Uncovered: The Whole Truth

deez · 03-06-2005, 11:56 AM

If you haven't seen this, rent it. Couldn't count how many CIA operatives stating that Bushy's info and logic was ass. Still no fargin WMD found.
To me this is becoming one of the worst incidents in our history. Where are the true Patriots when you need them?

sheepofblue · 03-06-2005, 2:07 PM

I thought this was about "the Pete" and deleting the All thread until I read it

End thread jack since it is time to go put some miles on the Asccot

BDA116 · 03-06-2005, 2:19 PM

Your "test line" sucks.

Chain · 03-06-2005, 2:30 PM

Hey, deez . . .

slodsm · 03-06-2005, 6:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deez

Where are the true Patriots when you need them?

They are all over there right now doing what the pres asked them too. I am a firm believer that the worst offense is when good men stand idly by and allow evil to happen. There may be no WMD's but a tyranny was stopped and an entire country has a chance at freedom.

RPinOZ · 03-06-2005, 6:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slodsm

They are all over there right now doing what the pres asked them too. I am a firm believer that the worst offense is when good men stand idly by and allow evil to happen. There may be no WMD's but a tyranny was stopped and an entire country has a chance at freedom.

There are plenty of tyrannies in the world. Not all of them are oil rich.
Not trying to take anything away from the brave people who are fighting the insurgents over there but I believe that this whole debacle is the result of a propaganda campaign orchestrated by a very few people with extremely suspect motives.

sheepofblue · 03-06-2005, 6:34 PM

Baa ride complete

I am suprised that people are not more positive on this now. After all there has been some very suprising moves toward freedom in the region as predicted. The area is still a cesspool of dictators and terrorists but there is a definite shift occuring. If even one other country in the region becomes free in addition to Iraq it would be a major enhancement for US security and beneficial to the citizens of the country freed.

deez · 03-06-2005, 8:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPinOZ

There are plenty of tyrannies in the world. Not all of them are oil rich.
Not trying to take anything away from the brave people who are fighting the insurgents over there but I believe that this whole debacle is the result of a propaganda campaign orchestrated by a very few people with extremely suspect motives.

Bacchus · 03-06-2005, 10:55 PM

Obviously, I am in the RPinOZ and deez camps. I am still totally "gobsmacked" (got that, RP?) that a little over 50% of our U.S. vote put the Cro-Magnon back in office for 4 more.

RPinOZ · 03-07-2005, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bacchus

Obviously, I am in the RPinOZ and deez camps. I am still totally "gobsmacked" (got that, RP?) that a little over 50% of our U.S. vote put the Cro-Magnon back in office for 4 more.

"Gobsmacked" pretty well sums up my reaction to "Little Johnnie" getting voted back in here with an unprecedented majority.

ND4SPD · 03-07-2005, 8:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPinOZ

There are plenty of tyrannies in the world. Not all of them are oil rich.
Not trying to take anything away from the brave people who are fighting the insurgents over there but I believe that this whole debacle is the result of a propaganda campaign orchestrated by a very few people with extremely suspect motives.

And how much have we benefitted from Iraq's oil so far? We're still paying just as much, actually more in most cases, than before the war.

figment · 03-07-2005, 9:06 AM

Treachery

SuperDave · 03-07-2005, 9:06 AM

Very well put RPinOZ.

I still to this day cannot understand some of you who say "so what if they lied to us, at least we didn't just idly standby while evil threatened us".

LISTEN TO YOURSELVES!

Break it down for yourself,

"so what if they lied to us," That "lie" is the ONLY reason this administration got support from the American public to go to war with another country, WITHOUT United Nations support.

"at least we didn't just idly standby while evil threatened us". How again were "they" threatening us if there weren't any Weapons of Mass Destruction? Terrorist camps? Responsible for 9/11 events? The headquarters of all terrorist? Do you all just close your eyes and ears when real evidence comes forth stating we (the American people and those brave soldiers) were tricked in order to achieve another agenda? And here's the important point, regardless if this new agenda has good merit or not, this will go down as one of the most monumental historical deceptions/deceit in order to gain support (against the majority of all countries) to go to war with a tiny country with oil reserves.

I saw a documentary (Frontline) with the 8th squadron. As these soldiers were taking a break and cleaning their M16s, one soldier announced that his hometown (Houston) were still protesting. One soldier asks, "what are they protesting?", and another soldier answers "us being here". Another soldier responds "they're just pussies who don't have the stomach to die for their country", and the others agreed and started saying the same thing.

Don't these soldiers have any idea that "protestors" are protesting that those brave soldiers are being placed in harm's way for the wrong reasons? That protestors finally put two and two togethor as far as the missing WMDs, strategic military positions, oil reserves, personal (former President Bush) Defense contract investments, etc.? That if they hadn't been deceived, the Administration would never have been allowed to have those soldiers dieing in a foreign country? After all, our government works for and represents the American people right?

Here's an analogy. Let's say I ask the entire Fireblades organization for a fund raising project to pay for 'what I tell you is for cancer treatments'. Generosity is enormous and thousands of dollars are raised. But, I wasn't completely honest, as a matter of fact, I lied to everyone in order to buy my Grandfather a motorized wheelchair and invest the rest for my own benefit. I dooped all of you in order to procure a nice and useful necessity for my Grandfather and maybe earn a little money myself. It may have been a little deceitful, but it was for the right reasons, right? You wouldn't have any animosity towards me, would you? I meant well, I just knew you would never give me that kind of money unless I "made something up".

Now instead of a just little money, like my made up scenario, let's really look at the Iraq invasion, justified by world ending WMDs, $200,000,000,000 and 1,500 dead American soldiers. Any animosity?

Yes, I do.

bwhip · 03-07-2005, 9:12 AM

I suppose the real answer to whether or not this effort was worthwhile will come not from the opinions of those in Australia, Texas or Idaho - but rather from the Iraqi people themselves after some time has passed.

ccwilli3 · 03-07-2005, 11:12 AM

SuperDave et al,

do you not understand that the UN didn't want us going into Iraq because they (FR, GE, AU, SP, RU) all had their hands in the pockets of saddam in the so called "oil for food" program? They had a lot to lose by us removing saddam from power, of course they weren't going to go along with it!

There is NO other reason for them to NOT go along with it. Now they are losing that income and they want back in...

These protestors are not supporting the troops, they are hating the president. Nothing more. These are the very people that would Spit in the face of our servicemen fighting to protect the liberties they take for granted everyday. The very freedoms that allow them to bitch and complain about the world. If they wanted to make a difference, they'd take their asses to Iraq right now and make a difference. But they won't, its too comfortable here and they have it too good. No one really understands how ****ed up our world is until they get outside the US and into a 3rd world country. Only then do you see just how good we have it here...

left wingers always cry deception/lies/conspiracy... But they don't see the lies of others. Why is that?

And lastly, if there were no terrorists in Iraq, no reason to be there, then just who in the hell is it that you think we are fighting still now?

They certainly aren't coming at us with tanks/artillery/mortar fire, they don't have uniforms... nope, it's car bombs, IED and dirty bombs. Sounds like terrorists to me... Killing innocent people, striking recruiting stations. Guys wanting to serve their new country, why kill them? I personally hope that we kill every one of them before they can kill themselves. An eternity NOT in Allah's heaven. Seems fitting...

I guess many of us will agree to disagree and thats fine, welcome to America. The land of the free.

and when was the last time a democrat was elected with a majority of the popular vote. 51%.

And more of the people that voted for kerry, didn't vote for kerry, they voted against bush... So who ACTUALLY wanted kerry to be the president??

RPinOZ · 03-07-2005, 6:23 PM

Just have to pull you up on a slight misconception there ccwilli3 and one which I imagine many in the US hold. Australian troops along with Japanese, Italians and numerous others are alongside US troops in Iraq. Unfortunate as it is, all those nations' governments were sucked in by the WMD/war on terror lie too. Personally I'm all in favour of a war on terror but Irag ain't it. Yes there are insurgents fighting the allied troops in Iraq. I don't doubt that some of them are members of terrorist organisations but many of them would be Iraqi patriots who are saying WTF are you doing in our country and their patriotism is being used to manipulate them by alqaeda. But at the end of the day it is the presence of the US and allied forces in Iraq which has drawn al qaeda and insurgents into the fray and not the other way round. And the US still hasn't learnt any lessons from Vietnam. Fighting gorillas with conventional forces is like herding cats.

The US is in Iraq for one reason only: oil. I don't think liberating the Iraqis from a despot has anything to do with it. But in Gulfwars 1, Bush Snr apparently realised the dangers of destabilising the balance of power in the Middle East and the political and military quagmire an invasion Iraq could become. It seems his son didn't get the clever gene.

And if this war is justified purely on democracy/freedom grounds, what about North Korea, Zimbabwe and any other despotic regime ruling a poverty stricken, oil-poor nation you care to name? Hell North Korea is even boasting it has a nuclear weapons program and I don't see any push to invade it.

luvtolean · 03-07-2005, 7:40 PM

I bought the McNamara documentary and a friend bought this one over the weekend. We're gonna swap this week. So, I have no comments on this film yet. He did say it was interesting to see stuff about the CIA you don't normally see. McNamara had some interesting comments about doing things your allies don't want to do that were parallel to the discussion at hand.

I agree, the Bush admin should answer for the WMD "sale" for war. What we don't know is how he sold our allies (other than what we saw in the mass propaganda, I mean media machine). I certainly think there were plenty of reasons to go there, and WMD were not by necessity one of them.

RPin OZ, your outlook is mindnumbingly short sighted, quit watching TV. We are not in Iraq for oil. Saddam would've sold us all we wanted. Of course, we'd have had to smuggle it out through Syria, and he probably would've wanted us to sell him weapons like the French, Russians and Germans, but hey, what's the difference right? It makes a good mantra, we're there for oil and Bush's personal enrichment.

A better argument would be we did it to put a base there, a very strategic location.

Guys, listen very carefully. Bush would have made lots more money outside the presidency than in it. It is plain fact.

SD's comments on the soldiers. They're on the front line, fighting a battle. I've never done it, have you? I do imagine it to be a place where machismo rules. Someone who doesn't fight the enemy must be labeled a pussy. It certainly sounds like a way of dealing with the thought that someone thinks you are there killing for no reason. No matter what you say, protestors are against the troops. Just because they aren't spitting on them when they get off planes doesn't mean they support them.

These protestors protesting a war? Please. They were protesting Bush as was stated. These ass-clowns were conspicuously absent when Clinton was out wagging the dog, continuing to screw up the region with his half assed attacks. Clinton is largely responsible for at least part of the negative sentiment and lack of middle eastern allies. But, these guys weren't protesting then during Operation Red Fox, etc. Of course, then there was Kosovo, a place you can't pick the bad or good guy. Were you all calling for Clinton's head then? No. They were too busy saying, "It was only a blow job, who cares if he lied under oath."

Push to invade the possibly nuclear NK? First, China, SK and Japan will keep them in line. Second, we fought them when they didn't have nukes and it was tough. The North Koreans boast of their ability to level Seoul in minutes. But of course we should march right in there....

sheepofblue · 03-07-2005, 8:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPinOZ

...
And if this war is justified purely on democracy/freedom grounds, what about North Korea, Zimbabwe and any other despotic regime ruling a poverty stricken, oil-poor nation you care to name? Hell North Korea is even boasting it has a nuclear weapons program and I don't see any push to invade it.

Simple North Korea has nukes in part due to the deal that Clinton and the UN made (provided the raw material to be refined) And yes they are a huge danger to the US and Asia. This was the negotiate at all costs benefit.

Zimbabwe is less of a direct danger to the US both in threat and as a breeding ground for terrorists.

Also you can never do everything you want, so you have to be selective. If the toppling of Suddaam begins to convert the Middle East to a region with governments of the people rather than dictatorships it would greatly enhance the safety of the whole world. If it fails in that it still removes a dictator that hates the US and has shown a willingness to attack neighbors in horrific ways.

In comparison the other two are less successful on spreading death outside their borders.

Further as far as the oil whine, Somolia, Bosnia, Granada...

RPinOZ · 03-07-2005, 10:55 PM

Well if it's not oil then I guess LTL is saying that it is OK to go an pick on a weaker country which happens to have a bastard in power and beat the **** out of them just to get a strategic toehold in the area. Doesn't the US have other bases in the ME? And if everyone is OK with that reason why invent the WMD lie? My guess is that after 9/11 the govt had to be seen to be doing something. So first let's kick the crap out of Afghanistan. Well at least there was evidence that Bin Laden was holed up there and the Taliban were a bunch of assholes but when BL got away what next? The old political ruse of uniting people against an external threat needed more fodder. And guess what? Free oil. And they have been buying some pretty dangerous looking aluminium tubing.

I suppose I could stop watching TV and other media and become an ostrich and hope it all goes away. Or should I get all my news from Fireblades.org. I think we all agree that the free world should be pulling out all the stops to find and eliminate all Al Qaeda and their affiliates. I just don't happen to believe a multibillion dollar excursion into a largely unrelated country is a particularly effective way to do that and it hasn't done much for the credibility of the govt's of the countries involved including Australia. And my protest is not against the troops over there. Many members of my family have a military service record of which I am proud. My protest is against an act of aggression by a superpower and its allies against a weaker nation in which many on both sides have lost their lives for a bullshit reason.

bwhip · 03-07-2005, 11:12 PM

Exactly why would Bush lie about WMD? What would be the intended result? International outrage and embarassment? Faulty intelligence seems likely. But all this talk of Bush lying puzzles me. Any halfway reasonable person would think "okay, then what?"

BDA116 · 03-07-2005, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bwhip

Exactly why would Bush lie about WMD? What would be the intended result? International outrage and embarassment? Faulty intelligence seems likely. But all this talk of Bush lying puzzles me. Any halfway reasonable person would think "okay, then what?"

Many members of the ass party saw the exact same intelligence and came to the same conclusion.
Much of the intelligence came striaght from the U.N.
Of course, none of that matters to the moronic tin hat society. Bush has the giant secret oil tanks that are his personal property, and he personally pumped all the oil out of Iraq for his own personal benefit.

RPinOZ · 03-07-2005, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bwhip

Exactly why would Bush lie about WMD? What would be the intended result? International outrage and embarassment? Faulty intelligence seems likely. But all this talk of Bush lying puzzles me. Any halfway reasonable person would think "okay, then what?"

Well I for one am not 100% sure that Bush, Blair or Howard have lied on this and I certainly have not said that. Not that I'm naive enough to think pollies don't lie. But call it what you will, faulty intelligence, lies or whatever, somebody has effectively sold a story to the US govt and electorate and those of her allies which has been used as justification to go to war. Do you honestly believe that any intelligence organisation which calls itself professional could accidentally get something so significant so cataclysmically wrong? At best it is unforgiveably incompetent, especially when the weapons inspectors kept saying words to the effect of "we haven't found anything decisive yet" to the end.