NationStates Jolt Archive

*here we go again with Bushs brother stealing the election for our first appointed President in US history by illegally violating the voting rights of non-felons in Florida--we can only imagine what kinda fraud Diebolt is planning to pull off in Ohio for Bush--on top of all his lies and destructive policies and perverted values and on top of all the terrorism Bush promotes around the world he even goes to the extreme of attacking the very core of American Democracy itself by subverting our electoral process--is there ANY depth this slimebucket of a despot in the White House wont sink to?

CNN Sues Florida For Purged Felons Voting List
CNN has sued Florida's elections office to force them to hand over a list of possible felons who could be purged from voter rolls before the November elections. The state has compiled a list of possible felons that it sends to county elections officials who then review the list with their voting rolls. After the 2000 election, an investigation by BBC reporter Greg Palast found thousands of eligible voters were illegally purged from the election rolls in Florida because their names were similar to those of convicted felons.

www.democracynow.org

This lawsuit is good news for democracy.

This lawsuit is good news for democracy.
IF it is true, yes it would be. Is it true?

Here's a report from the AP feed.

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/1086232285

Interesting move on CNN's part.

If you truly despise the current administration, then you have the right to vote and send him from office. If the incumbent wins the electoral and popular vote, then you will have 4 more years of the president in power.

Quite honestly, there are no really good choices for you. President Bush, is a decent man - but he has made some glaring errors. John Kerry, flip-flops. He should not have won the democratic nomination. John Edwards would have made a better presidential candidate then John Kerry. Ralph nader will once again split the democratic vote.

Way to go Ralph! :P

Back to President Bush. I would rather have another republican in office. But that is not the choice here now is it. You have decried the current president as, well many things a president should not do. Imagine what would have happened if Al Gore had won the presidency. Today he is frothing at the mouth on most media outlets. He looks and acts like a true mad man saying things that would shouck most moderate liberals. In fact thats what he is doing. Imagine if this man was in power.

Iraq would be a misnomer. Saddam would still be in charge, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would still be under the grip of Saddams regime. If you think Saddams regime is preferrable, please by all means go to a similar nation, such as North Korea. Go tell them everything you know about Liberal Politics, or better yet, go to Iran. Let them know how you feel about the current president. They will love you, that is until you seguay into other left leaning politik-thought.

Libya would not have capitulated on its old ways. It still would be a bastion of terror and horror. And yet becasue of Iraq, its dropped all of its weapons programs, and is well under way to becoming a model global citizen.

North Korea would be threatening its neighbours once again. Iraq forced North Korea to rethink its position on posertering with the US and Japan.

This list does in fact go on, well in to every nation within the middle east. A war into Iraq did much. The current administration has done much wo quell any future insurgencies. It may have created some as well, but time will let us know what happens on this front.

Now let us talk about the current president destroying the moral fabric of the American People. You said "perverted values" I believe,

Where do you get these ideas?

Let us tackle abortion. He is pro life, not pro death. Or as you may put it, pro choice. If you have any direct quotes or factual evidence to back up your thougths. Then post it. I would glady like to be proven wrong, but the onus is now on you to produce fact - so we can work together to seperate fact from fiction.

As to the voter poll, let us tackle this. Jeb Bush has no right to cheat and lie for his big brother. He has to be accountable to his constituentcy. If he is found to be in deceit, then he will ultimately pay the price.

Elections should be free from corruption. This is something we can both agree on.

Now something that you said that irked me.

" on top of all the terrorism Bush promotes around the world he even goes to the extreme of attacking the very core of American Democracy itself by subverting our electoral process--is there ANY depth this slimebucket of a despot in the White House wont sink to? "

This a harsh criticism to be sure. I followed the link you gave and read what they had to say. They make some strong statements, and they have backed up what they have said. But all of doesn't lead to what you just said. You miscontrued the thoughts they posed there. Do you know what you are talking about when you say such things. And to Export terrorism. Truly, I have several links for you.

1. www.dictionary.com
2. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/
3. www.foreignaffairs.org
4. http://www.theatlantic.com/

Let us come full circle back to Iraq. The Current Administration wants to get out, but not until they have finished the task at hand. They do not want to stay there, and neither should they.

These are my thoughts,

Masa

This lawsuit is good news for democracy.Im compelled to agree

If you truly despise the current administration, then you have the right to vote and send him from office. If the incumbent wins the electoral and popular vote, then you will have 4 more years of the president in power.

Quite honestly, there are no really good choices for you. President Bush, is a decent man - but he has made some glaring errors. John Kerry, flip-flops. He should not have won the democratic nomination. John Edwards would have made a better presidential candidate then John Kerry. Ralph nader will once again split the democratic vote.

Way to go Ralph! :P

Back to President Bush. I would rather have another republican in office. But that is not the choice here now is it. You have decried the current president as, well many things a president should not do. Imagine what would have happened if Al Gore had won the presidency. Today he is frothing at the mouth on most media outlets. He looks and acts like a true mad man saying things that would shouck most moderate liberals. In fact thats what he is doing. Imagine if this man was in power.

Iraq would be a misnomer. Saddam would still be in charge, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would still be under the grip of Saddams regime. If you think Saddams regime is preferrable, please by all means go to a similar nation, such as North Korea. Go tell them everything you know about Liberal Politics, or better yet, go to Iran. Let them know how you feel about the current president. They will love you, that is until you seguay into other left leaning politik-thought.

Libya would not have capitulated on its old ways. It still would be a bastion of terror and horror. And yet becasue of Iraq, its dropped all of its weapons programs, and is well under way to becoming a model global citizen.

North Korea would be threatening its neighbours once again. Iraq forced North Korea to rethink its position on posertering with the US and Japan.

This list does in fact go on, well in to every nation within the middle east. A war into Iraq did much. The current administration has done much wo quell any future insurgencies. It may have created some as well, but time will let us know what happens on this front.

Now let us talk about the current president destroying the moral fabric of the American People. You said "perverted values" I believe,

Where do you get these ideas?

