Working on this new server in php7...
imc indymedia

Los Angeles Indymedia : Activist News

white themeblack themered themetheme help
About Us Contact Us Calendar Publish RSS
Features
latest news
best of news
syndication
commentary


KILLRADIO

VozMob

ABCF LA

A-Infos Radio

Indymedia On Air

Dope-X-Resistance-LA List

LAAMN List




IMC Network:

Original Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: ambazonia canarias estrecho / madiaq kenya nigeria south africa canada: hamilton london, ontario maritimes montreal ontario ottawa quebec thunder bay vancouver victoria windsor winnipeg east asia: burma jakarta japan korea manila qc europe: abruzzo alacant andorra antwerpen armenia athens austria barcelona belarus belgium belgrade bristol brussels bulgaria calabria croatia cyprus emilia-romagna estrecho / madiaq euskal herria galiza germany grenoble hungary ireland istanbul italy la plana liege liguria lille linksunten lombardia london madrid malta marseille nantes napoli netherlands nice northern england norway oost-vlaanderen paris/Île-de-france patras piemonte poland portugal roma romania russia saint-petersburg scotland sverige switzerland thessaloniki torun toscana toulouse ukraine united kingdom valencia latin america: argentina bolivia chiapas chile chile sur cmi brasil colombia ecuador mexico peru puerto rico qollasuyu rosario santiago tijuana uruguay valparaiso venezuela venezuela oceania: adelaide aotearoa brisbane burma darwin jakarta manila melbourne perth qc sydney south asia: india mumbai united states: arizona arkansas asheville atlanta austin baltimore big muddy binghamton boston buffalo charlottesville chicago cleveland colorado columbus dc hawaii houston hudson mohawk kansas city la madison maine miami michigan milwaukee minneapolis/st. paul new hampshire new jersey new mexico new orleans north carolina north texas nyc oklahoma philadelphia pittsburgh portland richmond rochester rogue valley saint louis san diego san francisco san francisco bay area santa barbara santa cruz, ca sarasota seattle tampa bay tennessee urbana-champaign vermont western mass worcester west asia: armenia beirut israel palestine process: fbi/legal updates mailing lists process & imc docs tech volunteer projects: print radio satellite tv video regions: oceania united states topics: biotech

Surviving Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: canada: quebec east asia: japan europe: athens barcelona belgium bristol brussels cyprus germany grenoble ireland istanbul lille linksunten nantes netherlands norway portugal united kingdom latin america: argentina cmi brasil rosario oceania: aotearoa united states: austin big muddy binghamton boston chicago columbus la michigan nyc portland rochester saint louis san diego san francisco bay area santa cruz, ca tennessee urbana-champaign worcester west asia: palestine process: fbi/legal updates process & imc docs projects: radio satellite tv
printable version - js reader version - view hidden posts - tags and related articles


View article without comments

What's Happening? Boron Interviews Chomsky

by Scarecrow Wednesday, Jun. 18, 2003 at 7:11 PM

So one day, Bush and Powell would claim that "the single question," as they put it, is whether Iraq would disarm and the next day they would say it doesn´t matter whether Iraq disarms because they will go on and invade anyway. And the next day would be that if Saddam and his group get out then the problem will be solved; ... When people give you contradictory reasons every time they speak, all they are saying is: "don't believe a word I say" . So we can dismiss the official reasons.



ZNet | Terror War

What's Happening?
Boron Interviews Chomsky
by Noam Chomsky and Atilio Boron; June 14, 2003


Atilio A. Boron: Looking at the recent US policies in Iraq, What do you think was the real goal behind this war?

Noam Chomsky: Well, we can be quite confident on one thing. The reasons we are given can't possibly be the reasons. And we know that, because they are internally contradictory. So one day, Bush and Powell would claim that "the single question," as they put it, is whether Iraq would disarm and the next day they would say it doesn´t matter whether Iraq disarms because they will go on and invade anyway. And the next day would be that if Saddam and his group get out then the problem will be solved; and then, the next day for example, at the Azores, at the summit when they made an ultimatum to the United Nations, they said that even if Saddam and his group get out they would go on and invade anyway. And they went on like that. When people give you contradictory reasons every time they speak, all they are saying is: "don't believe a word I say" . So we can dismiss the official reasons.

And the actual reasons I think are not very obscure. First of all, there´s a long standing interest. That does not account for the timing but it does account for the interest. And that is that Iraq has the second large oil reserves in the World and controlling Iraqi oil and even ending up probably with military bases in Iraq will place the United States in an extremely strong position to dominate the global energy system even more than it does today. That's a very powerful lever of world control, quite apart from the profits that comes from it. And the US probably doesn't intend to access the oil of Iraq; it intends to use primarily safer Atlantic basin resources for itself (Western Hemisphere, West Africa). But to control the oil has been a leading principle of US foreign policies since the Second World War, and Iraq is particularly significant in this respect. So that's a long standing interest. On the other hand it doesn't explain the timing.

If you want to look at the timing, I think that it became quite clear that the massive propaganda for the war began in September of last year, September 2002. Before that there was a condemnation of Iraq but no effort to whip people into war fever. So we asked what else happened then September 2002. Well, two important things happened. One was the opening of the mid term congressional campaign, and the Bush´s campaign manager, Karl Rove, was very clearly explaining what should be obvious to anybody anyway: that they could not possible enter the campaign with a focus on social and economic issues. The reason is that they are carrying out policies which are quite harmful to the general population and favorable to an extremely narrow sector of corporate power and the corrupt sectors as well, and they can't face the electorate on that. As he pointed out, if we can make the primary issue national security then we will be able win because people will -you know- flock to power if they feel frightened. And that is second nature to these people; that's the way they have ran the country -right through the 1980´s- with very unpopular domestic programs but accustomed to press into the panic button -Nicaragua, Grenada, crime, one thing after another. And Rove also pointed out that something similar would be needed for the presidential election.

And that's true and what they want do is not just to stay in office but they would like to institutionalize the very regressive program put forward domestically, a program which will basically unravel whatever is left of New Deal social democratic systems and turn the country almost completely into a passive undemocratic society, controlled totally by high concentration of capitals. This means slashing public medical assistance, social security; probably schools; and increasing state power. These people are not conservatives, they brought the country into a federal deficit with the largest increase in federal spending in 20 years, that is since their last term in office- and huge tax cuts for the rich, and they want to institutionalize these programs. They are seeking a "fiscal train wreck" that will make it impossible to fund the programs. They know they cannot face an election declaring that they want to destroy very popular programs, but they can throw up their hands in despair and say, "What can we do, there's no money," after they have made sure there would be no money by huge tax cuts for the rich and sharp increase in spending for military (including high tech industry) and other programs beneficial to corporate power and the wealthy. So that's the second, that's the domestic factor and in fact, there was a spectacular propaganda achievement on that. After the government-media propaganda campaign began in September they succeeded in convincing a majority of the population very quickly that Iraq was an imminent threat to the security of the United States, and even that Iraq was responsible for September 11th. I mean, there is not a grain of truth in all that, but by now majority of the population believes those things and those attitudes are correlated strongly with the commitment to war, which is understandable. If people think they are threatened with destruction by an enemy who´s already attacked them it is {delete "all"} likely that they'll go to war. In effect, if you look at the press today they describe soldiers as saying: "we are here for revenge - you know- because they blew up the World Trade Center, they will attack us", or something. Well, these beliefs are completely unique to the United States.

I mean: no one in the World believes anything like this. In Kuwait and Iran people hate Saddam Hussein, but they are not afraid of him, they know they're the weakest country in the region. In any event the government-media propaganda campaign worked brilliantly as the population was frightened and to a large extent it was willing to support the war despite the fact that there was a lot of opposition. And that's the second factor.

And there was a third factor which was even more important. In September the government announced the national security strategy. That is not completely without precedent, but it is quite new as a formulation of state policy. What is stated is that we are tearing the entire system of the international law to shreds, the end of UN charter, and that we are going to carry out an aggressive war -which we will call {delete "it"} "preventive"- and at any time we choose and that we will rule the world by force. In addition, we will assure that there is never any challenge to our domination because we are so overwhelmingly powerful in military force that we will simply crush any potential challenge.

Well, you know, that caused shudders around the world, including the foreign policy elite at home which was appalled by this. I mean it is not that things like that haven't been heard in the past. Of course they had, but it had never been formulated as an official national policy . I suspect you will have to go back to Hitler to find an analogy to that. Now, when you propose new norms in the international behavior and new policies you have to illustrate it, you have to get people to understand that you mean it. Also you have to have what a Harvard historian called an "exemplary war", a war of example, which shows that we really mean what we say.

And we have to choose the right target. The target has to have several properties. First it has to be completely defenseless. No one would attack anybody who might be able to defend themselves, that would be not prudent. Iraq meets that perfectly : it is the weakest country in the region, it's been devastated by sanctions and almost completely disarmed and the US knows every inch of the Iraq territory by satellite surveillance and overflights, and more recently U-2 flights. So, yes, Irak it is extremely weak and satisfied the first condition.

And secondly, it has to be important. So there will be no point invading Burundi, you know, for example, it has to be a country worthwhile controlling, owning, and Iraq has that property too. It´s, as mentioned, the second largest oil producer in the world. So it's perfect example and a perfect case for this exemplary war, intending to put the world on notice saying that this is what we´re going do, any time we choose. We have the power. We have declared that {delete "there"} our goal is domination by force and that no challenge will be accepted. We've showed you what we are intending to do and be ready for the next. We will proceed on to the next operation. Those various conditions fold together and they make a war a very reasonable choice in taking to a test some principles.

Atilio A. Boron: According to your analysis then the question is: who is next? Because you don´t believe that they are going to stop in Iraq, wouldn't you?

Noam Chomsky: No, they already made this clear. For one thing they need something for the next presidential election. And that will continue. Through their first twelve years office this continued year after year; and it will continue until they manage to institutionalize the domestic policies to which they are committed and to ensure the global system they want. So what's the next choice? Well the next choice has to meet similar conditions. It has to be valuable enough to attack, and it has to be weak enough to be defenseless. And there are choices, Syria is a possible choice. There Israel will be delighted to participate. Israel alone is a small country, but it´s a offshore US military base, so it has an enormous military force, apart from having hundreds of nuclear weapons (and probably a kind of chemical and biological weapons), its air and armed forces are larger and more advanced that those in any Nato power, and the US is behind it overwhelmingly.

So Syria is a possibility. Iran is a more difficult possibility because it´s a harder country to dominate and control. Yet there is a reason to believe that for a year or two now, efforts have been under way to try dismantle Iran, to break it into internally warring groups. These US dismantling efforts have been based partly in Eastern Turkey, the US bases in Eastern Turkey apparently flying surveillance over Iranian borders. That´s another possibility. There is a third possibility that can not be considered lightly, and is the Andean region. The Andean region has a lot of resources and it´s out of control. There are US military bases surrounding the region, and US forces are there already. And the control of Latin-America is of course extremely important. With the developments in Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Brazil, Bolivia it´s clear that US domination is challenged and that can´t be accepted, in particular in a region so close and so crucial because of its resource base. So that is another possibility.

Atilio A. Boron: This is really frightening. Now the question is, do you think that all this situation in Iraq, the invasion and the aftermath would affect in a non-reparable manner the political stability of the region? What are likely to be the side effects of this invasion in countries with a very fragile political constitution like the South Arabia or even Syria, Iran or even the Kurds? What may be the future of the Palestine question, which still is of paramount importance in the area?

Noam Chomsky: Well, what's going to happen in the Arab world is extremely hard to predict. I mean: it´s a disorganized and chaotic world dominated by highly authoritarian and brutal regimes. We know what the attitudes are. I mean, the US is very concerned with attitudes in the region so they have pretty good studies made by US Middle East scholars on the attitudes in the region, and the results are pretty dramatic. One of the more recent ones, a University of Maryland study covering from Morocco to the Gulf to Lebanon, the entire area, shows that a very large majority of the population wants religious leaders to have a greater role in government. It also shows that approximately another 95% believe that the sole US interest in the region is taking its oil, strengthening Israel and humiliating the Arabs. That means near unanimity. If there is any popular voice allowed in the region, any moves toward democracy, it could become sort of like Algeria ten years ago, not necessarily radical Islamists but a government with some stronger Islamist currents. This is the last thing the US wants, so chances of any kind of democratic opening very likely will be immediately opposed..

The voices of secular democracy will also be opposed. If they speak up freely, about violation of UN resolutions for example, they will bring up the case of Israel, which has a much worse record than Iraq in this respect but is protected by the United States. And they will have concerns for independence that the US will not favor, so it will continue to support oppressive and undemocratic regimes, as in the past, and as in Latin America for many years, unless it can be assured that they will keep closely to Washington's priorities.

On the other hand these chaotic popular movements are so difficult to predict. I mean, even the participants can't or don't know what they want. What we know is this tremendous hatred, antagonisms and fear -probably more than ever before- On the Israel-Palestine issue that is, of course, the core issue in the Arab world, the Bush administration has been very careful not to take any position, though there are actions, which undermine the prospects for peaceful resolution: funding more Israeli settlement programs, for example.

They don't say anything significant. The most they say is that we have a "vision," or something equally meaningless. Meanwhile the actions have been taken, and the US had continued to support the more extremist positions within Israel. So what the press describes as George Bush's most significant recent statements, then later reiterated by Colin Powell, was the statement that said that settlement in the occupied territories can continue until the United State determines that the conditions for peace have been established, and you can move forward on this mythical "Road Map."

The statement that was hailed as "significant" in fact amounts to a shift in policy, to a more extremist form. Up until now the official position has been that there should be no more settlements. Of course, that's hypocritical of the United States because meanwhile it continues to provide the military, and economic, and diplomatic support for more settlements, but the official position has been opposed to it. Now the official position is in favor of it, until such time as the US determines unilaterally that the "peace process" has made enough progress, which means, basically indefinitely. Also it wasn't very well noticed that last December, at the UN General Assembly, the Bush administration shifted the US policy crucially on an important issue. Up until that time, until last December, the US has always officially endorsed the Security Council resolutions of 1968 opposing Israel's annexation of Jerusalem, and ordering Israel to withdraw the moves to take over East Jerusalem and to expand Jerusalem, which is now a huge area.

The US had always officially opposed that, although, again hypocritically. As of last December the Bush administration came out in support of it. This was a pretty sharp change in policy, and it is also significant that it was not reported in the United States. But it took place. So this is the only concrete act, and continues like that. The US has in the past vetoed the European efforts to place international monitors in the territories, which would be a way of reducing political, violent confrontations. The US undermined the December 2001 meetings in Geneva to implement the Geneva conventions and as almost all the other contracting parties appeared the US refused and that, essentially, blocked it. Bush then declared Sharon to be "a man of peace" and supported his repressive activities, as was pretty obvious. So the indications are that the US will move towards a very harsh policy in the territories, granting the Palestinians at most some kind of meaningless formal status as a "state". Of course, this would dress up as democracy, and peace, and freedom, and so on. They have a huge public relations operation and it would be presented in that way, but I don't think the reality looks very promising.

Atilio A. Boron: I have two more question to go. One is about the future of the United Nations system. An article by Henry Kissinger recently reproduced in Argentina argued that multilateralism is over and that the world has to come to terms with the absolute superiority of the American armed forces and that we've better go alone with that because the old system is dead. What is your reflection on the international arena?

Noam Chomsky: Well you know, it's a little bit like financial and industrial strategy. It is a more brazen formulation of policies which have always been carried out. The unilateralism with regard to the United Nations, as Henry Kissinger knows perfectly well, goes far back. Was there any UN authorization for the US invasion of South Vietnam 40 years ago? In fact, the issue could not even come up at the United Nations. The UN and all the countries were in overwhelming opposition to the US operations in Vietnam, but the issue could literally never arise and it was never discussed because everyone understood that if the issues were discussed the UN would simply be dismantled.

When the World Court condemned the United States for its attack on Nicaragua, the official response of the Reagan administration, which is the same people now in office, the official response when they rejected World Court jurisdiction was that other nations do not agree with us and therefore we will reserve to ourselves the right to determine what falls within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States. I am quoting it. In this case, that was an attack on Nicaragua. You can hardly can have a more extreme unilateralism than that. And American elites accepted that, and so it was applauded and, in fact, quickly forgotten. In your next trip to the US take a poll in the Political Science Department where you are visiting and you will find people who never heard of it. It's as wiped out as this. As is the fact that the US had to veto the Security Council's resolutions supporting the Court's decision and calling on all states to observe international law. Well, you know that is unilateralism in its extreme, and it goes back before that.

