You're joking. Starting a war for no reason and killing a million people was way less?This one.
The media tarred Bush for WAY less .
You're joking. Starting a war for no reason and killing a million people was way less?This one.
The media tarred Bush for WAY less .
This is just a little dishonest. The UN never did authorize it, and in fact objected, which is precisely why Canada stayed out.I was not in favour of the war in Iraq. BUT Bush did go to the UN and Congress to get authorization and had at least 50 other countries onside.
Quod licet Jovi non licet bovi.Funny meme
![]()
But since rebels started the attack on the Syrian government, isnt Assad allowed to defend his country from them, in the same way Obama would be allowed to defend America if anarchists tried to take over the USA??!
Yet regime change in Iraq was stated US policy since when? 1992? and upheld during Clinton years?This is just a little dishonest. The UN never did authorize it, and in fact objected, which is precisely why Canada stayed out.
Moreover, the countries the US had onside these days all say that that were duped into joining by intentional misrepresentation by the US as to the quality of the intelligence.
I actually believe that Bush was sincere abs really expected Iraq had a WMD program, but he led to congress, lied to the UN, and lied to America's allies about the quality of the information he had.
In reality he had a hunch. But he told everyone he had solid, indisputable proof.
You were discussing the international support, and congressional support, for accomplishing that with an actual shooting war and invasion.Yet regime change in Iraq was stated US policy since when? 1992? and upheld during Clinton years?
No Fuji you narrowed the discussion to this constraining little box you constructed. You, and many like you, forget the whole context, which i as usual am left to point out to once again demonstrate how limited and self serving your perspective is ..... you clearly lose this one bee-yatch.You were discussing the international support, and congressional support, for accomplishing that with an actual shooting was and invasion.
That support was obtained by the US President lying to congress, lying to the UN, and lying to allied nations, about the quality of intelligence available.
Those blatant lies are why there is a credibility gap today, why no one is willing to believe what the US says about Syria.
i don't think that was his question. it was bombing civilians with conventional bombs versus bombing with chemical weapons.Perhaps not surprising that here on TERB the entire concept of Just War and the obligation to attempt to eliminate civilian casualties and collateral damage should be given short shrift. Now of course Lord help us when a NATO military causes any civilian casualties or collateral damage.
I made the point that after being blatantly lied to over Iraq, no one is going to accept a "just trust us" from the US again.No Fuji you narrowed the discussion to this constraining little box you constructed. You, and many like you, forget the whole context, which i as usual am left to point out to once again demonstrate how limited and self serving your perspective is ..... you clearly lose this one bee-yatch.
I would go with not yet.I'm going to go with No
you did not correct a single falsehood, sorry. take your ritalin.I made the point that after being blatantly lied to over Iraq, no one is going to accept a "just trust us" from the US again.
You responded with a number of falsehoods which I corrected.
We can happily return to the thread topic now, which is that there is no way of knowing for sure who used those chemical weapons. Not with the information we have so far.
Other then where you said it was authorized by the UN, and your slimy deception of saying it was supported by congress and allied nations when they all now say they were duped by lies.you did not correct a single falsehood, sorry. take your ritalin.
No. No they were not. Nor were they exporting bananas, singing Broadway musicals, or doing any number of other things that have nothing to do with terrorism. What, if anything, is your point?Was Finland making constant attempts to shoot down aircraft patrolling no fly zones?
hahahahahahaha are you intentionally this moronic? those are excuses, typical cya bullshit by those who want to distance themselves from a failure they authorized. the fact remains that i presented to you long standing USG policy. and i presented to you actual votes taken by the UN and The US Congress. forgetting these facts or spinning the way you do is disingenuous.Other then where you said it was authorized by the UN, and your slimy deception of saying it was supported by congress and allied nations when they all now say they were duped by lies.
Those poor asset managers! Working tirelessly, selflessly for the universal good, not a thought for themselves. Why, when the evil liberal congress forced them to repackage junk mortgages or else they would shoot the puppy, I wept.The unprecedented level of hatred for America is today, September 3 2013.
The liberal congress thru the community reinvestment act and their outrageous defined benefit pensions which forced asset managers to reach for extra returns caused the financial crisis.
do you understand the difference between an buy side asset manager and lets say a mortgage backed securities salesman to keep it simple?Those poor asset managers! Working tirelessly, selflessly for the universal good, not a thought for themselves. Why, when the evil liberal congress forced them to repackage junk mortgages or else they would shoot the puppy, I wept.
I was going to give a point-by-point rebuttal to the rest of the derp you spouted in that post, but you are drifting into acutus-level logic here and frankly, it ain't worth the effort.
But Fuji Obama healed all of that. He repaired Americas standing in the world. He rebuilt the trust. He got a Nobel prize for crying out loud.The UN never authorized it.
Congress did, but only because of the blatant lies. Most allied nations that supported it only did so because they were lied to.
The failure occurred when it was revealed that the US simply made hi the claims that there were WMD in Iraq.
The relevance here is that lying has eliminated any trust in what the US says now about Syria, or worse, Iran.
In fact the Bush era lying about Iraq is one of the big obstacles to dealing with the actual threat from Iran today, and now Syria too.
While no doubt some people do feel this way. For the ten thousand and first time, there is a significant and important difference between "lying" and something proving not to have been the case. Again the Russians and every major Western Power believed that Iraq still had chemical weapons.Do you think maybe lying to the UN about the quality of intelligence available on Iraq had contributed to people's disbelief in American claims?