REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Saddam's On the Clock

POSTED BY: GEEZER
UPDATED: Wednesday, January 3, 2007 05:30
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 8037
PAGE 2 of 4

Saturday, December 30, 2006 7:15 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

But George should be impeached for lying to the American people about the reasons for the Iraq war (WMD's, imminent threat, etc.)


Bush never lied about Iraq. He never said it was an 'imminent threat'. Not once. Sorry, nothing impeachable there.

Quote:

And the conflicts of interest are the friends of his getting jobs when they aren't qualified (FEMA), and friends getting contracts due to the war to rebuild that which we destroyed...


Nothing impeachable there either. Friends of elected officials have been getting jobs since there were elected officials. eg: Clinton travel office scandal,etc....

You'll have to come up with MUCH better than that.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 30, 2006 8:14 PM

SKYWALKEN


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
No, just the ones that knowingly allign themselves with monsters in the cause of making better worlds...



Using that criteria then during WWII Stalin's two best buddies FDR and Churchill should have been hanged.

By the way, for those of you who want to see the death of the Butcher of Baghdad, a cell phone video of the execution is on Google Video...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7532034279766935521

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 30, 2006 10:57 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

As for 'Democratic/ Democrats / Democrat' , I've never heard them referred to as Democratic party.
That's because you only listen to right-wing morons whose talking point straight from Rove is to always refer to the Democratic Party as the (misnomered) "Democrat" party, because the term Democratic plays too well in the polls.

AFA saying that WMD was an imminent threat ...
Quote:

In his first major address on the Iraqi threat in October 2002, President Bush invoked fiery images of mushroom clouds and mayhem, saying, “Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. In March 2003, Cheney went on national television days before the war and claimed Iraq “has reconstituted nuclear weapons.” He was echoed by State Department spokesman Richard Boucher, who told reporters of supposedly grave “concerns about Iraq’s potential nuclear programs.” Even after the invasion, when troops failed to uncover any evidence of nuclear weapons, the White House refused to admit the truth. In July 2003, Condoleezza Rice told PBS’s Gwen Ifill that the administration’s nuclear assertions were “absolutely supportable.” That same month, White House spokesman Scott McClellan insisted: “There’s a lot of evidence showing that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.' National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," Rice said.


Quote:

Nothing impeachable there either...
You'll have to come up with MUCH better than that.

Yeah, like getting a blow job.


BTW- I actually feel sorry for Saddam. I don't believe in the death penalty and I don't think anyone should die that way.


---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 31, 2006 12:34 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Please don't talk to the crazy person. You'll only encourage him.

Unless of course your saying:
"Now take your pills or you get the shock treatment again."



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 31, 2006 3:01 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:


That's because you only listen to right-wing morons whose talking point straight from Rove is to always refer to the Democratic Party

It's funny the fear some have for Rove, and the power they try to instill in him. There's no 'talking point' issue here, and Rove isn't the start/ end of all that is conservative. Me thinks you obsess a tad too much.


Quote:

because the term Democratic plays too well in the polls.
Which demonstrates the 'style' over 'substance' mentality of the Left wing, being ruled by polls, and not principle.

Quote:

AFA saying that WMD was an imminent threat...

No where in your little 'commentary' was it shown that Bush said anything about Iraq or its nuclear program being an imminent threat.


Your BJ reference, I must assume, was directed toward the impeachment isssue. Show me where Clinton was impeached for a BJ, and I'll give you $1000. ( Yeah, I know, it's an empty offer. Clinton wasn't impeached for getting a BJ, but it's funny to ask, all the same )

Quote:

BTW- I actually feel sorry for Saddam. I don't believe in the death penalty and I don't think anyone should die that way.


When a man like Saddam is so far removed , in the public's eyes, from the crimes he committed, it's easy to feel sympathy for him. But remember, no one should die in their village being gassed to death by their gov't either. Mothers and their children shouldn't have died ,embracing each other, gasping for their last breaths. No one should die being fed to a pack of dogs, as Saddams victims did. No one should die being fed - alive - feet first into industrial sized wood chippers, as Saddam's victims were. No one should be forced to dig their own grave, then be shot in the back of the head , simply because of their political views. The list of atrocities committed under Saddam's power is long and greusome. His death,and the manner in which it was carried out, was a piece of mercy.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 31, 2006 5:34 AM

SUCCATASH


When a man like Bush is so far removed, in the public's eyes, from the crimes he committed, it's easy to feel sympathy for him. But remember, no one should have their country invaded using false pretenses. Mothers and their children shouldn't have died, embracing each other, gasping for their last breaths. No one should be dragged out of their home in the middle of the night and tortured in a secret prison without a trial. American soldiers should not have died for a corrupt president’s incompetent political views. The list of atrocities committed under Bush’s power is long and gruesome. His presidency, and the manner in which it was carried out, is a terrible travesty.

