[quote]Long term...however, a targeted assassination and a serious effort to build up Iraq like we did for Germany and Japan could possibly avoid war altogether.<hr></blockquote>The Marshall Plan cost $12 billion 1945 dollars, and was instituted in countries that had a pre-existing industrial base, and governments that had been based on democratic principles. The Marshall Plan also benefited the US economy by building up trade partners at a time when the US was still a production driven economy and the leading exporter of goods, i.e. they were good markets.
How this translates to Iraq is beyond me as we don't have the money to pay for this rebuilding, nor do we even have the money to pay for the war that brings about the re-building. In case you haven't noticed budget projections are for deficits to continue until 2008, for the next three years at record levels, and this is without the cost of war and rebuilding in those projections.
<strong>lets just rig up blix as a suicide bomber...shakes sadams hand, pushes button...two deaths....war avoided...blix is hero, gets a statue in springfield...."malaise forever"...i would go for that over thousands of bombs raining down on baghdad....g</strong><hr></blockquote>
Back when Saddam made himself out to be a good ole boy. But could we not see that comming? The main intent of his Baath party is to make a united arab state from the north west shore of Africa to Pakistan. By any means necessary.
<strong>Well, Donald Rusfeld knows very well what Saddam's got.
He sold him all the gas he'll ever need in the first place.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This picture is pointless rhetoric. Pointless. We had decent relations with them when we felt Iraq was the lesser of two evils. Now, it is the other way around. Iran is inviting nuke inspectors in to see their nuclear program...can't say quite the same for Mr. Saddam. I also guarantee you that the picture was taken before he gassed his own people.
cowerd:
In the last Gulf War, we actually made a PROFIT. That's right, a profit! While this may not happen again, we will definitiely get them to sell us cheap oil once a democratic government is established. It will help their people and ours at the same time. I also would point out that deficits exist right now for several reasons, the very LEAST of which is tax cuts.
1) Spending increased by double digit percentages during Clinton's second term...EACH YEAR.
2) The Economy is slow.
3) The War on Terror, homeland security costs, economic losses and rebuilding directly related to 9/11.
Bush has proposed the LOWEST increases in federal spending in years. And if history is any teacher, big tax cuts will INCREASE revenue (During the 1980's, we more than doubled government revenues....for all the talk of 1980's deficits, revenues were sky high).
This picture is pointless rhetoric. Pointless. We had decent relations with them when we felt Iraq was the lesser of two evils. .</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, it's not 'pointless rhetoric' at all.
This man was every bit as much a dangerous, brutal fascist then as he is now. Then, however, it was expedient for Rumsfeld to sell him the materials he needed to make the weapons of mass destruction that have become the pretext for this war.
You armed him. That's Rumsfeld shaking hands with someone right up there with Caucescu and Milosovic in that picture. It's not 'rhetoric' to point out that Donald Rumsfeld is one of the world's very greatest hypocrites, nor the revolting hypocrisy of this war.
So we made a mistake, and now we'll make up for it. It's all in the perspective. How does this debase Rumsfeld's current talk/actions? There are better rationales than this. It does not point to the illegitimacy of the current situation or our government's response, as trigger-happy as it may be.
edit: I think I should qualify this by saying that this sort of thing is Very Bad(tm) but my point is that I don't see how exactly it's applied to this situation. I hate the whole "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" policy ala Iraq in the 80's, Pakistan etc. today. It might be a necessary evil considering the alternative, but it doesn't mean I like it one bit.
[quote]In the last Gulf War, we actually made a PROFIT. That's right, a profit!<hr></blockquote>That's because non-combat members of the coalition ponied up bigs bucks for the liberation of their oil supplies, and Kuwait and Saudi Arabia tossed in bigger bucks so that ability to sell oil to the west would not be upset by regional instability.
This time its going to be a bit different:
[quote]Egypt, keen to take advantage of the latest bout of US largesse in the region, is demanding additional aid, which it says is needed to defray the expected costs of a possible war and is also stepping up its appeals for a bi- lateral free-trade package. Egypt is one of the largest recipients of US military and economic aid in the region. But it is demanding that the US also factors in the cost of war on its tourism industry, which accounts for 15% of Egypt's gross national product, and that it increases the $1.3 billion (£812.5m) in military aid that has been proposed in this year's budget.
Other countries are also merrily making hay while the sun shines. A free- trade agreement between Jordan and the United States was recently ratified and the US has agreed to provide the moderate Arab state with a dozen F-16 fighter planes. Turkey is getting in on the act, demanding $14bn in aid in exchange for its support. Israel has demanded an additional $2bn in military aid.<hr></blockquote>
Just curious SDW...is war the only option for you? Are you upset that we scared them into at least starting to cooperate? </strong><hr></blockquote>
After all this time, and NOW we scared them? Give me a break.
For a change, how about explaining why we SHOULDN'T go to war? How can we be sure that we are safe with Saddam Hussein running Iraq? Explain how we're to disarm Iraq, CREDIBLY, without removing Saddam.
I think it is hilarious that many here think Saddam's regime will be replaced with a shamocracy. Nonsense. The vast majority of people in Iraq are themselves Islamic fundamentalists, held back by Saddam's military regime. If proportional representation were to take hold after the US removes the dictator they put in power, things would be, er, uglier than they are now. It would be an Axis Of Super-Duper Evil, if you will.
As a side note, I believe Saddam has already won. I think America is on the decline. I think economically it is tanking (has tanked?) for many reasons, all your freedoms are being washed away by HomeLand Security bills, you are on Terror Alert: High (according to CNN), and you live in fear and paranoia of the next terrorist attack wich we all know is inevitable.
And America's (or the Bush Admin's) response to all this is to go to war with some dirt-poor, landlocked pile of crap half a world away because the USA feels 'threatened' by it.
More terrorist attacks on your country, we all know, will be 'resolved' by tightening border control, more rigorous screening, retinal scans, fingerprinting, whatever. Tighter security. Which locks those bad people out, but unfortunately locks you in as well.
You've already lost. Your freedom is gone, and is going more every day.
Nice Giant, overwhelm them with information so that it is near impossible to respond to it in any real way.
Didn't Iraq do the same thing with their initial response to the UN with their decalaration of weapons on hand?
On a more serious note, I very quickly scanned the information you posted and even with the quick scan I found one thing I disagreed with.
[quote]<strong> a General.
i Saddam Hussein?s military is much stronger and loyal than the Taliban?s force ever was.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
This whole section is a joke. We found out how loyal his army was in the last Gulf war. And as far as stronger, compared to the Taliban, sure. But most armies are. What makes you, or the guy who wrote the page, think that this has somehow changed since the last go round?
Once more , this was just a small notice from a quick scan. I do not believe that I will be reading all of it anytime today.
[edit] Noticed that you changed your info to a link. Much better, the first pasting of data was a bit much. [/edit]
Umm, after reading your link a bit more I think you need to rethink whether you want that as a main backup of your position. The slant there is terribly, terribly one-sided.
The Site practically accuses the President of not caring about human life, denigrating past servicepersons and more. Most of which is BS, plain and simple. The guy has a burr in his saddle, and I am not going to remove it for you. Weak.
[QB]Nice Giant, overwhelm them with information so that it is near impossible to respond to it in any real way. <hr></blockquote>
I always find it interesting how people here complain when given too much information. I hear it a lot here. It the same as saying that if the discription of the world doesn't fit into a sound bite, then it much be wrong.
[quote]Noticed that you changed your info to a link. Much better, the first pasting of data was a bit much. <hr></blockquote>
I agree. I didn't realize there was quite so much. But it's not like anyone will actually take the time to read this (or anything substantial) anyway.
The Site practically accuses the President of not caring about human life, denigrating past servicepersons and more. Most of which is BS, plain and simple. The guy has a burr in his saddle, and I am not going to remove it for you. Weak.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Are you referring to the following section? I don't see what you are talking about. It just points out some cases of ill treatment of veterans by the Bush admin. I could also point out the uphill fight of the veterans of the 1st gulf war that have had 'gulf war syndrome.' I don't know what part the Bush admin has had in this, but we do know that soldiers were exposed to something and not properly warned or cared for. There is probably a higher likely hood of this happing in round 2.
[quote]11 The Bush administration cares very little for the servicemen that will fight its war.
i Summary.
(A) The Bush administration has shown very little concern for the plight of past war veterans.
ii Examples.
(A) Broken promises
(1) Hearst Newspapers reported, “Many World War II and Korean conflict veterans have been hopping mad ever since the Pentagon welshed on the deal recruiters promised them when they signed up -- that if they served 20 or more years, they and their dependents would get free health care benefits for life. …. The Pentagon, Justice Department and White House won't discuss the situation, and the Bush administration is ignoring an appeal from the group seeking to overturn the 1995 decision on behalf of the nation's 1.7 million military retirees.” Bush’s treatment of past veterans contradicted his 2000 campaign promises that he would make sure “promises made to our veterans will be promises kept.” He had contended at the time that “in order to make sure that morale is high with those who wear the uniform today, we must keep our commitment to those who wore the uniform in the past. We will make sure promises made to our veterans will be promises kept.” [Hearst Newspapers 1/7/03]
(B) Disrespectful comments.
(1) Reacting to a proposal that Congress reinstate the draft, Rumsfeld said during a news conference on January 7, 2003: “If you think back to when we had the draft, people were brought in . . . without choices. Big categories were exempted: people who were in college, people who were teaching, people who were married. . . . And what was left was sucked into the intake, trained for a period of months, and then went out, adding no value, no advantage, really, to the United States armed services over any sustained period of time because the churning that took place, it took an enormous amount of effort in terms of training, and then they were gone.” The comment was not well-received by American veterans of previous wars. Rick Weidman, director of government relations for the Vietnam Veterans of America, told the Washington Post, “What it did was rip the scab off wounds that had been there for years -- he's the secretary of defense saying, ‘You didn't count, your service had no value whatsoever.’ It was just terribly, terribly insensitive.” [Washington Post 1/22/03c]
<strong>Can you elaborate on the revolting hypocrisy(/ies) Hassan? Thanks.</strong><hr></blockquote>
OK. Sorry to take us all off-topic, but here we go:
We all agree that Saddam is vile, and has to go. So this is tough: understood. He's a despot of the Caeucescu / Luckashenko calibre (if not quite a Stalin, say) and what he's done to the Marsh Arabs, the Kurds, the Iranians and his own people is awful. He has to go.
But this war just isn't about weapons of mass destruction and links with terrorism. If it were, we'd be waging war on the Saudis, and even the bloody Jordanians first. Colin Powell's 'chemical weapons factory', a linchpin of his speech to the UN? <a href="http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,892112,00.html"; target="_blank">A bakery.</a>
So, the American government has been sponsoring terrorists for years, from Central America to Africa. <a href="http://www.ciponline.org/facts/soa.htm"; target="_blank">Training them</a> and funding them. Hypocrisy.
Bomb Saddam for being a despot when you cozied up to a hatful of Central and South American fascists? Hypocrisy. Bomb Saddam when we armed him in the first place? Hypocrisy.
Want to bomb Saddam because he's disregarding UN resolutions without any kind of proposal for ensuring that Israel adheres to UN resolutions dealing with their illegal land grabs decreed over thirty years ago? Hypocrisy.
Want to bomb Saddam because he's flouting the will of the UN when we're going to flout the will of the UN in order to bomb him? Hypocrisy.
The senior members of the government of the world's most powerful nation all used to work in the oil business and want to wage war on the Middle Eastern country with the second-largest unexploited oil deposits: angry with the French for their veto because a diplomatic solution is in the interests of their oil contracts? Hypocrisy: changing the status quo through force benefits Harken, Chevron and Occidental et al, so don't accuse the French of being motivated by self-interest, Rumsfeld. You used to be the director of a huge oil company. And here's a picture of the American Defense Secretary shaking the hand of the man he now declares the greatest threat to world peace after Osama, while at the time he was prepared to overlook the torture chambers, the public branding, ear-docking and the rape rooms because he didn't want nasty Islamic Iran with its public executions and Morality Police to get its hands on the OIL.
Big
old
hypocrite.
[ 02-10-2003: Message edited by: Hassan i Sabbah ]
[ 02-10-2003: Message edited by: Hassan i Sabbah ]</p>
<strong>As a side note, I believe Saddam has already won. I think America is on the decline. I think economically it is tanking (has tanked?) for many reasons, all your freedoms are being washed away by HomeLand Security bills, you are on Terror Alert: High (according to CNN), and you live in fear and paranoia of the next terrorist attack wich we all know is inevitable.
You've already lost. Your freedom is gone, and is going more every day.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> That's funny on so many levels, I can't waste my time to take it apart. Get a grip!
<strong>Are you referring to the following section? I don't see what you are talking about. It just points out some cases of ill treatment of veterans by the Bush admin. I could also point out the uphill fight of the veterans of the 1st gulf war that have had 'gulf war syndrome.'</strong><hr></blockquote>
By the Bush admin? Really? When was the deal overturned? 1995. Bush is responsible for that? And the Admin hasn't just jumped up and put it back into place? How Draconian! I would like to see more sources than one newspaper article.
And the Gulf War Syndrome is the Bush admin's fault too? Please! You can point it out but at least base it in facts.
By the Bush admin? Really? When was the deal overturned? 1995. Bush is responsible for that? And the Admin hasn't just jumped up and put it back into place? How Draconian! I would like to see more sources than one newspaper article.
And the Gulf War Syndrome is the Bush admin's fault too? Please! You can point it out but at least base it in facts.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't want to argue with you, but do you even read?
Point 1: Part of Bush's platform when he was running was pro-vet, and to many people this referred to this issue. He seems to have forgotten about this, and that's why people are upset.
Point 2: The only blame I hinted at here was the Admin under Bush Sr. They conducted a war and obviously did something that affected the US troops. I included it as another reason why we should not go to war, but under a heading stating that are troops have to potential of falling victim to non-combat illnesses due to something the US is doing. I could say that the Bush Sr. admin did not properly care for our own troops, and there is potential for that to happen again.
Comments
How this translates to Iraq is beyond me as we don't have the money to pay for this rebuilding, nor do we even have the money to pay for the war that brings about the re-building. In case you haven't noticed budget projections are for deficits to continue until 2008, for the next three years at record levels, and this is without the cost of war and rebuilding in those projections.
<strong>lets just rig up blix as a suicide bomber...shakes sadams hand, pushes button...two deaths....war avoided...blix is hero, gets a statue in springfield...."malaise forever"...i would go for that over thousands of bombs raining down on baghdad....g</strong><hr></blockquote>
LOL!! Best laugh I've had all day!
He sold him all the gas he'll ever need in the first place.
<strong>Well, Donald Rusfeld knows very well what Saddam's got.
He sold him all the gas he'll ever need in the first place.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This picture is pointless rhetoric. Pointless. We had decent relations with them when we felt Iraq was the lesser of two evils. Now, it is the other way around. Iran is inviting nuke inspectors in to see their nuclear program...can't say quite the same for Mr. Saddam. I also guarantee you that the picture was taken before he gassed his own people.
cowerd:
In the last Gulf War, we actually made a PROFIT. That's right, a profit! While this may not happen again, we will definitiely get them to sell us cheap oil once a democratic government is established. It will help their people and ours at the same time. I also would point out that deficits exist right now for several reasons, the very LEAST of which is tax cuts.
1) Spending increased by double digit percentages during Clinton's second term...EACH YEAR.
2) The Economy is slow.
3) The War on Terror, homeland security costs, economic losses and rebuilding directly related to 9/11.
Bush has proposed the LOWEST increases in federal spending in years. And if history is any teacher, big tax cuts will INCREASE revenue (During the 1980's, we more than doubled government revenues....for all the talk of 1980's deficits, revenues were sky high).
<strong>
This picture is pointless rhetoric. Pointless. We had decent relations with them when we felt Iraq was the lesser of two evils. .</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, it's not 'pointless rhetoric' at all.
This man was every bit as much a dangerous, brutal fascist then as he is now. Then, however, it was expedient for Rumsfeld to sell him the materials he needed to make the weapons of mass destruction that have become the pretext for this war.
You armed him. That's Rumsfeld shaking hands with someone right up there with Caucescu and Milosovic in that picture. It's not 'rhetoric' to point out that Donald Rumsfeld is one of the world's very greatest hypocrites, nor the revolting hypocrisy of this war.
edit: I think I should qualify this by saying that this sort of thing is Very Bad(tm) but my point is that I don't see how exactly it's applied to this situation. I hate the whole "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" policy ala Iraq in the 80's, Pakistan etc. today. It might be a necessary evil considering the alternative, but it doesn't mean I like it one bit.
[ 02-10-2003: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
This time its going to be a bit different:
[quote]Egypt, keen to take advantage of the latest bout of US largesse in the region, is demanding additional aid, which it says is needed to defray the expected costs of a possible war and is also stepping up its appeals for a bi- lateral free-trade package. Egypt is one of the largest recipients of US military and economic aid in the region. But it is demanding that the US also factors in the cost of war on its tourism industry, which accounts for 15% of Egypt's gross national product, and that it increases the $1.3 billion (£812.5m) in military aid that has been proposed in this year's budget.
Other countries are also merrily making hay while the sun shines. A free- trade agreement between Jordan and the United States was recently ratified and the US has agreed to provide the moderate Arab state with a dozen F-16 fighter planes. Turkey is getting in on the act, demanding $14bn in aid in exchange for its support. Israel has demanded an additional $2bn in military aid.<hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://www.sundayherald.com/31254"; target="_blank">The Sunday Herald</a>
Spending increased by double digit percentages during Clinton's second term...EACH YEAR.<hr></blockquote>[code]
FY Expenditures % increase
(in billions)
1992 1381684 2.014
1993 1409512 3.717
1994 1461902 3.689
1995 1515837 2.951
1996 1560572 2.609
1997 1601282 3.206
1998 1652619 2.984
1999 1701932 5.106
2000 1788826 4.198
2001 1863926 10.107
2002 2052320 3.699
2003 2128230</pre><hr></blockquote>This is from the OMB. Don't know where you're gettting your numbers from.
[ 02-10-2003: Message edited by: cowerd ]</p>
<strong>
Just curious SDW...is war the only option for you? Are you upset that we scared them into at least starting to cooperate? </strong><hr></blockquote>
After all this time, and NOW we scared them? Give me a break.
For a change, how about explaining why we SHOULDN'T go to war? How can we be sure that we are safe with Saddam Hussein running Iraq? Explain how we're to disarm Iraq, CREDIBLY, without removing Saddam.
As a side note, I believe Saddam has already won. I think America is on the decline. I think economically it is tanking (has tanked?) for many reasons, all your freedoms are being washed away by HomeLand Security bills, you are on Terror Alert: High (according to CNN), and you live in fear and paranoia of the next terrorist attack wich we all know is inevitable.
And America's (or the Bush Admin's) response to all this is to go to war with some dirt-poor, landlocked pile of crap half a world away because the USA feels 'threatened' by it.
More terrorist attacks on your country, we all know, will be 'resolved' by tightening border control, more rigorous screening, retinal scans, fingerprinting, whatever. Tighter security. Which locks those bad people out, but unfortunately locks you in as well.
You've already lost. Your freedom is gone, and is going more every day.
<strong>
For a change, how about explaining why we SHOULDN'T go to war?</strong><hr></blockquote>
CCR does a pretty go job of explaining it.
<a href="http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/wotiraq/reasonsnowariraq.htm"; target="_blank">Reasons not to go to war</a>
[ 02-10-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
Didn't Iraq do the same thing with their initial response to the UN with their decalaration of weapons on hand?
On a more serious note, I very quickly scanned the information you posted and even with the quick scan I found one thing I disagreed with.
[quote]<strong> a General.
i Saddam Hussein?s military is much stronger and loyal than the Taliban?s force ever was.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
This whole section is a joke. We found out how loyal his army was in the last Gulf war. And as far as stronger, compared to the Taliban, sure. But most armies are. What makes you, or the guy who wrote the page, think that this has somehow changed since the last go round?
Once more , this was just a small notice from a quick scan. I do not believe that I will be reading all of it anytime today.
[edit] Noticed that you changed your info to a link. Much better, the first pasting of data was a bit much.
The Site practically accuses the President of not caring about human life, denigrating past servicepersons and more. Most of which is BS, plain and simple. The guy has a burr in his saddle, and I am not going to remove it for you. Weak.
[QB]Nice Giant, overwhelm them with information so that it is near impossible to respond to it in any real way. <hr></blockquote>
I always find it interesting how people here complain when given too much information. I hear it a lot here. It the same as saying that if the discription of the world doesn't fit into a sound bite, then it much be wrong.
[quote]Noticed that you changed your info to a link. Much better, the first pasting of data was a bit much.
I agree. I didn't realize there was quite so much. But it's not like anyone will actually take the time to read this (or anything substantial) anyway.
<strong>
The Site practically accuses the President of not caring about human life, denigrating past servicepersons and more. Most of which is BS, plain and simple. The guy has a burr in his saddle, and I am not going to remove it for you. Weak.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Are you referring to the following section? I don't see what you are talking about. It just points out some cases of ill treatment of veterans by the Bush admin. I could also point out the uphill fight of the veterans of the 1st gulf war that have had 'gulf war syndrome.' I don't know what part the Bush admin has had in this, but we do know that soldiers were exposed to something and not properly warned or cared for. There is probably a higher likely hood of this happing in round 2.
[quote]11 The Bush administration cares very little for the servicemen that will fight its war.
i Summary.
(A) The Bush administration has shown very little concern for the plight of past war veterans.
ii Examples.
(A) Broken promises
(1) Hearst Newspapers reported, “Many World War II and Korean conflict veterans have been hopping mad ever since the Pentagon welshed on the deal recruiters promised them when they signed up -- that if they served 20 or more years, they and their dependents would get free health care benefits for life. …. The Pentagon, Justice Department and White House won't discuss the situation, and the Bush administration is ignoring an appeal from the group seeking to overturn the 1995 decision on behalf of the nation's 1.7 million military retirees.” Bush’s treatment of past veterans contradicted his 2000 campaign promises that he would make sure “promises made to our veterans will be promises kept.” He had contended at the time that “in order to make sure that morale is high with those who wear the uniform today, we must keep our commitment to those who wore the uniform in the past. We will make sure promises made to our veterans will be promises kept.” [Hearst Newspapers 1/7/03]
(B) Disrespectful comments.
(1) Reacting to a proposal that Congress reinstate the draft, Rumsfeld said during a news conference on January 7, 2003: “If you think back to when we had the draft, people were brought in . . . without choices. Big categories were exempted: people who were in college, people who were teaching, people who were married. . . . And what was left was sucked into the intake, trained for a period of months, and then went out, adding no value, no advantage, really, to the United States armed services over any sustained period of time because the churning that took place, it took an enormous amount of effort in terms of training, and then they were gone.” The comment was not well-received by American veterans of previous wars. Rick Weidman, director of government relations for the Vietnam Veterans of America, told the Washington Post, “What it did was rip the scab off wounds that had been there for years -- he's the secretary of defense saying, ‘You didn't count, your service had no value whatsoever.’ It was just terribly, terribly insensitive.” [Washington Post 1/22/03c]
<hr></blockquote>
[ 02-10-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
<strong>Can you elaborate on the revolting hypocrisy(/ies) Hassan? Thanks.</strong><hr></blockquote>
OK. Sorry to take us all off-topic, but here we go:
We all agree that Saddam is vile, and has to go. So this is tough: understood. He's a despot of the Caeucescu / Luckashenko calibre (if not quite a Stalin, say) and what he's done to the Marsh Arabs, the Kurds, the Iranians and his own people is awful. He has to go.
But this war just isn't about weapons of mass destruction and links with terrorism. If it were, we'd be waging war on the Saudis, and even the bloody Jordanians first. Colin Powell's 'chemical weapons factory', a linchpin of his speech to the UN? <a href="http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,892112,00.html"; target="_blank">A bakery.</a>
So, the American government has been sponsoring terrorists for years, from Central America to Africa. <a href="http://www.ciponline.org/facts/soa.htm"; target="_blank">Training them</a> and funding them. Hypocrisy.
Bomb Saddam for being a despot when you cozied up to a hatful of Central and South American fascists? Hypocrisy. Bomb Saddam when we armed him in the first place? Hypocrisy.
Want to bomb Saddam because he's disregarding UN resolutions without any kind of proposal for ensuring that Israel adheres to UN resolutions dealing with their illegal land grabs decreed over thirty years ago? Hypocrisy.
Want to bomb Saddam because he's flouting the will of the UN when we're going to flout the will of the UN in order to bomb him? Hypocrisy.
The senior members of the government of the world's most powerful nation all used to work in the oil business and want to wage war on the Middle Eastern country with the second-largest unexploited oil deposits: angry with the French for their veto because a diplomatic solution is in the interests of their oil contracts? Hypocrisy: changing the status quo through force benefits Harken, Chevron and Occidental et al, so don't accuse the French of being motivated by self-interest, Rumsfeld. You used to be the director of a huge oil company. And here's a picture of the American Defense Secretary shaking the hand of the man he now declares the greatest threat to world peace after Osama, while at the time he was prepared to overlook the torture chambers, the public branding, ear-docking and the rape rooms because he didn't want nasty Islamic Iran with its public executions and Morality Police to get its hands on the OIL.
Big
old
hypocrite.
[ 02-10-2003: Message edited by: Hassan i Sabbah ]
[ 02-10-2003: Message edited by: Hassan i Sabbah ]</p>
<strong>As a side note, I believe Saddam has already won. I think America is on the decline. I think economically it is tanking (has tanked?) for many reasons, all your freedoms are being washed away by HomeLand Security bills, you are on Terror Alert: High (according to CNN), and you live in fear and paranoia of the next terrorist attack wich we all know is inevitable.
You've already lost. Your freedom is gone, and is going more every day.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> That's funny on so many levels, I can't waste my time to take it apart. Get a grip!
<strong>Are you referring to the following section? I don't see what you are talking about. It just points out some cases of ill treatment of veterans by the Bush admin. I could also point out the uphill fight of the veterans of the 1st gulf war that have had 'gulf war syndrome.'</strong><hr></blockquote>
By the Bush admin? Really? When was the deal overturned? 1995. Bush is responsible for that? And the Admin hasn't just jumped up and put it back into place? How Draconian! I would like to see more sources than one newspaper article.
And the Gulf War Syndrome is the Bush admin's fault too? Please! You can point it out but at least base it in facts.
<strong>
By the Bush admin? Really? When was the deal overturned? 1995. Bush is responsible for that? And the Admin hasn't just jumped up and put it back into place? How Draconian! I would like to see more sources than one newspaper article.
And the Gulf War Syndrome is the Bush admin's fault too? Please! You can point it out but at least base it in facts.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't want to argue with you, but do you even read?
Point 1: Part of Bush's platform when he was running was pro-vet, and to many people this referred to this issue. He seems to have forgotten about this, and that's why people are upset.
Point 2: The only blame I hinted at here was the Admin under Bush Sr. They conducted a war and obviously did something that affected the US troops. I included it as another reason why we should not go to war, but under a heading stating that are troops have to potential of falling victim to non-combat illnesses due to something the US is doing. I could say that the Bush Sr. admin did not properly care for our own troops, and there is potential for that to happen again.