It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Another Part Of US Justification For Invading Iraq Admitted False

page: 10
7
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 10:57 AM
link   
You have voted Freedom_for_sum for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Nicely said and I agree 100%.




posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Oh, God, do I have to read such drivel?

No, I guess I don't, really. It's my choice to read this to see how far some people will sink in their efforts to discredit what they don't like.


Howlrunner;

That was a toungue-in-cheek statement on how the left-leaning media would likely report on that invasion if it happened today.


No, it was an attack on people you don't agree with.

You attempted to discredit those you don't like by choosing the once GREAT thing the US did during the last century and playing with it.

Remember who was President at the time of said invasion? Remember what party he came from?

The "left-leaning" media was reporting the Battle of Britain for the US because the "right-leaning" media didn't want (or want the US) to go near the war.

The "left" took the US into WW2, the "right" tried to keep you out of it.

I assume (and I admit it's an assumption) that you put PBS and Jim Lehrer in the "left-leaning" media. During (and after) "major combat operations" I was wathcing them memorialise each and every soldier when it was announced he (or she) was dead. The fact is the media supports the men (and women) who wear the uniform.

The difference is that the "left-leaning" media put people ahead of corporations. Your government does not. Unless they are the people who own those corporations. Remember, the Iraqis are people too, something your "tongue-in-cheek" statement appeared all too ready to forget.

The only part of your story that is true is that today the media would list how many French died during the assault, that number would be added to the story as it was reported, it would not be the single, salient fact highlighted. They would also give the numbers for how many civilians were baing killed during the air-war. 60 years ago those numbers were deemed unimportant, thankfully we've moved beyond tolerating the slaughter of thousands of civilians during war, even when we're in the right.



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
You attempted to discredit those you don't like by choosing the once GREAT thing the US did during the last century and playing with it.


I'm glad to see you believe that WWII was a great thing the US did. I hope you feel the same about Iraq. If not; then only time will tell. I'm confident history will suport the President's position in due time.


Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Remember who was President at the time of said invasion? Remember what party he came from?

The "left-leaning" media was reporting the Battle of Britain for the US because the "right-leaning" media didn't want (or want the US) to go near the war.


I don't believe the media was left or right-leaning back then as I'm not sure that notion existed. At least not to the extremes it does today.

Irrespective of who the president was; we're talking about the media and its methods of reporting. Back then, I feel the media did a great job (from old news reels and such) of explaining, without hyperbole or bipartisan wordsmithing, what went on.

Now, much of news sources are owned by left-leaning individuals/corporations; which, in and of itself is not a problem. But it becomes a problem when they focus only on certain events that typically villifies the position of the left.

Unless you watch Fox news, you rarely get the occassional nugget of good news coming from Iraq. You only hear about roadside bombs, kidnappings, and beheadings. And of course, you always get to hear the latest Bush scandal du jour which seems to always turn out to be nothing. Cindy (her son is rolling in his grave) Sheehan got MORE than her fair share on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, and CBS.


Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
The fact is the media supports the men (and women) who wear the uniform.


I submit that when they spend so much air time on a story whose subject proclaims her son died for no reason that it is demeaning to our troops. Our troops, by and large, know why they're there. And Spc. Casey Sheehan knew why he was there. In fact, he reenlisted for 4 more years just before he was killed.


Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
The only part of your story that is true is that today the media would list how many French died during the assault, that number would be added to the story as it was reported, it would not be the single, salient fact highlighted. They would also give the numbers for how many civilians were baing killed during the air-war. 60 years ago those numbers were deemed unimportant, thankfully we've moved beyond tolerating the slaughter of thousands of civilians during war, even when we're in the right.


I'm not sure that those numbers were deemed unimportant back then as I believe most realized that there would be thousands of deaths as we worked to beat back and elliminate a brutal regime. I think it was more about the acceptance of what will happen to accomplish this goal. I find it ironic, however, that in today's world of dirty deals (oil-for-food, etc) that some countries (France) seem to have forgotten the sacrifices made by our troops to liberate them.

As far as my comments: they are simply an indictment on what I perceive is a problem with the media today--nothing more; and they certainly aren't meant as criticism for our involvement in WWII. Good day!

Edited for grammar/spelling
Edited again to replace "Cindy Sheehan's son" with "Casey Sheehan" in the paragraph stating he knew why he was there.

[edit on 19-12-2005 by Freedom_for_sum]

[edit on 19-12-2005 by Freedom_for_sum]



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by LostSailor
You have voted Freedom_for_sum for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Nicely said and I agree 100%.


Thank You LostSailor; I appreciate the vote


Any additional comments would certainly be appreciated since, as a deep purple Independent, I clearly seem to be a minority here.

As I said in a previous post, I'm not a huge fane of George Bush. But I believe in giving credit where credit is due. His dedication to the safety of America and the convictions in the "war on terror" are to be recognized and complimented.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
So the FBI, in the 9/11 Commission's report (which commission was empowered, in part, to investigate intelligence failures among agencies including the FBI) claims that the FBI has successfully foiled terrorist attacks.

This is evidence?

You are certainly entitled to believe that the Bush administration's policies have prevented terrorist attacks, but I sincerely doubt that you, or anyone else, can prove it, and you certainly can't by posting a version of events related by the very agency that was so recently accused of failing to protect us on 9/11. Of course they're going to say that they have successfully prevented attacks-- their image, and more importantly their funding, depends on it.

Ironically, since this is the original topic of this thread, this is a fine example of the sort of thing that is at the heart of the WMD intelligence debate. The simple fact is that the intelligence was spotty to begin with, was already subject to human error and to deliberate misinterpretation, but was accepted unquestioningly by the Bush administration and his supporters not because they had any reason to believe it to be absolutely true, but because it supported their preconceptions. Similarly, it is now being criticized by Bush's opponents not because of any certainty of its falsehood, but because its falsehood supports their preconceptions.

The truth regarding the WMDs, as regarding the nominal prevention of terrorist attacks, no doubt lies somewhere in the middle, between the monochromatic interpretations upon which the partisans on each side of the issue insist.

The left-armed and left-eyed and the right-armed and right-eyed flail away at each other while...

well...

You know the rest.


While links are generally provided for claims made, it does not mean that one has to do research for another.....
Terrorist attacks have been thwarted in California and Minnesota, to name just two...

I can't wait 'till we find the WMD's in Syria...... (as mentioned in other threads)... then many here will have to eat crow..... but they won't, because the facts just-don't-matter.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel

You do of course understand that this was simply a draft resolution the US proposed.

It was never even voted on.

PLEASE don't quote meaningless items.


Meaningless items?.... You do realize that the draft resolution mentions other resolutions which were signed and agreed on by UN nations?.....



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
......................
We have a signed deposition with Bush linking Iraq, and 911.

EDIT NOTE: For some reason your link died. So here is another link to the same letter...

Presidential Letter March 18, 2003

[edit on 12-17-2005 by Valhall]


Guys.... you are once again taking out of context what is being said....

Where does it say in that letter that Iraq was known to be linked to 9/11?...

Even though I do believe some of the evidence presented by other countries, such as Spain and Czech Republic point to the possibility of Iraq/Saddam having something to do with some of the 9/11 terrorists, president Bush, that I know of, has not said that we know for certain that Iraq/Saddam was responsible for 9/11....

Let's read part of the letter where I think you gus are taking things out of context.



............
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.


Please do tell me where this letter is stating that the president knew Iraq was involved in 9/11......

The Russians have said Iraq/Saddam was a threat to the US...does that mean they also claimed Saddam/Iraq was involved in 9/11?



[edit on 20-12-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Well don't stop there...it gets better:


But he added that he believed the two issues were related even in the absence of direct ties.

"I think they are related in the war on terror because he (Saddam) had terrorist connections. Again, he was a sworn enemy and he'd had weapons of mass destruction, had used them," Bush said.


TWO reasons blown out of the water in one article.

Amazing.


How exactly is that blown out of the water Valhall?

Are you saying that Saddam did not have any connections with terrorists?

And about the wmd, could you tell us for what reason the regime of Saddam went through so much trouble trying to destroy evidence, documents, and even hiding reports and intel on wmd since after the first Gulf War until the beginning of the war in Iraq in 2003?

