The Next Time You See Saddam..........

[JustRalph]

I have heard several reports about how Saddam is being tortured by the U.S. etc.... from his Lawyer etc. I don't believe it is true.......because it would be way too stupid.

Just in Case you start to feel sympathy for Saddam at some point........review this page and remember what he is on trial for.

View the page at your own risk.....it is graphic. I do not recommend it for children.

You can hold your cursor over the pictures and read the story behind the pictures (it will pop up)

http://www.justralph.com/graves_iraq.htm

[Dave Schwartz]

Excellent job, Ralph. We must never forget what has happened in Iraq.

While the left is busy turning it into a political circus, the fact that Iraq was a mini-holocaust (and Sadamm a small Hitler) is being overlooked.


Dave Schwartz

[Secretariat]

I'm no fan of Saddam Hussein, but trying reading all of this with an open mind.

http://www.truthaboutwar.org/1brutal.shtml

[Dave Schwartz]

Sec,

Good link. It points out that our foreign policy has never truly been well-managed (my opinion). Saddam is but one monster we helped to create.

All that being true does not change the fact that Saddam should have been removed from power.

Should we attack the other places mentioned and take out the ruthless despots there? Probably. Will we? Probably not.

When I look at what Bush has done (and understand that I am not a big fan of GB anyway - didn't vote for him last time and may not again) I see a world stance that says, "Attack us or support those who attack us through terrorism - and lose your country." I support that position.

If ever there was a time and place that needed a world policeman to protect those who cannot protect themselves, the time is now and the places are those mentioned in that link.

One could logically ask, "Why should the U.S. do it?"

And the answer is, "Because we can." And very few countries can.


I think of it like this... If you are walking along and see someone being brutally attacked by a stronger foe, do you help or do you stand by and watch?

Or, make the question a little tougher. If you have the ability (the might, if you will) to defend the weaker person, do you?


We hear so much rhetoric in this country about what is right and wrong. I contend that the murderous dictators of this world clearly fall on the "wrong" side and ignoring those in misery within the grips of their power also falls to the "wrong" side.

As a nation we are quick to send care packages of food and medicine but a bit resistent to put ourselves and our loved ones in harm's way to defend the helpless. I believe that (as has been demonstrated in the past) our military men and women are more than willing to do that.

The question I ask is, "If we don't do it then who will?" "If we shouldn't do it, then who should?"


Forgive me if this sounds a little soapbox-like, but I feel very strongly about this.

"De Opresso Liber" is a phrase I took seriously so many years ago.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Dave Schwartz
Sec,

Good link. It points out that our foreign policy has never truly been well-managed (my opinion). Saddam is but one monster we helped to create.

All that being true does not change the fact that Saddam should have been removed from power.

THE QUESTION IS WAS IT NECESSARY TO DO IN THE MIDDLE OF A WAR ON TERROR WITH AL QUEDA WHEN BY THE ADMINISTRATION’S OWN ADMISSION HUSEIN DID NOT POSE AN IMMINENT THREAT TO THE US.

Should we attack the other places mentioned and take out the ruthless despots there? Probably. Will we? Probably not.

THIS SPEAKS TO THE INCONSISTENCY OF OUR FOREIGN POLICY. WITHOUT THAT CONSISTENCY WE APPEAR AS HYPOCRITICAL TO THE WORLD.

When I look at what Bush has done (and understand that I am not a big fan of GB anyway - didn't vote for him last time and may not again) I see a world stance that says, "Attack us or support those who attack us through terrorism - and lose your country." I support that position.

WHICH IRAQI’S ATTACKED US? LAST I CHECKED THE PEOPLE IN THOSE 911 PLANES WERE PRIMARILY SAUDIS. DON’T THINK WE’RE ATTACKING THEM.

If ever there was a time and place that needed a world policeman to protect those who cannot protect themselves, the time is now and the places are those mentioned in that link.

