Iraqi People Fear Democrat Victory(Chig.Trib.) [Archive] - HungAngels

White_Male_Canada

11-11-2006, 01:58 AM

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/services/site/premium/access-registered.intercept

11-17-2006, 05:58 PM

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

11-17-2006, 07:36 PM

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.

11-17-2006, 08:20 PM

White_Male_Canada

11-17-2006, 08:40 PM

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.

11-21-2006, 12:06 AM

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? :lol:

What about vice president Al Gore? :lol:

"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? :lol:

"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.

11-21-2006, 09:23 PM

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!

11-21-2006, 10:13 PM

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

11-22-2006, 01:44 AM

Coroner

11-22-2006, 02:33 AM

chefmike

11-22-2006, 02:52 AM

Just listen to the cowardly chickenhawks cackling so bravely... :lol: :roll: :P

White_Male_Canada

11-22-2006, 03:06 AM

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 as barbecue home.

Patriotism is for suckers.

Being from Austria I`m sure your country is fully aquainted, and still amorous with the Schutzstaffel .

Hundreds of chemical weapons found in Iraq: US intelligence
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/060622055545.07o4imol.html

Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
By Samantha L. Quigley
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today. http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2006/20060629_5547.html

Saddam Hussein's Iraq Had Weapons of Mass Death

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=16026

( “ The Sulfur Mustard contained in artillery shells that had been stored for over 12 years, had been found by UNMOVIC to be still of high purity. It is possible that viable filled artillery shells and aerial bombs still remain in Iraq. " http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/6mar.pdf

)

11-22-2006, 08:58 PM

11-22-2006, 09:10 PM

And according to this report, there are more biological weapons in Maryland than Iraq:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/28/national/main555881.shtml

And? I don't have a problem with that.

White_Male_Canada

11-22-2006, 09:25 PM

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=18714&Cr=iraq&Cr1

During the collection of chemical weapons for destruction after the 1991 war, Iraq stated that it was not able to locate some 500 chemical munitions.

And according to this report, there are more biological weapons in Maryland than Iraq:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/28/national/main555881.shtml

Also, the weapons were pre-1991 vintage munitions "in such a degraded state they couldn't be used for what they are designed for." And not a "nucular" weapon in sight. So that leaves your argument kinda shaky.

Even Fox news, the conservatives' flagbearer, quote's a senior Defense official who says:

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

As for the SS comments all round, I find them quite contemptible. No more please.

Austrians hyper sensitive about their role ? Pfft~ Tough luck.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/6mar.pdf

)

WMD`s were not,repeat NOT THE reason Iraq was liberated. What do you not understand?

Violations of UN resolutions combined with sponsorship of terrorism and shooting at coalition jets in the no fly zone were the main reasons.

And since the left-wing NY Times verfied Saddam`s document are authentic , then :

Document CMPC-2003-015588 - State sponsorhips of terrorism between Iraq, Hamas and the PFLP: " Mr. Khlaed Ahmad Gibril and Dr. Talal Naji the Deputy of the General Secretary of the Popular Front For the Liberation of Palestine (General Headquarters) visited our mission and met our Ambassador the chairman of the mission and the delegation indicated it solidarity and support to Iraq...

Mr. Khaled Ahmad Gibril and Dr. Talal Naji informed us that the Front decided to send forces to Iraq to fight to the side of the Iraqi people and in the locations chosen by the Iraqi leadership, and preferably to be in cities. And the groups that will be sent are elite units and have experience in cities warfare and that thess forces will be made of 500 fighters and it will arrive Iraq in groups and as follow...The delegation said that they go the initial approval by the Syrian side to send these forces to Iraq..."

-Document CMPC-2003-012331.pdf - Re-use of Nuclear equipment

-Document ISGZ-2004-009247 -Direct relation between Iraq and Bin Laden: " The approval of the Honorable Presidency was granted to meet with the opposition person Osama Bin Laden..."

- Document CMPC-2003-001488- "Usama Bin Ladin and the Taliban group in Afghanistan are in contact with Iraq and that a group from the Taliban and Usama Bin Ladin’s group had conducted a visit to Iraq."

I could go on for pages. Facts are stubborn things,they never go away.

11-22-2006, 11:39 PM

Austrians hyper sensitive about their role ? Pfft~ Tough luck.

Not all Austrians supported the Third Reich. Most Austrians living today were not involved, being unborn or too young.

Or is America a nation of slave merchants? Are Americans today to blame for the decimation of the Indians?

Anyway, Coroner did not complain. I complained, becuase you obviously have no other way to get back at an argument than by spewing irrelevant, narrow-minded, bigoted crap. And you keep proving it.

WMD`s were not,repeat NOT THE reason Iraq was liberated. What do you not understand?

I know. The only thing I don't understand is why the US government fed the world a pack of lies before deciding to cut their losses and talk about "regime change" (and how come they didn't change the regime when Saddam was gassing the Kurds) . And what was the real reason for the war? Ask the mothers of the soldiers that have died. Ask the Iraqi people. Then ask the CEOs who have lined their own pockets. Then think about answering that question again.

-Document ISGZ-2004-009247 -Direct relation between Iraq and Bin Laden: " The approval of the Honorable Presidency was granted to meet with the opposition person Osama Bin Laden..."

That may be true but it proves jackshit to me. Unconvinced? Okay then, have a look here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,866942,00.html

The Reagan administration and its special Middle East envoy, Donald Rumsfeld, did little to stop Iraq developing weapons of mass destruction in the 1980s, even though they knew Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons "almost daily" against Iran, it was reported yesterday.

If we're going to list all the powerful men that Saddam met and may have been in collusion with, I wouldn't limit my list to just Bin Laden.

I'm not saying that Rumsfeld is anything like Osama Bin Laden. I'm just saying that you, WMC, tend to use selected facts to demonstrate your own beliefs.

Facts are stubborn things,they never go away.

Yeah, just like that photo of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein that's out there on the internet.

White_Male_Canada

11-23-2006, 02:08 AM

Austrians hyper sensitive about their role ? Pfft~ Tough luck.

Not all Austrians supported the Third Reich. Most Austrians living today were not involved, being unborn or too young.

Or is America a nation of slave merchants? Are Americans today to blame for the decimation of the Indians?

Anyway, Coroner did not complain. I complained, becuase you obviously have no other way to get back at an argument than by spewing irrelevant, narrow-minded, bigoted crap. And you keep proving it.

WMD`s were not,repeat NOT THE reason Iraq was liberated. What do you not understand?

I know. The only thing I don't understand is why the US government fed the world a pack of lies before deciding to cut their losses and talk about "regime change" (and how come they didn't change the regime when Saddam was gassing the Kurds) . And what was the real reason for the war? Ask the mothers of the soldiers that have died. Ask the Iraqi people. Then ask the CEOs who have lined their own pockets. Then think about answering that question again.

-Document ISGZ-2004-009247 -Direct relation between Iraq and Bin Laden: " The approval of the Honorable Presidency was granted to meet with the opposition person Osama Bin Laden..."

That may be true but it proves jackshit to me. Unconvinced? Okay then, have a look here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,866942,00.html

The Reagan administration and its special Middle East envoy, Donald Rumsfeld, did little to stop Iraq developing weapons of mass destruction in the 1980s, even though they knew Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons "almost daily" against Iran, it was reported yesterday.

I'm not saying that Rumsfeld is anything like Osama Bin Laden. I'm just saying that you, WMC, tend to use selected facts to demonstrate your own beliefs.

Yeah, just like that photo of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein that's out there on the internet.

Selective memory loss or just another CYA cut and paste poseur.

One thing you will never comprehend is, we have no permanent allies,only permanent interests. The 1980`s realpolitik of the day saw Iraq as a temporary bulwark against Iran.Nothing more,nothing less.

The fact that Saddam`s own documents proving state supported terrorism means "jack-shit" to you demonstrates you, as well as the other leftists have your ideological blinders on and nothing,not even reality,can convince you otherwise.Even to the point of utter embarrassment the left continue on with the Big Lie.

Some leftists are not as obtuse and irrational as you are. Those who lift their blinders, like trotskyite Hitchens, realize what`s at stake in the struggle against Islamo-Fascism.

Jaguar b. p.

11-23-2006, 06:40 AM

11-23-2006, 10:18 AM

The United States attacked Iraq. Iraq will be defended

DoD U.S. casualty figures by month:

October 2003 - 44
October 2006 - 105

So twice as many crusaders are being offed now compared to 3 years ago, good job.

This is a prime example of psychological warfare. Terrorists are getting their asses handed to them, they simply can't compete.
So what do they do? They start killing other muslim civilians and blame the Americans.

Last time I checked libs are screaming about 150,000 dead Arabs
in Iraq and I'll lay you odds about half of those are terrorists.

LOL, I don't know how you can call that "defended", but where I'm from 75,000 is far more than 2,300.

Furthermore, the strategy of

"Don't challenge Muslim Terrorists, America, or We'll.... we'll..... we'll START KILLING EACH OTHER!!!"

IS EXCELLENT!!!

If that is going to remain your battle plan then I call for an American invasion of Saudi Arabia and Iran so you can start
killing yourselves even faster! :lol:

11-23-2006, 05:05 PM

One thing you will never comprehend is, we have no permanent allies,only permanent interests. The 1980`s realpolitik of the day saw Iraq as a temporary bulwark against Iran.Nothing more,nothing less.

I know that. Politics is such a whore, eh? That's why the US has supported terrorist and oppressive regimes in the past. That's why so many nations are as fucked up as they are. That's why America assisted nations like Iran and Iraq before deciding it didn't like them. That's why Americans came up with that crap about "freedom fries"- because France, historically the States' best friends and allies dared to tell the leadershp that maybe, just maybe they were wrong. So France was off the Christmas card list, even though they gave America the Statue of Liberty and helped in the war against the English. And french fries aren't even French! They're Belgian!

The fact that Saddam`s own documents proving state supported terrorism means "jack-shit" to you demonstrates you, as well as the other leftists have your ideological blinders on and nothing,not even reality,can convince you otherwise.Even to the point of utter embarrassment the left continue on with the Big Lie.

No, they probably don't prove Saddam supported terrorism. They certainly do not prove that Saddam supported Bin Laden. That was my point, which you have failed to grasp. The documents, or at least what you quoted of them, merely prove that Saddam and Bin Laden met and had a chat. Who knows what they concluded, if anything. And just as Bin Laden met Saddam, Donald Rumsfeld also met Saddam. So what does that prove? Not much. That was another point you failed to grasp. It is not a matter of selective memory loss, but a matter of revealing the whole truth and weighing up all its elements. In a court of law, the evidence you cite would be no more than circumstancial and your case would be thrown out of the window.

Some leftists are not as obtuse and irrational as you are.

Good for them. I'm not a leftist. I'm not left or right. I don't vote Democrat or Republican. I am merely a European who has managed, thanks perhaps to my location, or perhaps due to the fact that I have friends from all walks of life and belonging to every religion and having every political belief, to get a more holistic view of events and balance the facts. And that is something that people like you have often failed to manage.

guyone

11-23-2006, 07:45 PM

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

Try this on for size:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=/SpecialReports/archive/200410/SPE20041004a.html

11-23-2006, 08:56 PM

White_Male_Canada

11-24-2006, 02:42 AM

guyone, I'm fed up with people like you finding some obscure news report and trumpeting it as gospel without even bothering to digest the points of the report or, in fact, look at the date it was published.

So you try this one from the BBC website buddy. Unlike your news reports, it comes from the most reputable news service in the world. And, given that it's two months old and not two years old, it's still fresh.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5329350.stm

The Senate Intelligence Committee has found no evidence of links between the regime of Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

Composite image of Saddam Hussein at his trial in Aug 2006 and an undated US Department of Defense handout photo of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was killed in June
No allies: Saddam Hussein and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi
In a report issued on Friday, it also found that was little or no evidence to support a raft of claims made by the US intelligence community concerning Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The 400-page report was three years in the making, and is probably the definitive public account of the intelligence used to justify the invasion of Iraq.

The full Senate Committee report is here:

http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

I believe this has reduced your argument to rubble, but, then again, it was pretty shit to begin with.

I also believe that the WMD discussion is now closed.

8)

Pfft~ You don`t get out much do you ?

The much vaunted Senate report.So much omited,so little time to type. That report was tabled BEFORE Saddam`s documents were translated !

Time magazine's Joe Klein, an Iraq War critic who is dubious of a broader Iraq-al Qaeda relationship: "Documents indicate that Saddam had long-term, low-level ties with regional terrorist groups--including Ayman al-Zawahiri, dating back to his time with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. There is strong evidence as well that elements of the Special Republican Guard ran terrorist training camps."

June 2003, U.S. News & World Report, "A captured senior member of the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, has told interrogators about meetings between Iraqi intelligence officials and top members of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, a group that merged with al Qaeda in the 1990s. The prisoner also described $300,000 in Iraqi transfers to the organization to pay for attacks in Egypt. The transfers were said to have been authorized by Saddam Hussein."

There is no mention at all of captured Iraqi documents that indicate the regime was providing financial support to Abu Sayyaf, an al Qaeda affiliate group in the Philippines. On June 6, 2001, the Iraqi ambassador to the Philippines, Salah Samarmad, faxed an eight-page report on an Abu Sayyaf kidnapping to the Iraqi Foreign Ministry. According to the fax, the Iraqi Intelligence Service had provided assistance to Abu Sayyaf, but following the high-profile kidnapping decided to suspend this support. According to the document: "The kidnappers were formerly (from the previous year) receiving money and purchasing combat weapons. From now on we (IIS) are not giving them this opportunity and are not on speaking terms with them."

There is no mention of the Clinton administration's 1998 indictment of Osama bin Laden, which noted that al Qaeda had "reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

Etc,etc,etc.

You`re Senate report ? Not worth the paper it was wasted on.

guyone

11-24-2006, 08:48 AM

11-24-2006, 04:41 PM

guyone: Actually LG is something to do with my name, but never mind. If that's the only comment you can make...well then I'd rather not read any more of your comments.

