Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why We Are in Iraq

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/wmd-j29.shtml

    http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...?from=storylhs

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3719468.stm

    Now, you figure.

    One could bring more of these links. The sad part is Blair tried to outBush Bush.

    A most pathetic man, even though I still like him.

    The idiot should ahve understood it was an US war and he is only a supprt group. He tried to show it was the British who are upfront and Bush was pussyfooting. A very confused man.

    Compare the British effort with the US. Chicken feed,

    The British Empire is dead and gone, It is time to realise that UK is second fiddle. if indeed that fiddle can be heard!

    LOL.

    Hanging on to coat tails.

    Or Momma's aprong string!
    Last edited by Ray; 14 Dec 04,, 10:08.


    "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

    I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

    HAKUNA MATATA

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Ray
      http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/wmd-j29.shtml

      http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...?from=storylhs

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3719468.stm

      Now, you figure.

      One could bring more of these links. The sad part is Blair tried to outBush Bush.

      A most pathetic man, even though I still like him.

      The idiot should ahve understood it was an US war and he is only a supprt group. He tried to show it was the British who are upfront and Bush was pussyfooting. A very confused man.

      Compare the British effort with the US. Chicken feed,

      The British Empire is dead and gone, It is time to realise that UK is second fiddle. if indeed that fiddle can be heard!

      LOL.

      Hanging on to coat tails.

      Or Momma's aprong string!
      Oh yeah thats right, anyone who supports Bush is an idiot....common you'll have to do better than that Ray. Please try and remember the only ones NOT on board were the French and Germans. You can try and argue and say that the majority of the world is against Bush but 49-51% of each nations population (the most vocal being the left who don't want a war and are not getting what they want so they whine) that is not a majority of the world. The war for Oil or to finnish Daddy's war just dosn't cut it for arguements anymore either.
      Facts to a liberal is like Kryptonite to Superman.

      -- Larry Elder

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by mididoctors
        he didn't... deliberating creating speech that has a broad interpretation while specifically avoiding definitive claims is a highly skilled and premeditate form of lying.

        the 'cover" built into Blair's speech is appalling inditement to the depths spin has brought the standard of public debate.

        If you wish to defend this behavior I think it reflects badly on your integrity.

        You wish to associate yourself with this crap?

        Boris
        london
        I could care less if he lied to the left, they are the ones who needed some sort of excuse to find their Kahuna's and go to war for a just cause against a reasonable world threat. They are also the most vocal because we are no longer appeasing dictators anymore. Now the going gets tough so they whine.

        To them I say tough.....
        Facts to a liberal is like Kryptonite to Superman.

        -- Larry Elder

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by smilingassassin
          I could care less if he lied to the left, they are the ones who needed some sort of excuse to find their Kahuna's and go to war for a just cause against a reasonable world threat. They are also the most vocal because we are no longer appeasing dictators anymore. Now the going gets tough so they whine.

          To them I say tough.....
          there is an contradiction here as they have lied to the "right" as well..

          you have just established in admission there is no reasonable threat... unless you think he wasn't lying???????

          which is it?

          this sort of thought process is baffling as the inference to my mind is" i don't care if was lying as I believe we should have acted on a lie even if it isn't true and we know it "

          surreal

          do you think there were any WMD or not?

          if you think not where is the threat they needed to be lied about to to get their kahunas together for?

          Boris
          london

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by smilingassassin
            Oh yeah thats right, anyone who supports Bush is an idiot....common you'll have to do better than that Ray. Please try and remember the only ones NOT on board were the French and Germans. You can try and argue and say that the majority of the world is against Bush but 49-51% of each nations population (the most vocal being the left who don't want a war and are not getting what they want so they whine) that is not a majority of the world. The war for Oil or to finnish Daddy's war just dosn't cut it for arguements anymore either.
            Smiling,

            I support Bush. I hope I am not an idiot.

