Two People in White House Should Go to Prison [Archive]

Spence

07-22-2003, 01:28 PM

This (http://www.newsday.com/templates/misc/printstory.jsp?slug=ny-uscia223383072jul22&section=%2Fnews%2Fprintedition) is not only deeply immoral and unpatriotic, it is also damn illegal.

Columnist Blows CIA Agent's Cover

By Timothy M. Phelps and Knut Royce
WASHINGTON BUREAU; Timothy Phelps is the Washington bureau chief.

July 22, 2003

Washington - The identity of an undercover CIA officer whose husband started the Iraq uranium intelligence controversy has been publicly revealed by a conservative Washington columnist citing "two senior administration officials."

Intelligence officials confirmed to Newsday yesterday that Valerie Plame, wife of retired Ambassador Joseph Wilson, works at the agency on weapons of mass destruction issues in an undercover capacity - at least she was undercover until last week when she was named by columnist Robert Novak.

Wilson, while refusing to confirm his wife's employment, said the release to the press of her relationship to him and even her maiden name was an attempt to intimidate others like him from talking about Bush administration intelligence failures.

"It's a shot across the bow to these people, that if you talk we'll take your family and drag them through the mud as well," he said in an interview.

It was Wilson who started the controversy that has engulfed the Bush administration by writing in the New York Times two weeks ago that he had traveled to Niger last year at the request of the CIA to investigate reports that Iraq was trying to buy uranium there. Though he told the CIA and the State Department there was no basis to the report, the allegation was used anyway by President George W. Bush in his State of the Union speech in January.

Wilson and a retired CIA official said yesterday that the "senior administration officials" who named Plame had, if their description of her employment was accurate, violated the law and may have endangered her career and possibly the lives of her contacts in foreign countries. Plame could not be reached for comment.

"When it gets to the point of an administration official acting to do career damage, and possibly actually endanger someone, that's mean, that's petty, it's irresponsible, and it ought to be sanctioned," said Frank Anderson, former CIA Near East Division chief.

A current intelligence official said that blowing the cover of an undercover officer could affect the officer's future assignments and put them and everyone they dealt with overseas in the past at risk.

"If what the two senior administration officials said is true," Wilson said, "they will have compromised an entire career of networks, relationships and operations." What's more, it would mean that "this White House has taken an asset out of the" weapons of mass destruction fight, "not to mention putting at risk any contacts she might have had where the services are hostile."

Deputy White House Press Secretary Claire Buchan referred questions to a National Security Council spokesman who did not return phone calls last night.

"This might be seen as a smear on me and my reputation," Wilson said, "but what it really is is an attempt to keep anybody else from coming forward" to reveal similar intelligence lapses.

Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," he said. "They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."

Wilson and others said such a disclosure would be a violation of the law by the officials, not the columnist.

Read the entire story here (http://www.newsday.com/templates/misc/printstory.jsp?slug=ny-uscia223383072jul22&section=%2Fnews%2Fprintedition).

jsarno

07-23-2003, 01:31 AM

I'm sure there are other problems inside the white house bigger than this.

dukeuch

07-23-2003, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by jsarno
I'm sure there are other problems inside the white house bigger than this.

Yeah, like our president. This is pretty bad though, huh?

jsarno

07-23-2003, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by dukeuch
Yeah, like our president. This is pretty bad though, huh?

hahaha, I actually think GW is doing a GREAT job.
Someday we will be let in on secrets of each president. They ALL are corrupt...how esle could you make it?

dukeuch

07-23-2003, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by jsarno
hahaha, I actually think GW is doing a GREAT job.
Someday we will be let in on secrets of each president. They ALL are corrupt...how esle could you make it?

I just wish that truth held more sway with this president and his administration. I would have loved it if he had said from the beginning that we are going to eliminate this despot Hussien (and all others to the best of our ability) because of what he does to his people.

But he didn't. And now, using the whole Niger/uranium thing as an example, they blame the CIA director, then then when it comes out that Tenet in fact did tell them that the British intelligence was faulty in October, they say yeah, but he should have said it again when reviewing the State of the Union, then it comes out that the CIA (or State Department, I can't remember which) did raise the concern upon review of the SOU, they say yeah, but we were technically correct in saying that British intelligence indicates this happened.

What BS. Pure and simple, the administration tried any way possible to prove there was an active nuclear weapons program in Iraq, and when their own intelligence agencies said, well, there really isn't any proof, they said, no problem, we'll quote a different source who we know to be wrong. Then when the lie saw the light of day, they scrambled, just like CLinton did with Lewinsky, giving succesivley more damning explanations as each previous explanation was debunked.

jsarno

07-23-2003, 02:49 PM

But I really don't have a problem with this...maybe they were using the excuse to convince NATO. It doesn't matter to me what they said, they fact is, they are correct by going over there. Hussien is STILL making threats to this day.
My mentality is "do what it takes" and they are. (makes you proud to be an american)
I think this is being blown WAY out of proportion by the democratic party and followers. If they didn't do something like this, then there was no way in hell a democrat would have a shot at this election.

TexSkin

07-23-2003, 02:55 PM

As grandpa simpson says "dam those deminicrats!" :D

dukeuch

07-23-2003, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by jsarno
But I really don't have a problem with this...maybe they were using the excuse to convince NATO. It doesn't matter to me what they said, they fact is, they are correct by going over there. Hussien is STILL making threats to this day.
My mentality is "do what it takes" and they are. (makes you proud to be an american)
I think this is being blown WAY out of proportion by the democratic party and followers. If they didn't do something like this, then there was no way in hell a democrat would have a shot at this election.

I'm different. I want to know the truth when the government wants to do something that costs lives and $1 billion a week.

Spence

07-23-2003, 02:59 PM

That's a remarkable attitude, Jsarno. You've admitted you don't care if the administration lied to get us into war. That strikes me as one of the most breathtakingly irresponsible viewpoints any human being has ever held. Once you tell your goverment it is okay to lie to you about matters of life and death, you have given them the right to do anything they like. If that's what you want, you appear to have gotten it. Just don't complain when the government lies to get us into a war you don't like. It'll be too late then. You've already told them it's okay.

And you don't care that two members of the administration knowingly committed a felony by revealing the identity of an active CIA agent. This endangers the lives of anyone she has been working with and means the U.S. government can no longer take advantage of her sources to protect its interests and the lives of American citizens. And it was all done to intimidate her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, the man who blew the whistle on Mr Bush's Iraq lies. None of that means anything to you because George W Bush's administration did it--which means it must be fine.

What does matter to you, Jsarno--aside from throwing gays in prison?

dukeuch

07-23-2003, 03:01 PM

And another thing (damn, I'm cranky) remember when the administration mocked the Blix and the NATO inspectors as incompetent 'cause they could not uncover WMD? Well, what does that make us now?

Spence

07-23-2003, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by dukeuch
And another thing (damn, I'm cranky) remember when the administration mocked the Blix and the NATO inspectors as incompetent 'cause they could not uncover WMD? Well, what does that make us now?

Nobody gave you the admin's talking points, I can see. Here is how it goes:

When other people cannot find non-existent weapons of mass destruction, it is because they're incompetent or evil or both. When the administration cannot find these non-existent weapons of mass destruction, it is because...well...uh...er...hmmm...SHUT UP! You commie! You're a traitor! If you really loved America you'd let Bush do anything he wants!* Why do you hate America, you librulcommiepinko?!

*Like Jsarno, for example.

Spence

07-23-2003, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by dukeuch
I'm different. I want to know the truth when the government wants to do something that costs lives and $1 billion a week.

That's commie talk, dukeuch! Let me explain it all for you:

Lies about an affair between two consenting adults require impeachment.

Lies about war that cause thousands of deaths and cost hundreds of billions of dollars are none of your damn business.

dukeuch

07-23-2003, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by Spence
That's commie talk, dukeuch! Let me explain it all for you:

Lies about an affair between two consenting adults require impeachment.

Lies about war that cause thousands of deaths and cost hundreds of billions of dollars are none of your damn business.

Rumble, young man, rumble. AHHHHHH!

jsarno

07-23-2003, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by Spence
That's a remarkable attitude, Jsarno. You've admitted you don't care if the administration lied to get us into war. That strikes me as one of the most breathtakingly irresponsible viewpoints any human being has ever held. Once you tell your goverment it is okay to lie to you about matters of life and death, you have given them the right to do anything they like. If that's what you want, you appear to have gotten it. Just don't complain when the government lies to get us into a war you don't like. It'll be too late then. You've already told them it's okay.
that's not completely true..you are assuming too much. I whole heartedly believe that the common public is too stupid to understand what is going on (so does the government for that matter) In this case they were going after what was right. maybe have been the wrong way to go about it, but they were doing right.
PS- when did I TELL them???? I told you. I wouldn't repeat it to them.
I'm not saying they are right in lieing, and don't want them to, but fact is, they HAVE to hide things from the ignorant, and stupid.

And you don't care that two members of the administration knowingly committed a felony by revealing the identity of an active CIA agent.

I did not get specific on this...but I believe it was totally incorrect. Why are you trying to assume your own agenda here?

This endangers the lives of anyone she has been working with and means the U.S. government can no longer take advantage of her sources to protect its interests and the lives of American citizens.

I whole heartedly agree.

None of that means anything to you because George W Bush's administration did it--which means it must be fine.
You are starting to annoy me with your assumptions..I expect more from you, and respected you, if you continue in this fashion you will lose my respect. I understand being emotional, by try to keep the attackng to a minimal.

What does matter to you, Jsarno--aside from throwing gays in prison?

EXCUSE ME???? I would like to know when / where I said that. If you're going to open your big pie hole, you best back it up. I don't aprreciate your terrible remarks.

jsarno

07-23-2003, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by Spence
Why do you hate America, you librulcommiepinko?!

*Like Jsarno, for example.

I am responding to this via PM as it does not belong here.

dukeuch

07-23-2003, 03:49 PM

Ahh Js, we meet again.

I think the bing problem us liberal pinko dems are having (not to imply you are one too, Spence) is that the administration was either lying or totally clueless about WMD, and what was going to happen once we ousted Saddam.

In a democracy, knowledge is vital for the people to determine how and by whom they should governed, and how to asses their reps performance in representing their interests.

At best, when the administration expected that a small force of soldiers would need to be left in Iraq for a short time because the Iraqi people would welcome us with open arms (ignoring the obvious fact that 60% of the population is Sunni Muslim, who would probalby not embrace a secular govt) they were grossly mistaken and uninformed. Now two americans a day are being killed, soldiers are having their return dates cancelled, and we are adding to Bush's $450+ billion budget deficit at a rate of $1 billion/week. At worst, they perpetrated a gross lie.

I feel the ends do not always justify the means. Elected officials should be held accoutable to tell the truth when asking the public for support of their policies and held accountable when they don't.

jsarno

07-23-2003, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by dukeuch
Ahh Js, we meet again.

I think the bing problem us liberal pinko dems are having (not to imply you are one too, Spence) is that the administration was either lying or totally clueless about WMD, and what was going to happen once we ousted Saddam.

I doubt it was clueless. How can any normal person not see that there could easily be weapons of mass destruction. Of course this man is capable, no one is doubting that. I agree that lies were more than likely made, but what if they were just making an educated guess and were wrong?

In a democracy, knowledge is vital for the people to determine how and by whom they should governed, and how to asses their reps performance in representing their interests.

Problem is we really don't have a democracy in the true sense of the word. We have a form of democracy. Electoral college is massive hinder in this. Having parties is another. (why is it that I can't vote in primaries since I am an independant, and democrats can't vote for republicans?)

At best, when the administration expected that a small force of soldiers would need to be left in Iraq for a short time because the Iraqi people would welcome us with open arms (ignoring the obvious fact that 60% of the population is Sunni Muslim, who would probalby not embrace a secular govt) they were grossly mistaken and uninformed.

I agree...but no american president to this point has PURPOSELY gone out to kill their own force. They were clearly not correctly informed.

Now two americans a day are being killed, soldiers are having their return dates cancelled, and we are adding to Bush's $450+ billion budget deficit at a rate of $1 billion/week. At worst, they perpetrated a gross lie.

It's sad that we're losing americans, but if we learned nothing from Senior Bush, it's to finish a job.
I am very curious as to how this budget keeps getting bigger and bigger and we don't do anythign about it. How many consecutive years have we been in a budget deficit? A business can't run that way, so how can government? I don't think there is a true deficit. I wish they would come clean about all of that!

I feel the ends do not always justify the means.
You're absolutely right. I understand your points completely.

Elected officials should be held accoutable to tell the truth when asking the public for support of their policies and held accountable when they don't.

Yes and no. If our best interests are involved, they have a duty NOT to tell us in some cases.

dukeuch

07-23-2003, 05:06 PM

Js:

My point is, if the administration is too uninformed, we should not go to war. If they were grossly mistaken, the incompetents responsible should be fired/punished. If they were puposely lying, ostensibly becuase the Ameerican people would not have supported a war givne the truth, they should be held accountable, and not trusted again.

Regarding the budget, don't confuse budget deficit with national debt, it's not always going up (at least until Bush took over). Clinton produced budget surpluses. Bush inherited the surplus, and forecasted a surplus in his first budget. So, how did we get into a deficit situation under a Republican Administration, Republican Senate, Republican House, enacting huge tax cuts primarily for the wealthy? Hmmm....

NamVet4

07-24-2003, 07:44 AM

Originally posted by TexSkin
As grandpa simpson says "dam those deminicrats!" :D
Granpa be the man !

http://supak.com/simpsons/abe_simpson.gif

Spence

07-24-2003, 10:22 AM

JSARNO: Yes, you did get specific about the administration illegally "outing" an existing CIA agent. You wrote:

I'm sure there are other problems inside the white house bigger than this.

You wrote nothing else. Plainly, you don't consider this illegal behavior important or you would have written something more than a curt dismissal of the news. You have every right to not care about this felony, but don't deny you wrote what you did when I note your lack of concern. You cannot be clearly unconcerned in one and then deny you were unconcerned in another post. The truth does not work that way.

You wrote that the government has a right to do whatever it likes because people are too stupid and ignorant to be informed. You also typed that you think George W Bush is doing a great job and you typed: My mentality is "do what it takes" and they are. (makes you proud to be an american)

Now it is perfectly legal to hold such views, but don't then tell me it is not fair to characterize your viewpoint as supporting whatever Mr Bush does because Mr Bush is doing it. That [I]is your viewpoint. You're welcome to it, but don't deny it because it is an obvious fact.

Finally, you are on the record repeatedly arguing for laws banning gay sex. If gay sex is illegal then it is reasonable--indeed, obvious--that gays would go to jail for having gay sex. have been going to jail, which is why the case wound up in the Supreme Court in the first place.] Therefore, my point is that you care deeply about whether or not consenting gays are having sex with each other in the privacy of their own homes, but you don't care if the government is lying to its "stupid" and "ignorant" people. Those are your words, JSARNO. If you don't like them blame yourself, not me. All I did was point it out.

Spence

07-24-2003, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by jsarno
I am responding to this via PM as it does not belong here.

I'll address it here.

Here is what I typed:

If you really loved America you'd let Bush do anything he wants!* Why do you hate America, you librulcommiepinko?!

*Like Jsarno, for example.

As you can clearly see, the asterisk is placed after the sentence which ends "you'd let Bush do anything he wants!" Therefore, the asterisk refers to that sentence, not the following one. Nobody would call you a "librulcommiepinko," JSARNO. I think your view of democracy are awful and very un-American, but I don't think you hate America. You probably love America, you just don't like democracy.

Therefore, as noted, my post meant that you, JSARNO, want to let Mr Bush do anything he wants. That's a point I made in the preceding post and I stand by it because the evidence of your own words proves it.

jsarno

08-05-2003, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by Spence
JSARNO: Yes, you did get specific about the administration illegally "outing" an existing CIA agent. You wrote:

You wrote nothing else. Plainly, you don't consider this illegal behavior important or you would have written something more than a curt dismissal of the news. You have every right to not care about this felony, but don't deny you wrote what you did when I note your lack of concern. You cannot be clearly unconcerned in one and then deny you were unconcerned in another post. The truth does not work that way.

You wrote that the government has a right to do whatever it likes because people are too stupid and ignorant to be informed. [I wish you'd speak only for yourself when typing such things.] You also typed that you think George W Bush is doing a great job and you typed: My mentality is "do what it takes" and they are. (makes you proud to be an american)

Now it is perfectly legal to hold such views, but don't then tell me it is not fair to characterize your viewpoint as supporting whatever Mr Bush does because Mr Bush is doing it. That is your viewpoint. You're welcome to it, but don't deny it because it is an obvious fact.

Finally, you are on the record repeatedly arguing for laws banning gay sex. If gay sex is illegal then it is reasonable--indeed, obvious--that gays would go to jail for having gay sex. have been going to jail, which is why the case wound up in the Supreme Court in the first place.] Therefore, my point is that you care deeply about whether or not consenting gays are having sex with each other in the privacy of their own homes, but you don't care if the government is lying to its "stupid" and "ignorant" people. Those are your words, JSARNO. If you don't like them blame yourself, not me. All I did was point it out.

I stand firm on banning gay sex mainly because of what it says about our country / society...I have said NUMEROUS times I could care less what they do behind closed doors (a point you seem to ignore), but it's the principle and the direction this country is heading in that makes that law important to keep on the books.

