Jump to content

Kay Steps Down No Wmd Found


Rasputin

Recommended Posts

no "Real" reason can be determined without insight into Bush & Cos minds.

I wouldn't disagree with you as we're all just voicing opinions here. None of us are clarivoyant and therefor we cannot determine with certainty what runs through the heads of top adminstration officals, however there is a clear difference with what the liberals are doing. They are charging the President with crimes and convicting him even, without so much as a shread of evidence to support such destructive accusations.

In addition, you are still unable to make a distinction between a lie and a mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

First Riff, you are using WMD as your main support for all arguments. Like I said, when you get tired of losing on one thread you come to another with the same argument and post it as fact when it is only a suspician of yours.

Riff

no useable WMDs

KK

So many people, including Chirac, Clinton, Rockerfeller and more agreed that he had them.  Blix could not account for them and Saddam never came forth with any indication of what had happened to his WMDs, what proof did you have that they were not there?

Also, we know that two thirds of Iraq has not been inspected yet. How do you know they are not there?

Riff again

the stated reason has obviously been proven false,

Where are thery Riff? Where, when, how and by whom were they destroyed? What intelligenced do you have that proves that they have not been hidden somewhere?

I have a refreashingly new question for you and the Left. if they found a dump full of Chemical laden artillery shells tommorow in Iraq, would that mean that you will break out a US flagand start cheering?

When Iraq holds free elections and a president is elected and is not a US puppet. Will you cheer the US action for ousting Saddam?

I guess it comes down to this; are you against Bush's reason for war, or the war itself? If Bush, will you be all for it in four years from now and if it's the war, are you hoping that a dictator will sieze control of the country once the US is gone and put the people under oppression again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Rasputin,

Flea your statements are false you said:

QUOTE 

The UN did not declare Iraq 'in material breach', the US/UK did. 

This is wrong.

If you'll read the very first line of the resolution draft you posted...
This is diplomatic mumbo jumbo that says - comply or die.
Indeed. However, UN weapons inspectors were there, and they had to clear out because the US/UK sent 'the tanks rolling in' before inspections were completed. After the fact, it seems that Saddam was telling the truth, there was just not enough time to prove it, as the US/UK said 'Saddam, you're lying'.

Now it seems that Mr. Blair of the UK is claiming he didn't know what he was actually talking about when he pushed the UK into war.

The UN resolutions and WMD arguments do not stand up under scrutiny, and indeed, the right wing keeps on saying 'there are other reasons, too'. Then drop the WMD and UN arguments and then tell all what the real intention was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear KK,

Also, we know that two thirds of Iraq has not been inspected yet. How do you know they are not there?
I have read that over 70% has been inspected. Of course, that is merely a statistic. If 100% gets inspected, and no WMDs found, the numbers could change to "We inspected only 25% below 10m so far".
a dictator will sieze control of the country once the US is gone and put the people under oppression again?
It depends on whether you believe a devout religious leader is a dictator and if Islam is oppressive.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear KK,
Also, we know that two thirds of Iraq has not been inspected yet. How do you know they are not there?
I have read that over 70% has been inspected. Of course, that is merely a statistic. If 100% gets inspected, and no WMDs found, the numbers could change to "We inspected only 25% below 10m so far".
a dictator will sieze control of the country once the US is gone and put the people under oppression again?
It depends on whether you believe a devout religious leader is a dictator and if Islam is oppressive.

Well then, I ask you to prove that 70% has been inspected. As for predicting what they are going to say, you and your ilk have predicted 'quagmire,' ' Vietnam' and more.

As for Dictator and whatever, the only thing that the US is going to do is allow a free election. You and I have talked about that. There is no way that a strong minority is going to hijack this country. Whatever the people choose is what will be. However, all people are going to have their vote, educated, empowered, the knowlege that they are the one doing the voting and free of threat. Think about it for a moment, if they choose a dictator, then I guess they really wanted that, if they want a Cleric, then that is the way it is going to be. What is the US going to do in that case? Reinvade? Say the results are null and void? What?

BTW, most are leaning towards a Democracy anyhow according to the Gallup Polls. However, all that we want, (the World) is a fair vote. You have proof that this is not going to happen? Bring it forth Lonius, otherwise submit to common sense and facts. Prove to me the lies, prove to me the nefarious plans and schemes to undercut and decieve. You tried Colonialism, Oil, re-election and crap everywhere, none supported and still continue. Does it ever enter your mind that because you can't support it that maybe it is not the truth? In turn, you ask that I, with proof, conceede to your position, whithout proof.

You are just talking out of your butt because you're miffed that things are going so well. Admit it, you want it to fail because you have been so wrong about everything so far. You feel that there has to be something to vindicate your anti American feelings and you grasp at any straw that might hold water.

Do you see me making idiotic counter claims like, 'The UN is going to give every Iraqi one million dollars' in order to make this work. ' No, because reality is what reality is. Try and keep this in the realm of what we know and what has happened. The US is stabilising a country so that free elections are going to happen. That's it. Like I said before, pick up a paper sometime, you are missing some interesting events that have happened in the last year or so. When you're done, give it to Riff, he can use it for kitty litter or something as I know he doesn't read them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear KK,

a fair vote. You have proof that this is not going to happen? Bring it forth Lonius, otherwise submit to common sense and facts.
Iraq is an Islamic country. They will not vote for someone that is non-Islamic. The vote will be fair, but it will always be a one-party country. How fair is that in western eyes?

Again I will ask you,

(do) you believe a devout religious leader is a dictator
?
you're miffed that things are going so well.
Surely you jest.
Like I said before, pick up a paper sometime, you are missing some interesting events that have happened in the last year or so.
Pick up a history book and see that the Word Of God, in Islam, has not changed in 1400 years. Then tell me what the western world can do to make them 'see the light'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lonius

Iraq is an Islamic country. They will not vote for someone that is non-Islamic. The vote will be fair, but it will always be a one-party country. How fair is that in western eyes?

Thank you for acknowleging the vote will be fair. That was my whole point. As for being a one party country, this is what we are all hoping will change once they have their constitution written. And of course the President will be Islamic, just like here we have only Christians. Although like here, there are no 'official' reasons why a Hari Krishna cannot be PM or President of the US.

(do) you believe a devout religious leader is a dictator

No. I do believe that once a religious leader uses his pol=sition to influence church and state he is a dictator. The Pope is a dictator, of the Vatican.

Surely you jest.

I have to keep a sense of humor. Things are going very well compared to what many feared and most expected. It is far closere to end game than many think.

Pick up a history book and see that the Word Of God, in Islam, has not changed in 1400 years. Then tell me what the western world can do to make them 'see the light'.

Very good point. History is against not only the US, but the world. That is what is exciting about all this though, something new is being tried. Isn't it obvious how the ME has fallen behind the industrial world in caring for theri people? They have more than enough resources to do it yet they don't. You might ask why it is our business but isn't the answer obvious? They supply us volutarily with the thing we need. A thing the ruling class keep to themselves while their people starve and live in poverty. Seeing the light is allowing people to make up their own mind. Check out the Gallup polls of Iraqis. Very few of them want a cleric to run the show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear KK,

A thing the ruling class keep to themselves while their people starve and live in poverty. Seeing the light is allowing people to make up their own mind.
Are you suggesting that keeping riches among the elite is a bad thing? Are you anti-free enterprise now?

Allowing people to make up their own mind, do you mean nationalization of oil profits? So the people can benefit from their own resources? That smacks of commie-nism. The US has funded many a dictator to prevent exactly that sort of thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very good sparring Lonius. You play with words and not the ideas though. I smell a simple trap here.

Are you suggesting that keeping riches among the elite is a bad thing?

Yes. Look at the elite there and here. There, they have power over the people that is far beyond economic. It is a chaste system, only those born to royalty are permitted to do certain things and have real control. A commoner may not advance beyond certain points. Here, the elite have much power as well, but any person can become part of the elite if they are lucky, hardworking and intelligent.

Are you anti-free enterprise now?

Of course not. I am very much for opportunity. Opportunity that is forever beyond the reach of those in countries of the ME.

Allowing people to make up their own mind, do you mean nationalization of oil profits? So the people can benefit from their own resources? That smacks of commie-nism.

How did Britain do it? It is not communist, it is a democracy with a Royal figurehead.

The US has funded many a dictator to prevent exactly that sort of thing.

And now, they are through with that method and are trying to take the time to do it right and allow the people to decide what they want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear KK,

It is a chaste system, only those born to royalty are permitted to do certain things and have real control. A commoner may not advance beyond certain points.
Actually, I believe it is Hinduism that has the 'caste' system. Both Hinduism and Islam had oppressive rules, however, which led to the formation of Sikhism in the 1500's by Guru Nanak. This religion accepted all regardless of class.
And now, they are through with that method and are trying to take the time to do it right and allow the people to decide what they want.
The US will continue to support dictatorships if they see fit. They used the guise of 'fighting the red menace' in the past, but often it was to continue to rape other nations of their resources. If the people wished to profit for themselves, they were evil communists. The 'Free American Way' was to have all of the resources controlled by US Based Multi-nationals and all of the profits funneled to the US. Thus, the people were 'free from communism'. They were also relieved of their resources and labour efforts as well. Whew! What a burden! Now the US wants to free Iraqi's from their oil. Sure, the oil itself does not go the US, but the profit monies have already started to. Anything else would be downright Un-American. After all, they paid (themselves) enough to make it happen, didn't they?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They used the guise of 'fighting the red menace' in the past, but often it was to continue to rape other nations of their resources...

Now the US wants to free Iraqi's from their oil. Sure, the oil itself does not go the US, but the profit monies have already started to.

As usual, you make plenty of bombastic statements, such as those above, that are completely unsubstantiated by facts. I'd be genuinely curious to see your evidence that points to the conclusion that the US raped countries of their resources under the guise of engaging and protecting the free world from the evil threat of Soviet communism.

I'd also like to see articles or facts indicating that the US is receiving profit monies from Iraqi oil, which by the way is under the control of the IGC and isn't even plentiful enough to finance the reconstruction of their own country.

If you continue to make reckless accusations such as these, without evidence on any kind, then it is you who are guily of the very wrong doing that you accuse Bush of, misleading people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd also like to see articles or facts indicating that the US is receiving profit monies from Iraqi oil, which by the way is under the control of the IGC and isn't even plentiful enough to finance the reconstruction of their own country.

You won't see any. Facts are for those who can back up an argument. Allegations are all some have to fight with and thus, have to be spread in as many directions as possible. If you will note Righturn, it is very easy to put a hole in a thinly spread rumor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KrustyKidd or righturnonred, any of your familiar with the US/UK assisted coup in Iran in 1953? the declassified CIA documents spedificially lay out a political/oil angle to teh whole thing. i believe nytimes.com has the documents on its site in a section dedicated to the 1953 coup.

this is basic knoledge for those of us who cite this and many other US actions is immoral and based on power.

if YOU cannot be bothered to read easily available and damning documents of the US goverment itself that are smoking guns of violent policy, dont accuse others of not providing facts. its all very available.

so if you want to be considered informed, find the CIA documents that are available on the internet, read them, then come back and tell us all why the black and white print in them dont really mean that the US wanted to overthrow the gov of iran in order to gain access to huge petrolium reserves. that is being informed. learning what is out there and easily available.

i'm sure if we had this debate in 1981 you would be asking for proof that the US was supplying weapons to afganistan and osamas crew. the fact is that documents only come to light after all the old white men who did the crimes are well into their golden years.

read the 1953 CIA documents related to iran and tell us all what you found

sirriff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear rightturnonred,

I have not the time to do much research regarding US oil monies in Iraq, but the statements made by Mr. Bush would apply. "Iraq Oil money must fund reconstruction" was said during the conflict. Halliburton, Dick Cheney's recent ex-allegience, was a subsidiary company of one that was awarded 7 of the 18 billion in 'reconstruction contracts' after the conflict.

With regards to other US perfidy, For now, I will only offer the example of Panama. Manuel Noriega was branded an 'evil dictator' and indicted on drug charges. The truth was that Noriega was an employee of the US gov't that fell into disfavour when he aimed to honour the treaty giving control of the Panama canal back to Panama in 1999.

You want proof? Watch "the Panama Deception", an academy award winning documentary about the real intentions of the US.

"Over the course of its 15-year relationship with Manuel Noriega, the CIA made payments to him personally or to others intended for him that totalled $160,058.10.....The CIA funding to Noriega was generally in the form of monthly payments, variously described as a stipend, subsidy or salary....

Over the course of its 31-year relationship with Manuel Noriega, the Army made payments to him personally that totaled $162,168.31"

-U.S. government document submitted in the case of

United States of America v. Manuel Antonio Noriega

Source: "Our Man In Panama" by John Dinges 1990.

Noriega himself claims the monies were more in the range of $20,000,000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the declassified CIA documents spedificially lay out a political/oil angle to teh whole thing. i believe nytimes.com has the documents on its site in a section dedicated to the 1953 coup.
I am aware of the installation of the Shah by both America and British intelligence agencies. However, I don't have time to scour the net for declassified CIA documents. Point me to them and I will read them. If you've read them, you should know where they are.

Even if your claim is true, it hardly constitutes raping another country for resources. That's quite a leap.

"Iraq Oil money must fund reconstruction"

And you think that's innappropriate? Maybe if you guys would research the history of Haliburton you 'd find out that they have a close relationship with the US military dating back to the Vietnam war. Haliburton is one of only a handful, if not the only company in the world, that can undertake the rebuilding of infrastructure on a massive scale. Clinton used Haliburton for no-bid contracts in Bosnia for example.

You are extrapolating a conspiracy theory where no evidence of one exists. Dick Cheney's history with the company may be suspect to you, but that's a far cry from the evidence needed to make such seemingly concrete determinations.

Manuel Noriega

The CIA payments are well known, but where's the rape?

Noriega was a US ally because he supported pro-American forces in El Salvador and Nicaragua. However, like Saddam Hussein who was initially an ally of the US, Noriega's actions became more and more unpalatable to the US government with the increased drug activity and killing of political opponents.

He was indicted on federal drug charges in 1984 but it all culminated in 1989 when his forces fired on US Marines stationed in Panama City, killing one of them. This was in additon to incidents of harassment against US school children and other US citizens. Noriega declared war on the United States and he was ousted the same year in Operation Just Cause, brought back to the US and sentanced to 30 years on drug trafficing and racketeering. He's eligable for parole in 2006 I believe.

In Panama the Americans re-instated democratic rule. Guillermo Endara Galimany was elected president in the 1989 elections and was confirmed by the Catholic Church, Jimmy Carter and other electoral observers. In 1999 the Panamanian government sought the extradition of Noriega to face murder charges in Panama. He had been found guilty in absentia in 1995.

So what about Noriega? He was another mad man who flipped his lid when US support went to his head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear rightturnonred,

Guillermo Endara Galimany was elected president
Guillermo Endara was secretly sworn in as President of Panama in FLORIDA and flown in as the new head of state. His first action was to change the Panamanian Constitution, disband the PDF (Panamanian Defence Force) and declare that Panama could no longer keep a standing army. This allowed the US to declare that Panama could not defend the Panama Canal, thus giving rights in perpetuity to US occupation of the Canal Zone. This also abrogated the treaty between Jimmy Carter and Omar Torrijos which was supposed to give control of the Panama Canal back to Panama.

As Pres. Reagan (who stole a quote from the Govenor of California) "[the Canal] ...its ours, we stole it fair and square".

The US forcibly took what they lusted after. In this case it was the Panama Canal. I could not prove 'forcible intercourse' in a dictionary setting, only a political, economic, strategic and moral way.

PS. A quick search did not reveal which UN document condemned the invasion of Panama, and demanded the honouring of the Carter-Torrijos treaty, but I did read it a while ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DANG, MIGHT WANT TO STRAIGHTEN OUT YOUR VERSION WITH THESE GUYS BEFORE YOU GO INTO PUBLICATION LONIUS

When Noriega's party lost the 1989 elections, Noriega's cronies physically attacked the winning candidate on national television, and Noriega remained in power with the income provided by drug trafficking. In December 1989, Noriega appointed himself dictator and formally declared war against the United States. The next day, a U.S. soldier was killed by Panamanian soldiers and the most powerful country in the world sent 26,000 troops into the streets of Panama City and Col ón. Thousands died in the fighting, and Noriega claimed asylum in the Vatican Embassy. The Vatican staff finally released Noriega into U.S. custody, partly to stop the assault of loud rock music that U.S. loudspeakers directed at the embassy compound both day and night. Noriega was arrested, tried, and convicted on money laundering charges and sent to prison for a 40-year sentence.

Still suffering form his beating by Noriega's cronies, Guillermo Endarra, the winner of the 1989 election, finally took office, but corruption and social unrest were hallmarks of his regime. Ernesto Perez Balladares (El Toro) won the 1994 election with largely fulfilled promises to fight corruption, improve Panama's economy, and implement nationwide health services. Running with the campaign slogan, "The Canal Is Ours" Mireya Moscoso, the widow of a popular former president and head of the conservative Arnulfista Party, won the presidency in 1999 and celebrated with her people when the year 2000 dawned with the canal finally belonging to Panama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear KK,

Good lord, where did you find that garbage? If you want to learn history, Rule #1 is 'don't read the US' version of it'.

You are such a pain in the butt Lonius. I would pull the same crap on you, but you never provide even an inkling of fact. Hence, there is never any to question. Here, I give you a Panamanian site, hope you enjoy the two minutes of searching it took to confirm the same thing I posted above.

When Guillermo Endara won the 1989 Presidential elections, the current regime (as well as the Organization of American States) refused to recognize the results, citing massive US interference. Foreign election observers, including the Catholic Church and Jimmy Carter certified the electoral victory of Endara despite widespread attempts at fraud by the regime.

The entire Panama Canal, the area supporting the Canal, and remaining US military bases were turned over to Panama on December 31 1999.

Panamanians moved quickly to rebuild their civilian constitutional government. On December 27, 1989, Panama's Electoral Tribunal invalidated the Norieiga regime's annulment of the May 1989 election and confirmed the victory of opposition candidates under the leadership of President Guillermo Endara and Vice Presidents Guillermo Ford and Ricardo Arias Calderon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...