Systematic Misrepresentation is....

[Chinasaur]

..a euphemism for LYING.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0108/d...te.html?s=entt

Given the balance of power in the Senate and Congress right now it wont be investigated like it should...just look at the Palme investigation for proof.

I wonder if theyll claim Executive Privelage like they did with Dicks `Energy Commission`


Enjoy America! You got the Gubt you wanted!

[Dyyryath]

If their report is entirely accurate, then I'd agree that the Bush administration got out of hand. However, two things keep me from feeling confident in the total veracity of this information:

1) They've been against the war from day 1.

2) Everything can be twisted.

Now, I'm not trying to defend the Bush administration. I'm more than a little suspicious of them already. However, I'm not going to accept what this think tank has to say blindly, either. The Bush administration wanted a war and interpreted the intelligence they had to support it. This group never wanted a war, and they're interpreting their information to meet that point of view.

Are they doing it on purpose? Probably not. Was the Bush administration purposefully spinning things to support their agenda? Yeah, they probably did, though not to extent that these guys would have you believe.

In the end, I'd guess that the truth is probably somewhere in between. I guess what I'm trying to say is: I don't trust anyone.

[Chinasaur]

1. Its not just one `Think Tank` saying this.

2. I read reports BEFORE the war started that proved British Intelligence fabricated information that the US uses to justify the Iraq Incursion.

3. ALL Presidents LIE.

4. Wouldnt it be soooo cool if they devoted only FOUR years (Clintons Whitewater got EIGHT...which never turned up a MF thing) to investigating this? RIGHT



LIES.INTENTIONAL.LIES

You are too kind Dyyryath. By not acknowledging past history of ALL presidents, and the habit of Gubts to lie to achieve their desires, you play into their hands of people wanting to `give them the benefit of the doubt`.

VOTE THE BASTARDS OUT!!

[RacerX]

Question:

If ALL Presidents lie. Wouldn't voting this administration out and replacing it with another only provide another that will lie? Therefore, only making the subject of the lie different. Is it just that some lies are more palatable?

Is it just me that goes to the polls to vote for what I feel is the lesser of the evils these days?

[Chinasaur]

I would agree..they all lie.

For me the question is:

Do I vote for somebody who lies who rewards the rich, the oil companies, those who profit from my brother and sister soldiers deaths in Iraq?

Or do I vote for somebody who will lie to further the livelihood of ordinary Americans.


Its a Faustian deal but there it is.

[Moogie]

Saddam worked really hard to make everyone believe that he had weapons of mass destruction and he succeeded. There is some suspicion that third parties, noteably Syria and Libya, encouraged him to make a big deal out of this to act as a deterrent. There is also some very unfounded speculation that France encouraged him as well.

Saddam succeded in convincing everybody that he probably had biological and chemical agents and that he had an active nuclear program. In other words he employed Adolph Hitler's "big lie" and he got his arse invaded.

Therefore, based on the information that we had access to, the envasion of Iraq was perfectly justified. Furthermore, based on information gained after the invasion, the evidence of crimes against humanity (ie mass graves, there were a ton of them) also justified the invasion and would further justify hanging him by the neck until he is dead.

He was a homicidal SOB and deserves to die. I would call him a homicidal genocidal maniac, but he didn't care what race/religion he killed. He killed everyone.

[Chinasaur]

Give me a break. You telling me the CIA, NSA, MI5 and MI6 .. just `believed` whatever the @$$hole said? BS.!!!!!!

They knew damn well what was going on over there and by providing the above argument you say the end justify the means.

The lied. Flat out. Clinton lied but admitted finally he lied. Bush needs to do the same.

The first and foremost thing an officer learns is this =

A leader is responsible for EVERYTHING his unit does or fails to do.

BUSH is Responsible.

[Moogie]

In the past, Saddam DID possess WMDs - chemical and biological. He showed a perfect willingness to use them, both on foreigners in the Iraq/Iran war, and on his own people (Kurds in N. Iraq, Shia in S. Iraq). Furthermore, his actions as a mass murderer with his very own set of mass graves, should, for any decent human being, provide more than sufficient justification for invasion of Iraq, capture of Saddam and his buddies, and Hanging by the Neck Until Dead for that set of Hitler-wanna-be's.

[Chinasaur]

Ahhh...so you ARE saying the ends justify the means.

Lies are lies. If you let the Gubt off this hook for lying to you...then you become part of the problem.

[Moogie]

I'm not convinced that they lied. They may have been mistaken, they may have believed Saddam's lies, or at least the possibility that he wasn't lying, in which case action becomes imperative for the safety and security of the United States and it's Allies.

[Chinasaur]

Excuse me..but PRESIDENTS dont get the opportunity to be mistaken because their errors costs LIVES! And he knew, or should have known that, when he raised his right hand and took the oath of office to defend the Constitution.

And if they were so moronic as to believe Hussein (which I dont for one minute believe), then they dont deserve to be in power because they are incompetent.

A Patriot is one who defends the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. McCarthyism is the practice of accusing those who dont agree with you of being Anti American.

America used to be ~The Good Guys~. Now we find ways to defend our Incursions.

[RacerX]

This is becoming very entertaining.

I am curious as to what the solution is as you see it, chinasaur. I am not trying to antagonize here. However, I am not sure as to what you are upset about. Is it the lie that has upset you? Is it the subject of the lie? Or is it the outcome of the lie?

You said Clinton admitted to lying. I am curious as to whether he would have if he thought he would have gotten away with it.

If Presidents are not allowed to make mistakes, yet all lie, are you saying a President would be better if his shortcomings were intentional?

Or am I interpretting this incorrectly?

[Chinasaur]

The only solution is for Americans to not accept lies from their government. Its that simple. Make your elected officials work for you for a change.

Democracy is NOT a spectator sport.

Stand up for integrity. If lies dont bother you, maybe something else is wrong.

And actually, Im saddened you find this amusing.

Best of luck to you.

[RacerX]

"How" is the solution of not accepting lies achieved?

As individuals, we each decide whether or not we will "believe" them. If we do not believe them what is our course of action as individuals? If we could gather enough support from society, I agree a change could be made. Individually, it would be futile.

[Chinasaur]

Individually is how we act. We act individually as a community.

So if individuality is futile. Then logic says you have just said the end result, Democracy, is Futile.

Is that what you meant to say?

Im not just playing word games here bro. Im showing you that if the electorate gives up, you have just given up on 220+ years of Democracy.

`The price of freedom is Eternal Vigilance`. Those words were not spoken in reference to foreigners.

And ask yourself this question. If YOU were serving in Iraq and died...would you want your death to have been brought about by a lie? Would you feel good about serving there if brought about by lies?

[RacerX]

We act individually as a community? Is this not an oxymoron? I would think it would be we act as a community of individuals.

I will answer your question even though you failed to answer mine about what it is you are upset about.

If I were serving in Iraq and died I would be looking at it from the standpoint of my one life given probably served to save many others (Iraqi though they may be). I have 2 friends there and another that has recently died. I believe the same for them while I grieve his passing. And they voiced to me the necessity of being there even though they would rather be elsewhere (probably Maui).

I disagree that the "price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Eternal vigilance is required but the price of freedom also requires action at times and sadly loss as well. Can you show me any instance of freedom being achieved without a loss of life somewhere attached? Is it because it is not our country therefore we should not have been involved?

I want you to know Chinasaur, that I am really not trying to antagonize. I can tell that you are intelligent, and I respect that. I am trying to understand your point of view. Every human interaction is an opportunity to teach or to learn. I am interested because one or the other is likely to happen here.

[Chinasaur]

Thomas Jefferson said the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Ill agree with him.

Im not talking about freedom from oppressors. Im talking about freedom from internal parties who would subvert the process and take your rights from you. Thats what I meant by not directed towards foreigners.

Did you catch this that happened during the whole Saddam capture period? http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,61792,00.html

Democratic governments should not skulk around hiding information and passing regulations they know the people would object too....

And what didnt I answer?

Finally, thank you to Dyyryath, Moogie and RacerX for participating in this laboratory of Democracy. THIS is what makes Democracy...free and unfettered discussion.

Please vote next election.

[RacerX]

Yeah, I know Thomas Jefferson said this. What I meant was that "the" is the incorrect indefinite article to be used here. "A" would have been the correct indefinite article for him to use. For, there cannot be one all inclusive price of freedom. Happily, we all understood the context of what he was saying.

Anyway, I could play devils advocate here and point out that you are choosing to agree with a President. (Sincerely meant in jest)

The question I mentioned that you did not answer was this. Are you upset about the lie, the subject of the lie, or the outcome of the lie?

You hit the nail on the head with this being democracy in action. I find that most people have beliefs or stands with really no concrete reasoning for having them. Usually, it is because someone who was influential said so, or heaven for bid that they read it somewhere (usually the national supermarket checkout examiner or the like). Most will never study things out to find out why they believe what they believe. Hats off to ya, Chinasaur. I have been enjoying our little debate.

[Dyyryath]

I'd have to agree with Racer X: people often form opinions based either on the opinions of others or on information that is incomplete or inaccurate.

It's really too bad that sometimes, there just isn't a way to get the information you need to really form a definitive opinion one way or the other. In those cases, I have what I'd call a 'preliminary opinion': I've decided how I feel about a subject, but it's rarely with any real conviction. Rather, I'm simply waiting for more facts to present themselves.

[RacerX]

HEY DYY!!

You notice I am now starting new paragraphs occasionally??

I'm making a special effort for you, pal. It's the least I could do.

[Paratima]

A fine thing is the Enter key.

[Moogie]

I've been thinking this over since yesterday evening, and have filled out the bulk of my thoughts on Afghanistan, Iraq, Al Quaeda, and Kuwait.

Firstly, let's define the role of the President of the United States.

The oath of office says: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Part of the "office of the President" is as Commander In Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, which is a *military* position, not a civilian position. It means he is the Big Dog, the Supreme Commander of all of our armed forces.

Another part of the "office of the President" is as Executive in Charge of the civilian side of the administration of government, running the nuts and bolts, collecting the revenue from taxes, formulating and conducting foreign and domestic policy, enforcing federal law, regulating interstate commerce, and other Constitutionally mandated activities associated with the office.

A third part of the "office of the President" is to appoint members of the federal judiciary, with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. What a bag of worms that's turned into!

All of the above was formulated just to make it clear in my own head as to what the duties of the President are. In concept it's all pretty simple. In practice, it gets horribly complicated.

Now, let's look at Iran/Kuwait/Iraq/Afghanistan.

In the early 1980's, Saddam committed Iraq to conquest. Iraq attacked Iran, with the intent of seizing oil fields in Iran for Iraq's own use and benefit. During this war, Saddam did, personally, direct the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction against the Iranians, mostly chemical weapons, and maybe some bio-weapons as well. This establishes intent and capability to use WMDs against military targets.

In the mid 1980's, Saddam was having trouble with the Kurdish minority in the North of Iraq. He personally directed that chemical WMDs be used against at least one town, resulting in the deaths of more than 100 civilian men, women and children. This established intent and capability to use WMDs against civilian, non-combatant populations.

In 1989, Iraq invaded Kuwait, with the intent of making Kuwait another province of Iraq. And, of course, to grab the oil. Saddam didn't think anyone would do anything about it. Of course, we did boot his butt back into Iraq, and destroyed most of his Army and Air Force. During the course of this war, Saddam personally directed the use of explosive rockets against the states of Israel and Saudi Arabia. This establishes intent and capability to use rocketry against military and civilian targets, including civilian targets against a country that is not engaged in a war with him.

Why did we come to the aid of Kuwait?

Because of the oil? Surely. And not just the oil in Kuwait. Right next door to Kuwait is Saudi Arabia, which also has a lot of oil. That makes both countries strategically and economicly important to the United States.

After we halted in place, before taking Baghdad (a big mistake, in my opinion), we accepted a peace deal whereby the United Nations would supervise the destruction of all Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). We further established areas in the North and South of Iraq where Saddam could not operate in his usual thuggish fashion. He did manage, however, to mount a campaign of terror and mass murder against the Shia in the South of Iraq, after they rebelled at our urging.

Let's be blunt about it here: The invasion of Kuwait was armed robbery writ large. And Saddam was behaving just as an ordinary street thug will - "You have it, I want it, give it to me sucker, or I'll blow your head off."

After the First Gulf War, as part of the peace settlement, Saddam agreed to strict inspections, to verify the dismantlement of Iraq's nuclear program, and the verified destruction of all stocks of chemical and biological weapons.

