Fahrenheit 9/11

[Lyzel]

Originally posted by MTXBlau@Jul 9, 2004 @ 02:10 AM

Just wanted to point out the irony.

Anyways, it, Lyzel wants google links. Otherwise it's not real news. Or wait, was it google was real news but if you don't sort it in his/her methodolgy, it's just lies and propaganda? I forget.

Arguing with Lyzel is like watching a debate with Ann Coulter on TV. It just leaves you angry, annoyed, worried about the state of the world (and evolution) and in a desperate need of a bath. ;-)

True. I can just ignore the thread, but i'm trying to be polite to it290 even though I disagree with some of his comments?

As for the google comment.. You're taking that out of proportion. I was just trying to say to look things up.

Anyways, was your (Curtis's too) opinion of me necessary? No, right? If you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all?

Thanks

 

[Curtis]

Originally posted by Lyzel@Jul 8, 2004 @ 03:16 PM

but i'm trying to be polite to it290 even though I disagree with some of his comments?

Lyzel, your posts are rarely polite. Nearly every post dips sarcasm, you insult anybody who disagrees with you ("cowards" and in the past "pussies") and you present everything you say as fact. It gets on peoples nerves. I don't get that you don't understand this.

As for the google comment.. You're taking that out of proportion. I was just trying to say to look things up.

I was just trying to say that "looking things up" won't get you all the answers - especially if you choose to ignore parts of the argument as you often do (and admit to doing).

Anyways, was your (Curtis's too) opinion of me necessary? No, right? If you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all?

I am yet to express an opinion of you in this topic.

 

[Lyzel]

Originally posted by Curtis@Jul 9, 2004 @ 03:28 AM

Lyzel, your posts are rarely polite.  Nearly

every post dips sarcasm, you insult anybody who disagrees with you ("cowards" and in the past "pussies") and you present everything you say as fact.  It gets on peoples nerves.  I don't get that you don't understand this.

If this is so, then I apologize. It is not intentional. Whether we have a Republican or Democrat president, people always seem to want to find reasons to fight.

I think people need to start working together.

it290 seems to think that this President has never done anything right, or that there is some conspiracy theory in the work. It's so left wing liberal. I disagree with that view. Nothing is wrong with that. In that same token, doesn't mean that he is wrong.

I was just trying to say that "looking things up" won't get you all the answers - especially if you choose to ignore parts of the argument as you often do (and admit to doing).

It does not mean you need to word it in a way to ridicule me?

I am yet to express an opinion of you in this topic.

if "I'll bet my life that you couldn't tell the difference" is not an insult, then I must confess, I worry what you consider a compliment.

 

[Curtis]

Originally posted by Lyzel@Jul 8, 2004 @ 04:36 PM

if "I'll bet my life that you couldn't tell the difference" is not an insult, then I must confess, I worry what you consider a compliment.

By that passage I mean "from textural explanations of events, after the fact, you (collective you) won't be able to tell the difference between truth, half truth and fiction". You put far too much store in what you read, particularly if what you read expresses any kind of opinion. Let's just leave it at that, OK?

 

[it290]

Here's another interesting link, from today's news:

Senate Report Sees No Formal Iraq-Qaeda Ties - Reuters

Of course, this is all just an 'assumption'.

 

[Sundance_2]

Anyone remember Bush saying the information he had from Tenent was 'Darn good intelligence'? Hopefully this statement will come back to haunt him (if anyone remebers it).

 

[it290]

Here are some quotes fresh from the morning paper (Bush Administration statements in italics, Senate Committe on Intelligence statements in bold):

"Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians... And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons." - Shrub, Sept. 12, 2002

"....reporting did not show that this cadre of nuclear personnel had recently been regrouped or enhanced as stated in the (October 2002) National Intelligence Estimate, nor did it suggest that they were engaged in work related to a nuclear weapons program."

"First-hand witnesses have informed us that Iraq has at least seven mobile factories for the production of biological agents, equipment mounted on trucks and rails to evade discovery." - Shrub, Feb. 6, 2003

"Intelligence reports did indicate that Iraq may have had a mobile biological weapons program, but most of the reporting was from a single human intelligence source to whom the Intelligence Community never had direct access."

"The issue is that he (Saddam) has chemical weapons and he's used them. The issue is that he's developing and has biological weapons." - Cheney, March 24, 2002

"...intelligence analysts did not have enough information to state with certainty that Iraq 'has' these weapons."

"...we know from sources that a missle brigade outside Baghdad was dispersing rocket launchers and warheads containing biological warfare agent to various locations..." - Powell, Feb. 5, 2003

"The statement in key judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate that 'Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons' overstated both what was known and what intelligence analysts judged about Iraq's biological weapons holdings."

"Iraq has developed spray devices that could be used on unmanned aerial vehicles with ranges far beyond what is permitted by the (U.N.) Security Council. A UAV launched from a vessel off the American coast could reach hundreds of miles inland." - Shrub, Feb. 6, 2003

"The key judgement in the National Intelligence Estimate that Iraq was developing a UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) 'probably intended to deliver biological warfare agents' also overstated what the intelligence reporting indicated about the mission of Iraq's small UAVs."

Now, I know you guys are all going to say 'But it's all the CIA's fault!'... but seriously, doesn't it disturb you in the least that all of Bush's reasons for going to war turned out to be based on false information? And do you really believe that the CIA and others provided these false statements completely in isolation, with no influence or pressure from the White House? If so, exactly who is it that's believing everything they're fed? Thousands of people are dead because we went to war based on false assumptions. Think about that.

Oh, and here's another interesting link- unrelated to the above, but it goes to show you that the US is not guiltless when it comes to WMDs:

U.S. Firm Supplied Nuclear Black Market

Ah yes, another thing. This is a bit old but it's an excellent interview with Bush by an Irish journalist:

Realvideo, interview starts at about 20:40

MP3 of the interview

 

[Xavier]

some good reads

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/763038.cms

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0%2C2...57558%2C00.html

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/.../5730605.htm?1c

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/12/...irq.inspections

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/iraqwar/s...,181976,00.html

http://www.iht.com/articles/112447.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/20...ite-vials_x.htm

http://www.jsonline.com/news/gen/apr03/136582.asp

Interview with scientist .

http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/Nati...essages/98.html

Some History :

http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Ira.../3889_3894.html

 

[it290]

Not to downplay the significance of those finds, but some sarin and mustard gas is hardly what we were told Iraq possessed before the war. Nor does it come close to qualifying as an imminent threat to US security. Also, all the nuclear research you pointed to in that interview took place before the Gulf War and therefore prior to UN sanctions being put in place.

 

[Xavier]

I have a theory that the anthrax sent all over America was from Iraq , ive had this theory for many years , I remeber reading that this anthrax was almost genitically identical to the one we produced in this very country . I further theorize that we gave it to them in the early 80's they figured out how to complex it and then they sent it back .

I dunno , maybe i missed the conclusion to that story .

My point in the previous thread is that Iraq did have unconventional weapons and even though many were accounted for many had not been destroyed .

I was looking for 2 sotries I didnt find one that a vial of anthrax was found in one of Sadams wives mother refrigerator and another talking about how 14 vats of mustard gas slated to be destroyed had been found with looks of recent tampering .

 

[Xavier]

Originally posted by it290@Jul 10, 2004 @ 09:52 PM

Not to downplay the significance of those finds, but some sarin and mustard gas is hardly what we were told Iraq possessed before the war. Nor does it come close to qualifying as an imminent threat to US security. Also, all the nuclear research you pointed to in that interview took place before the Gulf War and therefore prior to UN sanctions being put in place.

Yeah ok I agree with the 9/11 commisions findings , they are pretty generic findings though and none supprised me .

Yes Iraq had no nukes Ive stated this before .

But answer this

Do you think Sadam had nuclear ambitions , which is what i remeber hearing in the case against Iraq . Yes Iraq had for the most part piss poor scientists and poor excuses for parts but why let the process it go on further .

Sadam did have and continued to have chemical , nuclear and biological scientists and research did go on still if you believe that this all stopped because the UN said so you are either naive or a sadam sympathizer ...since theres pretty much no such thing I assume ..I dunno you just wanna argue . In the last dosier handed over from Iraq to the Un before the war (almost the same dosier from 1991) its stated all kinds of crazy stuff like tons on anthrax sarin mustard gas and bilogical agents that I have no idea what exactley they are or do . This all makes sense because little was destroyed by weapons inspectors . Well were is all this stuff ...wheres is are all these declred weapons ? Wheres the weapons of mass destruction . Yes indeed this is a very scary question .

theres 3 schools of thoughts on this .

1. Put out but out by Sadams captured government workers and some US press , Sadam puffed his weapon capabilities to scare of would be attackers .

2. Its burried or shipped to Syria .

3. Sadam says he destroyed it but the scientists forgot to fully update the dossier .

Eight months of making known invasion is plenty of time to do well anything

As stated before president Bushes statement in the last 4 months before months before the war were weak at best ...but they werent THE reason for war .

The reason for war was non compliance on signed treaties and un interupted weapons inspections . Sadam was unstable character in a part of the world that desperatley needs stability .

Again I submit this to you that war with Iraq was more humane than continued imbargos and bombing campaigns without factoring in the rule of an on oppressive leader

 

[Xavier]

And again I make the point would you like to swim in this stuff drink it have it spread around in your neighbor or given to terrorists ?

Yes I do believe Sadam was a threat hes a lunatic and while having no extreme Huge direct realationshio to Al Qaeda and its planning they know each other and are neighbors and both have a same hatred towards the united states .

Try to arguee that the war in Iraq wasn't along time coming go ahead I dare you .

Other than waiting for somthing to happen

 

[Curtis]

The UN resolutions reason is a weak one. Israel has a list of resolutions as long as you please that they haven't complied with. Instead of invading the country, the US uses it's veto power to prevent more, often the only country voting against a resolution.

Iraq prior to the war was a problem contained. Maybe Hussein had "nuclear ambitions", but intentions count for squat if you can't act upon them. If the weapons finds in Iraq have been significant, then why did Tony Blair get up an concede that weapons of mass destruction may never be found?

 

[Xavier]

Yeah well we havent gone to war with Isreal or Palestine and have it ended by them signing a treaty that they broke .

Yes one thing the adminisrtation says that is true is that Al Qaida and other terrorists organisations will and do act upon weekness .

What I want to do is find old footage of after 9/11 , right afterwards many people got on tv and were saying what about Iraq blah blah Afghanistans just a small piece of the pie , today these same people are war detractors in fact since right after Bushes anouncement of his intentions to attack it .

A couple things I found funny

1.Right after troops were in Iraq and had taken over Bagdad the Iraqi's had a higher opinion poll of the war then the American people did .(very sad)

2. I heard no press from legitimate Arab countries in the beginning against our intentions in fact they were all for it . Maybe not the people but the governments were . Of the four times the Un voted I cant think of one time an Arab nation voted against it . Maybe there was and maybe the Un isnt doesnt have a huge Arab legue but.. Also for the first 3-4 months damned near every country in the region provided logistical and financial support for both the coalition troops ans Iraqi people . What does this all tell you ?

 

[Lyzel]

Originally posted by Curtis@Jul 10, 2004 @ 11:38 PM

The UN resolutions reason is a weak one. Israel has a list of resolutions as long as you please that they haven't complied with. Instead of invading the country, the US uses it's veto power to prevent more, often the only country voting against a resolution.

That's because most of these resolutions want to condemn Israel's actions, yet fails to condemn Palestinian numerous suicide bombings against Israel. Accountability should not be one way. Most of these resolutions come from Syria.

 

[it290]

So the resolution is not legitimate if it originated in a country other than the United States? I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. I don't have time to argue all these other points right now, but I will later. And Xavier, I have no idea what you mean by 'try and argue that the war was a long time coming'.

 

[Xavier]

Originally posted by it290@Jul 11, 2004 @ 01:39 AM

Xavier, I have no idea what you mean by 'try and argue that the war was a long time coming'.

I mean three presidents in a row have had problems with Iraq , bombing campiagns and sanctions didnt seem to fix anything , the next logical step is an action of force ...when ? I would choose a pre-emptive one before given a "real reason" to act .

 

[Lyzel]

Originally posted by it290@Jul 10, 2004 @ 06:52 PM

Now, I know you guys are all going to say 'But it's all the CIA's fault!'... but seriously, doesn't it disturb you in the least that all of Bush's reasons for going to war turned out to be based on false information?

The report that recently came out indicates that there were many intelligence errors.See this report from the US Senate Intelligence commitee

You cannot sit there and blame the President for the CIA's failures. You cannot say that he "should have known better". To say that the President should have disregarded the CIA intel is foolish. He's not just getting this info from one person.

Some people want to make it sound like the President lied to America, but in actuality it was the CIA that lied to the President.

 

[Lyzel]

Originally posted by it290@Jul 11, 2004 @ 12:39 AM

So the resolution is not legitimate if it originated in a country other than the United States? I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous.

Nah, it doesn't mean that it's illegitimate. But time and time has shown that Syria always condemn Israel actions, but ignores Palestinians.

 

[Curtis]

Originally posted by Lyzel@Jul 10, 2004 @ 12:50 PM

The report that recently came out indicates that there were many intelligence errors.See this report from the US Senate Intelligence commitee

You cannot sit there and blame the President for the CIA's failures. You cannot say that he "should have known better". To say that the President should have disregarded the CIA intel is foolish. He's not just getting this info from one person.

Some people want to make it sound like the President lied to America, but in actuality it was the CIA that lied to the President.

When people say "he should have known", they mean "he shouldn't have used intelligence that wasn't verified/verifiable". If you are going to make explosive claims, and you are the president of one of the most powerful countires in the world, and your words will lead to war then you'd damn well better make sure what you are saying is true. To turn around later and say "we went with what we knew at the time and, oops, it turned out to be wrong" just isn't good enough when "what we knew" has so far caused the death of tens of thousands. The hope that democracy might grow out of this war is a big gamble, one that as yet hasn't been justified.