GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
"Of course I want to know why we haven't found a weapon yet," -Bush, tonight.
BECAUSE THERE AREN'T ANY, NUMBNUTS!!!
Sheesh.
"Of course I want to know why we haven't found a weapon yet," -Bush, tonight.
BECAUSE THERE AREN'T ANY, NUMBNUTS!!!
Sheesh.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
BRONZE Member
Mistress of Pink...Multicoloured
6,140 posts
Location: Over There, United Kingdom
Mistress of Pink...Multicoloured
6,140 posts
Location: Over There, United Kingdom
Posted:
Oh no you see President Bush and Tony Blair are never wrong. There are some WMD in Iraq. But they are so cleverly hidden that not even the iraqi's know where they are.
Oh no you see President Bush and Tony Blair are never wrong. There are some WMD in Iraq. But they are so cleverly hidden that not even the iraqi's know where they are.
Never pick up a duck in a dungeon...
SILVER Member
veteran
1,389 posts
Location: Guelph, ON, Canada
veteran
1,389 posts
Location: Guelph, ON, Canada
Posted:
It's all a conspiracy!!! *dives under the bed*
~ Bobo
It's all a conspiracy!!! *dives under the bed*
~ Bobo
wie weit, wie weit noch?
fragst mich, wo wir gewesen sind...
du fehlst hier
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
What would you say to someone who asked-
weren't such weapons used against the Kurds?
and-
Isn't it the nature of chemical/biological weapons that they can be easily hidden/destroyed?
What would you say to someone who asked-
weren't such weapons used against the Kurds?
and-
Isn't it the nature of chemical/biological weapons that they can be easily hidden/destroyed?
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
3,149 posts
Location: London
3,149 posts
Location: London
Posted:
ignore you completely, obviously...
Saddam never did account for the chemical weapons that he admitted to owning after the first war. Whether he owned them in the first place isn't clear.
and the lack of cooperation with UN weapons inspectors didn't go very far to convincing that he didn't have any...
i was fairly convinced that he did have WMD before the war.
Now i'm more of the opinion that in fact he was just trying to act like he did. After all, the main point of WMD isn't to use them, but to intimidate\threaten with them. Which you can do almost as effectively, and much cheaper, with a pretend arsenal.
i reckun:
Bush and Blair gambled that Saddam had WMD, because they were convinced that he did. Because they haven't found any, they've lost, and their political credibility has taken quite a blow. Whether or not the public condone, or will forgive, their actions will be shown at the elections...
By the way... i'm pleased that certain cynical suggestions that "WMD's will be found, one way or another..." haven't come to pass. It's shown that whatever the failings of our Governments, at least they stop short of falsifying evidence.
ignore you completely, obviously...
Saddam never did account for the chemical weapons that he admitted to owning after the first war. Whether he owned them in the first place isn't clear.
and the lack of cooperation with UN weapons inspectors didn't go very far to convincing that he didn't have any...
i was fairly convinced that he did have WMD before the war.
Now i'm more of the opinion that in fact he was just trying to act like he did. After all, the main point of WMD isn't to use them, but to intimidate\threaten with them. Which you can do almost as effectively, and much cheaper, with a pretend arsenal.
i reckun:
Bush and Blair gambled that Saddam had WMD, because they were convinced that he did. Because they haven't found any, they've lost, and their political credibility has taken quite a blow. Whether or not the public condone, or will forgive, their actions will be shown at the elections...
By the way... i'm pleased that certain cynical suggestions that "WMD's will be found, one way or another..." haven't come to pass. It's shown that whatever the failings of our Governments, at least they stop short of falsifying evidence.
"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."
Official HoP hobbity potato monster!
434 posts
Location: Cardiff, The Diffshire
434 posts
Location: Cardiff, The Diffshire
Posted:
you mean our governments actually stops short of falsifying evidence??
Quote:
It's shown that whatever the failings of our Governments, at least they stop short of falsifying evidence.
you mean our governments actually stops short of falsifying evidence??
