-withdraw from iraq, try to do so gracefully since were damned if we stay and damned if we go.
We aren't winning Iraq, but we're not losing either; we're only holding back the hordes trying to drive us out. Unfortunately George W. Bush has proven a weak wartime leader unable or unwilling to prepare the American people to sacrifice in order to win a war, or to explain the consequences of abandoning Iraq to terrorist who will quickly proceed to make use of Iraq's vast oil wealth and WMD know-how and production facilities against us. Think Afghanistan under the Taliban was a threat? Wait until al Qaeda runs Iraq!
The good new is the problem with our strategy in Iraq are immenently solvable with a little leadership at the top. Too bad that's exactly what we're lacking with this idiot at the helm. Sad but true.
First, get our troops out of their bases where they can do some good. Currently most of our troops are holed up in ever-growing compounds, accomplishing very little in order to keep American casualty levels very low. Second, drastically increase the number of American 'advisors' to the Iraqi military. Third, stop pushing Iraqi troops into the field long before they are ready. Fourth, we need to permanently increase the size of our military by a million troops to support our military strategy in Iraq. 140,000 troops was never enough to successfully implement an oil-spot strategy in a country the size of Iraq. Rumsfeld should be fired for this one alone.
-undo the damage to our civil liberties done by the patriot act
There have been no serious abuses so far, so that's a hard sell.
-reform social security by removing the blatant privatization bush put in which basically amounts to abolshment (but with the added benefit of commissions to brokers before your stock tanks)
The current surplus in SS is being used to fund Medicaid and welfare and every other government program, and to say there is no budget shortfall in SS now is to pretend these programs are funded separately. They aren't. There is just one big pot of money out of which the Treasury pays all government obligations. And since today there is a budget deficit overall, every time two or three baby boomer retires to be replaced by one new worker, the Social Security solvency and the overal budget deficit gets worse as the ratio of payers to payees increases.
Bush's very small (2%), totally voluntary privatisation would help solve the problem by bringing in a whole lot more money than is possible now in the highly inefficient purely government system. Few remember this, but Bill Clinton actually proposed a similar solution several years ago, of course his solution was to allow the *government* to do the investing, a poison pill.
-Universal health care (which responds to the increasing 10s of millions of people without healthcare, and which they make a damned good economic case for!)
Yeah that one worked great for Hillary. I dare you to try it again.;)
There are a lot of misconceptions about the American medical system such as a lack of emergency care for the uninsured, something which is actually illegal here. Or that people commonly do without necessary operations, in truth a rarity because charity almost always picks up the slack. I bet you buy into them all. But I would ask you why Canadians have to wait 6 months go south of the border whenever they have major operations? Why do those who can afford it instead opt to go south of the border to find timely care? Or maybe you could ask yourself why our medical care costs started to explode only when government HMOs took over? Or why virtually all the world's cutting edge medical research and new procedures are developed in the U.S., why such a large percentage of relevant Nobels are awarded here? Did it ever occur to you that all those great miracle drugs and other amazing advances wouldn't have happened in other places that make such long t
I totally trust your descriptions of recent events even w/o a reference to a single news piece. But then again I doubt you read any yourself, probably just got some excerpts from Kos. Try peeking out of your echo chamber once in a while.
Oh, and the bold really sells it. Try ALL CAPS too, after all if you can't present a well thought out argument, bashing it in is really the only alternative.
Um I'd have rather they kept the original cliffhanger. The Peacekeeper Wars were friggin horrible. A machine to make 2 implacable, extremely agressive enemies suddenly make peace by...forcing them to talk it over?? A sooper-dooper diplomacy machine? Calgon, take me away!!!
But what can you expect from the mushy minds of the writers responsible for the last few seasons? You can always tell the end of a series is near when a bunch of pie-in-the sky, mushy brained and barely veiled left wing crap starts popping up in the plots.
No way for Claudia Black. Did you see the Farscape episode where they go to earth and she wears that tight flower child stuff. Holeeeeee Gaawd!!! It still have the blisters to show from that one.;) Ok kidding but still...did you see that shit?
In any case, Farscape put all other sci-fi shows ever made to absolute shame. The writing was freaking awesome, Jim Henson's muppets were amazing, and the universe was soo much more realistic and imaginitive.
You have so far failled to back any of your own allegations, folk can judge you by your posts. You like dictators, you like Bush, you peddle the type of conspiracy stories spun by Wolfowitz and Perle.
So you can't back it up then? If you think I haven't bring it on, here or in the original threads where those things were discussed to death.
The infamous statement by the then US ambassador to Iraq on the Iraq dispute over the Kewaiti oil fields is well established "Washington has no stake in this local dispute".
And what is the relevance?
Equally beyond dispute is the assistence given to Saddam during the war he started against Iran and in which he used the chemical weapons.
Oh, that's never been disputed. However, it only represents support of the lesser evil against the other. It's easy for you to snipe - you were not the one faced the imperitive of success with very limited choices.
Nope, you said "Saddam came to power in a party coup with US support. The CIA provided him with lists of opponents to liquidate." Please provide proof for your own accusation.
And to be blunt: India is a far safer nation than the USA. Let's evaluate the most likely risk to occur, rather than the most unlikely. After all, the USA is the world's biggest and most likely target for nuclear, chemical and biological attack according to US politicians.
I never heard any politician with authority state we were MOST likely target, though that may be true. I do seem to recall India and Pakistan a few years ago coming to the brink of nuclear war though. There were two assasination attempts against Musharraf a couple of weeks ago, too. If that were to happen, al Qaeda would essentially run a country with nuclear weapons and it is hard to say who would 'get it' first. I know if that happened there would be a panic in this country (USA) to install radioactivity detectors along every *inch* of the border.
Saddam came to power in a party coup with US support. The CIA provided him with lists of opponents to liquidate. The US supported Saddam from the very beginning of his rule, all the way through to the invasion of Kewait. Even that would have been allowed if he had only kept the northern oil fields where the Kewaitis had been under-drilling Iraq's oil fields which was the original agreement.
You're a lying sack of scum. Back up this lie you liar.
There is a difference between regime change and invasion and occupation.
I'll quote the rest of my response:
[Regime change had been the policy for years, though I think most Americans, including Bush, had long since figured the only way Saddam was ever going to be removed was by force. In fact, according to O'Neill, Bush asked for all available Iraq options, including invasion a few months after taking office, though he refused to narrow them down until after 9/11.]
I'm not implying they are the same, only that Bush did not rule out one possible solution to that policy simply because it would be difficult.
'1. N. Korea has thousands of artillery pointed at Seoul, S. Korea, and could level that city killing hundreds of thousands in minutes.
We know where those positions are. We could knock them out with bombers and cruise missles. If a few get through then so what? So a few people die in south korea who the fuck cares.
You have absolutely zero grasp of the military situation. N. Korea's terrain is NOTHING like Iraq. Those artillery number in the THOUSANDS, and are very well fortified and camoflauged. It would take months to even locate half of them. On contrast, it would take just hours or so to completely level Seoul, killing hundreds of thousands "few people."
2. N. Korea has a vast, modern, dedicated army with the ability to strike many of our allies very hard from afar.
Total and utter bullshit. Their military is neither vast nor modern. The only ally then can strike is south korea and maybe japan. BOth countries have ample defenses and we could certainly minimize any damage that may occur by hitting first. We flew over 300 sorties per day in the first month of desert storm. We knocked out almost everything they had in the first night.
Iraq N. Korea. I guess your logic is Iraq was a militaristic third world country and we beat them easily, therefore N. Korea must be the same? How utterly simplistic.
They have a few nukes. We know where they are. They don't yet have any real delivery device for their nukes and they certainly did not have anything at the time we invaded iraq. We could have invaded them first thereby preventing them from having nukes and held off iraq for a later time because saddam had nothing!.
First, the CIA has suspected N. Korea has had one or two nukes for years. Second, it is idiotic to think 'we know where they are.' If that's true, the CIA is an incredibly effective organisation! Where do you get this assertion?
It would make a huge impact. It would certainly make more of an impact then invading iraq.
There you go again, ignoring political realities and the rest of my response altogether. I'll say it again: a. $100 billion would make little difference in the worldwide poverty situation, especially since the dictators of those countries would simply divert it to their own offshore accounts or use it to build their military. Look at Saddam; He diverted all those billions in the Oil-for-Food program to giant palaces!
"In fact, you stated Iraq was worst off now than under Saddam. I then asked if you would rather live in Iraq now or then."
Neither. I live in the US and have no desire to live in Iraq anytime. I visited there and that was enough for me. But you are asking the wrong question. the question is not whether iraq is better off it's whether we are better off. Whether spending 100 billion dollars in one year to invade and occupy iraq was a good idea and made us any safer and whether that money could have been used in better ways. Not just to make us safer but to make the world a better place for all opressed people.
That's it, dodge the question. Let me state it more clearly: IF YOU *HAD* TO CHOOSE, WOULD YOU CHOOSE LIFE UNDER SADDAM, OR LIFE AFTER THE LIBERATION, UNDER THE AMERICANS?
CBS: Link to a story about an al-quada operative caught in iraq. Al quada operatives were caught in the US, canada, germany, france, england, malasia, philipines, yemen and many other countries. You posed a completely irrelevent link.
Dear god, you just don't get it. Those are all democracies, not police states. The presence of a notorious terrorist LIVING in a police state in BAGHDAD. He was no smuggler, he was no transient. He couldn't have lived in the capitol city w/o the secutiry apparatus' knowledge and blessing.
I acknowledge parts of northern Iraq are not under Saddam's control, but Baghdad was extremely tightly controlled. NOTHING happened in Iraq w/o the higher ups knowledge.
CNN: Link to an article written by a hate group (CFOR). COFR is a jihadist organization. CNN is not jihadist but the COFR is.
You're not going to back up that statement, are you?
London Telegraph: Link to a story which has since been proved to be forgery.
I have searched like crazy for an hour, and I just can't find any reference that this Telegraph story was based on forgeries.
CSM: A link to a story about how kurds are saying that the taliban are coming across the border from afghanistan. The Iraqi intelligence office story has already been debunked thouroughly. Once again you are pointing to fraudulent discredited stories.
OK, this time I've spent too much time w/ this post. This time you show me where this was debunked.
Not really. In fact it's the opposite. Bush sound a hell of a lot like hitler and the hate speech coming from republicans about liberals sounds awfully like the speeched hitler gave against gypsies and jews. In fact GW has already set up concentration camps in cuba, afghanistan, quatar and iraq where tens of thousands of arabs are locked up indefinately. Hitler at least gave his prisoners walls and a roof, GW puts them in chain link cages.
Ah, the inevitable Hitler comparison. Credibility? Gone!
For every israeli killed two to three palestenians are killed. The numbers don't lie.
Nor do they matter. The terrorists intentionally go after children and innocents, with the intention of killing as many as possible. The Isrealis have the upper hand and could wipe out every Palestinian tomorrow. Instead, they go after ONLY the terrorists, with the emphasis on reducing collateral damage; for the rest, they put in place restrictions on movement designed to protect themselves, not simply to kill innocent. Isreal has nukes - what do you think the Palestinian terrorists would do if they had them?
What? Why? Put down the crack pipe. Invading palestine would have been a breeze. It's small, the people would welcome us, israel would shore up one border, mossad has tons of intelligence agents inside there. It would be a cakewalk. Where do you get off saying it would be impossible?
I didn't say it wouldn't be possible to invade, of course we could do that in a day. What makes it impossible is the situation would be impossible to govern afterwards. The Palestinians want freedom like everyone, but they won't believe America has good intentions, at least not until we demonstrate them successfully in Iraq.
The cycle is never going to stop. Jihadists don't stop until their god tells them to.
Or they're or dead or lack the numbers or infrastructure.
You gave no explanation. You simply said that it would be impossible. Which of course is utter bullshit. We spend 400 billion on defense spending which is more then the next 14 countries combined. That includes russia, china and pretty much all of europe. We can invade any country we want, any time we want and take whatever we want whenever we want.
I admitted that last statement was a mistake in a second post earlier, which contained a link where I answered the N. Korea question, thinking I had answered it in this thread. Here is a link to the other post:
You gave links to zealot propaganada and forged information. This administration is evil but not stupid. They know that if they release forged documents the press will eat it up and freepers like you will link to them perpetually while completely ignoring the fact that the information later turned out to be forgery.
CBS, CNN, the London Telegraph, CSM, zealots??? It would take a zealot to call these anything but highly mainstream publications. I'll ask you again, where are your links backing up your assertion that these terrorist links have all, or even *most* been discredited?
I am concerned about terrorism directed against the US. Not terrorism directed against Israel. My tax dollars should be spent fighting osama not palestenians.
Interesting, that sounds just like the logic of the peaceniks before WWII that claimed we should not fight Hitler because he wasn't after us way over here in America, and like the prevailing logic in America before 9/11.
The palestenians are also opressed by israel. You may choose to ignore that but it's true anyway. it's hard to have an economy when 700,000 people are under curfew and can't leave their houses. It's hard to have an economy when tanks regularly blow up your buildings, airplanes shoot missiles into your cities, and walls are built to keep your kids from going to school.
And why do you think that is? Maybe it is a direct response to the mass murder directed explicitly against Isreali civilians by Arafat?
Then it's in our interest to solve it once and for all. Why didn't we invade palestine and free them instead? That's what we should have done. The palestenians deserve freedom more then the iraqis and giving them freedom would have diffused other terrorists.
I agree, but obviously invading Palestine would have been impossible. The second best option is to start somewhere else. The cycle is not going to stop until every dictator in the region is removed, including Arafat and the current terrorist leaders of the PLA.
Just go their web site and read. They are a hate group. There is no real difference between the COFR and the KKK or al-quada. They all jihadists.
Give me ONE quote, just ONE, from any one of their sites, you tiny little man. Back up one of your assertions one time, *please*.
You are truly truly stupid if you think no person can leave or enter iraq without the govt knowing. Kurds, iranians, afghans syrians, and lebanese have been doing this for decades. Get educated.
You are underestimating the level of fear and control by the regime in the last decade. Iraqis had become scared to even talk in *private* about the regime, and allowing an illegal in your house was unthinkable, and instant death scentence when your neighbors ratted you out. Spies were absolutely everywhere Saddam had control, in every building, even in most households.
BTW, I gave an explanation why N. Korea cannot be moved on militarily. Are you going to acknowledge it or respond at all?
I gave you tons of links, and there are tons more than that. I know a few leads were incorrect, but the vast majority of them were not.
Try listing the articles, like I did, where they were all proven 'forgeries,' instead of just making a sweeping, baseless claim.
Saddam did pay the palestinians who are fighting their occupation by Israel but so what?
Hahaha, OK, now I see, terrorism isn't worth fighting when it's by stoked up by totalitarian societies against a democracy? The Palestenians are opressed by their own terrorist leaders, who refuse to allow economic development in their territory, steal and squander hundreds of millions intended for their people in terrorist enterprises, and blame the inevitable Irseali response on their victims. The Palestenian situation is the biggest propoganda tool of both of both the terrorists and the Arab dictators who use them to divert attention from the real cause of their woes. Paying terrorists $25,000 per attack to continue this cycle of opression is no 'small' thing, and the Isrealis should not be required to just take one for the team.
And where do you get the number '200' nukes??? It may be true, but how could you know such a thing? And what does it have to do with their ability to fight terrorism?
BTW the council of foreign relations and similar neocon organizations are borderline hate groups. They are right wing extremists who have called for invasion of many oil producing countries including iraq and saudi arabia for years now because they believe that oil should be under US control and they have no ethical or moral problems with killing people and taking their stuff. I certainly would not put any credence is anything the CoFR, RAND and other neocon "thinktanks". As I said there is little difference between them and the KKK.
Oh, Jesus! What a load of bullshit. Where do you get your information?
Finally there have been many Al-Quida operatives caught in the US, Europe, Canada, and elsewhere. Just because an al-quida member was caught in a country that does not mean the country provides support for them.
You and your distorted wack left wing idiocy. Did the fact that noone goes in or out of Iraq, much less lives in Iraq w/o the blessing of the regime, and in the case of outsiders, minders?
There were countless contacts w/ Saddam, including all the punative measures taken against him, which were also part of that diplomatic process. The U.N. pleaded with him for 12 years to come clean. You're just lying, or grossly misinformed.
Honestly I don't think anybody actually believes that GW was interested in a diplomatic solution. He wanted to get saddam from the getgo. Probably because Saddam wanted to kill his dad.
Regime change had been the policy for years, though I think most Americans, including Bush, had long since figured the only way Saddam was ever going to be removed was by force. In fact, according to O'Neill, Bush asked for all available Iraq options, including invasion a few months after taking office, though he refused to narrow them down until after 9/11.
"the military situation is impossible (N. Korea),"
Why? What do you mean impossible? You mean the combined might of the US and coalition forces could not invade and occupy north Korea? That's just silly.
OK, now I'm certain of it, you're clueless:
1. N. Korea has thousands of artillery pointed at Seoul, S. Korea, and could level that city killing hundreds of thousands in minutes.
2. N. Korea has a vast, modern, dedicated army with the ability to strike many of our allies very hard from afar.
3. N. Korea has NUKES, you IDIOT. The fact this is news to you is proof you prefer your own ignorance just so you can go on bashing Bush.
4. N. Korea's population has been very thoroughly cut off from the rest of the world for 50 years. They remain the only country in the world where it is impossible for to get internet access. The people revere their leaders as gods, and have had no opposing points of view presented to them. Invasion, much less occupation, would be orders of magnitude more difficult than Iraq.
What American interests are you talking about?
Ok, let's try having a megalomaniacal dictator and avowed enemy of the U.S. who has invaded his neighbors twice and is pursuing WMD so he can try again w impunity in the most unstable region of the world, who is both openly and covertyly funding and supporting terrorism
But let's be real here. Being an enemy of the U.S. makes any dictator more desirable to you.
You have done no such thing. I'll ask again. There are hundreds of millions of people suffering all over the world. We could help many of them for less money then we spent in Iraq and with no loss of US soldiers. With a hundred billion or two we could end starvation and illeteracy in the entire world. We don't even have to invade or occupy countries. We could help them without using our military.
How utterly naive and uninformed. A few hundred billion wouldn't make a scratch on the world's poverty situation, not simply because it would take in fact several trillion, but because the dictators and thugs in most of these countries wouldn't be so humanitarian. They would do just as Saddam did, demand the payment be made to himself alone, then use it to build massive palaces or fund his opression machinery or army.
In fact, you stated Iraq was worst off now than under Saddam. I then asked if you would rather live in Iraq now or then. It is a simple yes/no question. How about an answer? I've answered yours about as well as I know how.
You're right. 12 years of diplomacy isn't enough. Yeah right.
There were very many links to terrorists, you just refuse to believe them, not the least the fact he had for years been paying the families of suicide bombers $10K-$25K each. Also Saddam did have WMDs and programs, try reading the Kay report for a change.
The reason we haven't invaded other countries is because either other possibilities like diplomacy have not been exhausted (unlike after 12 years in Iraq), the military situation is impossible (N. Korea), or the post-war occupation would be orders of magnitude more difficult than Iraq.
There are a few countries we could bring democracy to by force and the occupation would relatively easy, however in none of those are American security interests significant enough to warrant such a large investment in time, money, or lives.
So now I've answered your question. Now please answer mine instead of changing the subject.
Worse, even if we do intervene, there is no guarentee that we can make the situation any better. Look at Iraq, they're free of a brutal dictator only to be immediatly manuvered by foreign agents into (what will probably become) a brutal theocracy hell bent on breeding more terrorists to keep the region unstable.
This is the same idiotic logic that inspired the Star Trek 'Prime Directive.' Cannot guarantee your actions will have ZERO negative side effects, even if the positive effects are likely to far outweigh them? Then you must do nothing! This logic of self distrust was originally shaped in the West by liberals with a political bias for Communism and against the status quo capitalist systems. Of courst they only break it out when a political enemy is in power.
Let me ask you this simple question: Would YOU rather be living in Iraq today, or before the invasion?
If your view has been so clouded by the domination of major media by left wing zealots, I suggest you read some of the Iraqi blogs.
President Bush I's proposal was derailed deliberately by NASA officials trying to protect their precious ISS, which at that time had a lot to offer. He stupidly asked for a budget estimate, they came back with a wildly inflated $400 billion, knowing that would kill the proposal instantly.
What people here don't seem to be grasping is that the moon is a far better place to do lots of stuff. Because of the low gravity, ships built on the moon can be made far more cheaply since those giant rockets won't be required, and more easily since far larger ships could be built on the surface and then blasted into orbit.
Also, a moon station could be manned by many people, having mineable resources that can be used to create oxygen. Other resources exist on the moon that are so rare (and in demand) on Earth they could be sold to pay for the moon base.
In any case, President Bush's speech Wednesday gives some desperately needed guidance to the space program, and I am glad he did it.
Once again, you are confused. You are overstating the significance of the money, and you misunderstood Saddam's motivation for paying out - it wasn't to "gain favor of terrorists" but rather to gain favor of the arab world in general. At any rate, it is insignificant.
Sorry, you don't get off that easy. Sure, he was trying to gain the support of the entire Arab world also, but by supporting terrorism. If Saddam was such a nice guy and this was intended as general humanitarian to the Palestenian people, then answer this simple question: Why did he give $10,000 checks out to ONLY the families of suicide bombers, and then ONLY IMMEDIATELY AFTER their attacks?????
Do you think maybe it was because he was drumming up support by the terrorist elements?
You are a radical left-wing idiologue. It does not surprise me you'd rather dismiss entire publications that don't agree with your anti-American dogma. Personally, I read everything I can get my hands on, even Le Monde and the Guardian! The only publications I dismiss are ones run by the government like al Jazzera (apparently one of your favorite sources).
Ok, 90% of them, big difference. The fact remains he gave money to those who committed terrorist acts in order to gain the favor of the terrorists, and gave no such 'kindness grants' to families that didn't fit their political agenda.
You clearly do not understand the frustration, desperation and repression of the Palestinian people. As i have said on numerous occasions, i do not condone murder of civilians by any means - but i do understand why some Palestinian young men feel it is their only outlet. The solution to this problem is nothing to do with removing a "reward", if you want to consider it that, - the fundamental problem is the racism conducted by the state of Israel that is breeding the hatred and murder that the Israeli people are suffering from.
But you do support an obvious an attempt by a mass-murdering Arab dictator to support terrorism. You are either a terrorist supporter, or a 'wacko.'
That weekly standard is a link to an article in a News Corp. publication, needless to say, it isn't worth the electrons with which it was published. You probably actually beleive that the plant that was bombed in Sudan under the Clinton adminstration was producing chemical weapons - i do not, as i am not aware of any legitimate evidence of such (only the glaringly obvious evidence of the opposite, which your article even mentions).
Ah, I see now, since it is reported by a company that doesn't meet your wacko filter, you can safely ignore it. You're a close-minded wacko who takes the word of Saddam Hussein at face value! What can I say?
As for Bill Clinton's bombing of an asprin factory, I've read reports saying it may or may not have been involved in weapons production, it is in fact difficult to know. In any case Bill Clinton is not George W. Bush. Clinton ignored foreign affairs when possible, had an incompetent foreign policy team, and underfunded Defense and the CIA badly. Several years back the Director of the CIA could get the President to TALK to him for several months, finally resulting in a request to train 500 CIA agents in Arabic being nixed by some Democrat senator. We wouldn't be desperately trying hire translators now if Clinton had just been willing to pay a little attention to foreign affairs. Clinton's hippie-run State Department even turned down bin Laden's head on a platter more than once simply because they didn't want to deal with making the poor little terrorists angry.
Don't bring Israel into the discussion here - there is nothing wrong with supporting the families of those in need - It is the lack of support and viability that creates the situation where the suicide-bomber mindset is developed.
Whaatt?????? Are you saying you really believe Saddam's guaranteed gift of $10,000 to the family of all Palestinian suicide bombers (only *after* their bombings) was really good will effort by Saddam "supporting the families of those in need"????? You sir are one of those irrational, Bush-hating wackos who wouldn't believe anything that links Saddam and terrorists simply because it would help Bush.
There was a 50 point list of confirmed Saddam-terrorist (and several al Qaeda) links leaked a few months ago and published by the Weekly Standard. I don't want to hunt that down, but I'm sure you can find it.
Even Bill Clinton's administration stated and detailed ties and support by Iraq of al Qaeda. I did find that link for you, here it is:
Also, on December 15, the London Telegraph had to pull their original front page lead from something like "Saddam & 9/11 Linked!" to "Saddam Captured!" The memo I mentioned has been widely reported on and I'm sure even you can find it. Also, your statement about terrorist camps in northern Iraq is misleading since there were more camps than those and I wasn't referring to those specific camps.
Slashdot Mirror
-withdraw from iraq, try to do so gracefully since were damned if we stay and damned if we go.
;)
We aren't winning Iraq, but we're not losing either; we're only holding back the hordes trying to drive us out. Unfortunately George W. Bush has proven a weak wartime leader unable or unwilling to prepare the American people to sacrifice in order to win a war, or to explain the consequences of abandoning Iraq to terrorist who will quickly proceed to make use of Iraq's vast oil wealth and WMD know-how and production facilities against us. Think Afghanistan under the Taliban was a threat? Wait until al Qaeda runs Iraq!
The good new is the problem with our strategy in Iraq are immenently solvable with a little leadership at the top. Too bad that's exactly what we're lacking with this idiot at the helm. Sad but true.
First, get our troops out of their bases where they can do some good. Currently most of our troops are holed up in ever-growing compounds, accomplishing very little in order to keep American casualty levels very low. Second, drastically increase the number of American 'advisors' to the Iraqi military. Third, stop pushing Iraqi troops into the field long before they are ready. Fourth, we need to permanently increase the size of our military by a million troops to support our military strategy in Iraq. 140,000 troops was never enough to successfully implement an oil-spot strategy in a country the size of Iraq. Rumsfeld should be fired for this one alone.
-undo the damage to our civil liberties done by the patriot act
There have been no serious abuses so far, so that's a hard sell.
-reform social security by removing the blatant privatization bush put in which basically amounts to abolshment (but with the added benefit of commissions to brokers before your stock tanks)
The current surplus in SS is being used to fund Medicaid and welfare and every other government program, and to say there is no budget shortfall in SS now is to pretend these programs are funded separately. They aren't. There is just one big pot of money out of which the Treasury pays all government obligations. And since today there is a budget deficit overall, every time two or three baby boomer retires to be replaced by one new worker, the Social Security solvency and the overal budget deficit gets worse as the ratio of payers to payees increases.
Bush's very small (2%), totally voluntary privatisation would help solve the problem by bringing in a whole lot more money than is possible now in the highly inefficient purely government system. Few remember this, but Bill Clinton actually proposed a similar solution several years ago, of course his solution was to allow the *government* to do the investing, a poison pill.
-Universal health care (which responds to the increasing 10s of millions of people without healthcare, and which they make a damned good economic case for!)
Yeah that one worked great for Hillary. I dare you to try it again.
There are a lot of misconceptions about the American medical system such as a lack of emergency care for the uninsured, something which is actually illegal here. Or that people commonly do without necessary operations, in truth a rarity because charity almost always picks up the slack. I bet you buy into them all. But I would ask you why Canadians have to wait 6 months go south of the border whenever they have major operations? Why do those who can afford it instead opt to go south of the border to find timely care? Or maybe you could ask yourself why our medical care costs started to explode only when government HMOs took over? Or why virtually all the world's cutting edge medical research and new procedures are developed in the U.S., why such a large percentage of relevant Nobels are awarded here? Did it ever occur to you that all those great miracle drugs and other amazing advances wouldn't have happened in other places that make such long t
I totally trust your descriptions of recent events even w/o a reference to a single news piece. But then again I doubt you read any yourself, probably just got some excerpts from Kos. Try peeking out of your echo chamber once in a while.
Oh, and the bold really sells it. Try ALL CAPS too, after all if you can't present a well thought out argument, bashing it in is really the only alternative.
The bold really sells this. Not.
Um I'd have rather they kept the original cliffhanger. The Peacekeeper Wars were friggin horrible. A machine to make 2 implacable, extremely agressive enemies suddenly make peace by...forcing them to talk it over?? A sooper-dooper diplomacy machine? Calgon, take me away!!!
But what can you expect from the mushy minds of the writers responsible for the last few seasons? You can always tell the end of a series is near when a bunch of pie-in-the sky, mushy brained and barely veiled left wing crap starts popping up in the plots.
No way for Claudia Black. Did you see the Farscape episode where they go to earth and she wears that tight flower child stuff. Holeeeeee Gaawd!!! It still have the blisters to show from that one. ;) Ok kidding but still...did you see that shit?
In any case, Farscape put all other sci-fi shows ever made to absolute shame. The writing was freaking awesome, Jim Henson's muppets were amazing, and the universe was soo much more realistic and imaginitive.
The annoying blinking I think.
Something fishy here... http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.a sp?ID=12272
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.a sp?ID=12272
Nope, it was Futurama. And they already went off.
You have so far failled to back any of your own allegations, folk can judge you by your posts. You like dictators, you like Bush, you peddle the type of conspiracy stories spun by Wolfowitz and Perle.
So you can't back it up then? If you think I haven't bring it on, here or in the original threads where those things were discussed to death.
The infamous statement by the then US ambassador to Iraq on the Iraq dispute over the Kewaiti oil fields is well established "Washington has no stake in this local dispute".
And what is the relevance?
Equally beyond dispute is the assistence given to Saddam during the war he started against Iran and in which he used the chemical weapons.
Oh, that's never been disputed. However, it only represents support of the lesser evil against the other. It's easy for you to snipe - you were not the one faced the imperitive of success with very limited choices.
Nope, you said "Saddam came to power in a party coup with US support. The CIA provided him with lists of opponents to liquidate." Please provide proof for your own accusation.
And to be blunt: India is a far safer nation than the USA. Let's evaluate the most likely risk to occur, rather than the most unlikely. After all, the USA is the world's biggest and most likely target for nuclear, chemical and biological attack according to US politicians.
I never heard any politician with authority state we were MOST likely target, though that may be true. I do seem to recall India and Pakistan a few years ago coming to the brink of nuclear war though. There were two assasination attempts against Musharraf a couple of weeks ago, too. If that were to happen, al Qaeda would essentially run a country with nuclear weapons and it is hard to say who would 'get it' first. I know if that happened there would be a panic in this country (USA) to install radioactivity detectors along every *inch* of the border.
Saddam came to power in a party coup with US support. The CIA provided him with lists of opponents to liquidate. The US supported Saddam from the very beginning of his rule, all the way through to the invasion of Kewait. Even that would have been allowed if he had only kept the northern oil fields where the Kewaitis had been under-drilling Iraq's oil fields which was the original agreement.
You're a lying sack of scum. Back up this lie you liar.
"Regime change had been the policy for years,"
There is a difference between regime change and invasion and occupation.
I'll quote the rest of my response: [Regime change had been the policy for years, though I think most Americans, including Bush, had long since figured the only way Saddam was ever going to be removed was by force. In fact, according to O'Neill, Bush asked for all available Iraq options, including invasion a few months after taking office, though he refused to narrow them down until after 9/11.]
I'm not implying they are the same, only that Bush did not rule out one possible solution to that policy simply because it would be difficult.
'1. N. Korea has thousands of artillery pointed at Seoul, S. Korea, and could level that city killing hundreds of thousands in minutes.
We know where those positions are. We could knock them out with bombers and cruise missles. If a few get through then so what? So a few people die in south korea who the fuck cares.
You have absolutely zero grasp of the military situation. N. Korea's terrain is NOTHING like Iraq. Those artillery number in the THOUSANDS, and are very well fortified and camoflauged. It would take months to even locate half of them. On contrast, it would take just hours or so to completely level Seoul, killing hundreds of thousands "few people."
2. N. Korea has a vast, modern, dedicated army with the ability to strike many of our allies very hard from afar.
Total and utter bullshit. Their military is neither vast nor modern. The only ally then can strike is south korea and maybe japan. BOth countries have ample defenses and we could certainly minimize any damage that may occur by hitting first. We flew over 300 sorties per day in the first month of desert storm. We knocked out almost everything they had in the first night.
Iraq N. Korea. I guess your logic is Iraq was a militaristic third world country and we beat them easily, therefore N. Korea must be the same? How utterly simplistic.
They have a few nukes. We know where they are. They don't yet have any real delivery device for their nukes and they certainly did not have anything at the time we invaded iraq. We could have invaded them first thereby preventing them from having nukes and held off iraq for a later time because saddam had nothing!.
First, the CIA has suspected N. Korea has had one or two nukes for years. Second, it is idiotic to think 'we know where they are.' If that's true, the CIA is an incredibly effective organisation! Where do you get this assertion?
It would make a huge impact. It would certainly make more of an impact then invading iraq.
There you go again, ignoring political realities and the rest of my response altogether. I'll say it again: a. $100 billion would make little difference in the worldwide poverty situation, especially since the dictators of those countries would simply divert it to their own offshore accounts or use it to build their military. Look at Saddam; He diverted all those billions in the Oil-for-Food program to giant palaces!
"In fact, you stated Iraq was worst off now than under Saddam. I then asked if you would rather live in Iraq now or then."
Neither. I live in the US and have no desire to live in Iraq anytime. I visited there and that was enough for me. But you are asking the wrong question. the question is not whether iraq is better off it's whether we are better off. Whether spending 100 billion dollars in one year to invade and occupy iraq was a good idea and made us any safer and whether that money could have been used in better ways. Not just to make us safer but to make the world a better place for all opressed people.
That's it, dodge the question. Let me state it more clearly: IF YOU *HAD* TO CHOOSE, WOULD YOU CHOOSE LIFE UNDER SADDAM, OR LIFE AFTER THE LIBERATION, UNDER THE AMERICANS?
To show you it can be done, I'll answer
CBS: Link to a story about an al-quada operative caught in iraq. Al quada operatives were caught in the US, canada, germany, france, england, malasia, philipines, yemen and many other countries. You posed a completely irrelevent link.
6 940
Dear god, you just don't get it. Those are all democracies, not police states. The presence of a notorious terrorist LIVING in a police state in BAGHDAD. He was no smuggler, he was no transient. He couldn't have lived in the capitol city w/o the secutiry apparatus' knowledge and blessing.
I acknowledge parts of northern Iraq are not under Saddam's control, but Baghdad was extremely tightly controlled. NOTHING happened in Iraq w/o the higher ups knowledge.
CNN: Link to an article written by a hate group (CFOR). COFR is a jihadist organization. CNN is not jihadist but the COFR is.
You're not going to back up that statement, are you?
London Telegraph: Link to a story which has since been proved to be forgery.
I have searched like crazy for an hour, and I just can't find any reference that this Telegraph story was based on forgeries.
CSM: A link to a story about how kurds are saying that the taliban are coming across the border from afghanistan. The Iraqi intelligence office story has already been debunked thouroughly. Once again you are pointing to fraudulent discredited stories.
OK, this time I've spent too much time w/ this post. This time you show me where this was debunked.
Not really. In fact it's the opposite. Bush sound a hell of a lot like hitler and the hate speech coming from republicans about liberals sounds awfully like the speeched hitler gave against gypsies and jews. In fact GW has already set up concentration camps in cuba, afghanistan, quatar and iraq where tens of thousands of arabs are locked up indefinately. Hitler at least gave his prisoners walls and a roof, GW puts them in chain link cages.
Ah, the inevitable Hitler comparison. Credibility? Gone!
For every israeli killed two to three palestenians are killed. The numbers don't lie.
Nor do they matter. The terrorists intentionally go after children and innocents, with the intention of killing as many as possible. The Isrealis have the upper hand and could wipe out every Palestinian tomorrow. Instead, they go after ONLY the terrorists, with the emphasis on reducing collateral damage; for the rest, they put in place restrictions on movement designed to protect themselves, not simply to kill innocent. Isreal has nukes - what do you think the Palestinian terrorists would do if they had them?
What? Why? Put down the crack pipe. Invading palestine would have been a breeze. It's small, the people would welcome us, israel would shore up one border, mossad has tons of intelligence agents inside there. It would be a cakewalk. Where do you get off saying it would be impossible?
I didn't say it wouldn't be possible to invade, of course we could do that in a day. What makes it impossible is the situation would be impossible to govern afterwards. The Palestinians want freedom like everyone, but they won't believe America has good intentions, at least not until we demonstrate them successfully in Iraq.
The cycle is never going to stop. Jihadists don't stop until their god tells them to.
Or they're or dead or lack the numbers or infrastructure.
You gave no explanation. You simply said that it would be impossible. Which of course is utter bullshit. We spend 400 billion on defense spending which is more then the next 14 countries combined. That includes russia, china and pretty much all of europe. We can invade any country we want, any time we want and take whatever we want whenever we want.
I admitted that last statement was a mistake in a second post earlier, which contained a link where I answered the N. Korea question, thinking I had answered it in this thread. Here is a link to the other post:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=93853&cid=807
Whoops, my BTW at the end was wrong, I thought I had made that explanation to you, when it was to another poster:
6 940
;)
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=93853&cid=807
So I guess you don't need to respond.
You gave links to zealot propaganada and forged information. This administration is evil but not stupid. They know that if they release forged documents the press will eat it up and freepers like you will link to them perpetually while completely ignoring the fact that the information later turned out to be forgery.
e ws/2003/04/27/walq27.xml [telegraph.co.uk]
/ terrorism/raid_ansar_al-qaida.htm [vikingphoenix.com]
i n551246.shtml [cbsnews.com]
m l [csmonitor.com]
l [terrorismanswers.com]
/
Here are my links again:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/n
http://vikingphoenix.com/public/rongstad/military
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/27/iraq/ma
http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html [techcentralstation.com]
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0402/p01s03-wome.ht
http://www.terrorismanswers.com/sponsors/iraq.htm
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/cfr/stories/iraq
CBS, CNN, the London Telegraph, CSM, zealots??? It would take a zealot to call these anything but highly mainstream publications. I'll ask you again, where are your links backing up your assertion that these terrorist links have all, or even *most* been discredited?
I am concerned about terrorism directed against the US. Not terrorism directed against Israel. My tax dollars should be spent fighting osama not palestenians.
Interesting, that sounds just like the logic of the peaceniks before WWII that claimed we should not fight Hitler because he wasn't after us way over here in America, and like the prevailing logic in America before 9/11.
The palestenians are also opressed by israel. You may choose to ignore that but it's true anyway. it's hard to have an economy when 700,000 people are under curfew and can't leave their houses. It's hard to have an economy when tanks regularly blow up your buildings, airplanes shoot missiles into your cities, and walls are built to keep your kids from going to school.
And why do you think that is? Maybe it is a direct response to the mass murder directed explicitly against Isreali civilians by Arafat?
Then it's in our interest to solve it once and for all. Why didn't we invade palestine and free them instead? That's what we should have done. The palestenians deserve freedom more then the iraqis and giving them freedom would have diffused other terrorists.
I agree, but obviously invading Palestine would have been impossible. The second best option is to start somewhere else. The cycle is not going to stop until every dictator in the region is removed, including Arafat and the current terrorist leaders of the PLA.
Just go their web site and read. They are a hate group. There is no real difference between the COFR and the KKK or al-quada. They all jihadists.
Give me ONE quote, just ONE, from any one of their sites, you tiny little man. Back up one of your assertions one time, *please*.
You are truly truly stupid if you think no person can leave or enter iraq without the govt knowing. Kurds, iranians, afghans syrians, and lebanese have been doing this for decades. Get educated.
You are underestimating the level of fear and control by the regime in the last decade. Iraqis had become scared to even talk in *private* about the regime, and allowing an illegal in your house was unthinkable, and instant death scentence when your neighbors ratted you out. Spies were absolutely everywhere Saddam had control, in every building, even in most households.
BTW, I gave an explanation why N. Korea cannot be moved on militarily. Are you going to acknowledge it or respond at all?
I gave you tons of links, and there are tons more than that. I know a few leads were incorrect, but the vast majority of them were not.
Try listing the articles, like I did, where they were all proven 'forgeries,' instead of just making a sweeping, baseless claim.
Saddam did pay the palestinians who are fighting their occupation by Israel but so what?
Hahaha, OK, now I see, terrorism isn't worth fighting when it's by stoked up by totalitarian societies against a democracy? The Palestenians are opressed by their own terrorist leaders, who refuse to allow economic development in their territory, steal and squander hundreds of millions intended for their people in terrorist enterprises, and blame the inevitable Irseali response on their victims. The Palestenian situation is the biggest propoganda tool of both of both the terrorists and the Arab dictators who use them to divert attention from the real cause of their woes. Paying terrorists $25,000 per attack to continue this cycle of opression is no 'small' thing, and the Isrealis should not be required to just take one for the team.
And where do you get the number '200' nukes??? It may be true, but how could you know such a thing? And what does it have to do with their ability to fight terrorism?
BTW the council of foreign relations and similar neocon organizations are borderline hate groups. They are right wing extremists who have called for invasion of many oil producing countries including iraq and saudi arabia for years now because they believe that oil should be under US control and they have no ethical or moral problems with killing people and taking their stuff. I certainly would not put any credence is anything the CoFR, RAND and other neocon "thinktanks". As I said there is little difference between them and the KKK.
Oh, Jesus! What a load of bullshit. Where do you get your information?
Finally there have been many Al-Quida operatives caught in the US, Europe, Canada, and elsewhere. Just because an al-quida member was caught in a country that does not mean the country provides support for them.
You and your distorted wack left wing idiocy. Did the fact that noone goes in or out of Iraq, much less lives in Iraq w/o the blessing of the regime, and in the case of outsiders, minders?
There were countless contacts w/ Saddam, including all the punative measures taken against him, which were also part of that diplomatic process. The U.N. pleaded with him for 12 years to come clean. You're just lying, or grossly misinformed.
w w.wdi.bus.umich.edu/news/MKAAnnArborNews10_26_02.d oc+diplomacy+with+saddam&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Here, I did a quick google search and here's just one url in thousands:
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:UedRn7Sg5C4J:w
Honestly I don't think anybody actually believes that GW was interested in a diplomatic solution. He wanted to get saddam from the getgo. Probably because Saddam wanted to kill his dad.
Regime change had been the policy for years, though I think most Americans, including Bush, had long since figured the only way Saddam was ever going to be removed was by force. In fact, according to O'Neill, Bush asked for all available Iraq options, including invasion a few months after taking office, though he refused to narrow them down until after 9/11.
"the military situation is impossible (N. Korea),"
Why? What do you mean impossible? You mean the combined might of the US and coalition forces could not invade and occupy north Korea? That's just silly.
OK, now I'm certain of it, you're clueless:
1. N. Korea has thousands of artillery pointed at Seoul, S. Korea, and could level that city killing hundreds of thousands in minutes.
2. N. Korea has a vast, modern, dedicated army with the ability to strike many of our allies very hard from afar.
3. N. Korea has NUKES, you IDIOT. The fact this is news to you is proof you prefer your own ignorance just so you can go on bashing Bush.
4. N. Korea's population has been very thoroughly cut off from the rest of the world for 50 years. They remain the only country in the world where it is impossible for to get internet access. The people revere their leaders as gods, and have had no opposing points of view presented to them. Invasion, much less occupation, would be orders of magnitude more difficult than Iraq.
What American interests are you talking about?
Ok, let's try having a megalomaniacal dictator and avowed enemy of the U.S. who has invaded his neighbors twice and is pursuing WMD so he can try again w impunity in the most unstable region of the world, who is both openly and covertyly funding and supporting terrorism
But let's be real here. Being an enemy of the U.S. makes any dictator more desirable to you.
You have done no such thing. I'll ask again. There are hundreds of millions of people suffering all over the world. We could help many of them for less money then we spent in Iraq and with no loss of US soldiers. With a hundred billion or two we could end starvation and illeteracy in the entire world. We don't even have to invade or occupy countries. We could help them without using our military.
How utterly naive and uninformed. A few hundred billion wouldn't make a scratch on the world's poverty situation, not simply because it would take in fact several trillion, but because the dictators and thugs in most of these countries wouldn't be so humanitarian. They would do just as Saddam did, demand the payment be made to himself alone, then use it to build massive palaces or fund his opression machinery or army.
In fact, you stated Iraq was worst off now than under Saddam. I then asked if you would rather live in Iraq now or then. It is a simple yes/no question. How about an answer? I've answered yours about as well as I know how.
You're right. 12 years of diplomacy isn't enough. Yeah right.
e ws/2003/04/27/walq27.xml
/ terrorism/raid_ansar_al-qaida.htm
i n551246.shtml
m l
l
/
3 /0430trrpt.htm
There were very many links to terrorists, you just refuse to believe them, not the least the fact he had for years been paying the families of suicide bombers $10K-$25K each. Also Saddam did have WMDs and programs, try reading the Kay report for a change.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/n
http://vikingphoenix.com/public/rongstad/military
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/27/iraq/ma
http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0402/p01s03-wome.ht
http://www.terrorismanswers.com/sponsors/iraq.htm
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/cfr/stories/iraq
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text200
The reason we haven't invaded other countries is because either other possibilities like diplomacy have not been exhausted (unlike after 12 years in Iraq), the military situation is impossible (N. Korea), or the post-war occupation would be orders of magnitude more difficult than Iraq.
There are a few countries we could bring democracy to by force and the occupation would relatively easy, however in none of those are American security interests significant enough to warrant such a large investment in time, money, or lives.
So now I've answered your question. Now please answer mine instead of changing the subject.
Worse, even if we do intervene, there is no guarentee that we can make the situation any better. Look at Iraq, they're free of a brutal dictator only to be immediatly manuvered by foreign agents into (what will probably become) a brutal theocracy hell bent on breeding more terrorists to keep the region unstable.
This is the same idiotic logic that inspired the Star Trek 'Prime Directive.' Cannot guarantee your actions will have ZERO negative side effects, even if the positive effects are likely to far outweigh them? Then you must do nothing! This logic of self distrust was originally shaped in the West by liberals with a political bias for Communism and against the status quo capitalist systems. Of courst they only break it out when a political enemy is in power.
Let me ask you this simple question: Would YOU rather be living in Iraq today, or before the invasion?
If your view has been so clouded by the domination of major media by left wing zealots, I suggest you read some of the Iraqi blogs.
President Bush I's proposal was derailed deliberately by NASA officials trying to protect their precious ISS, which at that time had a lot to offer. He stupidly asked for a budget estimate, they came back with a wildly inflated $400 billion, knowing that would kill the proposal instantly.
What people here don't seem to be grasping is that the moon is a far better place to do lots of stuff. Because of the low gravity, ships built on the moon can be made far more cheaply since those giant rockets won't be required, and more easily since far larger ships could be built on the surface and then blasted into orbit.
Also, a moon station could be manned by many people, having mineable resources that can be used to create oxygen. Other resources exist on the moon that are so rare (and in demand) on Earth they could be sold to pay for the moon base.
In any case, President Bush's speech Wednesday gives some desperately needed guidance to the space program, and I am glad he did it.
Once again, you are confused. You are overstating the significance of the money, and you misunderstood Saddam's motivation for paying out - it wasn't to "gain favor of terrorists" but rather to gain favor of the arab world in general. At any rate, it is insignificant.
Sorry, you don't get off that easy. Sure, he was trying to gain the support of the entire Arab world also, but by supporting terrorism. If Saddam was such a nice guy and this was intended as general humanitarian to the Palestenian people, then answer this simple question:
Why did he give $10,000 checks out to ONLY the families of suicide bombers, and then ONLY IMMEDIATELY AFTER their attacks?????
Do you think maybe it was because he was drumming up support by the terrorist elements?
You are a radical left-wing idiologue. It does not surprise me you'd rather dismiss entire publications that don't agree with your anti-American dogma. Personally, I read everything I can get my hands on, even Le Monde and the Guardian! The only publications I dismiss are ones run by the government like al Jazzera (apparently one of your favorite sources).
Ok, 90% of them, big difference. The fact remains he gave money to those who committed terrorist acts in order to gain the favor of the terrorists, and gave no such 'kindness grants' to families that didn't fit their political agenda.
You clearly do not understand the frustration, desperation and repression of the Palestinian people. As i have said on numerous occasions, i do not condone murder of civilians by any means - but i do understand why some Palestinian young men feel it is their only outlet. The solution to this problem is nothing to do with removing a "reward", if you want to consider it that, - the fundamental problem is the racism conducted by the state of Israel that is breeding the hatred and murder that the Israeli people are suffering from.
But you do support an obvious an attempt by a mass-murdering Arab dictator to support terrorism. You are either a terrorist supporter, or a 'wacko.'
That weekly standard is a link to an article in a News Corp. publication, needless to say, it isn't worth the electrons with which it was published. You probably actually beleive that the plant that was bombed in Sudan under the Clinton adminstration was producing chemical weapons - i do not, as i am not aware of any legitimate evidence of such (only the glaringly obvious evidence of the opposite, which your article even mentions).
Ah, I see now, since it is reported by a company that doesn't meet your wacko filter, you can safely ignore it. You're a close-minded wacko who takes the word of Saddam Hussein at face value! What can I say?
As for Bill Clinton's bombing of an asprin factory, I've read reports saying it may or may not have been involved in weapons production, it is in fact difficult to know. In any case Bill Clinton is not George W. Bush. Clinton ignored foreign affairs when possible, had an incompetent foreign policy team, and underfunded Defense and the CIA badly. Several years back the Director of the CIA could get the President to TALK to him for several months, finally resulting in a request to train 500 CIA agents in Arabic being nixed by some Democrat senator. We wouldn't be desperately trying hire translators now if Clinton had just been willing to pay a little attention to foreign affairs. Clinton's hippie-run State Department even turned down bin Laden's head on a platter more than once simply because they didn't want to deal with making the poor little terrorists angry.
Thank God the adults are in charge now!
Don't bring Israel into the discussion here - there is nothing wrong with supporting the families of those in need - It is the lack of support and viability that creates the situation where the suicide-bomber mindset is developed.
c les/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp?pg=2
Whaatt?????? Are you saying you really believe Saddam's guaranteed gift of $10,000 to the family of all Palestinian suicide bombers (only *after* their bombings) was really good will effort by Saddam "supporting the families of those in need"????? You sir are one of those irrational, Bush-hating wackos who wouldn't believe anything that links Saddam and terrorists simply because it would help Bush.
There was a 50 point list of confirmed Saddam-terrorist (and several al Qaeda) links leaked a few months ago and published by the Weekly Standard. I don't want to hunt that down, but I'm sure you can find it.
Even Bill Clinton's administration stated and detailed ties and support by Iraq of al Qaeda. I did find that link for you, here it is:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Arti
But it won't surprise me if you discount those as well, given the far left's rejection of Clintonian centrism (see Dean's recent statements denouncing the centrist Democratic Leadership Council).
Also, on December 15, the London Telegraph had to pull their original front page lead from something like "Saddam & 9/11 Linked!" to "Saddam Captured!" The memo I mentioned has been widely reported on and I'm sure even you can find it. Also, your statement about terrorist camps in northern Iraq is misleading since there were more camps than those and I wasn't referring to those specific camps.