MIssion Accomplished in Iraq?

Post by **spot** » Sat Jun 18, 2005 5:06 am

Far Rider wrote: Why do you as a Canadian need to be so much in the business of the United States anyway? You already said you don't want or appreciate the protection afforded you already.Why do Americans so often think that their military and political adventurism outside of their own borders is of no concern to non-Americans? That seriously baffles me. You offer no protection, Far Rider, either to yourselves or others. The consequences are, rather, the dashed hopes for peaceful growth and the raised unresolved tensions which result in increased recruitment to extremist organizations. If you want a long-term example, look at what a cesspool of poverty and corruption US interference has made of Central and South America. You seriously don't think Saddam was on the CIA payroll? Let's talk about Noriega instead, then. He's rather less deniable.

If you want to help, then take off the uniform, put on a bandana and sandals, write a legible placard and join the protest. Handing out pills that induce chills is the wrong thing to do entirely.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Jun 18, 2005 8:54 am

There is part of the difference in our views. I think children should be raised to believe they can make a difference. I'm no Ghandi but I'm someone. My nine year old daughter is also a peace activist right beside me. I think it is one of the incredible things we do together. I am teaching her to make a difference.

Just about every word in your response proves how people are cajoled into following the group despite their best moral judgement. Having empathy I am less subject to the charms of persuasion.

Starting thinking is an ethical act. Stopping thinking is...the second most classical method of pain avoidance in the human bag of tricks, the first being to deny that anything is wrong enough to make a fuss about.

Carol Bly, Changing the Bully Who Rules The World

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Jun 18, 2005 10:03 am

spot wrote: Why do Americans so often think that their military and political adventurism outside of their own borders is of no concern to non-Americans? That seriously baffles me. You offer no protection, Far Rider, either to yourselves or others. The consequences are, rather, the dashed hopes for peaceful growth and the raised unresolved tensions which result in increased recruitment to extremist organizations. If you want a long-term example, look at what a cesspool of poverty and corruption US interference has made of Central and South America. You seriously don't think Saddam was on the CIA payroll? Let's talk about Noriega instead, then. He's rather less deniable.

If you want to help, then take off the uniform, put on a bandana and sandals, write a legible placard and join the protest. Handing out pills that induce chills is the wrong thing to do entirely.
yes, i've heard that the best defense against a bomb-weilding, knife carrying, surface-to-air missile -carrying islamic fundamentalist zealot is a placard.

don't know about the sandals though. i think that would impede the ability to run like hell.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jun 18, 2005 10:27 am

anastrophe wrote: yes, i've heard that the best defense against a bomb-weilding, knife carrying, surface-to-air missile -carrying islamic fundamentalist zealot is a placard.

don't know about the sandals though. i think that would impede the ability to run like hell.Do you know how you get a bomb-weilding, knife carrying, surface-to-air missile -carrying islamic fundamentalist zealot in the first place? You find yourself a Muslim, who may indeed have a knife about his person, knives are useful non-military tools. Then you slap him about for a while, spit on his mother, blow a few limbs off his siblings, teach him how to manufacture bombs, as and when he needs them, at one of your client mujahideen training centers, and finally give him a lot of money so he can buy a crate of surface-to-air missiles off you (thereby feeding your reptile fund back into the economy and artificially sustaining it). Why would you do that? Because without an enemy, you have neither the public support you need for your imperial adventures abroad, nor the demand for production in your weapons forges.

There are many defenses against a bomb-weilding, knife carrying, surface-to-air missile -carrying islamic fundamentalist zealot, but the simplest and safest is not to build one in the first place. To which end I'll carry my placard.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Jun 18, 2005 10:35 am

spot wrote: Do you know how you get a bomb-weilding, knife carrying, surface-to-air missile -carrying islamic fundamentalist zealot in the first place? You find yourself a Muslim, who may indeed have a knife about his person, knives are useful non-military tools. Then you slap him about for a while, spit on his mother, blow a few limbs off his siblings, teach him how to manufacture bombs, as and when he needs them, at one of your client mujahideen training centers, and finally give him a lot of money so he can buy a crate of surface-to-air missiles off you (thereby feeding your reptile fund back into the economy and artificially sustaining it). Why would you do that? Because without an enemy, you have neither the public support you need for your imperial adventures abroad, nor the demand for production in your weapons forges.

There are many defenses against a bomb-weilding, knife carrying, surface-to-air missile -carrying islamic fundamentalist zealot, but the simplest and safest is not to build one in the first place. To which end I'll carry my placard.
so who created the jihadists of the 17th century, who threatened to overrun half of europe and were only stopped by a colossal effort at vienna? ah. of course. your christian zealot crusaders, some 900 years earlier.

the jihadis want your throat slit, regardless of america having 'created' them (a lovely, convenient phantasy, but a phantasy nonetheless).

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Sat Jun 18, 2005 10:37 am

spot wrote: Do you know how you get a bomb-weilding, knife carrying, surface-to-air missile -carrying islamic fundamentalist zealot in the first place? You find yourself a Muslim, who may indeed have a knife about his person, knives are useful non-military tools. Then you slap him about for a while, spit on his mother, blow a few limbs off his siblings, teach him how to manufacture bombs, as and when he needs them, at one of your client mujahideen training centers, and finally give him a lot of money so he can buy a crate of surface-to-air missiles off you (thereby feeding your reptile fund back into the economy and artificially sustaining it). Why would you do that? Because without an enemy, you have neither the public support you need for your imperial adventures abroad, nor the demand for production in your weapons forges.

There are many defenses against a bomb-weilding, knife carrying, surface-to-air missile -carrying islamic fundamentalist zealot, but the simplest and safest is not to build one in the first place. To which end I'll carry my placard.So we are creating our own enemy for public support?

spot you are out there man..........

WOW!!

I bet it somehow all goes back to the belief Bush planned 9/11 in advance for his oil cronies?

Post by **spot** » Sat Jun 18, 2005 10:43 am

BTS wrote: So we are creating our own enemy for public support?

spot you are out there man..........

WOW!!

I bet it somehow all goes back to the belief Bush planned 9/11 in advance for his oil cronies?Boy George, or "Bush" as you so quaintly name him, couldn't even organize an enebriated afternoon tour of his local brewery for a small group of intimate friends, and in my opinion never could. He's one of life's failures, fronting for a shoal of barracuda.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Jun 18, 2005 11:04 am

If an individual commits a crime should the police ask him why he did it before deciding to arrest him? No. That is the job of a trial and jury.

As far as I'm concerned, if a country commits a crime it's leaders should be brought up on charges regardless of why they did it. The why is irrelevant. Some people kill because their dog told them to. It doesn't change the fact that a crime was commited.

Was a crime commited? The Downing St. Memo is lending support to that conviction.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Jun 18, 2005 11:49 am

koan wrote: If an individual commits a crime should the police ask him why he did it before deciding to arrest him? No. That is the job of a trial and jury.

As far as I'm concerned, if a country commits a crime it's leaders should be brought up on charges regardless of why they did it. The why is irrelevant. Some people kill because their dog told them to. It doesn't change the fact that a crime was commited.

Was a crime commited? The Downing St. Memo is lending support to that conviction.
lending support to that "conviction"? poor choice of words in my opinion, when talking about crime, justice, and prosecution.

unless, it would seem, you've already decided that they should be convicted.

the downing street memo, thus far, has no credence. is there a site somewhere with an actual photograph of the memo? has it been forensically examined?

until such time as it is, it's little more than 'rathergate' to me.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Jun 18, 2005 12:10 pm

anastrophe wrote: lending support to that "conviction"? poor choice of words in my opinion, when talking about crime, justice, and prosecution.

unless, it would seem, you've already decided that they should be convicted.

the downing street memo, thus far, has no credence. is there a site somewhere with an actual photograph of the memo? has it been forensically examined?

until such time as it is, it's little more than 'rathergate' to me.

I think it is a great choice of words. I have a political conviction that the US administration should be brought up on charges of war crimes. That I think they are guilty is essential to having that belief and the play on words is, I think, quite clever.

If you examine, as closely as you do mine, the words used by the US president to gain support for the war you will find much more interesting uses of words. Words classic to mass manipulation, in fact.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Jun 18, 2005 12:24 pm

koan wrote: I think it is a great choice of words. I have a political conviction that the US administration should be brought up on charges of war crimes. That I think they are guilty is essential to having that belief and the play on words is, I think, quite clever.

If you examine, as closely as you do mine, the words used by the US president to gain support for the war you will find much more interesting uses of words. Words classic to mass manipulation, in fact.
apparently, the dumb-as-a-monkey boy george is so skilled at manipulating other people with his cunning use of words ("disassemble - that means lying!"), that he was able to convince not just those in his own party in the House and Senate, but all but one or two of those in the other party to vote in favor of going to war with iraq. the democratic senator from massachusetts, whose name i can not for the life of me remember, said in the presidential debates that he would have done *precisely what mr. bush did* based upon the evidence that he and all of congress reviewed before going to war. If that evidence was as flimsy as has been suggested, then we have two of the three branches of our government populated with anencephalics.

this of course isn't far fetched, but it's beside the point.

i have no doubts that the evidence that was presented to the administration was faulty. i have no doubts that the administration *wanted* to see a threat, and acted on the evidence with that is the desired outcome. i do not believe that the administration fabricated the evidence in order to mislead the public into war. i believe the administration was misled themselves by zealots in the (ironically labeled) "Intelligence" community. again, that they lept at the opportunity presented by the evidence is not something i dispute.

but i believe if you wish to discuss "war crimes", as with any crime, *intent* is a critical part of the formula.

i have no doubt that you believe that their intent was de facto malevolent, that they intentionally misled the american public, and that they are a cabal of greedy corporate thieves who invaded iraq in some bizarre plan to line their pockets.

we will have to agree to disagree. you believe i'm deluded. likewise.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Jun 18, 2005 12:29 pm

That plot is not so bizarre. Mass manipulation by a government is a repitition of history. And a scary one.

Convincing you that the government has commited a crime is not my ultimate goal here, anastrophe. I may not convince you, but I just might convince a number of other readers visiting this thread.

The one advantage we have now to prevent history from repeating itself is the internet.

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Sat Jun 18, 2005 12:44 pm

koan wrote: That plot is not so bizarre. Mass manipulation by a government is a repitition of history. And a scary one.
So how mass koan? Did not Russia, Great Britain, and DEMOCRATS say he had them too?

Just LISTEN to what the DEMOCRATS were telling us................All along

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | ource

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

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

- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source

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

- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Letter to President Clinton.

- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | target=_blank>Source

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 |

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."

- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Jun 18, 2005 3:39 pm

Powell said in Cairo, February 24, 2001

"He (Saddam) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons af mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours"

2 months later: Rice reportedly said "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt"

source

turbonium · Post by **turbonium** » Sat Jun 18, 2005 7:30 pm

One good satire deserves another.....

Satire Award

WASHINGTON, DC Ã¢â‚¬â€ President Bush's humorous reference to not being able to find Iraq's weapons of mass destruction has won the prestigious Radio and Television News Correspondents Association satire award for 2004.

"The fact that the President can see satire in the tragic deaths of over 500 US troops in Iraq is truly brilliant," said a spokesman for the RTNCA.

Donald Rumsfeld was said to be disappointed that his remarks about 'known knowns' and 'known unkowns' did not win the award. Mr. Rumsfeld had told reporters, "As we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know."

On a more serious, non-satirical note...

BushJoke

David Corn of The Nation magazine was one of the few journalists openly critical of Bush, writing on The Nation's website: "This was a callous and arrogant display. For Bush, the misinformation-- or disinformation-- he peddled before the war was no more than material for yucks. As the audience laughed along, he smiled. The false statements (or lies) that had launched a war had become merely another punchline in the nation's capital." MSNBC's Chris Matthews also seemed appalled by the media's reaction (3/25/04): "Well, there's four or five cases where the president told a yuck about the fact he couldn't find weapons of mass destruction, and the press being supportive in their laughter. Maybe sycophantic, but they laughed."

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Jun 18, 2005 8:58 pm

turbonium wrote:

what is that a photo of? i can't make it out.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Jun 19, 2005 3:08 am

posted by far rider

Koan I'd really like to patronize you some more but I won't

Ok back to 'business'. You and I won't agree, I'm pretty smart huh, I figured that out already!

If you were my Daughter I'd give you a big ol hug and tell you not to worry your pretty head about it cause you're not gonna be able to do a thing about it. You can't change it.

You can beat your head aginst the wall if you want to, but it will just make that flat red spot on your forehead a little flatter and redder! hahahaha...

Ok so All I have to say about your comment above is... 'we' are not a world government. 'we' are the USA.

If you were my Daughter I'd give you a big ol hug and tell you not to worry your pretty head about it cause you're not gonna be able to do a thing about it. You can't change it

Interesting comment, Are you saying that in a free democracy an individual can have no impact or even influence on what the political elite what to do? What a negative outlook on things.

Ok so All I have to say about your comment above is... 'we' are not a world government. 'we' are the USA.

I would just like to offer my heartfelt sympathy, it must be tough being a American and I don't envy you at all.

Joking aside have any of you read this

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

especially section 2 the foundation of new terrorism.

Hopefully you would accept it as a credible source, unless you hold to the theory that the 911 commission was taken over by the US equivalent of the loony left.

I was going to quote bits but since but am unable to copy and paste from the report.

If you are looking for black and white answers forget it, the whole history is just not that simple. Hopefully nations can learn from the past and not keep doing the same things. But the present always has the roots in the past.

Iraq was one of the mandated territories post ww1, put quite simply we wanted the oil in the middle east, industry and empire the two are interlinked. It was pure unadulterated, unashamed imperialism in all it's glorious hypocrisy and brutality you are highly inlikely to find anyone in the UK that would disagree with that. You are also highly inlikely to find anyone ready to go to war unless directly attacked.

Global war on terror is one thing, but the problem is there is not one cause or one single nation state-a clear enemy you can attack and destroy. Going in to Iraq is a distraction-there was no connection to 911, the intelligence reports were manipulated to make the case for war both here and in the US. Warfare is the ultimate last resort, it is not a game there is no such thing as a limited war, especially in this day and age when he destructive power is so immense.

In a free society before you go to war the question should be is there really, really no alternative. Personally I think after the first gulf war there was plenty of justification for regime change then, if one country attacks another then why **** about?

US and UK armed forces are possibly the best in the world, go in flatten an enemy, not as an occupying force. Iraq is no longer a threat, Saddam is removed maybe the UK and US forces should pull out now and leave the iraquis to sort out their own mess.

GW is I think acting in what he sees are america's interests-it's a moot point whether the actions taken actually are. Cynical manipulation of the US political processes or not I would like to think the US people can sort things out, after all it is their freedom and their troops that are at risk and that are dying. You do seem rather set on a course leading to governence by a socio-political elite, hence my slight dig at far-rider. Do you really feel so helpless that you can't have any say in what happens? Is there no free press left in the US

TB, god knows what he is up to, never mind perhaps now there will be a demand for electoral reform to stop areseholes liek him getting power with less than 20% support.

posted by Anastrophe

the downing street memo, thus far, has no credence. is there a site somewhere with an actual photograph of the memo? has it been forensically examined?

until such time as it is, it's little more than 'rathergate' to me.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... _1,00.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 24,00.html

http://theinternetforum.co.uk/bbc/gilligan1.html

Don't know about a crime being committed but actions taken by ethical individuals for what they thought were decent motives or cynical self interested manipulation?

turbonium · Post by **turbonium** » Sun Jun 19, 2005 3:56 am

anastrophe wrote: what is that a photo of? i can't make it out.
It's a slide of Bush "looking for WMD's" in the Oval Office!

Here's a video link of the event....Bush Joke

Here's a link to the story itself...Nation

At a black-tie dinner for Radio and Television Correspondents' Association on Wednesday, Bush poked fun at himself and his administration for among other things not finding weapons in Iraq.

At one point Bush showed a photo of himself looking for something out a window in the Oval Office. He said: "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere."

After a few more slides, there was a shot of Bush looking under furniture in the Oval Office. Bush said "Nope. No weapons over there." Then another picture of Bush searching in his office. He said "Maybe under here."

According to the Nation's David Corn many of the journalists at the dinner laughed throughout the skit.

But the Daily News is reporting that the families of soldiers killed in Iraq are not laughing.

George Medina who lost his son in Iraq said, "This is disgraceful. He doesn't think of all the families that are suffering. It's unbelievable, how this guy runs the country."

Medina's son, Special Irving Medina died at the age of 22 in Baghdad on November 14.

I have to say, joking or not.........it is NO joke!!

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Jun 19, 2005 7:07 pm

FR

It's just as well if you truly back out. All the phrasing you use is repititious of the propaganda used against the American public to manufacture your consent. You do your side of the argument more harm every time you speak. Mind you, it is in my benefit if you keep spouting it off...but it's getting almost embarrassing.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jun 19, 2005 7:24 pm

At some point in your lives, you American apologists for your regime are going to be asked what you did to stop what was happening, while it could still be brought under control, much as Germans who sat back and either watched or cheered through the 30s were eventually asked. You remember the standard German civilian excuse? "Nobody could see what it would lead to, nobody told us"? None of you, ever, give those excuses, when you're asked. You have been told what's going on, you revel in what's going on, you're allowing it to go on. If you're not against them, you're for them. Remember it.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Sun Jun 19, 2005 7:47 pm

This thread has turned into more sanctimonious preaching crap than I have patience for. Spot and koan, enjoy yourselves, you're in great company. Each other's.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:21 pm

maybe this preaching is more to your taste:

Project for the New American Century.

notable signatories: Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Dan Quayle, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz

The site outlines the plans that have been in development for global domination by the USA since 1997. All of this was planned, people. They say so themselves.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:31 pm

Are we so alone in protest to the war?

http://gallery.muzi.com/pfg/english/1003597.shtml England protests

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/mar20 ... -m21.shtml Canada protests

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/mar2005/us-m21.shtml

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/mar20 ... -m21.shtml US protests

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/mar20 ... -m21.shtml Europe protests

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/mar20 ... -m21.shtml Australia, New Zealand and Asia protests

this is just a 'five second' search result.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:36 pm

gmc wrote:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... _1,00.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 24,00.html

http://theinternetforum.co.uk/bbc/gilligan1.html

to repeat my query, "the downing street memo, thus far, has no credence. is there a site somewhere with an actual photograph of the memo? has it been forensically examined?"

to which i have since learned that the reporter who released the leaked memos states that he destroyed the originals, and the photocopies of them, after they had typed up the text from the originals "on an old fashioned typewriter.Ã¢â‚¬Â

how utterly convenient! no originals. no copies. only a transcription *typed on a typerwriter*. in the year 2003!

forgive my cynical skepticism.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:55 pm

anastrophe wrote: to repeat my query, "the downing street memo, thus far, has no credence. is there a site somewhere with an actual photograph of the memo? has it been forensically examined?"

to which i have since learned that the reporter who released the leaked memos states that he destroyed the originals, and the photocopies of them, after they had typed up the text from the originals "on an old fashioned typewriter.Ã¢â‚¬Â

how utterly convenient! no originals. no copies. only a transcription *typed on a typerwriter*. in the year 2003!

forgive my cynical skepticism.

Would the people who risk their careers, their lives and the lives of their families to bring confidential information to the public eye forgive you? That is the real question.

You want freaking fingerprints or something? Unbelievable.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sun Jun 19, 2005 9:03 pm

koan wrote: Would the people who risk their careers, their lives and the lives of their families to bring confidential information to the public eye forgive you? That is the real question.

You want freaking fingerprints or something? Unbelievable.
i guess you've forgotten Rathergate already. unsurprising.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Jun 19, 2005 10:21 pm

It is no one story, document, book or article that has convinced me of my beliefs. Just like in a debate, you can discredit one thing but it does not crumble the whole argument. The Downing St memo has not been discredited, there is video tape of officials announcing their knowledge that Iraq posed no threat to the US prior to the attack, and there is the PNAC site that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Bush are connected to saying that taking Iraq was a priority in the year 2000. The accumulation of evidence is what I keep in mind.

This is also the point where I feel the need to mention that most of your info comes from right wing sources.

turbonium · Post by **turbonium** » Sun Jun 19, 2005 10:36 pm

Has the Downing St. memo, if now destroyed, been denied as false or written as something different by Blair, Bush or anyone in the know??

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sun Jun 19, 2005 10:59 pm

koan wrote:

This is also the point where I feel the need to mention that most of your info comes from right wing sources.
whatever, koan. keep making it up as you go along, slinging unsupported - and unsupportable - accusations towards me; i won't see them any longer. you crossed a line of decency with me yesterday, with your crudely crafted "question", and that's enough for me. you have a curious way of treating people who extend the hand of friendship to you.

you didn't ask for it, but my last piece of advice for you is to first work on finding peace within your heart, before you move on to trying to create peace in the world. you can't work effectively towards the latter without the former.

i hope you find that peace, i mean that sincerely. ciao.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sun Jun 19, 2005 11:04 pm

turbonium wrote: Has the Downing St. memo, if now destroyed, been denied as false or written as something different by Blair, Bush or anyone in the know??

i dont' know, but i have a feeling that blair, bush, whomever feel no need to deny it or confirm it, since there's no evidence remaining, it could be 100% true and accurate, or it could be a complete fabrication.

pink princess · Post by **pink princess** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:26 am

BabyRider wrote: This thread has turned into more sanctimonious preaching crap than I have patience for. Spot and koan, enjoy yourselves, you're in great company. Each other's.
well put!

pink princess · Post by **pink princess** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:29 am

koan wrote: Are we so alone in protest to the war?

you can protest all you want - hasnt got anyone very far though has it

the people who are protesting are an embarrassment - how can you possibly say you are in the cause for peace when there was such an evil dictator in power - iraq was really a safe peaceful country wasnt it.....perhaps it is in a state right now but the changes/benefits are creeping in...... peace my ***

Bothwell · Post by **Bothwell** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 2:11 am

At some point in your lives, you American apologists for your regime are going to be asked what you did to stop what was happening, while it could still be brought under control, much as Germans who sat back and either watched or cheered through the 30s were eventually asked. You remember the standard German civilian excuse? "Nobody could see what it would lead to, nobody told us"? None of you, ever, give those excuses, when you're asked. You have been told what's going on, you revel in what's going on, you're allowing it to go on. If you're not against them, you're for them. Remember it.

So now the USA is being compared to Nazi Germany????

I have to say that I get so mad of this attitude. Where is this utopia where the world just gets along in love nad harmony with never any need for military action?. It has not, does not and will never exsist.

There will always be certain situations that will require military action, the very fact that you can spout these views is a testament to hard won freedoms. I am not particularly proud of Mr Balirs actions in this conflict but by the same token I think he did what he thought was right. No sane person could object to the removal of Saddam Hussein.

The question i would have for the peacemongers is this. Is it ever right to use military force?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 3:02 am

posted by anastrophe

to repeat my query, "the downing street memo, thus far, has no credence. is there a site somewhere with an actual photograph of the memo? has it been forensically examined?"

to which i have since learned that the reporter who released the leaked memos states that he destroyed the originals, and the photocopies of them, after they had typed up the text from the originals "on an old fashioned typewriter.Ã¢â‚¬Â

how utterly convenient! no originals. no copies. only a transcription *typed on a typerwriter*. in the year 2003!

forgive my cynical skepticism.

Cynical skepticism is good, I just wish you applied it a bit more to some of the pronouncements made by your own administration. The Downing Street memo is not that big an issue here as most people are well aware that intelligence was being doctored to make the case for war and that the decision was taken and then evidence garnered to support the necessity. That's why I put in the link to the Hutton report.

Andrew Gilligan unfortunately embellished things as well and rather destroyed his credibility but the kernel of his story that intelligence reports were"sexed up" is now beyond dispute, "may have" became "does have" and so forth. Maybe not TB directly but those around him certainly did. Apart from any other consideration before going to war you should check and double check every bit of detail. TB has now publicly acknowledged that the intelligence was wrong but still has to apologise, what most people accept is that things were altered to make the case for war and those involved ignored anything that disagreed with what they wanted to do. He makes a point of not meeting with the parents of British soldiers who have died in the war as the resulting confrontation would

The BBC is not as left wing as sometimes portrayed-it's remit is to present both sides of the debate and not, most emphatically not, to speak for government. We expect to see TB and his cronies being given a hard time by our political commentators. While the basis of the Gilligan story was true he lost credibility by doing exactly what he accused the government of doing. Given half a chance it's probable that TB would like to cointrol the BBC, each party when in power complains vehemently about criticism by the BBC.

Excuse the slight digression but it is relevant re the Downing Street memo-like I say it is not a big issue because we already know we were conned. Nobody is bothered because it is not telling us anything not already known. I suspect the main reason most went along in the UK parliament was because it seemed unbelieveable our government would lie to that extent. Don't be fooled by his getting back in-we are in dire need of electoral reform TB is now almost as despised as Thatcher was, except she was never accused of being a -well never mind.

posted by anastrophe

i guess you've forgotten Rathergate already. unsurprising.

An anchorman gets caught out misleading the public, not checking his sources properly and his career is over, a politician gets caught out misleading the public and not checking his sources and they get re-elected. Who says americans don't appreciate irony

posted by Koan

maybe this preaching is more to your taste:

Project for the New American Century.

notable signatories: Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Dan Quayle, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz

The site outlines the plans that have been in development for global domination by the USA since 1997. All of this was planned, people. They say so themselves.

Must admit when I first heard about the PNAC I thought it was a daft conspiracy theory, on another forum when i posted the link enquiring what people thought the general response was that it was a false site out up by anti war activists-which makes little sense as I can't see the alleged signatories not objecting and getting the site shut down. I still wonder sometimes if it is a mickey mouse (bogus) site, if not then should it not be cause for concern?

In the UK what you don't see is those criticising the war being accused of not supporting the troops or being unpatriotic or supporting terrorism. Because it is so patently ridiculous and an attempt to stifle debate by playing the patriotism card. Patriotism does not mean you follow blindly, the typical response is more of a traditional &*()) )((* It's a free country I can say what I like.

Like the British the US is an all volunteer army and will do whatever they are asked to the best of their ability but before putting their lives ion the line the question should be asked is this really the only way to deal with this situation.

I happen to think the invasion of iraq had nothing to do with fighting terrorists and if anything is making more terrorists. Yes it might be in America's interests to go to war to secure the region, personally I'm not convinced but that is a debate for american's to have amongst themselves assuming they can argue about it without being shouted down as unpatriotic. Whether it is agood idea in the long run for the rest of the world is rather debateable as well.

posted by Bothwell

I have to say that I get so mad of this attitude. Where is this utopia where the world just gets along in love nad harmony with never any need for military action?. It has not, does not and will never exsist.

There will always be certain situations that will require military action, the very fact that you can spout these views is a testament to hard won freedoms. I am not particularly proud of Mr Balirs actions in this conflict but by the same token I think he did what he thought was right. No sane person could object to the removal of Saddam Hussein.

I'm inclined to agree that he did what he thought was right, but to get support intelligence reports were altered and pressure put on the attorney general to legitimise the action about to be taken. Hardly the actions of a man of integrity, amd i don't think much of those around him either. I also happen to think that Saddam should have been kicked out after the first gulf war. Doing it now and the way it was done is I think is making warfare in the middle east more likely not less. We now have an openly militaristic American administration advocating a policy of pre-emptive warfare and basically telling the rest of the world to go play with itself.

Warfare is sometimes necessary but as a last resort. What we see with GW is realpolitik clothed in delusional morality. The only good thing about it is the US is a democracy so he does need to keep the american people behind him, hopefully the nuttier elements will be kept in check.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 10:02 am

gmc wrote:

Cynical skepticism is good, I just wish you applied it a bit more to some of the pronouncements made by your own administration.
people see what they want to see. that i am not an apologist for the bloodthirsty jihadists (who are the ones killing civilians in iraq by the thousands - not the military forces) doesn't mean that i'm thus contrarily a flag waving, bush loving, right wing sycophant.

several of the apologists for terrorists, despots, and dictators, here on forumgarden, do indeed see me as the latter above. with that sort of an audience...well, let's just say i'm happy to be reviled by them.

TB has now publicly acknowledged that the intelligence was wrong but still has to apologise, what most people accept is that things were altered to make the case for war and those involved ignored anything that disagreed with what they wanted to do.
indeed. however, it should be acknowledged also that husseins threat, regardless of WMD's, was real. he funded suicide bombers, shortly before the war the weapons inspectors *did* come across missiles that had been modified to go further than assorted UN sanctions allowed, and those missiles were destroyed (have people forgotten so easily the SCUD missile attacks on israel and saudi arabia during the first gulf war? the US was pushing back an invasion into kuwait - nice targeting there, saddam). he was actively *trying* to get a WMD program going, that is incontrovertible. he provided shelter for terrorists - abu nidal lived in a lovely villa in baghdad it is worth noting.

does any of that change that the intelligence was 'sexed up' to make the case for war? nope. that it was thus exaggerated, however, does not mean on the other hand that hussein was *no* threat, that he did *not* have intentions to build and deploy WMD's. he was sanctioned 17 times for violations of UN resolutions. he thumbed his nose at the UN 17 times. he and his cronies embezzled billions in the food-for-oil debacle, depriving those who the food was intended for, and giving it to his delightful republican guard instead. his people, iraqi children, starved, while he counted his cash (as did an awful lot of people in and out of the UN, it seems). some of the apologists claim that life was better under hussein, which is one of the most remarkable phantasies i've ever heard.

An anchorman gets caught out misleading the public, not checking his sources properly and his career is over, a politician gets caught out misleading the public and not checking his sources and they get re-elected. Who says americans don't appreciate irony
it's not *quite* that simple. the rathergate memo was forged up with the intent to tamper with the presidential election. the document was a complete fabrication, that looked very, very real. dan rather/cbs news lept at the opportunity to tamper with the election. that it brought his downfall is irrelevant to the story. that one of the 'big three' television networks would engage in that sort of violently anti-democratic activity is rather important.

again, people see what they want to see. the apologists for hussein assume that i was, and am, for this war because i don't overtly hate 'boy george'.

i'm not responsible for their delusions.

Post by **spot** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 10:17 am

By Associated Press

Posted June 20 2005, 12:45 PM EDT

NEW YORK -- The director of the CIA says he has an "excellent idea" where Osama bin Laden is hiding, but that the United States' respect for sovereign nations makes it more difficult to capture the al-Qaida chief. The United States' respect for sovereign nations? Oh lord, a director of the CIA with a sense of humor. That's priceless.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 2:27 am

posted by anastrophe

indeed. however, it should be acknowledged also that husseins threat, regardless of WMD's, was real. he funded suicide bombers, shortly before the war the weapons inspectors *did* come across missiles that had been modified to go further than assorted UN sanctions allowed, and those missiles were destroyed (have people forgotten so easily the SCUD missile attacks on israel and saudi arabia during the first gulf war? the US was pushing back an invasion into kuwait - nice targeting there, saddam). he was actively *trying* to get a WMD program going, that is incontrovertible. he provided shelter for terrorists - abu nidal lived in a lovely villa in baghdad it is worth noting.

I would agree with you there and that is also why I think he should have been removed then, (carefully skating over any comment about how he got the equipment to develop weapons in the first place). Nothing in the middle east does any of the nations involved any credit.

Hopefully things will work out in Iraq but Iraquis have to do it themselves. Saddam would have eventually fallen in Iraq At some point foreign troops need to just get out and leave them to it if it's not soon then how long before they pull out?

Warfare as a tool of diplomacy just doesn't work I happen to think you should only ever go to war when all else fails and with the single intent of destroying your enemy otherwise it's just tribal conflict over resources in a 21st century cloak.

The UN was a long way from perfect but if the alternative is quarreling nation states squaring up to each other life coulkd get quite interesting.

I think it should be mandatory that any political leader that wants to go to war should be put in the first tank, humvee whatever and told you lead we'll come along behind and take notes. Some of my other fantasies are more colourful but this is the wrong kind of forum.

posted by Anastrophe

it's not *quite* that simple. the rathergate memo was forged up with the intent to tamper with the presidential election. the document was a complete fabrication, that looked very, very real. dan rather/cbs news lept at the opportunity to tamper with the election. that it brought his downfall is irrelevant to the story. that one of the 'big three' television networks would engage in that sort of violently anti-democratic activity is rather important.

I don't actually know the full story with rathergate-never actually heard of Dan rather before.

posted by Anastrophe

again, people see what they want to see. the apologists for hussein assume that i was, and am, for this war because i don't overtly hate 'boy george'.

i'm not responsible for their delusions.

ditto almost except I get fed up with people assuming that becaue I am agin the war I hate all americans and support terrorism.

posted by pink princess

you can protest all you want - hasnt got anyone very far though has it

the people who are protesting are an embarrassment - how can you possibly say you are in the cause for peace when there was such an evil dictator in power - iraq was really a safe peaceful country wasnt it.....perhaps it is in a state right now but the changes/benefits are creeping in...... peace my ***

An embarrassment to whom? I'm afraid you live in a country where there is along history of protest and dissent and where blind patriotism and militarism has hopefully had it's day. There is something wrong with those who don't question how this war came about, or ask was there really no alternative.

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 6:28 am

Iraq is being liberated. Of it's resources and economy. Welcome to the wonders of privitization. Almost all of Husseins laws were immediately stricken, except the ban on labour unions. Are these the people who have tears of joy and thanks in their eyes?

http://www.projectcensored.org/publicat ... 05/17.html

But the CPA, while striking down almost all of HusseinÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s other laws, has kept the ban on unions, keeping wages low and unemployment high (at about 70 percent). They are privatizing the state enterprises that employed most of the workers. As of December 2003, 138 of the 600 state-owned businesses were being offered for sale.

On Sept. 19, 2003, the CPA published Order No. 37, which suspends income and property taxes for a year and limits future taxes to 15 percent. Later that day, they issued Order No. 39, permitting 100 percent foreign ownership of businesses (except oil) and allowing repatriation of profits. Outright ownership of, access to, and profits from Iraqi oil fields is still under dispute Ã¢â‚¬â€œ although it is likely that U.S. interests will prevail.

The CPA has set an emergency pay scale for Iraqi workersÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ wages, which for most is $60 a month. This is the same wage scale that workers had under the Hussein regime. Benefits under Hussein included frequent bonuses, profit sharing, medical coverage, and food subsidies. There is no overtime pay under the CPA, no benefits, and an increase in the exchange rate has made imports and essential items very expensive. Workers have had a drastic cut in income since April 2003 as a result of CPA decisions.

Low wages arenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t the only problems unions hope to combat. Working conditions are exhausting and dangerous. Under the Hussein regime, the workday was seven hours long. Now a day shift is 11 hours, a night shift is 13 hours. Safety glasses and other safety equipment are virtually unknown in most industries. If workers get sick or hurt, they must pay for their own medical care and also lose pay for the time they miss. Ã¢â‚¬Å“Life has gotten much worse,Ã¢â‚¬Â said one worker. Ã¢â‚¬Å“Everything is controlled by the coalition. We donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t control anything.Ã¢â‚¬Â

Post by **spot** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 7:24 am

anastrophe wrote: people see what they want to see. that i am not an apologist for the bloodthirsty jihadists (who are the ones killing civilians in iraq by the thousands - not the military forces) doesn't mean that i'm thus contrarily a flag waving, bush loving, right wing sycophant. No, indeed.

There's a lot of assuming going on. "the apologists for hussein assume that i was, and am, for this war because i don't overtly hate 'boy george'?" Well, no, I don't assume you're for this war on those grounds. I'm more than happy to comment on what you write, assessing your position from your actual words, without ever making any assumptions about you.

Let me express exactly what I think of your fair nation, and try to scotch this underlying assumption that I hate America. For the whole of my life I have thought America and Americans to be, on balance, invigorating, healthy, worthwhile, uplifting, exciting. Not very good at rock music, but not everyone can have everything.

Then, in September 2001, the belly of the beast opened and the spawn of Satan oozed out over the land. Your president took an entire month out of circulation, briefed daily by George Tenet who then sat in a restaurant near the White House with (allow me to speculate here) one of the chief architects of your Reichstag moment, David Boren, while the day's events unfolded around them both.

Now, America and Americans are still, on balance, invigorating, healthy, worthwhile, uplifting, exciting, and still not very good at rock music. Unfortunately, the current White House administration and whoever is backing it has hijacked the reins of Federal power. They, the hijackers, can only afford to relinquish them when they have implemented their New American Century. They could only have started on implementing their New American Century once a Reichstag moment had occurred, and they even said exactly that in their published apologia:

Further, the process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor.I've always liked America and Americans. I still do. I'm trying to help all of you to get your country back, before the proposed legislative changes make it impossible. I've no idea which way it will pan out, but now's the time to make a difference.

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 7:27 am

But G.W, what about that unfinished with al-Qa'ida and those other terrorists around the world?

turbonium · Post by **turbonium** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 8:16 pm

capt_buzzard wrote: But G.W, what about that unfinished with al-Qa'ida and those other terrorists around the world?
Is it really the intent to finish that? Why kill the Bin Laden goose that layeth the golden egg bombs? :wah:

BuckTurgidson · Post by **BuckTurgidson** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 8:28 pm

turbonium wrote: Is it really the intent to finish that? Why kill the Bin Laden goose that layeth the golden egg bombs? :wah:

Are you trying to say that the good old US of A is sandbagging its 'Hunt for Bin Laden'? Gee, whatever gave you that idea?

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Jun 22, 2005 1:15 am

spot wrote: I've always liked America and Americans. I still do. I'm trying to help all of you to get your country back, before the proposed legislative changes make it impossible. I've no idea which way it will pan out, but now's the time to make a difference.have you ever set foot in america? spent time here? how long ago?

it's easy to make broad statements - histrionic ones at that - when you have no idea what the reality is from 'over here'.

there's no 'get[ting] our country back' because we haven't lost it. i don't know what proposed legislative changes you're talking about that would 'make it impossible' to do so (ignoring that the front-loaded proposition is false to begin with).

'get our country back'. what a load of poppycock. the hyperbole is astonishing. absolutely astonishing. your image of state that america is in is a fiction.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Jun 22, 2005 1:34 am

the apologists for hussein assume that i was, and am, for this war because i don't overtly hate 'boy george'.
i worded this rather badly, rendering it ambiguous. let me try again.

"the apologists for hussein assume that i was, and am, for this war.

they assume this because i don't overtly hate 'boy george'.

i was not, and am not, in favor of the iraq war.

BuckTurgidson · Post by **BuckTurgidson** » Wed Jun 22, 2005 2:45 am

there's no 'get[ting] our country back' because we haven't lost it. i don't know what proposed legislative changes you're talking about that would 'make it impossible' to do so (ignoring that the front-loaded proposition is false to begin with).

'get our country back'. what a load of poppycock. the hyperbole is astonishing. absolutely astonishing. your image of state that america is in is a fiction.

Its pretty tough to get something back that you never had in the first place.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jun 22, 2005 6:24 am

anastrophe wrote: have you ever set foot in america? spent time here? how long ago?

it's easy to make broad statements - histrionic ones at that - when you have no idea what the reality is from 'over here'.

there's no 'get[ting] our country back' because we haven't lost it. i don't know what proposed legislative changes you're talking about that would 'make it impossible' to do so (ignoring that the front-loaded proposition is false to begin with).

'get our country back'. what a load of poppycock. the hyperbole is astonishing. absolutely astonishing. your image of state that america is in is a fiction.I do seem to have conflated two streams of thought, and you're quite reasonably getting me to untangle them.

In terms of legislative changes, the one in particular that I had in mind isn't associated with a permanent destruction of democracy in the USA, but it does cut out a great deal of oversight by Congress. I had in mind the potentially draconian powers (by which I mean a monotonous litany of Death, Death, Death) of the Sunset Commission, and the fact that it was railroaded into existence in the Supplementary Budget Bill a month ago. H.Con.Res.95 refers, and I can't give you a URL for it, it's cgi/cookie related. http://thomas.loc.gov will find it easily.

SEC. 502. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING A COMMISSION TO REVIEW THE PERFORMANCE OF PROGRAMS.

It is the sense of the Senate that a commission should be established to review Federal agencies, and programs within such agencies, including an assessment of programs on an accrual basis, and legislation to implement those recommendations, with the express purpose of providing Congress with recommendations, to realign or eliminate Government agencies and programs that are wasteful, duplicative, inefficient, outdated, irrelevant, or have failed to accomplish their intended purpose.Now, that ought to scare people, and it didn't even get debated, it got tacked onto a must-pass bit of legislation.

The other half, then. The existing emergency powers available to the President in time of emergency, and the consequence of having a power-crazed White House invoking them. I have a couple of paragraphs of an interview with General Tommy Franks, 20 months ago. He sums up the scenario far better than I could:

General Tommy Franks: An exclusive interview with America's top general in the war on terrorism, Monday, December 01, 2003.

Now, let me talk to the substance of your question: Two years after the fact of 9/11, we should ask ourselves what isÃ¢â‚¬â€not in 1941, not in 1917-1918Ã¢â‚¬â€today, in the twenty-first century, what is the worst thing that can happen in our country? The worst thing that can happen is, perhapsÃ¢â‚¬â€and this is my personal opinionÃ¢â‚¬â€two steps. The first step would be a nexus between weapons of mass destruction of any variety. It could be chemical, it could be biological, it could be some nuclear device; and terrorism. Terrorists or any human being who is committed to the proposition of terror, try to just create casualties, not for the purpose of annihilation, but to terrify a population. We see it in the Middle East today, in order to change the mannerisms, the behavior, the sociology and, ultimately, the anthropology of a society.

That goes to step number two, which is that the western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we've seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy. Now, in a practical sense, what does that mean? It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive casualty-producing event somewhere in the western worldÃ¢â‚¬â€it may be in the United States of AmericaÃ¢â‚¬â€that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass-casualty-producing event. Which, in fact, then begins to potentially unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps: very, very important.I agree, if America's Reichstag Moment was actually a bolt from the blue with no prior knowledge on the part of the White House, then all of Tommy Franks' predicted future events are as innocent as apple pie. If, on the other hand, not, then not. That's the place where we can't really meet. I'm sure we can look at the two possible interpretations of recent world history and agree an consequence in each, even if neither of us think both worlds are possible.