O.B.E.S.E. Official Potato man.
Remeber kids.... Its all fun and games until someone loses a bol**ck! 
110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
3,149 posts
Location: London
3,149 posts
Location: London
Posted:
well, apparently...
my point being, that was one of the many baseless accusations\insults thrown at the Bush administration in the run up to the war.
i've seen some people i know eagerly clutching onto every bit of anti-war propaganda as unassailable gospel truth, and every statement from US or UK governments treated as lies, without ever actually trying to make a rational assessment of evidence\motivations of those involved, etc.
well, apparently...
my point being, that was one of the many baseless accusations\insults thrown at the Bush administration in the run up to the war.
i've seen some people i know eagerly clutching onto every bit of anti-war propaganda as unassailable gospel truth, and every statement from US or UK governments treated as lies, without ever actually trying to make a rational assessment of evidence\motivations of those involved, etc.
"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."
SILVER Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Posted:
shouldn't this be in 'politics'???
Anyway, the way I see it, if your neighbor steals your TV set, and then you call him up every day for a week and say, "if you don"t bring my TV set back, I'm going to call the cops!" and then a week later you call the cops, do you really think the TV set will still be in his house when they arrive to check out your complaint?
Saddam had like a year's warning that the cops were coming. Bush shot himself in the foot by being so vocal for so long about the fact that he was going to send troops to get the WMDs. What I can't beleive is that no one told him he had a gun pointed at his own feet - I thought it was pretty obviously the case, but does any one listen to me? NOOO! of course not!
(I wouldn't have told Bush anyway though - it's kinda fun watching him screw up, even if it does mean losing some American prestige...)
shouldn't this be in 'politics'???
Anyway, the way I see it, if your neighbor steals your TV set, and then you call him up every day for a week and say, "if you don"t bring my TV set back, I'm going to call the cops!" and then a week later you call the cops, do you really think the TV set will still be in his house when they arrive to check out your complaint?
Saddam had like a year's warning that the cops were coming. Bush shot himself in the foot by being so vocal for so long about the fact that he was going to send troops to get the WMDs. What I can't beleive is that no one told him he had a gun pointed at his own feet - I thought it was pretty obviously the case, but does any one listen to me? NOOO! of course not!
(I wouldn't have told Bush anyway though - it's kinda fun watching him screw up, even if it does mean losing some American prestige...)
-v-
Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!
BRONZE Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,009 posts
Location: Bristol, UK
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,009 posts
Location: Bristol, UK
Posted:
Answer to the first question: interesting article
quotes from the article:
"But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.
...
And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas."
Yes, Iraq had some chemical weapons once. Probably not enough to be considered a 'weapons of mass destruction' because they were only used on a small scale. The only WMDs (ie. weapons that cause a lot of destruction) used in Iraq have been used by the US military, such as cluster bombs.
Second answer: no. For the same reason that an investigator can tell you what was used to start an arsonist's fire a weapons inspector could tell you if chemical or biological weapons were once present or destroyed in a container. The inspectors (when they were there) took air samples and using gas chromatography could detect the presence of conventional, biological or chemical weapons tens of miles down wind of military sites.
So, maybe Saddam did destroy the chemical weapons sometime in the decade before the invasion exactly as he was told to and claimed in which case the invasion was not justified on the WMDs ground. Or he destroyed them as he was being invaded, and if he did so he'd have had to have done it very quickly and perfectly for no evidence to be found, which as I've said above, is most unlikely.
As many analysts have said the most likely explanation is that Saddam, like all leaders do to some extent, bluffed in order to make himself seem more powerful. He had an old enemy Iran next door, an internal majority opposing him and the US hounding him. In that circumstance the understandable thing to do is to lie, and he did it really well. Internal documents, impotent factories, etc... all very well done.
Tony, Osama, George and Moqtada Sadr have one thing in common - a strong faith. They seem to believe they're on a mission from God to make the world a better place.
Quote:
What would you say to someone who asked-
weren't such weapons used against the Kurds?
and-
Isn't it the nature of chemical/biological weapons that they can be easily hidden/destroyed?
Answer to the first question: interesting article
quotes from the article:
"But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.
...
And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas."
Yes, Iraq had some chemical weapons once. Probably not enough to be considered a 'weapons of mass destruction' because they were only used on a small scale. The only WMDs (ie. weapons that cause a lot of destruction) used in Iraq have been used by the US military, such as cluster bombs.
Second answer: no. For the same reason that an investigator can tell you what was used to start an arsonist's fire a weapons inspector could tell you if chemical or biological weapons were once present or destroyed in a container. The inspectors (when they were there) took air samples and using gas chromatography could detect the presence of conventional, biological or chemical weapons tens of miles down wind of military sites.
So, maybe Saddam did destroy the chemical weapons sometime in the decade before the invasion exactly as he was told to and claimed in which case the invasion was not justified on the WMDs ground. Or he destroyed them as he was being invaded, and if he did so he'd have had to have done it very quickly and perfectly for no evidence to be found, which as I've said above, is most unlikely.
As many analysts have said the most likely explanation is that Saddam, like all leaders do to some extent, bluffed in order to make himself seem more powerful. He had an old enemy Iran next door, an internal majority opposing him and the US hounding him. In that circumstance the understandable thing to do is to lie, and he did it really well. Internal documents, impotent factories, etc... all very well done.
Tony, Osama, George and Moqtada Sadr have one thing in common - a strong faith. They seem to believe they're on a mission from God to make the world a better place.
SILVER Member
Pooh-Bah
2,014 posts
Location: Galveston, TX, USA
Pooh-Bah
2,014 posts
Location: Galveston, TX, USA
Posted:
Dom made politics disappear yesterday - he merged all the threads from there into socail discussion.
It's wonderful watching Bush mess up. What boggles my mind is why so many people still support him. I did learn after talking with my parents that at least a few people do because they dislike Kerry even more...
Dom made politics disappear yesterday - he merged all the threads from there into socail discussion.
It's wonderful watching Bush mess up. What boggles my mind is why so many people still support him. I did learn after talking with my parents that at least a few people do because they dislike Kerry even more...
SILVER Member
15,417 posts
Location: South Wales
15,417 posts
Location: South Wales
Posted:
and for his next trick....
Quote:
Dom made politics disappear yesterday -
and for his next trick....
DIAMOND Member
The Ministry of Manipulation
2,523 posts
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
The Ministry of Manipulation
2,523 posts
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Posted:
BBC world service - In my opinion one of the very best sources for factual and impartial world news.
jigsaw in peices
this documentary in 4 parts is awsum and great to listen too
it was broadcast about 1 month ago
https://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/specials/1016_jigsawinpieces/index.shtml
war on iraq
war on terrorism
WMD's
the world after iraq
interviews with all the big cheeses, its much more about facts much less about opinions
they pull no punches, and are no ones poodle
its real media streaming.
So if you are interested in this topic, I 100 % recommed you listen to this. then come back to the table.
smiles
A
BBC world service - In my opinion one of the very best sources for factual and impartial world news.
jigsaw in peices
this documentary in 4 parts is awsum and great to listen too
it was broadcast about 1 month ago
https://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/specials/1016_jigsawinpieces/index.shtml
war on iraq
war on terrorism
WMD's
the world after iraq
interviews with all the big cheeses, its much more about facts much less about opinions
they pull no punches, and are no ones poodle
its real media streaming.
So if you are interested in this topic, I 100 % recommed you listen to this. then come back to the table.
smiles
A
SILVER Member
15,417 posts
Location: South Wales
15,417 posts
Location: South Wales
Posted:
Listening now..
Listening now..
GOLD Member
playing the days away
7,263 posts
Location: The Middle lands, United Kingdom
playing the days away
7,263 posts
Location: The Middle lands, United Kingdom
Posted:
"erm...erm...erm....if you give me a minute I might be able to come up with an answer to that question..."
