Iraqi People Fear Democrat Victory(Chig.Trib.)

[bucatini70]

LG not many have clean hands in developed europe in the case of Iraq if memory serves me correct France provided Iraq with a bit of chemicals also. Most of your points though are accurate and unfortunately. Europe shares in the tragic state of affairs in the middle east as well.

[guyone]

Actually all your references are excerpts from leftist propaganda. The Guardian is run by communists. So all of your points come with a unique the POV of the enslavement of mankind by lazy good for nothing pilferers. The leeches of modern society. Those who do not produce but suck the life out of its citizens.

Proof not conjecture my friend.

And stop playing with your peepee. You'll get hairy palms and go blind.

[LG]

The Guardian is not run by communists, you dweeb. It swings to the left but it is not a communist paper by any definition of the term and nor are any other major newspapers in the UK. A 2005 Mori poll found that 44% of its readers vote Labour, but then again Labour has wholeheartedly supported GW Bush in most of his policies, including the war in Iraq.

Unless you really believe that all of my sources are leftwing propaganda whereas all of yours, including some very obscure ones, are the gospel.

As for leeches and sucking the life out of people, don't get me started. What you're saying is utter cack.

And you have provided no proof of your own to make a point against what I have said. You have not answered any one of my points and instead just try to make my points seem invalid by dismissing them as propaganda. If that is the way you will continue to argue, I have no more time to waste on you.

Better to give myself a handjob than to be fucked up in the head like you.

[chefmike]

LG, what we have here is classic "cut and run" obfuscation by the right-wing in regards to the facts...

All courtesy of the lunatic fringe...

Next...

[guyone]

Obscure sources? I didn't realize you considered CNN an obscure source. You should get out more and enjoy the sun once and a while. There's a whole world out there to explore.

As far as your points go...when you make a valid one I'll respond.

Until then...


SHOW ME A BILL OF SALE!

[LG]

Well, I'm assuming you can tell the difference between CNS, one of the websites you quoted, and CNN, right? CNS is the Cybercast News Service. It is a conservative news website and the people behind it initially called it the "Conservative News Service".
You can read all this in Wikipedia.

CNS isn't even a proper news agency. I'd call it pretty obscure. I come up with the Washington Post and you come up with this...

As far as my points go, I take your non-response as an immature admittal of defeat. Your reply is kind of what a kid would say, isn't it?

And as for the bill of sale, I don't see you coming up with one.

[guyone]

Obviously you did not do your homework on Red China. Even after I made a nice link for you to click.

Here's the URL:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/...a.missles.html

Notice the 'CNN'. Not 'CNS'.

AND YOU STILL HAVEN'T PRODUCED A BILL OF SALE!

I'M STILL WAITING!!!!





.

[LG]

Notice the 'CNN'. Not 'CNS'.

But you did indeed quote the CNS, a right-wing news source, and you had the nerve to call my sources "leftist propaganda"

What that you balance the facts to suit your leftist ideals?

Try this on for size:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialRe...20041004a.html

Anyway, here are some choice quotes from the source you give (actually a piece from Time Magazine back in 199:

Under pressure from American corporations desperate to get their satellites into orbit, Bush issued nine such waivers between 1989 and 1992--and Gore denounced him as "an incurable patsy." But after Clinton was elected President, he came under the same pressure from business leaders, who argued that the export controls endangered America's telecommunications primacy.

Which just goes to show that Clinton's government was no worse (and in many ways no better) that Bush senior's. Clinton also signed the waivers, but then again, I never said the Clinton administration were guiltless. Nor did I ever mention China- you did. What I implied in my previous posts is that it is hypocritical for the US to attack Iraq for using the weapons that America gave Iraq in the first place.

A House G.O.P. leader confirmed to TIME that Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senate majority leader Trent Lott have met with committee chairmen to discuss ways to highlight Clinton's embarrassing China dealings in advance of the President's visit to Beijing in June. The strategy appears to be working. Though the China connection may have nothing to do with Clinton's decision to grant the waiver, it is giving Republicans a kind of traction the Lewinsky scandal never did.

