Cheney's Misleading, Deceiving Case for War - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-07-2004, 07:44 AM   #1
Acrobat
 
Hawk269's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 322
Local Time: 12:38 AM
Cheney's Misleading, Deceiving Case for War

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6192327/site/newsweek/

The article says it all.

Cheney intentionally misled the public to start this war in Iraq, which has cost so many lives. Think about how many soldiers and civilians (including innocent CHILDREN!) have been killed because of this administration's decision to go to war. Saddam was obviously a madman and a murderer, but there had to be a better way. We would not have rushed to war knowing what we know now. There was no clear and present danger to the U.S. from Iraq. Certainly no more than N. Korea or Iran. Yet, we went into Iraq but not the others...

If a leader has to fabricate and embellish circumstantial evidence in order to garner support for a war that would not have been supported otherwise, there is a huge problem in this country that needs to be recognized and solved.

AJ
__________________

__________________
Hawk269 is offline  
Old 10-07-2004, 08:00 AM   #2
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 05:38 AM

More an opinion piece than an article but interesting points nevertheless.
__________________

__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 10-07-2004, 09:07 AM   #3
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 12:38 AM
Moving this to War...
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 10-07-2004, 09:35 AM   #4
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Jamila's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,454
Local Time: 10:38 PM
Hawk269 -

Unfortunately, most people don't like to be confronted with the truth but the truth ultimately sets you free.

Cheney is the most dangerous man in politics today - right next to his friend, Congressman Tom DeLay - a partner in moral bankruptcy and ethical crime from Texas.

DEFINITELY TIME FOR REGIME CHANGE IN DC....
__________________
Jamila is offline  
Old 10-07-2004, 11:22 AM   #5
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:38 PM
Jamila

When "confronted" with an OPINION piece, do you always ASSUME it is true?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-07-2004, 11:30 AM   #6
Refugee
 
ImOuttaControl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Duluth, MN
Posts: 1,340
Local Time: 10:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Jamila

When "confronted" with an OPINION piece, do you always ASSUME it is true?
My feelings exactly.
__________________
ImOuttaControl is offline  
Old 10-07-2004, 01:28 PM   #7
Acrobat
 
Hawk269's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 322
Local Time: 12:38 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Jamila

When "confronted" with an OPINION piece, do you always ASSUME it is true?
When evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of one side over another, and backed up by facts that have been substantiated by an unbiased source, I make the reasonable choice of siding with those who present logical, credible evidence.

I adhere to the reasonable person standard, which is one of the pillars of the U.S. justice system.

Maybe you should try adhering to this standard as well.


AJ
__________________
Hawk269 is offline  
Old 10-07-2004, 01:41 PM   #8
Acrobat
 
Hawk269's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 322
Local Time: 12:38 AM
This rationale is so full of holes, you can substitute it for Swiss Cheese:

"Based on all the information we have to date," Mr. Bush said at the White House, "I believe we were right to take action, and America is safer today with Saddam Hussein in prison.

He retained the knowledge, the materials, the means and the intent to produce weapons of mass destruction, and he could have passed that knowledge on to our terrorist enemies."


So being *safer* justifies going to war? We would be *safer* if N. Korea were no longer a threat. We would be *safer* if Iran were no longer a threat. Yet, we have not attacked them. Why is that?

In the second part of that quote, you could substitute the leaders of Iran or North Korea for "he" and it would be the same argument. So, these reasons alone are not enough - otherwise, we would be in N. Korea or Iran by now.

Anyone CAN do just about anything. But that doesn't mean they will. It doesn't mean there was a clear and present danger.

AJ
__________________
Hawk269 is offline  
Old 10-07-2004, 01:46 PM   #9
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Hawk269


When evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of one side over another, and backed up by facts that have been substantiated by an unbiased source, I make the reasonable choice of siding with those who present logical, credible evidence.

I adhere to the reasonable person standard, which is one of the pillars of the U.S. justice system.

Maybe you should try adhering to this standard as well.
Thanks for the lecture on the US justice system. I've been familiar with it since you were in elementary school.

Why don't you argue the facts instead of using someone else's opinion?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-07-2004, 01:49 PM   #10
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Hawk269
So being *safer* justifies going to war? We would be *safer* if N. Korea were no longer a threat. We would be *safer* if Iran were no longer a threat. Yet, we have not attacked them. Why is that?
Yes. The whole rationale behind a pre-emptive strike is that the attack makes you safer.

If you want us to attack N. Korea, perhaps you could write your congressional representative.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-07-2004, 02:10 PM   #11
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Hawk269



I adhere to the reasonable person standard, which is one of the pillars of the U.S. justice system.

Maybe you should try adhering to this standard as well.


AJ
Being a lawyer, I am sure NBCrusader is fammiliar with the standard of which you speak.

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-07-2004, 02:43 PM   #12
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 05:38 AM

I will first have to wait and see how the situation in Iraq evolves before I can draw my conclusions about whether the world is a safer place or not.
__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 10-07-2004, 06:44 PM   #13
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:38 AM
Re: Cheney's Misleading, Deceiving Case for War

Quote:
Originally posted by Hawk269
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6192327/site/newsweek/

The article says it all.

Cheney intentionally misled the public to start this war in Iraq, which has cost so many lives. Think about how many soldiers and civilians (including innocent CHILDREN!) have been killed because of this administration's decision to go to war. Saddam was obviously a madman and a murderer, but there had to be a better way. We would not have rushed to war knowing what we know now. There was no clear and present danger to the U.S. from Iraq. Certainly no more than N. Korea or Iran. Yet, we went into Iraq but not the others...

If a leader has to fabricate and embellish circumstantial evidence in order to garner support for a war that would not have been supported otherwise, there is a huge problem in this country that needs to be recognized and solved.

AJ
Saddam Hussein had invaded and attacked four different countries in the space of less than 10 years in the 80s and early 1990s. After his invasion of Kuwait and then defeat in the Gulf War, the United Nations laid down a number of conditions and requirement that Saddam had to comply with. Multiple resolutions were passed authorizing the use of military force if Saddam failed to meet the conditions of the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement and subsequent resolutions.

Saddam played a cat and mouse game with UN inspectors from 1991 to 1998 when the UN inspectors were kicked out and not allowed to return. The process of Verifiable disarmament is not something that takes 7 years let alone 12 years. Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakstan, and South Africa all verifiably disarmed of their arsonals in under a year. With, Saddam things were far different.

When UN inspectors were kicked out in November of 1998, they listed the fact that Saddam had failed to account for over 1,000 Liters of Anthrax, 500 pounds of mustard gas, hundreds of pounds of sarin gas, and over 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells.

Four years passed with inspectors not allowed to return to Iraq. Then in 2002, because of the Bush administrations pressure, Saddam did let inspectors back in, but refused to account for the missing stocks which even Saddam had addmitted to having back in 1998. The claim was that the materials had been dismantled and any evidence of the dismantlement or destruction destroyed as well. Essentially, the dog ate my homework excuse.

The situation in March 2003 was, Saddam had failed to Verifiably Disarm of all WMD which was required by the 1991 UN Ceacefire agreement and multiple UN resolutions including resolution 1441, that authorized the use of military force if Saddam failed to comply and verifiably disarm. Saddam's failure to verifiably disarm made war a necessity.

While the CIA and other inspection teams failed to find WMD in Iraq, the cold hard fact remains that Saddam failed to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD. Various inspectors and others may theorize about where or in what condition unaccounted for WMD is in, but they remain theory's and not facts. The fact that made war a necessity was Saddam's failure to verifiably disarm of all WMD. That fact is just as true today, as it was on March 19, 2003.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-07-2004, 07:23 PM   #14
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:38 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Hawk269
This rationale is so full of holes, you can substitute it for Swiss Cheese:

"Based on all the information we have to date," Mr. Bush said at the White House, "I believe we were right to take action, and America is safer today with Saddam Hussein in prison.

