Timebuilder
Entrepreneur
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 4,625
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
What we don't see in the news
- Thread starter PilotOnTheRise
- Start date
- Watchers 8
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
jarhead
master of my domain
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2002
- Posts
- 1,162
KickSave
You know KickSave, I believe you are 100% totally sincere in your discussion on this thread. You speak with some passion, for what you believe in, as we all do. This is not something anyone can find fault with, nor should they. You believe, what you believe. Truth is a hard commodity to nail down, as "truth" is different to many people, even when looking at the same "facts". People of different stripes will often draw different conclusions from identical 'facts'.
I think, partially what inflames debate, is that when one puts forth a strongly held opinion, it is easy to slip into hyperbole, and use purjorative terms, to advance ones view. I will admit, I am not immune from this human failing, and I know I have engaged in it myself from time to time, when I have become particularly exercised over something.
Some of these type of purjorative terms, that are taken right from your last post, are show below:
"believe in everything Bush has fed us" "Fed" is a purjorative word for "Told".
"and how long guys like you will..." "Guys like you", is a purjorative attack and totally gratuitous.
"continue to make excuses like "I believe that......"
"Make excuses" could be far less inflammatory, than a phrase like "continue to give reasons"
All I am trying to say, is that it's hard to engage in meaningful dialog, when character assassinations start to fly, or condescending language starts to prevail.....it promotes anger, and it's very hard to give reasoned thought under emotional duress.
As I said before, I am guilty of the same type of 'rage' on the keyboard, and in verbal disagreement with people from time to time.
I hope I don't come across as 'preachy' here. That is not my intent. Just want to keep some semblance of meaningful dialog.
You know KickSave, I believe you are 100% totally sincere in your discussion on this thread. You speak with some passion, for what you believe in, as we all do. This is not something anyone can find fault with, nor should they. You believe, what you believe. Truth is a hard commodity to nail down, as "truth" is different to many people, even when looking at the same "facts". People of different stripes will often draw different conclusions from identical 'facts'.
I think, partially what inflames debate, is that when one puts forth a strongly held opinion, it is easy to slip into hyperbole, and use purjorative terms, to advance ones view. I will admit, I am not immune from this human failing, and I know I have engaged in it myself from time to time, when I have become particularly exercised over something.
Some of these type of purjorative terms, that are taken right from your last post, are show below:
"believe in everything Bush has fed us" "Fed" is a purjorative word for "Told".
"and how long guys like you will..." "Guys like you", is a purjorative attack and totally gratuitous.
"continue to make excuses like "I believe that......"
"Make excuses" could be far less inflammatory, than a phrase like "continue to give reasons"
All I am trying to say, is that it's hard to engage in meaningful dialog, when character assassinations start to fly, or condescending language starts to prevail.....it promotes anger, and it's very hard to give reasoned thought under emotional duress.
As I said before, I am guilty of the same type of 'rage' on the keyboard, and in verbal disagreement with people from time to time.
I hope I don't come across as 'preachy' here. That is not my intent. Just want to keep some semblance of meaningful dialog.
enigma
good ol boy
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 2,279
Deja vu all over again,
Kicksave signed off with "out", so I assume that he has left the building on this issue.
I don't have timebuilders patience to debate each point, BUT I will, once again, remind Kicksave and everyone else that lying on the stand by the most powerful man in the world, is something that affects each and everyone of us. That is why President Clinton was impeached. The Democratics in the Senate did not allow him to be removed from office, but his attempt to obstruct justice did get him impeached.
The reason that the issue is so important is simple (at least to me). One of the most valuable institutions in American government is our court system. For each and every one of us to believe in our court system, and to believe that the courts are infact fair and impartial we can't allow lying to the court. Period. No matter why the lie is told, lying is a no no.
If the President had been allowed to lie on the stand, our justice system would have suffered possible irreprable damage.
How many of you would trust the system to provide fair trials if the courts did not provide equal protection and equal treatment to all?
regards,
enigma
KickSave said:
Kicksave signed off with "out", so I assume that he has left the building on this issue.
I don't have timebuilders patience to debate each point, BUT I will, once again, remind Kicksave and everyone else that lying on the stand by the most powerful man in the world, is something that affects each and everyone of us. That is why President Clinton was impeached. The Democratics in the Senate did not allow him to be removed from office, but his attempt to obstruct justice did get him impeached.
