[quote]GeneralLee wrote:
I guess you dont consider Seren gas a WMD though. Because that has already been found. [/quote]
True that, true that.
Jerffy, acknowledging the other personalities is progress… Bravo!
As far as general lee goes why would one want to waste time giving a rational response to one who is obviously brainwashed to the level of a fifteen year old Khmer Rouge robot? Kinda like a younger version of you.
If that is the post of the year you don’t aim very high, but judging from your fanatical support of Bush low expectations and failure are the norm for you!
Cheers
[quote]dukefan4ever wrote:
GeneralLee wrote:
I guess you dont consider Seren (sarin) gas a WMD though. Because that has already been found.
True that, true that.
[/quote]
Sarin: 1st WMD found in Iraq
05/17/2004
The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155mm artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found.
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1528363,00.html
And let us not forget the tons and tons of “Dihydrogen Monoxide” found that the mainstream media so conveniently never reported. (BTW, it looks like Iran is also stockpiling DHMO to use in their nuclear program)
Elk, ProfX - when will you guys learn we are no match to their superior intellect ; )
[quote]GeneralLee wrote:
If you listened to the news or were in the initial invasion, you would know that EVERY commander, including our Commander in Chief stated that WMD’s were not the only reason for going into Iraq. [/quote]
“For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, [b]weapons of mass destruction[/b], because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.”
-Paul Wolfowitz May 28, 2003
I guess Churchill’s words will forever remain a mystery…
Men ignore or discard the truth when they find it, as it usually does not fit their already set-in-stone worldview.
[quote]Cream wrote:
Professor X wrote:
GeneralLee wrote:
the fact that the people of Iraq were severely oppressed were all reasons given.
Cool, this can also decribe many areas of Africa. When do we strap up?
2 funny parts to that.
-
“We”.
-
Wait, we shouldn’t be going into Iraq! Bush is a warmonger!
We should be invading Nigeria! We should be invading Chad! We should be invading South Africa! We should be invading Cote d’Ivoire! We should be invading Rwanda! We should be invading Eritrea! We should be invading Libya! We should be invading the Central African Republic! We should be invading Somalia! We should be invading the Sudan!
Only THEN “we” would not be warmongers.
In fact, it would make sense to invade everyone at once, the u.n./france would be all for it, and we have the military capability and domestic support. Also, the US military loves jungle wars in areas with no infrastructure or rule of law, they’re easy to win and American people love to hear about getting involved in them.[/quote]
We would not be ‘invading’, we would be ‘liberating’ them. Nigeria’s got lots of oil too. And Rwanda has lots of WMDs (Wielding Machete Destruction). They’re a threat.
What Prof X is saying, doofus, is that the excuse was trotted out about Saddam being a dictator and how we freed the Iraqi people. But this was not the motivation for invading at all. If it truly was the reason, which Bush etc now claim it was, Prof X’s point is a perfectly valid one.
BREEEAthe, everybody!
NOW that we have Iraq, Dubya and WMD’s out of our system, can we go back to Churchill’s quote?
So, two thoughts so far:
-
People see truth, but because of pride, preconceived notions/beliefs/prejudices/fears, etc., they ignore them.
-
Sometimes we HAVE to ignore “truths”, or we would find it almost impossible to lead, compromise, gather concensus or to make decisions?
Thoughts? Disagreements?
Mufasa
[quote]Cream wrote:
We should be invading Nigeria! We should be invading Chad! We should be invading South Africa! We should be invading Cote d’Ivoire! We should be invading Rwanda! We should be invading Eritrea! We should be invading Libya! We should be invading the Central African Republic! We should be invading Somalia! We should be invading the Sudan!
[/quote]
Actually, I hear that the French are being oppressed. You guys should definitely invade…ummm, I mean liberate France.
-
People believe what they want to beleive, even when shown the truth. If something they don’t want to believe is presented to them, they twist logic to convinve themselves out of it, or simply refuse to believe the new evidence.
-
Could Churchill also be talking about habits? People often stumble onto the truth that if they don’t start exercising and taking care of themselves, that they will have a heart attack and die. So they change their lifestyle for all of 3 months, adn then go back how they were. They are ignoring the trhuth because it is too much hassle for them.
[quote]deanosumo wrote:
What Prof X is saying, doofus, is that the excuse was trotted out about Saddam being a dictator and how we freed the Iraqi people. But this was not the motivation for invading at all. If it truly was the reason, which Bush etc now claim it was, Prof X’s point is a perfectly valid one.
[/quote]
Logic is too much to ask when it comes to the brainwashed.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
BREEEAthe, everybody!
NOW that we have Iraq, Dubya and WMD’s out of our system, can we go back to Churchill’s quote?
So, two thoughts so far:
-
People see truth, but because of pride, preconceived notions/beliefs/prejudices/fears, etc., they ignore them.
-
Sometimes we HAVE to ignore “truths”, or we would find it almost impossible to lead, compromise, gather concensus or to make decisions?
Thoughts? Disagreements?
Mufasa
[/quote]
Ignoring truths would only serve the purpose of carrying out an agenda in spite of the truth it terms of leadership.
Churchill’s statement seems to be more generic than a commentary on leadership. For instance, let’s ignore the hardships that many in poverty face in terms of education, role models, decent parenting and convenience towards a lifestyle as we only focus in on those who leach off of welfare.
The truth is there, but it damn sure won’t fit the agenda.