He retained the knowledge, the materials, the means and the intent to produce weapons of mass destruction, and he could have passed that knowledge on to our terrorist enemies."


So being *safer* justifies going to war? We would be *safer* if N. Korea were no longer a threat. We would be *safer* if Iran were no longer a threat. Yet, we have not attacked them. Why is that?

In the second part of that quote, you could substitute the leaders of Iran or North Korea for "he" and it would be the same argument. So, these reasons alone are not enough - otherwise, we would be in N. Korea or Iran by now.

Anyone CAN do just about anything. But that doesn't mean they will. It doesn't mean there was a clear and present danger.

AJ
Saddam's regime invaded and attacked four different countries over the past 20 years! Saddam's regime used WMD more times than any other regime in history! Saddam's regime threatened the majority of the PLANETS energy supplies with seizure and sabotage, which could have plunged the world into global depression far worse than the 1930s depression with unknowable consequences for the entire world. Saddam's military in Iraq is only dozens of miles from vast oil fields in both Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, as well as Iran, that supply a majority of the world with its energy. Because of where Iraq was geographically, Saddam's regime was idealy positioned to threaten global energy supply. His past behavior indicated he was likely to do so again, and he did retain the capabilities to do so.

While North Korea is a threat, it is not nearly the threat that Saddam was because of the above facts. North Korea has not invaded another country in over 50 years! North Korea borders 3 countries, China, Russia and South Korea which have 3 of the 5 largest military forces in the world. Although South Korea's military is slightly smaller than North Korea's, South Korea has a far better equiped and trained military force than North Korea.

North Korea is not harmless and what makes them formidable is the massive amount of artillery that the country has deployed along its border with South Korea and in range of the Seoul the capital and its 10 million people who live there. North Korea's stocks of artillery are nearly the largest in the world, and most of it is deployed along the DMZ into the side of mountains and other places with various concealment and fortification measure designed to increase each emplacements survivability. Because of the level of artillery that North Korea has and the close proximity that Seoul and its 10 million people are to that artillery, any conflict started would result in hundreds of thousands of deaths in the first days and hours. This unique situation does not exist anywhere else in the world. Prior to getting nucear weapons, this is how North Korea had a strong deterent to military action from other countries. With Nuclear Weapons, the North now has the ability to cause devestation in southern parts of South Korea as well as Japan.

Despite these capabilities, North Korea has been one of the most benign countries in the world when it comes to unprovoked military aggression over the past 50 years. North Korea simply has not invaded any countries, unlike Saddam who has launched more unprovoked invasions and attacks than any other leader today.

While North Korea does have enormous capabilities to cause destruction, their behavior has shown them to be far less of a threat. In addition, geographically, they are not positioned to threaten the planet in the way that Saddam was. North Korea while able to cause large scale loss of life in South Korea and Japan, does not have the capability to overrun either of those countries. As long as Saddam's regime had the capacity to defend itself from Iran, they would always have the capability to overrun Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The impact globally from the seizure and sabotage of Kuwaiti and Saudi oil would be far greater than economic impact from South Korea being cut off from the world whether it was overrun(not possible) or devestated by war.

What deterimines the level of threat is one's capabilities and desire's to cause harm. While Saddam lacked certain specific capabilities that North Korea has, his past behavior shows that he is likely to engage in behavior that would cause terrible harm to the entire planet, is perfectly geographically positioned to cause this harm, and does have the capability to inflict it. North Korea was only more threatening than Saddam in specific area's in the capability category.

North Korea was less of a threat than Saddam, and the cost of dealing with the threat from North Korea through military force outweighs the cost of dealing with North Korea through sanctions and talks. With Saddam, the situation was just the opposite.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-08-2004, 01:36 AM   #15
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 05:38 AM
Sting2
you can't claim to enforce UN laws and throw out the UN inspectors yourself and ignore the will of the UN president.
That dosn't seem authentic to me
__________________

__________________
Klaus is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com