            I support his war on terror. But I don't have blinkers and I don;t buy the justification for Iraq. Had he said regime change was the issue, I sure would agree.

            Blair is a wimp. At least, Bush is straight.

            Stop being Blair. Your statistics of world opinion is pretty wrong. Just check the threads out here. You don't have to go very far to check.

            I support Bush but I don't hallucinate to justify. Please note, I don't say you do. I am just speaking about myself.

            I am as clear like Bush. Bush has gone into Iraq. Good or bad? Who cares. Now, do what you want and say what you want. Too bad. If some folks don't like it? Go fish.

            But sure, such folks can debate and maybe some good lessons learnt can surface. No harm in that.

            The war for Oil or to finnish Daddy's war just dosn't cut it for arguements anymore either.
            From the point of strategy Oil is an issue. The sulphur content of Iraq oil is lowest and it means cheap refining. But that is just a side issue. Iraq is the spring board for CAR oil which is being sent through to Rumania without touching Russia but bordering it. Also remember Shanghai Five.
            Therefore, a safer route is required. Further, Russia has to be encricled. Oh well, there are many reasons.

            It is not Daddy's war. That is childish. The bloke Cheney is the real Rasputin. He is a clever DiCk. Heard his speech about two Americas? Master stroke. While I salute his Machiavellian style, I don't like devious blokes. If he were the President, then much that the world would dislike him, he would make US the greatest.
            Last edited by Ray; 14 Dec 04,, 19:20.


            "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

            I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

            HAKUNA MATATA

            Comment


            • #96
              I don't think my stats are wrong at all, the left are the most vocal, they should be. We are not conforming to their defeatist strategy. Why would those on the right scream bloody murder? We agree on the Bush doctrine.

              Its split down the middle, and those who are not getting their way are whining, giving the appearance of "overwhelming opposision".

              Besides France and Germany who else would you expect to back us up? Does that mean when Jordan, Syria and Eygpt attacked Israel, Arabs overwhelmingly supported destroying Isreal?
              Facts to a liberal is like Kryptonite to Superman.

              -- Larry Elder

              Comment


              • #97
                Well India was about to give a Division. That 30.000. And well experienced in handling this type of muck.


                "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

                I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

                HAKUNA MATATA

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by mididoctors
                  therefore its not lying?

                  Are you basically saying you support this misrepresentation as a necessary evil?
                  I still don't see where Blair lied. If a "media" source misrepresents what was said, it seems you should be mad at the media.

                  Nobody will clairify themselves, unless they're challenged to do so, was my point in the bit you quoted. (You see, I understood completely what I had said, and wouldn't have spoken about it again, if I hadn't been challenged.)
                  Originally posted by mididoctors
                  he didn't...
                  That's what I said! LOL
                  Originally posted by mididoctors
                  deliberating creating speech that has a broad interpretation while specifically avoiding definitive claims is a highly skilled and premeditate form of lying.
                  It's not a lie, if you just misinterpret what is presented. I understood what was said, so I guess American public schools weren't so bad in my day. You could allways prove he was deliberately lying, Otherwise my original position still stands, Blair never said that.
                  Originally posted by mididoctors
                  is appalling inditement to the depths spin has brought the standard of public debate.
                  You do realize, without proof of the lie, you are playing the spin game as well...
                  Originally posted by mididoctors
                  If you wish to defend this behavior I think it reflects badly on your integrity.

                  You wish to associate yourself with this crap?
                  Read back through this thread, all I said was that Blair never said what HOKUM said, and then Nisaar backed up with an I saw it. BTW, how does it make you feel about your own integrity to call someone a lyer without proof. Or to try and insult the integrity of one who stated a fact, a fact you had just agreed with. Either way, questioning a person's integrity just because you percieve they don't share some opinion of yours detracts from your argument, and will leave you quite lonely, as no two persons' opinions are exactly the same.
                  Originally posted by mididoctors
                  if you think not where is the threat they needed to be lied about to to get their kahunas together for?
                  Even if most of the world lied and said Saddam had WMD knowing he didn't, I still find it sad that a direct threat was required to get him out. All of my reasons for supporting the removal of Saddam have turned out to be true, but then WMD do not scare me in the least.
                  No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
                  I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
                  even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
                  He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    I watch Bitrish TV extensively and also read some of their news.

                    Blair's credibility is very low on Iraq with the British public. But his domestic agenda is popular, even though the financial effects would be showing in the next to next govt.

                    Blunkett, I believe has delivered.

                    The British economy is very good after a long time.

                    So Blair will win, and may even squeak through since the Conservatives have no charismatic leader nor are they sounding credible to the British public.

                    I wouldn't say Blair lied, but I would say he is guilty of terminological inexactitude.

                    I saw the debate on TV. He did cleverly put actoss the point that Saddam was a immediate threat and his WMD and reaction was very dangerous to all. I don't remember if he said London was a target but his eloquence didn't say that it wasn't.

                    The beauty of Blair is that he is suggestive and leaves issue in a rhetoric way.

                    Blair is an excellent orator.
                    Last edited by Ray; 15 Dec 04,, 05:28.


                    "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

                    I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

                    HAKUNA MATATA

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by mididoctors
                      there is an contradiction here as they have lied to the "right" as well..

                      you have just established in admission there is no reasonable threat... unless you think he wasn't lying???????
                      I didn't state that, you should read things more in detail before making assumptions. I said I could care less if he lied, I didn't state that he did or didn't and at any rate I agree with the choice to go into Iraq. I also did not establish an admission that there wasn't a reasonable threat, prewar intel, be it true or not, stated that Saddam was attempting to aquire WMD's to add to those he was already susspected of having.

                      He also supported terrorist groups hell bent on destroying Israel. The U.S. is dispised for its mere support of Israel in the face of terrorist attacks so Saddams actions are all too clearly aimed at the U.S. as well.
                      Saddam did not want to see peace in Palestine, while the U.S. did everything in its power (under a democratic president I might add) to resolve the issue PEACEFULLY for both sides. We also have a Republican president calling for the creation of a Palestinian state, while Saddam funds suicide bombers family's.

                      Saddam clearly was content with keeping the cycle of violence sustained in the ME, but wait!!! We supported him durring the cold war we can't do the right thing now!!!!



                      Originally posted by mididoctors
                      this sort of thought process is baffling as the inference to my mind is" i don't care if was lying as I believe we should have acted on a lie even if it isn't true and we know it "

                      surreal
                      Not as surreal as people like you dispising the U.S. for backing Saddam durring the cold war and then dispising them equally for doing the right thing and removing a moster they partly created.

                      Surreal is knowing that You can sleep at night opposing the removal of Saddam because of a mere technicality...."I was lied to...the horror!!!"

                      Originally posted by mididoctors
                      do you think there were any WMD or not?
                      In short yes, IMO events prewar allowed their relocation to other supportive regeimes, there already are enough unusual programs that have been discovered in Iraq. Call it a conspiracy theory if you like (and I'm sure you will) but there is enough evidence to make it a distinct possibility.

                      Its sad when people have to be lied to to spur them to do the right thing, but unfortunately it happens all the time in polotics, something those on the left are just as equally guilty of.
                      Facts to a liberal is like Kryptonite to Superman.

                      -- Larry Elder

                      Comment


                      • Smiling,

                        Fir Christ's sake, don't think the world is against the US.

                        And anyway, let the American decide and talk and not Canadian speak for them as if they are dumb and stupid. They are not. They can fight their own battles and pretty well too.

                        Are you suggesting that they require a Candian for pearls of wisdom? It is too much Balir like. Trying to find a place in the sun when the Sun has set on the British Empire. Piggybacking into the sunset of glory on the US back?

                        You are entitled to support the US and why not? But keep it from the Candian perspective.

                        Now let's have a look at what Indian's think and this guy is no fawning US lover like some of us.

                        The pieces of peace
                        In the post-Arafat era, the ‘road map’ awaits new travellers
                        G. PARTHASARATHY

                        Visiting the Old City of Jerusalem is an enthralling experience. It is the only place in the world where some of the holiest shrines of the three great Semitic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, can be seen together. Emerging from an Arab marketplace one enters a large open area where Jewish people are praying before the historic Wailing Wall. Behind the Wall is the Dome of the Rock, one of Islam’s three holiest shrines. Opposite the Wall is one of Christianity’s two holiest shrines, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre — the site of the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ.

                        Christians and Muslims have fought for centuries for control of these holy shrines. It was, however, during Ottoman rule that it emerged that in view of the squabbling between rival sects involving the Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Armenian and Coptic Christians, the Custodian and Doorkeeper of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre would be a Muslim. Even today, when one enters this shrine, one would be admitted by a Muslim, Wajeeh Y Nuseibeh, whose family has for long held this post. Samuel Huntington, who forecast the “clash of civilisations”, ignored centuries of enlightened rule when religious freedoms and the right to worship were respected in Jerusalem.

                        As the Palestinians and Israelis prepare to deal with each other in a post Yasser Arafat era, the future of Jerusalem will be a key issue. At the Camp David summit convened by President Clinton in the summer of 2000, Yasser Arafat and Prime Minister Yehud Barak came close to reaching an agreement. The summit failed, but the contours of a settlement for Israeli-Palestinian peace were broadly agreed upon. The Camp David summit was followed by negotiations at Taba on the Egyptian-Israeli border. Finally, amidst increasing violence by Palestinian terrorist groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad and severe reprisals by Israeli forces, a “quartet” comprising the US, the European Union, Russia and the UN came out with a “road map” for peace on September 17 2002. The road map, which will follow up on broad understandings reached in Camp David and at Taba, would lead to Israeli withdrawal from about 95 per cent of territories captured on the West Bank in 1967 and from the entire Gaza strip. The Palestinians are to be “compensated” for territory not returned by Israel with a “land swap”. Jerusalem is to be declared an “Open City’. While the Palestinians have demanded the “right of return” for all refugees to Israel, it is acknowledged that while Israel may accept those who have familial ties with Israeli Arabs, the bulk of the refugees will have to be settled in the new Palestinian state, or in Arab countries where they are currently resident. There was an understanding at Camp David that there would be Palestinian sovereignty over Arab neighbourhoods of East Jerusalem including the Muslim, Christian and Armenian Quarters of the Old City, with Israel retaining sovereignty over the Jewish Quarter and part of the Armenian Quarter.

                        The road map for peace, however, requires the Palestinian Authority to decisively end all terrorist violence against Israelis. Israel, in turn, is required to end punitive action and attacks on civilians. The road map also requires the Palestinian Authority to democratise its style of functioning. The peace process, therefore, depends on the will of the Palestinian Authority to end terrorist violence — a task Arafat was unwilling to undertake. Even though he played a historic role in focusing world attention on the plight of the Palestinians, he was far too tolerant of corruption and maladministration. Stories of how leaders of the Palestinian Authority have amassed wealth and live in splendid villas regularly appear in Palestinian journals. There is hope that if the interim PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas is elected to replace Arafat on January 9 2000, things will change for the better. Abbas, however, faces a formidable challenge from the charismatic Marwan Barghouti who is undergoing a 100 year prison term for involvement in killings of Israeli civilians. Even if Abbas wins, as is now predicted, he will face a formidable challenge in moving ahead on the peace process by acting to effectively curb terrorist violence, even though recent Israeli actions have damaged the capabilities of both Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

                        While the Arab and other Islamic states pass resounding resolutions in the OIC condemning Israel, many of them are regularly dealing with Israel even on sensitive issues. Egypt’s intelligence chief Omar Sulaiman is a regular visitor to Israel. Both Egypt and Jordan have close intelligence ties with the Jewish state. Arab countries like Morocco and Tunisia also have periodic meetings at ministerial level with Israel in international and regional meetings and Turkey has close strategic ties that cause more than a little discomfort in Arab capitals. China follows a policy of keeping silent on Middle East developments. It builds relations with major oil suppliers like Libya, Iran and Saudi Arabia by supplying them with military hardware and missiles and even nuclear technology through Pakistan. Libya received the design of a nuclear weapon tested by China in 1966 from A.Q. Khan. China simultaneously befriends Israel and obtains huge amounts of military hardware from that country. Our Communists can perhaps learn a lesson or two on diplomatic pragmatism from their Chinese comrades!

                        India has to recognise that it lacks the economic clout to contribute meaningfully like the Europeans to the Middle East peace process. Further, in view of the dominant role of the Americans and the supporting role of the Europeans, Russians and the UN in the “road map”, there is little that India can do to influence the course of negotiations, especially if we are seen by either the Israelis or Palestinians as being partisan. There is much we can learn from major Asian powers like Japan and China about the virtues of sobriety in commenting on developments in the Middle East. Countries like Saudi Arabia should also be made to realise that they cannot condemn us in forums like the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) and accord OIC recognition and support to the Geelani faction of the Hurriyat Conference on the one hand and expect us to unquestioningly back them on Middle East issues the other. Friendship is not a one way street
                        So see, much that the present govt is an Arafat fan, yet, we know he did nothing to change the situation.

                        All I say, don't look at the world without 'fashion glasses' coloured and that too at night after a few drinks! ;)

                        Even this bloke thinks Arafat has done fanny Adams.
                        Last edited by Ray; 15 Dec 04,, 09:06.


                        "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

                        I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

                        HAKUNA MATATA

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Ray
                          he is guilty of terminological inexactitude.
                          .
                          LOL
                          Ray, I love this quote, do you mind if I use it?
                          In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                          Leibniz

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Confed999

                            It's not a lie, if you just misinterpret what is presented. I understood what was said, so I guess American public schools weren't so bad in my day. You could allways prove he was deliberately lying, Otherwise my original position still stands, Blair never said that.
                            If you think they construct there speeches without this in mind you are naive?


                            Even if most of the world lied and said Saddam had WMD knowing he didn't, I still find it sad that a direct threat was required to get him out. All of my reasons for supporting the removal of Saddam have turned out to be true, but then WMD do not scare me in the least.
                            Why didn't they make this argument then?

                            Boris
                            london

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Ray
                              Smiling,

                              Fir Christ's sake, don't think the world is against the US.
                              Ray, thats my whole point, leftwing cronies continuously proclaim that the world is resoundingly against the war in Iraq, I don't call 49-51% a "resounding" opposition. The real problem is complacancy, being far removed from war most don't recognize it as a nessassary evil, and will egnore solid facts to back up the choice to go to war because it hinders their arguements.

                              Originally posted by Ray
                              And anyway, let the American decide and talk and not Canadian speak for them as if they are dumb and stupid. They are not. They can fight their own battles and pretty well too.

                              Are you suggesting that they require a Candian for pearls of wisdom? It is too much Balir like. Trying to find a place in the sun when the Sun has set on the British Empire. Piggybacking into the sunset of glory on the US back?

                              You are entitled to support the US and why not? But keep it from the Candian perspective.

                              Now let's have a look at what Indian's think and this guy is no fawning US lover like some of us.
                              Lemmi Guess you as an Indian have the right to chastise blair, but I as a Canadain do not have the right to suport him? Quite an arrogant stance indeed.
                              Facts to a liberal is like Kryptonite to Superman.

                              -- Larry Elder

                              Comment


                              • Parihaka,

                                That's not mine.

                                It is Winston's Churchill's to say that a guy is a LIAR and not have it expunged from the proceedings. I love it.

                                Please use it.


                                "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

                                I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

                                HAKUNA MATATA

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X