Man, someone should update thier website :)

Hobbes

Found this on my travels. Made me chuckle.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/nationalsecurity/disarm.html

aidan_walsh

How deep did you have to dig to find that one, given that its not on any of the front pages? Is this just blatent Bush bashing for the sake of it?

Zombrex

I especially like this bit

White House wrote:

But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm, we will act for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world.

Kinda hard to disarm if you don't have any WMD in the first place ...

White House wrote:

Is this just blatent Bush bashing for the sake of it?

Who are you, his mother

This highlights exactly what the reason for going to war was, the "safety" of the American people from Iraq WMD. It is now perfectly clear that Iraq posed no threat to the saftey to the American people, or the peace of the world.

Therefore the reasons for war were wrong. This issue has been carefully side stepped and spun by the pro-war groups as "Well yes he had no WMD, but what we actually wanted all along was simply to remove a terrible dicator from power"

That wasn't the justifications given for war at the time, it wasn't the justification presented to the people of the world at the time, as this webpage (that isn't that hard to find) clearly shows.

In fact if Saddam had actually WMD, and had actually disarmed he probably would still be in power now because the justification for attacking would have been gone. Just like is the Taliban had actually handed over Al Queda they would still be power.

The idea that America is running around the world making countries free just for the hell of it is ridiculous.

Hobbes

aidan_walsh wrote:

How deep did you have to dig to find that one, given that its not on any of the front pages? Is this just blatent Bush bashing for the sake of it?

Actually I was looking for something else and found that link. I had seen it sometime ago. Couldn't believe it was still around.

Sorry if it seems like Bush bashing. Clearly the facts are biased against him.

What I find really funny is this...

He recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa,

Considering that is the whole Plame affair there you think they would start deleting that crap.

aidan_walsh

Hobbes wrote:

Couldn't believe it was still around.

I'm pretty sure that as a public government page, it would have to be. I seem to recall (though I can't find it at the moment) something about the alteration and availability of public texts.

Hobbes wrote:

Considering that is the whole Plame affair there you think they would start deleting that crap.

Again, I'm sure thats because its a public government text.

Wicknight wrote:

Who are you, his mother

No. But I could be, I didn't realise I was the White House

I would just prefer if people who have something to say could use something new, rather than pages marked as last updated in 2003, when it was considered relevant and current. Of course we know now that it wasn't.

edanto

I think it's a timely reminder of the reasons that they used to support the war. It's easy to forget with all the hype about regime change...and insurgency.

Regime change begins at home, folks.

when it was considered relevant and current. Of course we know now that it wasn't.

At the time it was supposed to be reliable, accurate and true as well.

Hobbes

aidan_walsh wrote:

Again, I'm sure thats because its a public government text.

Thats odd. Wonder why there have been numerous instances of the Bush Administration scrubbing pages?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/10/26_scrubbing.html

Oddly enough the Clinton administration implemented a version control system so you could see edits. Guess who stopped using that.

RagShagBill

Thats odd. Wonder why there have been numerous instances of the Bush Administration scrubbing pages?

http://www.democraticunderground.com...scrubbing.html

Using negative words such as "scrubbing" indicates that you believe the act to be wrong, yet the title of this topic suggests you'd like them to change it. You can't have it both ways.

I think it's a timely reminder of the reasons that they used to support the war. It's easy to forget with all the hype about regime change...and insurgency.

The relevant article is titled "Disarming Saddam Hussein". Why would a title titled as such deal with other arguments justifying the war in Iraq? It is simply a specific page for one aspect of the argument put forth. If I was arsed, I'm almost certain I could find pages dedicated to arguments surrounding regime change and such.

This highlights exactly what the reason for going to war was, the "safety" of the American people from Iraq WMD. It is now perfectly clear that Iraq posed no threat to the saftey to the American people, or the peace of the world.

If you're the President of the most powerful nation in the world, and the most powerful - and revered - intelligence agencies approach you and tell you that a world leader - who has openly applauded the largest terrorist attack ever to have taken place on your homeland's soil - is in possesion of WMDs - to the point whereby the head of the CIA can say it's a "slam dunk" - are you not going to believe that the safety of your people is in danger?

Therefore the reasons for war were wrong. This issue has been carefully side stepped and spun by the pro-war groups as "Well yes he had no WMD, but what we actually wanted all along was simply to remove a terrible dicator from power"

The same applies to the above, but might I remind you that under neo-conservative doctrine, the removal of dictators with an aim to spreading liberty and in turn killing the root causes of terrorism is absolutely key. Furthermore, it wasn't a case whereby the leaders moved from one argument to the other, the argument for Iraqi freedom was present from the start.

Lastly, I'll leave you with this poll taken in Iraq during the Iraq War. I believe it quite relevant.

http://www.yougov.co.uk/archives/pdf/OMI030101018_2.pdf

edanto

RagShagBill wrote:

Why would a title titled as such deal with other arguments justifying the war in Iraq? It is simply a specific page for one aspect of the argument put forth. If I was arsed, I'm almost certain I could find pages dedicated to arguments surrounding regime change and such.

Well, I'd love it if you could please bother your arse and link to some documents (say, newspapers) from early 03 where the Americans made the case for war with their primary reason being anything other than weapons of mass distraction.

In the meantime, I'll refer you to paragraphs 5,6 & 7 of Wicknight's post above.

If you're the President of the most powerful nation in the world....are you not going to believe that the safety of your people is in danger?

Maybe. It would depend on the voices in my head (ref God told me to do it thread). But even if I did believe my hypothetical citizens were in danger, it's the job of the police and security services to protect them. Starting a war in an unstable region guarantees a heightened terrorist risk for a long time.

the removal of dictators with an aim to spreading liberty and in turn killing the root causes of terrorism is absolutely key.

Could you expand your logic a little here please? Spreading liberty by violence reduces terrorism how?

Furthermore, it wasn't a case whereby the leaders moved from one argument to the other, the argument for Iraqi freedom was present from the start.

Yes, but the URGENCY is the key. Remember that there wasn't time to allow the inspectors to continue looking for the WMDs... the country had to be invaded IMMEDIATELY according to the Americans. And they were just plain wrong about that. Why won't they even talk about that in press conferences?

All the peace-loving people of the world wanted Hussein removed from power, but there are channels of doing that - say for example, the mooted International Criminal Court. Is it still a fact that the US hasn't signed up to this institution for fear of it's own citizens being indicted?

Lastly, I'll leave you with this poll taken in Iraq during the Iraq War. I believe it quite relevant.

Me too, but probably for different reasons to you. Almost half of the Iraqis thought that the biggest reason for America invading was to secure the oil fields.

They did that rather quickly, with over half of the countries oil secured within 2 days of the war. This was going to be 'for the benefit of the Iraqi people'.

But now, with the Production Sharing Agreements due to be implemented after the elections (these things are always better to bring in after an election, right?:rolleyes: ) it seems like the Iraqi people are going to be shafted by the multinationals.

The advocacy group PLATFORM have this to say:
"At an oil price of $40 per barrel, Iraq stands to lose between $74 billion and $194 billion over the lifetime of the proposed contracts, from only the first 12 oilfields to be developed. These estimates, based on conservative assumptions, represent between two and seven times the current Iraqi government budget."

"Under the likely terms of the contracts, oil company rates of return from investing in Iraq would range from 42% to 162%, far in excess of usual industry minimum target of around 12% return on investment."

So let me recap - their reasons for going all-out in such a hurry were falsified. I don't know by who. But they were plain wrong. How an intelligence agency can call something a 'slam dunk' when there isn't a scintilla of truth in it just beggars belief.

An article in the Lancet estimated that about 100,000 people have died because of the invasion, compared with the number of people that were dying under Hussein. That's an act of terrorism if you ask me.

I strongly believe that the main motivation for the invasion was to secure a safe supply of oil for the next 20 years or so for the US. That and a bit of a boost to the American economy via the high-tech/military industry. Only time will tell if I'm right.

samb

I strongly believe that the main motivation for the invasion was to secure a safe supply of oil for the next 20 years or so for the US. That and a bit of a boost to the American economy via the high-tech/military industry. Only time will tell if I'm right.

I think the motivations could be more sinister. Helping his have-more friends have even more.
He isn't interested in improving the lives of average americans. IF he did he would spend more on his people; educate them, fight gun crime, fix levees instead of spending it on Iraq. America has spent a fortune on the Iraq war, only a few americans will benefit.

Hobbes

RagShagBill wrote:

Using negative words such as "scrubbing" indicates that you believe the act to be wrong, yet the title of this topic suggests you'd like them to change it. You can't have it both ways.

Removing valid information is "Scrubbing", removing information which is false is not.

I had a quick look at that site and at least with the coalition of the willing you can still find the page it is just not linked to anything.

It is simply a specific page for one aspect of the argument put forth.

Which most if not all of the argument points have been pointed out to be total BS yet the website is still posting as if it is fact.

to the point whereby the head of the CIA can say it's a "slam dunk" - are you not going to believe that the safety of your people is in danger?

Actually there was a documentry out that pointed out the CIA didn't not in fact say it was a "Slam dunk". Freely available to download.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6423.htm

The plame case also pointed out that outed CIA operative knew full well Saddam was not trying to get WMD from Africa.

http://www.yougov.co.uk/archives/pdf/OMI030101018_2.pdf

I read it. Apart from the first question the answers are very bleak. They say that the US is no better or worse then Saddam, they only invaded to take thier oil for the Israelis and the country is a much worse place with many people loosing basic functions (eg. electricity).

Have they done the same poll recently?

edanto

RagShagBill, did you have any success finding newspaper articles/press releases where the Bush administration focused on the liberation of Iraqis and stabilising the middle east as the main reasons for the war?

I was looking at the press releases from the White House from March 03, just to refresh my memory. Do you remember the conference in the Azores between the US, UK & Spain?

Here are some quotes from Dubya's speech:

The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations. He is a danger to his neighbors. He's a sponsor of terrorism. He's an obstacle to progress in the Middle East. For decades he has been the cruel, cruel oppressor of the Iraq people.

Saddam Hussein has a history of mass murder. He possesses the weapons of mass murder. He agrees -- he agreed to disarm Iraq of these weapons as a condition for ending the Gulf War over a decade ago.

That argument depends pretty heavily on the WMDs. I'll leave it to you to find some arguments they put forward that didn't.

wiseones2cents

RagShagBill wrote:

If you're the President of the most powerful nation in the world, and the most powerful - and revered - intelligence agencies approach you and tell you that a world leader - who has openly applauded the largest terrorist attack ever to have taken place on your homeland's soil - is in possesion of WMDs - to the point whereby the head of the CIA can say it's a "slam dunk" - are you not going to believe that the safety of your people is in danger?

First of all I dont recall Saddam applauding 9/11 but if so,it is Understandable. His country was attacked and sanctioned for 12 years because of the USA. As far as the claim Saddam had WMD?Lets see.

List of Bush's excuses to invade Iraq(Remember the plans to invade Iraq were drummed up even before bush took office.)
1. Saddam was Behind 9/11(Proven False)
2. Saddam was connected to Al-Qaeda(Proven False)
3. Saddam Has WMD.(Proven false.
4. Finally America found an EXCUSE that sticks(for the naive). Liberating the Iraqi's of a dictator the CIA put in power in the first place.

The CIA And MOSSAD 2 of the most knowledgable intelligence agencies in the world said that Iraq DID NOT possess WMD. Israel would have not hesitated to attack it, itself.

Also remember that their was a special ops unit(Office of Special Plans) formed In the Pentagon that was cherry picking information, to make a case for war.Doug Feith and a bunch of other high ranking Zionists were running it. And they had a counter part unit running from Sharon's office. Bypassing the MOSSAD. Then Put that Together with the fact that many of the Department of Defense members behind the war are high ranking Zionists. Can you say Conspiracy?