THE GOAL IS NOBLE BUT FINANCIALLY INAFFORDABLE TO DO PROPERLY. WE BASCIALLY ARE SPENDING THE BUDGETS OF FUTURE GENERATIONS TO DETERMINE A POLICY THAT THEY MIGHT NOT WANT TO SPEND THEIR MONEY ON. EVEN BUSH IN 2000 SAID WE CAN’T BE THE WORLD’S POLICEMAN. I AGREE WITH THAT. SOME SAY AFTER 911 THE WORLD CHANGED. OF COURSE IT CHANGED. IT CHANGED AFTER PEARL HARBOR, THE CUBAN MISSLE CRISIS, THE IRANIAN HOSTAGE CRISIS AS WELL. NO ONE IS QUESTIONING THE NEED FOR NATIONAL SECURITY OR FOR EFFICEIENT INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES, BUT THOSE FAILED US ON 911 AND INTELLIGENCE HAS FAILED US IN IRAQ. TO USE MASSIVE MILITARY MIGHT IN A NATION TWO COUNTRIES AWAY FROM SOME OUTLAWS IN A CAVE SEEMS TO ME TO BE ON THE WRONG PATH.

One could logically ask, "Why should the U.S. do it?"

And the answer is, "Because we can." And very few countries can.

NATIONS WITH MILITARY MIGHT HAVE SAID THAT THROUGHOUT HISTORY STARTING ESPECIALLY WITH ROME AND CAESAR. THE WORLD WILL BE A BETTER AND MORE SECURE PLACE WITH ROME IN CHARGE. THAT IS NOT A JUSTIFICATION. IN FACT IT EXEMPLIFIES THE WEAKNESS OF OUR ARGUMENT. DEMOCRACY WAS CREATED HERE FROM WITHIN, NOT BY A FOREIGN POWER INSTALLING IT IN ANOTHER PART OF THE WORLD.

I think of it like this... If you are walking along and see someone being brutally attacked by a stronger foe, do you help or do you stand by and watch?

Or, make the question a little tougher. If you have the ability (the might, if you will) to defend the weaker person, do you?

THE PREMISE YOU CHOOSE USE IMPOSES AN INDIVIUDAL ACTION AND CHOICE, NOT ONE OF A NATION. HOWEVER, LET ME ADD ONE ADDITION TO YOUR QUESTION.

SUPPOSE YOU INTERVENE BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE THE BULLY IS BEATING UP ON THE SMALLER FELLOW, BUT AFTERWARDS YOU FIND THAT THE BULLY WAS REACTING TO BEATING UP THE SMALLER FELLOW BECAUSE HE HAD JUST RAPED THE BULLY’S WIFE OR ROBBED HIM. THINGS ARE NOT ALWAYS BLACK AND WHITE. ESPECIALLY IN THE WORLD OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS.

We hear so much rhetoric in this country about what is right and wrong. I contend that the murderous dictators of this world clearly fall on the "wrong" side and ignoring those in misery within the grips of their power also falls to the "wrong" side.

BUT WE IGNORE SUDAN, WE IGNORE NORTH KOREA. WE ACT AS JR HAS SAID WHEN IT IS IN OUR NATIONAL INTERESTS. DAVE, I ADMIRE YOUR ARGUMENT BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE THE REASON FOR THE WAR WAS TO REMOVE HUSSEIN BECAUSE HE WAS A DESPICABLE TYRANT, WHICH HE WAS. BUT I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT WAS THE REAL REASON FOR WAR.

As a nation we are quick to send care packages of food and medicine but a bit resistent to put ourselves and our loved ones in harm's way to defend the helpless. I believe that (as has been demonstrated in the past) our military men and women are more than willing to do that.

I AM SURE THEY ARE, BUT MATTERS OF POLITICAL CONSEQUENCE ARE NOT THE DECISIONS OF THE ARMED FORCES BUT OF CONGRESS AND THE PEOPLE. CONGRESS WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY EMPOWERED TO DECLARE WAR, NOT THE PRESIDENT.

The question I ask is, "If we don't do it then who will?" "If we shouldn't do it, then who should?"