Let us tackle abortion. He is pro life, not pro death. Or as you may put it, pro choice. If you have any direct quotes or factual evidence to back up your thougths. Then post it. I would glady like to be proven wrong, but the onus is now on you to produce fact - so we can work together to seperate fact from fiction.

As to the voter poll, let us tackle this. Jeb Bush has no right to cheat and lie for his big brother. He has to be accountable to his constituentcy. If he is found to be in deceit, then he will ultimately pay the price.

Elections should be free from corruption. This is something we can both agree on.

Now something that you said that irked me.

" on top of all the terrorism Bush promotes around the world he even goes to the extreme of attacking the very core of American Democracy itself by subverting our electoral process--is there ANY depth this slimebucket of a despot in the White House wont sink to? "

This a harsh criticism to be sure. I followed the link you gave and read what they had to say. They make some strong statements, and they have backed up what they have said. But all of doesn't lead to what you just said. You miscontrued the thoughts they posed there. Do you know what you are talking about when you say such things. And to Export terrorism. Truly, I have several links for you.

1. www.dictionary.com
2. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/
3. www.foreignaffairs.org
4. http://www.theatlantic.com/

Let us come full circle back to Iraq. The Current Administration wants to get out, but not until they have finished the task at hand. They do not want to stay there, and neither should they.

These are my thoughts,

Masa

The whole point of this [post is that no, you CANNOT vote your choice into office, not any more, not with these thugs running/ruining things.

If you truly despise the current administration, then you have the right to vote and send him from office. If the incumbent wins the electoral and popular vote, then you will have 4 more years of the president in power.

Quite honestly, there are no really good choices for you. President Bush, is a decent man - but he has made some glaring errors. John Kerry, flip-flops. He should not have won the democratic nomination. John Edwards would have made a better presidential candidate then John Kerry. Ralph nader will once again split the democratic vote.

Way to go Ralph! :P

Back to President Bush. I would rather have another republican in office. But that is not the choice here now is it. You have decried the current president as, well many things a president should not do. Imagine what would have happened if Al Gore had won the presidency. Today he is frothing at the mouth on most media outlets. He looks and acts like a true mad man saying things that would shouck most moderate liberals. In fact thats what he is doing. Imagine if this man was in power.

Iraq would be a misnomer. Saddam would still be in charge, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would still be under the grip of Saddams regime. If you think Saddams regime is preferrable, please by all means go to a similar nation, such as North Korea. Go tell them everything you know about Liberal Politics, or better yet, go to Iran. Let them know how you feel about the current president. They will love you, that is until you seguay into other left leaning politik-thought.

Libya would not have capitulated on its old ways. It still would be a bastion of terror and horror. And yet becasue of Iraq, its dropped all of its weapons programs, and is well under way to becoming a model global citizen.

North Korea would be threatening its neighbours once again. Iraq forced North Korea to rethink its position on posertering with the US and Japan.

This list does in fact go on, well in to every nation within the middle east. A war into Iraq did much. The current administration has done much wo quell any future insurgencies. It may have created some as well, but time will let us know what happens on this front.

Now let us talk about the current president destroying the moral fabric of the American People. You said "perverted values" I believe,

Where do you get these ideas?

Let us tackle abortion. He is pro life, not pro death. Or as you may put it, pro choice. If you have any direct quotes or factual evidence to back up your thougths. Then post it. I would glady like to be proven wrong, but the onus is now on you to produce fact - so we can work together to seperate fact from fiction.

As to the voter poll, let us tackle this. Jeb Bush has no right to cheat and lie for his big brother. He has to be accountable to his constituentcy. If he is found to be in deceit, then he will ultimately pay the price.

Elections should be free from corruption. This is something we can both agree on.

Now something that you said that irked me.

" on top of all the terrorism Bush promotes around the world he even goes to the extreme of attacking the very core of American Democracy itself by subverting our electoral process--is there ANY depth this slimebucket of a despot in the White House wont sink to? "

This a harsh criticism to be sure. I followed the link you gave and read what they had to say. They make some strong statements, and they have backed up what they have said. But all of doesn't lead to what you just said. You miscontrued the thoughts they posed there. Do you know what you are talking about when you say such things. And to Export terrorism. Truly, I have several links for you.

1. www.dictionary.com
2. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/
3. www.foreignaffairs.org
4. http://www.theatlantic.com/

Let us come full circle back to Iraq. The Current Administration wants to get out, but not until they have finished the task at hand. They do not want to stay there, and neither should they.

These are my thoughts,

Masatrue Saddam would still be in power just like the tyrannical Saudi Royal family is still in power with Bushs blessings but Saddam was begging to comply with us but knowing how utterly helpless he was and how totally disarmed Iraq was Bush decided to attack to steal his oilwells because he knew Saddam was gonna use the euro -it had zero to do with Saddams misrule or democracy (which Bush opposes anyway when you consider how he subverts elections and his patriot acts etc)

Facts man...give me facts

Facts man...give me facts

Just so you know, MKULTRA / The Red Arrow (the former is the reincarnation of the banned latter) never really gives facts, he's just a troll.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Bloody well done the BBC and bloody well done CNN.

Facts man...give me factsBush/Cheney are sleazy oil barons and corporate looting/corporate welfare is the sole basus for their position on every issue under the sun--except for when their pandering to Christian fanatics on social issues to get votes or hypocritical cubans in florida

This is good, although I doubt it will end the senseless claims.

If you truly despise the current administration, then you have the right to vote and send him from office. If the incumbent wins the electoral and popular vote, then you will have 4 more years of the president in power.

Actually, the incumbant only needs to win the electoral vote, as was so brilliantly demonstrated in the 2000 elections.


Quite honestly, there are no really good choices for you. President Bush, is a decent man - but he has made some glaring errors.

You truly have a gift for understatement.


John Kerry, flip-flops.

Good grief, the man changes his opinions as facts are presented to him. Since when was changing your mind in light of facts such a damnable crime? I listed several instances off the top of my head in another thread that shows not only does Bush flip-flop, but he hypcritically says one thing while his political machinery is doing the complete opposite.


