Does Saddam Capture = Bush Re-election?

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Wed Dec 31, 2003 11:49 am

I absolutely agree affg. The thing is, whomever the footsoldier is, he needs to be convinced to go throw away his life in the name of something. A leader can't go to him and say 'hey, could you strap this bomb to yourself in the name of my shameless power grab?' Likewise, Bush can't go to the reservists and say 'hey, uh, could you possibly throw away a year of your life so that Cheney's pals can sell gas for $2.34 a gallon in one of the most oil rich nations in the world? Thanks, your the best.' The masses need to be conned into fighting for their betters. Especially in this country nowadays when our betters are too slick to ever do any fighting themselves. Shit, at least in medieval warfare you might occasionally see his lordship leading the charge, or at least present on the battlefield.

All of this, I believe, is not quite as necessary however, when you are resisting an occupation. When foreigners with guns are walking around abusing their power the population does not really need a bogus impetus to get antsy. Witness Northern Ireland and Iraq.

As far as America being the root of all evil, no. Corrupted power hungry governments, here or elsewhere, yes.

ecliptic · Post by **ecliptic** » Wed Dec 31, 2003 1:22 pm

Likewise, Bush can't go to the reservists and say 'hey, uh, could you possibly throw away a year of your life so that Cheney's pals can sell gas for $2.34 a gallon in one of the most oil rich nations in the world? Thanks, your the best.

Once again, this is your opinion. You cannot join the armed services, reserve or otherwise, and not expect to ever be called up. That is your job. If you don't like the possibility of ever having to do it, you should not have joined. I realize my opinion is in the minority on these boards, that's why I've tried to avoid posting in these threads for the longest time. Luckily for all of us, in my opinion the majority in this country see things the way I do.

Badger · Post by **Badger** » Wed Dec 31, 2003 1:36 pm

Luckily for all of us, in my opinion the majority in this country see things the way I do.

And therein lies some of the tyrrany that others object to some of the time.

In my opinion.

ecliptic · Post by **ecliptic** » Wed Dec 31, 2003 1:41 pm

In my opinion.

But of course. And your opinion means a lot to me Badger.

unjonharley · Post by **unjonharley** » Wed Dec 31, 2003 1:41 pm

Luckily for all of us, in my opinion the majority in this country see things the way I do.[/quote]

//
For the sake of the world I hope your wrong. History has a nasty way of repeteing it"s self.

Patience · Post by **Patience** » Wed Dec 31, 2003 2:04 pm

Here's a great article from the L.A. Times about the recently discovered documents proving that the U.S. government under Reagan and Bush I nurtured and supported Hussein despite full knowledge of his repeated use of chemical weapons.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1230-07.htm

My favorite line: Ironically, the U.S supported Iraq when it possessed and used weapons of mass destruction and invaded it when it didn't.

unjonharley · Post by **unjonharley** » Wed Dec 31, 2003 2:15 pm

Patience wrote:
My favorite line: Ironically, the U.S supported Iraq when it possessed and used weapons of mass destruction and invaded it when it didn't.

Thereis some humer in that how, ever black

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Dec 31, 2003 2:46 pm

The humor we find in tragedy is sometimes all that makes life tolerable.

ecliptic · Post by **ecliptic** » Wed Dec 31, 2003 3:25 pm

Patience wrote:Here's a great article from the L.A. Times about the recently discovered documents proving that the U.S. government under Reagan and Bush I nurtured and supported Hussein despite full knowledge of his repeated use of chemical weapons.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1230-07.htm

My favorite line: Ironically, the U.S supported Iraq when it possessed and used weapons of mass destruction and invaded it when it didn't.

Sorry, but I'd have to see this somewhere other than a blatantly left wing liberal website to give it any credibility. I don't doubt that we once supported Hussein, just like Bin Laden. However times change and relationships change. At the times we supported them, we had common enemies. I'm sure that if anyone could forsee the future, things would have turned out differently. The US's support for these people are of the greatest mistakes this country has ever made. What's ironic to me is that some of you continue to defend and support these despots.

Badger · Post by **Badger** » Wed Dec 31, 2003 4:11 pm

I don't think there's ever been any douby whatsoever that Reagan's administration took sides on on two particulalry nasty conflicts in the east.

It supported Pakistan when the Soviet Union invaded and provided massive amounts of weaponry supplied by CIA covert ops - including a good numebr of unaccounted for surface-to-air missles that're coming back to haunt Washington insiders

and

Supporting Iraq in its war against Iran. The latter being for seemingly no other reason than the fact that Iran pulled their hostage taking stunt which was the wrong thing to do with a country that can play fuck-fuck with the best of them. Don't know that there were any ideological leanings on the part of Iraq that curried US favor. Just an opportunity to stick it back in the asses or Iran for doing what it did.

aforceforgood · Post by **aforceforgood** » Wed Dec 31, 2003 6:03 pm

ecliptic wrote: You cannot join the armed services, reserve or otherwise, and not expect to ever be called up. That is your job. If you don't like the possibility of ever having to do it, you should not have joined.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the oath taken by those enlisting mentions something about protecting america against it's enemies, right? I didn't know that had been amended to include creating opportunities for business, but maybe you know something I don't.

ecliptic wrote:The US's support for these people are of the greatest mistakes this country has ever made. What's ironic to me is that some of you continue to defend and support these despots.

And speaking out against wrongs is our responsibility as Americans. Your denigration of our speaking out is wrong too. This "if you criticize the administration you're weakening us all" bullcrap needs to stop. Our freedom of speech is the very thing that makes us great. And it bothers me that you tend to simplisticly interpret our criticism of the administration as anti-american. Please bear in mind that the government is made up of POLITICIANS. Therefore, when their lips are moving, they are lying. Criticizing liars is hardly unamerican, last time I checked. But maybe that's just naive and idealistic of me to feel that way.

And you characterize the U.S.'s support of these dictators as one of the biggest mistakes we ever made, but then say our "defense and support these despots." is wrong.

a) It's not a defense or support for them, rather, we're trying to point out another mistake our government is in the process of making.

b) If

ecliptic wrote:The US's support for these people are of the greatest mistakes this country has ever made.

then shouldn't we be speaking out against it? Shouldn't you, as an American also be trying to direct our government to do the right thing? The fact is, we need you. We need you to see that and raise your voice with us, because we can be damned sure by looking at history that the sociopaths we call our leaders WILL NOT DO THE RIGHT THING UNLESS THEY ARE PRACTICALLY FORCED TO. They will do whatever is beneficial to them and theirs to whatever extent we let them get away with it. History proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

As for the L.A. Times, yeah, their credibility is shot full of holes since they wantonly changed poll numbers during the recall business with NO regard for reality, rather just practically (I had to insert "practically" in there because they at least made a half-assed attempt at justifying changing poll #'s by 30% by specifically calling 500 extra latinos [and ONLY latinos] and polling them until they got the numbers they wanted- something every professional poll-taking company has agreed is absurd and inaccurate- otherwise, I could legitimately have said they just made it up, which basically they did) making stuff up out of whole cloth to reflect what they wanted. Even so, there's a lot of smoke around the issue of America's relationship with despots if there's no fire. I understand we have to choose the lesser of two evils sometimes, but jeez.

ecliptic · Post by **ecliptic** » Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:36 pm

I didn't know that had been amended to include creating opportunities for business, but maybe you know something I don't.

I'm beginning to get tired of repeating myself, but once again, this IS your opinion. Sorry if I don't agree.

POLITICIANS. Therefore, when their lips are moving, they are lying. Criticizing liars is hardly unamerican, last time I checked. But maybe that's just naive and idealistic of me to feel that way.

I've left politics out of this discussion for a reason. The things I'm speaking of trancend politics. I'm neither conservative nor liberal. I'm a free thinker that makes a judgement based on what I observe and know.

It's not a defense or support for them, rather, we're trying to point out another mistake our government is in the process of making.

Why don't you reread some of Stuarts posts and tell me he's not defending them. He sounds like their attorney.

Shouldn't you, as an American also be trying to direct our government to do the right thing?

We've made our mistakes, but I believe we are doing the right thing post 9/11.

