why isn't CNN.com mentioning this..

[mccordia 74]

Don't get me wrong, Iraq is up to something, but the way the US wants to start a war is just sickening.
Quite a bit of the evidence shown is old stuff.
If it were recent evidence they wouldn mention "it was taken 3/5/7 years ago" but instead we get some vage "In this movie, found by UNSCOM a couple of years ago"

There have been quite a few newssites reporting that almost all the 'evidence' (pictures/video) is from the early 90's/first gulf war, (swedish experts say it's from 1991) but for some silly reasons these reports don't show up on cnn.com.

Granted..there is also a lot of stuff showing that Iraq is up to no good, and that whole mess should end...but is war the way to do it?
In terms of US new they only show the 'we must go to war' stuff...al pretty biased news...
Gues there's no way in h*ll this war wil be avoided....bush just wants to...he doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks/wants...

Then again..who am I to say anything about this...

JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

[wildblue 7]

I really really hope Bush is just trying to intimidate. It's stupid. He can't really be serious about putting ground troops in there.

it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality

[Luv2Fall 0]

.......also what comes to mind is oil.....money talks....I hope I'm wrong.

[billvon 3,092]

>but for some silly reasons these reports don't show up on cnn.com.

Not a silly reason at all; CNN wants to make money, and you don't make money by reporting unpopular news.

>In terms of US new they only show the 'we must go to war' stuff...

Of course. That's what we want. To me, the UN takes the role of the judge in this case. We present our side, other countries present theirs, the UN moderates the whole thing, and then everyone votes. It's not a perfect system, but I think it's about the best we're going to do.

Here's a tidbit that I thought was interesting. Powell said, during his speech, that Iraq had "a high-level committee to monitor the inspectors who were sent in to monitor Iraq’s disarmament." He made a big point of this, that they have no reason other than deception for watching the inspectors.

Well, one reason they might have such a committee is that the US has used UNSCOM to spy on the Iraqis before. From the NY Times:

"United States officials said today that American spies had worked undercover on teams of United Nations arms inspectors." (1/7/99)

Article here .

The information is out there; sometimes you really have to hunt for it though.

[12bhi 0]

CNN is in kahoots with our Gov.

[quade 4]

Quote

CNN is in kahoots with our Gov.

Not actually. It may appear that way sometimes, but, in fact, CNN is not.

NOW, if you want to talk about Voice of America, then you'd be absolutely correct.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[12bhi 0]

I just dont trust anything I hear anymore...

[quade 4]

Quote

I just dont trust anything I hear anymore...

Well, that's a very good point and I think it's good to be skeptical about a lot of stuff that's said by a number of sources.

For instance, I can definately see how Iraq is right in that a LOT of what Powell reported to the UN, certainly could have been manufactured. However, if CNN reports the Powell presentation verbatum, that doesn't mean they are in "kahoots" with the U.S. Government.

It's important to separate the information and the sources from the reportage.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[12bhi 0]

yeah agree there,but the seperation can be very
daunting...

[ColdDuck 0]

It is really disappointing that the media only shows such a small portion of info on this subject. Especially all these damn 24 hour news networks. They keep regugitating the same shit hour after hour. I think the best way to get a look the relevant news is to look at the NY Times adn the Washington Post.

Having said that, I believe that Saddam has chemical and biological weapons. Where do you think he got them from. From the US, the French and the Russians. Another thing that people don't seem to realize is that these weapons are frankly WWI technology. Saddam has never been a threat to our national security, he has never attacked us. He is more of a threat to Iran and Saudi Arabia than to us. If the UN would go in and inspect every country I bet they would find that more than 50% of the countries in the world have these same weapons. The fact that the Iraqis claim to have no WMDs at all sends a very deliberate message to the Bush administration. Basically it means that Iraq has them and the US knows it, Saddam probably feels that the US is coming for him no matter what. So it is basically a suicide mission for Saddam so why not take a bunch of American sodiers down with him.

"Insurance should called In case shit happens, if shit don't happen shouldn't I get my money back?"

[gemini 0]

Why would you trust the UN to vote fairly? Regardless of the evidence, some countries will not vote for any action that the US supports.

What it boils down to is who do you believe more...the US and it's allies or Iraq and it's allies. What I suspect you will find is both sides are telling some truths, both sides are telling some lies, both sides are hiding information to protect sources, etc.

Personally I believe our side more than I believe their side.

Blue skies,

Jim

[JJohnson 0]

You mean countries spy on each other??? Shocking!!! I wonder if any of those honest above board Iraq gentlemen ever resorted to spying on us??? NAHHHH. Couldn't be.

As for the UN....Our government has a hard time coming to conclusions due to all the opinions and hidden agendas it must take into consideration. Multiply that by every country in the UN and see how well they can decide anything. Noble intention Bill, but I do not put faith in the U.N.. They have not managed to do anything to Iraq's attitude yet.

JJ

"Call me Darth Balls"

[billvon 3,092]

>Why would you trust the UN to vote fairly?

Why would you trust the Senate to vote fairly? Heck, I know democrats who vote against the president no matter how good the bill; they just don't vote for republican bills.

>Regardless of the evidence, some countries will not vote for any
> action that the US supports.

Uh, they voted _unanimously_ for the original sanctions, so that's just plain wrong.

>Personally I believe our side more than I believe their side.

I do too. I think Powell made a convincing case that they are working on, or already possess, chemical and biological weapons. I just don't make the next logical leap, which is that therefore we should kill tens of thousands of iraqis.