|
Post by liberaljoe on Jul 21, 2010 1:50:55 GMT -5
FDR lied to get us into WW2 and LBJ lied to get us into Vietnam. Sometimes it has to be done. I was under the distinct impression that the Vietnam war was already in progress when LBJ assumed the throne. Surely it was Kennedy that started it? (And the demi-god never lied - that's written into your constitution I believe)
|
|
|
Post by liberaljoe on Jul 21, 2010 1:54:12 GMT -5
That's the small price they've had to pay for not getting rid of Saddam themselves. Estimated 100, 000 killed. Ah the delights of a democracy imposing freedom on lesser nations!
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jul 21, 2010 2:54:00 GMT -5
lying is not ilegal..ehh i cannot see where your comming from at all on this....and its the uk we are talking about not just England...to lie its self is not ilegal but is a crime when the liar happens to be the prime minister and it causes deaths and war...and a pm could lose hos job for lying..some things do not need to be writen down...to be a crime its not just my anger..its far more widespread..and the law cannot do much without proof if you think its only lefties..that is your lack of knowledge..it crosses the political spectrum........your way out of touch
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jul 21, 2010 2:59:45 GMT -5
lying to parliament ...is the most important OK, what British law prohibits lying to members of Parliament. Again, which law did he break? Furthermore, how many prime ministers have NOT broken it, if such a law exists? falsyfying evidence or getting some one else to do it What "evidence" did he "falsify?" And which law did he break in "falsifying" it? I see no evidence anywhere Mr. Blair is even under suspicion, or the subject of a criminal investigation. Your moral indignation is evident, but your grounds to put him in prison are not. i doubt there is a law against lying to parliment..although there could well be... but if proved would crertainly not bode well for the liar as for evidence falsyfied...again proof..BUT the 45 mins was certainly false and did him no end of harm...just as WMD discredited him across the country...why else do you think he became such a figure of contempt and fun and why else did dr kelly die..suposed suicide....with every thing pointing to murder
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jul 21, 2010 3:17:09 GMT -5
how were you lied to over ww2..germany declared war on the US and the japs pounded pearl harbour...so what lie had you in mind i neither know or care about vietnam but i thought it was before lbj and why exactly did america need to do the irakis the favour of getting rid of saddam making irakis pay the price of not getting rid of him in fact had the americans under george bush senior listened to margaret thatcher saddam would have been gone first time round...[she and the british urged taking bagdad,,but george senior and co thought it unnecessary[just how wrong was that..it was some thing not understood over here] and GW2 would have been totally unnecessary..the arabs would have been happy and GW2 need never have happened and whether soldiers are young or old..many of them and irakis have died unnecessarily in a war that was in its self unnecessary as for shock and awe...i and others kept waiting for it to happen and it didnt..what happened was neither shocking nor awesome..rumsfelt over egged the pudding..the whole GW2 was a tissue of mistruths and a money making excersise for haliburton and others which made the world less safe and benefited no one but the big enterprises and weapons makers
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jul 21, 2010 3:20:47 GMT -5
That's the small price they've had to pay for not getting rid of Saddam themselves. Estimated 100, 000 killed. Ah the delights of a democracy imposing freedom on lesser nations! what democracy..bit like afghanistan..why oh why does america keep staring what it cannot finnish...and why does it expect others to help clean up the mess...luckily the poodle is gone and i cannot see any other poodles on the horizen what is democratic about suitcases filled with dollars.....mmmmmmm
|
|
|
Post by beth on Jul 21, 2010 9:38:19 GMT -5
Joseph, I don't think it's the same as Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, etc.. The reasons in those cases seem to me to have been more serious and more honorable.
The mythical "war on terror" was just a media catch phrase. Terror is an intangible. They needed a PR controlled response to 9/11 and they chose a country that would sell to the American people and that they could use to line their pockets at the same time. Bush and Cheney should probably have been prosecuted for war crimes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2010 9:37:26 GMT -5
how were you lied to over ww2..germany declared war on the US and the japs pounded pearl harbour...so what lie had you in mind FDR campaigned in 1940 promising not to involve the United States in World War 2. He was laying through his teeth. He had already been secretly shipping war materiel to the UK. Had he NOT done so, and kept his promise to American voters, the Germans would have had no beef with the United States. It is arguable, as well, that the Japanese would not have attacked Pearl Harbor had we peaceful relations with Nazi Germany. i neither know or care about vietnam but i thought it was before lbj Prior to the Tonkin Resolution we were not at war in Vietnam. and why exactly did america need to do the irakis the favour of getting rid of saddam making irakis pay the price of not getting rid of him At the time he was considered to be a threat to the United States. He would not have been had the Iraqi people overthrown him. in fact had the americans under george bush senior listened to margaret thatcher saddam would have been gone first time round...[she and the british urged taking bagdad,,but george senior and co thought it unnecessary [just how wrong was that..it was some thing not understood over here] GHWB was a diplomat and CIA chief before becoming president of the U.S. It was not in the self-interest of the United States, at the time, to destabilize Iraq. He just wanted Saddam out of Kuwait. many of them and irakis have died unnecessarily in a war that was in its self unnecessary as for shock and awe...i and others kept waiting for it to happen and it didnt..what happened was neither shocking nor awesome..rumsfelt over egged the pudding..the whole GW2 was a tissue of mistruths and a money making excersise for haliburton and others which made the world less safe and benefited no one but the big enterprises and weapons makers The typical pacifist rant. The biggest mistake GWB made was assuming that Iraqis want to be free, the way Americans want to be free. If he had instead surmised, as do most of the left, that the Iraqis are mostly a bunch of pedophile-worshiping towelheads culturally stuck in the 10th century, he would not have attempted any kind of nation-building over there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2010 9:58:16 GMT -5
lying is not ilegal..ehh i cannot see where your comming from at all on this I doubt the typical English voter thinks any more critically than the average American voter. For all the high dudgeon over "lying" in politics, whether it's English or American politics, the voters wouldn't know the truth if it bit them on the #ss (ok, arse). The voters want palliatives, not the truth. Chief executives will stop pandering to the naïve, unthinking voter when the pandering no longer works. to lie its self is not ilegal but is a crime when the liar happens to be the prime minister and it causes deaths and war...and a pm could lose hos job for lying..some things do not need to be written down...to be a crime Well no, it's not a crime if it's not against the law. If you want justice for the imagined victims of Tony Blair, if you feel he deserves to go to prison, you have to prosecute the man on something, whether he's in or out of office. Perhaps you should concede that you have nothing on him, other than your sense of moral superiority, which, combined with a Euro, won't buy you a cup of tea. Perhaps what bothers you the most is Mr. Blair having the last laugh, as he certainly does. Really? Tony Blair was your prime minister for 10 years. If he was so bad, why'd you reelect him TWICE?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2010 10:00:04 GMT -5
Estimated 100, 000 killed. Ah the delights of a democracy imposing freedom on lesser nations! Life is cheap to Muslims. 100,000 is nothing to them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2010 10:53:10 GMT -5
I don't think it's the same as Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, etc.. The reasons in those cases seem to me to have been more serious and more honorable. That depends on your point of view. Andrew Jackson's prosecution of his war against Indians is not seen by many as honorable. Neither was our war against Spain. Whether or not a war is "honorable" doesn't matter much, in terms of national interest. We avoid entering honorable wars (e.g. to save the Rwandans or Cambodians) and enter into dishonorable ones, depending on what is considered good geopolitically for the United States. The mythical "war on terror" was just a media catch phrase. The "media" didn't invent it. GWB did. Tell that to the people of New York. They needed a PR controlled response to 9/11 and they chose a country that would sell to the American people and that they could use to line their pockets at the same time. That profits accrue from war is not a bad thing. Charitable institutions do not build mighty military machines. We have the best military in the world because profitable companies know what they're doing. Bush and Cheney should probably have been prosecuted for war crimes. There's no such thing as a war crime, which is why they weren't, and never will be, prosecuted.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jul 21, 2010 10:55:55 GMT -5
FDR lied to get us into WW2 and LBJ lied to get us into Vietnam. Sometimes it has to be done. I was under the distinct impression that the Vietnam war was already in progress when LBJ assumed the throne. Surely it was Kennedy that started it? (And the demi-god never lied - that's written into your constitution I believe) you are incorrect. in the first place, NO ONE started the viet nam war. it had been going on for 1500 years. the only thing that changed was the chaps who got their azzes kicked. when the french turned tail after demben pheu in 1953, it was dwight who sent in american advisors. there were only something like 54 or so at that time, but, obviously, the number increased over time, until, dick had half a million troops in vietnam, laos and cambodia
|
|
|
Post by liberaljoe on Jul 21, 2010 14:03:26 GMT -5
Estimated 100, 000 killed. Ah the delights of a democracy imposing freedom on lesser nations! Life is cheap to Muslims. 100,000 is nothing to them. Hmmm... I wonder if there is any prejudice here?
|
|
|
Post by liberaljoe on Jul 21, 2010 14:05:31 GMT -5
I was under the distinct impression that the Vietnam war was already in progress when LBJ assumed the throne. Surely it was Kennedy that started it? (And the demi-god never lied - that's written into your constitution I believe) you are incorrect. in the first place, NO ONE started the viet nam war. it had been going on for 1500 years. the only thing that changed was the chaps who got their azzes kicked. when the french turned tail after demben pheu in 1953, it was dwight who sent in american advisors. there were only something like 54 or so at that time, but, obviously, the number increased over time, until, dick had half a million troops in vietnam, laos and cambodia I feel sure that you are right But wasn't it JFK that started the heavy US involvement?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2010 15:32:47 GMT -5
I wonder if there is any prejudice here? What, in saying life is cheap to Muslims? It's simply a statement of fact.
|
|