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

[littleflower]

well, JK, since you know everything ... yes, you do ...

what was the solution to saddam hussein after what he did to kuwait ... ?

just let him live in his palaces, terrorizing his people ... and hoping he doesn't build a nuke or attack some other neighboring country?

or was the attack on kuwait a US operation, too ... ?

i'm just curious ...

[Elderberry]

well, JK, since you know everything ... yes, you do ...

what was the solution to saddam hussein after what he did to kuwait ... ?

just let him live in his palaces, terrorizing his people ... and hoping he doesn't build a nuke or attack some other neighboring country?

or was the attack on kuwait a US operation, too ... ?

i'm just curious ...

The US was totally justified in that instance. I supported it entirely.

JK

[ygmir]

well, JK, since you know everything ... yes, you do ...

what was the solution to saddam hussein after what he did to kuwait ... ?

just let him live in his palaces, terrorizing his people ... and hoping he doesn't build a nuke or attack some other neighboring country?

or was the attack on kuwait a US operation, too ... ?

i'm just curious ...

The US was totally justified in that instance. I supported it entirely.

JK

interesting:
so, war is ok, as long as you agree with the purpose?

so now, it's just a discussion over what a valid reason for war is?

I say that, because, that is my stance.
IMHO, at times, war is necessary, not good, but, necessary........don't confuse the term "war" with the connotations of "offensive" and "defensive"......."aggressive"......"passive"......

war is war. IMHO.


but, it seems you've, for the most part, said war is not ok........
or was it just this war? Perhaps I mis-understand?

[wedeliver]

The Bush's allowed a great horror to happen, then they get all the backing from congress and the people. Both Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and 911 were allowed to happen.

It is possible to identify a number of Iraqi greivances against Kuwait during the increasingly tense period prior to the onset of the Gulf War. In Iraq's view: economic war was being waged by Kuwait and other Gulf states, with the encouragment of Washington, against Iraq; Kuwait, originally part of the Ottoman vilayet of Basra, was now properly regarded as part of Iraq; Kuwait had systematically encroached on Iraqi territory over a period, and deliberatly stolen Iraqi oil from the Rumeila oil field; Kuwait, despite Iraq's horrendous losses in the Iran-Iraq war, was refusing to pay off debts incurred in the defense of the Arab nation; Kuwait, in refusing to negotiate over the Warbah and Bubiyan islands, was insensitive to Iraq's deep-water needs; and in general Kuwait, in its arrogant and uncompromising attitude to negotiations, seemed more interested in following the hidden agenda of its Western backers than in seeking harmonious relations with its neighbors.

A listing of Iraqi greivances is not intended to argue for the legitimacy of the subsequent Iraqi actions. Iraq had clear obligations under the UN charter (which other nations disregard), under its membership with the Arab league, and following the 1963 Iraqi recognition of Kuwaiti independence. However, it is useful to remember the grievances, submerged as they usually are under the predictable tide of Western propaganda.

It should also be remembered that Saddam Hussein had little reason to believe that the US, despite some unsympathetic words and actions, would take action following an Iraqi move against Kuwait: this American "green light" can be viewed as a well organised set up of Iraq.

and here is info on Iraq being"setup"!

There were many ways in which the US government and other US institutions aided Saddam Hussein up to the point of the invasion of Kuwait. The support of US business interests over many years for Saddam Hussein is well documented, part of the general Western support for the Iraqi regime.

On April 12th, 1990 Saddam met with 5 US senators. Robert Dole, Alan Simpson, Howard Metzenbaum, James McClure and Frank Murkowski; the US ambassador, soon to be famous for her own 'green light' to Saddam, was also present. The US senators criticised the American press in their attempts to propitiate Saddam, emphasising that there was a difference between the attitudes of the US government and those of journalists. Senator Dole commented:
Please allow me to say that only twelve hours earlier President Bush had assured me that he wants better relations, and that the US government wants better relations with Iraq... I assume that President Bush will oppose sanctions, and he might veto them, unless something provocative were to happen...
It was clear that Iraq's war on Iran, its human record, and its increasingly bellicose efforts to impose its will on the Gulf region were not judged to be sufficiently 'provocative'. Ambassador Glaspie then chipped in to affirm that she was certain 'that this is the policy of the US'(that is, that Presidnet Bush saw nothing about Iraq that would impede the development of good relations).


Senator Howard Metzenbaum ('I am a jew and a staunch supporter of Israel') payed Saddam a compliment: '... I have been sitting here listening to you for about an hour, and I am now aware that you are a strong and intelligent man and that you want peace.. if.. you were to focus on the value of the peace that we greatly need to achieve in the Middle East then there would not be a leader to compare with you in the Middle East..'
On July 25 1990, a day after 2 Iraqi armoured divisions moved from their bases to take up positions on the Kuwaiti border, Saddam Hussein summoned US Ambassador April Glaspie to his office. Even at this late statge , with an obviosly deteriorating situation in the Gulf, Glaspie still made efforts to placate Saddam Hussein. She emphasised that President Bush had rejected the ideaof trade sanctions against Iraq, to which Saddam replied:

There is nothing left for us to buy from America except wheat. Every time we want to buy something, they say it is forbidden. I am afraid that one day you will say, "You are going to make gunpowder out of wheat."
Glapsie was quick to reassure to Saddam: "I have direct instruction from the President to seek better relations with Iraq." She then went to say her much-quoted comment that was perhaps the biggest 'green light' of all:

I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country.But we have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts like your border disagreement with Kuwait
In short, the US ambassador to Baghdad was here telling Saddam Hussein that he had a legitimate case against Kuwait and that the matter was no business of the United States.

