Iraqi People Fear Democrat Victory(Chig.Trib.)

[White_Male_Canada]

Democrats' victory unnerves Baghdad

November 9, 2006

BAGHDAD -- Across the capital Wednesday, Iraqis balanced their hopes against fears about how U.S. policy will change on the ground in the wake of the Democrats' overwhelming victory in congressional elections and U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's sudden resignation.

Rasha Tariq, 23, a college student, said she found herself near tears when she awoke Wednesday morning to the news that the Democrats had won the House and were on the cusp of taking the Senate.

Tariq said she worries the Democrats' victory will mark the beginning of a U.S. pullout from Iraq and the disintegration of what little order is left on the dangerous streets of Baghdad.

"If it was up to the Democrats, we would still be living under Saddam's tyranny," Tariq said in an interview Wednesday in the Sadoun Street shopping district. "I'm afraid that this change is going to affect the American presence in Iraq. I don't want them to leave."

Ali Dabbagh, the Iraqi government spokesman who attended the meeting with Khalilzad, said that he was "shocked" to hear of Rumsfeld's resignation. But ultimately, Dabbagh said, the Iraqi government sees the issue as an American matter.

Al-Musawi was charitable in his analysis of how Iraqi history will remember Rumsfeld.

"He will be recalled as the man who designed the war that brought down the dictator Saddam Hussein," al-Musawi said. "He will also be remembered as the man who made many miscalculations that caused much suffering for the Iraqi people."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/servic...ered.intercept

[LG]

Maybe you are right, White_Male_Canada. Maybe the US troops should remain in Iraq, becuase, after all, the US has done such a good job so far of controlling the insurgency and keeping the country in check. Maybe that's why basics like water and electricity are unavailable to so many Iraqis.

More than 2800 American troops have been killed in Iraq- most of them during the insurgency, and, at a guess, another 50,000 Iraqis have been killed.

So why do the Iraqis and most Arabs hate the US? You'd think they'd be grateful for the "regime change". But the US attacked not under the precedent of freeing the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein, admittedly an evil shitbag, but becuase they supposedly believed Saddam possessed WMDs (or BLTs, as Sacha Baron Cohen tricked Pat Buchanan into calling them).

Saddam had no WMDs and the US intelligence knew it. He may have had BLT; I don't know. America's leadership cited that Saddam was in close cooperation to Bin Laden, but, in truth, the US' top officials have seen Bin Laden close up more often than Saddam Hussein had.

So now they tell us that they brought about regime change so that we won't grasp, as we already have, that it was a business operation more than anything. Why hasn't America brought about regime change in other dictatorships? Why hasn't America helped the people of Darfur or, some ten years ago, Rwanda? Why is America doing business with nations known for flagrantly violating human rights like China and Turkey? Because money talks.

I leave you with a quote from the Dick Cheney (from way back in 1997, I believe) , who is, in my opinion, a sleazebag who can't even shoot straight. And with it, I rest my case:

“The good Lord didn't see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratically elected regimes friendly to the United States. Occasionally we have to operate in places where, all things considered, one would not normally choose to go. But, we go where the business is.”

[White_Male_Canada]

So why do the Iraqis and most Arabs hate the US? You'd think they'd be grateful for the "regime change". But the US attacked not under the precedent of freeing the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein, admittedly an evil shitbag, but becuase they supposedly believed Saddam possessed WMDs (or BLTs, as Sacha Baron Cohen tricked Pat Buchanan into calling them).

Saddam had no WMDs and the US intelligence knew it. He may have had BLT; I don't know. America's leadership cited that Saddam was in close cooperation to Bin Laden, but, in truth, the US' top officials have seen Bin Laden close up more often than Saddam Hussein had.

I won`t engage in every point you made but do want to concentrate on the germaine one, WMDs. It was not THE reason Iraq was liberated,that`s common knowledge.

Less than just a couple of weeks ago the NY Times said(previously posted) :

" Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990’s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away."

The New York Times just tore the heart out of the antiwar argument, and they are apparently completely oblivous to it. The NY Times verified the captured Saddam documents as authentic !

