On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 10:30:46 GMT, The_Fist <johngons@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Cardman, we've had some good times on the Charmed board. I ignored
>the first post to keep from feeding the ng trolls but as an American
>Republican who sup****ts Bush I now have no choice...
Sounds promising. Welcome. :-]
>>France like many UN countries saw no need for military action, when
>>Iraq was in no position to be a threat to anyone.
>
>Do you remember the Delfuer re****t? That's the re****t that was done by
>the Iraq Survey Commission after the fall of Saddam.
Finding WMD in Iraq be such a big story that the news services would
be all over it for months. So why are they so silent?
Try looking up the "Delfuer re****t" on the likes of Google and
Altavista, when they give zero returns. So maybe you can point out
where it can be read?
>That's also the
>same re****t that the liberals of the world are trumpeting as the
>definitive proof of there being no WMDs in Iraq.
I see.
No WMDs in Iraq would call into question Bush's entire reason for this
invasion. After all it is not nice blowing away innocent women and
children based on an assumption... or lie.
Still, I think we know that Bush's real reason was just a combination
of WTC 9/11 combined with his list of countries that don't like the US
much.
I find it extremely questionable that Saddam would have ever attacked
the US, when quite simply he is not that stupid.
>That re****t had another little twist to it that wasn't re****ted on much
>by the "elite media" here in the states who were rooting for Kerry.
Seems like a very unre****ted do***ent.
>It seems as though France, Germany, and Russia (coincidentally the
>parties in the Security Council that opposed US action)
Opposed in the sense that they wished to resolve these same issues
through more peaceful means.
I find their position fully understandable.
>all had one
>thing in common: they were making BILLIONS off Saddam's regime!
There is no question that they were friendly trading partners, but to
put this down as "brides" would be very incorrect.
>They were getting vouchers for millions of barrels of oil
Vouchers? They were given pieces of paper?
After the first Gulf War the country of Iraq was placed into the hands
of the UN. They did two things...
1. To stop Iraqi trade with other countries in order to withdraw Iraq
to stay within its own borders.
2. To dismantle his WMDs.
So with odd exception Iraq should not really be trading oil with
anyone beyond the UN's oil for food program.
>and money
>siphoned off from the Oil-for-Food Program was given directly to
>officials in these countries and the UN as BRIBES!
That would be an extremely serious claim. So why are not heads rolling
in the UN?
I see no reason why Saddam would not feed his people. Sure he said
that UN sanctions were killing thousands, but that was just him
placing every natural Iraqi death down as being due to UN sanctions.
> John Kerry called the coalition helping the US in Iraq a "coalition
>of the bribed and the cohersed." It turns out the only ones being
>bribed were the UN Security Council being bribed by Saddam Hussein!
With pieces of paper.
>France's inaction had nothing to do with Saddam's status as a threat.
Neither was the US's reason for action.
>They were looking out for their MONETARY interests!
That was certainly part of it. Iraq was in no way a threat to the
likes of France. And they saw him as not much of a threat to any other
country as well.
>>This War was sold to the voters as being due to Saddam having WMDs and
>>thus a threat. It is clear enough to see now that this was one of
>>Bush's fabrication from beginning to end.
>>
>>Bush promised us WMD. So where are they?
>
>In 2002, the CIA said Iraq had WMDs.
Maybe due to Bush moving his own people into the CIA in a muck raking
exercise against Saddam. They used many unconfirmed re****ts in their
information gathering.
You can certainly read the CIA's own view concerning this era, when
they were not happy to be abused in this way.
>British Intelligence said Iraq had WMDs.
Maybe because Bush's CIA intelligence told them so. And certainly they
were playing the same misinformation game, when they were part of the
War party after all.
>Russian Intelligence said Iraq had WMDs.
I would have to look up that one. Still, Russia did not want military
action against Iraq.
>The UN Security Council unanimously approved resolution 1441, ordering
>Saddam to disarm and disclose. That meant they thought Saddam was hiding
>something.
No it meant that the US made claims that Iraq was hiding WMD. And this
made the UN say "If you have some then you are required to tell us
about them and get rid of them".
It was just a covering clause. If Iraq had WMD and hid these from this
UN resolution, then so would Iraq have been deep is doggy do-do when
found out.
The UN had their own weapons inspectors travel all over Iraq,
including places that the US told them about, where they came up
empty.
So the UN had no reason to believe that Saddam had WMDs, when they had
personally assisted in their destruction.
>But here's the trump card, Cardman!... In December 1998, President
>William Jefferson Clinton ordered a week-long bombing campaign of Iraq
>citing Iraq's "nuclear, chemical, and biological" weapons
>capabilities! Clinton attacked Iraq citing WMDs as his reason! Did
>the liberals on this planet develop amnesia!?!?!
Maybe you also overlook that during the time that the US were
operating the no fly zones within Iraq that they were being regularly
shot at.
I am sure that it is more truthful to say that they blew up anything
that would be a military threat to them. And sure they used the worst
case excuse in order to do this.
You should try looking beyond the politics.
The evidence for this is that had Iraq had these facilities, then they
would certainly number less than a dozen in total. And you cannot tell
me that it takes an entire week to blow up things that could be done
within hours.
I am sure that a lot of bridges got bombed during this time. Not to
forget all those problem SAM sites.
>Where was John Kerry then? Where was Howard Dean then? Where was Terry
>McAuliffe then? Where was George Soros then? Where was Michael Moore
>then? Where was France and Germany then? Where were YOU then?
Where was the US's evidence of WMD in Iraq?
The US was invited to the UN to lay down their evidence for the World
to see, where sure enough had they wheeled in barrel after barrel of
WMDs with "made in Iraq" stamped in the side, then the entire UN would
have sup****ted collective military action.
Instead these masters of Iraqi WMD intelligence presented evidence
that was termed by many, including the Iraqi foreign minister, as
"laughable". I watched that UN meeting, where this feeble evidence
certainly made me laugh.
The UN did not believe Saddam had WMDs, because the US certainly never
offered evidence to this effect. And the US certainly cannot believe
things that they cannot show to others, which is simply due to the
WMDs being a "hot air" excuse all along.
>Clinton also went into Bosnia and Serbia unilaterally when neither of
>those countries were a threat to the US.
It was a UN action. And the US often like to have their nose in such
things.
>Why isn't anyone on the left calling Clinton a warmongerer?!
These countries where already in a civil War, where the UN was called
upon to bring peace to the region.
What you should understand about this situation was that this civil
War was between conflicting ethnic groups. And had things got more
serious there, then they could have roped in neighbouring countries.
So Clinton as part of a collective whole did a considerably nice
thing.
In Iraq Bush is not helping the locals. He invaded their country and
shot and bombed more than a few of them.
>Funny how two presidents in less than 4 years make the EXACT SAME CASE
>for Iraq's WMDs but it's treated and percieved sooooo differently
>since once a Dem and one's a Republican!
You are far too much into labeling these people. As I would not have a
clue what one was Democrat and what one was Republican until this was
recently pointed out.
I don't even see that it makes much difference, which is why I will
soon forget it again.
I can also say that my respect for Clinton is just as low. As no
leader should be the butt of jokes like "Welcome Mr President. Would
you like a drink? Or would you like one of our young assistants to
give you a blow job?".
And for Congress to approve of him lying in court stretches my lack of
respect even further. As Clinton should have been out of there the
moment that he confessed all.
>The fact is that EVERYONE thought Iraq had WMDs
Not so. Just because the US had the loudest voice does not make them
right.
The UN weapons inspectors said that he had no WMDs, which meant that
the majority of the UN believed this as well.
>and for the left to pin the whole thing on George Bush is nothing but
>scapegoating and running for cover.
It was his choice to invade Iraq, where he went far beyond acceptable
actions to do so.
>We had a lot of warning and you're right; it was ignored... but not
>by president Bush.
I fully agree.
>Let me give you a history lesson about Al Qaeda's attacks on America
>and our interests:
>
>- 1993: WTC bombed
>- 1996: Khobar Towers bombed
>- 1998: American embassies in Africa bombed
Dar Es Salaam (Tanzania) and Nairobia (Kenya) to be exact.
Causing the death of over 200 people and one that the FBI can
conclusively pin on Al-Qaeda.
