• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Why Pro-War Advocates Have Got It Wrong

LilAngelHeart

~Nope,nothing wrong here~
Sep 18, 2002
1,774
65
46
I live in the Midwest,
Visit site
✟2,714.00
Faith
Pentecostal
2nd April 2003 at 03:22 AM Jutsuka said this in Post #1

Read and react...

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/tma68/iraq.htm


Whatever! :rolleyes: So I guess all of the other countries in the world are saints and their leaders never ever lied to their people about anything huh? We are the only nation that's not perfect?! At least our government doesn't force us women to get circumcised and keep our faces covered at all times wrapped up in a sheet.

Besides, where did the information about the so-called lies come from? Let me guess, other nations who hate America! :idea: LOL!


*~·´¯`·¸.~¤LïlÃñge£Heårt¤~*
 
Upvote 0

LilAngelHeart

~Nope,nothing wrong here~
Sep 18, 2002
1,774
65
46
I live in the Midwest,
Visit site
✟2,714.00
Faith
Pentecostal
2nd April 2003 at 08:45 PM Doctrine1st said this in Post #13

These events are proven to be true:

1. Tonkin Gulf Lie Launched Vietnam War

2. Told in advance by Hussein that he might invade Kuwait in 1990, but we did nothing to deter him.

3. No Iraqi troops were visible near the Saudi border – just empty desert.

4. G Bush Sr. continued to coddle Saddam Hussein long after the very gassing incident that is now being used as a pretext for the current war, and how the Reagan-Bush administration went out of its way to arm Iraq

I don’t know about the rest of them, but I see no one has taken the liberty to address Jutsuka's challenge to prove that these claims are wrong, and just reject them out right instead.

Now I seriously ask, for all those who think this is outright do you think, given the history of some past events that came to light, that it is beyond the U.S. Government to lie about these or any events to promote whatever agenda it may be?


Not saying everything in there is the truth, I believe it all a pack of lies, but even if one does believe that our government has told some lies, are all of the other nations leaders saints and never ever lie to their people??!! It's not a matter of who's perfect because no nation is perfect, they *all* lied!!LOL! But which side stands for the greater good? Us or them?! We have to protect ourself and not let those lunatics terrorize us and the world, so what if our government has done some questionable things, which I don't think we have but even if you do think that, which side has the better intentions?? Those who want to spread murder and terror all over the world, or us who believe in freedom and democracy?! Let's get real! Those other nations leaders are NOT saints, they are not little innocent lambs that we are just going over there to terrorize!
:(

*~·´¯`·¸.~¤LïlÃñge£Heårt¤~*
 
Upvote 0

LilAngelHeart

~Nope,nothing wrong here~
Sep 18, 2002
1,774
65
46
I live in the Midwest,
Visit site
✟2,714.00
Faith
Pentecostal
3rd April 2003 at 01:33 PM Jutsuka said this in Post #16

So all the actions in my first post are true? Then what makes you think the American goverment isn't lying about this war? Any takers?


So the World Trade Center being blown up by terrorists was a lie??? Even though we all saw it as it happened?? I guess that was mass hipnotism and the WTC towers are still standing then? Those nations saying they hate us and want to destroy America is all a lie and they love us and want to embrace us with open arms? LOL! Who cares if someone thinks the government lied and said Saddam was wearing a blue coat when he was really wearing a *green* coat! LOL! The fact is they are still out to get us and we have to protect ourselves.


*~·´¯`·¸.~¤LïlÃñge£Heårt¤~*
 
Upvote 0

O'Mara

<marquee behavior=scroll direction=left scrollamou
Apr 6, 2002
235
0
All over.
✟374.00
3rd April 2003 at 06:33 PM Jutsuka said this in Post #16

So all the actions in my first post are true? Then what makes you think the American goverment isn't lying about this war? Any takers?


LOL... believe all the spin doctors and half truths and pass it on to everyone you find.

When it all comes down to it, I'm happy... actually thrilled you can't vote in my country.

Come to think of it, believe what you want, you conspiracy theorists don't exactly have a great reputation in the international community either.
 
Upvote 0

Goldstein

Gatherer.Of.Data
Apr 4, 2003
378
6
43
Visit site
✟23,048.00
Faith
Agnostic
So far, not one person in this thread has disputed any of the topics brought up in the original link with any sort of substance.

Unfortunately for the pro-war crowd, they will not be able to dispute any of them because they are all true.

It is a well-known fact among people who actually keep up with current events that this war is not about terrorism or weapons of mass destruction or liberating the Iraqi people--those are only pretexts and convenient cover stories for the real motives behind the war.

The hawks in the White House were clamoring for a takeover of Iraq as far back as 1997, some even before that; well before September 11, 2001 in any case. The war on Iraq is in no way the result of a conspiracy; the hawks in charge of it made their plans quite public. In a letter to President Clinton dated 26 January 1998, the hawks wrote:

"We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts."
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Neither the word terrorism nor terrorists appears in the letter. Once again, these people wanted war on Iraq long before September 11, long before terrorism was at the top of the national agenda.

It is important to note that many of the letter's signers are today part of the Bush administration:
Richard Perle, newly-resigned Chairman of the Defense Policy Board
Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense
Richard Armitage, Deputy Secretary of State
William Kristol, personal adviser to Bush
among others.

Is it any surprise that we are now going to war in Iraq, given that the president has surrounded himself with so many warmongers? Does it sound like Richard Perle, a man who in October 2001 said "I would have gone after Iraq immediately" after 9/11, is someone with his priorities in order, someone committed to fighting terrorism (Bin Laden was in Afghanistan, which is why Bush went after it first)?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/perle.html

The hawks were overjoyed at September 11, because it was their chance to convince the president that now is the time to make war on Iraq. Thanks to them, American (and Iraqi) men and women in uniform are fighting and dying because the hawks wanted to 'test out' their little scheme for American domination of the Middle East on Iraq.
 
Upvote 0

O'Mara

<marquee behavior=scroll direction=left scrollamou
Apr 6, 2002
235
0
All over.
✟374.00
You really want to know why no one is disputing it?

Because it is ridiculous! And anyone who buys that stuff is making an absolute fool out of themselves.

Let it go, man. It's a bunch of trabajo and everyone but one or two conspiracy theorists here know it.

Sheesh... sometimes I feel like I'm explaining physics to a squirrel!
 
Upvote 0

webboffin

NOT APPLICABLE
Nov 9, 2002
1,582
2
NO ENTRY
Visit site
✟1,907.00
Faith
Thanks but no thanks, conspiracy theories are known for being a load of tripe. Take the NASA faked moon landing lies or the WTC disaster was caused by a US government missile attack (ignoring video evidence) to justify war. Maybe there is a conspiracy theory that Saddam is a good guy?
 
Upvote 0

Misanth

Junior Member
Apr 6, 2003
15
0
Visit site
✟15,127.00
Faith
Christian
2nd April 2003 at 02:22 AM Jutsuka said this in Post #1

Read and react...

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/tma68/iraq.htm


LOL, you Swedes kill me. :D

Two points:

#1&nbsp; The whole foundation of that guy's argument is completely in error.&nbsp; This war is not the&nbsp;"divisive" issue that Mr. Altom proclaims.&nbsp; More than 70% percent of Americans SUPPORT the war... or are you suggesting that ANY precentage in disagreement is considered "divisive?"&nbsp; If thats the case, EVERYTHING is divisive.

Also, these other imbecile accusations about us knowing about the invasion of Kuwait, the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor all prior to them happening is not only ridiculous (ridiculous as in what did we have to gain by just&nbsp;letting them happen...hello..?) but obvious lies.

#2&nbsp; Prove it?&nbsp; Please... the FACTS are in our court, not yours.&nbsp; Don't be lazy now... YOU do the work... you PROVE that the other 99% of us are wrong.&nbsp; Oh, and do better than just tossing links out here for us... I'm sure I could find a link to a site which declares the world is flat and has proof of it.&nbsp; FACTS, my friend, FACTS.&nbsp; PROVE you are right!

&nbsp;

~M
 
Upvote 0

Gordi

Thou shalt not!
Mar 13, 2003
201
0
Visit site
✟321.00
The Moon Is Made Out Of Cheese!

Private Investigator Tom Grant Theorizes

"Green cheese orbits the earth - and my beard, after one of my many midnight dairy smorgasbourds that usually last til around 3am, after I pass out from drinking too much buttermilk." -Tom Grant, PI

World famous Private Investigator Tom Grant has come forth with a shocking new theory.

He has shown proof that the moon that orbits the earth is in fact made out of cheese.&nbsp; Though it's too early to know yet, he theorizes that this cheese is green in colour.

Grant came to this conclusion after NASA refused to let him tag along on the next space mission. He quickly decided that they must have something to hide. He backs up his theory with the following observation: The moon is round. Big Macs are round. Big Macs have cheese on them. Thus, the moon must either be made out of hamburger or cheese. Following an interview with a cow, Grant concluded that the moon is in fact NOT made out of hamburger- though it is quite possible that the hamburger is being manipulated by the cheese.

Grant feels that NASA's reluctance to agree with the theory indicates that they are also being manipulated by the cheese. His theory has already been scrutinized- by a web site titled 'Antagonizing The Cheesy Moon Theory.'

I am convinced!&nbsp; I always knew the moon was made of cheese!&nbsp; :D

&nbsp;:sorry:
 
Upvote 0

Goldstein

Gatherer.Of.Data
Apr 4, 2003
378
6
43
Visit site
✟23,048.00
Faith
Agnostic
Proof that Saddam probably did not gas thousands of Kurdish civilians:

A 1990 report from the US War College, published by the Pentagon, titled "U.S. SECURITY AND IRAQI POWER" concludes that it was likely Iran, not Iraq, which caused the deaths of approximately 5,000 civilians in gas attacks on the Kurdish-Iraqi city of Halabja in 1988.

One debunking of this myth was published in the normally hawkish WorldNetDaily, where the report was quoted by columnist Jude Wanniski:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24960

***begin Pentagon excerpt***

As soon as the war with Iran ended, Iraq announced its determination to crush the Kurdish insurrection. It sent Republican Guards to the Kurdish area, and in the course of this operation – according to the U.S. State Department – gas was used, with the result that numerous Kurdish civilians were killed. The Iraqi government denied that any such gassing had occurred. Nonetheless, Secretary of State Schultz stood by U.S. accusations, and the U.S. Congress, acting on its own, sought to impose economic sanctions on Baghdad as a violator of the Kurds' human rights.

Having looked at all of the evidence that was available to us, we find it impossible to confirm the State Department's claim that gas was used in this instance. To begin with there were never any victims produced. International relief organizations who examined the Kurds – in Turkey where they had gone for asylum – failed to discover any. Nor were there ever any found inside Iraq. The claim rests solely on testimony of the Kurds who had crossed the border into Turkey, where they were interviewed by staffers of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

. . . .

It appears that in seeking to punish Iraq, the Congress was influenced by another incident that occurred five months earlier in another Iraqi-Kurdish city, Halabjah. In March 1988, the Kurds at Halabjah were bombarded with chemical weapons, producing a great many deaths. Photographs of them, Kurdish victims, were widely disseminated in the international media. Iraq was blamed for the Halabjah attack, even though it was subsequently brought out that Iran too had used chemicals in this operation, and it seemed likely that it was the Iranian bombardment that had actually killed the Kurds.

***end of Pentagon excerpt***

Editors: There is no evidence Saddam used anthrax or any other chemical weapons against the Iraqi Kurds. There have been allegations, but Iraq has always insisted it did not use such weapons in the two 1989 incidents alleged. There were estimates that 1,400 to 4,000 Kurds died of chemical weapons in an Iraqi offensive. The Iraq Defense Minister insisted it did not use gas and that it was neither logical nor feasible to use gas against small groups of Kurds in areas through which government forces had to pass.

The sole "evidence" seems to be the finding of a British laboratory that soil samples in the Kurdish region contained mustard gas (not anthrax). Edward Peck, our ambassador to Iraq in 1977-79, who today teaches at the government war colleges, recalls a Department of Defense statement at the time that the gas used in that region was not of the type we had supplied Iraq for its use in the war with Iran. Nizar Hamdoon, today the deputy foreign minister of Iraq, told me the army had used gas, but only against the human waves of suicide soldiers in the Iranian army. He did not know what kind was used. At the time, I think he was ambassador to the U.S. in Washington.


One of the authors of the Pentagon report, Stephen Pelletiere, wrote an editorial for the New York Times on the gassing accusations:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/opinion/31PELL.html

President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.

But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.

I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.

This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.

And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent — that is, a cyanide-based gas — which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.
 
Upvote 0

Auntie

Well-Known Member
Apr 16, 2002
7,647
658
Alabama
✟36,043.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Today at 09:11 PM Gordi said this in Post #36



I am convinced!&nbsp; I always knew the moon was made of cheese!&nbsp; :D

&nbsp;:sorry:


He is completely ignoring the fact that the cow jumped over the moon, which can be verified @GrimmsFairyTales.com, and thereby excluding even the obvious possibility that the the moon may in fact be made of hamburger!

Oooooo.......the power of cheese!!!!





:p
 
Upvote 0