Let me clarify what you are saying here since you seem to routinely write stuff that is massively misleading. You are saying the ISG found some EMPTY chemical shells in a dump and blew them up, right? Half the people that read this are going to think you are claiming that the ISG is finding dumps full of loaded chemical shells and just not telling anyone. If they are empty then no one, including the ISG and CPA cares, nor should you.
I'd be inclined to take this as further evidence that you aren't a reporter, because a good reporter wouldn't write as badly as you do, but its an unfortunate fact that the quality of journalism has been in steep decline for a while and if you are a journalist then you are just proof of that.
If you actually think the ISG has been finding and blowing up dumps full of loaded chemical shells and just not telling the world they you are off the deep end again, just like you were when you were claiming Al Qaeda has "hundreds of thousands" in Iraq. or when you said:
"There has not been a SINGLE instance of an administration claim turning out to be false or forged. NOT ONE"
You wont find anyone in the Bush administration that will back you on that whopper. They've admitted the yellowcake from Niger story was bullshit or are you hiding behind the fact Bush said "British Intelligence says" in his State of the Union as some lame excuse that he didn't actually claim it. You both seem to be fond of intentionally misleading prose.
The Daily show had one last night with back to back video clips of Dick Cheney. This week he claimed he had never said the Al Qaeda meeting with Iraq agents in Prague had been confirmed. They cut to his Meet the Press interview a while ago where he said the meeting had been confirmed, though he slightly qualified it as "practically confirmed" or something to that effect.
I wish I'd read your journal before I wasted all this time arguing with you. I think you should start taking your meds again, lie down on the couch in your little room, get some sleep and maybe you'll have a better grip on the world tomorrow.
The submission didn't say its being using to fight cancer "in humans".
James Baker, at the University of Michigan, has done something similar and has dramatically improved targeting of chemotherapy (30X improvement) in animal studies. Another link:
The article doesn't spell it out but if Kereos is starting human trials in 2005 they must be doing animal trials with some success at this point too. If they are killing cancer in animals with the technique then the wording in the submission is completely acceptable. If Kereos isn't showing success in animals with the technique then I'd be inclined to say the whole story is more than a little premature, but you can turn to Baker's work instead and he is fighting cancer, in animals, using nanotechnology.
I didn't ask you read it to me I just asked you to point to a URL to back up some of your more outrageous BS.
"I spend enough of my damn time WRITING the articles."
I'll take your word for it but I'd have a hard time believing the Post would hire a reporter with your unique outlook on the world after reading some of your prose today. You must work for some place like the National Review who tolerate your rants.
"Whether that's true or not, WE HAVE FOUND AND DESTROYED STOCKPILES OF SAME."
Yea, how many years ago was it since a stockpile has been destroyed in Iraq. Sure haven't been any since the invasion. They found 1 maybe 2 old chemical shells that date back to the first gulf war.
"No. "The people" from the 9/11 Commission said, and I'm quoting here...."
Talk about taking a quote out of context. You are either a really manipulative reporter or a bad one. The sentence right before the one you quoted is kind of key:
"And some of these documents indicate that there is at least one officer of Saddam's Fedayeen, a lieutenant colonel, who was a very prominent member of al-Qaeda. That still has to be confirmed."
The fact that it has to be confirmed implies it still has to be investigated. Not sure it particularly proves anything if there were Al Qaeda in Saddam's army unless he new they were there. The odds are good Al Qaeda has operatives in every Arab army and police force.
"Support? READ A GODDAMN NEWSPAPER. These are facts. In fact, go get a copy of the Post RIGHT NOW. Right this very minute. There's information in that you really ought to have... evidently."
I'd like to point out a few posts ago you said this:
"Sorry, but I'm not really interested in continuing this conversation with somebody who doesn't know anything more than what he reads in headlines and what he hears in six-second soundbites on the TV."
Which is it am I allowed to read and cite newspapers or aren't I. Its seems to be OK for you to do it but I'm a complete moron when I do it.
This is another instance where your posts are contradicting themselves within the space of a few hours. As you said earlier your memory must be shot, your a hypocrite or a combination of the two.
The point is the guy with the "Bush Rox, War Rulz" sign can enter an area that a guy with a sign that says "Bush Sucks" can't which is violating free speech rights. The guy with the "Bush Sucks" sign is going to put in a "Free Speech Zone" where he wont even see the President and the President wont see him, nor will the press. The pro Bush protesters are placed where they can see and be seen.
If all the pro Bush protesters were being put in the same out of sight area as the anti bush demonstrators then you could argue it was for security reasons and no one, me included would be complaining.
If Bush gauges his popularity on the demonstrators he actually sees he must really think his shit don't stink.
This is most definitely a first for a US president. See the links I posted above if you think I'm making it up.
"Support? READ A GODDAMN NEWSPAPER. These are facts. In fact, go get a copy of the Post RIGHT NOW. Right this very minute. There's information in that you really ought to have... evidently."
If you can post URL's from the Post supporting your bullshit do it. I've been trying. I'd really like to see the one supporting "hundreds of thousands of Al Qaeda in Iraq". I'll give you thousands or maybe ten thousand have landed there once we toppled Saddam and left Iraq's borders largely ungaurded and the place in a state of near anarchy. Hundreds of thousands is a bold faced lie. Hundreds of thousands means the U.S. is outnumbered by Al Qaeda Iraq, not counting Iraqi insurgents and that means the U.S. is in deep trouble.
"Since you're so unbelievably unable to READ FOR YOURSELF, I'll read FOR YOU."
I saw this on Meet the Press too. I think I'll wait until someone unbiased actually investigates it, thank you, which is what the people from the 9/11 commission said. The Bush administration has made claim after claim and they've proven to be false or forged every time. Saddam was buying Yellowcake in Niger, based on forged documents, documents forged so badly no intelligence agent worth his paycheck should have fallen for it. The lead 9/11 hijacker met with Iraqi agents in Prague, per the 9/11 commision he was in U.S. on the day this meeting was supposed to occur. Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. In many instances the information was essentially single sourced from defecters controlled by Challibi who were lying to get the U.S. to overthrow Saddam so Challibi could take over.
Its awfully convenient that this information just came to light when people have been looking for a link for more than a year to no avail, and the 9/11 commission just embarrassed the Bush administration on the subject.
I'll conceede I stretched the issue on the Geneva conventions. The Bush administration is mostly ducking the conventions based on the "enemy combatant" contention. Of course if we were at war when we captured the enemy they would be considered Prisoners of War. In particular in the case of the Taliban they were for all practical purposes a regular army, they just don't have uniforms presumably because they live in a dirt poor country. It should be noted our Northern Alliance allies weren't wearing uniforms either, nor were many of the special forces people working with them.
I can cite the case where the DOJ is being forced to prosecute the CIA interogator who beat an Afghan detainee to death in Iraq with the Patriot Act. The writup I saw from a law professor said they were doing this since they can't court martial civilians unless there is a state of war. If we were in a state of war the law changes and civilians working alongside the military can be court martialed.
Your contention that the U.S. is following the Geneva conventions to a T is ridiculous. Its been admitted the U.S. was hiding a prisoner called Triple X from the Red Cross in Iraq which is a violation personally approved by Sanchez and Rumsfeld. Sanchez approved putting prisoners in Iraq on a bread and water diet and taking away religious artifacts which are both violations of the Geneva convention.
Read this if you think the U.S. is adhering to the Geneva conventions:
You are wrong again. Do a google search on "Free Speech Zone" "Secret Service". Its been going on for several years. Maybe it started after your last contact with Presidential security. How you think it works was true a few years ago but isn't anymore. There are court cases winding through the courts trying to stop it:
How many more references do you need. Would you support any one of your outrageous assertions with one teeny little URL supporting it.
How much longer are you going to keep saying stuff that is so easily refuted and continue to pretend like are the definitive authority and always right on every subject. You are the one spreading falsehoods here. Not sure if its intentional or those blinders you seem to be wearing have prevented you from seeing the part of the world and reality you are choosing not to see.
What exactly do or did you do for a living? From what you've said I'm assuming something military or government service. If so its just another reason to be really worried about democracy in America. Someone with your massive bias, tolerance for deception and intensity for suppressing opposing viewpoints shouldn't be in positions of power or public service in a democracy. You are the dangerous one here.
"The links are absolute and irrefutable. Why do you deny them?"
Because you are the only nut case here. You don't have any support for any of this shit you're shoveling. Do you think for once you could provide just one teeny little URL to support this bullshit isntead of making us take your word for it time after time. A lot of don't think you have any credability. People a lot better than you have been looking for proof of ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq and there simply hasn't been any. The U.S. has complete control of Iraq and Afghanistan, all of their ministries and all their documents. You would think they could come up with a little teensy bit of evidence of this massive alleged conspiracy between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
Its a given that Iraq supported Palastinians but thats true of every Arab government in the region. The U.S. supports Israel as it kills Palastinian civilians, the Arab governments support the Palastinians as they kill Israeli civlians.
International laws do exist. You can study it in universitys. It IS the body of law formed from treaties. The Geneva conventions are international law.
Its a keystone of the Bush administration's policy that we are in fact not in a state of war. They've been using it as their justification for not strictly adhering to the Geneva conventions. If there had been a formal state of war declared in Afghanistan or Iraq than the U.S. would have been obligated to strictly enforce the Geneva conventions or essentially abandon its ratification and adherence to those treaties. If it did so then U.S. soldiers would be at the mercy of future adversaries because they would no longer be protected by the same international law. Indications are that many in the uniformed military are displeased with the Bush administration's tolerance for and encouragement of the use of torture because it is unbecoming a professional military and it opens the people in their command up to the same kind of treatment.
I think you didn't follow this thread. Someplace way back I said I'm a 100 percent for going after Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. They deserve everything they get. The argument here is about Iraq. I'm 100 percent against the U.S. squandering its army and its treasure in Iraq which had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 or Al Qaeda until after we started this stupid little war.
I'm in the school that thinks the Bush administration should have stayed focused on Al Qaeda, Afghanistan and Pakistan instead of fighting that war on the cheap using a proxy(the northern alliance) and letting Al Qaeda scatter and now regroup there.
"But your position was that Halliburton will be getting money from the sale of Iraqi oil. That's completely false. Every dime from the sale of Iraqi oil goes to the Iraqi oil ministry, until such time as they privatize their oil fields. (Soon, I hope, for their sakes.)"
Wrong AGAIN asshole. I usually try to refrain from name calling but you've been doing it non stop so you deserve it. I said Halliburton is getting the money to rebuild Iraq's oil fields. Thats what I was talking about when this started, rebuilding Iraq's oil infrastructure and increase their production. Thats what Halliburton does. They are an oil field services company. They have the contracts to rebuild Iraq's oil fields. They have nothing to do with selling the oil, I never said they did, retard.
At this point I really am going to stop wasting time on you. Arguing with you is really and truly a waste of time. Its not interesting, its not informative, its not productive. I like a good debate with an intelligent adversary, and occasionally you showed a few interesting glimmers, but in total you simply don't rate interesting and you sure don't understand the concept of civilized debate.
"It doesn't say anything about Congress being required to issue a declaration before a state of war can exist"
I know its anathema to you to provide support for all the shit your shoveling but could you please provide a reference.
Their is a very specific legal definition of "state of war". Its something nations enter in to with a declaration of war, and its usually confined to armed conflicts between states. When a formal declaration of war is issued a whole bunch of international laws kick in. There has been no declaration, only Congress can issue it, so there is not a legal state of war at present. The Bush administration and the DOJ know that as well as I do. If you go back to the CIA contractor charged for killing the detainee in Afghanistan, if the U.S. was in a state of war he could be court martialed, civilians working for the military can be court martialed if you are in a state of war. Its a simple fact that a legal, under international law, state of war doesn't exist at present. Why don't you write to your friends in the DOJ. They will tell you the same thing. I think you are confusing the current situation which would be better described as "armed conflict". The legislation Congress has been passing is best defined as an authorization to use force. It is a whole different thing legally from a declaration of war and a state of war.
""Debate" means discussion of a question. There is no question. We are at war."
Like I said you don't have a clue what debate is. From this thread I doubt you've ever engaged in it. You just want to get on your soap box and preach your little view of the world, where everything is black and white, you operate under the conviction you are never wrong. Anyone with a differing viewpoint is in for a barrage of insults and name calling. Friend, someday you need to take the blinders off and see the rest of the world.
"Then you are all for war with Iraq, since Iraq was home to hundreds of thousands of al-Qaida militants after Enduring Freedom. Right?"
Thank you for once again proving how far off the deep end you are. If you can't support this bullshit stop throwing it out. Someone might actually think you know what you're talking about when you obviously don't.
"That's because they were asked to move, and they moved."
You really don't get ANYTHING do you. The pro Bush protestors weren't asked to move. The Secret Service under the Bush administration has taken to sorting demonstrators. The people waving pro Bush signs are put in close so he and the press can see them which is where this incident occured. Anyone criticizing him is moved to "free speech" zones that are out of sight of the President and the press. If you read the article the "free speech" zone was a half mile away where the people in it wouldn't be seen, for all practical purposes they were being silenced. Its not entirely clear from the article but I'm guess the guy either concealed what his sign said so he got in the Pro Bush demonstration area, either that or he snuck in. Security saw his anti bush sign and he was arrested for nothing more than engaging in FREE SPEACH.
The key point here is these free speech zones aren't for free speech, they are to suppress free speech.
This guy is facing six months in jail because he stood up for his right to free speech and had the balls to try to stand along side the Bush cheerleaders in a place where Bush might actually see his sign. God forbid Bush might accidentally see someone who doesn't agree with him.
You and George are a lot alike. You both subscribe to "My way or the highway". You simply can't stand anyone who disagrees with you. You resort to a none stop barrage of name calling, "traitor", "fool", "nutcase", "blind", etc. Bush uses the Secret Service and the FBI to silence his critics, and when you put people in pens out of sight that is what they are doing.
"We're in a war against an ideology. Wherever a person commits an act of terrorism, we have an enemy. Wherever a person finances an act of terrorism, no matter who the target, we have an enemy."
Using your logic I'm guessing your suggest the U.S. invade Saudi Arabia next then because they fund more terrorism than anyone. I'm not sure I even want to ask how you justify taking down Iraq with your scorched earth policy and letting Saudi Arabia go its merry way. Your arguments aren't even self consistent.
"I'm old. The memory fades."