White_Male_Canada:

Pfft~ You don`t get out much do you ?

Actually, judging by the fact that, according to your profile, you've been posting an average of 2.89 posts a day compared to my average of 1.11 posts per day, I'd say I get out a lot more than you do.

You`re Senate report ? Not worth the paper it was wasted on.

Okay, let me just take this in. Everything that seems to corroborate your point is gospel, right? While everything that proves my side of the argument is bunk? Isn't that what you mean? What arrogant crap! You don't even bother to answer my individual points and prefer to go "Pfft" all the time.

You said:

Time magazine's Joe Klein, an Iraq War critic who is dubious of a broader Iraq-al Qaeda relationship: "Documents indicate that Saddam had long-term, low-level ties with regional terrorist groups--including Ayman al-Zawahiri, dating back to his time with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. There is strong evidence as well that elements of the Special Republican Guard ran terrorist training camps."

I doubt Klein would like being quoted out of context, but that is what you have just done. In fact, Klein also wrote:

Al Qaeda was pretty much everywhere in the region before the war, but not as the active terrorist force they are today...and certainly not in Iraq.

And Klein also wrote:

there are appropriate levels of military activity that can be more effective than full-scale invasion

As for all the documents you speak of- including the bogus ones we haven't seen yet- I wonder if they are as fake as last batch. See:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/

What is confusing about the whole WMD debate is the way the US administration started off saying that Iraq had WMDs, then when they realised they couldn't find any began to talk of regime change. A little after that, Rumsfeld and pals started even questioning reporters who quoted them on their belief that WMDs would be found in Iraq. Later, when some old munitions where found, more or less, abandoned they shouted with glee: "We've found them". And now we're being told about some documents which we've never seen and hearing right wingers criticise a report that was put together jointly by both parties.

So you might as well admit it. The Bush administration may have suspected that Saddam was developing WMDs but they knew he didn't have them. Do you think they would have attacked if he did?

The WMDs were not the issue and nor was "regime change" considering that the US had supported that regime so long in the past and has continued to support other oppressive regimes. The al-Qaeda link, even if it is true, was not truly suspected at the time. We were all fed a pack of lies and Americans swallowed these lies becuase they believed that their country was in danger, their patriotism was in question and that the US is truly God's chosen nation.

And now, even Republicans like Newt Ginrich and Lindsey Graham are unhappy with how things are being handled. Meanwhile, for many Americans, the paranoia and fear have given way to anger.

Finally, I will leave you with a quote:

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger".

The words ring kind of relevant today. Kind of what you'd expect a Republican leader to believe if not actually to say. I think you might want to know that they were uttered by Hermann Goering. Spooky, eh.

I'm done with this topic. I'm going for a walk outside.

guyone

11-24-2006, 06:19 PM

I doubt Klein would like being quoted out of context, but that is what you have just done. In fact, Klein also wrote:

Quote:
Al Qaeda was pretty much everywhere in the region before the war, but not as the active terrorist force they are today...and certainly not in Iraq.

And Klein also wrote:
Quote:
there are appropriate levels of military activity that can be more effective than full-scale invasion

What??? Talking about rewriting history. During the Iran-Contra hearings Oliver North stated that he feared a certain Al Qaeda member - Osama Bin Ladin and you're seriously not going to try to pass off that the USS Cole and the two embassy bombings were not the work of Al Qaeda? Talking about blinders...the mind is a terrible thing to waste.

11-24-2006, 07:07 PM

guyone,

That's a quote from Klein, not something I said. It is there merely to show that WMC quoted Klein out of context, which he did, and by using it like that you are quoting both me and Klein out of context.

And the Al Qaeda activities you mention still don't prove a link between Saddam and the Iraqi government.

A mind, as you say, is a terrible thing to waste. So why the fuck don't you use yours? You can start by reading other people's posts properly before spouting any old garbage.

guyone

11-24-2006, 07:21 PM

I never stated you said it. You quoted Klein. I quoted your quote. If you think Saddam was such a great guy and humanitarian good for you. I suggest stepping into reality every once in a while. It can be quite informative.

11-24-2006, 07:53 PM

guyone,

Your buddy WMC actually tried to quote Klein to prove his point and I proved that he misquoted Klein by not giving the rest of the quote. It seems as you disagree with part of Klein's quote but WMC endorses another part of it. Let me know when you've reached a common decision. Or can we just use bits of text to prove our points while ignoring the jist of the argument they make?

In any case, to answer your other point, Saddam was a shitbag who oppressed his own people, invaded Kuwait, and probably gassed the Kurds in Iraq using weaponry from Britain and the US. He was supported at various times by the US and there is evidence to show that he was helped into power by the CIA.

Your point is mere flatulence. Who said Saddam was good? The question isn't whether he was a nice guy or not, obviously. These are the questions we need to be asking:

- Was the US justified in attacking and under what pretext?
- Did the US leadership actually believe, at the time, that Saddam possessed WMDs that could be used against America or was it a mere excuse to wage war? And has the evidence CONCLUSIVELY proven that such belief was correct?
- Was there ever a REAL, PROVABLE link between Saddam and Osama bin Laden?
- Is "regime change" a justified reason for waging war and, if so, why has the US not invaded other oppressive regimes?
- Is it ever correct to ignore the UN and wage a war?
- Did those who chose to go to war gain financially or in other ways from the war?
- Why did the US not instill regime change in Iraq back when Saddam began gassing the Kurds?

And finally:

- Was the attack and the occupation properly planned? If so, why is the insurgence still going stong and the death toll still rising?

When you have answered these questions, I will be able to engage in a proper argument with you. Until then, I'm not going to bother with the tripe you and others keep spewing out.

White_Male_Canada

11-24-2006, 08:38 PM

guyone:

What is confusing about the whole WMD debate is the way the US administration started off saying that Iraq had WMDs, then when they realised they couldn't find any began to talk of regime change. A little after that, Rumsfeld and pals started even questioning reporters who quoted them on their belief that WMDs would be found in Iraq. Later, when some old munitions where found, more or less, abandoned they shouted with glee: "We've found them". And now we're being told about some documents which we've never seen and hearing right wingers criticise a report that was put together jointly by both parties.

So you might as well admit it. The Bush administration may have suspected that Saddam was developing WMDs but they knew he didn't have them. Do you think they would have attacked if he did?

The WMDs were not the issue and nor was "regime change" considering that the US had supported that regime so long in the past and has continued to support other oppressive regimes.

I'm done with this topic. I'm going for a walk outside.

The fact I have continuous access to computers may help dispell you`re illogical notions.

Regime change ? No Bill Clinton talked of it (H.R. 4655, Iraq Liberation Act of 1998) and signed it in October 1998.

President Bush alone suspected Saddam did have WMDs?

We know he did.They were found. "oh but they don`t count." Well then,crack open a binary sarin container,breathe deeply,then if not dead come back and tell us that.

"The world hasn’t seen, except maybe since Hitler, somebody quite as evil as Saddam Hussein. If you don’t stop a horrific dictator before he gets started too far, he can do untold damage…."
Clinton Secretary of State Madeline Albright on February 20, 1998.

“For the last eight years, American policy towards Iraq has been based on the tangible threat that Saddam poses to our security. That threat is clear.”
Clinton National Security Council advisor Sandy Berger in December 1998

"...it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power.
And in 1998, Congress authorized President Clinton to
…use US armed forces pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 678 to achieve implementation of UNSCRs 660-667.

-- U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson: "Facts are facts. Iraq has been deceiving the international community with the weaponization of nerve gas. It's that simple."
-- Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.): "[Saddam] is too dangerous of a man to be given carte blanche with weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.): "[Saddam's] chemical and biological weapons capabilities are frightening."
-- Former Vice President Al Gore: "We know that [Saddam] has stored away secret supplies of biological weapons and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.): "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.): "Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose real threats to America today, tomorrow."
-- Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.): "These weapons represent an unacceptable threat."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.): "Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Clinton, On Saddam's WMD: "Some Day, Some Way, I Guarantee You He'll Use The Arsenal. And I Think Every One Of You Who Has Really Worked On This For Any Length Of Time, Believes That, Too."

You`re memory is so selective it`s embarrassing,to you.

11-25-2006, 12:15 AM

Firstly, WMC, you have consistently failed to reply to my points but always end up spouting stuff about WMDs. Look at my set of questions and see if you can actually give a full and proper answer to any, let alone all, of them. Your liberal bashing isn't helping you.

And, WMC, we all have access to computers so Pfft~ right back at you. I checked your quotes and again you've taken material out of context just so you can prove your point. You seem to have a knack to do this. For example, here is a more complete quote by Ted Kennedy:

We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction. Our intelligence community is also deeply concerned about the acquisition of such weapons by Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria and other nations. But information from the intelligence community over the past six months does not point to Iraq as an imminent threat to the United States or a major proliferator of weapons of mass destruction.

And here's your Hillary quote in full:

I n the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.

There's more where that came from, but I can't be bothered right now for two reasons. One is that I'm not willing to engage in your immature fighting until you read my posts properly and fully and answer them in full. The other reason is that I'm not a Democrat, so what they said matters very little to me. I'm a European and we get a more rounded view of the news here. And I tell you, most Europeans were against the war and still are and more and more Europeans don't like the American government very much anymore.

And we're not alone. A few billion people can't all be wrong.

Oh, and you also said:

Well then,crack open a binary sarin container,breathe deeply,then if not dead come back and tell us that.
Actually, I believe binary sarin has to be mixed to become active first. And, more importantly, seeing as I am a gentleman, I'll let you try it out first.

chefmike

11-25-2006, 01:06 AM

Saddam and WMD's?

How amusing...

almost as amusing as this item... :roll:

In Video, Hussein Uses Slingshots and Bows to Rally Iraqis for War

Published: November 24, 2006
WASHINGTON, Nov. 23 — As the world worried about Saddam Hussein’s quest for nuclear and biological weapons, he took time out to discuss with his top advisers the merits of a decidedly more primitive arsenal: slingshots, Molotov cocktails and crossbows.

In a previously undisclosed video, apparently shot in the months before the American-led invasion in 2003, Mr. Hussein, the Iraqi dictator, beams as military officers display and demonstrate low-tech weapons spread on a table in a ceremonial room. Whether the episode shows genuine preparation for an insurgency or was merely a bizarre propaganda exercise is unclear.

In the video, Mr. Hussein, wearing a double-breasted gray suit, aims a slingshot, shoots an arrow at a door using a crossbow (as aides scamper out of the way) and swings a mock gasoline bomb over his head with a rope. He urges his aides to get such weapons into the hands of Iraqis.

“Let’s use all the methods we can,” he tells his generals. “These methods can be made at home.”

Later he says, “Let’s talk to the minister of industry to see if we can mass produce this.” Tariq Aziz, Mr. Hussein’s close adviser and deputy prime minister, pipes in, “This can be shown to our group of people, who can introduce it to the others.”

Phebe Marr, a historian of Iraq, says that what is most striking about the video is the archaic and impotent nature of the weapons Mr. Hussein appears to be taking seriously. “This stuff is medieval,” she said. “The interesting question is whether this was preparation for the resistance we’ve seen since.”

The 20-minute video, part of a vast collection of videotapes seized by American forces in Iraq, was obtained from a military source by Peter W. Klein, a television producer who has included an excerpt in a documentary, “Beyond Top Secret,” to be shown Friday night and Saturday morning on The History Channel.

guyone

11-25-2006, 08:58 PM

Yeah. Saddam used his slingshot to take out all these people...

The most enduring images of atrocities against the Kurds took place in Iraq, where Saddam Hussein planned a genocidal campaign against them. Ali Hassan al-Majid, Saddam's first cousin, headed the campaign. He became known as "Chemical Ali" after the Kurdish town of Halabja was attacked with nerve gas and other chemical weapons in March 1988, killing 5,000 civilians. But Halabja was just one of 60 civilian targets that were attacked with poison gas during the 18-month campaign known as anfal, or "spoils." Any survivors of this deadly campaign were evicted under a policy of "Arabization," which resettled Iraqi Arabs in northern Iraq, often in homes once owned by Kurds.

guyone

11-25-2006, 09:02 PM

Here's a picture of Saddam with his SUPER ATOMIC SLINGSHOT and its aftermath...

11-25-2006, 11:16 PM

Oh, you mean the chemical weapons that were sold to Iraq by the Republican government back in the '80s, guyone?

"Yes, I suppose we were all wondering why he needed those. We never thought he'd use them to kill innocent people. He seemed like such a nice dictator..."

Coroner

11-25-2006, 11:46 PM

guyone

11-26-2006, 02:09 AM

Oh, you mean the chemical weapons that were sold to Iraq by the Republican government back in the '80s, guyone?

The US never sold Iraq chemical weapons. Where's your proof? Where's the sales receipt? Also being that at that time it would have to have been approved by the Democratically controlled congress I find it very hard to believe.

You see we do have sales receipts of Clinton selling plutonium to North Korea and we do have sales receipts of Clinton selling long range missile technology to Red China. No sales receipts of chemical weapons to Iraq though. Sorry.

No tikee...no chemical weapon!

11-26-2006, 03:11 AM

guyone, have a look at the report below, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52241-2002Dec29?language=printer

At the same time the Reagan administration was facilitating the supply of weapons and military components to Baghdad, it was attempting to cut off supplies to Iran under "Operation Staunch." Those efforts were largely successful, despite the glaring anomaly of the 1986 Iran-contra scandal when the White House publicly admitted trading arms for hostages, in violation of the policy that the United States was trying to impose on the rest of the world.

Although U.S. arms manufacturers were not as deeply involved as German or British companies in selling weaponry to Iraq, the Reagan administration effectively turned a blind eye to the export of "dual use" items such as chemical precursors and steel tubes that can have military and civilian applications. According to several former officials, the State and Commerce departments promoted trade in such items as a way to boost U.S. exports and acquire political leverage over Hussein.

When United Nations weapons inspectors were allowed into Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War, they compiled long lists of chemicals, missile components, and computers from American suppliers, including such household names as Union Carbide and Honeywell, which were being used for military purposes.

A 1994 investigation by the Senate Banking Committee turned up dozens of biological agents shipped to Iraq during the mid-'80s under license from the Commerce Department, including various strains of anthrax, subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program. The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare.

The fact that Iraq was using chemical weapons was hardly a secret. In February 1984, an Iraqi military spokesman effectively acknowledged their use by issuing a chilling warning to Iran. "The invaders should know that for every harmful insect, there is an insecticide capable of annihilating it . . . and Iraq possesses this annihilation insecticide."

Chemicals Kill Kurds

In late 1987, the Iraqi air force began using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq that had formed a loose alliance with Iran, according to State Department reports. The attacks, which were part of a "scorched earth" strategy to eliminate rebel-controlled villages, provoked outrage on Capitol Hill and renewed demands for sanctions against Iraq. The State Department and White House were also outraged -- but not to the point of doing anything that might seriously damage relations with Baghdad.

"The U.S.-Iraqi relationship is . . . important to our long-term political and economic objectives," Assistant Secretary of State Richard W. Murphy wrote in a September 1988 memorandum that addressed the chemical weapons question. "We believe that economic sanctions will be useless or counterproductive to influence the Iraqis."

Bush administration spokesmen have cited Hussein's use of chemical weapons "against his own people" -- and particularly the March 1988 attack on the Kurdish village of Halabjah -- to bolster their argument that his regime presents a "grave and gathering danger" to the United States.

The Iraqis continued to use chemical weapons against the Iranians until the end of the Iran-Iraq war. A U.S. air force intelligence officer, Rick Francona, reported finding widespread use of Iraqi nerve gas when he toured the Al Faw peninsula in southern Iraq in the summer of 1988, after its recapture by the Iraqi army. The battlefield was littered with atropine injectors used by panicky Iranian troops as an antidote against Iraqi nerve gas attacks.

Far from declining, the supply of U.S. military intelligence to Iraq actually expanded in 1988, according to a 1999 book by Francona, "Ally to Adversary: an Eyewitness Account of Iraq's Fall from Grace." Informed sources said much of the battlefield intelligence was channeled to the Iraqis by the CIA office in Baghdad.

Although U.S. export controls to Iraq were tightened up in the late 1980s, there were still many loopholes. In December 1988, Dow Chemical sold $1.5 million of pesticides to Iraq, despite U.S. government concerns that they could be used as chemical warfare agents. An Export-Import Bank official reported in a memorandum that he could find "no reason" to stop the sale, despite evidence that the pesticides were "highly toxic" to humans and would cause death "from asphyxiation."

And according to the State Department's website:

In late 2002 and early 2003, North Korea terminated the freeze on its existing plutonium-based nuclear facilities at Yongbyon, expelled IAEA inspectors, removed seals and monitoring equipment at Yongbyon, quit the NPT, and resumed reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel to extract plutonium for weapons purposes. North Korea announced that it was taking these steps to provide itself with a deterrent force in the face of U.S. threats and the U.S.'s "hostile policy." Beginning in mid-2003, the North repeatedly claimed to have completed reprocessing of the spent fuel rods previously frozen at Yongbyon and publicly said that the resulting fissile material would be used to bolster its "nuclear deterrent force." There is no independent confirmation of North Korea's claims. The KEDO Executive Board suspended work on the Light Water Reactor Project beginning December 1, 2003.

This happened after Bush administration reports emphasized that the US should be prepared for a war with North Korea. America's stalemate with North Korea and the latter's recent show of its nuclear strength is down to the Bush administration's failure, not Clinton's.

You may want to read this too:
http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2006/11/13/us_is_top_purveyor_on_weapons_sales_list/?page=1

As for the US selling weapons to China, I'd be interesting in seeing some proof but I kind of doubt. Still, it is not really relevant to what we are discussing here. I don't give a shit what the Democrats did. But I do know that they didn't plunge the nation and the world into a pile of shit like the current administration have done.

And, importantly, I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions from a previous post. They were:

- Was the US justified in attacking and under what pretext?
- Did the US leadership actually believe, at the time, that Saddam possessed WMDs that could be used against America or was it a mere excuse to wage war? And has the evidence CONCLUSIVELY proven that such belief was correct?
- Was there ever a REAL, PROVABLE link between Saddam and Osama bin Laden?
- Is "regime change" a justified reason for waging war and, if so, why has the US not invaded other oppressive regimes?
- Is it ever correct to ignore the UN and wage a war?
- Did those who chose to go to war gain financially or in other ways from the war?
- Why did the US not instill regime change in Iraq back when Saddam began gassing the Kurds?
And finally:
- Was the attack and the occupation properly planned? If so, why is the insurgence still going stong and the death toll still rising?

Now go do your homework.

guyone

11-26-2006, 07:25 AM

First off the article you quoted shows no pictures of sales receipts from the DOD for nerve gas going to Iraq. Articles of conjecture by the Washington Post are not proof. You see here in America we are innocent until proven guilty. A unique concept that your country may or may not provide.

I don't know what kind of gobbildy-gook you're spouting as far as North Korea. Clinton sold them plutonium. Your article just states that in 2002 the NK went nuts and wanted to go to war with the US. Oh yeah, if NKs pulls any funny business it won't be the US that will do any pounding, SK, Japan, & yes...Red China will pounce on them with extreme prejudice. China has got a lot to lose if Kim Jong 'mentally' Ill starts anything.

Being that it is yourself that needs to do homework here is your first assignment:

LG's Homework (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/05/25/time/china.missles.html)

11-26-2006, 05:12 PM

Actually, North Korea possesses more plotunium now than during Clinton's tenure. And no, I haven't got any receipts for the weapons sold to Iraq (though it's a commonly known fact) but you haven't shown me any receipts either. I don't expect you'll find many receipts for any arms sales, actually, not in the conventional sense of the word.

During his time though, Clinton did help the North Koreans replace their old reactors with newer, safer ones and did support them financially. In exchange, North Korea agreed to halt their nuclear weapons programme, remain as signatories to the Non-prolifertion Treaty and allow inpectors to monitor their facilities. The reactors were built by a company who had a man very familiar to you on their payroll. Republicans have some nerve blaming Clinton seeing as one of their own, Donald Rumsfeld, was a Director of the firm that built North Korea's nuclear reactors:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,952289,00.html

A review of the US policy on North Korea showing that Clinton's diplomacy had reduced the risk of conflict and improved US- North Korean relations whereas the Bush administration's actions have turned the North Koreans into heavily armed mortal enemies can be found here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,952289,00.html

And here is more. North Korea decides to allow weapons inspectors to continue monitoring, under Clinton:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,,855243,00.html
and then kicks them out in 2002 after Bush's hardline tactics fail:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,,867053,00.html

And have a look here to read about GW Bush's great foreign policy success in making a new enemy:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/HJ19Dg01.html

Or an article from Japan Focus written by an expert from New Zealand arguing that John McCain is wrong and that North Korea's nuclear test has been due to a failure by the Bush administration.
http://www.japanfocus.org/products/details/2262

And finally... a British poll shows that Britons believe Bush is more dangerous than Kim Jong-il.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1938434,00.html

You see here in America we are innocent until proven guilty.
Really? So why do you blame the Democrats for everything? So why did you preemptively attack Iraq before proving they were guilty of having WMD? So why do you personally keep spewing cowslop before you even consider the evidence?

In addition, you have consistently failed to answer any of my questions or put any proper points forward. Your replies are devoid of any facts but are mere piffle. You type things like "Not true!" without bothering to prove why what are arguing against is not true. The reason I told you to do your homework is not just becuase you desperately need to read up before you start saying any old crap but because, judging from the way you answer these posts, I'd say you have the maturity of a little kid.

Anyway, lesson over. You can go play with your friends now.

bucatini70

11-26-2006, 05:17 PM

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

11-26-2006, 06:54 PM

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.

11-26-2006, 09:36 PM

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

11-26-2006, 10:12 PM

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... :roll:

guyone

11-27-2006, 02:46 AM

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!

11-27-2006, 03:26 AM

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

11-27-2006, 07:32 AM

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/1998/05/25/time/china.missles.html

Notice the 'CNN'. Not 'CNS'.

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

I'M STILL WAITING!!!!

.

11-28-2006, 05:30 PM

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/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=/SpecialReports/archive/200410/SPE20041004a.html

Anyway, here are some choice quotes from the source you give (actually a piece from Time Magazine back in 1998):

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

11-28-2006, 06:58 PM

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.

11-28-2006, 09:10 PM

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?

guyone

11-29-2006, 05:08 AM

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

I thought you were just some European communist, but now I really think you are a Democrat. A European Democrat! The kind that sneaks their votes into our elections. The one's who enjoy having tea with Brezhnev and Kosygin...

No, you were, indeed, not in Bosnia for 11 years, unless you count the peacekeeping forces' stay there, which I would not,...

There goes that selective memory again.

Coroner

11-29-2006, 06:25 AM

LG, you´re right. The US-troops were for nothing in Bosnia. It made no difference during the war that was going on until the peace agreement in Dayton in 1995. Since that time, they´ve been based in the Tuzla-area, from Tuzla to the city of Brcko.

What´s wrong with being a communist, guyone? I am an european communist. And I´m proud, although I know that it will never work because the human himself and his greed, so sorry buddy but you´re the ultimate evidence. I´m glad to meet some open-minded people here like LG, because that´s the only way of knowledge. I don´t understand how you can consider The Guardian as a communist paper, although it´s traditionally a labour paper and that fake british labours are going hand in hand with your junkie-president. No sign of communism.

What do you know about communism that makes you hate it? Is it your fear that it would make your dreams impossible to own 100 Porsché´s and 20 villas? Your "dreams" are the reason for the divided american society. Your society doesn´t work. It has a lot of societies in it with all the ghetto-thing. The last time that we had ghetto´s in Austria was the WWII when Jews were put into ghetto´s.

Your problems are not solved. You better solve your own problems and don´t start new in far away countries.

guyone

11-29-2006, 09:51 AM

Our 'ghetto's' or tenements were created by communists in order to remove hope and aspiration from the innocent so they could be controlled and turned into a dependable voting block. They were even supplied with drugs to sedate them. Why else do you think communists want drugs to be legalized?

Communism enforces it's citizens to conform to a single ideal. Veer from the dogma and get ostracized and condemned by the pack(case in point the free thinkers on this board). Conformity breeds mediocrity which is the onset on entropy.

THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH COMMUNISM

"...in Italy for thirty years under the Borges they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed; but they produced Michaelangelo, Leonardo di Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love; they had five hundred years of democracy and peace and what did that produce? The Cukoo Clock."

11-29-2006, 07:31 PM

Coroner said:

I´m glad to meet some open-minded people here like LG, because that´s the only way of knowledge.

The respect is mutual, my friend.

But guyone, unable to think of something reasonable to say, blurted out:

Our 'ghetto's' or tenements were created by communists in order to remove hope and aspiration from the innocent so they could be controlled and turned into a dependable voting block. They were even supplied with drugs to sedate them. Why else do you think communists want drugs to be legalized?

Actually, I want drugs to be legalized so that I can be allowed to take them.

But your argument is just about the worst excuse for a conspiracy theory I have ever read. And I'm still not sure what communists you're talking about. Do you still believe the earth is flat?

Communism enforces it's citizens to conform to a single ideal. Veer from the dogma and get ostracized and condemned by the pack(case in point the free thinkers on this board).

Oh, I'm sorry, when you say "free thinkers" do you mean yourself? Excuse me a moment while I LMFAO!

THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH COMMUNISM

Maybe you should look it up in a dictionary. And while you're at it, look up fascism too. I'm sure you'll find something you like there.

Open your eyes once in a while dude and maybe your mind will follow.

White_Male_Canada

11-29-2006, 07:40 PM

"What´s wrong with being a communist, guyone? I am an european communist. And I´m proud, although I know that it will never work..."

That`s like saying what`s wrong with Islamo-fascism.

The wrong comes from the fact it can only be implemented at the point of a gun or coercion.

The result:

USSR: 20 million deaths

China: 65 million deaths

Vietnam: 1 million deaths

North Korea: 2 million deaths

Cambodia: 2 million deaths

Eastern Europe: 1 million deaths

Latin America: 150,000 deaths

Africa: 1.7 million deaths

Afghanistan: 1.5 million deaths

Communist movements or parties not in power: about 10,000 deaths
(Black Book of Communism Harvard University Press, 1999)

Nearly 100 million deaths. Not casualties of war, but civilian slaughter. Deaths in gulags and concentration camps. Deaths from a bullet to the head. Most of all, deaths by starvation - the result either of planned famines, meted out as punishment to internal foes (as in Stalin's USSR), or unintended consequences of central policy.

guyone

11-29-2006, 08:10 PM

Actually, I want drugs to be legalized so that I can be allowed to take them.

You want the right to shoot up bags of scag so you can forget about the fact that your true basic human right - Freedom of Thought is being ripped away from you. Case in point USA's hate crime legislation. Ever see a picture called Clockwork Orange? We just instituted the 'Ludivico' Law. And this is just the first of many to come.

But your argument is just about the worst excuse for a conspiracy theory I have ever read.

It's not a theory. It's fact. Communists (under the guise of The Democratic Party) HAVE been enablers of Heroin and Crack to our inner city communities for decades. I'm not talking about weed that just makes you lazy. Heroin & Crack takes away your will and hope.

Oh, I'm sorry, when you say "free thinkers" do you mean yourself? Excuse me a moment while I LMFAO!

Ofcourse I am a free thinker. I don't subscribe to fashionable, pre-digested ideas which were approved by party central(e.g. - hate Bush he's Hitler blah blah blah)

Maybe you should look it up in a dictionary.

Main Entry: com·mu·nism
Pronunciation: 'käm-y&-"ni-z&m, -yü-
Function: noun
Etymology: French communisme, from commun common
1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property
b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production
c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably

NO PRIVATE PROPERTY? Meaning no privacy??? Working for the state, living for the state, and loving no other than the state.

Worked out real well for the Soviets and worked out so well for Red China they became capitalists.

Give me a break...

11-29-2006, 08:56 PM

You want the right to shoot up bags of scag so you can forget about the fact that your true basic human right - Freedom of Thought is being ripped away from you.

No, I want marijuana to be made legal because there is little evidence to prove it is harmful and because I believe that people should be allowed to smoke it if it relaxes them and if they want to as long as they harm no one else. There is a world of difference between weed and other drugs. If you were truly for private rights and against total government control then maybe you would understand me.

It's not a theory. It's fact. Communists (under the guise of The Democratic Party) HAVE been enablers of Heroin and Crack to our inner city communities for decades.

Okay, smart ass. Now YOU show me the proof. This is a crackpot theory, for all I know. Drugs are dealt by dealers and pushers, supplied by drug smugglers and cartels and produced by farmers in Colombia, Afghanistan and even the US. Sometimes I think you're just posting any rubbish that comes to your head to waste my time. Maybe I should start saying things like: "Republicans are fascist dope fiends who allow drug cartels to operate so they can satisfy their habits. Most of them are genetically modified and drink human blood, prefering the blood of innocent children and sexy personal assistants of Democratic senators. After they gorge themselves on blood, they fax military documents to Uzbekistan, ensuring that the next government will also have a major war on their hands".

But I digress.

Anyway- and this is important- the Democratic Party is not communist.

Ofcourse I am a free thinker. I don't subscribe to fashionable, pre-digested ideas which were approved by party central(e.g. - hate Bush he's Hitler blah blah blah)

Who taught you to say that? Rush Limbaugh? And I'm not even sure what party central you're talking about.

Main Entry: com·mu·nism
Pronunciation: 'käm-y&-"ni-z&m, -yü-
Function: noun
Etymology: French communisme, from commun common
1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property
b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production
c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably

NO PRIVATE PROPERTY? Meaning no privacy??? Working for the state, living for the state, and loving no other than the state.

Firstly, let me say that it's good to know that you know how to use a dictionary. Secondly, no private property does not neccessarily mean no privacy. And Big Brother is watching you everywhere, in any case, and not just in communist states but also in the US.

Actually, definition 1b is kind of nice don't you think? Pity it can't work in practice (and I will agree that it can't). The problem is not really with the theory but with the practice of it. It cannot work, admittedly, because people are not altruistic enough to share their earnings with others. But a socialist state can and has worked. And socialism is what is behind things like taxation, welfare and the health services. It is a coming together of two belief systems into something workable.

As for me, I remain an independent. But the more I read posts from people like you, guyone, the less fond I am of right wingers. Why don't you give us all a break and think before you spout any old rubbish.

Worked out real well for the Soviets and worked out so well for Red China

And stop calling it "Red" China.

White_Male_Canada

11-30-2006, 03:02 AM

No, I want marijuana to be made legal because there is little evidence to prove it is harmful and because I believe that people should be allowed to smoke it if it relaxes them and if they want to as long as they harm no one else. There is a world of difference between weed and other drugs. If you were truly for private rights and against total government control then maybe you would understand me.

Harmless? Uh-yeah,how about tuberculosis,chronic bronchitis,tar which triggers lung cancer/oral cavity/pharynx and larynx cancer, possible exposure to paraquat,immunosuppressantcy,etc etc.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol12no07/05-1436.htm

It's not a theory. It's fact. Communists (under the guise of The Democratic Party) HAVE been enablers of Heroin and Crack to our inner city communities for decades.

Okay, smart ass. Now YOU show me the proof. This is a crackpot theory, for all I know. Drugs are dealt by dealers and pushers, supplied by drug smugglers and cartels and produced by farmers in Colombia, Afghanistan and even the US. Sometimes I think you're just posting any rubbish that comes to your head to waste my time. Maybe I should start saying things like: "Republicans are fascist dope fiends who allow drug cartels to operate so they can satisfy their habits. Most of them are genetically modified and drink human blood, prefering the blood of innocent children and sexy personal assistants of Democratic senators. After they gorge themselves on blood, they fax military documents to Uzbekistan, ensuring that the next government will also have a major war on their hands".

Key word : ENABLERS

Sheesh :smh

guyone

11-30-2006, 08:37 AM

"Democrats are communist dope fiends who allow drug cartels to operate so they can satisfy their habits. Most of them are genetically modified and drink human blood, prefering the blood of innocent children and sexy personal assistants of Democratic senators. After they gorge themselves on blood, they fax military documents to Uzbekistan, ensuring that the next government will also have a major war on their hands".

I agree

But a socialist state can and has worked.

On what planet? Socialist systems on Earth are completely dysfunctional.
1)Making business owners pay more than 50% of yearly earnings in taxes doesn't entice individuals into developing their business. Why do you think the European economy is so flat?
2)If an electrician can make 40% of his salary in unemployment he'll just sit on his ass.
3)Nationalized health care DOES NOT WORK. If it did why then do Canadians come to the US for major operations?

...and just for you LG:

RED CHINA

(lighten up mate)

11-30-2006, 08:16 PM

guyone said:

Quote:
But a socialist state can and has worked.

On what planet? Socialist systems on Earth are completely dysfunctional.
1)Making business owners pay more than 50% of yearly earnings in taxes doesn't entice individuals into developing their business. Why do you think the European economy is so flat?
2)If an electrician can make 40% of his salary in unemployment he'll just sit on his ass.
3)Nationalized health care DOES NOT WORK. If it did why then do Canadians come to the US for major operations?

Look at Sweden, a good example of a well-functioning social democracy. Finland and Norway (one of the most developed nations in the world, according to the UN along with Japan and -wait for it- Canada) are also closer to the socialist than the capitalist ideal.

The European economy, also, is not as you say "flat" but rather healthy, something which I know for a fact from my line of work. It is growing, although not in all sectors. Most EU nations have a strong economy and the new memebers are certainly emerging markets- weaker economies, perhaps, but with strong potential.

And as for the Canadians who come over to the US, perhaps they do so because of America's admittedly excellent private healthcare. The Mayo Clinic is a hop away from Canada and the best medical centre in the world. What is more, most Canadians can afford private healthcare in the US, which shows that their economy is strong and that there is a fair distribution of wealth (probably fairer than in the US).

And WMC said:

Harmless? Uh-yeah,how about tuberculosis,chronic bronchitis,tar which triggers lung cancer/oral cavity/pharynx and larynx cancer, possible exposure to paraquat,immunosuppressantcy,etc etc.

Umm...doesn't smoking do all of that to you too? Shall we ban it? Let's ban it in the interests of public health and republicanism! At least then I can enjoy my pint in peace.

guyone

11-30-2006, 10:13 PM

Look at Sweden, a good example of a well-functioning social democracy. Finland and Norway (one of the most developed nations in the world, according to the UN along with Japan and -wait for it- Canada) are also closer to the socialist than the capitalist ideal.

They also have the highest suicide rates.

Umm...doesn't smoking do all of that to you too? Shall we ban it? Let's ban it in the interests of public health and republicanism!

For all intents and purposes smoking is banned in the US.

And as for the Canadians who come over to the US, perhaps they do so because of America's admittedly excellent private healthcare. The Mayo Clinic is a hop away from Canada and the best medical centre in the world.

The reason why Canadians come to the US for healthcare is they have to wait in line for a week to get a band-aid from the government.

What is more, most Canadians can afford private healthcare in the US, which shows that their economy is strong and that there is a fair distribution of wealth (probably fairer than in the US).

They can afford the private healthcare because they have to take out a second mortgage to pay for it. The Canadian government doesn't help them [please correct me if I'm wrong WMC]. As far as a fair distribution of wealth? What kind of Marxist crap is that? Hey you work you get paid. If you don't...sleep in the gutter. The problem with governmental employees is that they can't get fired and they wind up sitting on their fat asses all day, ignoring their responsibilities yet it is the successful execution of personal responsibilities that makes the world go round.

Isn't 'Socialist Worker' an oxymoron?

http://www.oxymoronlist.com/#s

White_Male_Canada

12-01-2006, 02:39 AM

What is more, most Canadians can afford private healthcare in the US, which shows that their economy is strong and that there is a fair distribution of wealth (probably fairer than in the US).

False. Unemployment rates are higher in Canada. A single male who refuses to work will only be given about 300 dollars per month in welfare payments.

People who are dying of cancer and in need of immediate surgery don`t care about cost when it is a matter of life and death.Would you worry about money if you needed immediate care?

It takes an average of about 9 weeks to get from GP to specialist in Canada.From specialist to treatment another 9 weeks. Typical CT scan 4.3 weeks,normal MRI 10.3 weeks.Some patients are sent to the US by local Provincial governments for immediate treatment but waiting times remain.

The total waiting time for patients between referral from a general practitioner and treatment, averaged across all 12 specialties and 10 provinces surveyed, increased to 17.8 from 17.7 weeks.
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/chapterfiles/wyt2006.pdf#

They can afford the private healthcare because they have to take out a second mortgage to pay for it. The Canadian government doesn't help them [please correct me if I'm wrong WMC]. As far as a fair distribution of wealth? What kind of Marxist crap is that? Hey you work you get paid. If you don't...sleep in the gutter. The problem with governmental employees is that they can't get fired and they wind up sitting on their fat asses all day, ignoring their responsibilities yet it is the successful execution of personal responsibilities that makes the world go round.
[size=24][color=blue]
Isn't 'Socialist Worker' an oxymoron?

The late Premier of Quebec Robert Bourassa went to the U.S. Johns Hopkins health centre for treatment of his cancer. That just about says it all. Even the Pols who preach single payer bolt like colts to get the best care ASAP when it is life and death.

The socialist health care system in Canada is cracking. In 2005 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Quebec government cannot prevent people from paying for private insurance for health-care procedures covered under medicare.

Private clinics are legal in some instances. It`s a no brainer to state that denying inidividuals their rights is a fundamental violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.Although the court were split 3-3 on that issue,fearing an immediate collapse of the socialist Canada Health Act.

Military personnel, the RCMP, prisoners and workers' compensation claimants don't fall under the socialist medicare umbrella. All of them are exempt from the Canada Health Act. That means they get to jump the long queue.So the utopians mantra of equal health care for all is a fallacy.

Nadeem Esmail, senior health policy analyst with the Fraser Institute stated that there are 4 tiers in Canada. The first tier comprises those who are wealthy enough to go abroad for timely care.The second is made up of the aforementioned special population groups - military, RCMP, prisoners and WCB claimants.People in the third tier have pull or influence. In the fourth tier are average Canadians who need care but have no way of expediting the process,the average schmuck.

Althought no system is ever perfect, the US, with it`s superior system,affordability itself is NOT THE WHOLE ISSUE.

The US Census Bureau- nearly one-third of those without insurance live in households with an annual income of $50,000 or more !

14 million uninsured adults and children are currently eligible for government medical coverage, such as Medicaid, but have not enrolled in any program. The parents of 5 million eligible children have failed to enroll them. For people who lack insurance for a period of time, about 75 percent are without it for less than a year(usually because they are in transition from one job to another).11.8 million of the uninsured are foreign-born, and 9.5 million of those are non-citizens.

PS: don`t wanna come across as an a***ole know-it-all, don`t own a sheep-skin that says PHD on it but I do have infinite patience to do the proper research.Stacks of books on shelves and hundreds of word files easily accessable. I`m sick and tired of the Big Lie,lie by omission,disinformation,misinformation and all around general stupidity as seen on ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN,etc.That`s why we`re here,to pound socialists/neo-marxists to dust.

12-01-2006, 01:49 PM

guyone said:

They also have the highest suicide rates.

Rubbish. Another fallacy. Sweden's suicide rates may be higher than in some other European countries (and the reasons usually cited have more to do with weather and lack of sunlight than with economic theories) but they are not much higher than those in the US according to most sources including the table below, which is based on WHO statistics:
http://www.fathersforlife.org/images/who_suicide_rates.gif

Wikipedia puts Sweden's suicide rate at 13.4 per 100 000 population. The suicide rate for males is 18.9 per 100,000. In the US, the male suicide rate is 17.6 per 100,00. The highest rates seem to be in the former communist (and now capitalist) countries.

guyone also said:

For all intents and purposes smoking is banned in the US.

No, you are still allowed to smoke tobacco in your own home. You are not allowed to smoke weed though and there have been cases of people being imprisoned in the US for having small quantities of weed for personal use.

WMC wrote:

Althought no system is ever perfect, the US, with it`s superior system,affordability itself is NOT THE WHOLE ISSUE.

Affordability is important. Not every uninsured American can afford private health care. Canada's healthcare is not inferior to America's. True, for some procedures waiting lists can be long and a few Canadians do cross the border, although not as many as you are suggesting. But waiting times for emergencies are short, survival rates are comparable to America's and the average lifespan is higher in Canada than in the US.

The key is that all Canadians will receive adequate healthcare. Uninsured Americans who cannot afford to pay their medical bills will not neccessarily receive adequate treatment.

In any case, it's true that some Canadians are not entirely happy with the system and therefore their federal and provincial governments are due to spend a lot of money to ensure faster treatment. At the moment, Canada actually spends less per capita then the US on healthcare.

The US remains one of the few developed nations without universal health care. Americans have to wait an average of 3 1/2 hours for emergency care. True, if you have the cash, America's health care is, at its best, top class (if you're talking about the likes of Mayo and Johns Hopkins). But what if you don't?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15487676/

Canada is not perfect. But I believe that universal health care offers a safety net that you cannot find in the US.

See also:
http://matthewholt.typepad.com/the_health_care_blog/2003/11/policy_oh_canad_1.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/10/14/BUGR28JFEN59.DTL
http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/health_of_nations/index.html
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2004/05/04/compare040504.html

Then again, WMC, I appreciate that you may have seen this first hand and had a bad experience of Canadian healthcare. But, from what I know and have read, the Canadian system, though far from perfect at the moment, has its fair share of good points.