Random scary thought

[Hotrod]

Ok so most agree what the war in Iraq was a bad decission (to say the least).

Most would have to agree I think that we need to make better decissions when we elect officials.

Most would agree that we need leadership that does the bidding of Americans and not special interest groups

How exactly can we do that when we cant trust the information we receive. Example the war in Iraq was sold to the public with bad information. At the time we were told WMD/Al puka etc.... Next time there is a situation like Iraq what do we base our choices on

How do Americans make better informed decissions when we only hear what they want us to hear. We only know what they want us to know

I think most American voters are put into a no win situation. Its starting to feel like your choice has to be which of the 2 canidates is less evil. Which special intrest group are you most opposed too.

Thoughts

[Spider]

Originally Posted by Hotrod

Ok so most agree what the war in Iraq was a bad decission (to say the least).

Most would have to agree I think that we need to make better decissions when we elect officials.

Most would agree that we need leadership that does the bidding of Americans and not special interest groups

How exactly can we do that when we cant trust the information we receive. Example the war in Iraq was sold to the public with bad information. At the time we were told WMD/Al puka etc.... Next time there is a situation like Iraq what do we base our choices on

How do Americans make better informed decissions when we only hear what they want us to hear. We only know what they want us to know

I think most American voters are put into a no win situation. Its starting to feel like your choice has to be which of the 2 canidates is less evil. Which special intrest group are you most opposed too.

Thoughts

Sanctions first .....then embargos .. war should always be the last option , exception ..when directly attacked , like Afghanistan , state supported terrorism , and they attack us , How Bush handled Afghanistan was spot on ....

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Hotrod

Ok so most agree what the war in Iraq was a bad decission (to say the least).

Most would have to agree I think that we need to make better decissions when we elect officials.

Most would agree that we need leadership that does the bidding of Americans and not special interest groups

How exactly can we do that when we cant trust the information we receive. Example the war in Iraq was sold to the public with bad information. At the time we were told WMD/Al puka etc.... Next time there is a situation like Iraq what do we base our choices on

How do Americans make better informed decissions when we only hear what they want us to hear. We only know what they want us to know

I think most American voters are put into a no win situation. Its starting to feel like your choice has to be which of the 2 canidates is less evil. Which special intrest group are you most opposed too.

Thoughts

Boston Tea Party, version 2.0?

[The Lone Bolt]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

Sanctions first .....then embargos .. war should always be the last option , exception ..when directly attacked , like Afghanistan , state supported terrorism , and they attack us , How Bush handled Afghanistan was spot on ....

Unfortunately we had 12 years of sanction and embargos on Iraq and they failed to produce proof of disarmament. In fact Saddam used the sanctions as propaganda, intentionally making his own people suffer and blaming the sanctions. That was one reason the containment policy was on the verge of collapse: the member countries were losing their political will to maintain the sanctions.

We gave sanctions and an embargo a chance and it didn't work.

But as for Hotrod's question, I also submit that many sources from the other side also cannot be trusted. Just show healthy scepticism of all sources instead of blindly trusting those who share your ideology. Also, remain independent instead of blind alliegance to one party.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by Hotrod

Ok so most agree what the war in Iraq was a bad decission (to say the least).

Most would have to agree I think that we need to make better decissions when we elect officials.

Most would agree that we need leadership that does the bidding of Americans and not special interest groups

How exactly can we do that when we cant trust the information we receive. Example the war in Iraq was sold to the public with bad information. At the time we were told WMD/Al puka etc.... Next time there is a situation like Iraq what do we base our choices on

How do Americans make better informed decissions when we only hear what they want us to hear. We only know what they want us to know

I think most American voters are put into a no win situation. Its starting to feel like your choice has to be which of the 2 canidates is less evil. Which special intrest group are you most opposed too.

Thoughts

Don't vote for lying, manipulating Neocons.

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt

Unfortunately we had 12 years of sanction and embargos on Iraq and they failed to produce proof of disarmament. In fact Saddam used the sanctions as propaganda, intentionally making his own people suffer and blaming the sanctions. That was one reason the containment policy was on the verge of collapse: the member countries were losing their political will to maintain the sanctions.

We gave sanctions and an embargo a chance and it didn't work.

Not true. Saddam never attacked any of his neighbors in those 12 years.
Saddam had abandoned his quest to mass produce WMDs and had eliminated
all his stocks as required by the cease fire agreement. Saddam was
completely contained as was no harm to anyone outside of Iraq, and
certainly no danger to the US. And there were signs that Saddam's rule
was starting to collapse and that he would have been overthrown
internally in a few years anyway. Complete waste of effort invading Iraq.

[Crushaholic]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Don't vote for lying, manipulating Neocons.

That's way too simple of a solution. For proof that doesn't fix the problem, I only have to point to the Democrat majority who retreated into a mode where they are basically giving Bush what he wants once they gained that coveted power. That's not what they promised in the elections. The whole lot of them need to go. I liked LABF's suggestion of Boston Tea Party version 2.0...

[TheDave]

Publicly financed campaigns is a good start...

[Billy Clyde Puckett]

Tear down the two parties and elect congress and administration that is accountable to the voters instead of their own greed for power.

[The Lone Bolt]

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

Not true. Saddam never attacked any of his neighbors in those 12 years.
Saddam had abandoned his quest to mass produce WMDs and had eliminated
all his stocks as required by the cease fire agreement. Saddam was
completely contained as was no harm to anyone outside of Iraq, and
certainly no danger to the US. And there were signs that Saddam's rule
was starting to collapse and that he would have been overthrown
internally in a few years anyway. Complete waste of effort invading Iraq.

What signs did we have that his regime was on the verge of collapse? The man had an iron grip on power for over 30 years. Coup after coup against him failed, and once the sanctions disappeared (and they would have -- guaranteed), he would have been free to rebuild his military and pursue all the WMD he wanted.

Yes the sanctions temporarily slowed him down. But after the containment policy collapsed and disappeared he would have been back to his old tricks. And then we would be facing an aggressive, ambitious dictator armed with WMD who would have been a hero in the ME: the Arab leader who defied the west and won. Not a good thing.

[Hotrod]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Don't vote for lying, manipulating Neocons.

Yes, because we all know that the democratic party can't lie. They've been implanted with a truth chip

[Bronco Bob]

.

[Play2win]

Vote for national interests before party interests. Its that simple.

[Hotrod]

Originally Posted by DS49

Vote for national interests before party interests. Its that simple.

See its not "that simple" you can vote for what they say they stand for. Then pray they do it.

Do you really believe that the people running dont just say what you want to hear. Then do what the $ tells them to do once they get into office.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by Hotrod

Yes, because we all know that the democratic party can't lie. They've been implanted with a truth chip

I find it soooo interesting now that Republicans state all parties are ****ed up.

The Neocons had a war agenda. I'm pretty sure you won't have to worry about Democrats attacking and occupying countries for some dreams of world domination.

Originally Posted by Crushaholic

That's way too simple of a solution. For proof that doesn't fix the problem, I only have to point to the Democrat majority who retreated into a mode where they are basically giving Bush what he wants once they gained that coveted power. That's not what they promised in the elections. The whole lot of them need to go. I liked LABF's suggestion of Boston Tea Party version 2.0...

Complete garbage but that's what some Republicans are left with. Republican Senators blocked Democratic efforts to end the Bush war which is a little asterisk on their voting records now come election time. But guess what, they (Republicans) get another chance coming in the very near future to stop the Bush war machine. We'll see what happens this time.

[Hotrod]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

I find it soooo interesting now that Republicans state all parties are ****ed up.
.

Its really not that interesting.........there is a reason we did not vote democratic and it aint because they are "suddenly" ****ed up.

[Meck77]

We've gotten wrapped up into a religious war. It was by design. The terrorists wanted us in it and they got it. Even if Gore was president we would have been involved in this shiat pile one way or another. It would probably just be in other countries and not focused in Iraq. We can't let terrorists just knock down our financial heart of this country and put our tails between our legs. In fact with Gore as president it probably would have taken another 9-11 type attack to get the United States into this war on terrorism.

I know many won't agree with me but we were all asleep at the wheel counting our fake stock profits during the Clinton era. Oh yeah they were great times on paper. I made out like a bandit so I can't complain but I knew it was all BS and saw the economic collapse coming. It's just too bad we didn't see what the terrorists were doing all along.

Bush is a moron without a doubt but it's just too shallow to even blame this all on him. One thing is for sure Americans are now paying attention to what our elected officials are doing.

You want these terrorists off our back? Go talk to the good ole boy network in Israel. Those guys need to take care of their own BS because they've done a great job of dragging us into their mess. I think we are finally over the cheap oil agruement. I heard enough of that shiat to fill up 10 buses.

[The Lone Bolt]

[Northman]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Boston Tea Party, version 2.0?

yea that.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt

Unfortunately we had 12 years of sanction and embargos on Iraq and they failed to produce proof of disarmament.

Not according to Powell and Rice:

22 Sept 2003

Exactly one year ago, Tony Blair told Parliament: "Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programme is active, detailed and growing.

"The policy of containment is not working. The weapons of mass destruction programme is not shut down. It is up and running now."

Not only was every word of this false, it was part of a big lie invented in Washington within hours of the attacks of September 11 2001 and used to hoodwink the American public and distract the media from the real reason for attacking Iraq. "It was 95 per cent charade," a former senior CIA analyst told me.

An investigation of files and archive film for my TV documentary Breaking The Silence, together with interviews with former intelligence officers and senior Bush officials have revealed that Bush and Blair knew all along that Saddam Hussein was effectively disarmed.

Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.

In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

This is the very opposite of what Bush and Blair said in public.

Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of "containment" that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator - again the very opposite of what Blair said time and again. On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box".

Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

So here were two of Bush's most important officials putting the lie to their own propaganda, and the Blair government's propaganda that subsequently provided the justification for an unprovoked, illegal attack on Iraq. The result was the deaths of what reliable studies now put at 50,000 people, civilians and mostly conscript Iraqi soldiers, as well as British and American troops. There is no estimate of the countless thousands of wounded.

http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=229

[The Lone Bolt]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Not according to Powell and Rice:

Well then why didn't Powell and Rice declare Iraq in full compliance with UN resolutions and lift the sanctions?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt

Well then why didn't Powell and Rice declare Iraq in full compliance with UN resolutions and lift the sanctions?

Because that would be Bush's call - not theirs. (And we all know how that turned out.)

[The Lone Bolt]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Because that would be Bush's call - not theirs. (And we all know how that turned out.)

Bush controls the UN Security Council?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt

Bush controls the UN Security Council?

The point was that Powell and Rice answered to Bush.

Powell eventually admitted that his dog and pony show for the UN (at Bush's behest) was the biggest mistake of his life.

[The Lone Bolt]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

The point was that Powell and Rice answered to Bush.

Powell eventually admitted that his dog and pony show for the UN (at Bush's behest) was the biggest mistake of his life.

But who is responsible for declaring Iraq in full compliance with UN resolutions and lifting the sanctions? Is that not the official determination of the international community that Iraq had been disarmed of WMD? Do Rice and Powell's opinions outrank the UN?