-Demosthenes- Posted February 17, 2005 Author Share Posted February 17, 2005 Just one more thing, and then I'll be done, promise. As I've said before, if you want to talk human rights violations, there are worse dictators to overthrow. Could you elaborate a little bit more, I don't see how it would be a reason not to help if there are others that are worse, we can only do one at a time, can't we? And I think this and all the other half reasons could have compounded to become a good case to invade, couldn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimeTraveler Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Yeah I think Demo was asking not in arguement but asking because he was genuinly interested in Phi's opinion. Are you refering to the reports that Saddam Hussien was trying to buy yellowcake from Niger for his nuclear weapons programme? If you are' date=' then it is accepted that these reports were false.[/quote'] Not only are they false, but Bush said this in his 03' state of the union: The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa Rumor has it the British government got this intel from an article in a British newspaper. It's nice to know that our partners in crime get their intelligence from the same place Bush does. 8 days after Bush's state of the union, Colin Powell pled his case to the UN for WMDs in Iraq. Afterwords he was asked why he made no mention of uranium from Africa, he replied: I didn't use the uranium at that point because I didn't think that was sufficiently, ahhh, strong as evidence to present before the world. He obviously knew something the president did not, or vice versa... this is why: CIA officials warned members of the presidents staff 'The intelligence was not good enough to make the statement, 'Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa' What did Condi Rice have to say about all this? In an interview with Meet the Press: In october' date=' for the Cincinnati speech, not for the state of the union but the Cincinnati speech, George Tenet asked that this be taken out of the Cincinnati speech, the reference to, ahhh, yellowcake. It was taken out of the Cincinnati speech because whenever the director of Central Intelligence wants something out, it's gone. Tim: How did it get back in? Rice: Ahh, its not a matter of it getting back in, it's a matter Tim that three plus months later, ahhh, people didn't remember that George Tenet had asked that it had been taken out of the Cincinnati speech and then it was cleared by the agency [/quote'] This leads us to two possible conclussions, this is strong evidence that the Bush admin. lied, or that the Bush admin. was more incompetent than what was previously thought. Since the second option is not possible, I think it's safe to say they are a bunch of liars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tetrahedrite Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Since the second option is not possible, I think it's safe to say they are a bunch of liars. Welcome to politics!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimeTraveler Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Could you elaborate a little bit more, I don't see how it would be a reason not to help if there are others that are worse, we can only do one at a time, can't we? And I think this and all the other half reasons could have compounded to become a good case to invade, couldn't it? Attrocities in Darfur (In Sudan, Africa) started prior to us engaging in Iraq. In the last two years recent estimates from two days ago indicate that as many as 700,000 people may have been killed and over 2 million have been displaced. Today the attrocities continue and we have failed to act. So while the Bush is running this campaign to "liberate Iraq" it is apparant his admin doesn't really care about the human factor. We liberated Iraq from Saddam. Not the Iraqi's from Saddam. Just recently have we even addressed the issue in Sudan and now we are once again facing the bickering inside the UN. The UN really needs to get it together and help these people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimeTraveler Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Welcome to politics!! Yep. I have actually considered switching my major to political science so maybe I can get into politics to add some honesty in the mix, then it dawned on me. You have to be a good liar to get elected, I wouldn't get far. *edit* But then I consider the words in my signature... I dunno there has to be some way to make a change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Could you elaborate a little bit more, I don't see how it would be a reason not to help if there are others that are worse, we can only do one at a time, can't we? And I think this and all the other half reasons could have compounded to become a good case to invade, couldn't it?Here's the problem with that, Demo. We, the people, only find out about the greedy reasons after the fact. We throw our support behind Congress, which allows the President to go in "to help" those oppressed folks, and save us from the terrorists who threaten us. Then we find out, again after the fact, that the enemy wasn't really as much of a threat as the President made them out to be. But oh well, we're still helping those people, right? Now we see that many of the folks who weren't terrorists before resent us being in their country. Now they are "insurgents" who are telling us to go home. They may have wanted Saddam deposed, but now they see how much of their country is on fire and they are cranky. So I guess the people didn't want our help as much as the President told us they did. And all we're left with are the greedy reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimeTraveler Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Here's the problem with that' date=' Demo. We, the people, only find out about the greedy reasons after the fact. We throw our support behind Congress, which allows the President to go in "to help" those oppressed folks, and save us from the terrorists who threaten us. Then we find out, again after the fact, that the enemy wasn't really as much of a threat as the President made them out to be. But oh well, we're still helping those people, right? Now we see that many of the folks who weren't terrorists before resent us being in their country. Now they are "insurgents" who are telling us to go home. They may have wanted Saddam deposed, but now they see how much of their country is on fire and they are cranky. So I guess the people didn't want our help as much as the President told us they did. And all we're left with are the greedy reasons.[/quote'] Very true. I think that is the reason we have not addressed Sudan, everytime it gets brought up we have gotten responses like "we are looking into it" or "we are working on it" 2 yrs, and 700,000 people later we are like "bummer, we should have did something sooner." In future history books the name of this era will be changed from the Industrial era, to Industrial era: the age of greed. Sad stuff. We need to consider some serious changes in our country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Here's an interesting AP News Story about Iran. When you read it, note how it seems to be designed to spread fear about Iran and their capabilities. We're already opening the doors to invasion there, and I suspect this was part of the plan a long time ago. I'd be interested to see how (or if) the BBC reported on this. The "shining objects" reminded me of a funny story, and I apologize for no linkage as this was told to me second-hand by a friend who belonged to an RC plane club. Several years ago, the US military coveted the unmanned mini spy-planes the Israelis had developed to keep tabs on their neighbors, so they gave Lockheed over US$1M to research them. Lockheed came back after several months and said they could set up a program for a multi-million dollar price tag, but they would need time because the US$1M ran out before they could come up with a workable prototype. Someone in defense gave the same problem to an RC club and they came up with three spy-plane prototypes for US$75,000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tetrahedrite Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Who is Associated Press owned by? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Lockheed came back after several months and said they could set up a program for a multi-million dollar price tag' date=' but they would need time because the US$1M ran out before they could come up with a workable prototype. Someone in defense gave the same problem to an RC club and they came up with three spy-plane prototypes for US$75,000.[/quote'] Now that i do believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Who is Associated Press owned by? The Associated Press is a collective organisation owned by the US daily newspapers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Attrocities in Darfur (In Sudan, Africa) started prior to us engaging in Iraq. D.R. Congo and Zimbabwe would be good candidates too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 D.R. Congo and Zimbabwe would be good candidates too. People mention the atrocities in Darfur, Western Sudan. What about the atrocities committed in Southern Sudan for the past 20 years? Whay have those been forgotten? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimeTraveler Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 People mention the atrocities in Darfur, Western Sudan. What about the atrocities committed in Southern Sudan for the past 20 years? Whay have those been forgotten? I am out of the loop on all of this, I recently just learned about Darfur. Could you help fill in some of the unknowns, it seems it is something that is ignored alot. Thanks. (probably better to put this in the Sudan Crisis thread though). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 I am out of the loop on all of this, I recently just learned about Darfur. Could you help fill in some of the unknowns, it seems it is something that is ignored alot. Thanks. (probably better to put this in the Sudan Crisis thread though). Done a quick FYI in the Sudan thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted February 18, 2005 Author Share Posted February 18, 2005 So is it possible that it was worth it, or was it just fought for selfish reasons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 So is it possible that it was worth it, or was it just fought for selfish reasons?I see nothing at the present time that tells me the invasion of Iraq was worth all the lost lives, heightened animosity and billions of dollars that could have solved some of our own problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newtonian Posted February 26, 2005 Share Posted February 26, 2005 Just found this.Its so funny you got to see it.Dont worry its not a death movie, just an interview.But so funny:-) http://media.ebaumsworld.com/iraqreport.wmv Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now