| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Compilation of prewar false statements | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 23 2008, 03:11 PM (2,066 Views) | |
| ImpulseEngine | Jan 24 2008, 03:16 PM Post #91 |
|
Admiral
|
That sounds like opinion. Why not? That's the whole point. They didn't believe it was their war and that's what changed, not just that we won. By the end of the war and even more so after a few years, even people who originally didn't want to go to war recognized why it was in fact in our interests to get involved in that war. FDR needed to have shed that light before we went to war. I believe it was possible. I thought that much would have been obvious since honesty has been central to just about everything I have said in this thread. That's merely your opinion and I disagree. Regardless, it's still apples and oranges. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Jan 24 2008, 04:17 PM Post #92 |
|
Time to put something here
|
Well yes it is opinion, since I can't see into parallel universes it will have to suffice. Coming out of the first world war and then in and out of the great depression America was very isolationist in the 1930’s. fighting a foreign war was the last thing these citizens wanted to do. And the world was not as small as it was today. In there mands an aggressor like Hitler could take over all over Europe and they would be safe and separated by the Atlantic ocean. There was very little FDR could have said honestly that would have galvanized the people to accept a foreign war, I would suggest that there was nothing he could have said.
It wasn't there war and wouldn't have been their war had FDR not made it their war. They didn’t come to realize it was in their best interested to fight that war, FDR chose for them and made it happen in a dishonest way. Had those people known of his dishonest as we do today they would have never voted for him to be their president. The reason that we today look back on that war with reverence is because we won and a lot of time has passed since then healing a lot of wounds.
Why do you disagree, what could have FDR told his people inorder to get them to go to war? The only apples and oranges is that this current war is not yet over. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Sgt. Jaggs | Jan 24 2008, 06:14 PM Post #93 |
|
How about a Voyager Movie
|
You guys are AWESOME!!!! This turned into a chat room for the last 24 hours!!!! Let me know who wins the word dicing games and definitions in this one!!!! :lol: You know these would be excellent transcripts for college discourse in Politics, Phsycology and debating tactics. Real quick zipping through the many pages I likeg Johhny Carson reference and Pic as well as the chimp! Nice additions we clearly need more of this descriptiveness. Love this place!!!! :lol:
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| RTW | Jan 24 2008, 06:37 PM Post #94 |
![]()
Vice Admiral
|
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Jan 24 2008, 11:26 PM Post #95 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
Moderator Response: Warning to Minuet for baiting. The conversation between Impulse Engine and RTW doesn't explain/justify your making fun of all RTW's posts for the last two years. You stepped over the line on this one. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dr. Noah | Jan 24 2008, 11:37 PM Post #96 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
OK, let's say I tell you that I know for a fact that Franko drives a Chevy Blazer. I believe it to be true. Is that a lie? It depends on the fact of whether or not Franko really drives a Chevy Blazer, not on whether I believe it to be true or not. My intent has nothing to do with the truth of the statement. Either the statement is true or it is untrue. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| RTW | Jan 25 2008, 02:16 AM Post #97 |
![]()
Vice Admiral
|
"Untrue" is not the same as a "lie". Telling us Franko drives a Chevy, when he clearly has finer tastes only satisfied by the Bavarian Motor Works, is a false statement, but not a lie. Lies are intentional deceptions. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Jan 25 2008, 08:57 AM Post #98 |
|
Time to put something here
|
No, it makes you mistaken. To help you out I'll lost the deintion of the word Lie
Untrue does not equal ‘lie’. ‘Lie’ most certainly depends on intent. Knowingly and actively deceiving is a ‘lie’, not knowing you are wrong makes it a ‘mistaken’ statement. Both are untrue. Is your contention that Bush lied so week that you need to redefine the word lie? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dr. Noah | Jan 25 2008, 09:47 AM Post #99 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
Unfortunately, there is no way to ascertain his intent. His head of counterterrorism though states that he was ordered by the administration to find a link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq where none existed. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Jan 25 2008, 10:00 AM Post #100 |
|
Admiral
|
I don't quite agree with your assessment. If you believe it to be true, I assume that means you don't in fact know it to be true. So if you state that you know for a fact he drives a Chevy Blazer, then it's a lie. The lie is not whether he drives a Chevy Blazer, it's that you said you know for a fact. This is what I was saying about people in the Bush administration presenting details as if they were knowledge instead of the educated choices/decisions/beliefs that they really were. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dr. Noah | Jan 26 2008, 04:27 AM Post #101 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
Exactly. Rumsfeld said "we" KNOW where the WMDs are located. And as you say there were several other statements made stating information as undeniable fact when as we now know they did not know many things for certain. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Jan 26 2008, 04:44 AM Post #102 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
Yes , that he did. I didn't swallow it then either.... saw it for what it was .... a load of dog squeeze and pretty much entirely a work of fiction. The instant the USA fired their first shot in the Iraq War , they lost nearly all the support they gained through sympathy over the attack on 9-11. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Jan 28 2008, 11:40 AM Post #103 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Not true. Please read the "9/11 report" for clarification. The Senate Intelligence Committee found Iraq had a cooperative relationship with al Qaeda. You see, what you refuse to believe is that the President thought said statements were TRUE at the time, based on the intelligence of the time. As I said earlier, remember statements by Bill Clinton and John Kerry on the run up to the war. Hillary Clinton also stated, "Intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members.” http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html Shall we discuss (since tonight is the State of the Union speech) yellowcake and Niger? Remember the SIXTEEN WORDS that you harped about? Remember that Saddam SOUGHT uranium from Niger, not bought. The Niger government refused the Iraqi inquiry. This data is out there, yet you keep repeating the same thing again and again. I wonder if this is in the hope that someone will forget? Is this just BDS again? http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/ EDIT: By the way, the headline on the "center’s" web page displaying the report discloses what the authors really think: “The War Card: Orchestrated Deception on the Path to War.” The word “deception” implies an accusation of intent to deceive. I believe I have shown that this simply was NOT the case, and that these silly reports should always be taken with a HUGE grain of salt. By the way, this is also directed at Somerled. Don't let facts get in the way of your opinion. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dr. Noah | Jan 28 2008, 10:16 PM Post #104 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
Saddam 'had no link to al-Qaeda' Democrats say the report weakens Mr Bush's case for war There is no evidence of formal links between Iraqi ex-leader Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda leaders prior to the 2003 war, a US Senate report says. The finding is contained in a 2005 CIA report released by the Senate's Intelligence Committee on Friday. US President George W Bush has said that the presence of late al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq before the war was evidence of a link. Opposition Democrats are accusing the White House of deliberate deception. They say the revelation undermines the basis on which the US went to war in Iraq. The BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says that the US president has again and again tried to connect the war, which most Americans think was a mistake, with the so-called war on terror, which has the support of the nation. The report comes as Mr Bush makes a series of speeches on the "war on terror" to coincide with the fifth anniversary of the 11 September attacks. Requests rejected The report is the second part of the committee's analysis of pre-war intelligence. The first dealt with CIA failings in its assessment of Iraq's weapons programme. Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support, Senate report Senate report 6.8MB Most computers will open PDF documents automatically, but you may need to download Adobe Acrobat Reader Download the reader here War rationale laid bare 'Terror war' loses direction Quick guide: Al-Qaeda The committee concluded that the CIA had evidence of several instances of contacts between the Iraqi authorities and al-Qaeda throughout the 1990s but that these did not add up to a formal relationship. It added that the government "did not have a relationship, harbour or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates". It said that Iraq and al-Qaeda were ideologically poles apart. "Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support," it said. The Senate report added that the Iraqi regime had repeatedly rejected al-Qaeda requests for meetings. It also deals with the role played by inaccurate information supplied by Iraqi opposition groups in the run-up to the war. 'Devastating indictment' Democrats said the White House was still trying to make the connection between the former Iraqi leader and al-Qaeda in an attempt to justify the war in Iraq. Less than three weeks ago Mr Bush said in a speech that "Saddam Hussein...had relations with Zarqawi". Democrat Senator Carl Levin described the report as a "devastating indictment" of these attempts. White House spokesman Tony Snow told the Associated Press news agency the report contained "nothing new". "In 2002 and 2003, members of both parties got a good look at the intelligence we had and they came to the very same conclusions about what was going on," he said. Zarqawi, who is believed to be responsible for numerous killings and kidnappings in Iraq since the war, was killed in a US raid in June. Saddam Hussein and several close associates are standing trial for the killings of Shias in the village of Dujail in the early 1980s and of more than 100,000 Kurds in 1988. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5328592.stm |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| RTW | Jan 29 2008, 12:53 AM Post #105 |
![]()
Vice Admiral
|
What about an informal relationship, or operational cooperation?
Funny how much we know five years after the fact. As Tony Snow said:
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
![]() Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today. Learn More · Sign-up Now |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |


Love this place!!!! :lol:


9:21 AM Jul 11