Tony Blair: We blew it

[Correll]

After the fall of the Soviet Union military spending tanked and did so though out the GHWBush and Clinton administrations.

It took a really long time for the Elite to find a new "Boogeyman". Almost as if they were not driving policy.

Without a 'Boogeyman' there's no valid excuse to invade and plunder foreign resources. So the Permanent War folks will always invent one. Now it's up o the People to stop falling for their schemes. Time to end this Permanent War.

That was a long break from "Permanent War".

The end of Reagan's second administration, nearly all of GHWBush's administration, and all of Bill Clinton's administrations.

I mean that was some attempts at ginning up concern about China, but it didn't get any traction.

Almost like your "boogeymen" of the "Permanent War" folks weren't in control of policy.

Which puts a big hole in your theory.

You sure about that? We've been bombing & killing somewhere in the world for the last 75yrs straight. I haven't noticed a 'long break.'

Yes. YOu are walking it back now.

Now instead of "Permanent War" your talking about "bombing and killing".

That doesn't feed the Military Industrial Complex that is supposedly driving policy in your scenario.

Military spending plunged and stayed down from the late 80s to 9-11.

There's always a Boogeyman to be bombed. That's how the NWO Globalist Elites continue their Permanent War. If there isn't a Boogeyman, you can bet they'll invent one.

Except for 10 years there wasn't one.

And they didn't invent Osama. He invented himself.

Sooooooooo, your theory doesn't hold up.

 

[paulitician]

Without a 'Boogeyman' there's no valid excuse to invade and plunder foreign resources. So the Permanent War folks will always invent one. Now it's up o the People to stop falling for their schemes. Time to end this Permanent War.

That was a long break from "Permanent War".

The end of Reagan's second administration, nearly all of GHWBush's administration, and all of Bill Clinton's administrations.

I mean that was some attempts at ginning up concern about China, but it didn't get any traction.

Almost like your "boogeymen" of the "Permanent War" folks weren't in control of policy.

Which puts a big hole in your theory.

You sure about that? We've been bombing & killing somewhere in the world for the last 75yrs straight. I haven't noticed a 'long break.'

Yes. YOu are walking it back now.

Now instead of "Permanent War" your talking about "bombing and killing".

That doesn't feed the Military Industrial Complex that is supposedly driving policy in your scenario.

Military spending plunged and stayed down from the late 80s to 9-11.

There's always a Boogeyman to be bombed. That's how the NWO Globalist Elites continue their Permanent War. If there isn't a Boogeyman, you can bet they'll invent one.

Except for 10 years there wasn't one.

And they didn't invent Osama. He invented himself.

Sooooooooo, your theory doesn't hold up.

Which 10 years?

 

[g5000]

The lesson to be learned is that absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.

Um. In this case it was.

 

[paulitician]

Without a 'Boogeyman' there's no valid excuse to invade and plunder foreign resources. So the Permanent War folks will always invent one. Now it's up o the People to stop falling for their schemes. Time to end this Permanent War.

That was a long break from "Permanent War".

The end of Reagan's second administration, nearly all of GHWBush's administration, and all of Bill Clinton's administrations.

I mean that was some attempts at ginning up concern about China, but it didn't get any traction.

Almost like your "boogeymen" of the "Permanent War" folks weren't in control of policy.

Which puts a big hole in your theory.

You sure about that? We've been bombing & killing somewhere in the world for the last 75yrs straight. I haven't noticed a 'long break.'

Yes. YOu are walking it back now.

Now instead of "Permanent War" your talking about "bombing and killing".

That doesn't feed the Military Industrial Complex that is supposedly driving policy in your scenario.

Military spending plunged and stayed down from the late 80s to 9-11.

There's always a Boogeyman to be bombed. That's how the NWO Globalist Elites continue their Permanent War. If there isn't a Boogeyman, you can bet they'll invent one.

Except for 10 years there wasn't one.

And they didn't invent Osama. He invented himself.

Sooooooooo, your theory doesn't hold up.

Actually, he was invented. He was heavily funded, armed, and trained by the CIA in Afghanistan. But regardless, Bin Laden had nothing to do with Iraq.

 

[Correll]

That was a long break from "Permanent War".

The end of Reagan's second administration, nearly all of GHWBush's administration, and all of Bill Clinton's administrations.

I mean that was some attempts at ginning up concern about China, but it didn't get any traction.

Almost like your "boogeymen" of the "Permanent War" folks weren't in control of policy.

Which puts a big hole in your theory.

You sure about that? We've been bombing & killing somewhere in the world for the last 75yrs straight. I haven't noticed a 'long break.'

Yes. YOu are walking it back now.

