Oil and Iraq [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

hcap

03-19-2005, 09:42 AM

I think the use of "lemming" is only bothering lsbet. Why do you find it so difficult to accept that I believe many were fed a bill of goods by the administration? I could have other more deroggatory terms, but chose an image that originated with Walt Disney. Group thinkers ready to blindly topple the cliff. But if you really find it such a problem, I will not use it again.

Now here is something you may find more of a problem......

I hope the latest rationale-spreading democracy, will be the last.

Maybe the death of Arafat, and other internal forces in the middle east will actually lead to the growth of democracy. I hope that our invasion will not be a hindrance to real change. Unfortunately the bushies have been wrong on all other justifications for this war. Maybe democracy will succeed in spite of their track record.

Of course if the control and privatization of Iraqi resources, and the underminning of OPEC are closer to the actual reasons for invading, and the story resonates in Arab streets, we will face stronger opposition to our forced fed remaking of the region. Many in the region have suspected this all along. Considering the history of western powers already guilty in redrawing the map in the middle east, and installing western leaning brutal dictators-such as Saddam, they have ample reason to be suspicious.

Terrorists don't exist because they "hate our freedoms". They exist because they hate our foreign policies. Particularly our role in propping up those friendly to our interests, and not so friendly to them.

The extreme lunacy of suicide bombers requires extreme motivation. Not cowardice. Religious fanatics feed on their own hatred. But from their point of view it is their myth of the hero. Very hard to defuse. Kill all you want to and more children will be inducted into their ranks. Without getting to the roots of the problem, even the spread of democracy will not be enough. It took less than 20 motivated individuals and probably a few hundred Al Quida supporters to succeed on 911. Ireland a democracy, had a history of terrorism. With more IRA supporters than Bin Laden had on 911. Democracy by itself does not preclude extremely motivated individuals from acting. Dealing with the underlying problems will be our only long term viable plan. Negotiations between all parties will be required. The myth that we don't deal with terrorists, will eventually give way to realism. It has historically been the case. Individual terrorists won't negotiate. Their support networks will. But only if recognize our involvement in their reasons to hate us

sq764

03-19-2005, 09:43 AM

Spreading democracy? I think this is rationale number 7 or 8 for invading Iraq.
Take a look at the middle east from a this perspective....

"President Bush and his supporters are taking credit for spreading freedom across the Middle East. But where changes are genuinely occurring they have nothing to do with the U.S. invasion of Iraq."

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/21540/

"Before examining whether there is any value to these claims, it must be pointed out that the Bush administration did not invade Iraq to spread democracy. The justification for the war was that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda—both of which claims have proved to be false."

"The argument for change through inspiration has little evidence to underpin it. The changes in the region cited as dividends of the Bush Iraq policy are either chimeras or unconnected to Iraq. And the Bush administration has shown no signs that it will push for democracy in countries where freedom of choice would lead to outcomes unfavorable to U.S. interests."
TomPaine.com... Nice source..

You going to post the next informative piece from US magazine? Get real.

lsbets

03-19-2005, 09:44 AM

Suff, I agree it has been done by both sides, and I have been very guilty of it myself. However, since PA put everyone on warning, I have seen an effort by 90% of the posters on both sides to be civil, that is why I brought attention to it.

P.S. - this is what happens when you are mission complete and waiting for a flight, you find the smallest things can help pass the time. I think this is why God invented alcohol, but I can't have any here. :)

hcap

03-19-2005, 10:10 AM

lsbets,

Lemmings are now verboten . But what about my pal Boxcar? his avatar is not exactly neutral. More insidious than my peace girl avatar. :rolleyes:

Actually it does not bother me at all. It appears to be some sort of attempt at humor. As much as ole' boxie is usually Mr. fundamentalist preacher, his efforts at the lighter side of life should be rewarded. But if I am to be curtailed for using terms like lemming, shouldn't liberals fishing in toilets also be frowned upon?

lsbets

03-19-2005, 10:19 AM

Depends if you see it as an insult or an attempt at humor. You've said you see it as an attempt at humor. If you feel otherwise, ask PA for clarification. It seems to me that you are just trying to get things fired up.

Show Me the Wire

03-19-2005, 10:44 AM

Terrorists don't exist because they "hate our freedoms". They exist because they hate our foreign policies. Particularly our role in propping up those friendly to our interests, and not so friendly to them.

Get real the terrorists are ignorant due to their illeteracy. The masses do not know how to read and generally have no formal education. They are not educated enough to even understand what foreign policy is.

To the Islamic terrorist it is all about religion requiring hate for infidels. Infidels are an afront to Allah and must be killed. Yes they hate our freedoms because those freedoms allow us to be infidels. That is the bottom line, hate and their willingness to oppress other cultures with violence for religious reasons.

It is a religious cause, not a protest of foreign policies. Once, all civil people recognize Islamic terrorism for what it is, the world will be a better place, as all of us infidels will have to unite against religious fanatics.

hcap

03-19-2005, 10:44 AM

lsbets, now your not being fair. Lemmings are cute friendly critters, that just happen to not-according to the folklore-think for themselves. My attempt at humor.

Boxie casts liberals as finding truths in toilets and your reaction is well that's funny without any negative connotations??

So you are on board to clueless liberals fishing in toilets, but are knee-jerkin' against furry creatures blindly following leaders? Both may be looked at conveying negative implications. I agreed not to irritate you by my use of "lemmings", but I think you are over reacting.

I believe you also claimed my avatar was child abuse. I think you are singling me out unfairly. I suspect I may have hit a nerve with my anti-war posts. Sorry but what I post is what I genuinely believe. My views may be anti war. Not necessarily anti military.

sq764

03-19-2005, 10:50 AM

So you are on board to clueless liberals fishing in toilets, but are knee-jerkin' against furry creatures blindly following leaders?
Part of your problem is that you think anyone that doesn't think like you is clueless..

Tom

03-19-2005, 10:51 AM

What you have to do is make a list of posters you are not particularly fond of.:rolleyes:

Then ask yourself, has this poster EVER psoted anything that I found usefull information, entertaining, though provoking, meaningfull?
If the answer is NO, then just go to Ignore and put them on it. I just pretend that my 5 were kidnapped and nobody is looking for them!:lol:

Suff

03-19-2005, 11:05 AM

To the Arab terrorist it is all about religion and the hate for infidels. Infidels are an afront to Allah and must be killed. Yes they hate our freedoms because those freedoms allow us to be infidels. That is the bottom line.

.

I believe your wrong there.

PepisCo, Walmart, Exxon, US Military, FedEx, Dow Chemical, Monsanto, Coca-Cola, Lockheed, Boeing, Raytheon... all do business with these corrupt regimes.. Thereby enriching them and strengthing thier grip on the country.

The citizens see this. The Corporate tax rate in Kuwait is 40%. And they have no Deloiutte & Touche fudging the #'s to lower the tax nut.

I think many americans have a distorted view of what American Companies do overseas, when they are unecumbered by Regulations, fair and decency practices, No EPA, no FDA, No Constitution, No Bill of Rights.

To say that Mass's of Arabs are just illiterate no nothings is wrong.

hcap

03-19-2005, 11:11 AM

SMTW,

I can't believe you posted what you did. Time for you to get real.Get real the terrorists are ignorant due to their illeteracy. The masses do not know how to read and generallthave no formal education. They are not educated enough to even understand what foreign policy is.Remember the reasons we attacked Iraq? 911 was the mistaken connection. No Iraqis on the planes. No Iraqis involved in the execution. No Iraquis involved in the planning. Most were EDUCATED upper class Saudis who believed Bin Ladens thesis that we were propping up an authorative Monarchy that allowed us to position troops on holy ground. If Islamics positioned troops around holy religious sites within our borders, how would you react??

You think our military bases on Saudi soil was just a coincidence?

An illiterate religious group? Maybe religious not illiterate. Maybe fanatical. But not acting in a vacuum. Rank and file suicide bombers are not unaware of the historical precedents for the mid east to be suspicious of western interests.The growth of the arab media has and is changing this.

The invasion of Iraq has changed this. People are more aware than you would like to admit. Or is it our "white mans burden" to tame the savages?

Not all terrorists spring from savages, as you seem to claim.

lsbets

03-19-2005, 11:15 AM

Hcap - I believe it was you who said box's avatar was an attempt at humor. I never said how I took it - I used your words.

Calling your avatar child abuse was an attempt at humor on my part - I honestly just think it is dumb. It doesn't strike any kind of nerve, because I have walked the walk and know that if we were to follow the policies that you espouse it would be a recipe for disaster. Try as you might to deny what is happenning in the world, you cannot completely discount the effect of what is happenning in Iraq and the uprise of popular support for democracy in some Middle Eastern countries. I am not saying it is the sole factor, but it is an important factor. Some people just hate to give Bush credit for anything.

And SMTW is exactly right - the people who are recruited to be terrorists don't hate us because of our foreign policy - they hate us because they are taught to hate in their mosques, and are illeterate and have no other sources of information. So, when residents of Fallujah are told at Friday prayers that the US troops are all Jews who drink Muslim children's blood, they believe it - and that is actually what they are told. It is about power. Bin Laden, Zarquiri - they need uneducated, illiterate masses to draw a base of power from. They can't tolerate education or democracy, because they then become nothing. They lose everything. So, they keep the people they are supposed to represent oppressed. It would be nice if it were as easy as changing our foreign policy, but they cannot keep power without feeding hatred. The average suicide bomber knows nothing about our foreign policy - they only know what the radicals have told them since birth. Its kind of like your 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians myth - right after that "study" came out it was debunked. But, the anti-war crowd has continued to use that number to try to gain support for their position, despite the total fallacy of the study. It is disinformation designed to gain support. And you play along by continuing to quote it. Reminds me of the old saying - if you repeat something often enough, people will think its the truth.

Suff

03-19-2005, 11:17 AM

Reminds me of the old saying - if you repeat something often enough, people will think its the truth.Repeat after me....100,000 times.

9/11/01-Iraq

lsbets

03-19-2005, 11:23 AM

Suff

03-19-2005, 11:26 AM

Iraq harbored international terrorists.
Iraq funded suicide bombers.
Iraq attempted to assasinate a former President.
Iraq shot at our planes patrolling the no fly zone.
Iraq employed chemical weapons against civilians.

Shall I go on?

go ahead... Those are reasons for invading Iraq. Fine. No arguement.

Iraq-9/11/01... Repeat that 100,000 times. 30% of our Country... Believe Iraq had something to do with 9-11-01. Why or how do you think that is?

Show Me the Wire

03-19-2005, 11:27 AM

hcap:

You delude yourself. The real lemmings are the Islamic masses. Of course this is an insult to lemmings because it has been proven lemmings do not blindly follow the leader in a mad dash over cliffs.

The masses are uneducated, remember Karl Marx and his famous statement about religion being the opium of the people? No truer words were spoken regarding Islam in the middle east and other third world developing countries The reality, this religion in certain countries is the political tool used to oppress the population so the few can retain power.

lsbets

03-19-2005, 11:40 AM

This should probably be its own thread, but the CG of 1st Cav made some pretty interesting comments a few nights ago, giving some good firsthand insight into the war:

"This information comes from an AUSA dinner last night at the Ft. Hood Officers' Club, a speech by MG Pete Chiarelli, CG of the 1st Cav Div. He and most of the Div. have just returned from Iraq. Very informative and, surprise, the
Mainstream Media (MSM) isn't telling the story. I was not there as a reporter, didn't take notes but I'll make some the points I remember that were interesting, suprising or generally stuff I had not heard before.

It was not a speech per se. He just walked and talked, showed some slides and answered questions. Very impressive guy.
1. While units of the Cav served all over Iraq, he spoke mostly of Baghdad and more specifically Sadr City, the big slum on the eastern side of theTigris River. He pointed out that Baghdad is, in geography, is about the size of Austin. Austin has 600,000 to 700,000 people. Baghdad has 6 to7 million people.

2. The Cav lost 28 main battle tanks. He said one of the big lessons learned is that, contrary to doctrine going in, M1-A2s and Bradleys are needed, preferred and devastating in urban combat and he is going to make that point to the JCS next week while they are considering downsizing armor.

3. He showed a graph of attacks in Sadr City by month. Last Aug-Sep they were getting up to 160 attacks per week. During the last three months, the graph had flatlined at below 5 to zero per week.

4. His big point was not that they were "winning battles" to do this but that cleaning the place up, electricity, sewage, water were the key factors. He said yes they fought but after they started delivering services that the Iraqis in Sadr City had never had, the terrorist recruiting of 15 and 16 year olds came up empty.

5. The electrical "grid" is a bad, deadly joke. Said that driving down the street in a Hummv with an antenna would short out a whole block of apt. buildings. People do their own wiring and it was not uncommon for early morning patrols would find one or two people lying dead in the
street, having been electrocuted trying to re-wire their own homes.

6. Said that not tending to a dead body in the Muslum culture never happens. On election day, after suicide bombers blew themselves up trying to take out polling places, voters would step up to the body lying there, spit on it, and move up in the line to vote.

7. Pointed out that we all heard from the media about the 100 Iraqis killed as they were lined up to enlist in the police and security service. What the media didn't point out was that the next day there 300 lined up in the same place.

8. Said bin Laden and Zarqawi made a HUGE mistake when bin laden went public with naming Zarqawi the "prince" of al Quaeda in Iraq. Said that what the Iraqis saw and heard was a Saudi telling a Jordainan that his job was to kill Iraqis. HUGE mistake. It was one of the biggest factors
in getting Iraqis who were on the "fence" to jump off on the side of the coalition and the new gov't.

9. Said the MSM was making a big, and wrong, deal out of the religious sects. Said Iraqis are incredibly nationalistic. They are Iraqis first and then say they are Muslum but the Shi'a - Sunni thing is just not that big a deal to them.

10. After the election the Mayor of Baghdad told him that the people of the region (Middle East) are joyous and the governments are nervous.

11. Said that he did not lose a single tanker truck carrying oil and gas over the roads of Iraq. Think about that. All the attacks we saw on TV with IEDs hitting trucks but he didn't lose one. Why? Army Aviation. Praised his air units and said they made the decision early on that every convoy would have helicopter air cover. Said aviators in that unit
were hitting the 1,000 hour mark (sound familiar?). Said a covoy was supposed to head out but stopped at the gates of a compound on the command of an E6. He asked the SSG what the hold up was. E6 said, "Air, sir." He wondered what was wrong with the air, not realizing what the
kid was talking about. Then the AH-64s showed up and the E6 said, "That air sir." And then moved out.

12. Said one of the biggest problems was money and regs. There was a $77 million gap between the supplemental budget and what he needed in cash on the ground to get projects started. Said he spent most of his time
trying to get money. Said he didn't do much as a "combat commander" because the the war he was fighting was a war at the squad and platoon level. Said that his NCOs were winning the war and it was a sight to behold.

13. Said that of all the money appropriated for Iraq, not a cent was earmarked for agriculture. Said that Iraq could feed itself completely and still have food for export but no one thought about it. Said the Cav started working with Texas A&M on ag projects and had special hybrid
seeds sent to them through Jordan. TAM analyzed soil samples and worked out how and what to plant. Said he had an E7 from Belton, TX (just down the road from Ft. Hood) who was almost single-handedly rebuilding the ag
industry in the Baghdad area.

14. Said he could hire hundreds of Iraqis daily for $7 to $10 a day to work on sewer, electric, water projects, etc. but that the contracting rules from CONUS applied so he had to have $500,000 insurance policies in place in case the workers got hurt. Not kidding. The CONUS peacetime
regs slowed everything down, even if they could eventually get waivers for the regs.

There was more, lots more, but the idea is that you haven't heard any of this from anyone, at least I hadn't and I pay more attention than most.

Great stuff. We should be proud. Said the Cav troops said it was ALL worth it on Jan. 30 when they saw how the Iraqis handled Election Day.
Made them very proud of their service and what they had accomplished. "

The part I can relate to the most is the part about air. Between helicopter support and airborne relays, our convoys have had incredible support. It is hard to describe how good a helicopter sounds when you drive into an ambush, call for air, and they come whooshing in guns a blazing. Medevac birds arrive within five minutes. The aviators have been our best friends out on the road.

Equineer

03-19-2005, 11:50 AM

"A history lesson for lemmings" - Okay PA, at what point can we take the gloves off and call people out for what they are when they start their posts with insults? Is a post title like that an invitation to insult?

If the goal is an Off Topic area where people can argue/debate with more civility, it appears that some members are not intersted in that. While Sec, ljb, and Equineer have all done well (and hopefully so have I), in the past two days we have seen two members who appear completely disinterested in what I interprested as your goals for the Off Topic area of your board. Please consider this a formal complaint lodged against hcap's lack of civility.Lsbets,

Here's three to add to your list of wise-ass posts from the past two days (17th & 18th). :)

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=175549&postcount=37

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=175486&postcount=1

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=175329&postcount=13

IMHO, the tighter you make the rules, the less we will hear from the "no meat and potatoes" crowd who render provocative statements without supporting arguments.

Ridicule is a staple for pundits like Ann Coulter and Al Franken, but they generally adhere to the central rule of civilized ridicule: they actually invoke the words and deeds of their targets to fuel their political barbs; otherwise, what you have is just naked banal nonesense (i.e., such as "Xxxx is a dumb ass, Yyyy is a POS, or Zzzz is full of crap").

ElKabong

03-19-2005, 11:50 AM

Iraq harbored international terrorists.
Iraq funded suicide bombers.
Iraq attempted to assasinate a former President.
Iraq shot at our planes patrolling the no fly zone.
Iraq employed chemical weapons against civilians.

Shall I go on?

More than enuff reasons for me to invade and conquer Iraq. Glad we did it.

If we wanted to invade Iraq for oil and only oil, we would have done it long ago. No one had the miltary to stop us from doing so.

So what if any of this pisses off little girls here with face paint that post left wing links.... Big deal.

ElKabong

03-19-2005, 11:59 AM

6. Said that not tending to a dead body in the Muslum culture never happens. On election day, after suicide bombers blew themselves up trying to take out polling places, voters would step up to the body lying there, spit on it, and move up in the line to vote.

.

My kind of people! :) :ThmbUp:

Suff

03-19-2005, 12:00 PM

More than enuff reasons for me to invade and conquer Iraq. Glad we did it.
.

I would have prefered we concentrated our Military Strategy on the Govts directly responsible for attacking us. We pulled an unshaven, dirty man out of a hole in the ground for 1000's of lives and 300 bil.

Show Me the Wire

03-19-2005, 12:11 PM

I believe your wrong there.

I think many americans have a distorted view of what American Companies do overseas, when they are unecumbered by Regulations, fair and decency practices, No EPA, no FDA, No Constitution, No Bill of Rights.

To say that Mass's of Arabs are just illiterate no nothings is wrong.

Suff:

Sounds like your advocating democracy for these people. I agree with you they should have rights.

I am not wrong about illateracy. Illetaracy is rampant there and encouraged by the ruling regimes and clergy. It is the ruling class' way of keeping power out of the hands of the masses. This type of governmet is the best example of karl Marx's philosophy of the "working" masses being abused.

If anything I would think a progressive thinking person would condem a system that encourages illetaracy to perpetuate its power.

Suff

03-19-2005, 12:14 PM

Suff:

If anything I would think a progressive thinking person would condem a system that encourages illetaracy to perpetuate its power.

This could get into a long disussion about what we do overseas..

But both sides are correct.... Fundemental islamist's prey upon the poor , illiterate, hopeless and disenfranchised. And in many ways.. we assist these Govt's in holding onto thier grip by enriching them.

ElKabong

03-19-2005, 12:20 PM

Well Suff, you can be happy with what you'd rather do, I'm happy with what's been done and what we're set up to do, if need be. I like my position better than yours, personally.

As for Hussein, he could have saved himself (and the citizenty of Iraq) a lot of misery by not playing games with the weapons inspectors or shooting at our airmen on routine recon missions approved by the UN. To say pulling him out of a hole is all we have to show for the war, you're way the hell off.

Now, we're in the region. If we NEED to kick Iran or Syria's ass for whatever reasons, we're in position to do so. That's a huge secondary victory for us. I could go on and on about the advantages of us being there in a dominant role, but this crap has been rehashed a 1000 times here.

Bottom line for me is, when Iraq shot at our aircraft and airmen on approved UN surveillance missions, that did it for me. We were right to invade right then and there. If anyone wants to whine, let em.

Show Me the Wire

03-19-2005, 12:23 PM

Suff:

You don't have to tell me what U.S. corporations do overseas. I know exploitation takes place in underdeveloped countries by multi-national corporations.

Is it right, no, but it has been that way it seems since mankind populated the world. Men have exploited men throughout the ages. Mankind seemed to invent slavery quite quickly and implemented slavery through force (conquest) and voluntary servitude.

Sigh, I guess the more things change the more they stay the same.

hcap

03-19-2005, 12:32 PM

Mr Kabong
More than enuff reasons for me to invade and conquer Iraq. Glad we did it.

If we wanted to invade Iraq for oil and only oil, we would have done it long ago. No one had the miltary to stop us from doing so.

So what if any of this pisses off little girls here with face paint that post left wing links.... Big deal.

The big deal is the cost in lives, the wasting of resources, and the illusion that we are safer then we were before 911.

It pisses off more than little girls. It pisses off those of us who are able to see a foreign policy created by pissed off little boys. Little girls are less likely to fall for the follow the leader mentality that tends to lead down the cliff. Blindly.

IRAQ<> 911 !!!

No matter the latest fashionable justification
Just cut to the chase Kabong...Hell nuke 'em all. And be done with it.
No need to bother with reality. Make it up as you go along.
Just like your leader

Show Me the Wire

03-19-2005, 12:40 PM

SMTW,

An illiterate religious group? Maybe religious not illiterate. Maybe fanatical. But not acting in a vacuum. Rank and file suicide bombers are not unaware of the historical precedents for the mid east to be suspicious of western interests.The growth of the arab media has and is changing this.

The invasion of Iraq has changed this. People are more aware than you would like to admit. Or is it our "white mans burden" to tame the savages?

Not all terrorists spring from savages, as you seem to claim.

Now hcap turning to your blantant misrepresentation of my post. I did not call anyone a savage or that the white man has a burden of taming savages. I stated facts, the majority of Islamic terrorists are ignorant of U.S. foreign policy due to the high illiteracy rate. What is the connection between being a savage and not being able to read?

The only connection, I see, is that I refuted your misguided point that the majority of Islamic terrorist sare well informed about U.S. foreign policy and felt justification to kill and attack civilians. because of the civilian's government foreign policies.

Well if the Islamic terrorist have justification to kill civilians because they do not like the civilians Govenment's foreign policies, I guess anyone who does not like any government's foreign policy is justified to kill the civillians represented by that government.

Therefore, I can conclude by your remarks it is okay for me to support the killing of Syria's, North Korea's and China's civillian population because I really do not like their foreign policy and I perceive them to be threat to my holy soil. Is the above-statement a fair summary about your beliefs? We could use more progressive thinking like yours.

