Farenheit 911

[Leferd]

I call it my Civic Patriotic American Duty.

 

C-PAD for short.

[EnderAndrew]

I hadn't read the article yet. Thanks for the quote. It sounds like a good article.

 

I think it's funny how Liberals mention that Clinton was grilled over a blow-job and say that Bush should be impeached for his actions. Well, the Kenneth Star report claimed to have boatloads of evidence linking the Clintons to every crime on the books.

 

Given the accounting of Clinton in Primary Colors, and what people close to him usually said, I often wondered about him. I think people don't realize that when Congress was grilling him, they weren't bringing out the heavy charges. Perjury was a means of waving their finger at him rather than throwing the book at him.

 

Bush however, is being subjected to a witch-hunt in the 9/11 hearings, and they haven't found anything on him.

[mkreku]

Let me add "hyprocrite" to my list of reasons why I shouldn't waste my time with your comments any more.

You could not find one single time where i wrote "dumb Americans"? That's what I thought. I didn't ask for your interpretation of the posts I've made. It's really easy to clip something out of context and claim it means something other than what it does. But you failed to find even one quote of "dumb Americans" made by me, despite you saying I often said that.

 

You didn't have much credibility to start with but to me this clearly proves you as a liar who tries to put words in people's mouths. Guess hypocrite is right up there too.

[EnderAndrew]

Let's look at my post again since you obviously didn't read it. You use the word dumb, stupid, retarded, and uneducated.

 

Hmmm.... You say you never called Americans dumb.

 

You're a liar.

 

I've quoted you here directly, and there's no way you get around that. Either stand up your hatred for Americans and admit that you're a bigot, or back-pedal somemore, and make yourself a lying bigot.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

Grr. Here's a huge waste of my time, but I'm game.

Yup. Comes with being educated. Hard for you to grasp, huh?

I include this quote because it's indicative of talking down to people, and questioning their education.

I wonder what your history "books" are called? Saving Private Ryan?

Here you rip the American education system and assume that Americans don't know anything about history.

Yeah, it will probably snow in hell before an american spends money on something educational. You go watch Spiderman 2 instead..

Again you rip Americans in general.

Well, let's see, in that case I can say you're the usual ignorant, uneducated american that's totally unaware of the world surrounding what you seem to think is the true center of the universe, America.

Again, you rip Americans in general.

Why do americans always refer to the killing of thousands of innocent people as "collateral damage"? Gee, 9/11 was just "collateral damage" in the war against imperialism. The real target was the Pentagon, but they missed.

You could have gone the route of talking about our government, but here again, you talk about all Americans. Are there are differences between civilians accidentally killed in friendly fire, and those intentionally murdered. Intent does matter to most people.

Do you remember a few days after 9/11 when America demanded the entire world should hold a silent moment to honor the victims of the tragedy?

America hasn't demanded anything out of the whole world since the Monroe doctrine. Once again, you editorialize and demonstrate your hatred towards America.

Americans only count american lives as being worth something.

Are you seeing a trend yet?

If your comment was written by anyone else than an american I would have thought it was a joke. Sadly though..

You're amazingly accurate in your "ignorant, uneducated american" impersonation. We actually have a kind of "contest" of who can find the "dumbest american" on one of the swedish boards I'm a member on, and so far we mostly have really funny quotes from NRA members and the likes ("we could bomb you back to the stone age!"), but I imagine I have a new contestant here! I hope you won't mind if I use your page as an entry 

It's amazing how facts vary depending on which country you're from.

This is not quite true, although I think this is what all American school books say

My new avatar is Wasteland's depiction of a true american redneck. They are the funniest people on this planet, I think. Once I was up on this lookout in South Carolina, when I ran into a gang of rednecks. They all had mullets and I just couldn't help myself from laughing out loud. They threw empty beercans at me for that.

Your avatar sends a constant message. And I'm reading it. You wanted to see how "often" you bash on Americans. Well, we both talk about a variety of subjects. However, I haven't seen a single conversation that branced to the US where you didn't make a slam on Americans in general, and their education. I'd say that qualifies as often. Who's the liar?

 

You also have demonstrated a trend of making personal attacks rather than informed debates. And you also have a tendency to talk down to people, patronizing them at every opportunity. Leaving out personal attacks you made on me, I've got you saying:

Naah. Why bother with a liar and a thief?

So it's just another one of your failures then? Ok.

And you accuse me of having comprehension problems? Are you lacking a pair of cromosomes or something?

This is so stupid it's bordering on retarded.

Random evil guy, could you please stop filling my thread with idiotic nonsense?

Well, Mr. Obvious...

So I can't decide if the story immerses me or not until I've completed the game? That's retarded.

I don't know which is worse; the "random evil guy" troll or the childish (bordering on retarded) reply?

WHAT?! DO I SMELL AMERICANS PLANNING TO DOMINATE THE WORLD IN THIS THREAD?

Haha, that's a nice way of saying "amateurish"

 

Ps. Did I mention your site lacks p0rn?

I'm trying to explain something (although pretty basic) to a person with the mental capacity of a rock. I'M DONE.

Dumb as a rock as usual.

Small minds are easily amused. The village idiot is always happy!

The level of the discussion on this board is horribly low. In fact it's not worthy of being called a discussion. Name-calling, false quoting, lying.. it's all there. The only thing missing are the "we can bomb you to the stone-age" remarks..

I honestly hope your artistic levels far exceeds your maturity level.

We've been taught by different school systems and we're obviously not on the same level of education.

Many people have cited the way you've needlessly flamed people. You accuse everyone else of being an idiot, and childish. I loved your chess/football analogy where you blamed your behavior on everyone else. That was priceless. Ever hear of personal accoutability?

 

I also found this humorous, looking back. You said:

I know, in fact I haven't found any credible source of information backing up Michael Moore's claims.

 

Some comments of yours, I just don't know...

Do you believe O.J. is innocent or rich?

How did this relate to a discussion on China? Is this supposed to be a slam on the United States?

 

Yet for all your hang-ups on education, you seem to have no qualms supporting Moore despite the fact that easily verifiable facts show that he lies and has no consideration for objectivity. Anyone who questions him however is a right-wing extremist.

 

I've never claimed americans are "garbage". I've claimed that american foreign policies are garbage. I think american foreign politics are garbage. I think the american people is exactly the same human species as the rest of the world, worth neither more or less than anyone else.

Well, your other posts would say otherwise. Personally I take this quote, as well as your last quote as a staunch denail of your behavior.

 

Ok, just answer me this then: Name one time in history when a muslim country started a war on the US and called for Jihad? Feel free to provide a link to where you get your facts too! (for the first time in this thread)

I forgot about this one. Before the US moved into Iraq, Saddam declared Jihad on the US and called all good Muslims to attack us. Iraq declared war officially on the US a few days before we moved in.

 

I also loved who you repeatedly called me names until I provided you with links originally. And since the fourth link was a joke, that was the only link you responded to. The other links you never talked about. You resorted to calling me more names, and talking about dump American tontests. Apparently, that's your idea of debate.

 

I also LOVE every time you say

I saw Fox News

and then blast other people for watching Fox News. I sure don't watch that trash, but it's nice to know you did. Let me add "hyprocrite" to my list of reasons why I shouldn't waste my time with your comments any more.

[mkreku]

I wonder what your history "books" are called? Saving Private Ryan?

Here you rip the American education system and assume that Americans don't know anything about history.

Sorry, it doesn't matter how many times you post the same drivel. It's not going to change and somehow make you right. But as an example, I cut out one of my quotes together with one of your remarks. Here everyone can see what a flawed system of reasoning you use. Where in my quote did I ever mention the entire american population? It is obvious you interpreted it as such. I did not rip the american school system. I didn't rip americans in general for not knowing their history. I was ripping one individual (wasn't it you?).

 

You can continue with your editorial remarks on the out-of-context quotes you've provided. I am not saying the quotes aren't mine, because they are, but the only "proof" you bring is your own interpretations (where you constantly call all americans dumb).

 

So I still call you a liar. And stop putting words in people's mouths.

[EnderAndrew]

Where in my quote did I ever mention the entire american population?

 

How about...

 

Yeah, it will probably snow in hell before an american spends money on something educational.

or

I wonder what your history "books" are called? Saving Private Ryan? 

or

Well, let's see, in that case I can say you're the usual ignorant, uneducated american that's totally unaware of the world surrounding what you seem to think is the true center of the universe, America.

or

You're amazingly accurate in your "ignorant, uneducated american" impersonation. We actually have a kind of "contest" of who can find the "dumbest american" on one of the swedish boards I'm a member on, and so far we mostly have really funny quotes from NRA members and the likes ("we could bomb you back to the stone age!"), but I imagine I have a new contestant here! I hope you won't mind if I use your page as an entry 

or, again

This is not quite true, although I think this is what all American school books say

That's not me putting words in your mouth. Those are you own words. You call Americans uneducated, and say you haven't questioned the American education system. Rack up another lie. Keep 'em coming. Makes you look great.

 

Next, I will compile a list of every time I brought up a response, or point and you flat our ignored it rather than responded to it. Your usual tactic is to take one line out of a post, and respond to it, rather than all the points contained there in.

For a week, you didn't respond to any of my points. You claimed "I have links, you don't." When I provided links, you didn't respond. When I posted with more links eventually, you then said you didn't like the sources, all the while quoting from a website slammed for having a poor track record.

 

Quality of source is not dependent on whether or not they agree with you.

 

You've also repeatedly called me a Bush fanboy, and repeatedly said I'm a right wing extremist. You have no clue who I've voted for, or what my stances are on most issues. I've traditionally voted Liberal. And I am happy to bring up Bush's faults and rip on him for things he as actually done.

 

Your accusations are without merit. For here on out, if you want to call me a Bush-fanboy, I will have a prepared laundry list reply citing every single time I've said something negative about Bush. And every time you call me an extremist, I'll have a laundry-list of extremist statements from you.

 

And every single time you call me a liar, I'll pull up a laundry list of lies you've made on this forum.

 

I don't know everything in the world. And I'm certainly not perfect. But I don't lie. Honesty is a big kicker with me, and in case you missed it, it's the biggest thing I debate. I would have no problem with the liberal's arguments with Bush, so long as they were somewhat honest. I would have no qualms with Moore if he were honest.

 

When Moore's lies were pointed out, you never proved them wrong. You merely stood behind his statements with no regard for honesty or semblence of facts. You've told me that you refuse to acknowledge any source unless it has proven to be objective.

 

You keep quoting FAIR, and they're far from objective. When all their stories say one thing, they're not objective. CNN has pro-US stories, and anti-US stories. How about you start using well-respected, objective sources yourself.

 

Again, hypocracy on your part. You called me a liar, and said I couldn't find five statements where you called Americans dumb. I more than met your challenge, and you then call me a liar again.

 

Any two-year old can see through the smoke-screen you attempted to put up. Read that post again and see how many times you call other people stupid, uneducated and retarded. If I see you pull that kind of bullying again, while yourself putting together childish arguments based upon smoke-and-mirrors instead of facts and logic, I will rip you apart time and time again. Just let me know when you want me to start exposing you.

 

I haven't really spent a whole lot of time and energy on it. But I type and read exceedingly fast. If I can type 150 messages in a day without breaking a sweat, you better believe I can assemble a manifesto on you. I just didn't consider you worth it.

 

Calling me a liar was a mistake I don't encourage you to repeat.

[mkreku]

You ARE a liar, that's a fact. I've repeatedly stated that I don't dislike americans or America as a nation, but I have serious doubts about the american school system and I hate american foreign politics/policies. Coincidentally you never found those quotes. Weird.

 

You, however, claim I often called all american dumb. That is a lie. In fact I've never done that. Simply because I don't believe it is the case. Do I think you're dumb? Yes. Do I think you're uneducated and ignorant? Yes. Does that rub off on the entire american population? No.

 

You're obviously so full of yourself that whenever I say something about you, you somehow think it is directed at the entire american population. And do you honestly think it matters if you, yourself, claim you're not a Bush fanboi? Unfortunately, those aren't decisions you make for yourself. If all we see is you defending Bush with denials and lies all day, and you still say you're not a fanboi, what are we to believe? It's like hearing Hitler saying he actually loves jews. Actions speak louder than words.

 

Ps. You include random personal attacks I've written? Do you remember that entire webpage you made and dedicated to me as a personal attack? Can you spell hypocrite?

[anari_quun]

Alright- I'm with you Ender, but both of you need to stop. Let's get back on track instead of slinging mud.

 

Does anybody really watch MM's movie and think it's all true? He does make you wonder about certain things (like the Bush family's ties with the Saudis), but it's just wondering, thinking. I hope people don't actually believe everything that is laid out.

 

People have a big problem with this movie, and I can see that, but I disagree with people having problems with it: Bush and his admin. hide so much information that the public is left to judge based on the info that they have available. If Bush were to fully explain his/his admin.'s actions and come up with rock solid justifications that were obviously in the interest of the American people and could also exonerate his actions with respect to big oil and contractors, I think MM's movie would be a slap in the face. Instead it's fighting fire with fire, lies with lies. It's essentially the only way to do it at this point; if there were a better way to get it across to the public, I'd be all for it.

[EnderAndrew]

Look, every administration has secrets.

 

That doesn't mean they are skeletons in the closet. Maybe it's national security. Maybe we don't really need to know.

 

What I do know, is that Bush is subjecting himself to 9/11 hearings, and he is going to go on the stand in the Prison Abuse Scandal trials. That's not a man trying to hide things.

 

And Mkreku, here's some English tips for you since it's your third language.

 

When you say "usual American", you are saying a trait is common to all Americans. So saying usual ignorant American means all Americans are ignorant.

 

Then you turn around and claim you never made such statements. Want me to quote you again?

 

If you weren't actually a bigot, then you might respond "Oh, when I said usual American, I wasn't thinking. I was upset, and making a judgement about you personally." Instead, you claim to have never made statements that I've clearly quoted you as making, several times.

 

Want to try again?

[Cantousent]

Actually secrets are a good thing. The government isn't allowed to keep state secrets. It is obliged to keep state secrets. Even the most hard-boiled Republican or Democrat must concede the fact that there are things the government must not make common knowledge to the citizens at large or other nations. The real point revolves around discerning the difference between a legitimate state secret and secrets kept for the sake of the current administration. Bill Clinton lying under oath concerning his sexual conduct was not a state secret. It was in no way related to policy, and so there is no doubt that he was obliged to tell the truth. Likewise, Nixon had no compelling reason to claim that he was misleading the public for the purposes of national security. The events at Watergate were not related to policy.

 

Policy decions and the obligation of the sitting administration to either make the facts known or keep them secret is another debate. Still, one thing should meet widespread agreement, it is that all governments must keep at the very least some secrets.

[oherror]

true, some secrets save lives and some secrets are ment to make sure there is no wide spread panic.

 

i.e. almost nuking each other "Russia - China - USA - some other country with nukes", or finding a dirty/nuke/chem/bio/whatever bomb in some city.

[mkreku]

Sure, I'll try again. How about I quote the same post as you, but without your editorial cutting and pasting?

 

You think you can tell anything about me from my posts? Well, let's see, in that case I can say you're the usual ignorant, uneducated american that's totally unaware of the world surrounding what you seem to think is the true center of the universe, America.

 

I bet I am about as right about you as you are about me.

I can understand that this one slipped right above your head, since you actually have to think about what I write here. See that last line? He was completely wrong about me in his previous post, which implies I am wrong about him in this post. I used a common prejudice about americans to insult the previous poster and then negated it (meaning I didn't believe that was the case) with that last line. I'm sure you won't understand it this time either. You keep on editing to your hearts desire, hate monger.

 

I've never claimed americans are "garbage". I've claimed that american foreign policies are garbage. I think american foreign politics are garbage. I think the american people is exactly the same human species as the rest of the world, worth neither more or less than anyone else.

Strange how you managed to miss this quote from the same post? Isn't it funny how you claim www.FAIR.org is editorial, yet you cut and paste and add your own opinions to my posts without hesitation? Actually, it isn't funny, it is pathetic. Still a liar and a hypocrite.

 

 

On topic: Could someone a little less right wing write a short review or just an opinion about the movie? It doesn't open in Sweden until august 27:th and I'm really curious about how it stands up as a movie. I know Michael Moore is an Oscar-winning documentarist and that Fahrenheit 9/11 was the winner of "Best Picture" at the Cannes 2004 Film Festival, but I'm still curious what the average Joe thinks about it..

(and if you can, please keep the "Moore is a liar" opinions to yourself, I am only interested in the movie itself)

['JN]

Though, for the record, wasn't it George Bush Sr. who trained and supplied Osama Bin Laden during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan? Not to mention overlooking massive human rights violations and proliferation of WMDs in Iraq during the 1980's because they were our 'ally' against Iran.

 

This is a moot point that is raised far too often. If I give someone a gun so that they can defend themselves, and later on down the road they use it to commit a murder, am I to be held responsible? We aid foreign governments and partisan groups when it is in our best interests to do so. This is what all governments do, and that's why it's impossible to know exactly who you can trust.

