-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Spinning the lie:
- Thread starter Moonbeam
- Start date
IGBT
Lifer
Saddam him self was a weapon of mass destruction when you concider the withering effect he had on the Iraq population..torture chambers..mass burial sites..legions of missing people..embezzlement of oil revenue. Illegal pipe line to Seria. In the comming months more will be discovered. I can also understand how the marxist protesters are trying to hang their hat on anything they can to rationalize their reckless pre war behavior.
Here's the thing. We, as a country, were told the reason we needed to go to war with Iraq as soon as possible was the fact that Saddam had insane amounts of all these biological and chemical agents, and he was maybe only a month away from getting a nuke. For this reason, we were told Iraq constituted an imminent threat, and we needed to deal with it as soon as possible. Now that we blew through them in 3 weeks, and so far, have found nothing substantial (although we may yet), the same administration is now touting the fact that we freed all the people of Iraq as the "real" reason we went to war. While I think it is wonderful that those people don't have to live under that oppressive regime anymore, I feel like if that was the reason for us going to war, like they are telling us now, they should have just said it then.
It seems to me, and I may be wrong and don't mind admitting it if I am, that the current administration used our fear of more terrorist attacks and the horrible tradegy of 9/11 to get us behind this war. We were constantly told how much bad stuff they had, and how it might get into terrorist hands, and one day might be used in another 9/11 type of tradegy. This message was repeated in the major media outlets daily. However, now that it is basically over, and we have not really found anything, the focus and reasoning is now that we freed the Iraqi people all of a sudden. What about all this dangerous stuff we should be afraid of and needed to attack Iraq for? While we expected the freedom of the Iraqi people to be a positive benefit of disarming and removing from power Saddam, we were not led to believe this was the main reason for going to war...but now...all of a sudden...it is. So which is it? Did we go to war to disarm Saddam of all those tons of evil WMD..the ones we supposedly had definitive proof of, or was it to free the Iraqi people? In a few more weeks will there be a new, new reson why we went to war?
Squisher
Lifer
What a shock, politicians portraying themselves in the best possible light.
Uh, isn't that the definition of a politician.
Do any of you, in your heart of hearts, think that Saddam never tried to acquire/produce WMD?
Or, after acquiring these weapons destroyed them fully and complied with the UN mandates.
I mean he was one righteous dude.
Uh, isn't that the definition of a politician.
Do any of you, in your heart of hearts, think that Saddam never tried to acquire/produce WMD?
Or, after acquiring these weapons destroyed them fully and complied with the UN mandates.
I mean he was one righteous dude.
From the article:
I don't really care about a so-called smoking gun, as the Bush administration tried to portray imminent threat. This is the main reason I thought Bush and Powell handled the situation so badly. I thought they should have been upfront about it all and gone to war to put an end to the ongoing Iraq situation once and for all. Something that should have been done in Papa Bush's term.
This is what I've always believed to be the case. It wasn't whether or not he had weapons on launchers ready to go, I thought he had few, if any, of those, but that he would maintain his programs in secret, ready to begin again once France and Russia pressed to lift UN sanctions.
I don't really care about a so-called smoking gun, as the Bush administration tried to portray imminent threat. This is the main reason I thought Bush and Powell handled the situation so badly. I thought they should have been upfront about it all and gone to war to put an end to the ongoing Iraq situation once and for all. Something that should have been done in Papa Bush's term.
A lot of people in other countries are under oppression and torture, should we send in our troops to free them? Are you willing to send your children or yourself to (possibly) die for other people freedom? Maybe that's why Bush uses WMD as an excuse, his true intention is to free those poor suffering Iraqis people.
BTW, I agree that Saddam probably has strong ambition of acquiring WMD even after the UN sanction, but if he doesn't have it, we have no valid excuse of invading Iraq in the first place. Speaking of intention of acquiring WMD posing as threat to US, a lot of other countries probably also have intention of acquiring WMD, if nothing more than to defend themselves, ie Pakistan vs India, Israel vs Arab countries... that is not valid reason to attack them though...
BTW, I agree that Saddam probably has strong ambition of acquiring WMD even after the UN sanction, but if he doesn't have it, we have no valid excuse of invading Iraq in the first place. Speaking of intention of acquiring WMD posing as threat to US, a lot of other countries probably also have intention of acquiring WMD, if nothing more than to defend themselves, ie Pakistan vs India, Israel vs Arab countries... that is not valid reason to attack them though...
Bowfinger
Lifer
The Sydney Morning Herald is actually one of the more respected English language newspapers around the world. I checked it almost daily during the war to get another perspective. Good reporting, they tended to focus more on facts and less on speculation than some of the American media.
BaliBabyDoc
Lifer
Clinton was banging Sandy Berger?!:disgust:
🙂
believe it or not there are about 190 countries in the world...let's just say that 1/4 of those countries have newspapers......heck, let's just consider a few...
Britain, Spain, Australia, Switzerland, and Germany. I'm sure you heard of those countries before and i'm sure that since we're in the new millenium, it can be assumed that these countries, like the usa do print newspapers or have some type of news media. With that in mind, then you can easily see, why the new york times, or the washington post, or the wall street journal, or newsmax, are not the only outlets of news in the world.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
http://www.sundayherald.com/
http://www.elmundo.es/
http://www.elpais.es/
http://www.smh.com.au/
http://www.jungewelt.ipn.de/
and so on and so....
ain't it amazing how there are newspapers in other languages other than english???
Heh, if we don't find anything I could care less. Even though this is a huge fvck up by the Bush Administration. Honestly, it would be a pretty goddamned hard task for the US to decide what contrey to liberate. We can't go into any contrey we want and not get anything back. Yes, oil is a reason. However, would you honestly like to be the president and make these kind of decision on what contrey we should help?
The only thing that surprises me is that so many people are surprised by this turn of events 😉. I never believed that this was about WMD, and I figured that most other people thought along the same lines. Iraq never has posed a significant military threat against the US directly. As for them supplying terrorists with WMD, those can be acquired through so many sources that have more significant capabilities that Iraq should have been toward the bottom of the list. This was a political and financial war.
The question about this most recent spin that bugs me, however, is did we really free the Iraqi people? And for how long? I suppose that's irrelevant though. Afterall, they are free to put the chains back around their own necks as they see fit. As long as we aren't the ones holding the leash there is nothing that I can object to.
The question about this most recent spin that bugs me, however, is did we really free the Iraqi people? And for how long? I suppose that's irrelevant though. Afterall, they are free to put the chains back around their own necks as they see fit. As long as we aren't the ones holding the leash there is nothing that I can object to.
