New topic
PrintableI'm with SK. It's all just rhetoric. As much as Bush throws around comments like "axis of evil", "homicidal dictator" and "good vs evil" - Hussein isn't Hitler, and he isn't the devil incarnate either.
Personally (and I'm sure I'm not alone on this) I believe that the US and George W Bush are a far greater threat to world peace than Iraq will ever be. | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
Ian, when Bush, & no I don't like him & Cheney etc.., makes comments like "axis of evil", "homicidal dictator" or "good vs evil" , he doesn't do it for us... bright people with high speed connection computer, we don't have to despise common people who didn't have the opportunity to go the university...
During ww2 Churchill, Roosevelt , de Gaulle have made empty, pompous sentences too, does that mean that their cause was useless/ stupid? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
jnoel said: Ian, when Bush, & no I don't like him & Cheney etc.., makes comments like "axis of evil", "homicidal dictator" or "good vs evil" , he doesn't do it for us... bright people with high speed connection computer, we don't have to despise common people who didn't have the opportunity to go the university...
During ww2 Churchill, Roosevelt , de Gaulle have made empty, pompous sentences too, does that mean that their cause was useless/ stupid? I don't believe Bush or the USA have "a cause". | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
which word would you use to describe the North Korean regime who has used starvation against his own people..., "unpretty"? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
jnoel said: which word would you use to describe the North Korean regime who has used starvation against his own people..., "unpretty"?
what a beautiful avatar! ^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^
Being happy doesn't mean that everything is perfect, it means you've decided to look beyond the imperfections... unknown | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
three words: bush, go away. 
three mo' words: i miss clinton.  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
ian said: jnoel said: Ian, when Bush, & no I don't like him & Cheney etc.., makes comments like "axis of evil", "homicidal dictator" or "good vs evil" , he doesn't do it for us... bright people with high speed connection computer, we don't have to despise common people who didn't have the opportunity to go the university...
During ww2 Churchill, Roosevelt , de Gaulle have made empty, pompous sentences too, does that mean that their cause was useless/ stupid? I don't believe Bush or the USA have "a cause". 
after all...first, we were going to strike because we felt Iraq was in eminent threat...then it was because of a nuclear threat...and then it was because of the Al Quida link...then it was because Iraq was not keeping its promise to the UN... Like Daschell said earlier today, the president has muffled all momentum form diplomacy with his unfocused war mongering... DIPLOMACY BEFORE WAR is key..this is the American Way... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
jnoel said: which word would you use to describe the North Korean regime who has used starvation against his own people..., "unpretty"?
 we aren't talking about North Korea, we are talking about the USA "pre-emptively" attacking people they think are "evil" and that "may pose a threat". | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
North Korea is member of the "axis of evil" club...
If the USA's attack - frees this country from a cruel regime - means the end of the economic sanction I am for or else what will we do for the Iraqi people? Signing petition, marching..., wow that's what they need,that will make Hussein and his torturers respect the Human Rights. I'm waiting for the "what about China, Russia?" etc [This message was edited Thu Oct 10 12:40:03 PDT 2002 by jnoel] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SoulPower says:
In addition, Saddam Hussein is a longtime enemy of Al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists of the bin-Laden variety. . There is no evidence that Hussein is suicidal, which he would have to be to conduct a significant operation against the US. trategy, costs, and risks, is certain to divert us for some indefinite period from our war on terrorism." +++ Echo says: You say there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein is suicidal, then why would he risk being hit? Where's the MAN going to hide?--- So why won't he allow inspections, and I mean thorough ones? Especially, like you say he is a longtime enemy of Al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists of the Bin-Laden variety. What do you think SoulPower? Natsume: where did you get that pic? My oh my aren't there just MANY LOOK-ALIKES in this world? and these aren't clones, or are they? Nep - Nice post! Let's just put all of these leaders in a nice big room and make them put on their  signs, and do the
DANCE ELECTRIC before the house QUAKES! "How do the people know what they want, if you never give them what they need?" 
:PRAY: for peace | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
From zmag:
A CENTURY OF U.S. MILITARY INTERVENTIONS: From Wounded Knee to Afghanistan Compiled by Zoltan Grossman (revised 09/20/01) The following is a partial list of U.S. military interventions from 1890 to 1999. This guide does NOT include demonstration duty by military police, mobilizations of the National Guard, offshore shows of naval strength, reinforcements of embassy personnel, the use of non-Defense Department personnel (such as the Drug Enforcement Agency), military exercises, non-combat mobilizations (such as replacing postal strikers), the permanent stationing of armed forces, covert actions where the U.S. did not play a command and control role, the use of small hostage rescue units, most uses of proxy troops, U.S. piloting of foreign warplanes, foreign disaster assistance, military training and advisory programs not involving direct combat, civic action programs, and many other military activities. < Among sources used, besides news reports, are the Congressional Record (23 June 1969), 180 Landings by the U.S. Marine Corps History Division, Ege & Makhijani in Counterspy (July-Aug. 1982), and Daniel Ellsberg in Protest & Survive. "Instances of Use of United States Forces Abroad, 1798-1993" by Ellen C. Collier of the Library of Congress Congressional Research Service. SOUTH DAKOTA 1890 (-?) Troops 300 Lakota Indians massacred at Wounded Knee. ARGENTINA 1890 Troops Buenos Aires interests protected. CHILE 1891 Troops Marines clash with nationalist rebels. HAITI 1891 Troops Black workers revolt on U.S.-claimed Navassa Island defeated. IDAHO 1892 Troops Army suppresses silver miners' strike. HAWAII 1893 (-?) Naval, troops Independent kingdom overthrown, annexed. CHICAGO 1894 Troops Breaking of rail strike, 34 killed. NICARAGUA 1894 Troops Month-long occupation of Bluefields. CHINA 1894-95 Naval, troops Marines land in Sino-Japanese War. KOREA 1894-96 Troops Marines kept in Seoul during war. PANAMA 1895 Troops, naval Marines land in Colombian province. NICARAGUA 1896 Troops Marines land in port of Corinto. CHINA 1898-1900 Troops Boxer Rebellion fought by foreign armies. PHILIPPINES 1898-1910(-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, killed 600,000 Filipinos. CUBA 1898-1902(-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still hold Navy base. PUERTO RICO 1898(-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, occupation continues. GUAM 1898(-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still use as base. MINNESOTA 1898(-?) Troops Army battles Chippewa at Leech Lake. NICARAGUA 1898 Troops Marines land at port of San Juan del Sur. SAMOA 1899(-?) Troops Battle over succession to throne. NICARAGUA 1899 Troops Marines land at port of Bluefields. IDAHO 1899-1901 Troops Army occupies Coeur d'Alene mining region. OKLAHOMA 1901 Troops Army battles Creek Indian revolt. PANAMA 1901-14 Naval, troops Broke off from Colombia 1903, annexed Canal Zone 1914-99. HONDURAS 1903 Troops Marines intervene in revolution. DOMINICAN REP. 1903-04 Troops U.S. interests protected in Revolution. KOREA 1904-05 Troops Marines land in Russo-Japanese War. CUBA 1906-09 Troops Marines land in democratic election. NICARAGUA 1907 Troops "Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate set up. HONDURAS 1907 Troops Marines land during war with Nicaragua. PANAMA 1908 Troops Marines intervene in election contest. NICARAGUA 1910 Troops Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto. HONDURAS 1911 Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war. CHINA 1911-41 Naval, troops Continuous occupation with flare-ups. CUBA 1912 Troops U.S. interests protected in Havana. PANAMA 19l2 Troops Marines land during heated election. HONDURAS 19l2 Troops Marines protect U.S. economic interests. NICARAGUA 1912-33 Troops, bombing 20-year occupation, fought guerrillas. MEXICO 19l3 Naval Americans evacuated during revolution. DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1914 Naval Fight with rebels over Santo Domingo. COLORADO 1914 Troops Breaking of miners' strike by Army. MEXICO 1914-18 Naval, troops Series of interventions against nationalists. HAITI 1914-34 Troops, bombing 19-year occupation after revolts. DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1916-24 Troops 8-year Marine occupation. CUBA 1917-33 Troops Military occupation, economic protectorate. WORLD WAR I 19l7-18 Naval, troops Ships sunk, fought Germany RUSSIA 1918-22 Naval, troops Five landings to fight Bolsheviks. PANAMA 1918-20 Troops "Police duty" during unrest after elections. YUGOSLAVIA 1919 Troops Marines intervene for Italy against Serbs in Dalmatia. HONDURAS 1919 Troops Marines land during election campaign. GUATEMALA 1920 Troops 2-week intervention against unionists. WEST VIRGINIA 1920-21 Troops, bombing Army intervenes against mineworkers. TURKEY 1922 Troops Fought nationalists in Smyrna (Izmir). CHINA 1922-27 Naval, troops Deployment during nationalist revolt. HONDURAS 1924-25 Troops Landed twice during election strife. PANAMA 1925 Troops Marines suppress general strike. CHINA 1927-34 Troops Marines stationed throughout the country. EL SALVADOR 1932 Naval Warships sent during Faribundo Marti revolt. WASHINGTON DC 1932 Troops Army stops WWI vet bonus protest. WORLD WAR II 1941-45 Naval,troops, bombing, nuclear Fought Axis for 3 years; 1st nuclear war. DETROIT 1943 Troops Army puts down Black rebellion. IRAN 1946 Nuclear threat Soviet troops told to leave north (Iranian Azerbaijan). YUGOSLAVIA 1946 Naval Response to shooting-down of U.S. plane. URUGUAY 1947 Nuclear threat Bombers deployed as show of strength. GREECE 1947-49 Command operation U.S. directs extreme-right in civil war. CHINA 1948-49 Troops Marines evacuate Americans before Communist victory. GERMANY 1948 Nuclear threat Atomic-capable bombers guard Berlin Airlift. PHILIPPINES 1948-54 Command operation CIA directs war against Huk Rebellion. PUERTO RICO 1950 Command operation Independence rebellion crushed in Ponce. KOREA 1950-53 Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats U.S.& South Korea fight China & North Korea to stalemate; A-bomb threat in 1950, & vs. China in 1953. Still have bases. IRAN 1953 Command operation CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah. VIETNAM 1954 Nuclear threat Bombs offered to French to use against siege. GUATEMALA 1954 Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat CIA directs exile invasion after new gov't nationalizes U.S. company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua. EGYPT 1956 Nuclear threat, troops Soviets told to keep out of Suez crisis; MArines evacuate foreigners LEBANON 1958 Troops, naval Marine occupation against rebels. IRAQ 1958 Nuclear threat Iraq warned against invading Kuwait. CHINA 1958 Nuclear threat China told not to move on Taiwan isles. PANAMA 1958 Troops Flag protests erupt into confrontation. VIETNAM 1960-75 Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; 1-2 million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in 1968 and 1969. CUBA 1961 Command operation CIA-directed exile invasion fails. GERMANY 1961 Nuclear threat Alert during Berlin Wall crisis. CUBA 1962 Nuclear threat Naval Blockade during missile crisis; near-war with USSR. LAOS 1962 Command operation Military buildup during guerrilla war. PANAMA 1964 Troops Panamanians shot for urging canal's return. INDONESIA 1965 Command operation Million killed in CIA-assisted army coup. DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1965-66 Troops, bombing Marines land during election campaign. GUATEMALA 1966-67 Command operation Green Berets intervene against rebels. DETROIT 1967 Troops Army battles Blacks, 43 killed. UNITED STATES 1968 Troops After King is shot; over 21,000 soldiers in cities. CAMBODIA 1969-75 Bombing, troops, naval Up to 2 million killed in decade of bombing, starvation, and political chaos. OMAN 1970 Command operation U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion. LAOS 1971-73 Command operation, bombing U.S. directs South Vietnamese invasion; "carpet-bombs" countryside. SOUTH DAKOTA 1973 Command operation Army directs Wounded Knee siege of Lakotas. MIDEAST 1973 Nuclear threat World-wide alert during Mideast War. CHILE 1973 Command operation CIA-backed coup ousts elected marxist president. CAMBODIA 1975 Troops, bombing Gas captured ship, 28 die in copter crash. ANGOLA 1976-92 Command operation CIA assists South African-backed rebels. IRAN 1980 Troops, nuclear threat, aborted bombing Raid to rescue Embassy hostages; 8 troops die in copter-plane crash. Soviets warned not to get involved in revolution. LIBYA 1981 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down in maneuvers. EL SALVADOR 1981-92 Command operation, troops Advisors, overflights aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash. NICARAGUA 1981-90 Command operation, naval CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution. LEBANON 1982-84 Naval, bombing, troops Marines expel PLO and back Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells Muslim and Syrian positions. HONDURAS 1983-89 Troops Maneuvers help build bases near borders. GRENADA 1983-84 Troops, bombing Invasion four years after revolution. IRAN 1984 Jets Two Iranian jets shot down over Persian Gulf. LIBYA 1986 Bombing, naval Air strikes to topple nationalist gov't. BOLIVIA 1986 Troops Army assists raids on cocaine region. IRAN 1987-88 Naval, bombing US intervenes on side of Iraq in war. LIBYA 1989 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down. VIRGIN ISLANDS 1989 Troops St. Croix Black unrest after storm. PHILIPPINES 1989 Jets Air cover provided for government against coup. PANAMA 1989-90 Troops, bombing Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed. LIBERIA 1990 Troops Foreigners evacuated during civil war. SAUDI ARABIA 1990-91 Troops, jets Iraq countered after invading Kuwait; 540,000 troops also stationed in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Israel. IRAQ 1990-? Bombing, troops, naval Blockade of Iraqi and Jordanian ports, air strikes; 200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and Kuwait; no-fly zone over Kurdish north, Shiite south, large-scale destruction of Iraqi military. KUWAIT 1991 Naval, bombing, troops Kuwait royal family returned to throne. LOS ANGELES 1992 Troops Army, Marines deployed against anti-police uprising. SOMALIA 1992-94 Troops, naval, bombing U.S.-led United Nations occupation during civil war; raids against one Mogadishu faction. YUGOSLAVIA 1992-94 Naval Nato blockade of Serbia and Montenegro. BOSNIA 1993-95 Jets, bombing No-fly zone patrolled in civil war; downed jets, bombed Serbs. HAITI 1994-96 Troops, naval Blockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup. CROATIA 1995 Bombing Krajina Serb airfields attacked before Croatian offensive. ZAIRE (CONGO) 1996-97 Troops Marines at Rwandan Hutu refuge camps, in area where Congo revolution begins. LIBERIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners. ALBANIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners. SUDAN 1998 Missiles Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas plant. AFGHANISTAN 1998 Missiles Attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies. IRAQ 1998-? Bombing, Missiles Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions. YUGOSLAVIA 1999-? Bombing, Missiles Heavy NATO air strikes after Serbia declines to withdraw from Kosovo. YEMEN 2000 Naval Suicide bomb attack on USS Cole. MACEDONIA 2001 Troops NATO troops shift and partially disarm Albanian rebels. UNITED STATES 2001 Jets, naval Response to hijacking attacks. AFGHANISTAN 2001 Massive U.S. mobilization to attack Taliban, Bin Laden. War could expand to Iraq, Sudan, and beyond. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SkletonKee said: Nep2nes said: We did that with the inspections. All these other countries want us 2 play by the old rules--the ones that Saddam has been scoffing at 4 the past 11 years by not allowing inspectors in.
