# who here still thinks we weren't lied to about entering iraq



## blu (Sep 26, 2009)

I was wondering who were still thinks the American people were given factual information before invading Iraq or that Bush wasn't going to start a war no matter what the results of WMD searches were? If you think factual information was given regarding WMDS, iraq-9/11 link, or anything else please list it.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 26, 2009)

blu said:


> I was wondering who were still thinks the American people were given factual information before invading Iraq or that Bush wasn't going to start a war no matter what the results of WMD searches were? If you think factual information was given regarding WMDS, iraq-9/11 link, or anything else please list it.


how about no one was lied to, just we had piss poor intel on the issue


----------



## rdean (Sep 26, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > I was wondering who were still thinks the American people were given factual information before invading Iraq or that Bush wasn't going to start a war no matter what the results of WMD searches were? If you think factual information was given regarding WMDS, iraq-9/11 link, or anything else please list it.
> ...



That's one.

Next?


----------



## blu (Sep 26, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > I was wondering who were still thinks the American people were given factual information before invading Iraq or that Bush wasn't going to start a war no matter what the results of WMD searches were? If you think factual information was given regarding WMDS, iraq-9/11 link, or anything else please list it.
> ...



do things like this change your mind:

Bush-Blair 2003 Iraq memo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

specifically the parts about going no matter if there were WMDs or not? and do you really think our intel was that bad that it got hte 9/11 link and WMDs wrong? it sounds just like the vietnam war justification (lie) that people still believe


----------



## Si modo (Sep 26, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > I was wondering who were still thinks the American people were given factual information before invading Iraq or that Bush wasn't going to start a war no matter what the results of WMD searches were? If you think factual information was given regarding WMDS, iraq-9/11 link, or anything else please list it.
> ...


Right.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 26, 2009)

blu said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > blu said:
> ...


you mean that fake "downing street memo"?


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 26, 2009)

rdean said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > blu said:
> ...


thanks for showing you are a fucking idiots once again


----------



## RadiomanATL (Sep 26, 2009)

Being lied to and deceived are not necessarily the same thing.

So were we lied to? No.

Deceived? Yup.


----------



## rdean (Sep 26, 2009)

Si modo said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > blu said:
> ...



Two?


----------



## rdean (Sep 26, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> Being lied to and deceived are not necessarily the same thing.
> 
> So were we lied to? No.
> 
> Deceived? Yup.



Three?


----------



## Si modo (Sep 26, 2009)

For anyone who is interested:  





> ....
> 
> The War
> 
> ...


The Crisis in the CIA


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 26, 2009)

rdean said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Being lied to and deceived are not necessarily the same thing.
> ...


keep proving me right for calling you a moron


----------



## BasicGreatGuy (Sep 26, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > I was wondering who were still thinks the American people were given factual information before invading Iraq or that Bush wasn't going to start a war no matter what the results of WMD searches were? If you think factual information was given regarding WMDS, iraq-9/11 link, or anything else please list it.
> ...



While I agree with your post Dive, I also think that former President Bush would have gone in regardless. As you know, he is big on the idea of spreading Democracy and being the world police.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 26, 2009)

BasicGreatGuy said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > blu said:
> ...


this is true
he was
but we have no proof he lied, we know that a lot of the intel was severely wrong.

i supported going in, only wished it had been 12 years sooner when we had 500,000 troops already there and were already half way to Baghdad


----------



## rubberhead (Sep 26, 2009)

rdean said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > blu said:
> ...




I think that the Bush admin. has all but admitted that they lied to us.  There is only a lunatic fringe who still believes that the original intelligence was not at least incorrect, at worst deliberately manipulated.


----------



## BasicGreatGuy (Sep 26, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> BasicGreatGuy said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


I don't buy into the Bush lied and people died mantra.  I didn't agree with going in as you know. I disagreed with former President Bush on a lot of points. In the area of foreign policy, I will give him credit for being consistent even though I disagreed with him.


----------



## rdean (Sep 26, 2009)

Come on people.  Get real.

George Bush Sr. didn't invade Iraq because he understood the cost of "nation building".  Does anyone think he never discussed it with his son?  Never?

Bush Jr. on the other hand, saw this as an opportunity to "bring democracy" to the Middle East.  His "talking to God", his use of the word "Crusade".  This guy lived a privileged life.  He never understood how the world works.  He was tricked into the invasion by neocons who were blinded by oil and dollar signs.

Iraq had gone through two huge disasters.  They lost most of a generation from an eight year war with Iran and most of their military was destroyed by us driving them out of Kuwait.  

They had no industry and no manufacturing.  They had oil and dates.

The "evidence" from the CIA was manufactured because of pressure from the Bush administration.  

No Proof Connects Iraq to 9/11, Bush Says - Los Angeles Times

Bush had no connection, ever, between Saddam and Bin Laden.  Especially funny is that Bin Laden referred to Saddam as a "socialist".  Isn't that funny?

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/34715.pdf

Bush saw himself as the "great decider".  He saw this opportunity and took it.  If he had understood the difference between Sunni and Shiite and understood the complexities, he might have actually succeeded - in Afghanistan, simply because he had the entire world behind him.

Iraq was under sanctions.  Every single weapon was purchased from western and eastern countries, including us.

Iraq was composed of Kurds (a sect of Sunni), Sunni, Christian and Shiite.  It was controlled by an iron hand.  Saddam never denied weapons because he never believed Bush would invade (his father didn't) and if he showed weakness, his people might revolt.

Saddam killed members of his own family to stay in power.  He would never invite a threat to his power, Bin Laden, into his country.  That's crazy.

The press knew all of this and could have reported it at any time, but they were so afraid if this administration (you are with us, or with the terrorists), they didn't.

My feeling is that it's hard to point blame.  America voted Bush into office.  He was under qualified for the job.  It was way over his head.  The Republican party has been taken over by the extreme right wing.  Anti education.  Anti science.  This was the "perfect storm".  Can it really be someone's "fault" if they were stupid to begin with?


----------



## Modbert (Sep 26, 2009)

Things never really change:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaS2bRGS86c]YouTube - George Carlin - We Like War[/ame]

Sometimes during that rant, one could swear he is referring to 2003/today.

As to why we shouldn't of gone into Iraq, I'll let this man explain:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9YuD9kYK9I[/ame]


----------



## Si modo (Sep 26, 2009)

rdean said:


> ....
> 
> The Republican party has been taken over by the extreme right wing.  ...  Anti science.  ....


Without addressing the rest of the bullshit in your post, stop playing at knowing what you are talking about:

Here is a summary of the federal expenditures for scientific research and development during the time that president was in office*:

Eisenhower [R] -- 177% increase in federal expenditures for scientific R&D

Kennedy [D] (during his tragically short time in office) -- 25.9% increase

Johnson [D] -- 18.9% increase

Nixon [R] -- 17.1% decrease

Ford [R] -- 1.41% increase

Carter [D] -- 9.90% increase

Reagan [R] -- 43.1% increase

GHW Bush [R] -- 11.2% decrease

Clinton [D] -- 5.82% decrease

GW Bush [R] -- 23.8% increase

So, it appears that, regardless of the party in office, some cuts occurred and some fabulous increases occurred. No matter how much one may want to vilify one party, it doesnt appear as if the facts will support it. My apologies for any dashed hopes of making this a partisan issue.




* Data obtained from here: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbri...17/figure3.xls

There's more.  