Now instead of "Permanent War" your talking about "bombing and killing".

That doesn't feed the Military Industrial Complex that is supposedly driving policy in your scenario.

Military spending plunged and stayed down from the late 80s to 9-11.

There's always a Boogeyman to be bombed. That's how the NWO Globalist Elites continue their Permanent War. If there isn't a Boogeyman, you can bet they'll invent one.

Except for 10 years there wasn't one.

And they didn't invent Osama. He invented himself.

Sooooooooo, your theory doesn't hold up.

Which 10 years?

Late 80s to 9-11.

 

[Correll]

The lesson to be learned is that absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.

Um. In this case it was.

Really? The WMDs were not destroyed? That's weird. Then were did they go?

There was no evidence of their destruction.

That was presented as evidence they still existed.

That we have "forgot" that in order to scorn partisan points, prevents any possibility of learning from history.

 

[paulitician]

You sure about that? We've been bombing & killing somewhere in the world for the last 75yrs straight. I haven't noticed a 'long break.'

Yes. YOu are walking it back now.

Now instead of "Permanent War" your talking about "bombing and killing".

That doesn't feed the Military Industrial Complex that is supposedly driving policy in your scenario.

Military spending plunged and stayed down from the late 80s to 9-11.

There's always a Boogeyman to be bombed. That's how the NWO Globalist Elites continue their Permanent War. If there isn't a Boogeyman, you can bet they'll invent one.

Except for 10 years there wasn't one.

And they didn't invent Osama. He invented himself.

Sooooooooo, your theory doesn't hold up.

Which 10 years?

Late 80s to 9-11.

Pretty sure there were a couple of major wars during that time. Lots of bombing & killing.

 

[Correll]

That was a long break from "Permanent War".

The end of Reagan's second administration, nearly all of GHWBush's administration, and all of Bill Clinton's administrations.

I mean that was some attempts at ginning up concern about China, but it didn't get any traction.

Almost like your "boogeymen" of the "Permanent War" folks weren't in control of policy.

Which puts a big hole in your theory.

You sure about that? We've been bombing & killing somewhere in the world for the last 75yrs straight. I haven't noticed a 'long break.'

Yes. YOu are walking it back now.

Now instead of "Permanent War" your talking about "bombing and killing".

That doesn't feed the Military Industrial Complex that is supposedly driving policy in your scenario.

Military spending plunged and stayed down from the late 80s to 9-11.

There's always a Boogeyman to be bombed. That's how the NWO Globalist Elites continue their Permanent War. If there isn't a Boogeyman, you can bet they'll invent one.

Except for 10 years there wasn't one.

And they didn't invent Osama. He invented himself.

Sooooooooo, your theory doesn't hold up.

Actually, he was invented. He was heavily funded, armed, and trained by the CIA in Afghanistan. But regardless, Bin Laden had nothing to do with Iraq.

No, he wasn't.

That is a mistake made by people who think all arabs look alike.

9-11 vastly lowered, temporarily the threshold for War in the American People.

Thus, Iraq, which had been hovering close to that line anyways, suddenly found itself over the line, without realizing the change.

 

[g5000]

The lesson to be learned is that absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.

Um. In this case it was.

Really? The WMDs were not destroyed?

They did not exist.

 

[Correll]

Yes. YOu are walking it back now.

Now instead of "Permanent War" your talking about "bombing and killing".

That doesn't feed the Military Industrial Complex that is supposedly driving policy in your scenario.

Military spending plunged and stayed down from the late 80s to 9-11.

There's always a Boogeyman to be bombed. That's how the NWO Globalist Elites continue their Permanent War. If there isn't a Boogeyman, you can bet they'll invent one.

Except for 10 years there wasn't one.

And they didn't invent Osama. He invented himself.

Sooooooooo, your theory doesn't hold up.

Which 10 years?

Late 80s to 9-11.

Pretty sure there were a couple of major wars during that time. Lots of bombing & killing.

What? THe 100 Hour War? Hardly enough to feed the MIC in your scenario.

Major Arms manufacturers went bankrupt and folded.

That is not what happens in an oligarchy as you describe.

Hell, avoiding that would have been super easy to explain.

"We just want to build the stuff we did the R&d for, because with the Long Peace coming, American soldiers are going to be using this stuff for generations".

Hell, it would have been a very easy policy to defend.

 

[Correll]

The lesson to be learned is that absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.

Um. In this case it was.

Really? The WMDs were not destroyed?

They did not exist.

Err, you are aware that Saddam was known for using gas to commit Genocide against his own people and War Crimes against invading Iranians, right?

Do you need a link?

The lack of evidence of their destruction was presented as evidence they still existed.

That this is news to you, demonstrates that we learned nothing from this error.

Thank you for validating my opinion.

 

[paulitician]

You sure about that? We've been bombing & killing somewhere in the world for the last 75yrs straight. I haven't noticed a 'long break.'

Yes. YOu are walking it back now.

Now instead of "Permanent War" your talking about "bombing and killing".

That doesn't feed the Military Industrial Complex that is supposedly driving policy in your scenario.

Military spending plunged and stayed down from the late 80s to 9-11.

There's always a Boogeyman to be bombed. That's how the NWO Globalist Elites continue their Permanent War. If there isn't a Boogeyman, you can bet they'll invent one.

Except for 10 years there wasn't one.

And they didn't invent Osama. He invented himself.

Sooooooooo, your theory doesn't hold up.

Actually, he was invented. He was heavily funded, armed, and trained by the CIA in Afghanistan. But regardless, Bin Laden had nothing to do with Iraq.

No, he wasn't.

That is a mistake made by people who think all arabs look alike.

9-11 vastly lowered, temporarily the threshold for War in the American People.

Thus, Iraq, which had been hovering close to that line anyways, suddenly found itself over the line, without realizing the change.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban were heavily funded and armed by the CIA in Afghanistan. The goal was to remove the Soviets. And of course, it led to something much worse.

And Hussein despised the radicals. There are far more terrorists in the Middle East since we killed him. In fact, Al Qaeda and ISIS are probably the biggest winners of the Iraq War nightmare.

 

[bendog]

The lesson to be learned is that absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.

Um. In this case it was.

Really? The WMDs were not destroyed? That's weird. Then were did they go?

There was no evidence of their destruction.

That was presented as evidence they still existed.

That we have "forgot" that in order to scorn partisan points, prevents any possibility of learning from history.

No. Artillary shells with chemical weapons were not asserted as a womd justifying invasion because of our right of self-defense. The justification was ongoing nuke and/or biological programs, for which [re-invasion inspections found no evidence. Even Wolfowitz admitted womd were not the real justification, in reality.

 

[BlindBoo]

Let history judge them


Tony Blair says he's sorry for Iraq War 'mistakes' - CNN.com

(CNN)Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair says he's sorry for "mistakes" made in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, but he doesn't regret bringing down dictator Saddam Hussein.

"I can say that I apologize for the fact that the intelligence we received was wrong because, even though he had used chemical weapons extensively against his own people, against others, the program in the form that we thought it was did not exist in the way that we thought," Blair said in an exclusive interview on CNN's Fareed Zakaria GPS that airs Sunday.

Blair was referring to the claim that Saddam's regime possessed weapons of mass destruction, which was used by the U.S. and British governments to justify launching the invasion. But the intelligence reports the claim was based on turned out to be false.

He's blaming the fixed facts they created from cherry picked intelligence on the intelligence agencies.

Blair is like a floating turd in a pool.

 

[g5000]

The lesson to be learned is that absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.

Um. In this case it was.

Really? The WMDs were not destroyed?

They did not exist.

Err, you are aware that Saddam was known for using gas to commit Genocide against his own people and War Crimes against invading Iranians, right?

Do you need a link?

The lack of evidence of their destruction was presented as evidence they still existed.

That this is news to you, demonstrates that we learned nothing from this error.

Thank you for validating my opinion.

I served over there during that period, dipshit.

The WMDs used in the 80s were not the WMDs Bush, Jr. invaded Iraq for. And you are wrong that there was no evidence of the destruction of the 80s WMDs. There was, and they were destroyed or made inert at Al Muthanna.

The WMDs Bush invaded for DID NOT EXIST. There is no evidence he had an active WMD program after the first gulf war.

 

[bendog]

The lesson to be learned is that absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.

Um. In this case it was.

Really? The WMDs were not destroyed?

They did not exist.

Err, you are aware that Saddam was known for using gas to commit Genocide against his own people and War Crimes against invading Iranians, right?

Do you need a link?

The lack of evidence of their destruction was presented as evidence they still existed.

That this is news to you, demonstrates that we learned nothing from this error.

Thank you for validating my opinion.

JFC, Saddam coulda set them off in NYC!

 

[paulitician]

There's always a Boogeyman to be bombed. That's how the NWO Globalist Elites continue their Permanent War. If there isn't a Boogeyman, you can bet they'll invent one.

Except for 10 years there wasn't one.

And they didn't invent Osama. He invented himself.

Sooooooooo, your theory doesn't hold up.

Which 10 years?

Late 80s to 9-11.

Pretty sure there were a couple of major wars during that time. Lots of bombing & killing.

What? THe 100 Hour War? Hardly enough to feed the MIC in your scenario.

Major Arms manufacturers went bankrupt and folded.

That is not what happens in an oligarchy as you describe.

Hell, avoiding that would have been super easy to explain.

"We just want to build the stuff we did the R&d for, because with the Long Peace coming, American soldiers are going to be using this stuff for generations".

Hell, it would have been a very easy policy to defend.

Still don't see your 10yr break from war.

 

[Correll]

Yes. YOu are walking it back now.

Now instead of "Permanent War" your talking about "bombing and killing".

That doesn't feed the Military Industrial Complex that is supposedly driving policy in your scenario.

Military spending plunged and stayed down from the late 80s to 9-11.

There's always a Boogeyman to be bombed. That's how the NWO Globalist Elites continue their Permanent War. If there isn't a Boogeyman, you can bet they'll invent one.

Except for 10 years there wasn't one.

And they didn't invent Osama. He invented himself.

Sooooooooo, your theory doesn't hold up.

Actually, he was invented. He was heavily funded, armed, and trained by the CIA in Afghanistan. But regardless, Bin Laden had nothing to do with Iraq.

No, he wasn't.

That is a mistake made by people who think all arabs look alike.

9-11 vastly lowered, temporarily the threshold for War in the American People.

Thus, Iraq, which had been hovering close to that line anyways, suddenly found itself over the line, without realizing the change.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban were heavily funded and armed by the CIA in Afghanistan. The goal was to remove the Soviets. And of course, it led to something much worse.

And Hussein despised the radicals. There are far more terrorists in the Middle East since we killed him. In fact, Al Qaeda and ISIS are probably the biggest winners of the Iraq War nightmare.

The CIA funded SOME of the Mujhaheen in Afghanistan. Osama had his own money and worked with other people. The Taliban did not even exist at that point in time.

The removal of the Soviets was a good thing. That that people of Afghanistan reverted to barbarism is not on US.

 

[BlindBoo]

Yes. YOu are walking it back now.

Now instead of "Permanent War" your talking about "bombing and killing".

That doesn't feed the Military Industrial Complex that is supposedly driving policy in your scenario.

Military spending plunged and stayed down from the late 80s to 9-11.

There's always a Boogeyman to be bombed. That's how the NWO Globalist Elites continue their Permanent War. If there isn't a Boogeyman, you can bet they'll invent one.

Except for 10 years there wasn't one.

And they didn't invent Osama. He invented himself.

Sooooooooo, your theory doesn't hold up.

Actually, he was invented. He was heavily funded, armed, and trained by the CIA in Afghanistan. But regardless, Bin Laden had nothing to do with Iraq.

No, he wasn't.

That is a mistake made by people who think all arabs look alike.

9-11 vastly lowered, temporarily the threshold for War in the American People.

Thus, Iraq, which had been hovering close to that line anyways, suddenly found itself over the line, without realizing the change.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban were heavily funded and armed by the CIA in Afghanistan. The goal was to remove the Soviets. And of course, it led to something much worse.

And Hussein despised the radicals. There are far more terrorists in the Middle East since we killed him. In fact, Al Qaeda and ISIS are probably the biggest winners of the Iraq War nightmare.

The Taliban came out of Pakistan later. Al Qaeda was one of many Arab groups fighting the Soviets.

 

[paulitician]

There's always a Boogeyman to be bombed. That's how the NWO Globalist Elites continue their Permanent War. If there isn't a Boogeyman, you can bet they'll invent one.

Except for 10 years there wasn't one.

And they didn't invent Osama. He invented himself.

Sooooooooo, your theory doesn't hold up.

Actually, he was invented. He was heavily funded, armed, and trained by the CIA in Afghanistan. But regardless, Bin Laden had nothing to do with Iraq.

No, he wasn't.

That is a mistake made by people who think all arabs look alike.

9-11 vastly lowered, temporarily the threshold for War in the American People.

Thus, Iraq, which had been hovering close to that line anyways, suddenly found itself over the line, without realizing the change.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban were heavily funded and armed by the CIA in Afghanistan. The goal was to remove the Soviets. And of course, it led to something much worse.

And Hussein despised the radicals. There are far more terrorists in the Middle East since we killed him. In fact, Al Qaeda and ISIS are probably the biggest winners of the Iraq War nightmare.

The CIA funded SOME of the Mujhaheen in Afghanistan. Osama had his own money and worked with other people. The Taliban did not even exist at that point in time.

The removal of the Soviets was a good thing. That that people of Afghanistan reverted to barbarism is not on US.

Actually, the Soviets would have been a much better option for the world. The U.S. brought the world Al Qaeda, Taliban, and ISIS. WTG! I think we need more foreign interventionism. How bout you?