exactly what they wanted to hear. Nothing more.

That, combined with the family legacy in this state led to him winning the primary.

To that I say....so what. He'll do the same as every other candidate will do...say what people want to hear....then get elected and do exactly nothing.



Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained


Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome
ID: 704736 · Report as offensive
Profile Qui-Gon
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 2940
Credit: 19,199,902
RAC: 11
United States
Message 704737 - Posted: 27 Jan 2008, 4:54:27 UTC - in response to Message 704687.  

This is not true. If you insist it is, then give proof. If you have no proof, then you are lying.

hmm... ;)

That's right Jeffrey. Bush did have proof of what he said about WMD. It came from the intelligence services who are supposed to give him that kind of reliable information. In this case they were wrong, but that does not make his claim a lie, it makes it a mistake.
ID: 704737 · Report as offensive
Profile purplemkayel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Jul 02
Posts: 1904
Credit: 55,594
RAC: 0
Australia
Message 704745 - Posted: 27 Jan 2008, 5:24:53 UTC - in response to Message 704646.  

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/jan-june04/blix_3-17.html

-snip-

PS: Can anyone tell me how to make these links active?


Here Robert

 remove the spaces on either side of the = sign
[url = http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/jan-june04/blix_3-17.html]put your description or link here[/url]

Once those spaces are gone it looks like put your description or link here

Also, when you post to thread there is a link that says "Use BBCode tags to format your text" above the Rules.





Happy birthday Calm Chaos!!! Terrible twos?


Calm Chaos... are you feeling it yet?
ID: 704745 · Report as offensive
Profile Jeffrey
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 704752 - Posted: 27 Jan 2008, 5:57:52 UTC - in response to Message 704737.  

That's right Jeffrey. Bush did have proof of what he said

Now where did I put that dictionary... ;)
It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .
ID: 704752 · Report as offensive
Profile Misfit
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Jun 01
Posts: 21804
Credit: 2,815,091
RAC: 0
United States
Message 704763 - Posted: 27 Jan 2008, 7:19:53 UTC - in response to Message 704752.  

That's right Jeffrey. Bush did have proof of what he said

Now where did I put that dictionary... ;)

I thought you burned it as heresy.
me@rescam.org
ID: 704763 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 704782 - Posted: 27 Jan 2008, 9:06:34 UTC

The American administration came to power with the express intention of 'stabilising' Iraq (for trade purposes and to ensure that they could not be held to ransom by oil sanctions) while Saddam was their puppet they did not mind what he did to his people. As soon as it became apparent he was no longer under American control he had to be removed.

The US government knew full well he had no WMDs...they just needed an excuse to do what they wanted to. Again..it is no secret that there were plans to invade Iraq long before 9/11.

They also knew full well that Al Quida where nothing to do with Iraq (in fact at the time they were based in Saudi Arabia but it would have been economically disastrous for them to invade Saudi Arabia as that country is propping up the American economy)

How many Americans were led to believe that the invasion of Iraq was to do with Al Quida? How many Americans were led to believe that the invasion of Iraq was to do with human rights? (yet the Soudis continue to be one of the worse abuses of human rights totally unchecked by their buddies in the US government) How many Americans were led to believe that Saddam had WMDs when there was a lot of evidence to suggest that he didn't and anything he did have was no threat to anyone beyond his borders?

The misleading of the populace to take them to war was a lie...no matter how you might twist and wriggle about it and wave the dictionary in the air as if the manner the lie was propagated makes it ok...much like Thatcher claiming that she wasn't lying about privatisation she was "being economical with the truth". Anyone who backs up that argument with dictionary definitions as if that makes it ok is being disingenuous and deliberately missing the point in order to deflect criticism and get the 'opponent' on the wrong foot.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 704782 · Report as offensive
Profile Mike Special Project $75 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 Feb 01
Posts: 34240
Credit: 79,922,639
RAC: 80
Germany
Message 704811 - Posted: 27 Jan 2008, 13:09:12 UTC
Last modified: 27 Jan 2008, 13:10:35 UTC

Long story short.
Why there is no plan to invade north korea?
Because there is no oil.


With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.
ID: 704811 · Report as offensive
Profile Robert Waite
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 07
Posts: 2417
Credit: 18,192,122
RAC: 59
Canada
Message 704829 - Posted: 27 Jan 2008, 14:32:39 UTC - in response to Message 704737.  

This is not true. If you insist it is, then give proof. If you have no proof, then you are lying.

hmm... ;)

That's right Jeffrey. Bush did have proof of what he said about WMD. It came from the intelligence services who are supposed to give him that kind of reliable information. In this case they were wrong, but that does not make his claim a lie, it makes it a mistake.


Qui-Gon, if you choose to believe that the administration didn't pressure the CIA into submitting false, or at best, enhanced intelligence to be used in the road to war, well, that's up to you.
The facts have been shown to be the opposite of the Republican administration`s claims and the whole world knows it.

I also find it almost inconceivable that virtually every high ranking official in your government is a liar and a profiteer.

The truth is that they are.
ID: 704829 · Report as offensive
Profile Robert Waite
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 07
Posts: 2417
Credit: 18,192,122
RAC: 59
Canada
Message 704832 - Posted: 27 Jan 2008, 14:37:58 UTC - in response to Message 704737.  

This is not true. If you insist it is, then give proof. If you have no proof, then you are lying.

hmm... ;)

That's right Jeffrey. Bush did have proof of what he said about WMD. It came from the intelligence services who are supposed to give him that kind of reliable information. In this case they were wrong, but that does not make his claim a lie, it makes it a mistake.


Then Bush should apologize to the world and surrender himself to the Hague to face justice.

Of course, these would be the actions of an honourable man and this nose picking cartoon of a man certainly isn`t that.
ID: 704832 · Report as offensive
Profile Jeffrey
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 704964 - Posted: 27 Jan 2008, 19:30:28 UTC - in response to Message 704832.  

this nose picking cartoon of a man

Now now... There's no need to bring up the Muhammad cartoons again... ;)
It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .
ID: 704964 · Report as offensive
Profile kaseychief
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Dec 07
Posts: 1643
Credit: 480,503
RAC: 1
United States
Message 705097 - Posted: 28 Jan 2008, 2:07:02 UTC

BOTTOM LINE........NOT TO FURTHER YOUR DISPUTES IN THIS THREAD
I PERSONNALLY WOULD RATHER HAVE OUR TROOPS IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN
KILLING TERRORISTS, THAN HAVE THE TERRORISTS HERE KILLING US.
YOU MUST REMEMBER THAT LESS THAN 28% OF ELIGIBLE VOTERS VOTED FOR BUSH
IN THE LAST ELECTION. IF YOU WANT TO PLACE THE BLAME FOR THE CURRENT
SITUATION, BLAME JOE & JANE CITIZEN FOR NOT VOTING.
ID: 705097 · Report as offensive
Profile Misfit
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Jun 01
Posts: 21804
Credit: 2,815,091
RAC: 0
United States
Message 705117 - Posted: 28 Jan 2008, 3:05:42 UTC - in response to Message 704811.  

Long story short.
Why there is no plan to invade north korea?
Because there is no oil.

Because North Korea has nukes.
me@rescam.org
ID: 705117 · Report as offensive
Profile Atlantian Technologies_Mr Young

Send message
Joined: 6 Apr 02
Posts: 71
Credit: 109,721
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 705128 - Posted: 28 Jan 2008, 3:21:12 UTC - in response to Message 705117.  

Long story short.
Why there is no plan to invade north korea?
Because there is no oil.

Because North Korea has nukes.


exactly!!!!!
America is just a big ol' self rightious bully, and they dont like to pick on countries that have teeth...that why they so desperate to prevent others from having them..its not really because they are afraid they are actually gonna be used against us, by some random foreign leader who suddenly decides one day he is gonna commit suicide by nuking the west...even tyrants, maybe especialy tyrants desire to continue living.

im not saying our country is any better. with ppl like blair in power we have become a nation of sycophants, i may not have agreed always with thatcherite policy but she truly was the 'iron lady'
ID: 705128 · Report as offensive
Profile Misfit
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Jun 01
Posts: 21804
Credit: 2,815,091
RAC: 0
United States
Message 705135 - Posted: 28 Jan 2008, 3:31:33 UTC - in response to Message 705128.  

Long story short.
Why there is no plan to invade north korea?
Because there is no oil.

Because North Korea has nukes.

exactly!!!!!

I'm still waiting on my shipment of Iraq oil. Haven't seen hide nor hair of it.
me@rescam.org
ID: 705135 · Report as offensive
Profile Robert Waite
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 07
Posts: 2417
Credit: 18,192,122
RAC: 59
Canada
Message 705164 - Posted: 28 Jan 2008, 5:24:05 UTC - in response to Message 705135.  



I'm still waiting on my shipment of Iraq oil. Haven't seen hide nor hair of it.


It's being left in the ground until the Alberta tarsands are depleted.
But don't worry, oil profits are still growing.
ID: 705164 · Report as offensive
Profile Robert Waite
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 07
Posts: 2417
Credit: 18,192,122
RAC: 59
Canada
Message 705165 - Posted: 28 Jan 2008, 5:36:21 UTC - in response to Message 705097.  
Last modified: 28 Jan 2008, 5:36:57 UTC

BOTTOM LINE........NOT TO FURTHER YOUR DISPUTES IN THIS THREAD
I PERSONNALLY WOULD RATHER HAVE OUR TROOPS IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN
KILLING TERRORISTS, THAN HAVE THE TERRORISTS HERE KILLING US.
YOU MUST REMEMBER THAT LESS THAN 28% OF ELIGIBLE VOTERS VOTED FOR BUSH
IN THE LAST ELECTION. IF YOU WANT TO PLACE THE BLAME FOR THE CURRENT
SITUATION, BLAME JOE & JANE CITIZEN FOR NOT VOTING.



kaseychief, the Sept 11 attacks were performed by Saudis.
Bin Laden wanted American bases out of Saudi Arabia and Bush quietly did that.
Old Bin boy got what he wanted and I suspect there will be no further actions by him in spite of some grainy and somewhat dubious video releases.

Any acts of terror in future will probably be due to our involvement in countries with no connections to the original attacks in New York and Washington.
I say our involvement because there are Canadian troops fighting in Afghanistan.
Thankfully, Prime Minister Chretien stood against the pressure to send Canadians into Iraq.

What would you do if some foreigners invaded your country?
Would you, as a citizen simply accept the occupation or would you fight back with every method and means at your disposal?

In the eyes of the occupation force, any citizen fighting back against them would be a terrorist. It has to work both ways when you call people terrorists.
ID: 705165 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 . . . 18 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Lies Lies Lies - Closed


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.