In response to your question regarding holy sites, if I was intolerant of other religions like certain Islamic sects, yes I would be upset if an infidel set foot in Mecca. Do you understand that if you are not Muslim you can't step foot in Mecca? Off the top of my head I do not know of any other major religion that is so intolerant of other religious beliefs, which some how gives them the right to rid the world of infidels.

You see my religion does not give me the right certain Muslims believe they have to kill the non-beliviers.

Show Me the Wire

03-19-2005, 12:52 PM

Mr Kabong

Little girls are less likely to fall for the follow the leader mentality that tends to lead down the cliff. Blindly.

I recall reading about young female homicide bombers. Great example of following the leader blindly over a cliff. BTW do you know the answer to following question?

If males are rewarded with 20 (or is it 200, need lots of good Muslim girls) female virgins in heaven after blowing themselves up in a homocide bombing, what do the little girls receive for their heroic homocide bombing deed? Do they receive 20 male virgins, if they do would that make them sluths in the eyes of their religion? Or maybe the little girls get to watch the heroic male suicide bombers have all the fun in paradise?

ElKabong

03-19-2005, 12:56 PM

Mr Kabong

IRAQ<> 911 !!!

No matter the latest fashionable justification
Just cut to the chase Kabong...Hell nuke 'em all. And be done with it.
No need to bother with reality. Make it up as you go along.
Just like your leader

Dear Little Girl with face paint,

You didn't comprehend my reasons for approval, so I'll state one just for you right here.----When Iraq shot at our airmen and aircraft while on routine UN approved surveillance missions, that was enuff reason to me for us to invade and conquer Iraq. They fired on an aircraft to kill an American.

Got that? Good!

If anything, I was calling for the ass kicking long before we went in. Don't try your lame "lemming" or follower crap with me. Won't work. I was for ridding Hussein before it happened, before GWB was in office.

PaceAdvantage

03-19-2005, 01:00 PM

I actually think this is one of the better threads on the subject to be created in a long time. There is some really good debate going on here, and I've enjoyed reading the entire thread so far...

lsbets

03-19-2005, 01:15 PM

Equineer - obviously those were barbed one liners, but I would make a distinction, and I am pretty confident you will see my point. Sq said maybe even Hillary realized Kerry was a moron. The target of the barb was John Kerry. It would have been different if he said everyone who voted for Kerry was a moron - that would be directed at quite a few members on here, and would pass into the uncivil realm.

And yes PA, I agree with you, this thread has not degenerated yet and has remained pleasant. It looked like it might head south a few times, but so far so good. Or maybe I'm just in a good mood because I am sitting in Kuwait and will never have to go across the border into Iraq again (at least until my next deployment :faint: )

PaceAdvantage

03-19-2005, 01:19 PM

Although I guess I started this whole thing by putting people on notice in off-topic, I would hate to have to get into the minutia of determining which words or phrases are good or bad to use.

Self-policiing is the best policy. Everyone knows the obvious things that tend to trigger ("clueless", "moron", "right-wing-wacko", "left-wing-looney", etc, etc)

hcap

03-19-2005, 01:43 PM

The event that started the so called war on terrorism was 911.

The hijackers responsible for 9/11 were not illiterate, bearded fanatics from Afghanistan. They were all educated, highly skilled, middle-class professionals. Of the 19 men involved, 13 were citizens of Saudi Arabia.

The 9/11 attacks were planned in Germany and Spain, not Afghanistan, by young men, mostly Saudis, who were educated and westernized.

Some background on our involvement that influenced the 911 attacks.

1-We kept repressive feudal or military dictatorships in power in mideast nations that supported Washington's strategic interests.

2-Israel at war with the Palestinians with U.S.-supplied arms, financed by U.S. taxpayers, In the eyes of most Mideasterners, and all extremists, Israel and the United States become the same enemy

3-In fact we have been overthrowing regimes, assassinating foreign leaders, promoting dictatorships and waging undeclared wars on foreign nations since the late 1940s.

"Washington propped up the Shah of Iran and the Saudi Arabian government in the ill-fated "Twin Pillars" strategy. This ended with the Iranian revolution, leaving America with a messy patchwork of military and political detritus. When Iran went to war with Iraq, the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein to prevent Iran from winning. Anxious about Soviet incursions into Afghanistan, it propped up the Taliban. These two monstrous forces--Saddam and the Taliban--are very much an American creation."--William O. Beeman

Religious fanaticism may be the means of stirring up terrorists, but it is not lack of education that allows this to happen. Much of it is the common memory of the west controlling and trying to dominate the region. This does not have to be indoctrinated into a potential terrorist. It is common knowledge.

Terrorists are typically more well off and better educated than surrounding populations.

http://www.fordham.edu/economics/mcleod/Martyrs.pdf

Education: "Officials with the Army Defense Intelligence Agency who have interrogated Saudi-born members of Al Qaeda being detained at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, have told me that these fundamentalists, especially those in leadership positions, are often educated above reasonable employment level; a surprising number have graduate degrees and come from high-status families."

Poverty: "The Princeton economist Alan Krueger and others released a study in 2002 comparing Lebanese Hezbollah militants who died in violent action to other Lebanese of the same age group. He found that the Hezbollah members were less likely to come from poor homes and more likely to have a secondary school education."

The end result is that: "This allows terrorist agents to choose recruits who are intelligent, psychologically balanced and socially poised. Candidates who mostly want virgins in paradise or money for their families are weeded out. Those selected show patience and the ability to plan and execute in subtle, quiet ways that don't draw attention."

And

"In a study of al-Qaeda recruits, forensic psychiatrist Marc Sageman of the University of Pennsylvania found a similar pattern: Many attended college and are economically better off than most Palestinians or European Muslims, and they are often "the elite of their countries," he said."

http://www.umich.edu/~iinet/iisite/media/10-08-04-WallStreetJournal-suicidebombers.htm

There is more to investigate than your world view that they" hate us for our freedoms"

Hey Kabong the fly zones were never approved by the UN. So if your argument was that Saddam was ignoring UN sanctions or rulings-like the champ Israel, that don't fly here.

And does firing on and killing any american give us the mandate to invade and kill 100,000 civilians? I thought the the reason was 911. Oh maybe you should pass the no fly zone crap onto the bushies so they can use it as the next best rationalization when spreading democracy runs its course.

lsbets

03-19-2005, 02:00 PM

Hcap - please show the proof that we have killed 100,000 civilians. Surely you must have more than one all too often quoted "study" that was shown to be false quickly after its release.

In terms of some of the other shtuff (to use a technical term) you posted:

"A surprising number have graduate degrees" - okay, what is a surprising number? 2,3, 12?

"Candidates who mostly want virgins in paradise or money for their families are weeded out." Really - well, I guess there are no suicide bombings then, and Hussein never paid off the families of suicide bombers.

Are there educated terrorists? Of course there are. The vast majority of the "foot soldiers" the ones who drive the car bombs into lines of people signing up to be police, the ones who set out IEDs, and the ones who walk into a pizzeria in Jerusalem are not the educated ones. They are the ones who have been duped by the educated ones. The ones with the education are normally too valuable to waste on a target as small as the typical attack, and need to be used only on high value targets like the WTC.

And 9/11 was not the event that started the war on terrorism. 9/11 was the event that started our offensive to win the war on terrorism. We have been involved in this war for a long, long time.

hcap

03-19-2005, 02:31 PM

SWTWI recall reading about young female homicide bombers. Great example of following the leader blindly over a cliff.

BTW do you know the answer to following question? If males are rewarded with 20 (or is it 200, need lots of good Muslim girls) female virgins in heaven after blowing themselves up in a homocide bombing, what do the little girls receive for their heroic homocide bombing deed? Do they receive 20 male virgins, if they do would that make them sluths in the eyes of their religion? Or maybe the little girls get to watch the heroic male suicide bombers have all the fun in paradise?My comment about little girls was an attempt to point out that certain male dominated areas of life tend to be combative. There is a limit to the "bully on the block" analogy extending to global foreign policy. World socio-economic and international relations don't simplify well.

Finding the lowest common denominator simply because it allows "bold and decisive" steps to be enacted, does not mean bold and decisive is correct. Global interactions cannot be compared to who can piss higher on the wall.

When was the last time you heard of little girls having a pissing contest?

But female suicide bombers exist. Sluts? Or maybe there is more to why people particulary women would choose to kill themselves along with other innocents. It is hard to grasp, but why? Do the women hate our freedoms as much as their men do? Simplify all you want, but that does not mean simple is correct.

http://www.tagorda.com/archives/002835.php

Show Me the Wire

03-19-2005, 02:38 PM

Show Me the Wire

03-19-2005, 02:46 PM

SWTWMy comment about little girls was an attempt to point out that certain male dominated areas of life tend to be combative. There is a limit to the "bully on the block" analogy extending to global foreign policy. World socio-economic and international relations don't simplify well.

Finding the lowest common denominator simply because it allows "bold and decisive" steps to be enacted, does not mean bold and decisive is correct. Global interactions cannot be compared to who can piss higher on the wall.

When was the last time you heard of little girls having a pissing contest?

But female suicide bombers exist. Sluts? Or maybe there is more to why people particulary women would choose to kill themselves along with other innocents. It is hard to grasp, but why? Do the women hate our freedoms as much as their men do? Simplify all you want, but that does not mean simple is correct.

http://www.tagorda.com/archives/002835.php

Talk about simplification, read your post above. The reason the U.S. is in Iraq is because of a pissing match due to male egos and girls do not get into pissing matches. My above statement sums up your above quoted verbose post and your prior ones about the role of females. Very complex argument. Simple does as simple is.

My point is about the abuse of the populace not about pissing contests and the inability to perform in one.

ElKabong

03-19-2005, 02:55 PM

Hey Kabong the fly zones were never approved by the UN. So if your argument was that Saddam was ignoring UN sanctions or rulings-like the champ Israel, that don't fly here.

And does firing on and killing any american give us the mandate to invade and kill 100,000 civilians? I thought the the reason was 911. Oh maybe you should pass the no fly zone crap onto the bushies so they can use it as the next best rationalization when spreading democracy runs its course.

Dear Little Girl with face paint,

Yes, our flyovers were UN approved. This UN resolution ought to remove your doubt....
http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

>>,Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,---snip

The flyovers were recon missions to protect the Kurds and Shiite muslems, who were being murdered by saddam's regime.

http://www.historyguy.com/no-fly_zone_war.html

Operation Name Date(s) Nations Involved Type of Action Details
Operation Southern Watch August 2, 1992
U.S. & UN vs.Iraq
Establishment of "no-fly zone".
The "no-fly zone" is imposed over south Iraq as a means of halting air attacks on Shiite Muslim rebels. The United States begins air patrols of the zone.----SNIP

ElKabong

03-19-2005, 03:04 PM

Dear Little Girl with face paint,

Here's another UN resolution (715) approving our flyovers in Iraq, which we were gunned at for our efforts.

http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/unscr715.htm

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

4. Decides that the Special Commission, in the exercise of its responsibilities as a subsidiary organ of the Security Council, shall:

(a) Continue to have the responsibility for designating additional locations for inspection and overflights;

Tom

03-19-2005, 04:02 PM

Don't these guys ever get tied of thier tired old arguements? Even only seeing half the posts on this thread, I can almost tell what each has said ( I am also ignoring the greyed quotes).

Talk about lemmings. These guys just cannot stray from thier party line on anything.

I think we were talking about the illegal shooting at our fly-overs, what, three years ago?

Hey, even if we did ( we did NOT) kill 100,000 civilians, we are nowhere close to what SH already killed, and yo could probably add a few thousand more in the last year or so.

We done good. Live with it.

hcap

03-19-2005, 04:22 PM

715 was--

"Recalling in particular that under resolution 687 (1991) the Secretary-General and the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) were requested to develop plans for future ongoing monitoring and verification, and to submit them to the Security Council for approval"

4. Decides that the Special Commission, in the exercise of its responsibilities as a subsidiary organ of the Security Council, shall:

(a) Continue to have the responsibility for designating additional locations for inspection and overflights;

The overflights refered to were to monitor possible weapons. Not the no-fly zones

Now for RESOLUTION 660

2 August 1990

Adopted by the Security Council at its 2932nd meeting, on 2 August 1990

The Security Council, Alarmed by the invasion of Kuwait on 2 August 1990 by the military forces of Iraq,

Determining that there exists a breach of international peace and security as regards the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Acting under Articles 39 and 40 of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Condemns the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait;

2. Demands that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally all s its forces to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990;

3. Calls upon Iraq and Kuwait to begin immediately intensive negotiations for the resolution of their differences and supports all efforts in this regard, and especially those of the League of Arab States;

4. Decides to meet again as necessary to consider further steps with to ensure compliance with the present resolution.

6 August 1990

Now RESOLUTION 678

Adopted by the Security Council at its 2963rd meeting on 29 November 1990

The Security Council,

Recalling, and reaffirming its resolutions 660 (1990) of 2 August (1990), 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 662 (1990) of 9 August 1990, 664 (1990) of 18 August 1990, 665 (1990) of 25 August 1990, 666 (1990) of 13 September 1990, 667 (1990) of 16 September 1990, 669 (1990) of 24 September 1990, 670 (1990) of 25 September 1990, 674 (1990) of of 29 October 1990 and 677 (1990) of 28 November 1990.

Noting that, despite all efforts by the United Nations, Iraq refuses to comply with its obligation to implement resolution 660 (1990) and the above-mentioned subsequent relevant resolutions, in flagrant contempt of the Security Council,

Mindful of its duties and responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance and preservation of internationalnd peace and security,

Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,

1. Demands that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and decides, while maintaining all its decisions, to allow Iraq one final opportunity, as a pause of goodwil, to do so;

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

3. Requests all States to provide appropriate support for the actions undertaken in pursuance of paragraph 2 of the present resolution;

4. Requests the States concerned to keep the Security Council regularly informed on the progress of actions undertaken pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the present resolution;

5. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

Nowhere does the UN approve the no fly zones

Meanwhile back at the ranch

No-Fly Zones Go On Trial In Des Moines, Iowa
by Jeffrey J. Weiss
http://www.commondreams.org/views/061400-106.htm

"Outside of Washington and London, it is difficult to find support that the no-fly zones have a basis in international law. In a search on the web of coverage on the no-fly zones, I found that 11 media agencies -- including the NY Times, CNN, Reuters, the Associated Press, Washington Post, British Broadcasting Company, Inter-Press Services - rightly reported that the no-fly zones are not authorized by the United Nations and are set up by the U.S. and Britain. Despite this finding, I could not find one news agency that took an editorial stand against them."

No-fly zones: The legal position

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1175950.stm

"The two no-fly zones over Iraq were imposed by the US, Britain and France after the Gulf War, in what was described as a humanitarian effort to protect Shi'a Muslims in the south and Kurds in the north. The justification was that an acute humanitarian crisis made it necessary to infringe the sovereignty of Iraq in this way. However, unlike the military campaign to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the no-fly zones were not authorised by the UN and they are not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council resolution.

If you want to check out all resolutions pertaining to Iraq go here
http://www.caabu.org/press/documents/iraq-documents.html#1990

The original Lancet study on Iraqi civilian deaths is here

http://www.caabu.org/press/documents/Lancet-Iraq-Mortality.pdf

hcap

03-19-2005, 04:52 PM

SMTWYou know why these educated men were not informed about their planned ultimate sacrifice for the cause? If you don't, I will be happy to explain it to you. Simply stated if these educated men knew their deaths were planned, they never would have participated.Just like the women suicide bomber I linked to. I guess they tricked her into wearing a bomb. But hey believing that bush invaded to "spread democracy" is equally believable.

Pissing contests happen all the time in world affairs. Off course privatizing Iraq and controlling Opec and therefore world Oil prices would be a pretty high pissing mark. Who says male egos are only about war. The spoils of war add a definite tinge. Remember dick-head cheney? Cheney was already reviewing Iraq's oil infrastructure with U.S. oil companies before September 11th.
So if the my original Oil and Iraq post is correct..

"The BBC Newsnight reports the titanic struggle between the Neoconservatives and Big Oil over Iraqi petroleum. If this story is true, it is some of the best reporting to come out of the Iraq scandal for months, and Greg Palast and his colleagues have scooped the Washington Post and the New York Times."

The neocons had this mark in mind for quite a while. Even though the seven sisters were not willing to go along.

Show Me the Wire

03-19-2005, 05:12 PM

hcap:

Now you are saying a woman with a bomb strapped to her, unwittingly wore the device without knowing her actions would logically result in her death? Then you go on to say if your original post about the oil is true. All I can say is unreal.

There is no logical or rational connection between educated men, kept in the dark about their planned deaths, a woman voluntarily strapping on a bomb to commit homicide to allow you to conclude that the report you posted about is correct.

JustRalph

03-19-2005, 05:54 PM

I would have prefered we concentrated our Military Strategy on the Govts directly responsible for attacking us. We pulled an unshaven, dirty man out of a hole in the ground for 1000's of lives and 300 bil.

yes, but you ignore the impact this action had on the other countries in the area. every SOB in the middle east now knows that the U.S. military can roll over them in a weeks time. This is a result that is beyond measure.

ElKabong

03-19-2005, 07:04 PM

Dear Little Girl with face paint,

Nice try, but you're wrong.

One last UN resolution (688) for you that will end your nonsense.

http://www.milnet.com/united-nations/

Eventually, Iraqi defiance of this resolution resulted in the coaltion from the Gulf War (principally the U.S., U.K. and France) to create and patrol a Southern No Fly Zone on Aug. 26, 1992, obstensibly to protect Shi'a populations in the South. Similarly, the Northern No Fly Zone was created in January of 1997 to protect Kurds in the North - citing this resolution as the authorization. France withdrew from air operations in 1998 after Operation Desert Fox struck targets in Iraq (see Resolution 1205 below). --snip

http://www.milnet.com/united-nations/unscr688.htm

Secretariat

03-19-2005, 08:57 PM

Iraq harbored international terrorists.
Iraq funded suicide bombers.
Iraq attempted to assasinate a former President.
Iraq shot at our planes patrolling the no fly zone.
Iraq employed chemical weapons against civilians.

Shall I go on?

Actually Syria has harbored international terrorists, Pakistan who we are apparently quasi allies has harbored international terrorists, and in fact international terrorists were in the US as well.

Syria has also funded suicide bombers. So has Chechneya.

As to your other points they are also true, most taking place in the 90's.

When Bush ran for office he made no platform on attacking Iraq based on your above criteria. He used 911 and WMD's as his excuse for invading Iraq, none of the reasons you outlined above or he would have done it pre-911. In fact Bush ran on a "we can't be the world's policeman" and state we cannto get involved in nation-building exercises. All of the reasons you list for invading Iraq occurred prior to 911 and prior to the 2000 election yet invading Iraq was not part of the Republican platform.

So, we are left with the WMD's and 911 as the principal reasons given. Neither has been verified. In fact the WH now agrees that Hussein was not involved in 911.

lsbets

03-20-2005, 01:43 AM

Maureen Dowd wrote an op-ed before Powell's UN appearance stating that the administration was not focused enough in justifying the invasion of Iraq. She listed all of the reasons that Bush had used as justification - the ones I listed before, failure to comply with UN resolutions, failure to comply with the ceasefire from their surrender in 91, WMDs, links to terrorism, the need to prevent another 911, and the goal of spreading democracy in the Middle East. She then said that the administration had to pick one or two reasons and focus on them. The mistake that the administartion made was listening to her advice and focusing most of the public justification on WMDs starting with Powell's UN appearance. To say that the other reasons were not out there and were not a part of the basis for the invasion is simply historical revisionism. The democratization of the Middle East was discussed extensivly prior to the invasion. My First Sergeant (who happens to be sitting about 3 feet to my left right now) was a recruiter in Detroit before the invasion. He went to a town hall meeting with the Iraqi community in Detroit where Wolfowitz spoke. There were several other speakers there whose names he cannot remember, but the main topics they talked about were getting rid of Saddam and spreading democracy in the Middle East. Keep in mind - this was before the war and was a public appearance. Spreading democracy was not a secret before we invaded.

Show Me the Wire

03-20-2005, 02:10 AM

Secretariat:

I agree invading Iraq or Afghanistan were not part of the rebuplican platform in President Bush's first election and there was no reason for it to be. Unlike hcap's theory that people who do not like a government's foreign policy have the right to kill that government's civillians, I do not believe the same. Also, I think my national leaders mostly think along those lines.

After the election 9-11 happened. 9-11 did not happen in a vacumn, there were reasons missed by prior administrations as well as the sitting administration and the public. Hindsight is 20/20 in handicapping and politics. Looking back after a race is completed you can find the reason you believe the winner won.

It is the same in politics, you review the possible factors that lead up to the event for justification of your defensive actions. The initial target of our defensive reaction was Afghanistan, a barren rocky land with no oil.

Iraq, became a target for other defensive reasons as listed after doing the post-mortem review of the race. This time the defensive action was proactive instead of reactive. I find nothing wrong with proactivity. is that the sticking point proactive defensive measures versus reactive?

I pefer the proactive approach in life. We will never know the amount of innocent civilian lives that were saved world wide by this action.

So what is so hard to comprehend things happen and agendas change. One thing you can never deny is that innocent civillians of the U.S. and other nations were delberately killed by Islamic terrorists and the U.S. defended itself against further attacks on U.S. soil by taking action against its perceived enemies, based on hindset as well as foresight.

hcap

03-20-2005, 05:25 AM

SWTWNow you are saying a woman with a bomb strapped to her, unwittingly wore the device without knowing her actions would logically result in her death? Then you go on to say if your original post about the oil is true. All I can say is unreal.

There is no logical or rational connection between educated men, kept in the dark about their planned deaths, a woman voluntarily strapping on a bomb to commit homicide to allow you to conclude that the report you posted about is correct.I never said she "unwittingly wore the device without knowing her actions would logically result in her death"

I saidJust like the women suicide bomber I linked to. I guess they tricked her into wearing a bomb. But hey believing that bush invaded to "spread democracy" is equally believableMeaning she was perfectly aware of her actions, just like the 911 terrorists. If you read any of the posts or links I cited, you would take back your nonsense about most terrorists being uneducated, and in the dark about their missions. Being totally manipulated by the higher ups. The leaders of terrorist networks have fertile ground to play upon the followers. The "great satan" reputation is partially based on the historical facts of US and the west unabashed imperialism.

Now whether or not imperialism is good thing or a bad thing, redrawing the map of the middle east in the early part of the 20th century by western nations, the involment in previous regime changes, is a fact cognizant by many ordinary citizens in the mideast. Fertile grounds for stirring up motivations. The humilation of people and nations is bad karma.

Unless we convince those folks we have changed our intentions, things will not necessarily improve.

The grievances of the terrorists who committed the horrendous attacks on New York and Washington on September 11 have deep and persistent roots going back more than 150 years.

"The Western nations have committed a litany of crimes against the Muslim world according to the Islamic opposition. After World War I, the Middle Eastern peoples were treated largely as war prizes to be divided and manipulated for the good of the militarily powerful Europeans. The British and the French without consent or consultation on the part of the residents created every nation between the Mediterranean Sea and the Persian Gulf for their own benefit. This increased the resentment of the fundamentalists against the West and against the rulers installed by Westerners."
....William O. Beeman

lsbets

03-20-2005, 06:09 AM

Hcap - maybe you should read the following 102 page report entitled "Final Report on the Transition to Democracy in Iraq". The report was produced in Dec 2002. Seems like there was some talk about democracy spreading in the region before we invaded.

http://www.iraqfoundation.org/studies/2002/dec/study.pdf

lsbets

03-20-2005, 06:16 AM

Here's some more - President Bush on Feb 26, 2003:

"The nation of Iraq – with its proud heritage, abundant resources and skilled educated people – is fully capable of moving toward democracy and living in freedom… Success could also begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace…"

and then there is the 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States of America (NSS):

"We seek to create a balance of power that favors human freedom: conditions in which all nations and all societies can choose for themselves the rewards and challenges of political and economic liberty.

We will actively work to bring the hope of democracy, development, free markets, and free trade to every corner of the world.

America must stand firmly for the nonnegotiable demands of human dignity; the rule of law; limits on the absolute power of the state; free speech; freedom of worship; equal justice; respect for women; religious and ethnic tolerance; and respect for private property.

Embodying lessons from our past and using the opportunity we have today, the national security strategy of the United States must start from these core beliefs and look outward for possibilities to expand liberty."

You're right, we never talked about spreading democracy in the middle easy before we invaded Iraq. :D

hcap

03-20-2005, 06:30 AM

Kabong,

Once again you have tried to pass on the myth of the legality of the no-fly zone.

Nothing in your latest link shows UN approval. UN resolution 688 does not mention anything about no-fly zones.

"RESOLUTION 688 (1991)

Adopted by the Security Council at its 2982nd meeting on 5 April 1991

The Security Council,

Mindful of its duties and its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security,

Recalling of Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter of the United Nations,

Gravely concerned by the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq, including most recently in Kurdish populated areas, which led to a massive flow of refugees towards and across international frontiers and to cross-border incursions, which threaten international peace and security in the region,

Deeply disturbed by the magnitude of the human suffering involved, Taking note of the letters sent by the representatives of Turkey and France to the United Nations dated 2 April 1991 and 4 April 1991, respectively (S/22435 and S/22442),

Taking note also of the letters sent by the Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations dated 3 and 4 April 1991, respectively (S/22436 and S/22447),

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Iraq and of all States in the area,

Bearing in mind the Secretary-General's report of 20 March 1991 (S/22366),

1. Condemns the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq, including most recently in Kurdish populated areas, the consequences of which threaten international peace and security in the region; [Emphasis by MILNET]

2. Demands that Iraq, as a contribution to remove the threat to international peace and security in the region, immediately end this repression and express the hope in the same context that an open dialogue will take place to ensure that the human and political rights of all Iraqi citizens are respected;

3. Insists that Iraq allow immediate access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in all parts of Iraq and to make available all necessary facilities for their operations;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to pursue his humanitarian efforts in Iraq and to report forthwith, if appropriate on the basis of a further mission to the region, on the plight of the Iraqi civilian population, and in particular the Kurdish population, suffering from the repression in all its forms inflicted by the Iraqi authorities;

5. Requests further the Secretary-General to use all the resources at his disposal, including those of the relevant United Nations agencies, to address urgently the critical needs of the refugees and displaced Iraqi population;

6. Appeals to all Member States and to all humanitarian organizations to contribute to these humanitarian relief efforts;

7. Demands that Iraq cooperate with the Secretary-General to these ends;

8. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

"Significantly, the Resolution made no reference to Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which would have made it mandatory and legitimated the use of force to ensure compliance. Nor did UNSCR 688 recommend or demand the establishment of a Military Staff Committee, required by Chapter VII "to advise and assist the Security Council on all questions relating to the Security Council's military requirements". Chapter VII (Article 46) states, "plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee." UNSCR 688 "condemns" the repression of Iraq's civilian population and "insists" that Iraq allow access to humanitarian organisations. It "appeals" to member states and humanitarian aid organisations to contribute to these humanitarian relief efforts, but makes no mention, implicit or explicit, of the provisions governing the use of force contained in Chapter VII nor the use of force to ensure compliance. This point was raised by Tony Benn MP during the House of Commons debate on 26 February 2001: "The United Nations charter explicitly prohibits military action by one country against another without the authority of the Security Council, which has never authorised either the no-fly zones or the bombing." (UNSCR 688)

The extent to which the NFZs might legitimately be defended with reference to 688 is controversial, therefore, as is the degree of utility and success associated with the operations. UNSCR 688 is at very best an ambiguous source of legitimisation for the imposition of NFZs over Iraq and the omission of any reference to Chapter VII in a sense precludes the legitimate use of force to ensure compliance with it. As such, the Resolution's appeal to the international community to support humanitarian efforts in Iraq has been subject to an excessive degree of creative interpretation in an attempt to legitimate the US and UK NFZs"

http://www.caabu.org/press/briefings/no-fly-zones.html#7

"There is no UN resolution authorizing the creation of "no-fly-zones" inside Iraq, let alone allowing the unilateral or bilateral military enforcement of such zones.

.....The Northern zone was established by the US, UK and France shortly after the war ended in 1991. It was not authorized by the UN, but was justified as necessary to protect the Operation Provide Comfort aid convoys being sent to assist the Kurds fleeing Iraq into Turkey. The Southern zone was established in 1992, in an area parallel to the border demilitarized zone - but it was not established or authorized by the UN as part of the border demarcation project. The US claimed it would protect the Shi'a population of southern Iraq. France pulled out of participation in the Southern zone in 1996, and out of the North in 1998, leaving the US and UK as sole participants in, and sole defenders of, the no-fly-zones"

...Security Resolution 688 of April 1991, which condemns Iraq's repression of civilians, particularly the Kurds, and demands that Iraq end this repression. But nothing in that resolution calls for or permits the creation or military enforcement of flight-exclusion zones. It requests the UN secretary-general to pursue further efforts and report back to the Council, and also "requests the Secretary-General to ... address urgently the critical needs of the refugees and displaced Iraqi population

....It is Article 6 that the US seems to rely on to justify its airstrikes - apparently defining the bombing raids as a "contribution to humanitarian relief efforts". Unilateral airstrikes and bombings do not, however, qualify as "humanitarian relief". And Resolution 688 was specifically not taken under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the only circumstance in which a UN resolution may authorize the use of force. There are two additional problems. First, the language of the resolution asks States to "contribute to the humanitarian relief" work identified in the resolution - meaning efforts to meet the needs of the "refugees and displaced" of April 1991 - primarily the Kurdish refugees seeking shelter in Turkey. Clearly bombing civilians, economic targets, and dozens of sheep and goats in 2001 (aside from whatever military targets may be hit) does nothing to help whatever refugees or displaced remain from that refugee crisis of a decade before. Second, Resolution 688 concludes that the Security Council itself "decides to remain seized of the matter". In UN diplo-speak, that means authority remains within Council; any individual state would be obligated to return to the Council to authorize any response beyond the provision of humanitarian aid.

http://www.tni.org/archives/bennis/faq.htm

Finally

Annan Says Iraqi No-Fly Zone Firing No Violation
Reuters
November 19, 2002

Iraq's firing on U.S. and British aircraft enforcing "no-fly" zones in Iraq is not a violation of the latest Security Council resolution, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said on Tuesday.

Contradicting the United States' interpretation of Resolution 1441 on Iraq adopted two weeks ago, Annan indicated that the Security Council would not see such action by Iraq as a trigger for war.

"Let me say that I don't think that the Council will say this is in contravention of the resolution of the Security Council," Annan said when asked if Iraq was violating 1441 by firing at alliance planes, as Washington contends.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/nofly/2002/1119nofly.htm

Kabong, this message has been approved by a little girl with a painted face.

lsbets

03-20-2005, 06:40 AM

Did Annan make that statemtent before or after his family members received kickbacks from the Oil for Food Program?

hcap

03-20-2005, 07:25 AM

There is no doubt that various parties particularly Iraqi ex patriots, and other groups from the region wanted the removal of Saddam and the establishment of a democracy. But remember included in these groups were guys like Chalabi who fed us a crock to further his agenda.

I do think all of us were symphathetic to the wants of those under Saddams rule. The situation however was not that this was not a noble desire, but that we faced an immediate threat from Iraq. Based on this exagerated assessment by the administration, we were rushed into war. The growth of democracy in the region was never part and parcel of the original major justifications. If that alone along with the removal of Saddam had been presented to the country and the congress as the reasons for an invasion, the outcome would have been totally different.

My contention all along has been that this administration by the use of a skilled PR and media campaign led us into a war of choice-not necessity.

The price we and our children will pay in blood and treasure, makes that choice unwise.

Annan as head of the UN was voicing his view that the no fly zones were not sanctioned. By the way did cheney, set up his energy commision where the diviying up of Iraq was planned, before or after he and his buddy george claimed 911 changed everything?

Hint---before 911.
No connection to Saddam
No Wmds to fall into the hands of similiar terrorists.
No reason to invade???
Except for the fact that the founding members of the PNAC are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

"Present and former members include several prominent members of the Republican Party and Bush Administration, including Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, Richard Perle, Richard Armitage, Dick Cheney, Lewis Libby, William J. Bennett, Zalmay Khalilzad, and Ellen Bork, the wife of Robert Bork. A large number of its ideas and its members are associated with the neoconservative movement. PNAC has seven full-time staff members, in addition to its board of directors.

Neat coincidence.

hcap

03-20-2005, 08:50 AM

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1538&ncid=732&e=7&u=/afp/20050320/wl_uk_afp/britainiraqusinvasion

MI6 chief told Blair that US 'fixed' case for Iraq war

Sun Mar 20, 5:13 AM ET

LONDON (AFP) - The head of Britain's foreign intelligence agency told Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites) that the case for war in Iraq (news - web sites) was being "fixed" by Washington to suit US policy, according to a BBC documentary.

MI6 supremo Richard Dearlove briefed Blair and a group of ministers on the United States' determination to launch the invasion nine months before hostilities began in March 2003, the BBC programme will claim on Sunday.

Secretariat

03-20-2005, 10:10 AM

Often information said prior to Iraq is forgotten. Fortunately, the net still allows for the statements of ideaologues like Wolfowitz to be revealed since he has changed his rhetoric so often as the architect of the WMD threat. The amazing thing is senator Bill Nelson has said they were told these WMD's were not only verifiable, but they could hit the US. Israel intelligence has claimed they knew their were no WMD's but did not inform Washington. Wolfowitz has even been quoted as saying before 911 that Iraq needs to be taken down but the US people are not going to support a war just on regime change.

The Center of Cooperative Research has fortunately created a wonderful timeline of some of these statements.

Here's one excerpt from April 30, 2001 PRE-911 about Wolfie's decision making prowess:

"April 30, 2001 Complete 911 Timeline

The Bush administration finally has its first Deputy Secretary-level meeting on terrorism (see January 25, 2001). [Time, 8/4/02] According to counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke, he advocates that the Northern Alliance needs to be supported in the war against the Taliban (see April 6, 2001) and the Predator drone flights need to resume over Afghanistan so bin Laden can be targeted (see January 10, 2001-September 4, 2001). Assistant Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz says the focus on al-Qaeda is WRONG. He states, “I just don't understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man bin Laden,” and “Who cares about a little terrorist in Afghanistan?” Wolfowitz insists the focus should be IRAQI-sponsored terrorism instead. He claims the 1993 attack on the WTC must have been done with help from Iraq, and rejects the CIA's assertion that there has been no Iraqi-sponsored terrorism against the US since 1993. A spokesman for Wolfowitz later calls Clarke's account a “fabrication.” [Newsweek 3/22/04] Wolfowitz repeats these sentiments after 9/11 and tries to argue that the US should attack Iraq (see September 12, 2001 (F)). Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage agrees with Clarke that al-Qaeda is an important threat. Deputy National Security Advisor Steve Hadley, chairing the meeting, brokers a compromise between Wolfowitz and the others. The group agrees to hold additional meetings focusing on al-Qaeda first (see Early June 2001 (B) and June 27-July 16, 2001), but then later look at other terrorism, including any Iraqi terrorism. [Against All Enemies, by Richard Clarke, 3/04, p. 30, pp. 231-232] Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff I. Lewis Libby and Deputy CIA Director John McLaughlin also attend the hour long meeting. [Time 8/4/02] "

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a091201iraq

There is SO much more.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_timeline_of_the_200 3_invasion_of_iraq&general_topic_areas=pre911Plans

Show Me the Wire

03-20-2005, 11:41 AM

My contention all along has been that this administration by the use of a skilled PR and media campaign led us into a war of choice-not necessity.

The price we and our children will pay in blood and treasure, makes that choice unwise.

Guess what I agree with you, it was a war of choice. A choice I agree with and obviously you do not. You stated the obvious, the supporters of this administration understand the invasion of Iraq was a choice, based on the totality of the circumstances.

There now we cleared your point up and we agree it was a war of choice.

Your other reason for your numerous posts is you have the opinion the choice was unwise. Great! Now tell me in context of today's current events in relation to the elections in Iraq and what is happening in Lebanon trying to rid itself of an oppressive foreign power why do you believe the choice was wrong.

Please do not regress to the past. This is the present and the future is coming, so I am interested in your opinion as it relates to the present and future, not about violations of no fly zones, etc.

hcap

03-20-2005, 02:19 PM

SMTW,

I have already addressed those issues. Post #5 of this thread ....
This post prompted lsbets to object to my use of the word lemming
lsbets:"A history lesson for lemmings" - Okay PA, at what point can we take the gloves off and call people out for what they are when they start their posts with insults? Is a post title like that an invitation to insult?

By me:A history lesson for Lemmings
Spreading democracy? I think this is rationale number 7 or 8 for invading Iraq.
Take a look at the middle east from a this perspective....

"President Bush and his supporters are taking credit for spreading freedom across the Middle East. But where changes are genuinely occurring they have nothing to do with the U.S. invasion of Iraq."

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/21540/

"Before examining whether there is any value to these claims, it must be pointed out that the Bush administration did not invade Iraq to spread democracy. The justification for the war was that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda—both of which claims have proved to be false."

"The argument for change through inspiration has little evidence to underpin it. The changes in the region cited as dividends of the Bush Iraq policy are either chimeras or unconnected to Iraq. And the Bush administration has shown no signs that it will push for democracy in countries where freedom of choice would lead to outcomes unfavorable to U.S. interests."

Here is another article

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/031805.html

And from the same Consortiumnews, something to shed a light on the first gulf war, Powell and Schwarzkopf.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2003/020603a.html

lsbets

03-20-2005, 02:44 PM

Consortium news - interesting site - don't let the facts get in the way of total hatred of anyone on the political right. "Hey, write an article about how bad these guys are and be sure to use plenty of 'anonymous sources' and 'key insiders'. That'll make the article sound legit!"

Come on, you complain about propoganda in one thread, and then link to this stuff? From what I can gather by looking through the site, there is one primary theme in almost all of the articles - the Bush family and anything having to do with the Bush family is evil. I cannot comprehend how you would find this site to be a credible one.

hcap

03-20-2005, 02:49 PM

Sec,

Thought you might be interested. The original documents. From

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/arbannsm.gif

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/index.htm

Bush Administration's First Memo
on al-Qaeda Declassified

January 25, 2001 Richard Clarke Memo:
"We urgently need . . . a Principals level
review on the al Qida network."

Document Central to Clarke-Rice Dispute on Bush Terrorism Policy Pre-9/11

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/clarke%20memo.pdf

Also

The Saddam Hussein Sourcebook....
Declassified Secrets from the U.S.-Iraq Relationship
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/special/iraq/index.htm

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/special/iraq/handshake200.jpg

ElKabong

03-20-2005, 03:12 PM

Kabong,

Once again you have tried to pass on the myth of the legality of the no-fly zone.

Nothing in your latest link shows UN approval. UN resolution 688 does not mention anything about no-fly zones.

[/B]

Little girl with face paint,

Your posts are a good example why the liberal agenda loses elections nationwide. You're bending words and meanings. I'll go over this one more time then I'm done with it. Your normal MO is to bog down a discussion, even if it overlooks the factual history of the subject (this thread is a prime example, by you).

My original post, I said the flyovers were UN approved. I linked you a UN resolution that stated >>"Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area"===snip

It doesn't spell out all steps that are approved or unapproved. Simply states "all necessary means" to uphoild the peace there. If your interpretation of this means we can only observe the region wearing snow shoes, you're off base. "All means necessary". Read it.

In your world, no one could load a weapon in battle simply b/c no UN resolution declares it in print.

I find it surprising (well, maybe not) that you and some other liberals here aren't or weren't the least pissed off by Iraq firing at our airmen. It may not bother you, but it does the rest of the nation. The election was about national defense above all else. Bush won, your agenda lost. People whose liberal agenda was totally crushed in the November 2, 2004 elections can either accept this fact and move foreward, or cry like a little girl. The choice is there for them.

hcap

03-20-2005, 03:25 PM

The first article backs up the Juan Cole contention that what we are seeing in the mideast may have nothing to do with invading Iraq.

The second sheds a new light on the first gulf war. Norman Schwarzkop shines in this account. True, poppy bush and Powell do not come accross as well.

Consortium news Robert Parry, a Washington journalist for 27 years, broke many of the stories now known as the Iran-Contra Affair while reporting for the Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.

You remember Iran-Contra? Many of the bushies have that episode on their resumes. Including poppy. So I guess many of us are just happy to live in la la dream land and buy into the everchanging reality that is propped up by some of our so-called leaders. But Iran-Contra happened and most of the liars were just put on ice to be thawed out by junior. Oh yeah, Clinton gave poppy a pass. Could have nailed the previous administration when he came into office. But politicaly expedient not to do. And I guess a rarified atmosphere when you are preznit keeps you in the exclusive club.

Czech writer Milan Kundera: "The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting."

Just like how we got into this war. National alzheimers disease. :sleeping: :sleeping:

Suff

03-20-2005, 03:30 PM

Little girl with face paint,

.

That is good though. Its below the belt. But its Good... :D

Show Me the Wire

03-20-2005, 03:32 PM

hcap:

Reviewed post 5, has no answer to my question about why you feel the war of choice was a mistake. All it stated is the current administration is taking credit for the spread of democracy in the middle east and your assertion that the administration is taking credit for something that would have happened anyway.

Not so sure about that, but still no answer to you reasoning of why the war of choice is a mistake relating to present day and future events. But you are willing to regress into the past.

If you want me to listen to your opinion about this war of choice tell me why it is a mistake today in light of the events. Even if I concede for argument sake that maybe some of the democracy issues would have evolved on their own, which I don't believe, what is the mistake accelerating the process of democracy?

The timing may have been fortunate with the demise of Arafat, but did you ever consider the administration may have knowledge of Arafat's health and some decisions were made on that basis?

As I said to sec, the world and events are not static. Change is the norm and what was not conceived of yesterday maybe thought of tomorrow.

So once again I ask for your reasoning why you personally believe, in light of today's current events and the possible future events you say "The price we and our children will pay in blood and treasure, makes that choice unwise."

Remember, I agreed it was a war of choice, so I do not wnat to hear about the past. The past is the past and is not justification for your stated opinion regarding the price we pay.

Tell me exactly how you define "price" and why what we get in return is not proportionate to the cost (price).

You see catchy phrases are just form, not substance, I am asking for substance. You never know you may have a perspective I did not consider.

hcap

03-20-2005, 03:46 PM

Kabong, your banging your head against the wall.
Maybe when you stop buying into the party line from your side, you will get it.
It doesn't spell out all steps that are approved or unapproved. Simply states "all necessary means" to uphoild the peace there. If your interpretation of this means we can only observe the region wearing snow shoes, you're off base. "All means necessary". Read it.It's not just my interpretation.

""Significantly, the Resolution made no reference to Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which would have made it mandatory and legitimated the use of force to ensure compliance. Nor did UNSCR 688 recommend or demand the establishment of a Military Staff Committee, required by Chapter VII "to advise and assist the Security Council on all questions relating to the Security Council's military requirements". Chapter VII (Article 46) states, "plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee." UNSCR 688 "condemns" the repression of Iraq's civilian population and "insists" that Iraq allow access to humanitarian organisations. It "appeals" to member states and humanitarian aid organisations to contribute to these humanitarian relief efforts, but makes no mention, implicit or explicit, of the provisions governing the use of force contained in Chapter VII nor the use of force to ensure compliance. This point was raised by Tony Benn MP during the House of Commons debate on 26 February 2001: "The United Nations charter explicitly prohibits military action by one country against another without the authority of the Security Council, which has never authorised either the no-fly zones or the bombing." (UNSCR 688)

The extent to which the NFZs might legitimately be defended with reference to 688 is controversial, therefore, as is the degree of utility and success associated with the operations. UNSCR 688 is at very best an ambiguous source of legitimisation for the imposition of NFZs over Iraq and the omission of any reference to Chapter VII in a sense precludes the legitimate use of force to ensure compliance with it. As such, the Resolution's appeal to the international community to support humanitarian efforts in Iraq has been subject to an excessive degree of creative interpretation in an attempt to legitimate the US and UK NFZs"

http://www.caabu.org/press/briefing...ly-zones.html#7

And of course the secretary general didn't support it either.
Now you may hate and despise Annan and the UN for that matter, but the no fly zones were established by the the US, UK, france? Not the UN. The shooting of US airmen by the Iraqis is not a reason to invade. Nor was it THE reason by bushco inc. WMDs, immediate threats and passing weapons to terrorist groups were.

Now move on to another rationale. Or email cheney. When spreading democracy grows stale, he can resurrect the no fly zone spin on meet the press.

hcap

03-20-2005, 04:06 PM

SMTW,

1-the change in focus from Al-Queda to Iraq and remaking the ME.
2-The Cost in lives
3-The cost in dollars and our childrens dollars
4-Making the world a more dangerous place.

Num 1 is the most egregious. In the short term, we have very little defense against another 911 type attack. Our nuclear and chemical facilities are vulnerable. Our ports are sieves. Money and resources to properly guard defensevly, and POLICE other terrorists groups with allies is being drained away in what was originally called "the flypaper strategy". That equation is: Iraq=flypaper. Too bad the other flies in Pakistan, Malasia, and other spots throughout the world, don't buy it. But hey maybe we can invade a dozen or more new places and unroll some more "flypaper"

There is more, but time to go. Later

ElKabong

03-20-2005, 04:21 PM

Kabong, your banging your head against the wall.
Maybe when you stop buying into the party line from your side, you will get it.
.

What you don't understand, Little Girl with face paint, is that these liberal interpretations of UN resolutions are as worthless as a vote for Kerry was on November 2. They're not worth a damn. I'm interested in facts and actual events, not a liberals' take.

The UN Res I just linked stated we could use "all means necessary" to "restore peace in the region".

As to why Kofi Anon didn't admonish Iraq for firing at us....Could it be that his interest in the OIL FOR FOOD scandal tainted him on this? :lol: :lol: Hey afterall the UN signed off on us using "all means necessary" to keep saddam from slaughtering people in that region in the early 1990s. But in 2002, now that he had his hand deep in the Iraq OIL FOR FOOD kitty, he was singing a different tune.

If Anan had a problem w/ the flyovers we were performing for years he s/h spoken up before he took his under the table $$ on the OIL FOR FOOD SCANDAL. Not after.

Show Me the Wire

03-20-2005, 04:26 PM

hcap:

Okay I agree we are vulnerable to attack like 9-11. that is the price we pay for freedom to move about without government restrictions. But that was a problem before the war of choice too. So vulnerability to a terrorist attack is not part of the price of the war of choice.

I give credence to your position focusing the shift to Iraq may be a mistake. Do not know yet. Here is the rub. In fighting terrorism there is no recognizable formal government or set physical territory. The flypaper strategy is being used and of course all the flies are not going to be drawn into one place. You do bring up a good point.

So what are the alternatives to taking the fight to the terrorists. Do nothing and wait for another attack? Change our foreign policy to allow the destruction of Israel? Invade other countries? Stop pushing for democracy in the region? Allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon? Allow Syria to keep an oppressive occupying force in Syria. All of things are now effected by the war of choice.

I ask the questions as these are real alternatives, especially since you brought up the foreign policy factor into the equation. Would the price we pay in letting the Arab world overrun Israel be too high also?

Lots of questions? With no easy answers.

So bottom line right now, I do not agree with point (1) vulnerability to terrorist attacks as a price of the war, because that vulnerability instigated the war of choice. But I think you made a valid point about sub point (1) the flypaper strategy.

Looking forward to your other points.

Secretariat

03-20-2005, 06:30 PM

hcap:

As I said to sec, the world and events are not static. Change is the norm and what was not conceived of yesterday maybe thought of tomorrow.

So once again I ask for your reasoning why you personally believe, in light of today's current events and the possible future events you say "The price we and our children will pay in blood and treasure, makes that choice unwise."

Remember, I agreed it was a war of choice, so I do not wnat to hear about the past. The past is the past and is not justification for your stated opinion regarding the price we pay.

Tell me exactly how you define "price" and why what we get in return is not proportionate to the cost (price).

Since I was alluded to in the above, of course the world and evets are not static.

As to "price" of the Iraq War? Well, we know what it has cost financially thus far which runs into the hundreds of billions. We cannot estimate the full price yet because money continues to be spent on it. As to American lives over 1500 verified thus far, and about 10,000 wounded Americans. The Iraqi cost has pertty much gone uncounted except by the Arab world.

But the real price in my opinion has been the lack of growth of the economy and deficit. Bin Laden remains at large, a man that bush guranteed we'd get Dead or Alive. He's now in his second term, Bin Laden is on kidney dialysis, Afghansitan is postponing elections, the dollar is declining, we are borrowing more and more from foregin investors, and there is saber rattling towards Iran, Syria and North Korea. The neocon promise of global democracy is a very expensive price tag, not only in lives lost but in actual cost in terms of dollars and cents. Add African nations such as Sudan into the mix, and our country could very well go bankrupt if foreign investors stop proppoing up our economy. The bottom line is the neocon dream of global democracy is a very expensive proposition.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050320/foreign_financiers_5.html

btw..what we get in return is uncertain...international derision...a feel good staged toppling of Saddam's statue...a vote whichhas not diminshed the violence by the insurgency...and confusion on excactly waht kind of government is going to take shape in Iraq...

We don't know waht we're going to get back. We just know what price we've paid so far, but the necon idea of "whatever the cost" never measures the price tag, only the emotional moment.....

Show Me the Wire

03-20-2005, 06:55 PM

Sec:

Don't mean to slight you. I have too many things on my plate right now, my discussion with hcap, which I am sure will cover some of the reasons you posted, negotiating with ljb the language in my letter supporting the right to die as an individual and state right's issue, and my quest regarding Eqb.

hcap

03-21-2005, 05:54 AM

Kabong, No other member of the Security Council accepts that interpretation of resolution 1441. Most other members of the Security Council say 1441 does not apply to the no-fly zones.

There was a Security Council resolution calling for humanitarian relief and assistance to the the Kurdish population. That applies to the Northern no-fly zone, The reason the Kurds were in jtrouble in the first place was that poppy called upon them to rise up against Saddam during the first Gulf War, and then poppy basicaly sold them out.

"all means necessary" to "restore peace in the region". Was not a carte blanche given to us.

Some history...

Scott L. Silliman

In a relatively short period of time following the Iraqi invasion of Ku-
wait on August 2, 1990, the United Nations Security Council issued a se-
ries of resolutions that served as the international legal predicate for the
use of force by the coalition. The first, Resolution 660 issued on that
very day, determined that the invasion constituted a breach of interna-
tional peace and security; and the Council, acting under Articles 39 and 40
of the Charter, condemned the invasion and demanded that Iraq withdraw
immediately and unconditionally. Thereafter, within a span of less than
four months, the Security Council issued eleven more resolutions calling
for economic embargoes, blockades and finally, the use of armed force in
its attempt to force Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait. The last of the twelve,
Resolution 678, passed on November 29, 1990, authorized member states
“to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and
all subsequent resolutions and to restore international peace and security
in the area” if Iraq did not, by January 15, 1991, comply with the previous
eleven resolutions.

So Kabong the resolution was designed along with those precedent resolutions to get Iraq to withdraw.

...The final resolution bearing on this issue is Resolution 688 of April 5,
1991. In it, the Security Council addressed and condemned the oppression
of the Iraqi civilians, especially in Kurdish populated areas, which it said
threatened international peace and security in the region. The Council
demanded that Iraq end the oppression and insisted that international
humanitarian organizations be granted immediate access to those in need
in the country. Finally, it appealed to all member states and humanitarian
organizations to contribute to relief efforts. Of particular significance is
the fact that the Security Council did not state anywhere in the resolution
that it was acting pursuant to Chapter VII of the Charter, a phrase
oftentimes found when coercive measures are being authorized, nor did it
contain any authorization for protection of humanitarian relief efforts.
Those who argue that the “no-fly” zones are clearly supported in law
suggest that the authorization for the use of force contained in paragraph
two of Resolution 678 has never been rescinded.

...With regard to the assertion that authority for the “no-fly” zones ema-
nates from or is a legal complement to Resolution 688, I find this equally
problematic. As mentioned before, this resolution does not mention that
the Security Council is acting under Chapter VII, nor does it purport to
sanction, explicitly or even implicitly, the use of enforcement action. Its
primary and stated focus is to require that Iraq grant unfettered access to
international humanitarian organizations in order to give assistance to
those in need, and also to appeal to all member states and humanitarian
organizations to contribute to the relief efforts. Granted, the resolution
“condemns” the Iraqi suppression of its people and “demands” that it
cease the suppression, but it falls far short of any possible grant of author-
ity to impose “no-fly” zones for the purpose of ensuring Iraqi compliance
with its terms.

hcap

03-21-2005, 06:41 AM

SWTWSo what are the alternatives to taking the fight to the terrorists. Do nothing and wait for another attack? Change our foreign policy to allow the destruction of Israel? Invade other countries? Stop pushing for democracy in the region? Allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon? Allow Syria to keep an oppressive occupying force in Syria. All of things are now effected by the war of choice. The first is to realisticaly assess the short term threats, and shift the some of the resources wasted overseas to defensive vs offensive. This war is 200 billion and counting. The defense department budget is also in the hundreds of billions. In fact the pentagon is missing over a trillion bucks. From Department of Defense (DoD)...

http://www.whereisthemoney.org/

"We reported that DoD processed $1.1 trillion in unsupported accounting entries to DoD Component financial data used to prepare departmental reports and DoD financial statements for FY 2000."

The military-industrial complex has a vested interest in offensive activities. Although "defense" is the operative word, our involvement in various adventures overseas primes the dollar pump. Many of the armaments left over from the cold war are still being supported. Bushs interceptor missle system alone is a non essential boondongle.

Surely out of this morass, a few hundred billion could be applied here at home for a real defense. Also a alternative energy program to wean us off oil, particulary foreign oil. The manhattan project. Kennedys man to the moon program. Successful implementations of government funds into tecnology.

Money and resources should be shifted to policing and tracking down terrorists groups throughout the world. There are more terrorists now then there were before 911. In fact Al Queda is much more popular in Muslem and Arab countries than before the war. So even if democracy takes root, it will take a long time before it blossoms. Maybe decades. What do we do meanwhile?

After dealing with the first set of problems, almost simultaneously we must come to grips with the real reasons we losing the trust of peoples and nations all through the world.The problem is that we have fallen for a rather simplistic interpretation of good vs evil. The good guys vs the bad guys is a philosophical short circuit. It allows the ends justifies the means attitude to cloud better judgement. Almost as insideous as those terrrists that are out to get us.

Now I do not subscribe to the theory that we just as bad as them, but our past is not a shinning example. The first thing we must do is own up to why they really hate us. Go past the mental short circuit that they are simply religious fanatics. And illiterate. The children and young adults that are being recruited must be made aware of what and who we really are. Difficult without dealing with our past. But that is the only long term strategy that will work.

hcap

03-21-2005, 07:37 AM

Columbia Journalism Review

http://www.cjr.org/issues/2005/2/voices-guterman.asp

lsbets

03-21-2005, 09:04 AM

Hcap - thanks for the link, I love this quote:

The scientists, from Johns Hopkins University, Columbia University, and Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, reported a so-called 95 percent confidence interval. They said that they were 95 percent sure the number of deaths lay between 8,000 and 194,000.

Wow - would you handicap with a 95% confidence of an ROI between $0.20 and $3.00? I doubt it.

Here's another great quote from human rights waych :
“These numbers seem to be inflated.”

Duh!

Show Me the Wire

03-21-2005, 10:08 AM

hcap:

How do we realistically assess the short-term threats and shift our assets? That is basically, the question I asked you regarding the flypaper strategy.

Publishing links about defense department spending has nothing to do with this issue. The defense department has a history of misspemding even in peace time. Remember the $10K hammers, etc. Dose it make it right? No. However, I will agree war time action makes it easier for the defense department to spend.

Moving on to you cogent point about education. One major problem we have currently is one of perception as you correctly stated about historic imperialistic attitudes from the west, especially England and France's imperialistic actions.

Yes, we have to educate the Arab masses to understand our foreign policy and about he U.S. However, it is not short circuit thinking aboout to assess one of the major reasons for the Arab's world percpetion of the west is attributable to religious fanaticism and illiteracy. Illeteracy and religious fanaticism is a real cause in real time.

Fundametalist Muslims in the middle east prohibit formal education for females and limit the majority to education by the Mulahs. Illiteracy among the masses is a real problem.

Lebanon is a great example, prior to Syria's occupation Lebanon was a modle of democracy in the middle east and had a excellant educational system. Look at Lebenaon now. It has gone backwards due to the oppression of the native people by a foreign invader. The education system is a non-entiety now because of Syria's attempt to keep lebanon's populace in the grasp of illiteracy.

In conclusion, I agree the long-term solution is to have them really know us and for us to really know them.

ElKabong

03-21-2005, 11:29 AM

Little Girl with face paint,

I quote a US Military link that states our case for flyovers, citing the Resolutions pertaining to our actions. You quote scott l sillman, who doesn't show up on google.... I'll take my sources on this one.

You've bogged the subject down enuff for me, hcap. Go ahead and get buried in the minutae. Lsbets gave other reasons for invading Iraq, I'm on board with all of them. However, any country that continually fires upon our Military members without justification, deserves what happened to Iraq.

http://www.defense.gov/news/Sep2002/n09302002_200209303.html

>>Within hours of the arrival of that letter, Iraq was again firing at U.S. and coalition aircraft in the northern and southern no-fly zones, Rumsfeld said.

Since that letter, Iraq has fired upon coalition aircraft 67 times, including 14 times over the past weekend. "That ought to tell reasonable people something," Rumsfeld said.

U.N. Resolution 688, which in April 1991 stipulated Iraq must stop repressing its own people, including minorities, Rumsfeld said. Soon after agreeing with the resolution, Iraq began to "systematically attack" minorities in both the northern and southern portions of the country.
Coalition nations, including Britain and the United States established the northern and southern no-fly zones in August 1992 "to halt that outrage and to protect Iraqi citizens from further bombings and helicopter attacks," Rumsfeld said.

Almost immediately, Iraq began using surface-to-air missiles and air-defense artillery to fire on coalition pilots enforcing those zones. "That Iraqi aggression … continues to this day," Rumsfeld said, noting this is the only place in the world where U.S. and British pilots are routinely fired upon. ==snip

Equineer

03-22-2005, 02:07 AM

Elkabong,

It is not accurate to characterize the No-Fly Zone hostilities as one-sided aggression in which Iraqis fired on US/UK reconnaisance aircraft without provocation.

There is really not much controversy about whether the December 1998 Desert Fox strikes ordered by Clinton marked the beginning of a US/UK policy change that expanded our original objectives to include: Attriting Iraq's air defenses
Attriting Iraq's command and control capabilities
These new US/UK objectives were pursued from 1999 through 2003. They were not peacekeeping objectives ratified by UN resolutions.

We dropped tons of leaflets in Iraq between 1999 and 2003. The leaflet below shows a bulldozer, truck, and utility crew being attacked by US/UK aircraft. The text warns that Iraqi utility crews will be attacked. The objective was to attrite Iraq's command and control capabilities by attacking its fiber optics network.

Moreover, Navy F-14 pilots make no bones about flying attack missions against pre-selected military targets in the No-Fly Zone.

The scope of operations in the "No-Fly Zone War" extended beyond hostile incidents related to reconnaisance missions and the peacekeeping objectives ratified by the UN.

PaceAdvantage

03-22-2005, 09:52 AM

ElKabong

03-22-2005, 01:13 PM

Equineer, if I didn't know any better, I'd say it sounds to me as if you're just throwing more chum into the water, hoping the neo-con sharks will take the bait. It sounds as if you're saying Iraq was provoked into firing upon coalition planes patrolling the no-fly zone. It sounds as if you're saying Iraq had been unfairly picked on and targeted by coalition forces after Desert Storm. Weird.

I can either believe real-time quotes and interpretations on the subject by US Military leaders, or, I can believe an internet personality who goes by the nick of "Equineer".

easy choice. :)

Equineer

03-22-2005, 02:09 PM

PaceAdvantage Wrote:

Equineer, if I didn't know any better, I'd say it sounds to me as if you're just throwing more chum into the water, hoping the neo-con sharks will take the bait.

No, the mouths of the sharks are already bristling with neo-con hooks. :)

It sounds as if you're saying Iraq was provoked into firing upon coalition planes patrolling the no-fly zone.

No, my post concerned US/UK missions that were not reconnaissance patrols, were not reprisals against Iraqi ADC sites that attacked these reconnaissance patrols, and were not interdictions of Iraqi assaults on civilian populations.

In fact, I made no comment at all about No-Fly Zone operations between 1991 and December 1998, when the US/UK missions complied with UN peacekeeping objectives, and when hostile Iraqi responses were quite justifiably suppressed.

Neither did I comment about peacekeeping reconnaissance missions after the Desert Fox strikes in December 1998.

Apparently, you need to re-read my post.

It sounds as if you're saying Iraq had been unfairly picked on and targeted by coalition forces after Desert Storm.

No, I made no judgement in this regard. I merely set the record straight by pointing out that US/UK operations between 1999 and 2003 were not constrained to activities prescribed by the Desert Storm cease-fire agreement, by UN peacekeeping resolutions, or by the UN sanctions imposed upon Iraq.

The UN conceivably could have prohibited Iraq from deploying air defense facilities and fiber optics networking, but this was NOT the case.

In fact, attacks on Iraqis constructing and maintaining ADC installations and fiber optic networks make perfect sense as a prelude to war with Iraq. However, such missions were not merely peacekeeping or reconnaissance patrols, nor did the rules of engagement require that Iraqis initiate hostile measures against US/UK aircraft engaged in such missions.

My concern is objectivity. Elkabong's characterization of the No-Fly Zone War was simply not accurate.

History is full of tragic consequences when self-serving propaganda becomes chronicled as fact in the civic conscience of a nation.

Weird.

Unless you move your lips when you read, I concur... tell us more about these sounds you are hearing. :)

PaceAdvantage

03-22-2005, 07:07 PM

Well then, I guess I stand corrected.....

Weird.

Equineer

03-22-2005, 11:28 PM

Is it just me, or does everyone else appreciate PA's call for civilized off-topic decorum?

At this rate, we may soon have Ann Coulter and Al Franken exchanging ripostes here.

PA,

The symptoms of EPS (Empty Plate Syndrome) have been described as weird sensations. Should we ask 46ZilZal for a consultation? :)

Elkabong,

When in doubt, you can always ask Mark Cuban. :)

hcap

03-26-2005, 10:00 AM

lsbets Hcap - thanks for the link, I love this quote:

The scientists, from Johns Hopkins University, Columbia University, and Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, reported a so-called 95 percent confidence interval. They said that they were 95 percent sure the number of deaths lay between 8,000 and 194,000.

Wow - would you handicap with a 95% confidence of an ROI between $0.20 and $3.00? I doubt it.

Here's another great quote from human rights waych :
“These numbers seem to be inflated.”

Duh!
Your oversimplfying.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/012905K.shtmlhttp://www.truthout.org/docs_05/012905K.shtml

"The uncertainty leads to the breadth of the so-called 95-percent confidence interval - in other words, the 95-percent chance that the number of deaths in Iraq resulting from military activities is between 8,000 and 194,000.

....Critics like the Slate writer seized on that range, says Dr. Woodruff, the government epidemiologist. "They thought, 'Well, it's just as likely to be 18,000 as 100,000.' That's not true at all," he says. "The further you get away from 100,000, the probability that the number is true gets much smaller.

....The researchers saved the most dangerous location for last. On September 20, Dr. Lafta went to violence-racked Fallujah with the only interviewer willing to travel there. The researchers had done a haunting bit of calculus before the journey. Given that the chance was high of an interviewer's or researcher's getting killed there, the study would be better served by getting the other data first.

....The Fallujah data were chilling: 53 deaths had taken place in the study's 30 households there since the invasion commenced, on March 19, 2003. In the other 32 neighborhoods combined, the researchers had counted 89 deaths. While 21 of the deaths elsewhere were attributable to violence, in Fallujah 52 of the 53 deaths were due to violence.

.....The number of deaths in Fallujah was so much higher than in other locations that the researchers excluded the data from their overall estimate as a statistical outlier. Because of that, Mr. Roberts says, chances are good that the actual number of deaths caused by the invasion and occupation is higher than 100,000."

As this war continues so will the civilian body count. Can we withdraw without further increasing the mess we have already created. I don't know. Although it is beginning to look like a viable alternative.

hcap

03-26-2005, 11:00 AM

http://slate.msn.com/id/2074302/

"And in 1993, the U.N. legal department announced that it could find no existing Security Council resolutions authorizing the United States, Britain, and France to enforce the no-fly zones. They are never explicitly mentioned in Resolution 688 or elsewhere. Furthermore, Resolution 688 was not enacted under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, the section that is used to authorize and legitimize the use of force.

...France later backed away from its involvement in the no-fly zones, leaving the United States and Britain to enforce them. Other U.N. Security Council nations have never accepted their legitimacy. So the dispute over whether Iraq's firing at planes over the no-fly zones constitutes a "material breach" actually exposes a long-standing divide at the United Nations. No wonder the administration has been hesitant to cite Iraq's recent anti-aircraft fire as cause to demand further military action from the Security Council."

...The Bush administration, however, is backing off and so far is not using the shootings as a "self-defense" excuse to invade Iraq, and so far isn't even taking the matter to the UN Security Council."

http://www.timeenoughforlove.org/saved/ReutersAlertNetUNopposesUSstandOnIraqiNo-flyZoneViolation.htm

"19 Nov 2002
UN opposes US stand on Iraqi no-fly zone violation

By Evelyn Leopold

UNITED NATIONS, Nov 19 (Reuters) - U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Britain, Russia and others contradicted U.S. contentions on Tuesday that any violation of the no-fly zones over Iraq breached a new U.N. Security Council resolution.

...Shortly after the United Nations Security Council adopted a tough resolution on Iraqi disarmament on Nov. 8, the Bush administration said Iraq's attempt to shoot down U.S. and British aircraft over the flight exclusion zone was a violation of the measure.

...None of the other 14 members of the U.N. Security Council, including Britain, believe the zones are included in the resolution, much less a possible cause for a violation. "

http://secure.cppax.org/Iraq/background/noFlyZones.html

Persian Gulf-or Tonkin Gulf?
Illegal "no-fly zones" could be war's trip wire.
Robert Dreyfuss
The American Prospect, Issue Date: 12.30.02

"Yet the NFZs are immeasurably more explosive now because a unilateral U.S. interpretation of UN Security Council Resolution 1441, adopted on Nov. 8, provides a pretext for launching the war that President George W. Bush wants.

Since the resolution's passage, France, Russia, China and other nations, along with UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, have worried about the presence of "hidden triggers" in the resolution, and they've opposed unilateral action against Iraq."

The history of how 1441 was cobbled together proves otherwise. From the blustery and bellicose original draft peremptorily put forward by the United States, it was molded (under threat of veto by France, Russia and China) into a far more moderate one that strengthens the hand of the weapons inspectors now doing their work in Iraq. What's not yet been reported is that the UN Security Council shot down an attempt by the United States to get the no-fly zones into 1441. "Language on the no-fly zones was in the draft resolution for 1441, but it was watered down to be very nebulous," says a U.S. official, requesting anonymity. "We took out the specific no-fly-zone language." That's because the no-fly zones wouldn't fly with other members of the UN Security Council."

Kabong, yeah Saddam played this game shooting at our guys. He may have miscalculated on junior bushs' resolve, but took advantage of the lack of support by the UN for the no fly zones.

But how many of our guys were shot down or injured? How many Iraqi civilians were injured or killed during these flights?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/southern_watch.htm
Operation Southern Watch

"Coalition aircraft do not target civilian populations or infrastructure and seek to avoid injury to civilians and damage to civilian facilities. However, according to published reports, between January 1999 and April 2000 air operations have caused the deaths of 175 civilians and wounded nearly 500."

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=11&ItemID=2700

No Fly Zones
Washington's Undeclared War On 'Saddam's Victims' by Jeremy Scahill December 04, 2002

"These zones cover a sprawling chunk of Iraqi territory (more than 60% of Iraq), from the 36th parallel north and from the 33rd parallel south (in 1996 the southern zone was expanded from the 32nd parallel). Since 1991, the US has averaged more than 34, 000 military sorties per year over Iraq, according to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. The no-fly zone bombings represent the longest continuing US bombing campaign since the Vietnam War. The Pentagon estimates that it carries out an average of 12 “missions” a month in Iraq (other figures put the number higher) at a cost of $750,000 per mission. In 2000, the official annual US bill for the southern “zone” alone was estimated at $1.4 billion"

To look at NFZs as humanitarian constructs, and the just evil Iraqis unlawfully targeting our boys is not the whole picture. And to use this as a justification for invasion is an exageration. Just like the original first rationales used by the bushies.

More to follow...

hcap

03-26-2005, 11:09 AM

Humanitarian? The reason for NLZs?
From the same Zmag article

"PULLING THE PLUG

On August 2, 1990, Iraqi forces entered and swiftly occupied neighboring Kuwait, a move that ultimately led to the Gulf War. The invading Iraqi Army was comprised largely of Shi’ite and Kurdish conscripts. At the onset of the allied ground offensive, many of them deserted their posts outright; others did so after Saddam ordered a withdrawal from Kuwait. Unwilling to die for Saddam on the one hand and being sent into a totally unwinnable war on the other, the retreating soldiers were prime candidates for a rebellion against the government. Add to this the repression, misery and suffering experienced throughout southern Iraq and the ground was ripe for an uprising.

On February 15, 1991, in a carefully crafted and well-publicized statement, then-President George HW Bush appealed to “the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands-to force Saddam Hussein the dictator to step aside.” To underscore the point, Bush repeated it verbatim in another speech that day. In early March 1991, a massive Shi’ite rebellion swept across southern Iraq from Basra to the holy cities of Najaf and Kerbala. Ba’athists were tortured and executed in massive numbers throughout the south; pictures and portraits of Saddam were smashed to pieces. By mid-March, the Iraqi government lost control of 14 of the country’s 18 provinces.”

As the rebellion spread, representatives of the most prominent Shi’ite cleric in Iraq attempted to contact American forces that were then occupying parts of Iraq to assess Washington’s support. The US Commander in the region, General Norman Schwarzkopf refused to meet with them. American and other allied forces, meanwhile, destroyed and confiscated Iraqi munitions that could have been used by the rebellion. But the deathblow to the uprising came when the US lifted the over-flight ban on Iraqi aircraft, allowing the Iraqi government to send in attack helicopters to mercilessly crush the rebellion in late March. On top of this, the elite Republican Guard units that General Schwarzkopf had allowed to retreat to Baghdad at the end of the war led the counteroffensive on the ground against the rebellion.

Estimates of those killed ranged between 30,000 and 60,000.
Maybe they hate us for our freedoms? Or degenerate culture?

hcap

04-13-2005, 06:15 AM

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/a0bb7970-aa25-11d9-aa38-00000e2511c8.html

...US appears to have fought war for oil and lost it.

"One of the best things for our supply security would be liberate Iraq"; words echoed by William Kristol, the Republican party ideologist, in testimony to the House Subcommittee on the Middle East on May 22 2002 that as far as oil was concerned, "Iraq is more important than Saudi Arabia".

ljb

04-13-2005, 08:39 AM

Hcap,
I just want to show my support for your efforts in bringing the truth to this board. While the populace of this board seems to be primarily hard headed neo-cons, I am sure some have the wisdom to see the wrongness of their thoughts and see the light! Thank you.

linrom1

04-13-2005, 12:27 PM

Actually, this article is misguided: US went to war to increase the price of oil. To think that neo-cons would not anticipate that the invasion would cause oil prices to rise is ridiculous. They accomplished what they’ve wanted: higher oil prices and higher commodity prices which WILL HELP third world countries rich in resources to alleviate poverty that is destabilizing many regions in the world. Just why is Wolfowitz going to the World Bank? It’s a perfect job for him! Of course, it doesn’t hurt that Exxon and Mobil will make a lot of money either. I consider myself a liberal, but most Liberals will look at this and balk in disbelief.

Bobby

04-13-2005, 12:45 PM

linrom said: "To think that neo-cons would not anticipate that the invasion would cause oil prices to rise is ridiculous. They accomplished what they’ve wanted: higher oil prices and higher commodity prices"

=================

EXACTLY. See the light guys.

Equineer

04-13-2005, 02:52 PM

Here are the three major steps Cheney and Bush have taken to give their Big Oil Friends & Masters privileged access to Iraq's oil riches: Successfully lobbied Congress to ensure the reconstruction of Iraq will be funded by American taxpayers without any strings attached... but Iraq and oil are synonymous, so gifting reconstruction rather than expecting Iraq to pay for it with oil is also a gift to Bush's Friends & Masters.
Appointed James Baker in 2003 as his personal envoy to negotiate forgiveness of Iraq's foreign indebtedness of $200-Billion owed to other nations. Bush said, "The future of the Iraqi people should not be mortgaged to the enormous burden of debt incurred to enrich Saddam Hussein's regime." Of course, what he really meant was that he wanted to liberate Iraq's oil and his Friends & Masters from the debt burden. So far, by arm-twisting and giving various concessions, Bush has elicited promises to forgive about 80% of Iraq's debts.
Announced in December 2003 that the Pentagon would reserve the most lucrative reconstruction contracts for political and military supporters, but the most lucrative contracts involve rebuilding Iraq's oil industry. Of course, this announcement pleased Bush's Friends & Masters, but it angered other nations who were simultaneously being pressured to forgive Iraq's massive debt.
If you look back at the Persian Gulf War (1990-1991), America supplied 75% of the troops, but the other 33 coalition nations paid 75% of the costs. Indeed, the oil-rich Middle East nations and several major oil-consuming nations instead of American taxpayers paid for 75% of the total cost of that war. Moreover, neither Kuwait nor Iraq was gifted a total package of national reconstruction from the pockets of American taxpayers.

If you can't figure out why we really invaded Iraq in the manner we have, you better climb back on the turnip truck. :)

ljb

04-13-2005, 10:09 PM

Eq,
Yes but we all got a $300 tax refund. And gays can't get married. What is important here? :D

Equineer

04-14-2005, 12:07 AM

Eq,
Yes but we all got a $300 tax refund. And gays can't get married. What is important here? :DRumsfeld certainly gave Iraq reconstruction contractors Scott Custer and Mike Battles a better deal than the $300 tax refund that American taxpayers received.

The Custer Battles company was allowed to confiscate the cargo handling equipment and vehicles at the Baghdad Airport... then after repainting the confiscated assets, Custer Battles leased everything back to the Bush administration at outrageous rates.

No... this photo isn't a drug deal... this is Iraqi reconstruction... this is our government delivering a $2-Million rent payment to Custer Battles.

PaceAdvantage

04-14-2005, 03:24 AM

Is this the proverbial circle-jerk happening right here on PaceAdvantage.Com. I think this goes against the posted "Terms of Service" as it clearly states posts of a sexual nature are forbidden! DOH! :lol:

Equineer

04-14-2005, 03:58 AM

A circle-jerk is a popular game among neo-con males... it is not really sex although they think it is... which probably explains why their women become "Desperate Housewives". :lol:

PaceAdvantage

04-14-2005, 04:34 AM

Actually, a circle-jerk is best defined as posts #95-100 in this thread.

hcap

04-14-2005, 06:40 AM

http://home.cogeco.ca/~kurdistan5/11-12-04-tons-of-money-kurds-to-invest.htm

Kurds Try To Invest 14 Tons of Cash
By Thomas Catan in London
December 10 2004 02:00

Financial Times

... A spokesman for the Kurdish Regional Government said the payment was part of $4.5bn in funds it claims the UN owes the region as part of the now defunct oil-for-food programme.

....A Washington-based lobbying firm with strong ties to the US Republican party has been in talks with international banks to facilitate the placing by the Iraqi Kurds of more than half a billion dollars in cash.

The money is part of $1.4bn in Iraqi oil revenues paid in cash by the US-led occupation authority to the Kurds in June 2004, just days before it handed power to an interim Iraqi government.

....The Coalition Provisional Authority had shipped the money to the Kurds in three helicopters filled with shrink-wrapped blocks of $100-dollar notes. The money, which was outside the regular budget, would have weighed 14 tonnes and represented the equivalent of around six months regular financing for the Kurdish regional government It was part of nearly $1.8bn paid by the CPA to the Kurds outside its regular financing in its final two months of life. The money came from the Development Fund for Iraq, set up by the United Nations following the war for use in rebuilding the country.

Huih??? Remember the old reporters maxim" Follow the money"?

Bobby

04-14-2005, 11:32 AM

The Bush Energy PLAN: Invade IRAQ and stay for 5 years. :D :D

ljb

04-14-2005, 04:03 PM

The Bush Energy PLAN: Invade IRAQ and stay for 5 years. :D :D
:lol: :lol: :lol:

hcap

04-14-2005, 06:00 PM

Maybe a lot more. I believe at least a dozen substantial size military bases are planned. The largest embassy ever. Geopolitics Pax Americane style. Thats in addition to what we already have.

Of course since Osama convinced us to vacate Saudi Arabia, gota' be someplace for the troops to go.

PaceAdvantage

04-14-2005, 06:43 PM

And the dance (err, I mean jerk) continues.....

hcap

04-14-2005, 07:05 PM

I thought we were s'posed to be civil?

Why is that when the rightwing contingent chime-in one after another thats ok?
But if the liberal side follow in suit its a circle jerk?

I sincerly believe there is much more jerking to the right on this board.

:ThmbDown:

By the way since tom has continued to use the term lemming and in fact co-opted it from me, I am back to using it as well. :eek:
Oh yeah 14 bases are in the works.

"Is this a swap for the Saudi bases?" asked Army Brig. Gen. Robert Pollman, chief engineer for base construction in Iraq. "I don't know. ... When we talk about enduring bases here, we're talking about the present operation, not in terms of America's global strategic base. But this makes sense. It makes a lot of logical sense."

And...

KABUL, AFGHANISTAN -- Despite growing concern here about the United States' influence in Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai called Wednesday for a tighter bond between the two nations and possibly a permanent U.S. military presence.

JustRalph

04-14-2005, 09:04 PM

Maybe a lot more. I believe at least a dozen substantial size military bases are planned. The largest embassy ever. Geopolitics Pax Americane style. Thats in addition to what we already have.

You mean those Congress types have actually been reading my letters?

I hope you are right. Git-R-Done !

PaceAdvantage

04-14-2005, 10:09 PM

I thought we were s'posed to be civil?

I've discovered that the hope of civility is useless when it comes to threads like these. It's either tolerate it and deal with the severe issues, or close the whole off-topic section.

hcap

04-15-2005, 07:13 AM

You know other than some words between me and Kabong, this thread was pretty civil until you brought up circle jerking.

You may be as guilty as the next guy. In fact, comparing shared views among the libs to a juvenile sexual activity is probably the low point in the thread.
You even pointed out earlier...
I actually think this is one of the better threads on the subject to be created in a long time. There is some really good debate going on here, and I've enjoyed reading the entire thread so far...
Welcome to the club.

JustRalph

04-15-2005, 08:31 AM

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2005-07,GGLD:en&oi=defmore&q=define:Circle+jerk

I don't know, I really didn't expect to find a proper definition........but damned if it doesn't fit the the thread!

ElKabong

04-22-2005, 06:05 AM

speaking of oil and iraq...

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050420/ap_on_re_us/oil_for_food_investigation_5

UNITED NATIONS _ - Two senior investigators with the committee probing corruption in the U.N. oil-for-food program have resigned in protest, saying they believe a report that cleared Kofi Annan of meddling in the $64 billion operation was too soft on the secretary-general, a panel member confirmed Wednesday.

The investigators felt the Independent Inquiry Committee, led by former U.S. Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, played down findings critical of Annan when it released an interim report in late March related to his son, said Mark Pieth, one of three leaders of the committee.

"You follow a trail and you want to see people pick it up," Pieth told The Associated Press, referring to the two top investigators who left. The committee "told the story" that the investigators presented, "but we made different conclusions than they would have."

The investigators were identified as Robert Parton and Miranda Duncan. ..snip

Tom

04-22-2005, 11:56 PM

Ralph,
This kind of fit, too.

http://www.realbeer.com/fun/games/games-205.php

Secretariat

04-23-2005, 01:24 PM

The Bush Energy PLAN: Invade IRAQ and stay for 5 years. :D :D

Bobby,

You're not far off.

Here's an AP on the Bush energy policy and his energy bill.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=4&u=/ap/20050423/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_energy_politics

WASHINGTON - Running for president five years ago, George W. Bush pledged to jawbone energy-exporting nations to keep oil prices low and to win passage of legislation to spur more domestic energy production. Delivering on either count has proved difficult for the Texas oilman.

Soaring oil and gasoline prices are beginning to take a toll on U.S. economic growth and on Bush's approval ratings…..

Robert Ebel, an energy analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said nothing that Bush is proposing "is going to have any immediate, or even near-term impact" on prices.

….

Bush also criticized the Clinton administration for not lobbying the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, saying Clinton "must jawbone OPEC members to lower prices." Yet as president, Bush mostly has emphasized that market forces should set world oil prices.

….

Jerry Taylor, an energy analyst at the Cato Institute, a Washington-based think tank that advocates less government regulation, said the idea that "jawboning OPEC or arranging for nice relations with OPEC will somehow get us more oil is utter illusion."

"The Saudis will produce as much oil as they think is necessary to maximize revenue. Period," Taylor said. China's rising thirst for oil, not supply shortages, is the main factor driving up global oil prices, he and other oil analysts suggested.

When you're a Republican Preident and youve got the GOP Cato institute analysts criticizing your policies, you're in big trouble.

ljb

04-23-2005, 03:12 PM

From Sec
"When you're a Republican Preident and youve got the GOP Cato institute analysts criticizing your policies, you're in big trouble. "
He will not be in trouble until Faux is forced into reporting this. Which means never. :D :D :D

PaceAdvantage

04-23-2005, 08:16 PM

Is Fox the only news channel offered on television? Why do you guys act as if it is?

Equineer

04-27-2005, 01:43 PM

Historically, the following three companies, all originally registered in Great Britain, controlled the entire oil reserves of Iraq: Iraq Petroleum Co., Ltd. (formerly Turkish Petroleum Co.), 75-year concession in provinces of Bagdad and Mosul east of the Tigris River granted in 1925 as a revival and revision of concessions granted by Turkey before World War I (i.e., 1925-1999).
Mosul Petroleum Co. (formerly British Oil Development Co.), 75-year concession covering the area west of the Tigris River and north of latitude 33', originally granted to British Oil Development Co. in 1933 (i.e., 1933-2008).
Basrah Petroleum Co., Ltd., 75-year concession covering the province of Basrah, granted in 1938 (i.e., 1938-2013).
The ownership of these three companies was divided as follows:

Percent
Royal Dutch-Shell Co. (British and Dutch) 23.75
Anglo Iranian Oil Co., Ltd. (British) 23.75
Compagnie Française Des Petroles (French) 23.75
Near Last Development Co. (American) representing: 23.75
Standard Oil Co. (New Jersey), 11.875 percent
Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 11.875 percent
C. S. Gulbenkian (Syrian individual of British citizenship) 5.00Saddam apparently did business with these interests, but does anyone know what the current status of the Iraqi oil reserves is?

It is clear that London once had a firm control-grip on these reserves... but what is the current disposition, and what are the origins of the major investors today?

In particular, since London rather than New York has historically been the primary magnet for Arab investments, to what extent is Iraqi oil controlled today by Iraqis and/or Arab neighbors?

Will the French still have a sizeable interest under whatever form of government prevails in Iraq? Is it possible that Saddam's Baathist supporters in exile have invested through London and will still be players?

BTW... I really don't know the answers... does anyone know what the situation is today?

ljb

04-27-2005, 07:55 PM

Is Fox the only news channel offered on television? Why do you guys act as if it is?
Au contrair PA, Faux is the gospel to many of the neocons. Bushco responds to neocons hencth my previous comment.

PaceAdvantage

04-28-2005, 12:23 AM

Secretariat

04-28-2005, 09:00 AM

Last time I watched Fox was a couple of weeks ago. I believe O'Reily was on, and he was being surprisingly critical of President Bush.

Sort of goes against what you were saying here, but why am I not surprised you might be wrong again?

Wow, O'Reily critical of Bush...That is incredible. Kind of like your own parents crticizing your behavior. If O'Reilly is now crticizing him, you can imagine what the rest of the world is doing.

ljb

04-28-2005, 09:15 AM

If you will check behind the scenes, you will find O'lielly is critical of President Bush when Bush seems to veer from the Neocon's line.

Secretariat

04-28-2005, 02:19 PM

Sometimes you have to laugh. Who would probably be the worst person to put in charge of Iraqi oil?

Well, guess what? Ahmad Chalbi is the new Irsai Oil Minister. Big surprise? The WMD expert.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050428/ts_nm/iraq_government_oil_dc

ljb

04-28-2005, 03:33 PM

It is obvious Busco owes Chalibi for his help in starting the ill conceived Iraq invasion/occupation.

hcap

04-28-2005, 06:29 PM

http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/18233522

More Iraq leaks on the way
By Joe Murphy, Political Editor, Evening Standard
28 April 2005

Tony Blair faces further "explosive" leaks today from the Attorney General's secret legal advice on invading Iraq.

Labour is reeling from the disclosure of crucial differences between Lord Goldsmith's private advice to the Prime Minister on the legality of the war and his published justification for it 10 days later.

But a Whitehall insider claims there is worse to come. "There are more explosive differences between the 7 March and 17 March documents," said the insider. "The section leaked so far is only a taster. It is a fair bet that whoever leaked this will reveal the rest before the election day. If they have leaked half, they will inevitably leak the rest."

Gee, bushs' polling is down big time on Iraq and now the english poodle is reeling from his lies. Maybe the folks that oppossed this dumb war weren't far off.

Chalabi is just a servant to the empire. The question is what do the Iraqi people think of chalabi?

PaceAdvantage

04-29-2005, 01:15 AM

I thought Blair was well on his way to a handy win. I guess what I read a few days ago is now wrong?

Then again, they said John Kerry was going to win also, and we all know how that turned out....

hcap

05-01-2005, 09:18 AM

Tell us something we don't know

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-523-1592904-523,00.html

Blair hit by new leak of secret war plan

A SECRET document from the heart of government reveals today that Tony Blair privately committed Britain to war with Iraq and then set out to lure Saddam Hussein into providing the legal justification. A separate secret briefing for the meeting said Britain and America had to “create” conditions to justify a war.

The minutes, published by The Sunday Times today, begins with the warning: “This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. The paper should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know.” It records a meeting in July 2002, attended by military and intelligence chiefs, at which Blair discussed military options having already committed himself to supporting President George Bush’s plans for ousting Saddam.

“If the political context were right, people would support regime change,” said Blair. He added that the key issues were “whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan space to work”.

hcap

05-01-2005, 09:31 AM

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1474276,00.html

The man who led Britain's armed forces into Iraq has said that Tony Blair and the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, will join British soldiers in the dock if the military are ever prosecuted for war crimes in Iraq...if my soldiers went to jail and I did, some other people would go with me,' said Boyce.

And then Tonyboy said

...Blair said it 'would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors.' He added: 'If the political context were right, people would support regime change.'

The only thing keeping him in this election is that the Tories were just as supportive of the war so their own criticism means nothing. Too bad but it will be close. They may boot him out anyway

Secretariat

05-01-2005, 11:40 AM

Face it HCap. The guys we have in power are the biggest liars we have seen since Nixon.

ElKabong

05-01-2005, 11:48 AM

Face it HCap. The guys we have in power are the biggest liars we have seen since Nixon.

"Now I'm going to say this one time, and one time only. I DID NOT have sex with that woman; Ms Lewinsky."

"You know, we had a chance to get bin laden,,,but he barely got away.."

ElKabong

05-01-2005, 11:53 AM

The Media Research Center presents the Top Five list of Clinton's numerous lies....

5) The Flowers Flap: In the 60 Minutes interview, Steve Kroft asked: "I'm assuming from your answer that you're categorically denying you've ever had an affair with Gennifer Flowers?" Clinton replied: "I've said that before, and so has she." In his deposition in the Paula Jones case, Clinton admitted having sex with Flowers.

4) The Draft Notice: "All I've been asked about by the press are a woman I didn't sleep with and a draft I didn't dodge." - ABC News' Nightline, February 12, 1992. On April 6, 1992, former Clinton friend Cliff Jackson revealed that Clinton had received a draft induction notice in the spring of 1969, correcting months of Clinton claims he "wasn't called."

3) From Whitewater to loral: "When the ripoff artists looted our S&Ls, the President was silent. In a Clinton administration, when people sell their companies and their workers and their country down the river, they'll get called on the carpet." - Clinton's presidential campaign announcement speech, October 1991. Currently, Congress is investigating why the President granted waivers for Loral Corporation to assist China in strategically significant missile launches.

2) Trashing the Travel Office: "There is nothing funny going on. We were just trying to save money for everyone." - Clinton on Travelgate, May 28, 1993. In fact, Hillary Clinton and Clinton pal Harry Thomason schemed to fire the Travel Office staff and replace them with Thomason's firm, and then sicced the FBI and IRS on Travel Office chief Billy Dale, accusing him of embezzlement and fraud. After two years of legal battles that exhausted his life savings Dale was cleared by a jury in two hours.

1) What Stonewalling? "More rather than less. Sooner rather than later." - Clinton responding to Lewinsky questions, January 22, 1998, almost seven months ago.

http://www.mrc.org/press/1998/press19980813.asp

hcap

05-01-2005, 12:56 PM

Sec, this idiot preznit leads us to war under false pretenses, wastes 1000's of lives both american and Iraqi, blows a healthy surplus, and destroys our credibility worldwide. He and his gang lie about everything.

And of course we hear about a bj, and the usual clinton stories. I, like you was not a fan of clinton. In retrospect, however, compared to this criminal? stumblebum I miss Clinton with all his baggage.

No sense of proportion from the stepford gang on this board.

hcap

05-01-2005, 01:27 PM

From sources around the world

1-Since Blix was right about WMDs.....

United Nations former chief weapons inspector in Iraq Hans Blix has said that the US waged the war against Iraq for oil. The US is incredibly dependent on oil and it feared that the competition on the world market could become 'too hard', he told a security seminar in Stockholm. There is increasing tension between US and China over oil, he added the war was also prompted by the US' need to relocate its troops from Saudi Arabia.

2-Since we are having success in Iraq

Rumsfeld offered to free Saddam:

May 01, 2005 15:28 IST

United States Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, paid a secret visit to former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and offered him freedom and possible return to public life if he made a televised request to armed groups for a ceasefire with allied forces, a media report said. Saddam promptly rejected the offer, Ynetnews reported quoting London-based Al-Quds Al-Arabi daily.
Rumsfeld made the offer when he visited Iraq about two weeks ago and only a few Iraqi officials in Jordan knew of it, the Arab daily reported.

Two weeks ago, Britain's Telegraph had reported that Iraqi gunmen were offered a "deal" to halt all attacks in return for a reduced sentence for Saddam, who is likely to be sentenced to death.

