US Christian fundamentalists are driving Bush's Middle East policy

by Bryan 35 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  Abaddon

  Yeru, you've never been an xJW but your continued participation in this biard is indicative that you have found a place where someone with the continual suseptability to

  Shrubbery said there were lots of WoMDs and that the US was at direct threat from Iraq. This was not true. This is not to mention the deliberate linkage of the word "Iraq" with "Al-Quaeda" despite there being no 911 connection. He either lied or made a bad call. If a CEO of a Fortune 500 company made an equivalently bad call, the stockholders would have his head. Nice to see you're still supporting him.

  As for the 'only 12 years', it suits your argument to ignore the withdrawal by George the 1st is directly responsible for every death in the entire second Gult War and that the change in policy was a political one rather than a chnage in the actual facts.

  The pretexts for invasion, as well you know, were immediate threat and WoMD.

  Of course, being a backer of the shrubbery you are incacapable of admitting that, just as France and Russia wanted to make money in Iraq, so to did US commercial interests (who were assigned the greatest proportion of the reconstruction work). Likewise, you are apparently in favour of an isolationist Ammerica that insists on a double standard. This is just silly, not to mention hypocritical.

  Full credit to you on admitting the occupation was badly planned. ANother reason your President should be voted out; this failure indirectly contributed to 10 Amercian death on Sunday ALONE. Still happy with shrubbery? All your brothers in arms feel the same way?

  I don't think Kerry isn that much better. He's just NOT Bush, which based on the shrubbery's record is quite enough to recommend him.
• 

  Pork Chop

  Do people really read the Guardian?? It's like Pravda, or Trud or something of that nature.
• 

  Yerusalyim

  Abbadon,

  Yeru, you've never been an xJW but your continued participation in this biard is indicative that you have found a place where someone with the continual suseptability to More gobblety gook...whatever

  Shrubbery said there were lots of WoMDs so did every intelligence service in the worldand that the US was at direct threat from Iraq. a threat he was, direct? I don't recall that word, though it might have been used. This was not true. That is YOUR opinion...and it's wrong...I wonder where the Jordanianterrorist got their chemicals from? Or the basis for David Kaye's report that Iraq was a greater threat than we realized....but those are trivial details that don't fit into your analysis. This is not to mention the deliberate linkage of the word "Iraq" with "Al-Quaeda" No, there was no linkage with AQ...there were references made to terrorists and terrorism....that have been proven true...but again, it doesn't fit into your analysis despite there being no 911 connection.Even thought he Czech government still insists the meeting between Ata and Iraqi Intelligence...but...that's ok. He either lied or made a bad call. He made the best call possible with the info at hand. If a CEO of a Fortune 500 company made an equivalently bad call, the stockholders would have his head. Nice to see you're still supporting him. As oppossed to whom, John "I served in Vietnam and want to raise your taxes and kiss Kofi Anan's Posterior" Kerry? You Bet...the war on terror is real, if you don't realize that, you're living in a dream world...we can't go back to treating terrorism as a violation of the law and let the Justice Department prosecute it...it's a military war.

  As for the 'only 12 years', it suits your argument to ignore the withdrawal by George the 1st is directly responsible for every death in the entire second Gult War and that the change in policy was a political one rather than a chnage in the actual facts. I in NO WAY ignore it...I whined b*tched and moaned as the announcement of the ceasefire came over our radios as my unit was getting ready to move from FOB Cobra in Iraq to cap off the escape route of what was left of the Iraqi Army coming out of Kuwait...I was there, and I cussed Bush 41 for not finishing the job...and stated....we'll be back in 10 or 15 years to finish this...and we were. So, no, I don't ignore that Bush 41 caved to political pressure listening to our "allies" like France...it's one of the worst political moves in the last 30 years....and one Bush 43 doesn't seem likely to make. The change??? A president with the courage to confront evil.

  The pretexts for invasion, as well you know, were immediate threat and WoMD. Imminent threat? No real threat...yes....WMD was PART of it...as was Saddam's connection with terrorists...the WMD issue isn't over either....thus far the ISA folks have not even check half of the suspected WMD sites...seven of Saddam's scientists have ended up murdered in the last year...and the others are scared...Libya revealed tons of Mustard gas hidden on a pultry farm...one we didn't know about nor would have never found...why would Saddam's programs be any different

  Of course, being a backer of the shrubbery you are incacapable of admitting that, just as France and Russia wanted to make money in Iraq, You missed the whole point nut case....Saddam was giving French and Russian (and others) BRIBES...from the oil for food money...THAT was the source of their opposition...Benon Sevan, the Cypriot charged to run the program allowed over $10 Billion to be stolen from the program...much of it in French and German and Russian hands. so to did US commercial interests (who were assigned the greatest proportion of the reconstruction work). Likewise, you are apparently in favour of an isolationist Ammerica that insists on a double standard. I am?This is just silly, not to mention hypocritical.

  Full credit to you on admitting the occupation was badly planned. ANother reason your President should be voted out; The plan just didn't work...I think it's because Bush was trying to be too PC...this failure indirectly contributed to 10 Amercian death on Sunday ALONE. And I mourn each and every one...but IF the US stays the course it will be worth it. Still happy with shrubbery? All your brothers in arms feel the same way? Most of us do indeed feel the same way...and most HATE the idea of Kerry.

  I don't think Kerry isn that much better. He's just NOT Bush, which based on the shrubbery's record is quite enough to recommend him.This is why Kerry can't win...the only thing he's got going for him is he isn't Bush.
• 

  DanTheMan

  Ugh, I feel like I'm living in the Watchtower States of America.

  "We have it on record here Mr. Dantheman that back in the year 2004, you expressed some anti-Christian sentiments on an internet discussion board. Do you still feel this way?"

  "NO I LOVE JESUS I SWEAR THE EARTH IS ONLY 6000 YEARS OLD THE FLOOD REALLY HAPPENED THE BIBLE IS INSPIRED!!!!"

  "Very good, I see that our re-education program is having good effects. We'll be back tomorrow for some further discussion".
• 

  myauntfanny

  Dantheman, my sentiments exactly.
• 

  Abaddon

  porkchop: shows how much you know about the Guardian, doesn't it? Funny, I've always found knowing what I'm talking about the best approach to a discussion.

  Yeru

  Yeru, you've never been an xJW but your continued participation in this board is indicative that you have found a place where someone with the continual suseptability to More gobblety gook feels at home

  That's really funny; my post got garbled and you corrected it to have the same meaning even if you used different words

  so did every intelligence service in the world

  Errrrr... okay, if you don't know that much about the subject there's little point in discussing it, is there?

  The 'carrot' you and a great deal of people ate was that Iraq were a direct threat to the USA, involved with 911, and had lots of WoMD.

  That 'carrot' was delivered with the same degree of finess as the material suggesting 1975 would see Armagedon. Just as Dubbies will say the GB didn't say anything about 1975, so to you say Bush invaded for humanitarian reasons when it is clear, either due to mismanagement or intent, a pattern of misleading information and down right falsehoods were spread to control public opinion.

  I doubt whether Bush and Blair could have got the backing they did if they'd tried to sell the invasion on purely humanitarian lines. Very sad to say that, but I think it is true.

  You are still quoting data that the US government no longer regards as reliable! But then, it's hard to convince a cultist that they are a cultist, and I don't expect convincing a patriot like you that your government is either in need of being kicked out due to their handling of the event, or is actually guilty of wrong-doing would be any easier.

  AND you seem to think that it will be 'worth it' if the US 'stays the course'. Yeah, well I wonder how long the 10 bereaved familes a day will agree with you.

  Of course, one can only wonder what would of happened if, say, 12 months after Bush and Blair went it 'alone' the UN had approved of action with a wholey multi-national force, and thus avoided the propoganda trap of 'American Imperialism' laid by Al-Q that your President walked into.

  Without this witless validation of the Al-Q propoganda mill, a post UN-invasion Iraq would not be as suseptable to manipulation by the extremist minorities preaching a religious war against America.

  But, yeah, Bush is a great President...
• 

  Yerusalyim

  Errrrr... okay, if you don't know that much about the subject there's little point in discussing it, is there?

  Which major intelligence agency in the world said (prior to the war) that Iraq did NOT have WMD?
• 

  Abaddon

  Yeru, don't even try to straw man me;

  Read what I said rather than changing what I say to suit your argument

  ... lots of WoMDs ...

  I was clearly saying the hyping of WoMD claims by the shrubbery was wrong. Why are you asking me about which intelligence agency said there were no WoMD; I never made that claim.

  I doubt you will either acknowledge or apologise for this behaviour...

  Then, rather amusingly, you are changing what you said YOURSELF as well. To make sure you don't trip over your own tongue, perhaps?

  so did every intelligence service in the world

  ... was your original statement, now you have to hedge and it becomes;

  major intelligence agency

  But of course, despite the fact you have to duplicate the behaviour of those you seek to defend when trying to defend them, you'll still think you are right, and you won't wonder why you have to resort to manipulative and deceptive techniques to 'prove' that the shrubbery was in the right.
• 

  Yerusalyim

  I was clearly saying the hyping of WoMD claims by the shrubbery was wrong. Why are you asking me about which intelligence agency said there were no WoMD; I never made that claim.

  The problem with your argument is that nothing was hyped.

  Sorry about the change from "intelligence" to "Major Intelligence" OK, Which Intelligence service said they didn't have WMD?
• 

  Abaddon

  Yeru, I didn't say any intelligence service said there were no WoMD.

  Yet you continue to ask me which ones did. Why should I defend a claim I did not make? Why do you have to ask me to defend a claim I did not make?

  Because you can't debate this topic honestly; I've had enough of your strawmen scarecrow