U.S. May Change Plans for Iraq Handover
- Thread starter chcr
- Start date
flavio
Banned
Right, there's no proof you would accept. Even though Hussien could have used them with the big notice he had that the US was going to invade. We could dig a mile down over every inch of the place and Bush supporters would still not think it was enough proof.catocom said:
Obviously by this point you should be able to tell that they were no threat if they existed.
I gave several examples of lies and a link to vast numbers in the other thread.
catocom
Well-Known Member
now you've underestimated me.flavio said:
If there was Real proof, don't you think someone would start a prosecution in court?
I all honesty, I didn't like Clinton worth a shit, and still don't. I had suspicions
about him like I do about most gov officials, but I really didn't think he lie under oath.
He proved me wrong.
The difference here is a much more serious thing TO lie about. If there is Some
irrefutable proof, the Pres. should be prosecuted, if not people should...
(critisize, bad mouth, show displeasure...), but not make a serious accusation without proof....IMHO.
Unfortunatly it seem to be becoming more common place, as the immoralities
in other areas sore.
flavio said:
He violated the terms of his surrender. Repeatedly. In many forms.
He committed or had others commit murder, rape, torture, on his own people.
Virtually every single Democrat in Congress has said, at one point or another, in the last 5 years, exactly what GW said as a lead up to the battle.
There's nothing you can say that disproves the lawful & deliberate cause for action by the United STates, Great Britain, Australia & several other countries.
The UN has proven themselves to be thieves, liars & cheats...in regard to Iraq, Saddam Husein & several other related concerns.
flavio
Banned
Really? What proof would you accept about the WMDs?catocom said:now you've underestimated me.
There's proof of his lies everywhere if you choose to see it. Here's an easy example yet again...."We do not torture".The difference here is a much more serious thing TO lie about. If there is Some
irrefutable proof, the Pres. should be prosecuted, if not people should...
(critisize, bad mouth, show displeasure...), but not make a serious accusation without proof....IMHO.
Unfortunatly it seem to be becoming more common place, as the immoralities
in other areas sore.
catocom
Well-Known Member
WMDs? none, they already found small quantities of them there.flavio said:
That's 'enough' proof to me that they were there at least at one time, and
not to long before they found it, because it would have dissipated.
and
We don't torture as a matter of policy. There may have been some individuals.
Of coarse it very much depends on the "meaning" of "torture" that you choose, but
if there's a policy, of proof that orders were given to torture, and no one was
prosecuted for it, I'd like to see it.
You might have a valid lie then.
catocom
Well-Known Member
here's just the first I got on googleflavio said:
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/m-n/mariani/2004/mariani052804.htm
he said "we don't torture"
he was speaking for the admin, and the armed sevices...wasn't he?
What do you take it to mean?
catocom
Well-Known Member
I'm still not clear on who you think "we" areflavio said:
Personally "I'm" for some friggin' torture on some of um.
The geneva convention was to keep our troops from being tortured, as much
as the enemy. IMO when the enemy doesn't observe it, neither should we.
NO I'm not above it. I'm actually a barbaric SOB when it comes to this subject.
