GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Lying about WMDs vs. Lying about blowjobs (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=143588)

directfiesta 06-15-2003 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by XYCash
I've said it before and I will say it again. As much as I dislike "W" and his politics I would have backed the war if he had taken the stance that we were doing this for human rights reasons. There is no doubt that there were significant human rights violations in Iraq.

Clinton would have taken this position in my opinion before starting a war with Iraq as he did with Kosovo.

Bush chose to take the position that we must go to war to disarm Iraq of it's WMD's ...that was his position. He made his bed...so now let him lie in it.

-joe

That is the whole point. But he choosed to misrepresent ( I am kind not saying lying) facts to the world population. Remember that he also took an oath.

mule 06-15-2003 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Xplicit
Okay for all dumbfucks who still dont get it, here is a quote from Clinton that is clear as day.

and if your only comeback is that he didn't use the exact words 'weapons of mass distruction' you can suck my fucking dick.

Clinton, Dec. 19, 1998: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. ... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. ... Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

Listen - I don't like Bush - but I hate people who try to talk about things they know NOTHING about even more. :321GFY

So Clinton is also a lying sack of shit, tell us something we don't know :)

juice 06-15-2003 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Xplicit


Clinton, Dec. 19, 1998: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. ... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. ... Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."



Wow, nice quote... and you have taken that where exactly??!

XYCash 06-15-2003 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Xplicit
Clinton, Dec. 19, 1998: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. ... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. ... Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."


You're absolutely right, but Clinton didn't send 200,000 troops into the middle east to fight a war with Iraq based on the premise that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction only to find out that they don't. George Bush did.

directfiesta 06-15-2003 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Xplicit
Okay for all dumbfucks who still dont get it, here is a quote from Clinton that is clear as day.

and if your only comeback is that he didn't use the exact words 'weapons of mass distruction' you can suck my fucking dick.

Clinton, Dec. 19, 1998: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. ... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. ... Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

Listen - I don't like Bush - but I hate people who try to talk about things they know NOTHING about even more. :321GFY

I will do like TheKing, quote myself ( lol):
Quote:

no such words as "WMD" ...

Everybody knew that Iraq had weapons, mainly the US since they facilitated their acquisition ...

Clinton did bomb in Iraq . Didn;t go to war because their was no need for it .. obviously ...
What is different here than what you are stating,???

arial 06-15-2003 04:04 PM

Who fucking cares? Our gas prices will go down finally that's all that mattrs!

directfiesta 06-15-2003 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by arial
Who fucking cares? Our gas prices will go down finally that's all that mattrs!
If Bush would have been as honest as you, this discussion would not take place.

mule 06-15-2003 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by arial
Who fucking cares? Our gas prices will go down finally that's all that mattrs!
LOL, I doubt it...Bush isn't doing this for YOUR gain

Mr.Fiction 06-15-2003 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Xplicit


Listen - I don't like Bush - but I hate people who try to talk about things they know NOTHING about even more. :321GFY

I'm not buying that you don't like Bush. You sound like a Bush supporter trying to sound objective.

Someone said, "Bush lied."

And you respond with, "Clinton said something similar too."

How are those two related?

Did Bush lie or did he not? Who cares what Clinton said. Clinton is not the president anymore. Clinton did not start this war.

If Bush started a war based on lies, do you think it's wrong, or do you think it's ok because of some possibly related Clinton quote that Rush Limbaugh dug up for you?

If Bush lied to start a war, it's obviously impeachable. That's exactly what impeachment was created to address. Abuse of power, lying to congress, lying to the American people to start a war for political reasons.

I am not stupid enough to think that Bush will actually be impeached, but what he did is a far more serious crime than lying about a blowjob.

Bush did something exponentially more criminal and corrupt than Clinton, but luckily for him, there is a Republican Senate and House right now. That's great news for him, but it doesn't change what he did or how he will be treated by history.

arial 06-15-2003 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by directfiesta


If Bush would have been as honest as you, this discussion would not take place.

Everyone knows that it was about oil and power, WMD's were just a way to go in there with a cause besides getting richer and powerful. But fuck it, my '72 Chevy long bed will now cost me less to drive! :BangBang:

directfiesta 06-15-2003 04:22 PM

And a bit more lies about civilian killings, Palestine Hotel attack and so on...

Iraqgate???

Quote:

With five out of 10 Americans believing that most of the terrorists who carried out the attack on 11 September were Iraqis, the American media decided that its readers and viewers were not interested in the plight of Iraqi victims. The New York Times said it aimed to capture the true nature of the war but avoid 'the gratuitous use of images simply for shock value'. The biggest radio group in the US, Clear Channel, used its stations to organise pro-war rallies. McVay Media, one of America's largest communications consulting companies, advised its radio clients to play 'patriotic music that makes you cry, salute and get cold chills', and under no circumstances cover war protests.

read the article for the lies:

http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story...977702,00.html

Quote:

US officials said the driver of the car failed to stop after warning shots and that troops had fired at the passenger cabin as 'a last resort'.

But William Branigin, of the Washington Post, embedded with the Third Infantry, witnessed the shooting. He reported that no warning shot was fired and that 10 people, not seven, were killed.

XYCash 06-15-2003 04:28 PM

http://www.boyorgasm.com/iraq.gif

:1orglaugh

Centurion 06-15-2003 06:57 PM

Let me introduce something that hasn't been discussed at all.
George Bush & company pushed the United States into the first ever "pre-emptive" attack on another sovereign nation.

The Republican Administration justified this by saying that there were massive amounts of WMDs (the most direct quote came from Colin Powell to the United Nation's Security Council shortly before the war began..and before the U.S. was able to get approval from a majority of Security Council members for the war)
that posed an IMMEDIATE threat to the security of the United States.

Why is any of the above important? Because this "new foreign policy" allows us to invade any nation that could POTENTIALLY attack us in the future. So..if we don't like some country's politics and can drum up information that they have WMDs or somehow pose a threat to the U.S., then we can attack them at will.

THIS is the precedent our president has set!


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:28 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123