The road to war was paved with lies - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

maximusveritas · 04-29-2003, 08:01 AM

Great editorial by Paul Krugman in today's NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/29/opinion/29KRUG.html

Quote:

April 29, 2003
Matters of Emphasis
By PAUL KRUGMAN

We were not lying," a Bush administration official told ABC News. "But it was just a matter of emphasis." The official was referring to the way the administration hyped the threat that Saddam Hussein posed to the United States. According to the ABC report, the real reason for the war was that the administration "wanted to make a statement." And why Iraq? "Officials acknowledge that Saddam had all the requirements to make him, from their standpoint, the perfect target."

A British newspaper, The Independent, reports that "intelligence agencies on both sides of the Atlantic were furious that briefings they gave political leaders were distorted in the rush to war." One "high-level source" told the paper that "they ignored intelligence assessments which said Iraq was not a threat."

Sure enough, we have yet to find any weapons of mass destruction. It's hard to believe that we won't eventually find some poison gas or crude biological weapons. But those aren't true W.M.D.'s, the sort of weapons that can make a small, poor country a threat to the greatest power the world has ever known. Remember that President Bush made his case for war by warning of a "mushroom cloud." Clearly, Iraq didn't have anything like that — and Mr. Bush must have known that it didn't.

Does it matter that we were misled into war? Some people say that it doesn't: we won, and the Iraqi people have been freed. But we ought to ask some hard questions — not just about Iraq, but about ourselves.

First, why is our compassion so selective? In 2001 the World Health Organization — the same organization we now count on to protect us from SARS — called for a program to fight infectious diseases in poor countries, arguing that it would save the lives of millions of people every year. The U.S. share of the expenses would have been about $10 billion per year — a small fraction of what we will spend on war and occupation. Yet the Bush administration contemptuously dismissed the proposal.

Or consider one of America's first major postwar acts of diplomacy: blocking a plan to send U.N. peacekeepers to Ivory Coast (a former French colony) to enforce a truce in a vicious civil war. The U.S. complains that it will cost too much. And that must be true — we wouldn't let innocent people die just to spite the French, would we?

So it seems that our deep concern for the Iraqi people doesn't extend to suffering people elsewhere. I guess it's just a matter of emphasis. A cynic might point out, however, that saving lives peacefully doesn't offer any occasion to stage a victory parade.

Meanwhile, aren't the leaders of a democratic nation supposed to tell their citizens the truth?

One wonders whether most of the public will ever learn that the original case for war has turned out to be false. In fact, my guess is that most Americans believe that we have found W.M.D.'s. Each potential find gets blaring coverage on TV; how many people catch the later announcement — if it is ever announced — that it was a false alarm? It's a pattern of misinformation that recapitulates the way the war was sold in the first place. Each administration charge against Iraq received prominent coverage; the subsequent debunking did not.

Did the news media feel that it was unpatriotic to question the administration's credibility? Some strange things certainly happened. For example, in September Mr. Bush cited an International Atomic Energy Agency report that he said showed that Saddam was only months from having nuclear weapons. "I don't know what more evidence we need," he said. In fact, the report said no such thing — and for a few hours the lead story on MSNBC's Web site bore the headline "White House: Bush Misstated Report on Iraq." Then the story vanished — not just from the top of the page, but from the site.

Thanks to this pattern of loud assertions and muted or suppressed retractions, the American public probably believes that we went to war to avert an immediate threat — just as it believes that Saddam had something to do with Sept. 11.

Now it's true that the war removed an evil tyrant. But a democracy's decisions, right or wrong, are supposed to take place with the informed consent of its citizens. That didn't happen this time. And we are a democracy — aren't we?

TaLoN · 04-29-2003, 08:21 AM

i understand why they did what they did, i have no problem with it

Dragonlich · 04-29-2003, 08:36 AM

Quote:

So it seems that our deep concern for the Iraqi people doesn't extend to suffering people elsewhere. I guess it's just a matter of emphasis. A cynic might point out, however, that saving lives peacefully doesn't offer any occasion to stage a victory parade.

Nope. A cynic would say: welcome to the real world...

Quote:

Now it's true that the war removed an evil tyrant. But a democracy's decisions, right or wrong, are supposed to take place with the informed consent of its citizens. That didn't happen this time. And we are a democracy — aren't we?