The Republicans now had a chance to fight Clinton by using the facts and a lot of supposition. Do you really think Clinton would make a major decision based on just tens (or even hundreds) of thousands of dollars in campaign funds? Unlikely- it's not such a huge amount.

Clinton's policy, and Bush's too, was to waive the Foreign Relations Act so U.S. satellites could be launched by China. When a big donor's company asked, the policy conveniently fit the politics

This was not just Bill Clinton's scandal. It is America's scandal (like many others) and always has been.

There is no evidence yet that Liu asked Chung to give some of her money to the Democrats or that she asked for anything in return

Indeed, Liu denied all allegations.

In the aftermath of all this, a committee led by a Republican representative suggested that China was guilty of espionage. Two companies were later prosecuted for violations of export control law. Clinton was never found guilty of anything. No one can really be sure of what happened, much less you since you were not there.

AND YOU STILL HAVEN'T PRODUCED A BILL OF SALE!

I'M STILL WAITING!!!!

Well, neither have you so I guess I'm still waiting too.

A couple of other points:

Firstly, I am not a Democrat so telling me what Clinton did will make no difference, especially if what you tell me is full of assumptions. And it will not make this current government any less guilty or responsible for their actions. I don't believe there's much of a difference in policy between one US administration and the next, although I doubt that under Clinton the US would still be in Iraq under these conditions (and this is, after all, the issue here) I believe Clinton was a better diplomat and a better planner.

Secondly, nowadays Red China is something you would find on a dinner table and not on an atlas. Nobody calls China "Red China" anymore. Except you, obviously.

[guyone]

Firstly, I am not a Democrat...

I know. You profess that in almost every post. You are a proud communist.

...I doubt that under Clinton the US would still be in Iraq under these conditions (and this is, after all, the issue here) I believe Clinton was a better diplomat and a better planner.

Uh we were in Bosnia for 11(eleven) years. He was a better sap maybe. He constantly bowed to any other political leaders whimsey.

Communists always suffers from selective memory. As in the words of George Orwell:

"Those who control the past control the future. Those who control the present control the past."

The key word here is control.

[LG]

I know. You profess that in almost every post. You are a proud communist.

I am not a Democrat, nitwit, because a Democrat (notice the capital "D") is a supporter of the Democratic Party.

As for being a communist, if you think that the Guardian newspaper is run by communists then I guess there's a lot of communists around. I have read Marx and, though some of his ideas sound nice, I know that communism cannot work in practice becuase it is inherently unfair. Therefore I am proudly and fiercely independent, which means that unlike you I keep my mind open. I read, and for the most part enjoy, both Al Franken and PJ O'Rourke (but refuse to read Ann Coulter until she gets herself a proper sense of humour and stops being a total bitch).

Communists always suffers from selective memory.

Actually I do know one or two of them and in some things they do although I like them cause they're good people. But that is not the point. As you have proven, rightwingers can be even worse.

Uh we were in Bosnia for 11(eleven) years.

No, you were, indeed, not in Bosnia for 11 years, unless you count the peacekeeping forces' stay there, which I would not, becuase it bears no relation to the troops on the ground in Iraq. America was in Bosnia for nothing like that time. The Bosnia-Herzegovina war which lasted 3 1/2 years ended 11 (eleven) years ago. The Dayton agreement was signed in December 1995.

Granted NATO was there for many years, but only in a peace-keeping capacity. The number of troops was gradually scaled down because, unlike Iraq, the fighting stopped. The NATO stabilisation force helped the countries transistion and also apprehended war criminals. It was supported by the UN and later handed its responsibilities over to a European force. Yugoslavia and Iraq bear no comparison to each other. The numbers of American casualties bear no comparison. The efficiency with which operations were carried out bears no comparison. The support given to the local people (and the local's support of the operation) bears no comparison.

Put the two operations together and Iraq makes Bosnia look like model of efficiency.

Also, there have been other conflicts since in Yugoslavia, but they were in other regions not in Bosnia. The second NATO intervention came in 1999 in Kosovo and there has been relative peace since 2001.

"Those who control the past control the future. Those who control the present control the past."

Isn't that what Republicans (the ones who control the present) are trying to do now? To rewrite history?