View Full Version : Prepared for war but not for peace?
Thought it was time for a new Iraq thread. What are people's opinions on this new CIA report? My opinion has always been that this war was, quite shockingly, not thought through properly (and was doomed to messy failure unless the approach changed radically). And this now seems to be the case. Here are some handy articles...
The CIA report: "We could loose this situation"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1083829,00.html
More evidence that the problems are US-generated - with the Brits just tagging along trying to get the best result possible: "Cheney ignored war chaos report" [EDIT: alright, i admit this only paints the Brit side of the story - but it links up with many other bits-n-pieces. I did say "more" ;). I'm not saying Brits aren't guilty of helping this come about. Just that we're following your lead. And it's either that or line up with the EU against you]
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1086354,00.html
And here's just one of many examples of how soldiers, untrained for this type of "peace-keeping", are making things worse:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1080989,00.html
Well, I'll be going blindly off to express my hatred for Bush this Thursday (blindly coz i broke my glasses playing footie and i'm gonna be basically-blind for the next week and a half. Still, if you see a squinting hippy on TV, running erratically from police or explosions, holding a placard with Bush caught in a compromising act with a certain nation under the title "You've got your piece in Iraq (it's too late for the withdrawal technique - but at least you might catch something now)" - well, that'll be me :))
LordSlaytan
11-16-03, 01:36 PM
I dare you to post in the movie section ten times in a row. ;)
I dare you to post in the movie section ten times in a row. ;)
I have done - but only on matrix threads :p
Just warming up for Yods' promised return to some interesting debates is all your tetchiness ;)
LordSlaytan
11-16-03, 01:47 PM
tetchiness ;)
Is that supposed to be testiness? Because I am rather short lately. Yet, what kind of attitude am I supposed to have with a talking goat who enjoys debating. I should smack you between the eyes with my hat.
Is that supposed to be testiness? Because I am rather short lately. Yet, what kind of attitude am I supposed to have with a talking goat who enjoys debating. I should smack you between the eyes with my hat.
Yup, same ting. I'll try and trot softly then - i know that blood-boiling thing - stretched out like a string. I'll stop twanging your bow then ;)
What you shouldn't do is dangle any carrots in front of my snout ;)
Piddzilla
11-16-03, 02:41 PM
http://www.hillcity-comics.com/graphic_novels/dh/flaming_carrot_03.jpg
Oh well, alright, those carrot chaperones can dangle in front of me all they like ;) :rolleyes:
But what is this flippancy? Does no one wish to debate the fate of those who have brought about inept woes? Is no one even going to dip their toes in? Am i going to get blown up on thursday all for nothing? ;)
LordSlaytan
11-16-03, 04:55 PM
What do you want Golgot? You want the American MoFo's to apologize for what our President did?
Ok, I'm sorry. I shouldn't have let him do it.
What do you want Golgot? You want the American MoFo's to apologize for what our President did?
Ok, I'm sorry. I shouldn't have let him do it.
Heheheh. No. Not an apology. Don't be silly. However, what i would like to see, and what i'd like to believe some elements of Thursday's march will affect, is a galvinisation of political action in America. Action to reign in this crazy cowboy (and i believe the simplistic analogy fits with this character and his gung-ho compadres)
What i'd like is practical discussion about what can be done about Bush, before he does any more international damage (i'm so glad his admin haven't overseen a US-segregation-from-the-world, but i do believe that Blair has played a part in that, coz the rest of Europe, and other areas, are still prepared to let him go hang in the wind. That's not what i want to see. But i think healing some of the wounds involves his removal at the next election.)
I know this is a bitter topic that everyone's sick of. But it's not going to go away. And i just can't stand the thought of more Bush-like idiocy radiating out of your otherwise darling little country (;))
[ooh yes, and i probably just want to argue with pro-Bushies and pro-this-war-in-this-way people ;)]
LordSlaytan
11-16-03, 05:19 PM
I really don't think that public opinion will sway him at all. The only hope we have is to not have him re-elected. Though that still may not happen. The democratic hopefuls are a crap-shoot. It's too bad that Gore or Clinton aren't running. We may have had a really good chance then, but as it is...we're stuck with the cowboy who only listens to himself and his yes-men.
I really don't think that public opinion will sway him at all. The only hope we have is to not have him re-elected. Though that still may not happen. The democratic hopefuls are a crap-shoot. It's too bad that Gore or Clinton aren't running. We may have had a really good chance then, but as it is...we're stuck with the cowboy who only listens to himself and his yes-men.
Mmm, very similar situation over here in some ways. Blair is hermetically sealed in his womb of what-is-right-is-what-is-right-is-what-is-right, with his siblings of spin strapped in to "guide" him. And as he's head honcho of the best political option by far, the best we can hope for is an internal removal of his charismatic abuse of power. Coz me and the majority are getting very sick of it. Fortunately, i see some hugely preferable differences in his ideals and policies compared to Bushy, despite the fact that this government has been fairly inept at realising its better ideals.
The thing that frustrates me about the situation you guys have is the Presidential-focus. i.e. The Dems have a strong enough economic record and set of policy-bases to be a practical alternative to the Reps. You have an alternative. It's this focus on the different characters which is a frustration. Under Thatcher, and under Blair, we've also experienced President-centric style politics over here - but as a rule it's policies not personalities that decides these matters.
Incidently - i'm not expecting Bush to be swayed in any way by this march or the opinions you guys might throw at him. I'm hoping that the continuing sight of your closest allies rejecting the BS that Bush and Blair have spewed might be a spur to those of you guys who are still making up their mind about Bush and his apparently brain-dead actions.
Your government can hide the pictures of coffins. They can state the opposite to the pessimistic appraisals of their own departments (concerning the state of this war, and other topics like global warming etc etc). But, can they keep on referring to the UK as a staunch ally for this action indefinitely, when, no matter what the outcome or nature of this march, British public opinion is strongly against Bush and the nature of this war? Ask about the war, and the stats have fluctuated (tho almost always being against this war/occupation - the point just after it's inception being the high point for support). Ask about Bush - and the answer is clear. We find his spin even more skin-crawling and basically dangerous than Blair's.
I know the Brit part of the equation is a tiny thing for you guys - but in many ways, we made this occupation possible. And we feel guilty. And Blair, despite all he acheived, should also feel guilty. Harsh as it sounds, i think it might have been wiser to let Bush/the US make his/its own mistakes. But playing politics with people's lives isn't something Blair-baby seems happy with on a basic moral level (which is great. If only he didn't have such utterly ****e judgement and execution skills. ****. Kosovo. What a cock up. And this tops it to the power of a million. We seem to have poured gas on the burning fire that is the Middle East. We certainly haven't extinguished the fire at any rate :rolleyes: I think Blair thought he was aiding that aim. I think on this point he very possibly thought wrong)
Help us out. Get someone who has the tiniest bit of respect for the rest of the world into the hot seat. (Blair can only nudge Bush so much - but he's shown now that he needs to be balanced out by other pragmatic moral-socio-politcal views. Get him mediating between hotch-potch European anti-US screams, and Bu****e insane simplicity, and you've got a recipe for ****ed up negative duplicity.)
That's what i'm saying. We can't get rid of our guy (and we're not completely sure we want to - despite his obvious failings). You CAN get rid of yours. Do it. Set the gears in motion. Counter his spin everywhere you hear it. Every single one of you can make a difference.
LordSlaytan
11-16-03, 06:03 PM
I hesitate to voice too many opinions. I’m not as gifted with debate as you are, and I know if I voice things, they will only be picked apart sentence by sentence. I really hate having to reply with posts that take me hours to perform. I don’t have the patience or the stamina to deal with it. I hate Bush. I have always hated Bush. I hate his mannerisms, most of his policies, and his cowboy hat. I wish he and Sharon to both be stripped of power.
Would you like a list of easy points to present to people? :)
Here are some ironclad ones just for your day-to-day to counter the standard pro-this-war and pro-Bush BS [main points in red , back up in blue ]:
1) Is there OIL-profit for the US in this intervention?:
Categorically YES. The fact that Iraqi oil will return to the PETRODOLLARS system [Saddam moved to Euros a while back - the only country to do so] means US/dollar profit in numerous ways (one of the most simple to explain being the fact that Iraq will have to re-invest its dollars in the US, if it wants to be sensible, just as the Saudis and all the other oil exporters do.)
(Other elements of the petrodollars system as a whole include: - the need for many countries to hold dollar reserves to back up their own currency - and the desire of the international community to keep the US economy/the dollar stable because it's so strongly tied to oil [the "gold standard" of today])
2) Did Bush and Blair misrepresent the case for war?
Categorically yes, again. Bush's admin knew the Niger claim was false before they stated it as fact for a start. The information they gleaned from the exiled iraqis is considered to be totally untrustworthy by the world community (and so far has turned up nothing it seems to me).
What's more, British intelligence states categorically that all intelligence on Saddam-al Qaeda links states there is none. There was one briefly, now there is none. And there hasn't been for a long time. They are ideologically incompatible.
Other links to terrorism and religious extremism are basically spurious. Saddam uses these things as political survival tools i.e. the funding of Palestinians [something pursued to a far greater degree by the US-supported Saudis etc]
The reason there's no WMDs to be found is because the UN was doing a good job - and in fact feel their continuing work was impeeded by this war. And indeed, i understand they don't think very highly of the methods being used by the US teams now hunting the WMDs i.e. they're not using the only feasible approach [the one that worked so well for Kelly] - TALK to the scientists, pick them up on their inconsistancies, use their psychology - don't try and bully the stuff out of them. They're still more afraid of Saddam than anything else.
And as for Brit deception - just look at my Kelly thread. And the joint intelligence commitee (JIC) means all the intelligence the Hutton enquiry has demonstrated the Brits suppressed, which went against the case for war, have been suppressed by the US admin too. The JIC shares this intelligence. That's the point of it.
Are things going well in Iraq?
The article at the top "we could lose this situation" is one of many which is brimming with leaked information about this damning CIA assessment. Have a look. It just backs up what every documentary on the ground i have seen (pro, anti or neutral) couldn't help but conclude. It's what intelligence agents predicted. It's what's going on.
Have a look at the Cheney one too. Shameful shameful shameful amounts of brain-dead blinkeredness have gone on. It's time for it to stop.
Sorry if any of that's patronising - or not as succinct as it should be. You could just say:
Profit? Petrodollars.
Lies? Niger. No al Qaeda links (Brit intelligence). No 9/11 links (Bush admits). No freaking WMDs of any serious international capacity [beyond what every country has - including Botox :rolleyes: ;) - as the UN crews repeatedly asserted]
Are things going well? The CIA says no. Brit intelligence says no. Rumsfeld says no (i.e. that they don't have things under control). The Iraqis say no. No.
LordSlaytan
11-16-03, 06:55 PM
Would you like a list of easy points to present to people? :)
You misunderstood my sentiment of not wanting to argue with people that are zealous in their beliefs with my possibly being perfunctory with the topics on hand. I understand your viewpoints, as well as agree with them, but I am loath to debate a winless argument with others even though I am relatively knowledgable with what is being discussed. I would rather soliloquize than debate with someone with Bush as the topic. At least I might have a modicum of success that way.
You dig?
You misunderstood my sentiment of not wanting to argue with people that are zealous in their beliefs with my possibly being perfunctory with the topics on hand. I understand your viewpoints, as well as agree with them, but I am loath to debate a winless argument with others. I would rather soliloquize than debate with someone with Bush as the topic. At least I might have a modicum of success that way.
You dig?
Ahhh, i see. So sorry. Still, thought some facts might help you smack 'em for six as we say (cricket term old boy), in a short-but-soliloquizing kinda way ;). Guess i'm often taken aback by the fundamentalist ferocity of some conservative-Bu****es' fervour. Political dogma exists here of course too, in all its forms [but with the prevelant religious element removed it normally just takes the form of patently uninformed diatribes (followed by smacks in the face :rolleyes: ) Gah, not that different then i guess. ;)
What i was talking about before with my "do it" hat on, was the conversion of waverers. Those who've been sucked in by what is basically propoganda and deception. Lies basically. I assume there must be some grey-scale types around like that? Aren't there?
Sir Toose
11-17-03, 10:30 AM
More evidence that the problems are US-generated - with the Brits just tagging along trying to get the best result possible: "Cheney ignored war chaos report"
Come now, you can do better than this. If Timmy jumped off a bridge, would you? My mother always used to say that to me. I suppose if transferring guilt makes you feel better then you should do it... I'll be pointing it out to you when you do it here though. :D
I'll make a general statement here and it is tantamount to what I believe. The press is telling you what they want you to think. Whether you are right or left on the political spectrum you only have about 1/2 the facts. We are simply NOT given enough information to understand what is going on. We are being deliberately confused/anesthetized by the media (wittingly or not) because this allows the powers that be to act at will.
I hate to say it, but you have no voice in these matters... none of us do. You may speak passionately about what you believe is truth but the fact is that I can go out and refute all of it based upon news sources with a different bent.
We can suspect, but never will we be able to conclude anything. Even the history books will be written to include the most beneficial version of the 'truth'.
My suspicion is that Bush, Cheney, Blair, Osama, Saddam et al are the targets (quacking decoys) we're meant to shoot at while the real players accomplish their business. This may sound crazy, but it's the only 'conclusion' I can make. Put aside all that you think you know and look at how unlikely it all is. Try it, it's fun.
Come now, you can do better than this. If Timmy jumped off a bridge, would you? My mother always used to say that to me. I suppose if transferring guilt makes you feel better then you should do it... I'll be pointing it out to you when you do it here though. :D
I'll make a general statement here and it is tantamount to what I believe. The press is telling you what they want you to think. Whether you are right or left on the political spectrum you only have about 1/2 the facts. We are simply NOT given enough information to understand what is going on. We are being deliberately confused/anesthetized by the media (wittingly or not) because this allows the powers that be to act at will.
I hate to say it, but you have no voice in these matters... none of us do. You may speak passionately about what you believe is truth but the fact is that I can go out and refute all of it based upon news sources with a different bent.
We can suspect, but never will we be able to conclude anything. Even the history books will be written to include the most beneficial version of the 'truth'.
My suspicion is that Bush, Cheney, Blair, Osama, Saddam et al are the targets (quacking decoys) we're meant to shoot at while the real players accomplish their business. This may sound crazy, but it's the only 'conclusion' I can make. Put aside all that you think you know and look at how unlikely it all is. Try it, it's fun.
Aha, someone else's turn to patronise ;)
[mini-edit: i deal with my holier-than-thou statement below, to some extent. It's totally lacking in the details needed to justify it, but heigh ho, i want you to actually read to the end ;)]
I know Sir, truly i do. But the reason i slam the word categorically about with most of that stuff [and i have over-used it in one case] is coz i read all sides that i have time to - and non-"media" sources too - for example, petrodollars are an established economic fact - and tho you can argue about each element of their influence, they certainly benefit the US. Other stuff from the Hutton inquiry is also pretty uncontestable - no matter what spin gets put on it - that's what was so "marvellous" about it - a rare glimpse into the workings of that oily machine that is politics (oiled with the blood of those who get in the way, on the international scene). You see, jornos get their info from somewhere too. Why not listen to the middle-men, but ultimately cut them out where possible and make up your own mind?
And believe me - i've left out 90% of what i'd like to claim. I agree with your conclusions - just as much as i agree that there's no real way of proving it. [tho evidence is amassing of many shady things - the point is - we can't let these things turn up 50 years down the line. Write to your representative - push for a high level inquiry. We're doing that here - coz we need another one - you should be too. Believe it or not, your representative does have to acknowledge large-scale insistance from their voters - so get on with convincing your friends, enemies and local floaters to do the same. I know it's easier in britain coz we're smaller, but still, get it on.]
EDIT: Oops, missed out on the we're-just-innocent-little-brits thing. Come on man - i know it looks like i'm saying that, but i'm not. What I'm saying is - this was a US instigated war. Britain facilitated its legality - but there's no way we were about to mount an invasion of Iraq - or have any of the dubious reasons for doing so that the Bush admin has. Blair's done his traditional mediating thing, trying to be the darling of the world stage now - and he's made a cow's arse of it unfortunately.
The Brit admin helped you out - well, we can only speculate why - but one generally-held belief amongst political commentators here is it was coz of the need to stop Bush going it alone in all international affairs. Blair really does think like this it seems. He's a total moraliser (and god knows, we could do with some ethics in politics). He's just better at speaking than doing is the problem.
Other little points = despite being in a far quieter area than bagdad etc - many of our military personel know how to handle delicate "occupation" situations coz of N.Ireland etc. - they recognise the desperate need NOT to ride rough-shod over the locals where possible. This approach has not been adopted on any level by the US military it seems - and they're woefully undertrained in this area.
I know it tallies a bit to snuggly-and-smuggly with the US-guys-are-simplistic stereotype, but there has been an incredible simplicity about the US approach to this, and the practices inacted on the ground. Beyond that patriotic press release above with the defensive brit-diplomat, there's plenty of circumstantial evidence that suggests the same. There wasn't enough planning for the nature of the occuption. The planned government is laughable (and Rumsfeld saying what types of government won't be acceptable if voted in by the people doesn't help either)
Face it - Bush etc initiated this. Blair tried to slow him down. In the end he facilitated this cack-handed control-fest that's going so horribly wrong.
As you've said Toosey - we can't know what actually decided our leaders' actions. But i do know from past experience/historical-precedent and current info that this scenario i'm presenting is very likely. It's not that we had a a real choice about jumping. We could watch your leader jump into a hole shouting gung-ho chants, setting off explosions at the bottom that would bring a lot of other stuff caving in on top of him - or we could throw our tiny frame onto your back and pull our tiny rip chord. It didn't work. We hit the bottom. Let's see if everyone left up top is prepared to lower a ladder - or to come down and diffuse the ticking time bomb sitting below.
I'm not saying we're innocent. I'm saying we're next to powerless, and rather than side with a EU vs US potential war scenario, Blair's stretched himself too far trying to bridge the two.
OTHER EDIT:
US might let NATO control occupation forces
(or - "US agrees to international controls of its troops in Iraq" as this paper puts it)
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=464488
Oh thank god thank god thank god (whichever one you care to ;)
Let's hope this is the start of a solution. It's only a tiny step, if it happens - but at least bull-head and friends might finally have been forced to step in a practical direction. We shall see. (i still think something between NATO and the UN is the ideal - i.e. NATO is a bit too US-dominated it seems, where-as the UN has the sanctions things still hanging over its head. We shall see. Introducing regional arabic soldiers would be very tricky - but perhaps it would take things closer to where they need to be? IF HANDLED VERY VERY CAREFULLY AND SENSITIVELY. Not bullishly. Or Bushishly. We can but hope)
[n'other edit: damn - their server is rubbish. It's overloaded at the mo - ah well, all it is is a statement by Javier Solana, EU foreign policy chief]
Sexy Celebrity
11-18-03, 02:56 PM
I just love this site.
I just love this site.
You mean you love me don't you! ;) I'll change my name to Jason too if you like! :)
Sexy Celebrity
11-18-03, 03:07 PM
You mean you love me don't you! ;) I'll change my name to Jason too if you like! :)
Okay, your official Jason name is:
Jason Thomas Merchant or J.T. Merchant
Okay, your official Jason name is:
Jason Thomas Merchant or J.T. Merchant
Is that like a John-Thomas that sells himself? ;) Well, i guess i'm whoring myself for the anti-this-war-in-this-way cause (not that anyone's paying me. *sigh* Clinton? Bin Ladens? Anyone?). And i can be a bit of a dick ;)
Either way, hooray, i've entered the land of the Jasons :)
Henry The Kid
11-18-03, 05:35 PM
Come now, you can do better than this. If Timmy jumped off a bridge, would you? My mother always used to say that to me. I suppose if transferring guilt makes you feel better then you should do it... I'll be pointing it out to you when you do it here though. :D
I'll make a general statement here and it is tantamount to what I believe. The press is telling you what they want you to think. Whether you are right or left on the political spectrum you only have about 1/2 the facts. We are simply NOT given enough information to understand what is going on. We are being deliberately confused/anesthetized by the media (wittingly or not) because this allows the powers that be to act at will.
I hate to say it, but you have no voice in these matters... none of us do. You may speak passionately about what you believe is truth but the fact is that I can go out and refute all of it based upon news sources with a different bent.
We can suspect, but never will we be able to conclude anything. Even the history books will be written to include the most beneficial version of the 'truth'.
My suspicion is that Bush, Cheney, Blair, Osama, Saddam et al are the targets (quacking decoys) we're meant to shoot at while the real players accomplish their business. This may sound crazy, but it's the only 'conclusion' I can make. Put aside all that you think you know and look at how unlikely it all is. Try it, it's fun.
This is one of the better posts I've seen in a while. Bleak as all hell, but hey, so am I.
Convince the waverers i tell you. Work on those with a dogmatic pro-war stance with available facts (Hutton report, economic set-ups etc etc). Put pressure on your representative. But most of all - never think there's nothing you can do. Because then that becomes the case.
Very disappointed in you guys. You're another home of democracy after all. Democracy disappears when you stop fighting for it. If you want to live under Bush all your lives, i guess that's your choice. But i don't (even tho i currently do. And how nice it is our leader is coming to visit us this week :rolleyes: ).
Sir Toose
11-19-03, 09:52 AM
Convince the waverers i tell you. Work on those with a dogmatic pro-war stance with available facts (Hutton report, economic set-ups etc etc). Put pressure on your representative. But most of all - never think there's nothing you can do. Because then that becomes the case.
Very disappointed in you guys. You're another home of democracy after all. Democracy disappears when you stop fighting for it. If you want to live under Bush all your lives, i guess that's your choice. But i don't (even tho i currently do. And how nice it is our leader is coming to visit us this week :rolleyes: ).
You misunderstand me and/or I've mis-spoken. I believe that there are grandiose deceptions/half-truths out there regarding what is going on in the world. My post above (which is NOT patronizing) is an attempt to illustrate how one sided things can be if we only listen to one side (i.e. the articles you linked). There are forces at work (Neo-Zionist, Rothschilds, Carlisle, think Illuminati) that obscure (they own the media) and direct, and eventually feed us the pared down, sterilized and or traumatic (at the right times) version of events.
I'm saying, in a way, the same thing that you are saying. Each of us is responsible for our own education. Do not rely upon the media to give you a fair and just cut of events... it WILL be slanted. The fusion of entertainment and information (to garner ratings) insists it to be so. Weigh each thing, listen to the opposition, make up your own mind.
You are more optimistic than I about each voice counting.
You misunderstand me and/or I've mis-spoken. I believe that there are grandiose deceptions/half-truths out there regarding what is going on in the world. My post above (which is NOT patronizing) is an attempt to illustrate how one sided things can be if we only listen to one side (i.e. the articles you linked). There are forces at work (Neo-Zionist, Rothschilds, Carlisle, think Illuminati) that obscure (they own the media) and direct, and eventually feed us the pared down, sterilized and or traumatic (at the right times) version of events.
I'm saying, in a way, the same thing that you are saying. Each of us is responsible for our own education. Do not rely upon the media to give you a fair and just cut of events... it WILL be slanted. The fusion of entertainment and information (to garner ratings) insists it to be so. Weigh each thing, listen to the opposition, make up your own mind.
You are more optimistic than I about each voice counting.
Heheheh. Each voice counts only if it shouts (and jumps up and down, and verbalises frowns, and generally catches the clowns with their pants down etc)
On the patronising idea - i'm saying your way of describing the guilt+culpability of Britian in this war is overly-simplistic (i was also infering that my own use of one-sided articles and other berating techniques is patronising ;)). The whys and wherefores of this war are very complex and intermingled (what we know of them and the ones we can assume). Yes Britain is looking after its own by following the US in this [i.e. staying on your good sides etc. And yes, i'm sure we're not as "pure" in intent as Blair would like to "radiate" that we are i.e. he's now claiming we're finally gonna see some benefit from backing you guys up over this war (coz on the war thing, that's what happened man. Nobody pushed us. We've tied a rope between you and us is all. What you do we do. Grrrrr. See now why Bush is the unelected leader of my country?) ...but Blair's claiming we're going to use this benefit for multi-lateral agendas i.e. getting Bush to back down on the steel tariffs and to address the "roadmap" idea in Israel etc. We'll see. Maybe i've been sucked in completely, but i believe there is this side to Blair. And let's face it - what "profit" do we get from this war? None. Where you know you guys get a financial ton. You've gotta ask WHY did we jump? It seems the answer might be that the biggest power in the world needs some reigning in, and we're in the best position to dig our heels in. But it's hard to reign in a horse that's fifty times your size and convinced of its own free-ness to do what it wants :rolleyes: ]
On the media - i think things are a touch worse your side when it comes to overall media control. My little favoured paper above, the guardian/observer is pretty stand-alone (and i view them as Moore-style counter-spinners. i.e. i see what spins they use as more justifiable in the face of orchestrated BS from "the other side" ;)). Overall, the brit media industry, between the BBC, the Murdoch empire, and various other collectives, is fairly competitive.
I think maybe you're working yourself into a bit of dead-end by saying we can't use any reports with obvious bias within them. Or that all media is BS. [tho actually, i think you're right - we both agree on the need to discern]. I keep an eye on all the major respectable papers over here, and see plenty of reason to believe there is good journalism in many of them, including those that i don't like. I laid those ones out (patronizingly, yes) because i trust their content to a large degree, and feel the spin that is there is obvious enough to be be taken into account easily.
EDIT: Sorry this is turning into such an anger-ball on my part Toosey (spin us round, we'll look enthralled ;)). i.e. i'll try and be more coherent and less inflammatory in my next post (we can but hope :) :rolleyes: )
DrenaiWarrior
11-19-03, 01:34 PM
Hey I'm gonna have to go with Toose on this one... somehow no matter how hard I try and get everything in perspective politcally I just realize I'm missing more of the truth and my aurgument is flawed. Although I will say this about our gov. at the moment. I'd really like a president who seems smarter than the average grapefruit (and the average orange that hasn't done drugs :D )... who he is and what he believes that is a second hand thing to me at the moment, as long as he isn't a big Racists or Idiot, hey I'm happy then!
Hey I'm gonna have to go with Toose on this one... somehow no matter how hard I try and get everything in perspective politcally I just realize I'm missing more of the truth and my aurgument is flawed. Although I will say this about our gov. at the moment. I'd really like a president who seems smarter than the average grapefruit (and the average orange that hasn't done drugs :D )... who he is and what he believes that is a second hand thing to me at the moment, as long as he isn't a big Racists or Idiot, hey I'm happy then!
But what if his policies promote idiotic, and possibly race-persecuting
results? The idiotic we can be sure of [i'll get to my near-unreasonable levels of certainty] - the other one we know is the PERCEPTION of the middle-east region (one of the many things apprently ignored in this ill-thought out operation)
Of course we'll never get into the boardrooms and discover what arguments and forms of persuasion were used to acheive this occupation (unless we get some decent INQUIRIES going. We've had a little one in Britain - and it was FASCINATING and basically UNDISPUTABLE in many areas. It really got behind many of the closed doors. We know definitively that, on the British side at least, the intelligence FOR war was so scant, and the intelligence AGAINST it present enough, that they were scrabbling to justify it. We KNOW then that they wanted to go primarily for reasons other than WMDs. And on basic international-politics levels we can be certain this is not driven by altruism. And from an economic perspective we KNOW that there is profit for the US in this invasion [i.e. reverting Iraq to the petrodollars system]
Considering the Joint Intelligence Commitee means what the Brits knew, your admin knew, you've got ample reason there alone to call for an inquiry at the highest level into your governments actions. Call for it dogdammit. Your semi-independant power groups (lawyers etc) will still wish to define and exert there power hopefully, as they did over here, and want to get to the bottom of what's gone on.
I can't be sure that all the different sources i've read are correct that claim there is huge dissatisfaction amongst the US intelligence ommunity, as there is over here, over how their information has been ABUSED by politicians (and specifically ignored - by politicians or by senior intelligence staff, for potentially political reasons) - or to what extent Cheney etc are guilty of throwing their weight around and suppressing info that went against the case for war (and let's face it, they went against every intelligence agency around the world when they decided this action was necessary). But **** it, considering a regular accusation levelled against the Bush adin is one of bullish-bullying tactics, i can believe it ;)
Either way, please forgive my fiery dogma - but i still insist there are some areas of strong conjecture and even near-indisputable fact that we do have access to. Use them. Kick up a fuss. Or we're all gonna be dust or rusting-democracies by the time Bush is done.
I say again. Get going on getting rid of Bush. Trust me - he's taking your country in completely the wrong direction. The US needs to give up on it's Empire building. Rumsfeld, Cheney and all those that surely congregate and "conspire" behind them, need to get kicked out of the white house - or international relations between the US and the rest of the world are just going to get worse and worse and worse.
Now you know i could go on and on, and even produce the odd fact along the way. But i'll let y'all off for now ;)
Sir Toose
11-19-03, 03:15 PM
Well, you're shooting at the 'correct' targets.
Do me a favor and look into how the US got into WW the first. Look beyond the Lusitania and into WHO rallied behind Britian (behind the scenes) to draw the US into the war (as England was powerless and under u-boat blockade in 1916).
"To Make the World Safe for Democracy" was the reason publicized by your government and mine.
Sound familiar?
Do this, then follow the chain into WW the second.
This sh*t starts WAY back.
Henry The Kid
11-19-03, 03:41 PM
Convince the waverers i tell you. Work on those with a dogmatic pro-war stance with available facts (Hutton report, economic set-ups etc etc). Put pressure on your representative. But most of all - never think there's nothing you can do. Because then that becomes the case.
Very disappointed in you guys. You're another home of democracy after all. Democracy disappears when you stop fighting for it. If you want to live under Bush all your lives, i guess that's your choice. But i don't (even tho i currently do. And how nice it is our leader is coming to visit us this week :rolleyes: ).
Heh. And who's gonna replace Bush? Someone just as imperial minded. The first thing we should think about doing is realizing that huge government does not help. That letting your goverment make all your decisions for you will result in less and less choice as time goes on. On a whole, government wants power. The second you interfere with them while they try to get power, they will get rid of you without hesitation. We really need to get it out of our head that they give a damn about us.
I know plenty of people are going to come in and tell me how just sitting here and complaining about it isn't going to accomplish anything, and the one person one voice crap. Meh. You vote for the lesser of two evils all the time, and you're still voting in evil all the time.
Well, you're shooting at the 'correct' targets.
Do me a favor and look into how the US got into WW the first. Look beyond the Lusitania and into WHO rallied behind Britian (behind the scenes) to draw the US into the war (as England was powerless and under u-boat blockade in 1916).
"To Make the World Safe for Democracy" was the reason publicized by your government and mine.
Sound familiar?
Do this, then follow the chain into WW the second.
This sh*t starts WAY back.
Wait wait. I don't know enough about the causes/beginnings of WW1 :blush: (I always think in terms of WW2). Care to fill in the gaps for me?
EDIT: i.e. what are the reasons/causes for their linked action that you seem to be suggesting here?
Heh. And who's gonna replace Bush? Someone just as imperial minded. The first thing we should think about doing is realizing that huge government does not help. That letting your goverment make all your decisions for you will result in less and less choice as time goes on. On a whole, government wants power. The second you interfere with them while they try to get power, they will get rid of you without hesitation. We really need to get it out of our head that they give a damn about us.
I know plenty of people are going to come in and tell me how just sitting here and complaining about it isn't going to accomplish anything, and the one person one voice crap. Meh. You vote for the lesser of two evils all the time, and you're still voting in evil all the time.
Man Henry you are so negative :rolleyes:
For a start, Clinton was much better than Bush internationally. He had the chance to take on Saddam (i.e. the intelligence on WMDs hasn't changed significantly for a number of years according to UN inspectors etc). Why didn't he? He got dragged into Kosovo. But Bush looks like a different kettle of fish. Fair enough, with the 9/11 mandate - but what's Iraq got to do with 9/11 or international terrorism? The Palestine funding doesn't justify it etc etc. Anyway, you get the point, Bush is more aggressive and negative in his international approach near across the board. Ever notice how the europeans etc look a lot more aggressive these days towards the US etc - that's mainly down to the Bush admin's idiotic approach to everything)
Clinton had loads of downsides too. But he knew how to get involved in the old international polemic sensibley, and negotiate at the very least. (Bush must've watched Sesame street for heaven's sake. Doesn't he know about compromise? ;))
On the power thing...you can't get rid of power, so such structures will always exist in one form or another (and let's face it, the less like a pyramid it is, the better it seems. If this stat i've heard about 40% of the US's wealth being owned by the top 1% is correct, compared to 18% in England). So, you use what powers you have as an individual with no special influence....you use your...:
-buying power. Many industries are "afraid" of you baby, and where you and your friends put your money.
-your hassling "power" - hassle everyone from political representatives, to the media, to employers(nicely ;))/industries using health-imparing techniques etc. With the internet it's now pretty easy to find some sort of like-minded group.
-Marching "power" - well, it can work in conjunction with other methods of exerting "mass" pressure.
Just showing certain people you're keeping tabs makes them think a bit. Lots of little bits...make a kilobyte don't they? Toose? I'm asking you all the questions today ;)
Henry The Kid
11-19-03, 04:59 PM
Man Henry you are so negative :rolleyes:
For a start, Clinton was much better than Bush internationally. He had the chance to take on Saddam (i.e. the intelligence on WMDs hasn't changed significantly for a number of years according to UN inspectors etc). Why didn't he? He got dragged into Kosovo. But Bush looks like a different kettle of fish. Fair enough, with the 9/11 mandate - but what's Iraq got to do with 9/11 or international terrorism? The Palestine funding doesn't justify it etc etc. Anyway, you get the point, Bush is more aggressive and negative in his international approach near across the board. Ever notice how the europeans etc look a lot more aggressive these days towards the US etc - that's mainly down to the Bush admin's idiotic approach to everything)
Clinton had loads of downsides too. But he knew how to get involved in the old international polemic sensibley, and negotiate at the very least. (Bush must've watched Sesame street for heaven's sake. Doesn't he know about compromise? ;))
On the power thing...you can't get rid of power, so such structures will always exist in one form or another (and let's face it, the less like a pyramid it is, the better it seems. If this stat i've heard about 40% of the US's wealth being owned by the top 1% is correct, compared to 18% in England). So, you use what powers you have as an individual with no special influence....you use your...:
-buying power. Many industries are "afraid" of you baby, and where you and your friends put your money.
-your hassling "power" - hassle everyone from political representatives, to the media, to employers(nicely ;))/industries using health-imparing techniques etc. With the internet it's now pretty easy to find some sort of like-minded group.
-Marching "power" - well, it can work in conjunction with other methods of exerting "mass" pressure.
Just showing certain people you're keeping tabs makes them think a bit. Lots of little bits...make a kilobyte don't they? Toose? I'm asking you all the questions today ;)
I don't need to be told that Bush is a horribly aggresive oppurtunistic president. But I just don't hold the misconception that the democrats are any better.
Besides, maybe Bush can do some good with the whole Iraq situation. To say he is overdue for doing something right would be the understatement of the day.
I don't need to be told that Bush is a horribly aggresive oppurtunistic president. But I just don't hold the misconception that the democrats are any better.
Look man, just believe me that Bush has been entirely inept at international relations in comparison to Clinton. I doubt your papers report it that way, but that's how all of ours report it (and why would they lie? ;))
Besides, maybe Bush can do some good with the whole Iraq situation. To say he is overdue for doing something right would be the understatement of the day.
Erm, nice to see you being optimistic for a change :rolleyes: ;)
Caitlyn
11-19-03, 08:04 PM
Well, I'll be going blindly off to express my hatred for Bush this Thursday (blindly coz i broke my glasses playing footie and i'm gonna be basically-blind for the next week and a half. Still, if you see a squinting hippy on TV, running erratically from police or explosions, holding a placard with Bush caught in a compromising act with a certain nation under the title "You've got your piece in Iraq (it's too late for the withdrawal technique - but at least you might catch something now)" - well, that'll be me :))
Golgot…. I saw a blonde guy protesting on the news that was squinting… he was wearing a pink feather boa around his neck… :suspicious:
Golgot…. I saw a blonde guy protesting on the news that was squinting… he was wearing a pink feather boa around his neck… :suspicious:
Heheheh. I'm not trying to get that much attention! ;) Besides i haven't gone yet. I'm off to the iron-fortress that is the centre tomorrow. (wehey, we haven't had this much fun since the IRA last tried to bomb politicians ;) :rolleyes: ) [incidently, the march organisers won the right to go past parliament, which is cool and all. But one paper is claiming there's a leaked memo suggesting officials there work from home tomorrow :eek: I'm thinking about reinforcing my plackard with kevlar :duck-n-cover-smilie: ;)]
This is in response to your thread title , not anything said by anyone so please dont take it that way.
"Prepared for war but not for peace?"
There cannot be one without the other, dark/light Heaven/Hell etc...
Freedom and peace have been gained by going to war, and to say otherwise is folly.
I am neither condoning Bushes actions, nor condeming them. History will be repeated, as they say.
The Silver Bullet
11-20-03, 01:20 AM
LIVIN' THING
by ELO
Sailin' away on the crest of a wave,
It's like magic.
Rollin' and ridin' and slippin' & slidin',
It's magic.
[CHORUS]
And you, and your sweet desire,
You took me, higher and higher, Baby!
It's a livin' thing,
It's a terrible thing to lose!
It's a given thing,
What a terrible thing to lose!
Making believe this is what you've conceived
From your worst day,
Moving in line when you look back in time,
To your first day.
[CHORUS]
Takin' a dive 'cos you can't halt the slide,
Floating downstream,
So let her go don't start spoiling the show,
It's a bad dream.
[CHORUS]
Cheers for the interlude Silver. (i imagined you on support with the banjo - but that's coz i don't know the tune ;))
Erm, 7thson, isn't that a terribly terribly large over-simplification you just made, which has no relation to the specifics of the "war" in hand? i.e. Are you saying "war always=peace", coz if you are, that's just specious BS. Did Brit interventions in Afghanistan lead to peace? Or the Russion or US ones? OR the more recent ones? Erm, doesn't look like it. About 80 years and counting now isn't it. Just as an example. [and yes, it's not peaceful there now].
To be honest mate - if you think freedom or peace have CURRENTLY been won in iraq then you're the fool i'm afraid. So sorry, but there you go.