And this is even worse... the theoretical democracy is nice, but the reporter fails to take into account that most people are NOT informed, but will just listen to the person with the most persuasive arguments. Those arguments could be completely made up, but as long as it sounds logical, people will follow. Hell, the reporter proves this himself by showing how the US public supports the war!

Or does he have a plan to force Joe Avarage to be more informed?

stan the man · 04-29-2003, 08:39 AM

talon come on did we just read the same article

you were lied to and you dont give two hoots

have you been brain washed by the us media if so i apologize for my next statement

americans are war mongering nincompoops

sorry floks but it had to be said bring on the tongue lashing and prove me correct

KillerYoda · 04-29-2003, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by stan the man
americans are war mongering nincompoops

You got it all wrong. We're all "weekend warriors." Most of the people I deal with on a daily basis who are 100% behind the war are either women who never have to worry about being drafted in the event we start a global conflict, or people who have seen Patton too many times (don't get me wrong, I love the movie).

My opinion on the "weekend warrior" phenomenon has always been, if you support the war so much, join up. Stop hiding behind your "These colors don't run" bumpersticker and volunteer for service. It's easy to say "Kill em all, let God sort em out" from your the comfort of your living room.

Dragonlich · 04-29-2003, 11:28 AM

Hey KillerYoda... I really tried! I wanted to see what my chances would be of becoming logistics officer. The officer training is fully booked for the coming two years, and even if it wasn't, the Dutch army isn't hiring. (And of course, we're never going to war anyway...)

And of course, your reasoning is silly; not everyone that supports a war has to fight... It'd be the same as me saying to an anti-US person to go to Iraq to fight the US; after all, if you're so anti-US, *do* something instead of criticizing them on a website...

Liquor Dealer · 04-29-2003, 11:32 AM

There are several ways of looking at anything - the New York Times has been anti everything since this whole thing started. I wouldn't get too excited over anything they or the LA Times ran anymore. You guys have been cussing Fox for everything they've done and then counter it with the NYTimes - give it a rest.

KillerYoda · 04-29-2003, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonlich
Hey KillerYoda... I really tried! I wanted to see what my chances would be of becoming logistics officer. The officer training is fully booked for the coming two years, and even if it wasn't, the Dutch army isn't hiring. (And of course, we're never going to war anyway...)

And of course, your reasoning is silly; not everyone that supports a war has to fight... It'd be the same as me saying to an anti-US person to go to Iraq to fight the US; after all, if you're so anti-US, *do* something instead of criticizing them on a website...

Migrate to the US, and sign up. We'll no doubt be needing you pretty soon.

And as far as doing something "anti-US," now that's silly. I love the US. I'm just against the current actions of our administration, in otherwords making me "anti-war," and I usually support military action. I wasn't complaining when we were bombing Al-Caeda caves, that's for damn sure. They attacked us, and killed civilians doing so. I supported the first Desert Storm. While I admit we're a little to blame for Hussein being in power, he was murdering his own people and he was a threat to us back then. Of course, our President at the time screwed the pooch on that situation by not dealing with the problem when it actually was a problem. So, Saddam did nothing for 12 years other than make a cameo appearence in the South Park movie, and now we're attacking him because he might have passed a note to Bin Laden during gym class and also might have chemical weapons. Rather than wait 5 extra minutes to see if he had WMD, and if he did I would have supported military action to disarm the country, we jumped the gun, thus making us look like assholes in the world view, which as a result, will bring on more terrorist attacks.

I guess I come off as anti-US when I point out various fuckups we've made, but that's only in hopes to that maybe a little reality will sink into the heads of the 100% pro-war people who justify things by "We're good, they're evil."

And there really is no effective anti-war thing that anyone can do other than just talk about it on websites.

TaLoN · 04-29-2003, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by stan the man
talon come on did we just read the same article

you were lied to and you dont give two hoots

have you been brain washed by the us media if so i apologize for my next statement

americans are war mongering nincompoops

sorry floks but it had to be said bring on the tongue lashing and prove me correct

yes we did read the same article. if i were in their position then i would have done the same thing. in order to succesfully lead any large group of people you can't always tell them the truth. never underestimate how stupid people in large groups can be, they can't handle the truth sometimes. I see no problem taking short cuts as long as the desired goal is met.

and no i haven't been brainwashed. i am cynical enough to realize that the media is always full of bs. there are alot of naive people out there who believe that at least 1 person in power is honest. i am not one of them

BigBlueWrecking · 04-29-2003, 12:58 PM

Here is the original article that the Times editorial makes reference to:

Quote:

Revealed: How the road to war was paved with lies
Intelligence agencies accuse Bush and Blair of distorting and fabricating evidence in rush to war
By Raymond Whitaker

27 April 2003

The case for invading Iraq to remove its weapons of mass destruction was based on selective use of intelligence, exaggeration, use of sources known to be discredited and outright fabrication, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.

A high-level UK source said last night that intelligence agencies on both sides of the Atlantic were furious that briefings they gave political leaders were distorted in the rush to war with Iraq. "They ignored intelligence assessments which said Iraq was not a threat," the source said. Quoting an editorial in a Middle East newspaper which said, "Washington has to prove its case. If it does not, the world will for ever believe that it paved the road to war with lies", he added: "You can draw your own conclusions."

UN inspectors who left Iraq just before the war started were searching for four categories of weapons: nuclear, chemical, biological and missiles capable of flying beyond a range of 93 miles. They found ample evidence that Iraq was not co-operating, but none to support British and American assertions that Saddam Hussein's regime posed an imminent threat to the world.

On nuclear weapons, the British Government claimed that the former regime sought uranium feed material from the government of Niger in west Africa. This was based on letters later described by the International Atomic Energy Agency as crude forgeries.

On chemical weapons, a CIA report on the likelihood that Saddam would use weapons of mass destruction was partially declassified. The parts released were those which made it appear that the danger was high; only after pressure from Senator Bob Graham, head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, was the whole report declassified, including the conclusion that the chances of Iraq using chemical weapons were "very low" for the "foreseeable future".

On biological weapons, the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, told the UN Security Council in February that the former regime had up to 18 mobile laboratories. He attributed the information to "defectors" from Iraq, without saying that their claims – including one of a "secret biological laboratory beneath the Saddam Hussein hospital in central Baghdad" – had repeatedly been disproved by UN weapons inspectors.

On missiles, Iraq accepted UN demands to destroy its al-Samoud weapons, despite disputing claims that they exceeded the permitted range. No banned Scud missiles were found before or since, but last week the Secretary of State for Defence, Geoff Hoon, suggested Scuds had been fired during the war. There is no proof any were in fact Scuds.

Some American officials have all but conceded that the weapons of mass destruction campaign was simply a means to an end – a "global show of American power and democracy", as ABC News in the US put it. "We were not lying," it was told by one official. "But it was just a matter of emphasis." American and British teams claim they are scouring Iraq in search of definitive evidence but none has so far been found, even though the sites considered most promising have been searched, and senior figures such as Tariq Aziz, the former Deputy Prime Minister, intelligence chiefs and the man believed to be in charge of Iraq's chemical weapons programme are in custody.

Robin Cook, who as Foreign Secretary would have received high-level security briefings, said last week that "it was difficult to believe that Saddam had the capacity to hit us". Mr Cook resigned from the Government on the eve of war, but was still in the Cabinet as Leader of the House when it released highly contentious dossiers to bolster its case.

One report released last autumn by Tony Blair said that Iraq could deploy chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes, but last week Mr Hoon said that such weapons might have escaped detection because they had been dismantled and buried. A later Downing Street "intelligence" dossier was shown to have been largely plagiarised from three articles in academic publications. "You cannot just cherry-pick evidence that suits your case and ignore the rest. It is a cardinal rule of intelligence," said one aggrieved officer. "Yet that is what the PM is doing." Another said: "What we have is a few strands of highly circumstantial evidence, and to justify an attack on Iraq it is being presented as a cast-iron case. That really is not good enough."

Glen Rangwala, the Cambridge University analyst who first pointed out Downing Street's plagiarism, said ministers had claimed before the war to have information which could not be disclosed because agents in Iraq would be endangered. "That doesn't apply any more, but they haven't come up with the evidence," he said. "They lack credibility."

Mr Rangwala said much of the information on WMDs had come from Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress (INC), which received Pentagon money for intelligence-gathering. "The INC saw the demand, and provided what was needed," he said. "The implication is that they polluted the whole US intelligence effort."

Facing calls for proof of their allegations, senior members of both the US and British governments are suggesting that so-called WMDs were destroyed after the departure of UN inspectors on the eve of war – a possibility raised by President George Bush for the first time on Thursday.

This in itself, however, appears to be an example of what the chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix called "shaky intelligence". An Iraqi scientist, writing under a pseudonym, said in a note slipped to a driver in a US convoy that he had proof information was kept from the inspectors, and that Iraqi officials had destroyed chemical weapons just before the war.

Other explanations for the failure to find WMDs include the possibility that they might have been smuggled to Syria, or so well hidden that they could take months, even years, to find. But last week it emerged that two of four American mobile teams in Iraq had been switched from looking for WMDs to other tasks, though three new teams from less specialised units were said to have been assigned to the quest for "unconventional weapons" – the less emotive term which is now preferred.

Mr Powell and Mr Bush both repeated last week that Iraq had WMDs. But one official said privately that "in the end, history and the American people will judge the US not by whether its officials found canisters of poison gas or vials of some biological agent [but] by whether this war marked the beginning of the end for the terrorists who hate America".

Here is the link:

UK Article

stan the man · 04-29-2003, 12:58 PM

talon are you comforted by the thought that your government lies to you

stan the man · 04-29-2003, 01:01 PM

thanks for the find blue good work

TaLoN · 04-29-2003, 01:02 PM

i wouldn't say comforted, i just defend it because we think similarly

stan the man · 04-29-2003, 01:04 PM

yes we do on some points your a good man talon

Nad Adam · 04-29-2003, 01:38 PM

Stan
Didn't talon mean he supported the government? Or could it be that you are actualy 'the man'

stan the man · 04-29-2003, 01:40 PM

he agrees with me that most peole have been brain washed

and yes i am the man

well thats what my mom calls me

Nad Adam · 04-29-2003, 01:40 PM

As for emphasis...

maximusveritas · 04-29-2003, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquor Dealer
There are several ways of looking at anything - the New York Times has been anti everything since this whole thing started. I wouldn't get too excited over anything they or the LA Times ran anymore. You guys have been cussing Fox for everything they've done and then counter it with the NYTimes - give it a rest.

Are you seriously putting Fox on an equal plane of journalistic integrity as the New York Times? That's laughable. If I wanted something to counter Fox, I'd have to dig up some trash on a socialist website or a tabloid or something. The New York Times is the most respected newspaper in the world.

The_Dude · 04-29-2003, 03:19 PM

doesnt really look like the iraqi's are that happy that they're freed.

i've seen lots of jeering

boatin · 04-29-2003, 04:06 PM

Thank you, TaLoN, for stepping up and acknowledging that we were lied to. I choose to disagree with your choice of not caring about it, but I respect your choice.

It's the people that change the subject or argue a different point that seem silly to me. Does anyone not think we were lied to? How about all the people who backed up the WMD line for 2 weeks on this board?

Anyone else want to sign up for the "yeah, we were lied to, but I don't care" line?

edit: funny cartoon! thanks

KillerYoda · 04-29-2003, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by boatin
Does anyone not think we were lied to?

I think they try to tell us the truth, but it's hard to be 100% true on war stories, with security and all. The media jumps the gun on stories more than lies to us. They have a tendency to report "fact", then retract it an hour later, like with the original "smoking gun" chemical weapons plant they found a while back. First it was reported as being 100x100 yards long, then 10x10 yards long, then nothing else was said about it. They also have a tendency to report more stuff that shows the US in a favorable light.

Phaenx · 04-29-2003, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by maximusveritas
Are you seriously putting Fox on an equal plane of journalistic integrity as the New York Times? That's laughable. If I wanted something to counter Fox, I'd have to dig up some trash on a socialist website or a tabloid or something. The New York Times is the most respected newspaper in the world.

How does one measure respect? I would think that you would take the respect out of said item, lay it out on the floor and take a tape measurer to it. I don't recall ever doing that though, so my technique may not be accurate.

KillerYoda · 04-29-2003, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Phaenx
How does one measure respect? I would think that you would take the respect out of said item, lay it out on the floor and take a tape measurer to it. I don't recall ever doing that though, so my technique may not be accurate.

I tried a yardstick, myself.

reconmike · 04-29-2003, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by maximusveritas
Are you seriously putting Fox on an equal plane of journalistic integrity as the New York Times? That's laughable. If I wanted something to counter Fox, I'd have to dig up some trash on a socialist website or a tabloid or something. The New York Times is the most respected newspaper in the world.

I am sorry but most respected by whom? Card carring democrats and communists?

sixate · 04-29-2003, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by reconmike
I am sorry but most respected by whom? Card carring democrats and communists?

You got that right!

hiredgun · 04-29-2003, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by reconmike
I am sorry but most respected by whom? Card carring democrats and communists?

Wow. You're actually linking the NYTimes to Communism. And implying that Fox News is more reliable. I, too, am appalled.

maximusveritas · 04-29-2003, 06:35 PM

Well, I couldn't find a poll, but just do a search for "most respected newspaper" on Google. There's even a few conservative sites that call the NYT just that. Then again, maybe they're just commie spys. There were a couple mentions of the London Times as the former most respected newspaper. It lost the throne when Rupert Murdoch got his hands on it.

KillerYoda · 04-29-2003, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by reconmike
I am sorry but most respected by whom? Card carring democrats and communists?

"You call this a newspaper? More like asswipe for dirty commies!"

guthmund · 04-29-2003, 08:54 PM

Quote:

if i were in their position then i would have done the same thing. in order to succesfully lead any large group of people you can't always tell them the truth.

Doesn't that undervalue the validity of your cause though?So, it's okay for the United States goverment to lie to you to get you behind their cause?

Quote:

never underestimate how stupid people in large groups can be, they can't handle the truth sometimes.

While that may be so, there is no excuse for an elected assembly to lie to it's constituents. No matter how 'stupid' the masses are we put their asses in our government. Stupid or not they should still be held accountable to us.

Quote:

I see no problem taking short cuts as long as the desired goal is met

who's goal?

Kadath · 04-29-2003, 09:17 PM

A friend of mine said something along the lines of "The government knows things I don't, and I trust them to do the right thing with that information." It's called sticking your head in the sand, and I'm sure it's very comforting.

TaLoN · 04-29-2003, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by boatin
Thank you, TaLoN, for stepping up and acknowledging that we were lied to. I choose to disagree with your choice of not caring about it, but I respect your choice.

why are people assuming that i don't care???? i care a great deal or else i would have not posted. Yes the government has lied to me, but it isn't like i couldn't read between the lines! I realize what they did and i agree with it (not the same as not caring). They did what they had to in order to accomplish their goals. You can't go telling the truth to followers because they will only consider their own well being. They are not concerned with their country, they just want to make sure that their lives aren't affected. You choose to live in this country then you all should act like one; we might as well change the name to "Divided States of America". The government has plenty right to lie to the masses. Individuals may have the intelligence to comprehend such an issue, but people in large numbers cannot.

boatin · 04-29-2003, 09:50 PM

for what it's worth, what I meant by "don't care" was that you were OK being lied to about this. Sorry for the semantic confusion.

My question (for anyone) is this: if they will lie about something as big as a reason to go to war, what won't he/they lie about? Doesn't the conservative 'side' bitch and moan that the problem with Clinton is that he lied? It's sure my issue with him.

It seems that when you agree with the lie, that makes it ok. Where is the consistency?

Or does the fact that Clinton's was under oath make it different? Seems like keeping faith with the American public is the issue, no matter which oath we are talking about.

Dragonlich · 04-29-2003, 11:03 PM

1) KillerYoda, I didn't say you were anti-US. It was an example. If pro-war people should join the war, logically, anti-US people should attack the US.

2) Boatin, what you call "lying" is quite normal in politics and business. It's called marketing. Or do you realy believe that drinking Coca-Cola will make you have fun? Or that Pepsi is the choice of the "new" generation? I know, there's quite a difference between that, and marketing a war; but in essence, it's the same. You focus on the things that agree with your goal, and ignore or marginalize the things that do not.

KillerYoda · 04-29-2003, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonlich
1) KillerYoda, I didn't say you were anti-US. It was an example. If pro-war people should join the war, logically, anti-US people should attack the US.

Cool, no problem. I'm actually starting to worry I come off as anti-US though, cause messageboard responses have an angry coldness to them that person-to-person discussion lacks.

reconmike · 04-30-2003, 09:47 AM

I was refering to these communists actually.

Dilbert1234567 · 04-30-2003, 01:40 PM

its so true how the media does not mention all the news, just what gets the ratings, did you know that bush is being sued by a small group that belive that bush had a hand in the 9/11 attacks and they make some damn fine points

BigBlueWrecking · 04-30-2003, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dilbert1234567
its so true how the media does not mention all the news, just what gets the ratings, did you know that bush is being sued by a small group that belive that bush had a hand in the 9/11 attacks and they make some damn fine points

I did not know that. Is there a story I can read or a website I can find some info about it? Thanks

BigBlueWrecking · 04-30-2003, 02:14 PM

Here is a site

Here is a site that had some conspiracy theories. Not sure how much faith I would put in them, but it is interesting none the less.

boatin · 04-30-2003, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonlich
Boatin, what you call "lying" is quite normal in politics and business. It's called marketing. Or do you really believe that drinking Coca-Cola will make you have fun? Or that Pepsi is the choice of the "new" generation? I know, there's quite a difference between that, and marketing a war; but in essence, it's the same. You focus on the things that agree with your goal, and ignore or marginalize the things that do not.

Wow. I appreciate you're acknowledging that wars are different than soda. But I don't think that goes nearly far enough.

Bush telling his own people (and the world) that there are WMD in Iraq is not marketing. He has spent billions of dollars, cost American lives, jeopardized relations with our oldest allies, created the possibilities of more anti-American feeling, rolled the dice on destabilizing the most unstable region in the world and has raised concerns about our imperialist designs.

That's marketing? We are going to be cleaning up and concerned with the after affects of this war for a generation.

Perhaps the cigarette companies increasing nicotine per cigarette, telling us they aren't unhealthy to smoke and selling them to school children would be a better example. There would be marketing involved in that selling, but the underlying facts would still be a lie.

Since no one answered last time, I'll ask again: isn't it Clinton's lie that continues to be held up as his big flaw? Maybe he was just marketing to save his presidency.

This wasn't just spin.

guthmund · 04-30-2003, 09:03 PM

Quote:

It's called marketing. Or do you realy believe that drinking Coca-Cola will make you have fun? Or that Pepsi is the choice of the "new" generation? I know, there's quite a difference between that, and marketing a war; but in essence, it's the same. You focus on the things that agree with your goal, and ignore or marginalize the things that do not.

It's a pretty big damn difference. At most, product marketing makes the companies a few extra bucks, it doesn't send hundreds of thousands of soldiers half-way across the world and suck billions of dollars of our tax money out of the treasury.

I think you've summed it up quite nicely, Boatin.

He was lying about an affair, which any married man is bound to do and one thrust into the political spotlight is sure to do.

It's hardly a comparison for twisting truth and 'marketing' a war.

04-29-2003, 08:39 AM	#4 (permalink)
stan the man Insane	talon come on did we just read the same article you were lied to and you dont give two hoots have you been brain washed by the us media if so i apologize for my next statement americans are war mongering nincompoops sorry floks but it had to be said bring on the tongue lashing and prove me correct __________________ long live the hud

04-29-2003, 11:28 AM	#6 (permalink)
Dragonlich 42, baby! Location: The Netherlands	Hey KillerYoda... I really tried! I wanted to see what my chances would be of becoming logistics officer. The officer training is fully booked for the coming two years, and even if it wasn't, the Dutch army isn't hiring. (And of course, we're never going to war anyway...) And of course, your reasoning is silly; not everyone that supports a war has to fight... It'd be the same as me saying to an anti-US person to go to Iraq to fight the US; after all, if you're so anti-US, do something instead of criticizing them on a website... Last edited by Dragonlich; 04-29-2003 at 11:31 AM..

04-29-2003, 11:32 AM	#7 (permalink)
Liquor Dealer Super Agitator Location: Just SW of Nowhere!!! In the good old US of A	There are several ways of looking at anything - the New York Times has been anti everything since this whole thing started. I wouldn't get too excited over anything they or the LA Times ran anymore. You guys have been cussing Fox for everything they've done and then counter it with the NYTimes - give it a rest. __________________ Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

04-29-2003, 12:58 PM	#11 (permalink)
stan the man Insane	talon are you comforted by the thought that your government lies to you __________________ long live the hud Last edited by stan the man; 04-29-2003 at 01:02 PM..

04-29-2003, 01:01 PM	#12 (permalink)
stan the man Insane	thanks for the find blue good work __________________ long live the hud

04-29-2003, 08:21 AM	#2 (permalink)
TaLoN Loser Location: MI	i understand why they did what they did, i have no problem with it

04-29-2003, 01:02 PM	#13 (permalink)
TaLoN Loser Location: MI	i wouldn't say comforted, i just defend it because we think similarly

04-29-2003, 01:04 PM	#14 (permalink)
stan the man Insane	yes we do on some points your a good man talon __________________ long live the hud

04-29-2003, 01:38 PM	#15 (permalink)
Nad Adam Psycho Location: Sweden	Stan Didn't talon mean he supported the government? Or could it be that you are actualy 'the man'

04-29-2003, 01:40 PM	#16 (permalink)
stan the man Insane	he agrees with me that most peole have been brain washed and yes i am the man well thats what my mom calls me __________________ long live the hud

04-29-2003, 01:40 PM	#17 (permalink)
Nad Adam Psycho Location: Sweden	As for emphasis...

04-29-2003, 03:19 PM	#19 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	doesnt really look like the iraqi's are that happy that they're freed. i've seen lots of jeering __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

04-29-2003, 04:06 PM	#20 (permalink)
boatin Psycho	Thank you, TaLoN, for stepping up and acknowledging that we were lied to. I choose to disagree with your choice of not caring about it, but I respect your choice. It's the people that change the subject or argue a different point that seem silly to me. Does anyone not think we were lied to? How about all the people who backed up the WMD line for 2 weeks on this board? Anyone else want to sign up for the "yeah, we were lied to, but I don't care" line? edit: funny cartoon! thanks Last edited by boatin; 04-29-2003 at 04:09 PM..

04-29-2003, 06:35 PM	#27 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	Well, I couldn't find a poll, but just do a search for "most respected newspaper" on Google. There's even a few conservative sites that call the NYT just that. Then again, maybe they're just commie spys. There were a couple mentions of the London Times as the former most respected newspaper. It lost the throne when Rupert Murdoch got his hands on it.

04-29-2003, 09:17 PM	#30 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	A friend of mine said something along the lines of "The government knows things I don't, and I trust them to do the right thing with that information." It's called sticking your head in the sand, and I'm sure it's very comforting. __________________ it's quiet in here

04-29-2003, 09:50 PM	#32 (permalink)
boatin Psycho	for what it's worth, what I meant by "don't care" was that you were OK being lied to about this. Sorry for the semantic confusion. My question (for anyone) is this: if they will lie about something as big as a reason to go to war, what won't he/they lie about? Doesn't the conservative 'side' bitch and moan that the problem with Clinton is that he lied? It's sure my issue with him. It seems that when you agree with the lie, that makes it ok. Where is the consistency? Or does the fact that Clinton's was under oath make it different? Seems like keeping faith with the American public is the issue, no matter which oath we are talking about.

04-29-2003, 11:03 PM	#33 (permalink)
Dragonlich 42, baby! Location: The Netherlands	1) KillerYoda, I didn't say you were anti-US. It was an example. If pro-war people should join the war, logically, anti-US people should attack the US. 2) Boatin, what you call "lying" is quite normal in politics and business. It's called marketing. Or do you realy believe that drinking Coca-Cola will make you have fun? Or that Pepsi is the choice of the "new" generation? I know, there's quite a difference between that, and marketing a war; but in essence, it's the same. You focus on the things that agree with your goal, and ignore or marginalize the things that do not.

04-30-2003, 09:47 AM	#35 (permalink)
reconmike Thank You Jesus Location: Twilight Zone	I was refering to these communists actually. __________________ Where is Darwin when ya need him?

04-30-2003, 01:40 PM	#36 (permalink)
Dilbert1234567 Devils Cabana Boy Location: Central Coast CA	its so true how the media does not mention all the news, just what gets the ratings, did you know that bush is being sued by a small group that belive that bush had a hand in the 9/11 attacks and they make some damn fine points __________________ Donate Blood! "Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

04-30-2003, 02:14 PM	#38 (permalink)
BigBlueWrecking Psycho	Here is a site Here is a site that had some conspiracy theories. Not sure how much faith I would put in them, but it is interesting none the less.