[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement:
Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor
of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users'
privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your
privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket
to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we
also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.
Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
[ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 14:39:26 02/06/04 Fri
Author: Robert
Author Host/IP: host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de / 131.188.93.25
Subject: Here's a bit about the issue lying - just tell me if there's something else you'd like to have me post about. :)
In reply to:
Hero of Time
's message, "That would be cool." on 17:37:15 02/05/04 Thu
Some Bush quotes:
1. "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime
continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." -
Presidential Address, 03/17/2003
2. When the Niger uranium thing was already exposed as fake, neverthelesss: "...Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" - State of the Union Address, 01/29/2003
3. "Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications,and statements by people now
in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al
Qaeda." - State of the Union Address, 01/29/2003
- again, there was no such evidence. It's a stupid concept anyway to believe that a secular
despot would hop in bed with religious fanatics. For al Qaeda Saddam was an enemy. And he was aware of it.
Here's a link to some more quotes by
Bush and others
- Just to confront this with a different way: Administration guys called Clark after the
attacks on September 11th and asked him to go on TV to tell the country that Saddam Hussein
was involved in the attacks. He asked them for proof, but they couldn't provide any. He
refused their request. That's honest. -
The administration guys repeatedly claimed to have evidence, quotes are abundant, Rumsfeld
30/3 2003 on ABC: "We know where they (chemical and biological weapons) are. They're in the
area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." and Cheney 26/8
2002: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass
destruction...to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." And the
difference of what Powell called "solid sources" in his UN speech to how he recently
addressed it: "what our intelligence community believed was credible" is obvious.
Nothing was found. Zero. So the claims to know about it - without doubt, to have evidence
and proof, obviously were lies. There's no chance to deny it. The only question
is whether it was intentional lies or not. However the meager secret service material, US same as the British one indicates at least some intention.
Don't misunderstand me. It's still possible that Saddam indeed had WMD stuff, though it's not very likely. I'm only speaking of the claims to have evidence of it. That's exposed as lie meanwhile.
I guess they thought to have a quick victory, without much problems after Iraq was occupied,
and then people would give a damn about the pretended reasons. Principle: 'to be successful
is to be right'. Didn't work though, there are serious problems, and they will continue.
Bush claims to stand for whatever basic values. He claims to be true christian. As such he's
committed to certain basic commandments, among them not to lie. I respect Christians when
they act according to their moral codex. But if they pose as moral and at the same time
blatantly act against it, that's hypocrisy. And I despise hypocrits.
In this years State of the Union address Bush said the war was justified because Iraq had
"weapons of mass destruction-related program activities". - I understand what 'to have WMD'
means. Same with 'to have WMD programs'. But what is a WMD related program? Maybe to
mix the color to paint the missiles with, once they should be deviced? And still more
strange, a WMD related program activity? -
When asked about the shift from asserting Iraq "possessed" WMD, to Iraq merely exploring
"WMD-related-program-activities," Bush replied, "What's the difference?
IMO there's a BIG difference between for example owning a million, being about to earn a
millon and maybe starting a bank account where to store the cash if I ever should get it.
Given the choice, I'd always prefer the first one, I don't think there's anyone who isn't
aware of the difference and would chose the empty bank account. Would you? *L*
The WMD stuff and al Qaeda connection was the basic justification to invade Iraq. Iraq was
said to be a serious and immanent threat for the US. It's clear now that Iraq wasn't
anything close to a threat, not even for it's neighbours because of it's outdated military
equipment.
More than 500 Americans dead, more than 6000 severely wounded, until now, the number is
increasing. What for?
Was it about terrorism? There are more terror attacks now than before. Many people warned
about it. Was it about making America safer from terrorism? Homeland Security’s Tom Ridge
end of last year: "threat indicators are perhaps greater now than at any point since
Sept. 11"... and "extremists abroad are anticipating attacks that will rival or
exceed the scope of those of Sept. 11" - 'greater', 'exceed'??? Don't those guys
claim their actions are about reducing the threat, don't they claim they are successful in
doing it? If 'successful reduction' results in a greater threat something basically is wrong
about the concept. That's at least my opinion.
For the reason for invading Iraq maybe check the neocon PNAC paper (Project for the new
American Century, available for download as PDF and related stuff). Problem like with all
ideologies is it doesn't work like it's expected to do. Strong american point is pragmatism,
to act based on reality, that's what I'm missing now. It was present within the Afghanistan
war. This action was justified, there was evidence about it, and sufficient proof showed up
immediately. This line should have been continued.
Before the Iraq invasion the US leadership was accepted worldwide, more than ever before.
That's gone. The credibility of this administration is lost. The US secret service?
Credibility lost too. The US force? Blocked with stuff they aren't meant to do, their
effectivity is reduced and the problems they face in Iraq have encouraged Taliban and
others.
Do you REALLY think this administration promotes the US interests? Do you want four more
years of such stuff? I stongly doubt ANY of the Democrat candidates could do worse, even if
they would try hard. :)
IMO you're better off with Kerry or Clark, according to european standards they're conservative, and I guess one of them will make it.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Replies:
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Take this one, the other post was messed by copying the stuff over and I didn't check it. :) -- Robert, 14:47:06 02/06/04 Fri (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)
Some Bush quotes:
1. "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." - Presidential Address, 03/17/2003
2. When the Niger uranium thing was already exposed as fake, neverthelesss: "...Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" - State of the Union Address, 01/29/2003
3. "Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications,and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda." - State of the Union Address, 01/29/2003
- again, there was no such evidence. It's a stupid concept anyway to believe that a secular despot would hop in bed with religious fanatics. For al Qaeda Saddam was an enemy. And he was aware of it.
Here's a link to some more quotes by Bush and others
- Just to confront this with a different way: Administration guys called Clark after the attacks on September 11th and asked him to go on TV to tell the country that Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks. He asked them for proof, but they couldn't provide any. He refused their request. That's honest. -
The administration guys repeatedly claimed to have evidence, quotes are abundant, Rumsfeld 30/3 2003 on ABC: "We know where they (chemical and biological weapons) are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." and Cheney 26/8 2002: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction...to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." And the difference of what Powell called "solid sources" in his UN speech to how he recently addressed it: "what our intelligence community believed was credible" is obvious.
Nothing was found. Zero. So the claims to know about it - without doubt, to have evidence and proof, obviously were lies. There's no chance to deny it. The only question is whether it was intentional lies or not. However the meager secret service material, US same as the British one indicates at least some intention.
Don't misunderstand me. It's still possible that Saddam indeed had WMD stuff, though it's not very likely. I'm only speaking of the claims to have evidence of it. That's exposed as lie meanwhile.
I guess they thought to have a quick victory, without much problems after Iraq was occupied, and then people would give a damn about the pretended reasons. Principle: 'to be successful is to be right'. Didn't work though, there are serious problems, and they will continue.
Bush claims to stand for whatever basic values. He claims to be true christian. As such he's committed to certain basic commandments, among them not to lie. I respect Christians when they act according to their moral codex. But if they pose as moral and at the same time blatantly act against it, that's hypocrisy. And I despise hypocrits.
In this years State of the Union address Bush said the war was justified because Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities". - I understand what 'to have WMD' means. Same with 'to have WMD programs'. But what is a WMD related program? Maybe to mix the color to paint the missiles with, once they should be deviced? And still more strange, a WMD related program activity? -
When asked about the shift from asserting Iraq "possessed" WMD, to Iraq merely exploring "WMD-related-program-activities," Bush replied, "What's the difference?
IMO there's a BIG difference between for example owning a million, being about to earn a millon and maybe starting a bank account where to store the cash if I ever should get it. Given the choice, I'd always prefer the first one, I don't think there's anyone who isn't aware of the difference and would chose the empty bank account. Would you? *L*
The WMD stuff and al Qaeda connection was the basic justification to invade Iraq. Iraq was said to be a serious and immanent threat for the US. It's clear now that Iraq wasn't anything close to a threat, not even for it's neighbours because of it's outdated military equipment.
More than 500 Americans dead, more than 6000 severely wounded, until now, the number is increasing. What for?
Was it about terrorism? There are more terror attacks now than before. Many people warned about it. Was it about making America safer from terrorism? Homeland Security’s Tom Ridge end of last year: "threat indicators are perhaps greater now than at any point since Sept. 11"... and "extremists abroad are anticipating attacks that will rival or exceed the scope of those of Sept. 11" - 'greater', 'exceed'??? Don't those guys claim their actions are about reducing the threat, don't they claim they are successful in doing it? If 'successful reduction' results in a greater threat something basically is wrong about the concept. That's at least my opinion.
For the reason for invading Iraq maybe check the neocon PNAC paper (Project for the new American Century, available for download as PDF and related stuff). Problem like with all ideologies is it doesn't work like it's expected to do. Strong american point is pragmatism, to act based on reality, that's what I'm missing now. It was present within the Afghanistan war. This action was justified, there was evidence about it, and sufficient proof showed up immediately. This line should have been continued.
Before the Iraq invasion the US leadership was accepted worldwide, more than ever before. That's gone. The credibility of this administration is lost. The US secret service? Credibility lost too. The US force? Blocked with stuff they aren't meant to do, their effectivity is reduced and the problems they face in Iraq have encouraged Taliban and others.
Do you REALLY think this administration promotes the US interests? Do you want four more years of such stuff? I stongly doubt ANY of the Democrat candidates could do worse, even if they would try hard. :)
IMO you're better off with Kerry or Clark, according to european standards they're conservative, and I guess one of them will make it.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Just found a nice list with lots of links, contains economy and stuff too, maybe have a look there... -- Robert, 16:05:55 02/07/04 Sat (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)
IRAQ
We Want Answers
One additional thing that came to me - more than 500 Americans died until now. They had agreed to risk their life to defend America. There wasn't such a threat however, and the administration was aware of it.
Neither they nor their families had agreed to do it to 'liberate' some other country, the backup 'reason' that was entered when the other stuff increasingly failed. Nor had they agreed to risk their life to promote US supremacy in middle east.
Do you think it's correct to deceive who risk their lives? Just using them to promote interestsof some people?
In Vietnam about 60.000 Americans lost their life - to 'defend' America. The war was lost, long ago, but I never heared of any Vietnamese coming to attack America. So how could it have been defence? And who is responsible for their death? Someone who kills another person is a murderer. What about the guys who are responsible for the death of 60.000 - without any reason that would justify it? Did they agree to be killed for no reason?
There are a lots of really dirty tricks going on IMO, then as well as now.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Being in the military... -- Joe Taylor, 23:18:08 02/07/04 Sat (wc03.wlfdle.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com/66.185.84.70)
...automatically means complete loss of individuality. Oaths don't matter; all that matters is strictly following orders without thinking. By enlisting, soldiers have agreed to die, be tortured, and lose their selves completely for the sake of the state.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
So? -- Hero of Time, 23:35:47 02/07/04 Sat (68-119-244-175-rcp2.ubr1.wrbg.mo.charter.com/68.119.244.175)
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
So, whenever they die on duty - in combat or not - they die for the country. -- Joe Taylor, 10:24:36 02/09/04 Mon (wc03.wlfdle.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com/66.185.84.70)
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
So? -- Heroic So Fucking What?, 14:00:06 02/10/04 Tue (adsl-64-219-129-13.dsl.kscymo.swbell.net/64.219.129.13)
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
How is this supposed to work? -- Robert, 07:12:53 02/11/04 Wed (NoHost/131.188.93.25)
Actually it doesn't work this way. For example an army where soldiers strictly follow orders without thinking isn't of any use. That's why only really stupid people would make up such an army. *L*
Soldier is a job, just like police. Of course there's lot of stuff that's not contained in the job description he agreed with.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
"The job description he agreed with" includes complete submission to the country. -- Joe Taylor, 18:29:12 02/11/04 Wed (wc03.wlfdle.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com/66.185.84.70)
Of course thinking is permitted, as long as it's only about minute stuff such as in what order to shoot the people charging at you, or sometimes more advanced tactics if you're an officer. Moral judgment is only a liability, though, and is not allowed at all. This is only implicit in the enlistment form, but it's there.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Of course you're told to do stuff... -- Robert, 08:21:08 02/12/04 Thu (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)
but the way you do it is quite a bit up to you. It's more effective this way. IIRC this was first adopted by German army in WW2 - I have a book about the development of military stuff at home burt I tend to forget the details.
But whatever you do agree with when enlisting, don't know the text - it definitely doesn't contain to 'die so that Haliburton may live and get tons of profit'. *L*
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
It doesn't, but it says "do everything the country tells you," and right now the country tells the troops to die for Halliburton and Bechtel -- Joe Taylor, 17:32:59 02/12/04 Thu (wc03.wlfdle.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com/66.185.84.70)
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Hey, what did you smoke???.... -- Robert, 05:42:59 02/14/04 Sat (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)
never managed to hear a country talk. *L*
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Is there anything you're ever happy about? -- Heroic Depressant, 05:12:30 02/14/04 Sat (68-119-245-135-rcp2.ubr1.wrbg.mo.charter.com/68.119.245.135)
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Me?..... -- Robert, 05:40:14 02/14/04 Sat (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)
Is there anything I should be happy about?.... *sigh*
[ Edit | View ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]
Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.
|
|
