-
Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
-
Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex
Interesting article about Kerry
- Thread starter Stickboy
- Start date
1) Doesn't Iraq possess nuclear weapons?
The UN has documented that Iraq's known nuclear weapons production facilities were completely eliminated by the weapons inspectors between 1991-98. Has this capacity been recreated since then? Nuclear weapons cannot readily be built in caves: they require modern factories and massive industrial input, as well as the purchase of complicated equipment that Iraq cannot produce alone, all of which which would have been near impossible to hide (particularly as centrifuge facilities emit detectable gamma radiation). To make a case that avoids these facts, Bush and Blair have relied on misleading rhetoric. For example, to claim that Iraq "retains the infrastructure needed to build" a nuclear weapon (as Bush warned the UN) is different to claiming that it is building one. It refers primarily to the continued employment of scientists who formerly worked on the nuclear weapons programme.
2) Doesn't Iraq possess chemical and biological weapons?
According to former UN weapons inspectors, Scott Ritter (a conservative American), by 1998 90-95% of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons had been "verifiably eliminated", including "all the factories used to produce chemical, biological and nuclear weapons." After that point, Iraq may have possessed some stores of biological agents acquired primarily from the US in the 1980s. However, their potency expired, and Iraq lacks the delivery systems such as long-range missiles to turn them into weapons that could threaten other states.
3) Isn't Iraq in breach of UN Security Council resolutions?
It is. But there are scores of other UN resolutions currently being breached by many different states, and in comparison with some of these Iraq's violations are few and minor. The majority of serious offenders, such as Israel and Turkey (which have each breached more resolutions than Iraq and on more serious points) are close allies of the US and have enjoyed its protection. If Bush was serious about enforcing the credibility of the UN, he would pursue these too.
4) Didn't Iraq expel UN weapons inspectors in December 1998?
Iraq did not expel them: the inspectors were pulled out, in violation of a Security Council understanding, providing the trigger that Bill Clinton wanted to launch his Desert Fox bombing campaign.
5) Isn't Iraq's recent hostility to weapons inspectors a sign of guilt?
Iraq's opposition to weapons inspections increased as it became clear that the US was using them to spy on military targets to aid its ongoing bombing campaign. This abuse of the inspection regime angered many on the Security Council and amongst the weapons inspection team, and has been widely reported in the American press.
6) Haven't George Bush and Tony Blair repeatedly cited the evidence of an Iraqi nuclear defector that Saddam Hussein restarted a nuclear weapons programme in 1998?
This reference is principally to Khidhir Hamza. Hamza spoke publicly about his information in 1998, but defected in 1994-although the CIA refused to accept him, as they knew (based on excellent intelligence from 1991 defectors) that he wasn't the bomb-maker he claimed to be. In spite of making a name for himself by giving talks and interviews, he has refused to debate the issue with Scott Ritter, who claims to possess documentary evidence that would expose him. Bush and Blair ignore this in their speeches.
7) Hasn't Iraq used chemical weapons in the past?
Yes, in the 1980s Iraq used lethal chemical weapons against Iranian forces and Kurdish civilians. Yet, even knowing this, the US and UK bolstered Saddam Hussein's rule by the sale of military equipment, including consignments of organisms used in anthrax, and provided satellite intelligence to allow Iraq to target Iranian soldiers with chemical weapons. The difference now is not that chemical weapons have become a moral issue for the US, but that Hussein no longer serves their interests.
8) Doesn't Iraq support terrorism?
In spite of attempts by the Bush administration to suggest otherwise, no evidence whatsoever has been provided linking Iraq with Al-Qaeda or the September 11 2002 attacks on America. In fact, radical Islamists despise the secularism of states such as Iraq, and Bin Laden considers Hussein apostate.
9) Isn't the proposed war about enforcing the rule of the UN Security Council?
The US cajoled, bullied and bribed the Security Council into supporting a new resolution. George W. Bush repeatedly declared that if the UN didn't provide sanction for his planned war, USA would go it alone. That would have been illegal by the UN charter, revealing his contempt for the UN.
10) Isn't America attempting to enforce the rule of international society in general?
The US pulled out of the Kyoto Treaty on climate change and the ABM treaty on limiting ballistic missile proliferation. It has attempted to scupper UN attempts to create a standing International Criminal Court to try war criminals, afraid that this would criminalize US military tactics such as high-altitude aerial bombardment that factors in civilian casualties as 'collateral damage.' When the International Court of Justice ruled that the US was in breach of international law in its attacks on Nicaragua, it simply ignored the ruling. The US has demonstrated little interest in supporting any international bodies, except when they further its own ends.
11) Isn't there a moral obligation to oppose ruthless tyrants?
Undoubtedly. But the US has, in recent years, supported General Suharto, Ferdinand Marcos, Augusto Pinochet, and a host of other cruel tyrants when they have supported its interests. At the moment, the US is backing an emerging new cadre of authoritarian leaders such as Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan, Askar Akaev of Kyrgyzstan, and General Musharraf of Pakistan. US relations with such leaders are apparently dictated by short-term interests rather than moral principles.
12) Isn't it important to prevent the spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction?
Indeed it is. But the US itself has more weapons of mass destruction than all other states combined, and is the only state that has used nuclear weapons, yet resists international attempts to monitor or disarm them. Israel is the world's greatest recipient of US military and other forms of aid, yet is a state that has not only acquired a vast nuclear arsenal and the ability to deliver it, but has invaded and attacked its neighbours, and stands in breach of scores of UN resolutions- in contrast to Iraq's 16.
13) George W. Bush has declared that Iraq is in league with Iran and North Korea in an 'axis of evil' that threatens the free world. Shouldn't this axis be stopped?
This is pure fantasy. There is no evidence of such a conspiracy; Iran and Iraq lost hundreds of thousands of troops fighting each other in the 1980s, and Islamist Iran is fundamentally opposed to the ideology of communist North Korea. It is too ridiculous for words to imagine that these impoverished 'third world' states could combine in some dastardly plan to overwhelm the massed forces of the US, Europe, Japan, NATO and Australia: do they plan to overrun four continents?!
14) Isn't Saddam Hussein's Iraq undemocratic?
Without question: yet it is certainly not less democratic than the corrupt oligarchies that rule neighbouring Kuwait and Saudi Arabia with US military and economic support. In Afghanistan, the Taliban have been replaced by a network of US-backed warlords who care not one iota for democracy. If Bush was genuinely bothered about democracy, he would start by forcing his current allies to change.
15) Wouldn't 'Regime Change' be a blessing?
The US has made clear it wants to be rid of Saddam Hussein, whose departure would surely be lamented by few. Yet, under what authority can one state decide to replace a foreign leader it doesn't like? In opposing Milosivic when attacking Yugoslavia in 1999 the US invoked NATO; to invade Panama and overthrow Noriega in 1989 it acted alone; and now it seeks to use the UN to justify an attack on Iraq to remove Hussein. Yet, dictators still friendly to the US remain safe. If the US, as the most powerful state in the world, simply decides what states it doesn't like and invades them, is the cause of international law furthered or undermined?
16) Hasn't Saddam Hussein shown callous disregard for his own people?
He has, leading his country into ruinous wars against Iran and the US and its allies. Yet UN sanctions have themselves wrought devastation on Iraq, by preventing it from being able to restore its basic infrastructure. According to UNICEF and the WHO, sanctions have killed over one million people since 1990, nearly 60% being children under seven, and 4,500 children die every month from starvation and preventable diseases- a six-fold increase since 1990. In 1998 Denis Halliday resigned as the UN Aid co-ordinator for Iraq in protest, saying that "We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and terrifying as that. It is illegal and immoral."
17) Hasn't Tony Blair's close engagement with the USA tempered George Bush's approach?
George Bush has been forced to seek UN authorisation for his war not because Blair supported him, but because everyone else refused to.
18) If Iraq really presents no great military threat to the US, why would it bother to invent one?
US political identity over the half century from 1945, and the functioning of the military-industrial complex, depended upon the existence of its adversary, the Soviet 'evil empire', against which it defined itself in positive terms as a moral crusader. The collapse of the USSR threatened to loosen the military and cultural hegemony of the US as its forces were no longer needed across the world, and also the lock of the Republican Party on the White House. The idea of an 'axis of evil'of states supporting terrorism has replaced the USSR in the conservative imagination, justifying wars that cement US economic control of the third world, the expansion of a NATO alliance that had been deprived of an enemy, and massive increases in military expenditure that include terrifying plans to militarise space. With its technologically unrivalled forces now operating in some 140 of the world's 180 countries, the US is the most powerful global state in world history, and translates this power into economic advantage.
19) As the USA no longer imports most of its oil from the Middle East, isn't it mistaken to claim this conflict is about economics?
It is true that the USA supplies most of its oil needs from the Americas: yet American oil companies have invested heavily in the Middle East, where they make enormous profits. With the Saudi-US alliance souring since September 11, a compliant regime installed in Baghdad would offer the US a safer base in the Gulf, and open the prospect of massive new financial opportunities for US oil companies to exploit the world's second largest proven oil reserves. These companies traditionally have strong links with the Republican Party.
20) Aren't all these objections just anti-Americanism?
While a minority anti-war protestors may be driven by an unpleasant dislike of America, this comment is 'playing the race card' to avoid uncomfortable truths. As these points have shown, some of the most outspoken opponents of the Bush war plans have been American. These are Americans who agree with former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark that, "Any remaining hope the peoples of the United Nations have to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war through the United Nations would be crushed by another United States attack on Iraq."
AND FINALLY, WE WOULD ASK THESE QUESTIONS OF THOSE THAT SUPPORT WAR IN IRAQ:
If the doctrine of pre-emptive invasion to prevent a theoretical future threat from arising were to become common practice in international affairs, how would this reduce the frequency and intensity of military conflict?
How would we prevent a US-UK invasion of Iraq from being perceived as a conflict between the West and Muslim countries, thus becoming a rallying target for radical terrorist groups? Osama bin Laden frequently refers to Iraq in his speeches. If the basing of US forces in Pakistan has lead to a murderous campaign against Christian minorities; if minor Australian involvement in the Afghanistan war contributed to the Bali bombings in revenge; and if an ill-considered comment about the Muslim faith during the 'Miss World' contest in Nigeria left over a hundred dead in rioting, what impact would an unprovoked invasion of Iraq (for naked national interests) have?
The USA stands for many noble principles, but its foreign policy, like that of all states, is geared primarily towards promoting the national self-interest of its ruling classes. In its national security doctrine published in September 2002, the White House declared that it would in the future act to prevent rival states acquiring weapons capabilities comparable to its own. This is a doctrine of the permanent global military hegemony of one state that believes it is the bearer and defender of universal civilisation, and is prepared to engage in massive wars around the world to enforce that. The Iraq crisis is a stage towards enacting that principle. Is this the sort of world that will ensure peace, justice, trust between nations and security for all? Those who oppose war in Iraq do not so because we admire Iraq or dislike America, but because we are not convinced that the Bush war plans contribute in any positive way to a realisation of that vision.
The UN has documented that Iraq's known nuclear weapons production facilities were completely eliminated by the weapons inspectors between 1991-98. Has this capacity been recreated since then? Nuclear weapons cannot readily be built in caves: they require modern factories and massive industrial input, as well as the purchase of complicated equipment that Iraq cannot produce alone, all of which which would have been near impossible to hide (particularly as centrifuge facilities emit detectable gamma radiation). To make a case that avoids these facts, Bush and Blair have relied on misleading rhetoric. For example, to claim that Iraq "retains the infrastructure needed to build" a nuclear weapon (as Bush warned the UN) is different to claiming that it is building one. It refers primarily to the continued employment of scientists who formerly worked on the nuclear weapons programme.
2) Doesn't Iraq possess chemical and biological weapons?
According to former UN weapons inspectors, Scott Ritter (a conservative American), by 1998 90-95% of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons had been "verifiably eliminated", including "all the factories used to produce chemical, biological and nuclear weapons." After that point, Iraq may have possessed some stores of biological agents acquired primarily from the US in the 1980s. However, their potency expired, and Iraq lacks the delivery systems such as long-range missiles to turn them into weapons that could threaten other states.
3) Isn't Iraq in breach of UN Security Council resolutions?
It is. But there are scores of other UN resolutions currently being breached by many different states, and in comparison with some of these Iraq's violations are few and minor. The majority of serious offenders, such as Israel and Turkey (which have each breached more resolutions than Iraq and on more serious points) are close allies of the US and have enjoyed its protection. If Bush was serious about enforcing the credibility of the UN, he would pursue these too.
4) Didn't Iraq expel UN weapons inspectors in December 1998?
Iraq did not expel them: the inspectors were pulled out, in violation of a Security Council understanding, providing the trigger that Bill Clinton wanted to launch his Desert Fox bombing campaign.
5) Isn't Iraq's recent hostility to weapons inspectors a sign of guilt?
Iraq's opposition to weapons inspections increased as it became clear that the US was using them to spy on military targets to aid its ongoing bombing campaign. This abuse of the inspection regime angered many on the Security Council and amongst the weapons inspection team, and has been widely reported in the American press.
6) Haven't George Bush and Tony Blair repeatedly cited the evidence of an Iraqi nuclear defector that Saddam Hussein restarted a nuclear weapons programme in 1998?
This reference is principally to Khidhir Hamza. Hamza spoke publicly about his information in 1998, but defected in 1994-although the CIA refused to accept him, as they knew (based on excellent intelligence from 1991 defectors) that he wasn't the bomb-maker he claimed to be. In spite of making a name for himself by giving talks and interviews, he has refused to debate the issue with Scott Ritter, who claims to possess documentary evidence that would expose him. Bush and Blair ignore this in their speeches.
7) Hasn't Iraq used chemical weapons in the past?
Yes, in the 1980s Iraq used lethal chemical weapons against Iranian forces and Kurdish civilians. Yet, even knowing this, the US and UK bolstered Saddam Hussein's rule by the sale of military equipment, including consignments of organisms used in anthrax, and provided satellite intelligence to allow Iraq to target Iranian soldiers with chemical weapons. The difference now is not that chemical weapons have become a moral issue for the US, but that Hussein no longer serves their interests.
8) Doesn't Iraq support terrorism?
In spite of attempts by the Bush administration to suggest otherwise, no evidence whatsoever has been provided linking Iraq with Al-Qaeda or the September 11 2002 attacks on America. In fact, radical Islamists despise the secularism of states such as Iraq, and Bin Laden considers Hussein apostate.
9) Isn't the proposed war about enforcing the rule of the UN Security Council?
The US cajoled, bullied and bribed the Security Council into supporting a new resolution. George W. Bush repeatedly declared that if the UN didn't provide sanction for his planned war, USA would go it alone. That would have been illegal by the UN charter, revealing his contempt for the UN.
10) Isn't America attempting to enforce the rule of international society in general?
The US pulled out of the Kyoto Treaty on climate change and the ABM treaty on limiting ballistic missile proliferation. It has attempted to scupper UN attempts to create a standing International Criminal Court to try war criminals, afraid that this would criminalize US military tactics such as high-altitude aerial bombardment that factors in civilian casualties as 'collateral damage.' When the International Court of Justice ruled that the US was in breach of international law in its attacks on Nicaragua, it simply ignored the ruling. The US has demonstrated little interest in supporting any international bodies, except when they further its own ends.
11) Isn't there a moral obligation to oppose ruthless tyrants?
Undoubtedly. But the US has, in recent years, supported General Suharto, Ferdinand Marcos, Augusto Pinochet, and a host of other cruel tyrants when they have supported its interests. At the moment, the US is backing an emerging new cadre of authoritarian leaders such as Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan, Askar Akaev of Kyrgyzstan, and General Musharraf of Pakistan. US relations with such leaders are apparently dictated by short-term interests rather than moral principles.
12) Isn't it important to prevent the spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction?
Indeed it is. But the US itself has more weapons of mass destruction than all other states combined, and is the only state that has used nuclear weapons, yet resists international attempts to monitor or disarm them. Israel is the world's greatest recipient of US military and other forms of aid, yet is a state that has not only acquired a vast nuclear arsenal and the ability to deliver it, but has invaded and attacked its neighbours, and stands in breach of scores of UN resolutions- in contrast to Iraq's 16.
13) George W. Bush has declared that Iraq is in league with Iran and North Korea in an 'axis of evil' that threatens the free world. Shouldn't this axis be stopped?
This is pure fantasy. There is no evidence of such a conspiracy; Iran and Iraq lost hundreds of thousands of troops fighting each other in the 1980s, and Islamist Iran is fundamentally opposed to the ideology of communist North Korea. It is too ridiculous for words to imagine that these impoverished 'third world' states could combine in some dastardly plan to overwhelm the massed forces of the US, Europe, Japan, NATO and Australia: do they plan to overrun four continents?!
14) Isn't Saddam Hussein's Iraq undemocratic?
Without question: yet it is certainly not less democratic than the corrupt oligarchies that rule neighbouring Kuwait and Saudi Arabia with US military and economic support. In Afghanistan, the Taliban have been replaced by a network of US-backed warlords who care not one iota for democracy. If Bush was genuinely bothered about democracy, he would start by forcing his current allies to change.
15) Wouldn't 'Regime Change' be a blessing?
The US has made clear it wants to be rid of Saddam Hussein, whose departure would surely be lamented by few. Yet, under what authority can one state decide to replace a foreign leader it doesn't like? In opposing Milosivic when attacking Yugoslavia in 1999 the US invoked NATO; to invade Panama and overthrow Noriega in 1989 it acted alone; and now it seeks to use the UN to justify an attack on Iraq to remove Hussein. Yet, dictators still friendly to the US remain safe. If the US, as the most powerful state in the world, simply decides what states it doesn't like and invades them, is the cause of international law furthered or undermined?
16) Hasn't Saddam Hussein shown callous disregard for his own people?
He has, leading his country into ruinous wars against Iran and the US and its allies. Yet UN sanctions have themselves wrought devastation on Iraq, by preventing it from being able to restore its basic infrastructure. According to UNICEF and the WHO, sanctions have killed over one million people since 1990, nearly 60% being children under seven, and 4,500 children die every month from starvation and preventable diseases- a six-fold increase since 1990. In 1998 Denis Halliday resigned as the UN Aid co-ordinator for Iraq in protest, saying that "We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and terrifying as that. It is illegal and immoral."
17) Hasn't Tony Blair's close engagement with the USA tempered George Bush's approach?
George Bush has been forced to seek UN authorisation for his war not because Blair supported him, but because everyone else refused to.
18) If Iraq really presents no great military threat to the US, why would it bother to invent one?
US political identity over the half century from 1945, and the functioning of the military-industrial complex, depended upon the existence of its adversary, the Soviet 'evil empire', against which it defined itself in positive terms as a moral crusader. The collapse of the USSR threatened to loosen the military and cultural hegemony of the US as its forces were no longer needed across the world, and also the lock of the Republican Party on the White House. The idea of an 'axis of evil'of states supporting terrorism has replaced the USSR in the conservative imagination, justifying wars that cement US economic control of the third world, the expansion of a NATO alliance that had been deprived of an enemy, and massive increases in military expenditure that include terrifying plans to militarise space. With its technologically unrivalled forces now operating in some 140 of the world's 180 countries, the US is the most powerful global state in world history, and translates this power into economic advantage.
19) As the USA no longer imports most of its oil from the Middle East, isn't it mistaken to claim this conflict is about economics?
It is true that the USA supplies most of its oil needs from the Americas: yet American oil companies have invested heavily in the Middle East, where they make enormous profits. With the Saudi-US alliance souring since September 11, a compliant regime installed in Baghdad would offer the US a safer base in the Gulf, and open the prospect of massive new financial opportunities for US oil companies to exploit the world's second largest proven oil reserves. These companies traditionally have strong links with the Republican Party.
20) Aren't all these objections just anti-Americanism?
While a minority anti-war protestors may be driven by an unpleasant dislike of America, this comment is 'playing the race card' to avoid uncomfortable truths. As these points have shown, some of the most outspoken opponents of the Bush war plans have been American. These are Americans who agree with former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark that, "Any remaining hope the peoples of the United Nations have to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war through the United Nations would be crushed by another United States attack on Iraq."
AND FINALLY, WE WOULD ASK THESE QUESTIONS OF THOSE THAT SUPPORT WAR IN IRAQ:
If the doctrine of pre-emptive invasion to prevent a theoretical future threat from arising were to become common practice in international affairs, how would this reduce the frequency and intensity of military conflict?
How would we prevent a US-UK invasion of Iraq from being perceived as a conflict between the West and Muslim countries, thus becoming a rallying target for radical terrorist groups? Osama bin Laden frequently refers to Iraq in his speeches. If the basing of US forces in Pakistan has lead to a murderous campaign against Christian minorities; if minor Australian involvement in the Afghanistan war contributed to the Bali bombings in revenge; and if an ill-considered comment about the Muslim faith during the 'Miss World' contest in Nigeria left over a hundred dead in rioting, what impact would an unprovoked invasion of Iraq (for naked national interests) have?
The USA stands for many noble principles, but its foreign policy, like that of all states, is geared primarily towards promoting the national self-interest of its ruling classes. In its national security doctrine published in September 2002, the White House declared that it would in the future act to prevent rival states acquiring weapons capabilities comparable to its own. This is a doctrine of the permanent global military hegemony of one state that believes it is the bearer and defender of universal civilisation, and is prepared to engage in massive wars around the world to enforce that. The Iraq crisis is a stage towards enacting that principle. Is this the sort of world that will ensure peace, justice, trust between nations and security for all? Those who oppose war in Iraq do not so because we admire Iraq or dislike America, but because we are not convinced that the Bush war plans contribute in any positive way to a realisation of that vision.
Rich is so full of shit I had to read his post twice to be sure he was not joking. The US of A is not the world police, has no business trying to resolve UN issues, and needs to worry about our own problems. Dickhead Saddam Insane was not a threat to us ... he could barely keep his own government out of colapse let alone attack us. Rich is a morooooon.
I liked itRobert DiMaggio said:
.. But I came in here in peace... Holding up flag 
Yes Prince, that is what I meant by well written, that I agreed with it for the most part.
I am new here Robert. This is the first time I have seen you actually say something politically significant. You will probably have killed the thread since there is no way for the Bush followers or Republican party hardliners to argue the logic of your statements. These satements are factually based, they are not wishful rhetoric.
Last edited:
BoneCrusher said:
thanks, but they are not mine, that was written by Nick Megoran.
http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/nwm20/
*Rubs his hands together* State your denials there Stick. Which point(s) do you dispute? This is where it gets hard because I am asking you for a factual dispute. You cannot dispute this with facts Stick ??? only insults and bullshit. Truth is self evident right?Stickboy said:
I am not interested in getting your support for Kerry ... just to see that you vote from a premis of truth. If the point and time comes for Bush to get impeached it will be important for us all ... Republicans and Democrats ... to act from facts, not fiction. We need to act from logic ... not emotions.
come on Bush is so popular!
http://democrats.com/elandslide/petition.cfm?campaign=911
http://www.impeachbush.tv
http://www.petitiononline.com/ddc12/petition.html
http://www.thefourreasons.org
http://www.bushoccupation.com
http://www.petitiononline.com/DropBush/petition.html
http://www.votetoimpeach.org/store
http://www.electricemperor.com/enter/hicnews/hicnews15.html
http://democrats.com/elandslide/petition.cfm?campaign=911
http://www.impeachbush.tv
http://www.petitiononline.com/ddc12/petition.html
http://www.thefourreasons.org
http://www.bushoccupation.com
http://www.petitiononline.com/DropBush/petition.html
http://www.votetoimpeach.org/store
http://www.electricemperor.com/enter/hicnews/hicnews15.html
BoneCrusher said:
Ah, see? You took my statement as a challenge, yet, all I did was ask him to include his source material so I could see it. He can't because he didn't write it.
This may seem like a cop out, but I really have to get to bed ATM. I'll respond to it later.
Sleep well Stick.
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2004
- Messages
- 861
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 0
"""""""The UN has documented that Iraq's known nuclear weapons production facilities were completely eliminated by the weapons inspectors between 1991-98."""""""
The only thing the UN inspectors can agree were eliminated were themselves when Saddam kicked them out of the country, which BTW was in 1998. I guess thats when they agree Iraq was "nuclear & WMD free" right? On 12 Jan 1998 then Saddam kicked them out after 6 years of obstructing and fucking with them. "Oh thats right, Im sorry, they were "pulled out" in a violation on our part". This is the most assinine part of your post. Yeah! They were "pulled out", and they were "pulled out" after Saddam told them he would not let them inspect or move freely around the country anymore. What were we supposed to do with them? Maybe let them take up farming in some lonely corner of Iraq? I know! Let them open up a boutique in Bahgdad. OH THAT NASTY AMERICA! PULLING OUT INSPECTORS IN VIOLATION!!!! Here read yourself the objective timeline of Saddams antic's http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/17912.htm#1991 I post this since some of you children cant remember more the two years back or cant place history in "historical" context. To even make such a statement, or post it, "Iraq did not expel them: the inspectors were pulled out, in violation of a Security Council understanding, providing the trigger that Bill Clinton wanted to launch his Desert Fox bombing campaign. """"" Is just appalling!!!!!!
Im afraid you can make WMDs in caves. You can even "buy" a nuke in a cave. Of all the WMDs the worst are probably the Bio's. Any nuclear weapon leaves a radiation signature that can be traced. But you cant trace who made the smallpox, and even chems are tougher to track down. The whole point was to stop Saddam from having WMDs not to monitor his development of them. Youv seen how effective the doctrine of "monitoring" is in Iran and North Korea.
I have to go to work or I'd be happy to eat your post for lunch..................Ill get to it in the morning........."""Iraq did not expel them: the inspectors were pulled out, in violation of a Security Council understanding, providing the trigger that Bill Clinton wanted to launch his Desert Fox bombing campaign. """"""""""" ...................... 
...................Rich
The only thing the UN inspectors can agree were eliminated were themselves when Saddam kicked them out of the country, which BTW was in 1998. I guess thats when they agree Iraq was "nuclear & WMD free" right? On 12 Jan 1998 then Saddam kicked them out after 6 years of obstructing and fucking with them. "Oh thats right, Im sorry, they were "pulled out" in a violation on our part". This is the most assinine part of your post. Yeah! They were "pulled out", and they were "pulled out" after Saddam told them he would not let them inspect or move freely around the country anymore. What were we supposed to do with them? Maybe let them take up farming in some lonely corner of Iraq? I know! Let them open up a boutique in Bahgdad. OH THAT NASTY AMERICA! PULLING OUT INSPECTORS IN VIOLATION!!!! Here read yourself the objective timeline of Saddams antic's http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/17912.htm#1991 I post this since some of you children cant remember more the two years back or cant place history in "historical" context. To even make such a statement, or post it, "Iraq did not expel them: the inspectors were pulled out, in violation of a Security Council understanding, providing the trigger that Bill Clinton wanted to launch his Desert Fox bombing campaign. """"" Is just appalling!!!!!!
Im afraid you can make WMDs in caves. You can even "buy" a nuke in a cave. Of all the WMDs the worst are probably the Bio's. Any nuclear weapon leaves a radiation signature that can be traced. But you cant trace who made the smallpox, and even chems are tougher to track down. The whole point was to stop Saddam from having WMDs not to monitor his development of them. Youv seen how effective the doctrine of "monitoring" is in Iran and North Korea.
I have to go to work or I'd be happy to eat your post for lunch..................Ill get to it in the morning........."""Iraq did not expel them: the inspectors were pulled out, in violation of a Security Council understanding, providing the trigger that Bill Clinton wanted to launch his Desert Fox bombing campaign. """""""""""
...................... ...................Rich
your source (http://www.state.gov) is biased, so that means nothing.
Hey BoneCrusher, Kerry sucks 
Well off to bed... All this debating made me tired
Well off to bed... All this debating made me tired
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2004
- Messages
- 861
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 0
Robert DiMaggio said:
Biased? This an indisputable time frame of actual events that occured thru the terms of three US Presidents. But if you want to believe foreign disinformation campaigns, and skewed Politicized versions thats up to you. Now Im going to try and get thru this point by point, since I have a little time. And Im going just "off the cuff" with no research being done.
""""""""1) Doesn't Iraq possess nuclear weapons?
The UN has documented that Iraq's known nuclear weapons production facilities were completely eliminated by the weapons inspectors between 1991-98. Has this capacity been recreated since then? Nuclear weapons cannot readily be built in caves: they require modern factories and massive industrial input, as well as the purchase of complicated equipment that Iraq cannot produce alone, all of which which would have been near impossible to hide (particularly as centrifuge facilities emit detectable gamma radiation). To make a case that avoids these facts, Bush and Blair have relied on misleading rhetoric. For example, to claim that Iraq "retains the infrastructure needed to build" a nuclear weapon (as Bush warned the UN) is different to claiming that it is building one. It refers primarily to the continued employment of scientists who formerly worked on the nuclear weapons programme.
No the UN didnt. Saddam obstructed the inspectors, hid his WMDs and infrutructure, lied about them, and was simply "uncooperative". The UN "documented" the destruction of a great deal of this nuclear stuff but they never felt safe saying they were "completly eliminated" until , like, 2004 when we were unable to find much left of this program. Probably the best work done by the inspectors was in destroying his nuke program. But even better work was done by Allied bombers and cruise missiles during Gulf-1. The Jews bombing Osirak back in the 80's set Saddam back quite a bit too. Nobody knew how much, or how little Saddam had left until after the latest American led attack. The reason for this is because Saddam continueingly fuck over the inspectors. Eventually forbiding them to inspect in 1998.
2) Doesn't Iraq possess chemical and biological weapons?
According to former UN weapons inspectors, Scott Ritter (a conservative American), by 1998 90-95% of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons had been "verifiably eliminated", including "all the factories used to produce chemical, biological and nuclear weapons." After that point, Iraq may have possessed some stores of biological agents acquired primarily from the US in the 1980s. However, their potency expired, and Iraq lacks the delivery systems such as long-range missiles to turn them into weapons that could threaten other states.
We never gave Saddam "biological agents". We ourselves voluntarily destroyed our Bio program and stocks in the 70's because of their inhumanity so we had no "agents" he could "aquire" from us. Unfortunatley most of the precursors and machinery of a bio weapons program has a dual use with legit medical manufactureing and research. Its true Iraq bought some of this type of materials from US firms but most of it he bought from West european firms, especially the Swiss and French. Sad aint it? That such horrible weapons are made from machinery that should be used to heal and vaccinate?
3) Isn't Iraq in breach of UN Security Council resolutions?
It is. But there are scores of other UN resolutions currently being breached by many different states, and in comparison with some of these Iraq's violations are few and minor. The majority of serious offenders, such as Israel and Turkey (which have each breached more resolutions than Iraq and on more serious points) are close allies of the US and have enjoyed its protection. If Bush was serious about enforcing the credibility of the UN, he would pursue these too.
Last time I checked, and I might be a few days behind, none of these countrys started two major wars of empire, used Sarin on their own people and others, caused an American military deployment of 500,000 troops, tried to assasinate an ex-US President, commited modern genocide on a biblical scale, whos leaders and sons rape,murdered, and pillaged at will. Now did Israel and Turkey commit the same number of violations in the same timeframe, or whas it like "Israel and Turkey for the last 50 years",and,"Iraq in 8 years"? Does it matter? Do you really think such a fascile analogy is relevant?
4) Didn't Iraq expel UN weapons inspectors in December 1998?
Iraq did not expel them: the inspectors were pulled out, in violation of a Security Council understanding, providing the trigger that Bill Clinton wanted to launch his Desert Fox bombing campaign.
So?.............. Klinton pulled the inspectors out, violating the understanding , because he was plotting to bomb poor Saddam again?
Or................ did he pull them out because Saddam said they couldnt inspect anymore "AGAIN"! "FOR LIKE HIS 97'TH BREACH", and Klinton "reluctantly" ordered a limted reprisal attack to punish Saddam for all his violations? Is Micheal Moore in the house to answer this and give HIS version of the events? 
5) Isn't Iraq's recent hostility to weapons inspectors a sign of guilt?
Iraq's opposition to weapons inspections increased as it became clear that the US was using them to spy on military targets to aid its ongoing bombing campaign. This abuse of the inspection regime angered many on the Security Council and amongst the weapons inspection team, and has been widely reported in the American press.
Oh man
I dont how to answer this. Where in hell did you get this from? The Baath party daily? Gee is that why Saddam obstructed them? And here I thought he was a meglomaniac tyrant who just didnt want to destroy his WMDs or comply with the Cease fire agreements and UN resolutions. Hell I didnt even know we had an "on-going bombing campaign". I thought our planes just bombed them when the Iraqis shot at them. Or, that we only bombed them when they failed to comply with the agreements they signed, which BTW authorized the use of force in such an event.And here I was thinking the "many" on the security council, meaning France,China, and Russia, were angry because we were demanding compliance by Saddam, forceing economic sanctions on him, which prevented him from paying France,China, and Russia the billions he owed them. As well as preventing them from doing business with Iraq again.
Thank you Bob for straitening me out I see.....it was Saddam the victim against the evil Americans and our "bombing campaign"
6) Haven't George Bush and Tony Blair repeatedly cited the evidence of an Iraqi nuclear defector that Saddam Hussein restarted a nuclear weapons programme in 1998?
This reference is principally to Khidhir Hamza. Hamza spoke publicly about his information in 1998, but defected in 1994-although the CIA refused to accept him, as they knew (based on excellent intelligence from 1991 defectors) that he wasn't the bomb-maker he claimed to be. In spite of making a name for himself by giving talks and interviews, he has refused to debate the issue with Scott Ritter, who claims to possess documentary evidence that would expose him. Bush and Blair ignore this in their speeches.
Unfortunately we have to rely on informants and spies to gather information in such a closed,police state as Iraq. There were other indicators as well. Other countries intelligance services thought Saddam still had some too,"course none will own up to it now". But let me ask all of you this now. Do you think Saddam Hussein would have restarted his nuclear weapons program after sanctions were lifted and the heat was off him? Dont answer here! Just answer in your heart.
Yaknow it was never up to us to prove or disprove anything about his WMD programs. The onus was on HIM! The Iraqis were supposed to prove to us they had dismantled these programs. That was the deal. Instead they fucked with those inspectors for 7 years.
7) Hasn't Iraq used chemical weapons in the past?
Yes, in the 1980s Iraq used lethal chemical weapons against Iranian forces and Kurdish civilians. Yet, even knowing this, the US and UK bolstered Saddam Hussein's rule by the sale of military equipment, including consignments of organisms used in anthrax, and provided satellite intelligence to allow Iraq to target Iranian soldiers with chemical weapons. The difference now is not that chemical weapons have become a moral issue for the US, but that Hussein no longer serves their interests.
We sold him non-military helicopters and airplanes. Ive already stated American firms did sell him some medical supplys that had duel use for weapons programs. I think our intent was for him to use it to make vaccines for kids and sterilize milk. I dont think we told him to make anthrax spoors with it....................do you?
At the bequest of our moderate gulf arab allies, and I use the term loosely, we did provide Iraq with some Sat inteeligance regarding the disposition of Iranian forces. We didnt use photoshop to label the pictures with "use pictures to drop sarin on the Iranians".We did this because the moderate gulf states "allies" were, and still are, scared shitless of the Iranians. And if you remember we didnt have to much cause to love the Iranians after Nov '79............remember? Also this was the height of the cold war and a successful invasion of Iraq by Iran would cause a power vaccum in the region that would only be a help to the Soviets and a disaster to us. The again............the oil. Imagine if the Iranians controlled Iraqs oil too? And then what was going to stop them from going on from there? 60% of the worlds proven reserves controlled by the Mullahs??? No thank you!!!! And chemical weapons are such a "moral issue" that weve led the world in trying to get rid of them. We currently dont deploy them and are in the proces of destroying them all
8) Doesn't Iraq support terrorism?
In spite of attempts by the Bush administration to suggest otherwise, no evidence whatsoever has been provided linking Iraq with Al-Qaeda or the September 11 2002 attacks on America. In fact, radical Islamists despise the secularism of states such as Iraq, and Bin Laden considers Hussein apostate.
Saddam has always supported terrorism, numerous terrorist groups. Of all the dumbass assertions made here this has to be the silliest. Getting away from 9/11 for a moment, what about the other 57,000,000 terrorist attacks in the last 40 years? OK...
..maybe not 57,000,000. Just 56,999,999 http://www.davidstuff.com/incorrect/crespo1.htm http://www.terrorismanswers.org/sponsors/iraq.html9) Isn't the proposed war about enforcing the rule of the UN Security Council?
The US cajoled, bullied and bribed the Security Council into supporting a new resolution. George W. Bush repeatedly declared that if the UN didn't provide sanction for his planned war, USA would go it alone. That would have been illegal by the UN charter, revealing his contempt for the UN.
Our "contempt for the UN"? I know! We should have cojoled the UN to approve ANOTHER resolution, "how many were there"? 16,18,900 ? Only this time make them include the stipulation that "this time we really,really,really,really,really,really,really,really,really,really,really,really,really,really..............mean it!!!!!!!!!!" Gosh a-gorry, why would we have "contempt for the UN"?
10) Isn't America attempting to enforce the rule of international society in general?
The US pulled out of the Kyoto Treaty on climate change and the ABM treaty on limiting ballistic missile proliferation. It has attempted to scupper UN attempts to create a standing International Criminal Court to try war criminals, afraid that this would criminalize US military tactics such as high-altitude aerial bombardment that factors in civilian casualties as 'collateral damage.' When the International Court of Justice ruled that the US was in breach of international law in its attacks on Nicaragua, it simply ignored the ruling. The US has demonstrated little interest in supporting any international bodies, except when they further its own ends.
We pulled out of Kyoto because the treaty penalized us unfairly. Unlike every other nation in the world we occasionaly act in our own self interest.
The ABM treaty was with the Soviet Union, whom doesnt exists anymore. You expect us to put orselves at the mercy of a deranged midget in North Korea, and his ICBMs, because............why? Actually the Russians have had ABMs since the 60's and still do. Much of this treaty is vauge and doesnt restrict research and developement of these systems. Here read some of this yourself, maybe you'll learn something about it. http://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/cfr_nc_4.htm
Its true we dont want our troops being judged by a UN "world court". Gosh where do you think the judges will come from? Maybe Syria, which the Un once made chair country of the human rights commision
, maybe China? How about Libya? Or Somalia? Gee wouldnt that be swell ! And after they hang our troops, for having an American flag on their shoulder, we can go from funding 50% of that fucking UN to 75%. Other then that we dont support any "International Bodies" at all do we ?11) Isn't there a moral obligation to oppose ruthless tyrants?
Undoubtedly. But the US has, in recent years, supported General Suharto, Ferdinand Marcos, Augusto Pinochet, and a host of other cruel tyrants when they have supported its interests. At the moment, the US is backing an emerging new cadre of authoritarian leaders such as Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan, Askar Akaev of Kyrgyzstan, and General Musharraf of Pakistan. US relations with such leaders are apparently dictated by short-term interests rather than moral principles.
Yeah, uhuh. is this a European speaking here? If we hadnt opposed "ruthless tyrants" for them they'd all be soylent green right now.
12) Isn't it important to prevent the spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction?
Indeed it is. But the US itself has more weapons of mass destruction than all other states combined, and is the only state that has used nuclear weapons, yet resists international attempts to monitor or disarm them. Israel is the world's greatest recipient of US military and other forms of aid, yet is a state that has not only acquired a vast nuclear arsenal and the ability to deliver it, but has invaded and attacked its neighbours, and stands in breach of scores of UN resolutions- in contrast to Iraq's 16.
Oh horseshit! We developed and used nukes after we were attacked by a tyrranical Govt. that was enslaveing,anhilitaing, and conqering billions. What were we supposed to do? Allow the Japs or the Nazis develop them first? Isarel is a democracy surrounded by dictatorships armed with vast chem/bio weaponry. The stated goals of these Arab strongmen has always been the utter destruction of Israel as both a country and a people Israel has many thousands of Arab Israeli citizens who have full rights. How many jews you think there are in Syria? Or Libya? At least ones that still breath.
They dont have a "vast arsenal". They have about 200 nuclear weapons. And if they didnt theyd have been choaking on nerve gas decades ago.
13) George W. Bush has declared that Iraq is in league with Iran and North Korea in an 'axis of evil' that threatens the free world. Shouldn't this axis be stopped?
This is pure fantasy. There is no evidence of such a conspiracy; Iran and Iraq lost hundreds of thousands of troops fighting each other in the 1980s, and Islamist Iran is fundamentally opposed to the ideology of communist North Korea. It is too ridiculous for words to imagine that these impoverished 'third world' states could combine in some dastardly plan to overwhelm the massed forces of the US, Europe, Japan, NATO and Australia: do they plan to overrun four continents?!
This is getting more asinine as time goes on. Even the liberals dont argue that Iran and North Korea arent jointly developing ICBMs. Poor "third world" Iran is floating in oil and they are spending billions on sophisticated weapons programs including nuclear/Bio/Chemical . http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/index.html "Impoverished third world" North Korea is an armed camp with which weve already had one major war with that cost over 50,000 American lives. They already have nuclear weapons and the madman leading the country answers to no-one.
They dont want to "overrun" four continents. They just want the ability to lob nuclear tipped ICBMs at them. Hows that sound big guy?
14) Isn't Saddam Hussein's Iraq undemocratic?
Without question: yet it is certainly not less democratic than the corrupt oligarchies that rule neighbouring Kuwait and Saudi Arabia with US military and economic support. In Afghanistan, the Taliban have been replaced by a network of US-backed warlords who care not one iota for democracy. If Bush was genuinely bothered about democracy, he would start by forcing his current allies to change.
Gee whiz have any of these "oligarchies" dropped any sarin on their woman and kids lately? Not very democratic of Saddam was it? And last I heard there was going to be an election in Afghanistan soon. Maybe not as good as the Talibans elections but were still trying. Iraq will be getting an election to one day. Again maybe not as good as Saddams but hey! Were just fucked up AMERICANS.
Yaknow Im tired and I just cant go on with this. This is just to pitifull. DiMaggio do you really believe this shit? Do you hate Bush so much that you would spread this crap around the Internet like this? It really sounds like reckless spreading of anti-American propoganda in order to satisfy selfish,personal, political objectives. Its like Micheal Moores F-9/11. His selfish personal vendetta against Bush was more important to him "along with making money" then the damage he caused to America on the world stage with his libelous, un-proven, and skewed accusations.
This is what I talk about when I say America in 2004, even after 9/11, is still "all about me"....anyway...Im done with this, and Im to tired to check spelling.....take care...............Rich
15) Wouldn't 'Regime Change' be a blessing?
The US has made clear it wants to be rid of Saddam Hussein, whose departure would surely be lamented by few. Yet, under what authority can one state decide to replace a foreign leader it doesn't like? In opposing Milosivic when attacking Yugoslavia in 1999 the US invoked NATO; to invade Panama and overthrow Noriega in 1989 it acted alone; and now it seeks to use the UN to justify an attack on Iraq to remove Hussein. Yet, dictators still friendly to the US remain safe. If the US, as the most powerful state in the world, simply decides what states it doesn't like and invades them, is the cause of international law furthered or undermined?
16) Hasn't Saddam Hussein shown callous disregard for his own people?
He has, leading his country into ruinous wars against Iran and the US and its allies. Yet UN sanctions have themselves wrought devastation on Iraq, by preventing it from being able to restore its basic infrastructure. According to UNICEF and the WHO, sanctions have killed over one million people since 1990, nearly 60% being children under seven, and 4,500 children die every month from starvation and preventable diseases- a six-fold increase since 1990. In 1998 Denis Halliday resigned as the UN Aid co-ordinator for Iraq in protest, saying that "We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and terrifying as that. It is illegal and immoral."
17) Hasn't Tony Blair's close engagement with the USA tempered George Bush's approach?
George Bush has been forced to seek UN authorisation for his war not because Blair supported him, but because everyone else refused to.
18) If Iraq really presents no great military threat to the US, why would it bother to invent one?
US political identity over the half century from 1945, and the functioning of the military-industrial complex, depended upon the existence of its adversary, the Soviet 'evil empire', against which it defined itself in positive terms as a moral crusader. The collapse of the USSR threatened to loosen the military and cultural hegemony of the US as its forces were no longer needed across the world, and also the lock of the Republican Party on the White House. The idea of an 'axis of evil'of states supporting terrorism has replaced the USSR in the conservative imagination, justifying wars that cement US economic control of the third world, the expansion of a NATO alliance that had been deprived of an enemy, and massive increases in military expenditure that include terrifying plans to militarise space. With its technologically unrivalled forces now operating in some 140 of the world's 180 countries, the US is the most powerful global state in world history, and translates this power into economic advantage.
19) As the USA no longer imports most of its oil from the Middle East, isn't it mistaken to claim this conflict is about economics?
It is true that the USA supplies most of its oil needs from the Americas: yet American oil companies have invested heavily in the Middle East, where they make enormous profits. With the Saudi-US alliance souring since September 11, a compliant regime installed in Baghdad would offer the US a safer base in the Gulf, and open the prospect of massive new financial opportunities for US oil companies to exploit the world's second largest proven oil reserves. These companies traditionally have strong links with the Republican Party.
20) Aren't all these objections just anti-Americanism?
While a minority anti-war protestors may be driven by an unpleasant dislike of America, this comment is 'playing the race card' to avoid uncomfortable truths. As these points have shown, some of the most outspoken opponents of the Bush war plans have been American. These are Americans who agree with former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark that, "Any remaining hope the peoples of the United Nations have to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war through the United Nations would be crushed by another United States attack on Iraq."
AND FINALLY, WE WOULD ASK THESE QUESTIONS OF THOSE THAT SUPPORT WAR IN IRAQ:
If the doctrine of pre-emptive invasion to prevent a theoretical future threat from arising were to become common practice in international affairs, how would this reduce the frequency and intensity of military conflict?
How would we prevent a US-UK invasion of Iraq from being perceived as a conflict between the West and Muslim countries, thus becoming a rallying target for radical terrorist groups? Osama bin Laden frequently refers to Iraq in his speeches. If the basing of US forces in Pakistan has lead to a murderous campaign against Christian minorities; if minor Australian involvement in the Afghanistan war contributed to the Bali bombings in revenge; and if an ill-considered comment about the Muslim faith during the 'Miss World' contest in Nigeria left over a hundred dead in rioting, what impact would an unprovoked invasion of Iraq (for naked national interests) have?
The USA stands for many noble principles, but its foreign policy, like that of all states, is geared primarily towards promoting the national self-interest of its ruling classes. In its national security doctrine published in September 2002, the White House declared that it would in the future act to prevent rival states acquiring weapons capabilities comparable to its own. This is a doctrine of the permanent global military hegemony of one state that believes it is the bearer and defender of universal civilisation, and is prepared to engage in massive wars around the world to enforce that. The Iraq crisis is a stage towards enacting that principle. Is this the sort of world that will ensure peace, justice, trust between nations and security for all? Those who oppose war in Iraq do not so because we admire Iraq or dislike America, but because we are not convinced that the Bush war plans contribute in any positive way to a realisation of that vision.
Yesterday 11:50 PM """"""""""""""""""
I'd like to know why The Marine Times published that account in Stickboy's first post - it was my understanding that military publications were supposed to be non-partisan in nature. Unless, of course, the Party has been working hard to control the military just to institute a coup if the time ever comes when the people make the "wrong" electoral choices.
Still no factual response with sources. Nothing Rich posts can count 
as he is whacked in the head.
as he is whacked in the head.
kbm8795 said:
The military doesn't publish the Marine Corp Times, Airforce Times, Navy Times or Army Times. The company that publishes them is a third party and therefore can publish anything they deem "newsworthy", including op-ed pieces.
Kind of blows the rest of your theory out the window, eh?
Not necessarily. . .the ethical considerations of deliberate editorial bias, especially if it exists in what is described as "news stories" could assert the same kind of influence, especially if they have exclusive contracts and access to serving the military. . .it's worth taking a look into when I have a little extra time.
Even with op-ed pieces, it doesn't take very long to construct a study measuring column inches and topical material to distinguish a sort of partisan bias. If it's produced by a third party company that is responsible for editorial content of all of the publications, the intended effect could be the same.
There is a very big difference between ethical considerations in determining publication of "newsworthy" items and "op-ed" pieces. The decision -process for an editorial board is not only different but has different legal and ethical considerations.
That's why I asked the original question. But perhaps the oft-claimed person-in-uniform bias toward a Republican candidate has a lot of intended reinforcement within the ranks and those publications.
Even with op-ed pieces, it doesn't take very long to construct a study measuring column inches and topical material to distinguish a sort of partisan bias. If it's produced by a third party company that is responsible for editorial content of all of the publications, the intended effect could be the same.
There is a very big difference between ethical considerations in determining publication of "newsworthy" items and "op-ed" pieces. The decision -process for an editorial board is not only different but has different legal and ethical considerations.
That's why I asked the original question. But perhaps the oft-claimed person-in-uniform bias toward a Republican candidate has a lot of intended reinforcement within the ranks and those publications.
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2004
- Messages
- 861
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 0
Robert DiMaggio said:you just discredited yourself before you even began your rebuttal!
This is the best you can do? I have much information stored in my memory. What part of my rebuttle do you have a problem with and I'll give you proof? BTW you post no source for this. Where did you get it?
You cant re butt my rebuttal tho can you? All you can do is disseminate propaganda and lies in support of your own personal Political agenda. If Kerry was in you'd be posting none of this. Heres some links so that you can educate yourself on the weapons programs of our adversaries. Or does Micheal Moore know more about it then the worlds scientists? http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/index.html http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/index.html http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/index.html
Anyway heres for the rest of your ridiculous post, which is made even more shameful by the fact that we have troops in combat at the very moment your spreading this nonsense. Oh let me guess? Your losing sleep at night worrying about them, and would gladly join them in a "just war"?
"""""""""""15) Wouldn't 'Regime Change' be a blessing?
The US has made clear it wants to be rid of Saddam Hussein, whose departure would surely be lamented by few. Yet, under what authority can one state decide to replace a foreign leader it doesn't like? In opposing Milosivic when attacking Yugoslavia in 1999 the US invoked NATO; to invade Panama and overthrow Noriega in 1989 it acted alone; and now it seeks to use the UN to justify an attack on Iraq to remove Hussein. Yet, dictators still friendly to the US remain safe. If the US, as the most powerful state in the world, simply decides what states it doesn't like and invades them, is the cause of international law furthered or undermined?
Brilliant, just brilliant. I never knew Panama was covered under NATO charter,or, that it even was in Europe. I thought it was across the Atlantic. And since we had no business being in the Balkans, since Milosivic was no threat to America or NATO, can someone ask Bill Klinton why in hell we were involved in that? Panama has this canal thats,like, of vital strategic importance to us. And we were supposed to let some little dictator threaten that? Should we have gone to the UN and let the shysters debate it for 10 years, and maybe pass 16 resolutions for Noriega to "stop that, please now, stop that"?
16) Hasn't Saddam Hussein shown callous disregard for his own people?
He has, leading his country into ruinous wars against Iran and the US and its allies. Yet UN sanctions have themselves wrought devastation on Iraq, by preventing it from being able to restore its basic infrastructure. According to UNICEF and the WHO, sanctions have killed over one million people since 1990, nearly 60% being children under seven, and 4,500 children die every month from starvation and preventable diseases- a six-fold increase since 1990. In 1998 Denis Halliday resigned as the UN Aid co-ordinator for Iraq in protest, saying that "We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and terrifying as that. It is illegal and immoral."
"""16) Hasn't Saddam Hussein shown callous disregard for his own people?""""
"""HASNT SADDAM HUSSEIN SHOWN CALLOUS DISREGARD FOR HIS OWN PEOPLE"""?? GEE, YA THINK???? So its the fault of the UN sanctions that Iraqi kids were staving? I always thought it was Saddams fault. I always thought it was him that was using what money he had, and had stole from Kuwait, to built 97 palaces, live a lavish lifestyle, and spend on his military. And then we had the UN oil for food fiasco in which Saddam and his cronies, and many in the UN, stole millions of dollars meant to feed the poor of Iraq. Even worse, many Govt. figures, most of all in France and Russia, were bribed using this money. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Investigation/oil_for_food_ripoff_040420-1.htmlAnd Saddam coldly watched Iraqi children starve so he could garner the propaganda value from the destruction of his people. And while the stupid,biased,ignorant world blamed the US for it. We allowed Saddam to sell all the oil he wanted to to feed and help his people and what does he do? He steals most of it, bribes the UN and other friendly Govt.'s, and used to kiddies milk money to try and buy more weaponry.
And since only the UN can investigate the UN we are still awaiting the outcome of their "internal Investigation".
17) Hasn't Tony Blair's close engagement with the USA tempered George Bush's approach?
George Bush has been forced to seek UN authorisation for his war not because Blair supported him, but because everyone else refused to.
We asked for UN "involvement" not "authorization". Saddams hundreds of violation of the post Gulf-1 cease fire accords, in effect, terminated the cease fire which brought back the authorization to use force. We dont need "anyone elses help" we have the military power to attain our own objectives. It would however be nice to see the UN actually doing what its supposed to do, helping people who need it instead of playing its own personal,petty politics.
18) If Iraq really presents no great military threat to the US, why would it bother to invent one?
US political identity over the half century from 1945, and the functioning of the military-industrial complex, depended upon the existence of its adversary, the Soviet 'evil empire', against which it defined itself in positive terms as a moral crusader. The collapse of the USSR threatened to loosen the military and cultural hegemony of the US as its forces were no longer needed across the world, and also the lock of the Republican Party on the White House. The idea of an 'axis of evil'of states supporting terrorism has replaced the USSR in the conservative imagination, justifying wars that cement US economic control of the third world, the expansion of a NATO alliance that had been deprived of an enemy, and massive increases in military expenditure that include terrifying plans to militarise space. With its technologically unrivalled forces now operating in some 140 of the world's 180 countries, the US is the most powerful global state in world history, and translates this power into economic advantage.
Sooooo you dont think Iran,North Korea, and INTL terrorism is a threat? Really? Actually the Democrats have had more "post cold war" whitehouse time the the republicans. I didn't know that 9/11, or the slaughter wrought by terrorism in the last 30 years" only existed in the "conservative imagination". And we have actually cut down our military drastically since the end of the cold war, at least in terms of manpower. We have kept our technological edge, and have done so because we really must insist on winning if we have to go to war. And yeah we are the most powerful country in history. Got a problem with it comrade?
Do you feel guilty for the economic advantages you have Bobby? Then maybe you should give it all up to the worlds needy instead of talking shit here.
And why would we be "militarizing space"
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/td-2.htm19) As the USA no longer imports most of its oil from the Middle East, isn't it mistaken to claim this conflict is about economics?
It is true that the USA supplies most of its oil needs from the Americas: yet American oil companies have invested heavily in the Middle East, where they make enormous profits. With the Saudi-US alliance souring since September 11, a compliant regime installed in Baghdad would offer the US a safer base in the Gulf, and open the prospect of massive new financial opportunities for US oil companies to exploit the world's second largest proven oil reserves. These companies traditionally have strong links with the Republican Party.
Yeah........like the Democrats never get any soft money from these same companies
Heres some economics 101 for those of you that are dumb enough to need it. True we may get only 30% of our oil from the ME. But if that source was interrupted what kind of pressure, and price raises per barrel, do you think it would cause on the 'other" world oil sources that we do buy from. For instance, Theres a major war in the ME and the world cant buy their oil from there. Now what kind of impact do you think that would have on the places we buy the other 70% from? Now what kind of impact would the shortages and price gouging have on our economy? I bet Bobby would have to keep his SUV in the driveway of his Nice shiney American suburban "white boy" house.Heres the breadown http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html
Now take a look at the things you own, and your Financial portfolio. Your closet has clothes from 97 different country's. Your car has parts made in 19 of them, your computer has components made in 12, your portfolio has investments in 6 different regions of the world. Your neighborhood is made up of working people who rely on International trade for their paychecks..........you get the picture right?
Now even if this fantasy of "America not needing ME oil" were true what kind of trickle down meltdown of our own economy would we get if the "rest of the worlds economies" were to be devastated by a tyrant with his hands on ME oil?
20) Aren't all these objections just anti-Americanism?
While a minority anti-war protestors may be driven by an unpleasant dislike of America, this comment is 'playing the race card' to avoid uncomfortable truths. As these points have shown, some of the most outspoken opponents of the Bush war plans have been American. These are Americans who agree with former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark that, "Any remaining hope the peoples of the United Nations have to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war through the United Nations would be crushed by another United States attack on Iraq."
NOoooooo! Why would anyone consider the spreading of such horseshit as "anti-American"? C'mon now..............."""Any remaining hope the peoples of the United Nations have to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war through the United Nations would be crushed by another United States attack on Iraq." """"
Clark is another "use full idiot". The UN never saved anyone from the scourge of war, never deterred any tyrant, never made America safer, in fact never did shit without the American involvement of our sons and our tax dollars. The UN has done nothing but given a voice to the worlds tyrants and played its own petty internal politics while the world suffered. Your seeing it again in Sudan, as youv seen it in a hundred other places thru its history. The UN is a useless piece of shit and we ought to empty it of its ratpack and bulldoze it into the ocean. As fish structure it would at least serve a usefull function.
AND FINALLY, WE WOULD ASK THESE QUESTIONS OF THOSE THAT SUPPORT WAR IN IRAQ:
If the doctrine of pre-emptive invasion to prevent a theoretical future threat from arising were to become common practice in international affairs, how would this reduce the frequency and intensity of military conflict? Last time I checked it was a "common practice". Nations have a right to self defense dont they? Do you think the French would do nothing if some assholes ran airplanes into the Eiffel Tower?
How would we prevent a US-UK invasion of Iraq from being perceived as a conflict between the West and Muslim countries, thus becoming a rallying target for radical terrorist groups? Who gives a shit? They are attacking us and killing us anyway, and have been doing so for over 30 years. You think if we didnt fight back they would trade in their bombbs and AK's for day jobs? Osama bin Laden frequently refers to Iraq in his speeches. If the basing of US forces in Pakistan has lead to a murderous campaign against Christian minorities; if minor Australian involvement in the Afghanistan war contributed to the Bali bombings in revenge; and if an ill-considered comment about the Muslim faith during the 'Miss World' contest in Nigeria left over a hundred dead in rioting, what impact would an unprovoked invasion of Iraq (for naked national interests) have? Now were supposed to be appeasing Osama Bin Laden???? Maybe we should hire him as our Secretary of State! WHO GIVES A FUCK WHAT HE SAYS?
The USA stands for many noble principles,Awww,gee....thanks... but its foreign policy, like that of all states, is geared primarily towards promoting the national self-interest of its ruling classes. Gosh I thought we actually elected leaders, and how dare we act in our own national self interest. We should be more like France and Germany
In its national security doctrine published in September 2002, the White House declared that it would in the future act to prevent rival states acquiring weapons capabilities comparable to its own. Aww golly, why would we want to prevent Iran and North Korea from acquiring "comparable weapons capabilities"? I know, I have a swell idea, lest "GIVE" these dictatorships some B-2 bombers, ICBMs, cruise missiles, hydrogen bombs, missile submarines...ect That way its all even-steven and we'll be conceived as being "fair" by this fucking commie-lunatic that actually wrote this. This is a doctrine of the permanent global military hegemony of one state that believes it is the bearer and defender of universal civilisation, and is prepared to engage in massive wars around the world to enforce that. Iraq was not a "massive war" dummy. It was actually a fairly small one. And...yeah, lets just disarm to be "regular guys" and give everyone a chance. If we give up our military capability then we'd be accepted by the worlds tyrants and they would never,ever attack us again. And if they do then we can go the UN and get a resolution passed against them telling them they were naughty.The Iraq crisis is a stage towards enacting that principle. Is this the sort of world that will ensure peace, justice, trust between nations and security for all? Those who oppose war in Iraq do not so because we admire Iraq or dislike America, but because we are not convinced that the Bush war plans contribute in any positive way to a realisation of that vision."""""""""""""" I think your main reason for apposing it is because you just plain don't want a republican in the white house. I dont remember any of these liberals crusades against Bill Klinton all the times he used military force, even when he did so to divert the nations attention away from "blowjobgate".And no-one screamed when Klinton disarmed the Somalian task force and ordered them to take sides in the Somalian civil war, thus placing them at the mercy of the UN which resulted in BlackHawk down. You were all silent then, silent again when the F-16s were delivering death to the Serbs in a conflict that didnt threaten us in any way whatsoever.
You were silent because your boy was in. And who gives a fuck anyway, it aint your kid doing the fighting. But now? Your all inspired! And the closer to the election day the more righteous your becoming. Because its really all about "you" isnt it? "MeMeMeMeMeMeMeMeMe". And you'll do and say anything to keep your place on that moral pinnacle and get "your boy" elected. Even with troops in combat you'll do so, as if you give a damn about them.
Liberals have never given a shit about the military, or its people. The anti-Vietnam movement was nothing but a hedonistic,narcissistic pot party. Its leaders a pile of self-promoting clowns and rich kids with to much time on their hands. THIS is becoming much the same and this thesis on the Iraq war reminds me of the same home grown crap that turned out characters like Hanoi John Kerry.
DiMaggio I had planned to really attack you on this nonsense but you know what? I don't think you even read it, and if you did you didn't understand it, you didn't list its source, and you certainly cant defend it, let alone amend it, so why should I even condemn it?
It was really interesting reading tho.............thanks.............
............take care...................Rich
.... those were the daaaaayyyyyss"
Robert DiMaggio said:
This is so ridculous, it almost doesn't deserve a comment. The current administration claimed they had WMD's. That includes chemical weapons. I don't recall anyone EVER saying they HAD nukes - only that they were pursuing them.
Here's what Bush actually said about it:
"The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith."
Yet the Monterey Institute for International Studies says this:
-May retain stockpile of biological weapon (BW) munitions, including over 150 R-400 aerial bombs, and 25 or more special chemical/biological Al-Hussein ballistic missile warheads.
-May retain biological weapon sprayers for Mirage F-1 aircraft.
-May retain mobile production facility with capacity to produce "dry" biological agents (i.e., with long shelf life and optimized for dissemination).
-Has not accounted for 17 metric tonnes of BW growth media.
-May possess smallpox virus; tested camelpox prior to Gulf War.
-Maintains technical expertise and equipment to resume production of Bacillus anthracis spores (anthrax), botulinum toxin, aflatoxin, and Clostridium perfringens (gas gangrene).
-Prepared BW munitions for missile and aircraft delivery in 1990-1991 Gulf War; this included loading al-Hussein ballistic missile warheads and R-400 aerial bombs with Bacillis anthracis.
-Conducted research on BW dissemination using unmanned aerial vehicles.
-Repeatedly violated its obligations under UNSC Resolution 687, which mandates destruction of Iraq's biological weapon capabilities.
-Ratified the BTWC on 4/18/91, as required by the Gulf War cease-fire agreement.
I, personally, don't take anything Ritter says as completely honest. Wasn't this guy recieving money from the Iraqi government?
Ok, easy. How many of these other countries did we do battle with? How many signed a peace accord to abide by the sanctions? Only one, Iraq, and they violated it repeatedly therefore opening themselves up for another ass kicking. Most countries expect leaders in other countries to abide by what they said they would. You don't....you risk war. Saddam gambled and lost.
BTW, Last time I checked, the UN doesn't work for the US. Point your finger at the UN, not the US on these matters.
This is a true statement for the most part. I believe the UN pulled the inspectors out because they (Iraq) were not complying, and the UN feared a intensive air strike to be immeninent. (which would put their folks in danger).
The first sentence is true. While the UN was pissed, it was only at it's leadership level. IF the leaders of the UN inspection program were not the spies, why did it go on so long as to raise Iraq's suspicions? I'd like to see who was thought to be a spy.[/QUOTE]
Well, he's got he person wrong. The defector Bush was talking about was none other than Hussien Kamel, son-in-law of Saddam. Note that he was later killed after returning to Iraq in '96.
Here's what FAIR (Fair and Acurracy in Reporting) has to say about it:
"Kamel is no obscure defector. A son-in-law of Saddam Hussein, his departure from Iraq carrying crates of secret documents on Iraq's past weapons programs was a major turning point in the inspections saga. In 1999, in a letter to the U.N. Security Council (1/25/99), UNSCOM reported that its entire eight years of disarmament work "must be divided into two parts, separated by the events following the departure from Iraq, in August 1995, of Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel."
Kamel's defection has been cited repeatedly by George W. Bush and leading administration officials as evidence that 1) Iraq has not disarmed; 2) inspections cannot disarm it; and 3) defectors such as Kamel are the most reliable source of information on Iraq's weapons."
It wasn't a moral issue. We were in a "cold war" so to speak with Iran. It was a political issue. Otherwise, this would be a fairly accurate statement. Note that this trend continued from Reagan to March of '92. Different men, different administrations. Can't tag this one on the current Bush administration.
That's not entirely true.
The Christian Science Monitor reported this:
"In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.
Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president."
I don't know that we bribed anyone, but the message was clear. Support your ealier resolutions or risk becoming obsolete. The US did state, in no uncertain terms that we would "go it alone", if the measure didn't pass.
Isn't that what all countries do? Most don't sign agreements or treaties that are not in it's (the country's) best interest. Most countries will violate international laws when they feel it compromises their security.
Again, a country's interest generally supercedes international law. I won't deny that the US has chosen bad leaders. No one every said we make our choices on leaders in shit holes based on moral grounds. We do what is in OUR best interest at the time.
If we disarmed, we'd be wiped out. Plain and simple. Since we are a super power, we have a little more say in, wouldn't you say? To agree with this stuff would mean a very weakened defense. Note that NO President would ever agree to this type of shit, other than possibly Kerry.
Israel has come up numerous times in this arguement. What does this have to do with anything regarding the current election. Although you, and the actual author of this article is leaning to cast blame on the current administration, most of this stuff happened before Bush was ever in office.
Perhaps you should slam every President since 1948?
Here's what he actually said (taken from the State of the Union Address this crap is taken from):
States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic
Kuwait and Suadi Arabia are kingdoms and are not threating the US. That's the difference. Saddam would have attacked us in a heartbeat, or provided terrorist with a nuke IF he could have. The US encourages democracy, it doesn't demand it.
A couple of points:
1. Saddam was a bad guy
2. Europe refused to clean up their own backyard, and the US acted to prevent the rape and murder of civillians.
3. Panama - We had an international arrest warrant out for Noriega.
4. Iraq - we sought international support. We didn't need it.
5. International law is a joke, so is the UN. Either have the balls to stand up for what you voted for, or fade away into ineffectiveness.
The problems Iraq faced were directed at the leadership. They could have changed it at anytime - they didn't. You would have hoped the people would uprise and take the current government out, but the didn't.
It's not illegal when the ONE individal (Saddam) that could have stopped it - didn't.
Not true by any stretch of the imagination. How many countries are involved in the Iraq war? Truthful answer is over 37. Some are not mentioned due to their current policital climates.
Here's the list:
United Kingdom
Italy
Poland
Ukraine
Spain
Netherlands
Australia
South Korea
Romania
Japan
Bulgaria
Denmark
Thailand
Honduras
El Salvador
Hungary
Dominican Republic
Nicaragua
Singapore
Mongolia
Azerbaijan
Norway
Latvia
Portugal
Lithuania
Slovakia
Philippines
Czech Republic
Albania
Georgia
New Zealand
Estonia
Kazakhstan
Macedonia
Moldova
Tonga
Armenia
Spoken like a true communist.
This is simply conjecture. It's true that only about 15% of our oil comes from the ME. Oil companies having a strong link with the GOP is true. Wonder why? Because they make more money by not being taxed at an exorborant rate.
Actually, it's not a race card. No one is forcing anyone to remain the the US. Don't like it - please LEAVE. Ramsey Clark is a proven idiot.
This sums it up best:
The USA stands for many noble principles, but its foreign policy, like that of all states, is geared primarily towards promoting the national self-interest of its ruling classes.
National self interest is ALWAYS the main factor in a countries decisions.
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2004
- Messages
- 861
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 0
Game.........Set..........Match!. 
................... To Rich and Sticky................................
""""""""Ya know, I'm really surprised at the lack of response to this thread. C'mon guys, counter. I expected at least some of the regulars to respond to this."""""""
They cant respond to this because "it" is such flagrant, silly propaganda, such a distortion of history, that even our flaming liberals cant defend it. These were my personal favorites "14) Isn't Saddam Hussein's Iraq undemocratic?" "14) Isn't Saddam Hussein's Iraq undemocratic?" "16) Hasn't Saddam Hussein shown callous disregard for his own people?" "Gee, ya think?" ..............take care........ ...........Rich
................... To Rich and Sticky................................ """"""""Ya know, I'm really surprised at the lack of response to this thread. C'mon guys, counter. I expected at least some of the regulars to respond to this."""""""
They cant respond to this because "it" is such flagrant, silly propaganda, such a distortion of history, that even our flaming liberals cant defend it. These were my personal favorites "14) Isn't Saddam Hussein's Iraq undemocratic?"
"14) Isn't Saddam Hussein's Iraq undemocratic?" "16) Hasn't Saddam Hussein shown callous disregard for his own people?" "Gee, ya think?" ..............take care........ ...........Rich
Rich got his hind end dented in too many times by me Stick ... he has me on ignore now. Guess he is doesn't like it when I beat him down for acting like an asshole. I will correct his meandering post above later in the day though. His post is so full of twisted quotes and opinions it is hard for me to believe you are standing with him there 
as though it is a post of facts. Typical of his style he is not even a close to presenting a factual post with sources. He is less acerbic this time, but this is just a post of more Richisms.
No real facts, just a bunch of half truths welded together into his version of history.
as though it is a post of facts. Typical of his style he is not even a close to presenting a factual post with sources. He is less acerbic this time, but this is just a post of more Richisms.No real facts, just a bunch of half truths welded together into his version of history.
Last edited:
