T1B

Variable wrote:

they're both liars and wrong, and should be held accountable for it.

Again, why are they liars? Because they didn't admit that they were wrong?

And "held accountable for it" how?

Statements like that don't carry a lot of water when you don't hold your side of the aisle to the same standard (i.e. call them out for lying) and don't demand any accountability for them for their wrong choices and their lies.

I don't like being lied to by either side. But the fact is that the Republican leadership led us into a war based on false pretenses, whether they were lying or were just wrong.

They should have been held accountable by being voted out of office.
Obviously, not enough people agreed with me.

The Dems for the most part followed along like whipped puppies mainly because they didn't want to show any balls and be caught on the wrong side of a politically popular war. This is almost as bad as what the other side did, but they did not lead us into the war, they just failed in their duty to oppose something that most knew to be wrong.

When somebody repeatedly claims that they know where something is, and they don't actually know where it is, I tend to believe that they are lying rather than just wrong. Normally, at least in my experience, you know when you know something and you know when you don't. So, if you claim to know something that you don't actually know I would generally consider that to be a lie. But then that's just me.

mvscal wrote:You can't figure out 'when' and 'how' if you don't know 'where'.

"Where" could have been determined, then you have to do the "How" and the "When" correctly.

We've turned Iraq into a giant bug zapper for hajis. There's no better place to fight in the Mid East.

I think we've developed it into a terrorist center. It may attract some of them, but it has also caused them to breed elsewhere as well.

Do you really think that this war has not generated a whole new group of terrorists around the world who are followers of Al queda or who just hate the U.S. because we are there?

And they are breeding, err recruiting.

Mister Bushice wrote:Do you really think that this war has not generated a whole new group of terrorists around the world who are followers of Al queda or who just hate the U.S. because we are there?

And they are breeding, err recruiting.

No.

Is it so inconceivable that if you annihilate some poor sap's family he just might want to take a shot at you, regardless of his political or religious beliefs?

You've done quite a bit of that over in Iraq.

"...so we might as well get them stirred up and out in the open where we can kill them."


:roll:

Keep underestimating your enemy. It worked wonders for you in Vietnam.

Miss Demeanor wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:

No, but what should have happened was that variable should have admonished you for hijacking that thread.

Though in an effort to "appear" to be fair he decided to be a limp-wristed twat and start tickling your taint...

This coming from the only poster on these boards that can actually lay a claim to have killed more threads than shutyomouth and SG combined.

I never make any lists. :cry:

Mister Bushice wrote:Which then leads us back to: what WAS the reason, if it was not WMDs?

Interfering with inspectors in violation of the 91 cease fire.


Maybe if Britain and France had done something about Hitler violating the Versaille treaty, a few million jews wouldn't have been turned into soap.









And I skipped the spellcheck in case Dimsdale needs something within his abilities to contribute.

Martyred wrote:"...so we might as well get them stirred up and out in the open where we can kill them."


:roll:

Keep underestimating your enemy. It worked wonders for you in Vietnam.

Nobody's underestimating the media or the neocoms now.