| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
KMAN wrote: in article , Tinkerntom at wrote on 2/25/05 1:33 AM: KMAN wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... KMAN wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: Weiser says: ================ Not, of course, that the WMD issue was of primary importance in the first place. ================ OK, what was the important thing then? What was that "1441" thing? After the fact, you Bushies keep saying "it wasn't the WMD! it wasn't the WMD! it wasn't the WMD!" But before the war, all we heard was: " it's about the WMD! it's about the WMD! it's about the WMD!" make up your minds. frtzw906 You acknowledge "before the war, all we heard was: " it's about the WMD! it's about the WMD! it's about the WMD!" Is it possible that you were listening to certain medias that were just quoting each other over and over and not really researching beyond the news wire feed, and ending up with the same story. Not the whole story, just the part they wanted you to hear, and which was the part you now acknowledge you heard. When the decision was made to invade, the media had no reason to overstate the WMD argument, because they had no idea that Bush was lying and no idea that no WMD would be found and in fact I can't remember even one media feature that questioned whether or not Iraq in fact has WMD. But if you care to read the address to the UN prior to the invasion, it's quite clearly stated that it's about WMD. Thanks KMAN for taking the time from your busy schedule of debating with rick and Scott, to comment on my post. The question that I had with Frtzw was regarding what he heard. If he limited himself to only certain sources of info, he would have heard what he acknowledge he heard. That does not mean that there were not other sources of info from which he could have heard additional and more complete info. I recall hearing many programs speaking of the human rights violations against Shiite, Kurds, the Iraq Olympic team, etc. His sadistic sons and the treatment of women, and murder of fellow countrymen. Fly over violation with his radar targeting coalition airplanes. Terrorist training. Threats to kill our president, and generally terrorize the US. That Powell went to the UN and presented a limited case of UN violations is not a surprise to me. The UN was not concerned about human rights violations taking place right under the nose of their inspectors. So as in any court, the arguement is limited to pertinent points of law. However that does not mean that their are not other calls to action that were being made. If you choose to limit yourself to what you want to hear, then I can understand when you say that you only heard certain subjects, by choice. That is different than saying the other subjects were not presented at all, just that you were ignorant of them. Now I know that you are generally a bright person, so I would not characterize you as ignorant, though we all have our blind spots. I would just encourage you to get more of the story, which may mean listening to FOX News. I realize that you may not like what they say, but that is part of being informed. If all you do is listen to the same tripe all the time, from the network news services, that is part of being uninformed. TnT I listened and read EXACTLY what the Bush administration cited as their reasons for invading, and it was, to a massive degree, all about WMD, and only some brainwashed freak who ONLY watches Fox "News" would fall for the sloppy revisionism that has gone on in the days since the WMD disappeared. Well I am glad that you excluded me from your rather harsh definition, in as much as I watch many other programs than Fox. Actually often watch BBC on PBS, in addition to ABC, NBC, and CBS. I also have well over 100 internet sites that I check out as far as newspapers from around the world. Most of them pick up the UP, AP, or Reuters wire service, so sometimes I find myself reading the same stories repeatedly, though I am sure even at that I am sure to miss many interesting articles. That is one reason, I like participating in this forum for the different perspectives, and especially the supporting references when offered. That includes yours as well even though we have had our moments. TnT Um. But getting back to what seemed to be a search for an answer to a question but as usual when dealing with Tinkerntom veers off wildly just at the critical precursor to cognitive dissonance... Tinkerntom. Have you actually read the statements from the president and the members of his administration just prior to the invasion of Iraq? If you have, it might be time to revisit, because your brain sounds washed. Read them again. And then tell me if it was not all about the WMD. KMAN, sounds to me like you need some aspirin. You apparently read concilatory tone as cognitive disonance. I had a great time skiing and came back relaxed, and refreshed. I suppose you might see that as brain washed, and I say hit me again. I have acknowledged that there was an emphasis on WMDs prior to invasion. though my interpretation of the emphasis is the major concern that they would be deployed on our troops during the invasion. That seems to be a reasonable concern, considering that it was fairly well known that he had used them on his own countrymen, and the intelligence that he still possesed them. In presenting to the UN reasons for enforcement, His apparent possession of WMDs, was considered a major violation. The fact that the UN inspectors could not find them, as a result of his evasionary tactics did nothing to assure the US that he in fact did not have them. However there were many other reasons offered for enforcement of UN sanctions. The UNs lack of guts to enforce their own sanctions only shows them to be the inept buffoons they are, and if they don't appreciate the US effort to protect the world from a dangerous tyrant, it is probably more because they were exposed than any real concerns for the rights of people anywhere, and obviously not the Iraqies. Now this sounds very reasonable to me, and I assume to a few others that voted for the reelection of President Bush. If you do not follow this line of logic for whatever reason, I can only be glad that the planning for enforcement and invasion were not left in your able hands. Though I suspect that you would not have done any worse than the UN in any enforcement effort, maybe even a little better, and you are not even a military type. Your worst vision of a military weapon apparently being an AK-47, and your best understanding of military manuvers being derived from the war between Charlie Brown and Lucy. I never made the claim that it was not about WMDs, just that it was not only about WMDs. WMDs were a major concern, but not the only concern. Hopefully this clarifies for you my interpretation, derived from many sources of information, and not just a select few, that supports my comfort zone for bitching. TnT |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Crimes Against Nature-- RFK, Jr. Interview | General | |||
Threaded Mode
