This is so much bullshit, everyone outside the US partiot haze knew all this "intelligence" was crap, in 2002. Hans Blix and the UN weapons inspectors said it again and again: No evidence of WMDs or even WMD intent. And Powell is simply lying when claiming the UK accepted the intelligence, they admitted as much in the Downing Street memo. This is all bullshit from Powell. Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney and Rove didn't "accept" the intelligence, they fucking ordered it.

>> ^thinker247:
While I am one to never believe anything my government tells me, I find it highly improbable that anybody but the 19 hijackers caused the events of September 11th. But to play devil's advocate, let me for a minute suspend my belief and agree with the "truthers" that my government perpetrated an act of terrorism against itself.
Why?
In order to invade Afghanistan to plunder its oil? We already had bin Laden on the FBI's Most Wanted List for the bombings of U.S. Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. We easily could have invaded under the pretense of finding and extracting bin Laden (and the Taliban and al-Qaeda), because that's exactly what we did after September 11th.
In order to invade Iraq under the banner of anti-terrorism? Hussein had already defied U.N. weapons inspectors for over a decade and Bush was never the type to ask permission, so we didn't need September 11th to justify illegally invading a sovereign nation. We did it anyway.
In order to enact greater restrictions upon the citizens by inducing their fear response? Hell, as a general populace we're lemmings. The Bush administration certainly did not need to kill 3000 people in order to take away our liberties. We gladly give them up whenever anybody in authority asks.
I have yet to hear a rational answer to the question of "Why?" But I'm all ears.


niiiice.
ask a question and then propose possible hypothesis which of course you then dismantle.
let me preface this by stating i am not a "truther" and am not as convinced as my friend rougy is concerning 9/11.
that being said,the US government has never,in my opinion,given this a proper investigation.
let me give you an example:
lewinsky and the impeachment of bill clinton =168 million dollars.
9/11 investigation=6 million dollars
and lets be clear here.the governments version of what happened on 9/11 is itself a conspiracy theory and one that does not hold up well under closer scrutiny.
who is responsible? i do not know and neither do you but i think it prudent to not only ask questions but be allowed to ask those questions.
agree?
now...
as for YOUR question thinker247.
why?
i presume you are asking for motive.
ok.
1.lusitania
2.reichsthag
3.gulf of tonkin
these are all false flag operations and all preceded war.WW!,WW2 and vietnam respectively.i could mention the oil embargo on japan but that is a lengthy conversation.
what ARE the motives for war?
they have always been unequivocally about:
1.land/labor/resources/trade
how does a government,crown or ruling entity get its poorest,least educated and therefore most expendable to go fight and die for something the ruling class wishes?
1.propaganda.
which creates a "fighting spirit".
for thousands of years religion was the impetus to create this spirit but for the last hundred years it has been nationalism but it is ALWAYS the F>E>A>R that is the true driving force.
now that we have established a basis for war let us get to the heart of your question.
since i am not privy to secret documents i must make my answer based on conjecture.i shall do my best.
why would the US government use 9/11 (by action or by proxy) to change 200 years of national defensive posturing to one of "pre-emptive" and declare a war,not on any person or nation but one against an ephemeral opponent?the "war on terror".
1.war is HUGE business and the DOD has been one of the top 10 lobbyists since 1962.
2.saddam hussein,having been bombed for over 10 years straight(fact,look it up) along with sanctions and that ridiculous "oil for food" threatened to change iraq's oil transactions from the american dollar to the euro(fact,look it up)which would have cost the US billions if not trillions.seeing that every oil transaction is done in american dollars.it is the world reserve currency (not for much longer).
3.uzbekisthan has one the last and richest oil and natural gas left in the world.a pipeline which was denied by turkey (that has since changed,but for europes benefit,not america) is being built right now...
where?
ill give ya a guess.
iraq.
and do you know where it will lead into?
want to try another guess?
afghanistan.