Is this sentence referring to 1990, before the Persian Gulf War? Or 2002, months before the invasion of Iraq? Because “Iraq is a year away from building a nuclear bomb” was supposed to be a myth, a lie that Bush used to trick us into war. In any event Saddam was NOT to be in possession of such material anyway.

Document CMPC-2003-012331.pdf dated January 2001 indicates that during a meeting between Saddam and the Staff of the Iraqi Atomic Energy Organization Saddam was asked by the Organization Staff to give his permission for re-using the infamous “ Degussa Vacuum furnaces ” that were used in the previous and prohibited Iraq nuclear program. These furnaces can be used to melt uranium and other nuclear related activities.

Documents CMPC-2004-003978.pdf and CMPC-2004-002191.pdf contains memos dated from 1999 to 2001 that talk about projects sponsored by the Iraqi Atomic Nuclear Agency to rebuild some of their nuclear facilities and equipments. All the projects were dated after the UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in December 1998. These facilities and equipments were part of Iraq clandestine nuclear weapon program before the 1991 Gulf War and they were destroyed by the bombing and some were dismantled by the UN weapon inspector. Rebuilding these nuclear facilities and equipments was totally prohibited per the UN sanctions. The facilities include rebuilding Iraq Radioactive Waste Treatment Station (RWTS) that was destroyed by bombing during operation Desert Storm in 1991. Another project was to rebuild the RadioChemistry laboratories. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) the RWTS and the RadioChemistry Laboratories were part of Iraq clandestine nuclear program (http://www.iraqwatch.org/un/IAEA/s-1997-779-att-3.htm, see section 3.4 of the link). Document CMCP-2004-003978 there is a project by the Iraq Atomic Agency to fix “Furnaces” from the Dicosa brand. Nuclear facilities require very specialized “furnaces” and this type of furnaces is prohibited according to the U.N.

That appears to indicate that by invading in 2003, we followed the best intelligence of the UN inspectors to head off the development of an Iraqi nuke. This intelligence put Saddam far ahead of Iran in the nuclear pursuit, and made it much more urgent to take some definitive action against Saddam before he could build and deploy it. And bear in mind that this intelligence came from the UN, and not from the United States. The inspectors themselves developed it, and they meant to keep it secret. The FMSO site blew their cover, and they're very unhappy about it.What other highlights has the Times now authenticated? We have plenty:

* 2001 IIS memo directing its agents to test mass grave sites in southern Iraq for radiation, and to use "trusted news agencies" to leak rumors about the lack of credibility of Coalition reporting on the subject. They specify CNN.

* The Blessed July operation, in which Saddam's sons planned a series of assassinations in London, Iran, and southern Iraq

* Saddam's early contacts with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda from 1994-7

* UNMOVIC knew of a renewed effort to make ricin from castor beans in 2002, but never reported it

* The continued development of delivery mechanisms for biological and chemical weapons by the notorious "Dr. Germ" in 2002

Now we have no less of an authority than the New York Times to verify that the IIS documentation is not only genuine, but presents a powerful argument for the military action to remove Saddam from power.

[LG]

Interesting. I had a look at some articles relating to this. I'll read more about this and get back to you.

I'm not sure it does prove much, but maybe you have a point. In any case, it was kind of stupid of the government to put all that information up on the net. Apparently it contained detailed instructions on how to make sarin gas and also offered hints on nuclear weaponry

We are told that the site offered: “detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives” that was “beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums”.

Whoopee! Don't you feel safer already?

[White_Male_Canada]

Interesting. I had a look at some articles relating to this. I'll read more about this and get back to you.

I'm not sure it does prove much, but maybe you have a point. In any case, it was kind of stupid of the government to put all that information up on the net. Apparently it contained detailed instructions on how to make sarin gas and also offered hints on nuclear weaponry

We are told that the site offered: “detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives” that was “beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums”.

Whoopee! Don't you feel safer already?

From what I`ve been able to find out so far,the documents were placed on the web un-translated. Not enough translators and there are millions of documents.The documents are being gleened by the 'pajama-madeen'. When relevant ones are found they are then given to experts to verify.

Saddam had no WMDs and the US intelligence knew it.

LMAO!!!

It's time for more classic PWN3NAGE from the TFan.

US Intelligence knew it, right? What about your boy John Kerry?

