Michael Moore - We Finally Got Our Frankenstein - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Nomad · 12-15-2003, 05:04 AM

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php

-Snip-

Thank God Saddam is finally back in American hands! He must have really missed us. Man, he sure looked bad! But, at least he got a free dental exam today. That's something most Americans can't get.

America used to like Saddam. We LOVED Saddam. We funded him. We armed him. We helped him gas Iranian troops.

But then he screwed up. He invaded the dictatorship of Kuwait and, in doing so, did the worst thing imaginable -- he threatened an even BETTER friend of ours: the dictatorship of Saudi Arabia, and its vast oil reserves. The Bushes and the Saudi royal family were and are close business partners, and Saddam, back in 1990, committed a royal blunder by getting a little too close to their wealthy holdings. Things went downhill for Saddam from there.

But it wasn't always that way. Saddam was our good friend and ally. We supported his regime. It wasn’t the first time we had helped a murderer. We liked playing Dr. Frankenstein. We created a lot of monsters -- the Shah of Iran, Somoza of Nicaragua, Pinochet of Chile -- and then we expressed ignorance or shock when they ran amok and massacred people. We liked Saddam because he was willing to fight the Ayatollah. So we made sure that he got billions of dollars to purchase weapons. Weapons of mass destruction. That's right, he had them. We should know -- we gave them to him!

seretogis · 12-15-2003, 05:28 AM

For once, I agree with him. We created this mess. We promoted Hussein. We armed him. This is exactly why the war is justified -- we are responsible for him, and we are responsible for cleaning up after him and taking him out.

Superbelt · 12-15-2003, 05:58 AM

Ok if you agree with him you should also agree that creating more of these Frankensteins is the immoral thing to do and we shouldn't be electing leaders who would create more of them.

Such as the regimes Bush is now supporting in Uzbekistan and Equatorial Guinea.

If you really agree that this is bad stuff, you really should read up on both countries current political climate and reassess voting Bush in '04. Doing otherwise may likely condemn hundreds of future american soldiers to death.

irateplatypus · 12-15-2003, 06:37 AM

ahh michael moore. no one has played the emotional suckers for his own gain better than he. for your truly prodigious skill of numbing the mind, i salute you michael!

2wolves · 12-15-2003, 06:59 AM

Pinochet.

Superbelt · 12-15-2003, 07:03 AM

This isn't playing to emotional suckers to me.

The way we dealt with Saddam over 20 years ago is the birth of the situation that has killed hundreds of americans and tens of thousands of Iraqi's and other people.

We need to learn from this and stop electing those who would create these monsters that later generations are forced to suffer through.
Most of the guys who have died fighting there this past year weren't even alive when we started making deals with Saddam, (who was then an assassin. Great pick to install as Dictator!)

seretogis · 12-15-2003, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
Ok if you agree with him you should also agree that creating more of these Frankensteins is the immoral thing to do and we shouldn't be electing leaders who would create more of them.

Correct. However, Dean or Clark or Lieberman or Gore or Clinton do not qualify to me as an elected leader who would not create more of them. I will continue to vote Libertarian, even if it is "throwing my vote away" as some claim.

Superbelt · 12-15-2003, 07:23 AM

Ooh no, I'm cool with third party votes. Go Seretogis!

Ustwo · 12-15-2003, 07:26 AM

You know I love liberals like Moore whining about things that happened 20 or 30 years ago. Hindsight is 20-20. When Saddam came to power, the Arab states all said he would be reasonable and we should work with him etc. We were still in the cold war (remember that) and the thought of dealing with nuclear annihilation was on a lot of minds. When Saddams true nature became known the US stopped dealing with him, and then solved the problem once and for all. We have the moral high ground here, not the socialists in Europe who were happy to do business with him like France and Germany, LONG after he was a proven mass murderer.

This is an amazing non-issue.

Ustwo · 12-15-2003, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
Ooh no, I'm cool with third party votes. Go Seretogis!

Me too, run Nader run!

shakran · 12-15-2003, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
You know I love liberals like Moore whining about things that happened 20 or 30 years ago. Hindsight is 20-20. When Saddam came to power, the Arab states all said he would be reasonable and we should work with him etc. We were still in the cold war (remember that) and the thought of dealing with nuclear annihilation was on a lot of minds. When Saddams true nature became known the US stopped dealing with him, and then solved the problem once and for all. We have the moral high ground here, not the socialists in Europe who were happy to do business with him like France and Germany, LONG after he was a proven mass murderer.

This is an amazing non-issue.

No offense intended, but that's total crap. We did not have the moral high ground. We stuck our nose somewhere it didn't belong and we got burned for it, just like we did in Korea, Viet-Nam, Afghanistan (remember, WE trained bin Laden and funded him so he would fight the soviets. Oops.), Panama (CIA agent Noriega didn't work out real well for us did he?), Somalia, Mogadishu, Bosnia, Chile. . the list goes on. We as a nation have tricked ourselves into thinking we are the pinnacle of all that is good and holy, and we must force our ways on all who do not comply.

I for one am ready for a more isolationist policy. We were never elected to be the world's sheriff, and we should not be pretending to be a cop when we are not.

Conclamo Ludus · 12-15-2003, 07:32 AM

I think we all know that we supported Saddam before. I'm not sure what Michael Moore is suggesting. That we shouldn't have gone after him because we created him?

I agree with Seretogis, this mess was ours, and I'm glad we're cleaning it up.

As for electing officials who won't create monsters, this is pretty difficult to determine. I'm not up for leaders who dig us into holes with monsters, but I still wouldn't equate a vote for Bush to a vote for killing US soldiers as suggested.

Ustwo · 12-15-2003, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Conclamo Ludus

As for electing officials who won't create monsters, this is pretty difficult to determine. I'm not up for leaders who dig us into holes with monsters, but I still wouldn't equate a vote for Bush to a vote for killing US soldiers as suggested.

Here is a question for you all. If you have a choise of picking a monster on your side or a monster not on your side, which monster do you pick?

Superbelt · 12-15-2003, 07:44 AM

Neither monster. Make your own path. Be that shining example for the world. Stick to your democratic principles.

Hindsight may be 20-20 but that hindsight gives us foresight into what we are doing now.

Which shouldn't be propping up other dictators like Uzbekistan and EG.
There is no difference between what Saddam was doing and what these monsters are doing right now. Today. And Bush knows it.

Ustwo · 12-15-2003, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
Neither monster. Make your own path. Be that shining example for the world. Stick to your democratic principles.

Gobbly gook. Letting your mortal enemies win to be an example of virtue leads to Christian martyrdom.

Conclamo Ludus · 12-15-2003, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
Here is a question for you all. If you have a choise of picking a monster on your side or a monster not on your side, which monster do you pick?

I don't think a monster on your side ever seems to pay off. It may in the short term but eventually it will blow up in your face. Supporting these enemies of humanity gives them a credibility with which to damage you later on. Although I agree that it isn't all that simple just to ignore them or to totally oppose all of them. International politics is too complex for this.

Superbelt · 12-15-2003, 08:06 AM

It's not "Gobbly gook" Iran was never a threat to us. We just wanted to get them back for deposing the Shah, who was giving us favorable oil contracts.

smooth · 12-15-2003, 08:23 AM

Superbelt raises a valid point in that we have no business installing leaders in foreign countries. That seems to fly in the face of our stated belief system.

Given our roots as a former colony, I can't imagine our founding framers being pleased with such actions.

Compound this with the fact that we have overthrown democratically elected officials numerous times for persons more aligned with our country's interests.

I don't understand how any patriotic US citizen can tolerate or defend such actions that blatantly violate our belief system.

Superbelt · 12-15-2003, 09:21 AM

Rumsfeld: Sure, 'Dam. We'll ignore the tortured pleading of your nations people.

Saddam: Thanks pal, now lets exchange contracts. Here's a dirt cheap one for oil exploration and one where I promise to kill some Iranians.

Rumsfeld: And to help you do that, heres an invoice for Jets, RPG's, anthrax, West Nile Virus, some nuclear engineering contracts, a few chemistry kits and instructions for making your own mustard and Sarin gas.....

Superbelt · 12-15-2003, 09:23 AM

What I wouldn't give to have that picture on the front page of every newspaper in america for just one day....

Conclamo Ludus · 12-15-2003, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
What I wouldn't give to have that picture on the front page of every newspaper in america for just one day....

You could use the headline "WHAT YOU ALREADY KNOW." It wouldn't happen because it isn't news. There's no reason to show outdated pictures about outdated agreements. The picture and the story are irrelevant now.

Superbelt · 12-15-2003, 09:35 AM

No, what "we" (of political message boards) already know. Most americans haven't seen that picture and know nothing of what kind of deals we had with Iraq.

Hell between 30 and 40% of americans can't find this country on a map let alone their own state. You think they know anything of deals we have made with a dictator like Saddam?

