"War on Iraq soap-boxing"

[Sayonara]

That second report is largely hogwash, and has been debunked in previous threads. Stop dragging up old arguments.

 

Like the "weapons" they found. Pish-tosh and poppycock; they found a handful of old shells that had been buried because they were used in the last conflict. You can't have your cake and eat it.

[Phi for All]

I'm surprised more people don't bring up the fact that Bush Jr seems to think his dad did a pretty poor job. Flattening Iraq's WMD capability was one of Bush Sr's objectives in the Gulf War. Let's not forget that Bush Sr predicted catastrophe if we tried to depose Saddam Hussein. Even the Saudis thought it was better to devastate him but leave him in power so terrorism wouldn't gain a foothold there (among other reasons).

[-Demosthenes-]

That second report is largely hogwash' date=' and has been debunked in previous threads. Stop dragging up old arguments.

 

Like the "weapons" they found. Pish-tosh and poppycock; they found a handful of old shells that had been buried because they were [u']used[/u] in the last conflict. You can't have your cake and eat it.

So the report is not true? Whats wrong with it? Did they get inteligence wrong or what? Very curious.

[JohnB]

Concerning the Left/Right Media bias. This does certainly occur. The head of the Australian broadcaster SBS told his staff in a memo that they were not to produce any positive stories from the Iraq conflict. I dare say that there were examples going the other way.

 

I think the thing to remember is that it's not about bias or pushing any particular trolley. It's about money. Higher ratings mean you can charge more for advertising during programs.

 

So if you were a conservative programme director would you have mild pieces backing your views or confronting pieces that differed from your views? The second obviously, because people would talk about it and their friends would tune in to see what the person would say next. Therefore the ratings go up and you can charge more.

 

Think about your average "News" program, 30 minutes long. Less 10 minutes for ads, less 10 minutes for sport and weather. So you have just 10 minutes to report on the news from all over the world. Which stories do you choose? Which do you leave out?

 

You will choose the ones with the most impact. Be it through horrific pictures or controversial claims. Controversial claims are better because people might tune in tomorrow to hear a follow up. "And we'll give you more on that story tomorrow night", how many times have we heard that sentence? Why do we hear it? Not because the news outlet doesn't have the interview or follow up in the can already, but so that the ratings for that show go up.

 

From a marketing POV, the whole "Media Bias" debate is a Godsend. The Media can now beat up stories about how "The Media" show bias. The two sides can slug it out, ratings increase, profits go up, bonuses go up.

 

Of course the poor saps watching the programmes will pay more for their goods and services because the service provider is paying more for advertising, but so what? The guys in the Industry will take home bigger paycheques and that's all that matters. (To them. )

 

Think about your average news presenter and what they are paid. Are they worth it? Do they have some sort of outstanding ability or intelligence that warrants that sort of money? Nope, they get paid that much because people will watch them and therefore your news programme will get higher ratings. They are a draw card, nothing more.

 

Just my 2 devalued Australian Pesos.

[Sayonara]

So the report is not true? Whats wrong with it? Did they get inteligence wrong or what? Very curious.

Basically it exagerrated everything. There was a media shit-storm over it; I'm surprised you don't remember reading it in the massive "War on Iraq?" thread.

[Silencer]

Who cares if getting oil from Iraq is a side bonus to freeing them, or freeing them is just a bonus of getting oil. There will come a time in the future when oil is in short supply, and I see now problem with getting a hold on some now as a precaution.

[Sayonara]

So there's no moral differentiation between ****ing another nation over for oil during a time of plentiful resources, and during a time of resource dearth?

[Phi for All]

Who cares if getting oil from Iraq is a side bonus to freeing them, or freeing them is just a bonus of getting oil. There will come a time in the future when oil is in short supply, and I see now problem with getting a hold on some now as a precaution.

I'm not willing to throw away my humanity for a few more years of oil dependence. I'll take my chances on alternative energy technology and risk being sorry rather than loot and plunder to be safe.

 

The oil will be gone eventually. If you feel we're all going to be sitting around in the dark, wouldn't you rather do it with friendly people?

[-Demosthenes-]

I don't see how Bush gets oil, it may open markets to the US, but not the any one person. Plz explain.

[budullewraagh]

simple: kickbacks and inside stock trading

[Phi for All]

And don't forget where he's probably headed after his term is up: straight to the ex-President's club, the Carlyle Group. Former secretary of state James Baker is managing director, ex-secretary of defence Frank Carlucci is chairman, George Bush Sr is an adviser, and John Major heads up its European operations. Many people say this is just one of the perks of being "plugged-in", but when we are talking about the potential for starting (and exploiting) WWIII, it goes beyond a little insider trading, don't you think?

[Sayonara]

I'm not willing to throw away my humanity for a few more years of oil dependence. I'll take my chances on alternative energy technology and risk being sorry rather than loot and plunder to be safe.

Exactly.

 

Proclaiming otherwise as a pretence for war is not quite inhuman, but getting there.

[-Demosthenes-]

And don't forget where he's probably headed after his term is up: straight to the ex-President's club, the Carlyle Group. Former secretary of state James Baker is managing director, ex-secretary of defence Frank Carlucci is chairman, George Bush Sr is an adviser, and John Major heads up its European operations. Many people say this is just one of the perks of being "plugged-in", but when we are talking about the potential for starting (and exploiting) WWIII, it goes beyond a little insider trading, don't you think?

That will happen becuase of the War? I don't understand the connection.

[Phi for All]

That will happen becuase of the War? I don't understand the connection.

Seeing as how many of the stories about Saddam's WMDs and ties to 9/11, the very reasons to invade Iraq (seeing as how there are other tyrants in the world who are committing worse atrocities), have been proven false, why do you think we invaded? Our intelligence communities are not as dumb as everyone seems to think, handing out misinformation to the White House and the JCS with great regularity.

 

And I'm not one to say it was only out of greed. I just think the greed happened to coincide with a great many other opportunities to have an unrestricted base of operations inside the Middle East. The invasion of Afghanistan just happened to coincide with protecting Unocal and their investments in the $12 trillion trans-Afghanistan pipeline. Not catching Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan just happened to open the door to the invasion of Iraq. And I'm sure in the near future something will just happen that will coincide with an invasion of Iran.

 

Meanwhile, arms merchants like Lockheed Martin rake in huge profits during times of war. LM is also one of the top lobbyists in Washington, trying to push us into "stronger defense", a euphamism that tugs at our patriotism while lining their pockets. Vice President Cheney's wife, Lynne, is a former Lockheed board member. Undersecretary of the Air Force Peter Teets is a former Lockheed President and COO, one of 8 members of the Bush administration who is a former associate or major investor in Lockheed. When he was Governor of Texas, President Bush was a great friend of Lockheed. He tried to give them a contract to run the Texas welfare system until even the voters in Texas screamed foul.

 

Can you honestly say that the Carlyle Group wouldn't offer GWjr a nice advisory position like they did Daddy when he's no longer employed? And that that position would be because of all the "coinciding" Jr was able to arrange?

[-Demosthenes-]

I see, most of that makes sense. But can you dismiss all evidnce of WMD programs or connections with terrorism? Can you dismiss Iraqi government treatment of citizens?

[TimeTraveler]

Phi for All,

 

Great posts! I've been spending alot of time researching these issues, I came across this and thought it would add to your posts:

 

Dick Cheney, Halliburton, and Wartime spoils

 

When Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle revealed that he was getting $725,000 to help Global Crossing navigate the national security issues surrounding the sale of its assets, the press jumped all over Perle, and rightly so. There was indeed something fishy about the chairman of a board that advises the Pentagon making that kind of money to help a company that was having problems with national security issues. Perle is also on the board of Onset Technology, the leading provider of message conversion technology and a major supplier to Bechtel - one of the leading candidates for rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure...

 

However, of all the administration members with potential conflicts of interest, none seems more troubling than Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney is former CEO of Halliburton, an oil-services company that also provides construction and military support services - a triple-header of wartime spoils...

 

The contract was granted under a January Bush administration waiver that, according to the Washington Post, allowed "government agencies to handpick companies for Iraqi reconstruction projects."

 

We can't forget Condi Rice's former employer, was it Chevron? They even named an oil tanker after her:

 

The Condoleeza Rice

 

Do you have some information on the proposed oil pipeline? I want to learn more about it.

 

But can you dismiss all evidnce of WMD programs or connections with terrorism? Can you dismiss Iraqi government treatment of citizens?

 

No, no and no.

 

I can dismiss nearly all of the evidence for WMDs, but the fact is the Bush admin. did get some of it right, however it was only a very small percent of their claims. Nothing has been discovered to lead anyone to the conclusion that Iraq posed as a (in the admin's words) "Grave threat" or "Imminent threat to the safety of all American's and countries in that region" or that (I love this one, Bush:)"Saddam Hussein is addicted to weapons of mass destruction."

 

We found a few things, but that was not shocking. It was common knowledge Iraq had some remaining components from its WMD programs. But the Bush admin made some pretty drastic assessments saying Iraq had alot of stuff nobody knew about (including themselves obviously) with a long list of chemicals, equipment, structures, missles.... Very little panned out to be true, and no traces of any sort of removal from Iraq was detected. From evidence of what was found it would have taken years for them to put something together that exposed an "imminent threat." Provided they had a willingness to do so, but I don't think they would be that stupid.

 

The connections to terrorism is hearsay. I know, I can't believe it either. These claims, (made by the Bush admin and described as "accurate intelligence" prior to the war) on testimony of a few guys, Iraqi's, apparently defectors from the Iraqi army. After which they were awarded $1 million for their "assistance." I cant prove these guys were lying but didn't anyone in the Bush admin question the fact that they might have been? The Bush admin. was pretty clear when it said it had accurate intelligence from many reliable sources. I do not call that accurate intelligence from reliable sources at all.

 

And the last one, Saddam was a bad guy no one can really question that. Are you talking about a particular incident or just in general?

[Phi for All]

I see, most of that makes sense. But can you dismiss all evidnce of WMD programs or connections with terrorism? Can you dismiss Iraqi government treatment of citizens?

I think GW Sr pounded their WMD program flat. What little they had left was certainly not a threat to us. I think it was easy to make them the bad guys because they had played that role before. Many foreign leaders are seen as tyrants when viewed from an American public perspective. We tend to judge other countries pretty harshly when we've seeminly got it so good.

 

I think the ties to terrorism were completely trumped up because, like many Islamic Middle Eastern countries, Iraq was sympathetic to Hamas and the PLO, and gave them money in their fight against Israel. The US isn't exactly spotless when it comes to things like that. The IRA has had US support, and let's not forget that while we were helping Iraq fight Iran in the 80s, the Reagan administration secretly sold Iran missiles, hoping for the release of American hostages (violating Congressional orders). And we used the money Iran gave us to help overthrow an elected government in Nicaragua that was not sympathetic to US interests (also violating Congressional orders).

 

Saddam Hussein was treating his people the same way during the 80s when we helped him fight Iran (even though we later screwed him). As I've said before, if you want to talk human rights violations, there are worse dictators to overthrow. I think the Bush administration used the timing on 9/11, the obvious enmity between Iraq and the US, AND all the money to be gained, political favors to be repaid (I guess I forgot to mention earlier that the Carlyle Group owns 70% of Lockheed Martin), and charged into Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

There was no exit strategy because I don't believe Bush intends to exit. There is so much money to be made when we are at war.

[Sayonara]

If we have to tread over this tired ground again I really am going to scream.

[Phi for All]

If we have to tread over this tired ground again I really am going to scream.

You shouldn't have named this split "War on Iraq Soap-boxing" then. You should have named it "War on Iraq: Brilliant New Insights".

[budullewraagh]

i suggest we threaten severe bludgeoning to whoever mentions anything (old) about iraq. seriously, this is getting to be rediculous. (i don't blame you, phi. ignorant conservatives like to run around in circles losing debate after debate about the same topics.)

[Cadmus]

I think GW Sr pounded their WMD program flat ...

 

There was no exit strategy because I don't believe Bush intends to exit. There is so much money to be made when we are at war.

I think that your post is pretty accurate.

[TimeTraveler]

The complexity of politics causes much of the problem. The average person does not have the time to keep up. Especially when you have to try and wade through so much bullcrap to find the truth.

 

Ya know in America it is a Federal Felony to intentionally mislead or distort information presented to congress. I wish this law was taken seriously.

 

I think the problem is accusations of crimes against the Bush admin right now could possibly make the situation worse.

 

Hopefully instead of the Carlyle group Bush is sitting next to Saddam in a 5 by 5 cell when his term is up.

 

Anyone know about yellowcake?

[Phi for All]

(i don't blame you, phi. ignorant conservatives like to run around in circles losing debate after debate about the same topics.)

In Demosthenes defense though, he seems to genuinely want to know why I feel the way I do about the war in the face of popular "evidence", rather than just try to snipe from some intractable position he's wedded to. He doesn't have to change his mind about it, but he's listening to another POV and that's what counts.

[Aardvark]

T

Anyone know about yellowcake?

 

Are you refering to the reports that Saddam Hussien was trying to buy yellowcake from Niger for his nuclear weapons programme?

 

If you are, then it is accepted that these reports were false.

[budullewraagh]

well yes, phi, but these debates have been going on for how long now?