I SUPPOSE AFTER POSTING THAT LINK THAT ISSUES OF SADDAM’S ACTIONS WOULD BE LOOKED AT IN A DIFFERENT LIGHT. FOR EXAMPLE, THE ARTICLE TAKES ISSUE WITH THE GASSING OF THE KURDS AS BEING AN IRANIAN ACTION.WE LIVE IN AN AGE WHERE TRUTH IS DIFFICULT TO DISCERN FROM PROPAGANDA (WHETHER IT IS AL JAZHEERA OR FOX NEWS OR THE WHITE HOUSE). I THINK WAR IS AN ACTION OF LAST RESORT, NOT A KNEE-JERK REACTION.
MY COMMENTS GO ALONG WITH FILM DOCUMENTARY WRITER KEN BURNS WHICH I POSTED IN ANOTHER THREAD:

Ken Burns on Iraq –

“.. whether the current dispute with Iraq is an attempt to satisfy the thirst of politicians that happen to be oil men, or whether it is in fact an attempt distract attention from the more shadowy Al Qaeda who are more difficult to pin and say ‘see we won’, or whether its an attempt in a Churchillian sense to stop some one before he acts is hard to say.

I do have a problem this willingness to shift the focus to iraq with no proof, no-one will provide me with proof. John Kennedy sent Adlai Stevenson to the UN with photographs of the silos in Cuba and I am now waiting for my government to provide me with proof before I extend to them my unequivocal support for military action.”

Forgive me if this sounds a little soapbox-like, but I feel very strongly about this.

NO NEED TO ASK FOR FORGIVENESS. I ADMIRE YOUR CONVICTIONS. I DISAGREE WITH YOUR CONCLUSIONS FOR THE WAR BASED ON THE INFORMATION I’VE EXAMINED.

"De Opresso Liber" is a phrase I took seriously so many years ago.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Dave Schwartz]

Sec,

A well-thought out post.

And I can certainly agree to disagree. <G>


Dave

[ljb]

Dave,
I agree with much of what you posted. BUT I have a hard time accepting the fact that we are selective in our policeman efforts. There appears to be no defining conditions on what constitutes evil in this world. At least not to the U.S. government. There have been many despots in power in the past which the U.S. has either helped or ignored. Under both parties leadership. I think because we are currently the big dog on the block we have come to believe that all dogs on the block should be like us. Well it just ain't gonna happen no matter how many bombs we drop, there are still going to be people in this world that will defy us. Some just for spite, others because of jealousy and others because of ingrained beliefs and ideals. So rather then just trying to bomb our way to happiness we should use ADDITIONAL methods to get along with the world.

[Tom]

We should, with the full support and aid of all civilized nations, fight evil dictators no matter where they are. We cannot hit them all at once, we have to pick our spots and go from there.

1. Afghanistan
2. Iraq
3. ??
4. ??
5. ??

No one ever negotieted peace with evil. No one ever will.
Seek and destroy, however, is a proven tool for short-term peace.
You might say that the peace never last because we create enemies by using force. I will agree. Our probelm is we stop killling our enemies way too soon.
To afford Saddam justice if personally digusting. A public exectution on the street would sent a clear message.

[Dave Schwartz]

LJB,

Well, one policeman cannot be everywhere at once. <G>

Just think of the joke that ends with, "Nonsense. We'll walk and do them all."

That would work nicely for me.


Dave

[Secretariat]

Tom, we managed to avoid nuclear annihilation with Russia through diplomancy and with China.

For those convinced of the WMD and Saddam Al Queda connection, the 911 commission re-interviewed Cheyney. It was in private (I guess because of his remarks on the Senate floor), and he had nothing new to say. 911 Commission says no link, no WMD's according to Reuters.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1896&ncid=1896&e=2&u=/nm/20040706/us_nm/iraq_cheney_dc

[doophus]

Dave & Sec,

Whether I agree with none, part, or all of your postings is irrelevent. Both of you are to be commended for making these posts in the spirit in which they were made.

I enjoyed reading both. We need more such, BUT I'm with Tom on this one. ;)

Again, thanks to both of you.


Ol' Doophus

P.S. I even found ljb's posting to be a bit coherent. :D

[ljb]

From Doophus
P.S. I even found ljb's posting to be a bit coherent.

Coming from you that means a lot!

[ljb]

Sec,
Just checked the link re: Cheney's failure to back up his brash statements with facts. Do you suppose the 9-11 commission is going to have to go (cheney expletive) themselves?;)

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Secretariat
911 Commission says no link, no WMD's according to Reuters.