Conclamo Ludus · 12-15-2003, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
No, what "we" (of political message boards) already know. Most americans haven't seen that picture and know nothing of what kind of deals we had with Iraq.

Hell between 30 and 40% of americans can't find this country on a map let alone their own state. You think they know anything of deals we have made with a dictator like Saddam?

I've heard it all over the nighlty news for a long time. Iraq timelines etc. Do the deals matter much anymore? Former administrations made these deals, and they are no longer in effect. I just don't understand what you are getting at from this picture.

Superbelt · 12-15-2003, 10:07 AM

Rumsfeld is the key, so is Cheney. Both were part of those former administrations and are now back. Along with Saddam, they should be facing their transgressions.

AND, they. are. doing. it. again.
in several different countries.

Conclamo Ludus · 12-15-2003, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
Rumsfeld is the key, so is Cheney. Both were part of those former administrations and are now back. Along with Saddam, they should be facing their transgressions.

AND, they. are. doing. it. again.
in several different countries.

What are they're transgressions that they should be facing. Details? Sources?

Ustwo · 12-15-2003, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Conclamo Ludus
What are they're transgressions that they should be facing. Details? Sources?

Well for one thing, they tried to help Saddam build a nuclear plant, that Isreal later destroyed.

Oh wait, my bad, that was Chirac, never mind.

johnnymysto · 12-15-2003, 11:48 AM

Yeah, Michael Moore's right. We should all ignore the fact that we got him, and instead focus on mocking the president.

Whatever Mike - keep stuffing your face and shut up.

Superbelt · 12-15-2003, 11:54 AM

Well for starters, and as a place saver until I find a more complete list with sources.

Jets, RPG's, anthrax, West Nile Virus, some nuclear engineering contracts, mustard and Sarin gas...

All given to a man who started his relationship with us as an assassin.

smooth · 12-15-2003, 12:14 PM

What exactly are you guys arguing in support of?

Are you supportive of our government's tampering with the will of citizens of foreign countries?

Are you concerned that our past dealings with questionable and dangerous people in the past had consistently exacerbated the problems and bad-will abroad?

From a few statements in the past I realize that a few posters view this forum as an outlet for competition--a place for discussion becomes a venue for you to "win" the argument.

I can't think of a single time that we've aided a dictator to power that hasn't ended up harming our long-term interests. In the very least, I can't think of an occasion where it hasn't harmed innocent people--even if they weren't US citizens. On the one hand, people will state that the interests of our citizens is paramount. Yet, on the other, those same people, in a different argument, will claim to be motivated by altruism. I think this is bizarre reasoning and the only thing I can account for it is due to the belief that winning an argument is the objective--not rational discussion.

For example, Conclamo Ludus, you stated that the past dealings with Saddam were common knowledge. When Superbelt expressed the opinion that the public actually knows very little about our foreign affairs, you asked what the point of that assertion was. It was clear to me, and I suspect numerous people reading it, that the point is that unless we become aware of our foreign policies, we willt continue to place our long-term interests in jeopardy. If nothing else, we need to be informed before judging whether certain dealings are in our long-term interests.

Then you follow with a statement challenging whether members of our current administration have actually been involved in dealings with foreign dictators. This seems to contradict your earlier assertion that such dealings were common knowledge. Furthermore, I think you are aware of the things we are currently doing abroad, so I wonder what the intent of your challenge was.

Do you need Superbelt to "prove" that our government is currently bolstering the power of foreign dictators through direct and indirect dealings? Or are you just going to declare "victory" if he doesn't bother tracing down page after page from the International sections of any current newspaper editions?

In case people have ceased reading by now, I'll bold my point:

This is evidence that we ought not to meddle in the affairs of sovereign nations, their election of leaders, or rely on the less circumspect position that the "enemies of our enemies are somehow our allies."

Ustwo · 12-15-2003, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by smooth
Do you need Superbelt to "prove" that our government is currently bolstering the power of foreign dictators through direct and indirect dealings? Or are you just going to declare "victory" if he doesn't bother tracing down page after page from the International sections of any current newspaper editions?

I don't need Superbelt to prove anything, I have a thread on global warming waiting for him when he decides to prove something

Quote:

In case people have ceased reading by now, I'll bold my point:

This is evidence that we ought not to meddle in the affairs of sovereign nations, their election of leaders, or rely on the less circumspect position that the "enemies of our enemies are somehow our allies."

Now, I would agree with you, in the cold war, I would not. The stakes are far different now then they were then as are the circumstances.

