Set The Record Straight

Status
Not open for further replies.
1) If the people of other nations are not willing to fight for their own freedom, then they are not entitled to it.
Click to expand...

How can someone even respond to this.....:confused:

2) Why should our brave young men and women do their fighting and dying for them?
Click to expand...

Well...... maybe because the USA should help oppressed people and offer the freedoms & liberties you take for granted every day?

3) Which country is next on the very long list of nations in which we must go and "give" their people the "opportunity" they are entitled to with our soldier's and marine's blood and our, our children's and our grandchildren's tax dollars to pay for it?
Click to expand...

Oh, now I understand, our security is much more important then other "peoples" freedoms. How arrogant and condescending. Are you saying that the Iraqi people are somewhat less deserving of "natural rights" because of who they are?

I to am troubled by what is going on in Iraq right now, as I have relatives there, and the whole basis of the pre-emptive strike was the supposed existance of WMD, but to think that Sadam was not indirectly helping terrorist organizations financially is naive. And here is something else to think about - Since 911, how many civilians in this country have died as a result of terrorist attacks?
 
idd is doing a great job mof making his point so I won't try to add anything to it. My only comment is on this:



"Oh, now I understand, our security is much more important then other "peoples" freedoms."


Boogalou,
I think the real problem is that Americans think our security is more important than our freedom. Every time we go to war, the federal government uses the hype and frenzy surrounding it to increase its power which results in a reduction of our freedoms. And people stand around and say "Well, it's just a little, and we get so much in return." The next thing we know, we're fighting in court for all we're worth over whether or not we can own guns, for crying out loud. We're paying 40% income tax, and that money goes to more wars, and more laws. Look at what we sacrificed for this war, with the Patriot Acts 1 &2. And it's always in the name of Democracy, or saving the children, or some other such pile. We almost can't afford to go to any more wars, because we are almost out of freedom to pay for them with.

-drew
 
MacViolinist.......

"idd is doing a great job mof making his point so I won't try to add anything to it."
************************************************************

That could be so, but I think Khornet actually addressed idd's 'point' very well indeed.

************************************************************
"Look at Florida 2000. Ever since that issue was decided, we have had a lot of folks who simply hate Bush. Whatever he did after that would be lies, no matter the evidence. This is why their arguments are so circular and circumstantial: they are not based on reason, but anger. And that is why this president can be condemned for thinking and saying what an earlier president was praised for.

And you can't reason with anger."
************************************************************
 
Wow.

Seeing idd kick butt on this thread reminded me of watching some of Mike Tyson's early fights. Referee would have stopped this one pretty quick out of pity for the opponents. I thought I knew the dirt on Iraq and the US support for it's regimes, but I learned some new stuff here. Good job idd. Always refreshing to read posts that have the documentation to back up the points they make.:p
 
The sources of authority used by idd have little or no credit.

fpif has a definate political bent:
Help the progressive community to deepen its analysis by formulating and strengthening core principles and consistency on foreign policy;
Click to expand...
In 1995, Gen Kamal also said:
General Hussein Kamal – Iraq initially had one reactor and started four different projects. One project was headed by Dr. Jaffar and you are aware of it. There was a second project undergoing test and there were two projects under development. Some parts you have seen. A few months ago they had a project “Sodashâ€. This was a new one. Some equipment was buried there but it was recovered recently. Part of this buried equipment was at the Sodash site. Other parts were “made to disappearâ€

Prof. Zifferero – what was the purpose of Sodash?

General Hussein Kamal – that was a new project. They were doing some digging activities for it and found this equipment. I was not aware that this equipment existed. The project was close to the “Iraqi factory†which is also a new project to produce machines.

Prof. Zifferero – so there was our Sodash project, they started digging and discovered equipment. What was this equipment for?

General Hussein Kamal – It was from Jaffar’s project located on the river. This site was destroyed (He accepted Zifferero’s prompt that the site was called Tarmya.)

Prof. Zifferero – This was the EMIS project. What about the centrifuge project headed by Dr. Al Ubeidi?

General Hussein Kamal – there were centrifuges. It was a department of the Ministry of Agriculture. It was situated at Al Salih.

Prof. Zifferero – Are you referring to Rashdiyah?

General Hussein Kamal – Yes, it is in the middle between Al Salih and Rashdiyah. You know the place. They manufacture their own centrifuges in two ways. One way was from maraging steel and the second – using carbon fibres. All centrifuges worked but they preferred the ones made of carbon fibre. With carbon fibre centrifuges, the speed of 60,000 rounds per minute was achieved and they were about to go to 100,000. This would be done in a different area but the activity was stopped by the war.
Click to expand...
So, here he shows that he did not know everything, some items were designed and/or intended to be hidden, and he has been out of Iraq's weapons loop since 1995.
 
Not to throw a wrench in the works but on policitally driven boards posters must be looked at with a little suspicion.

case in point:

Michigander
New Member

Registered: Feb 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2

Note the register date and number of posts. Both of these posts just so happen to be in this thread.

Be on the lookout for those who wish to bomb "conservative" boards for their own political reasons this election season.

*Cough* Troll *Cough* *Cough*
 
Can't really brand him as a troll. A new member has to start somewhere. Several of the other posters in this thread have made far more controversial remarks.
 
I agree

I'm not necessarily bagging on him specifically. But his situation warrants a suspicious eye. Being a frequent visitor of many conservative boards, I run into these people a lot. We are in a time of heated political debate.

I will wait to see his stance on guns... if he wishes to post on those topics.
 
FallingBlock,
How does calling someone a sore loser constitute a refutation of evidence, let a lone a point? More generally, to those saying that idd's sources have no credibility, would you like to back that up, or are you just going to say it over and over? I don't know idd, but if you've got him pegged as a pissed off Gore supporter I'd put some money down that you're flat wrong. There's more out there than just Cons and Dems. Maybe since the 2 are getting so close to the same we should it the Conservacratic Party.


-drew
 
FallingBlock,
How does calling someone a sore loser constitute a refutation of evidence, let a lone a point?
Click to expand...

It doesn't.

FallingBlock,
More generally, to those saying that idd's sources have no credibility, would you like to back that up, or are you just going to say it over and over?
Click to expand...

The credibility one assigns to a source is based on whether they are saying what agrees with your innate opinion. It's a technique George Bush perfected in reviewing intelligence gathered on other hostile countries.

FallingBlock,
I don't know idd, but if you've got him pegged as a pissed off Gore supporter I'd put some money down that you're flat wrong.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Lots of people who are disgusted with Bush were just as disgusted with what Clinton and Gore did. I never understood how republicans seem to believe you can refute somebody complaining about the crimes of this administration by saying:

"Well..... Clinton was a liar, too."

Nobody is arguing about that. I called him a liar when he lied, and I'm doing the same now.

Khornet effectively wiped the floor with him. Or am I missing the sarcasm?.
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on your point of view. At this point, republicans have had their worlds so completely warped by the administration's shoveling that political discussions seem to be like trying to describe the shade of burnt umber to a blind man.
 
Thumper Are you kidding, BH?

Khornet effectively wiped the floor with him. Or am I missing the sarcasm? ?
Click to expand...

Here is the response from Khornet:

"To understand this controversy
you must not look at Iraq, Afghanistan, WMDs, or Halliburton.

Look at Florida 2000. Ever since that issue was decided, we have had a lot of folks who simply hate Bush. Whatever he did after that would be lies, no matter the evidence. This is why their arguments are so circular and circumstantial: they are not based on reason, but anger. And that is why this president can be condemned for thinking and saying what an earlier president was praised for."



If that is wiping the floor, you need to buy a mop dude. Try answering the mountains of charges leveled, not spouting plattitudes.
 
2) Why should our brave young men and women do their fighting and dying for them?
Click to expand...

Are you one of our men and women?

If so, you have forgotten that one of your basest duties is to "stick up for the little guys" when they cannot.

If you aren't then how dare you presume to know what our young men should or shouldn't do. We all volunteered, we weren't drafted. As one of those men, I can tell you that I know of the atrocities committed by Saddam, and I would gladly give my life in an effort to see those people treated like people.

Not to mention the fact that inspectors were routinely harassed, threatened, and forced out of certain sites. What is that? Probable cause.

Just because bush made a decision based (and only partially, I might add) on bad intel, doesn't make him a liar and a thief. It makes him human.

Also, I doubt anyone here has a higher security clearance than the president and his advisors. They probably know quite a few things about the situation that we don't.

Anyone here of Jewish descent? you might not be here if it wasn't for the US "meddling" in the affairs of other nations.

Take the false logic and red herrings elsewhere... Like DU.

James
 
Golly, bountyhunter....are you answering for me now as well?

My time zone is some 14 hours off yours.....be patient.;)

************************************************************
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FallingBlock,
How does calling someone a sore loser constitute a refutation of evidence, let a lone a point?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It doesn't."
************************************************************


Actually, Khornet made that observation, but I think it is relevant to the bitterness which some 'progressives' seem to bring to this discussion.



************************************************************
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FallingBlock,
More generally, to those saying that idd's sources have no credibility, would you like to back that up, or are you just going to say it over and over?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bountyhunter interjects:

"The credibility one assigns to a source is based on whether they are saying what agrees with your innate opinion. It's a technique George Bush perfected in reviewing intelligence gathered on other hostile countries."
************************************************************


Sorry, but if you folks really believe that "The Washington Post" is a credible source for coverage of the U.S. political scene, then you are letting your itching hatred for "Dubya" cloud your judgement.

If the disputation of these election year hyperbolic excercises in politics requires the weakness of the source to be stated "over and over" then I will say it, much as the 'progressives' seem to make the allegations "over and over" using sources famous for their anti-Bush bias.

Hey, here's a novel concept:

YOU anti-Bush zealots PROVE the allegations are true, by quoting a variety of credible sources.:D


************************************************************quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FallingBlock,
I don't know idd, but if you've got him pegged as a pissed off Gore supporter I'd put some money down that you're flat wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd guess perhaps a "pissed-off progressive", but the effect is much the same. The "pissed-off" overshadows the excercise of judgement.


bountyhunter writes:
"
Agreed. Lots of people who are disgusted with Bush were just as disgusted with what Clinton and Gore did. I never understood how republicans seem to believe you can refute somebody complaining about the crimes of this administration by saying:

"Well..... Clinton was a liar, too."

Nobody is arguing about that. I called him a liar when he lied, and I'm doing the same now."
************************************************************


Trouble is. Clinton IS a liar....no disputing that fact.

I do not think their is enough evidence yet to label "Dubya" as a liar, despite bountyhunter's fondest hope that it is so.




************************************************************

bountyhunter ruminates:

"I guess it depends on your point of view. At this point, republicans have had their worlds so completely warped by the administration's shoveling that political discussions seem to be like trying to describe the shade of burnt umber to a blind man."
************************************************************


Please substitute "progressives" for "republicans" and "lefty news media" for "administration's" in the above statement, and apply it to yourself, bountyhunter.

Y'all are simple blinded by your hatred for what is the best man in the whitehouse in the past sixteen years.;)


Gordon Fink:
************************************************************
from the CNN article you linked to:

"Since it's still unknown how much damage has been or will be done to Iraqi oil fields in the war, it's difficult to estimate the contract's eventual dollar value.

But its biggest value could be that it puts Halliburton in a prime position to handle the complete refurbishment of Iraq's long-neglected oil infrastructure, which will be a plum job.

Getting Iraq's oil fields to pre-1991 production levels will take at least 18 months and cost about $5 billion initially, with $3 billion more in annual operating expenses,..."
************************************************************


War is certainly good for business!

In this case, it was also in the long-term strategic interest of the U.S. middle east policy, as well as of outstanding benefit to the Iraqi people.

And, hey, buddy, "it was all about the oil":rolleyes:

As soon as all those billions are spent getting it moving again.;)
 
Better let go of the bickering and name calling and get back to rational debate or someone's gonna slap a lock on this discussion. :)
 
Nice recovery, guys. I'd hate to see Art pull the car over and start handin' out beatin's.:p

So, none of us are in love with GWB. We are all questioning his honesty and his ability. I still say that he'd have to fall a long way to be in the same league as President Happy-pants and his shrew wife (or any of the socialist hacks currently vying for the dem. nod).

And if enough of us don't vote for Bush,
Kerry will become prez. That reality is one that should make any sane person shudder. Your libertarian vote of conscience, though well intentioned, will help bring about the exact thing that many of us hope to avoid, higher taxes, onerous firearms infringement, more federal regulations, the dems. calling the shots with the pat. acts I & II, selling out our national soveriegnty to the UN, explosive expansion in socialist govt. entitlement programs, a liberal SC and federal judiciary and an overall continuation down the road of 'moral relativism'. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
 
Dangit, gburner.........

Now THAT was a post!


************************************************************
"And if enough of us don't vote for Bush, Kerry will become prez.
That reality is one that should make any sane person shudder."
************************************************************

A fine, succinct analysis of our current situation.

:eek:
 
Just a few thoughts on Iraq and the war that seems to have generated so much hate for GW.

Sadam was evil. He used WMDs on his own people. He would cheerfully used them on us if the oppertunity presented itself.

At the present time, Sadam poses no danger to anyone (as a military leader) He is no longer able to finance terrorism.

The war in Iraq is costly, in terms of manpower, money and loss of American lives. 550+ as I recall. BTW, more Americans lose their lives in motor vehicle crashes in a month than in the entire Iraqi operation.

From an economic standpoint, the ouster of Sadam was a good thing, his ability to disrupt oil supplies has been terminated. (No more setting oil fields afire.)

Regardless of how ill advised the attack on Iraq may have been based on faulty intel., sooner or later he would have had to be removed from power.

Waiting for the UN to take military action is an exercise in futility, all they can do is blather.

Don't know if it means anything, but since the war, the economy has taken a definite upturn, strange huh?

No matter what GW does that I don't like I will vote for him as long as the alternative is GUN GRABBER KERRY.
 
The Bush haters have let their obsession blind them. Our troops are mostley out of Saudia Arabia, this was a source of contention in the region. Iran now has US occupied/liberated countries on its borders,Iraq and Afghanistan. It also has our "allies" Turkey and Pakistan on its borders. Syria now has US controlled Iraq on its border with our "allies" Turkey and Jordon north and south. Our President has completely taken the battle to the source of militant Islam. This was bold strategic action. Letting the UN handle the Iraq situation is the reason it finally came to war again. We must not be afraid to act in our own self interest. Nobody else in the world will act for us. And we are somewhat unique in that we believe people being free around the world is in our best interest. Letting the liberals (Kerry, Clinton etc..) put the UN back in charge of our foriegn policy would be disastrous. Everybody believed Iraq had WMD (see post full of quotes above). Our President did not say the threat was imminent, he said it was a mistake to wait for it to become so.
 
fallingblock wrote:
>Name one "death squad democracy" that you have incontrovertible proof of U.S. led "death squads" operating in.

Not exactly sure what you mean by “incontrovertible proof,†but fortunately there have been US congressional investigations, memoirs written by former CIA officers, and histories written with the aid of declassified documents, although often such declassified documents are heavily redacted.

There is the testimony of John Stockwell, a former Marine recon, veteran of three wars, and the highest-ranking former CIA Officer to ever go public. He was stationed in Africa and Vietnam, and eventually sat on a subcommittee of the National Security Council. “In Guatemala 1954, Brazil, Guyana, Chile, the Congo, Iran, Panama, Peru, Bolivia, Equador, Uruguay - the CIA organized the overthrow of constitutional democracies.†http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2897/secretwars1.html

The CIA sponsored death squads in El Salvador, such as the Treasury Police. See Michael McClintock, _The American Connection: State Terror and Popular Resistance in El Salvador (Vol 1)_.

And Guatemala. Michael McClintock, _The American Connection: State Terror and Popular Resistance in El Salvador (Vol 1)_, Schlesinger and Kinzer, _Bitter Fruit_, and Richard Zimmerman, _The CIA in Guatemala_.

In much of Latin America this was done under a program called the Office of Public Safety, officially a AID program that was actually run by CIA. See A.J.Langguth, _Hidden Terrors_ for a chilling description of this program that included the use and training in torture. OPS was eventually shut down after the outcry.

In Iran, the CIA created the SAVAK in 1957. See Stephen Kinzer, _All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror_. See http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iran/savak/

In Uganda and the Congo the CIA created death squads, according to John Stockwell.

Former CIA Officer Colonel George Hunter White wrote from retirement, “I toiled whole-heartedly in the vineyards because it was fun, fun, fun. Where else could a red-blooded American boy lie, kill, cheat, steal, rape and pillage with the blessings of the all highest?â€

See William Blum, _Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since WWII_.
 
"Incontrovertible proof".....

Incontrovertible: not open to question : indisputable

Proof: I'm not typing all that...look it up yourself, idd. :D

Most, if not all, of what you have cited is anecdotal evidence and speculation by individuals or politically-motivated 'investigations' as to what was done with training and aid provided by the U.S. to foreign goverments.

Not convincing as 'proof' of U.S. LED "death squads".:scrutiny:

Just a quick example, from the http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iran/savak/
site you provided:

************************************************************
"CIA subsequently provided organizational and and training assistance for the establishment of an intelligence organization for the Shah."
************************************************************

The Shah's folks were doing the skulduggery and naughty deeds, not U.S. personnel.;)

One may argue that it did or didn't enhance U.S. interests at the time, but it was the Shah's Iranians choosing what to do with the training.

That's the way the intelligence community does business...well, at least the more civilised parts of it.:D
 
Ahh, the good old

"Blame America First" Left. USA gins up a few "death squads" in the twilight struggle with Communism, and we're Satan. Stalin et.al. murder tens of millions, and Cold Warriors have an "Inordinate fear of Communism" (James Earl Carter's words).

For so many people, the least sin on America's part outweighs the massive crimes of her enemies. Been that way since the '30s, and always will.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
Gov. Schwarzenegger: a modest proposal
Replies
13
Views
1K
Robert Hairless
R
S
  • Locked
Pink Pistols Set Record Straight
Replies
21
Views
1K
LawDog
L
W.E.G.
  • Locked
VA-ALERT: Norfolk audio/pictures, VT Panel report
Replies
1
Views
1K
Robert Hairless
R
R
  • Locked
Interesting //Sen. Rochefeller got it wrong
Replies
0
Views
433
rhedley
R
B
  • Locked
Is this true?
Replies
4
Views
762
Cool Hand Luke 22:36
C
Back
Top