2004 R&D Expenditures (to academia, for example; in millions of dollars)

DHHS --- 14,083.356
NSF --- 3,231.597
DoD --- 2,477.556
NASA --- 1,098.480
DOE --- 940.268
USDA --- 760.970

2005

DHHS --- 15,869.380
NSF --- 3,553.672
DoD --- 2,614.734
NASA --- 1,130.168
DOE --- 1,055.302
USDA --- 814.067

2006 

DHHS --- 17,052.404
NSF --- 3,567.011
DoD --- 2,718.166
DOE --- 1,118.454
NASA --- 1,046.891
USDA --- 868.891

nsf.gov - SRS Federal R&D Funding Down in FY 2007 - US National Science Foundation (NSF)

This is the post-doubling period, too. There is plenty of data available from the NSF. There is not much partisan about the spending trends in the sciences.


----------



## BasicGreatGuy (Sep 26, 2009)

Si modo said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



You have a lot of nerve posting such rational and objective data. How dare you.


----------



## rdean (Sep 26, 2009)

Si modo said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



Man, you are just too funny for words.  You know how they say, "Liars figure and figures lie"?  You are the example.

First off, Kennedy doesn't count because his budget was actually used for "science".  The next three highest:

Eisenhower [R]
Reagan [R]
GW Bush [R]

These guys weren't spending for "science", they were spending on science to develop weapons.  Yea, weapons of mass destruction.  Like "Stars Wars" and other crap that doesn't work.

To call Bush a "friend of science" is laughable.  There was an enormous exodus of scientists from the Bush administration because he tried to pressure them into changing their data to match administration policy.  In other words, "to lie".  This has been reported in every science and engineering magazine for his entire eight years.  Get real.  Stop fooling yourself.  Get your head out of your...

USA Today Examines Relationship Between U.S. Scientists, Bush Administration

Scientists: Bush Distorts Science

The Bush administration has distorted scientific fact leading to policy decisions on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry, a group of about 60 scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, said in a statement on Wednesday. 

The Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent organization, also issued a 37-page report, "Scientific Integrity in Policymaking," detailing the accusations. The statement and the report both accuse the Bush administration of distorting and suppressing findings that contradict administration policies, stacking panels with like-minded and underqualified scientists with ties to industry, and eliminating some advisory committees altogether. 

The scientists listed various policy issues as being unfairly influenced by the administration, including those concerning climate change, mercury emissions, reproductive health, lead poisoning in children, workplace safety and nuclear weapons. New regulations and laws are necessary to fix the situation, the statement says. 

Dan Froomkin - Bush v. Science - washingtonpost.com

Bush Says Creation 'Not Incompatible' With Evolution - Political News - FOXNews.com


----------



## rdean (Sep 26, 2009)

BasicGreatGuy said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Read my post.  You could learn something.


----------



## Si modo (Sep 26, 2009)

rdean said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...


LMAO.  Don't play at shit you don't know a thing about.  It's cringeworthy.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 26, 2009)

Bush, Cheney, et al were operating from a dark mindset from the get go, even before 9-11.  Driven by adventurist political philosophy, the bingo gang were looking for a reason to extend American military influence into the Middle East in such a way to guarantee our energy sources there and to terrify our enemies.  "Democracy" and "freedom" were follow on arguments because WMDs were not found.

This has been the worst American foreign policy disaster in our history.  BHO is slowly healing it.  The progress on Iran and the probablility eventually of meaningful sanctions are the proof in the pudding.


----------



## rdean (Sep 26, 2009)

Si modo said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



That's you that hasn't a clue.  You didn't even read anything.  Scientists complained about Bush for his entire 8 years.  Bush even wanted to push "magical creation".


----------



## Si modo (Sep 26, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Bush, Cheney, et al were operating from a dark mindset from the get go, even before 9-11.  Driven by adventurist political philosophy, the bingo gang were looking for a reason to extend American military influence into the Middle East in such a way to guarantee our energy sources there and to terrify our enemies.  "Democracy" and "freedom" were follow on arguments because WMDs were not found.
> 
> This has been the worst American foreign policy disaster in our history.  BHO is slowly healing it.  The progress on Iran and the probablility eventually of meaningful sanctions are the proof in the pudding.


Worst?  Not in my opinion, but your first paragraph is reasonable and applies to the Clinton administration as well.


----------



## BasicGreatGuy (Sep 26, 2009)

rdean said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



What does former President Bush's belief in creation have to do with the issue of war? Nothing.  More deflection.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Sep 26, 2009)

Rdead, word of advice:

Stop.

Yer embarrassing yerself.




(b-b-b-b-b-but they didn't spend money on the right KIND of science.....lol).


----------



## Si modo (Sep 26, 2009)

rdean said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...


Your assumptions about what I've read or not are idiotic.  I've seen all that you've presented on government spending in the sciences before and far, far more.  I've discussed this topic with far brighter and better informed partisans than you. I've presented data from the sources themselves as I prefer to think for myself.  You prefer to have others think for you.  That's lazy.

This has nothing to do with the intel in Iraq.  You brought up your irrelevant off-topic emotional idiocy; I presented facts - not someone else's thoughts.  Now, make a post that actually addresses the topic of the thread and do try to focus on that topic.  I'd be oh so pleased to continue this conversation about governement spending in the sciences with you elsewhere.  I am not convinced that you could even focus on that, but it would be my pleasure to do so.


----------



## mudwhistle (Sep 26, 2009)

RadiomanATL said:


> Being lied to and deceived are not necessarily the same thing.
> 
> So were we lied to? No.
> 
> Deceived? Yup.



Yes but whom was the deceiver?

That is debatable.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Sep 26, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Being lied to and deceived are not necessarily the same thing.
> ...



Damn near everyone involved. All after their own personal agenda.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Sep 26, 2009)

blu said:


> I was wondering who were still thinks the American people were given factual information before invading Iraq or that Bush wasn't going to start a war no matter what the results of WMD searches were? If you think factual information was given regarding WMDS, iraq-9/11 link, or anything else please list it.



There were no claims of Iraq and 9/11. Further there were no claims that Iraq was an imminent threat. We invaded because, and this has been proven, Iraq was a threat in the future. France, Russia and China were working to lift sanctions and Saddam Hussein was poised to resume Chemical and Biological mass production as well as nuclear research for the bomb.


----------



## rubberhead (Sep 26, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > I was wondering who were still thinks the American people were given factual information before invading Iraq or that Bush wasn't going to start a war no matter what the results of WMD searches were? If you think factual information was given regarding WMDS, iraq-9/11 link, or anything else please list it.
> ...



Here is an example of the lunatic fringe that I was talking about.  Yes, some people still believe that this war made sense.  What does one say to someone who is so deluded.  There are many nations who may be a threat in the future.  This is why we must return our forces to our borders and start enforcing our immigration policy and actually defend our country for a change.


----------



## Si modo (Sep 26, 2009)

rubberhead said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > blu said:
> ...


I'm wondering if you've even read any of the analyses of the IC, domestic and international, leading up to the invasion.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 26, 2009)

Si modo said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Bush, Cheney, et al were operating from a dark mindset from the get go, even before 9-11.  Driven by adventurist political philosophy, the bingo gang were looking for a reason to extend American military influence into the Middle East in such a way to guarantee our energy sources there and to terrify our enemies.  "Democracy" and "freedom" were follow on arguments because WMDs were not found.
> ...



Both paragraphs are dead on, and Clinton's admin was far more successful than Bush's with foreign policy.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 26, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > I was wondering who were still thinks the American people were given factual information before invading Iraq or that Bush wasn't going to start a war no matter what the results of WMD searches were? If you think factual information was given regarding WMDS, iraq-9/11 link, or anything else please list it.
> ...



Retired is revising history, not accurately recounting it.  Let's move on.


