| defending Michael Moore |
Mon, 05 July 2004 13:06  |
|
Hi all
Just read the F 9/11 reviews and, largely, with much sadness. Michael Moore is no idiot. He is fully aware that the what he portrayed in his films would be picked up by the conservative right. This is why, like Columbine, that had a huge number of researchers and lawyers on board to check every fact that went into the film.
I agree with him that America, post 9/11, is driven by fear and that fear is driven directly and indirectly through the government and the media. How can a western power so proud of its freedoms and democracy ply its manipulative foreign policy on 'rogue states' when it is the very same nation that exempts itself from international law and is guilty for feeding and nurturing a catalogue of human rights disasters across the world whilst not allowing itself to be accountable.
The sooner that fraudster Bush is out of office the better. This man DID NOT win the last presidential election - Al Gore did thanks to Bush's brother in law in his Florida shennanigans and making sure over 350,000 ethnic voters did not get the vote due to small felonies.
As for the economy doing well - tax cuts to thank the corporate big wigs for their election support - unemployment up to over 6 per cent, another 2 million jobs lost, more welfare cuts proposed, a new draft to come in (largely missed by the press) and budget deficits for 2003 expected to exceed $401 million...expected to go into trillions due to the mess in Iraq.
In large way the US could be held accountable for such a mess in Iraq - companies have bent over backwards in dealing technologies with the Iraqis:
HP - selling computers to Iraq government working on scud missles
AT & T - ties with another company and Iraqi government to improve air defence systems
Bechtel - helped Iraq build petrochemical plant
Caterpillar - helped Iraq with the building of its nuclear programme - sale of 410 million of tractors
DuPont - sold enginnnered oil to be used in nuclear programme
Kodak - sold equipment to be used in nuclear programme
Hughes helicopters - sold to Iraq and later modified for military use
But, hey...God bless America !
a rather annoyed Rache
x
|
|
|
|
| Re: defending Michael Moore |
Mon, 05 July 2004 18:02  |
|
|
I agree with Rachel. Much of this evidence is available in the Congressional Record. I published the link to this some time ago in the Fahrenheit 9/11 thread.
|
|
|
|
| Re: defending Michael Moore |
Mon, 05 July 2004 18:07 |
|
Why would Michael Moore need to have lawyers research his work? Could it be that they wanted to make sure that his exclusion of facts was legal?
Here are some of the exclusions so that the uneducated would rally around the movie.
Yes, A planeload of Saudi nationals were allowed to leave the US on September 13th. However, what was excluded was that all people were allowed to travel by air that day. An educated person might ask why would Michael Moore omit this important detail from his movie.
Representatives from the Taliban government of Afghanistan did meet with a Texas oil company while George W Bush was governor of Texas. George bush did not meet with them, he was not even in the state at the time. However, representatives from the Clinton administration did meet with them twice!
Yes everything in the movies is true. The problem is the truth that was omitted in order to push a certain viewpoint. This movie has nothing to do with sparking honest national dialog among educated adults. It caters to the narrow minded people who see any means to achieve a goal is good policy.
It is a good thing that you teach in Edinburgh. We have enough bad teacher here in the states who are constantly keeping the good teachers in their place. Heaven forbid that a teacher be allowed to teach rather than indocrinate.
|
|
|
|
| Re: defending Michael Moore |
Mon, 05 July 2004 18:33 |
|
Seeing as Michael Moore is making polemical films there is no reason why he should be impartial.
The reason he has lawyers is probably to ensure that he doesn't overstep libel laws by saying things that are untrue.
I wonder if people ever accuse the rightwing pundits, like that awful Rush Limbaugh, of partiality?
|
|
|
|
| Re: defending Michael Moore |
Tue, 06 July 2004 02:13 |
|
Delirium
You are quite correct. I should not insult an individual’s profession.
I wish to personally apologize to Racyrachael for my comments. 
However, I will not recant my opinions on American educators and their bias to the left on the political spectrum.
I do feel that Racyrachael should not base her opinions on a review that someone else has written. This does not now nor will it ever bolster anyone’s credibility with people.
An independent review done six months after the Florida election have validated the election count. Racyrachael must be talking about the reviews done immediately after the election by news organizations.
“The sooner that fraudster Bush is out of office the better. This man DID NOT win the last presidential election - Al Gore did thanks to Bush's brother in law in his Florida shennanigans and making sure over 350,000 ethnic voters did not get the vote due to small felonies.” Delirium I do fail to see the professionalism in the above statement. The word "Shenanigans" is misspelled in her quote as well. However, this does not excuse my lack of manners towards Racyrachael.
Racyrachael states
“As for the economy doing well - tax cuts to thank the corporate big wigs for their election support - unemployment up to over 6 per cent, another 2 million jobs lost, more welfare cuts proposed, a new draft to come in (largely missed by the press) and budget deficits for 2003 expected to exceed $401 million...expected to go into trillions due to the mess in Iraq.”
I got a sizable tax cut and I am far from being a corporate big wig. People who paid taxes got tax cuts. People who did not pay taxes did not get tax cuts; hence, the term tax cut not welfare increase as the democrats wanted. Corporate big wigs paid taxes and got tax cuts, just like me.
5.6 % unemployment and dropping. This is average for this country during any presidency -which is on par with the Clinton years-. Hiring is on a dramatic increase and not service jobs either. Manufacturing jobs are on the rise. You will not see the $30.00 plus an hour union jobs but those that had them are at or near retirement. $15 to $20 per hour is not unheard of depending on your skill. At this rate the lost jobs will be filled with in a year according to economists and we will again have to beg the unemployable people get off welfare and work We are a cruel country aren’t we.
There is no draft coming. Some yahoo in congress floated a trial balloon (Tossed an idea into the ring to see if it would fly) and it was deflated very quickly.
I tend to get suspicious of those that use misstatements as facts; again, it leads to an issue of credibility.
Carole,
I personally do not find any of the pundits impartial, but many on the right state that they are partial, the left nearly always state that they are impartial, which they are not. Tell the truth about your position and I can respect you for it. I may disagree with their opinion, but I do respect a person for it.
[Updated on: Wed, 07 July 2004 10:47]
|
|
|
|
| Re: defending Michael Moore |
Tue, 06 July 2004 07:44 |
|
Johannes 'the left nearly always state that they are impartial'.
Evidence please, which pundits?
|
|
|
|
| Re: defending Michael Moore |
Tue, 06 July 2004 17:18 |
|
Dear racyrachel,
Your post at the top of this thread said, "HP - selling computers to Iraq government working on scud missles."
This stone is cast without factual support, I believe. Please allow me to elaborate. While I do not have first-hand knowledge of HP sales to Saddam, I worked for a HP competitor during the cold war on secret military projects. I do know first hand HP's commitment through 1990 to the federal government's protection of advanced technology.
The sale of technology to foreign governments without specific government approval was prohibbeted. I sat on a multi-vendor committee that worked with military planners to prevent the loss of advanced technology to our enemies. HP participated on that committee. That firm has long been respected for its ethics.
Having said all this, I am aware how difficult it was to keep computer hardware from falling into the hands of enemies. HP employed multiple distribution channels to sell its products, and many down the line in distribution were less than honest. Since these distribution partners worked on very slim hardware profit margins, some were willing to take shortcuts they felt were harmless like selling to uded equipment brokers. Used equipment brokers sold to anyone that would pick up the hardware at the broker's business location, and pay cash for the equipment.
HP developed component sensors used to remote trouble shoot the equipment. These sensors were coded with serial numbers and allowed HP to ID the phone number of the CPU -- often exposing foreign governments and red-faced brokers. HP shared the technology with other computer companies to protect military secrets.
It's likely that any technology from HP that fell into Saddam's hands was purchased third-hand, or fourth hand -- and not from HP.
You cast a stone that could cost thousands of people their jobs if your direct quote were true.
If you own specific information, share it with government authorities. If not, be aware that your comment could lead to HP's loss of government contracts that would cost thousands and thousands their jobs. Some of these are old friends of mine from DEC -- which HP now owns.
Rebel
|
|
|
|
| Re: defending Michael Moore |
Tue, 06 July 2004 21:32 |
|
Oh, I see, Rachel,
Those wicked companies sold equipment useful in producing nuclear weapons, to a country which denied having a nuclear weapons programme?
Are you saying that it did have such a programme?
Or are you saying that, if it did have a nuclear programme of some description, it was a peaceful one?
And if it was a peaceful one, why were those companies wicked?
Of course, now that I've thought very hard about it, just as you so obviously have, I've seen the light!
Either way, those companies are just plain wicked, aren't they!
Did you once say that you are a teacher?
God help us all.
James.
|
|
|
|
| Re: defending Michael Moore |
Tue, 06 July 2004 22:10 |
|
"Wednesday June 4, 2003: (The Guardian) Oil was the main reason for military action against Iraq, a leading White House hawk has claimed, confirming the worst fears of those opposed to the US-led war.
The US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz - who has already undermined Tony Blair's position over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by describing them as a "bureaucratic" excuse for war - has now gone further by claiming the real motive was that Iraq is "swimming" in oil.
The latest comments were made by Mr Wolfowitz in an address to delegates at an Asian security summit in Singapore at the weekend, and reported today by German newspapers Der Tagesspiegel and Die Welt.
Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defence minister said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."
Mr Wolfowitz went on to tell journalists at the conference that the US was set on a path of negotiation to help defuse tensions between North Korea and its neighbours - in contrast to the more belligerent attitude the Bush administration displayed in its dealings with Iraq.
His latest comments follow his widely reported statement from an interview in Vanity Fair last month, in which he said that "for reasons that have a lot to do with the US government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on: weapons of mass destruction."
Prior to that, his boss, defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, had already undermined the British government's position by saying Saddam Hussein may have destroyed his banned weapons before the war."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/index.html
"15 September 2002: A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001.
The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'
The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'.
This 'American grand strategy' must be advanced for 'as far into the future as possible', the report says. It also calls for the US to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core mission'.
The report describes American armed forces abroad as 'the cavalry on the new American frontier'. The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document written by Wolfowitz and Libby that said the US must 'discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role'. "
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1221.htm
|
|
|
|
| Re: defending Michael Moore |
Wed, 07 July 2004 01:20 |
|
| SW_Carole_48 wrote on Mon, 05 July 2004 13:33 |
Seeing as Michael Moore is making polemical films there is no reason why he should be impartial.
The reason he has lawyers is probably to ensure that he doesn't overstep libel laws by saying things that are untrue.
I wonder if people ever accuse the rightwing pundits, like that awful Rush Limbaugh, of partiality?
|
Michael Moore is entitled to make all the polemical films he likes. His right to do so is prominently protected by our constitution. However, I wish people would stop calling them "documentaries." Documentaries should at least try to be impartial.
Everybody from both sides of the aisle knows and admits Rush Limbaugh is partial. Limbaugh freely admits it. He is not reporting news, he is delivering opinion, very much like Mr Moore. Personally, they both annoy me a ton.
LTN
|
|
|
|
| Re: defending Michael Moore |
Wed, 07 July 2004 01:35 |
|
| racyrachael wrote on Mon, 05 July 2004 08:06 |
This man DID NOT win the last presidential election - Al Gore did thanks to Bush's brother in law in his Florida shennanigans and making sure over 350,000 ethnic voters did not get the vote due to small felonies.
|
The flip side of this is that Gore and the democrats tried to have the absentee ballots of thousands of service men and women invalidated because of mishandling by the US Armed Forces postal service. Both sides have plenty to be ashamed of in the legal actions surrounding the Florida vote.
The punch-card voting system that caused the problems in Florida predates Governor Jeb Bush (the president's brother, not brother-in-law) by many years. Also, I'll admit that I believe convicted felons should not be allowed to vote--but that's a matter for fair debate.
You have to stop counting and some point, and when we did, George Bush was the winner. If Mr Gore had managed to win his own state of Tennessee, Florida would not have mattered.
LTN
|
|
|
|
| Re: defending Michael Moore |
Wed, 07 July 2004 03:18 |
|
On felons voting: I think it's right that prisoners should not be able to vote. But once you've served your time you should have all the rights available to any other free citizen, including the right to vote. At least in the UK, after a certain time (the exact length depends on the nature of the offence) one's conviction becomes "spent" and one becomes legally an innocent person in all respects. [The exception is for child sex abuse convictions, which remain on one's record for the rest of one's life.] That's how it should be.
But AIUI part of the Florida issue was that the data being used to identify convicted felons was inaccurate. I agree that it was also disgraceful to try to have services absentee ballots disqualified. The punch-card voting system was stupid too, stick to making a mark with a pen on paper is what I say.
The underlying problem, without which there would have been none of these shenanigans, is having elected partisan politicians in charge of overseeing elections. Another mistake was to allow the release of preliminary results before the count was over, allowing exactly the kind of public speculation which is anti-democratic: whether, if the votes of X-group are allowed, your preferred candidate would win or lose.
Florida couldn't happen in the UK  We have neither of the aforementioned problems: the Returning Officer, the person who oversees the election and count, is a non-political appointee (so has no vested interest in the result); and the only result made publicly available is the one validated by the Returning Officer when the counting has finished. In the UK, you never see a "50% count" of an election. It's the result or it's a guess.
But we're not perfect. Because postal votes were sent far too late to arrive overseas (I'm still in Taiwan) I couldn't vote in the June European election. This is due to stupidity and incompetence, not any kind of conspiracy.
|
|
|
|
| Re: defending Michael Moore |
Wed, 07 July 2004 11:12 |
|
Carole,
It would be easier if you gave me a list of the American political pundits whose views you think that I am in error on concerning their partial or impartial views. This will give me a common point of reference so that we can discuss their stated claims verses their actual position. Without knowing which ones you are familiar with, the list of names I come up with might be mostly irrelevant to you unless you are tuning in to daily as well as weekly American political TV and talk shows.
|
|
|
|
| Re: defending Michael Moore |
Wed, 07 July 2004 18:08 |
|
Johannes, I wasn't necessarily referring to American rightwing pundits, we have plenty of our own over here in the UK.
I don't think that I said anything about you being 'in error' either.
I seem to remember that I made a passing comment about people seeming to attack left of centre commentators for their views.
I was thinking that over here the centre-left ones are labelled as 'extremists' whereas the right of centre ones are portrayed as somehow more 'reasonable' or 'common sense'.
|
|
|
|
| Re: defending Michael Moore |
Wed, 07 July 2004 19:45 |
|
No, Dave Magill,
You have entirely missed the point.
If the "nuclear programme" these companies were supporting was a peaceful one, then why is she criticising them?
If they were "guilty" and deserving of criticism, it could only be because that programme was a nuclear weapons programme.
And if it was a weapons programme, then she is agreeing that Iraq had such a programme, which would explain why, in her opinion, these companies are guilty of something.
And if she is agreeing that last point, then Mr. Bush was quite right to attempt to stop it, so why is she criticising him?
The "logic" of it all defies me.
And I certainly didn't say anything of the kind referred to in your last paragraph!
James.
|
|
|
|
| Re: defending Michael Moore |
Wed, 07 July 2004 21:09 |
|
The USA had laws prohibiting the sale of technology to all sorts of regimes, not only Iraq.
Whether they could be used in a nuclear weapons programme was irrelevant as far as that law was concerned.
Incidentally, having a nuclear power programme does not necessarily mean a nation is trying to build nuclear weapons. You need a certain level of technology to even start to undertake nuclear weapons research and reactors creating the right kind of fissile material.
|
|
|
|
| Re: defending Michael Moore fao James |
Thu, 08 July 2004 08:34 |
|
James
The logic is wrapped up in what Carole has picked up upon - economic sanctions against a regime deemed to be undemocratic by the US included the sale of technologies. US companies were, beit first, second or third hand, guilty of doing so. Whether it was for a nuclear programme or nuclear missles is irrelevant. The point is that the US was in breach of some of the laws which it was trying to uphold.
Mind you a country that exempts itself from international law on the basis of 'national security' can somehow have a clear conscience.
I don't appreciate digs about my profession where I strive to do my best in a difficult climate. Yes I may have a personal agenda against the said Mr Bush yet a country that upholds and cherishes its freedoms yet many states take away such freedoms as the right to vote for trivial felonies is beyond me.
Rache
|
|
|
|
| Re: defending Michael Moore |
Thu, 08 July 2004 08:53 |
|
<< Gore and the democrats tried to have the absentee ballots of thousands of service men and women invalidated because of mishandling by the US Armed Forces postal service. >>
Sounds unfair but since I last posted on this the thought occured to me: exactly what were the circumstances?
In the UK, postal ballots received after the polls have closed are invalid, period. You can't add new ballot papers once the count has started. I can't see how this can be changed without compromising the integrity of the ballot.
Like I said the final declared result of a race is the only one that is made public. This result /can/ be challenged in court, but only by considering whether already-cast votes are valid. The court can't consider new ballots that came in after the deadline and weren't part of the original count.
If that is what happened wrt absentee ballots then perhaps they should not be considered valid. But Florida was a shambles from top to bottom, ballot integrity compromised by the problems I mentioned before. It suggests that Americans don't know how to run an election properly.
[Updated on: Thu, 08 July 2004 08:56]
|
|
|
|
| Re: defending Michael Moore |
Thu, 08 July 2004 14:52 |
|
|
Rache, I'm not trying to pick a fight--but I'm curious to know what you think a good example of a "trivial felony" is? LTN
|
|
|
|
| Re: defending Michael Moore |
Thu, 08 July 2004 15:30 |
|
Just for clarification, can someone tell me, in legal terms what actually constitutes a felony in the States?
|
|
|
|
| Defending my right for real informartion |
Fri, 09 July 2004 06:36 |
|
Hi there,
France did help Iraq to built a civil nuclear power plant at a time when the country was considered the best rampart against the religious/rogue/evil/dangerous government of Iran. Just like France helped Iran to build a civil nuclear power plant and now China to build several civil nuclear power plant.
As a reminder, France is a member of NATO and has signed the non-proliferation treaty so all what France did in the field of civil nuclear has always been known and agreed by its allies, the USA included.
The USA a super power ? not anymore : the whole world knew it that there were no WMD in Iraq except the clueless average American citizen that innocently accepted to be mislead with fearmongering words like "terror", "rogue states", "attack of democracy", "Al Quaida" and "anthrax". Is it a coincidence, a mistake, an error or a lack of judgement ? Time will tell why a whole nation has suddenly become impotent and unable to critically analyze what it was focrfully told to swallow as fact when it was pure mascarade, brainwash and political spin-off.
