When the Euro was weak, europeans blamed the USA, now that it is strong, the same...

[Wilt]

HydroBlunt-nice name,

How am I supposed to lose credibility with my opening statement? For you to have a point, you would have to have prooven Bush lied. Bush didn't make the case the UN. The war was not authorized because of the testimony of George Bush. Colin Powell presented intelligence evidence; evidence that supported the belief of western intelligence at the time that Iraq had WMD. It was up to the representatives to react to it. I'm not sure what your point is or how you can have one. You're refuting that Bush didn't lie. To prove your point; answer these. How do you lie when you didn't speak? How do you lie when playing audio recordings and showing satellite photos? You can go line by line through my statement to find inaccuracies, but when you believe you've found some, have facts to prove your point. I can say 6+8 = 18 all day, that doesn't make it true. I can wish it, I can even feel it in my heart, it's still not true. I'm supposedly a sucker because I don't think the Iraq war started simply because George Bush lied...and the world bought it. LMAO. Where's your evidence that he did? You blaming faggot, haha-pun intended, you just want a scapegoat so you can feel better.

Wilt

 

[bigbiscuit]

Quote from Cesko:
Europeans kicking Muslims out of Europe with help of U.S. military, do you really believe it to be a realistic scenario?? In today's PR enviroment??? Keep dreaming!

jeesus....... No more absurd than a Muslim European government.

 

[dcraig]

Quote from Wilt:

HydroBlunt-nice name,

How am I supposed to lose credibility with my opening statement? For you to have a point, you would have to have prooven Bush lied. Bush didn't make the case the UN. The war was not authorized because of the testimony of George Bush. Colin Powell presented intelligence evidence; evidence that supported the belief of western intelligence at the time that Iraq had WMD. It was up to the representatives to react to it. I'm not sure what your point is or how you can have one. You're refuting that Bush didn't lie. To prove your point; answer these. How do you lie when you didn't speak? How do you lie when playing audio recordings and showing satellite photos? You can go line by line through my statement to find inaccuracies, but when you believe you've found some, have facts to prove your point. I can say 6+8 = 18 all day, that doesn't make it true. I can wish it, I can even feel it in my heart, it's still not true. I'm supposedly a sucker because I don't think the Iraq war started simply because George Bush lied...and the world bought it. LMAO. Where's your evidence that he did? You blaming faggot, haha-pun intended, you just want a scapegoat so you can feel better.

Wilt

You surely don't believe all this nonsense.

Iraq's WMDs were destroyed after the first Gulf War, principally due to the work of the UN weapons inspectors.

There was no evidence of WMDs in Iraq prior to the 2003 war. None.

Waving test tubes of salt at the UN does not constitute evidence. And neither do satellite photos of so call "mobile chemical/biological weapons labs" that turned out to be just meterological stations releasing weather balloons. The UN weapons inspectors found no evidence of any proscribed nuclear activities, and the worst they had to say was that there was some unanswered questions.

The truth of the matter is the so called "intelligence" was cooked. In fact it was little other than propaganda to support the march to war. The Blair govt got in the act too with it's infamous dossiers which have been thoroughly discredited. There was no yellowcake from Niger. And the list goes on. It was a web of deception and lies.

An then there was the attempt to link 9/11 to Iraq - a link that never existed. More untruths.

For any head of state to initiate a war leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands on such a flimsy basis could at best be called criminally negligent, if one believed that they merely acted on "intelligence".

But it really is not credible that Bush and Blair did not know the score - that the intelligence was cooked and Iraq posed no immediate threat to any country. And that makes them candidates for the category of war criminal.

 

[maxpi]

Quote from dcraig:

You surely don't believe all this nonsense.

Iraq's WMDs were destroyed after the first Gulf War, principally due to the work of the UN weapons inspectors.

There was no evidence of WMDs in Iraq prior to the 2003 war. None.

Waving test tubes of salt at the UN does not constitute evidence. And neither do satellite photos of so call "mobile chemical/biological weapons labs" that turned out to be just meterological stations releasing weather balloons. The UN weapons inspectors found no evidence of any proscribed nuclear activities, and the worst they had to say was that there was some unanswered questions.

The truth of the matter is the so called "intelligence" was cooked. In fact it was little other than propaganda to support the march to war. The Blair govt got in the act too with it's infamous dossiers which have been thoroughly discredited. There was no yellowcake from Niger. And the list goes on. It was a web of deception and lies.

An then there was the attempt to link 9/11 to Iraq - a link that never existed. More untruths.

For any head of state to initiate a war leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands on such a flimsy basis could at best be called criminally negligent, if one believed that they merely acted on "intelligence".

But it really is not credible that Bush and Blair did not know the score - that the intelligence was cooked and Iraq posed no immediate threat to any country. And that makes them candidates for the category of war criminal.

Yeah but Saddam acted like he had WMD's!! C'mon, a tough guy like Saddam, you gotta believe him!!

