• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

American propaganda

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Where has the concience of America gone? How can American's be silent while our government is repeating history again with Iran (as it did with Iraq)? The US government and US media are doing it again and American's could care less. WTF is wrong with this country? If you support this action, WTF is wrong with you? And yes, YOU are WRONG!
Iraq’s colonial occupier, the US, denounces “foreign meddling”
by David Walsh Global Research, January 31, 2007


In recent weeks US government and military officials, aided and abetted by the American media, have stepped up the war of words against Iran.

As they did precisely four years ago, in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the political and media establishment is attempting to build up a case for military action against a country that has no designs on American territory and represents no threat to the US population.

The campaign of misinformation is proceeding as though the claims about weapons of mass destruction and Iraq’s links to Al Qaeda had never been exposed as lies. The Bush administration has no credibility whatsoever in its new propaganda campaign against Iran. Indeed, it is viewed by broad layers of the world’s population as a criminal outfit, bound and determined to impose its will against all opposition. This does not prevent the US mass media from transmitting the administration’s latest claims as the gospel truth.

One of the most outrageous aspects of the current offensive is the contention, repeated innumerable times by various US officials, that Iran has to be prevented from “meddling” in Iraqi affairs. The superpower responsible for the deaths of countless Iraqi citizens over the past decade and a half and the virtual disintegration of Iraqi society through war, sanctions and invasion, which currently has 150,000 troops stationed on Iraqi soil, has the gall to accuse others of “interference.” In fact,
nothing has been more catastrophic for the Iraqi people in history than its encounter with American “meddling.”
The US media will not broadcast the truth. But more importantly, why aren't my countryman demanding it?
 
Moderator's Warning:
Moved to the more appropriate Media forum.
 
Where has the concience of America gone? How can American's be silent while our government is repeating history again with Iran (as it did with Iraq)? The US government and US media are doing it again and American's could care less. WTF is wrong with this country? If you support this action, WTF is wrong with you? And yes, YOU are WRONG!The US media will not broadcast the truth. But more importantly, why aren't my countryman demanding it?

Amen, brother. If I were you, I'd wash my hands of this God forsaken country and get the hell out, while the gettin is still good. You don't need this crappy country.
 
Last edited:
We should take this artical serious? A sight that feels...

The barbaric lynching of Saddam Hussein, the former president of Iraq, was a choreographed event, a carefully staged U.S. sponsored PSYOP, with a view to triggering social divisions and fomenting sectarian violence within Iraq and the broader Middle East.

Oh yes poor, poor Saddam. Please! This is such crap.


And.....


The execution date was deliberately chosen during a sacred period for Muslims to exploit a divide between Shiites and Sunni. This sacred day was marked on Saturday, December 30, 2007 by Sunni Muslims in Iraq and was observed a day later on Sunday, December 31, 2007 by Iraq’s Shiites.

WRONG!!!!!! The date was chosen by the Iraq government NOT the US.

And this is just a little of the far fetched crap on that sight. :roll:




 
Originally posted by Just Me 2
Oh yes poor, poor Saddam. Please! This is such crap.
Not as much crap as the s.h.i.t Bush and Cheney are shoveling.

Originally posted by Just Me 2
WRONG!!!!!! The date was chosen by the Iraq government NOT the US.
The Iraqi government IS the US government. The Iraqi government is just a puppet regime that doesn't have the support of the people they govern. And their authority goes as far as the green zone wall.

Originally posted by Just Me 2
And this is just a little of the far fetched crap on that sight.
Maybe you're just a little too near-sighted to see it.
 
Originally posted by CurrentAffairs:
Amen, brother. If I were you, I'd wash my hands of this God forsaken country and get the hell out, while the gettin is still good. You don't need this crappy country.
As I stated before, I'm not going anywhere. The only option you have is to learn how to deal with me.
 
Where has the concience of America gone? How can American's be silent while our government is repeating history again with Iran (as it did with Iraq)? The US government and US media are doing it again and American's could care less. WTF is wrong with this country? If you support this action, WTF is wrong with you? And yes, YOU are WRONG!The US media will not broadcast the truth. But more importantly, why aren't my countryman demanding it?

Glad to see that you have no problem with Iran supplying the insurgency with advanced IED's that are killing our troops.
 
Glad to see that you have no problem with Iran supplying the insurgency with advanced IED's that are killing our troops.

Hey billo he bitch smacked you with this one........
 
Originally posted by TOT:
Glad to see that you have no problem with Iran supplying the insurgency with advanced IED's that are killing our troops.
Oh, I got a problem with that. I also got a problem with an illegal occupation army telling other country's not to interfere in the country their occupying.


Originally posted by Cherokee:
Hey billo he bitch smacked you with this one........
Really! Are you wearing a skirt? Because you sound like a cheerleader!
 
Oh, I got a problem with that. I also got a problem with an illegal occupation army telling other country's not to interfere in the country their occupying.

It's not an illegal occupation by all rights we could have reconveined hostilities when Saddam violated the U.N. resolutions. Not only that but Saddam took power by force, he ruled through force and the brutal repression of his people so who exactly are you to say that an outside power can not remove him by force? Regardless it is sickening to see that you condone Iranians murdering our troops and innocent Iraqi's and feel that the U.S. should just shut up about it.
 
Originally posted by TOT:
It's not an illegal occupation by all rights we could have reconveined hostilities when Saddam violated the U.N. resolutions. Not only that but Saddam took power by force, he ruled through force and the brutal repression of his people so who exactly are you to say that an outside power can not remove him by force? Regardless it is sickening to see that you condone Iranians murdering our troops and innocent Iraqi's and feel that the U.S. should just shut up about it.
I said I did have a problem with that and would like it stopped. I want to get the troops out of harms way so they can't get bombed by IED's. You want to keep them their so they can.

The invasion was illegal. I've showed this many times. The occupation has been blessed by the UNSC, so there's not much I can argue with there. Even though I think the UNSC is a little hypocritical for doing this.

And yes, it is against international law to attack a country for the purpose of a "regime change".
 
I said I did have a problem with that and would like it stopped.

Oh really is that why you condemned the U.S. condemnation of the Iranians interference in Iraq?

I want to get the troops out of harms way so they can't get bombed by IED's. You want to keep them their so they can.

Yes we know you want the U.S. to withdrawal so as to allow the Islamic Fascists and the Iranians to fill the power vacuum.

The invasion was illegal.

No it wasn't.

I've showed this many times.

No you haven't.

The occupation has been blessed by the UNSC, so there's not much I can argue with there. Even though I think the UNSC is a little hypocritical for doing this.

And yes, it is against international law to attack a country for the purpose of a "regime change".

Do you not comprehend the fact that the Gulf War ended with a ceasfire contingent upon certain conditions? Do you not get the fact that if Saddam did not follow those conditions (and he didn't) that we were within our rights to reconvene hostilities against his evil regime?
 
Originally posted by TOT:
Oh really is that why you condemned the U.S. condemnation of the Iranians interference in Iraq?
I said I found it funny that someone who interfered in another country's business would tell others not to interfere in that country's business.

Originally posted by TOT:
Yes we know you want the U.S. to withdrawal so as to allow the Islamic Fascists and the Iranians to fill the power vacuum.
Since you have to lie, apparantly you don't know. Why are you so irresponsible?

Originally posted by TOT:
No it wasn't.
Grow up!

Originally posted by TOT:
No you haven't.
See response above.

Originally posted by TOT:
Do you not comprehend the fact that the Gulf War ended with a ceasfire contingent upon certain conditions? Do you not get the fact that if Saddam did not follow those conditions (and he didn't) that we were within our rights to reconvene hostilities against his evil regime?
Do you not comprehend the fact that it wasn't Bush's call to make.
 
This is what you don't hear about in Iraq...

Plan B.

The US version of the incident:

On Monday the 1st of January 2007, the Iraq News Agency reported on an important development; the following is a paraphrase of their report:

The U.S. army announced that it has killed six “terrorists” and arrested another two during heavy fighting in Baghdad while attacking the headquarters of the National Dialogue Front, led by Dr. Saleh Al-Mutlaq. The army statement assured that the raid was based on an intelligence report that indicated the area has been used as a safe sanctuary for Al-Qaeda in Iraq members for executing attack plans.

