Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Averett
Umm... and?
I guess I don't get it. Whats the goal of this thing? After every frame I said to myself "okay, so whats the point?" All throughout history countries have used somebody (or another country) to get what they want/need. Then when that changes, they'll turn right around and screw em.
So, are we supposed to be sympathetic towards Iraq/Saddam? Or are we supposed to be sympathetic towards the US. A "Gee, it's our own fault that things are they way they are today" type thing.
I don't get what the message is supposed to be at all.
|
Averett, we are supposed to be curious enough to endeavor to seek information that will bring us closer to an accurate view of what is and has happened in the world, especially in matters of whether or not to take up arms against another nation on the orders of our commander in chief.
Disregarding the 1st post and in thread, and the 3rd and 15th posts,
which deal only with moving the thread to the politics forum, I am posting
the first links; to two reputable news sources that discuss the details in
the "video" and attempt to provide a clearer picture of how the U.S. arrived
at the policies that the Bush administration was presenting to the public
about Iraq in Sept, 2002. The other 27 posts to this thread contain no
links to justify or to add credibility to the opinions of the posters..........
<a href="http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorbkgd/howsaddam.html">HOW SADDAM HAPPENED
America helped make a monster. What to do with him—and what happens after he’s gone—has haunted us for a quarter century
By Christopher Dickey and Evan Thomas
Newsweek
September 23 , 2002</a>
<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p01s02-wosc.html">World > Asia: South & Central
from the September 06, 2002 edition
In war, some facts less factual
Some US assertions from the last war on Iraq still appear dubious.
By Scott Peterson | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor</a>
I think that it would not be inaccurate or unreasonable (all though it will be unpopular) to say that the reaction to the "video" linked in the first post,
helps to explain how Ronald Reagan could perform as poorly and as criminally as he did as president, and still receive the outpouring of sympathetic emotion and reverential accolades that he did during the week of his death
last year. It also helps to explain how another war criminal, George W. Bush,
could be elected president, despite the record of his first term. It also
certainly helps to explain these comments from Bill Moyers:
Quote:
(I'm linking it from the freerepublic.com thread on the subject. The
knee jerk, "Moyers bashing" is already done there, for you.....)
<a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1332555/posts">http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1332555/posts</a>
Bill Moyers: There is no tomorrow
Minneapolis Star Tribune ^ | 1/30/2006 | Bill Moyers
Posted on 01/31/2005 6:28:12 AM PST by Minn
One of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington.
Theology asserts propositions that cannot be proven true; ideologues hold stoutly to a worldview despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality. When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind. And there is the danger: voters and politicians alike, oblivious to the facts.
|
I predict that someone will resapond with a post about Moyers inserting a
quote attributed to James Watt, that Watt denies ever saying while "in congress". If your reaction is to attempt to delegitmize all of Moyer's comments by pointing that out, that is your perogative.
I'll end by inviting everybody to tell me how they "know what they know".
I must be doing something wrong. I use the web to research endlessly, and
when I'm reasonably sure that I know what I'm talking about, I post about
that issue, with links to sources that shaped my opinion. Even then, I'm still
never entirely sure that my opinion is entirely accurate. It's very important
to me that I am being as accurate as I can be, after all, it becomes what
I think, and you are what you think.
Where do you get your information, and how are you so sure about it that
you almost never post a link to the information's source ? What am I doing
wrong ?