It is official. The Duelfer report concluded that Iraq had no stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons and its nuclear program had decayed before last year's U.S.-led invasion.
Powell lied. ¨Powell reiterated U.S. and British claims that Iraq had hidden chemical and biological weapons, as well as programs to develop nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. For instance, Powell said, Iraq had the capacity to produce 26,000 liters of anthrax, three times the amount it declared in the past and enough to kill several million people.¨ http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,73428,00.htm
Bush lied. ¨ It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons¨ http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
Blair lied. He claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction ready to be deployed in 45 minutes.
And many of you believed them then. And some of you still believe them now.
Originally posted by steerpikeyeah yeah ... we all knew this ages ago ....
It is official. The Duelfer report concluded that Iraq had no stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons and its nuclear program had decayed before last year's U.S.-led invasion.
Powell lied. ¨Powell reiterated U.S. and British claims that Iraq had hidden chemical and biological weapons, as well as programs to develop nuclear weapons and long-range ...[text shortened]... ed in 45 minutes.
And many of you believed them then. And some of you still believe them now.
Originally posted by steerpikeRumsfeld lied, and knew he was lying.
Powell lied. ¨Powell reiterated U.S. and British claims that Iraq had hidden chemical and biological weapons, as well as programs to develop nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. For instance, Powell said, Iraq had the capacity to produce 26,000 liters of anthrax, three times the amount it declared in the past and enough to kill several million people.¨ ...[text shortened]... ed in 45 minutes.
And many of you believed them then. And some of you still believe them now.
http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/
D
Originally posted by invigoratespeaking from a standpoint outside of being American, (apologies to those Americans who did see through the deceptions of the Bush administration) it was hilarious to us that so many Americans could be so easily 'hood winked' into believing Bush??!!.🙄
we should vote out the liers - shame the good people of Ohio thought a folksy personality was more important the ability to tell the truth.
The next process will be for lackey American historians to write school text books, to rewrite history, and minimise the WMD reason forgoing to war. To start indoctrinating the yound kids in school about the 'real' reasons America needed to destroy Iraq.
There should be reflection here by the populace who believed the Bush Admin. and who ultimately encouraged such a horrendous war.
Will any American step up to the plate and explain why they believed the WMD tall tales?
Originally posted by TinorangatiratangaThey have no reason, and they are running out of reasons by the second, reasoning is very limited with Bush lovers.
speaking from a standpoint outside of being American, (apologies to those Americans who did see through the deceptions of the Bush administration) it was hilarious to us that so many Americans could be so easily 'hood winked' into believing Bush??!!.🙄
The next process will be for lackey American historians to write school text books, to rewr ...[text shortened]... war.
Will any American step up to the plate and explain why they believed the WMD tall tales?
Right now, their top reason is, "Saddam is/was insulting to our precious USA", so you declare war and kill thousands because you felt "insulted"? Geee, what a wonderful reason for war! *snickers* Keep up the good work republicans, keep up the lies, keep up the false moral high ground, false value system, everyone else around the world and Americans not affiliated with your party literally see right through you and your crap. I'm sure you will justify Bush in anyway you can, no matter how silly or rediculous, I have seen and heard it all. Ppl don't have the balls to admit they were wrong in voting for someone, so they justify who they voted for no matter what, like a self-fufilling prophecy, it's sad.
I think were better off though, one question for everybody, Is it better to have Saddom in power or not? he killed hundreds of thousands of ppl,
Iraq Is happy,
US Liberals are not,
I think that is a good trade 😛
At least we know there is no WMD,
If we been hit by a WMD liberals would still be whining,
Originally posted by flyUnityCrikey!
I think were better off though, one question for everybody, Is it better to have Saddom in power or not? he killed hundreds of thousands of ppl,
Iraq Is happy,
US Liberals are not,
I think that is a good trade 😛
At least we know there is no WMD,
If we been hit by a WMD liberals would still be whining,
I've no idea if the remaining Iraqies are happy now their cities have been destroyed, the population polverised and have no sanitation or electriciy.
But I do know, the Bush was saying right up to going in to war that Saddam could avoid this war by surrendering his weapons of mass destruction. But now we know he didn't have any Bush must resign.
No UN backing. No WMD. 100,000 dead Iraq'ies - no winners just losers
No offence, but have you been watching CBS too much?
Look at the Iraq polls, Most of em are happy that they were liberated
And btw, Demacrats voted for the war too (when public opionion was for it), They just bailed out when public opionion was againts them
Oh, You never did answer my question in my previous post
Originally posted by TinorangatiratangaAmerican historians almost universally opposed Bush.
speaking from a standpoint outside of being American, (apologies to those Americans who did see through the deceptions of the Bush administration) it was hilarious to us that so many Americans could be so easily 'hood winked' into believing Bush??!!.🙄
Will any American step up to the plate and explain why they believed the WMD tall tales?
The problem with American history is not that it whitewashes such events, but that few Americans care. Their general apathy about such knowledge is compounded by a growing distrust of liberal intellectuals. Bush was elected, as were several of his predecessors because patriotism on testosterone is an easy sell to the American people
The most disturbing gap that I saw between voter perceptions of Bush vs. Kerry, and the realities with which historians deal was in this: Bush succeeded in portraying Kerry's plan as giving other nations "veto" power over U.S. foreign policy. But, Kerry was arguing for principles that have been central to U.S. foreign policy since WWII. Bush's disregard of the opinions of our traditional allies is the most significant foreign policy shift in half a century. Yet voters believed Bush was "staying the course" and Kerry offering a dangerous new direction.
Historians are already accessing the significance of the Bush policy changes. Read any of the last few issues of Foreign Affairs and you'll see how American historians are writing about Iraq.
I am an American, and I am an American historian; that's how I swing the bat. Now, throw me out, okay.
First, could you give some links to the actual poll results? I'd particularly like to examine the wording and the way in which respondents were sampled.
Did they do it by phone? If so then I think you'd have a big selection bias. You may only be sampling from people who have been the least negatively affected by the war.
Did they do it in the streets? What areas were safe enough that the pollsters felt comfortable conducting the survey? Again potential selection bias.
How many polls have been conducted and how consistent are the results?
As for your second point, as some one who followed the Iraq debacle well before it became big in the press, I know that when the majority of Democrats authorized Bush to go to war at his discretion, there was a major disconnect between the Democratic leadership and their constituents. Against Democratic objections, Bush and his cronies slyly held the vote just before the mid-term elections, forcing every member between a rock and a hard place. Of course, Bush and gang manipulated the whole thing, citing imminent threat of attack as the reason for the hurry. I'm ashamed to say that the Dem's folded. Nevertheless, a great percentage of the country opposed giving Bush authorization. I don't remember the figures specifically, but I believe it was something near 40%. There were enormous demonstrations all over the country. It wasn't like the Democrats or even all Republican (talking citizens now, not elected officials) were on board with Bush.
Your point then is completely misinformed. I'm afraid you either have forgotten the climate or have willfully blocked it from your mind. The Dem's caved in because of re-election fear, not because of public opinion. It was uncertainty about where public opinion would be a few months from their vote that concerned them (and quite a few Republicans as well). Clearly, the Democratic leadership screwed up. Nevertheless, even more clearly, Bush rushed to war because he and his advisors wanted it, WMD's or no. That's why he attacked even when inspectors, who were supplied with much of the same U.S. intelligence, were coming back empty handed. That's why the Bush Administration just announced that even knowing what we know now, they still would have invaded Iraq. Pretty thick-headed IMHO.
*Sigh*, Why do I try to argue with you?
But, I guess there are ppl in the world that dont want the whole story, they want Saddom to be killing hundreds of thousands of ppl, They dont want Iraqi citazens to have free elections, They want Iraq to be ran by a dictater, They want the dictater to be keeping all the money from the oil for food program, instead of giving it to the Iraqi citazens who are starving, yes, there are ppl that want all that,.
Question 1. Why am I trying to convince you? I dont believe you will ever get it
Question 2. which is the question I asked in my first post which you never answered
Edit:
Oh, and you do admit the top dem's screwed up, Im willing to admit the top demacrats's and repulicans screwed up on WMD, why do you only place the blame on republicans?
Fly Unity -
Q1 - I'm glad you are trying to convince me becuase the republican leadership failed to convince me
Q2 - l'd prefer Saddam to have been removed by Iraq'ies. If was still in power now, there would be more stability (although it is hard to say which is the lesser of two evils). It is always wrong to invade a soveriegn nation which has not shown any agression to you or your country.
lol,
Did you know that several Iraqi Groups tried to take Saddom out? They went into hiding because they were to fearful, There is no way possible that the Iraqis couldve Liberated themselvs,
you say you dont want Iraq liberated because it's unstable? At one time the USA was unstable too, (Luckily we liberated ourselves and didnt need any help.)
I think Iraq will get stable over time.
At one time there was ppl againts liberating the USA, they thought it would become unstable, and that the british was to powerful Ect., Now look at the picture of the USA, and then try to inmagine what it would look like if we wouldve listened to the critics who was againts the Revaloutiony War
Try to look ahead (skip the power outages telephone ect. for now) in 100 years, Would you still be mad at Bush for liberating Iraq, By then Iraq will be a great nation 😛
If nothing else im having fun posting 😛
Originally posted by flyUnity
Question 1. Why am I trying to convince you? I dont believe you will ever get it
A1: Is this a rhetorical question? As long as you believe in unjust wars for the sake of your partisanship, the feeling is mutual. I actually voted for Bush II in 2000, so forget the whole "you just hate republicans" crap. Weak argument.
Originally posted by flyUnity
Question 2. which is the question I asked in my first post which you never answered
A2: If you are asking a hypothetical, then in general it is certainly better for him not to be in power. However, to base or justify foreign policy on such a simplitistic aim is naive. It is a matter of measuring the cost of achieving the end that is important. For example, would it be better for Saddam to be left in power if the only means of eliminating him were by nuking 2 million Iraqi's? Hopefully, you would answer, "No." In this case, the war cost us the trust of the international community. It made us the destroyer of at least 100,000 innocent Iraqi's for false pretenses; and it has unnecessarily robbed us of over 1,000 Americans and maimed a great many more. Your own fearless leader has used similar reasoning to justify leaving the leadership in Iran and in North Korea (remember the rest of that infamous axis?) in power. Forgive me for ignoring the question the first time. I just figured it was too silly to be taken seriously.
Now how about those polls? I hope that's not the smell of manure on your breathe. I might be inclined to suspect you are talking out your ass again. 🙂
Oh wait you have an edit question. Huh? Sounds like you answer your own question just before you ask it.
Originally posted by flyUnity
why do you only place the blame on republicans?
Originally posted by flyUnity in the previous run-on sentence
you do admit the top dem's screwed up
I couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks.