More nonsense from Dio
"As has becom .e evident to anyone of any intelligence the selling of the war against Iraq has relied upon lie, upon lie,

upon lie.
One of the bigger whoppers is to superimpose the face of Adoph Hitler upon Saddam Hussein. The comparison is simply

dishonest.
One the other big lies important to note is the attempt in the mass media to create only one face for Iraq Saddam

Hussein. That way people are distracted from looking for the faces of the hundreds of thousands who are not Saddam

Hussein and who will die in any of the War Scenarios which have been floating about.
Think about that last one in particular - the dehumanization of the Iraqi People to be replaced with that of the man we

are told we must hate. Not that Saddam is not a vile bastard who well deserves to swing at the end of a rope but the

PsyOps tactic of trying to substitute his face for every face."




A. Kinda like all the simple minded characterizations of Bush as Hitler right?

B. What are some of these "lies" that are always hinted at around here but are never actually exposed.

Is one that since 1991 he has violated 17 UN resolutions?

Is one that he does in fact, by his own admission in the form of "finding" them for Blix, have biological and chemical

weapons?

Is one of them that he has gassed thousands and thousnda of Kurds?

Is one that every human rights group that we could think of has systematically found him overwhelmingly guilty of heinous

abuse and torture?

Is one of them that it's almost ludicrous to believe that if left be, he wouldn't dream of turning down an opportunity to

covertly aid a group like al queda in an attack on the uS or Isreal? Or are we to believe that regardless of everything

else Sadam and bin Laden would never get in bed together since they don't share fundamentalist muslim views and are much

too noble to bend their respective religious convictions.

Or maybe the problem is that we aided Sadam in the past so therefore we are forever beholden to his whims and desires?

And by that logic we should remain perpetual enemies of Japan, Russia and England.

Oh wait, it's probably the whole oil problem. The Bush "junta" (I love it when you use that word..adds real credibility

to your argument) simply wants more money for it's friends in BIG OIL. Forget that they could have easily taken all the

oil in '91. Forget that if they really wanted huge oil deals Bush could have simply lifted the sanctions, got the oil AND

become a hero to all those who buy the myth that We are responsible for the sanctions and not Sadam.

It's probably the heartfelt compassion the left has for the "faceless" Iraqi in the street. The noble oppressed masses

who have stood buy ARMED but silent while a "leader they didn't elect" systematically tortures and murders their

neighbors. After all, they have no chance to rise up and overthrow their "vile " oppressor. That can't happen. Better to

keep the AK47 clean for the "American Agressors" and hope that Sadam henchmen knock nextdoor instead of here.

So, tell me a few lies. I feel like I can read your response already.

Go home fool.

I think "Fresca" is a misnomer..."Caducado" is more accurate...

"Go home fool."

I am home. this is my site. you're visiting.

-This is my site.-
What the monkey at the zoo on the other
side of the sneeze guard thinks.

This is site does not belong to anybody. It is not anybody's home. It is a community forum administered by a collective. Thus while telling someone to "go home" is silly, saying you are home is no less so.

I'm probably hoping for too much, but can't we treat each other with respect. Personally, I don't care what your politics, if you are mudslinging then you are a part of the problem, and if you are engaging in thoughtful dialogue, you are a part of the solution.

This is a forum for news, ideas and opinion, not an outlet for bad erotica or mean-spirited abuse. Open publishing is predicated on the idea of a respectful and open dialogue. Let us all step back and consider it for a moment.

But this is his thread; he put his big fat ignorant clueless
moronic tasteless tired spiteful condescending arrogant and
mean (oops that sounds like me ) but here to BE kicked..
Thank you for your support. Vote Sheepdog for supreme dog.

I just love it. As always your questions are carefully crafted so as to eat up a maximum of my time in rebutting your implied contentions. Casually thrown out Masters Thesis Questions are not answered in a short post. I’m not biting. I will answer a few as I feel fit simply because it amuses me to do so and does serve some useful purpose.
As well I would challenge people to analyze your questions for themselves. Most of them have an implied underlying premise which I find instructive of your point of view.


More nonsense from Dio (Note negative characterization setting up attack.)
"As has become evident to anyone of any intelligence the selling of the war against Iraq has relied upon lie, upon lie, upon lie.
One of the bigger whoppers is to superimpose the face of Adolph Hitler upon Saddam Hussein. The comparison is simply dishonest. One the other big lies important to note is the attempt in the mass media to create only one face for Iraq Saddam
Hussein. That way people are distracted from looking for the faces of the hundreds of thousands who are not Saddam Hussein and who will die in any of the War Scenarios which have been floating about. Think about that last one in particular - the dehumanization of the Iraqi People to be replaced with that of the man we are told we must hate. Not that Saddam is not a vile bastard who well deserves to swing at the end of a rope but the PsyOps tactic of trying to substitute his face for every face."

(Implication is that this is not true but he is not brave enough to attempt a refutation.)

Yes. And very cleverly done too. I am not saying that occurs in forums such as this but every pronouncement from the Whore House or from the Controlled Press focuses almost exclusively on SADDAM = HITLER either direct or implied. The focus is either on what a foul beast Saddam is (true) and WHAT HE HAS DONE TO THE IRAQI PEOPLE - NEVER COVERING WHAT MISERY A MASSIVE ATTACK WILL BRING AND WHETHER IT IS A VALID TRADE OFF IN TERMS OF THE NUMBERS OF LIVES LOST OR REFUGEES CREATED. It is great PR and very effective on people who believe that Large Media = True Reporting. As we know from a recent court case the Media are under no positive legal obligation to tell the truth. They tell what they are told to tell. It is the responsibility of the “news” consumer (Remember “Caveat Emptor”) to be aware and to ferret out alternatives sources of news an information. I wish this was not so - and sadly most people do not seek out alternatives or contrasting points of view. Although there are positive indications - almost a third of Americans now get some or all their news from the last open venue - The Internet. Life would be so much simpler if we could actually trust the news reportage on ABC, BBC, CNN et.al., but with Large Media control concentrated in very few hands [(about 5 large corporations control the vast majority of Large Scale reporting in this country and they have interlocking directorates) (for those not familiar with the term “Interlocking Directorates means that a member, or members of the Board, of One Company set on the Board of another company - even when they are allegedly competitors.) (A.M. Radio - think “Talk Radio” is controlled by 3 large corporations who own Vidal all stations of 10,000 Watts or greater - and the smaller stations do not have the resources to do their own direct News gathering)] the news is slanted to the needs of those masters. Lies in the Media are so common as to inspire the creation of Web Sites and Magazines which do nothing but expose Media Bias (LIES).

“A. Kinda like all the simple minded characterizations of Bush as Hitler right? “ (Again negative implication setting up attack.)

Actually I think the Parallels are closer than with Saddam.

The U.S. is a first world country as was NAZI Germany with a small elite controlling the majority of major Industrial and FINANCIAL (Banking and Brokerage) Companies and having a disproportionate say in governance. Iraq is a third world country which PURCHASES all of it’s major munitions from other countries.

We have had our own “Reichstag Fire” in 911 - which has, under the guise of fighting “terrah”, been used to pass laws which can only be logically compared to some of the laws restricting freedoms in Hitler’s Germany - justified by fighting “terrorism” but which do nothing to fight terrorism but do encroach on individual liberty and hamstring any opposition.

B. What are some of these "lies" that are always hinted at around here but are never actually exposed.

“Is one that since 1991 he has violated 17 UN resolutions?”

Which is not the record. Israel stands in violation of about 69 at last count. Has committed frequent atrocities against the Palestinian Populace, has invaded and occupied Palestinian Territory, driven them from their land, practices Racist subversion of human rights of non-Jews (and I admit that with some sadness for personal reasons) and even discriminates against non-Ashkenazim (Given that some of my ancestors were Sephardim that rankles although many were Ashkenazim as well). It has a policy of not allowing more than 15% of the population to be non-Jews. All of which is opposed by many Jews of good heart and conscience and is not “Anti-Semitic” - it is simply an observation of what actually exists.

How about Colin, I have the Dossier Right Here, Powell’s dishonest presentation to the U.N. which has now been so thoroughly discredited as to have gone beyond laughter.

How about how the rationale for the War of Conquest in Iraq has morphed from:

He is supporting terrorism and has links to Al-Qaeda. When that was disproven it morphed into

He needs to let the Weapons Inspectors back in - Saddam then double-crossed the Bush Junta by doing just that.

Which then became multiple preposterous allegations of WMD® Sites - all of which have been disproven.

And now it has become our Sacred duty to kill the Sand Niggers for Jesus, take their oil, and install a friendly regime.

Spare me.

Whatever the actual motivation, or motivations, it is certainly not a humanitarian quest to “liberate the Iraqi people”. ROFL

Is one that he does in fact, by his own admission in the form of "finding" them for Blix, have biological and chemical weapons?

Yeah. One shell with “liquid inside”. OOOOh massive violation.

“Is one of them that he has gassed thousands and thousand of Kurds?” (Repeating an known lie as a premise. A common disinformation tactic - keep repeating a big lie over and over and some people will believe it; as Joseph Goebbels proved - although the real father of the technique was an American named Edward Bernays.)

This not proven and is likely not true or at least not as an attack against the Kurds. The incident upon which all of this is based, Halabja, was a battle between Iran and Iraq wherein both used gas attacks on each others troops. The poor Kurds got caught in the crossfire. Many showed signs of Cyanosis - the result of a Blood Agent (used by the Iranians); Saddam used Mustard Gas a “Blister Agent”.

Here is a quote from Stephen Pelletiere’s Op Ed Piece in the NY Times (He was only the Chief Middle East Analyst for the C.I.A. before he retired):
“This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.”

The D.I.A. has said much the same thing. You can find it online if you look.

Read the following: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/helms.html

That is not the only refutation available but serves the purpose. If you care to look do a Google Search and you will find more than you can go through in a lifetime. Try searching on “Stephen Pelletiere” as he has written other articles of interest.

“Is one that every human rights group that we could think of has systematically found him overwhelmingly guilty of heinous abuse and torture?”
(An implied lie by mischaracterizing my repeated writings on the topic. If he has followed my postings as closely as his diatribe implies he knows it to be a lie.)

No one seeking to retain any shred of credibility paints Saddam as anything but a Sadistic Thug. I am not now or have I ever defended his character. However, the U.S. has supported many such Brutal Thugs as an instrument of U.S. Foreign Policy and to raise that as the Government’s reason to take him out of power is laughable.
As a common Thug Saddam’s crimes against his people have largely been the suppression of political opposition. If you are not involved in Politics you do not have much to fear from him. If, for example, the Mob took over America you would probably have the same kind of regime. It is not a good scene but is greatly exaggerated so as to create a pretext for war.
The numbers of lives lost in Gulf Massacre I and resulting from the sanctions imposed in it’s aftermath dwarf even the wildest estimates of Saddam’s depredations.
As well prior to the Gulf Massacre, Saddam’s Iraq had the best Medical System in the Middle East - that was available to the general population, and one of the highest literacy levels.

“Is one of them that it's almost ludicrous to believe that if left be, he wouldn't dream of turning down an opportunity to covertly aid a group like al queda in an attack on the uS or Isreal? “ (Have you quit beating your wife yet?)

There is none, Zero, nada, evidence to even suggest Saddam has provided aid and support to anti-U.S. Terrorists. I defy to cite one credible report. Your argument has no basis in fact or reality. Israel - maybe. Which actually gives us one of the motivations for this war, in my humble opinion, Israeli Security and their desire to be the dominant power in the Middle East. The U.S. for whatever reason(s) toadies to Israel’s needs and desires.

“Or are we to believe that regardless of everything else Sadam and bin Laden would never get in bed together since they don't share fundamentalist muslim views and are much too noble to bend their respective religious convictions.” (All Muslims think and act alike - everybody knows that. And they eat Watermelon, Fried Chicken, Play the Banjo, and sing spirituals. And don’t forget that great natural Muslim sense of rhythm.)

Saddam is not a particularly strong Muslim, runs a secular regime, and has been described by Bin Laden as a “not very good Muslim”. Bin Laden had publicly stated that Saddam’s overthrow would be a good thing - guaranteed to not endear him to Saddam whose primary goal in life would seem to be staying in power.

Saddam like any self-respecting Thug does not go out and threaten countries that he knows will retaliate beyond his capability to respond. He did not even Invade Kuwait before checking with the U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie - who basically gave him a green light to invade. This is all history and is available from a multitude of sources.

“Or maybe the problem is that we aided Sadam in the past so therefore we are forever beholden to his whims and desires? “

Why do you say that? I have never in any place suggested that U.S. Foreign Policy be formulated in consultation with Iraq. Your question implies a premise that does not exist.

“And by that logic we should remain perpetual enemies of Japan, Russia and England.” (A variation of the Straw Man technique - charicature your opponents position and then destroy the Charicature.)

As the preceding.

“Oh wait, it's probably the whole oil problem. The Bush "junta" (I love it when you use that word..adds real credibility “

I use it because it annoys the Bush Apologists - it amuses me - and I do not think it too far off the mark given the chicanery of the last Presidential Election. (And don’t even think of twisting that into implying support for Al Bore whom I despise. I found Bush only slightly less execrable than Algore.) I found it doubly amusing with the advent, and wider use, of the riggable Electronic Voting Machines in the last “Off” Election. Three Republican Candidates for the House won with IDENTICAL Vote tallies (181,181 or something close to that - this is from memory). All three were serviced by the same Voting Machine Company - a SURPRISE Bush supporter. Someone forgot to change the program so that the votes would be different - just loaded the Program into all three Districts. Criminals are sometimes rather stupid - make that always. Read “Vote Scam” for an eye opening. The Collier Brothers who Wrote it were unrepentant Bleeding Heart Liberals - the man running the “Citizens For an Honest Vote Count” Organization now is Rock Ribbed Conservative. So this is not an issue of Left Versus Right.


“to your argument) simply wants more money for it's friends in BIG OIL. Forget that they could have easily taken all the

oil in '91. Forget that if they really wanted huge oil deals Bush could have simply lifted the sanctions, got the oil AND “

Your last two comments in Syllogism Form works out to:

The Bush Junta wants control of Iraqi Oil for their friends in the Oil Industry
They could have taken it in ‘91 but did not.
Therefore they don’t want the Iraqi Oil Fields
Which of course is logically invalid.

An underlying, implied but not stated, premise is that their objectives in ‘91 were the same as they are now. There is no evidence to sustain this.

However, taken at the level that their objective is not just the oil fields but Geopolitical Control of the region. The Why as to not taking Saddam all the way out becomes more discernible.

It was not practical to do so in ‘91 because there was no support from the European Allies and absolute hostility from the Arab World. The U.S. had gone in with the Publicly stated mission of kicking Saddam out of Kuwait - which got Arab World support only because of what we know now was phony Satellite Imagery used to say that Saddam was massing an Invasion Force on the Saudi Border (and the phony Hill and Knowlton PR firm lie that the Iraqi’s were stealing Incubators and leaving babies on the floor to die). We know the Satellite Imagery is false because an enterprising reporter in St. Petersburg Fl. convinced her Editor to purchase two privately done Images which definitively show that not only did Saddam not have massing forces ready to go into Saudi Arabia but that he was already pulling out of Kuwait based upon the threats and massing of U.S. Led Forces. The Oil Soaked Monopoly Press did not pick up THAT story then - they have since done a limited hang-out PR play of the story so that they can say “see we played it” - after all was said and done they did. That mission was accomplished.

“become a hero to all those who buy the myth that We are responsible for the sanctions and not Sadam. “ (An attempt to create a correlation where none exists.)

Too silly to respond to. The facts in the public domain answer this definitively.

“It's probably the heartfelt compassion the left has for the "faceless" Iraqi in the street. The noble oppressed masses who have stood buy ARMED but silent while a "leader they didn't elect" systematically tortures and murders their neighbors. After all, they have no chance to rise up and overthrow their "vile " oppressor. That can't happen. Better to keep the AK47 clean for the "American Agressors" and hope that Sadam henchmen knock nextdoor instead of here. “

I have basically answered this already but to summarize:

Yes Saddam is a brutal thug - in a region ruled by Brutal Thugs; for example “our good friends” the Saudi family of Saudi Arabia whose Secret Police are every bit as brutal as Saddam’s. But because they are “our friends” this does not get mentioned in polite company. Also most of the “alleged” hijackers of 911 were Saudi’s. Osama Bin Laden is a Saudi. Although Osama is Legally Jewish, if he wanted to claim it, because his mother is a Jew and lives in Israel. Under the “Right of Return” he could claim Israeli Citizenship and be immune from extradition.

And yes I do feel compassion for the Iraqi people. We live on planet that has a history torn with War and Brutality. The U.S. has too often supported some of those brutal regimes. I do not think killing a couple hundred thousand more Iraqi’s to remove one thug from power is desirable or necessary.

Iraq would be better off with a better ruler. Whom would you suggest? Another Unocal Employee like Hamid Kharzi in Afghanistan?

“So, tell me a few lies. I feel like I can read your response already.”

Oh gosh, I am stricken. I never knowingly make a statement of fact which I do not believe to be true. Usually I can back it up with a specific reference but I do so much reading that I don’t always note sources when I am doing it.
You would seem to always seek to look at the data through a “Right Wing” Prism and anything that disagrees with that litmus test is disregarded as “Left Wing” nonsense. I hate to point this out but that is childishly simplistic. Either something is true or it is not. Whether it originates on the Left or the Right is irrelevant.

Oh well, times up. If I were you I think I would pick a new nickname. This one is shot.

"big fat ignorant clueless moronic tasteless tired spiteful condescending arrogant and mean (oops that sounds like me ) but here to BE kicked."

I'm do not think his post could fairly be characterized as any of the above. Please clarify wherein I was any of the things I am accused of.

That said, I do think your post is a good example of the kind of dialogue we should not be engaging in. Does that make me condescending? Why must we sink to this level? There are real issues with genuine disagreemnts to be discussed. Personal attacks don't get us any closer to a solution to the problems of the day.

If he wants to act as a gentleman I will respond in kind.

If he makes a personal attack I take no prisoners.

"-I'm do not think his post could fairly be characterized as any of the above. Please
clarify wherein I was any of the things I am accused of.-"
What are you, his or I?
Furthermore, clarify.

"-I'm do not think his post could fairly be characterized as any of the above. Please
clarify wherein I was any of the things I am accused of.-"

should have been

"-I do not think this post could fairly be characterized as any of the above. Please clarify wherein I was any of the things I am accused of.-"

Thank you for pointing out the typo. I await clarification.

I was responding to fresca whom is a racist weasel.
Read his many posts.
Please excuse any misunderstanding as I was not
attacking you. Funning you, yes and my humor falls
sometimes 'like a leaden fart upon the stage' to
some, but really, read some of his other posts and
get back to me.
Click on the blue dot after his nick.

And better all the time.

Losts of nerve showing up at this news/comment forum.
If I were you I'd move, get a new playstation and a
new nick, BA.

Your free speech rights are not being infringed, BA. This website does have standards. If the people who run it decide your postings do not meet them, you will not lack for other places to speak your feelings. You will not be jailed or otherwise muzzled. You will still be able to stand in a public place and say whatever you want about the issues of the day.

Personally, I'd like to see you go. Not because I disagree with you--I disagree with plenty of people who post here. But because you have no respect for your fellow posters, for the concept of an open dialogue, or for the mission of the IMC. If the Los Angeles collective decides to boot you, I will not weep, and I doubt others will either.

The US is full of thoughful conservatives. You are not one of them. I don't think you are stupid, merely uninterested in reasoned debate, and as such there is not place for you here.

Do not conflate your own interests with the common good. They are not the same thing.

Your interests in this board are apparent.
It is to disrupt. Debate is eroded, sometimes destroyed
as, most people are not aware of your
provocateur game of snide, baseless lies.
I've suspended my firm belief that you are a true shill for
IMC as to provide a punching target for you unending sallow and insensitive commentary.
We don't need you. IMO
ta

Take your crew of less than stable weasels with you.
[ hint ] provide some analysis rather than script.
you may go now and think it over. ta.

Quit posting useless shit, you rotten bitch (sarcasm purely coincidental). Go tell your shit to your shrink, you fucking cracker. I know you're a cracker, don't deny it. Fuck you, cracker!

Wow
a bomb

I think I'll just respond to your unbelievable intellectual cowardice a bit at a time. My first response is to the following gem.

"Which is not the record. Israel stands in violation of about 69 at last count. Has committed frequent atrocities against the Palestinian Populace, has invaded and occupied Palestinian Territory, driven them from their land, practices Racist subversion of human rights of non-Jews (and I admit that with some sadness for personal reasons) and even discriminates against non-Ashkenazim (Given that some of my ancestors were Sephardim that rankles although many were Ashkenazim as well). It has a policy of not allowing more than 15% of the population to be non-Jews. All of which is opposed by many Jews of good heart and conscience and is not “Anti-Semitic” - it is simply an observation of what actually exists."

How in the hell did Isreal come up? It is simply a fact that Iraq has broken 17 UN resolutions. Isreal's record is immaterial. Unbeleivably weak dodging of that one.

I'll get back to you. This is fun kicking your ass, though admittedly, not much of a challenge.

Wow
bad bait
Wow

...oh shit, that one is as rotten as a month old fish head...nope, not fresh at all...Caducado...

Ever notice how these shills constantly fall all over each other while congratulating themselves?

...I guess they didn't get much in the way of affirmation from their mommies....Caducado just needs a hug!

Oh, I do so love your delightful avoidance of the implications of my reference (did your handlers give you that one or did you think it up yourself?).

Actually the comparison is valid to the extent that it shows the Iraq attack is not about flaunting U.N. Resolutions. If it were, and the U.S. really cared about such, then Israel would be the one under threat of attack. Since they are not it demonstrates that is not the reason for the threat of attack on Iraq.

I think we can safely conclude that your strategy is to make snide assertions and then disappear. You have no case and so your only hope, as you see it, is to continue to erect Straw Men hoping that you can trip me up. Ain’t gonna happen kid.

Rather weak really. You can levy all the insults you want. I’ve been debating long enough to not let it faze me in the least. Actually I find it funny that you would think that I would react to it. ROFL

Since you cannot refute the comparison your only hope is to disarm it by indirect attack. Again your attempt is transparent.

remember the song "there was an old lady who swallowed a fly"?

thats US foreign policy for u.

fucking dumb short sighted shit.

the US needs a long term plan for security based on coexistence and cooperation

rather than its current short term policy of manipulation, exploitation, coercion and extortion.

So then you agree; all your talk of Isreal is a ruse. Whatever you need my good man.

I am glad you have conceded the point. You lose.

I think you've had enough time to learn all you're about to from the first lesson I gave you earlier. Don't worry, I know you need to keep up appearances for your grunt flock of admirers, so I don't expect you to admit as such, but I'm sure you're thnaking me there alone. Ok then, lesson two.

Here's another pearl from your post:

"The Bush Junta wants control of Iraqi Oil for their friends in the Oil Industry
They could have taken it in ‘91 but did not.
Therefore they don’t want the Iraqi Oil Fields
Which of course is logically invalid. "

Your blending of quotes and original text is creative, so it's a bit hard to ascertain exactly what you're getting at here but here goes.

The first line is from your bag of standard ninth grade political discourse.
The second is basically my premise based on common knowledge history.
Now the third is a simplistic assumption on your part of my view. It's not entirely true.
Which leads us to line four which is your masterpiece but, which, unfortunately is nonsense. We can't truthfully evaluate the logical relationship between these three staements because two of them were made by different people and the third is an incorrect asumption. I know it impresses your flock to bandy about terms like this, but you'll just have to learn a bit more about their use. No harm done. You're getting there!
All in all, great job! Talk to you soon.

THAT'S IT?!?!?!?!? THAT is your response, Caducado?


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

...that you have just been laughed off the stage.

I take you are in the tenth grade now?

I think Caducado went to freshen up....

...or his parents made him go to bed.

--m Actually the comparison is valid to the extent that it shows the Iraq attack is not about flaunting U.N. Resolutions. If it were, and the U.S. really cared about such, then Israel would be the one under threat of attack. Since they are not it demonstrates that is not the reason for the threat of attack on Iraq.

Firstly Israel is flaun ting a different kind of resolution - one that does not carry the threat of force (yeah the UN is hopeles isnt it).
Also The resolutions tend to say - israel must withdraw and Palestinians must give security - since the palistinians hve not lived up to their end the israelis have not lived up to theirs -bad as it might be this is a "both at fault scenerio".
Finally - attack Israel? are you insane? it would be a blood bath. Just like we are not eager to attack North Korea except Israel makes North Korea look like a baby.

Ok how bout that?
there are other reasons too of course one of them being the US in particular Bush is very reluctant to side with despots over a democratic country.
Also the arguments that you would emphasise being that the US doest particularly like some of those arab states who are allways oposing them on everything while Israel supports the US. Quite frankly the Arabs are terrible allies nd Israel is a good one..

Your last paragraph was not supportable.
-Ok how bout that?
there are other reasons too of course one of them being the US in particular Bush is
very reluctant to side with despots over a democratic country.
Also the arguments that you would emphasise being that the US doest particularly
like some of those arab states who are allways oposing them on everything while
Israel supports the US. Quite frankly the Arabs are terrible allies [a]nd Israel is a good
one.-
Just thought I'd let you know. Nope not at all.
Thank you for your support.

OK do the statistics on how often each of the countries votes with the US in the UN. That s all I am refering to.
That Israel is loyal to an extent. some might call it brown nosing but alot of countries do the opposite and oppose for the sake of opposing.

"The Bush Junta wants control of Iraqi Oil for their friends in the Oil Industry
They could have taken it in ‘91 but did not.
Therefore they don’t want the Iraqi Oil Fields
Which of course is logically invalid. "

If I thought that KPC or sheep had even the slightest idea of what we were talking about, I might be interested. However, they're both sorta idiots.

Anyway, I'll get to lesson three in a while.

But to recap, here's what we agree on.
Iraq has denied 17 UN resolutions to disarm, any other UN resolutions notwithstanding and irrelevant.

In addition, if it was all about oil, we would have it already, either by force in '91 or by lifting the sanctions. Actually, we already buy huge amounts of Iraqi oil via other arab brokers VERY cheaply. The whole "oil war" is utterly unsubstantiated and wholly refuted. Give it a rest or ...well, actually, seeing as how you hold the belief that arabs had nothing to do with 9-11 (you did, in fact post that there was absolutely no evidence of it AND the worst crime committed by Bush was the 9-11 attacks) you obviously are bordering on mental illness and probably will continue with this delusion. Seriously. The inability to accept simple truths is characteristic of borderline illness.

Anyway, so much for the recap. So far, unrefuted reasons for the validity of this war. More to come.

..OK, let me get this straight;

...it's not about oil...

.....except for Germany and France who are obviously acting out of their selfish desire for Iraqi oil...

...it's about WMD...

....except if he doesn't have any then it's about his support of terrarists...

...except if he isn't supporting them, then it's about the violation of UN sanctions...


...except if the UN doesn't support our drive to war, then it's about the poor Iraqi people....

....except we're planning to bomb them and the infrastructure that keeps them alive, so we can't be TOO concerned....

...so it's about their FREEDOM...

....except we won't be giving them much of that after we occupy their land, take their resouces and install our puppets...

....so it's just 'cause Saddam is such an evil guy and he is killing his own people....

...except we've been supporting and continue to support evil guys that kill their own people...

...it's just a coincidence that Iraqi has some of the richest oil fields in the world...completely inconsequential...

So it must be about.........?

Is that what they are teaching in the tenth grade these days?

Caducado: "Believe Me"

That is by far the funniest thing you ever posted!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Swing Blades
Rumsfeld Filled His Pockets with Pyongyang's Nuclear Loot
By CHRIS FLOYD

It's a well-known fact--oft detailed in this column--that the boys in the Bush Regime swing both ways. We speak, of course, of their proclivity--their apparently uncontrollable craving--for stuffing their trousers with loot from both sides of whatever war or military crisis is going at the moment.

That's why it came as no surprise to read last week that just before he joined the Regime's crusade against evildoers everywhere (especially rogue states that pursue the development of terrorist-ready weapons of mass destruction), Pentagon warlord Donald Rumsfeld was trousering the proceeds from a $200 million deal to send the latest nuclear technology--including plenty of terrorist-ready "dirty bomb" material--to the rogue state of North Korea, Neue Zurcher Zeitung reports.

In 1998, Rumsfeld was citizen chairman of the Congressional Ballistic Missile Threat Commission, charged with reducing nuclear proliferation. Rumsfeld and the Republican-heavy commission came down hard on the deal Bill Clinton had brokered with North Korea to avert a war in 1994: Pyongyang would give up its nuclear weapons program in exchange for normalized relations with the United States, plus the construction of two non-weaponized nuclear plants to generate electricity. The plants were to be built by an international consortium of government-backed business interests called KEDO.

Rum deal, said Rummy: those nasty Northies would surely turn the peaceful nukes to nefarious ends. What's more, even the most innocuous nuclear plant generates mounds of radioactive waste that could be made into "dirty bombs"--hand-carried weapons capable of killing thousands of people. The agreement was big bad juju that threatened the whole world, Rumsfeld declared.

Of course, that didn't prevent him from trying to profit from it. Even while he chairing commission meetings on the "dire threat" posed by the Korean program, Rumsfeld was junketing to Zurich for board meetings of the Swiss-based energy technology giant, ABB, where he was a top director. And what was ABB doing at the time? Why, negotiating that $200 million deal with North Korea to provide equipment and services for the KEDO nuclear reactors, of course!

Yes, nuclear proliferation is ugly stuff--but you might as well squeeze a few dollars from it, right? A smart guy always plays the angles--and, as the hero-worshiping American media never stop telling us, Rumsfeld is one smart guy.

In fact, he's so smart that he's now playing dumb. A Pentagon spokesman says Rumsfeld "can't recall" discussing the Korean deal at ABB board meetings. And his erstwhile ABB corporate colleagues say that it's possible the subject never came up. Of course it didn't; going into the nuclear business with a Communist tyranny that very nearly launched a nuclear war against the West just four years before, in a deal that involved high-level negotiations with the governments of the United States, South Korea, Japan and the European Union--that's certainly the kind of thing that would be handled by a couple of junior executives in a branch office somewhere. Nothing for the bigwigs--especially hard-wired government players like Rumsfeld--to trouble their pretty heads about. A perfectly reasonable explanation.

And so Rumsfeld joins the roster of Bush Regime multimillionaires who once trumpeted their "business savvy" as selling points for their right to national leadership but now claim to have been "hands-off" figureheads who had no idea what their companies were up to. Bush, in his sinkhole of insider trading and stockholder scamming at Harken; Cheney, making fat deals with Saddam Hussein (yes, after the Gulf War) and muddying up the corporate books at Halliburton; Army Secretary Thomas White, gaming the power grid and stealing millions for Enron in the manufactured California "energy crisis"--all of them went from mighty moguls to mere "front men" the instant their corruption was brought to light. None of it was their fault; nothing ever is.

Whatever happened to Bush's much-trumpeted "era of responsibility?" These guys are not only chiselers, hustlers, hypocrites and war profiteers--they're a bunch of gutless wonders as well. So you'll pardon us if we are just the tiniest bit cynical about the "moral arguments for war" and other such buckets of warm spit this gang is now forcing down the world's throat.

Postscript 1: Losing the Plot And what became of that 1994 pact with North Korea? UN inspectors entered the country to make sure the weapons program was put on ice. Pyongyang signed a number of lucrative deals with various politically-connected Western firms, like ABB, to build the promised energy plants, while waiting for the normalization of relations with the United States to begin--a move which most observers thought would set North Korea on a course toward China-style "moderation" of its monolithic regime.

But normalization never came. Clinton, pressured by rightwing forces (such as Rumsfeld's commission) who opposed any truck whatsoever with godless commies, did his usual folding number, with much windy suspiration of forced breath--and no action. The KEDO companies pocketed Pyongyang's cash but dithered about the actual construction. Pyongyang--while not exactly a font of smiling cooperation itself--concluded that the pact was being deep-sixed. This suspicion was confirmed when Bush took office, calling Korean leader Kim Jong Il a "pygmy" and declaring the county part of the "Axis of Evil."

Pyongyang then accelerated its weapons program, kicked out the UN inspectors, and is now threatening to unleash a nuclear war if Bush, a la Iraq, makes a "pre-emptive strike."

A dicey situation, sure--but at least Don Rumsfeld made some money out of it.

Postscript 2: Red Don Rising The Korean caper was not the first time Rummy signed up for both teams, of course. There is the little matter of his former financial tryst with the leaders of Communist China -a most Bushian affair, featuring ruling family members profiting from Daddy's government power.

It happened on this wise. A few months after Rumsfeld joined the Bush Regime stable, the American master of war bagged an estimated $500,000 by cashing in his joint investment with Jiang Mianheng, son of former Chinese president Jiang Zemin. The pair had been partnered in Shanghai's Red Flag Software, which is used by the godless Chinese commies to, er, block attempts by American spies to penetrate Beijing's computer networks. Naturally, Red Rum was not bothered by these national security considerations--not when there was easy money to be had.

Politically-Connected Insiders of the World, Unite!

Sorry to take so long getting back to you but here's your final lesson. Let's examine another example of your homework.

"“become a hero to all those who buy the myth that We are responsible for the sanctions and not Sadam. “ (An attempt to create a correlation where none exists.)

Too silly to respond to. The facts in the public domain answer this definitively.
"

I'm going to give you partial credit on this since your answer was technically right, although I suspect it was merely a "happy" mistake on your part. The fact that any misery stemming from UN sanctions of Iraq is, by definition, the responsibility of Sadam, since he could have ended them all had he cared more about his people than his own power, is adnittely, so obvious that it is silly. I thought I'd feed you an easy one here but you sorta bungled it. But your are correct. This fact is definitively supported by the public record. No sanctions if Sadam follows the resolutions. Pretty easy stuff actually.

So, I hope I've helped you through this a bit. Take some time and go over it. I'll see you on another thread my friend.

Isn't Fresca a girl's name?

So, Caducado, your "lesson" boils down to "everybody knows I am right"?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Go back to 9th grade, junior....

...but a concession speech nonetheless.

That was actually fun, going back and forth like that. But seriously, there really is no reason not to attck Iraq is there. I mean, if only to stop the flow of money to the families of paleostinian murderers. The good news is this, while you and I may agree to disagree, the war WILL happen. And the world will be better off for it.

9-11
The day the muslims hit us.

And not too bright is he?