Lawrence Franklin was already charged by the FBI for giving away American classified Information to Israel.
This is the best link I can find short notice but I have read numerous articles outlinning the situation.(No time to read this one).
http://www.juancole.com/2004_08_01_juancole_archive.html

Therefore there was no SLAM DUNK. It was derived from cherry picked info and tenet knew that. And Information that was falsified, which was unprofessional of the American administration to not authenticate them first.Simply because it stated what they wanted to hear.

The Strangest thing of all?America was in a recession and 9/11 came at a very convienient time.......

The same applies to the above, but might I remind you that under neo-conservative doctrine, the removal of dictators with an aim to spreading liberty and in turn killing the root causes of terrorism is absolutely key. Furthermore, it wasn't a case whereby the leaders moved from one argument to the other, the argument for Iraqi freedom was present from the start.

May I remind you that most of those dictators America claims to remove were installed by America in the first place? America is not spreading liberty but its Imperial Capitalism. Go check out the Iraqi constitution that gives foreigners control of the Iraqi economy.

American Imperialism and foreign policy are the roots and cause of terrorism.
So get to work and bring down America, if you want to kill the cause.
Your notion that America had the argument for freedom in Iraq at the start is more bogus. Care to supply proof? The only freedom America was talking about was its own. America claimed Al-Qaeda was attacking thier way of life.
This was another lie. If They did indeed attack it was because of American dictating foreign policy. Go read Interviews with Osama and his opinion of the USA before 9/11.

You are way behind in the information loop.

Lastly, I'll leave you with this poll taken in Iraq during the Iraq War. I believe it quite relevant.

Polls are bogus and are for mass manipulation of the naive. Most polls are taken from anywhere between 50-500 people and does NOT reflect the people's opinions. Especially when popualtions are in the millions.

GypsumFantastic

wiseones2cents wrote:

First of all I dont recall Saddam applauding 9/11 but if so,it is Understandable.

The Daily Telegraph, amongst other newspapers, recorded the Iraqi state broadcaster's - in Saddam's Iraq, no-one said or did anything without his approval - solemn analysis of the situation: "The American cowboy is reaping the fruits of his crimes against humanity. America, which is tasting the bitter defeat of its crimes and disregard for peoples' will to lead a free, decent life." Presumably the kind of free, decent life enjoyed by Iraqis.

Anyhow..

It's a bit much, even for an anti-American, to believe there was anything to be applauded about planes being smashed into office workers but there you go.

wiseones2cents wrote:

His country was attacked and sanctioned for 12 years because of the USA.

I think there was the small matter of Saddam's invasion of Kuwait behind that, old bean. I realise in your rush to portray Saddam as some hapless individual with all the moral culpability of an animal you may have forgotten this but it's true nonetheless.

wiseones2cents wrote:

Liberating the Iraqi's of a dictator the CIA put in power in the first place.

Now this isn't true either. Come on, step back a minute and think. If the CIA were so brilliant at placing Saddam into power then the very mechanism that was in place to conduct that brilliant trick could be used to remove him. If only it were that simple.

wiseones2cents wrote:

The Strangest thing of all?America was in a recession and 9/11 came at a very convienient time.......

I daresay it was very inconvenient if you happened to be sitting at your desk at work as a jet flew towards your window. Very inconvenient, indeed.

wiseones2cents wrote:

If They did indeed attack it was because of American dictating foreign policy.

'If they indeed attack' - I like that. Element of doubt. Zionists, probably, you suspect.

I think it's highly flattering to portray yer average jihadists as merely having a passionate interest in current affairs but in the absence of democratic channels in their native countries the only way they can relieve this tension is to hijack planes or attach bombs to themselves and blow themselves up. I think it's very flattering indeed.

wiseones2cents

GypsumFantastic wrote:

The Daily Telegraph, amongst other newspapers, recorded the Iraqi state broadcaster's - in Saddam's Iraq, no-one said or did anything without his approval - solemn analysis of the situation: "The American cowboy is reaping the fruits of his crimes against humanity. America, which is tasting the bitter defeat of its crimes and disregard for peoples' will to lead a free, decent life." Presumably the kind of free, decent life enjoyed by Iraqis.

No one said Iraq was living in freedom. Though remember that Saddam is responsible for westernizing Iraq and making Iraq one of the most prosperous Middle east economies. Not to mention he brought freedom to women, protected religious minorities, eliminated illiteracy, built many universities.Though if you spoke bad about him and he found out? You would be tortured.

Though Saddam wasn't painted a ruthless dictator when he was America's puppet. When they encouraged Iraq to attack Iran. It's after America back stabbed Saddam in the war by supplying the Iranians with WMD in exchange for American prisoners,which prolonged the war and led to millions more deaths on each side(America was playing both sides).. When Saddam cut America off. He THEN became expendable and a ruthless dictator overnight.

So of coarse Saddam tightened its grip on its population and media. Saddam's life was threatened.

Saddam's son uday was a butcher though and Saddam would argue with him.

It's a bit much, even for an anti-American, to believe there was anything to be applauded about planes being smashed into office workers but there you go.

Yet many Muslims did because they see America as a dictating imperial entity.

I think there was the small matter of Saddam's invasion of Kuwait behind that, old bean. I realise in your rush to portray Saddam as some hapless individual with all the moral culpability of an animal you may have forgotten this but it's true nonetheless.

And why did Saddam attack Kuwait? Kuwaitis were stealing Iraqi oil through slant drilling using American(texan to be exact) technology. Why? After Saddam was backstabbed by America in the Iraq/Iran war. Saddam cut America out of Iraqi oil Profits.

Saddam found out the Kuwaitis were stealing Iraqi oil at the border and called the American Ambassador to Iraq. April Gilespie. She replied America doesnt
get involved in border Disputes. So Saddam Attcked Kuwait. April Gilespie was demoted.

Therefore Iraq got the green light from America to attack. When they did and they were told to withdraw they did. And as they were withdrawing, the American war planes slaughtered thousands of Iraqi soldiers retreating.

You are behind in the information loop. I frequented an America political board and all this information has been researched and proven TRUE. The Americans later shut down the site because it was very damaging to America's image and was also damaging to them achieving thier interests.