On July 31 (2 days before the invasion of Kuwait), the US Assistant Secretary of state John Kelly testified on Capitol Hill before the Middle East subcommittee of the House of Representatives. Aimed at clarifying the attitude of the Bush administration to the escalating crisis in the Gulf:

Representative Hamilton: Defense Secretary Richard Cheney has been quoted in the press as saying that the United States was commited to going to the defese of Kuwait if she were attacked. Is that exactly what was said? Could Mr Kelly clarify this?
Assistant Secretary Kelly: .. We have no defense treaty relationship with any Gulf country...
Hamilton: Do we have a commitment to our friends in the Gulf in the event that they are engaged in oil or territorial disputes with their neighbors?
Kelly: As I said, Mr Chairman, we have no defense treaty relationships with any of the countries. We have historically avoided taking a position on border disputes or on internal OPEC deliberations...
Hamilton: If Iraq, for example, charged across the border into Kuwait, for whatever reason, what would be our position with regard to the use of US forces?
Kelly: That, Mr Chairman, is a hypothetical or a contingency, the kind of which I can't get into. Suffice it to say that we would be extremely concerned, but I cannot get into the realm of "what if" answers.
Hamilton: In that circumstance, is it correct to say, however, that we do not have a treaty commitment which would obligate us to engage US forces?
Kelly: That is correct.
Hamilton: That is correct, is it not?
Kelly: That is correct, sir.
These statements broadcast on the World Service of the BBC, were heard in Baghdad. At a crucial momment, a senior offical of the Bush administration had sent Saddam Hussein a signal that the US would not intervene. The American setup for the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait had been complete.


Bibliography:
Simons, Geoff. Iraq From Sumer to Saddam St. Martin Press, NY 1994
Articles:
Was Gulf War A Set up for Iraq? by Karen Nakamura (The Coastal Post 6/98)
Excerpts from 3rd 1992 presidential debate (10/19/92)
US conspiracy to Initiate the War Against Iraq by Brian Becker (1992)
The CIA and Gulf War by John Stockwell (2/20/91)
Who lost Kuwait? by Murray Waas (San Francisco Bay Guardian 1/30/91)
Meeting between Saddam and US Ambassador (7/25/90)

[littleflower]

yeah, yeah, yeah .... saddam was really a good guy, set up by those evil bush's, who gave him all those chemical weapons and told him to use them on iranian soldiers and kurds ... and GW bush was the worst of all, allowing 9/11 to occur and twicking all those poor wittle democwats in congress with his phony intel so he and dick cheney could steal iraq's oil and make lots and lots of money ...

only US republican presidents are interested in stealing the oil of other countries. saddam had NO INTEREST WHATSOEVER in kuwait's oil! none! only the bush gang wanted that oil.

you people will believe anything.... as long as it's what you want to believe anyhow...

[wedeliver]

you people will believe anything.... as long as it's what you want to believe anyhow...

You are correct, I want xmas presents so I DO believe in Santa!!

(remember weapons that Sadam got, he got from us, From his good buddy Rumsfield... We used Iraq for our interests in Iran.)

By the summer of 1983 Iran had been reporting Iraqi use of using chemical weapons for some time. The Geneva protocol requires that the international community respond to chemical warfare, but a diplomatically isolated Iran received only a muted response to its complaints [Note 1]. It intensified its accusations in October 1983, however, and in November asked for a United Nations Security Council investigation.

The U.S., which followed developments in the Iran-Iraq war with extraordinary intensity, had intelligence confirming Iran's accusations, and describing Iraq's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons, concurrent with its policy review and decision to support Iraq in the war [Document 24]. The intelligence indicated that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces, and, according to a November 1983 memo, against "Kurdish insurgents" as well [Document 25].

What was the Reagan administration's response? A State Department account indicates that the administration had decided to limit its "efforts against the Iraqi CW program to close monitoring because of our strict neutrality in the Gulf war, the sensitivity of sources, and the low probability of achieving desired results." But the department noted in late November 1983 that "with the essential assistance of foreign firms, Iraq ha[d] become able to deploy and use CW and probably has built up large reserves of CW for further use. Given its desperation to end the war, Iraq may again use lethal or incapacitating CW, particularly if Iran threatens to break through Iraqi lines in a large-scale attack" [Document 25]. The State Department argued that the U.S. needed to respond in some way to maintain the credibility of its official opposition to chemical warfare, and recommended that the National Security Council discuss the issue.

Following further high-level policy review, Ronald Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114, dated November 26, 1983, concerned specifically with U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The directive reflects the administration's priorities: it calls for heightened regional military cooperation to defend oil facilities, and measures to improve U.S. military capabilities in the Persian Gulf, and directs the secretaries of state and defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to take appropriate measures to respond to tensions in the area. It states, "Because of the real and psychological impact of a curtailment in the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf on the international economic system, we must assure our readiness to deal promptly with actions aimed at disrupting that traffic." It does not mention chemical weapons [Document 26].

Soon thereafter, Donald Rumsfeld (who had served in various positions in the Nixon and Ford administrations, including as President Ford's defense secretary, and at this time headed the multinational pharmaceutical company G.D. Searle & Co.) was dispatched to the Middle East as a presidential envoy. His December 1983 tour of regional capitals included Baghdad, where he was to establish "direct contact between an envoy of President Reagan and President Saddam Hussein," while emphasizing "his close relationship" with the president [Document 28]. Rumsfeld met with Saddam, and the two discussed regional issues of mutual interest, shared enmity toward Iran and Syria, and the U.S.'s efforts to find alternative routes to transport Iraq's oil; its facilities in the Persian Gulf had been shut down by Iran, and Iran's ally, Syria, had cut off a pipeline that transported Iraqi oil through its territory. Rumsfeld made no reference to chemical weapons, according to detailed notes on the meeting [Document 31].

Rumsfeld also met with Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, and the two agreed, "the U.S. and Iraq shared many common interests." Rumsfeld affirmed the Reagan administration's "willingness to do more" regarding the Iran-Iraq war, but "made clear that our efforts to assist were inhibited by certain things that made it difficult for us, citing the use of chemical weapons, possible escalation in the Gulf, and human rights." He then moved on to other U.S. concerns [Document 32]. Later, Rumsfeld was assured by the U.S. interests section that Iraq's leadership had been "extremely pleased" with the visit, and that "Tariq Aziz had gone out of his way to praise Rumsfeld as a person" [Document 36 and Document 37].

