Saddam Hussein’s Ongoing War Against the Iraqis


sorabji.com: Who are you?: Saddam Hussein’s Ongoing War Against the Iraqis
THIS IS A READ-ONLY ARCHIVE FROM THE SORABJI.COM MESSAGE BOARDS (1995-2016).

By Safia Taleb Al Souhail on Thursday, February 20, 2003 - 11:50 pm:

    By Safia Taleb Al Souhail


    Safia Taleb Al Souhail is Advocacy Director for the Middle East and Islamic World at the International Alliance for Justice (www.i-a-j.org), and the publisher of the independent newspaper Al Manar Al Arabi. Al Souhail participated in a delegation of nine Iraqi women who met with British Prime Minister Tony Blair on December 2nd 2002, to brief him on the persecution of their communities in Iraq. This perspective is based on the delegation’s remarks.

    As we watch UN inspectors search Iraq for weapons of mass destruction, I ask, why are there no UN inspectors investigating Saddam Hussein’s crimes against the Iraqi people? Along with hidden caches of biological and chemical weapons, Iraq also has hidden torture chambers, prisons and mass graves.


    In Saddam’s Iraq, women are especially vulnerable pressure points - victims who can be used to influence other victims. They are harassed, abused, raped, tortured and gassed both for their resistance to the regime and as a means to control their families. For reasons like this, other Iraqi women and I have been organizing to get our voices heard in the international arena. Last December we met with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain to brief him on the Ba'th regime's systematic abuse of women in Iraq, and how our families and communities have been persecuted by Saddam's regime.


    Zahraa Mohammed is a Shi'a, Feyli Kurd from Baghdad. She described to Mr. Blair how she was imprisoned with her family for three months in 1980, during a mass deportation campaign of Feyli Kurds from Iraq to Iran. Saddam’s regime has conducted three such campaigns, in 1969, 1971 and 1980, in which hundreds of thousands of Feyli Kurds were expelled and lost all their property.

    Saddam’s agents took away Mohammed’s four brothers and eight cousins, and dumped the rest of her family on the heavily mined Iranian border. To this day, she does not know what happened to her brothers and hundreds of other relatives who have also disappeared. In total, seven thousand young men of the Feyli Kurdish community were taken hostage in April 1980, and twenty-three years later their fate remains unknown.


    Berivan Dosky, a Kurd from northern Iraq, described how her mother was forced to flee her village in Duhok province in the 1961 Iraqi war against the Kurds, merely two hours after giving birth to Berivan. Berivan herself was later forced to repeat the scenario with her three-month-old son. In 1988, during a chemical attack against the Kurds, Berivan had to make a Faustian choice: She had only one gas mask, and had to decide whether to use it for herself, or give it to her then two-year-old son. She decided neither would wear it; they would either live or die together. Berivan is worried that Saddam will once again use chemical weapons against the Iraqi Kurds who live in the British and American-protected Kurdish safe haven. She asked Mr. Blair to make sure that there are enough gas masks for everyone.

    Fatima Bahr-al-Ulum is a Shi'a from a respected religious family in Najaf, in Southern Iraq. She listed over twenty clergy members in her immediate family who are in prison; none of them were released in the recent amnesty. Scores of others have been killed. The Iraqi Shi'as have suffered greatly from the discriminatory policies of Saddam's regime, which has massacred over two hundred thousand Shi’as, murdered five of their religious leaders (Al Maraji'), and destroyed their Marsh lands, known as the Venice of the Middle East. All the great Sh'ia religious families in Iraq, like Fatima Ulum’s, have been targeted by Saddam's regime for their opposition to its brutal policies.


    Layla Kelenchy, a Turkoman from Kirkuk, in Northern Iraq, described how she was expelled from her home during the 1990's as part of Saddam's "Arabization” campaign in which Sunni Arab Iraqis are resettled around the country to disrupt other Iraqi ethnic communities. There are an estimated one million non-Arab refugees within Iraq who have been displaced by Saddam's ethnic cleansing campaign and live in refugee camps or scattered in various cities in Iraqi Kurdistan.


    Melina Bakhos, an Assyrian poet, told the Prime Minister how Saddam’s regime has destroyed more than two hundred villages, and dozens of ancient churches and monasteries, in her small Christian Assyrian community. Only this summer, his agents beheaded a 72-year-old nun in a Mosul Church. Hundreds of Iraqi women have been beheaded in the last two years under the orders of Saddam’s son Uday. Their heads are displayed on the walls and doors of their houses. Teachers have been beheaded in front of their pupils. These women, and others who were doctors and engineers, were accused of being prostitutes. In reality they were killed because of they were related to opponents of Saddam.


    My father, Sheik Taleb Al Souhail, was the chief of the almost one million strong Bani Tamim tribe from the central part of Iraq. Our family fled from Iraq after the Ba'ath coup d'etat of 1968, but Saddam's agents still managed to kill my father in his exile home in Lebanon, in April 1994. Although the case is well documented, it was never prosecuted in the Lebanese courts. All our property in Iraq was confiscated by the Ba'ath regime, and several members of the tribe were arrested and executed. My mother and six sisters have remained in exile in Jordan. We receive constant death threats from the regime. Earlier this year, a voice on the phone told me: "Do not think that because you are a woman you will not face the same fate as your father."


    These stories are a just a tiny sample of crimes that the Ba'ath regime has committed against the Iraqi for the past three decades. It is essential for people of the world to understand that the suffering of the Iraqis will not end as long as the current regime is in power. The British prime minister's agreement to meet us was a heartening and encouraging gesture. We asked the British government to enforce those sections of UN Security Council Resolution 688, passed in 1991, which call upon the Iraqi government to end its repression of the Iraqi people. Resolution 1284, passed in December 1999, also calls on Iraq to cease its discrimination against various Iraqi ethnic groups. And we asked that a UN commission be created to investigate human rights violations in Iraq. There is ample evidence with which to indict Saddam Hussein for genocide and crimes against humanity in the international criminal court.


    For the past three decades, we have been seeking international support for our efforts to bring about an Iraq within which our children can be brought up in peace and security. Iraq has violated sixteen UN Security Council resolutions, most of which were passed under the rarely used Chapter VII, which makes them legally biding on all UN members to enforce by military means if necessary. What is the point of these resolutions if the member nations of the UN do not show the will to enforce them?


    Saddam Hussein is himself a weapon of mass destruction. Disarmament is not enough. It may avert a chemical or biological attack, but it would not protect the people of Iraq from arbitrary imprisonment, executions, rape, torture and daily intimidation and deprivation. Saddam’s oppression of Iraqis is the "king of wars." His ongoing war against the Iraqi people must be stopped. The long-suffering Iraqi people deserve to be freed, and to live in a democratic, pluralistic and federal Iraq that is at peace with itself, the region and the world.

    Source


By Rowlf on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 04:49 pm:

    Are there UN "Human Rights Inspectors", or just a commission? Because that is a good idea.


By trace on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 08:07 pm:

    Yes, guess who is the chair of the UN Human Rights Commission in April?
    Lybia

    Oh, and Iraq will chair the dis-armenment commitee


By trace on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 08:21 pm:

    Where is Patrick's rebuf to this?

    Is this not exporting our western culture???


By jack on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 09:41 pm:

    shame on patrick for ignoring you like this when you're demanding his attention. that inconsiderate cad!
    sounds like your relationship is headed into stormy waters. that'll be tough, but i'm sure you'll both get through it just fine.


By patrick on Saturday, February 22, 2003 - 12:19 pm:

    i have no idea what any you motherfuckers are talking about, especially you trace.








    the alphabetical selection of committee chairs just happened to hit the I's. I had heard that Iran is heading someother committee, something like a human rights committe or something ironic group. Complete coincidence. Amusing.




By trace on Saturday, February 22, 2003 - 12:46 pm:

    "Saddam’s agents took away Mohammed’s four brothers and eight cousins, and dumped the rest of her family on the heavily mined Iranian border. To this day, she does not know what happened to her brothers and hundreds of other relatives who have also disappeared."

    That is what I am talking about.
    Where is your rebuf to the opening statements?


By patrick on Saturday, February 22, 2003 - 01:13 pm:

    i didnt even read any of this. i dont have one.


By trace on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 10:27 am:

    then shut your mouth about saddam not being a threat


By semillama on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 12:39 pm:

    While we are telling each other to shut up and respond to stuff, i just happened to notice that you have nothing to say about our government's support of Saddam in the 80's. That's interesting considering it's been brought up quite a bit. Unless you think he started torturing people Inauguration Day, 1992? Just wondering.


By trace on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 12:57 pm:

    No. It has been well documented that we choose the lesser of 2 evils.

    The Shah of Iran (Put in place by carter) was considered more dangerous at the time then hussien.

    Policy blunder, yes.
    Hindsight is always 20/20.


By Rowlf on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 03:31 pm:

    but trace, dont you see that every time we 'choose the lesser of two evils', arming people, etc, we end up with another problem later?

    Saddam Hussein and the Taliban are only two of many examples... and now the US cooperates with several other nations that aren't exactly friendly to get Saddam, pissing off their people... what, or should I say, who, is next? How many other monsters are we going to help create? Or do we care, because we need to plant the seeds for future wars for future politicians to use as a distraction from problems at home?

    The only way to stop terror is to STOP PARTICIPATING IN IT.


By trace on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 03:42 pm:

    You do not understand the nature of the beast, do you?


By trace on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 04:34 pm:


By Ophelia on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 10:17 pm:

    those are lots prettier than most pictures of war i've seen...but maybe thats just the media. i'm sure war is real pretty in reality.


