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

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



Message


Sinergy -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/14/2007 4:40:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

I am saying that diplomatic efforts FAILED for four years. 



[sarcasm]

That certainly explains the 2 week war against the cream of the not-disarmed-as-required-by-the UN Iraqi military, the vast numbers of WMDs and WMD fabrication labs uncovered by the US military, and the evidence of a deeply embedded Al Qaeda network in Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

[/sarcasm]

Ever hear of the game of Mexican Standoff?

Saddam did not believe the US would be stupid enough to invade, so he called AnencephalyBoy's bluff.  Unfortunately for all of us, Americans, Iraqis, US military personnel, civilians, Saddam underestimated AnencephalyBoy's idiocy.

Might want to think your opinions through before announcing them as fact.

Sinergy




SirKenin -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/14/2007 5:09:44 PM)

And you might want to think for 5 seconds before you hit the post button.

I have not offered one shred of opinion.  You have.  Nothing you have offered can be substantiated with sound fact and logic. .  However, what I have offered has been backed up with proven fact, provided in links to news sources that you pansies cite on a regular basis.  That is the difference between you and me..  But I am getting a really good laugh out of you attempting to point the finger that should genuinely be pointed at you.  That is why I stopped coming to this forum for so long.  I have never seen so many armchair quarterbacks that do not have a fucking clue what is going on in the world arena, have no idea of the facts, come in trumpeting a bunch of bullshit, over and over and FUCKING over again, ad infinitum, despite ALL the facts that are presented to them.  In the face of logic.  In the face of fact.  In the face of science.  But no!!!   Some bureaucrat bombed the WTC so the US could spend billions upon billions of dollars invading some desert wasteland, Elvis was seen in Florida and aliens are plotting the invasion of earth, with nothing fucking better to do than making crop circles and anally probing cattle.

Anyways..  The US went along with the UNs diplomatic efforts.  They tried that avenue first and it clearly failed.  They provided the evidence, and the UN, in true politically correct fashion that I have come to abhor, said "let us try the diplomatic approach first".  Fucking pansies.  People have no balls and no skin.  The world has turned into this snivelling bunch of pussies that get offended at the drop of a hat.  The UN turned the situation that could have been nipped in the bud into a regular cluster fuck.  Like I said, Saddam played them like a fiddle.  He knew the UN did not have the balls to march in there and flatten him.  He used it to his advantage.  You say he called Bush's bluff.  Sheer idiocy, and why I say you should think before you speak.  Saddam did not call anything.  The evidence, as very clearly presented to you, dictates that Saddam got SCARED..   Let me repeat that for the oblivious.  SCARED.  He KNEW the US meant business after Congress approved the use of force.  They scrambled an emergency parliamentary session, passed a resolution, and hurriedly sent it off to the UN AFTER the Congressional vote.

Like I said, think before you speak and learn your facts.  I would not be so hasty to point the finger at someone else when it is very clear that you have not got the foggiest clue.

Bush NEVER bluffed.  The Bush family showed Saddam they meant business right from the very beginning, with the Desert Storm invasion.  They made it excessively clear that they were not going to put up with Saddam's shit.  Saddam continuously pushed the buttons and hid behind the pussy-whipped UN, incorrectly thinking that the UN would hold the US back from invading.  That is why Saddam sent the letter to the UN when it was too late, hoping to keep the US at bay.  Notice he did not send it to the President.

WHOOPS!!!!  That goof sent Saddam to the gallows.  Slight miscalculation.

Bush put up with the UN fucking around for four years.  Finally he had enough and took matters into his own hands to get the job done.

Hai, if you do not stand behind your military, feel free to stand in front of them.

Get with the program monkey boy.




Sinergy -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/14/2007 5:16:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

Nothing you have offered can be substantiated with sound fact and logic. .  However, what I have offered has been backed up with proven fact, provided in links to news sources that you pansies cite on a regular basis. 



[sarcasm]

Really, sound fact and logic.

[/sarcasm]

I read your links.  I really dont recall any that cited empirical evidence of the US military finding weapons of mass destruction, to pick one example.  Granted they did find a few artillery shells from 20 years ago with inactive from age chemical weapons, some bait and switch nonsense about aluminum tubes, and a fabricated report about a yellowcake purchase, and some trailers with things you would only find in a laboratory fabricating biological weapons, such as large metal bowls and measuring cups.

Please clarify exactly what weapons of mass destruction were found by the US Military after they invaded Iraq.

Sinergy





SirKenin -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/14/2007 5:21:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

Nothing you have offered can be substantiated with sound fact and logic. .  However, what I have offered has been backed up with proven fact, provided in links to news sources that you pansies cite on a regular basis. 



[sarcasm]

Really, sound fact and logic.

[/sarcasm]

I read your links.  I really dont recall any that cited empirical evidence of the US military finding weapons of mass destruction, to pick one example.  Granted they did find a few artillery shells from 20 years ago with inactive from age chemical weapons, some bait and switch nonsense about aluminum tubes, and a fabricated report about a yellowcake purchase, and some trailers with things you would only find in a laboratory fabricating biological weapons, such as large metal bowls and measuring cups.

Please clarify exactly what weapons of mass destruction were found by the US Military after they invaded Iraq.

Sinergy




Do you present yourself as clueless just to be argumentative?  Or do you genuinely have more knowledge of beer, pizza and Nascar than you do of the world arena?

I do not wish to repeat myself.  Go back and read everything that has been presented over the course of these couple of threads, and then PROVE to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that those weapons, you know, the weapons that Saddam used ON HIS OWN PEOPLE, amongst others, that were given to him by the US government, are not now in the hands of the Syrians....

Think.. then post..  Second thoughts.. Just think.




Sinergy -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/14/2007 5:27:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

I do not wish to repeat myself.  Go back and read everything that has been presented over the course of these couple of threads, and then PROVE to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that those weapons, you know, the weapons that Saddam used ON HIS OWN PEOPLE, amongst others, are not now in the hands of the Syrians....



Ah, the 20 year old (and non-functional) chemical weapons that Saddam used on his own people after Bush Sr. sold them to him, which Faux News posited were smuggled over the border into Syria.

Enjoy the blue pill, SirKenin.

Sinergy




SirKenin -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/14/2007 5:33:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

I do not wish to repeat myself.  Go back and read everything that has been presented over the course of these couple of threads, and then PROVE to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that those weapons, you know, the weapons that Saddam used ON HIS OWN PEOPLE, amongst others, are not now in the hands of the Syrians....



Ah, the 20 year old (and non-functional) chemical weapons that Saddam used on his own people after Bush Sr. sold them to him, which Faux News posited were smuggled over the border into Syria.

Enjoy the blue pill, SirKenin.

Sinergy


You moron.  Reagan gave the chemical weapons to Iraq to battle against Iran.

http://www.counterpunch.org/dixon06172004.html

http://www.greenleft.org.au/2002/506/27605

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

That is what stopped the US from marching into Baghdad in 1991.  They knew Iraq still had them, and indeed Saddam threatened to use them if they moved into Baghdad.




farglebargle -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/14/2007 5:36:41 PM)

quote:


SO to make this relevent to the thread DO you think that a WMD is a threat to the US??


Not really. I grew up with the concept of MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION. The idea of HUNDREDS of WMD being exchanged between the USSR and USA, at ANY TIME with less than 30 minutes warning.

So the idea of a single nuke really doesn't do anything. I figure anyone weirded out by such a tiny threat has other issues.

quote:


DO you think that OBL is a threat to the US??


Not really. Sure, it would be good if after 6 years, George Bush managed to do his job and bring OBL to Justice, but as we've seen with Posada-Carilles, bringing terrorists who used to work for George H.W. at the CIA isn't really a priority, is it?

quote:


Do you think Iran is a threat to the US??


No.





domiguy -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/14/2007 5:39:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

Bush put up with the UN fucking around for four years.  Finally he had enough and took matters into his own hands to get the job done.

Hai, if you do not stand behind your military, feel free to stand in front of them.

Get with the program monkey boy.


This is the biggest laugh I have had all day....Mission Accomplished!!!....Thousands dead, thousands wounded....At every turn all that was promised turned out to be false....Generals complaining of not enough troops or troops bitching that they were not given armored plated trucks to protect them.

It is such a shame. Bush is a liar...It is proven it is documented....You should stand in front of the caskests that no one is allowed to photograph as they are unloaded....To back this guy at this point can only make one wonder how (as I have stated before) much you  must enjoy the act of deep throating the truth and all of Bush's bullshit to reach your current position of still backing this schmuck.




farglebargle -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/14/2007 5:41:50 PM)

"They tried that avenue first and it clearly failed. "

Yeah, look at the WMD they found.

All NONE OF THEM.

It's ok, though.. .There were ALUMINIUM TUBES!!!

And isn't that enough proof? Aluminium tubes?

Oh, yeah... YOU provided the "fact" that Hussein gave them to Syria, and that the US failed to prevent their proliferation. Oh, no, YOU say that the us DID prevent their proliferation, but that somehow AFTER WE INVADED TO PREVENT THAT SPREAD, the UN managed to smuggle them out -- or something...





Griswold -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/14/2007 5:43:24 PM)

This is a pretty goddamned stupid question (and considering the source....).

Knowing, as we all do, who benefits from war (and it ain't you and me)...ergo...the truth would cause war to be either...ameliorated...or...lessened.

Considering that those who profit from war don't benefit (ergo) if we (they) tell the truth...ahemmm....

(Any questions?)




Sinergy -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/14/2007 5:44:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

you moron



Calling other people names is a truly erudite and emotionally stable approach to debate.

Before you comment, if I ever debate AnencephalyBoy I will show him respect by referring to him as Mr. President or his name.  I learned manners at a young age.

quote:



That is what stopped the US from marching into Baghdad in 1991.  They knew Iraq still had them, and indeed Saddam threatened to use them if they moved into Baghdad.



Thank you for clarifying how old the chemical weapons were.  You do know that they stop working after a while?

They suspected Iraq still had them in 1991.  On the other hand, books I have read (Cobra II, and a few others) seem to think that Bush was advised against invading Iraq in 1991 because it would have resulted in the breakdown of social structure, the destruction of international goodwill towards the United States, and the interruption of the flow of oil from Iraq.  Guess AnencephalyBoy did not bother to read any of those things.

That was not actually my question.  Where were they when AnencephalyBoy invaded?  You made the point that we had to invade to prevent the WMDs from being used.  So please clarify where these WMDs were found after we invaded AND cite your source materials.

Sinergy




farglebargle -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/14/2007 5:44:54 PM)

I'm still waiting for your refutation of these alleged 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.

F. On September 8, 2002, RUMSFELD stated on Face the Nation: "Imagine a September 11th, with weapons of mass destruction. It's not three thousand, it's tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children," which statement was deliberately fraudulent and misleading in that it implied without reasonable basis and in direct contradiction to then prevailing intelligence that Saddam Hussein had no operational relationship with al Qaeda and was unlikely to provide weapons to terrorists.

G. On September 19, 2002, RUMSFELD told the Senate Armed Services Committee that "no terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein," which statement was, as Rumsfeld well knew, made without reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to the truth in that: (1) Hussein had not acted aggressively toward the United States since his alleged attempt to assassinate President George H. W. Bush in 1993; (2) Iraq's military forces and equipment were severely debilitated because of UN sanctions imposed after the 1991 Gulf War; (3) the IC's opinion was that Iraq's sponsorship of terrorists was limited to ones whose hostility was directed toward Israel; and (4) Iran, not Iraq, was the most active state sponsor of terrorism.

H. On October 1, 2002, the defendants caused the IC's updated classified National Intelligence Estimate to be delivered to Congress just hours before the beginning of debate on the Authorization to Use Military Force. At the same time, the defendants caused an unclassified "White Paper" to be published which was false and misleading in many respects in that it failed to include qualifying language and dissents that substantially weakened their argument that Iraq posed a serious threat to the United States.

I. On October 7, 2002, in Cincinnati, Ohio, BUSH made numerous deliberately misleading statements to the nation, including stating that in comparison to Iran and North Korea, Iraq posed a uniquely serious threat, which statement BUSH well knew was false and fraudulent in that it omitted to state the material fact that a State Department representative had been informed just three days previously that North Korea had actually already produced nuclear weapons. The defendants continued to conceal this information until after Congress passed the Authorization to Use Military Force against Iraq.

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.

K. In his January 28, 2003 State of the Union address, BUSH announced that the "British have recently learned that Iraq was seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa" which statement was fraudulent and misleading and made with reckless disregard for the truth, in that it falsely implied that the information was true, when the CIA had advised the administration more than once that the allegation was unsupported by available intelligence.

L. In a February 5, 2003, speech to the UN, POWELL falsely implied, without reasonable basis and with reckless disregard for the truth, that, among other things: (1) those who maintained that Iraq was purchasing aluminum tubes for rockets were allied with Saddam Hussein, even though POWELL well knew that both Department of Energy nuclear weapons experts and State Department intelligence analysts had concluded that the tubes were not suited for nuclear centrifuge use; and (2) Iraq had an ongoing cooperative relationship with al Qaeda, when he well knew that no intelligence agency had reached that conclusion.

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 5:50:52 PM)

Fuck you are clueless.  Really, really clueless.

I said...

Saddam actively prevented inspections by UN inspectors.  He shot at planes flying through the no-fly zone.  He did everything he could to prevent the UN from ascertaining the truth.

The UN played the game for four years, which effectively gave Iraq time to move the weapons out of the country, while the US government chomped at the bit.

The US pleaded their case before the UN, only to be thwarted with politically correct democratic bullshit.

Bush had enough and said "fuck you".

Bush put the matter before Congress.

Congress, upon review of classified military intelligence that somehow a genius like yourself managed to get their hands on, voted for the use of force.

Saddam got scared and rushed a letter off to the UN.  He knew damn well that when the US got there he was going to jail.  He did not have the military might that he had in 1991 because the US and her allies already flattened the majority of it.

The US invaded.  They got there too late to get the weapons, thanks to the dilly dallyers in the UN...  But they did get Saddam.




domiguy -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/14/2007 5:53:54 PM)

That is not the reason Bush gave for the invasion...Do I need to post it?  The list is long of the things he stated as facts or that would occur that were proven to be false or never materialized...He is a liar.




SirKenin -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/14/2007 5:57:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

you moron



Calling other people names is a truly erudite and emotionally stable approach to debate.

Before you comment, if I ever debate AnencephalyBoy I will show him respect by referring to him as Mr. President or his name.  I learned manners at a young age.

quote:



That is what stopped the US from marching into Baghdad in 1991.  They knew Iraq still had them, and indeed Saddam threatened to use them if they moved into Baghdad.



Thank you for clarifying how old the chemical weapons were.  You do know that they stop working after a while?

They suspected Iraq still had them in 1991.  On the other hand, books I have read (Cobra II, and a few others) seem to think that Bush was advised against invading Iraq in 1991 because it would have resulted in the breakdown of social structure, the destruction of international goodwill towards the United States, and the interruption of the flow of oil from Iraq.  Guess AnencephalyBoy did not bother to read any of those things.

That was not actually my question.  Where were they when AnencephalyBoy invaded?  You made the point that we had to invade to prevent the WMDs from being used.  So please clarify where these WMDs were found after we invaded AND cite your source materials.

Sinergy



No I did not.  I can not imagine how you managed to get anything useful out of any books if you can not even comprehend simple message board posts.

I said Saddam was a threat because he was hell bent on taking control of Kuwait and on a larger scale he was part of the ideology of Arab control in the Middle East.  He proved himself to be a maniac.  He ordered acts of mass genocide on his own people, using chemical weapons.

My point had nothing to do with whether or not he still had WMDs in the country.  He was a threat with or without them.

The simple fact remains that the most compelling evidence indicates that Saddam moved the weapons to Syria.  But that kind of thwarts your idiosyncratic ideologies.

http://www.nysun.com/article/24480

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/3/2/230625.shtml

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/26/115712.shtml

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040816-011235-4438r.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/25/wirq25.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/01/25/ixnewstop.html




farglebargle -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/14/2007 6:02:01 PM)

quote:

Fuck you are clueless. Really, really clueless.


This from the guy unable to either follow simple directions OR is unable to defend the alleged overt acts of the Conspiracy.

The POINT is that when Bush et. al. CONSPIRED TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES, they deprived Congress of their ability to perform oversight. ANY decisions predicated on the overt acts of Conspiracy, are therefore invalid, aren't the?

Go ahead, go through the list, answer WHATEVER YOU CAN. We'll wait. They're enumerated A - N.





farglebargle -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/14/2007 6:04:12 PM)

quote:

He was a threat with or without them.



Unless you're clinically paranoid, he wasn't any threat to the United States.





farglebargle -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/14/2007 6:07:07 PM)


From WHITEHOUSE.GOV RIGHT NOW....

# The U.N. and U.S. intelligence sources have known for some time that Saddam Hussein has materials to produce chemical and biological weapons, but he has not accounted for them:

* 26,000 liters of anthrax—enough to kill several million people
* 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin
* 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agents

# Almost 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents




SirKenin -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/14/2007 6:18:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

Fuck you are clueless. Really, really clueless.


This from the guy unable to either follow simple directions OR is unable to defend the alleged overt acts of the Conspiracy.

The POINT is that when Bush et. al. CONSPIRED TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES, they deprived Congress of their ability to perform oversight. ANY decisions predicated on the overt acts of Conspiracy, are therefore invalid, aren't the?

Go ahead, go through the list, answer WHATEVER YOU CAN. We'll wait. They're enumerated A - N.




Actually you are more of a fanatical lost cause than he is.  I pointed out one point in your post and completely demolished it...  Which leaves the entire remainder of anything you have to say in the shadow of doubt.

It is a classic legal trick.

And with that I think I will leave you to wallow around in your own little fantasy world.




farglebargle -> RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? (5/14/2007 6:21:54 PM)

You were telling us where the FIVE HUNDRED TONS OF SARIN was...





Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625