was Bush just a patsy?

Byrnzie

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

2 million in the streets of London? Yet they STILL proceeded to go to war only to find out a few years later that the protestors were right?

If 2 million people in the streets can't change the minds of elected officials what can?

Yeah, 2 million people marched that day and I was one of them. The people of Britain knew that the invasion was inevitable. The desperation of Blair to try and sell the war to us was telling. They wouldn't let the weapons inspectors do their job. And the excuses for the war kept on changing.

Everyone knew we were being stitched up. I don't know what you were told in the U.S but the people of Britain knew the whole thing was a scam from before the outset.

Did you read the memo I posted above? I think it says pretty much all that we need to know about the issue.

VINNY GOOMBA

Byrnzie wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

2 million in the streets of London? Yet they STILL proceeded to go to war only to find out a few years later that the protestors were right?

If 2 million people in the streets can't change the minds of elected officials what can?

Yeah, 2 million people marched that day and I was one of them. The people of Britain knew that the invasion was inevitable. The desperation of Blair to try and sell the war to us was telling. They wouldn't let the weapons inspectors do their job. And the excuses for the war kept on changing.

Everyone knew we were being stitched up. I don't know what you were told in the U.S but the people of Britain knew the whole thing was a scam from before the outset.

Did you read the memo I posted above? I think it says pretty much all that we need to know about the issue.

I just did... I believe I saw that before. Here in the U.S., war was pushed from all angles, and both sides of the political spectrum. There was definitely some skepticism, but any vocalization of that resulted in people being treated much the same way that conspiracy theorists get treated. Suddenly pre-emptive war was more than just "OK," it was necessary.

jlew24asu

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

I just did... I believe I saw that before. Here in the U.S., war was pushed from all angles, and both sides of the political spectrum. There was definitely some skepticism, but any vocalization of that resulted in people being treated much the same way that conspiracy theorists get treated. Suddenly pre-emptive war was more than just "OK," it was necessary.

I was always skeptical of going to war in Iraq..but I agree with you here. hell, even the dems were on board. I was surprised that no WMDs were found mostly because Saddam used them in the past and did have them at one point.

the bigger surprise for me however was the brutal fighting the ensued between the Iraqis themselves. car bomb after car bomb.

since we can monday morning quarterback, I shouldn't have been so surprised. 30+ years of one side torturing and killing the other side is going to leave some very pissed off people around.

blondieblue227

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

There was definitely some skepticism, but any vocalization of that resulted in people being treated much the same way that conspiracy theorists get treated.

Yeah or you were accused of being unpatriotic if you spoke out against the war.

CJMST3K

I heart Scout Niblett wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

I believe the correct derogatory name is panzy. right?

no

pandora

well i just think they all are figureheads- puppets -
they looks like they run things and some "look" better than others

Byrnzie

Some people here pretend to be surprised at the sectarian violence that ensued after the break-up of Iraq. I find that hard to believe though since it was predicted by the top advisers of both the U.S and British Governments prior to the invasion.

What doesn't surprise me is that certain people choose to believe that the majority of Iraqi civilian deaths have been caused by sectarian violence. They haven't. The majority of civilian deaths in Iraq have been the result of aerial bombardments by the coalition.

jlew24asu

Byrnzie wrote:

Some people here pretend to be surprised at the sectarian violence that ensued after the break-up of Iraq. I find that hard to believe though since it was predicted by the top advisers of both the U.S and British Governments prior to the invasion.

thats true. I've seen Cheney's interview predicting it. I just want to punch him in the face for not listening to his own advice.

Byrnzie wrote:

What doesn't surprise me is that certain people choose to believe that the majority of Iraqi civilian deaths have been caused by sectarian violence. They haven't. The majority of civilian deaths in Iraq have been the result of aerial bombardments by the coalition.

thats an outright lie

fact is that the death toll was at its highest during the "civil war" period of 2006-07.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... civcas.png

Byrnzie

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... civcas.png

What's the source of this graph? What survey is the report based on?

jlew24asu

Byrnzie wrote:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Iraqcivcas.png

What's the source of this graph? What survey is the report based on?

are you denying there was a civil war in Iraq during 06/07?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war_in_Iraq

Byrnzie

jlew24asu wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Iraqcivcas.png

What's the source of this graph? What survey is the report based on?

are you denying there was a civil war in Iraq during 06/07?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war_in_Iraq

Do you deny that airstrikes by coaltion forces result in more deaths than a car bomb?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm
'...Violent deaths were mainly attributed to coalition forces - and most individuals reportedly killed were women and children.

Dr Les Roberts, who led the study, said: "Making conservative assumptions we think that about 100,000 excess deaths, or more, have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

"Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most of the violent deaths."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 04148.html
U.S. Boosts Its Use of Airstrikes In Iraq

By Josh White

Thursday, January 17, 2008

'The U.S. military conducted more than five times as many airstrikes in Iraq last year as it did in 2006, targeting al-Qaeda safe houses, insurgent bombmaking facilities and weapons stockpiles in an aggressive strategy aimed at supporting the U.S. troop increase by overwhelming enemies with air power...

The U.S.-led coalition dropped 1,447 bombs on Iraq last year, an average of nearly four a day, compared with 229 bombs, or about four each week, in 2006..

The greater reliance on air power has raised concerns from human rights groups, which say that 500-pound and 2,000-pound munitions threaten civilians, especially when dropped in residential neighborhoods where insurgents mix with the population..

On Thursday morning in Arab Jabour, southeast of Baghdad, the U.S. military dropped 38 bombs with 40,000 pounds of explosives in 10 minutes, one of the largest strikes since the 2003 invasion. U.S. forces north of Baghdad employed bombs totaling more than 16,500 pounds over just a few days last week, according to officers there.'

jlew24asu

Byrnzie wrote:

Do you deny that airstrikes by coaltion forces result in more deaths than a car bomb?

depends how many car bombs went off vs bombs. and air strikes don't occur next to crowded mosques or packed markets.

and car bombs weren't only the weapon of choice during the civil war.

gun shots to the head were far more popular.

kenny olav

Byrnzie wrote:

I think patsy is the wrong word to describe George W Bush, if we're using the word in the context that he was someone who was used & swindled, as opposed to someone who 'is easily swindled, deceived, coerced, persuaded, etc.; sucker.'

Of course George W Bush was an idiot. He was a fool who probably sat in his bedroom playing Mario Bros. on his Playstation when all the big decisions were being made. Was he someone who was used & swindled though? Not really. Normally you use someone if they have something to offer you. Bush had nothing to offer. He was just a face, and a name. Beyond that he was just an embarrassment to most Americans and a laughing stock or an object of contempt for the rest of the world.

I agree with all of that. George W Bush just happened to be the most attractive and likeable guy of the bunch.... likeable enough to get elected (or get close enough to being elected so that it wouldn't seem too odd when they manipulated the elections). Dick Cheney never would have been elected, and I can't think of a single neocon who could have been elected.

Byrnzie

jlew24asu wrote:

and air strikes don't occur next to crowded mosques or packed markets.

Tell that to the people of Fallujah whose city was leveled.

Anyway:

http://www.truthout.org/article/burying-lancet-report
'Their most significant finding was that the vast majority (79 percent) of violent deaths were caused by "coalition" forces using "helicopter gunships, rockets or other forms of aerial weaponry," and that almost half (48 percent) of these were children, with a median age of 8.'

OffHeGoes29

I don't know, I wasn't inside the white house during his 8 years in office. I do know however that none of us are really in the position to state facts like we know what really happened, all the "facts" that are posted on here are from the internet or The Daily Show, not always that creditable.

People don't really form their own opinions on facts, because they can't, its hard to really know the truth. They just find a side to join on the political spectrum and choose their "facts" as they see fit to justify their "opinion".

Byrnzie

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

I don't know, I wasn't inside the white house during his 8 years in office. I do know however that none of us are really in the position to state facts like we know what really happened, all the "facts" that are posted on here are from the internet or The Daily Show, not always that creditable.

I posted the secret Downing street memo. This is a transcript of what was discussed in the build up to the war in 2002. If that isn't a fact then I don't know what is.

jlew24asu

Byrnzie wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

and air strikes don't occur next to crowded mosques or packed markets.

Tell that to the people of Fallujah whose city was leveled.

Anyway:

http://www.truthout.org/article/burying-lancet-report
'Their most significant finding was that the vast majority (79 percent) of violent deaths were caused by "coalition" forces using "helicopter gunships, rockets or other forms of aerial weaponry," and that almost half (48 percent) of these were children, with a median age of 8.'

still using a survey of 1500 out of a country of 30 million as your fact book? please wake up.

do you know who fights who during a civil war? people fight each within the same country.. I know it kills you to admit that Iraqis actually did rape, torture, and kill each other, but its true. and the violence and death PEAKED in Iraq during the civil war...and then DRAMATICALLY fell when the US added MORE troops during the "surge".

Pepe Silvia

Byrnzie wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

and air strikes don't occur next to crowded mosques or packed markets.

Tell that to the people of Fallujah whose city was leveled.

Anyway:

http://www.truthout.org/article/burying-lancet-report
'Their most significant finding was that the vast majority (79 percent) of violent deaths were caused by "coalition" forces using "helicopter gunships, rockets or other forms of aerial weaponry," and that almost half (48 percent) of these were children, with a median age of 8.'

according to the documentary 'Why We Fight' and the pilots of the mission of the first 4 smart bombs dropped to open this invasion 3 missed their targets and hit residential areas.....

Pepe Silvia

ledvedderman wrote:

First term, and very early of the second term...yes. I think Bush went off on his own after the Dems won Congress.

i'd agree with that

OffHeGoes29

Byrnzie wrote:

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

I don't know, I wasn't inside the white house during his 8 years in office. I do know however that none of us are really in the position to state facts like we know what really happened, all the "facts" that are posted on here are from the internet or The Daily Show, not always that creditable.

I posted the secret Downing street memo. This is a transcript of what was discussed in the build up to the war in 2002. If that isn't a fact then I don't know what is.

I guess it isn't so secret if you can find it. Don't believe everything that posted, take it with a grain of salt.