Right after the missile crisis, which practically brought the world to a terminal nuclear war, a major crisis, the Kennedy administration resumed its terrorist activities against Cuba and its economic warfare which was the background for the crisis and Dean Acheson, a respected statesman and Kennedy advisor at the liberal end of the spectrum, gave an important address to the American Society of International Law in which he essentially stated the Bush Doctrine of September 2002. What he said is that no "legal issue" arises in the case of a US response to a challenge to its "power, position, and prestige." Can't be more extreme than that. The differences with September 2002 is that instead of being operative policy now it became official policy. That is the difference. The UN has been irrelevant to the extent that the US refused to allow it to function. So, since the mid 1960's when the UN had become somewhat more independent, because of decolonization and the recovery of other countries of the world from the ravages of the war, since 1965 the US is far in the lead in vetoing Security Council resolutions on a wide range of issues -Britain is second- and no one else is even close. All that renders the UN ineffective. It means, you do as we say or else we will kick you in the pants. Now it is more brazen.

The only correct statement that Kissinger is making is that now we will not conceal the policies that we are carrying out.

Atilio A. Boron: OK. Here is my last question: What has been the impact of the Iraqi War on the freedoms and public liberties of the American public? We have heard horrifies stories about librarians been forced to indicate the names of people checking out books regarded as suspicious or subversives. What has been the real impact of the war in the domestic politics of the US?

Noam Chomsky: Well, those things are taking place but I don't think they are specifically connected with the Iraq War. The Bush administration, let me repeat it again, they are not conservatives; they are statist reactionaries. They want a very powerful state, a huge state in fact, a violent state and one that enforces obedience on the population. There is a kind of quasi-fascist spirit there, in the background, and they have been attempting to undermine civil rights in many ways. That's one of their long term objectives, and they have to do it quickly because in the US there is a strong tradition of protection of civil rights. But the kind of surveillance you are talking about of libraries and so on is a step towards it. They have also claimed the right to place a person -- even an American citizen -- in detention without charge, without access to lawyers and family, and to hold them there indefinitely, and that in fact has been upheld by the Courts, which is pretty shocking. But they have a new proposal, sometimes called Patriot Two, a 80 page document inside the Justice department. Someone leaked it and it reached the press. There have been some outraged articles by law professors about it. This is only planned so far, but they would like to implement as secretly as they can. These plans would permit the Attorney General to remove citizenship from any individual whom the attorney general believes is acting in a way harmful to the US interests. I mean, this is going beyond anything contemplated in any democratic society. One law professor at New York University has written that this administration evidently will attempt to take away any civil rights that it can from citizens and I think it´s basically correct. That fits in with their reactionary statist policies which have a domestic aspect in the economy and social life but also in political life.

Atilio A. Boron: Professor Chomsky, it was a great pleasure to have you expressing your words for the Argentine audience. I want to thank you very much for this interview and I hope that we can be in touch again in the future. Have a good day!
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


I just know...

by Sheepdog Thursday, Jun. 19, 2003 at 3:43 PM

...that Bush Admirer will like this. I wish I had found the article first.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Thank You Noam

by Saddam Thursday, Jun. 19, 2003 at 4:10 PM

Thank you Noam.

It's good to know that you and Nessie and Sheepdog are on my side.

Goodness knows it's been tough finding American support since this idiot Bush began bombing me and my Republican Guard.

With sincerest appreciation.

Your friend Saddam

Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Hey

by Sheepdog Thursday, Jun. 19, 2003 at 4:14 PM

Where's that damn 25000 liters of VX nerve gas?
Damn termites.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


It seems to me

by Antisthenes Thursday, Jun. 19, 2003 at 4:17 PM

That this man Saddam is not liked very much.
Has anyone here ever met him face to face and talked with him
to see what is wrong?
You all act as if you have known this man on a personal basis.
How did you come to your decision to hate this man.
Was it your view
or
someone else's?
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Yes I interviewed Saddam

by Larry King Thursday, Jun. 19, 2003 at 4:28 PM

"That this man Saddam is not liked very much.
Has anyone here ever met him face to face and talked with him
to see what is wrong?"

Yes, I've interviewed him face to face. He assured me that he's just misunderstood. He told me he loves the Kurds and would never gas anyone. He says the invasion of Iran was just a retaliation for their incursions. The same with Kuwait. And he has no idea where all those dead bodies came from in the mass graves.

I believe him because he's got an honest face.

Larry
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


larry

by Sheepdog Thursday, Jun. 19, 2003 at 4:41 PM

read the top interview, stupid.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Exactly

by fresca Thursday, Jun. 19, 2003 at 6:50 PM

"Where's that damn 25000 liters of VX nerve gas?
Damn termites."

FINALLY...you're showing a little sense. Where IS the gas? The question is where did Sadam hide it or who did he give it to while the UN was busy allowing him plenty of time to do just about anything.

WMD. Where are they, now that we gave Sadam too much time?
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Yea

by IMC Sally Thursday, Jun. 19, 2003 at 6:59 PM

"That this man Saddam is not liked very much.
Has anyone here ever met him face to face and talked with him to see what is wrong?"

Yea. He's not a Jew. He doesn't work for the CIA. And he's not an American. How bad can he be?
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


well....

by fresca Thursday, Jun. 19, 2003 at 7:06 PM

...he might be a capitalist which would make him pretty darn bad.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


true...

by Newton Thursday, Jun. 19, 2003 at 7:20 PM

Well, we do know that he doesn't believe much in the redistribution of wealth...
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Uh, frescaw...

by Diogenes Thursday, Jun. 19, 2003 at 7:37 PM

...did your dog eat the WMDs?

I just love the spin. The most dishonest point in fresca's post about where the WMDs are is that it is a totally irrelevant point.

Duhbya, Chain, Colin yassuh Powell, Wolfowitz, Perle, and Dumbsfeld, all asserted they KNEW Saddam had them and where they were at.

Where are they frescaw?

DUHbya LIED
Chainey LIED
Colon Powell LIED
Wolfowitz LIED
Dumbsfeld LIED
Perle LIED
Ari Fourflusher LIED
Victoria LIED

THE PRESS FURTHERED THE LIES UNQUESTIONED.

Dan Blather LIED
Tom Brokejaw LIED
Peter Lemming LIED
Rush Limbag LIED
Michael Reagan LIED
Michael Weiner (Savage) LIED

Every apologist who furthered and defended those lies is an accessory to a Murderous War Crime.

Yes that includes you frescaw. You murdering Bastard.

You have continued to aid and abet the murder.

May G-d grant you that which you deserve.

The Key Point is that the Conquest of Iraq was predicated upon the "fact" that Duhbya and his Cronies KNEW WHERE THE WEAPONS WERE AND THAT THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT THAT THEY WOULD BE IMMEDIATELY ON DISPLAY.

WHERE ARE THEY FRESCAW?

If they had intelligence good enough to justify sending our boys in to die, and kill a lot of Women and Children in the process, they should have been able to escort the "in-bedded" Presstitutes right up to the Sites Camera in hand.

I haven't seen any pictures yet.

Where are they frescaw?

BUSH LIED, CHILDREN DIED. It really is that simple.

And every Shill who aided and abetted the crime is guilty of murder.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


bump

by Sheepdog Thursday, Jun. 19, 2003 at 8:25 PM

"They want a very
powerful state, a huge state in fact, a violent state and one that enforces obedience
on the population. ..."
Yes and beginning with the Waco BBQ the nation watched, then
distracted by an onslaught of mini series scandals, began to show the full effects of television and paper media on the
proper outrage as this public annihilation by fire took place. It's got to be in their face by getting them to remember their anger. This is across the board this anger and the TV weasels spin is soon forgotten when you bring up some truth. Tell em where to look.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Jesus

by fresca Thursday, Jun. 19, 2003 at 8:25 PM

"If they had intelligence good enough to justify sending our boys in to die, and kill a lot of Women and Children in the process, they should have been able to escort the "in-bedded" Presstitutes right up to the Sites Camera in hand. "

Still trotting this gem out huh? Not only is it obviously disengenuious, it is also moronic. You know as well as anyone that NO amount of intelligence would allow this fantasy of yours.

The fact remains. WMD were obviously there. We know that. As much as you'll whine to the contrary, there is no argument to be made. They exist.

You and yours apologized for SADAM long enough for him to hide or distribute them.

The blood is on your hands.

Thank God we did what we did in spite of monsters like you.

You and yours better hope alot more people don't die because of the protection you give these murderers.

YOU are the murder and that is simply a fact.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


bump

by . Thursday, Jun. 19, 2003 at 8:29 PM

"And we have to choose the right target. The target has to have several properties.
First it has to be completely defenseless. No one would attack anybody who might
be able to defend themselves, that would be not prudent. Iraq meets that perfectly :
it is the weakest country in the region, it's been devastated by sanctions and almost
completely disarmed and the US knows every inch of the Iraq territory by satellite
surveillance and overflights, and more recently U-2 flights. So, yes, Irak it is
extremely weak and satisfied the first condition."
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


and...

by fresca Thursday, Jun. 19, 2003 at 8:35 PM

...it has to have WMD and be ruled by a, more so than the average Islamic shithole, murderous tyrant. Yes. Iraq fits that perfectly. Well done!
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Actually frescaw...

by Diogenes Thursday, Jun. 19, 2003 at 9:06 PM

...it had to have OIL.

Oh, I know - it pure coincidence, absolute serendipity, sheer chance that Iraq was "floating on a Sea of Oil". I believe those are close to Wolfowitlesses words.

You can try to spin your way out of it all you want frescaw. Try to comfort your self in the fantasies of "The Dog Ate my WMDs". You will not find in them comfort. You know, no matter how much you writhe in denial and rationalization - you know. Every child blown into an unrecognizable smear of blood and flesh is in part your responsibility. Every child that burned in flames that from which there was no escape is in part of your doing. I cannot find it in me to ask G-d's forgiveness for you. Please forgive my weakness.

However you may divert, and spin, and attempt to avoid it that will not wash away the Blood.

Your hands are stained with the blood price paid for Iraqi Oil and and the Bush Junta's Political expediency - and I suspect other political expediencies emanating from YOUR Capital.

Run frescaw run. You know what though? You can put up a bold front but ultimately the truth is that you are minion of evil. Further, you are a knowing instrument.

Begone oh wretched stain, but you know it will not go.

BUSH LIED, CHILDREN DIED. It really is that simple.

And every shill that aided and abetted his crimes bears the burden of blood guilt.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Lies oh no

by For the last 2000 years Thursday, Jun. 19, 2003 at 10:38 PM

Our leaders are lieing to us? say it isn't so. I mean next your going to try to tell me this "income" tax thing is here to stay. Our leaders promised it would only continue until be defeated Imperial Germany. (I think we are getting closer). According to Chirac France, has never fought an "unnoble" war.

Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


"And every Shill who aided and abetted the crime is guilty of murder."

by daveman Friday, Jun. 20, 2003 at 1:05 AM

Well, then that includes Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, Tom Lantos, Barbara Boxer, Robert Byrd, Jacques Chirac, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, William Cohen, Tom Daschle, John Edwards, Dick Gephardt, Al Gore, Bob Graham, Ted Kennedy, John F. Kerry, Carl Levin, Patty Murray, Nancy Pelosi, Scott Ritter, John Rockefeller, and Henry Waxman.

http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php

Geez, that's a lot of liberals in on the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, don't you think?

How did all these people coordinate the lies? Dead drops? Encrypted emails? Carrier pigeons?

Occam's Razor: the simplest solution is usually the correct one. In this case, the simplest solution is that Saddam has WMD.

Not that Democrats and Republicans (and one French president) all got together to deceive the world.

Dio, it's time to take off the conspiracy-colored glasses and join us in the real world.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


exactly

by No agumennt there, dickman Friday, Jun. 20, 2003 at 4:09 AM

I agree.
"Well, then that includes Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, Tom Lantos,
Barbara Boxer, Robert Byrd, Jacques Chirac, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, William
Cohen, Tom Daschle, John Edwards, Dick Gephardt, Al Gore, Bob Graham, Ted
Kennedy, John F. Kerry, Carl Levin, Patty Murray, Nancy Pelosi, Scott Ritter, John
Rockefeller, and Henry Waxman. "
get a rope.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Come on, Diogenese

by Truthdetector Friday, Jun. 20, 2003 at 5:49 AM

Come on, Diogenese. Stick to the truth.

I'm sure you have read The Guardian's correction of its deceptive misquote of Wolfowitz and the "floating on a Sea of Oil" comment. No need to perpetuate that.

Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Floating on a Sea of Oil

by brigg Friday, Jun. 20, 2003 at 5:59 AM

The US imports 58% of its oil. The top 3 countries from which we import oil are Saudi Arbia, Canada and Mexico. Iraq is #7 with 3.9%. If the US and the other 6 countries ahead of Iraq were to turn up their spickets only the slightist bit, Iraq's contribution would be easily covered. It's not about who controls the oil. Buying power IS control. As the largest purchaser of foreign oil in the world, we already control the oil.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Floating on a Sea of Blood

by Diogenes Friday, Jun. 20, 2003 at 6:56 AM

Uh, davie - you should be careful about playing with sharp things like Razors - you might cut yourself.

