01 Jun 05
Originally posted by D43M0NYou're wrong.
1. John Howard supported the "lie" that there were WMDs, before it was found out it was a lie. Bush went on what UN weapon inspectors told him.
2. What would you call them? Friends? They were a mob, of people. And of course they would give comfort to Saddam. So, John Howard was telling the truth. You going to beat him up over that as well?
3. Of ...[text shortened]... t like it, leave.
Or won't your mother let you? Too young to travel on a plane by yourself?
It should have been put to the vote in Australia's parliament.
and
The petition was being delivered to George Bush by publicly elected officials but was physically blocked by John Howard's team (I've got the photo).
01 Jun 05
Originally posted by STANGYes, every heard of Photoshop? It can be used in many versatile ways. A photo proves nothing, especially after being on the internet.
You're wrong.
It should have been put to the vote in Australia's parliament.
and
The petition was being delivered to George Bush by publicly elected officials but was physically blocked by John Howard's team (I've got the photo).
Why should an American action be put to vote in Australian parliament?
01 Jun 05
Originally posted by TheBloopStang, why don't you get rid of lying little puppet John ? I despise him more than George.
Man, can't believe you're giving up this easily...
The obvious solution would be to make July 1 "Get rid of John Howard Day".
You've got a month... get your a** in gear!!
01 Jun 05
here is a UN copy: http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm
and another news report
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A41476-2004Mar8?language=printer
so that's what Blix said, but:
1. there were news reports of active Iraqi attempts to thwart the inspections, and
2. Iraq already had its chances with the 1991-1998 inspections, and
3. did the inspectors guarantee they could have found the weapons even if Iraqi had actively attempted to prevent them? or was their confidence based on full cooperation?
4. where is the evidence showing WMDs or WMD precursors or research items were not buried, destroyed, or moved to Syria or Russia?
01 Jun 05
Originally posted by no1marauder
Bush went on what UN weapon inspectors told him.
If you really believe that, you are incredibly ignorant of what happened in 2003. UN weapons inspectors NEVER told Bush that Saddam had existing stocks of WMD's and requested more time for inspections which were ongoing. Please get your facts straight; Bush did lie when he said "We know t ...[text shortened]... h thing as they didn't. If Howard repeated that lie to the Australian people, then he lied too.
Democrats on WMDs:
http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php
01 Jun 05
Originally posted by zeeblebotI was referring to d43mon's asserting that Bush invaded Iraq BECAUSE UN weapons inspectors told him in 2003 that Iraq had WMD; I assume you would concede that his statement was in error. As for your points:
here is a UN copy: http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm
and another news report
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A41476-2004Mar8?language=printer
so that's what Blix said, but:
1. there were news reports of active Iraqi attempts to thwart the inspections, and
2. Iraq already had its chances with the 1991-1998 inspections ...[text shortened]... or WMD precursors or research items were not buried, destroyed, or moved to Syria or Russia?
1. News reports are news reports; Blix said the Iraqis were cooperating;
2. Irrelevant to the issue at hand in 2003. If what happened in 1991-1998 was sufficient for war, then the US should have went towar in 1998 or if you're going to make it partisan, early in 2001 when Bush came into power;
3. Blix said ALL issues could be resolved in months. Blix said the Iraqis were cooperating. The majority of the UN Security Council wanted to give the inspectors more time, but Bush was ALWAYS more interested in justifying a war on Iraq to overthrow Saddam than on WMD's;
4. Evidence is usually required that something happened, not that something didn't happen. The US teams concluded that Iraq had no WMD's in 2003; the one led by Duelfer recently issued a report stating that. I have no "evidence" that aliens didn't load the Iraqi WMD's onto spaceships with the magical aid of leprechauns and fly them to their secret base far underneath the surface of the Moon for their evil commander Judge Crater and his Queen, Amelia Earhart. However, absent compelling evidence that either occurred, I go with the known facts and conclude that Iraq had no WMD's in 2003.
01 Jun 05
Originally posted by zeeblebotNot a Democrat so I don't care; the fact that Democrats also lied is irrelevant to the fact that Bush lied. Bush made the ultimate decision to go to war using a justification that he knew (or should have known) was false, while asserting to the public he "knew" it to be true. Those Democrats who supported the war share in his blood guilt; those who stated they "knew" Iraq had WMD's in 2003 also lied.
Democrats on WMDs:
http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php
01 Jun 05
Originally posted by STANGIf you are no longer proud to be an Australian, move to New Zealand; They'll take ya, or better yet, move to Sudan....🙄
Leading up to the invasion of Iraq and resulting deaths of up to 100,000 people, the John Howard government in Australia:
1. Supported the lie that there were WMD's.
2. Referred to people marching against the invasion, and representing half the population, as a "mob" and "give comfort to Saddam".
3. Did not put support of America's invasion to a par ...[text shortened]... nting to share the experience with visitors.
However, I am no longer proud to be Australian.
02 Jun 05
1 edit
Hey Stan,
How are you sir?
Bush and Howard are just political turds. Neither matter.
Saddam killed millions JUST BECAUSE HE COULD.
Think about that. Your anger might be a wonderful thing if directed against people who deserve it. Pick a dictator. Any dictator. You will be surprised how many of us join in praising you then.
Mike
02 Jun 05
Originally posted by no1marauderCommies like you never killed on a whim? Never went to war for an unjust cause?
Not a Democrat so I don't care; the fact that Democrats also lied is irrelevant to the fact that Bush lied. Bush made the ultimate decision to go to war using a justification that he knew (or should have known) was false, while asserting to the public he "knew" it to be true. Those Democrats who supported the war share in his blood guilt; those who stated they "knew" Iraq had WMD's in 2003 also lied.
Wow. Really.
02 Jun 05
4 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderYou are not a Democrat. By your own admission and bragg(adocio).
No, SVW, I've never killed on a whim ............ yet.
Are you a commie?
<edit> Let's make it simple. So even you can "get it". Who is the better leader? Bush or Castro? Which has killed the most "innocent" people and why did they do it?