1,200 -- November 16, 2004 -- 608th day

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Actually, Bow, that WAS one of the reasons. Nice of you to try and revise history before our very eyes. I agree that it wasn't touted as THE primary reason, but it WAS discussed and listed as a reason IN MANY SPEECHES by the President and others.

You're not going to win any points against "lies" by lying yourself.

Jason

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: cwjerome
[ ... ]
Many people like me see the value in changing the landscape of the Middle East, and the good that can come of it long-run. We had the moral right to invade, and it's what's best for this country and the world. And many people like me will offer our immense gratitude and respect for our military men and women who are doing a spectacular job in a most noble endeavor. ...

Pity that's not the reason they used to sell the war to America. Any long-term good that may come from our invasion is irreparably tainted by the lies used to justify it. The end does NOT justify the means.

Please give me a link to one of those speeches ... before Bush attacked. I have no doubt he used this excuse and every other after his lies started to unravel. I do not recall him using "changing the landscape of the Middle East" before then, however. I think you're the one revising history, but you're welcome to prove me wrong.

Thanks,

How would you like to be SERVED? ...nevermind -lets cut to the quotes straight off:

If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond.

Oh, and that was in 2002 by President Bush, but hey - revise away...

Just for good measure - here is another quote from BEFORE the invasion:

As we enforce the just demands of the world, we will also honor the deepest commitments of our country. Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty. And when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation.

But again, you and conjur can continue your blatant revisionism if you wish...

CsG

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Actually, Bow, that WAS one of the reasons. Nice of you to try and revise history before our very eyes. I agree that it wasn't touted as THE primary reason, but it WAS discussed and listed as a reason IN MANY SPEECHES by the President and others.

You're not going to win any points against "lies" by lying yourself.

Jason

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: cwjerome
[ ... ]
Many people like me see the value in changing the landscape of the Middle East, and the good that can come of it long-run. We had the moral right to invade, and it's what's best for this country and the world. And many people like me will offer our immense gratitude and respect for our military men and women who are doing a spectacular job in a most noble endeavor. ...

Pity that's not the reason they used to sell the war to America. Any long-term good that may come from our invasion is irreparably tainted by the lies used to justify it. The end does NOT justify the means.

Please give me a link to one of those speeches ... before Bush attacked. I have no doubt he used this excuse and every other after his lies started to unravel. I do not recall him using "changing the landscape of the Middle East" before then, however. I think you're the one revising history, but you're welcome to prove me wrong.

Thanks,

How would you like to be SERVED? ...nevermind -lets cut to the quotes straight off:

If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond.

Oh, and that was in 2002 by President Bush, but hey - revise away...

Just for good measure - here is another quote from BEFORE the invasion:

As we enforce the just demands of the world, we will also honor the deepest commitments of our country. Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty. And when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation.

But again, you and conjur can continue your blatant revisionism if you wish...

CsG

Those do not prove that Bush had any motive other that the WMD lie to attack Iraq. Broad statements of policy do not equate to specific claims of specific threats, as Bush made in several other speeches, including his 2002 STOU address.

Those aren't even a flesh wound.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Actually, Bow, that WAS one of the reasons. Nice of you to try and revise history before our very eyes. I agree that it wasn't touted as THE primary reason, but it WAS discussed and listed as a reason IN MANY SPEECHES by the President and others.

You're not going to win any points against "lies" by lying yourself.

Jason

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: cwjerome
[ ... ]
Many people like me see the value in changing the landscape of the Middle East, and the good that can come of it long-run. We had the moral right to invade, and it's what's best for this country and the world. And many people like me will offer our immense gratitude and respect for our military men and women who are doing a spectacular job in a most noble endeavor. ...

Pity that's not the reason they used to sell the war to America. Any long-term good that may come from our invasion is irreparably tainted by the lies used to justify it. The end does NOT justify the means.

Please give me a link to one of those speeches ... before Bush attacked. I have no doubt he used this excuse and every other after his lies started to unravel. I do not recall him using "changing the landscape of the Middle East" before then, however. I think you're the one revising history, but you're welcome to prove me wrong.

Thanks,

How would you like to be SERVED? ...nevermind -lets cut to the quotes straight off:

If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond.

Oh, and that was in 2002 by President Bush, but hey - revise away...

Just for good measure - here is another quote from BEFORE the invasion:

As we enforce the just demands of the world, we will also honor the deepest commitments of our country. Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty. And when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation.

But again, you and conjur can continue your blatant revisionism if you wish...

CsG

Those do not prove that Bush had any motive other that the WMD lie to attack Iraq. Broad statements of policy do not equate to specific claims of specific threats, as Bush made in several other speeches, including his 2002 STOU address.

Those aren't even a flesh wound.

You obviously did not read what Bowfinger claimed. You see - when people use the quote function, sometimes it's because they are responding to the "flow" and ideas contained within that "flow".

Bowfinger claimed that Bush did not speak of changing the landscape before the invasion -but those two quotes(from different speeches) most certainly prove Bush did.

CsG

 

[EDoG2K]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Idiot: Do you understand between right and wrong? Good and bad? Certain ideas, concepts and beliefs are better than others? Then think about that for a while and let me know when you're ready for serious conversation. K, thx, gg, nore

Gaard: That's actually a good question. I would say based on evidence, the US is the most moral nation that's ever existed, so doing what serves our interests is by default the moral thing to do. Our ideals, principles, and beliefs -the Western Universals we strive towards- are the most moral notions ever devised based on best possible evidence. Of course we should stand up and defend our beliefs and ideals. That does not entail becoming sacrificial fodder for the world's problems. This is the key point: the US government has a responsibility to the people IN THIS COUNTRY. It's called a social contract, and we agree to give certain powers to government, and it agrees to serve its purpose as stated in the preamble of the Constitution. Nowhere does it say anything about doing those things for the people of the world.

As ugly as it might sound to some, acting in our self interest means acting to protect and promote the universal ideals the US government has promised its citizens. That's why acting in our self interest is moral. Allowing a bloodletting over anything other than that is criminal.

Wow. Just.. wow. You ethnocentric POS. We have been on the winning side of history for the last 200 years and now we have a blank check monopoly on morality in the world? And what's more, it doesn't apply to the world, just to Americans. You love this country so much but YOU are encouraging us to piss off the world, lowering any moral authority we never really had to begin with. Just because YOU like the way we live doesn't make it the way everyone should live and the United States does not have the moral right.

Your icon is black. Are you african-american????? And you seriously believe this??

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Actually, Bow, that WAS one of the reasons. Nice of you to try and revise history before our very eyes. I agree that it wasn't touted as THE primary reason, but it WAS discussed and listed as a reason IN MANY SPEECHES by the President and others.

You're not going to win any points against "lies" by lying yourself.

Jason

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: cwjerome
[ ... ]
Many people like me see the value in changing the landscape of the Middle East, and the good that can come of it long-run. We had the moral right to invade, and it's what's best for this country and the world. And many people like me will offer our immense gratitude and respect for our military men and women who are doing a spectacular job in a most noble endeavor. ...

Pity that's not the reason they used to sell the war to America. Any long-term good that may come from our invasion is irreparably tainted by the lies used to justify it. The end does NOT justify the means.

Please give me a link to one of those speeches ... before Bush attacked. I have no doubt he used this excuse and every other after his lies started to unravel. I do not recall him using "changing the landscape of the Middle East" before then, however. I think you're the one revising history, but you're welcome to prove me wrong.

Thanks,

How would you like to be SERVED? ...nevermind -lets cut to the quotes straight off:

If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond.

Oh, and that was in 2002 by President Bush, but hey - revise away...

Just for good measure - here is another quote from BEFORE the invasion:

As we enforce the just demands of the world, we will also honor the deepest commitments of our country. Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty. And when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation.

But again, you and conjur can continue your blatant revisionism if you wish...

CsG

Those do not prove that Bush had any motive other that the WMD lie to attack Iraq. Broad statements of policy do not equate to specific claims of specific threats, as Bush made in several other speeches, including his 2002 STOU address.

Those aren't even a flesh wound.

You obviously did not read what Bowfinger claimed. You see - when people use the quote function, sometimes it's because they are responding to the "flow" and ideas contained within that "flow".

Bowfinger claimed that Bush did not speak of changing the landscape before the invasion -but those two quotes(from different speeches) most certainly prove Bush did.

CsG

It's time for you to just stop this. I just don't know how I can explain this to you if you simply refuse to recognize the truth. Bush didn't use changing the landscape in the Middle East as an excuse to invade Iraq.

