# What Senator John Glenn Said



## ZECH (Sep 30, 2005)

WHAT SENATOR JOHN GLENN SAID : 

Things that make you think a little:
There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January.
In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the
month of January. That's just one American city,
about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq.

When some claim that President Bush shouldn't
have started this war, state the following:

a.  FDR led us into World War II.

b. Germany never attacked us; Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ...
an  average of 112,500 per year.

c. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea.
North Korea never attacked us.
From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost ..
an average of 18,334 per year.

d. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attacked us.


e.   Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ..
an average of 5,800 per year.

f. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.
Bosnia never attacked us.
He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three
times by Sudan and did nothing.  Osama has attacked us on
multiple occasions.

g. In the years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush
has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled
al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and North
Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who
slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

The Democrats are complaining
about how long the war is taking.
But ..
It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno
to take the Branch Davidian compound.
That was a 51-day operation.

We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons 
in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find
the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the
Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard
than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his
Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick

It took less time to take Iraq than it took
to count the votes in Florida!!!!

Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB!
The Military morale is high!

The biased media hopes we are too ignorant
to realize the facts.

But Wait.  There's more!

JOHN GLENN (ON THE SENATE FLOOR)
Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:13

Some people still don't understand why military personnel
do what they do for a living.  This exchange between
Senators John Glenn and Senator Howard Metzenbaum
is worth reading.  Not only is it a pretty impressive
impromptu speech, but it's also a good example of one
man's explanation of why men and women in the armed
services do what they do for a living.

This IS a typical, though sad, example of what
some who have never served think of the military.

Senator Metzenbaum (speaking to Senator Glenn):
"How can you run for Senate
when you've never held a real job?"

Senator Glenn (D-Ohio):
"I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps.
I served through two wars.  I flew 149 missions.
My plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire on 12 different
occasions.  I was in the space program.  It wasn't my
checkbook, Howard, it was my life on the line.  It was
not a nine-to-five job, where I took my tie off to take the
daily cash receipts to the bank."

"I ask you to go with me .. as I went the other day...
to a veterans' hospital and look those men ...
with their mangled bodies in the eye, and tell THEM
they didn't hold a job!

You go with me to the Space Program at NASA and go, 
as I have gone, to the widows and orphans
of Ed White, Gus Grissom, and Roger Chaffee...
and you look those kids in the eye and tell them
that their DADS didn't hold a job.

You go with me on Memorial Day, and you stand in
Arlington National Cemetery, where I have more friends
buried than I'd like to remember, and you watch
those waving flags

You stand there, and you think about this nation, 
and you tell ME that those people didn't have a job?

What about you?" 

For those who don't remember .
During W.W.II, Howard Metzenbaum was an attorney
representing the Communist Party in the USA.

Now he's a Senator!

If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you are reading it in English thank a Veteran.


----------



## busyLivin (Sep 30, 2005)

Good Read!


----------



## Decker (Sep 30, 2005)

dg806 said:
			
		

> WHAT SENATOR JOHN GLENN SAID :
> 
> Things that make you think a little:
> There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January.
> ...


 Ridiculous analogy???it breaks down immediately???comparing the unnecessary deaths as a result of an illegal invasion w/ customary homicide rates of a large city might fly with those listening to the EIB but not in real life. See, those deaths in Iraq aren???t that bad, why it happens all the time in the US. Nauseating.


			
				dg806 said:
			
		

> When some claim that President Bush shouldn't
> have started this war, state the following:
> 
> a. FDR led us into World War II.
> ...


These statements present examples so dissimilar (not to mention factually inaccurate) from the Iraq invasion that the only commonality is the US armed forces. World War II and Iraq? Right. Germany declared war on the US after the Pearl Harbor attack. Germany had a nonaggression pact w/ its ally Japan.

Korea: The lives weren???t lost, they were taken brutally. Truman initiated the police action under UN authority. Bush???s invasion of Iraq flouted UN consent.

Viet Nam: Eisenhower started opposition to the Geneva Accords and Kennedy buttressed that position by sending more advisors and military/economic aid to Viet Nam.

Johnson really fucked up by continuing a horrible foreign war. Bush started the Iraq invasion.

Clinton???s bombing of Bosnia was a US led NATO mission and one I also did not agree with. Please stop w/ the Bin Laden Head on a Platter stories. It is pure propaganda and embarrassing. 

As for entry g., I won???t quibble about pie-in-the sky spin.



			
				dg806 said:
			
		

> The Democrats are complaining
> about how long the war is taking.
> But ..
> It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno
> ...


The Branch Davidian attack was a brutal unconstitutional use of gov. force. There should have been many criminal indictments.

Clinton and Rose Law firm???irrelevant. 

The rest of the list is more nonsense that plays to ideologues. Bush is not a competent president. If this tour-de-force posting of yours is the best you got, the media may be right. No offense.


----------



## Rich46yo (Sep 30, 2005)

Sounds like he's right on every point. The media is biased!

                         Your talking about a guy who flew 149 combat missions in both WW-ll and Korea. AND won 6 Distinguished Flying Crosses. AND after all that volunteered to ride rockets into space.

                         Think he's earned the right to have an opinion?........Uncle Rich


----------



## Decker (Sep 30, 2005)

Rich46yo said:
			
		

> Sounds like he's right on every point. The media is biased!
> 
> Your talking about a guy who flew 149 combat missions in both WW-ll and Korea. AND won 6 Distinguished Flying Crosses. AND after all that volunteered to ride rockets into space.
> 
> Think he's earned the right to have an opinion?........Uncle Rich


No, if Glenn did draw these historical comparisons, he is dead wrong.
Please refute the points I make.  He is inept with his use of historical comparisons and I am not.

I find it hard to believe he made those historical comments attributed to him.  If so, then he has fallen far.


----------



## kbm8795 (Sep 30, 2005)

In this nation, you don't "earn" the right to an opinion by flying combat missions - if that was the case, nearly every member of the current Administration would have their mouths gagged and be forbidden from ever opening them.  

This endless nonsense of flagwaving to coverup our bureaucratic fuckups is about the lowest display of all of the reasons this nations continues its downward spiral despite having the chickenhawk party in control. The military's first and foremost responsibility is to protect the citizens of the United States - yet they sat off the Gulf Coast in the aftermath of one of the worst natural disasters in our history twiddling their thumbs while waiting for a President to finish eating a piece of cake. When tiny nations like El Salvador can offer their own troops to help an American city before our own federal government can muster assistance, it is rather difficult to believe that we are going to quickly subdue an insurrection in an invaded country overseas.

For all the touting of the GOP support for our troops, their families are STILL buying extra equipment and body armor for our own soldiers and the Pentagon is still dragging its feet on reimbursing them. If you want to glorify the military, give them the best equipment.

Republicans are all about lip service to symbolism. . .and have shown little substance when the crap hits the fan. Their entire governing philosophy is to never take responsibility for anything that goes wrong, never admit making a mistake, and a shameless attitude of claiming anyone who offers a criticism is suddenly unpatriotic. Glorifying a system that involves dictation of orders is more symptomatic of the Right's love affair with forced order and discipline within society than a tribute to those who sacrifice for freedom. Why would anyone believe that the very political party that drives its agenda on the basis of restricting liberty at home would celebrate our own soldiers as defenders of that freedom? 

Senator Glenn doesn't need any hero worship - his life was well taken care of by the taxpayers. Maybe we should be thanking the estimated one million gay veterans who sacrificed their own identities to defend the "freedom" the rest of us have lest they join the ranks of those who were given dishonorable discharges and no benefits for their outed service.


----------



## kbm8795 (Sep 30, 2005)

Rich46yo said:
			
		

> Sounds like he's right on every point. The media is biased!



Right wing translation of biased = not reproducing every Republican government press release as gospel.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 30, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> No, if Glenn did draw these historical comparisons, he is dead wrong.


 You know what's funny, how the Angry Left feels it's OK to make comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam, but not WW2.

 Interesting...


----------



## DOMS (Sep 30, 2005)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Right wing translation of biased = not reproducing every Republican government press release as gospel.


 And what does the Angry Left consider unbaised?  The New York Times?

 hahahahahahaha...


----------



## Rob_NC (Sep 30, 2005)

If Decker is as smart as he portrays himself to be,,, then why is he wasting his time on IM when he obviously should have more constructive things to do?


----------



## kbm8795 (Sep 30, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> And what does the Angry Left consider unbaised?  The New York Times?
> 
> hahahahahahaha...


----------



## Rob_NC (Sep 30, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> And what does the Angry Left consider unbaised?  The New York Times?
> 
> hahahahahahaha...




CNN and MSNBC


----------



## DOMS (Sep 30, 2005)

Rob_NC said:
			
		

> If Decker is as smart as he portrays himself to be,,, then why is he wasting his time on IM when he obviously should have more constructive things to do?


 Yes, he is that intelligent.  He's one of the few people on IM that can carry on a good debate. I've even acquiesced on a topic or two with him.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 30, 2005)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

>


 Why don't you stop posting just dumb-ass emoticons and tell me what you think an unbiased new source is?

 This should be good for a few laughs.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Sep 30, 2005)

dg806 said:
			
		

> WHAT SENATOR JOHN GLENN SAID :
> 
> Things that make you think a little:
> There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January.
> ...




All this tells me is we should be fixing ourselves before fixing other countries.  Let the Arabs blow each other up.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 30, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> dg806 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Decker (Sep 30, 2005)

In WWII, the writing was on the wall as to Hitler's aspirations for world domination--conquering most of Europe. The US population was largely isolationist just years removed from WWI. FDR recognized that the US had to be a player in the war or risk overwhelming enemy forces down the road. So he goaded the Japanese into attacking the US by implementing an oil embargo of Japan. Hitler knew this and wasted no time in declaring war on the US after the US declared war on Japan. The whole world was up for grabs. I really don't see how the invasion of a defenseless Iraq is any way comparable to WWII.

The Viet Nam war was initiated on the premise of the Domino Theory for the spread of communism. That theory has few credible supporters anymore. But in comparing Viet Nam war w/ the Iraqi invasion, I'd say its a matter of misguided policy and inept execution that binds the two. Both military excursions were 'cold wars' fought for purposes other than defense of our country. Whatever speculations I might entertain, I think it's fair to say that the comparison btn Iraq and Viet nam is more apt than that of WWII.


----------



## Rob_NC (Sep 30, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> The Voice of Reason.




You see, there are other intelligent people on this board. Decker hasn't offered an alternative to reality, just an explanation.


----------



## Decker (Sep 30, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> Yes, he is that intelligent. He's one of the few people on IM that can carry on a good debate. I've even acquiesced on a topic or two with him.


Thanks.  I enjoy our debates immensely.


----------



## Decker (Sep 30, 2005)

Rob_NC said:
			
		

> If Decker is as smart as he portrays himself to be,,, then why is he wasting his time on IM when he obviously should have more constructive things to do?


I find these boards to be a great diversion. I am a partner in a business, I have a wife, I play guitar, write/record/publish (try to at least) songs and I lift weights. I read about 2-3 books a week and 3-5 newspapers a day. That's alot on my plate.

And to answer your question pal, why do I do it?...I think that there are people out there intentionally misleading the public and exposing them is a worthwhile job. I love humanity, it's people that I just can't stand.


----------



## maxpro2 (Sep 30, 2005)

Decker, thank you for being intelligent and not making me type out long responses   

That stuff Glenn said is the stupidest shit I have ever read, especially concerning WWII.


----------



## kbm8795 (Sep 30, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> Why don't you stop posting just dumb-ass emoticons and tell me what you think an unbiased new source is?
> 
> This should be good for a few laughs.



Since you are obviously a self-appointed expert on the subject of agendasetting, gatekeeping and media ownership/influence, what could anyone possibly share about the complexities of these relationships that you already don't know?


----------



## Decker (Sep 30, 2005)

MWpro said:
			
		

> Decker, thank you for being intelligent and not making me type out long responses
> 
> That stuff Glenn said is the stupidest shit I have ever read, especially concerning WWII.


Thank you.  I still find it difficult to believe that John Glenn actually said that stuff.  I mean a cursory search of the assertions he avers shows that he's pulling these 'facts' straight out of the Department of His Ass.  (I don't know where I heard that joke).


----------



## kbm8795 (Sep 30, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> In WWII, the writing was on the wall as to Hitler's aspirations for world domination--conquering most of Europe. The US population was largely isolationist just years removed from WWI. FDR recognized that the US had to be a player in the war or risk overwhelming enemy forces down the road. So he goaded the Japanese into attacking the US by implementing an oil embargo of Japan. Hitler knew this and wasted no time in declaring war on the US after the US declared war on Japan. The whole world was up for grabs. I really don't see how the invasion of a defenseless Iraq is any way comparable to WWII.
> 
> The Viet Nam war was initiated on the premise of the Domino Theory for the spread of communism. That theory has few credible supporters anymore. But in comparing Viet Nam war w/ the Iraqi invasion, I'd say its a matter of misguided policy and inept execution that binds the two. Both military excursions were 'cold wars' fought for purposes other than defense of our country. Whatever speculations I might entertain, I think it's fair to say that the comparison btn Iraq and Viet nam is more apt than that of WWII.



Exactly. And when Republicans attempt to make this WWII comparison, they always seem to forget how strongly the Party campaigned on an isolationist platform. 

In VietNam, we attempted to use our paranoia over containment of communism to fill the void left by the French defeat in IndoChina - something that could have been avoided when Ho Chi Minh appealed to the United States to support their independence movement from the French at the end of World War II. Unfortunately, we had already promised France the return of their colony. That drove Ho toward the Communist camp following the War. 

Then we basically deserted the French during the independence war for Indochina, though we sent them supplies and some armaments. Eisenhower ruled out direct U.S. military intervention to save France and refused requests to use the atomic bomb to rescue them.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 30, 2005)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Since you are obviously a self-appointed expert on the subject of agendasetting, gatekeeping and media ownership/influence, what could anyone possibly share about the complexities of these relationships that you already don't know?


 Nice dodge...wait, no it was pretty lame.  Do you honest think that there is even one major new source that doesn't put the quest for the almighty buck first?  Even at the cost of integrity?  Not to mention political agendas.

 Hell, Reuters had a piece on how the traffic of drugs into the US was on the rise despite an increased effort to stop it.  The story broke to down to the fact that the US border patrol has stepped up searches and that the number of arrests had jumped nearly 50%, thus indicating that drug trafficking into the US had jumped 50% even though the border patrol had stepped up searches.

 This is unbiased news?  Who knows, maybe it is unbiased and they're just fucking idiots.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Sep 30, 2005)

The media is biased when they don't agree with a person's own beliefs.

The GOP was bitching about the liberal media about the coverage of the war and the Dems kept quiet.  Then, the media shows a Pro-war demonstration and the liberals get all pissed about the biased media and the GOP clams up.

People, the media is biased, but not to a political affiliation, they are biased towards printing interesting stuff.  A pro war demonstration is rare, that is why they printed it. Who cares if 100,000 people showed up to an anti-war demonstration, that shit happens every day.  If you are going to publish something every time an anti-war protest goes on, you might as well publish the sky is blue every day.  It doesn't matter that there were only a few hundred in attendance, the fact that they had vets of the war backing it is interesting stuff.

Now the coverage of the war, well, that war was just one big fuck up anyway so you would expect negative coverage.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 30, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> The media is biased when they don't agree with a person's own beliefs.


  Simply put Dale, there are no unbiased major new source.  Period. 

  Political views (group or national) and the quest for money have tainted them all.


----------



## GFR (Sep 30, 2005)

Great post...it shows us that* both party's* have involved this potentially great Country in *illegal and immoral wars*....the only exceptions being WW1 and WW2 which were both wars we had to join.


----------



## kbm8795 (Sep 30, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> Nice dodge...wait, no it was pretty lame.  Do you honest think that there is even one major new source that doesn't put the quest for the almighty buck first?  Even at the cost of integrity?  Not to mention political agendas.
> 
> Hell, Reuters had a piece on how the traffic of drugs into the US was on the rise despite an increased effort to stop it.  The story broke to down to the fact that the US border patrol has stepped up searches and that the number of arrests had jumped nearly 50%, thus indicating that drug trafficking into the US had jumped 50% even though the border patrol had stepped up searches.
> 
> This is unbiased news?  Who knows, maybe it is unbiased and they're just fucking idiots.



There's nothing to dodge. What is lame is your inability to really produce anything other than your own untrained analysis which typically reflects the right wing's inability to accept responsibility for their own interpretation of information.


----------



## kbm8795 (Sep 30, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> Simply put Dale, there are no unbiased major new source.  Period.
> 
> Political views (group or national) and the quest for money have tainted them all.



With that commitment to idealism, it is no wonder that conservatives who whine about the "liberal" media end up doing nothing more than reproducing media in their own version of reality. . .and then wonder why they are considered hypocrites. 

What few government regulations were in effect to promote fairness in media were replaced by a Republican-sponsored doctrine to mold it more into a market-driven product. Then they faux-bitch about the results of their own policies. The commitment was to intentionally assault the credibility of media -something that is necessary if the goal is to turn a nation into a tool of the Party elite.


----------



## ZECH (Sep 30, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> So he goaded the Japanese into attacking the US by implementing an oil embargo of Japan. Hitler knew this and wasted no time in declaring war on the US after the US declared war on Japan. The whole world was up for grabs. I really don't see how the invasion of a defenseless Iraq is any way comparable to WWII.


Hmmm, 
Japan=war over oil
Iraq=war over oil(according to liberals)
Looks the same to me. Any superpower has to have the natural resources available to them to stay at the top. Weather we have it or it is supplied to us. Thus is the case in Iraq. Terroists were using the whole area(middle east) as training camps and were taking over countries. The US needed to put some stability back into the area to keep the world ecomony strong. Democracy is the way to do that.
It is the strong that survives. It's been that way since the beginning of time and will never change.


----------



## GFR (Sep 30, 2005)

dg806 said:
			
		

> Hmmm,
> Japan=war over oil
> Iraq=war over oil(according to liberals)
> Looks the same to me. Any superpower has to have the natural resources available to them to stay at the top. Weather we have it or it is supplied to us. Thus is the case in Iraq. Terroists were using the whole area(middle east) as training camps and were taking over countries. The US needed to put some stability back into the area to keep the world ecomony strong. Democracy is the way to do that.
> It is the strong that survives. It's been that way since the beginning of time and will never change.


I agree with this insightful logic...I for one have to say that the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Iraq air force was disgusting and clearly an act of war.

Great post dg806


----------



## Decker (Sep 30, 2005)

dg806 said:
			
		

> Hmmm,
> Japan=war over oil
> Iraq=war over oil(according to liberals)
> Looks the same to me. Any superpower has to have the natural resources available to them to stay at the top. Weather we have it or it is supplied to us. Thus is the case in Iraq. Terroists were using the whole area(middle east) as training camps and were taking over countries. The US needed to put some stability back into the area to keep the world ecomony strong. Democracy is the way to do that.
> It is the strong that survives. It's been that way since the beginning of time and will never change.


FDR deprived the Japanese of vital access to oil. Of the range of reasons GWB invaded Iraq, access to Iraq's oil fields is quite different. Only in the most oblique sense are the 2 similar.

The terrorists that attacked the US were not trained in the middle east, they were trained on american soil. Al Qaeda was trained by our own CIA. So the organization that sent these terrorists to the US for flight school was, by-and-large, a product of our government.

Democracy does not guarantee stability. What if the democratically elected leaders turn out coincidentally to support Al Qaeda? Democracy is a type of government giving voice to all citizens....that's all it can do theoretically. The hatred of foreign intervention by middleeastern countries goes back centuries, the hatred of the US goes back decades, the different ethnic tribes in the middle east have feuds going back hundreds of years. How on earth is a democracy going to change any of that?


----------



## brogers (Sep 30, 2005)

There is no comparison between Iraq and WWII, whatsoever.  If it was remotely similar, our generals would have had the balls to just obliterate the cities with all this bullshit going on.  If they were nice they'd surround the city and give people 72 hours to get out, and pick up all the terrorists that are trying to leave, then decimate it.  If they were actual WWII generals, they'd simply bomb it to oblivion and the problem is solved (for the most part).  

Quite simply, here in America we are too scared of other people's opinions, we fear political backlash more than losing the war, and that is dangerous, especially to our soldiers on the ground.  We have the best weapons technology in the world and yet we don't use it.


----------



## lnvanry (Sep 30, 2005)

Rob_NC said:
			
		

> CNN and MSNBC


 CNN maybe....NBC you got to be fucking kidding me.  All of the big three network are left...not leaning left but walking left


----------



## lnvanry (Sep 30, 2005)

dg806 said:
			
		

> Hmmm,
> Japan=war over oil
> Iraq=war over oil(according to liberals)
> Looks the same to me. Any superpower has to have the natural resources available to them to stay at the top. Weather we have it or it is supplied to us. Thus is the case in Iraq. Terroists were using the whole area(middle east) as training camps and were taking over countries. The US needed to put some stability back into the area to keep the world ecomony strong. Democracy is the way to do that.
> It is the strong that survives. It's been that way since the beginning of time and will never change.


 I defintely agree with this statement.  We NEED this resource, but if we really went of to IRAQ for oil, according to libs, why are we paying so much for fucking gas...  I know the whole supply logic, but lets get those kurds and shi'ites to start pumping that stuff over our way.  Those two groups finally have some representation in their gov't, b/c of us.  Can they return the favor?


----------



## maniclion (Sep 30, 2005)

brogers said:
			
		

> There is no comparison between Iraq and WWII, whatsoever. If it was remotely similar, our generals would have had the balls to just obliterate the cities with all this bullshit going on. *If they were nice they'd surround the city and give people 72 hours to get out, and pick up all the terrorists that are trying to leave, then decimate it.* If they were actual WWII generals, they'd simply bomb it to oblivion and the problem is solved (for the most part).


Yeah cause it's easy to pick out a "uniformed" terrorist in a crowd of people that's why we don't have to check everyone at the airport cause they stick out like neon signs.  And people won't get angry and want revenge if we decimate their homes, no just like a whole race centuries later aren't still bitter about being enslaved.


----------



## brogers (Sep 30, 2005)

It's called war maniclion, someone has to be destroyed in order for there to be victory.  Either destroy the enemy, or don't start the war.


----------



## maniclion (Sep 30, 2005)

It's called our boys shouldn't be policing a civil war.  It's hard to tell if the lady running at you from the blast of a car bomb screaming is a friend or foe so you pop her in the head only to find out from the embedded journalist who speaks Arabic she was yelling for help with her child pinned under the rubble.


----------



## Decker (Sep 30, 2005)

brogers said:
			
		

> It's called war maniclion, someone has to be destroyed in order for there to be victory. Either destroy the enemy, or don't start the war.


We started the illegal war...Iraq did not. Either we are a country that honors the law or we are not. Illegally attacking another country for oil, or est. strategic military bases, or to bring democracy to the middle east is still an illegal act. Mass murder don't help either. All war is a crime, but some wars are justified. This invasion is not. We are a country founded upon law and we should aspire to follow the law. Arbitrary compliance is anarchy.


----------



## ZECH (Sep 30, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> Democracy does not guarantee stability. What if the democratically elected leaders turn out coincidentally to support Al Qaeda? Democracy is a type of government giving voice to all citizens....that's all it can do theoretically. The hatred of foreign intervention by middleeastern countries goes back centuries, the hatred of the US goes back decades, the different ethnic tribes in the middle east have feuds going back hundreds of years. How on earth is a democracy going to change any of that?


Ok, I'll rephrase it. Maybe it doesn't guarantee it, but it has a darn better chance than anything they have to offer. If they get to be too many "of them" here, I guess its time for the militias to step up! When it comes to the survival of the USA, don't be fooled. We will do whatever it takes to stay on top. If that means taking over Iraq, Iran, Saudia Arabia or whoever, don't think it couldn't happen. We need to be like Australia. "We won't adapt to your ways. If you don't like our ways, go back!"


----------



## DOMS (Sep 30, 2005)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> There's nothing to dodge. What is lame is your inability to really produce anything other than your own untrained analysis which typically reflects the right wing's inability to accept responsibility for their own interpretation of information.


  And I'm supposed to find an unbiased, official, study on whether or not the news is unbiased?

  Ha...hahah...hahah.hahahahahahaha...bwahahahaahaa...

  You're funny.

  Now try and answer the question: which major new sources are not biased.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 30, 2005)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> With that commitment to idealism, it is no wonder that conservatives who whine about the "liberal" media end up doing nothing more than reproducing media in their own version of reality. . .and then wonder why they are considered hypocrites.
> 
> What few government regulations were in effect to promote fairness in media were replaced by a Republican-sponsored doctrine to mold it more into a market-driven product. Then they faux-bitch about the results of their own policies. The commitment was to intentionally assault the credibility of media -something that is necessary if the goal is to turn a nation into a tool of the Party elite.


 Who said anything about the "liberal media"?  I just said that all major new sources were biased.  The you go off on one of your standard Angry Left rants and I'm supposed to be the one regurgitating someone else's point of view?

 Pathetic.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 30, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Great post...it shows us that* both party's* have involved this potentially great Country in *illegal and immoral wars*....the only exceptions being WW1 and WW2 which were both wars we had to join.


 I almost missed this.  You and I are *agreeing *on something?  

 I'm pretty sure that one of the signs of the End of Time.


----------



## bio-chem (Sep 30, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> In WWII, the writing was on the wall as to Hitler's aspirations for world domination--conquering most of Europe. The US population was largely isolationist just years removed from WWI. FDR recognized that the US had to be a player in the war or risk overwhelming enemy forces down the road. So he goaded the Japanese into attacking the US by implementing an oil embargo of Japan. Hitler knew this and wasted no time in declaring war on the US after the US declared war on Japan. The whole world was up for grabs. I really don't see how the invasion of a defenseless Iraq is any way comparable to WWII.
> 
> The Viet Nam war was initiated on the premise of the Domino Theory for the spread of communism. That theory has few credible supporters anymore. But in comparing Viet Nam war w/ the Iraqi invasion, I'd say its a matter of misguided policy and inept execution that binds the two. Both military excursions were 'cold wars' fought for purposes other than defense of our country. Whatever speculations I might entertain, I think it's fair to say that the comparison btn Iraq and Viet nam is more apt than that of WWII.


the invasion of defenseless iraq? are you serious?  this can't possisbly be a serious post. is it? you are talking about a country that was left with a standing military at the end of the gulf war. they had what? 30 divisions defending their borders when we invaded with 3.  the country that used chemical weapons to kill 8 million of its ethinic citizens and fought neighboring iran to a stand still for 8 years in the 80's. the country that invaded and took over its smaller and weaker neighbor kuwait in the 90's. yep sounds defenseless to me.  to even post with anything stating that iraq was defenseless and has had its rights trampled on by the US is an outrage. and borders on stupidity.  

if you agree with the war in iraq or not is fine and i dont have any problem with those who disagree with my opionion. i love to read healthy and intelligent debates, but how can we have a post with the point of view showing iraq was a poor defenseless country that had done nothing wrong and didnt deserve the big, bad US coming in and trampling their rights is asinine.  the fact is sadam hussien and his government were evil. now if you feel we should have continued using useless diplomatic solutions with them is another story, but please dont disgrace our soldiers by insinuating we are picking on a helpless country and forcing our will upon them. that simply is not the case


----------



## Rich46yo (Sep 30, 2005)

The Iraq war was not illegal. Saddam violated the original cease fire agreement, and then numerous UN declarations, so many times it almost impossable to keep count. Just because the Politicized UN is incapable of enforcing world peace and backing up its lawfull orders doesnt mean we are doing anything illegal by doing so. The first time Saddam violated the cease fire agree ment we had lawfull authority to go in and put his head on a spike. I think the last count was he violated 19 UN resolutions. What a joke!

                             Instead we sat around for ten years while Saddam fucked with the inspectors, played a shell game with his WMD assets, shot at allied warplanes policeing the no-fly zone, and thumbed his nose at the International cummunity. He bought off the pimps at the United Nations with sweetheart oil deals and other cash cows. The International media was easy. All he had to do was let them be themsleves.

                           My only regret was we werent ruthless enough. Anybody suspected of terrorism should get one trial in front of a military tribunal and if found guilty hung by the neck the next day. Fuck world opinion!


----------



## kbm8795 (Sep 30, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> And I'm supposed to find an unbiased, official, study on whether or not the news is unbiased?
> 
> Ha...hahah...hahah.hahahahahahaha...bwahahahaahaa...
> 
> ...



Don't ask other people to do your homework.


----------



## kbm8795 (Sep 30, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> Who said anything about the "liberal media"?  I just said that all major new sources were biased.  The you go off on one of your standard Angry Left rants and I'm supposed to be the one regurgitating someone else's point of view?
> 
> Pathetic.



That was hardly an "Angry Left" rant. Wingnuts still struggle with the concept that others prefer to think for themselves; in their parallel universe, everything is simply black-or-white, with-us-or-against-us. That provides little foundation for grasping anything outside such rigid boxes. 

You made a statement based on little substance or real knowledge of the history or influences of American media, nor any reference to Republican policies which have encouraged the growth of competitive media practices. It also doesn't consider the inherent biases within the audience itself. 

The concept of "bias" has become a popular wingnut talking point when trying to defend their often deliberate deflection in reporting the news. Then they use the bias argument to explain that media is all junk anyway, and it really has little credibility because, like themselves, it is full of inherent bias. The goal remains to reduce public confidence in the media in order to remove any status of function as a watchdog for the public. 

You might start by developing an understanding of the differences in defining bias within the media and the safeguards formerly constructed to minimize that influence. Those would be the very safeguards that Republicans desperately fight to keep removed.


----------



## Mudge (Sep 30, 2005)

dg806 said:
			
		

> For those who don't remember .
> During W.W.II, Howard Metzenbaum was an attorney
> representing the Communist Party in the USA.



And man is he an idiot, he asked for it HARDCORE.


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Sep 30, 2005)

Good posts and rebuttals! I'm learning alot about history and government
that I don't learn in social studies class.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 30, 2005)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Don't ask other people to do your homework.


 Just as I thought, you can't name one and are trying to back out.  

 Fucking pathetic.  

 I stand by what I said: there are no unbiased major news sources.  Either political or financial agendas prevent that.

 And no, the voices in your head don't count as a major news source.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 30, 2005)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Those would be the very safeguards that Republicans desperately fight to keep removed.


 And again, your Angry Left mentality leaks out.  And let me guess,  if the source is against the current administration, they're just enacting those safeguards, but if the source is in favor of the current administration it's being biased.

 One more time: utterly-fucking-pathetic.

 As a conservative, I state that you can't find a source that's not biased. As a member of the Angry Left, you seem to imply that there are unbiased sources, but can't name any.

 You can end this debate right now by naming just one source, but you can't because there are none, but you must cling to the idea that the New York Times or the Washington Post are saying like it is, completely unbiased.  

 Whatever makes you feel better.


----------



## GFR (Sep 30, 2005)

myCATpowerlifts said:
			
		

> Good posts and rebuttals! I'm learning alot about history and government
> that I don't learn in social studies class.


Try reading a book sometime


----------



## bio-chem (Sep 30, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I agree with this insightful logic...I for one have to say that the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Iraq air force was disgusting and clearly an act of war.
> 
> Great post dg806


iraq attacked pearl harbor and you still think our war with them is illegal


----------



## kbm8795 (Sep 30, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> Just as I thought, you can't name one and are trying to back out.
> 
> Fucking pathetic.
> 
> ...




Yawn. What is pathetic is that you can't quite understand that your own political agenda prevents you from always identifying bias as an original intent.


----------



## kbm8795 (Sep 30, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> And again, your Angry Left mentality leaks out.  And let me guess,  if the source is against the current administration, they're just enacting those safeguards, but if the source is in favor of the current administration it's being biased.
> 
> _*Guessing usually isn't a component of accuracy*._
> 
> ...



I feel just fine, thanks.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Sep 30, 2005)

*dg308:*

This is rationalization at its finest.

1.  Rationalizing the homicide rate of Detroit with Iraq.  

Apples and oranges.


2.  Comparing Iraq with WWII is shameful.

There is no comparison.


----------



## maniclion (Oct 1, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> And again, your Angry Left mentality leaks out. And let me guess, if the source is against the current administration, they're just enacting those safeguards, but if the source is in favor of the current administration it's being biased.
> 
> One more time: utterly-fucking-pathetic.
> 
> ...


These sources are unbiased.

ftp://216.54.96.55/pub/doc_013.pdf
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=2&page=pdf#
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/foia.html


 Bias can only be undone through pure realization, not interpretation.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 1, 2005)

maniclion said:
			
		

> These sources are unbiased.
> 
> ftp://216.54.96.55/pub/doc_013.pdf
> http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=2&page=pdf#
> ...


 And none of them are major news sources.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 1, 2005)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> I feel just fine, thanks.


 
 I'm sure you do.

   OK, let's try a different tact. Since the question "Name one unbiased major new source" seems to confuse you, let's try this:

   Are any of these news sources unbiased?





FOX News
New York Times
BBC
Al Jazeera


----------



## ZECH (Oct 1, 2005)

Rich46yo said:
			
		

> The Iraq war was not illegal. Saddam violated the original cease fire agreement, and then numerous UN declarations, so many times it almost impossable to keep count. Just because the Politicized UN is incapable of enforcing world peace and backing up its lawfull orders doesnt mean we are doing anything illegal by doing so. The first time Saddam violated the cease fire agree ment we had lawfull authority to go in and put his head on a spike. I think the last count was he violated 19 UN resolutions. What a joke!
> 
> Instead we sat around for ten years while Saddam fucked with the inspectors, played a shell game with his WMD assets, shot at allied warplanes policeing the no-fly zone, and thumbed his nose at the International cummunity. He bought off the pimps at the United Nations with sweetheart oil deals and other cash cows. The International media was easy. All he had to do was let them be themsleves.
> 
> My only regret was we werent ruthless enough. Anybody suspected of terrorism should get one trial in front of a military tribunal and if found guilty hung by the neck the next day. Fuck world opinion!


Best post of the thread!


----------



## kbm8795 (Oct 2, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> I'm sure you do.
> 
> OK, let's try a different tact. Since the question "Name one unbiased major new source" seems to confuse you, let's try this:
> 
> ...




First, you have arrogantly assigned yourself the arbiter of what is a "major news source." You just can't differentiate between your own inherent bias and how information is processed. . .and that means the confusion is your own. 

Inability to accept personal responsibility is a hallmark of the Right.


----------



## Eggs (Oct 2, 2005)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Inability to accept personal responsibility is a hallmark of the Right.



No, its a hallmark of humanity. And thats right


----------



## DOMS (Oct 2, 2005)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> First, you have arrogantly assigned yourself the arbiter of what is a "major news source." You just can't differentiate between your own inherent bias and how information is processed. . .and that means the confusion is your own.
> 
> Inability to accept personal responsibility is a hallmark of the Right.


  And yet again you refuse to answer a simple question.

 You've also gone back to hiding behind Right and Left. You are assuming that I'm saying that the media is left bias when I've done nothing of the sort. Right, Left, or financial, it's all biased.

 As for the Right not taking responsibility, try to remember that it's generally the left-leaning people who want the social programs to take care of all their ills.


----------



## brogers (Oct 2, 2005)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Inability to accept personal responsibility is a hallmark of the Right.


Actually it's a hallmark of the left, hence why they support so much government welfare.  People can't accept responsibility for their decisions in life, but have no fear, because Uncle Sam will give you handouts.


----------



## GFR (Oct 2, 2005)

brogers said:
			
		

> Actually it's a hallmark of the left, hence why they support so much *government welfare*.  People can't accept responsibility for their decisions in life, but have no fear, because Uncle Sam will give you handouts.


I agree with you Corporate welfare in this country is out of hand and disgusting, they have grown usto not taking responsibility for their actions......costing the tax payers billions every year.....this welfare needs to stop!


----------



## kbm8795 (Oct 2, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> And yet again you refuse to answer a simple question.
> 
> You've also gone back to hiding behind Right and Left. You are assuming that I'm saying that the media is left bias when I've done nothing of the sort. Right, Left, or financial, it's all biased.
> 
> As for the Right not taking responsibility, try to remember that it's generally the left-leaning people who want the social programs to take care of all their ills.



Actually you made the assumptions about bias without taking your own inherent political bias into consideration as the gauge. Since you, as an audience member, process everything through your own pronounced bias, you have no other way to consider the profession except as a reflection of your own structure. 

The shrill accusations of bias have been particularly framed by the Right as a means to devalue and discredit the ability of the media to serve as a watchdog for the public. Attempting to simplify the reasons doesn't address the issue at all, but it serves as an excuse to promote the legitimacy of non-professionals like Rush and Hannity. 

There is a lot more to personal responsibility than being pro or against social programs.


----------



## kbm8795 (Oct 2, 2005)

brogers said:
			
		

> Actually it's a hallmark of the left, hence why they support so much government welfare.  People can't accept responsibility for their decisions in life, but have no fear, because Uncle Sam will give you handouts.



We hear so much about this on the Right, and very little about the system of social welfare/cronyism that has become the corrupt hallmark of our nation's government and economy. When we base a system increasingly on "who you know" rather than "what you know" it is at least as damaging a form of social welfare since both consumers and taxpayers end up paying for the nepotism of those in power. Corporate America is full of cronyism. . .the promotion because the boss thinks you are hot. . .the appointment to an executive position because you are a cousin of the V.P....the inside recommendation for a promotion while 30 others take a test for the job and the appointee already knows they'll get the position anyway. 

Government is no better. Uncle Sam provides employment and a nice, cushy life to plenty of people with no better talent than working on the campaign of a successful candidate. A cushy job with multiple benefits to an unqualified, uncompetitive candidate seems like social welfare to me.


----------



## Eggs (Oct 2, 2005)

We must have alot of right handed people in here... theres so much bias about it thats all everybody can talk about. Well, try and recognize the importance of left handers too.


----------



## Decker (Oct 3, 2005)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> the invasion of defenseless iraq? are you serious? this can't possisbly be a serious post. is it? you are talking about a country that was left with a standing military at the end of the gulf war. they had what? 30 divisions defending their borders when we invaded with 3. the country that used chemical weapons to kill 8 million of its ethinic citizens and fought neighboring iran to a stand still for 8 years in the 80's. the country that invaded and took over its smaller and weaker neighbor kuwait in the 90's. yep sounds defenseless to me. to even post with anything stating that iraq was defenseless and has had its rights trampled on by the US is an outrage. and borders on stupidity.


Iraq invaded Kuwait in the early '90s w/ the US's tacit approval--Ambassador Glaspie told the Iraqi government (by order of Jim Baker) that prior to the invasion of Kuwait, the US was neutral toward that act of aggression. Only after the Saudis raised hell w/ Bush did the US step in.
Yes, the chemical weapons Britain supplied Iraq and of which we said nothing were very devastating.
Please explain to me how this Iraqi military juggernaut is a threat to the US--I mean when the US isn't carrying water for the house of Saud. 



			
				bio-chem said:
			
		

> if you agree with the war in iraq or not is fine and i dont have any problem with those who disagree with my opionion. i love to read healthy and intelligent debates, but how can we have a post with the point of view showing iraq was a poor defenseless country that had done nothing wrong and didnt deserve the big, bad US coming in and trampling their rights is asinine. the fact is sadam hussien and his government were evil. now if you feel we should have continued using useless diplomatic solutions with them is another story, but please dont disgrace our soldiers by insinuating we are picking on a helpless country and forcing our will upon them. that simply is not the case


Useless diplomatic solutions? Where were the WMDs? And again, please explain how Iraq was a threat to the US.


----------



## Decker (Oct 3, 2005)

dg806 said:
			
		

> Ok, I'll rephrase it. Maybe it doesn't guarantee it, but it has a darn better chance than anything they have to offer. If they get to be too many "of them" here, I guess its time for the militias to step up! When it comes to the survival of the USA, don't be fooled. We will do whatever it takes to stay on top. If that means taking over Iraq, Iran, Saudia Arabia or whoever, don't think it couldn't happen. We need to be like Australia. "We won't adapt to your ways. If you don't like our ways, go back!"


So this invasion is about survival? How?
And the rule of law means nothing? Might makes right? So we invade a country and they 'don't like our ways', what do we do? Annihilate them?

I'm not sure what kind of foreign policy you are advocating.


----------



## Decker (Oct 3, 2005)

Rich46yo said:
			
		

> The Iraq war was not illegal. Saddam violated the original cease fire agreement, and then numerous UN declarations, so many times it almost impossable to keep count. Just because the Politicized UN is incapable of enforcing world peace and backing up its lawfull orders doesnt mean we are doing anything illegal by doing so. The first time Saddam violated the cease fire agree ment we had lawfull authority to go in and put his head on a spike. I think the last count was he violated 19 UN resolutions. What a joke!
> 
> Instead we sat around for ten years while Saddam fucked with the inspectors, played a shell game with his WMD assets, shot at allied warplanes policeing the no-fly zone, and thumbed his nose at the International cummunity. He bought off the pimps at the United Nations with sweetheart oil deals and other cash cows. The International media was easy. All he had to do was let them be themsleves.
> 
> My only regret was we werent ruthless enough. Anybody suspected of terrorism should get one trial in front of a military tribunal and if found guilty hung by the neck the next day. Fuck world opinion!


You are wrong, the invasion of Iraq is illegal.  Reread the UN authorization for use of force.


----------



## ALBOB (Oct 3, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> Iraq invaded Kuwait in the early '90s w/ the US's tacit approval--Ambassador Glaspie told the Iraqi government (by order of Jim Baker) that prior to the invasion of Kuwait, the US was neutral toward that act of aggression. Only after the Saudis raised hell w/ Bush did the US step in.



This is some very interesting info.  I had no idea we gave Iraq permission to invade Kuwait.  Please site your source(s).



			
				Decker said:
			
		

> Please explain to me how this Iraqi military juggernaut is a threat to the US.



I'd like a crack at that.  Iraq was a threat to the entire free world.  Their actions threatened the stability of the region and therefore threatened to interrupt the flow of oil.  There, I said it, it was, is and always will be about the oil.  I've said that a few dozen times and will NEVER appologize for it.  Without that oil the world economy takes a nose dive and we all suffer the consequences.  We protected our interests (our economy) in the region.



			
				Decker said:
			
		

> Where were the WMDs?



Now THAT'S something I'd like to know.  After Gulf #1 thousands of tons of WMD's were identified and documented.  Then, after we finally got rid of Saddam and got some REAL inspectors in there they were all gone.  Yes, where are the WMD's?  Syria?  (The best guess.)  Iran?  Sudan?  Hell, they could be right here in the U.S. just waiting to be detonated.  Too bad we're not allowed to interrogate those poor souls in Gitmo to find out.


----------



## Decker (Oct 3, 2005)

Mudge said:
			
		

> And man is he an idiot, he asked for it HARDCORE.


If you actually believe that crap about Metzenbaum representing the Communist Party, please show a little proof.

*"The Truth
*This exchange did take place but not on the floor of the Senate, but the wording of Glenn's words if fairly accurate.
It was during the campaign debate in 1974 when Metzenbaum was running for reelection and Glenn was challenging him.
Glenn and Metzenbaum had also run against each other for the same seat four years earlier, a race that Metzenbaum had won.
A few days prior to the debate, Metzenbaum made a widely publicized statement that said that Glenn had never met a payroll (he didn't actually say that he'd never held a real job).
In other words, Glenn had been a military man not a businessman, like Metzenbaum, who had created a major newspaper and a nation-wide parking company.
Metzenbaum did not repeat that charge during the debate, but Glenn came prepared to respond to it and did it so powerfully that he also went on to win the election.

If Howard Metzenbaum represented the Communist party as an attorney during World War II, we have not found substantiaton for that."
Source:
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/g/glenn-metzenbaum.htm


----------



## Decker (Oct 3, 2005)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> This is some very interesting info. I had no idea we gave Iraq permission to invade Kuwait. Please site your source(s)..


"Later the transcript has Glaspie saying: "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.""
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie 



			
				ALBOB said:
			
		

> I'd like a crack at that. Iraq was a threat to the entire free world. Their actions threatened the stability of the region and therefore threatened to interrupt the flow of oil. There, I said it, it was, is and always will be about the oil. I've said that a few dozen times and will NEVER appologize for it. Without that oil the world economy takes a nose dive and we all suffer the consequences. We protected our interests (our economy) in the region..


You are entitled to your opinion of the threat Iraq presented. There are ways to accomplish an end that are legal and those that are not...Bush chose the latter.



			
				ALBOB said:
			
		

> Now THAT'S something I'd like to know. After Gulf #1 thousands of tons of WMD's were identified and documented. Then, after we finally got rid of Saddam and got some REAL inspectors in there they were all gone. Yes, where are the WMD's? Syria? (The best guess.) Iran? Sudan? Hell, they could be right here in the U.S. just waiting to be detonated. Too bad we're not allowed to interrogate those poor souls in Gitmo to find out.


The best 'guess' is that Hussein destroyed the weapons. At least that was the ongoing scientific conclusion of those best to know, i.e., the weapons inspectors (they have the ability to discern whether WMDs are in an area and have been moved).


----------



## Rich46yo (Oct 3, 2005)

My point was the UN made itself irrelevant with its greed, its selfish politics, its giving equal voice to tyrants, and its rabid anti-Americanism. Its nothing but a debating society where dictators have equal voice with democratically elected leaders!

                        And your wrong anyways. A breech of UNSCR 687 automatically authorized the use of force that was under the original UNCR 678. The UN loves to coin stuff in lawyer-ese so's they always have an "out" should things go south. You saw what the UN did for the Iraqi freedom fighters after it forced the US led coalition forces to stop short of Baghdad. It was the UN, and its little gaggle of shitbirds, that gave Saddam an extra 10 years to grind his people into dust.

                          And yeah?? We gave Saddam permission to invade Kuwait..  . Sure we did! I think someone needs to read their history a little better. This is right up there with "we made Saddam". Our position was that Arabs settle disputes themselves. Saddam mis-read this as a neutral US position for his invasion. That wasnt the position of the American Govt. at all and we never should have had a woman ambassador in Iraq at all because the Arabs dont respect them.

                       Now take a good look at Saddams master plan before you comment if he was a threat to us at all. First off the guy was a master back-stabber. He invaded Iran when he perceived they were weak, but was unable to fight a modern war. He got pinned down and his Arab brothers came to his aid with money and arms. Even so he was forced to settle the Iran war, tho his dreams of empire continued

                     Meanwhile Saddam was developing nuclear weapons with Saudi financing, in collusion with Brazil who was developing an advanced MRBM , againwith Saudi money. The Israelis put a crimp in that plan with their attack on the French made reactor at Osirak. If not for that Saddam would probably have had the bomb by the Gulf war.

                     If Saddam had been allowed to keep Kuwait his next target would have been the Saudis,and, eventually the Gulf States. 5 or 6 years down the line the Iranians would have been in his sights again. By now he'd probably have nukes, and definitely would have an overwhelming chem/bio arsenal. Once he controlled the MidEast oil he would control the Western Democracies.

                   All in all it wasn't a bad plan. He did however underestimate the Americans and didn't understand modern war. In his head his forces actually had a chance in the Gulf War when we knew they were as good as dead once we had the forces in place. Even still he almost got away with it. I still remember the idiots Jesse and Teddy screaming "no blood for oil", and predicting 50,000 US casualties, "being great military minds themselves".

                   Can you imagine if a Democrat had been in office, or if Bush would have listened to some of the voices against the attack? Do any of you think Saddam was worried about UN sanctions after stealing the wealth of Kuwait? He had the oil and knew he could undermine the UN with oil and money as he later did anyways when he was far weaker.

                "The legal ways"?....   Oh man, what a comedy the UN and Iraq has been. Even worse then fucking Somalia when the leader of the UN Boutros-Ghali flimm-flammed Klinton into actively hunting warlord Aideed, a personal enemy of Ghali. The same Klinton "another great military mind" who denied tanks and gunships to the Somalian contingent because it was Politically in-correct. The same Boutros-Ghali was wanted the UN to have its own standing army, "guess who that would be"?

             God help us if we rely on the UN for our own security.............Uncle Rich...............


----------



## DOMS (Oct 3, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> "Later the transcript has Glaspie saying: "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.""


 I had no idea that saying something along the lines of "we have no opinion" is actually giving permission.

 Also, wikipedia is not a valid source for heavily debated issues (not this quote is real) but it's a user modified site.


----------



## maniclion (Oct 3, 2005)

Both Iraq war's were jokes when you talk about the "organized" Iraqi Army that those of you say Saddam could have used to "spread his empire".  If we think those soldiers were real threats then we are in for some serious problems if we have to defend ourselves against some of the more advanced forces in this world.

 And on another note if we have to beat and steal someone else for their oil, to feed our need or face a slump, then we have an addiction and we need to start making drastic changes.  That's makes us no better than a crackwhore beating another crackwhore for some crack.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 3, 2005)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Actually you made the assumptions about bias without taking your own inherent political bias into consideration as the gauge.
> 
> Blah, blah, blah.


 Yes, I realize that everyone has the own point of reference (POR) and the none one's POR matches reality.  You seem to be implying (but never stating) that since everyone has a bias then no one can say if any news source is biased.  There's a nice bit of _not _taking responsibility.  Hell, why do we even have the word 'bias' in the dictionary?  I'll make a point to send a letter to Webster.


----------



## kbm8795 (Oct 3, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> Yes, I realize that everyone has the own point of reference (POR) and the none one's POR matches reality.  You seem to be implying (but never stating) that since everyone has a bias then no one can say if any news source is biased.  There's a nice bit of _not _taking responsibility.  Hell, why do we even have the word 'bias' in the dictionary?  I'll make a point to send a letter to Webster.



No, what I have been saying is that your conceptual reference of bias is based on your own ideas of a profession that you seem to have limited  knowledge about. . .generic reasons make good soundbites but they hardly reflect the professional reality. Again, this is how the Right has often tried to pass off talking head entertainers as news media when they generally have no ethical training beyond the development of manipulation skills. 

What isn't taking responsibility is accepting that bias may originate in the mind of the target audience, and true to Republican principles, the bias of the audience dictates the product. The push of the Reagan Administration was to eliminate safeguards to protecting the quality of the product in favor of audience demand, so the concept of reducing the _image_ of "truth" or factual reporting in the media has long been a conservative goal. Instead, the Right wanted an inherent bias established in their own image and idea of what bias is, an accomplishment that is reflected in the amazingly high number of editorialized remarks and elimination of key facts that is a hallmark of Fox News. To assume that this is no different in the other media outlets is a means of propagating an excuse for lower standards of professional conduct. 

It also leads to such unprecedented productions as White House payoffs to certain columnists or television stations to run endorsements of Administration policies without attribution to the government source. The excuse again is. . .if every "major" news source is biased anyway, then what is wrong with veiled government propaganda? 

There are several layers in which any given story has to be examined to attempt to identify an inherent bias. 

And yes, send a letter to Webster. The word "bias" as used in generic public terms doesn't necessarily translate in the same manner within a professional industry.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 3, 2005)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> ... and true to Republican principles...


 You talk about other's bias, but you have your own that borders on a mental dysfunction.

 You've never answered a question and simply try to reword what you've said before like some leftist mantra or mental regurgitation.

 You're not worth talking to.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Oct 3, 2005)

This remind of that "nothing but a waste of time" thread.


----------



## kbm8795 (Oct 3, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> You talk about other's bias, but you have your own that borders on a mental dysfunction.
> 
> You've never answered a question and simply try to reword what you've said before like some leftist mantra or mental regurgitation.
> 
> You're not worth talking to.



Well,  if your knowledge of mental dysfunctions is as extensive as your knowledge about my profession, that is merely another remark with little credibility. This isn't middle school. . .get over the deflective insults. 

If you can't deal with an answer, don't ask a question. I don't work for Fox News.


----------



## Arnold (Oct 3, 2005)

All I have to say is: *VOTE FOR PEDRO!*


----------



## DOMS (Oct 3, 2005)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> If you can't deal with an answer, don't ask a question. I don't work for Fox News.


 
 Answer? What answer?! All you've done is say that everything is subjective so "biased" is a non-word (talk about deflection). Unless of course the person happens to be a Republican, in which case the media bias only exists because they're Republican and media portrays something different from their point of view, which one would have to believe is left-leaning portrait, but wouldn't that then be considered bias if the media is in such a state (generally against one particular group)? 

 In post after post you've talked about the evil of the Republicans, stating that crap such as "conservatives who whine about the 'liberal' media." That the bias in the media has roots in a particular political group, where I've only stated that all media is biased, *regardless *of where the bias lies. Personally I believe (probably a non-word to you) that there are major media outlets the favor the Right, the Left, and the Almighty Buck. You believe that it only exists in the minds of Republicans. The funny thing is that you try to portray the media has not having bias to protect what, in your skewed world-view, is a Republican attack on the "liberal media."

   Post after post of attacks on Republicans...let me guess: your posts are without bias too.


----------



## Rich46yo (Oct 4, 2005)

maniclion said:
			
		

> Both Iraq war's were jokes when you talk about the "organized" Iraqi Army that those of you say Saddam could have used to "spread his empire".  If we think those soldiers were real threats then we are in for some serious problems if we have to defend ourselves against some of the more advanced forces in this world.
> 
> And on another note if we have to beat and steal someone else for their oil, to feed our need or face a slump, then we have an addiction and we need to start making drastic changes.  That's makes us no better than a crackwhore beating another crackwhore for some crack.



                       You don't think they were threats? You forget we never faced most of Saddam's elite units. You also forget Saddam at the time had a huge chem/bio arsenal. Even more important, we made Saddam fight our kind of war. In Gulf-1 we forced them to hunker down and get pounded by our air forces. Actually he made himself do it by not continuing into Saudi Arabia. If he had done that we would have had a far bigger problem. It was typical Arab military stupidity, advance a few miles with your armored formations and then dig ditches and hunker down on the defense.

                     I think his plan was reachable. Saddam's biggest liability was he was to impatient. And like all Arab armies the Iraqi army discouraged innovative thinkers, and was mostly made up of incompetent blood relatives of whatever dictator is in charge. But had he developed nukes before acting? Had he used combined arms efficiently? Had he continued into the gulf states and Saudi, denying the west a staging base? It was all to reachable for him to set himself up as the worlds oil king. And you forget he once had the protective shell of Soviet sponsorship during a cold war.

                 By the time of the last Iraq war his army was a shell of pre-Gulf levels. His air force and little navy was non-exsistant. His men demoralized and frightened of American military power. His regime isolated, except for the assholes at the UN he bought off, and France, Germany, and Russia, whom he owed lotsa money to. Still it was more a question of "when" we got to Baghdad instead of "if".

               If we had done it in '91 instead of '03 the mideast would be a vastly better place right now. We would have had the boots for an occupation and millions of Iraqis wouldn't have had to suffer another 11 years of Saddam's rule.

            We can thank the cocksucking United Nations for that brilliant move.......................Uncle Rich


----------



## ALBOB (Oct 4, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> The best 'guess' is that Hussein destroyed the weapons. At least that was the ongoing scientific conclusion of those best to know, i.e., the weapons inspectors (they have the ability to discern whether WMDs are in an area and have been moved).



This doesn't hold water.  By U.N. mandate he was SUPPOSED to destroy his weapons.  Yet, instead of destroying them, he spent years and millions of dollars hiding them from the inspectors.  If he were going to destroy them he would have just done so in full view of the U.N. inspectors and gotten them off his back.  Dismantled, repackaged and hidden away?  Maybe.  But, destroyed?  I don't think so. 

Now, onto the term "illegal" that keeps getting thrown around in reference to the war.  In order for something to be illegal, it has to have broken a law.  What exact law did we break in ousting Saddam?  The U.N.?  No, we actually followed the U.N. resolutions that stated Saddam would be removed if he didn't comply with the U.N. weapons inspector's orders.  He didn't, we booted him.  So, what's illegal?


----------



## Rich46yo (Oct 4, 2005)

Funny but no-one used the term "illegal" when Klinton spent about 40,000,000 bucks destroying the Sudanese aspirin factory, which occurred as if by magic a few days after he testified about an "inappropriate relationship" with the cocksucker Lewinsky. Funny timing that............Uncle Rich.....................


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 4, 2005)

Rich46yo said:
			
		

> You don't think they were threats? You forget we never faced most of Saddam's elite units.




Puhlease, a member of Saddam's most elite unit makes a cherry squishee for me every day and wears a smock.


----------



## kbm8795 (Oct 4, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> Answer? What answer?! All you've done is say that everything is subjective so "biased" is a non-word (talk about deflection).
> 
> *Um...not exactly. Is it always customary for your mind to reach as far to the extreme as possible?*
> 
> ...



You do have difficulty accepting the 40 years of attacks by the Republican Party on the credibility of media. . .and the movement by the Right to deregulate both media ownership and establish non-professionals as untrained journalists.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 4, 2005)

Translation of previous post: I'm a liberal who won't accept anything outside of my warped world-view. The only good thing is this world is the Liberal! 

Nananananana!


----------



## Decker (Oct 4, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> I had no idea that saying something along the lines of "we have no opinion" is actually giving permission.
> 
> Also, wikipedia is not a valid source for heavily debated issues (not this quote is real) but it's a user modified site.


You're right, it isn't the best source but yesterday my internet access was to be 'fixed' about 10:30 am and I didn't have time to plow through State Department records and Iraqi Gov. records.


----------



## Decker (Oct 4, 2005)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> This doesn't hold water. By U.N. mandate he was SUPPOSED to destroy his weapons. Yet, instead of destroying them, he spent years and millions of dollars hiding them from the inspectors. If he were going to destroy them he would have just done so in full view of the U.N. inspectors and gotten them off his back. Dismantled, repackaged and hidden away? Maybe. But, destroyed? I don't think so.
> 
> Now, onto the term "illegal" that keeps getting thrown around in reference to the war. In order for something to be illegal, it has to have broken a law. What exact law did we break in ousting Saddam? The U.N.? No, we actually followed the U.N. resolutions that stated Saddam would be removed if he didn't comply with the U.N. weapons inspector's orders. He didn't, we booted him. So, what's illegal?


It does hold water. Hussein was put into the precarious situation of disarming his country in front of his mortal enemies, especially Iran. In other words, a published disarming would invite Iran to take notice.

The invasion is illegal. http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/showthread.php?t=53043&highlight=iraq+invasion+illegal


----------



## kbm8795 (Oct 4, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> Translation of previous post: I'm a liberal who won't accept anything outside of my warped world-view. The only good thing is this world is the Liberal!
> 
> Nananananana!



 

Nothin' like an irresponsible citizen.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 4, 2005)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Nothin' like an irresponsible citizen.


Better than a liberal who lives in her own little reality than the real world.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 4, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> You're right, it isn't the best source but yesterday my internet access was to be 'fixed' about 10:30 am and I didn't have time to plow through State Department records and Iraqi Gov. records.


Not exactly the quality of your usual posts.


----------



## GFR (Oct 4, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> Better than a liberal who lives in her own little reality than the real world.


I like my fake world thank you very much


----------



## Rich46yo (Oct 4, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> It does hold water. Hussein was put into the precarious situation of disarming his country in front of his mortal enemies, especially Iran. In other words, a published disarming would invite Iran to take notice.
> 
> The invasion is illegal. http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/showthread.php?t=53043&highlight=iraq+invasion+illegal



                         Now were supposed to commiserate with Saddam over being forced to destroy his WMDs after the Gulf War? Thats all the cease fire agreement, which the Iraqis signed, demanded. There was no demand he unilaterally disarm his armed forces. Even the no fly zone came later in an attempt to stop his brutal genocide against the Shiites and Kurds.

                        In 1992 Iran didn't have any WMDs other then a small chem capability. Their military forces were a shambles and still hadn't recovered from Iraq's attack against them. They had no capability to sustain an invasion against Iraq.

                       Thats what the cease fire called for, the destruction of his WMD programs. If he had a problem with it then fuck him! and fuck them! They shouldn't have invaded Kuwait and they sure as hell shouldn't have lost.

                  ""Puhlease, a member of Saddam's most elite unit makes a cherry squishee for me every day and wears a smock.""

                     More words of wisdom from another great/experienced military man..  ....................Uncle Rich............


----------



## kbm8795 (Oct 4, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> Better than a liberal who lives in her own little reality than the real world.



Ahh...I consider being called a 'liberal" by a wingnut a high compliment. Thanks. But I'm not a "her". . .  . . .but such is the wingnut reality.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 4, 2005)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Ahh...I consider being called a 'liberal" by a wingnut a high compliment. Thanks. But I'm not a "her". . .  . . .but such is the wingnut reality.


    So you didn't post crap such as:

 "of course, the religious Right would be furious if they discovered how many are hanging out in executive positions with the RNC...we call them 'brownshirts'"

    You're also a rabid left-leaning poster on democraticunderground.com, the largest home of the liberal crackpots online.

    Plus, you post on gaystlouis.com. Statistically speaking, gays are more likely to be Liberal than Conservative.

    You sure sound like a liberal.

 It's interesting that Conservatives have no problems stating that they're Conservatives, but Liberals like to pretend their something else (perhaps they're a little embarrassed?).


----------



## ALBOB (Oct 4, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> It does hold water. Hussein was put into the precarious situation of disarming his country in front of his mortal enemies, especially Iran. In other words, a published disarming would invite Iran to take notice.



Nope, still doesn't hold water.  Yes, he was in that precarious situation, but he put himself there.  I don't care if the Devil himself was taking notice, it's what he was supposed to do.



			
				Decker said:
			
		

> The invasion is illegal. http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/showthread.php?t=53043&highlight=iraq+invasion+illegal



This doesn't work either.  I can parade out just as many law professors that say it was NOT a pre-emptive war and therefore perfectly legal.  Just as we're seeing in this thread, everybody has their own opinion.  Ain't it grand?


----------



## kbm8795 (Oct 4, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> So you didn't post crap such as:
> 
> "of course, the religious Right would be furious if they discovered how many are hanging out in executive positions with the RNC...we call them 'brownshirts'"
> 
> ...



Well, since you know so little about the media, know even less about "liberals" except the use of the term as some imagined slur and have your butt so wound up that you can't type a simple post without attempting to reach at someone's throat (what part of "conservative" manners is that?), it's little wonder that anyone discusses their political beliefs with you.

Now what makes you think this bitchy nonsense is "conservative" thought? 

The only one who should be embarassed at that post is yourself. . .but like admitting error, a wingnut has no moral or ethical foundation.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 4, 2005)

It's absolute garbage like "They apparently haven't interviewed high ranking officials in the Republican Party." that shows how deeply you live in your fantasy world.

  Oh, and good job on hiding your political and sexual leanings.

  You really need to come out of you polictial and sexual closets and be proud of who you are!


----------



## DOMS (Oct 4, 2005)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> independent American thinker


 Laughable.  An independent thinker?  From "Brown Shirts" to the desire to believe that top Republicans are closet homosexuals, you've done little other than repeat phrases I've heard so often from Democratic camp.

 Tool.


----------



## kbm8795 (Oct 4, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> It's absolute garbage like "They apparently haven't interviewed high ranking officials in the Republican Party." that shows how deeply you live in your fantasy world.
> 
> _*The only fantasy around here is your amazing ability to hide from anything that doesn't prop up your fragile house of cards. Talk to Sen. Rick Santorum's press secretary, send a nosy note to RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman, make a phone call to Congressman David Dreier's office, strike up a conversation with Phyllis Schlafly's son (likewise the son of the LaHayes). . .,inquire about circumstances around the retirement of Republican Congressman Ed Schrock,and don't forget to drop by the embattled mayor of Spokane's office before you give Jeff Gannon a call for tips on how to get credentials into White House press conferences.*_
> 
> ...



I appreciate the proposition - but my experience has been that most wingnuts are both politically and sexually insecure. You'll have to stay satisfied with the mirror in your own closet.


----------



## kbm8795 (Oct 4, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> Laughable.  An independent thinker?
> 
> From "Brown Shirts" to the desire to believe that top Republicans are closet homosexuals, you've done little other than repeat phrases I've heard so often from Democratic camp.
> 
> ...




 Aww...you have the nicest way of complimenting people. . .I'll bet you got those manners from your mama. 

Ya know, what is most laughable is reading these continuing musings after you so recently typed: 

*"You're not worth talking to."*


----------



## DOMS (Oct 4, 2005)

I've quit trying to debate with you, you're incapable of debating, only regurgitating.

 Now, you're just amusement. It's fun trying to watch you run your liberal mental circles. Something akin to hamster in its wheel.

  Spin liberal, spin...


----------



## kbm8795 (Oct 4, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> I've quit trying to debate with you, you're incapable of debating, only regurgitating.
> 
> Now, you're just amusement. It's fun trying to watch you run your liberal mental circles. Something akin to hamster in its wheel.
> 
> Spin liberal, spin...



You've had no basis to engage in a debate, so rather than admit that you have no knowledge of the industry beyond tabloid nonsense by ideological lightweights, you resort to petty baiting and whiny middle-school rhetoric. 

This nation is free because people make sacrifices. Part of those sacrifices include being a responsible adult citizen capable of examining issues in varied approaches with a goal toward finding workable solutions. I can understand why the prospect seems daunting to your insecurities. 

At least the hamster-to-its-wheel comparison manages to accurately reflect references you can comprehend without feeling threatened. . .somewhere back in the grade school.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 5, 2005)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> You've had no basis to engage in a debate, so rather than admit that you have no knowledge of the industry beyond tabloid nonsense by ideological lightweights, you resort to petty baiting and whiny middle-school rhetoric.


 I have no "basis to engage in a debate", hmmmm.  That's funny, you're the one who won't debate.  You only try to redefine words in the dictionary and blame everything on one political group.  Sadly, you're the one who lacks not just the content to debate, but the actual *ability *to debate.



			
				kbm8795 said:
			
		

> This nation is free because people make sacrifices. Part of those sacrifices include being a responsible adult citizen


 So you see being a responsible citizen as a sacrifice?  Every liberal is a martyr.



			
				kbm8795 said:
			
		

> At least the hamster-to-its-wheel comparison manages to accurately reflect references you can comprehend without feeling threatened. . .somewhere back in the grade school.


 This is petty baiting.  A lackluster whine from a mental automaton.  I, however, use quality barbs.  Maybe if you, as a "non-liberal", root around over at democraticunderground you could cut and paste one from someone who actually knows how.

 Which reminds me, are you comfortable being a gay democrat yet?  Once you accept who you are, you'll find that you can enjoy life so much more!


----------



## kbm8795 (Oct 5, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> I have no "basis to engage in a debate", hmmmm.  That's funny, you're the one who won't debate.  You only try to redefine words in the dictionary and blame everything on one political group.  Sadly, you're the one who lacks not just the content to debate, but the actual *ability *to debate.
> 
> *You brought nothing to the table except one blind statement. Did I miss the post where you explained the basis for your enlightened "opinion"? *
> 
> ...



Don't you mean. . . ."are you comfortable with me defining you as a gay democrat yet?" Accuracy isn't exactly a strong point for a wingnut.


----------



## Decker (Oct 5, 2005)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> Nope, still doesn't hold water. Yes, he was in that precarious situation, but he put himself there. I don't care if the Devil himself was taking notice, it's what he was supposed to do.


The US and Britain should not have facilitated Iraq???s acquisition of WMDs back in the 1980s???Reagan/Bush.  The US provided satellite information for targeting Iranian targets w/ chemical weapons (wmds) in Iraq???s war w/ Iran.  The US continued to ship biological seed stock and other WMD materials to Iraq after it was well-known that Iraq had violated international law (international chemical weapons treaty) by using wmds.
After UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in 1998, they had destroyed 90-95% of Iraq???s WMDs.  Due to those inspections, the ephemeral nature of the WMDS involved and the extensive bombings of the first Gulf war, Iraq had no capacity to reconstitute its WMD program.

Like it or not, Hussein gave the UN weapons inspectors the access they asked for???.admittedly the permission was given grudgingly and he was a dick about it, but we knew the score. 



			
				ALBOB said:
			
		

> This doesn't work either. I can parade out just as many law professors that say it was NOT a pre-emptive war and therefore perfectly legal. Just as we're seeing in this thread, everybody has their own opinion. Ain't it grand?


I would really like to see your list of law professors that defend the US invasion as a legal/constitutional exercise.  The only credible law professor that has defended Bush's invasion gave a policy reason and not a legal reason.



Bush had no adequate justification pursuant to the grant of UN authority under res. 1441 to attack Iraq.  He certainly had no self-defense justification.  And as for justifiably defending another, well, that's about as credible as his WMD theory.


----------



## Rich46yo (Oct 5, 2005)

Oh horseshit! We gave them satellite information but didnt know it was to be used for chemical attacks. In fact show me one shred of proof the images were even actually used for NBC targeting.

                              Other then that we sold Iraq some un-armed helicopters. Which of course Iraq later armed but who cares? As far as Im concerned I wish the Iranians and Iraqis were still killing each other. It was "win win" for America and the only reason we aided them in anyway whatsoever is because the Iranians looked like they might win and the oil rich gulf states, whose oil you used today, were scared shitless of the Iranians.

                             Most of the dual use technology used by the Iraqis in their CBW program was sold by western European firms. A few of them sold equipment that could only be used in a CBW program, and of course the Soviets and China openly sold him whatever he wanted. Its true some dual use equipment was sold to Iraq by America but how can you tell what machinery used to make vaccine, and pasteurize milk, is going to end up being used for?

                            BTW the Inspectors didn't "leave Iraq" per se. They weren't allowed by the Iraqis to leave the hotel and visit sights. In that case what was the point of staying? You need to read some history boy-o.........................Uncle Rich...................  






			
				Decker said:
			
		

> The US and Britain should not have facilitated Iraq???s acquisition of WMDs back in the 1980s???Reagan/Bush.  The US provided satellite information for targeting Iranian targets w/ chemical weapons (wmds) in Iraq???s war w/ Iran.  The US continued to ship biological seed stock and other WMD materials to Iraq after it was well-known that Iraq had violated international law (international chemical weapons treaty) by using wmds.
> After UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in 1998, they had destroyed 90-95% of Iraq???s WMDs.  Due to those inspections, the ephemeral nature of the WMDS involved and the extensive bombings of the first Gulf war, Iraq had no capacity to reconstitute its WMD program.
> 
> Like it or not, Hussein gave the UN weapons inspectors the access they asked for???.admittedly the permission was given grudgingly and he was a dick about it, but we knew the score.
> ...


----------



## maniclion (Oct 5, 2005)

Boy keeping up with conformity must be a tough fight when you can't even take a break to look at what's really going down around you.


----------



## maniclion (Oct 5, 2005)

Hegemony Now!  Hegemony Now!


----------



## Decker (Oct 5, 2005)

Rich46yo said:
			
		

> Oh horseshit! We gave them satellite information but didnt know it was to be used for chemical attacks. In fact show me one shred of proof the images were even actually used for NBC targeting.
> 
> Other then that we sold Iraq some un-armed helicopters. Which of course Iraq later armed but who cares? As far as Im concerned I wish the Iranians and Iraqis were still killing each other. It was "win win" for America and the only reason we aided them in anyway whatsoever is because the Iranians looked like they might win and the oil rich gulf states, whose oil you used today, were scared shitless of the Iranians.
> 
> Most of the dual use technology used by the Iraqis in their CBW program was sold by western European firms. A few of them sold equipment that could only be used in a CBW program, and of course the Soviets and China openly sold him whatever he wanted. Its true some dual use equipment was sold to Iraq by America but how can you tell what machinery used to make vaccine, and pasteurize milk, is going to end up being used for?


The satellite info sharing program btn the US and Iraq during the Iraq/Iran war is well-established. http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=228&fcategory_desc=Under%20Reported


The use of that info to deliver chemical warheads w/ precision was disclosed by current military officers from the Defense Intelligence Agency intimately close to the program???on a condition of anonymity. Like I said, it was known that Iraq was using WMDs. To think that Iraq would not use the technology provided by the US to effectuate its WMD attacks against Iran stretches credibility to ridiculous proportions. Do you honestly believe your government when it says, ???we had no idea they???d use that info for illegal/evil purposes.??? 


If you do, you certainly have more faith and trust in big government than I.



I agree w/ your assessment of why the US helped Iraq???Iran may have become too big a player in the oil game.





			
				Rich46yo said:
			
		

> BTW the Inspectors didn't "leave Iraq" per se. They weren't allowed by the Iraqis to leave the hotel and visit sights. In that case what was the point of staying? You need to read some history boy-o.........................Uncle Rich...................


I could care less how the Iraq gov. restricted the free time of the UN weapons inspectors, but when it came down to inspections, the inspectors went where they pleased. Don???t think so? Then read their own report: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7682.doc.htm



It???s a long read but you really need some information that doesn???t come from Fox or Free Republic b/c your understanding of events is embarrassingly off the mark.


----------



## Rich46yo (Oct 5, 2005)

Yes, thats right! For the most part! Tho often it took bombs and missiles to get the Iraqis to quit fucking with them. In the final analysis however Saddam did not comply. Or did you think all those UN resolutions were because he was complying? Thats like saying getting 19 moving violations, starting at 50mph, and ending at 31mph "one mph above legal", means your complying with the law. Your either doing 30 mph or your not!

                         You must be a lawyer kid, which warns me to not get into to much of a legal argument with you. You shysters will go all day and night, believe me Ive seen it before.

                         For my own part, when it comes to dictators and tyrants, I don't give a fuck about the law. We should just kill them on sight! YaKnow Shakespeare had it right when it came to lawyers...............Uncle Rich...........


----------



## Decker (Oct 5, 2005)

Rich46yo said:
			
		

> Yes, thats right! For the most part! Tho often it took bombs and missiles to get the Iraqis to quit fucking with them. In the final analysis however Saddam did not comply. Or did you think all those UN resolutions were because he was complying? Thats like saying getting 19 moving violations, starting at 50mph, and ending at 31mph "one mph above legal", means your complying with the law. Your either doing 30 mph or your not!
> 
> You must be a lawyer kid, which warns me to not get into to much of a legal argument with you. You shysters will go all day and night, believe me Ive seen it before.
> 
> For my own part, when it comes to dictators and tyrants, I don't give a fuck about the law. We should just kill them on sight! YaKnow Shakespeare had it right when it came to lawyers...............Uncle Rich...........


I know the passage you refer to, but here's a more erudite word:​​Even a cursory reading of the context in which the lawyer killing statement is made in King Henry VI, Part II, (Act IV), Scene 2, reveals that Shakespeare was paying great and deserved homage to our venerable profession as the front line defenders of democracy. Source:  http://www.howardnations.com/Shakespeare.pdf​​So you got that wrong too.​


----------



## maniclion (Oct 5, 2005)

Rich46yo said:
			
		

> For my own part, when it comes to dictators and tyrants, I don't give a fuck about the law. We should just kill them on sight! YaKnow Shakespeare had it right when it came to lawyers


How do you justify a pernicious attack on tyranny while at the same time scorning the defenders of democracy. Your'e just as tyrannical as those you despise, is it because you've seen yourself reflected in their eyes?


----------



## BigDyl (Oct 5, 2005)

maniclion said:
			
		

> How do you justify a pernicious attack on tyranny while at the same time scorning the defenders of democracy. Your'e just as tyrannical as those you despise, is it because you've seen yourself reflected in their eyes?




your rhyming with out trying here...