Really? Just found this ten minutes ago.....hmmm....???? Why is this not being reported? !!!

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usnw/20040706/pl_usnw/u_s__removes_iraqi_nuclear_and_radiological_materi als__joint_operation_conducted_with_u_s__departmen ts_of_energy_and_defense145

From Yahoo News

U.S. Removes Iraqi Nuclear and Radiological Materials; Joint Operation Conducted with U.S. Departments of Energy and Defense

Tue Jul 6, 1:23 PM ET

To: National Desk, Energy Reporter

Contact: Bryan Wilkes of NNSA, 202-586-7371; Major Sandra Burr of the Department of Defense (news - web sites), 703-697-5133; Jeanne Lopatto of the U.S. Department of Energy (news - web sites), 202-586-4940

WASHINGTON, July 6 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham (news - web sites) announced today that the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Department of Defense (DOD) have completed a joint operation to secure and remove from Iraq (news - web sites) radiological and nuclear materials that could potentially be used in a radiological dispersal device or diverted to support a nuclear weapons program.

"This operation was a major achievement for the Bush Administration's goal to keep potentially dangerous nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists," Secretary Abraham said. "It also puts this material out of reach for countries that may seek to develop their own nuclear weapons."

Twenty experts from DOE's national laboratory complex packaged 1.77 metric tons of low-enriched uranium and roughly 1000 highly radioactive sources from the former Iraq nuclear research facility. The DOD airlifted the material to the United States on June 23 and provided security, coordination, planning, ground transportation, and funding for the mission.

Due to safety and security issues surrounding the removed materials, the U.S., consistent with its authorities and relevant United Nations (news - web sites) Security Council Resolutions, took possession of, and removed the materials to ensure the safety and security of the Iraqi people.

DOE also repackaged less sensitive materials that will remain in Iraq. Radiological sources that continue to serve useful medical, agricultural or industrial purposes were not removed from Iraq.

The low enriched uranium will be stored temporarily at a secure DOE facility and the radiological sources will initially be brought to a DOE laboratory for further characterization and disposition.

The International Atomic Energy Agency was advised in advance of the U.S. intentions to remove the nuclear materials. Iraqi officials were briefed about the removal of the materials and sources prior to evacuation.

The nuclear research complex, now under the responsibility of the Iraq Ministry of Science and Technology, was once a central institution for Iraq's nuclear weapons program before being dismantled in the early 1990s, following the first Gulf War (news - web sites). The complex was also the consolidation point for highly radioactive sources collected by the Department of Defense with assistance by employees of the Ministry of Science and Technology within Iraq over the last year.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Dave Schwartz
LJB,

Well, one policeman cannot be everywhere at once. <G>

Just think of the joke that ends with, "Nonsense. We'll walk and do them all."

That would work nicely for me.


Dave


And don't foget the one that ends with "It's too cold out here. Let's go back to the barn and slip into a nice warm jersey."

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by JustRalph
Really? Just found this ten minutes ago.....hmmm....???? Why is this not being reported? !!!

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usnw/20040706/pl_usnw/u_s__removes_iraqi_nuclear_and_radiological_materi als__joint_operation_conducted_with_u_s__departmen ts_of_energy_and_defense145



Well, you better tell Tony Blair real quick because he just said NO WMD's have been found. Is it possible Bush doesn't tell him things?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/07/international/europe/07BLAI.html?ex=1089777600&en=aef53d734dcaa21d&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Well, you better tell Tony Blair real quick because he just said NO WMD's have been found. Is it possible Bush doesn't tell him things?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/07/international/europe/07BLAI.html?ex=1089777600&en=aef53d734dcaa21d&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1

I am sure there are lots of things we don't tell Tony Blair.........

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by JustRalph
I am sure there are lots of things we don't tell Tony Blair.........

lol...I'm sure, and Congress as well...and the american people as well.

