Slashdot Mirror

But until dubya decided to get his jollies by launching himself a couple o' wars

Bush invaded Iraq on the information he had at the time. That information turned out to be false (my money says someone grabbed the warheads and bolted before/during the initial invasion given the ridiculous amount of warnings they were given, but the fact is I don't know). 9/11 was a rude awakening for him and made him take a good look at the world's preeminent threats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dujail_Massacre

http://www.usembassy.it/pdf/other/iraqfocus1.pdf

http://www.c-span.org/Content/PDF/hrdossier.pdf

Let's hope those will convince you what an evil scumbag he was and how the world is better off without them. And if you're still wondering about the al-Qaeda connection, they had a base in Anbar province.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Anbar_Governorate

  If I were him, I'd have invaded sooner, with or without WMDs. Nevertheless, I believe that Bush is a good and honorable man and I will defend him until I'm dead.

There appears to me to be a whole lot of "Validity by Association" going on here.

I looked up Global Information Freedom, Inc. - and I'm having trouble finding this close association so noted in TFSummary. Clearly, GIFInc, is very concerned about the Great Firewall - but here's the only Falun Gong reference that I could find - http://www.internetfreedom.org/The-High-Tech-Persecution-of-Falun-Gong-in-China (which seems to cover a helluva lot more than the Falun Gong).

The Falun Gong has become the darling political football around here - note House Resolution 794, June 12, 2006, called for the PRC to square away human rights abuses and cited the Falun Gong. Note also, FWIW, my first awareness of the Falun Gong was from the Wall Street Journal - at a time when I was spending most all of my time in Asia. Interestingly, or may I say not-surprisingly, the WSJ's quotes are reference material for Congress - note the following study: http://www.usembassy.it/pdf/other/RL33437.pdf

So - Iranians are behind a firewall and there's software to help.

I'm not pleased with the summary - unless there's some actual evidence linking Global Information Freedom, Inc with the Falun Gong - real linking, i.e., GIFInc is funded by Falun Gong or is the Falun Gong's internet mouthpiece, then I call not only shenanigans but also shame:

Don't Iranians have enough fucking trouble without being linked to the Falun Gong? Was there a need for this sensationalism and association?

Is the issue that Iranians suffer censorship? Or that the censorship can be broken - the Great Firewall experience applies here?

Or, is the issue that we need to mention an entirely different and completely controversial belief system to sell mindshares?

I apologize in advance if I'm wrong about the Global Information Freedom, Inc crowd - but that apology is provisional upon proof of the linking claim, which I have yet to find.

"In 2005, the oil industry recorded revenues of $1.62 trillion, of which 81% was
accounted for by the five major integrated oil companies. Profits for the industry
totaled almost $140 billion, 76% of which were earned by the five major integrated
oil companies, with thelargest company, ExxonMobil, earningover 25% of thetotal
profit." - source

My german professor once mentioned that you could go to the consulate of the country in question and get reimbursed for some or all of your taxes (assuming you have reciepts)

You can get re-imbursed. But generally, it is of so little ammount it is not worth it. If you're on a $3,000+ trip to Europe and spend a hundred or so on souvenirs, I don't think you're gonna worry about ~$10. However, that is besides the point in this case. While there, I still pay the tax. That I can get re-imbursed later is a different matter.

Here is a link on it. One of the things that it mentions is that there is a minimum ammount you have to spend to get re-imbursed for the VAT spent.

Here's the major reasons for the Iraq war this time around:

1. Violation of the 'No Fly Zone', continued attacks on U.S. and U.K. pilots.
2. Massive Organized Escalating Violation of U.N. Trade Sanctions.
3. Violation of the ban on Missiles of 150km+ range.
4. Violation of mandatory UN Weapons Inspections
5. Cash sponsorship of terrorism in the region.
6. All of which add up to *MASSIVE* violations of the Terms of Surrender signed after the first Gulf War.

Here's more detail into Iraq's defiance of the UN in the years from 1991 to 2002. Take a look to refresh your memory RL31641.pdf

What about Libya?

Kahdaffi folded when he saw how serious we were with Afghanistan and Iraq. Think Saddam would've ever come around? -- Saddam was a complete madman.

What about Pakistan?

Yeah, Pakistan too. Two birds with one stone -- twice! Having US Troops on one side and angry Indians on the other gave them a new-found internationally cooperative attitude.

The UN was useless because BUSH prevented the UN from being useful ...

Wrong. There are ample examples of the UN's incompetence -- let's review: Rwanda genocide, Somalia, Libya, Sudan Darfur genocide, Taliban in Afghanistan, East Timor, Cambodia, China Human Rights, Palestinian/Isreali conflict, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, the list goes on and on.

In fact, the United States is the heavy lifter behind every single accomplishment the United Nations has under their belt. Without the US, the UN is little more than a yapping poodle.

Bush wanted, pleaded, begged for the UN to do something, but all he got from them was a resolution -- no action. Why, because major players at the UN were lining their pockets with Oil-For-Food money -- they didn't want Bush derailing their 'Gravy-Train.'

Your government created Bin Laden ... Your government funded Saddam ...

The United States used OBL and Saddam, but we didn't create them. They were there without our intervention, and completely willing to be used as they used us. Both were funded with Oil Money and the blood of Arabs and others. We put a stop to Saddam, we'll stop OBL, and anyone else who turns on us.

You appear to be yet another of the seemingly endless supply of Emptyheaded people waiting for your consciousness to be filled with propoganda. Think for yourself, man! Quit swallowing that propoganda your government controlled media calls news.

General Arab opinion has been against the US since well before Saddam came to power. Before OBL, before Khadaffi, Kim Il Sung, for as long as I've known of Arab sentiment, as a rule of thumb its been against us. I don't see *ANYTHING* that'll change that within generations, except for the eradication of The United States and The State of Isreal from the face of the earth. Trust me, that ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

So why should we bother to try? We're gonna do the right thing -- stamp out terrorism. The rest of the world can either sit back and watch, or go pound salt! We really don't care -- there's no point in caring what terrorists or those who defend terrorists think. No point at all.

That respect thing works both ways -- stick that up your 'stinky ass' ...

Clinton didn't just lie -- he lied under oath during testimony at a trial. That's serious, especially for the leader of the Free World.

Bush didn't lie.

Saddam Hussein was a bad guy -- someone the world will be better without. Fact is Saddam's regime never complied with the terms of the Cease-Fire Saddam agreed to after the first Gulf War:

1. Violation of the 'No Fly Zone', continued attacks on U.S. and U.K. pilots.
2. Violation of U.N. Trade Sanctions at every opportunity.
3. Violation of mandatory UN Weapons Inspections
4. Finally, but most significantly, cash sponsorship of terrorism in the region.

Here's detail on how Saddam Hussien thwarted the UN efforts at containment at every opportunity: http://www.usembassy.it/pdf/other/RL31641.pdf We now know that he bought the help of the French, German, Russian, Chinese gov'ts, and even people inside the UN, with fat contracts under the Oil-For-Food program.

While these particular tubes might've been dual use, that doen't even fit into the equation. You can place these aluminum tubes where the sun don't shine.

Saddam and his cronies had 500 tons of yellow cake Uranium, which is only used to create enriched Uranium for a Nuclear Reactor or Nuclear weapons. Iraq has had no functioning Nuclear Reactor since the first Gulf War, and was not working on building one. 500 tons of yellow cake is enough to produce enriched uranium for 1 nuclear bomb.

The only reasonable conclusion available is that Saddam DID have their sights on a nuclear weapons program.

Now, thanks to the Coalition, he no longer does.

BTW - Clinton killed thousands by not protecting the American People in the face of Al-Qaeda threats. Lobbing cruise missiles at shadows, State Dept mix-ups and his cut-and-run in Somalia, and various non-responses to the many terrorists attacks abroad during the Clinton administration left terrorists around the world with the impression that the U.S. could be pushed out of the way with terror. If he could've kept it in his pants long enough to think, maybe he could've dealt with terrorists effectively. That whole Al-Qaeda-Afghanistan thing went on while he was in office.

We're doing quite a poor job. All the 'humanitarian' things we've done also has an ulterior motive. I know it sounds cynical, but there looks like there's more evidence to support that than refute it.

We're not helping peace in Israel and Palestine, or else we'd be more like Europe and condemn the apartheid wall and Israeli airstrikes in civillian areas. Bush is too quiet, because he doesn't want to upset the Christian/Jewish/Zionist voters. He's not hard enough on Sharon

We're not helping in Afghanistan, and when we do we are doing it for our own interests and not theirs. Go read "Dude, where's my country?" and you'll see how Afghanistan is a mess of special interests, oil pipelines, and skeletons in Bush's closet.

We're not giving jobs to Iraqis. In fact, we fired everyone in the army, instantly putting thousands out of jobs, and making thousands of 6-person families unemployed. That made about 250,000 people (soldiers and their families they support) into enemies instantly.

Not only that, but instead of hiring Iraqis to rebuild the country like after the first Gulf War (Iraq has a very high percentage of Civil engineers), the US hired US companies, specifically Halliburton, to do the job. While it cost something like $50,000 to rebuild a bridge after the first Gulf War, using only Iraqi resources, it will supposedly cost millions for Halliburton to do it. Who's going to bleed in debt from this? Certainly not the US, the cost will be passed on to the Iraqis, who will go from a not-badly-off country to a poor one.

He did?

You know you keep complaining about the sanctions against Iraq.

I'd love to agree with you but here's my problem. Iraq is the home of many empires because of its own natural recources. Maybe you should just fess up that Saddam is a crappy leader if he can't feed his nation.

Sanctions *only* mean we don't do business with him. It does not mean that we steal food from children, poison food supplies, etc... In fact the if that were true than the US would be violating the sanctions! In fact it could be said that Russia holding up the shipment of supplies if anyone.