By Nate on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 11:26 pm:

    "The only way to stop terror is to STOP PARTICIPATING IN IT."

    kind of like drinking your own piss. the only way to stop drinking your own piss, is to stop pissing.

    see what i'm saying?

    in other words, the whole turn the other cheek thing is flawed because it assumes that there exists no man who does not have evil in the core of his heart. the only way to end theft is by keeping your doors unlocked.

    if a man has five chickens, he can kill one of those chickens. he can wake up with the rise of the sun and walk into his yard and say "Chickens, one of you is going to die this morning. One of you chickens is going to die some come on forward and i will kill you."

    and the chickes would scurry about the yard. not with any particular passion, though, as chickens do not understand human language and would not be aware of the odds of death being laid out before them.

    and the man would go out to the shed and grab his axe. he would slowly sharpen the axe. he would go back into the yard and he would grab a chicken. he would take the chicken by the legs and hold it out over the killin block. he would swing the axe and remove the head from the chicken. it would wipe the blood from the axe with his kercheif. he would return the axe to the shed. he would beat off into the dusty wood floor of the shed. he would wipe the jism from his cock with his kercheif.

    and then there would be four chickens. four chickens scurrying around the yard eating mice and bugs. weeks and months and years will pass. chickens will come and go, die and be buried, killed and be eaten. burnt in the firework incident. mutilated in the lawnmower incident.

    chickens will be bought and paid for, stolen and adopted. chickens will arrive on spring winds, in aerocars, in the back of the milk truck. chickens will rain to the earth in freakish weather. chickens will be smuggled inside of couch cushions and oatmeal boxes and in the spare tire compartment of buicks.

    chickens will come and go.

    but then, in forty or fifty years, he will find himself on the porch, looking at those same five goddamn chickens. on the same kind of day, same summer sun, same summer breeze. a glass of lemondade in your hand put quietly to the wood of the porch. he creeps into the yard, into the center of the oblivious chickens. the stupid fowl.

    he watches the chickens briefly, and then he says "Chickens. Today you will all die. Not a one of you will live any longer. I will crush your heads one by one with a sledge hammer." and he goes to the shed and he grabs the sledge hammer from the wall. he walks back to the yard. he grabs a chicken and he smashes its head with the sledge. he repeats this four more times.

    and then there are no chickens.

    no chickens. and no chickens ever returned. and when the man died he found himself in a booth in a bar in heaven. a beautiful woman is at his side, who he later discovers to be audry hepburn. a man sits down, introduces himself as bob hope. another man with white gloves puts glasses of whisky on the table.

    pain is the story of the day, my friends. the pain of boundried existences and successful memes and there is nothing that anyone can do about the greed in the hearts of men. nor about the birth of evil people.

    so we must instead make sure that no evil people can ever diminish our existence. because power, unlike wealth, is not created. it is transfered. and to let your power dimish is to let another's grow. and that other is almost sure to be evil.


    i'm sure they're van ecking this as i type.


By Nate on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 11:39 pm:

    PS.

    roosters are not the same as chickens.

    xoxo,
    bobby flay



By Rowlf on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 08:28 am:

    your analogy to chickens assumes we could ever run out of chickens. that theres a set number and you can get rid of one without another being created. thats not the way things are going as far as "counterterrorism" is concerned.

    you don't agree that if the US even got involved LESS in the region that they'd be less threatening? or do you think they will always be after us from now on no matter what? because i believe in the former.

    so unless you're being ironic... er.. no.


By semillama on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 09:24 am:

    poor chickens.

    (Spider, that's a reference especially for you)


By Nate on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 11:08 am:

    "you don't agree that if the US even got involved LESS in the region that they'd be less threatening?"

    i don't think you understand what you are implying.

    in order for the US to be less involved in the region, we would need to find an alternative to our dependance on oil. our security is tightly coupled with the strength of our economy.

    so, in essence, the only way for us to remove our involvement in the region is to remove our financial ties to the region. if this were the case, the GDPs of the arab oil producing nations would be drastically reduced. infrastructure would disolve. governments would collapse.

    who will they blame when the money runs out? when the poor are turning to religion, the promise of paradise making the torments of reality bearable?

    of course they're going to blame the US. and the corpus of potential terrorists will grow proportionate to the increase in suffering.




By patrick on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 11:19 am:

    "there is nothing that anyone can do about the greed in the hearts of men. nor about the birth of evil people."

    no reason to sink to such levels to combat such entities.


    "the whole turn the other cheek thing is flawed because it assumes that there exists no man who does not have evil in the core of his heart."

    i dont think anyone advocates "turning a cheek"

    what is it with you and trace assuming that because some of us do not support the action of war, therefor we support inaction?

    otherwise nate you can justify all kinds tyrrany with your logic.

    Just because darth vader spoke like a english professor doesnt mean the dark side is anyless dark.





    and trace because i dont read every little bit of nonsense you post doesnt mean im not able or uncapable of carrying on a conversation about the threat Saddam poses. That was delgated to another thread dipshit.

    "Respond or shut up on another thread" is essentially what you were saying and you look kinda silly in doing so.


By Nate on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 11:31 am:

    "what is it with you and trace assuming that because some of us do not support the action of war, therefor we support inaction?"

    i support war as a last resort, when all other viable options are exhausted. if you disagree with this, you implicitly support inaction.

    war is the only recourse to some of the threats of this world.


By patrick on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 11:32 am:

    "all other viable options are exhausted"

    maybe THIS is the crux of our disagreement.


By patrick on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 11:32 am:

    and still think your sport the rhetoric of darth vader.


By Nate on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 11:48 am:

    i'm sure the viability of inspections is the crux of our disagreement. you don't see any other viable options, and it is obvious to me that inspections could never work.


By The Watcher on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 12:34 pm:

    Trace, I think the Shah was put in place during the Eisenhower administration. Or, maybe Kennedy's.

    He was deposed during the Carter administration. Remember "America held hostage, day XXX". The hostage crises created ABC's Nightline. It also helped elect Reagan.


By Nate on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 12:52 pm:

    i think the cia installed the shah in like 1954.


By semillama on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 12:55 pm:

    First chickens, now Darth Vader. What next?

    Here's what's next, it's the solution to our dependence on foreign oil.


By Nate on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 01:18 pm:

    wow. so many times i find that, in the end, pork is the answer.


By semillama on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 02:14 pm:

    Pork - the Other Alternative Energy!


By Rowlf on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 05:35 pm:

    well you can think that and thats fine, but i'm just saying: you get what you give. if we want to go around assisting one bad guy to get another, or to get resources, we should expect that people might strike back at us, and that more bad guys are going to be created because of our actions. we shouldnt demand to have it both ways.

    i think that if the US is going to be the world leader they need to set the standard and show, i guess you could call it restraint. And genuine pateince. And a willingness to listen. I know you think that cutting down our involvement means we lose power, but i disagree. i think that setting the example and not sinking to the level of terrorists will give the US more power, more respect, and a moral authority it does not really have but claims. It can be done.

    So yeah, I understand where you're coming from, but I simply disagree.


By Nate on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 08:28 pm:

    but do you not agree that if the US sets such an example it must also be prepared to defend itself? diplomacy only works so far- how many times will you loan money to someone who 'forgets' they ever borrowed from you?

    the UN and US have both been quite patient with Iraq- when does it end?

    at what point do you decide that enough is enough? that there have been plenty of iterations through Saddam's PR game? that things will never change via diplomatic channels?



By Rowlf on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 08:32 am:

    yes, I agree that it needs to defend itself, however I think if the US expects to be able to tell other countries to disarm, it too should decrease the amount of nuclear warheads it has. Its really unfortunate that the Russia/US mutual disarmament didn't happen, but that can be rectified. It makes no sense to any country why the US and Russia need that many warheads, and its hard to not see hypocrisy in a country that is seen by cynics as 'imperialist' and 'aggressive' have that many warheads, be ready to go to war to prevent a specific country from ever getting one. Set the example, let the UN "win" once in a while, they should not be told they're 'relevant' only when they're of use to the US, and then the respect will be there, the moral authority will be there, the US will finally be considered a 'good global citizen' and most importantly, if a need for war arises, the US will not be treated so cynically, as the current cynicism is well founded as history has proven that the US has not exactly been truthful when it comes to war. The US would be treated seriously in the case of war if it sets the example.

    As well, if an example is set, we wont have bullshit "but they did it too!" things happen like France's deal with the Ivory Coast. And then theres Israel, but that turns everything really grey, and I don't want to go there.

    as for patience, no, noone has patience for Saddam Hussein. I'm talking about patience about what to do about him. The Bush administation has been pushing one option while pretending to be for others. The amount of time invested in seriously coming up with a solution has been very small. The US gets full credit for wanting to do something about him. No patience for Saddam, but patience for real options to avoid the destruction of possibly hundreds of thousands of lives. As for Saddams PR game, it is frustrating to see him act in defiance whenever he talks, then sense Aziz out there to go along with whatever the UN wants as his fall-guy. But thats the way its going, and if its making progress (and I think it is), we're just going to have to put up with it.

    I don't know at what point enough is enough, but I'm hoping I'll know when I see it. I know in my heart we are nowhere near there yet.

    Cheers.


By trace on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 08:47 am:

    OK.
    Here is my last attempt to inject some type of common sense into this.

    Do you have a car loan or mortgage that you signed?
    Does this agreement spell out terms, as well as consequences for failing to meet those terms?
    Does the lendor have responsibilities to you as well as to the committee they report to?

    If you fail to make your payments for 90 days, don't you get a call?
    If your response is "I sent in payments, therefore you have no grounds to take my car/home"?
    Does the lending institution just say "OK then, thank you, have a nice day?" or will they ask you for proof, such as cancelled checks or electronic funds tranfer numbers or copies of money orders?

    Iraq signed a cease fire agreement in 1991.
    Included in this agreement was returning the prisonsers from Kuwait, and distruction of chemical and biological weapons.
    There was a complete list of items that were to be destroyed.
    Most items on that list have not been destroyed.
    Yes, you can prove you destroyed it. The inspectors were there to document that destruction. And there will be remains that can be verified.

    Iraq is in breach of 17 resolutions, including the original agreement that called for the ending of hostilities.
    We promised the Iraqi people in 1991 that we would help them get rid of Saddam Hussein.
    The UN is looking less and less like a legitimate peacemaker and more and more like an enabler.
    The US is appearing to look very weak and unable to enforce it's own treaties.
    The original coalition is failing to meet their promise they made in 1991.

    And a large presense of the United States in that region will incite some turmoil, but the response can be quicker and less messy.

    The middle east is full of trouhle.
    The US cannot ignore it.
    Nate is correct, if we pulled out of the oil market, economies in that region will colapse.
    The US will be blamed for not helping stabilize the region.
    Money will not solve it. The money has gone to waste on palaces and weapons.
    Iraq is the second step in getting this shit under control.
    There is much more to come


By semillama on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 09:35 am:

    Does the lending institution get to make stuff up and then send a bunch of guys over to beat you up if they decide that's the best thing to do?

    How will a war plan that includes us getting the hell out of thecountry as soon as we can, instead of insuring the country doesn't go all the hell by committing to rebuilding democratic institutions?

    How will locking the Kurds out of the process help stabilize the region?

    Nothing I have seen so far shows me this administration has what it takes to get a good outcome out of this.


By trace on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 09:57 am:

    they have more then clinton or carter had


By trace on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 10:00 am:

    Nothing I have seen so far shows me the UN has what it takes to get a good outcome out of this.


By The Watcher on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 11:37 am:

    The UN doesn't want a "good outcome". They want to keep the status quo.

