Iraq Said to Have Tried to Reach Last-Minute Deal to Avert War
- Thread starter miggidy
- Start date
We don't need to blame Iraq for our own killings, we have Iraqi's by the hundreds who will testify that Saddam has killed more people than anyone believes.
I agree. I don't know about you, but I feel a little better knowing a dictator (for 23 years) who has tortured thousands of his own citizens, in no longer in power with weapons of mass destruction. You do have a good point, though. I think countries (with stabalized government and economy) should be able to build nuclear weapons if they want. China has 400 nuclear warheads, which is a bit drastic of course.
I agree. I don't know about you, but I feel a little better knowing a dictator (for 23 years) who has tortured thousands of his own citizens, in no longer in power with weapons of mass destruction. You do have a good point, though. I think countries (with stabalized government and economy) should be able to build nuclear weapons if they want. China has 400 nuclear warheads, which is a bit drastic of course.
Hans Blix: Iraq Destroyed WMD 10 Years
http://www.siccness.net/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=75508&highlight=iraq
http://www.siccness.net/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=75508&highlight=iraq
The [propaganda] campaign about Iraq took off last September. This is so obvious it’s even discussed in mainstream publications, like the chief political analyst for UPI, Martin Sieff, has a long article describing how it was done. In September, which happened to be the opening of the midterm congressional campaign, that’s when the drumbeat of wartime propaganda began. It had a couple of constant themes. One big lie was that Iraq was an imminent threat to the security of the United States. We have got to stop them now or they’re going to destroy us tomorrow. The second big lie was that Iraq was behind September 11. Nobody says it straight out; it’s kind of insinuated.
Take a look at the polls. They reflected the propaganda very directly. The propaganda is distributed by the media. They don’t make it up, they just distribute it. You can attribute it to high government officials or whatever you like. But the campaign was reflected very quickly in the polls. By September and since then, roughly 60 percent, oscillating around that, of the population believes that Iraq is a threat to our security. Congress, if you look at the declaration of October, when they authorized the president to use force, said Iraq is a threat to the security of the United States. By now about half the population, maybe more by now, believes that Iraq was responsible for September 11, that Iraqis were on the planes, that they are planning new ones.
There is no one else in the world that believes any of this; there is no country where Iraq is regarded as a threat to their security. Kuwait and Iran, which were both invaded by Iraq, don’t regard Iraq as a threat to their security. Iraq is the weakest country in the region, and as a result of the sanctions, which have killed hundreds of thousands of people—about probably two-thirds of the population is on the edge of starvation—the country has the weakest economy and the weakest military force in the region. Its economy and its military-force expenditures are about a third those of Kuwait, which has 10 percent of its population, and well below others. Of course, everybody in the region knows that there is a superpower there, offshore U.S. military base, Israel, which has hundreds of nuclear weapons and massive armed forces and totally dominates anything.
But only in the United States is there fear or any of these beliefs. You can trace the growth of the beliefs to the propaganda. It’s interesting that the United States is so susceptible to this. There is a background, a cultural background, which is interesting. But whatever the reasons are for it, the United States happens to be a very frightened country by comparative standards. Levels of fear here of almost everything, crime, aliens, you pick it, are just off the spectrum. You can argue, you can inquire into the reasons, but the background is there.
What is it that makes it susceptible to propaganda?
That’s a good question I don’t say it’s more susceptible to propaganda; it’s more susceptible to fear. It’s a frightened country. The reasons for this—I don’t, frankly, understand them, but they’re there, and they go way back in American history. It probably has to do with conquest of the continent, where you had to exterminate the native population; slavery, where you had to control a population that was regarded as dangerous, because you never knew when they were going to turn on you. It may just be a reflection of the enormous security. The security of the United States is beyond anyone else. The United States controls the hemisphere, it controls both oceans, it controls the opposite sides of both oceans, never been threatened. The last time the U.S. was threatened was the War of 1812. Since then it just conquers others. And somehow this engenders a sense that somebody is going to come after us. So the country ends up being very frightened.
There is a reason why Karl Rove is the most important person in the administration. He is the public relations expert in charge of crafting the images. So you can drive through the domestic agendas, carry out the international policies by frightening people and creating the impression that a powerful leader is going to save you from imminent destruction. The Times virtually says it because it’s very hard to keep hidden. It is second nature.
_______________________________________
Noam Chomsky is Institute Professor in the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy at MIT. He is the author of scores of books—his latest are Power and Terror and Middle East Illusions. His book 9-11 was an international bestseller.
source: http://www.zmag.org/ZMagSite/Aug2003/barsamian0803.html
Take a look at the polls. They reflected the propaganda very directly. The propaganda is distributed by the media. They don’t make it up, they just distribute it. You can attribute it to high government officials or whatever you like. But the campaign was reflected very quickly in the polls. By September and since then, roughly 60 percent, oscillating around that, of the population believes that Iraq is a threat to our security. Congress, if you look at the declaration of October, when they authorized the president to use force, said Iraq is a threat to the security of the United States. By now about half the population, maybe more by now, believes that Iraq was responsible for September 11, that Iraqis were on the planes, that they are planning new ones.
