What Senator John Glenn Said

[Decker]

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

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

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

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

 

[DOMS]

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

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

 

[bio-chem]

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

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

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

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

 

[maniclion]

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

 

[Decker]

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

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

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

 

[ALBOB]

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

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

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

 

[Rich46yo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[GFR]

Fascist slave

 

[Decker]

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

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

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

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

 

[Decker]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[GFR]

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

 

[Rich46yo]

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

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

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

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

 

[GFR]

"Rich lunch is ready"


"ok mom, I'll be right up"

 

[Decker]

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

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

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

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

 

[ALBOB]

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

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

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

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

 

[Rich46yo]

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

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

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

 

[Decker]

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

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

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

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

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

Findings include:

Who was killed?

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

When did they die?

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

Who did the killing?

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

What was the most lethal weaponry?

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

How many were injured?

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

Who provided the information?

• Mortuary officials and medics were the most frequently cited witnesses.
• Three press agencies provided over one third of the reports used.
• Iraqi journalists are increasingly central to the reporting work.

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

 

[Decker]

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

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

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

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

Check out the pic of Rumsfeld and Hussein shaking hands.

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

 

[Decker]

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

 

[ALBOB]

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

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

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

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

 

[Decker]

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



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

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

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

1. [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]Our sources include public domain newsgathering agencies with web access. A list of some core sources is given below. Further sources will be added provided they meet acceptable project standards (see below).[/size][/font]
   [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]ABC - ABC News (USA)
   AFP - Agence France-Presse
   AP - Associated Press
   AWST - Aviation Week and Space Technology
   Al Jaz - Al Jazeera network
   BBC - British Broadcasting Corporation
   BG - Boston Globe
   Balt. Sun - The Baltimore Sun
   CT - Chicago Tribune
   CO - Commondreams.org
   CSM - Christian Science Monitor
   DPA - Deutsche Presse-Agentur
   FOX - Fox News
   GUA - The Guardian (London)
   HRW - Human Rights Watch
   HT - Hindustan Times
   ICRC - International Committ of the Red Cross
   [/size][/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]IND - The Independent (London)
   IO - Intellnet.org
   JT - Jordan Times
   LAT - Los Angeles Times
   MEN - Middle East Newsline
   MEO - Middle East Online
   MER - Middle East Report
   MH - Miami Herald
   NT - Nando Times
   NYT - New York Times
   Reuters - (includes Reuters Alertnet)
   SABC - South African Broadcasting Corporation
   SMH - Sydney Morning Herald
   Sg.News - The Singapore News
   Tel- The Telegraph (London)
   Times - The Times (London)
   TOI - Times of India
   TS - Toronto Star
   UPI - United Press International
   WNN - World News Network
   WP - Washington Post[/size][/font]

By the way, where's your list of attorney's showing the legality of the invasion? When it comes to the integrity of our Constitution, our way of life, I never get tired of discussing it...you know, beating a dead horse.

 

[ALBOB]

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

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

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

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