Study finds, the less you know about a policy, the stronger your opinion...

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by SLC Flyfishing, May 1, 2013.

  1. macrumors 65816

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #1
  2. macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #2
    I don't know anything about that piece, but I'm really pissed off and I think there has never been a worse example of crap journalism.

    ;)
     
  3. macrumors 65816

    citizenzen

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #3
    I don't know about that piece either.

    They want me to log-in to read it.

    No thanks.
     
  4. macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #4
    Yeah, that pisses me off even more! I really don't like it now!
     
  5. thread starter macrumors 65816

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #5
    You don't have to log in. I started the log-in with google, then cancelled before actually doing it. I was then able to read the article just fine.

    Read it, I think you'll find it interesting.

    ----------

    :D

    I see what you did there...
     
  6. macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #6
    That's 'cause you so smart!
     
  7. macrumors 68000

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
  8. macrumors 603

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #8
  9. macrumors 68000

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #9
    Here is an interesting study that kind of supplements the OP

     
  10. quasinormal, Jun 8, 2013
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2013

    macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2007
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia.
    #10
  11. macrumors 601

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #11
    Those damn shoulder things!!! When will it end? Think of the children.
     
  12. macrumors 68000

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #12
    Slightly off topic ... apologies

    Sigh. There were WMD in Iraq. They were used on the Kurds. The question was whether Hussein's largely undocumented assertion that WMD had been eliminated could be trusted (and FWIW, disused, obsolete WMD were found). Perhaps if Hussein had not diddled UN inspectors so often before 9/11... Anyways, I find the current way WMD in Iraq is discussed rather odd. The question should not be 'Did Iraq have WMD?' but 'Did Iraq destroy all the WMD it known to have, along with the facilities for making new WMD?'. The problem was the distinction between evidence of absence versus absence of evidence.
     
  13. macrumors 6502

    Prototypical

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    Location:
    Nebraska
    #13
    It is certainly logical that those who see everything in black and white are likely ignorant of the details of a particular situation. Nothing in life is 100% one way or the other... except for the deliciousness of bacon. Mmmm, bacon.
     
  14. macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #14
  15. macrumors 68000

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #15
    Actually there were 7 years of inspections from 1991-1998 (you can read the official chronology here). The UN inspectors felt that there was not enough evidence to be certain that Iraq had destroyed its WMD, largely because Hussein was playing a cat and mouse game with them. Perhaps things would have been different if Iraq had been honest from the beginning.... Again, after Iraq's obstruction and deception regarding UN inspections for WMD, the issue was evidence of absence versus absence of evidence.
     
  16. macrumors 68000

    Happybunny

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Location:
    's-Hertogenbosch Netherlands
    #16

    September Dossier

    Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Assessment of the British Government, also known as the September Dossier, was a document published by the British government on 24 September 2002 on the same day of a recall of Parliament to discuss the contents of the document.The paper was part of an ongoing investigation by the government into weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq, which ultimately led to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. It contained a number of allegations according to which Iraq also possessed WMD, including chemical weapons and biological weapons. The dossier even alleged that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons programme. Without exception, all of the allegations included within the September Dossier have been since proven to be false, as shown by the Iraq Survey Group.
    The much-anticipated document was based on reports made by the Joint Intelligence Committee, part of the British Intelligence 'machinery'. Most of the evidence was uncredited, ostensibly in order to protect sources. On publication, serious press comment was generally critical of the dossier for tameness and for the seeming lack of any genuinely new evidence. Those politically opposed to military action against Iraq generally agreed that the dossier was unremarkable, with Menzies Campbell observing in the House of Commons that:
    “ We can also agree that [Saddam Hussein] most certainly has chemical and biological weapons and is working towards a nuclear capability. The dossier contains confirmation of information that we either knew or most certainly should have been willing to assume. ”
    However, two sections later became the centre of fierce debate: the allegation that Iraq had sought "significant quantities of uranium from Africa", and the claim in the foreword to the document written by British Prime Minister Tony Blair that "The document discloses that his military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them."
    Britain's biggest selling popular daily newspaper, The Sun, subsequently carried the headline "Brits 45mins from doom",while the Daily Star reported "Mad Saddam ready to attack: 45 minutes from a chemical war", helping to create the impression among the British public that Iraq was a threat to Britain.
    Major General Michael Laurie, one of those involved in producing the dossier wrote to the Chilcot Inquiry in 2011 saying "the purpose of the dossier was precisely to make a case for war, rather than setting out the available intelligence, and that to make the best out of sparse and inconclusive intelligence the wording was developed with care." On 26 June 2011, The Observer reported on a memo from John Scarlett to Blair's foreign affairs adviser, released under the Freedom of Information Act, which referred to "the benefit of obscuring the fact that in terms of WMD Iraq is not that exceptional". The memo has been described as one of the most significant documents on the September dossier yet published as it is considered a proposal to mislead the public.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Dossier
     
  17. macrumors 68000

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #17
    I think Bush favored war out of paranoia and poor intelligence (both in terms of IQ and in terms CIA etc.). I do not know what to make of Blair's actions. At the time it seemed to me that he was acting in concert with the US to prevent a US/Europe split (hence the spin in the September dossier, which made it sounds like there was definite evidence). Now I am not so sure. The UK lost 67 people in 9/11, whereas the other countries on the Security Council who vetoed the resolution specifically mandating war lost only 1-3 each. 9/11 caused the biggest loss of British life of any terrorist attack. Maybe it got to Blair. Maybe it was a genuine failure of the intelligence services. Maybe the cynics are right it this was all for the oil (but why not invade Saudi Arabia because of the Bin Laden connection or Iran because of its state sponsored terrorism?), but I have seen less hard evidence that this has allowed us to control oil than I have about WMD. I am not saying the evidence doesn't exist, just that the idea that it was for oil seems to be brought up often without factual documentation.
     
  18. macrumors 65816

    SwiftLives

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2001
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    #18
    I think Bush favored war to bankrupt the country so that 10 years later, his party could make a much more compelling argument that we should cut back on the government services his party so very much dislikes.

    But that's just an overly cynical view. Not based on any facts. :)
     
  19. macrumors 68000

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #19
    Remember also, Saddam threatened to kill dad, W had a score to settle.
     

Share This Page