Politics, Everyday, All day... morning, noon and night....

[geekster]

Right, and I am saying that I see no evidence that the CIA helped put Saddam in power. The only thing I see is that they tried (and failed) to use him as an assasin (since he SEEMED like he might be pretty good in that role and later proved to be) in the 1950's but he was forced to flee. I see nothing that shows he had any further support of the CIA after that. In fact it was his own family that helped put him in power after he got out of prison in 1966.

[DVD Burner]

See here's the thing,

None of these guys want to take blame for anything they've done. No one is gonna be the only one involved when it comes to colosal fuck ups. The same with creating Hitler and the same with the war now and the world trade center. Take another look at whom is running the world.

[tonytohono]

Meet me at the Thunderdome

IN this corner we have DVD, and in that one is Joel...

[Simply Joel]

See here's the thing,

None of these guys want to take blame for anything they've done. No one is gonna be the only one involved when it comes to colosal fuck ups.

how did you come up with that conclusion?

don't you think there are factors beyond "the facts" as you put it?

where is that "plonk" function when you need it.

[DVD Burner]

See here's the thing,

None of these guys want to take blame for anything they've done. No one is gonna be the only one involved when it comes to colosal fuck ups.

how did you come up with that conclusion?

don't you think there are factors beyond "the facts" as you put it?

where is that "plonk" function when you need it.

If there are factors beyond "the facts" post them. you never do. You just criticize. At least Geekster makes an attempt to come back with some kind of facts.

[Simply Joel]

See here's the thing,

None of these guys want to take blame for anything they've done. No one is gonna be the only one involved when it comes to colosal fuck ups.

how did you come up with that conclusion?

don't you think there are factors beyond "the facts" as you put it?

where is that "plonk" function when you need it.

If there are factors beyond "the facts" post them. you never do. You just criticize. At least Geekster makes an attempt to come back with some kind of facts.

According to current and former U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, Iraq was then regarded as a key buffer and strategic asset in the Cold War with the Soviet Union. For example, in the mid-1950s, Iraq was quick to join the anti-Soviet Baghdad Pact which was to defend the region and whose members included Turkey, Britain, Iran and Pakistan.

here, out of your own post is another "factor" you seem to overlook... the cold war... required alliances to a real threat... of course, that doesn't fit neatly into your conspiracy theories...

you know, at least my stepson has valid reasons for his ignorance...

[geekster]

If there are factors beyond "the facts" post them. you never do. You just criticize. At least Geekster makes an attempt to come back with some kind of facts.

Which you haven't, DVD. You repeat a very well known fact that the CIA in the 50's used assasination againt communists. You also state that the CIA supported Saddam as an assasin. But you then leap to the conclusion that the CIA had something to do with installing Saddam in power without any supporting information of that. Because Saddam had contact with the CIA some 15-20 years earlier does not by a long shot mean that Saddam was installed or supported by the CIA in 1979. I would not be surprised, based on what was going on in Iran in 1979 if there were some contact with him, but so far I have found nothing that shows CIA support in his attaining of power. In fact, everything that I can find points to Saddam's failure as a CIA operative.

Please, I am still waiting for some information saying that the CIA somehow had more influence than Saddam's uncle did. He was the real power broker there and I also see no connection between the uncle and the CIA.

[DVD Burner]

just remember, the liberties you enjoy today were bought and paid for by the blood, sweat and tears of American servicemen and women over the past 350+ years... that's right, American Revolution militiamen

Being a military man yourself I'm sure you'll probably get upset with the truth of this fact:

I understand you speak of the militia but militants are made to take orders not give them. Usually where any military takes over is the beginning of failure.

cites? specific references?

I meant to answer this a long time ago but I could'nt find the CIA facts in time so anyhoo....In answer to your question, cites on failures of military take overs, here it is:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/fac ... os/iz.html

Formerly part of the Ottoman Empire, Iraq was occupied by Britain during the course of World War I; in 1920, it was declared a League of Nations mandate under UK administration. In stages over the next dozen years, Iraq attained its independence as a kingdom in 1932. A "republic" was proclaimed in 1958, but in actuality a series of military strongmen have ruled the country since then, the latest was SADDAM Husayn. Territorial disputes with Iran led to an inconclusive and costly eight-year war (1980-88). In August 1990, Iraq seized Kuwait, but was expelled by US-led, UN coalition forces during the Gulf War of January-February 1991. Following Kuwait's liberation, the UN Security Council (UNSC) required Iraq to scrap all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles and to allow UN verification inspections. Continued Iraqi noncompliance with UNSC resolutions over a period of 12 years resulted in the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003 and the ouster of the SADDAM Husayn regime. Coalition forces remain in Iraq, helping to restore degraded infrastructure and facilitating the establishment of a freely elected government. The Coalition Provisional Authority transferred sovereignty to the Interim Government on 28 June 2004.

[DVD Burner]

From another BM list:

"The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in
the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those
basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the
foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life."
-- Adolph Hitler, Berlin, 1933

"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy,
All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the peacemakers
for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
-- Nazi Reich Marshall Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg War Trials

[DVD Burner]

any of these sound familiar?

[Simply Joel]

any of these sound familiar?

no, 'cause i am not hung up on items (Nazi quotes) you believe to be relevant and i find irrelevant... the comparisons you make, IMHO, are way off base.

[Simply Joel]

holy cow... a brillant blinding flash of the obvious...

DVD, i just realized, you don't have a point, and if you do, it is only to antagonize... create a lot of heat but no illumination...

as Bob might say... "mercy, mercy mercy"

[DVD Burner]

If there are factors beyond "the facts" post them. you never do. You just criticize. At least Geekster makes an attempt to come back with some kind of facts.

Which you haven't, DVD. You repeat a very well known fact that the CIA in the 50's used assasination againt communists. You also state that the CIA supported Saddam as an assasin. But you then leap to the conclusion that the CIA had something to do with installing Saddam in power without any supporting information of that.

Ok, so now I am:

These are too long to post so I will just post the links.
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/217.html
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/09.18A. ... s.iraq.htm


I'll get to more (Credible) ifo later when I get home. (It will be soon. I'm at work now.)

[geekster]

The first article says more of the same. It repeats stuff up to the 1963 coup ... forgets to mention that it was overthrown and Saddam thrown into prison until 1966 and then fast-forwards to the present as if having hired Saddam as an assasin in the 50's and 60's somehow means that we installed him in power. He was a thug. A hired gun. His family installed him in power, not the US.

The second article doesn't have must of substance at all. It somehow tries to make some kind of link between what was going in Iran and tries to take a dot from the 1960's and a dot in the 1980's and attempt to draw a line between them to imply that US support was continuous during that time but again leaves out any details of what support we might have actually GIVEN in the 70's.

A lot of these article attempt to indict by implication without giving any substance. Along the lines of ... he had contact with our government in the 60's and he had contact in the 80's so he MUST have had contact in the 70's, right? I say maybe. Show me. That's all. I am not taking any sides, I am ready to look at any facts. I just haven't seen any. He has had contact when it has been in our best interest to have contact and he has been hunted down and arrested when it has been in our interest.

Honestly, my guess is that our people where hoping he WOULDN'T rise to power. They could have probably made much better "use" of him as a mid-level government official with powerful family connections. The only "support" I can see that we gave him, if you can call it support, is keeping him alive in exile until 1963. After that he was pretty much on his own and did, in fact, manage to land in prison but escaped to his uncle's protection in Tikrit.

[geekster]

Like Marion Barry, crack smoking former Washington DC mayor once said ... "There are two kinds of truth. There are real truths and there are made-up truths. " I am not saying you aren't telling a truth, DVD, I think we are simply looking for different kinds of it.

[DVD Burner]

[DVD Burner]

pretty much sums it up.

[geekster]

A great article from, of all places, the San Francisco Chronicle which has actually started to impress me more and more over the past, oh, six months or so in their diversity of viewpoints that they are suddenly allowing to see the light of day.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... 9NRA91.DTL

[Simply Joel]

excellent read, g'ster...

this excerpt i find especially appreciate.

...it's hard for me not to chuckle just a little bit, because those rural Midwesterners issued a display of political power that the know-it-alls on either coast will not soon forget.

[DVD Burner]

[Alpha]

> SF Chronicle article

I struggle with it, truly. I've spent 2/3rds of my life in Ohio, Wyoming, Florida, Illinois and Indiana. The other third goes to Massachusetts and California. Of course it's ridiculous to characterize everyone in a non-coastal state as some backwoods hillbilly / hayseed. On the other hand, you have this:

A recent survey by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland found that nearly 70 percent of President Bush's supporters believe the U.S. has come up with "clear evidence" that Saddam Hussein was working closely with Al Qaeda. A third of the president's supporters believe weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. And more than a third believe that a substantial majority of world opinion supported the U.S.-led invasion.

Anyone who believes even a single one of the above lies, should have been challenged at the polls as too uninformed to vote.

[cowboyangel]

Sadly, the site would support that claim more credibly if it didn't also have porn links splattered all over it. One gets the impression that the photos and videos are there to satisfy some kind of sick fetish.

cowboyangel wrote:
WARNING! EXTREME HORRIFIC VIDEOS AND PICTURES FROM THE IRAQ WAR. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE THE STOMACH FOR THIS PLEASE LEAVE NOW.
THIS IS NOT A JOKE. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!

War is not the solution to ANYTHING. It breeds only more hate, revenge and continual hostility. We cannot shoot our way out of this. This is insane. Do the right thing and write or call your senators and congressmen demanding that we find a better solution than bombing and war to solve this crisis.

Now, here's the link http://ogrish.com/index.htm



Awww Yeah. Now that's what I'm talkin about. See ya gotta tell it like it is.




ya sorry about the porn stuff there..I was just trying to save all you folks from having to register with TerroristVideos.com, that's where the link to ogrish is.

[DVD Burner]

see CA you need to post things for the slow in the heads this way:

http://www.ogrish.com/attachments/2004/ ... arqawi.wmv

otherwise they come up with excuses as to why they got distracted from the truth.

[DVD Burner]

I think instead of slapping the salmon a slapp upside the head is in order.

[geekster]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... nelson.DTL

That one is for DVD from a (gasp!) San Francisco Bush supporter

Sorry, dude, you just make it so ... easy. It makes a nice point, though. One that I tried to make a few days ago, but not as a Bush supporter.

[cowboyangel]

jeez geekster you can do better than that lame ass shit from SF Gate..no body believes that crap except cholesterol hardened pundits. Check this out for rebuttal

eorge W. Bush won a victory, not a "mandate" by claiming the narrowest margin of voters for an incumbent president since Woodrow Wilson in 1916 (see John Nichols's Online Beat for more on this history).

Unlike real landslides such as 1984 when Ronald Reagan won forty-nine of fifty states and drubbed Walter Mondale in the popular vote, Bush barely squeaked through to victory. On election day, a substantial number of voters--in many cases a majority-- believed the country was headed in the wrong direction, opposed the war in Iraq and disapproved of Bush's first term, according to recent polling. Almost 56 million people--the second highest total in US history-- supported John Kerry, not to mention Republicans who voted for Bush despite deep misgivings about the deficits and the war.

A difference of 136,000 votes in Ohio is nowhere near a "mandate."

More than ever, Bush should fulfill his broken first-term promise to be a "uniter, not a divider." Especially when 90 percent of Americans favor a "crash program" to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil, 68 percent support all forms of stem cell research and 61 percent want the US to hold a referendum in Iraq on whether US troops should leave, as a recent Luth Research Group survey showed.

Instead, to the gleeful ears of his supporters, Bush flatly proclaimed at his first post- election press conference: "I've earned capital in this election, and I'm going to spend it." Translation: expect even more extreme right-wing policy both abroad and at home.

First, there's Iraq. For months Bush has neglected the mounting casualties and awful realities on the ground, postponing any costly action until after the election. "He'll be much more aggressive in Iraq now," a Bush insider told New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd. "He'll raze Falluja if he has to. He feels that the election results endorsed his version of the war." This imminent destruction of Falluja could be the deadliest battle for US forces since Vietnam, a senior Marine surgeon told Knight-Ridder. But, as a senior Iraqi Defense Ministry official said, "Now, their hands are free."

Domestically, Bush and the expanded Republican majority in Congress will push for a cynical counterweight to LBJ's "Great Society"--privatizing Social Security, drastically slashing taxes, dismantling thirty years of regulation and starving the federal government of New Deal social services. "[It's] time to start thinking beyond just growing the economy," House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said on election night, "And about fundamentally strengthening it by ridding our economy of over-taxation, over- regulation, and over-litigation that have hamstring it for decades."

To enact this radical remaking of modern government, Republicans plan to bully the weakened Democrats into submission. "Any farmer will tell you that certain animals run around and are unpleasant, but when they've been fixed, they are happy and sedate," anti-tax zealot Gorver Norquist told the Washington Post in an unintended nod to Orwell's Animal Farm. "They don't go around peeing on the furniture."

Whether or not the Democrats decide to capitulate to the extremist Republican agenda, the GOP will undoubtedly heap rewards on their "moral values" evangelical base. "As we say in Texas, he's going to dance with the one who brung him," Rev. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention told Newsday . "We haven't come to this place to go home and not push our values and our beliefs." Culture warrior William Bennett says that he expects President Bush to enact "The Great Relearning," which includes appointing judges who will undermine abortion rights and possibly overturn Roe v. Wade, passing a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, expanding faith- based initiatives and turning churches into political establishments.

Turning The Great Society into Jesusland should require more than 51 percent of the vote.

[DVD Burner]

Oh hey....Dont get me wrong. I never said nor do I think that Kerry would have been a better President or solve any problems. If you look up all of my posts I said that Kerry was not gonna be any better and that even if he was elected the guys that are behind the scenes now would still be behind the scenes doing the dirty deed.

In essence what I have been always saying is that either way America is fucked.

All I'm doing is posting facts of how fucked America is and why.

[geekster]

I guess I am more of an optimist. I think we are a lot less fucked than a lot of other places. I believe that Afghanistan is better off now than it has been in decades (try reading The Bookseller of Kabul for a local's perspective) and I think once the process of getting rid of the die-hard trouble makers in Iraq, that country will be much better off than it has ever been. There should be at last ONE Arab country that is a true republic and not a monarchy, dictatorship, or other de facto autocracy. There isn't one currently.

I am not going to buy into the concept of finding fault with America. I have no idea how old you are but I have been hearing it for decades. One gets a bit jaded at the rhetoric from both sides after a while. When Clinton was running against Geo. HW Bush it was "the most important election in our lifetime". You know what? The most important election in our lifetime is the one you are facing right now. Whichever one is next is most important because it decides your future.

This is hopefully the last posting I make on the subject of Election 2004. I just want to ask people not to drive forward while staring into their rearview mirror. Don't preach to the choir, your friends that think the same as you are not who you need to convince. Don't criticise the existing state, define a new one and explain why it is better. Be proactive rather than reactive. Be bold, be unafraid to lay out your beliefs. People will respect you more for it. If you lay out 10 clear goals and lay out exactly how you intend to reach them, people can oppose 3 or 4 of them and still vote for you. At least they will know exactly where you stand, what to expect, and know how to begin to counter those 3 or 4 positions that they don't agree with. But most of all, don't blindly follow. Always question. Question your own party of choice, suggest improvements, participate. Don't be afraid of your own thought evolving and your stance on things changing. Look at alternative political parties and see if there might be one more aligned with your thinking.

Personally, I wish Teddy Roosevelt was still around. We could use someone like him. What happened in 1912 was that the Republican party was too conservative so it split. A more liberal faction, the Progressive Party became the Bull Moose party with Roosevelt as it's candidate. They got 25% of the vote and cost Taft a second term to Woodrow Wilson. The Republican's wised up after, cleaned up their act, and the Bull Moose/Progressive party was re-absorbed into the Republicans. That kind of thing is good from time to time. Sometimes in order to fix something, you must completely break it and put it back together again.

[geekster]

Actually, Cowboy, I wasn't pointing to the "SF Gate" (which is the SF Chronical's website) as much as I was pointing to Jennifer Nelson. I liked that particular article of hers. It made a good point. Stop and listen, try to understand, try to reach out.

She also points out that the far left in San Francisco seems to have their heads buried in the sand are are flailing about blaming everyone else, calling people names, and generally refusing to even consider that THEY might be incorrect in some way. As long as they continue that line of thought, they aren't going anywhere but more and more to the margins. Refuse to accept the reality all you want, you are not going to make progress with that attitude.

[diane o'thirst]

There should be at last ONE Arab country that is a true republic and not a monarchy, dictatorship, or other de facto autocracy. There isn't one currently.

Do you mean "Arab" or "Muslim?" Because if it's the latter, there is one: Turkiye. But it's part of the European Union, which is probably why most people overlook it.
Under the Muslim banner is also Indonesia. More Muslims there than in Arabia.