What evidence was so damaging that they had to destroy it? The west was searching for wmd, and any military equipment that was banned from Iraq.

We found brand new, still in closed boxes, empty chemical warheads. Empty chemical warheads can only be used to put chemicals on them...

That's just one of the evidences that were found, yet for some people this, or any of the other evidence found, does not prove that Saddam still had wmd or wmd programs?

Saddam's regime lied for years about the wmd that Iraq still had, and about the wmd programs, and admitted after some people came out with evidence that they still had wmd/wmd programs ....years after the first gulf war.


Defection and Revelation ::: Aug. 8, 1995
Hussein Kamel, the former director of Iraq's Military Industrialization Corporation, responsible for all WMD programs, defects to Jordan. As a result, Iraq admits to a far more developed biological weapons programs than it had previously disclosed. Saddam Hussein's government also hands over documents related to its nuclear weapons program and admits to the attempted recovery of highly-enriched uranium.


Excerpted from.
www.npr.org...


Although UNSCOM was monitoring some 86 sites with resident biological weapons teams in April 1997, the Secretary General of the UN had just reported to the Security Council that "several pieces of significant undeclared equipment, spare parts, and supplies" were discovered in recent inspections of additional facilities, and that, "Iraq has still not declared all sites where dual-use equipment is present. The Commission's resident team continues to identify such sites that should have been declared by Iraq...On a number of occasions, Iraq did not produce the required information on changes that have been uncovered" (in key sites).


Excerpted from.
www.iraqwatch.org...

The problem with people admitting the truth about this situation is that those who claim that there were no wmd, claim this because no stockpiles of wmd were found, despite what the evidence shows.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 01:33 PM
link   
For Pete's sake, Muaddib, and the sake of all of us who have read these repetitive statements by you, knowing full well they are hooey. Stop trying to defend something that Bush himself has given up defending!

Don't you think if there was ANY shred of a WMD program, or WMDs in Iraq, last night when Bush himself was trying to justify why we're there now and all the great stuff that's come from it, HE WOULD HAVE POINTED THAT OUT HIMSELF!

He didn't - because there was no evidence!

www.whitehouse.gov...




Our coalition confronted a regime that defied United Nations Security Council resolutions, violated a cease-fire agreement, sponsored terrorism, and possessed, we believed, weapons of mass destruction.


Please note that he CLEARLY qualified the above statement as - "we believed he possessed weapons of mass destruction". HE DIDN'T.




It is true that Saddam Hussein had a history of pursuing and using weapons of mass destruction. It is true that he systematically concealed those programs, and blocked the work of U.N. weapons inspectors. It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As your President, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq.


They "believed" he had weapons of mass destruction - they were wrong! And please note he didn't say "but he had a wmd program!" The best he could do was say "he had a history of wanting a wmd program!"


Muaddib, You are officially standing ALONE in your claims of any evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The president has abandoned you.

[edit on 12-20-2005 by Valhall]



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
For Pete's sake, Muaddib, and the sake of all of us who have read these repetitive statements by you, knowing full well they are hooey. Stop trying to defend something that Bush himself has given up defending!

Don't you think if there was ANY shred of a WMD program, or WMDs in Iraq, last night when Bush himself was trying to justify why we're there now and all the great stuff that's come from it, HE WOULD HAVE POINTED THAT OUT HIMSELF!

He didn't - because there was no evidence!


Val....we haven't found the stockpiles of wmd, which people keep using trying to proclaim that there were no wmd.

It is my belief that the administration has backed from that argument because they were adviced to do so, and because we haven't found the stockpiles or any missile full of chemicals ready to be used....



Originally posted by Valhall
Muaddib, You are officially standing ALONE in your claims of any evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The president has abandoned you.

[edit on 12-20-2005 by Valhall]


Not really Valhall, I am not alone, there are plenty of people who still think he had wmd, including Iraqis.

Even if the president says there were no wmd and no wmd programs after the first gulf war, I wouldn't believe him, because the evidence tells me the contrary....

This is not about defending a political party, or the president, even if Kerry had been in office and we still had the same evidence we have now, I still would believe all the evidence found points to a wmd program, and wmd being in Iraq at least up to the beginning of the war.

