Are we becoming what we are supposedly fighting against

[jcd11235 0]

I am pretty good at spotting edits in an uninterupted videoclip, thanks. There were no crowd shots or change in camera angle, or anything else that indicated that the clip had been edited out of context. Watch the film before you attack the credibility. The fact is, no matter what you might think of the film as a whole, such a clip is credible.

Unless, of course you have proof that it has been edited that you just haven't shared up to this point? Otherwise, it is credible until there is evidence to the contrary is presented.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

If you can give me a valid reason why the clip is not credible just because moore used it, then I will find you a different source for the clip. Of course, it would be the same clip, saying the same thing, from the same White House adminastration, so what would be the point? If you just don't want to believe the evidence of the Whitehouse being caught in a lie, there is little that can be done to help.

No thanks to you I found the Powell clip myself, as well as one of Rice making the same type of commentary around the same time. The question boils down to why these people changed their views a year later.

. . =(_8^(1)

[Michele 1]

I'm not attacking anything, just pointing something out.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[jcd11235 0]

Like I said, the clips were authentic. I pointed out one source for them. Any more would have been redundant.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

The question boils down to why these people changed their views a year later.

To sell a war.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Like I said, the clips were authentic. I pointed out one source for them. Any more would have been redundant.

Sorry, but posting a link or direct source is not redundant to merely mentioning a source that costs effort or money to verify.

. . =(_8^(1)

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

To sell a war.

You could've saved your virtual breath on that one.

. . =(_8^(1)

[jcd11235 0]

I had already seen the clip. I didn't need to spend the time or effort to find it somewhere else, excepting that someone could give a legitimate reason why Moore's film was not a valid bibliographical source for that clip.

But, I agree that a direct link would be better, so how about posting them?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

You asked!

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Is there another source? I'd suggest you find it, and link it. That way, this argument can be put to rest.

Here is the Powell-Rice clip I found regarding their views on Iraq WMD prior to the war:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

I'm not claiming it's false, but in my wmv player Powell's lips aren't moving anything close to what his voice is saying.

. . =(_8^(1)

[DexterBase 1]

I'm fairly amused that you all condemn the actions of the US in Iraq.

You sit there in the relative safety of your home or office and type away on your computer about how President Bush is running our country into the ground.

You sit there and second guess the decisions of the leaders of the world and make statements that mean nothing. You have absolutely no idea what any of this means.

You know nothing of what it takes to run a country. Not everything in this world is black and white, in fact hardly anything is. You don't know what it's like to weigh the price of decisions that will affect the entire world. You don't understand that there is compromise that needs to occur. Not everything going on behind the scenes is pretty and clear-cut.

You think you're smarter than President Bush. Clearly you're not. The fact that you're not in power provides me with 50% of the evidence I need. The other half is provided by the fact that you're posting all of your opinions here, where they mean next to nothing.

You know nothing of sacrifice. You easily dismiss the pain, hard work, and suffering of all our armed forces who are currently serving in areas of conflict. These men and women are doing a job that you're unwilling to do yourself. They signed up in an all-volunteer military to do a job and protect a cause that they believe in. They're out there right now engaged with the enemy and willing to do whatever it takes to protect our way of life. Any one of these individuals would willingly give their life to protect yours, even if you're not an American.

You all sit there behing the wall and criticize the decisions made by men under extreme pressure and danger. You judge decisions that have to be made without all the facts. You get to sit back in safety long after the explosions, gunfire, and cries of pain have faded, leisurely picking apart conversations and reports. You sit there and make a mockery of a decision that was made by someone who was willing to put themselves on the line, yet you're unwilling to risk yourselves.

In the end, it's all about freedom of speech. It's your right to complain and hate the leaders of the world. It's your right to bitch and complain about US policy. It's your right to protest.

Just know this: Talk is cheap but there are people that don't sit on fences. There are men of action standing by. Anytime someone in this world needs our help we'll be there. Anytime someone tries to oppress the human rights of a country, there will be someone there to stand up for them. And anytime someone takes up arms against an American, there will be someone there like me, ready to throw down and do whatever it takes.

