Originally Posted by adrian
Although I welcome the criticism of my previous post, I stand by my arguments that the case for the WMDs and ties between Iraq and al-Qaida were and are a deception.
Consider these quotes taken from press conferences featured in Robert Greenwald’s short documentary Uncovered: the whole truth about the Iraq war,
George W. Bush: “The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons.”
Colin Powell: “Everybody knows that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.”
Donald Rumsfeld: “There is no doubt in my mind that they currently have chemical and biological weapons.”
Hans Blix: “It is somewhat puzzling, I think, that you can have 100% certainty about the weapons of mass destruction’s existence and zero certainty about where they are.”
I can’t see any other government making such solid statements on outdated intelligence and posturing.
Those quotes don't prove your point at all, because no one is disputing that the administration made false claims. The dispute is over whether or not they did so knowingly. Clearly, they didn't, for several reasons:
1) Too many other people were saying the same thing. Republicans and Democrats, large and small, present and past, ALL made claims about Iraq's WMDs. So did several major foreign intelligence agencies. For this to have been a "lie," they'd all have to be involved in a grand conspiracy. It's implausible.
2) The administration harped on the weapons at every turn. This is simply not something any campaign would ever do if they knew their claims would turn out to be false. No major political campaign is so incompetent as to underline and emphasize claims they know are false. My cat has more political savvy than that.
3) The intelligence services within the US really WERE saying that he had WMDs. As detailed in Woodward's book, Bush questioned Tenet's information, to make sure it was solid. Tenet assured him that it was a "slam dunk."
In other words, you have to be a world-class mental gymnast to convice yourself that any "lie" in regards to WMDs took place on Bush's part. It doesn't add up at all.
Originally Posted by adrian
Furthermore, to take pre-emptive unilateral action without solid evidence goes against laws established in the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. This is where several European countries, after nearly obliterating each other from The Thirty-Years war, agreed on certain guidelines that formed the first international laws. The WMDs were the justification for attacking before being attacked. Since there has been zero proof of even the existence of Iraq having the capabilities of creating such weapons, we must question US credibility.
I don’t disagree with the motivations for disarming Saddam Hussein and removing him from power, but a full scale invasion is not the only way to dethrone a dictator. It seems the US government has zero regards for UN policy on such matters and as the world’s sole superpower, will do as it wishes. Although the argument can be made that this war saved millions of Iraqi lives at the cost of a few. I’m not sure of the current death toll, but as of May 26th, 2004 the number was 803US troops. Naturally we have no way of knowing how many Iraqi troops have died. Nor do we count the Iraqi civilians, i.e. women and children.
We all know this, and it is basically irrrelevant to the arguments being made, as far as I can see.
Originally Posted by adrian
At this time, I’d like to point out the something that MIT professor Noam Chomsky has discussed. The Invasion of Iraq was an example of chemical and biological warfare. Although no chemical weapons were used specifically, the destruction of key water pumping stations, electricity stations, and sewage facilities caused widespread illness and thousands of deaths. Chomsky believes that the Bush administration should be tried for employing these destructive techniques. CNN does not run stories about this.
Then perhaps you should question your belief in them. CNN is by no means perfect, but major news stations do not hesitate to run with news of a scandal, even in time of war, as the last 12 months have clearly shown us. Off the top of my head, my guess is that such deaths are not exclusive to the Iraq war, but rather, the horrors involved in any invasion.
Originally Posted by adrian
As for the terrorist cells that were in Iraq, I believe you are referring to Ansar al-Islam. This is a terrorist group that was indeed operating in the North of Iraq near the Iranian border. This is only because Hussein did not control this part of Iraq. The primary reason Ansar al-Islam occupied this territory was that they were attempting to overthrow the Iraqi regime. These terrorists affiliated with al-Qaida were enemies with Hussein and he would have been glad to see them go. Hussein referred to Bin Laden as the “Socialist Infidel”.
Your first claim is only half-true. The Northern part of Iraqi was a no-fly zone, but that doesn't have much bearing as to Saddam's control of forces on the ground. As for their aim: the point is not that they were in league, but rather, that they were there. Remember the doctrine of terrorism? Terrorists and those who harbor them. Cooperate, or else. Saddam made no effort to disarm, nor to help turn over the terrorists living in his country. He was defiant on each and every count, hence, he is harboring terrorists, presumably because they did share SOME aims (hence the mural of 9/11 found in one of his palaces).
Originally Posted by adrian
I am unaware of Hussein’s assai nation attempt on a former US president as well as specific payoffs to suicide bombers, but I do not find it hard to believe. What I was talking about though was Iraq’s immediate threat to the United States and the non-existent collusion with al-Qaida.
I know what you were talking about, but it's beside the point. Those two things qualify under even the loosest definition of the word "terrorism." Saddam doesn't need to have ties to Al-Qaeda to have links to terrorism. He had clear-cut, demonstrable ties to terrorism, and thus is a perfectly reasonable target, for that and a dozen other reasons.
Originally Posted by adrian
Concerning Michael Moore, while I felt that many of the connections he makes in his films are a stretch, he points out much truth to support it. The theme of control through fear is apparent in both Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 911. My conclusion that Moore is “very good” at pointing this out is an opinion and not an error.
It can still be categorized as an error if we agree on certain things, such as hypocriscy and dishonesty being bad. Both of Moore's films decry controlling people with fear, despite painting fearful messages themselves in an effort to sway opinion. This is a rather blatant contradiction.
Originally Posted by adrian
I do not wish to discuss the truthfulness of his films here, but let’s just say the Cannes Film Festival found Fahrenheit 911 truthful enough to give it the Palme d’Or.
That's beyond the pale. The award is purely artistic in nature. Or, at least, it's supposed to be. If it wasn't handed out for artistic merit, the panelists publicly lied as to their motivations. If it was, then your point is moot. Either way, the award doesn't even approach any kind of empirical proof as to the film's accuracy.
I can point out, off the top of my head, a number of blatant, unarguable problems with the film's depiction of various events, all through matters of public record. Fact is, Moore's films are often for sheep who like to think that they're not (a couple MoFo regulars qualify, sadly...they know who they are).
Originally Posted by adrian
If you read Animal Farm without any prior knowledge of the rise and fall of Communist Russia you would likely walk away very confused and upset that you wasted all that time reading about several pigs, a horse, and other various animals.
I've probably read
Animal Farm half a dozen times, at the bare minimum. It's a brilliant piece of political commentary, and while I enjoyed
The Village, it really isn't in the same league.
Reply to Topic
Whoa! Are you sure you saw the same movie I did? Did it feature a corpulent, disheveled man with a baseball cap? If so, I think you may have seen the wrong movie.