Actually, those are the countries words...find an explanation about (for instance) the electoral college, and you will find those words used as a reasoning. I do agree though. Only about 5-10% of the country is educated enough to understand the demand on government as a protector and as a cheat. Most people are just too plain ignorant, and it works for them...but I guarentee you if you tell them EVERYTHING that goes on, we'd be in a world of shit. If you feel that you are not part of this population, then feel free to ignore it. (even Abe Lincoln touched upon it back in his day)
My question to you is this: Would you have rather the Hussien brothers still be in power? Would you rather Iraq generate those weapons of mass destruction? (to use on us of course) Would you have rather had your family poisoned or killed eventually by this nutt and his followers to ensure "proper proceedure" was followed?
If you think the country was not informed about all this you crack me up. Maybe they did "embelish" a little to get others to side with us, but the fight was important. President haters come out of the wood works this time of year (election time), and it's funny how Bush was around 80+% approval before the democrats started getting thier hat in the ring. It's an ugly cycle, but there is no democrat, nor republican that can do a better job than what GW is already doing.
It's not your fault you see things the way you do...the papers / news stations in the DC area are quite persuasive. The hardest place to be objective is in the middle of a situation.
If you think we have a true democracy think again. You can't even cuss in public (just words...or freedom of speech). Just think of ALL the infrictions on your freedom and tell me if it's democracy! Sure it's a mild form of it, but you keep saying I'm against it. For the record we have the best damn country in the world, but we have too many PC followers messing it up.
Fact is, if we become a completely 100% democracy then the people would become even more evil than they are (as a whole). Once you take God out of a country, it's doomed. History has taught us this time and time again, yet we are ridding this great country of God...good luck. Hopefully I'll be dead before it catches up with us.
The country has gone from "one nation under God" to "One nation out for themselves...sue if need be".

dukeuch

08-05-2003, 12:09 PM

JS:

Now you are making no sense at all, even in the context of your own arguements.

If you tell them everything it's a problem? Nobody expects to hear "everything", but in going to war, people do have a right to know why, (the truth, not a false explanation becuase it is more likely to garner support) when it is going to cost lives, and a tremendous amount of money. The main reasons given were WMD and links to terrorism, both of which have yet to be anywhere close to proven, despite assurances that proof was at hand and would be revealed at the right time. Face it, THEY LIED.

I'm glad Hussien is gone (maybe) but never thought he in any way threatened me, my family, or the U.S. If he had WMD, why didn't he use them against us in the war?

Can't cuss in public, where did you get that, or is it some moldy old law like the one against sodomy which is only occasionally enforced? I cuss in public all the time (unfortunately).

What does the electoral college have to do with any of this, except that becuase of it the minority vote getter won the last election?

And by the way, couldn't Bush's drop in approval ratings, just maybe, be as a result of the puyblic becoming aware of the massive and total deciept perpetrated by the admin, or perhaps the fact that now that the war is over, everyone is aware that in a very short time this administration has taken us from a budget surpluss to deficit while at the same time cutting taxes, the benefits of which are disproportionately enjoyed by the wealthy? Or maybe that now, the civil liberties we professed to defend and hopefully engender in Iraq are subserviant to the Patriot Act, which allows government agencies to act without the binds of due process, or even a reviewable probable cause? Man, THAT is an infraction against our freedom (which you seem to have problems with) perpetrated by the administration you support for doing the right thing even if they have "embelish". WHere is the logic/consistency in your argument(s)?

Man, this administration reminds me of Nixon, who basically felt whatever he did was ok because he was right, COnstitution be dammed.

jsarno

08-05-2003, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by dukeuch
JS:

Now you are making no sense at all, even in the context of your own arguements.

They are exactly the same...please follow along.

If you tell them everything it's a problem? Nobody expects to hear "everything", but in going to war, people do have a right to know why, (the truth, not a false explanation becuase it is more likely to garner support) when it is going to cost lives, and a tremendous amount of money. The main reasons given were WMD and links to terrorism, both of which have yet to be anywhere close to proven, despite assurances that proof was at hand and would be revealed at the right time. Face it, THEY LIED.
They did find makings for WMD, just because they didn't find a big missle with the words "FU AMERICA" doesn't mean they were not there.
Who says people have a right to know why? We vote for politicians to make those decisions...we do not need to be informed 100%. Fact is, we NEEDED to go, if he didn't embelish a little, we would have never gone...is that what you wanted?

I'm glad Hussien is gone (maybe) but never thought he in any way threatened me, my family, or the U.S. If he had WMD, why didn't he use them against us in the war?

Funny that's the same thing the people at the WTC said too.
There is a reason we have insurance, and alarms on our house...and smoke detectors...to protect us from the evil. This is the same principle.
ps- do you remember the Gulf war, and the "gulf war syndrome"? It was clear chemicals were used. We were better prepared this time around. Who said they were not used?

Can't cuss in public, where did you get that, or is it some moldy old law like the one against sodomy which is only occasionally enforced? I cuss in public all the time (unfortunately).

You have clearly missed the MASSIVE amounts of fines handed out in the Chicago area (for instance) due to cussing in public. San Fran has similar laws. (funny...it's ok to endure man on man action in that city...but damn it, don't cuss!)

What does the electoral college have to do with any of this, except that becuase of it the minority vote getter won the last election?

If you followed along, the electoral college was brought up as a point. Why is it in affect? (do some research as to why it is here, and if you look in the old history books, not the new PC ones, it would say because the general public is not smart enough to pick the right candidate.

And by the way, couldn't Bush's drop in approval ratings, just maybe, be as a result of the puyblic becoming aware of the massive and total deciept perpetrated by the admin, or perhaps the fact that now that the war is over, everyone is aware that in a very short time this administration has taken us from a budget surpluss to deficit while at the same time cutting taxes, the benefits of which are disproportionately enjoyed by the wealthy?

a lot to comment on here. Yes, it is "possible", but I doubt it since it's happened to every president since I've been alive.
The Budget was poor when he got in, I don't know who told you there was a surplus.
About the taxes...number 1, I got a $600 check back from George. #2- the wealthy endure disproportionate taxes anyway. The more you make, the more (percentage wise) taxes take. Is that fair? Is it fair that a man earns more money, so he should be penalized? GW only gave a small break to them, not what they deserve. The attitude, "well they are rich they can afford it" does not sit well with me. That is discrimination. We should all pay the EXACT SAME AMOUNT.

Or maybe that now, the civil liberties we professed to defend and hopefully engender in Iraq are subserviant to the Patriot Act, which allows government agencies to act without the binds of due process, or even a reviewable probable cause?
Whether any of you want to see the probable cause or not...it was there. Did he embelish in order to work fast, YES...was it in the best interest of this country...100% NO DOUBT! Just because a few feel they were not informed enough doesn't mean it makes it wrong.

Man, THAT is an infraction against our freedom (which you seem to have problems with) perpetrated by the administration you support for doing the right thing even if they have "embelish". WHere is the logic/consistency in your argument(s)?

Where is it against our freedom? Did you not vote those people in office to make choices? We don't have a say in this whether you like it or not. Our freedom was in no way comprimised. In fact, MORE freedom has been given to us thanks to this move. You might not be able to see it right now, but it's there.

Man, this administration reminds me of Nixon, who basically felt whatever he did was ok because he was right, COnstitution be dammed.

First off, Nixon was a very good president. He let his power go to his head and tried to basically cheat his way to another election, thus the impeachment.
Bush will never get that kind of treatment because of the good that came out of it. Some times you have to bend to law to make it work right. Do I agree this should be the case in every instance? Absolutely not. But everyone was playing with their dicks about this, meanwhile Iraq was going into hiding. If we were allowed to go in immediately, then this would be no issue.

dukeuch

08-05-2003, 01:20 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jsarno
[B]They are exactly the same...please follow along.

[b]
They did find makings for WMD, just because they didn't find a big missle with the words "FU AMERICA" doesn't mean they were not there.
JS, you are sooooo out to lunch. Let me address a few of your points:

1) you are right, we do elect officials to represent us, but in the matter of war, they are Congressmen, and they unfortunatley had to depend on the admins word (not proof) on WMD and terrorist ties.

2) Dude, I was in the WTC, 20th Floor North when it was hit, so ask me. I do not believe Hussien had anything to do with it because I have not seen any evidence. I only wish we were spending $4 billion/month tracking down Bin Laden and his organization rather than pretending we are doing so in Iraq.

3) Never said Hussien did not have chemical weapons in 1991, only that he didn't have them in 2002/03.

4) Smoke detectors to "protect us from evil"? Fire is an inanimant object, energy. It is not "evil".

5) Who told me we had a budget surplus? Bush, in his first budget upon becoming president. I tried to explain to you once before the difference between budget surplus/deficit and national debt. FIgure it out before you comment on it again please.

6) How is our freedom compromised by the Patriot Act? Well, there have been a few unfortunate soles of Middle Eastern descent who have or are being held without a lawyer, without charges, without probable cause, without a judge affriming probable cause, for as long as the government sees fit. And if you don't think your privacy has been put in jeapordy...

7) Nixon was a good president? Should have figured that you'd think so given the similarities between his promotion of the war in Vietnam and Bush's in Iraq.

jsarno

08-06-2003, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by dukeuch

JS, you are sooooo out to lunch. Let me address a few of your points:

I can feel this turning into more of an argument than whitty conversation, and information being shared, so I will try to take it down a notch.

1) you are right, we do elect officials to represent us, but in the matter of war, they are Congressmen, and they unfortunatley had to depend on the admins word (not proof) on WMD and terrorist ties.

Are you trying to say that the ONLY person informed is the president. The only people that were "embelished" is NATO.

2) Dude, I was in the WTC, 20th Floor North when it was hit, so ask me. I do not believe Hussien had anything to do with it because I have not seen any evidence. I only wish we were spending $4 billion/month tracking down Bin Laden and his organization rather than pretending we are doing so in Iraq.
Glad you got out alright.
I'm sorry you feel that way...I have no doubt that Bin Laden and Hussien are in some form of partner hood.

3) Never said Hussien did not have chemical weapons in 1991, only that he didn't have them in 2002/03.

This is where you need to use your head a little. If he used it over a decade ago, don't you think he'd use it again, AND have stronger weapons? We were just smarter than him this time.

4) Smoke detectors to "protect us from evil"? Fire is an inanimant object, energy. It is not "evil".

Did you catch the others...that was just to prove a point.

5) Who told me we had a budget surplus? Bush, in his first budget upon becoming president. I tried to explain to you once before the difference between budget surplus/deficit and national debt. FIgure it out before you comment on it again please.

I still see a direct correlation between the two...I know what the difference is, but does it really matter?

6) How is our freedom compromised by the Patriot Act? Well, there have been a few unfortunate soles of Middle Eastern descent who have or are being held without a lawyer, without charges, without probable cause, without a judge affriming probable cause, for as long as the government sees fit. And if you don't think your privacy has been put in jeapordy...
1- since when do we need to "protect the world"? Think I care about people from another country?
2- How is this "OUR" freedom. I don't plan to go to Iraq or any other place...I don't EVER leave the country, in fact when I flew back from Boston the other day, the plane flew over Mexico and I was pissed. It's funny you didn't comment on the "freedoms" of cussing, and getting fined etc. Or how about the laws that prevent us from using cell phones in cars? Is that not a freedom? Many states now hold these laws. Is it protecting? or is it infringing on rights?

7) Nixon was a good president? Should have figured that you'd think so given the similarities between his promotion of the war in Vietnam and Bush's in Iraq.

First off, there are not that many similarities between Vietnam and Iraq...far off even. Second, I'm not too sure about the reasoning behind Nixon's decision. So I can't truly comment on it. But that decision should not completely sour his presidentcy.
ps- I'm against everything we get into that doesn't DIRECTLY affect the US. So I was against Vietnam, Korea etc. I am NOT against the Iraqi war. It is very important that we stay in this until it is done.

It appears we are both steadfast in our arguments. I can completely understand what you are saying. I just feel it's more narrow minded. That's nothing against you or a put down. We are just on complete opposite sides of the fence. I respect that, and I respect your opinion.

dukeuch

08-06-2003, 10:22 AM

Ok, response by memory to a couple of things:

1) Why do you believe there is a connection between bin-Laden and Hussien? I can think of only two reasons; they are both bad guys, and becuase the administration at one time said so (without offering proof). The admin has never produced anything that shows the link, except that some of bin-laden's operatives were in the country at one time or another. by that logic, the U.S. is in cahoots too, b/c they 9/11 attackers lived, were trained, etc. here, which is of course preposterous.

2) The budget deficits and national debt are linked: when we run a deficit it adds to the debt. Theoretically, we can use surpluses to reduce debt. It matters because Bush choose to use surpluses to reduce taxes instead, and now because of his policies (remember, he has a Republican Congress now) we are in a deficit situation, WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE COST OF THE WAR, WHICH IS $4 BILLION/MONTH.

You are right, we will never agree, but I do try to point to specific facts in support of my position, or lack of same to oppose the admins, and apparently yours.

I'm going to have to leave this forum and return to happier topics, like the 'Skins (hopefuly).

dukeuch

08-06-2003, 10:28 AM

JS:

Oh yeah, I'm not trying to say Vietnam and Iraq were similar wars, just that the Prez's/admins propensity to lie about what they knew, didn't know, misinformation (or gross miscalculation) about cost's, benefits, etc. as a means of garnering support are similar.

As far as supporting only wars which protect US interests, all I can say for sure is that we are protecting our oil supplies. Hussien was a menace to his own people, not us. There is no demonstrable link between him and Al Quaida (as opposed to our ally Saudia Arabia).

And when I'm talking about people of middle eastern descent, I am talking aobut people in the U.S., not abroad, including U.S. citizens (just because their name is Al-something, does not mean they are not Americans).

jsarno

08-06-2003, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by dukeuch
JS:

Oh yeah, I'm not trying to say Vietnam and Iraq were similar wars, just that the Prez's/admins propensity to lie about what they knew, didn't know, misinformation (or gross miscalculation) about cost's, benefits, etc. as a means of garnering support are similar.

Ok, I can agree with that.

As far as supporting only wars which protect US interests, all I can say for sure is that we are protecting our oil supplies. Hussien was a menace to his own people, not us. There is no demonstrable link between him and Al Quaida (as opposed to our ally Saudia Arabia).

I do agree that Oil interests are high, but I do not agree about link between Hussien and Al Quaida. To me it's common sense. I understand that all proof has been hearsay and not beyond a shadow of a doubt. The indirect proof is overwhelming.

And when I'm talking about people of middle eastern descent, I am talking aobut people in the U.S., not abroad, including U.S. citizens (just because their name is Al-something, does not mean they are not Americans).

ok, maybe I need this explained...are you saying that we (USA) are falsly imprisoning US CITIZENS because of thier race?

jsarno

08-06-2003, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by dukeuch
Ok, response by memory to a couple of things:

1) Why do you believe there is a connection between bin-Laden and Hussien? I can think of only two reasons; they are both bad guys, and becuase the administration at one time said so (without offering proof). The admin has never produced anything that shows the link, except that some of bin-laden's operatives were in the country at one time or another. by that logic, the U.S. is in cahoots too, b/c they 9/11 attackers lived, were trained, etc. here, which is of course preposterous.

Do you not recall the numerous people dancing in the streets of iraq when the WTC went down??? i do. Not that that is proof enough, but intellegence has given documents about money transferring out of Hussien's account to known Al Quaida operatives. I find it extremely obtuse to think this is a small operation.

2) The budget deficits and national debt are linked: when we run a deficit it adds to the debt. Theoretically, we can use surpluses to reduce debt. It matters because Bush choose to use surpluses to reduce taxes instead, and now because of his policies (remember, he has a Republican Congress now) we are in a deficit situation, WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE COST OF THE WAR, WHICH IS $4 BILLION/MONTH.

but so what? #1- my taxes were less, which I needed. #2- the country has been in national debt for decades and decades and decades. Do you really think it matters? It's not going to come down. A LOT of other countries still owe us lots of money that we will never see. If we collected on that debt we might not have a debt. So, answer me this...if we're in such a HUGE debt for decades, who's collecting and who do we owe?

I'm going to have to leave this forum and return to happier topics, like the 'Skins (hopefuly).

That's too bad. I had a feeling since you were ignoring my very valid points and going down other avenues that you were gtting too annoyed to stay. Kind of like an argument of saying "BECAUSE I SAY SO". I'm not arguing any specific facts, but your (in my opinion) misguided opinion. You are totally entitled to your opinion, that's what makes these discussions fun. Not everyone can be dead on.

dukeuch

08-06-2003, 01:03 PM

First off, I remember pictures of people dancing in the streets of lots of Arab nations (Saudi Arabia included). It sucked, but I count that as they hate us (not entirely without cause given the history of our involvement in the area) not as a sign that they provided direct assistance.

There have been lots of claims that money left Saddam's account to al quaida operatives, but to my knowledge there has been no proof offered. I do know that a Saudi/Al Quaida link has been proven (which the admin has expunged from the recent report on the causes/failures on 9/11) however they are an ally, which certainly complicates the situation. Listen, I'd love it if the admin spent their time and our $ on finding bin-boy and al q, which we know to be responsible for 9/11, and apparently attacked yesterday, instead of Saddam/Iraq.

Yeah, your taxes are going down, but so are our schools (overcrowded classrooms, canceling sports, music, etc. crappy teacher's salary), libraries, water and air quality, health care, you name it. I really get pissed about education. bush puts forth his "no child left behind" program, then refuses to fund it. I truly beleive that our schools would be in fine shape if 1) Teachers got paid a decent salary, and/or 2) They were given a decent environment (school condition, class size, etc.) to teach in. Right now both are abysmal.

Yeah, I'm frustrated, but mostly becuase of the ungodly amount of time I spend arguing in this forum, I work at home and it is literaly costing me too much $. Once I get going...

jsarno

08-06-2003, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by dukeuch
First off, I remember pictures of people dancing in the streets of lots of Arab nations (Saudi Arabia included). It sucked, but I count that as they hate us (not entirely without cause given the history of our involvement in the area) not as a sign that they provided direct assistance.

again...I have said there is no DIRECT proof...just overwhelming indirect proof. It comes down to matter of opinion. I can't ignore all the small things.

There have been lots of claims that money left Saddam's account to al quaida operatives, but to my knowledge there has been no proof offered.

Do you think these rumors wold start for no apparent reason without ANY cause whatsoever? Say what you will about Bush and his embelishment, but he had a foundation for his thoughts, just as there is a strong foundation linking Hussien to al quaida.

Listen, I'd love it if the admin spent their time and our $ on finding bin-boy and al q, which we know to be responsible for 9/11, and apparently attacked yesterday, instead of Saddam/Iraq.
I totally agree about Bin Laden, but I think you're asking for trouble to ignore Hussien. Both need to be dead.

