Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post

transplant99 · 09-06-2004, 03:27 PM

Re-writing history only 13 years after the fact....this may be a first.

A perfect example is the military engagement in Iraq. What are the reasons for being there? First it terrorism and Iraq's support of terrorism. Well that didn't sell well at all

To who? YOU??

May I remind you that Hussein did support terrorism...in various ways. He housed and supported Abu Nidal, I will leave it up to you and your extensive book collection to figure out who that is. Also, is paying 25K to Plaestinian suicide bombers not enough to call him a terorist?

If not those two examples...is the fact he gassed his own people from a helicopter and murdered an estimated 750,000 Iraqi citizens not another example of terrorism?

Wow.

Time for a change in story. Next it was to remove a potential threat to peace in the Gulf. It turns out the Hussein was not considered a threat by anyone in the military of any country and the intel that pointed to that was so flawed that no one would take it seriously.

Really? Kuwait didnt see him as threat? Jordan? Israel? Turkey? You will have to point me to those particular quotes. I sure dont remember seeing them.

Finally it's to remove a tyrant and grant freedom to the people of Iraq. Now this is something that doesn't appear to be true, or at least be working in any fashion, and is not even popular in Iraq.

Not true? Not working? Which is it? Either its true and its not working in your opinion, or its not true at all.

Not popular in Iraq? Not working? How in the hell do you know? Lets at least let them HAVE an election first (first one in their history that if you dont vote for Hussein you can still live) and see what happens before we declare the whole thing a sham...shall we?

So there are four different stories that have floated out of the Whitehouse in regards to this action, and none of them are too believable. So what do you do?

You may want to go read the transcript from the speech's Bush gave on Sept 1 2001 all the wat to his address of the UN Lanny. He mentioned ALL these things at the time. No changes were made "afterward when it wasnt working".

Its funny, but to the guys I work with, who do a lot of investigation, when someone keeps changing their story its normally a tip off to the fact they are hiding something or out right lying. So why is that different for the federal government? Why does noticing that immediately make you conspiracy theorist?

Which makes your last paragraph moot. What stories were changed? The one thing you can hold on to is that there have been no WMD found....that much is ture. Beyond that nope.

09-06-2004, 03:27 PM	#3
transplant99 Fearmongerer Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign. Exp:	Re-writing history only 13 years after the fact....this may be a first. A perfect example is the military engagement in Iraq. What are the reasons for being there? First it terrorism and Iraq's support of terrorism. Well that didn't sell well at all To who? YOU?? May I remind you that Hussein did support terrorism...in various ways. He housed and supported Abu Nidal, I will leave it up to you and your extensive book collection to figure out who that is. Also, is paying 25K to Plaestinian suicide bombers not enough to call him a terorist? If not those two examples...is the fact he gassed his own people from a helicopter and murdered an estimated 750,000 Iraqi citizens not another example of terrorism? Wow. Time for a change in story. Next it was to remove a potential threat to peace in the Gulf. It turns out the Hussein was not considered a threat by anyone in the military of any country and the intel that pointed to that was so flawed that no one would take it seriously. Really? Kuwait didnt see him as threat? Jordan? Israel? Turkey? You will have to point me to those particular quotes. I sure dont remember seeing them. Finally it's to remove a tyrant and grant freedom to the people of Iraq. Now this is something that doesn't appear to be true, or at least be working in any fashion, and is not even popular in Iraq. Not true? Not working? Which is it? Either its true and its not working in your opinion, or its not true at all. Not popular in Iraq? Not working? How in the hell do you know? Lets at least let them HAVE an election first (first one in their history that if you dont vote for Hussein you can still live) and see what happens before we declare the whole thing a sham...shall we? So there are four different stories that have floated out of the Whitehouse in regards to this action, and none of them are too believable. So what do you do? You may want to go read the transcript from the speech's Bush gave on Sept 1 2001 all the wat to his address of the UN Lanny. He mentioned ALL these things at the time. No changes were made "afterward when it wasnt working". Its funny, but to the guys I work with, who do a lot of investigation, when someone keeps changing their story its normally a tip off to the fact they are hiding something or out right lying. So why is that different for the federal government? Why does noticing that immediately make you conspiracy theorist? Which makes your last paragraph moot. What stories were changed? The one thing you can hold on to is that there have been no WMD found....that much is ture. Beyond that nope.