GWB yesterday, shown to the world (well me anyways) this morning on breakfast TV. He couldn't even asnwer a question properly about his own governments actions.
Monkey faced daddy's boy falsified election balloted goon.
"erm...erm...erm....if you give me a minute I might be able to come up with an answer to that question..."
GWB yesterday, shown to the world (well me anyways) this morning on breakfast TV. He couldn't even asnwer a question properly about his own governments actions.Monkey faced daddy's boy falsified election balloted goon.
Let's relight this forum 
HoP Mechanical Engineer
729 posts
Location: OK, USA
729 posts
Location: OK, USA
Posted:
I know for a FACT it's rhetoric like this that caused me to lose faith in the credibility of the peace movement. Is your gripe with the war itself, or the election back in 2000, or something entirely different? Stick to a topic you're choosing to represent or else it appears less like civilized disagreement and more like whining over several distinct issues with no central argument. And for the record... to everyone who sees the need to include a scathing comment about Bush's highly controversial election with any other criticism of his performance, please realize it just makes you look like you're bitter about that, and that any disagreement you have over current affairs stems from your predetermined hatred for the man (i.e. lacks any basis other than personal enmity).
I honestly try to understand the peace movement, and for the most part I do. Though we may disagree over certain individual issues, I know what they're trying to do and support it. However, just as there are idiots in the Bush camp, so too are there idiots in the opposing camp(s). Why don't I see their comrades getting upset over the way they publicly humiliate and discredit the entire party/movement?
For example, see:
https://users.lmi.net/zombie/sf_rally_april_10_2004/
I understand that many of you here are opposed to the war and have a general dislike for Bush, and accept that with little argument. But what do you feel about people like those documented at this rally 4 days ago?
Quote:
Monkey faced daddy's boy falsified election balloted goon.
I know for a FACT it's rhetoric like this that caused me to lose faith in the credibility of the peace movement. Is your gripe with the war itself, or the election back in 2000, or something entirely different? Stick to a topic you're choosing to represent or else it appears less like civilized disagreement and more like whining over several distinct issues with no central argument. And for the record... to everyone who sees the need to include a scathing comment about Bush's highly controversial election with any other criticism of his performance, please realize it just makes you look like you're bitter about that, and that any disagreement you have over current affairs stems from your predetermined hatred for the man (i.e. lacks any basis other than personal enmity).
I honestly try to understand the peace movement, and for the most part I do. Though we may disagree over certain individual issues, I know what they're trying to do and support it. However, just as there are idiots in the Bush camp, so too are there idiots in the opposing camp(s). Why don't I see their comrades getting upset over the way they publicly humiliate and discredit the entire party/movement?
For example, see:
https://users.lmi.net/zombie/sf_rally_april_10_2004/
I understand that many of you here are opposed to the war and have a general dislike for Bush, and accept that with little argument. But what do you feel about people like those documented at this rally 4 days ago?
What hits the fan is not evenly distributed.
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Wait a sec. Let's review history for a second.
Yes, Saddam had WMD's. We know this.
But he destroyed them as a condition of the U.N. Sanctions.
The Bush/Blair justification for invading Iraq was because they accused Saddam of not having destroyed the weapons. Fair enough...
EXCEPT...
There had been U.N. Inspectors in Iraq looking for them. The Inspectors said that they needed more time. They urged the U.S. not to attack.
Then, Bush said that it was absolutely certain, based on secret intelligence, that the WMD's were there. But oops! And then the CIA and FBI came out and said, "But we never said there were WMD's there!"
So Bush lied to accomplish his own personal agenda. In doing so, he cost heaven-knows-how-much money, killed heaven-knows-how-many people, and decimated an entire country's infrastructure. He also took it upon himself to give the contracts for reconstruction to his buddies' companies. How nice of him.
And rather than even admit an error (let alone a lie), he continues to lie. And 48% of Americans plan to vote for him.
Wait a sec. Let's review history for a second.
Yes, Saddam had WMD's. We know this.
But he destroyed them as a condition of the U.N. Sanctions.
The Bush/Blair justification for invading Iraq was because they accused Saddam of not having destroyed the weapons. Fair enough...
EXCEPT...
There had been U.N. Inspectors in Iraq looking for them. The Inspectors said that they needed more time. They urged the U.S. not to attack.
Then, Bush said that it was absolutely certain, based on secret intelligence, that the WMD's were there. But oops! And then the CIA and FBI came out and said, "But we never said there were WMD's there!"
So Bush lied to accomplish his own personal agenda. In doing so, he cost heaven-knows-how-much money, killed heaven-knows-how-many people, and decimated an entire country's infrastructure. He also took it upon himself to give the contracts for reconstruction to his buddies' companies. How nice of him.
And rather than even admit an error (let alone a lie), he continues to lie. And 48% of Americans plan to vote for him.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
And Dio,
I'm not one of those people. Those people are just as bad as the ones who think that the U.S. can do no wrong.
In fact, there is a middle ground. The problem is that Bush does not stand in it. He's one of the idiots who thinks the U.S. can do no wrong.
And Dio,
I'm not one of those people. Those people are just as bad as the ones who think that the U.S. can do no wrong.
In fact, there is a middle ground. The problem is that Bush does not stand in it. He's one of the idiots who thinks the U.S. can do no wrong.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
HoP Mechanical Engineer
729 posts
Location: OK, USA
729 posts
Location: OK, USA
Posted:
I understand that, and would be horribly ignorant if I didn't. You and me agree on lots of stuff, disagree on some, but I know you're nothing like those protestors. I was asking your (and others') opinion of them and what they do for the movement at large, not suggesting any similarities.
Quote:
And Dio,
I'm not one of those people. Those people are just as bad as the ones who think that the U.S. can do no wrong.
I understand that, and would be horribly ignorant if I didn't. You and me agree on lots of stuff, disagree on some, but I know you're nothing like those protestors. I was asking your (and others') opinion of them and what they do for the movement at large, not suggesting any similarities.
What hits the fan is not evenly distributed.
HoP Mechanical Engineer
729 posts
Location: OK, USA
729 posts
Location: OK, USA
Posted:
Oh yeah, hehe... please count me as one of the remaining 52%.
I'm as fed up as anyone else about the guy. Personally I'd opt for separation of powers (i.e. Kerry with a Rep-controlled Congress, or Bush with Dem-controlled) so at least the larger issues everyone agrees on will be put through but the personal agendas won't... Bush has way too much power because his Republican-controlled Congress will approve his initiatives just to spite the Democrats. Sadly, the animosity between parties has just gotten worse as time goes by, and now we're seeing some results of that.
Oh yeah, hehe... please count me as one of the remaining 52%.
I'm as fed up as anyone else about the guy. Personally I'd opt for separation of powers (i.e. Kerry with a Rep-controlled Congress, or Bush with Dem-controlled) so at least the larger issues everyone agrees on will be put through but the personal agendas won't... Bush has way too much power because his Republican-controlled Congress will approve his initiatives just to spite the Democrats. Sadly, the animosity between parties has just gotten worse as time goes by, and now we're seeing some results of that.
What hits the fan is not evenly distributed.
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Well simian, I think that one's debatable.
Of concern to me in this situation, is how GWB and other leaders skewed intelligence to support their case for Glory. And how most media reports were falsified to make it appear that the mighty US military machine was indeed winning, and seen a liberators. In Australia, there were many attempts by PM Howard and his cronies to shut it down the Aust. Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) for objective reporting ie. not broadcasting pro US and Liberal party propaganda.
Man, these guys have been lying through their teeth, and I find it despicable that they tried to justify invading another country with a pack of lies, no matter how noble they thought the cause was. However, I don't personally think there is anything noble about plundering a country for oil, to win an election, kick arab butt or whatever.
This may seem naive, but I would have thought that you would have had ALL the facts and watertight case before you even thought about committing half the world to war.
Quote:
It's shown that whatever the failings of our Governments, at least they stop short of falsifying evidence.
Well simian, I think that one's debatable.
Of concern to me in this situation, is how GWB and other leaders skewed intelligence to support their case for Glory. And how most media reports were falsified to make it appear that the mighty US military machine was indeed winning, and seen a liberators. In Australia, there were many attempts by PM Howard and his cronies to shut it down the Aust. Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) for objective reporting ie. not broadcasting pro US and Liberal party propaganda.
Man, these guys have been lying through their teeth, and I find it despicable that they tried to justify invading another country with a pack of lies, no matter how noble they thought the cause was. However, I don't personally think there is anything noble about plundering a country for oil, to win an election, kick arab butt or whatever.
This may seem naive, but I would have thought that you would have had ALL the facts and watertight case before you even thought about committing half the world to war.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
GOLD Member
ZORT!
3,045 posts
Location: Brisbane, Australia
ZORT!
3,045 posts
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posted:
i dont really think thats been particularly overwhelming. it been pretty apparent that not everything has been running smoothly for a while. i suppose i depends which media reports you follow.
thats a bit of an exaggeration mate.
so your conceding that they thought it was noble. if it was beleived to be the right thing to do and you had to power to carry it out, would you do it? john howard, although i disagree with his view on many occasions, has always been consistent. he was elected being a convservative monarchist fuddy duddy, and that he remained. at the end of the day, he was elected democratically with his personal values, and acted in accordance with his own conscience. thats the way democracy works.
then what about east timor? we sent troops there to try to faciliate a smooth changeover to democracy, and flush out the remaining loyalists to the previous government. as a result, we will get a nice share of the oil field between us and east timor. personally i think sending troops to east timor was excellent.
[edit: this was leading onto an excellent point which eludes me at present. ill come back to it later]
unfortunately the worlds not a black and white place where we have all the facts. when you are in positions of power you have to act to the best of your judgement - and you dont always have the facts. so you do what you believe is right.
with the facts that it appears bush, howard, and blair had, many of us wouldnt have acted the same way, but they acted upon what they believed was right.
but then again, im a wierd nerdy aussie engineer who has no idea on how to run a country. do i have anywhere near enough political experience to discuss globally significant executive decisions?
[my thoughts are from the australian perspective. what do those in the US and UK think?]
edit: grrrr. am re-reading this and havent nailed the points as well as hoped. stupid brain. will come back later.
EDITED_BY: Dentrassi (1081993372)
Quote:
And how most media reports were falsified to make it appear that the mighty US military machine was indeed winning, and seen a liberators.
i dont really think thats been particularly overwhelming. it been pretty apparent that not everything has been running smoothly for a while. i suppose i depends which media reports you follow.
Quote:
In Australia, there were many attempts by PM Howard and his cronies to shut it down the Aust. Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) for objective reporting ie. not broadcasting pro US and Liberal party propaganda.
thats a bit of an exaggeration mate.
Quote:
Man, these guys have been lying through their teeth, and I find it despicable that they tried to justify invading another country with a pack of lies, no matter how noble they thought the cause was.
so your conceding that they thought it was noble. if it was beleived to be the right thing to do and you had to power to carry it out, would you do it? john howard, although i disagree with his view on many occasions, has always been consistent. he was elected being a convservative monarchist fuddy duddy, and that he remained. at the end of the day, he was elected democratically with his personal values, and acted in accordance with his own conscience. thats the way democracy works.
Quote:
However, I don't personally think there is anything noble about plundering a country for oil, to win an election, kick arab butt or whatever.
then what about east timor? we sent troops there to try to faciliate a smooth changeover to democracy, and flush out the remaining loyalists to the previous government. as a result, we will get a nice share of the oil field between us and east timor. personally i think sending troops to east timor was excellent.
[edit: this was leading onto an excellent point which eludes me at present. ill come back to it later]
Quote:
This may seem naive, but I would have thought that you would have had ALL the facts and watertight case before you even thought about committing half the world to war.
unfortunately the worlds not a black and white place where we have all the facts. when you are in positions of power you have to act to the best of your judgement - and you dont always have the facts. so you do what you believe is right.
with the facts that it appears bush, howard, and blair had, many of us wouldnt have acted the same way, but they acted upon what they believed was right.
but then again, im a wierd nerdy aussie engineer who has no idea on how to run a country. do i have anywhere near enough political experience to discuss globally significant executive decisions?
[my thoughts are from the australian perspective. what do those in the US and UK think?]
edit: grrrr. am re-reading this and havent nailed the points as well as hoped. stupid brain. will come back later.
EDITED_BY: Dentrassi (1081993372)
"Here kitty kitty...." - Schroedinger.
PLATINUM Member
Hyperloops suck
595 posts
Location: USA
Hyperloops suck
595 posts
Location: USA
Posted:
Dio, I couldn't agree with you more on pretty much every point you hit in this topic.
Before I begin, let me just say that I think Bush had done a lot of bad things and should not have been elected president. That being said, I've never been more embarassed to be a member of the democratic party. The way that the majority of democrats act, my own mother included, is disgraceful. People bitch and moan about a rigged election, but that's only because they have absolutely no idea how the electoral college works! Bush didn't cheat, and if he did, why did Gore conceed and admit defeat? As much as I would have loved to see Gore win, he didn't, get over it.
There's so many people that make it seem like Bush is trying to screw up the country. Sure, he's done some questionable stuff, but just because he's against abortion, gay marriage, and helped get us in to the war doesn't make him a bad person trying to ruin the country! He has a right to his opinion. If you don't like that, you're intolerant, and don't agree with the democratic ideals.
One thing I still fail to understand is why people are complaining that Bush could have prevented 9/11, and rushed in to war with Iraq. If there was an Iraqi attack on the US after 9/11, the democratic party would be the first ones to blame Bush for not acting quickly enough. He has acted slowly and deliberately before 9/11, and that lead to an attack on the US and killed over 3,000 citizens. He acted quickly in Iraq, and that lead to the takedown of a brutal dictatorship and ended the torture of thousands upon thousands of people. Bush's intentions for getting in to the war have nothing to do with what is the right thing to do. He might not have had the correct reasons for entering the war, but in my opinion, that doesn't matter. I believe we should have gone to war for completely different reasons than Bush, but I still think we should have gone to war.
Bush may be everything bad that you say he is, but he isn't ashamed of it, and sticks to his beliefs. I can respect that in a person, even if I'm strongly against everything they believe in.
Dio, I couldn't agree with you more on pretty much every point you hit in this topic.
Before I begin, let me just say that I think Bush had done a lot of bad things and should not have been elected president. That being said, I've never been more embarassed to be a member of the democratic party. The way that the majority of democrats act, my own mother included, is disgraceful. People bitch and moan about a rigged election, but that's only because they have absolutely no idea how the electoral college works! Bush didn't cheat, and if he did, why did Gore conceed and admit defeat? As much as I would have loved to see Gore win, he didn't, get over it.
There's so many people that make it seem like Bush is trying to screw up the country. Sure, he's done some questionable stuff, but just because he's against abortion, gay marriage, and helped get us in to the war doesn't make him a bad person trying to ruin the country! He has a right to his opinion. If you don't like that, you're intolerant, and don't agree with the democratic ideals.
One thing I still fail to understand is why people are complaining that Bush could have prevented 9/11, and rushed in to war with Iraq. If there was an Iraqi attack on the US after 9/11, the democratic party would be the first ones to blame Bush for not acting quickly enough. He has acted slowly and deliberately before 9/11, and that lead to an attack on the US and killed over 3,000 citizens. He acted quickly in Iraq, and that lead to the takedown of a brutal dictatorship and ended the torture of thousands upon thousands of people. Bush's intentions for getting in to the war have nothing to do with what is the right thing to do. He might not have had the correct reasons for entering the war, but in my opinion, that doesn't matter. I believe we should have gone to war for completely different reasons than Bush, but I still think we should have gone to war.
Bush may be everything bad that you say he is, but he isn't ashamed of it, and sticks to his beliefs. I can respect that in a person, even if I'm strongly against everything they believe in.
BRONZE Member
Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
3,289 posts
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
3,289 posts
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posted:
um Mill, are you suggesting that Saddam was behind sept11?
and I dont think anyone suggested that bush is doing this to stuff up the US, if anything I think he's doing it to help its ailing economy...
Josh
um Mill, are you suggesting that Saddam was behind sept11?
and I dont think anyone suggested that bush is doing this to stuff up the US, if anything I think he's doing it to help its ailing economy...
Josh
--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!
PLATINUM Member
Hyperloops suck
595 posts
Location: USA
Hyperloops suck
595 posts
Location: USA
Posted:
No, I'm not. He dealt with two different but comparable situations in similar ways. He is being criticized for both for making those decisions. I believe if he had acted swiftly before 9/11 and methodically for the war in Iraq, people would still be complaining just as much.
No, I'm not. He dealt with two different but comparable situations in similar ways. He is being criticized for both for making those decisions. I believe if he had acted swiftly before 9/11 and methodically for the war in Iraq, people would still be complaining just as much.
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
No Dentrassi, I don't think I exaggerated about the pressure the Libs put on the ABC. True it's been a bone of contention for many years, but this recent episode was particularly transparent, and stayed in the paper for weeks. I think it was Ruddock, who had this long list of quotes from ABC presenters making anti-American statements. I think it went to an investigation, and most allegations were shown to be false. However, funding to the ABC was slashed.
No the world is not black and white, so it's a pity then that the Liberal party still stick to the White Australia policy then isn' it, hey? Sending back refugees to East Timor after having lived in Australia for 10 plus years makes no sense to me at all. The kids grew up in Aust playing footy an all. Howard lied over the children overboard affair, and our treatment refugees is anything but noble. I think we should talk about East Timor another time, but I do resent the fact that the US offered Australia little support in East Timor, following our support of America.
The Howard Gov didn't act on what they believed was right, they acted upon what they believed would get them re-elected. Yes I will state it again. I believe that a good government would have assessed ALL the facts and had a watertight case before committing half the world to war. What we had was a few facts in a sea of speculation, and a williness to follow Bush anywhere, if Howard thought it would get him re-elected. Sorry, call me old fashioned, but I believe that leaders should lead or resign if they are past it.
No Dentrassi, I don't think I exaggerated about the pressure the Libs put on the ABC. True it's been a bone of contention for many years, but this recent episode was particularly transparent, and stayed in the paper for weeks. I think it was Ruddock, who had this long list of quotes from ABC presenters making anti-American statements. I think it went to an investigation, and most allegations were shown to be false. However, funding to the ABC was slashed.
No the world is not black and white, so it's a pity then that the Liberal party still stick to the White Australia policy then isn' it, hey? Sending back refugees to East Timor after having lived in Australia for 10 plus years makes no sense to me at all. The kids grew up in Aust playing footy an all. Howard lied over the children overboard affair, and our treatment refugees is anything but noble. I think we should talk about East Timor another time, but I do resent the fact that the US offered Australia little support in East Timor, following our support of America.
The Howard Gov didn't act on what they believed was right, they acted upon what they believed would get them re-elected. Yes I will state it again. I believe that a good government would have assessed ALL the facts and had a watertight case before committing half the world to war. What we had was a few facts in a sea of speculation, and a williness to follow Bush anywhere, if Howard thought it would get him re-elected. Sorry, call me old fashioned, but I believe that leaders should lead or resign if they are past it.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
GOLD Member
ZORT!
3,045 posts
Location: Brisbane, Australia
ZORT!
3,045 posts
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posted:
sounds like we'll have to agree to disagree stone.
cheers.
sounds like we'll have to agree to disagree stone.
cheers.
"Here kitty kitty...." - Schroedinger.
© 1998 - 2025 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com