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."- John Kerry DEMOCRAT

How about your socialist pal Nancy Pelosi?

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."- Nancy Pelosi Femocrat

Ok. I know it's the cowardly thing to do. You're going to let Pelosi and Kerry off the hook because, maybe they didn't have access to all the intelligence... right?


What about vice president Al Gore?

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."- Al Gore Dhimmicrat


Ok. Al Gore wasn't president so you'll let him off, too.

How about Bill Clinton?

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998



I know this has been done but I like to discourage liberals from making stupid statements like you just did. Maybe one day they'll learn.

LMAO. All your people looked at the same data and came to the same conclusion.

[LG]

I really shouldn't be responding to TFan. It's a waste of time, I know, kind of like talking to a wall or a really stupid dog. But I'm a glutton for punishment.

My statement stands, TFan becuase you have failed to disprove it. For all your talk of PWN3AGE (What the fuck, dude? Learn to spell!) you have failed to spew out anything more dangerous than hot air and biased crap.

Stupid statement? Hell, you wouldn't know one if it hit you in the face then did a pirouette on a harpsichord singing "Stupid statements are here again!"

Saddam had no WMDs. Fact. What White_Male_Canada is suggesting is that Saddam was, perhaps, on the verge of producing such weapons.

As for the intelligence (and your lack of it) the reason so many people agreed with the President is that all the reports coming out of Washington then (contrary to American and British reports being seen now) said that Saddam did possess WMDs. But these reports were wrong and were skewed, I believe, in order to give Bush an excuse to attack.

And the facts that Iraq is a much bigger mess than it was before, that American and Iraqi casualties are mounting and that, importantly, a lot of people have made a hell of a lot of money out of this war does not convince me that America's intentions were pure.

Think about it: your countrymen are being blown to smithereens but the Vice President has made a bundle. What are the mothers and fathers of the dead getting? Why are their sons and daughters dying? How the fuck can people like you have the temerity to say that all is well and that the war was not only justified, as you say, not only the only option, as you say, but also a good thing? And since when did everyone make America the world's judge and jury?

And, while I'm asking questions, why the fuck don't you do something about North Korea, who definitely have WMDs? Maybe because unlike a nation without them, they can actually use them. If Saddam had nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction America would not have dared attack.

And, by the way, I'm not a Democrat and do not vote Democrat. I am, in fact, not even an American, thank God. If I was, I'd have to deal with people like you every day.

"America: Fuck Yeah!"? I suppose you failed to understand that the expression, when used, is usually tongue in cheek. And if you don't know what I mean, go look it up. A trip to the library will do you good.

America? With people like you? Fuck no! No thanks!

I really shouldn't be responding to TFan. It's a waste of time, I know, kind of like talking to a wall or a really stupid dog. But I'm a glutton for punishment.

Insult

My statement stands, TFan becuase you have failed to disprove it. For all your talk of PWN3AGE (What the fuck, dude? Learn to spell!) you have failed to spew out anything more dangerous than hot air and biased crap.

More insult

Stupid statement? Hell, you wouldn't know one if it hit you in the face then did a pirouette on a harpsichord singing "Stupid statements are here again!"

Insult

Saddam had no WMDs. Fact. What White_Male_Canada is suggesting is that Saddam was, perhaps, on the verge of producing such weapons.

Whether he had them or was on the verge of producing them doesn't matter. The facts are, everyone from Kofi Annan to Al Gore to John Kerry to Bill Clinton believed without a doubt he had them.

It is duplicitous and cowardly to stand behind the President based on the same data and then, when the data proves to be non-perfect, abandon your previous statements yet hold the president solely accountable for going to war that you voted for based on the same data that you saw!

As for the intelligence (and your lack of it) the reason so many people agreed with the President is that all the reports coming out of Washington then (contrary to American and British reports being seen now) said that Saddam did possess WMDs. But these reports were wrong and were skewed, I believe, in order to give Bush an excuse to attack.

LMAO. What about when Al Gore said Iraq had WMD's? Was the data skewed then? LMAO

What about when BILL CLINTON, you know.... the former president?
Who was skewing the data back in 1998 when he said-

"Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

and

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

Who do you have to blame for skewing this?

