Oh this is so predictable...
People who have been sold a dead cow with the assurance that it is, in fact, an elephant, have a tendancy to carry on saying it's an elephant even when faced with a lack of size, a lack of intrinsic grey wrinkliness, a lack of big flappy ears, a lack of tusks and the presence of a bad smell enaminating from a deceased ungulate on their front lawn.
They will however point out it's got some curvey horny things sticking out of its head, so is at least similar to an elephant, and they never said it was an elephant (even if, honestly, that's what they thought they were buying).
DakotaRed: your stawman response is risable, especially in view of the fact you've put forward false information on this board relating to Iraq and not retracted it when it has been proven false. What was it you also said on this thread;
We all know how the white conservative Americans lie about everything,
You made false accusations regarding an Iraqi doctor simply because you didn't notice that the two people in two seperate news items had entirely different names and were different people. No biggie; everybody makes mistakes... normally people apologise for them though... I personally don't like living on the difference between a lie and an accusation that has been comprehensively refuted that remains unwithdrawn.
Apparently defending "truth, justice and the American way" is only important if it's the particular truth, justice and American way you want to defend.
If you think that people who think the invasion of Iraqi was carried out under pretexts have the cliched demonised view of the pro-war lobby you relish to present, you are selecting a sub-group of a sub-group, which is no more representative of the general anti-war view than right-wing bloggers who write articles featuring the assasination of elected Democratic representatives by a Christian Fundamentalist Terrorist organsiation represent the geveral right-wing view..
Don't smokescreen; people who support the war for the reasons given for the war are just as nice or not nice in their private lives as people who don't agree with the reasons given for the war, that is not at issue by reasonable people.
imallgrowedup:
I, too, am disappointed that the reasons before we went to war seem to be different than the reasons after the war started.
This is the root of the problem, either;
1/ The US government were incompetant in assessing the risk that Iraq represented to the outside world.
... or ...
2/ The US government lied about the risk that Iraq represented to the outside world.
Saddam was a bad man and it is good he is gone, but the invasion of Iraq was never an invasion to liberate people from tyranny. If it was there would be a list of other countries that would need to be invaded for the same reasons.
It was an attack due to stated fears about terrorist support and stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.
To this date no evidence supporting those fears that would stand up in a court of law has been found.
I find incomptence or falsehood unacceptable in elected officials; you may feel that you can continue to suppoort such people - I think they are a liability.
The argument is THAT simple. Incompetant or corrupt; what are you going to vote for?
Oh, and neither of the websites you cite have any reference to the pictoral evidence you mention.
SixofNine:
What the fuck are you smoking? One has to have intelligence and moral character before it can be underrated.
Hehehe... ah, but you mustn't be cruel to the beloved leader, he has the freedom of the Western world resting upon his strategically shaved chimpanzee shoulders...