"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 31, 2006 6:37 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

That's because you only listen to right-wing morons whose talking point straight from Rove is to always refer to the Democratic Party because the term Democratic plays too well in the polls. -signy

It's funny the fear some have for Rove, and the power they try to instill in him. There's no 'talking point' issue here, and Rove isn't the start/ end of all that is conservative. Me thinks you obsess a tad too much. Which demonstrates the 'style' over 'substance' mentality of the Left wing, being ruled by polls, and not principle. -auraptor

Very interesting how your reply didn't address my point. And thanks for the ad hominem distractor. And speaking of style over substance: By his own brag Karl Rove looks at over 60 polls a day.
Quote:

No where in your little 'commentary' was it shown that Bush said anything about Iraq or its nuclear program being an imminent threat.
Please read the following. There are many more instances at the posted links
Quote:

"Absolutely. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an imminent threat 5/7/03

WH Natl Security briefing
For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack...We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today's adversaries. "

"This is about imminent threat." White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

"Well, of course he is." White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett, responding to the question "is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?" 1/26/03

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent-- that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons." Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02



Now, I'm sure you're going to say that Bush never "imminent threat". Bush used terms like "urgent", "grave and gathering", "cannot wait", "threatening". Since it was only Bush's press scy, Bush's VP and Bush's Cabinet appointees who used or agreed to phrase "imminent threat" a few dozen times (without his knowledge and approval?) that absolves Bush from blame. I suppose it depends on what the definition of "is" is, right?

www.hillnews.com/marshall/110503.aspx
http://bushwatch.org/wmd.htm

Quote:

When a man like Saddam is so far removed, in the public's eyes, from the crimes he committed, it's easy to feel sympathy for him. But remember, no one should die in their village being gassed to death by their gov't either. Mothers and their children shouldn't have died ,embracing each other, gasping for their last breaths. No one should die being fed to a pack of dogs, as Saddams victims did. No one should die being fed - alive - feet first into industrial sized wood chippers, as Saddam's victims were. No one should be forced to dig their own grave, then be shot in the back of the head , simply because of their political views. The list of atrocities committed under Saddam's power is long and greusome
I know about atrocities that you haven't even mentioned. I cried for innocent Iraqi victims- I doubt that you did. But I don't believe that we have the lawful right to take a person's life when they do NOT pose an "imminent threat". The whole concept of righteous violence makes us Saddam's equal.


---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 31, 2006 7:00 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Succatash:
When a man like Bush is so far removed, in the public's eyes, from the crimes he committed, it's easy to feel sympathy for him. But remember, no one should have their country invaded using false pretenses.

Bush has committed no crimes. Iraq was not invaded under false pretenses. Your position is moot.

Quote:

Mothers and their children shouldn't have died, embracing each other, gasping for their last breaths. No one should be dragged out of their home in the middle of the night and tortured in a secret prison without a trial.


Unless they are Islamic terrorist who are blowing up civilians, then it's ok.

Quote:

American soldiers should not have died for a corrupt president’s incompetent political views. The list of atrocities committed under Bush’s power is long and gruesome. His presidency, and the manner in which it was carried out, is a terrible travesty.
There are no attrocities. You're nothing more than a political hack. You have nothing but baseless accusations and petty hatred for those not of your political affiliation.



People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 31, 2006 7:08 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Very interesting how your reply didn't address my point
That's because you have no point. The premise that I only listen to those whose talking points come directly from Rove is flat out nonsense and baseless. I've no need to defend that which isn't valid.

No quote where Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat. Post anything you want, but you can't find Bush saying it. It was the PRESS that jumped on those words, egged on by the Left wing Democrats, who used that sound bite mentality to give themselves some cover for the exact same things Bush said concerning Iraq, even before Bush was in office. Nice try, but not cigar.

Quote:

But I don't believe that we have the lawful right to take a person's life when they do NOT pose an "imminent threat". The whole concept of righteous violence makes us Saddam's equal.

Saddam wasn't executed by us, nor was he executed for posing an 'imminent threat' to us, but for the crimes against humanity , and the planet, which he himself was guilty.


People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 31, 2006 7:22 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

That's because you have no point. The premise that I only listen to those whose talking points come directly from Rove is flat out nonsense and baseless. I've no need to defend that which isn't valid.
Sure
Quote:

No quote where Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat.
How DID I know you were going to say that?
Quote:

Post anything you want, but you can't find Bush saying it. It was the PRESS that jumped on those words, egged on by the Left wing Democrats, who used that sound bite mentality to give themselves some cover for the exact same things Bush said concerning Iraq, even before Bush was in office. Nice try, but not cigar.
Imminent threat. Hmm... yes. You know, I remember parsing words verrryyy carefully when I was a kid. "No mom, I didn't take a cookie from the cookie jar" (mentally: I took two) Like I said, I guess it depends on what the definition of the word "is" is, right? Or is it the definition of "sex" as in "I did not have sex with that woman?" Impeachment hanging on the thread of a definition. Wow, who would possibly pursue that? Cetainly not Republicans, because they so much value substance over style!