    That way they can continue to expand their bureaucracy and influance in all governments.

    What the UN really wants is to eventually become a world government.

    Hopefully this won't happen in my lifetime.


By patrick on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 11:51 am:

    um yeah. aaaaanyway watcher.


    trace

    "Here is my last attempt to inject some type of common sense into this."


    I've seen buttloads of common sense on this. where are you looking? Rowlf made all kinds of common sense.

    If you are saying your point of view is one of common sense, id have to say thats pretty much a load of shit, because you want to treat Iraq like a petulant misbehaving child. Brilliant plan when upwards of a million civilians will die. The middle east is full of trouble because of US meddling for decades.

    Your elementary equation:

    "If you fail to make your payments for 90 days, don't you get a call? If your response is "I sent in payments, therefore you have no grounds to take my car/home"? Does the lending institution just say "OK then, thank you, have a nice day?" or will they ask you for proof, such as cancelled checks or electronic funds tranfer numbers or copies of money orders?"

    assumes, like nate, that running into a problem in the process automatically results in default. No they wouldnt say have a nice day and hang up. Its in a banks interest to work with you just as its in the US's and the world's best interest to not go to war. Collections cost banks money. Also your example is a bit retarded because it doesnt really address or account for the fact that war will result in hundreds of thousands of dead civilians. Further demonstrating my take that most of America has no fucking idea what this war entails. The number of veterans against this war should be a testament to that.


By trace on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 12:06 pm:

    How many gulf war vets do you know?

    Seriously?

    Everyone I have talked to (and no, not just healthy active duty vets, this includes disabled vets as well)think that the US government owes them a debt of honor to finish what was started in 1991.


By patrick on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 12:15 pm:

    I saw many vets at the anti-war rally trace. Some were in wheel chairs. Some were old enough to be WW2 vets. Some Vietnam vets. A Gulf War vet spoke at the rally. There have been numerous high profile vets that have come out against this war trace.

    You work in an active military institution, its not in anyone's best interest to oppose what is happening so saying you've spoken to vets who support it...well yeah, i would think so given where you work.


By The Watcher on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 12:21 pm:

    There will not be hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties in Iraq.

    There might be tens of thousands of Iraqy millitary casualties. Especially amoung the Republican Guard. GHWB made a Big mistake in not wiping them out in 91.


By semillama on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 12:22 pm:

    The only vets i know are 100% against this war.
    Even my friend who is an officer in Afghanistan is of the opinion that the current military actions aren't justified.

    Also, stop bringing up Clinton. We aren't talking about Clinton. If Clinton were in office, we would be. He's not. Bush is.

    The point you are trying to avoid making, trace, it seems to me, is that you really don't feel that the Iraqis have the same right to exist that anyone else does. That's probably why you avoid addressing the civilian toll. But I guess a bunch of dead children will pay off that debt of honor bullshit. There is no honor in war, and if you believe that there is, I feel sorry for you.


By patrick on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 12:36 pm:

    hey watcher, buy a clue eh?

    more info

    more info


    its not really disputed that well over a 100,000 Iraqi's died in the first Gulf War watcher.

    Nearly 500,000 people have died since due to sanctions.


By trace on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 02:39 pm:

    "The point you are trying to avoid making, trace, it seems to me, is that you really don't feel that the Iraqis have the same right to exist that anyone else does. "

    PAY ATTENTION!

    I said Saddam, not the Iraqis.
    We AND our alies need to keep up our end of the cease fire treaty signed in 1991.
    We also need to keep our promise to help the iraqi's get rid of saddam.

    And speaking of clinton, he's the ass that brought up federal charges against the cia in 1996 for attempting to keep that promise

    I am for democracy being set up in Iraq.

    dammit


By patrick on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 03:49 pm:

    wow trace. thats awesome. you like playing nation-builder?

    any dumbass who thinks this war is going to be successful in killing Saddam without taking 100s of thousands of civilians is out of touch with the realities of war. How many civilians for Saddams head trace? C'mon, gimme a number.

    and for fucksake just shut up about clinton trace. really. shut up about it. its irrelavent


By semillama on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 04:07 pm:

    Whenever Trace starts bringing up Clinton, you know he's scrambling.


By Rowlf on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 05:21 pm:

    "Nothing I have seen so far shows me this administration has what it takes to get a good outcome out of this."

    precisely. The plan seems to be very reckless and shortsighted, which is why the world has to come up with many more options since previous resolutions did not work. Its not like there have been 17 completely seperate plans. Take a look at those resolutions and clearly explain the difference, it is basically like getting the same 'past due' note from the bank over and over again.

    Its very interesting to me that Bush will say 'war is the last option' but has presented war as the only option, seemingly leaving it up to the rest of the world to come up with other options. If 'war is the last option', and the US intends to follow through with that last option if needed, I think it bears the responsiblity to come up with other options itself before a war.

    Its very apparent the US' "option before war" was to go the UN, hammer out yet another designed-to-fail resolution as an excuse, then go to war. There was never a serious committment from the Bush administration for peace.


By Bigkev on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 05:35 pm:


By wisper on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 05:40 pm:

    what are you guys all ganging up on trace for? They can kill JUST Saddam if they want to, without any civilian casualties. It's *easy* for the U.S. army to kill just one lone guy. They've only got the biggest army ever to do it. Just point n' shoot!
    Or better yet, send one of them smart bombs after him. That's what they're for. Killing one little dude at a time.

    Like, remember how they killed Osama Bin Laden that one time? That was awesome.


By patrick on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 05:49 pm:

    there's no effort to "gang" up on anyone.

    I respond to nate equally.


By trace on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 06:52 pm:

    I am not scrambling.
    But crying about someone talking about clinton and carter and bush sr does not take the mistakes away, or make the subject irrelevent


By trace on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 06:58 pm:

    Yup. this is because of sanctions, right?

    Oh wait, this was 1988.
    Who cares right?
    Because this is 2003.
    Just like clinton has sat through 8 years of iraq breaking 17 resolutions.

    But your right patty, lets go back for more.
    Because the process is not right. Just the same as a mortgage is 90 days late, we need understanding and work with the Iraqis.

    You totally missed my alegory.


By trace on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 07:08 pm:

    oh, and fuck you all for telling me i dont care about the citizens. you are ignoring my posts about that.

    You are the ones whom seem calous.
    Blame the UN sanctions?

    France's #1 source of oil is Iraq.
    Is that money feeding the starving?
    Or building palaces and buying prohibited weapon fuselages?

    You blame the wrong person, again.
    Because it is easier for you to hate bush and cry for his ousting, who at most will be in power a total of 8 years, then it is to get a real tyrant and murderrer who has been in power for 45 years out of power.
    The only way it can be done is with action.
    Not inspections, santions, or resolutions.


By moonit on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 07:38 pm:

    Why does America feel the need to get involved in other countries problems, when it has its own?

    Oh no hangon - America only involves itself in the problems of other countries when they need/want/use products of that country.

    Thats not right.


By moonit on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 07:38 pm:

    This is doing my head in.


By jack on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 08:16 pm:

    america is not unique in that regard.


By Rowlf on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 08:57 pm:

    agreed.


By semillama on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 09:14 am:

    Come on, Trace, look back at your posts. You're only critical of democratic presidents. You never say much of anything when ever someone brings up the support of folks like Hussein during a republican administration. When you attempt to be critical of a Bush policy, you're basically praising with faint damns.

    And you've always missed the point that we as a country need to be cognizant of the actions and inactions of our foreign policies over the years, and the results of those policies. Nobody is denying that the US has done a lot of good int he world. But you seem to take any criticism of the US as such. Frankly, it's annoying.

    Look, the US has lost a lot of face over the last 30 years or so, since Vietnam. We've lost a lot of trust. No one here likes that. Some of us are saying that the US needs to be more responsible and earn back that trust, and the actions of the last few administrations have not done enough.


By Nate on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 09:47 am:

    i like this Rowlf person. are you new or just new name?

    i see Saddam continuing to play the UN until the UN is united against him. without the threat of war, he won't do anything he doesn't want to do.

    i think the US has demonstrated that it is not only for war. if it were only for war, we would have gone in by now. it would have been a better move diplomatically (ie Washington's relationship with other countries,) if we'd gone in earlier.

    the serious commitment to peace was in Saddam's lap. all he needed to do was stop his trickery and come clean. work with the UN. he hasn't.

    like the sanctions killing 500,000 Iraqis. who's fault is that? ours? or Saddam's? really.

    there is a post war plan for iraq. we're not going to leave them high and dry, that would be insanity.

    american post war plans usually include using the USA military budget instead of your own. look at Japan and Germany- prosperity post-WWII.







By patrick on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 11:43 am:

    i didnt cite blame for the death from sanctions. i merely stated the fact because watcher was so out of touch. The west, Iraq and the UN all bear responsibility for the sanctons. The lack of forsight on the West and the UN to forsee the ineffectiveness as well as the ridiculously cruel nature of them.

    a US military-run government in the Arab world sounds like a brilliant idea.

    Talk about terrorism.....just wait. Our post-war presence there will make the Israeli/Palestinian conflict look like childs play.


By Nate on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 11:46 am:

    "The lack of forsight on the West and the UN to forsee the ineffectiveness as well as the ridiculously cruel nature of them. "

    this is an argument for war...


By patrick on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 11:58 am:

    its argument for peace.

    we've battered the Iraqi people enough. they deserve the benefit of every last drop of doubt from the UN and the world.


By Nate on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 12:22 pm:

    shit man. the iraqis seem to think that the US disposing saddam would be a good thing.

    don't you see the possiblities that your views are a product of your cushy lifestyle, and have no bearing on reality?


By patrick on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 12:36 pm:

    see i think the pro-war peeps are the ones out of touch with realities. realities of war. realities of our actions today and the impact on tomorrow so to speak.

    i don't think anyone can really guage what the Iraqi people want other than the Iraqis themselves. Its not like they have a civil war going. The Kurds have been sent to their corner, the Shiites to theirs and the rest in the middle.

    Its not like we are supporting an uprising so I dont know if any of us can say what the Iraqi's really want.

    US Bombs raining down on them? I'm not so sure.


By Platypus on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 12:41 pm:

    woah

    I think my head just exploded.


By patrick on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 12:54 pm:

    thats fucking awesome


By patrick on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 01:19 pm:

    further nate, if US performance in Afghanistan against the Taliban/al Qaida force (that actually attacked Americans on American soil mind you) is any indicator of what we can expect in Iraq, its fucking obvious we are destined for failure in A) getting Saddam B) wiping out the weapons C) installing a pro-west, stable democracy.

