How Dumb Can The Public Be? [Archive]

WithStamin

07/16/03, 01:36 AM

These were Bush's exact words: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." That is absolutely true. Britian told us that. Now we find out that Britian may have learned that from none other than the French. Bush did not lie.

Do you really think that we went to war because Saddam tried to buy uranium from Niger? I hope not. It was a miniscule fraction of the huge case against Saddam's regime. But I guess you would have prefered that we leave him in power...

open mind

07/16/03, 11:55 PM

Maybe bush didn't lie but is it comforting to you that the highest branch of office doesn't bother to verify the information its getting just because it fits with the current agenda?

NOFXdesendents5

07/17/03, 03:13 AM

Originally posted by ReFuSeD!
Is it me, or is all the reasons the US government used to attack Iraq crumbling beneath them? It seems that all their excuses arent justified and they keep making new ones. Yet you still talk to the public and many people still support the war. Everyone is so pumped with propaganda and fear that they believe what the governemt is doing is right...

I don't care if their are weapons or not. It would be a shame if it turns out that Bush already knew that there were no weapons but so fucking what? Now the Iraquis can't be tortured, raped, and shot for no reason.

The Nephilm

07/17/03, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by NOFXdesendents5
I don't care if their are weapons or not. It would be a shame if it turns out that Bush already knew that there were no weapons but so fucking what? Now the Iraquis can't be tortured, raped, and shot for no reason.

uh, until we invade North Korea and turn our back on Iraq... hmmm where have I seen this before... oh yea, PANAMA. Military leaves after destroying a nation, nation goes to hell in a civil war... fun times

BrandNewRock05

07/17/03, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by The Nephilm
uh, until we invade North Korea and turn our back on Iraq... hmmm where have I seen this before... oh yea, PANAMA. Military leaves after destroying a nation, nation goes to hell in a civil war... fun times
Or recall WWII. We defeated Germany, installed a government, left to defeat Japan. Now both are thriving nations.....its all a matter of how you spin it.

Alex Djaferis

07/18/03, 01:05 AM

Germany and Japan were already thriving nations. Hitler or no Hitler its not like the USA improved there standards of living...well they had to after the war cuz the whole country was in ruins. other then that...its quite different to what Nkorea is today, or what Iraq was.

BrandNewRock05

07/18/03, 04:13 AM

Originally posted by PeeDster
Germany and Japan were already thriving nations. Hitler or no Hitler its not like the USA improved there standards of living...well they had to after the war cuz the whole country was in ruins. other then that...its quite different to what Nkorea is today, or what Iraq was.
That was a very prosporus time for the Jews, you are right...

NOFXdesendents5

07/18/03, 05:26 AM

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
That was a very prosporus time for the Jews, you are right...

you just owned him but i think that he was on your side a little.

Justin_stacy

07/18/03, 06:39 AM

Originally posted by PeeDster
Germany and Japan were already thriving nations. Hitler or no Hitler its not like the USA improved there standards of living...well they had to after the war cuz the whole country was in ruins. other then that...its quite different to what Nkorea is today, or what Iraq was.

You think germany was a thriving nation before Hitler? Where do you learn your history from, if you don't mind me asking..........

BrandNewRock05

07/18/03, 07:57 AM

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
You think germany was a thriving nation before Hitler? Where do you learn your history from, if you don't mind me asking..........
he was talking about pre-WWII, but during Hitler's reign, and back then the economy was booming. and thats why Hitler stayed in power, people make descisions based on their pocketbook. Hitler was doing well for the economy and I think that may have been the factor that let the Germans let Hitler slaughter the Jews. But my point remains that we made it a better country, and Japan was also a huge fucking success

chubb9

07/19/03, 12:23 PM

Is it me, or is all the reasons the US government used to attack Iraq crumbling beneath them? It seems that all their excuses arent justified and they keep making new ones. Yet you still talk to the public and many people still support the war. Everyone is so pumped with propaganda and fear that they believe what the governemt is doing is right...

Its just you. What reasons are these? The wmd? Prove they're not there. Did you ever take a second to look at the situation?
Fact: Iraq had WMD in 1999.
Fact: UNMOVIC destroyed all it could find.
FACT: UNMVIC and Iraq could NOT account for thousands of kilos of WMD.
Fact: Iraq was not forthcoming with any information and did not comply with un 1441.
Fact: because of that and other reasons his government and stregth was destroyed by the Coalition.

Or maybe your refurring to the Uranium? British info that YOU still can prove thats false...

I believe what our government is doing is right. Am am i pumped with propaganda? Probably less than you are. I have stated fact while you state opinion, and worse off your opinion is probably based off what your dad or your teacher told you. Look at the facts. Look at the situation. Stop reading into this libral spun bullshit and make your own opinion based on that. And stop saying that "justification for the war is crumbling". There are many reasons for the war. You chose to look at what, two? Look at the whole situation.

The Nephilm

07/19/03, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by chubb9
Its just you. What reasons are these? The wmd? Prove they're not there. Did you ever take a second to look at the situation?
Fact: Iraq had WMD in 1999.
Fact: UNMOVIC destroyed all it could find.
FACT: UNMVIC and Iraq could NOT account for thousands of kilos of WMD.
Fact: Iraq was not forthcoming with any information and did not comply with un 1441.
Fact: because of that and other reasons his government and stregth was destroyed by the Coalition.

Or maybe your refurring to the Uranium? British info that YOU still can prove thats false...

I believe what our government is doing is right. Am am i pumped with propaganda? Probably less than you are. I have stated fact while you state opinion, and worse off your opinion is probably based off what your dad or your teacher told you. Look at the facts. Look at the situation. Stop reading into this libral spun bullshit and make your own opinion based on that. And stop saying that "justification for the war is crumbling". There are many reasons for the war. You chose to look at what, two? Look at the whole situation.

The reason for Bush's war has been changed so many fucking times I can't even remember why we went to war with Iraq...

evil zach

07/19/03, 06:09 PM

Its just you. What reasons are these? The wmd? Prove they're not there
What kind of argument is that? When sombody (Bu$h) makes a claim (Iraq has WMDs) its up to them to prove it to be true. Not for the opposition to prove it to be false.
Now its time to back up your claims
Fact: Iraq had WMD in 1999.
I'm not to sure, but I think you may be refering to 1989, when he was in favour with the US
Fact: UNMOVIC destroyed all it could find.
Agreed
FACT: UNMVIC and Iraq could NOT account for thousands of kilos of WMD.
In most cases, not finding something is usually a sign it didn't exist to begin with, or has been destroyed.
Fact: Iraq was not forthcoming with any information and did not comply with un 1441.
thats a bullshit reason for war. We all that the US dosn't give to shits about the UN
Fact: because of that and other reasons his government and stregth was destroyed by the Coalition.
Thanks for reminding us that the US won the war.

Or maybe your refurring to the Uranium? British info that YOU still can prove thats false...
We all know that was false. Its been admitted.

I believe what our government is doing is right. Am am i pumped with propaganda? Probably less than you are.
Speculation.

I have stated fact while you state opinion
I hope you don't include the previous sentence with those facts

and worse off your opinion is probably based off what your dad or your teacher told you.
More speculation

Look at the facts. Look at the situation
What makes you think that just beacuse somebody is against the war the havn't

Stop reading into this libral spun bullshit
I could say "stop reading into this concervatice spun bullshit" but instead I'll say that myself and I would wager that most of the other leftwingers here read from both liberal and conservative sources.

And stop saying that "justification for the war is crumbling".
Fine. Its not crumbling. Its being proven to be false. I didn't think it was neccesary to be that blunt.

There are many reasons for the war. You chose to look at what, two?
From day one thej ustification has been WMDs

chubb9

07/20/03, 08:59 PM

When sombody (Bu$h) makes a claim (Iraq has WMDs) its up to them to prove it to be true. Not for the opposition to prove it to be false.

Its up to Iraq to prove they dont have them anymore. We know they had them, and in accordence to cease fire agreements and 1441 they were supost to get rid of them. Thousands of kilos of WMD were not accounted for. They were not co-operationg with weapons inspeactors.
The UN inspectors SAW WMD in 1998 (i meant 98 in my last post). Hans Blix had a LIST of weapons he was trying to verify (anthrax, saran gas, etc.). After the war, these weapons cannot be found.
You would think they would have someone there to witness them destroying the weapons or getting rid or them... but they didn't which leads us to believe other things...

In most cases, not finding something is usually a sign it didn't exist to begin with, or has been destroyed.

Read above...

thats a bullshit reason for war. We all that the US dosn't give to shits about the UN

We don't give two shit about the UN? (i think thats what you were trying to say) Why do you say that? Because 5 out of the 15 countries were against the war? We in no way went against the UN. The UN had no opinion on the war.

We all know that was false. Its been admitted

By who? You? Who, when... show me proof....

What makes you think that just beacuse somebody is against the war the havn't

Because you keep spitting out the same untrue biased bullshit

Fine. Its not crumbling. Its being proven to be false. I didn't think it was neccesary to be that blunt

Where?!?! Once again i ask for facts. A factual link would be fine but i am yet to see one. Just because you say they've been proven false doens't mean they have...

From day one thej ustification has been WMDs

No, your wrong. Thats exactly why i said "Look at the facts. Look at the situation".
Because you refuse to look at everything and you choose to focus on WMD. That is one of FIVE reasons.

Ronin

07/20/03, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by chubb9
Its up to Iraq to prove they dont have them anymore.

The burden of proof falls on the accuser, not the accused.

Otherwise I could say "Withstamin molests children", and it would be up to him to prove me wrong. You don't accuse someone unless you can back it up, and so far the US has been largely unable to back it up (other than some decade old equipment buried in a rose garden).

And it doesn't matter what was there 10 years ago. They could have found an ICBM with a nuclear payload in downtown Iraq 10 years ago, but unless that missle is still sitting there, it doesn't justify war NOW.

WithStamin

07/21/03, 02:08 AM

Originally posted by Ronin
The burden of proof falls on the accuser, not the accused.

Otherwise I could say "Withstamin molests children", and it would be up to him to prove me wrong. You don't accuse someone unless you can back it up, and so far the US has been largely unable to back it up (other than some decade old equipment buried in a rose garden).
I have to quote Tony Blair to respond to this one.Tony Blair
Can we be sure that terrorism and weapons of mass destruction will join together? Let us say one thing: If we are wrong, we will have destroyed a threat that, at its least, is responsible for inhuman carnage and suffering. That is something I am confident history will forgive. But if our critics are wrong, if we are right, as I believe with every fiber of instinct and conviction I have that we are, and we do not act, then we will have hesitated in the face of this menace when we should have given leadership. That is something history will not forgive.

Charlito Cafe

07/21/03, 06:03 AM

Originally posted by WithStamin
I have to quote Tony Blair to respond to this one.

Tony Blair can talk all he wants to, but it does't chagne the fact that the burden of proof falls on the accuser. That's how it works in court and everyday life. The state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty. How do you think the Salem witch trials got out of hand? By this logic, Bush could accuse every country of having WMDs, not prove it, and attack the entire world.

WithStamin

07/21/03, 06:14 AM

Originally posted by Charlito Cafe
Tony Blair can talk all he wants to, but it does't chagne the fact that the burden of proof falls on the accuser. That's how it works in court and everyday life. The state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty. How do you think the Salem witch trials got out of hand? By this logic, Bush could accuse every country of having WMDs, not prove it, and attack the entire world. Except for the fact that most of the world hasn't used the very weapons they're accused of having on their own people.

Matthew

07/21/03, 07:26 AM

Originally posted by WithStamin
Except for the fact that most of the world hasn't used the very weapons they're accused of having on their own people.

you seem to forget that that happened twelve years ago

Ronin

07/21/03, 07:36 AM

Originally posted by WithStamin
I have to quote Tony Blair to respond to this one.

I can appreciate Tony Blair's point, and I think he's a good politician.

But the fact remains that Bush (and Blair) didn't sell this war on a basic moral principle, the sold it (mainly) on the presence of WMD's. Now that they're having difficulty locating their evidence, we can't simply say "well, the war was worthwhile despite that". If you can't back up your justification, especially for something as destructive as war, you should answer to the public.

And as you've noticed with Bush's slipping approval ratings, it looks like he already is...

Patrick

07/21/03, 09:19 AM

i think bush is wrong, he didnt get what he wanted, saddam is alive, he will take over iraq once we leave, but i dont bother guys anymore so dont bash me about what i think.

evil zach

07/21/03, 10:49 AM

Saddam won't take over again. The Ba'ath party dosn't have enough support. Rather, Iraq will become a fundamentalist Islamic republic, which will be much worse then the Ba'ath party.

Charlito Cafe

07/21/03, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by evil zach
Saddam won't take over again. The Ba'ath party dosn't have enough support. Rather, Iraq will become a fundamentalist Islamic republic, which will be much worse then the Ba'ath party.

Eventually. Even if the U.S. doesn't allow it to happen now, about 5 years down the line or so when U.S. influence is at a minimum in New Iraq, the revolutionaries will start up and whatever flimsy government that's set up over there will collapse into the aforementioned Islamic fundamentalist republic.

evil zach

07/21/03, 02:10 PM

thats what I ment. You just went into more detail

Justin_stacy

07/21/03, 07:29 PM

Originally posted by Charlito Cafe
Eventually. Even if the U.S. doesn't allow it to happen now, about 5 years down the line or so when U.S. influence is at a minimum in New Iraq, the revolutionaries will start up and whatever flimsy government that's set up over there will collapse into the aforementioned Islamic fundamentalist republic.

that is why we need to get away from tring to set up another Yugoslavia and allow these different fractions to set up there own individual states, like the Kurds kind of had..........

Charlito Cafe

07/22/03, 06:55 AM

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
that is why we need to get away from tring to set up another Yugoslavia and allow these different fractions to set up there own individual states, like the Kurds kind of had..........

True, that'll prevent some of the sections from going fundamentalist, but one section would remain that would be very fundamentalist, and could make some allies with other like-minded nations, and become a state-sponsor of terrorist groups, which Saddam's regime was not.

Charlito Cafe

07/22/03, 06:57 AM

Originally posted by cal1082
thats assuming much. On the same token i could say the gov. will be strong and Iraq will prosper more because their oil will help make their economy strong. Thats assuming just as much.

It only takes one small group to pull off a revolution. And Saddam has oppressed this group for so long, and they've been very public about their liberation. They won't be very happy if they don't have a say in the new government. I'm speculating, but it's not unjustified speculation.

yeat182

07/22/03, 07:02 AM

Originally posted by Charlito Cafe
Tony Blair can talk all he wants to, but it does't chagne the fact that the burden of proof falls on the accuser. That's how it works in court and everyday life. The state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty. How do you think the Salem witch trials got out of hand? By this logic, Bush could accuse every country of having WMDs, not prove it, and attack the entire world.

unfortuantly, in this case, it falls on Iraq, they promised to prove they destroyed their WMD's and they didn't, they are in breach of that contract, and therefor, they are at fault...

yeat182

07/22/03, 07:03 AM

Originally posted by evil zach
Saddam won't take over again. The Ba'ath party dosn't have enough support. Rather, Iraq will become a fundamentalist Islamic republic, which will be much worse then the Ba'ath party.

they've been secular for a long time, i see no reason why they would suddenly become a fundamentalist regime...

yeat182

07/22/03, 07:05 AM

Charlito Cafe

07/22/03, 07:21 AM

Originally posted by yeat182
they've been secular for a long time, i see no reason why they would suddenly become a fundamentalist regime...

They were only secular cause Saddam forced them to be. There's a fairly large group that would prefer to have a religious state.

Charlito Cafe

07/22/03, 07:23 AM

Originally posted by yeat182
or the democratic factions could make allies with other democratic nations and everything could be ok....

It wouldn't matter, because the fundamentalists would still have their own state, and create a problem in the region.

Charlito Cafe

07/22/03, 07:26 AM

Originally posted by yeat182
unfortuantly, in this case, it falls on Iraq, they promised to prove they destroyed their WMD's and they didn't, they are in breach of that contract, and therefor, they are at fault...

The U.S. didn't really give them a chance to prove it. They sort of assumed he was hiding them because the inpsector's didn't find anything. Then Bush gave Hussein 48 hours to leave, without considering that maybe the inspectors didn't find anything because Iraq didn't have anything. Bush offered no proof of the WMDs and has yet to produce any.

yeat182

07/22/03, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by Charlito Cafe
The U.S. didn't really give them a chance to prove it. They sort of assumed he was hiding them because the inpsector's didn't find anything. Then Bush gave Hussein 48 hours to leave, without considering that maybe the inspectors didn't find anything because Iraq didn't have anything. Bush offered no proof of the WMDs and has yet to produce any.

they had 12 years to prove it...that is entirely more time than is needed...again, the Ukraine and South Africa managed to completely disarm, and prove the did so to the UN, and it certainly didn't take them 12 years to do so...

if Iraq didn't have anything, why wouldn't they allow the inspectors access to whatever sites they wanted to see? why would you go to war and lose control of your country if all you have to do is give them access and prove you don't have the weapons? why all the hide and seek? why did they always give them the run-around?

Charlito Cafe

07/22/03, 07:40 AM

Originally posted by yeat182
they had 12 years to prove it...that is entirely more time than is needed...again, the Ukraine and South Africa managed to completely disarm, and prove the did so to the UN, and it certainly didn't take them 12 years to do so...

if Iraq didn't have anything, why wouldn't they allow the inspectors access to whatever sites they wanted to see? why would you go to war and lose control of your country if all you have to do is give them access and prove you don't have the weapons? why all the hide and seek? why did they always give them the run-around?

Suspicion is no grounds for war. Ever here of "innocent until proven guilty"? Where's the proof of guilt? The accuser should prove his claims true before overthrowing a regime.

yeat182

07/22/03, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by Charlito Cafe
Suspicion is no grounds for war. Ever here of "innocent until proven guilty"? Where's the proof of guilt? The accuser should prove his claims true before overthrowing a regime.

first of all, Iraq admitted that they had the WMD's in 1991, the entire world knew they did, they had the proof, which is what the UN used during their inspections...so they were already guilty.

and again, Iraq agreed to a cease fire agreement, a contract, they did not honor the terms of the cease fire, and there for, breached the contract, so your arguement is largley irrelevant.

yeat182

07/22/03, 07:48 AM

Originally posted by Charlito Cafe
Suspicion is no grounds for war. Ever here of "innocent until proven guilty"? Where's the proof of guilt? The accuser should prove his claims true before overthrowing a regime.

also, "innocent until proven guilty" is the right of US citizens in US courts of law...it does exist in some other countries, but not all, and it does not apply to everyone on earth.

Justin_stacy

07/22/03, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by Charlito Cafe
True, that'll prevent some of the sections from going fundamentalist, but one section would remain that would be very fundamentalist, and could make some allies with other like-minded nations, and become a state-sponsor of terrorist groups, which Saddam's regime was not.

people become less fundamental (religiously) if they have faith in there government, and i think breaking up iraq and allowing each faction to rule it self might will help stop the extremist from taking over.......

also saddum did support terrorism in palistine and his invlovement with al queda is still unsettled........