The reason that the issue is so important is simple (at least to me). One of the most valuable institutions in American government is our court system. For each and every one of us to believe in our court system, and to believe that the courts are infact fair and impartial we can't allow lying to the court. Period. No matter why the lie is told, lying is a no no.
If the President had been allowed to lie on the stand, our justice system would have suffered possible irreprable damage.
How many of you would trust the system to provide fair trials if the courts did not provide equal protection and equal treatment to all?
regards,
enigma
Jarhead, you know, you are right. Somehow, I have stooped below a level I should not have, in terms of how I chose to get my point across. I guess I just got a little sick and tired of Timebuilders holier than thou, more knowledgeable than thou, more moral than thou attitude, and how he is quick to put people down with comments like "I love battling absurdity, luckily for me there's no shortage of it." I should have stayed out of this whole mess, but I find myself amazed that people can put sooo much faith in things that are being proved false right before them, and then accuse others of being "Haters" and such. The political bashing that came from the right is very quickly dismissed as hating when it comes back at them. Oh well, I digress.
I asked a direct question, got a simple direct answer, and here is my final response to that issue. The issue was - Were we mislead or even lied to, about the threat, and therefore, the grounds for war in Iraq. It's everyones right to support the President, but it seems to me like the facts are beginning to go against him. This news clip is old, but it gets right on point. From CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/07/07/cnna.wilson/
(CNN) -- In January, President Bush cited a British report accusing Iraq of trying to obtain uranium from an African country. Now, former ambassador Joseph Wilson claims he was asked by the CIA to investigate that report almost a year before the president's statement, and found it inaccurate.
Wilson spoke Monday to CNN anchor Bill Hemmer about the implications of his findings.
HEMMER: You went to Niger several years ago. You concluded essentially that Iraq could not buy this uranium from that country. Why not?
WILSON: February of 2002 was my most recent trip there, at the request I was told of the office of the vice president, which had seen a report in intelligence channels about this purported memorandum of agreement on uranium sales from Niger to Iraq. I traveled out there, spent eight days out there, and concluded that it was impossible that this sort of transaction could be done clandestinely.
First of all, any official government transaction would have required the signatures of the minister of mines and the prime minister. Secondly, the consortium that ran the two mines up there was made up of highly respected consumers of uranium products in the world -- the French, the Spanish, the Germans and the Japanese. And thirdly, the managing partner of the consortium -- that is to say the organization that actually handled the product -- was the French uranium company. And fourthly, frankly, Niger had been an ally of the United States, a close ally and a beneficiary of American largesse for 25 years, and Niger had actually sent troops to fight alongside American troops in the Gulf War.
So, for all of those reasons, it seemed that this information was inaccurate. That view was shared by the ambassador out there and largely shared in Washington even before I went out there.
HEMMER: We'll take that answer as a bit of a foundation for this interview. Listen to what Condoleezza Rice said about a month ago, early June on "Meet the Press." I'm quoting right now. She says, "We did not know at the time -- no one knew at the time in our circles -- maybe someone knew down in the bowels in the agency, but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery" -- Condoleezza Rice back on June 8.
You say that is not possible. Why not?
WILSON: Well, when I was at the National Security Council, and before I wrote my piece for "The New York Times," I actually checked with very senior officials of the National Security Council from the time I was there, as well as very senior officials in the vice president's office just to refresh my memory.
HEMMER: And what did they tell you?
WILSON: And the standard operating procedure when we were there, of course, was that if you tasked at my level and above an executive branch agency with a specific question, you received a specific response. Now, clearly somebody in the vice president's office is within that circle that Dr. Rice is speaking of. That person or that office asked the question and that office received a very specific response.
HEMMER: The White House is saying that's just a small part of the entire argument. Nuclear programs is one thing, but the chemical and biological issues were still out there. Your response to the White House when they go that way is what?
WILSON: Well, the question has always been for me whether or not the threat of weapons of mass destruction was the grave and gathering danger or the imminent threat to our national security that it was said to be. Vice President Cheney flatly asserted in a "Meet the Press" interview that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear arms program. We had any number of officials talk about the mushroom cloud that was on its way from Iraq. Now, we've got 200 Americans dead in Iraq, 150,000 Americans occupying the country, $70 or $80 billion already spent. And the question really is whether or not the threat merited that sort of response.
So the bottom line is, IF everything they told us is/was true, then sure, the war was justified. But it is becoming more and more clear that everything they told us was not A) true, or B) verified. This article alone indicates that the WHite House staff was clearly briefed that the report of buying uranium from Niger was false, well before the State of the Union, but the WH chose to use it anyway. Is that lying, misleading, or just using unverified intelligence? Depends on which side of the political fence you sit on. Regardless, as more of this gets sorted out, we'll know more about whether our trust in Bush on this war was well placed, or whether it was just blind faith that led to the deaths of several thousand people, including 150 Americans(and counting), an almost equal number of British, and countless civilians.
Not to mention the $80 billion we Americans are stuck paying.
I asked a direct question, got a simple direct answer, and here is my final response to that issue. The issue was - Were we mislead or even lied to, about the threat, and therefore, the grounds for war in Iraq. It's everyones right to support the President, but it seems to me like the facts are beginning to go against him. This news clip is old, but it gets right on point. From CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/07/07/cnna.wilson/
(CNN) -- In January, President Bush cited a British report accusing Iraq of trying to obtain uranium from an African country. Now, former ambassador Joseph Wilson claims he was asked by the CIA to investigate that report almost a year before the president's statement, and found it inaccurate.
Wilson spoke Monday to CNN anchor Bill Hemmer about the implications of his findings.
HEMMER: You went to Niger several years ago. You concluded essentially that Iraq could not buy this uranium from that country. Why not?
WILSON: February of 2002 was my most recent trip there, at the request I was told of the office of the vice president, which had seen a report in intelligence channels about this purported memorandum of agreement on uranium sales from Niger to Iraq. I traveled out there, spent eight days out there, and concluded that it was impossible that this sort of transaction could be done clandestinely.
First of all, any official government transaction would have required the signatures of the minister of mines and the prime minister. Secondly, the consortium that ran the two mines up there was made up of highly respected consumers of uranium products in the world -- the French, the Spanish, the Germans and the Japanese. And thirdly, the managing partner of the consortium -- that is to say the organization that actually handled the product -- was the French uranium company. And fourthly, frankly, Niger had been an ally of the United States, a close ally and a beneficiary of American largesse for 25 years, and Niger had actually sent troops to fight alongside American troops in the Gulf War.
So, for all of those reasons, it seemed that this information was inaccurate. That view was shared by the ambassador out there and largely shared in Washington even before I went out there.
HEMMER: We'll take that answer as a bit of a foundation for this interview. Listen to what Condoleezza Rice said about a month ago, early June on "Meet the Press." I'm quoting right now. She says, "We did not know at the time -- no one knew at the time in our circles -- maybe someone knew down in the bowels in the agency, but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery" -- Condoleezza Rice back on June 8.
You say that is not possible. Why not?
WILSON: Well, when I was at the National Security Council, and before I wrote my piece for "The New York Times," I actually checked with very senior officials of the National Security Council from the time I was there, as well as very senior officials in the vice president's office just to refresh my memory.
HEMMER: And what did they tell you?
WILSON: And the standard operating procedure when we were there, of course, was that if you tasked at my level and above an executive branch agency with a specific question, you received a specific response. Now, clearly somebody in the vice president's office is within that circle that Dr. Rice is speaking of. That person or that office asked the question and that office received a very specific response.
HEMMER: The White House is saying that's just a small part of the entire argument. Nuclear programs is one thing, but the chemical and biological issues were still out there. Your response to the White House when they go that way is what?
WILSON: Well, the question has always been for me whether or not the threat of weapons of mass destruction was the grave and gathering danger or the imminent threat to our national security that it was said to be. Vice President Cheney flatly asserted in a "Meet the Press" interview that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear arms program. We had any number of officials talk about the mushroom cloud that was on its way from Iraq. Now, we've got 200 Americans dead in Iraq, 150,000 Americans occupying the country, $70 or $80 billion already spent. And the question really is whether or not the threat merited that sort of response.
So the bottom line is, IF everything they told us is/was true, then sure, the war was justified. But it is becoming more and more clear that everything they told us was not A) true, or B) verified. This article alone indicates that the WHite House staff was clearly briefed that the report of buying uranium from Niger was false, well before the State of the Union, but the WH chose to use it anyway. Is that lying, misleading, or just using unverified intelligence? Depends on which side of the political fence you sit on. Regardless, as more of this gets sorted out, we'll know more about whether our trust in Bush on this war was well placed, or whether it was just blind faith that led to the deaths of several thousand people, including 150 Americans(and counting), an almost equal number of British, and countless civilians.
Not to mention the $80 billion we Americans are stuck paying.
DarnNearaJet
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2002
- Posts
- 174
Timebuilder
Entrepreneur
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 4,625
Funnny. That's exactly how you come off in your own posts. I usually try to follow the tenor of a debate up to a certain point, but I am rarely able to mimic someone's demeanor so accurately.
Maybe I should go and stand in the corner, but I call 'em as I see'em. If someone wants to muddy a debate by absurdly postulating events that they have no knowlege of, I will make a general statement about this absurdity. I avoided calling anyone names, and I always try to maintain a civil tongue. Even when I am being "fed" something.
I have to say thanks for indicating that the above info was from CNN. That small favor saved me the time I would have wasted in reading it.
I think we may have practice subterfuge on the arguments for war. I go back and forth on my position depending on what I read. I think the following article is accurate.
Perhaps the real reason for the war was to go over to that part of the world and kick some butt. If anything over there happens in the future, we don't need to ask permission from anybody for landing rights etc. We now have a base from which to operate.
=============
June 4, 2003
Home - Site Index - Site Search/Archive - Help
Welcome, surfnole - Member Center - Log Out
Go to Another Section ----------------------- CLASSIFIEDS Job Market Real Estate Automobiles ----------------------- NEWS International National Washington Business Technology Science Health Sports New York Region Education Weather Obituaries NYT Front Page Corrections ----------------------- OPINION Editorials/Op-Ed - Editorials - Columnists - Contributors - Letters Readers' Opinions ----------------------- FEATURES Arts Books Movies Travel NYC Guide Dining & Wine Home & Garden Fashion & Style Crossword/Games Cartoons Magazine Week in Review Multimedia/Photos Learning Network ----------------------- SERVICES Archive Classifieds College Book a Trip Personals Theater Tickets NYT Store NYT Mobile About NYTDigital Jobs at NYTDigital Online Media Kit Our Advertisers
Search:
NYTimes.com > Opinion
ARTICLE TOOLS
E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Format
Most E-Mailed Articles
Columnist Page: Thomas L. Friedman
Forum: Discuss This Column
TIMES NEWS TRACKER
Topics Alerts
Iraq
United States Armament and Defense
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Because We Could
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
he failure of the Bush team to produce any weapons of mass destruction (W.M.D.'s) in Iraq is becoming a big, big story. But is it the real story we should be concerned with? No. It was the wrong issue before the war, and it's the wrong issue now.
Why? Because there were actually four reasons for this war: the real reason, the right reason, the moral reason and the stated reason.
The "real reason" for this war, which was never stated, was that after 9/11 America needed to hit someone in the Arab-Muslim world. Afghanistan wasn't enough because a terrorism bubble had built up over there — a bubble that posed a real threat to the open societies of the West and needed to be punctured. This terrorism bubble said that plowing airplanes into the World Trade Center was O.K., having Muslim preachers say it was O.K. was O.K., having state-run newspapers call people who did such things "martyrs" was O.K. and allowing Muslim charities to raise money for such "martyrs" was O.K. Not only was all this seen as O.K., there was a feeling among radical Muslims that suicide bombing would level the balance of power between the Arab world and the West, because we had gone soft and their activists were ready to die.
The only way to puncture that bubble was for American soldiers, men and women, to go into the heart of the Arab-Muslim world, house to house, and make clear that we are ready to kill, and to die, to prevent our open society from being undermined by this terrorism bubble. Smashing Saudi Arabia or Syria would have been fine. But we hit Saddam for one simple reason: because we could, and because he deserved it and because he was right in the heart of that world. And don't believe the nonsense that this had no effect. Every neighboring government — and 98 percent of terrorism is about what governments let happen — got the message. If you talk to U.S. soldiers in Iraq they will tell you this is what the war was about.
The "right reason" for this war was the need to partner with Iraqis, post-Saddam, to build a progressive Arab regime. Because the real weapons of mass destruction that threaten us were never Saddam's missiles. The real weapons that threaten us are the growing number of angry, humiliated young Arabs and Muslims, who are produced by failed or failing Arab states — young people who hate America more than they love life. Helping to build a decent Iraq as a model for others — and solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — are the necessary steps for defusing the ideas of mass destruction, which are what really threaten us.
The "moral reason" for the war was that Saddam's regime was an engine of mass destruction and genocide that had killed thousands of his own people, and neighbors, and needed to be stopped.
But because the Bush team never dared to spell out the real reason for the war, and (wrongly) felt that it could never win public or world support for the right reasons and the moral reasons, it opted for the stated reason: the notion that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that posed an immediate threat to America. I argued before the war that Saddam posed no such threat to America, and had no links with Al Qaeda, and that we couldn't take the nation to war "on the wings of a lie." I argued that Mr. Bush should fight this war for the right reasons and the moral reasons. But he stuck with this W.M.D. argument for P.R. reasons.
Once the war was over and I saw the mass graves and the true extent of Saddam's genocidal evil, my view was that Mr. Bush did not need to find any W.M.D.'s to justify the war for me. I still feel that way. But I have to admit that I've always been fighting my own war in Iraq. Mr. Bush took the country into his war. And if it turns out that he fabricated the evidence for his war (which I wouldn't conclude yet), that would badly damage America and be a very serious matter.
But my ultimate point is this: Finding Iraq's W.M.D.'s is necessary to preserve the credibility of the Bush team, the neocons, Tony Blair and the C.I.A. But rebuilding Iraq is necessary to win the war. I won't feel one whit more secure if we find Saddam's W.M.D.'s, because I never felt he would use them on us. But I will feel terribly insecure if we fail to put Iraq onto a progressive path. Because if that doesn't happen, the terrorism bubble will reinflate and bad things will follow. Mr. Bush's credibility rides on finding W.M.D.'s, but America's future, and the future of the Mideast, rides on our building a different Iraq. We must not forget that.
flywithastick
Member is: ready
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2002
- Posts
- 684
Clinton's a perfect example of a traitor. Selling out for personal gain in every case.DarnNearaJet said:
Bush's (W) actions/intentions, however effective, expeditious or painfull, I am convinced, are in the best interest of this nation.
The 16 words Bush spoke in the State of the Union Address that the idiots in the mainstream media and the leftists keep quoting are not directly or indirectly a lie. the whole story is plainly a premeditated fabrication intended to convince the simple people of this country of something they wish were true.
Last, here are the most capable enemies of freedom, liberty and the American way of life existing today:
1. Lawyers - a virus that has infected our system.
2. Mainstream media - judgement perverted and twisted by their utopian leftist views and journalistic hypocricy.
3. Leftist democ-rats - would sell out the entire country and all our freedom to regain power.
4. Fundamentalist Muslums - want to kill all Westerners not Islamic.
in no particular order.
jarhead
master of my domain
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2002
- Posts
- 1,162
Yippee
U.S. says Saddam's sons may be among dead after raid on hideout
Associated Press
Published July 22, 2003 IRAQ23
WASHINGTON -- Four Iraqis were killed in a U.S. raid Tuesday in northern Iraq against a suspected hideout of high-ranking members of Saddam Hussein's regime. U.S. officials said they were investigating whether two of Saddam's sons were among the dead.
The raid at a house in the northern city of Mosul sparked a shootout between members of the 101st Airborne Division and gunmen holed up inside the compound, which later burned to the ground, officials said.
The identities of the dead were not certain, said one official, speaking on the condition of anonymity. But officials said they were trying to determine whether Saddam's elder sons, Odai and Qusai, were among the dead.
Both were below only Saddam in importance in the regime, officials have said.
The house belonged to a cousin of Saddam who was a key tribal leader in the region. Mosul residents said the American soldiers were looking for Odai and Qusai but Pentagon officials said they could not confirm that.
The United States has offered a $25 million bounty and $15 million for each of his sons, who were also top leaders in their father's regime.
U.S. says Saddam's sons may be among dead after raid on hideout
Associated Press
Published July 22, 2003 IRAQ23
WASHINGTON -- Four Iraqis were killed in a U.S. raid Tuesday in northern Iraq against a suspected hideout of high-ranking members of Saddam Hussein's regime. U.S. officials said they were investigating whether two of Saddam's sons were among the dead.
The raid at a house in the northern city of Mosul sparked a shootout between members of the 101st Airborne Division and gunmen holed up inside the compound, which later burned to the ground, officials said.
The identities of the dead were not certain, said one official, speaking on the condition of anonymity. But officials said they were trying to determine whether Saddam's elder sons, Odai and Qusai, were among the dead.
Both were below only Saddam in importance in the regime, officials have said.
The house belonged to a cousin of Saddam who was a key tribal leader in the region. Mosul residents said the American soldiers were looking for Odai and Qusai but Pentagon officials said they could not confirm that.
The United States has offered a $25 million bounty and $15 million for each of his sons, who were also top leaders in their father's regime.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