    Afghanistan is unstable, the enemy still roams and occassionally lobs a grenade or two.The president is a constant target and the mastermind behind the attack that killed 3000 Americans is still on the loose.

    Yeah we'll be able to steam roll them militarily. Thats easy. Its everything else that will become a problem...and to think we waltz in, manage and tax oil assets to pay for our stay unscathed or even successfully, to me, is an idea out of touch with reality.



By Nate on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 01:39 pm:

    hey, look at all the simple folk.

    if US performance against Germany is any indicator, it is fucking obvious that we are destined for success in A) getting Saddam B) wiping out the weapons C) installing a pro-west, stable democracy.

    how did the realities of our inaction affect the rowandan people?

    you have no argument there.

    "i don't think anyone can really guage what the Iraqi people want other than the Iraqis themselves"

    so read what the iraqi people say. i did.

    read what dan rather had to say about saddam's interview. how saddam asked about public opinion and how saddam is pleased by all these protests and feels public opinion is swaying his way. then he says he will not comply with UN demands to destroy illegal long range missles.

    he's rough cocking us, patty. he knows what he's doing. he's never going to comply, there is never going to be any fruit from the inspections, there are two choices: leave him, or remove him. if you want to leave him, you might as well be backing hitler.





By semillama on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 01:59 pm:

    Nate has a point. I think that a big problem is that the gov't has not been vocal enough about what the long term plan is. All I've heard is get out as soon as possible. I would prefer to hear "leave when it's stable enough."

    I tell you this, if we can go in and remove saddam and leave with a stable government, like Germany/Japan, then I will be the first to say good job. I just don't like the attitude i'm getting off our gov't, they are really not inspiring confidence in me. Right now I feel like it's inevitable that we are going in, so I just want us to do it in a way that leaves as many Iraqi civilians and American soldiers alive as possible, and that includes after the war as well. I'm not pro-war by any means, but we've got a real chance to actually do some good here, even it has to come at the price of a war. I'm just not optimistic that the current administration can pull it off.


By trace on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 02:14 pm:


By semillama on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 04:16 pm:

    I did check it out. And my opinion is still the same.

    What do you say about this, which is what I've been talking about?


By Rowlf on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 05:40 pm:

    I don't really care if Saddam is pleased about the protests. I don't think he was going to leave but the protests changed his mind. He's just using it as leverage. I think the protesters expected that, but what are they going to do? Not say what they feel in their hearts? Do nothing?

    trace, I think you'd get more responses if you didnt keep asking the same questions.

    Nate: you know me. You met me. You paid for my glass of wine. You said my city smelled. Ring a bell?

    I guess we just disagree. I really do feel the US hasn't really tried for peace. I think it didnt go in earlier because the UN can sometimes be a pushover, and Bush's early hints at war didnt generate a huge response, so why not go for UN approval? But I think this latest resolution ended up taking a lot longer to fall apart than anyone ever expected. Which gave a lot of people a lot of time to think about it and question the necessity. Its pretty clear that the administrations has dropped the ball more than once lately.

    As much as Saddam carries a burden to try for peace, we knew he wouldnt give in. it was unwise to expect as such and place it in his hands, we should have thought about another plan. It was unwise to impose sanctions hoping Saddam would help the people when we knew he wouldnt. We should have had another plan. Its definitely not our fault, but we should realize it isnt working and try something else.


By Nate on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 06:21 pm:

    well, that narrows it down.


By Dougie on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 06:31 pm:

    narrows it down to whom? Don't keep us in suspenders.


By trace on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 07:25 pm:

    rowlf, you male or female?


By S on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 08:05 pm:

    Trace won't argue with chicks.


By trace on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 08:42 pm:

    i usually do not
    but there is one evil one I will


By jack on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 08:49 pm:

    who, Hillary?


By eri on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 09:16 pm:

    I have a feeling that isn't who he was talking about. I think he was thinking of the women here and thought that there was only one here who he would argue with.


By trace on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 10:36 pm:

    yup.
    I would not waste my time with hillary.
    she does not even care about the issues she pushes.


By Moonit on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 12:33 am:

    cat?


By Rowlf on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 08:30 am:

    "i usually do not
    but there is one evil one I will"

    Evil-Lyn, Lady Deathstrike, or Jessica Simpson?


By semillama on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 09:02 am:

    Don't forget about Nancy Reagan, Phyllis Schlafly or Mrs. Buttersworth.


By patrick on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 11:23 am:

    yeah i think cat's "trailer park" comment about a year ago still resonates.


    i think its hilarious you even entertained the idea of debating with hillary for even a second.


By The Watcher on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 12:10 pm:

    Patrick,

    I loved the figures stated in the article.

    But, you've obviously forgotten how to read. Or, were never taught.

    Because, the problem is all those numbers are "estamates". And, most of those include casualties of the Kurdish and Sheite uptrisings. The only real responsibilty the US has in those was to allow Iraq to fly their helecopters after the first war.

    The numbers also do not include the casualties in Kuwait when Iraq occupied that country.

    Also, remember one thing. The US cares more about colateral casualties than Sadam. He and his administration don't care who they kill or how they do it. Just as long as they are no longer a threat to Sadam.


By patrick on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 12:28 pm:

    yes. i've forgotten how to read. just like you never learned how to spell.


    i provided three sources that documented about the same amount of casualties. three sources that are worthy of consideration. live in your shell if you like.


    of course they are estimates, just like number of dead in WW1, 2, Korea, Vietnam are all estimates as well. there is no way of knowing exactly dumbass.


    lookit. i know you think you have a grasp on things and i know this is going to reak of arrogance on my part, but im going to say it anyway...your're a clueless, insensitive, ignorant bastard. actually id say your insensitivity comes for your ignorance.

    regardless.

    this is well established from your viewpoints expressed here.

    I know 8th graders who have a better grasp of the world than you.

    your can't even spell worth a shit. now im not one to rag on people's spelling, but your spelling errors just reak of someone who slept through half their high school career. Im not talking typos. Typos are obvious. Im talking the spelling of "estemate" and "helecopters" as indicators of serious fundamental ignorance when it comes to using the english language.


    please watcher. try not to be so fucking retarded sometimes.



By semillama on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 02:21 pm:

    As a supporter of EVIL, I welcome Patrick to the club of EVIL. You have to have an EVIL DICTATOR or EVIL DOER of some repute to be associated with. I lucked out and got Saddam - but there are plenty of others to pick.

    Excuse me, i must go and practice my EVIL LAUGH.

    MU-HAHHA -HA! No, that's not right...hmm-hmm-heh-Heh-HEH-a-HA-HA-HAA-HAAAAAAaaaaaaaa.....
    yeah, that's a good one....


By Nate on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 02:39 pm:

    kick ass.




By Spider on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 02:49 pm:

    I found this neat site -- http://www.nationstates.net -- where you (yes, you!) can become the dictator of your very own country. If you are so inclined to EVIL. Or are bored.

    My fledgling realm is still in the Democratic Socialist state...I haven't been playing long enough to bend the atmosphere of the nation to my will.


By trace on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 04:24 pm:

    Patrick,
    You know why we will never agree?

    You take joy in standing on the outside and throwing rocks at me.
    While I take pride in working on the inside making sure you keep the right to throw those rocks.
    I can tell you that if another 9/11 happens in the US, and you may not have those rights anymore

    You call yourself a patriot because you protest Bush's stance on Iraq.
    So did many just like you in 1939. They were protesting the US and Britain's stance on Hitler.
    They said many of the same things you are saying today.
    These protests actually delayed the US entering WW2 until 1941.

    The lesson learned here?
    Do not allow these demonstrations to deter you from doing what you know to be right.


By moonit on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 05:13 pm:

    Oh Spidy - I think I have read a book by that guy


By patrick on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 05:22 pm:

    let me disect your inaccuracies once and for all.

    "You take joy in standing on the outside and throwing rocks at me."

    no. dont flatter yourself. your posts provoke me. Im that passionate about the topic at hand.


    "While I take pride in working on the inside making sure you keep the right to throw those rocks."

    This is laughable. If the people you support politicaly remain in power, those rights will be gone. By supporting who you support, you ARE the problem, not the solution. Your inability to see the threat the Bush administration along with that meathead Tom Ridge and professional liar John Poindexter are posing to such freedoms is the problem. We have the same goals trace.



    "I can tell you that if another 9/11 happens in the US, and you may not have those rights anymore"


    Why would another 9/11 happen trace? Certainly not because of America's foreign policy???? Nooooooo. Why did the first one happen? War on Iraq is not solving the problem, its expanding it and giving further justification to would-be terrorists to give their life in order to bring harm to Americans and westerners.


    "They were protesting the US and Britain's stance on Hitler."

    The protests in the US and Europe can't be compared to the one's today trace. Thats too simple. Hitler was invading sovereign territory left and right. Saddam is not. I would have supported our involvement in WW2 at the time. Our involvement was justified. We were attacked and war was declared on the US by the Axis powers. Our borders and sovereignty were threatened. Do you see the difference? So this angle you want to take is not only illogical, it just doesnt jive.


    The only lesson i see here is the affirmation that you continually fail to understand the why, and the how of my stance against this war and the current administra and your turning a blind eye to the real and established threat to the Constitution of the United States.

    The real threat lies within, not abroad trace.


By jack on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 05:24 pm:

    "standing on the outside"

    "working on the inside"

    outside and inside of what?

    ------------

    "your spelling errors just reak of someone who slept through half their high school career."

    hilarious! btw, for anyone reading who can't recognize this typo, it's "reek."


By semillama on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 05:34 pm:

    Screw this stuff let's talk about NationStates. If there isn't one already, I'm starting a thread dedicated to it. Thanks, Spider!


By trace on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 05:55 pm:

    "Nooooooo. Why did the first one happen?"


    I have told you why the first one happened.
    But you choose to be blind to the cause.

    do yourself a favor and think about it before you blame bush's foreign policy.

    1/21/01 inaugration
    9/11/01 -
    7.5 months.

    1/21/92 through 1/20/01.
    8 years.

    Let me hear you blame bush some more.
    The facts are right before you, and I can drown you in more if you like.
    Hard numbers, records, documents, everything.

    Your blaming of the united states and it's foreign policy is further proof of your deep seeded dispising of the united states.
    You cant even admit it to yourself.
    You have been fed by the education system, by the media, and have the moronic idea that you figured this out on your own.
    When you sound just like any other eurocrat I have ever heard.
    Broken record.
    Your arrogance keeps you from admitting to yourself the flaws in your thinking.
    YOUR arrogance is exactly the arrogance that let us to 9/11. Your rush to kiss any foreign ass before protecting any domestic's ass.
    And your contempt for me and the agencies I represent only add fuel to the fire.
    And your self assured intelligence blinds you to the truth.
    I thought maybe the death of 3,000 that morning would have woken people like you up, but instead it pushed you further in your fatalistic attitudes.


By Rowlf on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 05:56 pm:

    despite carrying a very similar capacity for evil, Hussein doesnt have any of the other necessary factors around him to make him a threat the way Hitler was. He doesnt have the support of his people, a large enough army, and he's not a real leader. He isnt a charismatic speaker, and he especially does not have the drive to seize control of several other nations. He's obsessed with his own localized power. He's amazingly relaxed, comfortable in his position, whereas Hitler was bitter and driven, he felt he had something to prove. Comparing this current situation to 1939 is more than just a little insane, trace. Iraq is run by a horrible dictator but is no threat. You posting links to detailed accounts of torture is never going to prove he is a threat to anyone outside his country.

    You'd probably post links to Bible code webpages if they had 'information' to back yourself up. So obsessive with being right and yet so unselective in where you get your facts.


By Rowlf on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 06:08 pm:

    "YOUR arrogance is exactly the arrogance that let us to 9/11"

    oh come on. if the US hadn't been so arrogant to think that it could do whatever it wants in the Middle East with no retaliation, 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

    or more specifically, if people had actually been doing their job guarding one of the most heavily protected airspaces in the world, 9/11 would never have happened. Interesting how the investigations into 9/11 have slowed down once they started getting deeper into the intelligence failures?

    I will never understand how one plane hit and the other tower didnt get evacuated immediately. I will never understand how one tower got hit by a plane and somehow another plane managed to get into the airspace when everyone was watching. It boggles the mind... and it keeps conspiracy theorists very busy.

    Remember when the news was reporting that the 3rd plane over Pennsylvania was shot down? and how a couple hours later they changed their story and nothing about it has really been said since? I still dont know if it was really shot down, but come on, that would have been the smart thing to do... I wonder if it did get shot down if the government would have admitted it, or is that something you just cant reveal?

    trace would know, he's the one with the 'top secret information' he's not allowed to reveal here, right?

    ...i shouldnt have opened this can of worms... i've seen enough "why did this happen" threads to fill a Time Life series.


By semillama on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 06:08 pm:

    When you have a black and white world view, facts tend to get in the way.

    Thank you, trace. We're all refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view.


By Antigone on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 06:13 pm:

    trace, I can just see you now, sitting on the witness stand, yelling, "You want the TRUTH? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"


By trace on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 07:57 pm:

    omygawd i was wondering if i should have posted that to watch you all spin

    but you have to admit, you do take pleasure in biting the hand that feeds you


By trace on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 08:39 pm:

    "Iraq is run by a horrible dictator but is no threat."

    This is where we part ways.


By trace on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 09:06 pm:

    "I will never understand how one plane hit and the other tower didnt get evacuated immediately"
    because like you, they could not beleive that a terrorist strike had happened, because to you, these international killers are no threat to the united states. You said so yourself.

    On the plane in Pennsylvania, the truth wants to be let out, but the hell to pay would be worse then anything that could be imagined. Because too many people in this country would scream for bush's head. the fact that the same people who are now dead would still be dead, along with possible thousands more would make no difference.


    I really wish you all would understand me and where I come from.

    My first thought was "who cares, how does their opinion of my job, my abilities, my intelligence, my compassion affect me?"

    But what really kills me is the beleif that I am some kind of callous, hateful warmonger.
    Our goal at my job is not to secure oil or force western values and beleifs on the arab nation, but to ensure that no one, not in America, Europe, Saudi Arabia, Iran or Iraq has to ever watch their own son's testicles burnt right in front of them again. That entire families are never wiped out again because the father spoke out against the "President"'s political agenda.
    That 8,000 towns folks are not gassed just for a test to see if a chemical works or not.
    We see the intelligence on this stuff all the time.
    And no, this is not limited to Iraq. Patrick, you are more right about that then you know.

    I am sickened by the US's current policy with Saudi Arabia. But again, we only see the intelligence, not the other end of the spectrum.

    Don't you get it yet?
    Perhaps not, but I will never loose my point of view, and please beleive me when I pray to God that no one else I work with does.


By jack on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 09:40 pm:

    "On the plane in Pennsylvania, the truth wants to be let out, but the hell to pay would be worse then anything that could be imagined. Because too many people in this country would scream for bush's head. the fact that the same people who are now dead would still be dead, along with possible thousands more would make no difference."


    what is this dramatic nonsense?
    if the "hell to pay would be worse than anything that could be imagined," then you must be a real prick for posting about it and letting the truth out, huh? "worse than anything that could be imagined"? really? i guess we'll hear all about it tomorrow now that you've let the truth out, eh? can't wait to see you on television.

    "worse than anything that could be imagined"? sounds like a teenager's chat room threat. doesn't do much for your credibility.

    why spread rumors and speculation? you sound like you're crying for personal attention when you post items like this. it undercuts your integrity. if you have information that's too sensitive to post, then you're either violating the terms of your employment or you're full of crap, boy who cries wolf. nobody will hear whatever points you'd like to make.








By Rowlf on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 11:01 pm:

    "these international killers are no threat to the united states. You said so yourself. "

    Unlike the terrorists of 9/11, Saddam has plenty to lose. He wouldnt risk it. Too comfortable.


By semillama on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 09:09 am:

    It's funny to see someone who is so quick to label others "anti- american," "traitors," and "evil" beg for understanding of his worldview.


By Antigone on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 10:39 am:

    Nah, he's not begging, he's informing us chidren that we should shut up and listen 'cause he knows all.

    Case in point: "you do take pleasure in biting the hand that feeds you"

    You can't get much more paternalistic than that.

    Spunky, if you've got info about flight 93, then spill. For a guy who values facts, you sure do spout a lot of hot air...


By patrick on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 11:59 am:

    "hilarious! btw, for anyone reading who can't recognize this typo, it's "reek."


    thank you jack. i make a habit of tripping over myself in glorious fashion.

    i think my point remains.


    trace, i cant even begin to read your blather today. its stopped raining, the sky couldnt be more blue and its friday.



    i will say.....


    if there is one way to ensure the middle east never has any stability one surefire way to achieve such a point is to install troops in the one part of the world the Koran says must never be occupied by non-muslims.

    You think the US didnt know this when we decided on a permanent stay in Saudi Arabia?


By patrick on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 12:00 pm:

    also, what exactly do you "feed" us trace?

    Besides a bunch of inaccurate, sensational and illogical tail-chasing?


By J on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 12:59 pm:

    I think by biting the hand that feeds he means that for somebody that is so anti-goverment as yourself at least in this country you have the freedom to express it.


By patrick on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 01:16 pm:

    well, if thats what he means, that makes no sense because im not anti-government. and any retard can look at the current's adminsitrations track record and see that they have done MORE to LIMIT our civil liberties than encourage or protect civil liberties.


    anyone who thinks war with iraq is somehow a defence of civil liberties obviously has their head so far up their ass its not even worth conversing about.


By patrick on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 02:00 pm:

    Why is no one talking about this?


    cyanide, double-crossing sailors, terrorists and booby-trapped sail-boats.


    what gives. this is dramatic shit? moonie?


By semillama on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 02:18 pm:

    That damn Saruman! I bet he's behind this.


By semillama on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 04:53 pm:


By Rowlf on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 05:20 pm:


By J on Saturday, March 1, 2003 - 01:58 am:

    Oops I meant anti Bush. I think if Osama was alive,we'd see a video tape instead of audio.


By Rowlf on Saturday, March 1, 2003 - 09:11 pm:

    heres an American hero:
    _______________________


    U.S. Diplomat John Brady Kiesling

    Letter of Resignation, to:

    Secretary of State Colin L. Powell

    ATHENS | Thursday 27 February 2003

    Dear Mr. Secretary:

    I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal.

    It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department I would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human nature. But until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer.

    The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America’s most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security.

    The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a uniquely American problem. Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to so to ourselves. Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo?

    We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners. Even where our aims were not in question, our consistency is at issue. The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image and interests. Have we indeed become blind, as Russia is blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind in the Occupied Territories, to our own advice, that overwhelming military power is not the answer to terrorism? After the shambles of post-war Iraq joins the shambles in Grozny and Ramallah, it will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks with Micronesia to follow where we lead.

    We have a coalition still, a good one. The loyalty of many of our friends is impressive, a tribute to American moral capital built up over a century. But our closest allies are persuaded less that war is justified than that it would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift into complete solipsism. Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why does our President condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this Administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials. Has “oderint dum metuant” really become our motto?

    I urge you to listen to America’s friends around the world. Even here in Greece, purported hotbed of European anti-Americanism, we have more and closer friends than the American newspaper reader can possibly imagine. Even when they complain about American arrogance, Greeks know that the world is a difficult and dangerous place, and they want a strong international system, with the U.S. and EU in close partnership. When our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it is time to worry. And now they are afraid. Who will tell them convincingly that the United States is as it was, a beacon of liberty, security, and justice for the planet?

    Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability. You have preserved more international credibility for us than our policy deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses of an ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an international system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of laws, treaties, organizations, and shared values that sets limits on our foes far more effectively than it ever constrained America’s ability to defend its interests.

    I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration. I have confidence that our democratic process is ultimately self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I can contribute from outside to shaping policies that better serve the security and prosperity of the American people and the world we share.



    John Brady Kiesling


By trace on Sunday, March 2, 2003 - 12:07 am:

    source?


By kazoo on Sunday, March 2, 2003 - 11:07 am:


By trace on Sunday, March 2, 2003 - 11:18 am:

    damn. i just asked. thanks


By kazoo on Sunday, March 2, 2003 - 12:53 pm:

    anytime. I didn't mean to be such a bitch...well, yes I did, but I'll admit it was uncalled for.


By kazoo on Sunday, March 2, 2003 - 03:38 pm:

    I meant, at the time I posted I meant it

    I had to weed through a bunch of leftist web-sites to find a "convincing" source...because several of them even said that they weren't sure if it was the actual letter although the quotes from most of the mainstream press coverage of his resignation matched up...for a few moments I was skeptical




By patrick on Monday, March 3, 2003 - 11:57 am:

    daaaaaaaamn

    turkey sez the US military can eat a big fat diiiiiiiick.




    in this time of uncertaintiy im considering changing my position on the 2nd amendment. the feds shouldnt be the only ones with guns as it becomes more and more clear there will be a revolution within 5 years.


    as it stands now...the "Federalists" such your self trace, will be on the opposite side of the picket fence as the "Constitutionalists"...


    Those ruby ridge fuckwads arent so scary anymore.


By Antigone on Monday, March 3, 2003 - 12:57 pm:

    Here's a Google News search on the diplomat.

    trace, did you doubt the validity of Rowlf's post?


By semillama on Monday, March 3, 2003 - 01:35 pm:

    Thank goodness for Google news, eh?


By Nate on Monday, March 3, 2003 - 01:38 pm:

    March 3, 2003 -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton "fully supports" President Bush's Iraq policy, her office said last night - on the eve of her visit today to an upstate arsenal that makes military hardware like mortars and howitzers for U.S. troops.
    "Sen. Clinton fully supports the steps the president has taken to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction," said Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines.

    That puts Clinton (D-N.Y.) squarely at odds with a majority in her own party, where one recent poll found an Iraq attack is opposed by 66 percent of "core Democrats."

    The statement comes after months where Clinton - who voted for an Iraq attack last fall - has low-keyed her support and sharply criticized aspects of Bush's security policy, sparking speculation she was trying to have it both ways.

    (NYTimes)



By patrick on Monday, March 3, 2003 - 01:54 pm:

    i meant revolution in 50 years. not 5.

    like every doubts what a cunt hillary is?


    pfffft nate. thats like shooting fish in a barrel.


By eri on Monday, March 3, 2003 - 02:01 pm:

    All of my "friends" who are into Women's Lib stuff all say that they want Hillary to run for President, because she could be the first female president, even though they don't agree with half of what she says. They would vote for her ONLY because she is a woman. That shit drives me nuts.


By kazoo on Monday, March 3, 2003 - 02:05 pm:

    That shit drives me nuts too.


    VOTE FOR J


By patrick on Monday, March 3, 2003 - 02:26 pm:

    your "friends" are so out of touch,.


By Nate on Monday, March 3, 2003 - 03:33 pm:

    that was for trace, patty.


By semillama on Monday, March 3, 2003 - 03:58 pm:

    But it's like shooting fish in a barrel.


By eri on Monday, March 3, 2003 - 03:58 pm:

    "your "friends" are so out of touch,."

    That would be why I never talk politics with them anymore! They drive me crazy.


By trace on Monday, March 3, 2003 - 11:00 pm:

    I have said it before, and I will say it again.
    Bill and Hillary cannot be trusted by anyone.
    They use the liberal/democratic basis, but they could care less about any of the issues they pretend to.
    Hell, Chelsea is nothing more then the product of trying to look like a normal all american family.

    I respect someone who really backs up what they say and stick to thier guns, even when the odds and polls are starting to slip.

    Believe it or not, Bush stands behind what he says, and has not backed down. You can see he really believes what he says.




By dave. on Tuesday, March 4, 2003 - 12:22 am:

    i believe that if i shave my pubes, my cock actually becomes bigger. because it looks so much bigger that way.


By Rowlf on Tuesday, March 4, 2003 - 07:48 am:

    I get annoyed by Hillary bashing sometimes, because she's become such an easy target but Elizabeth Dole, who's got the same background, same story, and in fact has probably more experience in 'meddling' (if you want to use that term) in her husbands politics, has remained unscathed... but then again, how can you hate a Dole.

    trace is right about Chelsea. Theres some real "American Beauty" shit going on there.

    "Believe it or not, Bush stands behind what he says, and has not backed down. You can see he really believes what he says. "

    I don't think thats true anymore. At first, when he started pressing the idea of war, maybe. But lately he's been grasping at straws... backed into a corner.

    I think he might have actually pulled back a little because of public opinion if he hadn't already stuck his dick out too far. Stupid penis politics.





By jack on Tuesday, March 4, 2003 - 09:01 am:

    Believe it or not, dave. stands behind his cock, and has not backed down. You can see he really believes what he says.


By semillama on Tuesday, March 4, 2003 - 09:49 am:

    "No child left Behind"

    then the situation in Oregon

    then you have Bush telling the states they are on their own.

    Suuure, Bush stands behind what he says and doesn't back down. Keep telling yourself that.


By Antigone on Tuesday, March 4, 2003 - 10:54 am:

    "Believe it or not, Bush stands behind what he says, and has not backed down. You can see he really believes what he says."

    Read my lips: No Nation Building!


By patrick on Tuesday, March 4, 2003 - 11:24 am:

    "No nationbuilding"


    um yeah trace.


By patrick on Tuesday, March 4, 2003 - 11:27 am:

    actually dave i was given some insight by this new Penn & Teller show called Bullshit on Showtime. The insecurity of men and their cock size. A sex therapist woman explained its natural because looking down at your wang, well, it just looks smaller than it really is....however, when your down on your knees, looking up at said wang, it generally looks bigger because of the looming threatening nature.

    not that its possible that you can be on your knees, looking at your wang, but you know, the special someone in your life just might.


    in short we should just relax about cock size, because the trickery of optics is on ourside.





By semillama on Tuesday, March 4, 2003 - 01:15 pm:

    "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."


By semillama on Tuesday, March 4, 2003 - 01:36 pm:


By patrick on Tuesday, March 4, 2003 - 01:51 pm:

    hey sem. fuck you you fuckin fuck.

    war is a good idea.


By Rowlf on Tuesday, March 4, 2003 - 04:44 pm:

    I suppose if you believe in Doublespeak he's all in the clear

    War is peace
    Occupation is liberation
    Colonialism is freedom


By trace on Tuesday, March 4, 2003 - 04:49 pm:

    Ask Japan and Germany about the Marshall Plan


By semillama on Tuesday, March 4, 2003 - 04:54 pm:

    Ask Kuwait about Democracy.


By patrick on Tuesday, March 4, 2003 - 05:26 pm:

    lets ask Afghanistan about the Marshall Plan shall we trace?


    a smoking buddy in my building was telling me about this trilogy of 'Illuminatus' or something like that....supposedly where the Illuminati derive their core philosophy...a secret group the Bush's are supposed to be a part of.

    Essentially one of the core philosophies is that order is an illusion. its an illusion of the elite, a illusion that is given to the masses. (New World Order?)

    one parallel was space.

    yeah it looks all orderly, the stars, planets etc, but of course thats not how it really is. its chaos.

    you dont control chaos with order. you control chaos with chaos.

    mankind is inherently chaotic and any illusion of order is just that.


    which led me back to my remark that they knew what they were doing when the installed christian forces on the one sacred land the Koran forbids non muslims to occupy, that is Saudi Arabia.


    of course im paraphrasing all of this, and I admit to being no smarter, but this trilogy sounds really fun to read.



By semillama on Tuesday, March 4, 2003 - 06:21 pm:

    If you are talking about Robet Anton Wilson's Illuminatus! trilogy, then you should go right out and pick up a copy - you can usually find it in the Sci-fi section of a good bookstore.

    It's right up your alley for sure.


By trace on Tuesday, March 4, 2003 - 08:58 pm:


By trace on Tuesday, March 4, 2003 - 09:05 pm:


By semillama on Wednesday, March 5, 2003 - 08:56 am:

    "Distracting lies muddy the ground before the missles start flying"?


By Antigone on Wednesday, March 5, 2003 - 01:57 pm:

    The Bush lies pushing the world to the brink

    The biggest one: A war on Iraq will make the Middle East an oasis of peace and security.

    - - - - - - - - - - - -
    By Robert Scheer

    March 5, 2003 | So the truth is out: George W. Bush lied when he claimed to be worried about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction. Otherwise, Iraq's stepped-up cooperation with the U.N. on disarmament would be stunningly good news, obviating the need to rush to war. Instead, the U.N. weapons inspectors' verification of Iraq's destruction of missiles, private meetings with Iraqi weapons scientists, visits to locations where biological and chemical weapons were destroyed in 1991, and a series of unfettered flights by U2 spy planes have been met with a shrug and sneer in Washington. The White House line is that even if the Iraqis destroy all their slingshots, Goliath is still bringing his tanks and instituting "regime change." The arrogance is breathtaking. We have demanded that a country disarm -- and even as it is doing so, we say it doesn't matter: It's too late; we're coming in. Put down your guns and await the slaughter.

    Abraham Lincoln once observed that even a free people can be fooled for a time -- and this, mind you, was long before Fox News existed. And in his chaotic two-year presidency, Bush has pushed the Big Lie approach so far that we are seeing dramatic signs of its cracking: an international backlash, a domestic peace movement, and whistle-blowing from inside our own intelligence and diplomatic corps.

    "We have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of the American people, since the war in Vietnam," wrote John Brady Kiesling, a 20-year veteran of the U.S. Foreign Service in his letter of resignation last week to Secretary of State Colin Powell. Kiesling, who was political counselor in U.S. embassies throughout the Mideast, added that "until this administration, it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president, I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer."

    And this brave man is not the only one who has caught on. The entire world is astonished that our president is lying not about a personal indiscretion but about the most sacred duty of the leader of the most powerful nation in human history not to recklessly endanger the lives of his own or the world's people. Yet lie he has.

    The first lie, claimed outright, was that Iraq aided and abetted the Sept. 11 terrorists. There is no evidence at all for this claim. It is also interesting to note that not a single leading Al Qaeda operative has turned out to be Iraqi. The latest to be nabbed, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, was living in Pakistan, was raised in Kuwait and studied engineering -- and presumably the physics of explosives -- at a college in North Carolina.

    The second lie was that Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction represent an imminent threat to U.S. security. Despite the most hugely expensive but secret high-tech spy operation in human history -- estimated by most at well over $100 billion a year -- and a vast network of defectors and spies, we have not been able to find their supposed weapons.

    The third and most dangerous lie is that our mission now is to bring lasting peace to the Mideast by a devastating invasion of Iraq, which will end, as the president outlined last week, in U.S. dominance over the structure of government and politics throughout the region. After abandoning promising efforts by the previous administration to create peace between Israel and the Palestinians, the Bush team now claims that changing Muslim governments around the world will end the downward spiral of violence there.

    Which leads us to another lie: that this is all good for our ally, Israel -- the claim of the cabal of neoconservative ideologues running our Mideast policy. In fact, however, Israel will be placed in a terribly dangerous position, serving as a fig leaf for U.S. ambitions, further ensuring that it remain forever an isolated military garrison.

    This construction of a new world order comes from a naive and untraveled president, emboldened in his ignorance by advisors who have been plotting an aggressive Pax Americana ever since the Soviet bloc's collapse. Bush insiders Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld are all members of something called the Project for a New American Century, which has been pushing for a U.S. redesign of the Mideast since 1997. After Sept. 11, they seized on our national tragedy as a way to enlist George W. in support of their grand design.

    Not only was this reckless scheme never mentioned by Bush during the election campaign, it was the sort of thing renounced as "nation-building," something he would never support. Yet another lie.


By patrick on Wednesday, March 5, 2003 - 02:21 pm:

    im convinced more than ever this war, will be so horrific and messy, causing the entire middle east to erupt in violence that it will not only cause GW to loose re-election, it will thwart this country towards a serious reformation of some sort, good or bad, i can't yet tell.

    we are on a dangerous path and anyone who can't see this is an idiot. we are destined to dump the very principles of this country reshaping it for the worse as well as alienate ourselves with the rest of the world to an unprecendented level. eitherway, making this country a much more dangerous place. not safer. more dangerous. even a fool can see this.

    this part of the reason for my potential shift on gun policy. the government is starting to become a threat to my country.

    the terrorist won on 9/11 not directly because of their plotting but because of the gross war pigs within in our own country who have sought to capitolize on it.


By semillama on Wednesday, March 5, 2003 - 03:45 pm:


By Rowlf on Wednesday, March 5, 2003 - 04:56 pm:


By patrick on Wednesday, March 5, 2003 - 05:06 pm:

    arguably half the country doesnt necessarily think war is the right thing without UN support, muchless with UN support.

    the whole engagement wont be clean. it may be decisive militarilly, but a guerrilla war will erupt. Jockeying for power by Shiites, Sunni's and Kurds, toss in Turkey, Iran, the Palestinian/Israeli matter and sprinkle some good ole al Qaida on top and you have a long, protracted, messy, costly war that goes beyond mopping up Iraq's piss poor military and installing troops in Baghdad.

    I think it will cost dipshit the election, thankfully.


By Nate on Wednesday, March 5, 2003 - 05:15 pm:

    "we are on a dangerous path and anyone who can't see this is an idiot."

    only if you take the assertions of idiots at face value.

    only if you refuse to take the assertions of idiots at face value.




By patrick on Wednesday, March 5, 2003 - 05:23 pm:

    i should clarify. i dont think a revolution would start tomorrow, or even 5 years because of current events. just stepping stones.

    people seem to be asleep about civil liberties too.

    Check these people out

    The released their annual study in October that depicted that 49% of people polled believe the 1st Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees.




By Rowlf on Wednesday, March 5, 2003 - 05:38 pm:

    I'm trying to find the exact stats about what has to happen to allow the Libertarians and the Greens in on the televised debates...

    You know what I think could really shake things up in the US, get people more interested? Take a cue from Britain and Canada. Blair and Chretien have to be in the house all the time, getting yelled at, forced to respond right away, to adlib, to face accusations from out of nowhere.. you can get a better impression of who your leaders are when they have to actually prove they know whats going on in the country..

    Bush doesn't take 'interviews'. Its about time he faced some hard questions, some hard language and see how he reacts.


By patrick on Wednesday, March 5, 2003 - 05:43 pm:

    did you see The Daily Show the other night? the interview with whatshisface from Monty Python?

    John made the same point.




By wisper on Wednesday, March 5, 2003 - 06:06 pm:

    (t'was Eric Idle)


    not to mention that everything that happens in Parliament is on live tv..... those guys have to pull it off every day live, no speech writers. And they have a whole half of the floor that get paid to disagree and question them and tear them apart.
    And there's an audience too.
    And then at the end of the day they fight their way through the media on the way to their car. And they have to answer them. They can't fuck up.

    Wow, and i thought our government was boring. Our guys have balls! They have to know their shit!



    ... Imagine some guy, somewhere, setting his VCR to tape the passing of a hot new law? It's Must See Bill 268-C!


By Rowlf on Thursday, March 6, 2003 - 08:04 am:


By semillama on Thursday, March 6, 2003 - 09:33 am:

    I think that after we go in to Iraq, we should set up a system of government that is a parliament.




    Parliament-Funkadelic.






    After all, the roof will already be torn off the sucker.


By patrick on Thursday, March 6, 2003 - 11:43 am:

    the worst part rowlf is the spin the liberal fuckos are wanting to put on it.


    its a mall you dipshit. protest with your wallet. they have the right to make you shop in a god damn bunny suit if they wanted to.

    i was always kicked out of the mall in middle school because of the looming threat me and my gang..."the punks", posed to "the skins" and then there were "the jocks" who fucked everything to hell and back.

    if you came in with any kind of sid vicious or sex pistols, gbh, exploited shirt you were outta there.


    kazoo, sem, go to the museum of my hellish suburban youth you known as Gwinnett Place Mall.

    (actually, i think at this point Gwinnett country, much to my delight, has been overrun by migrant mexican families.)


By Rowlf on Thursday, March 6, 2003 - 05:04 pm:

    sem: go to your local bookstore and look at the Onion books for sale, theres one article about the P-Funk boys

    "George Clinton to Drop Da Bomb on Iraq"

    theres a pic of protestors: "No Blood for Funk"


By semillama on Thursday, March 6, 2003 - 05:42 pm:

    Oh, yeah - I forgot about that.


By Rowlf on Friday, March 7, 2003 - 07:51 am:

    Right now I'm watching ABC, and Alice Hoglan, mother of the "Flight 93 Hero", talk about how 9/11 and Iraq are connected. This is really sad.

    Because if you're watching this like I am, you'll notice her head moving back in forth in typewriter motion, saying each word with awkward pauses in mid-sentence, sometimes squinting. Yes, she is reading a script, and horribly.


By Rowlf on Friday, March 7, 2003 - 07:59 am:

    oh, and about Bush's conference last night. I missed it, but right now David Frum is praising it on CNN, so I'm seeing clips.

    I'm getting frustrated with Bush's mispronounciation of nuclear.


By semillama on Friday, March 7, 2003 - 09:09 am:

    I guess it's good he doesn't have to tackle words like "depleted uranium" or "alternative solutions"

    or "second term."

    I just can't watch him anymore. It sickens me to hear him speak. He is just not a man I can be proud of as a president. I still can't believe how easily he squandered our global support after 9-11. He's really failing. I bet a lot of folks are wishing McCain had won the Republican primary now...I admit i don't really like republicans, but there are republicans and then there are republicans, you know? Like there are republicans i can have some respect for, like there are democrats I have no respect for (Teddy-boy for example)


By eri on Friday, March 7, 2003 - 10:35 am:

    "I'm getting frustrated with Bush's mispronounciation of nuclear."

    It drives me nuts! We noticed some movie trailer on tv where the guy said "nuke-you-lar" and Spunky looked at me and said "If the President can say it wrong, anyone can say it wrong and it is OK" and I became a brick wall. I HATE that. Drives me nuts. Can you tell this is one of my pet peeves?


By semillama on Friday, March 7, 2003 - 10:42 am:

    Was he being serious? Holy shit.


By spunky on Friday, March 7, 2003 - 10:47 am:

    We have the same "fight" all the time.
    I am just messing with her, because I know it bugs


By semillama on Friday, March 7, 2003 - 10:57 am:

    You may want to refrain from using the same logic if you are talking about Clinton - i don't think eri'd like it any better:

    "If the President says that oral sex isn't cheating, then anyone can say it isn't cheating!"


By Nate on Friday, March 7, 2003 - 11:25 am:

    NICE FORM, SIR!


By patrick on Friday, March 7, 2003 - 11:32 am:

    poll sez Bush looses to unnamed Democrat canidate.
    if elections held today.

    heh.


    he's fucked. not by much,but enough.


By patrick on Friday, March 7, 2003 - 11:35 am:

    Bush pushes everyone up a notch.

    makes the moderates extreme and makes the extremes dangerous.

    he will push many more people to the election booths in 2 years because of some of his extremes.


By spunky on Friday, March 7, 2003 - 11:51 am:

    You bet he will.
    The Iraqis
    Only this time there will be more then canidate!


By eri on Friday, March 7, 2003 - 11:55 am:

    I am so torn over this whole thing. I just don't know what to think anymore. I want to support our President, but I have so many damned questions. I can't say if it is right or wrong because I just don't fucking know.

    The funny thing about what you said before Patrick is that the exact same thing was said of Clinton. I know TONS of Republicans who went out to vote in this last election to get the Dem's out of office because of what Clinton had done in office. Now the Dem's are saying the same thing about Bush.

    I think I am going back to my old ways and questioning everything and being dissatisfied any way I turn. I am tired of looking for the lesser of two evils, when any way you turn it's evil in some way.


By Nate on Friday, March 7, 2003 - 11:56 am:

    in a bipartisan way i want to point out that the idiocy of polls.

    considering the man has an excess of 50% approval rating.

    question: if bush wins a second term, will you realize that just because the media pushes something it isn't necessarily the view of the nation?

    examine the lack of coverage that is given when important people come out and acknowledge that war is necessary.


By kazoo on Friday, March 7, 2003 - 11:58 am:

    "I think I am going back to my old ways and questioning everything and being dissatisfied any way I turn."

    welcome to my world


By eri on Friday, March 7, 2003 - 12:04 pm:

    Kazoo,I have noticed on your previous posts that you tend to react to things the same way I do, even though I have a feeling we think very differently (not bad, just different). I thought that was funny.

    I don't think that war is going to satisfy my nagging fears and worries about our nation and our world. I don't think that Saddam will ever do what he says he will, but will always play games, as I believe he is now. I don't know what it would take to do things right. Another sanction isn't going to do shit. War may only make things worse.

    My neighbor's nephews have already left for overseas, one is already there, the other left yesterday. At Hayley's "square dance" at school they had them do a dance to "Tie a Yellow Ribbon Round the Old Oak Tree" and I found myself thinking that it was fucked up, not the dance, but them teaching my daughter to sing this song when I am not sure if this is what I want her to know. My family has a long and strong background in fighting in the military during war times and supporting our country. I want to support our country, but I find myself on the opposite side of the fence as them on so many issues today. I feel like a traiter to my heritage and the legacies left before me. I am so fucked up over this whole thing. I haven't talked about it in forever and when I do it is generally very vague, and now I am about to explode.


By kazoo on Friday, March 7, 2003 - 12:18 pm:

    cynicism makes many friends.

    my grandfathers fought in WWII...the one who is still alive is utterly opposed to this one. I don't feel as though opposing this war is Anti-American. But I will not rehash everything that's already been said.


By Antigone on Friday, March 7, 2003 - 12:22 pm:

    "examine the lack of coverage that is given when important people come out and acknowledge that war is necessary."

    Examine the lack of coverage when the highly conservative Cato Institute comes out against the war.


By patrick on Friday, March 7, 2003 - 12:26 pm:

    i think it goes without saying around here polls are coffee talk and nothing more nate.


By Nate on Friday, March 7, 2003 - 12:35 pm:

    heh. they said saddam is rational. even saddam's best buddy qadaffi says the man is irrational.

    i know, tiggy. i've come to the point where i don't know anything, i'm not privy to the information necessary to make any decision. i just want to see what kick ass new toys the US military has.


By Antigone on Friday, March 7, 2003 - 01:13 pm:

    Well, they said that saddam is rational in the sense that economists and political scientists use the term. That is, he looks out for his own survival. Thus, he can be bargained with, and can act predictably.


By J on Friday, March 7, 2003 - 01:31 pm:


By Rowlf on Friday, March 7, 2003 - 05:26 pm:

    Bush's Distaste for News Conferences Keeps Them Rare


    By Mike Allen
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Friday, March 7, 2003;



    The extended questioning of the presidential news conference was a regular exercise for all presidents of the recent past. But President Bush has turned the tradition into a rarity, both because of his distaste for the format and his staff's determined message management.

    Bush went before 94 reporters for his eighth solo news conference last night as part of his effort to prepare Americans for a likely war against Iraq as increasingly insistent opposition from allies and skepticism at home grow.

    At the same point in their presidencies, President Bill Clinton had held 30 solo news conferences (that is, without a foreign leader at a twin lectern) and Bush's father had held 58, according to research by Martha Joynt Kumar, a Towson University political science professor who specializes in presidential communication.

    After two years and 45 days in office, President Ronald Reagan had held 16 solo news conferences, President Jimmy Carter had held 45, President Gerald Ford had held 37, President Richard M. Nixon had held 16 and President Lyndon B. Johnson had held 52.

    Communications director Dan Bartlett said this White House uses news conferences more sparingly than other types of presidential events, because "if you have a message you're trying to deliver, a news conference can go in a different direction."

    "In this case, we know what the questions are going to be, and those are the ones we want to answer," Bartlett said. "We think the public will see the thought and care and attention he's given to a lot of the different questions that are being asked about the diplomatic side and the military side and the potential post-Iraq issue. These are all legitimate questions that he has answers for and wants to talk about."

    The news conference was Bush's second in the East Room or in prime time. The last was Oct. 11, 2001 -- four days after allied cruise missiles and bombers began dismantling the Taliban. Bush's last solo news conference, held in a more casual setting, was Nov. 7, two days after the Republican triumphs in the midterm elections.

    Bush's aides point out that he frequently takes short bursts of questions from reporters in other settings -- most often, when cameras are allowed in at the beginning or end of a presidential event. The White House said that counting those, Bush has taken questions 216 times, not including one-on-one interviews. Aides said Bush disdains what they call the "preening" by correspondents that he considers an inescapable part of televised news conferences.

    "The president thinks that sometimes East Room news conferences are more about the reporters and the theater of the moment and less about the substance of the answers," a senior administration official said. "So his inclination is to hold more, informal news conferences where the answers are the story and not lengthy questions on live TV."

    White House press secretary Ari Fleischer echoes that sentiment, telling reporters that Bush "has been having his fun thinking about who's going to be dressed how, how the hair is going to look."

    Robert Dallek, a presidential historian at Boston University, said citizens lose an important measure of the president when he is shielded from sustained questioning. "People don't want to just hear from the press secretary all the time," he said. "They want the real thing -- the horse's mouth."

    To avoid a long buildup, and to give them the flexibility to drop the idea, Bush's aides announce a news conference only a few hours in advance.

    Yesterday, Fleischer took reporters by surprise at 9:30 a.m. during his routine reading of Bush's public schedule, when he slipped in the fact that at 8 p.m., the president would hold a news conference.

    Aides said the idea was first discussed Tuesday, and said Bush spent two to four hours preparing, between Wednesday night and yesterday afternoon. Clinton had formal briefing books and Kumar's research suggests some presidents blocked out whole days to prepare. Bush was given a memo consisting of about 50 possible topics with suggested answers. Then his most senior aides gathered around his desk in the Oval Office and fired practice questions at him.

    Stephen Hess, a Brookings Institution senior fellow who was a speechwriter to President Dwight D. Eisenhower, said presidents can learn a lot about less-noticed parts of their administrations during the rigor of preparing for a full-dress news conference.

    Hess said news conferences are often perceived by White Houses as "the matador in the arena, and all the bulls are after him." In fact, he said, they are usually tame affairs, with often flabby questioning and plenty of ways for the president to keep the upper hand.


By wisper on Friday, March 7, 2003 - 06:42 pm:

    "In this case, we know what the questions are going to be, and those are the ones we want to answer,"

    "Bush was given a memo consisting of about 50 possible topics with suggested answers. Then his most senior aides gathered around his desk in the Oval Office and fired practice questions at him."

    "I want to support our President...."

    ---
    see, this is what upsets me. Your president is the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet, and yet he's treated like he just won 3rd in the Special Olympics.

    HE works for YOU. He's not the Queen. He's not special. He's not a fireman or a hero. He's a guy with a shitty job that only an insane bastard would take. He can be questioned, fuck yeah, he should be. He should be dragged through hell on a daily basis because what he does has this unfortunate nature of being able to change the USA and sometimes the whole world. He doesn't have to be supported. He can be replaced tommorow.

    I'm talking about any president, really, not just W.
    Sometimes it's like any shot at him hurts the whole country. That if he's mocked or questioned or you lose faith in him, you lose faith in the whole population of the US and all it stands for. Bullshit.
    He is a servant to the public. you voted for him or you didn't. Why should you even respect him? He's not climbing into a burning orphanage to save a puppy. Just a dude in a tie. Not superman, jesus, or your dad. He's not your damn boss.
    Why can't Wolf Blitzer say his title without an air of reverence? The president works for Wolf Blitzer. Why is it so taboo to question this leader?? Why must he be spoon-fed baby questions by an army of aides who know more than him?
    Fuck, it drives me NUTS.


By Rowlf on Friday, March 7, 2003 - 06:48 pm:

    If your employee's work is going to cost you your job, you fire them.

    If your employee happens to be endangering your life, costing you money and your reputation... ?


By Rowlf on Saturday, March 8, 2003 - 04:51 pm:


By J on Sunday, March 9, 2003 - 01:06 pm:


By spunky on Sunday, March 9, 2003 - 03:24 pm:

    New Resolution Targets France if Saddam Strikes
    (2003-03-07) — The United States and the United Kingdom introduced a resolution in the United Nations Security Council today calling for a military strike against France as retribution for any future terror attacks by Saddam Hussein’s regime.

    The resolution follows the U.S. policy of attacking those who harbor terrorists.

    In September 2001, on Meet the Press , Vice President Dick Cheney said the U.S. is determined to “go after those nations and organizations and people that lend support to these terrorist operators.”

    ”…if you provide sanctuary to terrorists,” Mr. Cheney said, “you face the full wrath of the United States of America…we will, in fact, aggressively go after these nations to make certain that they cease and desist from providing support for these kinds of organizations.”

    Under that policy, since Iraq is classified as a terrorist government, the U.S. would be justified in attacking France, Germany, Russia and others immediately.

    However, today U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said, “We want peace with Old Europe and her allies.”

    Therefore, he said, the Bush administration has decided to work through the United Nations for a multilateral solution, with a deadline for France and others to stop protecting Mr. Hussein’s terroristic regime.

    “In any case,” Mr. Rumsfeld said , “If the U.N. won’t act, we will lead a coalition of the willing to make sure they no longer lend support to these terrorists.”


By Rowlf on Sunday, March 9, 2003 - 04:28 pm:

    Source, please


By trace on Sunday, March 9, 2003 - 05:16 pm:


By spunky on Sunday, March 9, 2003 - 05:24 pm:

    You want a list?
    The Governments of:
    Saudi Arabia
    Syria
    Libya
    Iran
    Iraq
    Lebonnon
    France
    Germany
    North Korea
    China
    Yemen
    Egypt
    Turkey

    The citizens of, through charities:
    United States
    UK
    Australia

    I am sure there are more, those are just the ones I know for sure about


By semillama on Monday, March 10, 2003 - 11:45 am:

    You should also include the citizens of, through taxes:
    USA
    UK
    Many others
    Although maybe that would under "Governments of"


    I would also add Cuba to your first list. Russia as well. Do they tax now? maybe they should be on the new third list. I assume that they didn't ax when they were communist - or do communists tax? I freely admit my ignorance in this arena.


By Rowlf on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 - 05:23 pm:


By Rowlf on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 - 05:33 pm:


By Ophelia on Wednesday, March 12, 2003 - 04:35 am:

    anybody else gonna be in DC for the protest this saturday?


By semillama on Wednesday, March 12, 2003 - 04:17 pm:

    Blair did screw up by not having people ask him scripted questions. He has a lot to learn from our president.

    "May you live in interesting times"


By Bazzle on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 07:43 pm:

    saddam is a dope smoking gypo


By Bazzle on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 07:43 pm:

    saddam is a dope smoking gypo


bbs.sorabji.com
 

The Stalking Post: General goddam chit-chat Every 3 seconds: Sex . Can men and women just be friends? . Dreamland . Insomnia . Are you stoned? . What are you eating? I need advice: Can you help? . Reasons to be cheerful . Days and nights . Words . Are there any news? Wishful thinking: Have you ever... . I wish you were... . Why I oughta... Is it art?: This question seems to come up quite often around here. Weeds: Things that, if erased from our cultural memory forever, would be no great loss Surfwatch: Where did you go on the 'net today? What are you listening to?: Worst music you've ever heard . What song or tune is going through your head right now? . Obscure composers . Obscure Jazz, 1890-1950 . Whatever, whenever General Questions: Do you have any regrets? . Who are you? . Where are you? . What are you doing here? . What have you done? . Why did you do it? . What have you failed to do? . What are you wearing? . What do you want? . How do you do? . What do you want to do today? . Are you stupid? Specific Questions: What is the cruelest thing you ever did? . Have you ever been lonely? . Have you ever gone hungry? . Are you pissed off? . When is the last time you had sex? . What does it look like where you are? . What are you afraid of? . Do you love me? . What is your definition of Heaven? . What is your definition of Hell? Movies: Last movie you saw . Worst movie you ever saw . Best movie you ever saw Reading: Best book you've ever read . Worst book you've ever read . Last book you read Drunken ramblings: uiphgy8 hxbjf.bklf ghw789- bncgjkvhnqwb=8[ . Payphones: Payphone Project BBS
 

sorabji.com . torturechamber . px.sorabji.com . receipts . contact