Opinions wanted

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

It must be acknowledged that the only difference between the two administrations was one of will.

I am very interested, however, in your (and others') tendency to forego any mention of 9/11.

This is not to say there was any other than an empathetic connection between Iraq and the terrorists who perpetrated the eventNO CONNECTION AT ALL , but 9/11 gave the U.S. a different lens through which to view the entire situation in the mideast.

As there is no shortage of our stateside citizenry willing to forget 9/11 ever happened, though, I certainly cannot blame you for being unimpressed by it.

Nonetheless, 9/11 had a predicate effect on U.S. foreign policy.

---

Different lens? But jay, Bush lied. Even you don't think he lied, he was the leader of being wrong.

So wrong that he has plunged our soldiers into the crap we are in.

Taking action for taking action's sake is idiocy. We don't need that in the nuclear age.

I remember Repubs saying, "Well at least Bush did something."

IDIOTS! Take correct action or STFU!

---

Don't fuck with my posts; you can't even handle your own.

Bush lied, huh?

He must have been very convincing, because he fooled John Kerry, Hillary, Schumer, et. al. into supporting him.

Even your pal Billy-dick-suck thought we needed to go in, and he's the smartest politician who ever lived.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Don't fuck with my posts

---

I thought it was Ok as long as one used blue :shifty:

@busy............there's supposed to be two "at all"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Different lens? But jay, Bush lied. Even you don't think he lied, he was the leader of being wrong.

So wrong that he has plunged our soldiers into the crap we are in.

Taking action for taking action's sake is idiocy. We don't need that in the nuclear age.

I remember Repubs saying, "Well at least Bush did something."

IDIOTS! Take correct action or STFU!

---

Don't fuck with my posts; you can't even handle your own.

Bush lied, huh?

He must have been very convincing, because he fooled John Kerry, Hillary, Schumer, et. al. into supporting him.

Even your pal Billy-dick-suck thought we needed to go in, and he's the smartest politician who ever lived.

---

Agreed and I'll fuck with your posts as I see fit.

John Kerry flip-flopped by voting for it then against funding it.

Bush still lied and as I said, he was the ring leader so he takes the fall....as he should.

Who led the charge....your pick for Prez that's who.

Who had no plan after "mission accomplished"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Don't fuck with my posts

---

I thought it was Ok as long as one used blue :shifty:

@busy............there's supposed to be two "at all"

---

Why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

I thought it was Ok as long as one used blue :shifty:

@busy............there's supposed to be two "at all"

---

Why?

---

will this give you a hint at all (at all) ;)

@j2k4 - If you think Bush did not lie, are you saying that Iraq still has WMD's hidden somewhere?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manofstyle

@j2k4 - If you think Bush did not lie, are you saying that Iraq still has WMD's hidden somewhere?

---

Do you see getting something wrong as being the same as telling a lie.

As I understand it, from my own Country, the PM was told by intelligence departments that it was likely there were weapons of mass destruction there. He acted on that.

If they were wrong, which now appears likely, then that does not make him a liar.

Oh and there's absolutely no need for the possessive apostrophe in your post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

It seems to me that the Clinton administration told Saddam Hussein to comply with the UN resolutions or face action. Since he ultimately complied the action taken was relatively small compared to what it could have been.

Compare that with the actions of the Bush administration. They also told Saddam Hussein to comply with the UN resolutions or face action. The UN weapons inspectors said that by and large he was cooperating, but the Bush-Blair conspirators went ahead and invaded anyway.

What message does that give to the rest of the world? Seems to me like it's "comply or not, we'll attack anyway". The answer which seems to be resulting is "Fuck you, we may as well carry on with what we are doing".

Nice going.

---

It must be acknowledged that the only difference between the two administrations was one of will.

I am very interested, however, in your (and others') tendency to forego any mention of 9/11.

This is not to say there was any other than an empathetic connection between Iraq and the terrorists who perpetrated the event, but 9/11 gave the U.S. a different lens through which to view the entire situation in the mideast.

As there is no shortage of our stateside citizenry willing to forget 9/11 ever happened, though, I certainly cannot blame you for being unimpressed by it.

Nonetheless, 9/11 had a predicate effect on U.S. foreign policy.

---

I post a rebuttal of your position, in which you make absolutely no mention of 9/11, and you chastise me for not mentioning it.

Amazing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manofstyle

@j2k4 - If you think Bush did not lie, are you saying that Iraq still has WMD's hidden somewhere?

---

Do you see getting something wrong as being the same as telling a lie.

As I understand it, from my own Country, the PM was told by intelligence departments that it was likely there were weapons of mass destruction there. He acted on that.

If they were wrong, which now appears likely, then that does not make him a liar.

Oh and there's absolutely no need for the possessive apostrophe in your post.

---

Manipulating the evidence so as to persuade others of the validity of one's case comes far nearer to lying that getting it wrong.

That's one reason why those who say "look - the other side all agreed too" are deluding themselves. They agreed on the basis of the "evidence" presented to them. Whether they would have disagreed had they seen the raw evidence is a subject for a different debate, but in my book if you twist the truth you can't then claim the support of others based on those distortion's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Do you see getting something wrong as being the same as telling a lie.

As I understand it, from my own Country, the PM was told by intelligence departments that it was likely there were weapons of mass destruction there. He acted on that.

If they were wrong, which now appears likely, then that does not make him a liar.

Oh and there's absolutely no need for the possessive apostrophe in your post.

---

Manipulating the evidence so as to persuade others of the validity of one's case comes far nearer to lying that getting it wrong.

That's one reason why those who say "look - the other side all agreed too" are deluding themselves. They agreed on the basis of the "evidence" presented to them. Whether they would have disagreed had they seen the raw evidence is a subject for a different debate, but in my book if you twist the truth you can't then claim the support of others based on those distortion's.

---

So you are saying that they just looked at the evidence from the intelligence agencies and took that on faith, believeing the people who were paid to do that job and were presumably experts in doing it.

Surely that's exactly what the PM did as well.

Or do you think it's the case that the Govt got material from the agencies and manipulated it to garner support from others.

Have you some evidence of this.