Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Ok, so why did it take a History Channel show to convince me when the Prez couldn't?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Justin, Feb 26, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Justin

    Justin Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,285
    Location:
    THE CHAIR IS AGAINST THE WALL
    Ok, so it's my day off, which means I get to watch whatever I want on TV.
    I land on a History Channel show titled 'Saddam's Arsenal' or something similar to it.
    They showed a bunch of handheld video footage shot by the weapons inspectors in the 1990's, and it basically detailed a lot of the problems they had in getting access to sites and such.

    Coupled with the video, they also interviewed a number of the inspectors (both US and international) who were on the original inspection teams and what they thought of the situation.

    Not only did they list off the types and quantities of chemical and biological weapons they found and destroyed, they also aired a laundry list of stuff that the inspectors knew existed but was not destroyed.

    Now, how freaking hard would it have been for Dubya to read off this list during one of his speeches?

    How difficult would it have been for him to point out that at the time of the ousting of the inspectors, the Iraqis had 5.5 tons of VX nerve gas?

    Instead of making vague allegations about possible WMD, why didn't Bush simply come out with the historical record that so obviously proves that Saddam is in violation of these agreements?

    Why did I have to learn this from the History Channel, instead of from The Commander In Chief, or even CNN, MSNBC, or FOX News?:scrutiny:
     
  2. CZ-75

    CZ-75 member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,788
    Location:
    BFE
    I think Powell did mention this.

    That it doesn't get press should say more about the sentiments of media types.
     
  3. NewShooter78

    NewShooter78 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    678
    Location:
    Honolulu, HI
    Powell did mention a good bit of those quantities missing in his speach to the UN. The media was on it for a few days, but then glossed over it to get back to why we shouldn't be there. But the anti war protest have gotten the same amount of air time, if not less, so that makes me feel somewhat better.
     
  4. jmbg29

    jmbg29 member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,221
    Location:
    The Island Of Misfit Toys
    What would be the point?

    For those that didn't already "get it", anything he said wasn't going to help.

    Besides, Ms. Rice probably tasked someone with getting that stuff on the history channel in the first place. The surest way to the hearts and minds of the majority of Americans is straight through the ol' boob-toob. :rolleyes: :uhoh: :barf:
     
  5. Lancel

    Lancel Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    376
    Location:
    KY-TN Border
    At least you finally got it. Welcome to the enlightened side.

    Larry
     
  6. Tim Burke

    Tim Burke Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,130
    Because you haven't been paying attention. The media makes it easy not to pay attention, and the left counts on you not to pay attention.
    Better late than never.
     
  7. Waitone

    Waitone Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    5,406
    Location:
    The Land of Broccoli and Fingernails
    The internet is the best source of news and information ever conceived by man. It takes a little work but you can find information broadcast media will not or can not touch. I notice the outlets you mentioned are all broadcast outlets.

    Plenty of info is available on what Sadaam is up to.

    Another problem: broadcast media (be it radio or television) are slave to the clock. They can not get into depth on any given topic on a routine basis due to constraints of the clock. The other problem is the presentation has to be simplistic, uncomplicated. In other words, broadcast media has to limit itself to essentially headlines only.

    What you refer to is old news. There is a lot of information out there. You just gotta put it in your mind that you will explore for it.

    Good luck.
     
  8. Jeff Thomas

    Jeff Thomas Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    210
    Location:
    Nashville, TN
    Justin, with respect, different folks draw their epiphany from different sources.

    For some people, there is absolutely nothing GW can say that they will believe. Or, they hate watching politicians, so they don't listen to any of them. It can be the accumulation of lots of evidence from various sources for some folks. Whatever the case, perhaps you would have been swayed by having GW basically narrate the same History Channel information, while others might have just switched it off.

    I don't disrespect any of those perspectives ... we are all wise to be very careful about trusting pronouncements from our governments. Anyone over the age of 5 has figured out that governments, all governments, lie when they feel the need.

    Glad you're concerned, 'cause if this continues developing as it has so far, we may well have entered a very critical part of our U.S. history. And, we're going to need to hang together to defeat radical Islamists.

    Regards from TX
     
  9. ahenry

    ahenry Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    633
    Location:
    Texas
    He, or his administration did. Many times. Most people just didn’t want to hear it.

    He, or his administration did. Many times. Most people just didn’t want to hear it.

