so they blatantly lie and you dont care - Page 8 - 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 07-15-2003, 03:05 PM   #106
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:06 PM
Klaus,

Well the report by Paul Krugman is a sorry pile of rubbish. For his information, More than half of the Army's combat strength is not in Iraq. In fact less than a 1/3 of the Army's combat strength is there. The 4th infantry division, 3rd infantry division, 101st Airborne Division, one brigade from the 82nd Airborne Division and an Armored Calvary Regiment are there.

Outside of Iraq in the USA and other places around the world, the USA has the 1st Armored Division, 1st Calvary Division, 1st Infantry Division, 2nd Infantry Division, two brigades of the 82nd Airborne Division, the 10 Mountain Division, another Light Division, and 2 Armored Calvary Regiments.

In addition no Army National Guard and Reserve Divisions have been called up, and most of the Marine units have withdrawn although there are still some there. The total number of US troops in Iraq is 145,000. The total number of US troops on active duty is 1,400,000. The total number on active duty and the Reserve is 2,600,000.

None of the forces that are currently in Iraq would be used in any confrontation with North Korea, so these idea's that somehow US security has been compromised is just rubbish. US security has only been enhanced by the operation by taken out a World Leader that had murdered 1.7 million people, attacked and invaded 4 different countrys, and used WMD on more occasions than any country in the world in history! The Persian Gulf Region and the supply of energy to the planet has never been safer.

I hope Krugman takes the time to be more factual and objective in his next article.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-16-2003, 09:18 AM   #107
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: 06:06 PM
So you think he is not trustworthy with the rest of the article if the fact with the military size is simply false?

Klaus
__________________

__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 07-16-2003, 11:30 AM   #108
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
oliveu2cm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Live from Boston
Posts: 8,334
Local Time: 01:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Scarletwine


Sadaam failure to cooperate was not the reasons Bush & Co used to justify the war therefore that point is moot.
I haven't read this whole thread so I don't know if this has been discussed yet either but we can add it to the lies..

from the washington post: (my emphasis)
Quote:

<snip>
Defending the broader decision to go to war with Iraq, the president said the decision was made after he gave Saddam Hussein "a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

<snip>

The president's assertion that the war began because Iraq did not admit inspectors appeared to contradict the events leading up to war this spring: Hussein had, in fact, admitted the inspectors and Bush had opposed extending their work because he did not believe them effective

Full article Here @ Washington Post

Salon Commentary
__________________
oliveu2cm is offline  
Old 07-16-2003, 03:01 PM   #109
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:06 PM
Klaus,

Yep.

oliveu2cm,

Bush has not lied once about anything, yet. The Washington Post is simply flat out wrong in its assertion. Simply allowing the inspectors into the country, phsysically is not enough. The UN inspections process from the first day in March 1991 to the last day in March 2003 has always been dependent upon cooperation from SADDAM HUSSIEN. When Saddam fails to show what happened to the WMD he had in 1998, the inspections process falls apart. Saddam has to show the UN what he did with his WMD that he had in 1998. The UN inspectors are not armed and do not have the means to disarm Saddam if Saddam refuses to cooperate.

When the media and others wake up from their conspiracy dream and understand these facts, hopefully will see some more articles that are objective and based on fact.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-16-2003, 04:33 PM   #110
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 05:06 PM
Sting,

You say this journalist is unreliable as he got one fact wrong. Is President Bush therefore unreliable in the light of recent evidence that some of his justifications for war were incorrect?
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 07-16-2003, 06:09 PM   #111
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:06 PM
FizzingWhizzbees,

His whole article rest on the assumption that US national security has been hurt because so many US troops are in Iraq when in fact that is not the case at all. He begins and ends the article with these claims.

Bush's claim that military force was now necessary to disarm Saddam did not even remotely rest on the "Uranium from Niger" information.

There are light years of difference between the two.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-17-2003, 12:24 PM   #112
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
oliveu2cm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Live from Boston
Posts: 8,334
Local Time: 01:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

oliveu2cm,

Bush has not lied once about anything, yet. The Washington Post is simply flat out wrong in its assertion. Simply allowing the inspectors into the country, phsysically is not enough. The UN inspections process from the first day in March 1991 to the last day in March 2003 has always been dependent upon cooperation from SADDAM HUSSIEN. When Saddam fails to show what happened to the WMD he had in 1998, the inspections process falls apart. Saddam has to show the UN what he did with his WMD that he had in 1998. The UN inspectors are not armed and do not have the means to disarm Saddam if Saddam refuses to cooperate.

When the media and others wake up from their conspiracy dream and understand these facts, hopefully will see some more articles that are objective and based on fact.
Sting2,
Bush said the decision to go to war was made after he gave Saddam Hussein "a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." That's a blatant lie- Saddam allowed inspectors in.

If Bush had said the decision to go to war was made after Saddam didn't/couldn't produce WMD then it would be consistent with Bush's course of action (war). But what he stated here was not true. Simple as that.
__________________
oliveu2cm is offline  
Old 07-17-2003, 01:12 PM   #113
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:06 PM
oliveu2cm,


"Bush said the decision to go to war was made after he gave Saddam Hussein "a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." That's a blatant lie- Saddam allowed inspectors in."

"If Bush had said the decision to go to war was made after Saddam didn't/couldn't produce WMD then it would be consistent with Bush's course of action (war). But what he stated here was not true. Simple as that."

The Bush Administration has always maintained, that Iraq's one last chance involved cooperation with inspectors in accounting for WMD that they were known to have in 1998. Saddam never did that. If the above quote is correct, then its a mis-statement by Bush himself. It certainly would not be the first time. It does not change what the Bush administration has said every day for the past 9 months in regards to Saddam and WMD.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-17-2003, 02:22 PM   #114
Refugee
 
Red Ships of Scalla-Festa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: your skull
Posts: 2,311
Local Time: 11:06 AM
sting2, since this is my thread and all, i would like to point out something that is not based on facts, but is believed by millions.

"george bush and his administration are losers that are only respected by about half of his own people, and noone else in the world"

ah, that feels good. that felt as good coming out, as bad ronnie's food felt coming in.
__________________
Red Ships of Scalla-Festa is offline  
Old 07-17-2003, 03:31 PM   #115
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:06 PM
Red Ships of Scalla-Festa,

I'm happy it makes you feel good to say that. You have something to make you feel good when Bush is re-elected for another four years.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-18-2003, 09:48 AM   #116
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: 06:06 PM
STING2:

I said: "So you think he is not trustworthy with the rest of the article if the fact with the military size is simply false?"

And you repeated "Yep"

That was clear and simple.

Now you say the rest of the article is based on troop strength?

So what has "they had no backup plan when efforts to anoint Mr. Chalabi, a millionaire businessman, degenerated into farce. " to do with the number of troops in the country?

Or was your idea to establish Mr. Chalabi as leader with military force?

So from your own words it looked to me that Mr. Bush isn't trustworthy with the rest of his speeches as soon as we find false parts in it.

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 07-18-2003, 02:39 PM   #117
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:06 PM
Klaus,

Ok, I admit there is a little more to the article than simply the troop strength. But, both the begining of the article and the end talk about national security of the USA being hurt because of the US troop presence in Iraq. Its the main point that is being emphasized of everything in the article. Bush's main point on why the coalition had to go to war against SADDAM was not the attempt to buy Uranium from Niger.

"So from your own words it looked to me that Mr. Bush isn't trustworthy with the rest of his speeches as soon as we find false parts in it."

Well, Klaus, I know this is how you feel, so its a bit strange that you would defend any journalist for having inaccurate information, when your ready to hang Bush for the slightest thing that may be inaccurate.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-19-2003, 05:11 PM   #118
Refugee
 
Red Ships of Scalla-Festa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: your skull
Posts: 2,311
Local Time: 11:06 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Red Ships of Scalla-Festa,

I'm happy it makes you feel good to say that. You have something to make you feel good when Bush is re-elected for another four years.
right...this is before or after world wars 3 and 4?
__________________
Red Ships of Scalla-Festa is offline  
Old 07-20-2003, 02:01 AM   #119
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 06:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
FizzingWhizzbees,


Bush's claim that military force was now necessary to disarm Saddam did not even remotely rest on the "Uranium from Niger" information.

There are light years of difference between the two.
Why is it used as evidence and mentioned at the state of the union than ?
__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 07-20-2003, 06:16 PM   #120
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: 06:06 PM
STING2:

I didn't defend that jounalist statement after you showed me that he was wrong in that point. I was just surprised, how different you judged this Journalist and the President. And you weren't more critical to the president then to the journalist from my point of view. Also the Presidents words matter more than the word of one Journalist in the US.

Klaus
__________________

__________________
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 12:06 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