BTW- it wasn't "the press" that jumped on the term, since it appeared in WH documents and in cabinet and VP statements. You CAN read, can't you?
Quote:

Saddam wasn't executed by us, nor was he executed for posing an 'imminent threat' to us, but for the crimes against humanity , and the planet, which he himself was guilty.
I didn't say he was executed for posing an "imminent threat" to us. You misread or misunderstood my statement. What I meant was that if a person is killed who does NOT pose an "imminent threat"... in other words for reasons other than immediate defense of self or others... that is the moral equivalent of Saddam. Righteous violence is a dangerous concept.




---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 31, 2006 7:56 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:


BTW- it wasn't "the press" that jumped on the term, since it appeared in WH documents and in cabinet and VP statements. You CAN read, can't you?



Yes, it was ' the press' that jumped on the imminent thread ' band wagon, after Bush mentioned it in his SOTU speech. If you recall, it was the Lib Dems and the willing Left wing press that erronously spread the lie that Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat, when what he really said is that we must act BEFORE Iraq becomes one. Big, large time difference in meaning there, and no 'parsing of words'. Just one of the many such tricks the left wing media does when reporting 'the news' .

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 31, 2006 8:22 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


dbl

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 31, 2006 8:26 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Yes, it was ' the press' that jumped on the imminent thread ' band wagon, after Bush mentioned it in his SOTU speech. If you recall, it was the Lib Dems and the willing Left wing press that erronously spread the lie that Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat, when what he really said is that we must act BEFORE Iraq becomes one. Big, large time difference in meaning there, and no 'parsing of words'. Just one of the many such tricks the left wing media does when reporting 'the news'
Auraptor- I quoted several sentences in which key Administration figures used the term "imminent threat" specifically and others used dictionary synonyms. There are more to be found at the posted links.

EDIT: Since you insist that Bush and his Administratition did not characterize Iraq as an "imminent threat" then by YOUR reasoning Bush is guilty of violating international law.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 31, 2006 9:11 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Bush has committed no crimes. Iraq was not invaded under false pretenses. Your position is moot.

It is moot, because moot means debatable, not inconsequential or wrong as you'd like it too mean I suspect, and in that case you're point is also moot, that is open to debate.
Quote:

Unless they are Islamic terrorist who are blowing up civilians, then it's ok.
It is believed the term Strawman argument comes from the practice dolls used by the army for things like bayonet practice. These straw men were hung up for the express purpose of being torn down by recruits in lew of real men and of course because a raw recruit would be incapable of attacking a real man with a bayonet.
Quote:

There are no attrocities. You're nothing more than a political hack. You have nothing but baseless accusations and petty hatred for those not of your political affiliation.
Where as you would never indulge in petty hatred, baseless accusations and insults of those who hold a different opinion/political affiliation to yourself. You'd never call someone a political hack because they have a different point of view.

I hope this post has been enlightening.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 31, 2006 9:47 AM

PIRATECAT


Stalin's favorite quote "there are useful idiots everywhere". This hanging has nothing to with The President of the USA. This was descided in a court of Iraq. I guess freedom is working over there.

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 31, 2006 10:21 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

Yes, it was ' the press' that jumped on the imminent thread ' band wagon, after Bush mentioned it in his SOTU speech. If you recall, it was the Lib Dems and the willing Left wing press that erronously spread the lie that Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat, when what he really said is that we must act BEFORE Iraq becomes one. Big, large time difference in meaning there, and no 'parsing of words'. Just one of the many such tricks the left wing media does when reporting 'the news'
Auraptor- I quoted several sentences in which key Administration figures used the term "imminent threat" specifically and others used dictionary synonyms. There are more to be found at the posted links.

EDIT: Since you insist that Bush and his Administratition did not characterize Iraq as an "imminent threat" then by YOUR reasoning Bush is guilty of violating international law.




You keep missing the point. I never said Bush " and his administration " . That was YOUR doing. The original claim has always been trying to lay blame on BUSH, and his 'misleading us into Iraq', by stating an existing 'imminent threat'. I've already pointed out the distortion the press and the Left are guilty of creatiing over this issue. What the administration did was RESPOND to the characterization by the Press in regards to 'imminent threat '. Bush is by no means guilty of violating any international law, and nothing I'm suggesting even remotely implies as such. I have no idea where you're getting that nonsense from, other than thin air.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 31, 2006 10:26 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

It is moot, because moot means debatable, not inconsequential or wrong as you'd like it too mean I suspect, and in that case you're point is also moot, that is open to debate.


Sorry citizen, this is how I was using the word:
moot:

1. Law. Without legal significance, through having been previously decided or settled.
2. Of no practical importance; irrelevant.


Hope any confusion on your part is cleared up.



People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 31, 2006 10:47 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

The original claim has always been trying to lay blame on BUSH, and his 'misleading us into Iraq', by stating an existing 'imminent threat'. I've already pointed out the distortion the press and the Left are guilty of creatiing over this issue. What the administration did was RESPOND to the characterization by the Press in regards to 'imminent threat '
So Bush has no control over how his appointees present the Administration case? He hides behind a fig leaf of synonyms, disengagement and incompetence?
Quote:

Bush is by no means guilty of violating any international law, and nothing I'm suggesting even remotely implies as such. I have no idea where you're getting that nonsense from, other than thin air.
I'm getting that nonsense from international law.

google is your friend


---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 31, 2006 10:53 AM

SEVENPERCENT


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
[You keep missing the point. I never said Bush " and his administration " . That was YOUR doing. The original claim has always been trying to lay blame on BUSH, and his 'misleading us into Iraq', by stating an existing 'imminent threat'. [edited...edited] What the administration did was RESPOND to the characterization by the Press in regards to 'imminent threat '.


Respond, as per Signy's links, as if they did, in fact, say it.

I can't wait to see this one come back to bite you on the ass. I forget what movie it is (I think it's Nobody's Fool with Paul Newman) where someone says "sometimes less is more, and this is one of those times."

So we have two separate entities now when decisions are made, right? The President can imply whatever he wants, whenever he wants; make broad generalizations; use mouthpieces - but if he doesn't say it himself, exactly, then he didn't actually say it, and it wasn't actually his belief or policy. Because Bush isn't ultimately responsible for what happens in his administration. Oooookay. Where, exactly, in your world, AU, does the buck stop? Who is the person in charge of what happens in the White House, or is it no-one?

I'm actually, I think, going to bookmark this thread and hope it exists in 2009. If (God forbid) we have President Hillary, I can't wait for the first time you blame her for some policy or reason she didn't "specifically say," especially if it comes right out of the mouth of her press secretary. Shouldn't take long.

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 31, 2006 11:07 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


For Bush or his supporters to stick on that point... he didn't say those exact words just synonyms, it was his people not himself personally.... just sounds so damn cowardly. Does he, or does he not take responsibility for his policies?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 31, 2006 11:08 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

It is moot, because moot means debatable, not inconsequential or wrong as you'd like it too mean I suspect, and in that case you're point is also moot, that is open to debate.


Sorry citizen, this is how I was using the word:
moot:

1. Law. Without legal significance, through having been previously decided or settled.
2. Of no practical importance; irrelevant.


Hope any confusion on your part is cleared up.

Very apt, if you were a law student conducting a law exercise in 16th century England. Unfortunatly you are not, perhaps you should remove your confusion to the correct meaning of the words you use before using them, thus removing any possibillity of confusion by those who properly use the Queens English, eh old chap. Thanks ever so.

I also notice the somewhat convient forgetting of a link, here I'll add one for you:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moot

which includes the meaning of the word in the contexual arrangment that you used:
1. open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful: a moot point.

Open to discussion or debate. As I said.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 31, 2006 11:11 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Where, exactly, in your world, AU, does the buck stop? Who is the person in charge of what happens in the White House, or is it no-one?

Clinton?



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 31, 2006 11:17 AM

SEVENPERCENT


Heh, Citizen. Good one.

GWB could have directly said "imminent threat," hell, could have said "Saddam will kill us all tomorrow" while clubbing baby seals with burning redwood branches and it somehow would have been all Clinton's fault.

It's sad that after all this crap since GWB took office that there are still some folks who think that way.

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 31, 2006 12:09 PM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
...what he really said is that we must act BEFORE Iraq becomes one.

AURaptor, if we acted (i.e.: went to war) BEFORE Iraq became an "imminent threat," then we went to war in violation of interantional law. Either the Bush Admin. claimed Iraq was an imminent threat, falsely, to goad us into war, or they did not, and the war in Iraq was pure adventurism.

It is against international law to attack a sovereign nation that is NOT an "imminent threat" to your own. Either we went to war under the false pretenses of Iraq being an "imminent threat" (it was not) or we went to war without proper provocation. Either way, Rap, the war was illegal. Either the Congress is at fault for giving Bush permission to wage his unjustified war, or the Bush Admin. is at fault for promoting a lie--or both!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 31, 2006 2:25 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:

It is against international law to attack a sovereign nation that is NOT an "imminent threat" to your own. Either we went to war under the false pretenses of Iraq being an "imminent threat" (it was not) or we went to war without proper provocation. Either way, Rap, the war was illegal. Either the Congress is at fault for giving Bush permission to wage his unjustified war, or the Bush Admin. is at fault for promoting a lie--or both!

Thanks HK, that was precise, and incontrovertible, except that logic and facts have no place when peeps are defending their ideas of reality. They will find some way to distract from what you said, or twist it, or question your patriotism or whatever.

Happy New Year, btw!!!!

*New Year's resolution to self: Talk to AURaptor only about Buffy and Angel, we agree in fantasy worlds *

Happy New Year to everyone Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 31, 2006 2:55 PM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Either the Congress is at fault for giving Bush permission to wage his unjustified war, or the Bush Admin. is at fault for promoting a lie--or both!


Lets not forget the UN. They used ambiguous language in that last resolution that could be interpreted as authorization to use force.

We said we'd attack, they said we could "act" they knew and chose not to proscribe the acts they did or didn't approve of. I'd say it all falls on them...and France.

I think we can all agree that France is the real problem here.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 31, 2006 3:18 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

AURaptor, if we acted (i.e.: went to war) BEFORE Iraq became an "imminent threat," then we went to war in violation of interantional law.
Wrong. You're forgetting the UN sanctions, as well as the cease fire agreement with Iraq, from the 1st Gulf war.

Quote:

Either the Bush Admin. claimed Iraq was an imminent threat, falsely, to goad us into war, or they did not, and the war in Iraq was pure adventurism.
It didn't, and the fact is that Iraq failed to live up to its obligations, per the UN and said cease fire agreements.

Quote:

It is against international law to attack a sovereign nation that is NOT an "imminent threat" to your own. Either we went to war under the false pretenses of Iraq being an "imminent threat" (it was not) or we went to war without proper provocation. Either way, Rap, the war was illegal. Either the Congress is at fault for giving Bush permission to wage his unjustified war, or the Bush Admin. is at fault for promoting a lie--or both.
As far as it was the UN is concerned, it was legal. Has there been any sanctions against the US for the war w/ Iraq? No.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 31, 2006 3:27 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

As far as it was the UN is concerned, it was legal. Has there been any sanctions against the US for the war w/ Iraq? No.
The US is a permenant member of the UN council. How, pray tell is it supposed to put sanctions on one of it's permenant members. I doubt the UN could put effective sanctions on the US if you guys dropped a Nuclear weapon on Paris.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 31, 2006 3:51 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


So Auraptor, who makes international law? The UN? The USA?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 31, 2006 4:45 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

I doubt the UN could put effective sanctions on the US if you guys dropped a Nuclear weapon on Paris.


C'mon, even you'd like it if we did that !

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 31, 2006 4:51 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


WHAT are you talking about? Is this the usual avoiding the topic/ ad hominem again?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 31, 2006 5:46 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
WHAT are you talking about? Is this the usual avoiding the topic/ ad hominem again?



Let's see. The topic was:

Quote:

Should he (Saddam) be hanged?

Will he be hanged?

After the fact, will stand-up comics joke about Saddam being well-hung?



"Will he be hanged?" has been resolved. He was.

"Should he be hanged?" is still open to discussion, but has been rather overtaken by events.

As for the comics, A Google search of "Saddam is well hung" brings up 96 hits (so far), so more than a few folks think it's at least funny enough to post.

Not sure where all this off-topic stuff about impeaching Bush II came from. Looks like Rue threw out the first ball, with her "U.S. Complicity" in some un-specified event back in post 3. Bagherra then jumps in a couple of posts later with the "US's current "kill now, think later" agenda", which seems off topic since the Iraqi courts convicted Saddam and the Iraqi government executed him. PirateJenny then claims that Bush should be hanged for his (unspecified) crimes before Saddam. Succatash proclaims that PJ is justified in this statement. Chrisisall charatibly suggests that Bush should only be impeached, and not hung, I guess. PN injects a bit of much-needed humor, and then we're back to the overwhelmingly off topic but seemingly neverending "Bush Lied About WMD" schtick.

Looks like another thread hijack in progress. Back to hanging Saddam, please.






"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 31, 2006 6:12 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:

As far as it was the UN is concerned, it was legal. Has there been any sanctions against the US for the war w/ Iraq? No.
The US is a permenant member of the UN council. How, pray tell is it supposed to put sanctions on one of it's permenant members. I doubt the UN could put effective sanctions on the US if you guys dropped a Nuclear weapon on Paris.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
]


Could this be some of the reason people feel compelled to fly US airplanes into US buildings to begin with ?

Perhaps the world really has to grow a set, and tell the US where to go, while governments seem reluctant... popular opinion is going the other way...........




" Fighting them at their own game
Murder for freedom the stab in the back
Women and children and cowards attack

Run to the hills run for your lives "

http://www.darklyrics.com/lyrics/ironmaiden/liveafterdeath.html#12


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 31, 2006 6:40 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Well, I already expressed my opinion on the death penalty. Fortunately for Bush, I'm against it on principle.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 31, 2006 6:43 PM

SUCCATASH


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
PirateJenny then claims that Bush should be hanged for his (unspecified) crimes before Saddam. Succatash proclaims that PJ is justified in this statement.



That was pretty funny, Geezer.

However, please note that Jenny did not claim Bush should hang, nor did she claim that Saddam should hang. She did say, "I don't necessiarly thing Saddam should [hang]."

Hang it all, Happy New Year!

"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 31, 2006 7:12 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.


