I would have to say the way this war was sold does bother me. If I was a betting man I would have to believe this war was "really" done for several reasons that will not be admited to from the admin. Namely the oil, oil, oil, and doing some work on behalf of Israel by removing a dictator who sent money to Palestinian bomber families. It could be argued that this step taken by Saddam was terrorist supportive. Terrorism realized in (Israel)
The wider question of course is the legality of the US to invade another country when no offense has been encountered from said country. Who has such authority and why? This must be well understood by all nations.
Is it simply "ok" for the US to take actions as it has because the US is "big" and "powerful" ? I not for one second believe Saddam was a nice guy or did good things for this world, but again this was about the motives for the war as sold to the american and world public by the Bush admin.
The spread of Democracy is another component to this situation in Iraq and the wider region. It seems to be a well understood directive to spread democracy in the ME and Iraq was one part in this "goal".
The question again in my mind is: If this is the goal and one that is worthy why is such an end being sold by way of lies? Why is "Democracy" being installed by force? Is it because the US can do such things because of power and position?
The use of the word "Freedom"
Iraqi Freedom is something we hear a lot. We too hear how "terrorists" want to rob us of our freedom. And some say the troops in Iraq are fighting for "freedom" of Iraqis and Americans. Is this word being over used? I must say it is being abused in a big way from my vantage point. Take Iraqi Freedom as we have come to become familiar with, who is against "Freedom" in this world? (Nobody) Those who manipulate words and perceptions to sell a war by playing with words such as "freedom" really concern me. Is the leadership of the US acting with integrity when spin and manipulation is used to sell a war?
I have a lot of questions and concerns about how this war was "sold" and "why" exactly it has taken place.
Just answer my question. Why should belive people, without question, that lied before, in the exact same way?
Once again feel free to supply a workable alternative.
In the courts he would be convicted ( if he wasn't the president ) as there is enough leaning in the direction of dishonesty here. And virtually no evidence to the contrary.
Once again feel free to supply a workable alternative.
Maybe the people who lied before, in the exact same way, are doing it again? Wild idea I know!
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
In the courts he would be convicted ( if he wasn't the president ) as there is enough leaning in the direction of dishonesty here. And virtually no evidence to the contrary.
That's your fantasy. Being wrong is not the same as being dishonest.
If you guys would pull your heads out of your asses you'd see that this article justifies just about everything the administration has said and done regarding Iraq.
I think I know where you're going with this. But I'd like to hear it.
The ONLY thing they had was the Missle program... which the UN destroyed right before the war.
Yeah sure they were planning bigger missles... but they had no way to build them. I can plan a levitating car too... doesn't mean it's ever going to happen.
There's difference between what the intelligence agencies thought... and what was actually happening.
There are no stockpiles. No weapons grade anything.
No mobile labs. The inspections actually worked. Hence the 1000 inspectors in Iraq now that have found what???? NADDA. ZIP. ZILCH.
OK, first prize goes to CNN for reporting on the CEIP report in basically a normal and open way.
I'm not sure what to make of MSNBC's article. It starts with a powell statement, first saying no link between al-qaeda and Iraq, followed by a short defense against the report, and then a mid-length summary.
What's even more interesting is the headline:
Quote:
Powell: No proof links Saddam, al-Qaida
Think tank criticizes administration?s assessments of Iraq
Huh? Now that is just odd. Why mash them together under a headline that makes no mention of the report? The bold is all you see on the link to the article. Really odd.
As of this post, ABC, CBS and FOX have ignored it.
I have only skimmed the report. All I'm doing here is commenting on the wierd ways news outlets report things.
Iraq didn't pose immediate threat to U.S., report concludes
By Drew Brown
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - Iraqi weapons programs threatened regional and global security in the long run, but they weren't an immediate danger to the United States - a key reason the Bush administration gave for going to war, says a report being released Thursday.
The report also found no conclusive evidence to support administration claims that Saddam Hussein was cooperating with al-Qaida or would have transferred chemical, biological or nuclear weapons to the terrorist group, another major justification for the war.
The 61-page study by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a nonpartisan research institution, faults the intelligence community for failing to make an accurate assessment of the status of Saddam's illicit weapons and missile programs.
