SMIRKnCHIMP
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Messages
- 92
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Smirk i agree with u, can u keep me right on this.
Rumsfeld
Deutshchland
concentration camp
Cuba.
America
Does that ring a bell my good friend
regards mikeey
You can't find fault because you're not looking...Mancunian said:SMIRKnCHIMP, can't find fault with your post.We need the good people of America to teach those who have their eyes and ears closed.
cnredd said:Whose eyes and ears are closed now?
Alot of people feel the same way about Dan Rather...What happened then?Mancunian said:Whooaa there! I was referring to the fact that so many Americans take the rhetoric that comes out of the White House at face value. Never trust what a politician tells you whichever way they lean!! OK, I concede that I didn’t double-check smirknchimp’s figues but his general opinion is one I can sympathise with.
Mancunian said:As I’ve said in earlier posts, I do not hate Bush but it astounds me that your current president has led you into a war on a false pretext and over half the country doesn’t seem to mind.[/QOUTE] No false pretense...many reasons correct...one wrong...The same one the previous administration said...and the UN...and the UK...and Russia...accusations of being done on purpose all conspiracy theories...none proven.
I wasn’t actually referring to you personally anyway cnredd .... or are you telling me I am deaf and blind? :lol:
No false pretense...many reasons correct...one wrong...The same one the previous administration said...and the UN...and the UK...and Russia...accusations of being done on purpose all conspiracy theories...none proven.
Mancunian said:The leaders of both our countries told us that Saddam’s regime posed an imminent threat to our country, either had or were capable of manufacturing WMD and had direct links to Al Qaeda. These were the reasons we went to war and we are still waiting for the evidence. We were therefore duped. If there were other reasons for going to war, why didn’t they tell us before invading?
cnredd said:You can't find fault because you're not looking...
The IBC estimates that between 14,181 and 16,312 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war—about half of them since the battlefield phase of the war ended last May. The group also notes that these figures are probably on the low side, since some deaths must have taken place outside the media's purview.
So, let's call it 15,000 or—allowing for deaths that the press didn't report—20,000 or 25,000, maybe 30,000 Iraqi civilians killed in a pre-emptive war waged (according to the latest rationale) on their behalf. That's a number more solidly rooted in reality than the Hopkins figure—and, given that fact, no less shocking.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2108887/
Whose eyes and ears are closed now?
vauge said:SMIRK, again you are deceaving us by not stating your source.
Here is the original site that posted this: http://www.publicdomainprogress.info/2005/01/bush-reality.html
Mancunian said:The leaders of both our countries told us that Saddam’s regime posed an imminent threat to our country
, either had or were capable of manufacturing WMD
and had direct links to Al Qaeda.
These were the reasons we went to war and we are still waiting for the evidence.
We were therefore duped.
If there were other reasons for going to war, why didn’t they tell us before invading?
SMIRKnCHIMP said:
A Conservative Estimate of the women and children slaughtered in IRAQ in the name of love, freedom and democracy.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
cnredd said:This is the info from the source you provided...
Min=23456 Max=26559
And this is part of the original post that you stole...
Accepts the death of 100,000 Iraqis as unavoidable road kill by a rampaging giant avenging its 3,000 dead on 9/11, even though Iraq had nothing to do with that terrorist atrocity
So congrats...you just proved your original post has faulty facts...
Why should anyone believe anything you post when you find errors in it yourself?
cnredd said:This is the info from the source you provided...
Min=23456 Max=26559
And this is part of the original post that you stole...
Accepts the death of 100,000 Iraqis as unavoidable road kill by a rampaging giant avenging its 3,000 dead on 9/11, even though Iraq had nothing to do with that terrorist atrocity
So congrats...you just proved your original post has faulty facts...
Why should anyone believe anything you post when you find errors in it yourself?
Introspection is truly a gift.Originally posted by cnredd:
You can't find fault because you're not looking...
Stinger said:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mancunian
The leaders of both our countries told us that Saddam’s regime posed an imminent threat to our country
No they did not. They said he must be stopped else and before he became an imminent threat. They were quite clear in that the notion that anyone in the Bush administration claimed Saddam was an imminent threat is a falicy
Quote:
, either had or were capable of manufacturing WMD
He did.
Quote:
and had direct links to Al Qaeda.
He did.
Quote:
These were the reasons we went to war and we are still waiting for the evidence.
What are you waiting for, the Kay report, the Duelfer report, the 9/11 commission report, the Senate report are all available to you.
Quote:
We were therefore duped.
Where were you duped?
Quote:
If there were other reasons for going to war, why didn’t they tell us before invading?
There were and they did.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?