The statement claims that while approaching the targeted area, the U.S. army received heavy fire from automatic machine guns and grenades from several near building tops. The statement continues that the allied forces returned fire on the source of the attack killing two terrorists. Meanwhile, several others fled to a 3rd building, adding that allied forces also managed to get a foothold in a near by building, which led to the killing of four terrorists and the apprehending of another.
The Iraqi version of the incident:

I called Dr. Saleh Al-Mutlaq today and asked him about what happened, and his account is very different. Dr. Al-Mutlaq said that the U.S. and Iraqi forces surrounded his party’s headquarters in Baghdad after midnight and that a brief exchange of fire took place, so he tried to contact the U.S. embassy and U.S. army to understand what was happening and to clarify that his guards thought they were being attacked by militias when they fired back, and that they didn’t know the U.S. army was involved.

It seems that the U.S. embassy and Army where not interested in hearing from Dr. Saleh in that time. So instead of calling him back, the U.S. army destroyed the headquarters by an air strike that killed two of the guards, Mr. Jasim Ameer Muhammad and Mr. Muhammad Khamees Al-Falahi, in addition to killing a neighboring family of four (the parents with their son and daughter). The six casualties were described in the U.S. army reports as “terrorists”.

This attack against the National Dialogue Front (NDF) led by Al-Mutlaq does not seem to be accidental. The Bush administration’s attempts to create a pro-occupation coalition in the Iraqi government failed last week after Al-Sistani, the grand Shia Ayatollah, refused to support the U.S. plan. The bush administration’s plan seems to have changed from simply excluding anti-occupation political parties (like Sadrists, Al-Fadila party, NDF, and others) from the Iraqi government to actively bombing them.

The attack on NDF’s headquarters in Baghdad is nothing more than the first step in the administration’s plan B. The Al-Sadr movement and its militia, Al-Mahdi Army, seem to be next, and others will follow.

Attacking NDF, the only political party with no militias, will push the country towards more violence and militarization. It sends one message to Iraqis who still believe in political solutions: We will destroy you unless you were strong enough to destroy us.
We have to leave that country!
 
Hey Billo, You are doing the right thing by standing up for yourself, and I have to agree with you on everything you have said. I can't understand why
people is against Iran supplying weapons, and the United States government is supplying weapons to countries that's kissing their asses. To me if the US Government would keep their asses out of other countries business the world might would be more peaceful. Now that's American Bull **** propagenda. America is always b**ching about what other countries is doing, and never look at the crap they are doing to cause more problems.

Some of you is crying about our troops in Iraq. Take a good damn look at who send them over there, and tell me what good is it doing? Troops are dying like flies in Iraq, and the world's greatest A**hole is still sending more troops to fight his war.

Now Bush is really hyped with Iraq on the brains. As a matter of fact Bush is so confused until he don't know who he wants to fight next. However I see he isn't to stupid. He's not messing with Cuba, and that goes to prove he does have some senses. :rofl
 
Lies, where is the proof of this?

Right here buddy:

Intelligence Officials Say Weapons Responsible for Increasing U.S. Deaths in Iraq

"The signature is the same because they are exactly the same in production," says explosives expert Kevin Barry. "So it's the same make and model."

U.S. officials say roadside bomb attacks against American forces in Iraq have become much more deadly as more and more of the Iran-designed and Iran-produced bombs have been smuggled in from the country since last October.

"I think the evidence is strong that the Iranian government is making these IEDs, and the Iranian government is sending them across the border and they are killing U.S. troops once they get there," says Richard Clarke, former White House counterterrorism chief and an ABC News consultant. "I think it's very hard to escape the conclusion that, in all probability, the Iranian government is knowingly killing U.S. troops."

ABC News: EXCLUSIVE: Iraq Weapons -- Made in Iran?

And here:

Iranian Weapons Arm Iraqi Militias

WASHINGTON, Nov. 30, 2006 — U.S. officials say they have found smoking-gun evidence of Iranian support for terrorists in Iraq: brand-new weapons fresh from Iranian factories. According to a senior defense official, coalition forces have recently seized Iranian-made weapons and munitions that bear manufacturing dates in 2006.

This suggests, say the sources, that the material is going directly from Iranian factories to Shia militias, rather than taking a roundabout path through the black market. "There is no way this could be done without (Iranian) government approval," says a senior official.

Iranian-made munitions found in Iraq include advanced IEDs designed to pierce armor and anti-tank weapons. U.S. intelligence believes the weapons have been supplied to Iraq's growing Shia militias from Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which is also believed to be training Iraqi militia fighters in Iran.

ABC News: EXCLUSIVE: Iranian Weapons Arm Iraqi Militia
 
I said I found it funny that someone who interfered in another country's business would tell others not to interfere in that country's business.

Umm we removed a brutal tyrant from power, and the Iranians want to install another one or at the very least set up an Islamic Fascist state under Sharia, if you can't see the difference then you're blind.

Since you have to lie, apparantly you don't know. Why are you so irresponsible?

I'm not lying that's exactly what will happen if we withdrawal before the Iraqi Democratically elected government can defend itself.


I'm grown, your lies don't turn into truth if you repeat them enough.

Do you not comprehend the fact that it wasn't Bush's call to make.

Ya it was Congress's too.
 
Right here buddy:



And here:

The War: 'Ambiguous' Intel on Iran's Meddling in Iraq - Newsweek Periscope - MSNBC.com
Terror Watch: How Bush Spun Terror Intel - Newsweek Terror Watch - MSNBC.com
Full List Of US Weapons Suppliers To Iraq
How Did Iraq Get Its Weapons? We Sold Them

Newsweek said:
The War: 'Ambiguous' Intel on Iran's Meddling in Iraq

But the idea that Iran plays a key role in fomenting violence inside Iraq took a knock last week with the publication, by the U.S. intelligence czar's office, of a new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq. The NIE, representing the consensus view of all 16 U.S. intel agencies, says that because sectarian antagonisms among Iraqis themselves are so intense and "self-sustaining," Iranian or Syrian involvement is "not likely to be a major driver of violence.

Newsweek said:
Selective Intelligence - The National Intelligence Estimate doesn’t say what Bush says it does. How will he handle upcoming secret reports on Iran and Iraq?

Sept. 27, 2006 - The White House’s release of a dire National Intelligence Estimate on global terrorism has illustrated once again how easy it is to publicly misrepresent intelligence-community findings—especially when almost all of the key documents remained shrouded in secrecy.

But the actual wording of the NIE contains sobering conclusions that, in tone and substance, are very different from what Bush and other administration officials have recently been saying about the government’s progress in the war on terror. Even more potentially problematic for the White House, intelligence-community officials say, there are at least two more secret studies underway that are likely to undercut the administration’s public positions on sensitive national-security issues.

commondreams.org said:
How Did Iraq Get Its Weapons? We Sold Them

Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.

Classified US Defense Department documents also seen by the Sunday Herald show that Britain sold Iraq the drug pralidoxine, an antidote to nerve gas, in March 1992, after the end of the Gulf war. Pralidoxine can be reverse engineered to create nerve gas.

rense.org said:
Full List Of US Weapons Suppliers To Iraq - USA CENSORS IRAQ REPORT


The report gives us a complete overview of these supplies for the first time. In particular it names the 24 US companies and when and to whom in Iraq the supplies were delivered. And it makes clear how strongly the Reagan and the first Bush administrations supported the arming of Iraq, from 1980 up to the Gulf conflict of 1990/91. Substantial construction units for the Iraqi nuclear weapon and rocket programs were supplied with permission of the government in Washington. The poison Anthrax for the arming of Iraq with biological weapons stemmed from US laboratories. Iraqi military and armament experts were trained in the US and there received know-how having to do with their domestic arms programs.


Legend used in this list:

A = nuclear program,
B = bioweapons program,
C = chemical weapons program,
R = rocket program,
K = conventional weapons, military logistics, supplies at the Iraqi Defense Ministry and the building of military plants.
 

I really don't understand why you brought up the chemicals but anyway now that we're on the subject I see you're from Western Europe, so you guys sold dual use chemicals to Iraq as well of course all of which were totally legal under international law and had legitimate agricultural applications, however, if you are from either France or Germany you are more guilty than the U.S. in that respect because not only did you sell them legal chemicals, you also gave them assistance into their WMD programs which took those legal and benign chemicals and turned them into illegal and deadly chemical weapons.

Now onto the question of Bush lying which I again don't understand how it has any relevance to the topic at hand, but I'll humor you, all 16 members of the U.S. intelligence Community concluded with and I quote "high confidence" in the 2002 NIE that Saddam both had and was expanding his WMD capabilities and these assertions were backed up by numerous foreign intelligence agencies, not only that but we have infact found 500 Sarin filled binary warheads with indefinate shelf lives in Iraq.

As to the original topic at hand there is nothing ****ing ambigous about the following statement:

[quoteWASHINGTON, Nov. 30, 2006 — U.S. officials say they have found smoking-gun evidence of Iranian support for terrorists in Iraq: brand-new weapons fresh from Iranian factories. According to a senior defense official, coalition forces have recently seized Iranian-made weapons and munitions that bear manufacturing dates in 2006. [/quote]

Or this one:

"The signature is the same because they are exactly the same in production," says explosives expert Kevin Barry. "So it's the same make and model."
 
Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus
Umm we removed a brutal tyrant from power, and the Iranians want to install another one or at the very least set up an Islamic Fascist state under Sharia, if you can't see the difference then you're blind.
There is nothing in international law that allows for "regime change" by a country making a unilateral decision to do so. In a nutshell, "regime change" is illegal without UNSC authorization.

As far as the Shia's and their Iranian connections, we played a role in allowing those particular Shia's to come to power through our de-Baathification and lack of post war strategies.

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus
I'm not lying that's exactly what will happen if we withdrawal before the Iraqi Democratically elected government can defend itself.
That's not the lie I was accusing you of. It's the part where you said...
Originally posted by TOT:
Yes we know you want...
...that's the lie!

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus
I'm grown, your lies don't turn into truth if you repeat them enough.
I wasn't lying. I was referring to your penchant for arguing
sometimes like your right out of a Cheech and Chong movie:
Chong: Yes it is, man!
Cheech: No it's not, man!
Chong: Yes it is, man!
Cheech: No it's not, man!

Chong: Yes it is, man!
Cheech: No it's not, man!

Chong: Yes it is, man!
Cheech: No it's not, man!
Get the picture? And there is many, many examples of this, so don't even go there!

I know what your thinking...

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus
Ya it was Congress's too.
It wasn't their's either.
 
There is nothing in international law that allows for "regime change" by a country making a unilateral decision to do so. In a nutshell, "regime change" is illegal without UNSC authorization.

A) Prove it.

B) Saddam took power by force he maintained that power through force and the brutal repression of his people so who the hell are you or anyone else to say that it is wrong for an outside power to remove him by force?
 
Originally posted by TOT:
A) Prove it.
Show me any UNSC resolution on Iraq that contained those words!
 
Show me any UNSC resolution on Iraq that contained those words!

Who says that the resolution would have to contain those words? Kofi Anan after the fact?

And again Saddam took power by force he maintained that power through force and the brutal repression of his people so who the hell are you or anyone else to say that it is wrong for an outside power to remove him by force?
 
Originally posted by TOT:
Who says that the resolution would have to contain those words? Kofi Anan after the fact?

And again Saddam took power by force he maintained that power through force and the brutal repression of his people so who the hell are you or anyone else to say that it is wrong for an outside power to remove him by force?
Okay, have it your way. Using your logic, "...who the hell are you or anyone else to say that it is RIGHT for an outside power to remove him by force?"

Happy?

Oh, there is just one thing...

It seems we gave our word at first (then made this our Supreme Law through ratification) the following:
Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.
That kind of says all you legal pro-war pundits are completly FOS!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom