This poll should warm the hearts of many here. - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-18-2003, 03:34 PM   #46
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,656
Local Time: 09:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Neither of your "Lies" address a connection between Saddam and 9/11.
It has a lot to do about context.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 09-18-2003, 04:15 PM   #47
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 10:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees

That's great. This is a site where three thousand people were murdered so we're going to campaign to go murder ten times that many people to get our revenge.
Right...its about revenge.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 09-18-2003, 04:41 PM   #48
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,656
Local Time: 09:00 AM
The lines of Revenge and Justice are often blurred.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 09-18-2003, 07:21 PM   #49
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 03:00 PM
There's no evidence of a tie between Saddam and Al-Qaeda; in fact Osama accused Saddam of being an "infidel". Did Saddam use terrorists? Yes. He kept the Sunni pseudo-Wahhabists under control by forbidding them to do politics. Presto, remove the dictator and the pseudo-Wahhabists are political big time, terrorizing the troops *and* unfortunately the Shia Moslems of Iraq, who are in the numerical majority of the population of Iraq. There's no one keeping them from doing this crud. I didn't like the pro-war rally at Ground Zero for a number of reasons, one of them being the false assumption that Al-Qaeda and Saddam were linked. I got sick when I saw that damn thing on the news.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 09-18-2003, 07:47 PM   #50
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:00 PM
Dreadsox,

Excellant theory on Clark and The Clintons. Dean I can see appealing to the "Democratic wing of the Democratic party" in a way that Clark would not. I agree Clark's entry probably hurts Lieberman and Kerry more than Dean.

I predict Dean wins the nomination, but then picks Clark as his running mate.

Do you think Hillary really has plans to run for President? Or is this just been something thats theorized by political analyst?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-18-2003, 08:40 PM   #51
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:00 PM
womanfish,

"Sorry Sting. Your answers are lengthy but not convincing to me. We all know what Saddam should have done. He should have come clean that the weapons were destroyed. He's not the most rational guy though if you haven't noticed. He wanted to use them to avoid an invasion, even Blix came out yesterday and stated this. Blix is doubtful that any weapons actually exist."

Its not what Saddam should of done, it is what he was required to do according to the 1991 UN Ceacefire agreement that stopped the 1991 Persian Gulf War. UN resolutions 678, 687, and 1441 authorize the use of all means necessary to bring about compliance with the ceacefire and multiple resolutions. Can you name me one resolution or requirement of the Gulf War Ceacefire that Saddam complied with? Everything short of the use of military force had been tried over the past 12 years! It does not take 12 years to disarm. Ukraine, Kazakstan, Belarus, and South Africa were all disarmed in under a 2 years even though it was not in regards to security or violations of international law.

Saddam certainly is not the most rational guy, all the more reason to remove him or suffer the consequences. Blix was one of the most lax UN Weapons inspectors during the past 12 years. He can say what he wants, but he never achieved compliance, George Bush did.

"And you know what I meant about the timeframe of the purchase of Uranium, and you know that we were mislead about knowing where the WMD's were, and you know that Iraq wasn't an imminent threat. A threat that needed to be dealt with over a period of time with the help of the international commuinity and systematically deconstructed yes, but not one that had to be bombed immediately."

I know that intelligence is not perfect. I realize there are those who will try to use that to their political advantage. In order for one to mislead someone, that would themselves have to know that something was in fact not so, but suggest that it was. Name one administration official or any official for that matter that could prove that Saddam did not have WMD!

I consider a regime that has invaded and attacked Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, invaded Iran and attacked Israel, used Chemical weapons more times than any other leader in history, devoted a higher percentage of GDP than any country to the development of WMD, Killed 1.7 million people, continueing to have a military of 400,000, 2,700 tanks, nearly 2,000 Artillery pieces including 122mm and 152mm howitzers capable of firing any of 30,000 unaccounted for Bio/Chem capable shells, filled potentially with Anthrax and Mustard Gas from an unaccounted for stockpile of thousands of liters of Anthrax and 500 tons of Mustard Gas, prior knowledge and near development of a Nuclear Weapon 1991, the scientist and means to develop or smuggle the materials for a future nuclear weapon, to indeed be an imminent threat to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and there for, the entire planets energy supply and economic stability.

This is why at a MINIMUM, Saddam was required to disarm 100% of all WMD materials, related materials, and programs, by the March 1991 Ceacefire agreement and mutilple UN resolutions. There is nothing in the UN resolutions or ceacefire agreement that suggest that the disarmament process was supposed to be still going on 12 years later.

I'd like to hear when and how you would have brought about compliance of the UN resolutions and Gulf War Ceacefire considering the failure of the international community to do so after 12 years? If Saddam was not a threat to Kuwait, could you please describe what would be a threat to Kuwait? If you think Saddam was not a threat to the international community, why do you think the international community as a condition of the 1991 ceacefire ordered him to disarm of all his WMD verifiably?

"But there is more funding needed when kids need to share books and supplies, programs like music and sports and art are being cut and they are having to have classes in mobile trailors that are rolled onto the school lawns."

The USA spends more on education than Germany, Japan, Ireland the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Australia. There are plenty of funds there, but if they are not properly managed, then you have the problems that you describe. Supplying more funds would not fix the problem and would simply be a waste of the funds.


"And the idea that Democrats are behind the idea that Saddam was behind 9/11 and linked with Bin Laden???!!!??? Now you have really stepped into Sean Hannity territory. I personally believed it because Colin Powell, Rice, Bush, and that horrible little man Rumsfield said it was true. If they didn't come right out and say it, they eluded to it, talked just around it enough to make sure people drew the conclusion they were looking for."

For political reasons, Democrats have alleged that the Bush administration said Saddam was responsible for 9/11 which is utter Bull. There is plenty of intelligence, circumstantial and unproven but still a possible indication, that Al Quada had dealings and talks with agents of the Saddam regime. It is the Democrats who want to turn this into Bush saying Saddam was responible for 9/11. PLEASE, show me the quote where Bush says "Saddam was responsible for 9/11". Allege and accuse all you want on that score, but there is no proof to it. I think its a good thing that the administration let the public know about the intelligence that indicated links.



"We will have to agree to disagree I suppose. I just can't stand up for a President or administration that either was so incompetent that they got into a war for a reason that didn't exist, or that they bent the truth in order to get into a war for reasons that didn't exist."

How many UN security council resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the UN did Saddam comply with?

How many requirments of the 1991 UN ceacefire agreement did Saddam comply with?

Since it was incubment upon on Saddam to prove that he no longer had WMD per the Ceacefire agreement and he failed to do so, can you prove that Saddam did not have any WMD?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-18-2003, 08:52 PM   #52
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:00 PM
Sherry Darling,

"Thanks for the update. Most presidents hold back on ground troops if possible, yeah. I'm not sure what you've heard and not heard, but what I've read was that Clark was always against it? You say he wrote an article supporting it? I don't suppose you can track it down?"

Last night CNN mentioned he wrote an article in the London Times praising Bush and Blair about the Iraq war. Don't know how accurate that is though.

About the ground troops, the point I was making is that in this case, if substantial US and NATO ground troops had been deployed to Hungary and Albania along the borders of Serbia, Milosovic may have backed down without a war at all. As it was, Milosovic only had to fear bombing and not a potential military invasion to unseat him.


"As for the oil supply thing, yes, I'm very aware that much of the world's oil is under ME sand. LOL. We all know that. What gives us the right to control it? (And how did our oil get under their sand anyway?"

We don't control it, we buy it, just like we buy things from Europe and other places. But oil is energy and vital to the entire global economy. If you can't buy or recieve oil from the middle east, the global supply of oil available dramatically decreases, which dramatically increases the demand and price. The person that gets hurt first, are those that make very little money and for whom having to pay 10 dollars for a gallon a gas would be impossible. Those that could afford now can't afford to spend their money elsewhere. Suddenly businesses are not making money because people have less money to spend. Workers are laid off. Unemployment increases. Before long, worldwide economic depression.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-18-2003, 09:06 PM   #53
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:00 PM
Scarletwine,

"This is just too much. I can't stop laughing"

"LIE #4: "[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening's speech by President Bush."

Did Bush or George Tenet make a statement they new to be false? NO If you believe they did, the above does not prove it and is there for not a "Lie".


"LIE #5: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." President Bush, Oct. 7."

Same with this and virtually every one of your unproven claims about administration "Lies".

The Democrats gain politically if they can convince the public to believe that Bush lied.

There is someone named Saddam that has been caught often in a Lie. Since you've been unable to prove any of your allegations against Bush, perhaps you should take a look at Saddam. Proof will be much more forthcoming.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-18-2003, 09:43 PM   #54
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 10:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Dreadsox,

Excellant theory on Clark and The Clintons. Dean I can see appealing to the "Democratic wing of the Democratic party" in a way that Clark would not. I agree Clark's entry probably hurts Lieberman and Kerry more than Dean.

I predict Dean wins the nomination, but then picks Clark as his running mate.

Do you think Hillary really has plans to run for President? Or is this just been something thats theorized by political analyst?
I believe that up until the recent Polls, 2008 was her year. They figured, based on the polls that Bush was solid and the timing was not right. Rather than risk losing to Bush, the incumbent, better to go up against the unknown candidate in 2008.

Summing it all up...Yes...I believe she will run.


Rumors are out there tonight, the Clintons are going to support Clark.

We shall see.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 09-19-2003, 07:44 AM   #55
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 10:00 AM
[Q]Late-Arriving Candidate Got Push From Clintons
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE


ASHINGTON, Sept. 18 Behind Gen. Wesley K. Clark's candidacy for the White House is a former president fanning the flames.

General Clark, in fact, said today that he had had a series of conversations with both the former president, Bill Clinton, and his wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, as well as close aides to them and that all of them had encouraged him to run.

Advertisement


The story, though, is not simple.

At first glance, it would seem that Mr. Clinton and General Clark would have a longtime bond. They each lost their fathers early. From the same small patch of 1950's America, they emerged as ambitious, high-achieving golden boys, becoming Rhodes Scholars and attending Oxford University, then soaring to the tops of their respective professions at relatively young ages.

In reality, they hardly knew each other. Instead of paths that crossed, theirs were parallel. And when their lives finally intersected while Mr. Clinton was president and General Clark commanded the allied troops in Europe it was a complex and tortured time for both.

To General Clark's humiliation, President Clinton's Pentagon relieved him of his command. And President Clinton had signed off on the plan, according to several published accounts, apparently unaware that he was being deceived by Clark detractors.

Now the 58-year-old career Army officer wants to be president. And the 57-year-old former president seems eager to promote his candidacy.

General Clark said in an interview today he had talked with both Mr. and Mrs. Clinton over the last few weeks. Beyond saying that they had been encouraging, he was reluctant to discuss the conversations because he was "afraid I'm going to misquote one of them."

Earlier this summer, Mr. Clinton and Mrs. Clinton were talking up General Clark to their friends.

"During their visits to Martha's Vineyard, there was certainly a lot of buzz about General Clark's potential candidacy," said Alan M. Dershowitz, the author and Harvard Law School professor who hobnobbed on the Vineyard with the Clintons.

"Obviously they didn't make any endorsement, but Bill particularly was clearly talking up his virtues," Mr. Dershowitz added. "You could tell he was Bill's kind of guy."

And just last week, at a dinner at the Clintons' home in Chappaqua, N.Y., the former president told guests the Democratic Party had "two stars," referring to Senator Clinton and General Clark.

Since then, some of Mr. Clinton's former associates have signed on with General Clark's incipient campaign.

One of them is Mickey Kantor, who was Mr. Clinton's campaign chairman in 1992. "I'm doing everything I can to give him personal advice and talk to others about him," Mr. Kantor said.

Both Clintons, Mr. Kantor said, "are really admirers of General Clark and his talents and are greatly impressed with him." He added: "Given their admiration for General Clark, I'd be surprised if they were anything but supportive of anyone who has worked for them for doing anything to help him."

Mr. Kantor said that the Clintons' enthusiasm did not extend to recruiting people for the Clark campaign, and he expected that neither Clinton would endorse any candidate in the Democratic primaries. But their enthusiasm is evident.

"He's a good man, he's a smart man, served our country well," Mr. Clinton said on Saturday in Iowa. "He was fabulous in the Bosnian peace process."

On Tuesday, he hailed General Clark as having "a sack full of guts" for a heroic rescue bid of State Department officials whose vehicle had slid off a Balkan mountainside.[/Q]
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 09-19-2003, 09:17 AM   #56
New Yorker
 
Sherry Darling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,857
Local Time: 11:00 AM
Quote:

We don't control it, we buy it, just like we buy things from Europe and other places. But oil is energy and vital to the entire global economy. [/B]


Oh Sting. We--the US and the UK--have *controlled* it since the early 40s when Britan colonized Iraq. Not allowing uncooperatives to have influence has been *explicit* US/UK/perhaps others policy since then. What else would you call that but control? Check out some history sites and npr.org for details. NPR especially has done some great, in depth and very historical reports on this. For example, check out this link (I think it was Prof. Noah Feldman who did this interview, but I may have the wrong one)

http://freshair.npr.org/topic_fa.jhtml

This one, an interview with an historian, might be good too.

http://freshair.npr.org/day_fa.jhtml...ate=04/28/2003


If it's wrong, any search will turn up some stuff.

sd
__________________
Sherry Darling is offline  
Old 09-19-2003, 11:41 AM   #57
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 4,181
Local Time: 03:00 PM
Sting -
I'm tired of typing, so I won't respond to every bit, but just be logical for a minute.

You can list off all of the weapons and gasses supposedly unnacounted for, but the truth is, they aren't there.

Second, Bush just yesterday said that Saddam was involved with Al-qaeda. Yet he just makes that statement with no follow-up statement or proof. Chaney yesterday said that he thinks there were secret meetings in Baghdad with Al-qaeda right before 9/11..Again with no source of proof. These statements have gone on since before the war. Sorry I don't have transcripts and records to point out all of them. But you can't sit there and wonder where people got this crazy idea that Saddam was involved in 9/11. If Democrats are saying anything about it, it's to point out statements like this that are misleading the U.S. public and the world.

_______________________________
General Wesley Clark for President
__________________
womanfish is offline  
Old 09-19-2003, 04:00 PM   #58
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:00 PM
Womenfish,

"You can list off all of the weapons and gasses supposedly unnacounted for, but the truth is, they aren't there."

The statistics I listed came from the United Nations Weapons Inspectors at the end of 1998 when they were forced to leave Iraq and were not allowed to enter Iraq again for another four years. Supposedly unnaccounted for? No, not supposedly, its FACT! If you want to pretend they don't exist simply because they have not been found yet in a country the size of Texas, fine, but I think it would be irresponsible for any Security official to proclaim unaccounted for WMD no longer exist because they have not found it. The fact is that the material exist, whether its intact or been destroyed. Metal does not completely disappear. 30,000 Bio/Chem capable shells as reported by UN inspectors in 1998 is a hell of a lot of METAL. If the Shells were destroyed then where is the metal SADDAM? Same goes for any of the WMD materials and related programs.

The UN resolutions on disarmament require that SADDAM not be allegedly disarmed, or presumed to be disarmed, but that he be VERIFIABLY disarmed. Failure by Saddam to do that is a violation of the Ceacefire agreement in which case member states of the UN are authorized to use all means necessary to bring about compliance.

The administration on Al Quada, has simply listed the intelligence that indicates, makes one think about, possible Iraqi and Al Quada connections. They never said we have indisputable proof of this or that. Does intelligence indicate the possibility, yes. Does it prove it beyond any and all doubt, no. They talk about a connection, even if its just talks. It would not be surprising since Al Quada have ties in over 90 countries around the world. It be rather strange that they would not have any ties or talks to a government that is so similar to them as far as who their #1 enemy is. But under no circumstance has the President or anyone in their administration lied. Its also their job, absent indisputable evidence, to say what they feel and believe.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-19-2003, 04:27 PM   #59
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:00 PM
Sherry Darling,

If we controlled the oil in the region, the oil shocks of the 1970s would not of happened. The US government does not own any land in Saudi Arabia except the where the USA Embassy is. Yes, US companies have come into develop oil fields in cooperation with Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. But these countries are the ones that control their oil. They decide how much they want to pump or cut back as far as supply. They also decide who they want to do business with. If business with the USA was more profitable than someone else and so they chose to go with the USA in this project or that project, thats business. Yes, the USA and Saudi Arabia have had a strong economic, political, and military relationship going back 60 years. But the United States does not control Saudi Arabia any more than it controls Canada or the United Kingdom.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-19-2003, 04:48 PM   #60
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 4,181
Local Time: 03:00 PM
Sting, if you don't think your government lies to you at least a little now and then, no matter if it's a Democrat or Republican in office, than I feel sorry for you. Lies happen. Governments manipulate data to suit their needs. It's not a big secret.

You think they are 100% honest, I don't, ok. 'nough said, movin' on.

_____________________________
General Wesley Clark for President
__________________

__________________
womanfish is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com