What was the true motive behind the Iraq War?

[vanesch]

Driving people away by any means is one of the typical neocon approaches on forums. If they can't make you angry enough to attack, they send threatening Pm's and try scare tactics such as happened to me.

Their tactics are so similar that it appears to be a contrived effort. It reminds me of the Hitlerian tactics of karl Rove.

Yes, except that here, such a behaviour is ridiculous. After all, what's the point in coming to a politics discussion forum if you only want to read same-minded opinions ? PF is no propaganda instrument (it will not alter, in any way, significantly any outcome in any vote). One should in fact install automatic forums where neocon (or other, you could maybe specify it in a user control panel) ideological material is automatically generated and displayed, so that they can log in there and have their egos satisfied there. They could post polls and bots would vote on it in such a way that it satisfies their desires, with simulated identities of people all over the world so that they think that the whole world agrees with them. If they want to have some arguments they can win, bots could post argumentation against their positions, with obvious flaws in it, so that they can attack those flaws and demonstrate their argumentative superiority. After a few counter arguments, the bots would then apologize and recognize the superiority of their views.
Some bots could even start spouting insults, and then get banned so that our posters would get the impression that they have the administrators on their side. Wouldn't that be a great forum for such people ?

 

[Art]

I've just read all the follow ups and I am saddened and steamed to learn of the fate of one of the most if not THE MOST informative member I've ever found on the Internet! I have been warned on multiple occasions for my writing style, however I feel TSM has always been more than gracious to those most undeserving. It is a shame on this system as there are many far more abusive writers on these boards who should first be gone. How do we get TSM back?

I did try the democratic approach of starting a poll to vote for or against his reinstatement but it appears democracy is too radical a concept for some of our more rightwing moderators and so one of them who doesn't even moderate this forum locked it.

 

[Burnsys]

This is totaly unfair, it's so evident that TSM was banned becouse of his political ideas and not for nothing else..
It would be nice that some of those SuperMentors who support the invasion of irak becouse they want to take democracy to irak, start to listen to the people in this forums, becouse democracy starts at home...

PD: If TSM was banned becouse he used insulting language or somenthing like that, i see a lot of more User which should be banned..

Someone has TSM Email?

 

[vanesch]

It would be nice that some of those SuperMentors who support the invasion of irak becouse they want to take democracy to irak

It is because they didn't want to have it at home that they needed to dump it somewhere else :rofl:

 

[Daminc]

I did try the democratic approach of starting a poll to vote for or against his reinstatement but it appears democracy is too radical a concept for some of our more rightwing moderators and so one of them who doesn't even moderate this forum locked it.

Mustn't cross the masters

 

[outsider]

I did try the democratic approach of starting a poll to vote for or against his reinstatement but it appears democracy is too radical a concept for some of our more rightwing moderators and so one of them who doesn't even moderate this forum locked it.

yes.. i did see that thread... he'll be back again... like the original coca cola

 

[outsider]

btw... what ever happened to TSMs little blue friend?

 

[edward]

Originally Posted by solutions in a box
Driving people away by any means is one of the typical neocon approaches on forums. If they can't make you angry enough to attack, they send threatening Pm's and try scare tactics such as happened to me.

Their tactics are so similar that it appears to be a contrived effort. It reminds me of the Hitlerian tactics of karl Rove.

Yes, except that here, such a behaviour is ridiculous. After all, what's the point in coming to a politics discussion forum if you only want to read same-minded opinions ?

I think SIAB's point was that it is becoming apparent that Neocons are coming to forums to stifle two sided discussions by: distracting from the topic, leading it off topic, attacking the person, or doing whatever is necessary to stifle opinions or even facts. I tend to agree with this.

PF is no propaganda instrument (it will not alter, in any way, significantly any outcome in any vote).

You missed the plural (forums). There are many forums where it is apparent that coordinated distasteful tactics are being used. Check out other forums. The methodology used by the conservatives to disrupt is too similar to be coincidence.