Tophat665 · 12-15-2003, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by irateplatypus
ahh michael moore. no one has played the emotional suckers for his own gain better than he. for your truly prodigious skill of numbing the mind, i salute you michael!

Excepting, of course, Carl Rove. Inflammatory, underhanded, media terrorists exist across the political spectrum. There's nothing wrong with criticizing the ones you disagree with, so long as you realize that there are equally scornworthy folks pushing agendas you might like.

Conclamo Ludus · 12-15-2003, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by smooth

For example, Conclamo Ludus, you stated that the past dealings with Saddam were common knowledge. When Superbelt expressed the opinion that the public actually knows very little about our foreign affairs, you asked what the point of that assertion was. It was clear to me, and I suspect numerous people reading it, that the point is that unless we become aware of our foreign policies, then we won't continue to place our long-term interests in jeopardy. If nothing else, we need to be informed before judging whether certain dealings are in our long-term interests.

Then you follow with a statement challenging whether members of our current administration have actually been involved in dealings with foreign dictators. This seems to contradict your earlier assertion that such dealings were common knowledge. Furthermore, I think you are aware of the things we are currently doing abroad, so I wonder what the intent of your challenge was.

Do you need Superbelt to "prove" that our government is currently bolstering the power of foreign dictators through direct and indirect dealings? Or are you just going to declare "victory" if he doesn't bother tracing down page after page from the International sections of any current newspaper editions?

Actually I'm just trying to get information. This one picture from the past is supposed to be evidence of treachery with which we are supposed to hold them accountable for. I've seen this picture a few times, and this picture is well known to me. There was nothing facetious about me asking for details and sources about the charges that SuperBelt is implying. I want to know just what he is trying to tell me.

Quote:

Originally posted by Conclamo Ludus
I don't think a monster on your side ever seems to pay off. It may in the short term but eventually it will blow up in your face. Supporting these enemies of humanity gives them a credibility with which to damage you later on. Although I agree that it isn't all that simple just to ignore them or to totally oppose all of them. International politics is too complex for this.

As you can see from my earlier post, I agree with this sentiment, which is why I want to know what SuperBelt is suggesting. An old picture that I've seen about supporting Saddam is not enough. I would like to know what monsters they are supposedly creating currently as suggested.

Giving SuperBelt the benefit of the doubt, I don't think he just made this up, so if he has some details he can certainly pass them on as he did with that photo of Saddam with Rummy.

I fully realize the contradiction I made about the photo being common knowledge, and then asking for more information. What isn't common knowledge is the other transgression he is insinuating and I am requesting information so that we can further the discussion.

I'm not interested in winning arguments. I win when I learn something. So SuperBelt, I implore you, could you be more specific as to what we should be worried about with Cheney and Rummy. No harm in asking someone to provide information, its how we learn. One old photo on the front of every newspaper does not provide enough information. Which is perhaps why it wouldn't do any good to run it. What might do some good for your point, is to run it with a little more information.

Tophat665 · 12-15-2003, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
Here is a question for you all. If you have a choise of picking a monster on your side or a monster not on your side, which monster do you pick?

Oooh, I remember this from the sneaky arguing thread. This is the technique where you give two choices where three or more exist.

I'll pick the "support no monsters" option, thanks.

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
Gobbly gook. Letting your mortal enemies win to be an example of virtue leads to Christian martyrdom.

You say Christian martyrdom like more Christian martyrs would be a bad thing.

Ustwo · 12-15-2003, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tophat665
Excepting, of course, Carl Rove. Inflammatory, underhanded, media terrorists exist across the political spectrum. There's nothing wrong with criticizing the ones you disagree with, so long as you realize that there are equally scornworthy folks pushing agendas you might like.

You equate Carl Rove with Moore?

Surely Sir, you must be joking.

seretogis · 12-15-2003, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by johnnymysto
Yeah, Michael Moore's right. We should all ignore the fact that we got him, and instead focus on mocking the president.

Whatever Mike - keep stuffing your face and shut up.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that Moore is right, because that would set dangerous precedent, but I do agree with the fact that we should not thrust our money and technology into the hands of some two-bit dictator simply because it serves a short-term purpose for us to do so. We ALWAYS regret doing so, so why do it? It is simply not worth the loss of American lives when we have to clean up our mess later on. Once Iraq is stabilized, let's get the hell out of the middle east and Africa and let charitible organizations help try to piece together broken nations. We have our own problems to worry about.

Ustwo · 12-15-2003, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tophat665
Oooh, I remember this from the sneaky arguing thread. This is the technique where you give two choices where three or more exist.