those are just a few off the top of my head.i could take the time to be more concise and specific but this is a comment section.
maybe we have differing political philosophies thinker247.i do not trust government nor power because that power historically has ALWAYS attempted to garner more power for itself at the expense of liberty,freedom and the common good of society.
so while i dont think the US government attacked the twin towers,i believe they ALLOWED it.
what evidence do i have? none.and any evidence we could have gotten has been destroyed.
but i was military for a number of years and unless they have gotten lazy and stupid there is no way that would have happened.
could i be wrong?you betcha.
but unlike you i do not trust government and neither should you because historically,governments will abuse whatever powers they have and take your rights away as fast as they are allowed to.
might i recommend:
1.bryzinski "the grand chessboard"
2.naomi klein "the shock doctrine"
3.chalmers johnson "blowback"
hell...just go the PNAC website they practically lay it out for you and that minority controlled the government for 8 years.
history is the greatest teacher and it is your friend.
i have enjoyed this conversation thinker247.

While I am one to never believe anything my government tells me, I find it highly improbable that anybody but the 19 hijackers caused the events of September 11th. But to play devil's advocate, let me for a minute suspend my belief and agree with the "truthers" that my government perpetrated an act of terrorism against itself.

Why?

In order to invade Afghanistan to plunder its oil? We already had bin Laden on the FBI's Most Wanted List for the bombings of U.S. Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. We easily could have invaded under the pretense of finding and extracting bin Laden (and the Taliban and al-Qaeda), because that's exactly what we did after September 11th.

In order to invade Iraq under the banner of anti-terrorism? Hussein had already defied U.N. weapons inspectors for over a decade and Bush was never the type to ask permission, so we didn't need September 11th to justify illegally invading a sovereign nation. We did it anyway.

In order to enact greater restrictions upon the citizens by inducing their fear response? Hell, as a general populace we're lemmings. The Bush administration certainly did not need to kill 3000 people in order to take away our liberties. We gladly give them up whenever anybody in authority asks.

I have yet to hear a rational answer to the question of "Why?" But I'm all ears.

Thanks

In reply to this comment by Ornthoron:
*promote

Life is chess not checkers. Missiles are in fact a bad thing to hit you. If anything, a missile shield is exactly the kind of passive stuff we should do more of instead of invading places. I am all for defencive implacements. It is always best to have a shield and not need it than the other way around.

The fact is, Iran is developing medium ranged ship based missile technology. So that missile shield better span the globe if it is to be effective. I would actually think more people would be down with this kind of passive protection? Is this more to do with you dislike of this administration than any logical grounds to not want to have missile defence abilities at our disposal? Cause im not fan of this administration either, but I can see a strong defence being a good thing more than a bad thing.

Russia getting mad about seems like they are still stuck in a cold war kind of mode of resisting any attempt the US makes to make itself a little safer from threats, no matter how hypathatical they are. I don't think we shouldn't consider them because russia isn't comforatble with it. One thing we can't alow to happen in the big world cooperation is to undermind our own security to oblige someone else. Above all, the government should look to our defence more than cooperating with the world at large.

Anyone that has dealings in millitary intelegence would of told you that pre-war iraq had MWDs. Even the people that are against the war now were very very for having the weapons inspectors get at the weapons that we KNEW they had...hell, we still had some on file what we gave Sadam when we financed him.

Intelegence isn't fool proof, and more over, its a big ass desert out there to hide things in. If anyone remembers, Iraq had about a dozen and a half migs in the first gulf war. Iraq flew them out ASAP to iran who wasn't anally (Iraq and Iran are bitty enimies) and iran happily took them for their own. The same was most likely done with anything Iraq did have, and we did end up finding lots of gas that he was using on the curds after the media had already come to the conclution that there were absoulutly no WMDs found, even though we did find them, just not the nuclear and biological ones we thought were there. Most likely, he never had them, but we will never really know, the point is he didn't submit to UN weapons inspections like he should of. And the US decided (imo in error) to enforce UN laws without UN concent (bad idea).

Anway, this is off topic. Word is Iran may indeed have medium ranged balistic missile tech from a energy deal with China. This isn't in any means ironclad as intel never is, but it looks to be true.

I always try and stress, don't like administrations blow your consideration of the big picture. The world is a messed up place with messed up people that want to do messed up things for their own messed up agendas...and sometimes, they get a hold of power and weapons which is a bad thing. Don't let hate of one person cloud your minds of the things that still should happen for our best interest.