 

[Skyhunter]

I think SIAB's point was that it is becoming apparent that Neocons are coming to forums to stifle two sided discussions by: distracting from the topic, leading it off topic, attacking the person, or doing whatever is necessary to stifle opinions or even facts. I tend to agree with this.



You missed the plural (forums). There are many forums where it is apparent that coordinated distasteful tactics are being used. Check out other forums. The methodology used by the conservatives to disrupt is too similar to be coincidence.

Could you post some links?

I would like to do just that.

 

[BobG]

Hmm, whatever happened to Rev Prez? Certainly, he didn't get banned for being too liberal.

Actually, I miss TSM, as well, and I hope his punishment is a suspension rather than a permanent ban. He did make some very good posts, but it's also easy to see how he could start to accumulate warning points.

TSM occasionally made some abusive remarks, but at least the majority of his posts addressed issues, making most of his abuses easier to tolerate. More bothersome is when the conversation drops all pretense of addressing the issue - something a few on both sides have a habit of doing.

 

[Burnsys]

I am sure he is reading this.. TSM send me an email to : Burnsys@hotmail.com.

 

[alexandra]

I think SIAB's point was that it is becoming apparent that Neocons are coming to forums to stifle two sided discussions by: distracting from the topic, leading it off topic, attacking the person, or doing whatever is necessary to stifle opinions or even facts. I tend to agree with this.

I agree that many posts seem to have this agenda in mind. But there are things one could do to minimise the effectiveness of their strategies: try to ignore the posts that distract from the topic, attack the person, etc. In any case, this is my personal new resolution. I will ignore childish taunts like being called a 'fruitcake' or 'obtuse', for instance. I will just talk 'over' such comments and make whatever points I wanted to make in the first place

 

[Art]

I agree that many posts seem to have this agenda in mind. But there are things one could do to minimise the effectiveness of their strategies: try to ignore the posts that distract from the topic, attack the person, etc. In any case, this is my personal new resolution. I will ignore childish taunts like being called a 'fruitcake' or 'obtuse', for instance. I will just talk 'over' such comments and make whatever points I wanted to make in the first place

Yes and I notice the person who insulted you doesn't have a line through their name. I wonder why not??
I also see that in the normal spirit of evenhandedness Evo unlocked my thread long enough for her to post a message in effect calling me a liar and then promptly closed it again. Rather than retort in kind by calling her a liar I will assume she has simply suffered a memory lapse.

 

[SOS2008]

Yes, except that here, such a behaviour is ridiculous. After all, what's the point in coming to a politics discussion forum if you only want to read same-minded opinions ? PF is no propaganda instrument (it will not alter, in any way, significantly any outcome in any vote). One should in fact install automatic forums where neocon (or other, you could maybe specify it in a user control panel) ideological material is automatically generated and displayed, so that they can log in there and have their egos satisfied there. They could post polls and bots would vote on it in such a way that it satisfies their desires, with simulated identities of people all over the world so that they think that the whole world agrees with them. If they want to have some arguments they can win, bots could post argumentation against their positions, with obvious flaws in it, so that they can attack those flaws and demonstrate their argumentative superiority. After a few counter arguments, the bots would then apologize and recognize the superiority of their views.
Some bots could even start spouting insults, and then get banned so that our posters would get the impression that they have the administrators on their side. Wouldn't that be a great forum for such people ?

:rofl: There are many forums that seem to be like this, as well as web sites like Free Republic.

Hmm, whatever happened to Rev Prez? Certainly, he didn't get banned for being too liberal.

Actually, I miss TSM, as well, and I hope his punishment is a suspension rather than a permanent ban. He did make some very good posts, but it's also easy to see how he could start to accumulate warning points.

TSM occasionally made some abusive remarks, but at least the majority of his posts addressed issues, making most of his abuses easier to tolerate. More bothersome is when the conversation drops all pretense of addressing the issue - something a few on both sides have a habit of doing.

True, Rev Prez was a fundamentalist, but other than that it was difficult to know his true position because he was too busy being abusive. And the insults can come from both sides of the ideology spectrum, but as I've said before, liberal members have a much better record of providing evidence via quotes/links from reliable sources. Maybe if this was enforced a little more it would provide a more even-handed approach here (as one moderator has already suggested).