----------



## Si modo (Sep 26, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Hmmm.  As 'worst' is purely subjective, there is no such thing as 'dead on'.  But if that makes you feel better, I'm all for the emotional feeling good.  And, I find it interesting that you assume that my post implied that the Clinton admin was worse at foreign policy than that of GWB's.


----------



## BasicGreatGuy (Sep 26, 2009)




----------



## rdean (Sep 26, 2009)

BasicGreatGuy said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



I made the statement:

My feeling is that it's hard to point blame. America voted Bush into office. He was under qualified for the job. It was way over his head. The Republican party has been taken over by the extreme right wing. Anti education. Anti science. This was the "perfect storm". Can it really be someones "fault" if they were stupid to begin with?

Then it was someone else who laughably suggested Bush was "pro science".  

So what could be the connection?  If you are so stupid that you believe in "mystical creation", then it's extremely possible that you could be misled into attacking another country without provocation and without understanding the consequences.

Besides, what we did to Iraq wasn't "war".  We leveled a country. It takes two sides for a war. 

War:  a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.

There was no war "between" us.


----------



## Si modo (Sep 26, 2009)

rdean said:


> BasicGreatGuy said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...


Too afraid to start your own thread on government spencing on the sciences?  Focus on the fucking topic at hand.  I realize most concepts challenge you, but I am hoping the simplicity of this one will actually appeal to one of your two brain cells.


----------



## BasicGreatGuy (Sep 26, 2009)

rdean said:


> BasicGreatGuy said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



The highlighted part makes sense if you believe logical fallacies are valid and substantive foundations of reasoned thinking. 

As to 'underqualified,' former President Bush met the constitutional requirements to be President.  It doesn't matter how much previous experience a person may have in various fields. Once a person gets to the White House, they are a Presidential virgin. 

If you believe former President Bush was "underqualified," President Obama fits that bill as well. 

What is the purpose of debating whether or not former President Bush lied, unless you are seeking to have him brought up on charges of impeachment. I haven't seen you make that case in this thread.  So, what is your point?  Like it or not, we are there.  President Obama is carrying on with the same kind of mantra.


----------



## rdean (Sep 26, 2009)

rubberhead said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > blu said:
> ...



So true.

How can you argue with people who suggest that "imagination" is basis enough for warfare?
We think a country with no manufacturing and industry, a country that is internally divided
will someday attack us to, to, to what?  Take us over?


----------



## rdean (Sep 26, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Bush, Cheney, et al were operating from a dark mindset from the get go, even before 9-11.  Driven by adventurist political philosophy, the bingo gang were looking for a reason to extend American military influence into the Middle East in such a way to guarantee our energy sources there and to terrify our enemies.  "Democracy" and "freedom" were follow on arguments because WMDs were not found.
> 
> This has been the worst American foreign policy disaster in our history.  BHO is slowly healing it.  The progress on Iran and the probablility eventually of meaningful sanctions are the proof in the pudding.



Actually, I believe that Bush really thought he was going to bring "democracy" to the Middle East.  He was convinced that he was the "chosen one" and that newly freed Iraqis were going to welcome him with open arms and cheering crowds.  He wouldn't be dodging shoes, but rather dodging flowers and a bit or two of hard candy.

Unfortunately for us, it didn't work out that way.  I firmly believe that Bush feels everything is the fault of the Iraqis who are ungrateful at being "liberated".


----------



## goldcatt (Sep 26, 2009)

rdean said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Bush, Cheney, et al were operating from a dark mindset from the get go, even before 9-11.  Driven by adventurist political philosophy, the bingo gang were looking for a reason to extend American military influence into the Middle East in such a way to guarantee our energy sources there and to terrify our enemies.  "Democracy" and "freedom" were follow on arguments because WMDs were not found.
> ...



I think in this post you're actually on to something. But naivete and deliberately lying are two very different things.


----------



## rdean (Sep 26, 2009)

BasicGreatGuy said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > BasicGreatGuy said:
> ...




Presidential virgin?  I have no problem with that.

If you believe former President Bush was "underqualified," President Obama fits that bill as well. 

Not necessarily.  Bush proved his incompetence over and over again.  What did he touch that he didn't turn to crap?  He was like Midas, only the color wasn't gold, it was brown.

Obama started on food stamps and though dedication and hard work ended up President. 

Bush was the privileged son of a president who never worked seriously for anything.  An alcoholic who partied, was arrested for drunk driving, whose whereabouts were unknown when he was in the military, who was on the board of directors of three bankrupted companies.  Whose father had to bail him out time and time again.  

Where are they similar?  Doesn't make a lick of sense.


----------



## Dr Grump (Sep 26, 2009)

To answer the original question - yep, the world was lied to. Absolutely...


----------



## rdean (Sep 26, 2009)

goldcatt said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


----------



## Si modo (Sep 26, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> To answer the original question - yep, the world was lied to. Absolutely...


Who lied?


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 26, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > To answer the original question - yep, the world was lied to. Absolutely...
> ...


well, everyone, of course


----------



## goldcatt (Sep 26, 2009)

rdean said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...


----------



## BasicGreatGuy (Sep 26, 2009)

Trying to debate with rabid partisans is an exercise in futility.  I gave it my best shot.  Passes the garlic to Si and Dive.


----------



## rdean (Sep 26, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > To answer the original question - yep, the world was lied to. Absolutely...
> ...



Cheney lied to Bush.  Remember when Cheney was saying that there existed ties between Saddam and al Qaeda and then later Bush said no ties existed.  I believe that Bush was misled by Cheney.

Worse, many at the CIA said they were pressured by Cheney to supply suspect info.  It was Cheney that passed that on to Bush.  To me, Bush was incompetent, but not anti American.  I honestly don't know what Cheney was, except crazy.

http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/artI2A.pdf


----------



## rdean (Sep 26, 2009)

BasicGreatGuy said:


> Trying to debate with rabid partisans is an exercise in futility.  I gave it my best shot.  Passes the garlic to Si and Dive.



I understand your frustration.  It's obvious that you are both a "Master Debater" as well as a "Cunning Linguist".


----------



## manu1959 (Sep 26, 2009)

blu said:


> I was wondering who were still thinks the American people were given factual information before invading Iraq or that Bush wasn't going to start a war no matter what the results of WMD searches were? If you think factual information was given regarding WMDS, iraq-9/11 link, or anything else please list it.



severe consequences ensued due to violation of 18 un resolutions ......

not that i agree with the invasion but that was why the us went in.....

also wasn't the intel on wmds and the 911 link put forth by clarke and tennant both clinton men.....that us assest were attacked i believe 6 times....


----------



## xotoxi (Sep 26, 2009)

blu said:


> who here still thinks we weren't lied to about entering iraq


 
What are you talking about?

We weren't lied to about entering Iraq!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OC5dfneoHcE]YouTube - Bush: After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 26, 2009)

manu1959 said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > I was wondering who were still thinks the American people were given factual information before invading Iraq or that Bush wasn't going to start a war no matter what the results of WMD searches were? If you think factual information was given regarding WMDS, iraq-9/11 link, or anything else please list it.
> ...


shhh, he doesnt want to hear that much truth


----------



## manu1959 (Sep 26, 2009)

xotoxi said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > who here still thinks we weren't lied to about entering iraq
> ...



who told the lies to him.....


----------



## xotoxi (Sep 26, 2009)

manu1959 said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > blu said:
> ...


 
Prolly is was Christ.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 26, 2009)

manu1959 said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > I was wondering who were still thinks the American people were given factual information before invading Iraq or that Bush wasn't going to start a war no matter what the results of WMD searches were? If you think factual information was given regarding WMDS, iraq-9/11 link, or anything else please list it.
> ...



The UN did not authorize the US to invade because of the resolutions.  If you go that route, you will subject our commanders to war crimes charges.  Why do you think many of the Bush administration wonks don't travel to Europe anymore.


----------



## rubberhead (Sep 26, 2009)

Si modo said:


> rubberhead said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Are you trying to tell me that we need to invade a third world country that is not and will not be capable of attacking us with the next two generations?  I mean, if we're worried that they're going to send someone to our shores with a chemical or biological weapon, then our efforts should be concentrated on our own territory and intelligence, not overextending our military for the good of the Empire.


----------



## Si modo (Sep 26, 2009)

rubberhead said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > rubberhead said:
> ...


No.


----------



## rdean (Sep 26, 2009)

xotoxi said:


> manu1959 said:
> 
> 
> > xotoxi said:
> ...



That's right.  I forgot they had conversations.


----------



## rdean (Sep 26, 2009)

So, why did we invade Iraq?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKXC8LBWLtc]YouTube - Why did we Invade Iraq?- Nation Building[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0wbpKCdkkQ&feature=PlayList&p=80676B9DFAB860AA&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=39]YouTube - Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice Tell The Truth About Iraq[/ame]


----------



## ekrem (Oct 6, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > I was wondering who were still thinks the American people were given factual information before invading Iraq or that Bush wasn't going to start a war no matter what the results of WMD searches were? If you think factual information was given regarding WMDS, iraq-9/11 link, or anything else please list it.
> ...



If US Intelligence had "piss-poor" infos on Iraq, which i highly doubt as to the sums ($) being spent on intelligence, there is no other possibility then getting near-to-accurate intelligence, you can be assured of that allied Intelligence services were in constant contact with US intelligence services trying to convince them that Iraq is no threat at all. In the end you want to believe what you want to believe and you only hear what you want to hear.
Also this is not a question of lying but a question of having the power to push forward with "inaccurate" assesments infront of the world community. This power the USA had, and this is also the reason why the Bush unilateralism gave US the reputation the Obama administration currently tries to fix.


----------



## lth68 (Oct 29, 2009)

i believe we were lied to about Iraq in fact i believe we were lied to about 9-11... I also believe we will never be told the truth about any of it...

here is the link to the official 9-11 report... well actually I need 15 posts before I post a URL... shit... but what ever... you get my point



why is it that i need a pass word to look at it? it's all bullshit...if there is nothing to hide than why is it being hidden?

LTH68


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 29, 2009)

I do not think Bush deliberately lied to the American people for his reasons to invade Iraq.

I have no doubt that in his evangelical mind set he was absolutely right, even when he was dead wrong.  He believed what he wanted to believe in, accurately or not, and so many thousands have died because of it.  Don't elect evangelicals to office, if they can't demonstrate critical thinking skills.


----------



## mdn2000 (Nov 20, 2009)

we were lied to, by clinton, than bush

one aint holier than the other and those who argue otherwise dont know shit


----------



## Zona (Nov 20, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > I was wondering who were still thinks the American people were given factual information before invading Iraq or that Bush wasn't going to start a war no matter what the results of WMD searches were? If you think factual information was given regarding WMDS, iraq-9/11 link, or anything else please list it.
> ...



Dive con, he was told there were no wmd's.  He was in charge, he is responsible.  He lied about this.  

We went to war for oil and to settle a little dick thing because of his father.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 20, 2009)

And, once again, mdn makes a statement that has nothing to add to the main conversation.  Let's move on.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 20, 2009)

Zona said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > blu said:
> ...


zona lies again


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 20, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> And, once again, mdn makes a statement that has nothing to add to the main conversation.  Let's move on.


and jake does the exact same thing, but he actually believes he has made a common sense post
thats the difference


----------



## geauxtohell (Nov 20, 2009)

blu said:


> I was wondering who were still thinks the American people were given factual information before invading Iraq or that Bush wasn't going to start a war no matter what the results of WMD searches were? If you think factual information was given regarding WMDS, iraq-9/11 link, or anything else please list it.



We were certainly led astray.

Whether it was due to malicious intent or incompetence, I doubt we'll ever know.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 20, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > And, once again, mdn makes a statement that has nothing to add to the main conversation.  Let's move on.
> ...



Divecon sounds like he is suffering from the bends again.


----------



## mdn2000 (Nov 20, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> And, once again, mdn makes a statement that has nothing to add to the main conversation.  Let's move on.



I forget the thread I creamed you in, care to refresh my memory, I carry the grudge as well but I got to wait a long time before you post anything more than a simpleton statement so that I get to cream you again.

Critical thinking skills, wow, sounds really, really, smart, I love critical thinking, how about the United Nations reports of the late 90's, ever read them, very enlightening, we actually were destroying biological labs and searching for missing chemicals and biological agents. I even got a couple books by the turn-coats before they turned coat, I aint at home so I will have to seem a bit dumb, I could google but I dont google, I also dont cite wikipedia, either way though I would be more than happy to engage any single fool who thinks he knows more than I. 

Can I end a sentence like I did, I dont think so, I would be happy if anyone corrected my grammar, nothing worst than being a conservative and writing like a dumbass liberal.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 20, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


as if jake would know what the fuck that would "sound like" in the first place


----------



## Fizz (Nov 20, 2009)

here are the ACTUAL reasons given by the US government for going to war. This is what CONGRESS gave as reasons for invading Iraq. (does any of the idiots that blame bush for everything remember that congress actually voted and passed this?)

*Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.* does anyone want to argue that this wasnt a fact?

*Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."* ok, rather than look what we know now let's look at what was believed at the time. if you want to say Bush lied then what about Congress? Congress is stating clearly here that Iraq has WMD programs. How many other governments concurred? how many thought that Iraq did not have a program?

*Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."*  does anyone wish to argue this point?

*Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".* does anyone wish to argue this point?

*Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.* surely nobody is silly enough to say this wasnt happening.

*Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq."* known is probably the wrong word but "thought" is definitely true. al Qaeda certainly was in Iraq after the invasion.

*Iraq's "continuing to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.* definitely true.

*The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.* to all the revisionist historians that wish to blame Bush for everything please note the date of this act.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 21, 2009)

You have just created that masterpiece of boondogglery known as the "fizzwhizzle".

A fizzwhizzle is argumentation to obscure a clear examination of the facts.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Nov 22, 2009)

> Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War. surely nobody is silly enough to say this wasnt happening.


uh oh.  Does this mean we have to let the Cubans invade us?

Really I believe Bush believed Iraq was the root of all evil.  In reality it was bombed to third world status.  But I can't disagree a large number of folks born there since the 1st war no doubt hate us.


----------



## midcan5 (Nov 24, 2009)

Humans are designed to deny and project, there will always be those who see the illegal invasion of a sovereign nation that was no threat to America as justified. The argument goes on only if you choose to do so with these apologists. What will change is the future view of Iraq if history is done honestly. But one only has to look at the treatment of the native Americans to realize how hard that is. When a rigid ideology guides what you know, truth is quickly lost. 

Paradigm Iraq Immoral

Once Upon a Time...: Trapped in the Wrong Paradigm: Three Handy Rules

"I repeat: the entire war and occupation are immoral. If you criticize the Bush administration on the grounds that it "bungled" the war, this leaves one, and only one, inevitable implication: if they had prosecuted the war and occupation "competently," then you would have no complaints whatsoever. That is: you think the invasion and occupation of Iraq were justified and moral. If that's what you actually think, you belong in the Bush camp. You're arguing over managerial style, and about issues that are entirely trivial."


"A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred."


----------



## traveler52 (Jan 6, 2010)

As one those who was called, a "*Bin Laden Lover*."  a "*Saddam Supporter*" and "*Un-American*." for knowing we were lied to, what else is new?


----------