 

[Cesko]

Quote from maxpi:

Yeah but Saddam acted like he had WMD's!! C'mon, a tough guy like Saddam, you gotta believe him!!

There were political reasons why he pretended to have WMD.
Bottom line, anybody who says Bush lied confuses facts with assumptions.

 

[MajorUrsa]

Quote from dddooo:

I don't think it's jealousy per se, after a thousand years of being the most important and powerful continent on the planet the Europeans are simply having a very hard time accepting that they are now completely irrelevant. I mean really, on every single international issue the entire world always desperately wants to know what the US is planning to do. No one in the world gives a shit as to what the Spanish PM or the king of Norway or Brussels bureaucrats are going to do. If this is not the definition of irrelevancy, I don't know what is.

What you said goes for any country in the world, currently. Only recently China and Russia are heard (again).
Also, the EU is currently the biggest 'country' in the world, economically speaking. And remember that this was achieved after a devastating war nearly broke the continent. This was achieved in only 60 years, with generous help form our US-friends.

One has to admire how the, basically, white trash purged by Europe, made themselves a new and prosperous home, but lets not disregard the Europeans that stayed and resurrected their continent time and again.

 

[Wilt]

11-26-07 10:43 AM



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from dcraig:

You surely don't believe all this nonsense.

Iraq's WMDs were destroyed after the first Gulf War, principally due to the work of the UN weapons inspectors.

There was no evidence of WMDs in Iraq prior to the 2003 war. None.

Waving test tubes of salt at the UN does not constitute evidence. And neither do satellite photos of so call "mobile chemical/biological weapons labs" that turned out to be just meterological stations releasing weather balloons. The UN weapons inspectors found no evidence of any proscribed nuclear activities, and the worst they had to say was that there was some unanswered questions.

The truth of the matter is the so called "intelligence" was cooked. In fact it was little other than propaganda to support the march to war. The Blair govt got in the act too with it's infamous dossiers which have been thoroughly discredited. There was no yellowcake from Niger. And the list goes on. It was a web of deception and lies.

An then there was the attempt to link 9/11 to Iraq - a link that never existed. More untruths.

For any head of state to initiate a war leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands on such a flimsy basis could at best be called criminally negligent, if one believed that they merely acted on "intelligence".

But it really is not credible that Bush and Blair did not know the score - that the intelligence was cooked and Iraq posed no immediate threat to any country. And that makes them candidates for the category of war criminal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dcraig, you have put up a good post.

You still support the thesis that Bush lied, but you put Blair in the same category and at least cite some reasons. They were the MAIN propogators of the actual war and the case can be made that given the rest of the coalition's lackluster contributions, their support/belief was tacet at best. At least we're off blaming one guy. The part that makes your perspective hard to believe without evidence is the vastness of the conspiracy that you need to be right. For Bush and Blair to get away with their "lie", their intelligence agencies would have had to, the senate/House of Commons would have had to as well. Those men can't declare war on their own, so if the conclusions drawn by the evidence were stretched so thin to be unbelievable as you claim, then all who agreed with them must have had the same end goal. If that's true, it really the negates the point of whether it was lies or not. Bush got the extreme majority of the senate to support him despite the purported flimsy evidence. That's huge bi-partisan support when many of them already hated Bush. They wouldn't have done that if they thought it would been bad for their constituents because that would jeopardize their office. These people are smart enough to stay in office. Politicians care about staying in power more than anything else. They remember what happened in Vietnam. They wouldn't risk everything to support a guy they didn't even like.

So, I remain unconvinced that they were not truly convinced this had to be done. If the intelligence was as "cooked" as you say it was, the fact that it was successful across the entire required spectrum renders that point moot. If Bush lied, they all lied, and should all be hung, preferably from the hook hands of brave U.S. servicemen who lost arms. Noone has the right to turn around and blame Bush because after they were legimately convinced or participated in the "lie," they don't like the way things turned out. They're either conspirators or "blaming faggots." Neither are credible.

Given the number of people required to perpetrate this "lie," I don't see any substantial evidence that it could really be a "lie."

Wilt

 

[acronym]

Wilt, im certain your point that the global war cabinet was comprised of half witted retards, boneheads and hawkish, highly priveleged fuckwits has been acknowledged, your now arguing semantics.

 

[Wilt]

I never said anything like that. That's the exact opposite of my point. It's those that want to pass this whole thing off on a "lie" that think that. I say intel was probably incorrect. These people are too smart to just be duped. Review JSSPMK's post on page 9. He's the one suggesting other leaders are children being led into war by a strong personality aka Bush. I want the people claiming they were "lied to" (they weren't) to be responsible for the decisions they made and stop pretending it's all George Bush's fault. Lefty civilians and politicians included.

Wilt

 

[JSSPMK]

Quote from Wilt:

Review JSSPMK's post on page 9. He's the one suggesting other leaders are children being led into war by a strong personality aka Bush.

Wilt

Hey, I didn't say that. I meant WE (the people) are as children.