Yeah, your taxes are going down, but so are our schools (overcrowded classrooms, canceling sports, music, etc. crappy teacher's salary), libraries, water and air quality, health care, you name it. I really get pissed about education. bush puts forth his "no child left behind" program, then refuses to fund it. I truly beleive that our schools would be in fine shape if 1) Teachers got paid a decent salary, and/or 2) They were given a decent environment (school condition, class size, etc.) to teach in. Right now both are abysmal.

Funny, cause New Mexico has hired the largest amount of teachers this state has ever seen, and they got a 6% raise this year. The sports that have been cancelled are college sports that do not create revenue.
Also, the towns that may be having trouble are due to the local economy. The state of New Mexico is flourishing, a large part is the extra government funding.
I find it hard to believe that other states are suffering unless from their own doing. The government has helped New Mexico, but not other states?????? (this could be...I only know about New Mexico though)

Yeah, I'm frustrated, but mostly becuase of the ungodly amount of time I spend arguing in this forum, I work at home and it is literaly costing me too much $. Once I get going...

I understand...I'm only on this site while I'm working. I try not to let it consume me, otherwise it will take up ALL your time. (like texskin) :lol1:

dukeuch

08-06-2003, 03:59 PM

js:

No offense, but if you think sports programs, music classes, gym classes, etc. are only being cancelled at the college level, you simply do not know what you are talking about. It is happening all over the place in all kinds of public schools (priamry and secondary, not college).

ANd yes, PROOF is needed in something so important as war. It is, in my opinion, like a criminal trial, beyond a shadow of a doubt. Where do the rumors come from? It's obvious, those who want to go to war w/Iraq, the administration. What, all you need is for "someone" to start a rumor and that's enough?

I remember back during the first Gulf War, when it was widely advertised that Iraqi soldiers were ripping babies out of incubators by the hundreds and "leaving them on the floor to die."
Bush Sr. proclaimed so and attributed it to an exiled Iraqi mother. Problem was, it was totally false. the "mother" turned out to be an exiled Iraqi's daughter with ties to the administration.

jsarno

08-06-2003, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by dukeuch
js:

No offense, but if you think sports programs, music classes, gym classes, etc. are only being cancelled at the college level, you simply do not know what you are talking about. It is happening all over the place in all kinds of public schools (priamry and secondary, not college).

What part of "this is what is happening in New Mexico" didn't you understand. Obviously I've already said I do not know about the other states, nor do you other than your state. If you do know otherwise, provide a link.
I have HEARD of other states (texas) dropping programs due to lack of INTEREST, not funding.

ANd yes, PROOF is needed in something so important as war. It is, in my opinion, like a criminal trial, beyond a shadow of a doubt. Where do the rumors come from? It's obvious, those who want to go to war w/Iraq, the administration. What, all you need is for "someone" to start a rumor and that's enough?

This is what I mean about you...you totally ignored my foundation argument and rambled on. Probably because your mind doesn't want to recognize that could possibly be right. You know as well as I do that there was no "small rumor", it was widely thought.

I remember back during the first Gulf War, when it was widely advertised that Iraqi soldiers were ripping babies out of incubators by the hundreds and "leaving them on the floor to die."
Bush Sr. proclaimed so and attributed it to an exiled Iraqi mother. Problem was, it was totally false. the "mother" turned out to be an exiled Iraqi's daughter with ties to the administration.

This is completely irrelevant to this conversation due to the fact that THAT rumor (I'll take your word that it's true cause I don't remember that) DID NOT enter us into war.
There aer always small rumors like that around, then there are investigations. With the investigation the white house made into Hussien were fundamentally sound. Embelished...YES, but they needed the approval to move forward.
No one will argue that we shouldn't be there trying to defeat Hussien, so what's the point of arguing about this...why does it even matter? It's clear we need to be there, so end of discussion. Why stir up trouble??? (election maybe?) (ps-I understand it's not YOU stirring up trouble, you're just an innocent bystander influenced by democratic propaganda.)

dukeuch

08-06-2003, 04:26 PM

js:

So far, the only indirect proof you have offered is the administrations say so, and people dancing in the street. Show me ONE thing besides a predispostion to believe it is so.

Concerning "democratic" influence, damn straight. I prefer my info from bright people, not space cases like Rush "if the polar caps melt, the sea level will stay the same just like a glass of ice water" Limbaugh and Newt "family values" G ("Honey, can you hear me? Sign this divorce".) God help us if Newt finds his way back into power. Who the hell is supporting this guy's reserrection? Not the dems, I assure you.

jsarno

08-06-2003, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by dukeuch
js:

So far, the only indirect proof you have offered is the administrations say so, and people dancing in the street. Show me ONE thing besides a predispostion to believe it is so.
If there was concrete paper proof, then it wouldn't be "indirect" would it?

Concerning "democratic" influence, damn straight. I prefer my info from bright people, not space cases like Rush "if the polar caps melt, the sea level will stay the same just like a glass of ice water" Limbaugh and Newt "family values" G ("Honey, can you hear me? Sign this divorce".) God help us if Newt finds his way back into power. Who the hell is supporting this guy's reserrection? Not the dems, I assure you.

Actually I believe I said democratic proganda, not influence. Like I said before, this junk always surfaces around election time. As the world turns!
I will TOTALLY agree with the other comments though. I assure you I am not supporting him either. (you are assuming I am republican because of my support of Bush.)

dukeuch

08-06-2003, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by jsarno
If there was concrete paper proof, then it wouldn't be "indirect" would it?

[b]

Actually I believe I said democratic proganda, not influence. Like I said before, this junk always surfaces around election time. As the world turns!
I will TOTALLY agree with the other comments though. I assure you I am not supporting him either. (you are assuming I am republican because of my support of Bush.)

you may not support these other guys, but in Newt's case, there are already rumblings that the admin (if not Bush, his staff, adn who is responsible for them?) set the rumor that Powell's wife want him to resign (Powell's wife is apprently livid someone said this). The idea is to start the slide out the guy with the most integrity of the bunch. And Newt is one of those supposedly being groomed. Mind you, this is not fact, but I will be a lot less surprised if that happens than if we find WMD in Iraq. Remember, these are the guys who called people traitors, or worse, for opposing the war.

And I always distrust the republicans in general, it has nothing to do with "election time". I base it on the fact that generally I disagree with republican policies, and feel that on the whole, republican politicians are less trustworthy and more hypocritical than dems. My opinion.

jsarno

08-06-2003, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by dukeuch
you may not support these other guys, but in Newt's case, there are already rumblings that the admin (if not Bush, his staff, adn who is responsible for them?) set the rumor that Powell's wife want him to resign (Powell's wife is apprently livid someone said this). The idea is to start the slide out the guy with the most integrity of the bunch. And Newt is one of those supposedly being groomed. Mind you, this is not fact, but I will be a lot less surprised if that happens than if we find WMD in Iraq. Remember, these are the guys who called people traitors, or worse, for opposing the war.

And I always distrust the republicans in general, it has nothing to do with "election time". I base it on the fact that generally I disagree with republican policies, and feel that on the whole, republican politicians are less trustworthy and more hypocritical than dems. My opinion.

Even though I am not a republican I see that as the complete opposite, and it's not just because of Clinton and his terrible personal life.
Fact is, in order to be a politician you need to have a prerequisite of cheating or lieing. So it's pretty safe not to trust any of them. Yo can't trust any ONE of them, but as a whole, they are fairly safe. (there are always those few that still believe in telling the truth, and they usuall have the research done to seek the truth.)

dukeuch

08-07-2003, 06:59 AM

Originally posted by jsarno
Even though I am not a republican I see that as the complete opposite, and it's not just because of Clinton and his terrible personal life.
Fact is, in order to be a politician you need to have a prerequisite of cheating or lieing. So it's pretty safe not to trust any of them. Yo can't trust any ONE of them, but as a whole, they are fairly safe. (there are always those few that still believe in telling the truth, and they usuall have the research done to seek the truth.)

Yeah, I try to be pretty skeptical about how much of any govt/admin to believe, but stubbornly hold that many politicians operate within the boundries of the truth. I suppose it is hypocritical to say, but if a demo is lying/cheating in support of policies I believe in, I am disapointed but at least can support the cause.

Regarding CLinton (I can't believe people still talk abou all that) I really have no problem seperating his personal indiscretions from his public governing. The whole sex scandal thing was brought about by an investigation into Whitewater, which could not turn up any proof of malfeasance despit years of inquiry and tens (hundreds?) of millions of dollars spent. Personally, I'm much more ticked off when a pres lies about arming terrorists by selling drugs (Reagan in Nicaragua) trading arms and intelligence for hostages (Reagan again) or stealing an election (could you imagine if the repubs got screwed like Gore did, losing a state where the dems candidate's brother was the governor? The hearings would still be going on).

Later.

jsarno

08-08-2003, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by dukeuch
I really get pissed about education. bush puts forth his "no child left behind" program, then refuses to fund it. I truly beleive that our schools would be in fine shape if 1) Teachers got paid a decent salary, and/or 2) They were given a decent environment (school condition, class size, etc.) to teach in. Right now both are abysmal.

not to drudge up old news but:
I just saw a report on California's education this mornign on the news. Not only has thier financial support gone up, but test scores are up 23%.
That's TWO states that I have heard of (2 of 2) that have recieved funding and done better.
I also HEARD (but through word of mouth) that Mass. also had a similar outcome.
Are you sure you're not being bamboozled by democratic propaganda on this one?

dukeuch

08-08-2003, 10:04 AM

JS:

I am sure there are many success stories. It appears, by the way, that the successes you are quoting are due to increased state funding (which obviously means higher state taxes, the money has to come form somewhere) which I applaud. It does not have to do with federal funding. I would love to take a look at the references you are getting this info from, though.

ANd no, it is not demo propaganda. In lots of schools, particularly urban, class sizes are 50% higher than they should be. Music rooms, janitors closets, hallways, etc are used to hold classes. There are some schools in NYC that are still heated with coal furnaces. It should be very easy to get mean/median teacher salary info. I'll bet their annual salary is no more that the monthly salary of the taxpayers who benefit most from the recent tax cuts.

jsarno

08-08-2003, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by dukeuch
JS:
I am sure there are many success stories. It appears, by the way, that the successes you are quoting are due to increased state funding (which obviously means higher state taxes, the money has to come form somewhere) which I applaud. It does not have to do with federal funding. I would love to take a look at the references you are getting this info from, though.

It was on the news like I said, so I do not have a link. I am quite positive they said federal funding, but I'm sure they could have use state funding.
You are also dancing on a slipery slope. Isn't it more the responsibility of the state to make thier own schools better. Granted Bush said "no child left behind", but as I can see, there have been 3 states (2 for sure) that have gotten funding. So where did you get your info that these states are NOT getting funded?

ANd no, it is not demo propaganda. In lots of schools, particularly urban, class sizes are 50% higher than they should be. Music rooms, janitors closets, hallways, etc are used to hold classes. There are some schools in NYC that are still heated with coal furnaces. It should be very easy to get mean/median teacher salary info. I'll bet their annual salary is no more that the monthly salary of the taxpayers who benefit most from the recent tax cuts.

I don't doubt that, but if you gathered up all those cities that are overcrowded, I'd bet you find that the state funds the suburbs more than the inner cities. This is not a reflection upon the federal government, but local state economies.
ps- I wish I was a teacher here, 1- they force you to get your masters degree, 2- you make no less than 40k a year. (the average salary in Carlsbad, New Mexico is about 15-19k a year. I know several teachers that make over 60k a year. (DOUBLE what I make). My mother in Law is a principal at an elementary School here, and trust me, she is MORE than well compensated. Let's not forget they only work 9-10 months of the year too. So even if they do have a 'normal monthly salary", it's still above average since they have at least 2 months off.
Also, it might be possible that the worst states got the most funding. Worst states being those of lower test scores. New Mexico was in the bottom 10%, so maybe the funding went to those states as a priority.

dalpumpkin

08-16-2003, 02:43 AM

It is very good your take of facts!

Hey can you and Spence name one issue the people should go for?

I mean the whole world and Saddam is great thing is one thing, But lets be real.

I would just love for you two experts to tell us all the truth. I'm sure you two get the intell briefs, and can exsplain why so many in the party againts Bush voted for the same thing.

Hell I'm sure you two can tell us more on how the son's and daughters of America can't do there job fast enough for you.

Hey is it to much to ask you people who demand fast results, Name what country or whatever had fact on Saddam not having these weopons? I mean it is easy for all to see the free world along with the U.N. of free crumb beggers all agree and had proof of these weapons.

I guess we should all like war only when it is for a issueless leader you guys like.

Spence and whoever, Bush is a liar, then prove it on facts, it is that simple. If you don't study enough to prove it, then you are the liar.

jsarno

08-16-2003, 09:21 AM

dukeuch

08-17-2003, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by dalpumpkin
It is very good your take of facts!

Hey can you and Spence name one issue the people should go for?

I mean the whole world and Saddam is great thing is one thing, But lets be real.

I would just love for you two experts to tell us all the truth. I'm sure you two get the intell briefs, and can exsplain why so many in the party againts Bush voted for the same thing.

Hell I'm sure you two can tell us more on how the son's and daughters of America can't do there job fast enough for you.

Hey is it to much to ask you people who demand fast results, Name what country or whatever had fact on Saddam not having these weopons? I mean it is easy for all to see the free world along with the U.N. of free crumb beggers all agree and had proof of these weapons.

I guess we should all like war only when it is for a issueless leader you guys like.

Spence and whoever, Bush is a liar, then prove it on facts, it is that simple. If you don't study enough to prove it, then you are the liar.

Hmmmm. Can't remember ever saying I supported Saddam, nor that I was unhappy with the "sons and daughters of America" (I believe you are talking about soldiers here?). In fact, I think I went on record that soldiers deserve a lot more support, salary wise as well as logistically in the theatre of action.

What I did say was that our administration overstated the case for war, claiming both the existence and will to use WMD against the US. So far, there does not seem to be any evidence of either, as no WMD have been found, and there is no claim that any have been used against us by Iraq. My point, oh deluded one, is that if Bush had said "I want to get rid of this bad guy Saddam becuase he is a brutal dictator, and all other brutal dictators, I would have said "what's it going to cost us, and if the cost is acceptable, let's go for it". I do not think, however, the general public would have supported the war on those terms, and perhaps reightfully so. ANd unfortunately, given soem of the needs in the US, the cost ($4.0 billion/month) seems a bit high, although we could not have known this, becuase the prez's advisors either lied or were grossly mistaken when they said tens of thousands of military personal would be required for a matter of months, rahter than hundreds of thousands over a period of years, wuold be needed to conquer, secure and rebuild Iraq.

IowaSkinsFan

08-18-2003, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by dukeuch
Ok, response by memory to a couple of things:

1) Why do you believe there is a connection between bin-Laden and Hussien? I can think of only two reasons; they are both bad guys, and becuase the administration at one time said so (without offering proof). The admin has never produced anything that shows the link, except that some of bin-laden's operatives were in the country at one time or another. by that logic, the U.S. is in cahoots too, b/c they 9/11 attackers lived, were trained, etc. here, which is of course preposterous.

Does anyone doubt that Hussein wants to inflict some type of serious pain or destruction on the United States? I think if he thought he could pull a 9/11 for himself, he would in a heartbeat.

The attached picture was found by the Marines in March of this year in an Iraqi Military HQ in Nasiriya and was photographed by Joe Raedle, a photo journalist accompanying the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force from Task Force Tarawa. It is unknown if it was painted before or after 9/11. Certainly if it can be determined it was painted before 9/11, I would think that would be the proof that you need to show that Saddam and Usama are buddies, although Extremist left Wingers would still try to deny it.

Take a good look at the picture. The planes are painted in the same color scheme as that of the Iraqi Airlines. If you look behind the second building, you will see a second plane approaching as the first slams into the building in the forefront. While it does not prove a connection pre 9/11 at this point, it certainly proves that Hussein was at the very least, celebrating what happened to us on 9/11. What kind of dispicable human being orders a painting to celebrate something like that? And we know Hussein ordered it painted, since no one in that country dropped a squirt of piss without asking.

Now you call George Bush all kinds of childish names like others at this site and call him a terrible President if it makes you feel better. But I have not heard of President Bush ordering anyone to creat a painting celebrating say........ the holocaust, which caused so many innocent people pain and suffering and loss.

That's what Hussein did. And I have no doubts that if he had the means and opportunity, he would do it in a heartbeat. You say the war wasn't necessary? When would you have liked to gone to war, after he constructed a weapon and used it? I don't know about you, Spence, PSF and the other Bush haters on this site, but I don't really care to see another plane flown into a building, or a car parked in front of the Whitehouse with a nuclear weapon in the trunk.

dukeuch

08-18-2003, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by robert11273
Does anyone doubt that Hussein wants to inflict some type of serious pain or destruction on the United States? I think if he thought he could pull a 9/11 for himself, he would in a heartbeat.

The attached picture was found by the Marines in March of this year in an Iraqi Military HQ in Nasiriya and was photographed by Joe Raedle, a photo journalist accompanying the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force from Task Force Tarawa. It is unknown if it was painted before or after 9/11. Certainly if it can be determined it was painted before 9/11, I would think that would be the proof that you need to show that Saddam and Usama are buddies, although Extremist left Wingers would still try to deny it.

Take a good look at the picture. The planes are painted in the same color scheme as that of the Iraqi Airlines. If you look behind the second building, you will see a second plane approaching as the first slams into the building in the forefront. While it does not prove a connection pre 9/11 at this point, it certainly proves that Hussein was at the very least, celebrating what happened to us on 9/11. What kind of dispicable human being orders a painting to celebrate something like that? And we know Hussein ordered it painted, since no one in that country dropped a squirt of piss without asking.

Now you call George Bush all kinds of childish names like others at this site and call him a terrible President if it makes you feel better. But I have not heard of President Bush ordering anyone to creat a painting celebrating say........ the holocaust, which caused so many innocent people pain and suffering and loss.

That's what Hussein did. And I have no doubts that if he had the means and opportunity, he would do it in a heartbeat. You say the war wasn't necessary? When would you have liked to gone to war, after he constructed a weapon and used it? I don't know about you, Spence, PSF and the other Bush haters on this site, but I don't really care to see another plane flown into a building, or a car parked in front of the Whitehouse with a nuclear weapon in the trunk.

You know, I seem to remember people dancing in the streets in Saudi Arabia, too, but we are not going to start moving in there, nor should we. Lots of people hate us, and hope us ill. Not a justification for invading or "proving" links to 9/11. Lots of world leaders would love to inflict damage on the US if they could get away with it, but that should not be a reason for invading either. I simply do not think the costs are worth the benefits.

Let's focus on those who we KNOW planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks.

jsarno

08-18-2003, 12:10 PM

very good post robert.

Let's not forget that Bush was not the only one linking hussien to bin laden. Mr. Colin Powell was a huge advocate of the links. (but of course no one will say Powell is a liar.)

jsarno

08-18-2003, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by dukeuch
Lots of world leaders would love to inflict damage on the US if they could get away with it, but that should not be a reason for invading either

but those known to want to hurt us is very good reason for invasion. No one doubts Hussien is crazy and would love to hurt us. We are "preventing" disaster instead of cleaning up a mess. Ever heard the phrase "better safe than sorry". Well, we were sorry in the 9/11 attacks, now we're being safe, and I'm damn glad we are.
I do fully agree we don't seem to be going after Bin Laden enoguh...unless of course, we are secretly going after him and it's just not being televised as much.

dukeuch

08-18-2003, 12:25 PM

jsarno

08-18-2003, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by dukeuch
Foreign leaders, no matter how crazy, are not going to be involved in attacks on the US. We are the 800 pound gorilla, and they know that if it can be proven they were involved, they will be wiped off the map. It happended to Hussien, a true bastard, even though there was not a link, except perhaps a link that both Al Quaida and Hussien hated the US. Personally, I don't think Hussien cared a rat's ass about the US. Dictators like him maintain power despite their abuses of their own people by fomenting anger against "the true enemy". The last thing Hussein wanted to do was get in a tangle with the US, because he would have known that that was just about the only way he would be swept from power.

then wouldn't it be wiser of him to keep a low profile and HIRE, or FINANCE an attack on the USA. That way he can turn around and say "it wasn't me"? Why would he just go out and say "yeah it was me"? Of course he's going to try to hide it.
I just find it hard to believe that all the military intellgence, and people "on the inside" said there was links but some aren't believing them. So what if it's bush's administration, it's not just Bush saying it.
By the way, I don't think we'd "wipe anyone off the planet" because of the repercussions. Other countries would feel it's ok to use WMD etc. We'd be opening a pandora's box.

jsarno

08-18-2003, 12:40 PM

I have to say though dukeuch, you put up a convincing argument, and it's a pleasure debating with you. (even if I don't see things your way) :D

dukeuch

08-18-2003, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by jsarno
then wouldn't it be wiser of him to keep a low profile and HIRE, or FINANCE an attack on the USA. That way he can turn around and say "it wasn't me"? Why would he just go out and say "yeah it was me"? Of course he's going to try to hide it.
I just find it hard to believe that all the military intellgence, and people "on the inside" said there was links but some aren't believing them. So what if it's bush's administration, it's not just Bush saying it.
By the way, I don't think we'd "wipe anyone off the planet" because of the repercussions. Other countries would feel it's ok to use WMD etc. We'd be opening a pandora's box.

Why can't it just be they guy, Bin-Laden, who ADMITS he planned/did it? Of course nobody is going to admit it if they want to be hidden, but it would be a huge risk to be involved given that the result could very well be your head on a platter.

As far as military intelligence, these guys have been hankerin' to wipe out Hussien since the Gulf War I. They have said as much throughout thed '90s. Why is it such a stretch to believe that, given their stated agenda, and the previously held notion that the US would not be involved in pre-emptive warfare, that they would not trump up such evidence?

IowaSkinsFan

08-19-2003, 01:46 AM

Originally posted by jsarno
but those known to want to hurt us is very good reason for invasion. No one doubts Hussien is crazy and would love to hurt us. We are "preventing" disaster instead of cleaning up a mess. Ever heard the phrase "better safe than sorry". Well, we were sorry in the 9/11 attacks, now we're being safe, and I'm damn glad we are.
I do fully agree we don't seem to be going after Bin Laden enoguh...unless of course, we are secretly going after him and it's just not being televised as much.

There are a couple reasons you are not hearing much about the hunt for bin Laden. The first is that we are, as everyone knows, involved in the hunt for Hussein in Iraq. We are also assisting the Iraqis in forming a new government, so we have a large military presence there, which means a large presence of the press, both US and international. Therefore, it is the Iraq situation that dominates the news on a daily basis. This is contrary to Afghanistan were we have a relatively small contingent of forces searching for bin Laden. This should in no way be construed to mean that we are not looking for him.

Another reason that you don't hear about the hunt for bin Laden is that it is more popular for the Left Wing to bash Bush and our role & rational for being in Iraq, since we are rapidly approaching the next election cycle. It would be counter productive to talk about the hunt for bin Laden as it would strengthen the administrations position of securing the safety of the country. The Left Wing does not want to talk about that as an issue.

Yet another reason you don't hear about it is the covert nature of the operations. We have operatives in Afghanistan who are passing themselves off as Afghanistans and to talk about the nature of those operations would risk their cover, hence the title of this thread.

dalpumpkin

08-19-2003, 01:51 AM

Spence and Dukeuch

First to spence, Uranium? When was that ever said for a reason on this war? Rush Limbaugh said it, the news said it, when did the white house give that as a reason? They may be what your looking for today, but if they found it would it be something different?

Lets go back to the state of the union and what was said. It was the fact Saddam had not complied with his surrender agreement and a list of U.N. found weapons that needed a reacord of destruction. Do you want Saddam in charge with his past reacord and the world to just let these quistions tossed under the table? If the U.N. had the stockpiles on reacord, are you saying he would rather lose all those nice living styles to just play the U.S. and it's allies for fools for gain?

What is fact is the house and senate of this nation voted for action on simple facts. No body ever said it was nuclear threat. The fact they did not live up to there surrender was enough plan and simple. That is the reason given in the stae of the union.

So you go pull down those facts. Where the U.N. reports false? Did Saddam comply fully? That is it nothing more nothing less.

Fact is guys, you both talk of military pay as if you care, why don't you ask the death of you countrymen for a cause of defending a invaded country be worth something.

I love it, you people go to oil and such. Neither one of you are without a car, a computer, and most likly that nice T.V. to watch your skins, and probably those cell phones and such. Yeah war is just for oil, amazing how all that say that live just like all the other consumers.

dukeuch

08-19-2003, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by dalpumpkin
Spence and Dukeuch

First to spence, Uranium? When was that ever said for a reason on this war? Rush Limbaugh said it, the news said it, when did the white house give that as a reason? They may be what your looking for today, but if they found it would it be something different?

Lets go back to the state of the union and what was said. It was the fact Saddam had not complied with his surrender agreement and a list of U.N. found weapons that needed a reacord of destruction. Do you want Saddam in charge with his past reacord and the world to just let these quistions tossed under the table? If the U.N. had the stockpiles on reacord, are you saying he would rather lose all those nice living styles to just play the U.S. and it's allies for fools for gain?

What is fact is the house and senate of this nation voted for action on simple facts. No body ever said it was nuclear threat. The fact they did not live up to there surrender was enough plan and simple. That is the reason given in the stae of the union.

So you go pull down those facts. Where the U.N. reports false? Did Saddam comply fully? That is it nothing more nothing less.

Fact is guys, you both talk of military pay as if you care, why don't you ask the death of you countrymen for a cause of defending a invaded country be worth something.

I love it, you people go to oil and such. Neither one of you are without a car, a computer, and most likly that nice T.V. to watch your skins, and probably those cell phones and such. Yeah war is just for oil, amazing how all that say that live just like all the other consumers.

UN reports said there was no evidence of the existence of wmd, just that they could not account for destruction of all that was once known to have been there.

The threat of a nuclear weapons program was given as a reason by the white house to go to war. The "yellowcake" BS was trotted out to "prove" there was a program in place, otherwise "why would they be seeking yellowcake" the admin reasoned. In case you have not noticed, a number of folks in the admin pointed out the the British Intelligence's claim was bogus. The culmination of the disengenious was when one guy, who really wanted mention of the yellowcake in the SOU asked if it would be accurate to say that the "British claimed the sale took place" despite the fact that it was bogus. It was obviously a strategy of presenting arguments supporting invasion based on info that they knew to be false, but still be albe to say that technically they did not lie. Doesn't it piss you off to be lied to like that?

Yeah, Saddam's a bastard. I am glad he's out. Maybe we could have done it like we did Taylor in Liberia. Might have taken more time, (might not have) and certainly would have cost fewr lives and $.

Fianlly, I am really confused about "why don't you ask the death of you countrymen for a cause of defending a invaded country be worth something". I don't know what this means. When I talk about military pay, I am recognizing the dangers and sacrifices soldiers make. I think they deserve a bigger slice of the pie as opposed to huge defense contractors who produce weapons systems of dubious value at reamendous cost. Got a problem with that?

jsarno

08-20-2003, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by dukeuch
Doesn't it piss you off to be lied to like that?

You keep saying that as if to say "it's 100% Bush". Fact is, if you're going to be angry, br angry with the entire government and the british government.
You've even joked about "recalling" Bush. Why don't we just completely redo all that are in government. Recall them all, and replace them.

dukeuch

08-20-2003, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by jsarno
You keep saying that as if to say "it's 100% Bush". Fact is, if you're going to be angry, br angry with the entire government and the british government.
You've even joked about "recalling" Bush. Why don't we just completely redo all that are in government. Recall them all, and replace them.

Because it was Bush and his cronies who were promising that there was proof. It was their agenda going back to 1991 to run out Saddam. Many senators, congressment, etc. doubted, but were continiously assured proof existed, and were painted as unpatriotic and/or weak on terrorism if they did not toe the line.

jsarno

08-20-2003, 02:09 PM

Paul Harvey on his radio show said that the recent UN bombing was "evidence Iraq has weapons of mass destruction".
Looks like Bush wasn't lieing after all huh?

Is an apology coming?

jsarno

08-20-2003, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by dukeuch
Because it was Bush and his cronies who were promising that there was proof.

This is where you are wrong. It wasn't JUST BUSH and his CRONIES. It was clear to all, and your best pal Colin Powell was a major factor.

dukeuch

08-20-2003, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by jsarno
Paul Harvey on his radio show said that the recent UN bombing was "evidence Iraq has weapons of mass destruction".
Looks like Bush wasn't lieing after all huh?

Is an apology coming?

Well, If a car bomb is what folks widely accept as a WMD, yes, you are right. Guess I thought WMD meant nuclear, chemical, and biological.

jsarno

08-20-2003, 03:46 PM

hmmm, a "car bomb" on a flat bed truck...hmmmmm.

Keino

08-20-2003, 04:12 PM

Im sorry, I don't understand your Hmmm's.

If it's a car bomb, how then is the US threatened? Would we have feared a Truck being converted o a boat (ie the recent Cuban immigrants) and bombing port cities in the US?

This is a joke. How can you blindly support this war monger.........

dukeuch

08-20-2003, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by jsarno
hmmm, a "car bomb" on a flat bed truck...hmmmmm.

Are you serious? Is your point "It's not a car bomb (which is not a WMD), it's a truck bomb (which IS a WMD)"?

jsarno

08-20-2003, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by dukeuch
Are you serious? Is your point "It's not a car bomb (which is not a WMD), it's a truck bomb (which IS a WMD)"?

Lets break this down:
W- weapons
M- mass
D- destruction

Read that article again and tell me if that wasn't a weapon of mass destruction.

jsarno

08-20-2003, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by Keino
How can you blindly support this war monger.........

I think you meant "how can I support such a protector of the USA"?

I'll explain this here as I did on another thread. I know you've heard teh phrase "better safe than sorry"...well we were sorry on the 9/11 attacks...now we're being safe. Or would you prefer more attacks and us not prevent them?

dukeuch

08-20-2003, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by jsarno
Lets break this down:
W- weapons
M- mass
D- destruction

Read that article again and tell me if that wasn't a weapon of mass destruction.

You have popped your cork. Nobody denies that a truck bomb can inflict a lot of damage, and that the bvombers and their backers are heinous people, who desrve the harshest justice. But NOBODY in the administration was talking about a truck bomb, or a conventional weapon, as a WMD requiring a US invasion.

PS: I can't believe you are quoting Paul Harvey!

JS: We have been locking horns a lot here and elsewhere. I cannot figure you or your "facts" out. I can understand many other conservative arguments, even if I don't agree with them. I don't know how to ask this without sounding like a jerk, but; how old are you?

jsarno

08-20-2003, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by dukeuch

PS: I can't believe you are quoting Paul Harvey!

Well, I did. Keep in mind that was Harvey's words, not mine. Sometimes you don't read all that is said, and sometimes I chose my words very carefully.

JS: We have been locking horns a lot here and elsewhere. I cannot figure you or your "facts" out. I can understand many other conservative arguments, even if I don't agree with them. I don't know how to ask this without sounding like a jerk, but; how old are you?

I'm 28.
That attack proves many points. The biggest being terrorism is still alive and well while you want to stop the "invasion" and let it continue. I guess another huge US disaster would be in order to get some of you off the couch and agreeing with the president.

This may be my weakest point, but a point was still made.

jsarno

08-20-2003, 06:13 PM

what exactly are you not figuring out?

ps- I may have misunderstood you, but i've never been called a conservatist.

IowaSkinsFan

08-21-2003, 01:51 AM

Originally posted by Keino
Im sorry, I don't understand your Hmmm's.

If it's a car bomb, how then is the US threatened? Would we have feared a Truck being converted o a boat (ie the recent Cuban immigrants) and bombing port cities in the US?

This is a joke. How can you blindly support this war monger.........

It doesn't have to hit US soil for it to be a WMD. We have interests and allies all over the world where a truck could be dropped of and used, i.e. the HQ in Baghdad.

We are not the only country that can be threatened by WMD.

IowaSkinsFan

08-21-2003, 01:55 AM

Why is it everyone attacks Bush on this site about WMD and him lying, but no one ever says a word about Colin Powell? Was it not Powell who went to the UN and laid out the case that Iraq was in breach of every single UN resolution that had been handed down since the end of the Gulf War? Am I the only one who saw that? Powell was the biggest advocate of diplomacy over military action and even he said the time for Diplomacy had ended and that it was time for action.

So why is it that no one attacks Powell on this site or calls him a liar? I am curious?

dukeuch

08-21-2003, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by jsarno

I'm 28.
That attack proves many points. The biggest being terrorism is still alive and well while you want to stop the "invasion" and let it continue. I guess another huge US disaster would be in order to get some of you off the couch and agreeing with the president.

This may be my weakest point, but a point was still made.

Good point. So how has the invasion of Iraq helped to squash terrorism, by pissing off more radical Arabs? Think we are more or less likely to be attacked due to our actions in Iraq?

jsarno

08-21-2003, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by robert11273
Why is it everyone attacks Bush on this site about WMD and him lying, but no one ever says a word about Colin Powell? Was it not Powell who went to the UN and laid out the case that Iraq was in breach of every single UN resolution that had been handed down since the end of the Gulf War? Am I the only one who saw that? Powell was the biggest advocate of diplomacy over military action and even he said the time for Diplomacy had ended and that it was time for action.

So why is it that no one attacks Powell on this site or calls him a liar? I am curious?

it's election time.
I have been saying this for quite a while, and even was the first to bring up Powell to which I was ignored. Powell isn't the only one either...but it keeps coming back to Bush. No matter, it's clear we need to be in Iraq, and we'd be completely ignorant to think that Hussien had chemical weapons in the gulf war, but he all of sudden doesn't make them anymore now. Common sense tells you he has them.

dukeuch

08-21-2003, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by jsarno
it's election time.
I have been saying this for quite a while, and even was the first to bring up Powell to which I was ignored. Powell isn't the only one either...but it keeps coming back to Bush. No matter, it's clear we need to be in Iraq, and we'd be completely ignorant to think that Hussien had chemical weapons in the gulf war, but he all of sudden doesn't make them anymore now. Common sense tells you he has them.

Powell works for Bush. And he didn't claim a working nuclear weapons program. Regarding the violations of his surrender agreement, they focused on Hussein's refusal to allow inspectors free access, which surely was a violation. Any other claims regarding violation of the terms of his previous surrender as realting to WMD, such as the actual existence, were speculation, now proven to be false. Of course, Americans would not support a war just because Hussein was making it difficult for inspectors, especailly when UN Inspectors were making progress, so the admin trumped up thier "proof" that there were WMD which could be used against Americans..

IowaSkinsFan

08-21-2003, 11:13 AM

The inspectors were all quoted as saying they couldn't show up anywhere that had not already been cleared out. There were no surprise inspections. The Iraqis new exactly where they inspectors were going. Their phones were bugged, their rooms and HQ were inspected. The Iraqis new better than the inspectors where the inspections were going to be. I do not know how the fact that the inspectors were not finding what the Iraqis hid from them is making progress.

jsarno

08-21-2003, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by robert11273
The inspectors were all quoted as saying they couldn't show up anywhere that had not already been cleared out. There were no surprise inspections. The Iraqis new exactly where they inspectors were going. Their phones were bugged, their rooms and HQ were inspected. The Iraqis new better than the inspectors where the inspections were going to be. I do not know how the fact that the inspectors were not finding what the Iraqis hid from them is making progress.

But see Robert, there are certain people on this forum that don't care for Bush...in fact hate Bush because they want a democrat in office. It doesn't matter how good Bush is, they will still try to knock him down.
Even British intellegence has duplicated what "Bush's Administration" was saying (there were other countries too, but the British intellegence is what is more known), but of course that is ignored and passed off.
Again...it's election time. If this was 3 years ago, this would not be an issue, and we'd all be saying the president was doing a great job. (I'm sure the democrats will say no to that, but the overwhelming, 86% if memory serves, popularity that Bush had BEFORE the election process started getting in the way is proof enough.)

Keino

08-21-2003, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by robert11273
Why is it everyone attacks Bush on this site about WMD and him lying, but no one ever says a word about Colin Powell? Was it not Powell who went to the UN and laid out the case that Iraq was in breach of every single UN resolution that had been handed down since the end of the Gulf War? Am I the only one who saw that? Powell was the biggest advocate of diplomacy over military action and even he said the time for Diplomacy had ended and that it was time for action.

So why is it that no one attacks Powell on this site or calls him a liar? I am curious?

Most of us on the left side of the spectrum have called the ENTIRE Administration (of which Powell is a major part being Sec of State) Liars. Yes Powell was the one who made the most convincing case for action, but I always thought the President had to tell the Truth in State of Union Speeches............

Lying about getting head in the oval office is impeachable but not lying to the country about the evidence supporting a war. I love it. Dammit this sarcasm button is broke again......

Keino

08-21-2003, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by robert11273
It doesn't have to hit US soil for it to be a WMD. We have interests and allies all over the world where a truck could be dropped of and used, i.e. the HQ in Baghdad.

We are not the only country that can be threatened by WMD.

Robert we were told by this administration that Iraq represents a Threat to the United States. We have also been provided plenty of conjecture about the Links between Saddam and Al-Quada.

I think it is Shameful, repgnant and just downright wrong to play on the emotions of the American Populace (regarding 9/11) to justify going to war without any actual evidence of a link. Most people who supported the war genuinely beleived that there was a link between Sadaam & Bin Laden and that has simply not been proven.

A Truck Bomb does now fall into the Category of a WMD. Lets stop being coy about it. We all understood WMD's to mean Chemical, Nuclear and Biological weaponry, hence the Administration's need to establish an "Iraqui Nuclear Program" as a very real threat.

Meanwhile, the real threat, North Korea goes largely ignored, and Saudi Arabia continues to harbor Al-Quada members.......This has never been about defending our country or our freedom and more about controlling resoruces and exerting regional influece. Cut The BS Right wingers.

By the way......have we found those weapons yet?

Keino

08-21-2003, 12:47 PM

And for the record....I am not a Democrat. I've seen record Surpluses turn into record Defeicits and I've seen the economy plummet, just like when the Elder Bush was in Office. Meanwhile Defense Contractors and Big Oil continue to get richer, while OUR people here are suffering....did I mention that Unemployment is at it's highest since 1992....wonder why that is...then again no I don't.

jsarno

08-21-2003, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by Keino
Most of us on the left side of the spectrum have called the ENTIRE Administration (of which Powell is a major part being Sec of State) Liars. Yes Powell was the one who made the most convincing case for action, but I always thought the President had to tell the Truth in State of Union Speeches............

The state of the union speeches are just that, give us the state of the union AT THAT TIME. To the best of their knowledge, they gave us the facts, and or opinions. To which is still hasn't been DISPROVEN. So we can't call it a lie yet. Just because certain people are impatient with the results, doesn't make it a lie.

Lying about getting head in the oval office is impeachable but not lying to the country about the evidence supporting a war. I love it. Dammit this sarcasm button is broke again......

again...there was no lie. Even if the facts were incorrect like you are saying, we'd have to blame hundreds of people, maybe thousands including other governments. It could have just as easily been a mistake. Don't forget, we weren't the only country calling for hussiens head, we're just teh loudest.

jsarno

08-21-2003, 12:57 PM

and we also got approval from NATO from the facts we (USA / BRITIAN etc) displayed to them, if it's good enough for them, should be good enough for you.

Keino

08-21-2003, 01:03 PM

If our own intelligence community cannot confirm the facts then stating it as fact (Buying uranium in Africa) is at best misleading, but IMO and outright lie.......

jsarno

08-21-2003, 03:58 PM

Fact is, WE aren't there, WE really don't know what to be true and what not to be. We need to take our country (and several other countries for that matter) at thier word. THEY do know better than the common folk. We are indeed ignorant when it comes to these ways.

IowaSkinsFan

08-22-2003, 04:11 AM

Originally posted by Keino
And for the record....I am not a Democrat. I've seen record Surpluses turn into record Defeicits and I've seen the economy plummet, just like when the Elder Bush was in Office. Meanwhile Defense Contractors and Big Oil continue to get richer, while OUR people here are suffering....did I mention that Unemployment is at it's highest since 1992....wonder why that is...then again no I don't.

The recession started when Clinton was still in office. He handed this mess off to Bush. The high numbers of unemployment have been made higher by all the losses at Enron, Arthur Anderson, Worldcom and the like who were posting their fictitious gains while Clinton was in office. It is President Bush who is taking action to hold these corporate criminals accountable.

I suppose you are going to give Clinton the credit for the boom in the technology sector due to his influence in the dot com explosion of the 90's? The reason we have fallen so hard is that sector, much like the others in the 90's, were so over valued, they had to come down sooner or later. But I suppose the fall in that area of the economy is due to Bush's policies that hinder internet commerce and his taxation of it? Give me a break.

IowaSkinsFan

08-22-2003, 04:29 AM

Originally posted by Keino
And for the record....I am not a Democrat. I've seen record Surpluses turn into record Defeicits and I've seen the economy plummet, just like when the Elder Bush was in Office. Meanwhile Defense Contractors and Big Oil continue to get richer, while OUR people here are suffering....did I mention that Unemployment is at it's highest since 1992....wonder why that is...then again no I don't.

And BTW, I am not rich and never been rich, and unless I win the Powerball drawing any time soon, I am not likely to be rich. I don't work for big oil or a defense contractor and, again, I am not likely to in the future, and George Bush has done nothing but put money back in my pocket. I pay less federal taxes now than I ever did when Clinton was in office.

I am so tired of hearing that Bush caters to the rich. What a bunch of BS. You left wingers, oh sorry, I mean centrists, have been force fed that stereotype by the liberal media so long you have begun to believe it. Clinton raised taxes on the middle class. George Bush cut them. It is fact. I have the pay stubs to prove it. I don't need to check out any website or newspaper archive, I have the proof in my hands.

Keino

08-22-2003, 07:27 AM

I'll never claim to be a centrist. I am a liberal. Though that has somehow become a curse word.

BTW Robert, next your going to tell me that the economic boom in the 90's was due to the hard work of Reagan Admin and the Elder Bush Admin. You forget that we were almost at DEPRESSION levels when Clinton took over the White House.

Funny thing is, my pay stubs look the same, yet I've seen a decline in Services, higher crime rates and higher Unemployment. But Im sure this like 9/11 and everything else is the fault of the Clinton Administration as you Facists er I mean RIght Wingers would have us believe.........

BTW - The Facist line was a joke, don't take it personally........

IowaSkinsFan

08-22-2003, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by Keino
I'll never claim to be a centrist. I am a liberal. Though that has somehow become a curse word.

BTW Robert, next your going to tell me that the economic boom in the 90's was due to the hard work of Reagan Admin and the Elder Bush Admin. You forget that we were almost at DEPRESSION levels when Clinton took over the White House.

Funny thing is, my pay stubs look the same, yet I've seen a decline in Services, higher crime rates and higher Unemployment. But Im sure this like 9/11 and everything else is the fault of the Clinton Administration as you Facists er I mean RIght Wingers would have us believe.........

BTW - The Facist line was a joke, don't take it personally........

The boon of the 90's had more to due with the improvement of technology and it's growth in the private sector and the work of Alan Greenspan than it had to due with any President. The Chairman controls fiscal policy, not the President. He doesn't call the President and ask his advice to raise or lower interest rates. I don't give Bush any more credit for the low interest rates now than I give Clinton credit for the economic expansion of the 90's. I understand how the market works. I understand there are going to be ebbs and flows in a free market economy. There are going to be peaks and valleys. There is no such thing in this world as a perpetual economic expansion. Never has been one, never will be one. 90% of any 5 year history on the stock market is in the black, and any single 10 year history you look at is in the black. There will be good times and bad times in a free market economy. I accept that as a Capitalist. I would take this system any day of the week over a system of Communism.

What services specifically have you noticed a decline in? What source are you quoting when you say higher crime rates, or did you mean your home is being vandalized more frequently?

And if liberal is a curse word, I suppose Extremist Right Winger is what you use to describe your best friend. Every time a liberal attaches the word Extremist to Right Wing, you add fuel to the fire that we are all holed up in a ranch complex in Western Montana polishing our rifles waiting for someone to come take them away.

Keino

08-22-2003, 08:40 AM

Of course if you understand markets then you must acknowledge that Markets react to and trend based on who's in control of setting Governmental Fiscal Policy, though your point is well taken and well made. The Market has never responded well to corporate welfare..........

I wasn't aware I'd have to cite sources, since I thought what I was saying was pretty much plastered all over major news publications. You can always find an article about how This program is gettting cut and that program is getting cut. The crime rates have risen, according to a recent Washington Post Article and you cannot debate that Unemployment has gone up. I don't think it takes a braniac to figure out that there is a direct correlation to Unemployment to crime. Less Jobs = More crime. It has always been that way.

I love that you cite Enron. Perhaps DIck Cheney will finally release the details of the back office meetings he had with the Corp Execs from Enron...............

There are Extremists on both sides of the spectrum. The word "liberal" has been demonized by conservatve spinmeiters to the point that it no longer carries its definition which is:

"Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. "

IowaSkinsFan

08-22-2003, 08:54 AM

If you are going to make assertions that crime is up and the implication is that it is the fault of the current administration, and I think that was your point, then you need to site sources. I have seen the unemployment numbers and I acknowledge you there. But I have seen nothing that suggests that government funded services have been hurt. How are you quantifying that? How is that measured? What standard is being used?

How are you measuring an increase in crime? More stolen cars? More violent crimes? Higher frequency of rape? Has rape ever been tied to unemployment? If you came out and said that more banks than ever are being robbed by unemployed people to feed their families, then I would agree there is a correlation. If you are saying that Identity Theft is on the increase, I don't see how stealing someone's identity over the internet is tied to unemployment.

It does not satisfy me to just say these things as if they are accepted facts because there is too much room for interpretation. If you provide a link or a source that I can check, then your assertions are much more credible. That is why debating Spence is such a headache, because he has all of that. So much so that I might be tempted to believe him, if I didn't already know I was right.

dukeuch

08-22-2003, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by robert11273
The recession started when Clinton was still in office. He handed this mess off to Bush. The high numbers of unemployment have been made higher by all the losses at Enron, Arthur Anderson, Worldcom and the like who were posting their fictitious gains while Clinton was in office. It is President Bush who is taking action to hold these corporate criminals accountable.

I suppose you are going to give Clinton the credit for the boom in the technology sector due to his influence in the dot com explosion of the 90's? The reason we have fallen so hard is that sector, much like the others in the 90's, were so over valued, they had to come down sooner or later. But I suppose the fall in that area of the economy is due to Bush's policies that hinder internet commerce and his taxation of it? Give me a break.

Well, the president, by extension thorugh his policies, certainly should get some credit or bear some responsibility for the successes/failures encountered during his term. I have always thought one of the reasons Republicans were so pissed at CLinton was he was able to induce growth, lower unemployment, adn reduce 9eliminate) deficit spending, all without lowering taxes, which the Republicans had long maintained was paramount to fueling a strong economy. That a democrat could oversee such a strong economy, after 12 years of Republican failure, drove them nuts. Yes, Reagan did a decent job of reducing unemployment, but did it by record levels of deficit spending. In other words, he borrowed money to pump into the private sector to such an extent that it forced unemployment down. Unfortunately, he had run on a platform of eliminayting the deficit, not tripling it, and now we are paying the piper.

As far as the failures of Enron, Price Waterhouse, etc. I think an important lesson should be learned. Again, it goes all the way back to Reagan (I admit, i think Reagan really did not do a whole lot, and cannot believe he remains held in such high regard, so I understand that Reagan supporters will never agree with me). He really gave teeth to the thought of totally unfeterred corporate control of our capitalist system. That was based on the belief that corps would take a long term approach, occasionally sacrificing short term profits for long term strength. Accordingly, many constraints on how business could be run, specifically capital requirements for lending (ie savings and loans) and watchdog legislation intended to ensure accountability (ie Price Waterhouse was supposed to provide unbiased appraisals of Enron's business accounting/practices) were weakened or eliminated. As some suspected, corporate long term health/responsibility ended up taking a back seat to corporate boards and officers taking huge profits for themselves, and not really worrying about the consequences later (which would not affect their financial health personally). I think that Bush is an adherent to these policies to some degree, and is/will make the same mistakes. Heck, Halliburton is a good example of corporate malfeasance, and now they are a primary contractor in the rebuilding of Iraq (thanks, Cheney). What kind of lesson is gleaned from something like that? How is Bush holding these criminals accountable?

dukeuch

08-22-2003, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by Keino
Of course if you understand markets then you must acknowledge that Markets react to and trend based on who's in control of setting Governmental Fiscal Policy, though your point is well taken and well made. The Market has never responded well to corporate welfare..........

I wasn't aware I'd have to cite sources, since I thought what I was saying was pretty much plastered all over major news publications. You can always find an article about how This program is gettting cut and that program is getting cut. The crime rates have risen, according to a recent Washington Post Article and you cannot debate that Unemployment has gone up. I don't think it takes a braniac to figure out that there is a direct correlation to Unemployment to crime. Less Jobs = More crime. It has always been that way.

I love that you cite Enron. Perhaps DIck Cheney will finally release the details of the back office meetings he had with the Corp Execs from Enron...............

There are Extremists on both sides of the spectrum. The word "liberal" has been demonized by conservatve spinmeiters to the point that it no longer carries its definition which is:

"Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. "

K:

Wether you like my style or not (I think I piss a lot of people off) I beleive we have similar views and ideas. COncerning what a liberal really is, try to find an article by George McGovern in Harpers somettime in the past year or so. In it, he really distills what it means when he says he is a liberal. I recommend it highly as well as to Conservatives, who undoubtably will disagree, but might some insight on what liberal values mean to us lefties.

jsarno

08-22-2003, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by robert11273
And BTW, I am not rich and never been rich, and unless I win the Powerball drawing any time soon, I am not likely to be rich. I don't work for big oil or a defense contractor and, again, I am not likely to in the future, and George Bush has done nothing but put money back in my pocket. I pay less federal taxes now than I ever did when Clinton was in office.

I am so tired of hearing that Bush caters to the rich. What a bunch of BS. You left wingers, oh sorry, I mean centrists, have been force fed that stereotype by the liberal media so long you have begun to believe it. Clinton raised taxes on the middle class. George Bush cut them. It is fact. I have the pay stubs to prove it. I don't need to check out any website or newspaper archive, I have the proof in my hands.

We need a smilie that does a standing ovation. I have to say, I have sat back and totally enjoyed your posts. Extremely informative, and direct.

I do like Spence's way of backing things up with links, but often he will back them up with opinion links, not fact links. But you have to respect his ability to find links anyway. He keeps a lot of these discussions flowing.

Keino

08-22-2003, 12:46 PM

D:

I not only like your style, I think you are right that we see eye to eye on many of the issues being discussed here. If you have link to McGoverns article I'd love for you to PM me. You haven't pissed me off at all, and you were far more patient with another poster than I could've ever been......

Robert, I debate here to express my opinion, not to win a trial. Whether I am credible to you is immaterial to me. I don't think I could change your mind even if I provided all the links that Spence does. If I had time to find every article I've read on the various subjects, I would be neglecting my job and putting my very livleihood in jeapoardy. As far as crime rates, again, a recent Washington Post Article showed that the number of Crimes in the DC area (carjacking, Murder, drug dealing...Blue collar crimes etc) had increased drastically over the past 12 months. The last time they were at the levels they are now another Bush was in Office. I for one do not believe that any thing occurs by mere coincidence. I don't think anyone with half a brain would try to tie rape to an economic circumstance, but certainly other crimes have obvious (in my mind) economic consequences.

jsarno

08-22-2003, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by Keino
Robert, I debate here to express my opinion, not to win a trial.

When you express your opinion as fact, you can expect someone to ask you to prove it.

Whether I am credible to you is immaterial to me.
Then your opinion will be as well. If you enter them in as fact, expect to be called to the carpet. There is another on this site that does the same thing.
I haven't always agreed with you kieno, but you are pretty level headed at times. I know it wouldn't take long to come up with some links. If you have time to be online at work, you have time for a "couple" links.

I don't think I could change your mind even if I provided all the links that Spence does.

A lot of times, it does change peoples minds. We go around hearing one thing, and not always seeing teh other. You could very easily change minds without even knowing it.

As far as crime rates, again, a recent Washington Post Article showed that the number of Crimes in the DC area (carjacking, Murder, drug dealing...Blue collar crimes etc) had increased drastically over the past 12 months. The last time they were at the levels they are now another Bush was in Office.
How big is DC compared to teh USA? Quite frankly, no one really cares (other than those of you that live in that area)what the DC crime rate is. For as long as I've been alive, it's been right up as one of the worst crime rates across the country.

I for one do not believe that any thing occurs by mere coincidence. I don't think anyone with half a brain would try to tie rape to an economic circumstance, but certainly other crimes have obvious (in my mind) economic consequences.

You are right about that. However, those unemployment numbers don't always tell the facts. More senior citizens are going back to work now more than ever, this greatly changes the unemployment figures, and we all know that the older generation has a harder time of getting employed. There are too many things to account for.

Also, it would be hard to label Bush on crime rates anyway. He has made incentives for police forces across the nation, but people don't want to join law enforcement. Just like for some reason there is a national nurse shortage. Maybe we can say tht Bush is the reason that more elderly died this year than last year? You can only do so much.
"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

Keino

08-22-2003, 02:59 PM

Jsarno, Im really not going to address all of your points one by one. I frankly find your points silly quite often....and do not respnd as a result.

You ask me who cares about DC? I do, because I happen to live here. I was only citing DC as an example and not neccesarily the rule of the country. Are you so Obtuse that you couldn't see that. I am going to remain civil here, but there are alot of facets to this debate that I would love to address with you (sidebar). But here is a fact about the DC crime rate......it was at it's lowest in years during the Clinton administration. Does that mean that Clinton deserves full credit....no. It does mean that there is a trend in place that says that when the economy is good, people are less inclined to commit crimes. If you couldn't understand that, then you are not smart enough for this discussion.

Again, whether you or Robert accept my opinion as credible is of little consequence to me, but I certainly don't think I express my opinion as fact. Statements that I have made can easily be verified in major news publications, so why should I do your homework for you? Im not interested in changing the minds of people set in their ways, as I know that it's a lost cause.

jsarno

08-22-2003, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by Keino
You ask me who cares about DC? I do, because I happen to live here. I was only citing DC as an example and not neccesarily the rule of the country.

I'm glad you said that. Because you can't lump Bush to one area of the country, did you know that LA's crime rate is DOWN from last year?
from the usa today:
This year, however, Pasquariello says the numbers are telling a different story. So far in 2003, murders are down 20% compared with the same time last year. Rape is down nearly 7%, and robbery has declined slightly.
My point is to say, if you're going to glue Bush to a comment, at least make it fair. Use the country's stats, not DC.

Are you so Obtuse that you couldn't see that. I am going to remain civil here, but there are alot of facets to this debate that I would love to address with you (sidebar). But here is a fact about the DC crime rate......it was at it's lowest in years during the Clinton administration. Does that mean that Clinton deserves full credit....no. It does mean that there is a trend in place that says that when the economy is good, people are less inclined to commit crimes. If you couldn't understand that, then you are not smart enough for this discussion.

I totally understand that there is a direct correlation. Never argued that. What would make you even think that?
There is also a direct link to homelessness (which I am sure you know is at an all time high in the DC area) and crime.
My whole point is to say, you implied that Bush it to blame on the high crime rate in DC thanks to the unemployment rate. That simply is not true, and not enough information. There are many factors that go into it. If you were just making a broad comment, and not lumping it to Bush, then I apologize for assuming. Just seemed that way.

Again, whether you or Robert accept my opinion as credible is of little consequence to me, but I certainly don't think I express my opinion as fact. Statements that I have made can easily be verified in major news publications, so why should I do your homework for you? Im not interested in changing the minds of people set in their ways, as I know that it's a lost cause.
It's a shame you think like that. Why bother expressing your opinion if 1- you can't and won't back it up (assuming you are actually correct), 2- if you can't try to enlighten others. It makes your comments useless. This is why Spence is highly regarded here, he backs his talking up.
I guess I'm the only one that comes here to learn some things. I wouldn't waste my time if I didn't get SOMETHING out of it. I can have chats with any of my co-workers, the internet is too impersonal. So why bother be here and express your opinion from a computer terminal if not to help others, or learn something for yourself?

jsarno

08-22-2003, 04:02 PM

Let us also not forget, that while senior citizens are now working til they die in many cases (more and more are flocking back to work), the country is getting over populated, and need to come up with Jobs for the new kids entering the market. SOOOO many factors.
ps keino, I was just backing up Robert, if he asks for a link, why not provide one for him? I wasn't the one with the question, or were you too obtuse to recognize that? ;)

dukeuch

08-22-2003, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by jsarno
[You are right about that. However, those unemployment numbers don't always tell the facts. More senior citizens are going back to work now more than ever, this greatly changes the unemployment figures, and we all know that the older generation has a harder time of getting employed. There are too many things to account for.

Also, it would be hard to label Bush on crime rates anyway. He has made incentives for police forces across the nation, but people don't want to join law enforcement. Just like for some reason there is a national nurse shortage. Maybe we can say tht Bush is the reason that more elderly died this year than last year? You can only do so much.
"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

I am quite dcurious about your sources on both of the opints above. Realize you probalby will not respond, but here's some food for thought for others.

Regarding the effect of sr. citizens going back to the work force, remember, you are only counted as unemployed if you were previously part of the work force, "forced" out of a job, and then unable to find one. FOr example, if you have been retired for a while, try to get a job, don't get it, you are not included in the unemployment statistics. I doubt that the % of sr.s included in the unemployment roles is anywhere near as high as most other segments. If you are collecting unemployment, you don't get social security. you don't get unemployment unless you qualify for it, which require a recent work history.

Second, I am very curious about the incentives Bush has put in place for police forces (outside of D.C.). Could you provide some more info?

Keino

08-22-2003, 07:21 PM

This year, however, Pasquariello says the numbers are telling a different story. So far in 2003, murders are down 20% compared with the same time last year. Rape is down nearly 7%, and robbery has declined slightly.
My point is to say, if you're going to glue Bush to a comment, at least make it fair. Use the country's stats, not DC.

Bush was President Last year. Compare them to Clinton's Admin.

The implication here is not that Bush specifically/solely is responsible but his policies and agenda, things typical of the last 2 conservative administrations (Reagan and George I) all of which was covered by others in the previous pages of this thread . That the country was in much better shape under 8 years of a Liberal at the helm.

Jsarno, as Dukeuch points out, you as well as others offer conjecture without support of links etc. I've had plenty of discussions that I have supported with fact i.e. in this very thread providing Merriam-Webster's definition of "Liberal".

And to your last comments. I am all for enlightening others, when they are receptive to it. The fact is that I don't feel you and I will ever see eye to eye on politics, due to fundamental Paradigm differences. We have something in common (aside from the skins) but yet we see the world so differently and as a result I wrote you off a long time ago. Perhaps I have unfairly judged you, but again that is a side-bar conversation.........

jsarno

08-23-2003, 09:00 PM

Originally posted by Keino
Bush was President Last year. Compare them to Clinton's Admin.

I tried to find these numbers, and was unable to find a direct relation web site. I would have provided those numbers if I found them when I searched last time. Of course I don't go crazy trying to find links since I do not have time though.

Jsarno, as Dukeuch points out, you as well as others offer conjecture without support of links etc. I've had plenty of discussions that I have supported with fact i.e. in this very thread providing Merriam-Webster's definition of "Liberal".

In many other threads Ihave provided countless links. When asked I usually offer links.

And to your last comments. I am all for enlightening others, when they are receptive to it. The fact is that I don't feel you and I will ever see eye to eye on politics, due to fundamental Paradigm differences. We have something in common (aside from the skins) but yet we see the world so differently and as a result I wrote you off a long time ago. Perhaps I have unfairly judged you, but again that is a side-bar conversation.........

I would like you to bring this side bar if possible. Please PM me and explain.
If you check out the "bill clinton's legacy" thread hamptonskinsfan and I got into our history a little, and it might help you to understand a little more where I am coming from.

I guess I am just always receptive and assume others are. I wouldn't be here If I wasn't. I have a mega hectic lifestyle, and do my best to find time to be here. Which is why I am VERY seldom on this site during my non working hours.

dukeuch, I promise you I will see what I can do. I read that in a magazine, and it may be difficult to find it. I know it's in my house somewhere, when I come across it, I will quote it here. A lot of what I talk about comes from my reading / hearing it on the news and is not always possible to get links for.
Unemployment rates are from ANYONE that is registered at the unemployment office. They register to find jobs etc. At one time I was part of the "unemployment nation". I was not getting any benefits, but I was using resources of the department of labor.

dukeuch

08-25-2003, 08:12 AM

Originally posted by jsarno
I tried to find these numbers, and was unable to find a direct relation web site. I would have provided those numbers if I found them when I searched last time. Of course I don't go crazy trying to find links since I do not have time though.

[

JS:

Were you not the one who wrote :

"It's a shame you think like that. Why bother expressing your opinion if 1- you can't and won't back it up (assuming you are actually correct), 2- if you can't try to enlighten others. It makes your comments useless."

Does not seem to jibe with your comment above.

dalpumpkin

08-26-2003, 01:35 AM

Originally posted by jsarno
If you're going to rant, at least point us in the direction you are speaking of. The last posts were about education and what the federal government has to do (or did) about it.
Also, check the dates some of the older posts were made. This is the reason we have "quotes" buttons and the ability to quote others.
As far as your above post, it's just ramble. If you'd like to start a discussion, please be more specific.

You call for WMD's Right?

Simple thing to answer, He bought them from use,He bought them from Russia, He used them on Iran, We fought a 91 gulf war after he invaded a country. After we left he used WMD's on the Kurds. Fact fact Fact

The U.N. during there inspections after the war, documented all the WMD stockpiles that Bush used in the state of the union. Fact

All that was asked was Saddam comply with the surrender are boys gave blood to get. All that was asked is he show proof that the WMD's already found by the U.N show proof of destruction. It is that simple.

Either you show proof of how he did not agree to the terms, and you show proof that the U.N. stockpile report is false. Or just say why you are making crap up.

That is simple and on point.

dalpumpkin

08-26-2003, 01:57 AM

Originally posted by Keino
D:

I not only like your style, I think you are right that we see eye to eye on many of the issues being discussed here. If you have link to McGoverns article I'd love for you to PM me. You haven't pissed me off at all, and you were far more patient with another poster than I could've ever been......

Robert, I debate here to express my opinion, not to win a trial. Whether I am credible to you is immaterial to me. I don't think I could change your mind even if I provided all the links that Spence does. If I had time to find every article I've read on the various subjects, I would be neglecting my job and putting my very livleihood in jeapoardy. As far as crime rates, again, a recent Washington Post Article showed that the number of Crimes in the DC area (carjacking, Murder, drug dealing...Blue collar crimes etc) had increased drastically over the past 12 months. The last time they were at the levels they are now another Bush was in Office. I for one do not believe that any thing occurs by mere coincidence. I don't think anyone with half a brain would try to tie rape to an economic circumstance, but certainly other crimes have obvious (in my mind) economic consequences.

Hello man

I can respect anyones thoughts. But I would like to ask when a press. became a mayor ?

I 'm sorry but I thought we where a land that had many different people who elected many people to stand for us.

If Bush or any Pres, is now the leader of crime in cities, then I guess all those other paychecks are for waste, and we have a King in your terms.

Is that what this is now? A pres is a king? If NO! Then why the D.C. city problem on him?

Hell lets be honest< D.C. has been a junkyard long before most of us where born.

dalpumpkin

08-26-2003, 02:14 AM

Originally posted by dalpumpkin
You call for WMD's Right?

Simple thing to answer, He bought them from use,He bought them from Russia, He used them on Iran, We fought a 91 gulf war after he invaded a country. After we left he used WMD's on the Kurds. Fact fact Fact

The U.N. during there inspections after the war, documented all the WMD stockpiles that Bush used in the state of the union. Fact

All that was asked was Saddam comply with the surrender are boys gave blood to get. All that was asked is he show proof that the WMD's already found by the U.N show proof of destruction. It is that simple.

Either you show proof of how he did not agree to the terms, and you show proof that the U.N. stockpile report is false. Or just say why you are making crap up.

That is simple and on point.

As you say I am on a rant, maybe so, but lets see if one of the leftest can answer a simple quistion?

As far as I can see you are getting beat around by them.

You say I rant? Well you are the one letting them make crap up by not asking them facts.

While you bash Clinton, you are not sticking up for your guy and what he is doing. I know like you what Clinton is.

These guys don't see that, and they never will. But facts are they have no debate on the U.N. reports on WMD's. Facts are they talk taxes with articals, not peoples paychecks, facts are there only issue is our mistakes.

You ask for debate? Then give it to them. Don't defend and back door me. Take the fight to them.

They have nothing on issue. These are the people who study nothing and cost us money. Ask them about issues, make them exsplain there thought.

I will. See ya later

dukeuch

08-26-2003, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by dalpumpkin
As you say I am on a rant, maybe so, but lets see if one of the leftest can answer a simple quistion?

As far as I can see you are getting beat around by them.

You say I rant? Well you are the one letting them make crap up by not asking them facts.

While you bash Clinton, you are not sticking up for your guy and what he is doing. I know like you what Clinton is.

These guys don't see that, and they never will. But facts are they have no debate on the U.N. reports on WMD's. Facts are they talk taxes with articals, not peoples paychecks, facts are there only issue is our mistakes.

You ask for debate? Then give it to them. Don't defend and back door me. Take the fight to them.

They have nothing on issue. These are the people who study nothing and cost us money. Ask them about issues, make them exsplain there thought.

I will. See ya later

Can't quite follow your words here, but the UNs reports immediately prior to the war did not say they knew stockpiles existed, but rather that they could not account for the destruction of all WMD known to have at one time existed, going back to 1991. Hence, they wanted to, and did, send in inspection teams to see if any unnacounted for WMDs could be found. The admin did not want to wait for inspections to be completed, so they went in, assuring us that once the US was in control, they would find and/or reveal the proof of their existence. I understand Hussien was playing games, and needed to be punished. One difference, however, is that I think we could have eventually forced him to comply with the inspections (it would have taken time) and felt that he would not use said WMD (if they did still exist) against the US or any other foriegn country. Such a course would have cost less $, fewer lives, and in my opinion, less hatred among Arabs towards us.

Hell, we were really critical of the UN inspectors, saying they proved their incompetance becuase they could not find anything. Well, we can't find anything now. SO, are we just as incompetant (I don't think so) or were they ever there at the time of the attack?

There, am I talking about the issues enough for you?

By the way, don't leave out the chemicals the good old USA sold Hussien back before the Gulf War. We contributed to the mess too.

jsarno

08-26-2003, 10:59 AM

jsarno

08-26-2003, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by dukeuch
JS:

Were you not the one who wrote :

"It's a shame you think like that. Why bother expressing your opinion if 1- you can't and won't back it up (assuming you are actually correct), 2- if you can't try to enlighten others. It makes your comments useless."

Does not seem to jibe with your comment above.

You arrogant jack ass. You can't give me a little time to find it? I was polite enough to respond to you, and this is the comment I come back to find?
I did find the magazine in which I read that. But you know what, since you agreed with one other about "doing your own homework" You go find it. I have it right here in front of me, but why should I give you info with your attacks? No matter what I do, you will still be arrogant and off beat.
I have quoted or linked 10 times what you have, frankly I'm tired of finding stats for you. I don't feel like even quoting this magazine...you won't believe it anyway.
Good luck finding the link...after all I'm SUUURE you will search for it being that you're ONLY after the TRUTH right?

dukeuch

08-26-2003, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by jsarno
You arrogant jack ass. You can't give me a little time to find it? I was polite enough to respond to you, and this is the comment I come back to find?
I did find the magazine in which I read that. But you know what, since you agreed with one other about "doing your own homework" You go find it. I have it right here in front of me, but why should I give you info with your attacks? No matter what I do, you will still be arrogant and off beat.
I have quoted or linked 10 times what you have, frankly I'm tired of finding stats for you. I don't feel like even quoting this magazine...you won't believe it anyway.
Good luck finding the link...after all I'm SUUURE you will search for it being that you're ONLY after the TRUTH right?

What is wrong with you? Above, I am simply pointing out that at one time you said to keino "It's a shame you think like that. Why bother expressing your opinion if 1- you can't and won't back it up (assuming you are actually correct)" and later you said "I tried to find these numbers, and was unable to find a direct relation web site. I would have provided those numbers if I found them when I searched last time. Of course I don't go crazy trying to find links since I do not have time though."

Don't you find that somewhat contradictory? It sounds like you feel keino should not make a point without backing it up, but it's ok if you do 'cause "you don't have the time".

jsarno

08-26-2003, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by dukeuch
What is wrong with you? Above, I am simply pointing out that at one time you said to keino "It's a shame you think like that. Why bother expressing your opinion if 1- you can't and won't back it up (assuming you are actually correct)" and later you said "I tried to find these numbers, and was unable to find a direct relation web site. I would have provided those numbers if I found them when I searched last time. Of course I don't go crazy trying to find links since I do not have time though."

Don't you find that somewhat contradictory? It sounds like you feel keino should not make a point without backing it up, but it's ok if you do 'cause "you don't have the time".

do you recall this:
I promise you I will see what I can do. I read that in a magazine, and it may be difficult to find it. I know it's in my house somewhere, when I come across it, I will quote it here. A lot of what I talk about comes from my reading / hearing it on the news and is not always possible to get links for.

is that not asking for time? Did I not just mention RIGHT THERE that I would look for a link, and not ignore the request? Damn you have some serious issues. Or maybe you're illiterate. Who knows. I actually thought you had changed from that other thread to be someone I could respond to...you proved otherwise right here didn't you.
The difference with me is, when I am proved wrong, it changes my view. I (and no one) knows everything, so It's often people are proven wrong on these sites. It's a fact of life. I research what others show me, and change my mind. Others like you will be shwn the error of your ways, and you still stick to your old way of thinking. It's thick! Keino probably said that because of people liek you that don't listen. Also, that comment to Kieno could be summed up by saying: "why bother if you can't change minds?"
I always do my best to post sites, but I'm not the best web searcher in the world. Just because I don't do it right there (or can't do it) doesn't mean I won't get to it. Sometimes I need time.
You have proven yourself to be someone nt worthy of my time. (nor 2 others time with the same concerns I have expressed here that have been pmed to me that you are not concerned with) So I suggest (man to man, nothing to do with internet) that you figure out that you're not always right. It WILL come back to bite you in the ass if it hasn't already. (I did notice you never commented on my divorce comment...the answer is pretty clear). Just remember when you point the finger there are 3 pointing back at you.
Have a nice life, and good luck in your future endevours.

dukeuch

08-26-2003, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by jsarno
do you recall this:
I promise you I will see what I can do. I read that in a magazine, and it may be difficult to find it. I know it's in my house somewhere, when I come across it, I will quote it here. A lot of what I talk about comes from my reading / hearing it on the news and is not always possible to get links for.

is that not asking for time? Did I not just mention RIGHT THERE that I would look for a link, and not ignore the request? Damn you have some serious issues. Or maybe you're illiterate. Who knows. I actually thought you had changed from that other thread to be someone I could respond to...you proved otherwise right here didn't you.
The difference with me is, when I am proved wrong, it changes my view. I (and no one) knows everything, so It's often people are proven wrong on these sites. It's a fact of life. I research what others show me, and change my mind. Others like you will be shwn the error of your ways, and you still stick to your old way of thinking. It's thick! Keino probably said that because of people liek you that don't listen. Also, that comment to Kieno could be summed up by saying: "why bother if you can't change minds?"
I always do my best to post sites, but I'm not the best web searcher in the world. Just because I don't do it right there (or can't do it) doesn't mean I won't get to it. Sometimes I need time.
You have proven yourself to be someone nt worthy of my time. (nor 2 others time with the same concerns I have expressed here that have been pmed to me that you are not concerned with) So I suggest (man to man, nothing to do with internet) that you figure out that you're not always right. It WILL come back to bite you in the ass if it hasn't already. (I did notice you never commented on my divorce comment...the answer is pretty clear). Just remember when you point the finger there are 3 pointing back at you.
Have a nice life, and good luck in your future endevours.

look, you are making the big deal out of this. My comment was not even about anything you directed at me, so don't quote something you said to me and imply that I'm ignoring your promise to provide me with something. I was quoting something you chastised someone else for, which you later sort of admitted doing yourself. I have no idea what "divorce" comment you are talking about. Are you divorced? What is pretty clear? You often get confused with who and what you are responding too. What does that have to do with anything? And I do admit when I am wrong, like immediately after I was called out that unemployment was at a "two or three decade high". Just because you keep bringing it up does not mean I did ont admit my mistake. Talk about pointing fingers though, when are you going ot admit that you were wrong that there was no federal deficit under Reagan, and the the unemployment rate has gone up (substantially) under Bush? Take another dodge, you might not be a republican, but you sure ascribe to Carl Rove's dictum of "no matter what, don't back down" even if you are wrong.

jsarno

08-26-2003, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by dalpumpkin

The U.N. during there inspections after the war, documented all the WMD stockpiles that Bush used in the state of the union. Fact

Did you hear the UN inspectors found uranium in Iran?

Keino

08-28-2003, 07:21 AM

Lets not forget, that if we are going to bring up the Kurds in 1991 that Bush promised the Kurds military support if they rose against Hussein and then when they actually did it, said that he was not going to send troops in. Hussein didn't use those weapons until he realized there would be no reprisal from the United States. We are just as responsible for those chemical weapons used on the Kurds (and Iranians before them) as we provided them to Hussein.........

jsarno

08-28-2003, 10:45 AM

With that logic, Smith and wesson is responsible for a WHOLE lot f deaths in this country.

You know as well as I do, that the USA would not have sold them had they known what they would use them for.
People are responsible for these things. Just like PEOPLE kill PEOPLE. I have never seen a gun kill a person by itself.

Keino

08-28-2003, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by jsarno
With that logic, Smith and wesson is responsible for a WHOLE lot f deaths in this country.

You know as well as I do, that the USA would not have sold them had they known what they would use them for.
People are responsible for these things. Just like PEOPLE kill PEOPLE. I have never seen a gun kill a person by itself.

Um, we sold them Chemical WEAPONS...WTF else would they be used for? Decorating the palace in Baghdad? We sold them these weapons to aid with their war with Iran....we knew damn well they'd be used on people.

Smith & Wesson is Indirectly responsible for deaths...they manufacture the instrument..............

Keino

08-28-2003, 12:26 PM

Jsarno - when things calm down at the job (End of the month is a bear) I will PM you...I haven't forgotten

jsarno

08-28-2003, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by Keino
Um, we sold them Chemical WEAPONS...WTF else would they be used for? Decorating the palace in Baghdad? We sold them these weapons to aid with their war with Iran....we knew damn well they'd be used on people.

We actually sold them the WEAPONS themselves???? Wouldn't that be against our promises? I thought we sold them the chemicals separately.

Smith & Wesson is Indirectly responsible for deaths...they manufacture the instrument..............

I 100% disagree. Fact is, people still hunt in this country and have a constitutional right to bear arms. The people do the damage and have everything to do with deaths. I have a .45 auto sitting at my house, and my bet is, it's not killing anyone.
Thats like saying the makers of steak knives are responsible for deaths.
FACT is to many people place blame on others when it's their fault 100%. I don't care if your daddy beat you, that does not mean you beat your child or do stupid things. Time to stop passing the buck.
If we did actually sell the weapons, then I will sing a different tune IN THAT CASE. But point still remains the same.

So why has their been such controversy about WMD..if WE sold the weapons to them, then WE obviously know they have them. Why are people arguing about this?

Keino

08-28-2003, 06:38 PM

JS - We sold them the chemical weapons in the 80's during the long Iran vs Iraq war. We were steadfastly against Iran at the time and so we became bed partners with Saddam Hussein. The big deal over WMD's is that after the 1991 conflict, as part of the surrender, Iraq was ordered to completely disarm and document the destruction of all WMD's....The dicked around. The Inspectors were sent to make sure the Iraqis were in compliance with the UN resolution and they were given the run around....The fact is we don't know they have because they have yet to be produced.

As far as Smith and Wessun.......The purpose of a gun is to Kill or maim the target. I am a staunch supporter of the right to bear arms unlike many liberals. I also agree that it is people that kill people, but steak knives' primary purpose is to carve steak a significant distinction in my opinion. I wouldn't advocate any legal action against any gun manufacturer, but they are INDIRECTLY responsible. Just like tobacco manufacturers are indirectly responsible for some Cancer deaths. No they didn't make the people smoke, but they know their product is harmful yet still produce it......

jsarno

08-29-2003, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by Keino
JS - We sold them the chemical weapons in the 80's during the long Iran vs Iraq war. We were steadfastly against Iran at the time and so we became bed partners with Saddam Hussein. The big deal over WMD's is that after the 1991 conflict, as part of the surrender, Iraq was ordered to completely disarm and document the destruction of all WMD's....The dicked around. The Inspectors were sent to make sure the Iraqis were in compliance with the UN resolution and they were given the run around....The fact is we don't know they have because they have yet to be produced.

Gotcha...thanks for clarifying.

As far as Smith and Wessun.......The purpose of a gun is to Kill or maim the target. I am a staunch supporter of the right to bear arms unlike many liberals. I also agree that it is people that kill people, but steak knives' primary purpose is to carve steak a significant distinction in my opinion. I wouldn't advocate any legal action against any gun manufacturer, but they are INDIRECTLY responsible. Just like tobacco manufacturers are indirectly responsible for some Cancer deaths. No they didn't make the people smoke, but they know their product is harmful yet still produce it......

I don't think you can compare cigarettes to guns. Guns were made to hunt and protect. By holding one, or using it as target practice, does not hurt you. By hunting with it, you get to eat. (which could be considered a life saver)
By smoking cigarettes it does nothing at all good. NOTHING. By smoking even ONE hurts you.
The problem with that logic also is that the tobacco companies KNEW their product was dangerous and told the public it was not.
"Smith and Wesson" did no such thing.
I can vaguely see the indirect responsible comment, but there are levels of indirect responsibilty. Just like Budweiser is indirectly responsible for thousands of deaths each year.
Or GM (general motors) is indirecty responsible for thousands of deaths each year. Or McDonalds and Burger King are indriectly responsible for thousands of deaths each year with thier cholesteral burgers. If one is indirectly responsible, then millions of things are indirectly responsible. Since I preach SELF responsibility, I put the blame on the actions of the individuals, not the result of what a machine or object can do if used improperly or against nature.

Keino

08-29-2003, 01:02 PM

Fair Enough. I certainly don't give as much weight to Indirect responsiblity as I do to Direct responsiblity, but I acknowledge the interconnectedness of of it all.....

dalpumpkin

09-07-2003, 12:31 AM

Originally posted by dukeuch
I just wish that truth held more sway with this president and his administration. I would have loved it if he had said from the beginning that we are going to eliminate this despot Hussien (and all others to the best of our ability) because of what he does to his people.

But he didn't. And now, using the whole Niger/uranium thing as an example, they blame the CIA director, then then when it comes out that Tenet in fact did tell them that the British intelligence was faulty in October, they say yeah, but he should have said it again when reviewing the State of the Union, then it comes out that the CIA (or State Department, I can't remember which) did raise the concern upon review of the SOU, they say yeah, but we were technically correct in saying that British intelligence indicates this happened.

What BS. Pure and simple, the administration tried any way possible to prove there was an active nuclear weapons program in Iraq, and when their own intelligence agencies said, well, there really isn't any proof, they said, no problem, we'll quote a different source who we know to be wrong. Then when the lie saw the light of day, they scrambled, just like CLinton did with Lewinsky, giving succesivley more damning explanations as each previous explanation was debunked.

What are you saying? What state of the Union address did you watch? Was it on SNL?

CNN and Fox and all the media may have said Nukes, but when did the Press say that? When?

The State of the Union adress to the people did cover Saddam and what he has done. The Address did cover all the stock piles the U.N. gave reacords of in there fact. Saddam was asked for over ten years to just comply, it was that simple. He didn't and it was that simple. If you looked into it then it would be simple for you also.

But I will say this, while you and people like you look for things you can't prove, you are not debateing a issue for 2003, and you are insuring a Bush victory in 2004.

Tell me why someone should even listen to your take? After all you have no hard facts, your party has just made lieing a corner stone, and your party has not one thing to say but a hope Iraq goes to crap to make Bush look bad.

Who is your guy and what is his issues, what are your issues? Or are you asking the people to vote againts Bush because you say he lies, and we should trust the lieing your party has offered when you people have yet to find a issue in 2003.

Get real man, at the end of the day there are issues. JFK had ideas, what happened to that?

Spence

09-09-2003, 12:09 AM

Cheney says Iraq has nuclear weapons program. (http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/09/cheney.interview/) No evidence exists to prove this assertion.

Bush says in State of the Union address that Iraq is trying to buy aluminum rods for nuclear program. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61622-2003Jul15?language=printer) No evidence exists that Iraq was purchasing anything for a nuclear program.

Both assertions by the Bush regime have been disproven. Liar, liar, your pants are on fire.

And as for that nonsense about insuring Mr Bush's re-election [impossible since he was never elected in the first place], have a look at this poll. (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=732) The best part: 54% polled view Mr Bush's tenure negatively and 52% say it is time for someone new in the White House.

Bush lies about taxes, he lies about the federal deficit, and he lies about war. Now his lies are catching up with him.

jsarno

09-09-2003, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by dalpumpkin
What are you saying? What state of the Union address did you watch? Was it on SNL?

CNN and Fox and all the media may have said Nukes, but when did the Press say that? When?

The State of the Union adress to the people did cover Saddam and what he has done. The Address did cover all the stock piles the U.N. gave reacords of in there fact. Saddam was asked for over ten years to just comply, it was that simple. He didn't and it was that simple. If you looked into it then it would be simple for you also.

But I will say this, while you and people like you look for things you can't prove, you are not debateing a issue for 2003, and you are insuring a Bush victory in 2004.

Tell me why someone should even listen to your take? After all you have no hard facts, your party has just made lieing a corner stone, and your party has not one thing to say but a hope Iraq goes to crap to make Bush look bad.

Who is your guy and what is his issues, what are your issues? Or are you asking the people to vote againts Bush because you say he lies, and we should trust the lieing your party has offered when you people have yet to find a issue in 2003.

Get real man, at the end of the day there are issues. JFK had ideas, what happened to that?

Great post dalpumpkin.

dukeuch

09-09-2003, 12:14 PM

Unbelievable. So now are you, dalpump and js, saying that Bush, Ashcroft, et al, did not claim that Hussien had an active nuclear program, and possesed both chemical and biological stockpiles, but rather that we needed to go to war becuase he was not complying with UN Resos? Admittedly, he was not complying, but the administration stated again and again that he had such weapons, that we had airtight evidence that he had them, and the will to use them against us. Why not check the links SPence has provided and dispute them?

RedskinsDave

09-09-2003, 02:10 PM

Hey, at least this White House only exposes people and doesn't just go and have them knocked off.

jsarno

09-09-2003, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
Hey, at least this White House only exposes people and doesn't just go and have them knocked off.

:lol1:

jporterweb

09-09-2003, 04:18 PM

I do feel the need to comment with one thing here. We knew stuff about Bin Laden before 9/11. Stuff uncovered with Clinton in office, yet nothing was done about him. Then 9/11 happened and everyone scorned the Gov't. How could they let this happen. Then they try to take care of those that threaten us and the gov't is dead wrong. It makes no sense. As for WMD. He had plenty of damn time to hide the shit and ship it out. Not our damn fault that International Community wanted to play pussies. Guys fact is, Sadaam was a horrible dictator...and needed to be removed from power. I don't want to be attacked for my opinion, and I don't have the energy to argue about it. I just thought it was best known.

Spence

09-09-2003, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
Hey, at least this White House only exposes people and doesn't just go and have them knocked off.
Which White House was knocking off people and which people were knocked off? And what evidence is there for any of that?

[I sure hope we're not talking about the infamous "Clinton Chronicles," which was so full of lies even Jerry Falwell has apologized for selling those tapes.]

Spence

09-09-2003, 04:48 PM

The notion that we went to war with Saddam Hussein because he was in violation of a UN resolution is laughable. The U.S. is in violation of more than one UN resolution. Who here is in favor of removing the Bush regime from power? [Aside from me, of course.]

jporterweb

09-09-2003, 06:07 PM

I vote Nay

Spence

09-09-2003, 08:33 PM

Ron Nay?

jporterweb

09-09-2003, 09:12 PM

Originally posted by Spence
Ron Nay?

roflmao

Nay as in No

jsarno

09-10-2003, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by jporterweb
I do feel the need to comment with one thing here. We knew stuff about Bin Laden before 9/11. Stuff uncovered with Clinton in office, yet nothing was done about him. Then 9/11 happened and everyone scorned the Gov't. How could they let this happen. Then they try to take care of those that threaten us and the gov't is dead wrong. It makes no sense. As for WMD. He had plenty of damn time to hide the shit and ship it out. Not our damn fault that International Community wanted to play pussies. Guys fact is, Sadaam was a horrible dictator...and needed to be removed from power. I don't want to be attacked for my opinion, and I don't have the energy to argue about it. I just thought it was best known.

damned if you do, damned if you don't. Might I remind you that this is only a real issue because the democrats want the office back.

jsarno

09-10-2003, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by Spence
The U.S. is in violation of more than one UN resolution.
I'm not saying you're lieing...please don't take it that way...but I would like to understand why you think that way.

Who here is in favor of removing the Bush regime from power? [Aside from me, of course.]

NOT ME!

You could not replace him with ANY DEMOCRATIC candidate right now. No way, no how.
Bush is doing a good job, and like all the debates here, all your questions have been answered of successfully rebutted to help you understand that. I know you don't like him, and that's your opinion which is fine. But Bush is doing better than any one that could possibly replace him. You just don't replace a president because you don't like him. You replace him with someone that will do better.
(by the way, don't think that if you elect a democrat that this conflict will all of sudden disapear. We'll still be fighting it, even after Bush leaves office 5 years from now)

To answer your question.

NO!

IowaSkinsFan

09-10-2003, 10:43 AM

Sure have got a lot of mileage out of this thread!

dukeuch

09-10-2003, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by jsarno
I'm not saying you're lieing...please don't take it that way...but I would like to understand why you think that way.

Just curious: If Spence can cite UN Resolutions which are being violated by the U.S., will this affect your opinion in any way?

jporterweb

09-10-2003, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by dukeuch
Just curious: If Spence can cite UN Resolutions which are being violated by the U.S., will this affect your opinion in any way?

It depends, do these violations threaten the lives of our people? Do they threaten lives in our neighboring countries?

Spence

09-10-2003, 12:18 PM

INTERNATIONAL COURT REBUKES U.N. DEFAULTERS

United Nations member states that fail to pay their assessed dues to the organisation are in clear violation of international law, and the United States is currently the largest defaulter.

By Thalif Deen

Inter Press Services

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

November 1999

United Nations: The head of the UN's highest judicial body, in a pointed rebuke of the United States, has declared that any member state that failed to pay its assessed dues to the United Nations is in clear violation of international law.

Stephen Schwebel, president of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague, told the UN General Assembly that the failure by UN member states to pay their dues 'not only has the gravest effects on the life of the Organisation' but also transgressed 'the principles of free consent and good faith ... which are at the heart of international law and relations'.

Currently, the United States is both the largest single contributor to the UN's regular budget and the largest single defaulter. It has accumulated arrears amounting to nearly $1.6 billion in unpaid dues and pushed the world body to the brink of bankruptcy.

The United States accounts for 25% of the UN's annual budget of about $1.3 billion, followed by Japan (20%), Germany (9.8%), France (6.5%), Italy (5.4%) and the UK (5.1%).

Schwebel, a US national, told delegates that the financial fabric of the United Nations must be repaired by members acknowledging their obligations to pay their assessments as determined by the General Assembly under the terms of the UN charter.

He said that the 'binding character' of those assessments had been affirmed by the ICJ in 1962, when it held that 'the exercise of the power of apportionment creates the obligation ... of each member to bear that part of the expenses which is apportioned to it by the General Assembly'.

Although President Bill Clinton's administration expressed its desire to pay the outstanding US arrears, the right-wing Republican-dominated US Congress has held up payments, primarily for political reasons.

As a pre-condition for payment, Congress insisted that the United Nations cut its staff, eliminate waste and reduce its annual budget, maintaining it at zero growth. But, while UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan initiated a radical restructuring of the world body, Congress failed to keep its word.

Spence

09-10-2003, 12:21 PM

In addition, there are quite a few nations in violation of more U.N. resolutions than Iraq. Israel and Turkey, for example. Both are U.S. allies. When do we invade those countries and replace the governments. Read on...

The cases are listed in order of resolution number, followed by the year in which the resolution was passed, the country or countries in violation, and a brief description of the resolution.

Resolution 252 (1968) Israel
Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind measures that change the legal status of Jerusalem, including the expropriation of land and properties thereon.

262 (1968) Israel
Calls upon Israel to pay compensation to Lebanon for destruction of airliners at Beirut International Airport.

267 (1969) Israel
Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem.

271 (1969) Israel
Reiterates calls to rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem and calls on Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying powers.

298 (1971) Israel
Reiterates demand that Israel rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem.

353 (1974) Turkey
Calls on nations to respect the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of Cyprus and for the withdrawal without delay of foreign troops from Cyprus.

354 (1974) Turkey
Reiterates provisions of UNSC resolution 353.

360 (1974) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus "without delay."

364 (1974) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

367 (1975) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

370 (1975) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

377 (1979) Morocco
Calls on countries to respect the right of self-determination for Western Sahara.

379 (1979) Morocco
Calls for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Western Sahara.

380 (1979) Morocco
Reiterates the need for compliance with previous resolutions.

391 (1976) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

401 (1976) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

414 (1977) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

422 (1977) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

440 (1978) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

446 (1979) Israel
Calls upon Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying powers, to rescind previous measures that violate these relevant provisions, and "in particular, not to transport parts of its civilian population into the occupied Arab territories."

452 (1979) Israel
Calls on the government of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction, and planning of settlements in the Arab territories, occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem.

465 (1980) Israel
Reiterates previous resolutions on Israel's settlements policy.

471 (1980) Israel
Demands prosecution of those involved in assassination attempts of West Bank leaders and compensation for damages; reiterates demands to abide by Fourth Geneva Convention.

484 (1980) Israel
Reiterates request that Israel abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

487 (1981) Israel
Calls upon Israel to place its nuclear facilities under the safeguard of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency.

497 (1981) Israel
Demands that Israel rescind its decision to impose its domestic laws in the occupied Syrian Golan region.

541 (1983) Turkey
Reiterates the need for compliance with prior resolutions and demands that the declaration of an independent Turkish Cypriot state be withdrawn.

550 (1984) Turkey
Reiterates UNSC resolution 541 and insists that member states may "not to facilitate or in any way assist" the secessionist entity.

573 (1985) Israel
Calls on Israel to pay compensation for human and material losses from its attack against Tunisia and to refrain from all such attacks or threats of attacks against other nations.

592 (1986) Israel
Insists Israel abide by the Fourth Geneva Conventions in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories.

605 (1987) Israel
"Calls once more upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide immediately and scrupulously by the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War, and to desist forthwith from its policies and practices that are in violations of the provisions of the Convention."

607 (1986) Israel
Reiterates calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and to cease its practice of deportations from occupied Arab territories.

608 (1988) Israel
Reiterates call for Israel to cease its deportations.

636 (1989) Israel
Reiterates call for Israel to cease its deportations.

641 (1989) Israel
Reiterates previous resolutions calling on Israel to desist in its deportations.

658 (1990) Morocco
Calls upon Morocco to "cooperate fully" with the Secretary General of the United Nations and the chairman of the Organization of African Unity "in their efforts aimed at an early settlement of the question of Western Sahara."

672 (1990) Israel
Reiterates calls for Israel to abide by provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Arab territories.

673 (1990) Israel
Insists that Israel come into compliance with resolution 672.

681 (1990) Israel
Reiterates call on Israel to abide by Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Arab territories.

690 (1991) Morocco
Calls upon both parties to cooperate fully with the Secretary General in implementing a referendum on the fate of the territory.

694 (1991) Israel
Reiterates that Israel "must refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilian from the occupied territories and ensure the safe and immediate return of all those deported."

716 (1991) Turkey
Reaffirms previous resolutions on Cyprus.

725 (1991) Morocco
"Calls upon the two parties to cooperate fully in the settlement plan."

726 (1992) Israel
Reiterates calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and to cease its practice of deportations from occupied Arab territories.

799 (1992) Israel
"Reaffirms applicability of Fourth Geneva Convention…to all Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and affirms that deportation of civilians constitutes a contravention of its obligations under the Convention."

809 (1992) Morocco
Reiterates call to cooperate with the peace settlement plan, particularly regarding voter eligibility for referendum.

822 (1993) Armenia
Calls for Armenia to implement the "immediate withdrawal of all occupying forces from the Kelbadjar district and other recently occupied areas of Azerbaijan."

853 (1993) Armenia
Demands "complete and unconditional withdrawal of the occupying forces" from Azerbaijani territory.

874 (1993) Armenia
Reiterates calls for withdrawal of occupation forces.

884 (1993) Armenia
Calls on Armenia to use its influence to force compliance by Armenian militias to previous resolutions and to withdraw its remaining occupation forces.

904 (1994) Israel
Calls upon Israel, as the occupying power, "to take and implement measures, inter alia, confiscation of arms, with the aim of preventing illegal acts of violence by settlers."

973 (1995) Morocco
Reiterates the need for cooperation with United Nations and expediting referendum on the fate of Western Sahara.

995 (1995) Morocco
Calls for "genuine cooperation" with UN efforts to move forward with a referendum.

1002 (1995) Morocco
Reiteration of call for "genuine cooperation" with UN efforts.

1009 (1995) Croatia
Demands that Croatia "respect fully the rights of the local Serb population to remain, leave, or return in safety."

1017 (1995) Morocco
Reiterates the call for "genuine cooperation" with UN efforts and to cease "procrastinating actions which could further delay the referendum."

1033 (1995) Morocco
Reiterates call for "genuine cooperation" with UN efforts.

1044 (1996) Sudan
Calls upon Sudan to extradite to Ethiopia for prosecution three suspects in an assassination attempt of visiting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and to cease its support for sanctuary and offering of sanctuary to terrorists.

1054 (1996) Sudan
Demands that Sudan come into compliance with UNSC resolution 1044.

1056 (1996) Morocco
Calls for the release of political prisoners from occupied Western Sahara.

1070 (1996) Sudan
Reiterates demands to comply with 1044 and 1054.

1073 (1996) Israel
"Calls on the safety and security of Palestinian civilians to be ensured."

1079 (1996) Croatia
Reaffirms right of return for Serbian refugees to Croatia.

1092 (1996) Turkey/Cyprus
Calls for a reduction of foreign troops in Cyprus as the first step toward a total withdrawal troops as well as a reduction in military spending.

[continued]

Spence

09-10-2003, 12:21 PM

[continued]

1117 (1997) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates call for a reduction of foreign troops in Cyprus as the first step toward a total withdrawal troops and reduction in military spending.

1120 (1997) Croatia
Reaffirms right of return for Serbian refugees to Croatia and calls on Croatia to change certain policies that obstruct this right, and to treat its citizens equally regardless of ethnic origin.

1145 (1997) Croatia
Reiterates Croatian responsibility in supporting the political and economic rights of its people regardless of ethnic origin.

1172 (1998) India, Pakistan
Calls upon India and Pakistan to cease their development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.

1178 (1998) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates call for a substantial reduction of foreign troops and reduction in military spending.

1185 (1998) Morocco
Calls for the lifting of restrictions of movement by aircraft of UN peacekeeping force.

1215 (1998) Morocco
Urges Morocco to promptly sign a "status of forces agreement."

1217 (1998) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates call for a substantial reduction of foreign troops and reduction in military spending.

1251 (1999) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates call for a substantial reduction of foreign troops and reduction in military spending.

1264 (1999) Indonesia
Calls on Indonesia to provide safe return for refugees and punish those for acts of violence during and after the referendum campaign.

1272 (1999) Indonesia
Stresses the need for Indonesia to provide for the safe return for refugees and maintain the civilian and humanitarian character of refugee camps.

1283 (1999) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates UNSC resolution 1251.

1303 (2000) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates UNSC resolutions 1283 and 1251.

1319 (2000) Indonesia
Insists that Indonesia "take immediate additional steps, in fulfillment of its responsibilities, to disarm and disband the militia immediately, restore law and order in the affected areas of West Timor, ensure safety and security in the refugee camps and for humanitarian workers, and prevent incursions into East Timor." Stresses that those guilty of attacks on international personnel be brought to justice and reiterates the need to provide safe return for refugees who wish to repatriate and provide resettlement for those wishing to stay in Indonesia.

1322 (2000) Israel
Calls upon Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying power.

1331 (2000) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates UNSC resolution 1251 and subsequent resolutions.

1338 (2001) Indonesia
Calls for Indonesian cooperation with the UN and other international agencies in the fulfillment of UNSC resolution 1319.

1359 (2001) Morocco
Calls on the parties to "abide by their obligations under international humanitarian law to release without further delay all those held since the start of the conflict."

1384 (2001) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates 1251 and all relevant resolutions on Cyprus.

1402 (2002) Israel
Calls for Israel to withdraw from Palestinian cities.

1403 (2002) Israel
Demands that Israel go through with "the implementation of its resolution 1402, without delay."

1405 (2002) Israel
Calls for UN inspectors to investigate civilian deaths during an Israeli assault on the Jenin refugee camp.

1416 (2002) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates UNSC resolution 1251 and all relevant resolutions on Cyprus.

1435 (2002) Israel
Calls on Israel to withdraw to positions of September 2000 and end its military activities in and around Ramallah, including the destruction of security and civilian infrastructure.

dukeuch

09-10-2003, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by jporterweb
It depends, do these violations threaten the lives of our people? Do they threaten lives in our neighboring countries?

Respond with whatever qualifications you desire. But I would question whether there Hussien violating the UN Resos regarding inspections threatened the lives of either Americans or our neighboring countries. There has been no evidence of the existence of WMD, nor an Iraqi/Al Quaida link (although one is sure forming now). In short, Hussien was a threat mostly to his own people, despicable as that is. I believe strongly that both the US and the world needed to address Husseins violations, just not with an attack at the time. Invasion would have always been an option, and there was planty of time to pursue other avenues first.

Keino

09-10-2003, 02:47 PM

SPLAT!!!!!

Spence, thats not fair. You are supplying too many facts. :beer: :beer:

jporterweb

09-10-2003, 03:03 PM

That's nice and all, but we were talking about US the UNITED STATES of AMERICA and what we are violating, and one thing about dues does not mean SQUAT to me.

jsarno

09-10-2003, 03:04 PM

WOW Spence...I think that wins most informative post of the year award! Thanks for the info.

Is non payment the only one we are not complying with?

I'm really curious as to which administration this started in (clearly the non payment was not a Bush Jr. admin law breaker), and which (if any) that Bush has not complied with.

I am also curious as to why something has not been done about our non payment. It's like they are saying it's ok not pay or something.
Great posts spence...thanks.

dukeuch

09-10-2003, 03:09 PM

Anyone thought about how we also violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? You know, the one we are all up in arms with North Korea because they are in violation of it too?

jporterweb

09-10-2003, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by dukeuch
Anyone thought about how we also violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? You know, the one we are all up in arms with North Korea because they are in violation of it too?

And since when are developing nuclear missles?

BigCountry

09-10-2003, 04:21 PM

Well known fact. But we're America and they're not....sad but it's how the world works these days.

jporterweb

09-10-2003, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by BigCountry
Well known fact. But we're America and they're not....sad but it's how the world works these days.

We have them, but we are not developing them.

Spence

09-11-2003, 10:14 AM

What does developing nuclear weapons mean? We've got thousands deployed all over the world, including South Korea.

Of course, I'm no unilateralist. I support our nuclear deterrent. At this point, nuclear weapons are a necessary evil and a major reason we don't have to fight more conventional wars than we already do.

jporterweb

09-11-2003, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by Spence
What does developing nuclear weapons mean? We've got thousands deployed all over the world, including South Korea.

Of course, I'm no unilateralist. I support our nuclear deterrent. At this point, nuclear weapons are a necessary evil and a major reason we don't have to fight more conventional wars than we already do.

We are not constantly creating more nukes to build our supply, last I heard we had actually reduced our amount of warheads.

dukeuch

09-11-2003, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by jporterweb
And since when are developing nuclear missles?

The US's violation has to do with reducing stockpiles, not development (except for the development of our "Star Wars" system). In trade for other countries not developing, existing stockpiles were supposed to be reduced by certain amounts every year, eventually going to zero in the future. The US has far more warheads than the treaty agreed to at this point. Bush has stopped the reductions totally, as I recall. I beleive that there is also language about delivery systems (the rockets) which we are may be violating as well.

Secondly, part of the treaty also touches on a part of the Salt II agreements, concerning anti-missile defenses (although I am a little less sure of this part, 'cause I did the research about 6 months ago) In any case, an anti-missile defense system is a violaiton of existing global nuclear weapons treaties, and we insist on moving forward with ours.

Personally, I think that reduction to zero warheads is pretty unlikely, and sad to say I agree with Spence that the existence of some nuclear arsenal actually enhances global stability through deterrence, "mutually assured destruction", etc. But if other countries signed with the understanding that we would be reducing our arsenal, and we are not, why would we expect them to obey the same treaty we defy?

Keino

09-11-2003, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by jporterweb
That's nice and all, but we were talking about US the UNITED STATES of AMERICA and what we are violating, and one thing about dues does not mean SQUAT to me.

You don't think it a bit hypocritical to argue enforcement of UN resos while being in violation of a UN Reso?

BTW - Our non-compliance with the Nuclear Proliferation is what opened the door for NoKo to do what they are doing.

Spence

09-11-2003, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by jporterweb
We are not constantly creating more nukes to build our supply, last I heard we had actually reduced our amount of warheads.
Yes, that's true, we are not creating more nuclear weapons. When you've got more than 10,000 of them you don't need to make new ones every day. Actually, the Bush admin scrapped plans to destroy warheads--that was his plan in 2000. The warheads are just placed in mothballs and could be taken out and redeployed at any time.

jporterweb

09-11-2003, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by Keino
You don't think it a bit hypocritical to argue enforcement of UN resos while being in violation of a UN Reso?

BTW - Our non-compliance with the Nuclear Proliferation is what opened the door for NoKo to do what they are doing.

BTW, Proliferation means growing or getting bigger. We are not increasing our payload of weapons. That is the point of that treaty. Those that signed it promised not to attempt to increase the amount of nuclear weapons they have in any way. To my knowledge, and I've not read it so don't slam me if I'm wrong Spence., that is the only thing that treaty was signed for. I know it's meant to eventually rid our world of nukes, but that treaty was only signed to stop the growth.

dukeuch

09-11-2003, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by jporterweb
BTW, Proliferation means growing or getting bigger. We are not increasing our payload of weapons. That is the point of that treaty. Those that signed it promised not to attempt to increase the amount of nuclear weapons they have in any way. To my knowledge, and I've not read it so don't slam me if I'm wrong Spence., that is the only thing that treaty was signed for. I know it's meant to eventually rid our world of nukes, but that treaty was only signed to stop the growth.

Actually, the treaty very specifically established how many warheads each signatory had, and a very specific schedule for the destruction of warheads for each subsequent year. The main point of the treaty for those who were laready in possesion of nuclear warheads was to lay out the maximum number they were to have in subsequent years (or to put it another way, how many were to be destroyed each year). The trade off was that all the signatories who did not have nuclear capabilities committed to refrain from developing any.

All the signatories held to their word for a while, and thousands of warheads have been detroyed (mostly US and former USSR) until the US (Bush administration) stopped complying with the schedule sometime in 2001.

jporterweb

09-11-2003, 03:50 PM

spence, can I see some proof of what he's saying? I know you can find that stuff easier then myself.

dukeuch

09-11-2003, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by jporterweb
spence, can I see some proof of what he's saying? I know you can find that stuff easier then myself.

Shit, now I'm getting concerned too, 'cause I can't find whatever it was I was looking at back when the whole N. Korea non-compliance issue started. I really remember seeing a chart of the weapons stockpiles being reduced for the five nuclear weapons states, but now can't find it.

Ready for egg on my face, but still looking.

Keino

09-11-2003, 07:08 PM

Here's a good link. http://disarmament.un.org:8080/wmd/npt/nptrevhome.html

I haven't checked it all out, but there's some very solid info there.

Spence

09-12-2003, 08:40 AM

North Korea signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in the mid-1980s, I believe. It was a false promise, as is most everything that comes from that government. They've been reprocessing spent fuel rods for some time now, though no one outside of North Korea knows exactly when. [Or if they know they are not saying.] We are signatories to the Treaty, but that does not mean we promise to destroy our own weapons. We had them before the Treaty was created. We promise not to help nuclear weapons proliferate. In other words, we promise not to share that information with others.

dukeuch

09-12-2003, 10:43 AM

I screwed up; I was thinking of a bilateral agreement with the USSR about reducing stockpiles, Start II, I believe.

dalpumpkin

09-13-2003, 01:17 AM

Originally posted by Spence
That's a remarkable attitude, Jsarno. You've admitted you don't care if the administration lied to get us into war. That strikes me as one of the most breathtakingly irresponsible viewpoints any human being has ever held. Once you tell your goverment it is okay to lie to you about matters of life and death, you have given them the right to do anything they like. If that's what you want, you appear to have gotten it. Just don't complain when the government lies to get us into a war you don't like. It'll be too late then. You've already told them it's okay.

And you don't care that two members of the administration knowingly committed a felony by revealing the identity of an active CIA agent. This endangers the lives of anyone she has been working with and means the U.S. government can no longer take advantage of her sources to protect its interests and the lives of American citizens. And it was all done to intimidate her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, the man who blew the whistle on Mr Bush's Iraq lies. None of that means anything to you because George W Bush's administration did it--which means it must be fine.

What does matter to you, Jsarno--aside from throwing gays in prison?

Prove the lie for what my man, it is simple. There is no need to answer you dislike for whatever.

YOU call something a lie! You prove it so! Fair enough?

Are you man enough to prove the basic things a lie? Can you answer this post or just hide like a know debate guy to the the facts?

Facts are Iraq and there leader made a agreement in a loss in war. Many a good old boy lost a great promise in life for this simple agreement, They had know chance to debate it like us, they are gone. Now you say lies are made to uphold that agreement they lost EVERYTHING for? NO, put the the video game down. You answer how there lives should be respected.

What is it man? Spence what is it? What men DIED and IRAQIES died by the millions by playing Saddams Game. You answer what lie was said to take Saddam out of power, answer that. Just because YOU choose to play politics in this, then you should answer the most basic quistion? Was a Lie as you say even needed to do what happened?