Home | Community | Message Board


Out-Grow.com - Mushroom Growing Kits & Supplies
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
Inflated definitions
    #1643869 - 06/19/03 08:04 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

I have observed without comment for some weeks now the increasing number of threads decrying the "lying" that Bush and Blair are purported to have done in the course of presenting one of their arguments for a forced regime change in Iraq.

This is something I have noted here in the past -- the casual "inflation" of a commonly used word to the point where it no longer has any meaning. Conservatives are "Nazis", those who hold opinions anywhere to the right of Karl Marx are "brainwashed", those who choose not to attend anti-war rallies are "war-mongers", those who believe one has the right to keep what one works for are "greedy", those who believe the less fortunate should turn to charity rather than use the government as their robber-by-proxy are "heartless", those who provide employment for people who otherwise would have none are "exploiters", etc.

The latest example is taking the fact that no biological or chemical weaponry stocks have as yet been unearthed in Iraq as proof positive that Bush and Blair "lied" about the legitimacy of deposing Saddam Hussein.

I could have chosen a column by any one of dozens of op-ed writers who have written articles covering the same points that Robert Kagan covers below, but his is a relatively short one, so he gets the nod.

A Plot to Decieve?

Robert Kagan, June 8, 2003; page 807

There is something surreal about the charges flying that President Bush lied when he claimed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Yesterday The Post continued the barrage, reporting that Defense Intelligence Agency analysts claimed last September merely that Iraq "probably" possessed "chemical agent in chemical munitions" and "probably" possessed "bulk chemical stockpiles, primarily containing precursors, but that also could consist of some mustard agent and VX," a deadly nerve agent.

This kind of "discrepancy" qualifies as front-page news these days. Why? Not because the Bush administration may have -- repeat, may have -- exaggerated the extent of knowledge about what Hussein had in his WMD arsenal. No, the critics' real aim is to prove that, as a New York Times reporter recently put it, "the failure so far to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq may mean that there never were any in the first place."

The absurdity of this charge is mind-boggling. Yes, neither the CIA nor the U.N. inspectors have ever known exactly how many weapons Hussein had or how many he was building. But that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and the ability to produce more? That has never been in doubt.

Start with this: The Iraqi government in the 1990s admitted to U.N. weapons inspectors that it had produced 8,500 liters of anthrax and a few tons of VX. Where are they? U.N. inspectors have been trying to answer that question for years. Because Hussein refused to come clean, the logical presumption was that he had hidden them. As my colleague, nonproliferation expert Joseph Cirincione, put it bluntly in a report last year: "Iraq has chemical and biological weapons." The only thing not known was where they were and how far the Iraqi weapons programs had advanced since the inspectors left in 1998.

Go back and take a look at the report Hans Blix delivered to the U.N. Security Council on Jan. 27. On the question of Iraq's stocks of anthrax, Blix reported "no convincing evidence" that they were ever destroyed. But there was "strong evidence" that Iraq produced more anthrax than it had admitted "and that at least some of this was retained." Blix also reported that Iraq possessed 650 kilograms of "bacterial growth media," enough "to produce . . . 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax." Cirincione concluded that "it is likely that Iraq retains stockpiles of anthrax, botulinum toxin and aflatoxin."

On the question of VX, Blix reported that his inspections team had information that conflicted with Iraqi accounts. The Iraqis claimed that they had produced VX only as part of a pilot program but that the quality was poor and the agent was never "weaponized." But according to Blix, the inspections team discovered Iraqi documents that showed the quality of the VX to be better than declared. The team also uncovered "indications that the agent" had been "weaponized." According to Cirincione's August 2002 report, "it is widely believed that significant quantities of chemical agents and precursors remain stored in secret depots" and that there were also "thousands of possible chemical munitions still unaccounted for." Blix reported there were 6,500 "chemical bombs" that Iraq admitted producing but whose whereabouts were unknown. Blix's team calculated the amount of chemical agent in those bombs at 1,000 tons. As Blix reported to the Security Council, "in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for."

Today, of course, they and many other known weapons are still unaccounted for. Does it follow, therefore, that they never existed? Or does it make more sense to conclude that the weapons were there and that either we'll find them or we'll find out what happened to them?

The answer depends on how broad and pervasive you like your conspiracies to be. Because if Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair are lying, they're not alone. They're part of a vast conspiratorial network of liars that includes U.N. weapons inspectors and reputable arms control experts both inside and outside government, both Republicans and Democrats.

Maybe former CIA director John Deutch was lying when he testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Sept. 19, 1996, that "we believe that [Hussein] retains an undetermined quantity of chemical and biological agents that he would certainly have the ability to deliver against adversaries by aircraft or artillery or by Scud missile systems."

Maybe former defense secretary William Cohen was lying in April when he said, "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons. . . . I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."

Maybe the German intelligence service was lying when it reported in 2001 that Hussein might be three years away from being able to build three nuclear weapons and that by 2005 Iraq would have a missile with sufficient range to reach Europe.

Maybe French President Jacques Chirac was lying when he declared in February that there were probably weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that "we have to find and destroy them."

Maybe Al Gore was lying when he declared last September, based on what he learned as vice president, that Hussein had "stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Finally, there's former president Bill Clinton. In a February 1998 speech, Clinton described Iraq's "offensive biological warfare capability, notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs." Clinton accurately reported the view of U.N. weapons inspectors "that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons." That was as unequivocal and unqualified a statement as any made by George W. Bush.

Clinton went on to insist, in words now poignant, that the world had to address the "kind of threat Iraq poses . . . a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists . . . who travel the world among us unnoticed." I think Bush said that, too.

So if you like a good conspiracy, this one's a doozy. And the best thing about it is that if all these people are lying, there's only one person who ever told the truth: Saddam Hussein. And now we can't find him either.

Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, writes a monthly column for The Washington Post.



pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,234
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Inflated definitions [Re: Phred]
    #1643878 - 06/19/03 08:09 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Bravo pinky.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,770
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 5 months, 1 day
Re: Inflated definitions [Re: Phred]
    #1643888 - 06/19/03 08:15 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

The latest example is taking the fact that no biological or chemical weaponry stocks have as yet been unearthed in Iraq as proof positive that Bush and Blair "lied" about the legitimacy of deposing Saddam Hussein.





Perhaps you should observe a little closer. The lastest example is actually taking the fact that intelligence sources on both sides of the Atlantic have expressed their unease at the way in which intelligence was changed to suit political goals. The fact that no weapons have been found merely makes their concerns look all the more valid. I notice Mr. Kagan also fails to address that point. Shoddy.


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Inflated definitions [Re: Phred]
    #1644144 - 06/19/03 11:03 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

The latest example is taking the fact that no biological or chemical weaponry stocks have as yet been unearthed in Iraq as proof positive that Bush and Blair "lied" about the legitimacy of deposing Saddam Hussein.

The WMD arn't there. Bush and Blair said they were and not only that, that the threat was so grave they had to invade immediately. I think that's about as clear a case of lying as you can find.

What do you define as "lying"?

The Iraqi government in the 1990s admitted to U.N. weapons inspectors that it had produced 8,500 liters of anthrax and a few tons of VX. Where are they? U.N. inspectors have been trying to answer that question for years. Because Hussein refused to come clean, the logical presumption was that he had hidden them.

This Kagan moron clearly misunderstands a fundamental feature of VX nerve gas, it degrades within a year. Unless the VX was made last year, it has been utterly useless for about a decade. Why would anyone bother "hiding" it? The truth, as the Iraqi scientists have all been saying is the WMD programme ended sometime in the early 90s. Certainly nothing was produced since 1994.

As Blix reported to the Security Council, "in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for."

This is a big misunderstanding that a lot of clueless right-wingers make. "Unaccounted for" does NOT mean "they still exist". It simply means they do not know exactly how much was destroyed. Big difference. Either way, the VX would be utterly useless years ago.

Maybe former CIA director John Deutch was lying when he testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Sept. 19, 1996, that "we believe that [Hussein] retains an undetermined quantity of chemical and biological agents that he would certainly have the ability to deliver against adversaries by aircraft or artillery or by Scud missile systems."

There are no WMD in Iraq. That is now blatantly obvious to even the most deranged of rabid right-wingers. Whether 50 people said they did exist is utterly irrelevant. They have been proved wrong. No matter how many people repeat an error it remains an error. It doesn't suddenly become the truth when the 50th person says it.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Inflated definitions [Re: Phred]
    #1644156 - 06/19/03 11:09 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Do you consider this lying?

An official British investigation into two trailers found in northern Iraq has concluded they are not mobile germ warfare labs, as was claimed by Tony Blair and President George Bush, but were for the production of hydrogen to fill artillery balloons, as the Iraqis have continued to insist.

The conclusion by biological weapons experts working for the British Government is an embarrassment for the Prime Minister, who has claimed that the discovery of the labs proved that Iraq retained weapons of mass destruction and justified the case for going to war against Saddam Hussein.

Instead, a British scientist and biological weapons expert, who has examined the trailers in Iraq, told The Observer last week: 'They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were - facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons.'

The conclusion of the investigation ordered by the British Government - and revealed by The Observer last week - is hugely embarrassing for Blair, who had used the discovery of the alleged mobile labs as part of his efforts to silence criticism over the failure of Britain and the US to find any weapons of mass destruction since the invasion of Iraq.

http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,977853,00.html



--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Inflated definitions [Re: Phred]
    #1644618 - 06/19/03 01:44 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Both you and the commentator either miss the point or are deliberately trying to obfuscate it.

The Bush and Blair governments claimed they had definitive proof that Iraq possessed WMD in significant quantities and they were able to be quickly deployed, thus presenting a very real, immediate threat to the West that had to be neutralized right away. That was the argument given to stop the UN inspections: We don't have time for inspections. If we don't act right now it will be too late.

Of course the evidence they presented to support this case was laughably weak. Even Secretary of State Powell, who had to deliver this case to the UN, understood this. According to an article in the June 16/23 New Yorker, "US News & World Report describes how Secretary of State Colin Powell, before he made the Administration's case against Iraq to the United Nations Security Council, rejected as weak and insubstantial intelligence material prepared for him by Cheney's office. At one point, Powell reportedly threw the Vice-President's pages in the air and said, 'I'm not reading this. This is bullshit.'"(p. 69-70)

One has to feel sorry for Powell, being coerced in the end to read material that even he felt was "bullshit." Of course, the tacit implication that the administration tried to convey was, "Well, we have even better evidence, but we can't reveal it because of national security concerns." Which, as it turns out, was also bullshit.

Most of the people in the United States who supported this war did so in the mistaken and naive belief that it was being undertaken primarily to defend the security of the United States and it allies. The servicemen and women who risked and in some cases gave their lives in this campaign did so with the same beliefs. They did so because their leaders assured them that they were certain the Iraqi regime presented a proven and immediate threat to themselves, their families, and their nation. I can't speak for the servicemen, but if I were one of them I would consider it a betrayal of my sacrifice to send me to die on false pretexts.

The real question is, did the Bush and Blair governments mislead the public as to the degree of their certainty about the status of these weapons? Anybody who goes back and looks at the comments made by these governments in the weeks leading up to war cannot help but conclude that they did. They misled the public to try to sway public opinion to a course of action that had already been decided much earlier, on the basis of interests that had less to do the national defense of the United States than with a host of factors including oil and the desire to have greater power and influence over the region.

When going to war, however, the REASONS for that war must be consented to by the governed, and therefore those reasons must be presented clearly and honestly. To defend or even try to play down this kind of deception is simply perverse.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAzmodeus
Seeker

Registered: 11/27/02
Posts: 3,392
Loc: Lotus Land!! B.C.
Last seen: 12 years, 11 months
Re: Inflated definitions [Re: Phred]
    #1644665 - 06/19/03 01:59 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

pinksharkmark said:
decrying the "lying" that Bush and Blair are purported to have done in the course of presenting one of their arguments for a forced regime change in Iraq.




Uh, that was the ONLY reason until it was so utterly proven wrong they had to fabricate more....ie liberation, terrorist ties, etc....

They had no right to invade that country. Despite how many people believe it was "for the greater good".

Someone find some WMD bush quotes....it hilarious!


--------------------
"Know your Body - Know your Mind - Know your Substance - Know your Source.

Lest we forget. "


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleCracka_X
Spiritual Dirt Worshipper
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/25/03
Posts: 8,780
Loc: Swamp
Re: Inflated definitions [Re: Phred]
    #1644698 - 06/19/03 02:13 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

nice article


--------------------
The best way to live
is to be like water
For water benefits all things
and goes against none of them
It provides for all people
and even cleanses those places
a man is loath to go
In this way it is just like Tao        ~Daodejing


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSafeHaven

Registered: 10/09/02
Posts: 191
Last seen: 3 days, 11 hours
Re: Inflated definitions [Re: Xlea321]
    #1644716 - 06/19/03 02:18 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

So basically what your saying is all those Kurds back in the 80's and on died of some other illness (whole villages) and not nerve gas or anything like that? And if he did use that, you think he took the higher ground one day and got rid of all that stuff? I think not! If you do, you sound as ignorant as Saddam in thinking we wouldnt attack.

Read between the lines, not just the lines, absence of does not mean they never existed, which has been proven already that they did, just a matter of what did they did with them.. Like oh maybe shipped them to Syria and buried them in the desert, or how about when they said before the war started Saddam had a warehouse filled and burned it to the ground full of what was reported chemicals and what not. Oh and what about all the chem suits they found and respirators? Surely we wouldnt be using that against them, so why have so many suits that were fairly new and not have anything to do with chem weapons? Unless your using them or have a immediate nemisis that could use them and we know the second option was out of the question, so use common sense.

You can bury alot in a desert and get away with it.



--------------------
As I sit here I ponder greater things.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Inflated definitions [Re: SafeHaven]
    #1644759 - 06/19/03 02:32 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

absence of does not mean they never existed

No, we know he had them in the 80's because Rumsfield was selling them to him then. It's whether he had them in 2003.

Like oh maybe shipped them to Syria and buried them in the desert

So on the eve of a war you send all your weapons to another country? Managing to cleverly hide all those trucks crossing the syrian border from permanent spy satellites? Sound likely to you? Come on man. This is a guy who was supposedly a terrifying threat to the world and desperate to use chemical weapons on us.

or how about when they said before the war started Saddam had a warehouse filled and burned it to the ground full of what was reported chemicals and what not

You can detect chemicals after burning them in a warehouse. Incidentally "chemicals" arn't WMD. A WMD is a weapon capable of being delivered to an area where it will cause mass destruction. It usually means missiles and warheads. These are pretty hard to hide.

You can bury alot in a desert and get away with it.

To make chemical weapons you need some serious industrial plant. And workers. You can't manufacture long range missiles and chemical warheads in your shed. It isn't a case of "burying it in the desert". It's not a dead cat for christs sake.



--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
Re: Inflated definitions [Re: Azmodeus]
    #1644854 - 06/19/03 02:59 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Azmodeus writes:

Uh, that was the ONLY reason until it was so utterly proven wrong they had to fabricate more....

Incorrect. If you don't remember what Bush said in all his addresses which were widely broadcast, do a Google search and re-read them now. WMDs were never the ONLY reason given by either Bush or Blair. The press seems to have found it too complicated to focus on more than one reason, however, so it was the WMD issue which was the most widely reported.

The major reason -- mentioned repeatedly by Bush and Blair -- was Iraq's refusal to abide by the terms of the conditional surrender. No one has ever disputed (even today) the fact that Iraq failed to meet even a single one of the conditions. It is true that ONE of the unfulfilled conditions was that Hussein was required to provide credible proof of the destruction of the bio and chem weaponry he was known to possess, but it was not the only condition.

As for the charge of "fabrication" of other reasons, to what are you referring? You mention "liberation"... you are not seriously claiming that the Iraqis were free, I hope? You mention "terrorist ties"... have you not read of the capture of Abu Abbas and other terrorists who were sheltering in Iraq? Ever heard of Hussein's incentive program rewarding homicide bombers?

If it was a lie to insist that Hussein possessed bio and chemical weaponry and the capacity to manufacture more, it was a lie promulgated by one heck of a lot of people --

Waldos of Mass Destruction

By Dale Franks 06/16/2003

Less than two months after the conclusion of the war in Iraq, President Bush's critics have begun complaining loudly about the lack of results from the search for Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) there. Many of Bush's critics argued before the war that the UN needed more time - perhaps as much as a year - for UN Inspectors to find the Iraqi WMDs. Now, after barely two months of post-war searching, these same people feel that the Bush administration has had more than enough time.

Indeed, many of Bush's critics now accuse him of intentionally fabricating the excuse that Iraq had an active WMD program solely for the purpose of invading that unhappy country. To believe this is true, however, one must believe a large number of improbable things.

First, one must believe that, in addition to duping the American people, President Bush also duped the intelligence services of Russia, China, France, The United Kingdom, among others, into believing that Iraq had a WMD program as well. Over the past eight months, the leaders of each of these nations, presumably informed by their own intelligence services, indicated their belief that Iraq did have an ongoing WMD program. Moreover, by their unanimous approval of UN Security Council Resolution 1441, these nations stated that Iraq had failed to meet its obligation to disarm itself of WMDs that it was known to possess in the past.

As UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix put it, Iraq provided "no credible evidence" that those prior WMD arsenals had been destroyed. So, even if one argues that the intelligence regarding recent Iraqi WMD programs was too spotty to justify claims about WMD activity, one is still left with the fact that Iraq was incontrovertibly known to have had a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons, whose status and whereabouts were still unknown.

Unknown, because Iraq never provided the required evidence of its destruction, other than unsupported claims it had done so. Iraq presented no documents signed by the destroying officials. It presented no films or videos of the destruction process. It did not allow inspectors to visit the supposed sites of such destruction. The plain fact is that there was simply no need for President Bush to try to create some sort of false impression that Iraq had an active WMD program. The Iraqi regime was already doing a good enough job of that for itself. So, to accept on the mere say-so of Saddam Hussein's regime that the Iraqis destroyed those WMDs, one must believe, in the face of massive evidence to the contrary, that Saddam Hussein was trustworthier than George W. Bush.

Next, one must also believe contradictory things about George W. Bush. One must believe him to be, on one hand, a calculating, Machiavellian conspirator who managed to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people in order to justify starting a war. On the other hand, he must be enough of an amiable dunce to forget to arrange for WMDs to be "found" in Iraq after the war. In fact, our inability to find such weapons so far is the best evidence that Bush did not fabricate the administration's fears of Iraqi WMD. Why would he jeopardize his credibility over an issue he knew to be fabricated, knowing a) that he would not find a WMD arsenal in post-war Iraq, and b) the lack of such an arsenal would invite closer scrutiny of the administration's pre-war arguments? If Bush were smart enough to create the extraordinary conspiracy with which his critics have charged, you'd think he'd be smart enough to address that question before committing himself to pursuing it.

Additionally, the large number of people who would have to be involved in such a conspiracy makes its very existence highly unlikely. In addition to requiring the silence of most senior administration officials, a large number of career intelligence and defense officials, diplomats, and civil service workers would have to be silenced. In the past, such large secret actions, such as the Nixon administration's military actions in Cambodia, or even Watergate itself - with a far smaller number of conspirators - have proven remarkably immune to secrecy for any length of time. To argue otherwise, one must believe that a legion of both political and career officials, many of whom are presumably not Republicans, have willingly signed on to such a conspiracy, rather than leak it to, say, The New York Times.

In the end, we may not find any Iraqi WMDs at all. Perhaps, as some have suggested, the Iraqi regime removed the evidence prior to the start of the war, either by destroying it, or transporting the weapons to Syria. Some have hypothesized that the Iraqis may have pretended to have ample stocks of WMDs they didn't actually possess, in order to provide a deterrent effect (if true, this was a less than wise policy, as it turned out). Or perhaps, as others have suggested, Saddam Hussein's demands on the treasury for palaces and other monumental structures were too great to allow both an active WMD program and an active program of monumental architecture, so Iraqi officials pretended to keep their WMD efforts current in order to placate him.

Prior to the war, no major figure in American politics and no serious world leader doubted that the Iraqi regime had something to hide, mainly because the Iraqis, at every turn, acted as if they were, in fact, hiding something. Indeed, the Clinton administration in 1998 explicitly charged that the Iraqis had an active WMD program, a charge repeated many times since then by every major Democratic Party leader. To believe that George W. Bush created a fictional Iraqi WMD program in order to justify a war there is to forget the previous 5 years of history, and to forget that the previous administration - good Democrats, all - believed it long before George W. Bush made an issue out of it.

Dale Franks is a contributor to techcentralstation.com

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Inflated definitions [Re: Phred]
    #1644879 - 06/19/03 03:11 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

WMDs were never the ONLY reason given by either Bush or Blair.

Nonsense. WMD was the only remotely legal basis Bush or Blair had for invading.

The major reason -- mentioned repeatedly by Bush and Blair -- was Iraq's refusal to abide by the terms of the conditional surrender

Nonsense. If refusal to abide was the only reason what was so urgent about the situation they had to invade? No, the alleged reason was that Saddam's WMD posed an immediate and overwhelming threat. Clearly they didn't.

No one has ever disputed (even today) the fact that Iraq failed to meet even a single one of the conditions.

Actually, meeting the conditions wasn't necessary. All Iraq had to do to was to ACCEPT the terms of UN resolution 687. That's how conditional surrenders work. Which they did. btw, could you define exactly what you mean by "the conditional surrender"? Do you mean UN resolution 687?

It is true that ONE of the unfulfilled conditions was that Hussein was required to provide credible proof of the destruction of the bio and chem weaponry he was known to possess, but it was not the only condition.

You can read UN resolution 687 here.

http://www.caabu.org/press/documents/unscr-resolution-687.html

Iraq never invaded any other countries and had no WMD. Could you list us what other conditions you think Iraq didn't meet?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 22,844
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
Re: Inflated definitions [Re: Phred]
    #1644898 - 06/19/03 03:18 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

I'd just like to throw in Taxes = Theft as another inflated definition.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,234
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Inflated definitions [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #1644927 - 06/19/03 03:26 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Actually I think a careful reading of the posts here will show that most of those who feel taxes = theft are refering to the unconstitutional use of the taxes.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Inflated definitions [Re: Phred]
    #1645043 - 06/19/03 04:05 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

This second article attacks the following contention (let's call it #1):

"George Bush KNEW that Iraq didn't have WMD but tried to deceive people into thinking it did."

This is a strawman. This is not what I and most others who criticize what the administration did are arguing. Ours is rather contention #2:

There was conflicting evidence on the status of Iraqi WMD. Many analysts at the CIA and other intelligence organizations have reported that they had evidence mitigating AGAINST the idea that viable WMD were present. Bush didn't know for sure, neither did the British, but their agenda was pre-ordained. They selectively ignored the evidence that indicated that there was no viable WMD and hyped up, sexed up, and brought front and center the indications that there WAS viable WMD. Furthermore, they vastly exaggerated the reliability and evidentiary value of the material supporting their pre-ordained plan, even resorting to demonstrated plagiarism when necessary.

As for the fact that the WMD issue was the most widely reported, that has nothing to do with the press and everything to do with the Bush and Blair governments. Powell's speech to the Security Council was focused almost entirely on weaponry and the subsidiary issue of al-Qaeda ties, which also have yet to be satisfactorily substantiated. Every single PR move the administration made on this war was strategically targeted to make it seem as if this were some kind of retaliation for 9/11 and a way to ensure that something like 9/11 never happens again. Meanwhile, of course, the Bush White House is stonewalling the independent investigation of 9/11, telling the victim's families more or less to fuck off, and refusing to disburse the funds that Congress approved for state and local terrorism preparedness. Anyway, I'm going off on a tangent. The key point is that the two governments distorted the facts and misled the public both about the quality of their evidence as well as the whole rationale for war.

In any event, this is not a debate about the legitimacy or lack thereof of this war: that debate has been waged countless times already. This is a debate about the way in which information was distorted in order to ensure a pre-ordained course of action. Even many of those who supported the legitimacy of the war (I am not one of them, but anyway) within the context of the way it was presented to them, have reason to be upset if the way it was presented to them was crooked.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSafeHaven

Registered: 10/09/02
Posts: 191
Last seen: 3 days, 11 hours
Re: Inflated definitions [Re: Xlea321]
    #1645844 - 06/19/03 08:31 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

So on the eve of a war you send all your weapons to another country? Managing to cleverly hide all those trucks crossing the syrian border from permanent spy satellites? Sound likely to you? Come on man. This is a guy who was supposedly a terrifying threat to the world and desperate to use chemical weapons on us.

Yes as matter of fact they reported in the news that they saw several convoys heading into Syria from Iraq on satellites, but you I can imagine would agree that doesnt mean they shipped Chem or bio stuff over there. Ane YES he would have used them on us if it wasnt for alot of other countries (Russia and a few others) telling them that it would be a grave mistake to use them , as it would give us much more legitimacy in this. Its not that he was this terrifying immediate threat , point is that he has a proven track record of these crimes against humanity. You can read look a Bio on Saddam, the man is evil incarnate.

You can detect chemicals after burning them in a warehouse. Incidentally "chemicals" arn't WMD. A WMD is a weapon capable of being delivered to an area where it will cause mass destruction. It usually means missiles and warheads. These are pretty hard to hide.

Yes you can detect chemicals, but any Bio would have been destroyed in the fire, and what if they said Yes heres a place that got torched "but we had a accidental fire and was just cleaning supplies that got torched" Yet again still no proof, no kiddin hes had a decade or more to hide this stuff, Dont you know history they hide all kinds of stuff in the desert.

To make chemical weapons you need some serious industrial plant. And workers. You can't manufacture long range missiles and chemical warheads in your shed. It isn't a case of "burying it in the desert". It's not a dead cat for christs sake.

Umm they have and had the plants and plenty of workers....they buy the missiles from China.....and all you have to do is add warhead or chem or bio to warhead then poof couple hours later you have full weapon. Its not the space shuttle your hiding, it a barrel or sealed container, many of them. Go walk in a desert and see how easy it is to hide stuff in the ground. Desert is unrelenting and the landscape changes continually. Cant tell whats been dug and whats natural after so long.

So what you think he got some morals and thought "TODAY I AM GONNA RID MYSELF OF CHEM AND BIO WEAPONS"????? Get real..
Why you think they regulate things in the world like nuclear and chemical stuff, cause of the wide spread danger that could happen , when someone who like Saddam gets power in his hands...

He begins to think he is almost a GOD.. always fear that....






--------------------
As I sit here I ponder greater things.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,247
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 2 days, 10 hours
Re: Inflated definitions [Re: SafeHaven]
    #1646040 - 06/19/03 10:04 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

He begins to think he is almost a GOD.. always fear that....



***Cough*Bush*Cough***


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinehongomon
old hand
Registered: 04/14/02
Posts: 910
Loc: comin' at ya
Last seen: 13 years, 7 months
Re: Inflated definitions [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #1646119 - 06/19/03 10:29 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Baby_Hitler said:
I'd just like to throw in Taxes = Theft as another inflated definition.




and anti-war protestors = Saddam lovers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,770
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 5 months, 1 day
Re: Inflated definitions [Re: Phred]
    #1647092 - 06/20/03 04:11 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

The major reason -- mentioned repeatedly by Bush and Blair -- was Iraq's refusal to abide by the terms of the conditional surrender.




Even this fact is in doubt now when it turns out that any positive reports of Iraqi compliance with weapons inspectors was modified or buried to put the Iraqi's in a bad light.

Quote:

you are not seriously claiming that the Iraqis were free, I hope?




Are you seriously claiming they are free now then? I hope not.

Quote:

If it was a lie to insist that Hussein possessed bio and chemical weaponry and the capacity to manufacture more, it was a lie promulgated by one heck of a lot of people




That is hilarious, so if enough people say it it must be true??!


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePaid
Pict
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/13/03
Posts: 5,376
Loc: Zone ate
Last seen: 13 years, 10 months
Re: Inflated definitions [Re: GazzBut]
    #1647131 - 06/20/03 04:35 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Inflated definitions

Liberal=whiner
Welfare = Stealing
Bush = The best man at the time
America = #1
Unemployment = lazyness
America = freedom



--------------------



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* paper money as currency?Inflation? stock HOW?? fake economy?
( 1 2 all )
kaiowas 2,139 22 08/26/03 10:37 AM
by Anonymous
* Ron Paul's isolationism would have helped Hitler according to John McCain
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
Paleocon 6,495 123 12/12/07 05:37 PM
by EntheogenicPeace
* HITLER WAS A SOCIALIST
( 1 2 3 all )
lonestar2004 3,845 40 02/25/07 02:16 PM
by gluke bastid
* How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power (long) ekomstop 973 5 09/28/04 07:16 PM
by Phred
* Bush and Hitler - Parallel Lives
( 1 2 3 all )
Prajna 2,655 52 01/01/06 08:39 PM
by RandalFlagg
* Inflation nugsarenice 1,624 14 01/16/02 03:04 PM
by Innvertigo
* True definition of fascism The_Red_Crayon 1,398 15 11/04/08 03:46 PM
by Jawofmalak
* Hitler V Saddam
( 1 2 all )
germin8tionn8ion 3,332 28 07/03/04 11:20 AM
by Ed1

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil
3,076 topic views. 1 members, 2 guests and 5 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
MushroomCube.com
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.042 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 21 queries.