>- 2000: USS Cole bombed
Yes, all well known attacks.
>All of these attacks went unanswered by America.
Not unanswered. They tend to drop a lot of bombs in response, which
usually blow up a muddy field labeled a "training base" some place.
>Geee. who was President during this time? I'll give you a hint: it's
>the same president that had Yasser Arafat (the guy controlling the on/off
>button to Hamas and Islamic Jihad) as a guest to the White House more
>than any other foreign leader.
Peace does require discussion.
Also Bush's warmongering ways are of benefit here. When it is like
"find a peaceful solution, or we will come and kick ass!". So peace in
that region of the World is speeding on nicely now.
I would even say that Bush could be more effective, but at least
former peace work made Palestine establish their own elected
government.
>That's right, William Jefferson Clinton! You could the case that Bush
>may have ignored warnings but the an was in the White House for less
>than 8 months when 9/11 happened. Bill Clinton had EIGHT YEARS of
>warning and did nothing!
You just have to blame the intelligence services in the end. Much
easier to take out fanatics before they cause serious events like WTC
9/11, but then the US did have that no assassination policy.
No easy solution to this, when the public is becoming better armed in
a type of urban warfare.
>>Therefore, these public bombings have increased directly due to Bush's
>>Warmongering ways.
>
>Bombings may have increased but not in the US.
Not yet.
If this US policy is of benefit in the longer term remains to be seen.
>We haven't been hit in over 3 years.
There were about 8 years between the two WTC attacks. Still, based on
Al-Qaeda history, then you are due another international attack around
now.
>You see if you'd clean out your ears once in a while
>you'd know that the point of the War on Terror is to fight the
>terrorists where THEY live.
Got Osama Bin Laden yet? And he is even nice enough to send you his
holiday snaps. :-]
>We're fighting them in Iraq now so we don't have to face them here
>at home.
There are no real terrorists in Iraq, where it is all about the
invasion and occupation of a country that does not like the US.
Certainly there are some fanatics there now, but removing the former
governmental control tends to do that, in an order to anarchy way.
Maybe you overlook that the people who were involved in the attack on
WTC 9/11 were people like Egyptians and Syrians.
So just how does blowing up parts of Iraq deal with terrorists who
have their homes in more friendly countries? Answer... It does not.
>>Since both Iran and North Korea are on Bush's "axis of evil"
>>(countries who don't like us) invasion list, then that is why both are
>>now working on nuclear technology. And if you remove Bush's threat,
>>then the reason to make nuclear bombs is now greatly reduced.
>
>>So all he is doing is stirring up more trouble for himself.
>
>More blaming Bush for messes that were already there.
Certainly these problems go much further, but as I mentioned above
Bush is very good in turning a more minor problem into a much worse
one.
Bush did create the "Axis of Evil" list, which these countries saw as
a direct threat. So it is not unreasonable to want to defend
themselves using the only technology that can stop the US.
In an odd way I can hope that they do get nuclear weapons, when maybe
even Bush will respect them more.
>- Iran, believe it or not, was America's ALLY in the Cold War until
>Jimminy ****in Carter decided to turn his back on the Shah (who was
>our friend) and the Ayatollah and radical Mullahs took over.
Certainly.
However, the whole religious cultural population in these various
countries are going through a social change. The US should certainly
not oppose these people simply redefining their existence.
Alas the more fanatic side is an offshoot of this.
>They've been a rogue state and sponsor of terror every since. Thank
>you to the appeasing left-wing peaceniks of the world!
The countries in the region do have a valid and understandable reason
to not liking Israel being forced on them. And certainly they
relocated and shot anyone upset about the loss of their home.
So the population fought back the only way that they knew how. The US
armed Israel to tackle this problem, where the locals now have a valid
reason to being annoyed with the US.
During WTC 9/11 some Palestinians certainly celebrated Osama Bin Laden
bringing some "sweet justice" to the US. Arafat knowing better to play
with fire soon quelled this public celebration.
So just what did the US do to these people to have them celebrate 3000
US and foreign citizens becoming human soup?
I am sure that the US not being constantly pro-Israel would go a long
way to make them more content.
> - North Korea: yet another failed attempt at appeasement. Do you
>know where North Korea got their nuclear reactors from by chance?
I just have to give this one a big :-]
>I'll give you a hint: they got them from a treaty with the US in 1994.
>That's right! It's Clinton again! Slick Willy and his Secretary of
>State, Madeline Albright signed a non-proliferation treaty giving them
>2 reactors to develop nuclear energy to give power to their people.
Ah well, but then the US has a long history of arming such people and
then having issues with those same arms later on.
Yes, Clinton is an idiot, but then Bush is still a warmonger.
>Kim Jong Il then decided to **** his people and turn that nuclear
>capability into 3 or 4 nukes. Way to go! Good job!
Well North Korea does not have nukes yet, when they would certainly
show to the World their first bomb going off if they did.
Seems like they are playing politics these days, when they will
abandon their nuke ideas if the US removes them from their "Axis of
Evil" list and pays them some compensation.
Also since producing electricity and nuclear weapons is a compatible
theme, then they should well be doing both at once.
>>>Like I said before, some want to tie our hands behind our backs and we
just
>>>sit there and get attacked.
>>
>>The only people that have been attacked include the US
>
>So 200 Russian school children being mowed down,
That was the Chechens. Well Russia knew what they were doing when they
refused this country independence.
All these natural resources are to blame, when Russia does not want to
give them up. And certainly the US has made comments along the line
that Russia is making a mistake.
So Russia is causing considerable grief to the Chechens, where now the
Russian children are paying for it. That is not the first event and
neither will it be the last.
During the USSR days Russia certainly did many bad things to their
satellite states, which is why most of them are now independent
countries.
You can pick your own name for these people. Terrorists, freedom
fighters, etc. All about insurgence.
One thing is for sure though. When no more Russian children would die
if Russia allowed Chechenia to be an independent country.
>a train being bombed in Spain,
That would be ETA.
I will quote their details...
Bask Separatist Movement (ETA) was founded by the militants who
separated from EKIN group, in 1962. They claim that they are fighting
for freedom of the Bask Region, in Spain. Since its beginning, the
leftist students of the University of Madrid formed guerrilla units.
Every unit is made of approximately 200 students. They adopt hit and
run tactic and they combat with the police. In fact, the aim of this
terrorist movement was to end Franco Regime in Spain and replace it
with a socialist system, but today it aims to separate Bask from Spain
and to establish a free state. The Spanish government has taken
serious measurements against terrorism in Bask and by bringing the
terrorist to justice, trailed them in military courts. Spanish
jurisprudence convicts the terrorists with major punishments.
So this is a far older problem and mostly a political one.
>and repeated attacks on Israel don't count?
Israel occupying large areas of land, including Jerusalem, certainly
makes them a valid target.
What you should understand here is that the Palestinians are in no
position to fight back against the US armed Israeli troops. They have
certainly tried before, where they have also died well.
Since rolling over and accepting occupation is not an option, then
they will fight back in the best way that they can. That unfortunate
answer is to kill innocent Israeli civilians.
You may also notice that these are suicide bombings. Since that does
not need to be the case, then they are obviously making a point.
When Israel leave the occupied lands, then maybe things will improve,
but we will have to see.
>>due to their
>>extremely biased and hostile view in the Middle East. No doubt the
>>others are caused by local unrest.
>
>So we get attacked, we retaliate, and WE'RE the hostiles?
If there was a single Iraqi in the WTC 9/11 attack then maybe this
would have some point.
As I said Afghanistan was fair enough. No doubt the only country
insane enough to host such terrorists.
>Do you work for the New Tork Times by any chance?
Not even on US soil.
If so many people say the same thing, then they must obviously have a
valid point.
>>It would be extremely hard to believe that the likes would happen in
>>places like France and Germany simply because they have not been going
>>around peeing people off.
>
>Or the fact that they're making back-alley deals with Saddam Hussein
>may also have something to do with it.
Being friendly can work wonders.
>>What is going on in Iraq is insurgence. The US are the invaders and
>>occupiers, where an increasing number of the population are now
>>fighting for their freedom.
>
>insurgence: n : an organized rebellion aimed at overthrowing a
>constituted government through the use of subversion and armed
>conflict
You have it.
>What's going on in Iraq is chaos being orchestrated by people who
>DON'T want a constituted government to be formed.
Iraq has a new government of US creation. The US has now mostly
collapsed the old system, which is why anarchy now rules.
They certainly want a government, but one of their own creation.
>Insurgence is people rebelling against THEIR government.
Iraq has a new government. And even the US troops can be considered
the civil authority.
So it is certainly insurgence.
>The Iraqis in the army now
>fighting at the US's side against the Batthists and Saddam loyalists
>are the insurgents. the guys etting off car bombs are TERRORISTS.
In your view.
Those people in Iraq are certainly doing so against clearly defined
targets, which explains your and our dead troops. So they are
certainly not doing so to bring terror to the general Iraqi society.
Yes they have attacked civilians, but only those ones showing active
sup****t from the US occupation.
So in my view they are not terrorists.
>>So this number of men, women and children is a biased estimate based
>>on who you ask.
>
>So NOW someone wants the number of Iraqi casualties counted.
It would be respectful to these innocent and dead people. Still, the
aid agencies I expect do well enough.
>But that didn't fit into John Kerry's "America is suffering 90% of the
>casualties" speech!
Utter Bollocks [tm]. The US troops are armed and trained a lot better
than the Iraqis are.
Part of this problem is when they disbanded the Iraqi Army and sent
them all home with their guns.
>Here's a stat for ya: In 1988 when the Kurds rose up against Saddam
>(BTW there is not a single US soldier in the Kurdish lands to the
>North. They absolutely love us there!)
Except that the US then never invaded as they hoped. And certainly
those in the Northern region have other political desires.
>Saddam gassed them
True enough I expect, even if the chain of command is unclear. Well
they tried to rebel, where Saddam quickly dealt with it.
His army was also stuck in Southern Iraq and Kuwait, usually in the
care of US troops.
>estimates put the number of dead in that one incident betweeen 50,000
>and 100,000.
Utter rubbish. Had so many people died, then the available photos
would have showed bodies piled high as a mountain.
Ask any good journalist what so many dead look like, when they have
certainly seen that many in other countries.
>Most of them, the women and children you're NOW suddenly
>so concerned about.
I never said that Saddam was a nice guy, it is just the Iraqi
population that I am concerned about.
The earlier that these invaders leave the better. The Iraqi people can
certainly decide for themselves their method of government.
>It's estimated that Saddam has killed bewteen 500,000 and 800,000
>people in the last 15 years or so.
More US false propaganda.
You will be starting to exceed the total number of funerals in Iraq
soon enough.
Had he really killed so many, then sure enough the US would be
unearthing such mass graves by the dozens. I won't even bother to ask
just where they are, when that would be a waste of time.
>Even if what everything you're
>saying is true about Bush's motives for this war, this mission, and
>the lives of the 1000+ American soldiers, at WORST was a humanitarian
>effort to stop the next 500,000 from dying.
You may not understand this, but most Iraqi civilians actually liked
Saddam. After all Saddam used his state controlled media services to
constantly remind them of how wonderful he is.
In their eyes he was their saviour and a hero of the Iran/Iraq War.
That is why in Saddam's last public vote over 98% of people voted for
him instead of his prime minister.
Sure Saddam would come down hard on anyone generally opposed to him,
but most people simply went on with their daily lives unmolested.
That is how a dictator****p works.
So saying that the US came to save them is just false US propaganda
told to make the US public believe that the Iraqi people will welcome
them with open arms.
In the end this goes to explain why over 1000 of the US's best armed
and trained troops are now dead. That is sure a lot of suffering
American families for a War that is very questionable.
>And for you liberal assholes
I am not a liberal.
Since you have just done an action that I call "classism" then I will
explain what has just happened.
As you seek to place me into a labeled and ordered class, and further
more one that you do not like, simply so that you can write off my
views off-hand.
Equally I could label you as another "blind propaganda believing
dumb-assed American", but instead I will listen to your views and
consider them fairly.
I will now expect like-wise.
