If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   NPR story is 11 years too late   (npr.org) divider line 12
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

2593 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Jun 2014 at 11:50 AM (6 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



12 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-06-18 09:06:29 AM
I finally got around to watching "The Known Unknown" last night.

Rummy can eat a bag of dicks
 
2014-06-18 11:31:18 AM
Yeah, but 11 years ago we knew why we had to invade, and what we would get out of it. Just because it was all lies doesn't mean we didn't think we had answers.
 
2014-06-18 12:19:56 PM
Why haven't we as a country invested more in R&D for renewables? Why don't we talk more about efficiency and conservation? I find it hard to believe that anyone really prefers the alternative of spending more billions of dollars and ending more human lives in these conflicts for oil.
 
2014-06-18 12:24:04 PM

nmrsnr: Yeah, but 11 years ago we knew why we had to invade, and what we would get out of it. Just because it was all lies doesn't mean we didn't think we had answers.


Who's this "we?" It seems to me that there were a lot of doubts about all those claims. I know I didn't believe any of it, and I'm not just rewriting history. Now I see people saying, "But we can't help it if the American people went along with it--we were lied to!" but I seem to recall that a whole lot of people didn't believe any of it from the beginning. There were massive anti-war protests, both here and in Europe. I think that was the first time that I fully realized that our government would blatantly lie to us, even about big things--and they'd get away with it too.

That was when I discovered the great website The Project For the New American Century, the place that pretty much outlined the plan to take over the middle east for the good of Americans (website is now gone, but it was a gold mine of incriminating info). All of Bush's cronies were behind that website, based on a think tank that came into existence at the end of 1990's. So, the website is gone now, but if you'd like to read about it, Link

It was RIGHT THERE, on a website for anyone to see. The plans, the people who put it into action, the rationale behind invading countries that hadn't done anything to us--they spelled it all right out, proudly. It was all for America, and it was all fine. And it's not like all those guys died either. Some of them are too old and crotchety to do much anymore, but I'm sure there's a new crowd just waiting to step up and go conquer some countries, where we will be greeted as liberators.

Now half of Americans still believe that Hussein had WMDs and had something to do with 9/11.
 
2014-06-18 12:34:37 PM

Needlessly Complicated: Why haven't we as a country invested more in R&D for renewables? Why don't we talk more about efficiency and conservation? I find it hard to believe that anyone really prefers the alternative of spending more billions of dollars and ending more human lives in these conflicts for oil.


That would be "picking winners and losers," and we can't have that.
 
2014-06-18 12:45:12 PM

cryinoutloud: Who's this "we?" It seems to me that there were a lot of doubts about all those claims.


Doubts notwithstanding, we still had answers. If you asked "why do we need to invade?" you got an answer "because we don't want the smoking gun to come in the shape of a mushroom cloud." If you asked "what do we plan on achieving?" you got the answer "a free and democratic Iraq not under the thumb of a dictator."

It doesn't matter what you believed of those answers, that's what was the government's line, so there was no need for an article asking "why are we there and what do we hope to accomplish?" because those questions had been answered by the government. That's all I'm saying.

For the record, I believed every word of the Bush administration when they said they had chemical and biological weapons (not nukes though, I called BS on that), I just didn't think that was cause to invade. There are a lot of bad guys with nasty weapons out there, we don't invade most of them, and for good reason. I was never for the war in Iraq, but that's not to say that the government didn't have answers to why they wanted war in Iraq. It just so happens that their public reasons were completely fabricated.
 
2014-06-18 01:05:01 PM
NPR was never wildly misinformative about Iraq in 2003.  They had a decidedly factual bent(not the same as anti-war), but it wasn't like Fox and CNN jumping up and down giddy about the prospect of war.
 
2014-06-18 01:22:58 PM

nmrsnr: It doesn't matter what you believed of those answers, that's what was the government's line, so there was no need for an article asking "why are we there and what do we hope to accomplish?" because those questions had been answered by the government. That's all I'm saying.


A bad answer results in more questioning.

And the article is about what's going on now, not reexamining the old war or the "whys" of 2003.
 
2014-06-18 01:33:35 PM

Lionel Mandrake: A bad answer results in more questioning.

And the article is about what's going on now, not reexamining the old war or the "whys" of 2003.


Yes, but the fark headline says it's 11 years too late. I was just saying that it wouldn't have done us good to ask these questions 11 years ago because we already had our answers. Those answers were just lies.
 
2014-06-18 02:33:29 PM

nmrsnr: It doesn't matter what you believed of those answers, that's what was the government's line, so there was no need for an article asking "why are we there and what do we hope to accomplish?" because those questions had been answered by the government. That's all I'm saying.


It was the government's line, and there was nothing to be done about it either. I knew it as soon as it started unfolding. I don't know if I was completely jaded about our government at that point, but I sure was after that.
 
2014-06-18 07:22:23 PM
I'm pretty sure this exact story ran on NPR 11 years ago. Just because conservatives didn't read it doesn't make it invisible.
 
2014-06-19 05:29:18 PM

cryinoutloud: It seems to me that there were a lot of doubts about all those claims.


I seem to remember being told to STFU every time I questioned the rational for war. If you were to speak up at the time you almost certainly would have been told the same and called un-Merikun, and without patriotic. Almost 80% of the public thought we should go to war.  The mild protests that broke out in Chicago and NYC were absolutely ridiculed and derided.  If you were not on the war train, you were a in a very small minority of this country.  And for the record, I remember a lot of that type of bullying behavior happening right here on Fark. The fact is that the country swallowed the line the government fed them and then cheered it on to Iraq.  Everyone is responsible.
 
Displayed 12 of 12 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report