Do you still support America's genocide in the Middle East?

Look at post #84.

you're an idiot. that isn't proof of anything

Sign the petition telling Congress that about a million Iraqis have likely been killed since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. Help us expose to Congress the true costs of war.

that proves nothing. it further doesn't establish your claim that the US has committed genocide. it doesn't mention who is doing the killing.

you made a false claim, this thread is a lie. admit it
 
no, I don't mean made up liberal bullshit....for real, where are there a million dead....the war began 94 months ago.....in order for there to be one million dead we would have to have seen casualties at the rate of 10,600 per month for each of the 94 months......even Al Jazeera states that the casualty rate at the peak of the fighting was under 2000 a month.......and there were many months when the rate was under a hundred......where are they hiding all the missing bodies?......

your link says that iraqbodycount "provides the most reliable, frequently updated database of deaths in Iraq".....

yet Iraqbodycount states the casualties total around 100,000, not one million.....

you need to stop throwing silly claims around as if they were real.....

and dune of course ran from this

lying coward :)
 
Look at post #84.
Herp_Derp_by_Helrouis.jpg
 
Caught you this time. I was there, I watched all the news chanels including Fox, all day long, consecutively. Both Saddam and Iraq were repeatedly mentioned as being involved or responsible. This certainly set the stage for the invasion.

unless you have some proof, I still call bullshit.....I watched Fox news as well and did not have the same "experience" you claim.....
 
I am not trying to save face. I could care less what you think of me. You call me a dumbfuck in your first post to me and then think I give a shit what your opinion is?

Do you have anything logical to say or just insults?

At least you're honest enough to not deny being a dumbfuck.....in all likely hood, you're probably the dumbESTfuck judging from your posts....

Christiefan explained it well..."a substantial portion of the public had a number of misperceptions that were demonstrably false, or were at odds with the dominant view in the intelligence community."
Saddam and Iraq were NEVER mentioned as being involved or responsible except by Democrats trying to mis-characterize a Bush speech in which he happened to mention both 9/11 and Saddam.
 
Here's another honest post for you...

PNAC Statement of Principles

June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Excellent....Its a mite dated but great policy for its time....
 

Context provided here (click).


Origins: All of the quotes listed above are substantially correct reproductions of statements made by various Democratic leaders regarding Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction. However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them — several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S. Moreover, several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been successful in "degrad[ing] Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons."
The precise meaning of these quotes will not change one iota whether they're read as part of an entire speech or taken by themselves....
In the first 6 months of GW's term, he was constantly bombarded with questions about Saddam and Iraq...
"What about Iraq"...."What are you going to do about Saddam".....etc....

When it came time to shit or get off the pot....they DID vote in sufficient numbers to PASS the "Iraqi War Resolution"....some voting for it with a cya statement, but it COULDN'T have passed without Democratic support....
 
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.[1][2] It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq. The Act was cited in October 2002 to argue for the authorization of military force against the Iraqi government.

Findings and declaration of policy

The Act found that between 1980 and 1998 Iraq had:

1. committed various and significant violations of International Law,
2. had failed to comply with the obligations to which it had agreed following the Gulf War and
3. further had ignored Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council.

The Act declared that it was the Policy of the United States to support "regime change." The Act was passed 360-38 in the U.S. House of Representatives [3] and by unanimous consent in the Senate.[4] US President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law on October 31, 1998. The law's stated purpose was: "to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq." Specifically, Congress made findings of past Iraqi military actions in violation of International Law and that Iraq had denied entry of United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) inspectors into its country to inspect for weapons of mass destruction. Congress found: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." On December 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton mandated Operation Desert Fox, a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets.

President Clinton stated in February 1998:

Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.... Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits.... It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.... Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal.... President Clinton ~ 1998 [5]

Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Text_document_with_red_question_mark.svg" class="image"><img alt="Text document with red question mark.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/Text_document_with_red_question_mark.svg/40px-Text_document_with_red_question_mark.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/a/a4/Text_document_with_red_question_mark.svg/40px-Text_document_with_red_question_mark.svg.png

This happened two years before Bush was president, at the time, no one even knew if he was running for president. None of the "usual suspects" from PNAC were in political power at the time, and you will notice the overwhelming Congressional vote to pass this bill.

Now let's stop the fucking LYING and DISTORTING of the TRUTH!
 
At least you're honest enough to not deny being a dumbfuck.....in all likely hood, you're probably the dumbESTfuck judging from your posts....

Christiefan explained it well..."a substantial portion of the public had a number of misperceptions that were demonstrably false, or were at odds with the dominant view in the intelligence community."
Saddam and Iraq were NEVER mentioned as being involved or responsible except by Democrats trying to mis-characterize a Bush speech in which he happened to mention both 9/11 and Saddam.

It was all over the news all day long you lying sack of shit. Proove it wasn't.
 
The precise meaning of these quotes will not change one iota whether they're read as part of an entire speech or taken by themselves....
In the first 6 months of GW's term, he was constantly bombarded with questions about Saddam and Iraq...
"What about Iraq"...."What are you going to do about Saddam".....etc....

When it came time to shit or get off the pot....they DID vote in sufficient numbers to PASS the "Iraqi War Resolution"....some voting for it with a cya statement, but it COULDN'T have passed without Democratic support....

Bullshit. The meaning of any quote changes with context. What an ignorant comment.
 
The precise meaning of these quotes will not change one iota whether they're read as part of an entire speech or taken by themselves....
In the first 6 months of GW's term, he was constantly bombarded with questions about Saddam and Iraq...
"What about Iraq"...."What are you going to do about Saddam".....etc....

When it came time to shit or get off the pot....they DID vote in sufficient numbers to PASS the "Iraqi War Resolution"....some voting for it with a cya statement, but it COULDN'T have passed without Democratic support....

Of course context matters, are you kidding? For instance, Pelosi's comment had to do with missile strikes that conservatives derided, claiming they were just diversions from the Lewinsky business.
 
At least you're honest enough to not deny being a dumbfuck.....in all likely hood, you're probably the dumbESTfuck judging from your posts....

Christiefan explained it well..."a substantial portion of the public had a number of misperceptions that were demonstrably false, or were at odds with the dominant view in the intelligence community."
Saddam and Iraq were NEVER mentioned as being involved or responsible except by Democrats trying to mis-characterize a Bush speech in which he happened to mention both 9/11 and Saddam.

Are you serious? The whole point of posting the poll is to show that Pmp's claim was false: "starting from the beginning, nobody claimed Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.....that's a baseless claim from the left and always has been...."

People believed it then and they believe it now. In fact, a Newsweek poll from a few years ago showed that the belief increased over time.

A new Newsweek poll out this weekend exposed "gaps" in America's knowledge of history and current events.

Perhaps most alarmingly, 41% of Americans answered 'Yes' to the question "Do you think Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq was directly involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001?"

That total is actually up 5 points since September 2004.


http://www.newsweek.com/2007/09/04/dunce-cap-nation.html#
 
Back
Top