Criminals should at least serve some function in the community they messed with - routine blood "donations" (can't really call it that if it's compulsory), etc. Not to the level of lab rats injected with cancers and such (although I'm sure some people would really think that's a great idea); but, even if they weren't healthy enough to give blood, they could make dinky little flags for their country (because the "Made in China" stickers on American flags irritate me), or something. And, maybe they could have little rewards for it: more free time, or maybe a book; and, where the sentance before could have been the death penalty, it could instead be the death penalty OR life in prison (in maximum security, with no chance of parol, at all) doing the little things. They could in some way try to atone for what they did.

So, no, I don't think Saddam should have been hung; he could have served some function, right? Isn't prison worse than death?

Besides, without my obvious dislike of the death penalty, won't Saddam's death make the violence in Iraq worse? Doesn't it give one side a sense of righteousness to see the leader of their enemies hung? And, doesn't that make his followers want revenge?

Is Saddam a martyr?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 31, 2006 7:41 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Could this be some of the reason people feel compelled to fly US airplanes into US buildings to begin with ?

Perhaps the world really has to grow a set, and tell the US where to go, while governments seem reluctant... popular opinion is going the other way...........



You REALLY want to take the side of the lunatic Islamic murderers? Fine, take that path, if you want, but I'll guarantee you'll lose, every single time. And you'll lose far more than you're willing to sacrafice.

Think twice before you answer.


Quote:

Is Saddam a martyr?


Yes. For all those who favor gassing of Kurdish villages filled with women and children. It's unfathonable what some folks are spinning on this board. Beyond unfathonable, actually.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 31, 2006 7:50 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Yes. For all those who favor gassing of Kurdish villages filled with women and children.
Oh yes, let's see... where DID Saddam get those "crop spraying" choppers from again....? I

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 31, 2006 9:40 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

Is Saddam a martyr?


Yes. For all those who favor gassing of Kurdish villages filled with women and children.



So, the Sunnis and Shi'ites, then? Well, damn, that makes two groups in the same region that we sort of already messed up (or helped mess up, or invaded and acted as the catalyst for messing up) in the first place.

I thought we wanted to make Iraq better, not worse.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 31, 2006 11:32 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

Yes. For all those who favor gassing of Kurdish villages filled with women and children.
Oh yes, let's see... where DID Saddam get those "crop spraying" choppers from again....? I

.



Does it matter ? I'd say it matters more what he DID with them. But that's just me.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 1, 2007 2:04 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
C'mon, even you'd like it if we did that !

Not really, the fallout might drift over the the channel and who wants radioactive frenchman dust falling out of the sky into their morning Tea?

Besides, Paris is a pretty city if you can catch it without any of those French people in it.
Quote:

Does it matter ? I'd say it matters more what he DID with them. But that's just me.
In Law an Accessory would be a party who helps comit a crime, but does not actually take part in the act itself.

For instance an accessory to Murder may be the party that supplied the principle (perpetrator) with the weapons used to kill the victim.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 1, 2007 6:05 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

Yes. For all those who favor gassing of Kurdish villages filled with women and children.
Oh yes, let's see... where DID Saddam get those "crop spraying" choppers from again....? I



According to GlobalSecurity.org, all of Iraq's attack choppers in 1990 were Russian, French, or French/German. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/ground-equipment.htm

Most of their transport choppers were Russian, with some French and US as well.

All of their fixed-wing bomber, fighter, and attack aircraft in 1990 were Russian. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/air-force-equipment.
htm


"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 1, 2007 6:27 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

1983
* A SD report concluded that Iraq continued to support groups on the SD’s terrorist list.[5]

* Iraq reportedly began using chemical weapons (CW) against Iranian troops in 1982, and significantly increased CW use in 1983. Reagan’s Secretary of State, George Shultz, said that reports of Iraq using CWs on Iranian military personnel "drifted in" at the year’s end.[6] A declassified CIA report, probably written in late 1987, notes Iraq's use of mustard gas in August 1983, giving further credence to the suggestion that the SD and/or National Security Council (NSC) was well aware of Iraq's use of CW at this time.[7]

* Analysts recognized that "civilian" helicopters can be weaponized in a matter of hours and selling a civilian kit can be a way of giving military aid under the guise of civilian assistance.[8] Shortly after removing Iraq from the terrorism sponsorship list, the Reagan administration approved the sale of 60 Hughes helicopters.[9] Later, and despite some objections from the National Security Council (NSC), the Secretaries of Commerce and State (George Baldridge and George Shultz) lobbied the NSC advisor into agreeing to the sale to Iraq of 10 Bell helicopters,[10] officially for crop spraying. See "1988" for note on Iraq using U.S. Helicopters to spray Kurds with chemical weapons.

* Later in the year the Reagan Administration secretly began to allow Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt to transfer to Iraq U.S. howitzers, helicopters, bombs and other weapons.[11] Reagan personally asked Italy’s Prime Minister Guilio Andreotti to channel arms to Iraq.[12]


www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html

To put this inperspective, the Iraninas were frequent targets of Iraqi WMD attacks (w/ USA intel assistance) and the Kurdish gas attack of Halajabah occurred at near the end of the Iran-Iraq war, with USA reluctanct to lay blame squarely on Iraq for many years after the attack.


---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 1, 2007 8:26 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
To put this inperspective, the Iraninas were frequent targets of Iraqi WMD attacks (w/ USA intel assistance) and the Kurdish gas attack of Halajabah occurred at near the end of the Iran-Iraq war, with USA reluctanct to lay blame squarely on Iraq for many years after the attack.



Interesting. An eyewitness account of the Halajaba attack indicates that it was Mig-23 fighter-bombers using bombs, not helicopters spraying gas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

Per the CIA, the only aircraft used in testing spraying biological toxins (no chemical agents were mentioned) were Russian Mi-2 helicopters and French Mirage F1 jets. https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm#05 In fact, all the references I can find relating to spray delivery relate to biological toxins, not chemical weapons.

Do you have any documented cases of American-built helicopters being used to spray chemical weapons on Kurds? In a quick google I've found a few "...reports indicate..." statements with no reference to said report, and some "...could have been used..." that are conjectural, but show no specific instances. I expect that if there is such specific documentation, you'll probably have it, since this seems to be one of your areas of interest.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 1, 2007 9:44 AM

SEVENPERCENT


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:

Interesting. An eyewitness account of the Halajaba attack indicates that it was Mig-23 fighter-bombers using bombs, not helicopters spraying gas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack




Interesting cite you got there, Geez. Let's check it out, shall we?

From Wiki, right at the beginning of the piece:
The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed.

Then, we get this gem, from why the entry is protested, which cuts right to the heart of the problem many have with our gung-ho pursuit of Saddam:
The massacre of Habalja did not raise protests by the international community in March 1988. At the time, it was admitted that the civilians had been killed "collaterally" due to an error in handling the combat gas. Two years later, when the Iran-Iraq War was finished and the Western powers stopped supporting Saddam Hussein, the massacre of Halabja was attributed to the Iraqis.
Fascinating. We didn't have a problem with what he did till he wasn't "our guy," then we did. And notice that it wasn't a massacre, it was collateral damage, until we needed excuses for why he was a bad guy.
Part of the problem is that these Iran rensposibility claims were originally put about by the US at the time, as it was then a major supporter of Saddam's government.

Then this one, about how he got the gas he used at Halabja:
The U.S. did supply CW precursors to Iraq on two occasions. The first shipment of DMMP from Al-Haddad was almost certainly used to make nerve gas in Iraq. However, this was by no means an expression of U.S. policy. Al-Haddad was almost certainly an Iraqi front company. After the DMMP shipment, another shipment of chemicals from Al-Haddad to Iraq was stopped at JFK. That shipment may have been potassium fluoride, a low value, quite common chemical. Other reports indicate that the JFK shipment was phosphorous fluoride, a very useful nerve gas precursor. Internet sources differ on this point and it is possible to find single articles that contains both claims.

In 1988, a Baltimore company, Alcolac supplied thioglycol to Iraq. While thioglycol has many legitimate uses, it is likely that Iraq used this precursor to manufacture mustard gas

And this one from the linked wiki itself, not the disputes:
According to Iraq's report to the UN, the know-how and material for developing chemical weapons were obtained from firms in such countries as: the United States, West Germany, the United Kingdom, France and China.


So, while it looks like American choppers weren't used, it does look like American chemical weapons were used. It also looks like the CIA and the US's positions were radically altered on a whim when the political winds changed.

To me, even though you may have successfully refuted the helicopter claim, the link you cited did more harm to your case than good.

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 1, 2007 10:25 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SevenPercent:
So, while it looks like American choppers weren't used, it does look like American chemical weapons were used. It also looks like the CIA and the US's positions were radically altered on a whim when the political winds changed.

To me, even though you may have successfully refuted the helicopter claim, the link you cited did more harm to your case than good.



The U.S. Along with several other countries, sold Iraq chemicals which could have been used to produce chemical weapons, not chemical weapons themselves, per the wikipedia article and other sources.

From Wikipedia:
Quote:

According Iraq's report to the UN, the know-how and material for developing chemical weapons were obtained from firms in such countries as: the United States, West Germany, the United Kingdom, France and China.[1] By far, the largest suppliers of precursors for chemical weapons production were in Singapore (4,515 tons), the Netherlands (4,261 tons), Egypt (2,400 tons), India (2,343 tons), and West Germany (1,027 tons). One Indian company, Exomet Plastics (now part of EPC Industrie) sent 2,292 tons of precursor chemicals to Iraq. The Kim Al-Khaleej firm, located in Singapore and affiliated to United Arab Emirates, supplied more than 4,500 tons of VX, sarin, and mustard gas precursors and production equipment to Iraq.


Any concrete evidence that the chemicals sold by US firms were actually used in production of mustard gas or nerve agents used at Halajaba, or just more "...could have been..." with no verification?

Any outrage against Singapore, the Netherlands, Egypt, India, UAE, Germany, the UK, France, and China?

Edit:
Quote:

From Wiki, right at the beginning of the piece:
The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed.