[edit on 20-12-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
I don't believe the media was left or right-leaning back then as I'm not sure that notion existed. At least not to the extremes it does today.

Irrespective of who the president was; we're talking about the media and its methods of reporting. Back then, I feel the media did a great job (from old news reels and such) of explaining, without hyperbole or bipartisan wordsmithing, what went on.


This last part I agree whole-heartedly with.


Now, much of news sources are owned by left-leaning individuals/corporations; which, in and of itself is not a problem. But it becomes a problem when they focus only on certain events that typically villifies the position of the left.


Okay, here we have room for debate.

Rupert Murdoch, of News corp, aint' no bleeding-heart pinko, commie liberal...

And as a historical example I bring up Citizen Kane...I mean William Randolph Hearst, who almost single-handedly invented the Spanish-American War.


and here we are
Unless you watch Fox news, you rarely get the occassional nugget of good news coming from Iraq. You only hear about roadside bombs, kidnappings, and beheadings. And of course, you always get to hear the latest Bush scandal du jour which seems to always turn out to be nothing. Cindy (her son is rolling in his grave) Sheehan got MORE than her fair share on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, and CBS.

How do you know he's rolling in his grave? I like the fact that "right-wingers" are so willing to tell Cindy Sheehan how her son felt, without ever having known him. Why can't you just accept that she's a mother lost in her grief and let it go, why do you have to directly attack her?


I find it ironic, however, that in today's world of dirty deals (oil-for-food, etc) that some countries (France) seem to have forgotten the sacrifices made by our troops to liberate them.


Who said anything about today's world?

It began with De Gaulle doing all in his poer to deny the UK entry into the EEC and has gone on since then. The French and their politicians are amongst the most ungrateful people on earth. The Belgians, however, still remember the sacrifices made for them in WW1.


As far as my comments: they are simply an indictment on what I perceive is a problem with the media today--nothing more; and they certainly aren't meant as criticism for our involvement in WWII. Good day!


I wasn't criticising you for criticising US involvement in WW2. If you can't see that, I suggest you get a thesaurus and a grammar handbook and read again. I was criticising your attack on the left using D-Day as a tool of that attack. It shows a certain glass ceiling through which your thinking cannot pass.

In one sweeping generalisation you have revealed yourself as anti-anything on the left. You attack the media that reports the facts from Iraq. You intimate that said media finds the deaths of Iraqis more important than the deaths of US service personnel, thereby opening yourself to the charge that you find Iraqis to be less important and therefore less human.

You make it obvious that regardless of the truth, you will support the president and his errors or downright illegalities.

How do you feel about Watergate, the plumbers and the bombing of Cambodia?



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Don't you think if there was ANY shred of a WMD program, or WMDs in Iraq, last night when Bush himself was trying to justify why we're there now and all the great stuff that's come from it, HE WOULD HAVE POINTED THAT OUT HIMSELF!

He didn't - because there was no evidence!


Valhall;

You, as well as others, continue to judge our decision to attack Iraq based on information we know now--gleaned from the luxury of hindsight; not what we knew then. Everyone agreed that Iraq had WMD's. Again; the disagreement to atttack was over whether Iraq was the degree of threat the US perceived her to be. I've presented evidence here showing this fact. You cannot judge a decision made in the past based on information that wasn't widely available at the time.

I'm now at the point where I'm inclined to say that we should just simply say "we agree to disagree"; as I believe this thread has about run its course.

[edit on 21-12-2005 by Freedom_for_sum]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freedon_for_sum
Cindy (her son is rolling in his grave) Sheehan got MORE than her fair share on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, and CBS.



Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
How do you know he's rolling in his grave? I like the fact that "right-wingers" are so willing to tell Cindy Sheehan how her son felt, without ever having known him.


As I've said before; I'm not a "right winger." Although, from the perspective of the extreme left it might appear so.

Casey Sheehan was an adult man of self determination when he decided to join the military. As a member of the military, I can tell you we all were. Everyone joins for his own reasons whether it is to eventually get an education; because it's a calling; maybe to avoid jail time (not really an option anymore); or whatever reason; we all have our own. Because it is what it is, only the severely disillusioned doesn't understand that there exists the possibility that one could be placed, at any time, at the tip of the spear and be asked to risk/sacrifice his/her own life for any reason the Commander in Chief deems necessary.

I have no idea what Casey Sheehan's reasons were for joining. But one thing that cannot be argued is the fact that he re-enlisted for an additional four years after being in Iraq for a lengthy period of time. Clearly, he believed in the reasons for us being there. It is this determination in our troops that ensures victory in any military conflict.

Here is a letter Cindy Sheehan wrote to President Bush wherein she utters the following statements:



George, it has been seven months today since your reckless and wanton foreign policies killed my son...

It has been seven months since your ignorant and arrogant lack of planning for the peace murdered my oldest child...

Hard work is having your country abandon you after they killed your son. Hard work is coming to the realization that your son had his future robbed from him and that you have had your son's future and future grand-children stolen from you. Hard work is knowing that there are so many people in this world that have prospered handsomely from your son's death....

By the way, George, how many more innocent Iraqis are your policies going to kill before you convince them that you are better than Saddam?


I can tell you; as I'm sure most members of the military can as well, that this kind of vitriolic hate-speak coming from home/loved one's can cripple the sense of purpose for a cause that most in the military believe in. When this sense of purpose becomes crippled it can play games on one's psyche; which can, in turn, affect a soldier's performance on the battle field and render him and his brethren at greater risk of being killed.

It's hard for me to believe that Cindy suddenly developed the opinions expressed in that letter and in the media after her son's death.


Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Why can't you just accept that she's a mother lost in her grief and let it go, why do you have to directly attack her?


A more important question: Why couldn't the media accept the she's "lost in grief" and let it go?

I have an answer: BECAUSE THEY'RE MORE INTERESTED IN THE CONTROVERSY AND RATINGS THE STORY CREATES THAN THE STORY ITSELF!!!


Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
In one sweeping generalisation you have revealed yourself as anti-anything on the left.


One minor correction: I'm anti-anything on the extreme left. There are some moderate Democrats whom I believe are reasonable.


Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
You attack the media that reports the facts from Iraq.


I attack the media that only reports on the bad "facts" from/about Iraq. There are a lot of great, inspiring stories coming out of Iraq that is largely ignored because of the media's continued desire to assault our President. Therefore; you should be asking why you're not getting the whole story.


Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
You intimate that said media finds the deaths of Iraqis more important than the deaths of US service personnel, thereby opening yourself to the charge that you find Iraqis to be less important and therefore less human.


I've NEVER intimated, insinuated, or said anything like this. You said something about a "glass ceiling" before?"


Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
You make it obvious that regardless of the truth, you will support the president and his errors or downright illegalities.


Here we go again. You make a claim you better be able to support it. What "illegalities"


Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
How do you feel about Watergate, the plumbers and the bombing of Cambodia?


It's off topic.

Editted to fix quotations

[edit on 21-12-2005 by Freedom_for_sum]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 11:32 AM
link   
The funny thing is when people get into the argument of WMD and reasons of going into a country to “liberate the people from tyranny” thing get real subjective quickly.

The IAEA Said before the invasion that there was no reason to step up pressure because he as not reconstituted this weapons program. They also said it was working and that the inspections had full access to Sadam’s residents, palaces, and manufacturing areas. They said what was true on the ground and that has more leverage with me than politicians that are trying to get a rise out of you.

Almost every “fact” Bush or the administration talked about was not true. Yellow cake, Ties to alqida, The sanctions (because Israel has many more than Iraq had but I do not see troops in Israel), WMD, Going for Democracy, and mostly the safety of Americans because in the course of these events we have made more enemies than people we have won over.
One thing that I heard from individuals that live in Belfast is that you only have to be a terrorist, freedom fighter, guerilla for only a short time in you life to be effective time measured in days not months. And I don’t know if my house was blown up and an occupier comes in and tells how to do things I might think about fighting back. Wait a min… We did that in the revolutionary war.

People are crying about “Rewriting history”.

America’s foreign policy needs to be redesigned because I remember being allies with Osamah Ben during the afghan soviet war.
I remember being friends with Sadam in the Iran Iraq war.
We are friends with Saudi Arabia now. There is no more freedom or democracy there that there was in Iraq.
We are friends with Pakistan. Musherrif overthrew a democratically elected president (The president was a woman at that has there been a woman president here?)

So don’t talk to me about freedom, don’t talk to me about liberation of 25 million. The conditions that sooo worried king George the first all the way down to king George the second are still in states around Iraq. Including people we call our allies like Israel and Pakistan, turkey, and Tajikistan, Russia, china and many others.

What makes this Administration worse than the others is that they were willing to spill national guards blood for a hollow goal. Many innocent people died because of this invasion and it has mostly distracted the real mission Afghanistan and getting Ossamah (our former operative) to justice.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackThought
The IAEA Said before the invasion that there was no reason to step up pressure because he as not reconstituted this weapons program. They also said it was working and that the inspections had full access to Sadam’s residents, palaces, and manufacturing areas. They said what was true on the ground and that has more leverage with me than politicians that are trying to get a rise out of you.


BlackThought;

You clearly spent some time peicing together your post. Why don't you provide links to legitimate sources back the claims you're making. Otherwise it's nothing more than opinion and hardly deserves meaningful response.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 12:58 PM
link   
The IAEA Said before the invasion that there was no reason to step up pressure because he as not reconstituted this weapons program. They also said it was working and that the inspections had full access to Sadam’s residents, palaces, and manufacturing areas. They said what was true on the ground and that has more leverage with me than politicians that are trying to get a rise out of you.

www.iaea.org...


NUMBER 25

NUMBER 29

NUMBER 40

NUMBER 43-45


[edit on 12/09-2005 by BlackThought]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum


Valhall;

You, as well as others, continue to judge our decision to attack Iraq based on information we know now--gleaned from the luxury of hindsight; not what we knew then. Everyone agreed that Iraq had WMD's. Again; the disagreement to atttack was over whether Iraq was the degree of threat the US perceived her to be. I've presented evidence here showing this fact. You cannot judge a decision made in the past based on information that wasn't widely available at the time.

I'm now at the point where I'm inclined to say that we should just simply say "we agree to disagree"; as I believe this thread has about run its course.

[edit on 21-12-2005 by Freedom_for_sum]


Excuse me? Where the heck have you been for the past year? There are insinuations that the false intelligence that led everybody but the ones who knew it was false to believe the reasons you state was intentionally manufactured - not just incompetence. And there is still a lot that needs to be cleared up. For instance, the implications of the Downing St. Memo....the fact that Wilson's report WAS discussed in top-level circles, and Bush went right ahead and spoke what he knew was a lie - that Iraq had tried to buy yellow cake from Nigeria - in the State of the Union address.

I don't think there's anything here that's "ran it's course". If you want to sit back on your heels and accept what is spoon fed to you and squinch your eyes real hard so you don't see the evidence of government lies when they start to appear before you - GO RIGHT AHEAD...but don't tell me to do the same.

I'm still waiting for the clarity in the situation - the clarity as to whether the false intelligence was the result of a directive, or the result of incompetence.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Excuse me? Where the heck have you been for the past year? There are insinuations that the false intelligence that led everybody but the ones who knew it was false to believe the reasons you state was intentionally manufactured - not just incompetence.


Valhall;

You're not getting it man! I only care about that information the administration was using in the days, weeks, months, leading up to the Iraq war. Since we've been in Iraq almost three years now, what has happened in the last year is irrelevent to the decisions made leading up to the war.


Originally posted by Valhall
And there is still a lot that needs to be cleared up.


This we can agree upon. Even the lowest form of criminals is innocent until proven guilty. Why not, at the very least, extend the same courtesy to the President.

BlackThought;

Saddam Hussein used the UN inspectors time and time again to delay compliance with the resolutions. There were other issues besides nuclear that we were concerned about. Point of thought: I wonder why the BND (German Intelligence) expressed concern over Iraq's nuclear capabilities. In any case, we grew weary, as did I as an American citizen, of Saddam's games. I thought the timing was right. I'm confident history will prove that.

Evidence of lying about WMD's in Iraq and our reasons for going in will never surface simply because it never happened.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

Originally posted by Valhall
Excuse me? Where the heck have you been for the past year? There are insinuations that the false intelligence that led everybody but the ones who knew it was false to believe the reasons you state was intentionally manufactured - not just incompetence.


Valhall;

You're not getting it man! I only care about that information the administration was using in the days, weeks, months, leading up to the Iraq war. Since we've been in Iraq almost three years now, what has happened in the last year is irrelevent to the decisions made leading up to the war.


Freedom...YOU'RE NOT GETTIN' IT MAN!

The Downing St. Memo and the disclosure that the administration knew that the intell of Iraq trying to buy yellow cake from Nigeria was not true are about the intelligence BEFORE WE INVADED!

Until it can be concluded one way or the other as to the accuracy of these revelations, they raise the possibility of the administration knowingly and deliberately lying to the American people, Congress and the Security Council.



[edit on 12-21-2005 by Valhall]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Freedom for sum:

Here's what you wrote, with my explanations of why you opened yourself to such criticism as you have received from me.


Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
NORMANDY, FRANCE (June 6, 1944) Three hundred French civilians were
killed and thousands more were wounded today in the first hours of America's invasion of continental Europe. Casualties were heaviest among women and children. Most of the French casualties were the result of artillery fire from American ships attempting to knock out German fortifications prior to the landing of hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops. Reports from a makeshift hospital in the French town of St. Mere Eglise said the carnage was far worse than the French had anticipated, and that reaction against the American invasion was running high. "We are dying for no reason, "said a Frenchman speaking on condition of anonymity. "Americans can't even shoot straight.


That has been proven true often enough. but this next peice of drivel. The French never have and never would have said this. However, some Iraqis have, because it is true that for them life was better under Saddam than under US-led occupation.


I never thought I'd say this, but life was better under Adolph Hitler."


Here's the analysis of what you wrote. You clearly disagree with my reading of your words and intent. I write this, because if I saw it this way, others can as well.

You focus only on the French civilian casualties, ignoring US, British, Canadian, Polish, Free French and German cobatant casualties. Which on Juno, Gold and Sword beaches were minimal, but on Omaha Beach were near-catastrophic in number for US forces.

Your suggestion is that the modern "left-leaning" media are focusing only on Iraqi civilian (and worse, insurgent) casualties and ignoring US casualties. Further, if you are offended by such an action it is because you find those civilian deaths to be less important than US casualties and thus Iraqis are "less human."

Your sentence "Casualties were heaviest among women and children" gives some unnerving insight into your value for human life, given that this piece is an attack on the "left-leaning" media and the way it reports.

We'll ignore all that crap about Greenpeace and worse, your use of Albert Einstein as an attempt to show Hitler had WMDs, when, in fact, Germany never used WMDs on the battlefield. The US did, but I guess it wasn't actually a battlefield, as such.


Several thousand Americans died during the first hours of the invasion,
and French officials are concerned that the uncollected corpses will pose a
public-health risk. "The Americans should have planned for this in
advance," they said. "It's their mess, and we don't intend to help clean it up."


Ahh, now we get to US casualties. But you dismiss them by going straight for an attack on the French and in doing so try to dismiss the fact that Bush and co did zero planning for the occupation, other than appointing Jay Garner. Whose staff planned for the kind of thing they had done before, which was humanitarian aid, not security. When his efforts proved inadequate for the situation L Paul Bremer and his combat boots were brought in and he...what? Turned things around?

The fact is that whether you agree with my in-detail analysis of what you wrote or not it is a snide attack on the media and any others who oppose George Bush's (mis)handling of Iraq.

The fact is Hitler declared war on the US. That's all the justification any president needs. Bush had to spend months finding justifications because the Middle Eastern summer gave him a timetable he couldn't work against.

As for illegalities.

How does taking prisoners on the battlefield, denying them the rights guaranteed by the Geneva Convention and imprisoning them for four years without charge?

Didn't the US criticise Saddam for the widespread use of dentention without charge?

How about authorising the NSA to wire-tap without a judge's signature?

The plumbers are exactly on topic for that sort of thing. Which is off-topic for this thread.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join