Almost from the beginning, obstruction and denial of access to the UN inspectors was Saddam's mode of operation. In direct violation of UN Resolutions that Iraq had formally agreed to, access to nuclear facilities was denied, access to verification of the destruction of chemical and biological weapons was obstructed or denied. Instances of Iraqi officials bailing out the back door with documents as the UN inspectors came in the front door is well documented by the UN staff.

Later, during the mid 1990's, he tossed the UN inspectors completely out.

In other words, Saddam wanted the world to think he still had this stuff. By his actions and public statements, from 1993 right up to early 2003, he succeeded.

Diversion of the "Oil for food" funds to military use was well documented as early as 1994, and certainly not later than 1998.

On the terrorist front, Saddam provided safe haven for the architect of the Achille Lauro high-jacking, from 1985 on. Also, the fuselage of at least one Boeing 737 aircraft was stashed in the desert, and used for the training of Hamas, PFLP, and Al-Quaeda personnel. Both of these items have been documented by satellite photography, intercepted phone and data transmissions, and, after the invasion, by interviews with Iraqis and also by captured Iraqi documents.

So, based on his record dating from the early 1980s, and based on his public statements and his own documents, Saddam Hussein's Iraq was definitely in "materiel breach" of many UN resolutions, and agreements made with the UN. Further, based on his support of terrorist organizations, and his record of invasion, Saddam's Iraq was a "clear and present danger" to it's immediate neighbors Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, to the US ally Israel, and to the United States, based on his support and training of Al-Quaeda personnel.

In short, the invasion of Iraq by the United States and the United Kingdom was clearly justified, and justifiable.

Thoughts? Rebuttals?

[Dyyryath]

Moogie's thoughts include (among other things), the one thing that I needed to feel like we were justified in invading Iraq:

1) At the end of the first Gulf War (which pretty much everyone considered justified), we stopped short of Baghdad on several conditions.

2) Saddam Hussein failed to adhere to those conditions.

To me, this is very much like a judge handing down incarceration as a sentence, then suspending that sentence on the condition that the defendant do 'xyz'. When the defendent doesn't do 'xyz', the incarceration portion of the sentence is carried out.

There are plenty of arguments both for and against the war in Iraq and I see merit in many on both sides of the discussion. In my mind, though, we offered him a way out after the first Gulf War and he failed to take it (repeatedly). We just finished the original job.

[mr_mann]

the government is built on lies..

they all have to lie to the civilians..
if we told u the truth... we would have to kill u..

there is stuff I cant tell u that ive seen.. just like there is stuff
im sure uve people have seen that u cant tell me...

some people are just better liars Bush is a bad liar!
and hey he gave me a whopping 10% pay raise... sure makes my
$5 pay check alot bigger! thanks alot asshole!!

[Moogie]

AFGHANISTAN

The justification for the invasion of Afghanistan is perfectly clear. The Taliban did provide sanctuary for Al-Quaeda for years. The Taliban did refuse to turn over Osama bin Laden & Co. after the attacks of September 11th, 2001. Mullah Omar and friends did encourage bin Laden to plan and carry out attacks on US embassies and naval vessels. Those people were and continue to be a "clear and present danger" to citizens of the United States.

There have been some positive effects from the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Item: Libya (Quadaffi, specifically) has requested international inspection to verify that Libya has no WMDs.

Item: Iran is in the process of accepting inspection of their nuclear plant.

Item: Pakistan is actively chasing/catching Taliban and Al-Quaeda people in the North of Pakistan. Musharref has evidently decided that the Taliban/Al-Quaeda combo is a threat to him, personally, as well as to Pakistan as a whole. I suspect (but have no evidence whatsoever) that Musharref took a good look at what happened to Iraq in 1990, and decided that post- 9/11 was not a good time to get stroppy.

EUROPE AND OUR ALLIES

On the debit side, France and Germany are mightily irritated with the US. Since these are the major players in Western Europe, we do have to listen to them.

On the plus side, we do know who has a realistic view of the terrorist world. Poland and Spain, in particular, have been very supportive.

I'm saving Great Britain for last for a reason. The British troops in Iraq have been with the US on the ground from Day One. PM Tony Blair has put his political life in great jeapordy by taking a position that is extremely unpopular with the general population of Great Britain. He will, in fact, probably be forced from office, and fade into political obscurity. The only reason I can see for him doing this is moral conviction that this is, indeed, the Right Thing to do.

These are just some of my thoughts. Anyone else?

[Fozzie]

him right between his ferrety eyes.

As Chinasaur says all politicians lie sooner or later, some are good at it and get away with it some are bad and get caught.

All of this is very Jerry McGuire, they are all baying Show me the money.

Fat Cats with fingers in everyone elses pockets feuling their greedy ambition.

Altruism and moral codes are left at the door like a wet raincoat when you join office.

Power corrupts and absolute power (which Bushy thinks he has) corrupts absolutely.

All countries should have referrenda before committing the lives of their troops to war.

We were all hoodwinked and lied to at every single step of the way.

We forget, or just don't know that the people we are supposed to fight were the ones that the secret services had funded to fight dirty wars against other coutries we didn't like at the time.

Al Quaeda might as well be part of the CIA, who knows the pay department are probably still sending the pay packets out.

[Moogie]

All politicians DO lie, at least some of the time.

The smart ones know when they can lie, and about what. This was best summed up by Abraham Lincoln: "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time. You cannot fool all of the people all of the time."

Blair knew, before he ever persuaded Parliament, that sending British troops as part of the invading force would be, at the least, unpopular. He also went ahead and did it anyway.

Why?

Bush knew that he was gonna get hammered by the press and by the Democrats, and might fail of re-election over that invasion. He went ahead anyway.

Why?

Because, at the root, deposing a murderous tyrant who is also a proven user of WMDs, who *might* have some of those WMDs laying around, AND who doesn't like the United States AND has proven links to terrorists is the smart thing to do.

And, by the way, that's part of defending you and me against murderous scum like Saddam, Osama & Co.

[Chinasaur]

People believe what they want to believe.

I hope nobody is swayed by these little tidbits -

http://www.sundayherald.com/27735 - This information has been out for over a year and a half.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ush/index.html


Anyone can justify anything if they work hard enough. If you justify invasion (forgetting stated other reasons) then you admit that the US is the biggest Thug nation on Earth. We invaded because we could get away with it. Simply because we could. The supposed "moral superiority" of the American position toward Iraq is the scariest thing I've seen in a long time. That is tantamount to saying we can do anything, to anyone, at any time, as long as we can have a good enough reason. The Rule of International Law appears to now mean nothing.

And if Saddam is so bad, what about the African and S. American dictators? Why don't we invade them?

No oil.

Believe what you want.

[Dyyryath]

While I would agree that we are borderline 'thuggish' these days, I would also put forth the opinion that 'International Law' is an illusion; a fantasy. What people like to tout as 'law' is no more than some nebulous agreements that various countries adhere to strictly when they feel like it is in their own best interests.

I'd also agree that America is no more 'morally superior' than any other generally democratic country. We've got no high ground over the Europeans in that regard, but I also don't buy for one minute that they're any better than we are. Everyone thinks that they're right and everyone else is wrong and they use whatever power or influence they have to do what they think is best, first for themselves, and then for the world at large. We just stick out because (for now) we seem to have the biggest stick to push others around with.

[RacerX]

Originally posted by Dyyryath
We just stick out because (for now) we seem to have the biggest stick to push others around with.

Does it look like this??

[Anarchy99]

let me give me you my take on this.....

the world can kiss my......

no no no I was just kidding

I served my country in the marine corps for 4yrs, I was a 2631 manual morse intercept operator and then I changed over to 5800 military police and I served 4yrs.

I went to Saudi and was there for 9 months I saw things that I would not have had the opportunity to see otherwise and form my own opinions on the parts of the world I saw.

I met a man who helped put some complicated things in simple perspective.

we all want in some way to see the right things done within our moral perspective so lets put it in some simple context.

the US is your everyday average person who has a little common sense and some basic knowledge of right and wrong and they happen to be a little bigger than most everybody else a sort of gentle giant so to speak.

the other countries that happen to be on our proverbial block are just your average everyday stranger who you don't know and they are on average smaller than the US.

lets call the US bob and the other country joe.

lets say that joe has kids and those kids are each different, and lets say those kids are the equivalent to religions, social practices and political agendas.

now lets say bob is at the mall and he is people watching as usual looking to see whats going on. bob sees joe and his kids, and joes kids are behaving in what bob considers an unruly manner. bob bases his opinion on how he was raised to act in public.

while bob is watching joe cracks his kid in the head rather hard, bob thinks that it was a little harsh but lets it go. joe then hits his kid hard full fisted. bob is outraged and feels he needs to say something so he tells joe not to do it again. well joe doesn't like to be told how to raise his kids and says go away while at the same time lets his kid have it again.

bob gets pissed and grabs joe by the throat and says do it again and Ill throw you a beating of a lifetime. well joe is now embarrassed in public for all to see, so for spite he whacks the kid again. bob kicks the shit out of him and joe leaves with the kids humiliated.

bob feels he did the right thing protecting the kids from abuse by bobs standard.

while now at home away from bob, joe gives the kids the beating of a lifetime so beyond the scale of measure you cant possibly describe it.

joe would never on his own have been capable of such violence but because of what happened to him he had to let the kids know that it would not change how they were going to be raised. because joe was raised this way as were his parents and their parents before them.

bob only thought about the beating he was hoping to prevent, a couple knots on the head, and not about the one he caused, medical attention needed, because bob wont always be there to protect who he thought was innocent.

the moral is for you to figure out, it can be simple or complicated but it will be biased based on your opinions and experiences......

so is there really a moral at all?

[Chinasaur]

A99,

Your analogy is basically ok when applied at the local community level, but applying it here showcases a few flaws:

1. We have laws to deal with the "Joes" in our country.
2. Dealing with Joe involves a limited number of people in a small sphere of influence

On the World stage:

1. There are laws to deal with "Joes" and we ignored/bypassed them
2. Dealing with "Joes" in the manner we did sets the stage for a lot of little "Bob's" to fabricate reasons for invading "Joes" they don't like. They can then point to us and say "But THEY did it.."

Also, using your analogy..we not only put Joe in jail..but we took his house, business and Family and handed them over to strangers to administrate.

Additionally, you illustrate the completely specious reasons (well..the reasons we are being given NOW) as to why we invaded Iraq. To wit, Hussein was a bad man. Undoubtedly he was/is. However, if you are going to use this excuse...then admit the hypocrisy of not applying it to all the dictators, juntas, "generalissimos", etc around the World. The only difference here (since we didn't start this war to take out WMD's right?) must be Oil. If we are so altruistic as to spill blood (American and Iraqi) to liberate a suffering humanity, then why are we not liberating all the opressed around the World?

Because they don't sit on the worlds 2nd largest untapped oil reserve that Bush's campaign donors dearly want.

I bring all this up because I love my country, and like you and others, served in it's military. My country, however, is populated with millions of people who think uncritically. People who believe whatever the TV tells them to believe. They believe their Gov't despite decades of proof that it will lie to them at the drop of a hat. It's disturbing that a country so religious and moral (by it's own admission in polls) can forgive it's President of lying if it means they get to pound on somebody in revenge.

I bring all this up because I find the current McCarthyistic Patriotism deeply disturbing. I am disgusted by people who, wrapped in a flag and humming The Battle Hymn of The Republic, gleefully send their fellow American's off to die in the service of the country, while having decided long ago that military service is something "only the lower classes do". Beware those who happily commit souls to battle and death without having served themselves. People who support War because they know they will profit by replacing all the hardware expended in battle losses. If I'm not mistaken, only on Senator has a family member in the Armed Services of the US. If this doesn't expose them for the frauds they are, I don't know what will. They will gladly send other children off to die "for freedom and democracy" but they'll be G.d damned if they will let THEIR kids die for the US. It's a demographic fact that the higher you go up the salary/socio-economic scale, the less likely you will find military service in a given background. So the higher you go, the less connected with pain and suffering become the people who will most profit from War. That's a bad thing.

I find it repugnant that a contract was awarded to Haliburton, a company the VP was CEO of, and therefore should NEVER have been given ANY deal, much less a sweetheart deal. This is clearly conflict of interest, yet America just goes along with it. I'm deeply embarassed by an Administration that acts so childishly in it's dealings with others. Instead of accepting that other countries may not agree with us, they rename the French Fry. This is childish behaviour suited to Kindergarten, not the most powerful country on Earth.

An unthinking populace, a press establishment doubling as the Office of Propaganda, and an administration bent on fulfilling campaign promises to corporate donors is a recipe for disaster.

[Moogie]

"Thug nation"?

I'm afraid we're not much good at the "thug" thing, are we?

Where are the mass graves of the atrocities committed by the US Army/Air Force/Navy?

What happened to US-enforced religious persecution?

Is the US-sponsored Iraqi temporary governing council at least attempting to get along with each other, or what?

Where is the money trail of looting by US Personnel?

Show me where we are taking Iraqi oil at unfair prices? Or at all, for that matter?

Sure, it's partly about the oil. Oil is a strategic necessity, unfortunately. Not just Iraq's oil, either. Remember who Iraq's neighbors are - Kuwait and Saudi, both of them important to the US. Between the 3 of them, they supply a large proportion of the oil needed by the US, AND by Europe.

Think about it.....

I see some specious arguments here, which require some rather pointed questions:

1. Was Saddam known to be a mass murderer prior to the invasion, or not?

2. Was Iraq in violation of numerous UN resolutions regarding WMDs and inspections for same, or not?

3. Did Iraq's previous record include the use of WMDs against foreign and domestic populations, or not?

4. Consider the composition of the UN - the majority of countries are NOT democracies (including Kofi Annan's home country of Ghana). D'you really expect any effective action against another dictatorship?

[GHOST]

Of course it was systematic misrepresentation. Can't trust the public to make decisions based on the truth!

I believe the motives include:

Cheney made a fortune from the contacts he made in the first Gulf war and wanted a repeat.

Saddam tried to kill W's father.

Of course 'Wag The Dog' fits in. I remember hearing Bush say,'we are at war and we will stay at war.' Usually good for a campaign.

CONTROL of the flow of oil. Who gets it. Not only is the energy valuable but power comes from deciding who develops it and gets it. France, China, and Russia were making development deals with Iraq and that could not stand. Probably a reason we went in so fast and 'alone'

We could do it, we have been systematically degrading Iraq for ten years.

Our military needs to be used periodically to see what it can do.

Yes, Iraq violated treaties and we did have a right to do what we did, but it could have been done other ways without the cost in lives, international relations and $$$$$$$$$.

I 'don't know' why the CIA took the heat for not screening Bush's speeches. I remember the CIA saying in the months leading up to the war that Iraq was years from producing nuclear weapons and was not a threat to us unless we threatened them.




And yes we can be a thuggish nation. With money trails. Planes full of guns to El Salvador returning with cocaine. The CIA investigated itself on those allegations and found no substance, surprise! I know people that were there. And other places. I read alot and from different sources. And am surprised when soldiers I know tell me of things that never make the news.

And what is our terrorist training camp? School of the America's?

[Anarchy99]

chinas

I was talking global

bob =united states

joe = any other country

kids = anything another country wants to do

but here is my opinion

we went to war

we won

what was theirs now belongs to us and the countries that helped us

end of story

that is how war is played

the people of that country now fall under our system of law and order

and if you don't think that this how it should be done then don't call it war

law of nature = only the strong survive

strong = anything that finds a way to survive

if you put neanderthal man in a downtown café and he feels threatened he will bash your skull in with a rock, he is a neanderthal

if you get to close to a mountain lion it will eat you, thats what they do

you don't give a third world country a microwave, they don't have the ability to use it other than as a rock to bash in your head with

just because a country doesn't speak english does not make them stupid, but starving to death because you wont eat the sacred cow is stupid

drinking from the same water you bath and piss in with the sacred cow is stupid

I have a million more but it is time to go to work in my technologically evolved country

A99

[Chinasaur]

A99,

Reread my post. I compared/contrasted the effects of your analogy to a local/global situation.

Anyway, what is evident is that the US majority appears to share your (hopefully tongue in cheek) attitude.

The German people thought might made right prior to WWII.

[Moogie]

One of the things that makes the US what it is, is that we are not convinced that we know all the answers. We seek, we question, we speculate, in public forums, for "truth", or as close as we can get to it.

And, we do this without looking over our shoulders for the "thought police". Ain't it cool?

Keep the comments coming, folks!

[Anarchy99]

Ma'am this is the thought police

can I see some ID

[Paratima]

Yeah, like back away from that mouse Real Slow.

[Dyyryath]