posted on March 6, 2003 09:47:33 PM new
Just want to let the leftists know that I will be posting many "We told you so!" threads after the war is over. Links will be provided to news about:
-Hidden Iraqi chemical weapons
-Hidden Iraqi biological weapons
-Hidden Iraqi nuclear weapons program
-Iraqi terrorist connections
-Iraqi regime atrocities
-French and German UN sanction violations
-Iraqi citizens celebrating their liberation
-A new democratic government in Iraq
-The lack of outrage in the Arab World.
-The US winning in the war on terror.
posted on March 6, 2003 10:00:18 PM new
::The US winning in the war on terror. ::
You'v been watching too many Bush press conferences. Saddam is a nutcase but not a terrorist. How many times do we have to mention that fundamentalist Muslims despise Saddam for his crimes against the arab people?
BTW - Will there be an actual substance in those posts or your usual quick snip and run?
[ edited by neonmania on Mar 6, 2003 10:02 PM ]
posted on March 6, 2003 11:42:34 PM new
"How many times do we have to mention that fundamentalist Muslims despise Saddam for his crimes against the arab people?"
The families of Palestinian suicide bombers don't despise the $25,000 checks that Saddam sends them. A nice little incentive for suicide bombers.
There's no doubt in my mind that Saddam would give terrorists chemical or biological weapons, if he hasn't done so already. Terrorists are the perfect weapon for Saddam to use against the US and Israel.
We're going to find lots of proof of Iraqi ties to terrorists. You'll see...
posted on March 7, 2003 01:02:05 AM new
>The families of Palestinian suicide bombers don't despise the $25,000 checks that Saddam sends them.
Actually, they do. I've seen multiple reports where they get that check and go crazy -- they don't even cash it, it's an insult to the memory of their loved ones. I imagine that some are so poor that they'll certainly cash those checks, but none of them are happy to swap their sons and daughters for cash. It was sick of you to even suggest it.
posted on March 7, 2003 01:22:58 AM new
Yeah, I'm sure Bush's going into Iraq, resulting in countless deaths and destruction, and say, "Oops! Sorry, I was wrong. Nothing here but a lot of oil."
Bush is pretty nuts, but even he's not that crazy.
posted on March 7, 2003 05:12:59 AM newIt was sick of you to even suggest it
Perhaps, but focus on the fact that Hussein has paid the money in response to a terrorist act.
While I have not seen any reports you speak of, I'll never forget the brother of a "bomb strapper" gleefully talking of his riches and his brother's "martyrdom".
posted on March 7, 2003 08:53:49 AM new
Time will tell. I just hope the children that go to war this time are aware of what they are up against.
I have a cousin in NC training right now. He is an idiot. He thinks he is going to play Soldier over there, even wants to "Pop a few rag heads each day" (his words, not mine).
He is so pampered and soft that I know he will wet his pants the moment he is faced with real danger. But he "has watched movies and knows whats up"... When I asked him if he was ready to kill innocent people he said "Sure, I do it in video games all the time"... sigh
I sure hope he is the only one like him in the service. But I doubt it...
posted on March 7, 2003 10:02:04 AM new
I would be proud of my cousin in the service. At least he is putting his a** on the line where his mouth is.
Perhaps all the Hollywood stars that are against this war will volunteer to be terrorist targets or go live in Iraq to make sure Hussein doesn't use weapons of mass destruction against the US.
How many of these Hollywood stars will take responsibility for whatever Hussein does in the future ? The president has the responsibility and must act on it, the stars can go hide after their "ideas" fail.
posted on March 7, 2003 10:28:44 AM newWhile I have not seen any reports you speak of....
and we most likely NEVER will. If there were reports like this, I'm sure they would have been noted by many posters here a long time ago when similar discussions have occurred here.
posted on March 7, 2003 11:23:48 AM new
colin, again Bliz asked for exact locations of WMD. Also, this morning Powell said "we know what we're looking for." If they know for sure why won't they tell the inspectors where to look? That just makes more sence than going in by force and having many people killed.
Is it because Bush and gang want to say, we told you so, just like you? Do you and they think this will make them look like heros? It sure won't in my eyes! It will just look like they had information that they didn't share, and all of this could have been avoided.
posted on March 7, 2003 11:30:30 AM new
Some appear not to have heard of spys. Spys in who's hands this information would quickly be given to Saddam. Could we possibly be acting in preventing this from happening? I believe so. Saddam has been known to move weapons around the country...reported to have moved some weapons out of Iraq.
We just recently ordered two Iraq diplomates to leave the US. They are supsected of being spies.
Again, it's NOT the job of the inspectors to FIND anything.
posted on March 7, 2003 11:45:51 AM newHe is so pampered and soft that I know he will wet his pants the moment he is faced with real danger. But he "has watched movies and knows whats up"... When I asked him if he was ready to kill innocent people he said "Sure, I do it in video games all the time"... sigh
Our daughters boyfriend is already there. And we are supporting the troops, as you are kyms. I wish only the best for your cousin, and what he is going to face, as you do.
No I'm sure they don't all think its a video game. Maybe some, but I'm sure not the majority.
Art Bell Retired! George Noory is on late night coasttocoastam.com
posted on March 7, 2003 11:49:16 AM new
>Perhaps, but focus on the fact that Hussein has paid the money in response to a terrorist act.
>TSK< >TSK< Shame on you, Deuce! America has paid PLENTY such terrorists in the past BILLIONS OF DOLLARS! Samosa, Marcos, Saddam, the Shaw of Iran, the list is nearly endless! And what of all of the other levels of terrorists that we've supported over the years, paying out large sums of cash so that they can go rape and torture primative fellow countrymen or thei neighbors just across the boarder? In fact, by your measure, we ought to be arresting both Ronald Reagan and Bush, Sr. and putting them on trial for War Crimes.
posted on March 7, 2003 11:58:28 AM new
Saddam for example...
Throughout the period of his worst crimes, Saddam remained a favored ally and trading partner of the US and Britain, which furthermore abetted these crimes. The Reagan Administration even sought to prevent congressional reaction to the the gassing of the Kurds, including the (failed) plea of Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Claiborne Pell that "we cannot be silent to genocide again" as the world was when Hitler exterminated Europe's Jews. So extreme was Reaganite support for their friend that when ABC TV correspondent Charles Glass revealed the site of one of Saddam's biological warfare programs a few months after Halabja, Washington denied the facts, and the story died; the State Department "now issues briefings on the same site," Glass writes (in England).
There were no passionate calls for a military strike against this brutal killer and torturer. Quite the contrary: much of what was known, including US support, was downplayed or not reported.
"In these and many other cases, the criterion that distinguishes friend from enemy is obedience, not crime."
After the Gulf War, the Senate Banking Committee found that the Commerce Department had traced shipment of "biological materials" of a kind later found and destroyed by UN inspectors, continuing at least until November 1989. A month later, during his invasion of Panama, Bush authorized new loans for Saddam: to achieve the "goal of increasing U.S. exports and put us in a better position to deal with Iraq regarding its human rights record...," the State Department announced, facing no criticism in the mainstream (in fact, no report). The Bush Administration continued to support the mass murderer up to his invasion of Kuwait, which shifted his status from ally to enemy, much as the Suharto coup and slaughters of 1965 shifted Indonesia from enemy to friend. In these and many other cases, the criterion that distinguishes friend from enemy is obedience, not crime.
Immediately after the Gulf war ended in March 1991, Washington returned to support for Saddam. The State Department formally reiterated its refusal to have any dealings with the Iraqi democratic opposition: "Political meetings with them would not be appropriate for our policy at this time," the Department spokesman declared. "This time" was March 14 1991, while Saddam was decimating the southern opposition under the eyes of US forces, which refused even to grant rebelling Iraqi military officers access to captured Iraqi arms, to defend the population and perhaps overthrow the monster. Had it not been for unexpected public reaction, Washington might not have extended even weak support to rebelling Kurds, subjected to the same treatment shortly after.
The official reason for protecting Saddam was the need to preserve "stability." Administration reasoning was outlined by New York Times chief diplomatic correspondent Thomas Friedman. While opposing a popular rebellion, he wrote, Washington did hope that a military coup might remove Saddam, "and then Washington would have the best of all worlds: an iron-fisted Iraqi junta without Saddam Hussein," a return to the days when Saddam's "iron fist...held Iraq together, much to the satisfaction of the American allies Turkey and Saudi Arabia," not to speak of Washington. Iraqi democrats did not regard this as "the best of all worlds." A leading figure of the opposition, Ahmed Chalabi, described the outcome as "the worst of all possible worlds" for the Iraqi people, whose tragedy is "awesome." The US, he said, was "waiting for Saddam to butcher the insurgents in the hope that he can be overthrown later by a suitable officer," an attitude rooted in the US policy of "supporting dictatorships to maintain stability."
Washington claims to have supported the democratic opposition in later years. Their own picture is different, however. Just last month, the British press reported Chalabi's observation that "everyone says Saddam is boxed in, but it is the Americans and British who are boxed in by their refusal to support the idea of political change."
"It was our responsibility, indeed obligation, to compel Washington to end its support for Saddam's worst crimes when they occurred, perhaps even to intervene to terminate them had that been necessary. "
It was our responsibility, indeed obligation, to compel Washington to end its support for Saddam's worst crimes when they occurred, perhaps even to intervene to terminate them had that been necessary. Quite possibly, as in the case of Suharto, withdrawal of support would have sufficed. Currently the Iraqi Democratic opposition is advancing concrete proposals for overthrowing Saddam in favor of a popular-based alternative. They are requesting US support but not military intervention, which they have consistently opposed. How realistic these proposals are it is hard to judge, but we have a responsibility, I think, to ensure that they receive serious and honest attention, and to ensure further that Washington abandon the "refusal to support the idea of political change," apparently still in force.
posted on March 7, 2003 12:25:36 PM new
It absolutely is the job of inspectors to find things...if there is something to find. I was an inspector for years and if I hadn't found anything a lot of airplanes might have crashed. That is what inspectors are paid to do . Find things.
The world would be much more convinced that war is necessary if they would find something worthwhile. If our government knows where something is they need to say so so it can be found and confirmed.
posted on March 7, 2003 12:47:40 PM new
No, rawbunzel it's not. Do a search on the statements Blix has made. They might verify that for you.
The inspectors are there to verify banded weapons are destroyed and to verify the records of the items that supposedly have been destroyed, were. It's Saddams job to give a written statement, verification about what they have, what they have destroyed etc. To show proof. NOT the investigators to go FIND it.
Saddam has give how many reports? And each time is has been proved he has lied, but the UN inspectors. That's who you [and others] are supporting against your own country.
posted on March 7, 2003 12:48:22 PM new
"Is it because Bush and gang want to say, we told you so, just like you?Do you and they think this will make them look like heros? It sure won't in my eyes! It will just look like they had information that they didn't share, and all of this could have been avoided."
Of course, you're right, chocolate. But from what I've read those truly lost in delusion can't fathom that anyone could distinguish between fiction and reality. But reality, like natural resources, can only be manipulated so far.
According to his advisers, Bush's production company envisions that after the massive assault on tiny Iraq, the neo-George Washington will be viewed as the savior of the nation, riding into a neo-America on the elephants of public gratitude, having saved us all from certain and immediate death from the inherently evil Iraqis. His arms uplifted he will come bearing the philosopher's stone in one hand and the Holy Grail in the other. The streets will be lined with jubiliant and devout WWF addicts as he glides by the boxoffice to receive the approval of a more elite sold-out audience.
That's the inspired vision at least. Side angles also show a mob of surly peasants lined up at concession stands where the ingredients aren't available to dispense bread, much less fancy cakes. And a simmering awareness that cooking oil can be boiled.
But we're still at the pre-view/ promotional stage. The reviews await, assuming that with proper filtering they're still allowed.
ubb addition
[ edited by antiquary on Mar 7, 2003 12:50 PM ]
posted on March 7, 2003 01:12:53 PM new
LindaK,You said:
Saddam has give how many reports? And each time is has been proved he has lied, but the UN inspectors. That's who you [and others] are supporting against your own country.
Dont go there,if you really want to carry on conversations with others who dont believe the same way you do,Dont go there.
None of us are going against our Country,we are against the policys being used for this war.You need to polish up your diplomacy skills.
Respect is gained,not bullied.
"That's who you [and others] are supporting against your own country."
Stop saying the comment above.
The fact that most Americans want to support legal and United Nations guidelines, to search for weapons is NOT an indication that we are against our own country.
posted on March 7, 2003 01:30:06 PM new
Websters: Inspection : to view closely and critically.
If you are viewing something closely and critically you are indeed looking for something. Oh, you may not find it but you are indeed looking.
The inspectors were supposed to prove to the world that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction OR that they had been destroyed. He has destroyed some and there are some not WOMD have been found and are now being destroyed.Since the inspectors haven't found the weapons are you saying that proves they are there? I really get confused at some of your statements.
WOMD used to be only used [in the media] for New-cu-lar bombs and Hydrogen bombs. Seems like only since 9-11 have things like mustard gas and anthrax been included in the definition...at least in the media.I have no access to governemnt documents. Has anyone got any information on the definition of a WOMD prior to 9-11? Yes, those things kill but they are not in the same class as the aforementioned bombs.
posted on March 7, 2003 02:21:06 PM new
I think chemical, biological and nuclear have always been considered WOMD rawbunzel. I think because the chemical and biological are so barbaric, they're not discussed much in North America. Just a guess.
One thing I don't understand, is why are people that are for more peace talks or against the war with Iraq, called leftists?
posted on March 7, 2003 02:36:52 PM new
Yeah, and just because there are calmer heads that want more evidence before blasting doesn't make anyone anti-American.
This is a big chess game. Every day that the troops sit waiting to attack costs millions and millions of dollars.
I can understand why certain folks want this thing to start already.
posted on March 7, 2003 02:42:17 PM new
KD, they are called leftists because the rightists are trying to be insulting.
Really it is because people that want war are generally to the right [conservative] of center when it comes to politics and people that do not are generally to the left [or liberal] side.Also right is generally a Republican view and left is generally a Democrats view. Certainly not always and most of us fall to one side of the line or the other depending on topic.
posted on March 7, 2003 02:45:33 PM new
>This is a big chess game. Every day that the troops sit waiting to attack costs millions and millions of dollars.
All of the estimates that I've heard of this week on that very sum was about ONE BILLION dollars per day.
posted on March 7, 2003 02:46:52 PM new
junquemama - As you said about poker....I'm calling a spade a spade. Don't go there? Why? Is it some forbidden area of free speech?
There are two sides in the issue of disarming Saddam. HIS and OURS. If anyone chooses Saddam side, believes he is being honest with the world, and also believes Bush is lying to us. ... Then that's how I see it. They've chosen Saddam's side.
Helen - Stop saying that comment. Not supporting my right to free speech Helen? Can't call things as I see it because you find it offensive? I find most of what you and those on the 'blame America first' side say just as objectionable/offensive.
And on the inspectors. Their job is to monitor, and disarm. Not to FIND things. Yes, they'll do surprise inspections to see if some areas they are not be taken to may be being used for producing any illegal items. But not to HUNT for them. Maybe you guys should read some of the reports from Hiri Ueki [UNMOVIC spokesperson] who has said in many different ways, "These inspections were conducted to verify[/i] Iraq's declarations and establish a comprehensive [b]monitoring mechanism.
What part of the UN vote [15-0] do you not believe where the UN did vote on Iraq not disarming....or providing proof he has. They're not even discussing that issue anymore. They're [the UN] trying to decides how we're going to make him comply to the resolutions.
posted on March 7, 2003 02:46:59 PM newShame on you, Deuce! America has paid PLENTY such terrorists in the past BILLIONS OF DOLLARS!
I thought you were speaking of Hussein in your post. Now you bring all these others. Seems a bit like when folks bring Clinton into an argument and then you admonish them. Good for the goose....
Sure, we've given money to Bin Laden and his group to fight the Soviets, and Iraq against Iran. That is an apples and oranges comparison to Saddam rewarding suicide bombers who kill innocent civilians on purpose.