>to demean that by insinuating that our
>efforts to relieve that killing and suffering are the root CAUSE of
>the Iraqi people's suffering and pain ABSOLUTELY SICKENS me!
Let me spell this out clearly.
YOU are the invaders.
YOU are the occupiers.
YOU are the enemy of the average Iraqi citizen.
Had the Iraqi people actually liked you, then they would have helped
you weed out Saddam's sup****ters for you. The whole of Saddam's regime
would have been taken down within a week or two, where a replacement
government would be in place and the US troops would be gone in no
time.
Since you are still being attacked even now, then the number of
enemies is larger than you believe. Sure your average Iraqi citizen
would not go US troop hunting, but clearly enough do.
So don't try fooling yourself that you are their glorious saviours,
come to hand out lollipops to the Iraqi children, when this is
certainly not the case.
You want Iraq to have a democratic system. Did you even do the
democratic thing of even asking the people of Iraq if they want a
democratic system? No...
>>No WMDs.
>
>"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military
>and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their
>mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons
>programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors...
Politicians are good liars. And the Iraqis were firing their missiles
at US planes. So he bombed all their places of annoyance and picked a
good excuse for doing so.
>"if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away
>with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by
>the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he
>has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday --
>make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past. "
>- Bill Clinton, December 16, 1998
Yes, all those WMDs provided by the US to fight the communist backed
Iran. Must give a nice warm feeling to think that he later used one
"Made in Texas" WMD on his own problem civilians.
All well and good to label Saddam as the nut who gassed his own
people, but then what kind of person gives a loaded gun to a chimp?
To make this mistake once is human. To do it again and again is the
work of morons.
So just maybe as a collective country you should look in the mirror
for that "Axis of Evil" before starting to lay your moral values on
others.
>>No Al-Qaeda.
>
>"Terrorists are pouring over the border into Iraq every day"
>- John Kerry, 1st Presidential debate.
Politicians also like to play on public paranoia.
Still, it is true enough to say that there are people in the region
who would come to Iraq for US troop hunting season.
>>Not even an Iraqi took part in WTC 9/11.
>
>And Germany and Italy didn't attack us on December 7, 1941 either.
>But FDR knew he had to fight fascism wherever it was
The German's did sink some of your ****ps, which were supply ****ps
operating between the US and UK. That is why the US finally entered
WWII.
And certainly the US would have seen many reasons to sup****t the UK,
when they did not sup****t the actions of Nazi Germany.
>and George Bush knows we have to fight to fight terrorists and state
>sponsors of terror.
All well and nice, but it is simply not that clear cut.
So just when is the US going to move into Palestine and to free these
occupied lands from the Israelis? That after all is the root cause of
these problems in the region.
Or would the US then fear the now well armed Israel?
And so it is always a vicious circle for the US. They create their own
problems that they have to later sort out.
>I know Iran and North Korea are bigger threats
Iran is just a religious based dictator****p. The population usually
wish for more freedom, but it is not such a bad place.
I just wish they would change their view towards public owner****p of
satellite reception equipment, but then dictator****ps do seek to
maintain control though the state media services.
>but Clinton argued that point quite well also:
>
>"Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic
>missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them.
>Not once, but repeatedly."
>- Bill Clinton, December 16, 1998
True enough.
The US is not one to lead by example. Kind of an odd view to moan
about the sticks and stone of others when the US has very considerable
stocks of WMDs.
And they have used them... repeatedly.
Owning WMDs does not make you bad. Even using them does not make you
bad. How you use them does.
That is why I can say that Saddam was indeed very wrong to gas his own
population.
>If people like Cardman here are the "allies" we need to have on our
>side, who needs enemies?
I am just the voice of you moral conscious.
And I certainly sup****t our troops there, who often deal with the
Iraqi population in a fair way. However, I know that what is best for
our troops is when they leave Iraq.
>We should have left Europe in the heap it
>was after WWII and made them rebuild their damn selves.
We can only thank you for that. After all considerable numbers of
people died following WWII due to disease, in fact more than those who
dead in the fighting.
Still, a better option than having a United Nazi Europe right now is
it not? As you can just imagine such a technologically advanced nation
becoming a superpower directly opposed to the likes of the US.
Cardman
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk
|