I'll pick the "support no monsters" option, thanks.

Then you have picked the monster that supports your enemy. You lose.

Tophat665 · 12-15-2003, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by johnnymysto
Yeah, Michael Moore's right. We should all ignore the fact that we got him, and instead focus on mocking the president.

Just so you understand what's really important.

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
You equate Carl Rove with Moore?

Surely Sir, you must be joking.

No, not really. Rove is the Niedermeyer to Moore's Blutarsky. They do the same thing: attempt to shape public opinion. Their message , medium, and tone differ, but not their essential goal of getting their memes into the public consciousness. Beyond that it is a matter of degree, not kind.

Oh, and that Rove is actually evil.

Lebell · 12-15-2003, 01:27 PM

It continues to amaze me that so many people in this world cloke their ignorance of history and politics with self-rightious indignance.

Superbelt · 12-15-2003, 01:49 PM

This is Rumsfelds Bio.
http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/rumsfeld.html
Note position such as: Secretary of Defense, and Special Presidential Envoy to the Middle East (1983 - 1984)

This is Cheneys Bio.
http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/...ios/cheney.htm
Secretary of Defense under the Bush Admin.

http://hnn.us/comments/9046.html

Quote:

The U.S. publicly opposed chemical weapons use in the Iran-Iraq war after 1983, but did not modify its policy of supporting Iraq, and took measures to prevent that country from being sanctioned in international fora (this included intervention to prevent Iraq from being specifically named as a perpetrator.)

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html
(go through this whole site, very interesting diplomacy information concerning the US and Iraq.

Quote:

1984
The SD announced on 6 March that, based on "available evidence," it "concluded" that Iraq used "lethal chemical weapons" (specifically mustard gas) in fresh fighting with Iran.[13] On 20 March, U.S. intelligence officials said that they had "what they believe to be incontrovertible evidence that Iraq has used nerve gas in its war with Iran and has almost finished extensive sites for mass-producing the lethal chemical warfare agent".[14]

Yet we kept supporting them.

Quote:

1989
By October 1989, when all international banks had cut off loans to Iraq, President Bush signed National Security Directive (NSD) 26 mandating closer links with Iraq and $1 billion in agricultural loan guarantees. These guarantees freed for Iraq hard cash to continue to buy and develop WMDs, and are suspended only on 2 August 1990, the same day that Iraq invaded Kuwait. Richard Haass, then a National Security Council official, and Robert Kimmitt, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, also told the Commerce Department (CD) not to single Iraq out for dual-use technology restrictions.[55]"

http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/T...Imps_73-02.pdf
The US apparently traded with Iraq in formal arms sales from 1983-1988.
This shows the US as very low comparable to some others. What this chart doesn't say is what kind of weapons were introduced. For instance, alot of assault rifles and tanks and planes were sold by the Russians, French, and Chinese. Alot of training, and high grade things like Nuke designs and expensive and delicate cultures were sold by America.
_______________
Use of WMD's

Documented Iraqi Use of Chemical Weapons
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_...q_Oct_2002.htm
Date
Area Used
Type of Agent
Approximate Casualties
Target Population

Aug 1983
Hajj Umran
Mustard
fewer than 100
Iranians/Kurds

Oct-Nov 1983
Panjwin
Mustard
3,000
Iranian/Kurds

Feb-Mar 1984
Majnoon Island
Mustard
2,500
Iranians

Mar 1984
al-Basrah
Tabun
50 to 100
Iranians

Mar 1985
Hawizah Marsh
Mustard/Tabun
3,000
Iranians

Feb 1986
al-Faw
Mustard/Tabun
8,000 to 10,000
Iranians

Dec 1986
Umm ar Rasas
Mustard
thousands
Iranians

Apr 1987
al-Basrah
Mustard/Tabun
5,000
Iranians

Oct 1987
Sumar/Mehran
Mustard/nerve agents
3,000
Iranians

Mar 1988
Halabjah
Mustard/nerve agents
hundreds
Iranians/Kurds

We knew they were using their wmd, especially Mustard gas to such a deadly degree. We documented it, yet we maintained diplomatic relations and even.....
...repeat...

Quote:

By October 1989, when all international banks had cut off loans to Iraq, President Bush signed National Security Directive (NSD) 26 mandating closer links with Iraq and $1 billion in agricultural loan guarantees. These guarantees freed for Iraq hard cash to continue to buy and develop WMDs, and are suspended only on 2 August 1990, the same day that Iraq invaded Kuwait. Richard Haass, then a National Security Council official, and Robert Kimmitt, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, also told the Commerce Department (CD) not to single Iraq out for dual-use technology restrictions.[55]/

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/s092002.html

Quote:

Sept 20 2002. Senator Byrd at the Senate Armed Services Committee.

" The last time Donald Rumsfeld saw Saddam Hussein, he gave
him a cordial handshake. The date was almost 20 years ago,
Dec. 20, 1983; an official Iraqi television crew recorded the
historic moment.
The once and future Defense secretary, at the time a
private citizen, had been sent by President Ronald Reagan to
Baghdad as a special envoy. Saddam Hussein, armed with a
pistol on his hip, seemed "vigorous and confident,"
according to a now declassified State Department cable
obtained by Newsweek. Rumsfeld "conveyed the President's
greetings and expressed his pleasure at being in Baghdad,"
wrote the notetaker. Then the two men got down to business,
talking about the need to improve relations between their two
countries.
Like most foreign-policy insiders, Rumsfeld was aware that
Saddam was a murderous thug who supported terrorists and was
trying to build a nuclear weapon. (The Israelis had already
bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak.) But at the time,
America's big worry was Iran, not Iraq. The Reagan
administration feared that the Iranian revolutionaries who
had overthrown the shah (and taken hostage American diplomats
for 444 days in 1979-81) would overrun the Middle East and
its vital oilfields. On the--theory that the enemy of my
enemy is my friend, the Reaganites were seeking to support
Iraq in a long and bloody war against Iran. The meeting
between Rumsfeld and Saddam was consequential: for the next
five years, until Iran finally capitulated, the United States
backed Saddam's armies with military intelligence, economic
aid and covert supplies of munitions."

..

It is hard to believe that, during most of the 1980s,
America knowingly permitted the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission
to import bacterial cultures that might be used to build
biological weapons. But it happened.

...

American officials have known that Saddam was a psychopath
ever since he became the country's de facto ruler in the
early 1970s. One of Saddam's early acts after he took the
title of president in 1979 was to videotape a session of his party's congress, during which he personally ordered several members executed on the spot.

Quote:

The United States almost certainly knew from its own
satellite imagery that Saddam was using chemical weapons
against Iranian troops. When Saddam bombed Kurdish rebels and
civilians with a lethal cocktail of mustard gas, sarin, tabun
and VX in 1988, the Reagan administration first blamed Iran, before
acknowledging, under pressure from congressional Democrats,
that the culprits were Saddam's own forces. There was only
token official protest at the time. Saddam's men were
unfazed. An Iraqi audiotape, later captured by the Kurds,
records Saddam's cousin Ali Hassan al-Majid (known as Ali
Chemical) talking to his fellow officers about gassing the
Kurds. "Who is going to say anything?" he asks. "The
international community? F----k them!"

Read ALL of that, it is also very good reading.

ESPECIALLY because in the article we list all the biological agents we sent to Iraq. It's invoices, not just speculations.

Including:
Anthrax, Botulism, Megaterium, Bacillus Subtilis, Brucella, Cholera, E Coli.
Bhania Virus, Dongua Virus, Hazara Virus, Kemeroud Virus, Langat Virus, Sandfly Fever, Sindbis Virus, Tahyna Virus, Thgoto Virus, West Nile Virus.
Also included were teaching supplies on how to handle, culture, support and contain these biological agents.

Thats a short list of the crap we gave them. There were also ballistic missile tech, nuclear tech support and some materials, (no nuclear material to my knowledge though) and chemical agents. I used to have a very good source of all this stuff but it has passe through my fingers in the past couple months. I'm sorry. But now that we have him alive I am sure I will be able to get that kind of information again in the next several months.

______________
Now, onto what we are doing NOW: Uzbekistan and Equatorial Guinea.

We are providing uzbek with lots of money, around 500 million a year I believe to do with as he pleases. And what pleases him are acid baths and burning people alive.
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=36267

Equatorial Guinea is a pretty little country In which the president had his opponents imprisoned and tortured, had his presidential predecessor executed by firing squad, helped himself to the state treasury at will. State radio recently declared him ''like God.''
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=25785

james t kirk · 12-15-2003, 01:56 PM

Pretty ugly stuff.

12-15-2003, 05:04 AM	#1 (permalink)
Nomad Heathen Location: California	Michael Moore - We Finally Got Our Frankenstein http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php -Snip- Thank God Saddam is finally back in American hands! He must have really missed us. Man, he sure looked bad! But, at least he got a free dental exam today. That's something most Americans can't get. America used to like Saddam. We LOVED Saddam. We funded him. We armed him. We helped him gas Iranian troops. But then he screwed up. He invaded the dictatorship of Kuwait and, in doing so, did the worst thing imaginable -- he threatened an even BETTER friend of ours: the dictatorship of Saudi Arabia, and its vast oil reserves. The Bushes and the Saudi royal family were and are close business partners, and Saddam, back in 1990, committed a royal blunder by getting a little too close to their wealthy holdings. Things went downhill for Saddam from there. But it wasn't always that way. Saddam was our good friend and ally. We supported his regime. It wasn’t the first time we had helped a murderer. We liked playing Dr. Frankenstein. We created a lot of monsters -- the Shah of Iran, Somoza of Nicaragua, Pinochet of Chile -- and then we expressed ignorance or shock when they ran amok and massacred people. We liked Saddam because he was willing to fight the Ayatollah. So we made sure that he got billions of dollars to purchase weapons. Weapons of mass destruction. That's right, he had them. We should know -- we gave them to him!

12-15-2003, 05:28 AM	#2 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	For once, I agree with him. We created this mess. We promoted Hussein. We armed him. This is exactly why the war is justified -- we are responsible for him, and we are responsible for cleaning up after him and taking him out. __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

12-15-2003, 06:37 AM	#4 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	ahh michael moore. no one has played the emotional suckers for his own gain better than he. for your truly prodigious skill of numbing the mind, i salute you michael! __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

12-15-2003, 06:59 AM	#5 (permalink)
2wolves Psycho Location: Just outside the D.C. belt	Pinochet. __________________ Nation of the Cat. Forgive maybe, forget .... not quite yet.

12-15-2003, 07:26 AM	#9 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	You know I love liberals like Moore whining about things that happened 20 or 30 years ago. Hindsight is 20-20. When Saddam came to power, the Arab states all said he would be reasonable and we should work with him etc. We were still in the cold war (remember that) and the thought of dealing with nuclear annihilation was on a lot of minds. When Saddams true nature became known the US stopped dealing with him, and then solved the problem once and for all. We have the moral high ground here, not the socialists in Europe who were happy to do business with him like France and Germany, LONG after he was a proven mass murderer. This is an amazing non-issue. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

12-15-2003, 05:58 AM	#3 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Ok if you agree with him you should also agree that creating more of these Frankensteins is the immoral thing to do and we shouldn't be electing leaders who would create more of them. Such as the regimes Bush is now supporting in Uzbekistan and Equatorial Guinea. If you really agree that this is bad stuff, you really should read up on both countries current political climate and reassess voting Bush in '04. Doing otherwise may likely condemn hundreds of future american soldiers to death.

12-15-2003, 07:03 AM	#6 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	This isn't playing to emotional suckers to me. The way we dealt with Saddam over 20 years ago is the birth of the situation that has killed hundreds of americans and tens of thousands of Iraqi's and other people. We need to learn from this and stop electing those who would create these monsters that later generations are forced to suffer through. Most of the guys who have died fighting there this past year weren't even alive when we started making deals with Saddam, (who was then an assassin. Great pick to install as Dictator!)

12-15-2003, 07:23 AM	#8 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Ooh no, I'm cool with third party votes. Go Seretogis!

12-15-2003, 07:32 AM	#12 (permalink)
Conclamo Ludus Modern Man Location: West Michigan	I think we all know that we supported Saddam before. I'm not sure what Michael Moore is suggesting. That we shouldn't have gone after him because we created him? I agree with Seretogis, this mess was ours, and I'm glad we're cleaning it up. As for electing officials who won't create monsters, this is pretty difficult to determine. I'm not up for leaders who dig us into holes with monsters, but I still wouldn't equate a vote for Bush to a vote for killing US soldiers as suggested. __________________ Lord, have mercy on my wicked soul I wouldn't mistreat you baby, for my weight in gold. -Son House, Death Letter Blues

12-15-2003, 07:44 AM	#14 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Neither monster. Make your own path. Be that shining example for the world. Stick to your democratic principles. Hindsight may be 20-20 but that hindsight gives us foresight into what we are doing now. Which shouldn't be propping up other dictators like Uzbekistan and EG. There is no difference between what Saddam was doing and what these monsters are doing right now. Today. And Bush knows it.

12-15-2003, 08:06 AM	#17 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	It's not "Gobbly gook" Iran was never a threat to us. We just wanted to get them back for deposing the Shah, who was giving us favorable oil contracts.

12-15-2003, 08:23 AM	#18 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	Superbelt raises a valid point in that we have no business installing leaders in foreign countries. That seems to fly in the face of our stated belief system. Given our roots as a former colony, I can't imagine our founding framers being pleased with such actions. Compound this with the fact that we have overthrown democratically elected officials numerous times for persons more aligned with our country's interests. I don't understand how any patriotic US citizen can tolerate or defend such actions that blatantly violate our belief system. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

12-15-2003, 09:21 AM	#19 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Rumsfeld: Sure, 'Dam. We'll ignore the tortured pleading of your nations people. Saddam: Thanks pal, now lets exchange contracts. Here's a dirt cheap one for oil exploration and one where I promise to kill some Iranians. Rumsfeld: And to help you do that, heres an invoice for Jets, RPG's, anthrax, West Nile Virus, some nuclear engineering contracts, a few chemistry kits and instructions for making your own mustard and Sarin gas.....

12-15-2003, 09:23 AM	#20 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	What I wouldn't give to have that picture on the front page of every newspaper in america for just one day....

12-15-2003, 09:35 AM	#22 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	No, what "we" (of political message boards) already know. Most americans haven't seen that picture and know nothing of what kind of deals we had with Iraq. Hell between 30 and 40% of americans can't find this country on a map let alone their own state. You think they know anything of deals we have made with a dictator like Saddam?

12-15-2003, 10:07 AM	#24 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Rumsfeld is the key, so is Cheney. Both were part of those former administrations and are now back. Along with Saddam, they should be facing their transgressions. AND, they. are. doing. it. again. in several different countries.

12-15-2003, 11:48 AM	#27 (permalink)
johnnymysto Overreactor Location: South Ca'lina	Yeah, Michael Moore's right. We should all ignore the fact that we got him, and instead focus on mocking the president. Whatever Mike - keep stuffing your face and shut up. __________________ "I'm disinclined to acquiesce to your request." - Capt. Barbossa

12-15-2003, 11:54 AM	#28 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Well for starters, and as a place saver until I find a more complete list with sources. Jets, RPG's, anthrax, West Nile Virus, some nuclear engineering contracts, mustard and Sarin gas... All given to a man who started his relationship with us as an assassin.

12-15-2003, 12:14 PM	#29 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	What exactly are you guys arguing in support of? Are you supportive of our government's tampering with the will of citizens of foreign countries? Are you concerned that our past dealings with questionable and dangerous people in the past had consistently exacerbated the problems and bad-will abroad? From a few statements in the past I realize that a few posters view this forum as an outlet for competition--a place for discussion becomes a venue for you to "win" the argument. I can't think of a single time that we've aided a dictator to power that hasn't ended up harming our long-term interests. In the very least, I can't think of an occasion where it hasn't harmed innocent people--even if they weren't US citizens. On the one hand, people will state that the interests of our citizens is paramount. Yet, on the other, those same people, in a different argument, will claim to be motivated by altruism. I think this is bizarre reasoning and the only thing I can account for it is due to the belief that winning an argument is the objective--not rational discussion. For example, Conclamo Ludus, you stated that the past dealings with Saddam were common knowledge. When Superbelt expressed the opinion that the public actually knows very little about our foreign affairs, you asked what the point of that assertion was. It was clear to me, and I suspect numerous people reading it, that the point is that unless we become aware of our foreign policies, we willt continue to place our long-term interests in jeopardy. If nothing else, we need to be informed before judging whether certain dealings are in our long-term interests. Then you follow with a statement challenging whether members of our current administration have actually been involved in dealings with foreign dictators. This seems to contradict your earlier assertion that such dealings were common knowledge. Furthermore, I think you are aware of the things we are currently doing abroad, so I wonder what the intent of your challenge was. Do you need Superbelt to "prove" that our government is currently bolstering the power of foreign dictators through direct and indirect dealings? Or are you just going to declare "victory" if he doesn't bother tracing down page after page from the International sections of any current newspaper editions? In case people have ceased reading by now, I'll bold my point: This is evidence that we ought not to meddle in the affairs of sovereign nations, their election of leaders, or rely on the less circumspect position that the "enemies of our enemies are somehow our allies." __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman Last edited by smooth; 12-15-2003 at 12:23 PM..

12-15-2003, 01:27 PM	#38 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	It continues to amaze me that so many people in this world cloke their ignorance of history and politics with self-rightious indignance. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

12-15-2003, 01:56 PM	#40 (permalink)
james t kirk Junkie Location: Toronto	Pretty ugly stuff.