You cannot claim that Bush based his invasion of Iraq, a nation which not only did not attack us first but was incapable of attacking us or even defending itself, on broad statements of principle ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THAT ON SEVERAL OCCASSIONS IN SEVERAL PUBLICALLY AVAILABLE SPEECHES, INCLUDING THE JANUARY 26, 2002 STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS, BUSH USED WMD AS HIS SOLE REASON FOR INITIATING AN ATTACK WHICH HAS NOW CLAIMED OVER 102,216 LIVES, WOUNDED COUNTLESS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS MORE, DESTROYED A NATION, DESTROYED OUR NATION'S CREDIBILITY, AND HAS COST AMERICAN TAXPAYERS SOMEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF 200 BILLION DOLLARS SO FAR.

Bush invaded Iraq based on his, and members of his administration's, false and contrived fantasies about Saddam's huge stockpiles of WMD, WHICH WHEN ASKED, RUMSFELD SAID HE KNEW THE LOCATION OF, and the grave and gathering threat Saddam posed to the United States and the world. IT WAS A LIE. STOP ARGUING ABOUT IT. EVERYONE KNOWS IT WAS A LIE.

The worst lies are those lies you tell yourself. Stop it. It's over. Bush lied to get his invasion. Now we're in a conflict where both we and Iraq have suffered tremendous loss, and the most likely outcome is civil war.

Report: Civil war most likely outcome in Iraq

If we aren't lucky, well, I don't think world will like that exit strategy one bit.


1,216 -- November 18, 2004 -- 610th day
All due to Bush's lies...


This is definitely not a flesh wound. Wake up to the truth. Hold the Bush administration responsible for their monumental mistake. Stop defending the lies.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BBond
It's time for you to just stop this. I just don't know how I can explain this to you if you simply refuse to recognize the truth. Bush didn't use changing the landscape in the Middle East as an excuse to invade Iraq.

You cannot claim that Bush based his invasion of Iraq, a nation which not only did not attack us first but was incapable of attacking us or even defending itself, on broad statements of principle ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THAT ON SEVERAL OCCASSIONS IN SEVERAL PUBLICALLY AVAILABLE SPEECHES, INCLUDING THE JANUARY 26, 2002 STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS, BUSH USED WMD AS HIS SOLE REASON FOR INITIATING AN ATTACK WHICH HAS NOW CLAIMED OVER 102,216 LIVES, WOUNDED COUNTLESS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS MORE, DESTROYED A NATION, DESTROYED OUR NATION'S CREDIBILITY, AND HAS COST AMERICAN TAXPAYERS SOMEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF 200 BILLION DOLLARS SO FAR.

Bush invaded Iraq based on his, and members of his administration's, false and contrived fantasies about Saddam's huge stockpiles of WMD, WHICH WHEN ASKED, RUMSFELD SAID HE KNEW THE LOCATION OF, and the grave and gathering threat Saddam posed to the United States and the world. IT WAS A LIE. STOP ARGUING ABOUT IT. EVERYONE KNOWS IT WAS A LIE.

The worst lies are those lies you tell yourself. Stop it. It's over. Bush lied to get his invasion. Now we're in a conflict where both we and Iraq have suffered tremendous loss, and the most likely outcome is civil war.

Report: Civil war most likely outcome in Iraq

If we aren't lucky, well, I don't think world will like that exit strategy one bit.


1,216 -- November 18, 2004 -- 610th day
All due to Bush's lies...


This is definitely not a flesh wound. Wake up to the truth. Hold the Bush administration responsible for their monumental mistake. Stop defending the lies.

Actually, it's time for you and others to wake up and stop making the claim the WMD was the "sole" justification. It clearly was not - despite your hatred of Bush.

I sense that you have issues with controlling your rage - you might want to seek help with that.

I have not lied to myself - I've been consistent in my position on Iraq for YEARS. Yes, that's right - YEARS before Bush even took office so you can take your tripe elsewhere. We didn't need WMDs for the removal of Saddam to be "just" and just because there weren't big stockpiles, doesn't mean the war was "unjust".

Like I've said - you can continue to tell yourself whatever you wish -but it doesn't make the claim that WMD was the "sole" justification - true by any stretch of your over active imagination.

CsG

PS - note I didn't quote the whole string as you obviously were not discussing what Bow and cwjerome were.

 

[BBond]

OK, that's it. No use. You come back to us some day real soon. We'll be right here in reality if you can find us.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BBond
OK, that's it. No use. You come back to us some day real soon. We'll be right here in reality if you can find us.

I was never in your warped world, and I'm not leaving the real world to join you in your little bubble world.

But it's good to see that you realized you didn't have a clue as to what I was replying to when I quoted Bowfinger's post. I'm sure it was a giant step for you to accomplish. congrats

CsG

 

[EDoG2K]

go FOAD for your 'just war.' Hell no I won't go.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

CAD you've truly reached new lows in your blind partisan loyalty to the Republican party. I think we are all getting tired of serving your ass back to you on a silver platter, you simply refuse to accept the truth.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: conjur


BTW, a bit of news for you re:Kuwait:

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2001/nea/8268.htm

Kuwait is a constitutional, hereditary amirate ruled by princes (Amirs) drawn from the Al-Sabah family. The Al-Sabahs have governed in consultation with prominent commercial families and other community leaders for over 200 years. The 1962 Constitution provides for an elected National Assembly and details the powers of the Government and the rights of citizens, although the Constitution also permits the Amir to suspend any or all of its provisions by decree. Only 14.8 percent of citizens (males over the age of 21) have the right to vote. The most recent general election, held in July 1999, was conducted as provided in the Constitution after the Amir dissolved a gridlocked National Assembly. A by-election was held in December 2000 to fill the seat of a deceased MP. In both cases, the election campaigns were generally considered to be free and fair; however, there were some problems.

Citizens do not have the right to change their Government. Under the Constitution the National Assembly has a limited role in approving the Amir's choice of Crown Prince (that is, the future Amir). If the National Assembly rejects his nominee, the Amir then submits three names, from which the assembly must choose the new Crown Prince. The Amir traditionally has appointed the Crown Prince to be Prime Minister, although this is not mandatory; the Crown Prince appoints the members of the Government. However, the elected National Assembly has demonstrated the ability at times to influence or overturn decisions of the Government. Members regularly require ministers to appear before the full Assembly for formal question sessions when they are dissatisfied with the Government's performance. On occasion, pressure exerted by the National Assembly, including through votes of no confidence, has led to the resignation or removal of ministers. In February Assembly members called for formal questioning procedures against seven Cabinet members; partially as a result, the Government resigned. In accordance with the Constitution, the Amir then asked the Prime Minister to form a new Government, which he did with significant changes at key ministries.

The Government bans formal political parties, and women do not have the right to vote or seek election to the National Assembly. A law promulgated in 1998 bans primaries previously conducted by religious sects and tribes. The Constitution and law provide for a degree of judicial independence; however, the Amir appoints all judges, and renewal of most judicial appointments is subject to government approval.

:shocked: :shocked: :shocked:

Why isn't Bush planning the invasion and liberation of Kuwait???

What the heck, he's right next door. We could have two invasions for the price of one!

Only problem is, we can't afford the price of one.

Freedom just needs its marching orders.

 

[ub4me]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Idiot: Do you understand between right and wrong? Good and bad? Certain ideas, concepts and beliefs are better than others? Then think about that for a while and let me know when you're ready for serious conversation. K, thx, gg, nore

Gaard: That's actually a good question. I would say based on evidence, the US is the most moral nation that's ever existed, so doing what serves our interests is by default the moral thing to do. Our ideals, principles, and beliefs -the Western Universals we strive towards- are the most moral notions ever devised based on best possible evidence. Of course we should stand up and defend our beliefs and ideals. That does not entail becoming sacrificial fodder for the world's problems. This is the key point: the US government has a responsibility to the people IN THIS COUNTRY. It's called a social contract, and we agree to give certain powers to government, and it agrees to serve its purpose as stated in the preamble of the Constitution. Nowhere does it say anything about doing those things for the people of the world.

As ugly as it might sound to some, acting in our self interest means acting to protect and promote the universal ideals the US government has promised its citizens. That's why acting in our self interest is moral. Allowing a bloodletting over anything other than that is criminal.

No, YOU are an i-d-i-o-t.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Fact based on the evidence you trust, 300,000 killed.

"a crime against humanity surpassed only by the Rwandan genocide of 1994, Pol Pot?s Cambodian killing fields in the 1970s, and the Nazi Holocaust of World War II."

The most important thing about Iraq is that, and that it has ended. I honestly don't care if Bush sexed up commonly believed but still murky intel, or certain govts opposed the efforts to remove Saddam, or anything else, the "cocentration camps have been closed." That IMO is the most important issue here, and the most worthwhile and final effect of our war.

Just wanted to add that the Nazi Holocaust of WWII was a drop in the bucket compared the number of Eastern Europeans who vanished once they were put on mile long trains to Siberia by Stalin after the war. To this day we don't have an accurate figure but it's easily 25,000,000+ if not more. A few thousand returned.

That is fact. Sorry but I'm just sick and tired of hearing about how the Jews were so poorly treated when really they didn't get the worst of it. Eastern Europe as a whole did.

K thx.

Back to your regularly scheduled Neocon bashing program.

 

[Sysbuilder05]

"What Lies? If you say WMD I am gonna scream cause he had them and they have not been accounted for would you like to see pictures of when he used them?"


Maybe you should re-read the BS speechs that Bush made when he was trying to sell this disaster. He didn't say we might find a couple of pounds,he said 500 TONS. Hell of alot a difference between a couple of cups full of pesticide and 500 TONS of ANTHRAX. Hell,I probably have more WMD in my garage in the form of pesticides,fungicides than have been found in Iraq. So BTW,where are those WMD??

Bush knew he couldn't let the inspections go on even though Scott Ridder stated over and over that SH didn't have any WMD after the first Gulf War. Bush couldn't have inspectors searching around for another six months or more finding NOTHING,wouldn't bode well for his invasion plans now would it??

Sad part is we wouldn't even be having this discussion if Ronald Reagan and his administration hadn't PROVIDED SH with those chemicals in the first place in the mid 80's. Reagan and Rumsfeld didn't give a damn if SH killed Iranians with those WMD, in fact they incouraged it.

"Don't use the Lives of our proud heroic soldiers as a punchline. Shame on you."

Shame on you and others using these kids and inoccent Iraqi's (46% of the dead are women and children) as fodder for PNAC and CORPORATE profit.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Actually, Bow, that WAS one of the reasons. Nice of you to try and revise history before our very eyes. I agree that it wasn't touted as THE primary reason, but it WAS discussed and listed as a reason IN MANY SPEECHES by the President and others.

You're not going to win any points against "lies" by lying yourself.

Jason

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: cwjerome
[ ... ]
Many people like me see the value in changing the landscape of the Middle East, and the good that can come of it long-run. We had the moral right to invade, and it's what's best for this country and the world. And many people like me will offer our immense gratitude and respect for our military men and women who are doing a spectacular job in a most noble endeavor. ...

Pity that's not the reason they used to sell the war to America. Any long-term good that may come from our invasion is irreparably tainted by the lies used to justify it. The end does NOT justify the means.

Please give me a link to one of those speeches ... before Bush attacked. I have no doubt he used this excuse and every other after his lies started to unravel. I do not recall him using "changing the landscape of the Middle East" before then, however. I think you're the one revising history, but you're welcome to prove me wrong.

Thanks,

How would you like to be SERVED? ...nevermind -lets cut to the quotes straight off:

If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond.

Oh, and that was in 2002 by President Bush, but hey - revise away...

Just for good measure - here is another quote from BEFORE the invasion:

As we enforce the just demands of the world, we will also honor the deepest commitments of our country. Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty. And when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation.

But again, you and conjur can continue your blatant revisionism if you wish...

CsG

Those do not prove that Bush had any motive other that the WMD lie to attack Iraq. Broad statements of policy do not equate to specific claims of specific threats, as Bush made in several other speeches, including his 2002 STOU address.

Those aren't even a flesh wound.

No, DMA/Cad got me on this one. While I agree this is not evidence Bush used "changing the landscape of the Middle East" as justification for invasion, that's not what I said. I was imprecise in my reply, saying only that I did not recall Bush saying this before the invasion. I carelessly left off "as justification for invasion".

My bad, Cad demonstrated my comment was inaccurate. I won't even make him link his quotes to prove they are accurate.

 

[Red Dawn]

Without the inclusion of the false claim of vast stockpiles of WMDs there is no way the Dub would have been able to garner enough support from the American Public for his ill advised excellent adventure in Iraq period!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
CAD you've truly reached new lows in your blind partisan loyalty to the Republican party. I think we are all getting tired of serving your ass back to you on a silver platter, you simply refuse to accept the truth.

:roll: - this discusion has nothing to do with the Republican party - but it was a nice attempt at a diversion.
You keep trying to pin that on me but just because you keep claiming it - doesn't make it true. conjur was proven wrong, and then so was Bowfinger. So I think you should have said: "I think we are all getting tired of you handing our ass back to us on a silver platter, we simply refuse to accept the truth."

But hey, think what you wish if it feeds your hate...

CsG

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
CAD you've truly reached new lows in your blind partisan loyalty to the Republican party. I think we are all getting tired of serving your ass back to you on a silver platter, you simply refuse to accept the truth.

:roll: - this discusion has nothing to do with the Republican party - but it was a nice attempt at a diversion.
You keep trying to pin that on me but just because you keep claiming it - doesn't make it true. conjur was proven wrong, and then so was Bowfinger. So I think you should have said: "I think we are all getting tired of you handing our ass back to us on a silver platter, we simply refuse to accept the truth."

But hey, think what you wish if it feeds your hate...

CsG

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!


Only in Bizarro world, CsG. Only in Bizarro world.


Come back to reality.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Without the inclusion of the false claim of vast stockpiles of WMDs there is no way the Dub would have been able to garner enough support from the American Public for his ill advised excellent adventure in Iraq period!

That may be correct and you can hold that opinion -but what it doesn't change is the fact that there were many justifications for removing Saddam- many of which would stand on their own. Ofcourse sometimes garnering support is tough despite viable justification.

Csg

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Without the inclusion of the false claim of vast stockpiles of WMDs there is no way the Dub would have been able to garner enough support from the American Public for his ill advised excellent adventure in Iraq period!

That may be correct and you can hold that opinion -but what it doesn't change is the fact that there were many justifications for removing Saddam- many of which would stand on their own. Ofcourse sometimes garnering support is tough despite viable justification.

Csg

Misleading the American Public to garmer support for what a minority believes is justifiable action is never right!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
CAD you've truly reached new lows in your blind partisan loyalty to the Republican party. I think we are all getting tired of serving your ass back to you on a silver platter, you simply refuse to accept the truth.

:roll: - this discusion has nothing to do with the Republican party - but it was a nice attempt at a diversion.
You keep trying to pin that on me but just because you keep claiming it - doesn't make it true. conjur was proven wrong, and then so was Bowfinger. So I think you should have said: "I think we are all getting tired of you handing our ass back to us on a silver platter, we simply refuse to accept the truth."

But hey, think what you wish if it feeds your hate...

CsG

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!


Only in Bizarro world, CsG. Only in Bizarro world.


Come back to reality.

Eh? You made the claim that WMD was the "sole" justification - that is incorrect and you already proved it when you posted the JR - not to mention the other forms/ways the multiple justifications were delivered. I just figured we'd use the JR because it is a legal document that even you couldn't dismiss....but I guess I was wrong about you. Must be the lack of marbles...

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Without the inclusion of the false claim of vast stockpiles of WMDs there is no way the Dub would have been able to garner enough support from the American Public for his ill advised excellent adventure in Iraq period!

That may be correct and you can hold that opinion -but what it doesn't change is the fact that there were many justifications for removing Saddam- many of which would stand on their own. Ofcourse sometimes garnering support is tough despite viable justification.

Csg

Misleading the American Public to garmer support for what a minority believes is justifiable action is never right!

But it also doesn't mean the action is "unjust" or right.

CsG

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Actually, it's time for you and others to wake up and stop making the claim the WMD was the "sole" justification. It clearly was not - despite your hatred of Bush.

I have not lied to myself - I've been consistent in my position on Iraq for YEARS. Yes, that's right - YEARS before Bush even took office so you can take your tripe elsewhere. We didn't need WMDs for the removal of Saddam to be "just" and just because there weren't big stockpiles, doesn't mean the war was "unjust".

Like I've said - you can continue to tell yourself whatever you wish -but it doesn't make the claim that WMD was the "sole" justification - true by any stretch of your over active imagination.

Wow, Clap Clap Clap, very good. Here folks, is the perfect example of how to Brainwash.

Very cool :thumbsup:

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

That may be correct and you can hold that opinion -but what it doesn't change is the fact that there were many justifications for removing Saddam- many of which would stand on their own. Ofcourse sometimes garnering support is tough despite viable justification.

"viable justification" Ha ,that's not needed anymore when Brainwashing works so much better.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Without the inclusion of the false claim of vast stockpiles of WMDs there is no way the Dub would have been able to garner enough support from the American Public for his ill advised excellent adventure in Iraq period!

That may be correct and you can hold that opinion -but what it doesn't change is the fact that there were many justifications for removing Saddam- many of which would stand on their own. Ofcourse sometimes garnering support is tough despite viable justification.

Csg

Misleading the American Public to garmer support for what a minority believes is justifiable action is never right!

But it also doesn't mean the action is "unjust" or right.

CsG

I guess that depends on your perspective. It does seem to have been unwise.