It criticizes President Bush and top officials for "systematically" misrepresenting the threats posed by those programs, even beyond the evidence presented by faulty intelligence analyses.
Iraq didn't pose immediate threat to U.S., report concludes
By Drew Brown
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - Iraqi weapons programs threatened regional and global security in the long run, but they weren't an immediate danger to the United States - a key reason the Bush administration gave for going to war, says a report being released Thursday.
The report also found no conclusive evidence to support administration claims that Saddam Hussein was cooperating with al-Qaida or would have transferred chemical, biological or nuclear weapons to the terrorist group, another major justification for the war.
The 61-page study by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a nonpartisan research institution, faults the intelligence community for failing to make an accurate assessment of the status of Saddam's illicit weapons and missile programs.
It criticizes President Bush and top officials for "systematically" misrepresenting the threats posed by those programs, even beyond the evidence presented by faulty intelligence analyses.
Okay I get it now. All the justifications that Bush never made to go to war are now the justifications that Bush made to go to war. Also the war came down to just one of the justifications that Bush made. All others are irrelevant. Neolibs win
Comments
Originally posted by Scott
So what you are saying is that he people who lied before are now the only ones telling the truth. Right?
Support
your
claims.
I would have to say the way this war was sold does bother me. If I was a betting man I would have to believe this war was "really" done for several reasons that will not be admited to from the admin. Namely the oil, oil, oil, and doing some work on behalf of Israel by removing a dictator who sent money to Palestinian bomber families. It could be argued that this step taken by Saddam was terrorist supportive. Terrorism realized in (Israel)
The wider question of course is the legality of the US to invade another country when no offense has been encountered from said country. Who has such authority and why? This must be well understood by all nations.
Is it simply "ok" for the US to take actions as it has because the US is "big" and "powerful" ? I not for one second believe Saddam was a nice guy or did good things for this world, but again this was about the motives for the war as sold to the american and world public by the Bush admin.
The spread of Democracy is another component to this situation in Iraq and the wider region. It seems to be a well understood directive to spread democracy in the ME and Iraq was one part in this "goal".
The question again in my mind is: If this is the goal and one that is worthy why is such an end being sold by way of lies? Why is "Democracy" being installed by force? Is it because the US can do such things because of power and position?
The use of the word "Freedom"
Iraqi Freedom is something we hear a lot. We too hear how "terrorists" want to rob us of our freedom. And some say the troops in Iraq are fighting for "freedom" of Iraqis and Americans. Is this word being over used? I must say it is being abused in a big way from my vantage point. Take Iraqi Freedom as we have come to become familiar with, who is against "Freedom" in this world? (Nobody) Those who manipulate words and perceptions to sell a war by playing with words such as "freedom" really concern me. Is the leadership of the US acting with integrity when spin and manipulation is used to sell a war?
I have a lot of questions and concerns about how this war was "sold" and "why" exactly it has taken place.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
I have a lot of questions and concerns about how this war was "sold" and "why" exactly it has taken place.
Well Fellowship, AI-er of the year, Bush is almost finally admitting that it wasn't because of weapons.
From The Monkees, song ZOR AND ZAM (Bush and Blair)
album, The Bird The Bees The Monkees 1968
The king of Zor, he called for war, And the king of Zam, he answered.
They fashioned their weapons one upon one,
Ton upon ton,
they called for war at the rise of the sun.
Out went the call to one and to all, that echoed and rolled like the thunder.
Trumpets and drums, roar upon roar,
More upon more.
Rolling the call of "Come now to war."
Throughout the night they fashioned their might, With right on the side of the mighty.
They puzzled their minds plan upon plan,
Man upon man
And at dying of dawn the great war began.
They met on the battlefield banner in hand. They looked out across the vacant land.
And they counted the missing, one upon one,
None upon none.
The war it was over before it begun.
Two little kings playing a game.
They called for war and nobody came.
And nobody came.
Back to your regularly scheduled discussion, Randy
if you care to hear the song
Zor and Zam for a limited time
Originally posted by bunge
Support
your
claims.
Just answer my question. Why should belive people, without question, that lied before, in the exact same way?
Originally posted by Scott
Of course the neolibs are selling this as "truth".
The turth is that the Iraqis tried to claim back in '91. Then they found some stuff.
In the neolib double truth you must now beleive the people that are known liars. They are the only ones to be trusted.
It's really quite simple.
Show me the alternative.
Originally posted by Scott
Just answer my question. Why should belive people, without question, that lied before, in the exact same way?
The same thing could be said about the Bush administration.
Hmmm... let's see:
lying to the UN to avoid being shot by Saddam
versus
telling the truth to a reporter because you no longer have a reason to lie.... i.e. Saddam's regime is gone.
See the difference?
Originally posted by Scott
Just answer my question. Why should belive people, without question, that lied before, in the exact same way?
Once again feel free to supply a workable alternative.
In the courts he would be convicted ( if he wasn't the president ) as there is enough leaning in the direction of dishonesty here. And virtually no evidence to the contrary.
Originally posted by jimmac
Once again feel free to supply a workable alternative.
Maybe the people who lied before, in the exact same way, are doing it again? Wild idea I know!
Originally posted by jimmac
In the courts he would be convicted ( if he wasn't the president ) as there is enough leaning in the direction of dishonesty here. And virtually no evidence to the contrary.
That's your fantasy. Being wrong is not the same as being dishonest.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/08/spr...ort/index.html
http://64.33.3.125/iraq/Iraq3FullText.pdf
I think I know where you're going with this. But I'd like to hear it.
The ONLY thing they had was the Missle program... which the UN destroyed right before the war.
Yeah sure they were planning bigger missles... but they had no way to build them. I can plan a levitating car too... doesn't mean it's ever going to happen.
There's difference between what the intelligence agencies thought... and what was actually happening.
There are no stockpiles. No weapons grade anything.
No mobile labs. The inspections actually worked. Hence the 1000 inspectors in Iraq now that have found what???? NADDA. ZIP. ZILCH.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
XX. Are you delusional?
I think he was joking around.
I'm not sure what to make of MSNBC's article. It starts with a powell statement, first saying no link between al-qaeda and Iraq, followed by a short defense against the report, and then a mid-length summary.
What's even more interesting is the headline:
Powell: No proof links Saddam, al-Qaida
Think tank criticizes administration?s assessments of Iraq
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3909150/
Huh? Now that is just odd. Why mash them together under a headline that makes no mention of the report? The bold is all you see on the link to the article. Really odd.
As of this post, ABC, CBS and FOX have ignored it.
I have only skimmed the report. All I'm doing here is commenting on the wierd ways news outlets report things.
Iraq didn't pose immediate threat to U.S., report concludes
By Drew Brown
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - Iraqi weapons programs threatened regional and global security in the long run, but they weren't an immediate danger to the United States - a key reason the Bush administration gave for going to war, says a report being released Thursday.
The report also found no conclusive evidence to support administration claims that Saddam Hussein was cooperating with al-Qaida or would have transferred chemical, biological or nuclear weapons to the terrorist group, another major justification for the war.
The 61-page study by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a nonpartisan research institution, faults the intelligence community for failing to make an accurate assessment of the status of Saddam's illicit weapons and missile programs.
It criticizes President Bush and top officials for "systematically" misrepresenting the threats posed by those programs, even beyond the evidence presented by faulty intelligence analyses.
Are we surprised?
Originally posted by Scott
Maybe the people who lied before, in the exact same way, are doing it again? Wild idea I know!
That's your fantasy. Being wrong is not the same as being dishonest.
Geez! Another dodge.
What a surprise.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/7657540.htm
Iraq didn't pose immediate threat to U.S., report concludes
By Drew Brown
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - Iraqi weapons programs threatened regional and global security in the long run, but they weren't an immediate danger to the United States - a key reason the Bush administration gave for going to war, says a report being released Thursday.
The report also found no conclusive evidence to support administration claims that Saddam Hussein was cooperating with al-Qaida or would have transferred chemical, biological or nuclear weapons to the terrorist group, another major justification for the war.
The 61-page study by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a nonpartisan research institution, faults the intelligence community for failing to make an accurate assessment of the status of Saddam's illicit weapons and missile programs.
It criticizes President Bush and top officials for "systematically" misrepresenting the threats posed by those programs, even beyond the evidence presented by faulty intelligence analyses.
Are we surprised?
Yup! They saw what they wanted to see.