Chilcott inquiry is showing that the Iraq war was illegal

[rationalist]

In The UK the Chilcott inquiry is well on the way to demsonstrating that the attack on Iraq was unlawful.

On Friday, George Bush's ass-wipe, Tony Bliar, is going to get that smug smile wiped off his very punchable face when he is exposed for the war criminal that he is when he goes before the inquiry.

Come on America, do the same and put Bush in the box and make that cretin answer for the lies he told to justify attacking a country to steal its oil at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives.

 

[OldTrapper]

In The UK the Chilcott inquiry is well on the way to demsonstrating that the attack on Iraq was unlawful.

On Friday, George Bush's ass-wipe, Tony Bliar, is going to get that smug smile wiped off his very punchable face when he is exposed for the war criminal that he is when he goes before the inquiry.

Come on America, do the same and put Bush in the box and make that cretin answer for the lies he told to justify attacking a country to steal its oil at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives.

"Chilcot" has about as much credibility as you do. Look at their recent interrogation of Tony Blair. The only result they are interested in getting is one that indicts Bush for pre-planning the Iraq war. If it was a legitimate inquiry they would be going back to Clintons signing of the Iraqui Freedom Act which subscribed to "regime change" in Iraq.

If your irrational mind would allow for some truth for a change, you would have to ask what justification did Clinton have for planning an invasion of Iraq.

Of course, that would require several things you, and the left wing lack, such as integrity, and honor.

BTW, when are we going to get all that oil we supposedly wanted to steal?

 

[rationalist]

Oh sorry, Bush and Blair were right about WMD weren't they?

Silly me

 

[nobull]

That's the beauty of having no principles. You can make up whatever story you want, and not feel encumbered by facts, truth, consistency, hypocrisy, or any of a multitude of things that serve as impediments for the rest of us were we to make up a story out of whole cloth. They are limited only by the capacity of their imaginations.

regards
doug

 

[nobull]

I was never in favor of this war in the first place, as I have said countless times. The Iraqi people were never worth dying for, because they do not share our values. That's not even to say that our values are better; but the differences between them are irreconcilable, so why even bother. I couldn't have cared less if Saddam had stayed in power. We overthrew King George on our own, and they can overthrow Saddam on their own - or not, but that should have been up to them, and what they were willing to die for. So far, it's only us chomping at the bit to die for democracy, and that's not enough. Moreover, their democracy, if they ever achieve it, is going to look exactly like Iran's. Ahmadinejad was elected, and, soon, the Iraqis will have someone in power just like him. We would be far better off if we spent all that money rounding up the Muslims in this country and shipping them back to allah-land, since their only reason for being here is to turn this country into yet another Islamic theocracy. And don't bother trying to accuse the right-wing Christians of trying to do the same thing, because a) even American Christians would not let that happen, which is the second-biggest distinction between the Muslims and Christians, and b) no matter how much you might hate Christians, you really don't want an Islamic theocracy, trust me.

As for you, if your pal Bill Clinton had gone into Iraq, you would be praising him. Where were you when Clinton was carpet-bombing the Serbs? Your think that intervention was any more "moral" than what we're doing in Iraq? Of course it wasn't, but I don't remember any of you so-called "anti-war" liberals complaining about that. And the reason is that Clinton was bombing European Christians, and that's ok with you.

So, don't play games with me. You don't want peace. I want peace. You just want to cast your lot with the Muslims. Well, do us all a favor and go live in Saudi Arabia. That would raise the average IQ of both countries.

regards
doug

 

[Gipper]

I was never in favor of this war in the first place, as I have said countless times. The Iraqi people were never worth dying for, because they do not share our values. That's not even to say that our values are better; but the differences between them are irreconcilable, so why even bother. I couldn't have cared less if Saddam had stayed in power. We overthrew King George on our own, and they can overthrow Saddam on their own - or not, but that should have been up to them, and what they were willing to die for. So far, it's only us chomping at the bit to die for democracy, and that's not enough. Moreover, their democracy, if they ever achieve it, is going to look exactly like Iran's. Ahmadinejad was elected, and, soon, the Iraqis will have someone in power just like him. We would be far better off if we spent all that money rounding up the Muslims in this country and shipping them back to allah-land, since their only reason for being here is to turn this country into yet another Islamic theocracy. And don't bother trying to accuse the right-wing Christians of trying to do the same thing, because a) even American Christians would not let that happen, which is the second-biggest distinction between the Muslims and Christians, and b) no matter how much you might hate Christians, you really don't want an Islamic theocracy, trust me.

As for you, if your pal Bill Clinton had gone into Iraq, you would be praising him. Where were you when Clinton was carpet-bombing the Serbs? Your think that intervention was any more "moral" than what we're doing in Iraq? Of course it wasn't, but I don't remember any of you so-called "anti-war" liberals complaining about that. And the reason is that Clinton was bombing European Christians, and that's ok with you.

So, don't play games with me. You don't want peace. I want peace. You just want to cast your lot with the Muslims. Well, do us all a favor and go live in Saudi Arabia. That would raise the average IQ of both countries.

regards
doug

I agree with nearly all of that Doug.

I particularly agree with your comments on BJ Clinton bombing our allies the Serbs into oblivion. That was very unfortunate and one of the worst actions ever committed by an American president.

I would bet most liberals do not even know about the atrocities BJ committed on Serbia since their media outlets never informed them.

Few know the Serbs did all they could to help Jews during the reign of terror that was Nazi Germany. And, few know the Muslims sided with the Nazis and murdered thousands of Jews in horrific fashion during WWII (aka Waffen SS). Few know that the Serbs were defending themselves from Muslim attacks which trigger the wars in Yugo. Of course, they too committed atrocities.

 

[nobull]

Gipper...well said, as we both know..Facts do matter..

doug

 

[steveox]

The real Reason Bush invaded IRAQ is because Saddam tried to kill his daddy. It had nothing to do with WMDs cause there wernt any.

 

[nobull]

ration.....The fact is that a lot of people were convinced there were WMD in Iraq, not just Bush. Clinton believed it, Gore believed it, and Kerry believed it, among many others.

The only difference between Bush and all those other afore-mentioned clowns on the left is that Bush didn't turn around and lie about his original position on WMD the way Clinton, Gore and Kerry did. They have systematically lied about their position, and they have systematically lied about the whole "imminent threat" issue.

I still don't think we should have gone to Iraq, which has been my position from the beginning, but let's at least get the facts straight.

doug