so they blatantly lie and you dont care - Page 15 - 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 10-07-2003, 03:31 PM   #211
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:42 PM
Klaus,

"If it was about Disarming them because Iraq did not verifiably dissarm...
...why did they talk about self defense, unprooved al-quaida and 9/11 connections and why did they need faked "facts" from their security agencies."

#1 Verifiably disarming Iraq is an action of "Self Defense" for the region, and the entire world.

#2 It would have been inappropriate not to tell the public about any possible connections to Al Quada. The Administration said there were indications and there indeed were at the time, regardless if the possible connections seem less so today. This was the intelligence they had at the time, and they presented it.

#3 The Administration never used "Faked" facts but simply intelligence that proved later to be inaccurate in some cases. That is the nature of any and all intelligence and not some liberal BS conspiracy theory.

"And why - if they did it under the UN rules is the UN not in control of the whole operation?"

The UN is under control of the whole operation as indicated by resolution 1483 passed in May 2003 by the Security Council which declared the member states, USA, United Kingdom, and Australia to be the "Authority" in Iraq. Every aspect of this operation has been approved and authorized by the United Nations. Any further changes to the current structure in Iraq will have to be approved by the United Nations and the United Nations has not done so yet.

"Why was the threat of Iraq (against other countries) so imminent that they couldn't wait that unmovic finished its work?"

It is impossible for UNMOVIC to finish its work without help from SADDAM. If SADDAM will not verifiably show what happened to the 30,000 Bio/Chem shells, thousands of liters of Anthrax, and hundreds of pounds of Mustard Gas, then it is impossible for UNMOVIC to achieve Verifiable Disarmament. From the start in November 2002, Saddam insisted he destroyed the WMD from 1998, but showed no evidence of the destruction. Verifiable disarmament requires that he do this. His failure to do this means that further UNMOVIC operations in Iraq were essentially a waste of time. Unarmed inspectors cannot disarm an armed dictator who does not want to be verifiably disarmed!

The threat of Saddam's WMD was declared imminent back in March 1991. That is why he was forced then in there, with 250,000 US troops in Southern Iraq, to sign agreements to give up all his WMD, or face further military action.

"Why wasn't even the time to wait 3 more days were France and Germany said they would present an alternative at the UN forum?"

Because the weather in Iraq is a big factor in military operations. Hundreds of Thousands of soldiers are have Chem/Bio suits on in 110 degree plus heat. The USA and coalition I feel waited to long to launch the strike. It should have been done weeks earlier to give the soldiers cooler weather to operate in.

Secondly, there is no alternative to Verifiable Disarmament by Saddam. It is Saddam's responsibility per the resolutions to disarm.

It is unbelievable that Germany and France fought so hard to prevent the end of one of the most brutal regimes in history. Thousands of Iraqi's were dying every month because of Saddam's rule. How many more Iraqi's would have to die under the German and French plan. An Alternative German and French plan would have left Saddam in power.

It had been 12 years since March 1991 when the invasion was launched to bring total compliance of Saddam with the resolutions through military force. 12 years. 12 years Germany and France had to present their ineffective plan for Iraq.

France and Germany should understand that enforcement of the UNs most serious resolutions, those past under Chapter VII rules, are vital if the United Nations is going to have credibility in the future. France and Germany should also understand that they will never succeed in preventing other countries from protecting their vital national security interest. They should also understand that the only way to deal with Dictators like Saddam or through the tough rules and resolutions that were laid down back in 1991 and reafirmed multiple times since then. Resolutions that clearly authorized the use of force if Saddam failed to comply. They should also understand that if they take a tougher stand next time, they actually would be more helpful in bringing about compliance without military force.

But the war is over now, and despite the fact that Germany and France were on the wrong side of history when it came to war, they now have the opportunity to be on the right side of history when it comes to the Peace. Japan has just given a Billion dollars to help reconstruct Iraq after 30 years of rule under Saddam. What will France and Germany be willing to contribute to the future of the Iraqi people? The Iraqi people are watching and waiting.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-07-2003, 04:52 PM   #212
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 09:42 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
But the war is over now, and despite the fact that Germany and France were on the WRONG side of history when it came to war, they now have the opportunity to be on the right side of history when it comes to the Peace. Japan has just given a Billion dollars to help reconstruct Iraq after 30 years of rule under Saddam. What will France and Germany be willing to contribute to the future of the Iraqi people? The Iraqi people are watching and waiting.
This is unbelievable. The arrogance just astounds me.

Although you cannot find your way to consider it, many still feel the war was wrong, not because Sadaam was good, but preemption is wrong. Just let it go.



Any UN Resolutions discussions =
__________________

__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 10-07-2003, 05:43 PM   #213
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:42 PM
Scarletwine,

I have a political opinion and every right to express it. The war was not about Pre-emption. It was authorized by the necessity to ensure peace, security, and stability in the region because of the lack of verifiable disarmament by Saddam. This was laid down firmly in the UN resolutions regardless of your opinion of them.

What makes me sick is the Anti-War crowds failure to realize the consequences of not enforcing the resolutions both in terms of Security for the region and the world, as well as the Iraqi civilians continueing to live under Saddam's brutal rule. Their consequences in terms of the losses from the war were flat out wrong and everytime the condition in Iraq improves for the people, its one more thing that shows the supporters of military enforcement of the Resolutions were correct and those that opposed were incorrect. The reconstruction of Iraq going on now is bringing about the biggest change ever in Iraqi history in terms of the politically stability and standard of living of the people that live there.

I'm well aware of other peoples opinions, but this is mine.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-08-2003, 07:10 AM   #214
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: 03:42 PM
Germany and France didn't fight to prevent the end of Saddam. They simply weren't convinced by the proofs which were presented at the UN.
Today we know that these facts where our foreign minister said "excuse me - but i'm not convinced" were wrong or outdated.
Just because our Governments thought that the US/GB coalition was wrong DOES NOT mean that they were pro Saddam!

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 10-08-2003, 11:20 AM   #215
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 09:42 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Their consequences in terms of the losses from the war were flat out wrong and everytime the condition in Iraq improves for the people, its one more thing that shows the supporters of military enforcement of the Resolutions were correct and those that opposed were incorrect. The reconstruction of Iraq going on now is bringing about the biggest change ever in Iraqi history in terms of the politically stability and standard of living of the people that live there.
You are also incorrect here. Conditions have not improved only deterioriated. Ubay is no longer stealing women and raping them, many men are. Sadaam is no longer plundering homes in the night of political opposition, we are. The only one profiting from this war is Halliburton, Bechtel, and other admin. special buddies.

PS - that's what Britian said wwhen they formed Iraq.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 10-08-2003, 08:38 PM   #216
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:42 PM
Scarletwine,

"You are also incorrect here. Conditions have not improved only deterioriated. Ubay is no longer stealing women and raping them, many men are. Sadaam is no longer plundering homes in the night of political opposition, we are. The only one profiting from this war is Halliburton, Bechtel, and other admin. special buddies."

"PS - that's what Britian said wwhen they formed Iraq."

Sorry but my friends who spent 8 MONTHS in Iraq present a different story. They have worked hard to build schools and infrastructure in Southern Iraq that had long been brutalized by Saddam. The total amount of Electricity available in Iraq is now greater than it was before the war. The Shia population in Iraq no longer have to fear execution by Saddam's security services.

Over 1 Million Iraqi's died under Saddam's rule. How many more was the Anti-War crowd willing to let die from Saddam's rule? The USA has removed the single greatest menace to the lives of Iraqi Childern and their families. The USA this year alone is going to pump 20 BILLION DOLLARS in economic and humanitarian aid into Iraq. No other leader or administration in history from any country has ever given the people living within the borders of Iraq this much aid.

Nope, Iraq is not an X-Files story or an Oliver Stone movie. Every town in Iraq that starts to improve, every Iraqi house that gets running water and electricity for the first time in decades, every Iraqi police officer and soldier that is trained professionally, every Iraqi child that is fed and recieves medical treatment regardless if their Shia, Kurd or Sunni, every smile that more Iraqi childern experience as US Marines build them new schools, is one more thing that proves that the Bush administration made the right choice in using military force to remove Saddam. None of these things would be happening if the Anti-War crowd had succeeded in preventing the removal of Saddam from power back in March/April 2003.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-08-2003, 09:41 PM   #217
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus
Germany and France didn't fight to prevent the end of Saddam. They simply weren't convinced by the proofs which were presented at the UN.
Today we know that these facts where our foreign minister said "excuse me - but i'm not convinced" were wrong or outdated.
Just because our Governments thought that the US/GB coalition was wrong DOES NOT mean that they were pro Saddam!

Klaus

#1 France and Germany did work hard to prevent the overthrow of Saddam this past March.

#2 Saddam failed to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD. That is a fact. Saddam was the only one required to prove anything. Saddam never complied with a single resolution passed against him and was in open violation of the 1991 Ceacefire Agreement.