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Fri Jan 02, 2004 3:00 pm

stuart is their attorney

sorry pal, that false dichotomy is working on the lazy thinkers but that shit won't stick to me. Saying I think american forieng policy is nasty right now does not equate with me being in the hussein fan club. These nasty bastards fucking suck, but to quote a Reagan official regarding Saddam "yeah, but at least he's our bastard'. They suck. That is not our not our fault. They are highly trained, heavily armed, well finacned and can easily politically motivate their followers. That, i am afraid, is our fault.

ecliptic · Post by **ecliptic** » Fri Jan 02, 2004 4:55 pm

In your opinion.

ecliptic · Post by **ecliptic** » Fri Jan 02, 2004 5:12 pm

Oh, and in the future, please try not to misquote me. Thanks in advance.

aforceforgood · Post by **aforceforgood** » Fri Jan 02, 2004 5:59 pm

ecliptic wrote:
It's not a defense or support for them, rather, we're trying to point out another mistake our government is in the process of making.
Why don't you reread some of Stuarts posts and tell me he's not defending them. He sounds like their attorney.

Shouldn't you, as an American also be trying to direct our government to do the right thing?
We've made our mistakes, but I believe we are doing the right thing post 9/11.

I don't need to reread stuart's posts because I didn't react emotionally when I read them, and understand that his pointing out that there are things the US needs to stop doing to increase the safety of its citizens. Things that would be MUCH more effective than sealing our borders- (which, BTW, STILL has not been done... hellooo, um, Mr. Dubya, how's that coming?) There are reasons why these religious fanatics are attacking, and attacking them militarily only results in prolonging this agony of the common man being used as cannon fodder to enable our ruling class to make megabucks off of a war economy.

We need to look at ROOT CAUSES to ever make any REAL headway on solving this problem, and our gov's fucked up foreign policy is a large part of it. Before you get all emotional and start yelling about how the gov didn't kill our people 9-11, please note that I am saying part of it.

Your throwing a blanket approval "We've made our mistakes, but I believe we are doing the right thing post 9/11"- shows that you're reacting emotionally, seeing american deaths and stopping your analysis right there, which results in your "you kill my people, I kill you." analysis. I understand that. I was pissed too when it happened, and I didn't want to, in fact would have REFUSED to listen to ANY explanation of WHY they did it. How can there be an explanation for that? And why should I listen to anything killers have to say? Wouldn't that be encouraging more terrorism? But I've calmed down from my emotional reaction since then, and I see that we need to look at root causes on this problem. It's way more complex than tit for tat. Unless you'd like for us to become a much bigger version of Sarajevo, where both sides propaganda machines churn endlessly, using THE SAME PICTURES as evidence of the atrocities that the other side has committed against them, fostering hate and division endlessly until it becomes a self-sustaining thing. While those at the top of our economic food chain (both in the US and the mid-east) continue to get fat from our suffering and dying and laugh at us idiots down here on the bottom rungs who buy their propaganda hook, line and fishing pole, while they dodge any real armed service that might, heaven forfend, actually put them in harm's way.

Do you really believe that ALL terrorists are religious fanatics and that is the ONLY reason they attack us? Doesn't that seem just a bit simplistic to you?

Do you really believe that the gov's telling you the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing BUT the truth now, when their history shows them to be incorrigible liars? Why? For the love of God, man, why?

How do you reconcile the illogical stuff our gov's NOT doing, like NOT sealing our borders off if we're really at war, when their propaganda is that our situation is so dire we should legislate away the very freedoms that make us great?

I really can't understand how you can in one breath agree we've made mistakes in the past but then turn right around and say we're doing everything perfectly right now.

ecliptic · Post by **ecliptic** » Sat Jan 03, 2004 11:35 am

affg, I can see that you have actually thought through the entire situation. Perhaps looked at the arguments on both sides, which is hardly what I can say for others. I credit you with at least speaking with reason. However, read this:

First, lets scratch the pentagon out of the argument. We can agree this was a military target, even if only a symbolic one.
Now the WTC. Imperialism was the perceived legitimate target as western imperialism is seen as the real problem. There is also the issue of a complicit population. If we are a democracy and we freely elect the leaders who perpetrate these offenses, then are we not complicit? Are we not complicit when our ellected leaders nurture and finance the demons who eventually turn on us after we have equipped them for a guerilla war to oust one set of occupying infidels from their land? How are we innocent?

Directly from the keyboard of Stuart. Tell me how this is not defending terrorists, and placing all blame squarely on the US and its' citizens. I can see that if Bin Laden were ever captured alive, his attorney would be arguing the same thing. I admit, I do get emotional about this at times, because it's a passionate issue for me. Much like the way the people coming from your viewpoint start making ridiculous claims when they get emotional. That's what starts all the conspiracy theories; when you start making assumptions without any facts. I know we have made past mistakes. I'm sure we continue to make mistakes, as no one, or any country is perfect. However, when you start butchering up my people, I tend to get emotional about it. My wife is from NYC, and was living there during 9/11. She lived less than two miles from ground zero, and could have easily been killed herself had one of those airliners been shot down short of their target. Aside from that, she did know people that were killed in the attacks. The reason I can say we're doing the right thing, is that we have not been attacked on our own soil again. Not that I do not think it will happen again, but if we had remained complacent in the years after 9/11, my guess is that we would have been hit several more times by now.

Lilly Flower · Post by **Lilly Flower** » Sat Jan 03, 2004 12:43 pm

Happy new year all.

Here is something I found just recently,

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/index.php

aforceforgood · Post by **aforceforgood** » Sat Jan 03, 2004 3:33 pm

ecliptic wrote:affg, I can see that you have actually thought through the entire situation. Perhaps looked at the arguments on both sides, which is hardly what I can say for others. I credit you with at least speaking with reason. However, read this:

First, lets scratch the pentagon out of the argument. We can agree this was a military target, even if only a symbolic one.
Now the WTC. Imperialism was the perceived legitimate target as western imperialism is seen as the real problem. There is also the issue of a complicit population. If we are a democracy and we freely elect the leaders who perpetrate these offenses, then are we not complicit? Are we not complicit when our ellected leaders nurture and finance the demons who eventually turn on us after we have equipped them for a guerilla war to oust one set of occupying infidels from their land? How are we innocent?
Directly from the keyboard of Stuart. Tell me how this is not defending terrorists, and placing all blame squarely on the US and its' citizens.

I took it as stuart explaining why the terrorists think the way they do- not defending them. His point was that you were looking at it from only one viewpoint, that of the aggrieved party who's emotionally distraught.

I could extend the "emotionally distraught" thing to the point where if hypothetically your wife had actually been killed, and when you hear about it, are so upset that you walk right out of your house and see a cab-driver of mid-eastern descent and pull him out of his car and start beating the crap out of him (which actually happened in NY following 9-11), maybe even killing him. And that is exactly what I mean when I talk about the people at the top setting us folks down at the bottom at each others' throats. The middle eastern guy in the cab, most likely, was a hard-working guy who was overjoyed to have made it to america and was just working hard to improve his life and the life of his family. What would you guess the percentage of people involved in terrorism is? 5% of all mid-easterners? 10%? I hope you see my point that the vast majority of mid-eastern people have come here for the same reason everyone else does, to have a better life. Hopefully getting pulled out of his cab and beaten up will not embitter him and foster hatred, but that's one pretty obvious and likely outcome. Obviously this solves nothing. Obviously it is the result of letting your emotions overwhelm your reasoning capabilities. We need to set our emotions aside, as difficult as that is, and look at what the causes of this mess are so that we can accurately diagnose this disease if we're to have any idea of what treatment to use to cure it.

And you left out some of stuart's words. If you'd included them and really analyzed his statement, instead of getting offended by him pointing out that your interpretation was simplistic or reacting emotionally to what you perceived as his defense (it was not) of the terrorists, you'd see that.

stuart wrote:re: innocents. Once again, you are applying your narrow frame of reference. ... Look, I am not saying that I buy this stuff [see, here stuart is saying he doesn't believe in these arguments, but merely showing how someone else could] but you need to understand these arguments in order to transcend this rediculous 'the civilized vs. the barbarians' horseshit. Yours is not the only frame of reference and the resultant overly simplified soundbite labels are not useful in trying understand the situation.

Try and imagine that stuart is a good buddy of yours trying to tell you why you're looking at things the wrong way and why when you read his posts. Text sometimes doesn't convey that, speech is a lot more nuanced.

Myself, I value other people's viewpoints immensely, even when they seem at first glance to be wrong or obviously biased, because they help me see things from another viewpoint. Without other's points of view, I am forever trapped inside my own brain trying to figure out the world, and to a certain extent that's like the four blind men describing what they perceive when they touch different parts of the elephant.

ecliptic · Post by **ecliptic** » Sat Jan 03, 2004 9:44 pm

I could extend the "emotionally distraught" thing to the point where if hypothetically your wife had actually been killed, and when you hear about it, are so upset that you walk right out of your house and see a cab-driver of mid-eastern descent and pull him out of his car and start beating the crap out of him (which actually happened in NY following 9-11), maybe even killing him. And that is exactly what I mean when I talk about the people at the top setting us folks down at the bottom at each others' throats. The middle eastern guy in the cab, most likely, was a hard-working guy who was overjoyed to have made it to america and was just working hard to improve his life and the life of his family.

Never thought I'd have to quote myself, but you apparently think I have something against middle easterners:

ecliptic wrote:yeah, well I guess it's all in the way you look at it. We could go tit for tat for days on who's fucked with who. As far as I'm concerned those fuckers can all go to hell. and don't think i'm talking about middle easterners in general. let's get that straight. i have never actually met someone from the middle east that i didn't like. this is al queda specifically i'm talking about, and it concerns me that you actually seem to have sympathy for them.

I have the ability to distinguish between the person responsible for the crime and their race. And you guys keep downplaying the role of radical Islam in this terrorism. Why then do they (terrorists) continually call for a global jihad (don't need to mention the meaning of jihad) against infidels (everyone else) in general? I've said it before, but we are nowhere near the only targets. Just the most desirable.

aforceforgood · Post by **aforceforgood** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 6:09 am

ecliptic wrote:you apparently think I have something against middle easterners

Nope, just pointing out that emotionalism and rational thinking don't mix. I wasn't saying that you did, just illustrating how emotionalism leads people to choose the wrong reaction to disturbing events.

ecliptic wrote: Why then do they (terrorists) continually call for a global jihad (don't need to mention the meaning of jihad) against infidels (everyone else) in general? I've said it before, but we are nowhere near the only targets. Just the most desirable.

Because that's the lie that they've been fed, and it's a whole different discussion. Until people start seeing that they can't trust their "leaders", especially when they're telling us that we must hate and fear and kill others, there will be an endless supply of "reasons" to kill each other. Jihad, revenge for terrorism, making the world safe from terrorism, etc., etc., etc.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 7:56 pm

aforceforgood wrote: Until people start seeing that they can't trust their "leaders", especially when they're telling us that we must hate and fear and kill others, there will be an endless supply of "reasons" to kill each other.

Ya nailed that one affg. That telling to hate and fear and kill others is the action to avoid in all this analysis. And I think we should all accept that if we post to this board a comment that endorses hating and fearing and killing others, then in some limited sense, we have become those leaders.

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 11:40 am

they called for jihad, true

was it not bush who called for a 'crusade' on national television?
was it not Ann Coulter who called for genocide in her bestseller?
tell me the difference between these positions please.

before you start typing, btw, this is fact, not opinion.

the point being that both sides use whatever rhetoric they think will motivate their foot soldiers to do their bidding.

I stated that these folks being armed, funded, and trained was our doing. You stated that was my opinion. Actually, it is not a matter of opinion, it is uncontrovertable fact. We all know where those shoulder SAMs came from. We all know who taught them how to kick the CCCP out of afghanistan. We all know who gave Iraq those nasty chemical weapons. These things are facts, not opinion.

Patience · Post by **Patience** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 11:59 am

stuart: Cites, please?

Not that I don't believe you, but I haven't seen evidence that we sold chemical weapons to Iraq. I know that the U.S. continued to support and befriend Saddam while he was widely using chemical weapons, but I have yet to see anything I would call proof that we actually sold them the weapons... I'd like to know if it's true.

Badger · Post by **Badger** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 1:19 pm

I know that the U.S. continued to support and befriend Saddam while he was widely using chemical weapons, but I have yet to see anything I would call proof that we actually sold them the weapons... I'd like to know if it's true.

Same here Patience. Wouldn't mind knowing myself.

Something else that gets in my craw is the cotinuous reportage of countries using land mines, selling black market machine gunes, arms trade, weapons smuggling, etc. The news is filled with such informative accounts of the seedy underbelly of war and strife in other less developed countries. What NEVER seems to make it out of the journalist's dossier are the names and companies who actuall do the providing and make the huge profits from the misery inflicted. People who could (and should) be shamed publically for their role and participation in the perpeptuation of mankind's scourge.

bgirl · Post by **bgirl** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:10 pm

Patience....... info about U.S. cooperation with Iraq in it's war against Iran,and Iraq's use of chemical and biological weapons in that conflict, come from a multitude of sources,including:Patrick .E.Tyler,"Officers say U.S. aided Iraq in war despite use of gas," New York Times,Aug 18,2002;"Chemical weapons in Iran;confirmed by specialists,condemnation by Security Council,"UN Chronicle,March 1984;Henry Kamm,"New Gulf War Issue:Chemical Arms," New York Times,March5 ,1984;Reginald Dale ,"US and Iraq to resume dipolmatic relations,"Financial Times,November 27,1984. The list of chemical agents sold by U.S. corporations to Saddam Hussein from 1995-1990 is included in the Senate report;,"U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports to Iraq and their possible impact on health consequnces of the Gulf War,"Report by Chairman donald W.Riegle Jr. and ranking member Alfonse M.D'Mato of the Committee on Banking,Banking,Housing and Urban Affairs with respect to export administration,United States Senate,103d Congrss,2d session,May 25,1994. For more info. about the export of chemical and biological weapons by U.S. corporations to Iraq,including a list of the companies,see William Blum's cover story in the April 1998 issue of The Progressive ,"Anthrax for Export," and Jim Crogan's April 25 -May 1,2003 report in the LA Weekly,"Made in the U.S.A.,Part III The Dishonor Role." The info about the export from the U.S. to Iraq of dual-use technologies comes from the government's own watchdog in a report:"Iraq:U.S. military items exported or transferred to Iraq in the 1980's," United States General Accounting Office,released february 7,1994,though published in 1992. The Regan administration's commitment to ensuring an Iraqi victory over Iran is well-documented in the following sources:Seymour M.Hersh,"U.S. secretly gave aid to Iraq early in it's war to Iran,"New YorkTimes,January 26,1992:sworn court declaration of former National Security Council official Howard Teicher,Januaru 31,1995:and Michael Dobbs,"U.S. had key role in Iraqi buildup:trade in chemical arms despite their use on Iranians and Kurds,"Washington Post,December 30,2002.

Patience · Post by **Patience** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:34 pm

Thanks bgirl!!!

Badger: from the Anthrax for Export article:

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

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

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

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

* Celery Corp., Charlotte, NC

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

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

* Mouse Master, Lilburn, GA

* Sullaire Corp., Charlotte, NC

* Pure Aire, Charlotte, NC

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

* Union Carbide, Danbury, CT

* Evapco, Taneytown, MD

* Gorman-Rupp, Mansfield, OH

Pure Aire indeed...

Badger · Post by **Badger** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:00 pm

Patience,

Cool. Wasn't asking (or suggesting) that you do my homework in looking up the info but appreciate it very much. Same for you Bgirl. It's cool that you've made the effort to provide cites. Wish more folks would do so - especially when stating positions in which the facts often seem questionable.

bgirl · Post by **bgirl** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:19 pm

Patience,Yer on it!Hey, did you know that during the 48 hour no flying in the country,all air travel grounded, time after 911 ,24 members of the bin Laden family were flow,in private jets,under the supervision of the Saudi government and with Bush's approval,to a ,"secret assembling point in Texas."They then flew to Washington,D.C.,and then onto Boston.Finally they were flown to Paris on September 18.Apparently they never went through any serious interrogation.Even though 15 of the 19 terrorists were Saudis ,the U.S. government though it best to let the family of #1 public enemy(as they claim) fly around the country and then leave ??????Jane Mayer,"The House of bin Laden,"The New Yorker nov 12 2001;PatrickE.Tyler,"Fearing harm bin Laden family fled from U.S.,"The New York Times,sept 30,2001;Kevin Cullen,"bin Laden kin flown back to Saudi Arabia,"The Boston Globe,sept 20,2001;Katty Kay,"How FBI helped bin Laden family flee US,"The london times,oct 1,2001.I confess,I just finished reading the new Michael Moore's ,"Hey Dude,Where's My Country?" and the previous info is right from the book.

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 4:07 pm

well, you guys beat me to it.

just fyi, I am not inclined to make statements like that unless have seen thme to be reported as incontrovertable. Thanks for the work anyhow.