 sj |
||
|
||
BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
|
|
|
Subject: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: dick greenhaus Date: 04 Dec 07 - 05:18 PM "I view this report as a warning signal that they had the program, they halted the program," Mr. Bush said. "The reason why it's a warning signal is they could restart it." The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) "provides an opportunity for us to rally the international community – continue to rally the community to pressure the Iranian regime to suspend its program," Bush said. The new NIE, made public Monday, said Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003 partly because of international pressure and scrutiny. NOW THAT WE HAVE LOST SIGHT OF OUR OBJECTIVES, WE MUST REDOUBLE OUR EFFORTS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 04 Dec 07 - 05:39 PM Yeah, I mentioned something about this on the Maliki thread, Dick... Seems that Bush was told that Iran had curtailed its nuclear program in 2003 *before* he made the speech about Iran and World War III!!! The boy just can't stop telling lies... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Amos Date: 04 Dec 07 - 05:53 PM The man is clearly a psychotic, who when assured that the enemy he is frothing about is not there just takes that as proof that the enemy is being unusually wily. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Amos Date: 04 Dec 07 - 06:00 PM From Time, the observation that Bush's administration had to bless this National Intell Estimate (NIE) before it became public: "...And explode is what the hawks in and outside the Administration are about to do. They were counting on Bush being the one President prepared to take on Iran. As recently as last month, Bush warned of World War III if Iran so much as thought about building a bomb. Bush's betrayal is not going to go down well. The neocons, clinging to a sliver of hope, will accuse the intelligence community of incompetence, pointing out that as late as 2005 it estimated "with high confidence" that Iran was building a bomb. Bush's National Security Adviser, Stephen Hadley, put the best face on the new report, claiming that it was our diplomacy and saber rattling that forced the Iranians to back down. As for the intelligence community, it explained its reversal by hinting that new intelligence had surfaced. Neither explanation is entirely accurate. The real story behind this NIE is that the Bush Administration has finally concluded Iran is a bridge too far. With Iranian-backed Shi'a groups behaving themselves, things are looking up in Iraq. In Lebanon, the anti-Syrian coalition and pro-Syrian coalition, which includes Iran's surrogate Hizballah, reportedly have settled on a compromise candidate, the army commander General Michel Suleiman. Bombing Iran now would upset the fragile balance in these two countries. Not to mention that Hizballah has threatened to shell Israel if we as much as touch a hair on Iran's head. Then there are the Gulf Arabs. For the last year and a half, ever since the Bush Administration started to hint that it might hit Iran, they have been sending emissaries to Tehran to assure the Iranians they're not going to help the United States. But in private, the Gulf Arabs have been reminding Washington that Iran is a rabid dog: Don't even think about kicking it, the Arabs tell us. If you have to do something, shoot it dead. Which is something the United States can't do. So how far is Iran from a nuke? The new NIE says 10 to 15 years, maybe. But that's a wild guess. The truth is that Iran is a black hole, and it's entirely conceivable Iran could build a bomb and we wouldn't know until they tested it. Yet for now we should at least be happy with the good news: Armageddon is postponed." Robert Baer, a former CIA field officer assigned to the Middle East, is TIME.com's intelligence columnist and the author of See No Evil and, most recently, the novel Blow the House Down" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 04 Dec 07 - 06:09 PM He did not "lie" as you put it. When asked specifically about that he said that last August all he been told by his Intelligence Agencies was that there was new information under evaluation. He was not told that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons programme. Many have often mocked your President for his use of language. In Dick Greenhaus's open post in this thread, where he is quoting what the President said, I think I would only change one word for it to make perfect sense. I would substitute the word renounce for the word suspend: "I view this report as a warning signal that they had the program, they halted the program," Mr. Bush said. "The reason why it's a warning signal is they could restart it." The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) "provides an opportunity for us to rally the international community – continue to rally the community to pressure the Iranian regime to renounce its program," Bush said. But I am pleased no-one seems to be in any doubt that Iran did have a secret weapons programme running. Your President is perfectly correct, action by the international community as a whole is required to induce Iran to abandon their nuclear weapons programme not merely halt it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 04 Dec 07 - 06:23 PM "Iran is pursuing the technology that could be used to tpoduce nuclear weapons and abllistic missiles of increasing range that could deliver them"... Bush Ocober 23rd... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Jim Krause Date: 04 Dec 07 - 07:30 PM Wouldda, couldda, shouldda, mightta....seen it all before. It's really all about oil. Jim Krause |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: wysiwyg Date: 04 Dec 07 - 07:32 PM I'm SHOCKED! ;~) ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Dec 07 - 07:36 PM http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/ "Iran is pursuing the technology that could be used to tpoduce nuclear weapons and abllistic missiles of increasing range that could deliver them"... Bush Ocober 23rd... " And what part of this do you think is a lie? Are you claiming the IAEA is wrong about the centrifuges? FACT: * I * can build a nuclear device right now, if I had the weapons grade material. FACT: The number of cascaded centrifuges Iran has implemented allows for the real likelyhood of weapons grade material. Are you claiming that the Iranians are less competant than I am? That they are so dumb they can't do what a college grad in Physics can? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 04 Dec 07 - 07:55 PM Back to screaming, bb??? That always means you are on shakey grounds as you are here in your loyal-Bushite-dog defense... Are you so partisan that you don't understand the implications of what Bush said on October 23rd of this year??? I mean, geeze... Is there any lie that Bush could tell that you wouldn't defend??? He said that "Iran is pursuing..." Fact: No, Iran was not, according to the intellegence community "pursuing"... "Pursuing" is an active verb... It says that someone is ***actively*** doing something... The US intellgence community has said that is not true... In other words, it is a lie... Now I know how you love to split hairs on what is or isn't a lie but your dog won't hunt... Bush lied... Iran is not "pursuing"... Okay, Iran might have "pursued"... Taht would be an accurate statement but "pursuing" is present tense... I can't wait to hear the crapola you are going to write that changes the entire way in which English is spoken... This oughtta be a bb doozie of crapolla... (No, Bobert... Bb will probably just try to outSCREAM you since he has no defense here...) Normal... Some things never change... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 04 Dec 07 - 08:11 PM Bush's remarks included something about preventing the Iranians from learning how to make a nuclear bomb. Hell's bells, any competent physics student knows how to make a nuclear bomb. I'm no physicist, and I know how to make a nuclear bomb. Whether I have the engineering skill to do so is something else, but I know the principles of how both a fission bomb and a thermonuclear bomb work. From that point on, it's a matter of getting the necessary material together, and combining it with the ability to run a screwdriver! Our president—once again demonstrating that he is a clueless twit—has seen far too many John Wayne movies! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Amos Date: 04 Dec 07 - 08:20 PM WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 — A new assessment by American intelligence agencies released Monday concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen, contradicting a judgment two years ago that Tehran was working relentlessly toward building a nuclear bomb. Senator Harry Reid said the assessment was "directly challenging some of this administration's alarming rhetoric" on Iran. The conclusions of the new assessment are likely to reshape the final year of the Bush administration, which has made halting Iran's nuclear program a cornerstone of its foreign policy. The assessment, a National Intelligence Estimate that represents the consensus view of all 16 American spy agencies, states that Tehran is likely to keep its options open with respect to building a weapon, but that intelligence agencies "do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons." Iran is continuing to produce enriched uranium, a program that the Tehran government has said is intended for civilian purposes. The new estimate says that the enrichment program could still provide Iran with enough raw material to produce a nuclear weapon sometime by the middle of next decade, a timetable essentially unchanged from previous estimates. But the new report essentially disavows a judgment that the intelligence agencies issued in 2005, which concluded that Iran had an active secret arms program intended to transform the raw material into a nuclear weapon. The new estimate declares instead with "high confidence" that the military-run program was shut in 2003, and it concludes with "moderate confidence" that the program remains frozen. The report judges that the halt was imposed by Iran "primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure." It was not clear what prompted the reversal. Administration officials said the new estimate reflected conclusions that the intelligence agencies had agreed on only in the past several weeks. The report's agnosticism about Iran's nuclear intentions represents a very different tone than had been struck by President Bush, and by Vice President Dick Cheney, who warned in a speech in October that if Iran "stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose serious consequences." The estimate does not say when intelligence agencies learned that the arms program had been halted, but officials said new information obtained from covert sources over the summer had led to a reassessment of the state of Iran's nuclear program and a decision to delay preparation of the estimate, which had been scheduled to be delivered to Congress in the spring. The new report came out just over five years after a 2002 intelligence estimate on Iraq concluded that it possessed chemical and biological weapons programs and was determined to restart its nuclear program. That estimate was instrumental in winning the Congressional authorization for a military invasion of Iraq, but it proved to be deeply flawed, and most of its conclusions turned out to be wrong. Intelligence officials said the specter of the 2002 estimate on Iraq hung over their deliberations on Iran even more than it had in 2005, when the lessons from the intelligence failure on Iraq were just beginning to prompt spy agencies to adapt a more rigorous approach to their findings." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: dick greenhaus Date: 04 Dec 07 - 08:50 PM "Look, Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous, and Iran will be dangerous, if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon," Mr. Bush said, sounding defensive at times, during a news conference dominated by questions about the assessment, known as a National Intelligence Estimate. "What's to say they couldn't start another covert nuclear weapons program?" GWB ":FACT: * I * can build a nuclear device right now, if I had the weapons grade material." BB Conclusion? We should bomb Bearded Bruce |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Little Hawk Date: 04 Dec 07 - 09:16 PM Good old Lapp-Goch! Gotta love it. The pre-emptive self-defence techique for homicidal maniacs once advertised by National Lampoon as a ridiculous joke has had the USA presidential stamp of approval ever since 2003. What was once a joke goes mainstream. Hitler and Tojo's interesting approach to national defence has thereby been exonerated by the Bush administration as just "good common sense in a dangerous world". Yes, it IS okay after all to attack others first, just because you think they might someday pose a threat to you. It must be all right or the president wouldn't have done it. Would he? Yes, dick, there does appear to be solid evidence that Bearded Bruce poses a dire threat to the world, because he has stated that HE KNOWS how to make a nuclear bomb... Pretty worrisome! He is clearly an unstable maniac who must be stopped, and we can't take the military option off the table or he won't take us seriously. Mind you, he doesn't have the fissionable material yet (or at least we don't think he does...), so now is the time to move decisively and make sure he NEVER gets it. To do this, I think the powers that be should freeze his assets, shut down all his bank accounts forthwith, suspend his driver's license, remove his cookie, and set his credit rating at zero. Then apply sanctions and suspend trade till he sees reason. Turn off his power too. And his water. That should teach him a lesson. While he mulls all that over, surround his residence with a heavily armed swat team, ready to attack at a moment's notice if any sign of aggression by Bearded Bruce or the intent to commit future aggression is detected! (Such signs could include frowning, turning red in the face, yelling, and/or the use of foul language and rude gestures.) I call this program of firm action "Tough Diplomacy...the Road to Peace and Freedom". Bearded Bruce is either going to knuckle under and meet all the conditions for peace and freedom that the Free World demands of its members or he is going to pay the consequences... ;-) Tough love. Tough diplomacy. Lapp-Goch. First strike. Shock and Awe. It's how you get things done in the modern world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,282RA Date: 04 Dec 07 - 11:07 PM >>>I * can build a nuclear device right now, if I had the weapons grade material." BB Conclusion? We should bomb Bearded Bruce<<< Let's not be rash. I want to be totally fair about this. Bruce, please prove to us that you are not building a nuclear bomb. This is your last chance to disarm. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Barry Finn Date: 05 Dec 07 - 02:22 AM Oh shit! Bearded Bruce was just spotted in West Africa trying to buy enriched yellow cake flowers! We are 45 just minutes away from Blooming Blossoms, flower power is our only option, we've hit pay dirt, plant the bastards now! Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Barry Finn Date: 05 Dec 07 - 02:31 AM Georgie's gonna have to find a new enemy to refocus or redirect the national attention on, who or what's it gonna be?? Please don't dicusss or bring up health or education reform or ending the war, those topics are taboo, maybe he'll want to tackle the Mid East disagreement/conflict & start redrawing a few more road maps or maybe he can focus on whaling, whoops, that might get him to close to the topic of global warming! And we all know that he doesn't want to go there either. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,PMB Date: 05 Dec 07 - 06:17 AM Who cares about the facts? If you really believe something to be true, it's true for you, and it's showing disrespect for another's faith to oppose them with mere evidence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Rapparee Date: 05 Dec 07 - 09:08 AM I too could build both fission and fusion weapons. I've know how ever since I was in high school. Or go read the book "The Circle of Binding Energy." 'Tain't hard to build a gun-type fission weapon. And you can even trigger it with a suicide-type fanatic (I can find plenty around here who would do it because killing "Liberals" will insure their entry into Heaven, the provision of 144 wild virgin bikini dancers and an eternity of light beer). A human-triggered fission weapon wouldn't have the yield of a well-engineered one or an implosion weapon, probably only about .8 KT and a LOT of fallout -- mind you, that's the equivalent of about 800 tons of TNT and a "dead zone" of radioactivity. Don't go bad-mouthing BB or Don Firth -- they're dead right about building nukes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 05 Dec 07 - 09:25 AM Well, okay... Lets do a little review here... Bush says that if Iran had a nuke that would be the beginning of WW III... Right??? 'Cept now it appears that Iran isn't do that at all but... Well, if bb is "pursuing the technology that could be used to produce nuclear weapons" would that also be the beginning of WW III??? I've got the WGSR down on the bomb shelter workin' on this one... "144 wild virgin bikina dancers and an eternity of light beer", Rap??? Where do I sign up??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: bankley Date: 05 Dec 07 - 09:42 AM I somehow see W. replacing Slim Pickens in Dr. Strangelove, riding the Big One like a wild horse all the way down.... then again that would take guts which, along with brains, are sadly lacking in this man. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Donuel Date: 05 Dec 07 - 09:43 AM I found him in a hidey hole. bb won't be bobmbing anyone again. So the NIE ganged up on poor ol George Jr. I remember when they got the exact reports that they ordered up like breakfast at the Silver Diner. Not to worry Georgie, if you and your MIC friends ever need a war in Iran it won't matter what anyone says after one singular little tiny nuke goes off in the region. It won't even matter if its ours :) heh heh (of course it is) All you need to do is pay some experts to declare the uranium signiture is that of Iran and repeat it every ten minutes for 2 weeks on FOX. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,Winds Of War Date: 05 Dec 07 - 09:52 AM A new U.S. intelligence analysis claims that Iran halted its nuclear weapons research program in 2003. This is odd, since the report was created by an agency that answers to the president of the United States. But the people creating the Iran weapons section have a reputation for pro-Iran opinions. Moreover, the "halt" angle has very little to back it up. This new analysis seems to be more for political than intelligence effect, as it throws cold water on U.S. politicians who are calling for an attack on Iran (which would mainly help the unpopular religious dictatorship there, as it would rally the people behind them). However, the United Arab Emirates has demanded the return of three islands in the Persian Gulf, which Iran seized by force in 1971, and refuses to give back. The UAE will require help from the USA to back up their demands. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 05 Dec 07 - 10:08 AM "Bush says that if Iran had a nuke that would be the beginning of WW III... Right???" Wrong Bobert - He most certainly did not. If you wish to actually read the question that was asked and the complete answer that was given here it is: Question put during a press conference dated 17th October 2007: But you definitively believe Iran wants to build a nuclear weapon? THE PRESIDENT: I think so long -- until they suspend and/or make it clear that they -- that their statements aren't real, yeah, I believe they want to have the capacity, the knowledge, in order to make a nuclear weapon. And I know it's in the world's interest to prevent them from doing so. I believe that the Iranian -- if Iran had a nuclear weapon, it would be a dangerous threat to world peace. But this -- we got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously. And we'll continue to work with all nations about the seriousness of this threat. Plus we'll continue working the financial measures that we're in the process of doing. In other words, I think -- the whole strategy is, is that at some point in time, leaders or responsible folks inside of Iran may get tired of isolation and say, this isn't worth it. And to me, it's worth the effort to keep the pressure on this government. And secondly, it's important for the Iranian people to know we harbor no resentment to them. We're disappointed in the Iranian government's actions, as should they be. Inflation is way too high; isolation is causing economic pain. This is a country that has got a much better future, people have got a much better -- should have better hope inside Iran than this current government is providing them. So it's -- look, it's a complex issue, no question about it. But my intent is to continue to rally the world to send a focused signal to the Iranian government that we will continue to work to isolate you, in the hopes that at some point in time, somebody else shows up and says it's not worth the isolation." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: dick greenhaus Date: 05 Dec 07 - 10:42 AM My original posting was intended to point out that logic is not a governing force in this Administration. What's being said is essentially: We must force Iran to stop doing something that we say they stopped doing four years ago, because they might start doing it again. (And, implicitly, we're willing to go to war with them to accomplish this.) What the Intelligence analysis suggests that since hostilities are not imminent, it may be possible to utilize more pacific means of diplomacy to make sure that what got stopped stays stopped. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Donuel Date: 05 Dec 07 - 11:05 AM It is not against any international law to refine Uranium for reactors. Diane Reams had several NIE experts on her show today regarding this thread subject. I was happy to hear 2 points that I brought be discussed on the show. At any rate none of us will have any influence on foreign policy or war plans except in a slow motion election manner. Like 1914 a single bullet could become the excuse for the WWIII that Bush chuckled about when he chided "if anyone wants to avoid WWIII they ought to..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Stu Date: 05 Dec 07 - 11:17 AM "So it's -- look, it's a complex issue, no question about it. But my intent is to continue to rally the world to send a focused signal to the Iranian government that we will continue to work to isolate you, in the hopes that at some point in time, somebody else shows up and says it's not worth the isolation." That last paragraph gave me the best belly laugh I've had for ages. Are you posting this shite in defence of Bush? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Stu Date: 05 Dec 07 - 11:31 AM "We found the weapons of mass destruction." –President Bush, in an interview with Polish television, May 29, 2003 "Already, the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations." –President Bush, 2004 State of the Union Address "I heard somebody say, 'Where's (Nelson) Mandela?' Well, Mandela's dead. Because Saddam killed all the Mandelas." -George W. Bush, on the former South African president, who is still very much alive, Washington, D.C., Sept. 20, 2007 "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more." - President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003). The last one is nearly as funny as the quote Teribus posted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 05 Dec 07 - 11:46 AM Sorry, T, but as per usual, you are on the fictional side of the "facts"... October 17th: " If Iran had a nuclear weapon, it would be a dangerous threat to world peace. We got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Isreal. So I told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be inter4ested in preventing them from having knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weaspon. And... take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously"... George Bush Seems to me that I fairly well paraphrased what Bush said... And keep in mind here, T-Bird, that this statement was also made after Bush had been informed that Iran had curtailed its nuclear program back in 2003... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Rapparee Date: 05 Dec 07 - 12:30 PM Sorry, the book I referred to is entitled "The Curve of Binding Energy." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 05 Dec 07 - 02:31 PM Back to ignoring anything resembling facts, Bobert??? Sorry if pointing out that a statement is fact seems to upset you. D., "It is not against any international law to refine Uranium for reactors." No, but it is a violation of the NPT that Iran signed, according to the IAEA. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 05 Dec 07 - 02:53 PM "We got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Isreal. " And what part of this do you disagree with? Please look at what you have put out, and try to see what Bush was saying: "So I told people that *** if *** you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you *** ought *** to be interested in preventing them from having knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weaspon." Plain and simple. How do you get *** your *** ( Emphasis, not yelling) interpretation out of what he said???? So, You, Bobert, are *** not *** ( please note emphasis, not yelling) interested in avoiding World War III?????????? How does this entitle you to call anyone a liar? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Rapparee Date: 05 Dec 07 - 02:59 PM If you have uranium and the proper equipment, you can seperate out U235 from U238. It's a relatively simple process, but I won't detail it here. If you have U235 you can use that for a fission weapon, or you can further work on it to make Plutonium 239. Pu239 can also be used in fission weapons. U235 and Pu239 can also be used in electricity-producing reactors. Just as with sinning, it's often a matter of intent. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 05 Dec 07 - 03:00 PM This is my post from the other thread: ******************************************************************** Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops From: beardedbruce - PM Date: 04 Dec 07 - 04:47 PM Bobert, Bobert, Bobert... "So when Bush made a statement about Iran trying to get a nuclear weapon a couple months ago and how that would be the beginning of World War III he made the statement ***after*** being told by the intellegence folks that Iran had curtailed it's nuclear weapon's program in 2003..." The report states that Iran curtailed it's nuclear weapons program in 2003. The IAEA has stated that it CANNOT provide ANY evidence as to whether that program was dismantled, frozen, or even restarted. I "curtailed" my employment in 2002. As of 2003, I WAS unemployed (PLEASE NOTE THE PAST TENSE). I have since been employed from 2004 to the present: BUT you would call me a liar if I said I was employed now, I have to presume. I would prefer to have the IAEA decide that Iran HAS decided to comply with the NPT requirements that it violated, before stating that Iran does NOT have a nuclear program. Right now, WE DO NOT KNOW. Conditional statement: IF Iran gets a nuclear device THEN it would be a BAD thing. Since THAT is what Bush said, your point is... That it would NOT be a bad thing????????? " Still waiting, Bobert. And making fun of anyone who points out that the limiting factor in making a nuclear device is ONLY the access to the fissionable material, and Iran has CONTUINUED (Note yelling)to make that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Barry Finn Date: 05 Dec 07 - 03:08 PM Are they (Iran) being accused of refining uranium for reactors or for to produce WMD? Really!!! It seems that the WMD issue is now been put to sleep, matter of "fact", "fact" is now that it's been put to bed yrs ago. Is Bush trying to wake a sleeping (rabid??) dog?? or just wag the fucking dog's tail??????? Please!!!! It's past time that he move on & out! Like we don't have other issues to deal with. Like todays report that US kids are only rate around 30 on a list of 60 nations for math & for science we are so much worst. Like our national health care system sucks compared to most of Europe, !/2 of North America, most of Downunder & Cuba & that's just a start. We also rate pretty low compared to many others on infant mortality. Educational system, I'm not going there! We're in debt so far that the Statue of Liberty's eye color just turned a shit brown & that's partly due to the loss of just-iced rights & freedoms. We're still trying to get it strait about how we can tear up the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, all the Amendments, the Geneva Conventions, International Law. I'd rather give Bill Clinton a blow job myself cause Mr. Bush keeps sticking everything else up my ass & it's begining to get tiresome! And the shit that he's shoving in my ears is almost as bad as the taste in my mouth for what he's been asking me top swallow since he's been in orf/face! Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 05 Dec 07 - 03:24 PM "Are they (Iran) being accused of refining uranium for reactors or for to produce WMD? Really!!! It seems that the WMD issue is now been put to sleep, matter of "fact", "fact" is now that it's been put to bed yrs ago." Barry. it does seem a pity that the IAEA keeps saying that Iran is NOT complying with the NPT, and is contiuing, accroding to the Iranian government, to make fuel, both in violation of the NPT and to a higher degree of refinement than required by peaceful purposes ( unless, like Bobert, you think that a peaceful use is making a bomb) FACTY is, the IAEA keeps telling us that Iran is NOT complying: I guess Bush should just ignore that, and let 40 million- 1.7 billion die in a needless nuclear war in the near future? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 05 Dec 07 - 03:58 PM R., "If you have U235 you can use that for a fission weapon, or you can further work on it to make Plutonium 239. Pu239 can also be used in fission weapons." Actually, one can use U238 in a breeder reactor to make the Pu239- That being what N. Korea did, and that requires less industrial capability. THAT is the reason why the NPT *** requires *** inspections and oversight of the peaceful reactors: The "waste" fuel can be ( easily) processed to weapons-grade materials. "A human-triggered fission weapon wouldn't have the yield of a well-engineered one or an implosion weapon, probably only about .8 KT and a LOT of fallout -- mind you, that's the equivalent of about 800 tons of TNT and a "dead zone" of radioactivity. " I would estimate a yield of between 10 and 20 KT. But then, it is no problem getting shaped charges these days- just pretend you are an Iraqi insurgent and ask for them from Iran... I always prefered remote triggers- but I guess it would save the cost of a cell phone to have a person trigger it directly. Got to watch those incidental costs... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,petr Date: 05 Dec 07 - 05:38 PM could'nt have put it better myself Barry.. oh by the way - in the 70's the US helped Iran with Nuclear power.. Thirty years ago... when Kissinger was secretary of state for President Gerald Ford, he held that "introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran's economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals". Last year Dafna Linzer of the Washington Post asked Kissinger about his reversal of opinion. Kissinger responded with his usual engaging frankness: "They were an allied country." and guess who held key positions in the administration at the time.. Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz. Im no apologist for the Iranian ruling elite.. they are repressive but in many ways Iran probably has more democratic elements and a real internal opposition than anywhere else in the middle east. and why do they hate the US? well for a start the US overthrew a freely elected president in 1953 and propped up a tyrant in his place for 25 years..all in exchange for favorable oil deals -- the Iranians were after all getting uppity in seeking a fair royalty for their Oil. lets hope Dick Cheney doesnt decide to bomb Iran after all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST Date: 05 Dec 07 - 06:05 PM bb, I don't begin to understand your arguements here... They just don't make sense... I never said that Bush knew back as far as 2003 that Iran had curtainled it's nuclear program... What I have said, which is also backed by yesterdays Washington Post story, is that Bush knew of this new intellegence report before he shot off his mouth about WW III and before he shot off his mouth saying that Iran is "pursuing"... These are the facts of the case... The man lied in saying that Iran "is pursuing" after being told they were not... How complicated is this, bb??? A lie is a lie is a lie... Explain again your reasoning why Bush's Oct. 23, 2007 "is pursuing" speech was not a lie... And in terms that make sense, por favor... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Donuel Date: 05 Dec 07 - 06:36 PM Thanks to Q Khan, anyone can have and probably do have a low yield nuke. While Pu can reach a critical mass with much less weight U 238 will do so with less than X lbs. bearded bruce will know the exact number. Who really believes that the nuclear genie can be put back in the bottle. Hell, even Alabama has the bomb. The argument of containing any country that is seeking nukes is moot. Pakistan has it. We DO seem to want to keep the oil bearing countries from having it hmmmm After the nuke war in the middle east we will be driving with lead lined gas tanks and be told FOX news that the low radioactivity of our gasoline is of no conern or risk ;< ) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 05 Dec 07 - 06:41 PM On the contrary Dick, logic, commonsense and a sense of realism are the governing forces in the current US Administration. And what is being said is essentially: We must induce Iran (Nobody will ever force them) to renounce something that we strongly suspected them of working towards (All indications were there) and have just now evaluated that they may have halted this work four years ago, because due to their lack of transparency great confusion exists with regard to their nuclear programme on the whole. This is coupled with a great anxiety that Iran may yet resume this work. The United States of America has not stated implicitly, or otherwise, that they would be willing to go to war to stop this programme. Iran, on the otherhand must be fully aware of the United States of America's bi-lateral defence treaty and sworn obligations to the State of Israel. Should Iran move to "wipe Israel from the map", or should they put weapons in the hands of others who would move to achieve the same end, I think that I would predict with some degree of certainty that a similar fate would befall Iran at the hands of the United States of America. That is why the President has stated that the opportunity to rally the international community to pressure the Iranian regime to renounce its program must not be squandered and make sure that what got stopped stays stopped. Oh Bobert before you keep clucking on about it, the President only was made aware of the NIE evaluation last week. As far as he knew in October the Iranian weapons programme was still underway and making way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 05 Dec 07 - 06:47 PM "oh by the way - in the 70's the US helped Iran with Nuclear power.." Oh, by the way, IRAN was a signatory to the NPT, and had the RIGHT to assistance from nuclear powers UNDER THAT TREATY. It was not until recently that the IAEA declared that Iran was in violation of the monitoring aspects of that treaty. Bobert, you are still saying that because I was unemployed in 2003 I MUST be unemployed now??? I will state that YOU havbe made statements that you cannot vereify as being true- ARE YOU A LIAR? And yes, I mean to yell, when you do not seem capable of understanding plain english statements. BUSH SAID "IF" you morom! Conditional, see? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 05 Dec 07 - 06:50 PM morom- one letter short of moron |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 05 Dec 07 - 06:58 PM Washington Post: Intelligence on Iran The new U.S. assessment has some good news -- but the reaction to it could be bad. Wednesday, December 5, 2007; Page A28 THE NEW National Intelligence Estimate on Iran contains some unambiguously good news: that Tehran halted a covert nuclear weapons program in 2003, and that it is responsive to the sort of international pressure applied by the United States and other Western governments. Iran's "decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs," says the public summary released Monday. That sounds like an endorsement of the diplomatic strategy pursued by the Bush administration since 2005, which has been aimed at forcing Iran to choose between the nuclear program and normal economic and security relations with the outside world. It strengthens the view, which we have previously endorsed, that this administration should not have to resort to military action to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities. But there is bad news, too, which seems likely to be overlooked by those who have been resisting sanctions and other pressure on the mullahs all along, such as Russia, China and some members of the European Union. While U.S. intelligence agencies have "high confidence" that covert work on a bomb was suspended "for at least several years" after 2003, there is only "moderate confidence" that Tehran has not restarted the military program. Iran's massive overt investment in uranium enrichment meanwhile proceeds in defiance of binding U.N. resolutions, even though Tehran has no legitimate use for enriched uranium. The U.S. estimate of when Iran might produce enough enriched uranium for a bomb -- sometime between late 2009 and the middle of the next decade -- hasn't changed. "Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons," says the summary's second sentence. Yet within hours of the report's release, European diplomats and some U.S officials were saying that it could kill an arduous American effort to win support for a third U.N. Security Council resolution sanctioning Iran for failing to suspend uranium enrichment. It could also hinder separate U.S.-French efforts to create a new sanctions coalition outside the United Nations. In other words, the new report may have the effect of neutering the very strategy of pressure that it says might be effective if "intensified." President Bush yesterday vowed to continue pushing for international sanctions. But Democrats and some Republicans are arguing that now is the time for the Bush administration to begin a broad dialogue with Iran -- and drop a precondition that the regime first suspend uranium enrichment. It's an odd time to recommend such a concession: The latest European Union talks with Iran last week were a disaster, in which a new hard-line envoy of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad withdrew the previous, inadequate Iranian compromise proposals. Were the Bush administration to abandon its insistence on a suspension of enrichment, Mr. Ahmadinejad would declare victory over the relative moderates in Iran who have recently criticized his uncompromising stance. That's not to say the United States should never attempt to negotiate directly with Iran about its nuclear program. But before doing so, the administration should have some indication that the Iranian regime is prepared to comply with binding U.N. resolutions and seriously address other U.S. concerns. A report by U.S. intelligence agencies is an unsatisfying substitute for a signal that has yet to come from Tehran. 8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 Please note, Bobert: I posted the whole article. "While U.S. intelligence agencies have "high confidence" that covert work on a bomb was suspended "for at least several years" after 2003, there is only "moderate confidence" that Tehran has not restarted the military program. Iran's massive overt investment in uranium enrichment meanwhile proceeds in defiance of binding U.N. resolutions, even though Tehran has no legitimate use for enriched uranium." The information that Iraq had a WMD program was higher than "moderate confidence": Are you so sure you want to state that Bush is lying????? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 05 Dec 07 - 07:04 PM Another Post article I have no problem with... Time to Talk to Iran By Robert Kagan Wednesday, December 5, 2007; Page A29 Regardless of what one thinks about the National Intelligence Estimate's conclusion that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003 -- and there is much to question in the report -- its practical effects are indisputable. The Bush administration cannot take military action against Iran during its remaining time in office, or credibly threaten to do so, unless it is in response to an extremely provocative Iranian action. A military strike against suspected Iranian nuclear facilities was always fraught with risk. For the Bush administration, that option is gone. Neither, however, will the administration make further progress in winning international support for tighter sanctions on Iran. Fear of American military action was always the primary reason Europeans pressured Tehran. Fear of an imminent Iranian bomb was secondary. Bringing Europeans together in support of serious sanctions was difficult before the NIE. Now it is impossible. With its policy tools broken, the Bush administration can sit around isolated for the next year. Or it can seize the initiative, and do the next administration a favor, by opening direct talks with Tehran. Negotiating will appear at first to be a sign of weakness. The Iranians could use talks to exploit fissures between the United States and its allies, and within the U.S. political system. But there is a good case for negotiations. Many around the world and in the United States have imagined that the obstacle to improved Iranian behavior has been America's unwillingness to talk. This is a myth, but it will hamper American efforts now and for years to come. Eventually, the United States will have to take the plunge, as it has with so many adversaries throughout its history. This is as good a time as any. The United States is not in a position of weakness. The embarrassment of the NIE will be fleeting. Strategic realities are more durable. America remains powerful in the world and in the Middle East. The success of the surge policy in Iraq means that the United States may be establishing a sustainable position in the region -- a far cry from a year ago, when it seemed about to be driven out. If Iraq is on the road to recovery, this shifts the balance against Iran, which was already isolated. There are other reasons to move now. Even if the NIE forecasts that Iran cannot build a nuclear bomb before 2010, the time is still finite. The next administration, especially if it is Democratic, will probably want to try to talk to Tehran. But it couldn't begin talks before the summer of 2009, at which point, if the NIE is right, Iran could be moving into the final stages of developing a bomb. Better to get negotiations started so that by the time the next administration settles in, it will be able to assess the progress, or lack thereof, after a year of talks. If it decides it must take strong action, it will have an easier time showing that all other options were exhausted. Better, too, if talks are launched by this administration. Although trust between the parties has broken down, American policy toward Iran needs broad support in both parties. Bush could even name a hard-nosed Democrat to lead the talks. Initiating the talks now would give the United States a better chance to frame the discussion, at home and abroad. Any negotiations should aim at getting the Iranians to finally answer all of the International Atomic Energy Agency's outstanding questions about the country's programs, agree to intrusive inspections and monitoring of its facilities, and address the U.N. Security Council's requirement that it suspend its enrichment of uranium. The talks should go beyond the nuclear issue and include Iran's support for terrorism, its harboring of al-Qaeda leaders, its support for Hezbollah and Hamas, and its supplying of weapons to violent extremists in Iraq. They should also address the Iranian government's violation of human rights and its tightening political repression. Some argue that you can't talk to a country while seeking political change within it. This is nonsense. The United States simultaneously contained the Soviet Union, negotiated with the Soviet Union and pressed for political change in the Soviet Union -- supporting dissidents, communicating directly to the Russian people through radio and other media, and holding the Soviet government to account under such international human rights agreements as the Helsinki Accords. There's no reason the United States cannot talk to Iran while beefing up containment in the region and pressing for change within Iran. As for what's in it for Iran: If Tehran complies with its nuclear obligations; ceases its support for terrorist violence; and treats its people with justice, humanity and liberalism, it will be welcomed into the international community, with all the enormous economic, political and security benefits this brings. That offer has always been on the table, and the United States gives away nothing by making it explicit. Beginning talks today does not limit American options in the future. If the Iranians stonewall or refuse to talk -- a distinct possibility -- they will establish a record of intransigence that can be used against them now and in the critical years to come. It's possible the American offer itself could open fissures in Iran. In any case, it is hard to see what other policy options are available. This is the hand that has been dealt. The Bush administration needs to be smart and creative enough to play it well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 05 Dec 07 - 07:06 PM The Right Nuclear Red Line By Gareth Evans Wednesday, December 5, 2007; Page A29 By deflating so much of the hyperbole around the issue, the National Intelligence Estimate offers an opportunity to end the international stalemate with Tehran. Having just returned from a series of meetings with high-level Iranian officials, including their top nuclear negotiator, I think the outlines of a deal are clear. Led by the United States and the European Union, with Russia and China cautiously supportive, the international community has until now been fixated on preventing Iran from acquiring any capacity to enrich uranium and thus to make nuclear fuel for civilian or military purposes. Iran argues that such a red line has no basis in the Non-Proliferation Treaty and is unjustifiably discriminatory. Tehran continues to stare down the U.N. Security Council, shrugs off sanctions and refuses to negotiate any intrusive inspection regime that would enable it to be trusted when it denies having intentions to create nuclear weapons. The international community is entitled to stay nervous, given Iran's long history of undeclared activity and the many disturbing and provocative statements of its president. But all the signs are -- and I heard nothing to the contrary in Tehran -- that Iran will simply not budge on its "right to enrich." That means an indefinite continuation of the standoff, with minimal Iranian cooperation on regional issues of immense concern -- including Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and the role of Hamas and Hezbollah -- and minimal confidence internationally in Iran's ultimate nuclear intentions. The new intelligence assessment gives us the chance to break out of this impasse. What the international community really wants is for Iran to never produce nuclear weapons. The red line that matters is the one at the heart of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, between civilian and military capability. If Iran's neighbors, including Israel, and the wider world could be confident that that line would hold, it would not matter whether Iran was capable of producing its own nuclear fuel. That line will hold if we can get Iran to accept a highly intrusive monitoring, verification and inspection regime that goes well beyond basic Non-Proliferation Treaty safeguards, which already apply, and includes both the optional additional inspection measures available under that treaty as well as tough further measures. Iran would also need to build confidence by agreeing to stretch out over time the development of its enrichment capability and to have any industrial-scale activity conducted not by Iran alone but by an international consortium. Although Iran will hold out for as much as it can get and for as long as it can, it is capable of being persuaded. This will require a mixture of incentives (including the lifting of sanctions and the normalization of relations with the United States) and disincentives (the threat of further sanctions and worse, if it crosses the military-program red line). But negotiations won't go anywhere if the United States and European Union continue to insist on zero enrichment. In Iran two weeks ago, I heard nothing from anyone, in or out of government, to suggest that any member of the current power elite thought the benefits of a nuclear weapons program -- including for deterrence or asserting regional authority -- could possibly outweigh the costs. There was an acute awareness of the military, economic and further reputational risks that the country would run if it moved even a toe in that direction. Iran's economic arguments for domestically producing, rather than buying, fuel for a civilian nuclear program have never been very persuasive, and they sounded no better on this occasion. But the psychological arguments I heard were a different story: This is a country seething with both national pride and resentment against past humiliations, and it wants to cut a regional and global figure by proving its sophisticated technological capability. One only wishes that something less sensitive than the nuclear fuel cycle had been chosen to make that point. Unconditional negotiations aimed at achieving "delayed limited enrichment with maximum safeguards" rather than the failed policy of "zero enrichment" can produce a win-win outcome. Such negotiations won't be easy to start or conclude, given the parties' long-held public positions. But if the objective is to ensure that Iran won't backslide and be newly tempted to go down the nuclear weapons road, this is the only way to go. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 05 Dec 07 - 07:08 PM The Myth of the Mad Mullahs By David Ignatius Wednesday, December 5, 2007; Page A29 In the entryway of "Persia House," as the CIA's new Iran operations division is known internally, hangs a haunting life-size poster of Hussein, the martyr revered by Iran's Shiite Muslims. The division was created last year to push more aggressively for information about Iran's nuclear program and other secrets. Creating Persia House and spinning off Iran from its old home in the agency's Near East division were part of a broader effort to "plus up" collection of secret information, in the words of one senior official. The CIA made it easy for disgruntled Iranians to send information directly to the agency in cases known as "virtual walk-ins." The National Security Agency and other intelligence organizations made similar drives to steal more of Iran's secrets. Meanwhile, the intelligence analysts responsible for Iran were given new encouragement to think outside the box. To break the lock-step culture that allowed the disastrous mistake on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, Deputy Director of National Intelligence Thomas Fingar ordered that analysts be given more information about sources and, rather than trying to fit information into preexisting boxes to prove a case, they should simply explain what it meant. All these strands converged in the bombshell National Intelligence Estimate on Iran that was released Monday. That document was as close to a U-turn as one sees in the intelligence world. The community dropped its 2005 judgment that Iran was "determined to develop nuclear weapons" and instead said, "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program" because of international pressure. The secret intelligence that produced this reversal came from multiple channels -- human sources as well as intercepted communications -- that arrived in June and July. At that time, a quite different draft of the Iran NIE was nearly finished. But the "volume and character" of the new information was so striking, says a senior official, that "we decided we've got to go back." It was this combination of data from different sources that gave the analysts "high confidence" the covert weapons program had been stopped in 2003. This led them to reject an alternative scenario (one of six) pitched by a "red team" of counterintelligence specialists that the new information was a deliberate Iranian deception. A senior official describes the summer's windfall as "a variety of reporting that unlocked stuff we had, which we didn't understand fully before." That earlier information included technical drawings from an Iranian laptop computer purloined in 2004 that showed Iranian scientists had been designing an efficient nuclear bomb that could be delivered by a missile. Though some U.S. analysts had doubted the validity of the laptop evidence, they now believe it was part of the covert "weaponization" program that was shelved in the fall of 2003. The most important finding of the NIE isn't the details about the scope of nuclear research; there remains some disagreement about that. Rather, it's the insight into the greatest mystery of all about the Islamic republic, which is the degree of rationality and predictability of its decisions. For the past several years, U.S. intelligence analysts have doubted hawkish U.S. and Israeli rhetoric that Iran is dominated by "mad mullahs" -- clerics whose fanatical religious views might lead to irrational decisions. In the new NIE, the analysts forcefully posit an alternative view of an Iran that is rational, susceptible to diplomatic pressure and, in that sense, can be "deterred." "Tehran's decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs," states the NIE. Asked if this meant the Iranian regime would be "deterrable" if it did obtain a weapon, a senior official responded, "That is the implication." He added: "Diplomacy works. That's the message." While the intelligence community regards Iran as a rational actor, the workings of the regime remain opaque -- a "black box," in the words of one senior official. "You see the outcome [in the fall 2003 decision to halt the covert program] but not the decision-making process." This official said it was "logical, but we don't have the evidence" that Iran felt less need for nuclear weapons after the United States toppled its mortal enemy, Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, in April 2003. The debate about what the NIE should mean for U.S. policy toward Iran is just beginning. But for the intelligence community, this rebuttal of conventional wisdom will restore some integrity after the Iraq WMD debacle. In challenging the previous certitudes about Iran and the Bomb, the NIE recalls the admonition many decades ago by the godfather of CIA analysts, Sherman Kent: "When the evidence seems to force a single and immediate conclusion, then that is the time to worry about one's bigotry, and to do a little conscientious introspection." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 05 Dec 07 - 07:18 PM "We got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Isreal. " And what part of this do you disagree with? All of it. "We" haven't "got a leader" - "they" have. A bit of a buffoon, but it's the one they chose. (Now who does that remind me of?) And more significantly he has never said he "wants to destroy Isreal." What he has said is that he looks forward to a time when the existing state of Israel will no longer exist. Which in the jargon of the day is called "regime change". Comparable to looking forward to a day when the Islamic Republic of Iran will no longer exist. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 05 Dec 07 - 08:24 PM BB and his bud, t, You all would be better served by actually reading the newspapers... Acoording to the Washington Post article, "A Blow to Bush's Tehran Policy", December 4, 2007 Bush had been alerted to the what was going to be in this NIE before he shot off his mouth: "President Bush got the world's attention this fall when he warned that a nuclear-armed Iran might lead to World War III. But his stark warning came at least a month or two *******after****** he had been told about frssh indidctaions that Iran had actaully halted it's nuclear weapons program." If you all want to argue facts then take it up with the Washington Post news department or the authors of this story, Peter Baker and Robin Wright... Yeah, call them up and tell them that you have inside information that Bush didn't know jack about jack about Iran having curtailed it's nuclear program in 2003... And as fir your arguement, bb, about how long you have been unempolyed??? After hearing you expalin it again I believe there is a good reason you are unemployed... You are dillusional!!! (lol)... I mean, you two are something... If Bush stated that the world was flat you two would come up with reems and reems of falt eart arguments without ever giving thought to the fact that you were wrong... You are both Eric Hoffer "True Believers"... Lastly, the mind is like a parachute... It won't work if it isn't open... Get lives, both of you... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: akenaton Date: 05 Dec 07 - 08:49 PM Now that's callin' a spade a spade.....Well said Mr McGrath BTW Joe, When you gonna stop the intellectually challenged from posting reams of cut and paste that nobody can be arsed to read? Isn't there one original thought left to think? Gillian Welch, One Little Song There's gotta be a song let to sing Cause everybody can't of thought of everything One little song that ain't been sung One little rag that ain't been wrung out completely yet Gotta a little left One little drop of fallin rain One little chance to try again One little bird that makes it every now and then One little piece of endless sky One little taste of cherry pie One little week in paradise and I start thinkin' There's gotta be a song left to sing Cause everybody can't of thought of everything One little note that ain't been used One little word ain't been abused a thousand times In a thousand rhythms One little drop of fallin rain One little chance to try again One little bird that makes it every now and then One little piece of endless sky One little taste of cherry pie One little week in paradise and I start thinkin' Gotta be a song left to sign Cause everybody can't of thought of everything One little song that ain't been sung One little rag that ain't been wrung out completely yet Till there's nothing left |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,Cruiser Date: 05 Dec 07 - 08:55 PM "On the contrary Dick, logic, commonsense and a sense of realism are the governing forces in the current US Administration." What an outrageous statement.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Arne Date: 05 Dec 07 - 09:09 PM IC that Teribus and BeardedBruce haven't given up the ghost, even in the face of this last preposterous lie and misbehaviour by the maladministration (just check out my most recent blog entries for the skinny..." Lemmings off a cliff, I'm sure. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 05 Dec 07 - 09:22 PM What ake said, Joe... 'Nuff is a'nuff of the long right winged Bushite cut 'n pastes... Is there any way on earth to enforce the one screen lenght post??? And, for the record, you cut 'n posters ain't providing any rebuttals becasue no one will read thru this crap... How about reading it yourselves, which I doubt seriously if you do, then paraphrase your arguments... Long cut 'n pastes are just hurtin' whatever positions you might be trying to forward... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,TIA Date: 05 Dec 07 - 11:18 PM I really like one thing about BB's long "cut and pastes". They contain none of his characteristic and insufferable SHOUTING. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: dick greenhaus Date: 05 Dec 07 - 11:41 PM "That's not to say the United States should never attempt to negotiate directly with Iran about its nuclear program. But before doing so, the administration should have some indication that the Iranian regime is prepared to comply with binding U.N. resolutions and seriously address other U.S. concerns. A report by U.S. intelligence agencies is an unsatisfying substitute for a signal that has yet to come from Tehran." Huh? I guess that means that the US shouldn't listen to its own intelligence reports--or that the US should continue ignoring these reports. See how well that has worked in Iraq! What's wrong with negotiating directly with Iran? The US is clearly not the enforcement arm of the UN, and it seems to me that negotiation is a reasnable way of "addressung other US concerns." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 06 Dec 07 - 12:07 AM "Yeah, call them up and tell them that you have inside information that Bush didn't know jack about jack about Iran having curtailed it's nuclear program in 2003..." Not what ** I ** said. Try reading my posts. "And as fir your arguement, bb, about how long you have been unempolyed??? After hearing you expalin it again I believe there is a good reason you are unemployed... You are dillusional!!! (lol)..." Not quite. YOU claim that since I was unemployed back in 2003 and 4, I MUST be unemployed NOW, just like Iran MUST not have a nuclear weapons program since they paused it in 2003. Thus , YOU are a liar, since I am employed now. Of course, if you want to interpret Bush's conditional comment ( which I note you do not refute) as a lie, I am free to interpret your claim that since you don't know something, what you wish to believe must be true as a lie as well. I certainly do not require any evidence, since you are so happy to make statements without any. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 06 Dec 07 - 12:08 AM So, bb and teribus think that Iran should not be allowed to have nuclear energy for domestic purposes because they might, or they could have or perhaps... In the meantime they think its perfectly O.K. that: "In the last four years, the U.S. withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, kept the Senate from ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, refused to commit itself to halting future tests, and began work on two new nuclear weapons. The U.S. now spends nearly $7 billion a year for nuclear research and upgrading US nuclear capabilities, and the spending curve keeps rising." http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0105-24.htm Such logic! Such reason! Such fear. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 06 Dec 07 - 12:11 AM dianavan, please learn to read: "So, bb ...think that Iran should not be allowed to have nuclear energy for domestic purposes because they might, or they could have or perhaps..." I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT. I HAVE stated that Iran should comply with the IAEA, a part of the UN that deals with the NPT that Iran signed. I have said thay should nnot be allowed to violate the NPT and produce, unregulated, weapons-grade fissionable materials. Sorry I can't explain it to you in simpler terms. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 06 Dec 07 - 03:24 AM Likewise Dianavan, when have I ever said that, "Iran should not be allowed to have nuclear energy for domestic purposes because they might, or they could have or perhaps..". In fact Dianavan if you look back you will see that I have previously stated that Iran is perfectly entitled to run a nuclear programme directed towards the acquisition of nuclear power for power generation provided that they comply with the terms and conditions of the NPT that they signed in 1968. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Stu Date: 06 Dec 07 - 05:01 AM BB's endless and illiterate reiteration that Iran should not be allowed to violate the NPT reeks of the sort of hypocrisy we've come to accept from neo-con apologists and reflects the increasingly desperate stomping of feet and banging of fists on tables we've all come to expect from a right-wing utterly devoid of any moral integrity, who can only make noise to try to deflect the increasing volley of criticisms aimed at them. Coming from the only country ever to have used nuclear WMDs against targets knowing it would inflict massive civilian casualties, who encourages WMD proliferation in its own interest and is creating new long-range missile systems and who have violated the NPT themselves with their dubious policy of 'nuclear sharing' - in violation of Articles I and II of the NPT - both the US and NATO have ignored this, and the US has nuclear WMDs sited in five European countries. Details available http://www.acronym.org.uk/uk/nato.htm. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST Date: 06 Dec 07 - 05:15 AM Stigweard: "I heard somebody say, 'Where's (Nelson) Mandela?' Well, Mandela's dead. Because Saddam killed all the Mandelas." -George W. Bush, on the former South African president, who is still very much alive, Washington, D.C., Sept. 20, 2007" Now I take it that the "(Nelson)" is yours plus the "on the former South African president, who is still very much alive" is also your input OK, for anybody who is actually interested in the truth of the matter. Stigweard is perfectly correct in as much that George W. Bush did say the following during a press conference on 20th September, 2007, here's how Associated Press covered it: ***On Iraq, Bush said there was progress in local communities but that people are dissatisfied with the central government. "Part of the reason why there's not this instant democracy in Iraq is because people are still recovering from Saddam Hussein's brutal rule. Sort of an interesting comment, I heard somebody say, `Where's Mandela?' Well, Mandela's dead because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas." It was a reference to the charismatic former leader of South Africa who helped reconcile his country after decades of racial division. Mandela is still alive.*** - as reported by Associated Press. So Stigweard it wasn't "on the former South African president" at all was it? Which sort of begs the question why you would deliberately go out of your way to misinform people on this forum? Are you normally in the habit of telling lies? Is this the sort of behaviour that you deem acceptable? I certainly do not. If you are going to quote something, quote it accurately and put that quote in the context it was set. You should not under any circumstances do as you have done cherry-pick a quote and then invent the context it was supposedly given in. "I heard somebody say, `Where's Mandela?'" - Meaning in the context of what was being talked about, where was the 'Nelson Mandela' figurehead, or leader, in Iraq that could draw the different factions together politically in a similar environment of reconstruction, co-operation and reconciliation that the real Nelson Mandela achieved in South Africa at the end of the Apartheid era. President Bush's response, "Well, Mandela's dead because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas.", was perfectly correct in relation to any potential Iraqi 'Nelson Mandela' figure. Saddam Hussein for 24 years had brooked no opposition whatsoever and had ruthlessly slaughtered anyone who dared to challenge him. Had Nelson Mandela been unfortunate enough to have been an Iraqi who opposed Saddam during that period the world would never have heard of him, he would have been arrested, tortured and executed immediately, along with most of his friends and family. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 06 Dec 07 - 05:17 AM Last post was mine, cookie went astray. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 06 Dec 07 - 05:32 AM What a delightfully lopsided link Stigweard. Usual left-wing rant against the US and NATO. No mention of the country holding the greatest stockpile of operational Nuclear and Chemical/Biological Weapons in the world - Any reason for that Stig? No mention of Russian development of new offensive missile systems - Any reason for that Stig? Doesn't mention UK declared policy of further reducing its stockpile of weapons by 33% - Why not Stig? The UK is a member of NATO isn't it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Stu Date: 06 Dec 07 - 05:34 AM "I certainly do not. If you are going to quote something, quote it accurately and put that quote in the context it was set. You should not under any circumstances do as you have done cherry-pick a quote and then invent the context it was supposedly given in." Actually I cut and pasted the quote from another site, none of the input was mine. Bang to rights on that one! "Which sort of begs the question why you would deliberately go out of your way to misinform people on this forum? Are you normally in the habit of telling lies? Is this the sort of behaviour that you deem acceptable?" Careful son - you know full well that's not my style and I resent the accusation. "President Bush's response, "Well, Mandela's dead because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas.", was perfectly correct in relation to any potential Iraqi 'Nelson Mandela' figure." Even with your explanation it's still a ridiculous quote and all you've done is highlight Bush's own inability to articulate himself effectively. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 06 Dec 07 - 06:22 AM "Actually I cut and pasted the quote from another site, none of the input was mine. Bang to rights on that one!" Well not really, "Bang to rights" on anything Stig, what I wrote was - "Now I take it that the "(Nelson)" is yours plus the "on the former South African president, who is still very much alive" is also your input" My assumption being made as neither the name in parenthesis or the note with regard to subject appeared in any quotation I read with regard to the content of the Press conference as reported. Even so, it does not alter the fact that your 'cut 'n' paste', irrespective of source, was inaccurate and misleading - at worst a blatant lie, at best a deliberate misrepresentation. Now having read, I take it that you have read the Associated Press transcript of the Press Conference, you will have the honesty to admit that the President was not talking about Nelson Mandela erstwhile President of South Africa at all, and that the context is as Associated Press have described it. Remembering that of course you did state rather emphatically - "Careful son - you know full well that's not my style and I resent the accusation." We can pass on to "cherry-picking" - He is an example of yours: "President Bush's response, "Well, Mandela's dead because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas.", was perfectly correct in relation to any potential Iraqi 'Nelson Mandela' figure." Now what is that like when quoted in full and in context: "I heard somebody say, `Where's Mandela?'" - Meaning in the context of what was being talked about, where was the 'Nelson Mandela' figurehead, or leader, in Iraq that could draw the different factions together politically in a similar environment of reconstruction, co-operation and reconciliation that the real Nelson Mandela achieved in South Africa at the end of the Apartheid era. President Bush's response, "Well, Mandela's dead because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas.", was perfectly correct in relation to any potential Iraqi 'Nelson Mandela' figure. Saddam Hussein for 24 years had brooked no opposition whatsoever and had ruthlessly slaughtered anyone who dared to challenge him. Had Nelson Mandela been unfortunate enough to have been an Iraqi who opposed Saddam during that period the world would never have heard of him, he would have been arrested, tortured and executed immediately, along with most of his friends and family." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Stu Date: 06 Dec 07 - 11:23 AM "at worst a blatant lie, at best a deliberate misrepresentation." Wrong - I was just poking fun at the post you made before - just the rough and tumble of debate, not a lie, not a deliberate attempt to mislead anyone. Perhaps I should have checked my sources, but then I the intention was only to illustrate the shite your mate speaks. Given your lengthy explanations for this quote, perhaps I was right. The gentleman doth protest too much. You may think I'm a tit, a tosser, deluded, a hypocrite or a left-wing marxist wanker - all fair in the cut and thrust of a vigorous discussion but one thing I am not, is a liar. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 06 Dec 07 - 12:26 PM Fair enough for me, Stig. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Amos Date: 06 Dec 07 - 12:28 PM Bush's remark was typically inept and obtuse; but if he was making the point T says he was making, it is a fair point -- that the spirit of independence had been heavily suppressed in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, and the culture was not likely to be generating heroic leaders. It takes an elephantiastic sort of brazen effrontery to assert that he was right because the program was discontinued 4 years ago, because that proves it once existed, and therefgore the risk is just as vivid and scary as he said it was. Nevertheless, I would really like to know what is going on in the collective mind of the Persian mullahs and technological leadership. I do not trust Bush or his company to speak the truth or even find it; but I do not much more trust Ahmadinjabad or whatever the correct spelling is. Oddly, though, I have never met an individual Iranian who was not thoughtful, polite, and hard-working. I am mindful, looking over the devestation of Iraq, of where it was that the game of chess was first developed into its modern form. (It was arguably born in India or perhaps Afghanistan; but it is from Persia that it went forth into the Arabic and Western worlds.) A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Barry Finn Date: 06 Dec 07 - 12:53 PM "Bush's remark was typically inept and obtuse" Problem with Bush is that he can't clearly speak a sentence that communicates a solid idea. Is he actually saying what we think he's saying or does he mean something else? It's anyone's guess, even those that know him. What I hear him saying is that he's gunning for Iran & using this "un-new-clear" cloud of mis/info to push his aggenda as he's done in the past. And why not, it's worked well for him then, why stop now! Why would he know anything about where Nelson Mandela is? He's not sure where Africa is & people got upset when Mandela called him an "idiot"! If he only had an ounce of the courrage, brains & heart of Mandela we would no longer be in Oz, we'd be home in Kansas. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 06 Dec 07 - 02:02 PM Amos, "It takes an elephantiastic sort of brazen effrontery to assert that he was right because the program was discontinued 4 years ago, because that proves it once existed, and therefgore the risk is just as vivid and scary as he said it was" And who besides those OPPOSED to Bush are stating that Bush was right BECAUSE the program was discontinued? Bush stated a conditional- IF Iran had a nuclear device THAT would be a scary thing. Will you state that it would not be scary?????? Any claim that this is an example of Bush lying is both false to the facts, and a deliberate attempt to tell a falese statement- and THAT qualifies as a lie to me. The report does not give anyone with any ability to read what was stated by the IAEA any confidence that the Iranians are NOT presently, or will not in the near future ( when they havbe sufficient fissionable materials) restarting that WMD program. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Donuel Date: 06 Dec 07 - 02:04 PM sic "If Iran comes clean we might meet them at the bargaining table." gwb (admit you are a criminal and we might do business) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 06 Dec 07 - 02:09 PM More like "Tell the IAEA all the information you promised under the NPT to make available, and then we can talk." But you seem to want to make your own words up about what is said, rather than try to understand what actually is stated. Go ahead, feel free. Just don't expect to be taken seriously when you DO have something valid to say. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 06 Dec 07 - 02:17 PM "Coming from the only country ever to have used nuclear WMDs against targets knowing it would inflict massive civilian casualties," Of course, you seem to overlook it was the DEMOCRATS who developed and used those weapons. Maybe we should only let the parties who did not use them into office? As for the civilian casualties, that is another debate- but the estimated dead from an invasion of Japan were an order of magnitude or two higher. I guess that would have been ok: it was mostly Japanese civilians who would have been killed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Donuel Date: 06 Dec 07 - 03:05 PM Its OK Bruce, relax.Take a breath in the midst of this harried holiday season. Look at the big picture. Remember you are in a glamorous profession to some and your political attitudes mean very little. If Iran attacks you I will do whatever I can to help you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 06 Dec 07 - 03:09 PM Sorry. Both Montgomery County MD and Dulles, VA will be in the fallout zone. Well outside the firestorm, though- so our fire departments can still be of use. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Donuel Date: 06 Dec 07 - 03:19 PM I can still google and pull up the genome and viral blueprint for the 1918 flu that killed 40 million. Ain't science grand. A weapon of that sort is more insidious in the contagious fear it can produce when compared to incineration. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 06 Dec 07 - 04:19 PM Washington Post: The Flaws In the Iran Report By John R. Bolton Thursday, December 6, 2007; Page A29 Rarely has a document from the supposedly hidden world of intelligence had such an impact as the National Intelligence Estimate released this week. Rarely has an administration been so unprepared for such an event. And rarely have vehement critics of the "intelligence community" on issues such as Iraq's weapons of mass destruction reversed themselves so quickly. All this shows that we not only have a problem interpreting what the mullahs in Tehran are up to, but also a more fundamental problem: Too much of the intelligence community is engaging in policy formulation rather than "intelligence" analysis, and too many in Congress and the media are happy about it. President Bush may not be able to repair his Iran policy (which was not rigorous enough to begin with) in his last year, but he would leave a lasting legacy by returning the intelligence world to its proper function. Consider these flaws in the NIE's "key judgments," which were made public even though approximately 140 pages of analysis, and reams of underlying intelligence, remain classified. First, the headline finding -- that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 -- is written in a way that guarantees the totality of the conclusions will be misread. In fact, there is little substantive difference between the conclusions of the 2005 NIE on Iran's nuclear capabilities and the 2007 NIE. Moreover, the distinction between "military" and "civilian" programs is highly artificial, since the enrichment of uranium, which all agree Iran is continuing, is critical to civilian and military uses. Indeed, it has always been Iran's "civilian" program that posed the main risk of a nuclear "breakout." The real differences between the NIEs are not in the hard data but in the psychological assessment of the mullahs' motives and objectives. The current NIE freely admits to having only moderate confidence that the suspension continues and says that there are significant gaps in our intelligence and that our analysts dissent from their initial judgment on suspension. This alone should give us considerable pause. Second, the NIE is internally contradictory and insufficiently supported. It implies that Iran is susceptible to diplomatic persuasion and pressure, yet the only event in 2003 that might have affected Iran was our invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, not exactly a diplomatic pas de deux. As undersecretary of state for arms control in 2003, I know we were nowhere near exerting any significant diplomatic pressure on Iran. Nowhere does the NIE explain its logic on this critical point. Moreover, the risks and returns of pursuing a diplomatic strategy are policy calculations, not intelligence judgments. The very public rollout in the NIE of a diplomatic strategy exposes the biases at work behind the Potemkin village of "intelligence." Third, the risks of disinformation by Iran are real. We have lost many fruitful sources inside Iraq in recent years because of increased security and intelligence tradecraft by Iran. The sudden appearance of new sources should be taken with more than a little skepticism. In a background briefing, intelligence officials said they had concluded it was "possible" but not "likely" that the new information they were relying on was deception. These are hardly hard scientific conclusions. One contrary opinion came from -- of all places -- an unnamed International Atomic Energy Agency official, quoted in the New York Times, saying that "we are more skeptical. We don't buy the American analysis 100 percent. We are not that generous with Iran." When the IAEA is tougher than our analysts, you can bet the farm that someone is pursuing a policy agenda. Fourth, the NIE suffers from a common problem in government: the overvaluation of the most recent piece of data. In the bureaucracy, where access to information is a source of rank and prestige, ramming home policy changes with the latest hot tidbit is commonplace, and very deleterious. It is a rare piece of intelligence that is so important it can conclusively or even significantly alter the body of already known information. Yet the bias toward the new appears to have exerted a disproportionate effect on intelligence analysis. Fifth, many involved in drafting and approving the NIE were not intelligence professionals but refugees from the State Department, brought into the new central bureaucracy of the director of national intelligence. These officials had relatively benign views of Iran's nuclear intentions five and six years ago; now they are writing those views as if they were received wisdom from on high. In fact, these are precisely the policy biases they had before, recycled as "intelligence judgments." That such a flawed product could emerge after a drawn-out bureaucratic struggle is extremely troubling. While the president and others argue that we need to maintain pressure on Iran, this "intelligence" torpedo has all but sunk those efforts, inadequate as they were. Ironically, the NIE opens the way for Iran to achieve its military nuclear ambitions in an essentially unmolested fashion, to the detriment of us all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 06 Dec 07 - 06:33 PM Well, first of all three comments to bb: 1. You obviuosly didn't read the "(lol)" at the end of my comments about your being unemployed or you would have understood that the intent of that oportion of the post was somewhat teasing. But you missed the intent so... 2. You called me a "liar" yet again... Next time you call me a "liar" will get you a big ugly stick up against your head... Don't know when or where but you can take it to the bank and... 3. You back to SCREAMIN' again... Have you no idea of how that weakens your positions... People are getting purdy sick and tired of being SCREAMED at... No one but you does it... You need some serious anger management... -------------------------------------------------------------------- Seems to me that Bush is no longer capable of accepting reality... He keeps inventing scenerios where he is called upon to do his best Joh Wayne immitation... Problem with Iran is that there's no fight there... There is, however, a window of opportunity for the US to use diplomacy but... ... Bush is not capable of pursuing a sane foriegn policy so we and the rest of the world are just going to have to endure Bush for another 13 months and hope like heck if he does order an attack on Iran that the Jopints Chiefs will refuse and arrest the nutball... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 06 Dec 07 - 07:49 PM This sums it up perfectly: "If Iran attacks you I will do whatever I can to help you." Very obvious comment, taken to its fullest - "Too fuckin' late by then Donuel ould son!!!" And that is exactly what your President is actually protecting you from - that is his primary concern and his job, irrespective of who holds the post. Great pity some of you tossers don't appreciate it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 06 Dec 07 - 08:14 PM Oh, T, You are so full of dung... I mean lets get real... Busgh aain't protectin' us from anything... He has screwed up everything he has touched... How many countries does he have to invade and occupy to make you happy??? 20??? 50??? 200??? I mean, let's get real here... All he is foing is bankrupting our country, turnin' its middle class into some kind 3 World population that works it brains out paying for and makin' all of the human sacrifices for what??? So Bush can pump out his chest and say that there ahasn't been a majot attack on the US since 9/11??? Big friggin' accomplishment considering that 9/11 woke everyone up to the reality that a Middle Eastern guy who wants to learn how to fly a 737 but has no interest in knowing how to lane on or take one off might be, ahhhhh, bad news... No, Bush doesn't get any credit here, pal... Bill Clinton would have wondered why these folks had no interest in learning how to land or take the danged thing off but Bush thought that it weas his job to do the opposite of whatever Clinton did... Thus: 9/11.. 9/11 wouldn't happened under Clinton... It wouldn't have happened under Al Bore... It happened under Bush because Bush, as he had done all his life, wasn't concerned... He was too buzy at the pretzel bowl... Too busy acting as if he was imporatant... Too busy acting as if he was some kind Ninga Turtle when in reality he was a failure who got propelled by his daddy and his daddy's friends.. This is the real story... He has cretaed more terrorism... Not less... He is Osama's dream recruiter... He is a total screw up... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 06 Dec 07 - 08:41 PM "2. You called me a "liar" yet again... Next time you call me a "liar" will get you a big ugly stick up against your head... Don't know when or where but you can take it to the bank and..." So, you can make false claims about other people, and insist on NOT being called a liar, but you call Bush one even when I have demonstrated that in this case he did not lie any more than you did? SOunds like you think you have some special dispensation to make false statements and not be held accountable. Welcome to the Dark side! "will get you a big ugly stick up against your head... Don't know when or where but you can take it to the bank and..." You need some serious anger management... I point out that IF Bush was lying, so are you- so all you need do is acknowledge that your claims that Bush lied are false, and there will be no problem. If you insist he did lie, than I have no choice but to consider that you have lied as well. Conditionals, remember? IF... THEN... Bush has no problems with them- are you not a bright as he is? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 06 Dec 07 - 09:04 PM Oh, make no bones about it, bb, Bush has lied here... The evidence is in and the intellegence community ain't gonna get bullied on this one... As for you calling me a liar? I mean it... You call me a "liar" again and I'm gonna give you a karote lesson that will stick with you for some time... I don't go calln' you a liar and I won't take you callin' me one either... And I mean it... Stop it... Period!!! I'm serious here, pal... You have used up all the "liars" on your punch card... Find some other ways of attacking folks arguemnts short of calling folks who you disaghree with as liars... I am very serious here... This is your last warning... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Peace Date: 06 Dec 07 - 09:08 PM NPR.org, December 4, 2007 · The controversy over Iran's nuclear program is complicated by the country's decision to resume efforts to enrich uranium — defying the United Nations despite saying it had stopped researching nuclear weapons. Iranian officials said they wanted the enriched radioactive material as fuel for peaceful nuclear reactors. When President Bush and other administration officials accused Iran of seeking to develop a nuclear bomb, they often referred to Iran's uranium-enrichment program as proof. Here's a timeline highlighting what was said and known about the program since early 2003: February 2003: Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency, find evidence that Iran has secretly begun enriching uranium. May 2003: Iranian President Mohammed Khatami offers to talk to the United States about the countries' differences. But the Bush administration rejects the offer. In part because of this refusal, the Europeans act on their own to negotiate with the Iranians while trying to persuade the Bush administration to join the negotiation process. October 2003: The EU 3 — France, Britain and Germany — reach an initial understanding with Iran to suspend nuclear enrichment. The Bush administration refuses to support this, insisting suspension of nuclear enrichment is not enough. The Bush administration insists that before it will enter into any negotiations with the Iranians, Iran must commit to abandoning enrichment altogether. November 2003: The IAEA announces that Iran has been violating its safeguards agreement under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It accuses Tehran of failing to report that it was handling nuclear material and building facilities to process it. It says Iranian officials hid key parts of their nuclear program for nearly 20 years. The latest National Intelligence Estimate now says it believes "with high confidence" that the fall of 2003 was about the time Iran shut down a secret nuclear weapons program. December 2003: After talks with the European Union, Tehran agrees to allow IAEA inspectors to expand their operations in Iran, by questioning its scientists and officials, reviewing documents and conducting further examinations of some of its nuclear research and development facilities. November 2004: Iran promises negotiators from the EU that it will suspend all its activities for processing nuclear fuel. Although Iran continues to deny that its activities have any military purpose, President Bush calls it a "nuclear weapons program" and chides Iran's leaders for suspending it, rather than ending it entirely. "Our position is that they ought to terminate their nuclear weapons program," Bush says. February 2005: President Bush accuses Iran of being "the world's primary state sponsor of terror, pursuing nuclear weapons, while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve." June 2005: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says the United States will not support a third term for Mohammed ElBaradei as head of the IAEA unless he takes a harder line against Iran's nuclear program. April 2006: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says Iranian scientists have successfully enriched uranium to the 3.5 percent level, pure enough to run a nuclear reactor. He says, "I am officially announcing that Iran has joined the group of those countries which have nuclear technology." Uranium for a nuclear bomb would require around 90 percent enrichment. July 2006: The United Nations Security Council passes a resolution demanding that Iran suspend its nuclear enrichment activities or face international sanctions. December 2006: The U.N. Security Council unanimously imposes sanctions on Iran for failure to halt its uranium enrichment program. It bans U.N. member states from providing Iran with equipment or technology that could be used in its nuclear program. January 2007: IAEA head Mohammed ElBaradei calls for a "timeout" on the issue of Iran's nuclear program, saying the United Nations should suspend sanctions against Iran if Iran will freeze its nuclear program. He tells CNN, "The key to the Iranian issue is a direct engagement between Iran and the U.S., similar to North Korea." Spring 2007: A National Intelligence Estimate on Iran was expected to be delivered to Congress during this period, but is repeatedly postponed as intelligence agencies re-assess information about Iran's nuclear program. August 2007: President Bush says, "Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust." The latest National Intelligence Estimate says, "we assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007." September 2007: U.S. intelligence officials, including CIA Director Michael Hayden, begin a reassessment of their information on Iran, according to unnamed officials quoted in the New York Times. The newspaper says White House officials knew at the time that the intelligence agencies were reviewing their conclusions, but did not know until later that those conclusions were drastically being changed. October 2007: President Bush says, "we got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." November 2007: A final draft of the National Intelligence Estimate is presented to President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. It concludes that Iran stopped its weapons program in late 2003 and since then has shown no signs of resuming it. December 2007: A day after the NIE is made public, President Bush says he was first told by Director of Intelligence Michael McConnell in August that there was new intelligence about Iran's nuclear program, but that he wasn't told what that new intelligence was at the time. President Bush, in a press conference, says he still regards Iran as "dangerous." He asks reporters, "What's to say they couldn't start another covert nuclear weapons program?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 06 Dec 07 - 09:39 PM Bobert, When you stop making false statements, I will cease to c all you a liar. If that means you have to attack ME because you do not like the truth, so be it. You seem to have no problem in calling others liars: Why do you think you are some special case who does not need to be accountable for your statements? Find some other ways of attacking Bush short of calling him a liar without having actual facts to back you up. You do not loike his actions: Fine. But to call him a liar when you cannot demonstrate he is lying, then complain when you are called one after making false statements is hypocritical, and below you. To threaten those who point out your false statements, rather than to back up your claims with facts is the mark of someone who knows that he is in the wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 06 Dec 07 - 10:05 PM There is a big difference between me calling George Bush a liar and you, a fellow, Mudcatter, a lira... Big difference... That is personal here in this "folk music" commuinity where just about everyone are musicans... I don't go callin' you a "liar"...That is protocol here... When fols go callin' each other names because they don't agree then it becomes very bothersome... Dickey went after me qwith the name calling and you see where Dickey is now.... Well if you don't see, it's like, ahhhhhh, friggin' gone... I will not allow you to tag me with your "liar" badge... I have made my life's work one of standing up to thigs and corportaists and I will not allow you to continue to badger me... I mean it, bruce... Don't you ever call me a liar again... If you want to argue whatever then fine... Argue until the cows come home... But don't call me a "liar" again or I will beat the loving sh*t out of you... You get it now??? Stop it... Regards, B~ -------------------------------------------------------------------- Others, I am sorry to to have displayed my tmeper here... Whe3n I was in martial arts my sansai taught us that is never right to fight but... I've had enough of bb tghinking that he ahs some right to call fellow Mudcatters "liars"... I don't know of any Mudcatter that I would consider a "liar"... Okay, Spawzer, might have toild a story or two... But telling stories and pokin' fun ain't like lieing... Again, I am sorry but, as God as my witness, it bb calls me a liar one more time it won't be like I didn't warn him... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 06 Dec 07 - 10:28 PM Fine. You are a great musician, whose work I like and respect , and who insists on saying things that are not true instead of bringing facts to the discussion. But don't you call Buush a liar unless you have some fact to back it up. I have shown that IN THIS INSTANCE ( yelling) you are not correct in your statement. Bush has probaly lied many times- as have all the politicians I have ever read of. But IN THIS CASE, your label is false, misleading, and mean-spirited. If that is an example of "I have made my life's work one of standing up to thigs and corportaists and I will not allow you to continue to badger me..." I feel sorry for you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 06 Dec 07 - 11:04 PM Bush lied.... I didn't... I have shown my evidence... Show me yours... He said that Iran is persuing nuclear weapons.... The intellegence community says it ain't so... The intellegence community says that the Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program 4 years ago... Who is lieing??? Bush, or the intellegence folks??? And why??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 07 Dec 07 - 12:11 AM I'll tell you whose lying. Alot a people in a lot of graves. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 07 Dec 07 - 12:23 AM And you imply that I am still unemployed. You have no proof- the IAEA has stated it has no proof, and the report states it does not have confidence that the program has remained halted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 07 Dec 07 - 12:25 AM "While U.S. intelligence agencies have "high confidence" that covert work on a bomb was suspended "for at least several years" after 2003, there is only "moderate confidence" that Tehran has not restarted the military program. Iran's massive overt investment in uranium enrichment meanwhile proceeds in defiance of binding U.N. resolutions, even though Tehran has no legitimate use for enriched uranium." Bush stated a conditional- IF Iran had a nuclear device THAT would be a scary thing. Will you state that it would not be scary?????? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 07 Dec 07 - 03:28 AM I think its scary that the U.S. has a nuclear device and even more scary that Pakistan has one too. They all scare me thats why war mongers are so dangerous. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 07 Dec 07 - 06:04 AM Now then Bobert - talking about being full of dung... I mean lets get real..."Bill Clinton would have wondered why these folks had no interest in learning how to land or take the danged thing off." Really Bobert? Then why didn't he? The operation in its entirety was planned on his watch and should have taken place not on 11th September 2001 but in August 2000. It was delayed because of problems related to co-ordination of the attacks. The guys you fondly but incorrectly assume that Clinton would have noticed in flight school applied for positions in flight schools and trained on his watch - so tell us Bobert why did he not arrest and deport them? "9/11 wouldn't happened under Clinton..." It was planned during his watch and should have happened on his watch if the operation had gone ahead as originally planned. If it wouldn't have happened under Clinton Bobert, what went wrong with thedetection and prevention of the first attack on the World Trade Centre in 1993? - Who was President then Bobert? Who was President in 1998 when the US Embassies in East Africa were attacked? Who was President when the USS Cole was attacked? "It wouldn't have happened under Al Bore..." Well at least you got his name right, sorry to disillusion you but Al Gore was part of the Administration that was in office when all the ground work for the attacks of 911 was done. It happened under Bush for one reason and for one reason only and that was because the attack was delayed by thirteen months. But correct me if I am wrong there has not been an attack since - True? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 07 Dec 07 - 08:59 AM See Richard Clark's testimoney before the 9/11 Comission, T... He tsaid, in essence, that he tried to get the Bush administartion to take terrorist groups seriously but that the was purdy much stonewallled by the incoming administration... In other words, the ball was handed off to Bush and his folks and they fumbled it... Al Bore wouldn't have fumbled it... He would have been as vigilant as Clinton, who BTW, was the president during several attempted terrorist's plots that were stimied... And as for terrorists attacks, there have been several... One right there in you country... And incidents of terror have increased... Not every plot has to bring down skyscrpers... The US government had to revise the number of incidents upwards a couple years ago because they weren't counting correctly but the number is in the thousands... Maybe Amos or someone who has a faster computer than my pea-shoooter will provide a link to that... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 07 Dec 07 - 09:31 AM Fact still remains Bobert: Successful attacks against the US under Clinton = 4 Clintons response completely ineffectual according to the man you currently seem so fond of quoting at the moment (Richard Clarke). Successful attacks against the US under Bush = 1 Bush's response to displace the Taleban in Afghanistan and put Al-Qaeda very much on the back foot. Now then Bobert tell us why Clinton did not arrest the 911 hijackers and have them imprisoned or deported? It was your contention wasn't it that he would have detected them? Now tell us why he didn't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 07 Dec 07 - 09:47 AM Everyone has learned to be more vigilant since 9/11, T... That was the point I was trying to make about the Middle Eastern guys who wanted to learn to fly the planes but not land or take them off... Things like that won't happen again... Just the heightened awareness of everyone since 9/11 has made it harder for cells to pull off the "biggies"... I don't credit Bush with people having learned to be more observant and vigilant... 9/11 did that all by itself... And I stand by Clark's testimony that the Bush administraion did not have the focus on terrorism that Clinton had... Do you deny that portion of the testimony??? And if so, why would Clark make that up??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 07 Dec 07 - 10:53 AM Bobert you wouldn't credit Bush with anything period even if he single-handedly saved the planet and all the ills of mankind. Here is what I give him credit for: - Complete revamp of US Intelligence Services and Security Agencies - Improved lines of communication to ensure overview of intelligence data. - Drawing the line in the sand - "You are either with us or against us" Which concentrated the minds of some waiverers and increased the amount of information and degree of co-operation with US Intelligence Services from around the world. - IMO ISPS Code - Department of Homeland Security - Intelligence gathering powers - Taking the fight to the "enemy" whenever and wherever that enemy can be found. Al-Qaeda is having a tough enough time struggling to survive at the moment, it doesn't have time to plot or the facilities to train. - Forced the leadership of Al-Qaeda to very publicly declare war on their own kind (Tends not to go down well in the "muslim world" when muslim is ordered to kill muslim). Oh yes everybody is now naturally more vigilant, but the reforms introduced by George W Bush and his administration in the wake of 911, now mean that when somebody notices something or hears something that information is processed and acted a on a damn sight quicker and more effectively than ever it was before. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Donuel Date: 07 Dec 07 - 11:22 AM Have you ever wondered why you are so blood thirsty? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Amos Date: 07 Dec 07 - 12:06 PM Jeeze, T, I would offer that crediting Bush with improving intell is kinda like crediting Cheny with advances in fuel-consumption standards and reduced emissions. He may have been in the vicinity, but I doubt he has the brain power to even imagine how intell works. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Folkiedave Date: 07 Dec 07 - 12:08 PM Complete revamp of US Intelligence Services and Security Agencies. Not just a little tinkering here and there then? Were they no good before? mproved lines of communication to ensure overview of intelligence data. Goodness knows what happened before that!! Drawing the line in the sand - "You are either with us or against us" Which concentrated the minds of some waiverers and increased the amount of information and degree of co-operation with US Intelligence Services from around the world. And the net result of that has been.......? IMO ISPS Code MJOF (Meaningless Jargon Old Fruit) Department of Homeland Security I was in the USA this time last year for Xmas. Had a great time. At Washington Dulles Airport as I left there were so many bags left unattended anyone could have blown the place up. I hope things have improved. Intelligence gathering powers Whereas before this there was............... Taking the fight to the "enemy" whenever and wherever that enemy can be found. Al-Qaeda is having a tough enough time struggling to survive at the moment, it doesn't have time to plot or the facilities to train. I am not sure why enemy is inverted commas. You don't actually know what sort of time Al Queda is having because you don't actually know who it/they are, and you don't actually know where it/they are. Otherwise you would have got rid of them by now - wouldn't you? And frankly neither does the intelligence services of the nations that are looking for them and the army that is fighting them. Forced the leadership of Al-Qaeda to very publicly declare war on their own kind (Tends not to go down well in the "muslim world" when muslim is ordered to kill muslim Oh! good! It'll soon all be over then! Teribus - this is the net result of all this intelligence and change. Well done Bush. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=ardg6 http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Cost-of-War/Cost-of-War-3.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Folkiedave Date: 07 Dec 07 - 12:16 PM I'll grab that hundred as I go past. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 07 Dec 07 - 01:30 PM Revamped US Intellegence Services??? What are you smokin', T-zer... What Bush has done is politicized intellegence... Cheney spent alot of time in Langley during the sellin' of the Iraq War... What was that all about??? (But, Bobert, can you provide a list of dates and contacts???) Well, no, like Cheney's "Energy Plan" (whatever his energy plan is/was???) Bush is using executive privledge to keep the American people from knowing precisely how many visits Cheney made to CIA but the Washington Post has reported on several occasions over the last few years that Cheney not only made many trips but also pressured career intellegence people... BTW, many career intllegence folk have quit citing the politicization of the agency as their reason for leaving... Now, T, if you think that the CIA should be a political arm of the Republican Party, then, yeah, Bush has at least tried to make it that... If that is what revamping means to you then I'll give Bush credit where it's due... He has run off a lot of folks who don't believe it is the CIA's job to furnish cherry picked intellegence... As for the "You're either with us or against us"... That is just plain stupid as the cornerstone of diplomacy which involves dialogue... This world ain't all black and white except in the minds of the fringe radicals... UIf they want to get in a big room and duke it out, I'm all for that but leave the rest of us alone... Yeah, next to "Mission Accomplished", "You're either with us ot against us" is the most rediculous statement that has come out of Bush's mouth and the next administartion is going to have to put in alot of overtime in fixing a failed foriegn policies that that one statement has brought down on US... As for the DHS... Bush fought it tooth and nail but the Dems out-muscled him and got it... It was a Dem plan from the jump... Lets see what else you have claimed... Oh yeah, "Taking the fight to the enemy"... Is that why the US invaded Iraq??? Was Saddam in on 9/11??? I thought we have had this discussion but if we have to conduct a refresher course on this we can... Intellegence gathering powers??? I guess if you think that running habeas corpes thru the shreader is a worthy endeaver then, yeah, I can see where you might see this as a positive... Personally, I think that habeas corpes as a centuries old rule of law that seperates civilized nations from uncivilized nations... I guess we see things much differently here as you seem willing to have folks arrested without charges, tortured and then held forever without any recourse... As for Bush acting to protect US quicker now then before 9/11 I'd only point to New Orleans... Real fast, heh???... That's about it for now, T... I still don't see one thing on your list that Bush has done that has made me or the world any safer... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Peace Date: 07 Dec 07 - 01:51 PM "Intelligence" is the art and craft of gathering seemingly disassociated pieces of info and rearranging the picture until what's left is what was, is or will be. The various 'services' HAVE been politicized to the extent they think within given parameters. That is a very bad mistake. It allows one's enemies to pick and choose where what will happen. Adept fighters know that being defensive really means that sooner or later something gets through and ya lose. I would never, repeat never, allow an enemy of mine to decide terms and conditions of any fight. Just the way it is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 07 Dec 07 - 02:06 PM Bush's response to displace the Taleban in Afghanistan and put Al-Qaeda very much on the back foot. I just typed "Al Qaeda stronger than ever" into Google, just to see. Came up with 93,000 links. Here's one more or less taken at random, a BBC report earlier this year: US concern at al-Qaeda strength As the old saying goes - "The operation was a total success, but the patient died." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,Homey Date: 07 Dec 07 - 11:47 PM After reading through this pissing match about who said what when, I would like to know if anybody here can say they believe Iran dies not pose a nuclear threat to the middle east and a nuclear threat to peace in the world? I believe they do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,282RA Date: 08 Dec 07 - 12:25 AM I'll say it then. Iran poses no nuclear threat. Gotta have a nuke weapon program before they can be a threat. Even an idiot like Bush admits they don't so what's your excuse? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Folkiedave Date: 08 Dec 07 - 06:51 AM I'll say it too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 08 Dec 07 - 09:40 AM I'll say it three... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Amos Date: 08 Dec 07 - 10:06 AM At this time, four. But they do have a large cascade of enrichment centrifuges churning away. They represent a nuclear something and I wish there was more openness about what that is. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,Homey Date: 08 Dec 07 - 10:19 AM I said believe it, not say it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 08 Dec 07 - 11:27 AM Okay, I believe it, Homey... But, like Amos, I'd like to see a major shift in our foriegn policy that deals more with the protection of people and less the destruction of people... When Bush rattles his sabre it does what it is intended to do and that is to scare other countries... This is not helpful if we expect other countries to not try to find ways to protect themselves from attacks... I have said it before and I'm sure I'll say it again... If I am the leader of a threatened country I'd be looking for ways to defend my country... Regardless of the rhetoric about Isreal, Iran is more concerned about the US nukin' them... What Bush has done is a combination of two old school foriegn policy failures... Vietnam (hot war) and the Cold War (threats)... Both of these policies are terribly flawed given the state of the planet today... And both of these failed policies share the same cornerstone and that is "militarism"... Militarism is outdated and not usefull... I won't solve problems... I won't protect people... It just makes the planet even more dangerous... No, we need a drastic change in strategy if the goal is to protect people... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: bobad Date: 08 Dec 07 - 11:56 AM "This capacity is far larger than needed for a nuclear weapon program, supporting Iran's statement that the facility is aimed at producing low enriched uranium for nuclear power reactors. Nonetheless, such a facility could use a relatively small fraction of its capacity, say 10,000 SWU per year, to make enough highly enriched uranium for three nuclear weapons a year, while using the remaining capacity to produce low enriched uranium. In addition, if a country can make an enrichment plant of this size, it can make enough machines to outfit another secret enrichment plant with a capacity of 10,000 SWU per year involving several thousand machines. IAEA safeguards could detect such clandestine activities, but the IAEA must have far more extensive inspection rights than Iran has been willing to provide the IAEA so far." http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/natanz03_02.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 08 Dec 07 - 07:51 PM Iran poses far less of a potential threat than Pakistan does. As for the potential threat posed by the USA... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Peace Date: 08 Dec 07 - 07:54 PM Folks, I gotta say it. NO NUKES IS GOOD NUKES |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 08 Dec 07 - 08:02 PM Diplomacy for a change. Making demands and trying to order other countries around is only going to get their backs up and make them feel they need to be able to defend themselves. That's pretty damned basic. But the only type of "diplomacy" the Bush / Cheney axis seems to conceive of is Rambo diplomacy. Just on an interpersonal level, if some bruiser looms over me and threatens to pound me into the ground if I don't kowtow to him, I'm gonna look for my opportunity and then sucker-punch the son of a bitch. Like I say, that's basic. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 08 Dec 07 - 09:58 PM So THAT's how I should treat Bobert's threats! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 08 Dec 07 - 10:30 PM Well, yeah, bb... ...'cept the difference is that in our situation, unlike the one that Don has pointed out, you are the US and I am Iran... You are the one who has a perchant of calling me a "liar" which is agressive... All I have done is requested, on mnay occasions, that you quit it and when it didn't stop, I told you what I was prepared to do to get you to stop it... You may not like the way I debate issues but if I've ever called you a "liar" it would have been after being called a "liar" by you... Might of fact, since our last little tussel over you calling me a "liar" I have made every effort to not personalize my positions against anyone... Okay, I might call folks Bushites but that is fair game since anyone who didn't particularlly light the Newg Gingrich's in the 90's were called Clintonites... I don't consider that personalizing... But, whatever??? If you feel that you calling be a "liar" also grants you permission to "sucker punch" me then, hey, have at it... Better be one heck of shot, though... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Dec 07 - 12:17 AM "If you feel that you calling be a "liar" also grants you permission to "sucker punch" me then, hey, have at it... Better be one heck of shot, though... " Actually, I was pointing out ( perhaps too subtly) that it did NOT. I have requested that when you make statemments, you at least try to justify them with facts. When the opinions you present as fact are shown to be incorrect, I would hope that you might at least stop insisting on repeating them without any justification, after being informed as to their lack of validity to the real world. If that is too much to ask, let me know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Dec 07 - 12:22 AM "All I have done is requested, on mnay occasions, that you quit it and when it didn't stop, I told you what I was prepared to do to get you to stop it..." Sort of like requesting that Iran stop the prohibited enrichment of uranium and then telling them what the US is prepared to do to get them to stop it... But you seem to object when Bush does this. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Nickhere Date: 09 Dec 07 - 12:55 AM Our Prime Minister was reputedly asked back in 2001 by Bush if he was 'with us or against us?' To which he replied 'yes' ;-)) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Stu Date: 09 Dec 07 - 08:32 AM "To which he replied 'yes'" At which point he pissed away all the good work he had done or might have had yet to do. Of course, dealing with absolutes is how Bush et al see the world, and why in the end they don't have the wit or intelligence, supplied or inherent, to contribute to the greater good of humanity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,Homey Date: 09 Dec 07 - 08:38 AM So some here believe Iran poses a nuclear threat. What should be done about it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 09 Dec 07 - 10:52 AM Yeah, kina, bb... 'cept in my case you don't have a nuke... As for you assertions that I don't have facts what we have seen over the years here is that my facts have tended to bear out in the long run... Facts have become increaingly nebulous under an administration that manipulates the story to fit their agenda... Lots of stuff that comes out of this administartion, and the blags that support it, are not facts at all but stories that have been created around the tiniest little bit of information... In other words, you cannot claim that your blogs that you post in long cut 'n pastes represent the truth becuase you really don't know that to be a fact... Waht you do know is that these blogs support your certain biases... Nothtin' more... That is why I, and others here, resent you thinking you have the market cornered on the "truth"... History has not shown that you do... And, for the record, I am glad that you are now employed but whether or not you are or aren't doesn't ***prove*** that evrything that you cut 'n post would hold up under close scrutiny... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,Homey Date: 09 Dec 07 - 06:47 PM Bobert fact: "Haiti with 1% holding all the wealth" http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=102499&messages=184&page=1#2078338 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 09 Dec 07 - 07:03 PM I think describing the Bush-Cheney approach as "Rambo diplomacy" is being a bit flattering. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 09 Dec 07 - 07:09 PM Well, "all the wealth" is somewhat poetic licence there, Homey... Of course the upper 1% doesn't hold "all the wealth"... Just well over 90% of it... But that isn't the issue here becuase it can be argues that if 1% of the people in Haiti *hold* 90% of the wealth then is is reasonable to say that they *control* all of the wealth... Splittin' hairs here, pal... Lets just put it this way... Would you like to move to Haiti and *not* be part of the upper 1%??? I didn't think so... Game over... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 09 Dec 07 - 08:29 PM Sorry, McG... I missed yer post... Well said... Rambo usally won, or at least "showed"... These guys are losers... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 10 Dec 07 - 08:01 AM From Folkiedave we got the following: Comment 1. Complete revamp of US Intelligence Services and Security Agencies. "Not just a little tinkering here and there then? Were they no good before?" Frankly, no they were not. The fault for that lay with decisions taken during the Presidency of Jimmy Carter in relation to intelligence gathering, and little or no reorganization to reflect change in situation since the end of the "Cold War". The investigation into the attacks of 911 came to the same conclusion Point 2. "mproved lines of communication to ensure overview of intelligence data." "Goodness knows what happened before that!!" Well you for certain don't appear to have a clue, but as the findings of the 911 Commission stated that for all the agencies operating in the US there was no one body specifically looking at the overall picture. Due to the changes introduced by the current administration the chances of information falling through the cracks is greatly reduced. Point 3. Drawing the line in the sand - "You are either with us or against us" Which concentrated the minds of some waiverers and increased the amount of information and degree of co-operation with US Intelligence Services from around the world. "And the net result of that has been.......?" Sorry Folkiedave I thought I'd put that up earlier: Successful attacks against the US under Clinton = 4 Retaliation against said attackers under Clinton was minimal, haphazard, ineffective and poorly directed. Successful attacks against the US under Bush = 1 Retaliation against said attackers under Bush massive, focused and extremely effective resulting in thousands killed or captured. Al-Qaeda forced to fight in battles not of its own choosing, on ground not of its own choosing. Point 4. IMO ISPS Code "MJOF (Meaningless Jargon Old Fruit)" Well Folkiedave when you consider that there was nothing in place before it was introduced, I would hardly describe it as meaningless. You obviously do not work with anything touched by it, or have any understanding of how it does work. Point 5. Department of Homeland Security "I was in the USA this time last year for Xmas. Had a great time. At Washington Dulles Airport as I left there were so many bags left unattended anyone could have blown the place up. I hope things have improved." Surely a matter for Airport Security Staff Folkiedave Point 6. Intelligence gathering powers "Whereas before this there was..............." Nothing. Point 6. Taking the fight to the "enemy" whenever and wherever that enemy can be found. Al-Qaeda is having a tough enough time struggling to survive at the moment, it doesn't have time to plot or the facilities to train. "I am not sure why enemy is inverted commas. You don't actually know what sort of time Al Queda is having because you don't actually know who it/they are, and you don't actually know where it/they are. Otherwise you would have got rid of them by now - wouldn't you? And frankly neither does the intelligence services of the nations that are looking for them and the army that is fighting them." Well for starters Folkiedave I know enough about them to spell their name correctly. Perhaps you can regale us of all the successes Al-Qaeda has had since they were turfed out of their cosy little enclaves in Afghanistan in 2001. Any idea how many have been killed or captured over the last six years Folkiedave? (Over 4000 in Iraq alone in 2006). Point 7. Forced the leadership of Al-Qaeda to very publicly declare war on their own kind (Tends not to go down well in the "muslim world" when muslim is ordered to kill muslim "Oh! good! It'll soon all be over then!" It is for Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, not even their former hosts the Taleban will have much to do with them now. In Iraq their former allies have turned on them and the security situation continues to improve by the day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Amos Date: 10 Dec 07 - 10:33 AM The only problem with your dreamy interpretation of events, T, is that this wonderful intell machine started a war on bad intelligence; and the thousands killed or captured are closer to hundreds of thousands, many of whom were civilians with no political or military interest aside from surviving the week. Iraq's sandbox is not an ideal ground for drawing the Qeda into a battle not of their own choosing even though that has merit; the ruthlessness of sacrificing a heavily populated area to the clever tactics (if in fact they were even conscious tactics which is debatable) of Bush's war planners is unconscionable. It remains to be seen whether the Taliban in Afghanistan is as finished as you imply. The Iraq army and the Iraq people, both put up as emenmies, had no part in the attacks you mention. YEt you seem tot hink the idea of draggin the whole Iraq nation into the battle against Al Qeda as a sort of shield is highly laudable. I do not concur; I find it despicable and small-minded in the extreme. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 10 Dec 07 - 11:43 AM Well Amos, there appears to be two distinct camps here on Mudcat one rather large one which condemns George W Bush outright and firmly places the blame squarely on his shoulders for all the ills of the world. The other much smaller appreciates the actions taken, and reasoning behind some very hard decisions that have been taken. Now as far as dreamy interpretations go: Point 1 - The action taken against Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and the subsequent toppling of the Taleban in that country came about by some very poor judgement calls on the part of the Taleban leadership. It was entirely in their power as to how they responded to the US request to hand over the leadership of Al-Qaeda. They had experienced US retaliation under Clinton and seriously underestimated the will and strength of purpose of the Bush Administration in the wake of 911, their choice, their mistake. Point 2 - The vast majority (90%) of civilians killed in Afghanistan have been as the direct result of Taleban actions. If the Taleban had responded to appeals made by the Government since the elections in Afghanistan the death toll would have been greatly reduced and the country would be experiencing the benefits and prosperity its people so richly deserve. Point 3 - During the summer, autumn and winter of 2002, the world and its dog believed that Saddam Hussein and Iraq still possessed WMD, was running WMD research and development programmes and was working on development of missile delivery systems. Clear proof of that is the fact that UNSC Resolution 1441 was passed unanimously (even Syria voted for it). We now know from a source close to Saddam Hussein that Saddam Hussein deliberately fostered belief in the Iraqi possession of WMD amongst his neighbours. The information on what Saddam Hussein's WMD capability and potential were came direct from the UN - that was the "bad intelligence", but given a situation in which there is a certain compunction to act, you have to go with whatever "intelligence" that you have got, be it good or bad. The compunction to act from the perspective of the USA was that sanctions against Saddam's Iraq were about to be lifted and the whistle had just been blown on Irans nuclear programme. Point 4 - During the Presidency of Jimmy Carter undue emphasis was placed on technological gathering of intelligence at almost the complete elimination of human intelligence sources. This came about as a result of the Iran Hostage crisis and meant that in much of the middle-east US intelligence operated blind and massive intelligence "black-holes" were created. Point 5 - When the US applied pressure on the UN and on Iraq to resolve all outstanding issues with regard to UNSC Resolutions 687 and 1441, Saddam Hussein had a choice to make. In fact he had three options: - Come clean and stay in power; - Defy the UN openly; - Attempt to play for time with the assistance of his trading partners France, Russia and China. He rather unwisely chose the latter. Even when it was obvious in mid-March that the US was going to act, Saddam Hussein was given a chance to leave Iraq, again he made the wrong choice and ultimately paid for it with his life (Not that he would have survived long outside Iraq's borders, but that is mere speculation on my part). The responsibility for the war in Iraq rests entirely with Saddam Hussein, who could have easily have prevented it on at least two distinct occasions. Point 6 - The vast majority of casualties and deaths in Iraq have been perpetrated at the hands of Iraqi insurgents, sectarian militias, Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq & other foreign jihadists, criminal gangs. Their decision to fight was theirs and theirs alone. The ruthlessness of sacrificing any heavily populated areas was deliberate and unconscionable, but that was done by the insurgents, the sectarian militias and Al-qaeda-in-Iraq. It was done Amos, to try and ignite a "Civil War", fortunately they failed and failed miserably. The population of the country in general has turned against them. The remaining insurgets and Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq are in General Giap's terms "fish out of water". Point 7 - The thing I find despicable Amos are those here who openly state that they would rather have seen Saddam remain in power. At least at the moment there is the prospect of improved security and prosperity for the people of Iraq, they have a chance of enjoying a bright future which certainly never existed under Saddam's rule. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Amos Date: 10 Dec 07 - 12:15 PM BTW, the IMO ISPS code is a standard International Ship and Port Facility Security code published by the International Maritime Organization. T, thanks for the reasonable reply. The fact that some people -- and it was far from "the world" -- believed the WMD myth does not justify acting on it as fact without due diligence. In failing, through incuriousity or predisposition toward war, to exercise that diligence, Rove and Bush essentially own the responsibility for the invasion of Iraq. It took only one signature to send our troops across the line from Kuwait. Absent the WMD mythology, the unilateral invasion of a sovereign nation-state is an action of extreme militarism which the U.S. claims not to believe in -- examples of Mexico, Cuba, and the Phillipines notwithstanding. There is no question that Sadaam brought his troubles on himself. There is no question the world is better without him. If we manage to herd the cats of Baghdad into some for of reasonable political body, we will have done the world a service -- I do not disagree with any of these ideas. But starting a war without grounds is NOT a prerogative our country has granted the President, and his actions were irresponsible and impolitic, to put the politest terms I can think of on them. The rationalizations for the war were excuses, not genuine causes for war; and going to war in the absence of due causes adequately substantiated is the act of a nutcase. A A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Dec 07 - 12:16 PM Clear proof of that is the fact that UNSC Resolution 1441 was passed unanimously (even Syria voted for it). It's at least as plausible to see that unanimous resolution as representing an attempt to hold off the Americans from attacking Iraq, so Blix and Co could continue to investigate. The rather naive assumption being that the USA would be obliged to come back to the Security Council to get backing for an attack, if Blix's investigations threw up genuine evidence that Saddam still had the weapons he claimed to have destroyed, and that no attack would happen without such backing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 10 Dec 07 - 02:23 PM quotes from the Washington Post Dec 8, 2007 article "A futile Quest on Iranian Arms" P A10: "By mid-November, the agencies were ready to deliver their conclusions to the White House. Intelligence officials gave a preliminary breifing Nov. 15 in the Situation room to Vice President Cheney, national security advisor Stephen J. Hadley and other senior officials. The process was climaxing just as Bush was convening a Middle East peace conference in Annapolis, a meeting designed at least in part to rally the region against Iran. No one told the participants about the new information, but on the same day they were gathering in Annapolis on Nov. 27, the National Intelligence Board met to finalize the new NIE. McConnell and others breifed Bush and Cheney the next day. Even though intelligence officials planned to keep it from the public, Bush later that day passed it on to Israeli Prime minister Ehud Olmert and Cheney told Defense Minister Ehud Barak." Now Bobert stated: ""President Bush got the world's attention this fall when he warned that a nuclear-armed Iran might lead to World War III. But his stark warning came at least a month or two *******after****** he had been told about frssh indidctaions that Iran had actaully halted it's nuclear weapons program."" So, Bush knew the results of the report last fall that were finalized on Nov. 27, and presented to him the next day ( Nov. 28th) If Bush can tell the future as well as Bobert claims, maybe we ought to pay attention to what he says... As for the effect on Middle East ppeace of this so-settling information: " Had they know before the summit, a senior Israeli official said, "I'm not sure we would have shown up." " I certainly am glad to know that the Israelis have such confidence in this report that they will now (probably) act on their own, since the report gives those opposed to holding Iran accountable for it's PROVEN violation by the IAEA, and it's CONTINUED ( as stated by the Iranians) enrichment to weapons-grade fissionable material. Thanks, Bobert, for showing me the TRUTH . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 10 Dec 07 - 05:22 PM Don't quote so selectively Kevin, what I said put in context was: "During the summer, autumn and winter of 2002, the world and its dog believed that Saddam Hussein and Iraq still possessed WMD, was running WMD research and development programmes and was working on development of missile delivery systems. Clear proof of that is the fact that UNSC Resolution 1441 was passed unanimously (even Syria voted for it)." Your post does make a very important point about the workings of the UN Security Council and naivety. Everyone in the council chamber fully realised the urgency of the situation and what the intent of the Resolution tabled by the USA and the UK was. On one hand you had the UK & USA & the coalition of the willing taking 1441 literally as Iraq's "Last Chance". On the other you had Saddam plus his major trading partners (The three remaining permanent Security Council Members) allaying all fears and advising that the US will not act. The wording of 1441 allowed for no "material breach" of its provisions - all in all there were seven such instances, while the Iraqis co-operated fully on matters relating to access, they were very reluctant when it came to the area of disclosure and Blix was still complaining about this in his last report to the Security Council. Chirac of France bluntly told both the US and the UK that irrespective no second resolution would ever be put to a vote because France would use its Veto to block it. That in effect hamstrung the UN completely. The UN sanctions by 2002 were a joke, and both France and Russia were supporting Iraqi suggestions that they be lifted. During the summer of 2002 the existence of Iran's uranium enrichment plant became public knowledge. Anyone who seriously believes that these facilities, which were built on a massive scale in total secrecy, were constructed for purely peaceful purposes would have to be incredibly naive and trusting, fortunately the IAEA were neither. Saddam would not let Iran become nuclear capable, Saddam also knew that the French, Russians and Chinese would be only be more than willing to rearm him. The US put the brakes on that situation by tackling the one side of the equation that they could do something about - Iraq and Saddam Husseain. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 10 Dec 07 - 05:35 PM No, bb.... You have misread what I have said... And I've now said it several times so read it slowly... According to the Washington Post Bush had knowledge of the intellegence report sayinf that Iran had curtainled its nuclear program in 2003 ***before*** makin' either his "WWIII" comment or his "Iraq ***is*** pursuing" coment... Why is this such a difficult piece of cronology to wrap yer head around, bb??? Or am I again confused at what you are trying to get at here??? Just spit it out... If you think that Bush knowing thie stuff and then making the 2 speeches id fine, then fine... I can understand that might think that way... I don't think that way but, hey, I think that Bush has repeatedly used lies, half-truths and manipulation to sway public opinion... Problem is for BUsh, that is...) that mose folks now see Bush for what he is... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 10 Dec 07 - 06:10 PM Bush stated a conditional- IF Iran had a nuclear device THAT would be a scary thing. Will you state that it would not be scary?????? I wish you would try to understand conditionals. I do get your point about "is"- BUT the report was done after the date you say Bush used present tense- so the conclusions had not been accepted even by the analysts when YOU claim that Bush should only have used past tense. Why is this such a difficult piece of cronology to wrap yer head around, Bobert? In addition, the report DOES NOT claim that the program is PRESENTLY not in progress- ONLY that there it had been stopped in 2003, and that there is not enough information to know IF, OR WHEN, it has restarted. So, since I was unemployed in 2003, you are still saying that I must be unemployed now, as well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 10 Dec 07 - 06:14 PM "a nuclear-armed Iran might lead to World War III. " Is there ANYONE who would stake their families lives on this being a false statement? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 10 Dec 07 - 06:21 PM http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/yossi_melman/2007/12/dont_trust_a_liar.html Don't Trust a Liar **Editor's Note: Due to an editor's error, Mr. Melman's article was incomplete on first publication. The article now follows in its entirety.** TEL AVIV - Would you allow a pedophile to work in a kindergarten? Iran can't be allowed to have nuclear power without thorough inspections. There are several reasons to justify such a statement. First, all nations who are signatory members of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and have agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), known as "Safeguards Agreements," have committed themselves to declare and report their nuclear sites and allowed them to be inspected by IAEA inspectors. There is more to this issue than pure formality. Iran has broken its pledges in this regard. Iran has been cheating IAEA for nearly twenty years – building secret nuclear sites, purchasing nuclear material, conducting tests in plutonium and uranium enrichment, developing a warhead – all without declaring it. So how can Iran be trusted? How can the world believe that a permanent liar has corrected his ways? Too many commentators have argued, wrongly, that the last U.S. National intelligence Estimate (NIE) exonerates Iran. It doesn't. In fact, it is a powerful indictment. It substantiates the claims of many western intelligence and experts (claims that Iran has consistently denied) that Iran was involved in unlawful, clandestine efforts to build a nuclear bomb. The report reveals that Iran did have an illegal, secret military program in a blatant violation of its international obligations. The fact that Iran, for various reasons, put its military program on hold in 2003 doesn't mean that the country should be praised. You don't compliment a thief for halting his thieving activities. This is the norm. It went also unnoticed that the report points out that Iran can easily, at almost any given moment, resume its military program. Iran continues to enrich uranium and by doing so makes a mockery of UN Security Council resolutions. It continues to develop its delivery means – long range ballistic missiles. So how can we believe Iran? There is another interesting observation in the NIE. The report explains that one of the reasons for the Iranian decision to suspend the military program was the international pressure and its fears after the U.S. invasion of Iraq that Iran would be the next one. In other words, it was mainly the U.S.'s military pressure and coercive diplomacy that forced the "Nuclear Ayatollahs" to think twice. Therefore, with all due respect to the good news emerging from the NIE report, we are not yet arrive on a safe shore. The burden of proof still lies with Iran. It's an Iranian obligation to show to the international community that it fulfills its international commitments and keeps its word. If indeed Iran genuinely uses its nuclear program SOLELY for civilian purposes, the Middle East is going to be slightly a better place. If not, we shall soon see other nations in the region, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey, developing their own nuclear programs. Needless to say, the equation is clear: the more nuclear weapons are spread, the greater the risk of mass destruction that we face. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Dec 07 - 06:31 PM Chirac of France bluntly told both the US and the UK that irrespective no second resolution would ever be put to a vote because France would use its Veto to block it. Wasn't it rather that he indicated that, should it come to a vote for immediate war on Iraq, France would vote against it - along with a whole bunch of other members of the Security Council? And of course a vote against by France would mean the resolution would fall, even in the rather unlikely possibility that the it got a majority vote. In any case Russia had already said it would use its veto. The actual decision not to put the resolution to a vote was taken by its proposers, not by its opponents. If push had come to shove, this would have been the second occasion ever that France used its veto. (The only other time was in 1976.) The USA has used its veto well over 70 times, and the UK has used its at least eight times. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 10 Dec 07 - 07:14 PM Votes can only take place on resolutions that are tabled and seconded Kevin. The veto process as used by the five permanent members stops the resolution being tabled. It only takes one of the five to state that it will veto a resolution and that is it dead in its tracks, majority voting does not come into it. It came down to the USA and the UK who fully saw the danger of the situation and were trying to keep the lid on things, and France, Russia and China who saw in the same Iran/Iraq scenario an extremely attractive business opportunity. Remember if Saddam had been completely open and had done his utmost to be seen as being completely open there would have been no war. Totally his choice, although on the subject of "bad intelligence", he was slipped some seriously poor advice from those in his corner, i.e. the French, the Russians and the Chinese. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Dec 07 - 07:42 PM Remember if Saddam had been completely open and had done his utmost to be seen as being completely open there would have been no war. I think that is a pretty questionable assumption. It seems to be generally agreed that the issue of WPDs was not the central issue for Washington, even if was was for the UK, at least in terms of political tactics. For Washington the central issue was "regime change". Claims about WMDs, along with attempts to create a belief in an association between Iraq and Al Qaeda, were ways of bolstering support for this central objective. In the event there was a rush to war, which meant troops being sent into asction inadatequately equipped. It seems likely that a major reason for this may have been that Saddam's regime was in fact starting to cooperate with the arms inspectors in a way that had previously not been the case. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 10 Dec 07 - 08:04 PM Ummmm, not to be splitting hairs here, bb, but if I read your argument here is that it was okay for Bush to bring up the WWIII thing just as long as it was preclued with an "if"... Well, I have two thoughts here: First, what was the intent of the October 17th WWIII speech??? He could have just as easilly said that about Alabama or Sweden or any state or country for that matter... But, no, he played the "if", which BTW is a two leeter word and then followed it with a barrage of propaganda that had been written by his handlers filled with fear-mongering... Tghis is how the US got itself into Iraqmire... By not paying attention to the two letter words but concentrating on the propaganda that follows... Secondly, I hate to burst your bubble since you have laid out the "if defense" but... ...Bush forgot the "if" in his October 23rd speech where he said: "Iran is pursuing the technology that could be used to produce nuclear weapons and ballistic missles of incereasing range that could deliver them"... Hmmmmmm, so much for the "if defense" here... So, bb, is that you final answer??? Seems that your arguments come up ***two*** letters short!!! I know...Danged!!! You gotta spend just a little more time actually reading... I'm lexdexic so it takes me a while to plunge thru this stuff but I use pointers and underline and end up rereading stuff 3 or 4 times... It helps... Maybe you need some lexdixic pills fir yerself... Really gets the comprehension way up... Just real slow... Yo, T... Don't Bogart that joint, my friend, pass it over to me... Saddam and the Iraqi governemnt were allowing Hanz Blix to inspect wherever they wanted... Just how much cooperation were you looking for Saddam to provide??? Wash their cars and do their laundry??? I mean, like I said, "pass it over to me".... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Dec 07 - 08:14 PM Of course he could equally have said of just about any moderately technologically advanced country that it was "pursuing the technology that could be used to produce nuclear weapons and ballistic missles of increasing range that could deliver them". In fact that is just another way of saying it has a moderate level of technological advancement. "Could be" can cover absolutely every eventuality. A country manufacturing box cutters is pursuing the technology that "could be" used to carry out a 911 type attack. A shop selling cigarette lighters is supplying the technology that "could be" used to burn down a city. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 10 Dec 07 - 10:00 PM ...Bush forgot the "if" in his October 23rd speech where he said: "Iran is pursuing the technology that could be used to produce nuclear weapons and ballistic missles of incereasing range that could deliver them"... Hmmmmmm, so much for the "if defense" here... I presented the evidence that IRAN HAS been pursuing the technology that could be used to produce the ballistic missiles, and that the continued production of enriched weapons grade fissionable material is obviously aimed at "could be used to produce nuclear weapons" So still no lie. Unless you have a peaceful use for weapons grade fissionable materials? They are too enriched to use in reactors, and would have to be diluted back down for peaceful use. "Saddam and the Iraqi governemnt were allowing Hanz Blix to inspect wherever they wanted..." NOT according to the report to the UN by Blix that was required under 1441- the LAST chance for that cooperation. So, Bobert, is that you final answer??? Seems that your arguments come up short of reality!!! I know...Danged!!! But when you have something to refute what * I * have stated, feel free to present it. So, after he sees the preperations for intervention by force, Saddam stated that he would then allow the inspections that he had been required to allow for the previous 12 years and failed to allow. Do you believe that he would have allowed them, once the threat of force had been removed? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 10 Dec 07 - 10:01 PM Sorry, McGrath, that does not seem to agree with what Bobert claims. And we know he is always right- after all, he said so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,282RA Date: 10 Dec 07 - 11:18 PM Shut up, Bruce. I've asked you and Teribus at least a dozen times now to produce the 1999 UN report authored by Blix and Ritter that said Iraq had 25,000 liters of anthrax and 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin and you both not only failed to direct me to this report, you pretended like you didn't notice anyone was requesting it. That pretty much makes you a goner in my book. Two complete shit-talking idiots without a shred of credibility. I will hound you and Teribus until one of you answers my request by either producing said report or admitting there isn't one. So where is it? I'm waiting. Come on, Brucie-baby, here's your chance to shut me up. Let's see it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,282RA Date: 10 Dec 07 - 11:40 PM Here's the story so far. Bush threatened to invade Iran not because he thought they were making nukes--he knew they weren't. He was doing it to force al-Sadr to stand his army down. Yes, invading Iraq would lose the war for us irrevocably but Bush had nothing more to lose than and was well on his way to losing it anyway so why just attack Iran? It would fuck up the Middle way more than it would us. It would hurt al-Sadr immensely. A suicide mission on our part but one al-Sadr can ill afford. So al-Sadr stood his army down rather than risk the entire Middle East descending into war and chaos and possiblity of nukes being used and his support network being incinerated. Then Bush armed the Sunnis on the promise that they would use the weapons against al-Qaeda only and the Sunnis agreed. That stopped them from shooting at us. The problem is, al-Sadr then demanded that Bush announced that Iran had no nuke program or all bets were off. Bush can't let this relative calm get away so he admitted Iran had no nuke program. This has infuriated Josh Bolton and Cheney and other hawks because attacking Iran was their ace in the hole. With Bush admitting that Iran has no nuke program, he has no rationale for attacking Iran if the violence in Iraq resumes and, of course, it will. So Bolton is beside himself shouting that the new intel report is all politics and that Iran is as dangerous the administration has been saying previously. IOW, we've lost. We can't attack Iran now. We have no political solution for Iraq and we cut Afghanistan loose long ago and it's drifting inevitably into Taliban hands. Meanwhile, the military is in disarray. The marine corps doesn't want all these MRAPS with the reduced violence and because they can't go where they need to take them to pursue troublemakers and they are too expensive and too huge to store but Congress is insisting they take them--so that's a small war in and of itself. The other problem is that part of the Army brass now wants deployments scaled back to 12 months again because the violence is reduced and the 15-month deployments are draining the energy and morale out of the troops. But commanders in the field are adamant that we can't scale back because the relative calm is still too violent and could flare back up in a moment's notice so we have to stay ready. It's a catch-22 all around for the military. They're all dressed up with no place to go and the situation cannot be sustained. All al-Sadr has to do is sit back and watch us implode because we can't explode since we can't attack Iran, can't win in Iraq and have already cut Afghanistan loose. Iran was our last gambit and Bolton knows it. Bush has dealt away his ace in the hole in hopes of some kind of better legacy and Bolton is hopping mad about it. He realizes what Bush has just done. It's over. Just a matter of time now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 11 Dec 07 - 05:45 AM Guest 282RA: "Bruce. I've asked you and Teribus at least a dozen times now to produce the 1999 UN report authored by Blix and Ritter that said Iraq had 25,000 liters of anthrax and 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin and you both not only failed to direct me to this report, you pretended like you didn't notice anyone was requesting it. That pretty much makes you a goner in my book. Two complete shit-talking idiots without a shred of credibility." Now without looking back through my posts I do not believe that I have ever said that there was a report authored by Blix and Ritter that categorically stated that Iraq had 25,000 litres of Anthrax and 38,000 litres of botulinum toxin. What I have previously referred to were the UNSCOM Reports to the United nations security Council of January 1999 and the later Report of March 1999 in which they Reported the status regarding WMD, WMD Research & Development programmes, stockpiles of WMD agents & precursors, munitions and missile inventory. It was those reports that detailed the discrepancies that existed between raw materials purchased and used, agents produced and weaponised, munitions made and used against what they could verify as having been destroyed. The information used was that supplied by the Iraqi Authorities, their suppliers, manufacturing records, etc. The UNSCOM Reports were careful to state that the shortfalls as detailed could only indicate what Iraq might possess. In my posts I have provided links to both those reports by way of substantiation. The trouble with the anti-Bush camp is that they have fixated on the gross inaccuracy that the March 2003 invasion of Iraq was about any single issue, be it "WMD", or "Regime Change". The March 2003 invasion of Iraq was carried out to ensure beyond doubt that Iraq was placed in compliance with all the terms and conditions it signed up to at Safwan on 3rd March 1991 and formalised on 3rd April 1991 as United Nations Security Council Resolution 687. Note Guest 282RA compliance with all terms and conditions, there were quite a few of them, so please do not try to reduce the situation that existed to any "single" cause, that is deliberate misrepresentation. With egard to WMD, the anti-Bush camp have fixated on the false premise that WMD had to be found to justify the invasion and make it alright with the world. The fallacy that there had to be a "smoking gun". The object of the exercise was to make sure that Iraq did not have any of these weapons, was not stockpiling materials that could be used for their manufacture, was not running any R&D programmes targeted at reviving WMD some time in the future once sanctions were lifted, was not designing weapons delivery systems that could threaten its neighbours near and far. On "Regime Change" the anti-Bush camp seem reluctant to accept that the desirability of regime change in Iraq was enshrined as part of US Foreign Policy long before GWB came to office. That particular bit of meddling in another nations affairs was put in place by the previous administration - they were correct in doing so. Now back to events of summer 2002 to spring 2003, with regard to "Regime Change". Saddam Hussein, as previously stated, was given every single opportunity to co-operate and show the world that he and his government were being fully open and transparent in their dealings with the international community, he chose not to do so. Saddam Hussein was given every opportunity to step down, he chose not to do so. Had he decided differently the war would not have happened. Now Guest 282RA a question of mine that you have been assiduously ducking, since you brought it up: Now how exactly did us Brits embarrass ourselves fighting a ragtag bunch of kids in the Falkland Islands? - the floor is yours |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Stu Date: 11 Dec 07 - 06:08 AM The reason for going to war was to find WMDs - this report from the Sydney Morning Herald reminds us in the immediate aftermath of the invasion what Bush and Blair had told the world in the run-up. The idea there was some sort of reasoned discussion about regime change in the days before the war is a fallacy. Blair's motion in the Iraq debate reads: "That this House notes its decisions of 25th November 2002 and 26th February 2003 to endorse UN Security Council Resolution 1441; recognises that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and long range missiles, and its continuing non-compliance with Security Council Resolutions, pose a threat to international peace and security; notes that in the 130 days since Resolution 1441 was adopted Iraq has not co-operated actively, unconditionally and immediately with the weapons inspectors, and has rejected the final opportunity to comply and is in further material breach of its obligations under successive mandatory UN Security Council Resolutions; regrets that despite sustained diplomatic effort by Her Majesty's Government it has not proved possible to secure a second Resolution in the UN because one Permanent Member of the Security Council made plain in public its intention to use its veto whatever the circumstances; notes the opinion of the Attorney General that, Iraq having failed to comply and Iraq being at the time of Resolution 1441 and continuing to be in material breach, the authority to use force under Resolution 678 has revived and so continues today; believes that the United Kingdom must uphold the authority of the United Nations as set out in Resolution 1441 and many Resolutions preceding it, and therefore supports the decision of Her Majesty's Government that the United Kingdom should use all means necessary to ensure the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction; offers wholehearted support to the men and women of Her Majesty's Armed Forces now on duty in the Middle East; in the event of military operations requires that, on an urgent basis, the United Kingdom should seek a new Security Council Resolution that would affirm Iraq's territorial integrity, ensure rapid delivery of humanitarian relief, allow for the earliest possible lifting of UN sanctions, an international reconstruction programme, and the use of all oil revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people and endorse an appropriate post-conflict administration for Iraq, leading to a representative government which upholds human rights and the rule of law for all Iraqis; and also welcomes the imminent publication of the Quartet's roadmap as a significant step to bringing a just and lasting peace settlement between Israelis and Palestinians and for the wider Middle East region, and endorses the role of Her Majesty's Government in actively working for peace between Israel and Palestine." This statement is implicit - the reason for war was to disarm Saddam of WMD's and then deal with the consequences. The full text of the debate is available from Hansard and leaves you in no doubt WMDs were being posited as justification for the invasion of Iraq as the main thrust of Blair's argument is based on the presence of WMDs in Iraq. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 11 Dec 07 - 07:46 AM No it doesn't Stigweard read it again: "That this House notes its decisions of 25th November 2002 and 26th February 2003 to endorse UN Security Council Resolution 1441" Now what was required to be done to endorse UN Security Council Resolution 1441? The passage you quoted (the motion to be debated and voted upon by the House of Commons) contains only 2 references to WMD but 10 references to UN Security Council Resolutions. And this causes you to state categorically that - "The reason for going to war was to find WMDs." The reason given was the UN Authority handed down to the beligerent powers under the terms of UN Security Council Resolution 678, in order to ensure compliance by Iraq of the Safwan Cease-Fire Agreement detailed in UN Security Council Resolution 687 all of which were detailed in UN Security Council Resolution 1441 which acted as the bridging document covering all outstanding resolutions related to Iraq. Your linked Sydney Herald article dated almost a year after the invasion is hardly "in the immediate aftermath". That article too is written on the premise that WMD had to be found - they didn't. The article details precisely what is wrong with the media today when it comes to supposed reporting of news. MSM no longer reports anything, they comment, speculate and opinionate, they most certainly could never be accused of objectively reporting any event or situation. As you correctly point out, the full text of the debate is available from Hansard. Did you actually read it? Because it leaves me, and anyone else who reads it, in no doubt about the doubts, uncertainties and suspicions relating to Iraq's WMD that existed at that time. What was posited as justification for the invasion of Iraq as the main thrust of Blair's argument was based on the potential threat the presence of WMDs in Iraq posed and the imperitive need to ensure beyond all doubt that Iraq was disarmed in accordance with UN Security Council Resolutions for the peace, security and stability of the region. I rather liked the reference in the debate by one MP who observed that Chirac, having stated that France would use its veto irrespective, had managed to disarm the UN instead of disarming Iraq. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Stu Date: 11 Dec 07 - 08:33 AM Well Teribus, at least we're agreed on one thing - the use of the UN veto by nations acting in their own self-interest is to be deplored. Especially by nations run by a religious fundamentalist who condones the use of kidnap, torture and the proliferation of WMDs. A quick pike at this list gives some idea of the motivation of this rogue state over the years: List of UN Security Council resolutions vetoed by the USA, 1972 - 2002 (Russia has used their veto TWICE) Year: Resolution Vetoed by the USA 1972 Condemns Israel for killing hundreds of people in Syria and Lebanon in air raids. 1973 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians and calls on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. 1976 Condemns Israel for attacking Lebanese civilians. 1976 Condemns Israel for building settlements in the occupied territories. 1976 Calls for self determination for the Palestinians. 1976 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians. 1978 Urges the permanent members (USA, USSR, UK, France, China) to insure United Nations decisions on the maintenance of international peace and security. 1978 Criticises the living conditions of the Palestinians. 1978 Condemns the Israeli human rights record in occupied territories. 1978 Calls for developed countries to increase the quantity and quality of development assistance to underdeveloped countries. 1979 Calls for an end to all military and nuclear collaboration with the apartheid South Africa. 1979 Strengthens the arms embargo against South Africa. 1979 Offers assistance to all the oppressed people of South Africa and their liberation movement. 1979 Concerns negotiations on disarmament and cessation of the nuclear arms race. 1979 Calls for the return of all inhabitants expelled by Israel. 1979 Demands that Israel desist from human rights violations. 1979 Requests a report on the living conditions of Palestinians in occupied Arab countries. 1979 Offers assistance to the Palestinian people. 1979 Discusses sovereignty over national resources in occupied Arab territories. 1979 Calls for protection of developing counties' exports. 1979 Calls for alternative approaches within the United Nations system for improving the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms. 1979 Opposes support for intervention in the internal or external affairs ofstates. 1979 For a United Nations Conference on Women. 1979 To include Palestinian women in the United Nations Conference on Women. 1979 Safeguards rights of developing countries in multinational trade negotiations. 1980 Requests Israel to return displaced persons. 1980 Condemns Israeli policy regarding the living conditions of the Palestinian people. 1980 Condemns Israeli human rights practices in occupied territories. 3 resolutions. 1980 Afirms the right of self determination for the Palestinians. 1980 Offers assistance to the oppressed people of South Africa and their national liberation movement. 1980 Attempts to establish a New International Economic Order to promote the growth of underdeveloped countries and international economic co-operation. 1980 Endorses the Program of Action for Second Half of United Nations Decade for Women. 1980 Declaration of non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states. 1980 Emphasises that the development of nations and individuals is a human right. 1980 Calls for the cessation of all nuclear test explosions. 1980 Calls for the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. 1981 Promotes co-operative movements in developing countries. 1981 Affirms the right of every state to choose its economic and social system in accord with the will of its people, without outside interference in whatever form it takes. 1981 Condemns activities of foreign economic interests in colonial territories. 1981 Calls for the cessation of all test explosions of nuclear weapons. 1981 Calls for action in support of measures to prevent nuclear war, curb the arms race and promote disarmament. 1981 Urges negotiations on prohibition of chemical and biological weapons. 1981 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development, etc are human rights. 1981 Condemns South Africa for attacks on neighbouring states, condemns apartheid and attempts to strengthen sanctions. 7 resolutions. 1981 Condemns an attempted coup by South Africa on the Seychelles. 1981 Condemns Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, human rights policies, and the bombing of Iraq. 18 resolutions. 1982 Condemns the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. 6 resolutions (1982 to 1983). 1982 Condemns the shooting of 11 Muslims at a shrine in Jerusalem by an Israeli soldier. 1982 Calls on Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights occupied in 1967. 1982 Condemns apartheid and calls for the cessation of economic aid to South Africa. 4 resolutions. 1982 Calls for the setting up of a World Charter for the protection of the ecology. 1982 Sets up a United Nations conference on succession of states in respect to state property, archives and debts. 1982 Nuclear test bans and negotiations and nuclear free outer space. 3 resolutions. 1982 Supports a new world information and communications order. 1982 Prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons. 1982 Development of international law. 1982 Protects against products harmful to health and the environment . 1982 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development are human rights. 1982 Protects against products harmful to health and the environment. 1982 Development of the energy resources of developing countries. 1983 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 15 resolutions. 1984 Condemns support of South Africa in its Namibian and other policies. 1984 International action to eliminate apartheid. 1984 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon. 1984 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 18 resolutions. 1985 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon. 1985 Condemns Israel for using excessive force in the occupied territories. 1985 Resolutions about cooperation, human rights, trade and development. 3 resolutions. 1985 Measures to be taken against Nazi, Fascist and neo-Fascist activities . 1986 Calls on all governments (including the USA) to observe international law. 1986 Imposes economic and military sanctions against South Africa. 1986 Condemns Israel for its actions against Lebanese civilians. 1986 Calls on Israel to respect Muslim holy places. 1986 Condemns Israel for sky-jacking a Libyan airliner. 1986 Resolutions about cooperation, security, human rights, trade, media bias, the environment and development. 8 resolutions. 1987 Calls on Israel to abide by the Geneva Conventions in its treatment of the Palestinians. 1987 Calls on Israel to stop deporting Palestinians. 1987 Condemns Israel for its actions in Lebanon. 2 resolutions. 1987 Calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon. 1987 Cooperation between the United Nations and the League of Arab States. 1987 Calls for compliance in the International Court of Justice concerning military and paramilitary activities against Nicaragua and a call to end the trade embargo against Nicaragua. 2 resolutions. 1987 Measures to prevent international terrorism, study the underlying political and economic causes of terrorism, convene a conference to define terrorism and to differentiate it from the struggle of people from national liberation. 1987 Resolutions concerning journalism, international debt and trade. 3 resolutions. 1987 Opposition to the build up of weapons in space. 1987 Opposition to the development of new weapons of mass destruction. 1987 Opposition to nuclear testing. 2 resolutions. 1987 Proposal to set up South Atlantic "Zone of Peace". 1988 Condemns Israeli practices against Palestinians in the occupied territories. 5 resolutions (1988 and 1989). 1989 Condemns USA invasion of Panama. 1989 Condemns USA troops for ransacking the residence of the Nicaraguan ambassador in Panama. 1989 Condemns USA support for the Contra army in Nicaragua. 1989 Condemns illegal USA embargo of Nicaragua. 1989 Opposing the acquisition of territory by force. 1989 Calling for a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict based on earlier UN resoltions. 1990 To send three UN Security Council observers to the occupied territories. 1995 Afirms that land in East Jerusalem annexed by Israel is occupied territory. 1997 Calls on Israel to cease building settlements in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories. 2 resolutions. 1999 Calls on the USA to end its trade embargo on Cuba. 8 resolutions (1992 to 1999). 2001 To send unarmed monitors to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. 2001 To set up the International Criminal Court. 2002 To renew the peace keeping mission in Bosnia. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 11 Dec 07 - 10:08 AM An impressive but irrelevant and meaningless list Stigweard, particularly when you consider much of the period is covered by international "ping-pong" match that was known as "The Cold War". Have a ramble through your list and see how many items are duplicated, which sort of begs the question if a Resolution was proposed once and vetoed, why would its chances of not being vetoed increase with the passage of time. Liked the ones about human rights and Israel, where were the ones about human rights and Iraq/Syria/Egypt/Saudi Arabia/USSR/China/North Korea/Libya/etc/etc/etc?? The one in 1979 calling for the return of all those expelled by Israel - Now where in that Resolution did it mention the return of all Jews expelled by Arab States and/or compensation for their loss of property? I could go on, but won't. The United Nations is an absolute disgrace, and it always has been. It has resolved little or nothing in the entire term of its sorry existence. In short it is a complete and utter joke and needs to radically reform itself or be consigned to the dustbin of insignificance. By the bye I was not aware that the US had ever lent a hand in the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The USSR yes, China yes, North Korea yes, but the USA No. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 11 Dec 07 - 11:04 AM This from the following site we can see who has used the veto over the period from 1946 to 2007 inclusive: Stigweard you might be interested in the results China - 6 times France - 18 times United Kingdom - 32 times United States of America - 82 times USSR/Russia - 123 times (Bit of a difference there from 2 times Stig, Eh??) The link is here: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/data/vetotab.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,282RA Date: 11 Dec 07 - 12:02 PM >>What I have previously referred to were the UNSCOM Reports to the United nations security Council of January 1999 and the later Report of March 1999 in which they Reported the status regarding WMD, WMD Research & Development programmes, stockpiles of WMD agents & precursors, munitions and missile inventory. It was those reports that detailed the discrepancies that existed between raw materials purchased and used, agents produced and weaponised, munitions made and used against what they could verify as having been destroyed. The information used was that supplied by the Iraqi Authorities, their suppliers, manufacturing records, etc. The UNSCOM Reports were careful to state that the shortfalls as detailed could only indicate what Iraq might possess. In my posts I have provided links to both those reports by way of substantiation.<< Yeah, I read those. So, you lied earlier when you asserted that the bullshit Bush put in his SOTU 03 was detailed in a 1999 UN report authored by Blix and Ritter. They wrote no such report. They wrote about discrepancies that were still on their books that they wanted to get cleared up. At no time did they say Iraq actually HAD that stuff or any stuff. >>Now how exactly did us Brits embarrass ourselves fighting a ragtag bunch of kids in the Falkland Islands? - the floor is yours<< The Falklands was the greatest, most decisive victory in the history of warfare. All hail Britain. what ho, pip pip, cheerio, right! Happy now? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Wolfgang Date: 11 Dec 07 - 12:22 PM The information Stigweard has given (only two vetoes by Russia) is of course completely correct (truth and nothing but the truth; though perhaps not the whole truth). It is an instance how one can deliberately misinform by giving completely correct information. Politicians often use this ploy. This way they have not lied and only the recipients of the information are to be blamed for being dumb. "Russia" has vetoed only twice since the founding of the UNO. Period. "USSR", "Soviet Union", "Russian Federation" are of course something completely different which we may disregard. Stigweard has posted in a very creative way the truth and nothing but the truth to the effect of giving a wrong impression. (Or has used information from an unreliable source without thinking. It was immediately obvious for instance to me that the number of two vetoes made no sense at all) Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Wolfgang Date: 11 Dec 07 - 12:31 PM Back to Iran which interests me more than the blunder in the Iraq. Mohammed Mohaddessin (NCRI) claims today to know the nuclear program was resumed in 2004. The NCRI has its own agenda and I wouldn't trust it without more independent corroboration, but what M.M. says is a possibility that should not be overlooked. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Stu Date: 11 Dec 07 - 01:48 PM "Stigweard has posted in a very creative way the truth and nothing but the truth to the effect of giving a wrong impression." Much as I would like to take credit for being a creative disseminator of misinformation, the actual truth is not as flattering. I did of course cut and paste the list, and I left the Russian vote bit in out of laziness as I've had a busy day and problems with a blocked drain and sewage overflow in my back garden (This makes reading BB's hysterical defense of Monkey Boy's actions a bit like smellyvision - you can smell the shite as you read). My intention was to illustrate how the list gives a general idea of the way the US votes on the various issues before the UN - in a manner bordering on cynical and with a general disdain/ignorance/lack of moral integrity and above all hypocrisy that is quite impressive to observe (unless you're born a Palestinian, and therefore and an object of particular revulsion to US politicians it seems). For instance . . . 1987 Opposition to the development of new weapons of mass destruction - vetoed! Unless you're the US of course, in which case, fill your boots with weapons-grade plutonium! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 11 Dec 07 - 01:58 PM Guest 282RA taken verbatum from the Presidents 2003 State of the Union Address as delivered on 29th January, 2003: "The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax; enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it. The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it. Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them. U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them." Now those were the actual words of the President. From Guest 282RA we got: "So, you lied earlier when you asserted that the bullshit Bush put in his SOTU 03 was detailed in a 1999 UN report authored by Blix and Ritter. They wrote no such report. They wrote about discrepancies that were still on their books that they wanted to get cleared up. At no time did they say Iraq actually HAD that stuff or any stuff." Now correct me if I am wrong but does the President refer to conclusions that the UN drew from the Reports that I have previously provided links to? Yes he most certainly does. Does he at anytime state that Iraq actually HAD that "stuff"? No he does not he states that they have the materials to produce that "stuff". Which pretty much matches up with what BB and myself have been saying all along. When, oh when, are you Bush-bashers ever going to just pause and read, or listen to, what is actually being said, instead of listening to sound bytes of what some dumb-ass reporter, or editor, is trying to tell you he is saying. So I take it Guest282RA that when you came out with your line: "It shows how stupid Bush is to want Britain on his side after the way they embarrassed themselves a fighting a ragtag bunch of kids in the Falkland Islands." That you were spouting a load of shit and knew damn well that you were spouting a load of shit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,282RA Date: 11 Dec 07 - 04:43 PM >>So I take it Guest282RA that when you came out with your line: "It shows how stupid Bush is to want Britain on his side after the way they embarrassed themselves a fighting a ragtag bunch of kids in the Falkland Islands." That you were spouting a load of shit and knew damn well that you were spouting a load of shit.<< Of course I was! I just wanted to piss you off. Who cares? Man, you're desperate, aren't you? Gotta love it! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 11 Dec 07 - 05:17 PM Bobert wrote: "Saddam and the Iraqi governemnt were allowing Hanz Blix to inspect where ever they wanted..." BB wrote: "NOT according to the report to the UN by Blix that was required under 1441- the last chance for cooperation. So, Bobert, is that your final answer? Seems that your arguments come up short of reality. I know, Danged!!! But when you have something to refute what *I* have stated, feel free to present it." Hanz Blix, in his January 27, 2003 reprot to the UN said: "Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our hilicopters have been good. The environment has been workable." Hmmmmmm, bb... I told you do read a little slower... You are missing the big picture with your biases and/or prejudices... These were the actual words that came out of Dr. Blix's mouth before the UN. Do you refute them??? And as for your assertion that Iran had a "nuclear program", I have never suggested that the didn't... It is not relevant to this subject... Yes, I know that Bush has tried to save face with this argument but, like, who cares... What does matter is what Iran is doing now... And that is where you and Bush;s argument lose traction... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Arne Date: 11 Dec 07 - 05:26 PM GUEST,282RA: "Bruce. I've asked you and Teribus at least a dozen times now to produce the 1999 UN report authored by Blix and Ritter that said Iraq had 25,000 liters of anthrax and 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin and you both not only failed to direct me to this report, you pretended like you didn't notice anyone was requesting it. That pretty much makes you a goner in my book. Two complete shit-talking idiots without a shred of credibility." Teribus and BB are both RWAs. They're the 28% "dead-enders". They'll defend to their dying breath the honesty and integrity of the Deciderator-In-Chief despite the fact that he's a proven liar and a thug, and they'll never admit they were wrong ... tragically wrong (which, of course is why they won't admit it; see the above link for the description of this pathology). They've been singing this same gawdawful tune for years now and they won't stop. Makes you wish there was a law mandating post-delivery abortions for bone-stoopid Republicans and their sycophants.... Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 11 Dec 07 - 05:50 PM Thanks for that heads up Guest 282RA serves as a good baseline for future reference. Arne Langsetmo, how are things going my little viking? I don't know about defending anybody to my dying breath. On this forum its more about filling some of the more dearly held left-wing, anti-Bush, anti-war, socialist myths full of holes. And in concert with some others we haven't been doing too shoddy a job of it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 11 Dec 07 - 05:56 PM Sorry, Bobert. You are missing the big picture with your biases and/or prejudices... "On December 7, 2002, Iraq filed its 12,000-page weapons declaration with the UN in order to meet requirements for this resolution. The five permanent members of the Security Council received unedited versions of the report, while an edited version was made available for other UN Member States. On December 19, Hans Blix reported before the United Nations and stated in regards to Iraq's December 7 report (unedited version): "During the period 1991-1998, Iraq submitted many declarations called full, final and complete. Regrettably, much in these declarations proved inaccurate or incomplete or was unsupported or contradicted by evidence. In such cases, no confidence can arise that proscribed programmes or items have been eliminated." By March, Blix declared that the December 7 report had not brought any new documentary evidence to light. Iraq continued to fail to account for substantial chemical and biological stockpiles which UNMOVIC inspectors had confirmed as existing as late as 1998. Iraq claimed that it had disposed of its anthrax stockpiles at a specific site, but UNMOVIC found this impossible to confirm since Iraq had not allowed the destruction to be witnessed by inspectors as required by the pertinent Resolutions. Chemical testing done at the site was unable to show that any anthrax had been destroyed there. Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei presented several reports to the UN detailing Iraq's level of compliance with Resolution 1441.[2] [3] [4]. On January 27, 2003 Chief UN Weapons Inspector Blix addressed the UN Security Council and stated "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."[5] Blix went on to state that the Iraqi regime had allegedly misplaced "1,000 tonnes" of VX nerve agent -- one of the most toxic ever developed.[6] By mid-February the issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles remained unresolved. Blix's March 7 report stated "Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programmes. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections." At this point, the US Administration asserted that Iraq remained in material breach of the UN Resolutions, and that, under 1441, this meant the Security Council had to convene immediately "in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security"." ********************************************************************** "On January 27, 2003 Chief UN Weapons Inspector Blix addressed the UN Security Council and stated "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."[5] Blix went on to state that the Iraqi regime had allegedly misplaced "1,000 tonnes" of VX nerve agent -- one of the most toxic ever developed.[6] By mid-February the issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles remained unresolved. Blix's March 7 report stated "Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programmes. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections." ********************************************************************* These were the actual words that came out of Dr. Blix's mouth before the UN. Do you refute them??? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441#Aftermath |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 11 Dec 07 - 05:59 PM UNR 1441: "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations". On December 19, Hans Blix reported before the United Nations and stated in regards to Iraq's December 7 report (unedited version): "During the period 1991-1998, Iraq submitted many declarations called full, final and complete. Regrettably, much in these declarations proved inaccurate or incomplete or was unsupported or contradicted by evidence. In such cases, no confidence can arise that proscribed programmes or items have been eliminated." By March, Blix declared that the December 7 report had not brought any new documentary evidence to light. Iraq continued to fail to account for substantial chemical and biological stockpiles which UNMOVIC inspectors had confirmed as existing as late as 1998. Iraq claimed that it had disposed of its anthrax stockpiles at a specific site, but UNMOVIC found this impossible to confirm since Iraq had not allowed the destruction to be witnessed by inspectors as required by the pertinent Resolutions. Chemical testing done at the site was unable to show that any anthrax had been destroyed there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 11 Dec 07 - 06:07 PM "What does matter is what Iran is doing now" On this I agree with you: At the moment, Iran is still enriching fissionable material beyond the requirements for peaceful purposes. The NIE does NOT address whether there is a present program active: It declares that there is not enough information to knbow one way or the other. Iran continues to work on its IRBM and ICBM programs, and has NOT complied with it's obligations under the NPT. So just what is it that gives you any reason to think that Bush is not at least as truthful as yourself? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 11 Dec 07 - 06:34 PM Well, firstly, bb... I haven't got upwards of a million people killed!!! Ahhhhh, that's just for starters... But most recently here in Mudville I made a statement about Hanz Blix, you countered by challenging my source and actaully saying that what I said came up short of reality??? Now I have provided the actual quote by Blix and rather than you sayin', "Geeze, Bobert, you were right" you change the subject??? Talk about coming up short of reality?!?!?!?.... But forget that... Here's my beef with Bush's foriegn policy toward Iran: In a nutshell, it is more of the same failed thinking that got US into Iraqmire in the first place... Bush thinks that the US can shoot, threaten and bomb its way in the world... It can't.. First of all it cost one hack of a lot more than diplomacy... The US can't afford to shoot it out with everyone that Bush doesn't like... Heck, it can't afford to shoot it out with everyone that Hillary doesn't like... This is a very expensive foriegn policy and one that has the ability to cripple our economy... Every empire before US has gone down becuase of military expansion... As grusome as it sounds, Hitler might have succeeded if he hadn't been so hellbent on expansion... Bush is making the same mistakes as Hitler did... He loves war... He loves to pump out his chest and say he's doing this dumbass stuff to protect US... Problem is that there are more terrorism today then before he decided to attack Iraq... Before you challenge me on that, better do a little actaul fact checking or you'll end up on the wrong side of the "facts" yet again... Just as you were just shown to be... Now, lastly... Tell me why what Iran was doing 5 years ago is *more important* than a sane approach to what Iran is doing today... You place too much importance of stuff that no one can change and too little importance of things that we can change... What is that about??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 11 Dec 07 - 06:40 PM Oh Bobert, my apologies I forgot. Do you know that Report you got the Hans Blix quote from. Can you refresh everyones mind about what he said about co-operation being a two part process. Then we will all know that you have actually read it and then we can compare that to what I said previously. Dr. Hans Blix - 27th January, 2003: I turn now, Mr. President, to the key requirement of cooperation and Iraq's response to it. Cooperation might be said to relate to both substance and process. It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, notably access. A similar decision is indispensable to provide cooperation on substance in order to bring the disarmament task to completion through the peaceful process of inspection and to bring the monitoring task on a firm course. An initial minor step would be to adopt the long overdue legislation required by the resolutions." Teribus: "The wording of 1441 allowed for no "material breach" of its provisions - all in all there were seven such instances, while the Iraqis co-operated fully on matters relating to access, they were very reluctant when it came to the area of disclosure and Blix was still complaining about this in his last report to the Security Council." Now going back to that Report delivered by the good Dr. Blix, Bobert: - Can you recall him mentioning any problems? - Did Dr. Blix mention any conflict between the information provided by the Iraq Authorities and hard evidence gathered by his inspection teams? - Was there any mention of the discovery of some 3000 documents hidden at an Iraqi scientist's house related to enrichment of uranium? - Did the good Dr. Blix table his concerns about this discovery and the implications of this discovery? - Did he detail how many U2 Flights, specifically requested by UNMOVIC and required under the terms of 1441, had taken place? - Did he mention how many names out of the 3500 Iraqi scientists and engineers known to have worked on Saddam's WMD programmes, the Iraqi Authorities submitted to UNMOVIC for interview? - Did he mention how many of those scientists and engineers were interviewed? Or did Dr. Blix clearly state that everything was sweetness and light. Bobert rest assured of one thing - if you don't answer the above questions, I will. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 11 Dec 07 - 06:54 PM My reply was to quote the same person making quite different claims: "On December 19, Hans Blix reported before the United Nations and stated in regards to Iraq's December 7 report (unedited version): "During the period 1991-1998, Iraq submitted many declarations called full, final and complete. Regrettably, much in these declarations proved inaccurate or incomplete or was unsupported or contradicted by evidence. In such cases, no confidence can arise that proscribed programmes or items have been eliminated." By March, Blix declared that the December 7 report had not brought any new documentary evidence to light." and " Blix's March 7 report stated "Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programmes. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections."" So do you refute what Blix's March 7th report states? The deadline was December. The terms of the resolution were not met- Do you claim otherwise? "Tell me why what Iran was doing 5 years ago is *more important* than a sane approach to what Iran is doing today" I agree- A sane approach, ie, demanding that Iran comply with its obligations to the NPT, is more important. Yet I do not hear that as a demand: ONLY that the US should not make any effort to enforce that compliance. Same as before the invasion of Iraq- You demand that the US NOT take action, and fail to demand that Iran comply with the demands of the international community. The signal that is being sent to Iran, (and other possible violators of the NPT) is that it is ok, and you encourage a siutuation that is FAR more likely to lead to thermonuclear war than anything that Bush has proposed or attempted. Sorry, in this case I consider that you are wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 11 Dec 07 - 06:58 PM "Well, firstly, bb... I haven't got upwards of a million people killed!!! " IMO, those who opposed the war with Iraq WITHOUT demanding that Saddam comply with the UNR bear some responsibility in the subsequent war: Had the Left made it clear to Saddam that they would NOT support his continued violations of UNR, it would seem likely that Saddam would have left Iraq rather than to try to tough it out. So, tell me again how you demanded that Saddam comply? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 11 Dec 07 - 07:50 PM Well, sure, I know of the report, bb... I've had a copy of it in my filing cabinet going back to when it was issued... And, yeah, I've read it... Yes there is some back-and-forth in it but on the central issue of cooperation I believe that Dr. Blix's statement was an indication that Dr. Blix felt good about Iraq's level of cooperation... We need to put some historical perspective on this, however... Yes, Saddam we now learn was doing a lot of bluffing... That much I think we can all agree on... But, if one puts himself in Saddam's shoes, what would you ahve done... No, don't think like an American, or a Brit, here but as the leader of a Middle East country... I can understand why Saddam bluffed... But bluffing isn' the issue, is it??? No, the issue comes down to the inspectors... And Dr. Blix gave an upbeat assessment of Iraq's finally getting it... Like I asked before... Why so much importance on things that happened in the past which can no longer be changed and so little importance on those things that can be changed??? I guess, bb, that you are incapable of admitting that the light had gone off in Saddam's head... Dr. Blix saw it... He reported it to the UN... In a way, you will always be fighting with the past, bb... I don't get it... Nothin' happens in the past... Things happen in the here and now and that's why Dr. Blix was willing and anxious to continue and that is what the US should be doing right now rather than blowing a lot of Bush hot air up people's posteriors... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 11 Dec 07 - 08:13 PM BTW, bb... Perhaps you'd like to share Dr. Blix's last paragraph of his report to the UN with the folks here... ...or maybe not which... ...given your repulsion for accepting either the word or the spirit of the report would be consistent with your myoptic views of just why the US invaded Iraq to begin with... B~ p.s. It is a given that if you can't find the closing statement of Dr. Blix's report of Jan. 27th that I sho nuff can... and will... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Arne Date: 11 Dec 07 - 08:28 PM Teribus: Arne Langsetmo, how are things going my little viking? A whole lot better that you, it seems. You're still spending your effin' life trying to defend the indefencible, same ol' shite, over and over again, no matter how many times you get slapped down and no matter how much an eedjit you look in the process. Why you think this is a good way to spend your days is beyond me ... but then again, I'm not a RWA. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Arne Date: 11 Dec 07 - 08:31 PM Teribus: And in concert with some others we haven't been doing too shoddy a job of it. A legend in his own mind, he is. But that comes with the territory of being a RWA and stoopid to boot. Studies have shown that RWAs can't figure out they're wrong, and stoopid people are too stoopid to know they're stoopid. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Arne Date: 11 Dec 07 - 08:41 PM Teribus: Can you refresh everyones mind about what he [Blix] said about co-operation being a two part process. Whereas, Dubya's idea of a two part process is: We stop the inspections. We bomb the living crud out of Iraq, and end up with over a half million Iraqis dead (as well as nigh 400 of our own soldiers). Oh, yeah, there is a part three. There has to be a part three. We get mired in an insurgency for decades, bleeding our coffers of $2 trillion(!!!) and a whole lot more Iraqis of their blood. No thanks to Dumbya's 'alternative'. Blix's approach, for all Teribus seems to hate it, was doing just fine, as was shown by even the U.S. gummint's Duelfer Report. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 11 Dec 07 - 08:46 PM Yup, Arne... That's 'bout it... Eric Hoffer coined the term "True Beleiver" for folks like teribus and his bud, bb... They are the ultimate brownshirts of modren times... The horses in "Animal Farm"... They wil fight the losing fight with every breath in their body... What they will never, never, never, ever do is look themselves in the mirror and ask, "Is this all worth it???" No, they are totaly incapable of reason... Of facts... Of vision... No, they just go out an pull the plows and they drop in the fields as if the pigs actually could give a rat's ass... Well, the pigs don't give art's ass about either bb or T-Bird... When it comes down to it these two miserable people are cared for more by the folks here in this little folk musicans web site then in the house that the pigs have taken over and the same pigs they defend... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Amos Date: 11 Dec 07 - 10:02 PM BB, ole chum, there is a wide spectrum of reality lying in between "any effort" to enforce compliance and "invasion and war". Surely even you can see the extremism of Mister Bush's decisions and recognize that there were other factors involved in the decision than the ones acknowledged. Either that, or the man was a madman. But that is ruled out because the American people would never elect a madman. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 11 Dec 07 - 10:07 PM Perhaps you'd like to share the substance of Dr. Blix's report to the UN with the folks... "On 7th of December 2002, Iraq submitted a declaration of some 12,000 pages in response to Paragraph 3 of Resolution 1441 and within the time stipulated by the Security Council. In the fields of missiles and biotechnology, the declaration contains a good deal of new material and information covering the period from 1998 and onward. This is welcome. One might have expected that in preparing the declaration, Iraq would have tried to respond to, clarify and submit supporting evidence regarding the many open disarmament issues, which the Iraqi side should be familiar with from the UNSCOM documents (of 1994 ?) and the so-called Amorim report of March 1999. These are questions which UNMOVIC, governments and independent commentators have often cited. While UNMOVIC has been preparing its own list of current unresolved disarmament issues and key remaining disarmament tasks in response to requirements in Resolution 1284, we find the issues listed in the two reports I mentioned as unresolved professionally justified. These reports do not contend the weapons of mass destruction remain in Iraq; but nor do they exclude that possibility. They point to lack of evidence and inconsistencies which raise question marks, which must be straightened out if weapons dossiers are to be closed and confidence is to arise. They deserve to be taken seriously by Iraq rather than being brushed aside as evil machinations of UNSCOM. Regrettably, the 12,000-page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that will eliminate the questions or reduce their number. Even Iraq's letter sent in response to our recent discussions in Baghdad to the president of the Security Council on 24th of January does not lead us to the resolution of these issues. I shall only give some examples of issues and questions that need to be answered, and I turn first to the sector of chemical weapons. The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed. Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tons, and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said that the agent was never weaponized. Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization, and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared. There are also indications that the agent was weaponized. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost due to bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq. I would now like to turn to the so-called Air Force document that I have discussed with the council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi Air Force headquarters in 1998, and taken from her by Iraqi minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs, by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war. I am encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC. The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1998, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tons. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for. The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocked warheads in a bunker at the storage depot 170 kilometers southwest of Baghdad was much-publicized. This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the rockets must have been moved here in the past two years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. Investigation of these rockets is still proceeding. Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve, but rather points to the issue of several thousand of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for. The finding of the rockets shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate. During my recent discussions in Baghdad, Iraq declared that it would make new efforts in this regard, and has set up a committee of investigation. Since then, it has reported that it has found further four chemical rockets at a storage depot in al-Taji. I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site the laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard precursor. Whilst I'm addressing chemical issues, I should mention a matter, which I reported on 19th of December last year, concerning equipment at a civilian chemical plant at al-Fallujah. Iraq has declared that it had repaired chemical processing equipment previously destroyed under UNSCOM's supervision and had installed at Fallujah for the production of chlorine and phenols. We have inspected this equipment and are conducting a detailed technical evaluation of it. On completion, we will decide whether this and other equipment that has been recovered by Iraq should be destroyed. I turn to biological weapons. I mentioned the issue of anthrax to the council on previous occasion, and I come back to it, as it is an important one. Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 liters of this biological warfare agent, which, it states, it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction. There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision, or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was indeed destroyed in 1991. As I reported to the council on the 19th of December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kilos, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged, as reported, in Iraq's submissions to the Amorim panel in February of 1999. As a part of its 7 December, 2002, declaration, Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document, but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate, as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered. In a letter the 24th of January, this year, to the president of the Security Council, Iraq's foreign minister stated that, I quote, "All imported quantities of growth media were declared," unquote. This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of the media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 liters of concentrated anthrax. I turn, Mr. President, now to the missile sector. There remain significant questions as to whether Iraq retained Scud-type missiles after the Gulf War. Iraq declared the consumption of a number of Scud missiles as targets in the development of anti-ballistic missile defense system during the 1980s, yet no technical information has been produced about that program, or data on the consumption of the missiles. There has been a range of developments in the missile field during the past four years, presented by Iraq in the declaration as non-proscribed activities. We are trying to gather a clear understanding of them through inspections and on-site discussions. Two projects in particular stand out. They are the development of a liquid-fueled missile named Al-Samoud II, and a solid propellant missile called Al Fatah. Both missiles have been tested to a range in excess of the permitted range of 150 kilometers, with the Al-Samoud II being tested to a maximum of 183 kilometers, and the Al Fatah to 161 kilometers. Some of both types of missiles have already been provided to the Iraqi armed forces, even though it is stated that they are still undergoing development. The Al-Samoud's diameter was increased from an earlier version to the present 760 millimeters. This modification was made despite a 1994 letter from the executive chairman of UNSCOM directing Iraq to limit its missile diameters to less than 600 millimeters. Furthermore, a November 1997 letter from the executive chairman of UNSCOM to Iraq prohibited the use of engines from certain surface-to-air missiles for the use in ballistic missiles. During my recent meeting in Baghdad, we were briefed on these two programs. We were told that the final range for both systems would be less than the permitted maximum of 150 kilometers. These missiles might well represent prima facie cases of proscribed systems. The test ranges in excess of 150 kilometers are significant, but some further technical considerations need to be made before we reach a conclusion on this issue. In the meantime, we have asked Iraq to cease flight test of both missiles. In addition, Iraq has refurbished its missile-production infrastructure. In particular, Iraq reconstituted a number of casting chambers which had previously been destroyed under UNSCOM's supervision. They had been used in the production of solid-fuel missiles. Whatever missile system these chambers are intended for, they could produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 kilometers. Also associated with these missiles and related developments is the import which has been taking place during the last two years of a number of items despite the sanctions, including as late as December -- (inaudible word). Foremost among these is the import of 300 rockets engines which may be used for the Al-Samoud 2. Iraq has also declared the recent import of chemicals used in propellants, test instrumentation, and guidance and control system. These items may well be for proscribed purposes. That is yet to be determined. What is clear is that they were illegally brought into Iraq. That is, Iraq or some company in Iraq circumvented the restrictions imposed by various resolutions. Mr. President, I have touched upon some of the disarmament issues that remain open and that need to be answered if dossiers are to be closed and confidence is to arise. Which are the means at the disposal of Iraq to answer these questions? I have pointed to some during my presentation of the issues. Let me be a little more systematic. Our Iraqi counterparts are fond of saying that there are no proscribed items and, if no evidence is presented to the contrary, they should have the benefit of the doubt, be presumed innocent. UNMOVIC, for its part, is not presuming that there are proscribed items and activities in Iraq; but nor is it or, I think, anyone else, after the inspections between 1991 and '98, presuming the opposite, that no such items and activities exist in Iraq. Presumptions do not solve the problem. Evidence and full transparency may, may help. Let me be specific. Information provided by member states tells us about the movement and concealment of missiles and chemical weapons and mobile units for biological weapons production. We shall certainly follow up any credible leads given to us and report what we might find, as well as any denial of access. So far, we have reported on the recent find of a small number of empty 122-millimeter warheads for chemical weapons. Iraq declared that it appointed a commission of inquiry to look for more. Fine. Why not extend the search to other items, declare what may be found, and destroy it under our supervision? When we have urged our Iraqi counterparts to present more evidence, we have all too often met the response that there are no more documents; all existing relevant documents have presented, we are told; all documents relating to the biological weapons program were destroyed together with the weapons. However, Iraq has all the archives of the government and its various departments, institutions and mechanisms. It should have budgetary documents, requests for funds, and reports on how they have been used. It should also have letters of credit and bills of lading, reports on production and losses of material. In response to the recent UNMOVIC request for a number of specific documents, the only new documents Iraq provided was a ledger of 193 pages, which Iraq stated included all imports from 1983 to 1990 by the Technical and Scientific Importation Division, the importing authority for the biological weapons program. Potentially, it might help to clear some open issues. The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the laser enrichment of uranium, support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals. This interpretation is refuted by the Iraqi side, which claims that research staff sometimes may bring home papers from their workplaces. On our side, we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated, and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 11 Dec 07 - 10:09 PM Any further sign of the concealment of documents will be serious. The Iraqi side committed itself, at our recent talks, to encourage persons to accept access also to private sites. There can be -- (brief audio break) -- for proscribed items, activities or documents. A denial of prompt access to any site would be a very serious matter. When Iraq claims that tangible evidence in the form of documents is not available, it ought at least to find individuals, engineers, scientists and managers to testify about their experience. Large weapons programs are moved and managed by people. Interviews with individuals who may have worked in programs in the past may fill blank spots in our knowledge and understanding. It could also be useful to learn that they are now employed in peaceful sectors. These are the reasons why UNMOVIC asked for a list of such persons, in accordance with Resolution 1441. Some 400 names for all biological and chemical weapons programs, as well as their missile programs, were provided by the Iraqi side. This can be compared to over 3,500 names of people associated with those past weapons programs that UNSCOM either interviewed in the 1990s, or knew from documents and other sources. At my recent meeting in Baghdad, the Iraqi side committed itself to supplementing the list, and some 80 additional names have been provided. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 11 Dec 07 - 10:10 PM In the past, much valuable information came from interviews. There were also cases in which the interviewee was clearly intimidated by the presence of an interruption by Iraq officials. This was the background of Resolution 1441's provision for a right for UNMOVIC and the IAEA to hold private interviews, I quote, "in the mode or location," unquote, of our choice in Baghdad or even abroad. To date, 11 individuals were asked for interviews in Baghdad by us. The replies have invariably been that the individual would only speak at Iraq's Monitoring Directorate or at any rate, in the presence of an Iraq official. This could be due to a wish on the part of the invited to have evidence that they have not said anything that the authorities did not wish them to say. In our recent talks in Baghdad, the Iraqis had committed itself (sic) to encourage persons to accept interviews in private; that is to say, alone with us. Despite this, the pattern has not changed. However, we hope that with further encouragement from the authorities, knowledgeable individuals will accept private interviews in Baghdad or abroad." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 11 Dec 07 - 10:12 PM Amos, The point is that Bush has NOT called for invasion- He has called for Iran to comply with the UN. It is the actions of certain nations, in supporting Iran's continued violation of the terms of the NPT that bring a threat of war. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 12 Dec 07 - 12:11 AM Already covered by T. YES, under earlier UNR. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 12 Dec 07 - 12:13 AM As the one person responsible for looking after the security and interests of the United States of America. Was it ever a requirement that he had to? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 12 Dec 07 - 12:23 AM 12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security; Did they convene to consider the situation or did Bush invade? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 12 Dec 07 - 12:53 AM Read, and I mean read, the UN' authorisation for the use of force with regard to Resolution 678. Then read, and I mean read, the terms and conditions detailed in Resolution 687 that Iraq agreed to as part of a cease-fire agreement. Tell us all hand on heart whether or not Iraq complied with those cease-fire terms - They had 12 years to do so. By the bye, Dr. Blix reports on 27th January 2003 that they did not. Resolution 1441 gave Iraq one last chance - actually in UN-speak they had already had several. Read Stigweards "Hansard" link which details France's absolute refusal to consider any resolution that would present an ultimatum to Iraq regarding compliance with any of the above outstanding UN Security Council Resolutions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Stu Date: 12 Dec 07 - 05:27 AM "IMO, those who opposed the war with Iraq WITHOUT demanding that Saddam comply with the UNR bear some responsibility in the subsequent war: Had the Left made it clear to Saddam that they would NOT support his continued violations of UNR, it would seem likely that Saddam would have left Iraq rather than to try to tough it out. " This is superb - not content with supporting the debacle in Iraq you are trying to shift some of the blame for this mess onto people who opposed it? Is your conscience eating you away so much the only way you can assuage your guilt is by transferring it to people who don't agree with you? Is the only way you can deal with the bloodied consequences of the actions you so vigorously defend the abdication of responsibility? This shows such a lack of moral integrity it can only be described as right-wing. Have some bollocks, stand by your convictions and have the courage not to attempt to implicate those who objected to your ill-conceived venture. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Dec 07 - 09:14 AM Hans Blix was interviewed on BBC Radio Four earlier this year. I can not make this download play but I do remember him giving his opinion that removing Sadam justified all the pain that his removal brought about. He believed that the war was justified. http://onebigtorrent.org/torrents/1675/Hans-Blix-On-the-Ropes-BBC-Radio-4 |
|
Subject: don't trust a bald faced LIAR From: Donuel Date: 12 Dec 07 - 10:46 AM however bearded bruce may believe any liar of his choosing. Thats the beauty of America. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jd7LvJBIaNo&feature=related |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 12 Dec 07 - 12:07 PM bb, Try again... We are talking about the January 27 address to the UN which, if I am not mistaken, was his last address to the that body before Bush decided to short circuit the process... Hint: The very last word is "Council"... As for Dr. Blix saying the war was "justified", this purdy much flies in the face of spirit of what he said in is Jan. 27th report to the UN... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Donuel Date: 12 Dec 07 - 02:05 PM Bobert , Regarding Blix what you said is a fact however facts are optional for neocon military industrial purposes. We have been at war with Iraq for how many years now? 12-18 years depending on how you measure it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 12 Dec 07 - 02:14 PM I couldn't open that Blix interview either. What Keith says there doesn't sound consistent with what Blix has said on other occasions. Of course he might have modified his views - but I wonder if there might be a misunderstanding of what he said, with him expressing a hope that on balance it might turn out that the invasion didn't make things worse, or perhaps saying that for some people it did make things better. For many people the invasion and its aftermath has undoubtedly made things even worse - for example it appears that the freedom of women to lead independent lives, or to dress as they choose has been greatly restricted, and the situation of religious minorities, notably Iraq's Christian ancient community, has got incomparably worse. For all its horrible aspects, Baathist Iraq was a secular, and in some ways a relatively open, society. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 12 Dec 07 - 02:17 PM Bobert, My post WAS of the 27 January address. Care to read it ( for a change) before you make statements about what it says? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 12 Dec 07 - 02:21 PM http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/iraq/blix_report.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 12 Dec 07 - 02:22 PM And Donuel and Bobert may believe any liar of their choosing. Thats the beauty of America. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 12 Dec 07 - 02:26 PM "the substance of Dr. Blix's report to the UN" In case you were not aware, it is standard policy to ALWAYS end a report on a positive note,. One might want to read the whole report, or at least the summary, as opposed to basing one's conclusion on what is said by a single paragraph at the end. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 12 Dec 07 - 03:38 PM "the abdication of responsibility?" It seems that those here who opposed action against Saddam have already abdicated any responsibility FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS and WORDS. Just pointing it out. You seem to protest too much: If it was not true, why does it bother you so much??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 12 Dec 07 - 03:39 PM From MGOH this is an astonishing example of denial and abdication of responsibility: "For all its horrible aspects, Baathist Iraq was a secular, and in some ways a relatively open, society." Really Kevin? In roughly the same way it could no doubt have been claimed: For all its horrible aspects, Nazi Germany was a secular, and in some ways a relatively open, society. Result 15 million deaths. Or maybe considering your socialist background: For all its horrible aspects, Soviet Russia was a secular, and in some ways a relatively open, society. Result over 38 million deaths. I'll make the point now, those constrained to live under the Ba'athist Rule and whims of Saddam Hussein and his sons in secular Iraq, did not have to suffer such a fate because somebody acted to deliver them from it. Bad enough as it was - for 24 years Saddam butchered the people of Iraq achieving an average of 282 per day - higher if you take into account those killed during the Iran/Iraq War. I would strongly recommend Kevin that you read some of the survivors stories and do a great deal of research into what Saddam was responsible for in Iraq and the suffering he visited upon its citizens - The horrible bits Kevin, not the bits about dress code for women. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Amos Date: 12 Dec 07 - 03:58 PM BB: It is not abdicating responsibility to oppose the accelerating spiral of violence espoused by the Bushites. It is,m in fact, more responsible to NOT pull the trigger when you don't fully understand the situation, as it is certainly true GWB did not, than to pull the trigger on the hunch you might understand it. It takes a certain centered, compassionate intelligence to look further into a scene and find out what is going on it before jumping in like a commando to shoot it up. W did not have this quality, does not have it now, and I feel sure never will. That is why he is dangerous. The rush to violence is an insane trait except where imminent threat can be demonstrated, which in this case it was not. THis in now way is meant to make less of your argument about the madness of Saddam Hussein. I see no reason to believe he was the maddest of world leaders or the most destructive. If the rationale of the invasion was purely that he was killing 28 people a day, we would have invaded Darfur long since. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 12 Dec 07 - 04:11 PM Amos, And I would support a UN invasion of Sudan. But my point is that those "opposed " to the war were in fact opposed to any Bush action against Iraq: They made NO effort to even hint that Saddam should comply, and I DID post the article about the Iraqi group that was prevented from marching in the "anti-war" protests BECAUSE they were stating that Saddam should step down. You are entitled to think that Bush jumped the gun: I am entitled to think that, had the Left, and those countries that prevented effective UN action bothered to tell Saddam to give up power in as strong terms as they told Bush to NOT take action, there would have been mo war, no insurgency, and no occupation of Iraq by outside troops. Saddam had the option of opening his borders, and not resisting any invasion ( prior to the start of combat). Did you ever wonder why he thought that he would NOT be held accountable? Millions of protesters telling Bush to stop, and saying NOTHING about Saddam. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 12 Dec 07 - 05:18 PM Guess again, bb... But this is your last guess 'cause if you get it wrong again then I'll just have to print the Closing statement of the report... I think you are depending on one of your rightie blogs that conviently leaves out anyything that they don't like... You know, kinda like Bush... And, oh, BTW, just, the closing statement (parargraph), por favor... Not a War and Peace lenght cut and paste or a bb tirade where the closing statement get smothered with the usual crap... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Stringsinger Date: 12 Dec 07 - 05:28 PM Bush wants to control the mid-East. He wants to be alpha dog in the nuke department so he can make more money for the defense industry, the leading US export business. This is not incompetence but based on a world view that will bring the US into another war so that the defense industry can become more wealthy. Iran is probably like Pakistan in that they see their nukes as a deterrant from US occupation. Bush has no intention of introducing peace, justic or freedom to the Mid-East. The winning ticket goes to Halliburton, Blackwater, KBR, Canopy, and Boeing, Lockheed, etc. This may be the worst president in the history of the country whose foreign policy is based on economic dominance and suppression of human rights, not to mention the wholesale slaughter of Iraqi citizens. Frank Hamilton |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 12 Dec 07 - 05:29 PM What the heck... ..200!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 12 Dec 07 - 05:30 PM plus 1... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 12 Dec 07 - 06:34 PM If you actually believe what you trotted out in your last post Frank here are a few questions for you. 1. How could Bush, or anybody else for that matter, "control" the middle-east? Tell us how they would go about it? I am certainly interested because I believe it to be impossible, I would also venture the opinion that for anybody to control the middle-east would be undesirable, an view I think that would be shared around the world in very many places - not least so in the United States of America. 2. You state incorrectly that "the defense industry" is the leading US export business. In 2006 (Figures not out for 2007 yet) with regard to US Exports it ("the defense industry" - Arms and Ammunition) was number 44 in the list. 3. Your substantiation for your claim that the US wants to involve itself in another war so that the defense industry can become more wealthy, is what exactly? If you cannot provide anything to back this ludicrous statement up please have the honesty to say so and correctly state it is only your opinion. 4. "Iran is probably like Pakistan in that they see their nukes as a deterrant from US occupation"? For a start when, apart from Barack Obama, has the US ever militarily threatened Pakistan? Pakistan's nuclear industry and nuclear arsenal exist only to provide counter-balance to India's nuclear capabilities nothing more. 5. "Bush has no intention of introducing peace, justice or freedom to the Mid-East" - He's making a damn sight better stab at bringing those things to the middle-east than anyone else on the block. If you have current examples of those doing better please name them and their accomplishments over the last six years. 6. "The winning ticket goes to Halliburton, Blackwater, KBR, Canopy, and Boeing, Lockheed, etc." - Prize money's that good for 44th place is it Frank. 7. For "wholesale slaughter of Iraqi citizens", Frank you'd have to work very hard for a long, long time to beat Saddam. MNF Troops in Iraq have "slaughtered" relatively few Iraqi citizens, their fellow muslims on the otherhand, be they Sunni/Shia/foreign jihadists, well that's a different story, and one that can be easily substantiated. By the way Frank have you any addresses for all the concentration camps that those evil-mega-corporations are going to put us into? It was you who said that that was the overall plan wasn't it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 12 Dec 07 - 07:47 PM Bobert: So far YOU ( yelling) have been the one to get it wrong. What I posted was from the ** content ** of the report. As for "I think you are depending on one of your rightie blogs that conviently leaves out anyything that they don't like... You know, kinda like Bush..." ** I ** think that you are ignoring anything that does not agree with your false view of reality. The LAST paragraph of the report that I quoted from is: "Mr. President, we now have an inspection apparatus that permits us to send multiple inspection teams every day all over Iraq, by road or by air. Let me end by simply noting that that capability, which has been built up in a short time and which is now operating, is at the disposal of the Security Council. " OK? NOW, If you cannot reply to what I posted as to the *** SUBSTANCE *** of the report, I will know you are more interested in telling a false viewpoint than in having a reasonable discussion of what Blix said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 12 Dec 07 - 08:37 PM Ahhhhhhh, yes... You have finally gotten it right, bb, so give yersel;f a gold star... No, let me award you a gold star... Yes, there were areas that Blix reported were troublesome... There were things that he wished hadn't happened... There was the cultural aspects that I learned about in dealing with Kuwaits and Saudis... These thing are going to occur... I mean, lets get real here... The inspectors left in what, 1998 and things weren't goin' to run like Swiss watch... It would have been unreasonable to expect anything different... But in another area of the report Blix said this: "In the past two months, UNMOVIC has built-up its capabilities in Iraq from nothing to 260 staff members from 60- countries. This includes approximately 100 UNMOVIC inpestors, 60 air operations inspectors, 60 air operations staff, as well as security personnel, communicati8on, tranlatio9n and interprtation staff, medical suppoprt and other services at our Baghdad office and Mosul filed office." This is the reality that you, bb, refuse to accept... This was all done in 2 friggin' months!!! Heck I can't get a friggin' doctor's appointemnt in 2 months here in the good ol' US of A but all this was accomplished in just 2 friggin' months?!?!??!?!?.... So, bottom line, if you take Dr. Bliz's reprt one the whole you don't go tellin' him to get his friggin' inspectors the heck out 'cause you have lost patience... You just don't... Yeah, I know that I am addressing a brick wall here who is no longer capabale of ***independent*** thought but you know what??? I've been on the side of humanity since the very beginning here... I have no political axe to grind... I'm not a Democrat... So I am way beyond "True Believerism", unlike you, bb, who worships at the feet ot George Bush... I have the freedom of looking at the "facts" and drawing my own conclusions... I don't have an allegience to some politacal party where I will defend to the death every fu*ked up policy that they beleive in... I feel sorry for you, bb... I woudl hate to find myself a prisoner of George Bush but it it obvious to me that you are perfectly willing prisoner, with papers in order... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 12 Dec 07 - 09:22 PM For your enlightenment and edification, Teribus, I believe the articles on this website do a pretty good job of lining out the basics of the Bush administration's foreign policy. CLICKY Check the Statement of Principles HERE and note the signatories at the bottom of the page. Take particular note of the ones who are or were in the very core of the Bush administration. Is Frank wrong? I don't think so. And your last paragraph is a transparent and ingenuous attempt to characterize Frank's quite accurate take on the matter as just another kookie conspiracy theory. Sorry. No sale! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 12 Dec 07 - 09:28 PM "who worships at the feet ot George Bush... " Sorry, Bobert. THIS statement makes you appear to be a liar- and that couldn't be so, now, could iut? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 12 Dec 07 - 09:37 PM "I have the freedom of looking at the "facts" and drawing my own conclusions... " I agree with you on this statement. But then , ** I ** have that same freedom, and what I see is that NOTHING in the way of cooperation occurred UNTIL AFTER THE DEADLINE HAD PASSED, and the US was massing forces on the border. And please explain how you demanded Saddam comply? And PLEASE tell me why Saddam did not open his borders, and allow unlimited inspections BEFORE the threat of invasion? And please tell me why Saddam thought that he could NOT step down, after Blix had declared that Saddam HAD NOT MET the demands of UNR1441, which the UN declared to be his LAST AND FINAL chance to comply? Please note, Bobert: I posted the link to the entire report, while you seem fixated on a single paragraph. It looks to me like You are more interested in establishing your own set of "facts" than finding out what Blix actually said. THAT IS A LIE, in my book. So back off claiming others are lying, when your own grasp of the truth is so based on what YOU want it to be. You are out-Bushing Bush. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 12 Dec 07 - 09:38 PM REPEATING: NOW, If you cannot reply to what I posted as to the *** SUBSTANCE *** of the report, I will know you are more interested in telling a false viewpoint than in having a reasonable discussion of what Blix said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 12 Dec 07 - 09:49 PM Bobert states: "As for Dr. Blix saying the war was "justified", this purdy much flies in the face of spirit of what he said in is Jan. 27th report to the UN..." and "Yes there is some back-and-forth in it but on the central issue of cooperation I believe that Dr. Blix's statement was an indication that Dr. Blix felt good about Iraq's level of cooperation..." The spirt of the January 27th report, which I have quoted from at length and not just cherrypicked a single paragraph ( or 2) indicates that Blix had serious doubts about whether Saddam would ever comply. But then , to actually read what Blix said might be too difficult: "Even Iraq's letter sent in response to our recent discussions in Baghdad to the president of the Security Council on 24th of January does not lead us to the resolution of these issues. I shall only give some examples of issues and questions that need to be answered, and I turn first to the sector of chemical weapons. The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed. Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tons, and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said that the agent was never weaponized. Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization, and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared. There are also indications that the agent was weaponized. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost due to bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq. I would now like to turn to the so-called Air Force document that I have discussed with the council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi Air Force headquarters in 1998, and taken from her by Iraqi minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs, by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war. I am encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC. The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1998, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tons. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for. The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocked warheads in a bunker at the storage depot 170 kilometers southwest of Baghdad was much-publicized. This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the rockets must have been moved here in the past two years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. Investigation of these rockets is still proceeding. Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve, but rather points to the issue of several thousand of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for. The finding of the rockets shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate. During my recent discussions in Baghdad, Iraq declared that it would make new efforts in this regard, and has set up a committee of investigation. Since then, it has reported that it has found further four chemical rockets at a storage depot in al-Taji. I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site the laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard precursor. Whilst I'm addressing chemical issues, I should mention a matter, which I reported on 19th of December last year, concerning equipment at a civilian chemical plant at al-Fallujah. Iraq has declared that it had repaired chemical processing equipment previously destroyed under UNSCOM's supervision and had installed at Fallujah for the production of chlorine and phenols. We have inspected this equipment and are conducting a detailed technical evaluation of it. On completion, we will decide whether this and other equipment that has been recovered by Iraq should be destroyed. I turn to biological weapons. I mentioned the issue of anthrax to the council on previous occasion, and I come back to it, as it is an important one. Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 liters of this biological warfare agent, which, it states, it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction. There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision, or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was indeed destroyed in 1991. As I reported to the council on the 19th of December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kilos, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged, as reported, in Iraq's submissions to the Amorim panel in February of 1999. As a part of its 7 December, 2002, declaration, Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document, but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate, as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered. In a letter the 24th of January, this year, to the president of the Security Council, Iraq's foreign minister stated that, I quote, "All imported quantities of growth media were declared," unquote. This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of the media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 liters of concentrated anthrax. I turn, Mr. President, now to the missile sector. There remain significant questions as to whether Iraq retained Scud-type missiles after the Gulf War. Iraq declared the consumption of a number of Scud missiles as targets in the development of anti-ballistic missile defense system during the 1980s, yet no technical information has been produced about that program, or data on the consumption of the missiles. There has been a range of developments in the missile field during the past four years, presented by Iraq in the declaration as non-proscribed activities. We are trying to gather a clear understanding of them through inspections and on-site discussions. Two projects in particular stand out. They are the development of a liquid-fueled missile named Al-Samoud II, and a solid propellant missile called Al Fatah. Both missiles have been tested to a range in excess of the permitted range of 150 kilometers, with the Al-Samoud II being tested to a maximum of 183 kilometers, and the Al Fatah to 161 kilometers. Some of both types of missiles have already been provided to the Iraqi armed forces, even though it is stated that they are still undergoing development. The Al-Samoud's diameter was increased from an earlier version to the present 760 millimeters. This modification was made despite a 1994 letter from the executive chairman of UNSCOM directing Iraq to limit its missile diameters to less than 600 millimeters. Furthermore, a November 1997 letter from the executive chairman of UNSCOM to Iraq prohibited the use of engines from certain surface-to-air missiles for the use in ballistic missiles. During my recent meeting in Baghdad, we were briefed on these two programs. We were told that the final range for both systems would be less than the permitted maximum of 150 kilometers. These missiles might well represent prima facie cases of proscribed systems. The test ranges in excess of 150 kilometers are significant, but some further technical considerations need to be made before we reach a conclusion on this issue. In the meantime, we have asked Iraq to cease flight test of both missiles. In addition, Iraq has refurbished its missile-production infrastructure. In particular, Iraq reconstituted a number of casting chambers which had previously been destroyed under UNSCOM's supervision. They had been used in the production of solid-fuel missiles. Whatever missile system these chambers are intended for, they could produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 kilometers. Also associated with these missiles and related developments is the import which has been taking place during the last two years of a number of items despite the sanctions, including as late as December -- (inaudible word). Foremost among these is the import of 300 rockets engines which may be used for the Al-Samoud 2. Iraq has also declared the recent import of chemicals used in propellants, test instrumentation, and guidance and control system. These items may well be for proscribed purposes. That is yet to be determined. What is clear is that they were illegally brought into Iraq. That is, Iraq or some company in Iraq circumvented the restrictions imposed by various resolutions. Mr. President, I have touched upon some of the disarmament issues that remain open and that need to be answered if dossiers are to be closed and confidence is to arise. Which are the means at the disposal of Iraq to answer these questions? I have pointed to some during my presentation of the issues. Let me be a little more systematic. Our Iraqi counterparts are fond of saying that there are no proscribed items and, if no evidence is presented to the contrary, they should have the benefit of the doubt, be presumed innocent. UNMOVIC, for its part, is not presuming that there are proscribed items and activities in Iraq; but nor is it or, I think, anyone else, after the inspections between 1991 and '98, presuming the opposite, that no such items and activities exist in Iraq. Presumptions do not solve the problem. Evidence and full transparency may, may help. Let me be specific. Information provided by member states tells us about the movement and concealment of missiles and chemical weapons and mobile units for biological weapons production. We shall certainly follow up any credible leads given to us and report what we might find, as well as any denial of access. So far, we have reported on the recent find of a small number of empty 122-millimeter warheads for chemical weapons. Iraq declared that it appointed a commission of inquiry to look for more. Fine. Why not extend the search to other items, declare what may be found, and destroy it under our supervision? When we have urged our Iraqi counterparts to present more evidence, we have all too often met the response that there are no more documents; all existing relevant documents have presented, we are told; all documents relating to the biological weapons program were destroyed together with the weapons. However, Iraq has all the archives of the government and its various departments, institutions and mechanisms. It should have budgetary documents, requests for funds, and reports on how they have been used. It should also have letters of credit and bills of lading, reports on production and losses of material. In response to the recent UNMOVIC request for a number of specific documents, the only new documents Iraq provided was a ledger of 193 pages, which Iraq stated included all imports from 1983 to 1990 by the Technical and Scientific Importation Division, the importing authority for the biological weapons program. Potentially, it might help to clear some open issues. The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the laser enrichment of uranium, support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals. This interpretation is refuted by the Iraqi side, which claims that research staff sometimes may bring home papers from their workplaces. On our side, we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated, and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes. " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 13 Dec 07 - 02:12 AM Don, From the "Statement of Principles": "Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership. Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences: • we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future; • we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values; • we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad; • we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles. Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next." I can see absolutely nothing wrong with any of that taken from an American point of view. There is nothing within the statement taken as a whole that indicates the desire, intention or value in herding us all into Frank's "Concentration Camps" - Frank is, I believe, the person who claimed elsewhere that they had already been built. I have seen no evidence of this, I therefore consign it to the dustbin of looney, unsubstantiated, left-wing conspiracy theories. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Stu Date: 13 Dec 07 - 04:35 AM "It seems that those here who opposed action against Saddam have already abdicated any responsibility FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS and WORDS." On the contrary - I stand by my convictions and always have. The fact I was against the invasion of Iraq and attended a peace vigil on the 15th February because I couldn't get to London is an action I am glad I did. It takes a man to admit he's wrong bruce. Your ceaseless unreasoned and uncritical defense of your neo-con role models is suspicious because it seems unquestioning of motive and the importance of moral integrity - which the American leadership has abandoned, held in the thrall of it's own military might and drunk on it's ability to kill more or less whom it wants without fear of being accountable for it's actions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Stu Date: 13 Dec 07 - 05:24 AM "But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise." Ah, the responsibilities that come with empire - looks like the ordinary American is funding this arrogant delusion, and at what cost to the poorest in that society? Times change, and America is no longer the ideological leader of the free world, yet it has not woken up to the fact and continues to rumble on - a deaf and dumb behemoth of an anachronism steamrollering it's way into the oblivion of climate change and economic decrepitude fuelled by it's insatiable greed and onanistic military fixation. That the American Dream is a Hollywood myth is no longer in doubt. The land of the free decided to leave it's principles in the 20th Century and embrace the moral abyss of unregulated capitalism and economically-driven military interventionisn, with all the sordid and dishonorable consequences that has propagated; the euphemisms for torture, the unaccountability of it's intelligence and military to the people that fund it, the fact those organisations attempt to mislead the country's own elected representatives when transgressions occur and they realise they could be called to account. It's unsettling how we don't learn from the past. Inevitably, the American Empire will fall as all the others have done, bloated with appropriated wealth while staring narcissistically at it's own self-image. This is reflected in the "Statement of Principles" Teribus posted. He is correct in there is nothing wrong with that statement from the American point of view - but the rest of the world will be raising two fingers to the idea America has some sort of inherent right to impose it's own amoral abstractions on the rest of the world. The statement betrays the arrogance, belligerence and This might sound anti-American, but that would be to misinterpret the point of the argument. America has become corrupted by it's leaders intoxication with wealth and power. The fact America can no longer abide by or even see the ideals is so vehemently purports to defend demonstrates how far it has drifted from the hopes it's founding fathers had for it as a nation. An America who could realise it's potential would be a wonderful sight to behold; I believe that other America stills exists - it can be heard in it's music, seen in it's art and read in it's books, I felt it on the streets of New York when we visited in the warmth of welcome we received from truly delightful people. But unless it's people decide to transcend the moral corruption of empire and embrace the principles of humanitarianism, then it will face increasing isolation and marginalisation, and face the slow decline into debilitation and irrelevance - the way of all Empires in the end. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,Homey Date: 13 Dec 07 - 09:02 AM 1% percent of Haiti does not hold all the wealth. Bobert's fact is not a fact regardless of weather I want to live there or not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 13 Dec 07 - 09:10 AM Yo, bb... You are not only back to your ususal SCREAMING but also back to cherry picking... I made the statement that Dr. Blix said in his report that Iarq was cooperating... You challenged me on that staement... I provided the actual quote... You responded by cherry picking the negatives of D. Blix's report... I asked you to provide just Dr. Blix's closing statement which you refused to do... What you did provided was a War and Peace length cut 'and post which is of little value in a discussion where people aren't going to read and reread the sme old stuff... No, you conviently avoided posting just Dr. Blix's closing statement because if you had it would have severely weakened Bush's case to invade Iraq... This, IMO, is the kind of behavior that got US into Iraqmire... It is war-mongering... This was not a war of defense... It was a war of choice... No one is safer now... Not Americans... Not the Iraqis... No one... I will be glad when this period of nationalism and militarism looses it grip on so many people in our country... It is terribly destructive and counterproductive toward international cooperation on the real problems that the inhabitants of this Earth face... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 13 Dec 07 - 10:10 AM Too late on that one, Homey... Already been addressed, thank you... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 13 Dec 07 - 12:50 PM Hey Bobert, that report delivered by the good Dr. Blix on the 27th January, 2003 that you keep referring to. I asked you to clarify a few points, I note that you ducked them. Well as promised here's the answers: - Can you recall him mentioning any problems? Having stated that the co-operation required by 1441 had to be in two-parts, process and substance, to be successful, he said that while the Iraqi's were co-operating well with regard to process, there was extremely limited co-operation with regard to substance. The latter, he stated, being vital if UNMOVIC were ever going to complete their work. In fact thereafter his report is a catalogue of inconsistencies, harrassment and obstruction. Material Breach Bobert. - Did Dr. Blix mention any conflict between the information provided by the Iraq Authorities and hard evidence gathered by his inspection teams? Quite a number of instances are highlighted where the Iraqi Authorities state one thing and UNMOVIC Inspectors turn up evidence that contradicts the Iraqi information. Material Breach Bobert - Was there any mention of the discovery of some 3000 documents hidden at an Iraqi scientist's house related to enrichment of uranium? What was an Iraqi scientist doing with a mass of documents related to enrichment of uranium? Could it have anything to do with recently (i.e. summer 2002) leaked news from Iran? Although their reactor had been taken out by the Israelis in the early 1980's, Saddam Hussein's Iraqi Nuclear weapons programme was pursuing five different means of uranium enrichment, most were supposedly abandoned/destroyed in the early 1990's. But you cannot destroy knowledge Bobert. The presence of these documents, particularly in the location in which they were found, serves as a good indication that a nuclear weapons programme could have been running on the quiet and was only waiting until Saddam's trading partners on the Security Council got the sanctions lifted for work to resume in earnest. Material Breach Bobert - Did the good Dr. Blix table his concerns about this discovery and the implications of this discovery? Apart from the obvious concerns related to that particular find, Hans Blix voiced his serious concern about how widespread this practice might be in both scope (i.e. How many prohibited WMD projects) and scale (i.e. to what level). If as widespread as he feared the work could never be detected by UNMOVIC except by chance. Again illustrates lack of Iraqi co-operation with regard to substance. Material Breach Bobert - Did he detail how many U2 Flights, specifically requested by UNMOVIC and required under the terms of 1441, had taken place? As required by 1441, over-flight by U2 aircraft to support the work of UNMOVIC was supposed to have started from Day 1. From the time the UNMOVIC inspectors were invited back into Iraq until the invasion in March 2003, not one single flight took place. Material breach Bobert - Did he mention how many names out of the 3500 Iraqi scientists and engineers known to have worked on Saddam's WMD programmes, the Iraqi Authorities submitted to UNMOVIC for interview? When asked to furnish the names of all scientists and engineers who had worked on Saddam's WMD and missile programmes the Iraqi Authorities came up with a list of 450 names - Unfortunately UNMOVIC happened to know that there had been some 3500. When asked to revise the list the Iraqi's came up with an additional 80 names. Some Iraqi secret service officers even impersonated scientist/engineers on the list - A tactic that had been described by UK intelligence in the "Dodgy Dossier". - Did he mention how many of those scientists and engineers were interviewed? Required under the terms of 1441 and requested by UNMOVIC - Not a single person was interviewed outside the gaze of Iraqi Security. Material Breach Bobert. Now Bobert under the terms and conditions of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 the Iraqi's were not allowed a single material breach, there were in actual fact seven of them detailed. Can anyone wonder that the view was taken in certain quarters that "the same old game" was about to be re-enacted. You might not Bobert, but I sure as hell could appreciate that. Dr. Hans Blix and UNMOVIC were concerned with WMD and delivery systems Bobert. Could you tell us at what time Saddam Hussein was going to tell the United Nations that he had murdered the 603 Kuwaiti nationals he had abducted in 1990? For their sake alone his ass deserved the roasting it got as did the collective asses of all who were involved in their murder. Just as well there was someone on hand prepared to do it and capable of doing it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Dec 07 - 01:01 PM I suggest that anyone who doubts that things have become far worse for Iraqi women under the changed regime than they even were under Saddam, read this feature from today's guardian Freedom lost: "After the invasion of Iraq, the US government claimed that women there had 'new rights and new hopes'. In fact their lives have become immeasurably worse, with rapes, burnings and murders now a daily occurrence.... ...Even under Saddam, women in Iraq - including in semi-autonomous Kurdistan - were widely recognised as among the most liberated in the Middle East. They held important positions in business, education and the public sector, and their rights were protected by a statutory family law that was the envy of women's activists in neighbouring countries. But since the 2003 invasion, advances that took 50 years to establish are crumbling away. In much of the country, women can only now move around with a male escort. Rape is committed habitually by all the main armed groups, including those linked to the government. Women are being murdered throughout Iraq in unprecedented numbers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Dec 07 - 01:44 PM "The fact I was against the invasion of Iraq and attended a peace vigil on the 15th February because I couldn't get to London is an action I am glad I did." But did you invest any effort into letting SADDAM know that he should comply wit the UN??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Dec 07 - 01:47 PM "I asked you to provide just Dr. Blix's closing statement which you refused to do... What you did provided was a War and Peace length cut 'and post which is of little value in a discussion where people aren't going to read and reread the sme old stuff... No, you conviently avoided posting just Dr. Blix's closing statement because if you had it would have severely weakened Bush's case to invade Iraq.." So, to look at the ENTIRE report is a problem? YOU are the one insisting that we look ONLY at the last paragraph- perhaps in fear that the entire report would give backing to what Bush had said? Does reality scare you that much that you don't even want to know what it is? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,Bobert at the Library Date: 13 Dec 07 - 01:51 PM No, T-Bird... I didn't duck them... I made a refernce to the problems in my above post to bb... WHat you and yer bud keep ducking, however, is the ***big question** of why the big hurry in invading Iraq when Blix, inspite of the problems, repeated three times during the the report that things were moving along well... He even said that Iraq was cooperating and letting the inspectors inspect where ever they wanted... Why the big rush, T??? Are we really back to the senseless arguemnt on how Saddam could go about proving that the he didn't has stuff that we now know he didn't have??? I mean, your arguments don't justify killing upwards of a million people and bankrupting the US in the process... So, again, tell us why the big rush??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Dec 07 - 01:55 PM Deadline- Early December Invasion - March I guess the "rush" was to allow Saddam time to remove all the evidence, and be sure that there was little to find. IMO, the invasion should have been Jaunary 28th. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Dec 07 - 01:59 PM "on how Saddam could go about proving that the he didn't has stuff that we now know he didn't have???" You mean proving that he no longer had that which he had, or claimed to have had, earlier? "The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1998, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tons. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for. " Blix report of January 27th BLIX is the one stating "MUST ASSUME" Not Bush Not me - I just happen to think that Blix is more honest than you are, in regards to the dangers of letting Saddam ignor the UNR. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 13 Dec 07 - 03:47 PM Teribus, can you find a post in which Frank made claims about concentration camps? I believe that you are either confusiing him with our "GUEST,of many names" of some time back, or--a bit less flattering to you--trying to pull the rug out from under Frank's quite reasonable points, not by refuting them, but by trying to make Frank look like a bit of a kook, which I know is not the case. That's called the argurmentum ad hominem (attempting to refute a argument by attacking the person who enunciates it), a phenomenon which a) is easily recognized by anyone who has taken a first-year "survey of philosophy" course, and b) is wearisomely prevalent in these discussions. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Dec 07 - 04:32 PM "That's called the argurmentum ad hominem (attempting to refute a argument by attacking the person who enunciates it), a phenomenon which a) is easily recognized by anyone who has taken a first-year "survey of philosophy" course, and b) is wearisomely prevalent in these discussions." you think? ( I am in agreement with your statement) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 13 Dec 07 - 04:50 PM Teribus, the whole neoconservative view, enunciated by the policies and principles of the Project for the New American Century and put into practice by the Bush administration, has less to do with spreading democracy throughout the world than it does with empire, particularly economic empire. This involves the attempt ot monopolize the world's resources and markets. Bush's idea of spreading "democracy" has less to do with alleviating tyranny in the world and bettering people's lives than it does with making the world "safe for American business." The United States is less of a democracy than it is a plutocracy / corporatocracy. I believe that the whole world—with the exception of a lot of Americans who are more concerned with the latest antics of Paris Hilton's Chihuahua than they are with politics and economics—knows this. You might educate yourself by reading Supercapitalism : The Transformation of Business, Democracy, and Everyday Life by Robert B. Reich. That gives a pretty good overview. And I have a number of other books I could recomment. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 13 Dec 07 - 04:58 PM Well, whoes deadline, bb??? I mean, let's get real here for one danged minute... Isn't it mankind's ultimate goal to prevent war??? look, if a guy on feath row is found out to be innocent even though he is scheduled to die there are mechanisms to stop the execution... I don't buy "deadlines" as justification for Bush to invade Iraq... Now, to bb's "guess" as to why the hurry... This is about the dumbest argument that I have read yet in that you guess it was to prevent Saddam from removing the evidence... Wasn't that the goal... I remwember clearly Condi and Dick runnin' 'round tellin' everyone about mushroom clouds and all that... Well, if the "evidence" was WMD, if Saddam removed them then wasn't that what we wanted??? Your arguments don't make any sense, bb... Your final opinion that we should have invaded obn January 28th is ***proof positive*** that you never cared one bit about whether of not Iraq had any WMD... You just wanted a war... Well, now you have your war... And how is your war going??? Tell ya' what, bb... We are all judged by not only our actions but the actiions of those who we support... I'd put the slaughter of upwards of a million people right where it belongs and that blood is on your hands as well as Bush's... Youi have not come up with one logical excuse to invade Iraq but just a bunch of war-mangering mumbo-jumbo... Why don't you sign up to go to Iraq??? I'll drive you to the recruiting office... Heck, I see where 50-something men are gettin' killed in Iraq, many who are clueless aas to why the war is even being fought... So, why not you voluteering to take one of their places??? I'm serious... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Dec 07 - 05:13 PM "Well, whoes deadline, bb???" The UN Security Council, per UNR 1441. "I mean, let's get real here for one danged minute... Isn't it mankind's ultimate goal to prevent war???" Agreed. So you believe that letting Saddam continue was in the best interests of Peace? I do not agree with that assessment "look, if a guy on feath row is found out to be innocent even though he is scheduled to die there are mechanisms to stop the execution..." Had Saddam declared his borders open, or even abdicated power, there would have been no war. "I don't buy "deadlines" as justification for Bush to invade Iraq..." You seem determined not to accept any reason at all. "Now, to bb's "guess" as to why the hurry... This is about the dumbest argument that I have read yet in that you guess it was to prevent Saddam from removing the evidence... " Sarcasm, old chum. The delay did allow for the removal of unknown material and evidence, just what certain nations wanted. Per Blix:"Iraq has also declared the recent import of chemicals used in propellants, test instrumentation, and guidance and control system. These items may well be for proscribed purposes. That is yet to be determined. What is clear is that they were illegally brought into Iraq. That is, Iraq or some company in Iraq circumvented the restrictions imposed by various resolutions. " Care to ask what countries were sending prohibited material to Iraq? ( Hint: They voted against holding Saddam to the UNR) "Wasn't that the goal... I remwember clearly Condi and Dick runnin' 'round tellin' everyone about mushroom clouds and all that... Well, if the "evidence" was WMD, if Saddam removed them then wasn't that what we wanted???" NO! YOU have not ever understoodd the plain English that was actually SAID. It was the transfer of thos WMD to unknown and/or terrorist elements that was wanted: And the delay just made that more likely, and certainly easier. "Your arguments don't make any sense, bb..." On the contrary, I have attempted to show the reasoning behind my arguements, whereas you have NOT demonstrated that your arguments have any basis in the facts. :Your final opinion that we should have invaded obn January 28th is ***proof positive*** that you never cared one bit about whether of not Iraq had any WMD... You just wanted a war...: False conclusion. *** I *** wanted the prohibited materials ( KNOWN by the UN to have been in Iraqi hands in 1998) to be under UN control, and NOT be accessable to other groups such as Syria or Hezballah. It is the attitude that anything ios better than war that has caused the most death- Hitler would NOT have started WWII if he had not been given the green light, achieving "Peace in our time" but dooming 27 million shortly afterward. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 13 Dec 07 - 05:18 PM You are right, Don... These folks couldn't care less about democracy ot they wouldn't have hired and flown goon squads into Florida in 2000 to harrass poll workers... As far as democracy goes, the current crop of crooks has probably set it back as far as any administration in the history of the US... For one thing, Tom Jefferson warned US that it wasn't going to work unless we are informed... These guys don't wnat the voters to know jack from jack... They only want US to know what ***they*** want US to know... That ain't democracy... That is totalitarianism at its best!!! Democracy, my butt... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Dec 07 - 05:22 PM "Your final opinion that we should have invaded obn January 28th is ***proof positive*** that you never cared one bit about whether of not Iraq had any WMD... You just wanted a war..." By January 28th, the UN had determined that Iraq was in substantial breach of UNR1441, and earlier UNR. The reports had been made, and the only thing to be gained by delaying was to allow the material and programs to be moved to other places. Those who sought to delay did not believe that the material was not present: They were looking to help Saddam tranfser it to others. "Tell ya' what, bb... We are all judged by not only our actions but the actiions of those who we support..." True- and when YOUR support of not dealing with problems such as Saddam increase the likelyhood of a thermonuclear war, YOU will be judged on that. "I'd put the slaughter of upwards of a million people right where it belongs and that blood is on your hands as well as Bush's..." You might- I place it on the hands that supported Saddam continuing in violation of the UNR for 12 years. I place it on the hands of those who insiust on telling Bush how to act, but seem incapable of even hinting that they would like Saddam to comply with the UNR. You may have the best of intentions: But when the course of action that you advocate increases the chance of a thermonuclear war, I cannot go along with it regardless of how pure the intention. "You have not come up with one logical excuse to invade Iraq but just a bunch of war-mangering mumbo-jumbo..." Actually, I have tried to give the reasons I supported the invasion. YOU have only given me a bunch of anti-Bush mumbo-jumbo... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Dec 07 - 05:29 PM "For one thing, Tom Jefferson warned US that it wasn't going to work unless we are informed... These guys don't wnat the voters to know jack from jack... They only want US to know what ***they*** want US to know... That ain't democracy... " " asked you to provide just Dr. Blix's closing statement which you refused to do... What you did provided was a War and Peace length cut 'and post which is of little value in a discussion where people aren't going to read and reread the sme old stuff... No, you conviently avoided posting just Dr. Blix's closing statement " Of course, I DID post the last paragraph- just not in isolation like you wanted. Bobert, you seem to be the perfect poster child of "They only want US to know what ***they*** want US to know..." 'ONLY read what Bobert wants you to! You might not agree with him if you read more than the last paragraph!' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Dec 07 - 05:31 PM typo: NO! YOU have not ever understood the plain English that was actually SAID. It was the */prevention of the /* transfer of thos WMD to unknown and/or terrorist elements that was wanted: And the delay just made that more likely, and certainly easier. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 13 Dec 07 - 05:31 PM So is it your argument ***now*** that the UN ordered up the invasion, bb??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Dec 07 - 05:43 PM "So is it your argument ***now*** that the UN ordered up the invasion, bb??? " How did I say that? The UNR was passed, giving Saddam a FINAL CHANCE to comply with all the previous UNR. The earlier UNR had already authorized the use of force, and when the ceasefire terms were invalidated by Saddam being in violation of UNR1441, some of the nations previously authorized to take action did so. I never saw a single vote in Congress authorizing the occupation of Germany or Japan in 1945- I did see the declaration of war which was passed in 1941. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 13 Dec 07 - 05:50 PM Exactly who was Saddam going to give these weapons to, bb... He hated al-Qeada... He didn't trust any of his neighbors... So it is illogical that, if he had anything, given that Bush was pounding the war drum with all his might, that he would give away anything that he might use to defend himself... Another illogical argument... Also, there was no UN resolution that ordered bush to invade Iraq... Lastly (for now) yes, I'd rather have Saddam back in power in Iraq than to see all the senseless killing which on a scale makes Saddam look like a Boy Socut... The inspections were working and evenmtuallu would have proved what we now know and that is that Iraq didn't have much in the way of WMD's... A few SCUDs and that was about it... Oh yeah, a real scarey model airplane that looked like something I used to have as a kid that Rumsy put all over the news and if was going to wipe out the US???? You arguments just dig you in deeper and deeper, bb... I don't think that even Bush would claim you anymore... As for recruiting, my offer stands open... I can make some calls and maybe you can be in Irag before Ground Hogs Day!!! B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Dec 07 - 06:11 PM It was illogical of Saddam to think he could violate the UNR and remain in power- But ( with the support of you and others like you) he tried to do so. "Also, there was no UN resolution that ordered bush to invade Iraq..." And there was no bill in Congress ever calling for the invasion of Japan or Germany. The UNR calling for the use of force to remove Iraqis from Kuwait was still in effect, and allowed for the invasion of Iraq, as Saddam had violated the terms of the cease-fire. "I'd rather have Saddam back in power in Iraq than to see all the senseless killing which on a scale makes Saddam look like a Boy Socut... " You obviously have been ignoring the facts again; More Iraqis were killed by Saddam than have been killed by US troops- INCLUDING the 1991 war. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Folkiedave Date: 13 Dec 07 - 06:29 PM I see what you are saying BB. Thanks to the expenditure by the USA of 477 billion dollars - life is better for people in Iraq and much worse for the USA as its economy collapses. Now I understand. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 13 Dec 07 - 06:35 PM Okay, let's do a little review here of the various arguments that have come forth from Bush and/or his lap-dog supporters: 1. Mushroom clouds 2. Aluminum tubes 3. Various and sundry WMD's 4. 45 days to make a nuke 5. Saddam tried to kill my daddy 6. Saddam is a bad man 7. Clinton told US to do it 8. Iraq needs democracy 9. The UN made us do it 10. Iraq is better off now without Saddam Hmmmm??? If your side can't even keep your justifications straight, bb, it should come as no wonder that many folks who didn't buy any of that crap are now well beyond suspect when we hear you folks respin it as if it will change the fact that this was one of the, if not the worst, foriegn policy blunders in the history of the US... It's bad enough that it has weakned our military, tarnished our reputation around the world, cut into the money for programs that our own citizens need but even worse considering the the huge collaterial damage on mothers, like yours, fathers, garndparents, brothers, sons, daughters, sisters, aunt and uncles... This is the sddest part of this entire tragedy and one that I don't think that Bush's defenders, let alone Bush himself, understand... To you folks it is like some western movie where everything is fake.. Problem is that it isn't fake... All the carpola you folks write won't bring back any of these people... There are estimates of upwards of a million people who have been killed and/or wounded by this unilaterial decision... This blood is on your hands... Not mine... If you thought that Saddam was such a bad man then you should have had him killed and left everyone else alone... That was an option that your guys had... Why didn't you do that??? Becasue yuou wanted a war... You thirsted for a war... You wanted to see your Shock 'n Awe becauase most of you who are supportive of this war knopw nothin' about war... To you it is a political game... You won't be the ones who die... And be asked to kill... No, from the safety of yer little worlds in front of pixil box and your little computers you are safe from being hurt or killed... There is plenty of war left if either you, bb, or yer bud, T, want to enlist... Didn't think so... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 13 Dec 07 - 06:56 PM Nit-pick, but it's one pretty big nit! "And there was no bill in Congress ever calling for the invasion of Japan or Germany." On December 8, 1941, within less than an hour after a stirring, six-minute address by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Congress voted, with only one member dissenting, that a state of war existed between the United States and Japan, and empowered the President to wage war with all the resources of the country. Then Four days after Pearl Harbor, December 11, 1941, Germany and Italy declared war on the United States. Congress, this time without a dissenting vote, immediately recognized the existence of a state of war with Germany and Italy, and also rescinded an article of the Selective Service Act prohibiting the use of American armed forces beyond the Western Hemisphere.From THIS web site (randomly selected from hundreds). There is no comparison between George W. Bush and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, even though on at least one occasion, Bush alluded to such. No comparison whatsoever!! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Dec 07 - 07:31 PM Don, I said "the invasion of Japan or Germany". Bobert keeps demanding a UNR that states the US should invade Iraq. That does not exist- NOR does a vote in Congress for the invasion of Japan or Germany- BUT a reasonable person would consider that the acts that origianet the war ( the declaration by Congress in 1941, the UNR in 1991) contain the implicit authorization to prosecute the war to its conclusion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 13 Dec 07 - 07:45 PM Tell ya' what, Don... If Iraq had invaded the US I would have been the first ol' hillbilly in my holler to go down to the enlistment office... It's one thing to defend and quite another to strike... Bush defending nothing at all... What he did was strike... He came into office wanting to strike... He was spossessed about striking... Problem is that Bush is a mental case... He has guilt over going AWOL in Nam and now he wants to make up for it... There ain't nothin' he can do that will cover up his copwardice... Iraq is "Exhibit A" of just what a coward Bush is... He ain't tough... He's a punk who was handed an opportunity to look as if he was tough... He is nothing but a chickenhawk... Just like most of his ***tough-my-boney-butt*** chickenhawk supporters... That's what really irks me... These folks don't have a clue what they are supporting... Show the friggin' caskets at Dover and maybe they will understand that this ain't no friggin' viseo game... Show the faces of the Iraqis that these folks have supported Bush in killing and mayeb they'd understand... Nah, thwey will never understand... Thay are tto barinwashed to think for themselves... I'm gettin' a tad sick of them thinking that they can make things okay with their bullsh*t arguments... Deep inside they have to know these arguments atre bogus but they are in too far to turn back and now they are stuck spinning the same ol' crap... Like I said, I'm sick of 'um... I hope that the two of them will put their money (lives) where their mouths are and enlist... Until then, I for one, won't let them sleep... I', not going to let them respin the propaganda... What they want now is yet another fu*ked up decison from their chickenhawk hero: the bombing of Iran... This is why they are trying desperately to rewrite Iraq... Well, Don, I don't think you are up to lettin' get any traction... I know I'm not... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 13 Dec 07 - 07:51 PM No, bb, I am not demanding a UN resolution of any thing like that... You staed that the resaon that Bush diecide to pull the plug on Blix and his folks was because "time was up" because of the UN resolution... The reality was that the UN didn't want the US to invade and made ebvery effort, including the resolution, to try to slow Bush down... But Bush wasn't to be slowed... Even after Blix said that the Iraqis were cooperating, which would have led to the inspectors not finding anything that was a threat to the US, Bush was in the ***hurry up*** mode... He had sold the war and like in any sales ther is a window before buyer's remorse sets in and he knew that he had better get the war going before Blix's folks had time to find even more evidence that Iraq had nothing... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Dec 07 - 07:55 PM "If Iraq had invaded the US I would have been the first ol' hillbilly in my holler to go down to the enlistment office.." Of course, when a country that we had reaty obligations to, Kuwait, WAS invaded by Iraq YOU were where? And this is just the tail end of that invasion: Saddam was supposed to meet certain conditions for the cease-fire, and failed to do so. So, Bobert, show me the UN resolution that declared PEACE ( a treaty, not a ceasefire) and I will let you rave on insulting those you disagree with. But if you do not, I will object that you are callin me names. As for what * I * want in regards to war, if you insist on repeating lies about what I want, I WILL call you what you are. " When fols go callin' each other names because they don't agree then it becomes very bothersome..." Except when Bobert wants to insult someone because he cannot refute some fact. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 13 Dec 07 - 07:57 PM BB, that's one helluva tap-dance you just did! But Fred Astaire? Sorry, no. I wasn't aware until you just made it clear to me that invading Japan and Germany during World War II might be construed as "illegal." Absolutely fascinating. . . . Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Dec 07 - 08:09 PM "that invading Japan and Germany during World War II might be construed as "illegal." " It is the logic that Bobert appears to be using. ** I ** have not claimed so: I just pointed out that there is no direct order from Congress about that invasion. There is no direct UNR about removing Saddam, but IMO it was implicit in the many UNR, if Saddam did not comply. And the UN stated that Saddam did not comply. Anyone wjho states otherwise is an illiterate or deliberate liar. the UN declared that Iraq was NOT im compliance with UNR1441. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 13 Dec 07 - 08:14 PM Talk about a mind-boggling view of history! Lemme see, now. We drive the German invaders out of France and the Russians drive them out of Eastern Europe, and we chase the Japanese off the Pacific Islands they invaded and off of the Asian mainland. Then what? Simply pack up and go home, hoping the Germans and the Japanese have been duly chastened and will, henceforth, behave themselves? Tell me, Bruce! I want to know!?? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 13 Dec 07 - 08:18 PM Geeze, I don't really recall Iraq invading US, bb... BTW, what I was doing, howver, was working with the Kuwait's here in the Washington, D.C. area in procurments in things that they would need after Iraq was driven out... Ahhhh, what were you doing during Gulf I??? I was working 16 hour days with Kuwaitis in and around Wahington, D.C.... I'm not trying to insult anybody here... I'm just asking that the propaganda be put aside long enough for folks of **free will*** to understand that we don't ned to follopw Bush into another major screw up and it seem that the only way to do that is to not allow you, bb, to revise history... The truth is what people need to know... Not the latest propaganda campaign by the Bushites... That is why I will not allow you here to get a foothold in mis-telling the real story about how and why the US got into Iarqmire... If you think it is insulting it is not meant to be... It's about not allowing mythology to cloud out history becauase mythology is the only thing that can bring about the circumstances where Bush can get away from another major screw up... And I don't mean to insult anyone by saying the blood is on their hands... It's just a fact... If in your heart a person knows that they are blowing a bunch of hot air to defend the taking of upwards of a million lives then that person will have to live with the consequences of their actions... Life is simple in that respect... I'm not the one with blood on my hands here... I am terribly saddened by the emense loss of life that this "war of choice" has brought about but I am not an accomplice... I have spoken out going back to the very beginning... If those with blood on their hands think this an insult than so be it... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 13 Dec 07 - 08:43 PM Bobert, there was NEVER (Shouting), repeat, NEVER (shouting again) supposed to be any leeway at all given to Saddam Hussein's Iraq. We'd had 12 years of their bullshit, now was the time that they had to straighten up. They were given one last final chance to do so to remain intact. Did they do so - Did they fuck. Saddam and Co., screwed up as best they could, and got caught in a cross-fire that completely and utterly consumed them. Now I hate to put this to you Bobert but that was their choice and theirs alone. Basically Bobert they were talking when they should have been listening. So they were consumed and relegated to the dustbin of history and quite rightly so in my opinion but there it is. All those who claim that everything would have been better with Iraq under the rule of Saddam Hussein declare so now, here on this thread now. By the bye before you all rush to vote, consider how many voices have been raised to wish the return of Saddam within Iraq? - I have heard none so far. This I believe is brilliant, from someone who I do not respect politically, but in this instance he had it spot on: "There are glib and sometimes foolish comparisons with the 1930s. I am not suggesting for a moment that anyone here is an appeaser or does not share our revulsion at the regime of Saddam. However, there is one relevant point of analogy. It is that, with history, we know what happened. We can look back and say, "There's the time; that was the moment; that's when we should have acted." However, the point is that it was not clear at the time—not at that moment. In fact, at that time, many people thought such a fear fanciful or, worse, that it was put forward in bad faith by warmongers. Let me read one thing from an editorial from a paper that I am pleased to say takes a different position today. It was written in late 1938 after Munich. One would have thought from the history books that people thought the world was tumultuous in its desire to act. This is what the editorial said: "Be glad in your hearts. Give thanks to your God. People of Britain, your children are safe. Your husbands and your sons will not march to war. Peace is a victory for all mankind . . . And now let us go back to our own affairs. We have had enough of those menaces, conjured up . . . to confuse us." Now, of course, should Hitler again appear in the same form, we would know what to do. But the point is that history does not declare the future to us plainly. Each time is different and the present must be judged without the benefit of hindsight. So let me explain to the House why I believe that the threat that we face today is so serious and why we must tackle it." - Tony Blair. Thank goodness for everyone that somebody realised that NOW was the time to confront this evil. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 13 Dec 07 - 09:26 PM Fine, T... Enlist!!! Yeah, take the safety of yer little world and go fight in Iraq... What you say is nuthin' more than BS, BS and more BS... Sure Saddam was defiant... I recently heard a guy on NPR who had many coverstaions with Saddam afetr he had been captured... This guy said that Saddam bluffed becasue it was all he had... Take your ownself and make yourself the leader of Irag with enemies on every front and see what you would do if you really didn't have the means to defend yourself and were in the middle of ssnactions which further crippled your ability to defend yourself... You'd porbably do just as Saddam did... I eman, it's easy to run a country, or the world for that matter, from the safety of your warm living rooms and dens in front of your computers... ot so east being the leader of a Middle Eastern country... Do I view Saddam as some great hero??? No... He did what he had to do to survive fropm internal and external threats until Bush got a hard-on for his hide... It was never a queation whether or not the US military could put Saddam in a box... That was a given... But what wasn't a given was the costs to do so... You are a Brit, t... Yes, the UK made and continues to make some finacial sacrifices... The US, however, has set its domentsic agenda back maybe 2 decades... We are now borrowing more money to fight wars and just half way maintain our domestic promises, which BTW, there has been much discussion about cutting back... Beyond the loss of life and the very screwed up situtaion the US finds itself in, the domestoc agenda is very much a part of the security of our country... We have kids who can'tr read... We have 40 million people leivibng in poverty... We are deeply in debt to China... Our kids can't think... This is where the money could have gone... Instead, we have another Vietnam on out hands... Meanwhile, oil rich Russia is seanakingg abck up on US... Afganisatn is falling back into Takliban hands... Yeah, as a Brit, there is probably a little bit of ***well-thwey-desreve-it*** in you... No, we don't desereve this... Bush may... But he American people who are suffering from stagnant wages and a general decline in quality of life don't deserve this... All for what??? So Bush could get his jollies??? Well, historians will be more than happy to delvier him a platter full of jollies, 'cept they won't be too tastey... And my offer still stands... You want a war then enlist!!! B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Dec 07 - 10:11 PM "Then what? Simply pack up and go home, hoping the Germans and the Japanese have been duly chastened and will, henceforth, behave themselves? " If one accepts Bobert's view that the violation of the ceasefire means nothing, then you have stated it very well- So, shall I presume you see my point that we had the right to invade Iraq? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Dec 07 - 10:25 PM "it seem that the only way to do that is to not allow you, bb, to revise history..." IF I was revising history, why is it that I am using facts about what really happened, and you have not been able to demonstrate that those facts are incorrect? You claim to have read the Blix report, yet ignore all that he said. Then you demand that ONLY the last paragraph be posted- as if that cherrypicking would make your false statements true. You accuse Bush of what you yourself have been doing here, to push people to your own viewpoint; Yet you seem to think it is a crime for him to do so, and perfectly ok for you. You made comments about Republicans not working even 5 days: I have been working every day but one in the last 5 weeks, and am scheduled to work this weekend as well. Yet your braod misstatements are to be considered absolute truth, and the real situation to be covered up for fear of pointing out your insistance of your opinions as actual fact. When was it you demanded that Saddam comply with the UNR??? I have noted your extensive criticism of Bush for taking the action he thought needed: When have you criticised Saddam, or does he get a free pass because he left some Kuwaitis alive? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Dec 07 - 10:27 PM The truth is what people need to know... Not the latest propaganda campaign by the anti-Bushites... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 13 Dec 07 - 11:35 PM The tap-dance gets even more involved. Dancing in the clouds. Bruce, you're amazing! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 14 Dec 07 - 01:07 AM I think beardedbruce should 'get over himself' and teribus should 'grab a brain'. I have nothing more to say on the subject. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 14 Dec 07 - 08:31 AM "All those who claim that everything would have been better with Iraq under the rule of Saddam Hussein declare so now." No takers? Bit different to the rush to proclaim belief in the fact that a nuclear Iran would pose no threat. Bobert advises that I "Enlist!!!", that if I want a war then I must "enlist!!!" (Hey Bobert is !!! = SHOUTING?) So "What you say is nuthin' more than BS, BS and more BS" if so Bobert it is BS, BS and more BS that can be backed-up and substantiated, which is a damn sight more than the drivel you and your fellow travellers come out with on this forum. So "Saddam bluffed becasue it was all he had..." All he had to do what Bobert? Rhetorical question Bobert, Saddam lied and bluffed and acted in every way possible to make the world believe he still possessed WMD for two reasons, one solely for domestic purposes and the other international, to maintain his dream of becoming the leader of a pan-Arabist movement united against Israel, and also to counter Iran. Domestically, he required the people of Iraq including his regular armed forces to believe that he still possessed the capability to mount another Anfal campaign, he still required to maintain a credible threat to terrorise large sections of the population of Iraq. One thing is for certain Bobert, it had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any external threat from the USA. Why am I so certain of that Bobert? Again a rhetorical question, because when he was faced with a similar threat in 1990, when he most certainly did possess WMD in abundance, he did not use them. So Bobert, before I go off to enlist!!! I have to imagine myself, "the leader of Irag with enemies on every front and see what you would do if you really didn't have the means to defend yourself and were in the middle of sanctions which further crippled your ability to defend yourself..." Now then, "enemies on every front" eh Bobert, well they were all of Saddam's own making. Among them number, an army that he could not trust beyond providing them with 24hrs supply of ammunition and fuel; more than 60% of a population that he had preyed upon and terrorised for 24 years. Saddam's Iraq was surrounded by neighbours that he had threatened and bullied over those same 24 years, two of them he had actually invaded and plundered. Well Bobert, I'll let you into a little secret, in his place I would never have done anything remotely like what Saddam did. Now this next bit is absolutely astounding: "Do I view Saddam as some great hero??? No... He did what he had to do to survive fropm internal and external threats until Bush got a hard-on for his hide..." "He did what he had to do to survive fropm internal and external threats" sort of like all the other villains of history (Ghengis Khan; Nero; Napoleon; Hitler; Stalin; Pol Pot; etc, etc) On your reasoning you would have done nothing against any of them, proof of that assumption being the lack of condemnation of what is, and has been, happening in Darfur for the past 20 years. It's ten times worse than what has happened in Iraq but not a peep out of any of you, why because it cannot be laid at George W. Bush's door, God are you pathetic, your hypocracy beggars description. Example of how pathetic and self-centred comes from this jewel: "It was never a queation whether or not the US military could put Saddam in a box... That was a given... But what wasn't a given was the costs to do so..." As the old saying goes - Freedom ain't free. One thing is for certain, you Bobert would never stir yourself off your ass for it. Another classic example of socialist, left-wing whining, "Oh its all somebody else's fault": "the domestic agenda is very much a part of the security of our country..." - Very true. "We have kids who can'tr read..." - then maybe more parents should actually try parenting Bobert. Neither myself, my brother or my sister were taught to read in school, that job was done by my mother before we reached school age. My wife and I did exactly the same when we became parents. Now if we can do it then so can the rest as a parent its your job not the Governments. "We have 40 million people leivibng in poverty..." Good heavens I never knew that the ancient germanic sport of "leivibng" was so popular in Poverty. 40 million people eh Bobert? Out of a population of 300 million, that's just over 13%, no wonder all the third world and its dog are trying their utmost to get into the US. "We are deeply in debt to China..." Really Bobert? well simple matter of choice ould son, stop buying shit from them. "Our kids can't think..." - Here we come back to parenting again Bobert, parents job Bobert not the Governments "This is where the money could have gone..." Bobert both you and I know that with the crop of politicians you have not one single penny would have gone anywhere near those areas. "Instead, we have another Vietnam on out hands..." Nothing like it Bobert, and you know that very well. At present you have less than 17% of your military deployed. "Meanwhile, oil rich Russia is seanakingg abck up on US..." At $90 per barrel I hope they enjoy their "seanakingg" whatever that may be. They are sneaking back up on the good old USofA Bobert, because they have ditched all that communist crap, they don't give a hoot for civil rights, human rights and they will sell arms to anybody that wants them. But do I hear any condemnation from the likes of you - not a whisper, you see not GWB, so its alright eh?. "Afganisatn is falling back into Takliban hands..." I could well believe it Bobert, but meanwhile in Afghanistan, the Taleban are getting their arses kicked very effectively. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 14 Dec 07 - 08:42 AM No, bb, it is you who is ignoring facts... I have never once said that Blix's report was all roses... I freely admit that their were still lots of concerns... That is a million times more open minded than you who has never answered the question "What's the hurry" when Blix also stated in his report that the Iraqi's were ***cooperating*** in letting the inspectors inspect where ever they wanted... See, my view emcompasses the total report where yours and t's focus only on those things that in you minf justified invading Iraq... This is the problem I have with you and it's the same problem I have with Bush... You seem to draw conclusions from only the facts that you want to focus on... That is why you both make serious errors in judgement... Cherry picking facts or even possible facts and building a foriegn policy around them is ***narrow*** minded and a sure formula for failure... Thus... Iraqmire which is a collasal failure... "The mind is like a parachute... It only works when it is open." And you also don't answer the question that I've asked over and over going back to the mad-dash-to-Iraq days and that is if you had so much distaste for Saddam why didn't you just have him killed??? (But, Bobert, that would have been against international law!!!) Oh??? But invading and occupying a sovergn nation, installing a handpicked government, executing Saddam and killing upwards of a million folks is fine??? Like I said, ***narrow*** little thinking... As for the propaganda??? Follow the $$$$... In these day$ of corporate media con$olidation and the Billion$ and BillionS that are out there for the taking it is the folk$ with the microphone who are in the po$ition to ram propaganda down the throat$ of the people... Those of us who have opposed this war since the very beginning don't have the microphone... What we have is enough smarts to know when the stories that the corportist/militarists are tellin' US smells like dead fish... But I guess you, bb, and yer bud, T, have gotten used to that smell because you are no longer capable of independent thought and both highly susceptable to propaganda... And again, how 'bout the two of you marchin' your "true beleiver" butts down to your local recruiting offices??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 14 Dec 07 - 10:36 AM Now then Bobert while we are talking about cherry-picking: "What's the hurry" when Blix also stated in his report that the Iraqi's were ***cooperating*** in letting the inspectors inspect where ever they wanted..." Here is what Dr Hans Blix said in his report relating to Iraqi co-operation, note Bobert these are his words not mine: "I turn now, Mr. President, to the key requirement of cooperation and Iraq's response to it. Cooperation might be said to relate to both substance and process. It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has DECIDED IN PRINCIPLE to provide cooperation on process, notably access. (NOTE: Decided in principle Bobert, he does not say that they have decided in fact, he does not say that they have decided in practice) A similar decision is indispensable to provide cooperation on substance in order to bring the disarmament task to completion through the peaceful process of inspection and to bring the monitoring task on a firm course. (NOTE: What he is stating here is that co-operation in substance is totally lacking, the Iraqi's have not even decided in principle to provide any co-operation in substance - that Bobert represents a "material breach" of the terms and conditions of UN Resolution 1441) On co-operation relating to substance Dr. Blix goes on: "The substantive cooperation required relates above all to the obligation of Iraq to declare all programs of weapons of mass destruction and either to present items and activities for elimination or else to provide evidence supporting the conclusions that nothing proscribed remains. Paragraph 9 of Resolution 1441 states that this cooperation shall be "active." IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO OPEN DOORS. INSPECTION IS NOT A GAME OF CATCH AS CATCH CAN. Rather, as I noted, it is a process of verification for the purpose of creating confidence. It is not built upon the premise of trust. Rather, it is designed to lead to trust, if there is both openness to the inspectors and action to present them with items to destroy or credible evidence about the absence of any such items." The truth of the situation as of 27th January 2003 with regard to the 100% full, unstinting and pro-active co-operation required under the terms of 1441, was reported by Dr. Hans Blix as being somewhat less than 50%. By the bye Bobert the question that you've asked over and over going back to the mad-dash-to-Iraq days and that is if you had so much distaste for Saddam why didn't you just have him killed???. Has been answered many, many times. You just don't like the answer, but seeing as you have asked I'll lay it out for you one more time. And this time you address that answer and tell me where I am wrong, or where the logic of my answer is at fault. The assassination of Saddam Hussein would have accomplished nothing by way of improvement in the lives of the citizens of Iraq. It would accomplish nothing in terms of increasing the prospects of peace and stability in the region. Why would it do neither of these things? Because the Ba'athist Regime and the Revolutionary Council would still be in power in Iraq with an unaltered agenda and Saddam would have been replaced by one of his sons, who believe it or not were a damn sight worse than their father. Take your pick Bobert, who would you have preferred: Uday Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti - Eldest son of Saddam Hussein. - He headed the Iraqi Olympic Committee. In this role he tortured athletes who failed to win. Uday had his bodyguard Mohammed Haroon executed in 1995 for not showing enough enthusiasm in torturing Iraqi journalists at the Iraqi Olympic Committee. Uday seemed proud of his reputation and called himself "abu sarhan", Arabic for "father of the wolf." - He was the head of one of Saddam's security organizations - He raped and murdered scores of young women across Iraq during his father's reign, although, presumably due to nepotism, he was never charged with or tried for such crimes. - In October 1988, at a party in honor of Suzanne Mubarak, wife of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Uday murdered his father's personal valet and food taster, Kemal Hana Gegeo. Before an assemblage of horrified guests, Uday—intoxicated and in cold blood — bludgeoned Gegeo with a cane, reputedly administering the coup de grâce with an electric carving knife. Briefly imprisoned for this crime, Saddam released Uday, banishing him to Switzerland as the assistant to the Iraqi ambassador there. He was expelled by the Swiss government after he threatened to stab a person in a restaurant. Qusay Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti - The second son of Saddam Hussein. - He was appointed as his father's heir apparent in 2000, so no doubt about my contention that one of his sons would have taken over. - Head of the internal security forces and had some authority over the Iraqi Republican Guard and other Iraqi military units. - Played a vital role in crushing the Shiite uprising in the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War and is also thought to have masterminded the destruction of the southern marshes of Iraq. The wholesale destruction of these marshes was aimed against the Marsh Arabs, as retribution for their participation in the 1991 uprising. - Responsible for the killing of many political activists. The Sunday Times (London) reported that Qusay Hussein ordered the killing of Khalis Mohsen al-Tikriti, an engineer at the military industrialization organization, because Qusay believed he was planning to leave Iraq. In 1998, Iraqi opposition groups accused Qusay Hussein of ordering the executions of thousands of political prisoners after hundreds of inmates were summarily executed to make room for new prisoners in crowded jails. Another couple of facts that you might not really like to acknowledge Bobert: - MNF troops are present in Iraq at the specific request of the Iraqi Government. - MNF troops are present in Iraq under the terms of a legally constituted United Nations Security Council Mandate. - The Governmentof Iraq was elected in free and fair elections by the population of Iraq 70% of those eligible to vote did so in spite of dire threats. - No country is being occupied - No hand-picked Government has been put in place. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Barry Finn Date: 14 Dec 07 - 11:26 AM In the end there were no WMD's, this administration fucked up & we will pay through the nose & pocket & the ghosts of the dead for ages to come. We are no safer now (less safe IMO) than before cause we were not under a real threat to begin with. Who's fault is this fuck up's? The guys that pushed the envolope & the button, not the guy who the button was pushed on. I say fuck you, you take out a gun & shoot me, what's your excuse? Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Dec 07 - 01:56 PM "because you are no longer capable of independent thought and both highly susceptable to propaganda..." And I can say the same about you, with more justification. Care to reply to ANY of T.'s comments? As for enlisting, have I seen YOU go to any third world country and lend a habnd? No, you seem to be working hard ( which is not a bad thing) in your own self-interest. As for what I was doing in 1991, UMPAC System Manager 1990 - 1992 UMPAC (UVPI [UltraViolet Plume Instrument] Mission Planning and Assessment Center) LAVC System Manager for LACE (Low-power Atmospheric Compensation Experiment). • Responsible for computer and network development, operations, management support and configuration • Responsible for secure operations of the MV3800 and workstations as the AISSR • Developed the UMPAC Secure System SPP Annex • Managed user interaction and problem resolution • Interfaced with DEC and other vendors to provide customer with information and options • Enhanced the Siting Ephemeris Generation (SEG) software as required by UMPAC • Provided software and analysis support for DSPSE • Interfaced with the PDS (Planetary Data System) for data format requirements and design Just working to expand human knowledge, and support the SDIO program as best as I could. In other words, I was doing a job I thought to be worthwhile, as you were at the same time. As for enlisting, they will not have me, with CHF, cardiomiopathy, and 9 stents. If they would, I would jump at the chance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Dec 07 - 02:01 PM Barry, " say fuck you, you take out a gun & shoot me, what's your excuse?" IF you were a criminal,had been given 12 years to comply with the law and refused, been found guilty in a court such as the UN, and had been told MANY times to "STOP or I'll shoot!" and STILL refused to stop your illegal actions, YOU would be shot- legally, and all the cases correctly so. BANG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 14 Dec 07 - 03:16 PM Outstanding questions for Bobert: 1. Could you tell us at what time Saddam Hussein was going to tell the United Nations that he had murdered the 603 Kuwaiti nationals he had abducted in 1990? 2. You first state that the US should have assassinated Saddam Hussein, you then clearly state that you would prefer to see him still in power. Which one is it Bobert, can't have both. 3. Had he been assassinated who would you have preferred carry on Saddam's task of killing all those innocent Iraqi civilians? Who would you have preferred to confront Iran and prosecute the second Iran/Iraq War? Uday or Qusay? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Dec 07 - 03:21 PM Bobert, ""The mind is like a parachute... It only works when it is open."" You may be full of hot air, but I fail to see how your mind is open- you do not acknowledge anything that might dispute the "facts" as you WANT them to be, nor do you attempt to address any of the points that have been brought out that do not back you up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Dec 07 - 03:56 PM Some things are better as a result of the invasion and its aftermath. Some are worse. I've seen no evidence that the former outweigh the latter. And it seems very possible indeed that, when all this is over, the regime or regimes in power in Iraq will be just about as bad as Saddam's. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 14 Dec 07 - 05:20 PM Well, first of all, T... Here is where you're not seeing clearly... You still are playing the prove-you-don't-have-something game... That is, in essence, Blix's critisim of the Iragis... But this, given the short time (some two months) that the inspectors were back in Iraq coup0led with the fact taht it had been close to 10 years since the last inspections, was ***not*** grounds to invade... Blix repeatedly reported cooperation from the Iraqis in giving the inspectors freedom to inspect where ever they wanted... Blix also spoke with some amazement on just how many well the team was organizized... So this invasion was grossly premature!!! Millions of people took to the street aropund the world because of the complete insanity of what we all knew and that was the Bush wasn't going to let the inpector ecceeed... That is why he pulled the plug... The decision to invade Iraq was made long before 9/11... There is sufficient testimoney to that for this not even to be debateable... Bush wanted his war and he wasn't going to let not psky UN or inspectors ruin it for him... Period... End of story... Now, to wit: Saddam killed 603 Kuwaitis!!! Okay, so he did... Bush has killed upwards of a million people!!! As for me I'd rather see Saddam still in power... By now he would be back in the fold having done his repentence, Donnie Rumsfelf woulf still be the Secretary of Defense and over there showering Saddam with gifts and Saddam and Bush would be back to exchanging Christman cards... Lost in all various defenses of the Bushites is that Saddam was a company lap dog for the US until Kuwait... Saddam was such a Bush I inasider that he thought he had gotten a "wink" from the Bush I folks on taking Kuwait or I don't think he would have pulled off such a bonehead stunt... But nevermind that... Bottom line is that Saddam coyuld have been broughjt back around... The US plays and/or contains bad dictators quite well when it is so motivated and had the inspectors finished their work Saddam would now be every much contained and repentent... My opinion about assasinating him is why you, T, and your buddy Bush, thought that taking out upwards of a million Iraqis, plunging the US economy into ruin and killing the US reputation around the world was better than assasinating him and maybe even his sons??? That is the big queation for you... As for killing innocent Iraqi civilians, you and Bush are in cahoots on the killing of upwards of a million Iraqis, most of whom were civilians... This was the dumbest question of your three... As for your bud, bb, T??? He is beyond hope... Ahhh, not that you aren't... He won't answer any questions anymore with anything but thwe sme tired, worn out bumper sticker crap... His mind is so closed that you couldn't get a feeler guage between it and the propaganda... Any more questions, T-zer??? Keep 'um in threes like in your last post and we can do this until they burty one of us in 30 or so years... I know exactly why you have chosen this time to refight your previuosly lost batteles... It's that thirst for more blood... More Sock 'n Awe... Whay don't you just take up video games where real moms and kids don't get killed??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Dec 07 - 05:28 PM Bobert, When YOU try to answer a question put to you, instead of ignoring it, I will try to answer your questions. I had thought that between my statements and quotes, and T.'s observations, quotes, and comments, we had dealt with your comments- If not, let me know- BUT stop asking what YOU will not answer: When you even try to deal with what ** I ** have said, I might not have to repeat it again, and again, and again... "He won't answer any questions anymore with anything but thwe sme tired, worn out bumper sticker crap" Applies to ALL that you have said. You keep ignoring what is said, and trying to put words into other's mouths, then complain that you don't like the words YOU said they said. Is the idea that someone can look at the facts and come to a different comnclusion than YOU have arrived at such a threat to your liberal ubermench ideals? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,TIA Date: 14 Dec 07 - 05:34 PM Bobert buddy - give up. It's useless. It absolutely kills them that you were right all along. They love to load up one gazillion nonsensical bullet points and questions then play gotcha if you try to answer any of it. It is not worth your time or effort. History has already proven you right, and will continue to confirm this. If a couple of Asshats don't agree, they can take their delusions to the grave. Don't waste your time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Dec 07 - 05:36 PM "You still are playing the prove-you-don't-have-something game" And you have never addressed the point I stated: That the items HAD been in existance, and Blix was asking that Saddam prove that he, Saddam HAD done something with it- IN OTHER WORDS, that Saddam prove what he said. If you were capable of reading the text of the Jan 27th report, you might even be aware of the specific items that Saddam had, and was responsible for proving the disposition of. ONLY those who are ignorant of the UNR say that it is asking Saddam to prove a negative. "Millions of people took to the street aropund the world because of the complete insanity of what we all knew " Yet how many even ASKED Saddam to comply with the UN to avoid any conflict??? Still waiting to hear how you spent even 1% as much effort to tell Saddam to avoid war as you did to tell Bush. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Folkiedave Date: 14 Dec 07 - 05:54 PM Here's some news. Seems like we really have made a big difference. Or not. Of course it will be much better when the Americans leave - won't it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 14 Dec 07 - 06:27 PM Prove to me, bb, that you don't have "The Scream" painting by Edvard Munch... End of argument... As fir UN resolutions??? Here's 89 cents... Take it and all the UN resolutions combined to your local Kwik-Mart for a 12 ounce cup of coffee... End of argument, Part B... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Dec 07 - 06:42 PM "Prove to me, bb, that you don't have "The Scream" painting by Edvard Munch..." You obviously miss the point. Show that I HAD that painting previously, and THEN you are entitled to ask me to prove that I no longer have it- OR YOU PRESUME THAT I STILL DO. You are beginning to act like a real shithead about this. Prove to me that YOU are not a liar. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Dec 07 - 06:43 PM "Here's 89 cents... Take it and all the UN resolutions combined to your local Kwik-Mart for a 12 ounce cup of coffee..." YET YOU insist that the UN resolutions take priority over the requirement for the President to protect the interests of the US??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Dec 07 - 06:50 PM Bobert, I will state again, since you have shown yourself incapable of reading coprehension: And you have never addressed the point I stated: That the items HAD been in existance, and Blix was asking that Saddam prove that he, Saddam HAD done something with it- IN OTHER WORDS, that Saddam prove what he said. If you were capable of reading the text of the Jan 27th report, you might even be aware of the specific items that Saddam had, and was responsible for proving the disposition of. ONLY those who are ignorant of the UNR say that it is asking Saddam to prove a negative. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 14 Dec 07 - 06:55 PM "Now, to wit: Saddam killed 603 Kuwaitis!!! Okay, so he did..." OK Bobert, now answer my question, when was the ever so co-operative Saddam Hussein going to tell the United Nations that he'd murdered them? You are trying to put it across to us that Saddam was co-operating fully aren't you? By the bye Bobert the safe return of those hostages was a requirement of both UNSC Resolution 687 and 1441. Now I don't know about you Bobert but I would call the absence of some 600-odd people occasioned by the fact that they were dead, murdered in fact, a fairly clear case of a "material breach". Your main problem Bobert is that you are incapable of reading something and understanding what it says. One million Iraqis have been killed by GWB Bobert? - Now where on earth did you dream that one up from? Or is this just another "Bobert Fact". Another link - I'm surprised that Folkiedave didn't put it up with his other one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7089168.stm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 14 Dec 07 - 07:01 PM No, I don't miss the point, bb... You hoopelessly miss the point... It is a rediculous argument to make where you expect someone to prove that they don't have something that they clearly don't have... So where do you have the painting... We know you have it... So where is it... Did you give it to someone else... If so, who... We will ntot let this rest until you tell us what you have done with the peinting... Might of fact if you don't ell us where it is we are going to blow you ass up!!! Now, what have you done with it??? I mean, this gets into a mindlessness in no time... As for the UN resolution, it was a farce... Bush was ready to pull the trigger and Powell did about the only thing he copuld do to slow his boss down and suggest that Bush go thru the formality of the UN... What came out of this, however, was Bliz's team... Bush didn't forsee this most unfortunate roadblock so just as Blix said he was making progress, Bush told him to get the fu*k out... Times up!!! This reminds me of the 2000 recount... Remember that... Just as the so-called lead was vanishing one vote at a time infavor of Gore, Bush's 7 Republican appointed Supreme Court Justices said "Stop the fu*king recount"!!! History does repeat itself... I mean, if you had any level of worldly intellegence, bb, you would just back down... You have no winning arguments... All of them end up in the same place and that is on the wrong side of the facts and the wrong side of history... Iraq is the worse foriegn policy decision perhaps in the history of our country... Your arguments have grown stale... Thay aren't even half as thoughtfull as T-Birds and really not worth responding to until you find something with at least a little merit of thought so... ... that being the case... ... continue making a fool of yourself... That is your right... It is also my right to not waste any more time with you on this subject until you come up with something new or thoughtfull... No dsirespect intended here but you'll ahve to work a liitle harder than what I read lately from you... and don't take it persoanl... T-Bird ain't hittin' on much either and if he can't fo any better than his last little pop quiz then I'm gonna have to flush him, too... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 14 Dec 07 - 07:30 PM Tell, ya' what, T... When you tell me where every Iraqi oman and chile was killed by an American bomb, artillery shell or by small arms, I'll answer your question... I promise... Until then your question, though more intertesting than BB's, is still a red herring... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Dec 07 - 07:34 PM "So where do you have the painting... We know you have it... So where is it... Did you give it to someone else... If so, who... We will ntot let this rest until you tell us what you have done with the peinting... Might of fact if you don't ell us where it is we are going to blow you ass up!!! Now, what have you done with it???" Since you got the message that stated that you could ask that IF you had reason to believe- evidence- that I had it before, I will assume you will present that evidence NOW or be called the liar that you appear to be. Have you ANY reports that I had that material at an earlier date? Have you any reports that I pruchased it? Have you any inspector's reports that I had it a few years ago? If not, YOU are a damned LIAR. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Dec 07 - 07:55 PM "I burnt it" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 14 Dec 07 - 08:12 PM No, BB, I am not "damned LIAR"... You think it's quite okay to go to war by putting Saddam in a prove-you-don't-have-it-trick-bag but when I use the very same tactic on you you can't handle it???? Hmmmmm??? Try being the leader of a MIddle Eastern country with dangerous neighbors on all sides and having to play that game??? Hmmmmm??? See, bb, you aren't any better at Saddam at playing that game... Might of fact, I think Saddam played it better than you just played it... But then again, he had more practice... McG, Say it ain't so... I loved that painting... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Dec 07 - 09:16 PM "You think it's quite okay to go to war by putting Saddam in a prove-you-don't-have-it-trick-bag but when I use the very same tactic on you you can't handle it???? " If you really do not understand the difference as I have * pointed * it out, I am sorry for you- I pity the mentally handicapped. If you are intentionally lying and trying to equate your unsubstantiated claim as being on the same order as the UN reports that had Saddam having the material as late as 1999, you are intentionally misleading us- What you accuse Bush of as "lying" Are YOU telling us that the earlier UN reports were false? Shall I call you Bushbert, for your choice of comment? " the items HAD been in existance, and Blix was asking that Saddam prove that he, Saddam HAD done something with it- IN OTHER WORDS, that Saddam prove what he said. If you were capable of reading the text of the Jan 27th report, you might even be aware of the specific items that Saddam had, and was responsible for proving the disposition of. ONLY those who are ignorant of the UNR say that it is asking Saddam to prove a negative. " So, being so ignorant of the UNR, no wonder you stated:"Here's 89 cents... Take it and all the UN resolutions combined to your local Kwik-Mart for a 12 ounce cup of coffee..." So, without the UNR, I guess the US can act as it sees in its own interest, and you will shut the fuck up about it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Dec 07 - 09:22 PM Have you ANY reports that I had that material at an earlier date? Have you any reports that I pruchased it? Have you any inspector's reports that I had it a few years ago? The UN had all of the above on Saddam- Unless you think that item found by the UN Inspection team should be ignored for some reason. You seem unable to understand that the UNR was asking Saddam to prove he had done what he said that he had. How is this proving a negative? Unless you claim he did NOT destroy that material? Or show that the information he gave earlier was false- though I would think the earlier inspection teams might have something to ssay about that. I guess UN Inspection teams mean nothing, either- so what basis do you have for saying that the US response should wait on the results of the declared by Bushbert to be useless UN inspection teams? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 15 Dec 07 - 04:08 AM No Bobert, you will never answer my question because the answer to it would completely contradict your unsupported claim that Saddam Hussein was co-operating fully with the UN with respect to Resolution 1441. Counter to what Guest TIA believes I think that anybody reading through the posts of this thread would deduce the following: 1. Iran did have nuclear weapons programme, which was, on evaluation of new information received in August 2007, halted in the summer of 2003. 2. While the President was informed about the a new intelligence source in August 2007 he was not told what that information was because at that time it had not been fully analysed and evaluated. 3. From 1 & 2 above it is clear that when the President made his remarks on 23 October he was not aware that his intelligence services evaluation was leading them to the conclusion that the Iranian nuclear weapons programme had been halted. So when he made his remarks on 23rd October he could not have been lying as Bobert claims. 4. The President was informed with regard to the analysis and evaluation of the new information roughly one week before the NIE was made public, i.e. long after 23rd October. 5. Has the Iranian nuclear weapons programme been abandoned or renounced? No it has not, there has been no clear statement from Tehran on this. Nobody outside of Iran knows anything for certain about the status and aims of their nuclear programme. Recent reports suggest that it was restarted in 2004, so there is even uncertainty as to whether at the moment it has been halted or not. 6. If the Iranian nuclear weapons programme has in fact been halted, does it still pose a threat? Of course it does, it lies outwith the terms and conditions of the NPT and could be restarted at any moment in the future. Conclusion #1 It would appear that Bobert was 100% wrong with regard to the World War III jibe and the "Bobert fact" that the President lied. On WMD 1. Bobert claimed that Dr. Hans Blix stated that the Iraqi's were co-operating fully with UNMOVIC, quoting Dr. Blix's report to the UNSC of 27th January, 2003. 2. This claim has been disproved from at least two quarters purely by direct quotations from the same report which stated quite clearly that Iraq was not co-operating to the level required by UNSC Resolution 1441 or as claimed by Bobert, i.e. Bobert is knowingly misrepresenting the situation or he is deliberately lying. 3. On the "Prove a negative" aspect, BB has laid it out very well: - Iraq was asked to submit a full declaration of what they had. - UNSCOM/UNMOVIC have purchase orders, shipping records, import licences, manufacturing records, munitions records, disposal records. - The Iraqis claim to have disposed of, or unilaterally destroyed it all. - UNMOVIC point out that the Iraq disposal records do not accord with the amounts manufactured, that there is a shortfall that needs to be explained, to which the Iraqis offer no explanation. If unilaterally destroyed outwith the supervision of the UN there would be traces found at the disposal sites, none were found, surely the Iraqis would know where they had destroyed these items? 4. That France stated quite categorically that it would allow no "second resolution" that presented Saddam Hussein with an ultimatum to be tabled. This in effect eliminated the UN from the process of resolving what the USA and the UK saw as the clear threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq to the peace and security of the region. 5. Faced with the prospect of Saddam, supported internationally by France, Russia and China, playing the same old game he had successfully employed between 1991 and 1998, the US acted, they gave Saddam Hussein one last chance to quit and avoid the coming war. Saddam refused the offer and suffered the consequences. 6. Since May 2003 the following is now known about Iraq: - They no longer have any WMD arsenal of weapons - They no longer have any WMD programme running that could be used to terrorise its own population or its neighbours. - They no longer sponsor international terrorist groups. Conclusion #2: It would appear that Bobert is 100% wrong about his claims relating to Iraqi compliance with UNSC Resolutions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Stu Date: 15 Dec 07 - 06:10 AM - They no longer have any WMD arsenal of weapons Unlike the USA - They no longer have any WMD programme running that could be used to terrorise its own population or its neighbours. Unlike the USA - They no longer sponsor international terrorist groups. Given the USA's history of sponsoring terrorism across the globe, there is a distinct possibility the USA is still sponsoring terrorism somewhere in the world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 15 Dec 07 - 07:35 AM Yes indeed Stigweard, the US does have a WMD arsenal, which, since the end of the Second World War they have threatened nobody with. They have been the leading world power when it has come to universal disarmament and act as the main point of storage and collection of chemical and biological weapons and agents for verifiable disposal. Russia and China on the other have always lagged behind, Russia has 50% more operational nuclear weapons than the US and both Russia and China still maintain for use massive quantities of chemical and biological weaponry. Can you explain why you didn't bring all this to our attention, or is this only one more "let's bash the USA" attempt. I am unaware of any occasion in recent times when the USA has terrorised its own population, perhaps you could enlighten us. The USA's much vaunted "School of the America's" - Shut down decades ago and strictly a "Cold War" phenomenon, comparable to its Soviet counterpart, the Patrice Lamumba Institute in Moscow. So "there is a distinct possibility the USA is still sponsoring terrorism somewhere in the world" Well I would suppose that you could take the view that anything is possible, then counter that by evaluating what is probable. This I notice that you have not done Stig. Subsequent to the attacks of 911 I would think it highly improbable that the USA is sponsoring terrorism anywhere in the world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 15 Dec 07 - 08:19 AM Here's 89 cents, t... Take it and 1441 to your local convience store and get you a cup of coffee... You seem to have taken 1441 and elevated it to God0like proportions.... If you can remember back to when it was adopted, the reality on the ground was that the world was shocked by Bush's insistence on invading Iraq... You seem to conviently leave that out... Other than Blair, Bush had no real support for such a venture... Bush was ready to invade in the fall of 2002... Remember them having to reload the "marketing" of the war from August until late September because the American people are too busy in August with late vations, upcoming Labor Day and getting kids back to school... So they delayed the marketing after some August sabre rattling... Powell was the long voice that fall as the Cheney/Wolfowitz/Rumdfelds War Machine pounded and pounded for war but Powell told Bush that no one was going to buy this war if there wasn't some level of legitimacey. meaning going to the UN... UIt was a delaying tactic on Powell's part as demonstartions around the countery and world brought pressure on Bush to reverse course... This is the way historians will sort it out... I mean, we were all there, T, so for you to now think that the UN was the motivation behind the invasion is not talling the correct story... Everyone knew that Bush was going to invade... Even the half a million or so of US who marched in January on that very cold day knew that all we were doing was making a stand against a decision that had been made much earlier... Secretary of the Treasury O'Niel said that Bush was consumed with invading Iraq from Day 1... Why would this loyal, lifetime Republican lie??? Just to sell a book??? I think not... So the UN got pounded with new 'n improved propaganda fro Powell, who by now and been pounded into submission by the chickenhawk war machine in Bush's tiny circle of trusted advisors... They gave him photographs, which BTW proved nothin', and sent him off to do to the UN what had been done to him... A reluctant UN passed 1441 but it wasn't what you have it made it out to be: the Holy Grail!!! It was an framework for the situation to be corrected without the invasion... Yes, there were expectations placed on Iraq, some of which were met and others, not... There was alot of progress made in a very short time by the Blix team... Now, there is a concept known as the "spirit of the law" as opposed to the letter of the law... Tghe spirit of the law allows people to use good judegment when the letter of the law isn't strictly followed... What historians, unlike you, T, will get right is that the letter of the law was perhaps upheld at the expense of the spirit of the law and thus, upwards of a million people have been killed because folks like you only see balck and white... Black and white does not explain human behavior or exhistence... Most is in the gray... Thus, by having no ability to see anything but black and white, this terrible decision was made.. It isn't what the UN forsawe with 1441 and certainly isn't way Congresss had in mind with it's own Resolution... Historians will get this right... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Dec 07 - 08:26 AM Basra opinion poll: Residents of Basra believe British troops have had a negative effect on the Iraqi province since 2003, an opinion poll suggests. The survey for BBC Newsnight of nearly 1,000 people also suggests that 56% believe their presence has increased the overall level of militia violence. ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 15 Dec 07 - 08:58 AM "Historians will get this right..." I agree with this statement- but I do not agree that they will come to the same conclusions that you have. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Dec 07 - 09:06 AM "The verdict of history" can never decide for sure whether a particular course of action that wasn't followed would have led to a better or worse outcome. People still argue about that kind of stuff thousands of years after the event. I imagine there'll be the odd revisionist historian saying that Bush wasn't as big a disaster as everyone assumes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 15 Dec 07 - 11:52 AM ""The verdict of history" can never decide for sure whether a particular course of action that wasn't followed would have led to a better or worse outcome. People still argue about that kind of stuff thousands of years after the event." Verily. Total agreement here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 16 Dec 07 - 09:36 AM Interesting article Kevin, now what else would you expect a "survey" undertaken by the BBC to say. Hell if today's crop of BBC reporters had been reporting the events related to the Second World War we'd have lost. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 16 Dec 07 - 10:49 AM You all were well on your way to loosing WW II, T, when we Yanks came in an' saved yer butts... Awwww, jus' funning wid ya'... I'm sure you had Hitler right where you wanted him... Right??? B;) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Folkiedave Date: 16 Dec 07 - 12:46 PM Yes indeed Stigweard, the US does have a WMD arsenal, which, since the end of the Second World War they have threatened nobody with Clearly Vietnam didn't happen then. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 16 Dec 07 - 01:25 PM Ah Bobert the truest, and most prophetic, words spoken during the course of the Second World War were spoken by Sir Winston Churchill in the summer of 1940: "Hitler knows he must defeat us on this island or lose the war" Fact was Bobert he didn't manage to defeat Britain, fact was Bobert he did lose the war. The Axis powers lost the war because of an allied effort, they were not defeated by any one nation, although Holywood and recent American TV Series might seem to suggest so. To do so is wrong, although IMO if any country has any right to claim that they defeated Nazi Germany it would be the USSR. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Amos Date: 16 Dec 07 - 01:50 PM The USSR defeated Germany on the Eastern front. Without the Western front, and particularly the Normandy and Italy invasions, it is doubtful whether they could have pulled it off, as their costs in repelling the German forces were very high. That is why Stalin repeatedly begged and demanded that the Western front be opened up. It is interesting to speculate how events would have turned out if we had launched the Western invasion a year earlier instead of investing resources in the North Africa campaign. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 16 Dec 07 - 03:10 PM Hey, I was jus' messin' with T, Amos... He knows that the UK couldn't have taken the German military by itself,,, Well, I think he knows that but given some of the bonwehead stuff he says here maybe that assumption on my part is just that??? Who knows??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Stringsinger Date: 16 Dec 07 - 04:13 PM Teribus, In reesponse: "1. Iran did have nuclear weapons programme, which was, on evaluation of new information received in August 2007, halted in the summer of 2003." this is true. "2. While the President was informed about the a new intelligence source in August 2007 he was not told what that information was because at that time it had not been fully analysed and evaluated." How in the world would you know this? This sounds like Dana Perino propaganda. "3. From 1 & 2 above it is clear that when the President made his remarks on 23 October he was not aware that his intelligence services evaluation was leading them to the conclusion that the Iranian nuclear weapons programme had been halted. So when he made his remarks on 23rd October he could not have been lying as Bobert claims." 1 may be true but 2 is far from substantiated except through an opinion not a fact. "4. The President was informed with regard to the analysis and evaluation of the new information roughly one week before the NIE was made public, i.e. long after 23rd October." Bush probably knew about the information long before then. 5. Has the Iranian nuclear weapons programme been abandoned or renounced? No it has not, there has been no clear statement from Tehran on this. Nobody outside of Iran knows anything for certain about the status and aims of their nuclear programme. Recent reports suggest that it was restarted in 2004, so there is even uncertainty as to whether at the moment it has been halted or not. Not much uncertainty. Only an agenda that would like to be accusatory to Iran and have an excuse to bomb them. 6. If the Iranian nuclear weapons programme has in fact been halted, does it still pose a threat? Not really. There is more of a threat from North Korea or Pakistan. "Of course it does, it lies outwith the terms and conditions of the NPT and could be restarted at any moment in the future." The US and Israel are not now signatories to the NPT and Iran is. "Conclusion #1 It would appear that Bobert was 100% wrong with regard to the World War III jibe and the "Bobert fact" that the President lied." There is no evidence here to support that claim. On WMD 1. Bobert claimed that Dr. Hans Blix stated that the Iraqi's were co-operating fully with UNMOVIC, quoting Dr. Blix's report to the UNSC of 27th January, 2003. This is true and has been substantiated for some time. "2. This claim has been disproved from at least two quarters purely by direct quotations from the same report which stated quite clearly that Iraq was not co-operating to the level required by UNSC Resolution 1441 or as claimed by Bobert, i.e. Bobert is knowingly misrepresenting the situation or he is deliberately lying." No, the lies are coming from the "two quarters" that are not being mentioned. Iraq was indeed cooperating with 1441 and there was propaganda to insist that Saddam had ties to Al Quaeda which is also incorrect. "3. On the "Prove a negative" aspect, BB has laid it out very well: - Iraq was asked to submit a full declaration of what they had. - UNSCOM/UNMOVIC have purchase orders, shipping records, import licences, manufacturing records, munitions records, disposal records. - The Iraqis claim to have disposed of, or unilaterally destroyed it all." It was in Bush's interest to ignore this claim because he had intended to go to war with Iraq even prior to his election so that he could gain "political capital" according to his own statements. "- UNMOVIC point out that the Iraq disposal records do not accord with the amounts manufactured, that there is a shortfall that needs to be explained, to which the Iraqis offer no explanation." The US supplied Iraq with these nuclear materials at the time of the war with Iran. The shortfall has been addressed by some who claim that they were sold on the black market. It wouldn't have mattered one bit what explanation the Iraqis offered because Bush's plans were already in place to invade Iraq. " If unilaterally destroyed outwith the supervision of the UN there would be traces found at the disposal sites, none were found, surely the Iraqis would know where they had destroyed these items?" They were destroyed under UN supervision. Pure and simple. "4. That France stated quite categorically that it would allow no "second resolution" that presented Saddam Hussein with an ultimatum to be tabled. This in effect eliminated the UN from the process of resolving what the USA and the UK saw as the clear threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq to the peace and security of the region." Only Bush and Blair were under the misapprehension that there was a clear threat. Although I wonder if it was really a misapprehension at all and just a pretext for war and occupation of Iraq. "5. Faced with the prospect of Saddam, supported internationally by France, Russia and China, playing the same old game he had successfully employed between 1991 and 1998, the US acted, they gave Saddam Hussein one last chance to quit and avoid the coming war. Saddam refused the offer and suffered the consequences." This is patently false information. Saddam was never unilaterally supported by France, Russia or China. As to playing any game, of course he was not to be trusted. But neither was Bush who was playing his own game. "6. Since May 2003 the following is now known about Iraq: - They no longer have any WMD arsenal of weapons - They no longer have any WMD programme running that could be used to terrorise its own population or its neighbours. - They no longer sponsor international terrorist groups." This is true. As far as sponsoring any groups, they are not a cohesive government as of yet and it is in the interest of defense industry corporations to advance their hegenomy in the reason and keep this from happening. "Conclusion #2: It would appear that Bobert is 100% wrong about his claims relating to Iraqi compliance with UNSC Resolutions." No, not enough legitimate evidence has been presented to support this claim. These speculative enumerations are based on hypothesis, not fact and reflect the opinion of the writer. " the US does have a WMD arsenal, which, since the end of the Second World War they have threatened nobody with." You have never heard of the Cuban missile crisis? We nearly had WW III. " They have been the leading world power when it has come to universal disarmament and act as the main point of storage and collection of chemical and biological weapons and agents for verifiable disposal." Dream on. They have not signed the nuclear proliferation treaty and Bush has even sabre rattled with a prospect of limited nuke bombs. As to the disposal of the storage, this has not only been effectively done but because of Bush's economic priorities, nuke facilities are not protected against international terrorism. " Russia and China on the other have always lagged behind, Russia has 50% more operational nuclear weapons than the US and both Russia and China still maintain for use massive quantities of chemical and biological weaponry. Can you explain why you didn't bring all this to our attention, or is this only one more "let's bash the USA" attempt." I don't know the source for this information but there is no reason to believe that it is true. There is no way to know just how much operational nuclear weapons exist in the US or Russia today since Putin and Bush both deal in propaganda to bolster their images. "I am unaware of any occasion in recent times when the USA has terrorised its own population, perhaps you could enlighten us." You might consider Blackwater and the National Guard's role in Katrina for one. Also, I'm sure you have heard of the McCarthy era in American politics where an alcoholic senator terrorized many people who lost their jobs as a result. "The USA's much vaunted "School of the America's" - Shut down decades ago and strictly a "Cold War" phenomenon, comparable to its Soviet counterpart, the Patrice Lamumba Institute in Moscow. " The School of the Americas is far from being shut down. It has a new name now with the acronym WHIMSEC and is very active in supplying help to terrorists in Colombia, and other Central American countries as well as Afghanistan. "So "there is a distinct possibility the USA is still sponsoring terrorism somewhere in the world" Well I would suppose that you could take the view that anything is possible, then counter that by evaluating what is probable. This I notice that you have not done Stig. Subsequent to the attacks of 911 I would think it highly improbable that the USA is sponsoring terrorism anywhere in the world." This is entirely naive. The assasination of Castro and of Chavez has been a subject of controversey regarding the role of the CIA as was the deposition of Allende in Chile. The US is not immune from dispensing terror when it serves the needs of those of the Bush Adminstration and their agenda. The sanctions placed on Iraq were motivated by the GOP's political interest in occupying that territory. Many innocent civilians were horribly affected by these sanctions. Unfortunately the UN bought them by being pressured by the US Administration. There would be no political gain to be made by Blix distorting his appraisal of the WMD situation. There would be much "political capital" gained by Bush to deny Blix. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 16 Dec 07 - 08:17 PM Some fine work there, Frank... Hurt my heard readin' it but, hey, I got Excederin.... Yeah, the real story is out there but it doesn't have mish shelf life before the Bush apologist/revisonists starte trying to make chicken salad outta chicken sh*t... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,TIA Date: 16 Dec 07 - 10:45 PM "Counter to what Guest TIA believes..." Here's what TIA believes. I played four gigs this weekend with my daughters, while you and your toady spent the weekend screaming and throwing red herrings at Bobert. TIA believes that TIA has a more productive and happy life than that. Now, please, post at least twenty bullet points to prove me wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 17 Dec 07 - 08:23 AM "...what else would you expect a "survey" undertaken by the BBC to say. (Teribus) In fact the research evidently wasn't carried out "by" the BBC's Newsnight, it was carried out for the programme: "The Public Attitudes in Basra survey carried out for Newsnight by the UK-based polling agency, Opinion Research Business (ORB), interviewed a random sample of 922 adults across the southern city of Basra between 3 and 8 December." Other clients of ORB include the Conservative Party and the Countryside Alliance. Not exactly card-carrying left-winders... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,Keith A o Hertford Date: 17 Dec 07 - 09:58 AM Bobert, I expect that T was meaning that before US arrived Britain had defeated the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain, Halted Hitler's advances on all fronts except the East, and turned the tide aginst Rommel's Afrika Corps in the desert, by defeating them at El Alamein. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Dec 07 - 12:01 PM "2. While the President was informed about the a new intelligence source in August 2007 he was not told what that information was because at that time it had not been fully analysed and evaluated." How in the world would you know this? This sounds like Dana Perino propaganda." Did you even bother to read the Washington Post piece that stated: "Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce - PM Date: 10 Dec 07 - 02:23 PM quotes from the Washington Post Dec 8, 2007 article "A futile Quest on Iranian Arms" P A10: "By mid-November, the agencies were ready to deliver their conclusions to the White House. Intelligence officials gave a preliminary breifing Nov. 15 in the Situation room to Vice President Cheney, national security advisor Stephen J. Hadley and other senior officials. The process was climaxing just as Bush was convening a Middle East peace conference in Annapolis, a meeting designed at least in part to rally the region against Iran. No one told the participants about the new information, but on the same day they were gathering in Annapolis on Nov. 27, the National Intelligence Board met to finalize the new NIE. McConnell and others breifed Bush and Cheney the next day. Even though intelligence officials planned to keep it from the public, Bush later that day passed it on to Israeli Prime minister Ehud Olmert and Cheney told Defense Minister Ehud Barak." Now Bobert stated: ""President Bush got the world's attention this fall when he warned that a nuclear-armed Iran might lead to World War III. But his stark warning came at least a month or two *******after****** he had been told about frssh indidctaions that Iran had actaully halted it's nuclear weapons program."" So, Bush knew the results of the report last fall that were finalized on Nov. 27, and presented to him the next day ( Nov. 28th)" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Dec 07 - 12:09 PM On WMD 1. Bobert claimed that Dr. Hans Blix stated that the Iraqi's were co-operating fully with UNMOVIC, quoting Dr. Blix's report to the UNSC of 27th January, 2003. This is true and has been substantiated for some time." Not by anyone capable of reading the text of the Jan 27th report by Blix. "FULLY?????" ********************************** "2. This claim has been disproved from at least two quarters purely by direct quotations from the same report which stated quite clearly that Iraq was not co-operating to the level required by UNSC Resolution 1441 or as claimed by Bobert, i.e. Bobert is knowingly misrepresenting the situation or he is deliberately lying." No, the lies are coming from the "two quarters" that are not being mentioned. Iraq was indeed cooperating with 1441 and there was propaganda to insist that Saddam had ties to Al Quaeda which is also incorrect." You now claim that the direct quotes from the Jan 27th report by Blix are lies? **************************************************** "3. On the "Prove a negative" aspect, BB has laid it out very well: - Iraq was asked to submit a full declaration of what they had. - UNSCOM/UNMOVIC have purchase orders, shipping records, import licences, manufacturing records, munitions records, disposal records. - The Iraqis claim to have disposed of, or unilaterally destroyed it all." It was in Bush's interest to ignore this claim because he had intended to go to war with Iraq even prior to his election so that he could gain "political capital" according to his own statements." SO?? Do you dispute that the material HAD been obtained, according to Iraqi records, and that no records or evicence of the destruction exist? ************************************** "- UNMOVIC point out that the Iraq disposal records do not accord with the amounts manufactured, that there is a shortfall that needs to be explained, to which the Iraqis offer no explanation." The US supplied Iraq with these nuclear materials at the time of the war with Iran." SO??? That was under the NPT. "The shortfall has been addressed by some who claim that they were sold on the black market. It wouldn't have mattered one bit what explanation the Iraqis offered because Bush's plans were already in place to invade Iraq. " I fail to see any evidence other than your opinion to support this. ******************************* " If unilaterally destroyed outwith the supervision of the UN there would be traces found at the disposal sites, none were found, surely the Iraqis would know where they had destroyed these items?" They were destroyed under UN supervision. Pure and simple." No, not according to the UN reports. Pleaseshow me where Blix says anything that could be twisted into this statement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Dec 07 - 12:12 PM Yeah, the real story is out there, but it does not have much shelf life before the anti0-Bush revisionists start trying to make chicken salad out of chicken shit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Dec 07 - 12:56 PM "The US is not immune from dispensing terror when it serves the needs of those of the Bush Adminstration and their agenda." "Bush administration" "The assasination of Castro and of Chavez ..." "the role of the CIA as was the deposition of Allende in Chile." Hmmm... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 17 Dec 07 - 02:29 PM Frank regarding your last post, My response: "2. While the President was informed about the a new intelligence source in August 2007 he was not told what that information was because at that time it had not been fully analysed and evaluated." "How in the world would you know this? – Frank Hamilton" Please refer to the White House Press Conference of 4th December, 2007. Here is the relevant question and the answer given: Question: Mr. President, thank you. I'd like to follow on that. When you talked about Iraq, you and others in the administration talked about a mushroom cloud; then there were no WMD in Iraq. When it came to Iran, you said in October, on October 17th, you warned about the prospect of World War III, when months before you made that statement, this intelligence about them suspending their weapons program back in '03 had already come to light to this administration. So can't you be accused of hyping this threat? And don't you worry that that undermines U.S. credibility? THE PRESIDENT: David, I don't want to contradict an august reporter such as yourself, but I was made aware of the NIE last week. In August, I think it was Mike McConnell came in and said, we have some new information. He didn't tell me what the information was; he did tell me it was going to take a while to analyze. Why would you take time to analyze new information? One, you want to make sure it's not disinformation. You want to make sure the piece of intelligence you have is real. And secondly, they want to make sure they understand the intelligence they gathered: If they think it's real, then what does it mean? And it wasn't until last week that I was briefed on the NIE that is now public. So Frank that would have meant that the President was not made aware of the content and considered evaluation of America's intelligence community until sometime during Week 48. Bobert's contention was that the President knew in Week 42 but that is based upon Bobert's unsubstantiated opinion only, he offers nothing to back it up. "3. From 1 & 2 above it is clear that when the President made his remarks on 23 October he was not aware that his intelligence services evaluation was leading them to the conclusion that the Iranian nuclear weapons programme had been halted. So when he made his remarks on 23rd October he could not have been lying as Bobert claims." So counter to what you have said - what is stated above is accurate and is based on verifiable information. "4. The President was informed with regard to the analysis and evaluation of the new information roughly one week before the NIE was made public, i.e. long after 23rd October." "Bush probably knew about the information long before then – Frank Hamilton." Now that is a perfect example of pure unsubstantiated opinion Frank. Care to enlighten us on exactly how on earth you could possibly "know this to be the case". Just because the likes of yourself and Bobert want to believe it does not make it necessarily true. The President at the Press Conference on 4th December, 2007, was asked a question and identified the advisor who can verify the following: 1. When in Week 42 the President was informed that new intelligence had been received and was under evaluation. 2. Can confirm that detail relating to the subject matter of the new intelligence was not passed to the President. 3. When analysis and evaluation of the new intelligence was completed 4. When the NIE was completed and approved for publication 5. When in Week 48 the President was briefed on the content of the NIE. 5. Has the Iranian nuclear weapons programme been abandoned or renounced? No it has not; there has been no clear statement from Tehran on this. Nobody outside of Iran knows anything for certain about the status and aims of their nuclear programme. Recent reports suggest that it was restarted in 2004, so there is even uncertainty as to whether at the moment it has been halted or not. "Not much uncertainty. Only an agenda that would like to be accusatory to Iran and have an excuse to bomb them. – Frank Hamilton" So there is not much uncertainty Frank? Again solely your opinion, which I am supposed to take as fact? Well Frank, please forgive me if I pass on that. Those who voice concern over the uncertainty that I mentioned include the authors of the NIE themselves, the IAEA and the same Iranian dissident group that blew the whistle on Iran's secret uranium enrichment facilities. Now certainly with regard to the first two bodies mentioned there I would defer to their greater knowledge and experience on the subject than such as yourself and Bobert. 6. If the Iranian nuclear weapons programme has in fact been halted, does it still pose a threat? "Not really. There is more of a threat from North Korea or Pakistan. – Frank Hamilton" Correct me if I am wrong Frank but isn't North Korea in the process of disarming, having publicly renounced its nuclear weapons programme? If that is so what threat do they pose Frank? Pakistan? A threat? To whom Frank? Now maybe you can explain why a country who did sign up to the NPT in order to gain access to the information and assistance required to establish a nuclear programme and then flagrantly disregarded the conditions of that treaty to construct massive uranium enrichment facilities in secret can be discounted so readily as "not posing a threat"? Or is this only Frank Hamilton's baseless and unfounded opinion? "The US and Israel are not now signatories to the NPT and Iran is. – Frank Hamilton" Can you tell us when the US withdrew from the NPT Frank? According all sources I have looked up the US is still very much a fully signed up party to that Treaty. Israel on the other hand Frank has never been a signatory but Israel started her nuclear programme in 1958, ten years before Ireland first proposed the NPT in 1968. "Conclusion #1 It would appear that Bobert was 100% wrong with regard to the World War III jibe and the "Bobert fact" that the President lied." "There is no evidence here to support that claim. – Frank Hamilton" On the contrary Frank, I think that there is rather a great deal of evidence to support the above conclusion. Perhaps you and Bobert should start coming up with some form of evidence that can be substantiated as opposed to what can clearly be seen as your own baseless unfounded opinions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 17 Dec 07 - 02:40 PM Her's Part II Frank: On WMD 1. Bobert claimed that Dr. Hans Blix stated that the Iraqi's were co-operating fully with UNMOVIC, quoting Dr. Blix's report to the UNSC of 27th January, 2003. "This is true and has been substantiated for some time. – Frank Hamilton" Really Frank? Substantiated by who? Look down the thread, both Bruce and myself have quoted the report written, and signed off, by Dr. Hans Blix that completely contradicts the statements made by yourself and Bobert. Perhaps you could likewise come up with a source that clearly states that the Iraqi's were co-operating fully in accordance with the requirements of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. "2. This claim has been disproved from at least two quarters purely by direct quotations from the same report which stated quite clearly that Iraq was not co-operating to the level required by UNSC Resolution 1441 or as claimed by Bobert, i.e. Bobert is knowingly misrepresenting the situation or he is deliberately lying." "No, the lies are coming from the "two quarters" that are not being mentioned. – Frank Hamilton" Huh? Are you trying to tell us that Hans Blix was lying in his own report? The same report that Bobert was quoting? Your comment makes no sense at all. "Iraq was indeed cooperating with 1441 and there was propaganda to insist that Saddam had ties to Al Quaeda which is also incorrect. – Frank Hamilton" Well that is only your opinion Frank and extremely ill-informed opinion at that. The reference to Al Qaeda is somewhat baffling as it bears no relation to anything being discussed. "3. On the "Prove a negative" aspect, BB has laid it out very well: - Iraq was asked to submit a full declaration of what they had. - UNSCOM/UNMOVIC have purchase orders, shipping records, import licences, manufacturing records, munitions records, disposal records. - The Iraqis claim to have disposed of, or unilaterally destroyed it all." "It was in Bush's interest to ignore this claim because he had intended to go to war with Iraq even prior to his election so that he could gain "political capital" according to his own statements. – Frank Hamilton" Utter hogwash Frank, "he had intended to go to war with Iraq even prior to his election" ludicrous. Neither George W. Bush, or any member of his Administration, were part of the evaluation made by UNSCOM in 1998 and UNMOVIC in 2003 "- UNMOVIC point out that the Iraq disposal records do not accord with the amounts manufactured, that there is a shortfall that needs to be explained, to which the Iraqis offer no explanation." "The US supplied Iraq with these nuclear materials at the time of the war with Iran. – Frank Hamilton" This of course is as factual as the US no longer being a signatory to the Nuclear NPT. Tell us what nuclear materials the US supplied Iraq with during the war with Iran, could you also tell us exactly what use they would have been to the Iraqi's at that time Frank? Any idea why they weren't used Frank? "The shortfall has been addressed by some who claim that they were sold on the black market." What was sold/disposed of on the "black-market" Frank? Those nuclear materials that the US didn't supply Iraq with? Now if as those "some" said they had been sold, the "some" could also detail what was sold, to whom and when, couldn't they Frank? Especially if Iraq was co-operating fully with UNMOVIC as both you and Bobert claim. But they didn't did they Frank? Which, oddly enough Frank, was exactly Dr. Blix's point in his report of the 27th January 2003. "It wouldn't have mattered one bit what explanation the Iraqis offered because Bush's plans were already in place to invade Iraq. – Frank Hamilton" Nothing whatsoever to do with Bush, Frank, at the point we are talking about it was a matter between the Iraqi Authorities and the United Nations UNMOVIC Inspectors, the USA didn't even enter the equation. " If unilaterally destroyed outwith the supervision of the UN there would be traces found at the disposal sites, none were found, surely the Iraqis would know where they had destroyed these items?" "They were destroyed under UN supervision. Pure and simple. – Frank Hamilton" What is evident "Pure and simple" Frank is that you have read nothing written by Dr. Hans Blix in all his time as head of UNMOVIC. It is obvious that you have not read the terms/requirements of 1441, otherwise there is absolutely no way that you would have come up with that ridiculous statement. If they had been destroyed under UN supervision I would at least have expected the good Dr., or one of his inspectors to mention it at some point or other - once again they didn't. "4. That France stated quite categorically that it would allow no "second resolution" that presented Saddam Hussein with an ultimatum to be tabled. This in effect eliminated the UN from the process of resolving what the USA and the UK saw as the clear threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq to the peace and security of the region." "Only Bush and Blair were under the misapprehension that there was a clear threat. – Frank Hamilton" Again your opinion Frank, not many Kuwaiti's, or others in the region would share it. "5. Faced with the prospect of Saddam, supported internationally by France, Russia and China, playing the same old game he had successfully employed between 1991 and 1998, the US acted, they gave Saddam Hussein one last chance to quit and avoid the coming war. Saddam refused the offer and suffered the consequences." "This is patently false information. Saddam was never unilaterally supported by France, Russia or China. – Frank Hamilton" Really Frank? Patently false information? Well tell us Frank, the Iraqi Republican Guard, what equipped their armoured formations? Russian T-72 tanks weren't they Frank? Between Russia/France/China you have the trading partners who for the some thirty years supplied Saddam Hussein with 93.4% of all his arms. Take a look at the list of currently active oil related contracts in Iraq Frank and tell us how many pre-date the March 2003 invasion and how many are held by Russian/French/Chinese Oil Companies. "As to playing any game, of course he (Saddam) was not to be trusted. – Frank Hamilton" "Of course Saddam was not to be trusted", yet he posed no threat? Bit of a contradiction there Frank. "Conclusion #2: It would appear that Bobert is 100% wrong about his claims relating to Iraqi compliance with UNSC Resolutions." "No, not enough legitimate evidence has been presented to support this claim. These speculative enumerations are based on hypothesis, not fact and reflect the opinion of the writer. – Frank Hamilton" Well in that case Frank the writer you are talking about is Dr. Hans Blix, which of course you would have realized if you had actually bothered to read his reports and terms of reference. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 17 Dec 07 - 02:46 PM Then finally Frank the odds and sods in Part III "the US does have a WMD arsenal, which, since the end of the Second World War they have threatened nobody with." "You have never heard of the Cuban missile crisis? We nearly had WW III. – Frank Hamilton" I remember it very well Frank. And if memory serves correctly wasn't it Soviet Russia that was doing the threatening by parking IRBM's with nuclear warheads off the coast of the USA? "They (the USA) have not signed the nuclear proliferation treaty – Frank Hamilton" Well Frank counter to your wildest fancies, I can state with absolute certainty that United States of America signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty on 1st July, 1968 and ratified the Treaty on 5th March, 1970. So by all means Frank dream on, or at least come up with a date when the US renounced the treaty – I take it that you can do that Frank? "Russia and China on the other have always lagged behind, Russia has 50% more operational nuclear weapons than the US and both Russia and China still maintain for use massive quantities of chemical and biological weaponry. Can you explain why you didn't bring all this to our attention, or is this only one more "let's bash the USA" attempt." "I don't know the source for this information but there is no reason to believe that it is true. – Frank Hamilton" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/list_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons "I am unaware of any occasion in recent times when the USA has terrorised its own population, perhaps you could enlighten us." "You might consider Blackwater and the National Guard's role in Katrina for one." No, you might consider that people had been terrorised Frank, I wouldn't. "The School of the Americas is far from being shut down. It has a new name now with the acronym WHIMSEC and is very active in supplying help to terrorists in Colombia, and other Central American countries as well as Afghanistan. – Frank Hamilton" Actually its WHINSEC, not WHIMSEC "The Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC), located at Fort Benning in Columbus, Georgia, is the Defense Department's principal Spanish-language training facility for Latin American military and law-enforcement personnel (though some civilians attend as well). It is the successor to the School of the Americas (SOA), a facility established in 1946 and legally closed in 2001." Now Frank says that it is – "very active in supplying help to terrorists" – well here's the make-up of student role for 2004 (latest published figures): Military 633 (64%); Police / Law Enforcement 334 (34%); Civilian 18 (2%) No terrorists mentioned Frank, how come? Few more facts about WHINSEC for you Frank: Section 911 of the 2001 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 5408) added a new section 2166 to Title 10, U.S. Code (the part of U.S. law that governs the military). The new section repealed the legal authorization for the old School of the Americas and made the following changes. • The Fort Benning facility was renamed the "Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation." • The renamed institute's official purpose is now "to provide professional education and training to eligible personnel of nations of the Western Hemisphere within the context of the democratic principles set forth in the Charter of the Organization of American States ... while fostering mutual knowledge, transparency, confidence, and cooperation among the participating nations and promoting democratic values, respect for human rights, and knowledge and understanding of United States customs and traditions." • Codifying an existing SOA policy, the new law requires that each student receive at least eight hours of instruction in "human rights, the rule of law, due process, civilian control of the military, and the role of the military in a democratic society." • The new law allowed Western Hemisphere civilians and police personnel to attend, and requires that the Secretary of State be consulted in the selection of students. • Courses must focus on leadership development, counter-drug operations, peace support operations, disaster relief, or "any other matter the Secretary [of Defense] deems appropriate." • The new law codified the old SOA's decade-old practice of inviting a "Board of Visitors" to review and evaluate "curriculum, instruction, physical equipment, fiscal affairs, and academic methods." A federal committee, the board must include the chairmen and ranking minority members of both houses' Armed Services Committees (or surrogates), the senior Army officer responsible for training (or a surrogate), one person chosen by the Secretary of State, the head of the U.S. Southern command (or a surrogate), and six people chosen by the Secretary of Defense ("including, to the extent practicable, persons from academia and the religious and human rights communities"). The board reviews the institute's curriculum to determine whether it complies with U.S. laws and doctrine, and whether it is consistent with U.S. policy goals toward Latin America and the Caribbean. Within sixty days of its annual meeting, the Board must submit a report to the Secretary of Defense describing its activities and its recommendations. • The law requires a detailed annual report on the institute's activities, which the Secretary of Defense, after consulting with the Secretary of State, must submit to Congress by March 15 of each year. The sanctions placed on Iraq post signing of the Safwan cease-fire 3rd March 1991 and adoption of UNSC Resolution 687 3rd April, 1991 were the result of lack of Iraqi co-operation with regard to the cease-fire terms and non-compliance with obligations agreed to by Iraq. Frank, in the period you are referring to the many innocent civilians were horribly affected by the predations of their ruler Saddam Hussein who was not affected by the sanctions one jot. Now tell us Frank how many "Presidential Palaces" did he build during this period that could not be inspected by UNSCOM or the IAEA? What was all that fuss about the "Oil-For-Food" Programme? Tell us again just how effective those sanctions were Frank, illegal oil trading? 384 Rocket engines? The UN sanctions Frank were a joke, and that has been clearly proven. Teribus |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 17 Dec 07 - 05:43 PM It must be embarrassing being President and nobody tells you what's going on... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Amos Date: 17 Dec 07 - 06:28 PM The endless iterations of terror by Cheney, Bush, Rice, could well be argued to qualify. They certainly infected a lot of people with fear, if not terror. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 17 Dec 07 - 07:59 PM Well, well, well... Seems that both bb and T have them a nice little circle jerk between themselves while I was out, ahhhhh, actaully working for a living... But nevermind that... Seems they also are suffering from bad cases of "Gotcha, Bobert"... Problem is that they invent stuff they wished I'd said and then they attack what they wished I'd said... BB, fir instant, says in his 17Dec07 12.01pm post that I "claimed that Dr. Hans Blix stated that the Iarqis were cooperating fully with UNMOVIC"... Problem here is that I never made that statement the way that bb put it in his post... Lie #1 for bb... And then T'Bird jumps on bb's "FULLY" (sorry folks for the sceaming but I'm just typing it the way the SCREAMERs typed it) so now we have that game where one lie gets passed on and then the other half of the tag team, rather than verify that is exactly what I had said, assumes that his bud is telling the truth and so he just makes up his new argument based on defensing Lie #1... Hmmmmmmmm??? But nevermind that stuff... These folks, especially bb, love to throw out the "lie" word, something that is quite distastefull in any civilized discussion where folks have differnt world views, so I won't continue doen the "L"-path... But let's get to the meat and taters here... It about when Bush knew that Iran had discontinued it's nuclear weapons program.... I have been accused of fabricating (lieing) about what has been reported about whn Bush knew and if Bush knew before his Oct. 13th "WW III" speech or his Oct. 23 "Iran is pursuing" speech... So, from Peter Baker and Robin Wright's Dec. 4, 2007 article in the Washington Post entitled "A Blow to Bush's Tehran Policy, and I quote: "President Bush got the world's attention this fall when he warned that a nuclear-armed Iran might lead to World War III. But his stark warning came at least a month or two after he had first been told about fresh indications that Iran had actually halted it nuclear weapons program." Now if you two, bb and T, want to get into calling folks liars (or telling lies) why not start with the Washington Post writers... Do wither of you have any evidence that these writers lied??? If so, then have at them... I'm sure you would be heros to every Bushite in the land... I mean, folks would put up statues of both of you for exposing that the Washington Post lied... Hey, don't with of you know that Bush has folks that read the Washington Post lloking for innacuracies in reporting??? Why didn't Bush people jump on this one??? Well, don't hurt your heads on this one... It's becasue in spite of the fact that neither of you knotheads wished it weren't rue, apparently it is true... Yeah, you can SCREAM whatever you want... You can misquote me and then argue with the misquotes but... ... you two are shamefull in not keeping up with the real story... I don't know if it's some right winged Bush-blog that has taken over your critical thinking but something sho nuff has... You know, I don't mind debating ideas... I really don't mind debating the facts on the ground... But arguing aginst your mythology is getting rather tiresome... Try to keep up with the facts, pleeeeeeze... Is that too much to ask??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,Homey Date: 17 Dec 07 - 10:44 PM Aging hippie gets buzzed and blurts out totally incorrect statements, brags about his accuracy, then refuses to fess up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Dec 07 - 11:29 PM Bobert, try to read the post- that was a quote from someone else. " RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Stringsinger - PM Date: 16 Dec 07 - 04:13 PM .... On WMD 1. Bobert claimed that Dr. Hans Blix stated that the Iraqi's were co-operating fully with UNMOVIC, quoting Dr. Blix's report to the UNSC of 27th January, 2003. This is true and has been substantiated for some time." Problem here is that I never made that statement the way that bb put it in his post... Lie #1 for bb... NOT my lie, so back off. "These folks, especially bb, love to throw out the "lie" word, something that is quite distastefull in any civilized discussion where folks have differnt world views, so I won't continue doen the "L"-path..." Then YOU need to back off the unsupported statements that Bush is lieing whenever he says something YOU don't like- Or are you some kind of special case? And MY quote about when Bush was briefed CAME from the POST NEWS SECTION. SO maybe YOU had best be carefull what you attribute, in terms of intent and actual statements. "But arguing aginst your mythology is getting rather tiresome... Try to keep up with the facts, pleeeeeeze... Is that too much to ask???" I will agree with this- Will you try to keep up with the facts, and NOT state that your mythology has to be true since you want it to be? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 18 Dec 07 - 01:12 AM From Bobert: "I have been accused of fabricating (lieing) about what has been reported about whn Bush knew and if Bush knew before his Oct. 13th "WW III" speech or his Oct. 23 "Iran is pursuing" speech... So, from Peter Baker and Robin Wright's Dec. 4, 2007 article in the Washington Post entitled "A Blow to Bush's Tehran Policy, and I quote: "President Bush got the world's attention this fall when he warned that a nuclear-armed Iran might lead to World War III. But his stark warning came at least a month or two after he had first been told about fresh indications that Iran had actually halted it nuclear weapons program." Now you see that is the trouble with believing everything that you read in newspapers. Well Bobert it is normally best to go directly to source material to get what has actually been said by whom and when. Lets go back and take a look at who started accusing people of lying, second post on this thread: Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert - PM Date: 04 Dec 07 - 05:39 PM Yeah, I mentioned something about this on the Maliki thread, Dick... Seems that Bush was told that Iran had curtailed its nuclear program in 2003 *before* he made the speech about Iran and World War III!!! The boy just can't stop telling lies... B Who can't stop telling lies Bobert? You took some inaccurate and shoddy example of journalism and immediately, because of your bias and prejudice, jumped to entirely the wrong conclusion. Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus - PM Date: 04 Dec 07 - 06:09 PM He did not "lie" as you put it. When asked specifically about that he said that last August all he been told by his Intelligence Agencies was that there was new information under evaluation. He was not told that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons programme. Now that came from listening to the source. It can be independently verified as to who was told what and when, and that is what has been pointed out throughout this thread by BB and myself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 18 Dec 07 - 09:36 AM As per usual... Neither of the usual two suspects have offered any evidence that: 1.) bb didn't misquote me 2.) that, unlike what the Washington Post has reprorted, that Bush wasn't told that Iran had curtailed it's nuclear-weapons program in 2003... Just the usual smoke and mirrors defense... For the record... One cannot find one single Bobert quote that reads, "Dr. Hans Bix stated the Iraqis were coopertaing fully with UNMOVIC"... This is what bb said I said... I have, however, said that Dr. Blix reported that the Iraqi's were cooperating in letting the inspectors inspect where ever they wanted... That is found in Dr. Blix's Jan. 27th report to the UN... I have actually quoted three different parts of the report but I have never made the statement that bb says I made... This is what I mean, folks... The T&b tag team repeatedly ***invents 'n twists*** what I say to fit their various arguments... Then I am accused of not telling the truth!!?!?!? Like what that all about??? Nevrmind, I'm not a psycho-anaylist... Plus, I gotta go to work... B~ Well, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 18 Dec 07 - 01:53 PM Things that Bobert has got wrong so far on this thread: Bobert - 04 Dec 07 - 05:39 PM "Seems that Bush was told that Iran had curtailed its nuclear program in 2003 *before* he made the speech about Iran and World War III!!! The boy just can't stop telling lies..." Wrong Bobert he wasn't told that Iran had halted its nuclear programme in August 2007, he was only told that new intelligence was being evaluated. Bobert - 05 Dec 07 - 09:25 AM "Bush says that if Iran had a nuke that would be the beginning of WW III... Right???" Wrong again Bobert, go and read what he actually did say. Bobert as GUEST 05 Dec 07 - 06:05 PM "What I have said, which is also backed by yesterdays Washington Post story, is that Bush knew of this new intellegence report before he shot off his mouth about WW III and before he shot off his mouth saying that Iran is "pursuing"... These are the facts of the case... The man lied in saying that Iran "is pursuing" after being told they were not..." Wrong again Bobert on two counts: • what you stated there were not the facts of the case • George W Bush did not lie on 17th October or on 23rd October. He had no idea what the content of the NIE report was in October, he was briefed on that about one month later. Bobert - 05 Dec 07 - 08:24 PM "BB and his bud, t, You all would be better served by actually reading the newspapers..." Wrong again Bobert, exactly the opposite, you would be better served reading source material and taking with a pinch of salt everything that you read in newspapers. Bobert - 13 Dec 07 - 09:10 AM "I made the statement that Dr. Blix said in his report that Iraq was cooperating..." Yes you did Bobert but that statement that you said that you'd made was wrong. It was wrong because Dr.Hans Blix did not say that Iraq was co-operating, he said that they were co-operating with regard to process, there is a huge difference, taken in context with the content of the whole report BLix's remark is a massive qualification on the co-operation being experienced. Bobert - 13 Dec 07 - 07:51 PM "The reality was that the UN didn't want the US to invade and made every effort, including the resolution, to try to slow Bush down... But Bush wasn't to be slowed... Even after Blix said that the Iraqis were cooperating, which would have led to the inspectors not finding anything that was a threat to the US," Once again you incorrectly state that Blix said that the Iraqis were co-operating and infer that due to that co-operation the inspection effort would be successful. What Blix actually said in his report of the 27th January 2003 was exactly the opposite of what you infer above Bobert. Bobert - PM Date: 14 Dec 07 - 08:42 AM "No, bb, it is you who is ignoring facts... I have never once said that Blix's report was all roses... I freely admit that their were still lots of concerns... That is a million times more open minded than you who has never answered the question "What's the hurry" when Blix also stated in his report that the Iraqi's were ***cooperating*** in letting the inspectors inspect where ever they wanted..." Well then Bobert fact is that it took you rather a long time and a great deal of effort for you to make that statement – go check. The following simply beggars description: "See, my view emcompasses the total report where yours and t's focus only on those things that in you minf justified invading Iraq... This is the problem I have with you and it's the same problem I have with Bush... You seem to draw conclusions from only the facts that you want to focus on... That is why you both make serious errors in judgement... Cherry picking facts or even possible facts and building a foriegn policy around them is ***narrow*** minded and a sure formula for failure..." In this entire discussion you have done nothing but cherry-pick "facts" You have concentrated upon one bloody sentence and the last paragraph of a rather lengthy report which Bruce has put up for you to read in its entirety. Bobert - PM Date: 17 Dec 07 - 07:59 PM "Seems they also are suffering from bad cases of "Gotcha, Bobert"... Problem is that they invent stuff they wished I'd said and then they attack what they wished I'd said... BB, fir instant, says in his 17Dec07 12.01pm post that I "claimed that Dr. Hans Blix stated that the Iarqis were cooperating fully with UNMOVIC"... Problem here is that I never made that statement the way that bb put it in his post... Lie #1 for bb..." Wrong again Bobert, but what has let you down is your inability to follow a discussion and extremely poor comprehension – Here is BB's post referred to above and I'll walk you through it: beardedbruce - PM Date: 17 Dec 07 - 12:09 PM On WMD 1. Bobert claimed that Dr. Hans Blix stated that the Iraqi's were co-operating fully with UNMOVIC, quoting Dr. Blix's report to the UNSC of 27th January, 2003. (Teribus) This is true and has been substantiated for some time." (Stringsinger) Not by anyone capable of reading the text of the Jan 27th report by Blix. "FULLY?????" (beardedbruce) Now then Bobert, your post of 13 Dec 07 - 07:51 PM infers that the Iraqi's were co-operating in such a manner as to guarantee the success of the inspection effort, hence what I stated with regard to what your view of the degree of co-operation was. Now Frank Hamilton (Stringsinger) stated that he clearly believed this to be true and that Iraqi co-operation was a substantiated fact. Beardedbruce then merely voiced his disagreement with what Frank said. In this instance beardedbruce is not lying, or "inventing stuff that you said", he wasn't even addressing you or any specific remark that you made, he was addressing Frank. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 18 Dec 07 - 02:38 PM Either Bush is a liar or he has really bad timing, depending on whose version of the story you wish to believe. Either way, he has a responsibility to convey the truth and to choose the timing of his words more carefully. Transparency and trust is crucial. Bush has done nothing but instill fear at home and abroad. He has done nothing but create conflict and animosity worldwide. He wanted to be a war president and he is. Trouble is, most people don't want war. I also believe that the difference between whether or not Iraq was co-operating with the process of inspections or whether or not they were co-operating in other ways, is a moot point. If they were co-operating with the process of the inspections, there was no reason to invade. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Dec 07 - 02:41 PM " Neither of the usual two suspects have offered any evidence that:" Lie number one- I gave the time and posting THAT I WAS QUOTING FROM. "1.) bb didn't misquote me" Lie number two. The QUOTE from someone else shows that if the point was in error, it was NOT my lie, buit theirs. "2.) that, unlike what the Washington Post has reprorted, that Bush wasn't told that Iran had curtailed it's nuclear-weapons program in 2003... Just the usual smoke and mirrors defense..." As opposed to your outright lies about what was said. For the record... One cannot find one single Bobert quote that reads, "Dr. Hans Bix stated the Iraqis were coopertaing fully with UNMOVIC"... This is what bb said I said..." Except that I was quoting from a previous post by someone else, and I DID NOT STATE YOU had said that. You seem incapable of making a single reply without including at least one lie- so what does that make you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 18 Dec 07 - 04:43 PM Blah, blah, blah... More od the same crap... Yo, T... Do you have a copy of the report??? You apparently don't or you wouldn't continue to say that Blix did noty make the satement that the Iraqis were cooperating beyond "process"... Meaning, in the field... This, for the 3rd time is what Blix said: "...access has been provided to all sites..." Why is this so difficult for you to grasp??? Let's deal with this one difference and once we have dont that then it is my guess that half of the other list of arguments will evaporate... But we can take them one at a time... Unlike you and bb, I don't have the kind of time to engage in some how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-end-of-a-pin exercise but if you are willing to take 'um one at a time, let's have at it... Now, for starters, in 100 words or less, why is it that you don't belive that Blix said that the Iraqis were providing access to all sites??? Yeah let's start there... Now, as for you, bb... Will you please rstate the time and post where I said these exact words: "Dr. Hans Blix stated the Iraqis were fully cooperating with UNMOVIC", por favor... Oh, I see, now you are saying that I didn't say that... Hmmmmmm??? But then you say you gave me the time and post when I said it, or didn't say it... Can you make up your mind, bruce??? Seems I've quoted both Hans Blix and an article from the Post and all I get proclamations that I am lieing??? You two need to get real jobs... And lives to go with them... You both have way too much time on your hands... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Dec 07 - 04:53 PM "Will you please rstate the time and post where I said these exact words: "Dr. Hans Blix stated the Iraqis were fully cooperating with UNMOVIC", por favor... Oh, I see, now you are saying that I didn't say that... Hmmmmmm??? But then you say you gave me the time and post when I said it, or didn't say it... Can you make up your mind, bruce???" Obviously, you suffer from a lack of comprehension. I WAS QUOTING a post ( which I was replying to, and which I gave YOU the posting information on. You are incapable of stating what ** I ** have said, much less what others here have said, it seems. You seem to insist on making false statements. A. I was not the one saying you had said "Dr. Hans Blix stated the Iraqis were fully cooperating with UNMOVIC" as you accuse me of: I was replying to Frank's comment. B. I have not stated you were OR were not stating that - "Oh, I see, now you are saying that I didn't say that... " is another invalid ( not true to fact) statement. C. I gave the time of the POST I was replying to, with the quoted words - "But then you say you gave me the time and post when I said it, or didn't say it..." is another lie. It seems that you are more interested in making false statements about what others have said or think than in attempting to justify your own statements with any evidence. Perhaps because of the falsehood of those statements? ** I ** don't know WHY you keep telling lies- After all, YOU have stated that you are NOT a liar. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 18 Dec 07 - 04:58 PM My apologies, bb... I finally get it... The way you take other folks stuff and put it in the middle of your posts is a tad hard to keep up with... You didn't quote me, you quoted someone else quoting me... Purdy tricky but I get it... Okay, that one is off the plate... My apologies on that point... But I'm stickin' with the Post story I quoted until the stories get reconciled... The problem with Bush and his folks is that they spin stuff so much that whatever come outta his mouth is being spun and revised almost as quick as it makes it to the nearest set of ears... Not exactly the most transparent administration... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Dec 07 - 04:59 PM Seems I've presented far more of what both Hans Blix and several articles from the Post said and all I get proclamations that I am lieing??? Oh that is right - Ubermench Bushbert is always right, even when he is telling a false statement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Dec 07 - 05:00 PM "The problem with Bush and his folks is that they spin stuff so much that whatever come outta his mouth is being spun and revised almost as quick as it makes it to the nearest set of ears... Not exactly the most transparent administration... " In fact I agree with this- though I would add that those opposed to Bush are doing as much if not more spinning. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 18 Dec 07 - 05:11 PM And, t, seeing as Baker and Wright haven't retracted their Washington Post report that Bush had been "told about fresh indications that Iran had actually halted its nuclear weapons program"..."at least a month or two" before the Oct.17th "WW III" speech I'm going to stick with my source... I would think that if they didn't have someone on record who told them that then these reporters would ahve been Dan Rathered outtta a job... I sniff yet another scandal here where Bush's folks will invent stories to vover up this latest screw up... Seems that takes about half of your bill of particulars off the table... Maybe 2/3's... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Dec 07 - 10:40 PM "And, t, seeing as Baker and Wright haven't retracted their Washington Post report that Bush had been "told about fresh indications that Iran had actually halted its nuclear weapons program"..."at least a month or two" before the Oct.17th "WW III" speech I'm going to stick with my source..." Washington Post, December 8, 2007 P A10 "By mid-November, the agencies were ready to deliver thier conclusions to the White House. Intelligence officials gave a preliminary briefing Nov. 15 in the Situation Room to Vice President Chaney, national security advisor Stephen J. Hadley and other senior officials." From the World News article by Peter Baker and Dafna Linzer, Page A9 "Diving Deep, Unearthing a Surprise" I have the paper copy here at work in Sterling, VA. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 19 Dec 07 - 02:00 AM "Yo, T... Do you have a copy of the report??? You apparently don't or you wouldn't continue to say that Blix did noty make the satement that the Iraqis were cooperating beyond "process"... Meaning, in the field..." OK then Bobert, we'll take you over it once again: Taken directly from the report presented to the UN Security Council on 27th January, 2003, by Dr. Hans Blix: "I turn now, Mr. President, to the key requirement of cooperation and Iraq's response to it. Cooperation might be said to relate to both substance and process. It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, notably access." (English Comprehension lesson for Bobert: Blix states that the co-operation required has two componebts, "substance and process". He goes on to say that "Iraq has decided in principle to provide co-operation on process", please note Bobert he says that had "decided in principle", which is a qualification Bobert, he does not state that they have decided to co-operate) "A similar decision is indispensable to provide cooperation on substance in order to bring the disarmament task to completion through the peaceful process of inspection and to bring the monitoring task on a firm course." (2nd English Comprehension lesson for Bobert: Here Blix is stating that on the subject of "substance" the other vital component of the co-operation required from Iraq - they have not even decided in principle to provide co-operation in substance and that a decision to do so is indispensable to the disarmament task) "The substantive cooperation required relates above all to the obligation of Iraq to declare all programs of weapons of mass destruction and either to present items and activities for elimination or else to provide evidence supporting the conclusions that nothing proscribed remains. Paragraph 9 of Resolution 1441 states that this cooperation shall be "active." It is not enough to open doors. Inspection is not a game of catch as catch can." Note those last two sentences Bobert - they weren't there to play "hide-and-seek" - they weren't there to have to look for and find anything, the requirements of 1441 were that Iraq had to come clean on everything and deliver up proof of what they had, or what they had done with it. On the "Bush lied" thing - You cling to your conclusion jumped to because of a sloppy piece of journalism, then state as "proof" that it is correct by stating that the journalists involved have not retracted what they reported. A question Bobert - Have they been asked to? One thing is for certain if GWB had been told that Iran had halted its nuclear programme back in August and then stated in October it was still running, the press and MSM would be all over it like a rash - They are not - Care to explain that? The day after the NIE was published the President was asked point blank about it. He explained exactly what had happened and identified the person who briefed him on what and when. The press and MSM appear to have accepted that explanation - even the ones who wrote the article you have quoted and misinterpreted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 19 Dec 07 - 08:49 AM First, T, lets deal with the "Bush lied" portion of your post... Given the touchy nature of the Bush administration where every thing reported in the news that makes them look bad is swiftly countered it is my belief that if this was not true then the Bush team would have been all over the Post for printing it... But the Bush team let it ride... And it wasn't like a story printed on A-17... It was a front page story... As for Blix's statements, I don't deny anything you've said... But I do find fault with not only your assessment that only one sentence in the report was psoitive and I also your assessment that there wasn't enough progrss "on the ground" to justify Bush's rush to invade... Alot of this argument has been been hashed out in that the portion of Iraq's non-cooperation was in their inability to prove that the didn't have what we know know they didn't have... We had this argumnet back then, T, and as it turns out I was on the correct side of that one, unless of course, you know something that no one else knows about stockpiles of WMD's that Iraq possessed... But back to Blix... Seein' as you are of the opinion that I am basing my position on just one sentence, perhaps you might go back thru the report because you are missing alot of it... I have posted at least 3 different paragrahs from it that in themselves would make any thinking person ponder on the wisdom or morality on invading Iraq at the time Busgh pulled the plug on the inspectors... Bottom line, there was enough positives, given the 10 years since the inspectors were last there, for the process to have continued and war be just what Congress intended, a last resort... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 19 Dec 07 - 12:21 PM Bobert the full story on whether Bush lied or not: Point 1 - Date 4th December, 2007 Peter Baker and Robin Wright's Dec. 4, 2007 article in the Washington Post entitled "A Blow to Bush's Tehran Policy, and I quote: "President Bush got the world's attention this fall when he warned that a nuclear-armed Iran might lead to World War III. But his stark warning came at least a month or two after he had first been told about fresh indications that Iran had actually halted it nuclear weapons program." Point 2 - Date 4th December, 2007 White House Press Conference Q&A on NIE Report Question: Mr. President, thank you. I'd like to follow on that. When you talked about Iraq, you and others in the administration talked about a mushroom cloud; then there were no WMD in Iraq. When it came to Iran, you said in October, on October 17th, you warned about the prospect of World War III, when months before you made that statement, this intelligence about them suspending their weapons program back in '03 had already come to light to this administration. So can't you be accused of hyping this threat? And don't you worry that that undermines U.S. credibility? THE PRESIDENT: David, I don't want to contradict an august reporter such as yourself, but I was made aware of the NIE last week. In August, I think it was Mike McConnell came in and said, we have some new information. He didn't tell me what the information was; he did tell me it was going to take a while to analyze. Why would you take time to analyze new information? One, you want to make sure it's not disinformation. You want to make sure the piece of intelligence you have is real. And secondly, they want to make sure they understand the intelligence they gathered: If they think it's real, then what does it mean? And it wasn't until last week that I was briefed on the NIE that is now public. Point 3 - Date 8th December, 2007 quotes from the Washington Post Dec 8, 2007 article "A futile Quest on Iranian Arms" P A10: "By mid-November, the agencies were ready to deliver their conclusions to the White House. Intelligence officials gave a preliminary breifing Nov. 15 in the Situation room to Vice President Cheney, national security advisor Stephen J. Hadley and other senior officials. The process was climaxing just as Bush was convening a Middle East peace conference in Annapolis, a meeting designed at least in part to rally the region against Iran. No one told the participants about the new information, but on the same day they were gathering in Annapolis on Nov. 27, the National Intelligence Board met to finalize the new NIE. McConnell and others breifed Bush and Cheney the next day. Even though intelligence officials planned to keep it from the public, Bush later that day passed it on to Israeli Prime minister Ehud Olmert and Cheney told Defense Minister Ehud Barak." Now Bobert, can you explain how the President knew in August the conclusions of a report whose preliminary conclusions were only presented on 15th November to Vice President Cheney, national security advisor Stephen J. Hadley and other senior officials. And whose final conclusions were only reached on 27th November? It's impossible Bobert, just could not be done, therefore, Peter Baker and Robin Wright's Dec. 4, 2007 article in the Washington Post is wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 19 Dec 07 - 04:37 PM Well, yeah, T... I'm sure that the intellegence community didn't want to blindside Bush... It would have been the correct thing to do to bring something of this magnitude to his attention long before going public... That is why intellegence briefing aren't made public in the first place... I don't believe Bush anymore... His credibility long ago went down the toilet... And don't go thinkingg that the intellegence people are much better so, yeah, they are perfectly willing to say whatever they are told to say... They did it during the mad-dash-to-Iraq and they are doing it now... They are afraid of Bush... No, not persoally but as an executive who with alot of help from Cheney has grabbed more power for the executuive branch rhan any president in the last 60 years... But then agin, I understand that you continue to believe the stories because, afterall, you are indeed a loyal "true believer" and that is exactly what "true believers" do... Can you offer any proof that, other than Bush's words and the story that the intellegence community told other writers at the Post, that proves that there isn't yet another cover-up, T??? (Cover-up, Bobert??? Not the Bush folks... How dare you???) Ahhh, let me count the ways... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Barry Finn Date: 19 Dec 07 - 05:06 PM When you're living in a world of shit, it doesn't matter anymore who the shit belongs to only who own's the toilet bowl we're living in & when's the next flush coming. The only question I have is why do folks like T & BB keep passing out the toilet paper when Bush keep wiping his ass with the American citizen Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Dec 07 - 05:09 PM "Can you offer any proof that, other than Bush's words and the story that the intellegence community told other writers at the Post, that proves that there isn't yet another cover-up, T???" Are YOU asking T. to prove a real negative. Bobert????? Can YOU prove that there IS a coverup??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 19 Dec 07 - 05:15 PM See my last post for the answer to your question, Barry... Hint: Tr*e B*lie*er |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: dick greenhaus Date: 19 Dec 07 - 05:32 PM Y'know--I started this thread with a quote: "I view this report as a warning signal that they had the program, they halted the program," Mr. Bush said. "The reason why it's a warning signal is they could restart it." The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) "provides an opportunity for us to rally the international community – continue to rally the community to pressure the Iranian regime to suspend its program," Bush said. The new NIE, made public Monday, said Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003 partly because of international pressure and scrutiny. Regardless of the truth or falsity of Bush's proclamations, I still think that, in context, it's a pretty dumb quote. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 19 Dec 07 - 06:26 PM Well, yeah, bb... I not askin' anything more of T-zer than Bush asked of Saddam... See, it ain't no fun 'cept in this case alot of folks ain't gonna get killed... But nevermind that... What Dick has pointed out (again) is that it's not only a dumb quote but, worse than that, the conrenstone of even a dumber foriegn policy position... Bush is blowing it... Heck, Iran, helped US in the aftermath of 9/11... That should have been seen as a diplomatic opportunity to thaw the bad relations between the two countries but Bush, rather than move toward a saner foreign policy went the other direction with his "Axis of Evil" dumbass speech... Every time that Bush has an opportunity to do the right tghing, he does the wrong thing... I'm not a psychologist but I'd say that Bush, at the very least, suffers from a combination of an inferiority complex and a personality disorder... His decisons are so counter-productive... I think he got bullyied and between those memories and his AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard he is now trying to prove that he is a "tough guy"... Problem is that it ain't him and his friends doing the fighting... But yer right, Dick, dumb quote from the little sicko... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Dec 07 - 07:32 PM "I not askin' anything more of T-zer than Bush asked of Saddam... " 1. So you think it is ok that Bush asked Saddam? YOU are doing it. So it must be OK for Bush, unless YOU have some special priviledge. 2. Bush actually did NOT ask Saddam to prove a negative- The UNR required Saddam to account for the material that was previously known to be in Saddam's possession. I presume you can now show evidence that Bush had the information before it was decided by the groups working on the NIE???? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 19 Dec 07 - 08:16 PM No, techinally he didn't... He hid behind the UN resolution but was quick to strike when he didn't like Saddam's answers... No evidence other than a lousy track record, bb... Seems thaqt Bush is a lot like the kid who dried "wolf"... Heck, maybe this time he is telling the truth but with his past of lies and misleading statements, he's run out of holes to punch on the credibility punch card... So, ahhhh, I don't believe him and I would guess that between 60% to 70% of Americans wouldn't believe him either... That's why his poll ratings are so low... He has lost whatever trust the American peoploe once had in him... Okay, I'll be the first that I never trusted him... Anyone who pays ggons to dirupt the democartic process ain't all that trustworthy in my book... Not that I was a big Gore fan but at least Gore didn't resort to such anti-democratic tactics... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Dec 07 - 11:12 PM "at least Gore didn't resort to such anti-democratic tactics" Hardly a TOTALLY true statement. Gore was asking for a recount ONLY of those places in FLA where he thought he couldd pick up votes- and FOUGHT AGAINST a recount in the panhandle. Seems that he objected to a total state recount, as well. I think that countrywide there were instances of voter fraud and illegal acts by BOTH parties. Are you sure you want to open up that ball of worms, and get a recount of all the "voting dead" in Chicago? Or are you saying that "anti-republican" tactics are ok? "No, techinally he didn't... " Not sure what this is in reference to- that Bush did NOT lie? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,Homey Date: 19 Dec 07 - 11:34 PM Now we can just stay they until we've lost 56,000 Americans and then say, ""hey, this ain't workin'..." or we can just say, "This ain't workin'" now and get with gettin the heck out odf the mess we have created but cannot fix... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 19 Dec 07 - 11:55 PM As Bobert, as usual seems reluctant to answer a perfectly simple question maybe someone else will: Can you explain how the President knew in August the conclusions of a report whose preliminary conclusions were only presented on 15th November to Vice President Cheney, national security advisor Stephen J. Hadley and other senior officials. And whose final conclusions were only reached on 27th November? Note - Applicable year to all dates/months mentioned above is 2007. Oh and Bobert, Bush going AWOL that's another of your myths. By all means open it up for discussion and I'll bat it down one more time. By the way what ever happened to those "Heads on Sticks on the White House lawn"? or the 3000 Patriot Missiles raining down on Baghdad? And the never to be forgotten 1,000,000 dead Iraqi's who ain't dead at all, Hopkins and the other crowd is it ORB? only thought that they may be dead as a result of batch sampling. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 20 Dec 07 - 08:05 AM No, T... I answered your question... I answered your question... I believe that surely the intellegnce folks did tell Bush before going public... I mean, that's the way things work in the real world... And I would guess that seein' as the intellegence community ended up taking the bullet on Iraq that they didn't want to be manipulated again into a position of being the fall gyuys for yet another stupid war... That's the way things happen in the real world, T... As for the AWOL... Bush conviently never been able to prove he completed his service and folks who were there say they they can't reaclll him doing so either... "Heads on a stick" was always a metaphor... You know that... A million dead... Yeah, upwards of a million people have died depending on who is doing the counting... I'm certainly not going to buy into letting the Bush folks be the official counters... They have everything to lose if the real numbers get proven... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 20 Dec 07 - 09:56 AM You most certainly have not answered my question. Your claim was that Bush lied about the Iranian nuclear weapons programme being active in the content of a speech he made on 17th October. Your basis was a newspaper report inferring that he (Bush) had been told that the Iranian programme had been halted in 2003 some time in August this year. On the same day that newspaper article came out Bush was asked about this at a news conference and he said that what he had been told in August was that there was new intelligence on Iran currently under evaaluation but he not told what that intelligence was. President Bush even identified the person who informed him of this in August. Now Bobert, you read the newspaper article and believed it because you wanted to. Have you read the NIE Report itself? I would tend to think that you haven't, you hate the truth to get in the way of a good lie. Well go and read the NIE Report, particularly the last line picked out in "BOLD" at the foot of page four: "This estimate incorporates intelligence reporting available as of 31st October, 2007." The report wasn't written in August, the intelligence had not been analysed or evaluated in August, therefore it is impossible for the President to have been appraised of the conclusions of a report in August when that report was not even written in draft form until mid-November. The President was briefed on the conclusions of the November NIE Report on 28th November 2007, the Report was made public on 4th December 2007. On the AWOL thing Bobert the military tend to be fairly particular time keepers, if your myth were true, he would have been noted absent without leave and charged accordingly, he wasn't charged, the matter was never even subject to complaint. He was given an early honourable discharge, as many in the same situation were, so it would appear Bobert that he was never AWOL. Being AWOL is a bit like being pregnant, you either are or you're not, anyone charged with being AWOL is guilty from the outset, because it is a plain bald fact, excuses why you were not where you should have been can only be entered in mitigation. No charge no AWOL. On the numbers of civilian deaths in Iraq caused by the invasion and subsequent insurgency Bobert, the ones who are doing the counting are actually counting deaths at one tenth the number of those who are only estimating the numbers who may have died by batch sampling. Now I know that you are not the best at English comprehension and I know that you hate to read source material, preferring instead to jump at sound bytes that feed your prejudices. But if you are going to insist on repeating things that are patently untrue please don't be too surprised if you're called to prove them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 20 Dec 07 - 12:04 PM Ummmm, English comprehension ain't the problem... I comprhend just fine... And I read just fine... Okay, a tad slow because of lexdexia but once I have plowed thru the stuff I comprehand just fine... Yeah, spelling and typing suck but I get the material... I don't know what I'm gonna do with you, T??? You expect me to provide the burden of truth behind what I not only read, comprehand and then share with you but you think that you shouldn't be held to the same standard on what you read, comprhend and share... You know what they call that, don't ya"??? Well, don't hurt your head... It's called hypocrsiy... On every issue that you have listed in you above post there is ink that goes both ways... Yes, I will freely admit that I, like 60% plus Americans don't like Bush and/or his policies... One of the major problems I, along with many of these people, have with Bush is that he is not a credible person... We have seen repeated instances where he has just shot off his mouth and said whatever he thought would sound cool, or tough, or whatever and then his handlers have to come behind him and clean up from lies, half-lies and fantasies... The "16 words" is probably the straw that broke the camel's back... G. Tenant had told him before the Oct.11 Cincinaati speech that there was no evidence that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program and to not use the words (i.e. don't tell the lie, George) and so George didn't tell the lie... But then he gets up with yer bud, Blair, and next thing ya' know here's some college kids term paper that was written a long time ago that is the basis of the "16 words"... By the time the State of the Union address came around alot of things had happened other than the college kid's term paper... For starters, Dick Cheney had purdy much camped out at Langley (CIA headquarters) and was putting heavy pressure on the Langley folks... But even with Cheney's full-court=press there were still anylaists who disagreed with the college kid's term paper, thought it was bogus and in intellegence reprts made dieenting comments at the end of these reports... Now, war ain't like a video game or a western movie, T... It's the real deal where people get seriously hurt or killed... Given the graveness of war a responisible president would have made every effore to get things right... Bush didn't... He jumped all over the term paper, or whatever it was, and ordered up the invasion... That was not the responsible thing to do... Hey, if there weren't millions of people in the streets telling him that he was wrong to invade Iraq, I can kinda see where maybe Bush irresponsible decison could sonmewhat be justified by his supporters... But there were millions and people in the street... And there were crdible people like Scott Ritter saying "Hey, Bush. You got it wrong." Like I said, war ain't a movie and Bush treated it as if it was... That, INO, is not only dishonest but dillusional... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 20 Dec 07 - 06:24 PM I mean, lets do a little review here, T, and maybe you'll get a glimpse of why Bush and hie people not credible: *** "Not Child Left Behinf"... passed and signed into law but Bush would authorize spending the $27B to pay for it??? *** Katrina where Bush not only had to be flown over it to belive it actaully happened but continued his vaction while it happened??? *** The 2000 Election where he sent in paid goons to disrupt and harrass campaign workers??? *** Aluminum tubes??? *** Mushroom clouds??? *** Uranium percheses from Niger??? *** Saddam tried to kill my daddy??? *** AWOL??? *** Harken Energy where Bush took $700,000 just months before it folded??? *** Outing Valerie Plame??? You see, T, there is a definate pattern here of lies and deciet and so now when we see even more revisionism going on about his Oct. 17th and 23rd speeeches... I mean, at least consider this, T... If the intellegence people had even told him that there was some new evidence on Iran's nuclear program that was under new scrutiny then it was irresponsible for him to have made those two speeches... Not that I am saying that is the case because until history gets it straight I still beleive that Buah, as has been reported and not refuted by the Bush folks, knew the general contents of the intellegence report... But, for the sake of honest discussion, if Bush had been told that some new stuff was coming then he should have kept his big mouth shut... Diplomacy ain't about running yer friggin' mouth every time you feel like it... That's my call on why Bush is no longer a credible person... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,TIA Date: 21 Dec 07 - 05:52 PM Bobert -Don't forget: "When we are talking about wiretapping, we need a warrant..." "We don't do torture..." "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended..." "Wanted dead or alive", or is it "I don't really spend that much time worrying about him" We could go on and on. There are entire websites dedicated to documenting the endless lies. Just google "bush lies". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 21 Dec 07 - 06:08 PM Yeah, TIA... So many of 'um it's hard keepin' 'um straight... "Bring it on" was one of his dumbest ones... That got another thousand or two American kids killed and maybe another 100,000 Iraqis... "Axis of Evil" was also real dumb... Made Bush look to the world like the cowboy jerk that he really is... But the "We don't torture" is probably the best example of being caught in the muiddle of Lies-burg with your pants down... Tell ya' what... Bush and Cheney could use a good waterboarding... We don't torture, my butt... The US prosecuted Japanese soldiers for doing it to US after WW II but now it's not torture??? Beam me up, Scotty... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 21 Dec 07 - 07:20 PM Don't forget how Bush called it a "Crusade against Terror". How many deaths resulted from his using that word at that time in that context? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 21 Dec 07 - 07:27 PM I'd almost forgotten that one, McG... Just what we need... Another holy war... Geeze, Louise... How much dumbass stuff can the boy come up with??? (Bobert, Bobert... Settle down... He doen't come up with this stuff... His handlers do...) Well, waterboard the bunch 'o 'um... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,Homey Date: 21 Dec 07 - 09:24 PM Bobert: I still don't see an answer to the T's question. Are you avoiding it for some reason? Seems to me an expert like you could answer any question without hesitation, even predict that 56,000 Americans will be lost. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 22 Dec 07 - 01:09 AM don't answer, bobert. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 22 Dec 07 - 07:01 AM He already did. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,Homey Date: 22 Dec 07 - 08:27 AM We have seen repeated instances where Bobert has just shot off his mouth and said whatever he thought would sound cool, or tough, or whatever and then his handlers have to come behind him and clean up from lies, half-lies and fantasies... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 22 Dec 07 - 09:06 AM LOL, Homey... As fir T's questions, they are endless and, for the most part, not related to anything of substance... You see, what T likes to do is distract his opponenets away from the meat and taters and get them defending tiny little meaningless points... That has been his strategy going back to the mad-dash-to-Iraq days... But I fully understand his strategy and that is why he tries to change the conversation... It's all he has... Yeah, T, will never answer the "What-was-the-big-ass-hurry?" question in his own words.... No, he hides behind minute parts of his dumbass UN resoultion... And when I point out several parts of Dr. Blixes report to the UN that woyuld lead any reasonable person to, at the very east, reconsider ordering up a war, T just glosses over them... T even has said that there's only "one sentence" in the report that is positive??? I guess T thinks he is the only operson on the planet that has, ahhhhhh, a copy of the report??? I don't know??? I know I've posted 3 complete ***paragraphs*** that should have had Bush thinking, "Hmmmmmmm??? Maybe Cheney and Wolfowitz are wrong here???"... I mean, if you are going to take a country to war you'd better have it right... Right, Homester??? Right??? Well, Bush had it all wrong... He should have doen what Clinton did when Wolfy and Pearle came into the Oval Office with such a boneheaded paln and that was throw the war mongers out... But Bush was all ears... Tell me more... Then Rove was called in and Karl took one look at the prospects of a shiney new war and the '04 election and probably peed his pants in delight fo knowing that he wouldn't have to work as hard... I mean, shiney new war presidents just don't loose elections and Rove, I am sure, was the happiest man in town... I'd even bet that Rove came up with the "Shock and Awe" slogan to go with it... If not, you can take it to the bank, that Rove just loved "Shock 'n Awe"... BTW, Homey, what ever happened to the "Shock 'n Awe"??? Well, well, well... Me thinks I will just put this discussion out of my head for awhile... It is disgustly real at this time of year for all the families, both American and Iraqi, who have either had a family memeber killed of blown half up... That's the part that you and T don't like to dwell on... No, you'd rather reduce it to some academic exercise or a weastern movie where all the cowboys and indians go off and have a beer at night... Peace, Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,TIA Date: 22 Dec 07 - 10:12 AM I've said it before, and I'll say it again... It just *kills* 'em that what Bobert was saying back in 2002/2003 has actually come to pass, and what they were saying in the same period has been shown to be utter horsecrap. A *lot* of people here were saying the same stuff back then, but for some reason, it really pisses them off that Bobert in particular was right. Now they have to spin and parse and narrowly define and backpedal and flail wildy to try to prove that they have not been thoroughly out-thunk by the lowly WGSR. The closest they can come to a "win" now, is a 5000 word essay with eleventeen bullet points, and a few red herring questions, that don't get answered in exactly the way they demand, so they can shout "gotcha!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Barry Finn Date: 22 Dec 07 - 02:01 PM TIA, much of the world, some here on mudcat & a fair percentage (not near enough though) told this government that it was a fools mission to illegaly invade Iran & what would happen has come to pass. But none saw it as bad as it would eventually turn out to be. By the government's perdictions the war should've been over by now, paid for itself in oil revenues, the world would be a safer place & we would've found & confiscated the much feared WMD's, The mid east would become a democracy. We knew then that we hadn't a clue of the culture, there were no WMD's (though some still want to debate the point, in the end none were found), the counrty is in chapter 9/11, we are in more danger when we could've been talking, the decider & uniter has split the nation, ruined it's good name, he & this administration can't be trusted, we've lost much of our civil & human rights and the future looks too be dim Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 22 Dec 07 - 02:57 PM But none saw it as bad as it would eventually turn out to be. There were one, maybe two million, on the streets of London on the eve of the invasion who might disagree with that. The common practice in this kind of situation is for those respopnsible to talk about "the wisdom of hindsight", and "nobody could have predicted". But all too often it's a matter of culpable lack of foresight about things that were very definitely predicted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 22 Dec 07 - 05:52 PM Freudian slip, Barry... We ain't invaded "Iran"... ...yet!!! But give Bush and his buds here in Mudville time and they will concoct some dumbass arguement to ivade, or at least bomb, Iran... Yeah, TIA... Seeems I do have a way of gettin' under the knotheads' skin... Ask me just how much that bothers me??? LOL... Ho, ho, ho... Bobert & the WGSR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,Homey Date: 22 Dec 07 - 06:35 PM *** Outing Valerie Plame??? Ahhhh Richard Amritage outed Valery Plame. At least according to him and Novack. Does any of Bobert's handlers want to jump in and clean that up? And Bobert still has not answered T's very sober question except with personal attacks and rhetoric. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 22 Dec 07 - 07:01 PM Listen, Home-ster... T has asked my 2,378 questions over the years... Exactly which one of them has you so interested??? I'll be more than happy to answer it as I'd hate to ruin yer Christmas, 'er yer whatever... As for Val Plame, I think it's safe to say that a lot of people were purdy busy outin' her... What we know is that Cheney did... Rove did... Libby did and then lied about it and that's why he's doin' time... As for Bobert handlers... I don't need 'um... I'm on the correct side of the story, Homey, and on the correct side of history... The only folks who need handlers are screw-ups like your guy, Bush... Now, Home, be a good home boy, and go out and do some Christmas shoppin' so Bush won't have to expalin why the economy has crashed under his administration... And, oh yeah... ...Ho, ho, ho... Bobert Claus & the WGSR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 22 Dec 07 - 07:07 PM The question being essentially, "why shouldn't people believe the story that has been put out about how the President was kept in the dark about all this because the intelligence people were keeping schtum until they had dotted all the i's and crossed all theg t's/" And the simple answer is "Why should anyone believe a word that comes out of this administation about anything?" Or "Would you buy a used war from these people?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 22 Dec 07 - 09:11 PM Exactly, McG... These crooks have used up all the punches in their credibility punch card... Game over for the current batch of liars... Bring on the next batch... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 23 Dec 07 - 12:34 AM ...it's a matter of culpable lack of foresight about things that were very definitely predicted." - McGrath Thats right. Bush wanted to believe it. He didn't question any of it because he wanted a war and he played the Christianity card by calling it a crusade. He instilled fear in the American public and manipulated that fear by creating hatred for Muslims. He should be prosecuted for hate crimes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Barry Finn Date: 23 Dec 07 - 01:48 AM McGrath Many folks predicted &/or knew it would be a bad outcome, a very bad outcome & spoke up about it too. But no one & I mean no one could've imagined how bad Bush could've fucked up & how deep in the shit he'd put us, there was no scale at the time capuable of that type of measurement. God didn't even realize what a disaster this guy turned out to be. God didn't think he made any human this base. Actually he may not have created him at all. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Barry Finn Date: 23 Dec 07 - 02:18 AM & further more we ain't seen nothin' yet. What we've seen from this administration so far, Iraq was just the peeble in the pond, we'll be reeling from the shock waves for many years to come, our grandchildren will feel the effects of the past 7 yrs. A bankrupt nation borrowing at a rate that well exceed the present lending scandle Disable vets without benifits or sufficent health care Homelessness, including the poor, the mentally disabled, & war vets Uneducated & undereducated working poor & middle classes Unhealthy middle & poor classes An inability to create new job markets or to supply intelligent workers for the markets that can be made A national defense system that can't keep it's military ranks filled & on a payroll & will have to surfice with outside contractors A VA health system that's become overwhelmed with in need of medically care vets A world ready to implode under the green & energy policies that we've choosen to lead the world in A drug, insurance & weapon's industries that govern the everyday choices of the major portion of our population A system of choosing leaders where soon only a rich idiot will run for office & where only a rich idiot will get in nd that's only the tip of the shit, wait till we get down into the bowl We are so are down the slippery slope with no insight as how to stop or even the inclination to stop that by the time we hit the bottom we won't be able to see the top anymore, we'll be putting of scuba gear just to see & catch our breath. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 23 Dec 07 - 08:05 AM You've hit the nail on the head, Barry... The real costs of this war cannot easily be measured... Every empire in history was brought down by over reaching... I'm not confident that the US hasn't set in motion a chain on events that will bring it to its knee... The working class is just about there now... I just think of the set of domestic priorities that faced our country in 2003 and just how much further along our country would be if Bush had turned his attention toward them... Now that opportunity is lost... The next administartion is going to have to have the balls to clean this crap up and it ain't going to be pretty... What really bugs me is that none of the candidates for president are offering a holistic plan for cleaning up the mess... Okay, Dennis Kucinich, is close but he doesn't get any microphone time so no one really hears his vision... The rest, Ron Paul and my guy, Obama, aren't articulating their views of the big-clean-up-picture which, of course, will have to happen before we can talk about big ticket things such as nationalized health care and energy independence... Yes, the cost of this war can't be measured strickly by how much we spent in dollars to invade and occupy Iraq... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,Homey Date: 23 Dec 07 - 08:45 AM That sounds real cool and tough Bobert. Can you explain how the President knew in August the conclusions of a report whose preliminary conclusions were only presented on 15th November to Vice President Cheney, national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley and other senior officials. And whose final conclusions were only reached on 27th November? As asked by T. After that one Bob, you can explain how the economy has crashed. I was sliding into a recession when Bush took over from BJ Clinton. Bush turned it around despite 9/11 which was the result of BL Clinton's regime also and you have prospered as never before Under the Bush adminstration. At least in your posts you brag about economic gain. Notice I said ***After*** you answer the first question so you don't change the subject which always you is you first method to avoid answering a question, you just dish up some more inaccurate information like A lot of people were busy outin' Valerie Plame" well which one did it? You think that big tidal wave of "lies, half-lies and fantasies" you have built up over the years prove something. You think that repetition and volume can overcome logic and fact so you never stop to reason anything out. If you did that big balloon of truth you think you have starts loosing air. The fact is that Bush could not have known what was in the report when he made the speech. The article from the reporter of a newspaper that has been loosing readership is speculation designed to sell newspapers to gullible people that want to hear such things. These people are objectively looking for something to reinforce their prejudiced opinions rather than subjective looking for the truth. And lastly I don't need to need told by some self righteous pothead, what to do when. This is still a free country until jerks that think they know what everybody else do, change it. If you think you are particularly qualified to tell people what to do, begin by telling us what we should do about Iran. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 23 Dec 07 - 09:50 AM I guess you'd rather be a follower of a self righteous coke-head, Homey??? Now things seem a little clearer about your thinking processes... As for proving that Bush knew??? Hey, I'll stick with my sources, my knowledge of the way things really work in governemnt and the arguments I've made... Perhaps you would like to prove that the Dec. 4th Washington Post article, which BTW the BUsh administartion never challenged, is wrong??? And lastly, you got the wrong guy... Im not the one who has built up a tidal wave of lies... All I have done is observe yer guy in action... Ain't rocket surgery... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Barry Finn Date: 23 Dec 07 - 11:31 AM "begin by telling us what we should do about Iran?" That's simple, shouldn't be hard though I guess you haven't thought it through much, have you! Iran is again no threat to US! Leave Iran to the Iranians & leave the US to US! Why do we need to involove ourselves with Iran? Why did we need to involove ourselves with Iraq? Is this nation growing fools for crops? Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 23 Dec 07 - 11:53 AM Not just fools but blind followers of fools who themselves are incapable of independent critical thought... Huxley was right... Einstien was also right in observing that insanity is repeating a bevavior expecting different results... The Bush foriegn policy is by that definaition "insane"... Every time he has had an opportunity to do the right thing his "cowboy" mentality has led him to do the opposite... I just hope that if he orders up a bombing of Iran that the Joint Chiefs will refuse... I have heard from a couple of my retired career military friends who still have contacts in the Pentagon that such rumblings are prevailent... And no, Homey, you can't have their names becuase this was told me in confidence... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,Homey Date: 23 Dec 07 - 11:40 PM Yeah, the smug pot calls the kettle black. In your big head you think everybody follows somebody. Unlike you, some people can actually think for themselves. Your crap that you cobbled together does not even rise to the level of circumstantial evidence. Your reasoning runs like this: People usually have bacon and eggs for breakfast so it has purdy much been proven that he had bacon and eggs for breakfast and that is the truth. All hail the great thinker and revealer of the truth. And the great predictor: "A brief look at it the scorecard is about all anyone needs to see to see that the "Surge" is just a bad joke being played on our troops, the Iraqis and the world in general... This war was never winable... B~ Washington Post: the Surge is Working Sunday, October 14, 2007 "A month later, there isn't much room for such debate, at least about the latest figures. In September, Iraqi civilian deaths were down 52 percent from August and 77 percent from September 2006, according to the Web site icasualties.org. The Iraqi Health Ministry and the Associated Press reported similar results. U.S. soldiers killed in action numbered 43 — down 43 percent from August and 64 percent from May, which had the highest monthly figure so far this year. The American combat death total was the lowest since July 2006 and was one of the five lowest monthly counts since the insurgency in Iraq took off in April 2004. During the first 12 days of October the death rates of Iraqis and Americans fell still further. So far during the Muslim month of Ramadan, which began Sept. 13 and ends this weekend, 36 U.S. soldiers have been reported as killed in hostile actions. That is remarkable given that the surge has deployed more American troops in more dangerous places and that in the past al-Qaeda has staged major offensives during Ramadan. Last year, at least 97 American troops died in combat during Ramadan. Al-Qaeda tried to step up attacks this year, U.S. commanders say — so far, with stunningly little success." When are we going to reach that 56,000 mark you predicted? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,Homey Date: 23 Dec 07 - 11:57 PM The Washington Post Saturday, December 8, 2007; Page A17 Pete Hegseth, executive director of Vets for Freedom, has coauthored an op-ed with Major General John Batiste. Batiste is the formerly "antiwar" general who spoke out against Donald Rumsfeld, and who, until recently, was a Board Member of VoteVets.org (the antiwar MoveOn.org vets front group. "First, the United States must be successful in the fight against worldwide Islamic extremism. We have seen this ruthless enemy firsthand, and its global ambitions are undeniable. This struggle, the Long War, will probably take decades to prosecute. Failure is not an option. Second, whether or not we like it, Iraq is central to that fight. We cannot walk away from our strategic interests in the region. Iraq cannot become a staging ground for Islamic extremism or be dominated by other powers in the region, such as Iran and Syria. A premature or precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, without the requisite stability and security, is likely to cause the violence there -- which has decreased substantially but is still present -- to cascade into an even larger humanitarian crisis. Third, the counterinsurgency campaign led by Gen. David Petraeus is the correct approach in Iraq. It is showing promise of success and, if continued, will provide the Iraqi government the opportunities it desperately needs to stabilize its country." There are two stories here: 1) A formerly anti-war general flips on supporting the war, and now believes Petraeus has the right strategy; and 2) Batiste has left VoteVets.org, and the antiwar movement, and joined up with the pro-troop, pro-surge, pro-victory Vets for Freedom. The antiwar movement has lost one of its most powerful voices. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Barry Finn Date: 24 Dec 07 - 12:37 AM Are you for real??? People, & they are people are still dying, doesn't matter if less died today than yesterday! They are still dying , there's no reverseal on death! You arer still offering the same added on excuses that we've been hearing since day one "worldwide Islamic extremism", give me a break & please give it a rest. First it was WMD's, the some shit about democracy, oil, freedom, regime change. This isthe crusades with a new & improve cause, nothing more nothing less. You want this to continue, yo go over & die but don't preach this shit so that others can go & die, undeservingly in your place. Let the bastard that failed to show up for his own war die there & that'll put an end to this insane blood letting. There was no honor dying in Viet Nam & there'll be no honor dying here either. The shame falls on all those in government hat continues to allow this war to go on under it's so many excuses. If the US & their allies had kept their collective noses out of the mid east for the past century there would be no anti-western feeling coming from that area of the world. God forbid they'd probably be our friends. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,Homey Date: 24 Dec 07 - 08:37 AM Ever been to an abortion clinic? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 24 Dec 07 - 08:56 AM Oh, so abortion clinics are the excuse de jour for US attacking and occupying Iraq??? I'm with Barry on this one, Homey, Dickey or whoever you are... Take yer butt down to the recruiting office... I'm growing a little tired of you tired excuses for not only invading a sovergn nation but continuing to occupy it... They have become like old dead fish... A little smellier every day... Oh, BTW, if yer ready to put ***your*** life where your ***mouth*** is I have a friend who can expedite things and have your blowhard self righteous butt in Iraq in 90 days... That's my Christmas present to you... B~ And for the record, I never actaully predicted 56,000 American deaths in Iraq... If you are going to quote me or state that I said this or that, quote it in the context of of the way it was written... In other words... The quote with the ***entire paragraph*** with it... Now, go pack your bags while I make the call... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,Homey Date: 24 Dec 07 - 12:03 PM So is the war in Iraq your excuse for abortions? Notice I have not said I am pro war or anti abortion so don't accuse me of either. I just want to know how anybody can be both but questions seem to anger you. And I did Quote the entire thing on Date: 19 Dec 07 - 11:34 PM I am not bragging about my wisdom and accuracy like you but merely pointing out how you use the same tactics you accuse GWB of using except you are ***justified*** If Iraq is being occupied, all the government there has to do is ask us to leave. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Amos Date: 24 Dec 07 - 12:26 PM Homey: The question, to put it bluntly, is insane. No answer would serve. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 24 Dec 07 - 12:38 PM "If Iraq is being occupied, all the government there has to do is ask us to leave." Oh, really!!??? I'd be quite interested in seeing that put to the test. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 24 Dec 07 - 12:45 PM Sorry, Dickey... I mean, Homey... But I didn't ***predict*** 56,000 death in Iraq in that quote... As for the occupation, Dickey, ahhhh, Homey... Think about it this way, if you will... The year, 1776... The colonies were being occupied, taxed and bossed around by a colonial power much the way that Iraq is being occupied by the US... I guess the only difference is that the US isn't taxing them... Just strikling deals with Big Oil... There's really not much diffrence between the two situation... You have Torie Malaki and you have the Whig insurgents... And like 1776, both colonial powers had/have the biggest and baddest militaries which were/are really of no particular value in "winning" a war where an entire population had to be ***governed***... This is why the Iraq War is and has been lost for along time... It cannot be won any more than the Vietnam War could have been won... You see, colonialism is a failed concept when the oppressor has no real interst, knowledge, comapassion, understanding of those it oppresses... How can the oppressor *** govern*** such a people... The US has enough trouble trying to govern it ownself, Dickey, ahhhh, Homey... It's not up to the task from a cultural standpoint... Oh sure, we hear the Bush folks saying stuff like, "The Iraqi governemnt will do this or that"... Fine... Let them do this or that but they can't do this or that while being occupied and oppressed by a colonial power... There will be no legitamcy of the Iraqi goverment until it is free to find it's own way, solve its own conflicts, provide its own security and services... Think 1776 real hard and then maybe, just maybe, you will get it... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Barry Finn Date: 24 Dec 07 - 01:06 PM There's a past thread on abortion, address tht topic in it's proper thread. You must be playing in the outfield. Stick to what's on the plate! Homely "Notice I have not said I am pro war or anti abortion so don't accuse me of either" You certainly present an argument pushing a pro war/occupation agenda or are you just playing a devil's advocate, in which case you're trolling. As far as abortion, I don't care what you think, maybe in a different thread. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,Homey Date: 24 Dec 07 - 02:42 PM Please explain how I am pushing a pro war/occupation agenda. That is your biased knee jerk reaction. And I don't see how you can separate the killing of innocent people from abortion except that abortion is deliberate and collateral damage is not. And I am not defending collateral damage either. Being anti-war and pro-abortion would be insane? Or it can not be justified or what? There is quite a bit of difference between Iran and colonial America. I think the money is flowing in a different direction. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Amos Date: 24 Dec 07 - 03:05 PM The failure to distinguish between things which are actually different is the keynote of insanity. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 24 Dec 07 - 03:30 PM Yes, there is quite a bit of difference between "Iran" and colonial America, Dickey/Homey... Not so with Iraq, however... BTW, Dickey/Homey... Your abortion argument has absolutely nothing to do with a discussion about failed foreign policy, the invasion of Iraq, the occupation of Iraq, Bush's sabre rattling with Iran or the price of tea in China... Might of fact, it has a *desperate* ring to it??? Hey, look, D/H... I am sorry that you have hunkered down in defending what sane people see as insane acts by Bush and his boyz... At any time you, being annonymous, can reinvent yourself as a sane thinking person and come back here with an new world view that isn't so utterly partisan and/or narrow minded... But until then, please expalin why the US's occupation of Iraq is much different than when the Brits occupied the colonies??? Oh, an a follow-up question, por favor... Given that the Bush foreign policy is about whackin' 'n occupyin' folks who he might *think* (ha, that's an oximoron) one day might like to take a shot at US, what other countries are you in favor of W-and-O'n??? And just a follow up to that question, again por favor... Who is going to pay for the W-'n-O'n binge??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 24 Dec 07 - 06:07 PM Washington Post: Subverting Bush at Langley Outrage over the CIA's destruction of interrogation tapes is but one element of the distress Republican intelligence watchdogs in Congress feel about the agency. "It is acting as though it is autonomous, not accountable to anyone," Rep. Peter Hoekstra, ranking Republican on the House intelligence committee, told me. That is his mildest language about the CIA. In carefully selected adjectives, Hoekstra calls it "incompetent, arrogant and political." Chairman Silvestre Reyes and other Democrats on the intelligence committee join Hoekstra in demanding investigation into the tape destruction in the face of the administration's resistance, but the Republicans stand alone in protesting the CIA's defiant undermining of President Bush. In its clean bill of health for Iran on nuclear weapons development, the agency acted as an independent policymaker rather than an adviser. It has withheld from nearly all members of Congress information on the Israeli bombing of Syria in September. The U.S. intelligence community is deciding on its own what information the public shall learn. Intelligence agencies, from Nazi Germany to present-day Pakistan, for better or for ill, have tended to break away from their governments. The Office of Strategic Services, the CIA's World War II predecessor, was infiltrated by communists. While CIA tactics were under liberal assault in Congress during the Watergate era, current accusations of a rogue agency come from Republicans who see a conscious undermining of Bush at Langley. The CIA's contempt for the president was demonstrated during his 2004 reelection campaign when a senior intelligence officer, Paul R. Pillar, made off-the-record speeches around the country criticizing the invasion of Iraq. On Sept. 24, 2004, three days before my column exposed Pillar's activity, former representative Porter Goss arrived at Langley as Bush's handpicked director of central intelligence. Goss had resigned from Congress to accept Bush's mandate to clean up the CIA. But the president eventually buckled under fire from the old boys at Langley and their Democratic supporters in Congress, and Goss was sacked in May 2006. Goss's successor, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, restored the status quo at the CIA and nurtured relations with congressional Democrats in preparation for their coming majority status. Hayden, an active-duty four-star Air Force general, first antagonized Hoekstra by telling Reyes what the Democrats wanted to hear about the Valerie Plame-CIA leak case. There is no partisan divide on congressional outrage over the CIA's destruction of tapes showing interrogation of detainees suspected of terrorism. Hoekstra agrees with Reyes that the Bush administration has made a big mistake refusing to let officials testify in the impending investigation. Republicans also complain that the National Intelligence Estimate concluding that Iran has shut down its nuclear weapons program was a case of the CIA flying solo, not part of the administration team. Donald M. Kerr, principal deputy director of national intelligence, said on Dec. 3 that the intelligence community "took responsibility for what portions of the NIE Key Judgments were to be declassified." In a Dec. 10 column for the Wall Street Journal, Hoekstra and Democratic Rep. Jane Harman, a senior member of the intelligence committee, wrote that the new NIE "does not explain why the 2005 NIE came to the opposite conclusion or what factors could drive Iran to 'restart' its nuclear-weapons program." (Six days later on "Fox News Sunday," Harman called the NIE "the best work product they've produced.") Hoekstra is also at odds with Hayden over the CIA's refusal to reveal what it knows about the Sept. 6 Israeli bombing of Syria's nuclear complex. Only chairmen and ranking minority members of the intelligence committees, plus members of the congressional leadership, have been briefed. Other members of Congress, including those on the intelligence committees, were excluded. The intelligence authorization bill, passed by the House and awaiting final action in the Senate, blocks most of the CIA's funding "until each member of the Congressional Intelligence committees has been fully informed with respect to intelligence" about the Syria bombing. In a June 21 address to the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations, Hayden unveiled the "CIA's social contract with the American people." Hoekstra's explanation: "The CIA is rejecting accountability to the administration or Congress, saying it can go straight to the people." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 24 Dec 07 - 07:33 PM Well, bb, seein' as Bush rolled the CIA under the bus over ***his*** stupid decision to invade Iraq, I reckon there is a high level of paranoia in Langley... Do you blame them??? I don't... Bush would roll his own mother under the bus... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 25 Dec 07 - 01:06 PM So, if the CIA makes a biased report for political reasons that YOU agree with, that is ok, while if they make a biased one for political reasons that YOU disagree with they should be held accountable? Are you SURE you are not related to Bush? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,Homey Date: 25 Dec 07 - 03:06 PM Again Bobert, I am not defending anything. Just pointing out that fact that you claim accuracy that does not exist and use generalizations to arrive at facts that are not correct. Your biased, objective reasoning is incorrect. When challenged you display your bias by claiming I am defending or supporting something or someone. That I am biased. I am defending free speech and logic. Got something against that? Or you are for free speech and logic only when it agrees with you and get huffy and puffy when it does not? "The failure to distinguish between things which are actually different is the keynote of insanity." What is the term for not being able to tell when things are the same but you choose to react in opposite ways about each? Is it called sanity or Bias? "We can deliberately kill in the womb but convicted murderers do not deserve to die and no one should ever die in a war." Is that a sane statement? If it is sane, just say so. Back it up by stating it. Just because the comparison of death by abortion to capital punishment death during armed conflict makes you uncomfortable does not mean I can't make the comparison here. It is still as free country right? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 25 Dec 07 - 04:00 PM Is "GUEST, Homey" the same person as someone else who is already a member? If not, why not sign up as a member and remove all that hassle of having to type in your name every time you post? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 25 Dec 07 - 04:00 PM Actually, Homey/Dickey (or is it Dickey/Homey 'er Old Guy/Dikey), I have provided my sources... No one has yet proved any of my source to be incorrect... I provided my source on Bush having knowledge that Iran had curtailed its nuclear weapons program in 2003 prior to his "WW III' or "Iran is pursuing" speeches in October... Do yu have any evidence that the Baker/Wright story was innacurate??? Well, no you don't... What you do have is another story which is not proof... You expect me to have to provide proof yet you don't hold yourself to the same standard... Normal... And, bet yer butt I'm bias... But I'm not prejudice... There's a big difference... Show me a wise man who isn't bias... You use the word bias as if there's something wrong with it when there instinctually isn't... Bias is good... Prejudice isn't... That's bout it for now, OG/H/D 'er H/OG/D.... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 25 Dec 07 - 04:30 PM "Show me a wise man who isn't biased." Can't argue with that. In Dante's Inferno, the lowest rung in Hell is reserved for those who insist on remaining "colorlessly neutral," those who make no moral or ethical distinctions, and there is no way one can do that and not favor one position or another (sometimes known as being "biased"). It has been said that one should "judge not, lest ye be judged." But a very wise philospher once said that the truly ethical person must make judgments. And be prepared to be judged for the judgments that he or she makes. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 25 Dec 07 - 05:04 PM Dante said it better than I did, Don... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 25 Dec 07 - 05:38 PM I just did a little checking, and it seems that after saying "Judge not, lest ye be judged," Jesus goes on to say, basically, what the philosopher I quoted said. Go ahead and judge, but be prepared to be judged for the judgments you make. But lots of people, for reasons of their own, quote only the first part. Typical out-of-context quotation behavior. I have to agree wholeheartedly with what GUEST, TIA posted on 22 Dec 07 - 10:12 a.m. Keep up the good work! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 26 Dec 07 - 06:51 AM Arriving at an opinion after examining the evidence isn't "prejudice". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 26 Dec 07 - 08:59 AM Exactly the point, McG... Yes, bias is the fabric of wisdom... And that is why when I hear Bush shootin' off his mouth about Iran much the way he shot off his mouth during the mad-dash-to-Iraq, my biases kick in big time... I hate to say this but I firmly believe it but I don't trust Bush to not order up a little "Shock'n Awe" against Iran just to ***prove*** he is "relavent" (his word)... Personally, I think the best think for the world and especially the US would be if Bush would just do what his daddy did and that is put his feet up on the Oval Office desk and do nothing... I don't want Bush screwing US up anymore... He's done enough damage allready... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Barry Finn Date: 26 Dec 07 - 12:33 PM Impeachment now Bobert would be better. But I agree short of that the world would be better off with him doing nothing. He can't seem to make one move that isn't a complete fuck up. It's the story of his life. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 26 Dec 07 - 12:45 PM Yeah, let's do a little review... ***C student in college but probably was closer to being a d student but rich kids get a favorable grading... ***AWOL from Texas Air National Guard... ***Given the Texas Rangers by his daddy and the team's profits went down... ***Given Harkin Energy by his daddy and he ran it into the ground right after taking $700,000 out of the kitty for himself... ***Cokehead and alcoholic ***Convicted drunk driver and... ...worst president in American history, bar none but given his record it shouldn't come as any surprise... But what I ***hope*** America has finally learned is don't let losers do the deciding... There is a reason why they are losers... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,Homey Date: 30 Dec 07 - 04:22 PM Funny how Bobert can dish out the criticism but he can't take any. What should we do about Iran? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Barry Finn Date: 30 Dec 07 - 10:22 PM Why do you want to bother Iran, haven't we been enough of a bother to those already living in the Mid East without becoming a part of their daily life. Oh, forgot we are a part of their daily life, the part that's a nightmare. You sure are worried about them that live 6,000 miles away, how about a little concern for those that could use our help rather than them that would do just fine without it. What would you have us do about Iran Homey? The same as we've done with Iraq? "Fine mess you've gotten US into this time Ollie!" Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 31 Dec 07 - 08:48 AM Homey (Dickey/Old Guy?)... I'll juts wait until I hear your answer to Barry's question before investing any more time on this topic... But have a happy new years, none the less... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Donuel Date: 31 Dec 07 - 10:13 AM I'll answer the question. Russia and Iran combined have more oil than Saudi Arabia. Iraq is 2nd by themselves but third after Russian and Iran. Its not that WE need to attack Iran as much as banking globalists can make more money on military needs, rising oil prices and investments in China. This should be enough "answer" for most people yet if you read ahead more pieces of the puzzle will fall into place. I have seen people here say they don't believe in the New World Order. Yet they are watching it unfold more every month. The term 'New World Order' is the gift of the banking and corporation funded think tanks. The exact term New World Order was first used in public addresses by President GHW Hush. What is it really? Here it is straight up with no satire or spoon feeding... It is a push to privatize everything along the lines of an extreme fundamentalist Capitalism. You might ask Everything? Beyond private property and private corporations I point out: Private (oil) Wars, private armies, private police, private legislaters, Privatized National Parks, privatized health care, privatized social security schemes...et cetera. Putting these corporate ideas of ultimate privatization into play via banking systems like the New World Bank is often called Globalization. Conentrating wealth in a handful of banks and corporation which are in turn owned by even fewer families is effective in removing the last remaing vestigal powers of labor unions and Law (laws like zoning, tax and numerous consumer safety regulations) To enhance Globalization the social safety nets of FDR are called socialist and very bad. National health care is communist and very bad. Social Security is broke and very bad. Social Spending has no place in a militarized society. With legislators becoming essentially privatized by corporate contributions the only stumbling block to most Globalization (formerly called New World Order) tactics are the courts. Perhaps you don't see as I do how the courts are under attack by Globalists. Perhaps you don't see that threats of; terror, natural disaster, disease and impending doom actually changes the behavior of people to allow freedom itself to be traded away for huge sudden sweeping security laws and economic slavery, al in the sheeps clothing of security. Yet let me assure you that the old term 'New World Order' (which did not play well since it sounds too close to the truth) is alive and well in Globalization. A preconceived notion as to what New World Order/Globalization meant may be far from what it is. It is simply an extreme form of capitalism which relies on anti democratic and powerful media propoganda. The weakening of goverment agenices and the strengthening of private corporate agencies. Thats why there was a private beefed up Blackwater and Walmart response to Katrina while FEMA had its guts brains and balls removed by the Globalist administration. The only goverment agency to respond to Katina immediately was the Coast Guard and the Royal Canadian Mounties. People argue here all the time about various aspects of globallization as if its a red or blue issue or a democratic vs. fascist issue. The arguemnts can be anything we want it to be but Globalization ie NWO is swallowing us all as we bicker. I suppose globalist think tank pundits even have an answer for a nasty but unintended nuclear war which is usually bad for business and living things... there would be a great market for construction contracts and of course more nukes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 31 Dec 07 - 05:51 PM Happy New Year , ALL. May the next year see peace and joy throughout the world, and all of us safe and secure. Bruce |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 31 Dec 07 - 07:41 PM Back atcha, bruce... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,Homey Date: 01 Jan 08 - 12:24 PM The above was by me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 01 Jan 08 - 12:41 PM 400! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 01 Jan 08 - 12:58 PM The problems with ABM's is that it's very difficult to convince the folks they are aimed at that these weapons cannot also be used as offensive weapons... I mean, if Russsia were to plant ABM's in Cuba the US would throw a fit, Homey... This is perhaps why Russia is trhowing a fit about the US wanted to plant them on Russia's doorstep... And for this same reason we cannot expect to produce an environment where the Iranian clerics can bring about moderation with the same sabre rattling from the US... All that sabre rattling does is prolong conflict which, in turn, does not create an positive environment for the US and Iran to find common ground... (But, Bobert, Iran did that and Iran did that!!!) Iran also helped the US defeat the Taliban... Hmmmmmm??? The US has had one opportunity after another under Bush to make inroads in Iran and has bungled them all... Now, it is apparent that Bush has so poisoned the relationship that the Iranians don't trust him and are just, like the rest of the world, waiting Bush out... Bush's legacy is allready cast in stone and there is nothing now that he can do to change it... Seems the next 12 months can't go by fast enough... This is not meant to be a personal attack on anyone... This is just a sober assessment of the situation... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 01 Jan 08 - 05:22 PM "The problems with ABM's is that it's very difficult to convince the folks they are aimed at that these weapons cannot also be used as offensive weapons... I mean, if Russsia were to plant ABM's in Cuba the US would throw a fit, Homey... This is perhaps why Russia is trhowing a fit about the US wanted to plant them on Russia's doorstep..." Not sure that I see why. Look at the ABM systems: Under SALT, the USSR and the US were allowed two each- The Soviets built them, and we started to, then dismantled them so that the ONLY option in case of attack would be all-out nuclear war. With SDIO, the basic principle is that, IN THE CASE of a LIMITED launch, caused by accident or terrorists, the side with an ABM has the OPTION of NOT throwing it's entire arsenal at the percieved enemy, and waiting until it was understood whaht happened. A 95% hit rate would mean that of 10 missles launched, there would be a 50% chance that ONE would get through. Since the alternative, without ABM, is to have a 100% chance that TEN will get through, it seems obvious that the OPTION of waiting is only there with an ABM system in place. When the choice is between MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction ( as pushed by Democratic Administrations)) and SDIO, that allows the missles to be neutralized WITHOUT destroying the attacking country, it seem that only those committed to the idea that it is better to kill the (percieved) enemy even at the cost of one's own death than to block the attack and then deal as appropriate with the ones who launched the attack, could NOT be in favor of it. If Country X launches 10 missiles at Japan, is it a better thing to a. Shoot down the missiles and have no-one killed. OR b. Have the 10 missiles hit Japan, killing millions, then remove Country X from the face of the earth with the counterstrike? And what about the fact that it might have been an error on the part of Country X's software that caused the launch in the first place? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 01 Jan 08 - 07:15 PM First of all thwere is failsafe measures that the country firing the offensive missle can use in the case of an "accident"... So that argument is off the table... The second argument, however, of a terrorist launching an offensive missile is, while farfetched, somewhat valid... But in ordeer for that to happen the terrorist would have to have gone thru a massive checklist of preocedures in order to pull it off... I'm not too sure what the chances are of a terrorist being able to penitrate the US or Russia but it is so small that it's perhaps not even worth discussion... Now that brings up folks like Pakistan... or India... or Isreal that we are realistically talking about here... Agreed??? The problem is that if one is making a case for a US ABM system on Russia's doorstep based on the threat to the US by Pakistan one needs to rememeber that Pakistan does not have the felivery capabilities to hit the US... Not does India... Isreal??? Maybe... So, the discussion comes down to the logis in placing a US ABM system on Russia's doorstep to protect the US from Isreal??? If that is your argument, bb, and I'm not saying it is... But when one takes the window dressing off what you have said, I can't think of any other scenerio out there in the real world that would justify the US thinking that a ABM sysytem on Russia's doorstep would be of any value at all but... ...quite the contrary... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 01 Jan 08 - 07:40 PM Bobert: "First of all thwere is failsafe measures that the country firing the offensive missle can use in the case of an "accident"... So that argument is off the table..." False conclusion. WE have such a systemn, and have offered it to the Russians, but there are a number of nuclear weapons which aee not under such control, both within NATA, and in other nations including the former Soviet Union. "The second argument, however, of a terrorist launching an offensive missile is, while farfetched, somewhat valid... But in ordeer for that to happen the terrorist would have to have gone thru a massive checklist of preocedures in order to pull it off" Again, a false conclusion from the present KNOWN inventory of nuclear weapons in the world- NOT including the ones in N. Korea, given out by Pakeustan, stolen from depots in the former Soviet Union, etc. "... I'm not too sure what the chances are of a terrorist being able to penitrate the US or Russia but it is so small that it's perhaps not even worth discussion..." Easily done, the shipping containers presently entering the US are just one example. Likelihood is 95% + (100% ability, about 5% that they would be caught) "Now that brings up folks like Pakistan... or India... or Isreal that we are realistically talking about here... Agreed???" They are a PART of the problem, but far from the largest part. "The problem is that if one is making a case for a US ABM system on Russia's doorstep based on the threat to the US by Pakistan one needs to rememeber that Pakistan does not have the felivery capabilities to hit the US... Not does India... Isreal??? Maybe..." 1. the ABM system proposed was for the KNOWN missiles from Iran ( the ones I have already shown the links to them HAVING NOW, or having under construction several years ago. 2. An attack on a US ally is, by treaty, considered the same as an attack on the US. I am sure the English and others in NATO would want us to keep our treaty obligations... "So, the discussion comes down to the logis in placing a US ABM system on Russia's doorstep to protect the US from Isreal???" False concliusion, as shown by my negation of your straw man arguement. "If that is your argument, bb, and I'm not saying it is... But when one takes the window dressing off what you have said, I can't think of any other scenerio out there in the real world that would justify the US thinking that a ABM sysytem on Russia's doorstep would be of any value at all but..." Then you have failed to think of the actual reality of the present nuclear weapons, the present delivery systems, and the real world. Your comments about SDIO to me have about the same weight as MY comments about Blues singers would have to you. You have expertise in Blues. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 01 Jan 08 - 07:54 PM "Pakistan does not have the felivery capabilities to hit the US... Not does India.." You are WAY behind the times, Bobert. "(1995)As Indian scientists watched their new space rocket ascend over the Indian Ocean, they were jubilant. The rocket's four giant stages lifted a three-quarter ton satellite into a near polar orbit, a tremendous achievement for Indian rocketry. For the rest of the world, however, last October's launch was more ominous: India had just proved that it could soon reach any point on the globe with a nuclear warhead. India tested its first nuclear device in 1974. Since then, according to the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency), its researchers have progressed to working on more powerful thermonuclear bombs and the missiles to deliver them. India's smallest nuclear-capable missile now threatens Pakistan, and its medium-range missile will threaten China's border regions. If India converts its new space rocket to a missile, it could reach cities as far away as London, Tokyo and New York. " http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/india/missiles.html India, Russia to make BrahMos missiles 21 Jul 2006, 1540 hrs IST,PTI BANGALORE: India and Russia intend to make 1,000 BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles over the next 10 years through their joint venture company, with nearly 50 per cent of them expected to be sold in third countries, defence sources said on Friday. "We already have a capacity to produce 100 missiles a year. One thousand missiles in 10 years is a reasonable target. Nearly 50 per cent will go to exports," a source said. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1789050.cms "Pakistan has an extensive nuclear-capable ballistic missile program, as the April 1998 test-firing of the Ghauri missile illustrates. The program is almost entirely imported, despite official Pakistani claims to the contrary. Most recently, Pakistan has received assistance from the People's Republic of China and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK). Pakistan's limited scientific and industrial base has forced it to rely on continuous outside help. Pakistan possesses both the 300 km M-11 (Hatf III) missile acquired from China and the 1000 km Nodong (Ghauri) missile bought from North Korea. Pakistan has also imported plants to manufacture these missiles. Pakistan's missile program is important for two reasons. First, Pakistan is a nuclear weapon state. Missiles give Pakistan the means to deliver its nuclear warheads farther and with more certainty than it could with aircraft. Second, the May nuclear weapons tests of both Pakistan and India illustrate the high tensions and spiraling arms race in South Asia. Ballistic missiles, which shorten warning times, increase the chances of accidental or preemptive nuclear conflict. " http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/pakistan/missiles.html http://www.missilethreat.com/thethreat/pageID.250/default.asp How many OTHER references do you want??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 01 Jan 08 - 07:56 PM India developing submarine launched ballistic missiles The Associated Press Published: September 11, 2007 NEW DELHI: India has tested systems that would enable it to launch ballistic missiles from submarines, officials said Tuesday, a move that boosts the country's nuclear deterrence capabilities. Submarine launched ballistic missiles, or SLBMs, are considered an important element in creating nuclear deterrence, giving it second strike capabilities in the event its land or air-based weapons are disabled. Indian media reports Tuesday said India had successfully launched a SLBM with a range of some 1,500 kilometers (930 miles) in recent days. However, the Ministry of Defense denied this, saying only that India's state-run Defense Research and Development Organization had tested components of an underwater launch system. "No SLBM of the said range has been launched by the DRDO," said ministry spokesman Sitanshu Kar. "Only the development of technology elements for potential underwater capabilities is in progress." He gave no further details of the test. Last week Defense Minister A. K. Antony informed Parliament that a submarine-launched version of India's Brahmos supersonic cruise missile was ready. However, the Brahmos, which can carry nuclear warheads of up to 200 kilograms (440 pounds) in weight, has a maximum range of 290 kilometers (180 miles). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 01 Jan 08 - 08:18 PM So, bb, are you suggesting that Pakistan could pull off an nuclear attack on the US??? BTW, keep in mind that Pakistan's rocket techmology was sold to North Korea and look what happened when North Korea shot off one of their Pakistani designed missles... You are giving way too much credit to folks who are clueless.. You also fail to recognize the reality that the US can wipe out anyone who is stupid enough to attack us with missels... T^his is the deterrent factor that folks who think we need more nukes can't get their minds wrapped around... As for India attackin' US with subs??? Is this a reason to put ABMs on Russia's doorstep??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 02 Jan 08 - 03:36 PM Bobert: "So, bb, are you suggesting that Pakistan could pull off an nuclear attack on the US???" No, I was not- although they COULD. "BTW, keep in mind that Pakistan's rocket techmology was sold to North Korea and look what happened when North Korea shot off one of their Pakistani designed missles..." Sorry, it was N. Korea that sold the rocket technology to Pakistan... AND Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, et al. And what did happen? they went over Japan and into the Pacific Ocean. "You are giving way too much credit to folks who are clueless.." You are giving way too little credit to people who have shown they can develop what the US had 30 years ago. "You also fail to recognize the reality that the US can wipe out anyone who is stupid enough to attack us with missels... : Only if we 1. had the will/ public acceptance 2. knew who it was that launched the attack 3. had the capability to wipe them out- Were you one of those that stated it was impossible to eliminate Iran's nuclear program because we could not destroy the whole country? "T^his is the deterrent factor that folks who think we need more nukes can't get their minds wrapped around..." ** I ** have never stated we need MORE nuclear bombs- I would prefer to see the effort used for defensive systems like ABMs. "As for India attackin' US with subs??? Is this a reason to put ABMs on Russia's doorstep???" No, it was a negation of your statements, showing them to be false. The reason to put ABMs " On Russia's Doorstep" is to intercept the Iranian missles ( which they already have) IF they are launched against US ALLIES ( Those we have treaty obligations to protect) with the nuclear warheads that IRAN is capable of developing in the near future ( 2009? 2012?) and which they have a demonstrated capability to produce fissionable material for. Or do you WANTY to wait until they are used, so you can destroy the entire country with our retaliation? I would far rather stop them ( by destroying those missles before they impact) before they kill millions than kill tens of millions more in revenge, as you seem to be advocating. Try reading WHAT I have written, instad of using your own bias to warp the facts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 02 Jan 08 - 04:27 PM "Since the late 1980s and early 1990s, Pakistan has invested in both solid-motor and liquid-engine ballistic missile programs with Chinese and North Korean assistance, respectively. Pakistan's reasons for investing in both solid- and liquid-propulsion technologies remain unclear. However, analysts speculate the rival programs could be the result of intra-institutional rivalry and one-upmanship between the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) and Khan Research Laboratories (KRL), which have historically feuded over control and credits for Pakistan nuclear weapons-related efforts. This rivalry may have also carried over to the development of nuclear delivery systems. Furthermore, the diversification effort could also be viewed as a proactive attempt on the part of Pakistan's military to factor in possible bottlenecks or failure along one technological front, as well as an attempt to diversify suppliers in the face of U.S. efforts to restrict the international trade in weapons of mass destruction-capable ballistic and cruise missile technologies. Although Pakistan's current fleet of missiles is restricted to SRBMs, the National Defense Complex (NDC) and KRL are actively pursuing programs to develop medium-range ballistic missiles. Most analysts believe that the Pakistani military has achieved or is close to achieving the capability to mount nuclear warheads on its current ballistic missile fleet. Some reports even go so far as to suggest that Pakistan may be further along than India on the path to achieving nuclear operability.[3] Pakistan underscored its commitment to strengthening its military capability against India by conducting two ballistic missile tests in quick succession in February and March 2007, even as the two subcontinental rivals continued discussions on nuclear confidence building measures and anti-terrorism initiatives. The Pakistani tests came at a time when India has also sought to strengthen its strategic capabilities vis-à-vis Pakistan, as well as narrow the gap with China through development of more capable nuclear delivery vehicles, including advanced combat aircraft and missile systems. Since 2005, Islamabad has also carried out several tests of its Babur (Hatf VII) cruise missile, two such tests coming in March and June 2007. This subsonic nuclear capable missile, has a range of 700 km.[48] In addition, in August 2007, Pakistan tested a new cruise missile, the Ra'ad (Arabic for "Thunder"). This missile, which is air-launched, has a range of 350 kilometers.[49] Thus, along with ballistic missiles, cruise missiles are increasingly part of Pakistan's nuclear calculus. [50]" http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Pakistan/Missile/index_3066.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 02 Jan 08 - 05:19 PM Perhaps I need to explain further: ""So, bb, are you suggesting that Pakistan could pull off an nuclear attack on the US???" No, I was not- although they COULD." ANY group that has a nuclear device capable of being placed on a missile of at least 30 Km range is CAPABLE of "pulling off a nuclear attack on the US." Unless we are prepared to declare ALL vessals on the high seas to be subject to search and possible seizure, and we implement such a program for ALL cargo, naval, and civilian ships capable of carrying such a missile- ie, about 60 ft.long or larger. You think that that is even possible, given the state of the US Navy and Coast Guard today? Or should we just sink them all when the get close enough to launch such a misile? THAT we might be able to do, with air assets. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 02 Jan 08 - 05:22 PM "ABMs are purely defensive" Armour is purely defensive too. For example, on a tank. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 02 Jan 08 - 05:26 PM Oh, so now the story is that we need more nukes because N. Korea sold their technology to Pakistan??? Hmmmmmm, bb, this story of yours is ghetting more farfetched every time you post... I mean, if I were Pakistan I'd be purdy danged worriwed if I was suing North Korean designs 'cause they just don't work too good... So you are basing your foriegn policy around crappy missels, bb??? One somewhat seccessful test does not make Pakistan all worhgt the price of starting another round of ther Cold War over... But that, in essence, is what is going to happen if the United Sates keeps pushing for missles on Rissia's doorstep... Somehow this little detail seems to escape your relm of undeerstanding... The US might not win another Cold War with Russia becasue of Russia's oil reserves and new found wealth from those reserves... This is a failed foreign policy built on 80's thinking... This isn't the 80's anymore, bb... The US is slowly bleeding to death finacially and I don't see much creative thinking, if any, from Bush and his gang... Einstien said that a problem cannnot be solved with the same consciousness that created it and this is why Bush, apparently like you, cannot shift gears quickly enough to act responsibly and sanely in a modern world... While you two rattle the sabres one opportunity after another after has been wasted... After 9/11 we had Iran right where we needed Iran... As much as I disliked Clinton personally he would used Iran's coooperation in defeating the Taliban as a grand opening for the normalization of relations... Anyone who has ever served in the intellegence community will tell you that it's alot easier to keep an eye on folks when you have diplomatic relations... This is a no brainer... But did Bush use this opportunity to make US safer... No, becuase somehow he thought that might not keep his redneck base happy... I mean, it ain't tough and tough is what entertains alot of his base... Stupid base and stupid leader... How about arguing why you think that diplomacy is for sissies, bb... You never seem to get around to that but, from your almost blind aceoptance of any thing that Bush does, and you full acceptance that the only way to get along in this world is to either whack or threaten whacking folks, it is apparent to most here that you really don't think much of diplomacy... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 02 Jan 08 - 07:01 PM Boberty, If you keep this up, I WILL call you a liar! "Oh, so now the story is that we need more nukes because N. Korea sold their technology to Pakistan??? " \ *** I *** HOVE NEVER SAID WE NEED MORE NUKES!. You keep saying lies. Shut up, or face the consequences. More on the rest of your statement later. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 02 Jan 08 - 07:03 PM "How about arguing why you think that diplomacy is for sissies, bb" Another lie from that Bush-like liar, Bobert. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 02 Jan 08 - 07:04 PM "So you are basing your foriegn policy around crappy missels, bb??? " No, but YOU seem to think that you have some knowledge in a field that you have shown your ignorance in. I expect YOU to now defer to MY statements on the Blues, since I am far more an expert on them than you are on missles or WMD. OK, Ubermensch Bobert?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 02 Jan 08 - 07:06 PM "or threaten whacking folks" If you can show how a defensive system that can only shoot down missiles that are being used OFFENSIVELY is threatening to "whack" anybody, I might actually have some respect for you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 02 Jan 08 - 08:15 PM N. Korea sold their technology to Pakistan It seems to have been much more he other way round. ......................................... "...show how a defensive system that can only shoot down missiles that are being used OFFENSIVELY is threatening..." If a potential enemy manages to install really effective defences, this reduces the deterrent effect of your own weapons, and in principal puts the other side in a position to use its own weapons without fear of effective retaliation. Once again: "Armour is purely defensive too. For example, on a tank." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 02 Jan 08 - 09:17 PM BB, Where in your history of posting here have you advocated diplomacy over militaristic responses... I rest my case... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 03 Jan 08 - 12:41 PM Bobert: Where in your history of posting here have you ever advocated dealing with the problem of nuclear proliferation other than by threatening other countries with complete destruction if we think they have attacked us? The principle YOU seem to be advocating, MAD, is as morally bankrupt and inhuman as any ever concieved by human beings. YOU are saying that the US should have enough warheads to destroy ALL the countries that might possibly attack us, in order to "deter" them. EVEN when it has been demonstrated that there are groups opposed to the US that DO NOT FEAR being killed, and thus your threat has no effect other than to make the US look like the aggressor. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 03 Jan 08 - 12:43 PM "the deterrent effect of your own weapons," You are claiming that it is the deterrent effect of Iran's future weapons that will keep the US from attacking them? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 03 Jan 08 - 12:49 PM Bobert, In a previous thread, talking about the ABM system near Russia, I stated that the US should share the control of that site JOINTLY with the Russians, so that they would not feel threatened by it. What was YOUR suggestion? That the US NOT try to protect those nations that we have a treaty obligation to protect? I think on this topic, at least, I have shown less desire to wipe out tens of millions of people than YOU have. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 03 Jan 08 - 01:24 PM I was responding to the specific point you raised, bruce, which was to question how defensive missiles could ever reasonably be seen as threatening to anyone. In the past the USA has very clearly indicated that attempts to develop a Soviet ABM system would be viewed as a hostile act. You are claiming that it is the deterrent effect of Iran's future weapons that will keep the US from attacking them? I didn't make that claim - though I would assume that the essential purpose of seeking to acquire such weapons would be the hope that it could act as a deterrent to attacks by hostile countries. The same reason Israel, for example,has developed and built up its nuclear arsenal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 03 Jan 08 - 08:11 PM Six questions, BB... 1. Why are you back to SCREAMING??? 2. Do you think that SCREAMING makes your points any more correct??? 3. Why didn't you answer my question??? 4. Why can't you respond with one post rather than 3 or 4 or 5??? 5. Again, can you show us one single post where you have advocated diplomacy over militarism??? 6. How's you militaristic foreign policy' workin' for ya??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Jan 08 - 02:45 PM Six answers, Bobert: 1. Why are you back to SCREAMING??? Because you seem incapable of reading and understanding simple English statements, and I find that to be annoying. 2. Do you think that SCREAMING makes your points any more correct??? No. Nor do I believe, as you seem to, that it makes them any LESS correct. 3. Why didn't you answer my question??? I did: "Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce - PM Date: 03 Jan 08 - 12:49 PM Bobert, In a previous thread, talking about the ABM system near Russia, I stated that the US should share the control of that site JOINTLY with the Russians, so that they would not feel threatened by it. What was YOUR suggestion? That the US NOT try to protect those nations that we have a treaty obligation to protect? I think on this topic, at least, I have shown less desire to wipe out tens of millions of people than YOU have. " 4. Why can't you respond with one post rather than 3 or 4 or 5??? Because THEN you complain that my post are too long for you to bother reading. 5. Again, can you show us one single post where you have advocated diplomacy over militarism??? See the answer to #3 6. How's you militaristic foreign policy' workin' for ya??? Since I am not the one saying we should have no option other than to destroy entire nations if a single madman attacks us, it would seem that YOU need to answer it, not me. Since I have a pacific policy ( ie, I DON'T want to kill innocent civilians and burn babies, as you obviously do) the question is meanlingless. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 04 Jan 08 - 05:18 PM Sorry, bb, but until you cool off and stop SCREAMING, I'll just go back to ignoring your mad-manish rants... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Jan 08 - 05:25 PM Sorry, Bobert, but until you learn to read, comprehend, and reply to what is written rather than your own warped view of what you want people to have said, many of us will continue to ignore you, even though you may actually have valid points of view that we should consider. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Jan 08 - 06:53 PM Hmm... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 04 Jan 08 - 07:27 PM LOL, bb... You wouldn't consider or reconsider anything that you believe becasue you are genetically incapable of independent thought... That is not meant to be disrespectfull but quite the opposite... I do respect the depths of your beliefs... That is a fine quality... Geoerge Bush also possesses the same qualities... Problems with "true believers" is that they shouldn't be in leadership positions because they have no flexibility... That is you... It is Bush and, in a lesser extent, that is me as well... Yes, we beleieve what we belive deeply... In your case I see it more as partisan belief because it seems that you tend to sing the party fight songs... I am not attached to a party so I'd like to think of myself as more of an independent thinker... I hated most of Bill Clinton's policies, for instance... I suspect that you have supporsted 100% of George Bush's policies... If I am wrong it isn't bwecasue you have ever broken ranks... This is why it is im[possible to discuss things with you... You have no interest in discussing things becasue you are always on the Bush defensive... That will never bring about any discussion but rather Bush "talking points"... Talking points are not discussion... They are defensive... So after a while it just comes dowen to the same ol' impass... I have asked you to express your" ideas and opinions... What I get is not that but some reference to a post from the past where you, more likely, couched your opinion between cut 'n posts... I wouldn't mind going head to head with you if you would quit the games and leave the cut'n posts outta it... But, seein' as that ain't gonna happen, discussing stuff with you is insane: repeating a behavior and expecting different results... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Jan 08 - 08:39 PM Bobert, "You wouldn't consider or reconsider anything that you believe becasue you are genetically incapable of independent thought... " A false statement- YOU ( yelling) do not know anything about my genetic capabilities, nor would you understand them if you did know. I have spent the last 29.5 years in the field of missiles, satellites, and space operations. Yet you present lies about space capabilities that YOU ( yelling) do not even understand, and themn insist on repeating them after you have been given the refernces that show them to be wrong. Seems like YOU ( yelling) are the one incapable of deviating from your programmed "anti-Bush" mindset. As I have stated, the insistance on giving a future US leader ONLY ( yelling) the choice of doing nothing, and having the whole principle of MAD brought into doubt, or destroying millions of innocents, which YOU ( yelling) claim is far better than to allow another option, that of destroying missiles BEFORE ( emphasis) they can impact the US or our allies, or even others ). The idea that the only "peaceful" way is to insure that millions die if a single madman gets WMD, as the lack of ABM systems does, seems about as warped and evil as it is possible for one to be. "This is why it is im[possible to discuss things with you... You have no interest in discussing things becasue you are always on the Bush defensive... That will never bring about any discussion but rather Bush "talking points"... Talking points are not discussion... They are defensive..." And when have YOU ( emphasis, not yelling) EVER ( more emphasis) presented any point other than the "anti-Bush" talking points????? I have disagreed with SOME ( emphasis) of the Bush administration actions- Have you EVER ( emphasis) agreed with any of them? Seems as if you are more narrow-minded than even I am. "But, seein' as that ain't gonna happen, discussing stuff with you is insane: repeating a behavior and expecting different results..." THIS ( ephasis) I can agree with you entirely on! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,TIA Date: 04 Jan 08 - 11:40 PM Perhaps more than anything, I cannot discuss anything with someone who continually SHOUTS. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 05 Jan 08 - 09:11 AM Amen, TIA, amen... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,Homey Date: 15 Jan 08 - 10:36 PM "the folks they are aimed at" They are not aimed at people. They are aimed at other launched missiles. "if Russsia were to plant ABM's in Cuba the US would throw a fit," That is pure speculation. With ABMs on both sides what is the problem? Would I be a threat to you if I have a fire extinguisher but you don't? I still haven't seen one constructive word about what should be done about Iran's threat to peace and the middle east. Perhaps wallowing around in victimhood, whining and bitching about George Bush will take care of the problem. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 16 Jan 08 - 12:20 AM Teddy Roosevelt said "Speak softly, but carry a big stick." All the Bush administration knows how to do is wave the big stick. Anybody tried a little diplomacy lately? Not so's anybody could notice. . . . Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 16 Jan 08 - 02:19 AM "Anybody tried a little diplomacy lately?" Over the last eight years rather a great deal of it Don. Your current administration using purely diplomatic means resolved the rather serious situation regarding North Korea. A certain amount of diplomatic effort has gone into the Israel/Palestine peace process. On the other hand, the EU has been negotiating with Iran for seven years now with absolutely no result. Inside Iran things are changing, the sanctions imposed both unilaterally and by the UN are having an effect, you have a very young population who are largely critical of the situation within. As the old line goes, "Somethings got to give" and that will occur without the US having to do a thing. On the subject US Foreign Policy in the region seems to have dropped out of the topics being discussed by the Democrat Presidential hopefuls. Just as well Senator Joe Biden has pulled out as by now I'd be sending him quotes from his statements directed at General Petraeus last September. Further down the thread McGrath of Harlow, came out with "Arriving at an opinion after examining the evidence isn't "prejudice". Very true Kevin, provided that all the available evidence is examined and provided that what you are examining is indeed evidence. Bobert tends to run on rumour and unsupported opinion that backs his adopted point of view. An example of this was given in his "little review": ***C student in college but probably was closer to being a d student but rich kids get a favorable grading... Ask Bobert to provide links to the evidence he examined before making the above statement, one part of which (i.e. the grade obtained) is fact the other complete and utter supposition (Boberts prejudice is showing). ***AWOL from Texas Air National Guard... Not true, and absolutely no evidence to support that statement. ***Given the Texas Rangers by his daddy and the team's profits went down... Not true, any examination of the transaction will prove that GHWB had absolutely nothing to do with it. Where GWB got the money to buy into the Team is perfectly transparent for anybody that wants to look. ***Given Harkin Energy by his daddy and he ran it into the ground right after taking $700,000 out of the kitty for himself... Not true, again I would like to see the "evidence" that Bobert examined to back this up, as with the above the deals were all perfectly transparent. No money was "taken out of the kitty" as Bobert puts it. GWB objected to Harken plans to drill offshore Bahrain as it was clearly outside the company's core business. He resigned from the board and sold his stock, his dealings with Harkin were subject to a full investigation and nothing untoward was found - I imagine that that investigation did examine evidence to reach that conclusion. ***Cokehead and alcoholic Evidence Bobert? The man admits to having for period in his youth of "drinking too much" but accusations of drug abuse and alcoholism seems to belabour the point a bit. All of this what near twenty years ago? I wonder if Bobert and all others who lap this sort of stuff up apply the same yardstick to themselves? ***Convicted drunk driver and... Not a criminal offence at the time his drivers licence was suspended and he paid a fine. ...worst president in American history, bar none but given his record it shouldn't come as any surprise... Opinion, pure opinion, not fact. On the subject of losers, GWB put his own money into Arbusco Oil, which merged to become Spectrum 7 Energy, which was taken over by Harkin Energy. At every step of the way GWB translated his stake in the form of stock and made a profit. If that is "losing" then I know a large number of businessmen who would like to lose in a similar fashion. With the money he got from his sale of Harkin Stock he paid for his stake in the Rangers, which he sold in 1998 after eight years for an enormous profit - I just love Boberts definition of losing. Everything that Bobert comes out with is coloured by his prejudice and based on lies, half-truths, misrepresentations and myth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,Homey Date: 16 Jan 08 - 11:58 PM Truman lowest approval rating = 23% all time worst of any president GWB lowest approval rating = 32% |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,Homey Date: 17 Jan 08 - 12:12 AM The above was by me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 17 Jan 08 - 02:19 AM "I still haven't seen one constructive word about what should be done about Iran's threat to peace and the middle east." Assuming, that is, that Iran is a threat. Iran probably considers Israel and the U.S. a threat. Defense is quite different than a threat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 17 Jan 08 - 02:22 AM Besides that, what kind of 'peace in the middle east' do you think Iran is threatening? What does peace in the middle east look like? Seems to me the U.S. and Israel have made sure that there will be no peace in the middle east. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 17 Jan 08 - 10:04 AM Yo, t... Other than your *proclamations* you have not provided any evidence that my observations about Bush, which BTW have nothing to do with prejudice, are innacurate... Can you prove that Bush completed his stint in the Air National Guard??? He can't... Can you show us where Bush didn't take a $700,000 draw from Harkin Energy just months before it announced it was seriously in the red??? Can you tell us were Bush got the money to buy the Texas Rangers... How did he earn that money??? Please be specfic about juts who his employers were and how he could have amassed that kind of money to buy a baseball team??? You *proclaim* that things are "transparent" but I made several observation and you have not provided *evidence* that I am wrong... As for Iran, diplomacy is very complex... Maybe that is why the Bush foriegn policy on the Middle East has gotten us into such a mess... The problems of the Middle East cannot be solved militarially... Bush didn't understand that in 2000 as his main interst was attacking Iraq... That has been reported by his former Treasury Scretary... No, what Bush did was do a 180 on just about everything that Clinton has done in regards to Middle East Policy which, in essence, was to say "play nice" and then turn his back on Isreal and let the Plaiistianian?isreali situation deteriorate into chaos... This wasn't diplomacy... This was just plain stupid... Now 7 years later with Bush figuring out just how wrong he was in abandoning the Clinton Isreali/Palestian policy Bush is trying to salvage a legacy by doing exactly what Clinton was doing... Problem is is that's Bush's legacy has allready very much been cast... In other words, it's too late... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Barry Finn Date: 17 Jan 08 - 12:27 PM I guess Bush is still trying his brand of diplomacy on Iran. He's done so BLOODY well with it in Iraq. After his feet fell out from underneath him on the most recent intellegance report on Iran's nuclear weapons abandonment program, he's still trying to bush & spin the issue for a defense & strike against this threat to the free world, his free world. To him diplomacy is an unknown, meaning that he hasn't a clue as to how to use it, speak it, weld it, or spell it. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 17 Jan 08 - 04:12 PM Whoa up there Hoss! The boot is on the other foot. You Bobert were the one that stated: 1. ***C student in college but probably was closer to being a d student but rich kids get a favorable grading... Therefore, you Bobert have to provide links to the evidence that you examined before making the above statement with regard to the grade attained and to substantiate that rich kids get favourable grading. Perhaps Dianavan or other 'catters in the teaching profession can tell us that they give preferential grades to rich kids. 2. ***AWOL from Texas Air National Guard... You stated that Bobert now present the "evidence" that caused you to make that statement. At the same time explain how as a deserter the man managed to be given an honourable discharge from the Air National Guard. 3. ***Given the Texas Rangers by his daddy and the team's profits went down... Please provide "evidence" that GHWB had anything to do with GWB's purchase of the Texas Rangers Team. 4 ***Given Harkin Energy by his daddy and he ran it into the ground right after taking $700,000 out of the kitty for himself... Please present or provide the "evidence" and links to substantiate that GHWB purchased Harkin Energy for his son. Somebody mentioned by Guest Homey in another thread could tell you - one George Soros, he was part of Harkin Energy when they bought out Spectrum 7. ***Cokehead and alcoholic Evidence Bobert? Or do you firmly believe that once a man has a drink he remains an alcoholic forever. If so too bad for reformation and rehabilitation in your world Bobert. I wonder Bobert if you apply the same yardstick to yourself? ***Convicted drunk driver and... The current President of the United States of America does not have a criminal record. If you dispute that Bobert, as you appear to, please prove your case, should be fairly easy, all you have to do is do it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 17 Jan 08 - 04:25 PM No, I don't have to provide any of that stuff, T??? You proclaimed that I was wrong on my assertions so I believe the ball is in your court to back up your proclamations... Alll of my assertions, other than perhaps my opiniopn that Bush is the worst presdient ever, have been news items so it shouldn't be too hard for you to find 'um... Have at it, ol' son!!! B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Jan 08 - 05:25 PM Sorry, Bobert. If you claim that because it is in a newspaper it is true, I refer you to http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119984087808076475.html Waiting for your retraction of statements pertaining to Iraqi casualties... YOU have been making claims here about a lot of topics, based on what you claim to have read in some newspaper, while denying that anything you disagree with can be true, even when you are given the newspaper article it is presented in. So please give us the SOURCE material, so that thinking people can make up their own minds about it, instead of relying on "Bobert Truth" which has been proven wrong in several ( numerous) cases. If YOU do not have source material that can support your claims, why should we give it any more value than YOU give to what you disagree with?? OK, uber-Bobert? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 17 Jan 08 - 06:14 PM That's OK Bobert, the questions were asked knowing full well that not one single point that you mentioned, apart from the actual grade that he attained at University, would stand up to even the most cursory of examinations. So you believe that things are true just because you read it in a newspaper!!! Now that is absolutely priceless, how bloody naive can you get!!! By the bye Bobert having said that I can categorically state that I do believe the content of the WSJ article linked to in BB's post regarding the Lancet and the Hopkins Report. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 17 Jan 08 - 06:28 PM On the ABM's Putin has clearly explained his concerns relating to their proposed sighting. He knows and has acknowledged that they in themselves pose no direct threat to Russia, he knows exactly what threat they are being deployed to cover. His concern is that if fired from their intended locations at missiles fired in a "rogue" strike the ABM's might take out the IRBM's in locations that might cause their (the IRBM's) warheads to fall on Russian territory. Point indicating the above to be the case - Putin himself actually advocated alternative sites for these ABM's and for their guidance radars, the locations being equally on "Russias Doorstep" but where if struck the targetted IRBM warheads would fall into the Caspian Sea. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 17 Jan 08 - 07:44 PM Well, of course you beleive MR. SCREAMER's link... He's yer "contract partner" here in Mudville... You both believe each others crapola... No one else does but, hey???... As for Putin-head... It is my beleif that he has to do a little Cold War posturin' to keep his folks happy... Hmmmmmmm??? Ain't that what Bush is doing, too??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Homey Date: 17 Jan 08 - 09:25 PM "Assuming, that is, that Iran is a threat." Hillary Clinton calls Iran a threat to U.S., Israel House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: "Iran is not just an Israeli problem, it's not just a problem for the region, Iran is a problem for the world." Sen. Sen. Barack Obama said Friday the use of military force should not be taken off the table when dealing with Iran, which he called "a threat to all of us." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Homey Date: 17 Jan 08 - 09:34 PM "***C student in college but probably was closer to being a d student but rich kids get a favorable grading..." AP Sen. John F. Kerry's [rich kid with a favorable grading] grade average at Yale University was virtually identical to President Bush's record there, despite repeated portrayals of Kerry as the more intellectual candidate during the 2004 presidential campaign. Kerry had a cumulative average of 76 and got four Ds his freshman year - in geology, two history courses and political science, The Boston Globe reported Tuesday. His grades improved with time, and he averaged an 81 his senior year and earned an 89 - his highest grade - in political science as a senior. "I always told my dad that D stood for distinction," Kerry said in a written response to reporters' questions. He said he has previously acknowledged focusing more on learning to fly than studying. Under Yale's grading system in effect at the time, grades between 90 and 100 equaled an A, 80-89 a B, 70-79 a C, 60 to 69 a D, and anything below that was a failing grade. In 1999, The New Yorker magazine published a transcript showing Bush had a cumulative grade average of 77 his first three years at Yale, and a similar average under a non-numerical rating system his senior year. Bush's highest grade at Yale was an 88 in anthropology, history and philosophy. He received one D in his four years, a 69 in astronomy, and improved his grades after his freshman year, the transcript showed. Kerry, a Democrat, previously declined to release the transcript, which was included in his Navy records. He gave the Navy permission to release the documents last month, the Globe reported. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 18 Jan 08 - 01:11 AM Ah Bobert, the only person laddling out "crapola" by the bucket is yourself: 1. ***C student in college but probably was closer to being a d student but rich kids get a favorable grading... Matter of record Bobert he averaged 77, grade range for a C is 70 - 79. So with a score of 77 he was closer to a B than a D as you state. Deliberate misrepresentation on your part Bobert or just another lie. 2. ***AWOL from Texas Air National Guard... Matter of record Bobert, Lt G. W. Bush was given an honourable discharge from the Air National Guard. That would not have been the case had he indeed been AWOL. 3. ***Given the Texas Rangers by his daddy and the team's profits went down... Matter of record Bobert, GHWB had nothing to do with GWB's purchase of the Texas Rangers Team. Which puts rather a large hole in your statement that GWB was "given" the team by his father, to persist in that is to deliberately tell a lie. 4 ***Given Harkin Energy by his daddy and he ran it into the ground right after taking $700,000 out of the kitty for himself... Matter of record Bobert, Harkin Energy took over, i.e. bought Spectrum 7, nobody gave anybody anything, it was a straightforward business deal. Marks up another falsehood deliberately spread by Bobert. ***Cokehead and alcoholic Evidence Bobert? ***Convicted drunk driver and... Matter of record Bobert, the current President of the United States of America does not have a criminal record. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 18 Jan 08 - 08:37 AM First of all, Bush was 'convicted", T... Now when you are convicted that means you have a "criminal record"... Yes, we know that the courts have this screwed up system where they expunge folks records if they don't do the same dumb stuff but that doesn't chenage the ***fact*** that Bush was convicted, does it??? Second of all, Bush did take out $700,000 for himself, thereby devaluing Harkin Energy... The fact the Harkin was subsequently sold does not change that ***fact***, does it??? Now as for the Texas National Guard thing, T... Thie is what being a rick kid got you dyuring the Vietnam days... Rich kids only served if they wanted to... There was always a way out for them... The "contents" of the CBS reprot have never been proven to be false... I would think that Bush would have been able, if he actually did comp0lete his requirements, been ablee to provide evidence that he did, wouldn't you??? But rather (pun intended" do that he and Karl Rove put togteher a smear campaign against Dan Rather... Buit they never proved the "contents" of the documents to be false, did they??? More later... Or not... B |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Homey Date: 18 Jan 08 - 08:53 AM "The "contents" of the CBS reprot have never been proven to be false" Nor have they been proven to be true. However the paper it was based on was proven to be a forgery simply by the fact that there was nothing that could type it at that time. Exactly when where was the trial Bush wherein convicted, what was he convicted of and where are the records and or witnesses? I see nothing to Bobert's claims of accuracy, just arrogant boasting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 18 Jan 08 - 12:53 PM OK Bobert let's go through the list again shall we, just as an exercise in honesty: 1. ***C student in college but probably was closer to being a d student but rich kids get a favorable grading...(Bobert) I take it Bobert that you would agree that an average of 77 puts the grade firmly in the C range (70 - 79). I think that you would also agree that 77 is closer to 80 than it is to 69, therefore your statement about his grade being closer to a D is factually and arithmetically wrong. You have yet not provided one single shred of evidence to suggest that, "rich kids get a favorable grading". Remove all the horse-shit from your original statement and you get: "***C student in college." That is factual and that is correct. The rest is your own invention and demonstrates your prejudice and bigotry. 2. ***AWOL from Texas Air National Guard...(Bobert) Matter of record Bobert, so let's take a look at it. Please feel free to point out the errors: a) Serving in the Air National Guard did not guarantee that you would not serve in Vietnam. b) Normal period of service was six years during which guardsmen were required to accumulate a minimum of 50 points to meet their yearly obligation. That is a total of 300 points Bobert over that period of six years. c) GWB joined the Guard in May 1968, immediately completed six weeks basic training, followed by fifty-three weeks of flight training, followed by twenty-one weeks of fighter-interceptor training. Let's see Bobert 6 + 53 + 21 = 80 weeks full time not week-ends. d) May 1968 to May 1969 - Year 1 - Points earned by Lt G. W. Bush amounted to 253 (That equals just over five years service Bobert - minimum requirement at this stage is 50 points). e) May 1969 to May 1970 - Year 2 - Points earned by Lt. G. W. Bush amounted to 340 (That equals almost 7 years service Bobert - GWB total at present stands at 593 points to satisfy the terms and conditions of his service the minimum required at this stage is 100) f) May 1970 to May 1971 - Year 3 - Points earned by Lt. G. W. Bush amounted to 137 (That equals almost 3 years service Bobert - GWB total at present stands at 730 points to satisfy the terms and conditions of his service the minimum required at this stage is 150) g) May 1971 to May 1972 - Year 4 - Points earned by Lt. G. W. Bush amounted to 112 (That equals just over 2 years service Bobert - GWB total at present stands at 842 points to satisfy the terms and conditions of his service the minimum required at this stage is 200) h) May 1972 to May 1973 - Year 5 - Points earned by Lt. G. W. Bush amounted to 53 (That equals just over 1 year of service Bobert - GWB total at present stands at 895 points to satisfy the terms and conditions of his service the minimum required at this stage is 250) i) May 1973 to July 1973 - Year 6 - Points earned by Lt. G. W. Bush amounted to 56 (That equals just over 1 year of service Bobert - GWB total at present stands at 951 points to satisfy the terms and conditions of his service the minimum required at this stage is 300) j) In 1973 he requested early discharge to attend Harvard Business School. By July of that year he had accumulated 56 points, enough to meet the minimum requirement for the 1973-1974 year. His request was granted and he was given permission to go. Bush received an honourable discharge after serving five years, four months and five days of his original six-year commitment. During that time he had accumulated enough points in each year to cover six years of service, his actual accumulated points total equates to nineteen years service at the minimum 50 points per year. Don't know about you Bobert but I would say that the Air National Guard got their moneys worth. No charge of AWOL was ever brought against Lt. G. W. Bush at any time during his service, therefore he can hardly be "guilty" of it, the honourable discharge that he received stands testament to that. The "Bush went AWOL" accusation is a Michael Moore myth that Bobert and his fellow travellers love to trot out and believe, purely because it panders to their prejudiced point of view. There is however absolutely no truth in it. 3. ***Given the Texas Rangers by his daddy and the team's profits went down...(Bobert) From your ommission I take it Bobert that you have not been able to find any "evidence" to suggest that GHWB had anything to do with GWB's purchase of the Texas Rangers Team. Now if we are being honest here Bobert, that puts a bit of a hole in your, "Given the Texas Rangers by his daddy", theory. Plain truth is Bobert GWB bought into the Texas Rangers Team with his own money. 4 ***Given Harkin Energy by his daddy and he ran it into the ground right after taking $700,000 out of the kitty for himself...(Bobert) Once again your silence speaks volumes. No evidence to indicate that GWB was, "Given Harkin Energy by his daddy", is there Bobert? Please be honest enough to admit it. You do say that - "Bush did take out $700,000 for himself, thereby devaluing Harkin Energy". Not so Bobert, what GWB did was to sell his stock in Harkin Energy, somebody else bought it, therefore Harkin Energy was not devalued by as much as a penny in the transaction. 5 ***Cokehead and alcoholic (Bobert) Evidence Bobert? 6 ***Convicted drunk driver and...(Bobert) This happened in the 1970's if IIRC, in Maine. DUI was not a criminal matter in Maine at that time it was a traffic offence, a civil matter, there is therefore no criminal conviction and there is no criminal record. One can therefore quite rightly say that he was found guilty of DUI, but you cannot say that he was convicted of DUI, because to be convicted you have to charged with a crime, i.e, you have to have committed a criminal offence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Jan 08 - 02:51 PM So, Bobert, you NOW ( yelling, since you seem to ignore anything else) claim that the Wall Street Journal is not to be believed. Can you please give an example of a publication that you might consider accurate? Be specific, we want to know who you think has the only claim on truth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 18 Jan 08 - 07:18 PM Hahaha... You guys crack me up... This is going no where... If George Bush told you "three stooges" to jump off the cliff you'd be fightin' each other as to who had the priveldge to jump first... Arguin' with "true believers" is like arguin' with a brick... No, it isn't... The brick has more capacity to reason things out... Bye... B |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Jan 08 - 07:46 PM "Arguin' with "true believers" is like arguin' with a brick... No, it isn't... The brick has more capacity to reason things out..." And you, uber-Bobert, have demonstrated that you are far more a "true believer" than we are- You have shown yourself to be anti-Bush even when he does what you say you wanted him to do. And I would far rather shout the truth than repeatedly tell false statements and insist that everyone think them true because YOU said so- If you have no evidence, just state it as an OPINION, instead of making it a "Bobert Fact". "my opiniopn that Bush is the worst presdient ever" is the one statement you have made here that I see no need for you to provide support for - It IS your opinion. You should know better than us: Please stop telling US what our opinions are, unless we state them. Still waiting on what source YOU will allow as telling the "truth"... Or does that change depending on what you want the truth to be? Can you please give an example of a publication that you might consider accurate? Be specific, we want to know who you think has the only claim on truth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 18 Jan 08 - 08:13 PM The secretary who typed the document in the first place stated—in an interview on 60 Minutes a couple of weeks after the hatchet job on Dan Rather—that the document Rather had been given, and accepted in good faith on the assumption that CBS staff had researched and authenticated it as they customarily do with such documents, was not the original document that she typed. It was a copy. Rather, known for being dubious of the Bush administration, had been set up. BUT—she also said that the contents of the document that Rather was given was accurate. It was what the Alabama Air National Guard general had dictated to her and it was what she had typed, even though Rather did not have the original document. Among other things, Bush had been grounded because he failed to show up for a periodic physical exam required of all Air National Guard pilots. I saw the show and I heard the woman say it. As did (according to the show's ratings) millions of other people. Any attempts to whitewash Bush on this matter is pure puffery and excuse-making. Bush was what military slang refers to as a "gold-brick." Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 18 Jan 08 - 08:39 PM Thanks, Don... On every allegation that I have put forward millions and millions of taxpayers dollars have been spent in covering up the truth about George Bush's past... Yes, he was AWOL... He can't provide one single piecs of eveidence that he wasn't... He did not report to Texas for an anual physical that is required ny all pilots to stay qualifeid to fly... There is no evidence that he had that physical anywhere... There is no evidence he ever returened ot complete his stint... Yeah, politically well healed folks during those times could buy a honorable discharge of their kids like you or I buying a cup of coffee at the local cofee shop... If you take every asserion that I made and examine it you'll find the thruth... Bush did totally screw up both the Teaxs Rangers and Harkin Energy, both which were bought for him by his daddy and his daddy's friend... He didn't buy them... He had bnever had a real paying job with which to have the income to buy them... I have challenged the "Three Stooges" to provide us with Bush's resume' to explain where he actually worked and got that kinda dough but that doesn't fit into the "Three Stooges" mindset so they just conviently just ignore that question??? Hmmmmmm??? Yeah, it might be worth continuing a debate with them but they are brain-dead believers who cannot allow themselves to acceot that Bush ain't, ahhhhhhh, friggin' God Allmighty... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Homey Date: 18 Jan 08 - 10:04 PM "that doesn't chenage the ***fact*** that Bush was convicted, does it???" To Bobert, pleading guilty to a a Class D misdemeanor and paying a $150 fine is "CONVICTED" If it is someone on death row like Tookie, of course Bobert will rush to his defense without any mention of the fact that he is a convicted murderer. Dope smokers gotta stick together y'know. Bush acknowledges 1976 DUI charge November 2, 2000 WEST ALLIS, Wisconsin -- Texas Gov. George W. Bush acknowledged Thursday that in 1976 he was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol near his parents' home in Kennebunkport, Maine. Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush admits that he was arrested in 1976 for driving under the influence of alcohol near his parents' home in Kennebunkport, Maine. Bush, who was 30 at the time, pleaded guilty, paid a $150 fine and his driving privileges were temporarily suspended in Maine. Late Thursday evening, following a campaign rally in this tightly contested Midwestern state, Bush--with his wife, Laura, at his side -- told reporters news accounts of the incident were accurate, that he had been drinking in a bar with Australian tennis pro John Newcombe and others. "I'm not proud of that. I made some mistakes. I occasionally drank too much, and I did that night. I learned my lesson." Bush said he was not jailed after the arrest. "I told the guy (the arresting officer) I had been drinking, what do I need to do? He said, 'here's the fine.' I paid the fine." Bush said the timing of the initial news report, just days before Americans elect a new president, was "interesting." When asked where the story may have originated, he said, "I've got my suspicions." Campaign aides of Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore and officials with the Democratic National Committee both said they first learned of the arrest from news reports Thursday and said it would be inappropriate to comment on the matter. Gore spokesman Chris Lehane said the vice president learned of the story while flying from Chicago to a campaign event in El Paso, Texas. Kevin Kelly, news director of WPXT, a Fox television affiliate station in Portland, Maine, said his station broke the story after one of its reporters learned of the arrest while covering an unrelated matter at the local courthouse. "Somebody made a reference to it," Kelly said. The reporter followed up with phone calls, including one to the Maine Department of Secretary of State. Kelly said the department responded with a fax that detailed the 1976 arrest. Kelly said the reporter also talked to the arresting officer, who verified the incident. Kennebunkport Police told CNN on Thursday night that the charge against Bush -- operating under the influence of intoxicating liquor -- was a Class D misdemeanor. Karen Hughes, Bush's spokeswomen said the 54-year-old Texas governor, who has been open about his past drinking problems, had not publicly disclosed the arrest because not even his 18-year-old twin daughters were aware of it. He has said he gave up drinking the day after his 40th birthday. At a campaign appearance Tuesday at a charity center in San Jose, California, that helps people deal with addictions, Bush said, "I was able to share with some of the men and women here that I quit drinking in 1986 and haven't had a drop since then. "And it wasn't because of a government program, by the way -- in my particular case, because I had a higher call." Hughes told reporters that on the night of the arrest, Bush had been at a bar in Kennebunkport with three friends and his sister, Dora. After he left, she said, he was pulled over by police about a mile away from his parents' home -- apparently because he was driving so slowly. Hughes said Bush now believes drinking and driving is wrong and has acknowledged, as he did at the time, that what he did that night was a mistake. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 19 Jan 08 - 02:21 AM Oh, the fantasy has changed to, "bought for him by his daddy and his daddy's friend", now has it Bobert? What's wrong? You are shifting your ground, can't you find the "evidence" to support your earlier statement? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 19 Jan 08 - 05:11 AM "On every allegation that I have put forward millions and millions of taxpayers dollars have been spent in covering up the truth about George Bush's past..." - Bobert. Well not wishing to state the obvious Bobert - But - Why don't you do yourself and your country a big favour and stop making those allegations - Think of the taxpayers dollars you'll save. Sort of along the same lines as the response that Bono got at a concert - He started to slowly clap his hands and shouted to the audience, "Every time I clap my hands a child in Africa dies" - Somebody in the audience shouted back, "Then stop clapping y' prat". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 19 Jan 08 - 08:44 AM LOL, T-zer... I guess you favor a "democracy" that keeps the voters in the dark as to the pasts of the various candidates??? Hey, we collectively spent $40,000,000 of taxpayers money trying to find dirt on Clinton... Then when the dirt on Bush was right there (and free) we collectively spent $Millions on PR campaigns to sanitize Bush's past??? Talk about gold plated hypocrisy??? Not to mention a complete waste of my hard earned tax dollars... You don't pay US taxes so maybe it doesn't bother you but it burns my boney hillbilly butt... I'm out here working 6 days a week and paying taxes and *this* is the way they get spent??? Harassin' one prwesident and defnding anothers??? Beam me up, Scotty... There is no intellegent life down here... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Homey Date: 19 Jan 08 - 09:12 AM If George Soros told Bobert to spread the propaganda he financed about 650,000 dead Iraqis, he would jump at the chance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 19 Jan 08 - 09:29 AM Huh??? Just say no to drugs, Homey... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 19 Jan 08 - 12:45 PM "Yes, he was AWOL... He can't provide one single piecs of eveidence that he wasn't..." (Bobert) Wait a minute Bobert are you saying that ex-military personnel on leaving their respective services have to prove that they were never AWOL? The most striking and telling piece of "evidence" that Lt. G. W. Bush was never AWOL is the plain, simple, hard, chiselled-in-granite fact that he was never accused or charged with having been AWOL throughout the entire period of his service. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 19 Jan 08 - 01:34 PM Well, T-zer... You're living a fairy-land... You still don't get it, do you, about the way things really were for rich American males during the Vietnam years??? I bet you still believe in the Easter bunny, too... There is a significant body of evidence, including witnesses who were there, that point to Bush having ducked out... Dan Rather provided alot of it tho seein' as things were heating up on Bush, his handlers found a way to get some phony documents into the fray to throw CBS off the trail... You can Google it up and find the folks who were there who purdy much are in aggreement that Bush didn't finish his commitment... This thread isn't strictly about that... I think we allready had a thread on that one time... Go read it... And pleeeeeeeze don't pull your righteously indignant act that I brought this up and therefor you have the right to fillibuster this thread into the ground with acadmic little exercises 'cause the only folks who buy that deadend argumment are you and yer two buds, Old Dickey Homey and bb... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 19 Jan 08 - 04:04 PM "The most striking and telling piece of 'evidence' that Lt. G. W. Bush was never AWOL is the plain, simple, hard, chiselled-in-granite fact that he was never accused or charged with having been AWOL throughout the entire period of his service." Jesus, Mary, and Joseph!! Other Air National Guard pilots who were with Bush at the time (that is, at the times he bothered to show up) have said that he was very sporadic in his attendance, and several officers wrote him up for not showing up. You ignore the fact that the secretary who typed up the document, a copy of which Dan Rather referred to in the infamous 60 Minutes broadcast, said that even though Rather didn't have the original, the informtion was accurate. And it is an incontrovertible fact that Bush did not show up for the required physical and was grounded as a result. But by that time, he had stopped bothering to show up at all. The reason Bush got into the Air National Guard in the first place--in order to avoid the possibility of being drafted and sent to Vietnam--and jumped ahead of some 500 applicants--was because Papa Had Influence. And then, the little weasel couldn't be bothered to meet that obligation. These are facts know to one hell of a lot of people. Sorry, Teribus, but your "plain, simple, hard, chiselled-in-granite fact" is not chiselled in granite at all, it's chiselled in Silly Putty. If he wasn't charged, it was for the same reason he jumped the line to get into the guard in the first place. Family power and privilege. I'm astounded at the lenghts of nincompoopery some people will go to in an effort to deny well-established facts and try to defend quite probably the worst president and one of the most corrupt regimes this country has ever had. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 19 Jan 08 - 04:11 PM Homey - Iran seems to be considered a threat by politicians but not by security intelligence agencies. The threat is mainly politically and not supported by evidence. Thats why I am very sure that Clinton and Obama are simply Republicrats. They will say or do anything to get elected and have offered no real answer to any perceived threat. They were duped into supporting the invasion of Iraq and they will be duped into believing that other Nations are threats (regardless of proof). If America wants change, they are going to have to come up with something better than Clinton or Obama or there will be no significant change. Voting for a woman or an African-American will not change the corporate agenda or the foreign policy of the U.S. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 19 Jan 08 - 04:19 PM Quite right, Don, and thanks fir the assist but... ... T could take any one of the assertions I made about Bush and each one of them would come down to this... The reason that Bush wasn't pulled up before the Secuirty Exchange Commission over his taking $700,000 outta a failing Harkin Energy is the same reason why he wasn't held accountable to the Texas Air National Guard... Daddy made a couple calls and that was it... Yo, T... No matter how misdirected you are you are bright enough to provide the Peanut Gallery with George's employment history and where he got the money to buy the Texas Rnagers or Harkin... How about enligthening those of us who seem no be be able to connect the dots here without it coming back to the same ol', "He got it from his daddy..." I mean, are you sitting on some cache of info where George buckled down, went to work and pulled him self up by his bootstraps??? Man, that would make some interesting reading so if you know something that the rest of the world doesn't, please share it with us, thank you... Oh, I hate to leave yer buds out. T-zer So to T's 2 buds, if you have a Horatio Alger/George Bush story you'd like to share, jump in... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 19 Jan 08 - 04:40 PM If anyone can come up with what Bobert asks for--the George Bush/Horatio Alger story--verifiable by impeccable sources--I will put on a clown suit and push a peanut with my nose along the Interstate Highway system from here (Seattle) to Washington, D. C. and apologized personally to George W. Bush on national television. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 19 Jan 08 - 05:09 PM And the guy right behind him will be me!!! Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Little Hawk Date: 19 Jan 08 - 06:01 PM Ha! A marvelous pledge, Don... ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 19 Jan 08 - 06:28 PM Well, you notice the conspiciuos absence of the Mudcat Axis of Evil, T, b 'n H... They are huddled up thinkin' their next strategic move to make chicken salad outta chicken sh*t... Well, the next installment from them oughtta be very entertainin', to say the least but... ...it wouldn't surprise me if Bill Clinton's name comes up... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 19 Jan 08 - 06:38 PM Simple enough question Don, to state that GWB went AWOL from the Air National Guard (Which is what Bobert did state) there has to have been a charge brought and court martial proceedings must have been instituted against Lt. G. W. Bush. Now, to invoke as you did, "Jesus, Mary, and Joseph!!" Hand on heart do you know of any such charges or any such court martial proceedings ever having taken place? I know of none. On the other hand, it is a matter of public record that Lt. G. W. Bush received an Honourable Discharge from the Air National Guard, that would not be the case if he had even been AWOL. I have no idea of whether or not you ever served in the armed forces, I did and no matter whether it be US or UK armed forces they do tend to take, Absent from place of Duty/Absent With Out Leave/Desertion, very seriously, mainly because they have to. You keep harping on about a secretary who is supposed to have typed a routine letter obviously some time back in 1972 then being asked about it some time in 2000 and she has total recall of it?? She must have been grossly under-employed, while possessing at the same time an amazingly retentive memory. Did the eager researcher/reporter/journalist ask her the content of the letter she typed immediately prior to that letter or the one after to check her memory? I find the following logic a bit difficult to swallow: That the absence of any original document that "proves" GWB did indeed go AWOL is automatically explained as a cover-up and that this explanation must be accepted without reservation. While obviously forged documents that support the belief that he did not fulfil his obligations to the Air National Guard are to be accepted as gospel truth. When the document is clearly shown to be forgery, a secretary is trotted out and we are expected to believe that she recalls the content of a letter she typed 28 years previously - Did she keep the carbon copy? Is that what you're going to tell us next. Lt. G. W. Bush total points accumulated in a period of service from May 1968 to July 1973 was 951, the number required for six years service was 300, he applied like many others for early discharge and his request like those of many others was granted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 19 Jan 08 - 07:56 PM Bull, T.... Pure unalterated bull... I mean, 100% bull... The kinda bull that keeps cows up dreamin' at night!!! First of all your defense of Bush is that, if I get it right, that it ain't AWOL unless you get caught... That is bull-plus... Absent Without Leave is juts that... You, apparently, have no understanding about what "The Guard" was during Vietnam, do you??? Especially the Air Nationmal Guard where you aren't expected to take two weeks off every summer and go play war at a US military base... The Air National Guard was a lot looser than that... It was just above honor system after you got trained... Very flexible... Not like the real military at all... Do you know that??? And yes, it is perfectly fiesable for a secretary to remember stuff, especially when at the time she may have thought that this guy was gettin' a pass because his father was well connected... I rememeber each and every one of my classmates who were killed in Vietnam... It was a time when people were paying close attention to stuff... I can't much tell you what I did from month to month or year to year in the 80's but from 1964 until the end of the Vietnam War I can recall pretty much happened month by month and where I was and what I was doing... Most people who were effected by the events of the 60's, maybe you T being the exception, have very good abilities to pull up what happened and when... Bush didn't sign up to complete points... He signed up for a period of time... He didn't do the time... That is what is referred to as AWOL... Maybe its diffferent where you were but that was the reality here in the US ... I knew lots of Guardsmen... Because there was a draft they were Guardsman for one reason: Vietnam and thought is was safer there... And it was... Bush went into the Guard to avoid Vietnam... 99% of kids went into the Guard to aviod Vietnam... You need to recheck your requirments for satisfactory completeion of one Guard duty... You have it completely wrong... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 19 Jan 08 - 10:34 PM "Hand on heart do you know of any such charges or any such court martial proceedings ever having taken place?" Of course no charges were brought, for the reasons already stated. The fact is that George W. Bush was Absent Without Official Leave. That is, he did not show up when he was obligated to appear. He shirked his obligations to the Guard, as has been attested to by many who were in the Guard when he was supposed to have been. The fact that he was not charged does not alter the fact that he was Absent Without Official Leave. The reason he was not charged? Who his father was. Bush had a PhD degree: "Papa has Dough." Or power and influence. Rather than letting Bush off the hook, that compounds the irresponsible nature of his alleged military service in the Guard. You're weaseling, Teribus, and it won't wash! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,TIA Date: 19 Jan 08 - 10:35 PM The most painful thing in the life of Teribus/BB/Homey is that Bobert was correct years ago, has been proven correct by history, and voluminous investigations, and by plain common sense. It just flippin eats them alive, so they try to ease their minds and convince themselves that they could not possibly have been wrong by clinging to little technicalites and requiring ginormous term-papers from Bobert. It's really pathetic. History will be the judge, and that scares the bullies shitless. Keep it coming boys. And Bobert - don't spend so much time on it that you neglect the important stuff in your own life. You have already won - despite anything they might post IN CAPITALS. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: dick greenhaus Date: 19 Jan 08 - 11:14 PM Well, if Shrub was, in fact, a draft dodger during Vietnam, he had lots of company. And, IMO, if he was it was one of the few things he's ever done that indicated even a rudimentary intelligence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 19 Jan 08 - 11:15 PM Who cares what teribus, bb or Homey think they know. By now they have no credibility except with each other. For some reason these guys cling to George Bush like he's some kind of hero. Go ahead, have him as a hero but don't expect anyone else to embrace your needs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 20 Jan 08 - 04:36 AM A question for you Dianavan, that was sort of asked earlier. As a teacher do you give favourable grades to pupils because their parents are rich? Do you know any teacher who does? Oh, Bobert, all I know about the Air National Guard is what I have read about them and what I have asked them. During the period that GWB served in the ANG, guardsmen were required to accumulate a minimum of 50 points to meet their yearly obligation. That would mean Bobert that you could fulfil your yearly obligation to the Air National Guard in six weeks. Today that minimum requirement is one week-end a month and two weeks every year. It's interesting the observation made by Bobert about the ANG: "Especially the Air Nationmal Guard where you aren't expected to take two weeks off every summer and go play war at a US military base... The Air National Guard was a lot looser than that... It was just above honor system after you got trained... Very flexible... Not like the real military at all... Do you know that???" Key words out of that lot are "looser" than the US Military, more "flexible" that the US Military. The AWOL story - the mythical produce of, anti-Bush film-maker Michael Moore and Terry McAuliffe, erstwhile chairman of the Democratic National Committee. No questions arise at all about Lt. G.W.Bush prior to 1972. Evaluations on his performance being as follows: The 1969 - 1970 evaluation said Bush "clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot" and was "a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership." The 1970 - 1971 evaluation called Bush "an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot" who "continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his proficiency even further." The 1971 - 1972 evaluation called Bush "an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer." "In 1972 Bush asked for permission to go to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. His superior officers said OK. Requests like that weren't unusual." - Source - retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971. "In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots," Campenni says. "The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In '72 or '73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem." So in 1972 Bush stopped flying, one possible logical reason for that being that at that time the Alabama Air National Guard had no fighter squadrons equipped with the Delta Dagger Delta F-102A, which was starting to be taken out of service with US Air Force and Air Guard Units (IIRC by 1974 they had all been phased out). From May 1972 to May 1973, he earned just 56 points — not much, but enough to meet his yearly requirement (50 points, remember ANG, loose and flexible). Then, in 1973, Lt.G.W.Bush made plans to leave the Guard and go to Harvard Business School, in June and July of 1973, he accumulated 56 points, enough to meet the minimum requirement for the 1973-1974 year. Having done that he put in his application for early release from service. This request was granted and he was given permission to go. Lt.G.W.Bush received an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months and five days of his original six-year commitment. By that time, however, he had accumulated enough points in each year to cover six years of service. He was by no means the only ANG member who was treated in this way, he was by no means a member of a select elite who were treated this way, there were many members of the ANG who applied for early discharge and had their requests granted. Don't ask Michael Moore or Terry McAuliffe to bring that to your attention - it would spoil their fairytale. On the flying medical thing Don, you only take a flying medical if you are actually assigned to flying duties. The Alabama ANG had nothing for Lt.G.W.Bush to fly, the type of aircraft that he was qualified as being "air combat capable" in was being phased out and he had less than eighteen months left to serve. That Don is insufficient time to retrain on another aircraft type, which in all probability would have been a F-4 Phantom. Completely different kettle of fish to a single-seat F-102, the F-4 being a twin-seat all weather interceptor (Pilot flies the aircraft, the navigator, or observer (in RN Fleet Air Arm parlance), fights the aircraft. It is perfectly understandable given the circumstances, that the loose and flexible ANG, that Bobert was at pains to describe, was so accommodating to a young pilot who had accumulated the necessary points to complete his service and who had other things to do than warm the seat of a chair behind a desk in a Reserve Guard Unit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Homey Date: 20 Jan 08 - 08:20 AM Bottom line is in America you are innocent until proven guilty. Bobert, due to his THC induced state of mind, would like to believe otherwise but in the real world, charges must be proven, not disproven. He dreams up numbers like 56,000 dead or will die and can't explain the basis for this number. One percent in Haiti have all the wealth? Where did that come from? He is much more adept at promulgating propaganda numbers from other, more professional socialist leftists like George Soros. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 20 Jan 08 - 09:15 AM No, Old Homey Dickey, bottom line is that in America you are innocent as along as you have loads of cash... I bet you think that O.J. didn't kill his wife... LOL... Speakin' of THC... You either could use some or you've had your fill, I don't know... What I do know is that you a dillusional... As is Captain T-Bird... BTW, who is this George Soros feller you keep blabbering about??? I've heard the name but don't really have a clue who his is... I don't remember him from the 60's... He wasn't one of tthe Chicago 7... He wasn't a a SOC, SNNC, SDS, SCLC or Black Panther organizer or I would have known about him... But you say he is some kinda socialist leftest professional??? Hmmmmmm??? Must have started real late... (Maybe one of them Gray Panthers, Bobertz???) Nevermind... If I don't know the guy I can't comment on his professional socialist left-ism... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 20 Jan 08 - 02:07 PM You're blaming Michael Moore, Teribus? It is to laugh!! Try pulling up Google and putting "Bush" and "National Guard" into the search boxes. You will find yourself looking at a more than substantial list of things to read that give the lie to the nonsense you're trying to peddle. And I'm not talking about "MoveOn" or "Mother Jones" here. Nor am I talking about the other end of the spectrum, "Fox News Service," which, apparently, is where you get most of your information. You're a great one for cutting-and-pasting lengthy quotes resulting in intimidatingly long posts, apparently under the impression that you can refute something you don't like by burying it under sheer volume. If it comes to that, I can do that, too. But I won't waste everyone's time and all that band space to post a bunch of stuff here that can be found by anyone, simple by Googling it. It's all out there. Have at it, folks! "Bush" and "National Guard." Plenty to read. You might start with the articles in The Boston Globe. Read both sides of the argument and make up your own minds. Invoking the idea that one is innocent until proven guilty is a dodge, Homey, as, of course, you know. That's a legal principle, not necessarily a fact of reality. A person can be guilty as sin, but if that person is not charged for whatever reason (bribery, powerful friends or relatives, etc.) or not enough evidence can be gathered to make a case, it does not change the fact that the person is actually guilty. There is plenty of evidence, attested to by other pilots and the officers who where acquainted with Bush's record, and had Bush been brought to court-maritial, it is more than likely that he would not now be president and we wouldn't be having this discussion. The fact that Bush's father was a senator at the time is what got him into the Guard in the first place, ahead of a lot of other people who didn't have powerful fathers, and subsequently rendered him immune from the consequences of his irresponsibility. That's been the story of George W. Bush all his life. Privileged rich kid You guy's attempts to defend the indefensible are getting to be a bit pathetic. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 20 Jan 08 - 10:59 PM teribus - In my job, I don't give grades, period! I know of teachers who favour the children of the wealthy but it is usually principals who pander to the rich. If you favour their children, donations are more frequent. In an underfunded educational system, the rich know that they can buy their child's school if necessary. Next question? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 21 Jan 08 - 01:17 AM Don I fully realise that if I go on any search engine and enter "Bush" and "National Guard" I will indeed find articles that support the Bobert line by the ton. Mostly bloggs and newspaper articles. But I've never been a subscriber to the "Never mind the quality, feel the width" arguement. If something is a lie, it remains a lie no matter how many times it is repeated. Now just to refresh your memory this is what Bobert claimed and clearly stated: "***AWOL from Texas Air National Guard..." "Yes, he was AWOL... He can't provide one single piecs of eveidence that he wasn't... He did not report to Texas for an anual physical that is required ny all pilots to stay qualifeid to fly... There is no evidence that he had that physical anywhere... There is no evidence he ever returened ot complete his stint..." The simple fact that he was honourably discharged from the Air National Guard belies what Bobert states above. The categoric statement of him having been AWOL is a lie. But one thing all your google entries does serve to provide proof of is this - there was never any mention of this pre-Moore and pre-McAuliffe. Although to give Moore his due he dubbed Bush a "deserter", it was McAuliffe who introduced the AWOL label. As Homey stated in the legal systems of both the US and the UK the burden of proof is on the accuser, and the accused must be considered innocent until proven guilty. But I see from both your contributions and Bobert's to this thread that you both now seem perfectly OK in demanding that somebody proves a negative. The other thing I see from both your contributions is that you do not have one shred of "evidence" that could be counted as such in any court to back up your statements. By the bye Bobert, GWB got the money to pay for his 2% share in the Texas Rangers from the proceeds of his sale of Harkin Energy Stock. As to George Soros Bobert well here is how GWB got involved with HArkin Energy: "Harken Energy, a firm partly owned by Soros, did business with George W. Bush in 1986 by buying his oil company, Spectrum 7." You see Bobert, neither GHWB or his friends, or his friends wives, their tennis partners or their pet tortoises bought and gave GWB Harkin Energy. For more on George Soros Bobert look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros Thanks for your reply Dianavan, I had no idea that the education system in British Columbia was so corrupt and that those employed in it were so venal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 21 Jan 08 - 01:58 PM I argue with a brick wall. Foolish me! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,Don Firth Date: 21 Jan 08 - 02:19 PM Teribus, you keep repeating the same things. Endless repetition doesn't make it true, no matter how much you want it to be. The evidence is there, and if you go through some of the material I recommended, you will note that the word about Bush's service--or lack thereof--was around well before Michael Moore brought it up. There has been considerable testimony from his flying mates in the Texas Air National Guard about his attendance and behavior, and also from officers he served under. And there is a considerable amount of documentation. But when investigative reporters went back to find more documentation, they found that Bush's records had been purged. Interesting! My father served in World War I (that's World War One), and his military records are still available. Sorry, Teribus, but you reside in la-la land. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 21 Jan 08 - 04:15 PM Yes, Don... I understand that T is the Mayor of la-la land... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,TIA Date: 21 Jan 08 - 04:30 PM It scares me how large the population of that land is... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 21 Jan 08 - 04:35 PM "The most painful thing in the life of Teribus/BB/Homey is that " I am glad to know that it is now permissable to make up statements about what OTHERS think and have them taken as fact. I will be sure to apply that to my future comments here, when I tell you all what Bobert et al are thinking and find painful. And I have seen no response to my comments that Bobert is ( at least) as much a "true believer" as those he tries to tar with his brush. And I am still waiting to find out what is the allowable source for THE truth "according to Bobert". Or is it only his ( sorry , "His") pronouncements that are to be taken as gospel? All hail uber-Bobert! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 21 Jan 08 - 06:38 PM So Don, "The evidence is there,". Is it Don? That's odd because you seem to be very reticent about bringing any of it forward. According to you Don, "There has been considerable testimony from his flying mates in the Texas Air National Guard about his attendance and behavior, and also from officers he served under. And there is a considerable amount of documentation." Indeed there is Don, amongst that pile of documentation, the following evaluations: The 1969 - 1970 evaluation said Bush "clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot" and was "a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership." The 1970 - 1971 evaluation called Bush "an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot" who "continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his proficiency even further." The 1971 - 1972 evaluation called Bush "an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer." Lt.G.W.Bush was considered to be in the top 5% passing out of OTU, some achievement flying an aircraft as difficult to pilot as the F-102A. Another thing you will find in that pile of paperwork is the fact that in terms of qualifying points he accrued three times the minimum number required for six years of service. Now Michael Moore wouldn't mention any of that would he Don? Can't understand why, he does investigate things and write and produce his docufictionaries from a purely objective point of view doesn't he? Hell as like and you all know it. Michael Moore writes and produces what Michael Moore does for one reason and one reason only - To make money for Michael Moore. He knows that he is shooting fish in a barrel because clowns like you and Bobert will slaver over every morsel gulping down every tidbit, purely because it is what you want to believe - only thing is Don none of it stands up to any sort of examination. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 21 Jan 08 - 08:11 PM Just drink the cool-aid, T... You'll be much happier then... I promise... B;) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 21 Jan 08 - 10:10 PM Okay, Teribus, you asked for it. Bush fell short on duty at Guard##### MORE MORE YET SHALL I GO ON? Plenty more where these came from. Have a rainbow day, Teribus. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 22 Jan 08 - 01:16 AM Don, you seem to have a weird idea of what constitutes evidence. For all the "cut-n-paste" articles and links, what you are presenting is opinion, contradictory opinion at that. Mind you that should come as no surprise coming from someone who selectively does not acknowledge the principle of presumption of innocence until "proven" guilty. That proof having to be beyond all reasonable doubt. Remember how Bobert told us how "loose" and "flexible" the ANG is. or was. "There were hundreds of guys like him who did the same thing," - R Lieutenant Colonel (Retired) Albert C. Lloyd Jr., former Texas Air National Guard personnel chief. "Bush asked for permission to go to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. His superior officers said OK. Requests like that weren't unusual, says retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971. "In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots," Campenni says. "The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In '72 or '73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem." Now both of those retired ANG officers were talking of the conditions and circumstances in the ANG at the time GWB was serving in the Guard. The following, taken from your first cut-n-paste article is simply rank bad journalism, deliberately couched to misrepresent and mislead: "But Bush fell well short of meeting his military obligation, a Globe reexamination of the records shows: Twice during his Guard service -- first when he joined in May 1968, and again before he transferred out of his unit in mid-1973 to attend Harvard Business School -- Bush signed documents pledging to meet training commitments or face a punitive call-up to active duty." - Globe Spotlight Team -- reporters Stephen Kurkjian, Francie Latour, Sacha Pfeiffer, and Michael Rezendes, and editor Walter V. Robinson. It was written by Robinson. After reading that - Hands up how many would draw the conclusion that at on at least two occasions Lt.G.W.Bush was given a written warning because we was not meeting training commitments? But that was not the case was it Don? And you can tell that just by looking at the dates. May 1968!!! The man was in basic training at that time, he'd just joined the Air National Guard, he was serving full time so how in the name of hell could he be not be meeting his training requirements. Mid-1973!!! When he transferred from active to reserve. Truth of the matter is Mr. Robinson is quoting the small print on a standard form and deliberately presenting it for something that it most definitely is not. What ANG units flew out of Montgomery Alabama Don? What were they equipped with? I'll give you one hint, there were no units in the whole of the Alabama ANG flying F-102A's. So perhaps you could suggest what GWB could have flown while on transfer to the Alabama ANG? Oh, if he's not flying he does not have to take a flying medical. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 22 Jan 08 - 12:51 PM What would you regard as evidence, Teribus? I suspect that it would include only those things that support your beliefs. Anything else is "bad journalism." But let's look at some documents, okay? They are in one of the links I posted just above. Which, I notice, you quote back at me very selectively. I am used to this sort of tactic. It is a favorite of evangelists, quoting Bible verses out of context in an effort to provide Scriptural support for some cockamamie theological idea of their own particular sect that they're trying to peddle. Just one example of the erroneous conclusions you draw from your selections: "If he's not flying he does not have to take a flying medical." Whether flying or not, the AIR National Guard regulations require that he take the annual physical. He didn't. So he was officially grounded. Well, one more: just because he was only one of a number of goof-offs doesn't let him off the hook for being a goof-off. As a matter of fact, it appears that being a goof-off was the story of Bush's life up until he decided to enter politics and his life became a whole lot more public. Click on the :MORE YET link ("Dan Rather is Right") and scroll down about two-thirds of the way to a paragraph that begins "The quick back story." The words and phrases in blue are links to documents backing up what the author says. The documents are copies of the originals (in your mind, does that invalidated them? Since I don't have them in my possession, I can hardly supply you with those) and they are not very good copies and a bit difficult to read, but it's not impossible. Right click on the document, click on "save picture," then blow up the copy in whatever folder you save it to). I could sit here all day and supply you with all kinds of material, but I'm sure that you would not accept any of it if it doesn't support your faith in Bush (quite touching, really), but my first guitar student of the day is due to arrive in less than half an hour, and after that, I have a real life to live. Which includes a bit of political action in the three-dimensional world later today. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 22 Jan 08 - 01:01 PM What would you regard as evidence, {Bobert, Don, TIA, et al} ? I suspect that it would include only those things that support your beliefs. Anything else is "bad journalism." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 22 Jan 08 - 01:02 PM Correction. The documents are .PDF files. You don't need to save them. Place your cursor on the document and it will turn into a small magnifying glass icon with a "+" in it. Just click and the document will increase in size. Still difficult to read (like lousy Xerox copies), but readable. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 22 Jan 08 - 01:05 PM I could sit here all day and supply you with all kinds of material, but I'm sure that you would not accept any of it if it doesn't support your faith against Bush (quite touching, really). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 22 Jan 08 - 01:15 PM A little short on creativity today, BB? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 22 Jan 08 - 01:37 PM Well, Don, you are correct... All the evidence in the world won't change a "true believer"... That is why they are "true beleivers"... Onc one surrenders the capacity for independent thought and become a worshiper it's too late to get them back... The three of them are very much worshipers of George Bush... But they more than that... They are Bush-cultists... They will never ever see any wrong in anything that Bush has done or will do... Bush could bomb the UK and T would find some reason why that's was fine... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 22 Jan 08 - 04:12 PM All the evidence in the world won't change a "true believer"... That is why they are "true beleivers"... Onc one surrenders the capacity for independent thought and become a worshiper it's too late to get them back... The three of them are very much haters of George Bush... But they more than that... They are anti-Bush-cultists... They will never ever see any right in anything that Bush has done or will do... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 22 Jan 08 - 04:14 PM 500 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 22 Jan 08 - 04:18 PM Like exactly what has he done right, bb??? Katrina??? Medicaid Perscription Tax Give_away to the dug companies??? No child left unrecruited??? Help me here... Just where is the good news??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 22 Jan 08 - 04:56 PM US position on Darfur( in spite of the lack of UN support) Afganistan IMO, the attack on Iraq, removal of Saddam ( in spite of the tactical erros I think were made) and the subsequant ending of the Libyan WMD program If you want to blame him for Katrina, then give him the credit for the Indonesian Typhoon relief. Stopping further terrorist attacks within the US. (yes, there have been a number stopped, even if you don't want to admit it). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 22 Jan 08 - 06:23 PM BB, you are a pompous ass. I do not hate George W. Bush. Nor do I belong to any kind of anti-Bush cult. And for you to suggest that anyone who disagrees with you must belong to such more than amply displays your desperation to be taken seriously. And that goes for the frantic verbal tap-dancing that Teribus is doing as well. You guys are trying to resurrect an insignificant bug (Bush) who didn't have sense enough to avoid getting splattered on the windshield of the Judgment of History. During the first few times I saw him on television as he began his bid for the presidency, I had him spotted as a little man of minuscule talent and indifferent intellect who was aspiring to a job for which he had no skills. I was not all that happy with Gore, but when it came to intelligence, skill, and experience, he had Bush so far outclassed that it was verging on the silly! The fact that Gore won the popular vote, but was edged out by election hanky-panky in Florida and the decision of a conservative-leaning Supreme Court was bad enough, but what amazed me was that the popular vote margin was close enough to allow that to happen. What the hell were those people thinking!?? Not thinking at all, really. And then, he gets re-elected? Thomas Jefferson said that the preservation of the democracy depends on an informed electorate. And the United Stated seems to have an electorate that is more interesting in the latest doings of Paris Hilton's Chihuahua than it is in picking someone competent to run the country. Do I hate Bush? No. Any idiot with the filing fee and sufficent backing can run for president. You can't blame them for trying, and we have a few who are giving it a shot right now. But I would like to give about half of the American electorate a mighty dope-slap and see if I can get them to take politics a little more seriously than they take Britney Spears' belly button. I was on the verge of cataloging the list of stupid and ill-advised decisions that Bush and his cabal have made, but I don't have that kind of time to rehash what everyone, save those who have opted to remain blind, knows full well. In less than seven years, he's all but bankrupted the country (having started his presidency with the biggest surplus in decades) and for completely spurious reasons, has dig the country into a quagmire that more than rivals the Vietnam debacle and may take several future administrations to dig us out of. One seriously wonders about the future of the country. As some acute observer once said, "When small men cast long shadows, it means the sun is setting." And George W. Bush is a small man. Considering the loss of both integrity and prestige this country has suffered within recent years (believe me, the United States is no longer regarded by most of the world as "the shining city on the hill."), we can no longer claim to be the leader of the free world. We have exploited and oppressed too many other peoples to be able to sustain that claim. We are no longer and example of freedom and prosperity to the world, we are the playground bully, beating up on the other kids and stealing their lunch money (almost literally!). Bush has had a number of predecessors in bringing this about. But he is the most obvious and egregious of the bunch. I don't hate Bush. I wish him no ill. In fact, I am not enthusiastic about impeaching him or trying him for war crimes—although I'm sure strong cases can be made. I wish him a happy retirement from politics, to spend his days in Crawford, Texas, clearing brush, which he seems to enjoy, or dishing out the steaks at a good ol' Texas barbecue, which the late Molly Ivins has said he is very good at. "He's fun at a party," she went on to say. But, for God's sake, let's get somebody who is intelligent, competent, and has integrity and a sense of ethics in as president in 2008. We have done without such for far too long! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 22 Jan 08 - 06:31 PM "And for you to suggest that anyone who disagrees with you must belong to such more than amply displays your desperation to be taken seriously. " Yet you seem quite happy to agree with Bobert that those who disagree with you ARE in love with Bush or members of a Bush cult. You are the pompous ass. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 22 Jan 08 - 06:33 PM "But, for God's sake, let's get somebody who is intelligent, competent, and has integrity and a sense of ethics in as president in 2008." This I can agree with. I hope that at least one party can have the balls to run such a person. But I doubt it ( for BOTH parties) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 22 Jan 08 - 07:45 PM "Yet you seem quite happy to agree with Bobert that those who disagree with you ARE in love with Bush or members of a Bush cult." Did I say that? No, nowhere that I can find. And: "You are the pompous ass." Still a bit short on creativity, I see. No, I don't think you "love" Bush, or belong to any kind of cult. But after the litany of ethical violations, lies, blunders, bad judgments, and general incompetence that Bush has displayed--for which the whole country will be paying for generations to come--I find it bit mind-boggling to read some of the attempts to excuse him or justify him that you guys keep trying to come up with. Sort of like trying to have a rational discussion on astronomy with Flat-Earthers. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 23 Jan 08 - 03:39 PM Hi there Don, Having a great time reading through the links you supplied. I tend to have a pretty low opinion in general of journalists. I think I've said here before that nine times out of ten they have written their story before they even leave the office, then go out and pick and bend what they hear to suit their preconception. And that Don is exactly what Miss Mapes did in 1999 - according to the links you supplied. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 23 Jan 08 - 06:25 PM So where do yoou get the information that you use to defend Bush, T-zer??? Tea leaves??? Nevermind... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 23 Jan 08 - 09:51 PM And you know that for a fact, Teribus? If so, how? Sorry. Doesn't wash. Casting aspersions on journalists in general is a pretty pallid way of trying to dismiss information you don't like. And it also demonstrates that the only evidence you will ever find acceptable is sommething that agrees with your preconceptions. I grow weary of this. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 23 Jan 08 - 11:06 PM You're incredible, Teribus! In all of that stuff, you fasten on Mary Mapes, the CBS reporter who let her enthusiasm get in the way of checking the details of the story. That was mentioned only in Eric Boehlert's write-up, and that was one of the side points he was making. However, you may find a slight clue as to what the rest of the story is about by simply reading the title Boehlert gave it: "Dan Rather is Right," subtitle, "The Story was True." Despite Mary Mapes' sloppy journalism and despite CBS's failure to properly authenticate the documents, the story was true. You obviously missed the point. Despite the attacks on Dan Rather and the rest of the noise, the information about Bush's Air National Guard service—or lack thereof—was accurate. That's a pretty thin straw you're grasping, and I'm afraid it won't keep you afloat. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 24 Jan 08 - 01:23 AM So let's see Don, according to the information that you supplied, Mapes went out operating on her own assumption that the "then-Governor" Bush and the sons of politicians and athletes got preferential treatment by personnel in the TexANG. Interviewee after interviewee denied that that was the case, she then found two people who supported her assumption, neither of whom knew GWB in the ANG and obviously who had never served with him. She then contacted Rather and said that she had her story. What she had was presented to CBS and she was told that the material she had collected in no way supported her contention that the "then-Governor" Bush and the sons of politicians and athletes got preferential treatment by personnel in the TexANG. Have I got that bit right so far Don? Don't worry about the rest I'll get round to it all presently. "Despite Mary Mapes' sloppy journalism and despite CBS's failure to properly authenticate the documents, the story was true." (Don Firth) Now taking the above into consideration - That statement of yours is what is incredible!! Mary Mapes sloppy journalism??? Mary Mapes downright lie more like, and the only reason that you give it any credibility is because that is what you want to believe. Mapes' approach was terribly flawed, if she were really investigating something she should have started out with a clean sheet and an open mind, she didn't and that skewed her perspective on everything she saw or heard. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 24 Jan 08 - 11:43 AM OK Don, have you ever heard of a guy called Colonel Thomas A. Deall? He's Director of Public Affairs, Headquarters Air Force Reserve Command, Robins Air Force Base, Ga. Way back in October 2000, then-Major Thomas A. Deall was a spokesman for the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver, who stated in mid-to-late October that officials there (Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver) now believe that after looking at Bush's records, he met minimum drill requirements before his discharge. So what we have is an official statement by an ANG representative working at the Air Reserve Personnel Centre clearly stating that Lt.G.W.Bush met the minimum drill requirements for his service prior to his discharge from the Air National Guard. We know for a fact that Lt.G.W.Bush received an Honourable Discharge from the Air National Guard Anything else is irrelevant. Was Bush guilty of being AWOL from the Air National Guard? - Not according to the records reviewed by the Air National Guard Personnel Centre. All the rest is just empty, meaningless, Magpie Chatter. What you present is repetitious, highly subjective, biased opinion, crafted by individuals with alternative agendas and their own axes to grind. You have certainly presented nothing that could be taken as being evidence or fact to substantiate your case. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 24 Jan 08 - 01:11 PM Influence. Powerful father. Saved the little twit from the necessity of being responsible for his own actions. But people do remember! Believe whatever you want to believe, Teribus. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 24 Jan 08 - 01:19 PM You're buying the official story. Your faith is touching. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,Bobert Date: 24 Jan 08 - 01:56 PM "Faith" is the cornerstone for "True Believers", Don... But you know that... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 24 Jan 08 - 03:42 PM Interesting! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 25 Jan 08 - 12:47 AM Interesting Don? Only to those who are solely interested in supposition. But let's take a look at who the likes of yourself and Bobert prefer to believe: Mary Mapes who kicked the whole thing off - That was in the run up to the Presidential Election in 2000 wasn't it Don? Mapes went out to prove her own assumption that the "then-Governor" Bush and the sons of politicians and athletes got preferential treatment by personnel in the TexANG. Interviewee after interviewee denied that that was the case, she then found two people who supported her assumption, neither of whom knew GWB in the ANG and obviously who had never served with him. She then contacted Rather and said that she had her story. What she had was presented to CBS and she was told that the material she had collected in no way supported her contention that the "then-Governor" Bush and the sons of politicians and athletes got preferential treatment by personnel in the TexANG. This all happened in 1999 All goes quiet until guess what? - Got in one Don, the run up to the 2004 Presidential Election. Mary does it slightly cuter this time and pushes her story a lot closer to the actual election date. Several weeks prior to the 2004 US Presidential election, Mapes produced a segment for 60 Minutes Wednesday that aired criticism of President George W. Bush's military service, supported by documents purportedly from the files of Bush's commanding officer, the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry Killian. During the segment, Dan Rather asserted that the documents had been authenticated by document experts - But, after questions are raised about the documents' origin, CBS stated the documents had not been authenticated and that CBS could not confirm their authenticity. CBS also stated that they did not have any original documents, only faxed copies of the alleged documents. CBS ordered an independent internal investigation, the results of which concluded that Mapes and others involved had shown serious lapses in conduct and judgement. The panel in charge of investigation was composed of former Governor of Pennsylvania and United States Attorney General, Dick Thornburgh and retired president and chief executive officer and former executive editor of the Associated Press, Louis Boccardi. If there was any doubts about Mapes' political bias and lack of objectivity then they were all dispelled when Mapes was faulted for calling a senior official in the John Kerry campaign, prior to the airing of the piece by CBS, and offering to put her source in touch with thim with regards to countering the then raging Swift Boat ads attacking Kerry's service in Vietnam. The panel called Mapes' action a "clear conflict of interest that created the appearance of political bias." Mapes quite correctly was terminated by CBS on January 10, 2005. Experts are of the opinion that the documents are forgeries, Mapes on the other hand says that they are not (Not the first time that this "reporter" choses what to believe, or not believe, based on her political bias and unfounded assumptions). Mapes main claim to the documents not being forged is that they had changed when being photocopied, which is impossible as typeset is not changed by mere photocopying. The document Mapes claimed to have had was said to be typed in 1973 and as such would have been typed on a 1973 typewriter. The document was actually typed with Microsoft word and as such proved to be a forgery. Photocopying does not change the font or typeset of a document as she had claimed. Now let's have a look at Mapes' "Source" Lt-Col Bill Burkett, who claimed that in 1997, while outside the governor's office in Austin, he overheard a conversation about "wanting to bury George W. Bush's Vietnam service record." This has been refuted by the personnel involved and named as witnesses to the event by Burkett. Burkett had received publicity in 2000, after making and then retracting a claim that he had been transferred to Panama for refusing "to falsify personnel records of Governor Bush", and in February of 2004, when he claimed to have knowledge of "scrubbing" of Bush's TexANG records. According to the review panel, investigations by major news outlets at the time, including CBS, "Burketts story revealed inconsistencies which led to questions regarding his credibility and whether his claims could be proven." Burkett's claims about the origins of the documents have since changed several times. He admitted to lying to CBS about the origin of the memos when he said he got them from fellow guardsman George Conn, then claiming that he received the Killian documents from a woman calling herself "Lucy Ramirez." To date, she has not been identified. As stated above the documents, purported to have been typed in the early seventies, are widely reported to have almost certainly been produced from a computer using Microsoft Word on default settings. As to the content of the documents, it may be impossible to prove their validity one way or the other since Burkett now claims that he burned the originals after faxing copies of the documents to CBS. Which in itself is another indication that the documents are forgeries - if photocpying doesn't change the font or typeset of a document, then neither does faxing them - TRUE Don? The "Killian Documents" faxed to CBS by Burkett amount to four Memos, two of which are unsigned and are therefore unattributable, one orders Lt Bush to attend a Flying Medical and appears to be a routine letter, the fourth is a memo in which Killian clearly states that he is going to convene a Flying Evaluation Board - No such Board was ever convened, Burkett does not explain why and there is no record anywhere else of the Board ever having taken place, no notification of cancellation, no requests for the Boards findings to be sent anywhere, in short no paperwork at all related to it - only this memo produced conveniently in 2004 by Bill Burkett, the self confessed liar, to me all that indicates that the memo is a fake deliberately introduced to provide substance for the myth that Lt. Bush's records were destroyed in order to "sanitise" them. Unfortune, but I would have thought that the lying Lt-Col Burkett would have realised that military records do not exist in islolation, Personnel Records interface with all sorts of other files, but none of these traces and spurs exist. Records are kept and maintained at various locations all over the country, most certainly in places in which Bush would have no influence whatsoever. That is why I would tend to believe Col Deall, Don. Now let's take a look at what axe Bill Burkett had to grind: "Burkett has, in the past, raised his allegations about the Bush records as part of his personal struggle with the Guard over medical benefits. For instance, in a 1998 letter to Texas state Senator Gonzalo Barrientos, Burkett complained that he had not received adequate medical care when he became seriously ill after returning from a mission to Panama. He also said Guard officials had retaliated against him because he had conducted a management study critical of the Guard. © Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company." Not one single person that Burkett mentions in his fairytale corroborates what he says, in fact they do exactly the opposite. And of course we can all believe implicitly in the existence of "Lucy Ramirez", the woman that cannot be found. Absolutely laughable Don. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 25 Jan 08 - 08:55 AM Well, gol danged, Don... Now it looks as if T-Bird has morphed Don Baker into Mary Mapes??? Either that or he didn't bother clickin' on the "Nation" article... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Homey Date: 25 Jan 08 - 09:35 AM "Huh??? Just say no to drugs, Homey..." I do Bobert. You should take your own advice. Then you would be living in the ***REAL*** world. In this world guilt must be proven not disproved. Popular opinion is not proof. North Americans believed tomatoes were poisonous but that did not make them poison. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Amos Date: 25 Jan 08 - 10:45 AM Tomatoes have believed for many years, as wel, that North Americans are dangerous to their health, and most often this turns out to be the case. Tomatoes 1, North Americans, 0. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 25 Jan 08 - 03:07 PM If it supports Teribus' beliefs, it's evidence. If it doesn't support his beliefs, it's supposition. So, what's new? And once again, Homey, just because some judge doesn't rap a gavel and declare someone guilty of something does not mean that person isn't actually guilty. The principle is "presumed innocent until proven guilty." Bush has never been tried (court martialed) , and that's due mostly to the fact that he was a senator's son and came from a wealthy family. That's also what got him into the Guard in the first place, instead of sending his sorry butt to Vietnam. There is this phenomenon known by most people as reality. . . . Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 25 Jan 08 - 03:46 PM Bush was also never brought up for charges by the Securities and Exchange Commission for pilferin' 700 grand from Harkin just months before reporting that Harkin was in the red... But he did it... This Enron here, if you will... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 25 Jan 08 - 03:48 PM "If it supports Teribus' beliefs, it's evidence. If it doesn't support his beliefs, it's supposition." (Don Firth) A question for you Don. Who has all the documents relating to GWB's service with the ANG? Now really thinking way out of the box here Don I would venture to guess that it is the ANG themselves. That I would think most people would find reasonable. When this "issue" first raised it head with the purpose of running a smear campaign against GWB's Presidential election campaign in 2000. The ANG carried out a full review of all documents relating to GWB and they found that he had fulfilled his commitment to the ANG and was granted an honourable discharge after serving five years and four months. I can see no reason whatsoever for them to lie. It is on the basis of that official statement that I believe that GWB fulfilled his commitment to the ANG. It is on that official statement coupled with the fact that having applied for early release from the ANG, the ANG granted GWB's early release and gave him an honourable discharge. I fully believe that the instant that application went in the first thing the ANG did was check his service records - that would be the natural and normal thing to do in processing anybody's request for discharge. And guess what Don the request was granted. I know that Bobert has never served in the military, I do not know whether you have any personal experience of it. But many here on mudcat have, and they can correct me if I am wrong in what I am about to say. If you are charged in the military and you are accused of having been "Absent Without Official Leave" - you are automatically "Guilty", there is no plea of "Not Guilty" to that charge, because the grounds for bringing that charge is that you were not there, you were missed, i.e. you were officially reported having been absent from your place of duty. If charged with having been AWOL, the only thing you can do is plead circumstances in mitigation, but the verdict of the Courts Martial will be that you are "Guilty as charged". Please correct me if both myself and the entire administrative staff of the ANG is wrong, but GWB, during his entire service career spanning five years and four months, was never accused or charged with ever having been AWOL, that is a fact. And that had absolutly nothing whatsoever to do with who he was, or whose son he was. The so-called-evidence that you repeatedly present CBS threw out in 1999. The source that an extremely biased reporter totally relied upon proved to be a serial liar and a fantasist. His biggest blunder being to state that he faxed the originals then burned them - the documents he faxed could not possibly have been typed in 1972 or 1973, therefore they were forgeries. Now if you were going to independently review the career files of an ANG pilot who served between 1968 and 1973, who would engage to do that. Now for my part Don, I would have gone to either a senior Air Force Officer or a senior ANG Officer who served around the same time. Tell us who the Boston Globe got to do the job Don? So, what's new? And once again, Homey, just because some judge doesn't rap a gavel and declare someone guilty of something does not mean that person isn't actually guilty. The principle is "presumed innocent until proven guilty." Bush has never been tried (court martialed) , and that's due mostly to the fact that he was a senator's son and came from a wealthy family. That's also what got him into the Guard in the first place, instead of sending his sorry butt to Vietnam. There is this phenomenon known by most people as reality. . . . Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 25 Jan 08 - 04:16 PM Gol danged, T-Bird has really gotten himself confused... Yesterday he turned Don Baker into Mary Mapes and now he's signing off as you, Don??? I tell ya' what... Keeping up with all the Bush mythology must be very taxin'... You need a vacation, T-zer... Yer comin' unwound... B;) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 25 Jan 08 - 08:53 PM As Bobert duly notes, Teribus, you are Teribus, I am Don Firth. But this, of course, is not the only manifestation of your bewilderment. The facts are known. The timeline of Bush's ANG service, complete with gaps, can be found in documents already linked to. There are enough PDF files out there--official ANG rcords--to keep you reading for quite a while. That is, if you can bear seeing your fondly held beliefs crumble away. You keep trying to ignore the fact that it was family influence that allowed Bush to jump the line to get into the Guard in the first place, then gave him immunity from the consequences of his dereliction of duty. Not supposition. A matter of record. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 25 Jan 08 - 09:05 PM Well, Don, this is MST 101 (Military Science Training 101) for the T-Bird... He thinks that if he conceeess this one then the rest of thew accusuations you and I and others have made against Bush will come collapsing deon upom him and his hero like a house of cards... So T-Bird will fight to hold the front lines... This is beyond thruth... It now down to like the last of Custer's men... He has no other choice but to keep repeating the same and expecting different results... Too bad for T... He chose the wrong guy and the wrong side and now T is stuck with it... He has invested way too much in this now and he is ready to go down fighting, just as Custer's last man did... Sad, isn't it??? All T would have to do to stop the demons is just admit that he was wrong... But he can't... Like I said, "Sad, isn't it???" B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 25 Jan 08 - 09:11 PM It is to weep! 'Tis truly pitiful to see him reduced to having to fire the same dud over and over again. Even poor Custer knew when to fall down. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 26 Jan 08 - 05:31 AM Apologies for that Don, I hit the submit button too early and forgot to cut the tail off. "The facts are known. The timeline of Bush's ANG service, complete with gaps, can be found in documents already linked to. There are enough PDF files out there--official ANG rcords--to keep you reading for quite a while. That is, if you can bear seeing your fondly held beliefs crumble away." (Don Firth) You mean something like this. It comes from the Independent Review Panel tasked with investigating the 60 Minutes Wednesday segment "For The record" Concerning President Bush's Texas Air National Guard Service that aired on September 8th 2004. The Review Panel issued their 224 page report and findings on January 5th, 2005. In Section IX of that Report on page 221 are their Conclusions, from which I quote the following: "How did it happen? The Panel believe it happened primarily because of "a rush to air" that overwhelmed the proper application of the CBS News Standards and the people who were supposed to prevent the problems described in this report. Those responsible for the segment believe firmly that it was true (and some still do). In particular, the producer, Mary Mapes, had fervant faith in what she was reporting and the correspondent, Dan Rather, had great confidence in Mapes work. Everyone involved wanted the segment to be right. But in journalism, no less than in other fields wanting is not enough. As the Panel goes back to the beginning, it is not difficult to identify a litany of missteps that doomed the effort. - A sometimes controversial source with a partisan point of view gave 60 minutes the documents. Only the most cursory effort - one unsuccessful attempt to contact the original source by telephone - was made to establish the chain of custody. - Efforts at authentication failed miserably. Hired document examiners whose views went against the "rush to air" were cast aside. The four original document examiners became two and ultimately one, who opined only on one signature in one document. Nevertheless, the segment contained an unsupported declaration of authenticity. - Competitive zeal - the desire to be first to break what was seen as a significant story - fed the "rush to air" to the point where holding the story to vet it more thoroughly became unthinkable because some other news organisation might surely break the story. - The person relied on as the so-called "Trump Card" to confirm the content of the Killian documents was not shown the documents before the segment aired. He was merely read some or all of the content of the documents over the telephone. The Panel find this unacceptable as a basis for provenance of a story that turned on the authenticity of pieces of paper. In the "rush to air", basic reporting suffered." End Quote "The facts are known. The timeline of Bush's ANG service, complete with gaps, can be found in documents already linked to." (Don Firth) Complete with gaps Don! How do you, or any of the sources you have produced know with any degree of certainty what gaps exist? Fact is that you do not know. You, and the sources you are so eager to push forward, may venture an opinion on what should exist and compare that to what exists in the public domain, but that Don is supposition it is not fact. Just because you think that a document should exist does not necessarily mean that in reality it does exist, and the fact that it cannot be found does not mean that this supposed document is missing or has been destroyed in some nefarious cover up operation. The 1960's, 1970's gaps in records - What presupposes you to believe that record keeping was any better then than it is now? It is much easier now but I am perfectly willing to bet that gaps in personnel records still occur, without there being any sinister explanation beyond that of oversight and human error. The ANG reviewed the official records relating to Lt. G.W.Bush in 2000 and stated clearly that that Officer had fulfilled his obligations of service to the Air National Guard - Now who would be better qualified, being in possession of all the records, than they to make that statement? But one thing is certain Don, there are no records of the Air National Guard ever instigating proceedings against Lt. G. W. Bush for being "Absent Without Official Leave" and the back-up to support that is the fact that: A - Lt. G.W.Bush was granted early discharge from the Air National Guard. B - The Lt. G.W.Bush was given an honourable discharge from the Air National Guard. Now you, like Mary Mapes, might not want to believe that, but as the Panel clearly stated, "wanting is not enough". For you to state that GWB was AWOL, as Bobert certainly did on two occasions on this thread, you have to prove it. To prove it you have to produce evidence to support your accusation. Take advice on exactly what does constitute evidence, because so far all that you have brought forward is supposition and subjective opinion from sources that are clearly biased. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 26 Jan 08 - 08:54 AM Please, Mr. Custer, I don't wanta go.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Homey Date: 26 Jan 08 - 09:29 AM "wanting is enough" for Bobert. He does not have to prove anything. 1% of the population of Haiti holds all the wealth? 56,000 Americans will die Iraq if we don't leave? 650,000 Iraqis died in Iraq? The surge is a cruel hoax? Time for a stretch at a rehab center: We at Passages Addiction Cure Center have learned that there are only four causes of all dependency: 1. Chemical imbalance in the brain; 2. Unresolved events from the past; 3. Beliefs you hold that are inconsistent with what is true; 4. An inability to cope with current conditions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 26 Jan 08 - 09:33 AM "Bush was also never brought up for charges by the Securities and Exchange Commission for pilferin' 700 grand from Harkin just months before reporting that Harkin was in the red... But he did it..." (Bobert) Eh, no Bobert he didn't, the Securities and Exchange Commission investigated GWB's departure from Harkin Energy and his sale of the stock he held in Harkin and found no case to answer. That is a matter of record. Just as: The Air Guard reviewed all the service records relating to Lt. G.W.Bush and found that he had fulfilled his service obligations to the Air National Guard and made a perfectly clear statement to that effect way back in October 2000. Another matter of record. The fact you neither you, or Don, like that very much doesn't really matter one way or another. Your insistance in attempting to portray events to fit your own prejudiced view and bias only reinforces the perception of you as a purveyor of lies, half-truths, misrepresentations and myths. Oh, and Don, if as you say, poor old Custer knew when to fall down, good old John Rouse Merriott Chard knew when not to. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 26 Jan 08 - 02:54 PM From the Daily KOS, Wed. Jan. 12, 2005. With all the crowing about CBS and 60 Minutes, you'd think they blew the story that Bush had been AWOL. The fact is, CBS got one piece of evidence wrong, from a while truckload of evidence. The Associated Press did the most work on the issue, filing a long list of Freedom of Information Act requests and lawsuits to get the necessary documents. Salon summarized their findings: Upon being accepted for pilot training, Bush promised to serve with his parent (Texas) Guard unit for five years once he completed his pilot training.Note: none of this information depends on the CBS memos, but Bush supporters have pounced on those and used questions about them to obscure the real issue -- that Bush was AWOL for large periods of time and failed to fulfill his duty. They are in the moral position of defending a deserter who not only shirked his duty, but whose actions forced someone else to go to Vietnam in his stead. This from a man who is forcing soldiers that HAVE fulfilled their duty to stay past their obligations to fight his unnecessary and illegal war in Iraq. They can pat themselves in the back, content in the knowledge that they gave a pampered shirker yet another free pass. Have a nice day, Teribus. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 27 Jan 08 - 03:01 AM Thanks for the regurgitation of the SOS Don. Anyone reading it can go through the this simple exercise - count how many times "should of" is used, count how many times "supposed" is used. I did accuse you Don of introducing supposition instead of evidence. How do you, or any of the sources you have produced know with any degree of certainty what gaps exist? Fact is that you do not know. You, and the sources you are so eager to push forward, may venture an opinion on what should exist and compare that to what exists in the public domain, but that Don is supposition it is not fact. Just because you think that a document should exist does not necessarily mean that in reality it does exist, and the fact that it cannot be found does not mean that this supposed document is missing or has been destroyed in some nefarious cover up operation. The people who had all the records checked them and gave GWB a clean bill of health plus an honourable discharge - you and those like you might not like that - tough - but them's the breaks - learn to live with it. But please, stop trying to present supposition as fact. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Homey Date: 27 Jan 08 - 09:11 AM Where did the one screen cut and paste cops go to? Do they allow multi screen anti-Bush mania cut and pastes? Is there a double standard at work here? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 27 Jan 08 - 01:18 PM I doubt very seriously that George W. Bush has actually done all of the things he has been accused of. However, he most certainly has done some of those things. There are people here who, if Bush were to knock on their doors and confess to them in person the list of things that it is well established that he has done, including those things listed on this thread, they still wouldn't believe it! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 27 Jan 08 - 03:20 PM By the way, Homey, a quick scroll through this thread reveals that Teribus, beardedbruce, and YOU have several cut-and-paste posts that run considerably over one screen. So I gather your objection to this is not the length of the "anti-Bush" posts, but their viewpoint and content. It appears that you are arguing in favor of a double standard. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 27 Jan 08 - 03:33 PM Hmm. I seem to have been a bit sleepy when I first read Teribus' latest post this morning. I almost missed it. Teribus, you object to the number of times that the word "supposed" is used in the list of particulars above and you put the whole thing down as mere "supposition." But—all those supposeds list things that Bush was supposed to do—required by Air National Guard rules and regulations—which he did not do! Including showing up when he was supposed to. "Supposition?" I think not. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 27 Jan 08 - 05:49 PM "But—all those supposeds list things that Bush was supposed to do—required by Air National Guard rules and regulations—which he did not do! Including showing up when he was supposed to." (Don Firth) "But—all those supposeds list things that Bush was supposed to do" - According to who? Were they there? Were they part of what was going on within that unit at the time? I rather think not, and as such amount to just so much hot air. "required by Air National Guard rules and regulations" - Interpreted by who? The politically biased and partisan hacks retired from different services and committed wholeheartedly to John Kerry's election campaign and who at the time were desperately attempting to divert attention away from the Swift Boat for Truth campaign and were fully prepared to sign up for anything that would do that? They most definitely were not part of the ANG at the time. The one ANG member who did review things for them said that what was done was quite normal and accepted practice, he of course was discounted. "Including showing up when he was supposed to." - As stated previously the ANG Personnel Centre in Denver Colorado did carry out a check, in fact I would venture to guess that they carried out two checks, one in 1973 when Lt. G.W.Bush's request for discharge was processed and granted, the second in October 2000 to refute totally the allegations made by Mary Mapes. Now then Don, you appear to be big on the significance of documents and records that are missing as a means of proving your case and to back up your allegations. That being so I'll draw you're attention to some other documents that are missing to make the case presented by the ANG and myself. If Lt. G.W.Bush had indeed been guilty of being AWOL there should be , according to Air National Guard rules and regulations, specific charge sheets detailing the offences committed - No such documents exist. There should also be a record of a Court Martial and details relating to the sentence handed down by that Court Martial - No such documents exist. Now what does exist Don? That totally substantiates my case and completely sinks yours - hint - honourable discharge and grant of request for early discharge. By all means keep chattering on like a Magpie, it signifies nothing, but as I said previously whatever you do, do not present your supposition as fact. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 27 Jan 08 - 06:49 PM "'. . . required by Air National Guard rules and regulations' - Interpreted by who?" By the Air National Guard, of course! Teribus, you keep trying to equate the National Guard—which is a state militia—with the regular national military, i.e., U. S. Army, U. S. Air Force, etc. There are number of differences in regulations, practice, and status of members. National Guard members are civilians who sign up to take military training and engage in training drills and maneuvers during specific weekends per month, and the member is often required to attend a two-week period each year in addition to the assigned weekends. Joining the National Guard is, essentially, like signing a contract to serve over a specified period of time and meet specified obligations. High on that list of obligations is, of course, regular attendance. As I say, these are state organizations, not "national" (despite the name). The National Guard is essentially a state militia, and as such, is under the authority of the State governor. In times of national emergency, however, they can be called up to serve with the regular military. A state governor can call up the local National Guard in, say, times of "civil unrest," as happened a number of times during the civil rights movement in the 1960s, and in Seattle a few years back to assist the Seattle Police Department when the WTO demonstrations got out of hand. More frequently they are called up for other kinds of emergencies, for example, following hurricane Katrina in Louisiana, to help maintain order (prevent looting, for example) and to lend whatever service—frequently, humanitarian service—they can. During the recent devastating wind-spread brush fires in Southern California, the National Guard filled in, assisting beleaguered fire-fighters. Many state governors are very unhappy with the Bush and his war in Iraq because he has called up the National Guard to supplement the national military (it's my understanding that most of the troops in Iraq are not regular Army, but National Guardsmen—and women), and depleted the National Guard forces when needed by the States themselves. And many of the National Guardsmen themselves find, after being re-upped repeatedly, that they have been essentially drafted into the regular army when that is not what they signed up for. Teribus, you keep alluding to your military service and your presumed knowledge thereof, and question me as to whether I have served in the military myself. No, I have not. Due to polio at the age of two, I was not physically able to serve in the military (although, for a period of time, my draft classification was 1-Y – draftable in times of national emergency). However, I have friends and relatives who have served in the military. Notably germane to the current discussion, my sister's husband flew with the Montana Air National Guard. He flew out of Malmstrom Air Force Base near Great Falls, Montana, where he and my sister were living at the time. He flew Northrup F-89 Scorpions. When he had served out his obligation to the Montana Air National Guard, he took his experience flying fighter-jets and applied to Northwest Airlines where he trained on multi-engine jets, then worked as a pilot for Northwest Airlines for many years. He retired a few years ago. Anything I want to know about Air National Guard regulations, all I need to do is pick up the telephone, and call John. He and my sister live just across Lake Washington from me. John and I have talked about this matter a number of times, so I know what the regulations call for. And there are documents detailing Bush's absences from required meetings and training drills, and most notably, the required annual physical exam, which got him grounded. These documents have been linked to repeatedly, but you apparently refuse to read or credit them or even acknowledge that they exist. As has been pointed out repeatedly to you, Bush was the son of a very wealthy and influential family, and his father was a senator at the time. This was what got Bush into the Air National Guard in the first place, jumping a line of some 500 other applicants, and kept him from facing the draft and possibly being sent to Vietnam. It also kept him from having to face the consequences of his dereliction of duty and possible court-martial. This, and the fact that the National Guard doesn't not always operate the same way the regular military does. One officer who was acquainted with the problems with Bush commented on the flak they would have got from the senator if they decided to press charges, and said that they were just "glad to get rid of him." Now I presume that your next dodge is to point out that my brother-in-law was in the Montana Air National Guard and that Bush was in the Texas Air National Guard, therefore anything my brother-in-law says does not apply to Bush. You apparently have your head in the sand. On in some other dark location. You simply do not know what you are talking about, and are trying to make excuses for Bush. God only knows why! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Barry Finn Date: 27 Jan 08 - 07:08 PM Thanks Don, for that record of Bush's no-show military service record. Almost reads the same as his Presidental record. The biggest no-show President to date, except for those that died in office. More vacations than any past President to date & a war time President to boot. He's a real "give 'em your all" type of guy, a real on the job every day kind of guy. If his past record would've been public knowledge without the spin & hype & lies prior to his elections (take/hand overs) I doubt he would've fooled as many of the voting public as he did. His record really speaks for the real man/boy that he is. Just a typical rich frat drunk driving no show party boy with absoloutly no work ethic at all. We could've saved ourselves a war, a national bankruptcy, a department of the Homeland, an enegy crisis, an educational crisis, a health crisis, a voter accountability process, a world image crisis, a few constitutional amendments & rights. I'm not gonna argue his no shows, he & the NG can't produce any proof that he did show & I don't believe Bush is calling any of the facts into question. There's no need to discuss his no shows at his present job either. You either get up in the morning & go to work or you don't. He obiviously thinks his quality time on his ranch & being away from the job is more important than the matters of state & it shows. He will never be serious consideration for employment, this nation if ever asked should not give him a postive reference, no matter how lowly the job. He should've been terminated long ago. He's not fit to drive taxi or sweep floors. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 27 Jan 08 - 08:47 PM I'd just as soon see him spend more time down in Crawford, Texas wearing his cowboy hat and clearing brush. The more time he spends away from the Oval Office, the less time he spends screwing up the country and the world. His daddy kept buying him toys. Daddy bought him an oil company and it went broke. Then Daddy bought him a baseball team and one of the first things he did was trade Sammy Sosa. Then Daddy bought him the presidency, and he broke that, too! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 27 Jan 08 - 09:03 PM Yup, you all have it right... George W is a one-man wrecking crew... No matter waht is fixed, he has the ability to bust it... And for the record, yeah, T^-Bird is absolutley and embarressingly clueless as the the ins and outs of the ANG in the late 60's and earle 70's... If he only had a clue as to just how ignorant of the reality-in-the-real-world he was clinging to he would disapppear for another 4 years in shame... T-zer... You are as wrong as wrong can be... Bush didn't "fulfilll his obligation"... If that sounds better to you then fine... Hey, it's still considered AWOL over here but if "din't coplete his obligation" works for you, I'm sure that Don, Barry and I can let you have that little bit of face savin'... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Homey Date: 28 Jan 08 - 08:42 AM Bush didn't "fulfilll his obligation" Where is the proof of that? Any documents other that the forged one and an honorable discharge? You keep repeating over and over "can't produce any proof that he did" but you can't produce any proof that he did not. Your proof is nothing but dogma: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 28 Jan 08 - 11:51 AM "'. . . required by Air National Guard rules and regulations' - Interpreted by who?" By the Air National Guard, of course! Really Don? Let's see who the Boston Globe got to review the documentation and comment on ANG Rules and Regulations: Retired Army Colonel Gerald A. Lechliter (of Veterans Against the Iraq War) Brigadier General David L. McGinnis (ret.) USA, Army National Guard, Virginia, who at the time was working for John Kerry's election campaign. Now one person who commented on what Lechliter had to say was retired Lieutenant Colonel Albert C. Lloyd Jr., a former Texas Air National Guard personnel chief. He came out with the following: "Singling out Bush for criticism is unfair. There were hundreds of guys like him who did the same thing." Now Don were all those hundreds of guys all sons of a very wealthy and influential families? "Teribus, you keep trying to equate the National Guard—which is a state militia—with the regular national military, i.e., U. S. Army, U. S. Air Force, etc." Not at all Don, after all the font of all knowledge and truth on this Forum "Bobert-the Great" took great pains to explain to me very early on how "loose" and how "flexible" the Guard was and is. "There are number of differences in regulations, practice, and status of members." According to the ANG itself, the Rules and Regulations that apply to the Air National Guard are uniform throughout every State of the Union. Exactly how they are interpreted and applied will in all probability be subject to quite marked differences. "Joining the National Guard is, essentially, like signing a contract to serve over a specified period of time and meet specified obligations. High on that list of obligations is, of course, regular attendance." Well according to a U.S. Code cited by the Texas ANG and used by all Guard Units across the country, Guard members are required to earn a minimum of 50 service points each year, beginning on the date of their enlistment. You "earned" 15 of those points just for being a member of the ANG, you earned another 15 points for attending the two-week long summer activity. According to my arithmetic Don that leaves 20 points that can be picked up during week-end UTA's (2 days at 2 points per day) or through week day service at 1 point per day. So if you attend 5 such week-ends per year and attend summer camp you meet the specified minimum obligatory requirement – True? So much for regular attendance, you meet the minimum target attending five months out of 12. "Teribus, you keep alluding to your military service and your presumed knowledge thereof, and question me as to whether I have served in the military myself. No, I have not." Useful to know – neither yourself, or Bobert has any experience of service in any of the armed forces, so what you are running on are preconceptions, which in Bobert's case are just downright bizarre, and hearsay, which of course is heavily dependent on what questions are asked and how intelligent, or informed, those questions are. "John and I have talked about this matter a number of times, so I know what the regulations call for." No Don, you know what your brother-in-law thinks the regulations call for. For my part I will take, and trust the interpretation of the only people who have viewed all the records and whose interpretation of what is required is deemed expert – ANG Centre for Personnel Records. "And there are documents detailing Bush's absences from required meetings and training drills, and most notably, the required annual physical exam, which got him grounded. These documents have been linked to repeatedly, but you apparently refuse to read or credit them or even acknowledge that they exist." What documents that detail absences? You are in error over what the required frequency at training drills actually was and have completely disregarded the fact that if you are in a non-flying billet there is no point whatsoever in sitting a flying medical. Now on the subject of refusing to acknowledge the existence of documents that are very much in evidence, why is it that you and Bobert refuse to accept that Lt G.W.Bush received an honourable discharge from the Air National Guard, and likewise accept that that would not have been granted had he ever been AWOL. "As has been pointed out repeatedly to you, Bush was the son of a very wealthy and influential family, and his father was a senator at the time. This was what got Bush into the Air National Guard in the first place, jumping a line of some 500 other applicants, and kept him from facing the draft and possibly being sent to Vietnam. It also kept him from having to face the consequences of his dereliction of duty and possible court-martial." All of that is your opinion, it is not fact. Mapes took off on her quest in 1999 operating exactly on that same assumption. When she came toddling back to CBS and tried to get them to air it they took one look at the material she had gathered and told her that it was a non-starter. Perhaps you can explain to us exactly how much influence Senator Bush of Texas would have had in Colorado Don. Because it was the Personnel Centre in Colorado who processed the application for early discharge and they granted it. It was that same Personnel Centre that in October 2000 after carrying out a complete review of all documents relating to Lt. G.W.Bush's service career issued a clear and unequivocal statement that he had fulfilled his obligations with regard to his service with the ANG. "One officer who was acquainted with the problems with Bush commented on the flak they would have got from the senator if they decided to press charges" Got a name for this officer Don? Is there anywhere I can read this opinion of his. Please explain to us exactly what "flak" the Senator could have given the Texas ANG? Very little I would imagine. But I would be interested to know. "Now I presume that your next dodge is to point out that my brother-in-law was in the Montana Air National Guard and that Bush was in the Texas Air National Guard, therefore anything my brother-in-law says does not apply to Bush." No Don that is not my "next dodge". My "next dodge" is to point out the obvious – It doesn't matter a damn what your brother-in-law says with regard to what should, or should not have applied to Bush – What does matter and what does stand is what the ANG said applied to Bush, and we all know exactly what that was don't we Don. "You simply do not know what you are talking about," I appear to have a damn sight better idea than you. By the bye before anybody goes on frothing at the mouth about how the supposedly absentee Lt. G.W.Bush should have been reported to the draft board and shuffled off to Vietnam. I suppose it is only fair to say that even had he been reported the one place he would never have been sent to would have been Vietnam, as by August 1972 the last US combat troops left Vietnam, leaving behind some 16,000 special advisors, none of whom were conscripts. U.S. Troop levels peaked in April 1969 at 543,400, by December 1969 that number had been reduced by 20%. By December 1970 numbers were down to 280,000. In April 1971 the last USMC Combat Unit left Vietnam and by December 1971 numbers were down to 156,800. By April 1972 the number was 69,000 and in May 1972 the U.S. Army Headquarters in Vietnam was decommissioned. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Barry Finn Date: 28 Jan 08 - 02:39 PM "Singling out Bush for criticism is unfair. There were hundreds of guys like him who did the same thing." "Now Don were all those hundreds of guys all sons of a very wealthy and influential families?" Just because there a many murders in prison doesn't mean it make the killing less of a crime. So what that others did the same, are they our President? He still gets a "failed in office" & a "no show" from the people & that's how he'll go down in history! He doesn;t know how to hold down a job & at the same time do a job well done! Does anyone here think that what he's done over the past 7 years deserves a passing grade? He's about as much a fuck up as there's ever been in the high office of this nation, bar none! Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 28 Jan 08 - 02:44 PM I find it totally pointless to continue arguing with idealogues who are so convinced that the sun shines out of their hero's nether orifice that even if that "hero" were to publicly admit that everything his critics have said about him is correct, they still wouldn't believe it. I have a political campaign to work for, so if you gentlemen will excuse me, I will devote my time and efforts to more productive ends. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 28 Jan 08 - 04:34 PM Barry it illustrates the complete lack of objectivity in the so-called investigation: 1. Mary Mapes went hunting down her own dearly held belief that sons of politicians and athletes got preferential treatment. So convinced of this was she that she completely discounted the large numbers of people she interviewed who poured cold water on her theory. So desperate was she to prove herself right that she fastened on the only two who appeared to play ball, unfortunately neither knew GWB or served with him or at the same time as he did. 2. Boston Globe who ran the articles on GWB's ANG Service. Engaged two extremely partisan retired Army officers to review the service records that were in the public domain, ran with their interpretation and discounted the statement given by the ANG Personnel Centre who had all the records. 3. Mapes second kick at the ball in 2004, fired up by Bill Burkett a serial liar and fantasist with an axe to grind with the Texas ANG. Burkett told so many lies he forgot which one was current. Every single person he "named" in his ludicrous tale, repudiated and completely contradicted everything that Burkett had said. After the Segment on 60 Minutes Wednesday aired and it became apparent that the authenticity of "Killian" documents were seriously in doubt CBS investigated and found Burkett to be a less than credible witness - Mary Mapes was running true to form - I don't care if he's told a pack of lies and that the documents are fake, they prove my story. In one of the articles supplied by Don, the Robinson of the Boston Globe states his amazement at the lack of interest by other news outlets at the story - I don't find it surprising at all, they did look at it and examined the so called evidence and came to the firm and correct conclusion that there was no story. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 28 Jan 08 - 06:12 PM I'm right behind you, Don... Think I'll just let the three blind mice have this thread, regardless of how wrong they are... Can't argue with sick minds and the alleigence they pay Bush is compulsively sick... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Barry Finn Date: 28 Jan 08 - 06:29 PM "Barry it illustrates the complete lack of objectivity in the so-called investigation" What I lack isn't objectivity, it's the cost for my kids college education, a good affordable heath care plan for my family even though I pay for 2 plans at the moment, a fair tax system that doesn't burden me while I shoulder more than what's asked for by some major corporations, the freedom from the churches interFEARence with the politics of this nations, the civil & human rights that I had before Bush came to DC, the right to live in a safe, healthy & clean enviorment, free access to clean water for all humans before it goes to the utilities, free or subsidized child care for those in need, an economy that doesn't threaten to go bankrupt at the 1st sign of China recalling thier loans on US, Sorry to cut this off, I don't have any more time, I have to get my swin in & then go to a session,,,,,,,,Later Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Homey Date: 28 Jan 08 - 09:20 PM Noun: idealogue 1. Someone who theorizes (especially in science or art) Sounds like the Bush haters club to me. Just because I call this propaganda about Bush propaganda, does not mean That I am pro Bush. I am anti propaganda. However the blowhards that keep repeating it over and over, without any of the proof they demand of others, must find some way to make it stick. Therefore they must claim that anyone who disagrees with them a supporter of the person they are attacking. Bush leaves a lot to be desired especially in the amnesty for illegal aliens department but these Taliban style attacks point up the emotional and mental immaturity of the attacker. For example, here is a burned out 60's style hippie that can't adapt to the modern world so he has a chemical dependency. Yet he tells others that they are not living in the real world. It is real entertaining to witness this desperate attempt to turn lies, half-truths, misrepresentations and myth into truth. If you repeat a lie enough, (gullible) people will believe it is true. So the three wise men have lapped it up like a bowl of warm cream. Bon Appétit |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 28 Jan 08 - 09:54 PM "Bush hater's club." Where would you guys be without your collection of self-labeled pigeon-holes? I don't at all mind you fellows "winning" the argument in this thread (which appears to be the way you conceive of it) just as long as my guy wins the next election. Ta-ta. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Homey Date: 28 Jan 08 - 10:00 PM From the New York Times: Two Democratic senators called on Gov. George W. Bush to release his full military record to resolve doubts raised by a newspaper about whether he reported for required drills when he was in the Air National Guard in 1972 and 1973. But a review of records by The New York Times indicated that some of those concerns may be unfounded. Documents reviewed by The Times showed that Mr. Bush served in at least 9 of the 17 months in question. Dan Bartlett, a Bush spokesman, said that Mr. Bush had fulfilled his military obligations ''or he would not have been honorably discharged.'' The senators, Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii and Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, both Medal of Honor winners, were responding, in a telephone conference with reporters, to an article in The Boston Globe on Tuesday. The article, citing military records for Mr. Bush, raised questions about whether Mr. Bush performed any duty from April 1972 until September 1973, when he entered Harvard Business School. A review by The Times showed that after a seven-month gap, he appeared for duty in late November 1972 at least through July 1973. Mr. Bush was assigned to the 111th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron at Ellington Air Force Base near Houston, from November 1969, last flying there on April 16, 1972. In a report dated May 26, 1972, his commander, Maj. William D. Harris Jr., said Mr. Bush had ''recently accepted the position as campaign manager for a candidate for the United States Senate.'' Mr. Bush went to work for Winton M. Blount a few days after Mr. Blount won the Republican primary in Alabama on May 2, 1972. From that time until after the election that November, Mr. Bush did not appear for duty, even after being told to report for training with an Alabama unit in October and November. Mr. Bartlett said Mr. Bush had been too busy with the campaign to report in those months but made up the time later. On Sept. 5, 1972, Mr. Bush asked his Texas Air National Guard superiors for assignment to the 187th Tactical Recon Group in Montgomery ''for the months of September, October and November.'' Capt. Kenneth K. Lott, chief of the personnel branch of the 187th Tactical Recon Group, told the Texas commanders that training in September had already occurred but that more training was scheduled for Oct. 7 and 8 and Nov. 4 and 5. But Mr. Bartlett said Mr. Bush did not serve on those dates because he was involved in the Senate campaign, but he made up those dates later. Colonel Turnipseed, who retired as a general, said in an interview that regulations allowed Guard members to miss duty as long as it was made up within the same quarter. Mr. Bartlett pointed to a document in Mr. Bush's military records that showed credit for four days of duty ending Nov. 29 and for eight days ending Dec. 14, 1972, and, after he moved back to Houston, on dates in January, April and May. The May dates correlated with orders sent to Mr. Bush at his Houston apartment on April 23, 1973, in which Sgt. Billy B. Lamar told Mr. Bush to report for active duty on May 1-3 and May 8-10. Another document showed that Mr. Bush served at various times from May 29, 1973, through July 30, 1973, a period of time questioned by The Globe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Homey Date: 28 Jan 08 - 10:08 PM I don't see any connection to any election here. You are indeed seething in hatred. Do you also believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy? Boston Globe admits Bush served more than the minimum time, and was a fine pilot: Those who trained and flew with Bush, until he gave up flying in April 1972, said he was among the best pilots in the 111th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron. In the 22-month period between the end of his flight training and his move to Alabama, Bush logged numerous hours of duty, well above the minimum requirements for so-called ''weekend warriors.'' Indeed, in the first four years of his six-year commitment, Bush spent the equivalent of 21 months on active duty, including 18 months in flight school. His Democratic opponent, Vice President Al Gore, who enlisted in the Army for two years and spent five months in Vietnam, logged only about a month more active service, since he won an early release from service. Bush flew with the 111th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron, which was attached to the 147th Fighter Wing, based in Houston, Texas. While Bush's unit never got called to Vietnam, the 147th was. From 1968 through 1970, pilots from the 147th participated in operation "Palace Alert" and served in Southeast Asia during the height of the Vietnam War. The 147th came off runway alert on Jan. 1, 1970 to start a new mission of training all F-102 pilots in the United States for the Air National Guard. Bush enlisted as an Airman Basic in the 147th Fighter-Interceptor Group at Ellington Air Force Base, Houston, on May 28, 1968 - at a time when the 147th was actively participating in combat in Vietnam. However, one can not train overnight to be a pilot. Bush completed basic flight training and then, from December 1969 through June 27, 1970, he was training full-time at Ellington to be an F-102 pilot. Bush volunteered to serve in a unit at the very moment it was seeing combat in Vietnam, and only a restructuring of the unit's mission before he completed his flight training made it unlikely he would fly in combat. And he was never AWOL - he completed his required service and even served beyond the minimum. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Donuel Date: 28 Jan 08 - 10:14 PM Its like Homey stepped right out of 2003 and is ready to destroy Saddam's WMD. Whats he gonna say next, love it or leave it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 28 Jan 08 - 10:42 PM "You are indeed seething in hatred." You know that for a fact, Homey? A lively imagination is a joy forever. No, I don't hate anyone, and I'm far too relaxed at the moment to "seeth." As I have said above, Bush is a small man in an office that is much too big for him, and this leaves him vulnerable to being manipulated by forces he doesn't understand. But Dick Cheney does. Actually, I feel sorry for Bush. He's in way over his head, and history is not going to be kind to him. And it's pretty obvious from some of the things that he's said and done within recent months that he is dimly aware of this and is a bit concerned. By the way, when I refered to "winning" the argument in this thread," I'm not acknowledging that you guys have won anything, unless it's contest for sheer endurance and pointless repetition. I can't see any point in wasting any more time here when, politically, I can spend my time more productively working for my favorite candidates. It's about 7:30 p.m. here, so I'm going to sign off and watch a little television. Nothing heavy. A comedy on CBS and a nature show on PBS, then a bit of news and a good night's sleep. Primary elections are coming up in this state, so tomorrow I'm going in to lend a hand. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Homey Date: 28 Jan 08 - 10:46 PM I hate to disappoint you but I have not said anything about WMD's I did however ask it Iran was a threat to world peace and peace in the Middle East. And I asked what should be done about Iran. However this thread has degenerated in to a hate Bush fest. When I point out discrepancies and the underlying character defects, I get labeled a Bush supporter. Some people can't stand it when someone suggests they are wrong. They get real arrogant and sarcastic to try to prove they are right as always. Colonel Staudt told the LA Times that "Nobody did anything for him. There was no goddamn influence on his behalf. Neither his daddy nor anybody else got him into the Guard." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Homey Date: 28 Jan 08 - 11:23 PM Don: You could be right about Bush. I don't think he is all that great but all this rhetoric and propaganda does not prove it. It only serves to throw those who doggedly keep repeating it over and over into question. I think Iran is a threat to peace in the world and the Middle East. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 29 Jan 08 - 03:18 PM George W. Bush called Iraq, Iran, and North Korea an "axis of evil." Then he launched an attack and invaded Iraq. From this, it would not be unreasonable for leaders of Iran and North Korea to assume that one or both of them were next on Bush's list to invade. Knowing that they do not have sufficient conventional military forces to defend themselves from an invasion by the United States, it is perfectly understandable that they might want to acquire nuclear weapons and use the threat of them as a deterrent to such an attack. The leaders of neither country are stupid enough to think that they could possibly survive if they were to launch a pre-emptive nuclear attack on the United States. But they may very well feel that if they have nuclear weapons, that fact might make Bush, or any future leader of the United States, think twice about invading them. Were it not for the threat that Bush's "axis of evil" speech implied, they quite probably would not have even considered adding nuclear weapons to their arsenals. If Bush considers Iran's alleged efforts to acquire nuclear weapons, which, incidentally, is not established as true, to be a threat to the United States, it is a threat that was caused by Bush himself. As it stands now, North Korea has pledged to give up the few nuclear weapons it has and is allowing inspectors in. Iran claims that they want to use nuclear energy for strictly peaceful purposes, and have made an agreement with Russia to supply them with the nuclear fuel they need for this purpose, then reclaim it when depleted. Under Russia's supervision, Iran will not need to have the means to enrich the fuel to weapons-grade material, nor will the Russians allow them to do so. These countries constitute a nuclear threat only in the minds of those who believe Bush Administration propaganda. Less swaggering and saber-rattling and a little basic diplomacy would make all the difference in the world, and the Bush Administration has been a complete failure in that department. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST Date: 29 Jan 08 - 04:03 PM "...a burned out 60's style hippie that can't adapt to the modern world so he has a chemical dependency." - Homey This is an attack that points up "the emotional and mental immaturity of the attacker," which Homey also said. I think this is called a double standard. Remember, you can't hold others to a higher standard than you hold for yourself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 29 Jan 08 - 05:19 PM "...a burned out 60's style hippie that can't adapt to the modern world so he has a chemical dependency." - Homey I think he might want to include me in that epithet, but I'm afraid I don't qualify on several counts. I was too young to be a beatnik, too old to be a hippie, I was clean-shaven and had regular haircuts, bathed daily, and never took drugs (with the exception of a recent prescription from my doctor--slight touch of high blood pressure which is not unusual at my age). Nor, as I've said several times here, do I hate Bush. I think he's an incompetent, and considering how history is going to judge him, I almost feel sorry for the silly sod. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 29 Jan 08 - 06:35 PM "George W. Bush called Iraq, Iran, and North Korea an "axis of evil." - (Don Firth) Did he Don? or was that your pals in the press. If you read his speech the "Axis of Evil" consisted of an international terrorist group a rogue state that possesssed WMD and which would be prepared supported international terrorism by supplying them with WMD or WMD technology. Homey is correct, Iran does pose a threat to the peace and stability of the region, as one of the possible candidates to fulfil the role of the rogue state - they are known supporters of Hezbollah and Hamas and their Al-Quds Brigade is tasked with encouraging and aiding the growth of Islamic terrorist movements. The Al-Quds Brigade and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards do not answer to the "Selected" Government of Iran, they answer only to the "Chief Git". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,TIA Date: 29 Jan 08 - 07:25 PM Oh my Gawd you are slippery Teribus. Here is the quote (directly from the speech not from anyone's "pals in the press": *****SOTU, 01/29/2002 ******* "North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens. Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom. Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens, leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections, then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world. States like these and their terrorist allies constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world." ********* Now please tell me who "states like these" is referring to you nincompoop. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 29 Jan 08 - 07:27 PM Nah, Don, I reckon that Old-Dickey-Homey-Guy is probably takin' a shot at me but, hey, he is so dillusssional, who knows???... Sorry you didn't fall into either the beat or hip movements... Actually, truth be known, I was reading beat poetry in the 50's... I love Ferlinghetti and Korso the most... I didn't have mush of a clue what the hell they were talkin' about but I thought they we both real cool... So when the hip thing arrived I was part the way there but... ...according to Dr, King's definition I wasn't a "hippie"... I was a "radical"... I didn't move to the country to a commune... I went to college, did alot of community orgainzing aginst the war and racism and played in a loud rock band... Oh yeah, I also smoked pot... Does that make one a hippie??? If so then half the folks in Page County, Va. today are hippies!?!?!?.... (They're the redneck hippies, Bobertz...) Oh!?!?!.... LOL... Now back at it, Don... I'm takin' a little time off from the Bushites... The brownshirts certainly didn't have anything on out "3 Blind Mice" when it came to beleiving what they were told tyo believe... Hey, look... During my years in social work I learned that arguing with sick people ain't ptoductive... They are too sick for the arguing to make any difference so what's the use??? If just anew one would come along with new arguments, then fine... But it's the same 3 people... Okay, Old Guy morphed into Dickey who has now morphed into Homey but it's the same person... Just different day... Bobert (Ol' Radical) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 29 Jan 08 - 10:57 PM GUEST,TIA beat me to it, Teribus. Yesterday, while listening to a news broadcast regarding Bush's State of the Union speeches, the radio station played excerpts from his previous speeches. I heard Bush say it, loud and clear, with my own two fat, flappin' ears. If you rummage around, you might be able to obtain a recording of Bush's speeches, then you can listen to it for yourself. Your credibility just took a torpedo under the water line, and the fun part is that you fired the torpedo yourself! Jeez, Teribus, get a life!! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 30 Jan 08 - 02:12 AM "GUEST,TIA beat me to it, Teribus. Yesterday, while listening to a news broadcast regarding Bush's State of the Union speeches, the radio station played excerpts from his previous speeches." (Don Firth) You see Don that is the trouble with almost everything you base your opinions on, its all done on what is reported. "a news broadcast regarding Bush's State of the Union speeches, the radio station played excerpts from his previous speeches" Now then Don who got to select those excerpts? and why were those ones chosen? While listening to that broadcast Don did either of those questions flit across your mind? Guest TIA look again, this time preferably reading, the passage you have cut'n'pasted. In each case it is a combination of a state linked to terror in the case of North Korea it is domestic but for the other two: "Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror." "Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror." The references are quite blatant, and I will stand by what I said: "If you read his speech the "Axis of Evil" consisted of an international terrorist group a rogue state that possesssed WMD and which would be prepared supported international terrorism by supplying them with WMD or WMD technology." Because that is what I got from reading the whole speech, not some sound byte extracted from the whole or invented by some journalist or reporter with an agenda all of his own. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,petr Date: 30 Jan 08 - 03:21 AM only the 'decider' could come up with something inane like the 'axis of evil' - with 2 members of said axis Iran and Iraq as avowed enemies. never mind the fact that an axis does not have 3 points.. (Actually it was his speechwriter David Frum -but Bush really liked it had him make some additions like the 'axis' bit..) what a load of rubbish coming out of Teribus.. no attacks from Al Qaeda since 911? sure, if you dont count Bali, Madrid, the London bombings, Casablanca Egypt, Turkey, the various attacks on US bases in Saudi..etc etc.. AlQaeda on the Run with no bases to operate from? well they did have them on the run for a while until they hired Afghan warlords to capture Bin Laden and his crew in Tora Bora - instead of using American troops. The afghans promptly let them go, as did the Pakistanis (the US Ally) who let them cross unopposed into the tribal areas of Pakistan (where AlQaeda originally formed in 1988). Tribal areas, that were never really under Pakistani authority, and now they do as they please. and the Taliban has made a comeback in Afghanistan thanks to the US being pre-occupied in Iraq. the US own intelligence agencies fully admit that AlQaedas recruitment increased and the war in Iraq has become the extremists 'cause celebre' but thats probably too big a word for the decider. the idea that the Bush administration used diplomacy for a settlement with North Korea, (you mean after not talking to them for 4 years and now that Kim has the bomb he gets to keep it?) that agreement? and resorting to the argument above that Saddam was an evil dictator who murdered many of his own people and the world is a better place now that hes gone.. Sure Ill grant that point, although I listened to the war drums in 2002-3 mostly the reasons given for going to war were about WMDs nothing about Saddam being a tyrant. (Which by the bye didnt bother the US in the 80s when they sold him weapons and gave him intelligence while he gassed his own people. ) and why arent we going after all the other tyrants? I guess theres no oil in Zimbabwe. Bush's & Cheneys other legacy - they racked up a debt bigger than all the past administrations, quite an achievement. and Ironically, (or Iranically) the biggest beneficiary of the IRaq war is Iran - Saddam their arch enemy is gone, they have loads of influence in Kurdistan as well as close ties with the Mahdi army and other Shiite militias, and eventually the occupiers will go home. (according to a recent survey most Iraqis think the US troops should leave - also a majority feel US troops are legitimate targets) i think this idea that We own the World pretty much sums it up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 30 Jan 08 - 05:59 AM 9/11 was a culmination of ever more complex operations. The attacks since then have all been crude and very basic. Home made bombs on a train. Anyone could do that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 30 Jan 08 - 10:49 AM "only the 'decider' could come up with something inane like the 'axis of evil' - with 2 members of said axis Iran and Iraq as avowed enemies. never mind the fact that an axis does not have 3 points.." Thanks for coming up with that Guest petr, sort of backs up my take on things on what the President was referring to, i.e. a two point axis of "rogue state" linked to an international terrorist group. North Korea, Iran and Iraq were only named as possible candidates to fulfil the role of "rogue state". Mind you Guest petr probably before your time but the Axis Powers during the Second World War consisted of three countries, that's where the press got it wrong in reporting the Presidents speech and thought that he was talking about an alliance made up between Iraq, Iran and North Korea - as you so aptly point out - bloody ridiculous. Now if I can pick that up and you can pick that up from what has been written, exactly what is wrong with the way they teach basic english comprehension in the good ol' U.S. of A., if indeed that is where Guest TIA is from. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 30 Jan 08 - 01:11 PM Teribus, your desparation is patently obvious. I heard Bush's "axis of evil" speech--the whole speech--the first time he gave it. I also heard it again on the program I mentioned. So I'm not just listening to excerpts carefully selected for their propaganda value, and I'm not as easily deceived as you're trying to imply. YOU are the one who combs through speeches, documents, and news stories to find things you can take out of context to support your viewpoint, and then post them here. Give it up, man! You're making yourself look ridiculous. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 30 Jan 08 - 01:16 PM My desperation Don? I'm not the one trying as best as am able to cling to lies, half-truths, misrepresentations and myths to bolster my arguements. That sort of thing I leave to the likes of yourself, Guest TIA and Bobert. I'll have to check back, but there's not much of Boberts little review list left standing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 30 Jan 08 - 01:47 PM You are indeed a True Believer, Teribus. But a wise man once said, "Believe as you will. But the Facts of Reality do not care what you believe." Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 30 Jan 08 - 03:42 PM For your information: [Our goal] is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.No ambiguity here that I can see. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 30 Jan 08 - 03:56 PM That still might not make it clear enough for Teribus. Let me see if I can make it even clearer for him: [Our goal] is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.Clear enough now? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: TIA Date: 30 Jan 08 - 07:58 PM Oh dear Teribus, my English comprehension is just fine - and I have the transcripts and alphabet soup to back that up. Yours is equally good. I am sure of that (seriously - no sarcasm). The problem is that you take positions, and then desperately cling to them in the face of hurricanes of contrary data. You really should try simply admitting when you have been wrong. It is the only way to actually learn anything. I know this because I have been wrong in the past (and admitted here on Mudcat). It is obvious to all that you have, in this case, been reduced to arguing that black is white regarding the SOTU quote. People will not think less of you for admitting error. In fact, when the error is so blatant, it better preserves your honor to own up to it than to try to spin out of it (humbly spoken from experience - honestly). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 30 Jan 08 - 08:10 PM Just for the record, T-Bird.... My entire list is still intact... You and yer buds took on one, the ANG/AWOL, in any level of depth other than proclamations, denials and woof-woof-woofs and haven't come out too well with that one.... So, go smoke another joint... You haven't begun to make a dent in the list... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 31 Jan 08 - 12:44 AM Now then Don, I know it might be a little bit difficult, but try reading the whole sentence: "States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world." Now if he's only referring to an alliance between Iraq, Iran and North Korea, why mention "their terrorist allies"? "States like these" - Examples given being states such Iraq, Iran or North Korea Rogue State + Terrorist organisation = Axis of Evil Perfectly straightforward Don |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,petr Date: 31 Jan 08 - 12:43 PM or put another way,, 'countries that have absolutely nothing in common - other than they dont like us'. Originally Frum called it the axis of hatred which Bush changed to evil. Of course the wwII reference is intentional, they wouldnt have called it the coalition or alliance of evil. The world war II reference is ironic, my dad who was around to see the Germans march into the Sudety, said - prior to the invasion of Iraq,the US sounded just like the Germans back then. whatever happened to those WMD's? Its easy to see why the NIE report of no-less than 15 Intelligence US agencies was published. To pre-empt Cheney from striking Iran, before the Bush presidency is a lame duck. There was already a steady drumbeat of anti-Iran war propaganda, that took the wind out of their sails. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 31 Jan 08 - 01:42 PM Teribus, one of my areas of study at the University of Washington was English, both literature and composition, so I think I am fairly adept at both reading and writing the English language, and parsing a sentence is no challenge for me. I also studied philosophy in general (an ongoing study), but concentrated especially on the areas of ethics and logic. These are particular fields of interest to me. In addition to this, I worked for many years as a technical writer. Within recent years I have had some seventeen articles on various topics published in regional and national magazines and have nearly completed a book-length work of non-fiction (approximately 100,000 words so far). So I'm pretty well qualified to understand what Bush said (although his command of the English language is high school level at best, and were it not for his speech writers, he would babble incoherently, as we have seen during his press conferences—which is one of a couple of reasons he doesn't hold them anymore; another being that he doesn't like a lot of the pointed questions reporters tend to ask). In the segment of his 2002 State of the Union speech cited, he is referring to Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as an "axis of evil," along with any other country or countries that might ally themselves with those three. You seem to be the one having difficulty with reading comprehension, Teribus. Or, more likely, your reading comprehension is fine, but you simply can't accept the obvious fact that you are so obviously and demonstrably dead wrong. Good Lord, man, get a grip!! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 31 Jan 08 - 02:22 PM Upon re-reading what I just posted above, I would make one small edit. In the last sentence of the second to last paragraph, I have used the words "obvious" and "obviously" too close together, and this tends to read awkwardly as well as being redundant. The sentence in question is: ". . . you simply can't accept the obvious fact that you are so obviously and demonstrably dead wrong."I would delete the "obvious" before "fact" and let the "obviously" a few words later stand, so the sentence would read ". . . you simply can't accept the fact that you are so obviously and demonstrably dead wrong."There. Much better. Perhaps more germane to our current discussion about what Bush actually said than my writing skills is the fact that I have also worked as an editor on a couple of different jobs. I have edited the writings of other technical writers, and while working at a radio station, I edited both news stories and advertising copy. This, in addition to editing my own writing. I would let the last paragraph "Good Lord, man, get a grip!!"stand as is. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 31 Jan 08 - 03:00 PM In which case Don, if you are trying to tell me that the President was saying that the axis of evil is an alliance between Iran, Iraq and North Korea, can you possibly explain why he didn't just say: "These states constitute an axis of evil arming to threaten the peace of the world." But he didn't Don, did he? He said: "States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. Now then Don states like what? Example 1 - "North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens." Example 2 - "Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom." Example 3 - "Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror." "By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred." Rogue State + Terrorist Organisation = Axis of Evil You've obviously been taking money all these years under false pretenses. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 31 Jan 08 - 03:58 PM Obviously (again) Teribus has problems comprehending plain English. I leave it to others who might still be following this discussion to read and judge for themselves. The case rests. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 31 Jan 08 - 05:28 PM Okay, just for the hell of it, let's try it again. "States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world." Okay, Teribus, let's examine what leads up to the sentence in which Bush uses the expression "axis of evil." In the paragraphs leading to it, he spoke of North Korea as a regime that is arming itself with weapons of mass destruction while starving its citizens. Then he says that Iran, another repressive regime, is also arming itself with WMDs. In the third paragraph, he claims that Iraq is flaunting its hostility toward America and supporting terror, while also arming itself with WMDs, and, at the same time, murdering its own citizens. Then—in the crucial sentence, he adds "and their terrorist allies" to the aforementioned list. Remember? North Korea, Iran, and Iraq. And he calls them—all—inclusively—an "axis of evil." By "States like these," who else could he be referring to but North Korea, Iran, and Iraq? Plus any other state that might care to ally itself with North Korea, Iran, and Iraq. Nowhere does he exclude North Korea, Iran, and Iraq. And nowhere does he mention Germany, Russia, Wales, Monaco, or the State of Alabama. What is so difficult for you to understand? Don Firth P. S. As to whether or not I've been taking money under false pretenses (by the way, what other kind are there?), you'd have to take that matter up with a number of satified magazine editors, news directors, radio advertisers, whose work I have edited, and the Bonneville Power Administration, for whom I did technical writing and editing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 31 Jan 08 - 06:40 PM No, Don... T-zer understands English... He just doesn't like believing it if it paints his hero as the crook and warmonger that his hero really is... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Nickhere Date: 31 Jan 08 - 06:59 PM I know this won't be popular, but being the fool I am I'll stick my neck out anyway. there's a good deal of pressure being racked up by Bush etc, over Iran's nuclear programme. But double standards are being applied in the region. UN Resolution 487 passed on 19 June 1981 calls for Israel to put its atomic facilities under IAEA inspection and safeguards, and also for it to pay redress for its contemporary attack on Iraq's atomic facilities (Iraq, as a signatory to the NPT was entitled to pursue its atomic programme for peaceful purposes at that time). The main text here - *Resolution 487 (1981)* /Adopted by the Security Council at its 2288th meeting/ /on 19 June 1981/ / The Security Council,/ / Having considered/ the agenda contained in document S/Agenda/2280, /Having noted/ the contents of the telegram dated 8 June 1981 from the Foreign Minister of Iraq (S/14509), Having heard the statements made to the Council on the subject at its 2280th through 2288th meetings, /Taking note/ of the statement made by the Director-General of the International Atomic Emergency Agency (IAEA) to the Agency's Board of Governors on the subject on 9 June 1981 and his statement to the Council at its 2288th meeting on 19 June 1981, /Further taking note/ of the resolution adopted by the Board of Governors of the IAEA on 12 June 1981 on the "military attack on the Iraq nuclear research centre and its implications for the Agency" (S/14532), /Fully aware/ of the fact that Iraq has been a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons since it came into force in 1970, that in accordance with that Treaty Iraq has accepted IAEA safeguards on all its nuclear activities, and that the Agency has testified that these safeguards have been satisfactorily applied to date, /Noting furthermore/ that Israel has not adhered to the non-proliferation Treaty, /Deeply concerned/ about the danger to international peace and security created by the premeditated Israeli air attack on Iraqi nuclear installations on 7 June 1981, which could at any time explode the situation in the area, with grave consequences for the vital interests of all States, /Considering/ that, under the terms of Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter of the United Nations: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations", 1. /Strongly condemns/ the military attack by Israel in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct; 2. /Calls upon/ Israel to refrain in the future from any such acts or threats thereof; 3. /Further considers/ that the said attack constitutes a serious threat to the entire IAEA safeguards regime which is the foundation of the non-proliferation Treaty; 4. /Fully recognizes/ the inalienable sovereign right of Iraq, and all other States, especially the developing countries, to establish programmes of technological and nuclear development to develop their economy and industry for peaceful purposes in accordance with their present and future needs and consistent with the internationally accepted objectives of preventing nuclear-weapons proliferation; 5. /Calls upon/ Israel urgently to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards; 6. /Considers/ that Iraq is entitled to appropriate redress for the destruction it has suffered, responsibility for which has been acknowledged by Israel; 7. /Requests/ the Secretary-General to keep the Security Council regularly informed of the implementation of this resolution. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 31 Jan 08 - 07:39 PM So much for UN resolutions, nick-ster... Yet, the "3 Blind Mice" stick to the one that Bush rammed down their throats as if it was the resolution of all time??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 01 Feb 08 - 01:03 AM "In the paragraphs leading to it, he spoke of North Korea as a regime that is arming itself with weapons of mass destruction while starving its citizens. Then he says that Iran, another repressive regime, is also arming itself with WMDs. In the third paragraph, he claims that Iraq is flaunting its hostility toward America and supporting terror, while also arming itself with WMDs, and, at the same time, murdering its own citizens." - (Don Firth - Technical Writer) Not quite true is it Don? Regarding the three sentences that you mention, what he said was this: Example 1 - "North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens." Rogue State + mention of its armament programme + its capacity for terror (albeit domestic and internal) Example 2 - "Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom." Rogue State + mention of its armamnent programme + its support of international terrorist organisations Example 3 - "Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens—leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections—then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world." Rogue State + mention of its armament programme + its support of international terrorist organisations. The common thread that was instrumental in the writing of that section of that speech was the threat evaluation carried out immediately post 911 to determine what constituted the greatest threat to the United States of America. Guess what it was Don? A "rogue State" + possession of WMD or active WMD programme + its support of an international terrorist organisation. Iraq, Iran and North Korea were not the only candidate countries, they were only the ones that topped the list. Another that came quite near was Libya again: A "rogue State" + possession of WMD or active WMD programme + its support of an international terrorist organisation. What did Libya do Don? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 01 Feb 08 - 01:13 AM Not wishing to state the obvious Nickhere but in response to your: "UN Resolution 487 passed on 19 June 1981 calls for Israel to put its atomic facilities under IAEA inspection and safeguards, and also for it to pay redress for its contemporary attack on Iraq's atomic facilities (Iraq, as a signatory to the NPT was entitled to pursue its atomic programme for peaceful purposes at that time)." I do not believe that it is within the power or scope of the United Nations to force any country to sign a treaty against its will. Israel's nuclear facilities are perfectly legal, their existance pre-dates any international nuclear agreement by ten years. Anyone thinking that Iraq's nuclear programme was ever purely peaceful is living in cloud cuckoo-land, if anyone wishes to counter that I would advise them to look at the findings of the IAEA and the work they undertook in Iraq immediately after "Desert Storm". What was it again, pursuit of five independent means of enriching Uranium to weapons grade - Hmmmmmmmm - as Bobert would say. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Nickhere Date: 01 Feb 08 - 01:36 AM Iran's nuclear programme is also perfectly legal. If it is supposed to abide by IAEA inspection because of UN Resolutions, then so too should Israel, under Resolution 487. But of course we know there are two sets of laws operating in the region. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 01 Feb 08 - 11:03 AM "Iran's nuclear programme is also perfectly legal. If it is supposed to abide by IAEA inspection because of UN Resolutions, then so too should Israel, under Resolution 487. But of course we know there are two sets of laws operating in the region." - (Nickhere) Now who on earth said that Iran has to abide by IAEA inspection because of UN Resolutions Nickhere? Iran has to abide by IAEA inspections and standards relating to full disclosure and transparency because Iran is a signatory of the 1968 NPT, it has got nothing whatsoever to do with UN Resolutions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 01 Feb 08 - 01:38 PM You shouldn't have skipped your remedial reading classes, Teribus, but I certainly admire your ability to tap-dance. Truly amazing!! I grow bored. Once again, I invite others to read the debate (if they can manage to keep from yawning) and make up their own minds. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 01 Feb 08 - 10:10 PM teribus can twist it any way he likes but that doesn't make Israel the innocent victim. In fact, because Israel seems to have ignored UN resolution 487 it appears that Israel is the 'rogue' nation. Iran is a signatory of the IAEA and Israel is not. Iran continues to meet with and discuss the inspection process. Israel refuses to co-operate with anyone. To continually point the finger at Iran is only a means of deflecting attention away from Israel. It is Israel who threatens peace in the Middle East because they are completely unregulated and have possessed Nuclear weapons for a very long time. I have more trust in those who have a permit to carry a fire arm than those who are carrying a concealed weapon. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 02 Feb 08 - 09:41 AM Oh gosh dianavan, does that statements such as those following didn't really mean anything at all then: • We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand. We shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood. • ... the full restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people. In other words, we aim at the destruction of the State of Israel. The immediate aim: perfection of Arab military might. The national aim: the eradication of Israel. • The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear -- to wipe Israel off the map. The fact that those statements were made at all is bad enough, the fact that those statements were made with three fully mobilised armies camped out on Israel's borders lent a certain "we're only kidding" slant to the rhetoric. Now then dianavan - a question for you - when has Israel ever made any similar statements with regard to its neighbours? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 02 Feb 08 - 10:32 AM Let's have a look at this resolution *Resolution 487 (1981)* /Adopted by the Security Council at its 2288th meeting/ /on 19 June 1981/ / The Security Council,/ / Having considered/ the agenda contained in document S/Agenda/2280, /Having noted/ the contents of the telegram dated 8 June 1981 from the Foreign Minister of Iraq (S/14509), Having heard the statements made to the Council on the subject at its 2280th through 2288th meetings, /Taking note/ of the statement made by the Director-General of the International Atomic Emergency Agency (IAEA) to the Agency's Board of Governors on the subject on 9 June 1981 and his statement to the Council at its 2288th meeting on 19 June 1981, /Further taking note/ of the resolution adopted by the Board of Governors of the IAEA on 12 June 1981 on the "military attack on the Iraq nuclear research centre and its implications for the Agency" (S/14532), /Fully aware/ of the fact that Iraq has been a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons since it came into force in 1970, that in accordance with that Treaty Iraq has accepted IAEA safeguards on all its nuclear activities, and that the Agency has testified that these safeguards have been satisfactorily applied to date, Well with 20 x 20 hindsight and with what was discovered by the IAEA inspectors in 1991 we all now know that that statement was not true. /Noting furthermore/ that Israel has not adhered to the non-proliferation Treaty, Not wishing to state the obvious why does any state have to adhere to the terms and conditions of a treaty to which it is not a signatory? Besides which Israel in many ways has complied with the NPT - it has not proliferated the spread of nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons technology - North Korea has, the USSR has, China has, Pakistan has. /Deeply concerned/ about the danger to international peace and security created by the premeditated Israeli air attack on Iraqi nuclear installations on 7 June 1981, which could at any time explode the situation in the area, with grave consequences for the vital interests of all States, I liked this one especially the "which could at any time explode the situation in the area" bit. Take a look at the date Nickhere and Dianavan. What was going on at that time? A minor spat locally referred to as the Iran/Iraq War. So while hundreds of thousands were being killed in an all out war of epic proportions, the UN security Council fasten on a single Israeli air raid as the thing that might "explode the situation in the area" - forgive me but I find that rather bizarre, not to mention ludicrous. /Considering/ that, under the terms of Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter of the United Nations: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations", Since the date of its founding in 1948 Israel has attacked Iraq once. During the same period Iraq on the other hand has attacked Israel many many times - True? Is that the sort of thing the UN was referring to? 1. /Strongly condemns/ the military attack by Israel in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct; Plain statement that ignores Iraqi threats and hostile actions directed at Israel. 2. /Calls upon/ Israel to refrain in the future from any such acts or threats thereof; As far as I am aware Israel has complied with this request in spite of repeated attacks and threats from Iraq. 3. /Further considers/ that the said attack constitutes a serious threat to the entire IAEA safeguards regime which is the foundation of the non-proliferation Treaty; See comments raised in response to point 4 below. 4. /Fully recognizes/ the inalienable sovereign right of Iraq, and all other States, especially the developing countries, to establish programmes of technological and nuclear development to develop their economy and industry for peaceful purposes in accordance with their present and future needs and consistent with the internationally accepted objectives of preventing nuclear-weapons proliferation; IAEA inspections had they been working should have detected Iraq nuclear weapons programme, they didn't Saddam Hussein had the IAEA in Iraq completely hoodwinked 5. /Calls upon/ Israel urgently to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards; The UN have no right whatsoever to force nations to do things against their will 6. /Considers/ that Iraq is entitled to appropriate redress for the destruction it has suffered, responsibility for which has been acknowledged by Israel; Absolutely, exactly as Israel should be entitled to appropriate redress for the destruction and loss of life it has suffered both directly and indirectly at the hands of Iraq. 7. /Requests/ the Secretary-General to keep the Security Council regularly informed of the implementation of this resolution. Has he? Or like most UN Resolutions was this one just join all the others neatly stacked under the carpet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Barry Finn Date: 02 Feb 08 - 01:54 PM All resolutions aside, the mid-east, ALL of the mid east & it's neighbors see the nuclear situation (& many of ther other situations) as a double standard & they hate both Israel & the US because of it, that is their prospective it doesn't matter what it is or what it's supposed to be, that's the way the whole region sees it! End what looks & seems to be the double standards otherwise there will be no resolution to anything & the road will just keep on continuing as it has, without any maps, it will not end before it apears that one has the same rights as the other. What's good for the gooose has to be good for the gander. Other wise the cooking's gonna keep on. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 02 Feb 08 - 02:13 PM Well, one thing that both the US and Isreal have learned recently and that is there is more to good faith negotiating than having nuclear weapons... They say that it's best to negotiated froma position of strenght but, geeze, it ain't workin' for either of us, if strength is measured in nuclear capabilities... All that the nukes have given our two countires is arrogance, but no ***peace*** interanally or externally... There is a flaw the equation... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Nickhere Date: 02 Feb 08 - 06:01 PM Teribus - "2. /Calls upon/ Israel to refrain in the future from any such acts or threats thereof; As far as I am aware Israel has complied with this request in spite of repeated attacks and threats from Iraq" The UN Charter does not relate to Iraq only. Israel has in fact been making similar threats about Iran of late. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 03 Feb 08 - 07:54 AM "The UN Charter does not relate to Iraq only. Israel has in fact been making similar threats about Iran of late." - (Nickhere) Israel has been no more vocal in its concerns regarding possible pursuit of nuclear weapons by Iran than most and a great deal less than others. The most notable for bellicose statements was France, made by retiring President Jacques Chirac who warned Iran that France has Iran's enrichment facilities targeted by nuclear weapons carried onboard her SSBN's. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Nickhere Date: 03 Feb 08 - 03:34 PM Of course Teribus, sure "everyone else was doing it, Sir!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 03 Feb 08 - 06:12 PM Remind me again Nickhere, who was it that was threatening to wipe who off the map again? Mistaken translation was it Nickhere? Perfectly innocent and peaceful pursuit of nuclear energy for domestic energy purposes? In which case Nickhere why was it they hid their enrichment facilities from the IAEA for so long? Quite a number of countries regard Iran as a serious threat, Israel quite rightly happens to be one of them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 03 Feb 08 - 06:13 PM PS 600 up |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Barry Finn Date: 04 Feb 08 - 01:30 AM "why was it they hid their enrichment facilities from the IAEA for so long?" Who are we taliking about here? Israel or Iran? "who was it that was threatening to wipe who off the map again" By wiping off the map would that also include the physcial removal of a nation's land & bounderies & the shrinking & walling off of it's territories because if it does I don't see that Israel has lost any of it's sand or land, matter of fact it seems as if their boundries have expanded since it's birth at the expense of those who they are claiming threaten them in speach to do to them what they've, through action have already been doing to others. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 04 Feb 08 - 03:12 AM In that case Barry maybe you should actually take a look at how it all came into being. Also please note the "nation" you appear to be talking about was the invention of Yasser Arafat. The word Palestine was used to describe a general area, it has never existed as a country. Take time to study the League of Nations Mandated Territories and look at the restrictions that were put in place on those coming into those territories from abroad. From 1948: The area now called "The West Bank" - originally part of Palestine restricted to Jewish Settlement, captured by Jordanian Troops and held until 1967. Jordan relinquished its rather dubious claim to it in 1988 and up until the present time it is recognised by the UN as "belonging" to no-one. Do I hear any call from you for this land to be restored? No I didn't think so Golan Heights - the border was set and agreed in 1923, large incursions were made by Syrian troops in 1948 and much Israeli land was taken, the Syrians continued to hold this land until 1967. It was from the Golan that they launched their last direct attack on Israel in 1973. Do I hear any call from you for this land to be restored? No I didn't think so. Bit selective in who has to get what Barry? Gaza - Again part of Jewish area of Palestine, captured by Egyptian troops in 1948 and held until 1967. Given to the "Palestinians" on the understanding that totally indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israeli civilians were to cease. As we all know Barry they didn't, over 4000 have taken place since Israel unilaterally withdrew, around 428 attacks so far this year. What is Israel supposed to do about this totally unacceptable state of affairs? Well according to Little Hawk, the appropriate response from Israel should be well directed targeted air-strikes and artillery barrages. Considering the number of attacks I think that the Israeli's are showing remarkable restraint, don't you? - how would you respond to 428 attacks in 30 days? Frequency might go up some now Barry as Hamas may well have resupplied via the rather large gaps in the border with Egypt, remembering of course that Arafats last gift to his "palestinian" people, 15 million dollars worth of weapons from Iran, was supposed to be delivered via the same route. Who is funding all this and supplying Hamas and Hezbollah with the weapons? Try Iran Barry, if they were to stop then there would be excellent opportunities to establish peace in the middle-east. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 04 Feb 08 - 04:13 AM Teribus is in the habit of making up his "facts" as he goes along. Here's a couple of maps that show which areas were designated for the Jewish state and which areas were designated for Palestine. And it should be noted that there were no areas that were restricted to Jewish settlement according to the partition plan. The Jewish state was required to not interfere with the existing population of "Palestinians", which would be anyone living there prior to partition, including "Arabs" (of course, the term "Arab" referred to Christians and Jews as well as Muslims who were Arabs and not Europeans or other ethnic groups). http://www.friendsofpalestine.org.au/images/Palestine%20Map%20Big.jpg http://z.about.com/f/wiki/e/en/9/97/UN_Partition_Plan_For_Palestine_1947.png |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 04 Feb 08 - 07:20 AM 1946 Eh Carol? Put your clock back a bit and have a look at Palestine Mandate in 1920 and how it was altered in 1923. This CarolC shows what bits were restricted to the jews, please note there was nothing to prevent Arabs or other ethnic groups settling in the Jewish areas but the Jews themselves were restricted as to where they could settle. By the bye CarolC if I made this up I did so before I was born. http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts%20About%20Israel/Israel%20in%20Maps/The%20British%20Alteration%20of%20the%20Mandate%20-%201923 Or here's a little historical fly-by from Crusader times to present: http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/arabworld/hapalestine.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 04 Feb 08 - 07:25 AM Almost forgot CarolC what was the collective Arab response to the 1947 UN Partition Plan? Can you tell us what they did next? And what the result was? I think the date was sometime in the summer of 1948. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 04 Feb 08 - 12:58 PM Teribus, the people who made the map you posted are being a bit dishonest about what the mandated boundaries signified. Well, actually, they're flat out lying. The mandate boundaries only dictated which areas would be administered by the British government and which would be administered by the French government. They did not dictate where Jews could live and where non-Jews could live. It was only after the boundaries of the various mandate areas were established that the British mandate area was split into Palestine and Transjordan. Those names actually mean something. Palestine was for Palestinians and also for European Jews who would be allowed to establish a Jewish homeland within that area (not all of it, but only a part of it), Transjordan was originally a part of mandate Palestine, but was split off from it and given to the Hashemites (who were not Palestinians, but from the area that is now Saudi Arabia), as a reward for helping the British government fight the Ottomans. Winston Churchill had this to say about the Jewish homeland in Palestine... * "The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the [Balfour] Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2 November 1917." * 'Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded "in Palestine." In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development"'. * 'it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re-affirmed by the Conference of the Principal Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sèvres, is not susceptible of change.' * 'During the last two or three generations the Jews have recreated in Palestine a community, now numbering 80,000… it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on the sufferance. That is the reason why it is necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connection.' * 'This, then, is the interpretation which His Majesty's Government place upon the Declaration of 1917, and, so understood, the Secretary of State is of opinion that it does not contain or imply anything which need cause either alarm to the Arab population of Palestine or disappointment to the Jews.' http://www.answers.com/topic/churchill-white-paper http://www.answers.com/topic/british-mandate-of-palestine He is saying that the indigenous Palestinians and those Jews who came to Palestine from other places both would have equal rights to live in Palestine and call it their home, but that they would live together as equals and nobody would have any greater right to any part of Palestine than anyone else. On the subject of partition, the non-Jewish Palestinians rejected it, which they had every right to do. In fact, they had more right to reject partition than the British government had to force partition on them. They were (are) the indigenous people of that area (along with the Arab Jews, who were also Palestinians). The Jewish agency accepted partition, but some of the Jewish paramilitary groups did not accept it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Barry Finn Date: 04 Feb 08 - 01:44 PM The Palestinians are seen by the whole of the Arab whole as being the opressed living confined within the boundries that Israel sees fit to allow them to live in & they see the US as a backer to their oppressor. Weither or not any one wants to argue the past 5000 yrs is not relevant. This is the perception of the living conditions & until that perception is altered & basic human rights are granted there 'll never be a settlment to this dispute. The double standard used between Israel & Iran on the nuclear issue is just another of the same dispute, dispite all the rules & regs passed by those that don't live there, that Israel does as it pleases with the US's blessing, backing & money & to hell with the rest of the region & how they should behave. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 04 Feb 08 - 05:42 PM Boils down to this simple fact enshrined in Jordanian Law, CarolC: Anyone could settle and live in what became known as the Transjordan sector of the Palestine Mandate provided they were not Jewish - Jews were and still are specifically excluded. Anyone could settle and live in the part of the the Palestine Mandate that became known as Palestine in 1923 when the British split the territory. Every single time a partition proposal was put forward in general the Jewish community accepted it, the Arab community rejected it. Why on earth they did not go for the Peel Proposal in 1937 I have no idea, but they didn't. Each time they opted for force of arms, and each time they lost. Fact of life if you sit down to play poker or any other game where gambling is involved, if you do not have the best hand, or cannot bluff the best hand, you lose. You cannot in all honesty then complain to the dealer that you have lost, you have made a mistake, and please sir can I have my money back. To deliberately chose the path of war - there is no greater gamble than that - nothing on this earth is more uncertain - yet time after time that is what was the Arab causes' preferred course of action was - and time after time they lost. They fought and then having been defeated, whined and demanded that the offer they rejected should be resurrected and put back on the table - unfortunately things do not work that way. They have steered themselves into situation after situation where they have signed up to UN brokered cease-fires knowing full well that they have absolutely no intention of keeping to the conditions of those agreements and this sad and shoddy fact of life is well known to the Israelis (Latest UN brokered cease-fire Israel has met the UN conditions, Hezbollah and the Lebanese Government and the UN have not honoured one). The clearly stated intention of both Hamas and Hezbollah is the erradication of Israel. They are supported wholeheartedly in this aim by Iran. There is no double standard used between Israel & Iran on the nuclear issue. The two are as different as chalk and cheese, one (Iran) is a signatory of the Nuclear NPT and thereby subject to all its terms and conditions, the other (Israel) independently pursued its own nuclear energy programme out of necessity in 1958, ten years before the nuclear NPT was proposed. I said that Israel's nuclear energy programme was driven by necessity as unlike Iraq, Libya and Iran - Israel has no oil or gas to supply its energy needs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 04 Feb 08 - 06:11 PM I see you prefer to change the subject when your "facts" are shown to be mere lies, Teribus. Your perogative, but lies they remain. The facts are that most of the people who lived and worked in the area that is now Israel and the West Bank and Gaza for hundreds and in some cases more than a thousand years have been dispossessed of almost of all that they ever had though an ongoing and relentless process of ethnic cleansing by Europeans who settled in the area and established a colonialist enterprise requiring a population demographic in which they would always be in the majority. These colonialists have committed ongoing and too numerous to count human rights abuses and violations as well as war crimes and other atrocities. Violent acts have been committed by the people who were being dispossessed, but those acts have no less moral legitimacy than violent acts committed by any other people in defense of their homes, land, and people. We in the US threaten any countries that would consider acts of aggression against us with nuclear annihilation, which, of course, would kill many millions of innocent civilians, women, children, old people, etc. The indigenous people of Palestine certainly have as much right to defend themselves as we do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 04 Feb 08 - 10:17 PM teribus - "...Israel's nuclear energy programme was driven by necessity as unlike Iraq, Libya and Iran - Israel has no oil or gas to supply its energy needs." Was it also necessary for Israel to develop nuclear weapons? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 05 Feb 08 - 03:05 AM CarolC, regarding these "lies" I am supposed to have been telling. The Arab population of Israel amounts to something like 16% of the total take in the other non-Jewish elements that make up the population and that percentage is higher at around 20%. Now can you tell us what percentage of the population of what is now known as Jordan is Jewish? I know that you will evade that question so here's the answer - 0%. Why because they were not allowed to settle there. So could you explain to me and others on this forum where the lie is in the following? "Anyone could settle and live in what became known as the Transjordan sector of the Palestine Mandate provided they were not Jewish - Jews were and still are specifically excluded. Anyone could settle and live in the part of the Palestine Mandate that became known as Palestine in 1923 when the British split the territory." As for this piece of emotional twaddle: "The facts are that most of the people who lived and worked in the area that is now (Please insert name of Country/Area of choice..............) for hundreds and in some cases more than a thousand years have been dispossessed of almost of all that they ever had though an ongoing and relentless process of ethnic cleansing by (Please insert Race or religious group of choice............) who settled in the area and established a colonialist enterprise requiring a population demographic in which they would always be in the majority. These colonialists have committed ongoing and too numerous to count human rights abuses and violations as well as war crimes and other atrocities." That CarolC is life as we know it on planet earth. The above has been common practice for thousands of years, and no doubt will continue to be the case. Dianavan, the fact that you ask your question illustrates that you have not even attempted to look at the problem from the Israeli perspective. Your question was: "Was it also necessary for Israel to develop nuclear weapons?" Israel - nuclear programme for energy needs dates back to 1958 and as such predates the Nuclear NPT by more than a decade. Israel - Remains outwith the nuclear NPT and as such is not constrained by its terms and conditions. Israel - As a non-signatory of the nuclear NPT receives no help or technical assistance from other nuclear countries. Israel - From the date of its declaration of sovereignty in 1948, has been for the large part surrounded by neighbours who declared their open hostility towards Israel and who repeatedly have made public pronouncements relating to the destruction/eradication/annihilation of the State of Israel and of the Jewish people. Israel - Her neighbours outnumber her in terms of population, natural resources, wealth. For much of the period of Israel's existence they also outnumber her in military terms each having large conscript standing armies. Israel - Relies on a citizen army with a professional core. As such Israel cannot mobilise her army and keep it mobilised for long periods, were she to try the country as a whole would not function. Given that set of circumstances Dianavan, yes I'd say as an adult Israeli who was around in 1948 and in 1958, I think I could put forward a very good case for the development of an Israeli independent nuclear deterrent. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 05 Feb 08 - 03:20 AM Hi Barry, Dimona - Suicide bombing, first inside Israel for over a year. Now what was it I said to you just recently? Oh yes: "Gaza - Considering the number of attacks I think that the Israeli's are showing remarkable restraint, don't you? - how would you respond to 428 attacks in 30 days? Frequency might go up some now Barry as Hamas may well have resupplied via the rather large gaps in the border with Egypt" I believe that the Al-Aqsa faction, not Hamas, have claimed responsibility, but the route the bombers took was from Gaza via Egypt. That Barry is exactly how they believe that it was done, and in the short term future they expect more. Plain truth is Barry, there is no ground for compromise or concensus with an opponent or antagonist whose sworn aim and over-riding ambition is to kill you and whose interpretation of any argeement reached is that it serves only as a stop gap on the way to finally securing your total destruction. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Barry Finn Date: 05 Feb 08 - 05:48 AM Plain truth is Barry, there is no ground for compromise or concensus with an opponent or antagonist whose sworn aim and over-riding ambition is to kill you and whose interpretation of any argeement reached is that it serves only as a stop gap on the way to finally securing your total destruction. Again, who are we talking about here, Israel or Palestinian? Both have bllod on their hands but only one has the power! Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 05 Feb 08 - 06:08 AM I think that you will find Barry that Israel has never threatened the destruction/eradication/annihilation of anyone. Exactly the opposite has been the case with Israel's neighbours and more latterly of the terrorist organisations they harbour and support. Now could you please answer the question as to what the basis for negotiation is, when there is no ground for compromise, or concensus, with an opponent, or antagonist, whose sworn aim and over-riding ambition is to kill you and whose interpretation of any argeement reached is that it serves only as a stop gap on the way to finally securing your total destruction. Israel is on record time after time stating that it will reach agreement and will negotiate with anyone provided that the Sovereignty of the State of Israel is recognised and that its citizens are allowed to live in peace without fear or threat of attack. Go away and find out what the official Hezbollah, Hamas, + any other Jihadist line is on that. Oh and that includes that of their paymasters in Iran. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 05 Feb 08 - 10:21 AM The lies I'm pointing to, Teribus are the ones you are telling about who was originally supposed to get Gaza and the West Bank under the internationally imposed borders in that area during the first half of the 20th century. The answer to that question is that the indigenous Palestinians were supposed to get those areas under the internationally imposed borders. That is the truth. Your assertions to the contrary are lies. The people in Gaza and the West Bank are either people who are indigenous to those places, or who fled for their lives to those places during the massive ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by the founders of the state of Israel during the several months BEFORE Israel's "War of Independence", and also during the that "war" itself. They are not people who originated in what is now Jordan. Most of the Palestinians in Jordan came from what is now Israel, after they fled for their lives during the same process of ethnic cleansing. The fact that Jordan doesn't have any Jews living in it is hardly the fault of the Palestinians. This is a reality for which they bear no responsibility. However, it is your country that is responsible for the fact that no Jews are allowed to live in Jordan, so maybe you should give up some of your land as a way of helping to correct that wrong. You keep trying to deflect attention away from the actual lies that I have proven you have made to other points that are not relevant to my original point about you telling lies. I'm not stupid enough to fall for that trick. Sorry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 05 Feb 08 - 12:17 PM Well CarolC let's have a look at the area of the Palestine Mandate where it was possible for Jews to settle during the period of the League of Nations British Mandate, the area that after having split the Mandate in 1923 the area that the British under the terms of the San Remo Agreement set aside as the area in which the Jews could establish their national homeland - note Homeland CarolC not a sovereign nation: http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/maps/hist_subdist.html Now can you tell us whether or not Gaza happens to fall within the boundaries shown on that map? But wait a minute it was captured by Israel during the six day war in 1967 from Egypt. Can you tell us CarolC exactly how Egypt got hold of and laid claim to it? Similar exercise tell us whether or not the districts of Nablas; Ramallah; Jerusalem and Al Khalil happen to fall within the boundaries shown on that map? But wait a minute they were captured by Israel during the six day war in 1967 from Jordan. Can you tell us CarolC exactly how Jordan got hold of it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 05 Feb 08 - 12:33 PM teribus, "Israel - Remains outwith the nuclear NPT and as such is not constrained by its terms and conditions." This is the double-standard at work again. Why are there no limits on the development of nuclear weapons by Israel? Nuclear weapons destroy, eradicate and annihilate. Thats just about the biggest threat I can imagine. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 05 Feb 08 - 12:48 PM I refer you back to the quotes from Winston Churchill, Teribus, that I included in my 04 Feb 08 - 12:58 PM post, which you conveniently seem to have ignored, on the subject of who could live where in mandate Palestine... * "The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the [Balfour] Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2 November 1917." * 'Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded "in Palestine." In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development"'. * 'it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re-affirmed by the Conference of the Principal Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sèvres, is not susceptible of change.' * 'During the last two or three generations the Jews have recreated in Palestine a community, now numbering 80,000… it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on the sufferance. That is the reason why it is necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connection.' * 'This, then, is the interpretation which His Majesty's Government place upon the Declaration of 1917, and, so understood, the Secretary of State is of opinion that it does not contain or imply anything which need cause either alarm to the Arab population of Palestine or disappointment to the Jews.' Nowhere in this does it say that only Jews can live in mandate Palestine, nor that mandate Palestine should become a "Jewish state". It does, however, clearly say that Jews and "Arabs" will live equally together in all of Palestine. A "Jewish homeland within Palestine" means just that. Jews will be able to call Palestine their home, not as guests, but as natives. It does not in any way suggest that Jews will be the only people who will be able to call Palestine their home, or that they may establish an independent country with a Jewish character, a Jewish government, and a permanently Jewish majority, to have power over the non-Jews in Palestine, or that Jews can tell Palestinians that they may not return to their own homeland of Palestine (for any reason whatever). I suspect that had things occurred in the way that Churchill stated they should, all of the problems associated with the establishment of the state of Israel would never have happened, and Jewish Palestinians and non-Jewish Palestinians would be living more or less peacefully together within their common homeland right now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 05 Feb 08 - 12:58 PM That sums it up, Carol. Palestine was never intended to become a Jewish State. Israel does not have the right to exist at the expense of the Palestinians. "A Jewish homeland within Palestine" is completely different than the state of Israel. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 05 Feb 08 - 01:26 PM And what the fuck do think I was saying when I wrote: 1. "Anyone could settle and live in the part of the Palestine Mandate that became known as Palestine in 1923 when the British split the territory" - How exclusive do you feel the term anyone is? 2. "the area that the British under the terms of the San Remo Agreement set aside as the area in which the Jews could establish their national homeland - note Homeland CarolC not a sovereign nation". What double standard are you talking about dianavan? India - Has not signed the nuclear NPT and has developed and tested nuclear weapons. Pakistan - Has not signed the nuclear NPT and has developed and tested nuclear weapons. Israel - Has not signed the nuclear NPT and is suspected of having developed nuclear weapons but to date has never tested any. Now those were all non-signatory nations not required to comply with the terms and conditions of the nuclear NPT. Now then dianavan as an expert on double standards and what certain nations can and can't do with respect to treaties that they've signed, tell us all what these signatories to the nuclear NPT did do and then tell us why in doing so they were breaking the treaty: 1 - Iraq 2 - North Korea 3 - South Africa 4 - Iran 5 - Libya |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 05 Feb 08 - 01:28 PM "This is the double-standard at work again. Why are there no limits on the development of nuclear weapons by Israel?" Let me see. You now state that a nation is to be held to treaties that it did not sign, nor receive the benefits that signatories are supposed to get. OK, I will now ( for discussion's sake) argue that YOU MUST comply with whatever agreement I make with someone else. If you don't like that, too bad. Your statement implies that you have no arguement with that at all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 05 Feb 08 - 01:32 PM PS CarolC: Any clues required, any hints needed with regard to my questions http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/maps/hist_subdist.html Now can you tell us whether or not Gaza happens to fall within the boundaries shown on that map? But wait a minute it was captured by Israel during the six day war in 1967 from Egypt. Can you tell us CarolC exactly how Egypt got hold of and laid claim to it? Similar exercise tell us whether or not the districts of Nablas; Ramallah; Jerusalem and Al Khalil happen to fall within the boundaries shown on that map? But wait a minute they were captured by Israel during the six day war in 1967 from Jordan. Can you tell us CarolC exactly how Jordan got hold of it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 05 Feb 08 - 01:43 PM Teribus, you said this in your 04 Feb 08 - 03:12 AM post. The area now called "The West Bank" - originally part of Palestine restricted to Jewish Settlement Do you retract this statement (lie)? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Nickhere Date: 05 Feb 08 - 02:40 PM Teribus, "I think that you will find Barry that Israel has never threatened the destruction/eradication/annihilation of anyone. Exactly the opposite has been the case with Israel's neighbours and more latterly of the terrorist organisations they harbour and support" Which is worse? Threatening to wipe someone off the map, or actually doing it in practice? I think we can agree the latter. Israel has been wiping the West Bank off the map steadily since 1967. Palestinians have been evicted from their homes, had their farms and property seized, their homes destroyed their livelihoods shattered, their economy ruined (and don't dare blaming that on the 'lazy Arab' stereotype - if you're an Israeli you should know just how many permits are required and how much red tape is needed for Palestinians to do any buisness). If number of deaths is an indicator of atempts to wipe someone off the map, the Palestinians have lost far more people than the Israelis. Indeed, Israel is the only one in the immediate region with the actual arms and equipment to think in terms of wiping anyone off the map. They've shown 'considerable restraint' ? Well they can't exactly go in and nuke Gaza, now, can they? That wouldn't look at all good internationally, and if anyone is publicity-conscious, it's the Israeli Govt. Concurrently Israel has been aggressively expanding an consolidating its settlements at the expense of the very same Palestinians who are being dispossessed. Roads are being built through the West bank to link these upon which no Palestinian is allowed drive. Palestinians even need different colour licence plates on their cars - in their OWN territory - as decided by Israeli authorities. And that's before we start on the wall, being built well oover the green line to annex Israeli settlements. An apartheid and unjust society is being created. The situation within Israel is not so severe, but 'Isareli Arabs' as they are called, are still like second class citizens. Israel is, in ideology, a racist theocracy. Further up the thread you lamely attempt to justify such blatant colonialism with 'well, hasn't everyone done that in the past?' Yes, but perhaps unfortunately for Zionists who want to do it now, they've picked a bad time, at the end of the 20th Cent and start of 21st Cent when humanity is supposed to be more civilised and looks down on its own colonial past sins. We've abolished slavery, banned genocide and given thumbs down to apartheid so the Zionists need to get with the times. If Israel is serious about peace, let it pull out of the West Bank NOW, end the settlements and resettle the latter-day colonists back in Isreal and demolish the settlements or hand them over to the Palestinian authorities. The other alternative is to make the whole Israel / West Bank region into one country where Arab and Jew alike are treated as equal citizens. That seems unlikely to happen as long as Zionists want 'an Jewish state for a Jewish people' That's a whole other argument of course, and it's debateable whether in this day or age such a thing shouyld be permitted. Otherwise every country could choose to be 'a Catholic Spain for the Spanish" and return to the old days of kicking all the Jews and Arabs out as they did in the mid-1400s. Except of course that is exactly the kind of mono-cultural racism we're all so keen to avoid these days....except in Israel. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 05 Feb 08 - 02:46 PM "The area now called "The West Bank" - originally part of Palestine restricted to Jewish Settlement" Do I retract that statement - No of course I do not. If you are attempting to portray that statement as meaning that ONLY Jews could settle in the West Bank you would be mistaken, and I believe that I elaborated on that in subsequent posts Palestine in 1920 = What became referred to as Palestine in 1923 + What became referred to as Trans Jordan in 1923 In 1923 the British split the Mandate as detailed above, Jews could only settle in the area west of the Jordan river that became known as Palestine they were not allowed to settle in Trans Jordan. Please note that is not the same as saying that ONLY Jews could settle in Palestine - Do you accept that? Now I do not know if there is any way that I can make that any clearer? "Anyone could settle and live in what became known as the Transjordan sector of the Palestine Mandate provided they were not Jewish - Jews were and still are specifically excluded. Anyone could settle and live in the part of the Palestine Mandate that became known as Palestine in 1923 when the British split the territory." - (Teribus - 05 Feb 08 - 03:05 AM) Now could you please explain to us all how an integral parts of the territory known under British Mandate as Palestine suddenly became part of Jordan (West bank) and Egyptian (Gaza) in 1948. If you cannot I will. Those Palestinian territories of Gaza and what became known as the West Bank were taken by force of arms by Egypt and Jordan in 1948 and occupied until they were taken back by Israeli forces in 1967. Throughout those twenty years there was never any hue and cry for those territories to be returned was there CarolC? Strange that you did not highlight or emphasise this: 'During the last two or three generations the Jews have recreated in Palestine a community, now numbering 80,000… it is essential that it (The Jewish Community) should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on the sufferance. That is the reason why it is necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connection.' Have the "Palestinians" formally recognised the existance of a Jewish National Homeland - No they have not and their rejection of the UN proposal to resolve the issue, their immediate resort to military action and their resulting military defeat had consequences which they have steadfastly refused to acknowledge and live with - Their choice was to gamble and they lost. Did the international community recognise Israel as a sovereign nation when it declared itself in 1948? - Yes it did. Did Israel become a member of the United Nations in 1948? - Yes it did. Is Israel protected by the UN Charter? - Yes it is. Did the Arabs sign a UN brokered cease-fire agreement and establish boundaries in 1948? - Yes they did. Did they ever for one single moment intend to live up to the agreements made under the terms and conditions of that agreement? - Not on your life? Same thing happened in 1956 and again in 1967 and again in 1973. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Nickhere Date: 05 Feb 08 - 02:49 PM BBruce: "Let me see. You now state that a nation is to be held to treaties that it did not sign" Iran signed the NPT under the Shah. It's had a major and total regime change since then. Is England bound by agreements it signed with the Pope back in 1350? Saddam repudiated his trial onthe grounds he was still the legitimate leader of his country, for all the good it did him. No way, he was told, there's a NEW regime in force now, so everything's changed and the old rule book has been thrown out and a new consititution drawn up. Seems to me Iran (who is perfectly legally to entitled to do what it is currently doing) is going above and beyond what can be expected of it in opening up to IAEA inspection. Evidently it doesn't matter to the world that Iran signed the NPT well before the Revolution and regime change, and has made it clear that Iran better toe the line, or else.... Projectforanewamericancentury has made it clear that Iran will be part of a new USA colonialism no matter what. If it waved a water pistol in the air it'd be in breach of something or other. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Nickhere Date: 05 Feb 08 - 02:51 PM Just getting back on-thread |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Nickhere Date: 05 Feb 08 - 02:58 PM And Teribus, you speak of the West Bank as if it were an integral part of Israel that had been seized by Jordan, then retaken by Israel. Not so. It was never part of Israel. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 05 Feb 08 - 02:59 PM "If Israel is serious about peace, let it pull out of the West Bank NOW, end the settlements and resettle the latter-day colonists back in Isreal and demolish the settlements or hand them over to the Palestinian authorities." - (Nickhere) Perfect, absolutely perfect, you would appear to have the solution Nickhere. Now toddle along and get exactly what the Hamas and Hezbollah reaction to that would be and then come back and tell us. Noting of course that if it does not contain such elements as full recognition of the State of Israel and the acknowledgement of the rights of all Israeli citizens to live their lives in peace, free from all threats of violence, or attack, then the deal is off. Tell you what Nickhere - I wouldn't be holding my breath on it - Would you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 05 Feb 08 - 03:03 PM What in the world can the statement, "restricted to Jewish Settlement" possibly mean other than that only Jews may settle there, Teribus? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 05 Feb 08 - 03:11 PM Now could you please explain to us all how an integral parts of the territory known under British Mandate as Palestine suddenly became part of Jordan (West bank) and Egyptian (Gaza) in 1948. Actually, I can answer that. When the founders of the state of Israel were in the process of attempting to take all of what had been mandate Palestine (and succeeding in taking half of what the Palestinians had been allotted in the partition plan, as we can see in the maps of partition and of armistice), Egypt and Jordan stepped in and prevented that from happening, managing to hold onto about half of what the Palestinians had been allotted in the partition plan. Had they not done so, no doubt all of what had been mandate Palestine would have become a part of the state of Israel right from the beginning, including all of what had been allotted to the Palestinians in the partition plan. Israel, of course, is now in the process of finishing that mission by ethnically cleansing all of the Palestinians from what is now the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 05 Feb 08 - 03:24 PM Have the "Palestinians" formally recognised the existance of a Jewish National Homeland Yes they have. their immediate resort to military action and their resulting military defeat had consequences which they have steadfastly refused to acknowledge and live with - Their choice was to gamble and they lost. More lies. The founders of the state of Israel had been ethnically cleansing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes and villages for several months before the start of the "War of Independence". Nobody immediately resorted to any military action. The "War of Independence" was merely a continuation of a process that had been ongoing for several months, while nobody did a thing to stop it. It was only after other Arab peoples stepped in to help the Palestinians who were being ethnically cleansed, that the founders of the state of Israel declared it a war. And then after armistice, they then proceeded to create one pretext after another to take more land, committing numerous acts of aggression on their neighbors, including massacres of Arab villages, as a way of creating such pretexts. Each time, it was Israel who instigated the aggression (with the exception of 73, when the other countries were taking back land that had been illegally taken from them), but Israel only called it a war when the people it was attacking responded. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 05 Feb 08 - 03:28 PM teribus - Obviously you do not believe in a balance of power. You tell me what happened when: 1 - Iraq 2 - North Korea 3 - South Africa 4 - Iran 5 - Libya broke the treaty. I think you should also include the U.S. because we all know that they continue to develop nuclear weaponry and other WMDs. If the U.S. weren't so obsessed with protecting Israel and the oil interests in Iraq, they could send more troops to Afghanistan to make sure that Pakistan's nuclear weapons do not fall into the hands of terrorists. They might even have enough troops to enter Sudan and stop the massacre in Darfur. How long does the U.S. have to protect 'mono-cultural racism'? Those days are over, teribus. Its time to re-think and undo the mistakes of the past. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 05 Feb 08 - 03:29 PM "Teribus, you speak of the West Bank as if it were an integral part of Israel that had been seized by Jordan, then retaken by Israel. Not so. It was never part of Israel." - (Nickhere) Psst, Nickhere - It was never part of Jordan either was it? While Israel might have had a tenuous claim to it, Jordan had none whatsoever. So why no outcry when they took it by force and occupied it illegally for twenty years - an example of those double standards you guys always seem to moan about - or is that sort of thing only brought to the fore when the purpose suits? As for the nuclear NPT signed under the regime of the Shah in 1970. Now if the new regime in Iran did not agree with its terms and conditions, then they should have withdrawn from the treaty at that time, all the mechanisms are there for countries wishing to leave it. That would of course have meant that existing nuclear states who remained signatories could not give any assistance to Iran in the nuclear field. But they did not withdraw from the treaty did they Nickhere? And as they did not withdraw from it then they remain subject to all its terms and conditions. Your example of Saddam Hussein was rather a bad one: "Saddam repudiated his trial on the grounds he was still the legitimate leader of his country, for all the good it did him" Now let's see why Nickhere: 28th June 2004 - CPA dissolved and full governmental authority was transferred to the sovereign Iraqi Interim Government. 30th January 2005 - Iraqi Legislative Election 5th April 2005 - Jalal Talibani elected President of Iraq 19th October 2005 - Trial of Saddam Hussein (ex-President of Iraq) begins 5th November 2005 - Saddam Hussein (ex-President of Iraq) found guilty and sentenced 30th December 2005 - Saddam Hussein (ex-President of Iraq) executed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 05 Feb 08 - 03:45 PM Excuse me CarolC around the time we are talking about (1947 -1948) when did the Arabs formally recognised the existance of a Jewish National Homeland? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 05 Feb 08 - 05:57 PM Teribus, your question was not "did the Palestinians formally accept the state of Israel during the 1940s". Your question was this (copy-pasting from your post)... Have the "Palestinians" formally recognised the existance of a Jewish National Homeland - No they have not The correct answer is that they have formally accepted the state of Israel. Whether or not they did so in the 1940s is totally irrelevant to any of the points I have been making. Perhaps you are responding to something someone else has said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 05 Feb 08 - 06:24 PM And by the way, Teribus, I have, on numerous occassions protested right here in the Mudcat, the fact that Jordan conspired with Golda Meir to take from the Palestinians what was supposed to be theirs. My record on this is right there for anyone to see. Although I think the Palestinians fared much better under the Jordanians and the Egyptians than they have under Israeli occupation. At least under the Jordanians and the Egyptians, they weren't being ethnically cleansed, under a brutal military occupation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 05 Feb 08 - 07:26 PM "I think the Palestinians fared much better under the Jordanians and the Egyptians than they have under Israeli occupation. At least under the Jordanians and the Egyptians, they weren't being ethnically cleansed, under a brutal military occupation." Really? Then they must have indeed prospered, which amazes me because neither would let them settle, assimulate or integrate with their own populations. If memory serves me correct they had no rights of citizenship or resource to educational or health programmes. Their stay in Jordan was fairly brief as Arafat in one of his more perceptive stages as "leader" of the "palestinian people" attempted to overthrow the government of Jordan and replace it with his own brand of corrupt despotism. King Hussain of Jordan was, thankfully, quite equal to the task and turfed the lot out - They now reside in squalor and misery of yet another series of Arab hosted refugee camps in Lebanon - Syria being far too astute to let them inside its borders in any great number. The ones in Egypt kept a very firm lid on them and holed them up in similar refugee camps in Gaza. Now about all that "ethnic cleansing" that the Israeli Government was carrying out? Has this been going on for long CarolC? How does it manifest itself? If life was so terrible under this brutal military occupation I would have thought that the population of Israel would have almost immediately dropped by, oh I don't know, maybe 16%. I mean the opportunity has always been there to hot foot it to a life of bliss with the Egyptians and the Jordanians. Emotional claptrap the lot of it. The whole "cause" for conflict between Arab and Jew in Palestine was based on lies told by an Arab way back in the early 1920's, they continued with lies told by the same man in 1929, then again 1936 to 1939. In 1937 The Peel Commission realised that they could never live together but might be able to live in two states side by side. This was the best deal that the Arabs were ever going to get, but they rejected it and chose to continue the fight known as the Arab Revolt, in which they lost out badly. If anyone taught the Jews to fight it was the Palestinian Arabs and on each occasion the Arabs attacked them they got better and better at it. When the British Mandate ended the UN offered a similar deal in 1947, the Jews accepted and the Arabs rejected it again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Nickhere Date: 05 Feb 08 - 07:43 PM Teribus, hold my breath? No, I can't hold it that long! ;-) But seriously, it's not as outlandish as you think. Someone has to make a first move - the world always seems to expect Hamas to do it. What they're asking is Hamas (and West Bank Palestinians in general) to do is to stop without any promise even that Israeli settlements will stop nevermind be withdrawn back over the Green Line. Now I'm no salesman, but even a child could tell that's a bum deal. Palestinians see their land being overrun and colonised and themselves turned out of their own homes and farms. What do yiou expect them to do? Appeal to the UN? The UN has already declared dozens of times that Israel's in the wrong here, needs to pull back, let refugees return etc., Israel has shown no interest in listening to the UN, just ignores it unless the UN pronounces against Iran or something (not that Iran is brilliant in that regard either). In any case, Palestinians can see the poweful leaders of the West have no real appetite in forcing Israel to do the right thing at this point. They can see Bush, Blair etc are not neutral here, but on the side of Israel as a valauble military ally and outpost in the region that has been of interest because of its oil (the region, not Israel). So they take matters into their own hands. They voted for Hamas because Hamas promised to stand up for them, unlike Fatah. Arafat went from strongman (and to the West 'terrorist') to Israel's local policeman in the West Bank when he got into his old age. The people realised they'd been had. Palestinians then got punished by Israel and the West for making the wrong democratic choice and choosing Hamas to represent them. If Hamas refuses to recognise the state of Israel why the surprise? Israel has never defined its borders and seems intent on making the West bank a part of its national territory. The irony here is that Israel is the one wiping the West Bank off the map. If it succeeds in going on as it is, it'll be known simply as Israel, and not the West Bank, in 20 - 30 years. So to punish Palestinians for chooisng Hamas, aid and funds are cut, while erstwhile 'terrorists' Fatah are ressurected and reinvigorated by the West to rival Hamas. They are flooded with money, recognition etc., while Hamas are sidelined. It's laughable to hear in the news nowadays how Hamas 'seized control' of Gaza - even though it was Fatah who 'seized control' of the West bank, thanks to all the help they got from the West to do so. Hezbollah are another issue. The bottom line is if the colonies were abolished (which shouldn't have been built in the first place) and Israel withdrew to the Green Line and released its stranglehold on Palestinian life, the Intifada would ahve lost its raison d'Etre. If you still find a few hard men at it after that, you'll be dealing with very much a minority. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Nickhere Date: 05 Feb 08 - 07:52 PM Teribus: "Psst, Nickhere - It was never part of Jordan either was it? While Israel might have had a tenuous claim to it, Jordan had none whatsoever" Israel has no 'tenuous' claim to it either. It has no claim to it, period. I didn't protest about Jordan occupying Transjordan back in the early 70s cos I wasn't much into politics those days, being too young to take much interest in such matters. I didn't raise much of a stink when Rome occupied Palestine either, come to think of it. My sin, I guess. But I can and should take an interest in what's happening today. And what Israel is doing in the West Bank today is wrong, and a major contributing factor to the instability in the region. You see Israel says it wants stability and peace, and probably it does, but not until it's annexed all the land it thinks should belong to it first. As one Israeli PM said many moons ago "Our borders are where our armies stop". And we see the result. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Nickhere Date: 05 Feb 08 - 07:58 PM "28th June 2004 - CPA dissolved and full governmental authority was transferred to the sovereign Iraqi Interim Government" !!!! 'CPA dissolved' - by whom? All of this glosses over the fact that the country was invaded, a new governemnt loyal to the invaders set up. I think the average astute Iraqi realises democracy has limited meaning there. What if Iraqis tomorrow decided to vote for some extremist form of Islamic government? Would that be tolerated by the occupying US forces? Since the answer is a resounding 'No', it is clear that democracy in Iraq has limited meaning. Any 'government' set up to try Saddam must be seen in that context PS - I don't like Saddam btw, just in case you think I'm rooting for the man. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 05 Feb 08 - 08:01 PM Rubbish, Teribus. Really? Then they must have indeed prospered, which amazes me because neither would let them settle, assimulate or integrate with their own populations. If memory serves me correct they had no rights of citizenship or resource to educational or health programmes. The Palestinians you are talking about are the ones who were not in the West Bank or Gaza, who fled to Jordan during the Nakba (original ethnic cleansing prior to and during the "War of Independence"). I am talking about the Palestinians who never left the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, or who fled to those places during the Nakba (original ethnic cleansing prior to and during the "War of Independence"), where they were already assimilated into and integrated with the population of that area, since that's where they were from. They may not have had any rights of citizenship in Jordan or Egypt, but they also do not have any rights of citizenship in Israel, either. They do not have citizenship in any country whatever to this very day, even though they are living in the place where they are from. And while it's true that the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza were neglected by the governments of Jordan and Egypt, they weren't being deprived of their homes and livelihoods as they are now. The ethnic cleansing started about six months before the "War of Independence" for Israel, although there were Jewish boycotts of non-Jewish Palestinians prior to that time, and Palestinians were being deprived of their livelihoods prior to that time. Palestinians were also being dispossessed when the lands they were living on as tenants of absentee landlords were being bought up by European Jews. And while this was not illegal, the Palestinians nevertheless were rightly concerned that they were being squeezed out of their own homeland. The ethnic cleansing began in earnest when Jewish paramilitary forces began slaughtering innocent villagers (in some cases, killing most of the inhabitants of the villages... just mowing them down, women, children, old men - everybody) in order to scare all of the Palestinians who lived in villages that the founders of the state of Israel felt were strategic to their aims of taking as much land as possible once Israel declared its independence, in order to get them to flee. The ethnic cleansing continues to this day as thousands of Palestinian homes are being demolished and Jewish-only settlements built on land that is rightfully Palestinian land. The occupation also serves, along with the settlements, as a military strategy for the removal of Palestinians from their land. The method is to make life for the Palestinians so bloody miserable, that they will willingly leave. In Gaza, the blockade (which has actually been going on in a somewhat less severe form since Israel withdrew its forces from there) also serves this purpose. There is also ethnic cleansing of "Arabs" from Israel proper as well, as thousands of homes of "Arab Israelis" are also being confiscated and/or demolished. If they can't have a home in Israel (or the West Bank, Gaza, or East Jerusalem), they will have to leave the area and go somewhere where they will be allowed to live. And in this way, Israel accomplishes it's long standing (and oft stated) goal of removing all of the "Arabs" from the land that Israel wants for Jews only. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 06 Feb 08 - 09:08 AM In response to Nickhere's post of 05 Feb 08 - 07:43PM Point 1: "Someone has to make a first move - the world always seems to expect Hamas to do it." And the "World" is perfectly correct in that expectation. The reality of the situation is that you cannot permit groups of people who have declared aims involving the destruction of others dictating what has to be done before they come to the table. First and foremost has to be the renunciation of violence and the clear and unequivocal statement guaranteeing Israel's right to exist. Without those moves on the part of either Hamas or Hezbollah there is absolutely no basis for discussion. The Israeli's are in the situation rather like Sharon Tate negotiating with the Manson Family, no matter what is offered the end result is we're going to kill you – that is what has to be removed before any dialogue can take place. Point 2: "What they're asking is Hamas (and West Bank Palestinians in general) to do is to stop without any promise even that Israeli settlements will stop never mind be withdrawn back over the Green Line." Stop doing what Nickhere – Stop killing people? I would say that that was a perfectly reasonable request. The Israeli's would move back over the "Green Line" (1967 boundaries) like a rocket if they had the guarantees that they have requested. Biggest drawback here is that ever since the State of Israel was declared Arab States and the terrorists they harbour have made agreement after agreement, only those concerning Egypt and Jordan struck in the wake of the 1973 war have ever been honoured. That track record does not inspire confidence. Countries such as Libya, Iraq, Syria and Iran conduct their war on Israel by proxy, fortunately post 2003, both Libya and Iraq have ceased their sponsorship of terror in the region. Syria and Iran continue to train, arm and finance Hezbollah and Hamas. Another example that cannot inspire confidence in negotiation has been Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. In abandoning settlements in Gaza and evacuating its citizens, forcibly in some cases, the Israelis requested only one thing – that rocket attacks on its civilian population inside Israel launched from Gaza should stop. That the Palestinian Authority agreed to, knowing full well that they would be totally incapable of meeting that obligation – They demonstrate an amazing incapacity, or even will, to control or govern their own people. There have been over 400 rocket attacks launched from inside Gaza in 2008 alone. The "Palestinian" people must be on a very slow learning curve, what their so-called "leaders" are doing is getting them precisely nowhere with their present tactics, I say tactics because I do not believe for one minute that they have a strategy, beyond lining their own pockets while they keep the people they are supposed to lead and represent in poverty. Point 3: "Now I'm no salesman, but even a child could tell that's a bum deal." I couldn't agree more, it is a bum deal, but it is a bum deal all round Point 4: "Palestinians see their land being overrun and colonised and themselves turned out of their own homes and farms." Where is this happening? Along the line of the wall? Simple stop the attacks on Israel mounted from inside the West Bank, stop providing shelter to those paid to carry out those attacks and the wall does not have to be built. Point 5: "What do you expect them to do?" Application of some common-sense would not come amiss. And as you stated they did take matters into their own hands, they realised they'd been had, so what did they do? They voted for Hamas because Hamas promised to stand up for them, and just like Fatah, Hamas failed them miserably, because Hamas did not stand up for them did they? It was simply a case of the same old game – with the same old result. Can anyone tell me what Arafat "the Strongman" ever managed to accomplish for the benefit of his so-called "Palestinian" people. We all know one thing for certain, that in doing rather ineffectually whatever it was he attempting to do, he managed to amass an absolute fortune while his people were being starved of all basic needs, leadership and hope. Point 6: "Appeal to the UN?" I note that in your paraphrasing of UN Resolution content you omit what was stated in the first one – The one where the State of Israel is recognized and its sovereignty is guaranteed under the protection of the Charter of the United Nations. Was there any particular reason for that Nickhere? For much of its existence the "Cold War" dictated much of what happened, or didn't, as the case may be, in the middle-east. The odd thing was that during the Israeli "War of Independence" the USA withdrew its support of the UN proposed boundaries, while old Joe Stalin backed Jewish resistance to the hilt both politically and with arms. After the greatest mistake in US Foreign Policy History in 1956, the entire north shore of Africa plus most of the Arab world was thrown into the Soviet sphere of influence, where it remained for the next thirty-odd years. Point 7: "Palestinians can see the powerful leaders of the West have no real appetite in forcing Israel to do the right thing at this point." Nickhere, the solution to any problem in the middle-east will not be forced on any of the parties involved by anyone from either inside or outside that benighted region. The solution is going to come from realization by all parties involved. Point 8: "They (The Palestinians) can see Bush, Blair etc are not neutral here, but on the side of Israel as a valuable military ally and outpost in the region that has been of interest because of its oil (the region, not Israel)." Now just so as I have this correct in my own mind, the US are interested in the region because of its oil, the oil is actually owned by the Arab nations in the region, so, because the US are interested in the oil they ally themselves with Israel, the sworn enemies of the Arabs. Don't know about you Nickhere but that just does not make sense to me. Point 9: "If Hamas refuses to recognise the state of Israel why the surprise? Israel has never defined its borders and seems intent on making the West bank a part of its national territory." No "If" about it Nickhere, Hamas most definitely refuses to recognize the State of Israel's right to exist – which oddly enough puts it at odds with the International Community. As to the bit about Israel never having defined its borders, well they were perfectly willing to do so in 1937; and in 1947, but the Arabs refused. The Arabs went to war over it in 1947 and lost, among the many things they agreed to at the Armistice talks in 1949 were the boundaries; Israel held to those boundaries, her Arab neighbours did not. Israel and Egypt had clashed repeatedly since their 1948 war as Egypt allowed and encouraged groups of Palestinian fighters to attack Israel from Egyptian territory. In response, Israeli forces constantly made cross-border raids in retaliation. Egyptian President, Gamal Abdel Nasser imported arms from the Soviet bloc to build his arsenal for the confrontation with Israel. He announced on the 31st August, 1955: "Egypt has decided to dispatch her heroes, the disciples of pharaoh and the sons of Islam and they will cleanse the Land of Israel. ... There will be no peace on Israel's border because we demand vengeance, and vengeance is Israel's death." The second war between these Middle East neighbours took place in 1956. As part of Egyptian President Nasser's nationalist agenda, he took control of the Suez Canal zone away from the British and French companies which owned it. At the same time, as part of his ongoing struggle with Israel, Egyptian forces blocked the Straits of Tiran, the narrow waterway that is Israel's only outlet to the Red Sea. The blocking of an International Waterway is considered by the United Nations as an act of aggression. Four and a half months later, on March 16, 1957, Israel withdrew her troops from the Sinai and Gaza strip after receiving international reassurances that Israel's vital waterways would remain open. Three thousand three hundred United Nations troops replaced them. Despite Israel's withdrawal, the Egyptians refused to open the Suez Canal to Israeli shipping. Note Nickhere that the Israeli's agreed to withdraw on the premise agreed to by Egypt that the international waterways be kept open and that the UN Emergency Force remain in Sinai to maintain a buffer. Israel withdrew to the 1949 Armistice Lines, I make that three times in ten years that the Israelis had agreed to "define their borders" and three times that her Arab neighbours had rejected and violated those borders and ignored previous undertakings agreed with the UN. They repeated their trick of 1956 again in 1967, the pan-Arab movement under Nasser massed five Armies on Israel's borders having ordered the UNEF out of Sinai. The threats emanating from the Arab capitols of the world were graphic and clear. Rather than wait for the hammer blow to fall Israel attacked. The Arab forces robbed of any air support due to clinical strikes by the Israeli Air Force were routed. Israel, took the Golan, Gaza, the Sinai, Jerusalem and the West Bank. A cease-fire was put in place, this time, considering the threats made and past performance, the Israeli's said no to withdrawal of any troops from land captured. The land we have taken we keep and use as a bargaining chip for our national survival – I believe that they were quite justified in adopting that approach, particularly in the light of the Khartoum Resolution of the 1st September, 1967. The Khartoum Resolution was issued at the conclusion of a meeting between the leaders of eight Arab countries in the wake of the "Six-Day War". The resolution, called for: • A continued state of belligerency with Israel; • The ending the Arab oil boycott declared during the Six-Day War; • An end to the war in Yemen; • Economic assistance for Egypt and Jordan. • The resolution also contains in paragraph 3 what became known as "the three No(s)" of Arab-Israel relations at that time: No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel. The Khartoum Resolution formed the basis of the policies of these governments toward Israel until their attack on Israel in 1973 in what became known as the Yom Kippur War. The Yom Kippur War differed from the previous conflicts as this had more to do with Israel's Arab neighbours fighting to regain territory that they had lost rather than to support anything to do with the Palestinians. The Yom Kippur War was fought from 6th October to 26th October, 1973, between Israel and a coalition of Arab states led by Egypt and Syria. The war began with a surprise joint attack by Egypt and Syria on the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur. Egypt and Syria crossed the cease-fire lines in the Sinai and Golan Heights, respectively, which had been captured by Israel in 1967 during the Six-Day War. The war went disastrously for the Arab cause after they appeared to have made initial gains. The defeats inflicted on both Syria and Egypt were so severe as to completely alter political balance and outlook amongst the front-line Arab nations. Egypt became the first Arab State to recognise the State of Israel – Israel returned all land taken in 1967 and the two countries have lived at peace since that day. Jordan also recognised the State of Israel and have likewise lived at peace. What the international community see in the representatives of the Palestinian Authority is a willingness to recognise Israel and a glimpse of a way forward that is completely lacking with either Hamas or Hezbollah. Because of the latter's intransigence they have made the Palestinian Authority the only horse worth backing in the race. Point 10: While mentioning Hamas and Hezbollah please do not forget to mention their principal backers – Syria and Iran, without whom, neither terrorist organisation would exist. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 07 Feb 08 - 02:02 AM "The last decade saw the publication of several books by revisionist Israeli historians or 'new' historians as they are sometimes called. Most of this literature focuses on the creation of the State of Israel and on the first Arab-Israeli war. The new historians have challenged many of the claims of the traditional Zionist rendition of events. They challenged the claim that the military balance in 1948 overwhelmingly favoured the Arabs; that the Palestinian refugees left of their own free will; that all the neighbouring Arab countries were united in their determination to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state; and that Arab intransigence was alone responsible for the persistent political deadlock after the guns fell silent. Motti Golani is a young Israeli historian whose work has focused on the second Arab-Israeli war which is usually called the Suez War in the West and the Sinai Campaign in Israel. His book has many strengths. It is based on careful and comprehensive research, especially in the Israel State Archives and in the IDF Archive. The arguments and conclusions are supported by strong evidence from primary sources, some of which is used here for the first time. It sheds a great deal of new light not just on the war itself but on related subjects such as civil-military relations in Israel, the policy-making process in defence and foreign affairs, the extraordianry influence exerted by Cheif of Staff Modshe Dayan in pushing Israel into war, and the collusion with Britain and France which preceded the attack on Egypt. Last but not least, Dr Golani shows honesty and courage in following the evidence to its logical conclusion, regardless of how damaging it might be to the offical or semi-official Israeli version of this war. As the title of his book suggests, Dr Golani holds that the 1956 war was not imposed on Israel by her enemies but deliberately sought by her. Although the Czech arms deal announced in September 1955 began to tip the military balance in Egypt's favour, the balance was restored by secret arms acquisitions from France and in October 1956 Israel did not face any imminent threat of Egyptian attack or any other serious threat to her basic security. Israel's motives for embarking on this military venture included the consolidation of the alliance with France, territorial expansion, the overthrow of Gamal Abdel Nasser, and the establishemt of a new political order in the Middle East. Whatever else it might have been, the Sinai Campaign was not for Israel a war of ein breira (Hebrew - "there is no alternative")." Israel in Search of a War: The Sinai Campaign 1955 - 1956 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 07 Feb 08 - 02:16 AM From Russia with Love: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7230396.stm No Shit Sherlock!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 07 Feb 08 - 08:50 AM A link to what appears to be a very interesting book CarolC. It does not however shed any light on how the Israeli's managed to talk Nasser into nationalising the Suez Canal and closing the Straits of Tiran. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 08 Feb 08 - 01:57 AM He nationalized the canal so that the fees could be used to build the Aswan Dam. The US, Britain, and the World Bank had agreed to help finance the dam, but they reneged on that agreement, and Nasser was forced to find funding from other sources. He envisioned the Aswan dam as being a key element in his plans to industrialize Egypt, so for him and for his vision of what was best for Egypt, nationalizing the canal was a necessity. On the subject of the Strait of Tiran, this excerpt is in reference to 1967, but it is equally applicable to 1956 (it also provides plenty of documentation from original sources proving that the official Israeli version of events in 1967 is a huge lie)... Blockading the Straits of Tiran: a reasonable casus belli? Nasser’s action frankly pales utterly in comparison with previous Israeli shows of strength. Nor was his blockade of Tiran “an attempt at strangulation,” as Abba Eban described it. (Philo & Berry, p. 30) As David Hirst notes, “Economically, the closure of the Straits of Tiran to all Israeli ships, and ships of other nations bound for Eilat with strategic materials, would have had little immediate impact. Only 5 per cent of Israel’s foreign trade went through Eilat; oil from Iran was the main strategic material, but Israel could easily get that through Haifa.” Furthermore, “What damage the closure might have done would have been offset by President Johnson’s reported offer – designed to stay Israel’s hand – to maintain its economic viability.” (Hirst, p. 333) Indeed, according to the UN Secretariat, “not a single Israeli-flagged vessel had used the port of Eilat in the previous two and a half years.” (Finkelstein, p. 139) Nor was there any legal issue. The Israelis’ claim to right of passage through the Straits (which the Egyptians insisted fell inside their own territorial waters) was “based on possession of a thin sliver of coastline,” as Hirst notes, “and this itself had been secured, on the Israelis’ own admission, by ‘one of those calculated violations [of the ceasefire] which we had to carefully weigh against the political risks’. That was in 1949 … when, in defiance of a UN-sponsored ceasefire, an Israeli patrol thrust southward to the Arab hamlet and police post of Um Rashrash, expelling its inhabitants and founding the port of Eilat in its place.” http://www.arabmediawatch.com/amw/CountryBackgrounds/Palestine/MediaMyths/TheArabsStartedthe1967War/tabid/248/Default.aspx I've had a lot of difficulty finding information about Nasser's reasons for closing the strait. A couple of references said that it was a response to Israel taking a threatening posture towards Syria (both in '56 and in '67). I also get a sense from some sources that it was a sovereignty issue. Nasser felt that he had a right to control those waters because they were in Egypt, and in '67 he said that if Israel felt it had a right to use those waters, it should take the matter up with the World Court and let them adjudicate it (Israel declined to do so - possibly because they knew they didn't really have a case). That reference is here. More myth-busting info on the subject... http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/The%20Protocol%20of%20Sevres%201956%20Anatomy%20of%20a%20War%20Plot.html http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/06/04/six_day_war/index.html?source=search&aim=/opinion/feature |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 08 Feb 08 - 02:52 AM Interesting point about this bit... Egyptian President, Gamal Abdel Nasser imported arms from the Soviet bloc to build his arsenal for the confrontation with Israel. He announced on the 31st August, 1955: Nasser only began importing arms from the Soviet Union right after the Soviet Union stopped supplying arms to Israel, which it had been doing since prior to the 48 war (the Soviet Union backed Israel in that war), and right up until just before they started supplying Nasser. I guess Nasser had some catching up to do if he wanted to be able to defend his country against Israel. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 09 Feb 08 - 03:29 AM "On the subject of the Strait of Tiran, this excerpt is in reference to 1967, but it is equally applicable to 1956" _ (CarolC) Eh, no it doesn't. In reasoned arguement, or discussion, one sets the precedent for the other. So just to make sure that you understand which way things go, what happened in 1956 sets international precedent for 1967 - Not the other way round. The precedent set by the United Nations was that international waterways cannot be closed by any nation at will, to do so is an act of war because it threatens the trade and well being of the nation affected. Adjudged by the United Nations as International waterways were The Suez Canal AND the Straits of Tiran. I couldn't give a flying toss what the Egyptians claimed as being territorial waters it wouldn't hold up in any international court for one bloody minute. That is why the UN ruled the way it did and proved the casus belli in 1967 - when the Egyptians did exactly the same thing again - As I said CarolC, these Arab chaps seem to be on one hell of a slow learning curve. I can remember my father once explaining at great length that at the time we are talking about there was one thing you could depend upon, "There was not one single international situation anywhere in the world, no matter how bad, that after the intervention of John Foster Dulles wasn't ten times worse" and in retrospect that was a downright, and gross, underestimation. Had the US backed both Britain and France in 1956 there never would have been a "Middle-East Conflict". So the US and the UK reneged on the deal to finance the Aswan Dam did they CarolC? Loans of that magnitude normally come with a catch, this one was no exception. The USA, Britain and the World Bank were to help finance construction with a loan of USD $270 million in return for Nasser's leadership on resolving the Arab-Israeli Conflict. However the US cancelled the offer in July 1956 as part of the secret US 'OMEGA' policy to marginalize Nasser after it became clear to the US exactly how Nasser intended to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. That plus the secret Egyptian arms agreement with Czechoslovakia and Egyptian recognition of the People's Republic of China are cited as being possible additional reasons for cancelling the arrangement. Joe Stalin and Soviet Russia supplied arms to the Israeli cause during the War of Independence in the period after the British left until June 1948, thereafter they supplied the Arabs, which, unfortunately for your arguement, explains why in 1956 it was the Egyptians running around in T-34/85's, while the Israeli's used French and American armour. Your poor, down-trodden, hard done by "Palestinians" collectively have got to be largest assembly of complete and utter tossers on the face of this earth, given their track record and their choices of course of action to follow and their "leadership", both of which have proved to be catastrophic for them and the region in which they live. The cause was founded on a lie and has continued in true Kindergarden tit-for-tat bloodshed and mayhem ever since. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,petr Date: 09 Feb 08 - 05:24 PM even though this has sidetracked into an Israeli Palestinian debate, on the point of Iran and the US one only has to look at the history of Iran to see why they fear and hate the US so much. Why hate the US were the good guys arent we? Americans are pretty good at remembering only their side of history. To Iranians, America showed its contempt for Democracy by overthrowing the Democratically elected govt of Iran in 1953 and installing the brutal regime of the Shah and supporting him for 25 years. Why? The Iranians were getting uppity and wanted more royalties for their oil. Now I have no illusions that the current regime in Iran is some kind of democracy -it is a dictatorship - however there are democratic movements in Iran unlike in anything else in the region. ANd by threatening Iran, the US is empowering the Mullahs and making them crack down even more on dissidents. (by the way if anybody cares - threatening another country is illegal under the UN). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 10 Feb 08 - 05:58 AM Guest petr, That is a grossly over simplified view of an extremely complex situation that looks at US/Iranian relations in isolation while completely ignoring all the other players involved and their motivations. I do not believe for one minute your generalisation that Iranians "fear and hate the US". If you opened up an office in Tehran issuing US Visa's you'd have a line a mile long before you could blink - that is how much the Iranians "fear and hate the US". The "brutal regime of the Shah" is looked on by many Iranians as a period of peace, stability, prosperity and advancement enjoyed through out the country. I think you would be amazed at how many would gladly see a return to similar days in Iran today. The Shah's regime was certainly not as intolerant or as repressive as today's Iran under the attention of the AGIR - How many were publicly executed last year Guest petr? How many so far this year? Have you had a look at the crimes they were charged with? That did not happen under the Shah's rule. As far as threats go petr, I take it that you can provide some reference to note your own condemnation of the current President's remarks relating to seeing "Israel wiped off the map". Please do not respond with the usual apologist crap about there being some error in translation. Judging by the reception that that remark, given at an International Anti-Zionist Conference, received it had absolutely nothing to do with any inherant interest in any political reform of a right wing Israeli political party. The alarming and potentially dangerous situation that currently exists within Iran at present stems from the fact that the country is not ultimately ruled by an elected Government but by a self-appointed Council under the sway of a religious leader - the "Supreme Leader". Completely seperate from the usual set up of Civil Service, Judiciary, Armed Forces, Police and Emergency Services under the control of central and local Government you have the Iranian Revolutionary Guards who answer only to the "Supreme Leader" Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who sits above the elected government, run by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Part of their writ is to support terrorist organisations throughout the region, to finance, train and equip them. They are run as a corporation, to a large extent they are self-financing which makes them that much less accountable and unpredictable. The greatest threat to the United States of America as defined post 911 was what again Guest petr? Rogue State + WMD/WMD Technology + Links to Terrorist Organisations. GWB did not dream that up. That was the carefully considered and weighed opinion of the House Security Committee and of the US Defence and Intelligence Community. With regard to Iran, Guest petr, tick the boxes and tell me that Iran does not warrant careful scrutiny. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,petr Date: 10 Feb 08 - 05:04 PM 'that didnt happen under the Shah's rule? ha ha aha youve got to be kidding The Savak was just sunday school of course.. Btw as a student of history youve avoided the main point.. That is that in '53 US overthrew a democratically elected Iranian govt.. and installed the Shah that is not an overgeneralization it is history. great threat to USA after 911? ok Im against nuclear proliferation.. but basically by invading Iraq - the US has in fact increased the danger.. the invasion spurred North Korea to develop the bomb (which they got to keep after the US finally started negotiating with them).. the war became a cause celebre for radical muslims everywhere as witnessed by the increased number of bombings and incidents around the world (Bali, London, Casablanca, Egypt, Turkey, Madrid etc). The unintended consequence of Iraq is that Iran now ends up with far more influence and close relations with the Shiite majority, as well as in Kurdistan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 10 Feb 08 - 06:10 PM Let me guess Guest petr, you fled the bounties of the Warsaw Pact/Soviet Union and landed up in Canada. Number of questions for you. Driving ambition of Russia dating back to the time of Catherine the Great, has it never altered? What was it? "The Savak was just sunday school of course" - Really Guest petr? I note that you haven't answered one of my questions. Public executions in the Shah's time? Tell me how many? Tell me what for? "That is that in '53 US overthrew a democratically elected Iranian govt.." Guest petr, you have to go back over 50 bloody years to provide an example of an axe to grind? Come on!! Ever hear of a thing that was called the "Cold War"? Which by the way the "West" won hands down, it ended in the total collapse of the Soviet Union. Now while the communists in fighting that "Cold War" killed upwards of 70 million people, the big bad "West" were possibly responsible for killing a few hundred thousand. On the balance of things the world is a far, far better place. Tell me Guest petr, why did you flee to where ever you are now? Tell us Guest petr, what was your access to the internet and free discussion that you had before you made the move that changed your life? Now let's take a look at your examples: "by invading Iraq - the US has in fact increased the danger.. the invasion spurred North Korea to develop the bomb (which they got to keep after the US finally started negotiating with them).. the war became a cause celebre for radical muslims everywhere as witnessed by the increased number of bombings and incidents around the world (Bali, London, Casablanca, Egypt, Turkey, Madrid etc)." You are completely wrong. Correct me if I am wrong but North Korea has basically come to heel - on the instructions of their Chinese masters and the USA, mainly because it is bad for business, while the North Koreas may not pay any great heed to the USA they do pay attention to what the Chinese tell them because without Chinese backing the North Koreans are nothing, same as the Warsaw Pact without Russia were nothing, hells teeth they couldn't even feed themselves - Fact Guest petr, so do not for one second attempt to tell me how great they were. As public knowledge in 2003, how many people in the world knew about how far advanced Libya's nuclear programme was? They gave all of that up Guest petr - tell us why? Because of what the US did in Iraq, pure and simple. "Bali, London, Casablanca, Egypt, Turkey, Madrid" Hell combined worse has happened courtesy of ETA and the PIRA, who the hell do they think that they are trying to intimidate? In the words of the worlds highest paid lap dancer - "It don't impress me much" - They are a complete and utter joke. With all their rhetoric and bluster they haven't yet even attempted to to take us on, hell they haven't even caught our attention yet, if ever they do they will bitterly regret it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 10 Feb 08 - 07:28 PM re:"'that didnt happen under the Shah's rule? ha ha aha youve got to be kidding The Savak was just sunday school of course.." Please note that during the first YEAR after the overthrow of the Shah, the Iranian government had executed more people than were killed by the Shah's government during its ENTIRE reign. And they did not stop at that point. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 11 Feb 08 - 01:19 AM The entire history of Israel, including the events leading up to Israel's declaration of itself as a country, has been fictionalized by the leaders of that country. You have bought the fiction hook, line, and sinker, Teribus. You have also swallowed their hatred of and contempt for Arabs in general, and Palestinians in particular. It doesn't surprise me, however, that someone with a 'might-makes-right' supremacist philosophy like yours would feel a kinship with those within the Israeli leadership who are your philosophical cousins. However, the facts are that Israel committed numerous acts of terrorism during the period leading up to the time of their declaring independence, killing many civilians and also British government officials in the process. For this, they were rewarded with a country. When Palestinians commit acts of terrorism, their homes, women, children, civil infrastructure... all get bombed to smithereens,and they are denied a country because 'we can't reward terrorism'. This is the account from one of the soldiers who participated in the occupation of the Palestinian village of Duelma in 1948... Killed between 80 to 100 Arabs, women and children. To kill the children they fractured their heads with sticks. There was not one house without corpses. The men and women of the villages were pushed into houses without food or water. Then the saboteurs came to dynamite the houses. One commander ordered a soldier to bring two women into a house he was about to blow up. . . . Another soldier prided himself upon having raped an Arab woman before shooting her to death. Another Arab woman with her newborn baby was made to clean the place for a couple of days, and then they shot her and the baby. Educated and well-mannered commanders who were considered "good guys". . . became base murderers, and this not in the storm of battle, but as a method of expulsion and extermination. The fewer the Arabs who remain, the better. (quoted in Davar, 9 June 1979) This was not an isolated incident. For this, Israel was rewarded with a state, but Palestinians are denied a state because they, in their effort to win their freedom, have killed civilians. Israel also has committed numerous acts of terrorism since the beginning of the state of Israel. In some well documented cases, they then pinned the blame for these acts of terrorism on the peoples against whom they committed these acts, for the purpose of creating a 'justification' for committing further acts of aggression against them, and also to poison world opinion against them. In none of these cases, did any of the guilty parties suffer any consequences, or even any public censure, with the exception of one. In the case known as the Lavon Affair, Egypt executed some of the people who committed the terrorist acts, and Israel used even this as a pretext for bombing Egypt, killing many civilians and military personnel in the process. Jewish paramilitaries (prior to statehood), and members of the Israeli government and military committed numerous massacres of civilians during the period leading up to statehood, and then also after it, both within Israel, as well as within the boundaries of the neighboring countries. Israel never suffered any consequences for any of these acts, even though they certainly violated international law. However, when Israel's neighbors sought to protect themselves from further acts of aggression by acquiring military hardware, Israel used this as an excuse to commit further acts of aggression against these countries, and take more of their land. Israel has always employed a strategy of doing everything possible to provoke a violent response from its neighbors, including such massacres of civilians, committing the first airplane hijacking in the history of aviation, and actively encroaching into areas that were not within the boundaries of what was allotted to it in the partition plan. It has suffered no consequences for any of these things, but when the people against whom Israel committed these offenses would respond, Israel would use this response as a pretext for 'reprisal' actions, and at the same time, use them as a way to poison the attitude of people in other parts of the world against the victims of their acts of aggression. All of these things are perfectly well documented by members of the Israeli government and military, as well as sources like the UN representatives at the scene, other on the ground eye witnesses from other countries, and also from declassified Israeli government documents. What all of this shows, is that racism towards the various brown-skinned peoples of the world is a far more powerful force amongst people of European ancestry than is anti-Semitism. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,petr Date: 11 Feb 08 - 02:22 PM that is pretty convoluted logic.. ask any Iranian what happened in 1953 and they will tell you. Its not ancient history to them. But your argument to the point that US overthrew a democratically elected govt. (thus sowing seeds of US resentment) is..? that Savak wasnt anywhere near as bad as Khomeinis Revolutionary GUard.. They only tortured and killed thousands. Your logic collapses in ridicule. as far as North Korea - China no more controls Kim than Brezhnev controlled Ceaucescu. The NKoreans did what was expected after the invasion of Iraq. - they withdrew from the NPT and spurred development of the bomb.. -the US on the other hand refused to negotiate for years (eventually when they did - NK gets fuel oil, and as a bonus gets to keep the bomb). How does that make the world safer? Aq Khan - thats another joke, he's under house arrest and gets to do what he wants anyway.. -- the simplistic point of view here is that of Bush and his Manichean 'they hate our freedoms'.. more likely it is 'they hate our meddling in their past govt's and propping up tyrants left and right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Amos Date: 11 Feb 08 - 04:55 PM A different view, reported in the International Herald Tribune: "TEHRAN: When the shah ruled Iran, the Westernized elite would enjoy Hollywood movies at a small theater in the center of the city. Today, that theater is an Islamic cultural center and a meeting place for fundamentalists. So it was a bit of a surprise that in the gift shop, where everything was infused with a religious theme, the best selling items last week were American children's movies: "Rugrats Go Wild," "Meet the Robinsons" and "The Incredibles." All bootlegged, of course, and each for $1.50. "Yes, we sell a lot of these," said Amin Gorbani, a young bearded clerk at the cash register. And then he stood up, extended his hand and said: "When it comes to disputes between Iran and America, that is between governments. But when it comes to people, I don't see any problem between the people." As Iran on Monday commemorated the 29th anniversary of its revolution, America's image in the Middle East is arguably as low as it has ever been. From the occupation of Iraq to the Israeli bombing of Lebanon to the prisons of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, the United States has been cited in polls as the gravest threat to peace in the region. But Iran is different, even the Iran of bearded fundamentalists like Gorbani. Generally speaking, Iranians like Americans, not just American products, which remain very popular, but Americans. While that is not entirely new - Iranians on an individual level have long expressed desires to restore relations between the two countries - the sentiment seems much more out in the open now. Today in Africa & Middle East Many in Iran bear the U.S. no ill willGates supports a pause in U.S. troop withdrawals from IraqCritique of postwar Iraq planning stifled by U.S. Army It is spreading not just on the streets of Tehran, but in the way politicians talk. A former student hostage taker; the mayor of Tehran; even the supreme leader himself, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, have said it was not out of the question to someday restore relations with the United States. That change of tone, combined with Khamenei's recent mild criticism of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government, seems to have given Iranians license to express their frustration with their situation and their longing for normal relations. They do not necessarily see themselves as having any connection to the extreme radical ideas of their leaders, whether in religious or geopolitical terms, and calculate that Americans are equally disconnected from their leaders' decisions, political and social analysts said. "I think the problem we have with the Americans is the way Americans perceive Iran as a threat, as a rogue state," said Masoumeh Ebtekar, a member of the Tehran City Council who served as a spokeswoman for the students who stormed the U.S. Embassy and seized 52 hostages in 1979. "This perception has to change. I believe if they understand who we really are, the basis for reconciliation will be based on respect and equality." She framed the conflict as a matter of perception, of misunderstanding. But there was a time when such talk was seen as subversive. Now, there is Baskin-Robbins. Not the real Baskin-Robbins, apparently, but an Iranian bootleg version with its own display of 31 flavors. "I used to be the one who chanted death to America," said Abolfazl Emami, owner of the ice-cream shop in Mohseeni Square. "It was a slogan that came up during the revolution. People don't mean it now." With a smile and his hand raised in the air he said: "I like American goods, and I prefer American people. It's just the government I don't like." It may be hard to reconcile the images of men punching their fists into the air and chanting "Death to America" with a man serving scoops of peanut-butter chocolate ice cream in pink paper cups and sugar cones. But it is in some ways a measure of how distant many Iranians feel from the radical government of Ahmadinejad. ... " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 12 Feb 08 - 09:10 AM Part of this fictionalised account CarolC - Tell us why the Arabs rioted in Jerusalem in March 1920? Tell us why they killed six Jews and injured 200 more? Tell us why they robbed and looted Jewish property? Tell us what happened one month later in April at Tel Hai. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 12 Feb 08 - 09:18 AM So Israeli's committed the first airplane hijacking in the history of aviation did they CarolC? Really wonder what this was then? "The first recorded aircraft hijack was on February 21, 1931, in Arequipa, Peru. Byron Rickards flying a Ford Tri-Motor was approached on the ground by armed revolutionaries. He refused to fly them anywhere and after a ten day stand-off Rickards was informed that the revolution was successful and he could go in return for giving one of their number a lift to Lima." So those revolting people in Arequipa, Peru, in February 1931 were Israeli's were they CarolC?? - Don't think so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 13 Feb 08 - 03:34 AM Part of this fictionalised account CarolC - Tell us why the Arabs rioted in Jerusalem in March 1920? Tell us why they killed six Jews and injured 200 more? Tell us why they robbed and looted Jewish property? Because they were being squeezed out of their own country by colonialist Europeans, and they knew it. They knew that the plan was to squeeze out or remove all of the non-Jewish indigenous population, and at that time, the consequence of this for the non-Jewish Palestinians was that they were being disposessed of their homes and their livelihoods, and they were quite understandably not happy about it. Tel Hai was a product of bone-headed stupidity. The people there were settling on land that was in a border area between the British and French forces. The settlers were there in order to establish 'facts on the ground', but without any clear rights to be doing so, since there were questions about whether or not that area was within the British Mandate territory. They were attempting to gobble up as much territory, especially as much territory containing the watershed of the Jordan river as possible, and they were pushing boundaries in ways that caused a lot of friction between settlers and indigenous Arabs. They were warned that they should leave that region and go somewhere safe until the situation was stabilized. The settlers in nearby settlements did evacuate. The settlers in Tel Hai chose not to, despite being instructed to do so. Eight Jews were killed in the battle. This event was used for propagandistic purposes afterwards, however, and was elevated to the status of legend to embody a principle of sacrifice in the name of 'redeeming the land' (a polite way of saying 'taking land from others'). I stand corrected on the airplane hijacking. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 13 Feb 08 - 11:30 AM What "fictionalised" book did that lot come out of CarolC? The questions were asked because I knew for almost definite that CarolC would not come anywhere close to divulging the truth, mainly because it blows rather large holes in her arguement. The Jaffa Riots - Lies deliberately told by Arab religious leaders about Jewish attacks and the murder of helpless Arabs by the Jews told in order to provoke and inflame the Arab population. Actual truth was that there had been no murders had there CarolC? There had been no attacks had there CarolC. But Arabs did kill and injure Jews in the process of driving them from their homes and looting their property didn't they CarolC. Up until this point there had been no attacks. The Jewish villages that were attacked in the Tel Hai incident, that CarolC dismisses as a product of bone-headed stupidity, were attacked by who CarolC? British troops? French troops? Or was it by Nomadic Arab Tribesmen? It was the latter wasn't it CarolC? How many of them died CarolC? They did succeed in driving the Jewish villagers from their homes in three out of the four villages but at the fourth Tel Hai they stood and fought back. CarolC won't tell you any of this because those nice Palestinian Arabs wouldn't dream about doing anything like that, such an act would be completely beyond them At the Passover Festival in Jerusalem it was the same story again wasn't it CarolC? Only difference this time it was on a much larger scale wasn't it? They whipped up and inflamed a crowd of between 160,000 and 200,000 Arabs and set them loose to plunder and burn Jewish property. All of it based on lies deliberately told to cause unrest. The British once they finally got things back under control carried out an investigation didn't they CarolC? Here's what conclusions they drew: "The racial strife was begun by the Arabs, and rapidly developed into a conflict of great violence between Arabs and Jews, in which the Arab majority, who were generally the aggressors, inflicted most of the casualties." The guiding light behind all this was Tosser Arafat's Uncle: "The dominant figure in Palestine during the Mandate years was neither an Englishman, nor a Jew, but an Arab — Haj Amin Muhammed Effendi al Husaini... Able, ambitious, ruthless, humourless, and incorruptible, he was of the authentic stuff of which dictators are made. The greatest obstacle to his dream coming true, he believed, was the Jewish presence in Palestine. The Mufti's policy towards the Jews seems to have gone through two main stages: first, kill the Zionists, second, kill the Jews. When he was young he used to work with a native Jew, Abbady, and one of his remarks to him was documented: Remember, Abbady, this was and will remain an Arab land. We do not mind you natives of the country, but those alien invaders, the Zionists, will be massacred to the last man. We want no progress, no prosperity. Nothing but the sword will decide the fate of this country. The Mufti's hatred towards the Jews originated from those roots. He did neither want progress nor prosperity. He just wanted Palestine to continue being the same backward and poor country, as it had been since the Jewish departure in the first centuries CE. Besides his pan-Arab tendencies he saw the Jews as bearers of modern European way of life, which confronted to the most sacred concepts of Islam, at least according to his version. In an interview with one Ladislas Farago he said: The Jews have changed the life of Palestine in such a way that it must inevitably lead to the destruction of our race. We are not accustomed to this haste and speed, and therefore we are continually being driven into the background. At first, his policy was to fight or massacre the Zionists, which he most notably achieved in the riots of 1920 and 1929 and later the 1936-1939 rebellion. However, when he realised that the Jews kept on flocking into the country, he thought the best way to deal with the Jewish problem was to dry up the source in Europe. When he had to make a run for it during the 1936-1939 Arab revolt, he found his perfect partner in Europe didn't he CarolC? A kindred spirit who was also - able, ambitious, ruthless, humourless, and incorruptible, someone who most definitely was of the authentic stuff of which dictators are made - a little Austrian chap with a funny moustache if memory serves me correctly - CarolC would be able to tell you his name - Adolf Hitler wasn't it CarolC? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Feb 08 - 03:53 PM CarolC, Still waiting for you to acknowledge the GREATER ( than Palestinian Arabs)number of Jews driven out of Arab nations, and the ethnic clensing of the West bank ( of Jews) from 1948 to 1967. Or are you still claiming that only Arabs are really human, and Jews desreve to be screwed over? I have stated before that the Mandate Palestine was divided into Transjordan ( the Arab homeland, with NO Jewish settlement allowed), and "Palestine". the Jewish homeland where both Arabs and Jews could settle. You have yet to show the compensation to the Jews for the land taken as TransJordan, if it is NOT the division of Mandate Palestine that it seems to be. And if you object to that mandate, are you proposing to throw out the rest of the nations formed by the treaties with Turkey ( as successor to the Ottoman Empire)? In addition, you have not addressed the fact that, while there were illegal acts on both sides, the Arab League declared war on the new state of Isreal in 1948, and SOME arabs fled- a number stayed in Israel and are citizens Show me the equal chance given to Jewish residents of Arab nations in 1948, even those who had been there for hudreds or thousands of years, please. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 14 Feb 08 - 02:05 AM Still waiting for you to acknowledge the GREATER ( than Palestinian Arabs)number of Jews driven out of Arab nations, and the ethnic clensing of the West bank ( of Jews) from 1948 to 1967. Or are you still claiming that only Arabs are really human, and Jews desreve to be screwed over? No you're not. We've discussed this before. If you can't bother to notice when I respond to these kinds of questions, I don't see why you would expect me to bother to keep responding to them. Check out my posting history and read the responses I've already made. I have stated before that the Mandate Palestine was divided into Transjordan ( the Arab homeland, with NO Jewish settlement allowed), and "Palestine". the Jewish homeland where both Arabs and Jews could settle. You have yet to show the compensation to the Jews for the land taken as TransJordan, if it is NOT the division of Mandate Palestine that it seems to be. Why should I show any compensation? I am not suggesting that the Palestinians whose land was taken should be compensated, so there's no inconsistancy. And if you object to that mandate, are you proposing to throw out the rest of the nations formed by the treaties with Turkey ( as successor to the Ottoman Empire)? Object to the mandate? Where have I done that? I'm telling you why the indigenous people of the region don't like the way they've been treated, and telling you that this is why they have behaved in the way they have and that it's not because of anti-Semitism in the classical sense, or because of belligerence or intransigence. They have legitimate grievances that have never been addressed, AND the ethnic cleansing of these people is still ongoing. In addition, you have not addressed the fact that, while there were illegal acts on both sides, the Arab League declared war on the new state of Isreal in 1948, and SOME arabs fled- a number stayed in Israel and are citizens Show me the equal chance given to Jewish residents of Arab nations in 1948, even those who had been there for hudreds or thousands of years, please. I most certainly have addressed these things. Many times. If you can't be bothered to read my responses, don't expect me to keep making them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 14 Feb 08 - 03:39 AM The questions were asked because I knew for almost definite that CarolC would not come anywhere close to divulging the truth, mainly because it blows rather large holes in her arguement. Nice try. No cigar. The Jaffa Riots - Lies deliberately told by Arab religious leaders about Jewish attacks and the murder of helpless Arabs by the Jews told in order to provoke and inflame the Arab population. Actual truth was that there had been no murders had there CarolC? There had been no attacks had there CarolC. But Arabs did kill and injure Jews in the process of driving them from their homes and looting their property didn't they CarolC. Up until this point there had been no attacks. More lies, Teribus. The riots started when two different Jewish groups, one Socialist, and one Communist who were demonstrating, started fighting with each other. Arab Muslims and Christians started helping the police to break up the fights. Arabs in other areas misinterpreted what was going on and they jumped in thinking that Arabs were being attacked, but the Haycroft Commission of Inquiry Report into the Jaffa riots stated that the argument made by some Jews that the cause of the riots was propaganda spread by Arab leaders was not what happened. The report outlined the causes as being discontent with the government in part due to its policy on the Jewish national home, partly to Arab misunderstandings about the policy, and partly because of the manner in which that policy was interpreted 'by some of its advocates outside the government'. It further reported that there was 'no evidence worth considering' that the Jaffa riots were planned The Commission of Inquiry listed the grievances of the Arabs that led to their feelings of frustration... 1. When Great Britain took over administration of Palestine, it was led by the Zionists to adopt a policy mainly directed towards the establishment of a national home for the Jews, and not to the equal benefit of all Palestinians. 2. In persuance of this policy, the government of Palestine had an official advisory body - the Zionist Commission - which placed the interests of the Jews above all others. 3. There was an undue proportion of Jews in the government. 4. Part of the Zionist program was to flood the country with people who possessed greater commercial and organizing ability which would eventually lead to their gaining the upper hand over the rest of the population. 5. The immigrants were an economic danger to the country because of their competition, and because they were favored in this competition. 6. Immigrants offended the Arabs by their arrogance and by their contempt of Arab social prejudices. 7. Owing to insufficient precautions, Bolshevik immigrants were allowed into the country leading to social and economic unrest in Palestine. The report also said that the Arabs regarded Jewish immigration not only as an ultimate means to subject the Arabs politically and economically, but also as an immediate cause of Arab unemployment. The commission noted that the Arabs were aware that Jewish predominence was envisaged not only by Jewish extremists, but also by the responsible representatives of Zionism. Captain Brunton of General Staff Intelligence had this to say about it... "nothing short of bitter and widespread hostility and the Arab population has some (cause?) to regard the Zionists with hatred and the British with resentment. Mr. Churchill's visit put the final touch to the picture. He upheld the Zionist cause and treated the Arab demands like those of negligible opposition to be put off by a few political phrases and treated like children". This is what the Arabs had to say about what was being done to them in their own country... "the Jews have been granted a true advantage, namely that of becoming our rulers. We are to have equal rights of justice with them before theLaw, but they are to have in addition to this the preference in politics and in the economic life of the country, of which the Mandate has seen fit to deprive us. This was Mr. Churchill's response to the Arabs, and it's a big part of why they were so pissed off. He bluntly informed the Arab leaders that British policy would not change, that it was not in his power to change it, and that even if it were, it was not his wish to do so. Everything I said in my previous post is supported by history and by the facts. The Jewish villages that were attacked in the Tel Hai incident, that CarolC dismisses as a product of bone-headed stupidity, were attacked by who CarolC? British troops? French troops? Or was it by Nomadic Arab Tribesmen? It was nomadic Arab tribesmen. These tribesmen, by the way saw themselves living in what was supposed to be a part of the French mandate, and they were not happy about the fact that the Jewish settlers were trying to get their villages absorbed into the British mandate. It was the latter wasn't it CarolC? How many of them died CarolC? They did succeed in driving the Jewish villagers from their homes in three out of the four villages but at the fourth Tel Hai they stood and fought back. CarolC won't tell you any of this because those nice Palestinian Arabs wouldn't dream about doing anything like that, such an act would be completely beyond them Please read what I already wrote.I certainly never suggested that it wasn't Arabs who the villagers in Tel Hai were fighting with, nor that Arabs have never killed any Jews. At the Passover Festival in Jerusalem it was the same story again wasn't it CarolC? Only difference this time it was on a much larger scale wasn't it? They whipped up and inflamed a crowd of between 160,000 and 200,000 Arabs and set them loose to plunder and burn Jewish property. All of it based on lies deliberately told to cause unrest. As you said, these riots were instigated by the Mufti, Haj Amin, who was put into his position of power by Herbert Samuel, against the wishes of the majority of Arabs at the time. The Mufti also killed a lot of Arabs who tried to resist what he was doing, so the Arabs were victims three times over because of Mr. Samuel installing Haj Amin into his position of power. In the first instance, when their own preferences were overriden when Haj Amin was installed. Then they also were victimized when they resisted him. Then they were victimized when they were (and continue to be) blamed for the things that Haj Amin did against the wishes of the majority of them, like you're doing right now, especially when you try to make it look like his being in league with Hitler is a reflection on Palestinians generally. The fact is that many Palestinians fought on the side of the allies, and very few aligned themselves with the Nazis. The fact that Herbert Samuel's installing Haj Amin in a position of power has given people like you and the government of Israel a hell of a lot of pretext to try to justify Israel's practice of ethnic cleansing suggests to me that this was his reason for putting Haj Amin in that position of power in the first place. So that makes the Palestinians four times victimized by what Herbert Samuel did. And all of the Jews who were killed during the 1929 riots were victims of Mr. Herbert Samuel's decision as well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 14 Feb 08 - 11:06 AM "The entire history of Israel, including the events leading up to Israel's declaration of itself as a country, has been fictionalized by the leaders of that country. You have bought the fiction hook, line, and sinker, Teribus." - (CarolC) Have I really CarolC? That may well be your opinion, but it most certainly is not borne out in examination of relevant circumstances and events. "You have also swallowed their hatred of and contempt for Arabs in general, and Palestinians in particular." - (CarolC) "Hatred" and "Contempt" for Arabs CarolC? I most certainly feel such for any group of terrorists or those who support them, but I personally do not hate Arabs in general or feel contempt for them. Oh by the bye CarolC if you want to read what real hatred and contempt for Palestinian Arabs is read what Prince Faisals opinion of them was in 1919. "It doesn't surprise me, however, that someone with a 'might-makes-right' supremacist philosophy like yours would feel a kinship with those within the Israeli leadership who are your philosophical cousins." - (CarolC) Now then CarolC I was born and bred in Scotland. Now going back in history the part of the country that my ancestors came from was at war continuously for over 350 years. For much of that time the Scots were on the receiving end of that stick, so we understand all about the "might-makes-right" philosophy. You on the otherhand are American, your forefathers travelled to America from another continent, on arrival they fought, killed, disposessed and having claimed the land of others settled on it, prospered and enjoyed the fruits of their conquest, so you too understand all about "might-makes-right" philosophy - From a slightly different perspective than me - True? So when you come out with your usual emotional claptrap remember that little difference. "However, the facts are that Israel committed numerous acts of terrorism during the period leading up to the time of their declaring independence, killing many civilians and also British government officials in the process." - (CarolC) Tel Hai - 1st March 1920 Arab attack on Jewish settlers. The attack was unprovoked, and was the first killing in what became a long line of them. Nabi Musa Riots – 4th to 7th April 1920 second Arab attack on Jewish inhabitants of Palestine. The attacks were totally unprovoked and targeted unarmed civilians. The aftermath and in light of how the British react cause the Jewish community to look to themselves for their own defence - Haganah (meaning "Defence") is formed. Jaffa Riots - 1st and 7th May 1921 third unprovoked Arab attack on Jewish inhabitants of Palestine. Again the attacks were totally unprovoked and targeted unarmed civilians. "However, the facts are that Israel committed numerous acts of terrorism during the period leading up to the time of their declaring independence, killing many civilians and also British government officials in the process For this, they were rewarded with a country." - (CarolC) Eh, No, CarolC, not quite. 1920 - Arabs attack Jews 1921 - Arabs attack Jews 1923 - Palestine Mandate territories split into "Palestine" where Jews are allowed to settle and "Transjordan" where Jews are not allowed to settle. 1929 - Arabs attack Jews 1936 to 1939 - Arabs attack Jews and British in what becomes known as the Arab Revolt. Good heavens to Betsy, the British and the Jews fight back - Arabs don't like it. Brits are now convinced that Arabs and Jews will never share Palestine so look for alternative scenario. 1937 - British Peel Commission come up with first two state plan. This Plan is accepted by the Jews and rejected by the Arabs. This by the way is the best offer the Arabs are ever going to get. 1939 to 1945 - Minor stramash locally known as the Second World War, during which the "leader" of the Palestinian Arabs was best mates with Adolf Hitler. He returns to Egypt at the end of the war a wanted war criminal. 1947 - Former British League of Nations Mandate about to expire so UN proposes a two state solution. The Jews accept and again the Arabs reject it. 1948 - British Mandate expires, no solution so Jews declare independence based on the UN proposal and the State of Israel comes into being. It is immediately recognised by both the United Nations and by the United States of America and welcomed as a member of the United Nations. I think that the Jews were rewarded with a country because they were willing to live at peace with their neighbours and showed willingness to compromise in order to reach a solution. The Arabs on the otherhand were not prepared to do either. They were still running on the old 1920 war cries of: "Independence! Independence! Palestine is our land, the Jews are our dogs!" and their other favourite of the time, "Muhammad's religion was born with the sword". So yes CarolC, after enduring damn near ninety years of their bullshit, "when Palestinians commit acts of terrorism, their homes, women, children, civil infrastructure... all get bombed to smithereens,and they are denied a country because 'we can't reward terrorism'. They know precisely what to do to end it and get on with life, they and only they can do it, it is entirely up to them. I remember Wolfgang once drawing a comparison of Europe at the end of the Second World War and its problems with refugees and displaced people to the Arab-Israeli thing. He then gave his projection of what Europe would have been like if all Europe's refugees and countries had behaved like the Arabs and the countries of the Middle-East. I found it quite interesting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 14 Feb 08 - 12:09 PM I most certainly feel such for any group of terrorists or those who support them No you don't. You condone the terrorists among the Jews who established the state of Israel, and you condone the terrorists among the Jews who became Israelis after it became a state. Tel Hai - 1st March 1920 Arab attack on Jewish settlers. The attack was unprovoked, and was the first killing in what became a long line of them. This is a lie. Their very presence in the area was a provocation, since they were trying to take land that wasn't theirs. We call taking things that aren't yours 'theft'. Stealing someone else's stuff is a provocation. Nabi Musa Riots – 4th to 7th April 1920 second Arab attack on Jewish inhabitants of Palestine. The attacks were totally unprovoked and targeted unarmed civilians. The aftermath and in light of how the British react cause the Jewish community to look to themselves for their own defence - Haganah (meaning "Defence") is formed. This is a lie. It was provoked. Arriving in someone else's country and trying to take it from them is most definitely a provocation. Jaffa Riots - 1st and 7th May 1921 third unprovoked Arab attack on Jewish inhabitants of Palestine. Again the attacks were totally unprovoked and targeted unarmed civilians. Arriving in someone else's country and trying to take it from them is a provocation in every sense of the word. "However, the facts are that Israel committed numerous acts of terrorism during the period leading up to the time of their declaring independence, killing many civilians and also British government officials in the process For this, they were rewarded with a country." - (CarolC) August 20, 1937 - June 29, 1939. During this period, the Zionists carried out a series of attacks against Arab buses, resulting in the death of 24 persons and wounding 25 others. November 25, 1940. S.S.Patria was blown up by Jewish terrorists in Haifa harbour, killing 268 illegal Jewish immigrants November 6, 1944. Zionist terrorists of the Stern Gang assassinated the British Minister Resident in the Middle East, Lord Moyne, in Cairo. July 22, 1946. Zionist terrorists blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, which housed the central offices of the civilian administration of the government of Palestine, killing or injuring more than 200 persons. The Irgun officially claimed responsibility for the incident, but subsequent evidence indicated that both the Haganah and the Jewish Agency were involved. October 1, 1946. The British Embassy in Rome was badly damaged by bomb explosions, for which Irgun claimed responsibility. June 1947. Letters sent to British Cabinet Ministers were found to contain bombs. September 3, 1947. A postal bomb addressed to the British War Office exploded in the post office sorting room in London, injuring 2 persons. It was attributed to Irgun or Stern Gangs. (The Sunday Times, Sept. 24, 1972, p.8) December ll, 1947. Six Arabs were killed and 30 wounded when bombs were thrown from Jewish trucks at Arab buses in Haifa; 12 Arabs were killed and others injured in an attack by armed Zionists on an Arab coastal village near Haifa. December 13,1947. Zionist terrorists, believed to be members of Irgun Zvai Leumi, killed 18 Arabs and wounded nearly 60 in Jerusalem, Jaffa and Lydda areas. In Jerusalem, bombs were thrown in an Arab market-place near the Damascus Gate; in Jaffa, bombs were thrown into an Arab cafe; in the Arab village of Al Abbasya, near Lydda, 12 Arabs were killed in an attack with mortars and automatic weapons. December 19, 1947. Haganah terrorists attacked an Arab village near Safad, blowing up two houses, in the ruins of which were found the bodies of 10 Arabs, including 5 children. Haganah admitted responsibility for the attack. December 29, 1947. Two British constables and 11 Arabs were killed and 32 Arabs injured, at the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem when Irgun members threw a bomb from a taxi. December 30,1947. A mixed force of the Zionist Palmach and the "Carmel Brigade" attacked the village of Balad al Sheikh, killing more than 60 Arabs. 1947 -- 1948. Over 700,000 Palestinian Arabs were uprooted from their homes and land, and forced to live in refugee camps on Israel's borders. They have been denied the right to return to their homes. They have been refused compensation for their homes, orchards, farms and other property stolen from them by the Israeli government. After their expulsion, the "Israeli Forces" totally obliterated (usually by bulldozing) 385 Arab villages and towns, out of a total of 475. Commonly, Israeli villages were built on the remaining rubble. January 1, 1948. Haganah terrorists attacked a village on the slopes of Mount Carmel; 17 Arabs were killed and 33 wounded. January 4, 1948. Haganah terrorists wearing British Army uniforms penetrated into the center of Jaffa and blew up the Serai (the old Turkish Government House) which was used as a headquarters of the Arab National Committee, killing more than 40 persons and wounding 98 others. January 5, 1948. The Arab-owned Semiramis Hotel in Jerusalem was blown up, killing 20 persons, among them Viscount de Tapia, the Spanish Consul. Haganah admitted responsibility for this crime. January 7, 1948. Seventeen Arabs were killed by a bomb at the Jaffa Gate in Jerusalem, 3 of them while trying to escape. Further casualties, including the murder of a British officer near Hebron, were reported from different parts of the country. January 16, 1948. Zionists blew up three Arab buildings. In the first, 8 children between the ages of 18 months and 12 years, died. December 13, 1947 -- February 10, 1948. Seven incidents of bomb-tossing at innocent Arab civilians in cafes and markets, killing 138 and wounding 271 others, During this period, there were 9 attacks on Arab buses. Zionists mined passenger trains on at least 4 occasions, killing 93 persons and wounding 161 others. February 15, 1948. Haganah terrorists attacked an Arab village near Safad, blew up several houses, killing 11 Arabs, including 4 children.. March 3, 1948. Heavy damage was done to the Arab-owned Salam building in Haifa (a 7 story block of apartments and shops) by Zionists who drove an army lorry ( truck) up to the building and escaped before the detonation of 400 Ib. of explosives; casualties numbered 11 Arabs and 3 Armenians killed and 23 injured. The Stern Gang claimed responsibility for the incident. March 22, 1948. A housing block in Iraq Street in Haifa was blown up killing 17 and injuring 100 others. Four members of the Stern Gang drove two truck-loads of explosives into the street and abandoned the vehicles before the explosion. March 31, 1948. The Cairo-Haifa Express was mined, for the second time in a month, by an electronically-detonated land mine near Benyamina, killing 40 persons and wounding 60 others. April 9, 1948. A combined force of Irgun Zvai Leumi and the Stern Gang, supported by the Palmach forces, captured the Arab village of Deir Yassin and killed more than 200 unarmed civilians, including countless women and children. Older men and young women were captured and paraded in chains in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem; 20 of the hostages were then shot in the quarry of Gevaat Shaul. April 16, 1948. Zionists attacked the former British army camp at Tel Litvinsky, killing 90 Arabs there. April 19, 1948. Fourteen Arabs were killed in a house in Tiberias, which was blown up by Zionist terrorists. May 3, 1948. A book bomb addressed to a British Army officer, who had been stationed in Palestine exploded, killing his brother, Rex Farran. May11, 1948. A letter bomb addressed to Sir Evelyn Barker, former Commanding Officer in Palestine, was detected in the nick of time by his wife. April 25, 1948 -- May 13, 1948. Wholesale looting of Jaffa was carried out following armed attacks by Irgun and Haganah terrorists. They stripped and carried away everything they could, destroying what they could not take with them. Everything you say on this subject is a lie, Teribus, and I've done a more than ample job of proving it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 14 Feb 08 - 12:14 PM Currently on BBC: "Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah has warned that the militant group is ready for "open war" with Israel, after the killing of one of its leaders in Syria. Nasrallah made the declaration during a fiery speech at the funeral of Imad Mughniyeh in Lebanon's capital, Beirut. Mughniyeh was killed in a car bombing in the Syrian capital, Damascus, on Tuesday. Correspondents say the events come at a tense time, with no president and no working parliament. Mughniyeh's funeral, which Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki is attending, is taking place in the Hezbollah stronghold of the southern suburbs of Beirut. Speaking to the crowds of mourners via a giant video screen, Nasrallah blamed Israel for his death and said its war against the Jewish state was not over. "Zionists, if you want this sort of open war, then let the whole world hear, so be it!" he declared. Nasrallah said that Israel thought that Mughniyeh's death "would lead to the destruction of the resistance... but they are wrong". He insisted: "The blood of Imad Mughniyeh will make them [Israel] withdraw from existence." Israel has rejected Hezbollah's claims that it is responsible for Mughniyeh's assassination, but nonetheless has put its embassies and other missions around the world on high alert and boosted troop deployments on the Lebanese border. Security sources said the alert could remain in force for weeks or even months." Like I said before: "Simply a case of the same old game – with the same old result". Nice to see that the Iranian chap turned out though, must make everybody feel soooo much better. I wonder what the apologists will say that "The blood of Imad Mughniyeh will make them [Israel] withdraw from existence." is a mistranslation of? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 14 Feb 08 - 12:38 PM "Their very presence in the area was a provocation, since they were trying to take land that wasn't theirs. We call taking things that aren't yours 'theft'. Stealing someone else's stuff is a provocation." = Latest bit of arrant nonsense from CarolC. The Tel Hai Attack: The Jewish villages that were attacked in the Tel Hai incident, that CarolC dismisses as a product of bone-headed stupidity, were attacked by who CarolC? British troops? French troops? Or was it by Nomadic Arab Tribesmen? – (Teribus) It was nomadic Arab tribesmen. These tribesmen, by the way saw themselves living in what was supposed to be a part of the French mandate, and they were not happy about the fact that the Jewish settlers were trying to get their villages absorbed into the British mandate. – (CarolC) Really CarolC? Well I think that there are a number of points to be cleared up here don't you? 1. "nomadic Arab Tribesmen" – Bedouins? – You mean they moved about? How did their villages move about CarolC? 2. The borders had not been decided in March 1920 CarolC, in fact they weren't decided until 1923. However In 1919, the British relinquished the northern section of the upper Galilee containing Tel Hai, Metula, Hamrah, and Kfar Giladi to the French jurisdiction. 3. All those villages mentioned there CarolC were Jewish settlements all legally purchased and settlement of all of them pre-dates the First World War. That makes them whose villages CarolC? The Jews who lived there or the nomadic Arabs who didn't? 4. These nomadic Arab Tribesmen CarolC. At the time they were in open rebellion against the French. 5. The Jewish inhabitants of those four villages were making no attempts at all "to get their villages absorbed into the British mandate." I have no idea whatsoever just exactly how they would go about doing that – and I don't believe that you have either. But here is what happened at Tel Hai – Remember CarolC there had been no trouble or bloodshed at all prior to this: On 1 March 1920, several hundred Arabs gathered at the gate of Tel Hai, one of four Jewish farming villages in an isolated bloc at the northern end of the Upper Galilee's Hulah Valley. This was the area of the loosely defined border, between the soon to be established British Mandate of Palestine and the French Mandate of Lebanon and of Syria. Throughout this area roamed bands of soldiers, adventurers, and robbers. The Arabs believed that some French troops had taken refuge with the Jews and demanded to search the premises. The Jews generally tried to maintain neutrality in the chaos, occasionally sheltering both Arabs and French. On this day there were no French soldiers, and the Jews assented to a search. One of the farmers fired a shot into the air, a signal for reinforcements from nearby Kfar Giladi, which brought ten men led by Trumpeldor, who had been posted by Hashomer to organise defensive watches. It is unclear exactly what happened once Trumpeldor assumed command, but an early report speaks of "misunderstanding on both sides". Ultimately, a major firefight raged, and five of the Jewish defenders were initially killed; Trumpeldor was shot in his hand and then his stomach. A doctor only arrived toward evening, and Trumpeldor died while being evacuated to Kfar Giladi. Now can you tell me CarolC, you say that "they were trying to take land that wasn't theirs." I presume that you are talking about the Arabs here CarolC, because the people in those villages, the Jews, did own the land, they had title and legal right to it. Or are you attempting to say things were different? Now I don't know about you CarolC, if several hundred armed men descended all of a sudden on my front door and demanded to search my property I would call that a hostile and threatening act, I also believe that it could also be construed as being extremely provocative. Standing aside and allowing those men to make their search on the otherhand wouldn't equate to being provactive, some would call it downright co-operative and sensible. Oh by the bye CarolC, somewhere up above there you did actually admit that it was the Arabs that attacked the Jewish villagers didn't you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 14 Feb 08 - 02:47 PM "nomadic Arab Tribesmen" – Bedouins? – You mean they moved about? How did their villages move about CarolC? They weren't defending their villages. They were defending the borders of their country. The borders had not been decided in March 1920 CarolC, in fact they weren't decided until 1923. However In 1919, the British relinquished the northern section of the upper Galilee containing Tel Hai, Metula, Hamrah, and Kfar Giladi to the French jurisdiction. Precisely. The Arabs in question were defending this land (that they wanted to remain a part of the French jurisdiction) from the encroachment of the Jewish settlers who were settling there in order to establish 'facts on the ground', in order to absorb it into what they hoped would become the Jewish state. The settlers were trying to help build the state of Israel and it was their intention that this area would become a part of that state. The Arabs in the area didn't want that. You keep using incredibly dishonest methods to try to gain the upper hand in this discussion, but the problem is that you get all of your information from supremacist propaganda websites (and books, no doubt), so there is clearly a wealth of well documented information that you are totally unaware of, and when you try to argue using the propaganda you have fallen for, you just end up making yourself look foolish. I think I've humiliated you enough on this thread. I've got better things to do with my time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Feb 08 - 03:37 PM CarolC, You make the statement to T that "Everything you say on this subject is a lie, Teribus, and I've done a more than ample job of proving it. " The first part of your statement is opinion, and the second part is false: YOU havee made statements that YOU claim are true, yet have no refernces or evidence. If just stating that something is false makes it so, then YOU would have to accept that it has been stated that you have made false claims. You state that "you get all of your information from supremacist propaganda websites (and books, no doubt), so there is clearly a wealth of well documented information that you are totally unaware of, and when you try to argue using the propaganda you have fallen for, you just end up making yourself look foolish." This same statement can be made for your statements: I have yet to find you to refernce a neutral party ( ie, one that does not a priori declare support for the viewpoint you wish to impose). You still fail to address the FACT that Transjordan, over 75% of the Mandate Palestine territory, was split off to become the ARAB ONLY ( No Jews allowed) ARAB homeland, while the remainder was intended to be the JEWISH homeland ( and where Arabs could still settle and becomne citizens. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 14 Feb 08 - 04:01 PM "They were defending the borders of their country." Really? What borders were they? What country? Those nomadic Arab tribesmen had absolutely no concept of borders or country, so what exactly are you rabbiting on about. "that they wanted to remain a part of the French jurisdiction" Really? They were in open rebellion against the French under whose rule or guidance they had endured for that seeming eternity of at least, oh I suppose about, 12 months. And you contend that they were wandering around attacking people who had just been in the area peacefully working away for between 20 - 30 years. They obviously weren't in to snap decisions these Bedouin guardians of the soil then CarolC. "the encroachment of the Jewish settlers who were settling there in order to establish 'facts on the ground', in order to absorb it into what they hoped would become the Jewish state." Really? So when the land that belonged to those villages was bought 20 to 30 years previously it came along with a crystal ball that told those good people that: a) There would be a "Great War" between the major European Powers. b) That the Turks would join the Germans and Austro-Hungarians as allies against the British, French and Russians. c) That the Turks, along with the Germans and Austro-Hungarians would lose the Great War and that it would cost them all their Empires. d) That somewhere during that massive and catastrophic upheaval called "The Great War" in 1916 that two fairly minor civil servants an Englishman called Sykes and a Frenchman called Picot would come up with the idea for a National Homeland for the Jews and that a further 30 years down the line from that a State called Israel would be born. Absolutely unbelievable CarolC - and I do mean absolutely unbelieveable - your contention is utterly preposterous, so completely ridiculous that it is laughable. "The settlers were trying to help build the state of Israel and it was their intention that this area would become a part of that state. The Arabs in the area didn't want that." Plain fact of the matter was that when they bought that land they were living under the rule of the Ottoman Empire with absolutely no prospect of anything other than that. "You keep using incredibly dishonest methods to try to gain the upper hand in this discussion" Do you mean the application of logic, reason and common sense? "so there is clearly a wealth of well documented information that you are totally unaware of, and when you try to argue using the propaganda you have fallen for, you just end up making yourself look foolish." It might seem to be terribly well documented to you CarolC. But only because it states what you want it to. Now go back to that well documented pile of information and come up with articles dated back in the late 1800's and early 1900's that prove Jewish settlers bought land in the knowledge that they were buying land for "Israel". Its you who are looking increasingly foolish. "I think I've humiliated you enough on this thread. I've got better things to do with my time." Eh, No, CarolC, you have been ripped to shit on this, your selective, apologist, emotive lies have been torn to shreds. By the way if you are prepared to come back for more we've still got the Nabi Musa and Jaffa Riots to go through. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,Joseph de Culver City Date: 14 Feb 08 - 05:38 PM The word according to Teribus: Eh, No, CarolC, you have been ripped to shit on this, your selective, apologist, emotive lies have been torn to shreds. Just wondering what you have planned for an encore, perhaps crushing a canary or strangling a puppy? Surprise me... (right!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 14 Feb 08 - 05:42 PM You still fail to address the FACT that Transjordan, over 75% of the Mandate Palestine territory, was split off to become the ARAB ONLY ( No Jews allowed) ARAB homeland, while the remainder was intended to be the JEWISH homeland ( and where Arabs could still settle and becomne citizens. Beardedbruce, I have addressed this point, right here in this thread. The part where Jews were allowed to make their homeland was not intended to be a Jewish state. It was intended to be a place where all Jews would be considered natives along with the other natives (indigenous Palestinians). But it was not intended that they should take it over and establish a Jewish state in that area. The wording was that the Jews would have a homeland within that area, not that that area would be the Jewish homeland. I have been providing documentation from Israeli government documents as well as other source documents and quotes from the pivotal figures of that time. Teribus only provides material that he gets from sites that it can be proven are telling lies. There's a big difference between these two things. I can provide documentation for everything I've posted here, but I prefer not to while debating with Teribus, since he doesn't see any value in providing documentation for his assertions. Nevertheless, they all come from source material. You can find this stuff out yourself, if you want to. By the way, on my use of the terms supremacist and 'might makes right'. 'Might makes right is the premise that simply being able to do a thing, by virtue of superior military might, entitles one to do something. Doesn't matter what the morality, ethics, or fairness (or lack of these things) of the thing being done is. The simple fact of being able to do it makes it right for people who subscribe to this philosophy. And a supremacist believes that he or she is entitled to impose his or her will on those who he or she deems inferior. Teribus, as well as the European (and US) colonialist powers who decided to impose their will on the peoples of the Middle East, and also the Zionists who decided to dispossess the Palestinians of everything they ever had, and the government of Israel, are all supremacists, because they all believe they are entitled to impose their will on other peoples, regardless of whether or not the other peoples agree with this arrangement. Anyone who believes they have this right is a supremacist. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 14 Feb 08 - 05:44 PM And by the way, beardedbruce, I did provide documentation about the wording on the Jewish homeland. Go back and read the thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 14 Feb 08 - 06:23 PM One last point and then I'm out of here. The Arabs that attacked Tel Hai were irregular forces who were supporters of Faysal who was going to be crowned as monarch in Damascus, although some of them may have been simply outlaws who sometimes conducted raids in areas with a lack of a clear governmental authority. The Jewish settlers who were trying to establish a presence there were warned by various Jewish authorities to leave the area because the area was not legitimately theirs, and Jabotinsky said that the those settlements could not be effectively defended. The settlers chose not to leave despite all of this. That was stupid. Makes a great martyr myth, though, and that's how it has been used ever since. Also, I misspoke when I said that all of my stuff comes from source material. Most of it does, but some of it does not. Some of it comes from historical accounts by other people who use source material as the basis for their research. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 14 Feb 08 - 06:27 PM By their complete and utter intransigence and their lack of willingness to listen the Palestinian Arabs created the State of Israel, CarolC nothing else. It was the Arabs who could not share the land, that most certainly never owned, and after ninety years, all that pointless bloodshed, and all those tears their efforts and scheming has got them absolutely nothing. The Jews on the otherhand have, despite all the threats and all the attacks, created their country, their State, their Homeland. It is vibrant, healthy and forward looking - it will survive. No matter how many conspire against it and seek her destruction, Israel's enemies should take heed of Psalm 121:4 "Behold, he that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 14 Feb 08 - 07:27 PM Teribus, the person who is telling lies has the advantage over the one who is telling the truth, because he can (as you do) throw out dozens of whoppers, and the person who is telling the truth has to spend vast amounts of time showing that they are lies. You are a bald faced liar, but you're very good at using that to your advantage. I have shown many of your lies to be just that... lies. But I do not have time to debunk all of the lies you are capable of putting out there because you have an endless supply of them. However, you have given me the opportunity to expose at least a little bit of the truth that people like you and the other supremacists who believe as you do work so hard to suppress. That's good enough for me (for now). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 15 Feb 08 - 03:08 AM The Jaffa Riots & The Haycraft Commission: Jaffa Riots – Occurred between 1st and 7th May 1921 CarolC's Version: The riots started when two different Jewish groups, one Socialist, and one Communist who were demonstrating, started fighting with each other. Arab Muslims and Christians started helping the police to break up the fights. What actually did happen: On the night before 1 May 1921, the Jewish Communist Party (precursor of the Palestine Communist Party) distributed Arabic and Yiddish fliers calling for the toppling of British rule and the establishing a "Soviet Union of Palestine". The party announced its intention to parade from Jaffa to neighbouring Tel Aviv to commemorate May Day. On the morning of the parade, despite a warning to the 60 members present from one of Jaffa's most senior police officers, Toufiq Bey al-Said, who visited the party's headquarters, the march headed from Jaffa to Tel Aviv through the mixed Jewish-Arab border neighbourhood of Menashia. Another large May Day parade had also been organised for Tel Aviv by the rival socialist Labour Unity group, with official authorisation. When the two processions met, a fistfight erupted, and the Palestine police chased the communists back to Jaffa. Please note the following: 1. At this point, i.e. fist fight finished and illegal protesters chased back to Jaffa, there has not been any riot, and nobody has been killed. 2. No Arab Muslims or Christians have been involved, unless of course they were members of the Palestine Police Force. CarolC's Version: Arabs in other areas misinterpreted what was going on and they jumped in thinking that Arabs were being attacked," What actually did happen: Hearing of the fighting and believing that Arabs were being attacked, the Arabs of Jaffa went on the offensive. Dozens of British, Arab, and Jewish witnesses all reported that Arab men bearing clubs, knives, swords, and some pistols broke into Jewish buildings and murdered their inhabitants, while women followed to loot. They attacked Jewish pedestrians and destroyed Jewish homes and stores. They beat and killed Jews in their homes, including children, and in some cases split open the victims' skulls. At 1:00 pm, an immigrant hostel run by the Zionist Commission and home to a hundred people who had arrived in recent weeks and days was attacked by the mob, and though the residents tried to barricade the gate, it was rammed open and Arabs attackers poured in. The stone-throwing was followed by bombs and gunfire, and the Jewish hostel residents hid in various rooms. When the police arrived, it was reported that they weren't shooting to disperse the crowd, but were actually aiming at the building. In the courtyard one immigrant was felled by a policeman's bullet at short-range, and others were stabbed and beaten with sticks. Five women fled a policeman firing his pistol; three escaped. A policeman cornered two women and tried to rape them, but they escaped. A fourteen-year old girl and some men managed to escape the building, but each was in turn chased down and beaten to death with iron rods or wooden boards. As in the previous year's Nabi Musa riots, the mob tore open their victims' quilts and pillows, just like in the Russian pogroms, sending up clouds of feathers. Some Arabs defended Jews and offered them refuge in their homes; many witnesses identified their attackers and murderers as their neighbours. Several witnesses said that Arab policemen had participated. Please Note the following: 1. Without any doubt whatsoever you now have a full blown "Riot". You now have blood on the streets, people dead and injured, property looted and destroyed. This only occured after the Arabs decided to wade in without any justification whatsoever. – Not Before. 2. Any explanation offered as to why there should be any misinterpretation? Could someone possibly of "local" significance have replied, "The Jews are fighting", to the question, "Eh what's up Doc?" Instead of replying more correctly that, "The Jews have been fighting amongst themselves". 3. Undoubtedly somebody caused people (Arabs) remote from events to believe that Jews were attacking Arabs and that CarolC is what caused the Riot, not Jews fighting each other earlier in the day. CarolC's Version: "the Haycroft Commission of Inquiry Report into the Jaffa riots stated that the argument made by some Jews that the cause of the riots was propaganda spread by Arab leaders was not what happened. The report outlined the causes as being discontent with the government in part due to its policy on the Jewish national home, partly to Arab misunderstandings about the policy, and partly because of the manner in which that policy was interpreted 'by some of its advocates outside the government'. It further reported that there was 'no evidence worth considering' that the Jaffa riots were planned" What the Haycraft Commission actually did say about the Jaffa Riots: "The investigative commission headed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in Palestine, Sir Thomas Haycraft submitted its report and confirmed the participation of Arab policemen in the riots and found the actions taken by the authorities adequate. The report angered both Jews and Arabs: it placed the blame on the Arabs, but said that "Zionists were not doing enough to mitigate the Arabs' apprehensions". Highlights from the report include: • "The racial strife was begun by the Arabs, and rapidly developed into a conflict of great violence between Arabs and Jews, in which the Arab majority, who were generally the aggressors, inflicted most of the casualties." • "A large part of the Moslem and Christian communities condoned it [the riots], although they did not encourage violence. While certain of the educated Arabs appear to have incited the mob, the notables on both sides, whatever their feelings may have been, aided the authorities to allay the trouble." • "The [Arab] police were, with few exceptions, half-trained and inefficient, in many cases indifferent, and in some cases leaders or participators in violence." • "The raids on five Jewish agricultural colonies arose from the excitement produced in the minds of the Arabs by reports of Arabs being killed by Jews in Jaffa. In two cases unfounded stories of provocation were believed and acted upon without any effort being made to verify them." In a speech in June 1921, High Commissioner Herbert Samuel stressed Britain's commitment to the second part of the Balfour Declaration of 1917, declared that Jewish immigration would be allowed only to the extent that it did not burden the economy. In line with this interpretation, Jewish immigration was suspended. This was also done to appease Musa Kazim al-Husseini, who had been dismissed as Jerusalem's mayor on account of his involvement in the previous year's Nebi Musa riots. Those who heard the speech had the impression that he was trying to appease the Arabs at the Jews' expense, and some Jewish leaders boycotted him for a time. The High Commissioner Sir Herbert Samuel was a great appeaser as was shown later in the 1930's. Britain's policy and obligation regarding its League of Nations Mandate to re-establish Jewish National Home in Palestine changed to "fixing by the numbers and interests of the present population" the future Jewish immigration. Thus a popular contemporary criticism was that Samuel had revised the Balfour Declaration and Mandate from establishing the Jewish National Home into creating an Arab National Home. New bloody riots broke out in Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem on November 2, 1921, when five Jewish residents and three of their Arab attackers were killed, which led to calls for the resignation of the city's commissioner, Ronald Storrs. The "Riots" in May 1921 were not just restricted to Jaffa, fighting went on for several days and spread to nearby Rehovot, Kfar Saba, Petah Tikva, and Hadera. Let's take a look at those four villages CarolC: Rehovot: Rehovot was built on the site of Doron, a Jewish community that existed in the time of the Mishna. The site was also the location of Khirbet Duran, populated during the Roman, Byzantine and early Arab periods. It was founded in 1890 by Polish Jews who wanted a township independent of the Baron Edmond de Rothschild's aid (and management). Israel Belkind, one of the original founders of the settlement, proposed the name Rehovot (lit. 'wide expanses') based on Genesis 26:22 : "And he called the name of it Rehoboth; and he said: 'For now the LORD hath made room for us, and we shall be fruitful in the land.'" The name was accepted. In 1906 they were joined by immigrants from Yemen. These early settlers worked hard to make Rehovot the prosperous town it is today. They planted vineyards, almond orchards and citrus groves. Rehovot has become one of Israel's main citrus centers, especially since nearby Ashdod opened its port in 1965. They withstood agricultural failures, plant diseases, and marketing problems. So land purchased perfectly legally by Jews in 1890. No-one was displaced as a result of this purchase, no other person, or group had any claim whatsoever to this land. So perhaps CarolC can tell us why these people were attacked? In 1890 they had every right to be there, in 1906 they still had every right to be there, ergo in 1921 they still had everyright to be there. Then all attacks against them were unwarranted acts of terrorism designed to do what CarolC? Also please tell us why you seem to approve of those acts? Kfar Saba: The land on which the city of Kfar Saba is now located was bought in 1892 by a group of Jewish Zionist settlers, who then offered it for sale to individuals. The acquisition turned out to be unsuccessful, as the land was located in a desolate, neglected area far from any other Jewish settlement. The land was finally purchased in 1896 by Baron Edmond James de Rothschild. In 1903, the Baron sold the land to the farmers of Petah Tikva to be populated by the 2nd generation - the immediate descendants of the farmers. However, they in turn sold the land to others, mostly new immigrants. The Ottoman government refused to give building permits, therefore the first settlers were forced to live in huts made of clay and straw. They earned their living by growing almonds, grapes and olives. Only in 1912 the settlers moved to permanent housing. Bought in 1892 eh CarolC, legal transaction, the land desolate and neglected – unwanted, except by some Jewish settlers who were prepared to pay for it and to work it. By 1921, the case had altered a tad hadn't it CarolC? No longer was the land desolate and neglected, it now produced useful crops of almonds, grapes and olives. Now CarolC could that possibly have anything to do with why the Palestinian Arabs wanted the Jews off that land in 1921? – Naw, couldn't possibly could it? – Not bloody much. Petah Tikva: Petah Tikva was founded in 1878 by religious pioneers from Jerusalem, who were led by Yehoshua Stampfer, Yoel-Moshe Salomon, Zerach Barnett and David Gutmann as well as Lithuanian Rabbi Aryeh Leib Frumkin. It was the first modern Jewish agricultural settlement in Ottoman Palestine and has since grown to become one of Israel's most populous urban centres. Originally intending to establish a new settlement in the Achor Valley, near Jericho, the pioneers purchased land in that area. However, the Turkish Sultan cancelled the purchase and forbade them from settling there, but they retained the name Petah Tikva as a symbol of their aspirations. Undaunted, the settlers purchased a modest area (3.40 square kilometers) from the village of Mulabbis (variants: Mlabbes, Um-Labbes), near the source of the Yarkon River. The Sultan allowed the enterprise to proceed, but because their purchase was located in what was a malarial swamp, they had to evacuate when the malaria spread, founding the town of Yehud near the Arabic village Yehudiyya about 20 kilometers to the south. With the financial help of Baron Edmond de Rothschild they were able to drain the swamps sufficiently to be able to move back in 1883, joined by immigrants of the First Aliyah, and later the Second Aliyah. Oh dear CarolC, here we have the first modern Jewish agricultural settlement in Ottoman Palestine, not ripped from the hands of struggling Arab peasants but purchased perfectly legally in 1878. They were sold a malarial swamp in 1878, by 1937 it was a city, so I dare say by 1921 there had been some improvements that caused the Arabs to cast envious eyes in its direction. Hadera: Hadera was founded in 1891, at the dawn of modern Zionism by Eastern European immigrants who were members of the Zionist group Hovevei Zion on land purchased by Yehoshua Hankin, who was known as the Redeemer of the Valley. The town derives its name from the Arabic word khadra, meaning "green" in reference to the wild weeds which covered the marshes on which the town is built. The first settlers of the town were decimated by nearby malaria-breeding swamps as the city's cemetery bears witness. Initially, Hadera was a lonely outpost of just 10 families and 4 guards but with time others followed and the city has now grown to over 75,000 inhabitants. Hadera, considered a relatively safe place by its citizens, was jolted by several acts of terrorism over the course of a few years, including a suicide bomber who blew himself up at a falafel stand on October 26, 2005, killing five civilians. However, since the construction of the nearby West Bank barrier, the frequency of such incidents has dropped dramatically. On August 4, 2006, three rockets fired by Hezbollah hit Hadera. Hadera is 50 miles (80 km) south of the Lebanese border and marked the farthest point inside Israel that the terrorist organization hit. Yet another malarial swamp purchased by Jewish settlers CarolC. No Arab ever gave the place a second look before 1891, maybe on account of the rather unhealthy swamp and all those green "wild weeds". Bit different of course by 1921. Apparently CarolC there are 42 schools and 15,622 students in the city. They are spread out as 24 elementary schools and 7,933 elementary school students, and 21 high schools and 7,689 high school students. In 1987 Israel's first Democratic school was started in Hadera, tell me CarolC how many "Democratic Schools" have Hamas and Hezbollah set up in their respective areas? For that matter how many "Democratic Schools" exist in the whole of Iran? Perhaps it was this school that Hezbollah was attempting to hit on 4th August 2006 eh CarolC? One thing is for certain you would never have uttered one bloody syllable in condemnation of the act if they had succeeded. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 15 Feb 08 - 03:49 AM By the Bye, CarolC. In telling any tale be it in debate/discussion or under interrogation you can always tell who it is that is telling the truth by the constancy of the story. The truth does not alter, your version of what occured at Tel Hai has changed about three times now and no doubt you will continue to shift ground to suit your rather ludicrous fabrications. "The Jewish settlers who were trying to establish a presence there were warned by various Jewish authorities to leave the area because the area was not legitimately theirs" - (CarolC) "trying to establish a presence"?? they'd been farming there for between 20 and 30 years you daft prat, I count that as being fairly well established wouldn't you? I know that most reasonable thinking human beings would. "the area was not legitimately theirs"?? they'd bought the bloody land from the Ottoman rulers and owners, how on earth could it possibly be construed as not being legitimately theirs?? "Teribus, as well as the European (and US) colonialist powers who decided to impose their will on the peoples of the Middle East, and also the Zionists who decided to dispossess the Palestinians of everything they ever had, and the government of Israel, are all supremacists, because they all believe they are entitled to impose their will on other peoples, regardless of whether or not the other peoples agree with this arrangement. Anyone who believes they have this right is a supremacist." - (CarolC) Well so far regarding the unjustified and unprovoked attacks by Arabs on Jews at Tel Hai; Jerusalem; Jaffa and surrounding area we see the following: 1. The "Might-is-right" side of the equation and the application of that theory lay entirely on the Arab side. 2. That the property attacked, burned and looted was the legitimate property of the Jews who were subjected to those attacks 3. That not one single "Palestinian" had been dispossessed of as much as an eye-lash. Hang-on CarolC, what were those "Zionist" supremacists supposed to be doing again? They obviously weren't very good at it in 1920/1921 were they? But they learnt their lessons well a bit further down the track, and in reading into the history of the area we know who they learned those lessons from, don't we CarolC. Survival rule No.1 if attacked you either run or fight, if you chose to fight make damn certain you win. Your enemy may rely on your mercy - you most certainly cannot rely on his. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 15 Feb 08 - 03:59 PM Interesting theories starting to go the rounds about the recently late but not lamented Hezbollah commander Imad Mughniyeh. Story goes that he was prodded out of retirement to assist the Iranians (His paymasters) in killing two birds with one stone. His tasks: 1. Attempt as best to diver the focus in the region away from Irans nuclear activities 2. Assist in the further destabilisation of Lebanon. Those tasks are what got him out of cover and allowed a dead and departed President of the United States of America to make good a prophecy he made back in 1983 when he paraphrased Jooe Louis 1946 quote in reference to those responsible for the attack: "You can run, but you cannot hide" - (Ronald Reagan after the Beirut Barracks Bombing). The Syrians have said that they will shortly announce who it was killed this master terrorist. It will be interesting to see who they name, personally I couldn't care less, the important thing is that he is gone. What with all the international aprobation over the Hariri assassination I wouldn't be surprised if Mughniyeh hadn't been either killed or "fingered" by the Syrians themselves. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 15 Feb 08 - 04:26 PM CarolC, You state: "because they all believe they are entitled to impose their will on other peoples, regardless of whether or not the other peoples agree with this arrangement. Anyone who believes they have this right is a supremacist. " So, in stating you wish to impose what YOU consider right upon the people in Israel, regardless of their agreement, YOU are being a supremacist. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 15 Feb 08 - 05:41 PM So, in stating you wish to impose what YOU consider right upon the people in Israel, regardless of their agreement, YOU are being a supremacist. You can justify any kind of atrocity at all using that kind of reasoning, beardedbruce. You are attempting to show that if I say that all people everywhere in the world are equal and that no one has a right to impose his or her will upon others, that makes me a supremacist. That's one of the most twisted arguments I've ever seen. I know you're capable of believing such a thing, but I think that says a lot more about you than it does about me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Barry Finn Date: 15 Feb 08 - 11:22 PM It seems that to the victor goes the spoils, so to the victor also goes the writting of history weither it be real or not. "Israel will continue to right as it might, but it's sword is still covered with the blood of those less fortunate". Carol why bother with these 2, they have no overview or forsight, they haven't even the gift of hindsight? "So Israel writes & so fools believe". Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 15 Feb 08 - 11:53 PM I don't really have time for it, Barry, but every now and then I feel that the true history of the region needs an opportunity to come to the surface where people can see it. I'm done for now, though. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 16 Feb 08 - 04:16 AM "It seems that to the victor goes the spoils, so to the victor also goes the writting of history weither it be real or not. "Israel will continue to right as it might, but it's sword is still covered with the blood of those less fortunate". Carol why bother with these 2, they have no overview or forsight, they haven't even the gift of hindsight?" - (Barry Finn) The words of a fool or someone in denial of fact. So Barry with regard to Palestine and the ensuing Arab-Israeli conflict who were the victors? I can see none, although one party seems to have made perpetual misery,designed poverty and violence their only growth industries. No group of refugees in the world has been given so much international aid and done so little with it. By the actions of their own leaders thay have been reduced to the level of the worlds best beggars, condemned to live in ignorance and poverty and that is exactly where their "leaders" want to keep them. Counter to what you state above many people have written about what has happened in the middle-east and in Palestine in particular. There have been Commissions, Inquiries, right left and centre. The likes of yourself and CarolC deny them all and continue to shove forward the party line that it is all the fault of the Israeli's. Well sorry to disappoint you both but "us 2" (I presume that you refer to myself and BB) will no doubt continue to pull anybody up if they base any arguement on facts that are incorrect. My contentions, all of which were decried as "lies" by CarolC, within this thread were: 1. That in 1948 Egyptian and Jordanian forces captured land that was formerly part of Palestine and occupied it for 19 years. 2. That conflict between the Arabs and the Jews in Palestine was initiated by unprovoked attacks by the Arab population on the Jews. Those attacks occured in 1920, 1921, 1929 and 1936 to 1939. The attacks were initiated by the deliberate telling of lies designed to inflame Arab opinion and create an atmosphere of terror within perfectly legal Jewish communities in Palestine. So with regard to those "lies" Barry Finn: - Are you trying to tell me that the land that became known as the Gaza Strip was always part of Egypt? - Are you trying to tell me that the land known as the "West Bank" had always been part of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan? - Are you trying to peddle the "myth" that the Jewish settlers at Tel Hai were trying to settle there after having been in legal possession of that land for over 20 years? Are you trying to say that they had no right to be there? If so ould son best get your bags packed because on that reasoning you'd best get your ass back over to the east side of the Atlantic. - Are you trying to tell us that a couple of dozen Jewish farmers attacked several hundred well armed Bedouin tribesmen? Oh no wait a minute I do believe that CarolC did rather grudgingly admit that it was indeed the Arabs who attacked the Jewish farmers, then trotted out a whole rake of ludicrous mitigating factors to justify their actions. - Right up until 1937 the only factions applying the "might-is-right" philosophy in Palestine were the Arabs and the British, mostly at the expense and detriment of the Jewish community. - Are you attempting to tell us that the Jews dispossessed Arabs in the pre-war period I have been discussing? (i.e. the period that marked the start of the conflict). All evidence is against that contention. - Are you attempting to tell us that the Palestinian Arabs did agree to a two state solution in 1937 and 1947, my contention, sorry lie, was that they rejected both. I think that you will find the record of their response supports my take on things. The pair of you have a convenient "cut-off" date when looking at what happened in Palestine. I would advise you to look at the whole picture, not just the bit that happens to suit your purpose. Both Bearded Bruce and myself have. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 19 Feb 08 - 10:33 AM Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah has warned that the militant group is ready for "open war" with Israel. He has also insisted that in addition to "open war": "The blood of Imad Mughniyeh will make them [Israel] withdraw from existence." Now Iran's Revolutionary Guards leader, Maj-Gen Mohammad Jafari, has weighed in predicting the imminent destruction of Israel by fighters from the Lebanese movement Hezbollah: "We will soon witness the destruction of the cancerous scum of Israel at the strong, capable hands of Hezbollah". I just can't wait to hear what miracle of misinterpretation, or error in translation our apologists come up with to cover those remarks. "(by the way if anybody cares - threatening another country is illegal under the UN)." - GUEST,petr - 09 Feb 08 - 05:24 PM Really??? I await with baited breath to hear you roundly comdemn both Hezbollah and the Iranians for issuing such threats - But guess what we ain't going to see that are we? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Barry Finn Date: 19 Feb 08 - 10:47 AM Teribus, Israel has had it's way with the Palestinian people since the beinning & as the mightyer of the two they have run rough-shod over them without mercy. I'd say that they've been in the victors position for some time. They've also had the backing & support on the USA. The only wish that they haven't been able to accomplish is that the Palestinian people pack up & go or lay down & die. They've written their own ticket as well as their history. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Feb 08 - 12:57 PM "That's one of the most twisted arguments I've ever seen. I know you're capable of believing such a thing, but I think that says a lot more about you than it does about me. " YOU are the one who is proposing this arguement, NOT ME. You seem quite happy to have the Palestinians impose their will on others. That says a lot more about YOU than it does about me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 19 Feb 08 - 01:25 PM YOU are the one who is proposing this arguement, NOT ME. You seem quite happy to have the Palestinians impose their will on others. If by merely being allowed to remain where they and there ancestors have lived for more than a thousand years, free from colonialist rule, is imposting their will on others, then I guess you're right. But that's still one of the most twisted arguments I've ever seen, and it still says a lot more about you than it does on me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 19 Feb 08 - 02:08 PM BTW, using your line of reasoning, beardedbruce, I should be able to come to your house and, at the point of a gun, force you to let me live in the entire house except for one of the closets (where I allow you to live, only allowing you to use the bathroom and kitchen once a day, and not allowing you to leave the house or bring anyone into it without my permission... and I shoot your dog), and if you do anything to try to prevent me from doing this, I can say that you are attempting to impose your will on me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 19 Feb 08 - 03:32 PM "Israel has had it's way with the Palestinian people since the beinning" - (Outright lie) - Barry Finn author. Is there anybody out there who believes that? I most certainly do not, but it is worth investigating. 1. When exactly do you think the beginning was Barry? 2. You mention Israel Barry so that lends one to believe that you think that the beginning was around 14th May 1948. Is that correct? Is 14th May 1948 the begnning? If you think so then you would be wrong wouldn't you, it goes way back before then. "as the mightyer(sic) of the two they have run rough-shod over them (The Palestinian people) without mercy" - (Outright lie) - Barry Finn author. Is there anybody out there who believes that? I most certainly do not, but it is worth investigating. 1. So Israel was always the "mightier" of the two was it Barry? Can you explain how? I mean that if you can state with such certainty that the Israelis were always the mightier, then you must have some means of comparison, so you have to know what the arab forces had and what the Israeli forces had. 2. Now when it comes to whom was running rough-shod over whom. Well historically that is rather well recorded. From 1920 to 1936 it was most certainly the Arabs who were knocking seven bells out of the Jews as and whenever the mood took them or do you wish to counter anything said so far. From 1936 to 1939 the score was Arabs 320; Jews 250. Unfortunately for the Arabs the Jews targeted their victims so that when violence then kicked off again on 30th November 1947 the Jews were far better organised, poorer in terms of arms initially, but far better organised. This then continued to be the trend in 1947 - 1949; in 1956; in 1967 & in 1973. 3. The "without mercy" bit is a bit odd. How many rockets have been fired into Israel this year so far from Gaza Barry? How many were fired into Israel from Gaza in 2007 Barry? None of these are targeted, all are fired directly and deliberately at civilian targets. Response is normally strictly focused and targeted at militants and extremely restrained considering the provocation. You doubt that Barry? Then you tell me how many rockets you are going to let somebody fire into your neighbourhood before you react. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Feb 08 - 05:30 PM CarolC, You continue to ignore the larger number of Jews driven out of Arab nations , and the Jews and Christians driven out of the West Bank when it was in Arab hands ( 1948 - 1967). Do you intend to say that Jews are not human enough to have the rights to their lands that they have lived in for many generations ( throughout the Arab world) that you insist the Palestinians have? The lands in Mandate Palestine that were the site of Jewish settlements were bought from the OWNERS in the Ottoman Empire (Turkey). Are you claiming that the people who live somewhere have the right to ignore the legal owners? Why is it that the Arab population of Mandate Palestine is supposed to ( according to you ) get BOTH a "homeland" proportional in area to their population,( with NO JEWS allowed top settle) AND the greater area of the "Jewish Homeland", and STILL be able to send rockets into civilian areas with no protest from you? I'll tell you what- Let me act like the Arab population has been acting: I will take 75% of the total of the territory that we are supposed to share, and prohibit you from settling there. Then I will demand 75% of the remainder because I don't already have it. Then I will demand 100 % of what is left, and threaten to kill you if you do not give it to me. THEN I will randomly send rockets into your homes. What, you don't like this idea? THEN WHY SHOULD THE ISRAELIS???? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Feb 08 - 05:35 PM CarolC, http://www.unitedjerusalem.com/Graphics/Maps/PartitionforTransJordan.asp Are you prepared to support opening Jordan for settlement by the Jews who were driven out of Arab nations, and their decendents? If not, WHY should the Arabs who left to clear the way for the Arab armies to attack Israel be entitled to any part of Israel? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 19 Feb 08 - 06:28 PM beardedbruce, I haven't ignored anything. Like I said before, if you can't be bothered to read my responses to you, why should I make those same responses again? However, the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians started before the Jews were expelled from the other countries. I think those Jews (and their descendents) should be allowed to return to their countries of origin if they want to, but I suspect that won't happen until the Palestinians are allowed to return to the places from which they were ethnically cleansed. I expect it to happen if the Palestinians are allowed to return to their home areas. So if you really care at all whether or not those Jews would be allowed to return to their countries of origin - and I think you don't care at all and would prefer it if they stayed where they are... I think you're just using it as a pretext to support taking land from "Arabs" - but if you really cared, you would support allowing the Palestinians to return to their home areas. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 19 Feb 08 - 06:31 PM Are you prepared to support opening Jordan for settlement by the Jews who were driven out of Arab nations, and their decendents? If not, WHY should the Arabs who left to clear the way for the Arab armies to attack Israel be entitled to any part of Israel? This is a lie, beardbruce. Those people fled for their lives. This is perfectly well documented. It's a lie that arises from racism and hatred. This lie is no different in its evilness than lies like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 19 Feb 08 - 07:07 PM CarolC's model - "I should be able to come to your house and, at the point of a gun, force you to let me live in the entire house except for one of the closets" Not quite representative is it CarolC. Now let's see in this totally inaccurate representation CarolC is playing the part of the big bad Zionist Jews, who come into I suppose BeardedBruce's (or the "Palestinians" - Arab, Christian and Jew) house and take it over. But of course it was never BB's house in the first place was it CarolC? BB was like a sort of tennent, the person who owned the house lock stock and barrel was guy called Otto Man, in fact he'd owned it for ages (centuries in fact). Now Otto was the one who decided who could moved in and whether or not the could own any part of the place. He most certainly was not stupid enough to let the likes of CarolC into the house with guns. From the 1870's he'd been allowing the likes of CarolC in from outside and selling them all sorts of useless land, which they used to work their arses off to make into things like citrus orchards, or almond and olive groves. Otto Man liked all that because it improved his property and made him loads of money. Unfortunately Otto had a gambling problem and he lost the house and the new owners assigned somebody to look after it. Of course some of the sitting tennents tried to play the situation for their own advantage and the new owners decided the best way to proceed would be to split the property as much as they could along factional lines. So the house became semi-detatched sort of one house being 75% of the total called "Transjordan" and the other smaller 25% section being called "Palestine" which had been the original name of the whole property. CarolC still invited people to come and stay, which was OK with the new owners, in fact it had been one of the conditions of transfer of the property from the previous owner. When the Casino (Known as the League of Nations) had agreed to accept Palestine in payment for Otto Man's gambling debt, they insisted that CarolC be allowed to invite in her friends to stay as long as they didn't upset the other residents namely BB most of whose friends now lived in the "Transjordan" part of the house (BB could live in that part of the house but CarolC could not - them was the rules). BB feels a bit insecure so attempts to get CarolC's arrangement regarding bringing people in cancelled. To do this BB tells all his faction living in the house that CarolC and her lot have been attacking them. If this is believed and there is trouble then just to create peace in the house CarolC will get the heave. BB fires everybody on his side up, of course they believe him but fail to do a head count otherwise they would have realised that none of them have been killed. They just take his word for it and wade in killing CarolC's pals, try their best to drive them out, robbing them and destroying their bits and pieces. This sort of continues for about twenty years until the new landlords decide that enough is enough we'll sub-divide "Palestine" into a bit for CarolC and a bit for BB. CarolC is prepared to accept this solution (not surprising as she's been on the receiving end for damn near twenty years). Not good enough says BB we wnat more and we don't want CarolC bringing in any more friends. Damn all to do with you what she does with her bit once the property's divided says the Landlord. Well as they can't agree there's a ruck and BB's old mates in the other part of the house (Transjordan) see an opportunity to take over BB's bit of "Palestine". However in the ensuing game of poker CarolC sees off the bluff and wins but is more or less prepared to settle for the original split. BB is still not happy........ Now that is a bit more representative of what happened CarolC, nothing about people coming into a strangers house threatening them at point of gun. Nothing about pushing people into closets. If you chose to gamble on fighting a war then be prepared to take the consequences when you lose - Exactly as the "Palestinians" did in 1947, 1956, 1967 and 1973. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 19 Feb 08 - 07:16 PM More lies, Teribus. Every one of them. But you need to lie, since what you are trying to defend is indefensible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Feb 08 - 08:23 PM CarolC, You claim that some statements are lies- Please state how you have determined this. Reference sites, and what YOU consider to be the facts so that others can refute THEM would be nice. Or should I claim that "Everything CarolC says is a lie, since I don't like what the statements imply about MY viewpoint?" So, Jews can go back to the Arab nations that they were driven out of. Will they get their property ( taken by the Arab governments) back? You are prepared to protect them, I suppose... How about the Hindu's who lived in Pakistan? And the Moslims in India who fled? And who counts up all the dead bodies on BOTH sides and decides what is fair? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 19 Feb 08 - 08:44 PM How many times to I have to do this, beardedbruce? I've already done it dozens of times, possibly hundreds. I keep posting them and you keep pretending I've never posted them. What's the point? Read what I've posted for once. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Feb 08 - 08:49 PM CarolC, Yes, they feared for their lives- but as much from what the Arabs threatened to do to them if they cooperated with Israel. Look at the facts- ISRAEL now HAS an significant Arab population: Do the Arab countries that drove out their ( long time) Jewish inhabitants? Please look at the PERCENTAGE of Arabs who fled Israel vs, the percentage of Jews driven out of the various Arab nations- "Those people fled for their lives. This is perfectly well documented. It's a lie that arises from racism and hatred. This lie is no different in its evilness than lies like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion." applies to the Jews driven out AND RESETTLED in Israel: WHY didn't the Arab nations resettle the Palestinians? THEY had the West bank from 1948 to 1967- YET DID NOT ALLOW THE PALESTINIANS to settle there. The PEACE treaty between Jordan and Israel set the border as the Jordan River- WITH THE WEST BANK under Israeli control. Show me the border that the PEACE treaty with the Palestinians declares. Oh- THERE IS NO PEACE TREATY. Maybe if the Palestinians spent less time launching rockets into Israel ( NOT disputed territory- ISRAEL as define by the Green line) they might actually have a voice in their own fate. AS LONG as they act in a manner indicating active warfare, there is not likely to be any peaceful solution. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 19 Feb 08 - 08:59 PM beardedbruce, you should consider what happened to the Jews who were expelled from the Arab countries to be a direct result of the ethnic cleansing that was being done on the Palestinians (which, by the way, began several months BEFORE Israel's war of independence). By the time Israel declared its independence, several hundred thousand Palestinians had already been ethnically cleansed. They fled their homes because the Jewish paramilitaries were committing massacres and other atrocities on Palestinian villages, and they didn't want to be next. And all of that happened months before the war that you say was being waged against Israel (in reality, that war was Arabs defending the area that had been alloted to the Palestinians in the partition plan. Almost all of the fighting took place in areas where Israelis were attempting to take land that had not been given to them in the partition plan). They did not flee out of fear for what other Arabs might do to them. That's another vicious, racist lie. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,TIA Date: 19 Feb 08 - 10:31 PM CarolC - I admire what you are attempting. I really do. But against Mr. Slippery and Mr. Shouting, one can make no progress. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 19 Feb 08 - 11:29 PM I know, TIA. But what they don't understand is that the more people get an opportunity to read and hear about the other side of the story, the more people decide that they cannot in good conscience support what is being done, and what has been done to the Palestinians. Teribus and beardedbruce don't understand that by being so stubborn, they are actually helping the cause of human rights by providing people with so many opportunities to present this information. Since I started commenting on these things about six years ago, the numbers of people who are speaking out against and who do not support what the government of Israel is doing to the Palestinians has grown dramatically and steadily. This is because the truth is more powerful, ultimately, than lies, if people get a chance to read/hear/see it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 20 Feb 08 - 02:17 AM "you should consider what happened to the Jews who were expelled from the Arab countries to be a direct result of the ethnic cleansing that was being done on the Palestinians (which, by the way, began several months BEFORE Israel's war of independence)." - CarolC Ah, that would explain the dates then CarolC, because you think that this all started in the months "BEFORE" Israel's war of independence. The time-line was as follows and includes the bit that you and your fellow travellers conveniently forget: 1920 - Arab attacks on Jews 1921 - Arab attacks on Jews 1923 - Mandate split into Transjordan and Palestine 1929 - Arab attacks on Jews 1936 - Arab attacks on British and Jews (Arab Revolt) 1937 - Peel Commission & start of Jewish retaliation 1939 - Arab Revolt ends. Jewish self-defence organisations are now experienced and in place. 1944 - Irgun attacks on British begin because of the terms of the "MacDonald White Paper". 1947 - Mandate draws to a close UN propose partition, 29th November 1947. Jews acccept the solution the Arabs reject it. Arab attacks on Jews begin 30th November 1947. This was the Civil War Period completely forgotten about by CarolC it lasted from 30th November 1947 until 15th May 1948 when the Mandate expired. If CarolC, or anybody else, attempts to convey the idea that this period consisted solely of attacks on Arabs by Jews then they deluding themselves and ignoring documented historical fact by the following organisations - UN, British Administration, numerous Jewish and Arab Historians. 15th May 1948 - 20 July 1949 - Israeli War of Independence, in which the Jewish settlers of Palestine fight the Palestinian Arabs assisted by the forces of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon. 1949 - 1956 - Arab attacks on Israel supported and mounted from Egypt, Jordan and Syria. 1956 - Suez Crisis and Sinai War 1956 - 1967 - Sporadic attacks on Israel but threats of extinction continue. 1967 - Six Day War. The pan-Arabic nations camp five Armies on Israels borders and threaten annihilation. Israel launches precision pre-emptive attacks and take out her enemies air forces. Israel then uses her air superiority to defeat her enemies ground forces in detail 1973 - Yom Kippur War. Arabs launch surprise attack on Israel on two fronts from Syria and from Egypt. Israel after suffering initial reverses fights back and regains the situation forcing yet another UN Cease-Fire. "Land for Peace" deal with Egypt still holds to this day "Land for Peace" deal with Jordan still holds to this day |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Barry Finn Date: 20 Feb 08 - 02:21 AM But Carol these are the same few that still support the Bush Corp. & believe in it's war bid, it's good economic policy, his views on our health care conditions, our energy policies, his views on climate change, pollution & they continue to back his every play no matter the logic. They know not,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,they are best left to the dust. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 20 Feb 08 - 02:30 AM You're probably right, Barry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 20 Feb 08 - 06:56 AM Oh Dear Barry, CarolC, what's the matter too many inconvenient facts getting in the way? Toddle along, you've left far, far too many unanswered questions and inconsistencies lying around for you to stay on this thread with sort of credibility. As you said though CarolC it does give the actual facts of the matter a good airing and just makes the ill informed emotional hogwash that you normally come out with that much easier to knock down next time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Folkiedave Date: 20 Feb 08 - 09:19 AM You have to be careful with Teribus. Let me take an example from another thread. Talking about Gordon Ramsey going over to supervise the cooking for troops in Afghanistan he writes: "They were the guys of 42 Commando that Gordon Ramsey personally cooked Christmas dinner for in Camp Bastion Afghanistan" Now anyone who can write that can believe anything. Fortunately there is a "You Tube" video to show he didn't. But don't worry Teribus will argue in some way that the rest of the staff were not really there and Gordon Ramsey did it single-handedly - which is what he wrote. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 20 Feb 08 - 10:46 AM Dave, Can you think up any reason why my son should lie to me about it? Can you think up any reason why Gordon Ramsay and the guys of 42 would stage video and stills coverage of the event? Now who to believe? my son who I know to be truthful, or some lying left wing socialist git who claims to have seen something that he thinks is semi-relevant on "You Tube". No competition really. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Folkiedave Date: 20 Feb 08 - 03:17 PM Of course you believe everything your son tells you Teribus. Why should he lie to you? I am sure you taught him to tell the truth on all occasions. Perhaps you could ask your son if his dinner was still hot by the time Gordon got around to him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Feb 08 - 03:59 PM CarolC, As usual, you ignore what I have said to make your accusations of lies, and of what YOU think my intent is. I Repeat: WHY didn't the Arab nations resettle the Palestinians? THEY had the West bank from 1948 to 1967- YET DID NOT ALLOW THE PALESTINIANS to settle there. The PEACE treaty between Jordan and Israel set the border as the Jordan River- WITH THE WEST BANK under Israeli control. IMO, YOU are the one who wants to be sure that the Palestinians are never allowed to settle , nor live in peace. By your implicit support of the continued warfare upon Israel, you are preventing any real chance of peace in the region. Just my opinion- *** I *** won't insist that everything you say are lies, as you seem to think is an effective method of discussion. I will listen to what you say, and judge it's veracity on what the FACTS are, from any sources I can find them. I have asked for your sources, and you say you gave them- WELL, I gave my sources too, and you have not refuted them other than by blanket condemnation as lies, without any backing. When you do present information I am not aware of, I look into whether it is true- YOU just call it lies if it disagrees with what you want to believe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 20 Feb 08 - 05:41 PM Just got off the phone with him Folkiedave, he said it was just great and very much appreciated, anything else? Now correct me if I am wrong Folkiedave but looking at your You Tube clip did you see GR cooking or supervising the cooking? Don't know about you but I saw him doing the cooking. By the bye I did not say that he cooked everything himself, what I did say was that he actually cooked Christmas dinner he did not just stand back and supervise it. Oh the photos you see him standing for - I've got one of those with GR and my son - and GR did pay for the bash himself. Now then Folkiedave what did you do to make our lads feel appreciated that Christmas, or any other? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 20 Feb 08 - 05:54 PM ". . . lying left wing socialist git. . . ." Fascinating!! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 20 Feb 08 - 06:42 PM What Teribus does is he makes stuff up and posts it over and over and over, and it doesn't really matter how many times you debunk his lies and fabrications, he'll just keep repeating them, and then, when someone he's doing this to stops participating, he declares himself the victor. He doesn't realize that he's actually working counter to his own agenda in doing this, because most other people can see this tactic for what it is, and they can see for themselves that he's not credible. WHY didn't the Arab nations resettle the Palestinians? I've already answered this one, beardedbruce, more than once. They have no responsibility to resettle the Palestinians because those Palestinians belong in their own areas, and not in those other Arab countries. Israel has the responsibility to resettle the uprooted Palestinians. No one else has this responsibility. The United Nations and international law actually require Israel to allow the Palestinians to return to their areas or orign. One of the problems with absorbing the Palestinians into the other countries is that, despite the racist concept that the government of Israel has of "Arabs" (ie: that all "Arabs" are the same and interchangeable), there are many ethnic groups within the larger group that we call "Arabs", and to force other countries to absorb large numbers of an ethnic group that doesn't come from there causes those countries to become unstable. Other problems are the fact that many countries in the Middle East are resource poor... particularly in terms of water. And Israel is doing everything it can to try to take water away from the neighboring countries. So the problem is compounded. But the bottom line is that Israel is the only country that has the responsibility under international law to allow the Palestinians to return to their home areas. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 20 Feb 08 - 06:50 PM By your implicit support of the continued warfare upon Israel, you are preventing any real chance of peace in the region. I don't support any kind of warfare, against Israel or any other country, implicit or otherwise. I do, however, support stopping all welfare payments to Israel, and using the UN to sanction Israel in terms that it cannot continue to ignore. But that's a very different thing that warfare. You, on the other hand, explicitly support continued warfare by Israel against its neighbors, and the continued ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. And that is what is going to continue to get people killed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Folkiedave Date: 20 Feb 08 - 07:13 PM Let me try that past you again Teribus - though I realise you have difficulty with the English language. You said: "They were the guys of 42 Commando that Gordon Ramsey personally cooked Christmas dinner for in Camp Bastion Afghanistan" Yep he did some of the cooking. You said he did it all. That's what your words mean. If I personally stuff a turkey it means I do it myself; if I personally cook a roast potato it means I did it myself; if I personally boil a brussel sprout it means I have little taste as far as vegetables are concerned, only that I blindly follow tradition. Of course just like Alice in Wonderland you can claim words mean what you say they mean. But that's nothing new for you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 21 Feb 08 - 04:32 AM Dave, the story was true. Clearly he did cook for them, obviously he did not do it all alone. You are being pathetic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 21 Feb 08 - 04:40 AM Sorry Don, in the light of Dave's last post it should have been - "pedantic, lying, left-wing, socialist, git" "What Teribus does is he makes stuff up and posts it over and over and over, and it doesn't really matter how many times you debunk his lies and fabrications" – so asserts CarolC You mean sort of like what you do regarding "Conspiracy Theories" and the WTC7 CarolC? But just to take stock let's look at some of this "Stuff" that CarolC says I have made up: 1. That way, way back in the mists of time, on 1st March 1920, during the very early days of the Mandate a bunch of Bedouin tribesmen launched an unprovoked attack on the villagers at Tel Hai. Those Jewish settlers were living perfectly peacefully, they had not dispossessed anybody of anything, and had a perfect legal right to be there having bought the land that they lived on and farmed for some 20 to 30 years. Question: Did I make that up? CarolC appears to say so, so according to her logic she must be right - Unfortunately history and recorded fact happen to confirm my version of events. Any doubt about that look it up I have given names, place and date, simple enough to find out and judge for yourselves. 2. In April of the same year (4th to 7th April) in Jerusalem inflamed by lies deliberately told about Jewish attacks on Arabs. A Palestinian Arab mob, chanting "Palestine is our land, the Jews are our dogs!" and ""Muhammad's religion was born with the sword", rampaged through the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem attacking and killing Jews and looting and destroying their property. These were known as the Nabi, or Nebi, Musa Riots, the ensuing attacks were totally unprovoked, and any feelings of anxiety or betrayal felt on the part of the Arabs of Palestine were down to the actions of the British Military Authorities and British Government. But British soldiers tend to shoot back when attacked and they do not possess much in the way of loot, so the Palestinian Arabs attacked the Jews, who they knew damn well did not have the means to fight back and did have possessions worth looting. Question: Did I make that up? Not according to documented eye-witness accounts and historical fact I didn't. 3. Between the 1st and 7th May 1921 there were the Jaffa Riots and the ensuing attacks on the villages of Rehovot, Kfar Saba, Petah Tikva, and Hadera. Well documented examples of Arabs mounting unprovoked attacks against Jews living peacefully in the community. Who had every right to be there having legally bought, settled and worked their land for decades. Question: Did I make that up? Don't think so, in fact I know that I didn't make it up. 4. On 1st November 1921 again unprovoked attack on Jews in Jerusalem by Palestinian Arabs, again well documented – Not invented or made up at all, in fact it resulted in calls for the removal and replacement of the British Commissioner in Jerusalem Ronald Storrs. 5. Arab Riots of 1929 – Made up – Naw don't think so 6. The 1936 to 1939 Arab Revolt and the Peel Commission – All invented by me says CarolC – don't know how honest anybody is going to be with themselves, but look it up and find out whether I did make it all up. Note: My sources tend to be encyclopedias, official histories, biographies, eye-witness accounts. CarolC's sources tend to be bloggs and highly partisan bloggs at that, in this thread she got her information the a site called "the web fairy", even down to the completely inaccurate and erroneous bit about the Israelis being responsible for the first hijacking. The Palestine Mandate was set up in order to recreate a Historic National Homeland for the Jews within the geographical area known as Palestine. Note it was a "Homeland" it was not, nor was it ever, intended to be an independent Jewish State - So much for intentions, and the road to Hell is paved with many very good ones. The Mandate to see this through was given to Great Britain by the League of Nations. Britain split the Mandate in 1923 in a deal with the local Arab tribes, this established an area from which Jewish settlers were excluded that consisted of 75% of the Mandated Territory. This area became known initially as Transjordan which became the present day Kingdom of Jordan. The remaining 25% of the Mandate retained the overall area's name of Palestine in which it was Britain's obligation under the terms of the Mandate to establish this Jewish Homeland. Between the years 1920 and 1937 it became obvious to all parties that the Palestinian Arabs would not accept Jewish settlement and that they regarded the area now known as Palestine "theirs". There could therefore be no Jewish Homeland created in a "shared" territory so a two state solution was proposed first by the British (Peel Commission 1937) then by the UN in 1947. The Israeli War of Independence of 1948 to 1949 saw certain sections of what was previously the land known as Palestine invaded and occupied by "foreign" Arab Forces. The Egyptians occupied Gaza and the Jordanians occupied the area now commonly known as the "West Bank". Those areas roughly equated to slightly less than the sections of the country that were supposed to be the Palestinian Arab State of Palestine under the UN 1947 Plan that the Arabs had rejected. Now this is the bit that I cannot for the life of me understand. The Egyptians, Jordanians, Syrians, Iraqis and Lebanese all fought alongside the Palestinian Arabs against the Israelis during the Israeli War of Independence. The Egyptians and the Jordanians captured the land that should have been the Palestinians under the UN 1947 Plan, which more or less did establish the boundaries for the 1949 Armistice which ended the War. The Egyptians and Jordanians were to hold those occupied lands from 1949 to 1967. During that time they packed the Palestinian Arabs into refugee camps and did not allow them to settle or establish themselves. Can you tell us why CarolC? It most certainly was not Egyptian or Jordanian land they were on it was Palestinian Land, so why didn't the Egyptians and Jordanians just give the Palestinian Arabs that land and help them – Can you tell us why the Palestinian Arabs were bundled into those camps, established on Palestinian soil, and condemned to live in poverty by their erstwhile allies and friends. This by the bye is the land that they are talking about now as the separate Palestinian State – inference being here CarolC that all this could have been done and dusted in 1947 if the Arabs had accepted the original UN proposal. One simple fact that has to be recognised in order for there ever to be any solution. That all the peoples of the region have to acknowledge and recognise Israel's right to exist as a free and sovereign nation and that her people have the right to live their lives in peace, free from all threats and acts of violence. As far as that goes CarolC, here's some more stuff that I didn't make up: "The blood of Imad Mughniyeh will make them [Israel] withdraw from existence." - Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah "We will soon witness the destruction of the cancerous scum of Israel at the strong, capable hands of Hezbollah". - Iran's Revolutionary Guards leader, Maj-Gen Mohammad Jafari. OK Folks whose attitude has got to change before any real meaningful dialogue can take place? I don't know about you but to me it is as plain as a pike-staff. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Folkiedave Date: 21 Feb 08 - 06:04 AM Dave, the story was true. Clearly he did cook for them, obviously he did not do it all alone. You are being pathetic. Teribus believes in holding people to account for what they write and I am simply doing the same. He did not write "Gordon Ramsey cooked for them" he wrote "..........he personally cooked...............". And I wasn't being pathetic, I was being pedantic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 21 Feb 08 - 07:52 PM "You, on the other hand, explicitly support continued warfare by Israel against its neighbors, and the continued ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. And that is what is going to continue to get people killed. " No. I support the right of Israel to defend itself against attacks, such as the daily rockets from Gaza. I do not support ethnic clensing any more than you do, in your silence on the removal of Jews from the West Bank ( when under Arab control) and from Arab nations. When YOU demand that those Jews get their property back, I will demand that the Palestinians who left Israel get their property back- AS LONG AS THEY BECOME ISRAELI CITIZENS, as was offered to them ( and refused by them) in 1948. My questions was why did the ARAB nations not settle the palestinians when the ARAB nations controlled the West Bank and Gaza? If it was NOT Palestine, then why are the Palestinians asking for it now? If it was, then Jordan and Egypt should have let the Palestinians settle there, instead of keeping tem in camps and breeding dispair and misery. Notice that under the PEACE treaty between Jordan and Israel, the eastern border is basically the Jordan river, the EASTERN edge of the West Bank. Jordan thus acknowledged that it had no claim to the West Bank. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 25 Feb 08 - 12:00 AM Teribus, every time I Google the stuff you put in here on this subject, I almost always end up at the same small bunch of supremacist hate-mongering sites, and frequently, those are the only sites that come up. Unlike you, I put many hours of time and effort into the posts I make on this subject. And also, apparently unlike you, I have a lot of work to do. So you will have the last word in this thread. But it will still be a lie. beardedbruce, I haven't demanded that the Palestinians be given their property back. I have only said that they should be allowed to live in the areas from which they originated. I know for a fact that Jews are already allowed to live in the areas in the West Bank where there were once Jews living, and many Jews currently do live there, although they are not necessarily the same people, but at least the Jews who left there can return if they want to. But Palestinians are only allowed to live in a very small percentage of the West Bank at this time, and not only are none of the Palestinians who originally fled from what is now Israel allowed to go back there to live, even the ones who fled from their homes and stayed in Israel are not allowed to even buy back the land that was taken from them. So it is you who are being inconsistent and not me. The Arab countries had every reason to expect that Israel would allow the Palestinians who were living in refugee camps to return home, since it was a violation of international law, the Geneva Convention, and UN Resolutions for Israel to prevent them from doing so. So the 'Arab' countries to which you refer, did not have any reason to settle those Palestinians. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 25 Feb 08 - 01:28 AM "So you will have the last word in this thread. But it will still be a lie." - CarolC adherent of "thewebfairy" school of truth (Israeli's performed the first aircraft hijacking) So the following never happened 1920 - Arab attacks on Jews 1921 - Arab attacks on Jews 1923 - Mandate split into Transjordan and Palestine 1929 - Arab attacks on Jews 1936 - Arab attacks on British and Jews (Arab Revolt) 1937 - Peel Commission & start of Jewish retaliation 1939 - Arab Revolt ends. Jewish self-defence organisations are now experienced and in place. 1944 - Irgun attacks on British begin because of the terms of the "MacDonald White Paper". 1947 - Mandate draws to a close UN propose partition, 29th November 1947 - 1948. Palestine Civil War. Jews acccept the UN partition solution the Arabs reject it. Arab attacks on Jews begin 30th November 1947. This was the Civil War Period it lasted from 30th November 1947 until 15th May 1948 when the Mandate expired. 15th May 1948 - 20 July 1949 - Israeli War of Independence, in which the Jewish settlers of Palestine fight the Palestinian Arabs assisted by the forces of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon. 1949 - 1956 - Arab attacks on Israel supported and mounted from Egypt, Jordan and Syria. 1956 - Suez Crisis and Sinai War 1956 - 1967 - Sporadic attacks on Israel but threats of extinction continue. 1967 - Six Day War. The pan-Arabic nations camp five Armies on Israels borders and threaten annihilation. Israel launches precision pre-emptive attacks and take out her enemies air forces. Israel then uses her air superiority to defeat her enemies ground forces in detail 1973 - Yom Kippur War. Arabs launch surprise attack on Israel on two fronts from Syria and from Egypt. Israel after suffering initial reverses fights back and regains the situation forcing yet another UN Cease-Fire. Incidently you have yet to refute anything I have stated regarding the events listed above, or show any of the above to have been lies. The fact that they happen to rather inconvenience your arguement and portrayal of the Palestinian Arabs as being the poor hard done by creatures you paint them to be I take it as being purely incidental. Irrespective of the time and effort you say that you put in to answers it seems to be more of an attempt to evade answering direct questions - Why did the Egyptians and the Jordanians invade and occupy land that belonged to Palestine, occupy it from 1948 to 1967 and force the Arab Palestinians into refugee camps? It was after all their land, it did not belong to either Egypt or Jordan. Had they done so, as far back as 1948 the whole of the West Bank and the whole of Gaza would have been settled by Palestinian Arabs. Please correct me if I am wrong but isn't that what would now constitute the Palestinian State that all these initiatives and "road maps" are supposed to be leading to? Even if the Palestinian Arabs and the Israelis reach some sort of agreement, the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah will continue to murder Israeli citizens, exactly as their forefathers did in 1920 and 1921. If you doubt that take a look at their latest threats regarding "open war". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 25 Feb 08 - 02:26 AM CarolC adherent of "thewebfairy" school of truth (Israeli's performed the first aircraft hijacking) This coming from Teribus, adherent of "thewebfairy" school of truth who wrote this lie (the only reason I even got involved in this thread in the first place)... The area now called "The West Bank" - originally part of Palestine restricted to Jewish Settlement ...and having been caught with his knee-britches down (again) with this lie, he then floods the thread with hundreds more lies, so that nobody who actually has a life could possibly devote the time and effort needed to effectively debunk them. Nevertheless, they have been effectively debunked by many historians (most of them Israeli historians). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 25 Feb 08 - 02:41 AM This tactic of Teribus' is a very effective one, by the way, if what one has in mind is to spread racist, hate-mongering lies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 25 Feb 08 - 08:07 AM CarolC, You state :" I know for a fact that Jews are already allowed to live in the areas in the West Bank where there were once Jews living, and many Jews currently do live there, although they are not necessarily the same people, but at least the Jews who left there can return if they want to. But Palestinians are only allowed to live in a very small percentage of the West Bank at this time, and not only are none of the Palestinians who originally fled from what is now Israel allowed to go back there to live, even the ones who fled from their homes and stayed in Israel are not allowed to even buy back the land that was taken from them." Can you provide any evidence, beyound your "knowledge"? Have you ever looked at a map of the West bank, and seen the area that is presently disputed ( Between Israeli settlements and the proposed Palestinian state)? I think the amount that is "open" ( and when was it prohibited- only between 1948 and 1967?) to Palestinian settlement is by far the greater area. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 25 Feb 08 - 09:33 AM "The area now called "The West Bank" - originally part of Palestine restricted to Jewish Settlement" Far from being a lie CarolC what was meant by the statement given above has been more than adequately explained a number of times on this thread alone. But just so as you get it fixed in your mind clear as crystal it will be explained one more time: The Palestine Mandate as handed to the British to Administer on behalf of The League of Nations extended from Iraq/Syria Border in the North to the border of Saudi Arabia in the East, the Gulf of Aquaba in the South and the Mediteranean in the West. Subsequent to the Arab attacks on the Jewish population in 1920 and again in 1921 and to make good promises made during the First World War. Britain split the Palestine Mandate Territory in 1923. The degree of the split was 25%/75%, the former (25% of the area) being named Palestine and the latter being named Transjordan. The former, the area now known as Palestine was the area of the Mandated Territory that anybody including the Jews could settle in, it was also the area in which Britain was obligated by the terms of the Mandate to assist in establishing a "National Homeland" for the Jews. The latter (75% of the Mandated Territory), the area now known as Transjordan was the area that could not be settled by Jews. Therefore the area that the Jews were restricted to was the area now known as Palestine. Now is that perfectly clear, it is to everybody else, including the populations of both countries today as evidenced by there being a 16% total population of Israel that is Arab, while in Jordan, the kingdom that Transjordan became, there is, by law, a 0% population of Jews. I do not believe that I have ever used "thewebfairy" as a source. You on the other hand quote huge swathes of it including the lie that the Israelis were responsible for the first hijacking. By the way CarolC, we are still waiting for an answer to these questions: "Why did the Egyptians and the Jordanians invade and occupy land that belonged to Palestine, occupy it from 1948 to 1967 and force the Arab Palestinians into refugee camps?" "Why didn't the Egyptians and Jordanians allow the Palestinian Arabs to establish themselves and settle the Palestinian land taken by them in 1948? And why didn't they help them?" Your only form of debate seems to be absolute statement followed by flat contradiction, followed by personal abuse. On the thread re Willie Nelson and the WTC attacks another 'catter was 100% on target when he said of you: "...evidence means nothing to you. You are so married to your delusions that evidence, no matter how clear and irrefutable, will not move you off your position." Your persecution complex is showing CarolC, quite a number of times on this thread you have called me a liar, so far you have failed miserably to make any headway in proving that to be true. Now then tell us all again how none of this ever happened: 1920 - Arab attacks on Jews 1921 - Arab attacks on Jews 1923 - Mandate split into Transjordan and Palestine 1929 - Arab attacks on Jews 1936 - Arab attacks on British and Jews (Arab Revolt) 1937 - Peel Commission & start of Jewish retaliation 1939 - Arab Revolt ends. Jewish self-defence organisations are now experienced and in place. 1944 - Irgun attacks on British begin because of the terms of the "MacDonald White Paper". 1947 - Mandate draws to a close UN propose partition, 29th November 1947 - 1948. Palestine Civil War. Jews acccept the UN partition solution the Arabs reject it. Arab attacks on Jews begin 30th November 1947. This was the Civil War Period it lasted from 30th November 1947 until 15th May 1948 when the Mandate expired. 15th May 1948 - 20 July 1949 - Israeli War of Independence, in which the Jewish settlers of Palestine fight the Palestinian Arabs assisted by the forces of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon. 1949 - 1956 - Arab attacks on Israel supported and mounted from Egypt, Jordan and Syria. 1956 - Suez Crisis and Sinai War 1956 - 1967 - Sporadic attacks on Israel but threats of extinction continue. 1967 - Six Day War. The pan-Arabic nations camp five Armies on Israels borders and threaten annihilation. Israel launches precision pre-emptive attacks and take out her enemies air forces. Israel then uses her air superiority to defeat her enemies ground forces in detail 1973 - Yom Kippur War. Arabs launch surprise attack on Israel on two fronts from Syria and from Egypt. Israel after suffering initial reverses fights back and regains the situation forcing yet another UN Cease-Fire. By the bye CarolC here's what the Peel Commission had to say in 1937 about land held by the Jewish Settlers: "The shortage of land is due less to purchase by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population. The Arab claims that the Jews have obtained too large a proportion of good land cannot be maintained. Much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamps and uncultivated when it was bought." - Source Peel Commission Report of 1937. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 25 Feb 08 - 02:27 PM Hebron is one example, beardedbruce. http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=74195 And anywhere in the West bank where there are Jewish-only settlements. This map shows where they are. The black and blue areas are the Jewish-only (apartheid) settlments and Jewish controlled areas, and the white areas are the Jewish-only (apartheid) roads. http://www.btselem.org/Download/Settlements_Map_Eng.jpg (Click on the map to enlarge it.) Palestinians are not allowed to either live in, or drive on these areas. However, Jews also can and do live in Palestinian villages side by side with Palestinians in the West Bank, pretty much anywhere they want to. Neta Golan is only one example of such people. http://www.countercurrents.org/pa-golan171004.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 25 Feb 08 - 02:35 PM The distinction that I think is lost on you, beardedbruce, is that you seem to think that Jews can only live in the Jewish-only (apartheid) settlements in the West Bank. This is not true. The only thing Jews cannot do in the Palestinian areas of the West Bank, is exclude Palestinians (the way they do in the settlements). Jews can and do live among Palestinians in Palestinian villages and Palestinian areas. What you are proposing is that Jews should be allowed to exclude Palestinians from all of the West Bank. This is ethnic cleansing, and this is why I keep saying that you support ethnic cleansing. You believe that Jews should be allowed to prevent Palestinians from living anywhere at all in any of the areas where they (the Palestinians) originally come from. That not only conforms to the definition of ethnic cleansing, it also conforms to the definition of genocide, since the destruction of an entire way of life is also a part of the definition of genocide. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 25 Feb 08 - 03:21 PM The on the Map shown in your middle link CarolC has the initials RC = Refugee Camp. Now as this map shows the area of Palestine known as the West Bank, and we know that the Israeli's have built no Refugee Camps in the area: "Why did the Jordanians invade and occupy land that belonged to Palestine, occupy it from 1948 to 1967 and force the Arab Palestinians into refugee camps?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 25 Feb 08 - 04:11 PM Teribus, the refugee camps are the 'home' of Palestinians who fled what is now Israel proper, and ended up in the West Bank. "Why did the Jordanians invade and occupy land that belonged to Palestine, occupy it from 1948 to 1967 and force the Arab Palestinians into refugee camps?" As I said before (several times already, Teribus), Jordan had worked out a deal with members of the Jewish leadership (most notably, Golda Meir) in which Jordan agreed to not attack any of the areas allotted to Jews in the partition plan (and with the exception of some parts of the Jerusalem's Jewish quarter, they honored this agreement fully), and in return, Jordan would take the West Bank. I do not approve of this deal, and I think the Palestinians have a valid complaint against Jordan for having done this. However, I am confident that had Jordan not struck such a deal, the West Bank would have been taken by Israel in the 1948/1949 war. The Arabs did not attack any areas that had been allotted to Jews in the partition plan. They only fought in areas where Jews were trying to take land that had been allotted to the Palestinians in the partition plan. The Palestinians ended up in the refugee camps because there is only just so much room and there are just so many resources in the West Bank, and Jordan had every reason to expect that the refugees would be allowed to return to where they came from originally, since Israel was in violation of international law, the Geneva Conventions, and UN Resolutions in preventing them from doing so. This is something that I have even posted previously right here in this thread. This is why I have no time for your snaky bullshit, Teribus. You just keep asking the same dishonest questions over and over and over as if you have never received a response to them the previous times you posted them. When you're not actively lying, you're trying to obfuscate because your racist hatemongering is a bankrupt ideology, and has no legitimate arguments to support it. Fortunately for the world, this ideology is dying out (slowly and agonizingly, unfortunately, but dying out nevertheless) as well it should. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 25 Feb 08 - 04:43 PM By the way, the Palestinians who ended up in refugee camps in the West Bank were the ones who had fled their homes in what is now Israel. The Palestinians who originally came from the area that is now the West Bank remained in their homes until Israeli settlements began squeezing them out of their homes, a process that continues to this day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 25 Feb 08 - 06:06 PM "The Palestinians ended up in the refugee camps because there is only just so much room and there are just so many resources in the West Bank," - CarolC So what you are basically saying is that the Palestinian State that everybody is chatting about now is unviable? I also note that since 1988 when the Jordanians washed their hands of the "West Bank" the Palestinians themselves retained the Refugee Camps. What exactly did Tosser Arafat do to lighten the load and bring any sort of improvement or benefits to "his people" - Damn all except stuff the millions in international aid into his bank accounts. You see both sides preferred the "Palestinians" in Gaza and in the West Bank to be in those camps. The Israelis because they knew at anytime where the trouble was going to start, and Arafat because they were a source of propaganda and income. Even the Palestinian Arabs who lived in Gaza and the West Bank preferred their fellow Palestinian Arabs to be couped up in those Camps, because holed up in those Camps ensured that some aid would trickle down through Arafats grasping fingers - His Uncle by the way was no different, although I think it was The Orphans and the Church Restoration Fund that he ripped off. Now compare that to another group in the same locale who got landed with a whole ruck of refugees from all over the "Arab" world. Different approach here completely. Instead of putting them all in Camps they integrated them, allowed them to put down roots, welcomed them in. Biggest difference was CarolC that this crowd were prepared to work, same as they had always been right the way back to the days of the Ottoman Empire in 1878. Since the birth of Israel in 1948, brought about in no small way by Palestinian Arab intransigence, you have one set of refugees who literally had absolutely nowhere else to go, who have discovered the benefits of co-operation and hard work, and another set who have been shoddily treated by both fellow Palestinians and so-called Arab allies, and who have known nothing but graft, corruption and hand outs for sixty years. And guess what CarolC? Their present crop of "leaders" are not offering them anything different - As I said slow learning curve, but possibly one day the message will sink in. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 25 Feb 08 - 06:58 PM Bullshit, Teribus. The vast majority of the money that was given to the Palestinians in aid was used to build schools, hospitals, universities, and other badly needed infrastructure, and most of that was bombed to smithereens by the IDF and the government of Israel (killing hundreds of Palestinians in the process. The state that the Palestinians want to establish in the West Bank and Gaza could be viable. But the government of Israel is doing everything in its power to prevent that from happening. So, yes, if the government if Israel gets its way, a Palestinian state will be unviable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 26 Feb 08 - 01:24 AM On the contrary CarolC The vast majority of money donated to help the Palestinian people went to what Arafat called his security apparatus. No information relating to the dispersement of those funds exists because it was all in Arafats hands and no records were kept. For the "Palestinian" people the steps are quite simple: 1. Acknowledge and affirm the right of existence to the recognised sovereign State of Israel. 2. Acknowledge and affirm the right of the population of the State of Israel to be allowed to live their lives in peace without threat or fear of attack. 3. Make international agreements to live in peace with all neighbours in the region and for once actually abide by the terms and conditions of those agreements. 4. Concentrate their energies and efforts in creating their own state. Do that and I think that the "Palestinians" would be amazed at how many friends they have in the world. One thing is for sure, the prats yammering on about the destruction of Israel and promising the "Palestinian" people all the bounties that will come their way after the Jews have been driven into the sea, are dreaming. That will never happen, wake up and face the realities of the situation, the gun, the bomb and the rocket are getting these people nowhere - high time they realise that truth and concentrate on what can be done to improve their lot, forget pipe dreams about the unobtainable. Tell the likes of Syria and Iran that if they want to fight the Israelis, that they should have a go at doing it themselves. The Syrian and the Iranian Regimes will back down from that prospect as they basically do not have the stomach for it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 26 Feb 08 - 08:28 PM More lies, Teribus. During the time that this money was being given in aid to the Palestinians, hospitals, schools, roads, universities, and other important and badly needed civil infrastructure was built. Some of it went toward the security apparatus, but that was required of the PA by the agreements that the Palestinians made to police their own people on behalf of Israel. This civil infrastructure is mostly non-existent today, but that is because it was destroyed by the government of Israel. Israel has not ever honored its agreements with the Palestinians, nor does it have any intention of ever doing so, no matter what the Palestinians do or don't do. During the period when Israel was obligated to stop building new settlements, it not only continued to build them (and expand existing ones), it even increased the rate at which it built them and expanded them. This is because it has never been Israel's intention to allow ANY Palestinians to remain on the land from which they originate. Israel's intention is, and has always been, to finish the job of ethnic cleansing (genocide) of the indigenous non-Jewish population that was begun prior to and during the 1948/49 war. There is nothing the Palestinians can to do prevent this. The only way to prevent this from happening is for enough people to apply pressure to the governments of the US and Israel that it becomes impossible to continue with this agenda. So far there haven't been enough people applying pressure to make the needed changes, but the number of people who are doing this is growing steadily, and it will reach critical mass eventually. The only question is whether or not there will be any Palestinians left in Palestine when this finally happens. Either way, though, the world will eventually come to look with great shame upon what was allowed to be done to the indigenous people of Palestine (some of whom include the descendants of the original Christians), just as it has with slavery, the genocide of the indigenous peoples of the Americas, segregation in the US south, South African apartheid, and the Holocaust. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Barry Finn Date: 27 Feb 08 - 08:30 AM Carol, do you not see that you're debating with one who has been in favor of backing oppression no matter where it's found. The more you lay it out for him the more his logic twists & turns. I believe he subscribes to the "Might is right" anti-life movement, winner take all & no quater given theorists. Though I do enjoy your tearing apart of his each & every escape route. You're not leaving him much wiggle room, not that he deserves any. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 27 Feb 08 - 10:11 AM Ah, welcome back Barry, still not up to answering any questions put your way I see. So a lie is a lie just because CarolC say so - what an absolutely wonderful land the pair of must live in. I am still waiting for either of you to deny that conflict in the area known as Palestine was initiated by unprovoked Arab attacks on Jews. CarolC has decried such stories as lies but has completely failed to come up with any proof that the reports were lies. You on the other-hand just blatantly spout complete and utter crap and expect it to be swallowed as gospel truth hook-line-and-sinker. Some bloody corner either myself or beardedbruce are being backed into. But here's another question for you not to answer Barry: "Give one example of any agreement made by the Palestinians that they have actually honoured and kept" Oh by the bye Baz, nothing to do with supporting "Might-is-right" it has however one hell of a lot to do with recognising and backing 100% Israel's right to defend itself and its people. Now how many rockets was it that you would allow to be fired into your neighbourhood before you would be prepared to any action to stop it? You never did get round to answering that one did you Barry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 27 Feb 08 - 11:02 AM One thing I forgot to ask both CarolC and Barry: What is the definition of a "Palestinian"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Barry Finn Date: 27 Feb 08 - 12:55 PM T, I don't bother discussing these matters with you anymore because of how you twist things. I was speaking with Carol & will continue to do so, but I will not be speaking with you. Good-bye Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 27 Feb 08 - 02:55 PM To paraphrase Barry, "I know what I believe: Don't bother me with the Truth." It seems that anyone who is not willing to listen to the points presented by the other side ( in ANY arguement) is admitting that they fear that they have no support for their own opinions. This does NOT mean a blind acceptance of another's statements ( as CarolC seems to think is required), but looking into what the point is, and what evidence is provided. It is always possible to disagree as to the meaning of facts, but it ( should be) possible to agree as to the facts of what has happened. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 27 Feb 08 - 08:25 PM A Palestinian is someone who originates, or whose predecessors originated from the area that is now the West Bank, Gaza, or East Jerusalem. I also use the term in reference to Arabs who originated in what is now Israel and who were expelled from there or who fled from there during the Nakba. I am still waiting for either of you to deny that conflict in the area known as Palestine was initiated by unprovoked Arab attacks on Jews. I do deny it. The conflict began in a similar fashion to the conflicts between indigenous Americans and the Europeans who were taking over their land. The Palestinians being in the same position as the indigenous Americans, and the European Jews being in the same position as the Europeans who invaded the Americas. No one had a right to come to either place with the intent of taking it over, and that was the original act of aggression. Thanks Barry. Check out this video. It's very good... http://fora.tv/2006/08/01/Ambassador_Afif_Safieh This does NOT mean a blind acceptance of another's statements ( as CarolC seems to think is required), but looking into what the point is, and what evidence is provided. I've provided plenty of evidence. If you choose to not look at it, that's not something I have any control over. I've provided literally hundreds, possibly thousands of links to supporting documentation over the last few years. I've also provided some right here in this thread. You prefer to ignore what I provide and pretend that I have not provided anything. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 27 Feb 08 - 10:42 PM Not quite. I have looked at your posted evidence, and tried to determine if it is true, or if it presents a one-sided view. Even then, I factor it in- But I do not accept it as true just because you say it is. Nor do I accept that you are capable of making valid statements about what Israel intends: is "This is because it has never been Israel's intention to allow ANY Palestinians to remain on the land from which they originate. Israel's intention is, and has always been, to finish the job of ethnic cleansing (genocide) of the indigenous non-Jewish population that was begun prior to and during the 1948/49 war." I can make equally valid comments about what the Palestinians ( per your definition) and Arabs intend to do- yet you would call them lies since you would not agree. How about stating what each side has done, and is doing instead of trying to pretend that you have some Godlike insight as to what they are thinking? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 27 Feb 08 - 11:13 PM All you have to do is look at the behavior of the Israeli government with regard to the location and continual expansion of the settlements, the path of the apartheid wall in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the blockade of Gaza beardebruce. They don't allow for the Palestinians to remain in any of those places. They make it difficult and sometimes impossible for non-Jews to remain living there. If the government of Israel didn't intend for them to leave, they wouldn't be making it impossible for them to stay. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Barry Finn Date: 28 Feb 08 - 12:29 AM It's easy enough to judge by actions. The new wall is only one of these actions in a long list of actions that explain what Israel is all about. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: TIA Date: 28 Feb 08 - 12:49 AM Some believe that the last person standing (or speaking) is correct. Not so. People who are confident that their views are the truth often give up fighting with the delusional -- who will say, do, misconstrue, spin, twist, and slither, in the overwhelming quest to win an argument. Oddly, the ones who shut up and bow out first are often the most likely to be correct. Trust me, I am not patting my own sorry ass. Instead, I am supporting those who have been watching this crap for weeks, and do not have the time or energy to waste boxing with sheer curtains, but are instead out in the world doing what is right. Hats off, and thanks, to CarolC. You have done a spectacular job of addressing, repeatedly, but to no avail, relentless slipperiness. But the game is rigged. How can one do good in the world if one commits to responding to repetitive, disdainful demands for detailed, sourced, responses to questions and allegations that have long ago been discredited? The rules seem to be "if you cannot provide detailed answers, to misleading questions, with multiple sources that are pre-approved by the questioner, at least three or four times per questions, then *I* win." Bullshit rules. Bullshit games. Last person standing or posting may not hold a monopoly on truth. Let them think they win, and go out and DO something. (No offense CarolC, you have been DOING something... repeatedly, and expertly...but the target moves, and is covered in oil.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 28 Feb 08 - 02:27 AM "A Palestinian is someone who originates, or whose predecessors originated from the area that is now the West Bank, Gaza, or East Jerusalem. I also use the term in reference to Arabs who originated in what is now Israel and who were expelled from there or who fled from there during the Nakba." - CarolC's definition of a "Palestinian" - as usual it is not correct. On the question of refugee's with a "right of return". What a Palestinian was was defined by the UN. And guess what CarolC they did not have to have originated from, or ever to have had predecessors who had originated from the area. "The conflict began in a similar fashion to the conflicts between indigenous Americans and the Europeans who were taking over their land. The Palestinians being in the same position as the indigenous Americans, and the European Jews being in the same position as the Europeans who invaded the Americas. No one had a right to come to either place with the intent of taking it over, and that was the original act of aggression." If that is what you sincerely believe CarolC what are you doing about returning the US to the idigenous Americans? What are you doing about granting their right of return to their lands? Little, or nothing, I would suspect. Your premise above of course, historically, is seriously flawed as it depends on start dates. How far back in the history of the geographical area known as Palestine do you want to go CarolC? I suspect for yourself and the likes of Guest TIA and Barry Finn the start date is around the time of the start of the Civil War which started on 30th November 1947, or 15th May 1948 when Israel declared independence. All previous history to you and your fellow travellers is conveniently considered irrelevant. You, by your own admission, deny the Mandate Period and the unprovoked attacks and attrocities that were committed against the Jews by Arabs during those years. You might deny them, as some equally selective people chose to deny the "Holocaust" of the Nazi era in German history, but that doesn't alter the fact that it did happen, it does not alter the fact that it had a relevant "knock-on" effect. Of course if you look back through the recorded history of ancient times the indigenous people were the Jews, "the children of Israel". They were driven off their land by Arabs, who, as we advance through the centuries, were conquered by the Ottoman Turks about 500 years ago when they took Palestine. So CarolC whose land did the European Jews take over CarolC and when? It could be argued that the European Jews were undoubtedly descendents of the original inhabitants driven out by the Arabs, so what of their "right of return"? While on the subject of people moving into the area known as Palestine, I notice CarolC that you are remarkably reticent about the extent Arab migration into Palestine and what it was that drew them in. On arrival CarolC you can no doubt tell us of the first instance of this conflict between the "not-so-indigenous-as-one-might-think" Palestinians and "the European Jews" where "the European Jews" were "taking over" the land. If you cannot CarolC, I can, I already have on this thread - 1st March 1920 at Tel Hai where the Arabs attacked Jewish villages that had been established on land legally bought and paid for and farmed for about 30 years. Here is another of those "lies" you are so keen to deny, despite the fact that the events associated with them most definitely did occur. Now what was your contention again CarolC: "The conflict began in a similar fashion to the conflicts between indigenous Americans and the Europeans who were taking over their land. The Palestinians being in the same position as the indigenous Americans, and the European Jews being in the same position as the Europeans who invaded the Americas." Tell us about the Massacre at Hebron in 1929 CarolC. The Jewish population of Hebron in 1929 had lived there for a recorded and documented period of at least 800 years CarolC, so chances are that they had lived there for long before that. Now CarolC tell everybody who it was that killed all those "not-so-European-Jewish-settlers" of Hebron in 1929? Who was it that drove the remainder from their homes in terror and caused them to flee? Who was it that took over their property? Have they, or their descendents any right of return? Not according to you, Guest TIA, Barry Finn, or any of your Arab Palestinian friends. For those interested in the pretext for the Arab attack on that long established, ancient, indigenous Jewish population of Hebron. It was falsely reported and completely unfounded rumours of attacks on Arabs in Jerusalem by Jews - Now to anybody who has actually studied the history of Palestine that should have an extremely familiar ring to it - sound familiar to you at all CarolC? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 28 Feb 08 - 10:07 AM "It's easy enough to judge by actions. The new wall is only one of these actions in a long list of actions that explain what Israel is all about." - Barry Finn Quite right Barry - The prime responsibility of the freely elected Government of the sovereign State of Israel is the security of its citizens - So please let's do judge them by their actions - the new wall - terrorist attacks resulting in the deaths of Israeli citizens has declined 96% over the last seven years since its construction - Effective or what Baz?? I'd say that they're doing a damn fine job. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Barry Finn Date: 28 Feb 08 - 02:21 PM You keep on believing that T Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 28 Feb 08 - 04:29 PM So CarolC the aid given to the Palestinians was put to good use building, hospitals, schools, roads, universities, and other important and badly needed civil infrastructure? Now that's extremely odd because there appears to be scant record of any of that. Just as there is no record of Israelis arbitrarily destroying any hospitals, schools and universities? Can you come up with any explanation for that? Or are those statements of yours just plain lies, inventions or propaganda. The bulk of aid given to the Palestinians has been spent on Yasser Arafat's "security apparatus" (Al-Fatah; Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade, ect), arms, funding for various other terrorist groups and for food. By the way I did like your – "Some of it went toward the security apparatus, but that was required of the PA by the agreements that the Palestinians made to police their own people on behalf of Israel" – When, if ever, have the Palestinians ever "policed" their own people? – The answer to that of course is Never - Absolute joke that one. "Israel has not ever honored its agreements with the Palestinians" – Really CarolC? That's strange because I seem to remember some agreement about withdrawing completely from Gaza and turning that lump of real estate over in its entirety to the Palestinian Authority. I also seem to remember that that is exactly what the Israelis did. There was, however, some small matter about how if this was done then the Palestinian Authority had to stop the daily rocket attacks being launched indiscriminately against Israeli civilians from inside Gaza. Now correct me if I am wrong but did those attacks stop? Were the Palestinians capable of "policing" their own people to comply with their side of the bargain? Oh hell no! There were over 4000 rockets launched against Israeli civilians in 2007 from inside Gaza after Israel withdrew. An Israeli student was killed just yesterday by one of those rocket attacks CarolC. What was it? Some 20 or so rockets fired indiscriminately into Israel. Their firing points were filmed by the BBC from a distance. Take a look at them CarolC, they were right in the heart of a civilian built up area in Gaza, which sort of illustrates the complete and utter contempt that your so lauded Palestinian "freedom fighters" of Hamas actually have for the "people" they are supposed to be "leading". So come on Barry and CarolC tell me who isn't honouring their agreements. "nor does it (Israel) have any intention of ever doing so (honouring commitments), no matter what the Palestinians do or don't do" – more baseless crap from CarolC. Please CarolC provide me with one example of any commitment or agreement entered into by the Palestinians that they have kept or have ever even had the slightest intention of keeping with regard to Israel. Believe me CarolC I can provide you with very many examples of broken agreements and dishonoured and unfulfilled commitments on the part of the Palestinians. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 28 Feb 08 - 04:35 PM All you have to do is look at the behavior of the Palestinians with regard to Israel, CarolC. They don't allow for the Israelis to live peacefully in any place. They make it difficult and sometimes impossible for Jews to remain living. When the Palestinians cease to commit acfts of war against Israel, they will have peace. Until then, they will receive, for their attacks on Israeli and Arab civilians, TARGETED attacks on those who are attacking Israel, and on those who are supporting them. The Palestinans have stated their goal is the elimination of Israel aned the Jews. If Israel made an equivalent statement (WHICH THEY HAVE NOT: Nor have they acted in that manner- 16% of Israel is ARAB- What is the Jewish percentage of the Arab nations around it, or the proposed Palestinian state?) , YOU would be up in arms and demand that we all condemn it. So why do the Palestinians get a pass on THEIR stated genocide of the Israelis? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 28 Feb 08 - 10:22 PM If that is what you sincerely believe CarolC what are you doing about returning the US to the idigenous Americans? What are you doing about granting their right of return to their lands? Little, or nothing, I would suspect. Teribus, your profound lack of ability to intelligently reason quite takes my breath away. The indegenous Americans can live wherever they want in this country. They don't need me to do anything to grant them the right to return to their lands, because they already have this right. What do you actually keep inside that head of yours instead of brains, anyway? You really are too stupid for me to argue with. I've had enough. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 28 Feb 08 - 10:37 PM They don't allow for the Israelis to live peacefully in any place. They make it difficult and sometimes impossible for Jews to remain living. This is bullshit. I've already shown you (and the fact of their existence is not subjective and can be proven) that there are Jews living in Palestinian villages with Palestinians. The reason they are accepted there is because they aren't living there as occupiers. Any Jews could live anywhere at all in both Israel and Palestine in peace if they would simply remove their jackboots off the necks of the non-Jewish indigenous people. If you've got your boot on my neck, I'm going to do everything I can to try to persuade you to remove it. This includes causing you to experience pain. I expect that the Palestinians feel the same way. When the Palestinians cease to commit acfts of war against Israel, they will have peace. Until then, they will receive, for their attacks on Israeli and Arab civilians, TARGETED attacks on those who are attacking Israel, and on those who are supporting them. They have a right to fight for their freedom from occupation. When the occupation ends, there will be peace. You cannot expect peace when you are brutally enslaving an entire people, and ethnically cleansing them from their place of origin. The Palestinans have stated their goal is the elimination of Israel aned the Jews. They have NEVER stated that they wish to eliminate "the Jews". Some Palestinians (hardly all of them) have stated the desire to remove the European colonialist Jews from their country. But, first of all, you cannot hold all Palestinians responsible for what some Palestinians have said, and secondly, many, many Jews have said that they want all Arabs removed from Israel and Palestine. If you can hold all Palestinians responsible for what some of them have said, that means we can hold all Jews responsible for what some Jews have said. Is that really what you want? You have a very racist view of Arabs and Palestinians, beardedbruce. You treat them like they are some kind of hive collective rather than individual human beings. If I were to do the same thing in reference to Jews, I would be called and anti-Semite, and quite rightly so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 29 Feb 08 - 02:01 AM "The conflict began in a similar fashion to the conflicts between indigenous Americans and the Europeans who were taking over their land. The Palestinians being in the same position as the indigenous Americans, and the European Jews being in the same position as the Europeans who invaded the Americas. No one had a right to come to either place with the intent of taking it over, and that was the original act of aggression." - CarolC You did state what is quoted above didn't you? It was you who drew the parallel between the European influx, domination and occupation of North American to the arrival of European Jews to Palestine. Now in one case where it applies to your own personal situation, you are quite happy about dispossessing entire nations and driving them from their ancestral lands, forcing them to live on reservations and condemning those people to a culture of social dependency. Oh yes CarolC a native North American can live anywhere he wants in the US provided he has the wherewithal to do so - How much back-rent is he owed? Must amount to quite a tidy sum back-dated over the last 150 years or so. Are you campaigning for their right to return to the lands that they were driven from? Are you campaigning for their title to that land as its dispossessed owners? In the other case, where it relates to European Jews settling in Palestine let's see what you demand that the Jews do. You demand that all refugees and their descendants must be allowed to return to claim the land and property that they fled when their leaders elected to wage war. In the event that any do not wish to return you want the Israelis to pay them compensation. But their case is slightly different isn't it CarolC. For a start the Jews did not arrive enmasse in Palestine and drive people off their land. They arrived in small groups and purchased land that the owners of that land were quite willing to sell because they thought it useless (Read Mark Twain's description of Palestine of the 1860's in his book "The Innocents Abroad"): "..... A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds... a silent mournful expanse.... a desolation.... we never saw a human being on the whole route.... hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country." The Jewish settlers of the latter quarter of the 19th century bought their land while your forebears drove the native American from vast tracts of theirs. The Jewish settlers introduced industry to what had previously been an extremely poor agrarian set up with minimal disruption to the indigenous people or their way of life. Your forebears all but destroyed the very eco-systems that the native American relied upon for their existence forcing them to abandon their traditional ways and to live on "white-mans" hand-outs on reservations, usually situated on useless land allocated them by "white-men". The arguement for Arab concern in the 1920's was that the influx of European Jewry was puting an unsustainable burden on the land in Palestine - That was when the total population of Palestine or the 23% of the total Mandated Territory was around 1 million people - Present day Arab population of Palestine is roughly 4.5 million and the population of Israel is 7.2 million - So what exactly was the validity of the Arab concern in the 1920's CarolC? To anybody reading this thread could you note that CarolC and Barry Finn have been asked to come up with quite a few answers regarding various aspects of the conflict between the Arabs and the Jews over the past ninety odd years - they have so far refused to answer any. Where they allude to vague rumour and are particularly selective in the period they wish to draw your attention to, myself and others cover the entire period, provide detail with regard to places, dates and names that anybody can check - We are then accused of "lying". On rational examination CarolC its your "profound lack of ability to intelligently reason" that absolutely astounds me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 29 Feb 08 - 02:22 AM Lets just say that Teribus and BB are subjective while Barry and Carol are objective. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 29 Feb 08 - 02:31 AM And quite naturally Dianavan I would state exactly the opposite. While CarolC and Barry consistently argue from only one perspective. BB and myself take any given situation and examine the circumstances and come up with some form of explanation for why things happened the way they did, and why various parties adopt the positions they do. Neither BB or mayself have denied that events have happened as CarolC has done, and when asked a question both BB and myself have done our best to answer providing detail to support our point of view. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 29 Feb 08 - 06:19 AM "I've already shown you (and the fact of their existence is not subjective and can be proven) that there are Jews living in Palestinian villages with Palestinians. The reason they are accepted there is because they aren't living there as occupiers. Any Jews could live anywhere at all in both Israel and Palestine in peace if they would simply remove their jackboots off the necks of the non-Jewish indigenous people." - CarolC Please note that the ever so "objective" CarolC makes no differentiation between "The West Bank", where the Palestinian Authority rules, and Gaza, the fiefdom of Hamas the elected "Government" of the Palestinian people. In the former there is dialogue between those governing and Israel, in the latter because of Hamas refusal to recognise Israel's right of existence and the daily rocket attacks on the civilian population of Israel mounted from inside Gaza there is no dialogue. So this statement by CarolC, is selective, misleading and should be highly qualified: "there are Jews living in Palestinian villages with Palestinians" Now my purely subjective comment to that would be: "Not in Gaza CarolC". Oh by the bye, did any of you know that it is considered a traitorous act for any Palestinian to apply for Israeli citizenship in the arab sections of Jerusalem by the Palestinian Authorities. I'll dig out the quotes when I've got a minute. They also reckon that if a full and free referendum was held as to whether or not the Arabs on the West Bank currently living in Israeli controlled areas wished to be governed by the PA or remain under Israeli governance it would be a 70%+ vote for the latter. For anyone interested in the detail of this "land grab" that CarolC is so "objectively" advising us of: 1. Original Mandated Territory as of 1920 was some 118,000 Sq Km in area. 2. In 1923 the British split this original Mandated Territory as follows: - Transjordan 91,000 Sq Km, this was given to the indigenous Arabs who lived in the territory as an autonomous "kingdom", which later became Jordan. - An area of some 1,176 Sq Km that was given to French Mandated area known as Syria - Palestine which was an area of 25,824 Sq Km of which 11,750 Sq Km was an uninhabitable area known as the Negev Desert. 3. In 1948, the original Mandated Territory consited of the following: - The Negev Desert (unihabitable) 11,750 Sq Km or 45.5% of Palestine, or 9.96% of the original 1920 Mandate of Palestine, this fell under the control of Israel, primarily because nobody else wanted it. - Israel, 8000 Sq Km or 31% of Palestine, or 6.78% of the original 1920 Mandate of Palestine - Jordan, 96,700 Sq Km which included 5,700 Sq Km of 1923 Palestine or 22.1% of Palestine plus 77% of the original mandated territory amounting to 81.95% of the original 1920 Mandated Territory - Egypt, 360 Sq Km or 1.4% of Palestine, or 0.31% of the original 1920 Mandated Territory The Negev to this day remains pretty unihabitable so the upshot is that of the Territory known as Palestine given to the UK to administer by The League of Nations in 1920 with the express obligation of setting up a "national homeland" for the Jews, the Arabs currently hold 83.26% of the total, while the Jews hold 16.74% of which only 6.78% is habitable. That's some "land-grab" eh, CarolC - less than 7% of what was available. Now just by comparison how much did those "whitemen" grab in North America CarolC? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 29 Feb 08 - 10:30 AM You did state what is quoted above didn't you? It was you who drew the parallel between the European influx, domination and occupation of North American to the arrival of European Jews to Palestine. Like I said, you are too stupid to argue with. You know perfectly well that I am talking about the origin of the two conflicts and you know perfectly well that in the US the origin was hundreds of years ago and that the US, while it still has many human rights issues, has at least come out of the Dark Ages when it comes to its laws about equal rights for all human beings. Israel is still in the Dark Ages when it comes to the issue of human rights. You are not a worthy opponent. I don't even have to make you look stupid. You do that yourself. Arguing with you just isn't sporting. You really are stupid enough to think you can make an argument like that and not look totally foolish. Like I said, I've had enough. I can only derive so much pleasure out of humiliating you, but after a while it just seems sad that it's so easy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 29 Feb 08 - 11:06 AM Still avoiding difficult questions then CarolC? Still denying what the real origins of the conflict were? Still denying from whom the Israelis learned their lessons in survival? I was absolutely amazed that you had the complete and utter gall to bring up the subject of "human rights". This by the way was priceless: "Israel is still in the Dark Ages when it comes to the issue of human rights." - CarolC Even if that were true with regard to the issue of human rights, they'd still be light years ahead of the Palestinians and their Arab neighbours. How many videos have you seen aired of Israelis cutting off peoples heads CarolC? How many times have you seen, or heard, senior Israeli officials boasting of the store of body parts they have in the freezer to use as bargaining counters? Interesting to know that you believe in a Statute of Limitations for the crimes you accuse Israel of. So according to your moral standard they've only got to hang on a few more years and everything will be OK, just like you over there in the good old US of A. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 29 Feb 08 - 11:30 AM You're like that knight in the Monty Python sketch, Teribus. You've had both your arms and your legs hacked off, and now you're shouting, "Come over here so I can bit you on the leg!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 29 Feb 08 - 02:03 PM Oh you mean from the film "Monty Python and the Holy Grail". Odd that, because at the moment I'd say that you were the one left with not a leg to stand on. Still no answers then? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 29 Feb 08 - 02:05 PM I've already answered all of your points, Teribus, several times right here in this thread. Hop off on your stumps, now, and read the thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 29 Feb 08 - 02:19 PM CarolC, Claiming to have answered points is not the same as giving a coherent answer. So far, YOU have made blanket statements as to what "Israel" is doing, and why, while denying the statements BY THE PALESTINIAN groups that are in control as to their intent towards Israel. I have presented the Hamas Charter in the past- do I need to post it here again? And you ignore the present acts of war against Israel- NOT the "occupied West Bank', but Israel as even you have conceded has a right to exist, by thos same ( Hamas) groups. Against civilians. Killing both Jews and Arabs, as long as they are in Israel. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 29 Feb 08 - 03:15 PM "I've already answered all of your points, Teribus, several times right here in this thread." - CarolC Really? Then how come the answers to the following are conspicuous by their absence? 1. How many videos have you seen aired of Israelis cutting off peoples heads CarolC? 2. How many times have you seen, or heard, senior Israeli officials boasting of the store of body parts they have in the freezer to use as bargaining counters? 3. Are Jews and Palestinians living peacefully side by side in Gaza CarolC? 4. In the great Jewish Mandate of Palestine "land-grab", the Jews "grabbed" less than 7% of what was available. Now just by comparison how much land did your forefathers grab in North America CarolC? 5. The arguement for Arab concern in the 1920's was that the influx of European Jewry was puting an unsustainable burden on the land in Palestine - That was when the total population of Palestine or the 23% of the total Mandated Territory was around 1 million people - Present day Arab population of Palestine is roughly 4.5 million and the population of Israel is 7.2 million - So what exactly was the validity of the Arab concern in the 1920's CarolC? 6. Did the Israelis honour their commitment to withdraw from Gaza? 7. Did the Palestinian Authority honour its commitment to halt rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza? 8. Provide one example of any commitment or agreement entered into by the Palestinians that they have kept or have ever even had the slightest intention of keeping with regard to Israel. (Hint: There is one that I can instantly think of CarolC, but it is not an answer that you will ever give on this forum as long as your arse points downwards) 9 Tell us about the Massacre at Hebron in 1929 CarolC. 10. What is the correct definition of a "Palestinian"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 29 Feb 08 - 03:51 PM Jews have tried to enter Gaza, and they have been welcome to do so by the Palestinians living there, but the Israeli government has prevented them from doing so. These Jews, it should be noted, were not attempting to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians by building apartheid, Jewish-only settlements accessed by apartheid Jewish-only roads, with the IDF enforcing the apartheid conditions. http://www.greenleft.org.au/2007/717/37247 But that was not the point being discussed, as I am sure you are aware, Teribus. beardedbruce was trying to turn what I said around on me, and he failed to do so. Jews are welcome by the Palestinians to live among them as friends and equals, and there are examples of this that prove it is true. The distinction here, again, is that these Jews are not doing so as occupiers, but as friends. That is all that is needed for peace in Israel/Palestine. For Israel and for Jews to live amongst the Palestinians as friends and as equals and not as conquerers and overseers, and to stop the ethnic cleansing (and genocide). We have proof that this is true, because there are Jews living amongst the Palestinians who are welcome to be there, and they are not being harmed in any way. beardedbruce, himself, would be welcome to live with the Palestinians in their villages as a friend and equal, if he weren't so rabidly racist towards Palestinians and Arabs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 29 Feb 08 - 05:30 PM And Arabs are welcome to live peacefully in Israel: We have proof that this is true, because there are Arabs living amongst the Jews who are welcome to be there, and they are not being harmed in any way. If you feel that a limited number proves the point, ( as the number of Jews living in Palestinian villages is very few, far fewer than the number of Arab Moslims living in Israel) then you have to concede my point- which proves your assertions about what Israel wants to do are false. Or do you still insist that Jews be held to one standard, and Moslims to another? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 29 Feb 08 - 05:33 PM That is all that is needed for peace in Israel/Palestine. For Palestinian Moslims to live amongst the Jews as friends and as equals and not as murderers and suicide bombers, and to stop the attempted genocide of Jews that Palestinians still teach their children. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 29 Feb 08 - 05:54 PM "if he weren't so rabidly racist towards Palestinians and Arabs. " I AM predjudiced: I have a certain emnity towards ANYONE who has declared repeatedly, and acted upon those statements whenever they had the chance, that they want to kill me, my relatives, and my friends because our grandparents had the "wrong" religion. As for Palestinians, those I have been friends with were driven out of their village by the Moslim armies of the Arab League. Being Christian, they were in the way of the Moslim control of the West Bank after 1948, and had to flee for their lives. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 29 Feb 08 - 06:01 PM from another thread... "The contemporary way to get somebody with whom you disagree to shut up is to call them "racist." It works most of the time because nobody wants that label. Usually, the accusation is unfounded, like it is in this case. Thankfully, it's beginning not to work anymore. People are becoming wise to these tactics." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 29 Feb 08 - 06:04 PM The principles of the Hamas are stated in their Covenant or Charter, given in full below. Following are highlights. "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." "The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. " "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors." "After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying." http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 29 Feb 08 - 06:27 PM "Jews have tried to enter Gaza, and they have been welcome to do so by the Palestinians living there" - CarolC Was that some sort of feeble attempt at answering Question No.3?: 3. Are Jews and Palestinians living peacefully side by side in Gaza CarolC? "I've already shown you (and the fact of their existence is not subjective and can be proven) that there are Jews living in Palestinian villages with Palestinians." - so contends CarolC But "arch-liar" Teribus, questions this "chuminess" and raises the differences between the situation in Gaza and the situation in the West Bank, which gave rise to the question about Jews living in Palestinian villages with Palestinians in Gaza. Remember way way back in this thread CarolC, I told you that in a discussion/debate/interrogation you know who is telling the truth by the constancy of their "tale". Up above there we have a shift in yours don't we? It has moved from "that there are Jews living" to "Jews have tried to enter Gaza". Not quite the same thing is it? Oh and the link from "Green Left Weekly", 70 "activists" are trying to enter Gaza by boat to distribute aid? What the hell has that got to with "Jews trying to enter Gaza" and "Jews living in Palestinian villages with Palestinians"? Even in the West Bank the link you supplied about Hebron is not exactly a success story about "Jews living in Palestinian villages with Palestinians" is it? I notice that you side stepped the question about Hebron, but the very short version I gave earlier may explain why in your link on Hebron it mentions a massive Arab majority now residing in what used to be a predominantly Jewish town of some 800 years standing, or at least it was a predominatly Jewish town up until 1929 that is. You CarolC have called me liar, racist, supremacist simply because I have successfully countered your myths, half-truths and misrepresentations, you are without doubt a sorry piece of work, an apologist for liars and murderers, who have deliberately held a people in poverty and misery for the best part of 60 years for nothing other than their own gain - you are more to be pitied than censured. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 29 Feb 08 - 06:49 PM Palestinians are only allowed to live in a very small number of places, beardedbruce, whether they are peaceful or not. There are many Palestinians who have never committed any violent acts, and none of those Palestinians are allowed to live in the apartheid, Jewish-only settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. And they are also not allowed to live in Israel. This is because of Israel's racist policy of maintaining a permanent Arab minority. And for you to consistently hold all Arabs responsible for what some Arabs have done, is collective punishment, one of the Nazis favorite tactics. The Nazis showed us quite well the injustice of collective punishment when they practiced it on the Jews. And here you are carrying on that stellar practice yourself. You are the one who is practicing the double standard, and it shows that your hatred of Arabs has nothing whatever to do with whether or not they have practiced violence against you or anyone else. You hate them because you believe you are better than them, and that because you are better than them, you have a right to treat them however you like, even if that means taking what is theirs and not yours, and treating them like they are not human. You are the inheritor of the Nazi ideology, beardedbruce. Or do you still insist that Jews be held to one standard, and Moslims to another? I find it very telling that you have framed this in terms of Jews and Muslims. I guess you have already written off the existence of the Christian Palestinians. That was quick work. Now that you've gotten rid of them, that makes fewer Palestinians to have to get rid of. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 29 Feb 08 - 07:08 PM Teribus, I said that you are too stupid to argue with, and I really meant it. You are too stupid to argue with. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 29 Feb 08 - 08:39 PM " I guess you have already written off the existence of the Christian Palestinians. That was quick work. Now that you've gotten rid of them, that makes fewer Palestinians to have to get rid of. " I have not written them off- but you have ignored that many were driven out - "clensed" by those so-innocent Moslims that made the West Bank "juden-frie" from 1948 to 1967. YOU are tho one who states that ALL jews think such, or that "Israel" intends to do things. As for the Nazi, it is those who support the ( internationally declared) illegal area mass bombardments, by rockets aimed at civilian areas, that are the ones in violation of international law- YET YOU DO NOT object to THAT. As long as they are only killing Jews, and Christians, and Moslims living peacably in Israel YOU seem to think that it is ok. I have never claimed any "problem" with Palestinians attacking military posts- but the deliberate targheting of civilians, and YOUR support of them,is deserving of condemnation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 29 Feb 08 - 09:06 PM "You hate them because you believe you are better than them, and that because you are better than them, you have a right to treat them however you like, even if that means taking what is theirs and not yours, and treating them like they are not human. " YOU have no idea what I believe. You may infer from what I have written, but your claim to KNOW what others believe, orr what they intend hasd been seen to be far from reality. HOW MUCH of Mandate Palestine do you insist be reserved solely for the Moslims? The Jews are SHARING their small part with Moslims and Christians, and have taken in the Jewish refugess driven out of Arab nations. WHAT have the "Palestinians" done? JORDAN ( The portion of Mandate Palestine EXCLUSIVELY reserved for Moslims) offered then full citizenship in 1948, if they would renounce the destruction of Israel. They did not, and thus remained stateless. I think it is you who refuse to treat the Palestinians as human, because they make much better pawns to attack Jews with. "They will have peace when they love their children more than they hate us." YOU would rather hate, and prevent peace then to admit that the (Moslim)Palestinians have brought most of their pain upon themselves, by their own actions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Barry Finn Date: 01 Mar 08 - 12:07 AM Carol, you've done a great job explaining what's in plain sight for most of us to see but you're dealing here with a couple that can't stand far enough away to see the whole picture. They've got their noses so close to one point in the middle of the painting that they'll never see the wider scope of the object as a complete piece never mind the frame in which it's held nor the wall behind that from which it hangs or the light that shines on it. You've ridden the horse to death & now it's time to get off the horse because they're gonna keep beating the dead carc-ass in the hopes that it'll get up & prove you wrong. It's not gonna get up, they're not gonna get it & "you're right!!! & they're wrong" Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 01 Mar 08 - 02:01 AM I need to respond to these, Barry, if I want to get any sleep tonight. I have not written them off- but you have ignored that many were driven out - "clensed" by those so-innocent Moslims that made the West Bank "juden-frie" from 1948 to 1967. This is a lie. Most of the Christian Palestinians who have left have done so because of the brutal occupation of the Palestinian lands by the Israelis. This is yet another libel being told about the Palestinians by the government of Israel, to stir up yet more hatred toward Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims. YOU are tho one who states that ALL jews think such, or that "Israel" intends to do things. This is a bald faced lie, beardedbruce. Right here in this thread I have said that there are Jews living peacefully in Palestinian villages who are treating the Palestinians as friends and as equals. YOU are the one who chooses to translate my criticism of Israel into a criticism of all Jews. But this is an incredibly dishonest tactic, and you know it. I have also said numerous times that there are many, many Jews who are not racist like you, and who are fighting very hard for the rights of Palestinians. And I have said that these people are my heroes. As for the Nazi, it is those who support the ( internationally declared) illegal area mass bombardments, by rockets aimed at civilian areas, that are the ones in violation of international law- YET YOU DO NOT object to THAT. The Palestinians are fighting against occupation (even the ones in Gaza, who are still under occupation, even if the soldiers who enforce that occupation are on the other side of the wall now). When Jews place themselves among the Palestinians as friends rather than as occupiers, the Palestinians welcome them and do not hurt them. They do not hold all Jews responsible for the behavior of some Jews. They are not the racists, and they are not practicing anything resembling a Nazi ideology. But you advocate punishing all Palestinians for the actions of some Palestinians, regardless of whether or not the Palestinians in question have committed the acts that you object to. This is the racist practice, and this is the practice that inherits the Nazi ideology. HOW MUCH of Mandate Palestine do you insist be reserved solely for the Moslims? I have never insisted that ANY of it be reserved solely for Muslims. I have never used the word Moslim (Muslim) in this context at all. And I have never insisted, or even suggested, that any of it be reserved solely for Palestinians. You are the one who is advocating that land should be set aside for the exclusive use of a particular group (Jews). I am saying that all groups should be allowed to live on all of the land (with freedom and equality). That is all I have ever been saying. You are the one who insists that Jews should be allowed to live in apartheid, Jewish-only settlements wherever they want to, regardless of how many Palestinians get displaced in the process. Or if that's not what you're saying, then I guess you would have no problem with allowing Palestinians to live in the settlements, and use the roads that currently only Jews can use to get to and from the settlements. And you would have no problem with allowing non-Jews to buy land from Jews in Israel. And you would have no problem with allowing any Palestinians who want to, to live in Israel (Israel within the 67 borders). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 01 Mar 08 - 02:57 AM "When Jews place themselves among the Palestinians as friends rather than as occupiers, the Palestinians welcome them and do not hurt them." - CarolC What a ridiculous statement. It flies in the face of history. Is that what happened before CarolC? Not according to what happened, and if anybody doubts that all they have to do is consult the records of the time. "They do not hold all Jews responsible for the behavior of some Jews. They are not the racists, and they are not practicing anything resembling a Nazi ideology." - CarolC Ah, so those clowns down in Gaza firing all those rockets into the civilian centres of population in Israel know for definite that the people they are firing at are the Israelis responsible for all the ills of the Palestinian Arabs do they? I am dying to hear what you come up with by way of justification for what most certainly is a clear example of collective punishment and an act in direct contravention of the Geneva Convention. For those interested here are the answers to the questions that CarolC seems reluctant to answer: 1. How many videos have you seen aired of Israelis cutting off peoples heads CarolC? Answer: NONE 2. How many times have you seen, or heard, senior Israeli officials boasting of the store of body parts they have in the freezer to use as bargaining counters? Answer: NEVER 3. Are Jews and Palestinians living peacefully side by side in Gaza CarolC? Answer: No they are not, all Jewish/Israelis were evacuated from Gaza under the terms of the unilateral agreement to withdraw reached with the Palestinain Authority. 4. In the great Jewish Mandate of Palestine "land-grab", the Jews "grabbed" less than 7% of what was available. Now just by comparison how much land did your forefathers grab in North America CarolC? Answer: CarolC's forefathers grabbed 97.5% of the land mass of the United States of America leaving the indigenous population with 2.5% which is administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 5. The arguement for Arab concern in the 1920's was that the influx of European Jewry was puting an unsustainable burden on the land in Palestine - That was when the total population of Palestine or the 23% of the total Mandated Territory was around 1 million people - Present day Arab population of Palestine is roughly 4.5 million and the population of Israel is 7.2 million - So what exactly was the validity of the Arab concern in the 1920's CarolC? Answer: The Arabs concerns were baseless, as was reported by the Peel Commission in 1937. However this concern over land was used as a pretext to severely restrict pre-war Jewish immigration. 6. Did the Israelis honour their commitment to withdraw from Gaza? Answer: Yes they did in full. 7. Did the Palestinian Authority honour its commitment to halt rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza? Answer: No they did not, the attacks continue to this day. 8. Provide one example of any commitment or agreement entered into by the Palestinians that they have kept or have ever even had the slightest intention of keeping with regard to Israel. Answer: Their commitment to the complete and utter destruction of Israel as can be clearly read in the Charters of both Hamas and Hezbollah. 9 Tell us about the Massacre at Hebron in 1929 CarolC. Answer: Unprovoked attack by Arabs on a Jewish town that had been an established jewish community for over 800 years. 67 people were killed and the population was driven out of the their homes, which explains why the demographics for Hebron now show an Arab population of 35,000 and a Jewish community of less than 800. 10. What is the correct definition of a "Palestinian"? Answer: According to the UN anyone who resided or worked in the Mandated Territory of Palestine in the two years before Israel's declaration of Independence (1946 to 1948). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 01 Mar 08 - 12:19 PM You're too stupid to argue with, Teribus. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 01 Mar 08 - 01:13 PM "YOU would rather hate, and prevent peace then to admit that the (Moslim)Palestinians have brought most of their pain upon themselves, by their own actions." - bb I think, bb, that your attitude stinks. If you substitute the word, Jews for "(Moslim)Palestinians" you will understand what I mean. You are driven by hatred. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 01 Mar 08 - 01:27 PM I think it's also very telling that beardedbruce keeps turning the discussion in the direction of Muslims, instead of Palestinians. This discussion has never been about Muslims. It's always been about Palestinians, although it looks like beardedbruce is unaware that there are still Christian Palestinians living in Occupied Palestine. So I guess he hates all Muslims on top of his hatred of Palestinians and Arabs. That's a hell of a lot of people to hate (more than a billion). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 02 Mar 08 - 07:23 AM IYO CarolC - but so far you have been unable to refute one single thing that has been stated either by myself or by BB. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Barry Finn Date: 02 Mar 08 - 07:45 AM Are you kidding T? She's been nailing you & BB to the cross & you still can't feel the pain, must be the drugs! Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 02 Mar 08 - 08:25 AM Care to point out any examples of that Baz? The fact that the first instance of trouble in Palestine between Arab and Jew was a completely unprovoked attack by Arabs on Jews was well recorded in the newspapers at the time, in official records after having been subject to a thorough investigation. Only a complete and utter idiot would deny it ever happened, but the pair of you have seemingly done so. While the pair of you drone on about Israeli transgressions, atrocities and acts of violence post 1947, there is not even an acknowledgement of what occured in the previous 27 years when the boot was very much on the other foot. Sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander. No mention whatsoever of the violence and threats of violence publicly directed at Israel since 1948. Your so-called view of what you regard as the "big picture" is blatantly one of the most hypocritical ever demonstrated. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Barry Finn Date: 02 Mar 08 - 10:31 AM What a few assholes go and kidnap a few Israel soldiers who were over the wrong side of the border & Israel blows the landscape & everyone in it back to the birth of Christ? Great example T! Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 02 Mar 08 - 10:44 AM You are quite right Barry what a great example, your last post illustrates what I was saying about you perfectly: "Your so-called view of what you regard as the "big picture" is blatantly one of the most hypocritical ever demonstrated." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Barry Finn Date: 02 Mar 08 - 11:25 AM So blatant T that the UN had to scold them about it? Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 02 Mar 08 - 04:40 PM CarolC "This is a lie. Most of the Christian Palestinians who have left have done so because of the brutal occupation of the Palestinian lands by the Israelis." YOUR statement is a lie- I lived across the street from one family, and they had hundreds of relatives. All driven out of the cHRISTIAN town of Ramallah by the Moslims in the late 40's, when Israel did NOT have control of the area. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 02 Mar 08 - 04:43 PM " You are the one who is advocating that land should be set aside for the exclusive use of a particular group (Jews). " No ISRAEL is the one country in the region where different religions are allowed to freely live together. "I am saying that all groups should be allowed to live on all of the land (with freedom and equality). " Then YOU will agree that the greater part of Mandate Palestine (Jordan) should be opened to Jewish selttlement??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 02 Mar 08 - 04:47 PM "And you would have no problem with allowing non-Jews to buy land from Jews in Israel." True. MORE non- Jews own land in Israel than non-Muslims own land in Jordan. " And you would have no problem with allowing any Palestinians who want to, to live in Israel (Israel within the 67 borders). " True, with the caveat that it should be the MANDATE PALESTINE area, which includes the West Bank AND Jordan that should be open to settlement by Palestinians AND Jews. Provided, of course, that they disavow their stated intent to KILL all the Jews. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 02 Mar 08 - 04:50 PM " So I guess he hates all " No, again. YOU do NOT have any idea who I hate, except that I have stated a certain emnity against those who claim they want to kill me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 02 Mar 08 - 04:52 PM Barry, re 02 Mar 08 - 10:31 AM : You have a very selective memory. How about the daily rocket attacks by groups in Lebenon ( Before the kidnapping) against civilian populations in Israel? Oh, I guess Jews don't count in your book. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 02 Mar 08 - 04:54 PM "So blatant T that the UN had to scold them about it?" The SAME UN that said the ceasefire would only be valid if BOTH sides complied, and then ignored the RESUPPLY ( against the rules of the ceasefire) of Hezboallah missiles, and the LACK of compliance on the part of all groups OTHER than Israel???? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Barry Finn Date: 02 Mar 08 - 06:17 PM Oh, was that before the airel bombing? Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 03 Mar 08 - 01:16 AM Your selective memory's showing again Barry. Go back and take a good look at the timeline of events. Oh that reminds me Barry, how many rockets fired indiscriminately into your neighbourhood would you allow to fall before you took action against those firing them? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 03 Mar 08 - 01:37 PM YES, Barry. And the Hamas rockest have been daily hitting Israel for the last 6 months or so, before the Israeli air attacks on Gaza late last week. But I guess you'll just blame those warlike Israelis that object to having their civilian population ( Of Jews, Christians, AND Muslims) attacked every day by area mass bombardment missiles. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: CarolC Date: 06 Mar 08 - 02:22 AM YOUR statement is a lie- I lived across the street from one family, and they had hundreds of relatives. All driven out of the cHRISTIAN town of Ramallah by the Moslims in the late 40's, when Israel did NOT have control of the area. There are still Christian Palestinians in Palestine, beardedbruce. They suffer just as much under the occupation as the Muslim Palestinians do. I don't know the particular story of your neighbors, but Muslims and Christians (and Jews) were successfully living together in Palestine for a long time prior to the war of 1948/49 and the Nakba. Many Christian Palestinians fled along with the Muslim Palestinians during the Nakba, and ended up living in the same refugee camps. This website (an Arab Catholic site) explains some of the dynamics... Palestinian Christians, an integral part of their society, suffered the consequences of the intensive Arab Jewish communal conflict in the first half of the twentieth century When the communal conflict came to a head in martial confrontation in 1948, Arab Palestinian society was forced to re-organise. Many Palestinian refugees, including Christians, established themselves in the newly emerging Amman capital of Jordan, as traders, professionals and businessmen. Others opted leave to North American and Arab Gulf destinations. Those who went to Arab Gulf countries eventually came back to retire in their hometowns such as B Sahour, the town best known for The Shepherds' Field. Others who opted to North America and further destinations established themselves and the families there and became diaspora communities with the usual sentiment attachments to the homeland and its fading memories. So we can see that some of the Christians who fled ended up returning to Palestine and were not driven off by the Muslims. Maybe it was the Jewish paramilitaries who drove your neighbors off, but they were afraid to tell you that because they were afraid of possible repercussions if they did so. The above linked page explains the higher rate of Christian Palestinians leaving. This is how it characterizes the traditional quality of relations between Christians and Muslims in Palestine... Excellent Christian-Moslem Relations In order to better understand or contextualise the Palestinian Christian response, there is need to reaffirm the traditionally excellent relations between Christians and their Moslem neighbours. This tradition of good Christian-Moslem relations has evolved through centuries of coexistence and exchange in the cities of Jerusalem, Nazareth, Bethlehem, Ramallah and in the rural areas such as Zababdeh, BirZeit and other towns and villages where Moslems and Christians live side by side and interact in their pursuit of daily pre-occupations and concerns. A number of factors have historically contributed to this tradition of excellent Moslem-Christian relations:4 First, the modem history of Palestine with the Arab-Israeli conflict affecting the entire population equally, with the experience of dispersal and loss of homeland. Second, the contribution which Christian institutions, mostly Western, have made since the 19th century to the education, health and other needs of the population irrespective of religion. Third, the presence of the Holy Places, and the recognition by Islam of the centrality of Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Nazareth to Christianity. This recognition is best crystallised in Caliph 'Umar's "al-Uhda al-'Umariyya" which was his guarantee of the safety of Christians and their holy places in 638 when Islam entered the country.5 Fourth, the urban nature of the Christian population and its living in religiously mixed Christian-Moslem neighbourhoods, thus emphasising openness and neighbourly relations. In those instances where Christians lived in villages and rural areas, relations were always characterised by friendly co-operation and communal sharing. Fifth, Christians take equal pride in their national and religious roots. Being a good Christian has never detracted from being a good Palestinian nationalist, and vice-versa. Sixth, the Ottoman Miller system which recognised the autonomy of the Christian communities to run their own internal affairs, especially those related to religious and civil matters. ________________ " You are the one who is advocating that land should be set aside for the exclusive use of a particular group (Jews). " No ISRAEL is the one country in the region where different religions are allowed to freely live together. But you support the Jewish-only settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, beardedbruce? Or do you support opening up the settlements to anyone who wants to live in them? "I am saying that all groups should be allowed to live on all of the land (with freedom and equality). " Then YOU will agree that the greater part of Mandate Palestine (Jordan) should be opened to Jewish selttlement??? Settlement, beardedbruce? The kind of settlement that is ongoing in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, in which only Jews can live, that are accessed by roads that only Jews may drive on, with the apartheid being enforced by the IDF? Is this what you are suggesting when you use the word "Jewish settlement"? Of course I don't agree with "settlement". And why should Jews want to "settle" an already settled country? Why can't they just live as equals amongst the people who already live there? Why do you feel that they should be allowed to drive everyone else out? "And you would have no problem with allowing non-Jews to buy land from Jews in Israel." True. MORE non- Jews own land in Israel than non-Muslims own land in Jordan. Currently, no land in Israel may be purchased from a Jew by anyone other than another Jew. And with the rate of confiscations of homes and properties from Arab Israelis, the amount of land owned by non-Jews in Israel is shrinking fast. Do you support allowing non-Jews to purchase property from Jews in Israel? "And you would have no problem with allowing any Palestinians who want to, to live in Israel (Israel within the 67 borders). " True, with the caveat that it should be the MANDATE PALESTINE area, which includes the West Bank AND Jordan that should be open to settlement by Palestinians AND Jews. Provided, of course, that they disavow their stated intent to KILL all the Jews. Well, I guess you're setting them up for failure then, beardedbruce (no surprise there), since they have NEVER stated ANY intent to kill ALL the Jews. This is nothing but a blood libel on your part against the Palestinians as a people. No, again. YOU do NOT have any idea who I hate, except that I have stated a certain emnity against those who claim they want to kill me. This is bullshit, beardedbruce, since you have not personally interviewed all of the Palestinians to know whether or not they have ever made such a claim. You hate all Palestinians (and all Arabs, and all Muslims) and you are just making up this libel against them so you can justify your racist hatred. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 06 Mar 08 - 09:16 AM There are still Muslim Israelis in Israel, CarolC. They suffer just as much under the attacks of Hamas as the Jewish Israelis do. I don't know the particular story of your neighbors, but Muslims and Christians (and Jews) are successfully living together in Israel NOW and since the 1880s. "Maybe it was the Jewish paramilitaries who drove your neighbors off, but they were afraid to tell you that because they were afraid of possible repercussions if they did so." Gee, they left Ramallah ( ON THE WEST BANK) between 1948 and 1960- WHEN IT WAS UNDER JORDANIAN CONTROL. You have a very convoluted idea of where and when "Jewish paramilitaries" were active. "Currently, no land in Israel may be purchased from a Jew by anyone other than another Jew." Care to provide any information on this? I have never heard of this, other than from sites that also claim the Holocaust never happened and Jews control the world. "Do you support allowing non-Jews to purchase property from Jews in Israel?" As much as YOU support Jews buying property from anyone in ANY Arab nation- You know maybe the property that was taken from them when they ( the Jews)+ were forced out in 1948- 1956? "since they have NEVER stated ANY intent to kill ALL the Jews." FALSE- YOU have never bothered to read the CHARTERS of Hamas, the other Palestinian organizations, the declarations of the Arab League in 1947 onward, the statements by the offiucial representatives of those groups, or the classroom materials preseted in UN sponsered Palestinian schools. YOU are the one making the blood libels. "This is bullshit, beardedbruce, since you have not personally interviewed all of the Palestinians to know whether or not they have ever made such a claim." I only have the emnity with those who HAVE made that statement- which includes the official representatives of many of the various Palestinian groups, the Arab League,etc. I have no emnity at all for Jordanians, Egyptians, or others that have NOT expressed the desire to kill Jews. " You hate all Palestinians (and all Arabs, and all Muslims) and you are just making up this libel against them so you can justify your racist hatred. " Another false statement, certainly a libel against me. YOU have never interviewed ALL Israelis, yet you make claims as to what they want to do, and why. Why is that? If ONE peaceful Palestinian requires Jews to sit back and be killed without action, why is it that one peaceful Jew does not require that the Palestinians stop their mass bombardment attacks upon the civilian population ( Jews, Muslim, and Christian) of Israel? I have stated there are Palestinians I do not hate- YOUR STATEMENT that I hate ALL Palestinians is a baltent lie, and obviously you have no desire to even deal with the truth. I will regard your subsequent comments accordingly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 06 Mar 08 - 02:59 PM http://www.meforum.org/article/370 This article ends as follows: "In sum, the Palestinian Authority has successfully managed to charge Israel with the very sins that it itself is guilty of. The most striking instances of this success, perhaps, are the many academics and journalists who repeat and reinforce Palestinian charges of Israeli discrimination with regard to land ownership. This climate of distortion has two consequences. First, it misleads politicians, diplomats, and others about the basic facts that underlie the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Second, it encourages Palestinians to harbor unreasonable hopes and make exorbitant demands. These twin problems reinforce each other, and thereby make a genuine peace that much more difficult to achieve. This presents a particularly bad precedent for the negotiation of such final status issues as Jerusalem, water rights, and the drawing of borders. It is likely that these final status issues will also be subject to campaigns to portray Israel as an unprovoked aggressor and Palestinians and Arabs as blameless victims. Indeed, there are signs that this has already begun" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 06 Mar 08 - 03:10 PM On the other hand, 1. It is illegal for Jews to buy land in Jordan. 2"Arutz Sheva News Service -- May 22, 1997 ARAFAT STANDS BY DEATH PENALTY PA Chairman Yasser Arafat confirmed yesterday that the PA will implement the death penalty against Arabs who sell land to Jews. [See insert following this news report.] The PA is in fact actively engaged in seeking and pursuing Arab land dealers who have sold to Jews. Jibril Rajub, head of the Palestinian security forces, has been given a list of Arabs who are suspected of the recently-declared capital crime. Fifteen Arabs from the Hevron-area villages of Yata and Dura have been arrested by Rajub's men over the past several days. They have been transferred for interrogation to Palestinian security service installations in Jericho. The Knesset Land of Israel front, together with the Yesha Council, are operating a distress hot-line for Palestinian land-dealers. The Arab press, apparently fearful of reprisal, refused to publish paid advertisements with the phone number. In recent days, families of Arab land-dealers have asked the Israeli authorities to transfer them over the Green Line, for their safety. State Department spokesman Nicholas Burns issued a sharp condemnation of Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority on this issue last night. "The United States condemns any law or any decree that would threaten death against any Palestinian for selling land to Israelis or Jews," Burns said. "That's wrong. It's contrary to what must prevail in the Middle East, which is peace... Chairman Arafat must stand up for the rule of law. He must defend it in what he says and what he does, and frankly the recent statements by members of his administration ... inciting Palestinians to attack and murder other Palestinians for selling land, those statements are reprehensible." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 06 Mar 08 - 05:09 PM Oh, wot the hell! 800! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bill D Date: 06 Mar 08 - 08:22 PM gosh, Don...it's nice to see ONE un-biased post! |