-everybody admits the terrorism is getting worse and worse. (and according to the CIA it is going to go critical)
-people now face huge unemployment, but more importantly, fear for their safety in a far more widespread way, compared to the specific fears under Saddam's regime [which many think is still all around them, hence they still fear his wrath]. Potential torture by a madman, or potentially getting shot up while purchasing groceries - which do you think is "more" terrifying? I'd say they're both the same. All the iraqis i see on tv agree :p (whether optimisitic or anatagonistic to the US, or whatever)
-There's no sign of a democratic body being established (and if the people vote for religious leaders Rummy and friends say that's not going to be permitted. etc etc etc - and it was only thanks to de Mello that this rag-tag bunch of exiles in the stand-in "ruling" body had any sort of relation to potential democratic process. i.e. involving local support and interaction with local figures.)
-being able to buy a satellite dish is nice, but when there isn't consistant electricity to run it, it seems less like a sign of freedom gone mad, eh?
And on and on, my little peace gong. I can't believe you just said that. It was soooooooooo simplistic. I take it you thought the war ended when Bush said so eh? ;) :p
EDIT: 7thson, would you mind telling me WHY you think things are...
a) peaceful in Iraq (have you noticed the ever increasing amounts of terrorist attacks??
b) "Free" [my media shows a wealth of situations on the ground, and opinions from Iraqis, but none of them view the current state as one of freedom just yet. Many still hope it will come about, but this is hardly a country in recovery at the moment. There's the freedom of news that i've mentioned, and more products available, but again, when you have to dodge bullets to get to them, all you feel is free to run i suspect. And it doesn't help that Saddam doesn't appear to have gone away [backing up long-term fears about Baathist presence/resurgance]. And the fact that the locals are helping the terrorists, and indeed forming some of their numbers, suggests they feel the need to fight still. Are those the actions of people who feel "free"]
Sir Toose
11-20-03, 10:17 AM
So, Golgot, you want me to follow the money? Allow me give you some quotes to ponder.
William Jefferson Clinton
"The Israelis know that if the Iraqi or the Iranian army came across the Jordan River, I would personally grab a rifle, get in a ditch, and fight and die."
Henry Ford:
"If after having elected their man or group, obedience is not rendered to the Jewish control, then you speedily hear of "scandals" and "investigations" and "impeachments" for the removal of the disobedient. Usually a man with a "past" proves the most obedient instrument, but even a good man can often be tangled up in campaign practices that compromise him. It has been commonly known that Jewish manipulation of American election campaigns have been so skillfully handled, that no matter which candidate was elected, there was ready made a sufficient amount of evidence to discredit him in case his Jewish masters needed to discredit him."
eek!
Charles Lindbergh:
"Their greatest danger to this country lies in the Jewish ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio, and our government."
William Fulbright - US Senator and Chairman of the US Foreign Relations committee
"Israel controls the United States Senate. We should be more concerned about the United States' interests."
THE BALFOUR DECLARATION. The Balfour Declaration was a letter prepared in March 1916 and issued in November 1917, during World War I, by the British statesman Arthur James Balfour, then foreign secretary.... Specifically, the letter expressed the British government's approval of Zionism with "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." The letter committed the British government to making the "best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done to prejudice the rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." The immediate purpose was to win for the Allied cause in World War I the support of Jews in the warring nations and in the United States. As a result of the Balfour Declaration, Israel was established as an independent state in 1948 in the mandated area.
Who is the current chairman of the US Defense Policy Board?
Who is the Deputy Secretary of Defense?
What is the biggest challenge to America's alliance with Israel? Where does Britland fit in?
Just some things to consider.
Oh, and before you call me an anti-semite ... don't go there. There are hardcore Zionists out there who do not represent the majority of the Jewish people.... as the hardcore christian right wing or the hardcore liberal left do not represent the majority of Americans.
Cheers for the interlude Silver. (i imagined you on support with the banjo - but that's coz i don't know the tune ;))
Erm, 7thson, isn't that a terribly terribly large over-simplification you just made, which has no relation to the specifics of the "war" in hand? i.e. Are you saying "war always=peace", coz if you are, that's just specious BS. Did Brit interventions in Afghanistan lead to peace? Or the Russion or US ones? OR the more recent ones? Erm, doesn't look like it. About 80 years and counting now isn't it. Just as an example. [and yes, it's not peaceful there now].
To be honest mate - if you think freedom or peace have CURRENTLY been won in iraq then you're the fool i'm afraid. So sorry, but there you go.
-everybody admits the terrorism is getting worse and worse. (and according to the CIA it is going to go critical)
-people now face huge unemployment, but more importantly, fear for their safety in a far more widespread way, compared to the specific fears under Saddam's regime [which many think is still all around them, hence they still fear his wrath]. Potential torture by a madman, or potentially getting shot up while purchasing groceries - which do you think is "more" terrifying? I'd say they're both the same. All the iraqis i see on tv agree :p (whether optimisitic or anatagonistic to the US, or whatever)
-There's no sign of a democratic body being established (and if the people vote for religious leaders Rummy and friends say that's not going to be permitted. etc etc etc - and it was only thanks to de Mello that this rag-tag bunch of exiles in the stand-in "ruling" body had any sort of relation to potential democratic process. i.e. involving local support and interaction with local figures.)
-being able to buy a satellite dish is nice, but when there isn't consistant electricity to run it, it seems less like a sign of freedom gone mad, eh?
And on and on, my little peace gong. I can't believe you just said that. It was soooooooooo simplistic. I take it you thought the war ended when Bush said so eh? ;) :p
EDIT: 7thson, would you mind telling me WHY you think things are...
a) peaceful in Iraq (have you noticed the ever increasing amounts of terrorist attacks??
b) "Free" [my media shows a wealth of situations on the ground, and opinions from Iraqis, but none of them view the current state as one of freedom just yet. Many still hope it will come about, but this is hardly a country in recovery at the moment. There's the freedom of news that i've mentioned, and more products available, but again, when you have to dodge bullets to get to them, all you feel is free to run i suspect. And it doesn't help that Saddam doesn't appear to have gone away [backing up long-term fears about Baathist presence/resurgance]. And the fact that the locals are helping the terrorists, and indeed forming some of their numbers, suggests they feel the need to fight still. Are those the actions of people who feel "free"]
Have you been to Iraq? Recently? I have, many times. I see alot less suffering than there was before the war. Is there still suffering? Yes and alot of it, but comparably less. Is the US responsible for some of it? Of course. Media will show you what gets ratings. If you truly want to see the truth about something become a part of it. Visit Iraq, not just the large cities, visit the Beduins. Just like any other country, you get differing opinions. In closing....The fight for peace can be a long battle, give it some time. Dont mark its progress by what you see second or third hand.
Well well well, i do apologise on one level 7thson, you are far more sourced than i imagined you were (tho i still dispute strongly this statement : "Freedom and peace have been gained by going to war, and to say otherwise is folly." This is far too strong a statement, no matter what your experience on the ground. Neither of those results are in yet in forms which are comparable to the "peace" or "freedom" we experience in our respective countries, and what has been gained is not guaranteed to continue. It's a deceptive and exaggerated statement it seems to me.)
Have you been to Iraq? Recently? I have, many times. I see alot less suffering than there was before the war. Is there still suffering? Yes and alot of it, but comparably less. Is the US responsible for some of it? Of course.
Um, nope. Only talked with ex-iraqis, some of them fairly recent, as part of my job. (last time was about a month ago tho i must admit)
So i take it you were there before and after. Do you mind telling me in what capacity? And who do you mix with normally? (I'm glad to know that you are concerned for the locals' well being during whatever you're doing btw)
I don't blame the US so much for mistakes on the ground - more for mistakes in initiating this action (i feel a US-led force was destined to become too much of a magnet for terrorism. On further reflection i've decided a UN force would've faired just as badly - Mainly because i think any successful occupation/transition requires the locals to be as "on-board" as possible.)
Have you at any time come across sentiments of anti-americansim that over-ride feelings of gratitude for the "removal" of Saddam? (i use speech marks coz it's not in the bag yet ;)). What about complaints of lack of sensitivity towards local norms? (i'm sure you respect the need for this in an occupying force that's to be successful)
Media will show you what gets ratings.
I agree with this to a degree, but i think there can be exceptions. For example, the documentaries which have poured in fairly regularly over here have been guaranteed a slot ultimately. They could show what they liked. [things have dried up recently tho - so either all the doc makers are done, or the viewer ratings dropped ;)] The makers were biased of course, but only coz they were interested enough in their subject to go out there. (i would of course, but *cough* i've lost my friend with a camera, and *cough - stumble* i've lost my atlas... ;))
If you truly want to see the truth about something become a part of it.
Very admirable, but that's both a luxury and full on commitment it seems to me. I mean, i've just lost my job, so i could run off to iraq and try and support myself by being a freelance journalist, or teaching english maybe? But how will i keep track of my country's battles with the socialist-capitalist equilibirums while i'm away ;) :p. (Good on you anyway if that's why you're doing it :yup: )
Visit Iraq, not just the large cities, visit the Beduins. Just like any other country, you get differing opinions. In closing....The fight for peace can be a long battle, give it some time. Dont mark its progress by what you see second or third hand.
Well, at the moment this is just as second hand as what i get off the tv. So unfortunately, you're just one voice amongst many to me. I hear what you're saying. I'd like to hear more :yup:
So, Golgot, you want me to follow the money? Allow me give you some quotes to ponder.
William Jefferson Clinton
"The Israelis know that if the Iraqi or the Iranian army came across the Jordan River, I would personally grab a rifle, get in a ditch, and fight and die."
Ahhh, good ole Bill, what a stateseman! ;)
Henry Ford:
"If after having elected their man or group, obedience is not rendered to the Jewish control, then you speedily hear of "scandals" and "investigations" and "impeachments" for the removal of the disobedient. Usually a man with a "past" proves the most obedient instrument, but even a good man can often be tangled up in campaign practices that compromise him. It has been commonly known that Jewish manipulation of American election campaigns have been so skillfully handled, that no matter which candidate was elected, there was ready made a sufficient amount of evidence to discredit him in case his Jewish masters needed to discredit him."
eek!