I agree that many posts seem to have this agenda in mind. But there are things one could do to minimise the effectiveness of their strategies: try to ignore the posts that distract from the topic, attack the person, etc. In any case, this is my personal new resolution. I will ignore childish taunts like being called a 'fruitcake' or 'obtuse', for instance. I will just talk 'over' such comments and make whatever points I wanted to make in the first place

It's unfortunate though.

Now this thread probably needs to be split so members can return to the topic of the OP if they would like.

 

[Art]

Now this thread probably needs to be split so members can return to the topic of the OP if they would like.

I tried that but the new thread was locked.

 

[alexandra]

Returning the thread to the OP

Hi Art, SOS, everyone - returning this thread to the OP:

I was thinking the other day how everyone is waiting for the iraw war to end and for everyone to come home etc etc. I also recall bush saying that "you're either with us or you're against us," referring to other countries.

Well it is unreasonable to assume that 9/11 (which i believe was an intelligence success) was orchestrated just to allow bush to declare war on iraq; his mission must have been on a much larger scale.

I don't think bush is going to pack up and come home and give iraq back to its people, if it is given back it will be to people who are 100% loyal to bush/his regime under any circumstance.

Thus, i believe that bush's plan is to subdue the world.

speaking in generalities, a few terrorists attacked the usa, bush attacks the nation of afghanistan, bush attacks the nation of iraq, patriot acts are set in place to ensure the submission of the us people is made legal as possible.

London attacks take place, although no fowl play has been propogated as yet, they have brought the people back into the mindset of "the world is dangerous and we must listen to the people who know."

These are my thoughts, the usa plans to conquer the world over a long period of time.

I was interested in whether or not anyone is aware of the Washington-based thinktank, "The Project for the New American Century" - http://www.newamericancentury.org/
Here's how this group describes itself:

Established in the spring of 1997, the Project for the New American Century is a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership. The Project is an initiative of the New Citizenship Project (501c3); the New Citizenship Project's chairman is William Kristol and its president is Gary Schmitt.
Reference: http://www.newamericancentury.org/aboutpnac.htm

What is the 'New Citizenship Project'? Is it connected in any way to the US government?

The PNAC published a report entitled "Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century" (2000), and some political analysts claimed this to be a sort of 'blueprint' that the US administration is following. The paper is available online at http://www.newamericancentury.org/R...casDefenses.pdf . I am just wondering whether anyone knows to what extent the contents of this report play a role in US foreign policy decisions.

alex

 

[Skyhunter]

What is the 'New Citizenship Project'? Is it connected in any way to the US government?

William Kristol is now head of the World Bank.

The PNAC published a report entitled "Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century" (2000), and some political analysts claimed this to be a sort of 'blueprint' that the US administration is following. The paper is available online at http://www.newamericancentury.org/R...casDefenses.pdf . I am just wondering whether anyone knows to what extent the contents of this report play a role in US foreign policy decisions.

alex

Ask Dick Cheney.

 

[alexandra]

William Kristol is now head of the World Bank.


Ask Dick Cheney.

Yeah, Skyhunter. I knew the answer I just wanted to get people to do some thinking (and reading) about this. But as vanesch points out in another thread, it is not certain that everything is going according to plan

 

[alexandra]

First stage not going too well...

It seems the insurgents are getting way more organised - as some on this forum have predicted. This news also seems to confirm vanesch's view that the US administration has not achieved its aims and probably won't (I'm more and more inclined to agree with you, vanesch!):

Armed assault on Baghdad ministry

At least two Iraqi police officers have been killed and several wounded in a surprise attack by insurgents on the interior ministry building in Baghdad.
About 30 gunmen in 10 cars carried out the dawn raid using automatic weapons and rocket propelled grenades.

Although Baghdad is a frequent scene of violence, attacks on heavily-guarded government buildings are very rare.

The attack lasted about 10 minutes, police said, and about five police officers were reported wounded.

The attackers withdrew after the short clash. It was not clear if there were any casualties on their side.