From what I've read this is one of your statements I can agree with. The fact your memory and facts appear consistently very faulty doesn't seem to slow you down spouting things as fact which aren't.
Calling people traitors just because they don't see things your way is a little beyond name calling. You are accusing people of treason, a capital crime. You seem like a pretty intelligent and well educated person, you make a few good points that I'm inclined to agree with, but your inability to restrain yourself and your rhetoric is one strike against you. Another is its really obvious your are completely unwilling to listen to viewpoints that differ from yours which is how you learn and grow. As a result it appears it is a complete waste of time trying to debate with you since you don't understand the concept of debate so this is the last attempt I will make. You seem to be of the Bush "my way or the highway" school.
"Halliburton has absolutely nothing to do with Iraqi oil."
Thats ridiculous. I really wish you would check your facts for a change KBR (Halliburton subsidiary) was given the no bid contract to do the cleanup you describe last march. But it was clear at the time they had the inside track on all the follow on oil field service contracts and it said so in the press releases at the time. They are already the established oil field service contractor unless the Iraq government throws them out which is unlikely since the Iraqi government is a U.S. lap dog.
http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/07/news/companies/h al liburton_iraq_con/
As for your dissertation on the oil markets you are once again running your mouth with no support. All markets are psychological. There is barely enough oil production to satisfy demand with Saudi Arabia pumping at the upper end of their capacity. If they shut it off oil prices would spiral out of control. The U.S. strategic reserve could compensate for a while but only a while.
If you think the U.S. can rely on Venezuela for its oil think again. Venezuela has had one long oil strike and the Bush administration has been trying to topple their government since 2001. The Venezuelan government hates the Bush administration with a passion. They still sell oil to the U.S. but are not inclined to do the U.S. any favors.
Iraq is struggling to get its oil production back to the levels it was at before the invasion. Its no where near its historical peak thanks to years of wars, embargo and recently looting. The oil for food levels certainly weren't anywhere near peak and they are struggling to get back to those levels. I'd have to dig but the Bush administration has put out its projections for Iraq's future oil production and its a dramatic increase over its historic peak. The major impediment is that unless they can compel security, insurgents are going to keep blowing it up as fast as its rebuilt. Oil out of Iraq's souther terminal is already nearly priced out of the market because the insurance for tankers docking there is astronomical.
"People who argue that we are not at war, or that we should not wage war, are almost always arguing that we should surrender to our enemies."
This is where you are wrong again. We have this thing called the Constitution and it outlines what's involved in taking this nation to war. Its called a "Declaration of War" and needs to be passed by Congress. They haven't passed one, we aren't at war, or at least its a subject of huge debate, though you seem to indicate that debate is not allowed in your world. Its further evidence of how far we've strayed from our democracy that we've fought war after war without declaring one since World War II. Now we've reached a new nadir with a war that isn't declared and will apparently never end. Its one thing to suspend liberties in time of war but if the war will never end, which is what the Bush administration keeps saying, its not a suspension any more, its an elimination of liberties.
Just to make it clear I'm all for waging war on Al Qaeda. The Bush administration should have followed through on the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan instead of fighting it on the cheap through a proxy, scattering the real target and then running off to an insane diversion in Iraq that has turned in to a recruiting poster for Al Qaeda. Meanwhile the Taliban and Al Qaeda is reforming in Afghanistan and Pakistan and the Army is stretched to thin to stop it.
"I'll repeat my core thesis: if this country were one tenth as bad as you say here that it is, you would be lying in the street in a pool of your own blood by now."
And I'll repeat mine, give it time, it will get there, just give it time. Not sure its that far off after the rhetoric you've been dishing out tonight. It sounds like you'd take the job if you had a clean shot. We do shoot traitors don't we and everyone who doesn't agree with you is a traitor right?
"I don't recall anybody saying that they've had enough of Iraq. "
Just what I read in the papers. Maybe you get a different story from soldiers cloaked in anonymity versus those who are sitting in a mess hall and risk retaliation if they are overheard complaining:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0707/p02s01-woiq.h tm l
"Some frustrated troops stationed in Iraq are writing letters to representatives in Congress to request their units be repatriated. "Most soldiers would empty their bank accounts just for a plane ticket home," said one recent Congressional letter written by an Army soldier now based in Iraq. The soldier requested anonymity."
Soldiers unhappy about being Iraq have apparently been carefully screened away from congressional delegations and the president when he was there in favor of the cheerleaders.
You may recall some soldiers were openly critical of Rumsfeld right after the invasion and they were hammered.
"Heh. Check your facts again. Allawi was a member of the Baath party in the 1960's, but left the party during the coups of the late 60's and early 70's. He was never a thug or an assassin."
Uh, I did check the facts. This was what a reporter from the New Yorker was saying on CNN this morning. Here are some other references.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/05/29/all aw i/index_np.html http://jobs.ncmonline.com/news/vi ew_article.html?a rticle_id=a9c8ef8fa5a90b9c13f58a840f933f39
He did leave the Baath party in the early 70's when the Iraqi secret police tried to assasinate him. No one seems to know the reason for his falling out but it turned him from hunter to hunted.
"There were no "Palestinians," incidentally. There has never been a nation-state called "Palestine."
Bullshit, there has been a Palastine and Palastinians for millenia. The only reason there wasn't a nation state especially in the 20th century is that it was under colonial occupation by the Turks and then the British after World War I. From the UN history
"After looking at various alternatives, the UN proposed the partitioning of Palestine into two independent States, one Palestinian Arab and the other Jewish, with Jerusalem internationalized (Resolution 181 (II) of 1947). One of the two States envisaged in the partition plan proclaimed its independence as Israel and in the 1948 war expanded to occupy 77 per cent of the territory of Palestine. Israel also occupied the larger part of Jerusalem. Over half the indigenous Palestinian population fled or were expelled. Jordan and Egypt occupied the other parts of the territory assigned by the partition resolution to the Palestinian Arab State which did not come into being."
It leaves out one of the main reasons the Palastinians fled, the massacre of 250 Palastinians at Deir Yasin led by none other than Menachem Begin.
Try reading an alternative view of history for a change:
http://www.counterpunch.org/ignatiev06172004.htm l
"What am I supposed to do here? I show you the truth and yet you do not see it. What am I supposed to say?"
"I suppose it's my own damn fault for arguing with a traitor and a fool."
Another nice screed man. How did you get the Karma bonus calling everyone who doesn't instantly adopt your rather unique and extreme view of the world things like "traitor" and "fool".
As your idol Ronald Reagan used to say, "There you go again". You concoct a rather unique and extreme take on the world, an acutely oversimplified view at that, and anyone who doesn't instantly accept and agreee with everything you're saying is a "traitor" and a "fool". What do propose doing to all of us "traitors". The normal solution is to lock them up and execute them. But then you keep saying we don't do that sort of thing in this free country. Which is it free country, or round up all the traitors that have the audacity to disagree with you.
You are a flaming hypocrite when you spout off about what a wonderful thing it is to live in a "free" country and then harangue anyone who has the audacity to exercise that freedom and disagree with you.
""Oil" isn't an explanation."
Thats because in your rather naive view of the world you don't understand the rather subtle long term strategic play for Iraq's oil. The suspected goal of the play is to get Iraq's oil back on the market without U.N. restrictions, and without the money going in to Saddam's pocket. With Saddam out of the way spend a bunch of money developing Iraq's oil capacity, most of the money going in to Halliburton's pocket, with the goal that Iraq displaces Saudi Arabia as the world's #1 oil producer, and it does have the reserves to take the #1 spot. One objective is to just get a lot more oil on the market.
The other problem is, at present, Saudi Arabia has a great deal of control over the U.S. and the world because if they cut off all their oil exports they can crater the world economy because other countries can't make up the shortfall. As a result the U.S. has to frequently grovel at the Saudi's feet. So goal #2 is to take Saudi Arabia's power down a notch or two so they can be pressured by the U.S. to do things the U.S. wants. If the Saudi's aren't the #1 oil producer, there is a glut of Iraqi oil available and the U.S. pulls the strings in Iraq, you achieve that end.
If your really fighting the war on radical Islam Saudi Arabia is the nexus of the problem, they fund the madrasa's that teach it, they fund Al Qaeda, and most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. You are still completely full of shit trying to spout the Cheney line that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 or Al Qaeda. Iraq, in its emaciated condition, was a bit player in global terrorism so taking out Saddam in the name of fighting the "War on Terrorism" was complete bullshit or a misguided diversion, unless its a play to undermine Saudi Arabia.
"There is no such debate. Seriously: there is no such debate."
I forgot to point out that you are really showing your totalitarian tendencies when you say something that far off the deep end. Believe it or not if you are living in a free country there is ALWAYS room for debate, and there is most certainly a huge debate going on in this country about Iraq. Its only people like you that have turned in to flag waving extremists who are trying to pretend there isn't a debate or are trying to put an end to if if there is anyone willing to express an opposing view. When you start going down the this road and trying to shout down anyone who disagrees with you or wants t0 debate these grave issues you are a basically proving yourself to be in the same league as the Fascists, my friend. They shouted down anyone who disagreed with them in the beginning too, only later did they haul them off to prisons and concentration camps.
"That's all it did. It did not create new laws. It did not give the FBI new powers. It simply extended the powers they already had to surveil, investigate, and pursue agents of foreign governments to cover agents not affiliated or directly sponsored by any state."
You are so wrong, at least according to the DOJ and Ashcroft last week. They are using the Patriot Act to prosecute the CIA contractor accused of beating an Afghan detainee to death with a Flashlight. The DOJ could find no other way to prosecute him. A civilian can't be court martialed unless there is a state of war which Congress hasn't seen fit to declare. The U.S. isn't going to turn an American, especially a CIA employee, over to the Afghan courts. It didn't happen on U.S. soil so he can't be charged in the U.S. except step in the Patriot Act.
The Patriot Act apparently has a clause to allow prosecution of foreigners(terrorists) who attack government facilities overseas. The DOJ has twisted it around to prosecute an American who attacked a foreigner at a government facility overseas. If it stands in court the DOJ acquires broad new powers to prosecute people outside the U.S.
The worst thing you did here was made it sound like the Patriot Act is a tiny little law that did a few specific sage little things. It is in fact a huge, sprawling, hurriedly written law which is apparently open to really broad interpretation which means it is a badly written law.
Hopefully they courts will throw out this new power grab by the DOJ but if it does then any civilian who murdered or tortured people in Afghanistan or Iraq may get off scott free.
You've been taking the Bush/Fox propaganda a little to seriously.
I'm pretty sure the U.S., Britain and the Jews started the war with the Arabs about 50 years ago when they kicked the Palastinians out of their homes and homeland after World War II. Everything since then has just been a continuation with variations.
"as surely as we were at war with fascism in 1943"
I'm pretty sure we are still fighting Fascism today though its appearing in the form of the Republican party today. I'm pretty sure the true conservatives in the Republican party are aghast at the things their party is doing lately. You forget Hitler was democraticly elected and seized power by using the legislature he controlled to pass laws that slowly eliminated all opposition. Its coming in slow motion but if Bush gets another four years, he has another Republican Congress and especially if there is another big attack on the U.S. you will be living in a velvet gloved police state.
I'll tell you what. I propose we really "support our troops". Let's start flying them home tomorrow starting with the ones that were supposed to fly home months ago before Rumsfeld figured out his Army was to small to fight the fight Cheney and Wolfowitz picked. That would be really supporting our troops. I'm guessing 90% of them have had enough of Iraq, and the civilian leadership that got them in to that little hell holed based on one lie after another. If I manage to implement my plan and get them home I wager I'd get more votes from the troops than George will this November.
Let's make it clear, me supporting the troops, is supporting the good men and women in the military doing their job. Its not supporting the war, not the chain of command, not the few that have grown fond of killing and torturing.
Something interesting I heard on CNN this morning. Apparently the new interim prime minister of Iraq was one of Saddam's thugs and assassins in the 70's. They had a falling out and Saddam tried to have him ax murdered but he lived and switched sides to join the payroll of MI5 and the CIA. He was suggesting martial law as the best solution to the on going violence a couple days ago, which would make him dictator. I'm guessing the U.S. squandered $200 billion dollars and over 800 of our troops, which I support with all my heart, to replace one dictator with another. When that happens the absolute last rationale Bush had for this little quagmire to bring "Freedom and Democracy" to the little brown ragheads, as God put him on this Earth to do, will be just one more lie.
Would you be interested in appearing on an MTV talk show to help educate the world's youth about important topics. We'll pay you $200 dollars and send a car.
I'd love to see you on Crossballs, you'd be hilarious.
All I'd say to this is I'm sure a lot of them are nice people I'm just not sure I'd agree this is the way to fight a war. In particular, if you are fighting an insurgency using locals to cook for your army and do all your construction isn't a particularly good idea. A few well placed infiltraters and your Army is screwed.
Using contractors to interrogate prisoners is an even better example of how deeply flawed it is for an Army to be at the mercy of profiteers for critical services. You can't make them answer for their actions the way you can a soldier.
I think the $200 billion dollar, and counting, price tag on this war suggests dependence on money is no object contracting is proving to be pretty expensive.
You also can't count on contractors if the going gets rough.
All in all I'd say if you are going to fight a war build an army to do it, or don't do it in the first place.
Downsizing the military is an OK thing to do as long as you aren't planning on invading a large country for no particularly good reason, and creating a situation where you need a huge occupation army you don't have.
Its very desirable for a lot of reasons to have as small a standing army as possible, but which is still a creditable deterant to potential enemies. When you run into an enemy spoiling for a fight you can't avoid, you declare war, institute a draft, call up the reserves and deal with it as was done in World War II. The Bush administration is trying to fight a huge war on the cheap, without the draft and without the troops. To solve the problem they are squandering huge sums on contractors, the constractors are making out like bandits and tax payers are getting royally screwed.
I'm not sure where Clinton stood in downsizing the military and moving the jobs to contractors instead. If he was a big fan of it then he is in the same class as Cheney in my book. Cheney its really clear he was really fond of switching from underpaid grunts no big company could profit from to overpaid contractors HIS company can profit from.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me clarify what you are saying here since you seem to routinely write stuff that is massively misleading. You are saying the ISG found some EMPTY chemical shells in a dump and blew them up, right? Half the people that read this are going to think you are claiming that the ISG is finding dumps full of loaded chemical shells and just not telling anyone. If they are empty then no one, including the ISG and CPA cares, nor should you.
I'd be inclined to take this as further evidence that you aren't a reporter, because a good reporter wouldn't write as badly as you do, but its an unfortunate fact that the quality of journalism has been in steep decline for a while and if you are a journalist then you are just proof of that.
If you actually think the ISG has been finding and blowing up dumps full of loaded chemical shells and just not telling the world they you are off the deep end again, just like you were when you were claiming Al Qaeda has "hundreds of thousands" in Iraq. or when you said:
"There has not been a SINGLE instance of an administration claim turning out to be false or forged. NOT ONE"
You wont find anyone in the Bush administration that will back you on that whopper. They've admitted the yellowcake from Niger story was bullshit or are you hiding behind the fact Bush said "British Intelligence says" in his State of the Union as some lame excuse that he didn't actually claim it. You both seem to be fond of intentionally misleading prose.
The Daily show had one last night with back to back video clips of Dick Cheney. This week he claimed he had never said the Al Qaeda meeting with Iraq agents in Prague had been confirmed. They cut to his Meet the Press interview a while ago where he said the meeting had been confirmed, though he slightly qualified it as "practically confirmed" or something to that effect.
I wish I'd read your journal before I wasted all this time arguing with you. I think you should start taking your meds again, lie down on the couch in your little room, get some sleep and maybe you'll have a better grip on the world tomorrow.
Maybe you're just a ridiculous nit picker.
4 /0 1/29/cz_jw_0129soapbox.html
The submission didn't say its being using to fight cancer "in humans".
James Baker, at the University of Michigan, has done something similar and has dramatically improved targeting of chemotherapy (30X improvement) in animal studies. Another link:
http://www.forbes.com/investmentnewsletters/200
The article doesn't spell it out but if Kereos is starting human trials in 2005 they must be doing animal trials with some success at this point too. If they are killing cancer in animals with the technique then the wording in the submission is completely acceptable. If Kereos isn't showing success in animals with the technique then I'd be inclined to say the whole story is more than a little premature, but you can turn to Baker's work instead and he is fighting cancer, in animals, using nanotechnology.
"It's not my responsibility to read to you."
I didn't ask you read it to me I just asked you to point to a URL to back up some of your more outrageous BS.
"I spend enough of my damn time WRITING the articles."
I'll take your word for it but I'd have a hard time believing the Post would hire a reporter with your unique outlook on the world after reading some of your prose today. You must work for some place like the National Review who tolerate your rants.
"Whether that's true or not, WE HAVE FOUND AND DESTROYED STOCKPILES OF SAME."
Yea, how many years ago was it since a stockpile has been destroyed in Iraq. Sure haven't been any since the invasion. They found 1 maybe 2 old chemical shells that date back to the first gulf war.
"No. "The people" from the 9/11 Commission said, and I'm quoting here...."
Talk about taking a quote out of context. You are either a really manipulative reporter or a bad one. The sentence right before the one you quoted is kind of key:
"And some of these documents indicate that there is at least one officer of Saddam's Fedayeen, a lieutenant colonel, who was a very prominent member of al-Qaeda. That still has to be confirmed."
The fact that it has to be confirmed implies it still has to be investigated. Not sure it particularly proves anything if there were Al Qaeda in Saddam's army unless he new they were there. The odds are good Al Qaeda has operatives in every Arab army and police force.
"Support? READ A GODDAMN NEWSPAPER. These are facts. In fact, go get a copy of the Post RIGHT NOW. Right this very minute. There's information in that you really ought to have... evidently."
I'd like to point out a few posts ago you said this:
"Sorry, but I'm not really interested in continuing this conversation with somebody who doesn't know anything more than what he reads in headlines and what he hears in six-second soundbites on the TV."
Which is it am I allowed to read and cite newspapers or aren't I. Its seems to be OK for you to do it but I'm a complete moron when I do it.
This is another instance where your posts are contradicting themselves within the space of a few hours. As you said earlier your memory must be shot, your a hypocrite or a combination of the two.
The point is the guy with the "Bush Rox, War Rulz" sign can enter an area that a guy with a sign that says "Bush Sucks" can't which is violating free speech rights. The guy with the "Bush Sucks" sign is going to put in a "Free Speech Zone" where he wont even see the President and the President wont see him, nor will the press. The pro Bush protesters are placed where they can see and be seen.
If all the pro Bush protesters were being put in the same out of sight area as the anti bush demonstrators then you could argue it was for security reasons and no one, me included would be complaining.
If Bush gauges his popularity on the demonstrators he actually sees he must really think his shit don't stink.
This is most definitely a first for a US president. See the links I posted above if you think I'm making it up.
"Support? READ A GODDAMN NEWSPAPER. These are facts. In fact, go get a copy of the Post RIGHT NOW. Right this very minute. There's information in that you really ought to have... evidently."
If you can post URL's from the Post supporting your bullshit do it. I've been trying. I'd really like to see the one supporting "hundreds of thousands of Al Qaeda in Iraq". I'll give you thousands or maybe ten thousand have landed there once we toppled Saddam and left Iraq's borders largely ungaurded and the place in a state of near anarchy. Hundreds of thousands is a bold faced lie. Hundreds of thousands means the U.S. is outnumbered by Al Qaeda Iraq, not counting Iraqi insurgents and that means the U.S. is in deep trouble.
"Since you're so unbelievably unable to READ FOR YOURSELF, I'll read FOR YOU."
I saw this on Meet the Press too. I think I'll wait until someone unbiased actually investigates it, thank you, which is what the people from the 9/11 commission said. The Bush administration has made claim after claim and they've proven to be false or forged every time. Saddam was buying Yellowcake in Niger, based on forged documents, documents forged so badly no intelligence agent worth his paycheck should have fallen for it. The lead 9/11 hijacker met with Iraqi agents in Prague, per the 9/11 commision he was in U.S. on the day this meeting was supposed to occur. Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. In many instances the information was essentially single sourced from defecters controlled by Challibi who were lying to get the U.S. to overthrow Saddam so Challibi could take over.
Its awfully convenient that this information just came to light when people have been looking for a link for more than a year to no avail, and the 9/11 commission just embarrassed the Bush administration on the subject.
I'll conceede I stretched the issue on the Geneva conventions. The Bush administration is mostly ducking the conventions based on the "enemy combatant" contention. Of course if we were at war when we captured the enemy they would be considered Prisoners of War. In particular in the case of the Taliban they were for all practical purposes a regular army, they just don't have uniforms presumably because they live in a dirt poor country. It should be noted our Northern Alliance allies weren't wearing uniforms either, nor were many of the special forces people working with them.
3 88 94-2004Jun13.htmls /torture/30603wgrpt 6.html
I can cite the case where the DOJ is being forced to prosecute the CIA interogator who beat an Afghan detainee to death in Iraq with the Patriot Act. The writup I saw from a law professor said they were doing this since they can't court martial civilians unless there is a state of war. If we were in a state of war the law changes and civilians working alongside the military can be court martialed.
Your contention that the U.S. is following the Geneva conventions to a T is ridiculous. Its been admitted the U.S. was hiding a prisoner called Triple X from the Red Cross in Iraq which is a violation personally approved by Sanchez and Rumsfeld. Sanchez approved putting prisoners in Iraq on a bread and water diet and taking away religious artifacts which are both violations of the Geneva convention.
Read this if you think the U.S. is adhering to the Geneva conventions:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A
http://news.findlaw.com/wp/doc
"That's not correct"
o ne s.shtmlh .cfm?ID=1 3699&c=86r e.htmlo mmenta/1 09238.aspd NewsTonight /protest_zones_031112.html
You are wrong again. Do a google search on "Free Speech Zone" "Secret Service". Its been going on for several years. Maybe it started after your last contact with Presidential security. How you think it works was true a few years ago but isn't anymore. There are court cases winding through the courts trying to stop it:
http://baltimorechronicle.com/052704FreeSpeechZ
http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeec
http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/featu
http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Nov/11092003/c
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/US/Worl
How many more references do you need. Would you support any one of your outrageous assertions with one teeny little URL supporting it.
How much longer are you going to keep saying stuff that is so easily refuted and continue to pretend like are the definitive authority and always right on every subject. You are the one spreading falsehoods here. Not sure if its intentional or those blinders you seem to be wearing have prevented you from seeing the part of the world and reality you are choosing not to see.
What exactly do or did you do for a living? From what you've said I'm assuming something military or government service. If so its just another reason to be really worried about democracy in America. Someone with your massive bias, tolerance for deception and intensity for suppressing opposing viewpoints shouldn't be in positions of power or public service in a democracy. You are the dangerous one here.
"The links are absolute and irrefutable. Why do you deny them?"
Because you are the only nut case here. You don't have any support for any of this shit you're shoveling. Do you think for once you could provide just one teeny little URL to support this bullshit isntead of making us take your word for it time after time. A lot of don't think you have any credability. People a lot better than you have been looking for proof of ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq and there simply hasn't been any. The U.S. has complete control of Iraq and Afghanistan, all of their ministries and all their documents. You would think they could come up with a little teensy bit of evidence of this massive alleged conspiracy between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
Its a given that Iraq supported Palastinians but thats true of every Arab government in the region. The U.S. supports Israel as it kills Palastinian civilians, the Arab governments support the Palastinians as they kill Israeli civlians.
International laws do exist. You can study it in universitys. It IS the body of law formed from treaties. The Geneva conventions are international law.
Its a keystone of the Bush administration's policy that we are in fact not in a state of war. They've been using it as their justification for not strictly adhering to the Geneva conventions. If there had been a formal state of war declared in Afghanistan or Iraq than the U.S. would have been obligated to strictly enforce the Geneva conventions or essentially abandon its ratification and adherence to those treaties. If it did so then U.S. soldiers would be at the mercy of future adversaries because they would no longer be protected by the same international law. Indications are that many in the uniformed military are displeased with the Bush administration's tolerance for and encouragement of the use of torture because it is unbecoming a professional military and it opens the people in their command up to the same kind of treatment.
I think you didn't follow this thread. Someplace way back I said I'm a 100 percent for going after Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. They deserve everything they get. The argument here is about Iraq. I'm 100 percent against the U.S. squandering its army and its treasure in Iraq which had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 or Al Qaeda until after we started this stupid little war.
I'm in the school that thinks the Bush administration should have stayed focused on Al Qaeda, Afghanistan and Pakistan instead of fighting that war on the cheap using a proxy(the northern alliance) and letting Al Qaeda scatter and now regroup there.
"But your position was that Halliburton will be getting money from the sale of Iraqi oil. That's completely false. Every dime from the sale of Iraqi oil goes to the Iraqi oil ministry, until such time as they privatize their oil fields. (Soon, I hope, for their sakes.)"
Wrong AGAIN asshole. I usually try to refrain from name calling but you've been doing it non stop so you deserve it. I said Halliburton is getting the money to rebuild Iraq's oil fields. Thats what I was talking about when this started, rebuilding Iraq's oil infrastructure and increase their production. Thats what Halliburton does. They are an oil field services company. They have the contracts to rebuild Iraq's oil fields. They have nothing to do with selling the oil, I never said they did, retard.
At this point I really am going to stop wasting time on you. Arguing with you is really and truly a waste of time. Its not interesting, its not informative, its not productive. I like a good debate with an intelligent adversary, and occasionally you showed a few interesting glimmers, but in total you simply don't rate interesting and you sure don't understand the concept of civilized debate.
"It doesn't say anything about Congress being required to issue a declaration before a state of war can exist"
I know its anathema to you to provide support for all the shit your shoveling but could you please provide a reference.
Their is a very specific legal definition of "state of war". Its something nations enter in to with a declaration of war, and its usually confined to armed conflicts between states. When a formal declaration of war is issued a whole bunch of international laws kick in. There has been no declaration, only Congress can issue it, so there is not a legal state of war at present. The Bush administration and the DOJ know that as well as I do. If you go back to the CIA contractor charged for killing the detainee in Afghanistan, if the U.S. was in a state of war he could be court martialed, civilians working for the military can be court martialed if you are in a state of war. Its a simple fact that a legal, under international law, state of war doesn't exist at present. Why don't you write to your friends in the DOJ. They will tell you the same thing. I think you are confusing the current situation which would be better described as "armed conflict". The legislation Congress has been passing is best defined as an authorization to use force. It is a whole different thing legally from a declaration of war and a state of war.
""Debate" means discussion of a question. There is no question. We are at war."
Like I said you don't have a clue what debate is. From this thread I doubt you've ever engaged in it. You just want to get on your soap box and preach your little view of the world, where everything is black and white, you operate under the conviction you are never wrong. Anyone with a differing viewpoint is in for a barrage of insults and name calling. Friend, someday you need to take the blinders off and see the rest of the world.
"Then you are all for war with Iraq, since Iraq was home to hundreds of thousands of al-Qaida militants after Enduring Freedom. Right?"
Thank you for once again proving how far off the deep end you are. If you can't support this bullshit stop throwing it out. Someone might actually think you know what you're talking about when you obviously don't.
"That's because they were asked to move, and they moved."
You really don't get ANYTHING do you. The pro Bush protestors weren't asked to move. The Secret Service under the Bush administration has taken to sorting demonstrators. The people waving pro Bush signs are put in close so he and the press can see them which is where this incident occured. Anyone criticizing him is moved to "free speech" zones that are out of sight of the President and the press. If you read the article the "free speech" zone was a half mile away where the people in it wouldn't be seen, for all practical purposes they were being silenced. Its not entirely clear from the article but I'm guess the guy either concealed what his sign said so he got in the Pro Bush demonstration area, either that or he snuck in. Security saw his anti bush sign and he was arrested for nothing more than engaging in FREE SPEACH.
The key point here is these free speech zones aren't for free speech, they are to suppress free speech.
This guy is facing six months in jail because he stood up for his right to free speech and had the balls to try to stand along side the Bush cheerleaders in a place where Bush might actually see his sign. God forbid Bush might accidentally see someone who doesn't agree with him.
You and George are a lot alike. You both subscribe to "My way or the highway". You simply can't stand anyone who disagrees with you. You resort to a none stop barrage of name calling, "traitor", "fool", "nutcase", "blind", etc. Bush uses the Secret Service and the FBI to silence his critics, and when you put people in pens out of sight that is what they are doing.
"We're in a war against an ideology. Wherever a person commits an act of terrorism, we have an enemy. Wherever a person finances an act of terrorism, no matter who the target, we have an enemy."
Using your logic I'm guessing your suggest the U.S. invade Saudi Arabia next then because they fund more terrorism than anyone. I'm not sure I even want to ask how you justify taking down Iraq with your scorched earth policy and letting Saudi Arabia go its merry way. Your arguments aren't even self consistent.
"I'm old. The memory fades."
From what I've read this is one of your statements I can agree with. The fact your memory and facts appear consistently very faulty doesn't seem to slow you down spouting things as fact which aren't.
"Calling you names in public forum"
h al liburton_iraq_con/
Calling people traitors just because they don't see things your way is a little beyond name calling. You are accusing people of treason, a capital crime. You seem like a pretty intelligent and well educated person, you make a few good points that I'm inclined to agree with, but your inability to restrain yourself and your rhetoric is one strike against you. Another is its really obvious your are completely unwilling to listen to viewpoints that differ from yours which is how you learn and grow. As a result it appears it is a complete waste of time trying to debate with you since you don't understand the concept of debate so this is the last attempt I will make. You seem to be of the Bush "my way or the highway" school.
"Halliburton has absolutely nothing to do with Iraqi oil."
Thats ridiculous. I really wish you would check your facts for a change KBR (Halliburton subsidiary) was given the no bid contract to do the cleanup you describe last march. But it was clear at the time they had the inside track on all the follow on oil field service contracts and it said so in the press releases at the time. They are already the established oil field service contractor unless the Iraq government throws them out which is unlikely since the Iraqi government is a U.S. lap dog.
http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/07/news/companies/
As for your dissertation on the oil markets you are once again running your mouth with no support. All markets are psychological. There is barely enough oil production to satisfy demand with Saudi Arabia pumping at the upper end of their capacity. If they shut it off oil prices would spiral out of control. The U.S. strategic reserve could compensate for a while but only a while.
If you think the U.S. can rely on Venezuela for its oil think again. Venezuela has had one long oil strike and the Bush administration has been trying to topple their government since 2001. The Venezuelan government hates the Bush administration with a passion. They still sell oil to the U.S. but are not inclined to do the U.S. any favors.
Iraq is struggling to get its oil production back to the levels it was at before the invasion. Its no where near its historical peak thanks to years of wars, embargo and recently looting. The oil for food levels certainly weren't anywhere near peak and they are struggling to get back to those levels. I'd have to dig but the Bush administration has put out its projections for Iraq's future oil production and its a dramatic increase over its historic peak. The major impediment is that unless they can compel security, insurgents are going to keep blowing it up as fast as its rebuilt. Oil out of Iraq's souther terminal is already nearly priced out of the market because the insurance for tankers docking there is astronomical.
"People who argue that we are not at war, or that we should not wage war, are almost always arguing that we should surrender to our enemies."
This is where you are wrong again. We have this thing called the Constitution and it outlines what's involved in taking this nation to war. Its called a "Declaration of War" and needs to be passed by Congress. They haven't passed one, we aren't at war, or at least its a subject of huge debate, though you seem to indicate that debate is not allowed in your world. Its further evidence of how far we've strayed from our democracy that we've fought war after war without declaring one since World War II. Now we've reached a new nadir with a war that isn't declared and will apparently never end. Its one thing to suspend liberties in time of war but if the war will never end, which is what the Bush administration keeps saying, its not a suspension any more, its an elimination of liberties.
Just to make it clear I'm all for waging war on Al Qaeda. The Bush administration should have followed through on the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan instead of fighting it on the cheap through a proxy, scattering the real target and then running off to an insane diversion in Iraq that has turned in to a recruiting poster for Al Qaeda. Meanwhile the Taliban and Al Qaeda is reforming in Afghanistan and Pakistan and the Army is stretched to thin to stop it.
"I'll repeat my core thesis: if this country were one tenth as bad as you say here that it is, you would be lying in the street in a pool of your own blood by now."
And I'll repeat mine, give it time, it will get there, just give it time. Not sure its that far off after the rhetoric you've been dishing out tonight. It sounds like you'd take the job if you had a clean shot. We do shoot traitors don't we and everyone who doesn't agree with you is a traitor right?
"I don't recall anybody saying that they've had enough of Iraq. "
h tm l
l aw i/index_np.htmli ew_article.html?a rticle_id=a9c8ef8fa5a90b9c13f58a840f933f39
m l
Just what I read in the papers. Maybe you get a different story from soldiers cloaked in anonymity versus those who are sitting in a mess hall and risk retaliation if they are overheard complaining:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0707/p02s01-woiq.
"Some frustrated troops stationed in Iraq are writing letters to representatives in Congress to request their units be repatriated. "Most soldiers would empty their bank accounts just for a plane ticket home," said one recent Congressional letter written by an Army soldier now based in Iraq. The soldier requested anonymity."
Soldiers unhappy about being Iraq have apparently been carefully screened away from congressional delegations and the president when he was there in favor of the cheerleaders.
You may recall some soldiers were openly critical of Rumsfeld right after the invasion and they were hammered.
"Heh. Check your facts again. Allawi was a member of the Baath party in the 1960's, but left the party during the coups of the late 60's and early 70's. He was never a thug or an assassin."
Uh, I did check the facts. This was what a reporter from the New Yorker was saying on CNN this morning. Here are some other references.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/05/29/al
http://jobs.ncmonline.com/news/v
He did leave the Baath party in the early 70's when the Iraqi secret police tried to assasinate him. No one seems to know the reason for his falling out but it turned him from hunter to hunted.
"There were no "Palestinians," incidentally. There has never been a nation-state called "Palestine."
Bullshit, there has been a Palastine and Palastinians for millenia. The only reason there wasn't a nation state especially in the 20th century is that it was under colonial occupation by the Turks and then the British after World War I. From the UN history
"After looking at various alternatives, the UN proposed the partitioning of Palestine into two independent States, one Palestinian Arab and the other Jewish, with Jerusalem internationalized (Resolution 181 (II) of 1947). One of the two States envisaged in the partition plan proclaimed its independence as Israel and in the 1948 war expanded to occupy 77 per cent of the territory of Palestine. Israel also occupied the larger part of Jerusalem. Over half the indigenous Palestinian population fled or were expelled. Jordan and Egypt occupied the other parts of the territory assigned by the partition resolution to the Palestinian Arab State which did not come into being."
It leaves out one of the main reasons the Palastinians fled, the massacre of 250 Palastinians at Deir Yasin led by none other than Menachem Begin.
Try reading an alternative view of history for a change:
http://www.counterpunch.org/ignatiev06172004.ht
"What am I supposed to do here? I show you the truth and yet you do not see it. What am I supposed to say?"
"I suppose it's my own damn fault for arguing with a traitor and a fool."
Another nice screed man. How did you get the Karma bonus calling everyone who doesn't instantly adopt your rather unique and extreme view of the world things like "traitor" and "fool".
As your idol Ronald Reagan used to say, "There you go again". You concoct a rather unique and extreme take on the world, an acutely oversimplified view at that, and anyone who doesn't instantly accept and agreee with everything you're saying is a "traitor" and a "fool". What do propose doing to all of us "traitors". The normal solution is to lock them up and execute them. But then you keep saying we don't do that sort of thing in this free country. Which is it free country, or round up all the traitors that have the audacity to disagree with you.
You are a flaming hypocrite when you spout off about what a wonderful thing it is to live in a "free" country and then harangue anyone who has the audacity to exercise that freedom and disagree with you.
""Oil" isn't an explanation."
Thats because in your rather naive view of the world you don't understand the rather subtle long term strategic play for Iraq's oil. The suspected goal of the play is to get Iraq's oil back on the market without U.N. restrictions, and without the money going in to Saddam's pocket. With Saddam out of the way spend a bunch of money developing Iraq's oil capacity, most of the money going in to Halliburton's pocket, with the goal that Iraq displaces Saudi Arabia as the world's #1 oil producer, and it does have the reserves to take the #1 spot. One objective is to just get a lot more oil on the market.
The other problem is, at present, Saudi Arabia has a great deal of control over the U.S. and the world because if they cut off all their oil exports they can crater the world economy because other countries can't make up the shortfall. As a result the U.S. has to frequently grovel at the Saudi's feet. So goal #2 is to take Saudi Arabia's power down a notch or two so they can be pressured by the U.S. to do things the U.S. wants. If the Saudi's aren't the #1 oil producer, there is a glut of Iraqi oil available and the U.S. pulls the strings in Iraq, you achieve that end.
If your really fighting the war on radical Islam Saudi Arabia is the nexus of the problem, they fund the madrasa's that teach it, they fund Al Qaeda, and most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. You are still completely full of shit trying to spout the Cheney line that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 or Al Qaeda. Iraq, in its emaciated condition, was a bit player in global terrorism so taking out Saddam in the name of fighting the "War on Terrorism" was complete bullshit or a misguided diversion, unless its a play to undermine Saudi Arabia.
"There is no such debate. Seriously: there is no such debate."
I forgot to point out that you are really showing your totalitarian tendencies when you say something that far off the deep end. Believe it or not if you are living in a free country there is ALWAYS room for debate, and there is most certainly a huge debate going on in this country about Iraq. Its only people like you that have turned in to flag waving extremists who are trying to pretend there isn't a debate or are trying to put an end to if if there is anyone willing to express an opposing view. When you start going down the this road and trying to shout down anyone who disagrees with you or wants t0 debate these grave issues you are a basically proving yourself to be in the same league as the Fascists, my friend. They shouted down anyone who disagreed with them in the beginning too, only later did they haul them off to prisons and concentration camps.
"That's all it did. It did not create new laws. It did not give the FBI new powers. It simply extended the powers they already had to surveil, investigate, and pursue agents of foreign governments to cover agents not affiliated or directly sponsored by any state."
You are so wrong, at least according to the DOJ and Ashcroft last week. They are using the Patriot Act to prosecute the CIA contractor accused of beating an Afghan detainee to death with a Flashlight. The DOJ could find no other way to prosecute him. A civilian can't be court martialed unless there is a state of war which Congress hasn't seen fit to declare. The U.S. isn't going to turn an American, especially a CIA employee, over to the Afghan courts. It didn't happen on U.S. soil so he can't be charged in the U.S. except step in the Patriot Act.
The Patriot Act apparently has a clause to allow prosecution of foreigners(terrorists) who attack government facilities overseas. The DOJ has twisted it around to prosecute an American who attacked a foreigner at a government facility overseas. If it stands in court the DOJ acquires broad new powers to prosecute people outside the U.S.
The worst thing you did here was made it sound like the Patriot Act is a tiny little law that did a few specific sage little things. It is in fact a huge, sprawling, hurriedly written law which is apparently open to really broad interpretation which means it is a badly written law.
Hopefully they courts will throw out this new power grab by the DOJ but if it does then any civilian who murdered or tortured people in Afghanistan or Iraq may get off scott free.
You've been taking the Bush/Fox propaganda a little to seriously.
I'm pretty sure the U.S., Britain and the Jews started the war with the Arabs about 50 years ago when they kicked the Palastinians out of their homes and homeland after World War II. Everything since then has just been a continuation with variations.
"as surely as we were at war with fascism in 1943"
I'm pretty sure we are still fighting Fascism today though its appearing in the form of the Republican party today. I'm pretty sure the true conservatives in the Republican party are aghast at the things their party is doing lately. You forget Hitler was democraticly elected and seized power by using the legislature he controlled to pass laws that slowly eliminated all opposition. Its coming in slow motion but if Bush gets another four years, he has another Republican Congress and especially if there is another big attack on the U.S. you will be living in a velvet gloved police state.
I'll tell you what. I propose we really "support our troops". Let's start flying them home tomorrow starting with the ones that were supposed to fly home months ago before Rumsfeld figured out his Army was to small to fight the fight Cheney and Wolfowitz picked. That would be really supporting our troops. I'm guessing 90% of them have had enough of Iraq, and the civilian leadership that got them in to that little hell holed based on one lie after another. If I manage to implement my plan and get them home I wager I'd get more votes from the troops than George will this November.
Let's make it clear, me supporting the troops, is supporting the good men and women in the military doing their job. Its not supporting the war, not the chain of command, not the few that have grown fond of killing and torturing.
Something interesting I heard on CNN this morning. Apparently the new interim prime minister of Iraq was one of Saddam's thugs and assassins in the 70's. They had a falling out and Saddam tried to have him ax murdered but he lived and switched sides to join the payroll of MI5 and the CIA. He was suggesting martial law as the best solution to the on going violence a couple days ago, which would make him dictator. I'm guessing the U.S. squandered $200 billion dollars and over 800 of our troops, which I support with all my heart, to replace one dictator with another. When that happens the absolute last rationale Bush had for this little quagmire to bring "Freedom and Democracy" to the little brown ragheads, as God put him on this Earth to do, will be just one more lie.
Would you be interested in appearing on an MTV talk show to help educate the world's youth about important topics. We'll pay you $200 dollars and send a car.
I'd love to see you on Crossballs, you'd be hilarious.
All I'd say to this is I'm sure a lot of them are nice people I'm just not sure I'd agree this is the way to fight a war. In particular, if you are fighting an insurgency using locals to cook for your army and do all your construction isn't a particularly good idea. A few well placed infiltraters and your Army is screwed.
Using contractors to interrogate prisoners is an even better example of how deeply flawed it is for an Army to be at the mercy of profiteers for critical services. You can't make them answer for their actions the way you can a soldier.
I think the $200 billion dollar, and counting, price tag on this war suggests dependence on money is no object contracting is proving to be pretty expensive.
You also can't count on contractors if the going gets rough.
All in all I'd say if you are going to fight a war build an army to do it, or don't do it in the first place.
Downsizing the military is an OK thing to do as long as you aren't planning on invading a large country for no particularly good reason, and creating a situation where you need a huge occupation army you don't have.
Its very desirable for a lot of reasons to have as small a standing army as possible, but which is still a creditable deterant to potential enemies. When you run into an enemy spoiling for a fight you can't avoid, you declare war, institute a draft, call up the reserves and deal with it as was done in World War II. The Bush administration is trying to fight a huge war on the cheap, without the draft and without the troops. To solve the problem they are squandering huge sums on contractors, the constractors are making out like bandits and tax payers are getting royally screwed.
I'm not sure where Clinton stood in downsizing the military and moving the jobs to contractors instead. If he was a big fan of it then he is in the same class as Cheney in my book. Cheney its really clear he was really fond of switching from underpaid grunts no big company could profit from to overpaid contractors HIS company can profit from.