"War on Iraq soap-boxing"

[Aardvark]

I disagree, here is why: [url']http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=8737[/url]

 

I think we might be at crossed purposes here.

 

I am not arguing that countries do not follow strategic interests at all. I am arguing that where there are no great interests, such as the presence of large oil fields, western governments act in an arbitrary manner, following the camera which shows the most sentuimental picture of the week. How else do you explain the wests indifference to 20 years of suffering in Sudan which was then reversed the moment some reporters began beaming some sad pictures from the area?

 

Last year the homeless, hungary, brutalised people weren't important, this year they are? On what basis was that judgement made other than irrational sentementality?

[-Demosthenes-]

Not only did Saddam commit the above said atrocities, there was the whole WMD's (Wepons of Mass Destruction) problem.

http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2003/issue1/jv7n1a5.html

Talks about Saddam's foolish disregard of UN resolutions regarding WMD's and other wepons.

By 1998, while many weapons had been uncovered and destroyed—often in the face of Iraqi non-compliance—the lack of cooperation forced the withdrawal of inspectors.

Iraq would not cooperate, and the inspectors were withdrawled.

Iraq’s denial and deception process was characterized in a U.S. Department of Defence briefing as “The deliberate, methodical, extensive and well-organized national-level strategic effort which aims at deceiving not just the United States, not just the United Nations or even the public media, but, in fact, the entire world.”...According to the briefing, Iraq’s strategy has three key objectives. The first objective is for Iraq to demonstrate ostensible “compliance” with UN resolutions. This ostensible compliance is an attempt to undermine the credibility of the need for an inspections regime and then, further, to erode support for continued sanctions. The second objective is to ensure that UN inspectors will not uncover the full scope of Iraq’s WMD and missile programs. The third objective is to obstruct UN inspectors from completely disarming Iraq of its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile capabilities.

http://www.armscontrol.org/events/iraq_july03.asp

So to frame this, as we know, the stated rationale for President Bush's decision to invade Iraq was based on what he said -- the administration said were intelligence assessments that made it clear that Iraq continued to posses chemical and biological weapons and that it had renewed its nuclear weapons programs....During the 1990s, we should recall, the first group of U.N. inspectors destroyed the bulk of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons and dismantled its nuclear bomb program, but the Iraqi government failed to cooperate fully, leading to the departure of U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998....The president and his top advisors told the American people, the Congress, and the international community that the failure of Iraq to account for the destruction of the suspected weapons meant that they must have them. And despite the October 2002 CIA assessment that Saddam Hussein was unlikely to initiate a WMD attack unless provoked, the president insisted that the Iraqi threat was imminent and that a preemptive military invasion was the only way to deal with it.

Then it goes on to say that wepons were never found, but that's not the point. The point is that Saddam failed to comply with many of the resoluitons, and failed to cooperated with inspecters. What are you supposed to do if he won't let you know if he has wepons or not? You have to go in yourself and look.

[atinymonkey]

It's not the place of the US to make decisions for the UN. It was a baseless accusation.

[TimeTraveler]

Good post Demo I am glad you brought this up.

 

The problem here is there are some major descrepancies about what the intelligence showed, unfortanantly I believe most of it is classified so the American people may not really know what really happened. But according to Scott Ritter (Retired former U.S. weapons inspector to the U.N.) we knew with certainty that roughly 95% of the chemical and biological weapons were destroyed (iirc, in 1995). The rest were not accounted for with 100% accuracy but a site was shown to inspectors that allegedly contained adequate material to lead us to believe it was the remains of the unaccounted portion. Now in the media this is mainly a case of he say she say, but I think we are deserving of an explination that explains the descrepancies. Particullarly this part:

 

During the 1990s, we should recall, the first group of U.N. inspectors destroyed the bulk of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons and dismantled its nuclear bomb program, but the Iraqi government failed to cooperate fully, leading to the departure of U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998.....

 

It says the Iraqi government failed to cooperate fully, We need to know exactly in what way. We had no reason or evidence to believe that what they showed us was not the remaining unaccounted for WMD's, but they were supposed to destroy this in front of inspectors and they chose to destroy it without the inspectors, but showed us the site later. A mistake yes, a cause for war, no.

 

However, cooperation is questioned again later. Again according to Scott Ritter, with no reason to believe Iraq had begun re-creating it's program we sent our inspectors in to 'check up' on Iraq. He claims that the inspectors were not there to inspect for a weapons program but to instead 'spy' on the Iraqi military and it's other programs. In the process they were over-stepping their boundaries and the Iraqi government was suspecting them of spying, they began to become more resistant to the inspectors, which in turn led to the Bush administration accusing them of non cooperation.

 

Here is a link to an article in 1998 in which Iraq accuses Ritter of spying:

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9801/15/iraq.ritter/

 

The president and his top advisors told the American people, the Congress, and the international community that the failure of Iraq to account for the destruction of the suspected weapons meant that they must have them.

 

I don't know what happened, only a select few actually do. I feel the American people are deserving of an explination of what happened, show us evidence that led us to believe he had them, because really nothing has been shown to the world that would produce enough evidence to justify our attacks.

 

It forces us to ask the question, what is this really about?

 

Here is a reference:

 

Ex-UN Weapons Inspector & Gulf War Ex-Marine Intelligence Officer Scott Ritter (Republican) assured Americans that pre-911 Iraq is no threat, that his team destroyed Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and that all other potential threats were eradicated as of 1997, that his team was pulled out to allow the U.S. to begin a bombing campaign (not kicked out by Saddam), that U.S. intelligence agents used weapons inspector teams as a cover for spying and thus destroyed the inspection teams' credibility, and that both the Clinton and Bush Administrations are punishing millions of innocent families based on false perception, skewed data or worse.

 

Instead of energy disproving or examining his documented data corroborated by other weapons inspectors, he is subjected to defending himself in media against character attacks and accusations of espionage by his homeland who he has served.

 

During the Gulf War, Scott Ritter, then a junior military intelligence analyst, picked a fight with his boss. He filed one report after another challenging Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf's claims about the number of destroyed Iraqi Scud missiles. We cannot confirm these kills, Ritter reported, much to Schwarzkopf's bewilderment. Despite pressure from the top, Ritter, a Marine captain from a military family, held his ground, challenging his superiors and the establishment.

 

The New York Times calls Ritter "the most famous renegade Marine officer since Oliver North"

 

I will try to dig up more information.

[budullewraagh]

It says the Iraqi government failed to cooperate fully

hans blix was given unrestricted access to iraqi facilities a few months prior to the war.

[atinymonkey]

Wait.

 

Is that the same Hans Blix who was appointed by the UN to undertake the weapons inspection? The same Hans Blix who repeatedly said Iraq had no WoMD? The same Hans Blix who referred to the staff in Washington as 'bastards' for conducting a smear campaign so they could invade Iraq without justifying the wild and unfounded claims?

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3326077.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3730540.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2966639.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2867913.stm

 

Nah, Blix was wrong. You see Mr Bush could see the weapons in Iraq. He has magic powers. He's like Harry Potter, but older.

[TimeTraveler]

Nah, Blix was wrong. You see Mr Bush could see the weapons in Iraq. He has magic powers. He's like Harry Potter, but older.

 

And the media is his magic wand.

[-Demosthenes-]

First of all, if you told a person in Australia (and other countries I suppose) that the American media was liberal, you would be likely to cause fits of laughter, most likely followed by the question "are you serious?"!

The media may be a bit more conservative during a war, like right now, it is usually very liberal.

[Tetrahedrite]

The media may be a bit more conservative during a war, like right now, it is usually very liberal.

Thats an illusion on your part, I've watched various US news programs on pay TV for years now, and they are always far to the right of any objective news (most of the time) we get in Australia. I always hear Americans saying that their media is liberal, and it's just not true. Perhaps you just don't have anything to compare it to.

 

The significant difference between American and Australian (or British) news is that nearly all of our news outlets report the facts of the day/week, where as I've noticed that the US news channels have a lot of "experts" who give their opinion of what is going. 95% of media outlets in the US are owned by huge corporations who have a vested interest in maintianing a conservative government. (I can only comment on television news here, for I don't regularly read American or British newspapers)

 

I recommend the documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's war on journalism directed by Robert Greenwald. I'm sure if you see this you will change your mind about how liberal the media is.

I am ashamed that an "Australian" is making such a mockery of what is supposed to be news.

[Phi for All]

It's not just the news over here either. Our television shows are peppered with propoganda as well, with the main character in a shitcom getting a healthy applause from the "live audience" sound track when he makes a patriotic statement about going out and kickin' some ass. They also use the shows to hype products, not just with placements, like showing Donald trump drinking Pepsi on his show, but actually building products into the plot, like having Ross and Rachel buy identical apothecary tables from Pottery Barn on Friends.

 

You can imagine how insidious this type of hype is. At least with the news, you can wiegh it against other outlets. Your guard is down when you're watching your favorite program.

[atinymonkey]

They also use the shows to hype products' date=' not just with placements, like showing Donald trump drinking Pepsi on his show, but actually building products into the plot, like having Ross and Rachel buy identical apothecary tables from Pottery Barn on [i']Friends[/i].

In the UK, all we see is an eye catching blurred effect. The same thing in 'Pop Idol' et al. We just assumed it was some American drink we never see, made of blur. They do the same thing with logos on clothes in the TV shows. We thought the shirts were subtlety advertising blurred drinks.

[Phi for All]

You mean they actually edit out advertising references in the UK shows? That's more refreshing than the drinks could ever be! Rule Britannia!

 

*edit* In the US, when I was growing up, they would give away free T-shirts and logoed products to advertise. How they managed to get people to PAY EXTRA for the privelege of advertising for these huge corporations and even consider logoed merchandise as better than the plain stuff has me completely at a loss.

 

I can't prove it, but with all the media attention a good war gets, I am certain some ad exec has approached the military with an offer to put logos on tanks and uniforms and rifles, oh my.

[TimeTraveler]

I can't prove it, but with all the media attention a good war gets, I am certain some ad exec has approached the military with an offer to put logos on tanks and uniforms and rifles, oh my.

 

I would bet you are right. Did you know, that in a 1996 study it the average American was exposed to 3600 advertisements per day. You should check out the documentary Advertising and the end of the world, it describes how advertising has led to massive over consumption and it outlines the serious effect it is having on resource depletion.

[Phi for All]

Another effect that is even more insidious is the erosion of self-esteem due to advertising. Thousands of images of "You're too fat/smelly/poor/ugly, you need THIS!" type of ads make for a very poor image of ourselves. This type of thing might even make us pick on others to make ourselves feel better, or go invade a sovereign country or something.

 

I also picture someone from Nike in a meeting unveiling a mock-up of a new cross-promotion ad for Colt showing an M-16A2 assault rifle with a swoosh on the stock and the caption, "Just do it."

 

I think that was the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz motto for the invasion.

[-Demosthenes-]

Thats an illusion on your part' date=' I've watched various US news programs on pay TV for years now, and they are always far to the right of any objective news (most of the time) we get in Australia. I always hear Americans saying that their media is liberal, and it's just not true. Perhaps you just don't have anything to compare it to.

 

The significant difference between American and Australian (or British) news is that nearly all of our news outlets report the facts of the day/week, where as I've noticed that the US news channels have a lot of "experts" who give their opinion of what is going. 95% of media outlets in the US are owned by huge corporations who have a vested interest in maintianing a conservative government. (I can only comment on television news here, for I don't regularly read American or British newspapers)

 

I recommend the documentary [i']Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's war on journalism[/i] directed by Robert Greenwald. I'm sure if you see this you will change your mind about how liberal the media is.

I am ashamed that an "Australian" is making such a mockery of what is supposed to be news.

http://www.thatliberalmedia.com/ Has very convincing examples.

Although the media isn't very Liberal right now, during peace time it becomes very liberal. Opinions are shown all the time that are left of the public opinion, and certain spins are put on stories.

I can say that my local news and media that comes from my area is very conservative, but the national media is different.

[Phi for All]

http://www.thatliberalmedia.com/ Has very convincing examples.

Although the media isn't very Liberal right now' date=' during peace time it becomes very liberal. Opinions are shown all the time that are left of the public opinion, and certain spins are put on stories.

I can say that my local news and media that comes from my area is very conservative, but the national media is different.[/quote']Funny, but when I checked out your link and Googled up the first seven or eight contributors, I found they were all far right Republicans, the very people who are always saying the media has a liberal bias. Mary Katharine Ham, for instance, works for The Heritage Foundation, a conservative "think tank" with heavy interests in mega-corporate media ownership, the very people who wouldn't want you to think they were influencing how the news is produced.

 

Was this supposed to be a good example of liberal spin? Do you think reporters are out there defying their conservative corporate ownership every day, risking their jobs to bring you a liberal vision of what things are really like out there? And that their mega-rich conservative CEOs just give a frustrated chomp on their cigars and think, "What am I going to do with those rascals I've got working for me down at the news station?"

 

Is that what you think, -Demosthenes-?

[atinymonkey]

http://www.thatliberalmedia.com/ Has very convincing examples.

 

Only if your looking to be convinced. I honesly don't see the bias in most of the blogs given examples, I only see a man pointing out news articals don't go into great detail about events.

[-Demosthenes-]

I think I see many anti-Bush and liberal opinions on television. Like "One Vote" thing, that was extremely biased. The thing on MTV and stuff that said that everyone should vote. Many of their comercials said things like:

"You should vote, so you thoughts can be heard in polotics, do you want war in Iraq? a president who didn't win the popular vote? Do you want things to stay the way they are? Then vote!"

I think that it is very easy to interpret many things they say as Anti-Bush or Liberal, even that they support change is quite liberal, if you understand that the basis of conservative veiws are based on keeping things the same, keep the statis quo.

[Phi for All]

I think I see many anti-Bush and liberal opinions on television. Like "One Vote" thing' date=' that was extremely biased. The thing on MTV and stuff that said that everyone should vote. Many of their comercials said things like:

"You should vote, so you thoughts can be heard in polotics, do you want war in Iraq? a president who didn't win the popular vote? Do you want things to stay the way they are? Then vote!"

I think that it is very easy to interpret many things they say as Anti-Bush or Liberal, even that they support change is quite liberal, if you understand that the basis of conservative veiws are based on keeping things the same, keep the statis quo.[/quote']I see my mistake here. I thought you were talking about the media in terms of newscasts and reporting, when you were really talking about MTV's opinions and views. Funny isn't it, groups like MTV and Rolling Stone and other artistic groups being liberal.

[-Demosthenes-]

Funny, I meant all of the media in general, not just the news, I meant ALL media. Including movies, televisions, books, and everything else.

[Phi for All]

Funny, I meant all of the media in general, not just the news, I meant ALL media. Including movies, televisions, books, and everything else.

Well, then, guess what? All day long we could sit here, you naming a movie, book or TV program with a liberal bias, and I could name a conservative one. You know what we'd probably end up with? A 50-50 split, just like the election, with the winning margin going slightly conservative.

 

Then where would the bias be?

[Tetrahedrite]

Funny, I meant all of the media in general, not just the news, I meant ALL media. Including movies, televisions, books, and everything else.

Do you put everyone who thinks Bush is an incompetent fool in the "liberal" basket, because (in Australia at least) there are plenty of moderate conservatives who are anti-Bush and anti-war for wars sake.

[-Demosthenes-]

No.

[-Demosthenes-]

Of course I am talking about the US.

[-Demosthenes-]

I've been researching and I found a document.

During the first Gulf War Iraq:

had chemical weapons ready to use and therefore had both a programme and the capability;

 

had biological weapons ready to use and therefore had both a programme and the capability;

 

did not have nuclear weapons. It had a programme and was trying hard to

develop the capability; and

 

had ballistic missiles ready to use and therefore had a strategic delivery

capability.

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/publications/reports/isc/iwmdia.pdf -Report by the British government's Intelligence and Security Committee.

During the second Conflict:

Saddam Hussein was not committed to decommissioning

Iraq’s WMD. He believed that “having†WMD was essential to his survival...

Iraq:

did not co-operate with the UN inspectors; and started a programme of concealment, deception and unilateral, unverified

destruction of weapons and facilities.

Concealing what I wonder...?

The UN inspectors found chemical and biological weapons, a nuclear weapons

programme and ballistic missiles. They destroyed or secured all that they found and

recorded discrepancies in the Iraqi declarations.

They found them.

Intelligence indicated that:

 

some chemical and biological agents or weapons, as well as a small number of

ballistic missiles, were retained and concealed; and

 

the chemical, biological, ballistic missile and nuclear programmes continued,

but at a lower level due to the presence of UN inspectors.

The JIC assessed that Iraq:

 

continued the programme of concealment and deception to hide its WMD work;

was not compliant with any of the UN Security Council Resolutions that

required it to give up its WMD programmes;

 

retained a limited amount of chemical and biological weapons and up to 20 al

Hussein missiles (range 650km) from 1991;

 

had a chemical and biological weapons capability;

 

had the capability and facilities to produce ballistic missiles. There was a

successful programme to produce ballistic missiles in excess of the UNSCR

687 range limit (150km) and missiles were manufactured. However,

intelligence suggested that the Iraqis had not yet developed chemical and

biological warheads for these new missiles and it would take 6 months to

overcome the “technical difficultiesâ€; and

 

did not have nuclear weapons capability. It had a programme to develop the

capability above its 1990 knowledge and was intent on sourcing the necessary

raw materials.