    Here are three speeches, I just went to the ones that I knew had information, but there are more out there. It is really simple to find an even greater litany of what Saddam has. You just have to look.
    ****************

    “From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with scud warheads, aerial bombs and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. United Nations' inspections also reviewed that Iraq like maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.†George W. Bush, Sept. 12, 2002.

    “Al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq.†George W. Bush, Sept. 12, 2002.

    “In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount.†George W. Bush, Oct. 7, 2002.

    “We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas.†George W. Bush, Oct. 7, 2002.

    “surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons.†George W. Bush, Oct. 7, 2002.

    “Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.†George W. Bush, Oct. 7, 2002.

    “This one [satellite photo] is about a weapons munition facility, a facility that holds ammunition at a place called Taji (ph). This is one of about 65 such facilities in Iraq. We know that this one has housed chemical munitions. In fact, this is where the Iraqis recently came up with the additional four chemical weapon shells. Here, you see 15 munitions bunkers in yellow and red outlines. The four that are in red squares represent active chemical munitions bunkers...The truck you also see is a signature item. It’s a decontamination vehicle in case something goes wrong.†Colin Powell, Feb 5, 2003

    “Iraq declared 8,500 liters of anthrax, but UNSCOM estimates that Saddam Hussein could have produced 25,000 liters.†Colin Powell, Feb 5, 2003

    “He [defected Iraqi chemical engineer] reported that when UNSCOM was in country and inspecting, the biological weapons agent production always began on Thursdays at midnight because Iraq thought UNSCOM would not inspect on the Muslim Holy Day, Thursday night through Friday. He added that this was important because the units [mobile biological production trucks] could not be broken down in the middle of a production run, which had to be completed by Friday evening before the inspectors might arrive again.†Colin Powell, Feb 5, 2003

    “We know that Iraq has at lest seven of these mobile biological agent factories. The truck-mounted ones have at least two or three trucks each.†Colin Powell, Feb 5, 2003

    “Second, as with biological weapons, Saddam Hussein has never accounted for vast amounts of chemical weaponry: 550 artillery shells with mustard, 30,000 empty munitions and enough precursors to increase his stockpile to as much as 500 tons of chemical agents. If we consider just one category of missing weaponry — 6,500 bombs from the Iran-Iraq war — UNMOVIC says the amount of chemical agent in them would be in the order of 1,000 tons.†Colin Powell, Feb 5, 2003

    "Iraq’s record on chemical weapons is replete with lies. It took years for Iraq to finally admit that it had produced four tons of the deadly nerve agent, VX. A single drop of VX on the skin will kill in minutes. Four tons...UNSCOM also gained forensic evidence that Iraq had produced VX and put it into weapons for delivery...Yet, to this day, Iraq denies it had ever weaponized VX. And on January 27, UNMOVIC told this council that it has information that conflicts with the Iraqi account of its VX program." Colin Powell, Feb 5, 2003

    And on and on it could go
     
  10. Leatherneck

    Leatherneck Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    2,545
    Location:
    No. Virginia and Northern Neck
    I think Justin's original query is right on the money. The Administration--for whatever reasons--hasn't been very effective in selling the President's case. Hell, they could have BOUGHT an hour-long presentation like THC showed and reached many, many middle-of-the-road citizens like Justin (and me:scrutiny: ) a long time ago. Then we could have been supporters in discussions around the world/'net instead of the silent majority. Oh well, it's a done deal; now LET'S ROLL!

    TC
    TFL Survivor
     
  11. jmbg29

    jmbg29 member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,221
    Location:
    The Island Of Misfit Toys
    Like throwing money down a hole.
     
  12. hksw

    hksw Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    4,157
    Location:
    OH
    IMO, I think that the main reason that the points finally came across is that it was accompanied by visuals with the verbal data. I have found that most people, myself included, understand better when they have something to look at while being told.
     
  13. Chris Rhines

    Chris Rhines Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,773
    Location:
    Potomac, Maryland - Behind enemy lines!!
    Assume that clear, unambiguous proof exists that the Iraqi government has stockpiles of biological or chemical weapons. Does this fact alone justify a US invasion? Why or why not? What other elements would be necessary to so justify an invasion?

    Even if Iraq does have chemical weapon stockpiles, that's not the be-all-end-all of the argument.

    - Chris
     
  14. braindead0

    braindead0 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,208
    Location:
    Canton, Ohio
    Well, here's a question for you. Isreal has been in violation of U.N. Resolution 2.2 since the late 60's (not totally sure on the date). And yet, that's okay for them?