How can medias remain objective -not the pundits, the medias- when they are threatened to lose their licence if they don't follow with the crowd and if they don't accept to send embeded journalists with soldiers that are remotely controled directly from an air-conditioned office in Quatar -or is it Dubai ?
The New York Times has already published a couples of editorials to clarify the situation regarding the rather unprofessional decisions that have been taken for the past two years : no checking of the sources cited by TOP journalists both in Washington and embeded - here we are again with this eternal search for truth and live information. Note that the New York Times is arguably considered the most prestigious news paper in the world.
A plane highjacked and crashed on the Pentagon ???????
Show me the debris, the engines, the wings, the shell crater, the luggages, the seats, the body parts : where are they ?
The first pictures released by the authority do not show any plane debris, any crater, any luggage nor body part. Instead they show a perfect lawn like in a golf : the USA must be a pretty modern and technologically developed country to have planes that crash with physical evidence.
Or may be it's due to my lack of objectivity because I have an inquisitive mind that prevents me from being a "YES MAN" and to accept to be stuffed for the interests of the happy few who, whatever the tax rate, have already let their friends to pocket huge margins on the trade of oil at the expense of the poor Iraqis they are supposed to help.
I don't need to know if Bush has been elected or appointed. My view is that THE perfect/most developed/richest/most influencial/most arrogant country that pretends to bring democracy to the rest of the world is just plain unable to have fair and transparent elections. Am-I harsh or does it really sound pathetic : should-I count or should-I go to court....
The USA, a country where rhetoric has taken over the facts and where the militaro-industrial complex is dictating its own economic and political agenda internally but also to the rest of the world. How long do you think the USA will manage to escape its responsibilities due to its rank regarding international law, like in Guantanamo, green house gas, with the Kyoto protocole, with international justice, the IPT, and monumental deficits, both in federal budget and commercial exchanges ?
Bush has been fairly elected, fine he then will be fairly dismissed because the aura of the USA is fading like snow in the sun in just every part of the world. Forget unemployment figures because a lot of people have given-up seeking a job. You'd better ask yourself why nearly six billions people are just about to hate americans -note the absence of capital letter- because they think they are smarter and better when actually they kill, destroy and then explain why they are right to do so.
Ask yourself why the country that once were considered the eldorado for all the desperate persons in the world is now synonymous with hubris, arrogance, contempt and hatred. I may be completly wrong and would accept it if I were the only one to say what I say, but let's face it : six billions people cannot be wrong compared to a couple of hundred millions.
For those who have access to the New York Times archives, look for : "The Editorial : The Times and Iraq" published Wednesday the 26th May at the bottom of page A10.
Eric
|
|
|
|
| Re: Defending my right for real informartion |
Tue, 13 July 2004 17:09 |
|
erlam II, You said,
"the whole world knew it that there were no WMD in Iraq except the clueless average American citizen that innocently accepted to be mislead with fearmongering words like "terror", "rogue states", "attack of democracy", "Al Quaida" and "anthrax".
Your insult of my intelligence and integrity with the statement above is unacceptable. I accept your opinion that you may not approve of the war. I accept your opinion that you may not have approve of the political perspective of many of my countrymen. Those are opinions.
Calling the average American citizen clueless because you did not like the war action is an unacceptale insult. In addition it ignores the following facts:
Saddam possessed, and used, WMDs previously. He killed hundreds of thousands of his own people.
Saddam threw out UN inspectors after they located his development labs and followed the paper trail on his purchase of materials to develop and deliver WMDs.
Saddam refused to honor agreements with the world community relative to inspections that he authorized.
Saddam continuously threatened to destroy all Americans with his military proweress.
Bin Laden reached the shores of the USA with delivery methods on 9/11.
Add up the facts Eric. A man that owned and used WMDs that would not cooperate with UN inspectors for many years threatens to kill Americans after refusing to abide of agreements that allowed him to save his hide is presented a delivery opportunity via Al Queada.
A rational man must fear the potential. A fool buries his head in the sand and does not protect himself.
The argument in the USA is about the timing and execution of the Iraqi war -- not the reason for going to war. Bill Clinton is on record supporting Bush's action. Kerry and Edwards both voted for the war action.
The squabble is about timing, poor execution, lost diplomacy, missed intelligence, and party hair splitting. Congress supported the action in Iraq, as did Everyday Americans.
Nations that error on the side of caution to protect themselves are less likely to sustain attack.
Blame Bush; Blame American politics; but, DON't BLAME Saddam for killing thousands of his own people with WMDs and refusing to honor inspection agreements to keep him honest.
As you said, "the whole world knew it that there were no WMD in Iraq except the clueless average American citizen that innocently accepted to be mislead with fearmongering words like "terror", "rogue states", "attack of democracy", "Al Quaida" and "anthrax".
Clueless Average American Citizen,
Rebel
|
|
|
|
| Re: Defending my right for real informartion |
Tue, 13 July 2004 17:52 |
|
Interestingly, inquiries into the intelligence that was used as a basis for going to war have recently been undertaken in both the UK and the USA.
Both inquiries have concluded;
Claims made about Iraqi WMD capabilities were inflated
Claims were talked up by anti-Saddam Iraqi organisations in the USA, claims that were subsequently discredited
Political spin was put on the intelligence to make the situation appear worse than it actually was
It is extremely unlikely that Iraq possessed any long range weapons or delivery systems at the time of the invasion
Whatever chemical or biological programmes had existed were no longer in place.
It seems our leaders were either misled badly by their intelligence agencies or they inflated the intelligence.
Either way, the original justification for the invasion was made under a false premise.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Defending my right for real informartion |
Tue, 13 July 2004 18:49 |
|
Actually Saddam didn't use WMD's on his own people; he used gas, which is not counted as a WMD. Amazingly, these days you really have to kill an unimaginably large amount of people to get WMD status.
And yes, I'm sure we were all deeply convinced of Iraq's miltary prowess when we watched the americans invade easily. Definitely alot to be worried by there.
There are a significant number of countries who develop WMDs and ignore the rulings of the UN and have terrible dictators in charge and, indeed, hate the US. I have not seen any convincing reason why Saddam in particular needed taking out. Does the US government have a list they are working their way down?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Defending my right for real informartion |
Tue, 13 July 2004 20:20 |
|
Carole,
You are correct that recent intelligence concluded there were no WMDs, and the intelligence basis for war in Iraq was flawed.
But, no rationale human with personal preservation instincts can deny the existence of WMDs previously; or Saddam's stated intent to develop WMDs; or Saddam's purchase record of materials to develop WMDs; and Saddam's ABSOLUTE DISREGARD for international inspections he agreed to when he was on the ropes for his personal and political life.
When do you believe a madman when he cries "WOLF"? When do you not believe a madman crying "WOLF"? What's your basis for making such decisions, Carole?
Your argument that there were no WMDs is not correct. There were no WMDs found in 2002 and 2003, and apparently none will be found. I don't know how many hundreds of thousands of people must die from mustard gas poisoning for it to meet Katrina's definition of WMDs, but mass graves with more than 100,000 Kurds have been uncovered during the conflict.
Saddam was a mad butcher. He and his sons, and his Bathhist buddies walked down the streets and selected women for themselves and killed their husbands and loved ones. He killed his own people he felt were political enemies.
You can go right ahead and elect leaders that will follow your wishes to run and hide from those that threaten you. Me, I'll votte for leaders that will stand up to mad men.
This war has not been procecuted precisely. Wars aren't like hospitals and businesses where you line things up professionally. The timing was influenced by weather and the upcoming USA elections.
To deny our rational fear of an irrational madman that killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, and threatened multiple times to destroy our country, shows a complete disregard on your part for the integrity of our people. I don't know Saddam's intent for your country. I appreciate the British government standing with my government and fighting countrymen.
Your unwillingness to accept historical real facts reflects a disregard to participate in a reasonable debate. I accept your reasons from a political standpoint to not support the war effort. I acknowledge WMDs weren't there 3/19/03 as bad intelligence stated. I accept more patient diplomacy might have worked.
But, when you're sitting on the hot seat making the decisions about protecting the people of your nation, how much patience can you allow a madman with such a tract record of lies and desperate acts?
Do you risk your people and their families when a madman that promise attacks on you refuses to cooperate with international teams he agreed to allow?
How would you make that decison Carole, if you were Blair or Bush? Hindsight on many issues is 20-20. It's easy to ID mistakes and point to the flaws.
Please anwer this question. With all you know today, how would have you addressed the issue with Saddam?
Rebel
|
|
|
|
| Re: Defending my right for real informartion |
Tue, 13 July 2004 20:58 |
|
I would not have invaded Iraq, knowing that the intelligence was false. Nor would I have misled the UK Parliament about the capabilities of the Iraqi military.
I would have worked with the UN Inspections Agency, not undermined their efforts as both the UK and USA were busy doing during 2002 and early 2003.
Mind you, I wouldn't have played power politics in the Middle East in the 1980s when the USA and UK were busily supplying Iraq with intelligence, biological and chemical agents.
These were the weapons that Saddam Hussein used against the Kurds, the ones that the west had given him.