He should not have won the democratic nomination. John Edwards would have made a better presidential candidate then John Kerry. Ralph nader will once again split the democratic vote.

Way to go Ralph! :P

Well, here we agree. I would much rather have had Edwards or even, God forbid, Dean than Kerry, but Kerry is what we've got to work with. As for nader splitting the vote, the research I've seen shows that Nader will split it, but this time from both Republicans and Democrats and, of those voters most likely to get out and vote, he'll take more votes from Bush than from Kerry.


Back to President Bush. I would rather have another republican in office. But that is not the choice here now is it. You have decried the current president as, well many things a president should not do. Imagine what would have happened if Al Gore had won the presidency. Today he is frothing at the mouth on most media outlets. He looks and acts like a true mad man saying things that would shouck most moderate liberals. In fact thats what he is doing. Imagine if this man was in power.

As opposed to the mad man we have in power now? I've only heard of one specific incident where Gore could have been said to be anything close to "frothing like a mad man" and if that's madness then I would gladly lay down my sanity. Gore represented what many people in this country fear, an intellectual presidency. With Clinton, he managed to steer the US through 8 years of unprecedented economic growth with a minimum of hurt feelings in other nations. I don't see how you can claim that, on his record, he would have acted any differently if he had been elected.


Iraq would be a misnomer. Saddam would still be in charge, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would still be under the grip of Saddams regime. If you think Saddams regime is preferrable, please by all means go to a similar nation, such as North Korea. Go tell them everything you know about Liberal Politics, or better yet, go to Iran. Let them know how you feel about the current president. They will love you, that is until you seguay into other left leaning politik-thought.

Again, the right clouds the issue. I will say this yet one more time in the vain hope you will listen. NO ONE EVER LIKED SADDAM. Except, perhaps, for the Regan administration that fed him all the WMDs that we tried to bust him for. The objection to Iraq and to Bush's actions there was the cavalier and unilateral "first strike" approach he took, flaunting his actions in the face of a combined world outcry against them and then attacking other nations verbally and politically because they didn't toe his line.

If Iraq represented the true danger that the Bush administration seems to think it did, then there is no reason to assume that, had Gore been elected, we would still not be where we are today. However, there is every reason to assume that, if we were, we would be there as part of a unified and UN-backed coalition as opposed to the Lone Wolf situation we find ourselves in.


Libya would not have capitulated on its old ways. It still would be a bastion of terror and horror. And yet becasue of Iraq, its dropped all of its weapons programs, and is well under way to becoming a model global citizen.

This was a deal brokered by the UK. In no way can we take credit for this. We haven't had diplomatic ties with Lybia for years and hadn't been pursuing them. All we can claim for Lybia because of Bush is that Gaddafi thought there was someone crazier than him with more weapons in a position of power.


North Korea would be threatening its neighbours once again. Iraq forced North Korea to rethink its position on posertering with the US and Japan.


The hell it did. Where is your logical link on that? North Korea continues to be a threat and to amass nuclear weapons. Bush's actions further convinced them that they were indeed under US threat so they had to respond with counter threats. The Iraq situation has led to not only a dangerous increase in tension in the Asian Crescent but a troubling rift between potential allies should the situation go critical. North Korea can now legitimately claim that the US is a hostile power that can not be controlled and it's only protection is the build-up of a nuclear arsenal.


This list does in fact go on, well in to every nation within the middle east. A war into Iraq did much.

Yes. It plunged an already shaky region into complete turmoil while providing a catalyst for the growth of terrorist recruitment. It has destabilized the governments in Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran, which was making very promising moves towards democracy prior to the invasion. Now, the popular sentiment in Iran that their theocratic leaders were wrong in their perceptions of the West is gone and once again a huge gulf of mistrust and suspicion separates them from us.


The current administration has done much wo quell any future insurgencies. It may have created some as well, but time will let us know what happens on this front.

What future insurgencies have we quelled? We can't even manage to pacify Iraq. The Sudan is a nightmare with the rest of Africa just poised to follow. We have illustrated that we are ill-equipped to fight not only a guerilla war, but combat terrorisim in any meaningful way and given potential enemies, both political and physical, enough ammunition to use against us well into the next century.


Now let us talk about the current president destroying the moral fabric of the American People. You said "perverted values" I believe,

Where do you get these ideas?

From the Constitution of the United States and the founding fathers of our nation.


Let us tackle abortion. He is pro life, not pro death. Or as you may put it, pro choice. If you have any direct quotes or factual evidence to back up your thougths. Then post it. I would glady like to be proven wrong, but the onus is now on you to produce fact - so we can work together to seperate fact from fiction.

What facts are you looking for, exactly? Scientists can't agree on exactly when life begins and that is the crux of the argument. Until then, I personally believe abortion is wrong, but I am leery of forcing that opinion on women who I don't know and I am concerned about a President who seeks to undermine the ruling of the Supreme Court regarding this issue, the same body that gifted him with his Presidency in the first place. You would think he would be more respectful of their decisions.


As to the voter poll, let us tackle this. Jeb Bush has no right to cheat and lie for his big brother. He has to be accountable to his constituentcy. If he is found to be in deceit, then he will ultimately pay the price.

True, too bad it's four years too late do to political stonewalling from both the Bush administration and the Republican party.


Elections should be free from corruption. This is something we can both agree on.

Yes. We can agree on that. That's why it's worrisome when the top manufacturers of the new electronic voting machines are all heavy contributors to the Republican party, refuse to create paper trails with their machines or allow anyone to examine their inner workings even after live field tests have shown they are more prone to error or mistake than traditional voting methods, and the owner of the top manufacturer of these machines has "vowed" to deliver his home state to Bush.


Now something that you said that irked me.

I assume you're castigating MKULTRA. Yes, lots of things TRA says irk me as well. So again, we agree in general. :)

" on top of all the terrorism Bush promotes around the world he even goes to the extreme of attacking the very core of American Democracy itself by subverting our electoral process--is there ANY depth this slimebucket of a despot in the White House wont sink to? "

This a harsh criticism to be sure. I followed the link you gave and read what they had to say. They make some strong statements, and they have backed up what they have said. But all of doesn't lead to what you just said. You miscontrued the thoughts they posed there. Do you know what you are talking about when you say such things. And to Export terrorism. Truly, I have several links for you.

1. www.dictionary.com
2. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/
3. www.foreignaffairs.org
4. http://www.theatlantic.com/
[/quote]

All good links and so is Democracy Now, although it is rabidly biased against the current administration.


Let us come full circle back to Iraq. The Current Administration wants to get out, but not until they have finished the task at hand. They do not want to stay there, and neither should they.

How can you say this when there's no exit strategy and never has been, no firm date on our leaving and, in fact, no firm goal in Iraq other than one that has already been accomplished: to topple Saddam. You say they want out, but if that's true then why are they sending more troops over there and extending the service of already exhausted troops currently on the ground? There has been absolutely no move to get us out of Iraq or to even honestly seek a UN mandate to make this a multi-national force at this stage. Even after June 30th, there is no plan for withdrawl and troops are expected to be over there "indefinitely". Where is the exit plan? Please, I'd really like to see one.

Except, perhaps, for the Regan administration that fed him all the WMDs that we tried to bust him for.
Thats news to me. Did Reagan rule France and the USSR at the same time he was President of the United States?

Except, perhaps, for the Regan administration that fed him all the WMDs that we tried to bust him for.
Thats news to me. Did Reagan rule France and the USSR at the same time he was President of the United States?

Don't try it, Kwang. :D You know perfectly good and well that the Regan administration sold Saddam weapons in the Iran-Iraq war of the 80s. Hence we now have a most likely US made artillery shell filled with 20 year old Sarin gas that's getting eveyone's knickers in a twist.

Conventional weapons, but the US Government didn't give them WMD for the purpose of attacking Iran, but biological samples in order to make vaccines. American aid to Iraq compared to the whole picture was rather insignificant, I think even Denmark gave more.

I love these liberal threads.


Both Bush brothers are assholes.

Conventional weapons, but the US Government didn't give them WMD for the purpose of attacking Iran, but biological samples in order to make vaccines. American aid to Iraq compared to the whole picture was rather insignificant, I think even Denmark gave more.

Er, okay, two arguments then.

1. If all we gave him was harmless biological samples, then why did we use the fact that we gave him WMDs in the 80s as one of the reasons we were so sure he still had them today? That was one of the central tennents put forth as a justification for the war and why we didn't believe him when he said he didn't have any WMDs.

2. Where did he get the biologicals he used against the Kurds? Even if all we gave him were harmless biological samples, if he then used those samples to mass produce biological weapons, are we not culpable? If we're not, we are in contradiction with ourselves concerning our position on the nuclear power plants in Iran.

Actually, the incumbant only needs to win the electoral vote, as was so brilliantly demonstrated in the 2000 elections.

or at least get 5 supreme court justices to claim that he did.

i'm still a bit confused as to why it didn't go to the house. there were statistical ties in several states, therefore nobody should have gotten those votes. which means that nobody got a majority of the electoral votes.

i'm still a bit confused as to why it didn't go to the house. there were statistical ties in several states, therefore nobody should have gotten those votes. which means that nobody got a majority of the electoral votes.

Oh, that's an easy one. Cause Justice Scalia said so. See? Simple.

Er, okay, two arguments then.

1. If all we gave him was harmless biological samples, then why did we use the fact that we gave him WMDs in the 80s as one of the reasons we were so sure he still had them today? That was one of the central tennents put forth as a justification for the war and why we didn't believe him when he said he didn't have any WMDs.
No clue. I never heard "We gave him those things, so we know that they're there", although someone may have said it.


2. Where did he get the biologicals he used against the Kurds? Even if all we gave him were harmless biological samples, if he then used those samples to mass produce biological weapons, are we not culpable? If we're not, we are in contradiction with ourselves concerning our position on the nuclear power plants in Iran.
Because we weren't anywhere near the main givers of aid to Iraq. The USSR topped the list, France was 2nd, and then came a host of Soviet satillite states like E. Germany, Czechosloakia. A little while down the list comes the USA and UK. Other countries provided far more "aid" and material to Iraq, which is probably where the WMD came from. Biological samples used for vaccines tend to be quite weak (and thus hard to make into WMD) because you can't inject someone full-strength Smallpox disease when they're 3 and realistically expect them to live, although a weak virus would have the benificial effect of letting the body "remember" the disease and build up its immunity.

No clue. I never heard "We gave him those things, so we know that they're there", although someone may have said it.

Many did say it and the intelligence community as well as the administration predicated their idea of an Iraq armed to the teeth and poised to strike from late 1980s and early 90s estimates. These estimates were made because we knew exactly what we gave him and what he could (and did) use it for.


Because we weren't anywhere near the main givers of aid to Iraq. The USSR topped the list, France was 2nd, and then came a host of Soviet satillite states like E. Germany, Czechosloakia. A little while down the list comes the USA and UK. Other countries provided far more "aid" and material to Iraq, which is probably where the WMD came from. Biological samples used for vaccines tend to be quite weak (and thus hard to make into WMD) because you can't inject someone full-strength Smallpox disease when they're 3 and realistically expect them to live, although a weak virus would have the benificial effect of letting the body "remember" the disease and build up its immunity.

Right, so just because we didn't give him everything, that means what we did give him was okay? With a degree in Biology, I'm well aware of how attenuated vaccines are made. My contention is that we didn't just limit our gifts to dead or inert viral material for vaccine culturing purposes. According to "U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports to Iraq and their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the Persian Gulf War", a Senate committee report from 1994 from the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with respect to Export Administration, from 1985 through 1989, even after reports of Iraq engaging in chemical warfare with Iran and with the Kurds, we gave him:

Bacillus Anthrasis: We all know what this is. Anthrax.

Clostridium Botulinum: Botulisim toxin. Very nasty, even if Hollywood idiots inject it in their face. Neurotoxin.

Histoplasma Capsulatam: Biological that attacks lungs, brain, spinal cord and heart.

Brucella Melitensis: Biological that's capable of damaging body organs.

Clostridium Perfringens: Highly toxic bacteria capable of causing systemic illnesses.

Clostridium Tetani: High toxic biological.

This is just part of the list. Dozens of other pathological materials were shipped to Iraq either by the US government or private US companies that, according to the report, "were not attenuated or weakend in any way
and were capable of reproduction." We gave him a pharmocopia of death. So what if it was only a junior kit (which I still don't believe it was)? It was enough and it wasn't for medical reasons.

Additionally, the New York Times on Sunday, August 18, 2002, featured an article claiming that, in addition to the biologicals we gave him, the Regan administration also provided Saddam with critical battle planning assistance in waging decisive battles in the Iran-Iraq war. This came from officers within the armed forces.

We created him.

The most important part being US government and private companies. The US Government wasn't responsible for giving Saddam many things, although I know private companies/corporations were.

Of course by the time Saddam had been able to develop many of the weapons he had purchased, his stockpiles would be significant enough to produce them on his own and any sort of action would have been closing the barn door after the cow escaped. That is different than Reagan ordering the military to give him chemical weapons from the US arsenal.

Pam Anderson would make a better president than Bush. And we can have Reese Witherspoon govern Florida.

Look at a few paragraphs in this article that ought to scare the hell out of you.
Jenny Nash, a spokeswoman for the Florida Department of State, said allowing anyone to make copies of the list could "potentially violate the privacy of innocent voters." She said that's because the list only includes potential - not certain - matches of voters and felons.

State and county officials acknowledge the list likely contains many people who legally should continue to be allowed to vote.

For example, some may have had their charges reduced or been granted clemency. Others may simply have the same name and birthday as someone else who is a felon.
Bolding mine.

Now realize that when the 2000 voter purge was done, most local officials simply purged names from the 2000 version of this list--didn't bother to cross check them, didn't bother to see if perhaps the match was inconsistent or a case of mistaken identity. And as a result, thousands of people were illegally disenfranchised in 2000 and may be again in 2004.

One last snarky point to make--CNN, where the hell were you in 2000? The only major paper reporting on this in 2000 was the Guardian--The UK Guardian! The Nation and Salon.com picked it up later, but a British paper was the only one reporting this before the 2000 election. Liberal media, my ass.

I love these liberal threads.


Both Bush brothers are assholes.the Bush family are the dregs of american society and everytime one of them slimes their way into the White House, America, and the world suffers greatly--even sensible conservatives should hate the Bushs, afterall poppa Bush tried to kill their hero Reagan (which is why Nancy always hated them too)

i'm still a bit confused as to why it didn't go to the house. there were statistical ties in several states, therefore nobody should have gotten those votes. which means that nobody got a majority of the electoral votes.

Oh, that's an easy one. Cause Justice Scalia said so. See? Simple.

and dont be thinking that just because scalia and cheney are good enough friends to go duck hunting together that it was BIASED or anything

The most important part being US government and private companies. The US Government wasn't responsible for giving Saddam many things, although I know private companies/corporations were.

Of course by the time Saddam had been able to develop many of the weapons he had purchased, his stockpiles would be significant enough to produce them on his own and any sort of action would have been closing the barn door after the cow escaped. That is different than Reagan ordering the military to give him chemical weapons from the US arsenal.

LOL, nice endrun around responsibility. So, so long as private companies were doing it then it's okay? Even though we knew what they were doing, what they were shipping and even provided government military assistance.

Let's look at a time line, shall we?

In 1982, Iraq was losing the war to Iran. The US, deciding that an Iranian victory didn't suit it's interests in the region, stepped up the formation of diplomatic ties with Iraq (whereas up to that point they had claimed neutrality and non-armament on both sides).

In February of 1982, the State Department officially removed Iraq from it's list of countries that supported international terrorisim. It had originally been on the list for ties to Palistinian organizations.

The US provided loans to Iraq in order to help fund the enormously expensive war against Iran. The White House and the State Department even pressured the Import-Export Bank to provide Iraq with funds, increase it's credit standing and enable it to obtain loans from international banking institutions. The US department of Agriculture provided taxpayer-guaranteed loans for purchases of American goods.

In 1984, the US reestablished formal diplomatic ties with Iraq. Several years prior to this, however, the US had begun providing it with intelligence and military support. Mind you, this was being provided contrary to our very public stance of neutrality. This change in stance came directly from Regan pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82)

On July 12th, 1983, National Security Decision Directive 99 was signed. This document, now only available in an extremely redacted version, began an overview of US interests in the Gulf, including a reevaluation of US policy stance towards Iraq.

By the summer of 1983, Iran began reporting use of chemical weapons by Iraq. Geneva protocol requires any report of chemical weapons usage to be responded to by the international community. The response was lukewarm, at best, and in October of 1983, Iran asked for a UN Security Council investigation. The US delegate to the UN was instructed to lobby friendly countries to obtain a "no decision" ruling on Iran's draft UN resolution condemning Iraq's chemical weapons use.

The US had intelligence confirming Iran's charges.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq24.pdf

Even though we knew Iraq was breaking Geneva conventions and using chemical weapons, we backed them. Furthermore, we knew in 1983 that Saddam was using them against Kurdish insurgents as well.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq25.pdf

Even though we knew what was going on, Regan's response was to limit our "efforts against the Iraqi CW program to close monitoring...".

Shortly after November of 1983, Donald Rumsfeld (speak of the devil) was dispatched to the Middle East to enhance diplomatic ties with Iraq and serve as a presidential envoy. In December of 1983, Rumsfeld's mission was to tour regional capitals and establish direct contact between an envoy of Regan and Saddam.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq28.pdf

Rumsfeld met with Saddam and made no reference to chemical weapons, instead talking about mutal hatred towards Iran and Syria and ways to get Iraq's oil around the Iranian shut down.

The result of this tete a tete was Iraqi Prime Minister Tariq Aziz praising Rumsfeld as a person.

On March 5th of 1984, Rumsfeld returned to Iraq. The US had issued official condemnation of Iraqi use of chemical weapons by this point in response to the March 3rd US blocking the sale of 22,000 lbs. of phosphorous flouride to Iraq by a private US company (phosphorous floride is a chemical weapons precursor). Obviously, the Iraqis were not pleased that we had officially censured them for using chemical weapons and as they had suffered several military reversals, the relationship was rocky. Rumsfeld conveyed in this meeting the US's committment to block weapons sales to Iran and even introduce an offer of aid to Iraq from Israel (which Iraq rejected).

Officially, our policy was non-export of military equipment to Iraq. However, it was clear that under-the-table supplying was going on. In April of 1984, the Baghdad interests section requested to be kept informed on Bell Helicopter Textron's negotiations to sell helicopters to Iraq which were "in no way to be configured for military use." The ultimate purchaser was the Iraqi Ministry of Defence. Additionally, a subsidiary of Bell Textron in Italy reported that it had turned down a request to modify recently purchased Hughes helicopters for Iraq. South Korea also recieved such a request, which it denied.

In the spring of 1984, the US reconsidered it's policy towards the selling of dual-use equipment to Iraq's nuclear program. It's results favored expanding trade to include Iraq, even though an additional report by the Defence Intelligence Agency concluded that, even after the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq would continue to pursue a nuclear arsenal.

Even though the US government may have not been directly responsible for the sale of chemical weapons to Iraq, and may have even officially condmened their use, the realpolitik behind the scenes illustrates the Regan administration's true feelings about the Iran-Iraq war and the chemical weapons usage by Iraq. Additionally, as the US government was aware of private corporations located on US soil selling chemical weapons and precursors to Iraq and only mounted a token and half-hearted attempt to stop the export, we are as culpable as the companies involved.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but since when has a statistical tie mattered? The actual number of votes is what does. Back in 1960 with Nixon v Kennedy it was an extremely close election in some places (like Illinois) but it wasn't thrown to the House, it was given to Kennedy because he had slim majorities in many of the swing states.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but since when has a statistical tie mattered? The actual number of votes is what does. Back in 1960 with Nixon v Kennedy it was an extremely close election in some places (like Illinois) but it wasn't thrown to the House, it was given to Kennedy because he had slim majorities in many of the swing states.You're right--absolutely. And even if the vote had gone to the House, we would still have a President Bush to deal with, so the point is really moot.

The most important part being US government and private companies. The US Government wasn't responsible for giving Saddam many things, although I know private companies/corporations were.

Of course by the time Saddam had been able to develop many of the weapons he had purchased, his stockpiles would be significant enough to produce them on his own and any sort of action would have been closing the barn door after the cow escaped. That is different than Reagan ordering the military to give him chemical weapons from the US arsenal.

LOL, nice endrun around responsibility. So, so long as private companies were doing it then it's okay? Even though we knew what they were doing, what they were shipping and even provided government military assistance.

Let's look at a time line, shall we?

In 1982, Iraq was losing the war to Iran. The US, deciding that an Iranian victory didn't suit it's interests in the region, stepped up the formation of diplomatic ties with Iraq (whereas up to that point they had claimed neutrality and non-armament on both sides).

In February of 1982, the State Department officially removed Iraq from it's list of countries that supported international terrorisim. It had originally been on the list for ties to Palistinian organizations.

The US provided loans to Iraq in order to help fund the enormously expensive war against Iran. The White House and the State Department even pressured the Import-Export Bank to provide Iraq with funds, increase it's credit standing and enable it to obtain loans from international banking institutions. The US department of Agriculture provided taxpayer-guaranteed loans for purchases of American goods.

In 1984, the US reestablished formal diplomatic ties with Iraq. Several years prior to this, however, the US had begun providing it with intelligence and military support. Mind you, this was being provided contrary to our very public stance of neutrality. This change in stance came directly from Regan pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82)

On July 12th, 1983, National Security Decision Directive 99 was signed. This document, now only available in an extremely redacted version, began an overview of US interests in the Gulf, including a reevaluation of US policy stance towards Iraq.

By the summer of 1983, Iran began reporting use of chemical weapons by Iraq. Geneva protocol requires any report of chemical weapons usage to be responded to by the international community. The response was lukewarm, at best, and in October of 1983, Iran asked for a UN Security Council investigation. The US delegate to the UN was instructed to lobby friendly countries to obtain a "no decision" ruling on Iran's draft UN resolution condemning Iraq's chemical weapons use.

The US had intelligence confirming Iran's charges.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq24.pdf

Even though we knew Iraq was breaking Geneva conventions and using chemical weapons, we backed them. Furthermore, we knew in 1983 that Saddam was using them against Kurdish insurgents as well.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq25.pdf

Even though we knew what was going on, Regan's response was to limit our "efforts against the Iraqi CW program to close monitoring...".

Shortly after November of 1983, Donald Rumsfeld (speak of the devil) was dispatched to the Middle East to enhance diplomatic ties with Iraq and serve as a presidential envoy. In December of 1983, Rumsfeld's mission was to tour regional capitals and establish direct contact between an envoy of Regan and Saddam.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq28.pdf

Rumsfeld met with Saddam and made no reference to chemical weapons, instead talking about mutal hatred towards Iran and Syria and ways to get Iraq's oil around the Iranian shut down.

The result of this tete a tete was Iraqi Prime Minister Tariq Aziz praising Rumsfeld as a person.

On March 5th of 1984, Rumsfeld returned to Iraq. The US had issued official condemnation of Iraqi use of chemical weapons by this point in response to the March 3rd US blocking the sale of 22,000 lbs. of phosphorous flouride to Iraq by a private US company (phosphorous floride is a chemical weapons precursor). Obviously, the Iraqis were not pleased that we had officially censured them for using chemical weapons and as they had suffered several military reversals, the relationship was rocky. Rumsfeld conveyed in this meeting the US's committment to block weapons sales to Iran and even introduce an offer of aid to Iraq from Israel (which Iraq rejected).

Officially, our policy was non-export of military equipment to Iraq. However, it was clear that under-the-table supplying was going on. In April of 1984, the Baghdad interests section requested to be kept informed on Bell Helicopter Textron's negotiations to sell helicopters to Iraq which were "in no way to be configured for military use." The ultimate purchaser was the Iraqi Ministry of Defence. Additionally, a subsidiary of Bell Textron in Italy reported that it had turned down a request to modify recently purchased Hughes helicopters for Iraq. South Korea also recieved such a request, which it denied.

In the spring of 1984, the US reconsidered it's policy towards the selling of dual-use equipment to Iraq's nuclear program. It's results favored expanding trade to include Iraq, even though an additional report by the Defence Intelligence Agency concluded that, even after the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq would continue to pursue a nuclear arsenal.

Even though the US government may have not been directly responsible for the sale of chemical weapons to Iraq, and may have even officially condmened their use, the realpolitik behind the scenes illustrates the Regan administration's true feelings about the Iran-Iraq war and the chemical weapons usage by Iraq. Additionally, as the US government was aware of private corporations located on US soil selling chemical weapons and precursors to Iraq and only mounted a token and half-hearted attempt to stop the export, we are as culpable as the companies involved.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Just to stick my oar in where it's not wanted. Berky, you're doing a fabulous job. I admire not only your arguments but also the fullsome way you back them with statistics and links. It's just sad to see people argue in the face of evidence. Keep it up.

http://www.thedissidentfrogman.com/common/kicks/saddamgraph.gif

I don't think we created him anymore than the Russians or the French or anyone else.

I don't know where you get the fact that I didn't think that we were giving them conventional weapons from. I simply said we weren't giving them WMD. Of course we gave them some help - we gave the Iranians some help, too. Most of your post deals with us giving them military aid in the conventional form which I won't deny. I'll even throw this one in : We offered a way to give the Iraqis tanks via Egypt, by the USA giving Egypt tanks and then Egypt giving Iraq their new tanks. Not nearly as much as other countries, but we still did offer and try to help Iraq. So, in response to most of your post, I'd agree with you. There's no real point to it, as there was no disagreement on that in the first place. We stopped the shipment of all that phosphorous flouride, as you noted, after Iraq had used its Chemical weapons. There's no question that we didn't want the Anti-American religious fanatics in Tehran to win the war. We didn't want them to win it dirtily, though. Both Iraq and Iran used nerve agents sometime in the war. Iraq continued to use them throughout the war, but its not like we were "here, take some WMD and use them on Iran".

I don't know where you get the fact that I didn't think that we were giving them conventional weapons from. I simply said we weren't giving them WMD. Of course we gave them some help - we gave the Iranians some help, too. Most of your post deals with us giving them military aid in the conventional form which I won't deny. I'll even throw this one in : We offered a way to give the Iraqis tanks via Egypt, by the USA giving Egypt tanks and then Egypt giving Iraq their new tanks. Not nearly as much as other countries, but we still did offer and try to help Iraq. So, in response to most of your post, I'd agree with you. There's no real point to it, as there was no disagreement on that in the first place. We stopped the shipment of all that phosphorous flouride, as you noted, after Iraq had used its Chemical weapons. There's no question that we didn't want the Anti-American religious fanatics in Tehran to win the war. We didn't want them to win it dirtily, though. Both Iraq and Iran used nerve agents sometime in the war. Iraq continued to use them throughout the war, but its not like we were "here, take some WMD and use them on Iran".

But the fact that we knew of companies on US soil exporting chemical weapons to Iraq and only mounted a token resistance when we were working both publicly and in private to strengthen ties to Iraq makes us not only responsible for the export of those weapons but hypocritical as well.

I would vote for George bush (mainly cuase kerry is an idiot) but i live in florida and jeb is an idiot as well hes the reason for some of the stupidest regulations in our school system thank god its summer :?

But the fact that we knew of companies on US soil exporting chemical weapons to Iraq and only mounted a token resistance when we were working both publicly and in private to strengthen ties to Iraq makes us not only responsible for the export of those weapons but hypocritical as well.

Whoa - You may have something on this that I don't, which is entirely possible. But of all the things you posted above, nothing said anything about the US letting chemicals go on past the beggining offensives - in fact it cites the stoppage of thousands of poounds of phosphorous flouride.

Whoa - You may have something on this that I don't, which is entirely possible. But of all the things you posted above, nothing said anything about the US letting chemicals go on past the beggining offensives - in fact it cites the stoppage of thousands of poounds of phosphorous flouride.

Here's one article on the Iraqgate scandal that went largely uncovered by the "liberal" press:

http://archives.cjr.org/year/93/2/iraqgate.asp

And here's where I get most of my starting information when I have questions:

http://www.robincmiller.com/iraq-rg.htm

Enjoy wading through it as I have. :D

If you come across any copies of Murray Waas 1991 The Village Voice article "GULFGATE: How the US secretly armed Iraq". Let me know. I've been looking for that resource for awhile and can't seem to find it anywhere. Only references to it.

While I've enjoyed this debate, Kwangi, as I always do with you, I must be off to meet some friends for drinks and a night of carousing. Have a good weekend.

We have become a banana republic, run by a junta whose actions are cloaked in secrecy, claiming more and more illegal powers, stealing elections, ruling through intimidation and propoganda, and racking up a huge trade deficit, resulting in a few ultra rich families and many impoverished peons.

In all regards, a banana republic.

Facts man...give me factsBush/Cheney are sleazy oil barons and corporate looting/corporate welfare is the sole basus for their position on every issue under the sun--except for when their pandering to Christian fanatics on social issues to get votes or hypocritical cubans in floridaWell crap-for-crap, tell me this: EXACTLY WHERE DO YOU THINK OUR ECONOMY WOULD BE IF WE DIDN'T GET OIL FROM THE SAUDIS? I think they're a bunch of thieves and terrorists, too, but God no we can't dream of drilling for oil in Alaska. You might give a moose something other than snow to look at, God forbid.

As for calling Christians fanatics, I don't see many of us crashing planes into buildings. And what's wrong with some of the these Christian stances on social issues? You always say that, but never say what's wrong with it.

As for Florida, we've been over this hundreds of times. BOTH sides were rigging the election (remember how democrats were giving cigarettes to the poor if they would vote for Gore and college students (typically left-wing) voting three, four times? (of course you don't remember--you've had four years to convince yourself that it never happened.))

Gore lost. GET OVER IT.

Well crap-for-crap, tell me this: EXACTLY WHERE DO YOU THINK OUR ECONOMY WOULD BE IF WE DIDN'T GET OIL FROM THE SAUDIS? I think they're a bunch of thieves and terrorists, too, but God no we can't dream of drilling for oil in Alaska. You might give a moose something other than snow to look at, God forbid.

As for calling Christians fanatics, I don't see many of us crashing planes into buildings. And what's wrong with some of the these Christian stances on social issues? You always say that, but never say what's wrong with it.

As for Florida, we've been over this hundreds of times. BOTH sides were rigging the election (remember how democrats were giving cigarettes to the poor if they would vote for Gore and college students (typically left-wing) voting three, four times? (of course you don't remember--you've had four years to convince yourself that it never happened.))

Gore lost. GET OVER IT.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Well that's just the problem isn't it? Gore didn't lose, it's just that the vote got rigged so that he couldn't win. Imagine the scorn and derision that Americans and Europeans would heap on say, India, if an election had been perverted there. Please refrain from saying that Sauidis are a 'bunch of thieves and terrorists'. Not only does it display staggering ignorance, it's racist and I am led to believe that good Christians are not racists. If you think that the only 'problem' with drilling for more oil in Alaska is that it upsets the Moose, you're just being silly. Should push ever come to shove, and the world is still dependent on oil, you'll see the rigs soon enough to satisfy even you. You don't see many Muslims driving planes into buildings either. You're classically getting confused in a fundamental way by your own emotions. I doubt that many Muslims want to kill just for the sake of it. Ordinarilly, no more than your average Christian. But do tell me; what nations, of what religions are under either occupation or control of what other natins, of what religion? Let me assist you. The Christian West is very much controlling the Muslim Middle East. Perhaps the basic facts have escaped your notice. Which in fact answers another one of your questions, 'what's wrong with a Christian stance?'. It's exactly the same as a fundamentalist Muslim, Jew, Jane and all the rest. You all suffer from a persecution complex and that drives your views, not faith, nor compassion, nor the love of Christ.

but God no we can't dream of drilling for oil in Alaska

Um, how about researching renewable sources of energy, like ethanol? Can you imagine how secure our nation would be if our corn growers in the mid west turned into the oil barons of the mid east? For one, it would seriously boost our agricultural economy and we'd never have to worry about Opec or Saudia Arabia again. We could just withdraw, tell them no thanks, and go about our lives. But Bush isn't really spending much on researching alternatives, he's quite content to find new lands to despoil. And the Alaskan refuge wouldn't have provided much in the way of oil anyways. It's really a drop in the bucket of what we need, so it's largely irrelevant concerning our dependance on Saudi Arabia.

I don't see many of us crashing planes into buildings

Um, Oklahoma City Bombing anyone? I'm fairly certain McVeigh and Nichols were Christian, though not completely sure, since their religion wasn't really made out to be a big issue. But what about abortion clinic bombings? Christians are just as capable and culpable of committing terrorist acts as are muslims. Just look at some of the horrible crimes committed against gays in recent times. Look at the fact that our esteemed president is trying to profane the Constitution with an amendment robbing a sizeable portion of the population of their basic rights to religion and equal rights.

Christians are just as capable of hatred and irrational acts of violence as are muslims. The muslims are just more efficient up to this point at causing mass mayhem and death. But give the Southern Babtists some time, before you know it, they'll exterminate the gays.

Pity this hadn't happened four years ago. Al Gore would be in the White House and the world wouldn't be in the God awful mess it's in now.

Pity this hadn't happened four years ago. Al Gore would be in the White House and the world wouldn't be in the God awful mess it's in now.What makes you so sure? 9-11 still would have happened. The faulty Iraq intelligence would still be around.

Pity this hadn't happened four years ago. Al Gore would be in the White House and the world wouldn't be in the God awful mess it's in now.What makes you so sure? 9-11 still would have happened. The faulty Iraq intelligence would still be around.

Pity this hadn't happened four years ago. Al Gore would be in the White House and the world wouldn't be in the God awful mess it's in now.What makes you so sure? 9-11 still would have happened. The faulty Iraq intelligence would still be around.

They should also be suing K. Harris and DBT/Choicepoint

http://www.thedissidentfrogman.com/common/kicks/saddamgraph.gif

I don't think we created him anymore than the Russians or the French or anyone else.As another poster already pointed out on another thread if you're going to try and use those figures you need to find a graph that only goes up to pre-Desert Storm. Until then, you're just attempting to provide a smokescreen.

As I said in that other thread, if you follow the datasource, you'll see that there were no weapons sent post-Desert Storm from the countries on the .pdf, so it dosen't really matter.

As I said in that other thread, if you follow the datasource, you'll see that there were no weapons sent post-Desert Storm from the countries on the .pdf, so it dosen't really matter.So then how is it a relevant source on which Western powers helped Saddam before they turned against him? Nobody is suggesting that Britain and the US are stupid enough to arm Saddam while fighting against him.

As I said in that other thread, if you follow the datasource, you'll see that there were no weapons sent post-Desert Storm from the countries on the .pdf, so it dosen't really matter.So then how is it a relevant source on which Western powers helped Saddam before they turned against him? Nobody is suggesting that Britain and the US are stupid enough to arm Saddam while fighting against him.
Because the source encompasses every year from '73 to '01, however, '91 to '01 are blank, because he didnt' get weapons from other countries then.
http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/Trnd_Ind_IRQ_Imps_73-02.pdf

OK, I re-read what I had written before about terrorists and theives, and I see why you think that, SO. I am not a racist person. I was referring to the Saudi royal family, the people who control the oil, not the Saudis themselves. I think the royal family is a bunch of terrorists because they have funded and harbored AQ (OBL himself is just a checkwriter). They are theives because of the corrupt way they run oil production, what with the Arab Oil Embargo and all that.