News War on Truth

  • Thread starter Adam
  • Start date

Do you believe there was any truth in the USA's/Britain's accusations against Iraq?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 10 55.6%
  • No.

    Votes: 8 44.4%

  • Total voters
    18
15
0
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...
 

Zero

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?
 

FZ+

1,550
2
There is probably "some" truth in there, but whatever truth there was was exaggerated out of all proportion.
 

drag

Science Advisor
1,055
0
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.
 

Zero

Originally posted by drag
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.
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?
 

drag

Science Advisor
1,055
0
Greetings !
Originally posted by Zero
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?
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.
 

FZ+

1,550
2
Are you the head of a relevant investigation commity and have the proper security clearence ?
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.

In fact, the major opposition to the war came from (I'm talking about democratic countries) the countries that had direct material intrests involved.
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.
 

drag

Science Advisor
1,055
0
Originally posted by FZ+
Again we try to bring this into it.
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.
 

FZ+

1,550
2
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.
 

kat

12
0
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.
 
Originally posted by drag
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 ?
Are you saying that international laws weren't made to be applicable to the USA's actions?

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 ?
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.
 

Zero

Originally posted by drag
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.
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 by a moderator:

drag

Science Advisor
1,055
0
Greetings !
Originally posted by FZ+
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.
?!
No, I think your stats are wrong.
Originally posted by Dissident Dan
It was not worth the strained relations and bad rap
that this country has gained.
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.
Originally posted by Zero
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).
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.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,848
5,038
Originally posted by Zero
First Russ...
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:
This thread is ridiculous.
Though I sometimes get sucked in, I try to avoid ridiculous threads. There is nothing of substance in this thread to argue against.
 

Zero

Originally posted by russ_watters
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.
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.
 

drag

Science Advisor
1,055
0
Originally posted by russ_watters
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.
LOL
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,848
5,038
Originally posted by Zero
I was saying "First Russ said it, and not you(drag) have said it"...
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:

FZ+

1,550
2
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.
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.

No, I think your stats are wrong.
Really? From the Guardian: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,900725,00.html

(Feb 22 issue)
Britain:
Since last weekend's worldwide demonstrations, the opposition to war seems to have grown. A poll found that 52% were against the use of military force to remove Saddam Hussein.
Italy:
Recent newspaper polls showed that more than 80% of Italians were against a war and 70% would object even to an attack authorised by the UN.
Australia:
n the most recent poll, on February 3, three-quarters of Australians declared themselves against a war in Iraq without UN backing. Forty per cent said they would oppose it even with UN approval.
Spain:
At the same time, however, he has also seen at least 2 million protesters take to the streets of Madrid and Barcelona while polls show more than two-thirds of Spaniards oppose war. His conservative People's party has lost its poll lead over the anti-war opposition Socialists.
In reality, war support only really began with the declaration of the war, when the old "support our boys" thing went on.
 
17
0
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.

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?
 

Zero

Originally posted by russ_watters
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.
Go with the Republican strategy, that you supported numerous times, where lies and truth don't matter, so long as the agenda is served.
 

Zero

Originally posted by Shadow
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?
The world is a pretty sad place. The attack on freedom began in 1990, when Clinton first gave hint of running for President, and hasn't stopped since. With media complicity, the right wing has subverted truth, liberty, and freedom for their own twisted goals.
 

schwarzchildradius

Hi guys/girls.
DRAG:You people are completely out of touch with the reality of the world.
Dear friend, physical aspects fo reality are easily quantified in numbers, and the numbers reported by the govmnt (TONS of vx, biological agents, etc., as well as the completely fraudulent nuclear weapons report) have been demonstrated untrue. You say that that's irrelevant, and the ends justify the means. Now that Iraq is liberated, we're free of the great threat that it imposed. Yet young US soldiers die nearly EVERY DAY there.

The thread asks if there is ANY truth at all to the govmnt's (really Pentagon's) reasons for war. Well there's always a small kurnel of truth to any lie, correct? The problem is that the lying is so ubiquitous that it calls into question every angle and motive for the plan.
-The military KNEW that there was no nuclear weapons program there, else they would've secured the active nuclear sites that they left for looters.
-The administration KNEW that there was no intention to place a democratic government there, else they would've sent police in to keep order and would've established a Bill of Rights.

Ciao
 

drag

Science Advisor
1,055
0
Greetings !

FZ, I appologize, I was wrong.
Nevertheless, it's just that these people are mostly
stupid because they don't care about other people
and they are so used to their ussual lives that they
don't realize how the world really works.
Too bad they're suh morons. :wink:
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
Now that Iraq is liberated, we're free of the great threat
that it imposed. Yet young US soldiers die nearly EVERY
DAY there.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. That's all that
matters to you, isn't it ?

You don't care about millions of people now able to
live in a free country because of the war. Why ?
Because they're not US citizens ? Where's all that
beautiful moral talk you people like so much ?

You do not even understand that the reason that you
can have such a reduclously advanced lifestyle is
because of extermely competative and violent international
politics including moves like this one without which it
would never exist.

In short, again - you people only care about yourselves
and you do not understand how the world works.
Sad but true.

Peace and long life.
 

Zero

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

FZ, I appologize, I was wrong.
Nevertheless, it's just that these people are mostly
stupid because they don't care about other people
and they are so used to their ussual lives that they
don't realize how the world really works.
Too bad they're suh morons. :wink:

That's exactly what I'm talking about. That's all that
matters to you, isn't it ?

You don't care about millions of people now able to
live in a free country because of the war. Why ?
Because they're not US citizens ? Where's all that
beautiful moral talk you people like so much ?

You do not even understand that the reason that you
can have such a reduclously advanced lifestyle is
because of extermely competative and violent international
politics including moves like this one without which it
would never exist.

In short, again - you people only care about yourselves
and you do not understand how the world works.
Sad but true.

Peace and long life.
Again, you are using emotion to avoid the fact that the government lied to everyone...the end does not always justify the means...and when they lie this much, can you trust what they tell you about the outcome?
 
17
0
I think you mixed things up. (a) most people didn't vote for Bush. (b) It's we elected him because we thought he was trustworthy, not he is trustworthy because we elected him. The price of democracy is vigilance. You don't vote to lose your responsibility in a fall guy president. (c) he hasn't given ample proof. In fact, there is ample evidence he is wrong.

It is true that the majority did not vote for him, but the states witht he greatest population did, for they have the greatest amount of electoral votes unless I am just very confused. He did still win the election and the people of the united states are fine with this way of voting and those who are not don't vote. So people have accepted it and Bush is not the only president that this has happened with. Or is it we elected him because he IS trustworthy? As for the ample proof that he is wrong, I have not seen this "ample proof" but it seems your Prime Minister agrees with President Bush. In fact, in a speech he gave thispast week he said British Intelligence has uncovered several things although I can not remember the whole speech so I cannot remember what these things were, only that they had to do with the Iraqi weapons situation.
 

Related Threads for: War on Truth

Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Poll
  • Posted
2
Replies
31
Views
9K
  • Posted
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
12
Views
7K
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • Posted
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Posted
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
  • Posted
2
Replies
49
Views
6K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top