|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Standard Operating Procedure
By PAUL KRUGMAN The mystery of Iraq's missing weapons of mass destruction has become a lot less mysterious. Recent reports in major British newspapers and three major American news magazines, based on leaks from angry intelligence officials, back up the sources who told my colleague Nicholas Kristof that the Bush administration "grossly manipulated intelligence" about W.M.D.'s. And anyone who talks about an "intelligence failure" is missing the point. The problem lay not with intelligence professionals, but with the Bush and Blair administrations. They wanted a war, so they demanded reports supporting their case, while dismissing contrary evidence. In Britain, the news media have not been shy about drawing the obvious implications, and the outrage has not been limited to war opponents. The Times of London was ardently pro-war; nonetheless, it ran an analysis under the headline "Lie Another Day." The paper drew parallels between the selling of the war and other misleading claims: "The government is seen as having `spun' the threat from Saddam's weapons just as it spins everything else." Yet few have made the same argument in this country, even though "spin" is far too mild a word for what the Bush administration does, all the time. Suggestions that the public was manipulated into supporting an Iraq war gain credibility from the fact that misrepresentation and deception are standard operating procedure for this administration, which - to an extent never before seen in U.S. history - systematically and brazenly distorts the facts. Am I exaggerating? Even as George Bush stunned reporters by declaring that we have "found the weapons of mass destruction," the Republican National Committee declared that the latest tax cut benefits "everyone who pays taxes." That is simply a lie. You've heard about those eight million children denied any tax break by a Last-minute switcheroo. In total, 50 million American households - including a majority of those with members over 65 - get nothing; another 20 million receive less than $100 each. And a great majority of those left behind do pay taxes. And the bald-faced misrepresentation of an elitist tax cut offering little or nothing to most Americans is only the latest in a long string of blatant misstatements. Misleading the public has been a consistent strategy for the Bush team on issues ranging from tax policy and Social Security reform to energy and the environment. So why should we give the administration the benefit of the doubt on foreign policy? It's long past time for this administration to be held accountable. Over the Last two years we've become accustomed to the pattern. Each time the administration comes up with another whopper, partisan supporters - a group that includes a large segment of the news media - obediently insist that black is white and up is down. Meanwhile the "liberal" media report only that some people say that black is black and up is up. And some Democratic politicians offer the administration invaluable cover by making excuses and playing down the extent of the lies. If this same lack of accountability extends to matters of war and peace, we're in very deep trouble. The British seem to understand this: Max Hastings, the veteran war correspondent - who supported Britain's participation in the war - writes that "the prime minister committed British troops and sacrificed British lives on the basis of a deceit, and it stinks." It's no answer to say that Saddam was a murderous tyrant. I could point out that many of the neoconservatives who fomented this war were nonchalant, or worse, about mass murders by Central American death squads in the 1980's. But the important point is that this isn't about Saddam: it's about us. The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat. If that claim was fraudulent, the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history - worse than Watergate, worse than Iran-contra. Indeed, the idea that we were deceived into war makes many commentators so uncomfortable that they refuse to admit the possibility. But here's the thought that should make those commentators really uncomfortable. Suppose that this administration did con us into war. And suppose that it is not held accountable for its deceptions, so Mr. Bush can fight what Mr. Hastings calls a "khaki election" next year. In that case, our political system has become utterly, and perhaps irrevocably, corrupted. source: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/03/opinion/03KRUG.html p.s. still no real news on the WMD find in DC |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
You are the only person on this forum, that I know of, who consistently declares that another person's comments are a rant. The fact that you are unable to come up with a source which validates your definition leads me to suspect: a) it is not true b) if it is true it is colloquial/slang. My own searches have not come up with a definition which matches yours. And until you can come up with a definition from a valid and accepted source like Webster’s, Oxford or Cambridge, for your so-called definition, it is at most colloquial/slang. It is rude and disrespectful to characterize someone’s comments as a rant because you think he has repeated himself. [ June 03, 2003, 16:29: Message edited by: tbontob ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
you posters should take this off-line. not here
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
I agree wholeheartidly. Whatever happened to the interesting "OT:Politics" thread? I'm very sorry for my role in derailing it into the realm of polemics. Isn't it interesting how the big issues can result in well mannered discussions, but on little things people tend to hold the line and not give up an inch?
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Byron York, reply to Krugman's WMD NYT article:
WEAPONS OF MASS DECEPTION? "To the president's opponents, the mother of all Bush "lies" is the administration's case for going to war in Iraq, specifically the president's claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. "So whose books were more cooked — Enron's accounts of its financial doings or the administration's prewar reports on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction?" asked Harold Meyerson of The American Prospect, in a column published in the Washington Post. The administration's position, Meyerson concluded, was "as phony a casus belli as the destruction of the Maine in Havana Harbor." It's an argument that's been heard more and more in recent weeks. "Does it matter that we were misled into war?" asked the New York Times's Paul Krugman. Bush's statements about weapons of mass destruction were "one of the administration's Big Lies of the war on Iraq," wrote The Nation's David Corn. And Democratic senator Robert Byrd has issued almost daily allegations that Bush lied about Iraq. Such accusations are risky — after all, the search for Iraqi weapons is ongoing, and any day might bring a significant discovery, or evidence that weapons have been destroyed. Still, for the sake of argument, assume there is no discovery. Does that mean Bush was lying? In the months leading up to the war, there was a bipartisan consensus that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction; the real debate was between those who believed that Saddam would have to be disarmed by force and those who wanted to rely on U.N. inspectors to contain him. The world knew from those inspectors that, when Last checked, Iraq had large stores of anthrax and nerve gas. The world also knew that before the first Gulf War, Iraq had an aggressive nuclear-weapons program. Last December, there was general agreement that Iraq's 12,000-page declaration of its weapons programs was grossly incomplete. And in January of this year, former Clinton administration officials Kenneth Pollack and Martin Indyk wrote in the New York Times that Iraq "must be made to account for the thousands of tons of chemical precursors, the thousands of liters of biological warfare agents, the thousands of missing chemical munitions, the unaccounted-for Scud missiles, and the weaponized VX poison that the United Nations has itself declared missing." Such a consensus makes it extremely difficult to argue that the president lied about Iraq and WMD; if the administration's case was a lie, then everybody, including much of the political opposition, was in on it. Just as importantly, if it turns out that prewar estimates of Iraq's capabilities were incorrect, the Bush administration can say — truthfully — that it erred on the side of protecting American national security. One could argue that the White House paid insufficient attention to intelligence indicating a threat to American security before September 11. One could also argue that this administration was therefore determined not to underestimate future threats. "What 9/11 did was teach a generation of policymakers to interpret things in an alarmed rather than a relaxed way," says one former administration official. Did that make the Iraq campaign a lie? The equivalent of Enron bookkeeping? Only the president's most fevered enemies would try to make that case." I wouldn't describe Krugman, and the paper he works for, as exactly the most fair & unbiased source for information. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
The original charges against Iraq, presented to the United Nations and the American public, were explicitly about the weapons themselves.
On Aug. 26, 2002, Vice President Cheney told the VFW National Convention: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." On Sept. 12, 2002, Bush told the U.N. General Assembly: "United Nations inspections also revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons." On Dec. 2, 2002, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said Hussein would be "misleading the world" if he denied having the Banned weapons. A month later, on Jan. 9, Fleischer asserted: "We know for a fact that there are weapons there." In Bush's State of the Union address on Jan. 28, he cited evidence that Hussein had enough materials to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin and as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agents. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, in the same speech to the U.N. on Feb. 5 in which he discussed evidence of the mobile weapons labs Bush referred to Last week, argued: "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, he's determined to make more." A month later, on March 7, Powell told the United Nations that Hussein has "clearly not" made a decision to "disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction." In his Feb. 8 radio address, the president asserted: "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." On March 30 on ABC News's "This Week," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said of the prohibited weapons: "We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. Dick Cheney Speech to VFW National Convention August 26, 2002 Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. George W. Bush Speech to UN General Assembly September 12, 2002 If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world. Ari Fleischer Press Briefing December 2, 2002 We know for a fact that there are weapons there. Ari Fleischer Press Briefing January 9, 2003 Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. George W. Bush State of the Union Address January 28, 2003 We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more. Colin Powell Remarks to UN Security Council February 5, 2003 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. George W. Bush Radio Address February 8, 2003 If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the Last several months since (UN Resolution) 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us . . . But the suggestion that we are doing this because we want to go to every country in the Middle East and rearrange all of its pieces is not correct. Colin Powell Interview with Radio France International February 28, 2003 So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? . . . I think our judgment has to be clearly not. Colin Powell Remarks to UN Security Council March 7, 2003 Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. George W. Bush Address to the Nation March 17, 2003 Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes. Ari Fleisher Press Briefing March 21, 2003 There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them. Gen. Tommy Franks Press Conference March 22, 2003 I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction. Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman Washington Post, p. A27 March 23, 2003 One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites. Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark Press Briefing March 22, 2003 We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. Donald Rumsfeld ABC Interview March 30, 2003 Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty. Neocon scholar Robert Kagan Washington Post op-ed April 9, 2003 But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found. Ari Fleischer Press Briefing April 10, 2003 We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them. George W. Bush NBC Interview April 24, 2003 There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country. Donald Rumsfeld Press Briefing April 25, 2003 We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so. George W. Bush Remarks to Reporters May 3, 2003 I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now. Colin Powell Remarks to Reporters May 4, 2003 We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country. Donald Rumsfeld Fox News Interview May 4, 2003 I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program. George W. Bush Remarks to Reporters May 6, 2003 U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction. Condoleeza Rice Reuters Interview May 12, 2003 I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden. Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne Press Briefing May 13, 2003 Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found. Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps Interview with Reporters May 21, 2003 Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction. Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff NBC Today Show interview May 26, 2003 They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer. Donald Rumsfeld Remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations May 27, 2003 For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on. Paul Wolfowitz Vanity Fair interview May 28, 2003 It was a surprise to me then — it remains a surprise to me now — that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there. Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Press Interview May 30, 2003 Do I think we're going to find something? Yeah, I kind of do, because I think there's a lot of information out there." Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton, Defense Intelligence Agency Press Conference May 30, 2003 First -- and this is really the overarching principle -- the United States seeks to liberate Iraq, not occupy Iraq . . . If the President should decide to use force, let me assure you again that the United States would be committed to liberating the people of Iraq, not becoming an occupation force. Paul Wolfowitz Speech to Iraqi-American Community February 23, 2003 The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq's new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people. Yet, we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another. All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government . . . George W. Bush Speech to the American Enterprise Institute February 26, 2003 We will help the Iraqi people to find the benefits and assume the duties of self-government. The form of those institutions will arise from Iraq's own culture and its own choices. George W. Bush Speech at MacDill AFB March 26, 2003 But as soon as possible, we want to have working alongside the commander an interim Iraqi authority, people representing the people of Iraq. And, as that authority grows and gets greater credibility from the people of Iraq, we want to turn over more and more responsibilities to them. Colin Powell Press Conference March 26, 2003 The goal is an Iraq that stands on its own feet and that governs itself in freedom and in unity and with respect for the rights of all its citizens. We'd like to get to that goal as quickly as possible. Paul Wolfowitz Interview with 60 Minutes II April 1, 2003 I can assure you that we all want to end this as soon as possible, so we can get on with the task of allowing the Iraqi people to form a new government. Colin Powell Press Conference in Belgrade April 2, 2003 We will leave Iraq completely in the hands of Iraqis as quickly as possible. Condoleeza Rice Press Briefing April 4, 2003 We want to see a situation where power and responsibility is transferred as quickly as possible to the Iraqis themselves, with as much international assistance as possible . . .We have no desire to occupy Iraq . . . Paul Wolfowitz Testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee April 10, 2003 QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, could you give us an idea of your views of the interim administration (of Iraq), how quickly it might be set up . . . ? SECRETARY POWELL: We are anxious to move quickly now that the day of liberation is drawing near. I don't know when it will happen. But, certainly, we can see what's going to happen in the not-too-distant future, we hope. Colin Powell Press Conference April 4, 2003 The task is to create an environment that is sufficiently permissive that the Iraqi people can fashion a new government. And what they will do is come together in one way or another and select an interim authority of some kind. Then that group will propose a constitution and a more permanent authority of some kind. And over some period of months, the Iraqis will have their government selected by Iraqi people. Donald Rumsfeld Meet the Press April 13, 2003 After (Gen. Jay Garner) finishes his job of restoring basic services, the interim Iraqi authority will be established. And that interim authority will be an authority of Iraqis, chosen by Iraqis. And it will be able to function as an authority in the country immediately after Gen. Garner's job is finished, which should be only a few weeks. Ahmed Chalabi, Chairman of the Iraqi National Congress Meet the Press April 13, 2003 I think what we are so proud of is governments which permit their populace to be involved in a process that provides them freedom, provides them liberty. And I think what we will see in the months and years ahead in Iraq will provide a bit of a model for how that can be done . . . . because, Tony, it will be the Iraqi people who decide how to do that, and they will do it on their terms. Gen. Tommy Franks Fox News Interview April 13, 2003 Soon Iraqis will be able to give us guidance about how to move forward and create an Iraqi interim authority. And that authority will begin to allow Iraqis to have sovereignty over their country and in a way that Iraqis will choose; they will create an Iraqi Government. Marc Grossman, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Interview with Free Iraqi Television April 16, 2003 The coalition supports the formation, as soon as possible, of the Iraqi Interim Authority -- a transitional administration, run by Iraqis, until a government is established by the people of Iraq through elections. The Interim Authority should be broad-based and fully representative. Zalmay Khalilzad, Special U.S. Envoy to Iraq Wall Street Journal op-ed April 17, 2003 The new ruler of Iraq is going to be an Iraqi. I don't rule anything. Gen. Jay Garner Press Interview April 21, 2003 I think you'll begin to see the governmental process start next week, by the end of next week. It will have Iraqi faces on it. It will be governed by the Iraqis. Gen. Jay Garner Press Conference in Baghdad April 24, 2003 If you're suggesting, how would we feel about an Iranian-type government with a few clerics running everything in the country, the answer is: That isn't going to happen. Donald Rumsfield Interview with Associated Press April 24, 2003 As freedom takes hold in Iraq, the Iraqi people will choose their own leaders and their own government. America has no intention of imposing our form of government or our culture. Yet, we will ensure that all Iraqis have a voice in the new government . . . George W. Bush Speech in Dearborne, Michigan April 28, 2003 By the middle of (this) month, you'll really see a beginning of a nucleus of an Iraqi government with an Iraqi face on it that is dealing with the coalition. Gen. Jay Garner Press Conference May 5, 2003 Soon, Iraqis from every ethnic group will choose members of an interim authority. The people of Iraq are building a free society from the ground up, and they are able to do so because the dictator and his regime are no more. George W. Bush Address at the University of South Carolina May 9, 2003 We will provide the conditions for Iraqis to govern themselves in the future. To that end, the Coalition Provisional Authority will work with responsible Iraqis to begin the process of establishing a government representative of all the Iraqi people. L. Paul Bremer, Special Envoy to Iraq Press Conference in Baghdad May 15, 2003 When Iraqi officials are in a position to shoulder their country's responsibilities, when they have in place the necessary political and other structures to provide food, security and the other necessities, the coalition will have a strong interest in seeing them run their own affairs. Douglas Feith, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Testimony Before the House International Relations Committee May 15, 2003 We are interested in the quick creation of an Iraqi interim authority and in Iraq's democracy. Marc Grossman, Undersecretary of State Interview with China Phoenix TV May 16, 2003 I've read a report in the American press about a delay (in the transitional authority). I don't know where these stories are coming from because we haven't delayed anything. L. Paul Bremer Remarks to Press in Mosul May 18, 2003 I would think we are talking about more like sometime in July to get a national conference put together. L. Paul Bremer Remarks to Reporters in Baghdad May 21, 2003 As Thomas Jefferson put it, "we are not to expect to be translated from despotism to liberty in a featherbed." It took time and patience, but eventually our Founders got it right -- and we hope so will the people of Iraq -- over time. Donald Rumsfeld Wall Street Journal op-ed May 27, 2003 While our goal is to put functional and political authority in the hands of Iraqis as soon as possible, the Coalition Provisional Authority has the responsibility to fill the vacuum of power . . . by asserting temporary authority over the country. The coalition will do so. It will not tolerate self-appointed "leaders." Donald Rumsfeld Speech to the Council on Foreign Relations May 27, 2003 It will be difficult for a free political life in Iraq to flourish until the conditions are set, but it is a project that we're working on. Douglas Feith, Undersecretary of Defense Foreign Press Briefing May 28, 2003 They told us, "Liberation now," and then they made it occupation. Bush said he was a liberator, not an occupier, and we supported the United States on this basis. Ahmed Chalabi, Chairman of the Iraqi National Congress Interview with Trudy Rubin, Philadelphia Inquirer columnist May 29, 2003 Question: When do you think there might be a government in place, even a provisional government in place in Iraq? Rumsfeld: I don't know. Donald Rumsfeld Infinity Radio Town Hall May 29, 2003 The CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) is going to be in charge until there is a sovereign representative, democratic Iraqi government chosen. Anonymous CPA Official Interview with The Washington Times June 2, 2003 just some quotes... they tell their own story quite well. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
just some quotes... they tell their own story quite well.
Tesco, true. I doubt that all the nay-sayers will ever be satisfied, and if it is proven that there are WMDs will they apologise? I doubt it. I would think we all would admit that Saddam SAID he HAD WMDs. Previous inspectors SAID they had them. The Iraqies were very good at hiding things, the chem labs on the trucks were NOT remote baby milk factories. I don't believe that Saddam destroyed his WMDs, if so, all he had to do was let the U.N. Inspectors back in and he would still be in power. Bush and Company did tell Saddam thats all he had to do and he would live...NOW Just as France, Germany and Russia didn't think Bush would follow through with his ultimatium, Saddam (I am sure) was assured that Bush wouldn't follow through either. But supprise, supprise, a politition did what he said. Caught off guard, why would Saddam use his WMDs against a professional army that is prepared for them. Why not take you losses and live another day. Try and move the WMDs out of the country (to Syria more likely) and make the heathens pay. Turkey screwed us up, if we could have went through Turkey, we might have been able to get troops to the main trails into Syria. Also, I heard that freeze drying these bio-weapons, you can have enough matieral (size of a small envelope) for restarting manufacturing. In the U.S. if there are no more WMDs are found, the public wont get bent out of shape. We have seen the mass graves, the children that was in prision ect...I am sure many Americans would say that Saddam and his son's were WMDs. The big thing though, we need to find more WMDs for our foreigen "friends". If we don't, then there will be problem. I say in the next 6 months we will know for sure. Unlike all the anti-Iraq war people, I know that things will not be found overnight. We will, and when we do, I am sure all the media that was against this war will not say a peep. Also, I hope in the next 6 months the new Iraqi goverment will be picking up steam. If I remember correctly, it took over 2 years to get Japans new goverment up to speed. And I would think that there are some similuaries between Imperial Japan and Dictatorship Iraq. So if we couldn't fast track a goverment in Japan, do not expect us to be able to do it in Iraq. whew, my fingers hurt http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
*If* I remember my history correctly... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
In world war II justification for making nuclear weapons was that Hitler was making them. At end of the war is was discovered that Nazi nuclear weapons project was a complete joke. Then many people felt bad about making nuclear weapons, many other people felt good about it. No point. I just find the parallel somewhat interesting to think about. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Scott Ritter (a previous inspector) was very active in saying that the Iraqi's did NOT have WMDs (or at least that they could not possibly be a threat to the U.S.). i.e. the point of view was out there that Iraq was not a threat well before the war. If Bush was not aware of these arguments how come? Isn't it his job to be aware of what is going on and the arguments pro and con? Being ignorant about the arguments is almost as bad as lying about them, to my mind far worse. If Bush was aware of the arguments and *if* they are later shown to be correct (as early indications are that they will) how come he didn't believe them? To my mind being biased against arguments that are later shown to be completely and utterly correct is also a troubling trait.
Ritter's speech in which he outlines his case is also quite interesting in another point. He says that just before the inspectors left the first time that the U.S. tried to assasinate Hussein. They did so by using the inspections as an intelligence gathering mission to try and pin down where he was and then nail him with cruise missles. So the inspections were a vital part of the U.S. assasination attempt. Now ask yourself this. The people you are dealing with have tried to kill you in the past and they have used inspections as a tool with which to make it easier for them to do so. Now do you cooperate fully with these people when they ask for inspections again? Before people jump on me, this says *nothing* about whether such an assasination attempt was a good thing or not. It does however go a long way to explaining why a Hussein who did not have WMDs would still not cooperate fully with the inspections. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
ok, ok, if I remember my history http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
Englands PM Chamberlin (the appeaser) let Hitler build up his military (against the WWI treaty), take over Austria, well Hitler said it was not an invasion, it was bringing the german people home. It wasn't until it was too late that the Europeans figured that Hitler was a bad guy. Many corralations here, the appeaser (the UN) let Hitler (Saddam) do many things against the resulotion that THEY passed but refused to enforce (and Iraq is not the only example of refusing to enforce resulotions). Hell the appeasers were in bed with Saddam, the Oil for Food was never ran the way it was supposed to be ran, and UN did nothing to right the wrongs their either. About the Nukes, yes it was a joke, but Hitler didn't fund it like he did other things, he even didnt fund "Jets" because he thought the prop planes were good enough. If he had known what his jets were capable of and funded them much earlier, WWII would have been very different, if anything it would have taken years longer to finish. When a bully is on the play ground beating on kids, sometimes someone needs to do the right thing and go take that bully down a notch or 2. Even if that someone gets suspended for fighting, the play ground is better off with the bully gone. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Scott Ritter is a joke. Besides having a political axe to grind. At one point he was saying there were WMDs and now he says there are not. There are reports that he has received money (aka bribes). I have to go to class now, but I will look for those facts to back up what I say when I get home.
I am sure there have been many attempts on Saddam. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/pr...455828,00.html
WMD is very important. Reguardless of what spin is placed on it. As is the occupation of Iraq. This coliation of willing who helped bring Iraq from Dictatorship to Anarchy have some members who are just as 'evil' to their own people. As is the eradication of western media to report the story and its corperate idology. I have always felt that this war was a mistake. As it basically destroyed the international war on terrorism and all the positive gains from that concept. I wish to thank everyone in this thread for helping me come to this conculsion. I will still keep posting links to stuff I find interesting and reading peoples opinions and their links to articles of interest. For it is very fasinating how we can read and read and read from all sides and all view points. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Tesco, I would agree with you that the WMD issue is very important -- and that the discussion about it is also very interesting.
From Rich Lowery: "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists," the president of the United States warned. "If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." The secretary of state loyally followed this hard line, defending the U.N. sanctions on Saddam Hussein: "There has never been an embargo against food and medicine. It's just that Hussein has just not chosen to spend his money on that. Instead, he has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Leveraging U.N. resolutions to support military action, the secretary of defense said: "The United Nations has determined that Saddam should not possess chemical or biological or nuclear weapons, and what we have is the obligation to carry out the U.N. declaration." The officials argued that U.N. inspections weren't enough. "It is ineffectual; it is not able to do its job by its own judgment," the president's national security adviser said of the U.N. inspections regime. "It doesn't provide much deterrence against WMD activity." The president's congressional loyalists stood behind him. "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction," said a prominent senator, sounding a familiar theme, "but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." "For the United States and Britain, an Iraq equipped with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons under the leadership of Saddam Hussein is a threat that almost goes without description," said another hawk, taking aim at the split in the international community. "France, on the other hand, has long established economic and political relationships within the Arab world, and has had a different approach." Who were the political leaders who, according to critics of the Iraq war, perpetrated this fraud on the American people by making overblown warnings about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction? Respectively, President Bill Clinton, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Defense Secretary William Cohen, National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Sen. Tom Daschle and Sen. John Kerry. (BOLDFACE MINE) They were all speaking in the late 1990s when Clinton bombed Iraq to "degrade" an Iraqi WMD capacity that we are supposed to believe disappeared in the inspection-free years that ensued, only to be resurrected as a false justification for war by the Bush administration. The failure so far to find WMD in Iraq is a major embarrassment for President Bush, and congressional hearings into the intelligence prior to the Iraq War are welcome. But the post-Iraq debate shouldn't proceed on false pretenses: Everyone this side of famed Iraqi prevaricator Baghdad Bob believed that Iraq had WMD. In the run-up to the war, the United Nations, the "axis of weasel" (France and Germany) and high-profile Democrats all agreed about WMD. The specific figures in Secretary of State Colin Powell's U.N. presentation about Iraq's unaccounted-for WMD came from U.N. inspectors. France and Germany didn't argue that Saddam had no WMD, but inspections could rid him of them. Clinton and Al Gore dissented from aspects of Bush's policy, but agreed about WMD. "We know," Gore said, "he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons." The question was what to do about a dictator with ties to terrorism who for 12 years had defied the procedures set out by the world to confirm that he no longer had dangerous weapons. For the Bush administration, Sept. 11 meant erring on the side of safety, and so continuing to accept Saddam's denials and defiance wasn't an option. As someone once warned: "This is not a time free from peril, especially as a result of the reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals. We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century." Even if the rhetoric was shrill, Bill Clinton had a point. EDIT: I just found an interesting article about Paul Wolfowitz addressing a convention of North American Shia Muslims: NY Post article [ June 03, 2003, 20:47: Message edited by: kalthalior ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Apprently Germany was taking all the heavy water Norway could produce and wanted more. The allies knew this and feared that Germany would get the bomb first. At war's end they discovered that Germany was not nearly advanced as they had thought. I've also read that Germany's research program was somewhat chaotic. There was a tendancy to improve existing models of equipement rather than come up with completely new designs. Also research projects would be started and then put on the backburner. This changed in late 1942, but by then it was too late. It was a change sponsored by necessity as their equipement was becoming increasingly out of date. For example, the Russian T4 sponored a major research program into new tanks. Or the allies air superiority sponsored final research into the V1, V2 and the jet. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
kalthalior, nice link.
He described the reception for Wolfowitz as "very warm." He added: "We should thank the Bush administration for liberating the Shias of Iraq. I think Dr. Wolfowitz understands our viewpoint and our deep opposition to extremism. We were thrilled to have him attend and to hear his words." Others, including non-Muslims, who attended the event were struck by the enthusiasm shown to Paul Wolfowitz. But Jafri put the emphasis in the right place: "The convention inaugurated a new period in the history of American Muslims, of heightened awareness of our responsibilities to the country we live in and hope for the future flourishing of Islam and democracy. At our convention next year, we would like to have President Bush as a guest." And why did a story like this go unreported in the rest of our media? The reason that this was not reported...Contary to belief, the majority of the US media is still biased to the left, and any information like this is just ignored by the anti war people (and anyone that has made their mind up). So, though it is very easy to copy/paste information that supports the anti war view it is very hard to find (in the media) positive information. Its like the story of the boy yelling WOLF, but in this case we have the whole village yelling WOLF, while the boy is trying to explain that the wolf is actually a dog. But everyone in the village is unwilling to see the truth, because all they hear is the village people screaming. I contend many of the anti war people are not held accountable for their spin. Yet expect the pro war people to be held to strict accountably. I will admit that is politics, and just the way things are. An example would be the intellengce report that was found to be fabricated by the French. Then the colalition was crucifed for relying on it. Instead, one (a reasonable person) would wonder WHY France fabricated that report? WHY would a so called ally go out of their way to mislead us? Well, I didn't read any of the crucifiers apologizing or at least NAIL France to the same cross. Nope, nada... |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
I might be reading this wrong, and if so I apologise. It seems you are saying that there are members of the "Coliation of the Willing" who are just as evil as Saddam? If so, tell me who is more evil than Saddam? Who has killed millions of their OWN people? Who has put children in jail? Who has supported terrorism? Who has killed people because of their religion? So if I am following you, you think that Saddam still in power would be a good thing. And if that is the fact, then I am glad I live in the world I live in and not yours. All Saddam had to do is say, come back in the country and I will prove to you that there were no WMDs and he would still be in power. Quote:
Granted I am biased also. I also think we need to find those WMDs (but I will give them 6 more months) and help the Iraqi people get their goverment going, again it will take a long time (from what I have heard, min of 2 years) but I hope that there is some form of interm Iraqi control within 6 months. Quote:
True, there have been attacks, but I still see more positive things since the war on Iraq, than before the war. Back to the glass half full again. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
lets look at the Coalition's countries that have clean human rights records
Afghanistan , Albania , Angola , Azerbaijan , Colombia, Dominican Republic ,El Salvador , Eritrea ,Ethiopia ,Georgia ,Honduras ,Kuwait ,Nicaragua , Philippines ,Rwanda ,Turkey ,Uganda ,Uzbekistan You did read me wrong. I believe they should have removed him in 90 when he was doing these mass killings.. And it is the information that has helped me think that the conflict was wrong. I have yet to see a reason why it was nessary. The french asked for 3 more weeks.... Time will tell if this was correct. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by tesco samoa: As is the occupation of Iraq. This coliation of willing who helped bring Iraq from Dictatorship to Anarchy have some members who are just as 'evil' to their own people. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Anarchy? How fast do you expect things to change? I might be reading this wrong, and if so I apologise. It seems you are saying that there are members of the "Coliation of the Willing" who are just as evil as Saddam? If so, tell me who is more evil than Saddam? Who has killed millions of their OWN people? Who has put children in jail? Who has supported terrorism? Who has killed people because of their religion? So if I am following you, you think that Saddam still in power would be a good thing. And if that is the fact, then I am glad I live in the world I live in and not yours. All Saddam had to do is say, come back in the country and I will prove to you that there were no WMDs and he would still be in power. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by tesco samoa: I have always felt that this war was a mistake. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And like many others that feel the same as you, there will be no amount of information that will change your mind. Granted I am biased also. I also think we need to find those WMDs (but I will give them 6 more months) and help the Iraqi people get their goverment going, again it will take a long time (from what I have heard, min of 2 years) but I hope that there is some form of interm Iraqi control within 6 months. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by tesco samoa: As it basically destroyed the international war on terrorism and all the positive gains from that concept. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Um, how do you see that. Have you failed to see that North Korea are talking about concessions. The Saudi's starting to realize that supporting terror will bite them in the butt. That we have been catching the terorists before they strike? That perhaps the Arab countries will marginalize Arafat (about damn time if you ask me)? True, there have been attacks, but I still see more positive things since the war on Iraq, than before the war. Back to the glass half full again. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
It's not a question of why WMDs haven't been found yet.
But if he had them, why didn't Saddam used them in his most desperate hour? He may be as evil as you paint him, but he is no fool, he knew his troops couldn't defeat coalition forces by conventional means. Wouldn't it have been good for him to use WMDs againt the invading forces? or retaliate if coalition countries were out of range at least at their nearer allies? There were obviouly no WMD were it was "known" they were. I grant that there's still a posibility that there's something that remains hidden. But something that can be so well hidden canot be a very big facility. And would probably need years of research before it can become an efective weapon. A part of me believes that Bush's men attacked becasuse they feared no retaliation with WMDs. And BTW I never understood why it's claimed that Saddam was willing to use the WMDs while other countries that have WMDs are not. This has always been used as a known fact and as one of the justifications of the war. So please enlighten me. And, no, saying he's used WMDs against his own people is two exagerated facts added up to make a biased lie. I'm not saying it was not brutal, but from his POV they were not his people but a rebel minority that seized some of the richest oil fields and threatened his country, and it's an exageration to talk about WMDs here. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
"And BTW I never understood why it's claimed that Saddam was willing to use the WMDs while other countries that have WMDs are not."
Because he used gas during the Iranian war perhaps? |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
i believe that a cluster bomb is a greater 'wmd' than gas.
Also the depleted uraniam casings that are cast aside are a 'wmd'. Tell me why it is ok for one nation to cluster bomb cities this year and why it very bad for a gas attack in 89. Is 89 the year we draw the line on when one was good and when one was bad. I never quite understood that ? when do we invade congo ? that country needs help. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
As you can see when you said Coliation, the first thing I think of is those 3 (main) countries. Those are the 3 countries put their kahunas on the chopping block, the other countries have no vested interest either way. When we read all the negative stories in the media, we see things that start with "Bush and his coliation of evil doers", we do not read "Ethiopian troops march on the defensless Iraqis". Quote:
Quote:
I saw a report tonight that the UN thinks that Saddam had 7k to 20k liters of Anthrax. How easy would it be to get some of it out of the country in 1 or 2 liter bottles? Now I don't know what 1 liter of anthrax could do, but I doubt that it would be good. Quote:
Hopefully I have got accross the point that I admit I am BIASED, I know that. And if after the 6 months we find no more WMDs than we have so far, I will admit that there was an intelligence failure, and as I said before I think Bush will take full accountability for that failure, he will not pass the buck. I will also be worried about where the WMDs went to, because I don't know of any agency that says there NEVER were any WMDs, just whether or not were they still around in his control. Ok, group hug time... |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
You can debate whether that was the correct course or not in retrospect. But don't try to say they simply wanted a little more time. EDIT: I think you might be getting confused over a suggestion floated by the British during the effort to get another UN resolution at the end. It was shot down by the French. Geoschmo [ June 04, 2003, 02:10: Message edited by: geoschmo ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
"i believe that a cluster bomb is a greater 'wmd' than gas."
Cluster bombs are no different than regular bombs, except they're more OF them per bomber. Gas is considered different. "Also the depleted uraniam casings that are cast aside are a 'wmd'." Bzzt. Just based on the levels of radioactivity they might have, it would take years to kill anyone. Leftover mines, unexploded ordinance and such are a bigger hazard than uranium dust that probably settles quickly after being ejected, uranium being dense. "Tell me why it is ok for one nation to cluster bomb cities this year and why it very bad for a gas attack in 89. Is 89 the year we draw the line on when one was good and when one was bad. I never quite understood that ?" Two different weapons, for one. And you make it sound like we carpet bombed Bagdad; we didn't. If we had there wouldn't have been a museum for the Iraqis to loot, for one. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Narrew, I agree with you when the dictator is a half-way sane individual.
I shudder to think what a insane dictator would do with WMD. Many writers say that Hitler was not in his right mind at the end of the war. He blamed the German people for failing him in winning the war and was apparently so enraged by it that he didn't care if Germany was completely destroyed. The reason given for Hitler not using mustard gas and other gases is that he was apparently gassed as a soldier (corporal?) in WWI. He found the experience so unpleasant, that he didn't amass any great amount of it in WW2. But suppose he did amass a lot of mustard gas or had access to large quantities of WMD, would he have refrained from using them? We can only guess. He certainly didn't love the German people in the end because if he did, he would have surrendered months earlier in December when it became obvious the Battle of the Bulge would not succeed and he had little resources left to take the offensive. In not surrending, he exposed the German people to untold privations. Only the intervention of the allies prevented a complete collapse. Later, the Marshall plan sponsored by the U.S. was instrumental in the economic recovery of Germany and other devastated countries. It is scary when a person is so full of hate. When a person no longer cares, he is capable of anything. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
In the 2004 elections I'm going to vote for ANYONE but Bush. That's for sure.
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
What's more they'll both stay well away from me if they know what's good for 'em. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
D, I didn't think you got to vote for PM over there. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Now for the gas. Yes, Hitler was gassed when he was a corporal in WWI and that is one reason why the Nazis never employed chemical weapons. But another important reason is that a German scientist had discovered the first nerve gas (by accident, and it nearly killed him) in the inter-war period. The Germans knew American scientists had been doing research with similar chemical compounds, and they knew the US had discovered something and were keeping it secret. They assumed the US also had nerve gas, but in fact the Americans had discovered DDT. The Nazis did manufacture nerve gas during the war, but never used it because they believed the Allies also had it and would use it back on them. Edit : The two paragraphs above are about WW TWO. The next paragraph is about WW ONE. My original post was unintentionally misleading and might have caused some confusion. An interesting side note : while the Germans were the first to use gas (chlorine gas, in fact) during WWI, they did not violate the Geneva Convention. That treaty prohibited the member nations from shooting projectiles or artillery shells with a gas payload. What the Germans did was to open the gas containers and let the wind carry the chlorine to the Allied trenches. Of course, this did not prevent the British and French from claiming the treaty had been violated and loading shells with gas to use against the Germans. If the Germans had won, you can bet it would be claimed that it was the Western Allies who broke the treaty (which is technically correct, I may add). [ June 04, 2003, 17:02: Message edited by: Chief Engineer Erax ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
[/nitpick] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Wrong war scoff. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
I've edited my post to eliminate any possible misunderstanding. I should have made it clear that I was 'changing wars' between the second and third paragraph.
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
It's almost as if he (Wolfowitz) were playing against his own team.
However, if Bush resigns, Cheney becomes president. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif Edit : Although it is far more likely that his 'oil' remark was taken out of context. [ June 04, 2003, 20:24: Message edited by: Chief Engineer Erax ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcrip...ecdef0246.html
document of that meeting rex. : What I meant is that essentially North Korea is being taken more seriously because it has become a nuclear power by its own admission, whether or not that’s true, and that the lesson that people will have is that in the case of Iraq it became imperative to confront Iraq militarily because it had Banned weapons systems and posed a danger to the region. In the case of North Korea, which has nuclear weapons as well as other Banned weapons of mass destruction, apparently it is imperative not to confront, to persuade and to essentially maintain a regime that is just as appalling as the Iraqi regime in place, for the sake of the stability of the region. To other countries of the world this is a very mixed message to be sending out. Wolfowitz: The concern about implosion is not primarily at all a matter of the weapons that North Korea has, but a fear particularly by South Korea and also to some extent China of what the larger implications are for them of having 20 million people on their borders in a state of potential collapse and anarchy. It’s is also a question of whether, if one wants to persuade the regime to change, whether you have to find -- and I think you do -- some kind of outcome that is acceptable to them. But that outcome has to be acceptable to us, and it has to include meeting our non-proliferation goals. Look, the primarily difference -- to put it a little too simply -- between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq. The problems in both cases have some similarities but the solutions have got to be tailored to the circumstances which are very different. Nice.... tie that in with the Wolfowitz claim that WMD was just an excuse... Nice.... |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Regarding North Korea: Quote:
Puts the comment in a totally different, and less diabolical light for sure. That being said, Wolfowitz is a punk. I wouldn't shed a tear if the Administration fragged him even over a misquote. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Geoschmo EDIT: Looks like Tesco beat me to the complete context quote. Although he doesn't appear to be getting the same interpretation out of it that I do. Cest la vie. [ June 04, 2003, 20:42: Message edited by: geoschmo ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Once again, Rex Posts a link to a secondary source that takes a statement out of context and puts its own spin on a perfectly innoculous statement. The situations, while having some similiarities, have very different cirumstances, which the speaker is pointing out. We have economic and political leverage on N. Korea that did not exist in the Iraq scenario.
Link to Full Q & A session: Wolfowitz transcript Wolfowitz: The concern about implosion is not primarily at all a matter of the weapons that North Korea has, but a fear particularly by South Korea and also to some extent China of what the larger implications are for them of having 20 million people on their borders in a state of potential collapse and anarchy. It’s is also a question of whether, if one wants to persuade the regime to change, whether you have to find -- and I think you do -- some kind of outcome that is acceptable to them. But that outcome has to be acceptable to us, and it has to include meeting our non-proliferation goals. Look, the primarily difference -- to put it a little too simply -- between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq. (Italics mine) The problems in both cases have some similarities but the solutions have got to be tailored to the circumstances which are very different. EDIT: Wow, everybody is quick on the trigger today. 2nd Edit: Note the first question from the Japanese press Wolfowitz in Tokyo [ June 04, 2003, 20:50: Message edited by: kalthalior ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Dislaimer: I say "Could," "Might," "if," and "had" on these. The article simply doesn't quote sufficiently to preclude mis-quoting, and so I am simply showing a way that things could have been warped; after all, I encounter such warps fairly frequently in my local paper; I can be suspicious of something Online. The article might be fairly representing things; but there isn't any way to tell. Likewise, I have no particular reason to believe what I have been typing here is necessarily true; the point is that Wolfowitz may not be fairly represented, and there is no way to tell if he is or not.
Edit: Oh, I guess there is a way to tell - find the transcript of the session the quotes come from. My bad.... Quote:
1) "bureaucratic", 2) "swimming", 3) "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil.", 4) "for reasons that have a lot to do with the US government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on: weapons of mass destruction.", 5) "end" 1, 2, and 5 were used in what the reader will assume are paraphrasings of what Wolfowitz said; it would be very easy for these to have been taken out of context, as they are single-word quotes. 3 is odd, but it is of note that it doesn't say exactly what was asked, just "Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found". Had the exact question been "Why is North Korea being treated differently from Iraq?" with the part about nuclear power and WMD's being added later, then 3 could simply be a portion on a cognizant essay on why a regeme change in NK wouldn't work well - NK doesn't have much in the way of resources that would be necessary for rebuilding the economy, while Iraq does. 4 Isn't necessarily condeming. It could readily have been a matter of some people not thinking that Human Rights violations weren't enough to warrent intervention while others thought that treaty violations weren't enough to warrent intervention so they settled on WMD's. All the options listed here could have been cases made, and all could have been true (in that Iraq was doing Human Rights violations, violating the treaty, and holding WMD's); however, if everyone involved disagreed on what exactly constitued sufficent cause, but everyone agreed on the WMD's as being sufficent cause, then 4 would still make perfect sense to utter. [ June 04, 2003, 20:54: Message edited by: Jack Simth ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
I also found this interesting seeing as how I was on the DoD site anyway.
DoD reply to intel questions raised in the press |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Quote:
[ June 04, 2003, 21:21: Message edited by: Jack Simth ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
narrew. time will tell if this is correct *** usa's foreign policy***
P-D. Lets take a busy street conor. Now lets let off some gas. ( gas has been proven to be a very inefficent means of combat, more for terror than any thing else ) Now lets let off a cluster bomb You tell tell me what is a 'wmd' in this situation. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Geo... you have to come and work in a stamping plant. When it is quiet... It is really quiet... Then all hell breaks loose... ( like the venom song http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) then quiet.... Then code away and then when you have to document the stuff... you look at web sites... Any thing to avoid documentation... ( p.s. I know that this is typing as well ... Irony yes. CMM and Iso No. )
His quotes are quite classic.... If SNL was in its hey days... there would some fun at his expense... I know this is ot... But I always loved the Ronald Regan ones where he is running everything... |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Do you truly believe what you say, or are you just trying to get reactions? |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
The only building guarded by US first week in Bahdad was the oil ministery. Practically across the street mob looted Bahdad national museum and hospitals. No US troops were posted there. That set priorities right.
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:41 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.