[ljb]

And Laura as well. lol

[kenwoodallpromos]

The last time someone told me I should have anm open mind they tyried to give me a lobotomy! LOL.
If you want answers, ask the Israelos, who have the best spy network.
I believe they are on record as blowing up an Iraq nuke plant.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by kenwoodallpromos
The last time someone told me I should have anm open mind they tyried to give me a lobotomy! LOL.
If you want answers, ask the Israelos, who have the best spy network.
I believe they are on record as blowing up an Iraq nuke plant.

Built by France....mind you. The guy who flew the F-16 who dropped those munitions died on the Shuttle last year. Damn Shame........

[Tom]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Tom, we managed to avoid nuclear annihilation with Russia through diplomancy and with China.


Not exactly. The Cuban missle crisis ring a bell. They rattled thier sabers and we drew ours.
Difference with Russian and China was that we dealt with them as defined nations, with boarders, wtih cities, targets.....
Al Qeada is a word--wide network of madmen untied in their stanic beliefs. They cannot be reasoned with, Only destoryed.
They want to die for allah. We have no choice but to respect their wished. Speaking for myself, I am committed to the destruciton of Islam world-wide. It is a holy war-we haveto destroy the religion.
There are over 1.6 billion muslems in the world-not very many of tjhem are standing up an denouncing terroism. Funnu, the only arab grup I recall doing this is......the recently liberated Iraqis who are calling for the death of the terror leader trying to sabatoge their freedom.
Gee, W might have started something.

[Tom]

this is a leeter send to John Edwards:


I am a senior citizen. During the Clinton Administration I had an
extremely good and well paying job. I took numerous vacations and had several vacation homes. Since President Bush took office, I have watched my entire life change for the worse.

I lost my job.
I lost my two sons in that terrible Iraqi War.
I lost my home.
I lost my health insurance.

As a matter of fact, I lost virtually everything and became homeless. Adding insult to injury, when the authorities found me instead of helping me, they arrested me.

I will do anything to insure President Bush's defeat in the next
election. I will do anything that Senator Kerry wants to insure that a Democrat is back in the White House come next year.

Bush has to go.

I just thought you and your listeners would like to know how one
senior citizen views the Bush Administration.

Thank you for taking the time to read my letter.

Sincerely,

Sadaam Hussein

[Secretariat]

Here's a reply from Paul O'Neill.....via Alexander Cockburn from Coutnerpunch:

"What bothers the White House is one particular National Security Council (NSC) document shown in the "60 Minutes" interview, clearly drafted in the early weeks of the new administration, which showed plans for the post-invasion dispersal of Iraq's oil assets among the world's great powers, starting with the major oil companies.

For the brief moment it was on the TV screen one could see that this bit of paper, stamped Secret, was undoubtedly one of the most explosive documents in the history of imperial conspiracy. Here, dead center in the camera's lens, was the refutation of every single rationalization for the attack on Iraq ever offered by George W. Bush and his co-conspirators, including Tony Blair.

That NSC document told "60 Minutes'" vast audience the attack on Iraq was not about national security in the wake of 9/11. It was not about weapons of mass destruction. It was not about Saddam Hussein's possible ties to Osama bin Laden. It was about stealing Iraq's oil, the same way the British stole it three quarters of a century earlier. The major oil companies drew up the map, handed it to their man George, helped him (through such trusties as James Baker) steal the 2000 election and then told him to get on with the attack.

O'Neill says that the Treasury Department's lawyers OK'ed release of the document to him. The White House, which took 78 days to launch an investigation into the outing of Valerie Plame as a CIA officer, clearly regards the disclosure of what Big Oil wanted as truly reprehensible, as opposed to endangering the life of Ms. Plame. It's going after O'Neill for this supposed security breach.

Forget about O'Neill "betraying" Bush. How about Bush lying to the American people?"

And that is the bottom line no matter how many diversions some choose to post about the rear end of Edward's wife.

[PaceAdvantage]

Anyone have a copy of this document? I missed that episode of 60 minutes. Surely one of your guys had your VCRs rolling, right?

[Tom]

Sec, and YOU could read the whole document and determine its origin iin amatter os seconds?
Do you expect anyone of any intelligence to believe that if that were ture, 60 Minutes would be showing three hour long shows disecting it?
Do you blindly believe everything you see and hear?
Do you own any bridges?