# Saddam caught?!!!



## Brian King (Dec 14, 2003)

YES, Looks like the 4th ID are giving us an early Christmas gift. Way to go guys!!

If it is Saddam do we give him to the UN? Or do we let the locals judge him?

See you on the mat soon
Friends
Brian


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 14, 2003)

Yup, we did! Democrats now scrambling for new excuses for this unjustified war.

The first question from the L.A. Times? Are you going to let him go?

Unbelievable.

This is just another item on the checklist that President Bush has said he would come through on and has. 2004 will be a landslide.

The Iraqi's were celebrating in the streets, not that they're even thankful we're there, but at least something went in their favor.

It's a good day.


----------



## Master of Blades (Dec 14, 2003)

Yeah, I just woke up and its all over the news! He wasnt too smart was he......Hiding in a hole near Tikrit or wherever it was. I just watched the Press Conferance......some interesting stuff. I've also heard that it was his wife that gave him up (Although for 25 million who wouldnt)! I'm not too up on info on this whole ordeal at the moment, so anyone who wants to bring me up to date that would be appreciated! 

I also heard that seeing as we or the U.s cant do much to the guy your going to hand him back to Iraq and let them "Deal" with him. Conveniant but true?


----------



## pknox (Dec 14, 2003)

> I also heard that seeing as we or the U.s cant do much to the guy your going to hand him back to Iraq and let them "Deal" with him. Conveniant but true?




I don't know -  nothing as really been mentioned about that yet, but seeing as he used mustard gas against the Kurds back during the Desert Storm era, it is possible that he could be tried for war crimes.  If so, I would think he would then be tried by the U.N., so he most likely would not be turned over.  Also, I'm not sure about international law, but think about this - in our system, a criminal can be detained, when he/she would otherwise be released, because they are determined to be a "flight risk."  I think Saddam would definitely be described as such, so we may have justification to hold him due to that as well.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by pknox _
> *seeing as he used mustard gas against the Kurds back during the Desert Storm era, it is possible that he could be tried for war crimes.  If so, I would think he would then be tried by the U.N., so he most likely would not be turned over.  Also, I'm not sure about international law, but think about this - in our system, a criminal can be detained, when he/she would otherwise be released, because they are determined to be a "flight risk."  I think Saddam would definitely be described as such *



Indeed.

I agree that he could be tried for war crimes, but I also suspect we'll find a way to try him ourselves and not give him over to others.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 14, 2003)

(* We = The U.S.A. Governement and Military and people *)

We could let the new Provisional government of Iraw give him  his day in court. Pretty much a death sentence without proof.

We could try him ourselves and most likely will. As a prisoner of war and or terrorism the flight risk is high and would be detained until a trial could be arranged. Most likely a trial by the judge and not by a jury.

We could also turn him over the U.N. . This would also be done with the U.N. taking a bigger roll in the reconstruction. Yes, we will balck mail the U.N. You see if the U.N. really wants to have a trial and bring war crimes against him, then we will expect more support from the U.N. in the reconstruction of Iraq.


(* I may post my personal opinion at a later date. *)
 :asian:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 14, 2003)

Extradite him to the US, and lock him up in Club Fed.
It was our war, we captured him, he's ours.  Get him out of Iraq ASAP and away from his supporters.

The UN hasn't got the right, IMHO.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz _
> *Extradite him to the US, and lock him up in Club Fed.*



Put him in a cell with Manuel Noriega and give them a pack of playing cards.



> *
> It was our war, we captured him, he's ours.  *



That's how I feel in my gut, but...



> *The UN hasn't got the right, IMHO. *



...while this is also how I feel, if we believe in the U.N. then at some point we have to trust them. (Have we ever paid up on our dues, by the way?) But basically, I'm with you on this one.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 14, 2003)

Tell ya what...we'll give him over to France...

As soon as those SOBS pay back their loan from WW2.

Until then, they can have their criosoints, and we'll kick butt. 

Now, getting serious here for a moment...the US should try him, not the Iraqi's.  Why?  Fairness.  The trick is, to make it a fair trial. At least here, he has a chance.  There, he'll hang for certain.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> *...while this is also how I feel, if we believe in the U.N. then at some point we have to trust them. (Have we ever paid up on our dues, by the way?) But basically, I'm with you on this one. *



No, I do not think we have paid up our dues. Yet, even Japan still owes us money from ODShield and ODStorm, as do many of the members of the U.N. They plede to pay a certain amount instead of sending military support or if they could not send. Yet, many of them have not paid.

The U.N. is a good concept in my mind. Yet, the current U.S. Governement is letting them know that if the only member that is going to play by the rules is the U.S. then we can take our ball and go home, and do what we want. i.e. Current Gulf War.

The U.S, should not have the only vote in an organization like the U.N., yet hen people do not play by the rules, then the U.N. becomes nothing more than an ole boys and girls club, to have dinners and argue about their politics.

Just My opinions


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 14, 2003)

Saddam's capture is going to become a political centerpeice.  I wouldn't be surprised if he was trucked back to the US, put on TV and publically tried.  I can see all of the agonizing details of his horrible regime spilt over our airwaves in order to justify this war.  Meanwhile, behind the scenes, the plunder of Iraq continues.  Here comes more Haliburton contracts....


----------



## Ender (Dec 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *Saddam's capture is going to become a political centerpeice.  I wouldn't be surprised if he was trucked back to the US, put on TV and publically tried.  I can see all of the agonizing details of his horrible regime spilt over our airwaves in order to justify this war.  Meanwhile, behind the scenes, the plunder of Iraq continues.  Here comes more Haliburton contracts.... *



Questions of conflict of interest have been raised about Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California), after her husband's company was awarded an Army contract worth $600 million in Iraq, reports the San Francisco Chronicle. .

...How come this never comes up?......liberal bias perhaps?


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 14, 2003)

Ya, I thought plunder is when you just loot. I thought the Iraqi people were going to get money for whatever their country produces...


U.S. tax dollars -> Rebuilding Contracts -> Preferably U.S. companies, not to the likes of France and Germany who will only 'help' when there's money involved and no chance of being shot at.


It's good to know who supports what on the news though. Should make the election a no-brainer.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 14, 2003)

There are war profiteers on the both sides of the isle.  Haliburton or Bechtel, it doesn't make a difference.  Just as there is little difference between who money can buy.  Liberal bias in the media?  Nope, its a corporate deal and that is above the labels of conservative or liberal.  As far as plunder goes, the Iraqis are "paying" for as much as they can.  Saddam's cast hordes tortured out of the populace to the extended "Oil for Food" programs.  Call it what you will, but the end result is that the corporations get what they sent our boys to die for.  Oil.  

All else is smoke and mirrors and barely vield obfuscation that anyone with an ounce of critical thinking skill should be able to see through.

:soapbox: 

upnorth


----------



## Ender (Dec 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *There are war profiteers on the both sides of the isle.  Haliburton or Bechtel, it doesn't make a difference.  Just as there is little difference between who money can buy.  Liberal bias in the media?  Nope, its a corporate deal and that is above the labels of conservative or liberal.  As far as plunder goes, the Iraqis are "paying" for as much as they can.  Saddam's cast hordes tortured out of the populace to the extended "Oil for Food" programs.  Call it what you will, but the end result is that the corporations get what they sent our boys to die for.  Oil.
> 
> All else is smoke and mirrors and barely vield obfuscation that anyone with an ounce of critical thinking skill should be able to see through.
> ...



a recent poll of Congress showed that 85% of Republicans beleive there is a liberal bias in the media, but what was truly astonishing is that 55% of DEMOCRATIC house and senate members admit that there is a bias towards the left! The majority of the liberal side even admits to it!...

And go to any newspaper the day before an election and look at the "recommendations"....consistently 8 out of every 10 candidates the newspapers recommended were from the Democratic party. The bias is there whether people believe it not.


so I guess your critical thinking skills were not in use..*L


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MisterMike _
> *Yup, we did! Democrats now scrambling for new excuses for this unjustified war.
> 
> The first question from the L.A. Times? Are you going to let him go?
> ...



Catching Saddam and our reasoning for the war are seperate issues.

Yes...its good we caught him (if its really him and not some imposter...hopefully wa can prove this w/o a shadow of doubt).

No...it wouldn't be exactly right for you to use this opportunity to throw out pro-bush rhetoric. Bush didn't catch S**t...our military did.

Plus, we didn't go to war to "catch Saddam." 

You want to see the real reason for war...just look at who the oil contracts are being doled out to.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ender _
> *Questions of conflict of interest have been raised about Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California), after her husband's company was awarded an Army contract worth $600 million in Iraq, reports the San Francisco Chronicle. .
> 
> ...How come this never comes up?......liberal bias perhaps? *



Oh sure...definate conflict of interest there too! If these things don't come up...then how would you have heard about it??


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ender _
> *a recent poll of Congress showed that 85% of Republicans beleive there is a liberal bias in the media, but what was truly astonishing is that 55% of DEMOCRATIC house and senate members admit that there is a bias towards the left! The majority of the liberal side even admits to it!...
> 
> And go to any newspaper the day before an election and look at the "recommendations"....consistently 8 out of every 10 candidates the newspapers recommended were from the Democratic party. The bias is there whether people believe it not.
> ...



I heard that 90% of all statistics were made up. Care to post your sources for these stats.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ender _
> *a recent poll of Congress showed that 85% of Republicans beleive there is a liberal bias in the media, but what was truly astonishing is that 55% of DEMOCRATIC house and senate members admit that there is a bias towards the left! The majority of the liberal side even admits to it!...
> 
> And go to any newspaper the day before an election and look at the "recommendations"....consistently 8 out of every 10 candidates the newspapers recommended were from the Democratic party. The bias is there whether people believe it not.
> ...



It's apparent that you and many others cannot make the distinguishment between what is said and what is done.  Will you please take a look at who owns most of the major media sources!!!!  Liberal or conservative labels matter little.  The only reason why conservatives get more press is because the are outragously blunt/dumb in the application of their corruption.


----------



## Ender (Dec 14, 2003)

John Carroll is the editor of The Los Angeles Times. On May 22, he sent a memo to all of his section editors. It is an extraordinary document, and the website www.laobserved.com was the first to make it available to the public. 

Carroll's subject was liberal bias in the paper. The specific target of his concern was a biased report on a "bill in Texas that would require abortion doctors to counsel patients that they may be risking breast cancer." Carroll ripped his paper's coverage of that particular bill, but his broader points are much more important. 

"I'm concerned about the perception  and the reality  that the Times is a liberal, 'politically correct' newspaper," he began. "Generally speaking, we deny this, but lately we have proved our critics right." 


Funny, The LA times even admits it.


----------



## Ender (Dec 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by PAUL _
> *I heard that 90% of all statistics were made up. Care to post your sources for these stats.  *



Washington Post December 2002

....Perhaps expectedly, Republican Congressional members see a liberal bias by a 80 percent to 9 percent margin, while unaffiliated voters share this view by a 48 percent to 28 percent margin. Democrats are divided; 53 percent see a liberal bias and 36 percent disagree. 

ok..I was off by a point or two.*G


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by PAUL _
> *Catching Saddam and our reasoning for the war are seperate issues.
> 
> Yes...its good we caught him (if its really him and not some imposter...hopefully wa can prove this w/o a shadow of doubt).
> ...



Oh Pah-leazzzze..


This same old Bush-bashing nonsense gets old reaaallll fast. The "War for Oil" and "I support our military but not the Commander in Chief". I guess the General didn't either, nor 599 of the other 600 troops caught him. Only the one.

I can see where some people draw the line. The didn't vote for this president, so no credit is due to him at any time.

   

Show's this country is really ready to get flushed down the toilet.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MisterMike _
> *This same old Bush-bashing nonsense gets old reaaallll fast. The "War for Oil" and "I support our military but not the Commander in Chief"*



If anyone can convince me that this war is NOT about OIL I will greatly appreciate it.  In just about every place I look this blatant conflict of interest is poking out of the propaganda.

Yet, I remember when I was a kid and it felt good to be an American.  The more I learn about the horror our elected officials inflict on the world, the more ashamed and furious I feel.  Perhaps I am mistaken though.  Perhaps you have the answers that will restore my good faith in our country.  By all means, fill me in.  Fill all who doubt with this wisdom and correct our maladjusted beliefs.

upnorth


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 14, 2003)

Um...ah...Ender, I'm afraid that the LA Times guy--at least, so far as your quotes would indicate--is talking about a) the public's PERCEPTION of the paper, not whether or not there really is such bias, and b) the mishandling of a particular story to create the IMPRESSION of such bias.

As for the Congressional stats, well, they don't prove jack about what's actually going on.  They show that a) the great majority of Republicans, who are hardly impartial observers, PERCEIVE such a bias, and b) that Democrats sorta do and sorta don't agree in that PERCEPTION.

The question of the existence of such bias is a different question, much as the question of the way Americans PERCEIVE crime as increasing is different from the question of whether or not crime actually is. 

And as for the notion that the country's about to go down the crapper---where's this coming from? I don't buy that for a second, any more than I buy the notion that we are in so much danger we should suspend civil liberties. Why the anxiety?


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Why the anxiety? *



You know...so we don't unpatriotically 'question' the powers that be, of course!


----------



## Nightingale (Dec 14, 2003)

if we try him here in the US, even if the entire trial is televised, nobody outside of the US (and many people inside the US) would ever believe it was a fair trial.

Give him to the UN to be tried for war crimes under the Geneva Convention.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> *Put him in a cell with Manuel Noriega and give them a pack of playing cards.*



Hey, great idea!  Then they can reminisce about the times when the Americans liked their dictatorial ways...


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 14, 2003)

Nice idea. Ship his fat *** to the Hague, put him in the cell next to Milosevitch.

I'm only sorry we can't stick that senile so-and-so, Pinochet, right next to 'em, along with the Maximum Leader of North Korea, the good old dead Original Ayatollah (OK, well, they did drop him out of his coffin duing the procession...sweet), and a coupla others.

Maybe for these guys, what we need is not so much the concept of the jail as that of the zoo....you know, a humane but smallish natural habitat, with a big PLEASE DO NOT FEED THE ANIMALS sign and a moat...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Nightingale _
> *Give him to the UN to be tried for war crimes under the Geneva Convention. *



Did Iraq sign the Geneva Convention?  If not, can they be held to it, and tried under it?

As to the UN, considering the reputation they have of being do nothings, and their own peacekeeping forces corrupt, can they be trusted to actually do justice?

As to the "War for Oil" thing, no, it wasn't about the oil...though there will be alot of folks in the 'in crowd' making a ton of cash off this war.  No, they aint proffiteirs, just good businessmen.  Like Halbyurtin, or whatever Dicks gang-o-buds is.


----------



## Nightingale (Dec 14, 2003)

Yes, they signed it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz _
> *As to the "War for Oil" thing, no, it wasn't about the oil...though there will be alot of folks in the 'in crowd' making a ton of cash off this war.  No, they aint proffiteirs, just good businessmen.  Like Halbyurtin, or whatever Dicks gang-o-buds is. *



This war is about oil and so was the last gulf war.  Its about a blatent conflict of interest that should be enough to make any American puke their guts out.  One of the biggest oil companies that buys oil out of Iraq is Occidental Oil.  This is a company that is based out of the Moscow and is primarily owned by Bush family.  When Haliburton has rebuilt the oil fields in Iraq, the price of oil/barrel that Occidental buys will drop dramatically.  Meanwhile our prices remain the same.  Billions will be the result.  For crying out loud, just look at their website!!!!!!


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 14, 2003)

Well, Milosevitch's tail remains in a cell, at The Hague....

Sometimes, we forget that justice is meant to be slow...but only in the sense that an elephant is slow, careful and deliberate.

And after all, if he'd got shot, we wouldn't have had that beautiful picture of Hussein, looking humiliated, have some dentist from like Teaneck, New Jersey go through his mouth with a tongue depressor...

Hey, here's a happy thought...

I bet he got cavity searched.

Now if you were the guy with the rubber glove, would you feel good or bad about that? 

Imagine...you're 87, and you can still go down to the local pub, have a ccoupla brewskis and sound off at the whippersnappers:" Oh yeah? You've seen everything? Well, I once stuck my thumb and forefinger..."


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *This war is about oil and so was the last gulf war.  Its about a blatent conflict of interest that should be enough to make any American puke their guts out.  One of the biggest oil companies that buys oil out of Iraq is Occidental Oil.  This is a company that is based out of the Moscow and is primarily owned by Bush family.  When Haliburton has rebuilt the oil fields in Iraq, the price of oil/barrel that Occidental buys will drop dramatically.  Meanwhile our prices remain the same.  Billions will be the result.  For crying out loud, just look at their website!!!!!! *



http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?&threadid=6909

We get less than 11% of our oil from the Mid-East.

See : http://www.ott.doe.gov/facts/archives/fotw246.shtml
If Oil is the big issue here, seems we should be dropping some bombs on Toronto.

This shows a different picture:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/rankings/crudebycountry.htm

A 3rd view, which supports the 1st:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/favorites/fcvt_fotw246.shtml


This site has some different info, and many facts. It claims 17% of US oil imports in July 2003 came from the Persian Gulf.
http://ogm.utah.gov/oilgas/FACTS/facts_list.htm

I'm sorry, the 'oil' argument is wrong.

Now, the 'profitering bit, thats a different argument...like the fact that Dicks Boys overcharged the Military by something like $65-$130 MILLION Bucks.  Then again, thats less than 1 bomber, so who's counting?


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 14, 2003)

Hey Bob

I must say that your reasoning and support is good.  You used some good sources with some good information, but you declined to look into the money trail and that is where your argument fails.  

Simply looking at where the US gets the majority of its oil is not going to explain why we are in Iraq at this moment.  A better peice of information is the fact that Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world (the 1st being Russia - but we'll get to that later)

Think about this Bob.  Just how much oil does Iraq have?  How much could they produce?  If a company has rites (and the use of this word is deliberate) of sale for that oil and suddenly, that market "opens" up how much money would they make?

And here is the Russia connection.  Ever wonder where the number 1 Oil Reserves are located?  Kahzakstan.  Where is the only way that oil can be shipped out?  Iran.  Are the Iranians particularly friendly to us?  No.  Where else could we ship oil out of?  Pakistan.  What area needs to be stabalized first?  Afghanistan.

Bob, follow the money?  Occidental Oil has contracts and rites of sale for all of these areas.  Who owns or has a lot of stock in Occidental oil?  Look at the people who constructed this plan.  This IS the format for our current foriegn policy.  

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Is this a conspiracy?  Yes, but its not secret.  Its right out out in the open and no one cares.  You say the war is not about oil, but if you look who is in the White House and who in the country has the power and who stands to make the most money off of this current policy, that opinion CANNOT stand.

upnorth

PS - My wife is watching Survivor right now, earlier they had Saddam's capture splayed across the news.  Wonderful.  We wave the flags and feel good about our country while our elected officials abuse thier positions and then we learn how to treat each other in this screwed up society.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 14, 2003)

Oil is a great thing.

The US and the UK and others went into the oil fields of the Mid East and built them up. Tehn teh counties nationalized the industry and the US Companies were kicked out.

I still say the reason we went in is because Cain hit Able

Jsut My Opinion


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 14, 2003)

Correlation is not causation, kiddies. So many people forget that.  

Also, if the war was "just about oil", why is it that one of its largest proponents, Great Britain, is one of the leading exporters of oil in the world??

Hrmmmmm.....

*shrugs* But what do I care?? I'm certainly no fan of Bush, although I have a great respect for the abilities of Tony Blaire as a world leader (he is someone I think both Bush and the other Western leaders could learn a thing or two from).

Oh well, maybe Howard Dean will get elected. Stranger things have happened.


----------



## MountainSage (Dec 14, 2003)

Upnorth,
Check your fact.  The larget stock holder in Occidental Oil is the Johnson family.  You might remember them L.B.Ladybird.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by heretic888 _
> *Correlation is not causation, kiddies. So many people forget that.  *



You cannot determine causation without looking at correlation.  Please take a philosophy class.   I'm kidding about that part, but I do think you harbor a misconception regarding the above.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MountainSage _
> *Upnorth,
> Check your fact.  The larget stock holder in Occidental Oil is the Johnson family.  You might remember them L.B.Ladybird. *



Keep looking and look at the other players as well.  Where did you find that bit of info?


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 15, 2003)

My uncle is the VP of a major medical equipment firm.  They have a branch in Moscow and work directly with Occidental.  Plastics, you know, they need oil too.  Guess, who he has met and guess who he makes deals with?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 15, 2003)

An Interesting Article


----------



## pknox (Dec 15, 2003)

Thanks Rich - great info.

That definitely answers one of the questions I have been asked and previously didn't have an answer to - i.e. does anybody get the $25 mil?  Evidently not.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 15, 2003)

I just went digging for some information on Occidental Oil and Gas ... and who did I find an interesting article about ... Al Gore. Seems that the former vice presidents' father served on the OXY board of directors for 28 years (+/-). Never mind that fact that Jr. managed to sell OXY a huge stake in the Naval Petroleum reservers in a closed-bid process.

So let's see if I follow this thread correctly .... Al Gore (Sr. & Jr.), George Bush (Sr. & Jr.) and Lyndon Johnson's family are all involved in this same petroleum company. All appear to have done dastardly deeds to benefit the company.

Hmmm ... Let's cut the tax rate on corporate dividends ... Hmmm

This seems to support the hypothesis that our government is run by a single political party ... Republocrats ... or is that Democans?

I thought we got rid of the hereditary system of governance two centuries ago ... give or take..... 

Mike


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 15, 2003)

Check this out... a new consipiracy theory... for those who love 'em... geez

http://rense.com/general45/held.htm


----------



## Ender (Dec 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Um...ah...Ender, I'm afraid that the LA Times guy--at least, so far as your quotes would indicate--is talking about a) the public's PERCEPTION of the paper, not whether or not there really is such bias, and b) the mishandling of a particular story to create the IMPRESSION of such bias.
> 
> As for the Congressional stats, well, they don't prove jack about what's actually going on.  They show that a) the great majority of Republicans, who are hardly impartial observers, PERCEIVE such a bias, and b) that Democrats sorta do and sorta don't agree in that PERCEPTION.
> ...




"I'm concerned about the perception  and the reality  that the Times is a liberal, 'politically correct' newspaper," he began. "Generally speaking, we deny this, but lately we have proved our critics right." 

what part of "AND THE REALITY" don't you understand?...He admits that the reality of the liberal bias is true...and as far as the second part...EVEN the MAJORITY of the Democrats agree there is a liberal bias, which is truly enlightening. The newspapers and congress even admit there is a liberal bias.  Doesn't matter if you believe jack or not...*L


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by michaeledward _
> *I just went digging for some information on Occidental Oil and Gas ... and who did I find an interesting article about ... Al Gore. Seems that the former vice presidents' father served on the OXY board of directors for 28 years (+/-). Never mind that fact that Jr. managed to sell OXY a huge stake in the Naval Petroleum reservers in a closed-bid process.
> 
> So let's see if I follow this thread correctly .... Al Gore (Sr. & Jr.), George Bush (Sr. & Jr.) and Lyndon Johnson's family are all involved in this same petroleum company. All appear to have done dastardly deeds to benefit the company.
> ...



Vote Green


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MACaver _
> *Check this out... a new consipiracy theory... for those who love 'em... geez
> 
> http://rense.com/general45/held.htm *



Read the disclaimer.  That theory is crap.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *Vote Green *



I did last time ... and look where it got us .... Ouch!

<chuckle>


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 15, 2003)

Ender, well, I see your point about the LA Times article. However, I also see that you skipped the stuff about Congress--and I might add, manners are a good thing. 

It's convenient for the Right to portray itself as a victim, a minority--always an interesting tactic, since these are the guys who constantly claim that we live in a culture in which everybody claims minority and victim status.

I also can't help but find it hilarious to read the claim that "the media," suffers from overwhelming liberal bias. Musta been all those articles against death by lapidation, or suggesting that the Child Labor laws were a good thing.

Which media would this be, exactly? Fox, owned by Rupert Murdoch? AM talk radio? The major networks, all owned by really, really big corporations? The "Arizona Republic?" All the TV preacher stations? "Reader's Digest?" "National Review?" the McLaughlin Report? "Crossfire," on CNN?

Who are these liberal boogeymen that we're supposed to live in fear of?

Liberal? Poppycock. 

And a question: could you please offer a definition of the word?


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by michaeledward _
> *I did last time ... and look where it got us .... Ouch!
> 
> <chuckle> *



lol

I actually think that the whole Green Party "upset" actually helped out quite a lot. I think that the Democrates are bringing issues to the table because of the Green Party "stealing" a few % points from Gore in 00'. That is a good start, at least. Both Gore and Bush were not addressing issues that needed to be addressed. I gauruntee that in 04' many of these issues will be on the table. Change doesn't happend overnight, but I think that Nader knew exactly what he was doing. Love him or hate him, he's still a friggin genius!


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by michaeledward _
> *I just went digging for some information on Occidental Oil and Gas ... and who did I find an interesting article about ... Al Gore. Seems that the former vice presidents' father served on the OXY board of directors for 28 years (+/-). Never mind that fact that Jr. managed to sell OXY a huge stake in the Naval Petroleum reservers in a closed-bid process.
> 
> So let's see if I follow this thread correctly .... Al Gore (Sr. & Jr.), George Bush (Sr. & Jr.) and Lyndon Johnson's family are all involved in this same petroleum company. All appear to have done dastardly deeds to benefit the company.
> ...



I know their real names.

The Demon Pubs :rofl: 

George Washington turned down the title and position of King. So, yes on paper we got rid of heredity leadership.
:asian:


----------



## Ender (Dec 15, 2003)

RMCRobertson,

There wasn't anything to say about the congressional poll. Most Republicans believe there is a bias...and so do the Democrats 53%. Those are the facts...not much else to add...shrug.

The discussion I was refering to is whether or not the media has a leftist bias. It most obviously does, most journalists vote for Democrats and it shows up in their reporting. I can cite example after example. They have collectively lost their objectivity and can no longer be "Keepers of the Truth". Any time a news shows gives a conclusion, it is being bias. Just report the facts, and let the public decide.

You can try to divert or obfuscate by trying to find a victim, but the facts remain. Network and newsprint media provide the majority of news to the public and they slant to the left. I realize Fox slants a bit more to the right of center, but they are one network against several like MSNBC, CBS, NPR, CNN etc. If it was to be even, we would have more networks like Fox. Fox News grew out of necessity. Had the Networks been evenhanded, Fox would never have been the success that it is.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 15, 2003)

> There wasn't anything to say about the congressional poll. Most Republicans believe there is a bias...and so do the Democrats 53%. Those are the facts...not much else to add...shrug.



It's called 'The Big Lie'. If you just keep repeating it often enough, soon everyone will believe it. 

There is no liberal bias in the media. If you look at the run up to the aggression in Iraq, a LIBERAL BIAS in the media would have allowed for opposing points of view on the air. Please think back, research back, do the math; compare the number of stories *in favor* of the aggression compared to the number of stories*opposing *an invasion.

Opinion polls do not measure bias, they measure opinions. If you want to measure bias, measure the stories reported by the media.

Mike


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 15, 2003)

I'd still like to see a definition  of, "Liberal." As far as I can tell, you take the word to mean, "anybody who disagrees with me."

I'm sorry, but it's absurd to call CNN and MSNBC (!) liberal, let alone left wing. based on what? Rush's claims? 

M. Edward's quite right: it's an OPINION poll, not a look at reality.

As for the idea that NPR is hopelessly liberal, that's hilarious. Have you actually watched the channels? I mean, for crying out loud...what's the problem? "Barney?" William Bennett's, "Readings From the Book of Morals?" "Religion Week in Review" "The Nightly Business Report?"


Watch the shows that probably would bug you--"POV" and "Frontline," before you make these claims.

Look, you can yell about this all you like. But tell me: when was the media, "fair and balanced," in your opinion? back when Walter Cronkheit was running around on D-Day? When Dan Rather was a kid? When WAS this happy time?


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by michaeledward _
> *It's called 'The Big Lie'. If you just keep repeating it often enough, soon everyone will believe it.
> 
> There is no liberal bias in the media. If you look at the run up to the aggression in Iraq, a LIBERAL BIAS in the media would have allowed for opposing points of view on the air. Please think back, research back, do the math; compare the number of stories in favor of the aggression compared to the number of storiesopposing an invasion.
> ...



No, but there is Democrat bias in the media. As soon as the Democrat politicians start opening their mouths against anything, every major media channel is there to report it, and support it.

It's always easier to roll the tape of some Democrat bashing the war. But the supporters of the war they bring ON the news are there so they can throw pointed questions at them. War never looks good, and never ends soon enough. So by walking on the set, the war supporters already have that stacked against them.

Never mind the fact we never hear of how many of THEM we are killing, or how many targets we aquire. Just the roadside bombs.

But the news sluts only pander to the ignorant. It really doesn't matter at this point.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MisterMike _
> *It's always easier to roll the tape of some Democrat bashing the war. But the supporters of the war they bring ON the news are there so they can throw pointed questions at them. War never looks good, and never ends soon enough. So by walking on the set, the war supporters already have that stacked against them.
> 
> Never mind the fact we never hear of how many of THEM we are killing, or how many targets we aquire. Just the roadside bombs.
> *



Perhaps, from your comments, its morally correct to be against this war.  How many children are dying from whose weapons of mass destruction?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 16, 2003)

Sorry, Mike, but where are you GETTING this nonsense from? 

A couple of points. 

General Electric, that hotbed of liberals, owns NBC. Huh.

Here's a piece from the Op-Ed section of today's "New York Times," that hotbed of liberal wackiness and Democratic bastion.

  OP-ED COLUMNIST 
Dreams and Glory
By DAVID BROOKS

Published: December 16, 2003




Howard Dean is the only guy who goes to the Beverly Hills area for a gravitas implant. He went to the St. Regis Hotel, a mile from Rodeo Drive, to deliver a major foreign policy speech, and suddenly Dr. Angry turned into the Rev. Dull and Worthy.

The guy who has been inveighing against the Iraq war as the second coming of Vietnam spent his time talking about intelligence agency coordination as if he had been suckled at the Council on Foreign Relations. The guy who just a few days ago stood next to Al Gore as the former vice president called Iraq the worst mistake in American history has suddenly turned sober. 

Sure, he did get off a classic Deanism. He conceded that the capture of Saddam had made American soldiers safer, but, unwilling to venture near graciousness, he continued, "But the capture of Saddam has not made America safer."

Still, the speech was respectable and serious. Coming on the same day as President Bush's hastily called news conference, it affords us the opportunity to compare the two men's approaches to the war on terror. 

And indeed, there is one big difference. George Bush fundamentally sees the war on terror as a moral and ideological confrontation between the forces of democracy and the forces of tyranny. Howard Dean fundamentally sees the war on terror as a law and order issue. At the end of his press conference, Bush uttered a most un-Deanlike sentiment:

"I believe, firmly believe  and you've heard me say this a lot, and I say it a lot because I truly believe it  that freedom is the almighty God's gift to every person  every man and woman who lives in this world. That's what I believe. And the arrest of Saddam Hussein changed the equation in Iraq. Justice was being delivered to a man who defied that gift from the Almighty to the people of Iraq." 

Bush believes that God has endowed all human beings with certain inalienable rights, the most important of which is liberty. Every time he is called upon to utter an unrehearsed thought, he speaks of the war on terror as a conflict between those who seek to advance liberty to realize justice, and those who oppose the advance of liberty: radical Islamists who fear religious liberty, dictators who fear political liberty and reactionaries who fear liberty for women. 

Furthermore, Bush believes the U.S. has a unique role to play in this struggle to complete democracy's triumph over tyranny and so drain the swamp of terror.

Judging by his speech yesterday, Dean does not believe the U.S. has an exceptional role to play in world history. Dean did not argue that the U.S. should aggressively promote democracy in the Middle East and around the world.

Instead, he emphasized that the U.S. should strive to strengthen global institutions. He argued that the war on terror would be won when international alliances worked together to choke off funds for terrorists and enforce a global arms control regime to keep nuclear, chemical and biological materials away from terror groups.

Dean is not a modern-day Woodrow Wilson. He is not a mushy idealist who dreams of a world government. Instead, he spoke of international institutions as if they were big versions of the National Governors Association, as places where pragmatic leaders can go to leverage their own resources and solve problems.

The world Dean described is largely devoid of grand conflicts or moral, cultural and ideological divides. It is a world without passionate nationalism, a world in which Europe and the United States are not riven by any serious cultural differences, in which sensible people from around the globe would find common solutions, if only Bush weren't so unilateral. 

At first, the Bush worldview seems far more airy-fairy and idealistic. The man talks about God, and good versus evil. But in reality, Dean is the more idealistic and naïve one. Bush at least recognizes the existence of intellectual and cultural conflict. He acknowledges that different value systems are incompatible.

In the world Dean describes, people, other than a few bizarre terrorists, would be working together if not for Bush. In the Dean worldview, all problems are matters of technique and negotiation.

Dean tried yesterday to show how sober and serious he could be. In fact, he has never appeared so much the dreamer, so clueless about the intellectual and cultural divides that really do confront us and with which real presidents have to grapple.

What in the heck are you talking about? 

Could I also ask how you define "liberal?" I have to say, again, that it seems to me that "liberal simply means, "anybody who doesn't agree with my politics and precepts one hundred per cent."


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 16, 2003)

Check out a couple of these links:

http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html

http://www.whatliberalmedia.com/

Check out the conclusion from the study done in the first link:



> IV. CONCLUSION: BEYOND THE "LIBERAL MEDIA" MYTH
> This survey shows that it is a mistake to accept the conservative claim that journalists are to the left of the public. There appear to be very few national journalists with left views on economic questions like corporate power and tradeissues that may well matter more to media owners and advertisers than social issues like gay rights and affirmative action.
> 
> The larger "liberal media" myth has been maintained, in part, by the well-funded flow of conservative rhetoric that selectively highlights journalists' personal views while downplaying news content. It also has been maintained by diverting the spotlight away from economic issues and placing it instead on social issues. In reality, though, most members of the powerful Washington press corps identify themselves as centrist in both of these areas. It is true, as conservative critics have publicized, that the minority of journalists not in the "center" are more likely to identify as having a "left" orientation when it comes to social issues. However, it is also true that the minority of journalists not in the "center" are more likely to identify as having a "right" orientation when it comes to economic issues. Indeed, these economic policy views are often to the right of public opinion. When our attention is drawn to this fact, one of the central elements of the conservative critique of the media is exposed to be merely sleight of hand.
> ...



So, you can put your "liberal Media" myth to rest. And...stop listening to Ann Coulter who keeps trying tyo spread these myths. That B**ch will rot your brain!


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 16, 2003)

Robert and UpNorth,

I'm only speaking to the point there is more Democrat bias on TV.

Not weather there's WMD's in Iraq (which we and the UN both knew there were).

But yes, you can be against war because it seems immmoral to you. Just as I can be for it because:

a) Were they know to have WMD's? Yes
b) Do they hate us? Yes
c) Do they associate with Al Queada? Yes
d) Did they break UN resolutions? Yes
e) Did they pose a threat to us and seem capable of carrying through with it? Yes

That's enough for me.


So my definition of a liberal is not applicable here.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 16, 2003)

Hmm, let me address you points:

"a) Were they know to have WMD's? Yes"

Dude...you've got to be kidding me. First off, how did we know that they had WMD's at one time? huh.....how? Because silly, WE SUPPLIED THEM. Since we knowingly supplied Saddam the weapons, this is hardly reason for us to now go to war over them.

Yet, even so...where are all of these weapons now? We haven't found squat. The WMD as reason for war is a crock.

"b) Do they hate us? Yes"

Sure...and so does a good portion of countries in the 1st world. No, we can't please every lunatic dictator on the planet. But we are talking about a good percent of the world here who hates us, not just the dictating few. We are also talking about almost an entire religious sect; Muslim, who hates our policies. I am talking about both fundamentalist and non fundamentalist.

So when do you think would be a good time for us to stop and ask ourselves why so many people hate us? Or...should we go on arrogently thinking we are better then the rest of the world.

c) Do they associate with Al Queada? Yes

Please...they denounced each other. 

d) Did they break UN resolutions? Yes

Ah...now this one is true. I don't think it justifies us going into a unilateral war, though. This does mean that the U.N. needed to take action against Iraq in the form of Trade embargos, and possibly military action when it came down to oppression of his own people. I have big problem with the U.N., mainly in the lack of balls department. Yet, I still think that it is not our unilateral responsablility to solve a U.N. problem.

e) Did they pose a threat to us and seem capable of carrying through with it? Yes

This is blatently not true. If they posed a true threat, then we would taken the risk to have gone in there in the first place. Bush needed an easy war to "win" to keep up the approval ratings. If you don't believe this, then explain why we didn't go into Korea when they blatently told us that they restarted their weapons program back up. Korea has Nuclear weapons, and we know it. We didn't and aren't because we won't start a war with someone who has the means to really hurt us (which is probably a good thing). 

On a side note, am I glad Saddam was stripped from power...yes. I am not glad that we took unilateral action to do this however. Not anymore then I am glad that we placed him in power in the 1980's, which I am obviosly not happy with that either.


----------



## KenpoTess (Dec 16, 2003)

NEW YORK -- A DNA test like the one that apparently helped confirm Saddam Hussein's identity can be done in as little as 12 hours, a forensics expert says.

New York City's DNA lab has done such speedy tests for very rare high-priority cases, said Robert Shaler, director of the department of forensic biology in the office of the city's chief medical examiner. 

More Info here


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 16, 2003)

PAUL,

You've addressed the points individully. But it's the sum of the parts that makes the whole. Individually, or if one point alone existed, it may not be reason to go in.

Disagree with some as you may, I stand behind them

We knew Korea could be handled diplomatically. See? we aren't the warmongers some think us to be.

"Some men you just can't reach."


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 16, 2003)

Mike:

Well, I see you slud off my point, but OK. As for your remarks about Iraq--well, as the last poster noted, where ARE the WMDs? And to date, there has been NO evidence of a Hussein/Al Q. link...certainly nothing approximating the evidence of their little connections to Saudi Arabia, and I notice we ain't invading THEM. Maybe it's true, maybe it ain't...but I'm old-fashioned. I like there to be facts.

Still waiting, by the way, on a) a definition of, "liberal," b) some proof for your claims, c) some clear explanation of when your media utopia was, since these claims are always predicated on the notion that once upon a time...

I mean, are you familiar with Edw. R. Murrow's career? With Cronkit's, with Frank Capra's, "Why We Fight," films? With, say, H.L. Mencken? With Twain, who started writing as a newspaperman? Hell, you could make a pretty good case for the "media" being more conservative now than ever...


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MisterMike _
> *No, but there is Democrat bias in the media. As soon as the Democrat politicians  *



Blah Blah Blah ... now why is that you don't use the term 'Democratic'? ... what was it that Jay told you?

For those outside of Boston radio ... our local rightwing nutcase ... Jay Sevrin ... will not use the word Democratic for some reason or other ... 

Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition to follow:
Pronunciation: "de-m&-'kra-tik
Function: adjective
Date: 1602
1 : of, relating to, or favoring democracy
2 often capitalized : of or relating to one of the two major political parties in the U.S. evolving in the early 19th century from the anti-federalists and the Democratic-Republican party and associated in modern times with policies of broad social reform and internationalism
3 : relating to, appealing to, or available to the broad masses of the people <democratic art>
4 : favoring social equality : not snobbish
- dem·o·crat·i·cal·ly  /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 16, 2003)

Robert,

The only point I've cared to chime in on over the last few posts is about the media bias. It is really is quite evident. Your question about the definition of a liberal was directed to someone else form what I can tell. Seems funny that you shout so much you don't know who your shouting at.

My media claims are not predicated on anything.


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by michaeledward _
> *Blah Blah Blah ... now why is that you don't use the term 'Democratic'? ... what was it that Jay told you?
> 
> For those outside of Boston radio ... our local rightwing nutcase ... Jay Sevrin ... will not use the word Democratic for some reason or other ...
> ...



Yes he has.  

He prefers to call us a Constitutional Republic. Which is what we live in.

And Mike's comments on him being a right-wing nutcase should be taken as seriously as Jay's monologues on women drivers. There is an entertainment aspect.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 16, 2003)

> a) Were they know to have WMD's? Yes


  In 1988 the government of Iraq used chemical weapons on two populations, the Kurds in the north of Iraq and the Iranian army. In 1988, the government of Iraq was a U.S. ally. Where did the Iraqi government acquire the chemical weapons? Could it be that the U.S. provided the weapons and / or the know-how. 
  According to all evidence (that is facts discovered by inspectors, and the U.S. military since the conquest) there were no chemical or biological weapons in existance in Iraq in the year 2003 ... which was the year we invaded the country. It is quite likely there have been no chemical or biological weapons in the country since the early 1990's.



> b) Do they hate us? Yes


  Please provide evidence of this statement. I have heard the president say it, but I see no evidence. Remember, the U.S. has been responsible for oppressing the people of Iraq since 1990 (with the authorization of the United Nations), certainly, this will breed some sense of resentment .... cause -> effect ... get it?




> c) Do they associate with Al Queada? Yes


  Again, there is no evidence that the people of Iraq associate in any way the Al Qaeda. At least not any more than I associate with Jay Sevrin or MisterMike. Al Qaeda is a fundamental religous organization that is motivated to remove all non-Islamic people from the Persian penninsula. Saddam Hussein was a presiding over a secular state. The most they had in common, is they both wanted the United States out of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Quatar, et al. 



> d) Did they break UN resolutions? Yes


But, the United Nations did not authorize this invasion.




> e) Did they pose a threat to us and seem capable of carrying through with it? Yes


What threat? They had no way to launch an inter continental ballistic missle. In fact, the missles destroyed by the United Nations weapons inspectors had a range of approximately 97 miles (I suggest you check a map for the distance between Bagdhad and Washington DC). The attempts to acquire missles of greater range from North Korea were thwarted by the Inspection Policy of the UN.

Yawn .... You need to start seeing the evidence and not listening to the Liberal Media that tells you all these things.

Mike


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by michaeledward _
> *In 1988 the government of Iraq used chemical weapons on two populations, the Kurds in the north of Iraq and the Iranian army. In 1988, the government of Iraq was a U.S. ally. Where did the Iraqi government acquire the chemical weapons? Could it be that the U.S. provided the weapons and / or the know-how.
> According to all evidence (that is facts discovered by inspectors, and the U.S. military since the conquest) there were no chemical or biological weapons in existance in Iraq in the year 2003 ... which was the year we invaded the country. It is quite likely there have been no chemical or biological weapons in the country since the early 1990's.
> *



Quite likely? WOW. That'll make the victims of 9/11 and the rest of us feel better.



> *
> Please provide evidence of this statement. I have heard the president say it, but I see no evidence. Remember, the U.S. has been responsible for oppressing the people of Iraq since 1990 (with the authorization of the United Nations), certainly, this will breed some sense of resentment .... cause -> effect ... get it?
> *



The U.S. has been responsible? Not Saddam? 



> *
> Again, there is no evidence that the people of Iraq associate in any way the Al Qaeda. At least not any more than I associate with Jay Sevrin or MisterMike. Al Qaeda is a fundamental religous organization that is motivated to remove all non-Islamic people from the Persian penninsula. Saddam Hussein was a presiding over a secular state. The most they had in common, is they both wanted the United States out of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Quatar, et al.
> *



Well, he sure supported them with the mural of the towers coming down on the wall.



> *
> But, the United Nations did not authorize this invasion.
> *



We don't need them to. PERIOD.



> *
> What threat? They had no way to launch an inter continental ballistic missle. In fact, the missles destroyed by the United Nations weapons inspectors had a range of approximately 97 miles (I suggest you check a map for the distance between Bagdhad and Washington DC). The attempts to acquire missles of greater range from North Korea were thwarted by the Inspection Policy of the UN.
> 
> Yawn .... You need to start seeing the evidence and not listening to the Liberal Media that tells you all these things.
> ...



You don't need ICBM's to be dangerous in this day and age. Germs are just as effective. Some people need to wake up.

I guess I could type till I'm "blue in the face" but I haven't got much more will to even *lead* these horses to water...

This was already beat to death on another thread.

Lata..


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 16, 2003)

So it's been some OTHER Mister Mike who keeps claiming that "the media," is guilty of "liberal bias?"

Huh. 

I guess I'm into this thing called...what was it...oh yes...evidence. I see your response to that is, roughly, "A fig for your evidence!"

After all, you just wrote: "My media claims are not predicated on anything."

As for the Iraqi clear and present danger, well, I guess I wanted some evidence there too. I'm funny that way, old fashioned...you know, from the old-fashioned, more-moral America that we keep hearing so much about. I say, if the Prez has got the goods, present the case, ask Congress for a Declaration of War, and kick their butts. You know...like the good old days.

Something about a guy with virtually no political experience launching us into an undeclared war for reasons that don't seem to have been real reasons. Again, North Korea clearly IS a clear and present danger and they HAVE got missiles and are works for BOTH nukes and biological weapons. So....

I still want to know who these fanatic lefties in the media are, and when they took over, and when the good old days were...


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MisterMike _
> *Quite likely? WOW. That'll make the victims of 9/11 and the rest of us feel better.*


*
<imagine Ronald Reagan voice over>   Well, Mike, There you go again .....

No one has linked in any way that the 19 hi-jackers were associated with the Iraqi government. In case you hadn't heard, the hi-jackings of the 4 airplanes had  nothing  to do with chemical and / or biological weapons.




			The U.S. has been responsible? Not Saddam?
		
Click to expand...

My statement was in response to your claim that "They" hate us. Well, who exactly is the 'They' you are speaking for? I assumed you meant the iraqi people. While I question the premise, if we are to assume that the iraqi people hate us, what might be the cause of those feelings ... I proposed that by preventing adequate food and medicine into the country (yes, I know that many of the goods that went in via the US sponsored oil for food program were inappropriately appropriated), they citizens of iraq might be justified in feeling frustrated with the US led embargo. How many iraqi children died because of inadequate medicine during that embargo?




			Well, he sure supported them with the mural of the towers coming down on the wall.
		
Click to expand...

Yeah ... and Anne Garrells walked across the face of GB Sr. every day while entering the Al Rashid ... Big Deal.




			We don't need them to. PERIOD.
		
Click to expand...

Of course, we don't. We reserve the right to invade another sovreign state to ourselves, just like ... hmmm ... hmmm .. say when Iraq wants to invade Kuwait. 
What will you say when China invades Taiwan, I wonder?




			You don't need ICBM's to be dangerous in this day and age. Germs are just as effective.  Some people need to wake up.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, apparently, you do ... Did you miss the point that  IRAQ DOESN'T HAVE ANY GERM WEAPONS. Duh! As long as you keep buying the stories the liberal media is selling you about an impending threat from the state of Iraq, you will continue to believe as you do. I strongly suggest you find a more fair and balanced news source. Repeat after me:
There are no weapons of mass destruction.
There was no clear and present danger.





			I guess I could type till I'm "blue in the face" but I haven't got much more will to even lead these horses to water...
		
Click to expand...


The problem here, is that the water is behind us ... and I am stuck leading a horses ....... well ... never mind.


Mike*


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 16, 2003)

MisterMike,

If you believe that going to war was the right thing, that's fine. You are definatily entitled to your opinions, which is why america is so great.

I am having trouble with a few things though.





> The only point I've cared to chime in on over the last few posts is about the media bias. It is really is quite evident. Your question about the definition of a liberal was directed to someone else form what I can tell. Seems funny that you shout so much you don't know who your shouting at.
> 
> My media claims are not predicated on anything.



On the "Media Bias" issue, many conservative personalities and celebraties have talked about the "Liberal Media Bias." A lot of this could be based on individual interpratation; a "conservative" hears something from the media he dislikes, so the media is "liberal" to them, or a "Liberal" hears something from the media he dislikes, so the media is "conservative" for him. 

Point is, opinions are like bellybuttons, but that doesn't mean that they are true. 

Check out the 1st link in my previous post regarding the "Liberal Media" myth. That is actual evidence that supports the idea that the media is actually conservative much more than liberal.



> Quite likely? WOW. That'll make the victims of 9/11 and the rest of us feel better.



This is a major falicy, usually spread by those who don't want anyone to question the war, so they try to appeal to our emotional side by bringing up a tragidy. WMD and 9-11 terrorists are 2 seperate groups and 2 seperate issues. Not only is it "quite likely" that there were no more WMD in Iraq, but our administration told us and the rest of the world that they had proof that Irag had WMD eyond resonable doubt, and enough to justify going to war. Without finding WMD, this is Proof that the administration lied. None of this has to do with the victims of 9-11. If anything, I think the victims would have rather seen more done to prevent terrorism, to continue after Al Queda, and to have found Bin Laden, if you ask me. The war in Irag has little to do with that, though.



> We don't need them to. PERIOD



The problem I see is that this creates a  hypocracy. One of the reasons for going to War against Iraq is they broke UN resolutions and agreements. So, we break UN agreements to go to war over it. How is it we can break UN agreements to punish someone for breaking UN agreements? Should the UN be able to go after us for breaking UN agreements? THis, I see, is a major problem, and not a good reason for war. It makes us look retarded.

Here is what I think regarding those who support Bush and the war at this point. Most people who are supporters basically believe that Saddam is a bad guy, so for whatever reason it was we went to war in the 1st place, the results are good because we are bringing an evil man to justice.

I can appreciate this arguement, and I am glad that he is not in power, and that he has been captured. However, to me this doesn't justify the amount of $$, resources, and problems we have caused ourselves by going in unilaterally. We may have been able to accomplish beating Iraq on our own, but only to the detriment of our own money, resources, and troops. All this just to out a "bad guy". We could have accomplished the same task, in time, but with the rest of the world supporting it. Instead, we have hurt our deplomacy with the world. We can't afford to out all the evil dictators in the world. What we can do is stop supporting "evil dictators" when it fits our agenda in the short run; if anything 9-11 should have taught us, this is the lesson we should have learned. Yet, we haven't. And this worries me.


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 16, 2003)

That's right never mind.

Just as I don't mind that the right to be thick headed and deaf precludes the fact common sense couldn't be slapped into most people like yourself.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 16, 2003)

Folks, keep the debate respectful, please.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz _
> *Folks, keep the debate respectful, please. *



Sorry


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 16, 2003)

Hehe..OK..That was my bad too.

This would be so much easier over a beer so then I could just cut people off with my own opinions a lot easier..LOL

:drinkbeer


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MisterMike _
> *Hehe..OK..That was my bad too.
> 
> This would be so much easier over a beer so then I could just cut people off with my own opinions a lot easier..LOL
> ...



A couple of inane opinions, a few more beers and then "sparring" match


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *A couple of inane opinions, a few more beers and then "sparring" match  *



Haha, well that's 2 out of the 3 "F"'s

Unless we hit each other with dead fish...


----------



## pknox (Dec 16, 2003)

Add some chips, vinegar, and a pint of Guinness, and now you're talking!


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 16, 2003)

1. heard Hans Blix on NPR, the Communist channel, today. he says that a) His original gut feeling was that Iran still had WMDs; b) He now thinks that the stuff got destroyed in '91-'92, which makes him want to know why they were acting so weirdly last year...made him believe they were hiding something; c) There never was any clear, direct threat to the US. Wow, does he ever sound like an incompetent nut.

2. If I understood correctly, the argument was that NORTH KOREA--NORTH KOREA, a country that has been firing missiles over parts of Japan for the last ten yers, a country with which we have no diplomatic ties at all, a country that has working nuclear reactors capable of reprocessing, a country that says every five minutes, "You're damn skippy we plan on building the Bomb, we can already reach Guam and the West Coast is not out of the question," a country so desperate that there are rumors of cannibalism and even the UN has thrown up its hands, NORTH KOREA is more open to negotiation? I must be hallucinating.

3. Good to see that that conservative viewpoint, at the end, once again is backed by the threat of violence.

4. I don't know what the bellybutton thing was about, but it was the best sentence of the whole string.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 17, 2003)

First laugh out loud...



> heard Hans Blix on NPR, the Communist channel, today.



:rofl: 

2nd LOL...



> Wow, does he ever sound like an incompetent nut.



3rd LOL...



> NORTH KOREA is more open to negotiation? I must be hallucinating.



4th LOL...



> I don't know what the bellybutton thing was about, but it was the best sentence of the whole string.



:rofl:  Maybe I should explain that one...opinions are like belly buttons because everyone has them.

Anyways, I don't know if I am just slap happy or what this morning, (maybe some nerve gas busted open that me and all my 'liberal' friends have been hiding for Saddam) but your post had me on the floor.


----------



## lvwhitebir (Dec 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by michaeledward _
> *Did you miss the point that  IRAQ DOESN'T HAVE ANY GERM WEAPONS. Duh!
> ...
> There are no weapons of mass destruction.
> There was no clear and present danger.*



Sure, and when CNN says this stuff, it's all a big lie...  And don't get me started on Hans Blix or Richard Butler.  They wanted the invasion... 



> CNN     9/9/2002
> Saddam's biological-weapons program was the deepest black hole. Despite more than 30 searches for various unconventional arms, inspectors did not even know of its existence until mid-1995, when Saddam's defecting son-in-law Hussein Kamal revealed that secret labs buried in Iraq's security, not military, apparatus were cooking up deadly germs. *Iraq subsequently admitted it made batches of anthrax bacteria, carcinogenic aflatoxin, agricultural toxins and the paralyzing poison botulinum. * Iraqi officials reported they had loaded 191 bombs, including 25 missile warheads, with the poisons for use in the Gulf War. They said they destroyed them after the conflict, but they presented no proof, and Western officials don't believe them.
> 
> 
> ...






Now, where's the proof that the US gave them biological and chemical weapons?  I don't remember anything ever being said about that except as heresay.

WhiteBirch


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 17, 2003)

Nice try, slick.

First of all, "Weapons unaccounted for" and "weapons found" are 2 seperate things. Does CNN lie? When their sources of information lie, then yes, they lie too. Don't believe everything you hear.

From a 1994 Senate Report, here is a list of Chemical and Biological Agents our U.S. government allowed U.S. corporations to sell Saddam Hussien between 1985 and 1990:

Bacillus Anthracis; or as we commonly know as "Anthrax", and is fatal.

Clostridium Botulinum; A bacterial source of Botulinum toxins with lots of nasty effects on the human body, and is often fatel.

Histoplasma Capsulatum: Causes disease superficially resembling TB that may cause pnemonia, enlargement of liver and spleen, anemia, influenza like illness, and acute inflamitory skin disease. Reactivation of the infection involves lungs brain, and a host of other vitals.

Brucella Melitenis: Causes chronic fatigue and major damage to vital organs.

Clostridium Perfringens: Highly toxic, causes gas gangrene. Basically causes tissue damage and death.

Also, Escherichia Coli (Known commonly as "E. Coli"), genetic materials, and human and bacterial DNA were shipped to Iraq Attomic Energy Commission.

Records of Corporate sales to Iraq prior to 1985 were "unavialable". The Senate report also said, "These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction."

Some of the companies who had "permission" by our government to send over these harmful materials during the Reagan/Bush Senior years are American Type Culture Collection, Alcolac International, Matrix Churchill Corp., Sullaire Corp., Pure Aire, and Gorman-Rupp. Other companies that sent over technoligies that were "Dual use" to be used for both defense and other are Hewlett Packard, AT&T, Bechtel, Caterpillar, DuPont, Kodak, and Hughes Helicopter. These "dual use" technologies were all approved by the department of Commerce from 85-90; 1.5 billion worth, ranging from chemical and biological components to computers and equipment for conventional and nuclear weapons systems.

Hmm...here's an interesting question. Why the heck would we do such a thing? For one, we certianly profited short term by suppling him with the stepping stones to chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.

But that wasn't even a fraction of "WHY". We decided during the Iraq/Iran war that Iraq COULD NOT lose that war. So we did everything we "Legally" could ensure Saddam was victorieous, knowing full well that they were going to use chemical and biological agents to do so.

Saddam was given advice by Reagan, delivered by Bush I, to step up the air raid against Iran, according to Howard Teicher, member of the Security council, in a sworn affidavit in 1995. So, not only did "we" the U.S. provide these crazy WMD to Saddam, but our former presidents weren't afraid to get their hands dirty with them either.

So...did Saddam have WMD at one time? Sure...all GW Bush had to do was count the profits as they rolled in from his campaign backers to his account, and his dads and Reagans accounts in the past, and check the reciepts from those companies as well.

So...we KNOW he had them in the 80's, but they swore up and down that they didn't have them anymore. We swore up and down that we had undeniable proof that they were lying. So...who's lying now? The only proof we had was our reciepts from the 80's. If they had any left from over a dacade ago, we would have found them. We haven't found S**t.

Now, if yall think this is too appalling to believe any of this, just check the Senate report for yourself by Donald W. Riegle Jr., U.S. Senate, 103d Congess, 2d session, May 25, 1994. For the list of companies, check April 1998 Issue of "The Progressive" Cover story by William Blum, or LA Weekly's report in issue april25-may1 by Jim Crogan. You can also see the declassified report by the US General Accounting office, released Feb. 7, 1994 (published in 92) to find info on our exportation of "dual use" technologies. The New York Times and Washington Post both documented well the Iraq/Iran conflict, and Reagans commitment to ensure Iraqi victory. Also, for a history on U.S./Iraq search through "National Security Archive." Some of these are online at: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/

Now...since I am on a rant, I might as well include this. If you want to find some information on Companies landing post-war reconstruction contracts worth hundreds of billions of dollars, and their financial contributions to George W. Bush and the Republican Party, Center for Responsive Politics, or this site:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/rebuilding_iraq/index.asp

Sorry there wasn't more information in our "mainstream liberal media," But I find in funny that many of our main news sources don't focus on these FACTS. :shrug: 

I included that last tidbit, you know, in case you were wondering why we REALLY went to war.

Weapons of Mass destruction....Republigga please....!


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 17, 2003)

I notice all the dates you post are prior to the invasion. The US Adminstration had proposed the primary reason for the planned invasion was Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction. It was difficult, but not impossible, to find reports that questioned the premise.

Secretary of State Colin Powell went before the United Nations and made statements, that he called facts, concerning what Iraq had at that time. The possession of these items was in violation of UN Resolution 1441, right ... which is why we went to war.

Secretary of State Powell didn't say that we think. He said:





> My second purpose today is to provide you with additional information, to share with you what the United States knows about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, as well as Iraq's involvement in terrorism, which is also the subject of Resolution 1441 and other earlier resolutions.
> ... every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we are giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.
> ...We know that Iraq has at least seven of these mobile, biological agent factories.
> ....There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. And he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction.
> ....I'm going to show you a small part of a chemical complex called "Al Musayyib", a site that Iraq has used for at least three years to transship chemical weapons from production facilities out to the field.



And yet ... we have not found any of these weapons. Hmmm?

Now ... about the assertion that the US supplied the weapons to Iraq ... You'll notice it was a question. Is it possible that Iraq developed the Chemical Weapons used during the IRAN-IRAQ war independantly, yes. But we know they purchased some know how from the French and from the Soviets in the late 70's. My earlier statement was incorrect, the Iraqis used Chemical & Biological weapons in the early 80's, not just in 1988. I stand by my assertion that in the 1980's we supported Iraq over Iran during their war. I also think that if the Chemical Weapons were provided to Iraq from France, it was with the US knowledge.

Read this link for more:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/program.htm

thanks - Mike


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 17, 2003)

Hey PAUL ...

Thanks ... I knew all that stuff was out there ... but I'm too busy with the Lord of the Rings today to go digging .... 

I appreciate it ...


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by michaeledward _
> *Hey PAUL ...
> 
> Thanks ... I knew all that stuff was out there ... but I'm too busy with the Lord of the Rings today to go digging ....
> ...



No Prob.!


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 22, 2003)

Just an FYI - now there is a British paper saying that the American Troops picked up Saddam only after he was drugged and left behind by Khurdish troops.

Saddam


----------

