djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 19, 2013 12:01:32 GMT -5
There were definitely Dixie Chick fans that disowned them. there were even more that "owned" them. which is why, from a commercial viewpoint, what happened made zero sense.It was also a time that President George Bush promoted the belief that anything said against the President, administration or war effort was un-American and un-patriotic. please believe me when i tell you, i remember it.Whether you agree or disgree with former President George Bush's actions, there was no other time in my life where any President so actively discouraged Americans from dissent with his policies. it was insane, and fascist, and most decidedly NOT liberal. liberals were the victims of that loathing.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 19, 2013 12:40:36 GMT -5
There were definitely Dixie Chick fans that disowned them. there were even more that "owned" them. which is why, from a commercial viewpoint, what happened made zero sense.It was also a time that President George Bush promoted the belief that anything said against the President, administration or war effort was un-American and un-patriotic. please believe me when i tell you, i remember it.Whether you agree or disgree with former President George Bush's actions, there was no other time in my life where any President so actively discouraged Americans from dissent with his policies. it was insane, and fascist, and most decidedly NOT liberal. liberals were the victims of that loathing. Patriotic blackmail comes in more than one flavour. I can't count the number of times I've heard "It's unamerican to cut spending on <insert debt-bloated service or entitlement here>. We're Americans, and we deserve better than that." And just like a US politico doesn't dare oppose the military, the same man doesn't dare cut spending if he wants to win an election. On the bright side, we do get the occasional humorous political ad out of the deal. Seniors being thrown off cliffs, etc.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,526
|
Post by happyhoix on Aug 20, 2013 7:25:12 GMT -5
There were definitely Dixie Chick fans that disowned them. It was also a time that President George Bush promoted the belief that anything said against the President, administration or war effort was un-American and un-patriotic. Whether you agree or disgree with former President George Bush's actions, there was no other time in my life where any President so actively discouraged Americans from dissent with his policies. Yep I remember that. Got scolded by a couple co-workers, my MIL and SIL for saying there weren't any WMD and we shouldn't have invaded Iraq - I was told I was aiding our enemies and unpatriotic for critizing a President in a time of war. Of course all those people now go on and on about how Obama is muslim, not an American and wants to destroy our country - I guess that doesn't count as aiding our enemies and being unpatriotic, somehow. The rules about being unpatriotic are complicated, I guess, because I don't understand them.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 20, 2013 10:18:29 GMT -5
There were definitely Dixie Chick fans that disowned them. It was also a time that President George Bush promoted the belief that anything said against the President, administration or war effort was un-American and un-patriotic. Whether you agree or disgree with former President George Bush's actions, there was no other time in my life where any President so actively discouraged Americans from dissent with his policies. Yep I remember that. Got scolded by a couple co-workers, my MIL and SIL for saying there weren't any WMD and we shouldn't have invaded Iraq - I was told I was aiding our enemies and unpatriotic for critizing a President in a time of war. Of course all those people now go on and on about how Obama is muslim, not an American and wants to destroy our country - I guess that doesn't count as aiding our enemies and being unpatriotic, somehow. The rules about being unpatriotic are complicated, I guess, because I don't understand them. if you live in a democracy, questioning your government, particularly in time of war, is the most patriotic thing you can do. if you live in a dictatorship, it is just the opposite.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,526
|
Post by happyhoix on Aug 20, 2013 11:16:05 GMT -5
One thing that still pisses me off about the lead up to the Iraq war was how the news media and talking heads all sat on their hands and remained silent - or worse, acted like cheerleaders.
The Bush admin kept promoting this as a response to 9-11, which was completely absurd. It was a naked grab to get control of Iraqi oil resources.
Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq's domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms.
www.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz
But in all the drama that led up to the 2003 invasion, I don't recall more than a couple voices raised in protest, either from the political side or media side. A huge failure of our democracy, IMHO, which ought to do a better job of debating such enormous decisions before we thrust our soldiers into combat - and drain our treasury paying for it.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 20, 2013 11:54:35 GMT -5
95%+ of Americans believed at that point that Saddam Hussein was complicit in the 9/11 attacks, that he was harbouring weapons of mass destruction, and that he was a cruel tyrant who needed to be toppled.
The war was projected to end in a matter of months, incurring a total cost of a few hundred billion dollars that would largely be recouped in subsequent years.
Americans were angry, and they trusted their government.
Given the government's intelligence, projections, their certainty of imminent new attacks, etc., I daresay it was illogical to oppose the war in 2003 if you trusted the US federal government and if you had no moral objections to war.
You might then argue that it's illogical to blindly trust the US federal government, but that too is a double-edged sword. A great deal of criticism has been leveled at mistrust of the US federal government over the years as well. People are condemned as backwards and paranoid for refusing to buy the party line on issues ranging from health to economics to the environment. And quite often we find the people barking that Americans shouldn't have trusted the federal government with respect to Iraq are the same ones barking that we most definitely should trust the federal government with respect to some other issue.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 20, 2013 14:07:22 GMT -5
One thing that still pisses me off about the lead up to the Iraq war was how the news media and talking heads all sat on their hands and remained silent - or worse, acted like cheerleaders.
The Bush admin kept promoting this as a response to 9-11, which was completely absurd. It was a naked grab to get control of Iraqi oil resources.
Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq's domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms.
www.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz
But in all the drama that led up to the 2003 invasion, I don't recall more than a couple voices raised in protest, either from the political side or media side. A huge failure of our democracy, IMHO, which ought to do a better job of debating such enormous decisions before we thrust our soldiers into combat - and drain our treasury paying for it.
in the runup to the war, the "liberal" media utterly failed the US public. of the opinions solicited for so-called MSM "news organizations" during that time, something like 90% of the "experts" were pro-war, even though the majority of America was opposed to it right up to 2003. in other words, during a time when informed opinion could have been mobilized AGAINST the war, the media goose-stepped in line with the administration. abject............fail.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 20, 2013 14:13:15 GMT -5
95%+ of Americans believed at that point that Saddam Hussein was complicit in the 9/11 attacks no, it was either 80% or 60%, i can't remember which., that he was harbouring weapons of mass destruction, and that he was a cruel tyrant who needed to be toppled. the cruel tyrant thing was mostly a post-war excuse. but you are right about the other two.The war was projected to end in a matter of months, incurring a total cost of a few hundred billion dollars that would largely be recouped in subsequent years. Americans were angry, and they trusted their government. the interesting thing is that in November of 2001, after 911, less than 5% thought Saddam had anything to do with the attack. sure, Americans were angry- but they were also asking WHY. and then we got our answer: because of our "values". this answer absolved us of any wrongdoing. we were being attacked because we are awesome, not because we suck up to Saudi's and support Israel. nice headfake, W. i mean that, btw- it was a masterpiece of propaganda.Given the government's intelligence, projections, their certainty of imminent new attacks, etc., I daresay it was illogical to oppose the war in 2003 if you trusted the US federal government and if you had no moral objections to war. You might then argue that it's illogical to blindly trust the US federal government, but that too is a double-edged sword. A great deal of criticism has been leveled at mistrust of the US federal government over the years as well. People are condemned as backwards and paranoid for refusing to buy the party line on issues ranging from health to economics to the environment. And quite often we find the people barking that Americans shouldn't have trusted the federal government with respect to Iraq are the same ones barking that we most definitely should trust the federal government with respect to some other issue. yes, we are far too trusting. we are still far too trusting.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 20, 2013 14:23:33 GMT -5
95%+ of Americans believed at that point that Saddam Hussein was complicit in the 9/11 attacks no, it was either 80% or 60%, i can't remember which., that he was harbouring weapons of mass destruction, and that he was a cruel tyrant who needed to be toppled. the cruel tyrant thing was mostly a post-war excuse. but you are right about the other two.... Whatever. Add together everyone who believed at least one of the three, as well as individuals who believed US troops would be greeted as liberators, and you'd get reasonably close to 100%. The hold-outs would have largely comprised pacifists, Iraqi sympathizers, deficit hawks, and conspiracy heads, none of which were (or will ever be) popular in America.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 20, 2013 14:30:27 GMT -5
Whatever. Add together everyone who believed at least one of the three, as well as individuals who believed US troops would be greeted as liberators, and you'd get reasonably close to 100%. actually, that is NOT what is important, Virgil. here is why. during the runup to the war, there were DETAILED surveys done on opinion. which is really good, because now we know precisely how we got into that mess. it turns out that the war hinged on THREE "facts"- all of which turned out to be wrong: 1) Saddam had WMD 2) Saddam had links to 911 3) International support for the war. edit (thanks, Virgil): as it turns out, if a person believed NONE of the above, support for the war was 23%. what this says is that a PR campaign had to be waged on ALL THREE OF THESE POINTS. and the Bush administration did it, and did it with extraordinary penache. as a result, by March 2003, there was tepid majority support for the war on that three legged stool. now, you could argue that all wars are like that, and you would be correct. they are rarely sold on bone dry fact. edit: excuse me for thinking this is important, but i do.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 20, 2013 14:48:43 GMT -5
I agree that it's important. But I couldn't possibly believe the conclusions you've stated without seeing the surveys, and even then I'd be more on the hunt for methodological flaws in the surveys. Maybe if their sample group was the MoJo staff alumni association, I could buy it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 20, 2013 14:49:03 GMT -5
I think this is one of the most important things that has been discussed here in some time. I would hope that study of how we got into this war would prevent us from ever doing so again under similar circumstances. But I have little faith in that. Every generation or two it seems the country forgets how nasty war is and relishes a good fight. terrified people do stupid things. great leaders appeal to calm and reason: "we have nothing to fear but fear itself". weak, shitty, third rate leaders like Bush appeal to our fears. i hold him 100% accountable for this. it was his call. he should NOT have made it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 20, 2013 14:52:14 GMT -5
I agree that it's important. But I couldn't possibly believe the conclusions you've stated without seeing the surveys sure you can. you believe all sorts of things for which you have no evidence whatsoever. , and even then I'd be more on the hunt for methodological flaws in the surveys. Maybe if their sample group was the MoJo staff alumni association, I could buy it. i am not going to bother posting it, Virgil. but if you want to look it up, look up "PIPA survey on media opinions*". i spent a full two years studying this stuff, but i don't have the time for it right now. *that title might not be 100% right, but it is damned close. edit: Iraq War is in the title, as well, i think......
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 20, 2013 15:04:58 GMT -5
terrified people do stupid things. great leaders appeal to calm and reason: "we have nothing to fear but fear itself". weak, shitty, third rate leaders like Bush appeal to our fears. i hold him 100% accountable for this. it was his call. he should NOT have made it. Absolutely. Prior to the ill advised invasion I was right in his corner on foreign policy. I don't have words for the "Karma" that should be on his head for this, and all the mayhem, killing and destruction that it has caused, and is causing to this day. ditto. i didn't speak out against him until the drumbeat of war started against Iraq. i SHOULD HAVE spoken up sooner. but i was holding onto the misguided belief that he was actually looking out for us- as in Americans- prior to that point. he wasn't.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 20, 2013 15:17:22 GMT -5
I'm assuming then that this report is what you're referring to. It states that 60% of Americans held at least one of the three misperceptions, and that "among those with one of these misperceptions, 53% support the war, rising to 78% for those who have two of the misperceptions, and to 86% for those with all 3 misperceptions." Furthermore, "among those with none of the misperceptions listed above, only 23% support the war." Hence every claim you've made in Reply #280 is either grossly inaccurate or flat-out wrong. I admit I'm surprised that overall support for the war had dwindled to the mid-50's by 2003. And what really blows my mind (digging into the report) is that Democrats were indistinguishable from Republicans in their misperception rates and their support for the war. But I declare myself vindicated in my earlier skepticism.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 20, 2013 15:25:54 GMT -5
I'm assuming then that this report is what you're referring to. It states that 60% of Americans held at least one of the three misperceptions, and that "among those with one of these misperceptions, 53% support the war, rising to 78% for those who have two of the misperceptions, and to 86% for those with all 3 misperceptions." Furthermore, "among those with none of the misperceptions listed above, only 23% support the war." Hence every claim you've made in Reply #280 is either grossly inaccurate or flat-out wrong.. not really. but i got it backwards. i thought it was "all three had to be positive", and it was "all three had to be negative". but all three WERE negative, and i was only off by 4% on that. i got the survey questions basically 100% right. was that not central to the original point? did that really seem "flat out wrong" to you? i have not read the survey in over FIVE YEARS, Virgil. thanks for being interested, and thanks for correcting me. edit: make sure you read the part about which media consumers turned out to be the most and least informed. the FOX viewers were the least informed (LIV, as Paul would say), and NPR listeners were the most informed, i believe. go ahead and correct me again, and tell me how i got it all wrong, if i did.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 20, 2013 15:28:40 GMT -5
I admit I'm surprised that overall support for the war had dwindled to the mid-50's by 2003. dwindled? from what?And what really blows my mind (digging into the report) is that Democrats were indistinguishable from Republicans in their misperception rates and their support for the war. But I declare myself vindicated in my earlier skepticism. why? you always assume you are right, don't you?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 20, 2013 15:45:47 GMT -5
That's what the study says; you're correct. But Fox has always been pro-war. If we were looking at levels of American misperceptions about AGW by network, I'm guessing we'd see a flipped graph. And the claim wasn't that Fox viewers were the least informed about Iraq, it was that they were the most misinformed about it. I consider it an important distinction because it tends to shift the blame away from Fox viewers and towards Fox itself. From Wiki: " May 2003: A Gallup poll made on behalf of CNN and USA Today concluded that 79% of Americans thought the Iraq War was justified, with or without conclusive evidence of illegal weapons. 19% thought weapons were needed to justify the war." This was the world I grew up in. Four out of five Americans giving the war an 'it had to be done' at the very least, and the other one in five basically holding out until the WMDs were found. There appears to be a stark distinction between those who "supported" the war and those who considered it justified. I made no such distinction. I didn't know too many Americans at the time, but of those I did know, not a single one that didn't "support" (in the sense of believing it to be absolutely or conditionally justified). When I state my skepticism as strongly as in Reply #282, I certainly do. But I'm not immune to being misinformed or making bad assumptions.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 20, 2013 15:48:07 GMT -5
That's what the study says; you're correct. But Fox has always been pro-war. If we were looking at levels of American misperceptions about AGW by network, I'm guessing we'd see a flipped graph. AGW?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 20, 2013 15:51:25 GMT -5
From Wiki: " May 2003: A Gallup poll made on behalf of CNN and USA Today concluded that 79% of Americans thought the Iraq War was justified, with or without conclusive evidence of illegal weapons. 19% thought weapons were needed to justify the war." This was the world I grew up in. Four out of five Americans giving the war an 'it had to be done' at the very least, and the other one in five basically holding out until the WMDs were found. There appears to be a stark distinction between those who "supported" the war and those who considered it justified. I made no such distinction.. that survey question doesn't get to the bottom of it, though, right? it doesn't explore OTHER justifications for the war- such as links to AQ and international support- both of which, in May, most people still believed were there. the war i remember was one in which the public believed a whole series of things that weren't true. the war i remember was one where a skeptic like me- who had no access to the "intelligence" that Bush had was basically 100% right about those things, whereas the administration, the "smart guys in the room" had it 100% wrong. inexcusable.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 20, 2013 15:51:49 GMT -5
That's what the study says; you're correct. But Fox has always been pro-war. If we were looking at levels of American misperceptions about AGW by network, I'm guessing we'd see a flipped graph. AGW? Anthropogenic global warming. News anchors wondering if passing asteroids may be causing it. Oceans will rise 30 feet by 2030. Climate refugees will have overrun our cities by 2015. When will the government get around to setting up carbon credits to save the world?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 20, 2013 15:53:13 GMT -5
When I state my skepticism as strongly as in Reply #282, I certainly do. But I'm not immune to being misinformed or making bad assumptions. are you immune to lapses in memory?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 20, 2013 15:57:33 GMT -5
Anthropogenic global warming. could be. but FOX still wears the misinformed crown, on a general basis. this has been a very persistent survey result. i am sure you are going to ask me, so here you go: www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/dec10/Misinformation_Dec10_rpt.pdfsame outfit. the religious studies program at the same university has a fantastic global survey of belief, which is also fascinating.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 20, 2013 16:08:06 GMT -5
From Wiki: " May 2003: A Gallup poll made on behalf of CNN and USA Today concluded that 79% of Americans thought the Iraq War was justified, with or without conclusive evidence of illegal weapons. 19% thought weapons were needed to justify the war." This was the world I grew up in. Four out of five Americans giving the war an 'it had to be done' at the very least, and the other one in five basically holding out until the WMDs were found. There appears to be a stark distinction between those who "supported" the war and those who considered it justified. I made no such distinction.. that survey question doesn't get to the bottom of it, though, right? it doesn't explore OTHER justifications for the war- such as links to AQ and international support- both of which, in May, most people still believed were there. the war i remember was one in which the public believed a whole series of things that weren't true. the war i remember was one where a skeptic like me- who had no access to the "intelligence" that Bush had was basically 100% right about those things, whereas the administration, the "smart guys in the room" had it 100% wrong. inexcusable. It was a con job. Pure and simple. What gets me is that most Americans still don't understand the main reasons why the Bush government did it. They assume it was oil-related, or Pres. Bush Sr. having his revenge for the Gulf War, or simply a mistake. Oil was a part, but nowhere close to being the prime impetus for the invasion. As usual, the real reason was financial, buried in Bremer's 100 Orders, threats to the USD as a reserve currency such as the IQD, and control of strategic banks, territory and resources. Feeding the war machine and MIC contractors played a part too.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 20, 2013 16:11:31 GMT -5
that survey question doesn't get to the bottom of it, though, right? it doesn't explore OTHER justifications for the war- such as links to AQ and international support- both of which, in May, most people still believed were there. the war i remember was one in which the public believed a whole series of things that weren't true. the war i remember was one where a skeptic like me- who had no access to the "intelligence" that Bush had was basically 100% right about those things, whereas the administration, the "smart guys in the room" had it 100% wrong. inexcusable. It was a con job. Pure and simple. What gets me is that most Americans still don't understand the main reasons why the Bush government did it. They assume it was oil-related, or Pres. Bush Sr. having his revenge for the Gulf War, or simply a mistake. Oil was a part, but nowhere close to being the prime impetus for the invasion. As usual, the real reason was financial, buried in Bremer's 100 Orders, threats to the USD as a reserve currency such as the IQD, and control of strategic banks, territory and resources. Feeding the war machine and MIC contractors played a part too. Robert Baer thinks it was "strategic interests". this is backed up by the PNAC's "Open Letter to President Clinton". so that is where i kinda go with it. the open letter really doesn't mention oil, but it is pretty blatantly implied. it is more "resources", though- and "countries that are willing to sell them -vs- uncooperative ones". in other words, it is more general than "we went there for oil". but yes, there is also the tendency, when you are a bully, and have the big stick, to use it- rather than using our hearts and our heads. not familiar with Bremer's thing. i will look into it. thanks for a pleasant discussion, but i have to go.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 20, 2013 16:14:22 GMT -5
Two thirds of the questions are crap. Garbage in, garbage out. 'Nuff said. If the quality in on par with their misinformation survey, I'll pass.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 20, 2013 16:18:40 GMT -5
He was a kind of rodeo clown. And thus the discussion comes full circle.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,526
|
Post by happyhoix on Aug 20, 2013 16:45:30 GMT -5
I might have been able to excuse them being ignorant. I'm sure it was difficult to gather reliable information.
But it wasn't just that they 'got it wrong' - they KNEW what they were selling was pure horseshit and yet they DID IT ANYWAY.
Remember the whole thing about the Nigerian yellow cake uranium? Supposedly there was a letter that proved Iraq was attempting to buy it. Only the Brits knew the letter was bullshit. They told the CIA the letter was bullshit a fucking YEAR before president used it in a speech as justification for invading Iraq.
So what is more likely - no one in the CIA, and none of the Brits who knew about this - no one bothered to tell Skippy the truth? Or Skippy and all his neocon advisors were attempting to fabricate some kind of justification for starting that war, even if it meant passing along information they knew was shit?
Bush and his neo con buddies, Cheney with his connections to Haliburton, the war industry eager to make a buck, big oil lusting for Iraqi oil, and who gives a fuck about the young kids who got killed or maimed or the massive debt we sank into.
It pisses me off to no end to think about it. I wish we could have created a draft just for the sons and daughters of all the senators and congressmen, with the Bush twins right up there leading the charge in their matching body armor.
And all the news media that failed to poke around in all the WMD and Nigerian yellow cake fantasies until we were already committed - they should have all been made to march out there on the front lines, too. Maybe they could have posted some authentic stories about that, anyway.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 20, 2013 16:53:07 GMT -5
Pulling your punches? Tell us how you really feel, happy.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 20, 2013 17:12:54 GMT -5
I might have been able to excuse them being ignorant. I'm sure it was difficult to gather reliable information. But it wasn't just that they 'got it wrong' - they KNEW what they were selling was pure horseshit and yet they DID IT ANYWAY. . i was being nice.
|
|