Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

War on Truth

  1. Jun 5, 2003 #1
    In both England and Australia, various political factors are trying to instigate investigations into all that mumbo-jumbo crap the governments spewed to drum up war-fever prior to the USA's invasion of Iraq. The general public (most, at least) knew all along that it was all crap, but the government speakers continued pulling the Party line all along, regardless of the lack of evidence. Now the invasion is completed, and still no evidence, and the idiots in Parliament are finally saying what everyone else already knew: no justification for war.

    Now, I know a lot of people were swayed by emotions, and assuemd all sorts of nasty things about Iraq after that 9/11 thing in America, but the fact is Iraq had nothing at all to do with it, and such emotional reactions by so many idiots was just ridiculous.

    Brief list of events:
    • USA accuses Iraq of supporting Al Qaeda and such. No evidence supporting the accusations is produced.
    • President Bush made repeated mentions of "9/11" while discussing Iraq. Rather than expressing any actual link, he merely mentioned the two things in proximity, forming a connection in the easily-swayed minds of the masses.
    • USA accuses Iraq of possessing illegal NBC weapons. No evidence supporting the accusations is produced.
    • USA accuses Iraq of trying to build nuclear weapons. No evidence supporting the accusations is produced.
    • Britain accuses Iraq of trying to buy uranium from Niger. The evidence supporting this accusation is proven to be a forgery.
    • USA offers Australia a new trade deal, worth an extra four billion Australian dollars per year, and Australia in return supports the USA plans for war.
    • Without UN support, the USA, Britain, and Australia invade Iraq.
    • Dick Cheney's old company, Halliburton, is given the contract to look after Iraq's oil fields, without even having to bid for the contract.

    So, after three or four thousand Iraqi civilians have been killed, over 160 American soldiers have been killed, an unknown number of Iraqi soldiers have been killed, and the oldest artifacts of civilisation have been stolen in the disorder that comes with warfare, we still have no evidence that any of it had any justification whatsoever. IF those deaths and losses can be justified at all.

    Perhaps they will find something soon, conventiently. Remember that barge full of weapons floating down a river in Vietnam, used as a reason for the USA invading there? They showed pictures of the barge, and said "See? The North are sending weapons downriver to supply the rebels! We need war!" And it turned out it was the CIA who had bought the barge, bought the weapons, loaded the weapons on the barge, set the barge floating downriver so they could find it later themselves... So yeah, they might find something in Iraq, which for some reason Iraq never used in battle, even when losing control of their own nation... Riiight...
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 5, 2003 #2
    In the Orwellian view of the far radical right-wing, they are 'right', therefore anything they do to further their goals is also 'right'. Lying is fine, and something to be proud of, so long as it is successful.

    Isn't that the way sociopaths think?
     
  4. Jun 5, 2003 #3

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    There is probably "some" truth in there, but whatever truth there was was exaggerated out of all proportion.
     
  5. Jun 5, 2003 #4

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    This thread is ridiculous.
    You people are completely out of touch with
    the reality of the world. Until someone flies
    a plane or blows up a bus with you or your family
    in it or releases poisnous gas in the subway
    you simply won't get it, will you ?
    Today's world has come a long way and in some
    countries (aspecialy the "west") it feels as safe
    and secure as any place on Earth ever did in history.
    But this stable world is not reflective of the
    way the vast majority of the population on the
    planet know and are familiar with it.
    Now go read your dental cord instructions or something...:wink:

    Live long and prosper.
     
  6. Jun 5, 2003 #5
    This is the language of fear, not logic. Again, where is the evidence? And why is so much of the 'evidence' Bush and Co. presented false, misleading, forged, or later proven to be incorrect?
     
  7. Jun 5, 2003 #6

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Greetings !
    Even if that were the case (Are you the head of
    a relevant investigation commity and have
    the proper security clearence ? :wink:), who cares ?
    The basis of today's international laws is in
    democratic societies and indeed it is mostly
    relevant to such societies. It has poorer applicability
    when it comes to other types of societies.
    In short, if you stick to the rules when they
    weren't even designed for such cases and the
    other side doesn't, you're just providing the
    other side with an advantage. And since the great
    majority of people have no doubt as to the side
    that's preferable, what's the big problem ?
    In fact, the major opposition to the war came from
    (I'm talking about democratic countries) the countries
    that had direct material intrests involved.
    It's no that there aren't material intrests on the
    other side, but again - who cares ? If the right
    thing was done and the price is reasonable then
    what's the problem ?

    Peace and long life.
     
  8. Jun 5, 2003 #7

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    This pretty much captures the problem. What is the point of any evidence, if you cannot see it yourself? What if I said I have evidence that Bush is Bin Laden, but for purposes of national security I can't show it to you?

    These arguments can often be reduced to "Trust me, I'm the president". A government based on faith instead of an open relationship is not a good thing. And it certainly isn't part of the democratic ideal.

    Again we try to bring this into it. Did you know who was the biggest company selling arms to Iraq in 2001? Good old Haliburtons. The major support from the war came from countries that benefited most in terms of material from it. Oh... let's go into conspiracy theory mode.

    Let me just debunk one of those quotes that have been taken way out of context - the idea that Chirac said he would veto any second resolution. If you look at the full sentence, the second (very important) half of which is snipped in most quotings, what he actually said was:
    "My position is that, regardless of the circumstances, France will vote 'no' because she considers this evening that there are no grounds for waging war in order to achieve the goal we have set ourselves, that is to say, to disarm Iraq."
    Despite the confusing mention of regardless of circumstances, Chirac never meant that he would never allow the war. Rather that at the moment of the interview, there were no reason for the war to occur for Iraqi disarmament. This is perhaps one example of those "grain of truth exaggerated out of all proportion" cases.

    All I know is that Saddam never offered me any cash or oil. And I believe that you are not getting paid in Iraqi oil as we speak. So please bin all those ad hominem arguments.
     
  9. Jun 5, 2003 #8

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I'm not the one trying to do that. On the contrary,
    what I'm trying to say is that this should be
    irrelevant when you personally decide whether
    this was right or wrong for the PEOPLE involved.
    And I certainly see that it was.

    Live long and prosper.
     
  10. Jun 5, 2003 #9

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    Actually, your stats are wrong. The majority of people in polls taken of the coalition of the willing did not want to go to war, many even with an UN resolution.

    The argument is still open on whether the right thing was done and the price was reasonable, but this discussion is mostly on what we knew at the time. You don't do something and THEN justify it.
     
  11. Jun 5, 2003 #10

    kat

    User Avatar

    FZ- when you said "biggest company selling arms to Iraq in 2001? Good old Haliburtons" did you mean "biggest company selling" or that it sold the most? and are you sure about arms? or oil pumping equipment? if arms, do you have links, sources? I had not read anything about arms sales during the 2001 period, not contesting, just curious.
     
  12. Jun 5, 2003 #11
    Are you saying that international laws weren't made to be applicable to the USA's actions?

    A problem lies in the fact that we were lied to. If we don't care that the governmetnal officials lie to us, then why even have a representative government at all? Also, I disagree with you in your conclusion that the price was reasonable. It was not worth the strained relations and bad rap that this country has gained.
     
  13. Jun 6, 2003 #12
    First Russ, now you, admit that lying and deceit, and illegal activities, are ok, so long as it serves Republican causes...what a breath of 'fresh air'(comparatively).
     
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2003
  14. Jun 6, 2003 #13

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Greetings !
    ?!
    No, I think your stats are wrong.
    You people should listen to yourselves sometimes ?!
    Even if that was correct, and I disagree with that
    not to mention that the influence of the US has
    certainly increased overall, tell the above to the
    free people of Iraq.
    I don't care about Republicans or Democrats or whatever,
    I care about the right thing for the people (and again - I'm
    NOT talking about the US population here).

    Live long and prosper.
     
  15. Jun 6, 2003 #14

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Is that a Freudian slip or do you really think drag and I are the same person? Drag and I don't always post in the same thread for a simple reason:
    Though I sometimes get sucked in, I try to avoid ridiculous threads. There is nothing of substance in this thread to argue against.
     
  16. Jun 6, 2003 #15
    I was saying "First Russ said it, and not you(drag) have said it"...

    And, of course, now you are saying that truth that contradicts your ideology has no substance.
     
  17. Jun 6, 2003 #16

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    LOL
     
  18. Jun 6, 2003 #17

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Wonderful. I get words put in my mouth now in threads I don't even participate in.

    edit: You know what - I'm going to try a different approach here. Zero, I'm just plain not going to try to correct you anymore when you post lies about me. I'll just have to trust the others in this board to interpret my posts correctly.
     
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2003
  19. Jun 6, 2003 #18

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    Oops. 1 year out.

    http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilforfood/2001/0627chen.htm

    Hmm... Where did that arms thing come in? Some synapses must have shorted out. Of course the US was a prime exporter of arms prior to the period, and there was limited arms trade (and Britain too. I've see the declassified documents) In fact in the old CIA world fact book the US is listed as the primary export partner of Iraq.

    Really? From the Guardian: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,900725,00.html

    (Feb 22 issue)
    Britain:
    Italy:
    Australia:
    Spain:
    In reality, war support only really began with the declaration of the war, when the old "support our boys" thing went on.
     
  20. Jun 6, 2003 #19

    We must elect leaders whom we can trust, is that not One of the main points of holding elections? We should not trust a leader blindly but when he says he has evidence and gives ample proof that what he says is true, we should believe him because he was elected to lead our country and if we can not trust the elected leader of our country, how sad has this world become?
     
  21. Jun 6, 2003 #20
    Go with the Republican strategy, that you supported numerous times, where lies and truth don't matter, so long as the agenda is served.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: War on Truth
  1. The truth owners (Replies: 101)

  2. Wars for oil? (Replies: 6)

  3. Gaza War (Replies: 35)

Loading...