WMD's

[Guest $iLk]

quote:

---

-Your comparing Bush to Hitler?

---

DEFINITION: COMPARE

Show how things are similar or different

You can do this with brick & wood smart guy.

quote:

---

-Your assertion that we invaded an innocent country?

---

There are no innocent countries. Even the United States. The only thing we've got going for us is that the good outweighs the bad. Like in most western nations.

quote:

---

-Your likening Iraq to the Nazi invasion of Poland

---

Didn't Hitler invade Poland under the justification of pre-emption and defensive measures in order to place a 'friendly' government to his ideology in place?

Please illustrate how the analogy is out of place.

(BECAUSE WE'RE AMERIKKKA!)

quote:

---

-Or your off-hand dismissal of anything I say?

---

:roflmao:

Seriously... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

(That is how you debate point-for-point... notice that your words didn't run around the forum dodging my attempts to respond to them. I can give a class on debate if you are interested... as well as the nature of UBB forum software)

[John Prezioso]

PM or email me for a real discussion. [email protected]

[Guest $iLk]

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

[John Prezioso]

On what basis can you compare what Herman Goehring said to what America is doing. It is in this that I am confused. Do you realize what you are saying?

[Guest $iLk]

On what basis can you compare what Herman Goehring said to what America is doing. It is in this that I am confused. Do you realize what you are saying?

On the basis that he we correct?

The Reichstad fire ring a bell?

The invasion of Poland?

Justification of war against the world?

Manufactured reasons to justify a pre-emptive war.

[Guest $iLk]

i.e. using "Terrists" to justify every single action and denouncing anyone who disagrees with those actions as "liberal", "pacifist", "anti-American"... please - it's too easy to spot the techniques in action.

I still remember the ministry of propaganda that the Pentagon set up after 9/11 to disseminate fake news stories to news outlets.

[Guest $iLk]

Source...

The Pentagon is toying with the idea of black propaganda.

As part of George Bush's war on terrorism, the military is thinking of planting propaganda and misleading stories in the international media.

A new department has been set up inside the Pentagon with the Orwellian title of the Office of Strategic Influence.

It is well funded, is being run by a general and its aim is to influence public opinion abroad.

[John Prezioso]

It is too simplistic to liken the invasion of Iraq to Poland. And I think you know you are oversimplifying the issue.

It can be said of all wars where there was an agressor that there are similarities to the Nazi invasion, but a discussion of specifics easily distinguishes between the 2.

Nazi agression was pure, unprovoked agression, for starters. Irregardless of what the PNAC mission statement says, it does not say that ANY of it will be accomplished through conquest.

quote:

---

The Pentagon is toying with the idea of black propaganda.

---

This has been a common tactic throughout warfare. I'm not sure waht the problem is.

[Guest $iLk]

I think any true American would have hoped to never see the day that the United States was an aggressor nation...

We've always been a beacon of freedom, and fighting in defense of others. Not a nation of conquest.

[Kalshion]

quote:

---

Originally posted by $iLk:

I think any true American would have hoped to never see the day that the United States was an aggressor nation...

---

Oh.. so I'm not a true american.. yet i was born in America, have an american name, speak the American language, have an American job, know American people, attempted to join the military to defend people like YOU, have a family in the military that depend's people like YOU

Like Street, you insult those of us who have attempted to defend our country by labeling us "Not True Americans"

I guess that mean's our troops are "Not True Americans" because there fighting for there country

quote:

---

Not a nation of conquest.

---

Where the hell did you get THAT from? I really would like to know.. since Iraq's people are free now thanks to the US and it's ally's, they have energy, food, school's for there children, they can speak out without being killed now, they have the freedom to vote, to go to school, to shop.. you mean to tell me none of this is "freedom"?

[Guest $iLk]

This has been a common tactic throughout warfare. I'm not sure waht the problem is.

Paying male escorts to pose as journalists and toss soft-ball questions to the President in the White House press briefing room?

How many journalists have turned out to be on the payroll of the Bush administration?

Free Press my ass.

[John Prezioso]

quote:

---

I think any true American would have hoped to never see the day that the United States was an aggressor nation...

---

Agreed, but in my estimation, events have unfolded in such a manner that we are forced to be aggressors. Pre-emptive war still has an aggressor, regardless of whether it is justified or not. Technically, Afghanistan did not attack us either.

[Guest $iLk]

quote:

---

Oh.. so I'm not a true american.. yet i was born in America, have an american name, speak the American language, have an American job, know American people, attempted to join the military to defend people like YOU, have a family in the military that depend's people like YOU

---

So does Michael Moore. What's your point?

quote:

---

Like Street, you insult those of us who have attempted to defend our country by labeling us "Not True Americans"

---

How can one attempt to defend our country? And I have no problem with defending our country. I have a problem with a war of aggression against other countries. (Which by it's nature is not defense, as illustrated with Germany & Poland in 1939)

quote:

---

I guess that mean's our troops are "Not True Americans" because there fighting for there country

---

Yes I must "hate our troops" if I don't lock stock & barrel swallow Bush's load of B.S.

Our troops are following orders, many of whom don't agree with the war but serve because of duty to their compatriots - not to Bush's agenda.

[Guest $iLk]

quote:

---

Agreed, but in my estimation, events have unfolded in such a manner that we are forced to be aggressors. Pre-emptive war still has an aggressor, regardless of whether it is justified or not. Technically, Afghanistan did not attack us either.

---

As I've illustrated, Iraq was no threat. Even if they had WMD's, Saddam didn't have the will to use them. We were't forced into anything. Bush willingly chose to invade Iraq based on PNAC policy peddled by Cheney.

[Kalshion]

quote:

---

How can one attempt to defend our country?

---

Let's see.. go to training, suffer two broken leg's due to training along with a pulled back and forced to be medically discharged? Come on it's THAT hard to figure out

quote:

---

So does Michael Moore. What's your point?

---

Michael Moore tried to divide this country, that by nature, is wrong. I don't consider him a True American, I consider him (NOT YOU) a traitor to this country

quote:

---

Yes I must "hate our troops" if I don't lock stock & barrel swallow Bush's load of B.S.

---

I love it when people twist what I'm saying to make it seem like I said something else... Atta boy Silk

quote:

---

Our troops are following orders, many of whom don't agree with the war but serve because of duty to their compatriots - not to Bush's agenda.

---

Funny.. many troops will disagree with that statement expically those who I've meet here in my home state, but also at Fort Knox

quote:

---

Iraq was no threat

---

Intelligence at the time said otherwise Silk... please read the congresstional database at entry's "Desert Storm" and "1999-2002"

quote:

---

We were't forced into anything.

---

So you're saying we should've let the soul's of 3000 innocent civvy's die in vain and let some tad pot turbon head go free?

Perhaps you forgot, Osama Ba'ladin already took responsibility for those attacks, and intelligence showed he was Afganistan then Iraq, but now he's seem's to be elsewhere

You seem to forget that our primary enemy is Oasam and getting his head.. until then.. closer for those 3000 who died will not come to closer

[John Prezioso]

quote:

---

As I've illustrated, Iraq was no threat. Even if they had WMD's, Saddam didn't have the will to use them.

---

As President, I would not have been willing to take that risk. And saying Saddam was no threat is sort of like saying that wack-a-doodle in North Korea is no threat. It is a little too dangerous to assume, imo.

Post cold-war intlelligence has brought to light that the Soviets, for the most part, had no violent intentions towards America, following the decision to forego the proposed 1979 invasion/war. Reagan could not have known this however.

[Guest $iLk]

quote:

---

Let's see.. go to training, suffer two broken leg's due to training along with a pulled back and forced to be medically discharged? Come on it's THAT hard to figure out

---

Sorry to hear that. But I'm quite certain that was not the purpose nor plan in your life. Just as I've had events in my life push me off the same chosen course.

quote:

---

Michael Moore tried to divide this country, that by nature, is wrong. I don't consider him a True American, I consider him (NOT YOU) a traitor to this country

---

I don't consider him a traitor. Despite his misguided focus, he outlines some illuminating facts in all of his movies.

quote:

---

I love it when people twist what I'm saying to make it seem like I said something else... Atta boy Silk

---

Didn't you just twist what I was talking about that I was responding to? (Hypocrisy detection level at critical)

quote:

---

Funny.. many troops will disagree with that statement expically those who I've meet here in my home state, but also at Fort Knox

---

I'm sure there are people who disagree that the world is round. Anecdotal evidence is hardly conclusive of majority opinion. I can name troops who feel the opposite.

quote:

---

Intelligence at the time said otherwise Silk... please read the congresstional database at entry's "Desert Storm" and "1999-2002"

---

You're going to have to help me find that. Google isn't turning up anything using those topics that is relevant to the Congressional Database. Post a link or something.

[Guest $iLk]

So you're saying we should've let the soul's of 3000 innocent civvy's die in vain and let some tad pot turbon head go free?

Perhaps you forgot, Osama Ba'ladin already took responsibility for those attacks, and intelligence showed he was Afganistan then Iraq, but now he's seem's to be elsewhere

You seem to forget that our primary enemy is Oasam and getting his head.. until then.. closer for those 3000 who died will not come to closer

Yeah - how about showing me where any intelligence ever stated that Osama was in Iraq, has ever been to Iraq, or was within spitting distance.

Someone has fed you some propaganda.

[John Prezioso]

quote:

---

You're going to have to help me find that. Google isn't turning up anything using those topics that is relevant to the Congressional Database. Post a link or something.

---

There had been a link on Rush Limbaugh one time, but it's not there now.

Hopefully Soback or Kalshion or myself will find it for us.

And before you get on me about Rush Limbaugh, it's only a LINK!

[Guest $iLk]

quote:

---

As President, I would not have been willing to take that risk. And saying Saddam was no threat is sort of like saying that wack-a-doodle in North Korea is no threat. It is a little too dangerous to assume, imo.

---

There is a difference between preparing defensive measures and calculated response (such as MAD in the Cold War) and invading countries willy-nilly.

quote:

---

Post cold-war intlelligence has brought to light that the Soviets, for the most part, had no violent intentions towards America, following the decision to forego the proposed 1979 invasion/war. Reagan could not have known this however.

---

I guess you miss the irony that Reagan didn't invade the Soviet Union.

[Kalshion]

This is one such link:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/multidb.html

Afraid I gotta go to work right now, I'll post more later...

And I did make a mistake in one of my sentence's, apperently I misunderstood somethign you said Silk.. sorry about that...

[Guest $iLk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalshion:

This is one such link:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/multidb.html

Afraid I gotta go to work right now, I'll post more later...

And I did make a mistake in one of my sentence's, apperently I misunderstood somethign you said Silk.. sorry about that...

---

searches on Iraq, 1999-2002 are turning up policy briefs on global warming...

They need a better indexing system.

[Grizzle]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Prez:

Nazi agression was pure, unprovoked agression, for starters.

---

...and Iraq provoked us how? Come on Prez, $ilk is making many many valid arguments and you just aren't getting it.

The Bush cronies who just so happen to be members of PNAC, an organization that just so happens to have presented papers on invading Iraq long before 9/11, have quite obviously played a LARGE role in turning Osama Bin Ladens attack on the US into a reason for ousting Saddam by propagandizing the "terrorist threat".

Your steadfast refusal to give any creedance to $ilks arguments is just making you look foolish.

[John Prezioso]

quote:

---

Your steadfast refusal to give any creedance to $ilks arguments is just making you look foolish.

---

Silk's theories are just that -theories. And in my opinion not all very well-founded at that. Contrary to your baseless accusations, I have indeed pointed out where I thought Silk's arguments have some merit. I can respect a well thought-out argument without necessarily agreeing with it.

I highly doubt having my own opinion makes me look foolish to anyone except those who HAVE to have everyone agree with them. And I have no use for people like that anyway, so what do I care HOW they regard me?