War and Majority

quote:

---

by Percy
I think we're all very concerned about the mentality behind an unprovoked attack on Iraq, whatever its past transgressions, and it's even harder to understand given the sparse evidence available so far and the lack of domestic support. But winning the election through the electoral college and the courts is not an example of ignoring the will of American people.

---

I have to disagree on this one. Like you, I was not for either candidate and actually found Bush less disagreeable (and less intelligent, so perhaps less harmful)than Gore. Despite my feelings about the election (which I will get to in a minute) I thought he was headed in the right direction for a little bit, until he started pushing all sorts of agendas past the constitution and over the will of the american people (too long to list here). And IMHO, that paricular ball started rolling after what the Republicans got away with in the election.That election was a CLEAR example of ignoring the will of the people; Bush said so himself! Going into the election it had been predicted that Bush could win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote. In response, Bush made statements against electoral college victory and the usual Republican line about how a Democratic president (Clinton) had been in power without the true will of the public behind him since Clinton never had true majority vote (since a third party had split votes)though he had won in the electoral college.Ironically, the election went the exact opposite and Bush suddenly found himself faced with a possible electoral victory against a popular vote. Boy did he and his republican party start singing a different tune then!Still, there was a hitch with Florida's electoral votes, since the regular vote was in question. The people in charge of Florida's voting process were W's brother and one of his regional campaign managers. Both should have stepped away to let less "involved" people deal with the problems that were popping up. But they did not and simply tried to pass through a bad vote.People who were cheated (and some who were not) started court cases to challenge the vote. The prediction was that the courts would come down in favor of the Republicans, who said publically that Gore better not involve the Supreme Court! They also went on air and lied about how other ballots were like the florida ballots (ahhhhhh... I knew everything was crooked when one of his henchmen held up a ballot I had just voted with and said it was the same, it was not, a reporter called him on this point, the henchman deftly went to another question, then at the end of the Q&A held the ballot back up and reaasserted his original lie). Though I want to say for the record, I never though the "chad" thing was as serious as the "voter turnaway" problem.Once again irony had the day and the courts went against the Republicans and THEY (without even blushing) went to the Supreme Court. Republican justices then voted against their own party philosophy and heavy-set precedent to overrule a state's decision regarding its own procedures. Perhaps more telling, in doing this they did not correct the problems in the procedure, or say there were no problems to be fixed. Instead the court ADMITTED there were problems but said it was more important to hit an arbitrary deadline than correctly determine the will of the american public (or the will of a state). Thus forcing their party's candidate into office clearly over the will of the american public (by Bush's pre-election standards) and very likely over the actual electoral vote, if the problems had been addressed.Where was the public outrage? It went nowhere. People acted as spectators rather than participants. It fizzled. It didn't even get revived when it was discovered (post 9-11) that the Florida election process HAD been corrupted in a way that favored Bush. The republican's got their first taste of victory via apathy.Since then it's been a slippery slope of Bush testing the waters of what the american people will let him slide past the constitution and the general will of the public. Where people should be outraged and protesting, no one really does a thing. APATHY RULES!Granted 9-11 gave him a lot of wiggle room, but it's not like it started after that. IMHO, it started with the election. They got a taste for what the public would allow and have been getting bolder and bolder with each move. At this point they are going for a pre-emptive war against a country that CANNOT attack us, and by all reports WOULD NOT attack us, unless we attack them first. The Republicans are going for this despite the fact that the majority of the population is against it.As one of Bush's PR men stated last week, once the war is started the American people will fall in line behind it. I thought that statement was so telling, of what has been going on all along.holmes{Completed quote boxes by adding the "slash quote" at ends, and deleted the lines of "+'s" - Adminnemooseus}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-04-2003]

What I was trying to say is that Bush did not legitimately win the election through the electoral college and the courts. He was placed into office when decisions over electoral and judicial procedures fell (by luck) into the hands of family, cronies, and fellow party members.You are completely incorrect in saying "the facts say that constitutional and legal procedures developed to assert the will of the American people were all followed." Not only did the Supreme Court ruling which placed Bush (their party member) into the white house admit that procedures were NOT FOLLOWED, but Ashcroft (in trying to defend his civil rights record) said that he had monitored Florida's last election specifically to address the problems that DID HAPPEN in during the Bush election. Those are REPUBLICANS saying things weren't right (and Ashcroft admitting how bad they were... civil rights had been violated)!You always seem on top of issues, but I think you have slipped on this one.I am not debating the legitimacy of legal complaints regarding how confusing the ballots were. That seemed rather silly and from what I heard some newspaper counted the damn things (using a method favorable to Gore) and it still wouldn't have helped him. I just thought it showed how low Bush and Co were prepared to go when they lied about other states' ballots to counter the Florida claims.The REAL problem were the people prevented from registering to vote, and those who were registered that were prevented from voting. This DID HAPPEN. It was made public in court a little bit past 9-11 (and so was lost amongst other more pressing news stories at the time). Constitutional and legal procedures were not followed. As Ashcroft stated not two weeks ago: civil rights had been violated in the Florida election.If the rules had been followed I would not have cared a bit. It was the lies and the circumvention of the will of the public that was offensive to me.You are absolutely right in saying Bush did not do this. His PARTY did this as they had the means to do so. They continue to do this, pushing their agenda past the will of the american public, with greater gusto each time, as they see how flimsy that will really is. This war is just the latest thing.You asked if I had a better approach to determining and enforcing the will of the Public? Yes I do. Personally I would do away with the electoral college. It made sense in the 18-19th century, it makes no sense today and has the ability to counter the popular will of the public.And when there are problems with an election, arbitrary deadlines such as inauguration day should give way to correction of the problem. I think it was horrific for the Supreme Court to say there were problems but we don't have time to correctly determine the will of the people, go with the flawed results.Correcting problems would have been more democratic and proper. What would it have taken to simply have a proper revote? 2 months tops? Isn't correctly determining the will of the people worth the extra time and effort?In fact, if the people charged with handling the election took a proactive stance in correcting problems and properly determining the vote, instead of defensively protecting their candidate, it very likely would have been completed before inauguration.holmes

On the topic of war with Iraq in specific, personally I am against it at this stage. This is regardless of it being done against the will of the public (which is it's own issue).Bush did a great job last night of addressing why Saddam is a bastard and that he is basically a violent man bent on procuring and using any weapon he can get his hands on.While Bush overspun the threat Saddam's weapons pose as WMDs, as well Saddam's ability to use them against the US (those rockets wouldn't reach anywhere near us), he was dead on right saying if we were going to be attacked there would be no "imminent danger" signal we could look for. We cannot afford to wait for THAT scenario, before taking action.Unfortunately he made no case why war at this point in time was the only, or the best, solution to the problem we are facing.Saddam is currently contained and can be kept so, with no major cost in lives or finances, almost indefinitely. If/when he bucks the containment, then we could step up military solutions.There has also been no explanation of how a war would help us find those missing stockpiles and keep them out of the hands of terrorists.If anything, a war would make the borders more porous by diverting attention away from general containment and other Fog-of-War issues, and so increase the possibility of weapons being snuck out or otherwise obtained by terrorist organizations.In fact he is given greater incentive to release his WMDs to organizations he'd be hesitant to give them to, just in hopes they get used against the US.There is also little reason to believe that any following government would be more pro US than it is now, and would not on its own try to obtain or trade in WMDs. After all it is a very poor nation. Why couldn't "freed" Iraqi scientists start freelancing talent to nations and organizations opposed to the US.Heheheh. Bush talked about how Iraq was dangerous just because it could export the "technology" to terrorists. Unless we propose to kill all of their scientists with the knowhow, please explain how a war will stop the spread of the technology.I think the fact that Saddam is a fiend is beyond question here, as well as our need to contain and disarm him. But that goes for a lot of other "bad" countries and leaders as well. It seems pretty obvious why we've chosen this man and this country to not pursue all other avenues first, and it has nothing to do with violating UN resolutions.But here is something that has confused me greatly... Al-Queda without question attacked us. It was supported and defended by the Taliban regime of Afghanistan. Why has Bush assembled a more awesome military force to defeat Saddam Hussein than he did to pursue Al-Queda in Afghanistan? If Bush was able to muster this kind of force, why didn't we do the same thing to greater ensure we beat BinLaden and co?holmes

Okey doke Percy-I see and agree with your comments then, and the original assertion (that Bush did everything) was way off. Being that the guy still can't say the word "nuclear" properly I would never be one to say Bush engineered ANYTHING.Honestly, this guy is mildly personable, but pretty dumb. It is the Republican Party running the show before and after the election, and even worse it's the Xtian Fundamentalists running the Republican agenda right now.Did anyone else catch Falwell on 60 minutes saying he and the other Xtian Fundamentalists are running the government? Scary.holmes

There may be some personal similarities between Saddam and Hitler, but there are none between Iraq and Germany.First of all Iraq already tried to conquer one tiny neighbor and the international community first contained its forces to only that country, and then slapped it back to its original borders.Second of all, stuck back within its borders, the international community has Iraq quite contained. There is little to no chance that it will break out of its box (especially given the poverty of the nation) and if it managed to do so, then it would not get very far.The only issue is what Iraq can do to other countries in limited, singularly violent events. Like being able to launch a Chemical, Bio, or Nuclear missile at Israel... or a detonate a nuke over a patch of foreign oil fields.For decades Iraq fought against Iran and made no headway, and its greatest military accomplishment so far was taking the tiny country of Kuwait... which it lost in short order.His ambitions may be similar to Hitler, but its all a pipedream. I think its inappropriate, perhaps self-serving, and ultimately NOT HELPFUL to pretend his pipedreams are the realities we are facing.This guy will NEVER be set to rule the middle east, much less the entire world. How long should we wait? How about 30 more years of containment... by then he'll be dead!holmes

Andya-I am in complete disagreement with you on sending in CIA special operatives. I would rather have full fledged wars with all of their carnage, than to turn the world into a bunch of secret warchiefs sending commando raids on each other.Maybe I watch too much Star Trek, but the episode where it concluded that war should not be made less horrible always stuck with me. Otherwise it just becomes more excusable and more commonplace. The reasons to go to "war" (in this case secret war) become more flimsy and perhaps never said.How will you be able to distinguish between a politically motivated assassination and a real necessary conflict with the CIA in charge?We've already had such problems in Central and South America.In fact, your Noriega reference was perfect. The CIA under Bush Sr. put that thug into office and kept him there. Only when Noriega bucked "daddy's" orders, he had to be taken out.On the flip side, your use of the removal of Noriega as an example of something different than a war is incorrect. It was a full (though small scale) military invasion. It may have used a lot of special forces troops, but it was an invasion and an occupation by our military forces.It took the CIA special operatives to put him into power, it took our armed services to take him out. Just like the Taliban in Afghanistan, and just like Hussein.However I do agree that wars could be operated, especially against terrorist organizations, using mostly surgical military strikes. Whatever limits can be placed on military action to lessen their overall "invasiveness" and resultant "collateral damage" would be nice.Just don't replace it with a mafia style "gangwar" approach, and think that's solving the problem of war.holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 01-30-2003]

redvento, you are completely blowing things out of proportion. Just because he may have a nuke, maybe a bunch of them,(and by the way there is still no evidence for this) that makes Iraq comparable to Germany?Please explain, through the use of the weapons you just described and the methods of delivery he has available to him, how he would take over any other country? How will he enslave the rest of the middle east, much less Europe or the US?I am not saying he could not hurt a lot of people (if our containment is slipshod), but that is the ONLY threat he poses. And that threat is a far cry from owning and operating a war machine that is set on, and can conceivably carry out, an invasion of surrounding countries and so grow the power of Iraq.Honestly, I'm not even against this war because I think we'd take serious losses in a war with this guy. Iraq is WEAK. Don't cheapen the memory and lessons of WW2 by claiming any tinpot dictator with a nuke is equivalent to what we faced with Hitler's Germany.The threat you are talking about, or even that I am talking about, is equally posed by several OTHER countries which are in a much better position (and demeanor) to use them... so why are we focusing on using the military on Iraq and not on them? Why would YOU argue to take down an isolated figure instead of the one's running open weapons operations?I'm still interested in your explanation of how a war will keep those stockpiles (which we still don't know where they are, or if they exist) from moving into the hands of other enemies. Or more importantly, how will a war prevent the spread of the technology they have? That would mandate killing or imprisoning all of their scientists!By the way, Castro was not as old as Saddam is now when we started "containing" Cuba. Thus it is unlikely we'd have to wait 40 years for him to die (what'd he be 100-110?).And I thank you for bringing up Cuba. That 40 years of containment sure has been brutal hasn't it? All those dead soldiers and civilians and increased animosities in the region? Oh wait, nothing has happened! It's been 40 years (or at least 20) of no conflict.One day Castro will die. And if we can outlast his regime without having to kill anyone, that'd be good wouldn't it?holmes

For all of that gas dropped on the Kurds, they are still there within his borders and he still cannot defeat them. His one "successful" attempt to sweep through other countries (like Hitler did) was stopped in short order, and he is now contained.I never said we should be reactive in everything we do. I simply said WAR should be a reactive measure. We can certainly contain and impair Saddam's warmachine in a very proactive way.Let him send a care package to my town, I'm really shaking. Chicago alone could eat that man and his troops alive. Iraq is weak and nothing like Hitler's germany, and he is not poised to take over anything, or threaten anyone.If he ever was, or did, by all means we should wipe him out.Before WW2, people caved into the might of Hitler's Germany... through appeasement. No one is talking about this with Iraq. It is simple enough to note he has no REAL POWER, and is not a REAL THREAT to any nation's soveriegnty, so war is not necessitated at this point.By the way, you still never answered my question about how a war would prevent the stockpiles or WMD technology from getting into the hands of terrorists.You also reinforced a point I think I had made earlier. Who will rule after Saddam? Who can say they will be any better/more friendly to the US?And thankfully you admitted something I think everyone understands by now. The reason we don't attack N Korea is that they DO have weapons of mass destruction. The only reason we are willing to attack Iraq is because they DO NOT have weapons of mass destruction. But since Iraq doesn't have WMD, why must we start a war?At the very least you need to answer the problems posed by the questions I raised above (proliferation of WMD stockpiles&technology, and new regimes), or I am going to consider your assertions self-serving tactics, or mere hysterics.In other words, as weak logically as Iraq is militarily.I thought New Yorkers were supposed to be tough.holmes

