Were we lied to ?

Lets not kid ourselves. Bush was talking about nukes and not poison gas. I do not mean this in a disrespectful manner.

 

So what was all the mushroom cloud talk ? We heard it from all of Bushes administration , was it not in your opinion scaremongering ?

Dismissing Blix wont cut the mustard , speculating he had his own agenda is a little off the beaten track.The link works fine when i try it.



Slipdigit , if Bush really had intentions of leaving Iraq they were always long term.25-30 years was bandied about like it was nothing , apparantly McCain had said he'd stay for the next 100 years if thats what it took..what does he mean by that , Saddam is gone , why are the coalition policing the area years later?
Its breeding more insurgents just by being there , you'd do the same thing if an invading army was on your land and you know thats true.

 

It gives us a strategic edge. It makes about as much sense as putting anti missile defense systems in Poland to defend against Iranian ICBMs that do not exist. That's another subject for another time. We will NEVER leave Iraq.

 

There will be little change regarding foreign policy. He has already mentioned that Iran is not permitted to have nukes. They just spent a ton of money on a base out in the middle of nowhere in Iraq. We are there as long as oil is a important resource.

 

Ive never called it occupation , im not convinced they are on a stable enough platform to do more than rough policing work.
Roadside bombs , snipers , hit and run , suicide attacks , you cant fight back against an enemy that isnt there.

I dont believe the president elect will do much more than Bush , obey his bosses whoever they might be.

The way things are going with Iran , Pakistan , Syria , India .. i dunno , with an ongoing afghanistan and Iraq , its a bit too many fronts

What religion might the new president be ? I heard some scary stuff about what Bushes type of religion believe , how true it is i dont know.

Im not sure about the WW2 occupation time , not quite the same thing , in this instance the people are still shooting and bombing , why are they doing that ?Because an aggresser is invading thier homeland with intent.

 

The world is getting ready to change unlike any other time in history.

 

Maybe you heard it that way, I didn't. I specifically heard the Bush administration saying biological and chemical as well as nuclear mdae up WMD.

 

Now you're remembering things that never happened. Saddam's regime was never a US ally. When he was fighting the Iranians, we stayed neutral since we wanted the Iranians as discomfited as possible, but we also denounced Saddam's atrocities and never condoned them.

 

And i suppose Rummy is wishing him a happy birthday here ?

 

back to the original title.............YES we were from the early 1970's onward

to protect the American people !! so think we can quit isolating G. Bush for all the mess in the mid-east, we were there in the 1970's, and it has slowly escalating really am surprised we did not go in during the latter 70's and early 80's

as to wmd's yes they were there I've seen the pics laying peaceably in the sands unburied. there is so much S*** that the world has no clue about nor the media which some firmly believe as God's honest truth

Bama may be able to pull as many men/women out as he possibly can but he will not be able to bring them all home as desired. Iran is the one to look at , they in real resepcts have been the cover up in all the hellabaloo. As to nukes I feel they all alreaday have them at their disposal as they continue to play their serious but silly games

alrightie nuf said more cancer meds please .....

 

You can believe whatever you want. I'm not that type that cares what others think. Nothing personal.

 

I also believe Iran is nuclear capable.

 

I heard about atomic warfare and I heard about biological and chemical warfare from the Bush administration. Which kind scared you the most probably has to do with your own fears. Personally, I felt the biological variety was potentially the most dangerous, and the nuclear threat least dangerous, but that's just my opinion.

I didn't dismiss Blix, I pointed out his story changed over time, and that he wasn't particularly convincing because of that. I also said even he couldn't say for sure one way or another. His agenda, BTW, was selling his book, that's not irrelevant. I guess he made lots of money on it. You can believe Blix if you want, I don't. In any case, he was just another participant prior to the invasion, speculating on what might, or might not, be in Iraq.

 

I can show you a picture of Chamberlain and Hitler shaking hands. Do you think that makes Britain and Germany an ally in WW II?

You are grasping at straws trying to prove things that never existed.

 

Thank you Erich for making clear what i couldnt , posters assume im this or that when in fact im just one in that whole world who suspects theres more going on than most know.
Attacking the messenger shows great immaturity and thankfully theres little of any great notice.
Im not knocking anything , just asking ..were we lied to , i know full well we were and would be here all day quoting Bush and Cheney and the rest.
But it goes back further you say , please expand on that when you find time.

 

It's not like there is proof that there were nukes in Iraq. Show me a picture. They had chemical weapons and used them on Iran in the 80s but that did not matter back then. We chose not to care. Your arguement does not hold water.

 

If Chamberlain had his way , possibly.He didnt and they werent.Its just an interesting picture of something that isnt there dont you concur?
As i mentioned i could be here all day quoting the lies , do you really want that , google Bushes lies and make up your own mind.

 

Bush spent a lot of time hanging out with Putin. They even went fishing. How's that relationship working out between the U.S. and Russia? Politics are politics. They are fake and corrupt. James good points again.

 

Bah!....here we go again. Semantics....we are all argueing over semantics which can be twisted and cherry-picked until Hell freezes over, depending on who is stating it.

From half-truths, to questionable evidences, to dubious motives, I'm sure there is enough material for any one person to agree and disagree with from their point of view. Most other forums I'm involved in have quickly locked such discussions as they solve nothing and do not benefit the forum.

Let us all agree on one thing: We were all asked to eat something which did not look good, we did not know for sure what it was, and in the end it tasted very bad. No doubt it will take a long while to digest.