It is obvious, 2 my mind, that something additional needs 2 b done. We cannot, as Congressman McDermott said "take Iraq 4 their word." That's absurd. We must remember that b4 Hitler started moving in2 other nations, he did a lot of great things 4 Germany. B4 the sanctions Saddam built a hospital, did all these great things. In fact, UNICEF almost took them off their list of people who need help. But then the sanctions happened and things have gone downhill in Iraq since. Yet that has not affected Hussein in any way, with his 8 palaces. If Hussein wants the sanctions lifted, he has the power 2 do it. But his situation is self-imposed. And he doesn't care because he doesn't suff U may ask y do sanctions if he was in the process of rebuilding his country, but Hitler did the same thing 4 his country but then he took over this country and that country, and we were going 4 a policy of appeasement. Hussein going in2 Kuwait was a parallel thing u could say, because if he had gotten Kuwait he would have expanded, who knows what would have happened. there are no *facts* in your statement...its all all a hypothosis...dont you agree that America needs concrete *facts* before going to war? after all, many people could look at what Bush is proposing and say the man is hell bent on being the next hilter... this is what scares me most about our country right now..nobody is debating this with facts...its all rhetoric.. funkbible's post is a perfect example of this. The facts r there. I suggest u go back a couple of Reader's Digest issues and look at the article which was also published in the Atlantic Monthly I believe. There was an article about y we should go 2 war with Hussein, and in box 2 the side of the article were a list of the chemical weapons he is KNOWN 2 have. There were not even documented the tons of chemicals he has that r unknown. Among the things listed were uranium, nerve gas, anthrax, and several other biological weapons. If u look up the definition of "fair war" these weapons r not allowed. The United States does not have biological weapons or germs designed specifically 4 use in warfare. The facts r there. We have more than enough reasons 2 get rid of this man. He is ruling a decrepit country. He could easily end his people's torment, but his pride is in the way. We're talking about a man who ordered the death of his son-in-law, a man who kills people in his inner circle if they speak against him. He cuts out the tongue of the officer in question, kills him...then kills his wife and children 4 good measure. Does any1 want 2 live on the same earth as this man? Raise ur hands. 
. [This message was edited Thu Oct 10 13:24:05 PDT 2002 by Nep2nes] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SkletonKee said: after all...first, we were going to strike because we felt Iraq was in eminent threat...then it was because of a nuclear threat...and then it was because of the Al Quida link...then it was because Iraq was not keeping its promise to the UN... Perhaps it is all these things. P.S. It's spelled Al-Qaeda. I'm not making fun of u here, I'm telling u so that when u argue in the future people will not make fun of u 4 spelling it wrong. . [This message was edited Thu Oct 10 13:27:14 PDT 2002 by Nep2nes] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
huggy, that was a very exhaustive list and certainly a good reference.
But...and I don't mean 2 deflect attention, I think that given how young we r as a nation, if u look at older nations, their list would b just as long, if not longer. U must also take in2 account the fact that the United States is used as the world's policemen. And now, because the United Nations cannot enforce its own rules, u c the U.S. and Britain stepping up 2 the plate and demanding inspections. Again, this is an example of the United Nations proving itself 2 b a weak and ineffective organization. They have failed 2 make Hussein comply 4 the past 11 some odd years. Remember what happened 2 Ethiopia in World War 2. Haile Selassie asks 4 help against the Italian Nazis, whom he KNOWS r set 2 invade his country--he recieves no help from the U.N. The U.N. has never been effective, nor does it care about its members. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Nep2nes said: P.S. It's spelled Al-Qaeda. I'm not making fun of u here, I'm telling u so that when u argue in the future people will not make fun of u 4 spelling it wrong.
nobody is childish enough on this site to make fun of someone else for spelling errors... well, except for maybe...oh, i wont even go there...  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Nep2nes said: The facts r there. I suggest u go back a couple of Reader's Digest issues and look at the article which was also published in the Atlantic Monthly I believe. There was an article about y we should go 2 war with Hussein, and in box 2 the side of the article were a list of the chemical weapons he is KNOWN 2 have. There were not even documented the tons of chemicals he has that r unknown.
i am not arguing that the facts aren't *there* to get rid of Saddam..I am saying that *your* arguement is flawed because you didnt back up your opinion's with actual facts... now, i fully agree that Saddam is an evil man and that the world needs to monitor him and make sure he is incapable of additional harm.. however, when you have a US President manipulating his public by making outlandish, contradicting and hypocritical statements...It demeans the office of the Presidency far worse then President Clinton getting head from an ugly fat chick... Bush failed in getting the world to support his plan of action and if he forces the US to attack alone (even Britian has only offered limited support) then it will change the course of our great country forever. We are setting ourselves up for much larger terrorist attacks than on Sept. 11th. People within the Carter, Bush Sr, Clinton *and* Dubya's own administration have acknowledged this... and for what? because the guy has chemical and biological weapons? that would never reach American Soil? Yet we have seeds planted in our country as we speak who are a far greater threat? There is no eminent danger...just a war-bent man in the white house... and my spelling be damned...im at work and in the middle of a very busy day...deal with it!!! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SkletonKee said: Nep2nes said: The facts r there. I suggest u go back a couple of Reader's Digest issues and look at the article which was also published in the Atlantic Monthly I believe. There was an article about y we should go 2 war with Hussein, and in box 2 the side of the article were a list of the chemical weapons he is KNOWN 2 have. There were not even documented the tons of chemicals he has that r unknown.
i am not arguing that the facts aren't *there* to get rid of Saddam..I am saying that *your* arguement is flawed because you didnt back up your opinion's with actual facts... What kind of facts do u want? U have been given evidence that u acknowledge points 2 Hussein as being an awful leader. What more evidence do I need? All I'm saying is, monitoring him isn't enough because he has been building up weapons of mass destruction. The man needed 2 b dealt with years ago, now that this administration seems bent on dealing with him, let's do it. Let's say they get some1 2 assassinate him, no innocent civilians harmed, only the man himself. Then we open the country up 2 popular vote, and take it from there. What would b wrong with that? Would that HARM any1? however, when you have a US President manipulating his public by making outlandish, contradicting and hypocritical statements...
I don't think the American people can b fooled easily. We know he's not very diplomatic as far as words. It demeans the office of the Presidency far worse then President Clinton getting head from an ugly fat chick...
Comments like this make it hard 2 take an argument seriously. I think she was pretty, but that doesn't even have anything 2 do with what we're talking about. First off, I'd prefer not 2 compare presidents. Let's live in the present and make do with the administration we have right NOW. Bush failed in getting the world to support his plan of action and if he forces the US to attack alone (even Britian has only offered limited support) then it will change the course of our great country forever. We are setting ourselves up for much larger terrorist attacks than on Sept. 11th. People within the Carter, Bush Sr, Clinton *and* Dubya's own administration have acknowledged this...
But if u look at the latest CNN poll something like 67% wanted war. I'm not saying a poll is the final answer, but still. and for what? because the guy has chemical and biological weapons? that would never reach American Soil?
That would never reach American Soil? That in itself is a far more "arrogant American" thing 2 say because u do not know that. Germs r microscopic. Bombs r huge. It would b very easy 2 send germs in2 a NYC subway. I don't think Hussein is building up all these weapons 4 his personal collection. . [This message was edited Thu Oct 10 14:21:08 PDT 2002 by Nep2nes] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SkletonKee said: Nep2nes said: P.S. It's spelled Al-Qaeda. I'm not making fun of u here, I'm telling u so that when u argue in the future people will not make fun of u 4 spelling it wrong.
nobody is childish enough on this site to make fun of someone else for spelling errors... well, except for maybe...oh, i wont even go there... Umm...u spelled it "Al Quida" because u did not know how 2 spell it. If u'll notice the "a" and "e" on ur keyboard r nowhere near the "u" and 'i' u hit. As I said, I was just pointing it out so u'd know 4 urself. Jeez.  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
 This list is senseless
What do you try to say? 300 Lakota Indians massacred at WoundedKnee=destruction of the Nazi dictatorship? USA's role in the WW2 has the same meaning than the Vietnam War? Or that they should have let the Red Army occupy the whole Germany? huggy said: From zmag:
A CENTURY OF U.S. MILITARY INTERVENTIONS: From Wounded Knee to Afghanistan Compiled by Zoltan Grossman (revised 09/20/01) The following is a partial list of U.S. military interventions from 1890 to 1999. This guide does NOT include demonstration duty by military police, mobilizations of the National Guard, offshore shows of naval strength, reinforcements of embassy personnel, the use of non-Defense Department personnel (such as the Drug Enforcement Agency), military exercises, non-combat mobilizations (such as replacing postal strikers), the permanent stationing of armed forces, covert actions where the U.S. did not play a command and control role, the use of small hostage rescue units, most uses of proxy troops, U.S. piloting of foreign warplanes, foreign disaster assistance, military training and advisory programs not involving direct combat, civic action programs, and many other military activities. < Among sources used, besides news reports, are the Congressional Record (23 June 1969), 180 Landings by the U.S. Marine Corps History Division, Ege & Makhijani in Counterspy (July-Aug. 1982), and Daniel Ellsberg in Protest & Survive. "Instances of Use of United States Forces Abroad, 1798-1993" by Ellen C. Collier of the Library of Congress Congressional Research Service. SOUTH DAKOTA 1890 (-?) Troops 300 Lakota Indians massacred at Wounded Knee. (...) AFGHANISTAN 2001 Massive U.S. mobilization to attack Taliban, Bin Laden. War could expand to Iraq, Sudan, and beyond. [This message was edited Thu Oct 10 23:06:18 PDT 2002 by jnoel] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Nep2nes said: That would never reach American Soil? That in itself is a far more "arrogant American" thing 2 say because u do not know that. Germs r microscopic. Bombs r huge. It would b very easy 2 send germs in2 a NYC subway. I don't think Hussein is building up all these weapons 4 his personal collection. and tell me o enlightend one...just why would Saddam send someone to America to release chemical or germ warfare? what does he have to gain? and why hasnt he done it already? expecially since he has had these weapons since *before* the gulfwar... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
For those of you who missed it..
