Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why didn't we go to war with Niger?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-24-06 09:54 AM
Original message
Why didn't we go to war with Niger?
When I heard Bush state his sixteen words in the 2003 State of the Union address, I was certain that we would enter in to three wars - one in Afghanistan, one in Iraq, and one in Niger. I was alarmed as a pacifist, but what could we do? Niger was selling WMD to our enemy. Our enemy was not complying with our truce. We needed to go to war.

Why didn't we go to war with Niger? If they were willing to sell or entertain an Iraqi request for WMD, then they are a great enemy that needed to be dealt with. Why didn't we got to war with Niger?

I am of the belief that all American elected officials, with the exception of the black and progressive caucuses, and the right, Honorable Senator Ted Kennedy, all elected officials supported the war because it was politically easier then standing up for peace.

I don't think anyone really believed that Saddam Hussein was a big enough threat to American security. Surely, few thought that overthrowing Saddam Hussein was worth 2,000 American lives. The only reason that no one said anything was because there was a culture of fear. Fear of patriotism, fear of being called a traitor, fear of being "weak". Fear led us to war with Iraq. Fear allowed Bush to war with Iraq. Fear kept opposition from opposing the war.

So why didn't all those that "supported our invasion of Iraq" also call for an invasion of Niger? Why didn't we face our enemy?

I think that Bush didn't want war with Niger, he just wanted war in the middle east. Elected officials were comfortable with this.

Why didn't we go to war with Niger?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-24-06 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
1. And why aren't we bringing democracy to China and Birma?
To name two oppressive regimes.

I know why: because those are opening up their markets to US/global corporations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkansas Granny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-24-06 10:25 AM
Response to Original message
2. Is there oil in Niger?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-24-06 10:32 AM
Response to Original message
3. interesting question. Apparently they were supporting a terrorist nation..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-24-06 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. nice sig line comerperro
thank you to call me wesley and heidi (now du moderators) for my star:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-24-06 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. gotta give credit where credit is due
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-24-06 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. true ... some du'ers are very kind
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tenshi816 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-24-06 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Binka's one of the kindest.
She has a lot of passion and a big heart.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack Rabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-24-06 11:42 AM
Response to Original message
7. Bush junta logic
Tell me, would Bush invade Niger for selling yellow cake to Saddam? Or would he invade Niger because they didn't sell yellow cake to Saddam but didn't lie about it and say they did like they were supposed to do?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-25-06 07:46 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. confusing
I remember thinking during the state of the union, "Great. Two new wars." I was surprised that we didn't push on Niger, especially with all the Senate cheer leading for the war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-25-06 08:04 AM
Response to Original message
10. There's possibly a simple reason.
The NIE mentioned 3 African countries that Iraq was alleged to have tried to get U from. Niger was one of them. People have broken confidence to say that the Niger forgeries were debunked and the WH knew of the debunking, a Niger reference deleted from a previous speech.

What the source of the claim was for the other two countries is unstated, as far as I know. Perhaps * was saying it was the British, since "Niger" is the unstated, 17th word, in the infamous quote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-25-06 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. i remember hearing niger in the state of the union
i remember thinking, "If w. can say the name of that country without offending black people, we must be going to war."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-26-06 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. Nope.
Most people remember it that way because that's what they took it to mean, and that's what so many people said it *must* mean so many times since then.

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

A lot of people remember it as an assertion by * that 'Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Niger,' when it was actually a reported claim. Some people even remember 'acquired' instead of 'sought'. It's spawned a few silly strawman articles. This makes sense, however.

We don't usually remember words, we remember content. But if we interpreted the words correctly, we don't realize what we've done since we reconstitute the words fairly accurately on demand. The actual words usually fuzz out after about 10 seconds. It's why rhyme and meter are helpful for remembering poetry, but prose is harder to memorize with complete accuracy ... unless sung (i.e., has a meter imposed on it). And it's why courtroom testimony, esp. hearsay, is such a bitch.

There are some nifty psycholinguistics experiments from the '70s that haven't been explained in any other way. They involved exposing listeners and readers to some rather clever sentences that intentionally misled the listener to reach a false interpretation--you read them, you don't trip, but they don't actually say what your brain picks up; if the subjects listened or read them a second time, they'd probably get it right, but that wasn't allowed. Subjects could regurgitate the sentence immediately, and catch their error--they retained the actual words for about 10 seconds on average; but if they waited, they'd say a sentence compatible with their interpretation. Mostly they'd be really confident about it, too, and most of the words would be the same. Oddly, when exposed to the same sentences in follow-up experiments the same day or a week later, subjects tended not to catch their mistake: researchers concluded the subjects already knew what the sentence meant, why bother making the effort to re-parse it?

The human brain is truly quirky. Bilingual speakers even 'remember' hearing or reading things in the wrong language--they sometimes report being told something by their parents in a language their parents didn't knew (and which the bilingual didn't know at the time), or hearing a speech given in a language the speech-giver never knew.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-26-06 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. you don't have a link, do you
a link to the state of the union speach? I remember being impressed with the fact that Bush was able to pronounce "Niger".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Earth_First Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-25-06 08:08 AM
Response to Original message
11. Why aren't we in Sudan?
...to quell what Condoleeza Rice herself stated as being genocide in the Darfur region?

The * cabal could care two sh*ts about "peace" and "Democracy".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-25-06 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. i just saw a 2004 debate link at another OP
where both bush and kerry state that we should not be in darfur:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-26-06 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
16. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 01:11 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC