I said that I would stay out of this thread from now on. I'm sorry I was unable to.
TEEEEJ, I'm afraid that I'm not going to reply to any of your posts. You and I have very different debating styles, and I don't know how we could have a political discussion that would be, well, satisfying to me. So I'm just going to say that we have extremely different political views, and leave it at that.
Roger, you asked me:
Are you really frightened that America would attack Sweden if they got the bomb?
No. First of all, Sweden isn't going to get the bomb. If a Swedish politician seriously suggested that we should, he would meet with the same reaction as if he proposed that Swedish schools should teach kids that the Earth is flat. He would be a huge embarrassment to his party, and he would have to recant or be expelled. (Unless he represented one of those kooky fringe parties that no one pays any attention to.)
Second, if Sweden were to get the bomb after all - which I guess could happen in the future after all, because no one can foresee the future - then no, if the political climate stays the same as it is now, then I'd say that there is a 99.999999999% chance that the U.S. would not attack Sweden. And no, I'm not losing sleep over the 0.00000000001% chance that it would.
However, Roger, the reason why I'm posting again is because I need to ask you a question. You say that weapons of mass destruction were really found in Iraq, and therefore, if I get you correctly, President Bush was
right when he said that Iraq was a threat to the world that needed to be dealt with urgently. You posted a link which I could follow to find corroberation of this. I'm sorry that I have not read the text you suggested that I read. But, Roger, to me it is so much less interesting to know why
I haven't read that text before, as it is to know why the world's dominant media don't seem to have read that text before. I try to know what is going on in the world by following, as well as I can, what important media is reporting.
And to the best of my knowledge, no important media have ever claimed that WMDs were indeed found in Iraq. Let me explain my reasons for saying that important media have not reported the finding of WMDs in Iraq:
I regularly read New York Times, The Guardian, Time and Newsweek. I sometimes read The Washington Post and The Times. I watch political documentaries on TV. Almost every week I listen to a Swedish radio program, Konflikt (Conflict), which makes a point of it to let proponents of different political ideas and convictions express and explain their views.
Why haven't I ever read in New York Times, The Guardian, Time, Newsweek, The Washington Post or The Times that Iraq really did have WMDs? Why haven't any of the TV documentaries about Iraq said that Iraq had WMDs? Why haven't anyone who was interviewed on "Konflikt" said that Iraq had WMDs?
Is it because I only read, watch or listen to liberal media? No, that is not the reason. Because conservative voices are indeed invited to express their views in liberal media, too. For example, one of the Op-Ed contributors to New York Times these days is William Kristol. Charles Krauthammer regularly writes for Time. I have heard many conservative people being interviewed on "Konflikt", for example Krauthammer and John Bolton. Most Swedish dailies are actually politically conservative, believe it or not, and at least between 2003 and 2005 they repeatedly defended the Iraq war to a skeptical or hostile Swedish population.
Why have these conservative voices never told me that significant WMDs were found in Iraq? I remember that Colin Powell made a dramatic speech in the U.N. on the eve of the war, where he put all his prestige on the line when he insisted that Iraq was an immediate threat to the whole world because of the WMDs that it almost certainly possessed. Colin Powell later resigned and recanted. He expressed regret that he had made that speech in the U.N. If he knew, by the time when he resigned, that WMDs really had been found in Iraq, why didn't he say so?
I remember that a year or so ago, Swedish radio reported that the American WMD inspectors in Iraq had given up looking for WMDs there. The newscaster said that no WMDs had been found in Iraq. Why would Swedish radio make such a claim if it was blatantly untrue?
And why didn't I see any news reports elsewhere claiming that WMDs
had been found, if that was actually the case?
I don't have the time or the energy to read every little article that people might want me to read. I have to rely on world media. I have to trust that they tell me
more or less the truth. I try to check their credibility by memorizing what they tell me and checking what predictions they make. Then I try to see if those predictions come true. If they do, I note that these media were knowledgeable and trustworthy. If the predictions don't come true, and the media themselves point this out and apologize for their inability to make predicitons and explain the reason for their failure, then they strike me as honest and serious. If they make predictions which don't come true, and yet they don't acknowledge their own failures, then they strike me as rather trashy media, not worthy of taking seriously.
I try to weigh and assess the information I get through the media. And as for the WMDs in Iraq, I know that I have read again and again, in New York Times, in The Guardian, in Time and Newsweek, in the Washington Post and in The Times, that there weren't any WMDs in Iraq. The TV documentaries I have seen which have addressed the question have said that there weren't any WMDs in Iraq. It has been said on "Konflikt" several times that there weren't any WMDs in Iraq.
I even remember that back in 2003, you could use Google and make it display a page saying "These weapons of mass destruction cannot be found". Not "This page cannot be found", but "These weapons of mass destruction cannot be found".
All in all, there has been what I would call a "massive" and "univocal" reporting that there were no WMDs in Iraq. This reporting has made President Bush look like a liar, it has made the U.S. intelligence look ridiculous, and it has made the United States look bad. Surely those who like President Bush can't like this? Surely those who support the Iraq was can't be happy about this? Why haven't they spoken up? Why haven't they said, look here, there were WMDs in Iraq too! Here is where we found them! Look here!
Why haven't the conservative commentators who have their own slots in liberal media forced the issue? Why haven't they told their liberal colleagues to stop lying about the WMDs in Iraq? Why haven't they made so much noise that the liberal media had no choice but to address the issue?
Roger, it is all well and good that you have given me a link where I can read all about the presence about WMDs in Iraq. But I can't get my information that way in the long run. I
have to rely on big world media. If you want me to read that link which you posted, you have to explain to me why New York Times, The Guardian, Time, Newsweek, The Washington Post and The Times have not read the information that you sent me, or why they thought it was irrelevant.
Ann
