WMD Lies No Surprise

[Michael De Panama]

Read:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0620-05.htm

[canikickit]

But the case was luridly bad from the get-go, riddled with holes that were obvious to anyone who was watching. We kept reaching for crudely forged documents and aluminum tubes. When Secretary of State Colin Powell got up in front of the United Nations to make the case that Saddam was connected to Osama bin Laden, he used as his main point the existence of an al-Qaeda training camp in Iraq. The camp was in the Kurdish autonomous zone, controlled not by Saddam but by the people to whom we had allied ourselves. That would have justified bombing D.C. - but not Baghdad.

[Michael De Panama]

My favorite part:

The truth is, we wanted to flex our muscles, wanted to kill somebody, thirsted for conquest. That's the reason the administration ladled up the slop, and that's the reason so many Americans purported to believe it or decided not to worry too much about the case.

Clearly, the manipulation of public opinion was central to the administration's strategy for war, and clearly, it garnered and continues to enjoy the support of the American people. And in our system - in which human lives are nothing compared to polling numbers - the decision to go couldn't have been made in any atmosphere of opinion that was much different.

So for God's sake, please don't pretend now to feel betrayed or anguished by sudden doubt. Your self-deception is as much to blame as the administration's lies.

[Anonymous]

Good opinion article.

[187]

"The truth is, we wanted to flex our muscles, wanted to kill somebody, thirsted for conquest. That's the reason the administration ladled up the slop, and that's the reason so many Americans purported to believe it or decided not to worry too much about the case."

How can he call that "the truth."

[Liberty Lover]

Quote: from Michael De Panama on 11:44 pm on June 20, 2003
Read:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0620-05.htm


Wow Michael, this article you found on the balanced news site, commondreams, really reflects your intelligence and ability to think dialectically! You're even smarter than Pissnicked.


"The truth is, we wanted to flex our muscles, wanted to kill somebody, thirsted for conquest"

The fact that the person who made this comment teaches a really practical course like philosophy at an art college unmistakably indicates that he had access to a wide range of documents relating to the Bush administrations activities leading up to the war and is indisputable evidence that every one pushing for pre-emptive action in Iraq just wanted to "kill somebody".

(Edited by Liberty Lover at 12:56 am on June 22, 2003)

[Unrelenting Steve]

oh just get over a little cliche, cases that have killed people in Ameica have had less substanciated proof made into "truth"

(Edited by Unrelenting Steve at 12:00 am on June 22, 2003)

[Michael De Panama]

Liberty Lover, editorials aren't meant to be unbiased. The fact that you impulsively attacked the credibility of the author, the news source, and myself before even attempting to make any sort of intelligent argument against the content of the article only damages your own credibility.

What was the war about? Weapons of mass destruction? Was it a war you would have wanted to die for, if you weren't busy sitting on your fat ass talking to 14 year old communists on some dumbass internet message board? That's what I'd like to know.

[Michael De Panama]

Quote: from 187 on 6:10 pm on June 21, 2003
"The truth is, we wanted to flex our muscles, wanted to kill somebody, thirsted for conquest. That's the reason the administration ladled up the slop, and that's the reason so many Americans purported to believe it or decided not to worry too much about the case."

How can he call that "the truth."

Sorry, is that making your brain itch? "The truth" was we need to bomb Iraq because they aren't letting the inspectors in. "The truth" was we need to bomb Iraq because they're hiding WMD's. "The truth" was we need to bomb Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people.

[American Kid]

DePanama you prick.

You said you were gone for good. Ah, well. Looks like christmas came twice.

Personally, I'd like to know where these so-called "WMD's" are. Maybe they're hidden far up in the moon, packed tightly in a mound of cheese.

Or maybe Saddam through them off the flat side of the Earth into space.

After all, a fairy tale's a fairy tale.

I didn't support the war as it happened, and I don't support it now. If we're so concerned with protecting (liberating) oppresed peoples, then where were the Marines when Liberian mothers where trying to bang down the doors of the US consulate in a desperate attempt to protect their children?

Hm.

-ak

(and where's the Marines in Zimbabwe? If I was a white farmer, I'd want my land back. And Mugabe dead)

[Iron Star]

they don't care about people. its all about where the moneys at. there is no real good money to be made in zimbabwe or liberia. but in iraq? oh, that's black gold.

[Ghost Writer]

I would say that it has more to do with:

1.) squeezing Iran from two sides

2.) coup plotting with liberal elements inside Iran

3.) ousting a threat to peace in the region

4.) eliminating an unconventional weapons threat

5.) pulling troops out of Saudi Arabia (where they are not wanted)

6.) installing a second democratic government in the region (dominos)

7.) leveraging OPEC

8.) demonstrating our willingness to attack states that sponsor terrorism

9.) pressuring Syria to quit backing Hezbolah

10.) setting up western media outlets to counter the fanatical ideology that prevails in the Middle East

11.) testing and demonstrating the technological superiority of our weapons systems

12.) protecting the American way of life.

13.) overall, changing the entire face of that region

Yeah, that's right, there is more to the war than liberating the Iraqi people (just a posative side effect), money, and oil. Yeah, I supported it then, as I do now. Rest assurred the weapons will be found, and the leftists will, once again, be exposed as the fools they are.

(Edited by Ghost Writer at 11:15 am on June 22, 2003)

[Vinny Rafarino]

Let's take out all the bullshit in GW's post and expose the only things these right-wing terrorist care about shall we?

GW's corrected list of reasons to attack and occupy Iraq;

1.) squeezing Iran from two sides

2.) coup plotting with [right-wing] elements inside Iran

3) eliminating an unconventional weapons threat

4) pulling troops out of Saudi Arabia (where they are not wanted)

5) installing a second [puppet] government in the region (dominos)

6.) [Completely controlling] OPEC

7.) demonstrating our willingness to attack states that [have oil]

8.) pressuring Syria to [give up their oil now before the Hezbolah is used as an excuse for invasion and seizure of it]

9.) setting up western media outlets to [destroy Islam in an attempt to demoralise the masses]

10.) testing and demonstrating the technological superiority of our weapons systems [on innocent civilians]

11.) overall, [taking over]of the entire region.

[Ghost Writer]

Very funny, coming from a guy that condones the wholesale slaughter of dissidents.

[canikickit]

It is true though Norm.

[Ghost Writer]

I know that we have discussed the allegation accusing the United States of imperialism on these boards before, Canikickit. Judging from what I have said before, what to you suppose my answer to your question would be?

The question is; do you really think that we want to take over the entire region, or is it more reasonable to conclude that the United States is only interested in maximizing the stability of the region, and then developing business relationships, without having the prohibitive cost of maintaining an empire?