ElKabong

05-01-2005, 01:50 PM

Little grrrl,

Ya think saddam is sitting in his prison cell right about now thinking "Gee, I sure do wish I had a do-over on ordering my lame assed military to fire upon those US and Brit aircraft. Instead of being locked up, I'd be back to torturing people and having women raped in front of their families again just like the good old days..."

hcap

05-01-2005, 03:18 PM

If Hussein's brutal dictatorship warranted war then we might also need to invade Korea Zaire, Zimbabwe, China, and a host of other countries. No end to policing and disposing dictators and repressive regimes. Hell Putin should go as well. There are more loose nukes in the old soviet regime than anywhere else. And a lot of poor scientists who need bribes.

If that was the reason presented to the American people and a admitingly docile congress do ya think we would be there now?? That is THE problem. We were lied to big time. You may agree with regime change, but we would not be there based on that rosy scenario. You might be there, and maybe other true believers, but It took exagerated evidence to motivate a reluctant country. Maybe there is a hole in your memory leading up to this war?

There is more to this story than Saddam sitting in jail and rummy purporting to make a deal. It shows that yes Saddam miscalculated, but so did we. No cake walk.

The worst and most damaging thing is that the worldview expressed by you and others of your ilk, are being forced on others who believe otherwise.

Secretariat

05-01-2005, 06:26 PM

Tom

05-01-2005, 09:37 PM

Hey El,

Do you suppose Sadamm has access to dreamon.org?
Maybe he contributes talking points.

hcap

05-02-2005, 06:21 AM

Tom,

We had many arguments on this board before the war. I said the same things I am saying now. Don't need talking points. Don't know if you remember, but just before we invaded I said out of respect for our guys, I will not post any more anti war stuff, and hoped we were successful. Even though I brought up the battle of stalingrad as a model for what may happen, and even though I was totally oppossed to the invasion.

I didn't post any more anti war stuff again until it was clear that my fears were actualized.

ElKabong

05-02-2005, 08:01 AM

Hey El,

Do you suppose Sadamm has access to dreamon.org?
Maybe he contributes talking points.

:D

10March2002.......my fantasyempire.org

Dear Diary,

I met the most interesting billionaire today. George Soros. He assured me he would change Americans attitude towards de-throning me. That Bush fellow. Wait till he gets reality to bite him in the arse!!

Back to Soros...He maybe a better slave to my evil dictatorship than Kofi Anna (ka ching!). Soros has this thing called moveon.org. Many brainless children will follow that webpage and turn their backs on their brothers, sisters and parents.

These liberal western infidel "lemmings" ! They slay me :lol: :lol:

Hey, Ouday & Kousay... Go torture that boxer for me, will ya! No, no. Not in the torture chamber. The local 435 has a banquet in there today....Put him in the wood chopper.

Where was I?...Oh yeah, Annan, Soros and his followers. They'll shield me. I can try to kill Americans and Brits flying thru the skies looking out for the peasant class of mine. I feel sorry for W, I really really do. I'll dig a hole outside of town just for his worthless ass when my army kicks America's ass and toss him in it. To rub salt in W's wound I'll even put a can of RAID in there. HAHA, he's a loser with no public support.

signed,
Saddam Hussein

Secretariat

05-03-2005, 12:23 AM

Gannon's visits to the WH, and now this.

hcap

05-03-2005, 06:54 AM

http://rawstory.com/aexternal/conyers_iraq_letter_502

Rep. calls for deeper inquiry into secret Iraq attack plan

RAW STORY

Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) is circulating a letter calling for a further inquiry into a secret U.S.-UK agreement to attack Iraq

In a statement, Conyers says he is disappointed the mainstream media has not touched the revelations.

"Unfortunately, the mainstream media in the United States was too busy with wall-to-wall coverage of a "runaway bride" to cover a bombshell report out of the British newspapers," Conyers writes. "The London Times reports that the British government and the United States government had secretly agreed to attack Iraq in 2002, before authorization was sought for such an attack in Congress, and had discussed creating pretextual justifications for doing so."

ElKabong

05-03-2005, 08:13 AM

Gannon's visits to the WH, and now this.

Sec,

I saw the footage of their greeting as you likely did too. They kissed on the cheek, which is an "arab thing".

What's your point? Seriously.

Equineer

05-03-2005, 10:10 AM

I saw the footage of their greeting as you likely did too. They kissed on the cheek, which is an "arab thing".

What's your point? Seriously.What is the point?

Why it's just part of a coordinated intervention effort by all of your friends here on the board.

Everyone has been asked by the "boss man" to help you get past your acute homophobia.

This week, banner ads will go up on dozens of gay web sites... pretty soon, we will have gay members hanging from the rafters, eager to discuss your innermost feelings and fantasies with you.

At the end of this process, you will either be able to cope with your obsessive fears, or you will be sitting down with the family to discuss coming out of the closet.

Even the Dallas Morning News has volunteered to help you by launching a full daily section appropriately named the Texas Gay News Roundup (http://dallas.metblogs.com/archives/2005/04/someone_at_the.phtml).

ElKabong

05-03-2005, 11:17 AM

Most excellent reply (?), Equeer. Please reply to my PM from yesterday (via PM).

Meanwhile, I'd like to hear from The Varsity (Sec), the poster I directed my question to.

hcap

05-03-2005, 02:11 PM

The point is, that although it may be an arab "thing", and bush may be trying to play diplomat, the picture Sec posted is really about bush kissing ass.

Because of our dependence on oil and a lack of real energy policy to wean us off it (been going on way before bush II), we are stuck in the mid east.

No one here on the non neocon side (I don't think) is seriously suggesting bush is gay. Problems with being gay is not being gay, but if that is used and someone gets "compronised"

Let's take Jeff Gannon. A gay male hooker in default for $20,000 in debt gets security clearance, waltzes in and out of the WH at innopportune times. Is anyone in the administration in danger of being compomised?

Maybe some agencies in Washington got some s'plaining to do.

ElKabong

05-03-2005, 02:20 PM

Bump....for Sec..., I'd like your take to my original question. I look at the text of your post and I asked a legit question. If YOU meant that W is kissing OPEC/ the Sheiks ass for cheaper oil, then I'd say "great". Everyone is complaining about the high price of oil. Since our refineries are operating at max, he asked for increased supply. It's his job. Glad he's doing it WELL.

Secretariat

05-03-2005, 08:03 PM

Honestly, Elk, I thought the picture was funny, nothing more. But since the issue of Gannon was brought up and the so-called liberal television media refused to cover it, I thought some might be interested.

The press takes a pass on 'Jeff Gannon'

By Carol Towarnicky / Philadelphia Daily News

IF A REPORTER who doubled as a gay hooker had visited the Clinton White House nearly 200 times, think it would have made the news?

If "Jeff Gannon"/James D. Guckert had been unveiled, so to speak, as a liberal imposter who lobbed softball questions at Clinton administration press briefings, he would be as infamous as Michael Schiavo.

And if 39 of those White House visits were mysteriously unrelated to his "reporting" duties, imagine what innuendoes would be issuing forth from Planet Limbaugh. Imagine the organized phone call campaign demanding newspapers and TV stations report the story.

But Gannon/Guckert isn't being unveiled or innuendoed or even blipped on media radar screens, even among liberals.

Last Sunday was the third time in recent weeks that I came across hyper-informed liberals who have not heard the first thing about Guckert, who used the name "Jeff Gannon" to pose as a newsman from a Web site that was in reality a Republican Party front. Gannon advertised his second job as a male escort on Web sites complete with full frontal photos.

For months, Gannon/Guckert asked obviously biased questions at press briefings. He was conveniently ready when Bush spokesman Scott McClellan was being pressed too hard by reporters. Apparently none of those reporters ever thought to check out the obvious ringer in their midst. It was only when Gannon asked one of his trademark questions at a nationally televised presidential press conference in February that some bloggers noticed.

It didn't take much digging for them to uncover Gannon's not-so-secret identity and ask the obvious: Did the Secret Service have this information? Did the White House? But the story went nowhere then and is going nowhere now.

Just last week, a Freedom of Information Act search requested by two members of Congress revealed that Gannon/Guckert visited the White House 196 times - 39 of them days when there were no press briefings. While liberal blogs made much of the news, a Nexis search found that the Associated Press gave it only three paragraphs, which were picked up by only two newspapers nationwide. CNN mentioned the story only to say that the blogs had it. On MSNBC's "Countdown," Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank offered excuses for the 14 times that Gannon/Guckert's entries or exits weren't recorded by White House security and host Keith Olbermann seemed apologetic for bringing it up.

If reporters aren't worried about imposter journalists, at least they should smell a good story in a possible White House security breach.
With an explosion of media, much of it partisan, the role of actual journalism becomes even more critical. Yet the bright line between news and fair comment on one hand versus manipulation and propaganda on the other has all but disappeared.

Of course, Gannon/Guckert was only the most flamboyant of phony journalists to grace our airwaves in recent months: There are the paid hacks who got government money to laud government programs in their columns; there were the government video news releases made to look like actual TV reports - and which were run on many smaller stations.

Journalists get hopping-mad if CIA agents masquerade as reporters in war zones - it puts them at high risk. Yet these same journalists seem almost blasé at the assault on truth zones every day at the White House, on Capitol Hill and on a TV screen near you.

At a time when the radicals of the right, aided by the White House, seek to eviscerate constitutional protections, the news media have found a curious way to protect the First Amendment: Don't worry that Congress will abridge freedom of the press; The press will do the job of abridging itself all on its own.

'''''''''''''''''''

Maybe this is why Laura Bush herself complained aobut being a "Desperate Housewife"

PaceAdvantage

05-03-2005, 08:10 PM

Is Gannon STILL on the MoveOn.Org talking points? Man, that's desperation....

Can't you find some meatier topics to waste time on?

Secretariat

05-03-2005, 09:22 PM

Is Gannon STILL on the MoveOn.Org talking points? Man, that's desperation....

Can't you find some meatier topics to waste time on?

Frankly, I have no idea what is posted on moveon.org, but I take umbrage on what you consider desperation. It would seem to me that planting a male prostitute in the press corps to lob softball questions to the President is the real act of desperation.

PaceAdvantage

05-03-2005, 09:27 PM

I'd call it funny...even clever...but that's me....

Secretariat

05-03-2005, 10:47 PM

I'd call it funny...even clever...but that's me....

And I suppose you'd consider that the same in a Dem's adminstration....

PaceAdvantage

05-04-2005, 12:00 AM

I can't honestly answer that question. On the grand scale of important issues, I'd like to think this little "gay hooker" reporter thing is fairly meaningless no matter which side of the aisle it would happen to fall into.

Secretariat

05-04-2005, 11:38 AM

hcap

05-04-2005, 02:57 PM

More on the disclosure that the war was a done deal from Ray McGovern.

http://www.tompaine.com/20050504/articles/proof_bush_fixed_the_facts.php

Proof Bush Fixed The Facts

.."Intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy."

Never in our wildest dreams did we think we would see those words in black and white—and beneath a SECRET stamp, no less. For three years now, we in Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) have been saying that the CIA and its British counterpart, MI-6, were ordered by their countries' leaders to "fix facts" to "justify" an unprovoked war on Iraq. More often than not, we have been greeted with stares of incredulity.

Suff

05-04-2005, 04:02 PM

HeartBreaker.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/04/tilman.probe.ap/index.html

AP) -- Army officials knew within days of Pat Tillman's death that the former NFL player had been killed by fellow Rangers during a patrol in Afghanistan but did not inform his family and the public for weeks, The Washington Post reported.
The documents show that officers erroneously reported that Tillman was killed by enemy fire, destroyed critical evidence and initially concealed the truth from his brother, also an Army Ranger, who was near the attack, the Post reported.

hcap

05-04-2005, 04:49 PM

To buy into this administration is to buy into "what we don't know, can't hurt us". I think lauras' horse joke should have been about hubby hand-jobbing an ostrich.

Tom Engelhardt..."Now, we all know, courtesy of our media, that control of global energy resources had nothing (or next to nothing) to do with the invasion of Iraq and that global energy flows and resources were the last things on the minds of neocon and Pentagon hawks, national security advisors, or even vice presidents while they were hatching plans to dominate the world forever and a day."Just to refresh the memory of some ostriches out there in lemminning land, ole' dick head cheney himself had some choice words on oil from..

Dick Cheney's speech at the Institute of Petroleum Autumn lunch, 1999
http://www.energybulletin.net/559.html

For the world as a whole, oil companies are expected to keep finding and developing enough oil to offset our seventy one million plus barrel a day of oil depletion, but also to meet new demand. By some estimates there will be an average of two per cent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead along with conservatively a three per cent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from?

Governments and the national oil companies are obviously controlling about ninety per cent of the assets. Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies

Oil is unique in that it is so strategic in nature. We are not talking about soapflakes or leisurewear here. Energy is truly fundamental to the world’s economy. The Gulf War was a reflection of that reality. The degree of government involvement also makes oil a unique commodity. This is true in both the overwhelming control of oil resources by national oil companies and governments as well as in the consuming nations where oil products are heavily taxed and regulated.OK, so what's the big deal? Nations have been jockeying for the resources of the mid east ever since the west- mostly britain so conveniently divied it up in the 20's.

At least everyone knew what the killing was about

PaceAdvantage

05-04-2005, 04:49 PM

Proof Bush Fixed The Facts

.."Intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy."

Where's the proof? I must have missed it...

hcap

05-04-2005, 04:56 PM

Did you read the link? It also points to this

The secret Downing Street memo
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY

DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

And from the original link

http://www.tompaine.com/20050504/articles/proof_bush_fixed_the_facts.php

...London's Sunday Times the official minutes of a briefing by Richard Dearlove, then head of Britain's CIA equivalent, MI-6. Fresh back in London from consultations in Washington, Dearlove briefed Prime Minister Blair and his top national security officials on July 23, 2002, on the Bush administration's plans to make war on Iraq.

...Blair does not dispute the authenticity of the document, which immortalizes a discussion that is chillingly amoral. Apparently no one felt free to ask the obvious questions. Or, worse still, the obvious questions did not occur.

...In emotionless English, Dearlove tells Blair and the others that President Bush has decided to remove Saddam Hussein by launching a war that is to be "justified by the conjunction of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction." Period. What about the intelligence? Dearlove adds matter-of-factly, "The intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy."

At this point, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw confirms that Bush has decided on war, but notes that stitching together justification would be a challenge, since "the case was thin." Straw noted that Saddam was not threatening his neighbors and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.

Bush had already made up his mind. No matter what the UN inspectors were or were not gonna find.

hcap

05-04-2005, 05:31 PM

An example of being an ostrich-land

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A9821-2003Dec17?language=printer

...After the insurrection in Iraq proved more stubborn than expected, the White House edited the original headline on its Web site of President Bush's May 1 speech, "President Bush Announces Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended," to insert the word "Major" before combat.

No big deal? Orwell might disagree.

"The reporting of Big Brother's Order for the Day in The Times . . . is extremely unsatisfactory and makes reference to non-existent persons. Rewrite in full and submit your draft to higher authority before filing".

Orwell wrote "Very likely as many as a dozen people were now working on rival versions of what Big Brother had actually said. And presently some master brain in the Inner Party would select this version or that, would re-edit it . . . then the chosen lie would pass into the permanent records and become truth."

Yeah, I know truth is a casuality of war blah blah blah.
And hell it's only politics as usual
Wake up you bird brains. Ostrich land is only for lemmings

PaceAdvantage

05-04-2005, 06:13 PM

I still don't see any proof. We all know Iraq was on the table prior to 9/11. That's no secret.

Secretariat

05-04-2005, 10:21 PM

I still don't see any proof. We all know Iraq was on the table prior to 9/11. That's no secret.

The only proof you would beleive is if Bush or Rush told you.

"...In emotionless English, Dearlove tells Blair and the others that President Bush has DECIDED to remove Saddam Hussein by launching a war that is to be "justified by the conjunction of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction." Period. What about the intelligence? Dearlove adds matter-of-factly, "The intelligence and facts ARE BEING FIXED around the policy."

At this point, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw CONFIRMS that Bush has decided on war, but notes that stitching together justification would be a challenge, since "the case was THIN." Straw noted that Saddam was not threatening his neighbors and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

PaceAdvantage

05-05-2005, 12:16 AM

I don't listen to Rush. I don't listen to any politcal shows, either TV or radio. I just don't have the time.

hcap

05-05-2005, 04:45 AM

Ok not 100%. Remember Paul O'Neill?
The Price of Loyalty?

President Bush's very first National Security Council ..
“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

Same story from many sources.

Secretariat

05-05-2005, 05:05 PM

Hcap,

Don't worry. He knows. It's just tough to admit it he was fooled when it is as blatant as this.

PaceAdvantage

05-05-2005, 07:41 PM

Blatant as what? We've known for ages that Iraq was on the table with this adminstration, as it should have been. Why is this news?

lsbets

05-05-2005, 07:42 PM

Regime change in Iraq has been official US policy sonce the 90s. What's new about that? Nothing.

Secretariat

05-05-2005, 10:06 PM

"...In emotionless English, Dearlove tells Blair and the others that President Bush has DECIDED to remove Saddam Hussein by launching a war that is to be "justified by the conjunction of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction." Period. What about the intelligence? Dearlove adds matter-of-factly, "The intelligence and facts ARE BEING FIXED around the policy."

At this point, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw CONFIRMS that Bush has decided on war, but notes that stitching together justification would be a challenge, since "the case was THIN." Straw noted that Saddam was not threatening his neighbors and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

Notice the justification given is NOt "regime change". THe justifcation given is weapons of mass destruction and the conjunction of terrorism. The Intelligence and Facts ARE BEING AROUND THE POLICY. This is not what the UN or the American people were told. It simply is hiding the truth from the people AND the congress to acheive your personal ends. That's what happens in a dictatorship and should NEVER happen in America.

Please re-read that quote by the Brisih Foregin Secretary and his legal counsel. I don't know how much more blatant it can get from that.

This information has pretrty much screwed America-British relations in future "democracy" building exercises abroad. Blair's Labor Party has lost almost a 100 seats due to this mess, and they now say that with the Far Left Labor joining the conservatives that he is pretty going to be unable to advance any foreign agenda.

JustRalph

05-05-2005, 10:39 PM

Remember Paul O'Neill?

Good outfielder for the Reds and Yanks. Hot head. I played against him in Jr. High and High school. He was a few years younger than me but had a great stick. Great guy when he comes back to Columbus. Treats people pretty well.

PaceAdvantage

05-06-2005, 12:42 AM

So Sec, just for argument's sake, why should I believe this British guy?

hcap

05-06-2005, 05:32 AM

lsbets
Regime change in Iraq has been official US policy sonce the 90s. What's new about that? Nothing.PaceAdvantage
Blatant as what? We've known for ages that Iraq was on the table with this adminstration, as it should have been. Why is this news?Regime change???

I will quote myself"If Hussein's brutal dictatorship warranted war then we might also need to invade Korea Zaire, Zimbabwe, China, and a host of other countries. No end to policing and disposing dictators and repressive regimes. Hell Putin should go as well. There are more loose nukes in the old soviet regime than anywhere else. And a lot of poor scientists who need bribes.

If that was the reason presented to the American people and a admitingly docile congress do ya think we would be there now?? That is THE problem. We were lied to big time. You may agree with regime change, but we would not be there based on that rosy scenario. You might be there, and maybe other true believers, but It took exagerated evidence to motivate a reluctant country. Maybe there is a hole in your memory leading up to this war?

hcap

05-06-2005, 06:23 AM

Some more history....

1-The US State Department, in 1945, viewed Middle Eastern oil as "a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history".

2-British planners in 1947 concurred, describing "a vital prize for any power interested in world influence or domination". In 1956 UK Foreign Secretary Selwyn Lloyd said "We must at all costs maintain control of this oil".

3-Earlier I posted about our VP/Oilman
Dick Cheney told the Institute for Petroleum that "Oil is unique in that it is so strategic in nature. We are not talking about soapflakes or leisurewear here. Energy is truly fundamental to the world's economy. The [1991] Gulf War was a reflection of that reality".

Well this thread can also be named Oil and Iran

Michael T. Klare...

"Iran houses the second-largest pool of untapped petroleum in the world. With this much oil - about one-tenth of the world's estimated total supply - Iran is certain to play a key role in the global energy equation. And it is not just oil that Iran possesses in great abundance, but also natural gas....approximately 16% of total world reserves. Iran also sits athwart the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway through which, daily, 40% of the world's oil exports pass. In addition, Iran is becoming a major supplier of oil and natural gas to China, India, and Japan, thereby giving Tehran additional clout in world affairs. It is these geopolitical dimensions of energy, as much as Iran's potential to export significant quantities of oil to the United States, that undoubtedly govern the administration's strategic calculations. When considering Iran's role in the global energy equation, therefore, Bush administration officials have two key strategic aims: a desire to open up Iranian oil and gas fields to exploitation by American firms, and concern over Iran's growing ties to America's competitors in the global energy market"

Dave Wearing....

"The US and the UK fifty years ago toppled Iran's parliamentary government and installed the dictatorship of the Shah. Tehran had upset the British by nationalising the oil industry, having taken the view that Iran, not the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later BP) should be the primary beneficiary of its reserves. Winston Churchill's British government continued covert operations begun by the previous Labour administration to organise a coup with the help of the CIA in 1953. The new US/UK friendly administration was savage in the extreme. Amnesty International reported in 1976 that the Shah's Iran had the "highest rate of death penalties in the world, no valid system of civilian courts and a history of torture" which was "beyond belief". In Iran "the entire population was subjected to a constant, all-pervasive terror".

Secretariat

05-06-2005, 07:19 PM

So Sec, just for argument's sake, why should I believe this British guy?

Well, let's see. you don't belive Bush's former Treasury Secretary. you don't beleive Bush's former anti-terrorism specialist, and now you don't beleive Jack Straw, Tony Blair's foreign secretary and "strong" supporter of the war OR his legal counsel who obviously he trusted to hire to this post.

The truth is PA, as I said before, unless Bush admits it, you will never beleive it. It's happened in governments in the past. They want to beleive the President so much they'll always give him the benefit of the doubt despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. People forget that Nixon won by a huge landslide in 1972 despite major problems with Vietnam, and Watergate rumors, and a vice president kicked out due to scandal. Nixon may have won the election, but the truth eventually surfaces, it's just surfacing quicker here.

hcap

05-07-2005, 07:22 AM

...In emotionless English, Dearlove tells Blair and the others that President Bush has decided to remove Saddam Hussein by launching a war that is to be "justified by the conjunction of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/286128.stm

UK Politics
New MI6 spymaster named
Thursday, February 25, 1999

...A Cambridge-educated career spy has been named as the new chief - also known as "C" - of the Secret Intelligence Service, MI6.

Richard Billing Dearlove, 54, currently the service's assistant chief, succeeds the present "C", Sir David Spedding, when he retires at the end of August. Mr Dearlove is only the second MI6 chief to have his appointment announced publicly.

So let's see, Bush had decided on the Iraq war by summer of 2002.
But mr preznit was lying to the American people at the time and saying that no final decision had been made on the war.

Godfrey Sperling
Christian Science Monitor August 27, 2002, "Indeed, Bush has said he welcomes a 'debate' on Iraq from those in Congress and from the public. But he has made it clear that he will make his decision based on what his intelligence people are telling him."

So now we gotta get rid of the b's
Both sides of the atlantic.

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

PaceAdvantage

05-07-2005, 03:16 PM

So now we gotta get rid of the b's
Both sides of the atlantic.

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

Well, you had your chance....and as De Niro once said....

YOU BLEW IT!

Equineer

05-07-2005, 03:22 PM

Secretariat & Hcap,

Good posts, but don't expect to light the night even if you are irrefutably right.

Much to the frustration of police investigators, confidence game swindlers are difficult to catch and prosecute because a high percentage of victims are too embarrassed to testify that they were duped and exploited.

That phenomenon appears to be in play with respect to Iraq.

Note that some of our hapless neo-cons are still refuting the irrefutable with respect to Vietnam although a mountain of declassified documents and tapes reveal how successive administrations deceived the American public and many members of Congress.

While the circumstances for Iraq still technically support an argument for ignorant negligence, plausibility has certainly shifted towards the argument that premeditated deception was also used to justify the Iraq war.

Some of our neo-con posters must privately realize that there is a high probability they were chumped... but like con game victims, they may never admit to the truth, even if irrefutable evidence eventually surfaces, as was the case for Vietnam.

Never underestimate gullibility and ignorance. I doubt that you will ever be able to enlighten many of our hapless neo-cons. In 1971, four years before Saigon fell, the sudden emergence of the Pentagon Papers effectively closed the case on Vietnam, but many dupes from that era refused to confront reality. If Bush and company were to be similarly exposed today, many neo-con dupes would again choose denial over reality.

The funny thing about enlightenment is that it can encompass both liberals and true conservatives, but it has always eluded neo-cons, even if we examine the origins of modern neo-con ideology in the Democratic Party after the Korean War.

PaceAdvantage

05-07-2005, 03:33 PM

How can I be chumped if I support the ouster of Saddam Hussein to begin with? All roads lead to Rome...I don't really care how we got there....

That's what you don't "get"

hcap

05-07-2005, 03:53 PM

All roads lead to Saddam?
Thats because you bought into the wrong map

The sad thing is many agree with "da agenda".

Look at iran-contra, Oliver North has beaten the rap and is a faux and radio host. Many infamous veterans of the foreign policy of the Reagan days have found a home in Bush II. Elliott Abrams--who pleaded guilty to misleading Congress regarding the Reagan administration's secret support of the contra rebels fighting the Sandinista government of Nicaragua--was hired as a staffmember of George W. Bush's National Security Council and placed in charge of democracy promotion. Retired Admiral John Poindexter--who was Reagan's national security adviser, who supervised Oliver North during the Iran-contra days, and who was convicted of several Iran-contra crimes before the convictions were overturned on a legal technicality--was retained by the Pentagon to search for terrorists using computerized Big Brother technology.

Those who refuse to accept they were lied to, take it as wink, wink, hey that is THE way to play the game, and anyway their leaders know what's best .

So the meaning of the word lie has been redefined. Soon anything that advances this twisted world view is the new reality.

Not good for the old reality.

Bomb the ragheads. No matter who did what.

Secretariat

05-07-2005, 04:32 PM

Hcap,

Cheney and Rumsfeld were part of the Nixon admin for god's sake. what do you expect? They were masters of lying back then. Nothing has realy changed. btw..what the heck ever happened to Spiro Agnew?

Tom

05-07-2005, 04:57 PM

Hehehe...now they got TWO elections to whine about.

Hey lib dudes.....Sec, Ljb, Hcap....maybe it's not them, maybe it's YOU!:confused:

hcap

05-07-2005, 05:04 PM

Died in '96
Said gems like..

"A Nixon-Agnew administration will abolish the credibility gap and
reestablish the truth -- the whole truth -- as its policy."

"We can afford to separate [protesters] from our society with no
more regret than we should feel over discarding rotten apples from
a barrel."

"Ultra-liberalism today translates into a whimpering isolationism in foreign policy, a mulish obstructionism in domestic policy, and a pusillanimous pussyfooting on the critical issue of law and order."

"In the United States today, we have more than our share of the nattering nabobs of negativism."

You know I can hear guys like kabong, JR, and Tom saying "hey, we can sure use guys like him right now".

Remember in Dr Strangelove when Sellers/Strangelove was goin on about the doomsday machine...

Strangelove:
Mr. President, it is not only possible, it is essential. That is the whole idea of this machine, you know. Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy... the fear to attack. And so, because of the automated and irrevocable decision making process which rules out human meddling, the doomsday machine is terrifying. It's simple to understand. And completely credible, and convincing.

General Turgidson ( George C Scott ):

Gee, I wish we had one of them doomsday machines!

Can't you imagine the neocons on the board lusting after guys like Agnew?
For that matter the doomsday machine as well

So Sec, I guess the voices of reason on this board are simply "nattering nabobs of negativism."

Tom you may have hated nixon, but admit it Agnew was da main man.
:jump: :jump: :jump:

Equineer

05-07-2005, 07:20 PM

How can I be chumped if I support the ouster of Saddam Hussein to begin with? All roads lead to Rome...I don't really care how we got there....

That's what you don't "get"All roads led to Rome in order to tranport the spoils of victory and the plunder from conquered territories back to Rome.

The American public is neither wealthier nor domestically safer because paper tiger Saddam was deposed.

With respect to Bush's Iraq justifications, neo-con dupes remind me of the hapless cuckhold who said, "At least he let me watch after I finally caught them in the act."

Secretariat

05-07-2005, 11:46 PM

Died in '96
So Sec, I guess the voices of reason on this board are simply "nattering nabobs of negativism."

The nabobs of negativism...I forgot about that one.

I did like this one though because of the dates

"A Nixon-Agnew administration will abolish the credibility gap and reestablish the truth -- the whole truth -- as its policy."
September 21, 1973.

On October 10, 1973, Spiro T. Agnew was forced to resign his office under charges of income tax evasion and graft.

Man, was that quick. This was the admin of Cheney and Rumsfeld. They learned their truth policy from one of the best.

PaceAdvantage

05-08-2005, 03:37 AM

All roads led to Rome in order to tranport the spoils of victory and the plunder from conquered territories back to Rome.

The American public is neither wealthier nor domestically safer because paper tiger Saddam was deposed.

With respect to Bush's Iraq justifications, neo-con dupes remind me of the hapless cuckhold who said, "At least he let me watch after I finally caught them in the act."

You got it baby! Rock and ROLL!

PaceAdvantage

05-08-2005, 03:40 AM

Bomb the ragheads. No matter who did what.

Really? That's strange. Do you think "ragheads" is an appropriate term to be using to describe people of Arab descent? I don't.

As a matter of fact, I take offense to this remark.

Plus, the quote as a whole is totally off base, considering there hasn't been any bombings outside of Iraq EVER, nor inside of Iraq since the the end of major military operations quite some time ago....

Equineer

05-08-2005, 02:39 PM

You got it baby! Rock and ROLL!What an incredible response... I had to re-read our messages in this thread to confirm you might be serious. Were you?

You really don't care if Bush deceived the American public and Congress to justify the Iraq war?

You really think that deposing Saddam, a paper tiger among our global adversaries, compensates Americans commensurate with the casualties incurred and $billions squandered?

Nothing would please anti-American terror strategists more than decades of successive bungled conflicts like Iraq... economically leveraged in their favor just like Vietnam.

Ask not who gets it; ask who has been had. :)

Tom

05-08-2005, 07:05 PM

Today is VE day. Lots of historical stuff on TV.
Not in one single show did I see any oil wells.
This date in history marks the beginning of a 5 year "boondoggle", to use the libs words, in Germany, fighting insurgents, snipers, trying to rebuild. Elections would be held in 1949, much longer than those in Iraq.
VE day was a long time from Pearl Harbor, which, incidently, had similarieties to 9-11 in that many fingers were pointed, questions about intelligence agencies not talking to each other, conspircacy theories about the attack, etc.
We had a draft, and 67%of the soldiers in the war were draftees.

I can't help but think if thoday's libs were around back then, we would all be goosestepping today, celebrating VA day. What woudl they say about the shells of humans our troops found in the concentration camps, som e barely alive, piled in withi dead bodies? Would they use the same arguments they have used here when we talk about the hudreds of thousand SH murdered, buy gas, by bullets, by chippers? About the mass graves we found? I would seriously like to hear how they differentialte the two.
Buit since most of them are on my ignore list, that will never happen.

God bless those who served and who did not come home.

PaceAdvantage

05-08-2005, 07:50 PM

What an incredible response... I had to re-read our messages in this thread to confirm you might be serious. Were you?

Baby, I wouldn't be serious with you if my life depended on it...

ljb

05-08-2005, 08:45 PM

Hehehe...now they got TWO elections to whine about.

Hey lib dudes.....Sec, Ljb, Hcap....maybe it's not them, maybe it's YOU!:confused:
Tom,
Does this mean you have taken me off your ignore list? Let me know so I can take you off my buddy list. :D :D :D
I am not whining about any elections, I am saddend by the results in America. England's election brings me cheer, a liberal party continues in control based on their booming economy. While we in America must continue to suffer under the neocons continued greedy behaviour.

ljb

05-08-2005, 08:48 PM

ElKabong

05-09-2005, 12:51 AM

ljb,

TODAYS libs are focused on one thing and one thing only, (esp since last November)... Division.

Wasn't that way in 1941. Don't take my word for it on the unity of the country in ww2, ask a ww2 vet. Ask him straight out if we were more unified then and less political than today.

Howard Dean would have had a dick shoved in his ass on a daily basis if he pulled off his 2003 act in 1941.

As a nation, "Pick a side and stick with it". It's how things get done.

PaceAdvantage

05-09-2005, 02:19 AM

Again with the "dicks up the ass" thing. What the hell is wrong with you guys? Did you forget the NYPD Blue thing? I never heard anyone talk about any dicks up any asses on NYPD Blue.

Either control yourselves, or I'll have to start doing the controlling. And you don't want me in control, trust me! It's much more entertaining when the LUNATICS run the asylum.

hcap

05-09-2005, 05:45 AM

WWII is not a correct analogy. We were attacked by a NATION allied with Nazi Germany.

We attacked a 3rd world nation with NO connection to the group of non-nation terrorists who attacked us. To compare Saddam to Hitler is ludicrous. To use a war that was probably the only war in the 20th century that justified a military response as a so-called model, to base our 21st century foreign policy, is bonkers. The oft mention Chamberlain vs Churchill example also does not apply.

Please use logic instead of the party line.

Equineer

05-09-2005, 06:14 AM

Baby, I wouldn't be serious with you if my life depended on it...When your plate is empty, playing the fool fools no one. :)

And when you are were serious with Hcap, you bungled it...Plus, the quote as a whole is totally off base, considering there hasn't been any bombings outside of Iraq EVER, nor inside of Iraq since the the end of major military operations quite some time ago....Air strikes inside both Iraq and Afghanistan were reported as recently as yesterday. Beyond those borders, you are merely speculating... recalling that Cambodia was heavily bombed while the Nixon administration denied it and actually falsified military records to cover it up... and the Bush administration hardly seems more credible than the Nixon administration.

hcap

05-09-2005, 06:39 AM

"Bomb the ragheads. No matter who did what."

First of all Tom has expressed these sentiments explicitly. So has JR, and some others on the neo-con side. Second of all, I don't believe that the rank and file purposely target civilians. The civilian leadership generally is another story.

The bottom line---- In military "adventures", innocents are killed and maimed over and over again. My satirical cartoon was posted in that light.
Also you may be interested in this...
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0508-20.htm

hcap

05-09-2005, 07:02 AM

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050508/OPINION04/505080346/1054/OPINION

"Lesson Five: What it's like to be afraid of your own country.

Once the story was finished and set to come out on the street, I was rushing back to the States -- mostly because we could no longer work once the story was published -- and I found I was scared returning to my own country. And that was an amazingly strange and awful feeling to have. Again, you could call me paranoid, but the questions about what might happen to me once in America -- where at least I would have more rights -- kept racing through my brain. I'm still here, so you could say that my frantic mental gymnastics about what could happen to me in my own country were paranoid anxieties.

But I would turn that question around:

How many other American journalists, perhaps not as secure in their position as I, have thought to do a story and decided that it's too close to the bone, too questioning of the American government or its actions?"

Also, in relation to WWII unity. Although the country as a whole was unified, that didn't stop many corporations from trading with the enemy.
Lockheed and Pratt Whitney sold airplane parts to the Nazis
Prescott Bush, a banker just before World War II made loans o the Nazis to buy pig iron.

Secretariat

05-09-2005, 08:06 AM

Hcap,

That might be the best article you ever posted here. A thought-provoking read. I'm not sure Lefty will take a look, but it's a good one.

Kreed

05-09-2005, 08:25 AM

Very good writing by journalist Molly Bingham. This entire Iraq mess goes on
BUT what can we do now? I hope anyone comes in with a magic wand to
solve this problem. If ONLY we tended our own farm and used MORE SCIENCE.

ElKabong

05-09-2005, 09:56 AM

Again with the "dicks up the ass" thing. What the hell is wrong with you guys? Did you forget the NYPD Blue thing? I never heard anyone talk about any dicks up any asses on NYPD Blue.

.

Saw Suff post it here yesterday. Same phrase, word for word. Figured it was allowed when I saw his post.

Point taken, and understood.

Suff

05-09-2005, 10:03 AM

Saw Suff post it here yesterday. Same phrase, word for word. Figured it was allowed when I saw his post.

LMAO>..!! You Bus'd me!! You threw me right under the Bus there!

jesus.. I'm all bruised and bloodied up now.

PA... Come on... Thats like my Lil Sister when she got Caught eating Mom's cookies before they cooled down..

"I saw Michael do it" lol.... :jump: man, the more things change the more they stay the same...

ElKabong

05-09-2005, 10:15 AM

WWII is not a correct analogy. We were attacked by a NATION allied with Nazi Germany.

. To compare Saddam to Hitler is ludicrous. To use a war that was probably the only war in the 20th century that justified a military response as a so-called model, to base our 21st century foreign policy, is bonkers. The oft mention Chamberlain vs Churchill example also does not apply.

Please use logic instead of the party line.

Chamberlain - Churchill doesn't apply? Things only apply for you lil girl, whenever you feel it's beneficial for liberals.

Hitler- Sank our ships before we kicked their ass.
Saddam- Shot at our aircraft before we kicked their ass.

Hitler- Invaded neighboring countries w/o justification.
Saddam- Invaded Kuwait w/o justification.

Hitler- Gassed Jews to their deaths
Hussein- Gassed his own populace

Enough similarities to be weary of Saddam, regardless of what you spew. And what's with your pathetic comment about "party line"? Check out what Clinton administration figureheads said about Hussein's regime. Prty line has nothing to do with it.

Tom

05-09-2005, 11:49 PM

WWII...no exit startegy. For years.

Iraq - election already held, new government formed, neighboring nation scared into turning over all their legit WMD - nukes that could easily have been used on us already.

OK, logic used.

hcap

05-10-2005, 08:15 AM

Appeasement?
Maybe Chamberlain, but Saddam was beaten totally in the first Gulf war. Was controlled and contained effectively.

Back in the 30's, Churchill pronounced Nazi Germany a "gathering storm".
At the time, Germany represented an equal to 1930's european nations militarily. And was a perhaps the strongest industrial power on that continent.

Iraq was hobbled by some of the most restrictive sanctions ever devised. Satelite survelience and overflights had according to Powell abd Rice, kept "him in his box". This was stated 8 or 9 months before 911. How did Saddam become a "gathering storm" in such a short period of time? He had a severly devasted 3rd world military. His defense budget was on the order of a FRACTION of a percent of the US' military budget.

Nazi germany was outspending their competition.
Yes germany was a threat. Saddam was not. The connection to Al Qaeda was non existant, only a few months were allowed after the UN inspectors were allowed back in, before we invaded. And as we all know now, zilch WMDs were found.

Imagine the congress's reaction if the only argument for invasion was he gassed his own people. If a brutal regime was the only reason to impose our will, a dozen other invasions would also be necessary.

hcap

05-11-2005, 07:08 AM

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/1/

Maybe we should all re-read Orwell. Particularly the Two Minute Hate
When the "enemy" is painted as an evil one dimensional character, and at the same time, pounded into our head- Big Brother our adored simplistic leader. Big brother rules the day...

George Orwell, 1984, (Chapter 1)

Before the Hate had proceeded for thirty seconds, uncontrollable exclamations of rage were breaking out from half the people in the room. The self-satisfied sheep-like face on the screen, and the terrifying power of the Eurasian army behind it, were too much to be borne: besides, the sight or even the thought of Goldstein produced fear and anger automatically. He was an object of hatred more constant than either Eurasia or Eastasia, since when Oceania was at war with one of these Powers it was generally at peace with the other. But what was strange was that although Goldstein was hated and despised by everybody, although every day and a thousand times a day, on platforms, on the telescreen, in newspapers, in books, his theories were refuted, smashed, ridiculed, held up to the general gaze for the pitiful rubbish that they were in spite of all this, his influence never seemed to grow less. Always there were fresh dupes waiting to be seduced by him. A day never passed when spies and saboteurs acting under his directions were not unmasked by the Thought Police. He was the commander of a vast shadowy army, an underground network of conspirators dedicated to the overthrow of the State. The Brotherhood, its name was supposed to be. There were also whispered stories of a terrible book, a compendium of all the heresies, of which Goldstein was the author and which circulated clandestinely here and there. It was a book without a title. People referred to it, if at all, simply as the book. But one knew of such things only through vague rumours. Neither the Brotherhood nor the book was a subject that any ordinary Party member would mention if there was a way of avoiding it.

In its second minute the Hate rose to a frenzy. People were leaping up and down in their places and shouting at the tops of their voices in an effort to drown the maddening bleating voice that came from the screen. The little sandy-haired woman had turned bright pink, and her mouth was opening and shutting like that of a landed fish. Even O'Brien's heavy face was flushed. He was sitting very straight in his chair, his powerful chest swelling and quivering as though he were standing up to the assault of a wave. The dark-haired girl behind Winston had begun crying out 'Swine! Swine! Swine!' and suddenly she picked up a heavy Newspeak dictionary and flung it at the screen. It struck Goldstein's nose and bounced off; the voice continued inexorably. In a lucid moment Winston found that he was shouting with the others and kicking his heel violently against the rung of his chair. The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but, on the contrary, that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretence was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge-hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one's will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic.

Gotta love Orwell. Even though 1984 was a comment on Stalins' communist Russia, it is almost a blueprint for any regime with fascist dreams.

Smoking Gun Memo?
Iraq Bombshell Goes Mostly Unreported in US Media

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2511

"Journalists typically condemn attempts to force their colleagues to disclose anonymous sources, saying that subpoenaing reporters will discourage efforts to expose government wrongdoing. But such warnings seem like mere self-congratulation when clear evidence of wrongdoing emerges, with no anonymous sources required-- and major news outlets virtually ignore it.

A leaked document that appeared in a British newspaper offered clear new evidence that U.S. intelligence was shaped to support the drive for war. Though the information rocked British Prime Minister Tony Blair's re-election campaign when it was revealed, it has received little attention in the U.S. press.""

Why?

PaceAdvantage

05-12-2005, 03:46 AM

A leaked document that appeared in a British newspaper offered clear new evidence that U.S. intelligence was shaped to support the drive for war. Though the information rocked British Prime Minister Tony Blair's re-election campaign when it was revealed, it has received little attention in the U.S. press.""

Why?

WHY? Because, most likely, the NEWS is being SHAPED a lot more than U.S. intelligence was....that's why.

Tom

05-12-2005, 11:41 PM

Why?

Maybe the Brittish are as gullible as you are!
Red states ( count 'em....) have more sense.

hcap

05-16-2005, 06:25 AM

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=10009209 06

Bush Sold the War on WMDs, Not Regime Change

"With embarassing new revelations on WMDs emerging, and Bush poll numbers slipping, the president's supporters in the press argue that he actually sold the war to the public on the basis of freedom for the Iraqis, not on a WMD threat to Americans. A look at Bush's final messages to the public and to Congress just before the war began prove otherwise."

hcap

05-29-2005, 08:07 AM

I said..To look at NFZs as humanitarian constructs, and the just evil Iraqis unlawfully targeting our boys is not the whole picture. And to use this as a justification for invasion is an exageration. Just like the original first rationales used by the bushies.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1632566,00.html

...RAF bombing raids tried to goad Saddam into war

"THE RAF and US aircraft doubled the rate at which they were dropping bombs on Iraq in 2002 in an attempt to provoke Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for war, new evidence has shown.

The attacks were intensified from May, six months before the United Nations resolution that Tony Blair and Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, argued gave the coalition the legal basis for war. By the end of August the raids had become a full air offensive.

The details follow the leak to The Sunday Times of minutes of a key meeting in July 2002 at which Blair and his war cabinet discussed how to make “regime change” in Iraq legal."

So much for elKabong crowing about "they shot at our boys"

hcap

05-29-2005, 08:19 AM

At this point, the evidence points to I think, grounds for Impeachment.

July 25, 1974, Representative Barbara Jordan on the House Judiciary Committee “The powers relating to impeachment, are an essential check in the hands of this body, the legislature, against and upon the encroachment of the Executive.”

Impeachment, she added, is chiefly designed for the President and his high ministers to somehow be called into account. It is designed to ‘bridle’ the Executive if he engages in excesses. It is designed as a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men. The framers confined in the Congress the power, if need be, to remove the President in order to strike a delicate balance between a President swollen with power and grown tyrannical and preservation of the independence of the Executive.

I remember watching her. Too bad she is not around today.

PaceAdvantage

05-29-2005, 07:53 PM

As Bush once said (and I paraphrase here), "BRING IT ON!"

Let's go anti-Bush folks. Grow some balls, and start the process rolling. Either that, or shut up about it (impeachment).

Equineer

05-29-2005, 10:55 PM

As Bush once said (and I paraphrase here), "BRING IT ON!"

Let's go anti-Bush folks. Grow some balls, and start the process rolling. Either that, or shut up about it (impeachment).Balls?

We have an abundance of neo-con dupes who avoid military service and shun financial responsibility.

If invading Iraq was really justified, what could be a more cowardly approach than opposing a democratic citizen-soldier draft while passing the entire financial burden of Iraq onto future generations?

Among the neo-con dupes who have never served, who on this board has proposed actually starting to pay out-of-pocket for Iraq on their own watch?

ElKabong

05-29-2005, 11:11 PM

I said..[url]

"THE RAF and US aircraft doubled the rate at which they were dropping bombs on Iraq in 2002.....

So much for elKabong crowing about "they shot at our boys"

Why is that little girl? The Iraqi's fired on US Aircraft as early as 1998. We simply retaliated (and destroyed most their AAA capabilities).

Yes, "they shot at our boys", and did so w/o provacation. You seem to belittle that fact. Very easy to see which side you've picked here, facepaint girl. You see no problems w/ Iraq trying to kill Americans. So be it. Glad you're on the short end of this conflict.

PaceAdvantage

05-30-2005, 02:14 AM

Balls?

We have an abundance of neo-con dupes who avoid military service and shun financial responsibility.

If invading Iraq was really justified, what could be a more cowardly approach than opposing a democratic citizen-soldier draft while passing the entire financial burden of Iraq onto future generations?

Among the neo-con dupes who have never served, who on this board has proposed actually starting to pay out-of-pocket for Iraq on their own watch?

Is that a non sequitur I smell? Not from you Equineer! For shame! We're talking IMPEACHMENT here....get back on TOPIC!

hcap

05-30-2005, 07:11 AM

....Walter Pincus, writing in the Washington Post on May 22, provides further evidence that the administration did, indeed, fix the intelligence on Iraq to fit a policy it had already embraced: invasion and regime change. Just four days before Bush's State of the Union address in January 2003, Pincus writes, the National Security Council staff "put out a call for new intelligence to bolster claims" about Saddam Hussein's WMD programs. The call went out because the NSC staff believed the case was weak. Moreover, Pincus says, "as the war approached, many U.S. intelligence analysts were internally questioning almost every major piece of prewar intelligence about Hussein's alleged weapons programs." But no one at high ranks in the administration would listen to them.

More than circumstantial evidence.

MEMORANDUM
To: Rep. John Conyers, Jr.
From: John C. Bonifaz
Date: May 22, 2005
RE: The President’s Impeachable Offenses

The recent release of the Downing Street Memo provides new and compelling evidence that the President of the United States has been actively engaged in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people about the basis for going to war against Iraq. If true, such conduct constitutes a High Crime under Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution: “The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

In light of the emergence of the Downing Street Memo, Members of Congress should introduce a Resolution of Inquiry directing the House Judiciary Committee to launch a formal investigation into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach George W. Bush, President of the United States.

hcap

05-30-2005, 07:49 AM

On Sept. 7, 2002, at a joint Camp David press conference, President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair each stated that the International Atomic Energy Agency had issued a report that morning suggesting that Iraq was close to having a nuclear device. No such report had come out that day—or ever.

http://www.celticguitarmusic.com/MlandCampDavid.htm

http://www.celticguitarmusic.com/bush_and_blair.jpg

Blair led off with, “. . . The threat from Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction—chemical, biological, potentially nuclear weapons capability—that threat is real. We only need to look at the report from the International Atomic Energy Agency this morning, showing what has been going on at the former nuclear weapon sites to realize that.” Blair was referring to recently released satellite photos of Iraq showing new construction at several sites formerly connected to Baghdad’s nuclear-weapons program.

...As for the satellite photos, Mark Gwozdecky, the IAEA’s chief spokesman, told Windrem that nothing in them had aroused the IAEA’s suspicion. The Washington Post’s Karen DeYoung also checked with an IAEA spokesman, who told her that the agency had issued no new report.

hcap

05-30-2005, 12:52 PM

Minneapolis Star Tribune

....In exchange for our uniformed young people's willingness to offer the gift of their lives, civilian Americans owe them something important: It is our duty to ensure that they never are called to make that sacrifice unless it is truly necessary for the security of the country. In the case of Iraq, the American public has failed them; we did not prevent the Bush administration from spending their blood in an unnecessary war based on contrived concerns about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. President Bush and those around him lied, and the rest of us let them. Harsh? Yes. True? Also yes. Perhaps it happened because Americans, understandably, don't expect untruths from those in power. But that works better as an explanation than as an excuse....

Equineer

05-30-2005, 01:37 PM

We're talking IMPEACHMENT here....get back on TOPIC!I am delighted that you are starting to talk about impeachment. The enlightened wing of the Republican Party has been slumbering for too many years.

As with Nixon and Clinton, Congress needs to sense grass roots support among the electorate before it will seriously begin considering impeachment. You can help the GOP Old Guard restore the integrity of the party by joining Neo-Cons Anonymous and contributing to the cause...

$15 Buttons: Born Again Minds Don't Deny Failure

$30 Bumper Sticker: Abort Bush Now, Save Our Children

$50 T-Shirt: May God Forgive Me - I Was A Neo-Con Dupe In 2004

$100 Yard Sign: This American Home Will Raise NO SHARECROPPERS

PaceAdvantage

05-30-2005, 02:20 PM

T-shirts and bumper stickers ain't going to cut the mustard Eq. We need YOUR courageous Dem opposition BROTHERS and SISTERS in ARMS to STAND UP in CONGRESS and start the process ROLLING in EARNEST!! Where's the news conference on the STEPS of the CAPITOL, alerting ALL Americans to what is really going on in the White House? When will you guys SHOUT FROM THE HIGHEST MOUNTAIN TOP in order to wake up all those slumbering idiots in middle America?

As someone once said, I guess you guys are just BIG HAT, NO CATTLE.

46zilzal

05-30-2005, 03:15 PM

I guess you have to believe we went over to Iraq solely for the oil to believe the rest of this..

still not on top of that

Tom

05-30-2005, 04:00 PM

Gee, PA,

They have Air(sick)America to shout to the masses. What's their listenershiooop theses days.....7,8???:rolleyes:

I mean, how you not listen to Randi Rhodes and not pay attention! I am sure everyone from her trailer park tunes in and believes.
Al Frankensien, ya gotta sit up and listen to this SNL reject.

I just cannot understand where the groundswell of action is.
Maybe they are waiting for it to warm up. Maybe they all got lost on the freeway trying to find a voting booth in November and haven't found their way home yet?

:bang:

Tom

05-30-2005, 04:01 PM

46, you missed the boa on that one.

SQ hasn't been here since 4/5/05.

46zilzal

05-30-2005, 04:04 PM

His ABSENCE from responding (in his OWN way) was at the heart of my comment. He has been 'capping on line at Charlestown amongst other places

ElKabong

05-30-2005, 06:10 PM

Lil girl,

You didn't address the fact that Iraq was trying to kill American pilots in 1998 by firing upon them (and the Brits). That preceeded any actions of 2002.

Given a choice of protecting American military member's lives or Hussein's regime, its clear to see which you side up with. You see no problem with our airmen being shot at, or shot down.

I'm glad you're (1) thinking on this is clearly in the minority, and (2) on the losing end.

Secretariat

05-30-2005, 07:26 PM

Balls?

We have an abundance of neo-con dupes who avoid military service and shun financial responsibility.

If invading Iraq was really justified, what could be a more cowardly approach than opposing a democratic citizen-soldier draft while passing the entire financial burden of Iraq onto future generations?

Among the neo-con dupes who have never served, who on this board has proposed actually starting to pay out-of-pocket for Iraq on their own watch?

An excellent post. Even in Nam there was an attempt to pay for McNamara and Johnson's mistakes rather than ask the children to pay for it. I can see why PA wanted you to talk about something else. You hit it spot on.

PaceAdvantage

05-31-2005, 02:04 AM

Simply laughable.

hcap

05-31-2005, 06:37 AM

ElKabong Lil girl,You didn't address the fact that Iraq was trying to kill American pilots in 1998 by firing upon them (and the Brits). That preceeded any actions of 2002.
We have adressed this issue. You just don't want to admit that the latest brit leak is just another nail in the coffin. I think if you were to stand back from the middle of the bullshit, you would begin to have some doubts. Problem appears to be that you AGREE with the the neocon game plan, and don't care about the lies used to enact it. Ends justifies the means?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/zeese1.html

A Pretext for War
An Interview With James Bamford

...Bamford: It would seem logical that if Bill Clinton could be subject to impeachment for an alleged deception over a minor consensual sexual affair, George W. Bush should be subject to the same treatment for launching a deadly and seemingly endless war based on lies, distortions and deceptions. If that doesn't qualify as a "high crime," I don't think anything does. The key problem is massive public apathy and extremely poor press coverage. I think the only way to prevent such wars in the future would be to make every citizen an equal shareholder in the war – not just the families of the 140,000 troops currently in Iraq. This would require legislation mandating a draft upon the deployment of a certain number of troops to a combat environment. Also, legislation forbidding deficit spending for a war should be enacted. The cost of a war would have to be paid as a surcharge on all taxpayers in the year the fighting takes place. In this way, nearly every citizen would have both a personal and financial stake in a war. If such were the case today, we would not be in this situation – and if we were, there would certainly be calls for impeachment.

JustRalph

05-31-2005, 06:50 AM

ElKabong We have adressed this issue. You just don't want to admit that the latest brit leak is just another nail in the coffin.

What coffin? Nobody Cares! Get it? This issue has been hashed and re-hashed over and over again by everyone from the left and right. I am not indignant about it, and apparently only about 49% of the country gives a shit........that was not enough to stop Bush from getting re-elected so would you kindly move on? You lost the most important election in 60 years and you now have to deal with it. Just tune to Air America every day and get your fill of "like mindness" and move on...........but stop trying to convince the rest of us that it matters........we already decided..........it doesn't matter........at least not enough.......

hcap

05-31-2005, 07:08 AM

JustRalph What coffin? Nobody Cares! Get it?

.....but stop trying to convince the rest of us that it matters
......we already decided..........it doesn't matter........at least not enough.......Polls show you are totally wrong

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=8379961
Wed May 4, 2005 01:02 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A majority of Americans do not think it was worth going to war in Iraq with support at the lowest level since the United States launched the invasion in 2003, according to a CNN/USAToday/Gallup poll released on Tuesday.

Fifty-seven percent of those polled said it was not worth going to war compared to 41 percent who thought it was. In a February poll, 48 percent said the war was worth it and half said it was not.

A poll in April 2003, shortly after the war began, found that 73 percent of Americans held the view that the war was worth fighting. The new poll results had a margin of error of plus or minus five percentage points.

Now think about this...

January, 2001 Treas. Sec. Paul O'Neill attends Bush's first National Security meeting, where the chief topic is finding a reason to invade Iraq.

February 24, 2001 Sec. of State Colin Powell, says ''[Iraq] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.''

May 15, 2001 Powell testifies to Congress: ''The sanctions...have succeeded ...the best intelligence estimates suggest that [Iraq has] not been terribly successful [in developing WMD] ...they have not been able to come out with the capacity to deliver these kinds of systems or to actually have these kinds of systems ...''

July, 2001 Nat. Sec. Advisor Rice: announces Saddam not a threat. ''We are able to keep his arms from him.''

So from July, 2001, to bush's sotu Iraq becomes the greatest threat to us? With satellite overflights, and patrols over the nfz's????

Then there is Andy Card. Cynical to say the least.

August, 2002 Andy Card asks Press to not speculate on coming war, saying ''You don't roll out a new product until September.''

hcap

05-31-2005, 07:32 AM

http://rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/conyers_downing_street_letter_rumsfeld_529

As new revelations surface in London, congressman readies new questions for Defense Secretary

... According to the article, this increase at the rate of bombing was “an attempt to provoke Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for war.” As I am sure you are aware, allied commander Tommy Franks has previously acknowledged the existence of increased military operations which he asserted were needed “to ‘degrade’ Iraqi air defenses in the same way as the air attacks that began the 1991 Gulf War.”

1) Did the RAF and the United States military increase the rate that they were dropping bombs in Iraq in 2002? If so, what was the extent and timing of the increase?

2) What was the justification for any such increase in the rate of bombing in Iraq at this time? Was this justification reviewed by legal authorities in the U.S.?

3) To the best of your knowledge, was there any agreement with any representative of the British government to engage in military action in Iraq before authority was sought from the Congress or the U.N.? If so, what was the nature of the agreement?

In connection with all of the above questions, please provide me with any memorandum, notes, minutes, documents, phone and other records, e-mails, computer files (including back-up records) or other material of any kind or nature concerning or relating thereto in the possession or accessible by the Department of Defense.

I would encourage you to provide responses to these questions as promptly as possible, as they raise extremely grave and serious questions involving the credibility of our Administration and its constitutional responsibilities. In the interest of time, please feel free to forward me partial responses as they become available.

Sincerely,

John Conyers, Jr.
Ranking Member

hcap

05-31-2005, 02:36 PM

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/05/31/the_i_word?mode=PF

Sums up nicely the myth that everybody knew they had 'em

...If this is answered affirmatively Bush and Cheney have committed ''high crimes and misdemeanors." It is time for Congress to investigate the illegal Iraq war as we move toward the third year of the endless quagmire that many security experts believe jeopardizes US safety by recruiting and training more terrorists. A Resolution of Impeachment would be a first step. Based on the mountains of fabrications, deceptions, and lies, it is time to debate the ''I" word.

Secretariat

05-31-2005, 04:12 PM

Simply laughable.

What's laughable? That we ask the richest members of our society to currently pay for what red-state NC Republican Congressman Walter Jones called an "unjustified war" of choice, rather than ask middle class children to pay for it in the future? Is your position that you should run up credit card bills, move in with your kids, and then ask them to pay for your extravagance?

hcap

05-31-2005, 04:44 PM

JustRalphNobody Cares! Get it? ..that was not enough to stop Bush from getting re-elected so would you kindly move on? You lost the most important election in 60 years and you now have to deal with it.I care. Get it? Almost 60% of the american people car. Get it?

Two years after nixon won re-election by a LANDSLIDE, he was forced to quit under threat of impeachment.

A coalition of citizen groups will ask the U.S. Congress to file a formal "Resolution of Inquiry", the first necessary legal step to determine whether U.S. President Bush has committed impeachable offenses.

Walter Jones: "If we were given misinformation intentionally by people in this administration, to commit the authority to send boys, and in some instances girls, to go into Iraq, that is wrong, Congress must be told the truth."

More pre-war articles about exagerating the evidence

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/nation/1607676

...Oct. 8, 2002, 10:47AM
Some administration officials expressing misgivings on Iraq
By WARREN P. STROBEL and JONATHAN S. LANDAY
Knight-Ridder Tribune News

WASHINGTON -- While President Bush marshals congressional and international support for invading Iraq, a growing number of military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats in his own government privately have deep misgivings about the administration's double-time march toward war.

http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/22/dreyfuss-r.html

...The Pentagon Muzzles the CIA
Devising bad intelligence to promote bad policy
By Robert Dreyfuss
Issue Date: 12.16.02

Even as it prepares for war against Iraq, the Pentagon is already engaged on a second front: its war against the Central Intelligence Agency. The Pentagon is bringing relentless pressure to bear on the agency to produce intelligence reports more supportive of war with Iraq, according to former CIA officials

PaceAdvantage

06-01-2005, 12:22 AM

Big Hat, No Cattle.

Nader? Still laughable.

hcap

06-01-2005, 02:20 PM

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/226504_bushiraqed.asp

Perhaps all presidents' remarks in military graveyards are by nature self-serving. But few have been so callow as the president's using the deaths of U.S. troops in his unjustified war as justification for its continuance.

Third mainstream ( that I know of ) paper to diss his ass big time.

Mark Felt took this moment in history to reveal himself as 'Deep Throat'? Was he sending a message to other potential whistle-blowers?

Remember it took a while to dump nixon.
Bush's numbers are at an all time low.
Lame duckness is sprouting.

57% and growing who think Iraq was a mistake.
100,000 signatures to be presented to the House.
2006 will tell.

BTW, I believe the expression is "ALL hat no cattle"

PaceAdvantage

06-01-2005, 04:10 PM

BTW, I believe the expression is "ALL hat no cattle"

I believe you are wrong.

hcap

06-02-2005, 06:08 AM

"Texans have a phrase "All Hat and no cattle." This phrase applies to pretend cowboys that dress and talk the part, but are pretending to be what they aren't.

I once heard Ann Richards describe her opponent in the Texas Governor's race as All Hat No Cattle. Her opponent was George W. Bush. When I needed a name for this website, that phrase immediately came to mind."

http://www.allhatnocattle.net/what_does_it_mean.htm

JustRalph

06-02-2005, 06:40 AM

hcap

06-02-2005, 06:54 AM

"now she is, all retired, no Governorship.............beaten by the guy with no cattle."

True, but is it All hat or Big hat?

PaceAdvantage

06-02-2005, 10:06 AM

Let's get a clarification from one of our Texas boys...they oughta know....

I'm just a New Yawka (but not a native....I was born in Ohio), so I might be wrong, but I doubt it....

schweitz

06-02-2005, 06:13 PM

"All hat--" is all I have ever heard.

JustRalph

06-02-2005, 06:49 PM

I'm just a New Yawka (but not a native....I was born in Ohio), so I might be wrong, but I doubt it....

That explains it!!!!

ElKabong

06-02-2005, 08:41 PM

"All hat, no cattle" is the phrase I've heard. But, everyone knew the meaning of your point. Only a little girl would nitpick on it.

"All retired, no governorship"....Classic! :lol:

Tom

06-02-2005, 10:52 PM

I heard it as All that meat and no potatoes!

hcap

06-04-2005, 03:24 PM

Bolton Said to Orchestrate Unlawful Firing

By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special Correspondent

John R. Bolton flew to Europe in 2002 to confront the head of a global arms-control agency and demand he resign, then orchestrated the firing of the unwilling diplomat in a move a U.N. tribunal has since judged unlawful, according to officials involved.

A former Bolton deputy says the U.S. undersecretary of state felt Jose Bustani "had to go," particularly because the Brazilian was trying to send chemical weapons inspectors to Baghdad. That might have helped defuse the crisis over alleged Iraqi weapons and undermined a U.S. rationale for war

...The Iraq connection to the OPCW affair comes as fresh evidence surfaces that the Bush administration was intent from early on to pursue military and not diplomatic action against Saddam Hussein's regime.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050604/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/bolton_un_firing;_ylt=AkO2pSApFeXWXz2RpVUDywys0NUE ;_ylu=X3oDMTA2MTQ3MTFjBHNlYwN0cw--

hcap

06-04-2005, 03:59 PM

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/11810085.htm

Reports of terrorists meeting in Syria were flawed, U.S. officials say
Posted on Fri, Jun. 03, 2005
BY WARREN P. STROBEL AND JONATHAN S. LANDAY

Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - (KRT) - U.S. intelligence has no evidence that terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi visited Syria in recent months to plan bombings in Iraq, and experts don't believe the widely publicized meeting ever happened, according to U.S. officials.

...The allegation by the U.S. military official in Baghdad that Zarqawi and his lieutenants met in Syria suggests that, despite the controversy over the Bush administration's use of flimsy and bogus intelligence to make its case for war in Iraq, some officials are still quick to embrace dubious intelligence when it supports the administration's case - this time against Damascus.

One of the U.S. officials said the initial report was based on a single human source, who has since changed his story significantly. Another official said the source and his information were quickly dismissed as unreliable by intelligence officials but caught the attention of some political appointees.

lsbets

06-04-2005, 04:15 PM

One interesting paragraph you left out:

"We are not aware of any information that suggests that Zarqawi met in Syria with his lieutenants in April," a defense official said. "However, it doesn't preclude his having met with them most likely in al Anbar," a largely Sunni Muslim province in western Iraq."

Let me ask you - if a meeting happenned, does it matter exactly where? Does that make a difference to you? Is it a bad thing if it happens in Syria, but okay if it happens near Syria? Do you think if the April meeting did not happen in Syria than that means the Syrians are not allowing passage and safe haven for terrorists transiting to and from Iraq?

Let me ask you Hcap - accepting the fact that we are in Iraq, what would you like to see happen there? What would you like to see as the outcome, and how do you propose we reach that outcome?

hcap

06-04-2005, 05:21 PM

By itself maybe typical fog of war. Looking at the long list of lies, spinning and PR manipulation, just another indication that much about this war should be questioned.

The telling phrase in the article is:

.."despite the controversy over the Bush administration's use of flimsy and bogus intelligence to make its case for war in Iraq, some officials are still quick to embrace dubious intelligence when it supports the administration's case."

Of course you come back with a variation on "Absence of evidence doesn't mean evidence of absence". I believe that is how the argument goes.

LSLet me ask you Hcap - accepting the fact that we are in Iraq, what would you like to see happen there? What would you like to see as the outcome, and how do you propose we reach that outcome?Maybe there is no easy answer. Maybe the truth from the bushies would be the first step.

The "flypaper" theory, is not working.
You remember that one. That even if this was unplanned it is really a blessing in disguise. So, have we attracted all the terrorists in the Middle East to Iraq where getting rid of them will be like shooting fish in a barrel? Instead we have turned Iraq into a home grown cottage terrorist industry. Iraq is now exporting terrorists

Terrorism is growing worldwide. There is no evidence that the terrorists in Iraq or for that matter Al Queda are "on their last throes" The Iraqi forces are not ready to go it alone, by a long shot. The DOD is falling short on recruiting. A draft is not gonna fly. A strong majority of americans now feel the war was NOT worth it. Looks like a mini vietnam. Iraq may be arabic for Vietnam

Before we invaded, I brought up on this board, the failure rate of asymetrical warfare. For the invader that is. I also mentioned the battle of Stalingrad as a model for the bathists. And pointed to a quagmire. Ok not exactly vietnam, but a win the battle, loose the war situation. The empire that we have become has forgotten the lessons of history. Empires don't last. Nor can they equal the motivation of the occupied. Eventually a withdrawal will take place.
Just like vietnam.

Europe, after the brits, the portuguese, the spaniards, etc, have learned the hard way.

So this time engage as many other countries as we can. Europeans, the Arab League, the UN. Of course we have burned so many bridges. Our standing throughout the world is a disaster. Ain't gonna be easy.

Of course we can always nuke 'em

lsbets

06-04-2005, 05:59 PM

So your answer is to not answer - very clever. You instead say the flypaper theory is not working. Well, you are partly correct - there are more terrorist acts in Iraq than there used to be. Why? Because more terrorists came in. And guess what? There are also more DEAD terrorists - the best kind. Dead terrorists who cannot attack us. Both US and us. Is that important? Damned right it is. I don't give a rats ass about worlwide terrorism, I care about terrorism in the US against us. The more dead, the less who attack, the less attacks happen to us here. You just don't get it. It is a war and war is not pretty. I know you want little flowers and butterflies but war involves things like explosions, bullets, and blood. And ultimatly one side wins and one loses. The side that wins pays a price for that victory and in some cases the price paid does not turn out to be worth the benefit gained. I know, you read something somewhere that said we're creating more terrorists than we are killing, and you accept it as fact without questioning it. Which again brings me back to a point I made in another thread about how it seems to me that some people would much rather believe anything bad or negative about US (us) than anything positive, and that raises certain quesions in my mind, which is why I attempted to get you to answer one. However, now I am falling for your distraction, instead of attempting to get something out of you that I have not seen in any of your posts. An idea. A thought - what outcome do you desire to see in Iraq? What do you want to see happen there? Can you please attempt an answer. Not this is not working. Not "I want the truth" What do you want to see happen THERE? What state do you want to see the nation of Iraq in by the year 2010? What is your desired outcome for Iraq and the Middle East? And if you cannot understand how important that outcome ultimatly is to the safety and security of everyone here at home, than you will never get it.