The WMD issue - Page 8

jex · 07-05-2004, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Israel's terrorist acts are publicly condemned by the United States. But our country continues to support that nation.

I'm with Ender on this one. I just don't get it... I mean, I understand that we're more culturally similar to Israel than with our very few other allies in the middle east, but I still don't see this as a good enough excuse.

Perhaps because Bush's admin are all claiming to be jewish and are part of JINSAC (something like that)? There may be some conflict of interest there when it comes to foreign policy to Israel vs what the US is meant to stand for?

**DudeMan** · 07-05-2004, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jex

Perhaps because Bush's admin are all claiming to be jewish and are part of JINSAC (something like that)? There may be some conflict of interest there when it comes to foreign policy to Israel vs what the US is meant to stand for?

another comment based on fact desined to enhance the discussion

**CingularDuality** · 07-05-2004, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jex

Perhaps because Bush's admin are all claiming to be jewish and are part of JINSAC (something like that)? There may be some conflict of interest there when it comes to foreign policy to Israel vs what the US is meant to stand for?

Definitely not. This isn't something that's happened just with this administration... It's always been like this here.

jex · 07-05-2004, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DudeMan

another comment based on fact desined to enhance the discussion

Cing asked a question and I put forward a hypothesis based on the adminsitration. Why can't there be a conflict of interests here?

jex · 07-05-2004, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Definitely not. This isn't something that's happened just with this administration... It's always been like this here.

And you'll notice that a lot of bush's admin were in previous admins were they not?

**Zebra** · 07-06-2004, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

I've never thought much of the "zionist controlled media" conspiracy theory, but why is it that we don't often hear any of these stories? Why is it that you didn't know that the US government denounced Israel's terrorist acts? I heard about it on the radio one time, and that was it. Why are our Israel/Palestine reports so biased?

We've killed thousands of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. Other than a few isolated stories where we killed a whole bunch at once, how many of those stories do you hear? I'm sure if I looked I could point you to links with hundreds of stories and pictures of the carnage. There are lots of Al Jazeera-type news sites out there, but you won't see much of it in our media. Why are our Iraq/Afghanistan reports so biased?

**Zebra** · 07-06-2004, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

And you don't think that every US President since Reagan has hoped and prayed that the media doesn't latch on to the "we helped Saddam" story? The people that are in a position to repeat these mistakes are well aware of past mistakes...

But they don't think those were mistakes, and there appear to be a few here who agree, so they're repeating them. It's funny how people get all morally relativistic when faced with the fact that their heroes supported (and are currently supporting) tyrants for dubious reasons.

Our best buddy in Pakistan is a brutal ruler who siezed power with a military coup, has weapons of mass destruction (real ones, not the imaginary kind), and has a history of supporting terrorists and other rogue nations. And he's just one among many. I'm sure our kids will get a chance to bring freedom and democracy to some of these countries, just as I'm sure there will be no shortage of people defending what this administration is doing even after it blows up in their face.

jex · 07-06-2004, 07:30 AM

Because the news sources are biased towards the powers that be. Look at the percentages of erports that favoured the war to those that didn't - something like 95% for, 5% against.

The reason we don't here of these Zionist controlled media theories is because if true, they controll the media.

If I knew for instance that our leaders were really just the puppets of a secret organisation, say the illuminati, who controlled the media and I had proof of this you wouldn't here about it would you. Perhaps I could make a website, start a blog, but lets face it, hardly anyone would read it and if they did would they believe it in the first place?

Rampage · 07-06-2004, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zebra

Our best buddy in Pakistan is a brutal ruler who siezed power with a military coup, has weapons of mass destruction (real ones, not the imaginary kind), and has a history of supporting terrorists and other rogue nations. And he's just one among many. I'm sure our kids will get a chance to bring freedom and democracy to some of these countries, just as I'm sure there will be no shortage of people defending what this administration is doing even after it blows up in their face.

Point taken. Keep in mind though, sometimes our options just suck. There's no "win-win" in any of them. There are times when a choice between, say, Communism and dictatorship has to be made. We hope the guy we're putting our resources into doesn't turn around and bite us later, but he usually does.

I guess the alternative to this behavior is to stay out of everyone's business. And the extreme on that end is what happened pre-WWII -- rogue nations setting up death camps and committing genocide, which we ignore until we're forced into combat (Pearl Harbor).

Maybe it's a social pendulum, with WWII being at one end and Iraq at the other. Perhaps the attitude will shift back to "hands off" more and more until we're attacked and dragged back into action. I'm not making a judgment on either side, just an observation. The government can only do what the electorate tells (or allows) them to do, so we're ultimately in the driver's seat.

jex · 07-06-2004, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rampage

Point taken. Keep in mind though, sometimes our options just suck. There's no "win-win" in any of them. There are times when a choice between, say, Communism and dictatorship has to be made. We hope the guy we're putting our resources into doesn't turn around and bite us later, but he usually does.

I guess the alternative to this behavior is to stay out of everyone's business. And the extreme on that end is what happened pre-WWII -- rogue nations setting up death camps and committing genocide, which we ignore until we're forced into combat (Pearl Harbor).

Maybe it's a social pendulum, with WWII being at one end and Iraq at the other. Perhaps the attitude will shift back to "hands off" more and more until we're attacked and dragged back into action. I'm not making a judgment on either side, just an observation. The government can only do what the electorate tells (or allows) them to do, so we're ultimately in the driver's seat.

Your in denial. So you reckon it's ok to support dictators because at least it stops communists. As for being in the drivers seat, once again your in denial - since when did government ever listen to the people without them first instigating the problem?

As for ignoring death camps - funny how Bush & co were quite happy to pay the taliban $100million a year for a pipeline through their country until the media got hold of what was really going on over there. Funny how rumsfeld recently went on tour supporting yet more dictators (uzbekistan, aberjanistan and another country with 'stan' in it (spellings are incorrect)), and funny how these country's have access to oil but brutalise their people.

What would be your answer to all those people when they ask you why they were tortured?

"well because we didn't want you being a communist."

jex · 07-06-2004, 09:22 AM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../ixnewstop.htm

Quote:

We were wrong on WMD, admits Britain's former envoy to Iraq
By George Jones and Michael Smith
(Filed: 05/07/2004)

Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction before the war, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's former special envoy to Iraq, conceded yesterday.

His admission that it had been "wrong" to claim that Saddam had large quantities of chemical and biological weapons came as the intelligence services braced themselves for serious criticism from the inquiry into the intelligence used to justify the war.

Lord Butler's inquiry reports on July 14 on the eve of two parliamentary by-elections. It is expected to criticise John Scarlett, the head of the Joint Intelligence Committee; MI6, the secret intelligence service; and the Defence Intelligence Staff, over their role in a claim that Saddam's WMD could be deployed at 45 minutes' notice.

The report is understood to blame Mr Scarlett, who takes over as head of MI6 at the end of this month, for acceding to the Prime Minister's desire to use the claim to help make the Government's case for war - even though the intelligence services were unsure what the claim meant.

The mounting speculation that senior figures would be censured by the inquiry led Peter Hain, the Leader of the Commons, to warn yesterday against a "witch hunt".

He said he accepted that mistakes may have been made and lessons would have to be learned but, overall, MI5 and MI6 did a "fantastic job".

Mr Blair still refuses to rule out the possibility that WMD may yet be found in Iraq or to apologise for basing the case for war on their existence.

But Sir Jeremy, while insisting that military action had been fully justified, appeared to acknowledge that mistakes had been made. "We were wrong on the stockpiles; we were right on the intention," he said on BBC Television's Breakfast with Frost.

Sir Jeremy suggested that the US administration had allowed itself to be misled about the size of the security challenge that the coalition would face after the invasion.

Saddam was "very likely" to be hanged if convicted of war crimes and genocide, he said.

jex · 07-06-2004, 09:30 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/06/po...c7f471e6690847

When you're found out blame the scapegoat.

jex · 07-06-2004, 09:37 AM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...portaltop.html

And here is a typical example of rubbish news taken from baloney sources. The case that Saddam had links with Al-Q, all unfounded and made up by the same administration that siad there were WMD's to further their excuse for war.

Since SH ran a secular government it was in direct opposition to the muslim extremists of Al-Q who hated him. And were meant to believe that 'embedded reporters' just happened to come across 'certain documents' that proved terrorist links.

**DudeMan** · 07-06-2004, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jex

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...portaltop.html

And here is a typical example of rubbish news taken from baloney sources. The case that Saddam had links with Al-Q, all unfounded and made up by the same administration that siad there were WMD's to further their excuse for war.

Since SH ran a secular government it was in direct opposition to the muslim extremists of Al-Q who hated him. And were meant to believe that 'embedded reporters' just happened to come across 'certain documents' that proved terrorist links.

actually it isnt all unfounded,

but ofcourse you will discredit a large amouint of peoples work when it siuts you, typical.

jex · 07-06-2004, 12:32 PM

Well for a start the Niger shipment has been proved as a lie. No discredit there just the truth

07-06-2004, 07:30 AM	#113 (permalink)
jex Join Date: May 2003 Location: United Kingdom Age: 37 Posts: 3,407	Re: The WMD issue Because the news sources are biased towards the powers that be. Look at the percentages of erports that favoured the war to those that didn't - something like 95% for, 5% against. The reason we don't here of these Zionist controlled media theories is because if true, they controll the media. If I knew for instance that our leaders were really just the puppets of a secret organisation, say the illuminati, who controlled the media and I had proof of this you wouldn't here about it would you. Perhaps I could make a website, start a blog, but lets face it, hardly anyone would read it and if they did would they believe it in the first place? __________________ Jex

07-06-2004, 09:30 AM	#117 (permalink)
jex Join Date: May 2003 Location: United Kingdom Age: 37 Posts: 3,407	Re: The WMD issue http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/06/po...c7f471e6690847 When you're found out blame the scapegoat.

07-06-2004, 09:37 AM	#118 (permalink)
jex Join Date: May 2003 Location: United Kingdom Age: 37 Posts: 3,407	Re: The WMD issue http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...portaltop.html And here is a typical example of rubbish news taken from baloney sources. The case that Saddam had links with Al-Q, all unfounded and made up by the same administration that siad there were WMD's to further their excuse for war. Since SH ran a secular government it was in direct opposition to the muslim extremists of Al-Q who hated him. And were meant to believe that 'embedded reporters' just happened to come across 'certain documents' that proved terrorist links. __________________ Jex

07-06-2004, 12:32 PM	#120 (permalink)
jex Join Date: May 2003 Location: United Kingdom Age: 37 Posts: 3,407	Re: The WMD issue Well for a start the Niger shipment has been proved as a lie. No discredit there just the truth __________________ Jex

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Admin Issue	HighDef8Bit	Battlefield 2142 - General Discussion	2	11-18-2006 12:12 AM
Test realm patch notes	TG_Bear	World of Warcraft - General Discussion	17	11-14-2006 08:39 PM
Laptop wireless connectivity issue	Beatnik	Hardware & Software Discussion	14	10-17-2006 12:14 AM
Very Strange Video Issue	Vulcan	Hardware & Software Discussion	8	07-11-2005 08:18 PM
Post patch, major connectivity issue	SmokingTarpan	Battlefield 2 - Ranked Vanilla	2	07-06-2005 11:26 PM

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links