so, it's official now

[RickSp]

Quote by: Dieval What was the name we gave to the whole Iraqi war again? Hmmmm.....wasn't it.....Operation....Iraqi.....what? I can't seem to remember that last word...do you? It sure wasn't anything to indicate liberation, was it? :rolleyes:

And unless you are completely blind, it still has effectively nothing to do with "liberation," unless you are referring to the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians "liberated" with American weapons and high explosives. Iraqi Freedom? Freedom like Fallujah? Freedom for the carrion dogs? The freedom of the grave.

And just look at the freedom it has brought us. Free from habeus corpus. The Constitution under daily assault. Legalized torture. And our very own American Gulag. Rally round the flag boys. Rally round the flag.

[bishop]

man.. they always attach these dumbassed, propagandized, names to these missions. operation "leave no child behind". operation, "patriot act". gotta have a catchy ring to it. certainly you can't call it operation "conquer iraq".

[RickSp]

Quote by: bishop how long do you think it'll take before the apologists acknowledge that the whole "they moved them to syria" line was just another lie they swallowed?

As long as they can get away with it. Just look how long Cheney kept making veiled references to nukes and AlQueda ties to Saddam. They run the lies ragged till they find new and better ones to sell.

[Dieval]

Quote by: RickSp And unless you are completely blind, it still has effectively nothing to do with "liberation," unless you are referring to the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians "liberated" with American weapons and high explosives. Iraqi Freedom? Freedom like Fallujah? Freedom for the carrion dogs? The freedom of the grave. And just look at the freedom it has brought us. Free from habeus corpus. The Constitution under daily assault. Legalized torture. And our very own American Gulag. Rally round the flag boys. Rally round the flag.

The last I checked, the amount over liberated people, 24+ million, is still far greater than the amount that have died. That's not to say that ~10k is not a significant number, but we have done everything in our power to limit the amount of civilian casualties.

[Scribbler1]

But you are assuming ALL 24+ Million WANTED "liberation". A lot of Iraqis had it pretty good under Saddam and the city dwellers didn't need to do much except smile and say Ÿay, saddam"once in a while.
And we didn't worry too much about liberating the poor unfortunates a decade prior either.

[Dieval]

Quote by: Scribbler1 But you are assuming ALL 24+ Million WANTED "liberation". A lot of Iraqis had it pretty good under Saddam and the city dwellers didn't need to do much except smile and say Ÿay, saddam"once in a while. And we didn't worry too much about liberating the poor unfortunates a decade prior either.

Last I heard, 80% wanted elections, so that would translate to about ~19.2 million...

[RickSp]

Quote by: Dieval The last I checked, the amount over liberated people, 24+ million, is still far greater than the amount that have died. That's not to say that ~10k is not a significant number, but we have done everything in our power to limit the amount of civilian casualties.

Liberated you say? You consider them liberated. They consider themselves occupied by a foreign infidel. If you believe the polls commissioned by the US occupation authority 80% of Iraqis do not view us as "liberators". In Sunni and Shi'ite areas 90% and 93% consider us "occupiers" respectively.

Of course, these polls were taken last spring when things were going much better than they are now, so the Iraqi view might even be less rosy. The polls were taken prior to the destruction of Fallujah, or the news of the torture at AbuGhraib, or the collapse of gasoline supplies or the continued non-stop violence in both Sunni and Shi'ite cities. Wonder how many feel "liberated" now.

If a majority of the Iraqis want to vote, it may be in hopes of gaining some bit of power to eject the brutal US occupation.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: bishop like i said, i can't understand how someone could accept that the government lied its way to get a war. that's as perverse as it gets imo, and the epitomy of apathy.

You seem to indicate my alleged "political apathy". If that assumption is correct, then you are mistaken.
There are some "rules" (political mutual agreements) that it is no so easy to overcome, even if there is "the right man on the right place". Money is the key.

P.S.
Is there a forum - within "Volcanvo" - we can exhange some thoughts on politics ?
I do not mean "slogans" but something called politics.
Open up a thread, and I will join for sure.

[bishop]

If that assumption is correct, then you are mistaken.

that's an oxymoron.

if you wish to start up some new thread on whatever is in your head (which i'm unable to discern from your incoherent post), then do it. i'm here asking how a voting american can have absolutely no problem with a politician lying to the public and world in order to get his war agenda accomplished. if lying like that is acceptable, then everything else is fair game. it is particularly despicable when american lives are on the line because of those lies. if you really don't have a problem with being lied to, then i have serious reservations about your intelligence.

i realize that salesmen will tell you what you want to hear, and then dick you in the ass with hidden costs. so, i'm wary of salesmen when i encounter them because i don't want that dick in my ass. when a politician does it, the stakes are so much higher.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: bishop i'm here asking how a voting american can have absolutely no problem with a politician lying to the public and world in order to get his war agenda accomplished. if lying like that is acceptable, then everything else is fair game. it is particularly despicable when american lives are on the line because of those lies. if you really don't have a problem with being lied to, then i have serious reservations about your intelligence.

#1
Forget a thread I mentioned.
#2
I am not interested in "how and what a voting American" thinks. Everybody has its own way and concept of living and heads up that way. Since a "voting American" has rights, privileges, ect. to follow its own view(s), then that is an "voting American"s business and choice.

There are people who lie, and there are people who accept and/or tolerate lies.
The choice belongs to both sides.
Morals, Ethics and Polictics. An un-real "triangle". Such composition does not exist in real world.

[Dieval]

Quote by: RickSp Liberated you say? You consider them liberated. They consider themselves occupied by a foreign infidel. If you believe the polls commissioned by the US occupation authority 80% of Iraqis do not view us as "liberators". In Sunni and Shi'ite areas 90% and 93% consider us "occupiers" respectively.

They were both liberated(from Saddam) and occupied by us...it's not a perfect situation, but it will get better once they elect their own government, are trained to a point where they can protect themselves and don't rely on us so much. There will always be insurgents/terrorists who don't like us (funny thing about that, it seems Iran is financing quite a bit of the terror attacks - Saddam henchman: Iran funding resistance )

[bishop]

#1 Forget a thread I mentioned. #2 I am not interested in "how and what a voting American" thinks. Everybody has its own way and concept of living and heads up that way. Since a "voting American" has rights, privileges, ect. to follow its own view(s), then that is an "voting American"s business and choice. There are people who lie, and there are people who accept and/or tolerate lies. The choice belongs to both sides. Morals, Ethics and Polictics. An un-real "triangle". Such composition does not exist in real world.

#j. if i could understand what you're babbling, i could offer a better response. since you like it when the government lies to you, hopefully you'll be on the receiving end of a lie in the near future - just to get a good taste of reality. maybe then you'll kill this idiotic posture where you can accept any lie, no matter how big.

#Ç. no duh politicians lie. as if that was some secret that nobody knew about. i have never seen someone so callous to accept the fact that a politician would lie his way in order to start a war. (funny how in previous threads, you always argued in support of the administration's wmd claims - oh how you endlessly contradict yourself in babble.)

#~. i think this whole "lies don't bother me" posture is b.s.. you've argued much in favor of bush's claims in the past, and now you've adopted this wannabe intellectual stance because you've run out of legs to stand on. i don't buy it.

[bishop]

Quote by: Dieval They were both liberated(from Saddam) and occupied by us...it's not a perfect situation, but it will get better once they elect their own government, are trained to a point where they can protect themselves and don't rely on us so much. There will always be insurgents/terrorists who don't like us (funny thing about that, it seems Iran is financing quite a bit of the terror attacks - Saddam henchman: Iran funding resistance )

it's pretty great how the lives of OUR troops are dependent on whether or not the iraqis become competent enough to take care of themselves. talk about human shields. bush is literally sacrificing our soldiers, and the country's finances, for this pipe dream in iraq. it's like - i can't take a good, solid dump unless you take one first. except, with iraq, it's serious.

why wouldn't iran be financing the insurrectionists? weren't they callously listed as a member of the axis of evil? didn't the country that just called them that invade two neighboring countries? if i was running iran, i'd be funding them too.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: bishop #j. if i could understand what you're babbling, i could offer a better response. since you like it when the government lies to you, hopefully you'll be on the receiving end of a lie in the near future - just to get a good taste of reality. maybe then you'll kill this idiotic posture where you can accept any lie, no matter how big. #Ç. no duh politicians lie. as if that was some secret that nobody knew about. i have never seen someone so callous to accept the fact that a politician would lie his way in order to start a war. (funny how in previous threads, you always argued in support of the administration's wmd claims - oh how you endlessly contradict yourself in babble.) #~. i think this whole "lies don't bother me" posture is b.s.. you've argued much in favor of bush's claims in the past, and now you've adopted this wannabe intellectual stance because you've run out of legs to stand on. i don't buy it.

Off Topic

So, we reached the point I have been waiting for.

I have never written or said that I support all the U.S. government's decisions. That is your assumption based on your conclusions. Your determinations are wrong, and falsly reflect my posts and replies submitted within "Volacnvo" forum in that matter.

I have never written or said that I accept lies. Read the paragraph above, to complete the expression.

There is no contradiction in my statements, but lack of thinking you seem to present. Try to analyze the information first, prior submiting an answer. That is not my intention to "lecture" you on anything - and I believe that we should have gone trough that process prior coming to public forums in order to debate subjects - especially since you are well familiar with political issues (as you seem to claim, within your posts and replies).
Reading your posts and replies, it indicates otherwise.

Get it once and for all :
- Politics is all about money
- Morality and Ethics within political menu can be found on its last pages

P.S.
You are politically an immature respondent.
Personality should have not been a subject for political issues, ever. One can proceed with it, but with a very close and well familiar people, while keeping it off the public view.
That is why whether I speak in "this" or "that" form should have not been a subject for a debate, but the information itself and only.

[bishop]

heh... simplify your prose and get a grammar book, it's too incoherent to understand.

you say:

I have never written or said that I accept lies.

could've fooled me since you said this one earlier:

There are people who lie, and there are people who accept and/or tolerate lies. The choice belongs to both sides.

so which one is it? from all your enlightening posts about how politicians lie, it reads as if you were suggesting that it should be something that we should tolerate and accept. you were the one who made these statements, and nobody else, so i am debating what YOU have said. nobody else has so openly stated that they tolerate lies like you have.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Dieval There will always be insurgents/terrorists who don't like us (funny thing about that, it seems Iran is financing quite a bit of the terror attacks - Saddam henchman: Iran funding resistance )

Ahem, it appears that the neo-cons all got the menu about blaming Iran for everything possible. Got to start justifying the next war early and often. Of course the folks at WorldNetDaily do not in my view consitute journalists so much as over the top born-again polemicists anyway. I note that their banner lead is "The role of Iraq, Israel, USA in Bible prophecy". Well, Glory Gee to Besus.

I might believe that Iran is supporting the miltias in the Shi'ite south but find it a bit difficult to believe that Sunni jihadists are being funded by Iran. Support for Baathists, who make up most of the "Army of Muhammed" cited in the article, seems even less likely. Guess all Muslims look alike to the born-agains.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: bishop heh... simplify your prose and get a grammar book, it's too incoherent to understand. so which one is it? from all your enlightening posts about how politicians lie, it reads as if you were suggesting that it should be something that we should tolerate and accept. you were the one who made these statements, and nobody else, so i am debating what YOU have said. nobody else has so openly stated that they tolerate lies like you have.

#1
That is none of my business to figure out what you may or may not understand within my posts or replies. The text you submitted rather speaks for yourself, instead.
#2
I am not interested what people may think, since people can excersize and manifest their own views, opinions, ect.
Are you suggesting that all the people should follow your point of view ?
Should I publically make a confession what I did in my life or did not ? in order to satisfy you and alike ?
It is never going to be happened. My life's events are fully accessable to my family and only.

Asnwering to your submitted determination(s) :
- can you read and analyze the information ?
What is so hard for you to understand that there are people who "lie" and there are people who "accept and/or tolerate" it ?
Does it indicate that I accept and/or tolerate lies ?

If you have problems with understanding the information, then I am not that person who can help you, definitely. My faculty covered a completely different subject. Sorry.

[bishop]

what's your opinion?
you just state the obvious.
haiku style for you.

:)

[Rainbow]

Quote by: bishop what's your opinion?

Politicans are obligated by the People to respect, obey and follow their requests and demands. The reality not always reflects that process.

That is why, the People - using all available and applicable means - should make pressure on a political representative, him/her to comply with the People's demands, requests, ect.

Do the politicians lie ?
You bet (they do) :-)))
You can not expect me to order politicians to say "the truth and nothing but the truth".
What am I to do, in order a politician to tell "the truth" ?

However, there are some political subjects that for the state's political and security reasons can never be said publically. It is not about that any "secret informations", but :
- intelligence sources and informations provided to a state by those sources
This is the way politicians try to gain adventage over their counterpartners. It concerns not only pure political subjects. It may be used for business, economy, trades, ect.
That is the way for getting "lucrative" contracts, agreements, treaties, ect. between countries. That is the way a system functions, progresses, prospers, ect.
That is the way this world is all about : money.

Every state cares its intelligence sources, which are vital factors to a state's existance and safety. Those sources can not be underminded at any costs.

For a common average person and its tasks ahead in a common yet another day, it must be frustrating, especially since we all value positives (I think we should try to, at least) over negatives.
Politics is not about any Morality or Ethics. It is all about taking an adventage over others, while money is the "priority" and every way is a "good way" to accomplish that task.
The other side tries the same.

[bishop]

politics isn't always about money as you assert. money is certainly a common theme, but not the sole factor. just wars don't revolve around money, only unjust wars do. we didn't nuke japan, for instance, because of monetary concerns. your analysis is far too weak for me to take seriously. what it is, however, is an apologist's (pitiful) attempt to justify lying to the public in order to start a war.