The Value of Propaganda

[IrishHand]

Poll: Many Still Link Iraq With WMD (http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/9451641.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp&1c)

Zero evidence of WMD, 54% of Americans believe they had 'em or were making 'em.

Zero evidence of Al-Quaeda-Iraq link, 50% of Americans believe there's a link.

Ah...the value of propaganda...

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Zero evidence of WMD, 54% of Americans believe they had 'em or were making 'em.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hasn't it been established as a fact that Iraq used WMDs (gas, specifically) against both Iran and the Kurds in northern Iraq?

[andyfox]

When was that?

[jslag]

Hasn't it been established as a fact that Iraq was rid of most, if not all WMDs in the 1990s through weapons inspections? It's obviously been confirmed in all search reports since the occupation.

The point is that the American people were too easily brainwashed into believing Iraq had active stockpiles of WMDs and that he was an imminent threat to the U.S.

The gassing of the Kurds occurred in 1987-88. I don't see how that proves anything about assertion before the current invasion that Iraq had active stockpiles of WMDs.

World order is not preserved by unilateral military action such as the U.S. occupation of Iraq. It's obvious many of the U.N. backed arms proliferation strategies were working, specifically in Iraq.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
When was that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Is there a statute of limitations on using WMDs?

Or, should we assume that dictators that use WMDs later decided that they (a) shouldn't replenish their depleted stockpiles or (b) unilaterally destroy all their remaining stockpiles but not leave any evidence of doing it?

I don't know why we haven't found conclusive evidence of Hussein holding WMDs. It concerns me but not because I think Bush liked. I'm concerned because I think Hussein took action with the WMDs that we won't be happy with.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Hasn't it been established as a fact that Iraq was rid of most, if not all WMDs in the 1990s through weapons inspections?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[nicky g]

"When was that? "

When its best pal was the US of A.

[nicky g]

"should we assume that dictators that use WMDs later decided that they (a) shouldn't replenish their depleted stockpiles or (b) unilaterally destroy all their remaining stockpiles but not leave any evidence of doing it?"

A. It wasn't a unilateral decision, it was in response to UN resolutions, sanctions etc.
B. What planet do you live on? Almost all of the WMD was verifiably destroyed, as certified by the people who were there to oversee it, the weapons inspectors. Less than 5% couldn't be accounted for by the Iraqis and the inspectos (the Iraqis claimed most of it had been destroyed without proper records) and it was almost all substances that according to the weapons inspectors would have degraded a long time ago.

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
"Hasn't it been established as a fact that Iraq was rid of most, if not all WMDs in the 1990s through weapons inspections?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong, and making Irishand'spoint for him.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
A. It wasn't a unilateral decision, it was in response to UN resolutions, sanctions etc.
B. What planet do you live on? Almost all of the WMD was verifiably destroyed, as certified by the people who were there to oversee it, the weapons inspectors. Less than 5% couldn't be accounted for by the Iraqis and the inspectos (the Iraqis claimed most of it had been destroyed without proper records) and it was almost all substances that according to the weapons inspectors would have degraded a long time ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

You forgot C.

C. Iraq was ready and had the intention to restart the WMD programs as soon as world scrutiny ended.

Stu

[nicky g]

"C. Iraq was ready and had the intention to restart the WMD programs as soon as world scrutiny ended."

Conjecture, and regardless, why end world scrutiny? It was a damn sight less messy and expensive thatn this almighty cock-up of a war. At any rate, this wasn;t an argument about the validity of the war, it was about the fact that people still believe the untruths fed to them about the war.

[Stu Pidasso]

You also forgot D.

D. Iraq was developing missles and UAVs capable of carrying WMD in violation of UN security council resolutions.

[ QUOTE ]
At any rate, this wasn;t an argument about the validity of the war, it was about the fact that people still believe the untruths fed to them about the war

[/ QUOTE ]

That was before Dynasty hijacked the thread.

Stu

[nicky g]

"D. Iraq was developing missles and UAVs capable of carrying WMD in violation of UN security council resolutions."

Carrying the WMD it didn;t have, you mean? Scary stuff. Iraq was in the process of destroying missiles at the direction of the weapons inspectors at the time war was declared. I've not heard about the UAVs; while Iraq did breach some security resolutions and maybe was breaching them here by not fully disclosing this programme, those resolutions made it clear it was up to the security council to decide on what action to take, and they never authorised a war. Justifying the US invading Iraq because it breached security council resolutions would be like justifying Russia invading Israel for doing the same thing.

I find it amusing that you bang on about UN resolutions here in another thread you're basically insisting the US is not and should not be bound by the UN charter.

[nicky g]

"At any rate, this wasn;t an argument about the validity of the war, it was about the fact that people still believe the untruths fed to them about the war


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That was before Dynasty hijacked the thread."

Check the title of the thread and the first post. Furthermore in the post of mine you first responded to on this issue, I was replying to Dynasty.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Carrying the WMD it didn;t have, you mean? Scary stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

The chemical and biological componets of WMD can be produced extremely quickly. However the delivery componets(i.e. missles) cannot. Speaking metaphorically, Sadam unloaded his gun, but he didn't give it up. Nor did he give up access to ammunition for that gun.

[ QUOTE ]
Iraq was in the process of destroying missiles at the direction of the weapons inspectors at the time war was declared.

[/ QUOTE ]

Iraq was not motivated to destroy those missle by the presence of weapons inspectors. What motivated Iraq was 150k in troops poised to invade on its boarders.

