We did get a nice little side benefit of ridding those people of a guy who was - by all accounts - a pretty bad egg. He needed to go and one of the things I kept hearing about anyway was "regime change".
But just because we heard about it doesn't mean that justifies it.
This looks like text book propaganda to me. Repeat something enough and the masses will believe it/follow (no offense intended to you pscates.)
No offense taken. In my heart (and head), I feel that we did the right thing - a good thing - and that isn't going to be altered by posts from others here at AI or statements from Michael Moore.
Saddam isn't going to terrorize those people any more. I'm happy with that. To me, it's justified. Any WMD discovery is - to me - a nice icing on the cake, but I've said - as you know - all along that I looked at this more from a humanitarian/safety/get-rid-of-a-maniac-and-free-those-people kinda angle.
What do you believe would be the impact, and what do you believe should be done if no significant cache of weapons or signs of weapons programs are found in Iraq? Keep in mind that the US officially went to war because of WMD, and not because of humanitarian concerns.
Well, I predict the impact will be zero. It may in fact end up being a positive for the GWB administration. Iraq was always a political plus for the administrion. It was a win-win situation. And all the necessary machinary are in place for the administration not to have any consequences for lying and fearmongering the USA into a preemptive war: the GWB administration has an excellent political apparatus to control the talking points and messages, demure opposition party, infotainment news organisations, and an evenly split public that supports opposing ideologies regardless of actions.
What should happen if none are found are profound skepticism from Republican and Democratic Congressional moderates, outright hostility from Congressional liberal Democrats, and a loss of confidence from Congressional conservative Republicans. The power of the USA has to shift back towards the Congress. However, that isn't going to happen per above.
Frankly, I'm surprised they haven't found anything yet. Even if Iraq actively destroyed all of the so-called WMD in the 1980s, the chaos of such activity inevitably has holes and something is always left behind.
Quote:
If no WMD are found, should Bush be excused for being so blatantly wrong and starting a war based on his mistakes and/or lies?
Of course he shouldn't be excused. But, the fact is that administration will be, they already are. The consensus opinion has always been that Iraq is harmless to the US and US interests. Any chemical and biological weapons they had were harmless against modern mobile warfare. They were at best, marginal against the Iranian army in the 1980s. Their danger to the US proper and US interests were also at best marginal.
Even in Israel and Palistine, with continuous bombings and such, no chemical weapons have been in play, and that would be a primary spot to employ them. Both Iraq and Syria support the Palistinean terror organizations in some fashion or another, yet, WMD weapons (that I know of) haven't been used in over 3 decades and both Iraq and Syria - in the framework of "Bush" doctrine - are a danger to giving these weapons to terrorists.
I haven't bothered to read any posts aside from tonton's first one. Not much point as I know exactly what everyone said before even reading. Anyhoo, I would only point out that the military/administration isn't sending out false alarms, they are being cautious; it's (I hate to do this because it's a tired excuse) media that's jumping to conclusions in order to draw readers one way or another. Also, if there's one thing everyone could agree on before the war, it's that if there are and WMDs in Iraq, they are well-hidden. Don't be surprised if there's no single source to even determine where all this stuff is, or even if there are any such sources at this point. I wouldn't get too hopeful or too fatalistic about anything going on over there this early. We heard about the stall of coalition forces about a week into the war, and look where we are after another 2 weeks. But that's the easy part.
I know if I were in the Iraqi government, I'd have a clear plan for Things to Burn In Case of Imminent Toppling(tm). After that, it's a scavenger hunt in a very big field.
No offense taken. In my heart (and head), I feel that we did the right thing - a good thing - and that isn't going to be altered by posts from others here at AI or statements from Michael Moore.
Saddam isn't going to terrorize those people any more. I'm happy with that. To me, it's justified. Any WMD discovery is - to me - a nice icing on the cake, but I've said - as you know - all along that I looked at this more from a humanitarian/safety/get-rid-of-a-maniac-and-free-those-people kinda angle.
We did a "good thing?" Yes, I agree the outcome is definitely a positive one. But do intentions not matter anymore? The US has a long history of doing what's best for their interests. That includes doing many bad things (e.g., supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan when they were fighting the Soviets, supporting Noreiga despite his known corruption and drug ties, supporting Saddam Hussein when he was fighting Iran, supporting countless other dictators in the Mid-East and elsewhere).
The double-talk and cover-ups are obvious to anyone who's willing to be a little skeptical of the government's intentions. Just because a good outcome has resulted, it doesn't justify our reasons for doing it. Especially if there are no WMD's found. I'm tired of all the double-standards and the generous attitude people are exhibiting towards the US government. It's never been about what's best for the world. Maybe my cynicism is a bad thing, but it keeps things real for me.
if by "kept queit" you mean readily available for reading at any one of a dozen major news outlets....
i don't get it.
I'm talking about the who who did it, not the if it were done. At this point in time since we don't have a watergate-like uncovering of the conspiracy it can still all be relegated to the X-File in the general population's collective mind.
I'm talking about the who who did it, not the if it were done. At this point in time since we don't have a watergate-like uncovering of the conspiracy it can still all be relegated to the X-File in the general population's collective mind.
yeah, that's pretty accurate. it wasn't big news when they found out the papers were crap and i'm assuming it was bigger news when it was first presented.
that's more of a media problem than a conspiracy problem though. the news folks report it, but it's not big news anymore. if it won't sell papers or commercial slots, it gets put on the back burner. it gets a little spot on a back page, instead of a front page spot.
problem is for stuff to be news now it has to sell. sharks, disease and bombs sell way better than fake papers. *shrug*
That's what I said for years (just report what sells) until I saw enough instances of ideas or stories being deliberately repressed/promoted for political or business reasons.
As for the papers, it's already been a big enough story on an important enough topic for a US investigation, yet the administration's response has been limited to a sentence. If there was an organized push for the story to go on, it would be easy to make it front page news. Scandal and lies have sold many papers and commercial spots for a long time.
Of couse, none of the networks want to dwell on any negative aspect of this war for too long (much less expose outright lies) for fear of alienating their readers/viewers.
I actually blame the left. There is no solid force to counter the organized right.
that's more of a media problem than a conspiracy problem though. the news folks report it, but it's not big news anymore.
It's got nothing to do with the media though. I mean, you said thais:
"the biggest problem with conspiracy theories is that there would have to be too many people involved to keep them all quiet."
We know that there was a conspiracy behind the scenes to forge the papers in the first place. We also know that those involved in the conspiracy have kept quiet. I'm just poking a hole in your argument that conspiracies can't exist, or at least not at this level.
I have a feeling that if 'deepthroat' were to confirm that Blair or Bush requested these forged documents the media would run the story. There's just no story for them to run because no one has kept quiet about the conspiracy that we all know exists.
[qb]Saddam isn't going to terrorize those people any more. I'm happy with that. To me, it's justified.[/qb]
This is what I call the Tony Blair position as opposed to the Bush one, and it's the reason I thought was was justified anyway. Tony Blair had it right.
WMDs or no WMDs...what does it matter? Now that Saddam has gone, what difference does it make if they find real WMDs, or they plant some, or find none whatsoever? The Iraqis, even under the most dire of circumstances, the invasion and sacking of their country, either elected not to use WMDs, or they didn't have any to use. It matters not which.
The US has absolute and unassailable power, as regards both military might and the dissemination of information. We are the police, the judge, the jury, the bailiffs, the probation officers and the prison guards and we own the police station, the courthouse and the jail. We will say and do whatever we like, whenever we like, and back it up with unlimited force if necessary. Nothing has to be truthful, since there is no comparable check or balance, and anyone questioning the motives and methods are labeled unpatriotic or treacherous. Its so easy now, and so convenient. It's the Bush way or the highway.
"U.S. defense officials on Friday confirmed that preliminary field tests did in fact indicate the material could be plutonium."
....While officials aren't prepared to call the discovery a "smoking gun," two preliminary tests conducted on the material have indicated that it may be weapons-grade plutonium."
Comments
Originally posted by pscates
We did get a nice little side benefit of ridding those people of a guy who was - by all accounts - a pretty bad egg. He needed to go and one of the things I kept hearing about anyway was "regime change".
But just because we heard about it doesn't mean that justifies it.
This looks like text book propaganda to me. Repeat something enough and the masses will believe it/follow (no offense intended to you pscates.)
Saddam isn't going to terrorize those people any more. I'm happy with that. To me, it's justified. Any WMD discovery is - to me - a nice icing on the cake, but I've said - as you know - all along that I looked at this more from a humanitarian/safety/get-rid-of-a-maniac-and-free-those-people kinda angle.
I mean, the documents were faked and everyone now knows it, but even now it's still all kept quiet.
you do realize the complete irony of that statement, right?
if by "kept queit" you mean readily available for reading at any one of a dozen major news outlets....
i don't get it.
transporting thousands of pounds of extremely dangerous materials in order to frame a nation? i just don't see that slipping under everyone's radar.
so lets just give them a bit of time, see what actually happens, then pick up in this thread when there's some solid ground for folks to start from.
Originally posted by tonton
What do you believe would be the impact, and what do you believe should be done if no significant cache of weapons or signs of weapons programs are found in Iraq? Keep in mind that the US officially went to war because of WMD, and not because of humanitarian concerns.
Well, I predict the impact will be zero. It may in fact end up being a positive for the GWB administration. Iraq was always a political plus for the administrion. It was a win-win situation. And all the necessary machinary are in place for the administration not to have any consequences for lying and fearmongering the USA into a preemptive war: the GWB administration has an excellent political apparatus to control the talking points and messages, demure opposition party, infotainment news organisations, and an evenly split public that supports opposing ideologies regardless of actions.
What should happen if none are found are profound skepticism from Republican and Democratic Congressional moderates, outright hostility from Congressional liberal Democrats, and a loss of confidence from Congressional conservative Republicans. The power of the USA has to shift back towards the Congress. However, that isn't going to happen per above.
Frankly, I'm surprised they haven't found anything yet. Even if Iraq actively destroyed all of the so-called WMD in the 1980s, the chaos of such activity inevitably has holes and something is always left behind.
If no WMD are found, should Bush be excused for being so blatantly wrong and starting a war based on his mistakes and/or lies?
Of course he shouldn't be excused. But, the fact is that administration will be, they already are. The consensus opinion has always been that Iraq is harmless to the US and US interests. Any chemical and biological weapons they had were harmless against modern mobile warfare. They were at best, marginal against the Iranian army in the 1980s. Their danger to the US proper and US interests were also at best marginal.
Even in Israel and Palistine, with continuous bombings and such, no chemical weapons have been in play, and that would be a primary spot to employ them. Both Iraq and Syria support the Palistinean terror organizations in some fashion or another, yet, WMD weapons (that I know of) haven't been used in over 3 decades and both Iraq and Syria - in the framework of "Bush" doctrine - are a danger to giving these weapons to terrorists.
Originally posted by alcimedes
if by "kept queit" you mean readily available for reading at any one of a dozen major news outlets....
It's relative to the volume of the accusation.
Whereas accusations are large and bold, I have yet to see the recants anywhere near a front page.
Are you trying to fill the vacuum left by michael kelly? Those lexis-nexus search type arguments don't cut it.
[Edit] I just read Bunge's statement and noticed he actually wasn't talking about the media, though alcimedes somehow though he was.
Your whole 'reading comprehension' bit is a clear example of projection, bud.
I know if I were in the Iraqi government, I'd have a clear plan for Things to Burn In Case of Imminent Toppling(tm). After that, it's a scavenger hunt in a very big field.
Originally posted by pscates
No offense taken. In my heart (and head), I feel that we did the right thing - a good thing - and that isn't going to be altered by posts from others here at AI or statements from Michael Moore.
Saddam isn't going to terrorize those people any more. I'm happy with that. To me, it's justified. Any WMD discovery is - to me - a nice icing on the cake, but I've said - as you know - all along that I looked at this more from a humanitarian/safety/get-rid-of-a-maniac-and-free-those-people kinda angle.
We did a "good thing?" Yes, I agree the outcome is definitely a positive one. But do intentions not matter anymore? The US has a long history of doing what's best for their interests. That includes doing many bad things (e.g., supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan when they were fighting the Soviets, supporting Noreiga despite his known corruption and drug ties, supporting Saddam Hussein when he was fighting Iran, supporting countless other dictators in the Mid-East and elsewhere).
The double-talk and cover-ups are obvious to anyone who's willing to be a little skeptical of the government's intentions. Just because a good outcome has resulted, it doesn't justify our reasons for doing it. Especially if there are no WMD's found. I'm tired of all the double-standards and the generous attitude people are exhibiting towards the US government. It's never been about what's best for the world. Maybe my cynicism is a bad thing, but it keeps things real for me.
Originally posted by pscates
Saddam isn't going to terrorize those people any more. I'm happy with that. To me, it's justified.
Yeah, but we're kinda sorta maybe talking about a more global justification, not just your justification.
Although, if Bush starts to get in some hot water of this I'll pass your name along for some moral support.
Originally posted by alcimedes
if by "kept queit" you mean readily available for reading at any one of a dozen major news outlets....
i don't get it.
I'm talking about the who who did it, not the if it were done. At this point in time since we don't have a watergate-like uncovering of the conspiracy it can still all be relegated to the X-File in the general population's collective mind.
Originally posted by bunge
Yeah, but we're kinda sorta maybe talking about a more global justification, not just your justification.
Although, if Bush starts to get in some hot water of this I'll pass your name along for some moral support.
Ohhhh, I see now. It's about the world and all. Okay. Cool. Sorry.
I'm talking about the who who did it, not the if it were done. At this point in time since we don't have a watergate-like uncovering of the conspiracy it can still all be relegated to the X-File in the general population's collective mind.
yeah, that's pretty accurate. it wasn't big news when they found out the papers were crap and i'm assuming it was bigger news when it was first presented.
that's more of a media problem than a conspiracy problem though. the news folks report it, but it's not big news anymore. if it won't sell papers or commercial slots, it gets put on the back burner. it gets a little spot on a back page, instead of a front page spot.
problem is for stuff to be news now it has to sell. sharks, disease and bombs sell way better than fake papers. *shrug*
that's just human nature, not a conspiracy.
As for the papers, it's already been a big enough story on an important enough topic for a US investigation, yet the administration's response has been limited to a sentence. If there was an organized push for the story to go on, it would be easy to make it front page news. Scandal and lies have sold many papers and commercial spots for a long time.
Of couse, none of the networks want to dwell on any negative aspect of this war for too long (much less expose outright lies) for fear of alienating their readers/viewers.
I actually blame the left. There is no solid force to counter the organized right.
Originally posted by Scott
Y. ... France will think the US planted it too.
Scott you are becoming truly annoying.
Originally posted by alcimedes
that's more of a media problem than a conspiracy problem though. the news folks report it, but it's not big news anymore.
It's got nothing to do with the media though. I mean, you said thais:
"the biggest problem with conspiracy theories is that there would have to be too many people involved to keep them all quiet."
We know that there was a conspiracy behind the scenes to forge the papers in the first place. We also know that those involved in the conspiracy have kept quiet. I'm just poking a hole in your argument that conspiracies can't exist, or at least not at this level.
I have a feeling that if 'deepthroat' were to confirm that Blair or Bush requested these forged documents the media would run the story. There's just no story for them to run because no one has kept quiet about the conspiracy that we all know exists.
originally posted by pscates:
[qb]Saddam isn't going to terrorize those people any more. I'm happy with that. To me, it's justified.[/qb]
This is what I call the Tony Blair position as opposed to the Bush one, and it's the reason I thought was was justified anyway. Tony Blair had it right.
Originally posted by pscates
Saddam isn't going to terrorize those people any more. I'm happy with that. To me, it's justified.
But if your goal is to free the most people from the worst oppression, then attacking Iraq is not justified.
The US has absolute and unassailable power, as regards both military might and the dissemination of information. We are the police, the judge, the jury, the bailiffs, the probation officers and the prison guards and we own the police station, the courthouse and the jail. We will say and do whatever we like, whenever we like, and back it up with unlimited force if necessary. Nothing has to be truthful, since there is no comparable check or balance, and anyone questioning the motives and methods are labeled unpatriotic or treacherous. Its so easy now, and so convenient. It's the Bush way or the highway.
Now, what was that quote by Lord Acton?
Originally posted by tonton
Oh, aren't they?
"U.S. defense officials on Friday confirmed that preliminary field tests did in fact indicate the material could be plutonium."
....While officials aren't prepared to call the discovery a "smoking gun," two preliminary tests conducted on the material have indicated that it may be weapons-grade plutonium."
I fixed your quote for you.
Originally posted by tonton
Whatever happened to "no comment"? The military should use that phrase more often instead of spreading speculation intended to sway public opinion.
It's propaganda, which was considered a war crime at the Nuremberg trials....
Originally posted by bunge
It's propaganda, which was considered a war crime at the Nuremberg trials....
Well the germans did lose the war so its fair game...