by Simon 865 Replies latest social current
Thousands of people die every year from drunk driving accidents. Why don't we worry about that instead. Thats a much more real threat than any of this.
Its all politics. The politicians come up with some heated subject that they hope the majority of their voters are with and stick to that. More people are being killed in some african countries than in Iraq. Why isn't every up in arms about that?
dubla
on cnn this morning, david kay said that this report tells us absolutely nothing new about saddams wmds.
Yes it does. It conmfirms that not only weren't there any that could be "deployed in 45 minutes". It tells us there weren't any at all. Of course, the less credulous amongst us had already figured that out, so yeah, in a way it didnt tell us nothing new.
Can you not see the comment by Kay is just a rather simplitic diversionary tactic to make it appear that despite the prime reason for invasion is now unarguably false and contrieved, it was still okay to invade against world opinion on different grounds? New light, see it for what it is.
the discussions about saddams wmds or lack thereof will most likely continue for years.
Yes, well WoMD are a bit like god. You can't prove they don't exist, and some people will believe in them in the absence of any evidence. You can carry on discssing it for years if you want, but THERE WEREN'T ANY is a pretty clear resolution of the debate.
the situation was handled poorly,
No, they used the same scare tactics to shape public opinion. If it hadn't happened before, I'd be less certain.
But to believe THIS time the scare tactics were a genuine mistake is credulous. It was a concerted and deliberate campaign as an analysis of many of the timings of mis-leading statements regarding Iraq by the Bush reigeme proves; unless this too was a coincidence?
I have some magic beans you can buy if you like, and a fragment of the true cross...
but i do think iraq and the rest of the world is better off with saddam out of power.
No, because the invasion of Iraq in the manner it was done has;
a/ increased Al-Quaeda recruitment worldwide
b/ turned Iraq from a despotic dictatorship into a lawless hot-bed of terrorist activity.
Bush and his croinies made MORE terrorism by invading Iraq in the manner they did.
To claim, therefore, that "iraq and the rest of the world is better off with saddam out of power" is not a realistic analysis of the outcome.
The rest of the world was NOT at risk of attack by Iraq. They are at increased risk of attack by terrorists due to the invasion. The people of Iraq have had a single despot replaced by wide-spread gang-warfare; they have the potential to be better off now, but if the invasion had been a world-sanctioned police action the outcome would be better for both they and the rest of the world.
As people were saying the USA doing what they have done would lead to what has happened before they did it (like Jimmy Carter), the fact it still happened is a clear sign that Bush either has insufficient competence to lead (by making the situation worse at the cost of billions of dollar and thousands of lives), or that there were other motives driving the invasion that put world security and the fate of the Iraqs into second place.
abaddon-
It tells us there weren't any at all.
like i said, i thought the bush administration had said as much months ago. maybe im mistaken on that.?. i really thought they had conceded long ago that it was highley unlikely that any significant stockpiles would be found....the exact same thing the report said. i guess you can make it into new news, but it really isnt, imo.
Can you not see the comment by Kay is just a rather simplitic diversionary tactic to make it appear that despite the prime reason for invasion is now unarguably false and contrieved, it was still okay to invade against world opinion on different grounds?
i wasnt aware that kay was a war supporter...am i mistaken on that as well?
You can carry on discssing it for years if you want, but THERE WEREN'T ANY is a pretty clear resolution of the debate.
you completely misunderstood my comment there. what i was saying is that the anti-war crowd will be talking about wmds (and the fact that there werent any) for years. you were saying "deal with the reminder", and i was replying that i think there will be plenty of reminders for years to come.....not that it will be an ongoing debate.
Bush and his croinies made MORE terrorism by invading Iraq in the manner they did.
yeah, i think al qaeda was just getting ready to call a truce before this war...now we are screwed!
aa
Dubla,
now we are screwed!
those who believed blindly screwed EVERYONE (somehow) !!!
I mean a President or Gov withouth support have no power to get there !
Gyles:
No, they used the same scare tactics to shape public opinion. If it hadn't happened before, I'd be less certain.
Thanks gawd I'm not the only one jaded by propagana.
You can see it brewing months before wars begin, as the politicians and media work hand in hand to slowly stir the populace out of their lethary. At least it seems pretty evident in the British news, since headlines aren't generally held so long, over here.
I have some magic beans you can buy if you like, and a fragment of the true cross...
I'll buy that for one dollar ninety nine!!!
dubla:
yeah, i think al qaeda was just getting ready to call a truce before this war...now we are screwed!
Yeah?
I've not heard that one before, what do you base that belief on?
David Kay has come out with very pointed criticism of the war (finally it's pointed, as opposed to previously when it was politically blunted), as has his predecessor Scott Ritter. The "nothing new" in the latest report is just further confirmation that going to war was completely unecessary from every standpoint that has been used as an excuse by the war-for-profit White House. Treasonous ****s.
little-
i assume you know i was just being sarcastic. the war in iraq has increased terrorisim in iraq, short term...but al qaeda was dead set on killing all infidels before this war started, and there was no, and is no, end in site to that mission. there will always be a new excuse for terrorism...bottom line is they want to convert the entire world to their religion...its their stated objective.
aa
Aye, I caught it. Perhaps I should have emphasised "...now we are screwed"
Do you really think there was that much threat?
dubla
like i said, i thought the bush administration had said as much months ago. maybe im mistaken on that.?
No, you're just staring at this particular event and refusing to really consider that - yet again - the public have been played for fool, the same way they were previously played. On multiple occasions. You don;t even address the issue; because you can;t?
As for Kay, I mistook his comment for apologism; "simplitic diversionary tactic to make it appear that despite the prime reason for invasion is now unarguably false and contrieved, it was still okay to invade against world opinion on different ground" is a good way of describing the basic approach by Bush and Blair to dealing with invading on trumped-up pretexts - now that they are definatively trumped-up.
It's amazing the mainstream press do not run stories on how this is just the same game, played again. War on Terror I (the Ray-gun one); War on Drugs (continuing despite prices being lower and availabilty more universal than when it started), War on Terror II. Oh, and the Cold War and it's justification of massive millitary spends to push the Soviets into a social melt-down trying to keep pace. At least with the Soviets there was some argument about it being neccesary - not that the USA were any less interested in garnering power than the Soviets.
If Bush said 'well, there's no WoMD, but we're going in anyway', would he have got support for an extra-territorial war at short notice? If they said 'well, there's no real connection between Iraq and Al-Q or 9/11, would he have got support for an extra-territorial war at short notice?
The hell he would.
He knew it and hyped the threat to get the support he wanted. If you can't look back further than the past four years and see it is a repetative pattern it's your lookout.
If you make people scared of something (the cool thing is that it doesn't have to be there) they will let you spend loads of money to make them feel safe.
It doesn't have to be well spent as the billions poured into the War on Drugs without appreciable effect shows.
And when you're spending loads of money, there's plenty of opportunity for carpet-bagging and massive profiteering.
what i was saying is that the anti-war crowd will be talking about wmds (and the fact that there werent any) for years
And the pro-war crowd will be ignoring how they've been ridden like a bitch and called sweetheart - and how they liked it.
Bush and his croinies made MORE terrorism by invading Iraq in the manner they did.yeah, i think al qaeda was just getting ready to call a truce before this war...now we are screwed!
Elsewhere in the thread you admit terrorism in Iraq is worse than before the invasion because of the invasion.
No one said Al-Q were declaring a truce before the invasion.
You know terrorism is worse as a result of a badly supported, badly planned invasion carried out under pretexts, and find it neccesary to make weak sarcastic comments to defend yourself?
Is it just another way of ignoring you were decieved?