There is no one else in the world that believes any of this; there is no country where Iraq is regarded as a threat to their security. Kuwait and Iran, which were both invaded by Iraq, don’t regard Iraq as a threat to their security. Iraq is the weakest country in the region, and as a result of the sanctions, which have killed hundreds of thousands of people—about probably two-thirds of the population is on the edge of starvation—the country has the weakest economy and the weakest military force in the region. Its economy and its military-force expenditures are about a third those of Kuwait, which has 10 percent of its population, and well below others. Of course, everybody in the region knows that there is a superpower there, offshore U.S. military base, Israel, which has hundreds of nuclear weapons and massive armed forces and totally dominates anything.
But only in the United States is there fear or any of these beliefs. You can trace the growth of the beliefs to the propaganda. It’s interesting that the United States is so susceptible to this. There is a background, a cultural background, which is interesting. But whatever the reasons are for it, the United States happens to be a very frightened country by comparative standards. Levels of fear here of almost everything, crime, aliens, you pick it, are just off the spectrum. You can argue, you can inquire into the reasons, but the background is there.
What is it that makes it susceptible to propaganda?
That’s a good question I don’t say it’s more susceptible to propaganda; it’s more susceptible to fear. It’s a frightened country. The reasons for this—I don’t, frankly, understand them, but they’re there, and they go way back in American history. It probably has to do with conquest of the continent, where you had to exterminate the native population; slavery, where you had to control a population that was regarded as dangerous, because you never knew when they were going to turn on you. It may just be a reflection of the enormous security. The security of the United States is beyond anyone else. The United States controls the hemisphere, it controls both oceans, it controls the opposite sides of both oceans, never been threatened. The last time the U.S. was threatened was the War of 1812. Since then it just conquers others. And somehow this engenders a sense that somebody is going to come after us. So the country ends up being very frightened.
There is a reason why Karl Rove is the most important person in the administration. He is the public relations expert in charge of crafting the images. So you can drive through the domestic agendas, carry out the international policies by frightening people and creating the impression that a powerful leader is going to save you from imminent destruction. The Times virtually says it because it’s very hard to keep hidden. It is second nature.
_______________________________________
Noam Chomsky is Institute Professor in the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy at MIT. He is the author of scores of books—his latest are Power and Terror and Middle East Illusions. His book 9-11 was an international bestseller.
source: http://www.zmag.org/ZMagSite/Aug2003/barsamian0803.html
according to the article, they are talking about the WETC bombing in 1993 under President Clinton, for which there was plenty of evidence that Iraq was involved, but unfortunatlry that was during the time when Clinton was avoiding his CIA directors to avoid being briefed by them about threats against us
something else why would they not go public with the surrender or whatever they were going to call it (because this is bullshit).
we didnt ask them to hold free elections, they are have been holding free elections already for years, yet Sadam still gets 99.5% of the vote, go figure.
we asked them to comply with Resolution 1441 and the prior 16 resolutions by destroying and showing proof of doing so of all their WMD's, and we wanted Sadam Hussein out.
something else why would they not go public with the surrender or whatever they were going to call it (because this is bullshit).
we didnt ask them to hold free elections, they are have been holding free elections already for years, yet Sadam still gets 99.5% of the vote, go figure.
we asked them to comply with Resolution 1441 and the prior 16 resolutions by destroying and showing proof of doing so of all their WMD's, and we wanted Sadam Hussein out.
"there is no country where Iraq is regarded as a threat to their security. Kuwait and Iran, which were both invaded by Iraq, don’t regard Iraq as a threat to their security. Iraq is the weakest country in the region, and as a result of the sanctions, which have killed hundreds of thousands of people—about probably two-thirds of the population is on the edge of starvation—the country has the weakest economy and the weakest military force in the region. Its economy and its military-force expenditures are about a third those of Kuwait, which has 10 percent of its population, and well below others. Of course, everybody in the region knows that there is a superpower there, offshore U.S. military base, Israel, which has hundreds of nuclear weapons and massive armed forces and totally dominates anything."
^AIN'T NOTHIN' ELSE NEED TO BE SAID. BUT IF YOU WANT TO SHUT ME UP THEN COME DO IT, KNOWIN' DAMN WELL YOUR gROCERY WORKIN' ASS AIN'T BUSTIN' A gRAPE. [email protected] IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM.
how does he know?? how does he know what/where the bombs hit?? he wasnt there he wasnt even around yet. Wasnt Richard Butler the UN Chief Weapons Inspector??
Kuwait had alote to say!
all the other countriesw spoke with their actions, when they didnty blink at letting us station troops and attacks out of their countries
Kuwait had alote to say!
all the other countriesw spoke with their actions, when they didnty blink at letting us station troops and attacks out of their countries