Was Bush Right? - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

tecoyah · 02-03-2005, 06:54 PM

Let us attempt to remain Civil........Please

Willravel · 02-03-2005, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

The commission's report says bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to [Saddam] Hussein's secular regime. Bin Laden had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan.

"The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded bin Laden to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda."

A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994.

Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded.

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the report said.

Now, I am not saying that Iraq was behind 9/11. I am saying that your second sentence is completely bogus and made up.

Also from that same website:

Quote:

The panel said it found "no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

You, KMA, failed to mention that the source of the quotes you put above were from Powel, Cheny, and the rest of the Happy Fun Bush Gang. They were proven lies (or missinformation based on bad intel, whatever you choose to believe). Those were the same people that admitted that there was no credible link. Remember when Bush admitted there were no links? You did not prove anyone wrong, you simply did what Bush supporters always do: regurgitate what Bushco tells you.

Also from that site:

Quote:

The report also found that there was no "convincing evidence that any government financially supported al Qaeda before 9/11" other than the limited support provided by the Taliban when bin Laden arrived in Afghanistan.

That report is legal gospel. If that report say it's so, it's so. There was no credible link, and I'm offended that you think that we're stupid enough to believe that site proves the Iraq Aal-Qaeda connection. Jeez.

KMA-628 · 02-03-2005, 07:40 PM

Now wait a minute.

Where did I say that Iraq and Al Qaeda had collaborated on attacks on the U.S.?

You are a little off on this one.

I was responding to the "never never" comment from above.

While I do not think there was a lot of going on between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the "never never" comment just isn't true.

Also, the article cites the Commission's report. Where does it say that the things I quoted only came from BushCo.?

Without dragging out the book, the commission said that there had been some interactions between Iraq and Al Qaeda, not much but there were some.

You can't allow inclusion of the commission's report only if it serves your purpose (i.e., i don't see you commenting on drakers mentioning the 9/11 commission). If it is good enough for his argument, then it is good enough for mine.

I didn't bring the commission into this argument to back up some wild allegation. I used an article relating to the commission's report to debunk a comment about the report that isn't true.

lunchbox · 02-03-2005, 07:42 PM

<i>Bush claimed that democracy in Iraq would make the
invasion worthwhile. Does this prove him right? Is
there merit to his "domino theory" of democracy in
the Middle East? Was this worth 15,000 lives? (not a
rhetorical question).

Was the anti-war movement wrong?

I'll kick off the discussion with another question: DOes it really matter? Is the point of the exercise to have a side in the global debate that's right, or to supprt that Iraqi people in their choice? This guy Says it far better than I. Hope you have BugMeNot or an NYTimes subscription...</i>

Bush can claim the iraqi democracy is worthwhile, that doesn't make it true. I don't believe in war unless its an immediate threat, its been proven time and again that iraq wasn't. He can claim that diplomacy didn't work but I didn't see him try. Saddam sat there for 20ish years not doing anything with his power to the US but all of a sudden because George W Bush is in office he planned on it? I don't buy that for a second.

There is no domino theory to democracy in the middle east. What's the point anyway? what's wrong with dictatorships? Cuba has a dictatorship and a 100% literacy rate...i don't see the problem in that. It is not up to America to decide whether or not the people of each country want a democracy.

the anti-war movement wasn't wrong, because pre-emptive strike with minimal international backing -- causing the disruption of many of our allies -- is never excused.

the point of the excercize should be the side with the iraqi's choice but good luck on that one. We can't even side with a countries choice on economic system let alone a leader. We had to hope into vietnam because of the 'commmunist threat" and i've been trying to figure out since i was old enough to understand what politics is what the problem with 'communism' is. I happen to think it has MANY advantages over capitalism. But back to the point at hand, none of you here can confidently say that if the iraqis choose a muslim dictatorship that we're going to let it go. That's naive and blind to think that. If they're not supportive of mulitinational corporations and democratic we'll find a way right back into that country to up root it again.

Willravel · 02-03-2005, 07:50 PM

This whole big thing is about Iraq being at all involved in 9/11. Iraq, despite very, very loose aquaintenences with a few members of the al Qaeda was not nearly enough to possibly link them, and espically not enough to attack Iraq. Sorry I missunderstood the goal of your post.

daswig · 02-03-2005, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

That report is legal gospel. If that report say it's so, it's so.

Huh? How do you figure it's "legal gospel"?

Hell, where the Bill of Rights says "the right of the people", some liberals claim that means "the right of the State" or "the privileges of the people".

Legal gospel? There ain't no such beast.

Willravel · 02-03-2005, 08:05 PM

I made a mistake, and none other than daswig helped me out. Thank you, daswig (no sarcasm). It just goes to show you that people are unpredictable. Maybe this is the beginning of us getting along? We'll see.

What I meant was that the findings put fourth by the investigation has to be in agreement with the government. Imagine the 9/11 commission said there was no link, and Bush just kept saying there was. Someone is wrong. I'll bet you it's the guy who chocked on a pretzel, not the people who launched a formal investigation.

jonjon42 · 02-03-2005, 08:54 PM

ok let me put my own opinion forward..
Elections seem to this point fine and dandy, although I think we need to give more time for the full ramificaiton. I am worried about some of the minorities in Iraq and a sort of tyranny of the majority problem.

Bush is still wrong
this is just a (possible) silver lining
We went in the wrong way, and for the wrong reasons. Simple as that.

Now willravel I normally agree with you, but I must take exception over the getting involved in Korea. the koreans were attacked and it was a UN force that led the charge. Now when they tried to go and take N. Korea that was a little too far because they got China involved which complicated the mess. I probably would not be here if it wasn't for the US and the UN getting involved in Korea.

Now on to the subject of the anti-war protests. To generalize the entire movement that way is insulting to the movement. Yes marxists were involved, but they didn't make up the entire movement. Just like yes the anarchists protest, but they arent' the only ones. Their is such a wide spectrum of ideaologies in these sometimes very loose knit groups it is impossible to put one lable on them.

Willravel · 02-03-2005, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonjon42

Now willravel I normally agree with you

Good move!!! I agree with you agreeing with me. It's agreeable. Heh...

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonjon42

but I must take exception over the getting involved in Korea. the koreans were attacked and it was a UN force that led the charge. Now when they tried to go and take N. Korea that was a little too far because they got China involved which complicated the mess. I probably would not be here if it wasn't for the US and the UN getting involved in Korea.

I should have been more specific. I did not mean it was wrong for the UN to try and save lives, but the "battle against communism" was wrong. It's always a bad idea to take lives in the name of an "-ism". Actually it's always a bad idae to take lives at all, but that's a different conversation for a different board.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonjon42

Now on to the subject of the anti-war protests. To generalize the entire movement that way is insulting to the movement. Yes marxists were involved, but they didn't make up the entire movement. Just like yes the anarchists protest, but they arent' the only ones. Their is such a wide spectrum of ideaologies in these sometimes very loose knit groups it is impossible to put one lable on them.

Well put. I couldn't agree more.

daswig · 02-03-2005, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I'll bet you it's the guy who chocked on a pretzel, not the people who launched a formal investigation.

Heh. Sounds like you've never actually seen much of the crap that Congress puts out.

The report was written by committee. They say strange and bizarre stuff all the time. That doesn't necessarily make it so.

BTW, what do you make of the Warren Commission report on the Kennedy assassination? Lone gunman or Grassy Knoll? I've read it, and I must admit, the "magic bullet" made me laugh.

Willravel · 02-03-2005, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Heh. Sounds like you've never actually seen much of the crap that Congress puts out.

The report was written by committee. They say strange and bizarre stuff all the time. That doesn't necessarily make it so.

Oh I'm sure it's not true (in that most of what's going on over there is not goiing to make it to the public for some time), but Bush has to abide by the decision.

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

BTW, what do you make of the Warren Commission report on the Kennedy assassination? Lone gunman or Grassy Knoll? I've read it, and I must admit, the "magic bullet" made me laugh.

I just got done reading it. What a terrible mess. I feel a great deal of pity for Presidenbt Kennedy and his family (immediate family).

daswig · 02-03-2005, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Oh I'm sure it's not true (in that most of what's going on over there is not goiing to make it to the public for some time), but Bush has to abide by the decision.

Huh? Since when? I think you're confusing the legislative and judicial branches of government. Bush no more has to "abide by the decision" of the Congress than he has to play golf with Robert "KKK" Byrd every weekend. If he wants to, he can, but if he wants to tell them to fuck off, that's his option too. A committee report from congress has NO legal authority AT ALL. It's just paper printed at taxpayer expense, and has the same legal authority as an equal quantity of toilet paper.

host · 02-04-2005, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Man Host, your tone of self-righteousness just really puts me off to anything you have to say, needless to say none of your articles there refute the fact that the man is actively operating in Iraq. Are you trying to assert that he is a fabrication of the US government? We sure are going through a lot of trouble to keep this lie afloat, I mean hurling grenades at voters and beheading people is tiring work.

You hit on the Zarqawi thing, but you failed to address the historical relevance of Saddam giving aid and support to Aiyam Al-Zawahiri and Al Qaeda in their operations in Somalia after the soviet defeat in Afghanistan. You know about that right host? You know right after Osama got expelled from Saudi Arabia and he took refuge in Khartorum were countries such as Iran and Iraq were training logistically and tactically and aiding finacially the beginnings of Al Qaeda in response to America's presence in the horn of Africa. Or is that all a "Bushco" fabrication too? I mean I didn't know that Bush has a time machine at his disposal where he gets the DOJ and PBS frontline to put out documents and evidence attesting to such. Hell Osama himself attests to it, but he is a figment of Bushco's imagination right?

Your blind hatred makes you willingly ignorant to reality.

If you perceived disturbing parallels to the excerpts that I intend to quote,
perpetrated in your own country, by those who represent themselves as
the lawfully elected office holders of the federal executive branch, how
would you react? You mistake my outrage and incredulity for "self-rightousness and "blind hatred".

Quote:

............The intellectual bankruptcy and moral perversion of the BUSH regime might have been no concern of international law had it not been utilized to
goosestep the NEOCONS across international frontiers. It is not their thoughts, it is their overt acts which we charge to be crimes. Their creed and teachings are important only as evidence of motive, purpose, knowledge, and intent.

We charge unlawful aggression but we are not trying the motives, hopes, or frustrations which may have led AMERICA to resort to aggressive war as an
instrument of policy. The law, unlike politics, does not concern itself with the good or evil in the status quo, nor with the merits of the grievances
against it. It merely requires that the status quo be not attacked by violent means and that policies be not advanced by war. We may admit that overlapping ethnological and cultural groups, economic barriers, and conflicting national ambitions created in the 1990's, as they will continue to create, grave problems for AMERICA as well as for the other peoples of THE WORLD. We may admit too that the world had failed to provide political or legal remedies which would be honorable and acceptable alternatives to war. We do not underwrite either the ethics or the wisdom of any country, including my own, in the face of these problems. But we do say that it is now, as it was for sometime prior to 2003, illegal and criminal for AMERICA or any other nation to redress grievances or seek expansion by resort to aggressive war...........

..............The Crimes of the BUSH Regime.

The strength of the case against these defendants under the conspiracy Count, which it is the duty of the INTERNATIONAL COURT to argue, is in its simplicity.

It involves but three ultimate inquiries: First, have the acts defined by the Charter as crimes been committed; second, were they committed pursuant to a Common Plan or Conspiracy; third, are these defendants among those who are criminally responsible?

The charge requires examination of a criminal policy, not of a multitude of isolated, unplanned, or disputed crimes. The substantive crimes upon which we rely, either as goals of a common plan or as means for its accomplishment, are admitted. The pillars which uphold the conspiracy charge may be found in five groups of overt acts, whose character and magnitude are important considerations in appraising the proof of conspiracy. ..................

................. Laws were enacted of such ambiguity that they could be used to punish almost any innocent act. It was, for example, made a crime to provoke "any act contrary to the public welfare" (PATRIOT ACT I).

The doctrine of punishment by analogy was-introduced to enable conviction for acts which no statute forbade (PATRIOT ACT I). ATTORNEY GENERAL ASHCROFT explained that THE BUSH ADMIN. considered every violation of the goals of life which the community set up for itself to be a wrong per se, and that the acts could be punished even though it was not contrary to existing "formal law" (PATRIOT ACT I).

The JUSTICE DEPT> and the DEPT. OF HOMELAND SECURITY were instrumentalities of an espionage system which penetrated public and private life (PATRIOT ACT I).

ASHCROFT controlled a personal wire-tapping unit. All privacy of communication was abolished (PATRIOT ACT I). HOMELAND SECURITY appointed over every 50 householders spied continuously on all within their ken (TIPS PROGRAM).

Upon the strength of this spying individuals were dragged off to "protective custody" and to DETENTION camps without legal proceedings of any kind (JOSE PADILLA) and without statement of any reason therefor (PATRIOT ACT I). The BUSH APPOINTED SECURITY Police were exempted from effective legal responsibility for their acts (PATRIOT ACT I).

With all administrative offices in BUSH's control and with the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS reduced to BEING BUSH's RUBBER STAMP, the judiciary remained the last obstacle to this reign of terror (PATRIOT ACT I). But its independence was soon overcome and it was reorganized to dispense a venal justice () Judges were ousted for political or racial reasons and were spied upon and put under pressure to join the REPUBLICAN Party (). After the Supreme Court had acquitted three of the four men whom the BUSHCO accused of BEING ENEMY COMBATANTS, its jurisdiction over treason cases was transferred to a newly established "MILITARY TRIBUNALS" consisting of MILITARY OFFICERS (). The film of this "MILITARY Court" in operation, which we showed in this chamber, revealed its presiding judge pouring partisan abuse on speechless defendants (). Special courts were created to try political crimes, only REPUBLICANS were appointed judges (), and "judges' letters" instructed the puppet judges as to the "general lines" they must follow (MANDATORY SENTENCING GUIDELINES).

The result was the removal of all peaceable means either to resist or to change the Government...............

.....................The central crime in this pattern of crimes, the kingpin which holds them all together, is the plot for aggressive wars. The chief reason for international cognizance of these crimes lies in this fact. Have we established the Plan or Conspiracy to make aggressive war?

Certain admitted or clearly proven facts help answer that question. First is the fact that such war of aggression did take place. Second, it is admitted that from the moment the BUSHCO came to power, every one of them and every one of the defendants worked like beavers to prepare for some war. The question therefore comes to this: Were they preparing for the war which did occur, or were they preparing for some war which never has happened? It is probably true that in their early days none of them had in mind what month of what year war would begin, the exact dispute which would precipitate it, or whether its first impact would be IRAQ, IRAN, or NORTH KOREA. But I submit that the defendants either knew or were chargeable with knowledge that the war for which they were making ready would be a war of AMERICAN aggression. This is partly because there was no real expectation that any power or combination of powers would attack AMERICA. But it is chiefly because the inherent nature of the BUSHCO plans was such that they were certain sooner or later to meet resistance and that they could then be accomplished only by aggression. ............................

...................The orders for the treatment of IRAQI prisoners of war were so ruthless that ALBERTO GONZALES, pointing out that they would "result in
arbitrary mistreatments and killing," protested to the BUSHCO against them as breaches of international law. The reply of RUMSFELD was unambiguous. He said:

"The objections arise from the military conception of chivalrous warfare! This is the destruction of an ideology! Therefore, I approve and back the measures" ().

The Geneva Convention would have been thrown overboard openly except that RUMSFELD objected because he wanted the benefits of ENEMY observance of it while it was not being allowed to hamper the U.S. in any way. ........................

...........................The dominant fact which stands out from all the thousands of pages of the record of this Trial is that the central crime of the
whole group of BUSHCO crimes the attack on the peace of the world was clearly and deliberately planned. The beginning of these wars of aggression was not an unprepared and spontaneous springing to arms by a population excited by some current indignation. A week before the invasion of IRAQ, BUSH told his military commanders:

"I shall give a propagandist cause for starting war. Never mind whether it be plausible or not. The victor shall not be asked later on whether we told the
truth or not. In starting and making a war, it is not the right that matters, but victory ().

The propagandist scenarios were duly provided by the BUSHCO incessantly and falsely inferring that Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda and the 9/11 Attacks, and posed an imminent threat to America because he possessed large stockpiles of biological weapons and was close to developing nuclear weapons, in order to create the appearance of a credible threat of an impending Iraqi attack on the U.S. or on one of it's allies. ()..................

.................Each of these people made a real contribution to the BUSHCO plan. Each one had a key part. Deprive the BUSHCO regime of the functions

performed by a RUMSFELD, a WOLFOWITZ, a RICE, or a CHENEY and you have a different regime. Look down the rows of fallen men and picture them as the photographic and documentary evidence shows them to have been in their days of power. Is there one who did not substantially advance the conspiracy along its bloody path toward its bloody goal? Can we assume that the great effort of these people's lives was directed toward ends they never suspected?

To escape the implications of their positions and the inference of guilt from their activities, the defendants are almost unanimous in one defense. The
refrain is heard time and again: These officials were without authority, without knowledge, without influence without importance. POWELL summed up the general self-abasement of the dock in his plaintive lament that: "I always, so to speak, came up to the door, but I was not permitted to enter."

In the testimony of each defendant, at some point there was reached the familiar blank wall: Nobody knew anything about what was going on. Time after time we have heard the chorus from the dock: "I only heard about these things here for the first time."

These officials saw no evil, spoke none, and none was uttered in their presence. This claim might sound very plausible if made by one defendant. But when we put all their stories together, the impression which emerges of the BUSH REGIME, which was to herald the new millenium, is ludicrous. If we combine only the stories of the front bench, this is the ridiculous composite picture of BUSH's Government that emerges. It was composed of:

A Defense Chief who knew nothing of the excesses of the Military Intelligence Units which he created, and never suspected the IRAQI PRISONER TORTURE program although he was the signer of over a score of decrees which instituted the persecutions of those detainees;

A VICE PRESIDENT who was merely an innocent middleman transmitting BUSH's interest in obtaining definitive IRAQI WMD intelligence from the CIA, like a postman or delivery boy;

A Secretary of State who knew little of foreign affairs and nothing of foreign policy;

A Commanding General in IRAQ who issued orders to the Armed Forces but had no idea of the results they would have in practice;

A Homeland security chief who was of the impression that the policing functions of his department were somewhat on the order of issuing colorful threat level warnings that were politically motivated.

A Political Advisor and Mastermind who was interested in polling research and had no idea of the violence which his philosophy was inciting in the twenty
first century;

A provisional authority governor of who reigned but did not rule; and could not account for nearly $9 billion in funds he controlled that belonged to the
Iraqi citizens.

An NSA director who denied that BUSH saw briefings before 9/11 on the threat of terrorist airliner attacks, but who had no idea that anybody would read them;

A CIA Director who knew not even what went on in the interior of his own office, much less the interior of his own department, and nothing at all about the accurate pre-invasion intelligence about Iraqi WMD's or about Saddam's cooperation with AL Queda;

A president who never failed to create new justification and a new mission for his troops to justify his war of aggression as each previous justification
that he had advanced to the world, wilted under half hearted and delayed media scrutiny and closer inspection on the ground in IRAQ.

And a preparation for the war economy that included huge tax cuts for the wealthiest citizens, guaranteeing huge federal deficits, but with no thought that it had anything to do with war.

This may seem like a fantastic exaggeration, but this is what you would actually be obliged to conclude if you were to acquit these defendants.

They do protest too much. They deny knowing what was common knowledge. They deny knowing plans and programs that were as public as the pronouncements of the

NEOCONS of the PNAC and the Party program. They deny even knowing the contents of documents they received and acted upon. .....................

..............................
It may well be said that BUSHCO's final crime was against the land they had ruled. Like a mad messiah who started the war without cause and prolonged it without reason. If BUSH could not rule he cared not what happened to AMERICA. As RUMSFELD has told us from the stand, BUSH tried to use the defeat of post IRAQ invasion policies for the self-destruction of the IRAQI people. He continued to fight when he knew it could not be won, and continuance meant only ruin.

POWELL, in this courtroom, has described it as follows:

" . . . The sacrifices which were made on both sides after January 2004 were without sense. The dead of this period will be the accusers of the man
responsible for the continuation of that fight, GEORGE BUSH, just as much as the destroyed cities, destroyed in that last phase, who had lost tremendous
cultural values and tremendous numbers of dwellings.... The IRAQI people"he said"remained faithful to the goal of FREEDOM until the end. He has betrayed them knowingly. He has tried to throw them into the abyss. . ."

BUSH ordered everyone in his administration to resist admission of the truth to the last and then retreated into disgrace. But he left political life as he
lived it, a deceiver. This was the man whom these defendants exalted to a Presidency. It was they who conspired to get him absolute authority over all of AMERICA. And in the end he and the system they created for him brought the ruin of them all.

In the next post, read the actual quotes that comprised the template for
the preceding parallel contained in the quote box.

host · 02-04-2005, 01:44 AM

The actual quotes used in the preceding post are:

Quote:

<a href="http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/Jacksonclose.htm">http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/Jacksonclose.htm</a>
Summation for the Prosecution by Justice Robert Jackson

July 26, 1946

THE PRESIDENT: I call on the chief prosecutor, the United States of America.

............The intellectual bankruptcy and moral perversion of the Nazi regime might have been no concern of international law had it not been utilized to goosestep the Herrenvolk across international frontiers. It is not their thoughts, it is their overt acts which we charge to be crimes. Their creed and teachings are important only as evidence of motive, purpose, knowledge, and intent.

We charge unlawful aggression but we are not trying the motives, hopes, or frustrations which may have led Germany to resort to aggressive war as an instrument of policy. The law, unlike politics, does not concern itself with the good or evil in the status quo, nor with the merits of the grievances against it. It merely requires that the status quo be not attacked by violent means and that policies be not advanced by war. We may admit that overlapping ethnological and cultural groups, economic barriers, and conflicting national ambitions created in the 1930's, as they will continue to create, grave problems for Germany as well as for the other peoples of Europe. We may admit too that the world had failed to provide political or legal remedies which would be honorable and acceptable alternatives to war. We do not underwrite either the ethics or the wisdom of any country, including my own, in the face of these problems. But we do say that it is now, as it was for sometime prior to 1939, illegal and criminal for Germany or any other nation to redress grievances or seek expansion by resort to aggressive war...........

..............The Crimes of the Nazi Regime.

The strength of the case against these defendants under the conspiracy Count, which it is the duty of the United States to argue, is in its simplicity. It involves but three ultimate inquiries: First, have the acts defined by the Charter as crimes been committed; second, were they committed pursuant to a Common Plan or Conspiracy; third, are these defendants among those who are criminally responsible?

The charge requires examination of a criminal policy, not of a multitude of isolated, unplanned, or disputed crimes. The substantive crimes upon which we rely, either as goals of a common plan or as means for its accomplishment, are admitted. The pillars which uphold the conspiracy charge may be found in five groups of overt acts, whose character and magnitude are important considerations in appraising the proof of conspiracy. ..................

................. Laws were enacted of such ambiguity that they could be used to punish almost any innocent act. It was, for example, made a crime to provoke "any act contrary to the public welfare" (1390-PS).

The doctrine of punishment by analogy was-introduced to enable conviction for acts which no statute forbade (1962-PS). Minister of Justice Gurtner explained that National Socialism considered every violation of the goals of life which the community set up for itself to be a wrong perr se, and that the acts could be punished even g though it was not contrary to existing "formal law" (2549-PS).

The Gestapo and the SD were instrumentalities of an espionage system which penetrated public and private life (1680-PS). Goring controlled a personal wire-tapping unit. All privacy of communication was abolished (1390-PS). Party Blockleiter appointed over every 50 householders spied continuously on all within their ken (1893-PS).

Upon the strength of this spying individuals were dragged off to "protective custody" and to concentration camps without legal proceedings of any kind (1956-PS) and without statement of any reason therefor (2533-PS). The partisan Political Police were exempted from effective legal responsibility for their acts (2347-PS).

With all administrative offices in Nazi control and with the Reichstag reduced to impotence, the judiciary remained the last obstacle to this reign of terror (2469-PS). But its independence was soon overcome and it was reorganized to dispense a venal justice (784-PS) Judges were ousted for political or racial reasons and were spied upon and put under pressure to join the Nazi Party (2967-PS). After the Supreme Court had acquitted three of the four men whom the Nazis accused of setting the Reichstag fire, its jurisdiction over treason cases was transferred to a newly established "People's Court" consisting of two judges and five Party officials (2967-PS). The German film of this "People's Court" in operation, which we showed in this chamber, revealed its presiding judge pouring partisan abuse on speechless defendants (3054-PS). Special courts were created to try political crimes, only Party members were appointed judges (2065-PS), and "judges' letters" instructed the puppet judges as to the "general lines" they must follow (D-229).

The result was the removal of all peaceable means either to resist or to change the Government...............

.....................The central crime in this pattern of crimes, the kingpin which holds them all together, is the plot for aggressive wars. The chief reason for international cognizance of these crimes lies in this fact. Have we established the Plan or Conspiracy to make aggressive war?

Certain admitted or clearly proven facts help answer that question. First is the fact that such war of aggression did take place. Second, it is admitted that from the moment the Nazis came to power, every one of them and every one of the defendants worked like beavers to prepare for some war. The question therefore comes to this: Were they preparing for the war which did occur, or were they preparing for some war which never has happened? It is probably true that in their early days none of them had in mind what month of what year war would begin, the exact dispute which would precipitate it, or whether its first impact would be Austria, Czechoslovakia, or Poland. But I submit that the defendants either knew or were chargeable with knowledge that the war for which they were making ready would be a war of German aggression. This is partly because there was no real expectation that any power or combination of powers would attack Germany. But it is chiefly because the inherent nature of the German plans was such that they were certain sooner or later to meet resistance and that they could then be accomplished only by aggression. ............................

...................The orders for the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war were so ruthless that Admiral Canaris, pointing out that they would "result in arbitrary mistreatments and killing," protested to the OKW against them as breaches of international law. The reply of Keitel was unambiguous. He said:

"The objections arise from the military conception of chivalrous warfare! This is the destruction of an ideology! Therefore, I approve and back the measures" (C-338).

The Geneva Convention would have been thrown overboard openly except that Jodl objected because he wanted the benefits of Allied observance of it while it was not being allowed to hamper the Germans in any way. ........................

...........................The dominant fact which stands out from all the thousands of pages of the record of this Trial is that the central crime of the whole group of Nazi crimesthe attack on the peace of the world was clearly and deliberately planned. The beginning of these wars of aggression was not an unprepared and spontaneous springing to arms by a population excited by some current indignation. A week before the invasion of Poland Hitler told his military commanders:

"I shall give a propagandist cause for starting warnever mind whether it be plausible or not. The victor shall not be asked later on whether we told the truth or not. In starting and making a war, it is not the right that matters, but victory (1014-PS).

The propagandist incident was duly provided by dressing concentration camp inmates in Polish uniforms, in order to create the appearance of a Polish attack on a German frontier radio station (2751-PS)..................

.................Each of these men made a real contribution to the Nazi plan. Each man had a key part. Deprive the Nazi regime of the functions performed by a Schacht, a Sauckel, a Von Papen, or a Goring and you have a different regime. Look down the rows of fallen men and picture them as the photographic and documentary evidence shows them to have been in their days of power. Is there one who did not substantially advance the conspiracy along its bloody path toward its bloody goal? Can we assume that the great effort of these men's lives was directed toward ends they never suspected?

To escape the implications of their positions and the inference of guilt from their activities, the defendants are almost unanimous in one defense. The refrain is heard time and again: These men were without authority, without knowledge, without influence without importance. Funk summed up the general self-abasement of the dock in his plaintive lament that: "I always, so to speak, came up to the door, but I was not permitted to enter."

In the testimony of each defendant, at some point there was reached the familiar blank wall: Nobody knew anything about what was going on. Time after time we have heard the chorus from the dock: "I only heard about these things here for the first time."

These men saw no evil, spoke none, and none was uttered in their presence. This claim might sound very plausible if made by one defendant. But when we put all their stories together, the impression which emerges of the Third Reich, which was to last a thousand years, is ludicrous. If we combine only the stories of the front bench, this is the ridiculous composite picture of Hitler's Government that emerges. It was composed of:

A Number 2 man who knew nothing of the excesses of the Gestapo which he created, and never suspected the Jewish extermination program although he was the signer of over a score of decrees which instituted the persecutions of that race;

A Number 3 man who was merely an innocent middleman transmitting Hitler's orders without even reading them, like a postman or delivery boy;

A foreign minister who knew little of foreign affairs and nothing of foreign policy;

A field marshal who issued orders to the Armed Forces but had no idea of the results they would have in practice;

A security chief who was of the impression that the policing functions of his Gestapo and SD were somewhat on the order of directing traffic;

A Party philosopher who was interested in historical research and had no idea of the violence which his philosophy was inciting in the twentieth century;

A governor general of Poland who reigned but did not rule;

A Gauleiter of Franconia whose occupation was to pour forth filthy writings about the Jews, but who had no idea that anybody would read them;

A minister of interior who knew not even what went on in the interior of his own office, much less the interior of his own department, and nothing at all about the interior of Germany;

A Reichsbank president who was totally ignorant of what went in and out of the vaults of his bank;

And a plenipotentiary for the war economy who secretly marshaled the entire economy for armament, but had no idea it had anything to do with war.

This may seem like a fantastic exaggeration, but this is what you would actually be obliged to conclude if you were to acquit these defendants.

They do protest too much. They deny knowing what was common knowledge. They deny knowing plans and programs that were as public as Mein Kampf and the Party program. They deny even knowing the contents of documents they received and acted upon. .....................

..............................
It may well be said that Hitler's final crime was against the land he had ruled. He was a mad messiah who started the war without cause and prolonged it without reason. If he could not rule he cared not what happened to Germany. As Fritzsche has told us from the stand, Hitler tried to use the defeat of Germany for the self-destruction of the German people. He continued to fight when he knew it could not be won, and continuance meant only ruin. Speer, in this courtroom, has described it as follows:

" . . . The sacrifices which were made on both sides after January 1945 were without sense. The dead of this period will be the accusers of the man responsible for the continuation of that fight, Adolf Hitler, just as much as the destroyed cities, destroyed in that last phase, who had lost tremendous cultural values and tremendous numbers of dwellings.... The German people"he said"remained faithful to Adolf Hitler until the end. He has betrayed them knowingly. He has tried to throw them into the abyss. . ."

Hitler ordered everyone else to fight to the last and then retreated into death by his own hand. But he left life as he lived it, a deceiver; he left the official report that he had died in battle. This was the man whom these defendants exalted to a Fuhrer. It was they who conspired to get him absolute authority over all of Germany. And in the end he and the system they created for him brought the ruin of them all. As stated by Speer on crossexamination:

Swallowers and Enablers of the past four year of Bush Shit: WAKE THE FUCK UP AND PUT AN END TO THIS MADNESS.....NOW !!!

Quote:

<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6834079/">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6834079/</a>
U.S. found no evidence WMD moved from Iraq
No signs that weapons were smuggled, intelligence officials say
The Associated Press
Updated: 2:24 a.m. ET Jan. 17, 2005

WASHINGTON - As the hunt for weapons of mass destruction dragged on unsuccessfully in Iraq, top Bush administration officials speculated publicly that the banned armaments may have been smuggled out of the country before the war started.

Whether Saddam Hussein moved the WMD — deadly chemical, biological or radiological arms — is one of the unresolved issues that the final U.S. intelligence report on Iraq’s programs is expected to address next month.

But intelligence and congressional officials say they have not seen any information — never “a piece,” said one — indicating that WMD or significant amounts of components and equipment were transferred from Iraq to neighboring Syria, Jordan or elsewhere.

And......Al Zarqawi is not even listed on the FBI's "ten most wanted" or on
the "most wanted terrorists" web pages:
<a href="http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/terrorists/fugitives.htm">http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/terrorists/fugitives.htm</a>

As FBI director Mueller admitted publically last year:

Quote:

<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1961476.stm">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1961476.stm</a>
Wednesday, 1 May, 2002, 10:21 GMT 11:21 UK
FBI fails to find terror trail
By Katty Kay
BBC Washington correspondent

US intelligence officials have admitted they failed to unearth any sort of paper trail leading to the 11 September attacks.

The hijackers did not use laptops and stored nothing on computer hard drives. They dressed and acted like Americans

In the most detailed account so far of the investigation, the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) said that after seven months of relentless work America had found no hard evidence mentioning any aspect to the attacks on New York and Washington.

FBI Director Robert Mueller said his agents had chased literally hundreds of thousands of leads and checked every record they could lay their hands on, from flight reservations to car rentals to bank accounts.

They have hunted through caves in Afghanistan and credit card bills in America but so far the very best of US intelligence has been thwarted by 19 al-Qaeda hijackers, revealing just how little America knows about the 11 September attacks.

New warning

Mr Mueller said the hijackers hid communications by using hundreds of different pay phones and cell phones, along with hard to trace pre-paid phone cards.

FBI Director Robert Mueller
FBI officials say a similar attack may be plotted now

They did not use laptops and stored nothing on computer hard drives.

They made sure that all money sent to fund the operation was wired in small amounts to avoid detection.

They also dressed and acted like Americans and when four of them were stopped for speeding in the days before the 11 September, they kept calm, avoiding suspicion.

To sum it up:
I have no way to determine if Al Zarqawi is a credible threat or has ties to
Al Qaeda. I suspect that the BUSHCO only reveals to the media the snippets
that they believe strenghtens their propaganda efforts.

There apparently is no rational basis to believe that signifigant WMD assets
were transferred to Syria or anywhere else in the days before the Iraqi
invasion.

There is no believable explanation for the Bushco announcements immediately
after 9/11 that Osama and Al Qaeda and the named individuals displayed on
the FBI website since 9/27/2001, when that scenario is hoisted up next to
Mueller's admission 8 months later that there was no physical linking evidence.
If the lying war criminals of the BUSHCO were certain enough 24 hours after
the 9/11 attacks of who was responsible, and still could produce no evidence
eight months later of the culpability of those that they had so hastily and adamantly pointed to, what is a thinking and questioning citizen to conclude?

What the fuck have these criminal propagandists been right about ? Why do
they continue to have your enthusiatic trust? Would you have given the
Medal of Freedom to Tenent or to Bremer ? What are any of you thinking?????

36 senators showed some sign of waking from their slumber. They refused to
vote for a war criminal as U.S. Attorney General. When will you stop declaring
nonsense that the BUSHCO has even abandoned in their own propaganda
pronouncements? Have you even noticed? They rescinded their belief in
hidden WMDs, or in relevant ties between Saddam's Iraq and Al Qeada, because the passage of time robbed those lies of even the potential of
future validity. Why would you continue to parrot their lies and deceptions ?

stevo · 02-04-2005, 06:54 AM

So I guess we're all in agreement then that Iraq WMDs were moved to syria before the war and by now have been disseminated across the region, most noteably into sudan. Or does someone want to pick apart my post #78

roachboy · 02-04-2005, 07:17 AM

i guess if your standard for honesty is that rice might actually believe whatever the line might be on the planet bush on any given day, then i guess you'd be right, stevo.
but i have never really understood this defense from the right:

bush does not lie--he honestly believes what he says.
or: his decisions were based on erroneous information about the world.

you could say the same of psychotics.

Yakk · 02-04-2005, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

So I guess we're all in agreement then that Iraq WMDs were moved to syria before the war and by now have been disseminated across the region, most noteably into sudan. Or does someone want to pick apart my post #78

This is a silly statement. But it got a response. *sigh*

Post 78 contains no evidence of any real merit.

Ignoring a post does not mean agreeing with it. You where ignored.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

Thanks KMA for yet again providing evidence of a link between saddam and al-qaeda. what is that, the 18th time you've posted that. I guess people only read what they want to.

Um, that was evidence that Bin Laden asked for help, and Saddam didn't provide any.

Is Al'Qaeda asking for help from someone, and getting refused, enough to justify invasion? Heh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2LA

Vital parts of Iraq's WMD are stored there.

Earlier the article referred to "chemical weapons". Does this WMD refer to the same kind of weapons? Or some other kind?

Secondly, this report seems to be from one uncorroborated source? Hell, I can provide you with an uncorroborated source that says the US shot down a US passanger airliner in the 90s.

Fiver · 02-04-2005, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

Our soldiers exist to defend our freedom. Our soldiers are not Iraqis. They should not die so that Iraqis can have an election.

One might ask if US soliders are dying for oil and the profit of the rich? If the answer is yes, they should not be dying for that.

host · 02-04-2005, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

So I guess we're all in agreement then that Iraq WMDs were moved to syria before the war and by now have been disseminated across the region, most noteably into sudan. Or does someone want to pick apart my post #78

As I just posted in a quote box directly preceding this post of yours,
and will post again below, time has revealed your premise to be lacking.
It seems to ring as hollow as any of the other Bushco WMD rhetoric when
the time came to back up the "intelligence" with actual physical evidence.
This the current media reporting on in the subject:

Quote:

<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6834079/">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6834079/</a>
U.S. found no evidence WMD moved from Iraq
No signs that weapons were smuggled, intelligence officials say
The Associated Press
Updated: 2:24 a.m. ET Jan. 17, 2005

WASHINGTON - As the hunt for weapons of mass destruction dragged on unsuccessfully in Iraq, top Bush administration officials speculated publicly that the banned armaments may have been smuggled out of the country before the war started.

Whether Saddam Hussein moved the WMD — deadly chemical, biological or radiological arms — is one of the unresolved issues that the final U.S. intelligence report on Iraq’s programs is expected to address next month.

But intelligence and congressional officials say they have not seen any information — never “a piece,” said one — indicating that WMD or significant amounts of components and equipment were transferred from Iraq to neighboring Syria, Jordan or elsewhere.

sob · 02-04-2005, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

Thanks KMA for yet again providing evidence of a link between saddam and al-qaeda. what is that, the 18th time you've posted that. I guess people only read what they want to.

As far as syria is concerned here's a link and some text from the site http://www.2la.org/syria/iraq-wmd.php

I need some props, too. I've posted that, along with some quotes from the 9/11 commission, a couple of times.

Hell, I even posted a picture of the airplane in the middle of the desert 20 miles south of Baghdad (with no landing strip in the vicinity) where they trained terrorists. Our "comrades" didn't think THAT was convincing, either.

Oops--I feel the urge coming on again.

<img src=http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0XQA6AzQdt2*Q!RZLgC5fodsCcF8pcPuyQHWTcJwBAQZwSQEFDRezIdv5ETkUiev*DWUGcDPNh!0XLmMbAd2KGpj047cJG4KDKH6ukaiG9H95KGL1MMFaFzf9jOqkKiLvK9!58!mmCNs/photo_2.Par.0002.ImageFile.jpg?dc=4675505372460097691></img>

tecoyah · 02-04-2005, 04:24 PM

Please do not reply to the above troll..........."Comrades"

sob · 02-04-2005, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

"WAS BUSH RIGHT?"

The "tell" for me, is the reaction of the 200,000 or so, able bodied Iraqi
ex-patriate males who reside in the U.S. In the year or more since Bush,
after finally settling on the face saving explanation that the purpose of the
U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq was to bring "freedom and democracy"
to the Iraqi people, in a "war of liberation", how many of the above described
Iraqis have joined the U.S. military, or gone home to Iraq to serve in it's
reconstituted security forces? What percentage of Iraqi ex-patriates voted
in the "election" last weekend? In the U.S., the expatriates had the opportunity to vote over a three day period.

I believe that Iraqi ex-patriates, having the recent first hand experience of
living in countries that hold free and democratic elections, clearly see Bush
and his motives for what they are. Neither they, nor I, believe that Bush is
spending $200 billion (counting the new $75 billion fund request) and
ten thousand U.S. casualties, in a selfless effort to bring democracy to Iraq.
The following is a much more likely description of Bushco's intention than
the propaganda Bush & Co. serve up.

There was music to this. Too bad I couldn't add it.

<img src=http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0RAD9AgYVkdqXj3ZfpaSexQcew4q5FMa0C!80P8Et*IZGKlKuJb5981KfLdxYhtNGjsHxITos*p68sN6ZCO7etXKzLW120AsXD8vCy58JDeA/a.bmp?dc=4675508776682120944></img>

<img src=http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0RADrAgkVYtt*op8MqomP0aRNS30!zCSY7Dq4XHMfF*s38k2bboIi8i4rb1*Sz1hKBDhqzEQubjWxkNhJCcZwfjRaaVzhlu9PQJbd*NTZPUk/b.jpg?dc=4675508776684804503></img>

<img src=http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0RAANAwoVpNsP9eBsvfRGiezJjrV18ZlqaRsqG1vmtKirzL8dM*zphqe7ik2oGJkCwy!k*SvIiQWMoZQz4wMBd!jU2XqQ!GUD0A05!G8MuUY/c.jpg?dc=4675508776691665316></img>

<img src=http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0RAD9AgwVKNw*Gn*5urBKKrskTDBMCVx6cNrkYo9H7vO7F9VAzziGqhUl!7PhWP32ib8hIKZS7JQpEpjRr00v4nXA!!wntltMgSdjTH49Vzw/e.jpg?dc=4675508776693303767></img>

<img src=http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0RADrAg0VatzfA4JreNTDYGEZjL*vo4QP6kR9K!!BOXijYfwrjpr2OmfNN0R6OYKtD*iaf8sDVoNUY8YdVTneKXG6LRayNbe3zSYx!7XMMgo/f.jpg?dc=4675508776695414663></img>

<img src=http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0RAANAw4VrNwJfg2yQzXmc2zCjggv4kmh*cSNTvbY8Nm*uOPPWA2yQrFe*17etLY54PDm*dPgsqCGL8umjkrU7y2dQFDSOwqhL*xiGXrKQWE/g.jpg?dc=4675508776697253546></img>

<img src=http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0RAD9Ag8V7tyu0sf*VMZWeMtPzkg9*tO0EmZTv*pRTriuksb83QmOV4jY8dq!E9VH6wTvv!i4d92tKiKlA1MCzYnb*nGM0tvAmtCPkbCo1MQ/h.jpg?dc=4675508776699591917></img>

<img src=http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0RAANAxAVMN3T8S1plIWhh!xftOZPsczQUyfru1RFwLKuJ5dGLNjOnZ6IMK4Kaz5C0v0MsV5HM96dVDneQ1*7Z3Qt20IrryPBkpvoZCjGLiA/i.jpg?dc=4675508776701527834></img>

<img src=http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0RACRAhEVct2jfjTBbBnVAUSGp7uVtopN5JXVqcUwC2lnVj6mjuBM6Et6oI9K3VDjrTbQzGNwcC7m9i*M2QhRzC3uMZMvVBEfQrrfaUojynE/j.jpg?dc=4675508776703320585></img>

<img src=http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0RAAAABIVtN0XUH4QCUsv9d5RRDaD5n!KcNcJoEy27y!SsZT5dFtzthZTW6exBdHkJMEFn!KK9gnS39M0xcwypQcsUoB1Lbd2W2TnMOGsEFw/k.jpg?dc=4675508776704984487></img>

<img src=http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0RADrAhMV9t2G1l*KshFwGLDHe*VR*ltZDAPxbVJc6dOMXjgSH12h9ZmnbPCSre7PL9PNsKSjl0NKUWdEOWUvYz51ZS!I7J!fMnQ5eW!HvZU/l.jpg?dc=4675508776706947446></img>

sob · 02-04-2005, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

willravel, Mojo and stevo simply regurgitate the talking points that the Bushco
neocons and the Fox-Goebbels spin machine have fed them, They are incapable
of independent thought or research.

I must have missed the "do not respond to this troll" message for this post.

host · 02-04-2005, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sob

I must have missed the "do not respond to this troll" message for this post.

The problem for you, sob, and for stevo and Mojo, et al, is that you repeat
"evidence" linking Saddam's Iraq to Al Qaeda, and declarations concerning
where the alleged pre-invasion stockpiles of Iraqi WMD's "ended up", that have
been determined as baseless by exhausitive and expensive U.S. and international
inspection teams, U.S. intelligence agencies, U.S. federal agency heads,
congressmen, senators, and YES.......finally even by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld,
Rice, and Powell.

Throught it all, nothing disuades you from posting your information again and
again, as if it were fact, as if time had not passed and determinations made,
and, at long last, after even the great Cheney, himself, has fallen silent about
these matters. Do you really believe that the Bushco cabel, desperate to
restore some shred of legitmacy to their misleading and inaccurate justifications<br> for illegal war of aggression, would be less eager than even
you, to sieze on any of your presentations of "fact" if they thought that
any of them would square with reality?

By the way, your photos of Iraqi ex-patriates voting around the world were
inspiring, to be sure. They also provide nothing to expand on my argument
about low ex-patriate voter turnout and no evidence that ex-patriates have
taken up the fight that Bush has ordered American soldiers to fight and
die for. How dare your criminal President, when exposed as a misleading
and incompetent shill for an unjustifiable, illegal war, cheapen the sacrafice
and commitment to American security that our soldiers live by, to order them
to die for his newest, most desperate, and flimsiest excuses to date for the
reasons that he has them still risking their lives and limbs in Iraq, nearly two
years after he strutted around so prematurely on that aircraft carrier to
declare that "major hostilities are over". Over 1300 troops have died and
8000 have suffered horrible wounds since Bush strutted around dressed in a
flight suit, that day.

What could still motivate you to cheerlead for this pathetic excuse for a
president ?

matthew330 · 02-04-2005, 08:52 PM

I've been waiting a long time but i finally have to ask...at what point do you start boring yourself, host...co, ex-patriate...et al?

Willravel · 02-04-2005, 09:34 PM

Matthew, you have a wonderful ability to respond to a post without responding to a post. Do you by any chance know what host was trying to say? Or do you fit neatly into the "happy to go along with 3 year old false information" gang? You know there is always a way out of that gang (besides being jumped out), is sitting down and looking at the facts with an open mind. If there were links with al Qaeda and WMDs, Bushco would still be singing their songs about the original reason to go to war with Iraq. Just like Waco, the story changed. Waco, to refresh everyone's memory, all started with a subpoena. The subpoena was accompanied by armed DEA agents. After some gunfire, and essentially a DEA loss, the name of the game went from subpoena for illegal firearms to "we're trying to rescue the children". It was thought by those at the FBI that rescuing children would excuse the execution of those people. It almost worked. The same thing is going on now. The reason that you don't hear about the al Qaeda links and WMDs is because those theories have been disproven. In a desperate effort to justify the invasion, we switched our reasoning from defense, to a moral reason (just like Waco). Now we have an election that seems to be going well, but the blood of Iraqi civilians and rebels, and American soldiers, paid for it. We have seen the American casualty list grow and grow and grow.

Look at the "spreading democracy" reasoning by itself. According to Bushco presently, we went into Iraq to get Saddam (who was not a direct threat to the US) and to free the Iraqi people. That's swell, and I'm all for liberating people from dictators, but what makes Iraq so special? Why in God's name didn't we go into Africa to help out the civilians who are being massacred? We would have saved so many more lives and we could have brought some shred of peace to an area of the world that is just as violent, if not more violent, than the Middle East. You know, the drug lords in Africa can sell arms to terrorists just as much as anyone else. I think that it's impossible to say that we went to Iraq simply to free them. There is a reason we picked them.

Now back to reality. The reality of the situation is that Cheny, Bush, Powell, and Rice have all admitted that there was no link between Iraq and 9/11. There were no WMDs found in Iraq. Those reasons are gone now, and no one can hide behind them. It's time for you guys to take a step back and think for yourselves. I know you all can think for yourselves, now is the perfect time.

host · 02-04-2005, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthew330

I've been waiting a long time but i finally have to ask...at what point do you start boring yourself, host...co, ex-patriate...et al?

Willravel · 02-04-2005, 10:47 PM

I think it's important to have a good standing when questioning the contributions of others. As host pointed out, Matthew you have little. Perhaps if you take a moment from trying to remove the splinter from host's eye, you can remove the log from your own. In case you were wondering, that metephor is from the bible.

tecoyah · 02-05-2005, 11:57 AM

As this has turned into nothing but a "beat up on Matt" thread.........perhaps it is best retired.

02-03-2005, 06:54 PM	#81 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	Monitoring Let us attempt to remain Civil........Please __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

02-03-2005, 07:42 PM	#84 (permalink)
lunchbox Thank God hockey is back Location: Deeeeeetroit	<i>Bush claimed that democracy in Iraq would make the invasion worthwhile. Does this prove him right? Is there merit to his "domino theory" of democracy in the Middle East? Was this worth 15,000 lives? (not a rhetorical question). Was the anti-war movement wrong? I'll kick off the discussion with another question: DOes it really matter? Is the point of the exercise to have a side in the global debate that's right, or to supprt that Iraqi people in their choice? This guy Says it far better than I. Hope you have BugMeNot or an NYTimes subscription...</i> Bush can claim the iraqi democracy is worthwhile, that doesn't make it true. I don't believe in war unless its an immediate threat, its been proven time and again that iraq wasn't. He can claim that diplomacy didn't work but I didn't see him try. Saddam sat there for 20ish years not doing anything with his power to the US but all of a sudden because George W Bush is in office he planned on it? I don't buy that for a second. There is no domino theory to democracy in the middle east. What's the point anyway? what's wrong with dictatorships? Cuba has a dictatorship and a 100% literacy rate...i don't see the problem in that. It is not up to America to decide whether or not the people of each country want a democracy. the anti-war movement wasn't wrong, because pre-emptive strike with minimal international backing -- causing the disruption of many of our allies -- is never excused. the point of the excercize should be the side with the iraqi's choice but good luck on that one. We can't even side with a countries choice on economic system let alone a leader. We had to hope into vietnam because of the 'commmunist threat" and i've been trying to figure out since i was old enough to understand what politics is what the problem with 'communism' is. I happen to think it has MANY advantages over capitalism. But back to the point at hand, none of you here can confidently say that if the iraqis choose a muslim dictatorship that we're going to let it go. That's naive and blind to think that. If they're not supportive of mulitinational corporations and democratic we'll find a way right back into that country to up root it again. __________________ A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

02-03-2005, 08:54 PM	#88 (permalink)
jonjon42 Psycho Location: inside my own mind	ok let me put my own opinion forward.. Elections seem to this point fine and dandy, although I think we need to give more time for the full ramificaiton. I am worried about some of the minorities in Iraq and a sort of tyranny of the majority problem. Bush is still wrong this is just a (possible) silver lining We went in the wrong way, and for the wrong reasons. Simple as that. Now willravel I normally agree with you, but I must take exception over the getting involved in Korea. the koreans were attacked and it was a UN force that led the charge. Now when they tried to go and take N. Korea that was a little too far because they got China involved which complicated the mess. I probably would not be here if it wasn't for the US and the UN getting involved in Korea. Now on to the subject of the anti-war protests. To generalize the entire movement that way is insulting to the movement. Yes marxists were involved, but they didn't make up the entire movement. Just like yes the anarchists protest, but they arent' the only ones. Their is such a wide spectrum of ideaologies in these sometimes very loose knit groups it is impossible to put one lable on them. __________________ A damn dirty hippie without the dirty part....

02-04-2005, 07:17 AM	#96 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i guess if your standard for honesty is that rice might actually believe whatever the line might be on the planet bush on any given day, then i guess you'd be right, stevo. but i have never really understood this defense from the right: bush does not lie--he honestly believes what he says. or: his decisions were based on erroneous information about the world. you could say the same of psychotics. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

02-04-2005, 04:24 PM	#101 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	Troll Please do not reply to the above troll..........."Comrades" __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

02-03-2005, 07:40 PM	#83 (permalink)
KMA-628 ....is off his meds...you were warned. Location: The Wild Wild West	Now wait a minute. Where did I say that Iraq and Al Qaeda had collaborated on attacks on the U.S.? You are a little off on this one. I was responding to the "never never" comment from above. While I do not think there was a lot of going on between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the "never never" comment just isn't true. Also, the article cites the Commission's report. Where does it say that the things I quoted only came from BushCo.? Without dragging out the book, the commission said that there had been some interactions between Iraq and Al Qaeda, not much but there were some. You can't allow inclusion of the commission's report only if it serves your purpose (i.e., i don't see you commenting on drakers mentioning the 9/11 commission). If it is good enough for his argument, then it is good enough for mine. I didn't bring the commission into this argument to back up some wild allegation. I used an article relating to the commission's report to debunk a comment about the report that isn't true.

02-03-2005, 07:50 PM	#85 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	This whole big thing is about Iraq being at all involved in 9/11. Iraq, despite very, very loose aquaintenences with a few members of the al Qaeda was not nearly enough to possibly link them, and espically not enough to attack Iraq. Sorry I missunderstood the goal of your post.

02-03-2005, 08:05 PM	#87 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I made a mistake, and none other than daswig helped me out. Thank you, daswig (no sarcasm). It just goes to show you that people are unpredictable. Maybe this is the beginning of us getting along? We'll see. What I meant was that the findings put fourth by the investigation has to be in agreement with the government. Imagine the 9/11 commission said there was no link, and Bush just kept saying there was. Someone is wrong. I'll bet you it's the guy who chocked on a pretzel, not the people who launched a formal investigation.

02-04-2005, 06:54 AM	#95 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	So I guess we're all in agreement then that Iraq WMDs were moved to syria before the war and by now have been disseminated across the region, most noteably into sudan. Or does someone want to pick apart my post #78

02-04-2005, 08:52 PM	#105 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	I've been waiting a long time but i finally have to ask...at what point do you start boring yourself, host...co, ex-patriate...et al?

02-04-2005, 09:34 PM	#106 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Matthew, you have a wonderful ability to respond to a post without responding to a post. Do you by any chance know what host was trying to say? Or do you fit neatly into the "happy to go along with 3 year old false information" gang? You know there is always a way out of that gang (besides being jumped out), is sitting down and looking at the facts with an open mind. If there were links with al Qaeda and WMDs, Bushco would still be singing their songs about the original reason to go to war with Iraq. Just like Waco, the story changed. Waco, to refresh everyone's memory, all started with a subpoena. The subpoena was accompanied by armed DEA agents. After some gunfire, and essentially a DEA loss, the name of the game went from subpoena for illegal firearms to "we're trying to rescue the children". It was thought by those at the FBI that rescuing children would excuse the execution of those people. It almost worked. The same thing is going on now. The reason that you don't hear about the al Qaeda links and WMDs is because those theories have been disproven. In a desperate effort to justify the invasion, we switched our reasoning from defense, to a moral reason (just like Waco). Now we have an election that seems to be going well, but the blood of Iraqi civilians and rebels, and American soldiers, paid for it. We have seen the American casualty list grow and grow and grow. Look at the "spreading democracy" reasoning by itself. According to Bushco presently, we went into Iraq to get Saddam (who was not a direct threat to the US) and to free the Iraqi people. That's swell, and I'm all for liberating people from dictators, but what makes Iraq so special? Why in God's name didn't we go into Africa to help out the civilians who are being massacred? We would have saved so many more lives and we could have brought some shred of peace to an area of the world that is just as violent, if not more violent, than the Middle East. You know, the drug lords in Africa can sell arms to terrorists just as much as anyone else. I think that it's impossible to say that we went to Iraq simply to free them. There is a reason we picked them. Now back to reality. The reality of the situation is that Cheny, Bush, Powell, and Rice have all admitted that there was no link between Iraq and 9/11. There were no WMDs found in Iraq. Those reasons are gone now, and no one can hide behind them. It's time for you guys to take a step back and think for yourselves. I know you all can think for yourselves, now is the perfect time.

02-04-2005, 10:47 PM	#108 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I think it's important to have a good standing when questioning the contributions of others. As host pointed out, Matthew you have little. Perhaps if you take a moment from trying to remove the splinter from host's eye, you can remove the log from your own. In case you were wondering, that metephor is from the bible.

02-05-2005, 11:57 AM	#109 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	Closed Thread As this has turned into nothing but a "beat up on Matt" thread.........perhaps it is best retired. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha