# Bush never lied to us about Iraq



## Big Don (Jun 16, 2008)

*Bush never lied to us about Iraq*



 The administration simply got bad intelligence. Critics are wrong to assert deception.

By James Kirchick 						
 June 16, 2008
LATimes
Excerpt:

 					 		 					 				 		 						 Touring Vietnam in 1965, Michigan Gov. George Romney proclaimed American involvement there "morally right and necessary." Two years later, however, Romney -- then seeking the Republican presidential nomination -- not only recanted his support for the war but claimed that he had been hoodwinked.

"When I came back from Vietnam, I had just had the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get," Romney told a Detroit TV reporter who asked the candidate how he reconciled his shifting views.

 Romney (father of Mitt) had visited Vietnam with nine other governors, all of whom denied that they had been duped by their government. With this one remark, his presidential hopes were dashed.

The memory of this gaffe reverberates in the contemporary rhetoric of many Democrats, who, when attacking the Bush administration's case for war against Saddam Hussein, employ essentially the same argument. In 2006, John F. Kerry explained the Senate's 77-23 passage of the Iraq war resolution this way: "We were misled. We were given evidence that was not true." On the campaign trail, Hillary Rodham Clinton dodged blame for her pro-war vote by claiming that "the mistakes were made by this president, who misled this country and this Congress."

Nearly every prominent Democrat in the country has repeated some version of this charge, and the notion that the Bush administration deceived the American people has become the accepted narrative of how we went to war.
((END EXCERPT))
James Kirchick is an assistant editor at The New Republic. Even in that bastion of liberalism (American style for our British friends who will argue against the term AGAIN) he can understand truth, why can't some of you?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 16, 2008)

Because he's wrong.
Bush's reasons for the war change more often than a germ phobic changes his socks. They "knew", they had "proof", etc. The "they got bad intel" excuse is just that, an excuse. Maybe, they did. But if that's the case, then it was absolutely criminal that they didn't wait to confirm and solidify it before launching a war that has cost hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of dollars.  How many dozens more threads are you going to start here to try and swing the view that GW Bush is some kind of good person? He's a dimwit, his administration is corrupt and has done more harm to this country and what it was founded upon than any other administration in US history.


----------



## Kacey (Jun 16, 2008)

So... the president of the US got "bad intelligence", and that makes everything okay?  Somehow, I think that's rather cold comfort to the families of those killed in this war, and to those wounded and maimed as well.

It is the president's job to make good decisions - to ensure that intelligence is checked, re-checked, and re-re-checked - _especially_ before committing funding, much less lives, to any venture, but especially before declaring war.  He screwed up.  He needs to accept responsibility for his actions instead of making excuses.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 16, 2008)

gee, you might consider it checked and rechecked if your predecessor thought the same thing, and every other intelligence agency on the planet thought the same thing............


----------



## Big Don (Jun 16, 2008)

Maybe Carter's slash and burn of the CIA with the Church Committee wasn't such a great idea... Maybe eight years of blase attitude towards national defense didn't help...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 16, 2008)

ok, Carter was -20- years before GW Bush. Why not bring up Kennedy too?


----------



## mrhnau (Jun 16, 2008)

Kacey,

Suppose he did eventually find out the intelligence was bad? Troops are already there, Saddam already toppled and insurgents on the rise. Immediately evacuate and let the country fall into complete chaos? Leave is in worse shape than when we entered? Allow it to potentially become a safe haven for terrorist, or allow Iran to possibly invade and occupy? Exactly what is the graceful exit strategy once committed?

Twin Fist,

National memory is very short sighted, isn't it? I seem to recall months of negotiations, desperately trying to get inspectors in to check out Saddam's palaces, only to not be allowed entry. This whole thing could have been avoided by a compliant Saddam.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 16, 2008)

Kacey said:


> So... the president of the US got "bad intelligence", and that makes everything okay?  Somehow, I think that's rather cold comfort to the families of those killed in this war, and to those wounded and maimed as well.


 How much comfort of any kind is it for those families to hear democrats brand them mercenaries, murderers, etc? It's great to actually worry about the troops, but, claiming to worry about the troops and their families as a way of attacking the president and his administration is reprehensible. 





> It is the president's job to make good decisions - to ensure that intelligence is checked, re-checked, and re-re-checked - _especially_ before committing funding, much less lives, to any venture, but especially before declaring war.  He screwed up.  He needs to accept responsibility for his actions instead of making excuses.


Yet congress bears no responsibility?
77 to 23 is a pretty strong majority, all of whom had access to the same intelligence. At least two of whom, have been touted on this board as brilliant, and yet, congress too believed the intelligence reports.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 16, 2008)

mrhnau said:


> Kacey,
> 
> Suppose he did eventually find out the intelligence was bad? Troops are already there, Saddam already toppled and insurgents on the rise. Immediately evacuate and let the country fall into complete chaos? Leave is in worse shape than when we entered? Allow it to potentially become a safe haven for terrorist, or allow Iran to possibly invade and occupy? Exactly what is the graceful exit strategy once committed?
> 
> ...


Not to mention a decade of nearly daily attempts to shoot down British and American aircraft in the no fly zones, each instance of which is a casus belli...


----------



## Big Don (Jun 16, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> ok, Carter was -20- years before GW Bush. Why not bring up Kennedy too?


Because Kennedy did not cripple our intelligence agencies.


----------



## MBuzzy (Jun 16, 2008)

Big Don said:


> How much comfort of any kind is it for those families to hear democrats brand them mercenaries, murderers, etc? It's great to actually worry about the troops, but, claiming to worry about the troops and their families as a way of attacking the president and his administration is reprehensible.


 
For the most part, I'm required to stay out of the discussion.  I will make one comment though, while I was there and even at home, I have never heard any democratic organization call the American troops in Iraq mercenaries or murderers.  Possibly the occassional extremist and a few who are unable to separate those who are doing their duty from those who make policy.

If there was a public statement by the democratic party or from some influential politician....then I suppose I just missed it.  I like to think (idealistically) that people who worry about soliders, sailors, and airmen are for the most part genuine - again there are exceptions....but for the most part.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 16, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> gee, you might consider it checked and rechecked if your predecessor thought the same thing, and every other intelligence agency on the planet thought the same thing............


 
He also pulled out when the UN told him he was about to be screwed.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 16, 2008)

MBuzzy said:


> For the most part, I'm required to stay out of the discussion.  I will make one comment though, while I was there and even at home, I have never heard any democratic organization call the American troops in Iraq mercenaries or murderers.  Possibly the occassional extremist and a few who are unable to separate those who are doing their duty from those who make policy.
> 
> If there was a public statement by the democratic party or from some influential politician....then I suppose I just missed it.  I like to think (idealistically) that people who worry about soliders, sailors, and airmen are for the most part genuine - again there are exceptions....but for the most part.


I guess you haven't heard of John Murtha, prominent democrat congressman.


> There was no fire fight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood.


 Contrary to Congressman Murtha's statement, US Marines are still being cleared of wrong doing in Haditha.


----------



## MBuzzy (Jun 16, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Because Kennedy did not cripple our intelligence agencies.


 
In what ways have intelligence agencies been crippled?  

I have worked with quite a few and honestly, even I know very little about what they can and cannot do and their procedures.  Security within the intelligence gathering agencies is exceptionally tight.  Their practices and procedures ARE NOT public knowledge for a very good reason.  

I make no statement regarding the validity or quality of the information gathered, as one of the most difficult tasks of ANY intel agency is separating good from bad intel - only their procedures.


----------



## MBuzzy (Jun 16, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Contrary to Congressman Murtha's statement, US Marines are still being cleared of wrong doing in Haditha.


 
This is a single situation and he was commenting solely on the individuals involved.  Make no mistake, LOAC applies - even to actions involving insurgents.  You can be tried for murder and war-crimes legitimately very easily if you do the wrong thing.  Again, we're a microcosm, things go wrong and there are bad apples.  *If* they were legitimately found to have violated LOAC by a Court Martial, then I would agree with the statement that they were murderers.

I was referring to a statement about the military as a whole.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 16, 2008)

Lets look at it a little differently.

You were told it was ok to take Kuwait, then smacked around.
You're now told that parts of your own country are off limits to you.
You're going to do things to save face in your own dictatorship, even if it means that every plane you launch ends up spare parts.
Sadamn expected the beginning of the war to be another short "US Muscle Flex", and played by those rules. He didn't know that GW was out to avenge his "Daddy".

As to "Bad Intel" the UN inspectors, and numerous other nations Intel was saying that GW's was wrong. GW said it was about WMD and 9/11. He later changed the tune on the 9/11 drum beating, but even Collin Powel went out repeatedly druming the "rock solid evidence" beat. He took it in his namesake as a result.

The whole "Bush didn;'t lie, he was misinformed" crap is little more than pissing on the graves of every loyal American, British and Allied soldier who went to war this time and paid the ultimate price for this "misinformation", not to mention the disrespect if pays to all those who are now maimed and crippled for life as a result.

Make all the excuses you want, rewrite history and ignore documented quotes and statements from those involved. In the end, Bush, Cheney and their gang will have to live with the fall out of their decision to set this nation to war, for their own personal reasons.

I'm outta here.


----------



## Brian Johns (Jun 17, 2008)

Put it this way:

(1) Strategically, going into Iraq never made any sense. There was not one Iraqi among the nineteen 9/11 hijackers. Indeed, 15 out of those 19 were Saudis.

(2) 9/11 was perpetrated by Al Qaeda. Not Iraq. I point this out because Bush and Cheney have consistently, over the years, and insisted that Iraq is part of the "War on Terror."

(3) There were no ties between Saddam and 9/11. There were no ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Bush and Cheney have admitted this.

(4)  As a result of our actions in Iraq, we have lost a lot of diplomatic leverage in the Middle East. The Iranians are now in a better position. If Bush is so dumb as to strike militarily at Iran, we will get severe blowback in the form of Iranian reprisals all across the Middle East, including Hormuz. Think oil is expensive now ? Try $300 per barrel if we attack Iran.

(5) We spend more in an average three week span in Iraq than we have in all 7 years we have been in Afghanistan. No wonder why the Taliban is making a comeback. 

Maybe Bush got bad intelligence or whatever....but it's clear that he and Cheney made a colossal strategic blunder.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 17, 2008)

Big Don said:


> *Bush never lied to us about Iraq*
> ?


 
Yes he did.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 17, 2008)

Brian Johns said:


> Maybe Bush got bad intelligence or whatever....but it's clear that he and Cheney made a colossal strategic blunder.


 
THIS is COMPLETELY UNTRUE.  We all know Bush's word for it was "Streegic"

LOL.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 17, 2008)

Brian Johns said:


> (1) Strategically, going into Iraq never made any sense.
> 
> (3) There were no ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Bush and Cheney have admitted this.



these two statements are factually incorrect, the rest is just opinion.

1: look at a friggin map. Who is the bad guy? Iran. Look on the east of Iran. Afganistan. Look on the west of Iran. Iraq. 

What two middle eastern countries do we NOW how bases in that we didnt in 2000?

seeing the BIG picture yet? So, strategically, Iraq was brilliant. Iran is now boxed in, mountains to the north, and the ocean to the south, with US forces on both sides.

2: Saddam has been PROVEN to have aided AQ. There were AQ training camps in Iraq, thats PROVEN. Saddam met with Abu Nidal, thats PROVEN

you are simply wrong.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 17, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> these two statements are factually incorrect, the rest is just opinion.
> 
> 1: look at a friggin map. Who is the bad guy? Iran. Look on the east of Iran. Afganistan. Look on the west of Iran. Iraq.
> 
> ...


 
Y'know, I don't remember surrounding Iran being the points driven to the American public preceding the invasion.  WMD, war on terror, free the oppressed, etc, but never the goal of surrounding Iran. If the reason Bush launched the invasion was a strategic position against Iran, wouldn't telling the American public anything but constitute, oh I don't know, *lying to us about Iraq*?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 17, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> these two statements are factually incorrect, the rest is just opinion.
> 
> 1: *look at a* friggin *map*. Who is the bad guy? Iran. Look on the east of Iran. Afganistan. Look on the west of Iran. Iraq.
> 
> ...


 
Just a note

Actually to the north of Iraq you have the Caspian Sea, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan and Armenia. And the Caspian Sea gets you to Russia and a few other countries so Iran is far from surrounded or boxed in. 

Map


And if you invade Iran how much can you actually depend on the other Muslim countries that currently surround the US forces to back us up.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 17, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> you are simply wrong.


 
No, _you_ are. :lol:

Abu Nidal was _Abu Nidal,_ not al Qaeda-Abu Nidal group was an offshoot of the PLO.

Strategically, going into Iraq only makes sense if you want to control oil and gas coming out of the Caspian Sea, Turkmenistan, and  Azerbaijan , but that would make the war about..._*oil*_, so that can't possibly be why we're there,,,,


----------



## kailat (Jun 17, 2008)

The truth behind 9/11 is further than anyone could ever imagine... I wish I could find that video it would help explain it all. i'll look and see what i can find for you all.

until then.. fight the good fight and prepare for a battle in the future..  DOWN w/ the NWO and the Illuminati

 HERE it is I believe:  <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CDx1GLqvBO8&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CDx1GLqvBO8&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>    I hope this works


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 17, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Abu Nidal was _Abu Nidal,_


 
Yup

Foreign Terrorist Organizations

First one is Abu Nidal Organization (ANO)


Also this page has a lot of very interesting info if any are interested


----------



## kailat (Jun 17, 2008)

Go to www.google.com and type in LOOSE CHANGE 9/11 revisited and it should pull up the video.. ifthat URL doesnt work


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 17, 2008)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Y'know, I don't remember surrounding Iran being the points driven to the American public preceding the invasion.  WMD, war on terror, free the oppressed, etc, but never the goal of surrounding Iran. If the reason Bush launched the invasion was a strategic position against Iran, wouldn't telling the American public anything but constitute, oh I don't know, *lying to us about Iraq*?



I have no doubt that Bush wasnt thinking that far ahead.He is not, traditionally a big picture thinker. But great strategic moves are still great weather they are by accident or not.

as for the reasons given:
WMD- forget the fact that OUR intelligence agencies all said he had them, everyone else's did too. Hell SADDAM said he had them

War on terror- we have not been attacked again on american soil have we? cuz we took the fight to them.

free the oppressed- they are free, they have elections now.

all those things happened. not to mention this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.html 
 But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find. 

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates." 

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information." 

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."  

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 17, 2008)

kailat said:


> Go to www.google.com and type in LOOSE CHANGE 9/11 revisited and it should pull up the video.. ifthat URL doesnt work




oh great, a "truther"

:hb:


----------



## kailat (Jun 17, 2008)

Go to www.google.com and type in LOOSE CHANGE 9/11 revisited and it should pull up the video.. ifthat URL doesnt work


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 17, 2008)

I have watched it.

it's crap from start to finish.

the 3 guys that put it together are literally community college drop outs, everything they say have been debunked countless times over.

trust me brother, you dont want to go there


----------



## MBuzzy (Jun 17, 2008)

kailat said:


> Go to www.google.com and type in LOOSE CHANGE 9/11 revisited and it should pull up the video.. ifthat URL doesnt work


 
I've seen those videos as well as read the articles refuting every claim, as well as seen the videos refuting those claims.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_Change_(video)
This talks a little bit about it, but it is VERY easy with some basic searches to find all of the scientific evidence that none of the claims presented are true.

This is probably a conversation that could take up pages upon pages of posts on a separate thread if anyone wants to start one.

As for the Bush lying - I would say that the overall strategic view of the US Government and the big picture thinking that is going on is generally not public knowledge.  I really can't say much in regards to whether the US people were lied to, but I would be willing to bet that the government goes to great lengths to INTENTIONALLY keep some things from the population at large.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 17, 2008)

"Saddamn said he had them" is justification for the war?

ok.

*Attention UN and the rest of the world. MartialTalk has weapons of mass destruction and we will use them along with a really big freaking laser beam to destroy the world unless you give us one hundred billion dollars. You have 24 hours to comply.*


I now await the shock and awe bombing of Buffalo NY.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 17, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> "Saddamn said he had them" is justification for the war?
> 
> ok.
> 
> ...


 
Nah, I don't think Buffalo has any oil and, to the best of my knowledge, there's no neighboring state that would be strategically advantageous to surround.  :-D


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 17, 2008)

Dude, we're like the gateway to Canada Land, where the beaver flows like wine.
Oh and they have alot of oil that we import too.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 17, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Dude, we're like the gateway to Canada Land, where the beaver flows like wine.
> Oh and they have alot of oil that we import too.


 
I stand corrected, then.  In that case, better get the bomb shelters ready.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 17, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> ...where the beaver flows like wine.


 
hmmmm.....


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 17, 2008)

I've spent some time in Calgary and Banff and I can attest to the truth of that innuendo - it's about the only time I've ever walked into a restaurant, been greeted at the door by the waitresses and forgotten what I'd gone there for .

They appear to excercise a very strict immigration policy based upon a minimum beauty requirement :lol:.


----------



## CoryKS (Jun 17, 2008)

Wait a minute... Canada has oil, beer, and beautiful women?  Why the hell aren't we invading them?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 17, 2008)

CoryKS said:


> Wait a minute... Canada has oil, beer, and beautiful women? Why the hell aren't we invading them?


 
Seriously, I think it's time we took the ole' Manifest Destiny out for a spin!  :evilgrin:


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 17, 2008)

:lol:  Of course, for those from warmer climes, there is the cold to consider, which doesn't bother me and the endless static shocks off anything metal, which surely did - in fact *that* drives you mad (doorhandles, cars, chairs, appliances ... arrrgh!).


----------



## Kacey (Jun 17, 2008)

CoryKS said:


> Wait a minute... Canada has oil, beer, and beautiful women?  Why the hell aren't we invading them?



Uh... the border is too long?  NAFTA?  Oh... wait... we can't (based on current "intelligence") blame Canada for 9/11!


----------



## CoryKS (Jun 17, 2008)

Kacey said:


> Uh... the border is too long? NAFTA? Oh... wait... we can't (based on current "intelligence") blame Canada for 9/11!


 
Clearly, you haven't seen the South Park movie.  Blame Canada


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 17, 2008)

CoryKS said:


> Clearly, you haven't seen the South Park movie.  Blame Canada


 
Heck I have been blaming Canada for YEARS.. sitting up there all peaceful and happy not bothering anyone.... THOSE are EXACTLY the ones you have to watch


----------



## CoryKS (Jun 17, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> Heck I have been blaming Canada for YEARS.. sitting up there all peaceful and happy not bothering anyone.... THOSE are EXACTLY the ones you have to watch


 
I blame them for those goofy dimes that end up in your pocket just when you really need a soda from the vending machine.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 17, 2008)

CoryKS said:


> I blame them for those goofy dimes that end up in your pocket just when you really need a soda from the vending machine.


 
YEAH THAT TOO!!! and those quarters... oh DON'T get me started !!!


----------



## Kacey (Jun 17, 2008)

CoryKS said:


> Clearly, you haven't seen the South Park movie.  Blame Canada





Xue Sheng said:


> Heck I have been blaming Canada for YEARS.. sitting up there all peaceful and happy not bothering anyone.... THOSE are EXACTLY the ones you have to watch



_Blaming_ Canada and _attacking_ Canada are two different things!


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 17, 2008)

Kacey said:


> _Blaming_ Canada and _attacking_ Canada are two different things!


 

well, I think it's time to take the next step.


----------



## kailat (Jun 17, 2008)

something new!!


----------



## kailat (Jun 17, 2008)

America the truth is out there.. Our Govt officials have forsaken us.  You should do a bit more research on the North American Union, and the lifting of borders between Canada and Mexico.  The worlds overpopulation, and how they are planning on minimizing the numbers.  Chemtrails, Flouride, H.A.A.R.P., RFID chip, REAL ID, and more. 



 
 There are way too many consequences going on.  I can account and say one or two are cosequence.  However, I cannot say that a mere dozen ideals, or theories are!!  There lies truth somewhere.. The govt hides in the media and propoganda trying to keep the truth out of the eyes of masses.  They have been laying this ground for years and years.  It is only getting closer and closer to becoming real and they are being outted.  THE NWO is real.  The UN is trying to create a massive New World Order (one government, one religion, one money)  Haven't you seen the new NAU "Amero"? It will be the currency of the future.  The RFID chip that they are implanting in soldiers, and within your passports, and now they want to put them in school childrens books etc... How much longer until they start putting them into students and employees of a certain branch?  How much longer until they require all citizens of the new NOrth American Union to be "chipped?"  They'll tell you its to better track you etc... But is it really?  There is a massive illusion going on behind our backs as the Govt' plays second fiddle to us.  





 
There are a proven 600 or more Concentration camps that the US military are planning on using when Martial Law uprises.  The POLICE STATE mentality is on the rise.  As a police officer who knows of many who work for Homeland Security I've found out and heard of some of the stories of Martial Law.  Just recently the US MARINES done a 2 week "mock urban warfare" training within the city and the streets of Indianapolis.  WHY?  WHy must they prepare to do such things within the city?  Do they not have multi million dollar training camps and facilities for such training? 





 
 GO TO :  www.infowars.com  for more info


----------



## elder999 (Jun 17, 2008)

:lfao: Get out the tinfoil!






_*he's right about the camps, though....*_


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 17, 2008)

*Kailat*, whilst almost any political or philosophical view is worthy of analysis and discourse, I do have to say that the boats rather sailed on this one.

I too enjoyed David Ikes lectures on the actual global nature of governance and the ability we have to hide reality from ourselves (altho' I found the Lizard Kings a step too far off the end of the pier). However, the impact of them was pretty much as you'd expect.  That doesn't mean there wasn't a core of truth in them but trumpeting them as Messianic News rather undermines their impact when done on the tail of a thread like this.

I don't say this to be mocking but rather that you could perhaps make more headway if you posted your views on this in a more applicable forum or at least in a thread of their own?

EDIT: *Elder*, be nice now. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, so it was inevitable that a gravitational mass of Right-Wingism would draw forth it's anti-particle.  The trick is to avoid an explosion ...


----------



## elder999 (Jun 17, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> . The trick is to avoid an explosion ...


 
.........of _laughter!_:lfao:


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 17, 2008)

Flying Crane said:


> well, I think it's time to take the next step.


 
YEAH!!!!

We're watching you Canada :mst:


----------



## kailat (Jun 17, 2008)

LIES, that is all this country has been built on.  Im a firm believer that something fishy is going on within our government.  My opinions really do not hold much water.  As you've seen here.  My point is to help spread the word that there are conspiracies thruout the political empowerment of the world.  George Bush Sr. said it himself, wanting to bring forth a "New World Order". If you cannot see it is in the making then your not awake yet.

 The secret societies of this world Illuminati, Skull & Bones, Bohemian Grove, Bilderberg is just to name a few that have been controlling the events of ongoings within the US for years.

 Whether this or many post go on another thread or not, the topic is BUSH never lied to us about IRAQ! In recent studies Bush has lied.  The truth behind 9/11 has been outted.  However, many do not wish to unload the impeachment this late in his term.  I am a patriot of our constitution and our country.  I took an oath twice to defend this nation from terrorism both foreign and domestic.  Protecting myself and the loved ones in my life and those weak and strong is what I intend on doing.  I hope all this is hoopla and we never end up in a Police State and or Martial Law over running this nation.  If it does I can say I wont go silently.  As well as I will not bow to the NAU and the NWO and allow any RFID chip to be inplanted within my body.. If all this is true as Im certain it is..  We must be assure it is nearing the end of days... Just reamin eyes wide open and now you can see for yourself as you've been made aware as it becomes more public as days/months/years go by.

 thank you

Cory


----------



## MBuzzy (Jun 17, 2008)

kailat said:


> There are a proven 600 or more Concentration camps that the US military are planning on using when Martial Law uprises. The POLICE STATE mentality is on the rise. As a police officer who knows of many who work for Homeland Security I've found out and heard of some of the stories of Martial Law. Just recently the US MARINES done a 2 week "mock urban warfare" training within the city and the streets of Indianapolis. WHY? WHy must they prepare to do such things within the city? Do they not have multi million dollar training camps and facilities for such training?


 
My morbid curiosity has driven me to wonder about these camps that you are referring to.

As for urban warfare, it is a training requirement.  Practicing in real situations is another training requirement.  It isn't some conspiracy...its just training.  There are not multi million dollar training camps for this kind of stuff.  There are training sites...but no training situation can ever simulate the real thing.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 17, 2008)

Oh my


----------



## Big Don (Jun 17, 2008)

The song Blame Canada was an Academy Award Nominated song. Robin Williams performed it at the ceremony.


----------



## kailat (Jun 17, 2008)

FEMA CAMPS:

http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1062

http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/fema.htm

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/camps.htm

http://www.greatdreams.com/concentration-camp-locations.htm

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/camps.html

As for the Marine Urban Warfare training.. sure it maybe just training now.. but I personally feel that soldiers need not be trained in our streets.  When I was in the ARMY we never trained in any sort of training. Even while doing training within Law Enforcement we've done closed circuit training, never in the public eye.   I just find there may be a hidden agenda behind it.  Sure they tell us that its for the safety of the streets.  So are they saying there is a possible threat of having to fight within our city streets in the future?   Im assuming that day is coming and it could very well happen sooner than we may think.... The idea of a POLICE STATE and MARTIAL LAW is not a new proposed philosophy.  
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080529/LOCAL18/305290003

http://infowars.net/articles/may2008/290508Indianapolis.htm  ( take a moment to read others input and responses at the end of this page.)  

 I'll leave this as the final post on this subject.  As I see some are not so open minded and may only wake up too late.  It is common these ideas and these so called conspiracy theories be left just that in the eyes and minds of those who would rather be less optimistic than others.  I personally feel there are ONE too many coincidences going on with all these statements and stories.... Im certain that they just aren't pulled out of the air to make us all nervous.  As a member of the militia they are far more intelligent on this than I had imagined. I am only beginnig to see what they have been talking about.  Beware the Govt' is wanting to try to abolish the 2nd amendment to take away your rights of the constitution.  IF we allow this, then they win... This is just one of many rights they have tried to take away from us.   

 Anyway, I have alot more research on this to do.  Im not saying im some conspiracist.. Just a concerned patriot that wants my children and grandchildren to grow up in a free nation.  A United States of America.  Not some NORTH AMERICAN UNION... if all this is true, we need to stop it now.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 18, 2008)

Here's the thing though, I'm going to Basic with the Marines in October, and I know many people in the military. When the topic of creating a Police State comes up, they all agree, they will lead a military coup and re-establish our Democracy (just repeating there words). 

And, lets say that the idea of creating the North America Union is real, how is it evil? For it to happen, the people of every country involved would have to agree (our government cannot just go and create new countries out of us with out our consent). And, the government will likely change little. The governments of Canada and Mexico are based heavily off the government of the US.


----------



## Logan (Jun 18, 2008)

Big Don said:


> *Bush never lied to us about Iraq*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Bush didn't lie...he just "exagerrated" the truth right? Bottom line is that the buck stops with him - the president (and his adminstration) assumes responsibilities for the country's decisions. You can't just hold up your hands when things go bad and say "it's not my fault" or "we were misled". 

Whether or not Bush lied or was misled is almost irrelevant. War is supposed to be a last resort. If you are going to commit billions in resources and risk the lives of your citizens, you had better make sure that you are 100% certain that your actions are right, because if you are found to be wrong, then you will be crucified.

Do us a favour and post less crap in future.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 18, 2008)

Perhaps you missed this the first time, *Kailat*?



Sukerkin said:


> I don't say this to be mocking but rather that you could perhaps make more headway if you posted your views on this in a more applicable forum or at least in a thread of their own?


 
It's a subject that's been covered before but that can be said about almost anything.  

Feel free to talk about this as much as you like but Spam-posting tides of links and strongly emotive verbage, in a not particularly appropriate fora, will win you little.


----------



## CoryKS (Jun 18, 2008)

Do we need to start a troofer thread?


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 18, 2008)

Cory,
for the love of god NO

if for no other reason than i will not and can not remain within the rules of Martial talk when dealing with "truthers"

they are simply not worthy of the effort it would take to be polite


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 18, 2008)

Forgive my ignorance, but you guys are using the term truther pretty specifically, and I can only assume based on context that it refers to someone trying to bring light to conspiracies.  Some clarification?


----------



## CoryKS (Jun 18, 2008)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Forgive my ignorance, but you guys are using the term truther pretty specifically, and I can only assume based on context that it refers to someone trying to bring light to conspiracies. Some clarification?


 
The term "Truther" comes from the name of a group called the "9/11 Truth Movement" and is used specifically for those who subscribe to 9/11 conspiracies, rather than your garden-variety "Teh CIA killed Oswald" conspiracists.  More here.


----------



## kailat (Jun 18, 2008)

http://www.infowars.com/?p=2728

  Last week was INDY, this week its DENVER!!??  

 The Global War On Terrorism??!!!  SERIOUSLY!!

  POLICE STATE, MARTIAL LAW!!  It all makes perfecty good sense to me... Pack the tin-foil and strap it to your hats my friends  LOL....who stated that earlier?  WOW come on now.. let's just open our eyes and allow that to be your TIN FOIL


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 18, 2008)

*Kailat*, as stated twice above, your opinions are welcome and discussible (within the bounds of reasonable debate) but it would be appreciated if you would make the attempt to put them forward in a more suitable place.

This thread has taken quite a beating already for one reason or another and it would be nice to either let it go or get it back on track.

EDIT:  Oh and by the way, Alex Jones is one of my favourite 'ranters' and he actually has done some good in bringing some less than pristine things to light (tho' his Bohemian Grove piece was a sure sign he's never seen the British upper classes at 'play' :lol: ).


----------



## Kacey (Jun 18, 2008)

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please, return to the original topic.

Karen  Cohn
MT Senior Moderator
*


----------



## kailat (Jun 18, 2008)

My Bad,  I appologize!

 Im done ranting... Moving on...


----------

