Tal's Iraq War: Blood for Oil, Oil for Food, Food for Thought

quote:

---

Here, we watch Fox, CNN, MSNBC, BBC, and Al Jazeera.

​

There are no codes flashing on the bottom telling us to prepare ourselves to hear views expressed that may be critical of the US actions in Iraq because CNN broadcasts a wide variety of viewponts.

​

We simply watch the news.
  —tal

---

Seriously, you're not suggesting that there are no differences between these organisations in terms of how they cover world events, are you?Do Al-Jazeera broadcast positive stories about the upcoming elections?
Do Fox broadcast the pictures of dead and maimed Iraqis following US bombings?One of the things I always bear in mind when watching the news or reading a newspaper, is that there is *always* an agenda. No-one is ever completely impartial. Which stories will be on the front page? If you're discussing particular events, who do you ask for comment? These choices can materially alter how any particular story is perceived by the reader or viewer.To take a (hopefully) non-contentious example: The recent expansion of the EU. In the liberal press over here, a lot of reporting focussed on how far Eastern European countries had come since the fall of Communism. In constrast, the Daily Mail, a somewhat right-wing newspaper, spent most of it's time talking about the potentially negative consequences of unrestricted labour migration. same event, completely different spin.I emphasise this is true of all media organisations to some degree - although perhaps Fox is more forthright that most in nailing its colours to the mast! It is only by getting news from a number of sources that we can get the full picture. We may not agree with the bias of a particular network, but that bias may lead them to report and highlight things we would not otherwise hear about.Certain facts have been discussed so far in this thread:(1)There was significant corruption going on under the auspices of the UN Oil For Food Scheme (which the UN admits).
(2)Intelligence behind the assertions that the Iraqi regime possessed significant stockpiles of WMD and represented a clear danger to Western interests, requiring that we invade, have proven to be false (confirmed by government-intiated inquiries on both sides of the Atlantic).
(3)There was a distinct lack of planning for the occupation phase of operations in Iraq (admitted by those doing the planning).Particular news outlets may place more emphasis one set of facts over the other, but you can't escape the reality that *all* of the above are true. You can use them to construct any number of arguments about how the current mess in the Middle East came about - but denying them is counterproductive.This message has been edited by gengar, 01-11-2005 13:11 AM

Wow, nicely written.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

quote:

---

I've never seen any of that schra.
Here, we watch Fox, CNN, MSNBC, BBC, and Al Jazeera.

​

There are no codes flashing on the bottom telling us to prepare ourselves to hear views expressed that may be critical of the US actions in Iraq because CNN broadcasts a wide variety of viewponts.

​

We simply watch the news.

​

I do prefer fox, but I guess that's a given since I'm a conservative.

---

OK, well I guess that they had to warn the vacationing generals in Tokyo so they wouldn't get pissed off at the hotel staff or something.Seriously, now that you know that Fox was touting itself as "Part of the Team" instead of "Fair and Balanced", doesn't that make you pause for just a moment to wonder if they are doing journalism or cheerleading?Conservative people who watch Fox News are not interested in actual journalism or integity. They are mostly just wanting to not ever have their preferred beliefs challenged.That's because Fox news lies and distorts the truth. And yes, I can back that up.

I didn't get very far in this thread but there seems to be no need to go throught the links individually since the Bush administration's own man said there were no weapons. Report on Iraq Contradicts Bush Administration Claims
That takes care of all the links dealing with WMDS (11 total). That only leaves the 7 other links about terrorists in Iraq and ties to OBL.

From your own link You are 100% incorrect. Sarin and Mustard HAVE ALREADY BEEN USED on US forces. So how can you say there were no weapons? All of my WMD links happened. There's no debating that. There was 1.77 TONS of nuclear material moved from the Tuwaitha nulcear complex.

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Yeah, that whole US civil war thing didn't end slavery in the US?

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Wow, it ended slavery? I guess there's no use having to look for slave rings and other human trafficking I've been reading about then, right? Or are you suggesting that it never happens in the US after the Civil War?Believe it or not slavery as an above board official practice ended in many nations without a shot being fired in anger. Pretty much only in the US was there wholesale bloodshed of people trying to maintain it. Afterwards (in all nations) slavery continues to be practiced in different forms, including plain old slavery slavery.The fact that the Civil War didn't end slavery in the US can be seen in the many laws regarding slavery (usually "white slavery") in the very next century.How about fascism, nazism, and communism?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

This is why you are a phony debater. If the question is did 2004 Iraq possess a WMD arsenal, or have the ability to create a WMD arsenal, such that it posed a threat to anyone (including by passing such tech on to terrorists) the answer is a resounding: NO!This was the conclusion of our own weapons teams and the US congress (Republican lead I might add).Yet you throw up links and cry WMDs ARE FALLING, WMDs ARE FALLING!!!What you fail to mention is that they were not used by Hussein at all, they were not used in overtly chemical attacks, their use was not lethal (in part due to their extreme age and lack of careful preservation... hint hint), and all experts have concluded that it was not the tip of an iceberg such that anyone can make the WMD claims that you are making. INDEED YOUR OWN CITATION MAKES THIS POINT!!!! I wonder if you even actually read them.Here we go... That last sentence is very important as the ultimate conclusion was that the insurgents likely had no idea that the shell was filled with chemicals at all, which is why it was set as an explosive device. It was determined likely (for both discovered shells) that the Iraqis had simply misplaced certain shells which had once been prepared with these toxins and were not aware of their existence. As their failure proved, they were certainly not in any working order at this point in time.Believe it or not I actually do read your links. That is why I said before that they are old or had been refuted by new information. And as I had mentioned earlier, some contain info which directly contradicts your entire argument!Please please improve your arguments. Getting rid of Fox as a news source would be a good step. It not only feeds you disinformation, it weakens one's ability to judge information properly.Honestly I am not just a little disturbed that a guy that has access to top secret info because he needs it to do his job, actually watches Fox and believes it is a good source of info... so much that he never gets to the bottom lines which directly contradict the innuendo laced throughout the rest of the article.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

If the question is did Iraq possess WMD that it could pass on to terrorists then the answer is a resounding: YES! Negative, I am just using those links to refute the assertion that there were no WMD in Iraq.This message has been edited by Tal, 01-12-2005 05:08 AM

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Who owns legal slaves in the US?

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Well that is open to debate. Some would say any company using temp workers. Some would say any company that runs those payday loan places which explicitly exploits low pay from other companies in order to get the poor to work for the loan company. Some would say anyone that replaces grants with loans for school so that people are forced into a form of indentured servitude.But we could be more mainstream about it. In which case I have already said that there is no officially sanctioned (old school) slavery in the US. Does that mean slavery has been ended?As far as I can tell there is no legal murder or terrorism, and yet it still exists... hmmmm.So yeah slavery has not been ended by any war. And I will repeat that the US is not the world. Slavery was abolished (though still exists) in many nations without going to war about it.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

Time to switch to a new news source. Unless by "did" you mean in the deep past. Have you gotten around to reading the citations that others have given you, including the one that I had mentioned (and someone else was nice enough to post a link to)? But I just got done showing you that one of your own links says your position is in error.We are in bizarro world when oldy moldy individual shells, which were once loaded with chemical munitions, stored badly and most likely forgotten/misplaced by Iraqi troops, then picked up by insurgents and used as improvised explosives (indicating that they most likely had no idea it was anything but a shell), where the deterioration of the chemicals was so great that no one directly exposed even gets killed, can accurately be labelled as WMDs.Doesn't that fail your common sense test... really?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

We are going in circles.Agree to Disagree.Next topic.

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

quote:

---

Do Al-Jazeera broadcast positive stories about the upcoming elections?

---

Should they? It looks like its going to be a debacle.

quote:

---

Do Fox broadcast the pictures of dead and maimed Iraqis following US bombings?

---

No they don;t. But that said a lot of the criticism of AJ for braodcasting such images is silly and opportunistic - Arab world press as a whole is much less shy about showing real images of death than western media is. And I consdier that a weakenss of Western medi, as it tneds to create a consequence-free context in which violence is exercised.The allegation that AJ broadcasts such images as part of a purposefully anti-Western strategy is total rubbish.

quote:

---

You are 100% incorrect. Sarin and Mustard HAVE ALREADY BEEN USED on US forces.

---

According to who? In fact most of the commentary has been about the manifest failure of the Iraqi regulars, allegedly armed to the teeth with such chemical agents, to use these weapons in the face of US invasion. These are after all area-deniual weapons mostly suited to use on concentrations of troops. So WHERE and WHEN were these wespons used? Please support your claim.

quote:

---

So how can you say there were no weapons? All of my WMD links happened.

---

Easy - there were not weapons. If you claim there are weapons, can you tell me where they are please, and why your militarily has not yet seized them?Furthermore, its undountedly true those links "happened". But that does not mean they were not lies. Your government lied to you and the world - that is the reality you are desperate not to acknowledge.

quote:

---

There's no debating that. There was 1.77 TONS of nuclear material moved from the Tuwaitha nulcear complex.

---

Yes a very interesting case, that. Thwe two top theories are:
1) this was moved by iraqi rebels becuase the US was too busy securing the oil facilties they came for rather than being interested in the empty pretext they used to justify the war, or
2) it was spirited away by Americans because the material would have shown links incriminating America in the initial supply of nuclear materials. This is in line with the dog-n-pony show of Saddam's indictment in which no charges relating to the Iran-Iraq war wer mentioned, presumably because American fingerprints are all over that conflict.This message has been edited by contracycle, 01-12-2005 06:42 AM