#3 I never said they were "pro-Saddam", but the actions they took were to prevent the overthrow of Saddam back in March/April 2003.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-09-2003, 02:00 AM   #218
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: 03:42 PM
#1 they worked hard to stop a war based on wrong facts

#2 right, but it's questionable if these 10 resolutions alone justify a war.
I guess that's why the US didn't talk too much about the old resolutions in front of the UNO but presented new facts why it's important to invade now because of a imminent threat of Saddam.
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 10-09-2003, 02:58 AM   #219
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:42 PM
Klaus,

"#1 they worked hard to stop a war based on wrong facts"

#1 It was a fact that Saddam had failed to comply with 17 UN resolutions after 12 years. It was a fact that Saddam had failed to Verifiably disarm of all WMD as required by the Gulf War Ceacefire Agreement. In case of such violations, member states of the UN were authorized to use all means necessary to bring about compliance. The coalition members succeeded in enforcing UN resolutions by removing Saddam from power. France and Germany tried to prevent this from happening.

"#2 right, but it's questionable if these 10 resolutions alone justify a war.
I guess that's why the US didn't talk too much about the old resolutions in front of the UNO but presented new facts why it's important to invade now because of a imminent threat of Saddam."

A Violation of any one of them justified military action. Thats why the resolutions were passed under CHAPTER VII rules of the United Nations, so that military force could be used to enforce the resolutions.

It would have been very stupid to require a dictator like Saddam to disarm, but have no means to enforce disarmament if Saddam decided not to cooperate. Thats why resolution 678 authorizes the use of all means necessary to bring about compliance with ALL SUBSEQUENT RESOLUTIONS.

George Bush stated that as the centerpiece of his talk to the United Nations on September 12, 2002. He brought out the fact that Iraq had failed to comply with 17 UN resolutions and that the matter had to be resolved. He was ready to give Saddam one last chance and Saddam refused to account for the WMD the inspectors new he had back in 1998.

George Bush also got another resolution passed (1441) in 2002 that reafirmed the previous resolutions and authorized the use of military force if Saddam failed his one last chance.

The United Nations required that Iraq give up its WMD programs back in March 1991 because they were viewed as an imminent threat to the international community. Saddam agreed and signed the Ceacefire Agreement requiring him to disarm.

It has always been the central basis of US foreign policy to Iraq since 1991, that it must Verifiably disarm of all WMD. This policy never required the USA or any other member state to prove anything! The burden of proof is not on the USA or any UN member, it is on SADDAM. Thats how the UN Ceacefire Agreement was written. This is still the central basis of the US governments reasons for military action against Iraq.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-09-2003, 04:30 AM   #220
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: 03:42 PM
We wrote here several times, i think all we can agree on is that we strongly dissagree in the interpretation of the consequences.

But it's not only us, there are several countries who have different opinions as we could see in the UN when the US/GB coalition tried to get a resolution before iraq war that would have convinced countries like Germany that the war was legal.

We can see these differences again in the new approach to get a UN resolution.It's basically the the interpretation of US/GB against view of France supported by Germany and Russia supported by Kofi Anan.

I'm affraid many others stoped to read the War forum because they are tired of our discuss about that. Maybe we should stop talking about that in the whole forum and only write in one thread "The UN Resolutions" .

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 10-10-2003, 07:04 AM   #221
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 09:42 AM
Finally the mainstream media is picking up in the LIES.
http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle4932.htm

Selective Intelligence on Road to Baghdad

By ALESSANDRA STANLEY

10/09/03 (New York Times) There is no critique more stinging than one wrapped in sympathy. Tonight, PBS's "Frontline" examines the Bush administration's rationale for the Iraq war in a tone of puzzled sorrow that somehow enhances, rather than mutes, the righteous indignation of the reporting.

Opening softly with the return to Baghdad of an idealistic Iraqi exile, Kanan Makiya, two weeks after the fall of Saddam Hussein, "Truth, War and Consequences" explores the disillusionment of the war's most fervent supporters before backtracking to how the Bush White House brought it all about. But White House deception is the real focus of the program, which draws two main conclusions, both linked to hubris: that the administration twisted the facts to paint Mr. Hussein as an imminent threat to the security of the United States, and that it ignored its own experts' warnings about the risks and cost of postwar reconstruction.

These are, of course, accusations that have been made on Sunday talk shows, in newspaper editorials and at foreign affairs seminars for weeks, growing most recently acute around the scandal over the leaking of the identity of a C.I.A. agent, Valerie Plame.

The "Frontline" documentary, which weaves solemn interviews with Iraqi exiles and disgruntled government officials around scenes of the everyday chaos and violence of Baghdad, does not provide new information so much as it richly illustrates the case against the Bush administration a prosecution brief enhanced with charts, photographs and a thick leather binder.

Ahmad Chalabi, the Iraqi exile who was a vital intelligence source for the Pentagon hawks, is presented as exhibit A. "Do you have any documentary evidence of any kind?" Martin Smith, the program's on-camera reporter and producer, asks Mr. Chalabi, who says he has "very strong" evidence linking Mr. Hussein and Al Qaeda. Mr. Smith politely presses the Iraqi to produce an actual document. "I mean, if there is such a document, it makes sense for you to share it, no?" he persists. Mr. Chalabi promises, awkwardly, that the document will be furnished.

"The document was supposed to demonstrate money changing hands between Saddam Hussein's government and Al Qaeda," a narrator intones. "After repeated requests, `Frontline' has still not seen the document."

Mr. Chalabi's discomfort is contrasted with the calm self-possession of former United States government officials who question the administration's policy. Robert M. Perito, a retired career diplomat who briefly served as a national security aide in the Reagan and first Bush administrations, says he reminded top administration officials of the costly chaos in Panama City after Gen. Manuel Antonio Noriega was removed from power in 1989. "And those lessons were ignored," he says matter-of-factly.

Greg Thielmann, who left his post as director of the strategic, proliferation and military affairs office in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research last September, also describes in dispassionate tones how the State Department's intelligence reports were ignored or sanded down to suit the White House's case. Calling the administration's approach "faith-based intelligence," Mr. Thielmann says, "They were cherry-picking the information that we provided to use whatever pieces of it fit their overall interpretation."

What the documentary does not point out is that every administration routinely ignores its most experienced in-house experts. The banks of the Potomac are littered with the spent careers of C.I.A. analysts and foreign service professionals who had discordant assessments of El Salvador, Bosnia and Iraq.

What distinguished the Bush administration, "Frontline" contends, was the openness of its arrogance and the magnitude of its policy shift sending more than 200,000 American troops to invade a Muslim country and recreate it along American democratic lines.

Ambassador L. Paul Bremer III, the American administrator of Iraq, tells "Frontline" that the reconstruction effort will cost $100 billion. And that is in addition to the $4 billion a month the United States is currently spending on the military occupation.

The documentary illustrates how the American occupation is beginning to grate even on the least politicized Iraqi citizens. An eight-hour wait for gasoline grows so tense a man fires a gun in frustration and the bullet hits a gas tank, killing four civilians, including the brother of a young boy, filmed as he wails his rage and grief. Soldiers assigned to find Mr. Hussein or his henchmen conduct house-to-house raids, each small, fruitless invasion of privacy setting off a ripple of resentment in villages and city neighborhoods.

Those scenes contrast sharply with a clip of President Bush at a news conference boldly pressing the case for a pre-emptive strike, warning, "The Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes."

The narrator notes, "What was missing from all the speeches and television appearances were the caveats and contrary evidence from their own intelligence agencies."

Most documentaries can also be faulted for the same sin: leaving out information that detracts from the central thesis.

No administration official is interviewed on camera. In a flash of journalistic self-importance, the narrator explains that Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, were asked for interviews, and that "they all declined." A meeting with Douglas J. Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy, was canceled by the White House, according to the narrator, who adds, "We received no explanation."

Instead the program relies on Richard N. Perle, a business consultant who was an important aide in the Reagan administration, to explain the government's view. Mr. Perle is not actually a government official, but he plays one on TV. He advises Mr. Rumsfeld from his unpaid perch on the Defense Policy Board, a position that gives him behind-the-scenes access to top Bush officials as well as the freedom to speak out publicly.

"Let me be blunt about this: the level of competence of the Central Intelligence Agency in this area is appalling," Mr. Perle says, explaining why the Pentagon created its own intelligence unit to find links between Mr. Hussein and Al Qaeda. "So if you're walking down the street and you're not looking for hidden treasure, you won't find it."

When Mr. Smith suggests that the converse is also true, Mr. Perle agrees. "Of course, there's no absolute truth in this," he says genially.

FRONTLINE: Truth, War and Consequences

On most PBS stations tonight
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 10-10-2003, 03:35 PM   #222
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:42 PM
Scarletwine,

"Finally the mainstream media is picking up in the LIES."

Rather, they are showing they too do not know the definition of a lie!
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-10-2003, 03:58 PM   #223
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 08:42 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Scarletwine,

Rather, they are showing they too do not know the definition of a lie!
No, but they are questioning if it's the truth...
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 10-10-2003, 04:31 PM   #224
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:42 PM
BonoVoxSupastar,

"No, but they are questioning if it's the truth..."

Which is something you can do to anyone.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-10-2003, 04:54 PM   #225
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 08:42 AM
Absolutely
__________________

__________________
BVS 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 09:42 AM.


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