I do not buy the argument that says Saddam Hussein was a uniquely dangerous threat to the UK or USA, nor do I follow the line that he was exporting terrorism to Europe and beyond via totally unproven links to Al Qaeda.
You say what does one do when a ,madman' cries 'WOLF'. Well, firstly I do not believe that Saddam Hussein is mad, neither do I believe the grandiose claims of tinpot dictators, or their opponents either.
Whether Saddam was a vile dictator is actually irrelevant. I hated his regime and what it stood for but there are plenty of vile regimes that exist with the connaivance of the UK and USA. Why doesn't Blair or Bush want to invade them?
Finally, I do not consider battlefield weapons, such as shells, to be 'weapons of mass destruction'.
A true WMD is a nuclear weapon or one of those huge bombs that the USA used in Afghanistan.
I am sorry Rebel, but I really do not find the position of the USA and UK in the slightest bit tenable.
|
|
|
|
| Descriminating mind. |
Wed, 14 July 2004 01:19 |
|
Rebel,
I guess truth can hurt sometimes, better late than never.
Actually I think you don't accept that I'm telling you that you have been lied to by your own government to wage a war upon false pretenses.
It has nothing to do with divergent opinions it is just plain facts : made-up proofs were requested by the US government in order to ensure the popular support for a purely strategic operation.
Historically Americans are isolationists, in other words they just don't care of the rest of the world : be it dictatorship, famine, drought, war or religious integrism. The one and only way for the government to control Iraqi oil wells was to link the Iraqi regime with Al-Quaida, terrorism and 9/11 : it worked and still does, though not so well.
In the meantime, there have consistently been about 25 to 30% -don't bug me with the real figures here- of enlightened American who never bought that crap.
Probably because they were -are- more discriminating, better informed, not so prone to jump onboard a weak political program than the average American citizen. May be some of them can read and understand another language, a pretty usefull asset when the media of your own country become suddenly malleable and weak in front of political pressures.
No democracy without a free press. None of the major newspapers nor TV channels did mind to contradict the official stance. Saddly, I'm not insulting your intelligence but your government certainly did. Saddly for you, this is not my opinion but the reality of the USA today.
Provide me with a picture that shows a plane crashed into the Pentagone and I'll withdraw all what I've written so far. Right here in this forum I demand you to provide me with such a picture. If you can't it just mean that your governement insulted your intelligent and you never realized it, not me.
By endlessly repeating the same overheard lies again and again and again about the so-called WMD that threatened to destroy the planet you're simply a living proof that all the propaganda of the US governement has reached the target : to manipulate the public opinion in order to ensure a strong enough support from the ignorant average american citizen -note the absence of capital letter.
You may argue again, you may repeat again, you may re-state again the same lies, fabricated stories and false proofs.
Actually you have the right not to accept the facts and not to evolve from a tragic situation to a more tenable argumentation but then you're the only person to blame for your own intellectual isolation.
One last tentative, take a plane ticket to go anywhere in the world and to talk to local people. Ask them what they think of your point of view. Luckily, you could end up meeting respectful persons who would gladly show you what life is like down here in the real world, on this lovely planet that is ours to all and not just American.
Give it up with Clinton and Bush, with GOP and Democrats. Politics is good and necessary but no political speech nor rhetoric should prevail over humanist attitudes, multilateralism and consensus, characteristics that are absent from the White House policies.
You may choose to stay hidden in what you think is a comfortable nest within heavily protected borders : the more you treat the other with disdain the more reluctant they are to respect you and to appreciate you for who you are. The natural human tendency to curiosity will transform into a lack of understanding of the US as the single super-power.
Might gives right but also duties.
If I insulted you I'm certainly not sorry but if your government did I definitly am because I thought that the USA was a democracy.
American democracy : RIP.
Eric
P.S. : Don't forget the picture.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Descriminating mind. |
Wed, 14 July 2004 06:25 |
|
Eric,
You're off the deep end with your comments. Your comments about Americans hiding certainly don't reflect recent histroy in the Balkans.
If there is a tie to oil support your argument with cold, hard facts.
Cold hard facts reflect the value of the highest estimates of Iraq's oil is less than three times the cost to support current war commitments and rebuild Iraq. This doesn't take into account the cost to explore, drill, extract and transport. Any economic basis for your claims needs some support -- not made up BS.
You spew political opinions, but you do not bring facts. Do your homework Eric or don't debate. You come across sophomoric when you confuse your opinions with facts.
Carole,
Your arguments the quote relate to after-the-fact information that is difficult to refute. Hindsight is 20-20. If the information that has been brought out to date is correct, and no information evolves that makes this information obsolete, I don't dispute your perspectives greatly. However, I'm not aware the West supplied his mustard gas. Help with some facts to support that claim.
As for the 80's, the "enemy of my enemy are my friend" has long been a tool in wars and threats of wars. Hindsight makes the policies of the 80's look stupid, but the overthrow of the Shah shook Washington at its heels. I don't know how it was accepted by poles in London.
I have trouble with these statements you made: "I do not buy the argument that says Saddam Hussein was a uniquely dangerous threat to the UK or USA," I beleive you miss this one. If he kills hundreds of thousands of his own, kills soccer coaches because their inept, rapes and endorses rapes by his friends, he's a threat with his military might.
"nor do I follow the line that he was exporting terrorism to Europe and beyond via totally unproven links to Al Qaeda." Current evidence supports your perspective. However, I believe he was as close as contact from Bin Laden with the potential -- especially when "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
I'm reading a book about historical Islam to better understand it. I'm pretty familiar with the Iranian revolution because a cousin lived in the Shah's palace and taught English to his oldest son during the early 60's. I was also a hostage in the Iranian Embassy on Mass Ave in DC in June of 1973 when the Shah hosted a state dinner with Nixon and Kissinger. It was a very hot humid day and I was shackled to a rail in the basement with Iranian political prisoners. Many vile and disgusting acts took place in from of me and I can never remember being so physically repulesed.
I blistered the Iranian Ambassador for his staff's treatment, and withdrew my employer's business relationship with the Shah's government as a result of my treatment. The beatings I witnesses and acts executed in front of me were the most disgusting and freightening I'vwe witnessed. I am freightened to this day of by that type of fanaticism.
I was in the process of obtaing a very high-level clearance at the time, and it was threatened to be stopped if I did not recant. My Pentagon sponsor supported my demand.
You say what does one do when a ,madman' cries 'WOLF'. Well, firstly I do not believe that Saddam Hussein is mad, neither do I believe the grandiose claims of tinpot dictators, or their opponents either".
If killing hundreds of thousands of your own people, and raping on the streets in broad daylight, and killing political opponents in front of their families does not constitute a madman, I cannot comprehend another definition. Please appease me on your perspective of what's a "Madman"?
Aside from your political perspective that you don't like the war, the reasons for the war given by the politicians, and political leaningsd of mainstream America, what would you have done if you were presented with the decisions Bush, Blair, and their closet advisors faced with the facts at hand.
Much of what happened went agaist my beliefs about war. From a faith perspective, I do not believe in abortion, the death penalty, or going to war for any reason but to protect your countrymen. I've dined privately with Any Young, a former US Ambassador to the UN, and Congressman from Georgia. I've sat through multiple town hall meeting and lectures by Newt Gingrich and Sam Nunn, influencial political figures from my state.
While I don't know any of the three exceptionally well, I know their concerns and actions were indivually based on very honest convictions. Newt's offfice was a mile from by business, and he worked on two charities close to my heart. We sweated together building playgrounds on weekends, and shared great bar-b-que. His ego was often over the top, but his convictions were real to me. These guys fretted about these types of decisions, and sought input from everyday people -- as well as experts.
Andy and Newt were polar opposites in almost every way, yet they often called the other for opinions. I believe in my heart that Blair and Bush stepped over the line with each other in a leap of faith that has oushed them both to dance to support their actions. Information not available has emerged to make many of their decisions questionable at this time. But, information will emerge later on some issues that will make some of their perspectives look good.
I ask you to assume Blair and Bush worked from an honest perspective before moving forward on Saddam. If you were in their shoes, knowing only what they knew at the last second before they made their calls, what would have been your call, and what argument would you make for that call?
Rebel
|
|
|
|
| Re: Descriminating mind. |
Wed, 14 July 2004 15:07 |
|
Eric, since you seem to be an avid conspiracy theorist, I suspect these pictures won't convince you. However, here's a link:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/03/07/gen.pentagon.pictures/
There's a link down a bit on the right side of the page that brings up a slide show, including pictures from a Pentagon security camera of the fireball created when the plane hit. There's also a link to video of CNN's report when these pictures were released.
You are fortunate that apparently no friends or family of the 189 people killed at the Pentagon have read your messages.
If the US deposed Saddam for Iraq's oil, then the plan failed badly. Gasoline prices are have been higher than ever all summer.
And to those who think the US should have cooperated with the UN longer, I suggest you read the news reports (including extensive coverage in the NY Times, no friend of the Bush administration) about how UN personnel were skimming massive amounts of money off the oil-for-food/medicine program that the UN created, ostensibly to help the people of Iraq.
LTN
|
|
|
| | |
Current time: Sat Jul 5 05:44:18 BST 2008
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.03646 seconds |
