In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On October 19 2015 03:11 farvacola wrote: I didn't find that revelation all that surprising....it seemed like a foregone conclusion given the other considerations that went into the decision to invade.
Oh it's not the revelation that's surprising, it's the fact that there's now very tangible proof of the matter.
Where do I find media that picks up on such things? I read NYT, BBC, FAZ and Al Jazeera, but it often seems like I'm reading US propaganda instead of news.
On October 19 2015 03:11 farvacola wrote: I didn't find that revelation all that surprising....it seemed like a foregone conclusion given the other considerations that went into the decision to invade.
Oh it's not the revelation that's surprising, it's the fact that there's now very tangible proof of the matter.
Where do I find media that picks up on such things? I read NYT, BBC, FAZ and Al Jazeera, but it often seems like I'm reading US propaganda instead of news.
This documentary isn't bad. It shows how much evidence we had way back in 2012-2013.
On October 19 2015 03:11 farvacola wrote: I didn't find that revelation all that surprising....it seemed like a foregone conclusion given the other considerations that went into the decision to invade.
Oh it's not the revelation that's surprising, it's the fact that there's now very tangible proof of the matter.
Where do I find media that picks up on such things? I read NYT, BBC, FAZ and Al Jazeera, but it often seems like I'm reading US propaganda instead of news.
The Daily Mail, which has the largest readership of any paper in the UK, ran with it.
On October 19 2015 03:11 farvacola wrote: I didn't find that revelation all that surprising....it seemed like a foregone conclusion given the other considerations that went into the decision to invade.
Oh it's not the revelation that's surprising, it's the fact that there's now very tangible proof of the matter.
Where do I find media that picks up on such things? I read NYT, BBC, FAZ and Al Jazeera, but it often seems like I'm reading US propaganda instead of news.
The Daily Mail, which has the largest readership of any paper in the UK, ran with it.
Well, if he wants to avoid propaganda of any sort he might want to avoid the Daily Mail.
On October 19 2015 03:11 farvacola wrote: I didn't find that revelation all that surprising....it seemed like a foregone conclusion given the other considerations that went into the decision to invade.
Oh it's not the revelation that's surprising, it's the fact that there's now very tangible proof of the matter.
Where do I find media that picks up on such things? I read NYT, BBC, FAZ and Al Jazeera, but it often seems like I'm reading US propaganda instead of news.
The Daily Mail, which has the largest readership of any paper in the UK, ran with it.
Well, if he wants to avoid propaganda of any sort he might want to avoid the Daily Mail.
On October 19 2015 03:11 farvacola wrote: I didn't find that revelation all that surprising....it seemed like a foregone conclusion given the other considerations that went into the decision to invade.
Oh it's not the revelation that's surprising, it's the fact that there's now very tangible proof of the matter.
Where do I find media that picks up on such things? I read NYT, BBC, FAZ and Al Jazeera, but it often seems like I'm reading US propaganda instead of news.
Just recognize that's it's all basically propaganda and mix left and right. Ancient emails about plans and intentions weighed alongside what US/world knew about WMDs and state sponsors of terrorism at the time, just to take up the Iraq war for a second. Daily mail would be one source to balance, maybe another two that are center-right or right would do you well.
Not only whistleblowers and historians right now, but actual American career diplomats at the time pointed out what a nonsense the war was before and while it actually started.
MMT while largely true is also the kind of truth the political process cannot handle. and has to be coupled with government enterprises that can effectively absorb the spending
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court has so far resisted elaborating on two landmark decisions that established a nationwide right to defend one's home with a gun.
That could change with a new appeal filed by gun owners that challenges a Chicago suburb's assault weapons ban.
The appeal by Dr. Arie Friedman and the Illinois State Rifle Association argues that the City of Highland Park has violated their constitutional rights by banning some of the most popular semi-automatic guns in the United States, as well as ammunition clips of more than 10 rounds.
The justices put off consideration of the appeal last week. In recent years, the court has almost always deferred action on an appeal before agreeing to take it up.
The court could say as early as Monday whether it will hear the case.
Friedman is a practicing pediatrician and owner of semi-automatic weapons. He lost a bid for the state Senate as a Republican in 2012 in a campaign in which some conservatives complained about his support for abortion rights. In recent days, Friedman has used his Twitter account to offer tips for Israelis who want to arm themselves in public. He did not respond to messages left with his medical practice.
The Supreme Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller and the 2010 decision in McDonald v. Chicago focused mainly on the right to defend one's own home. Gun rights groups have failed repeatedly to get the justices to say how broadly the Second Amendment protects gun rights.
The court has turned away challenges to gun laws at least three other times in cases that involved whether people have a right to be armed in public.
Even though lower courts have mainly upheld gun restrictions, the Highland Park case arises out of a decision by the federal appeals court in Chicago that struck down the only statewide ban on carrying concealed weapons, in Illinois.
Not only whistleblowers and historians right now, but actual American career diplomats at the time pointed out what a nonsense the war was before and while it actually started.
I mentioned propaganda in news sources because it's best to consider all reporters to have a bias and discover it over time (then balance right/left center-right/center-left). The man rattled off several news sources after all, noting US propaganda. If, Nyxisto, you contrast facts with propaganda because you wish to believe your news sources are pure facts, I can't help you there.
And Nyxisto, I do remember Joe Wilson. He raised a big stink with Plame afterwards, and his whole conduct in the affair revealed smallness and attention-seeking (I think from the PP whistle-blower videos discussion, I ought to call him thoroughly discredited here too). He thought the ultimately false info that Saddam sought yellowcake from Africa is just one of many lies spread intentionally etc etc. Specific intelligence found to be wrong, yes, a network of lies by interested parties to get an invasion going, no.
If you approach the pre-Iraq War intelligence and planning with honest inquiry, the facts and historians, like Nyxisto might say, aren't propaganda and pointed just how aware the world was (or thought it was) of Saddam's WMDs and penchant for terrorism. From George Tenet's "slam dunk" on possession of WMDs to the consensus of British, German, French, Israeli, Russian, and Chinese intelligence agencies judging Iraq had WMDs, the facts all point to honest assessment of the situation and then the proposed action. Say what you want, but deliberately lying/pressure to alter intel to reap an war by Bush and allies is provably wrong. Who-knew-what-when came up in the debates and various sources reassembled the case for sincere thought for or against war. The Daily Caller for example. Like the blog says, the right is damn tired with that lie but it keeps resurfacing.
I don't want to dwell on the past for too long; chances are if you read and post in this forum your mind is made up anyways and you believe the preponderance of evidence is on your side. Since Clinton seeks to be the next President, I'll end with a couple of her and her husband's quotes on Iraq before the political winds shifted:+ Show Spoiler +
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s [Weapons of Mass Destruction] program." - Bill, '98 (Pre-Bush)
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical- and biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members." - Hillary, '02 (Post-Bush election, post 9/11)
In other forums I went through the whole mess of comments from Powell, Wilkerson, Pollack, Hans Blix as well as politicians like Gore, Kerry, and Rockefeller. Say what you want about the morality of preemptive attacks. Argue whether or not Saddam moved WMDs or had dismantled known stock and never restarted the program. I've got an opinion on those just like the next guy, but I'm not going to rumble at length on it. However, the case for an honest pre-war assessment is strong. Strong despite all the agendas involved in any foreign policy, and that includes players real and imagined that wished to profit off an American-led war in the Middle East.
[EDIT]
On October 19 2015 06:54 IgnE wrote: Haphazard clauses
dropping the shroud
turning ancient into apocryphal
Danglars the moderate
I'm sure you'd wonder if it was really still me writing on this account if all the haphazard clauses suddenly disappeared! I'm not fooling anyone into thinking I'm some English major. But, take heart. If the leftward bent of American politics reverses its half-decade trend, I could be a true moderate arguing against deportation of the tens of millions of illegals present in the country for economic reasons (post-fence).
Perhaps it would be more descriptive to say it's a Democrat vs. Republican thing nowadays. We are talking about this in terms of politics though, so I think left vs. right works as well.
Looks like the Benghazi committee is threatening to implode-- the only question is, what kind of stellar event will happen? Will we see a supernova, a white dwarf, a neutron star, or maybe a black hole?
On October 19 2015 22:36 ticklishmusic wrote: Looks like the Benghazi committee is threatening to implode-- the only question is, what kind of stellar event will happen? Will we see a supernova, a white dwarf, a neutron star, or maybe a black hole?
The fact that they had to call out Gowdy in writing for just straight up lying about testimony that they received directly from the CIA is hilarious. The people running this investigation are living in their own little world.
Wish I may, wish I might Have this I wish tonight Are you satisfied? Dig for gold, dig for fame You dig to make your name Are you pacified?
All the wants you waste All the things you’ve chased
Then it all crashes down And you break your crown And you point your finger But there’s no one around Just want one thing Just to play the king But the castle’s crumbled And you’re left with just a name
Where’s your crown, King Nothing? Where’s your crown?
Hot and cold, bought and sold A heart as hard as gold Are you satisfied? Wish I might, wish I may You wish your life away Are you pacified?
All the wants you waste All the things you’ve chased
Then it all crashes down And you break your crown And you point your finger But there’s no one around Just want one thing Just to play the king But the castle’s crumbled And you’re left with just a name Where’s your crown, King Nothing? Where’s your crown?
I wish I may, I wish I might Have this wish I wish tonight I want that star, I want it now I want it all and I don’t care how
Careful what you wish Careful what you say Careful what you wish, you may regret it Careful what you wish, you just might get it
Then it all crashes down And you break your crown And you point your finger But there’s no one around Just want one thing Just to play the king But the castle’s crumbled And you’re left with just a name
Where’s your crown, King Nothing?
Nothing
You’re just nothing Where’s your crown, King Nothing? You’re just nothing Absolutely nothing
On October 19 2015 03:11 farvacola wrote: I didn't find that revelation all that surprising....it seemed like a foregone conclusion given the other considerations that went into the decision to invade.
Oh it's not the revelation that's surprising, it's the fact that there's now very tangible proof of the matter.
Where do I find media that picks up on such things? I read NYT, BBC, FAZ and Al Jazeera, but it often seems like I'm reading US propaganda instead of news.
Weren't there leaked memos or emails that showed all this, about Blair and his early commitment to the invasion, wayyy back in and around 2008 already? I tried googling it, but all i get now is the current revelation.
Anyone who knows about Codename Curveball and thinks the WMDs were a mistake and not a brazen, disgusting lie has the thickest blinders on. The "WMD" lies are probably the biggest disgrace in our nation's history, and I'm just thankful the world didn't completely turn its back on us as a result.
But anyways, lots of sources are saying Biden is going to announce his candidacy for Pres in the next 24-48 hours.
Personally, I think a Biden ticket siphons most of its votes from the Hillary camp. Sander's supporters are more cemented in their support, I feel. So, Biden running could be the thing that really sets up a victory for Sanders.
EPT
