In 2000, there was a huge business being made with the fear of the computer bug. Nothing hapened, it was just hype. Now, it is the fear of terrorism that creates new business opportunities. Government agencies have huge budgets to spend on soldier of the future, bio-chem sensors, unmanned aerial vehicles and so on...Companies like SAIC make a fortune on those contracts, and it is all taxpayers money that Joes Schmoll who has $50,000 a year to feed his familly is financing. So there is a double advantage to terrorism: creates new business, and gives a good reason to invade any arab country that has oil. 9/11 really enabled all that, and one has to be blind not to see who did it. Just look at whom it profits...

Aurel

Fear is a good way. So is hunger.

I heard a little bit from old John Dean, from the Watergate era, as he was comparing the situation of Nixon's attempt to defraud the government to the possibility that Bush, knowingly or un, might have manipulated certain other agencys of government to gain political and public support for pre-emptive war. It all depends on what a person knows and when they know it. Or in Bush's case, what he didn't know and when.... Actually, the latter is easier for me personally to believe, as I think Bush is not the real mover and shaker in the White House.

I know where all the weapons of mass destruction are. They were stuffed into those elephantine appendages Hillary uses to walk.

;)

Ed

"So there is a double advantage to terrorism: creates new business, and gives a good reason to invade any arab country that has oil. 9/11 really enabled all that, and one has to be blind not to see who did it. Just look at whom it profits... "

The title of Michael Moore's upcoming movie? "Farenheit 9/11: The Temperature at Which Freedom Burns"

(a really clever title when you think about it)

"9/11 really enabled new business" !?

yeah, brilliant . . .it didn't hurt business, it helped it. . .it was all part of the plan from "the man." :rolleyes:

Hey, hope "the man" blows up some high-power computing facilities, I need to sell more CPUs to support my Porsche habit.

Boeing decided to relocate their HQ there. . . .they must be doing something right.

You've got that right. There is SO much material there.

I think the news-media wants her for the same reason. The bigger the soap-opera, the more chance for big ratings.

Certainly there where many whom were whining to give Saddam more time. (and, apparently, unwilling to give the coalition forces more time, now.)
Remember, Blix found rockets that exceeded the parameters of the cease-fire agreement (which Saddam signed back around the time when he rolled over Kuwait.)

Cam, you can not conclude the American people were mislead, w/o KNOWING WMD did NOT exist when we went (back) in.
Part of the cease-fire agreement was that he show proof of the destruction of the WMD (even the French didn't dispute he had them!) Instead Saddam flipped us the bird.

BTW, It's pretty common for seasoned law-breakers (scammers) to insure no evedince will be found by, for example, having all records of illegal activity in an incineration box . . .not opened correctly, and POOF. Another example; Pharos had the habit of killing those who made the secret tomb rooms (to keep them seceret). Do you think Saddam would hesitate to do something similar with building, hidding or destoying WMD?

I beleive that permanent inspections was a good way to prevent a war. No to find weapons that were not there anyway, but to prevent new ones to be made. There is no contradiction betweeen willing to give more time to the inspectors before the war, and saying that now, it is too late anyway. Saddam is gone ! Who cares about his WMD now ? There are WMDs all over the world. All the russian ones. Go to any hospital and you will find enough radioctive material to make a dirty bomb. The only reason the US government wants to find WMDs now is to stop looking like a ridiculous liar who manipulated its own public opinion.
Let me know if you see another reason...

Aurel

clipped from a news article of 05/28

The good news for the Pentagon yesterday was that its investigators
had finally unearthed evidence of weapons of mass destruction,
including 100 vials of anthrax and other dangerous bacteria.
The bad news was that the stash was found, not in Iraq, but fewer
than 50 miles from Washington, near Fort Detrick in the Maryland
countryside.

The anthrax was a non-virulent strain, and the discoveries are
apparently remnants of an abandoned germ warfare programme. They
merited only a local news item in the Washington Post.

But suspicious finds in Iraq have made front-page news (before later
being cleared), given the failure of US military inspection teams to
find evidence of the weapons that were the justification for the
March invasion.

Even more embarrassing for the Pentagon, there was no documentation
about the various biological agents disposed of at the US bio-
defence centre at Fort Detrick. Iraq's failure to come up with
paperwork proving the destruction of its biological arsenal was
portrayed by the US as evidence of deception in the run-up to the
war.



how did that go, about sin, and casting the first stone.

Agreed. But we tried that, and the UN allowed the inspectors to be kicked out in the late 90's, after they were installed after the first gulf war.

And once more, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton didn't lift a finger to stop it...

Yeah....so? Is the fear not real? Tell it to the families who suffered losses in 9/11, the Pentagon, and flight 182...

Hmmm, let's see here. Your saying the US (because it has WMD) is no different than Saddam!?

Yeah, I suppose we shouldn't be critical. . .except for one insignificant :rolleyes: difference. . .Saddam USES his chemcal weapons, on his own people, with less regard than Seattle cops have using pepper-spray on a WTO mob.

The sin isn't so much in having . . . it is that Saddam uses these WMD recklessly.

Saddam was reckless in rolling over Kuwait, and threatening his neighbors. He agreed to give up his WMD and be a good boy if the US agreed not to topple Bahgdad.

more analogy:
Hardflex, by your "logic" if the police catch a bank robber, take away his gun, start a search. . .and the bank robber breaks in to a River-dance, singing "I have no gun in my boot". . . the police should just say "okay, since we're cops and have guns, we really can't take this guy in. . .right. . .it's about sin, and casting the first stone? " :rolleyes:

Saddam USES his chemcal weapons, on his own people, with less regard than Seattle cops have using pepper-spray on a WTO mob.

The sin isn't so much in having . . . it is that Saddam uses these WMD recklessly.

USED - not USES. If he USES chemical weapons, he would have used them on the Coalition forces.

I prefer to stick with "innocent until proven guilty". I cannot figure out why he (apparently) destroyed the weapons and didn't make that obvious. But I gotta reiterate that the justice system is set up the way it is for a reason, and international rules should reflect that, IMO.

I feel satisfactorily entrenched on this again, and can see others are too, so I'm not going to try and change anyone's mind (anymore).

Because he DIDN'T destroy them. If he had, and he'd documented it, end of problem, right?

He hid them. Within Iraq and without. Either that, or there was a mad dash to destroy them during the final 48 hours before the cruise missiles hit.

LOL --though I didn't know any of this was about changing people minds.:)

Anyway, Saddam is a shrewd fellow. He has been "playing" the international community for decades. The ease that the US troops went in to Baghdad, and the apparent post conflict plan of Saddam, is obvious. Play the Bart (or OJ) Simpson "I didn't do it" card. "WMD.. . what WMD. . .you can't prove a thing."

To say Saddam would have used WMD on the Coalition forces. (if he had them) is silly. Unlike his own people that he gassed; the Coalition forces have bigger WMD called Nukes. If Saddam is to "win" he needs to survive, and have Iraq survive. . .and hope he can gain the moral high ground.
Piss'n off th US (more) by using WMD wouldn't have gained him, or Iraq, much in the way of survival.

Not to worry, what happened to Saddams WMD *will* be found out. What happened to Saddam will be found out. THEN we can say if Bush et al over stated, or not. Those whom are saying Bush DID overstate are premature, at best.

A quote from Hans Blix:

"There are bastards who spread things around, of course, who planted nasty things in the media."

Blix, who plans to retire in three weeks from his post as the top weapons watchdog at the United Nations, also said U.S. officials pressed him to help buttress Bush's case that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction justified war.

That says it all...


Full article

Aurel

Originally posted by hardflex
. . .how did that go, about sin, and casting the first stone.

Actually, that was a reference to the Christian teachings which our president was so proud of before the war. --

If we know where they were, why don't we know where they are?


From Aurel's article, did you see this quote from Colin Powell?

"I have high regard for Dr. Blix," said Powell. "I know that the president had confidence in him as well. And what we're doing now is looking forward, not looking backwards."

sounds like they're looking the other way.

IMO, Powell is a good man dutifully doing things he doesn't agree with. It wouldn't surprise me if he resigns soon.

"IMO, Powell is a good man dutifully doing things he doesn't agree with. It wouldn't surprise me if he resigns soon"

Exactly. There was an article (Newsweek, I believe?) that mentioned Powell's first reaction to the material - the "proof" - he was supposed to read to the UN in order to get them to back a US invasion of Iraq. According to the article, his first reaction was "this is bull*****" and slammed the dossier down onto the desk.

LOL --though I didn't know any of this was about changing people minds.

Yeah, I know, but when I feel myself getting pissed off about anything going on here, I realise it is time to step away from the keyboard... its like the (rather unkind) photoshop around which shows a "special needs" kid winning a running race with the caption "Arguing on an internet message board is like running in the Special Olympics..... Win or lose, you're still retarded."

While I like arguing, sometimes I gotta take a break :D

Like the R Gruppe you guys still don't get it...you've bin distracted by the WMD thing from looking at the big picture...what are the effects on the rest of the region. So does it really matter if there are WMD's or not..it's fate accompli. (The WMD issue was only the advertising so the USA public would buy the product in this case the war)

Sadam is alive and well, and the war isn't over...US troops are being killed everyday or so.. Sure let us take over the country and they will keep nibbling at our sides until we decide to go away.

Also what U guys don't get is that 911 almost brought the house of cards that we call our (the worlds) financial system down...it is just now starting to recover. Ask yourselves a the queston what is the US $$$$$ backed up with/by???? The answer is NOTHING...but the promise of the US government that it is good. However if the cash flow into the US government slows enough what good is that promise, especially if the demand for redemption is great. Also for U hippie liberal farmers sitting on a beautiful island downunder, the USA $$$ acts as the reserve currency for the world, right..if it goes so does your currency along with everybody elses... so welcome to the same boat...and thats why everybody jumped onto the anti terrorism boat with the USA. Remember how quickly NATO said an attack against one is an attack against all...I think Iraq was just an error that got corrected...and something that needed to be done, and in the long run will help stablize an unstable situation.