# The Kurds and WMD's



## Jay Bell (Nov 15, 2004)

Flatlander and I were discussing in another thread (Moore and F-9/11 Pt 2) Ann Coulter and the problem with far-lefties not wanting to discuss the Kurds, so I've opened this thread for thoughts.

I personally have some left-sided friends who clam up on site at the bringing up of the Kurdish massacre regarding the WMD discussion.  I'm wondering why.  I've heard the left explain that this is an oil war...that there are no WMD's (which there weren't, but they definately had the means and had past usage of biological weapons)...that life in Iraq was just chipper before we invaded...that there's absolutely no reason to be there.

One-hundred-thousand Kurds were killed by chemical weapons by Sadam's regime.  Approximately 70,000 (last I'd read) mass-graves have been found with bodies of other civilians.  The number is estimated to be well over 100,000 thousand.

1.6 tons of radioactive uranium was found and seized by U.S. forces in Iraq.  Why are these topics dodged so heavily...or just plain ignored?


----------



## raedyn (Nov 15, 2004)

I don't believe that anyone is saying life was just chipper and 100% perfect in Iraq pre-invasion.

But.

Bush & Rumsfield's entire justification for going into Iraq was the WMD's. We heard over and over about the "imminent threat" that Saddam and his regime posed to America. This has not proven true. I would certainly agree that Saddam was an imminent threat to his own people - and especially the Kurds. But the Administration told America there was a gun pointed right at us, and it just wasn't true.


----------



## Flatlander (Nov 15, 2004)

Actually, it is the oppression and murder of the Kurdish people and the Iraqi citizenry which gave me cause to support regime change in Iraq in the first place. I am still, to this day, dumbfounded as to why these crimes agianst humanity did not recieve the deserved attention in the UN. In fact, had this been the avenue of justification for invasion in the first place, as opposed to the WMD issue, perhaps by appealing to Amnesty International, the US may have been able to aquire more international support.

Maybe not. 

I do think that Hussein needed to be removed. Knowing and having discussed the issue personally with many Iraqi, Iranian, and Kurdish refugees, there is no doubt in my mind. I am glad that it has been done. 

This does not change the fact that no WMD have yet been found, and that by using WMD as justification for the invasion, and the way things went down, proper international procedures were circumvented. Because of this, many countries could not support the invasion. It's really quite sad. I sincerely believe that another approach may have yielded more successful results. 

It is a question of does the end justify the means. In this case, I don't believe that it does.


----------



## Rynocerous (Nov 15, 2004)

This is why I believe I was sent over seas. Not necessarily to look for WMD but to help the innocent civilians that were infact getting massacred, for no reason other than their background. I put Saddam in the same boat as Hitler, I know that most of you will disagree saying that Hitler killed so many more jews than Saddam did Kurds. In my opinion if you kill thousands of people because they are Jewish, or Kurdish, or Native Americans, or whites for that matter, I deem it necessary to do whatever in our power to stop that person. Some people will argue that Iraq never caused any problems with us, and Saddam is the Middle East's problem(which I have actually heard people say before). To that I say BULL CRAP, we are a human race in which everything effects everyone in one form or another. We have people who give money to starving Ethiopian children, yet when there are thousands of people getting murdered, people focus on the fact that there were no WMD, as a pose to focusing on the fact that we got a brutal murderer, and Dictator out of power. I am not saying that Bush did the right thing by saying that we were going for WMD by any means. All I'm saying is that we should be thankful that Saddam is out of power. Just my thoughts, we should really start thinking about the best intrest of the human race. Many are so worried about having Bush re-elected that they don't stop and think that there are much bigger problems throughout the world. Famine, hunger, water shortage, countries with no economy, children getting no education, etc. Everyone here in Canada, and the US take so much for granted, myself included. We should all take a moment to be thankful for what we have.


Cheers,

Ryan


----------



## Rynocerous (Nov 15, 2004)

> By Raedyn
> 
> Administration told America there was a gun pointed right at us, and it just wasn't true.


I can't argue that with any fact, but I must say that they had ample time to get them out if they did infact have them. We may not know the whole truth. The media plays a big part in people being missinformed. More than many of us even know...

Please don't take this as an attack, it is not meant as one, just making a speculation.

:cheers: Cheers, 

Ryan


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 15, 2004)

I think that Ann Coulter is an illogical faciest, and thats why people don't want to talk with her. Yet, I'd gladly hand her her own rear in a debate for $1000.

Anyways, I would be happy to discuss the Kurds here. But first, a pop quiz:

What was the year that Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds?

When find the answer to that question, then think REAL hard as to what my arguement is going to be... :uhyeah: 

Paul


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 15, 2004)

Jay Bell said:
			
		

> One-hundred-thousand Kurds were killed by chemical weapons by Sadam's regime.


Can you please reference this statistic.

The numbers I have seen put that approximately 5,000 Kurds died from Chemical Weapons attacks. An additional 20,000, perhaps were injured by these weapons.


----------



## Jay Bell (Nov 15, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Can you please reference this statistic.
> 
> The numbers I have seen put that approximately 5,000 Kurds died from Chemical Weapons attacks. An additional 20,000, perhaps were injured by these weapons.



Hey Michael,

The 5,000 number was only the attack Halabja in March 1988.  From February to September of 1998, approximately 186,000 Kurds were killed by Saddam's regime in chemical attacks.  Beyond that, 1,200 villages were destroyed and 300,000 Kurds were left displaced.

http://middleeastreference.org.uk/llb020916a.html


Some of the major crimes allegedly committed during Saddam's rule:

 July 16, 1979: Shortly after Saddam seizes power, 15 top party leaders who allegedly conspired against him are executed.

 1980: Iraqi forces invade neighboring Iran, sparking an eight-year war that leaves an estimated 1 million dead. Chemical attacks against Iran kill as many as 5,000.

 1983: Government launches campaign against members of Kurdish Barzani tribe for helping Iran launch offensive in northern Iraq. Estimated 8,000 killed, many buried in mass graves.

 1986-88: Scorched-earth offensive known as "Anfal" that includes chemical attacks on Kurds. Estimated 180,000 Kurds killed, many buried in mass graves in south.

 1988: Chemical weapon attack against Kurdish town of Halabja kills an estimated 5,000 civilians.

 1990: Saddam orders invasion of Kuwait on Aug. 2; Iraqi forces fire Scud missiles at Israel and Saudi Arabia; Iraqi soldiers allegedly torture, summarily execute hundreds of Kuwaitis and set Kuwaiti oil wells ablaze.

 1991: Some 60,000 people are believed killed when Saddam crushes rebellions by Shiite Muslims in the south and Kurds in the north at close of Gulf War.

 1992: Draining of marshes in southern Iraq, driving population known as Marsh Arabs from homes and wiping out way of life. Tens of thousands killed.

 1996: Two of Saddam's sons-in-law are killed after they return from Jordan, where they fled and exposed the campaign to hide banned weapons.

_Sources: The Associated Press, Human Rights Watch_


----------



## Jay Bell (Nov 15, 2004)

Hey Paul,

Different times between 83-88.  G'head


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 15, 2004)

Y'know, I'm having trouble understanding arguments like these.

Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who slaughtered thousands of his own people, and thus he should have been removed.

Okay, I follow the argument up to that point. But, there's a problem.

Let's apply this reasoning to ALL political leaders across the board. Any idea how many names will come up?? Or, what's worse, how many are in fact American allies?? 

Israel and Palestine (assuming Arafat was still alive) would both probably be the Big Two on our hit list. We're trying to make nicey-nice with China and North Korea now, but they've done some pretty nasty stuff to both their own people and foreign powers, as well. What about Pakistan's destruction of sacred Indian sites??

Seriously, if we go after every brutal dictator across the globe --- or "crusading nationalist" in the case of guys like Israel's Sharon --- we'll run outta resources before you can say "Allah". That's a quagmire we can't afford to get ourselves into.

Also, and more importantly, why the hell are we the ones doing this stuff in the first place?? Why aren't Britain, Germany, Italy, Japan, or Russia hopping into this stuff?? Why should we shoulder the burden exclusively??


----------



## Jay Bell (Nov 15, 2004)

Can't argue that..(cept Britain...hell...the Black Watch are there too)

If'n I had to guess an answer though, we do it because no one else would be willing to without our initiating it.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 15, 2004)

Jay Bell said:
			
		

> Hey Michael,
> 
> The 5,000 number was only the attack Halabja in March 1988. From February to September of 1998, approximately 186,000 Kurds were killed by Saddam's regime in chemical attacks. Beyond that, 1,200 villages were destroyed and 300,000 Kurds were left displaced.


Thank you. I have referenced this report and glanced over parts of it. I have not read the entire report.

http://hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/ANFAL.htm

In chapter thirteen, the number 186,000 is mentioned, although, it is also disputed. Additionally, the 186,000 number does not record the number of dead from Chemical Attacks, but the total number dead from the Anfal campaigns. Many of those were 'disappeared', and presumed to be executed.

So, we have again concluded that Saddam Hussein's regime was pretty heinous. You will, of course, recall that during this time, President Reagan and President Bush were 'tilting' toward Baghdad, as this Human Rights Watch report describes it. I have actually seen reports that our government was providing Hussein with intelligence as to positions of Iranian troops, making their chemical weapon strikes much more effective. 

But, the descriptions of Anfal, seem to me to be internal Iraqi considerations. Are you arguing that the United States government has a requirement to intervene under 'humanitarian reasons'?

Is there something else you would like to discuss about the Kurds?


----------



## Jay Bell (Nov 15, 2004)

> Are you arguing that the United States government has a requirement to intervene under 'humanitarian reasons'?



Not at all a requirement.  There have been many occurances that we haven't gotten involved.  My thoughts - if it's the need of one country, as a moral obligation, it's the need of them all.  Tibet got jipped.



> Is there something else you would like to discuss about the Kurds?



Yes and no.  The majority of posts here agree that Saddam was a brutal dictator that needed to be removed.  The posts (people?) haven't been as far left as I'd hoped.  In the previous post, I was referring to the folk that clam up and end the discussion because the word "Kurds" come out of my mouth.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 15, 2004)

You will find few more to the left than me. 

What the Brits did to the Kurds at the end of WWI is disgraceful and disrespectful. They should never have been rolled up into a country with the Shi'ia and Sunni's. I have stated there should be a three state solution in Iraq. 

Of course, an independent Kurdish state will present problems with both Turkey and Iran. In the long run, however, I think it presents fewer problems than trying to keep the artificial state of Iraq united. 

We'll see.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 15, 2004)

Jay Bell said:
			
		

> 1.6 tons of radioactive uranium was found and seized by U.S. forces in Iraq.  Why are these topics dodged so heavily...or just plain ignored?




If its the uranium I'm thinking of, we discussed that towards the end of the thread "Did we have justification." So no, we didn't dodge it or ignore it.  

It was under seal (like the tons of explosives gone missing last month) and inspected by the IAEA prior to the invasion.  All seals were intact.  The US failed to secure it following the invasion and some material went missing.  Most was recovered and some of it shipped to Russia.

This stuff was known to the US prior to the invasion and was not listed as a WMD, as it wasn't under Saddam's control (as it was under seal).  This is stuff we allowed them to have and was not part of our casus belli.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 16, 2004)

Good job Jay. Now we have a time line. Great. Now, lets examine that, but before we do, let me just say that I find it amazing how our TV/internet/fast food society has a major memory loss problem when it comes to our involvement in past events. So, lets take a trip down memory lane&#8230;

*1970&#8217;s * &#8211; I&#8217;ll try to stick to Jay Bell&#8217;s timeline, but first lets take a trip to the 70&#8217;s. Yes, the 70&#8217;s&#8230; a time of bell-bottoms, dropping acid, and relentless military sales to IRAN. Yes&#8230;that&#8217;s IRAN, despite the fact that they were a theocracy no better then they are today, and despite the UN resolutions at the time to not contribute to the Iran/Iraq conflict. Then Iran screws us, takes a few hostages, and stops wanting to trade with us. Our weapons sales in Iran are something that we conveniently forget today. Now fast forward&#8230;

*1980 * &#8211; We remember that Iraq invaded Iran today, but we conveniently forget that 1980 was the year Saddam was placed in power by the U.S. (Remember that republican saint Reagan and his lovely administration that should feel vaguely familiar) TO INVADE IRAN. So basically, Saddam was doing what he was SUPPOSED TO DO according to us. Millions dead? A GOOD PORTION OF THAT IS OUR FAULT.

During this era when the commies were gonna either kill us or take away our freedom (instead of the terrorists today&#8230;ah how much has changed), Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan, and everyone in the Middle east was fighting as usual. Iraq was run by the secular military dictator Saddam Hussein (who was supposed to be our puppet), and Iran was run by an Islamic theocracy, and we were happier then pigs in ****. We thought that by putting Saddam into power and having him invade Iran, he&#8217;d overthrow it easily due to political unrest in Iran. We were wrong, and a theocracy still exists in that country to this day.

Hmmm, now&#8230;where could our interest have possibly been in this conflict? Well, the Islamic Theocracy in Iran didn&#8217;t want to trade with us and didn&#8217;t want to deal with our unilateral bullying, and didn&#8217;t HAVE too because of the black gold that they had access too. And,  the leaders getting to keep their people in poverty while blaming it on us was an added bonus to gain support from there citizens too I&#8217;m sure. We were afraid that they would either take over or ally with other countries in the Mid-East and control more of the regions oil; especially Iraqi oil. We figured if we put a puppet in power (Saddam) that he would do as we said, and he&#8217;d trade with us as well. You see, as a general foreign policy rule, we like to sponsor dictatorships in other countries, so long as they do as we say and trade the way we want. Just look at Chile, Indonesia, and Guatemala for starters. Well, with Saddam, it worked for a while. 

*1983 * &#8211; Holy camels and KAPOW! KABLAM! WE LOOOVED SADDAM in &#8217;83. Take a good look at our good old friend Rumsfield shaking hands with his buddy here during the St. Reagan era: 

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

By now we are extremely happy over the killing of Kurds because they were helping Iran at the time. And besides, they are brown people, and another general rule of foreign policy we really don&#8217;t give 2 pooh-logs about brown people. However, now we have a dilemma&#8230;we THOUGHT that Saddam would have overthrown the theocracy in Iran within a much shorter time frame; but instead, Iran was invading Northern Iraq in return. Boy did that make us nervous. VERY NERVOUS considering the massive Military sales by the U.S. to IRAN in the 70&#8217;s, up until the Tehran embassy hostage crisis, which was sort of the focal point of when they stopped wanting to work with us. Can&#8217;t let the rest of the world notice that! Keep in mind that we sold these weapons to Iran during a time when a U.N. resolution to NOT contribute to the conflict was in effect (that we signed). Who? What? US break a U.N. agreement in the name of the almighty dollar. NEVER. 

So..major, major problems here. We support Iran with military sales so they&#8217;d trade with us. They decide not to later, and try to both take over and ally with other oil baring countries Mid-east, with a side goal of getting them to stop giving us oil too, all the while USING OUR WEAPONS AND MILITARY EQUIPMENT THAT WE SOLD TO THEM TO DO IT. So, we put an evil dictator in power during a time of political unrest in both countries (Saddam), thinking he&#8217;d overthrow the Iranian theocracy, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE OUR WEAPONS.

Well, St. Reagan and his many Christian soldiers decide that this is totally not fair for Iran to have our weapons, and Iraq to not. SO what&#8217;s our solution? That&#8217;s right boys and girls&#8230;GIVE SADDAM WEAPONS AS WELL. So, in &#8216;82 we remove Iraq from the terrorist hate list (literally, the state dept had a list), and we decide to supply them with weapons. By &#8216;83 those weapons are used on brown people both in Iraq and Iran, and we of course don&#8217;t care.

You see, none of that silly lesson learnin&#8217; from arming Iran and having it backfire on us..no no no, not in &#8216;merica! Not when Capitalism is the answer to everything. So, we start giving Saddam money, weapons, and even materials and intelligence to make chemical agents. Screw the Geneva convention&#8230;they&#8217;re only brown people anyways.

It&#8217;s good to see that high military budget at work, even in the 80&#8217;s.

*1986-88&#8217;*: Wow&#8230;big surprise, chemical agents are used on brown people. This actually started in 83&#8217; or so from reports out of Iran, right around the time Rummy gets to shake hands with his buddy. 

But, that&#8217;s O.K. As another foreign policy rule, for the U.S., the Geneva Convention doesn&#8217;t apply to brown people (unless it suits our agenda, like in the most recent gulf war). Besides, we decided it was unfair because we armed Iran, so we had to up the ante somehow when we armed Iraq, with Saddam being our buddy and all, and what better way to do it then with Chemical Agents, and other weapons against the Geneva Convention on white people. 

And besides, Capitalism is SUCH a great thing. From 85-90, our companies sold Saddam Anthrax, Clostridium Botulinum (Biological Agent Botulism), Histoplasma Capsulatum (biological agent), Brucella Melitensis (Bio), Clostridium Perfingen (a gas that causes gangrene, biological), and E. Coli, among chemical agents. And, of course, we sold a lot of what was called &#8220;duel technologies,&#8221; or technologies that could be used to make weapons but can also be masked for other things. Some household companies involved: Hewlett-Packard, AT&T, Bechtel, Caterpillar, DuPont, and Kodak just to name a few.  This was all in a 1994 Senate report. 

So we are having SOOO much fun, because now we get to try out these cool weapons on brown people to see how they work, and we don&#8217;t even have to actually take the blame for using them ourselves. And, from 85-90, our companies our flourishing over there; the dept. of commerce approved 1.5 billion $$ for duel use technologies, and $308 million in helicopters and aircrafts, and millions of unaccounted for military related trade through private companies.

So, in case you don&#8217;t know how this wonderful capitalistic system works, let me explain for those of you who are slow, or just missing the whole thing. We, the citizens, work hard to give money to our government (taxes) which is used to fund weapons programs instead of schools or healthcare that we can&#8217;t afford (military budget) so private companies can sell the materials and technologies to dictatorships like Iraq, without having to pay taxes on those sales, making a few people (white people) and a lot of brown people dead. So far our system is working well, it would seem, unless of course your brown or poor to upper middle class America. O.K., O.K., basically it works well for a few hundred people or less while a few billion get screwed to varied degrees&#8230;.but back to the subject of the Kurds.  

After the liberal use of weapons of mass destruction on his own people, according to an affidavit by Howard Teicher (from St. Reagan&#8217;s and St. Bush Sr&#8217;s. security council), Saddam even got some advice on how to step on up the air raids on Iran. So, it would seem that these God-loving republicans back then couldn&#8217;t have given rats behind about the evil terrorists acts of Saddam that some of these same men are so recently &#8220;appalled&#8221; by today. Hmmm&#8230;it&#8217;s a good thing our value&#8217;s administration is running the show&#8230;

Now while this was going on, we were figuring out ways to step up our military presence in the mid-east, and yes, that&#8217;s right, figure out ways to get oil through trade with Saddam from Iraq. Can&#8217;t stop commerce, can we.

*1988 * &#8211; More dead, more oil for us, and we don&#8217;t care because we&#8217;re (or at least a few of us) making coin off it. And besides, they&#8217;re brown people anyways.

*1990 * &#8211; Saddam&#8217;s egomaniacal behavior gets the best of him, and he decides that he doesn&#8217;t want to be a puppet anymore for daddy (the U.S. would be daddy in this case). So, our dirty mistress Saddam breaks the relationship with us, invades Kuwait with our weapons, fires missiles at the Saudi&#8217;s with our technology, and start lighting our oil fields (I mean Kuwait&#8217;s&#8230;uh yeah&#8230;Kuwait&#8217;s) on fire, and torturing more brown people who were working OUR FIELDS (Whoops&#8230;I mean Kuwait&#8217;s). 

So, here we come full circle again. We supported a dictatorship, again, for oil, and he turns on us. Can&#8217;t have that, now can we? It was O.K. that he was gassing, torturing, and killing brown people before&#8230;but NOW he&#8217;s screwing with our oil, dammit! Time to go to war&#8230;

*1991 * &#8211; more brown people killed, some brown people revolt against their dictator, then they are killed, and we don&#8217;t care because we manage to make coin off the deal again anyways.

*1992 * &#8211; More brown people killed, and we still don&#8217;t care. Still makin&#8217; coin.

*1996 * &#8211; A couple of brown people killed again, along with a revealed campaign to hide banned weapons. This makes us nervous, and we hope that nobody finds the receipts that shows who armed him.

*1996- present * &#8211; Time goes on, more brown people are killed and we still don&#8217;t care cause we&#8217;re making money. However, apparently billions wasn&#8217;t enough, so members of the Bush Administration through the Carlyle group, Halliburton, Unocal, and a few of other wonderful companies try to do a business deal with the Taliban, involving oil from the Caspian Sea. We pull out, the deal falls through, screwing the rich brown people causing the Taliban and the Saudi&#8217;s to lose millions upon millions of dollars.

Then, surprise, surprise again, planes crash into our building killing both whites and browns. WHAT!? Did you say WHITES. So it&#8217;s off to war we go, to go fight another dictator who, of course, we armed and placed into power during the cold war when the commies were gonna kill us. Seeing a trend yet?

But, there is no oil or anything super cool that we can make money off of in Afghanistan. So, what can we do? I KNOW! We can blame Saddam for 911 because this fast food society is way too stupid too know better, then we can finally get that lose cannon out of power with the best money making scheme yet!

You see, the scheme goes like this: We take money from working America (Taxes) and we put it into our military budget to, this time, finance a war campaign in Iraq. We do this unilaterally so we can take over the oil fields and ONLY our companies will benefit. We don&#8217;t pay taxes on all the money we make because it&#8217;s overseas, and a few hundred or less people get EVEN MORE RICH then ever before!!!! Yay! Capitalism works so awesome!!!

And we can keep doing it because we&#8217;ll make the people afraid to vote out a war time President. Genius! But uh-oh&#8230;what if they find out our scheme? Carl Rove, what will we do? &#8220;I know!&#8221; Rove says. With media talking points to cloud the issue so much that people won&#8217;t know what to believe anymore we&#8217;ll confuse them. And then, get this (and this is the best part) we&#8217;ll scare the crap out of them! Boo! Terrorists are coming! Boooo! Fags are kissing! Boogy-Boogy! If you vote for this guy, God will hate you! Booo! Liberals are trying to have sex with your kids! And so on and nonsensically so on.
And now, we are back to business as usual. 4 more years of the same types of people (and in many cases, the same ACTUAL people) who have been doing these dirty deals since the 70&#8217;s running the show; and more brown people, and this time American citizens as well, get to die for it, and that same few hundred or less get to reap the financial rewards. Feel any safer yet? How&#8217;s that health care of yours treatin&#8217; ya?

So, you, or the likes of Ann Coulter for that matter, want to talk about the Kurds? How about before we get on our moral high horses about how bad of a guy Saddam is, why don&#8217;t we recognize how bad of a guys WE CAN BE sometimes, or at least how bad of guys our leaders which whom we let run the show can be? We want the killing of innocents to stop, how about we stop outright doing it ourselves, and how about we stop enabling dictators to do it for us in the name of the almighty dollar. We want to stop terrorism; we can start right here at home with our foreign policy.

We need to realize that the idea of &#8220;free-trade,&#8221; &#8220;mutual gain,&#8221; and our breed of &#8220;capitalism&#8221; is NOT the answer to everything. We should have let the world continue to be involved with weapons inspections rather then unilaterally trying to make money through taxpayer&#8217;s resources. Iraq was a bad dictatorship, no doubt; but so is N. Korea, Iran, Many Middle eastern Countries, Many South American Countries, and Many SE Asian countries, and the list goes on. And remember, many of these dictatorships WE ENABLED. Yet, people wonder why the rest of the world dislikes us so much? We can&#8217;t go in and take all the dictatorships militarily, but we need to stop supporting these oppressive dictatorships the way that we do, and we need to work with the world to do the same. No more double standards.

The recent Gulf war is only business as usual folks; another phase in the ongoing dirty business deals that have been going on between us and the middle east for decades now. And the Kurds? Just more brown people that got to die so that the few hundred or less can make money off these deals&#8230;that&#8217;s all that was. And it will only stop when all the red states as well as the blue are tired of being serfs for a small few, and have had enough of being afraid, and start voting a bit more consciously. I ain&#8217;t gonna hold my breath for that day.

There&#8230; now that THAT&#8217;S settled&#8230; anything else any of you would like to talk about?

Now, go find Ann Coulter and get me my thousand bucks&#8230; :wink:

Paul Janulis   
 :ultracool


----------



## Rynocerous (Nov 16, 2004)

Cheers,

Ryan


----------



## Rynocerous (Nov 16, 2004)

> By now we are extremely happy over the killing of Kurds because they were helping Iran at the time. And besides, they are brown people, and another general rule of foreign policy we really dont give 2 pooh-logs about brown people.


I don't think that "we" were happy about "brown people" dying, maybe about the Iran situation being controlled, but to say we were happy people getting murdered? 




> Well, St. Reagan and his many Christian soldiers decide that this is totally not fair for Iran to have our weapons, and Iraq to not. SO whats our solution? Thats right boys and girlsGIVE SADDAM WEAPONS AS WELL. So, in 82 we remove Iraq from the terrorist hate list (literally, the state dept had a list), and we decide to supply them with weapons. By 83 those weapons are used on brown people both in Iraq and Iran, and we of course dont care.


This I agree was a mistake and people didn't think this one through. Unfortunatley as you posted the US thought Saddam was their puppet, which I believe he never really was. 



> Screw the Geneva conventiontheyre only brown people anyways.


Once again with the brown people thing, I think it's because they aren't AMERICAN!





> And besides, Capitalism is SUCH a great thing. From 85-90, our companies sold Saddam Anthrax, Clostridium Botulinum (Biological Agent Botulism), Histoplasma Capsulatum (biological agent), Brucella Melitensis (Bio), Clostridium Perfingen (a gas that causes gangrene, biological), and E. Coli, among chemical agents. And, of course, we sold a lot of what was called duel technologies, or technologies that could be used to make weapons but can also be masked for other things. Some household companies involved: Hewlett-Packard, AT&T, Bechtel, Caterpillar, DuPont, and Kodak just to name a few. This was all in a 1994 Senate report.


This is intersting stuff, please post me a site where I can read this stuff.




> Then, surprise, surprise again, planes crash into our building killing both whites and browns. WHAT!? Did you say WHITES. So its off to war we go, to go fight another dictator who, of course, we armed and placed into power during the cold war when the commies were gonna kill us. Seeing a trend yet?


Once again it wasn't because their were whites, but AMERICANS! Their were also many other races in those buildings that you fail to mention, the problem is that you are seeing it the wrong way. They attacked our country, and our "people".



> But, there is no oil or anything super cool that we can make money off of in Afghanistan.


Is it so hard to believe that we attacked Afghanistan to get the Al Queda groups that maliciously attacked our American Civilians.



> And we can keep doing it because well make the people afraid to vote out a war time President. :disgust:


How did they ever intimidate the American people into voting Bush back into power?




> The recent Gulf war is only business as usual folks; another phase in the ongoing dirty business deals that have been going on between us and the middle east for decades now. And the Kurds? Just more brown people that got to die so that the few hundred or less can make money off these dealsthats all that was. And it will only stop when all the red states as well as the blue are tired of being serfs for a small few, and have had enough of being afraid, and start voting a bit more consciously. I aint gonna hold my breath for that day.


Now I must say that, there is more to this war than "just buisness as usual". There are other things going on over there that civilians aren't pivilaged to. People saying that it is buisness, and we are just killing "brown people" really offend me on a personal level. It's just to have someone saying that what we did overseas as murder for money, or that my friends along with many other servicemen died for no cause ****in ticks me off. I realize you aren't saying this, and I mean absolutely no disrespect, I just disagree with the way you worded a few of your statements.

Cheers,

Ryan


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 16, 2004)

Ryan,

I read that post with a bit of uncomfortableness too. But, don't take it out on Paul. While I don't want to speak for him (and he certainly doesn't need me to do so), I think the 'point' of Paul's post is that he is refuting our history in Iran/Iraq/Kuwait/Saudi Arabia *in the style of* Ann 'kill them all and convert what's left to Christianity' Coulture.

One difference between Ann the Nutcase and Paul is that Paul can probably back up his statements with fact. 

Between Ann and Michelle Malkin, the right wing echo chamber has at least two commentators that offend, hopefully, all of us on a personal level.

We'll see how Paul replies.

Mike


----------



## Rynocerous (Nov 16, 2004)

I'm am not arguing the fact of his posts by any means, he is very good with words, and any post I have read has been well researched.  I am just trying to say that maybe he could had used different wording in order to get his point across.  If I took it out of context I guess I will find out soon enough when he posts his reply which I'm sure he will.  Thanks for the advice, I never meant to come across in an attacking matter, but sometimes your emotions lead you to speak the emotion as well as the logic.

Cheers, 

Ryan


----------



## PeachMonkey (Nov 16, 2004)

Rynocerous said:
			
		

> This is intersting stuff, please post me a site where I can read this stuff.


 The Senate report on US exports to Iraq of WMD agents, and their use in the first Gulf War, can be found here:

http://www.gulfweb.org/bigdoc/report/riegle1.html

 To read specifically about the agents we exported to Iraq, see this specific section:

http://www.gulfweb.org/bigdoc/report/r_1_2.html#exports

 You will note from the Senate timeline that the United States and other nations continued to export biological warfare agents to Iraq AFTER Saddam Hussein had already used them both against Iranian troops and against Kurdish civilians.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 16, 2004)

Heh&#8230; Ryan, thanks for not getting too upset at my post. 

My post was thickly ridden with sarcasm and inflated oversimplifications to make a point. I realize that, and I am sorry if I was offensive. But Mike is correct&#8230;this is in a similar form of the likes of Ann Coulter and others who can say irresponsible and completely illogical overgeneralizations, yet get support from conservatives because the statements fit their worldview. Now, yes, I realize that there are people on the &#8220;left&#8221; who do it too, however when people like Michael Moore or Bill Marr are using sarcasm and humor to make a point, they admit that it is sarcasm and humor. The likes of Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin tote around their opinions as &#8220;fact,&#8221; and their offensive generalizations as &#8220;truth.&#8221; And that&#8217;s where I have a problem with them.

Now, don&#8217;t be a fox news watcher, though, Ryan, and allow my sarcasm to muddy the waters enough to where you miss all the other facts and valid points. :wink: Just because I was sarcastic, that doesn&#8217;t mean that the actual facts and the main points don&#8217;t still stand. 

I&#8217;ll address a few of your concerns    :

*#1. Brown people*: I agree, WE meaning you, I, and most of taxpaying America are good people, and don&#8217;t want to see anyone die, brown or otherwise. The &#8220;brown people&#8221; thing is a little sarcasm that has some truth to it; when we make policy that results in people dying, it ain&#8217;t usually white people dying. There are whole host of reasons for that, starting with the demonization of &#8220;the enemy&#8221;. When &#8220;the enemy&#8221; isn&#8217;t like you (dresses differently, talks differently), and especially doesn&#8217;t have your worldview, and especially ESPECIALLY doesn&#8217;t follow YOUR religion (In our case, Christianity), then it is a heck of a lot easier to accept enslavement, child labor, abuse, torture, and death. It is a way to psychologically distance ourselves from people we hurt. This worked well with our First Nation people&#8217;s (Indians), it justified Slavery for hundreds of years, and it justifies Corporate Slavery and our foreign policy today, among other things.

Now, you said something interesting. &#8220;Once again with the brown people thing, I think it's because they aren't AMERICAN.&#8221; Since when is it right, Christian, or moral to kill people because they are not American? I know that it is sometimes necessary to kill, but in many cases we do it, it isn&#8217;t. Yet it is O.K. because they aren&#8217;t American? I know that you don&#8217;t believe that, but it is statements like that that tell me that the propaganda is working a little too well, and it is statements like that that illustrate my point here.

Now, most of us Americans nowadays really don&#8217;t want to see these bad things happened to anyone. But there are a select few people in this country who have vast amounts of wealth, and who are deathly afraid of losing it, and who will do ANYTHING to ensure that they continue to make money, even if it means that a few people die. They distance themselves from the situation as much as they can, and they continue to support and make decisions that result in people dying. And, because they are so easily demonized, and the propaganda is so successful, we taxpayers allow it to occur.

*#2. Giving Saddam weapons, and puppetering: * No, dude&#8230;we DID think this one through, and that is the scary thing.

You see, there are three rules that we follow when we deal with other countries in terms of trade and foreign policy:

_1.	&#8220;Free Trade&#8221; _ &#8211; Free trade means that we MUST be able to trade with you and vice versa. The idea behind this is that if you trade and make money, we trade and make money, and then no matter what happens between us, we&#8217;ll both be making money so we won&#8217;t attack each other. You see, we trade to make money, and the very wealthy has convinced us that it would be a national security risk NOT too. Oddly enough, there is really nothing free about this sort of trade.

_2.	&#8220;Mutual Gain&#8221; _ &#8211; This is the idea of I make what I&#8217;m good at, you make what your good at, we trade, and everyone gains. It&#8217;s not a bad idea, but here is how it ends up working. Hey, brown people country, NO&#8230;you can&#8217;t make computers, cars, and medicine because we and a select few other countries have the worldwide patens and rights to that technology, so if you make those things we will send the blackhawks to police you because you&#8217;ll be violating these patens. However, Brown people, you ARE good at making rice. So, you make your rice, we&#8217;ll make our computers, cars, and medicine, and we&#8217;ll trade&#8230;you&#8217;ll gain, we&#8217;ll gain, and we&#8217;ll all be happy!

The problem is, how many tons of rice will it take to buy a computer? Lots; and lots of labor and resources to boot.  Under the idea of mutual gain, the 2nd and 3rd world will NEVER get ahead, and will always be trying to buy cars with grains of rice.

_3.	&#8220;Capitalism&#8221; _ &#8211; As it applies here our breed of Capitalism states that if everyone is making money, then everyone is happy. Problem is, some will only make a dollar for a days work, while dictators and our companies will make millions. So&#8230;not everyone is happy under this idea. This is especially considering that everything is done to take away the concept of &#8220;healthy competition,&#8221; which is an absolute requirement if Capitalism is going to work to any degree.

_4.	&#8220;Killing a few birds with one stone&#8221; _ &#8211; I don&#8217;t know what else to call it, so I call it killing a few birds with one stone. This is the idea that when we deal with other countries, we should try to make decisions that will fulfill many of our needs, regardless of whether or not it is a sound policy or the right thing to do. This leads to decisions like, &#8220;Hmmm&#8230;it is strategically good for us in the middle east to occupy Iraq, and we can make money off it, plus he is an evil dictator&#8230;so, lets tie 911 into Iraq and invade him instead of concentrating our efforts on real security risks like Bin Laden and Al Queda; security risks that don&#8217;t fit our other needs.&#8221; 

Now, when you understand the above, you&#8217;ll understand that yes, we knew exactly what we were doing when we put Saddam into power and supported his dictatorship. When you understand the above, you&#8217;ll understand that it really is profit over people, and trade over democracy and freedom, despite the fact that our propaganda will say that it is about the people of the other country, and that it is about giving them freedom and democracy. 

And, the real problem with the above is that only thing it is good at doing is making money for a select few. It does nothing good for us in protecting our security. We need to start realizing that Trade is not the answer to everything; and that if a dictatorship is going to violate rights of their own people, and if a dictatorship hates us and everything we stand for, then chances are they are going to try to screw us if they can in trade agreements. If we realized that, we wouldn&#8217;t be dealing with the likes of Al Queda and the Insurgence the was we are today. We also need to realize that Mutual gain only keeps countries poor, which makes them hate us, which is a security risk for us. We need to discover ways where everyone makes real money and gets ahead in trade deals, not just us and a few dictators. We need to realize that you can&#8217;t take out key components of capitalism, like healthy competition, and expect it to work and be fair for everyone. And&#8230;we need to realize that sometimes you have to do the right thing, instead of trying to see how many birds you can hit with one stone.

So you see, how we dealt with Saddam fits right in with our policies, which has backfired as it often does.

The problem is, most voters who need to start voting consciously on these issues don&#8217;t even know that these issues exist. The propaganda is working. 

_#3. 9-11_: I realize that terrorists hit our billions and killed thousands; white as well as brown. I was all for going after those responsible too.

But on top of going after Al Queda, what we need to all understand is that despite the theological beliefs that were used to get the hijackers to do it, the reason it occurred was because of an oil deal gone bad. This is the reality, folks. We should be angry at those who would attempt to do a deal like that with the likes of the taliban to make $$ as well; but instead we reelect them and their friends. Once again, the propaganda worked.

We also need to understand that the guy who was responsible for the attacks (Bin Laden) was a guy who we enabled to be in power to gain strategic positioning in the Middle East. Now although our reasons for supporting the Taliban was more related to the Soviet Union at the time, do you see the trend? We supplied the Taliban with weapons too, just like Saddam.

If we don&#8217;t want terrorism to occur, we can start with reforming our policies of supporting dictators and oppressive regimes to suit us, or a wealthy few.

*#4. *


> Is it so hard to believe that we attacked Afghanistan to get the Al Queda groups that maliciously attacked our American Civilians?



No&#8230;that is definitely why we attacked them. But that&#8217;s not what my issue was&#8230;why did we STOP attacking them to go after Saddam? (silly rap music in background) &#8220;If you wanna go and take a ride with me&#8230;.HEEY MUST BE DA MONEY!&#8221;

*#5. *


> How did they ever intimidate the American people into voting Bush back into power?



Umm&#8230; dude? This administration did a wonderful job of convincing people that Kerry was a liberal who would take away your guns (gun control) and your money (taxes), and that Kerry&#8217;s policies would invite terrorists to kill us, and finally (drum role please) Kerry wants to take away the &#8220;value&#8217;s&#8221; of good God-fearing Americans. That was the icing on the cake. Carl Rove can be accredited for getting 80 million or so of Christian-right voters who were AFRAID that if Kerry got elected, that their Christian values would be harmed. So&#8230;by making people AFRAID of losing their money, rights to self-defense (guns), lives (through terrorism), and Christian values, they got re-elected.

They were re-elected through fear, period. 

*#6. Our troops dying &#8230;*

This is the issue that fusterates me the most.

Our troops are there because they want to defend America and keep us safe, and I have nothing but respect and support for them. I have trained a small handful of them. You can see my &#8220;Support our Troops&#8221; page on my own website, which I&#8217;ll be updating.

However, why our troops enlisted to defend our country, and why they fight for us is not the same as why we send them. And, often, we send our young men and women to die so that a few can secure financial interests, and that is the reality.

And, that SHOULD piss you off. It totally pisses me off.

*#7. Sources * -  The sources are out there, but I am not going to spoon feed them on a thread where most who don&#8217;t agree with me aren&#8217;t going to look them up anyways. I&#8217;ve wasted plenty of time already in this thread. I can&#8217;t really sum up my political science degree in a few handy webpage links either.

But, you can start with that link in the last post. There is a lot of information there, and you can look at the links the left of the page.

You can do searches to find information here as well: http://www.opensecrets.org/

A list of Companies and materials can be found in a Senate report titled: &#8220;U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports to Iraq and their possible impact on health consequences of the Gulf War,&#8221; U.S. Senate, 103d Congress, 2d session, May 25, 1994.

Also released in 94&#8217;, although published in 92&#8217; from the U.S. general accounting office: Iraq: U.S. Military items exported or transferred to Iraq in the 1980s.&#8221; 

That out to give you a good start, anyhow. 

You see, the thing is, YOU and everybody else are going to have to want to seek out the information yourselves to genuinely want to find out the truth. Too often in the past I would spend time citing tons of sources, only to have those who dislike what I say because it doesn&#8217;t fit their worldview slough them off, not check them, and give illogical attacks regarding them, and continue to drink the cool-aid in their own idealactic boxes. But for those of you who want to honestly research and make an informed decision, I have given you a good start.

Thanks for the discussion,

Paul :asian:


----------



## Rynocerous (Nov 16, 2004)

Heh Ryan, thanks for not getting too upset at my post. 



> My post was thickly ridden with sarcasm and inflated oversimplifications to make a point. I realize that, and I am sorry if I was offensive.


No need to appologize, I never took direct offense, just couldn't read through your sacasm apparently.  Just on this topic, it usually stirs up emotions, I try to keep locked up.



> Now, dont be a fox news watcher, though, Ryan,


LOL,:uhyeah:  yeah I know...



Ill address a few of your concerns  :

*



#1. Brown people: I agree, WE meaning you, I, and most of taxpaying America are good people, and dont want to see anyone die, brown or otherwise. The brown people thing is a little sarcasm that has some truth to it;
		
Click to expand...





 
OK, once again sacasm I took on a personal note 
Now, you said something interesting. Once again with the brown people thing, I think it's because they aren't AMERICAN. Since when is it right, Christian, or moral to kill people because they are not American? I know that it is sometimes necessary to kill, but in many cases we do it, it isnt. Yet it is O.K. because they arent American? I know that you dont believe that, but it is statements like that that tell me that the propaganda is working a little too well, and it is statements like that that illustrate my point here.
		
Click to expand...

Actually, I was using sacasm here to prove a point, that you continued to elaborate on.  This is exactly the point I was trying to make to get away from the "brown people" comments. The US is a very diverse nation, as is the World.

* 

 Actually I believe that there is just as much, if not more Anti-Bush propaganda.  That is just what I seem to hear more.

_



 
#3. 9-11: I realize that terrorists hit our billions and killed thousands; white as well as brown. I was all for going after those responsible too.

.
 
*#4. *

Nothat is definitely why we attacked them. But thats not what my issue waswhy did we STOP attacking them to go after Saddam? (silly rap music in background) If you wanna go and take a ride with me.HEEY MUST BE DA MONEY!
		
Click to expand...

What is unfortunate is that everyone is focusing on the Iraq war and forgeting about the soldiers in Afghanistan, we are still infact fighting in Afghanistan.  I have many aquantences(pardon the spelling) that are still over there.  We need to continue our prayers, or whatever it is you believe in for our troops in Afghanistan._



*



#5. 

Umm dude? This administration did a wonderful job of convincing people that Kerry was a liberal who would take away your guns (gun control) and your money (taxes), and that Kerrys policies would invite terrorists to kill us, and finally (drum role please) Kerry wants to take away the values of good God-fearing Americans. That was the icing on the cake. Carl Rove can be accredited for getting 80 million or so of Christian-right voters who were AFRAID that if Kerry got elected, that their Christian values would be harmed. Soby making people AFRAID of losing their money, rights to self-defense (guns), lives (through terrorism), and Christian values, they got re-elected.

They were re-elected through fear, period.
		
Click to expand...

*There was a lot of cantidate bashing on both parts, I believe that you can't listen to the bashing, but their plans for the nation.  Like you said there is lots of propaganda out there, you shouldn't listen to either side.  

*



#6. Our troops dying  

This is the issue that fusterates me the most.

Our troops are there because they want to defend America and keep us safe, and I have nothing but respect and support for them. I have trained a small handful of them. You can see my Support our Troops page on my own website, which Ill be updating.

However, why our troops enlisted to defend our country, and why they fight for us is not the same as why we send them. And, often, we send our young men and women to die so that a few can secure financial interests, and that is the reality.

And, that SHOULD piss you off. It totally pisses me off.
		
Click to expand...

Cheers.....* :cheers: 

Thanks for writing back, and being civil, like I said I never want to come off as a jerk, but sometimes the emotions get the better of you.  Thanks for the disscusion, and I'm sure it will continue.

Cheers,

Ryan


----------



## 5 hand swords (Nov 16, 2004)

The Kurd's The Kurd's?

"Get out of the freeking Desert people, Nothing grows there"

Sorry, but I am a big Sam Kenison Fan and he did a 10 minite bit on the Kurd's situation in the R.R./Bush1 era that is so Ironic now (based on events since) and this thread just triggers the punch line.

Stupidity Kills, No Appeals allowed, and Political correctness really is a euphamisium for CENSERSHIP
but I would rather laugh than cry about it.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 16, 2004)

5 hand swords said:
			
		

> The Kurd's The Kurd's?
> 
> "Get out of the freeking Desert people, Nothing grows there"
> 
> ...




The Kurds don't live in the desert.  They live in one of the lushest areas of Iraq.  I saw footage of it when we went in with Spec Ops troops who supported them.  Gorgeous green hills.   The northern part of that country looks beautiful...from what I've seen.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 16, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> The Kurds don't live in the desert.  They live in one of the lushest areas of Iraq.  I saw footage of it when we went in with Spec Ops troops who supported them.  Gorgeous green hills.   The northern part of that country looks beautiful...from what I've seen.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> ...




Hmmm, seems information has corrected ignorance.

As to being a minority in an ever growing religous country that has more power over them, I empathize with them, and thier desire to pracitce their own beliefs and systems.

:asian:


----------



## Erik (Nov 17, 2004)

I'm confused about one thing - what's the debate about the Kurds that "liberals" (I don't believe in asinine political stereotypes) are avoiding?  

Is it that they've been brutalized by Saddam, and hence we should invade to save them?

Nice to see some informed political science going on.  I got my BA in Int'l Relations and Comparative Politics specializing the in the Middle East.  This thread is far more sophisticated than anything I've seen in the past couple years outside of Foreign Policy magazine or the Economist.

But what's their sand doing on top of our oil, anyway?


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 17, 2004)

Well, its like I said before, Erik.

If our prerequisite for invasion is 1) brutal dictator who murders his own people, 2) is a threat to surrounding regions, and 3) hates the United States...

... then, we've got about two dozen nations' rulers on our hit list. Is anyone seriously proposing that we take 'em all on??  :idunno:


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 17, 2004)

> Is anyone seriously proposing that we take 'em all on??



"YES! "YEEEESSSS!! I propose we go after 'em. After em' all! We start with the ones who have stuff we want, like oil, bleed em' dry, enslave their people, then move on to the next one. I will kriogenically freeze my head, and come back in a few hundred years looking like Krane from the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon, and I will rule the world! THE WORLD!!

Bwaahahahhhahahahaaa!!! hahahha!!! uh....ah ah aaaaa!!!!

*ahem* "

Your fearless leader,

Tricky Dick Cheney


----------



## Jay Bell (Nov 17, 2004)

Erik,

Many on the far left don't like discussing the Kurds...because it ruins their, "Iraq was such a nice place before we attacked them" stand.  I've spoke with a guy at the pub who, with a straight face, asked me (with some force), "What exactly was the big deal with Saddam anyway?  It's not like he was doing anything wrong."

Anyone catch the possible Sarin viles found in Fallujah?  Should be interesting how it pans out.


----------



## Erik (Nov 17, 2004)

Ah, now I understand, Jay.  I'm from Silicon Valley - not friendly to Bush & Co., but I didn't know anyone who thought Iraq was the Garden of Eden.  

Just not a threat to us.

Good posts, by the way, Heretic888.

-E


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 17, 2004)

Jay Bell said:
			
		

> "What exactly was the big deal with Saddam anyway?  It's not like he was doing anything wrong."


Eww. Yea...that's retarded.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 17, 2004)

Jay Bell said:
			
		

> Erik,
> 
> Many on the far left don't like discussing the Kurds...because it ruins their, "Iraq was such a nice place before we attacked them" stand. I've spoke with a guy at the pub who, with a straight face, asked me (with some force), "What exactly was the big deal with Saddam anyway? It's not like he was doing anything wrong."
> 
> Anyone catch the possible Sarin viles found in Fallujah? Should be interesting how it pans out.


Just so there is no confusion:

*I am a Liberal, and Damn Proud Of It!*

I would like to address this idea, put forth by Jay Bell, about what Iraq was like before our invasion. In fact, I started a thread on this topic here:


http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17258

I suppose it would be really nice for the likes of Jay Bell if the liberals were indeed saying that Iraq was such a nice place before we invaded. We weren't. In fact, it was a pretty horrible place to live. Liberals put in place the Oil-For-Food program to assist the Iraq people in their struggles under the United Nations Sanctions. And those who oppose the 'Liberals' like to attack that program because it (like many other large scale projects) was subject to abuse (have you heard about the 15 billion dollar Big Dig recently?).

Hell, our Liberal Candidate was proclaim he was going to hunt down and kill the terrorists. Something I think he had to say to be considered for president, but completely offensive to me. Hunt down, capture and bring to justice is one thing, but this terminology is offensive.

If we want to kill the terrorists so bad, lets drop a couple of nuclear weapons in the hills between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Let Allah figure them out. (which by the way is a totally repugnent idea to me). Go conservatives!!

It really would be easier if what Jay Bell is claiming is what Liberals were saying. But, just as not all conservatives are saying the Grand Canyon was created when God flooded the earth and Noah built is boat (what's a cubit), but it sure is easier to paint them that way, ain't it.

Mike



But,


----------



## Jay Bell (Nov 17, 2004)

Er...Mike...have you read my last post?


----------



## Flatlander (Nov 17, 2004)

Jay Bell said:
			
		

> Anyone catch the possible Sarin viles found in Fallujah? Should be interesting how it pans out.


According to the embedded journalist on this news clip, they were Sarin test kits.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 17, 2004)

Jay Bell said:
			
		

> Er...Mike...have you read my last post?


Do you mean the post where you said ... 



			
				Jay Bell said:
			
		

> Many on the far left don't like discussing the Kurds...because it ruins their, "Iraq was such a nice place before we attacked them" stand. I've spoke with a guy at the pub who, with a straight face, asked me (with some force), "What exactly was the big deal with Saddam anyway? It's not like he was doing anything wrong."


Ahh ... Yes, I did.


----------



## Jay Bell (Nov 17, 2004)

Flatlander - Yeah...that's the ones.  When it first broke, they said it was sarin...then they said that it was testing kits for sarin contamination...then they said they were 'testing to find out'.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Nov 17, 2004)

Jay Bell said:
			
		

> Flatlander - Yeah...that's the ones.  When it first broke, they said it was sarin...then they said that it was testing kits for sarin contamination...then they said they were 'testing to find out'.



What appears to be most likely is that the cases were Russian test kits for Sarin contamination that either included actual Sarin samples, or the insurgents were trying to convert to actual Sarin for weaponisation.

In either case, it's hardly a significant sign to a missing WMD stockpile.


----------



## TonyM. (Nov 18, 2004)

We didn't help the Kurds because of our public school system. Had we known the Kurds were really Celts rather than ***** I'm sure something would have been done.


----------



## TonyM. (Nov 19, 2004)

Sorry for the language folks. I'm not really good at sarcasm.


----------



## 5 hand swords (Nov 19, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> The Kurds don't live in the desert. They live in one of the lushest areas of Iraq. I saw footage of it when we went in with Spec Ops troops who supported them. Gorgeous green hills. The northern part of that country looks beautiful...from what I've seen.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> ...


Re-Read - I said sorry that it was a joke in the post, not only that but It was a SAM KENISON joke.

OHHH! OHHH! OOHHHH!

SIGH.

Too bad but what the heck - Sam had to deal with critisism for makeing Medically Incorrect Jokes too.


----------