Charles Lindbergh:
"Their greatest danger to this country lies in the Jewish ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio, and our government."
William Fulbright - US Senator and Chairman of the US Foreign Relations committee
"Israel controls the United States Senate. We should be more concerned about the United States' interests."
THE BALFOUR DECLARATION. The Balfour Declaration was a letter prepared in March 1916 and issued in November 1917, during World War I, by the British statesman Arthur James Balfour, then foreign secretary.... Specifically, the letter expressed the British government's approval of Zionism with "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." The letter committed the British government to making the "best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done to prejudice the rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." The immediate purpose was to win for the Allied cause in World War I the support of Jews in the warring nations and in the United States. As a result of the Balfour Declaration, Israel was established as an independent state in 1948 in the mandated area.
Okay, here's where we get freaky - and what i've always been puzzled by is the extent of control alleged. I mean, i've never understood (or investigated) how Israel could have any real hold over either of the US or Britland, even tho i recognise Britains part in its formation at least, and i'm sure we're in concert with you guys in any more modern support too [tho again - isn't that "roadmap" a Blair initiative of sorts? Isn't it something that goes against hardcore Iraeli desires? (isn't it something that's failing i hear you cry ;))]. To be honest, i don't know what to make of such accusations. Basically, the question still stands, where's the money? ;) (Are the Israeli-right paying us? In which case, i definitely wanna know where that money is ;) :p)
Who is the current chairman of the US Defense Policy Board?
Who is the Deputy Secretary of Defense?
What is the biggest challenge to America's alliance with Israel? Where does Britland fit in?
Just some things to consider.
Erm, i shall investigate :) Perhaps Saudi Arabia/Kuwait etc connections = answer to the third question? :shrug-smilie:
Oh, and before you call me an anti-semite ... don't go there. There are hardcore Zionists out there who do not represent the majority of the Jewish people.... as the hardcore christian right wing or the hardcore liberal left do not represent the majority of Americans.
I recognise that fundamentalist is a term that can be applied to any extreme religious faction - and i apply it to the hard-"right"/most-orthodox-jews in Israel. I recognise that it can entail extreme ruthlessness. (and i also recognise that any extreme belief system - like extreme leftyism, is the same ;))
However, the mechanism of any influence has never been clear to me.
The intentions of my original statement were not in anyway meant to reflect upon the current circumstances in Iraq. It was a genreal statement based on history. The question is: Will iraq be a better place to live (in the Iraqi's eyes, noone elses) in the next few years? i think it will. i could be wrong of course, lord knows I have been before. I base my thoughts on what I see however. Children that were starving are now fed. Diseases that ran unchecked for decades causing more death than any other one thing have been brought under control by simple vaccinations we take for granted at home. I do not want to go into detail about war itself as it was never my intention. I am openminded to almost everything except suffering, I see less of it in Iraq now so therefore I see a move in the right direction. I do contract work in Kuwait on a regular basis. Myself and others have made it a point to help those we can, and if nothing else to listen. We travel into Iraq when time permits and I remember when I was in Desert Storm. If nothing else I see a spark in peoples eyes now that was not there in the past. I think it may be hope.
The intentions of my original statement were not in anyway meant to reflect upon the current circumstances in Iraq. It was a genreal statement based on history.
Well, i don't think the two are contingent as such. i.e Yes, by definition, when a war "stops", "peace" starts, but again, would you say Afghanistan is peaceful now - or is getting the commited funding/aid/military assistance needed to make up for the decades and decades of war and the following internal insanties? From what i understand - no. And if the power-groups there can't be balanced out into a functioning country - then it'll stay tribal and extremely dangerous. And what's the cause of all the extremism there? War/interventions. (i'm not a "pascifist" btw - i just believe it takes a lot to justify a war - and that profiteering motives can undermine apparent altruistic ones. Even the very sensitive handling of the "peace" after WW2 by the US has lead to lots of stress and war over the years - that's why this Iraq one looks so troublesome - coz the area's preetty damn volatile to begin with)
The question is: Will iraq be a better place to live (in the Iraqi's eyes, noone elses) in the next few years? i think it will. i could be wrong of course, lord knows I have been before. I base my thoughts on what I see however. Children that were starving are now fed. Diseases that ran unchecked for decades causing more death than any other one thing have been brought under control by simple vaccinations we take for granted at home. I do not want to go into detail about war itself as it was never my intention. I am openminded to almost everything except suffering, I see less of it in Iraq now so therefore I see a move in the right direction. I do contract work in Kuwait on a regular basis. Myself and others have made it a point to help those we can, and if nothing else to listen. We travel into Iraq when time permits and I remember when I was in Desert Storm. If nothing else I see a spark in peoples eyes now that was not there in the past. I think it may be hope.
I'm very glad to hear the medical situation is improving, and i absolutely agree that it's the Iraqi's opinions that decides whether this intervention has been a success or not. I do wish you would talk more about it tho mate, coz i'd be very interested to hear what you have to say. All evidence of improvements taking hold is all good stuff. My impression, mainly drawn from interviews in cities, has been one of limbo - i.e. the hope is very much that things are getting better, but the feeling is still currently one of persecution, insecurity and danger. That's something they're very used to of course - it's just culture shock to still be suffering after the figure-head of all they hate has been chased away.
The question is - where do we go from here? How will the Iraqis react to the provisional government? (and any interference in the democratic nature of its formation and/or choice over leadership figures) How will the terrorist threat manifest itself? (all the papers that are claiming leaked information from the CIA report suggest a potentially disastrous escalation. Yes, there's sensationalist column-inches in that - but there's also people leaking it - and Bremner backing it up - so you've got to feel there are genuine worries there) And what about repurcussions for the Middle East as a whole? If Iraq is used as a base for further actions i.e. say against Iran - what then? [incidently, how does the average Kuwaiti feel about "foreign" presences in their country and/or the nature of their regime? I know from talking to some wealthier Kuwaiti students that the US is popular for stopping Saddam before - is this true across the board?]
I'm happy Saddam is out - and that sanctions have been dropped etc. I'm happy there's a chance to rectify some of the bungling of the past. I'm just not convinced there won't be further cack-handed mistakes along the way (i really really don't trust the hawks to handle this situation sensatively).
Sir Toose
11-25-03, 09:10 AM
Okay, here's where we get freaky - and what i've always been puzzled by is the extent of control alleged. I mean, i've never understood (or investigated) how Israel could have any real hold over either of the US or Britland, even tho i recognise Britains part in its formation at least, and i'm sure we're in concert with you guys in any more modern support too [tho again - isn't that "roadmap" a Blair initiative of sorts? Isn't it something that goes against hardcore Iraeli desires? (isn't it something that's failing i hear you cry ;))]. To be honest, i don't know what to make of such accusations. Basically, the question still stands, where's the money? ;) (Are the Israeli-right paying us? In which case, i definitely wanna know where that money is ;) :p)
Notice I didn't make any accusations at all? I simply quoted a few people and let you draw your conclusions from that.
The hardcore Zionists are entrenched in government and media and in a very real sense control what/where/when/how we are informed about things.
That question #3 stuff... I'll give you some names:
Richard Perle (Chairman, Defense Policy Board...controls the military to a greater extent than the Secretary of defense or the generals & admirals).
Paul Wolfowitz: Undersecretary of defense
Douglass Feith: Undersecretary of defense policy
On the board are Kissinger, Cohen & Schlessinger.
If you've ever why the US supports Israel militarily (unconditionally) there is your answer. It's worked from within.
The motive you ask? The biggest financiers, rogues & scoundrels in the world have the US military to back them up.
Incidentally, I can provide a list of names all the way back to WW1 if you wish.
Notice I didn't make any accusations at all? I simply quoted a few people and let you draw your conclusions from that.
The hardcore Zionists are entrenched in government and media and in a very real sense control what/where/when/how we are informed about things.
That question #3 stuff... I'll give you some names:
Richard Perle (Chairman, Defense Policy Board...controls the military to a greater extent than the Secretary of defense or the generals & admirals).
Paul Wolfowitz: Undersecretary of defense
Douglass Feith: Undersecretary of defense policy
On the board are Kissinger, Cohen & Schlessinger.
If you've ever why the US supports Israel militarily (unconditionally) there is your answer. It's worked from within.
The motive you ask? The biggest financiers, rogues & scoundrels in the world have the US military to back them up.
Incidentally, I can provide a list of names all the way back to WW1 if you wish.
Erm, ok, but you are (and were) saying there's a Zionist conspiracy behind this war and other international actions aren't you. Aren't you? Not exactly territory i was expecting to get into - but i suppose with how the Iraq thing relates to the whole middle-east it's inevitable.
Still, dear old Perle just admitted the invasion was ILLEGAL while here in britland, so he's done one good thing anyway (even if he was suggesting that it didn't matter :rolleyes: )
Alright, i'm no big fan of any of the guys above i know of (Who are Cohen and Schlessinger? Wasn't Cohen a major spokesperson who retired from the "frontline" recently?)
Still, what kind of list of names can you possibly have? If it's famillies with continued influence that have demonstrably pushed for pro-israel policies, that might be kind of convincing. I still find it incredibly difficult to believe that such a network can have major influence over other power-groups in various countries. Israel doesn't have money - it receives money. You're telling me that loaded orthodox non-israeli jews have enough clout to dictate US foreign policy (while investing large amounts of their cash elsewhere)? Seems a bit of a stretch to me pal o'mine.
And do you have names for England? The only obviously jewish influential person i can think of is the shadow-chancellor. Not very influential.
Piddzilla
11-25-03, 09:45 AM
CAN I JOIN IN??? :goof:
It is hard to deny the influence of american jews when you talk about USA:s massive and neverending support for Israel. But I just think that quotes by Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh, two well-known antisemites and even occaissonal supporters of Hitler and nazi-Germany, aren't really supplying any relevant information about the role of zionism in America. It's almost like asking Himmler to give us his opinion on the subject.
Do you hate me now, Toosey-boosey???
[EDIT]
I have to admit though that I may have misunderstood the whole discussion. I just couldn't figure out why those guys (Ford and Lindbergh) were in there to support the arguments.
I have to admit though that I may have misunderstood the whole discussion. I just couldn't figure out why those guys (Ford and Lindbergh) were in there to support the arguments.
I think that was to show the historical extent of the situation. Tho Toosey claims he's not claiming anything, so i'm not sure ;)
Yeah, well, i am fascinated by international support for Israel, so anything you can lay on us Toosey, i'd love to hear (cynical as i am on this one - sorry)
sunfrog
11-25-03, 04:13 PM
I'm saying, in a way, the same thing that you are saying. Each of us is responsible for our own education. Do not rely upon the media to give you a fair and just cut of events... it WILL be slanted. The fusion of entertainment and information (to garner ratings) insists it to be so. Weigh each thing, listen to the opposition, make up your own mind. ~Toose
Toose! You've seen the light!! :love: :eek: :love:
I didn't read the rest of the thread because of my short attention span. Add to that spin doctors and the willingness to be spun and the private and corporate ownership of the "news." In my opinion it shouldn't even be called news anymore.
Sir Toose
11-25-03, 06:41 PM
Look, guys, I don't know the answers as I believe I stated. I don't have access to the boardrooms where all of this stuff happens.
I DO see a disturbing trend where US support for hardcore Zionists is concerned.
I'm NOT saying that there is/was a Zionist conspiracy to do anything, Golgot. I'm illustrating what others have said and I'm putting together the pieces here (live I might add).
It strikes me as strange that on the very last leg of WW1 England and Co. had lost. They were surrounded by blockade and their ace in the hole was Chaim Weizmann who was able to use his influence in the US to drag us into the war on the side of England, France and Russia. Weizmann was seemingly a nobody and his connections are obscure but he was definitely a Zionist who had the connections to get this done. He also became the president of Israel after the war. It's also interesting to note that the Zionists in Germany ran the newspapers and take credit for organizing labor strikes in German weapon factories. The Balfour Declaration was prepared one year before the end of the war by Weizmann who pushed it through via whatever channels he had.
You should read Hitler's perspective on these things. He was really quite brilliant. Crazy, murderous, and entirely wrong... but he does explain the chain of events from his perspective that led to an entire country following his lead. All of this lead to the core of hatred of Jews in Germany.
In 1946 the English were actually responsible for removing Palestine from Arab control. A Zionist group called 'Irgun' then used terrorist tactics to remove England from the occupation of the newly defined state of Israel. Among their acts, they blew up the King David hotel and killed 90+ English occupants. The English retreated as they were obviously war torn and needed to recoup. These terror attacks were never responded to by England. Oh yeah, you know who the leader of 'Irgun' was? Ever heard the name Menachem Begin? Thought so.
I have so much research on this. I'm too tired to type it all out right now.
Check this, who controls the media in the US. Okay, I'll tell you:
Gerald Levin, CEO and Director of AOL Time Warner
Michael Eisner, Chairman and CEO of the Walt Disney Company
Edgar Bronfman, Jr, President and CEO of Seagram Company Ltd and head of Universal Studios
Sumner Redstone, Chairman and CEO of Viacom, Inc
Dennis Dammerman, Vice Chairman of General Electric
Peter Chernin, President and Co-COO of News Corporation Limited
These gentlemen control all programming for ABC, NBC, CBS, the Turner Broadcasting System, CNN, MTV, Universal Studios, MCA Records, Geffen Records, DGC Records, GRP Records, Rising Tide Records, Curb/Universal Records, and Interscope Records.
Hard publishing owned by this group includes:
The Sunday supplement Parade; the Conde Nast collection of magazines, including Vogue, The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, Allure, GQ, and Self; the publishing firms of Random House, Knopf, Crown, and Ballantine.
I'm not suggesting anything other than being aware of WHERE your news comes from and knowing that it will be spun.
More upon request. My hands are tired.
sunfrog
11-25-03, 06:53 PM
What's all this Zion stuff? Is this about the Matrix? ;D
Sir Toose
11-25-03, 06:55 PM
What's all this Zion stuff? Is this about the Matrix? ;D
I thought about that... I'm going to have to see who owns the rights to that flick. :idea:
I thought about that... I'm going to have to see who owns the rights to that flick. :idea:
Heheheh.
Mmm, all very intriguing Tooster. I have always been perplexed by the amount of support Israel gets, and this all could indeed go some way to explaining it. It's well known that jews have always been incredibly successful social-climbers (hence the periodic hatred and persecution i guess) But as soon as we get into conspiracy territory i do feel a bit like a nazi-revisionist or something. Ay ay ay, all the guilt ;) :rolleyes:
I do wonder whether this effect then, of a close-knit community looking after their own by being spread out amongst influential instituitons, might be slightly on the wane in my generation. It could just be religion-attrition britain, but i've found that all my Jewish friends are more and more anti-israel(policies and practices), and far less wrapped up in jewish society than their parents (hell, that seems to go for lots of people in Israel too). For example - i don't see an exceptionally strong, unified pro-israel lobby in britain. Otherwise they'd be kicking up more of a fuss about the "roadmap" perhaps? (or maybe that's coz Tony only listens to his cronies ;) :rolleyes: )
Incidently, on a totally different topic, how was Bush's visit to britland reported your side? Were all us marchers categorised as a deranged minority? Was it a surprise to see a current of dissent - or was it all small fry for the news guys, and petty-ammo for Democrat-cries?
Piddzilla
11-27-03, 05:35 AM
I think America's single-tracked support for Israel is annoying to say the least. But the "semi conspiration theories" are kind of interesting if you think about it for a while. No one is questioning the unbreakable W.A.S.P. brotherhood between Britain and USA in the same way as USA:s ties to Israel. The anglo-american tie is a result of a long brotherly friendship while the tie to Israel is "part of a secret zionist plan". I mean, here is a minority of America that just like any other minority of America supports its own kind of people - only they are more successful then other minorities. It's no coincident that IRA has received a lot of financial support from american irish catholics through the years and that the Kennedys are treated like royalty in Ireland. I am sure similar connections can be found among the italian americans and the place that many of them refer to simply as "home". But these groups aren't constituting the same kind of threat to W.A.S.P. America as the wealthy and powerful jewish groups and therefore aren't treated with the same kind of suspicion as the jews.
Zionism, sure. But what about americanism?
Just a thought...
After visiting Israel a few years ago, I really don't think either side are ready for peace, the Jews think they are right, the Palestinians think they are right, I just wish they would both stop killing each other, every time I hear that another suicide bomber has killed themselves and several others, l my heart sinks, I have family there. :bawling:
http://www.rockoffshop.co.uk/images/42680.jpg
After visiting Israel a few years ago, I really don't think either side are ready for peace, the Jews think they are right, the Palestinians think they are right, I just wish they would both stop killing each other, every time I hear that another suicide bomber has killed themselves and several others, l my heart sinks, I have family there. :bawling:
The biggest combined set of the problems on the face of the planet i suspect. And i've got a further feeling that this war hasn't helped. If it settles down, just possibly, it could help - but the way local feeling is turning, and the way extremists are now free to use it as a base, and the way the occupying forces are handling it all badly all bodes badly [seen the 10,000 alledged compensation claims that have come forward due to non-combat, unwarranted/indiscriminate civillian-killing by US soldiers? 100s of thous of dollars have been payed out already, in a waive-your-rights/no-legal-action kind of way. - this is not the way to get people on your side - http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1093186,00.html]
The last thing the middle-east needs is more contagious chaos.
And Pidz, yeah, you're spot on. The jewish-movement is just so much more effective than other intra-national groups (if that's a word ;)) - mainly coz it's bound by a specific creed/religion i suspect - whereas many communities/cultures share the catholic ideology for example, but don't expect to act in concert necessarily [they go country-centric instead, like those lovely "irish" types who paid for my local tube station to get a light bombing, amongst other things. Thanks guys, thanks a lot ;) :rolleyes:].
Judaism is theoretically lifestyle/culture/religion all in one - and one which promotes the idea that you are different, special, persecuted, and a cunning bugger who should use any means to keep this the situation ;) - but again, i don't see these things reflected in my basically-non-practicing jewish friends (tho they will come out with occasional unquestioned things like "look, we're just the chosen race", which do make your skin crawl :rolleyes: ) - personally, an open-minded, flexible, universally-moralistic, cooperative relgious person is the type i like - unfortunately, those criteria often conflict with orthodoxly-interpreted religion ;) Heigh ho :)
The biggest combined set of the problems on the face of the planet i suspect. And i've got a further feeling that this war hasn't helped. If it settles down, just possibly, it could help - but the way local feeling is turning, and the way extremists are now free to use it as a base, and the way the occupying forces are handling it all badly all bodes badly [seen the 10,000 alledged compensation claims that have come forward due to non-combat, unwarranted/indiscriminate civillian-killing by US soldiers? 100s of thous of dollars have been payed out already, in a waive-your-rights/no-legal-action kind of way. - this is not the way to get people on your side - http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1093186,00.html]
The last thing the middle-east needs is more contagious chaos.
Judaism is theoretically lifestyle/culture/religion all in one - and one which promotes the idea that you are different, special, persecuted, and a cunning bugger who should use any means to keep this the situation ;) - but again, i don't see these things reflected in my basically-non-practicing jewish friends (tho they will come out with occasional unquestioned things like "look, we're just the chosen race", which do make your skin crawl :rolleyes: ) - personally, an open-minded, flexible, universally-moralistic, cooperative relgious person is the type i like - unfortunately, those criteria often conflict with orthodoxly-interpreted religion ;) Heigh ho :)
Golgot wasn't able to read the link you posted, are you saying that people in Iraq are getting compensated for being hurt by American forces???? if that is so who are paying the Americans hurt in non combat situations???????
I think you are right about Judaism is more than religion, but I have never heard one of my Jewish friends or family ever claim they are the chosen race and they are special, but I have defiantly heard other people pass racist snide remarks about them, my Catholic friends took a long time to like my husband, they were really upset, not that I was marrying him but that he is a Jew, so i think that you cannot generalise too much as there are good and bad in all races. :yup:
Piddzilla
11-28-03, 10:07 AM
Let's face it. Religion doesn't exactly bring different people closer together.
sunfrog
11-28-03, 12:37 PM
if that is so who are paying the Americans hurt in non combat situations???????
Who would that be? The only ones I can think of are the people from 9/11. Everyone contributed money to them.
About Jews, they are the chosen people. I said it and I'm Catholic. They have been persecuted for centuries. Hitler wasn't the first time. They are different, special, and persecuted.
and a cunning bugger who should use any means to keep this the situation - but again, i don't see these things reflected in my basically-non-practicing jewish friends
That's because that insult isnt true. Your skin is crawling away from you because it can't believe you said that.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1093239,00.html
Try that link nebs. Yeah, basically, army groups are using their "discretionary" funds to pay off families, on the understanding of no-further-legal-action etc of course ;) - Here's a brief statement made to the Guardian:
"The US pays claims for personal injury, wrongful death and property damage," it said. "Payments will only be made for non-combat related activities and instances where soldiers have acted negligently or wrongfully."
On the judaism thing - i was very surprised when my mate came out with that "chosen race" thing - it's not something that seems to dictate his actions etc at all. Again, almost every single jew i meet has a very open and liberal interpretation of their faith - and indeed, amongst the younger generation, i find a far reduced sense of must-stay-within-the-jewish-community sentiments. Tho of course, there are still frequent accusations of jewish-banding-together in lots of industries, even in the media industry that i'm trying to break into - and i do see some evidence for this. Nothing conclusive, just a tendancy to stick together to a certain extent. I certanily wouldn't call any of them "Zionists" or extremists. Just slightly cliquey.
And Pidzy, yeah, i agree that religions tend to unite their flock, but scatter all us sheep generally into opposing groups. Mmm, packs of warlike sheep - there's a strange image ;). And yet to this day i agree with what a teacher once told me when i was ten - all religions have the same ingredients at their centre - they're just like a bunch of people looking at the same mountain from different angles. Always loved that image. Think it goes for most of us athiest/mystic/undefined-believers too ;)
Who would that be? The only ones I can think of are the people from 9/11. Everyone contributed money to them.
About Jews, they are the chosen people. I said it and I'm Catholic. They have been persecuted for centuries. Hitler wasn't the first time. They are different, special, and persecuted.
That's because that insult isnt true. Your skin is crawling away from you because it can't believe you said that.
Erm Sunny, i've heard and read jewish people putting forward that view, in a form of brash self-analysis. Not my words really. What i was talking about is something that is contingent on all the persecution they've suffered - i.e. the idea that you can't win by force so you've got to win by guile. It's not really an insult.
And check the link to see who's being paid off for what. And since the soldiers' moral seems to have hit rock bottom, in a large part due to the lack of gratitude from the locals we can speculate, we can expect this trend of ham-fisted "peace-keeping" to go on. And on. This was one of the many problems with the way this invasion was framed. It wasn't a lie to say many Iraqis would welcome the invaders, but it was disingenuous to intimate that that would be the nature of the occupation. And i think this fact is something the soldiers on the ground are struggling to deal with - along with the conditions and the fatigue of being a constant target.
Thanks for the link Golly gosh, :D
When i was talking about the American's hurt in non combat, I was thinking of the bombs that have gone off in Iraq that hurt people not in the army but aid agencies etc. :(
Thanks for the link Golly gosh, :D
When i was talking about the American's hurt in non combat, I was thinking of the bombs that have gone off in Iraq that hurt people not in the army but aid agencies etc. :(
Right, i wondered if you meant 9/11 too. I still find the red cross/crescent stuff gobsmacking as well. The terrorists might as well believe in nothing but turning the world to dust. But not to worry - George'll wana invade the Saudis etc at some point - and be the catalyst for more atrocities. :rolleyes: [at least his guys are civillised enough to pay in some way, but the nature of some of the killings have been turning more people away from coalition efforts]
sunfrog
11-29-03, 08:09 PM
Sorry, I was in a bad mood that day. I don't know what got into me. :(
Sorry, I was in a bad mood that day. I don't know what got into me. :(
That's fine neither Gollygosh and myself took offense to your post, "hug" to help you recover from your bad mood day, we all have em. :D
That's fine neither Gollygosh and myself took offense to your post, "hug" to help you recover from your bad mood day, we all have em. :D
Heheheh. I'm called Gollygosh now :) No worries Sunny, it's a touchy subject, and we all have down days ;)
sunfrog
12-01-03, 12:06 AM
Aww, Nebbit is nice. :)
Aww, Nebbit is nice. :)
:blush:
Aww, Nebbit is nice. :)
Too right. Always unruffling brows, redirecting fights and sorting out others plights. And that's a damn funny signature you've got going at the moment too Ms Nebulous :)
Piddzilla
12-01-03, 04:03 PM
Aww, Nebbit is nice. :)
Yes, she is a very sweet lady. :kiss:
Yes, she is a very sweet lady. :kiss:
Quick Nebs, run a peace-campaign in the US! If Arnie can get in, you know you can win some hearts and minds ;)
Quick Nebs, run a peace-campaign in the US! If Arnie can get in, you know you can win some hearts and minds ;)
Win some! I am on a campaign to win all hearts, then change them to loving sweet ones like all at MoFo, :love:
Win some! I am on a campaign to win all hearts, then change them to loving sweet ones like all at MoFo, :love:
Uh oh, you've gone power mad already ;)
Uh oh, you've gone power mad already ;)
Thankyou for pointing that out, but then we must always aim high, change the world, get back to basics, NO GM, Bla Bla Bla :babbling:
Thankyou for pointing that out, but then we must always aim high, change the world, get back to basics, NO GM, Bla Bla Bla :babbling:
Heheheh. Point taken :blush:
Right, back to the central topics, and some hijacked from a Django-degenerating thread:
-Was this particular administration particularly misguided (or even just plain deceptive) in basing this invasion of iraq on "intelligence" that seems to be so woeful?
The most recent example of deception comes in the form of the tubes supposedly for centrifuging. Nuclear experts and even government experts (who have been over-ruled) all claim they are of the wrong materials for a start and could not be used in nuclear programs. The only people to insist on it are the people who have over-ridden internal dissent in governmental agencies (all of this according to the most prestigous investigative program in britain - Panorama).
Oh, but there's plenty more... ;) But, in the name of brevity, let's get on...
-Is Guantanamo bay justified? Have the Patriot acts gone too far as regards civil liberties and generating a climate of fear?
Here's a worrying suggestion that some of the British prisoners interned in Guantanamo shouldn't be there:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/waronterrorism/story/0,1373,1096516,00.html
And here's an article about the lawyers who questioned the legal situation and were immediately replaced:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1098618,00.html
And here's an article that paints a worrying picture of the Patrtiot acts:
-the numbers of those interned without charges isn't released.
-protestors classified as terrorists.
-a lawyer involved in various anti-Patriot-act cases being prevented from flying and strip-searched so often she fears to leave the US in case she wouldn't be allowed back.
-a union activist feeling he was only safe from internment coz he had a white wife.
-A hindu man who had once employed a suspected terrorist at his petrol station getting arrested instead, imprisoned without rights, threatened with death while interned, and then deported, and now struggles to find work. Despite having done nothing.
Not good
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/libertywatch/story/0,1373,1037121,00.html
-Basically: is the Bush admin handling the sensitivities of a "war" on terror in a way which is liable to reduce rather than increase terror?
Do i really need to site anything on this? Even Bremner et al say it will just get worse and worse in Iraq at least (a place where there was no real social support for terrorist factions, and indeed no presence of any terrorist factions amongst the secular society - the mountain camp being the one exception - and they were no friends of Saddam - if he was going to gas anyone it would probably have been them :rolleyes: )
-And of course: was enough thought given to managing an occupation in Iraq? And if so, are the current techniques liable to work?
Are the US forces trained for this? All the anecdotal evidence i've seen by the bucket-load over here suggests a minimum-US-casualties approach which involves shotting anything that moves - not the way to endear yourself to the populace or get them on side really (which is vital to success in iraq).
And, even if you don't believe the peace-occupation has been ham-fisted, you could consider the use of hired security etc, which are going to take up 30bn of the 87 - and include amongst their number groups who seem to have run slave-trading rings in the balkans. Can we trust these people to operate in a sensitive and civillised way when the only law they're acting under is the near-non-existant local law-enforcement?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1103566,00.html
Oh, and alright, let's look at the tricky issue of:
Lobbying in the light of contracts in Iraq as well. Well, at least in terms of the easy/obvious-target that is Haliburton/KBR. This article seems to contain some of the main points involved (i.e. Bush admitting there seems to have been inappropriate over-charging, but also the pertinent issue of risk and where the price-hikes started concerning oil. Until we know the original supplier to which KBR are attributing the original hike, not much is likely to be clear. But the army canteens issue is interesting. And the lack of ANY competition for some contracts, exceptionally pertinent.)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1106309,00.html
Lots of issues - lets see if we can't dive back in.
Wow, this is some good reading - I miss my banter with you Gols. :)
Likewise D :)
It was a pleasant surprise finding out how much you knew about people Iraq-side. (As much as any recent activity out there can be pleasant). I see this is the thread were I first started learning from you about that.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.