More: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4214904.stm

 

[Smurf]

I am sure he is reading this.. TSM send me an email to : Burnsys@hotmail.com.

if you actually get a response tell him to drop me a line.

 

[Burnsys]

if you actually get a response tell him to drop me a line.

No Response until now... HE just disapeared... :uhh:

 

[Art]

if you actually get a response tell him to drop me a line.

Me too please Burnsys...

 

[Informal Logic]

Hi Art, SOS, everyone - returning this thread to the OP:

I was interested in whether or not anyone is aware of the Washington-based thinktank, "The Project for the New American Century" - http://www.newamericancentury.org/
Here's how this group describes itself:

What is the 'New Citizenship Project'? Is it connected in any way to the US government?

The PNAC published a report entitled "Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century" (2000), and some political analysts claimed this to be a sort of 'blueprint' that the US administration is following. The paper is available online at http://www.newamericancentury.org/R...casDefenses.pdf . I am just wondering whether anyone knows to what extent the contents of this report play a role in US foreign policy decisions.

alex

Per the link - "to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and defense policy and America's role in the world" my arse.

Ask Dick Cheney.

Cheney is such a *ick. :uhh:

As someone posted elsewhere, support for Bush and the invasion of Iraq has dropped to 45%. One can only wonder how that many people can still support this moron and the mess we are in. It should prove the neocon philosophy is faulty, yet believers remain gung-ho as ever.

 

[Art]

As someone posted elsewhere, support for Bush and the invasion of Iraq has dropped to 45%. One can only wonder how that many people can still support this moron and the mess we are in. It should prove the neocon philosophy is faulty, yet believers remain gung-ho as ever.

Or the democrats are so at sea people still do not see them as a credible alternative?? The democrats really need to decide what their policies are and speak about them with a common voice. One may despise the GOP but it is difficult for people to leave them and support a party who's policies they are unsure of and who appear to be split between the right and the left.
Although I despise Bush and his administration I at least know what they stand for but I couldn't say the same for the democratic party.

 

[edward]

Or the democrats are so at sea people still do not see them as a credible alternative?? The democrats really need to decide what their policies are and speak about them with a common voice. One may despise the GOP but it is difficult for people to leave them and support a party who's policies they are unsure of and who appear to be split between the right and the left.
Although I despise Bush and his administration I at least know what they stand for but I couldn't say the same for the democratic party.

The Democrats have a big disadvantage. They can't call a press conference every week and indoctrinate people with a bunch of well prepared propaganda.

 

[Townsend]

Or the democrats are so at sea people still do not see them as a credible alternative?? The democrats really need to decide what their policies are and speak about them with a common voice. One may despise the GOP but it is difficult for people to leave them and support a party who's policies they are unsure of and who appear to be split between the right and the left.
Although I despise Bush and his administration I at least know what they stand for but I couldn't say the same for the democratic party.

IMO you hit the nail on the head...

 

[Townsend]

The Democrats have a big disadvantage. They can't call a press conference every week and indoctrinate people with a bunch of well prepared propaganda.

The question is how did they get that way? The democrates had quite a bit of political power but then lost it. Why do you suppose they lost so much of their power?

 

[Smurf]

the iraq war, the first stage

Nonsense. The first stage was 50 years ago when the neo-libertarian Roosevelt enacted the new deal and took steps to making US foreign policy extremely interventionist. Iraq is only the latest in America's crimes. There is no "New World Order" It's just another brick in the wall painted red instead of crimson, and if you like, with a big sticker on it saying "this is softwood lumber". :rofl:

 

[Informal Logic]

Or the democrats are so at sea people still do not see them as a credible alternative?? The democrats really need to decide what their policies are and speak about them with a common voice. One may despise the GOP but it is difficult for people to leave them and support a party who's policies they are unsure of and who appear to be split between the right and the left.
Although I despise Bush and his administration I at least know what they stand for but I couldn't say the same for the democratic party.

I believe there is consensus that the Democrats need to do a better job of offering Americans a desirable alternative. However, that is a separate matter from supporting the neocon agenda as foreign policy. For example, in the link provided by Alexandra, the stated goals not only are not feasible, this approach will be resisted as the invasion of Iraq has shown. Regardless of party platforms, people should realize by now this is not an alternative. If 45% of the population still are staunch Bush supporters who favor the invasion and occupation, I find this to be of concern.

I agree with Smurf that the war is not in the first stage, though it is hard to tell what stage it is supposed to be.

 

[Art]

I believe there is consensus that the Democrats need to do a better job of offering Americans a desirable alternative. However, that is a separate matter from supporting the neocon agenda as foreign policy. For example, in the link provided by Alexandra, the stated goals not only are not feasible, this approach will be resisted as the invasion of Iraq has shown. Regardless of party platforms, people should realize by now this is not an alternative. If 45% of the population still are staunch Bush supporters who favor the invasion and occupation, I find this to be of concern.

I don't believe there would be a figure of 45% staunch Bush supporters if people were offered a viable option to assess the current policy against. The democrats criticize Bush but do not yet have a consensus amongst themselves on alternative policies and so essentially people are being asked to choose between the devil they know and the devil they don't. Experience shows that people generally stick with the devil they know.

My concern is that if the democrats believe the screw-ups of the Bush administration will result in political power falling into their laps they are very much mistaken as evidenced by the election of John Major in Britain following the forced departure of Margaret Thatcher.

US democrats need to learn from New Labour and study how they restructured the party on all levels to make themselves into a viable option. Otherwise like old Labour they will find themselves being the permanent party of protest.

 

[Art]

The Democrats have a big disadvantage. They can't call a press conference every week and indoctrinate people with a bunch of well prepared propaganda.

To again draw an analogy with Britain; traditionally the vast majority of the press supported the Tory party even as they moved further to the right under Thatcher as the alternative was to support a socialist Labour party.

Labour remodelled itself actually expelling extreme left members and moved ideologically to the centre ground. This upset a lot of their traditional supporters but won them huge support from disaffected Torys who were unhappy with the extreme rightwing policies of their party which were dividing the nation. They then relaunched themselves as New Labour and arranged meetings with all of the newspaper chiefs to introduce their new policies. Many of the newspapers switched to supporting New Labour and so come the next general election New Labour won by a massive landslide.

The GOP is now where the Tory's were but it is only if the democrats take that middle ground that they will capitilise on it. Some leftist democrats will complain about abandoning principles but as the modernisers in the Labour party correctly argued it is better to get 70% of your policies through rather than 0%.

 

[SOS2008]

Repeating a post in another thread that may be more applicable in this thread...(in follow-up to alexandra's post)

http://hnn.us/articles/3015.html

Review of Chalmers Johnson's The Sorrows of Empire
By Stanley Kutler

Johnson, president of the Japan Policy Research Institute and professor emeritus at UC San Diego, is a formidable writer whose many books have garnered considerable acclaim. His work on the Japanese postwar political economy is unrivaled.

Blowback, his study of the unintended consequences of U.S. overseas military and political adventures, published before Sept. 11, 2001, proved prescient. It forms the backdrop for this new and eagerly awaited work.

…Today's leaders bristle at being characterized as imperialists yet curiously wax nostalgic about the good old days of the British Empire. …Why did the British retreat from their empire in the 1950s, and why did the Soviets leave Afghanistan in the 1980s?

…Although Iraq is not Vietnam, our experience in Indochina should have taught us the limits of our ability to be the world's policeman. We could not impose our will and force people to surrender their aspirations for independence and freedom (by their lights) only to become our client. Alas, those lessons now seem lost, even overwhelmed as House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) confidently asserts that we would have won the Vietnam War had George W. Bush been president. [ <-- added]

…Now a determined group of policymakers has induced amnesia on the subject. It doesn't acknowledge limits to U.S. power. In fact, Johnson describes how its members have launched a new era, with President Bush instituting preemptive war as the foundation of our international role and insisting that the United States offers the "single sustainable model for national success," one that is "right and true for every person in every society."

