| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/12/2004 07:20:51 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by frumoaznicul:
...they never convinced me in any way that the use of an atomic bomb can be a good thing. Atleast alow me to hope that noone will use them again ever. |
Perhaps the devastation seen in Japan is the very reason it hasn't happened again. Hence, it was a good thing that saved lives in the long run. |
|
|
|
10/12/2004 07:25:34 PM · #52 |
It sent troops to die in a war going on today, the same war you personally said is wrong and illegal in your initial post, then you sayit freed 50 million from tirany, a tirany that whas created by Mr. George W. Bush's father a while back when he supported it. And they saved them and gave them what? Complete insecurity fear and terror? I mean when you go out killing tirants like that you have to have something to offer instead. USA created Sadam, and USA killed him, father and son business, odd thing. Kinda like when you first said the war is wrong and illegal and then you come and say it's a good thing because it saved 50 mil from tirany. I'm confused. Arn't you?
All the other points you mentioned about the other presidents are hollywood stuff, I liked the best the "Was Ronald Reagan wrong to call for Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin wall?" that's so funny I lmao for a few minutes. I can imagine a holliwood comedy where Reagan calls Gorbatchov and tells him, "hey how about tearing down that wall?" and Gorby goes, "uhmmm, ok, since you ask so nicely". lol
On one thing you are right I shouldn't have said "Your presidents are almost never right..." that whas a wrong phrasing I admit, I should have said "your presidents where wrong about many things" or something like that, because It's absurd to think they never did anything good. I apologise for the wron use of words, alow me to rephrase, and I propose to you to end this discussion, because we can't have a real discussion with me telling histry and facts and you going on with hollywood sci-fi just because you love your country. I can tell you one thing tho, loving your country is one thing, agreeing with everything your governments ever did that's extremism. America had recognized they did wrong to leave eastern europe out, as I recall they recognized they whas wrong to go to vietnam, and they keep apologising to Japan even today for the nuke. Only you and Russell don't. Give that a thought, but let's please end this discussion. You win america is the greatest country and all the other countries are terrorists and communists and anything you want. Cheers!
|
|
|
|
10/12/2004 07:31:39 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by frumoaznicul:
Fact is that when I ask my grand mother to tell me stories from the war when she talks about the german soldiers, she smiles and she remembers theyr names, and she insists that they were no way as bad as they are painted today... |
I guess it's safe to say your grandmother isn't Jewish. |
|
|
|
10/12/2004 07:37:09 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by thelsel:
Originally posted by frumoaznicul:
Fact is that when I ask my grand mother to tell me stories from the war when she talks about the german soldiers, she smiles and she remembers theyr names, and she insists that they were no way as bad as they are painted today... |
I guess it's safe to say your grandmother isn't Jewish. |
You are correct and for god's sake don't turn my words, I never said that what the germans did overall whasn't horrible. I just said that the regular german soldiers where nice and civilized. Those who did the horrible stuff where the SS and some soldiers who really belived in hitler but not all german soldiers where bad. Most were normal people who had no choice but to fight but they were not rapest and criminals and such.
|
|
|
|
10/12/2004 07:39:14 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by frumoaznicul:
It sent troops to die in a war going on today, the same war you personally said is wrong and illegal in your initial post |
I never said the current war was wrong or illegal. My original post was about FDR and WWII but I guess most people missed the sarcasm. |
|
|
|
10/12/2004 07:45:05 PM · #56 |
Aha so your president whas wrong to go to world war II so he can mage Boing and GM rich. Uhm... ok let's leave it at that I say.
|
|
|
|
10/12/2004 07:55:19 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by frumoaznicul:
No matter how much I stretch my brains I can not see any connection between this situation and the one in Vietnam. Besides, even if there were a connection when I talked about east europe, I whas telling america whas wrong to do that to the east europeans, and when I talked about Vietnam I whas saying america whas wrong to do that to his own 1000's of soldiers who never came back from there. |
This is the hypocrisy I speak of. Your upset America didn't sacrifice thousands of lives to save Romania. But when America did sacrifice thousands of lives to defend Vietnam it's now a bad thing. Damned if you do, Damned if you don't. You can't have it both ways my friend. |
|
|
|
10/12/2004 09:13:13 PM · #58 |
Can't argue with the facts - USA stinks, Romania RULES!!!
|
|
|
|
10/13/2004 12:35:05 AM · #59 |
Bush, Cheney Promise Perpetual State Of Terror
10-12-2004 3:48 AM
Bush promises supporters they'll live in a state of fear for years to come
HOBBS, New Mexico (FNN 24/7) - Citing outrage at John Kerry's statement that terrorism might someday be reduced to a "nuisance", President Bush and Vice-President Cheney vowed that Americans will live in an unceasing era of terror and fear as long as they have anything to say about it.
"Sen. Kerry's vision is naive and dangerous," said Cheney at a rally in support of the President. "We envision the U.S. as a place where terrorism will be on the forefront for many Republican administrations to come.
"We did not put troops in harm's way in Afghanistan and Iraq to completely win the war on terror: We're going to MOSTLY win it, that way we will always have a goal," Bush told a receptive crowd.
"Goals are important. My opponent simply does not see that."
Kerry responded to the blistering attacks on his comments by saying, "Umm, I think I̢۪ll stick to what I said. I'd like to see terrorism go away someday."
|
|
|
|
10/13/2004 01:25:33 AM · #60 |
|
|
|
10/19/2004 06:55:21 PM · #61 |
| Mr. Bush finally lives up to his "uniter not a divider" status. Only he has united the terrorists. |
|
|
|
10/20/2004 08:27:42 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Mr. Bush finally lives up to his "uniter not a divider" status. Only he has united the terrorists. |
If you think there's something meaningful about that article, I'd be interested to hear it. The fact that one terrorist thinks another terrorist is really cool doesn't strike me as terribly earth-shattering.
On the other hand, there are signs that the Iraqis are getting a bit tired of Mr. Zarqawi, and his days in-country may be numbered: Insurgent Alliance Is Fraying In Fallujah.
(For some reason, when you click on the link above, you get a registration page, but if you do a Google News search on "Insurgent Alliance Is Fraying In Fallujah", you can link directly into the article without registering.) |
|
|
|
10/20/2004 09:20:13 PM · #63 |
| Scott, you read the 15 page NYTimes article I posted several times on this thread yet? Anyone else for that matter? |
|
|
|
10/20/2004 09:31:38 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Scott, you read the 15 page NYTimes article I posted several times on this thread yet? Anyone else for that matter? |
I would have, seriuously.
But I dont register, sign in or subscribe just to view a link.
Message edited by author 2004-10-20 21:32:52. |
|
|
|
10/20/2004 10:01:57 PM · #65 |
|
|
|
10/20/2004 10:30:26 PM · #66 |
There are some things in this article that I agree with.
Today, 18 months after the invasion of Iraq, investigators there have found no evidence of hidden centrifuges or a revived nuclear weapons program. The absence of unconventional weapons in Iraq is now widely seen as evidence of a profound intelligence failure
I agree with that, the CIA, FBI and the overall intelligence agencies botched their job. The WMD's so far have not been found (for the most part) They may be in another country, or never there, or maybe still there and not found, the intelligence should have known where it was.
And did we pull the trigger too fast? well maybe.
But, given the history of Saddam, and his actions against the Kurds and Iran, I think its pretty easy to assume he would use WMD or nuclear weapons if they were at his disposal against anyone he viewed as a threat.
So, did we move in too fast, or without enough allies, that could be argued no doubt.
But, after all is said and done, I still feel we are much safer without Saddam in power.
Thanks for the link, it was an interesting read. |
|
|
|
10/20/2004 10:35:18 PM · #67 |
| You obviously did not read the whole thing or your choosing to keep out the most important parts. As the title reads: How the White House Embraced Disputed Iraqi Arms Intelligence. |
|
|
|
10/21/2004 12:32:45 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Scott, you read the 15 page NYTimes article I posted several times on this thread yet? Anyone else for that matter? |
Ah, doing the old bait 'n' switch again, eh? Since you've copied it to your site, I'll try and slog through it soon.
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
You obviously did not read the whole thing or your choosing to keep out the most important parts. As the title reads: How the White House Embraced Disputed Iraqi Arms Intelligence. |
Liberal headlines never match the story or the facts, because all that sticks with people is the headline, and maybe the first couple of paragraphs. So they skew the front end to direct the public's opinion, then bury any truth that refutes their agenda at the end of the piece. So they can claim to preserve their "journalistic integrity", but still influence opinion in the direction they want.
But maybe this will be the article to convince me otherwise. :) |
|
|
|
10/27/2004 01:52:28 PM · #69 |
It's not so much what Kerry did in Vietnam....it's what he did when he came home.
Originally posted by jonr:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While Kerry was IN Vietnam, Bush was drinking and snorting at home. So every time a Pro-Bush brings up Vietname, it is good to remind them. :)
I'm pretty sure Kerry is the only person bringing up Vietnam, time after time after time after time...
Bush has respected his service, depite the MANY questionable events or happenings. Kerry on the other hand, has basically said that anyone serving in the national guard was a POS and a draft dodger, something he earlier said was OK and should be forgiven anyway. |
|
|
|
10/28/2004 09:57:03 PM · #70 |
Here's an example of how the push for war with Iraq undermined the war on terror:
"Bush Had Three Chances to Bomb Zarqawi
NBC News is reporting President Bush passed up three opportunities in 2002 to bomb a training camp run by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi because Bush feared it would undermine his administration's case for war against Saddam Hussein. At the time the Jordanian-born Zarqawi was operating in northern Iraq in an area not controlled by Saddam Hussein. Today the Bush administration claims Zarqawi is the most dangerous man in Iraq and has placed a $25 million reward on his head."
From: Democracy Now |
|
|
|
10/29/2004 12:10:13 AM · #71 |
Originally posted by Riggs:
But, given the history of Saddam, and his actions against the Kurds and Iran, |
Actually, the CIA announced about a month ago that Saddam did NOT gas the Kurds, contrary to prior belief, it was the Iranians. |
|
|
|
10/29/2004 12:18:47 AM · #72 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Originally posted by Riggs:
But, given the history of Saddam, and his actions against the Kurds and Iran, |
Actually, the CIA announced about a month ago that Saddam did NOT gas the Kurds, contrary to prior belief, it was the Iranians. |
That's quite interesting if it's true. I'm surprised it got little press. Do you have a source for that I can check out?
-Terry
|
|
|
|
10/29/2004 12:35:29 AM · #73 |
from Yahoo news:
Saddam Could Call CIA in His Defence
Fri Jul 2, 1:58 PM ET Add World - OneWorld.net to My Yahoo!
Sanjay Suri, Inter Press Service (IPS)
LONDON, Jul 2 (IPS) Evidence offered by a top CIA (news - web sites) man could confirm the testimony given by Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) at the opening of his trial in Baghdad Thursday that he knew of the Halabja massacre only from the newspapers.
Thousands were reported killed in the gassing of Iraqi Kurds in Halabja in the north of Iraq (news - web sites) in March 1988 towards the end of Iraq's eight-year war with Iran. The gassing of the Kurds has long been held to be the work of Ali Hassan al-Majid, named in the West because of that association as 'Chemical Ali'. Saddam Hussein is widely alleged to have ordered Ali to carry out the chemical attack.
The Halabja massacre is now prominent among the charges read out against Saddam in the Baghdad court. When that charge was read out, Saddam replied that he had read about the massacre in a newspaper. Saddam has denied these allegations ever since they were made. But now with a trial on, he could summon a witness in his defence with the potential to blow apart the charge and create one of the greatest diplomatic disasters the United States has ever known.
A report prepared by the top CIA official handling the matter says Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the massacre, and indicates that it was the work of Iranians. Further, the Scott inquiry on the role of the British government has gathered evidence that following the massacre the United States in fact armed Saddam Hussein to counter the Iranians chemicals for chemicals.
Few believe that a CIA man would attend a court hearing in Baghdad in defence of Saddam. But in this case the CIA boss has gone public with his evidence, and this evidence has been in the public domain for more than a year.
The CIA officer Stephen C. Pelletiere was the agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. As professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, he says he was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf.
In addition, he says he headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States, and the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.
Pelletiere went public with his information on no less a platform than The New York Times in an article on January 31 last year titled 'A War Crime or an Act of War?' The article which challenged the case for war quoted U.S. President George W. Bush (news - web sites) as saying: "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."
Pelletiere says the United States Defence Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report following the Halabja gassing, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. "That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas," he wrote in The New York Times.
The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja, he said. "The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent -- that is, a cyanide-based gas -- which Iran was known to use. "The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time."
Pelletiere write that these facts have "long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned."
Pelletiere wrote that Saddam Hussein has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. "But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them."
Pelletiere has maintained his position. All Saddam would have to do in court now is to cite The New York Times article even if the court would not summon Pelletiere. The issues raised in the article would themselves be sufficient to raise serious questions about the charges filed against Saddam and in turn the justifications offered last year for invading Iraq.
The Halabja killings were cited not just by Bush but by British Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites) to justify his case for going along with a U.S. invasion of Iraq. A British government dossier released to justify the war on Iraq says that "Saddam has used chemical weapons, not only against an enemy state, but against his own people."
An inquiry report in 1996 by Lord Justice Scott in what came to be known as the arms-to-Iraq affair gave dramatic pointers to what followed after Halabja. After the use of poison gas in 1988 both the United States and Britain began to supply Saddam Hussein with even more chemical weapons.
The Scott inquiry had been set up in 1992 following the collapse of the trial in the case of Matrix Churchill, a British firm exporting equipment to Iraq that could be put to military use.
Three senior executives of Matrix Churchill said the government knew what Matrix Churchill was doing, and that its managing director Paul Henderson had been supplying information about Iraq to the British intelligence agencies on a regular basis.
The inquiry revealed details of the British government's secret decision to supply Saddam with even more weapons-related equipment after the Halabja killings.
Former British foreign secretary Geoffrey Howe was found to have written that the end of the Iraq-Iran war could mean "major opportunities for British industry" in military exports, but he wanted to keep that proposal quiet.
"It could look very cynical if so soon after expressing outrage about the treatment of the Kurds, we adopt a more flexible approach to arms sales," one of his officials told the Scott inquiry. Lord Scott condemned the government's decision to change its policy, while keeping MPs and the public in the dark.
Soon after the attack, the United States approved the export to Iraq of virus cultures and a billion-dollar contract to design and build a petrochemical plant the Iraqis planned to use to produce mustard gas.
Saddam Hussein has appeared so far without a lawyer to defend him. A Jordanian firm is reported to be speaking up for him. But the real defence for him could be waiting for him in Washington and London.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2004 12:36:53 AM · #74 |
Do you have a link?
-Terry
|
|
|
|
10/29/2004 01:04:01 AM · #75 |
Try here: //www.commondreams.org/views03/0131-08.htm
It pulls the source article from the NYT.
Sorry - I no longer save articles as the full website, just as the HTML text these days.
Google cia-kurds-gas-Iran will get you there, though :) |
|
