Osama, Saddam, WMD's and the 2004 election
- Thread starter habilis
- Start date
toast
Gone !
Get a Reuters feed > www.reuters.com free email edition.
News is never gospel, but gospel news would have no value:
Certains historians find certains periods of history nothing intelligible, and call them dark ages_; but such phrases tell us nothing about the ages themselves, though they tell us a great deal about the persons who use them.
R. G. Collingwood, "The idea of history", 1946
News is never gospel, but gospel news would have no value:
Certains historians find certains periods of history nothing intelligible, and call them dark ages_; but such phrases tell us nothing about the ages themselves, though they tell us a great deal about the persons who use them.
R. G. Collingwood, "The idea of history", 1946
toast
Gone !
This is quite off-topic, but the historian technique, objectivity, those are huge questiosns to anyone interested in social/human science.
I really recommend Collingwood to all of you. His books are on Amazon. The Idea of History is a masterpiece; when finished reading, yu doubt about your own capacity to question history or present. And this is, in my humble opinion, the first quality of all historian or analyst.
For French-speaking people: Collingwood is discussed on the very scientific www.revues.org website, a must-read site. More knowledge than you can throw a stick at. Search for Collingwood.
I really recommend Collingwood to all of you. His books are on Amazon. The Idea of History is a masterpiece; when finished reading, yu doubt about your own capacity to question history or present. And this is, in my humble opinion, the first quality of all historian or analyst.
For French-speaking people: Collingwood is discussed on the very scientific www.revues.org website, a must-read site. More knowledge than you can throw a stick at. Search for Collingwood.
Ugg
Registered
The American public has so bought into the myths that gw has created that I wonder if they will be able to accept that he lied. The American press is finally starting to question this issue although there are an appalling number of articles and editorials that are saying it doesn't matter. Americans' ability for self-deception is legendary and they have bought into almost everything gw tells them. I don't know where this is going to end but gw has lied to the world and he should pay. The fact that this guy used the word treason is astounding. Clinton's shenanigans with Monica pale in comparison to gw's lying to the public.
habilis
Ministry of Re-Education
Don't forget about people like me, who aren't that much different then GW, who think liberation was more important then WMD's. We American's aren't as stupid as you think. I don't care if that megalomaniac Stalin-wanna-be had nothing but sticks and stones in his arsenal I prefer that he's dead, and no longer torturing and killing hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of innocents. I don't care what opinionated factset had to be presented to the lumps in this country to get the job done, and I don't think the Iraqi's mind either.
Ugg
Registered
The news coming out of Iraq about mass graves and bodies with hands tied behind their back and bullets in the backs of their heads is appalling. Few Iraqis will miss Saddam or the Baathists. It was easy to gloss over the brutality of his regime, now the truth is out. I rejoice with the Iraqis that he can no longer do this.
The truth is often difficult to accept but lies damn those who tell them. The president of this country and the prime minister of GB lied to not only their own citizens but also to the UN and to the people of the world. It wasn't just a misunderstanding or a matter of using terms like "I have been advised" or "to the best of our knowledge", it was "I Know". They preyed on our fears of another 9-11 in order to achieve their political gains. Had they said, Saddam needs to go because the people in his country are paying a terrible price and then backed it up with what we are now seeing, I might have been ok with it. I'm honest enough to say that I hate gw. But I, like many others out there am a softie when it comes to seeing human suffering.
He chose to downplay that and instead convinced 40+% of Americans that it was Saddam who was behind 9-11, that Saddam and bin Laden were buddies in crime. When in fact there is not even the merest shred of evidence that they were linked.
He cares so much about the Iraqi people that he failed to ensure that nuclear waste facilities were secured although the Iraqi oil ministry building, not the facilities mind you, but the administration building, is the only government building in Baghdad that was not bombed. He cares so much about the Iraqi people that before the US went in there was no plan for ruling post war Iraq even though it was clear from the time he became president that he wanted to do what he did and began to plan for it over 17 months before the war began.
Saddam is gone and the world rejoices along with the Iraqi people. GW is now there and the Iraqi people continue to suffer and die at the hands of their liberators. Is that freedom?
The truth is often difficult to accept but lies damn those who tell them. The president of this country and the prime minister of GB lied to not only their own citizens but also to the UN and to the people of the world. It wasn't just a misunderstanding or a matter of using terms like "I have been advised" or "to the best of our knowledge", it was "I Know". They preyed on our fears of another 9-11 in order to achieve their political gains. Had they said, Saddam needs to go because the people in his country are paying a terrible price and then backed it up with what we are now seeing, I might have been ok with it. I'm honest enough to say that I hate gw. But I, like many others out there am a softie when it comes to seeing human suffering.
He chose to downplay that and instead convinced 40+% of Americans that it was Saddam who was behind 9-11, that Saddam and bin Laden were buddies in crime. When in fact there is not even the merest shred of evidence that they were linked.
He cares so much about the Iraqi people that he failed to ensure that nuclear waste facilities were secured although the Iraqi oil ministry building, not the facilities mind you, but the administration building, is the only government building in Baghdad that was not bombed. He cares so much about the Iraqi people that before the US went in there was no plan for ruling post war Iraq even though it was clear from the time he became president that he wanted to do what he did and began to plan for it over 17 months before the war began.
Saddam is gone and the world rejoices along with the Iraqi people. GW is now there and the Iraqi people continue to suffer and die at the hands of their liberators. Is that freedom?
Cat
Registered
Habilis: It is truly a honorable effort to try tto rid the world of dictators and terrorists. Nobody disputes that Dictators and terrorist are bad, evil, etc. Nobody disputes that getting rid of them is a Good Thing.
However, what is desputable by all means are the methods employed in achieving these goals. The american government lied and deceived in order to bring war to a country while unprovoked and under no actual clear and present danger or threat. The first two points can be seen as high treason (manipulating information and misusing the intelligence services) the second two points are a violation of international agreements.
I would not like to find out what could happen when these methods would be applied to less honorable goals (like e.g. controlling the world's oil supply and price).
Moreover you may very well ask yourself if it is actually the duty or responsibility of the USA to do this kind of job: I always thought we had the UN for these things ... And if it is the task of the USA to do these kind of things, well, i look forward to the invasion of ... (drumroll) the USA themselves, who are building a death-camp (AKA lager) on Guantanamo bay! Have fun with your civil war ...
Cf. http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,6494000^401,00.html
http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,963108,00.html
However, what is desputable by all means are the methods employed in achieving these goals. The american government lied and deceived in order to bring war to a country while unprovoked and under no actual clear and present danger or threat. The first two points can be seen as high treason (manipulating information and misusing the intelligence services) the second two points are a violation of international agreements.
I would not like to find out what could happen when these methods would be applied to less honorable goals (like e.g. controlling the world's oil supply and price).
Moreover you may very well ask yourself if it is actually the duty or responsibility of the USA to do this kind of job: I always thought we had the UN for these things ... And if it is the task of the USA to do these kind of things, well, i look forward to the invasion of ... (drumroll) the USA themselves, who are building a death-camp (AKA lager) on Guantanamo bay! Have fun with your civil war ...
Cf. http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,6494000^401,00.html
http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,963108,00.html
habilis
Ministry of Re-Education
The burden of poof in this war was on Saddam, not America. He was given every possible chance to give up the goods, give up the documentation on where 2,000 or so pounds of missing anthrax went(which is still missing BTW, and we already know what just one little envelope of this stuff can do), give up the location of the clandestine and mobile labs and the wmd precursors, and yet he still was acting totally defiant and uncooperative and had bugged the inspectors rooms in his obstruction attempts. Again I bring up the intercepted Iraqi communique's that Powell presented at the UN just before the invasion where the Iraqi's were all running around disposing of chem/bio weapons, it was all on tape and I'm sure you can find the audio somewhere. These aren't the actions of an innocent cooperating dictatorship. What about the defected Iraqi scientists that all testified, all of them, that there was still an active weapons program?
Where's the lie? Who's the liar?
The weapons were there, in small quantities or large, they were there. Long ago I already admitted that this would be an issue the democrats would fashion into a sword, but is this sword really sharp enough to cut off the head of your beast? It all depends on the strength, or lack theroff, an economic rebound in the next year or so. If we have a rebound, GW will win 60-40, if we don't, he'll lose 55-45.
But don't tell that to al Qaeda.
Where's the lie? Who's the liar?
The weapons were there, in small quantities or large, they were there. Long ago I already admitted that this would be an issue the democrats would fashion into a sword, but is this sword really sharp enough to cut off the head of your beast? It all depends on the strength, or lack theroff, an economic rebound in the next year or so. If we have a rebound, GW will win 60-40, if we don't, he'll lose 55-45.
But don't tell that to al Qaeda.
RacerX
Old Rhapsody User
Habilis,
Are you forgetting that Saddam (Stalin-wanna-be) was once our friend and ally? He was no better and no worse of a threat to his own people in 2003 then he was in 1983 when he and Rumsfeld shook hands. The war with Iraq was based on the immediate threat to the United States and it's allies.
No matter how you try to spin this, Iraq was of no threat to anyone when we invaded that country. Saddam didn't even have complete control of his own country (and hadn't since the Gulf War).
As for the mobile labs that were found, so far there is still some question as to the actual use of them. On the other hand there is no question that no evidence of the production materials needed to make any WMD have been found any where on those units. The time and energy needed to remove evidence if it ever was there to begin with would have had to have been extensive.
And far more damning to the administration and it's motives for the war are it's actions during the post war period. The oil fields and the oil ministry were protected by our troops. Why? A nuclear power plant was left unattended. Why? If we were there to stop terrorism, the oil production of the country should have been second to stopping nuclear material from walking out of that plant. One pound of that material and an explosive strong enough to vaporize it is all that a terrorist needs to contaminate a major US city. We were worried about WMD, but we let enough material lose in Irag (including our own anti-tank uranium shells which we aren't going to clean up) to make enough dirty bombs to hit every major city in North America and Europe.
We have Bush to thank for that.
Bush: Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
What facilities? Finding facilities shouldn't be a problem. Specially given the fact that we have control of the country (and have had control for some time).
Bush: Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.
That is a pretty hard thing to hide, special if you know what to look for (because you know it is there).
Bush: We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.
Okay, if Saddam had the weapons, he really should have used them in the war. That is only logical. He had no alternative. We were coming in and he was going to die. Why would he not use them... if he had them to begin with.
Rumsfeld: We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.
Then what is the hold up? Go get them!
Rumsfeld: They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.
If they were destroyed before the war, then wouldn't mean there was no reason for the war? Wouldn't that mean they posed no threat to us?
Either the Administration lied or the Administration has no credible intelligence sources. If they lied, Bush should be impeached for abuse of presidential powers. If they have no credible sources for information, then all current operations should be brought to a complete stop until we find out what we do and do not really know (as intelligence is also our first and most important line of defense against terrorism).
And Ugg, not all of us are like Habilis.
Are you forgetting that Saddam (Stalin-wanna-be) was once our friend and ally? He was no better and no worse of a threat to his own people in 2003 then he was in 1983 when he and Rumsfeld shook hands. The war with Iraq was based on the immediate threat to the United States and it's allies.
No matter how you try to spin this, Iraq was of no threat to anyone when we invaded that country. Saddam didn't even have complete control of his own country (and hadn't since the Gulf War).
As for the mobile labs that were found, so far there is still some question as to the actual use of them. On the other hand there is no question that no evidence of the production materials needed to make any WMD have been found any where on those units. The time and energy needed to remove evidence if it ever was there to begin with would have had to have been extensive.
And far more damning to the administration and it's motives for the war are it's actions during the post war period. The oil fields and the oil ministry were protected by our troops. Why? A nuclear power plant was left unattended. Why? If we were there to stop terrorism, the oil production of the country should have been second to stopping nuclear material from walking out of that plant. One pound of that material and an explosive strong enough to vaporize it is all that a terrorist needs to contaminate a major US city. We were worried about WMD, but we let enough material lose in Irag (including our own anti-tank uranium shells which we aren't going to clean up) to make enough dirty bombs to hit every major city in North America and Europe.
We have Bush to thank for that.
Bush: Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
What facilities? Finding facilities shouldn't be a problem. Specially given the fact that we have control of the country (and have had control for some time).
Bush: Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.
That is a pretty hard thing to hide, special if you know what to look for (because you know it is there).
Bush: We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.
Okay, if Saddam had the weapons, he really should have used them in the war. That is only logical. He had no alternative. We were coming in and he was going to die. Why would he not use them... if he had them to begin with.
Rumsfeld: We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.
Then what is the hold up? Go get them!
Rumsfeld: They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.
If they were destroyed before the war, then wouldn't mean there was no reason for the war? Wouldn't that mean they posed no threat to us?
Either the Administration lied or the Administration has no credible intelligence sources. If they lied, Bush should be impeached for abuse of presidential powers. If they have no credible sources for information, then all current operations should be brought to a complete stop until we find out what we do and do not really know (as intelligence is also our first and most important line of defense against terrorism).
And Ugg, not all of us are like Habilis.
habilis
Ministry of Re-Education
I don't want to beat a dead regime here but when you have a regime that proudly goes on TV and shows Saddam himself writing out a check for $25,000 to the family of a homicide bomber, any homicide bomber, any killer of jews, as a REWARD for killing entire jewish families, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, an entire cafeteria full of college students, I need not go further then that to find a "link" to terrorism. We don't even need to go into the random Scud attacks on Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, that meet the definition of terrorism. The Scuds were used purely as a terror weapon. What do we need a link for when the guy himself is an international terrorist responsible for murdering humans of every walk of life.
Racer, it's true we supplied him with the makins for wmds. But it's like when my parents bought me a pellet gun when I was 12; Everything was cool at first, I was just shooting tin can targets in the backyard, but then I got out of control with it and went around with a small regime of kids that were a bad influence on me, and shot out some windows, caused some vandalism, and even shot a big pigeon right in the chest and killed it(it made me sick and I'll never forget it) and basically went out of control. My parent's found out, and they brought the hammer down bigtime, instead of allowing me to further destroy my environment and myself. At any rate, the mistake of giving Saddam the precursors has been corrected, and the hope is to never repeat it.
Racer, it's true we supplied him with the makins for wmds. But it's like when my parents bought me a pellet gun when I was 12; Everything was cool at first, I was just shooting tin can targets in the backyard, but then I got out of control with it and went around with a small regime of kids that were a bad influence on me, and shot out some windows, caused some vandalism, and even shot a big pigeon right in the chest and killed it(it made me sick and I'll never forget it) and basically went out of control. My parent's found out, and they brought the hammer down bigtime, instead of allowing me to further destroy my environment and myself. At any rate, the mistake of giving Saddam the precursors has been corrected, and the hope is to never repeat it.