First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply Are people too afraid for their own good?
11012 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/25/15 , edited 1/25/15

severticas wrote:


kamahl01 wrote:

So many non replies, if you have an opinion than state it



Fear of terrorism did not really factor into the decision to go to war with Iraq. Did they use 9/11 as an excuse? Yes. They used something basic like "it's them or us" to put people in line. Any manipulation that followed the decision made had little to do with the intention to take out Saddam.
Should some people then be put on trial for their bravado? If you instead put everyone in the same boat and look beyond who pulled the strings you can't make this judgement.
Was terrorism really a huge as a threat as it was after the iraq war? Yes. Is the fear now legit? Yes. This is in odds with your initial post.

Now, there was the snoopers charter debate that was going around. Can you follow that story with your "fear induced decision making" process of thoughts in mind?




Your answer isn't very clear nor does it make any sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War

Its a fast read on wikipedia, but you can find any source you want by simply typing in Bush/Cheney link Saddam Hussein to Al-Qaeda or Rationale for war in Iraq. This along with the nukes lead to "FEAR INDUCED BAD DECISION MAKING" due to massive public and political support of false allegations. Do you live in the United States now or did you live their during the lead up to the war?

You are giving no solid opinion or answer, all you are saying is that you don't agree with me with nothing to back it up.You tell me what reason the U.S. public was given for the Iraq invasion and give a real straightforward answer this time.












Posted 1/25/15 , edited 1/25/15

kamahl01 wrote:

severticas wrote:

Fear of terrorism did not really factor into the decision to go to war with Iraq. Did they use 9/11 as an excuse? Yes. They used something basic like "it's them or us" to put people in line. Any manipulation that followed the decision made had little to do with the intention to take out Saddam.
Should some people then be put on trial for their bravado? If you instead put everyone in the same boat and look beyond who pulled the strings you can't make this judgement.
Was terrorism really a huge as a threat as it was after the iraq war? Yes. Is the fear now legit? Yes. This is at odds with your initial post.

Now, there was the snoopers charter debate that was going around. Can you follow that story with your "fear induced decision making" process of thoughts in mind? Mr Cameron promised if voted it will receive a platform.

Then look at the delay in the Chilton report, delayed. Did Blair shake hands with the then President of America to make sure Britain was behind anything America chose to embark? Yes. As I see it, Blair and his ambitions to stay afloat did mean he had the favor of America.

Now, Cameron is getting a boast from the current President. How can you link that with his decision to see through the revival of the Snoopers Charter?

The public as far as I know ss not in with any games being played in places of power, they just move along to whatever tune is played because they 9those in power) can easily plant the thought that things are out of control and they need direction.


Your answer isn't very clear nor does it make any sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War

Its a fast read on wikipedia, but you can find any source you want by simply typing in Bush/Cheney link Saddam Hussein to Al-Qaeda or Rationale for war in Iraq. This along with the nukes lead to "FEAR INDUCED BAD DECISION MAKING" due to massive public and political support of false allegations. Do you live in the United States now or did you live their during the lead up to the war?

You are giving no solid opinion or answer, all you are saying is that you don't agree with me with nothing to back it up.You tell me what reason the U.S. public was given for the Iraq invasion and give a real straightforward answer this time.




You are effectively blaming the public and that's not correct.

If fact people who were involved will tell you that they did not see Iraq as a direct threat.
11012 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/25/15 , edited 1/25/15

severticas wrote:


kamahl01 wrote:

severticas wrote:

Fear of terrorism did not really factor into the decision to go to war with Iraq. Did they use 9/11 as an excuse? Yes. They used something basic like "it's them or us" to put people in line. Any manipulation that followed the decision made had little to do with the intention to take out Saddam.
Should some people then be put on trial for their bravado? If you instead put everyone in the same boat and look beyond who pulled the strings you can't make this judgement.
Was terrorism really a huge as a threat as it was after the iraq war? Yes. Is the fear now legit? Yes. This is at odds with your initial post.

Now, there was the snoopers charter debate that was going around. Can you follow that story with your "fear induced decision making" process of thoughts in mind? Mr Cameron promised if voted it will receive a platform.

