Anti-War 100,000 - Pro-War 400

Don't mind GTech, yo-yo. He's a mouthpiece & an apologist for the W. Administration.

He defends their lies and misinformation even after they (the administration) have admitted they were wrong.

 

I'm not a Bush apologist nor a defender of the war, but the only lies and misinformation I've seen are those coming from the liberal media and the left, who have a clear political agenda to discredit Bush, no matter what he does. Their antics have also aided and supported the current but very small resistance movement in Iraq, which is not coming primarily from Iraqis. These are outsiders who see a political threat and loss of control in the region if the democratic process gains a foothold. I'm also not a big fan of imposing our idealologies on countries who may not understand the concepts, but the facts are pretty obvious if you look at this objectively.

The "lies" accusation started with Ted Kennedy, who also completely agreed with the reasons for going to war based on the same intelligence reports. Those intelligence reports were supported by the Brits, the French and the Russians. The Russian told us that Iraq was planning an attack on the USA. Sadaam had already attempted an unsuccessful assasination on Bush senior, so the info appeared very credible.

You guys need to talk to people who have returned from Iraq. You will get a whole different perspective than what you read in the heavily biased media. I've talked to several people who have returned and they all liked the Iraqi people and said that while many would like us to leave due to issues related to "infidels and occupiers on Allah's land", they didn't want us to leave until the situation is under control. We have already agreed to leave if the elected Iraqi government asks us to do so.

We saw the same types of daily assaults on Reagan while he was in office. It took 20 years for people to realize that most of the controversial decisions he made were correct. It will likely be 20 years before we know whether or not Bush has made the correct choices.

You may not agree with the war and you probably live in one of the small number of countries on this planet that allows you to protest things like that. But you should also realize that the more that opposition to the war increases, the lower are that chances that we will accomplish anything useful for the US or the Mideast. Pulling out now would indeed be a disaster and our credibility in the world would sink to a new all-time low.

 

Fair enough...can we see the WMD now?

 

There are machine guns all over Brighton right now and undercover cops standing out like a sore thumb.

We are getting to a stage of megalomania and it is beyond sick. The thing that has always made me proudest as a Brit is that we dont stand for too much bullshit. The people never really cared which race or religion anyone was from..

Gtech did you forget the 45 min claim, Iraq Dossier ? Dont blame the US govt - blame the UK Govt for having no backbone and ignoring their people.

I think its now just become illegal for me to say "blame the British Govt" its insighting terrorism or something.

Gtech do you think that 98% of Brits are stupid or mislead? Because that was how many did NOT want the war and the Invasion was based on OUR intelligence.

I never seen a whole country shiver before, but I sure as hell did when we heard those lies.

I would be surprised if you found many people who were in the Uk at the time that agree with the war. Why do you think that it? We all hate repubicans?

 

Sorry, I stopped reading your post right there.

 

I don't recall attacking you, but I suppose we could go that route if that's what you want.

What did the administration admit they were wrong about in my comment that you take exception with?

 

I wasn't addressing a claim or dossier, but rather facts that have still yet to be disputed in several attempts with anything other than personal opinion.

If someone is going to sell out their country, shouldn't they be certain they have their facts straight? If it were a court of law, would a judge and jury use rhetoric and heresay to find someone guilty, or would they require facts to be presented?

Did my comment give you an impression that I thought 98% of brits were stupid or mislead? If not, why suggest it? Why suggest something that isn't true or wasn't said?

Refresh my memory please. What "lies" are you referring to?

Disagreeing with the war is certainly OK. There are times when I question it myself. However, one need not make up lies or information that is simply not correct to justify their disagreement with a war. Would it not be just as effective and honorable to say "I disagree with the war and nothing will change my mind about it." vs. perpetuating things that are simply not true as some sort of rationale to make a personal opinion more favorable in the eyes of others?

There are plenty of reasons to disagree with the war or a particular government. One shouldn't have to make up things that are not true and certainly cannot be validated to do so.

 

W.M.D. in Iraq.

 

Did they? I must have missed it. I do recall they announced they were no longer actively searching for them.

 

That is too funny Gtech, you are the same person who were defending the government for suspending the courts and imprisoning people without judge or jury.

 

No, what is funny is the fact that you completely ignored the rest of his post. Typical.

 

Was I? News to me. Refresh my memory. I hope you are not referring to the thread where *someone* was defending the rights of terrorists, again.

 

whenever you discuss the reason for war it MUST begin with the dossier, parts were stolen from a thesis and 45 minutes was a lie.

The law has changed. You can get information from torture and use it, you can "embed" the media into your side.
The facts were made up and the guys with the most credance in the "antiwar" stance were decapitated because they govt SCRAPED through. Greg Dyke, David Kelly and Piers Morgan.

All your comments give me the impression that if Bush/rep/ neocons can do no wrong, my impression of everyone in the UK is that he/ they are/is wrong.. In turn you must therefore believe that everyone here has got it wrong.

Im not sure if the environment is being damaged.
WMD
Regime change
45 minute claim

Those 3 alone are enough.

I dont mind a bold leader that says screw you all im going to do what my people need. But Weasels..

Oh, occasionally you question the war. If I had organised it I would question it everyday of my life until my deathbed.

did I do this?

Unlike you I am not trying to be 'effective'. Im telling YOU that I have NO agenda in politics and these are the things I have seen.
The whole world says " when are enough the people of the US going to see through the propaganda, when are they going to stand up and if they do please dont let their votes get robbed. Everyone is scared. I dont want people to turn into democrats I couldnt care, they are funded by the same people anyway.
I am NOT going by somethings i read online or saw on TV. Im going by the t 500 people a day come intop my shop and almost every single one has to say something when they see the stuff that is happening, the ONLY people that dont say anything are the muslims who are concerned that they will look biased.

So what am I making up ?

 

How do you know some one is terrorist, bank robber, murder or ... if it is not decided by a court, judge or jury?

Is rhetoric and rumors enough to convict someone of being a terrorist and imprison that person for indefinite time?

How about the 46% of Americans that strongly disagree with this war, may be the government should just declare them terrorist too and imprison them during the war on terror? A war that does not have a clear definition of enemy, condition for their surrender or the situation which is considered the end of the war.

 

Who made the rule that discussion must begin with a dossier? What credibility does it hold and why is it important to me?

Non responsive, no bearing on anything I've said and is heresay.

Did I miss a report that said 98% of the people in the UK feel as you do? It's not about whether Bush/rep/neocons can do no wrong. It's a matter if they did. It's a matter if they lied, which you and others have suggested. It's a matter if whether the reasons being brought forth have substance and truth behind them, or whether they are simply speculation and personal opinions.

How does something (WMD) that don't exist get looted and turn up missing? When did saddam agree to keep them in a single place until our arrival? Why are chemical wmd turning up last month in Iraq?

Personal opinion.

Your right to do so.

Non responsive, no bearing. Personal opinion. Personal opinions are great, but in a court of law they don't tend to hold much weight in an argument. Facts will always outweigh personal opinions or beliefs.

Personal opinion. You are entitled to opinions, just as I or anyone else are. But again, they don't hold much weight in a court of law. It's far more effective to say "hey, GWB lied and here is the report that justifies this and here are their creditentials in doing so."

Facts based on personal opinion.

 

evidence?

I hope not. Do you think people believe someone is held based soley on rhetoric and rumors? I hope not. But strong evidence is certainly enough to hold someone. I guess my question in return would be, why would someone who knows what the evidence is, be willing to defend said terrorist?

How about them? They are entitled to their opinions and anyone is entitled to be against the war. I have no problem with that. It's when people make up their own facts or perpetuate know lies to further their agenda. Are you suggesting that doing so is acceptable?

 

Time be Crazy_Rob for a sec

j/k guys, arguments are healthy....

 

No dossier, no UK support, no alliance of the 'willing'

Give me a break, if a superpower govt cant hide what it wants to what use is it? I expect any government to lie (its necessary) I dont expect a govt to work for its OWN agendas over the people's. Yes you missed the coverage , otherwise you would say this war is necessary, not right.

Dossier claimed we were in IMMINENT Danger from WMD. Hence the 45 minute claim. Nothing to do with "personal opinion

The dossier and 45 minute claim were the premise for going to war.

This is the point
SUSPECTED TERRORISTS are now allowed to be held, people are allowed to be deported and torture is allowed based on "personal opinion"

This is the WHOLE point, these new "terrorism" laws are designed for control of the masses. Its a much bigger issue than the current war longterm. The legal system is bbecoming a shame on the idea that it might catch that one terrorist. IT WONT.
Making them rich and giving them a playstation is the only way to stop it. people dont blow themselves up when they have things to lose.

Law courts are becoming meaningless to anyone with money or power. Screw "civil liberties" Its best to make sure you are so rich the governement wont touch you.

 

Personal opinion.

Personal opinion. The expectation that a governement may lie does not provide a basis to assume they are or have. But without something that clearly shows they have, it's still just an assumption and personal opinion.

Wasn't this "dossier" one that was retyped and the original supposedly destroyed? Sort of like a mini "Rather-Gate?" Correct me if I'm wrong.

Again, personal opinion. When evidence exists to detain potential terrorists, governments have a responsibility to protect it's citizens. Most people don't have a problem with that, but consider also, that if governments use the same mentality as some suggest they use (don't do anything until there's a mushroom cloud), these very same people would be the one to tar and feather their government for not doing anything in the first place.

Personal opinion. Why do the masses need controlling? What are they out of control from? The london terrorists were not poor. One had a brand new Mercedes. Reports I've posted in the past here indicated that most of al quaida bombers are recruited from middle class to wealthy backgrounds. Poverty is not on their agenda and making them rich will not solve the problem.

Personal opinion. Martha Stewart might disagree with you on that.

 

I don't believe some nerve chemical gas that could potentially kill 80,000 people is an "imminent threat" or "WMD"...

You think they're going to sneak 20 tons of deadly chemicals into NY and use it successfully to kill people ?

I'm talking about nuclear bombs when I talk about a "WMD"....