Rumsfeld returned to Baghdad in late March 1984. By this time, the U.S. had publicly condemned Iraq's chemical weapons use, stating, "The United States has concluded that the available evidence substantiates Iran's charges that Iraq used chemical weapons" [Document 47]. Briefings for Rumsfeld's meetings noted that atmospherics in Iraq had deteriorated since his December visit because of Iraqi military reverses and because "bilateral relations were sharply set back by our March 5 condemnation of Iraq for CW use, despite our repeated warnings that this issue would emerge sooner or later" [Document 48]. Rumsfeld was to discuss with Iraqi officials the Reagan administration's hope that it could obtain Export-Import Bank credits for Iraq, the Aqaba pipeline, and its vigorous efforts to cut off arms exports to Iran. According to an affidavit prepared by one of Rumsfeld's companions during his Mideast travels, former NSC staff member Howard Teicher, Rumsfeld also conveyed to Iraq an offer from Israel to provide assistance, which was rejected [Document 61].

Although official U.S. policy still barred the export of U.S. military equipment to Iraq, some was evidently provided on a "don't ask - don't tell" basis. In April 1984, the Baghdad interests section asked to be kept apprised of Bell Helicopter Textron's negotiations to sell helicopters to Iraq, which were not to be "in any way configured for military use" [Document 55]. The purchaser was the Iraqi Ministry of Defense. In December 1982, Bell Textron's Italian subsidiary had informed the U.S. embassy in Rome that it turned down a request from Iraq to militarize recently purchased Hughes helicopters. An allied government, South Korea, informed the State Department that it had received a similar request in June 1983 (when a congressional aide asked in March 1983 whether heavy trucks recently sold to Iraq were intended for military purposes, a State Department official replied "we presumed that this was Iraq's intention, and had not asked.") [Document 44]

During the spring of 1984 the U.S. reconsidered policy for the sale of dual-use equipment to Iraq's nuclear program, and its "preliminary results favor[ed] expanding such trade to include Iraqi nuclear entities" [Document 57]. Several months later, a Defense Intelligence Agency analysis said that even after the war ended, Iraq was likely to "continue to develop its formidable conventional and chemical capability, and probably pursue nuclear weapons" [Document 58]. (Iraq is situated in a dangerous neighborhood, and Israel had stockpiled a large nuclear weapons arsenal without international censure. Nuclear nonproliferation was not a high priority of the Reagan administration - throughout the 1980s it downplayed Pakistan's nuclear program, though its intelligence indicated that a weapons capability was being pursued, in order to avert congressionally mandated sanctions. Sanctions would have impeded the administration's massive military assistance to Pakistan provided in return for its support of the mujahideen fighting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.)

In February 1984, Iraq's military, expecting a major Iranian attack, issued a warning that "the invaders should know that for every harmful insect there is an insecticide capable of annihilating it whatever the number and Iraq possesses this annihilation insecticide" [Document 41]. On March 3, the State Department intervened to prevent a U.S. company from shipping 22,000 pounds of phosphorous fluoride, a chemical weapons precursor, to Iraq. Washington instructed the U.S. interests section to protest to the Iraqi government, and to inform the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that "we anticipate making a public condemnation of Iraqi use of chemical weapons in the near future," and that "we are adamantly opposed to Iraq's attempting to acquire the raw materials, equipment, or expertise to manufacture chemical weapons from the United States. When we become aware of attempts to do so, we will act to prevent their export to Iraq" [Document 42].

The public condemnation was issued on March 5. It said, "While condemning Iraq's chemical weapons use . . . The United States finds the present Iranian regime's intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq to be inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations and the moral and religious basis which it claims" [Document 43].

Later in the month, the State Department briefed the press on its decision to strengthen controls on the export of chemical weapons precursors to Iran and Iraq, in response to intelligence and media reports that precursors supplied to Iraq originated in Western countries. When asked whether the U.S.'s conclusion that Iraq had used chemical weapons would have "any effect on U.S. recent initiatives to expand commercial relationships with Iraq across a broad range, and also a willingness to open diplomatic relations," the department's spokesperson said "No. I'm not aware of any change in our position. We're interested in being involved in a closer dialogue with Iraq" [Document 52].

Iran had submitted a draft resolution asking the U.N. to condemn Iraq's chemical weapons use. The U.S. delegate to the U.N. was instructed to lobby friendly delegations in order to obtain a general motion of "no decision" on the resolution. If this was not achievable, the U.S. delegate was to abstain on the issue. Iraq's ambassador met with the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Jeane Kirkpatrick, and asked for "restraint" in responding to the issue - as did the representatives of both France and Britain.

A senior U.N. official who had participated in a fact-finding mission to investigate Iran's complaint commented "Iranians may well decide to manufacture and use chemical weapons themselves if [the] international community does not condemn Iraq. He said Iranian assembly speaker Rafsanjani [had] made public statements to this effect" [Document 50].

Iraqi interests section head Nizar Hamdoon met with Deputy Assistant Secretary of State James Placke on March 29. Hamdoon said that Iraq strongly preferred a Security Council presidential statement to a resolution, and wanted the response to refer to former resolutions on the war, progress toward ending the conflict, but to not identify any specific country as responsible for chemical weapons use. Placke said the U.S. could accept Iraqi proposals if the Security Council went along. He asked for the Iraqi government's help "in avoiding . . . embarrassing situation" but also noted that the U.S. did "not want this issue to dominate our bilateral relationship" [Document 54].

On March 30, 1984, the Security Council issued a presidential statement condemning the use of chemical weapons, without naming Iraq as the offending party. A State Department memo circulating the draft text observed that, "The statement, by the way contains all three elements Hamdoon wanted" [Document 51].

On April 5, 1984, Ronald Reagan issued another presidential directive (NSDD 139), emphasizing the U.S. objective of ensuring access to military facilities in the Gulf region, and instructing the director of central intelligence and the secretary of defense to upgrade U.S. intelligence gathering capabilities. It codified U.S. determination to develop plans "to avert an Iraqi collapse." Reagan's directive said that U.S. policy required "unambiguous" condemnation of chemical warfare (without naming Iraq), while including the caveat that the U.S. should "place equal stress on the urgent need to dissuade Iran from continuing the ruthless and inhumane tactics which have characterized recent offensives." The directive does not suggest that "condemning" chemical warfare required any hesitation about or modification of U.S. support for Iraq [Document 53].

A State Department background paper dated November 16, 1984 said that Iraq had stopped using chemical weapons after a November 1983 demarche from the U.S., but had resumed their use in February 1984. On November 26, 1984, Iraq and the U.S. restored diplomatic relations. Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, in Washington for the formal resumption of ties, met with Secretary of State George Shultz. When their discussion turned to the Iran-Iraq war, Aziz said that his country was satisfied that "the U.S. analysis of the war's threat to regional stability is 'in agreement in principle' with Iraq's," and expressed thanks for U.S. efforts to cut off international arms sales to Iran. He said that "Iraq's superiority in weaponry" assured Iraq's defense. Shultz, with presumed sardonic intent, "remarked that superior intelligence must also be an important factor in Iraq's defense;" Tariq Aziz had to agree [Document 60].

Now, instead of attacking me, or "you people" rebut the above. Rebut the last post!

[littleflower]

plenty of people have rebutted all of this. anyone can go into archives, cherry pick information, and spin it to make some point. it happens all the time. whenever i start looking into far left anti-US stuff i find inferences that do not pan out ... unproven hypotheses, speculation, conventional wisdom .... very often masquerading as established fact. i also find established fact that was completely ignored because it did not support the position of the author of a piece.

i looked quickly on wikipedia ... they mention that saddam had a wmd program in the mid-70's, and was using mustard gas as early as 1980. did jimmy carter give it to him? why only blame reagan and the bushes? and why didn't clinton set everything straight?

you pick out sources you want to believe, and post them. fine. if you want to believe that the U.S. is the cause for all of the wars in the world, and that obama will bring world peace, fine! even if i found a hundred links disputing your posts, you will find reasons to dispute them all. what is the point? it would just cause a lot of very boring posts... and waste a great deal of my precious free time ....

i noticed that you did not give the link for your latest post. what's the website? i always enjoy looking at this stuff ... i really do ... and i look for the usual holes ... or lack thereof ...

[wedeliver]

plenty of people have rebutted all of this. ... even if i found a hundred links disputing your posts, you will find reasons to dispute them all. what is the point? it would just cause a lot of very boring posts... and waste a great deal of my precious free time ...

I don't want to take up anymore of your "precious free time". So don't bother trying to debate the above because so far you have only made your opinion known. You have not stated a single interesting thing. I didn't write the info in the post above and it comes with a bib.. that shows where the "FACTS" come from. Don't bother, don't waste your time or my time!

Hell, instead lets talk about my new blinky lights. They are so cool.

Bushssss, Raygun, Nixon..Ford... Spiro Agnew... (wow). Dan Quayle. what a bunch of........people....

(not one post, much less one hundred..weak debate)

As a veteran I do take offense if you QUESTION my feelings about the United States. I have served in war so my opinion is one formed from "being there, doing that". We can debate, we can argue. Don't put me down and I won't...

[littleflower]

As a veteran I do take offense if you QUESTION my feelings about the United States. I have served in war so my opinion is one formed from "being there, doing that". We can debate, we can argue. Don't put me down and I won't...

did i question your feelings about the united states?

i said only that there are hundreds of books written on this stuff. trying to convince each other with the space here is absurd. and futile. and boring.

i am glad there are many people like you out there voicing their ideas and opinions. i question your logic and judgment ... but never you patriotism or love of this country. never.

if other countries had the same right, i would be much happier. people in china, and russia, and saddam's iraq, and many other scary places do not have that right. their people can't inform themselves, can't even vote for their government in many cases. no term limits, either.

your focus is on the evil-doing of the united states, and i do not doubt that there is much truth there. what i think is missing is an interest in the evil-doing of the leaders of other countries. i also see a lack of skepticism towards democrats in the US. and i do not understand it ....

[ygmir]

plenty of people have rebutted all of this. ... even if i found a hundred links disputing your posts, you will find reasons to dispute them all. what is the point? it would just cause a lot of very boring posts... and waste a great deal of my precious free time ...

I don't want to take up anymore of your "precious free time". So don't bother trying to debate the above because so far you have only made your opinion known. You have not stated a single interesting thing. I didn't write the info in the post above and it comes with a bib.. that shows where the "FACTS" come from. Don't bother, don't waste your time or my time!

the thing is, IMHO,WD, when she does state facts, you and the other lefties discount them.......or somehow minimize their significance, but, when you post the same sort of thing, you claim it as gospel truth.......
I don't see your argument any stronger than hers........
Blinkie lights are a good subject........

Hell, instead lets talk about my new blinky lights. They are so cool.

Bushssss, Raygun, Nixon..Ford... Spiro Agnew... (wow). Dan Quayle. what a bunch of........people....

see, that's all opinion about the names above, there are just as many people who like them........but, you deride them and call it "universal opinion" or some such.....because all your friends feel the same way.......geeze, you know the country is split about equally on left and right.........intellect and idiocy equally distributed, IMHO......


(not one post, much less one hundred..weak debate)

As a veteran I do take offense if you QUESTION my feelings about the United States. I have served in war so my opinion is one formed from "being there, doing that". We can debate, we can argue. Don't put me down and I won't...

I would think, as a Veteran, ( I thank you for your service), you would welcome someone questioning your feelings about the USA. it would provide a great platform to enlighten them as to how you feel......and, that you would (I'm supposing here) fight for their right to say or question anything......
As honorable as serving during war time is, it is not an automatic pass on the relevance or correctness of thoughts and feelings, other than as they apply to you, personally......certainly, they are not as sacrosanct as you seem to believe......

geeze, you guys are so one sided on so much of this..........almost myopic, when it comes to acknowledging others feelings and opinions........let alone admitting they can have a different viewpoint and still be valid.......

[Elderberry]

interesting:
so, war is ok, as long as you agree with the purpose?

so now, it's just a discussion over what a valid reason for war is?

I say that, because, that is my stance.
IMHO, at times, war is necessary, not good, but, necessary........don't confuse the term "war" with the connotations of "offensive" and "defensive"......."aggressive"......"passive"......

war is war. IMHO.


but, it seems you've, for the most part, said war is not ok........
or was it just this war? Perhaps I mis-understand?

I have nothing against war if the cause and motives are just. I was as angry as anyone after 9/11, and based on my interpretation of the information we were given, Afghanistan was the country where the people responsible for the attack on our country were residing. Not only did I believe it, but we truly did have the majority (if not all) of our allies together with us in Afghanistan.

You probably got the idea I was against fighting any war because we pretty much only discussed the Iraq war, which had nothing to do with 9/11, and there were none of our allies that were with us on this one either. That coalition that Bush struggled to put together was a joke and a coalition in name only. It was wrong, wrong, wrong and was the biggest contributor to loosing our standing and respect in the world community.

If you check back on some of my other posts, I would have also supported a well targeted nuclear attack on Afghanistan too. If we are going to fight a war, I think we should go all out and fight to win and put the fear of the good ole USA into those radicals once and for all.

How's that for being hawkish?

JK

[ygmir]

interesting:
so, war is ok, as long as you agree with the purpose?

so now, it's just a discussion over what a valid reason for war is?

I say that, because, that is my stance.
IMHO, at times, war is necessary, not good, but, necessary........don't confuse the term "war" with the connotations of "offensive" and "defensive"......."aggressive"......"passive"......

war is war. IMHO.


but, it seems you've, for the most part, said war is not ok........
or was it just this war? Perhaps I mis-understand?

I have nothing against war if the cause and motives are just. I was as angry as anyone after 9/11, and based on my interpretation of the information we were given, Afghanistan was the country where the people responsible for the attack on our country were residing. Not only did I believe it, but we truly did have the majority (if not all) of our allies together with us in Afghanistan.

You probably got the idea I was against fighting any war because we pretty much only discussed the Iraq war, which had nothing to do with 9/11, and there were none of our allies that were with us on this one either. That coalition that Bush struggled to put together was a joke and a coalition in name only. It was wrong, wrong, wrong and was the biggest contributor to loosing our standing and respect in the world community.

If you check back on some of my other posts, I would have also supported a well targeted nuclear attack on Afghanistan too. If we are going to fight a war, I think we should go all out and fight to win and put the fear of the good ole USA into those radicals once and for all.

How's that for being hawkish?

JK

nicely put.........sir........I can't find a smilie that's bowing it's head in respect...........

[wedeliver]

I have a lot against war. You never forget somethings that are burned into your memory. There are no winners, just those who lost less. But then I would have voted for Stevenson. (I just wasn't old enough)

I enjoy a good debate. No thats not true, I believe somethings that I think are bad for our country. If someone could show me that I am wrong, I would then say I was wrong. At this point the questions are there, the answers are not.

I put on the table items of public knowledge. I hope someone might try and actually rebut what I say. So far I see lots of text but no information, just opinions...(like assholes we all got 'em)

Rebut this:
[quote]
What is happening in the United States took me by surprise. I anticipated that in the aftermath of Sept. 11, there would be an enormous hue and cry to find out what went wrong. There has been no hue and cry in the United States. No recriminations, nothing even similar to what happened after Pearl Harbor in 1941… The United States has drawn a veil of silence over the issue of intelligence failure.â€

[Elderberry]

I'm with you wedeliver.

JK

[littleflower]

i'm not even sure where to start.

i get many, many questions when i look at news reports. i go online and start reading ... preferably essays, from both sides (www.aldaily.com), trying to avoid the extremes as much as possible. i do not remember specifics very well. but i do have a logical mind ... and am interested in truth before anything else...

so some guy in canada says that nothing was done to figure out why 9/11 happened. does that mean it's true? no "hue and cry"???? i remember plenty of people screaming for answers ... ? the 9/11 commission? the creation of homeland security? patriot act? are you kidding me? one thing they discovered was the the CIA and FBI did not share intel before 9/11 ... google FBI CIA communication if you're curious ... that has been remedied, at least somewhat ... and guess what ... there has not been an attack on this country since. coincidence?

your second quote says that various people in the CIA and FBI didn't see it coming. the CIA guy was watching bin laden during the last 2 clinton years, and 9 months of bush ... mueller became FBI director on 9-4-01. your third quote refers to incidents that occurred in 1993 and 1994... maybe that's why a lot of people on the right blame CLINTON for ignoring the warning signs... for 7 years he did nothing ... but it was all bush's fault? most of the CIA/FBI people stayed in their jobs during the change, did they not? remember what they are saying now, about obama facing a catastrophe? new presidents and administrations are obvious targets?

this is off the top of my head. you post quotes as if they were gospel ... yet there are thousands and thousands of quotes out there. this little bit:

Contrary to these prolific claims, there is compelling evidence that the U.S. intelligence community had extensive forewarning of the 11th September attacks on New York and Washington. Further evidence suggests that the attacks may, in fact, have been in the interest of certain elements of the Bush administration (see Chapter VII).

tells me exactly where you are coming from. and that is fine .... but i am sorry, you'll have to come up with something more compelling to get me searching the web for stuff... some of my best sources are personal, anyhow ....

[Elderberry]

littleflower, just go and read the 9-11 commission report. It's the source of the information--written by a bi-partisan commission.

If you have any dispute or doubt over the information contained therin, then you do not think as logically as you like to think you do.

JK

[littleflower]

why should i read the 9-11 report, JK?

i would, no doubt, have questions about it anyhow ... that's my nature ...

but i have no idea what you are getting at, here ...

[ygmir]

I might comment, JK only in that:
when have you seen a government report, that big, taking that long and costing that much, that is focused at all, and, can't be made and construed to say whatever a person wants it to?.......
Just like the Warren commission.............

good info, but, I'd say subjective and has latitude for interpretation......

[Elderberry]

Littleflower: Why should you read the 9-11 report? Because it is the source of the factual information that all of the talking heads you site are commenting on. At least if you read it, you'd be armed with the facts and you'd be asking questions based on your own opinions formulated from facts rather than basing them on the opinions of others who have read the source documents.

Ygmir: I didn't read the Warren commission report, I did however read the 9-11 report.

The commission was composed of level-headed people from both parties with an assignment to find out what happened, what went wrong and to come up with suggestions to prevent it from happening again.

I feel they did a complete and fair job of completing that assignment. Unfortunately to this day, few of their recommendations have been implemented.

I would suggest that you too read the report and formulate your own opinion as to whether it says what any one person (or administration) wanted it to say.

There is a 100 page or so executive summary available if you don't want to read the entire book.

JK

[littleflower]

*smiling* ... i did not know that i cited anybody, actually ... i was responding to wedeliver's cites ...

hindsight is always 20/20, isn't it?

i would never assume that reading any report would make me fully informed about 9-11. i keep saying this sort of thing ... i respect the people who worked on the report, but human error, biases, omissions, &c sneak in ... no matter who wrote it. and i certainly don't believe that a bipartisan committee of 10 people can know how best to fix the government ... and stop terrorism. they have ideas, and they are valuable ... but the people making them are not ultimately responsible, are they?

somehow, i'd rather trust the people who are knee deep in the muck than a bunch of pencil pushers ... in a perfect world, they would agree on things ... but it's not a perfect world...

not that i necessarily think bush has done a good job ... but there has not been another attack ... not yet ...

i guess i just think people do their best. now we have the brilliant obama to fix everything ... i am anxious to see what he does ...

[Elderberry]

not that i necessarily think bush has done a good job ... but there has not been another attack ... not yet ...

ANOTHER ATTACK!?...he couldn't even stop the FIRST ATTACK that happened ON HIS WATCH. So how you can think he had anything to do with us not having a SECOND attack defies logic.

JK

[Toolmaker]

Mumia didn't do it

I am of the opinion that he is innocent. Mumia Abu Jamal really didn't belong in the same sentence as OJ Simpson. Having grown up in Philadelphia I can personally attest to the corruption and violence of the police there. For those that are fortunate to live in small towns with real police.. STAY THERE, the big cities have a different type of police officer and a wholly different concept of law enforcements role in the community.

[wedeliver]

Mumia didn't do it

I am of the opinion that he is innocent. Mumia Abu Jamal really didn't belong in the same sentence as OJ Simpson. Having grown up in Philadelphia I can personally attest to the corruption and violence of the police there. For those that are fortunate to live in small towns with real police.. STAY THERE, the big cities have a different type of police officer and a wholly different concept of law enforcements role in the community.

toolmaker,
A Modoc County Sheriff Deputy will be camping with us next year (not with me, with all of us). You are so correct that leo's in small towns can be pretty cool. We have shared Aqua Burn etc with our friend and he is making plans. He also started growing a beard! (we have a "new" sheriff up here who seems to run a "nicer" department then in the past)

Littleflower. I find it hard to debate when all you offer is "there have been no other attacks in the US". I appreciate your feelings. Thanks for keeping it real but if we are going to talk about something, at least study the issue.

[DVD Burner]

Court won't review Obama's eligibility to serve



http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nati ... 8812.story


By Tim Jones | Tribune correspondent
9:16 AM CST, December 8, 2008

UPDATE: The Supreme Court has turned down an emergency appeal from a New Jersey man who says President-elect Barack Obama is ineligible to be president because he was a British subject at birth.

The court did not comment on its order Monday rejecting the call by Leo Donofrio of East Brunswick, N.J., to intervene in the presidential election. Donofrio says that since Obama had dual nationality at birth -- his mother was American and his Kenyan father at the time was a British subject -- he cannot possibly be a "natural born citizen," one of the requirements the Constitution lists for eligibility to be president.

Donofrio also contends that two other candidates, Republican John McCain and Socialist Workers candidate Roger Calero, also are not natural-born citizens and thus ineligible to be president.

At least one other appeal over Obama's citizenship remains at the court. Philip J. Berg of Lafayette Hill, Pa., argues that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii as Obama says and the Hawaii secretary of state has confirmed. Berg says Obama also may be a citizen of Indonesia, where he lived as a boy. Federal courts in Pennsylvania have dismissed Berg's lawsuit.

This is a story that won't go away.

Five weeks after the State of Hawaii vouched for the authenticity of President-elect Barack Obama's birth certificate, the controversy over allegations that Obama is not eligible to take office next month has reached the Supreme Court, which is expected to announce Monday whether it will consider the matter.

The fight is unusual because it thrives outside the so-called mainstream media, far beyond the oak-paneled offices of $700-an-hour lawyers and a world away from the 535 individuals whose surnames are preceded by Representative or Senator.

This is a different army at work, in an environment increasingly influenced by the Internet.

"It's only being mentioned by a relative few, by the real die-hard, anti-Obama crowd," said Michael Harrison, editor and publisher of Talkers magazine, the trade bible of the talk-radio industry. "On mainstream talk radio, it's not a big deal right now. I think it's run its course."

"But," Harrison added, "we live in a time that, because of the Internet, all points of view can live forever."

Just as there is a split on the legitimacy of the legal claims, there is also a split within the media on the merits of the story. Is it the last gasp of opposition from opponents of Obama who have a found community of like-minded believers on the Internet, or is there a legal question to be resolved? The court will answer the latter question this week.

The campaign challenging the legitimacy of Obama's 1961 birth certificate or the legality of his taking office is chronicled by WorldNetDaily, a popular, politically right-leaning site that was the 26th most-visited news and media Web site during November, according to Hitwise, which monitors Net traffic.

"If this [Obama taking office] happens, the question of eligibility for the highest office in the land will no longer even be a matter for concern," wrote Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WorldNetDaily.

"Precedent will have been established. Arnold Schwarzenegger will suddenly be eligible to run for the office in 2012," Farah wrote, referring to the Austrian-born California governor and film star.

An Obama spokesman declined to comment for this story.

The lawyers who, in at least six states including New Jersey and Connecticut, have argued Obama is not a natural-born citizen and cannot be president include one who supported Hillary Clinton's presidential bid, one who has thundered for decades against the legality of the federal government collecting income tax, and one who argues that Sen. John McCain, by virtue of his birth 72 years ago in the Panama Canal Zone, would be banned from moving into the Oval Office, had he won last month's election.

Leo Donofrio is a New Jersey lawyer who tried to get Obama and McCain stricken from the New Jersey ballot in November. Donofrio's case was presented Friday to justices of the Supreme Court. Another case challenging Obama's eligibility, this one from Pennsylvania, has not yet been presented to the full court for its consideration.

"My question is on a pure constitutional ground," said Donofrio. "[Obama] is a citizen of the United States. I just don't believe he's a natural-born citizen."

This is the thrust of the attack, picked up by people such as Bob Schulz, an upstate New York engineer who bought two full-page ads in the Tribune this month that called Obama "a usurper" who "would be entitled to no allegiance, obedience or support from the People."

Schulz has challenged the federal government on issues including the Iraq War, the Patriot Act and the income tax. "I have a long history of petitioning the government for redress of grievances for violations of the constitution and the law," said Schulz, who said he and his wife live on Social Security checks. Schulz said the ads cost "tens of thousands of dollars" and were paid for with more than 500 private donations from individuals who support the effort. He said there were "no financial angels" behind it.

If the Supreme Court decides not to consider the case, Donofrio said there "won't be any beating on the drums saying there wasn't any justice."

But that will not be the end of the matter, Farah vowed.

"It'll plague Obama throughout his presidency. It'll be a nagging issue and a sore on his administration, much like Monica Lewinsky was on [ President Bill] Clinton," Farah said. "It's not going to go away and it will drive a wedge in an already divided public."

That may underscore a landscape change in the media, where the Internet is playing a bigger role in setting the agenda. In 2004, the so-called swift boat campaign against Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, began on the Internet. In fact, the co-author of "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry," Jerome Corsi, also wrote "Obama Nation," a book critical of Obama, published earlier this year.

Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist at Duke University, said the Internet's role in forming public opinion is gaining strength. WorldNetDaily, for instance, has one of the faster-growing audiences on the Internet, up 62 percent in the past year, according to Hitwise.

Nyhan co-wrote a study this year that said journalists' attempts to correct misinformation is unlikely to sway public perceptions because many people want to believe the misperception.

"People often have a strong bias for believing the evidence they want to believe and disbelieving what they don't believe," Nyhan said. "There is less of a sense that we all have a common set of facts we can agree on. There's a polarization, and we can't even agree on the basic factual assumptions to have a debate."

[DVD Burner]

Ex-Blackwater guards surrender in Utah


From Kevin Bohn
CNN


http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/12/08/ira ... ndictment/

(CNN) -- Five former security guards from Blackwater Worldwide turned themselves in to federal authorities Monday in Salt Lake City, Utah, over charges stemming from the 2007 shootings in Baghdad that killed 17 Iraqis.

The Justice Department on Monday plans to charge the former guards with manslaughter and a weapons charge of using a machine gun while committing a crime of violence, a source with knowledge of the investigation said.

A sixth Blackwater guard tied to the incident has reached a plea deal with the government, a source said.

The Justice Department ordered the guards to surrender by Monday or face arrest. One of the guards is from Utah.

The sources said that defense attorneys decided to have all of them surrender in one location rather than in their home states or in Washington, where the federal grand jury handed up the charges last week.

The guards' surrender in Utah is a matter of convenience, sources said, and is likely to be followed by an aggressive legal defense. One of the sources said defense attorneys plan to fight "over venue first," then argue that U.S. law does not pertain to the actions of these guards.

"Why in the world would the government manufacture a venue in Washington, D.C., when they know none of the men had been there or lived there?" a source asked.
The Justice Department refused comment on the case because the charges are under seal.

The State Department, which employed Blackwater to protect U.S. diplomats and other employees, also had no comment. Blackwater declined comment until an official announcement is made.

The men who will stand trial are identified as Donald Ball, 26, of West Valley City, Utah; Dustin Heard, 27, of Knoxville, Tennessee; Evan Liberty, 26, of Rochester, New Hampshire; Nick Slatten, 25, of Sparta, Tennessee; and Paul Slough, 29, of Keller, Texas.

The individual who reached the plea deal with the government has not been identified.

The government has told Blackwater that the company will not face charges, according to sources with knowledge of the case.

None of the guards has worked for Blackwater since 2007, said company spokeswoman Anne Tyrrell.

An Iraqi official familiar with the investigation said that an FBI team and two U.S. prosecutors working on the case will meet in Baghdad on Saturday with more than 60 Iraqis involved in the incident. The meeting is intended to brief the Iraqis on the status of the case.

Iraqi authorities accused Blackwater guards of killing 17 civilians and wounding nearly 30 in the September 2007 shootings in Nisoor Square in western Baghdad.

Blackwater said its guards were protecting a U.S. diplomatic convoy when they came under attack from armed insurgents. The guards returned fire, Blackwater said.

But an Iraqi investigation called the killings "premeditated murder" and accused the guards of firing on civilians indiscriminately. The first U.S. soldiers to arrive on the scene told military investigators they found no evidence the contractors were fired upon, a source familiar with a preliminary U.S. military report told CNN.

The FBI also investigated and determined the shootings were unprovoked and Blackwater personnel used excessive force, according to a senior Justice Department source speaking on background because the case remains sealed until Monday.

The indictments are "a step in the right direction," said Mohammad Abdul Razzaq, whose 9-year-old son, Ali, was killed at Nisoor Square. "It was heinous crime and a painful incident, [but] we can overcome that if a just verdict is handed down."

Hassan Salman, an Iraqi lawyer wounded in the shootings, said that the "American judicial system, known for its integrity, should hand down [to] the perpetrators of this heinous crime against the Iraqi people nothing less than death sentences."

An attorney for Ball said Sunday his client "committed no crime" but would turn himself in Monday.

"We are confident that any jury will see this for what it is -- a politically motivated prosecution to appease the Iraqi government," attorney Steve McCool said. "It has been reported that Mr. Ball will be charged with firearms offenses that carry mandatory penalties of up to life imprisonment. It would be outrageous to charge my client with offenses relating to guns issued by the State Department."

In a statement, attorney David Schertler said: "We strongly disagree with the Department of Justice's decision to bring charges against Dustin Heard. Any charges brought against Mr. Heard are wrong and unjust."

Slough's attorney, Mark Hulkower, said he is "an honorable young man who served this country with distinction for many years."

Hulkower said Slough "should not face criminal charges for defending himself and others from insurgents in Iraq, and we are disappointed that federal prosecutors have taken it on themselves to second-guess how these brave young men fought for their lives."

"We are confident Mr. Slough will be exonerated," he added.

The complex legal case has been dogged by difficulties and may present a major challenge to federal prosecutors.

Among the potential problems is that the law under which the charges are expected to be brought covers contractors working for the U.S. military, but the Blackwater guards were contracted by the State Department. Some independent legal experts question whether U.S. courts have jurisdiction in this case.

Also muddying the waters are alleged assurances of immunity given to the guards by State Department diplomatic security agents investigating the incident before the FBI got involved.

The State Department said its agents did not offer blanket immunity from criminal prosecution but only promised statements the guards made on the scene could not be used against them in any prosecution.

But when the investigation was turned over to the Justice Department to examine possible criminal activity, FBI agents discovered some guards believed they were immune from prosecution and therefore refused to be interviewed again, complicating the FBI probe.

The shootings heightened tensions between U.S. and Iraqi government officials and contributed to a protracted debate over the extent of immunity that U.S. military personnel and civilian contractors have from Iraqi laws.

Security contractors had immunity from Iraqi law under a provision put in place in the early days of the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq. But starting next year, under a U.S.-Iraq security agreement that Iraq approved last week, Iraq will have the "primary right to exercise jurisdiction" over U.S. contractors and their employees.

The State Department, which employed Blackwater to protect U.S. diplomats and other employees, renewed Blackwater's contract this year over strong objections from the Iraqi government.

[cowboyangel]

..and this company...run by two Opus Dei members, Eric Prince and Joseph Scmidtz. The Catholic Church jumps up and down about abortion but is stuningly silent about Catholic mercenaries...go figure....

Hey carnivore, ask Eric Prince about what he knows about Ace Elevator and Securacom. Opus Dei Catholics know how to keep secrets. Big Secrets.

[DVD Burner]

Hmmmm,


I woulda thought this was more of a Mormon operation.

[joel the ornery]

i guess those 16 UN resolutions were/are just ass-wipe, eh?

moral right? uh-huh.... um, nope, didn't see any mass graves, no reports of torture by his son...

fucking saddam apologists.

I am certainly not a Saddam apologist. The last of those 16 UN resolutions were a joke--only passed at the manipulation of the U.S. and its false intelligence.

We had no 'moral right' to unilaterally and preemptively invade that country and occupy it. Period, end of story.

And don't bring up the joke of a 'coalition' either. Stop trying to justify something that has long been proven unjustifiable.

JK

your point was/is moot.

[Elderberry]

i guess those 16 UN resolutions were/are just ass-wipe, eh?

moral right? uh-huh.... um, nope, didn't see any mass graves, no reports of torture by his son...

fucking saddam apologists.

I am certainly not a Saddam apologist. The last of those 16 UN resolutions were a joke--only passed at the manipulation of the U.S. and its false intelligence.

We had no 'moral right' to unilaterally and preemptively invade that country and occupy it. Period, end of story.

And don't bring up the joke of a 'coalition' either. Stop trying to justify something that has long been proven unjustifiable.

JK

your point was/is moot.

Yes, it is; but so is yours.

JK

[DVD Burner]

FBI: Illinois Governor Sought To "Sell" Obama's Senate Seat

Wanted President-Elect to "Put Something Together…Something Big"

By BRIAN ROSS
December 9, 2008

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story ... 985&page=1

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich wanted President-elect Barack Obama "to put something together…something big" in exchange for going along with Obama's choice to fill his vacant US Senate seat, according to an FBI affidavit unsealed following the Governor's stunning arrest.

"I've got this thing and it's f***ing golden, and, uh, uh, I'm just not giving it up for f***in' nothing. I'm not gonna do it. And I can always use it. I can parachute me there," Blagojevich said in a phone call secretly recorded by the FBI on November 5, the day after the election, according to the affidavit.

The FBI says Blagojevich wanted an appointment to the Obama cabinet as Secretary of Health and Human Services, a well-paying job or huge campaign contributions as the price for naming Obama's successor.

Blagojevich was overheard by the FBI saying "I want to make money," complaining he was "financially hurting."

He also sought a high paying job for his wife, according to the FBI. "Is there a play here, with these guys, with her" to work for a firm in Washington or New York, he reportedly said.

The FBI affidavit said Blagojevich had been told by an adviser "the President-elect can get ROD BLAGOJEVICH's wife on paid corporate boards in exchange for naming the President-elect's pick to the Senate."

Told by two other advisers he has to "suck it up" for two years, the FBI says it heard Blagojevich complain he has to give this "motherf***er [the President-elect] his Senator. F*** him. For nothing? F*** him."

The Governor is heard saying he will pick another candidate "before I just give f***ing [Senate Candidate l] a f***ing Senate seat and I don't get anything."

According to the affidavit, one candidate for the Senate seat, identified as Senate Candidate 5 promised to "raise money" for Blagojevich. The Governor described, in a recorded call, an earlier approach by an associate of Senate Candidate Five. "We were approached 'pay to play.' That, you know he'd raise me 500 grand. An emissary came. Then the other guy would raise a million, if I mad him (Senate Candidate 5) a Senator."
he FBI affidavit says Blagojevich thought he might get some "tangible up front" from Senate Candidate 5.
Aware that he was under FBI investigation, Blagojevich apparently considered appointing himself to Obama's Senate seat, the affidavit says. He is quoted as saying "he will be able to obtain greater resources if he is indicted as a sitting Senator as opposed to a sitting governor."

He was arrested this morning on a two count criminal complaint, and is expected in court later today.