[ QUOTE ]
I find it amusing that you bang on about UN resolutions here in another thread you're basically insisting the US is not and should not be bound by the UN charter.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do that for the sake of the internationalist. I don't believe we needed any UN resolution. Iraq's violations of the 1991 cease fire agreement was a sufficient casus belli.

Containment looks like a great strategy if you're not the country doing the containing. Perhaps this war could have been avoided if France, Germany, and Russia agreed to permanenty(or at least until the Bathist were out of power) station 150K troops on Iraq's boarder.

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
That was before Dynasty hijacked the thread."

Check the title of the thread and the first post. Furthermore in the post of mine you first responded to on this issue, I was replying to Dynasty.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to take credit for Hijacking this thread I'm sure Dynasty won't mind.

Stu

[Abednego]

You of course are refering to the propaganda that puts force the notion that Iraq did not have WMD right?

[Abednego]

Things change

[nicky g]

"Iraq was not motivated to destroy those missle by the presence of weapons inspectors. What motivated Iraq was 150k in troops poised to invade on its boarders. "

The UN had only just decided those missiles were illegal, so you don;t know that. Iraq verifiably destroyed nearly all of its WMD capacity well before those troops went anywhere near it.

"Iraq's violations of the 1991 cease fire agreement was a sufficient casus belli."

It was up to the Security Council to decide on the consequences of any violation.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
The UN had only just decided those missiles were illegal, so you don;t know that. Iraq verifiably destroyed nearly all of its WMD capacity well before those troops went anywhere near it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your being foolish if you think Iraq was ever motivated to destroy any of its WMD becuase the UN mandated it. Any motivation Iraq had to disarm came from US smart bombs and f-117s and Tomahawk cruise missles.

[ QUOTE ]
It was up to the Security Council to decide on the consequences of any violation.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the benefit of the internationalist. The Security Council authorized serious consequences for violations. Had the United States overstepped its bounds in enforceing those consequences, the United States would have been condemned by the Security Council.

Stu

[nicky g]

"The Security Council authorized serious consequences for violations."

Yes and put in place a timetable for reports, inspections adn decided to remain "seized of the matter" (ie continue to follow it rather than take action yet) etc as its next step, threatening "serious consequnces" if Iraq did not cooperate. Regardless of the fact that Iraq largely complied with those, it was up to the security council and not indvidual members to decide A. whether it complied with them and B. what those consequences would be. Given the centrality of state sovereignty to the UN it is not enough for individual member sates to unilaterally decide to interpret, judge compliance with and enforce SC resolutions that did not call for force. Furthermore the simple fact that the anti war nations passed the resolution demonstrates that it did not authorise war.

Do you really think that when it asked for these steps to be taken, arranged for weapons inspectors to compile reports, gives briefing etc, for Iraq to do this and demonstrate that, what the resolution meant was for any individual country on the council to make its own judgement about compliance and what the consequences should be?


" Had the United States overstepped its bounds in enforceing those consequences, the United States would have been condemned by the Security Council.
"
Given that the US has a veto, that is absurd.

[IrishHand]

[ QUOTE ]
You of course are refering to the propaganda that puts force the notion that Iraq did not have WMD right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to think that I'm a rational person. To me, propaganda is bombarding people with information that has no basis in fact. When I learn any new information, my first step tends to be to see if it has any basis in fact. When someone says "Iraq has lots of WMD" and has zero evidence of this, I define that as propaganda. As for the inverse, "Iraq has no WMD"; that assertion is, in fact, supported by actual evidence, many of which were noted by Nicky G.

Of course, this particular discussion is redundant. The complete a total failure of the most mighty nation in the world to come up with anything resembling either WMD or facilities to make them in nearly two years of occupation conclusively proves their absence.

[Abednego]

Well in that case then I feel a whole lot better. If we hadn't have gone in I'd be more than a little apprehensive - like President Bush stated, "We can not wait until an attack is imminent". Thanks for making my arguement on why we were justified in the Iraq invasion .... I thought for a minute there you were against it

[ddollevoet]

[ QUOTE ]
Poll: Many Still Link Iraq With WMD (http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/9451641.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp&1c)

Zero evidence of WMD, 54% of Americans believe they had 'em or were making 'em.

Zero evidence of Al-Quaeda-Iraq link, 50% of Americans believe there's a link.

Ah...the value of propaganda...

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no tangible proof that god exists, but 90% of the world's population believes in a god of one sort or another.

Of course I consider religion propaganda too.

[Abednego]

How do you explain the resurection of Christ?

[TorontoCFE]

There would be some who would have doubts if this happened.
People who are not in the least religious could claim that there is no concrete evidence of this occurring.

[Victor]

I actually have a video of a few separate press conferences where Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice affirm that Iraq has no weapons, the sanctions worked and we have no plans to use force. I think this was prior to 9/11.

Its a .wmv file on my comp. If anyone wants it I can email it to you or maybe someone can tell me how to link it to the net. I am not too computer smart.

So, Dynasty, you are wrong here.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
You of course are refering to the propaganda that puts force the notion that Iraq did not have WMD right?

[/ QUOTE ]

You must have the cleanest brain on this forum.

It gets washed everyday.

[ddollevoet]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you explain the resurection of Christ?

[/ QUOTE ]

I can explain the execution of Christ. There is evidence that the execution occurred.

The resurrection? I haven't seen any evidence of that...

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you explain the resurection of Christ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Same way I might explain the Easter Bunny or Santa Clause.