I wonder if Sadaam will run for the mountains like Osama did.
This is turning into quite the sticky event. I hope it goes as smoothly as you think, grunt.
I wonder if Sadaam will run for the mountains like Osama did.
This is turning into quite the sticky event. I hope it goes as smoothly as you think, grunt.
The problem grunt, is we, like many times in the past, have never officialy declared war.
wow. hope bush and his crew is readin' all this...
dey mite lern somethin'.
You know, the Americans are the only ones on this board that argue about their government. Why is that? The canadians diss their Prime Minister and nobody cares. But in America, you diss Bush and you're gauranteed to have several people jump down your throat. People need to seriously LIGHTEN UP.
D8TA, thanks for posting this thread. it doesn't matter if you think the US gov't will use these new laws in sinister ways or not, the important thing is getting the knowledge out. most people are stupid dumbasses that feel comforted by these laws, it makes 'em feel safer. we should ALL know how much fear can motivate people into behaving like docile little sheep. listen to the news, how often are fear triggering words used?
Edited by - peaceloveharmony on 10 February 2003 23:51:16
So far, all we have against my EVIDENCE and FACTS (by Farkel and Dakota) is ignorant opinion & blind trust of the government...as well as labeling and name calling.
Hmmm, articles by those with leftist leanings and conjecture on their part are "EVIDENCE and FACTS?" But, present another side and it is "ignorant opinion and blind trust of the government?" There you have it, typical left balance. "I said something and no one should question it!"
Labeling and name calling? Is that right, "skippy?"
But yes, there is no reason to look warily towards Arabs anymore. What do the following events in history have in common?
1972 Olympic athlete massacre in Munich.
1979 Hostage crisis in Iran.
1984 Bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut.
1985 hijacking of cruise ship, Achille Lauro (and subsequent murder)
1985 TWA flight 847 hijacking at Athens (and subsequent murder)
1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.
1993 World Trade Center bombing.
1998 bombing of American Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya.
2001 September 11.
2002 Kidnap and murder of Daniel Pearl.
Were I Arab, I would be concerned too. Concerned that in the past 30 years, my religion was hijacked by radicals and I sat back and did nothing. Hey, but I had my freedom, didn't I?
Thank God for the ACLU protecting the rights of terrorists so they may slaughter us with our own freedoms. So much better that thousands of innocents should die than a freedom and convenience be lost.
As for what may be or might happen, need I remind you that there is not a law on the books that cannot be misused? Do we do away with all of them? Think you have the right and freedom to drive 5 miles an hour over the speed limit without getting a ticket? Ask your police and see their answer.
I may not like it anymore than you do, but our world changed drastically on September 11, 2001. Think it can't happen again? All the chorus's of Kumbaya available won't stop them.
Iraq and weapons of mass destruction.
This page is about hypocrisy. Many nations are accused of killing others, or supporting such killing. Many nations have weapons of mass destruction and have threatened to use them. For example, the United States has the world's largest collection of weapons, and has often bombed or invaded other countries (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Grenada, etc.) Also, the United States and its allies have allegedly caused over a million deaths in Iraq alone, through these bombings and the economic sanctions that follow. Also, Iraq is accused of building weapons of mass destruction, threatening its neighbors, and killing several thousand innocent people. This is where the hypocrisy comes in. The strongest allegations are against America, but here we are told all the reasons why it is not really America's fault. The weakest allegations are against Iraq, but here we are told that Iraq is obviously an evil country that must be stopped, even if it means war.
It may be that Iraq is guilty of everything it is accused of. It may be the west's reaction is the right one. What is the evidence?
Is this page an apology for Saddam Hussein? No. It is simply a plea for consistency and reason. Perhaps the west is better than Iraq now? If so, that has not always been the case. In the nineteenth century, for example, America exterminated a large portion of it native peoples and drove the rest from their homes. Britain invaded numerous third world countries, killing thousands or millios along the way. Has Saddam Hussein done anything worse? When we look back at our own history, we try to be understanding. If we are consistent, we should also be understanding about other countries today. Please, let us have no double standards.
The ultimate proof that Iraq (or its leader, Sadam Hussein) is monstrously evil that he gassed his own people (or rather, the Kurds who lived in the north of Iraq). But did this happen? This is from a 1990 Pentagon report, published just prior to the invasion of Kuwait, by the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. War College at Carlisle, Pennsylvania:
"In September 1988, however -- a month after the war had ended -- the State Department abruptly, and in what many viewed as a sensational manner, condemned Iraq for allegedly using chemicals against its Kurdish population. The incident cannot be understood without some background of Iraq's relations with the Kurds. It is beyond the scope of this study to go deeply into this matter; suffice it to say that throughout the war Iraq effectively faced two enemies -- Iran and the elements of its own Kurdish minority. Significant numbers of the Kurds had launched a revolt against Baghdad and in the process teamed up with Tehran. As soon as the war with Iran ended, Iraq announced its determination to crush the Kurdish insurrection. It sent Republican Guards to the Kurdish area, and in the course of this operation - according to the U.S. State Department -- gas was used, with the result that numerous Kurdish civilians were killed. The Iraqi government denied that any such gassing had occurred. Nonetheless, Secretary of State Schultz stood by U.S. accusations, and the U.S. Congress, acting on its own, sought to impose economic sanctions on Baghdad as a violator of the Kurds' human rights.
"Having looked at all of the evidence that was available to us, we find it impossible to confirm the State Department's claim that gas was used in this instance. To begin with there were never any victims produced. International relief organizations who examined the Kurds -- in Turkey where they had gone for asylum -- failed to discover any. Nor were there ever any found inside Iraq. The claim rests solely on testimony of the Kurds who had crossed the border into Turkey, where they were interviewed by staffers of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
"We would have expected, in a matter as serious as this, that the Congress would have exercised some care. However, passage of the sanctions measure through the Congress was unusually swift -- at least in the Senate where a unanimous vote was secured within 24 hours. Further, the proposed sanctions were quite draconian (and will be discussed in detail below). Fortunately for the future of Iraqi-U.S. ties, the sanctions measure failed to pass on a bureaucratic technicality (it was attached as a rider to a bill that died before adjournment).
"It appears that in seeking to punish Iraq, the Congress was influenced by another incident that occurred five months earlier in another Iraqi-Kurdish city, Halabjah. In March 1988, the Kurds at Halabjah were bombarded with chemical weapons, producing a great many deaths. Photographs of them Kurdish victims were widely disseminated in the international media. Iraq was blamed for the Halabjah attack, even though it was subsequently brought out that Iran too had used chemicals in this operation, and it seemed likely that it was the Iranian bombardment that had actually killed the Kurds.
"Thus, in our view, the Congress acted more on the basis of emotionalism than factual information, and without sufficient thought for the adverse diplomatic effects of its action. As a result of the outcome of the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq is now the most powerful state in the Persian Gulf, an area in which we have vital interests. To maintain an uninterrupted flow of oil from the Gulf to the West, we need to develop good working relations with all of the Gulf states, and particularly with Iraq, the strongest."(1)
I am no trying to apologise for Iraq. Perhaps the report was wrong. Perhaps Iraq did gas its own people. I just say that Iraq should be given the benefit of the doubt. We expect them to be understanding about our actions - which may have resulted in far more deaths (see below). Understanding should be a two way street.
Finally, it has been pointed out that America has also used gas against its own people.
"Didn't our government also do that at WACO? The C2 gas used by the FBI killed children who couldn't fit into gas masks and then created an explosive mixture which triggered fire and immolation, (see super documentary, WACO, nominated for an Academy Award)." (2)
After the Gulf War (a separate issue which is not discussed on this page), the west had two approaches. One was for UN weapons inspectors to find out what was going on. The other was for economic sanctions to reduce Iraq's ability to do very much of anything. The sanctions are intended to only stop military materials, but most of what is needed for war - basic roads, chemicals, machinery - is also needed for day to day life. When these"dual use" supplies are stopped, everyone suffers. In addition, the innocent material that should get through is often blocked, mainly by the United States:
"The UN's humanitarian programme in Iraq has been hampered by a record $5.3bn (3.7bn) worth of blocked supplies, mainly by the US, it was revealed yesterday. The contracts include some $4.6bn worth of humanitarian supplies and $703m for oil industry equipment, the UN office of the Iraq programme said in its weekly report."(3)
The western officials who have to enforce this regime sometimes find it intolerable. Some resign. Here are two senior examples.
Scott Ritter was a senior weapons inspector of the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM). He attempting for several years to perform his task, initially with some success. However, his ability to act for the UN was compromised when the CIA tried to make him gather information for them. The UN is supposed to be independent, and this lost him the respect ad credibility he needed to do his job. He also realized that the sanctions against Iraq were not achieving their desired ends. Ritter concluded that the west had to make a choice:
1. Either use diplomacy (founded on trust and law) to gain greater access, or
2. Or, alternatively, send in massive amounts of ground troops to illegally conquer the nation.
As US policy prevented either option, he was unable to continue his job. He resigned. Eventually, in 1988, all the weapons inspectors left because they simply could not function.
Dennis Halliday was a UN humanitarian relief coordinator. He was responsible for making sure that the sanctions did not harm the poorest and most vulnerable people in Iraq. He found that it was impossible to prevent this. The sanctions automatically hit the poorest people hardest. (The rich can always find ways around these things.) The sanctions were causing the deaths of at least five thousand people each month. As a more recent comparison, the west has delivered a "September 11th" to Iraq every two weeks, year after year. Halliday resigned in protest.
Both men agree: the sanctions are not working. Ritter says we need either diplomacy or all-out war. Halliday says we ned diplomacy. (As a side issue, it is interesting to note that Ritter, who was sympathetic to war, received far more western media coverage than Halliday, who only wanted peace.)(4)
In effect, the US had chosen to prevent any serious weapons inspections, in order to punish Iraq in a slow, painful, and utterly pointless way. After 1998 the people of Iraq still suffered, but Saddam was free to develop his weapons. The whole situation angered Ritter and Halliday so much that they gave various interviews (they are entirely unconnected and have different approaches), hoping to wake up public opinion to what is happening.(5)
As a final comment, it should be noted that food is a biological material. Denying food results ina slow and painful death, just as does applying toxic gas. According to Ritter, Halliday and others, our sanctions have been causing those kinds of deaths. As one commentator noted:
"This is serious stuff, because the U.N. tells us that 1.4 million Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the sanctions, which is 3,000 times more than the number of Kurds who supposedly died of gassing at the hands of Saddam."(6)
Please note: HTML links were created between January-March 2002. Some of these links may have expired when you read this.
1. "United Nations: No Proof Saddam Gassed the Kurds" memo to Jess Helms from InfoTimes. The excerpt is from "Iraqi Power and U.S. Security in the Middle East" chapter 5, by Stephen C. Pelletiere, Douglas V. Johnson II and Leif R. Rosenberger, of the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. War College at Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
2. " The Seven Big Lies About Iraq " by Jon Basil Utley, reproduced at FreeRepublic and elsewhere.
3. "Washington blocks $5bn supplies to Iraq" - Reuters, as reported in The Guardian, February 21, 2002. The UN reports the figure as $5 billion. Iraq includes other material that is not blocked but just delayed, and so reports a figure of $8 billion.
4. For a simple comparison of media coverage - a comparison anyone can do for themselves - see "The Media's Coverage of Iraq: Scott Ritter vs. Dennis Halliday" by Ali Abunimah
5. The Ritter material is mainly from Iraq Watch, PolicyWatch No. 377. However, there are several different interviews in various places. For more detail, search the Web for "Scott Ritter " or "Dennis Halliday."
6. From the InfoTimes report, referred to above.
Naw I say, let's not trample the constitution, and let it actually mean something.
Show me the constitution being trampled. If it is, lets go to the Supreme Court. Scare the hell out of people without facts. NICE!.
I noticed in your last diatribe that one of the folks you listed as a source was Scott "I like little girls" Ritter. The guy is bought and paid for.
The pictures of the little kids dead from Saddam's gas are pretty hard evidence to ignore, yet you ignore it. The fact that Saddam has built 40 or more palace complexes since the end of the Gulf War while his people are starving means nothing to you. The fact that Saddam could have ended the sanctions years ago by simply complying with the Treaty he signed when he had his ass kicked means nothing to you...It's all big bad america's fault.
Well, I say **** all ya nut jobs. Get a sense of friggin reality. The guy is responsible for the death over over a million Muslims. He's watched his people be starved to death and does nothing. He rules by fear and by terror. Powell made the case before the Security Council and it's still not enough for the "peaceniks" because NO PROOF would ever be enough for you. A nuclear bomb whose mushroom cloud spelled IRAQ going off in New York City wouldn't be enough justification for you.
You nut cases point to the suppossed war for oil motive of the US without proof, only innuendo, ignoring the fact that more profits would have been had by US oil by NOT going to war, by NOT befriending Israel, and by NOT continuing the Embargo of Iranian Oil.
You nut cases can sit on your asses and ignore the fact that the French have more to lose economically and politically from a war with Iraq and that this is their prime motive for oppossing the war in Iraq. That and they're afraid of what the US will find out about the French violation of the Embargo imposed NOT BY THE US BUT BY THE UN.
I've had it with the lot of you. Sit around and spin your conspiracy theories all ya want, I'm going out and defending this GREAT (YES I SAID GREAT) Nation of ours and the freedom of people around the world.
When the peace nuts start backing the likes of Hussein against the wall for his civil rights violations then maybe, just maybe, I'll give a shit if you think your precious rights that I'm defending for you are in danger.
Yeru (of the fed up and we ARE going to war for a VERY good reason Class)
Well that wasn't very inteligent.
So let's review:
I make a thread about the Patriot Act/Dept. of Homeland Defense, and show how the U.S. Government and Federal/Local Authorities are abusing it.
This isn't about Saddam Hussien.
This isn't about Terrorists.
This post has NOTHING to do with "those people", and this where many of you are failing in your arguments. I have provided evidence and facts, as to this Patriot Act, that people who ARE NOT terrorists are being affected by this.
I see people with fear trying to justify against the points presented, as necessary means. You've proven by your own reponses; that yes, it's okay for the government to have greater power, and should people who are not terrorists should accept the fact that their rights & freedoms can be violated. That it's no big deal that a few "innocent" people get caught up in the dragnet. That it's worth it for security sake.
I mean, if whining about how you took an oath to defend the U.S. nation is all you got...then it prompts me to take violin lessons. This has nothing to do with what I've posted here.
If all you have to throw at this, is about "Arabs" and "People dying in towers"....then you are having problem with comprehension.
Now, again, a kick in the ass....
List the threads in where in I stated that I support Suddam Hussien.
List the threads in where I stated that any war (including the upcoming conflict) was about oil.
List the threads in where I stated or presented a Pro or Con about German or France or any other Country.
This post is about the domestic powers inherited by the authorities of the U.S.A. and how they are being abused. That also, that more abuse will happen.
Now, I have presented material in which shows that this is happening. Please, if you have any material to disprove that such abuse is happening...please present it. If there is material, to show that this IS NOT happening or that such material presented is false and in error...please present it.
Because so far, the counter arguments are only proving my words to be correct. That abuse by Federal Authorities and Local Authorities are already happening due to the Patriot Act and Dept. of Homeland Defense.
The only thing your counter arguments say is, "yes, this should be accepted for the reasons of security". Be it for Saddam, or "Arabs", or Pollyanna's Favorite Shoe Color.
And the question is; Is it worth it? Is it acceptable that innocent people with no ties to terrorism suffer and be violated by the new enhanced powers the U.S. Government has aquired?