As an aside... you were the one that brought up Castro being a major threat and that his containment for 40 years should by the evidence for why containment doesn't work.And exactly why could Clinton and Carter not have done better with N Korea than Bush has done.While I realize Kim Jong il is nuttier than a can of mixed nuts and so is poised to do ANYTHING on a whim, it wasn't until Bush stirred him up by labelling his country one of the "Axis of Evil" and making military threats that Jong began to inflate himself and actively restart his nuclear program.Honestly, I think Clinton and Carter already have done better with N Korea, much less could do better with it now.As mom always told me, if you don't have anything nice to say about someone, don't say anything at all.And (more importantly) as dad always told me, don't point a gun at a man, unless you are going to shoot... and if you are going to shoot, shoot to kill.Bush's careless rhetoric defied both pieces of wisdom and set our nation, and the world, on course for more destruction.Then again the Xtian Fundamentalists want to bring on the end of the world as soon as possible... so what's to lose?holmes

quote:

---

by redvento
I think you would agree that if Saddam and his cohorts were out of the way, his scientists would be more willing to fully disclose the locations of their WMD, and the facilities that are used to create them. With that information destruction of said items would be much easier to accomplish.

---

Our accusation is that the WMD sites were mobile and that's why they couldn't be found. Meaning, they aren't in one place for long. How is a scientist who developed the technology supposed to know where the army has stored anything temporarily, if it's actively playing a shell game?And if Saddam has given WMDs to terrorists, how are scientists who developed the technology supposed to know where the terrorists have hidden them?The only facts scientists can give us are what has been in development, which technologies were fully developed, and where the development had been taking place.And I do not believe that ALL of them will disclose such information once Saddam is gone.It is true that some would disclose info of their own free will, and some would after hours/days/months of "rendering" (ie torture) by intelligence agencies, but some will say nothing at all because they hate america and are tough buggers to break (or are good at playing naive).What I really love is how you still haven't admitted that these scientists will continue to have the knowledge and will be free to give it to US hating nations and groups once they are "free", and perhaps more likely to do so after their family members have been killed during an invasion, or out of economic necessity during the resultant financial collapse.

quote:

---

by redvento
I seriosly doubt that N. Korea waited until 2001 to re-activate their nuclear program as you claim. I would be highly suspect of any claims that stated N. Korea fully intended to adhere to the 94 agreement brokered by Carter but only after Bush included them in the "axis of evil" did they restart, and then within a year have at least one nuke.

---

I didn't claim the N Koreans were inactive before 2001. ALL nations (even the US) have secret operations which work on projects forbidden by treaty or law.The problem is that Bush stirred up a bunch of anger when he branded N Korea an "axis of evil", and then said the US has an international right to attack ANY other country which might equal the military might of the US, especially those who we don't like and have branded "axis of evil." Go figure someone getting upset by THAT.After this stupid declaration, the N Koreans shifted their covert (small) weapons programs, into overt large scale programs. That's when international monitors and their cameras were pulled from nuclear sites (which Carter and Clinton managed to get put in place) and nuclear reactors were reopened and supplies flowed back to them.If you cannot admit that under Carter and Clinton--- though not perfect by any stretch of the imagination--- things were at least moving in the right direction (threats were minimized), and that things are rapidly moving in the worst possible direction under Bush (threats have become maximized), then you are simply a liar.Whether you are lying to me or yourself, I am not able to determine at this time.

quote:

---

by redvento
Now while I appreciate the determination of Chicago do you really think that a small group of Saddam sponsered terrorists armed with a dirty bomb, or some biological agent, or chemical agent, couldnt get into the city and detonate it? I live in NYC and up until 9/11 felt more threat from the homeless than terrorists but that day showed us all that none of us are safe from terrorism. And while we are hunting down the terrorists themselves wouldn't it be wise to take care of those that support them as well?

---

Terrorists can get into Chicago and detonate a bomb of any kind. They can also poison water supplies, derail trains, and fly planes into buildings. Many people can die at the hands of some crazy jackass (or group of jackasses) at any time. The threat is there every minute of the day, every day of the year.Nothing is going to change this fact, not even the invasion of every country hostile to the US. We, as a nation, need to stop swinging blindly like we're in mortal terror of the real world. And this has to start with people like you red... so get a backbone, strap on a nutsack and start dealing realistically with the issues were facing.Once out of panic mode, the first important thing to realize is that such threats don't just come from overseas. Last year, they caught some crazy American hording poisonous chemicals in a Chicago subway. Doesn't anyone remember that it was an american who bombed the Oklahoma City Federal building? How about the Unabomber? As it stands intelligence sources still believe the Anthrax letters were from someone in the US (rightwing, not islamic). The beltway sniper seems to have been homegrown as well (US ARMY nonetheless).Should we invade the US?It was a US based Isreali militant group that planned to bomb mosques and murder a US congressman a year and a half ago.Should we invade Isreal too?The second important thing to realize, once you have a backbone, is that greater terrorist threats are posed by countries other than Iraq. Why are we not going after the greater threats first? And why are we not finishing the job on the first country (and organization) to attack us?I agree we should "take care of" countries which support terrorist organizations. But that doesn't mean we have to invade... which can lead to a worsening of the situation. That is the third, and perhaps most important thing to realize.At this point in time, Iraq is best confined and not invaded. High level intelligence and military sources have said as much. I'd be for an invasion if it was warranted and would improve the situation. It is not and would not.Want to go after people that harbor terrorists? Sounds fine to me. Why don't we start with the Bush dynasty. Bush senior and Cheney (together or individually) helped establish Saddam Hussein, Noriega (for whom we had to invade a country to eliminate later), and Al-Queda (via the Taliban).The Bushes are close personal friends of the BinLadens. On 9-11, while everyone else could not fly (planes were grounded), the BinLadens were allowed to fly around the country at will to pick up members of their family and leave the country. This allowed them to escape without interrogation by law enforcement officers (who are pretty pissed about this).While many foreign nationals have been "detained" and their bank accounts frozen, the BinLadens escaped detainment and still have not had any of their accounts frozen. Neither have the Bushes who are in tight financial deals with the BinLadens. This has been allowed despite the well known fact that members of the BinLaden family continue to support Osama financially!!!!!!Truly regime change starts at home. Let's get that m***f***r and his entire family (who have helped prop up terrorist dictatorships around the world, which later turn on us) out of office permanently. Let's freeze their bank accounts as well as the BinLadens and ACTUALLY TRACK DOWN THE MONEY going to save that fundamentalist freak.As a New Yorker I think you'd be with me on this one.

quote:

---

by redvento
And if Saddam is so insignificant why does Opec want him out? He brings further turmoil to the region. I assume you feel we had no business in the Balkans, or Nigeria as well? Since they were committing atrocities against their own people as well and were in no position to take over the world.

---

Opec has NOT supported an invasion of Iraq, all have stated that this would bring about worse turmoil in the region than letting him stay in power.Uhhhhhhhhhh.... I think your slip is showing.Don't you realize the implications of your own statement? So what if oil producers in that region want Saddam out of power (as do all oil people). What does that have to do with WMDs???The issue then, as you have just shown, is oil and what oil people are willing to do for money.The only difference between oil producers in that region (opec) and those in this region (bush and co) is that those in this region don't have to suffer the consequences of a war.With that "buffer zone" in mind, the oil producers (or grifters) in this region have no problem carrying out a military removal of Saddam, while those who have to live in the warzone are not so hot about the idea.This is why Bush's claims of "protecting the region and the whole world" are obvious BS. No one in the region, much less the world, are asking for protection because they don't need any. It's only the profits of oil barons (who live out of harm's way) that are screaming for help.Next time Bush says something about protecting the "whole world", read his lips carefully. You'll see he isn't saying "whole" he's really saying "oil." He's simply mispronouncing the word, just like he says nukeyular instead of nuclear.If you must know... you are absolutely correct that I thought we had no place in the Balkans (and by this I mean the Kosovo part of the Balkans-issue, and not the Bosnia part which involved an invasion). What nations do within their borders, especially to fight terrorist organizations--- which is EXACTLY what Milosevic was doing in Kosovo--- is their own business. I may not like it (like I don't like Milosevic and what he did) but that is an internal issue to them.Africa is a thorny problem all over the place. Forget naming specific countries. I mean if you thought we were right to be in the Balkans, then what about Rhowanda (which was a million times worse)? What a mess. I throw my hands in the air and admit I have no real conclusions on issues in Africa.But this is all sidetracking. Answer the problems I listed with invading Iraq. If you can't come up with anything then stop squawking like a chicken-hawk.holmes{Completed quote boxes by adding the "slash quote" at ends, and deleted the lines of "+'s" - to narrow page width - Adminnemooseus}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-04-2003]

quote:

---

by andya
Whoa! Holmes, where did you get this kind of info? Tell me the source, I'd like to use it to make some local pro-Osama kooks' ears turn red!

---

Unfortunately the initial site I had been using to find sources of this kind of info went down last month (interestingly enough because Kraft sued the guy for damaging their name: he called himself "King Velveeda").This means I have to go back and refind all the source links (its not like I was documenting all my sources at the time for later discussion), which is going to take a bit. However I will do this and post it here asap.That said, you can probably find most of it yourself without too much problem by coasting the internet. Most of these things are pretty much openly known (though widely untalked about) facts. In addition to online sources, I have heard statements backing them up in interviews on CNN.Without question you can find Bush's (and Cheney's) links to Hussein, Noriega, and the Taliban by simply reading Time magazine from the appropriate time periods. This connection began when Bush was simply CIA and extended into his Presidency (when he had to take them out).I mean that stuff is all well documented. What's funny is to read the stuff BEFORE these assholes turned on us. All of them were our best buds in the region, necessary to fight off communist intrusion (and in the case of Iraq, to keep Iran at bay).The business and personal connections between the Bush's and BinLadens are also well known, though certainly less documented (not as interesting). They've been working together in oil for a very long time (joint ventures and things).I think the sketchiest part, which means the only part of my post which I won't call UNDENIABLE FACT, is the part about the 9-11 plane flights of the BinLadens. It was reported first by Michael Moore. I think it may even be in his book "Stupid White Men." Knowing that he has embellished facts before I swallowed it with a large grain of salt.Then I heard some intelligence figures responding to that accusation and saying that they were upset that the BinLaden's have been protected from direct interrogation, unlike ANY OTHER middle eastern person inside or outside this country. This was not just a nondenial of the specific question (the plane flight), it was an affirmation of the general truth that the BinLaden's have been protected throughout our pursuit of one of their relatives.It goes without saying that the part about none of their assets being frozen can be found as well. I believe this was even on CNN's website (in an interview). And of course the Bush's assets have not been frozen. Given that the tiniest connection to terrorist organizations is enough excuse to shut anyone else down (especially when people are related), how have the Bush's and BinLaden's escaped their connection to Osama? Because Osama has been estranged from part of the BinLaden family? Come on, that wouldn't work for anyone else.By the way, if you think that's scary, did you know grandaddy Bush (I think his name was Prescott or Preston of something like that) was indicted by congress for giving arms to Hitler? No kidding. I'll get you guys a link to that as well... but clearly that one is public record.It seems it's the Bush family business to empower madmen through weapons or money, until the whole country has to go kill them off.But the scariest thing I ever heard, was Bush senior giving a talk shortly after 9-11.After all of the people he had help set up have turned on us, causing us to go to war, and the latest tragedy having been caused by just such a group, he made a speech declaring that we should not stop empowering badguys. In fact, says he, that's why 9-11 happened, because WE tie the hands of the CIA from hiring bad guys to do bad things to us, in order to give them power to fight other bad guys.As part of that speech he said, and I kid you not, that we should be willing to give bad guys whatever they want, including women (presumably to rape). So Bush proposed the US government act as accomplice and pimp to undeniably bad men to make our country strong!I am sorry that I have no way of directly citing that speech. All I know is it was televised on CNN 1-3 days after 9-11, and that's the best I can do (though that means there must be a recording of it somewhere. In fact, if anyone reading this happens to have a tape of it I'd love to get a copy. I want to use part of it for a sound byte.holmes{Completed quote box by adding "slash quote" at end, and deleted lines of "+'s" - Adminnemooseus}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-04-2003]

Just in case redvento is still around... how 'bout them terrorists?Today, the remaining JDL terrorist who had a plot to blow up mosques and a congressman was allowed to plead guilty and receive a reduced sentence of 10-20 years. If prosecuted he would have gotten life without parole.Think that's going to happen to any arabic looking terrorist with his head on the chopping block, especially if he was caught while trying to blow up churches and synagogues and a US CONGRESSMAN?If we don't have an agenda and loopholes in our execution of this war on terror, please explain that one to me.holmes

I promised some sources on my claims about the Bushes.I couldn't find the original sources where I had read everything, but it didn't take long to find these new ones and with some caveats they'll do just fine.Clearly some of this must be read keeping in mind where the article is coming from. I'm not an idiot and can see when an article is slanted or trying to build up a conspiracy theory. Some of these articles contain such problems.That said, they contain enough bits of truth that are recognizable as such and should lead you to more sources on whatever particular topic you are interested in.These are the FACTS which should become obvious.:1)Daddy Bush had connections with, and helped build up, many of the foes the US later "had to face."2)Junior and Daddy had connections to the BinLadens through oil, construction, and defense deals despite continued money ties to Osama and other terrorist groups. I had not realized their defense connection until reading these--- I mistakenly thought Carlyle was oil--- and this makes everything even worse. I will admit the oil connections seem less than 100% certain (or dubious) than I had thought earlier, but those defense ties... yikes.3)Before 9-11, Junior helped squash federal investigations into terrorist connections of the BinLadens (Osama and more).4)After 9-11, Junior had the BinLadens protected and shipped out of the US, unlike 1000's of other foreign nationals with less ties to terrorists than the BinLadens. And he did it for THEIR protection nonetheless. Thanks, Dubya. Let's us really know where his priorities were.5)The Bush and BinLaden family accounts have not been closed, nor investigated, on the word of the BinLadens that they have totally disowned Osama. Okayyyyyy, well how about the money they send to other terrorist groups or their support to "martyrs" and their families. Such things like that get other people and organizations shut down or at least investigated. Remember Saudi Arabia even had a telethon in support of "martyrs" after 9-11, no BinLadens contributed?Check the following links, and by all means do more searches. The facts really are pretty easy to find.Page not found - SF Weekly
[Raises questions about saudi-Bush business connections, but clearly affirms that the Binladen family was allowed to flee.]Page Not Found - The Texas Observer
[More detailed account of Junior's activity with the BinLaden's in Oil (though sketchy)through Arbusto,plus defense contracts and more (much clearer) through the Carlyle group.]Cloudflare Captcha Page | Web.com
[Daddy and Junior's connections to the BinLaden's through Carlyle group.] Page Not Found: 404 Not Found -
[Evacuation of BinLaden family from the US (spun in a positive way, and contradicts Moore's version of it being done while other flights were grounded... but uhmmmm, did we let any other family's out of the US after those attacks? Why didn't we put them under the same "protection" poorer arab people had to face?)]americanfreepress
{Shortened this one down, to keep page from being over wide - Adminnemooseus}
[A bit of paranoia mongering for sure, but some facts within relating to Bush-Saudi Oil dealings(Arbusto/Harken).]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/newsnight/1645527.stm
FBI claims Bin Laden inquiry was frustrated | World news | The Guardian
[Very good pieces detailing the suspicions and some factual statements regarding everything I had written, plus the Bush squashing of investigations on the BinLaden's BEFORE 9-11, and having to reverse that policy afterward (too late once the BinLadens were whisked out of the US).] George W. Bush And Harken Oil - Recovered History | Scoop News
[Kind of a timeline on the oil deals with Saudis.]http://knowthetruth.b0x.com/...h-Binladen/bush-binladen.html
[Obviously some slant comes with this, but the facts are still there.]http://www.buzzflash.com/...ibutors/2002/05/08_Bush_Oil.html
[Additional paranoia... I have no idea how much of this is true or not (Enron-Bush-Ridge-oil-Afghanistan), but I hope it's not. Someone please tell me things aren't this bad.]TBR News » Page not found
[More detailed description of timeline involving Harken-Arbusto-Carlyle connections.]http://prorev.com/bush2.htm
[Great recap piece. Timeline of the Bushes in action. There is A LOT of paranoid throwaway bits (connecting Bush to the JFK assassination? come on), but the good stuff is gold. With Bonus bits on Junior's brother's involvement in the S&L fiasco (forget about that part? It's all public record).]holmes [This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-08-2003][This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-11-2003]

This sounds like the definition of cowardice to me.Good men have the courage to use intelligence and diplomacy until action is necessary. You don't attack someone who simply because you believe they "would" use their weapons. You wait until it is a certainty they are going to.As it is, many nations could point out the US has the most weapons in the world (including illegal weapons) and "would" use them. Therefore, they should take us down?Hmmmmmmmm... That's the logic Osama used. You think the US should follow his logic when dealing with other countries? How about law enforcement breaking into your home and taking your guns and maybe even your steak knives because they believe you "would" use them?Personally I like to think of America as being the home of the free and the brave. Your logic leads to neither of these. Unfortunately Bush agrees with you. "About to be one"???? The war is over and the evidence is clear. Iraq posed no military threat to neighboring countries, much less to the US. And they certainly did not have credible plans to be so.Please present any evidence you have to support this claim. I realize Bush made such a statement on the eve of our unprecendented unilateral invasion of a country not currently threatening us or our allies, but the facts have not borne this out.And as it is, in that prewar speech he had had to back down on the nuclear threat rhetoric made weeks previous to that. The threat he said was at least a year, maybe five years, ten years, away. You'd have to be a pretty big coward, and unsure of yourself diplomatically, to feel something POSSIBLY happening 1-10 years down the line means it is "about" to happen.No wonder Bush dodged military service. Did you hear about millions of innocent people threatened, thousands killed, and many more thousands injured, by high grade munitions, cluster bombs, and bullets? All of this done to frighten them into submission by the very country that put their previous terrorist leader in charge?I wonder which is more terrifying and hurts worse: wood chippers or cluster bombs? Knowing you and your entire family could be killed at any moment by a country yours didn't even threaten seems like a pretty intense ordeal... lasts longer too.Did they have numbers on children put into chippers? There are some pretty high numbers of children hit by bullets and bombs.------------------
holmes

Cops do not work this way. They do not arrest, or "take down", people that may become dangerous sometime in the future. Especially with no credible evidence supporting the idea that they are capable of becoming dangerous to the community.Iraq at most may have had a gun, but it was out of date and locked firmly away. Iraq was not standing with an uzi at the ready in a crowded area.Your other analogies did not even come close to the situation faced with Iraq. Various hostage scenarios have been advanced earlier, which are closer to the mark.But I want to make something clear here. You can advance all the colorful tough-guy euphemisms/analogies you want, the reality is we are not the police, other people's countries (when they are not threatening us) are not in "our jurisdiction", and "taking Saddam down" involved OUR killing and maiming many totally innocent Iraqis.Do you believe cops should shoot through innocent people to "take down" a bad guy? Especially when that criminal isn't in the process of committing a crime or threatening the cops? You are absolutely correct. Now please explain how this situation required force? The evidence is mounting that there was 0 reason for this conflict. What's hard to understand? When there is an imminent threat, then police can use force. When there are innocents which may be harmed, police must take this into account as well.Nothing I said suggested that cops have to wait until they are being shot down, only that they can't "take down" a person who MIGHT have a gun and MIGHT use it in the future.And again, you have abandoned the reality for a theoretical. In what way was Iraq close to using a weapon against us or its neighbors? Yes (we helped Saddam remember), yes (exactly how many families just disappeared in the Iraq war), and not that I know of but perhaps indirectly through our rendering process.You seem to love hanging onto that woodchipper story. What about the horrendous tortures we put people through during our rendering process of prisoners? Also, you avoided my question about cluster bombs and bullets versus chippers. Don't you agree either way is a pretty horrendous way to die, or lose parts of your body?You also missed that others can use the same justifications you listed to attack us, especially after the Iraq war. That jet pilot stunt of Bush's pretty well sealed the vision of him as an "insane military dictator" (just of other people's countries). You are joking of course. Bombing comes to an end? War ends? Oh yes I guess it did for those thousands of people killed by our bombs. For the rest living under occupation, they are still getting gunned down. But I guess they aren't getting shoved into chippers, right?Tyranny does end when people rise against their oppressors. This was their fight, not ours. Notice the majority of Iraqis are not thanking us as liberators, but rather asking us to leave as occupiers and tyrants?I still find it ironic that you are going on and on about a tyrant we helped install and crush Iraqis for nearly 10 years, and was only defined as a "tyrant" when he grabbed more oil. And hmmmm, all we did when we "took him down" was secure oil for the future of Iraqis.I understand how you could have made any of your claims before the war, but now that the war is over isn't the accumulating evidence making things pretty clear? I don't think you asked me this, but I'll answer it anyway. I think it makes more sense to go to war with a country that is actually threatening us, and poses a real threat, than one that is not.Beating up countries we don't like, because they have resources we want and no ability to defend themselves, just seems cheap and suggests no concept of diplomacy beyond "punish the weak and yield to the strong". Cowardice.But as it stands I didn't say we should go to war with N Korea either. I believe there are diplomatic solutions still available for that nation, just as there were for Iraq.However, N Korea was the much larger threat and for which it would have made much more sense to attack if/when diplomacy failed. Are you saying the war cost less lives than Saddam took during his reign (and please do not forget much of that carnage was with our support), or would have killed if we had not gone to war?If the latter I would like to see some supporting evidence, and that includes evidence that no solutions could have been found to allay such problems... beyond blasting into Iraq on false pretenses and taking over its oil supplies.Personally, I cannot agree with your stated justification. It appears to be brutally utilitarian with a two-faced ends justifies the means philosophy.I mean really, the justification for the Iraq war now is merely "at least we killed less people than him"? That would make us the good guys?I doubt you would agree to have this philosophy applied to yourself or your family."Sad but true"? Sounds like crocodile tears to me.------------------
holmes