Now this isn't true either. Come on, step back a minute and think. If the CIA were so brilliant at placing Saddam into power then the very mechanism that was in place to conduct that brilliant trick could be used to remove him. If only it were that simple.

You are mistaken. They tried to assassinate Saddam many times and failed. Saddam was well protected. They tried sanctions and that didn't work either. There was only one way to remove him and that was war.

I daresay it was very inconvenient if you happened to be sitting at your desk at work as a jet flew towards your window. Very inconvenient, indeed.

Maybe for the the ones in the building and for their loved ones but not for the American Administration. It came at a very convienient time.Thier are also rumours that many connected people did not show up for work that day.

'If they indeed attack' - I like that. Element of doubt. Zionists, probably, you suspect.

Since there is no SOLID proof, I dont blame anyone. America's proof was that if he told us how he had proof, the war would be impossible to win. What did bush mean by that? It could be many scenarios. More than Likely Osama was involved. Though it could have been the Zionists, could have been the CIA,could Have been someone that wanted to start a war, maybe Osama is working with the American Administration.Who knows.

I think it's highly flattering to portray yer average jihadists as merely having a passionate interest in current affairs but in the absence of democratic channels in their native countries the only way they can relieve this tension is to hijack planes or attach bombs to themselves and blow themselves up. I think it's very flattering indeed.

When you are fighting against a militarily superior enemy you must use unconventional tactics. Sad but true. If they had sophistacted planes and tanks and satelittes. Do you think they would be using planes or blowing themselves up?

Orion

White House wrote:

But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm, we will act for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world.

I think they spelt 'piece' wrong

Hobbes

wiseones2cents wrote:

First of all I dont recall Saddam applauding 9/11 but if so,it is Understandable.

Actually he straight out denied any involvement with it during 9/11. The only thing he did questionable was go on high alert a few days beforehand (knowing something was coming). But then a lot of people knew what was coming.

Saddam's son uday was a butcher though and Saddam would argue with him.

Saddam was known for killing family members who disagreed with him.

Yet many Muslims did because they see America as a dictating imperial entity.

Some Muslims did, however it is not factual to say that the majority of Muslims did as such an act is considered one of the worst things you can do in the muslim religon.

Polls are bogus and are for mass manipulation of the naive. Most polls are taken from anywhere between 50-500 people and does NOT reflect the people's opinions. Especially when popualtions are in the millions.

Actually they do reflect the majority. I forget the statistic but there is a set amount of base people would give you an exact figure on a large population number. The only issues in polls is where the questions are loaded to force a particular answer.

Example:
"Do you believe in the death penalty?" vs "Do you think someone who has raped and killed a child should get the death penalty?".

Other only issue is a matter of demographics which can be missed. This was cited in the previous US election that they could not get the 20-25 age group polled as they use mobile phones vs a home phone.

Saddam found out the Kuwaitis were stealing Iraqi oil at the border and called the American Ambassador to Iraq. April Gilespie. She replied America doesnt get involved in border Disputes.

Actually her wording was that she planned a peaceful resolution for the dispute but America could not side either way (which Saddam took to mean go ahead and invade). I've read the transcript. If she is guilty of anything it is not being clear enough.

When they did and they were told to withdraw they did.

AFAIR no he didn't. He suggested a comprise withdrawal which the US refused.

Thier are also rumours that many connected people did not show up for work that day.

Debunked. Read snopes.

wiseones2cents

Hobbes wrote:

Actually he straight out denied any involvement with it during 9/11. The only thing he did questionable was go on high alert a few days beforehand (knowing something was coming). But then a lot of people knew what was coming.

Of coarse he knew they were planning to invade Iraq. Though he did not praise 9/11, he funded the families of the suicide bombers in Palestine and the Zionists that run the American military did not like that.

Saddam was known for killing family members who disagreed with him.

I have heard the same thing. He killed his daughters husbands because they did not agreee with what he was doing. Though this is common practice in many, many countries.

Some Muslims did, however it is not factual to say that the majority of Muslims did as such an act is considered one of the worst things you can do in the muslim religon.

Correct. Though after America attacked Iraq it lost all sympathy.

Actually they do reflect the majority. I forget the statistic but there is a set amount of base people would give you an exact figure on a large population number. The only issues in polls is where the questions are loaded to force a particular answer.

B.S. Like I said before. Most polls are conducted between 40-500 people. In populations of Millions it hardly reflects the people's opinions. I or anyone I know for that matter has yet to be asked any questions regarding any polls.
Yet these polls are coming out one after another.

Example:
"Do you believe in the death penalty?" vs "Do you think someone who has raped and killed a child should get the death penalty?".

Other only issue is a matter of demographics which can be missed. This was cited in the previous US election that they could not get the 20-25 age group polled as they use mobile phones vs a home phone.

Really? How many phone calls did you recieve? These polls are generated via Internet, Media homepages. Not too many people participate , some are biased and some can be easily manipulated.

Actually her wording was that she planned a peaceful resolution for the dispute but America could not side either way (which Saddam took to mean go ahead and invade). I've read the transcript. If she is guilty of anything it is not being clear enough.

Lets see. Kuwait is stealing Iraqi oil using American technology. Iraq calls America for Advice. She tells him America does not get involved in Border Disputes. That pretty much gives Iraq the green like to do what it likes.
How do you stop a thief if not by force? I'm sure the Kuwaitis were warned numerous times.

The Americans are to blame because they are the ones that gave Kuwait the technology(From Texas) to steal Iraqi oil. Saddam was set up.

AFAIR no he didn't. He suggested a comprise withdrawal which the US refused.

More inaccuracies. Saddam's army was retreating on a road from Kuwait to Basra and the Americans Slaughtered them all. It is reffered to the "highway of death". America had a chance to take out the Iraqi military since it was planning to invade Iraq anyways and it took advantage of the situation and bombed them when they were in the open and retreating.



Debunked. Read snopes.[/QUOTE]

Here is something to ponder. I know this is a biased report but it explains the situation.http://www.answers.com/topic/9-11-conspiracy-claims-regarding-jews-or-israel

Not to mention the Israeli spies that were caught posing as art students that were tracking the 9/11 hijackers. So it is possible that they were either involved or that they knew 9/11 was happening and they told their people to not show up to work that day. Anything is possible in this day and age......

Hobbes

wiseones2cents wrote:

Of coarse he knew they were planning to invade Iraq.

No he probably knew there would be retaliation in the middle east. He wasn't the only one to do something similar.

Zionists that run the American military did not like that.

Can you actually back that up with anything factual?

Though this is common practice in many, many countries.

o_O ... well I can't top that.

Correct. Though after America attacked Iraq it lost all sympathy.

Which has no corrolation with what I wrote.

B.S. Like I said before. Most polls are conducted between 40-500 people.

Have you actually done statistics classes? I haven't but I have read up on it. Its quite intresting on how it all works.

What they do is called Sampling. Here is something to get you started off. Its a science and allows to determine trends of large numbers by analysing smaller numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_%28statistics%29

Really? How many phone calls did you recieve? These polls are generated via Internet, Media homepages. Not too many people participate , some are biased and some can be easily manipulated.

Electorial polls are generally done by Phone, Electorial register and standing outside supermarkets.

Two popular ones are Gallup and Neilsen.

She tells him America does not get involved in Border Disputes. That pretty much gives Iraq the green like to do what it likes.

Have you even read the transcript? I don't think you have.
http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html

Have a look for the bits where she asks him to explain why he is amassing troops on the kuwait border. Also see her wording of no opinion on border disagreement. At no point does she green light the invasion as such although it is understandable that Saddam took it as such. Even so she should of used her common sense considering the troop movements.

Saddam was set up.

Oh jeez. Saddam the victim.

More inaccuracies. Saddam's army was retreating on a road from Kuwait to Basra and the Americans Slaughtered them all.

I don't dispute what happened. What I am saying is your rendition of what happened up to that point is wrong.

The US through the UN gave Saddam a timetable of retreating from Kuwait. Saddam refused and said he would only retreat if Israel give up the West Bank, Golan Heights, and the Gaza Strip.

He wasn't concerned about the plight of the people there and more to get the Arabic nations to rally around him. It didn't work and he and his army got thier asses kicked for it.

The US didn't start bombing his troops until the timetable deadline expired. If there was fault it was with Saddam.

Here is something to ponder. I know this is a biased report

The report is crap. http://www.snopes.com/rumors/israel.htm

While a mossad team were caught filming the event there has been no evidence that Jewish people didn't turn up for work.

wiseones2cents

Hobbes wrote:

No he probably knew there would be retaliation in the middle east. He wasn't the only one to do something similar.

Retaliation in the middle east??Iraq was under sanctions.

Can you actually back that up with anything factual?

Go look at the high ranking members of the Department of defense and then go check the ones that were involved in cherry picking the Information for a case for war. Look up Office of Special plans. Then Check all the names in Charge at the top. All Zionists.

Have you actually done statistics classes? I haven't but I have read up on it. Its quite intresting on how it all works.

What they do is called Sampling. Here is something to get you started off. Its a science and allows to determine trends of large numbers by analysing smaller numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_%28statistics%29

I find it innacurate. You cant take 5 guys out of 20 and come to an accurate
statistic.

Electorial polls are generally done by Phone, Electorial register and standing outside supermarkets.

Two popular ones are Gallup and Neilsen.

We're talking about polls in general. And most of those polls if you read the fine print tells you exactly how little people actuality participated in the poll.
I Have been called maybe once about gas prices.

Have you even read the transcript? I don't think you have.
http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html

Have a look for the bits where she asks him to explain why he is amassing troops on the kuwait border. Also see her wording of no opinion on border disagreement. At no point does she green light the invasion as such although it is understandable that Saddam took it as such. Even so she should of used her common sense considering the troop movements.

I have read parts of the transcript before. This one seems different. Anyways I could not find the part about Iraqi borders and dont have time to read it all right now. This transcript shows that Saddam was willing to work with Americans. It also shows a lighter side of Saddam. He seems compassionite, and not a madman. Whether it is for show I dont know. Also it claims American medias broadcast lies about Iraq.

Oh jeez. Saddam the victim.

Iraq was the victim.

I don't dispute what happened. What I am saying is your rendition of what happened up to that point is wrong.

The US through the UN gave Saddam a timetable of retreating from Kuwait. Saddam refused and said he would only retreat if Israel give up the West Bank, Golan Heights, and the Gaza Strip.

He wasn't concerned about the plight of the people there and more to get the Arabic nations to rally around him. It didn't work and he and his army got thier asses kicked for it.

The US didn't start bombing his troops until the timetable deadline expired. If there was fault it was with Saddam.

I dont recall anything about the west bank. Although now I recall Saddam not wanting to retreat because he considered Kuwait part of Iraq(which it was).

Though why did they bomb the soldiers as they retreated and why did they impose sanctions after they left Kuwait? Apparently Iraqi Disarmed shortly after that.




The report is crap. http://www.snopes.com/rumors/israel.htm

While a mossad team were caught filming the event there has been no evidence that Jewish people didn't turn up for work.[/QUOTE]

OK tell me out of all the Jews that worked there. How many died? I believe the count was 5. 3 in the building and 2 in the planes.

I'm not saying they are responsible or knew before hand. I'm just saying there is a possibility.Anybody can be guilty.

Hobbes

wiseones2cents wrote:

Retaliation in the middle east??Iraq was under sanctions.

Military retaliation. A large number of various groups were aware something big was going down in the US around that time, including the administration (if they bothered to read the reports).

Go look at the...

Here is a better idea. You go look and you cross reference and then you come back here and cite the sources you used to look them up so I can see that you actually read what you are talking about.

I find it innacurate. You cant take 5 guys out of 20 and come to an accurate
statistic.

If you do or not is immaterial, the fact is it works.

I have read parts of the transcript before. This one seems different. Anyways I could not find the part about Iraqi borders and dont have time to read it all right now.

If you are going to spout something as gospel you need to be prepared to read it all. Do a search for "troops" will find the relevent bit. Also the fact it appears different seems to suggest you haven't actually read the proper transcript or it at all before.

Also it claims American medias broadcast lies about Iraq.

Depends how you read it. To me it looks like the diplomat was trying to placate Saddam for stuff written about him in the media (which may or may not be true).

I dont recall anything about the west bank. Although now I recall Saddam not wanting to retreat because he considered Kuwait part of Iraq(which it was).

Though why did they bomb the soldiers as they retreated and why did they impose sanctions after they left Kuwait? Apparently Iraqi Disarmed shortly after that.

I suggest you find a good book on the history of the incident as you clearly don't have all the information of what went on. Here is something to get you started off from..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Gulf_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_678

As for bombing soliders as they retreated. Saddam was given a deadline to retreat all his soliders without fear of being attacked. He refused, he got attacked.

OK tell me out of all the Jews that worked there. How many died? I believe the count was 5. 3 in the building and 2 in the planes.

How about you actually read the link I supplied you with? I don't believe you have if you were to ask me that.

But put it this way. Israels one of US main allies gets Mossad to ring up all supposed 4,000 workers and tell them not to show up for work oh and PS don't tell anyone why. Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds?

Here is another link off that page that goes into great depth of investigation on the urban legend.

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/14-260933.html
A total of 2,071 occupants of the World Trade Center died on September 11, among the 2,749 victims of the WTC attacks. According to an article in the October 11, 2001, Wall Street Journal, roughly 1,700 people had listed the religion of a person missing in the WTC attacks; approximately 10% were Jewish.

That would put an estimate at 170 Jewish people died there alone.

wiseones2cents

Hobbes wrote:

.If you do or not is immaterial, the fact is it works.

Please. If I have 20 guys. And lets say I ask them to vote for me or you.
And we only let 5 vote. How can we tabulate what the other ones would have picked? Its a ridiculous notion.

If you are going to spout something as gospel you need to be prepared to read it all. Do a search for "troops" will find the relevent bit. Also the fact it appears different seems to suggest you haven't actually read the proper transcript or it at all before.

Why dont you at least narrow it down and give me the Title its under. I dont have time to read a document of that length. Or maybe yours is not the same transcripts I read?

Plus all this says is that Saddam was massing troops on the border. he was clearly asking Her what he should do in this situation. She said it is up to him so he chose to attack.

Depends how you read it. To me it looks like the diplomat was trying to placate Saddam for stuff written about him in the media (which may or may not be true).

:rolleyes: Of coarse you would read it that way. Saddam didn't sound angry so your notion is void.

He is aslo speaking about the greed of the Arab leaders and how they let thier civilians live in poverty. Doesnt sound like a ruthless dictator to me.
And he did provide for the Iraqi people.They had the most westernized country in the region. It went south after the Iraq/Iran war and the sanctions.

I suggest you find a good book on the history of the incident as you clearly don't have all the information of what went on. Here is something to get you started off from..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Gulf_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_678

What is it that you think I should be looking for?

As for bombing soliders as they retreated. Saddam was given a deadline to retreat all his soliders without fear of being attacked. He refused, he got attacked.

I have already submitted the answer to this on this board. the Iraqis WERE RETREATING since the Highway of death is a stratch of land from Kuwait to Basra. The proof is right there.

How about you actually read the link I supplied you with? I don't believe you have if you were to ask me that.

But put it this way. Israels one of US main allies gets Mossad to ring up all supposed 4,000 workers and tell them not to show up for work oh and PS don't tell anyone why. Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds?

It doesn't sound stupid to me.

Here is another link off that page that goes into great depth of investigation on the urban legend.

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/14-260933.html
A total of 2,071 occupants of the World Trade Center died on September 11, among the 2,749 victims of the WTC attacks. According to an article in the October 11, 2001, Wall Street Journal, roughly 1,700 people had listed the religion of a person missing in the WTC attacks; approximately 10% were Jewish.

That would put an estimate at 170 Jewish people died there alone.

I can show you a link Giving 400-500. I can give you a link 3 died. I can give you link 11 died. It means nothing. The most believable source said there is no way to tell since WTC workers did not have to give their religious beliefs.

I'm just saying. I do not over look anything.

Hobbes

wiseones2cents wrote:

How can we tabulate what the other ones would have picked? Its a ridiculous notion.

I gave you a link on sampling. Did you bother to read up on it at all? The example you are giving is total tosh as it is generally used to work on large numbers. Heres another link that details it for newbies (although it is unlikely you will read it).

http://www.statcan.ca/english/edu/power/ch13/estimation/estimation.htm#error

Why dont you at least narrow it down and give me the Title its under.

... Plus all this says is ... Saddam didn't sound angry so your notion is void.... He is aslo speaking about ...

I gave you the whole transcript to read, and for someone whining about you can't find parts or its too long to read its obvious you are trying to just dig out bits that suit you rather then reading the whole transcript.

What is it that you think I should be looking for?

I gave you links on the gulf war as your knowledge is seriously lacking, you can go read up on it and see how your concept of what happens deviates from reality.

It doesn't sound stupid to me.

I guessed it wouldn't.

The most believable source said there is no way to tell since WTC workers did not have to give their religious beliefs.

Do you even read anything I link for you? The link clearly stated that while not everyone listed religon over 1700 did and roughly 10% were listed as Jewish. Not to mention the exact same link gives obits of at least 70 Jewish people who died on that day. It also debunks your "4000" figure and points out where it came from. The same site even goes over the other figures you are spouting and listing thier sources.

You appear to believe only what you want to believe. I fully read the site you posted and it was total Tosh.

wiseones2cents

Hobbes wrote:

I gave you a link on sampling. Did you bother to read up on it at all? The example you are giving is total tosh as it is generally used to work on large numbers. Heres another link that details it for newbies (although it is unlikely you will read it).

http://www.statcan.ca/english/edu/power/ch13/estimation/estimation.htm#error

Honestly? I didnt read it because the notion is absurd.You cannot derive at public opinion of a population of almost 300 million by polling 50-400 people. Which is how America runs its polls. ok?





I gave you the whole transcript to read, and for someone whining about you can't find parts or its too long to read its obvious you are trying to just dig out bits that suit you rather then reading the whole transcript.

I gave you links on the gulf war as your knowledge is seriously lacking, you can go read up on it and see how your concept of what happens deviates from reality.

I just want to know what your point is?

I guessed it wouldn't.

You think its stupid that members of a community was warned by its elders not to go to work? That is your problem. I think it is very possible. Especially in a tight nit community. which is exactly what the Jews are.

Do you even read anything I link for you? The link clearly stated that while not everyone listed religon over 1700 did and roughly 10% were listed as Jewish. Not to mention the exact same link gives obits of at least 70 Jewish people who died on that day. It also debunks your "4000" figure and points out where it came from. The same site even goes over the other figures you are spouting and listing thier sources.

You appear to believe only what you want to believe. I fully read the site you posted and it was total Tosh.

What I am trying to say is that I have seen many different articles regarding how many Jews actually died 9/11. There is no way to prove the validity of any. Not even yours.

Do you not believe only what you want to? Do you not know that the net is filled with mis-information supporting many sides of an argument? Since I do not have the time or the desire at this time to pursue this because I have bigger things to tackle, I will leave it at that.

Hobbes

wiseones2cents wrote:

I didnt read it because the notion is absurd.

ROFLMAO. I gave you links to how polls are run. Just because you fail to read it doesn't magically mean that you are correct.

As a matter of interest what scores did you get in maths classes?

I just want to know what your point is?

Well I thought I'd give you some material to read instead of spouting crap from conspiracy sites.

You think its stupid that members of a community was warned by its elders not to go to work?

I really don't know why I bother with this tripe but what the heck.

Lets imagine for a second that those 4000 people is a real number. How many people and how long would it take to ring/visit that many people and tell them not to show up for work? Doubtful even Israel even has the manpower in the US to do it in a morning time before 8am.

So lets say 1-2 days beforehand. How many of those 4000 know even what Mossad look like or would believe they are Mossad? For that matter you would have to believe that if 4000 knew that an attack was to take place that they let thier co-workers die on purpose, even if they didn't know how many of the 4000 would keep quiet about it after seeing people they may of worked with for years dying.

Being Jewish doesn't mean that you agree with Israels policies (even if you live there).

The idea is so bloody ubsurd it is laughable.

What I am trying to say is that I have seen many different articles regarding how many Jews actually died 9/11.

The second one I gave you is about as precise as your going to get and unlike your link researches all the so called numbers and gives you resources to go check to see if they are correct or not.

They even use statistics to determine how many died based actual documented numbers and only had a deviation of around 4%.

edanto

Hey wiseone2cents, listen to the man - seriously, he's trying to steer you in a good direction and taking the time to explain some elementary stuff to you.

You're barking up the wrong tree with this Zionist conspiracy lark - the issue we're debating is the REACTION to 9/11 and not the conspiracies about it. There's a special forum for the conspiracies - have a look.

I respect your apprehensions about blatant capitalism (and share some of them), but IMHO your polemic posts are diluting your position.

wiseones2cents

Hobbes wrote:

ROFLMAO. I gave you links to how polls are run. Just because you fail to read it doesn't magically mean that you are correct.

ROTFLMAO. And I will defend my Initial position that polls are manipulated and are only for the naive.

Firm Accused of Falsifying Survey Results
By NOREEN GILLESPIE
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) - A polling firm and two of its top officials have been charged with falsifying the results of some surveys, according to an indictment released Wednesday.

The firm's owner and manager told employees to alter poll data, prosecutors said. Managers told employees to ``talk to cats and dogs'' when instructing them to fabricate the surveys, according to the indictment by a federal grand jury in New Haven.

Prosecutors said Guilford-based DataUSA Inc., now known as ViewPointUSA Inc., worked for state and national political candidates, among other clients.

The indictment listed surveys completed between 2002 and 2004. The clients were not named.

``We're not alleging this is a national problem. This is one case and a handful of defendants,'' said U.S. Attorney Kevin O'Connor. ``We've got no reason to believe this problem extends beyond them.''

The Feb. 17 indictment alleges that employees were told by owner Tracy Costin, 46, and manager Darryl Hylton, 41, to change the gender, political parties and responses of survey respondents to meet job quotas and deadlines. It also claims that employees were told to complete surveys without actually talking to people.

When interviewed by law enforcement officials, both Costin and Hylton denied the accusations.

Both face charges of conspiracy and wire fraud. The conspiracy counts carry possible fines up to $250,000 and five years in prison. Wire fraud carries a maximum of 30 years and a fine of up to $1 million.

A Web site for DataUSA describes the company as a small firm that has conducted surveys for political analysts, health care organizations, educational institutions and other entities. It also contained a message to former clients.

``DataUSA upheld the highest standards in data collection as demonstrated in the excellence of our data,'' it said.

Associated Press Writer Matt Apuzzo in New Haven contributed to this report.


03/09/05 22:16

© Copyright The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained In this news report may not be published, broadcast or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.

As a matter of interest what scores did you get in maths classes?

My math scores were extremely high even though I never studied and I bewildered teachers in early grades with Advance Mathematical knowledge even though I was only in grade 7. I would go to the board and use advanced formulas to figure out equations. Since I never studied I would devise my own methods of calculations.Any other questions?

Well I thought I'd give you some material to read instead of spouting crap from conspiracy sites.

I think your site is irrelevant to the fact that that you cant equate public opinion of 300 million people through 50-400 people polled. Regardless of what sites you show me to prove otherwise.

I really don't know why I bother with this tripe but what the heck.

Lets imagine for a second that those 4000 people is a real number. How many people and how long would it take to ring/visit that many people and tell them not to show up for work? Doubtful even Israel even has the manpower in the US to do it in a morning time before 8am.

So lets say 1-2 days beforehand. How many of those 4000 know even what Mossad look like or would believe they are Mossad? For that matter you would have to believe that if 4000 knew that an attack was to take place that they let thier co-workers die on purpose, even if they didn't know how many of the 4000 would keep quiet about it after seeing people they may of worked with for years dying.

Being Jewish doesn't mean that you agree with Israels policies (even if you live there).

The idea is so bloody ubsurd it is laughable.

You finmd it laughable that the Mossad would contact its contacts in the States and spread the word to key Jewish officails to spread the word laughable? If you only knew the capacity of information sharing, you would not think it is laughable.

The second one I gave you is about as precise as your going to get and unlike your link researches all the so called numbers and gives you resources to go check to see if they are correct or not.

They even use statistics to determine how many died based actual documented numbers and only had a deviation of around 4%.

Do you really want to waste my time on this?Do you really want me to start digging?you dont figure out numbers of Jews at work through percentages. That is laughable.

I decided to dig because of your insistence on this subject that I wanted to leave alone. This is the most Accurate I have found. It suggests out of the 4,000 Israelis employed at the WTC 1 died and 2 were on the planes. Sound suspicious? Here is the Link. Enjoy.
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/01/11/WTC_DeathRoll2.html

Hobbes

wiseones2cents wrote:

ROTFLMAO. And I will defend my Initial position that polls are manipulated and are only for the naive.

There is a difference to manipulating/falsifying the figures and actually using statistics to determine those figure.

My math scores were extremely high even though I never studied

:rolleyes: So you determined that your maths was very good by doing a maths exam. But maths exams only have a certain amount of questions? 20-30. How can you determine how good you are based on 20-30 questions when there are millions of possible questions?

Regardless of what sites you show me to prove otherwise.

*shrug* So your basically saying you will believe what you want to believe.

If you only knew the capacity of information sharing, you would not think it is laughable.

You appear to know so please enlighten us.

This is the most Accurate I have found. It suggests out of the 4,000 Israelis employed at the WTC 1 died and 2 were on the planes. Sound suspicious? Here is the Link. Enjoy.
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/01/11/WTC_DeathRoll2.html

Do you even read the link you posted? Read the source where the 4,000 figure came from..

The Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem has so far received the names of 4,000 Israelis believed to have been in the areas of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon at the time of the attack.

No where does it say that 4,000 jewish people worked in the towers, nor does it say that they didn't show up for work. The embassy was given the names of 4,000 Jewish people around those areas to check to see if they were ok. The argument that they were in the towers (based on your site) is that Jewish people are bankers therefore they were there is not only laughable but also racist.

If you were to believe that, then 2,500-3,000 Irish people also didn't turn up for work as the Irish embassey also receieved the same kind of details.

So do you not think Mossad would contact all Jewish people who lived or worked near the twin towers and warn them not to be near the towers or the pentagon on the day? Why did they only warn the people in the towers and not in the other areas (according to your site?)

Here is a site that goes into more detail..
http://www.911myths.com/html/4000_israelis.html

Your new link is total crap too. I have already given you one with the best research out there eariler. If you can't be bothered to read it I can't help you.

edanto

wo2c wrote:

I will defend my Initial position that polls are manipulated and are only for the naive.

You're trying to make that case with an article where the prosecuting attorney, probably one of the main sources says that...

"We're not alleging this is a national problem. This is one case and a handful of defendants,'' said U.S. Attorney Kevin O'Connor. "We've got no reason to believe this problem extends beyond them.''

And as for the 4,000 Israelis... or was it 4,000 Jews (the sites you linked to seem to use the words interchangably, which makes me doubt their attention to detail)... in any case, here's some information that seems trustworthy about the number of Israelis in New York. The number of Israeli-born residents of NYC was 21,288 as of 2000 (figure on the first page).

wo2c wrote:

It suggests out of the 4,000 Israelis employed at the WTC 1 died and 2 were on the planes.

So, you reckon firstly that a fifth of all the Israelis in New York worked at the WTC and secondly, that they all got a warning from Mossad to stay at home? The first part is ridiculous and as has already been pointed out, it would be even more implausible to expect that number of people to stay quiet for the past four years about the 'warning'.

Can't you just leave this be?

wiseones2cents

Hobbes wrote:

There is a difference to manipulating/falsifying the figures and actually using statistics to determine those figure.

My entire point to begin with Is that polls are not accurate and are used for manipulation and I have proven that.

:rolleyes: So you determined that your maths was very good by doing a maths exam. But maths exams only have a certain amount of questions? 20-30. How can you determine how good you are based on 20-30 questions when there are millions of possible questions?

I think I've answered more than 20-30 math questions in my lifetime.lol

*shrug* So your basically saying you will believe what you want to believe.

I'm saying it is IMPOSSIBLE. If you tell me you can reach pluto with your skate board. I dont have to research it to know that you cannot.

You appear to know so please enlighten us.

ALl I will tell you is that Capacity to share Information today is very advanced, so it is more than possible. Though not saying it did happen.

Do you even read the link you posted? Read the source where the 4,000 figure came from..

The Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem has so far received the names of 4,000 Israelis believed to have been in the areas of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon at the time of the attack.

No where does it say that 4,000 jewish people worked in the towers, nor does it say that they didn't show up for work. The embassy was given the names of 4,000 Jewish people around those areas to check to see if they were ok. The argument that they were in the towers (based on your site) is that Jewish people are bankers therefore they were there is not only laughable but also racist.

If you were to believe that, then 2,500-3,000 Irish people also didn't turn up for work as the Irish embassey also receieved the same kind of details.

So do you not think Mossad would contact all Jewish people who lived or worked near the twin towers and warn them not to be near the towers or the pentagon on the day? Why did they only warn the people in the towers and not in the other areas (according to your site?)

Here is a site that goes into more detail..
http://www.911myths.com/html/4000_israelis.html

Your new link is total crap too. I have already given you one with the best research out there eariler. If you can't be bothered to read it I can't help you.

Did you read mine? Apparently not. Ok. I will make it easy for you. Find me a list of Israelis(names) that died in the WTC attacks. I have searched and all I could find is one name.

wiseones2cents

edanto wrote:

Can't you just leave this be?

Fine. I will not pursue this any longer. I will not answer his next post(I hope I remember).

I was trying to leave it be and say there was no way either of us can prove anything but he kept Insisting. So I continued to dig.