Post #80,479
2/9/03 8:39:31 PM
|
Details of plagarized British Dossier
[link|http://www.observer.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,891940,00.html|Observer UK]
How the dossier was assembled, who did the assembling and what was assembled. The nastiest part is the information about the changes made to the copied parts to make the case sound better for going to war.
Changes such as replacing 'monitoring' with 'spying' and 'opposition groups' with 'terrorist organisations' make perfectly clear that the goal of the file was not to inform, but to influence.
The article also talks about the odd situation with British intelligence agencies. They are actually pro-war, but object to the way the government is misleading the public to promote the war. This is why there have been a steady stream of leaks from said agencies that point out the flaws in the government case.
Jay
|
Post #80,491
2/9/03 9:34:24 PM
|
This is hilarious.
I remember when the original statement about releasing their "dossier" came out. They wouldn't release it IMMEDIATELY..... instead they would release it at a given date in the future....... to build up the suspense and to ensure maximum coverage. After all, this WAS the British government's "dossier" on Iraq / Saddam. This would contain PREVIOUSLY UNRELEASED MATERIAL detailing Iraq / Saddam's evilness. Full of academic outrage, it explained how the so-called 'secret spy dossier' published last week by the Government as a crucial plank in the argument for why the West should go to war was largely cribbed from an American postgraduate's doctoral thesis - grammatical mistakes and all - based on evidence 12 years out of date. Combine this with Bush's mis-quoting of actual UN research. No, the governments aren't lieing to you about this "war".
|
Post #80,493
2/9/03 9:40:39 PM
|
Kinda like the Iraqi document of all their weapons?
Just photocopy the stuff from last time and hand it in. Sounds like he is saying fuckyou and we are saying fuckyou back. Inevitable war whether rheoric matches fact or fiction.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #80,531
2/9/03 11:59:13 PM
|
Did you read the article?
The British government claimed to have a "dossier" on Iraq / Saddam with never before publicly released information.
So, it's okay if the government tries to frame someone for a crime....
as long as that person has committed that crime....
and you have the government's word that they have.
|
Post #80,535
2/10/03 12:12:22 AM
|
Well if you say so, me I would dig a little into History
facts, regional alliances, colonial and future ambitions that directed the current borders and religion.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #80,539
2/10/03 12:43:55 AM
|
And the History is that their "dossier" was nothing.....
more than existing reports based on 12 year old facts.
The British government LIED about the information it had.
Just as the US government has LIED about the information it has claimed to have had.
If the FACTS are sooooooo bad, then why do both of those governments have to LIE about them?
Answer: Because the FACTS are not that bad. Yep, Saddam is a vicious, brutal dictator that has killed his own people.
Just like about a hundred other ones in the world.
No matter how bad he is to his own people, he is NOT a threat to the US.
And if he is not a threat to the US, then he is certainly not a threat to "civilization" as the US government likes to keep claiming.
And starting a war with him will result in MORE expenses and MORE lost lives than simply helping those who want to leave Iraq find new homes in other countries and letting his regime collapse on its own.
We have troops in just about every country around him (and we really don't care about the ones we don't have troops in). If he attacks anyone we care about, we invade. Simple. We wipe out his government and install a new one. As "legal" as any war has ever been.
If he never attacks, then he will, eventually, die without starting the "war" that the US government seems to threatened by.
|
Post #80,541
2/10/03 12:57:57 AM
|
Okay then why is France and Germany so intent on invasion?
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=80492|http://z.iwethey.org...w?contentid=80492]
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #80,578
2/10/03 10:32:00 AM
|
I haven't seen the details of that plan yet.
So it's kind of hard to discuss it in anything but general terms. Okay then why is France and Germany so intent on invasion? That's just amazing, coming from someone who claims there's a difference between sending a plane into a building to murder children -and- sending a cruise missile into a building to kill children But now you see a French/German plan to have UN inspectors .... -the same as- The US sending 800 cruise missiles into Baghdad. It isn't "murder", it's "killing". Why don't you first try DEFINING the terms you're going to be focusing on? Naw. You won't do that. Yep, having UN inspectors in there will be the same as sending 800 cruise missiles into Baghdad. It's just that there will be a few magnitudes of difference in the number of innocent civilians killed/murdered/rendered-non-living. Yes, there will be UN inspectors and troops in Iraq. No, they will not be there to kill anyone -nor- To overthrow the existing government.
|
Post #80,586
2/10/03 10:57:20 AM
|
Oh strawman of profound impotence
shuffle shuffle exit stage right. Ya wanna argue the other post? Go there and do it so other readers can spot your selfreferencing prooves and posts.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #80,607
2/10/03 12:41:42 PM
|
Okay, here's what "strawman" means.
Since it is obvious that you do not understand what you're posting.
[link|http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#strawman|Strawman]
My point is that your use of "invasion" to cover two COMPLETELY different approaches
-is very different from-
the time you differentiated between flying a missile into a building and flying a missile into a building (when one missile was cruise and the other was a plane).
So, you attempt to play semantic games rather than address the actual position.
You attempt to play semantic games rather than address the actual position.
And, in this thread, you are again attempting to do so by labeling BOTH options as "invasions".
|
Post #80,640
2/10/03 2:37:57 PM
|
Define invasion
Francogermania version,
1.put UN troops in Iraq
2.Create a UN Court
3.Make Iraq a UN Protectorate.
4.Disarm Iraq of WMD transition Government to be more friendly
American version
1. Invade by force
2. Put Un Coalition troops in Iraq (assuming such is formed)
3. Creat a UN Tribunal (court)
4. Make Iraq a UN Protectorate.
5. Disarm Iraq of WMD transition Government to be more friendly
Now the trick is how to acheive Fracogermania number one, without doing American number one. Aint gonna happen.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #80,683
2/10/03 4:46:42 PM
|
"1. Invade by force"
I think you've finally realized the difference. Not that it will stop you from claiming that both are the same. 2.Create a UN Court
3.Make Iraq a UN Protectorate. I'll wait to see the final proposal before commenting on these claims.
|
Post #80,725
2/10/03 6:08:07 PM
|
and Sadaam Is going to allow all those
soldiers to come in. Establish UN Courts and become a UN protectorate without resistance requiring an attack in force?
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #80,728
2/10/03 6:09:51 PM
|
Sure...he'll probably greet them in person.
Great photo op and all.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #80,752
2/10/03 7:07:55 PM
|
It's called "reading". Try it sometime.
Boxley blathered: and Sadaam Is going to allow all those
soldiers to come in. Establish UN Courts and become a UN protectorate without resistance requiring an attack in force? Yet I had already addressed this specific point in an earlier post in this thread:[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=80683|Here] 2.Create a UN Court
3.Make Iraq a UN Protectorate.
I'll wait to see the final proposal before commenting on these claims.
But, of course, you wouldn't be you if you could actually read what I had previously posted. Now you get to make a Merlin reference because I linked to a previous post of mine (if only to show you that I had responded to those specific items in a previous post, in this thread even). Again, is Saddam going to allow those? I guess we'll have to wait to see if they are actually part of the plan, and, if they are, how they are to be implemented.
|
Post #80,760
2/10/03 7:57:36 PM
|
Self referencing for clarity is fine
the only time I did other wise was to call you on the patented brandi shuffle :-)
So basically you are saying no comment till the proposal is officially presented?
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #80,975
2/11/03 4:35:43 PM
|
Nope. Iraq says no.
[link|http://quote.bloomberg.com/fgcgi.cgi?ptitle=Top%20Financial%20News&s1=blk&tp=ad_topright_topfin&T=markets_box.ht&s2=ad_right1_topfin&bt=ad_position1_topfin&box=ad_box_all&tag=financial&middle=ad_frame2_topfin&s=APkld6RZ_Q3J1ZGUg|Here] on Bloomberg. The URL will change. New York, Feb. 11 (Bloomberg) -- Crude oil rose to the highest price in more than two years after Iraq rejected the presence of United Nations peacekeepers under a plan by France and Germany to avoid a military conflict.
``No Iraqi would accept the deployment of such a force,'' Foreign Minister Naji Sabri told the Al Hayat newspaper. The peacekeepers would be present while UN inspectors stripped Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. A broadcast statement purported to be from terrorist leader Osama bin Laden boosted prices in late trading. This (their rejection) isn't surprising to me. The only way Iraq would accept such a plan is if they saw it as the only alternative to invasion. And then they would act just as the have with the existing inspections - doing just enough to prevent further military action while keeping weapons that they wanted. Saddam's MO is to draw things out as long as possible and hope that the UN and the world tires of the conflict. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #80,571
2/10/03 10:21:24 AM
|
Red Scare redux.
Same trick, different villains. And, much like the Red Scares of the past, most Muricans believe it. More is the pity.
|
Post #80,564
2/10/03 9:19:15 AM
|
Re: Details of plagarized British Dossier
"The article also talks about the odd situation with British intelligence agencies. They are actually pro-war, but object to the way the government is misleading the public to promote the war. This is why there have been a steady stream of leaks from said agencies that point out the flaws in the government case."
I understand this point. My case is that Bush admin are lying to us and I resent that. If they made a case that argued for our longterm survival, I would buy it a lot better than the bare faced deceptions or lies. But the reality is they can't state their real objectives because they are so selfish in terms of dominating the world's resurces & energy. So in one sense it becomes a catch-22 ...
1) We (US) want to dominate rather than risk being dominated (based on belief that someone will)
2) We can't admit that publicly to the world despite it being obvious to some
3) We need the support of our people & need to win over as many others as we can
4) We (US) have to do some bad deeds to achieve the dominance we require
5) We have to convince our people that what we are doing is really good else we will have another Vietnam political disaster on our hands as well as possibly failing to secure our dominance
6) World trade will help level the playing field in time, but without a dominant superpower to provide the umbrella of peace (our peace) we can't achieve free world trade (imagine a terrorist group being able tp blow up the main global undersea internet cables at a time world trade becomes dependant on them)
We live in challenging times
Doug Marker
|
Post #80,659
2/10/03 3:15:43 PM
|
Yes, challenging times; somnolent 'publics', mostly.
And emerging is a certain commonality - in UK as well as US (and apparently the case re other 'supporting' Govts of lesser import): the prevailing public opinion on this matter is being ignored, or the questions asked by pollsters are manipulated to assure a "Support Our Troops" Red Herring answer.
My observation locally is, thus far there is little sign of an Interest in this entire matter: as large as the daily mundane interests, like shopping. Yes, the usual suspects are indeed organizing demonstrations - there always remains a possibility of a confluence of these, actually including an influx of Joe Sixpacks - but that is chimerical as always. Logic has nothing whatsoever to do with these hysterical machinations.
Few (in my local stat samples) have their heads around any deep thought that they are being manipulated via overt lies of the sort familiar in these threads.. (Yes I ask oblique non-inflammatory type questions, in an effort to extirpate this attitudinal 'answer', not 'debate').
At the now accelerating speed of W's cabal - I suspect the cruise missiles will fly before any such Large-enough public demonstrations could flag a few non-somnolent politicians, at last.
We're on autopilot now. Good Luck to us all. (We can bet that the looniest are preparing to Rapture-Out.. even harder. Watch The Skies! Bring on the ME Tribulations as God Wants\ufffd. Pope Ashcroft is Ready, in any case.)
Ashton
waiting for Patriot-II, the formal retirement of the US Constitution at 'HomeLand'. (Right next to La La Land) Probably without more than a small cluck from Congress, despite the Amer. Bar Assn's recent strong statement re the erosion of liberties.
|
