It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush Lied, The Smear Continues

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Yes, he was.


Sorry your opinion not fact.



Last time I checked, the US never signed a peace treaty forbidding it to have a nuclear weapons program.

Secondly, the US was NOT the first nation to have a nuclear weapons program.


Sorry but in your rush to defend everything the gov does you miss the point.
No the U.S. didn't sign a peace treaty, but maybe they should. Why don't they? Why do they expect other countries too? Is the U.S. the only country allowed to defend itself? The U.S. does exactly what it wants to do but expects other countries to fall in line and except the wests rules and control.

So was the first country to have a nuc program? I know Germany was working on a nuc bomb but thet couldn't get it right. Pls inform me.



Absolutely - if the US was willing to take over 1 million casualties, as well as inflict countless more millions, their use was not needed. If however you wanted the fewest casualties as possable, then using them was needed.

Again propagander, IMO the U.S. allowed the war with Japan to happen in the first place, just like it was looking for every excuse it could to join the war in Europe against the U.S. populations wishes. Just like the war in Iraq and 911 it needed something to convince the population that war was neccesary. War is big money.
And what millions of casualties, you don't mean the thousands of dead Japanese CIVILIANS do you? But I guess only America matters eh?


No, because the US never signed a freaking peace treaty forbidding it to persue nuclear weapons

That is the point of peace treaties. You make them to have peace. If you don't abide by their terms you get war. Is that so hard to grasp?


Again I guess the U.S. considers itself exempt from peace and wages war, while forcing other countries to not be able to defend themselves. Hmmm I wonder why eh? You are the one finding it hard to grasp budy, all you can do is spread propagander lies without thinking for yourself.
Where is this peace you talk about.? How many wars have the U.S. been involved in since WWII? Go take a look and you'll see the U.S. is far from a peaceful nation.


What the heck does that mean? You speak of history, and yet act as if there has never been a war. A nations defence goes beyond it's own boarder.


Defence from who? The Iraqi's? Give me a break, what threat are the Iraqi's to the U.S.?
Our gov is allowing outsiders to pour in because populations are lowering. More ppl dieing than being born. The U.S. is one of the only countrys right now who's population is growing. Hmmm I wonder why they are doing that?
Maybe they need the population to work jobs Americans won't touch because they won't you pay enough to live on? Oh and they've got to replace those 10,000+ dead since Gulf War one.


Iraq was a threat because of it's leader. HISTORY ALREADY PROVED THAT!

No it didn''t, and shouting it doesn't make it so...lol
History shows the lies and coverups and excuses to invade a sovereign country for political and financial gain. Just like every war that has gone before. There is always a financial angle. Even Hitler was allowed to come to power by the Allies, even though they new he was preparing for war, because they didn't want to cut financial ties with Germany. WWII could have been stopped before it even happned if it wasn't for greedy leaders.
Follow the money and you'll see the truth evey time.
Show me the history of Iraqs leader being a serious real threat to the U.S. And now he's gone right? But the war rages on, no?
They are just excuses, can't you see that?
You really think a tiny country thousands of miles away are a military threat to largest military nation on Earth? If you do then your faith in your country must be pretty weak.




posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 06:05 AM
link   


Fitting.


I think his manerism and his lack of thought have discredited him as much as his wars have.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Someone said the following
=============================

Major Cee its seems to me that you have narrowed the
search for Bush's lies about going to war with Iraq too
much. What about their attempt to ...............
to purchase yellow cake prior to .......
etc.

=============================


I would like to respond to the idea that I have narrowed my
search for Bush lies too far. Lets look at that idea.
It is at the crux of the problem. It is exactly this point
that the smear perpetrators are using, of narrowing their
focus too much.

To explain this, all good deceptions and
lies have one thing in common. They have enough truth
in them to provide a basis for credibility.

In the current smear, the basis for credibility is this below
and it is what the smear crowd has narrowed their focus to:

(1)No WMD were found.

(2)It was believed that Iraq had them when in fact
they did not.

(3)Also some charges were made about Iraq's weapons
that proved to be false. One of them was that for
some time our scientists believed some aluminum
tubes were for nuke bombs and they turned out to
be for rockets. Also someone suspected Iraq of
trying to obtain more uranium, and this might not
have been true, but I don't believe was conclusive.

So the perpetrators have zeroed in on those facts
and tried to make the case that Bush lied, and they
have been quite successful with those not closely
attuned to the situation. At the same time though
the perpetrators have not disclosed all the facts.
They have selectively only disclosed pieces of it
hoping that we don't look at the other pieces.


Here are the facts they leave out while narrowing their
focus.

(1) These charges against Iraq were being investigated
by UN weapons inspectors.

(2) Saddam refused to let these investigations run
their course and kicked inspectors out.

(3) If inspectors had not been kicked out they could
have ran their course and the programs would have
been eliminated.

(4) Of course the ones making the charges would
keep making the charges as long as it looked like
Iraq was not cooperating. Not cooperating proved
they were not complying, by definition of the word
comply. This was not lying on our part. It was
essentially demanding that the inspections be
carried to the end and not subverted by Saddam.

(5) When Bush threatened war if Iraq did not comply
Iraq again let inspectors in. They did, in fact,
find unauthorized weapons, and they did in fact
confiscate these and these did, in fact, include
chemical weapons and I can give links to the UN
archives that confirm this. So these were not
lies. These weapons were being found on the 2nd
generation of UN inspections. In fact it looked
for some time like the inspections were working,
and this is in part is why nothing was found after
the war, because they were found before the war
after Bush threatened invasion if Saddam did not
comply.

(6) There came one stumbling block though in this
second round of inspections and that was Iraq's
refusal to let nuclear scientists be interviewed.
The stumbling block wasn't that they had nuclear
weapons, It was that they appeared to be hiding
some sort of nuclear program.

(7) Saddam stonewalled on this point even in threat
of invasion. Does that look like someone hiding
a program or not?

(8) The program was shown to have been hidden and
awaiting attention to die down in hopes of starting
it up again. This problem had not gone away. It
had to be dealt with at some time.

(9) Colin Powell made the UN speech, detailing why
Iraq was in default. Some of it he got right. Some
he got wrong. One point he got right was that Iraq
was refusing compliance with UN inspections. Anyway
it was Colin Powell that made the Speech, not Bush.
Why aren't the smear people mentioning this?

So the smear perpetrators do not mention any of this
background that is necessary to understand the charges
that Iraq was in compete violation of UN inspections.

Does David Corn think we should give back all the material
hid away in Saddam's nuke program. After all, David Corn
has written an entire book on Bush's lies. I suspect I
could easily write an entire book on Corn's lies if
I had nothing better to do with my life than to make
money by defaming individuals as he does. This makes
him a paid liar. At least he has a good reason, I suppose.

The smear perpetrators do not mention that if we really
were wrong to go to war on this point of Saddam hiding
a nuclear program, then the only way to rectify it
would be to give all the plans, centrifuges, blueprints,
and scientists back to him and apologize, because we
were wrong. If they truly believed we were wrong, I
say they would make these proposals to rectify our lying,
conniving, and false declarations and make the situation
right, now that we have seen the light.

Lets have a show of hands. How many want to give back
the blueprints, plans, centrifuge prototypes, the
enriched uranium, and the scientists that we took away.
You say we were lying and this stuff doesn't even exist.
If it doesn't exist, then I don't suppose it would
hurt anything giving it back. Oh also, we would have
to put Saddam back because, we lied, he wasn't really
hiding a nuke program.

dgtempe, polanski, twitchy, Carseller4, UM_Gazz, UFObeliever,
Blackbeard, Agit8dChop, NR, and others expressing
the belief that this was all lies, here is your
chance to say you're in favor of giving the buried
stuff back, give the scientists back, and of course returning
Saddam to his rightful spot.

Lets see all in favor of fixing "our lies" and letting
true justice be done. Sign up below.


[edit on 28-10-2005 by MajorCee]



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Sorry but in your rush to defend everything the gov does you miss the point.
No the U.S. didn't sign a peace treaty, but maybe they should. Why don't they? Why do they expect other countries too? Is the U.S. the only country allowed to defend itself? The U.S. does exactly what it wants to do but expects other countries to fall in line and except the wests rules and control.


Look, I don't defend everything the government or Bush does. I have a lot of problems with Bush, just so you know. However, going into Iraq is not one of them.

ANOK, I believe that you are much to idealistic. Yes, in a perfect world, every country should sign a peace treaty, and that would be the end of all war. In the real world however, it is just such treaties that tend to allow bad regimes to gain the upper hand. As one who likes to point to history for examples, I'm sure you can understand that point.

As for why the US specifically does not give up nukes, and why they expect other nations to...

In Iraqs specific case, they were the agressors in a completely unprovoked war. They attacked Kuwait believing the world comunity would not respond, but unfortunately for Saddam, he was wrong. Saddam is a proven genocidal maniac, he has gased hundreds of thousands of people... If you can not see why he should not have nukes, well, frankly I question your sanity.

ANOK, it was not just the US that made a demand for Saddam to give up it's WMD program - it was the UN and the world at large. The whole world agreed that Saddam should not have nukes. It was just the coolition that actually defended this position.


So was the first country to have a nuc program? I know Germany was working on a nuc bomb but thet couldn't get it right. Pls inform me.


Both England and Germany had atomic weapons programs before the US. Englands program eventually merged with the US to produce the manhattan project.



Again propagander, IMO the U.S. allowed the war with Japan to happen in the first place, just like it was looking for every excuse it could to join the war in Europe against the U.S. populations wishes.


As suprised as you might be ANOK, I completely agree


The US definatly was one of the main causes of the pacific war with Japan. Our embargo definatly caused their attack on pearl harbor, and although I am not sure, I would not be surprised if they were allowed to get through to our battle ships in harbor.

As for the war against Hitler, again - I completely agree


The US was itching to get nvolved there too.

However, be that as it may, were either of these the wrong thing to do? I would argue not. The US played a vital role in defeating Hitler in WWII, and as history shows, he was the second greatest murderer of man after one Mr Stalin. Seeing as how it was Russia that would have conquered all of Europe instead of Hitler, I think it is very clear that the US was right to get involved there.



Just like the war in Iraq and 911 it needed something to convince the population that war was neccesary. War is big money.


But that is the point here AMOK, Saddam did have a WMD program which he was forbidden to have. That was the reason we went in there, and it wasn't a lie. History has proved that, and refusing to admit that fact because someone doesn't like Bush is willingly accepted ingorance.


And what millions of casualties, you don't mean the thousands of dead Japanese CIVILIANS do you? But I guess only America matters eh?


AMOK, it is well known it would cost the US over a million of it's own men to take Japan, because she refused to surrender. On top of those million+ Americans that would have died, several million Japanese civilians would have died in defence of their country. Frankly, as horrific as the atomic bomb was, it was in fact the option that would have caused the fewest deaths. Many more would have died had a conventional end to the war been taken.



Again I guess the U.S. considers itself exempt from peace and wages war, while forcing other countries to not be able to defend themselves. Hmmm I wonder why eh? You are the one finding it hard to grasp budy, all you can do is spread propagander lies without thinking for yourself.
Where is this peace you talk about.? How many wars have the U.S. been involved in since WWII? Go take a look and you'll see the U.S. is far from a peaceful nation.


The US is not exempt from peace AMOK - we signed the damn peace treaty with Saddam


WE LIVED UP TO OUR PART - SADDAM DIDN'T! He regularly had his airforce fly in no fly zones, he continued with his nuclear program, and he committed genocide.

Again AMOK, there are some nations that can not handle the responsability of nukes. Iraq was one of them because their leader was Saddam.

As for our action during the cold war, how many of them were in support of an ally trying to defend it's self?

Korean war? Yup - UN mandated BTW.
Vietnam war? Yup - The south was our ally, and thus we came to their aid.
Afghanistan? Yup - the USSR tried to invade and we backed Afghanistan.

Now, I agree the US isn't some completely innocent nation that can do no wrong, but frankly more often then not we have good, just reasons to do what we do.


Defence from who? The Iraqi's? Give me a break, what threat are the Iraqi's to the U.S.?


Have you ever seen a nuclear bomb go off? ANY ONE WITH THEM HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BE DANGEROUS!


Our gov is allowing outsiders to pour in because populations are lowering. More ppl dieing than being born. The U.S. is one of the only countrys right now who's population is growing. Hmmm I wonder why they are doing that?
Maybe they need the population to work jobs Americans won't touch because they won't you pay enough to live on? Oh and they've got to replace those 10,000+ dead since Gulf War one.


What does this have to do with Saddams nuke program?




No it didn''t, and shouting it doesn't make it so...lol
History shows the lies and coverups and excuses to invade a sovereign country for political and financial gain. Just like every war that has gone before. There is always a financial angle. Even Hitler was allowed to come to power by the Allies, even though they new he was preparing for war, because they didn't want to cut financial ties with Germany. WWII could have been stopped before it even happned if it wasn't for greedy leaders.
Follow the money and you'll see the truth evey time.
Show me the history of Iraqs leader being a serious real threat to the U.S. And now he's gone right? But the war rages on, no?
They are just excuses, can't you see that?
You really think a tiny country thousands of miles away are a military threat to largest military nation on Earth? If you do then your faith in your country must be pretty weak.


Saddam with nukes was a threat to the world, end of story. Even a child can kill the most well trained and hardened soldier if given the right tools and opertunity. So too could Saddam use a nuke against the US or it's allies.

Frankly, oil and money was probably 10% at most of the decision to go into Iraq - if it was even a reason at all.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Lies are a necessary evil.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by monk84
Lies are a necessary evil.


lies are not necessary evil. its just the moral grounds on it. somtimes u lie if u need to save yerself or sombody else, etc.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   
It sounds like you agree with me just some of the time. So some lies are better than other lies. You can't have it both ways.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 12:47 PM
link   
You know that Bush is a liar, but you don't want to admit it. Bush and Cheney's days in office are just about numbered.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 05:10 PM
link   
i love when people go "now its a fact....blah blah blah"
yea opk then simple question for you, are you a weapons inspector for the U.N. who found these weapons? do you hold vital info which specifically shows bush lying and have first person proof? if no then i suggest you stop saying all of this is fact or obvious because plain and simple every single 'fact' can be a lie. these are some of the most powerful people in the world, you dont think they can organize a way to convince you of something false? watch the movie "Wag The Dog" with robert deniro.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Again AMOK, there are some nations that can not handle the responsability of nukes. Iraq was one of them because their leader was Saddam.


Dude until you can get my name right, I'm not gonna waste my time with you.
If you can't even get my name right when it's right there in front of you then I very much doubt you can get anything else you read right.


You can rant on all day, you're just regurgitating (sp?) the party line as far as I'm concerned.
Time for me to move on to more enlightening things. Enjoy the future while you can.

AP&F...I guess it's too late!



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 05:01 AM
link   
Ofcourse Bush did not LIE - it was BAD INTELLIGENCE!



Seriously tho, it is funny to watch you guys defending this Schrub. Do you think he would defend you? I somehow doubt that you are high on his prioritiy list. Is he a "Caring President" for you guys? Does he care about his own people, the enivorment, the future? Do you feel any Safer now, that he has started two wars and invaded two countries? Did the war on terrorism bring much needed peace and stability to this world? Did the US intervention in the Middle East bring much needed peace and stability there? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm...





"I just Want to see this Land Live up to its Full Potential!"

I really do not Understand how can you support this Man, when he tramples civil and human rights, illegaly invades foreign countries and then smiles on tv.

Sure all politicans lie - but I can handle a president that lied about a blowjob. To lie about serious topics, like REASONS FOR WARS - ah well...



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Dude until you can get my name right, I'm not gonna waste my time with you.
If you can't even get my name right when it's right there in front of you then I very much doubt you can get anything else you read right.


You can rant on all day, you're just regurgitating (sp?) the party line as far as I'm concerned.
Time for me to move on to more enlightening things. Enjoy the future while you can.

AP&F...I guess it's too late!


ANOK, I "got your name right" several times, but I do admit I am not a perfect typer, and from time to time my finger strays a fraction of an inch.


Sorry that was so offensive.

It's funny though, when defeated in argument all you can do is resort to crying over a typo.



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Ofcourse Bush did not LIE - it was BAD INTELLIGENCE!


Actually Souljah, it was NOT bad intelligence. The fact that Saddam had a nuclear weapons program proves that. That was one of the points of this thread.

While all of the reasons for going into Iraq may not have been 100% accurate, AT LEAST ONE WAS, and frankly that one was reason enough.



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
[While all of the reasons for going into Iraq may not have been 100% accurate, AT LEAST ONE WAS, and frankly that one was reason enough.


Ummm ok so a nuclear weapons program is reason enough for pre-emtive attack.

so then tell me when will you be attacking

Isreal

Israel is not a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and refuses to officially confirm or deny having a nuclear arsenal, or to having developed nuclear weapons, or even to having a nuclear weapons program....According to the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Federation of American Scientists, they may possess 300-400 weapons, a figure which would put them above the median in the declared list


Iran

United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency claims to have found evidence of a nuclear weapons program during several of its inspections, and the CIA also claim this to be a cover for a nuclear weapons program.


North Korea

On January 10, 2003 North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In February 2005 they claimed to possess functional nuclear weapons


Ukraine


Ukraine inherited about 5,000 nuclear weapons when it became independent from the USSR in 1991, making its nuclear arsenal the third-largest in the world [11]. It transferred all of these to Russia by 1996. [12] However recent news has surfaced that due to a clerical error, Ukraine may still possess several hundred warheads which were not accounted for in the armaments repatriation move 14 years ago. In any case, even if Ukraine does possess these weapons, they are technically missing and not in a deployed state or any part of Ukraine's defense posture


AND why did you not attack Libya when they did?

Signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. On December 19, 2003, Libya admitted having had a nuclear weapon program and simultaneously announced its intention to end it and dismantle all existing Weapons of Mass Destruction to be verified by unconditional inspections


source Wiki



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Halfofone
Ummm ok so a nuclear weapons program is reason enough for pre-emtive attack.

so then tell me when will you be attacking

Isreal

Iran

North Korea

Ukraine

AND why did you not attack Libya when they did?


What is so difficult to understand? Say it with me now:

PEACE TREATY

Did any of the countries you mention sign a peace treaty with the United States which stipulated that said country was not allowed to have a nuclear weapons program?



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Oh I see so there IS more than one reason....



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Halfofone
Oh I see so there IS more than one reason....


When did I ever say there was ONLY one reason?


I said at least one was correct (in this case, the intel that said Saddam had a nuclear weapons prgram) and that one reason in conjunction with the peace treaty Saddam had signed was enough to justify US action.

Is English your first language? Or is it French?



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 03:55 PM
link   
ok madman i understand now, you can have weapons as long as you are on our side. if your part of the machine in the U.S. then its perfectly fine to have nukes. though your a terrorist if you want them and arent part of this corrupt machine. whos to say they arent aloud to have nukes? hmmm, i guess we are the world police... because you know we whine and complain if things dont go our way.
we are like the parents and other smaller countries are little kids. if they are messing around in their room we bust down the door and say "knock it off or well take away your privilages"
nice to know the united states OF AMERICA has say in what everyone can or cant do and can or cant have.

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 29/10/2005 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
ANOK, I "got your name right" several times, but I do admit I am not a perfect typer, and from time to time my finger strays a fraction of an inch.

Sorry that was so offensive.
It's funny though, when defeated in argument all you can do is resort to crying over a typo.


Defeated in an argument?


I wasn't crying over a typo either amerikkkan nad man, just pointing out that you obviously don't pay that mutch attention. And if you can miss a huge typo like that nad man then it just proves to me you are missing a lot more than that


It wasn't offensive, you would have to work a lot harder than that to effend me. Bush offends me, his lies offend me, the people who blindly support his lies offend me, his war offends, people who yell "support the troops" with no clue what that realy means offends me, the government offends me. You my friend just make me laugh.

You think you've won this argument? What did you win? You have no argument. Go back to sleep.

[edit on 29/10/2005 by ANOK]



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
whos to say they arent aloud to have nukes?


In this case it was the whole world


Or did you miss that whole UN thing?


hmmm, i guess we are the world police... because you know we whine and complain if things dont go our way.
we are like the parents and other smaller countries are little kids. if they are messing around in their room we bust down the door and say "knock it off or well take away your privilages"
nice to know the united states OF AMERICA has say in what everyone can or cant do and can or cant have.


World police?

No.

We the United States of America, and thus we protect the security of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

When a nation signs a peace treaty, they have two options. They can either abide by the terms and ensure they maintain the status of peace, or they can secretly break the treaty and risk getting caught and thrust back into war.

Saddam took option B and got caught, plain and simple.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join