I don't sit on fences. Some people actually stand up for what they believe in.

What have you done to make this world a better place?

[jcd11235 0]

I dissent, which is, in the current political climate, a very good thing for the country.

Obviously, based on job performance, Shrub knows hardly anything about running a country either. The world is a far more dangerous place, thanks to him.

I'm still laughing that you are defending the guy's intelligence. He can't consistently complete sentences, and constantly makes poor decisions. Call me old fashioned, but that is not what I consider highly intelligent.

One thing about leading that Shrub does not seem to get is that inaction is often more productive than action. And we are all the worse for this lack of understanding.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 3,120]

>but I'm smart enough to realize how easy it would've been to
> hide/shift a few warehouses full of chemicals in a country the size
>of California to avoid detection by the inspection teams.

I don't doubt that you are smart, but when it comes down to you saying that it can't be done and Hans Blix saying he can do a complete and thorough inspection in a few months, I have to go with Blix. Sort of like me saying your car can't be fixed and your mechanic saying it can, given that I've never seen your car, and have never worked as a mechanic. Who would you believe?

>Blix was complaining and warning about a lack of cooperation
>from the Iraqis, and that they "faced war" if things didn't change.

Agreed. And per his last report, things DID change. He was given full access, anywhere in the country, and had a plan in place that _would_ be able to discover what we now know, which is that Saddam no longer had WMD's. The threats worked; Hussein backed down. But disarmament was not Bush's objective; regime change was, and a successful inspection would have meant that he failed in that objective. So he chose not to believe Blix.

>The REAL inspections were conducted by US troops during the
>initial occupation, but by then it was of course too late.

US troops, while they are quite good at their jobs, do not make great arms inspectors. Indeed, they stumbled across a lot of conventional explosives (and even some uranium ore) and often did not recognize it for what it was. No slam on them - they're soldiers, not international arms inspectors. If we wanted to ensure that Saddam had no WMD's, then it would have made sense to allow the inspection teams to continue. But again, that was not the objective. The objective was regime change, and the WMD issue was a bureaucratic smokescreen used to drum up support for the war.

But don't take my word for it - "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on." - Paul Wolfowitz, 5/28/2003

[jcd11235 0]

Here's a pretty impeccable source:

"And frankly [UN Resolutions/Sanctions] have worked. [Saddam Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue."

Colon Powell
Cairo, Egypt
February 24, 2001

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm

Damn it! I ended up putting time and effort into it, anyway!

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Tf15 0]

Quote

Here's a pretty impeccable source:

"And frankly [UN Resolutions/Sanctions] have worked. [Saddam Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue."

Colon Powell
Cairo, Egypt
February 24, 2001

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm

Damn it! I ended up putting time and effort into it, anyway!

Was this the same Powell that told the UN Security Council all about Iraq's WMDs?

Three times is enemy action

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Call me old fashioned, but that is not what I consider highly intelligent.

I won't call you old fashioned, but I will call you a man that judges books by their covers.

. . =(_8^(1)

[Ron 10]

Quote

Then the war has to be illegal, since no official declaration of war took place.

1991.

And he never complied with the resolutions.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

I dissent, which is, in the current political climate, a very good thing for the country.

Thats not even close to serving in the military.
A very sad attempt to give yourself credability.

I bet you admire the draft dodgers.

Jeeze.

Quote

Obviously, based on job performance, Shrub knows hardly anything about running a country either

Well based on polls he DOES since he won re-election.

Quote

The world is a far more dangerous place, thanks to him.

Your opinion.

Quote

I'm still laughing that you are defending the guy's intelligence.

Where is your MBA? You fly fighter jets?

Quote

He can't consistently complete sentences

Some people are not good speakers. Clinton was a good speaker, but a lousy leader and a corupt man.

Quote

constantly makes poor decisions

Your opinion. 51% of the country does not agree with you.

Quote

One thing about leading that Shrub does not seem to get is that inaction is often more productive than action

That is a total line of bullshit.

Quote

And we are all the worse for this lack of understanding.

Again your opinion, and 51% of the county did not agree.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Here's a pretty impeccable source:

Here's a better one:

The Blix report

excerpted:

Quote

Chemical weapons

The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.

Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tonnes and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said, that the agent was never weaponised. Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.

UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.

There are also indications that the agent was weaponised. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.

I would now like to turn to the so-called “Air Force document” that I have discussed with the Council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi Air Force Headquarters in 1998 and taken from her by Iraqi minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs, by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. I am encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC.

The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.

The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.

The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding. Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.

The finding of the rockets shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate. During my recent discussions in Baghdad, Iraq declared that it would make new efforts in this regard and had set up a committee of investigation. Since then it has reported that it has found a further 4 chemical rockets at a storage depot in Al Taji.

I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor.

Whilst I am addressing chemical issues, I should mention a matter, which I reported on 19 December 2002, concerning equipment at a civilian chemical plant at Al Fallujah. Iraq has declared that it had repaired chemical processing equipment previously destroyed under UNSCOM supervision, and had installed it at Fallujah for the production of chlorine and phenols. We have inspected this equipment and are conducting a detailed technical evaluation of it. On completion, we will decide whether this and other equipment that has been recovered by Iraq should be destroyed.

Now, maybe it's just that I'm a dumb conservative, but can one of y'all explain to me just HOW Blix's comments show there's "no WMD's" like you all keep trumpeting all over the place?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Sort of like me saying your car can't be fixed and your mechanic saying it can, given that I've never seen your car, and have never worked as a mechanic. Who would you believe?

Knowing how much integrity my mechanic has, I'd probably take your word over his.

. . =(_8^(1)

[WrongWay 0]

Quote

"Becoming"? A bit late for that.

My thoughts exactly.

Wrong Way
D #27371 Mal Manera Rodriguez Cajun Chicken Ø Hellfish #451
The wiser wolf prevails.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

1991.

And he never complied with the resolutions.

So, which US resolution is that again?

Or are you now talking about a UN resolution? Because I am pretty sure that US law does not allow the UN to declare war on their behalf.

Which brings me back to my original point, you are either not at war, or are fighting an illegal war.

Since you claim you are at war, it has to be an illegal war.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Since you claim you are at war, it has to be an illegal war.

It is not illegal. Congress voted to use force.

Anyway its a war since people are killing each other. I could not give two shits about what is "Called" a war.

I have been a soldier and I think I am more qualified to say what is a war than someone who has not served.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

It is not illegal. Congress voted to use force.

Anyway its a war since people are killing each other. I could not give two shits about what is "Called" a war.

I have been a soldier and I think I am more qualified to say what is a war than someone who has not served.

A killing does not make a war, a declaration of war makes a war.

Ron, I get the feeling you think you are more qualified to be a human being just because you have been a soldier. Thankfully most people still realize that you do not have to have the ability to kill people to discuss things like a declaration of war.

In earlier posts you seem to lead people to believe that you live by the rules. That if rules are established you should follow them. Guess that doesn't apply to something as simple as a war declaration.

Oh, you don't seem to understand that force does not equal war.

[Ron 10]

Quote

A killing does not make a war, a declaration of war makes a war.

Really? Gee without killing there is no war.

You are trying to be legal. Vietnam was a police action...But it was a war.

Quote

Ron, I get the feeling you think you are more qualified to be a human being just because you have been a soldier.

No, but being willing to serve your country or a cause you believe in is worth more than just bitching about everything.

Quote

In earlier posts you seem to lead people to believe that you live by the rules

And I do.

Quote

That if rules are established you should follow them. Guess that doesn't apply to something as simple as a war declaration.

UN voted to use force, the US Congress voted to use force.

We followed the rules.

Quote

Oh, you don't seem to understand that force does not equal war.

Force does not equal war...But you fail to understand that when people take up arms and start killing each other...its a war no matter what you wnat to call it.

A Rose by any other name.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334