O.K. Find me an unbiased source that gives a differing account of the Halajaba attacks.


"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 1, 2007 12:16 PM

SEVENPERCENT


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Any outrage against Singapore, the Netherlands, Egypt, India, UAE, Germany, the UK, France, and China?


Certainly. I have outrage at any form of weapons brokering, regardless which country it comes from. But the minute you and some of the other right-of-center folks hear US, you think that's the only place we're levelling criticism against. You want everyone else to be the bad guy but us, and anytime someone suggests that we were the bad guy that they are anti-US traitors. If Iraq used Russian or French jets to attack, then they are complicit. If they used US chemicals, we are. We're also guilty of calling mass murder "collateral damage" when it suits us - is that right? Why is it a crime at one time and not another? It shouldn't be - we should be better than that.


Quote:

O.K. Find me an unbiased source that gives a differing account of the Halajaba attacks.


Why should I? I've made no claims other than that we may have been complicit in providing said weapons and were certainly complicit in a coverup, both of which are verified in the refutation portion of an article link you provided. You on the other hand, provided a source that, from the very first line, is not considered neutral or factually accurate.

Basically, you backed up your claim with an article that says "don't believe this article, it's bunk."
Provide your own research, Dreamtrove, I'm not going to do it for you.

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 1, 2007 12:22 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


How about differently biased?

http://www.house.gov/delahunt/halabja.shtml

In September of 2003, Secretary of State Powell visited the town of Halabja in northern Iraq, where some 5,000 Kurdish Iraqis were murdered by Saddam Hussein’s chemical weapons in 1988.

Secretary Powell was in Halabja to honor the victims of the massacre. But he then asserted that the attack proved Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction – suggesting that their use in 1988 justified the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

The slaughter in Halabja was indisputably a crime against humanity. It should have prompted the US to convene an international war crimes tribunal and isolate Iraq until Saddam and his cronies were brought to justice for their savagery.

But in 1988 the US did nothing of the sort. In fact, it squelched attempts to punish the Iraqi regime. Because when Saddam poisoned Halabja, he was America’s ally against Iran.

Donald Rumsfeld was President Reagan’s special envoy to the Middle East, and played a vital role in courting Saddam. Even before Rumsfeld’s first visit to Baghdad in 1983, the Reagan Administration removed Iraq from the list of terrorist states and began providing intelligence for Saddam’s use in the Iran-Iraq war. Rumsfeld’s missions were followed by the restoration of diplomatic ties and a dramatic expansion of the relationship.

The Reagan Administration gave Iraq billions of dollars in loan guarantees and agricultural credits; approved the sale of technology useful for weapons of mass destruction; winked when other countries supplied US military equipment; and later went as far as sharing highly sensitive satellite intelligence. And although the Reagan Administration knew Iraq was waging chemical warfare against Iran, the US prevented the United Nations from singling out Iraq for using these forbidden weapons.

This alliance sheds a whole new light on the US response to Saddam’s murder of thousands of men, women, and children with sarin, tabun, VX and mustard gas. After the assault on Halabja, the Senate tried to impose trade sanctions and restrictions on technology transfers to Iraq, but according to the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, “…the bill died in the House under Administration pressure ...

The record is hauntingly clear: the Reagan and Bush Administrations did not just look the other way after Halabja. They aggressively undermined the Congressional response to Saddam’s atrocities and actively supported his tyranny, right up to the day his tanks crossed into Kuwait.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 1, 2007 12:54 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Any outrage against Singapore, the Netherlands, Egypt, India, UAE, Germany, the UK, France, and China?
Of course. However, since the USA is my country... and yours too.... any outrage about what OUR country did?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 1, 2007 1:16 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

Any outrage against Singapore, the Netherlands, Egypt, India, UAE, Germany, the UK, France, and China?
Of course. However, since the USA is my country... and yours too.... any outrage about what OUR country did?



So. Have we pretty much established that Iraq didn't use U.S. sourced helicopters to spray U.S. sourced Mustard gas/nerve agent on Halajaba, or are you just ignoring that issue because you have no evidence to support your previous claims? If the U.S. wasn't involved in the Halajaba attack, is Saddam back on the hook for it, or is there someone else you want to blame?

I'd also still like to see some evidence that U.S. sourced chemicals were actually used to create Iraqi chemical or biological weapons, especially those used against the Kurds, instead of just supposition.

So this leaves us with the issue of the U.S. not asking the UN to charge Iraq with war crimes for the Halajaba attacks. I wish we had. I wish anyone had. No one did. Why is it the sole responsibility of the U.S. when none of the other 180+- UN nations would bring it up? Absent a UN resolution should we have acted alone against Iraq in 1988?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Fri, March 29, 2024 06:20 - 6156 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Fri, March 29, 2024 06:18 - 57 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:54 - 3414 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:49 - 11 posts
Elections; 2024
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:33 - 2075 posts
Long List of Celebrities that are Still Here
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:00 - 1 posts
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:10 - 447 posts
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:03 - 853 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL