# Liberal quote machine



## Tgace (Jul 23, 2005)

Funny....

http://www.museumquotemachine.com/



> 'Let's get rid of all the economic (expletive) this country represents! Bring it on, I hope the Muslims win!'
> Chrissie Hynde of The Pretenders ​





> 'Many families have been devastated tonight. This just is not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes' destination of California--these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!'
> Michael Moore-ON​


----------



## Floating Egg (Jul 23, 2005)

I'm not a liberal or a conservative, so I can laugh wholeheartedly at these quotes without feeling guilty, but to be fair, there should be a Conservative quote machine. Insanity and ignorance runs in both directions.


----------



## Marginal (Jul 23, 2005)

Between Frist, Dubya Bush and Quail you'd be reading til doomsday.


----------



## DngrRuss (Jul 23, 2005)

We could simply post the entire transcript of The Way Things Aren't, quotes by Rush "Drugs are Ok for Me, but not Liberals" Limbaugh.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 23, 2005)

DngrRuss said:
			
		

> We could simply post the entire transcript of The Way Things Aren't, quotes by Rush "Drugs are Ok for Me, but not Liberals" Limbaugh.


 So drugs are fine, just not for Rush? lol. The hypocrisy in the Rush versus dopers argument goes both ways....and has absolutely nothing to do with the current national security situation the US finds itself in or anyone but Rush Limbaugh. Thousands of drug using leftists are fine, one prescription drug using conservative talk show host is an indictment on all conservatives? lol. I figured it would help bridge a gap between Limbaugh and the radical left, they finally have something in common.

And of course Rush claiming that drugs are bad, and using them, are nowhere near as vile as claiming the country should lose to islamic terrorists. You'll be hard pressed to top that. In order to come close to that vitriol, the left will have to try and claim Neo-Nazis and white supremacists are conservatives and quote them. Ironic, since it's already been shown that those groups are closer to the leftists politically on this topic....i.e. "Israel and US bad, Islamic terrorists goooooodddd."


----------



## Tgace (Jul 23, 2005)

"One could say that Osama bin Laden and these non-nation-state fighters with religious purpose are very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries that helped to cast off the British crown."
_Marcy Kaptur- Democratic Representative Ohio_

"He's (Osama bin Laden) been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day-care facilities, building health-care facilities, and these people are extremely grateful. We haven't done that."
_Patty Murray- Democratic Senator Washington (speech to a high school honors class)_

"We all need to take a deep breath and think about being a Bush daughter and having that cross to bear. I'd go out and have a couple of drinks too_,"_ 
_Julia_ _Roberts_

"If you asked would I live in London the rest of my life, yeah, I'd be very happy to stay here. There's nothing in America that I would miss at all."
_Robert Altman The Times (London) January 21, 2002 _


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 23, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> "One could say that Osama bin Laden and these non-nation-state fighters with religious purpose are very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries that helped to cast off the British crown."
> _Marcy Kaptur- Democratic Representative Ohio _


 Great, now bin Laden is George Washington.



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> "He's (Osama bin Laden) been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day-care facilities, building health-care facilities, and these people are extremely grateful. We haven't done that."
> _Patty Murray- Democratic Senator Washington (speech to a high school honors class) _


 I've heard this statement from Patty Murray before, and it never ceases to astound me as to the level of stupidity displayed by her.  Patty and her friends say that George Bush is dumb?  lol.  Talk about the pot and the kettle.  Day care centers? pffft. Day care centers for WHAT?! Women didn't go to work in Afghanistan, they stayed home with a burhka cooking and cleaning and taking a beating when it suited the Taliban.  Day care centers....



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> "We all need to take a deep breath and think about being a Bush daughter and having that cross to bear. I'd go out and have a couple of drinks too_,"_
> _Julia_ _Roberts _
> 
> "If you asked would I live in London the rest of my life, yeah, I'd be very happy to stay here. There's nothing in America that I would miss at all."
> _Robert Altman The Times (London) January 21, 2002 _


 And we probably wouldn't miss you either, Robert Altman (who?).  

Again, leftists hate hearing their own leaders being quoted.  They are their own worst enemies sometimes.  As far as Rush Limbaugh is concerned, quoting a talk show host is far different than quoting the moronic meanderings of elected officials.  The first is trivia, the second is important to understand the minds of some of our so-called leaders.  Nobody elected Limbaugh to the house or senate.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 23, 2005)

"We are a nation that is unenlightened because of religion. I do believe that. I think that religion stops people from thinking. I think it justifies crazies. I think flying planes into a building was a faith-based initiative. I think religion is a neurological disorder.

When you look at beliefs in such things as, do you go to heaven, is there a devil, we have more in common with Turkey and Iran and Syria than we do with European nations and Canada and nations that, yes, I would consider more enlightened than us."

-Bill Maher


----------



## Floating Egg (Jul 23, 2005)

Well, I definitely agree with Bill Maher in that context.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 23, 2005)

Then why do we have to be "tolerant" of anothers religion? What do liberals want? Elimination of Religion? As I believe that the number of people in the US who consider themselves religious is in the 80% neighborhood. A lot of Americans should be offended at that statement. And being compared to nations like Iran and Syria? Please.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 23, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> And of course Rush claiming that drugs are bad, and using them, are nowhere near as vile as claiming the country should lose to islamic terrorists. You'll be hard pressed to top that. In order to come close to that vitriol, the left will have to try and claim Neo-Nazis and white supremacists are conservatives and quote them. Ironic, since it's already been shown that those groups are closer to the leftists politically on this topic....i.e. "Israel and US bad, Islamic terrorists goooooodddd."




Oh--we liberals do that all the time.  We try to slip it in between gay sex and our 10:00 abortion appointment.

I never use the "eye rolling" icon.  I don't like using any of them...but that quote above deserves it.  Maybe the "lol" one, too.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Floating Egg (Jul 24, 2005)

I think we've been too tolerant. If I was the supreme ruler of the world, it would be okay to call people out for having irrational beliefs, but I'm not, so I usually just mind my own business.

And yes, you're right, most people in the US and the rest of the world have some kind of religious belief sytem, but some other countries do a better job of keeping it out of politics. In Canada, for example, it would be political suicide for the prime minister to talk the way Bush does about his relationship with God. 

Since when did Americans start thinking that they had the right to not be offended? The truth hurts.


----------



## DngrRuss (Jul 24, 2005)

So, it's ok to offend me by making the very word "liberal" equal to Satan? It's ok to demonize the left and not only imply, but indite liberals as traitors (i.e. Ann Coulter)? It's ok to say whatever vile, often hateful and self-rightous thing you want as long as liberals are on the receiving end, but God forbid that you on the right should be offended?

 Let me be the first to apologize to you. We didn't think you guys were that sensative, what with all the gun-waving and war-mongering. Sorry to hurt your feelings. 

 As far as my little slam at Rush is concerned- you're right. He's not an elected official, just a hypocrite. But, that's ok, cuz he's a conservative- correct?

 Hey, I am more than willing to admit that the left (both leadership and icons) say a lot of dumb things. I am an independant, so I have the luxury of not siding with one party over another. Because of that, I also recognize when the right shove their feet firmly into their mouths as well. Partisanism does not enter into it. What I have noticed is that more Dems either dismiss, ignore, or actually decry the dumb things said on their side more than the Republicans. If a right-winger said it, it is automatically correct- no matter how dumb or venomous it is. I think that it is that blind unity that has given them their power in the last 20 some years. I also think that it will ultimately be their downfall.

 Blind unity often breeds arrogance and complacence (sp?). That's when the giants are brought down by little guys with stones and slings.

 It should truly be up to the right and the left to police their own.  Most of us in the US are more in the middle than either far to the right or the left on most issues.  Most of us just want to do our jobs, raise our families, and get home from 7-Eleven alive.  If you identify yourself as right- kick the asses of right-wingers that only make you look bad by the dumb things they do.  The same should be said for the left.  

 God, I need a drink......


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 24, 2005)

DngrRuss said:
			
		

> So, it's ok to offend me by making the very word "liberal" equal to Satan? It's ok to demonize the left and not only imply, but indite liberals as traitors (i.e. Ann Coulter)? It's ok to say whatever vile, often hateful and self-rightous thing you want as long as liberals are on the receiving end, but God forbid that you on the right should be offended?


 Everyone needs to be offended from time to time. It keeps them honest. I hear whinning about liberals being called traitors, from people who are the first to call conservatives fascists. Again, if the shoe fits... Also, keep in mind, the hurtful comments above are taken directly from things said by those very leftists themselves. Nobody is labelling anyone anything without context. It's not my fault some moronic leftist thought Bin Laden was building daycare centers.



			
				DngrRuss said:
			
		

> Let me be the first to apologize to you. We didn't think you guys were that sensative, what with all the gun-waving and war-mongering. Sorry to hurt your feelings.


 Who's being sensitive? I'm certainly not whining, i've got nothing to whine about.  I was merely denigrating the asinine statements of a few morons. I'm hardly offended by them, except, maybe, at the shear blatant stupidity behind them. It's just fun to laugh at moronic thinking in all it's forms, whether some leftist senator says it, or Bush says it. I mean, you were just talking about labelling people, and now i'm a war-monger? Way to take the high-ground. Again.



			
				DngrRuss said:
			
		

> As far as my little slam at Rush is concerned- you're right. He's not an elected official, just a hypocrite. But, that's ok, cuz he's a conservative- correct?


 It's ok because he's an entertainer, and not directly in charge of any branch of government. I'm far less concerned with the moronic statements or behavior of entertainers than I am elected officials. The fact that an elected official of the US Senate thought Bin Laden was building daycare centers in Afghanistan frightens me. It seems that many on the left have placed all their eggs in one basket in their contempt for Rush Limbaugh. It's almost as if they believe that if they can just demonize Limbaugh enough, they can win the country back. Sorry, it's nothing like that easy.



			
				DngrRuss said:
			
		

> Hey, I am more than willing to admit that the left (both leadership and icons) say a lot of dumb things. I am an independant, so I have the luxury of not siding with one party over another.


 Then why are you acting as though you are offended. As an independent, why bother jumping on the bandwagon to defend their asinine behavior and statements?



			
				DngrRuss said:
			
		

> Because of that, I also recognize when the right shove their feet firmly into their mouths as well. Partisanism does not enter into it. What I have noticed is that more Dems either dismiss, ignore, or actually decry the dumb things said on their side more than the Republicans. If a right-winger said it, it is automatically correct- no matter how dumb or venomous it is.


 You never heard me say anything like that. You also don't hear me defending asinine thinking on the part of Republicans. I don't defend the "faith based" rantings of many conservatives. But I find it a far cry from the type of "Hate America at any cost" behavior of many on the radical left. Claiming that America deserves to lose the war on terror is beyond the pale.



			
				DngrRuss said:
			
		

> I think that it is that blind unity that has given them their power in the last 20 some years. I also think that it will ultimately be their downfall.


 I think it's the "Hate America at all costs, until we can change it in our image" behavior of the radical left that has given the conservatives their power in the last 20 years. That's what I want to expose, the moronic thinking of the radical left. That's not a free pass for all conservatives, as a moron in their midst is a moron none the less. 



			
				DngrRuss said:
			
		

> Blind unity often breeds arrogance and complacence (sp?). That's when the giants are brought down by little guys with stones and slings.


 You might want to keep that in mind.



			
				DngrRuss said:
			
		

> It should truly be up to the right and the left to police their own. Most of us in the US are more in the middle than either far to the right or the left on most issues. Most of us just want to do our jobs, raise our families, and get home from 7-Eleven alive. If you identify yourself as right- kick the asses of right-wingers that only make you look bad by the dumb things they do. The same should be said for the left.
> 
> God, I need a drink......


 And it is up to us in the middle to expose the radical extremists of all stripes. That includes precious leftist ones with big mouths, as well as right wing religious extremists. I find it a bit myopic to claim that I can only criticize right wingers. The left seems to give a free pass to even the most asinine statements of their fellows. I won't leave them to police themselves, thank you.


----------



## Floating Egg (Jul 24, 2005)

Both sides make asinine statements, but no one calls them out except the other party. It would be nice if there was a device controled by a computer that would raise a stupid flag every time something ridiculous was said. The reporters certainly aren't going to do it, and most people aren't capable of critical thinking. At the end of a term in office the number of stupids would be totaled and whoever got the least stupids would win the next term in office. Okay, it's not perfect.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 24, 2005)

> "You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here."
> 
> Howard Dean





> Whether you are a Democrat or Republican, whether you are a liberal or a conservative, we know that neither this President nor prior Presidents of both parties did everything right or we would not have had a 9/11.
> -Charles Schumer


Read: 9/11 is our fault. Like those women who "asked to be raped" by dressing like that.



> "God bless the America we are trying to create."
> -Hillary Clinton


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 24, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Read: 9/11 is our fault. Like those women who "asked to be raped" by dressing like that.


Are you implying that the US is pretty squeaky clean and nothing we did contributed to the circumstances that led up to 9/11?  This is much more complicated then the rape of a woman, a false comparison.  I don't know how you can so easily write off the forty years of screwing with the Arab world...


----------



## Tgace (Jul 24, 2005)

The only people who are at fault for the 9/11 attacks are those who planned, organised, supported and carried out the attacks. There is no justification whatsoever for such attacks upon clear non-combatants. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either evil or stupid.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 24, 2005)

"I issued a number of denials to people I thought needed to hear them"
~Bill Clinton, Grand Jury Testimony (Translation: I wanted to cover it up so I lied to you- even under oath) 

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans..."
~Bill Clinton, USA Today, March 11, 1993, Page 2A

"Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs."
~John Davis, Editor of The Earth First! Journal


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 24, 2005)

Oh come on now.  Terrorism is a (insert adjective) political activity.  And you are saying that the policies of the US had nothing to do with the development of Arab terror politics?

How do you think a normal average Habib, caught in the middle of the Iran/Iraq war is going to feel when he learns that the chemical weapons, the bombs, the missiles, and the guns being used on the *both* sides were sold to the countries involved by the US?

How do you think a palestinean Habib is going to feel when he learns that the US gives 1.5 billions dollars to Isreal, no strings attached no matter what they do (there is a two way door here, I know)?  This is ontop of all of the weapons that we sell/give to them...

How do you think any Arab is going to feel when they learn of the Carter Doctrine which states that the US reserves the right to use our military in order to preserve our access to Middle Eastern oil...

It is going to take a lot of courage to face up to the fact that this conflict has been going on for 40 years and that we have been intimately involved in its escalation.  It's too easy to just pin this on the terrorists.  Shirking all responsability in this matter is not going to demonstrate American Courage and it is not going to solve any problems.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 24, 2005)

And, a little more on topic, Bushisms...

http://politicalhumor.about.com/cs/georgewbush/a/top10bushisms.htm

I'm sure we can find comparible stupidity in quotes of one man with that of a whole slew of liberals...


----------



## Floating Egg (Jul 24, 2005)

> The only people who are at fault for the 9/11 attacks are those who planned, organised, supported and carried out the attacks. There is no justification whatsoever for such attacks upon clear non-combatants. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either evil or stupid.


Well I don't want to be evil or stupid, so I guess I have to agree with you!


----------



## TonyM. (Jul 24, 2005)

Musicians,actors and directors open their mouths and stupid things fall out. Who'd a thunk it.


----------



## Knarfan (Jul 24, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Oh come on now. Terrorism is a (insert adjective) political activity. And you are saying that the policies of the US had nothing to do with the development of Arab terror politics?
> 
> How do you think a normal average Habib, caught in the middle of the Iran/Iraq war is going to feel when he learns that the chemical weapons, the bombs, the missiles, and the guns being used on the *both* sides were sold to the countries involved by the US?
> 
> ...


You bring up some good points . I don't think that any logical thinking person could honestly say that the US government is not responsible for alot of the anger that exist , but to say that "it's too easy to just pin this on the terrorist" ?! I think that you are confusing the issues . The terrorist deserve all the blame for any & all attacks that they have carried out anyware in the world! The US government deserves some of the critisism for their mastakes . One has nothing to do with the other . Blameing the US government for terrorism is a cowardly excuse , used by cowards . It's not like there has been one or two attacks . this is somthing that occures on a regular bases & according to most experts is going to continue for years to come . What about all of the good people in the middle east who live amongst these terrorist ? Isn't it about time to stop worrying about who started it & start facing the real issues . Terrorist are not doing anything constructive to solve any problems that exist . Basically we are talking about young children who are being brain washed by adults with warped minds . This is going to go on for generations to come .   I think it's time to stop confusing the issues .


----------



## DngrRuss (Jul 24, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Who's being sensitive? I'm certainly not whining, i've got nothing to whine about. I was merely denigrating the asinine statements of a few morons. I'm hardly offended by them, except, maybe, at the shear blatant stupidity behind them. It's just fun to laugh at moronic thinking in all it's forms, whether some leftist senator says it, or Bush says it. I mean, you were just talking about labelling people, and now i'm a war-monger? Way to take the high-ground. Again.


 It's called _sarcasm_.  Often when I write a socio-political post, I take my tongue and plant it firmly into my cheek.  I am more than happy to bash on both sides of the aisle.  The Christian Right and the Looney Left are easy to pick on.  I just prefer to poke at the right since they usually fight back- the far lefties curl up into a ball and cry too easily.


----------



## DngrRuss (Jul 24, 2005)

On to the somewhat serious response to the post:



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Everyone needs to be offended from time to time. It keeps them honest. I hear whinning about liberals being called traitors, from people who are the first to call conservatives fascists. Again, if the shoe fits... Also, keep in mind, the hurtful comments above are taken directly from things said by those very leftists themselves. Nobody is labelling anyone anything without context. It's not my fault some moronic leftist thought Bin Laden was building daycare centers.
> 
> Who's being sensitive? I'm certainly not whining, i've got nothing to whine about. I was merely denigrating the asinine statements of a few morons. I'm hardly offended by them, except, maybe, at the shear blatant stupidity behind them. It's just fun to laugh at moronic thinking in all it's forms, whether some leftist senator says it, or Bush says it. I mean, you were just talking about labelling people, and now i'm a war-monger? Way to take the high-ground. Again.
> 
> ...


  1- I wasn't picking on you personally Sgt- don't take it as such

 2- I have not ever called conservatives "facists". I have called facists facists. A conservative is merely a conservative. I consider myself a fiscal conservative and a social liberal- thus my registry as an Independant. I think when anyone pulls out the "facist" argumment, they are bordering on losing the debate. If they throw out the "Nazi" card- debate over and you lose. Anytime I've heard the far left decry Bush as a Nazi, in my mind, whatever argument or position they had is lost. Bush is not a Nazi. To my knowledge, he has not advocated the extermination of some 6 million people of one ethnicity or another (though, admitedly, I haven't been in on the latest White House Staff Meetings, so I can't say for certain... ok, there goes the sarcasm again).

 3- I have a problem with either side labeling the other as "un-American" because of their differing political views. Discention IS the foundation of this country. The fact that we can disagree and still shake hands at the end of the day should be the cornerstone of our political and social process. Finding a solution in the middle should be our goal- but we have all become so bogged down with partisan BS that we can't see past it. I am not un-American for having a different opinoin from ANYONE. While the left is guilty of this to some degree, it is the right that is more vehemont about calling any left thought, idea, or policy as stupid and treasonous. 

 4- The "Hate America" lefties are just as stupid and wrong as the "Faith Based Policy" righties- on that we both seem to agree Sgt. But there is a dramatic difference between hating America, and not accepting the policies and actions of our government and trying to change them. There is nothing more American than that. The right and the left both share that right and responsibility. Both ideals cannot be correct at the same time, but both sides are very much American- until they go so far right or left that they have lost sight of reality.

 5- Yes, Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. So are many of the people quoted on this thread (and many like it) by the right to slam the ideology of the left. There is a difference here though, Rush is a _political_ entertainer. People listen to Rush to hear his take on politics and the American way of life. Some may even associate their own views with Rush since he is a conservative without doing the research themselves. I look at Rush and Bill Maher as similiar types of entertainers. Maher, however, has always passed himself off as a comedian. Rush passes himself off as a flag-bearer for the conservative cause. Maher's invictive and dialogs have not smacked of hypocricy (agree with him or not- he means what he says), Rush's have. 

 Barbara Streisand is an entertainer- and a favorite target of the right. She, however, is not a political entertainer. She is a singer. Personally, I think she is ridiculous and hurts the Dems more than she helps them, but she has a right to her opinion- wacky as it may be. What she does not do is go on the air 5 days a week and quote chapter and verse from the internal goings on within the beltway. She hosts a political dinner, says a lot of dumb things, raises some money for the cause, and moves on. Do I think she should be held accountable for what she says? Sure, just like anyone else in this country should. Do I give her statements much weight? No- she's a singer. I don't know anyone who decided where they stand or how they vote based on what she has said. I do know many who have done swo based on what Rush has said. For that reason, I don't think he gets the automatic "oh, he's just an entertainer" write-off. He should be held _at least_ as accountable as she is.

  My butt's been in the seat too long- time for some sit-ups, or a snickers....


----------



## Floating Egg (Jul 24, 2005)

Good post, but I just have one comment. We go on about entertainers (yes, I'm guilty of this as well) as if they're a separate class of people. They're just regular people that have the influence to get themselves heard in a very loud way. 

It's so easy to criticize them and knock them down because we don't agree with what they're saying, but I don't think they're any more or less sensible than the average person. Actors in particular are very empathetic on the whole, and this leads to a kind of unrestrained idealism.

Tom Cruise is still insane though.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 24, 2005)

Conservative quotes...with my observations.

*Rush Limbaugh Quotes:*

"Did you know that the White House drug test is multiple choice?"  

(Given the revealation that President Bush did indeed inhale, I love this one.)

"If you commit a crime, you're guilty." 

(Unless you're a wealthy celebrity junkie who commits a felony.)

"There's a simple way to solve the crime problem: obey the law; punish those who do not." 

(Unless they're a wealthy celebrity junkie who commits a felony.)

"Poverty is not the root cause of crime."  

(At least not the cause for wealthy celebrity junkies who commit felonies.)

"Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream."  

(Like voting, which took decades of 19th and 20th century activism.  Now ugly wome everywhere can vote.)

"Women were doing quite well in this country before feminism came along." 

(Except for voting.  And working for equal wages for equal work.)

"They vote with their vaginas." 

(Which leads to many men wanting to cast more than one ballot in the ballot box.)

*Quotes from Strom Thurmond:*

" And I want to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's not enough troops in the Army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the ****** race into our theatres, into our swimming pools, into our homes and into our churches." 

Annnnd.....

" Segregation in the South is honest, open and aboveboard. Of the two systems, or styles of segregation, the Northern and the Southern, there is no doubt whatever in my mind which is the better."  

Annnnd....

" All the bayonets in the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, our schools, our churches and our places of recreation." 

" She walks well, she looks good. Let's see how she kisses."  

(Strom was known for his passion for fondling women...even when he couldn't sit up in his wheelchair at age 100)

" I love all of you -- and especially your wives." 

(Thurmonds retirement speech.)

" When he (Thurmond) dies, theyll have to beat his pe**er down with a baseball bat in order to close the coffin lid."   

--Senator John Tower (R), Texas.

"As J. Strom Thurmond has passed away and cannot speak for himself, the Thurmond family acknowledges Ms. Essie Mae Washington-Williams' claim to her heritage. We hope this acknowledgment will bring closure for Ms. Williams."  

--Thurmond family attorney, aknowledging Thurmond's paternity of a black woman in South Carolina.

(Oooops.)




Regards,


Steve


----------



## DngrRuss (Jul 24, 2005)

Floating Egg said:
			
		

> We go on about entertainers (yes, I'm guilty of this as well) as if they're a separate class of people.
> 
> It's so easy to criticize them and knock them down because we don't agree with what they're saying, but I don't think they're any more or less sensible than the average person. Actors in particular are very empathetic on the whole, and this leads to a kind of unrestrained idealism.
> 
> Tom Cruise is still insane though.


 Technically, they are a different class of people from "regular folks".  They are icons.  I am, as a MA Instructor, a role model on a small, almost individual scale.  I affect my students, and sometimes their families by trying to be a positive influence on them.  I don't get into politics or religion in class, since it is not relevant to training.  The couple students that like to debate with me do so after class and it is all happy and friendly, no matter how spirited the debate might get.  While I would like to think that I, at the most, influence my students to think for themselves and do the research, I do not kid myself into thinking that my words or actions can influence the way they look at policy or how they vote.

 Icons, on the other hand, can speak with the authority that celebrity gives them.  Look at the clothes that any NBA star or musician wears, and see how many kids are wearing the same thing the next day.  Celebrity does give them some influence and greater overall power than the average Joe.  While I still stand by my opinion that celebrities have only a marginal effect on how one votes, they do have the power to help those politicians they approve of rise to higher power.  

 Political entertainers have even greater power than that.  I know that as a high-schooler, I didn't really pay great attention to politics and current events until I saw one of the many Mark Russell specials on PBS.  For those who do not remember him, he was a political satirist who's shows included music and monologues.  He was very funny, and he helped inspire me to study more about the system and politics in general.  When I did, he got funnier.

 So, entertainers do have more influence than the average Joe, and should be held accountible for their words- on both sides of the aisle.

 Hardheadjarhead- Thanks for the Strom Thurmond quotes.  He and Jesse Helms just get funnier and funnier everytime I hear them.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 24, 2005)

Hey! Start your own "Conservative Quote Machine"!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 24, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Oh come on now. Terrorism is a (insert adjective) political activity. And you are saying that the policies of the US had nothing to do with the development of Arab terror politics?


 Terrorism is a political activity like rape is about sex.  



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> How do you think a normal average Habib, caught in the middle of the Iran/Iraq war is going to feel when he learns that the chemical weapons, the bombs, the missiles, and the guns being used on the *both* sides were sold to the countries involved by the US?


 "Habib" heard wrong.  Give me a list of those bombs, missiles and guns supplied by the US.  Iraq signed an aid package with the Soviet Union in the early 1970's, who subsequently supplied 90% of Iraq's armament.  The French took up the slack for the rest, providing Mirage fighters and exocet missiles.  The best evidence the kook fringe has is some allegations that the US allowed dual-use sales (this provided by the Sunday Herald, which is place cited everytime this topic is brought up) and a more asinine allegation that we sold chemical weapons to Iraq.  The reality is that Germany and their lax export laws had more to do with Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear research than any other country on Earth.  As for chemical weapons, we had no need to sell them to Iraq, as German companies had assisted Iraq (and Iran) in building chemical weapons plants to produce their own.  This asinine assertion that we armed Iraq is smoke and mirrors.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> How do you think a palestinean Habib is going to feel when he learns that the US gives 1.5 billions dollars to Isreal, no strings attached no matter what they do (there is a two way door here, I know)? This is ontop of all of the weapons that we sell/give to them...


 Same way i'm sure the Israelis feel whenever they find out European nations and international organizations have been providing aid and support to Palestinian terrorists who blow up Israeli school children.  



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> How do you think any Arab is going to feel when they learn of the Carter Doctrine which states that the US reserves the right to use our military in order to preserve our access to Middle Eastern oil...


 Access to oil and US involvement is far more complex than you allude to.  The fact is that the US gets most of our oil from Canada, Mexico and Argentina.  Saudi oil, for example, falls low on the list.  Arab oil, while important to the US, is far more coveted and relied upon by Europeans and Asia (which explains their willingness to support any dictator at any price to keep it flowing).  If oil were a concern, we would not have embargoed Iranian oil since 1979, despite it's often cheap market price.  It's not just oil that's important to us. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> It is going to take a lot of courage to face up to the fact that this conflict has been going on for 40 years and that we have been intimately involved in its escalation. It's too easy to just pin this on the terrorists. Shirking all responsability in this matter is not going to demonstrate American Courage and it is not going to solve any problems.


 The conflict has been going on far longer than that.  Arabs still cite acts committed a thousand years ago as pretext for their holy war.  Destroying the root of our enemy is the only cure for this problem.  Only then can we consider curing some of the social ills that you have listed.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 24, 2005)

DngrRuss said:
			
		

> It's called _sarcasm_. Often when I write a socio-political post, I take my tongue and plant it firmly into my cheek. I am more than happy to bash on both sides of the aisle. The Christian Right and the Looney Left are easy to pick on. I just prefer to poke at the right since they usually fight back- the far lefties curl up into a ball and cry too easily.


 That's true, about the right fighting back.  Most people on the right have no problem engaging in heated dialogue on this or any topic.  The left is just as incline to call those that disagree with them fascists and then refuse to even deal with them.  Knowing that both are wrong at times is useful, as it is clear that you do.



			
				DngrRuss said:
			
		

> On to the somewhat serious response to the post:
> 
> 1- I wasn't picking on you personally Sgt- don't take it as such


 I wasn't assuming you were.  I've always found your posts interesting and fairly reasonable.  



			
				DngrRuss said:
			
		

> 2- I have not ever called conservatives "facists". I have called facists facists. A conservative is merely a conservative. I consider myself a fiscal conservative and a social liberal- thus my registry as an Independant. I think when anyone pulls out the "facist" argumment, they are bordering on losing the debate. If they throw out the "Nazi" card- debate over and you lose. Anytime I've heard the far left decry Bush as a Nazi, in my mind, whatever argument or position they had is lost. Bush is not a Nazi. To my knowledge, he has not advocated the extermination of some 6 million people of one ethnicity or another (though, admitedly, I haven't been in on the latest White House Staff Meetings, so I can't say for certain... ok, there goes the sarcasm again).


 That is true.  I never suggested you personally had, I was merely pointing out that many on the left whine about being called unpatriotic, and then call THEIR opposition fascists.  They seem to miss the irony in that.



			
				DngrRuss said:
			
		

> 3- I have a problem with either side labeling the other as "un-American" because of their differing political views. Discention IS the foundation of this country. The fact that we can disagree and still shake hands at the end of the day should be the cornerstone of our political and social process. Finding a solution in the middle should be our goal- but we have all become so bogged down with partisan BS that we can't see past it. I am not un-American for having a different opinoin from ANYONE. While the left is guilty of this to some degree, it is the right that is more vehemont about calling any left thought, idea, or policy as stupid and treasonous.


 Yes, some of us can disagree.  There is a fringe, though, that believes that some day they can participate in a revolution and kill all the conservatives they disagree with so much.  Some on the fringe view their fellow Americans as the REAL enemy, and they've said as much.  How do you deal rationally with this nut group?  Differing opinions I can live with.  The belief that I am a bigger threat to America than terrorists (who some of them admire) is something else.  Again, the nut fringe is on both sides, I admit.  I don't like the beliefs of some far right conservatives.  But it seems to me as if the Democratic party is trying to move FURTHER toward that fringe.



			
				DngrRuss said:
			
		

> 4- The "Hate America" lefties are just as stupid and wrong as the "Faith Based Policy" righties- on that we both seem to agree Sgt. But there is a dramatic difference between hating America, and not accepting the policies and actions of our government and trying to change them. There is nothing more American than that. The right and the left both share that right and responsibility. Both ideals cannot be correct at the same time, but both sides are very much American- until they go so far right or left that they have lost sight of reality.


 You don't have to accept every policy.  But there is a big difference between hating the policy, and concluded that America is the great evil in the world, and that seems to be the angle played by MANY on the left. 



			
				DngrRuss said:
			
		

> 5- Yes, Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. So are many of the people quoted on this thread (and many like it) by the right to slam the ideology of the left. There is a difference here though, Rush is a _political_ entertainer. People listen to Rush to hear his take on politics and the American way of life. Some may even associate their own views with Rush since he is a conservative without doing the research themselves. I look at Rush and Bill Maher as similiar types of entertainers. Maher, however, has always passed himself off as a comedian. Rush passes himself off as a flag-bearer for the conservative cause. Maher's invictive and dialogs have not smacked of hypocricy (agree with him or not- he means what he says), Rush's have.


 Maher pretending to be a comedian (is that what he is?) doesn't stop him from inserting himself in to politics at every turn.  As for Limbaugh, the best (and only) evidence the left has of his "hypocrisy" is his addiction to prescription drugs (i.e. oxycotin).  Anyone who has dealt with prescribed oxycotin on a personal level will have an entirely different perspective on this issue.  It's one thing to go down to skid row with the intent of buying crack cocaine, and then getting yourself addicted.  It's another to begin taken a narcotic analgesic, as oxycotin is, by doctors prescription and then discovering, after you've been taking it at doctors direction, that it is physically addictive.  It's one of the dirty secrets of the medical industry.



			
				DngrRuss said:
			
		

> Barbara Streisand is an entertainer- and a favorite target of the right. She, however, is not a political entertainer. She is a singer. Personally, I think she is ridiculous and hurts the Dems more than she helps them, but she has a right to her opinion- wacky as it may be. What she does not do is go on the air 5 days a week and quote chapter and verse from the internal goings on within the beltway. She hosts a political dinner, says a lot of dumb things, raises some money for the cause, and moves on. Do I think she should be held accountable for what she says? Sure, just like anyone else in this country should. Do I give her statements much weight? No- she's a singer. I don't know anyone who decided where they stand or how they vote based on what she has said. I do know many who have done swo based on what Rush has said. For that reason, I don't think he gets the automatic "oh, he's just an entertainer" write-off. He should be held _at least_ as accountable as she is.


  Keep in mind that during the entire Clinton administration, Limbaugh never once simulated his assassination on his radio show.  If you want to look at political access in hyperbole, you might catch a little Air America (if you happen to live in one of the three markets where it actually airs).

My butt's been in the seat too long- time for some sit-ups, or a snickers.... [/QUOTE] Good luck with those sit-ups...stay away from snickers, they may satisfy but it'll make the situps harder.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 24, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Conservative quotes...with my observations.
> 
> *Rush Limbaugh Quotes:*
> 
> ...


  If Rush Limbaugh and Strom Thurman are the best you have, we're in pretty good shape.  It seems Limbaugh (and the now defunct Strom Thurman) are the only real easy targets for leftists.  I think Limbaugh would appreciate the irony of being the lightening rod of the conservatives.  Since he's not running for any elected position, and his ratings are are better than ever, I don't think he minds taking the heat.

As far as Strom Thurman is concerned, I'll see you a Strom Thurman and raise you a Robert (Exalted Cyclops) Byrd, former high-ranking member of the Ku Klux Klan, and currently the distinguished Democratic Senator from West Virginia and staunch opponent of President George W. Bush.  Politics sure do make strange bedfellows don't it?


----------



## Tgace (Jul 24, 2005)

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 24, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
> -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
> 
> "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
> ...


But I thought all that was a lie when Bush said it.  The House and Senate had access to the same intelligence information Bush had, nothing more or less.  They came to the same conclusion, yet...Bush was lying? lol. Some people want it both ways.  


To clarify some points made earlier, insinuating the US armed Iraq, i'll provide some hard evidence to contrary...much of it arrived at by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, a group that is certainly no friend of US foreign policy. They do, however, track arms sales. 

As the evidence suggests, the assertion that the US armed Iraq is of the most preposterous and asinine breed. 
http://www.answers.com/topic/arms-sales-to-iraq-1973-1990
http://www.command-post.org/archives/002978.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq_1973-1990

As for the assertion that we are the biggest arms dealer in the world, that is only true if you consider "biggest" to mean "highest priced". We sell more expensive arms, such as aircraft. We also sell most of them to places like Canada, Poland, Greece, Germany, UK, Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Australia, Japan and of course Israel and Egypt. Further, the assertion that we sell the most arms to Israel is absurd as well. We actually sell more arms to Egypt than Israel. Kind of shoots a hole in the theory we only care about Israel. 

http://www.fas.org/asmp/resources/govern/CRS-32689.pdf

We do not sell arms to Iran, North Korea, China, Libya, Saddam's Iraq or Syria. We leave arming those countries to the French and the Russians who have a more proven track record selling to despots.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 24, 2005)

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 24, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp


The Poor folks at snopes.  It's apparent that they wished these quotes weren't accurate, that's why they spent so much time trying to give them "context" (see spin).  That context consisted of saying "Yeah, we said he had WMD and he needed to be dealt with...but we hope we can have a peaceful way to do it."  It really changed none of the point of the quotes.  They all acknowledged Saddam was a threat, they acknowledged widespread evidence that Saddam was trying to continue to build WMD, and they stated, unequivocally that he needed to be dealt with....just not by a Republican President that they hate.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 24, 2005)

Well, since 9/11 was really "our fault" anyway can you blame them for not wanting to be too tough on the issue. After all violence never solves anything, we should have just sent them some aid packages and pleas to not attack us again.

I guess those people (including small children) travelling to see their families and those criminals going to work just had it coming. :shrug:


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 24, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Well, since 9/11 was really "our fault" anyway can you blame them for not wanting to be too tough on the issue. After all violence never solves anything, we should have just sent them some aid packages and pleas to not attack us again.
> 
> I guess those people (including small children) travelling to see their families and those criminals going to work just had it coming. :shrug:


 What we should have done is filled a stern letter of protest to the UN...and maybe organized a march to show our solidarity and unity...and legalize medicinal marijuana.

Also, we should have sent a good will ambassador to apologize on behalf of the racist, xenophobic, homophobic, white males of the US, and explain to the terrorist that those people don't represent all of America.

After that, we could have asked for an international arbiter to come in and sit down with us (represented by somebody other than a racist, homophobic, xenophibic, white male) and the Freedom Fighters (i.e. Al-Qaeda), and use conflict resolution methods to resolve the situation. 

I think that would have placed us in better standing with the world. I mean, as we all know, the REAL problem isn't the Freedom Fighters, it's racist, homophobic, xenophobic, greedy, selfish, white males.

Did I mention the part about sitting down and smoking some medicinal marijuana?  That parts important, too.  Legalize!!!


----------



## Tgace (Jul 24, 2005)

"We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity's sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight" -- David Foreman, Earth First! 

"Everything we have developed over the last 100 years should be destroyed." -- Pentti Linkola 

"We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects . . . We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of presently settled land." -- David Foreman, Earth First!

"I do think, if it turns out that this beautiful young girl [Chandra Levy] is gone, I think, and he [Condit] is responsible in some way, you have to look to Ken Starr for a little bit of guilt."
Larry King: "Why?"
Maher: "Because, you know, Ken Starr made it so that you, in the old days, you had an affair with somebody, and you know, okay, you had an affair. The press didn't report it. They didn't make a political criminal case of it. Now, it's almost like you have to get rid of them."
 Bill Maher, Exchange on CNN's Larry King Live, July 27, 2001.

_Hmm last one sounds kind of like the same rationale as blaming us for terrorist atacks......_


----------



## Tgace (Jul 24, 2005)

> "Men often oppose a thing merely because they have no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike."-Alexander Hamilton


Nice Quote. Hamilton was a smart guy.



> "Look, we have exhausted virtually all our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so? That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply militarily."
> 
> -Senator Tom Daschle in a news conference back on Feb. 11, 1998, when President Clinton was ratcheting up support on a possible attack on Iraq.





> "I'm going to the White House this afternoon and I have a pretty good understanding, a pretty good idea what I'm going to hear. And I'm saddened, saddened that this President failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war, saddened that we have to give up one life because this President couldn't create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country. But we will work, and we will do all that we can to get through this crisis like we've gotten through so many."
> 
> -What Senator Daschle had to say as the war in Iraq began


Hmph?


----------



## Tgace (Jul 24, 2005)

"Americans can't admit that you need courage to do such a thing. For that might be misunderstood. The key thing is that we in America are convinced that it was blind, mad fanatics who didn't know what they were doing. But what if those perpetrators were right and we were not? We have long ago lost the capability to take a calm look at the enormity of our enemy's position." -- Norman Mailer on 9/11

"Right" to fly planeloads of innocents into buildings?? That ones a classic!


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 25, 2005)

I am currently writing a 4500 word article on this stuff for The Northern Reader. I'll be happy to go more in depth when I'm finished, but for now...more of the typical liberal hyperbole and histrionics... 



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Terrorism is a political activity like rape is about sex.


That depends on the side you are on. The bottom line is that terrorists have a political agenda and this agenda was formulated in an escalating conflict that has pitted the US vs the Arab world for 40 years. This is what the current elected officials in our executive branch believe. 



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> "Habib" heard wrong. Give me a list of those bombs, missiles and guns supplied by the US.


Sorry, Mac, wrong again. Here's a little google search that you didn't bother to do before you made this assertion...

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2005-17,GGLD:en&q=US+Supplied+Iraq+with+Weapons

Check out this pic...







Guess what is happening here? Yep, more weapons. In fact, this is after Saddam started gassing people.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm

How's that crow taste?



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Same way i'm sure the Israelis feel whenever they find out European nations and international organizations have been providing aid and support to Palestinian terrorists who blow up Israeli school children.


This is most certainly a two way street as I alluded to above...



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Access to oil and US involvement is far more complex than you allude to.


Actually, no it isn't. Our entire way of life depends on oil. 60% of the worlds oil is located in the middle east. Everywhere else the US gets oil out of the middle east is peaked. We get about 40% of our oil from the middle east as it stand. In ten years, this will rise to 60%. In ten more we're looking at 80%. Unless we change our lifestyles, war is the only answer to meet our current demands for oil. 

http://www.peakoil.net/



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> If oil were a concern, we would not have embargoed Iranian oil since 1979, despite it's often cheap market price.


Who buys Iranian oil?

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/Teror_92/2379_92.asp



> New York, NY, March 9, 1995...The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today urged the Secretary of State and the Senate to support a bill that bans all U.S. commercial transactions with Iran, a leading sponsor of international terrorism. U.S. petroleum companies are currently among the biggest buyers of Iranian oil, and are pouring billions of dollars into Iran's economy.





			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> It's not just oil that's important to us.


No oil in the middle east = No US war in the middle east.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Destroying the root of our enemy is the only cure for this problem.


The middle east benefits so much from US investment. Imagine if those investments were cut off and we started dumping huge amounts of resources into alternatives. I will wager that some of these governments would quickly deal with their terrorist problems in order to encourage further US investment...

We could send messages like, "you want us to buy your oil, stop people from flying airplanes into building."

We use our military to get rid of al-qaeda and let the Arabs sort out their priorities themselves.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 25, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I am currently writing a 4500 word article on this stuff for The Northern Reader. I'll be happy to go more in depth when I'm finished, but for now...more of the typical liberal hyperbole and histrionics...
> 
> That depends on the side you are on. The bottom line is that terrorists have a political agenda and this agenda was formulated in an escalating conflict that has pitted the US vs the Arab world for 40 years. This is what the current elected officials in our executive branch believe.
> 
> ...


 I'm not the one who is wrong. I gave you a list of the nations that supplied weapons to Iraq, and a break down of the amount of aid provided. You give me a picture of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam Hussein's hand and a smoke and mirrors attempt to prove that tired old asinine assertion that we armed Iraq. What is missing is a list of WHAT we provided them, other than the assertion that what was provided was used in "Nuclear, Chemical, or Biological weapons". That's a pretty broad brush considering that most nuclear technology sold to countries, for example, involves civilian nuclear technology. Further, the IAEA, headed by Hans Blix (Yeah, the great hero of the left) not only endorses and sponsors civilian nuclear power research in countries like Iraq, but encourages countries to sell nuclear technology to them under the auspices of encourage peaceful nuclear energy. The problem you have is the above sight is playing fast and loose with the truth by lumping together dual use technology, such as centrifuges, test tubes, homogonization machines, etc, as being "weapons technology" when they are anything but. It's like calling a baseball bat an assault weapon. So, sorry, you lose. I give you facts, and figures, researched by Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. The SIPRI is far from a member of the right wing conspiracy. Their research just shows that the assertions made by your crowd are factually incorrect. This they say while decrying the world arms trade. So, sorry, you lose. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Check out this pic...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Wow. A representative of one nation shaking the hand of the leader of another?! The horror!!! This little picture that keeps circulating the web never ceases to make me laugh. It's bandied about as if it is proof of something other than Donald Rumsfeld shook Saddam Husseins hand. He shook his hand so there MUST have been some kind of conspiracy?! lol. World leaders do that. I've got a couple pictures of a few UN respresentatives shaking his hand too. Does that prove anything? That's the problem with you folks, you think things like this picture prove anything. It's an emotional argument with no substance. I can't believe you actually think this is proof of ANYTHING?! pffft. Guilt by handshaking? lol. 

The shear volume of references and reproductions of this photo tell me the intellectually bankrupt mentality of those who think it's actually some sort of argument of anything. It also shows the shear ignorance of the fact that world political leaders meet with each other, in person, and it's kind of diplomatic to...shake hands. Hell, I saw Bill Clinton walking and talking with Yasser Arafat, does that mean he was supporting terrorism? lol. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm
> 
> How's that crow taste?


 As is typical with commondreams articles, this one is HUGE on supposition, exaggeration and hyperbole, and very light on facts. I would have hoped you would supply better evidence than this piece of biased tripe, which really doesn't say anything, but simply insinuates a lot. I'm surprised you didn't dust the old Sunday Herald article off.

Again, i'm waiting for a list of those weapon systems, not centrifuges and ice cream scoops.

And for all your bluster, do you know what the Commondreams article showed as PROOF that we armed Iraq?! Get this, 55 unarmed civilian helicopters. Wow. Astounding. He could have taken over Kuwait just using those babies alone. Civilian helicopters. Oh, they did insinuate that they could have possibly used them in gassing kurds later. Could have. Of course, they could have used prop-driven crop dusters for that matter. If it flew, they could have used it. Now that's proof we armed them for sure. Because they managed to attach a sprayer to a flying device, we are responsible for arming them?! 

This doesn't taste like crow, it tastes like turkey or chicken....or maybe weasel, with just a hint of BS. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This is most certainly a two way street as I alluded to above...


 No you didn't say it was a two way street, you said the Arabs hate us because we support Israel. I'm the one who pointed out it was a two way street. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Actually, no it isn't. Our entire way of life depends on oil. 60% of the worlds oil is located in the middle east. Everywhere else the US gets oil out of the middle east is peaked. We get about 40% of our oil from the middle east as it stand. In ten years, this will rise to 60%. In ten more we're looking at 80%. Unless we change our lifestyles, war is the only answer to meet our current demands for oil.
> 
> http://www.peakoil.net/
> 
> ...


 Not the US. You should read your sites before you post them. "Under current law, U.S. oil companies are permitted to buy Iranian oil and sell it anywhere in the world except in America." That was from your site. Your site only proved that multi-national companies headquartered in the US buy Iranian oil and sell it abroad, not in the US. The article was about sealing up that loophole to prevent certain companies from engaging in ANY business with Iran. Hardly what you purported.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> http://www.adl.org/PresRele/Teror_92/2379_92.asp
> 
> No oil in the middle east = No US war in the middle east.
> 
> ...


 I never claimed that oil wasn't a part of the equation. I merely pointed out that it was complicated. For example, without oil, Middle Eastern regimes could not pursue WMD programs. In fact, without oil, many Middle Eastern countries would be more like Sub-Saharan Africa than they are right now.

The one and only thing I agree with in your whole past (i.e. the only thing you were right about) was that the US has a national security interest in developing alternative energy sources. Ceasation of oil sales from the Middle East would result in a stranglehold on world wide terrorism from lack of funds.

Your original assertion was that WE are the ones who armed Saddam Hussein with all those bombs, guns, rockets, missiles, planes, etc. I'm still waiting for any kind of proof that that is so. So far you've listed some civilian helicopters, some civilian technology and a picture of Saddam Hussein shaking Donald Rumsfelds hand. 

I'll be waiting for something substantial.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 25, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> blah blah blah.


If you were actually interested in balancing your opinion with some reality, you'd actually read some of this stuff and think about the implications.  

First, a simple google search will give you a whole slew of stuff that got sold to Iraq by US corporations and it is a heck of a lot more dangerous then a test tube...and that ain't hyperbole.  Check it out for yourself before you start calling it smoke and mirrors.

Second, US corporations buy oil from Iran and sell it elsewhere...true.  They spend billions in infrastructure and wholeheartedly support a country that supports terrorists who want to kill you and I.  The bottom line is that certain people in the US are making money in Iran hand over fist.  There is no real embargo.  These corporations are making money by trading with the enemy!  Some people call people who do that traitors.

Third, crow tastes like chicken eh?



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I'll be waiting for something substantial.


Yeah, me too.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 25, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> If you were actually interested in balancing your opinion with some reality, you'd actually read some of this stuff and think about the implications.


 I did read it, but you apparently didn't. The most you've proven is that we sold civilian helicopters to Saddam. Scary. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> First, a simple google search will give you a whole slew of stuff that got sold to Iraq by US corporations and it is a heck of a lot more dangerous then a test tube...and that ain't hyperbole. Check it out for yourself before you start calling it smoke and mirrors.


 If it's so simple, then you won't mind making a list of those dangerous weapons systems for me, who sold them, and when, like i've been asking. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Second, US corporations buy oil from Iran and sell it elsewhere...true. They spend billions in infrastructure and wholeheartedly support a country that supports terrorists who want to kill you and I. The bottom line is that certain people in the US are making money in Iran hand over fist. There is no real embargo. These corporations are making money by trading with the enemy! Some people call people who do that traitors.


 A law was passed to create an embargo. International companies found a loop hole, which needs to be closed. You failed to support your claim that this is somehow national policy, as the law is in place creating an embargo.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Third, crow tastes like chicken eh?


 I've never personally eaten crow, i'll have to defer to your expert opinion. 




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Yeah, me too.


 Well, when that something substantial comes to you, let me know.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 25, 2005)

If corporations legally sold products to Iraq before (or around) a trade embargo...so what? I thought the assertation was that the government sold weapons to Iraq.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 25, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> If corporations legally sold products to Iraq before there was a trade embargo...so what?


 I've given North an itemized list of how many weapons were supplied to Iraq, and by whom, and yet North continues to believe this fantasy that the US was Iraq's big arms supplier. Now we'll be listing "dual use" ice cream scoops, test tubes, centrifuges, pumps, piping, medical equipment, pastuerization machines, etc, etc, etc, as "weapons" technology. If that's evidence of who armed Iraq, then Germany did (and Iran too).

What assistance we provided Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war was mainly satellite intelligence of Iranian troop movements. That's what we gave to Saddam, that's the assistance we provided. We didn't provide him weapons, we gave him a heads up when the Iranians were on the move.

So, in short, according to SIPRI, the US weapons sales to Iraq from 1974 to 1990 accounted for less than 1% (hardly making us the biggest arms dealer).  

Further, the assertion that we sold them anthrax an other agents is a distortion of reality.  What Iraq did was engage in fraud to purchase biological samples under the pretense of using those samples for medical research to fight anthrax, plague, and other communicable diseases so prevalent in the developing world.  They filled false requests with the commerce commission, and were able to receive samples.  This kind of medical research is carried out all around the world.  Further, by 1988 Iraq had become a complete pariah and the US discovered that the commerce commission had been allowing this fraud, and put an end to it.  Thus the Senate hearings referred to in the Sunday Heralds distorted report. 

Further, the part that the US played, even inadvertantly, in Saddam's bio-weapons program was very small compared to Great Britain, France, Russia and, most especially, Germany, who helped Iraq build entire chemical and biological weapons factories.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 25, 2005)

http://www.command-post.org/archives/002978.html


----------



## Tgace (Jul 25, 2005)

Now thats LEFT!


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 25, 2005)

*List of US Companies That Sold Weapons Technology to Iraq

*

Key: A - nuclear K - chemical B - biological R - rockets (missiles)

1. Honeywell (R,K) 2. Spektra Physics (K) 3. Semetex (R) 4. TI Coating (A,K) 5. UNISYS (A,K) 6. Sperry Corp. (R,K) 7. Tektronix (R,A) 8. Rockwell )(K) 9. Leybold Vacuum Systems (A) 10. Finnigan-MAT-U.S. (A) 11. Hewlett Packard (A.R,K) 12. Dupont (A) 13. Eastman Kodak (R) 14. American Type Culture Collection (B) 15. Alcolac International (C) 16. Consarc (A) 17. Carl Zeis -US (K) 18. Cerberus (LTD) (A) 19. Electronic Associates (R) 20. International Computer Systems 21. Bechtel (K) 22. EZ Logic Data Systems,Inc. (R) 23. Canberra Industries Inc. (A) 24. Axel Electronics Inc. (A)

This list doesn't include governmental and quasi-governmental agencies that gave technology to Iraq, including the Pentagon, Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, Sandia Labs, Los Alamos, and the Centers for Disease Control.

Source: Die Tageszeitung (Berlin daily newspaper), who says it came from the original Iraqi report to the UN Security Council.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 25, 2005)

http://www.lizmichael.com/weapons.htm​​​*



U.S. corporations involved: ​A - nuclear
K - chemical 
B - biological 
R - rockets (missiles) ​1) Honeywell (R,K)
2) Spektra Physics (K)
3) Semetex (R)
4) TI Coating (A,K)
5) UNISYS (A,K)
6) Sperry Corp. (R,K)
7) Tektronix (R,A)
8) Rockwell (K)
9) Leybold Vacuum Systems (A)
10) Finnigan-MAT-US (A)
11) Hewlett Packard (A.R,K)
12) Dupont (A)
13) Eastman Kodak (R)
14) American Type Culture Collection (B)
15) Alcolac International (C)
16) Consarc (A)
17) Carl Zeis -U.Ss (K)
18) Cerberus (LTD) (A)
19) Electronic Assiciates (R)
20) International Computer Systems
21) Bechtel (K)
22) EZ Logic Data Systems,Inc. (R)
23) Canberra Industries Inc. (A)
24) Axel Electronics Inc. (A) ​Additionally to these 24 companies based in the US, are nearly 50 subsidiaries of foreign enterprises whose arms co-operation with Iraq seems to have been operated from the US. In addition, the US deparments of defense, energy, trade, and agriculture, as well as the U.S. nuclear weapons laboratories at Lawrence Livermore. Los Alamos, and Sandia, are designated as suppliers for the Iraqi arms programs for A, B, and K-weapons as well as for rockets. ​Iraq's 11,000-page report to the UN Security Council lists 150 foreign companies, including some from America, Britain, Germany and France, that supported Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programme, a German newspaper said. ​

Click to expand...

​*​​


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 25, 2005)

http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/03/119547.php



> US Companies Sold Iraq
> Billions Of NBC Weapons Materials
> By William Blum
> The Progressive Magazine
> ...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 25, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> *List of US Companies That Sold Weapons Technology to Iraq*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


  Nuclear what?  Biological what?  Chemical what?  All your "evidence" is devoid of any context, no doubt because it seeks to hide the fact that it's really a mountain of distortion, under sheer weight of numbers.  I'm still waiting for the name of those weapons we sold, and you give me laboratory equipment and machining tools.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 25, 2005)

It was that kind of stuff that forced the US senate to pass a resolution banning all weapon sales to Iraq.  This measure was killed by the White House and the arming of Iraq continued.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 25, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> http://www.lizmichael.com/weapons.htm​
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's just a repeat of your first post.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 25, 2005)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29&notFound=true


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 25, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> It was that kind of stuff that forced the US senate to pass a resolution banning all weapon sales to Iraq. This measure was killed by the White House and the arming of Iraq continued.


 With what weapons?



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> US Companies Sold Iraq
> Billions Of NBC Weapons Materials
> By William Blum
> The Progressive Magazine
> ...





			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Yeah, i'm sure it is.
> 
> The United States almost went to war against Iraq in February because of Saddam Hussein's weapons program. In his State of the Union address, President Clinton castigated Hussein for "developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."


What WMD?



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> "You cannot defy the will of the world," the President proclaimed. "You have used weapons of mass destruction before. We are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again."


Oh, that WMD.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Most Americans listening to the President did not know that the United States supplied Iraq with much of the raw material for creating a chemical and biological warfare program. Nor did the media report that U.S. companies sold Iraq more than $1 billion worth of the components needed to build nuclear weapons and diverse types of missiles, including the infamous Scud.


 We sold them the Scud? HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Your article is really building it's credibility at this point.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> When Iraq engaged in chemical and biological warfare in the 1980s, barely a peep of moral outrage could be heard from Washington, as it kept supplying Saddam with the materials he needed to build weapons.


 Oh, that's an indictment, because we barely peeped we armed Saddam? lol. More credibility. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> From 1980 to 1988, Iraq and Iran waged a terrible war against each other, a war that might not have begun if President Jimmy Carter had not given the Iraqis a green light to attack Iran, in response to repeated provocations. Throughout much of the war, the United States provided military aid and intelligence information to both sides, hoping that each would inflict severe damage on the other. Noam Chomsky suggests that this strategy is a way for America to keep control of its oil supply:


 Yes, we provided intelligence information to both sides, I think I already covered this. As for Noam Chumpskies analysis, it's about as credible as the idea that we sold Scuds to Iraq.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> "It's been a leading, driving doctrine of U.S. foreign policy since the 1940s that the vast and unparalleled energy resources of the Gulf region will be effectively dominated by the United States and its clients, and, crucially, that no independent indigenous force will be permitted to have a substantial influence on the administration of oil production and price."


 This is apparently what passes for evidence with you folks, and why you have no credibility, you believe insinuation and hyperbole equal a rational argument. Chumpsky is just giving his opinions about the motives of others, and passing it off as fact. The fact that any of you folks take this old geezer as an authority on anything anymore is a wonder to me. (Now i've gone and done it, i've attacked the Chumpskyites God, i'll catch their wrath for that.)



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> During the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq received the lion's share of American support because at the time Iran was regarded as the greater threat to U.S. interests. According to a 1994 Senate report, private American suppliers, licensed by the U.S. Department of Commerce, exported a witch's brew of biological and chemical materials to Iraq from 1985 through 1989. Among the biological materials, which often produce slow, agonizing death, were:


 Iraq received the lions share of support? That doesn't really say how much support that is, relatively, just that they received more than Iran. That could equal just over very little and none. It's a lot like "You could gain as much as three to five inches" or as little as nothing. I do like the "Slow, agonizing death" for added effect. How much material? A box? A crate? A test tube?



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> * Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.
> 
> * Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.
> 
> ...


Nice list, but it really doesn't have any context.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Also on the list: Escherichia coli (E. coli), genetic materials, human and bacterial DNA, and dozens of other pathogenic biological agents. "These biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction," the Senate report stated. "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and removed from the Iraqi biological warfare program."


I think I already covered where these items came from, and how they were precured. Further, the article seems to want to skim over who provided the "Lions share" of technical assistance in these matters, and it wasn't the US.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The report noted further that U.S. exports to Iraq included the precursors to chemical-warfare agents, plans for chemical and biological warfare production facilities, and chemical-warhead filling equipment.


 Really, what plans? As it was Germany that provided the technical assistance and practically built these facilities for Iraq, they really didn't need any plans they allegedly bought here. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The exports continued to at least November 28, 1989, despite evidence that Iraq was engaging in chemical and biological warfare against Iranians and Kurds since as early as 1984.


 Again, what "exports". The distortions of this article continue.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The American company that provided the most biological materials to Iraq in the 1980s was American Type Culture Collection of Maryland and Virginia, which made seventy shipments of the anthrax-causing germ and other pathogenic agents, according to a 1996 Newsday story.


 American Type Culture sends specimens of these naturally occuring organisms all around the world for medical research. It was under the auspices of medical research that Iraq purchased these items.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Other American companies also provided Iraq with the chemical or biological compounds, or the facilities and equipment used to create the compounds for chemical and biological warfare. Among these suppliers were the following:


Are you aware of what "facilities" and "equipment" are used to create "compounds" for chemical and biological warfare? Chemical warfare "equipment" is identical to that used to make pesticides. Biological equipment consists of things like test tubes, centrifuges, and pastuerization machines.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> * Alcolac International, a Baltimore chemical manufacturer already linked to the illegal shipment of chemicals to Iran, shipped large quantities of thiodiglycol (used to make mustard gas) as well as other chemical and biological ingredients, according to a 1989 story in The New York Times.


 thiodiglycol is also used as an industrial solvent in textile dyeing, and is pretty common. The attempt to paint it as a "chemical weapon" is mroe smoke and mirrors.
http://www.chemicalland21.com/arokorhi/industrialchem/organic/THIODIGLYCOL.htm 


			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> * Nu Kraft Mercantile Corp. of Brooklyn (affiliated with the United Steel and Strip Corporation) also supplied Iraq with huge amounts of thiodiglycol, the Times reported.


 Again,a listed above, far from being a "chemical weapon" thiodiglycol is a commonly used industrial solvent. Hardly a "smoking gun", except as evidence to the links these kooks will go to support the unsupportable argument that the "US armed Iraq".



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> * Celery Corp., Charlotte, NC


 Did what? Sold some fertilizer. You can make bombs with fertilizer and diesil fuel....lol



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> * Matrix-Churchill Corp., Cleveland, OH (regarded as a front for the Iraqi government, according to Representative Henry Gonzalez, Democrat of Texas, who quoted U.S. intelligence documents to this effect in a 1992 speech on the House floor).


 I guess the last two sold products that didn't even warrant being named, probably because to name them would have reduced the effect as they are no doubt even more ambivalent than the industrial dye solvent listed earlier.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The following companies were also named as chemical and biological materials suppliers in the 1992 Senate hearings on "United States export policy toward Iraq prior to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait":





			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> * Mouse Master, Lilburn, GA


 


			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> * Sullaire Corp., Charlotte, NC


  Out of business, produced air purifiers. 




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> * Pure Aire, Charlotte, NC


http://www.pureaire.com/  They produce air purifiers.  




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> * Posi Seal, Inc., N. Stonington, CT


http://www.emersonprocess.com/fisher/products/tour/rotaryvalves.html
Posi Seal produces....you guessed it, rubber seals....



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> * Union Carbide, Danbury, CT


http://www.unioncarbide.com/



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> * Evapco, Taneytown, MD


Producer of cooling equipment.  Saddam must have needed that Air conditioner of WMD. http://www.evapco.com/ 




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> * Gorman-Rupp, Mansfield, OH


Producer of municipal sewage pumps. Wonder what weapon system they sold?  Maybe Saddam was working on a sewage bomb.  
http://www.gormanrupp.com/

What did these companies sell? If they were a truly incriminating smoking gun, the author would have listed them. Instead, we get them listed in one HUGE list, so as to appear to have the weight of numbers, yet devoid of context.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Additionally, several other companies were sued in connection with their activities providing Iraq with chemical or biological supplies: subsidiaries or branches of Fisher Controls International, Inc., St. Louis; Rhone-Poulenc, Inc., Princeton, NJ; Bechtel Group, Inc., San Francisco; and Lummus Crest, Inc., Bloomfield, NJ, which built one chemical plant in Iraq and, before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, was building an ethylene facility. Ethylene is a necessary ingredient for thiodiglycol


 Wow, a necessary ingredient for a common industrial dye solvent. News flash, thiodiglycol is not a chemical weapon.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> In 1994, a group of twenty-six veterans, suffering from what has come to be known as Gulf War Syndrome, filed a billion-dollar lawsuit in Houston against Fisher, Rhone-Poulenc, Bechtel Group, and Lummus Crest, as well as American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) and six other firms, for helping Iraq to obtain or produce the compounds which the veterans blamed for their illnesses. By 1998, the number of plaintiffs has risen to more than 4,000 and the suit is still pending in Texas.


What compounds? Again, devoid of context. The appearance of evidence, without the substance.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> A Pentagon study in 1994 dismissed links between chemical and biological weapons and Gulf War Syndrome. Newsday later disclosed, however, that the man who headed the study, Nobel laureate Joshua Lederberg, was a director of ATCC. Moreover, at the time of ATCC's shipments to Iraq, which the Commerce Department approved, the firm's CEO was a member of the Commerce Department's Technical Advisory Committee, the paper found.


Ok, so the proof that there IS a conspiracy, is that no conspiracy was found? More insinuation.




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> A larger number of American firms supplied Iraq with the specialized computers, lasers, testing and analyzing equipment, and other instruments and hardware vital to the manufacture of nuclear weapons, missiles, and delivery systems. Computers, in particular, play a key role in nuclear weapons development. Advanced computers make it feasible to avoid carrying out nuclear test explosions, thus preserving the program's secrecy. The 1992 Senate hearings implicated the following firms:


That hardware is also vital to a multitude of civilian industries as well. Imagine, an industrial nation needed computers, lasers, testing and analyizing equipment. Those can ONLY be used for nuclear weapons...pfffft.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> * Kennametal, Latrobe, PA
> 
> * Hewlett Packard, Palo Alto, CA
> 
> ...





			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The House report also singled out: TI Coating, Inc., Axel Electronics, Data General Corp., Gerber Systems, Honeywell, Inc., Digital Equipment Corp., Sackman Associates, Rockwell Collins International, Wild Magnavox Satellite Survey, Zeta Laboratories, Carl Schenck, EZ Logic Data, International Imaging Systems, Semetex Corp., and Thermo Jarrell Ash Corporation.
> 
> Some of the companies said later that they had no idea Iraq might ever put their products to military use. A spokesperson for Hewlett Packard said the company believed that the Iraqi recipient of its shipments, Saad 16, was an institution of higher learning. In fact, in 1990 The Wall Street Journal described Saad 16 as "a heavily fortified, state-of-the-art complex for aircraft construction, missile design, and, almost certainly, nuclear-weapons research."


Again, where is the context. Hewlett Packard made those computer sales when? Proof that Saad 16 was commonly known in 1990 of being a weapons production facility, does not prove that in 1986 it was.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Other corporations recognized the military potential of their goods but considered it the government's job to worry about it. "Every once in a while you kind of wonder when you sell something to a certain country," said Robert Finney, president of Electronic Associates, Inc., which supplied Saad 16 with a powerful computer that could be used for missile testing and development. "But it's not up to us to make foreign policy," Finney told The Wall Street Journal.


 So computers are now considered arms sales? interesting. You seem to be broadening things to fit your collapsing theory. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> In 1982, the Reagan Administration took Iraq off its list of countries alleged to sponsor terrorism, making it eligible to receive high-tech items generally denied to those on the list. Conventional military sales began in December of that year. Representative Samuel Gejdenson, Democrat of Connecticut, chairman of a House subcommittee investigating "United States Exports of Sensitive Technology to Iraq," stated in 1991:
> 
> "From 1985 to 1990, the United States Government approved 771 licenses for the export to Iraq of $1.5 billion worth of biological agents and high-tech equipment with military application. [Only thirty-nine applications were rejected.] The United States spent virtually an entire decade making sure that Saddam Hussein had almost whatever he wanted. . . . The Administration has never acknowledged that it took this course of action, nor has it explained why it did so. In reviewing documents and press accounts, and interviewing knowledgeable sources, it becomes clear that United States export-control policy was directed by U.S. foreign policy as formulated by the State Department, and it was U.S. foreign policy to assist the regime of Saddam Hussein."


$1.5 billion worth of biological agents? That figure is a flat out lie. As for high-tech equipment with military applications, that is a pretty broad area. A baseball bat has a military application.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 25, 2005)

Oh, I thought you might need this...

http://www.crowbusters.com/recipes.htm


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 25, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> With what weapons?


You know, the weapons that the *US SENATE* attempted to stop having US companies ship to Iraq...

You know, the original report contained some 11,000 pages.  I'm sure we don't have enough bandwidth for that...


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jul 25, 2005)

Anyone ever see the movie "Cube"?  I remember the conversation between the guy who thought it was all a vast and intentional conspiracy and the guy who countered by saying things weren't really that organized, just a bunch of people each  doing their own small part of the job without really seeing, understanding, or considering the big picture.  Something about this conversation reminded me of that.  I get the impression that sometimes we think things are far more intentional and organzized than they really are


----------



## Tgace (Jul 25, 2005)

Nothing the government or military does can possibly be that organized. Anybody who has ever been in the military can attest to that.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 25, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> You know, the weapons that the *US SENATE* attempted to stop having US companies ship to Iraq...
> 
> You know, the original report contained some 11,000 pages. I'm sure we don't have enough bandwidth for that...


You have not even come close to proving your assertion that the US ARMED Iraq.  You've merely cut and pasted a website that seeks to distort reality by listing Dye Solvents as chemical weapons.  You might want to prepare that crow for yourself.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 25, 2005)

Here's a portrait of the biggest perpetrator in REALLY arming Iraq (I mean, outside of your crow fantasies).  You can take Chumpskies meanderings as evidence.  I'll listen to the evidence presented by Iraqi scientists and who THEY credit with the most help.  

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/az120103.html



*Iraqi Scientist Reports on German, Other Help for Iraq Chemical Weapons Program *

_Al Zaman_ (London)
December 1, 2003 

Article by Dr Khalil Ibrahim Al Isa, a nuclear science researcher, in Paris: Fresh information on the Iraqi chemical program; Iraqi money and German brains cooperated in building chemical weapons 

(FBIS Translated Text) 

Historically, the Germans have been the uncontested masters in the discovery, production, and development of lethal poison gases used in warfare, such as mustard gas that is identified by the chemical compound symbol of C1Ch2-Ch2-S-Ch2-Ch2CI. This gas was discovered by German scientists and was first used in 1917. There is also the nerve gas Tabun that was discovered in 1937 by the German scientist G-Farden. Later, a similar gaseous chemical compound called the nerve gas Sarin was discovered. These two gases are highly effective in totally paralyzing muscle movement. In other words, the nervous system is totally paralyzed and this paralysis leads to involuntary bowel movements that ultimately lead to the death of the victim within minutes. German scientists also discovered cyanide acid, which is a more complex chemical compound. It contains the compound Zyklon-B that was used as a weapon of annihilation in Auschwitz. During the First World War of 1914-1918, the gases used by the Germans led to the death of one million British and French soldiers. The horrific scenes of the victims drove world public opinion to impose stringent checks on the conduct of warfare in the protocol that was issued in 1925. This was the first international document that banned warring countries from using chemical and biological weapons, which were considered to be weapons of mass destruction during wartime. Unfortunately, the protocol did not stop countries from conducting scientific research and tests in this field. 

In 1930, more than 40 countries signed this protocol and Iraq was one of the signatories. It continued to be in force and by 1989, 165 countries had signed it. However, the countries of the world continued to violate the Geneva protocol by developing new and modern methods in the art of the mass murder and annihilation of humanity. In the middle of the 1930s, the Germans developed more types of toxic gases. The German scientist Gerharder discovered a new form of nerve gases, such as Soman and Sarin. He also developed the gas Tabun that paralyzes the muscles of the air ducts in the lungs resulting in instant death. After the second Gulf war, the major powers drafted a new treaty that was debated by the members of the Security Council in 1992 and ratified in 1993 by 162 countries, including the Arab countries of Algeria, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain. This treaty prohibited the production, proliferation, and stockpiling of chemical weapons as the world saw the tragic images of the victims of the defunct regime over one decade. The treaty also imposed restrictions and surveillance of the world's commercial trade transactions in dual-use chemical products with specifications similar to those cited in the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. 

*The effects of the Iraqi-Iranian war* (subhead) 

In the mid-1970s when the Ibn-al-Haytham Research and Studies Center was established, Iraq began to conduct research work to test and produce old and new poison gases. Local cadres and capabilities were devoted to this effort. International support, especially by the two parts of Germany, was crucial in activating the Iraqi chemical program. The first use by the Iraqi army of poisonous compounds appeared on the battlefield during the battles against Iran, especially during the hotly contested clashes in Hawr al-Huwazah in 1983. According to the data available to UNSCOM, there are 15 centers to produce and develop poisonous gas for military use. These are located in various regions in Iraq, especially in the areas of Samarra, Al-Fallujah, Akashat, Bayji, Al-Sharqat, and Salman Bak. Seven of these big centers have been destroyed and the rest were put under permanent surveillance. 

The defunct regime succeeded in establishing a complex network of companies, individuals, and countries to help it in importing what it needed from the international markets. The regime's efforts focused on importing raw materials, equipment, factories, and military industrialization technology. In fact, the Iraqi establishments made a lot of progress in this regard. They developed the production of toxic compounds, with the exception of mustard gas, such as the nerve gas Sarin, the nerve gas Tabun, and a complex material called VX. They also produced the highly toxic liquid called Toxic B that is highly destructive. They also produced gases that attack blood cells, such as hydrocyanic acid; gases that cause suffocation such as Phosgene; gases that force involuntary vomiting such as Admicit (name of gas as transliterated); tear gas such as Chloroespotophiton (name of gas as transliterated); and gases that cause hallucinations such as SD. All these poison gases are lethal and lead to paralysis. They also have a long-lasting harmful effect on the environment. They cause color mutations in plants and crops and are fatal to many types of animals and creatures. On 20 December 1998, the New York Times reported that the Security Council and the defunct regime were still in disagreement regarding the regime's claims that it had unilaterally destroyed its chemical weapons while the special commission is still seeking evidence to verify this claim. 

*The international imports network and the German role between 1982 and 1990* (subhead) 

In early 1979, Iraq built the first factory to produce insecticides with the help of Italian engineers. The factory was built in the region of Akashat at a cost of $50 million. A security system was also built to protect the factory that cost another $60 million. The building of this factory experienced many problems, such as espionage attempts by the Mosad, the Israeli intelligence service. The western companies that dealt with the defunct regime -- for instance Australian and Dutch firms -- exported a lot of materials related to this field of production. For instance, the Dutch firm KBS sold Iraq large quantities of Thiodilyco (name as transliterated), a material that is essential in the production of mustard gas, at a cost of 1.5 million Marks. Multinational Italian firms also supplied Iraq with 60 tons of Oxycklorure (name as transliterated), a phosphoric material that is also used in chemical industries that can be put to dual-use. As for the French companies, they exported to Iraq large quantities of a gas (not further identified) that can be used in warfare. This gas was exported across the borders from Italy and Turkey. This transaction was concluded through the mediation of the German Company Karl Kolb. A confidential report issued on 21 August 1990 by Helmut Hossman (name as transliterated), the Economy Minister of then West Germany, confirmed that the German companies had the lion's share in these transactions. The report said that since 1983, West German companies have exported to Iraq huge quantities of raw materials, equipment, and small industrial factories to produce poison gases. The report also said that these companies participated directly in building the Sa'd Project, the Iraqi chemical project, and the construction of the military complex in Al-Taji. 

*The role of German companies in building the Iraqi nuclear program* (subhead) 

The German Company Karl Kolb that is specialized in equipping chemical laboratories played a crucial role in supplying the defunct regime over the past 30 years with toxic chemical materials through a middleman who helped Dr Amir al-Sa'di. Al-Sa'di prepared for his doctorate in chemistry in this institution and married a German woman. He worked in the Iraqi chemical project and was in charge of coordinating the defunct regime's transactions and requirements with the management of the Karl Kolb company. In October 1985, the operations of this company ceased by order of the German judiciary after it sold Iraq two electronic systems that test toxic gas inhalation levels. These are used in closed gas chambers where they measure toxic gas reactions with biological tissues. They also measure the level of their effect on animals, such as dogs, donkeys, and mules as well as humans. These gases were tested on prisoners that opposed the Iraqi regime. 

The German engineering company NPI in Frankfurt expressed its regrets for the conduct of its colleagues in Karl Kolb in providing Iraq with the necessary technology to build its program to produce poison gases. These gases were used by the Iraqi regime in its wars against its neighbors and its own people. The German companies also sold Iraq seven chemical factories and launchers that could be used as chemical weapons. The Karl Kolb company, that has been under judicial investigation and prosecution since October 1985, also built a camp near Baghdad to test six laboratory units specialized in producing chemical materials to protect plants from locusts. These were sent to the complex in Al-Samarra. In the early 1980s, engineers from NVA, an East German company, built a complex near Baghdad to test chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. It was designed like the non-conventional weapons testing center in East Germany. It is equipped to protect against radiation. It consists of special buildings that are equipped with stations to remove traces of toxicity from equipment, personnel, and military materiel. 

In 1984, the German economic monitoring organization gave in to pressures from German public opinion and dispatched two experts to Iraq to inspect the two factories in the Samarra complex. After they returned to their country, they expressed strong suspicions regarding the magnitude of the security systems guarding chemical factories that produce insecticides. One of them testified in the lawsuit against Karl Kolb. He now claims that he was duped at the time by the defunct regime. 

*The Samarra Factories* (subhead) 

The factories in the Samarra complex used to produce and stockpile the three lethal gas compounds of mustard gas, Tabun gas, and cyanide acid. Each time, the defunct regime claimed that the factories in Samarra was a complex of scientific research laboratories to produce pharmaceuticals and insecticides to protect the fluoride in the soil. German scientists estimate the production capacity of the Samarra complex at thousands of tons per year. This was also confirmed in the 1984 report published by the US Central Intelligence Agency. The report said that the factories in Sammara were producing lethal nerve gases. Later, the US government provided the German government with evidence related to the activities of this complex. The evidence was in the form of satellite images that revealed six-story buildings buried underground. The West German government rejected the evidence claiming that it did not prove anything against Iraq. This US insistence really worried the German Karl Kolb engineers and technicians that worked in the Samarra factories. They were so worried that Israel might bomb the Samarra complex that they hastened to build shelters to protect the personnel and the warehouses were the poison gases were stored. The horrible images of death of the victims of Iraq's chemical weapons in the town of Halabja in 1988 drove the West German authorities to take legal action after a lawsuit was filed against the German companies. The German federal organs to prevent customs crimes started procedures to identify the German companies that exported materials and equipment to Iraq that are used in the production of poison gases. 

*Incriminating Evidence* (subhead) 

The investigators gathered incriminating evidence and seized large quantities of chemical materials and equipment weighing about four tons while hundreds of witnesses testified. The West German government filed an official lawsuit in the spring of 1991 and the criminal court charged seven senior officials in the large German company of providing the defunct regime with essential components to manufacture chemical weapons in the Samarra complex and the Al-Fallujah complex. By 1989, Germany's huge role had turned Iraq into the biggest country in the Middle East producing gases that can be used in warfare. An Iraqi ambassador attending the Paris conference on chemical weapons has stated, "Iraq is now receiving a huge number of persistent requests from Third World countries that want to buy Iraqi chemical weapons". 

The last warning from the US intelligence services to the West German authorities came in the fall of 1990. Germany was warned about the serious dangers entailed in the sale of poisonous gases to Iraq by German companies. Germany was told that the Iraqis were producing the highly toxic cyanide acid in the German factories. This gas is highly toxic when inhaled. Near the end of 1990, this fact drove the United States and the United Kingdom to review the protection equipment of their armies since this type of gas can defeat and destroy gas masks. We can safely say that the two parts of Germany transferred technologies that go in the manufacture and development of chemical weapons by the defunct regime. German scientists and cadres were also highly instrumental on the ground. This was corroborated in all the reports on the criminal investigations that were held by the West German law courts. It was also corroborated in the report published by the Federal Technology Organization in Zurich. The Swiss committee of experts and scientists published a 50-page report that accused West Germany of supplying the defunct regime with chemical plants specialized in the manufacture of mustard gas, Tabun, and cyanide acid. The defunct regime established two German companies that were part of a network of hundreds of fictitious companies to conceal Iraq's purchases and to oversee the exportation of suspect materials to Iraq. These companies are TDG-SEG-Industrieanlagen, Krefeld, RFA and H + H Metalform, Drensteinfurt, RFA. 

The scandal that enabled the ousted dictatorship Saddam Husayn to procure means to produce chemical weapons is in fact a scandal that affects Germany first and foremost. As for the other countries -- such as the Italians, the Swedes, the French, the Dutch, the Americans, and others -- they can claim that they were duped by the defunct regime. However, until the whole truth comes out in the future, everyone should shoulder the responsibility and blame for the death of 5,000 victims in Halabjah, the thousands of victims of the Iranian army, and the thousands of victims in the steadfast Al-Ahwar region. All these were the victims of the arsenal of death that was built with German brains and Iraqi money. The Iraqi people have every right to prepare an indictment sheet against the German government and its companies for directly assisting the defunct dictatorial regime in mercilessly killing and annihilating Iraqis. And this government should compensate the victims of the German chemical weapons in Iraq. 

_(Description of Source: London Al-Zaman in Arabic -- London-based independent Iraqi daily providing coverage of Arab and international issues, including extensive reporting on Iraqi opposition activities; has an anti-Iraqi regime orientation, and is headed by the former editor of the Iraqi daily Al-Jumhuriyah)_ 
​


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 25, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> Anyone ever see the movie "Cube"? I remember the conversation between the guy who thought it was all a vast and intentional conspiracy and the guy who countered by saying things weren't really that organized, just a bunch of people each doing their own small part of the job without really seeing, understanding, or considering the big picture. Something about this conversation reminded me of that. I get the impression that sometimes we think things are far more intentional and organzized than they really are


  Hanlon's razor....never attribute to conspiracy, that which can more easily be explained by stupidity.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 25, 2005)

"The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species (man) upon the rest of the natural world" -- John Shuttleworth

"What we've got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy." -- Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-Colorado)

"I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems." -- John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

"The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing....This is not to say that the rise of human civilization is insignificant, but there is no way of showing that it will be much help to the world in the long run." -- Economist editorial


----------



## Tgace (Jul 25, 2005)

"We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels." -- Carl Amery

"To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem"-- Lamont Cole


----------



## Tgace (Jul 25, 2005)

For the "Iraq weapons" topic..Ive made you a new thread for it here.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=417365#post417365


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 25, 2005)

Check the new thread...


----------



## Tgace (Jul 26, 2005)

"When I see an American flag flying, it's a joke." -- Robert Altman


----------



## Tgace (Aug 5, 2005)

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them (guns)... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

Senator Dianne Feinstein: CBS-TV's "60 Minutes", February 5, 1995 Sam Donaldson:


"There is no reason for anyone in the country, for anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use, a handgun. The only way to control handguns use in this country is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to change the Constitution." 

Michael Gartner:  Former President of NBC News, USA Today, January 16, 1992


----------



## Tgace (Aug 5, 2005)

Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price.
- Hillary Clinton


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 5, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them (guns)... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
> 
> Senator Dianne Feinstein: CBS-TV's "60 Minutes", February 5, 1995 Sam Donaldson:
> 
> ...


 You know, it's funny, Tgace, that those of us who are charged with enforcing the laws (not the morons who pass them) don't believe in gun control.  We're the ones out here dealing with people with guns first hand, and yet we don't believe in disarming law abiding citizens (we do wish they'd actually send the criminals with guns to jail, but leftists don't want that).  Ironic, no?


----------



## Tgace (Aug 5, 2005)

Yet we are always being used as pawns in the disarming of America. Beyond my own PBA I dont really trust any of these other "police unions" that are nothing but political organizations for people with aspirations.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 5, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Yet we are always being used as pawns in the disarming of America. Beyond my own PBA I dont really trust any of these other "police unions" that are nothing but political organizations for people with aspirations.


 That's the problem with much of organized labor...at they top they want to organize everyone to the left.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 9, 2005)

Was Chrisse Hynde's quote _after_ the attacks?

 I don't see the issue with Michael Moore's quote. He's saying that these terrorists are not only murderers--they aren't even, statistically, principally killing the people who supported George Bush. (Given that they hit the WTC, I don't know that I agree with his assessment.) How is that a mark against him?


----------



## Tgace (Aug 9, 2005)

Before or after..they are contemptable to me either way.

The point that he was even looking at the attacks in that manner is telling. The terrorists were attacking us under Clinton too. It all boils down to Dem. vs. Rep. to him apparently.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 9, 2005)

I felt he was saying that as if the killing weren't bad enough, they're not even targeting the people they want to target--that they're evil _and_ dumb. I didn't see it as a political comment regarding Americans.

 But, I disagree with him that they were looking to target supporters of the pres., and I think I understand your point--that _he_ thinks _they_ think that way could be telling about _him_. I don't concur, though.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 9, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> I felt he was saying that as if the killing weren't bad enough, they're not even targeting the people they want to target--that they're evil _and_ dumb. I didn't see it as a political comment regarding Americans.
> 
> But, I disagree with him that they were looking to target supporters of the pres., and I think I understand your point--that _he_ thinks _they_ think that way could be telling about _him_. I don't concur, though.


 What he was saying is "Now, if they were killing Bush supporters, I could understand that, but why would they be mad at us leftists, we're their friends?"


----------

