Canada still mum on the Saddam execution

Saturn · January 1, 2007

Since the interviews were on tv I can't give you an online link. CBC had as a regular, a former member of Iraq's nuclear team. He said over and over that the nuclear program had been discontinued (by the way he was no fan of Saddam and left because of him). He also said that over the period of time before he left Iraq, Iraq was destroying chemicals and weaponry. BBC had two regulars that basically said the same thing; also more than one former Iraqi that said the ties between Saddam and bin Laden were unfounded and that one of bin Laden's goals was to bring down Saddam and install an Islamic government. Looks like bin Laden just might win that one yet. At the beginning of the lead up CNN even (sorry, I don't get FOX) had CIA? people that discounted what the Whitehouse was giving as intelligence but that lasted only a short while because almost from the beginning, if an American was against the Iraq war they were labeled unAmerican.

That doesn't really prove anything. Why don't you jdobbin's example and provide some links.

As far as I don't know what is going on? I guess I and others "on the left" were better informed than the supporters of the war were weren't we? The protesters of war, b the way protested for many reasons, some of them even the right reasons.

Not really, when someone says that George Bush should be hanged then it shows how out of touch you are with the world. People also think Canadian soldiers kill innocents in Afghanistan, even though they have no idea what goes on in Afghanistan.

For those who become interested in issues only when politicians bring them up and put them on the front pages, it will be difficult to understand that there are people who have been aware and following those issues prior to them showing up on the front pages of the newspapers and the accompanying propaganda. "Strangely" enough, the people who were following the Iraq issue(s) longer that you've been alive are the ones who pointed out the falseness of the White House propaganda. Now it's rather unreasonable to call them clueless, regardless of what you've heard on Fox. As for how clueless people are on Afghanistan, I'm sure they aren't more clueless than you are.

Canadian Blue · January 1, 2007

For those who become interested in issues only when politicians bring them up and put them on the front pages, it will be difficult to understand that there are people who have been aware and following those issues prior to them showing up on the front pages of the newspapers and the accompanying propaganda. "Strangely" enough, the people who were following the Iraq issue(s) longer that you've been alive are the ones who pointed out the falseness of the White House propaganda. Now it's rather unreasonable to call them clueless, regardless of what you've heard on Fox. As for how clueless people are on Afghanistan, I'm sure they aren't more clueless than you are.

I don't watch Fox, I usually watch CTV, CNN, BBC. As well I often read Time magazine, and so far jdobbin has been the only one on here who has substantiated anything.

As for how clueless people are on Afghanistan, I'm sure they aren't more clueless than you are.[/

I'm currently serving with the Canadian Military, and read some of the reports coming in from Afghanistan on our activities over there, I can't be that clueless.

And you are attributing those statements or beliefs to me why?

Not to you in particular, but to a certain member who said we are in Afghanistan due to Iraq which is a complete falsehood.

"Strangely" enough, the people who were following the Iraq issue(s) longer that you've been alive are the ones who pointed out the falseness of the White House propaganda.

No names have come up, why is it that even many of the countries against the invasion even believed Iraq had some WMD's. They were the ones who supported weapon's inspectors.

As I've said before I'm against the war in Iraq, however the irrationality of many of the member's on here is over the top. The rhetoric is all Bush bashing, however ask reasonable question's like how many other leaders should be tried as well and no answer is given.

Canadian Blue · January 1, 2007

There are reasons why people are anti-Harper and none of them are propaganda.
Guess Harper should not have been talking so disrespectfully of the what the PM of Canada does, cause we now know what he is doing for sure.

Catchme, you have only gone on with your empty rhetoric.

If Saddam had it coming so did those who allowed him to do it, and that would be George Herbert Bush

As do the leaders of Great Britian, France, Germany, Canada, China, Russia, Singapore, etc.

What is irritating me in all of this though, is the oppositions silence on it! Harper's silence you expect, he is a weak kneed USA sychophant that was a traitor to Canadians before he took office.

Everybody you disagree with is a traitor, something I wouldn't even call the person who doesn't share any of my beliefs.

Besides that I think the people on here who go on about "Canadian Values" have no idea what that mean's.

Fortunata · January 1, 2007

Not to you in particular, but to a certain member who said we are in Afghanistan due to Iraq which is a complete falsehood.

Not to me in particular in response to a post of mine? Why wouldn't you direct those comments to the person or persons that inspired this response instead of trying to make it look like I held those particular views and voiced them. Another dishonest post I'd say.

mikedavid00 · January 2, 2007

Our government, on the other hand, who insists on speaking out against un-Canadian values as we did with China... has been awfully silent on the issue....

The whole Lebannon issue caused Harper to nose dive in the polls.

His advisors have learned a lesson and I think they were just trying to keep their mouths shut not to offend anyone.

I don't think anyone agrees with a hanging. It is done because this is what the Quran dictates. Same with chopping off arms, being buried alive, etc.

BC_chick · January 2, 2007

Because it's not an "un-Canadian" value, whatever that is supposed to be.

Ask Harper, he's the one who insisted on speaking out against them (un-Canadian values) concerning China.

Canadian Blue · January 2, 2007

Not to me in particular in response to a post of mine? Why wouldn't you direct those comments to the person or persons that inspired this response instead of trying to make it look like I held those particular views and voiced them. Another dishonest post I'd say.

'

Do you get offended by every post where you get confused. I never directly said it was you fortunato who made the comments, if you look at the quote I referred to earlier it was Catchme.

Ask Harper, he's the one who insisted on speaking out against them (un-Canadian values) concerning China.

I thought it was an issue of basic human rights, something which all western nation's agree on. It has nothing to do with unCanadian values. As for Saddam Hussein, we have no right to intervene in a punishment which the Iraqi's had brought forth as long as it was considered a fair trial.

hiti · January 2, 2007

Not in the least. If Canada had a criminal leader, say one that embezzeled funds for his party through a clever transfer program, they'd be tried in Canada, not in the Hague. It may be a higher crime with a higher punishment but the Iraqi's are capable of prosecuting their own.

Chuck Guite, the Tory was charged and sentenced.

Not to you in particular, but to a certain member who said we are in Afghanistan due to Iraq which is a complete falsehood.

Actually the media reported that Chretien offered to send our troops to Afghanistan to free up the US troops for Iraq. Bush liked that idea.

Catchme · January 2, 2007

Catchme, you have only gone on with your empty rhetoric.

No? Really you thought Stephens words were empty rhetoric? He spoke very nastily about Canada, about what the PM does and indeed about Canadians, reading the whole speech is harsh.

As do the leaders of Great Britian, France, Germany, Canada, China, Russia, Singapore, etc.

No actually he was in direct alliance with the US government.

Everybody you disagree with is a traitor, something I wouldn't even call the person who doesn't share any of my beliefs.

I have never called another person a traitor other than Stephen's partner in crime so really do not know where you get the "everyone" from. And IMO taking lying adds out in US newpapers and speaking lies on Fox TV about Canada and Canadians, is traitorous. Maybe your threshhold is different and more tolerant than mine. Mine is based on # 1 definition.

traitor

One entry found for traitor.

Main Entry: trai·tor

Pronunciation: 'trA-t&r

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English traytour, from Anglo-French traitre, from Latin traditor, from tradere to hand over, deliver, betray, from trans-, tra- trans- + dare to give -- more at DATE

1 : one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty

2 : one who commits treason

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/traitor

Besides that I think the people on here who go on about "Canadian Values" have no idea what that mean's.

Maybe in some cases your right, but when a majority population feels a particular way in a democracy it pretty well means that majority is the majority of values, but of course it cannot claim to encompass all values. Diversity in a pluralistic society does not afford that narrow of a viewpoint. On the other hand a minority has not right to impose its ideals upon the majority either.

Saturn · January 2, 2007

Not to you in particular, but to a certain member who said we are in Afghanistan due to Iraq which is a complete falsehood.

It is, eh? So you think that we sent more troops to Afghanistan just as the Americans were bugging us to join the war in Iraq was a pure coincidence. Good one.

"Strangely" enough, the people who were following the Iraq issue(s) longer that you've been alive are the ones who pointed out the falseness of the White House propaganda.

No names have come up, why is it that even many of the countries against the invasion even believed Iraq had some WMD's. They were the ones who supported weapon's inspectors.

They supported the weapons inspectors. The inspectors did their job and destroyed the weapons programs in Iraq. Some years later they went back, did their job again and said that there were no WMDs in Iraq. The countries that were against the invasion did not believe that Iraq had WMDs - which is just one of the reasons why they did not support the invasion. Bush and Blair felt there was a lot to gain from lying to the public and manufactured tonnes of "evidence" that there were WMDs in Iraq. As it was later proven, the "evidence" was bull and their claims were just lies. Anyone with half a brain would have known that the whole thing was manufactured and that the Americans would be stuck in Iraq for a decade. Now prove them wrong.

Argus · January 2, 2007

I think most people know what capital punishment is and what it involves.

As for many Canadians knowing there is no difference between capital punishment and the death penalty, it's true. Don't ask me how they don't know but somehow "many" don't make the connection. This was on a news program some time ago.

Oh well then it MUST be true.

The point remains that if the majority of Canadians, or even a substantial minority support capital punishment then it can hardly be called an "uncanadian value" now can it.

Fortunata · January 2, 2007

Oh well then it MUST be true.
The point remains that if the majority of Canadians, or even a substantial minority support capital punishment then it can hardly be called an "uncanadian value" now can it.

Show me where the majority of Canadians support the death penalty. And don't quote unCanadian toward me as I don't believe that I said that in relation to capital punishment (even though officially the Canadian government is anti death penalty).

Canadian Blue · January 3, 2007

It is, eh? So you think that we sent more troops to Afghanistan just as the Americans were bugging us to join the war in Iraq was a pure coincidence. Good one.

So the Liberal's did support the war in Iraq???

Honestly, do you just make this shit up?

They supported the weapons inspectors. The inspectors did their job and destroyed the weapons programs in Iraq. Some years later they went back, did their job again and said that there were no WMDs in Iraq. The countries that were against the invasion did not believe that Iraq had WMDs - which is just one of the reasons why they did not support the invasion. Bush and Blair felt there was a lot to gain from lying to the public and manufactured tonnes of "evidence" that there were WMDs in Iraq. As it was later proven, the "evidence" was bull and their claims were just lies. Anyone with half a brain would have known that the whole thing was manufactured and that the Americans would be stuck in Iraq for a decade. Now prove them wrong.

Then why did Clinton launch air strikes against Iraq in the late 1990's???

As well what did Blair have to gain from lying, honestly Bush and Blair haven't gained anything from that conflict.

Maybe in some cases your right, but when a majority population feels a particular way in a democracy it pretty well means that majority is the majority of values, but of course it cannot claim to encompass all values. Diversity in a pluralistic society does not afford that narrow of a viewpoint. On the other hand a minority has not right to impose its ideals upon the majority either.

So let me get this straight, around 40% of Canadian's aren't real Canadian's, and 60% are. Thats a far stretch and a corrupt argument.

I have never called another person a traitor other than Stephen's partner in crime so really do not know where you get the "everyone" from. And IMO taking lying adds out in US newpapers and speaking lies on Fox TV about Canada and Canadians, is traitorous. Maybe your threshhold is different and more tolerant than mine. Mine is based on # 1 definition.

If Harper is a traitor, then why don't you assassinate him. Think before you speak.

Your view's are no different than any totalitarian who thought that any person not fitting his belief's deserves to be called a traitor. Why don't you look past at history and see what happened to people who were traitors for holding different political views.

No actually he was in direct alliance with the US government.

You know this how...

The Iraqi's got equipment from the French, Chinese, and Russian's. Your very irrational, substantiate your claim's.

No? Really you thought Stephens words were empty rhetoric? He spoke very nastily about Canada, about what the PM does and indeed about Canadians, reading the whole speech is harsh.

Well you seem to be a hothead, honestly you haven't even substantiated a single thing you have said so far.

madmax · January 3, 2007

So the Liberal's did support the war in Iraq???

Some Liberals Yes, Jean Chretian No. There is no war he supported that I am aware of.

Then why did Clinton launch air strikes against Iraq in the late 1990's???

That was US foreign policy. It was their Iraq policy. Scott Ritter covers this period very well, because it occurred during his term as head of UNSCOM.

As well what did Blair have to gain from lying, honestly Bush and Blair haven't gained anything from that conflict.

No they haven't have they.

If Harper is a traitor, then why don't you assassinate him. Think before you speak.

Harper is not a traitor. He was just dead wrong, and we can thank our lucky stars he wasn't in power during this period.

Canadian Blue · January 4, 2007

Madmax thanks for the responses, but I was hoping catchme could either answer, or simply throw around a bunch of partisan rhetoric which is what usually happen's.

Catchme · January 5, 2007

commenter unknown said: It is, eh? So you think that we sent more troops to Afghanistan just as the Americans were bugging us to join the war in Iraq was a pure coincidence. Good one.

Canadianblue said in response: So the Liberal's did support the war in Iraq??? Honestly, do you just make this shit up?

Not my original comment but will respond with up most respect to you and ask: why do you discuss on political forums if you know so very little about it? Respectfully, it appears you are not trying to learn or become more aware of world history, as you vulgarly accuse people of making things up just because you do not know it.

canadian blue said: Then why did Clinton launch air strikes against Iraq in the late 1990's???

It had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction.

PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON ON RETALIATION FOR IRAQI PLOT TO ASSASSINATE PRESIDENT GEORGE H.W. BUSH
June 26, 1993

On April 13, 1993, several Iraqi nationals were arrested in Kuwait and charged with plotting an assassination attempt against former President Bush as he visited Kuwait that month. In June of that year, President Clinton retaliated for the attempted assassination by authorizing air strikes against Iraq.

Iraq History

canadianblue said: As well what did Blair have to gain from lying, honestly Bush and Blair haven't gained anything from that conflict.

Honestly how do you know that honestly they have not gained anything? because you need to support that. As there really are facts out there that say otherwise. The Bush Cheney families especially.

unknown poster said:Maybe in some cases your right, but when a majority population feels a particular way in a democracy it pretty well means that majority is the majority of values, but of course it cannot claim to encompass all values. Diversity in a pluralistic society does not afford that narrow of a viewpoint. On the other hand a minority has not right to impose its ideals upon the majority either.

canadianblue responded and said:So let me get this straight, around 40% of Canadian's aren't real Canadian's, and 60% are. Thats a far stretch and a corrupt argument.

Where did you get the 60% and 40 % numbers from, the post your commenting to be NOT mine BTW. Did you just make those numbers up, as looking at the post you were commenting on, I see no numbers at all stated by the poster. Nor did the poster say anything about real Canadians or Canadians that are not real. You imposed that connotation unfairly and fallaciously. The position presented by the poster regarding democracies is neither far stretched nor corrupt as you stated. It is actually factual and unbiased. In a democracy, majority rules end of story. Minority political ideologies, or marginalized groups have a voice just not the voice of the majority of Canadians. But they are Canadians nonetheless.

catchme said:I have never called another person a traitor other than Stephen's partner in crime so really do not know where you get the "everyone" from. And IMO taking lying adds out in US newpapers and speaking lies on Fox TV about Canada and Canadians, is traitorous. Maybe your threshhold is different and more tolerant than mine. Mine is based on # 1 definition.

canadianblue said: If Harper is a traitor, then why don't you assassinate him. Think before you speak

No, respectfully, I think perhaps it is you who may need to think before they speak. Your leap from one perspective to another completely different topic and joining the 2, by putting words in peoples mouths are a good example of far stretched and corrupt.

Your view's are no different than any totalitarian who thought that any person not fitting his belief's deserves to be called a traitor. Why don't you look past at history and see what happened to people who were traitors for holding different political views.

Harper and Day, as members of the opposition, had no business paying for ads out of their own pockets, appearing on TV, representing themselves as Canadian politicians, on behalf of Canadians and saying that Canadians wanted to be with the USA in Iraq and other nonsensical things that the majority of Canadians indeed did not believe, or want. AS I gave you the definition of traitor and it has nothing to do with totalitarianism. Nor does it have anything to do with differing political views; it has everything to do with their actions. They did not have the authority to speak on behalf of Canadians and Canada; they were NOT our designated spokes people. What happened in history to people who had differing political views and who, at that time, were considered traitors for doing so, has no bearing on this discussion.

catchme said: No actually he was in direct alliance with the US government.

canadianblue said: You know this how...
The Iraqi's got equipment from the French, Chinese, and Russian's. Your very irrational, substantiate your claim's.

Funny how you seem to know some things but not others, but at any rate, I will respond in case you do have gaps in your knowledge base. Again it is for commonm public knowledge. USA funded Iraq, and were buddies with Saddam up until his invasion of Kuwait. Hence Jesse Jackson's commentary.

unknown who posted this could have been catchme and am not sure it is even from this thread:No? Really you thought Stephens words were empty rhetoric? He spoke very nastily about Canada, about what the PM does and indeed about Canadians, reading the whole speech is harsh.

canadianblues said in response to the above post: Well you seem to be a hothead, honestly you haven't even substantiated a single thing you have said so far.

Personally, I have not seen any evidence of a hot head or unsubstantiated things in the post that you are commenting to. :huh:

White Doors · January 5, 2007

He was an Iraqi, tried in an Iraqi court and put to death by Iraqis. We don't ask for their opinion when we sentence our people.

1) Not true. http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/news/nr/2005/doc_31756.html

2) Even if we as a nation had not taken a position as stated above, I still wonder why Harper was so adament about speaking out against what Chinese people do to their own people in their own courts... if that's how he really feels about what goes on "out there."

Are you soft in the head? Here ya go: IT WAS A CANADIAN CITIZEN BEING HELD IN A CHINESE JAIL THAT CDN CONSULAR PEOPLE HAVE NOT BEEN ALLOWED TO MEET WITH AS CHINA DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THAT HE IS CANADIAN.

Canadian Blue · January 5, 2007

It had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction.

Really...

US President Bill Clinton remarks "(Hussein's) regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us. Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. Let there be no doubt, we are prepared to act." Senate Democrats also passed Resolution 71, which urged President Clinton to "take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

November 23-26, 1998
According to UNSCOM, Iraq ends cooperation with UNSCOM inspectors, alternately intimidating and withholding information from them.

November 30, 1998

Butler meets with US National Security Advisor Sandy Berger to coordinate timelines for a possible military strike against Iraq

December 11, 1998

Iraq announces that weapons inspections will no longer take place on Friday, the Muslim day of rest. Iraq also refuses to provide test data from the production of missiles and engines.

December 13, 1998

US President Clinton secretly approves an attack on Iraq.

December 15, 1998

Richard Butler reports to the UN Security Council that Iraq is still blocking inspections.

December 16-19, 1998

UNSCOM withdraws all weapons inspectors from Iraq.

Saddam Hussein's failure to provide unfettered access to UN arms inspectors led Washington and London to hit 100 Iraqi targets in four days of bombing as part of Operation Desert Fox. The US government urged UNSCOM executive chairman Richard Butler to withdraw, and "[a] few hours before the attack began, 125 UN personnel were hurriedly evacuated from Baghdad to Bahrain, including inspectors from the UN Special Commission on Iraq and the International Atomic Energy Agency."

Wow, thats odd, I guess you were wrong.

Honestly how do you know that honestly they have not gained anything? because you need to support that. As there really are facts out there that say otherwise. The Bush Cheney families especially.

If there are "facts" out their why can't you provide them, and I'm not here to research your arguments.

Not my original comment but will respond with up most respect to you and ask: why do you discuss on political forums if you know so very little about it? Respectfully, it appears you are not trying to learn or become more aware of world history, as you vulgarly accuse people of making things up just because you do not know it.

I think that as the above shows the only one on here ignorant about politics and the world around them is you. Instead of providing any facts you get your panties tied up into a knot.

Funny how you seem to know some things but not others, but at any rate, I will respond in case you do have gaps in your knowledge base. Again it is for commonm public knowledge. USA funded Iraq, and were buddies with Saddam up until his invasion of Kuwait. Hence Jesse Jackson's commentary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq_1973-1990

Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact, France, China, United States, Egypt, etc.

The Soviet Union and her satellites were the main suppliers of arms to Iraq following the 1972 signing of the Soviet-Iraqi Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation. France was another important supplier of weapons to Iraq during the 1970s. The United States, the world's leading arms exporter, did not have normal relations with Iraq from 1967 (due to the Six-Day War) until 1984.
Soviet-Iraqi relations suffered strains in the late 1970s. When Iraq invaded Iran in 1980, the Soviet Union cut off weapons sales to Iraq and did not resume them until 1982. During the war, the People's Republic of China became a major new source of weapons for Iraq, with increasing sales from France, and to a lesser extent the United States, the United Kingdom, and Egypt.

After the fall of the Soviet Union and of the communist regimes in its former satellites, and with the alienation of many western and Arab countries from Iraq following the invasion of Kuwait, Iraq became increasingly isolated internationally during the early 1990s. As years of inspection regimes and the aggressive enforcement of established no fly zones wore on, Iraq began to rely on the diplomatic support of France, Russia, and China.

Somehow I do know more than you about the world around me. Imagine that I used facts to back up my argument instead of political commentary from Jesse Jackson.

The two largest suppliers of arms to Iraq was the Warsaw Pact countries, France, China, Egypt, and the United States sold the lowest amount of weapon's to Iraq. So this hardly show's that the United States is the only country to blame as you like to keep on saying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weap...ass_destruction

In the early 1970s, Saddam Hussein ordered the creation of a clandestine nuclear weapons program.[2] Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs were assisted by a wide variety of firms and governments in the 1970s and 1980s. [3][4][5][6][7] As part of Project 922, German firms such as Karl Kobe helped build Iraqi chemical weapons facilities such as laboratories, bunkers, an administrative building, and first production buildings in the early 1980s under the cover of a pesticide plant. Other German firms sent 1,027 tons of precursors of mustard gas, sarin, tabun, and tear gasses in all. This work allowed Iraq to produce 150 tons of mustard agent and 60 tons of Tabun in 1983 and 1984 respectively, continuing throughout the decade. Five other German firms supplied equipment to manfacture botulin toxin and mycotoxin for germ warfare. In 1988, German engineers presented centrifuge data that helped Iraq expand its nuclear weapons program. Laboratory equipment and other information was provided, involving many German engineers. All told, 52% of Iraq's international chemical weapon equipment was of German origin. The State Establishment for Pesticide Production (SEPP) ordered culture media and incubators from Germany's Water Engineering Trading.[8]
France built Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in the late 1970s. Israel claimed that Iraq was getting close to building nuclear weapons, and so bombed it in 1981. Later, a French company built a turnkey factory which helped make nuclear fuel. France also provided glass-lined reactors, tanks, vessels, and columns used for the production of chemical weapons. Around 21% of Iraq’s international chemical weapon equipment was French. Strains of dual-use biological material also helped advance Iraq’s biological warfare program.

Italy gave Iraq plutonium extraction facilities that advanced Iraq’s nuclear weapon program. 75,000 shells and rockets designed for chemical weapon use also came from Italy. Between 1979 and 1982 Italy gave depleted, natural, and low-enriched uranium. Swiss companies aided in Iraq’s nuclear weapons development in the form of specialized presses, milling machines, grinding machines, electrical discharge machines, and equipment for processing uranium to nuclear weapon grade. Brazil secretly aided the Iraqi nuclear weapon program by supplying natural uranium dioxide between 1981 and 1982 without notifying the IAEA. About 100 tons of mustard gas also came from Brazil.

So clearly all of those countries have a larger share of the blame than the United States which did the following:

The United States exported $500 million of dual use exports to Iraq that were approved by the Commerce department. Among them were advanced computers, some of which were used in Iraq’s nuclear program. The non-profit American Type Culture Collection and the Centers for Disease Control sold or sent biological samples to Iraq under Saddam Hussein up until 1989, which Iraq claimed it needed for medical research. These materials included anthrax, West Nile virus and botulism, as well as Brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene. Some of these materials were used for Iraq's biological weapons research program, while others were used for vaccine development.[

Canadian Blue · January 5, 2007

QUOTE
canadianblue said: You know this how...

The Iraqi's got equipment from the French, Chinese, and Russian's. Your very irrational, substantiate your claim's.

Funny how you seem to know some things but not others, but at any rate, I will respond in case you do have gaps in your knowledge base. Again it is for commonm public knowledge. USA funded Iraq, and were buddies with Saddam up until his invasion of Kuwait. Hence Jesse Jackson's commentary.

QUOTE
canadian blue said: Then why did Clinton launch air strikes against Iraq in the late 1990's???

It had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction.

Catchme here is some more proof. Ever hear of operation Desert Fox?

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

The December 1998 bombing of Iraq (code-named Operation Desert Fox) was a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets from December 16-December 19, 1998 by the United States and United Kingdom. These strikes were undertaken in response to Iraq's continued failure to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions as well as their interference with United Nations Special Commission inspectors.
It was a major flare-up in the Iraq disarmament crisis. The stated goal of the cruise missile and bombing attacks was to "degrade" Saddam Hussein's ability to produce weapons of mass destruction.

Once again I love hypocrisy, especially when its coming from someone who always uses the "common knowledge" argument since they can't back their claim's up.

Not my original comment but will respond with up most respect to you and ask: why do you discuss on political forums if you know so very little about it? Respectfully, it appears you are not trying to learn or become more aware of world history, as you vulgarly accuse people of making things up just because you do not know it.

Perhaps you should try to learn abit more my son, I wouldn't want your panties to get tied up into a knot over falsehoods that you believe to be true from your gut and not from facts.

Catchme · January 5, 2007

canadianblue said: You know this how...
The Iraqi's got equipment from the French, Chinese, and Russian's. Your very irrational, substantiate your claim's.

Not talking about equipment now really are we?

How the Reagan/Bush Sr. administrations backed Saddam
With all the bellowing from George W. Bush about the dangerous dictator Saddam Hussein, it is worth reminding this "freedom-loving leader" that Saddam's government only exists because of the backing of previous US administrations.

ABC News Nightline opened on June 9, 1993 with the truth for a change: "It is becoming increasingly clear," said a grave Ted Koppel, "that George Bush [sr.], operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980's, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into the aggressive power that the United States ultimately had to destroy."

But where was the US concern about "Saddam's human rights record," "democracy," or "weapons of mass destruction" then? Why would the US support Saddam Hussein in the 1980's?

http://www.bnfp.org/neighborhood/jmoore.htm

footage shot back on Dec. 20, 1983, by an official Iraqi television crew when Donald Rumsfeld arrived in Baghdad as special envoy from President Ronald Reagan. Saddam, wearing a pistol on his hip, already had established himself as a brutal dictator -- as Newsweek put it, "a murderous thug who supported terrorists and was trying to build a nuclear weapon." According to the official note taker at the meeting, Rumsfeld "conveyed the President's greetings and expressed his pleasure at being in Baghdad" to the murderous tyrant.
At the time, of course, America's chief concern was Iran and its Ayatollah Khomeini, with whom Iraq had gone to war. And so, over the next five years, until the conflict finally ended, the United States supplied Saddam with economic aid and such nifty items as a computerized database for his interior ministry, satellite military intelligence, tanks and cluster bombs, deadly bacteriological samples, and the very helicopters that were used by Saddam to spew poison gas over his own Kurd citizens. And when those atrocities finally became known, the Reagan administration also lobbied to prevent any strong congressional condemnation of the Iraqi dictator.

Fast forward to 1990 and the invasion of Kuwait, a territory that, according to some interpretations, had once been part of Iraq. In that year, Assistant Secretary of State John Kelley called Saddam a "force of moderation" in the Middle East. Saddam, in fact, moved into Kuwait only after consulting with the ranking U.S. diplomat in the region, April Glaspie. So why shouldn't the fallen dictator's attorneys now summon Glaspie and her State Department masters to explain why she assured Saddam back then that the way he handled his border dispute with Kuwait was of "no concern" to the U.S.?

Saddam and USA best friends

Now that should give you enough information and dates to start your education of Iraq USA history that Rev Jesse Jackson spoke of quite knowingly. But in case you don't have enough here is some more:

Saddam's move to gas the Kurds is a great talking point for some U.S. propagandists who gleefully note that the "Butcher of Baghdad" has "gassed his own people." The Kurds were poisoned mostly with Mustard Gas, which blisters the skin and lungs, as well as Nerve Agents and good old-fashioned cyanide.
The downside to the whole "gassing his own people" angle is, of course, that the United States under President Ronald Reagan was actively supporting Iraq with logistical and military assistance at the time, in one of those little "proxy wars" with the Soviets that always turned out so well.

In the late 1980s, Reagan dispatched a very special envoy to the Middle East, one Donald Rumsfeld, who wined and dined Saddam even as the dictator was slicing and dicing the Kurds. Rumsfeld claims he warned Saddam about those bad old chemical weapons at the time, but the warning somehow got lost between his uttering it and the notes he submitted to the State Department describing the meeting.

U.S. companies were recruited and encouraged, both covertly and overtly, to ship poisonous chemicals and biological agents to Iraq, by the administrations of both Reagan and George Bush Sr., according to the Washington Post and numerous other reports. The CIA also followed up on these efforts with various military and intelligence assists.

U.S. care packages to Saddam included sample strains of anthrax and bubonic plague, which must have seemed like a really fucking great idea to someone at the time. With U.S. assistance and on its own initiative, Iraq also reportedly developed new and improved toxins, such as ricin and sarin gas.

Rummy Great Friends With Saddam

Saddam Hussein's brutal reign was made by the USA. He worked for the CIA before be became politically prominent in Iraq. He was one of America's closet Mideast allies during the 1980s, and received substantial US military and financial aid.
When you hear references to his tyranny, his cruelty, the accounts are generally true -- he was one hell of a bastard. The 'unknown news', though, is that at the peak of Saddam's tyranny and cruelty, the Reagan administration didn't just tolerate having Saddam in charge of Iraq, they funded and armed his regime. He was America's ally, just like several of the world's most despotic bastards are America's allies now.

http://www.unknownnews.net/saddam.html

Funny how you seem to know some things but not others, but at any rate, I will respond in case you do have gaps in your knowledge base. Again it is for comonm public knowledge that USA funded Iraq, and were buddies with Saddam up until his invasion of Kuwait. Hence Jesse Jackson's commentary.

canadian blue said: Then why did Clinton launch air strikes against Iraq in the late 1990's???

Oh, the LATE 1990's, as opposed to the reason in 1993 that I gave that had absolutely nothing to do with wmd's.

Now regarding 1998's bombing, I think the Star Inquiry covered that indepth. Apparently, he used trumped up intelligence to bomb Iraq to deflect attention away from the Lewinsky sex scandal happening at home.

.

As you may know, the United States is warning that it will bomb Iraq unless ... Suppose for a moment Clinton did lie to the American people when he said he ...

Bill Lied and People Died

Clinton Manufactured Iraq Crisis,
Violated Constitution

WASHINGTON, DC -- President Clinton, in launching the massive Dec. 16 attack on Iraq, used a manufactured crisis to deceive the American people, and to bypass Congress' power to declare war.

Bill lied and people Died

Again, it had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction.

Catchme here is some more proof. Ever hear of operation Desert Fox?

Sure did, see above and everywhere on line. BTW the Star Inquiry was for common public knowledge.

Once again I love hypocrisy, especially when its coming from someone who always uses the "common knowledge" argument since they can't back their claim's up.

As you can see, what I said is common public knowledge and I told you I could back it up but did not have to. The Star Inquiry was the best watched show in town.

Perhaps you should try to learn abit more my son, I wouldn't want your panties to get tied up into a knot over falsehoods that you believe to be true from your gut and not from facts.

Sorry to say, I had already started responding before I read this tidbit. Or perhaps I would not have responded to your caustic attempts to demean with sexist remarks. And then again I might have just to exhibit the truth of things.

However, perhaps you get the idea now, that as I said; I can and will back my statements and have done so at length here and often, but again it is not required formally if there is a large body of information that is common public knowledge.

Canadian Blue · January 6, 2007

QUOTE
canadianblue said: You know this how...

The Iraqi's got equipment from the French, Chinese, and Russian's. Your very irrational, substantiate your claim's.

Not talking about equipment now really are we?

Were talking about WMD's right?

This is my previous post which you obviously had alot of trouble reading.

QUOTE
In the early 1970s, Saddam Hussein ordered the creation of a clandestine nuclear weapons program.[2] Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs were assisted by a wide variety of firms and governments in the 1970s and 1980s. [3][4][5][6][7] As part of Project 922, German firms such as Karl Kobe helped build Iraqi chemical weapons facilities such as laboratories, bunkers, an administrative building, and first production buildings in the early 1980s under the cover of a pesticide plant. Other German firms sent 1,027 tons of precursors of mustard gas, sarin, tabun, and tear gasses in all. This work allowed Iraq to produce 150 tons of mustard agent and 60 tons of Tabun in 1983 and 1984 respectively, continuing throughout the decade. Five other German firms supplied equipment to manfacture botulin toxin and mycotoxin for germ warfare. In 1988, German engineers presented centrifuge data that helped Iraq expand its nuclear weapons program. Laboratory equipment and other information was provided, involving many German engineers. All told, 52% of Iraq's international chemical weapon equipment was of German origin. The State Establishment for Pesticide Production (SEPP) ordered culture media and incubators from Germany's Water Engineering Trading.[8]

France built Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in the late 1970s. Israel claimed that Iraq was getting close to building nuclear weapons, and so bombed it in 1981. Later, a French company built a turnkey factory which helped make nuclear fuel. France also provided glass-lined reactors, tanks, vessels, and columns used for the production of chemical weapons. Around 21% of Iraq’s international chemical weapon equipment was French. Strains of dual-use biological material also helped advance Iraq’s biological warfare program.

Italy gave Iraq plutonium extraction facilities that advanced Iraq’s nuclear weapon program. 75,000 shells and rockets designed for chemical weapon use also came from Italy. Between 1979 and 1982 Italy gave depleted, natural, and low-enriched uranium. Swiss companies aided in Iraq’s nuclear weapons development in the form of specialized presses, milling machines, grinding machines, electrical discharge machines, and equipment for processing uranium to nuclear weapon grade. Brazil secretly aided the Iraqi nuclear weapon program by supplying natural uranium dioxide between 1981 and 1982 without notifying the IAEA. About 100 tons of mustard gas also came from Brazil.

So clearly all of those countries have a larger share of the blame than the United States which did the following:

QUOTE

The United States exported $500 million of dual use exports to Iraq that were approved by the Commerce department. Among them were advanced computers, some of which were used in Iraq’s nuclear program. The non-profit American Type Culture Collection and the Centers for Disease Control sold or sent biological samples to Iraq under Saddam Hussein up until 1989, which Iraq claimed it needed for medical research. These materials included anthrax, West Nile virus and botulism, as well as Brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene. Some of these materials were used for Iraq's biological weapons research program, while others were used for vaccine development.[

As for your links to back up your facts.

http://www.bnfp.org/neighborhood/jmoore.htm

A leftist peace activist site.

http://www.unknownnews.net/saddam.html

Hardly a credible source.

http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature...rial/print.html

An OPINION piece doesn't count as fact since it is biased, thats why its called an opinion.

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/dictators/saddam-hussein/

Your using rotten.com to back up your claim's. Dude, read the real news.

This is what greets you when you go onto the website.

The soft white underbelly of the net, eviscerated for all to see: Rotten dot com collects images and information from many sources to present the viewer with a truly unpleasant experience.

Bill lied and people Died
Again, it had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.twf.org/News/Y1998/19981222-IraqAttack.html

Another opinion piece. Shit son, you really are having trouble backing your claim's up.

U.S. companies were recruited and encouraged, both covertly and overtly, to ship poisonous chemicals and biological agents to Iraq, by the administrations of both Reagan and George Bush Sr., according to the Washington Post and numerous other reports. The CIA also followed up on these efforts with various military and intelligence assists.
U.S. care packages to Saddam included sample strains of anthrax and bubonic plague, which must have seemed like a really fucking great idea to someone at the time. With U.S. assistance and on its own initiative, Iraq also reportedly developed new and improved toxins, such as ricin and sarin gas.

Here's what an unbiased source says:

The United States exported $500 million of dual use exports to Iraq that were approved by the Commerce department. Among them were advanced computers, some of which were used in Iraq’s nuclear program. The non-profit American Type Culture Collection and the Centers for Disease Control sold or sent biological samples to Iraq under Saddam Hussein up until 1989, which Iraq claimed it needed for medical research. These materials included anthrax, West Nile virus and botulism, as well as Brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene. Some of these materials were used for Iraq's biological weapons research program, while others were used for vaccine development.[

As for the Starr inquiry, [interesting you couldn't even spell the name right if its common public knowledge].

Sure did, see above and everywhere on line. BTW the Star Inquiry was for common public knowledge.

Are you sure your not talking about the Starr Report? I thought report dealt with sexual misconduct and had little to do with the attack's on Iraq. :rolleyes:

http://icreport.access.gpo.gov/report/6narrit.htm#L1

Now regarding 1998's bombing, I think the Star Inquiry covered that indepth. Apparently, he used trumped up intelligence to bomb Iraq to deflect attention away from the Lewinsky sex scandal happening at home.

Here is what I found on the Starr Inquiry:

Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr's probe is almost completed. Although the net has been cast widely, insiders say it may come up relatively empty, and Starr seems to be bracing for criticism.
Not with a bang but a whimper. According to sources close to Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr, it is unlikely there will be any further major indictments arising from the four-year-long inquiry into the Clintons and their past business dealings in Arkansas--no impeachment-of-the-president recommendation to Congress and no charging of the first lady with obstruction of justice, perjury or fraud.

And there'll likely be no indictments of current and former top Clinton administration aides such as the president's long-time pal Bruce Lindsey, who was named but not charged last year as a coconspirator in a Whitewater trial of two small-town bankers.

Lindsey, along with Maggie Williams, the first lady's chief of staff, and Harold Ickes, the former White House deputy chief of staff, have been identified regularly by media commentators as the most likely officials to be ensnared in the Whitewater net. The Senate Whitewater committee last year slammed them, along with several other White House aides, for impeding criminal investigations into the Clintons.

I googled it, yet found nothing on that went indepth with regards to Starr making those claim's against Clinton.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/...emes/208715.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/events/clinton_...ort/default.stm

[i used the BBC as a reference, you know, an actual new's source]

Once again are you still basing the "wag the dog" scenario on any actual credible news reports or facts.

As well here are the 11 grounds for impeachment in the Starr Report.

-Mr Clinton lied under oath in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case about his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky
-Mr Clinton lied under oath to the grand jury about his sexual relationship with Ms Lewinsky

-He lied under oath during the Jones deposition when he stated he could not recall being alone with Ms Lewinsky and minimised the number of gifts they had exchanged

-Mr Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition concerning conversations with Ms Lewinsky about her involvement in the Jones case

-He tried to obstruct justice by "engaging in a pattern of activity to conceal evidence" regarding his relationship with Ms Lewinsky from the judicial process in the Jones case

-Mr Clinton came to an understanding with Ms Lewinsky that they would lie under oath in the Jones case about their relationship and tried to obstruct justice by suggesting that Ms Lewinsky file an affidavit so that "she would not be deposed, she would not contradict his testimony and he could attempt to avoid questions about Ms Lewinsky at the deposition"

-He tried to obstruct justice by helping Ms Lewinsky obtain a job in New York at a time when she would have been a witness against him were she to tell the truth

-He lied under oath in describing his conversation with Vernon Jordan about Ms Lewinsky

Mr Clinton tried to obstruct justice by attempting to influence the testimony of his Oval Office secretary, Betty Currie

-He tried to obstruct justice by refusing to testify for seven months while simultaneously lying to potential grand jury witnesses, knowing they would relay the falsehoods to the grand jury

-He committed acts since 17 January, 1998, regarding his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky that were "inconsistent with the president's constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws"

I don't see anything about Iraq in that report.

As you can see, what I said is common public knowledge and I told you I could back it up but did not have to. The Star Inquiry was the best watched show in town.

I admire you, your version of the truth comes from the gut instead of from facts, fancy papers with words, etc.

Some people would call it stupidity, I'd call it ignorant courage.

However, perhaps you get the idea now, that as I said; I can and will back my statements and have done so at length here and often, but again it is not required formally if there is a large body of information that is common public knowledge.

Yet strangely enough since their is a large body of information out there when I google Star inquiry all I get is this. I think your referring to the Starr Report, which didn't deal with Operation Desert Fox, but in fact dealt with the sexual misconduct of the President.

ARYA STAR - InquiryUpdate or save inquiry details by clicking the 'Update Inquiry' button. Click the 'Clear List' button to remove all items from your inquiry list. ...
arytarka-collection.com/inquiry.php?PHPSESSID=820f3c8853e736628ed65559e191b286 - 13k - Cached - Similar pages

Canadian Blue · January 6, 2007

Sorry to say, I had already started responding before I read this tidbit. Or perhaps I would not have responded to your caustic attempts to demean with sexist remarks. And then again I might have just to exhibit the truth of things.
However, perhaps you get the idea now, that as I said; I can and will back my statements and have done so at length here and often, but again it is not required formally if there is a large body of information that is common public knowledge.

I think you're a man, not a smart one at that, but why are you getting so offended. It's not sexist, my boss is sexist and I haven't had a single problem with her.

I only demean you because you use rotten.com to back up your arguments, honestly, that's the funniest reference on here. Go to the main page and they have video's with kids getting their hand caught in a meat grinder, and dogs eating their own sh%t!

geoffrey · January 6, 2007

So the Liberal's did support the war in Iraq???

Some Liberals Yes, Jean Chretian No. There is no war he supported that I am aware of.

Martin did. Martin also supported missile defense and initially voted against SSM because of his religious convictions.

Hmmm!!! Big scary Harper my ass. :lol:

He said: "I really think Canada should get over to Iraq as quickly as possible." That segment is usually all that shows up on political blogs. The full quote goes on to read: "There's a huge need for front-line medical professionals. There's a huge need for policing. And there's a huge need for infrastructure rebuilding."

http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/realitycheck/iraq.html

With Martin around, we'd be in Iraq. Hmmm. Get's you thinking.

I miss Martin occasionally, Harper should extend an olive branch and bring him in as his Finance Minister.

Catchme · January 6, 2007

Canadianblue, as I am not going to waste anytime on responding to someone, who disclaims my links. Links that include offical government links to support their sources, but thinks that using wikipedia is a fine thing to use to support their own. :rolleyes:

Nor am I going to bother with someone who uses obvious and blatent propaganada tools instead of engaging in real dialogue such as: strawman, red herring, deflect away, oversate, and attack the poster as a person in stead of the commentary, just to name a few.

It would seem sir, all you are interested in is trying to rewrite history to conform to what you wish it to be. That said, If I come across a post of yours, that is not transparent and/or condemning others with less than transparent information I am just going to say its wrong with no debate or support reasons, and then move along. Or if you sir, are demeaning posters, like you do me, I wil also point it out, there is no need for personal commentary whatsoever, I am sure others read the rules here as I did. Also everyone with true decernment realizes, just from this little dialogue alone, what's going on with Canadian Blue.

Have a good day sir, hoping to see you posting a bit more factually and a lot less personally in the future.

Canadian Blue · January 6, 2007

Wikipedia is a good source of information, million's of people use it daily. In order to make claim's it has to be backed up, if no citation's are made, then a citation needed is in the article. As well I also used the BBC.

Have a good day sir, hoping to see you posting a bit more factually and a lot less personally in the future.

Can you post anything disputing those facts, besides your "common public knowledge" argument.

It would seem sir, all you are interested in is trying to rewrite history to conform to what you wish it to be.

How so?

I am just going to say its wrong with no debate or support reasons, and then move along.

So, your just trolling on here then, since you can't back up your arguments.

Or if you sir, are demeaning posters, like you do me, I wil also point it out, there is no need for personal commentary whatsoever, I am sure others read the rules here as I did.

No, the only people I demean on here are people who can't back up their arguments with any facts. Because when you know the truth apparently, facts don't matter. :rolleyes:

Canadianblue, as I am not going to waste anytime on responding to someone, who disclaims my links. Links that include offical government links to support their sources, but thinks that using wikipedia is a fine thing to use to support their own.

Another Larouchite, great...

Catchme answer the question about the Star Inquiry, what is that?

Either way, it is obvious that you can't debate on here since alot of issues are way too complicated for you to get your head around.

Have a good day sir, hoping to see you posting a bit more factually and a lot less personally in the future.

Look at the above post which I typed up. All backed up by facts disputing your truthiness argument.

Canadianblue, as I am not going to waste anytime on responding to someone, who disclaims my links.

Dude, the main page on rotten.com has video's of a kid getting his hand caught in a meat grinder. As well all of those sources have an obvious bias, with the exception of Salon.com, but once again that is an OPINION piece.