Hussein Was Right & Bush Was Wrong

[BBond]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

No, actually the simpleton, which is best represented by YOU in this thread, is someone who would ASSERT and ASSUME based on FAITH, which is exactly what you are doing.

A Bushie complaining about faith based?

 

[Glpster]

The Children of Iraq brought to you courtesy of George W. Bush and his supporters.

Do be sure to scroll through ALL the photos.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GrGr
GrGr: Fine Mr Flatearther, hold on to your version of the truth. The fact remains that Saddam and Al Qaeda were not allied, they did not collaborate or cooperate in any significant way. And that is the factual truth acknowledged by your own sources. When will you acknowledge that fact?

I already did acknowledge that, or haven't you actually been reading this thread?

Fine so you admit that the American invasion of Iraq is an act of illegal aggressive warfare and that Bush is a war criminal? You have after all admitted that Bush did not have sufficient reasons to invade a sovereign nation that did not pose a threat to the US. You cannot have it both ways. Either the war is legal or it isn't.

Can you possibly maitain some continuity from one post to the next? Look above again and tell how one fvcking connects to the other. You jump from 'collaboration between AQ and Saddam' (which I previously acknowledged there was no operative collaberation, which I sadly have to state specfically here or you'll once again stwist my words per your usual tactics) to somehow claiming I admitted Iraq was an illegal invasion and that Bush is a war criminal (which I did not claim).

This is, once again, a demonstration of the type of dishonest tactics you have been using in this thread (and others as well) and which are commonplace for you. Stop wasting my time with such blatant bullsh*t tactics and 3rd-grade behaviors. When or if you can ever debate without the dishonesty and immaturity so evident in your posts, maybe I'll respond to you again. I don't see that happening any time soon though.

Later.[/quote]

You are the one who is trying to avoid the truth, TLC. My postition has always been and remained the same throughout our discussion here at P&N.

You were certainly quick to build your case on "ties" between Saddam and Al Qaeda let me remind you. It was you who was playing with words not me. I am going for the facts.

The facts are the Iraq was no threat. Saddam did not collaborate with Al Qaeda. Saddam did not have any WMD of note. All this was known before the invasion. It was also pointed out before the invasion that the invasion was illegal (by leading experts on international law). Now of course the invasion cannot be both legal and illegal. It has to be either. And as Iraq fails to meet any criteria for a justified war in the eyes of international law the conclusion can only be that the war is illegal. And if the war is illegal then Bush is guilty of waging illegal aggressive warfare, the crime Saddam committed against Kuwait. In other words Bush is a war criminal.

Does the end justify the means TLC? Is it OK for the US to do what Hitler did and wage war, torture, murder and illegally imprison people (to combat the "terrorist menace") simply for the benefit of the nation? Is it ok for the US to "impose it's will and it's way of life [at least it's economy] upon other nations"?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
If you're so secure in your convictions Chicken, why did you turn tail and run away when you were cornered in the other thread? Why do you keep ignoring the fact that it is overwhelmingly fellow Bush supporters who were "blind and brainwashed" about the connection-that-wasn't between Iraq and 9/11. Just where, exactly, did your fellow "delusional sheep" get this disinformation, I wonder? Why did Bush get so much of your "moron" vote?

It's been a busy week so I lost track of that thread. I don't have any kind of habit of running from discussions in here, so that a pretty poor accusation. For the rest, see below.

You also keep dodging the fact that your final deception, that Bush publicly denied a connection, did NOT happen until months after we invaded Iraq. I wonder why you ran rather than addressing this?

::sigh::

I've been dodging it, have I? Hmmm. OK. Want an answer? Here it goes:

I didn't realize the was some artificial time limit imposed, first of all. Was it you who decided when Bush should make this public pronouncement about Saddam not being involved in 9/11? If so, when should he have done it?

Second of all, what did it really change? Haven't recent polls showed people still believe the same thing, despite the fact that Bush stated otherwise back in '03? What does that tell you? It tells me is that these people simply don't know what Bush says. They surely don't get their information from listening to Bush either, because if they did THEY'D KNOW FVCKING BETTER. Simple logic would tell you that.

So much for the Bush Jedi mind trick theory.

Ta ta.

Finger? Shall I now assume you've turned tail and run? It would seem fair, by your standards, to make such an accusation.

Do you have any response for your lack of logic?

Bite me, you sanctimonious hypocrite. This is the first time I've been back to post anything since you posted your latest evasion. You, on the other hand, posted over 40 times in the three days that thread remained on the front page (after I called you on your nonsense), including at least once more in the very same thread. "Lost track of the thread," my eye. Smells like Chicken to me.

Moving on, your comment about time limit is an evasion. Since we were talking about how Americans were deceived into supporting Bush's assault on Iraq, the relevant issue is what Bush and his minions said before he invaded. They hammered the Iraq-9/11 insinuation relentlessly in the months before our attack. Bush didn't grudgingly admit there was no connection until months later, and Cheney quickly contradicted him. Bush didn't admit the non-connection for a prime-time audience until one of the debates with Kerry, 18 months after he pulled the trigger. Unless you have a time machine, that's a bit too late for Americans to change their minds about allowing Bush to invade.

As far as people still believing there's a connection, a couple of points. First, you're changing the subject. We're talking about how Bush deceived the public initially, not why some are still deceived.

Second, the answer is obvious if you were being honest. The compliant media replayed the administration's Iraq-terrorism-9/11 innuendo endlessly in the months before the invasion, along with the WMD claims and the rest of the anti-Iraq propaganda. The average American undoubtedly heard it dozens of times. When Bush was forced to concede the lack of connection, on the other hand, it was only reported for a day or two in the mainstream media. Couple that with most people's reluctance to believe they were duped, and it no surprise so many Bushies still cling to the Iraq-9/11 fiction.

You'll note the Bush administration loves their scripted talking points, and makes sure everyone parrots them religiously. Repetition is critical to successfully manipulating perceptions. That's why it's so integral to marketing ... and brainwashing. It is a science. The Bush administration knew full well their endless repetition of Iraq-terrorism-9/11 would lead most Americans to accept a lie as fact. They willfully and intentionally deceived America to gain support for their agenda. Bush & Co. lied to America.

Bzzzt! Wrong response.

No TLC for you.

ROFL. Exactly what I expected. When the facts have you cornered, you fly the coup. :disgust:

Yeah. Don't even consider that it's because you immediately start off with the belligerent fvckwit act. :roll:

Take a hike. I don't tolerate that crap, fool.

Got it. You'll dish it out, but can't take it. Let's see how you started the post to which I replied:

• "Finger? Shall I now assume you've turned tail and run? It would seem fair, by your standards, to make such an accusation.
  
  "Do you have any response for your lack of logic?"

Here's another, just a few posts up, to a different member:

• "This is, once again, a demonstration of the type of dishonest tactics you have been using in this thread (and others as well) and which are commonplace for you. Stop wasting my time with such blatant bullsh*t tactics and 3rd-grade behaviors. When or if you can ever debate without the dishonesty and immaturity so evident in your posts ..."

And:

• "Maybe for morons like you. ...
  
  "You are a goofball. Your paranoid fantasies are laughable. If anyone is blind and brainwashed it's you and the delusional sheep who think just like you."

Shall I keep looking? Frankly, I think "sanctimonious hypocrite" is pretty accurate. How about you?

So you are in here fighting everyone elses battles now?

Shall I ask YOU to apologize for everyone elses poor accusations, faulty logic, and ad hominem attacks against me? I guess I should since you seem so concerned about what I say to others. Have I attacked you before you started with your "bite me" routine? No.

Once again your logic is a bit skewed.

Typical though.