Cheney Admits that He Lied about 9/11

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

Not that clear to you perhaps but very very clear to others.

omg, Saddam executed 50 Shias during the Iran-Iraq war, yet thousands of Shias fought faitfully in the Iraqi armed forces. You did not see the mass desertions of 2003.How many Sunnis or Kurds did he execute? You really have to do better than a wiki snippet.

However Tribesman, Stealhead and all the other prophets, I defy you to find a pre-2003 article that predicts a full scale civil war. It should be easy since it was so obvious to everyone.

btw, why did'nt South Africa erupt in civil war after majority rule was
established. Were the Blacks less oppresed that the Shias of Iraq?

However Tribesman, Stealhead and all the other prophets, I defy you to find a pre-2003 article that predicts a full scale civil war. It should be easy since it was so obvious to everyone.

So you wouldn't be interested in the obvious pieces doing the rounds in 2002 at the time when little Bush did his war resolution on 16th October that year?
Poor young George said those people were living in denial and fear.

I suppose the Saudis and Turks warning of the same thing in March 2002 would be news to you too.

How about a nice open letter from Sept 2002 in a newspaper signed by 100 Iraqi exiles opposed to Saddam warning that the proposed US approach will unleash civil war and regional destabilisation?

Is there any shortage of pre 2003 news articles warning of the obvious?

omg, Saddam executed 50 Shias during the Iran-Iraq war,

Are you familiar with the name Al-Sadr?

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So you wouldn't be interested in the obvious pieces doing the rounds in 2002 at the time when little Bush did his war resolution on 16th October that year?
Poor young George said those people were living in denial and fear.

I suppose the Saudis and Turks warning of the same thing in March 2002 would be news to you too.

links? How can I discredit them if you dont post a link.

links? How can I discredit them if you dont post a link.

Ah, I expect you to do your own research, go to newspaper website and dial up "Iraq war" articles from 2002.

BTW did the name al-sadr make you rethink your OMG comment?

[August]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

links? How can I discredit them if you dont post a link.

He doesn't have anything.

He doesn't have anything.

Says the man repeating pre war lies that have been exposed as lies for a decade now.

Any luck yet Bilge?
Have you found a piece from 4th Oct 2002 giving the 3 most repeated reasons for opposing the war?
#2 is shia/sunni/kurd civil war

[Bilge_Rat]

still waiting for a link.

the ball is in your court, should be easy if it was so obvious.

[Sailor Steve]

That's the way it's done. You make a claim, you post a link. If somebody asks for a link, you provide it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/search?q=I...te=date%2F2002

Take your pick, no shortage of them fitting the bill.

Different sources.
Assad in the Times 13/12/2002
Indias FM on the BBC 28/11/2002.
British MP house of commons 20/11/2002
King Abdulah of Jordan Times and W.post 29/6/2002

Damn this is easy

[Jimbuna]

Same old, same old....why can't people just get along

Same old, same old....why can't people just get along

People are people


But as Bilge rat had raised another question perhaps it is time it got a simple answer as his latest example really makes the point in a way that is crystal clear.
Why did S.Africa not erupt into civil war when the regime changed?
Because it was a long drawn out negotiated settlement which led to a peaceful transition of government that created no power vaccuum for the nuts to fill at will, and contained a legal mechanism for the adjudication of past wrongs.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Different sources.
Assad in the Times 13/12/2002
Indias FM on the BBC 28/11/2002.
British MP house of commons 20/11/2002
King Abdulah of Jordan Times and W.post 29/6/2002

Damn this is easy

again I dont see why it is so difficult to provode a quote and a link. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and tried to find these links on my own. As far as I can see, none discuss the possibility of a Shia-Sunni civil war.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

But as Bilge rat had raised another question perhaps it is time it got a simple answer as his latest example really makes the point in a way that is crystal clear.
Why did S.Africa not erupt into civil war when the regime changed?
Because it was a long drawn out negotiated settlement which led to a peaceful transition of government that created no power vaccuum for the nuts to fill at will, and contained a legal mechanism for the adjudication of past wrongs.

hmmm, let's see...

Iraq: Shias and Sunnis share the same race, language, culture, religion, live in the same neighborhhoods and intermarry regularly. Under the US-UK plan which had already been partly implemented by july 2004, Shias would have a majority in the parliament and control the government. Yet both sides felt compelled to engage in a prolonged period of ethnic cleansing.

South Africa: Blacks and whites do not share the same race, culture, live in different neighborhoods, do not intermarry regularly. Blacks took complete control of a government, army, police, courts which had been dominated by whites. Yet on the whole, the transition to black majority rule has been peaceful.

yes, I guess it should be obvious to everyone why one erupted into a civil war and the other one did not.