"Your'e just as tyrannical as those you despise, is it because you've seen yourself reflected in their eyes?"

what a hypocracy, he's scorning defenders of democracy....  <-- my input


----------



## Rich46yo (Oct 5, 2005)

maniclion said:
			
		

> How do you justify a pernicious attack on tyranny while at the same time scorning the defenders of democracy. Your'e just as tyrannical as those you despise, is it because you've seen yourself reflected in their eyes?



                                  You think Lawyers are "defenders of Democracy"?     Oh shit! You actually made me speechless..............Uncle Rich...........


----------



## Decker (Oct 6, 2005)

Rich46yo said:
			
		

> You think Lawyers are "defenders of Democracy"?    Oh shit! You actually made me speechless..............Uncle Rich...........


I was actually hoping you would respond to that. I bet that's the first and last time anyone says that.

You (and dg806) are police officers (I believe) sworn to uphold the law. You don't like the law governing Bush's illegal invasion so you disregard it. Very dangerous. And you dust off the "Hussein did not comply" argument _ad nauseum_. Repeating the slogan doesn't make it true. He did comply. True it resembled yelling at a child repeatedly to eat his vegetables, but the end result was compliance...Hussein ate his vegetables.

As for your wish to bomb any government you view as fascist. If your first answer is bombing, you're either asking the wrong question or misunderstanding the situation at hand. It seems that your only problem with war is that we don't have enough of them.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 6, 2005)

Rich46yo said:
			
		

> You think Lawyers are "defenders of Democracy"?     Oh shit! You actually made me speechless..............Uncle Rich...........


 The thousand of bad lawyers ruined it for the other 5...


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 6, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> I was actually hoping you would respond to that. I bet that's the first and last time anyone says that.
> 
> You (and dg806) are police officers (I believe) sworn to uphold the law. You don't like the law governing Bush's illegal invasion so you disregard it. Very dangerous. And you dust off the "Hussein did not comply" argument _ad nauseum_. Repeating the slogan doesn't make it true. He did comply. True it resembled yelling at a child repeatedly to eat his vegetables, but the end result was compliance...Hussein ate his vegetables.
> 
> As for your wish to bomb any government you view as fascist. If your first answer is bombing, you're either asking the wrong question or misunderstanding the situation at hand. It seems that your only problem with war is that we don't have enough of them.


hussein complied? at what point? now i remember it was when he came out of his hole and said "im ready to negotiate" just a little too late.


----------



## maniclion (Oct 6, 2005)

Hussein wasn't being stubborn because he was hiding WMD's he was hiding all his golden Palaces with all his perversions within.  And anything else that would suggest he had gone off the deep end.  We sent our boys to stop a modern day Caligula and we all know there were no more WMD's, he'd sold them so he could buy into more perverse luxuries.  What pisses me off is that my Governmet falsified everything to make their little "investment" seem more rational, don't fucking lie to me.  If Bush had simply said, Iraq needs to be allowed to seek their own identity rather than that of a Perverse Tyrannical Monster drunk on power, if we had gone in taken down the Hussein rule and left I would be o.k with it, but no my Government has lied over and over again about our intentions there because in the end we all know it is merely a  move to checkmate the Black King of oil.


----------



## Decker (Oct 7, 2005)

maniclion said:
			
		

> Hussein wasn't being stubborn because he was hiding WMD's he was hiding all his golden Palaces with all his perversions within. And anything else that would suggest he had gone off the deep end. We sent our boys to stop a modern day Caligula and we all know there were no more WMD's, he'd sold them so he could buy into more perverse luxuries. What pisses me off is that my Governmet falsified everything to make their little "investment" seem more rational, don't fucking lie to me. If Bush had simply said, Iraq needs to be allowed to seek their own identity rather than that of a Perverse Tyrannical Monster drunk on power, if we had gone in taken down the Hussein rule and left I would be o.k with it, but no my Government has lied over and over again about our intentions there because in the end we all know it is merely a move to checkmate the Black King of oil.


I would agree with much of this. The negotiations over the treatment of Iraq since the conclusion of the first Gulf war are complex and voluminous--initial Iraqi compliance, letting in the inspectors,then Hussein balked at the US's sharing of Iraqi defense info w/ israel, then the bombings of iraq, Iraqi concessions for regional disarming, no fly zones, sanctions, etc., etc., till finally full Iraqi capitulation to Hans Blix et al.

The reason that sanctions didn't work--sanctions that caused millions of Iraqis to suffer--was b/c Hussein didn't give a shit about his own people. Let 'em eat cake. He lived like a king. But that's the dynamic of third-world countries


----------



## ALBOB (Oct 7, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> The reason that sanctions didn't work--sanctions that caused millions of Iraqis to suffer--was b/c Hussein didn't give a shit about his own people. Let 'em eat cake. He lived like a king. But that's the dynamic of third-world countries



"Oh well, that's just the way it is."  So that makes it right?  Funny, if I say, "This little pissant, third world country is messing up my oil supply.  I'm bigger than they are so I'm gonna go in and set things straight."  You're crying bloody murder.  But Saddam can get away with wholesale genocide and all you can say is, "Oh well, that's just the way it is."  Wow.  

P.S.  Those millions of Iraqis are NOT suffering anymore because of our actions.  True, there's still a long way to go, but at least they're on the road to recovery.................No thanks to whiners who can only sit on the sidelines and wring their hand in fear.


----------



## Rich46yo (Oct 7, 2005)

The big difference, Einstein, is the world don't run according to law, the stakes are to high, and winning is the only thing that matters. We can play silly little games with our harmless gangsters and criminals that we simply cant afford to play with characters like Saddam, or Hitler, or Tojo, or Stalin, or Mao, or anyone like that. So grow the fuck up and stop thinking the world runs by the rules of your safe little courthouse.

                        If I were President I'd hang every terrorist we found. There is no law protecting them in the first place, and furthermore, I'd send hit squads against every enemy leader supporting the terrorists. Or, I'd simply bomb them into oblivion. Between Jimmy Carter and Billy Klinton Ive had a stomach full of your fucking international law and I don't give a shit about it! I never took an oath to uphold shit when it comes to Terrorists or foreign dictators threatening my country and they are fucking lucky I'm not running the show.

                     I never met a lawyer who wasn't a physical and moral coward and I only met one who was actually truthful about his job, "a public defender". You want to know what he told me? He said, "My job is to stand next to a river of piss and shit and grab the 100$ bills floating by, stuck in the middle of the shit".

                   And in the war of corporate greed its the fucking sheisters that are at the front, pens in hand, screwing over working Americans  ...............Uncle Rich...........  




			
				Decker said:
			
		

> I was actually hoping you would respond to that. I bet that's the first and last time anyone says that.
> 
> You (and dg806) are police officers (I believe) sworn to uphold the law. You don't like the law governing Bush's illegal invasion so you disregard it. Very dangerous. And you dust off the "Hussein did not comply" argument _ad nauseum_. Repeating the slogan doesn't make it true. He did comply. True it resembled yelling at a child repeatedly to eat his vegetables, but the end result was compliance...Hussein ate his vegetables.
> 
> As for your wish to bomb any government you view as fascist. If your first answer is bombing, you're either asking the wrong question or misunderstanding the situation at hand. It seems that your only problem with war is that we don't have enough of them.


----------



## GFR (Oct 7, 2005)

Fascist slave


----------



## Decker (Oct 7, 2005)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> "Oh well, that's just the way it is." So that makes it right? Funny, if I say, "This little pissant, third world country is messing up my oil supply. I'm bigger than they are so I'm gonna go in and set things straight." You're crying bloody murder. But Saddam can get away with wholesale genocide and all you can say is, "Oh well, that's just the way it is." Wow. .


I point out the legal aspect of the illegal invasion. Saddam got away w/ wholesale genocide w/ US and British support. Apparently hypocrisy is not part of your analysis. Unlike Reagan/Bush, I was against Iraq's use of wmds.



			
				ALBOB said:
			
		

> P.S. Those millions of Iraqis are NOT suffering anymore because of our actions. True, there's still a long way to go, but at least they're on the road to recovery.................No thanks to whiners who can only sit on the sidelines and wring their hand in fear.


Oh really? Tell that to the estimated 25,000 to 100,000 dead iraqis not to mention scores more injured/homeless/destitute. "You're dead but dammit life is better for you." If you wish to analyze the 'rebuilding' and 'democratization' of Iraq, I suggest you start w/ the wholesale corruption of the process. The changing of property laws ensuring that the Iraqi infrastructure and resources are owned by anyone but the Iraqi people for decades to come.


----------



## Decker (Oct 7, 2005)

Rich46yo said:
			
		

> The big difference, Einstein, is the world don't run according to law, the stakes are to high, and winning is the only thing that matters. We can play silly little games with our harmless gangsters and criminals that we simply cant afford to play with characters like Saddam, or Hitler, or Tojo, or Stalin, or Mao, or anyone like that. So grow the fuck up and stop thinking the world runs by the rules of your safe little courthouse.
> 
> If I were President I'd hang every terrorist we found. There is no law protecting them in the first place, and furthermore, I'd send hit squads against every enemy leader supporting the terrorists. Or, I'd simply bomb them into oblivion. Between Jimmy Carter and Billy Klinton Ive had a stomach full of your fucking international law and I don't give a shit about it! I never took an oath to uphold shit when it comes to Terrorists or foreign dictators threatening my country and they are fucking lucky I'm not running the show.


You're right. Wow how blind I am. "Imagine a land with no law and order. Everyone would be free to commit violence and aggression without worrying about police retaliation. Greed would spur individuals to rob, cheat and steal at every opportunity. Jealous lovers could kill with impunity. Nothing could stop your neighbor from driving you off your land and taking your property, except your own use of defensive force." Source: S. Kangas
Enough of this fantasy we call civilized lawful behavior. Why in your sorry-ass world life is run at then end of a barrel of a gun. You advocate some horseshit dirty harry foreign policy--remember Bud, your ass can be capped just as easily as theirs. Your power politics opens the door for an irony you cannot comprehend.


			
				Rich46yo said:
			
		

> I never met a lawyer who wasn't a physical and moral coward and I only met one who was actually truthful about his job, "a public defender". You want to know what he told me? He said, "My job is to stand next to a river of piss and shit and grab the 100$ bills floating by, stuck in the middle of the shit".
> 
> And in the war of corporate greed its the fucking sheisters that are at the front, pens in hand, screwing over working Americans  ...............Uncle Rich...........


What the hell is a physical coward? Hard to believe you are sane enough to pass yourself off as a cop.


----------



## GFR (Oct 7, 2005)

He is no cop!!!!!
Just another 40 year old living in Moms basement, playing D@ D.


----------



## Rich46yo (Oct 7, 2005)

A "defender of Democracy" is someone who puts their ass on the line to defend it. Calling a lawyer that is a stretch for sure.

                        Since you are to stupid to tell the difference between domestic law and order, and the murkey world of INTL law and terrorism, I think this discussion will have to end. If those in power listen to morons like you, and give terrorists and terr supporting Govt,s, and tyrants, the same rights as American citizens, then we are in for a long, terrible war.

                        Thats all we need is more fucking lawyers poking their fingers in the air and talking about the Law.........Uncle Rich..........  




			
				Decker said:
			
		

> You're right. Wow how blind I am. "Imagine a land with no law and order. Everyone would be free to commit violence and aggression without worrying about police retaliation. Greed would spur individuals to rob, cheat and steal at every opportunity. Jealous lovers could kill with impunity. Nothing could stop your neighbor from driving you off your land and taking your property, except your own use of defensive force." Source: S. Kangas
> Enough of this fantasy we call civilized lawful behavior. Why in your sorry-ass world life is run at then end of a barrel of a gun. You advocate some horseshit dirty harry foreign policy--remember Bud, your ass can be capped just as easily as theirs. Your power politics opens the door for an irony you cannot comprehend.
> What the hell is a physical coward? Hard to believe you are sane enough to pass yourself off as a cop.


----------



## GFR (Oct 7, 2005)

"Rich lunch is ready"


"ok mom, I'll be right up"


----------



## Decker (Oct 7, 2005)

Rich46yo said:
			
		

> A "defender of Democracy" is someone who puts their ass on the line to defend it. Calling a lawyer that is a stretch for sure.
> 
> Since you are to stupid to tell the difference between domestic law and order, and the murkey world of INTL law and terrorism, I think this discussion will have to end. If those in power listen to morons like you, and give terrorists and terr supporting Govt,s, and tyrants, the same rights as American citizens, then we are in for a long, terrible war.
> 
> Thats all we need is more fucking lawyers poking their fingers in the air and talking about the Law.........Uncle Rich..........


I have no idea what you are talking about, but damn you're entertaining.  As a parting note, do you believe in the US Constitution?  Don't answer that...it's rhetorical.


----------



## ALBOB (Oct 7, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> I point out the legal aspect of the illegal invasion. Saddam got away w/ wholesale genocide w/ US and British support. Apparently hypocrisy is not part of your analysis. Unlike Reagan/Bush, I was against Iraq's use of wmds.



Speaking of ad nauseaum.  Don't you get tired of beating the same old drum?  OK, we supplied him with bad stuff.  Ya' think MAYBE that was before we knew he was bad?  Ya' think MAYBE Iran was the threat at the time?  So, let's see, it's possible the situation changed.  But instead of going in and fixing it you want us to just sit on our thumbs and cry about it?  World politics/dynamics/etc. change.  Our friend today may be our enemy tomorrow.  That's not hypocrisy, that's reality.  Fixing a situation is fixing a situation, where you get hypocrisy out of that I don't know.  The only way around it is 100% isolationism.  



			
				Decker said:
			
		

> Oh really? Tell that to the estimated 25,000 to 100,000 dead iraqis not to mention scores more injured/homeless/destitute. "You're dead but dammit life is better for you." If you wish to analyze the 'rebuilding' and 'democratization' of Iraq, I suggest you start w/ the wholesale corruption of the process. The changing of property laws ensuring that the Iraqi infrastructure and resources are owned by anyone but the Iraqi people for decades to come.



Now you've gone around the bend.  The 25K to 100K dead you mention were NOT killed by us.  They were killed by the terrorists that you keep saying Iraq never supported.  Why do you think the terrorists are so Hell bent on Iraq not becoming a free society?  They'd lose support.  The Iraqis that are alive and enjoying the freedoms they've only dreamed of in the past are damn thankful we came in and got rid of Saddam.  You've "analized" until you can't see your hand in front of your face.  You want to analize Iraq?  GO there.


----------



## Rich46yo (Oct 7, 2005)

We never gave Saddam "bad stuff". To have let a hostile Iran overrun Iraq and then threaten the rest of the Gulf states would have been a disaster. In the end we had to pick between Iraqis soldier dieing or American ones having to. And then, at the time, there was the larger issue of the cold war and a Soviet Union looking for advantage in the conflict.

                      In the final analysis giving what small help we gave Saddam was the right move, "still waiting for proof from Decker we aided Iraq with CBW targeting". Exactly what "bad stuff" did we give Saddam?

                     Decker is an inexperienced child in worldy matters. The silly little guy just makes shit up and has never been anywhere where mommie wasnt there to wipe his ass for him.................Uncle Rich..........


----------



## Decker (Oct 7, 2005)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> Speaking of ad nauseaum. Don't you get tired of beating the same old drum? OK, we supplied him with bad stuff. Ya' think MAYBE that was before we knew he was bad? Ya' think MAYBE Iran was the threat at the time? So, let's see, it's possible the situation changed. But instead of going in and fixing it you want us to just sit on our thumbs and cry about it? World politics/dynamics/etc. change. Our friend today may be our enemy tomorrow. That's not hypocrisy, that's reality. Fixing a situation is fixing a situation, where you get hypocrisy out of that I don't know. The only way around it is 100% isolationism.


The US supported Hussein _after_ he used the WMDs...it wasn't the case that the US saw a good dictator gone bad. Hypocrisy comes from supporting/building-up a guy like Hussein and then turning around and attacking him for being the type of leader we made him out to be. Yes he was a monster. Yes we are better off w/out him. Yes, the US removed him in an illegal manner. Being #1 in the world means to lead by example. 



			
				ALBOB said:
			
		

> Now you've gone around the bend. The 25K to 100K dead you mention were NOT killed by us. They were killed by the terrorists that you keep saying Iraq never supported. Why do you think the terrorists are so Hell bent on Iraq not becoming a free society? They'd lose support. The Iraqis that are alive and enjoying the freedoms they've only dreamed of in the past are damn thankful we came in and got rid of Saddam. You've "analized" until you can't see your hand in front of your face. You want to analize Iraq? GO there.


Come on Albob, the battles began against Iraqis people...the battles continue w/ alienated Iraqis using terrorist tactics--I mean what country do you think these terrorists come from? True some insurgents are foreign, but if it were my family blown away by US artillery b/c Bush illegally attacked, I'd be a bit miffed also and seek retaliation. But for Bush's illegal invasion, all of those people now dead would likely be alive. As far as a breakdown of who did what, look below...as if it matters to the dead.
_*[size=+1]A Dossier of Civilian Casualties in Iraq*_
_*2003???2005[/size]*_

New analysis of civilian casualties in Iraq: Report unveils comprehensive details "A Dossier on Civilian Casualties in Iraq, 2003-2005" is the first detailed account of all non-combatants reported killed or wounded during the first two years of the continuing conflict. The report, published by Iraq Body Count in association with Oxford Research Group, is based on comprehensive analysis of over 10,000 media reports published between March 2003 and March 2005. 

*Findings include:*

Who was killed? 

24,865 civilians were reported killed in the first two years.
Women and children accounted for almost 20% of all civilian deaths.
Baghdad alone recorded almost half of all deaths.
When did they die? 

30% of civilian deaths occurred during the invasion phase before 1 May 2003.
Post-invasion, the number of civilians killed was almost twice as high in year two (11,351) as in year one (6,215).
Who did the killing? 

US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims.
Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 9% of civilian victims.
Post-invasion criminal violence accounted for 36% of all deaths.
Killings by anti-occupation forces, crime and unknown agents have shown a steady rise over the entire period.
What was the most lethal weaponry? 

Over half (53%) of all civilian deaths involved explosive devices.
Air strikes caused most (64%) of the explosives deaths.
Children were disproportionately affected by all explosive devices but most severely by air strikes and unexploded ordnance (including cluster bomblets).
How many were injured? 

At least 42,500 civilians were reported wounded.
The invasion phase caused 41% of all reported injuries.
Explosive weaponry caused a higher ratio of injuries to deaths than small arms.
The highest wounded-to-death ratio incidents occurred during the invasion phase.
Who provided the information? 

Mortuary officials and medics were the most frequently cited witnesses.
Three press agencies provided over one third of the reports used.
Iraqi journalists are increasingly central to the reporting work.
Speaking today at the launch of the report in London, Professor John Sloboda, FBA, one of the report's authors said: "The ever-mounting Iraqi death toll is the forgotten cost of the decision to go to war in Iraq. On average, 34 ordinary Iraqis have met violent deaths every day since the invasion of March 2003. Our data show that no sector of Iraqi society has escaped. We sincerely hope that this research will help to inform decision-makers around the world about the real needs of the Iraqi people as they struggle to rebuild their country. It remains a matter of the gravest concern that, nearly two and half years on, neither the US nor the UK governments have begun to systematically measure the impact of their actions in terms of human lives destroyed."


----------



## Decker (Oct 7, 2005)

Rich46yo said:
			
		

> We never gave Saddam "bad stuff". To have let a hostile Iran overrun Iraq and then threaten the rest of the Gulf states would have been a disaster. In the end we had to pick between Iraqis soldier dieing or American ones having to. And then, at the time, there was the larger issue of the cold war and a Soviet Union looking for advantage in the conflict.
> 
> In the final analysis giving what small help we gave Saddam was the right move, "still waiting for proof from Decker we aided Iraq with CBW targeting". Exactly what "bad stuff" did we give Saddam?
> 
> Decker is an inexperienced child in worldy matters. The silly little guy just makes shit up and has never been anywhere where mommie wasnt there to wipe his ass for him.................Uncle Rich..........


You're right again and by that I mean you are hopelessly wrong:
Initially, Iraq advanced far into Iranian territory, but was driven back within months. By mid-1982, Iraq was on the defensive against Iranian human-wave attacks. *The U.S., having decided that an Iranian victory would not serve its interests, began supporting Iraq*: measures already underway to upgrade U.S.-Iraq relations were accelerated, high-level officials exchanged visits, and in February 1982 the State Department *removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism*. (It had been included several years earlier because of ties with several Palestinian nationalist groups, not Islamicists sharing the worldview of al-Qaeda. Activism by Iraq's main Shiite Islamicist opposition group, al-Dawa, was a major factor precipitating the war -- stirred by Iran's Islamic revolution, its endeavors included the attempted assassination of Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz.)
Prolonging the war was phenomenally expensive. *Iraq received* massive external financial support from the Gulf states, and assistance through *loan programs from the U.S. The White House and State Department pressured the Export-Import Bank to provide Iraq with financing, to enhance its credit standing and enable it to obtain loans from other international financial institutions. The U.S. Agriculture Department provided taxpayer-guaranteed loans for purchases of American commodities, to the satisfaction of U.S. grain exporters.*
Source: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Check out the pic of Rumsfeld and Hussein shaking hands.

Don't forget the Brits gave Hussein some WMDs also. Regarding the targeting: The satellite info sharing program btn the US and Iraq during the Iraq/Iran war is well-established. http://www.independent-media.tv/ite...nder%20Reported


----------



## Decker (Oct 7, 2005)

And that's the support that's on the books...You should see what the CIA allegedly did in support of Iraq during the '80s....off the books of course.


----------



## ALBOB (Oct 7, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> The US supported Hussein _after_ he used the WMDs...it wasn't the case that the US saw a good dictator gone bad. Hypocrisy comes from supporting/building-up a guy like Hussein and then turning around and attacking him for being the type of leader we made him out to be. Yes he was a monster. Yes we are better off w/out him. Yes, the US removed him in an illegal manner. Being #1 in the world means to lead by example. ."



Not arguing that we supported him.  As I said, Iran was the bigger threat.  This isn't the first time, not will it be the last time, we end up having to go in and clean up a mess we created.  As I also stated, the only way around this would be 100% isolationism.  Is that what you're proposing?



			
				Decker said:
			
		

> The report, published by Iraq Body Count in association with Oxford Research Group



You have GOT to be kidding!  The Oxford Group???  I tell you what, if you don't use The Oxford Group as a reference, I won't use the John Birch Society.


----------



## Decker (Oct 7, 2005)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> Not arguing that we supported him. As I said, Iran was the bigger threat. This isn't the first time, not will it be the last time, we end up having to go in and clean up a mess we created. As I also stated, the only way around this would be 100% isolationism. Is that what you're proposing?
> 
> 
> 
> You have GOT to be kidding! The Oxford Group??? I tell you what, if you don't use The Oxford Group as a reference, I won't use the John Birch Society.


Sorry, forgot to provide my source: http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

I imagine 'The Oxford Group' is some sort of 'peace group' as opposed to the neo-fascist Birch Society. If you take one moment to peruse the above website, I'm sure you'll find it to be credible:
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]*2. Sources*[/size][/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]Our sources include public domain newsgathering agencies with web access. A list of some core sources is given below. Further sources will be added provided they meet acceptable project standards (see below).[/size][/font]  
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]ABC - ABC News (USA)
AFP - Agence France-Presse 
AP - Associated Press 
AWST - Aviation Week and Space Technology
Al Jaz - Al Jazeera network 
BBC - British Broadcasting Corporation
BG - Boston Globe 
Balt. Sun - The Baltimore Sun 
CT - Chicago Tribune
CO - Commondreams.org
CSM - Christian Science Monitor
DPA - Deutsche Presse-Agentur
FOX - Fox News
GUA - The Guardian (London)
HRW - Human Rights Watch
HT - Hindustan Times
ICRC - International Committ of the Red Cross
[/size][/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]IND - The Independent (London)
IO - Intellnet.org
JT - Jordan Times
LAT - Los Angeles Times 
MEN - Middle East Newsline
MEO - Middle East Online
MER - Middle East Report 
MH - Miami Herald
NT - Nando Times
NYT - New York Times
Reuters - (includes Reuters Alertnet)
SABC - South African Broadcasting Corporation 
SMH - Sydney Morning Herald 
Sg.News - The Singapore News
Tel- The Telegraph (London)
Times - The Times (London)
TOI - Times of India
TS - Toronto Star
UPI - United Press International 
WNN - World News Network
WP - Washington Post[/size][/font]
By the way, where's your list of attorney's showing the legality of the invasion? When it comes to the integrity of our Constitution, our way of life, I never get tired of discussing it...you know, beating a dead horse.


----------



## ALBOB (Oct 7, 2005)

OMG.......Yer' killin' me.  Stop before I laugh myself into hysterics.

I saw the source, "The report, published by Iraq Body Count in association with Oxford Research Group".  If YOU'LL take one moment to peruse your own post you'll notice my comparison to the John Birch Society was pretty accurate.  One is no more credible than the other.  (In case you didn't read between the lines there, I am NOT a supporter of that particular society.  I use them as an example to show the right can be just as radical/stupid as the left.)

Agence France-Presse?  *Al Jazeera* network?  British Broadcasting Corporation?  Deutsche Presse-Agentur?  Human Rights Watch? etc., etc., etc....

You're kidding, right?  You're just testing me to see if I'm paying attention.  Good one.


----------

