Pages: 1 2

 

2009-03-02 04:01:17
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6409|eXtreme to the maX

MOAB wrote:

So if you already know the facts why do you want them confirmed for? What would knowing about the legality do for you and what possible improvement to your daily life will it make? None.
Iraq happened, its done, Tony Blair is gone he's done, the UK is soon pulling out of Iraq and will soon be done. You telling me that the second you got some information given to you about the actual reasons you'll quit your little bitchfest over the same issue that has been discussed more times than whether or not three little green men ploughed into a New Mexico field? Somehow I doubt it.
Its called 'keeping the bastards honest' and what democracy is basically about.
If the next PM knows he can lie to the public and lie to his cabinet without fear, sanction or even being found out then you can bet he's going to do it.

Its strange that America tied itself in knots for a year about whether Clinton did or didn't have a blowjob, but when it comes to taking a country into a war suddenly we aren't allowed to know about it.

And you can never know whether there were weapons or not. Saddam had access to chemical materials, he had a nuclear program, there is no way you can say with absolute confidence that he didn't have anything at all. Just because they weren't 'where they were supposed to be' doesn't mean they weren't buried in the middle of the desert.
Well after seven years of looking not so much as a single atom of WMD has been found.
If the government deems the information unsuitable for pubic viewing, then that's their decision, not yours no matter how much you think you're entitled to know.
I don't buy that argument, my taxes paid their salary, I'd like to know what they are up to.
In different circumstances any of us could have been called up to go fight their shitty war, the troops who actually went have a right to know what it was all about.
In any case 'the government' hasn't deemed it unsuitable, in fact the opposite, its just Jack Straw who has deemed it unsuitable.
But you clearly believe whatever the govt tells you, so arguing seems futile.
Fuck Israel
2009-03-02 08:24:51
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6526|Escea

Dilbert_X wrote:

MOAB wrote:

So if you already know the facts why do you want them confirmed for? What would knowing about the legality do for you and what possible improvement to your daily life will it make? None.
Iraq happened, its done, Tony Blair is gone he's done, the UK is soon pulling out of Iraq and will soon be done. You telling me that the second you got some information given to you about the actual reasons you'll quit your little bitchfest over the same issue that has been discussed more times than whether or not three little green men ploughed into a New Mexico field? Somehow I doubt it.
Its called 'keeping the bastards honest' and what democracy is basically about.
If the next PM knows he can lie to the public and lie to his cabinet without fear, sanction or even being found out then you can bet he's going to do it.

Its strange that America tied itself in knots for a year about whether Clinton did or didn't have a blowjob, but when it comes to taking a country into a war suddenly we aren't allowed to know about it.

And you can never know whether there were weapons or not. Saddam had access to chemical materials, he had a nuclear program, there is no way you can say with absolute confidence that he didn't have anything at all. Just because they weren't 'where they were supposed to be' doesn't mean they weren't buried in the middle of the desert.
Well after seven years of looking not so much as a single atom of WMD has been found.
If the government deems the information unsuitable for pubic viewing, then that's their decision, not yours no matter how much you think you're entitled to know.
I don't buy that argument, my taxes paid their salary, I'd like to know what they are up to.
In different circumstances any of us could have been called up to go fight their shitty war, the troops who actually went have a right to know what it was all about.
In any case 'the government' hasn't deemed it unsuitable, in fact the opposite, its just Jack Straw who has deemed it unsuitable.
But you clearly believe whatever the govt tells you, so arguing seems futile.
And you seem to clearly believe the crap that oozes out of that orifice in your face.

Clinton's blowjob wasn't exactly linked to a military or security matter. During the Second World War and every war since, no government gives away all of the information because there are security risks whether you think they're bullshit or not. And as for getting all information because you pay taxes then why doesn't the government loosen off a few state secrets? After all we paid for them according to you.

And tell me what happened to the large stockpiles of weapons Saddam had? Including the materials involved in his nuclear program? Just got up and walked off did they? Or did he use his entire stockpile of chemicals on the Iranians and Kurds back in the 80's? Somehow I don't think so.

Just because you like the idea of blowing off potentially risky information doesn't mean the people holding it have to.
2009-03-02 11:07:29
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6714|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its strange that America tied itself in knots for a year about whether Clinton did or didn't have a blowjob, but when it comes to taking a country into a war suddenly we aren't allowed to know about it.
1. It wasn't about him getting a blowjob. It was about him perjuring himself. There is a significant difference.

2. When did this topic start becoming about the US? I thought it was about the UK government not making reasons public...Oh wait...I forgot. Everything is the US's fault...even domestic UK buffoonery.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Well after seven years of looking not so much as a single atom of WMD has been found.
That's actually not true, but don't let facts start getting in the way now...you're on a roll.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-03-02 18:40:29
Flecco
iPod is broken.
+1,048|6968|NT, like Mick Dundee

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its strange that America tied itself in knots for a year about whether Clinton did or didn't have a blowjob, but when it comes to taking a country into a war suddenly we aren't allowed to know about it.
1. It wasn't about him getting a blowjob. It was about him perjuring himself. There is a significant difference.

2. When did this topic start becoming about the US? I thought it was about the UK government not making reasons public...Oh wait...I forgot. Everything is the US's fault...even domestic UK buffoonery.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Well after seven years of looking not so much as a single atom of WMD has been found.
That's actually not true, but don't let facts start getting in the way now...you're on a roll.
He was using Clinton as an example.

Clinton lied about having sex = massive scandal which got him impeached.

Bush/Blair/Howard lie about reasons for starting a very costly war = get off with a free ride.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
2009-03-02 19:27:03
destruktion_6143
Was ist Loos?
+154|6930|Canada
2009-03-03 03:33:40
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6714|'Murka

Flecco wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its strange that America tied itself in knots for a year about whether Clinton did or didn't have a blowjob, but when it comes to taking a country into a war suddenly we aren't allowed to know about it.
1. It wasn't about him getting a blowjob. It was about him perjuring himself. There is a significant difference.

2. When did this topic start becoming about the US? I thought it was about the UK government not making reasons public...Oh wait...I forgot. Everything is the US's fault...even domestic UK buffoonery.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Well after seven years of looking not so much as a single atom of WMD has been found.
That's actually not true, but don't let facts start getting in the way now...you're on a roll.
He was using Clinton as an example.

Clinton lied about having sex = massive scandal which got him impeached.

Bush/Blair/Howard lie about reasons for starting a very costly war = get off with a free ride.
Making a decision off bad information =/= lying.

Lying to a federal grand jury about ANYTHING = perjury...an impeachable offense.

See the difference there?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-03-03 03:35:35
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6978|Canberra, AUS

Flecco wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its strange that America tied itself in knots for a year about whether Clinton did or didn't have a blowjob, but when it comes to taking a country into a war suddenly we aren't allowed to know about it.
1. It wasn't about him getting a blowjob. It was about him perjuring himself. There is a significant difference.

2. When did this topic start becoming about the US? I thought it was about the UK government not making reasons public...Oh wait...I forgot. Everything is the US's fault...even domestic UK buffoonery.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Well after seven years of looking not so much as a single atom of WMD has been found.
That's actually not true, but don't let facts start getting in the way now...you're on a roll.
He was using Clinton as an example.

Clinton lied about having sex = massive scandal which got him impeached.

Bush/Blair/Howard lie about reasons for starting a very costly war = get off with a free ride.
Mind you, neither of those three ever tried to define the word "is"
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2009-03-03 04:05:54
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6409|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

1. It wasn't about him getting a blowjob. It was about him perjuring himself. There is a significant difference.
Pretty sure lying to congress is on a par.
Making a decision off bad information =/= lying.
There was no 'bad information', apart from that which he wanted.
Fuck Israel
2009-03-03 17:51:53
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6714|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

1. It wasn't about him getting a blowjob. It was about him perjuring himself. There is a significant difference.
Pretty sure lying to congress is on a par.
Which Clinton also did.

But Bush didn't.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Making a decision off bad information =/= lying.
There was no 'bad information', apart from that which he wanted.
It's been pretty clearly shown...you just refuse to accept it because it conflicts with your preconceptions.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-03-03 23:39:09
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6409|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

But Bush didn't.
Saddam has WMD
Saddam has an active nuclear program.
Saddam is connected with AQ.

None of the above was anything close to 50:50, it was presented as solid fact -> misleading Congress.

They weren't preconceptions, they were based on judgement of the information at the time and since.
Steadily I am being proven right.

Cost to the country of one blowjob = 1 kleenex.

Cost to the Country of the Iraq War = Are we past $2Trillion yet?
Fuck Israel
2009-03-04 03:15:48
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6714|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

But Bush didn't.
Saddam has WMD
Saddam has an active nuclear program.
Saddam is connected with AQ.

None of the above was anything close to 50:50, it was presented as solid fact -> misleading Congress.
Working off of bad information that your intel chief tells you is good is not "misleading Congress".

Dilbert_X wrote:

They weren't preconceptions, they were based on judgement of the information at the time and since.
No, they are based on revisionist history, not recognizing or accepting the context of the time, but taking what we know now and making the flawed logical leap that it was somehow known then and as such, all decisions should have been made according to what we know now and not what we thought we knew then.

It's a vicious cycle that you play out in every topic of this nature and continue to refuse to acknowledge.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Steadily I am being proven right.
Yes, it is correct that you take a revisionist view toward history...at least on this topic.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Cost to the country of one blowjob = 1 kleenex.
It was actually a blue dress. And--one more time for the slow ones--it wasn't about a fucking blowjob. It was about an elected official perjuring himself. The topic of the questions that led to the perjury is irrelevant.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Cost to the Country of the Iraq War = Are we past $2Trillion yet?
Cute logical shortcut...that is unrelated to the preceding statement.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-03-04 03:24:17
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6409|eXtreme to the maX
No, they are based on revisionist history.
No, clear-headed analysis of the intel available at the time.
It was actually a blue dress.
The blue dress was not destroyed.
Working off of bad information that your intel chief tells you is good is not "misleading Congress".
If you know for a fact its bad intel it certainly is.
Fuck Israel
2009-03-04 03:38:23
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6714|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

No, they are based on revisionist history.
No, clear-headed analysis of the intel available at the time.
No. Clear-headed analysis of information that wasn't available at the time.

Dilbert_X wrote:

It was actually a blue dress.
The blue dress was not destroyed.
No...it was evidence.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Working off of bad information that your intel chief tells you is good is not "misleading Congress".
If you know for a fact its bad intel it certainly is.
I'll let someone else respond to that nonsense:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Unless you were in the oval office you have no idea of what you're talking about.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-03-04 04:18:55
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6409|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

Clear-headed analysis of information that wasn't available at the time.
For example?
Seems the analysis was either crap or one sided - as many people involved in it have said.

FEOS wrote:

I'll let someone else respond to that nonsense
Why would George Tenet just unilaterlaly decide to sift the intel and only give that which pointed in one direction to his precious POTUS?
If GWB was so upset at receiving a pile of bogus intel presented as gods truth why did he give the guy a medal?
Seems improbable TBH.
Fuck Israel
2009-03-04 15:00:31
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6714|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Clear-headed analysis of information that wasn't available at the time.
For example?
Seems the analysis was either crap or one sided - as many people involved in it have said.
The key part that you continue to ignore is Saddam's deception campaign against Iran...to make them think he had an active WMD program. And that all his key leaders thought they had WMD. And that the people in the field thought they had WMD and handled what they thought was WMD in a manner consistent with WMD which in return provided indications of an active WMD program.

Nobody knew that until Saddam was captured and interrogated. And until his senior leaders were captured and interrogated and all the data was corroborated to paint the full picture.

That would be an example.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I'll let someone else respond to that nonsense
Why would George Tenet just unilaterlaly decide to sift the intel and only give that which pointed in one direction to his precious POTUS?
If GWB was so upset at receiving a pile of bogus intel presented as gods truth why did he give the guy a medal?
Seems improbable TBH.
GWB is loyal to a fault. And respects loyalty to a fault. That's well documented.

That makes it entirely probable.

Much more probable than your tinfoil-hat conspiracies.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard