Why are we in Iraq?

[GoSlash27]

Don,

The flip side to that, they based their decision on the intel presented and went with the preemptive strike plan to protect American soil from another attack.

Not true. They based their decision on only *half* "the intel presented". Tenet et al presented them with everything they had on Iraq; everything supporting the war and everything contra-indicating it. Intel says so and the WH says so. The fact that the WH never publicly talked about the other half of the intel prior to the war should be all you need to know about their intentions, but apparently that fact isn't enough to convince you. The fact that they attacked everybody who publicly contradicted their findings, the fact that they specifically requested intel to support the war while sanctioning analysts who presented contra-indicating intel should be enough to convince you.

Not to be funny, but you're starting to sound a little like Dave Chappelle in that skit about the R. Kelly jury selection; almost as if you're intentionally trying to ignore Occam.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

You know it would do Bush a world of good and a reality check if he would read something like this. A mostly pro-American, high percentage of conservative folks, not afraid of a fight list that thinks he screwed up.

Living in his bubble world he probably thinks only the democrats think he is a putz. He needs to know the truth.

However, I think he means for the democrats to handle the war as a bit of spite on his part. He probably doesn't care who wins the election.

 

[DonR101395]

Not true. They based their decision on only *half* "the intel presented". Tenet et al presented them with everything they had on Iraq; everything supporting the war and everything contra-indicating it.

The flip side to that, they based their decision on the intel presented and went with the preemptive strike plan to protect American soil from another attack.

You just answered my statement by rewording my statement. You admit they had all of the intel. If they had all of the intel, their decision was based on all of the intel, unless some men in black came along with those mind erasers and erased what they read that was contra-indicating.
When you make a decision based on all the facts and go with the less popular of two choices it doesn't mean you ignored the other stuff, it just means you didn't agree with it.

 

[TheBluesMan]

TheBluesMan has officially gone off the deep end.

Come on in... the water's fine!

There is no win. Please define what win is, so we can do it. The simple fact is you are spewing administration talking points without a single iota of comprehension of what winning entails.

Winning entails a permanent U.S. military base in their county, free elections, diplomatic ties with an embassy and trade agreements with the new government. Having covered the "single iota of comprehension" challenge, please allow me to give you a few examples of what "win is." Germany, Japan, Italy, South Korea.

Time to relearn the basic tenet that throwing good money after bad is bad policy.

Time for you to take a long hard look at present-day Vietnam and learn a lesson yourself. It's not throwing good money after bad, as you've tried to spin it. It is simply seeing through what was started.

We have enabled them to govern themselves, now we need to have them do that.

Agreed.

If they are not fighting to determine their own constitution and creating a new country, no amount of troops from the US will make it happen.

What makes you say that they are not striving to determine their own government? I've seen many purple fingers that say otherwise.

 

[RedneckFur]

The fact that this thread is here says alot. All these intelegent, conservative, many even former military men, who are not sure why our country is involved in a war. I think it says alot about the folks who run our goverment.

I dont think that our government should be able to send troops by the ten-thousands to fight on foreign soil without giving good reason, and keeping to that reason.

It seems to me that our govt really doesnt even work for the will of the people anymore. Sure we vote, but once election season's over, the guys in washington do as they wish.

 

[badbob]

What makes you say that they are not striving to determine their own government? I've seen many purple fingers that say otherwise.

The Iraqi voters are probably as impotent as we American voters. When was the last time anyone in .gov listened to us? We vote, voice our opinions and are completely ignored.

badbob

 

[Slugthrower]

The Ottoman Empire was the only Islamic power challenging the rising power of Western Europe between the 1400s and late 1800s. With Istanbul, formerly known as Constantinople, as its capital. The Ottoman Empire was the Islamic successor of the Roman and Byzantine empires. The end of World War I saw to the end of that empire.

This Empire was the leading Islamic state in geo/political terms, in addition to ideological and cultural perspectives. The redrawing of borders in the former Ottoman Empire changed this. Britain, France and the USA saw fit to divide up the territories. The Ottoman Empire was the last substantial power that could potentially speak for Muslim interests.

This partitioning of the Ottoman Empire altered the balance of power in the middle east, leading to declining legitimacy and increasing repression. The first resistance to the leading Western powers came from the Turkish national movement, and after World War II, the middle east began to develop resistances to western influences in many forms.

The Balfour Declaration helped start a Zionist movement, which supported the creation of a Jewish homeland in the Palestine region, which is the site of the old Kingdom of Israel. The French and British used the Sykes-Picot Agreement to divide the region.

This "problem" has been hundreds of years in the making. Europe and the US, made these enemies long ago. The Middle East seeks to return to prominence on the world stage. Many of the economic policies that we have placed upon that region are coming back and biting our collective rear ends. The simple fact is that we are in a fight for the very existence of our way of life. Europe is currently compromising with these people. Eventually Europe will be under Islamic control. Westerners only see as far as the last or next administration. The Arabs have a plan that is measured by generations.

The failure of the UK to solve their self created problem has led us to this place. The US isn't innocent in the grand scheme of things as well. Part of the reason that we find ourselves resented throughout the world are from our early history as well.

This is from ,THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
Article I, Section 8

Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Section 9;

Clause 2: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Section. 10;

Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Article V,

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
______________________________________________________________________
Since the Civil War this country has not been the Republic that is was intended to be.
When the Grand Army of the Republic was created it was never disbanded after that war. The Army was then used for the purpose of conquest. We should all recognize what we used this regular army to do.

Here are several thoughts of one of our founding fathers, Tomas Jefferson.
After reading these. One should have some understanding as to why we are where we are.

"Peace and abstinence from European interferences are our objects, and so will continue while the present order of things in America remain uninterrupted." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1802. ME 10:318

"Believing that the happiness of mankind is best promoted by the useful pursuits of peace, that on these alone a stable prosperity can be founded, that the evils of war are great in their endurance, and have a long reckoning for ages to come, I have used my best endeavors to keep our country uncommitted in the troubles which afflict Europe, and which assail us on every side." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Pittsburgh Republicans, 1808. ME 16:324

"Determined as we are to avoid, if possible, wasting the energies of our people in war and destruction, we shall avoid implicating ourselves with the powers of Europe, even in support of principles which we mean to pursue. They have so many other interests different from ours, that we must avoid being entangled in them. We believe we can enforce these principles as to ourselves by peaceable means, now that we are likely to have our public councils detached from foreign views." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Paine, 1801. ME 10:223

"A world in arms and trampling on all those moral principles which have heretofore been deemed sacred in the intercourse between nations, could not suffer us to remain insensible of all agitation. During such a course of lawless violence, it was certainly wise to withdraw ourselves from all intercourse with the belligerent nations, to avoid its pernicious effects on manners and morals and the dangers it threatens to free governments, and to cultivate our own resources until our natural and progressive growth should leave us nothing to fear from foreign enterprise." --Thomas Jefferson to Messrs. Bloodgood and Hammond, 1809. ME 12:317

"Undertaking to raise, organize and commission an army... independent of that of the government, the object of which is to go and possess themselves of lands which have never yet been granted by any authority which the government admits to be legal, and with an avowed design to hold them by force against any power, foreign or domestic,... will inevitably commit our whole nation in war with the Indian nations, and perhaps others. It cannot be permitted that all the inhabitants of the United States shall be involved in the calamities of war and the blood of thousands of them be poured out, merely that a few adventurers may possess themselves of lands; nor can a well-ordered government tolerate such an assumption of its sovereignty by unauthorized individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to the Attorney of the District of Kentucky, 1791. ME 8:191

"If there be one principle more deeply rooted than any other in the mind of every American it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest." --Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 1791.

"We did not raise armies for glory or for conquest." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration on Taking Up Arms, 1775. Papers 1:203

"Conquest is not in our principles. It is inconsistent with our government." --Thomas Jefferson: Instructions to William Carmichael, 1790.

"Although I dare not promise myself that [peace] can be perpetually maintained, yet if, by the inculcations of reason or religion, the perversities of our nature can be so far corrected as sometimes to prevent the necessity, either supposed or real, of an appeal to the blinder scourges of war, murder, and devastation, the benevolent endeavors of the friends of peace will not be entirely without remuneration." --Thomas Jefferson to Noah Worcester, 1817. ME 18:299

"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." --Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789. ME 7:323

"I do not like [in the new Federal Constitution] the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for... protection against standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:387

"Nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace for [defense against invasion]." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334

"There shall be no standing army but in time of actual war." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776. Papers 1:363

 

[Slugthrower]

"The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814. ME 14:184 * Note, IMO this pertains to the Roman Republic not when Rome became an Empire.

"If no check can be found to keep the number of standing troops within safe bounds while they are tolerated as far as necessary, abandon them altogether, discipline well the militia and guard the magazines with them. More than magazine guards will be useless if few and dangerous if many. No European nation can ever send against us such a regular army as we need fear, and it is hard if our militia are not equal to those of Canada or Florida." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788.

"Every rational citizen must wish to see an effective instrument of coercion, and should fear to see it on any other element than the water. A naval force can never endanger our liberties, nor occasion bloodshed; a land force would do both." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1786. ME 5:386

"I am for relying for internal defense on our militia solely till actual invasion, and for such a naval force only as may protect our coasts and harbors from such depredations as we have experienced; and not for a standing army in time of peace which may overawe the public sentiment; nor for a navy which, by its own expenses and the eternal wars in which it will implicate us, will grind us with public burthens and sink us under them." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:77

"It is more a subject of joy that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there can be no pauper hirelings." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813. ME 13:261

"A well-disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war till regulars may relieve them, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.

"We must train and classify the whole of our male citizens, and make military instruction a regular part of collegiate education. We can never be safe till this is done." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813. ME 13:261

"Specie is the most perfect medium because it will preserve its own level; because, having intrinsic and universal value, it can never die in our hands, and it is the surest resource of reliance in time of war." --Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813. ME 13:430
"Paper is poverty,... it is only the ghost of money, and not money itself." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1788. ME 7:36

"Experience has proved to us that a dollar of silver disappears for every dollar of paper emitted." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1791. ME 8:208

"It is a [disputed] question, whether the circulation of paper, rather than of specie, is a good or an evil... I believe it to be one of those cases where mercantile clamor will bear down reason, until it is corrected by ruin." --Thomas Jefferson to John W. Eppes, 1813. ME 13:409

"That paper money has some advantages is admitted. But that its abuses also are inevitable and, by breaking up the measure of value, makes a lottery of all private property, cannot be denied. --Thomas Jefferson to Josephus B. Stuart, 1817. ME 15:113

"The trifling economy of paper, as a cheaper medium, or its convenience for transmission, weighs nothing in opposition to the advantages of the precious metals... it is liable to be abused, has been, is, and forever will be abused, in every country in which it is permitted." --Thomas Jefferson to John W. Eppes, 1813. ME 13:430

"Our public credit is good, but the abundance of paper has produced a spirit of gambling in the funds, which has laid up our ships at the wharves as too slow instruments of profit, and has even disarmed the hand of the tailor of his needle and thimble. They say the evil will cure itself. I wish it may; but I have rarely seen a gamester cured, even by the disasters of his vocation." --Thomas Jefferson to Gouverneur Morris, 1791. ME 8:241

"We are now taught to believe that legerdemain tricks upon paper can produce as solid wealth as hard labor in the earth. It is vain for common sense to urge that nothing can produce but nothing; that it is an idle dream to believe in a philosopher's stone which is to turn everything into gold, and to redeem man from the original sentence of his Maker, 'in the sweat of his brow shall he eat his bread.'" --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:381

"The maxim of buying nothing without the money in our pockets to pay for it would make of our country one of the happiest on earth." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander Donald, 1787. ME 6:192
"I sincerely believe... that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23

"The incorporation of a bank and the powers assumed [by legislation doing so] have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States by the Constitution. They are not among the powers specially enumerated." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Bank, 1791. ME 3:146

"[The] Bank of the United States... is one of the most deadly hostility existing, against the principles and form of our Constitution... An institution like this, penetrating by its branches every part of the Union, acting by command and in phalanx, may, in a critical moment, upset the government. I deem no government safe which is under the vassalage of any self-constituted authorities, or any other authority than that of the nation, or its regular functionaries. What an obstruction could not this bank of the United States, with all its branch banks, be in time of war! It might dictate to us the peace we should accept, or withdraw its aids. Ought we then to give further growth to an institution so powerful, so hostile?" --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1803. ME 10:437

"If the debt which the banking companies owe be a blessing to anybody, it is to themselves alone, who are realizing a solid interest of eight or ten per cent on it. As to the public, these companies have banished all our gold and silver medium, which, before their institution, we had without interest, which never could have perished in our hands, and would have been our salvation now in the hour of war; instead of which they have given us two hundred million of froth and bubble, on which we are to pay them heavy interest, until it shall vanish into air... We are warranted, then, in affirming that this parody on the principle of 'a public debt being a public blessing,' and its mutation into the blessing of private instead of public debts, is as ridiculous as the original principle itself. In both cases, the truth is, that capital may be produced by industry, and accumulated by economy; but jugglers only will propose to create it by legerdemain tricks with paper." --Thomas Jefferson to John W. Eppes, 1813. ME 13:423

"No one has a natural right to the trade of a money lender, but he who has the money to lend. Let those then among us who have a moneyed capital and who prefer employing it in loans rather than otherwise, set up banks and give cash or national bills for the notes they discount. Perhaps, to encourage them, a larger interest than is legal in the other cases might be allowed them, on the condition of their lending for short periods only." --Thomas Jefferson to John W. Eppes, 1813. ME 13:277

"It is said that our paper is as good as silver, because we may have silver for it at the bank where it issues. This is not true. One, two, or three persons might have it; but a general application would soon exhaust their vaults, and leave a ruinous proportion of their paper in its intrinsic worthless form." --Thomas Jefferson to John W. Eppes, 1813. ME 13:426

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384

"By... [selecting] the youths of genius from among the classes of the poor, we hope to avail the State of those talents which nature has sown as liberally among the poor as the rich, but which perish without use if not sought for and cultivated." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIV, 1782. ME 2:206

"A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:209, Papers 1:134

"When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821. ME 15:332

"The fundamental principle of our government [is] never to entangle us with the broils of Europe." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:481

 

[Slugthrower]

IMHO

The creation of the World Bank is part of the problem we face in addition to the ending of the gold standard. The value of US money is in direct relation the to credit of those other countries that believe in our abilty to do what we say we will do. We have involved ourselves in far too many wars, many of which we have lost in our recent history. Our credibilty is in decline as we continue to use this standing army to conquer and coerce the world into capitulating to our supposed interests. IMO we are running on borrowed time which is exceedingly short to say the least.

The middle east is a problem that belonged to Europe. We have taken it upon ourselves, and we will reap the rewards of the seeds that we continue to sow.

 

[TwoXForr]

You are right Juan Carlos I was lazy and well, just lazy.

After reading those quotes by Thomas Jefferson, a thought came to me. In Jeffersons day we were still a fledging nation, we had not reached all the way to the Pacific until halfway through his term, could he have imagined us becoming the Great Britian of his time, with far reaching influence. What would he have made of our intriticate and possibliy unretractable web of economic ties we have with the rest of the world. Just something to think about I suppose, I at least shall ponder it.

Redneckfur stated. "All these intelegent, conservative, many even former military men, who are not sure why our country is involved in a war. I think it says alot about the folks who run our goverment."

Does it say something about the goverment or does it say something about the people?

Are we paying attention, are we entering into the discussion with our own bais (I believe that would be a yes, from everyone, impossible to get away from our own views) are we aware of those bias, are we able to articulate the other persons point of view, even if we don't agree on it and see thier logic. And fianally we have to ask ourselves, is there anything that anyone can say that might sway my viewpoint.

If the last question is a resounding no, then why be involved in a discussion at all.

Some things here have opened my eyes, and made me think.

 

[badbob]

Good stuff, slugthrower. Thanks.

badbob

 

[Slugthrower]

Thanks Bob. I figured that maybe I could contribute something to the forum. I may not be the brightest person, however, one can recognize the genius of Mr. Jefferson.

A wise man once said. There is nothing new under the sun, it has all been done before. Paraphrased from one of the wisest men, Solomon.

All of our conversations have been and will be, the only thing that changes is technology. The common factor is the human factor.

 

[MacGille]

It is well known that the US was still in an "isoationist" posture just before the onset of WWII. We had been devastated by WWI and the resulting worldwide depression, and all we wanted to do was fix our country and not get involved with another European war. My original question was why are we in Iraq? Another question could be" what do we do now?" Can we disengage from the Middle East, strengthen ourselves(militarily and economically) and let them go to hell in their own fashion?

In the endless quest for "profit" we have gone from an industrial nation to a service nation. We have allowed our economy to be directed by international organisations. Clinton sold America to China just as he was bring elected. China is now coming to be the industrialised nation that we should still be. And our political leadership has degenerated into a polarized cat fight with the only goal being that of continued power.

"We the people" still hold the power in this country, but we must band together to wield it. The 2 party system is not working for the good of the people, we need to elect leaders who are willing to put the good of the country ahead of their own personal goals. Jefferson, Washington,Payne et al were not representative of the majority of colonists in their day. Only about 40% of the colonists were willing to go to war against George III. They prevailed because people were willing to put everything they had on the line to accomplish their goals. It will take a similar dedication to change the system for good. Are you willing to risk it? If not, then we are lost. Get out and change the system with your contributions, time, energy and your vote.

I will vote for Ron Paul because I think he sees things more clearly than the others. I don't expect to agree with everything he says, but I don't think he is in it for his own glory. C'mon guys put up or shut up.

 

[SecDef]

What makes you say that they are not striving to determine their own government? I've seen many purple fingers that say otherwise.

My point is that by all of the units of measurement by which to judge whether there is a "win", we have accomplished all we will. Further massive presence in the arena is detrimental, a waste of money, and a waste of lives. All further goals are reached via political means, not military.

We need to set off these Iraqi children on their own and not be helicopter parents.

They also had purple fingers when they voted 100% for Saddam, so that has to be the worst way to judge progress.

 

[DonR101395]

It is well known that the US was still in an "isoationist" posture just before the onset of WWII. We had been devastated by WWI and the resulting worldwide depression, and all we wanted to do was fix our country and not get involved with another European war. My original question was why are we in Iraq? Another question could be" what do we do now?" Can we disengage from the Middle East, strengthen ourselves(militarily and economically) and let them go to hell in their own fashion?

I don't think we can, under the Clinton administration we became the world's police dept. Politicos being what they are have grown happy being the world police organization as well as the rest of the world. They yell when we come in, but they yell louder when we don't. It's a no win in the world arena.

In the endless quest for "profit" we have gone from an industrial nation to a service nation. We have allowed our economy to be directed by international organisations. Clinton sold America to China just as he was bring elected. China is now coming to be the industrialised nation that we should still be. And our political leadership has degenerated into a polarized cat fight with the only goal being that of continued power.

Agreed, see my above post. As much as I like and admire RR the outsourcing started under his care after the fall of the wall. I watch the auto industry in MI slowly migrate to Mexico. We have become a nation that is looked to provide to the world first and ourselves second.

"We the people" still hold the power in this country, but we must band together to wield it. The 2 party system is not working for the good of the people, we need to elect leaders who are willing to put the good of the country ahead of their own personal goals. Jefferson, Washington,Payne et al were not representative of the majority of colonists in their day. Only about 40% of the colonists were willing to go to war against George III. They prevailed because people were willing to put everything they had on the line to accomplish their goals. It will take a similar dedication to change the system for good. Are you willing to risk it? If not, then we are lost. Get out and change the system with your contributions, time, energy and your vote.

We've become a nation with a weak constitution for violence. Those who have the spirit are outcasts and written of as loonies, nutjobs, and are dealt with as such.

I will vote for Ron Paul because I think he sees things more clearly than the others. I don't expect to agree with everything he says, but I don't think he is in it for his own glory. C'mon guys put up or shut up.

He's a politico, so yes he's in it for his own glory. He may help the country along the way, but it will be because he wants to be in the history books as helping the country.


These are my opinions, your opinion may vary. That's what this site is for, to express opinions and learn a thing or ten you may not have thought about.

 

[GoSlash27]

When you make a decision based on all the facts and go with the less popular of two choices it doesn't mean you ignored the other stuff, it just means you didn't agree with it.

True. However... If you're publicly ignoring the "other half", publicly attacking people who present "the other half", and specifically requesting more of the half you "agree with" and less of what you "don't agree with", then by every definition of the word you are ignoring half the case.

Am I wrong?

 

[DonR101395]

True. However... If you're publicly ignoring the "other half", publicly attacking people who present "the other half", and specifically requesting more of the half you "agree with" and less of what you "don't agree with", then by every definition of the word you are ignoring half the case.

Am I wrong?

Yes, You can't both publicly ignore it and at the same time publicly attack the people presenting it. What you are doing is publicly disagreeing with it. If you're requesting more of the stuff you agree with and less of the stuff you disagree with you are still acknowledging it's existence and your disagreement with it.

 

[badbob]

Quote:
True. However... If you're publicly ignoring the "other half", publicly attacking people who present "the other half", and specifically requesting more of the half you "agree with" and less of what you "don't agree with", then by every definition of the word you are ignoring half the case.

Am I wrong?

Yes, You can't both publicly ignore it and at the same time publicly attack the people presenting it. What you are doing is publicly disagreeing with it. If you're requesting more of the stuff you agree with and less of the stuff you disagree with you are still acknowledging it's existence and your disagreement with it.

I think the key word here is "publicly". All the information was never made public before the invasion, thats the problem.

badbob

 

[DonR101395]

I think the key word here is "publicly". All the information was never made public before the invasion, thats the problem

They do try to keep classified documents off the nightly news. Something about national security laws or something.

On a serious not, I understand your complaint, but I also don't believe they broadcast every plan or piece of intel for WWl, WWll, Korea, Viet Nam, Grenada, Somalia on the nightly news either. And at least three of those were unpopular and protested. Seeing a pattern? Unpopular wars/police actions get protested. The more technology advances the more people feel an entitlement to classified documents. I blame that on an unscrupulous media who is whoring themselves out to the opposing politico's for their personal agenda.

 

[Slugthrower]

This is off topic, yet as we all know, unless it supports either political party's agenda, they see no reason to inform the people as to the true state of the Union. Here is a good example.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=A4kxTkhwR_Q

Follow the money, then many of these questions have rather simple answers.
We have a pseudo plutocracy that wishes to keep the people in ignorance by lack of education or the outright suppression of information.