Come on. I believe there is still some measure of decency in you. However you look at this whether you claim the data is "Skewed" or whatever. Democrats fully believed, even before the Bush presidency, that Iraq had WMD's. To deny this fact flies lies in the face of reality.

And the facts that Iraq is a much bigger mess than it was before, that American and Iraqi casualties are mounting and that, importantly, a lot of people have made a hell of a lot of money out of this war does not convince me that America's intentions were pure.

Now you've fallen victim to the psychological warfare of the left. America went to Iraq fighting tyrants.... TYRANTS. We decided to man up and take the war to the tyrants. If it's motives you're suspect of then you must have been completely okay with Saddams reign of genocide against his own countryment but not okay with America bitch slapping him in return.

Get real. Whether you agree with the results in the war or not. America's motives are good and are 99.999% of the time.

We are good. They are evil.

Think about it: your countrymen are being blown to smithereens but the Vice President has made a bundle. What are the mothers and fathers of the dead getting? Why are their sons and daughters dying? How the fuck can people like you have the temerity to say that all is well and that the war was not only justified, as you say, not only the only option, as you say, but also a good thing? And since when did everyone make America the world's judge and jury?

Since we are the only superpower and since the UN can't get shit done in the arena of proliferation of tyranny. You got beef? Take it up with the UN. I hear they are fantastic at helping police the world.

Face it. If America doesn't act against tyranny from the NK's and Iraq's of the world, that tyranny will conquer.

Read your history. Throughout time liberals have had one aim.... "PEACE IN OUR TIME". Even when faced with the most evil of men knocking at their borders, Liberals have attempted to avoid conflict at every corner.

And, while I'm asking questions, why the fuck don't you do something about North Korea, who definitely have WMDs? Maybe because unlike a nation without them, they can actually use them. If Saddam had nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction America would not have dared attack.

Thanks for proving my point. That's why we can't allow Iran or Iraq to posess WMD's. Iran, if they acquire wmd's WILL use them against Israel, Turkey, Eqypt, France or whoever else dares challenge their stated goal of wiping Israel off the map.

Are you a man? How can a man be ok with allowing freedom loving people to live under such a threat? How can we, as free citizens allow other free nations to live under such a threat?

And, by the way, I'm not a Democrat and do not vote Democrat. I am, in fact, not even an American, thank God. If I was, I'd have to deal with people like you every day.

Well then for all intents and purposes, you're liberal and controlled by the psychological warfare of the left.

"America: Fuck Yeah!"? I suppose you failed to understand that the expression, when used, is usually tongue in cheek. And if you don't know what I mean, go look it up. A trip to the library will do you good.

Yeah well I'm not using it tongue in cheek and how do you like that?

America? With people like you? Fuck no! No thanks!

Good. We have enough cowards. Stay on your side, Mr Chamberlain.

[White_Male_Canada]

Saddam had no WMDs. Fact. What White_Male_Canada is suggesting is that Saddam was, perhaps, on the verge of producing such weapons.

That is untrue.

Approximately 500 shells and or containers have been found in Iraq to date.They conatain either Mustard gas or Sarin. Both are deadly.Mustard shells are still being found in Europe to this day and are as dangerous or more so than the day they were manufactured. The Sarin shells/containers are of a binary type.

And there were various reasons Iraq was invaded,including violation of 16 prior UN resolutions ,harboring and sponsoring terrorism,firing on aircraft patrolling the "no fly zone",massacre of the kurds,etc,etc.

[Coroner]

Saddam had no WMDs. Fact. What White_Male_Canada is suggesting is that Saddam was, perhaps, on the verge of producing such weapons.

That is untrue.

Approximately 500 shells and or containers have been found in Iraq to date.They conatain either Mustard gas or Sarin. Both are deadly.Mustard shells are still being found in Europe to this day and are as dangerous or more so than the day they were manufactured. The Sarin shells/containers are of a binary type.

And there were various reasons Iraq was invaded,including violation of 16 prior UN resolutions ,harboring and sponsoring terrorism,firing on aircraft patrolling the "no fly zone",massacre of the kurds,etc,etc.

"Sir, we´ve found 500 lighters, Damn, we´ve been lucky as hell".....

If he had them, your SS Panzerdivision troups would return home as barbecue.

Patriotism is for suckers.