Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Bush's first crime against Iraq


Dr. D

Recommended Posts

I will write this real slow for you . . . . the q-u-a-l-i-t-y of Bush's White House visitors. Ask someone to read it to you please so that maybe this time next year you will understand.

Ah, so now you stereotpying all visitors.

I see.

You see, most people recognize that Bush was a religious fanatic who was always trying to quote things that he could never live up to. This verse from Matthew was one of his favorites but you wouldn't know that because if it wasn't written in blood, it wouldn't mean anything to you. You don't really think that Bush ever had an original statement, do you? lol

Not quoting Bush my foot!

Cant spin out of it really, I suggest you change the topic than trying to redeem yourself. :tu:

No Aroces, but unlike you, I saw war and I saw the things that happen in it. And one of those things are the cover ups and outside the book activities that, like everything else discussed here, you would know absolutely nothing about because it falls outside of your "reality of opinion."

I dont think anyone would ever assume war has not so many bad things that happen in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
  • Replies 274
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • AROCES

    99

  • Dr. D

    72

  • KRS-One

    25

  • TRUEYOUTRUEME

    9

Moon? I didnt know Moon has ties with the Iraqis at all :o His name is not even Arabic.

Not quoting Bush? You really believe readers here will buy into that?LOL :lol:

Oh gee, so you didnt see the killing of the innocent Iraqis after all by US soldiers. :rolleyes:

Why would Moon need an Arabic name or ties with Iraq for Dr.D to draw a comparison?

Jesus said: "Jesus Christ stated in Matthew 12:30 that "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters."

I would like you to post Bush's quote on this and I'm sure you will see that Bush did not say "you are either with us or against us (if you harbor terrorists) he never quit said it that way. Hilary Clinton did :lol:

quote

"# Hillary Clinton said on September 13, 2001: "Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price."

Bush said this

Quote

" You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror." ...

Plus

Are you in denial that the U.S. has killed civillians and that on occasion turns a blind eye?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not quoting Bush my foot!

Cant spin out of it really, I suggest you change the topic than trying to redeem yourself. :tu:

Believe what you want . . . . put it with everything else you believe since all is false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So many? There are 48 nations in Europe.

The United Kingdom, Poland, Romania, Denmark, Bulgaria, Albania, Czech Republic, Armenia, Bosnia & Herzegovina gave their aid to this “cause” to the tune of under 10,000 soldiers but many were designated as non-combatant.

Spain, Portugal, Norway, the Netherlands, Italy and Slovakia got out of the coalition.

That means that about 30% of the European nations participated and many in very limited and short termed roles.

Erm there's 50 nations.

As for military support only the UK (and Poland to a lesser degree) backed the Americans. Even here in the UK very few of the population thought there was a just cause for war.

A few of the others sent the odd specialist but not as combatents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We both know that all the Iraqis or any country will not agree 100% on anything or issues.

Really now, admitted killing innocent under order? Who ordered it then?

He must have a superior officer who said, kill the innocent for its fun! :lol:

I think you are naive if you believe soliders are well behaved in war zones.

I beleive the term is 'Spoils of War'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Erm there's 50 nations.

As for military support only the UK (and Poland to a lesser degree) backed the Americans. Even here in the UK very few of the population thought there was a just cause for war.

A few of the others sent the odd specialist but not as combatents.

There's 49 if you count Vatican City. Can you tell me what the 50 are?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would Moon need an Arabic name or ties with Iraq for Dr.D to draw a comparison?

Why draw comparison then?

Jesus said: "Jesus Christ stated in Matthew 12:30 that "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters."

Now you blaming even Jesus Christ just to spin out of it. :hmm:

I would like you to post Bush's quote on this and I'm sure you will see that Bush did not say "you are either with us or against us (if you harbor terrorists) he never quit said it that way. Hilary Clinton did :lol:

There are many who listened to the entire speech, and few who read the packaged propaganda at blogs sites.

I think you know you belong to the latter.

Are you in denial that the U.S. has killed civillians and that on occasion turns a blind eye?

Casualties of war and a few rats in any military or organizations here and there.

Cant shoot down the whole because of them, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are naive if you believe soliders are well behaved in war zones.

I beleive the term is 'Spoils of War'

I think you are naive if you believe the US Military is filled with undisciplined soldiers.

There will always be a few idiots here and there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why draw comparison then?

Now you blaming even Jesus Christ just to spin out of it. :hmm:

There are many who listened to the entire speech, and few who read the packaged propaganda at blogs sites.

I think you know you belong to the latter.

Casualties of war and a few rats in any military or organizations here and there.

Cant shoot down the whole because of them, right?

Now I know why I stopped debating with you years ago LOL

If you can't draw comparisons to establish character than I never want to hear you mention Obama and his associations again :P

Not blaiming Jesus for anything just quoted the guy. You are pulling the spin job here, big time or one could call it deflecting.

I didn't quote crap from any blog and I never touch blogs and you know that. Whats even worse is you don't post jack schitt when you make claims. Which is worse LOL

A few rats in the military is not what I'm reffering to. What about drones dropping bombs on villages what about using white phospherous. Even your own military owned up and said if proper procedure had been followed a lot of the collateral damage could have been avoided.

Aroces the only one playing a game here is you and your posts that have zero meat on the bone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do live in your own little artificial world, don't you? News flash . . . . Hans Blix never worked for George Bush or had any reason, obligation or authority to communicate with him. What's more, he had absolutely no respect for Bush . . . as does most of the thinking world . . . . and NO, not one statement from Blix or anyone else would have prevented Bush from invading Iraq. He had decided to do so long before . . . . I suppose you don't remember the Blair memo . . .

I know nothing of the sort and what is sadder . . . . neither do you

bravo, dr. d. bravo

just ignore the twit, would be my best advice....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People still talk about Bush?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
The soldiers were ignorant?

How about Congress? They authorized military action in Iraq. Is Congress ignorant?

Our soldiers sign up to serve their nation's defense. They do not sign up to make left-wing arguments against their own country. If left-wingers want to take the side of Saddam or to support terrorists rights and call our soldiers ignorant then I guess we all have to bear the burden of their ignorance.

The war was justified.

5000 American troops killed, tens of thousands wounded, half a million Iraqi innocents dead, thousands of billions of your money sunk into the oil-rich desert - dozens of permanent bases... waste, loss, theft....

the nation is bankrupt because of George W. Bush's having "locked us in" to this Me$$ in Me$opotamia... and by God and Country you'll find a way to justify it, alright, er you - and your whole freaking ideology'll look idiotic - you - and it - are there, fer me, already, pal no need to expound, therefore

but am compelled... sorry, but fyi? yer full of it pal - absolutely no perspective that reflects realty - only blind - and imho dumb - moving toward stupid - definitely ignorant, in fact - patriotism! - the last bastion of a scoundrel...

what, no publicly-acceptable sensibilities? therefore fly the freaking flag? yeah, just wave it around - that says it all - especially when you CAN'T say what it is you really think - yer being conveniently politically-correct, pal - and here it's been "the left", all along, who's supposedly own that - accdng t'yer GrandCanyon Mouthpiece Rush Limbaugh - yer a ditto-head! think yer rational!

"If left-wingers want to take the side of Saddam or to support terrorists rights and call our soldiers ignorant then I guess we all have to bear the burden of their ignorance"

hey ignorant one, I've got a photo of that left-winger Donald Rumsfeld, shaking hands with Saddam Hussein -

the leftist government of the US of A "took the side of Saddam", in a bid to destroy the government of Iran!

a million souls were lost - Saddam threatened the survival of the US of A? that is pure hogwash, pal...

and what, yer going to argue that the illegal, immoral act - which George HW Bush called "the worst kind of treason" - by the Bush White House - read Dick Cheney - to sacrifice Valerie Plame/Wilson's years of work for the CIA, to interdict WMDs, to keep them from moving, from nation-states into the hands of terrorists, in defense of the US of A! was also expendable? along with the thousands upon thousands upons thousands of lives it's all cost?

yer not just scared of a terrorist attack or two? RU? Hey Goliath! it's a mosquito bite! - yer always gonna get them - but yer still standing there, scratching, when it's over - what, big and impenetrably stupid, as well?

seems so -

spending $3.3 Trillion on the so-called "war" in Iraq - which was simply a military exercise for the mighty US of A -Saddam besides having no means - come 2000 and years of sanctions - not to mention having had his military - all of it - destroyed in GW I... has effectively bankrupt America!

hey TYTM! ... could Saddam have done the same, there, oh illustrious un?

you don't even realize THAT, let alone a whole other pile of stuff - and which has blinky convinced yer an idiot - do prove me wrong, please!

explain why - if this "war" was justified in the LEAST - no draft was called?

and why did they go in with "too few troops", as everyone was saying at one point, just prior to Rummy "resigning' - LOL! AS IF mad-man rumsfeld EVER cared if he never showed up at the office again!

made it look like it was HE who was "responsible" for his lack of oversight...

"lack of oversight"... do you actually believe that's what "too few troops" was?

... that exercise (i'll call it) only led to "the surge", so-called

THAT exercise - I know it to have been - was simply a maneuver to create some legitimacy, in the minds of Americans, for having gone there in the first place - since no WMDs were actually found, support for Bush started to slip and never ended it's slide - Colbert kinda finished him off in 2006, at the White House Correspondant's Dinner...

... prove me wrong pal

i've got a thousand questions 4 U but couldn't be bothered

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the real crime is the lack of vigilance on the part of the American public, imho

so diffused are they - so blurred as to the vision America represents are they, that she's just become a lumbering, corporate barge, on an unstoppable course - and there ain't no one - in this set of circumstances - who can do a thing about it

but we try, though, don't we?

the rightwing hasn't got a freakin' clue - they're just arguing as a matter of pride - what pride they can possibly have left!! it's all about saving face, at this point...

so let's not take anything they say seriously, is blinky's fondest wish

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People still talk about Bush?

"Bush" is a syndrome that the American people - whether they're aware of it or not - want to eradicate, by any possible means

if even saying that name over and over again helps then blinky says, 'Fly at her"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush is just one of many misunderstood US Presidents. People may hate him now, but years from now, he'll be honored and respected, and most importantly, understood.

Everyone from all over the world is going to miss the "Bush imperial reign" after they get a taste of Obama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush is just one of many misunderstood US Presidents. People may hate him now, but years from now, he'll be honored and respected, and most importantly, understood.

Not a chance. His insanity has been recorded.

Edited by ninjadude
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's my point! You think it's "insanity" now, but after a while (maybe a few years, maybe a few decades), you'll realize he was right all along and only did what he had to do. That is, unless you were one of those paranoid, far leftist BDS-victims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's my point! You think it's "insanity" now, but after a while (maybe a few years, maybe a few decades), you'll realize he was right all along and only did what he had to do. That is, unless you were one of those paranoid, far leftist BDS-victims.

That is it really, just a lefty who would always try to destroy any Republicans no matter what they do.

I mean even when the economy is good they would say then the jobs created don't pay much or there are still millions hungry, but when its their dog in the white house when the economy is bad they would say then it would have been worst if not for their policy. See how it goes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's my point! You think it's "insanity" now, but after a while (maybe a few years, maybe a few decades), you'll realize he was right all along and only did what he had to do. That is, unless you were one of those paranoid, far leftist BDS-victims.

The American people are very forgiving. The crimes of Richard Nixon were largely forgotten and he was praised for his diplomatic work with China.

But if Americans one day forgive Bush, it will be the right wingers who will not see it as forgiveness, rather as "at last his genius was recognized."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is it really, just a lefty who would always try to destroy any Republicans no matter what they do.

Not at all. When I was young and foolish, I was a republican. I voted for a repub pres. etc. etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not at all. When I was young and foolish, I was a republican. I voted for a repub pres. etc. etc.

You voted for Republicans until you learned its not the party for entitlenments and government nanny, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You voted for Republicans until you learned its not the party for entitlenments and government nanny, right?

wrong. actually you really want to know? It was Pat Buchanon. When he ran for president. He gave a speech on national Tv repub convention that I'm sure he still believes. You know the speech I'm talking about. It was a manifesto of everything that was wrong with the republican party. Ideas that continue to this day even more ingrained and bolstered. Maybe they were always there before Pat's speech and I just ignored them. Maybe those ideas were always pushed aside by more mainstream ideas before that time. But since that time, his ideas, expounded in that speech, have become the main planks of the repub party. And frankly it makes me sick to my stomach. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with entitlements or government nanny. But with philosophy.

Edited by ninjadude
Link to comment
Share on other sites

wrong. actually you really want to know? It was Pat Buchanon. When he ran for president. He gave a speech on national Tv repub convention that I'm sure he still believes. You know the speech I'm talking about. It was a manifesto of everything that was wrong with the republican party. Ideas that continue to this day even more ingrained and bolstered. Maybe they were always there before Pat's speech and I just ignored them. Maybe those ideas were always pushed aside by more mainstream ideas before that time. But since that time, his ideas, expounded in that speech, have become the main planks of the repub party. And frankly it makes me sick to my stomach. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with entitlements or government nanny. But with philosophy.

Both Party has its pros and cons, so its a matter of who's got better policies overall.

By the way, I understand the Democrat before, until I saw that all these aids and entitlements eventually made parasites of many and made them think they own the government and that it is their rights! and that bothered me.

Edited by AROCES
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Err actually the majority of Americans remember him as a scumbag and he is parodied quite a bit.

But yeah not many people mention the coup in Chile...

Then again, while a good percentage of Chileans hated Pinochet, a good percentage liked him as well. Can't please everyone.

Pinochet . . . . the product of another great Republican president, Richard Nixon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.