You know, at least the American people was TOLD it would be lied to if necessary. ___ Some in military, diplomacy speak of deep misgivings By Warren P. Strobel, Jonathan S. Landay and John Walcott KNIGHT RIDDER NEWSPAPERS http://www.bayarea.com/ml...236855.htm WASHINGTON - While President Bush marshals congressional and international support for invading Iraq, a growing number of military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats in his own government privately have deep misgivings about the administration's double-time march toward war. These officials charge that administration hawks have exaggerated evidence of the threat that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein poses, including distorting his links to the al-Qaida terrorist network, have overstated the amount of international support for attacking Iraq and have downplayed the potential repercussions of a new war in the Middle East. They charge that the administration squelches dissenting views and that intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the White House's argument that Saddam poses such an immediate threat to the United States that pre-emptive military action is necessary. "Analysts at the working level in the intelligence community are feeling very strong pressure from the Pentagon to cook the intelligence books," said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity. A dozen other officials echoed his views in interviews with Knight Ridder. No one who was interviewed disagreed. They cited recent suggestions by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice that Saddam and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network are working together. Rumsfeld said Sept. 26 that the U.S. government has "bulletproof" confirmation of links between Iraq and al-Qaida members, including "solid evidence" that members of the terrorist network maintain a presence in Iraq. The facts are much less conclusive. Officials said Rumsfeld's statement was based in part on intercepted phone calls, in which an al-Qaida member who apparently was passing through Baghdad was overheard calling friends or relatives, intelligence officials said. The intercepts provide no evidence that the suspected terrorist was working with the Iraqi leadership or that he was working on a terrorist operation while he was in Iraq, they said. In his Monday night speech, President Bush said that a senior al-Qaida leader received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, implying larger cooperation, but he offered no evidence of complicity in any plot between the terrorist and Saddam's government. Rumsfeld suggested that the Iraqi leadership has offered safe haven to bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar. While technically true, that too is misleading, some intelligence officials said. Intelligence reports said the Iraqi ambassador to Turkey, a longtime Iraqi intelligence officer, made the offer during a visit to Afghanistan in late 1998, after the United States attacked al-Qaida training camps with cruise missiles to retaliate for the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. But officials said the same intelligence reports said bin Laden rejected the offer because he didn't want Saddam to control his group. In fact, the officials said, there's no ironclad evidence that Iraq and the terrorist network are working together, or that Saddam has ever contemplated giving chemical or biological weapons to al-Qaida, with whom he has deep ideological differences. None of the dissenting officials, who work in a number of different agencies, would agree to speak publicly, out of fear of retribution. But many of them have long experience in the Middle East and South Asia, and all spoke in similar terms about their unease with the way that U.S. political leaders are dealing with Iraq. All agreed that Saddam is a threat who eventually must be dealt with, and none flatly opposes military action. But, they say, the U.S. government has no dramatic new knowledge about the Iraqi leader that justifies Bush's urgent call to arms. "I've seen nothing that's compelling," said one military officer who has access to intelligence reports. Some lawmakers have voiced similar concerns after receiving CIA briefings. Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., said some information he had seen did not support Bush's portrayal of the Iraqi threat. "It's troubling to have classified information that contradicts statements made by the administration," Durbin said. "There's more they should share with the public." In his Monday-night speech, Bush stressed that if Saddam gained control of radioactive material no bigger than "a softball" he could build a nuclear weapon sufficient to intimidate his region, blackmail the world and covertly arm terrorists. But a senior administration intelligence official notes that Saddam has sought such highly enriched uranium for many years without success, and there is no evidence that he has it now. Moreover, the senior official said, Saddam has no way to deliver a nuclear weapon against a U.S. target. Several administration and intelligence officials defended CIA Director George Tenet, saying Tenet is not pressuring his analysts, but is quietly working to include dissenting opinions in intelligence estimates and congressional briefings. In one case, a senior administration official said, Tenet made sure that a State Department official told Congress that the Energy and State departments disagreed with an intelligence assessment that said hundreds of aluminum tubes Iraq tried to purchase were intended for Baghdad's secret nuclear-weapons program. Analysts in both departments concluded that the Iraqis probably wanted the tubes to make conventional artillery pieces. Other examples of questionable statements include: • Vice President Dick Cheney said in late August that Iraq might have nuclear weapons "fairly soon." However, a CIA report released Friday said it could take Iraq until the last half of the decade to produce a nuclear weapon, unless it could acquire bomb-grade uranium or plutonium on the black market. • Also in August, Rumsfeld suggested that al-Qaida operatives fleeing Afghanistan were taking refuge in Iraq with Saddam's assistance. "In a vicious, repressive dictatorship that exercises near-total control over its population, it's very hard to imagine that the government is not aware of what's taking place in the country," he said. Rumsfeld apparently was referring to about 150 members of the militant group Ansar al-Islam ("Supporters of Islam") who have taken refuge in Kurdish areas of northern Iraq. One of America's would-be Kurdish allies controls that part of the country, however, not Saddam. Current and former military officers question the view sometimes expressed by Cheney, Rumsfeld and their civilian advisers in and out of the U.S. government that an American-led campaign against the Iraqi military would be a walkover. "It is an article of faith among those with no military experience that the Iraqi military is low-hanging fruit," said one intelligence officer. [This message was edited Thu Oct 10 14:39:07 PDT 2002 by Aerogram] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Aero…, don’t tell me that you’ve just discovered the existence of government's propaganda….
There was anti USSR and anti communism propaganda during the Cold War, wasn’t USSR described as « the Empire of Evil » ? Mc Carthysm was certainly the worst aspect of this for the USA Does that mean that USSR and communists regimes in Central /Eastern Europe were good and that no fight against them, not military because it would have been WW3, was necessary ? [This message was edited Thu Oct 10 15:13:36 PDT 2002 by jnoel] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
jnoel said: Aero…, don’t tell me that you’ve just discovered the existence of propaganda’s gouvernmental….
There was anti USSR and anti communism propaganda during the Cold War, wasn’t USSR described as « the Empire of Evil » ? Mc Carthysm was certainly the worst aspect of this for the USA Does that mean that USSR and communists regimes in Central /Eastern Europe were good and that no fight, not military because it would have been WW3, was necessary ? Discovered? Hardly... but some people don't believe it, so here it is, governmental officials stating that there are intentional exagerations and distortions. See Lie... As for your Cold War comments, of course most people know that there was plenty of deceit. No, communist states were not "good", but it was the right thing to do not to invade despite the human cost. I'm not a big supporter of hard capitalism, but if I were, I think I would not see any advantage in defeating communism militarily. It would only had made the communist dream more appealing. I fully believe that communism had to defeat itself to be truly undermined. So no.. I don't think attacking Eastern European countries or the USSR would have been very fruitful in the long term, especially since we would have risked WW3 in the process. En tout cas, c'est ce que je crois.  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SkletonKee said: and tell me o enlightend one...just why would Saddam send someone to America to release chemical or germ warfare? what does he have to gain? and why hasnt he done it already? expecially since he has had these weapons since *before* the gulfwar... im still waiting for an answer to this question..where is the neptuna? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SkletonKee said: SkletonKee said: and tell me o enlightend one...just why would Saddam send someone to America to release chemical or germ warfare? what does he have to gain? and why hasnt he done it already? expecially since he has had these weapons since *before* the gulfwar... im still waiting for an answer to this question..where is the neptuna? And of course, everyone now knows that these dangerous biological weapons were built with help from the USA, who by the way, was breaking an international accord it had signed not to develop bioterror weapons. Sounds familiar? [This message was edited Thu Oct 10 16:24:17 PDT 2002 by Aerogram] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
You can address me directly funkbible.
funkbible said: You know I try not to get caught up in discussions like this because they always turn ugly; but let me bring up this one point to the "peace-mongers" of the org.
And there's the first bit of ugliness now! How would you feel if muslim terrorists used an Iraqi made radiological bomb and exploded it in your neighborhood? Or how would you feel if muslim terrorists working in an elemantary school down the street from your house laced the food which the kids were eating with a strain of the smallpox virus which was developed in Iraq? Or how about muslim terrorists put powdered weapons grade anthrax (refined in Iraq of course) into the air conditioning system at your local mall?
I would feel much like I did after 9-11 -- a real event, not some imaginary scare-scenario -- I would feel so mad and ready for war that I would want somebody in office smart enough to execute it properly, not someobody who ran like a pussy on 9-11. Instead I got Bush. Pity. I promise you that the so called "peace mongers" wouldnt be quite as understanding. This is exactly what Bush is trying prevent. There is solid and credible proof that Iraq has and is developing the proverbial weapons of mass destruction.
So what? Containment worked for the Soviet Union. Iraq is a lot less stable than the Soviet Union ever was. Iran is probably a lot more stable and a lot more dangerous. We can't wish WMD away. We have to find a new way to deal with them. Furthermore if you check your history you will see that as a condition of the end of the Gulf War; Iraq agreeded to cease its production of WMD`s and to destroy all of its WMD`s and all systems which could be used to deliver them (IE ballistic missles which Iraq still has). Once again may I point out that Iraq is in direct violation of its agreement.
Again, big whoop. Thus America and the UN has the legal right to go back in and take any action necessary to make Iraq comply with those resloutions. Those of you who ARE NOT in the know can cry about Bush being a war monger, or finishing daddies work, or invading Iraq for oil.
My point was not what everybody (like the Nimrod's at Z-mag) think it's about, my point was what Bush is saying it's about. If we could slow that old boy down and get him to complete a sentence without fucking it up, maybe then we could get him to spell out his foreign policy coherently for us. But that would just be intellectuamalizing, wouldn't it? Also, as I said above, I don't think it's about oil. However for those of us that ARE IN the know we realize that Hussien poses a serious threat to stability in the region and a serious threat to America and its intrests. Furthermore I take great OFFENSE at the fact that Hussein has been financing terrorists attacks in Isreal.
As do I. He's not the only one. Again: WHY IRAQ! Would Moonbeam please explain the rationale to me where a Meglomanic leader gives the family of so called susicide-bombers $25,000 dollars each as a token of the "grace of allah"??? Furthermore back in 1988 Hussien used chemical weapons on his own people and killed around 3500 of them. LET ME SAY THIS AGAIN, THE MAN GASSED 3500 INNOCENT IRAQI CITIZENS. I find it hard to belive that people tolerate this guy.
NOBODY DOES! Not even the Arab world! It's just that most people realize that dropping a nuclear weapon on Iraq would kill many more innocent people than Hussein did, everybody that is except... Drop a FUCKIN nuke on Baghdad and end the problem.
Yee Haw. 
Most people in the Western world need to realize that Hussein, Arafat, and most foreign muslims do not like the West (IE America and Europe). Furthermore they whole-heartedly believe that anything bad that happens to America (or the West for that matter) is a good thing; especially if a fellow muslim is the cause of that harm.
I read your caveat about proofreading at the end of your post, so I feel kinda funny about criticizing your use of pronouns here... but what is this "they" shit? Even if "most foreign muslims" do hate the US, that doesn't mean that most want to see us all dead. US vs. them, eh? The profound differences in our cultures and our lack of understanding towards each other (IE muslims and the West) do nothing but compound the problem. Alas the problem isnt religion it is the neo-politicalstylizing of the issue.
 Doesn't this contradict the rest of your post? Are you saying "Can't we all just get along?" But then that neologism threw me, so...
And for the record (1) Im not Jewish (2) Im not talking to hear myself talk. I have a double minor in Modern Military History and Modern Military Theory which involve waaay too many political science courses so I know a little bit about what Im talking about
That's weird because most of the dissent from Bush's Iraq policy (if we can call it that) is not coming from the "peace-mongers" but from those "in the know": the military establishment, the CIA, Anthony Zinni, Eagleburger, Kissinger, etc., although they will no doubt fall in line, as has congress and the senate. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
This is a really interesting and informative thread.
The facts are great. Propaganda is part of war. From both sides. And some buy into it. I suspect they actually know it's all bs, but accept it for some personal political view or pride or something. I'm amazed people just depend on the corporate news, local or national on major stations for their knowledge. They spew their imaginations, their paranoia. Live your life like that. Not me. Too much TV and movies for you. And these people actually have never ever been in Iraq yet come off like they were there...interesting. You don't know unless you actually physically LIVE there. Not through TV. Anyway, keep discussing, love the intervention list. I remember reading that sometime in 1992! Now updated, great! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Nep2nes said: We did that with the inspections. All these other countries want us 2 play by the old rules--the ones that Saddam has been scoffing at 4 the past 11 years by not allowing inspectors in. -When you talk about inspections, you should read everything there is to it. Fact is that since 1991 Saddam has followed ALL UN petitions, and the US got frustrated because it didnt fit in the picture they have painted of Saddam. So what did they do? They hardened the sanctions, which is a violation against the current UN resolutions.. Of course Saddam does not accept that. You wouldnt either. Imagine they'd do that to you: Do this, do that, and we'll be cool. You follow the orders, then they say: Naw, thats not enough. You gotta do more. It is obvious, 2 my mind, that something additional needs 2 b done. We cannot, as Congressman McDermott said "take Iraq 4 their word." That's absurd. -yeah, somethings else needs to be done in fact. If you read my previous post, then you'll find out that Iraq is simply disarmed. Its a fact the UN is very aware of. And Bush to. Somebody needs to tell the people that there's no reason to invade Iraq at this point. Thats what needs to be done. If you read my post up there, you'd find many of your questions answered. But obviously you gave up reading my posts, because you never have anything to reply to them. You have no facts to disprove them. We must remember that b4 Hitler started moving in2 other nations, he did a lot of great things 4 Germany. B4 the sanctions Saddam built a hospital, did all these great things. In fact, UNICEF almost took them off their list of people who need help. But then the sanctions happened and things have gone downhill in Iraq since. Yet that has not affected Hussein in any way, with his 8 palaces. If Hussein wants the sanctions lifted, he has the power 2 do it. But his situation is self-imposed. And he doesn't care because he doesn't suffer. -Its pretty lame to compare Saddam to Hitler. As somebody else has pointed out before, Saddam is no Hitler and no reborn devil. He's simply a brutal dictator, there's many of them in this world, and many of those were installed by the governmnet you are defending here. U may ask y do sanctions if he was in the process of rebuilding his country, but Hitler did the same thing 4 his country but then he took over this country and that country, and we were going 4 a policy of appeasement. Hussein going in2 Kuwait was a parallel thing u could say, because if he had gotten Kuwait he would have expanded, who knows what would have happened. -If Saddam starts to go take over this country or that country as you say, THEN we can fairly discuss going to war with Iraq. But he has no plans to do so, he has not announced it in any way, he has not threatend any of his neighbours so far (Hitler did all that way before he attacked. If you read "Mein Kampf" you'd learn that in that book from the 1920s he's laying open his whole masterplan). Hussein went into Kuweit for the same reason why the US went into Iraq and Afghanistan later: Oil. So you are blaming him for doing something that your country is doing since many years? [This message was edited Fri Oct 11 2:35:04 PDT 2002 by soulpower] "Peace and Benz -- The future, made in Germany"  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Moonbeam said: twonabomber said: Moonbeam said: I completely agree. I think Bush is a war hawk and is using a rallying cry of patriotism to boost his popularity.
not only his popularity, but his chance of getting re-elected...i can just hear a speech that makes reference to the war on terrorism, and how "we're not done yet. keep me in the White House, so we can finish..." Indeed. Hopefully I won't have to put 3 stamps on my absentee ballot again in 2004 to vote against him. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
« Saddam Hussein is not Hitler » , how many times have I heard that….
when Milosevic and his allies have started in the early 90s the attack ex members of the ex Yugoslavia all the « human-rights heads » , at least in my country, have said : « it’s horrible, all these massacres for the first time in Europe since WW2, we have to do something , Milosevic is completly mad….»etc The European Union didn’t have the balls to do anything (french diplomacy was even pro serb at this time), the atrocities went on…. Some years laters the serbs start the shit again in Kosovo, same song « it’s horrible….. This time european diplomacy has worked, better late than never, & Otan ehehe Nato , so the USA ( officious leaders of Nato) have made a military intervention And what have we heard from, almost, the same side ? « It’s the american imperialism, the USA want to control the Balkans etc » and « Milosevic is not Hitler »
Of course, Bush & his staff ( well it seems that Powell is not very enthousiast about it) don’t want to attack Iraq only for glorious/ rationals reasons (euphemism !) But the USA didn’t enter in the WW2 to stop the holocaust or because nazism is pure evil either. Don’t care about Bush’s motivations, his propaganda & his rethoric, as long as Iraq is free + I think that to end like Benito would be cool for Saddam | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |