RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie?

RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

farglebargle -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/14/2007 7:59:21 AM)
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/conventions/republican/features/platform.00/ Oh, and here's another nugget. quote: "The most likely highly destructive terrorist attack remains a large bomb hidden in a car or truck. Yet, as with the rest of our defense posture, we must prepare for the most dangerous threats as well as the most likely ones." They got that wrong, too. They didn't prepare for shit. And another... quote: "Third, we will bring individual terrorists to justice. Past and potential terrorists will know that America will never stop hunting them." Posada-Carilles proves THAT plank wrong... AND ANOTHER.... quote: "Republicans in Congress have led the way in building the domestic preparedness programs to train and equip local, state, and federal response personnel to deal with terrorist dangers in America. The administration has not offered clear leadership over these programs. They remain scattered across many agencies, uncoordinated and poorly managed. We will streamline and improve the federal coordination of the domestic emergency preparedness programs." SURE.. .Tell that to New Orleans... quote: A Republican administration will use power wisely, set priorities, craft needed institutions of openness and freedom, and invest in the future. A Republican president and a Republican Congress can achieve the unity of national governance that has so long been absent. We see a confident America united in the fellowship of freedom with friends and allies throughout the world. We envision the restoration of a respected American leadership firmly grounded in a distinctly American internationalism.

SirKenin -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/14/2007 8:09:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Iraq complied with disarmament requirements? DONE AND CERTIFIED TO THE UN BACK IN 2002. Bush didn't like what the Certification said, and then invaded. You really have no clue of the facts do you? Newsflash.. Michael Moore is not your friend. The facts are, as have already been proven with sources on this forum, that no such certification existed. In fact, the facts are that Iraq blocked every single attempt at ascertaining their compliance until AFTER Congress approved the use of force. At that time, Iraq called an emergency session of Parliament, resolved to allow inspections once more, and sent a hasty letter to the UN. The inspectors asked for more time to ascertain compliance. Unfortunately by then it was too late. The US had had enough. Now, use your noodle (that is after all why God gave it to you) and go through all the links that have already been provided, several of them by your pet Communist News Network, and avail yourself to the real facts so you do not look so stupid in the future.

farglebargle -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/14/2007 8:12:52 AM)
What were the 12,000 pages saying "We don't have any" filed with the UN in December of 2002?

farglebargle -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/14/2007 8:19:46 AM)
quote: At that time, Iraq called an emergency session of Parliament, resolved to allow inspections once more, and sent a hasty letter to the UN. The inspectors asked for more time to ascertain compliance. Unfortunately by then it was too late. The US had had enough. Are you saying that Diplomatic efforts WORKED, and that the UN didn't want the invasion to happen? How do you square that with the AUMFs *REQUIREMENT* to pursue diplomatic solutions? ( Ignoring the issue that there NEVER WAS ANY THREAT TO THE US ) ...

SirKenin -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/14/2007 9:29:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle What were the 12,000 pages saying "We don't have any" filed with the UN in December of 2002? A ploy. A stall tactic. One that obviously did not work. They were not certified by inspectors. I can tell you I have a twelve inch penis. That means exactly squat unless I send you a photo.

SirKenin -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/14/2007 9:31:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: At that time, Iraq called an emergency session of Parliament, resolved to allow inspections once more, and sent a hasty letter to the UN. The inspectors asked for more time to ascertain compliance. Unfortunately by then it was too late. The US had had enough. Are you saying that Diplomatic efforts WORKED, and that the UN didn't want the invasion to happen? How do you square that with the AUMFs *REQUIREMENT* to pursue diplomatic solutions? ( Ignoring the issue that there NEVER WAS ANY THREAT TO THE US ) ... No, but I take it you are. I am saying that diplomatic efforts FAILED for four years. Dismally. It was not until the US said "FUCK THIS" that Iraq got scared and waved a white flag. Obviously another tactic. They had their chance. They blew it. Saddam is now resting "in pieces". I guess he should have smartened up years ago. You mess with the best, you die like the rest.

farglebargle -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/14/2007 9:44:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle What were the 12,000 pages saying "We don't have any" filed with the UN in December of 2002? A ploy. A stall tactic. You ARE aware that the disclosure was TRUTHFUL? There were no WMD, nor threat of WMD? If telling the TRUTH is a STALL TACTIC... Well, that says more about the person who suggests it is, than it does about anyone else... Here are FIVE OVERT ACTS contributing to the conspiracy. Defend them. Overt Acts A. On December 9, 2001, CHENEY announced on NBC's Meet the Press that "it was pretty well confirmed" that lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta had met the head of Iraqi intelligence in Prague in April 2001, which statement was, as CHENEY well knew, made without reasonable basis and with reckless disregard for the truth, because it was based on a single witness's uncorroborated allegation that had not been fully investigated by U.S. intelligence agencies. B. On July 15, 2002, POWELL stated on Ted Koppel's Nightline: "What we have consistently said is that the President has no plan on his desk to invade Iraq at the moment, nor has one been presented to him, nor have his advisors come together to put a plan to him," which statement was deliberately false and misleading in that it deceitfully implied the President was not planning an invasion of Iraq when, as POWELL well knew, the President was close to finalizing detailed military plans for such an invasion that he had ordered months previously. C. On August 26, 2002, CHENEY made numerous false and fraudulent statements including: "Simply stated there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us," when, as CHENEY well knew, this statement was made without reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to the truth in that the IC's then prevailing assessment was that Iraq had neither nuclear weapons nor a reconstituted nuclear weapons program. D. On September 7, 2002, appearing publicly with Blair, BUSH claimed a recent IAEA report stated that Iraq was "six months away from developing a [nuclear] weapon" and "I don't know what more evidence we need," which statements were made without basis and with reckless indifference to the truth in that: (1) the IAEA had not even been present in Iraq since 1998; and (2) the report the IAEA did write in 1998 had concluded there was no indication that Iraq had the physical capacity to produce weapons-usable nuclear material or that it had attempted to obtain such material. E. On September 8, 2002, on Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, RICE asserted that Saddam Hussein was acquiring aluminum tubes that were "only suited" for nuclear centrifuge use, which statement was deliberately false and fraudulent, and made with reckless indifference to the truth in that it omitted to state the following material facts: (1) the U.S. intelligence community was deeply divided about the likely use of the tubes; (2) there were at least fifteen intelligence reports written since April 2001 that cast doubt on the tubes' possible nuclear-related use; and (3) the U.S. Department of Energy nuclear weapons experts had concluded, after analyzing the tubes's specifications and the circumstances of the Iraqis' attempts to procure them, that the aluminum tubes were not well suited for nuclear centrifuge use and were more likely intended for artillery rocket production.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/14/2007 9:47:38 AM)
quote: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? The war that preceded it ended with one.

SirKenin -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/14/2007 9:54:25 AM)
No, I am aware, however, that talk is cheap. If his declaration was truthful logic would seem to dictate that he would have no problems complying with the terms of the United Nations. However, in case you, Michael Moore, Jeff Gordon and the National Enquirer missed it, he made every effort to thwart investigations, falsely presuming that a statement of compliance would cut the mustard. The powers that be wisely saw through the charade, realizing that actions speak louder than words, and said "Fuck Choo Charlie". Saddam did not bother removing the old, decrepit weapons with mustard and serin gas in tact. But he did manage to move all of his main stash out of the country, having bought himself enough time to do so... Then saying "we complied!!!!!". There is absolutely NO question whatsoever that he had them. None at all.. Unless your head is buried in the sand. He used the damn things. Many times. Often on his fellow countrymen in acts of genocide.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/14/2007 9:59:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: SirKenin For people that are so concerned about public opinion, why would they risk their careers on voting for an obvious lie? The very obvious answer is that they would not. They obviously went with what they thought was a very real threat. When the public revolted later because it was not a neatly packaged CNN war they started backpeddaling in true political fashion. Because it is the political parties that decide who stands for election and it is the parties that has the power to decide whose career will progress and whose won't. It is for this reason most members of Parliament voted for the war in the face of public hostility and since both major parties believed in the war, the electrate has no choice apart from not voting. Now the political parties are thinking about the next election, the members of Parliament are reassessing their position and trying to second guess the response of the electrate Surely then you just ratchet up SirKenin's'point, which I agree with, you ratchet it up one level. Why would a party advocate military intervention in Iraq, based on lies which they must have known would be exposed ? In support of that point, the failure to find WMDs coupled with the violence in Iraq have just cost both Labour and the reputation of Blair dear. Meatcleaver apparently implicitly believes Blair knew this was going to happen since he knew that the weapons didn't exist. NO?

farglebargle -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/14/2007 10:04:32 AM)
quote: There is absolutely NO question whatsoever that he had them. He did NOT have them in 2002, as stated in the December 2002 declaration. And he was NOT a threat to the US EVER. ( Excepting the delusional paranoiac ). quote: C. On August 26, 2002, CHENEY made numerous false and fraudulent statements including: "Simply stated there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us," when, as CHENEY well knew, this statement was made without reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to the truth in that the IC's then prevailing assessment was that Iraq had neither nuclear weapons nor a reconstituted nuclear weapons program. D. On September 7, 2002, appearing publicly with Blair, BUSH claimed a recent IAEA report stated that Iraq was "six months away from developing a [nuclear] weapon" and "I don't know what more evidence we need," which statements were made without basis and with reckless indifference to the truth in that: (1) the IAEA had not even been present in Iraq since 1998; and (2) the report the IAEA did write in 1998 had concluded there was no indication that Iraq had the physical capacity to produce weapons-usable nuclear material or that it had attempted to obtain such material. ... J. Between September 1, 2002, and November 2, 2002, BUSH traveled the country making in excess of thirty congressional-campaign speeches in which he falsely and fraudulently asserted that Iraq was a "serious threat" which required immediate action, when as he well knew, this assertion was made without reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to the truth. ... M. On March 18, 2003, BUSH sent a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate which asserted that further reliance on diplomatic and peaceful means alone would not either: (1) adequately protect United States national security against the "continuing threat posed by Iraq" or (2) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant UN Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, which statement was made without reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to the truth in that, as BUSH well knew, the U.S. intelligence community had never reported that Iraq posed an urgent threat to the United States and there was no evidence whatsoever to prove that Iraq had either the means or intent to attack the U.S. directly or indirectly. The statement was also false because, as BUSH well knew, the UN weapons inspectors had not found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and wanted to continue the inspection process because it was working well. N. In the same March 18, 2003 letter, BUSH also represented that taking action pursuant to the Resolution was "consistent with continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001," which statement was entirely false and without reasonable basis in that, as BUSH well knew, Iraq had no involvement with al Qaeda or the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

SirKenin -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/14/2007 10:21:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: There is absolutely NO question whatsoever that he had them. He did NOT have them in 2002, as stated in the December 2002 declaration. The proof is in the pudding, and for some reason yours (and by extension the Iraqis) pudding smells like shit. Now, let us act on the idea that the weapons were gone by the time the US got there. Fair enough. Say they agreed that Saddam licked substantial UN ass and was no longer a threat and did not depose the maniacal dictator. All Saddam had to do was go to Syria and say "thanks for the help buddy. Here are 40 goats and twelve terrorists" and get his weapons back. I am willing to bet the cardboard box I live in that if the US and her allies pulled a surprise attack on Syria today they would find a significant stash of Iraqi weapons. You have to understand that Saddam was hellbent on one thing. He wanted control of Kuwait back, as Kuwait was originally part of Iraq, and he wanted control of the oil there. In broader definition, he was part of the greater goal to assert Arab control in the middle east. The guy WAS a serious threat and he had to go... That is all there is to it.

farglebargle -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/14/2007 10:24:27 AM)
quote: Here are 40 goats and twelve terrorists" and get his weapons back. Is your assertion that the US *FAILED* to stop the proliferation of WMDs? Despite the Intelligence Community agreement that there WERE NO WMD? Which is it? Did the US screw up and invade without any WMD, or did the US screw up and let the WMD get away?

SirKenin -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/14/2007 10:26:53 AM)
They did not let the weapons get away. The UN did, like the pushovers that they are. For four years they put up with Iraq's bullshit. For four years they tried the diplomatic approach. For four years Saddam played them like a fiddle. And for four years Saddam silently, and with a smug grin on his ugly, bearded puss shuffled his weapons out of the country. If I was in his position I would do the exact same thing. EDIT: When you think of it, it was a brilliant move politically. Saddam achieved his goal. He comes out smelling like a rose, looking like the martyr, while the US comes out with a sheepish grin and shit smeared all over their face. Saddam, in a cunning move, yanked the rug of support out from under the US government's feet and turned the entire country against them. I think it was ingenious myself.

slaverosebeauty -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/14/2007 10:28:50 AM)
quote: Why is Every War Started With a Lie? Because you can't start war and blooshed with the truth. You can't have warmungers and hate and put fear into people with the truth. If the 'truth' was told, then few wars would happen. Lies are what makes wars 'legal' [said tongue in cheek], if the truth was told, then wars would be 'illegal;' we can't have that, now can we.

farglebargle -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/14/2007 10:35:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin They did not let the weapons get away. The UN did, like the pushovers that they are. How did the UN let them get away IF he had them prior to our Invasion and Occupation. If we INVADED BECAUSE HE HAD THEM, then WE LET THEM GET AWAY. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Or was it the UN who invaded and occupied Iraq, permitting the WMD Bush alleges to have existed to be moved?

meatcleaver -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/14/2007 2:21:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: SirKenin For people that are so concerned about public opinion, why would they risk their careers on voting for an obvious lie? The very obvious answer is that they would not. They obviously went with what they thought was a very real threat. When the public revolted later because it was not a neatly packaged CNN war they started backpeddaling in true political fashion. Because it is the political parties that decide who stands for election and it is the parties that has the power to decide whose career will progress and whose won't. It is for this reason most members of Parliament voted for the war in the face of public hostility and since both major parties believed in the war, the electrate has no choice apart from not voting. Now the political parties are thinking about the next election, the members of Parliament are reassessing their position and trying to second guess the response of the electrate Surely then you just ratchet up SirKenin's'point, which I agree with, you ratchet it up one level. Why would a party advocate military intervention in Iraq, based on lies which they must have known would be exposed ? In support of that point, the failure to find WMDs coupled with the violence in Iraq have just cost both Labour and the reputation of Blair dear. Meatcleaver apparently implicitly believes Blair knew this was going to happen since he knew that the weapons didn't exist. NO? Blair has more or less admited that the real reason for throwing his all in with Bush is that he thought that Britain not going along with the US and Europe being hostile to the war would seriously rupture relations within NATO and create a world where there is the US and there is everyone else. Of course he like the Bush administration all thought it would be a picnic. Topple Saddam, streets of cheering Iraqis who would promptly vote in a western friendly government. The Iraqis have democracy and the US has an oil rich nation conforming to free market ideology which means a stable oil supply for yours truely. Of course it didn't happen like that. Cheney and Rumsfeld were obviously on magic mushrooms and Blair had nailed himself to the mast of a ship of fools.

farglebargle -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/14/2007 2:56:15 PM)
quote: Of course it didn't happen like that. Cheney and Rumsfeld were obviously on magic mushrooms If you BELIEVE and you CLAP REALLY LOUD then the Iraqi People will all sit down together, pass the bong around, and sing fucking Kumbaya. That, and Tinker Bell won't die.

SirRober -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/14/2007 3:49:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterDave54 Not to really change the subject, why is Bush against abortion but ok killing 19 year old boys in Iraq Bush is against abortion for whatever reason he has.... but for the 19 year old VOLUNTEERED to serve his country... ALL miltary members agree to and oath that says to some effect. " to protect and defend the US against ALL enemies forgin and domestic" SO to make this relevent to the thread DO you think that a WMD is a threat to the US?? DO you think that OBL is a threat to the US?? Do you think Iran is a threat to the US?? IF you have answered yes to any one of those questions Leave the desions to those with the big picture.

meatcleaver -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/14/2007 4:19:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SirRober IF you have answered yes to any one of those questions Leave the desions to those with the big picture. The best way to answer that is to quote Tony Benn, 'Politics is too important to leave to the politicians.' EDIT corrected the quote.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875