 

The 'Democrats caused 9/11 'cause they weren't tough on terror like Republicans' line will blow up in your face.

 

How were the hijackers so successful? They didn't secretly infiltrate our borders, they were given visas without any trouble. Under Clinton's reign, Bin Laden himself could have immigrated here without a problem. How do you think the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993? Why wasn't there an investigation into that?

 

The war in Iraq was a failure. Aside from the loss of one of countless tyrannical dictators in the world, we haven't accomplished anything. A lot of soldiers have died nonetheless, and I doubt anyone can tell their families that their deaths were justified. Not that it matters, since people are generally for or against the war no matter what, and will keep making up more arguments to support their case.

[Volourn]

The Iraq war wasn't a failure. it accomplished its mission - to remove Saddam from power. It was always about that simple little fact. Oil, WMD, humanitarian reasons, etc., etc., were alle xtras gone for the ride.

 

I, for one, don't think any war that successfully removes a tyrant of Saddam's stature from power and pushes a country on the road to democracy (which will always have bumps on the road) is a failure. Period.

['JN]

The Iraq war wasn't a failure. it accomplished its mission - to remove Saddam from power. It was always about that simple little fact. Oil, WMD, humanitarian reasons, etc., etc., were alle xtras gone for the ride.

 

I, for one, don't think any war that successfully removes a tyrant of Saddam's stature from power and pushes a country on the road to democracy (which will always have bumps on the road) is a failure. Period.

There are hundreds of petty dictators out there who we could remove from power, so why don't we? Saddam has been a punk for as long as anyone can remember, and to suggest that we were required to remove him now is just plain silly.

 

It's a good thing that Saddam is gone, but his displacement came at a great cost. The ends do not justify the means in this case, and the losses far outweigh the accomplishments.

[Volourn]

Because, common sense dictates you can't remove every dictator. just like you can't punish every criminal. That doesn't mean you shouldn't do soemthing when you can.

 

And, no, the accomplishments do outweigh the losses in the case. Short term instability in Iraq is better than the long term mass murder of Saddam Hussein's regime. Iraq is on a slow (yes painful) prcoess. It may fial ultimately; but that's doubtful and it's easily worth it. Also, in spite of how dissapointed Iraqis are in the way the US has handled certain things, overall they seemingly feel (I say seemingly 'cause as an outsider I'm not gonna pretend to know what the masses of Iraqis think) they are better off with Saddam. The world is also better off without Saddam.

 

Is it awful that nearly 1k Amerikan soldiers have died? Yes.

 

Untold Iraqis have died? Yes.

 

Everyone else who has sacrificed themsleves for the cause? Yes.

 

But cosneieirng that Hussein';s regime had slaughter 100s of tousands of Iraqs + basically terrorized most of the rest; it's a price that has to be cosndiered worth it by any real humanitarian. Or should the world have continued igoring the horrid state of Iraq? And, yes, the US and the rest of the Coalition are just as guilty as the rest are with doing that.

['JN]

Because, common sense dictates you can't remove every dictator. just like you can't punish every criminal. That doesn't mean you shouldn't do soemthing when you can.

 

The law dictates that we must punish every criminal. If we are to be global policemen, then we cannot pick and choose.

 

And, no, the accomplishments do outweigh the losses in the case. Short term instability in Iraq is better than the long term mass murder of Saddam Hussein's regime. Iraq is on a slow (yes painful) prcoess. It may fial ultimately; but that's doubtful and it's easily worth  it. Also, in spite of how dissapointed Iraqis are in the way the US has handled certain things, overall they seemingly  feel (I say seemingly 'cause as an outsider I'm not gonna pretend to know what the masses of Iraqis think) they are better off with Saddam. The world is also better off without Saddam.

 

Some Iraqis want Saddam freed, and the majority of them want America to leave. I do not blame them for the latter.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/20...oll-cover_x.htm

 

Whether or not our presence there is keeping them safer is irrelevant, because it isn't our country. You cannot move into someone else's house without their consent, even if you are trying to help them.

 

But cosneieirng that Hussein';s regime had slaughter 100s of tousands of Iraqs + basically terrorized most of the rest; it's a price that has to be cosndiered worth it by any real humanitarian. Or should the world have continued igoring the horrid state of Iraq? And, yes, the US and the rest of the Coalition are just as guilty as the rest are with doing that.

 

Really? The Hutus and Tutsis in Africa have been killing each other for decades. Millions of innocent people have died. Why haven't we intervened there? Ethnic cleansing is practiced in eastern Europe and various other places in the world. North Koreans are dying because of their corrupt and oppressive government. Women are treated like slaves all throughout the Middle East. These are just a few humanitarian issues in a world that is full of them.

 

Trying to solve these problems is a noble cause, but it's also a futile one. We are throwing away American lives trying to solve problems that are either hopeless or far more complex than we could have imagined.

[Volourn]

1. It's not rally about picking and choosing. As powerfula s the US is or people think it is; it is not powerful enough to take on every low end dicattor in the world. It's an impossible task. Heck, the troubles in both Iraq and Afghanistan illustrate this. You punish what criminals you can. Youa ren't so niave to think every commonc riminal is pursued heavily and ultimately brought to justice right? i'm sure you know of 'unsolved cases'/

 

2. From your own link: "The poll shows that most continue to say the hardships suffered to depose Saddam Hussein were worth it. Half say they and their families are better off than they were under Saddam. And a strong majority say they are more free to worship and to speak. "

 

Seems to me Iraqis, by and alrge, are better off without Saddam and acknowledge that. True, they want the Amerikans to leave. Guess what/ i don't blame them. Nobody likes armed people marching down the street poitning guns at them and barking orders. Of course, if you read closer much of the negative response towards the soldiers, most of it is from 2nd hand sources or media not persoanlly experienced (which is just 7%).

 

Bottom line here, is while the Iraqis aren't happy with the US they are glad Hussein is good. Mission accomplished.

 

 

3. Doing the right thing is never futile. I don't care if that makes me 'naive'. It be ncie if the US (and/or other countries) could sweep in and save the day in every troubled spot but we both know that's impossible. Doesn't mean we thow our hands in the air and surrender. I don't consider it throwing Amerikan lives away and I doubt most soldiers feel that way. It's a noble cause they are fighting for (despite the dark side of the BA); and that makes it worthwhile.

[EnderAndrew]

Since Mkreku insists that I am a liar and never includes sources, I'd like to pass along a few.

 

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/index.html

 

http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/index.html

[hungry]

speaking of suicide bombers (ill assume we still are - i didn't bother to check the last 10 pgs are so) - i would just like to announce that i find them as irritating in real life as they are in games. they are cheap and overpowered. why can't they fight like decent godfearing humans and use guns, grenades etc as god intended.

 

i remember when playing myth i used to prioritize the targetting of all selfexploding zombie critters (they may have been wights). terrorists should also walk in a shambling fashion and moan hideously to even things up.

[JohnDoe]

The Iraq war wasn't a failure. it accomplished its mission - to remove Saddam from power. It was always about that simple little fact. Oil, WMD, humanitarian reasons, etc., etc., were alle xtras gone for the ride.

Really? Because before the War the reason given by the President was to remove WMDs. It was only after no WMDs were found, and they realised none would be found, that they changed the theme of the war to "Liberation".

[Volourn]

Nonsense. before the war he gave a good dozen reasons why they shoiuld go to war with iraq. WMDs was *just* one reason. Couple of other examples were that Saddam was a threat, Saddam was a vicious dictator, he broke multiple UN soloutions, etc., etc. If anything, Bush gave too many reasons for war.

[JohnDoe]

Nonsense. before the war he gave a good dozen reasons why they shoiuld go to war with iraq. WMDs was *just* one reason. Couple of other examples were that Saddam was a threat, Saddam was a vicious dictator, he broke multiple UN soloutions, etc., etc. If anything, Bush gave too many reasons for war.

Right...

 

There was 1 issue pushed before the War, to justify it, and that was the WMDs. The other reasons were added after the war started. Every statement on Iraq was "We have to go invade them now! They can launch WMDS at us in 45 minutes! They have WMDs, we know it, the weapons inspectors are just stupid!".

 

Then afterwards, it became about "Freedom" and "Liberation" and whatever the Bush administration could come up with.

[Volourn]

Obviously you weren't paying attention.

[Phosphor]

Now Tony Blair is going on about how he's sure that Iraq has WMDs and they just haven't been found. So does that mean Iraq will have to be invaded again?