Then look at the delay in the Chilton report, delayed. Did Blair shake hands with the then President of America to make sure Britain was behind anything America chose to embark? Yes. As I see it, Blair and his ambitions to stay afloat did mean he had the favor of America.

Now, Cameron is getting a boast from the current President. How can you link that with his decision to see through the revival of the Snoopers Charter?

The public as far as I know ss not in with any games being played in places of power, they just move along to whatever tune is played because they 9those in power) can easily plant the thought that things are out of control and they need direction.


Your answer isn't very clear nor does it make any sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War

Its a fast read on wikipedia, but you can find any source you want by simply typing in Bush/Cheney link Saddam Hussein to Al-Qaeda or Rationale for war in Iraq. This along with the nukes lead to "FEAR INDUCED BAD DECISION MAKING" due to massive public and political support of false allegations. Do you live in the United States now or did you live their during the lead up to the war?

You are giving no solid opinion or answer, all you are saying is that you don't agree with me with nothing to back it up.You tell me what reason the U.S. public was given for the Iraq invasion and give a real straightforward answer this time.




You are effectively blaming the public and that's not correct.


Blaming the public?"due to massive public and political support of false allegations". False allegations sold to the public by a president a large majority of them trusted.Also, it was a combination of public and political support.

You are confusing to me,you seem to have issue with what I say and a opposing opinion, but keep giving vague 1 liners,memes,links,etc....What is so hard about righting a thought-out answer that is more than a few words?Im asking you

GIVE ME THE REASON THE PUBLIC WAS GIVEN AS JUSTIFICATION FOR THE WAR IN IRAQ?














Posted 1/25/15

kamahl01 wrote:

Blaming the public?"due to massive public and political support of false allegations". False allegations sold to the public by a president a large majority of them trusted.Also, it was a combination of public and political support.

You are confusing to me,you seem to have issue with what I say and a opposing opinion, but keep giving vague 1 liners,memes,links,etc....What is so hard about righting a thought-out answer that is more than a few words?Im asking you

GIVE ME THE REASON THE PUBLIC WAS GIVEN AS JUSTIFICATION FOR THE WAR IN IRAQ?



Who trusted who?
If you continue to think in that direction of thought then so be it.
11012 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/25/15

severticas wrote:


kamahl01 wrote:

Blaming the public?"due to massive public and political support of false allegations". False allegations sold to the public by a president a large majority of them trusted.Also, it was a combination of public and political support.

You are confusing to me,you seem to have issue with what I say and a opposing opinion, but keep giving vague 1 liners,memes,links,etc....What is so hard about righting a thought-out answer that is more than a few words?Im asking you

GIVE ME THE REASON THE PUBLIC WAS GIVEN AS JUSTIFICATION FOR THE WAR IN IRAQ?



Who trusted who?
If you continue to think in that direction of thought then so be it.


Dude, your 25 years old and are pretending you don't know how to answer a question? Cherry picking bits and pieces of my thoughts isn't the same as answering or giving a valid argument.

The politicians trusted the Bush's admins false intelligence

A large percentage of the public trusted Bush's admins false intelligence.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

7/10 thought Sadam was involved in 9/11

GIVE ME THE REASON THE PUBLIC WAS GIVEN AS JUSTIFICATION FOR THE WAR IN IRAQ?

I really want to hear your answer,but probably never will.
Posted 1/25/15
Give me a second. I'm not done.
31141 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 1/25/15
If I'm understanding everything I've read correctly.. Technically you are both right and also arguing about different things:

severticas seems to be arguing that the people who initially made the decision "let's invade Iraq" did not make that decision because they actually thought Saddam was a real threat to the United States, or because he had links to 9/11 and Al Qaeda since they knew both claims were false. This would be regarding "why" the Iraq war occurred.

kamahl01 is apparently arguing that the war proceeded because congress and the public believed Saddam was a threat to the United States and/or had links to Al Qaeda. (Basically entirely due to false intelligence/testimony provided by the administration.) This would be regarding "how" the Iraq war occurred.
Posted 1/25/15 , edited 1/25/15

kamahl01 wrote:


severticas wrote:


kamahl01 wrote:

Blaming the public?"due to massive public and political support of false allegations". False allegations sold to the public by a president a large majority of them trusted.Also, it was a combination of public and political support.

You are confusing to me,you seem to have issue with what I say and a opposing opinion, but keep giving vague 1 liners,memes,links,etc....What is so hard about righting a thought-out answer that is more than a few words?Im asking you

GIVE ME THE REASON THE PUBLIC WAS GIVEN AS JUSTIFICATION FOR THE WAR IN IRAQ?



Who trusted who?
If you continue to think in that direction of thought then so be it.


Dude, your 25 years old and are pretending you don't know how to answer a question? Cherry picking bits and pieces of my thoughts isn't the same as answering or giving a valid argument.

The politicians trusted the Bush's admins false intelligence

A large percentage of the public trusted Bush's admins false intelligence.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

7/10 thought Sadam was involved in 9/11

GIVE ME THE REASON THE PUBLIC WAS GIVEN AS JUSTIFICATION FOR THE WAR IN IRAQ?

I really want to hear your answer,but probably never will.


They had Sadam on the list way before that, this goes back before 2001. 9/11 happened, they thought around it being orchestrated by Sadam but when it was established that Osama and Al-Qaeda was behind it, they quietened down about it. Bush yes, was largely approved by the public. Where opposing politicians scared to go against him? Yes. Did the politicians trust Bush's false intelligence? No. Did they chose Sadam and Iraq because they saw it as an easy target? Yes. Did the Iraq war go ahead? Yes, they "cherry picked" this one out of many lol, the target was simply the Middle East. Why? Simply because every disadvantage to going to Iraq war was downplayed. The glue was that at the time, the war in Afghanistan was seen as having been won. I did say that they did not see Iraq as a "direct threat" - Lady Manningham-Buller .

You answer your own question.
Posted 1/25/15 , edited 1/25/15

iriomote wrote:

If I'm understanding everything I've read correctly.. Technically you are both right and also arguing about different things:

severticas seems to be arguing that the people who initially made the decision "let's invade Iraq" did not make that decision because they actually thought Saddam was a real threat to the United States, or because he had links to 9/11 and Al Qaeda since they knew both claims were false. This would be regarding "why" the Iraq war occurred.

kamahl01 is apparently arguing that the war proceeded because congress and the public believed Saddam was a threat to the United States and/or had links to Al Qaeda. (Basically entirely due to false intelligence/testimony provided by the administration.) This would be regarding "how" the Iraq war occurred.


Decision are not made out of public perception. They are supported by public perception. As you've pointed out. The public for that matter means the borne no guilt over what happened. Thus making his link to the link he gave over the cost of the iraq war false to use.
11012 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/25/15

severticas wrote:


They had Sadam on the list way before that, this goes back before 2001. 9/11 happened, they thought around it being orchestrated by Sadam but when it was established that Osama and Al-Qaeda was behind it, they quietened down about it. Bush yes, was largely approved by the public. Where opposing politicians scared to go against him? Yes. Did the politicians trust Bush's false intelligence? No. Did they chose Sadam and Iraq because they saw it as an easy target? Yes. Did the Iraq war go ahead? Yes, they "cherry picked" this one out of many lol, the target was simply the Middle East. Why? Simply because every disadvantage to going to Iraq war was downplayed. The glue was that at the time, the war in Afghanistan was seen as having been won. I did say that they did not see Iraq as a "direct threat" - Lady Manningham-Buller .

You answer your own question.


Your confusing 2 different things-I have clearly stated many times that the administration went to war for reasons other than nukes or 9/11. My original response was that they used "fear" to sell the war to the public and politicians(who I believe many believed the pitch by the Bush admin). The entire point of what I was saying is that fear was a dangerous tool used to drum up support for an unjustified war that yielded nothing. You said the depletion of more than 1.5 trillion and thousands of human lives was irrelevant, something I strongly disagree with. At least you finally wrote something.
Posted 1/25/15 , edited 1/25/15

kamahl01 wrote:


severticas wrote:


They had Sadam on the list way before that, this goes back before 2001. 9/11 happened, they thought around it being orchestrated by Sadam but when it was established that Osama and Al-Qaeda was behind it, they quietened down about it. Bush yes, was largely approved by the public. Where opposing politicians scared to go against him? Yes. Did the politicians trust Bush's false intelligence? No. Did they chose Sadam and Iraq because they saw it as an easy target? Yes. Did the Iraq war go ahead? Yes, they "cherry picked" this one out of many lol, the target was simply the Middle East. Why? Simply because every disadvantage to going to Iraq war was downplayed. The glue was that at the time, the war in Afghanistan was seen as having been won. I did say that they did not see Iraq as a "direct threat" - Lady Manningham-Buller .

You answer your own question.


Your confusing 2 different things-I have clearly stated many times that the administration went to war for reasons other than nukes or 9/11. My original response was that they used "fear" to sell the war to the public and politicians(who I believe many believed the pitch by the Bush admin). The entire point of what I was saying is that fear was a dangerous tool used to drum up support for an unjustified war that yielded nothing. You said the depletion of more than 1.5 trillion and thousands of human lives was irrelevant, something I strongly disagree with. At least you finally wrote something.


It's not as important as the haste in the decision made and the lack of planning. It's also not as important as how easy they thought it would be to invade Iraq, they thought the oil would cover the cost..
30329 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Seattle
Offline
Posted 1/25/15 , edited 1/25/15
I only worry about stuff I can do something about. Which isn't much.

And I never watch the news. That stuffs poison.
11012 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/25/15

severticas wrote:


iriomote wrote:

If I'm understanding everything I've read correctly.. Technically you are both right and also arguing about different things:

severticas seems to be arguing that the people who initially made the decision "let's invade Iraq" did not make that decision because they actually thought Saddam was a real threat to the United States, or because he had links to 9/11 and Al Qaeda since they knew both claims were false. This would be regarding "why" the Iraq war occurred.

kamahl01 is apparently arguing that the war proceeded because congress and the public believed Saddam was a threat to the United States and/or had links to Al Qaeda. (Basically entirely due to false intelligence/testimony provided by the administration.) This would be regarding "how" the Iraq war occurred.


Decision are not made out of public perception. They are supported by public perception. As you've pointed out. The public for that matter means the borne no guilt over what happened. Thus making his link to the link he gave over the cost of the iraq war false to use.


Totally disagree, if the public isn't onboard with something, cowardly politicians will think twice before they do it. Bush would not have risked a second term on a war if the public didn't support it. I also don't total agree that the public has no guilt over their stance and support for political issues. If no one ever took a stance, we wouldn't even have equal rights for all in America.
Posted 1/25/15

kamahl01 wrote:


severticas wrote:


iriomote wrote:

If I'm understanding everything I've read correctly.. Technically you are both right and also arguing about different things:

severticas seems to be arguing that the people who initially made the decision "let's invade Iraq" did not make that decision because they actually thought Saddam was a real threat to the United States, or because he had links to 9/11 and Al Qaeda since they knew both claims were false. This would be regarding "why" the Iraq war occurred.

kamahl01 is apparently arguing that the war proceeded because congress and the public believed Saddam was a threat to the United States and/or had links to Al Qaeda. (Basically entirely due to false intelligence/testimony provided by the administration.) This would be regarding "how" the Iraq war occurred.


Decision are not made out of public perception. They are supported by public perception. As you've pointed out. The public for that matter means the borne no guilt over what happened. Thus making his link to the link he gave over the cost of the iraq war false to use.


Totally disagree, if the public isn't onboard with something, cowardly politicians will think twice before they do it. Bush would not have risked a second term on a war if the public didn't support it. I also don't total agree that the public has no guilt over their stance and support for political issues. If no one ever took a stance, we wouldn't even have equal rights for all in America.


Thought the pubic supported his second term because they thought his agenda was bringing democracy to Iraq.

Any success at dehumanizing people has little to do with the cost of failed strategies.
20902 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Online
Posted 1/25/15 , edited 1/25/15
If you have no fear of thing that never happened to you why bother and have a healthcare, Security Locks in your house, car insurance?
I mean the whole thing is prevention. The whole thing is prevention of new terror attacks news oil embargos etc. etc..
Think as the US would be one persons he would prevent a lot of stuff that can and would never happen.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.