/rant

btw, a Medium-range ballistic missile is right around 1km to 3km in range. An intercontinental ballistic missile is anything north of 5.5km. Iran is belived to have more of medium and Intermediate-ranged missiles. None able to hit US via a ground lauch. But well able to hit via a sea launch which doesn't require to much adaptation.

Zelzal-3,Shahab-3D range 1,000-1,350-1,500 1999
IRSL-X-2 range 2,200-2,672
IRIS 2,3 range 3,500-3,750(2 stage, farily advanced missile)

(all ranges in KMs)

"My concern is that we will use nuclear weapons to break the backbone of Iranian resistance, and it may not work.

But what it will do is this, it will unleash the nuclear genie.

So for all those Americans out there tonight who say, "you know what, taking on Iran is a good thing", I just told you if we take on Iran, were gonna use nuclear weapons.

And if we use nuclear weapons, the genie aint going back in the bottle, until an American city is taken out by an Islamic weapon in retaliation....so tell me...you want to go to war with Iran, PICK YOUR CITY!"
- Scott Ritter, UN Weapons Inspector.

What's funny about this is the fact that Bush recently made a statement to the effect that Iraq "wouldn't let the U.N. weapons inspectors in" so we attacked. The fact of the matter is that the weapons inspectors were actually in Iraq at the time and warned to leave because a U.S. invasion was imminent.

Further, Condy never denied that false connections between Iraq and Al Quaida were alluded to freely by the administration leading up to the war and the evidence for this was shaky at best, nonexistent at worst.

F**kin' Liars.

>> ^ant:
What's "James Joyce Award"?


From the college website:

"Previous recipients of the James Joyce Award include: former UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix; author, Bill Bryson; philosopher, Professor Richard Swinburne and actor, Ralph Fiennes. Over the years, every Taoiseach and President has addressed the society.

“Mr Ferrell receives the James Joyce Award for his tremendous contribution to the field of comedy entertainment, as a comedian, writer and actor,” said Michael McGrath, Auditor, 153rd Session, Literary and Historical Society, UCD.

Hollywood actor Will Ferrell recieving the James Joyce Award from Michael McGrath, Auditor, 153rd Session, Literary and Historical Society."


Which doesn't clear up what the award is for exactly, but possibly they just give it to someone they like.

Realizing it is a complex situation, considering the fact that Iran has aspirations to develop some nuclear program or another (of course not weapons)-coming from the munchkin mulllah moron Akkboobhimongeddjob, what the hell are the people of Iran doing, supporting a fella who does not believe the Holocaust even happened? Why would a nation like saaaaay America or Great Britain want to try and work with a throwback like Maaakmoody, to work towards anything but making sure his little ass has NO ACCESSS to anything remotely radioactive? Is a leader that spews, and a peoples that believe the spew, worthy of the split atom???....Fuck no, let em burn oil candles, and go to bed when the fucking sun goes down.

You need smoke alarms? Contact the countries that have made some progress along the path of 20th century sensibilities.
You need some Geiger-cracklin' substances for your hospitals? Ok....supervised.

You want to build a reactor? Fuck off and die-Live in the dark until you get rid of batshit-insane leaders.

Now, Mr. Ritter, you are obviously disillusioned from your tenured career as weapons inspector or Marine corps intelligence, who knows.....but man, kick the dead horse which is only a symptom of a larger problem, till ya have a heart-attack, your arguments are moot-So what if there were no weapons of mass destruction: At issue, is how leaders can make shit up to get a country behind a war, or why let adolescents play with matches.....
If Saddam had had WMD's, ya think he would have used them? Yes. Did he use chemical weapons to gas Kurds? Yes. Should he have swung by his neck until death...We think so.....so, get rid of lying fuckers before they turn into a major clusterfuck for the planet-

Why do we let Kim Dung Illness continue to fuck up the minds and souls of N. Koreans daily? Because nobody....NO world leaders, have what it takes to call a fucking spade a spade. WHY? Because they are greedy bastards.Why? Because we let them-we are too distracted with shopping and entertainment, to give a flying fuck.

Believe it or not, the only reason we are littering the planet with the numbers of humans in the conditions of imbalance that exist, is energy.
Energy without charge, would alleviate the the need for a world economy, that works for so few, and destroys so many, and so much of the planet.

This addiction to creature comforts in the last 100 yrs, and our willingness to let financiers, lawyers, and governments continue to build this house of cards, is what has caused men (mankind) to turn into pussies, the Brazilian rain forest into a charcoal factory, etc etc etc etc.The New York Society for Ethical Whateverthefuck.....ineffectual circle jerk.

At least the media are on it this time which I must say is a big improvement over the Iraq fiasco. The weapons inspectors said the same thing on Iraq before Bush went in but they were ignored at that time.

I'm grateful to raven for raising the issue of the sanctions regime:

Cool war:
Economic sanctions as a weapon of mass destruction

Joy Gordon


* * *

In searching for evidence of the potential danger posed by Iraq, the Bush Administration need have looked no further than the well-kept record of U.S. manipulation of the sanctions program since 1991. If any international act in the last decade is sure to generate enduring bitterness toward the United States, it is the epidemic suffering needlessly visited on Iraqis via U.S. fiat inside the United Nations Security Council. Within that body, the United States has consistently thwarted Iraq from satisfying its most basic humanitarian needs, using sanctions as nothing less than a deadly weapon, and, despite recent reforms, continuing to do so. Invoking security concerns—including those not corroborated by U.N. weapons inspectors—U.S. policymakers have effectively turned a program of international governance into a legitimized act of mass slaughter.

Since the U.N. adopted economic sanctions in 1945, in its charter, as a means of maintaining global order, it has used them fourteen times (twelve times since 1990). But only those sanctions imposed on Iraq have been comprehensive, meaning that virtually every aspect of the country's imports and exports is controlled, which is particularly damaging to a country recovering from war. Since the program began, an estimated 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of five have died as a result of the sanctions—almost three times as many as the number of Japanese killed during the U.S. atomic bomb attacks.

News of such Iraqi fatalities has been well documented (by the United Nations, among others), though underreported by the media. What has remained invisible, however, is any documentation of how and by whom such a death toll has been justified for so long. How was the danger of goods entering Iraq assessed, and how was it weighed, if at all, against the mounting collateral damage? As an academic who studies the ethics of international relations, I was curious. It was easy to discover that for the last ten years a vast number of lengthy holds had been placed on billions of dollars' worth of what seemed unobjectionable—and very much needed—imports to Iraq. But I soon learned that all U.N. records that could answer my questions were kept from public scrutiny.

Read the entire article here: http://www.harpers.org/archive/2002/11/0079384

I always get the feeling people who support Ron Paul don’t really understand exactly what he supports. They hear that he’s anti-war, anti-corporatism, and pro-privacy/anti-federal government, all things many disillusioned voters (many of whom seem to be liberals upset over the democratic congresses’ lack-luster performance so far) identify with.

It all stems from his radical isolationist, laissez-faire business style, and anti-federal government stances. First of all I’ll say that just because the Bush administration some how convinced everyone war with Iraq because they had some grainy satellite photos of metal tubing next to a ditch, reports (that I seem to remember were proven false rather quickly) of Saddam trying to buy yellow cake, and weapons inspectors who weren’t finding anything, which obviously meant all the WMDs were being driven around in special mobile VANS OF DOOM so as to keep them hidden, doesn’t mean the US should stay completely out of world affairs. That said I do agree with Ron Paul in that we need get out of Iraq as soon as possible. Truthfully I think we’re going to get bitten in the ass no matter what we do in Iraq since the whole thing was just a giant cock-up, but leaving would probably put us in the best position to deal with said bite in the ass.

I also don’t understand how people think Ron Paul’s “true” free-market approach would be the end of monopolies and corporations. That’s been tried in this country before, Robber Barons anyone? Deregulation of the market is like a wet-dream for mega-corporations. You see how quickly competition dies the second they don’t have to worry about anti-trust laws, I can guarantee AT&T isn’t going to let your DSL provider us its lines anymore. Maybe it’s just the area I live in but any time any part of an industry has been deregulated I’ve noticed a decline in the quality of service and a rise in prices.

Basically put Ron Paul is a state’s rights person. So that means that instead of the idiots at the federal level trampling all over your privacy and rights as a citizen the idiots in your state government get to trample over your rights as a citizen and privacy. Many pro-choice people support Ron Paul because he votes against (most) anti-abortion legislation. This is because he thinks abortion should be banned at the state level. Similarly he seems to enjoy a lot of support from the gay community because he doesn’t support a federal amendment to the constitution banning gay marriage. He doesn’t support one because it would set a precedent that the federal government has control over marriage, one that could later be overturned. He wants States to decide, and seeing how that vote normally goes when it’s put to the populace it’s bad news for the gays. Further more he wants to get rid of the requirement that states have to recognize marriages in other states. So the gays lose there too. Really the only thing Ron Paul’s anti-federal government agenda would accomplish is to further polarize the differences between the north and the south. Might as get out a big paint roller and physically put the Mason Dixon line back in. Again I suppose it depends on what state you live in, but in general I see the Federal Government as a more positive force when it comes to civil rights. It’s unfortunate that for the last few years we’ve had Darth Vader in an ‘I’m with President Stupid’ tee-shirt steering the direction of this country’s civil rights.

I’m not endorsing the front runner democrats or republicans, I’m simply trying to point out that Ron Paul’s beliefs (seem to) clash with those of a lot of his supporters. Truthfully I was very intrigued by Ron Paul the first couple of times I saw him speak, and he really seemed to resonate with a lot I believed in. He’s also probably one of the most straight forward candidates (not saying a whole lot for the rest of them). I eventually ended up digging a little deeper and found myself opposed to many of the things he supported and believed. All I can say is take a closer look at Ron Paul as a candidate and not just what you see in compiled you-tube clips. Okay my rant is over.

For analysis of the US/UK-dominated sanctions regime I strongly recommend a thorough look at Joy Gordon's "Cool War": http://www.harpers.org/archive/2002/11/0079384

from Cool War, Harper's Issue Nov. 2002: "In searching for evidence of the potential danger posed by Iraq, the Bush Administration need have looked no further than the well-kept record of U.S. manipulation of the sanctions program since 1991. If any international act in the last decade is sure to generate enduring bitterness toward the United States, it is the epidemic suffering needlessly visited on Iraqis via U.S. fiat inside the United Nations Security Council. Within that body, the United States has consistently thwarted Iraq from satisfying its most basic humanitarian needs, using sanctions as nothing less than a deadly weapon, and, despite recent reforms, continuing to do so. Invoking security concerns—including those not corroborated by U.N. weapons inspectors—U.S. policymakers have effectively turned a program of international governance into a legitimized act of mass slaughter.

Since the U.N. adopted economic sanctions in 1945, in its charter, as a means of maintaining global order, it has used them fourteen times (twelve times since 1990). But only those sanctions imposed on Iraq have been comprehensive, meaning that virtually every aspect of the country's imports and exports is controlled, which is particularly damaging to a country recovering from war. Since the program began, an estimated 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of five have died as a result of the sanctions—almost three times as many as the number of Japanese killed during the U.S. atomic bomb attacks.

News of such Iraqi fatalities has been well documented (by the United Nations, among others), though underreported by the media. What has remained invisible, however, is any documentation of how and by whom such a death toll has been justified for so long. How was the danger of goods entering Iraq assessed, and how was it weighed, if at all, against the mounting collateral damage? As an academic who studies the ethics of international relations, I was curious."

Thanks very much RedThing! Very kind of you to find me a replacement...I owe you one!

So, are you a fellow Brit? Either way, you have some very good taste in Sifts!

In reply to your comment:
“I noticed this vid of yours on that enormous list of deaded vids and might have a fix?
http://www.videosift.com/video/Mark-Thomas-Weapons-Inspector - dead
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-2815670775904348318&q=mark+thomas - fix?

”

I noticed this vid of yours on that enormous list of deaded vids and might have a fix?
http://www.videosift.com/video/Mark-Thomas-Weapons-Inspector - dead
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-2815670775904348318&q=mark+thomas - fix?