…Johnson seeks to hoist the "neo-conservatives" with their own petard. They love, he writes, to breathe the air of "originalism" in the Constitution, yet they openly reject the framers' wisdom. James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," wrote in 1793: "In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not the executive... The trust and the temptation would be too great for anyone man."

Yet President Bush unilaterally declared a long war against terrorism. Johnson notes that a White House spokesman at the time remarked that the president "considers any opposition to his policies to be no less than an act of treason." Treason? In his campaign, Bush joked in October 2000, "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." After Sept. 11, he told a reporter: "I'm the commander - see, I don't need to explain - I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." So much for James Madison.

Johnson has given us a polemic, but one soundly grounded in an impressive array of facts and data. The costs of empire are our sorrow, he contends. He anticipates a state of perpetual war, involving more military expenditures and overseas expansion, and presidents who will continue to eclipse or ignore Congress. He documents a growing system of propaganda, disinformation and glorification of war and military power. Finally, he fears economic bankruptcy as the president underwrites these adventures with a congressional blank check while neglecting growing problems of education, health care and a decaying physical infrastructure.

 

[ray b]

I could not disagree more strongly. Facts are singular, objective things and there is only one "correct" fact. The problem is people don't use facts to back up their arguments! Take the thread where people are claiming Bush is a Nazi, for example! No, the word "crackpot" most certainly does apply in such cases.

Even in cases where the fact is not known, there still needs to be objectivity in finding it. The threads on whether or not Bush stole the election are a perfect example. There is a fact out there: either he did or he didn't steal the election. But right now, there is precisely zero direct evidence that he did, yet a lot of people believe it!

And its not that guys like me think that all the people on the left are crackpots, but it is a basic reality that loudest complainers are most often the furthest from being reasonable.

facts are the bush family does have money ties to the real national socialists in the 30's and 40's proven by the USA goverment
as DT said "follow the $$$$$$ "
and I and many others have been calling the extreem NEO-CON's the new nazis 10 years before you were born back when the john birchers and the KKK led that faction :uhh:
now I know they arenot the VERY SAME as the national socialists but just as they try to paint all liberals as dis-loyal commies we see them as the same extreem ultra-far-rightwing threat to civilrights and personal freedoms
and use the BIG LIE and other nazi tricks very well :uhh:
even have some of the same ideas like calling the press liberal therefore untrustworthy
favor news blackouts and want to burn books
censor movies and popsongs
hate gays
:uhh:

 

[Smurf]

The problem isn't that people don't use facts to back themselves up, the problem is that people don't have facts in the first place. People hold on so tightly to their collective world view no matter how many facts are thrown in their view. It's the media keeping them scared and dumb that's the problem.

 

[outsider]

Originally Posted by russ_watters
I could not disagree more strongly. Facts are singular, objective things and there is only one "correct" fact. The problem is people don't use facts to back up their arguments! Take the thread where people are claiming Bush is a Nazi, for example! No, the word "crackpot" most certainly does apply in such cases.

Even in cases where the fact is not known, there still needs to be objectivity in finding it. The threads on whether or not Bush stole the election are a perfect example. There is a fact out there: either he did or he didn't steal the election. But right now, there is precisely zero direct evidence that he did, yet a lot of people believe it!

And its not that guys like me think that all the people on the left are crackpots, but it is a basic reality that loudest complainers are most often the furthest from being reasonable.[/quote]OJ Simpson, innocent... Michael Jackson, innocent... no one with enough money and some decent story gets nailed... Martha didn't get fully charged... the list goes on... poor people who get the out-of-work lawyers get 10 years for shoplifting or stealing cars... does money buy fairness and equality?...

zero direct evidence is the only way to do crime as a professional. The insurance man who deals drugs door to door... does he ever get a "routine check"? No one reports him because he looks decent and everyone who he works with is "in" on it. There are no witnesses, no evidence... so I guess with this logic, there is no crime?

Sometimes you have to judge what an object is by the negative space when there is little or no other information.
http://www.uic.edu/com/eye/LearningAboutVision/EyeSite/OpticalIllustions/Images/machine.gif