    Most of the other 100's of resolutions were vetoed..by... the U.S. of course.
     
  15. Blackhawk

    Blackhawk Member In Memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,882
    Tim Burke said exactly what I was thinking, and hksw added a very perceptive point.

    Justin, we're all in a war zone, and we have to pay better attention.
     
  16. Sean Smith

    Sean Smith Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    4,922
    But of course, using veto power in accordance with the UN's charter is not a violation of anything. :rolleyes:
     
  17. braindead0

    braindead0 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,208
    Location:
    Canton, Ohio
    True, but AFAIK 2.2 was is still in affect, and Israel has been ignoring it for decades.
     
  18. Drjones

    Drjones member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,803
  19. Drjones

    Drjones member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,803
    You're wrong.

    The fact that they do have bio/chem weapons IS a huge deal because they are not allowed to have any such weapons.

    You also ignore the fact that they have taken every opportunity to decieve and ignore any and all US/UN inspections and disarmament resolutions.
     
  20. Keith_Yorktown

    Keith_Yorktown Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    24
    Location:
    Indiana
    Blix: Iraq Still Not Cooperating Fully

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,79671,00.html

    Isn't the whole point of the exercise to disarm Iraq of chemical and bio weapons.

    If Iraq can be shown to still have weapons, have the means to produce the weapons, and has no desire to disarm, isn't that enough to use force to disarm him, and change his regime.

    I think we've met these requirments, and Saddam certainly doesn't act like a person who wants to cooperate.

    One more opinion.

    Would you lay all your cards on the table before you were ready to act? I know I wouldn't, I'd wait until the eve before you wanted to start the war, and say, look here's all the evidence we can present. We believe that it makes a clear and convincing case that Saddam still posseses these weapons, the means to manufacture them, he has no desire to disarm, and he has been decieving the world from the start of this "FINAL opportunity" to cooperate. Saddam has 24 hours to decide the fate of Iraq and his regime.

    I would expect a chemical missle attack on our troops shortly after this pronouncement...
     
  21. Thumper

    Thumper Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,904
    Location:
    Rosenberg, Texas
    :confused:

    Look, Neville, the resolutions were meant to be a second chance "line in the sand" so we could cease stomping on Saddam's forces.

    Here's text from Resolution 687, adopted in 1991.

    They signed it...saying that, within 15 days, they'd have a list of everything they had and that within 45 days, they'd be ready for inspections. How long's it been now?

    They signed it...so they could avoid the above mentioned stomping. I don't believe they ever intended to comply.

    They signed it. With the full understanding that if they were caught again, said stomping would resume.

    Plenty of chances. Plenty of resolutions. It's time to go to war.
     
  22. Thumper

    Thumper Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,904
    Location:
    Rosenberg, Texas
    I wouldn't be so sure of that. I was on the ground the last time we played this little game. We were worried about the same thing. In fact, we couldn't get out of our MOPP gear much 'til the second day of the ground war.

    Ol' Bushie (Jr. and Sr.) don't seem the weak kneed types. Our stated position on the use of WMD against U.S. forces is to retaliate with WMD.
     
  23. dairycreek

    dairycreek Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,459
    Location:
    North Plains, Oregon
    Saw the History Channel presentation!

    And, it was IMHO quite well done. But I did not learn anything new from it. Everything that was stated in the program was also stated elsewhere. I learned some from listening to the speeches. I learned some from information gleaned from the internet. I learned some (although not a great deal) from the main line media sourses e.g. newspapers, television, radio, and magazines. So, the information is all out there but mainline media with its generally liberal orientation tends to put a lot of "spin" on the issues. Even straightforward reporting is often the subject of the "spin doctors". Politicians? Even the President will tend to do his own kind of spin. Ain't easy to stay well informed these days. But, it can be done. Good shooting;)
     
  24. telewinz

    telewinz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,305
    Location:
    Ohio
    BUSH knows something....

    I believe Bush is taking the long approach, once we go into Iraq there will be all the proof anyone could wish for, even the French:barf:
     
  25. Blackhawk

    Blackhawk Member In Memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,882
    dairycreek,
    Agree that it was well done, but I did learn something new from it.

    I couldn't believe that it was actually being broadcast! :neener:

    I learned that I had a new heightened respect for THC (not that I didn't respect it before). It was a gutsy (for a media member) program to put together and broadcast.

    THC has been my favorite channel for a long time with Fox News a distant second.

    Even so, I was surprised at my heightened respect for it.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page