Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Why Is Every War Started With a Lie?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? - 5/13/2007 10:45:55 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
Has anyone else noticed that? 

1) There were no WMD's in Iraq!

2) We didnt catch OBL in Afghanastan

3) Oh but we will find nukes in Iran right?

Has anyone even cracked open a history book, even once in their lives?

How about:
Nero burned Rome, blamed Christians
Guy Fawkes (1605)
Remember the Maine! (1898)
Reichstag Fire (1933)
Pearl Harbor (1941)
Operation Northwoods (1962)
coup against JFK (1963)
Gulf of Tonkin (1964)
Oklahoma City (1995)
9/99 Russian apartment bombings (1999)
September 11 (2001)

a short list, woefully incomplete


Throughout history, war planners have used many forms of deception to trick their enemies.  Because public support is so crucial to the process of initiating and waging war, the home population is also subject to deceitful stratagems. Creating false pretenses to justify war is often a major step in gaining public support for such deadly ventures.
         Like schoolyard bullies who shout 'He hit me first!', war planners know that it is irrelevant whether their rival really did 'throw the first punch.'  As long as the attack can be made to appear unprovoked, the aggressor can 'respond' with force.  Bullies and war planners are experts in the art of taunting, teasing and threatening.  If enemies cannot be goaded into 'firing the first shot,' it is easy enough to fabricate lies about what happened.  Such lies are used to rationalize schoolyard beatings or genocidal wars.
         Such expedient artifice has no doubt been used by every military power in history.  Roman emperors had their cassus belli to conceal real reasons for waging war.  Over the millenia, although weapons and battle strategies have changed greatly, the deceitful strategem of using pretext incidents to ignite war has remained remarkably consistent.  In examining this history, certain patterns repeatedly emerge, a distinct modus operandi is detected, and the institutionalized, criminal ploys of war planners can be seen.
         Perhaps the most commonly used war pretext device is



http://www.oilempire.us/parallels.html

oh and all the good stuff is on the left side!






< Message edited by Real0ne -- 5/13/2007 10:50:05 AM >


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? - 5/13/2007 11:52:39 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
Who was it that said 'the first casualty of war is truth'? They got it wrong, the lies pre-date the war.

The problem is that history is a political tool but one should never trust historians. Terry Reilly, an amateur historian and a citizen of Drogeda where Cromwell was supposed to have slaughtered  3,000 Irishmen. He decided to write about Cromwell's campaign in Ireland and went back to find the primary evidence. What he found was that historians had written about Cromwell in Ireland without ever having researched primary evidence. He found that Cromwell didn't go on a jolly around Ireland slaughtering the Irish. He led a disciplined force and Drogeda was an English Royalist garrison town manned by Englishmen. His book, Cromwell, An Honourable Enemy is worth a read for those interested.

I'm bored but there are several instances where amateurs have found out that professional historians haven't done their job or willfully corrupted their profession for politics.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? - 5/13/2007 2:15:52 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
And in a couple of battles in the south Cromwell got his ass kicked by "Hugh Kelly?"
I forget his name but he was very ingenious.
He fashioned an inside "box" of walls inside the main gates of castles having two sides  and then "let" Cromwell's forces storm and open the gate and go running in only to be trapped in the "kill box" with archers and boulder droppers and hot oil cauldrens above them.
They had a show about Cromwell on "The History Channel."
Henry the eighth didn't care too much for Cromwell either.

Yes, I think all wars have lies associated with them.
You know that the people who want the U.S. to get involved in Darfur will be lying through their teeth to get us involved.

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? - 5/13/2007 2:36:13 PM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

And in a couple of battles in the south Cromwell got his ass kicked by "Hugh Kelly?"
I forget his name but he was very ingenious.
He fashioned an inside "box" of walls inside the main gates of castles having two sides  and then "let" Cromwell's forces storm and open the gate and go running in only to be trapped in the "kill box" with archers and boulder droppers and hot oil cauldrens above them.
They had a show about Cromwell on "The History Channel."
Henry the eighth didn't care too much for Cromwell either.



He was a different Cromwell popeye.

Cromwell didn't get his ass kicked though he was outwitted on a couple of occasions and didn't respond with the slaughtering he is accused of. I noticed that the internet is full of tales of Cromwell masacring the Irish, all the stories of which can be traced back to 150 years after Cromwell's death. As Reilly pointed out, there is no primary evidence Cromwell went on a jolly around Ireland and no contemporary reports of him slaughtering civilians and priests. To do so would mean he had completely changed personality somewhere in the middle of the Irish sea. The fact that there is so of this stuff written by people who regard themselves as professional historians makes one wonder about so much other history that has the professional stamp of approval without the research of primary evidence.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? - 5/13/2007 2:38:36 PM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Who was it that said 'the first casualty of war is truth'? They got it wrong, the lies pre-date the war.


It's been proven that Mike Moore told several lies of his own, so when it comes to lying liars and the lies they sell in propaganda reels I'd have to say that he's the KING and that his ANTI-war crowd is a legion of lying fools

< Message edited by Sanity -- 5/13/2007 2:40:19 PM >


_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? - 5/13/2007 2:39:59 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? - 5/13/2007 2:43:19 PM   
seeksfemslave


Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline
How about the Alamo and Davy Crockett. and Jim? Bowie.
What happened there then ?

Mexicans were a well organised lot  and banned slavery in  1810/20. or thereabouts

Adding a response to Farglebargle: if Goering said that then he talked a lot of sense in my opinion. The bastard !.

< Message edited by seeksfemslave -- 5/13/2007 2:49:35 PM >

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? - 5/13/2007 2:44:14 PM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Who was it that said 'the first casualty of war is truth'? They got it wrong, the lies pre-date the war.


It's been proven that Mike Moore told several lies of his own, so when it comes to lying liars and the lies they sell in propaganda reels I'd have to say that he's the KING and that his ANTI-war crowd is a legion of lying fools


LOL That is the first I've heard someone demonizing someone for being against a war based on lies.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? - 5/13/2007 2:47:58 PM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

How about the Alamo and Davy Crockett. and Jim? Bowie.
What happened there then ?

Mexicans were a well organised lot  and banned slavery in  1810/20. or thereabouts .


Wasn't Texas part of Mexico at the time of the Alamo?  I'm not that well up of the technical position of Texas at the time but I do know that the Bowie knife was invented in Sheffield and made along the Attercliffe Road where I used to have a curry after the clubs shut on Saturday night or more correctly, Sunday morning.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to seeksfemslave)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? - 5/13/2007 3:19:26 PM   
seeksfemslave


Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline
Exactly the Texans were the terrorist rebels of 1830s.
I bet caitlyn knows  lol

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? - 5/13/2007 4:41:14 PM   
SirKenin


Posts: 2994
Joined: 10/31/2004
From: Barrie, ON Canada
Status: offline
Some lie.  The resolution passed the House and the Senate with the greatest majority vote, greater than the vote that sent the US troops into Desert Storm.. 

And in that Senate vote, 29 of 50 Democrats voted in favor...  and a resolution brought to veto was trashed by a 75-25 vote.

But Bush!!!  But Bush!!! BUT BUSH!!!!!

What about Bush?  Are the Democrats that stupid that they voted without substantial evidence that there was something seriously amiss in Iraq?  Or was Corporate America forcing their hands, else they pulled their silver spoons?

Let's get with the program folks.  It does not matter what Bush wants, nor what Bush says.  If the Senate says yes, the Senate says yes.  If the Senate says no, Bush is shit out of luck unless there is a tie.  Welcome to the real world.. 

Let's face it.  You have a bone to pick with Bush.  That has nothing to do with fact incidentally.  Merely a demonstration of political ignorance.

_____________________________

Hi. I don't care. Thanks.

Wicca: Pretending to be an ancient religion since 1956

Catholic Church: Serving up guilt since 107 AD.

(in reply to seeksfemslave)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? - 5/13/2007 4:50:33 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
The voted the way they did because THEY WERE LIED TO BY THE ADMINISTRATION.

To simplify, please respond to EACH ENUMERATED POINT, using the same enumeration and order in your responses.

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.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.



_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to SirKenin)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? - 5/13/2007 5:01:49 PM   
SirKenin


Posts: 2994
Joined: 10/31/2004
From: Barrie, ON Canada
Status: offline
Actually, I do not have to respond to that crap point by point...    All we have to do is focus on one to bring down the entire house of cards which is the bullshit that makes up your assertions.

Iraq BLOCKED the inspectors for four years, despite repeated US demands.  Iraq ordered it's Parliament into an emergency session the Saturday AFTER Congress voted to send the US to war.  They got scared, passed an emergency resolution and immediately dispatched a letter to the UN basically saying "Ok, Ok, we give"...

Unfortunately for them it was too late.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/10/12/iraq.palaces/index.html

Note the source.  Your beloved Communist News Network.

_____________________________

Hi. I don't care. Thanks.

Wicca: Pretending to be an ancient religion since 1956

Catholic Church: Serving up guilt since 107 AD.

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? - 5/13/2007 5:07:11 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
quote:

AFTER Congress voted to send the US to war


Since you are so ignorant of even the simple fact that CONGRESS NEVER VOTED TO SEND THE US TO WAR, maybe you should do your homework BEFORE volunteering opinions. It might save you some embarassment going forward.

I suggest you enumerate defenses for every alleged overt act contributing to the conspiracy.

You know, if Congress DID declare war, we would have then drafted a million people into service, and had the 400,000 on the ground to do the job correctly.



< Message edited by farglebargle -- 5/13/2007 5:09:33 PM >


_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to SirKenin)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? - 5/13/2007 5:09:32 PM   
SirKenin


Posts: 2994
Joined: 10/31/2004
From: Barrie, ON Canada
Status: offline
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

quote:


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.
Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.
The president praised the congressional action, declaring "America speaks with one voice."
"The Congress has spoken clearly to the international community and the United Nations Security Council," Bush said in a statement. "Saddam Hussein and his outlaw regime pose a grave threat to the region, the world and the United States. Inaction is not an option, disarmament is a must."


http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa101102a.htm

quote:


The U.S. Congress yesterday passed a resolution authorizing President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States against Iraq.
The House of Representatives on Oct. 10 passed the resolution (H.J. Res. 114) by a vote of 296-133. Senate approval came in a late-night vote of 77-23.
Resolution Authorizes Use of Military Forces in Iraq
Specifically, the resolution authorizes President Bush to:
  • use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
    (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
    (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq


You were saying? 



< Message edited by SirKenin -- 5/13/2007 5:16:16 PM >


_____________________________

Hi. I don't care. Thanks.

Wicca: Pretending to be an ancient religion since 1956

Catholic Church: Serving up guilt since 107 AD.

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? - 5/13/2007 5:14:33 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
The February 6, 2006 testimony of Alberto Gonzales to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Wartime Executive Power and the National Security Agency's Surveillance Authority, however indicates otherwise:

GONZALES: There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force. I only want to clarify that, because there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you're possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force.


_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to SirKenin)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? - 5/13/2007 5:17:08 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
There's another thing...

Are you suggesting that because the alleged Conspiracy to Defraud SUCCEEDED, then no crime occurred?



_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? - 5/13/2007 5:17:40 PM   
SirKenin


Posts: 2994
Joined: 10/31/2004
From: Barrie, ON Canada
Status: offline
What a load of absolute crap.  The President can not declare war.  Ever.  The Constitution prevents him from doing so, for obvious reasons.

Congress authorized the use of force.  That means, in no uncertain terms..  "Go ahead".

_____________________________

Hi. I don't care. Thanks.

Wicca: Pretending to be an ancient religion since 1956

Catholic Church: Serving up guilt since 107 AD.

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? - 5/13/2007 5:19:23 PM   
SirKenin


Posts: 2994
Joined: 10/31/2004
From: Barrie, ON Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

There's another thing...

Are you suggesting that because the alleged Conspiracy to Defraud SUCCEEDED, then no crime occurred?




I am suggesting you are pointing the fingers in the wrong direction because you have a very clear agenda, and a less than honorable one at that...

Your accusation means that over *70* senators and well over 100 representatives had their heads in the sand.

To say the least, that is complete idiocy.

_____________________________

Hi. I don't care. Thanks.

Wicca: Pretending to be an ancient religion since 1956

Catholic Church: Serving up guilt since 107 AD.

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? - 5/13/2007 5:19:58 PM   
MasterDave54


Posts: 2
Joined: 5/13/2005
Status: offline
Not to really change the subject, why is Bush against abortion but ok killing 19 year old boys in Iraq

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Why Is Every War Started With a Lie? Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




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

0.109