A danger to the world!!!

[jadetree]

Originally posted by markie:
  That is correct I have WML in my pants.

Wireless Markup Language?

[markie]

Originally posted by ggw:
   The way I read that statement is that there were many competing reasons for invading Iraq and, for purposes of "keeping on message", they settled on the one everybody could agree on.

but that isnt justified when the other guy said that, (to paraphrase)" we knew they had no weapons of mass destrucion".
 
 You have been lied to and heads should roll. Or by expecting your government to lie to you it makes it all alright?

[mankie]

Originally posted by markie:
 

 You have been lied to and heads should roll. Or by expecting your government to lie to you it makes it all alright?
 
 [/b]

I think they use lethal injection these days markie.

[ggw]

Originally posted by markie:
   

Originally posted by ggw:
   The way I read that statement is that there were many competing reasons for invading Iraq and, for purposes of "keeping on message", they settled on the one everybody could agree on.

but that isnt justified when the other guy said that, (to paraphrase)" we knew they had no weapons of mass destrucion".
 [/b]

Who said that?

[mankie]

Originally posted by ggw:
   

Originally posted by markie:
   

Originally posted by ggw:
   The way I read that statement is that there were many competing reasons for invading Iraq and, for purposes of "keeping on message", they settled on the one everybody could agree on.

but that isnt justified when the other guy said that, (to paraphrase)" we knew they had no weapons of mass destrucion".
 [/b]

Who said that? [/b]

markie!

[markie]

Actually GGW, I overstated my case, I am sorry.
 
 "Prior to that, his boss, defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, had already undermined the British government's position by saying Saddam Hussein may have destroyed his banned weapons before the war"
 
 Still it does not change the fact that they lied about the reasons for war.

[markie]

Originally posted by jadetree:
   

Originally posted by markie:
  That is correct I have WML in my pants.

Wireless Markup Language? [/b]

Love, silly.

[jadetree]

It would be nice if this new board could handle multiple quotes.

[ggw]

Originally posted by markie:
  Actually GGW, I overstated my case, I am sorry.
 
 "Prior to that, his boss, defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, had already undermined the British government's position by saying Saddam Hussein may have destroyed his banned weapons before the war"
 
 Still it does not change the fact that they lied about the reasons for war.

How so?

[markie]

"for reasons that have a lot to do with the US government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on: weapons of mass destruction."
 
 does this mean that WMD were the real reason for the war?
 
 Surely then he would of said the reason for the war was WMDs.

[mankie]

I don't think anyone is naive enough to believe the war was really over what they said it was for...I firmly believe that the war was started as a personal vendetta of Dubya because Saddam Hussein tried to kill his pappa.
 
 Nevertheless, Hussein had to go and now he's gone the world is a better place and the people of Iraq will have a better life for themselves, especially the shiites, kurds and women.

[markie]

that all may be true. But to accept that government is lying to you ishould not  be acceptable.
 
 Government is supposed to be accountable in a democracy, remember?

[ggw]

Originally posted by markie:
  "for reasons that have a lot to do with the US government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on: weapons of mass destruction."
 
 does this mean that WMD were the real reason for the war?
 
 Surely then he would of said the reason for the war was WMDs.

Like I said before, I read that as meaning that there were multiple competing motives and for reasons of simplicity (i.e. anti-bureaucratic) they settled on the one reason everyone agreed upon.
 
 If you leave your spot at the front of the crowd to get a beer and to go to the bathroom, but only tell your wife that you're going to the bathroom, have you lied about why you left your spot?

[ggw]

Originally posted by markie:
  that all may be true. But to accept that government is lying to you ishould not  be acceptable.
 
 Government is supposed to be accountable in a democracy, remember?

No.  Just a few years ago the American public made it clear that lying by the President, even under oath, is completely acceptable.

[markie]

But going to the toilet is not like waging war .....
 
 If the government wages war it should explain the motives in an open and fair manner and it should be debateable, I mean open to debate.
 
 If I say I am going to buy you a blue fizzy water, but I add some rophenol (sp) and let you drink it, would I have lied to you?