Palin tried to ban books

[Modbert]

a lie is when you say something you KNOW to be untrue
at that time no one KNEW it wasnt

So if it was bad intel that was only followed.

Therefore the War in Iraq was a mistake..

 

[DiveCon]

So if it was bad intel that was only followed.

Therefore the War in Iraq was a mistake..

i could agree with that, had WMD been the only reason, since it wasn't i don't agree that it was a mistake
in fact, i still believe it should have been done in 91 when we had 500,000 troops already there and had the Iraqi army on the run
leaving Saddam in power back then cost the lives of more innocent Iraqi's than have died in this liberation

 

[Luissa]

i could agree with that, had WMD been the only reason, since it wasn't i don't agree that it was a mistake
in fact, i still believe it should have been done in 91 when we had 500,000 troops already there and had the Iraqi army on the run
leaving Saddam in power back then cost the lives of more innocent Iraqi's than have died in this liberation

I actually agree with you there!

 

[Anguille]

Don't feel bad, I got neg repped for my reproductive biology joke.

I got some sympathy pos rep so it's all good.

 

[Modbert]

i could agree with that, had WMD been the only reason, since it wasn't i don't agree that it was a mistake
in fact, i still believe it should have been done in 91 when we had 500,000 troops already there and had the Iraqi army on the run
leaving Saddam in power back then cost the lives of more innocent Iraqi's than have died in this liberation

Well it could of been done in 91 but we'd be ignoring what rules the UN set. We actually drove Saddam all the way back to Baghdad.

So what other reasons did we "invade" Iraq then. And don't tell me it was to "free the Iraqi people from Tyranny" or some BS like that.

 

[Anguille]

wow, Thought Control...right Here At Usmb!!!

Doil!

 

[DiveCon]

Wow, thought control...right here at USMB!!!

how so, they posted their thought, i responded with mine
no one controled their or my thoughts

 

[Article 15]

i could agree with that, had WMD been the only reason, since it wasn't i don't agree that it was a mistake
in fact, i still believe it should have been done in 91 when we had 500,000 troops already there and had the Iraqi army on the run
leaving Saddam in power back then cost the lives of more innocent Iraqi's than have died in this liberation

Back in the olden days we adhered to U.N. parameters ...

 

[Ravi]

I got some sympathy pos rep so it's all good.

Me, too. In fact I think I broke my rep receiving record today.

 

[DiveCon]

Back in the olden days we adhered to U.N. parameters ...

and we never tried to get those parameters changed
i think we could have

 

[Modbert]

and we never tried to get those parameters changed
i think we could have

Dive, mind answering my last post?

 

[jillian]

when you actually KNOW its bad intel, when they didnt know
you libs are morons and continue to show it

I'd say there's an argument to be made for people who keep believing they weren't lied to despite all evidence to the contrary. I'd also surmise that at this point, you're pretty well in a minority, but neither here nor there.

 

[jillian]

Well it could of been done in 91 but we'd be ignoring what rules the UN set. We actually drove Saddam all the way back to Baghdad.

So what other reasons did we "invade" Iraq then. And don't tell me it was to "free the Iraqi people from Tyranny" or some BS like that.

Actually, it couldn't have been done in 1991, Daddy Bush actually listened to his State Department which TOLD HIM even then that if Saddam was deposed, there would be a power vacuum and there would be civil war. I'd also mention the fact that they NEEDED Saddam Hussein to balance Iran, since we also knew that Iran would get stronger in a power vacuum.

 

[DiveCon]

Well it could of been done in 91 but we'd be ignoring what rules the UN set. We actually drove Saddam all the way back to Baghdad.

So what other reasons did we "invade" Iraq then. And don't tell me it was to "free the Iraqi people from Tyranny" or some BS like that.

read the 2003 SOTU

 

[Modbert]

read the 2003 SOTU

So your not going to tell me. Quite fine.

Thanks for playing though.

 

[DiveCon]

Actually, it couldn't have been done in 1991, Daddy Bush actually listened to his State Department which TOLD HIM even then that if Saddam was deposed, there would be a power vacuum and there would be civil war. I'd also mention the fact that they NEEDED Saddam Hussein to balance Iran, since we also knew that Iran would get stronger in a power vacuum.

by not doing it then, a lot more people have died

 

[DiveCon]

So your not going to tell me. Quite fine.

Thanks for playing though.

i didnt know you were blocked from google
i thought telling you WHERE to find it was enough
but here
it starts about mid way down the page

President Delivers "State of the Union"

 

[Modbert]

Actually, it couldn't have been done in 1991, Daddy Bush actually listened to his State Department which TOLD HIM even then that if Saddam was deposed, there would be a power vacuum and there would be civil war. I'd also mention the fact that they NEEDED Saddam Hussein to balance Iran, since we also knew that Iran would get stronger in a power vacuum.

All very true points.

Just makes you think:

Though not so much has changed since Iraq is in a civil war currently or on the onset of one.

Oh and Iran has gotten stronger because of the power vacuum. You see Iran getting welcomes and hugs. You see our troops getting bullets and suicide bombers.

 

[Modbert]

i didnt know you were blocked from google
i thought telling you WHERE to find it was enough
but here
it starts about mid way down the page

President Delivers "State of the Union"

Our nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean Peninsula and not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq. A brutal dictator, with a history of reckless aggression, with ties to terrorism, with great potential wealth, will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States. (Applause.)

I want certain points though, not to read this piece of garbage. I could barely stand watching it.

So you mean the whole Saddam/Osama connection that doesn't exist either? That connection?

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

May He guide us now. And may God continue to bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

No matter who uses this line, I find it funny. God loves us more then everyone else, hurrah! Oh wait, I thought God loved all his children equally?

 

[Alison 451]

I heard about this. Thank you for posting the article.

I think if the religious right wingers have their way, this type of censorship could become a real issue.

To Glockenspiel and Divertercon - this was my one post on this subject.

No "lies", no "agreeing with lies", no "cheerleading" -- just a thanks for posting the Time Magazine article that I had heard about, but not seen.

I happen to find the idea of censorship highly offensive. Someone else pointed me to this thread when I brought up the subject this morning and I still have not had time to read everything.

Nice to meet you too, though, really.