Despite your contortions you still come up short. As always. Where’s the Beef? The fundamental difference between your position and mine is I am quite content with the truth and you cannot go anywhere near it as it destroys your position. The simplest explanation given the absence of any evidence in support of the Bush Junta’s contentions is that there are no WMD. There were none at the time the Bush Junta was beating the War Drum. There was plenty of evidence indicating that there were none of any significance ala the DIA, the CIA, the Weapons Inspectors and even Colin, Yassuh Massuh I’ve got the Dossier Right here in my hands, could come up with nothing more than bad drawings of what “might” be, a plagiarized student paper, and Recon Photos of what we now know to be support trucks for Weather Balloons; bad fiction - Tom Clancey could do better - I could probably find a 5th Grader who could write more convincing fiction.

Given the absence of any evidence, the inability of the Bush Junta to point at any, and the fact that they stated over and over again that they KNEW he had them and where they were at is that they LIED, and they knew they were lying. They are War Criminals of the foulest kind. Those who support them are as vermin in an Offal Pile.

Further you are a LIAR, and a promoter of LIES. Like your companion in crime frescaw you are a supporter of death, misery, and destruction. You are less than a whore because a Whore gives pleasure for her Silver, your product is dead bodies, Children writhing in pain from seeing their world destroyed, or their own death from the foul weapons you would see rain on them; men and women crippled for life, dead, and wailing in agony at the loss of their dearly loved. Monster would be too kind. You are soul mate to every apologist for every crime committed against humanity. There is no difference, morally or ethically, between your position and that of a Holocaust Denier. And your arguments are about as valid.

You may cite all the names you wish, but the facts remain unaltered. Cast aspersions as you will as that is all you have: name calling, taunts, and twisted logic.


And to Frigg - it’s a lot cheaper if you don’t have to buy it. You know as I know that the point is control of the supply not just the ability to possess it. The U.S. Economy is a house of cards afloat on fiat money backed by nothing but hot air; with our hemorrhaging economy we are not long going to be in a position to comfortably purchase much of anything let alone the Oil. Our trade deficit is already about a BILLION and a half dollars PER DAY. Further, it is also about WHO profits from the Oil. It matters not to Bush’s Cronies that it cost the American Taxpayer Billions of Dollars to Conquer the Oil Supply for them - they are not picking up the tab. Your argument is warmed over spin that did not sell well the first time around. Like all of your murdering ilk you deal in lies, death, and misery.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


"The U.S. Economy is a house of cards"

by Eric Friday, Jun. 20, 2003 at 6:59 AM

You liberals have been saying this now for years.

Tell us Diogenes, when should we rush to Walmart to stock up on canned goods, bottled water and ammo?
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


As for the ethically bankrupt...

by Diogenes Friday, Jun. 20, 2003 at 7:03 AM

...purveyor of spin - exactly how does the fact that others have lied justify this lie?

How does it justify any subsequent lie?

Your argument is a lie in that it is simply an attempt to obfuscate the commission of a heinous crime.

BUSH LIED, CHILDREN DIED. It really is that simple.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Frigg and Airic...

by Diogenes Friday, Jun. 20, 2003 at 7:55 AM

...unable to refute the truth resort to diversion. What page is that on in your manual?

I'm not biting.

You are still apologists for Lies and Murder.

BUSH LIED, CHILDREN DIED. It really is that simple.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


I'm a liar?

by Eric Friday, Jun. 20, 2003 at 7:58 AM

How many years now have you been shouting about the collapsing US Economy?
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Eric

by Eric's mother Friday, Jun. 20, 2003 at 8:02 AM

How many years now have you been acting like a complete idiot?
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Logical Fallacy

by debate coach Friday, Jun. 20, 2003 at 8:19 AM

"The truth is the exact opposite of what you say."

Unsubstantiated Allegation
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


More of the same...

by Diogenes Friday, Jun. 20, 2003 at 8:24 AM

...unable to refute any of the important points we get name calling, taunts, and hot air.


BUSH LIED, CHILDREN DIED. It really is that simple.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


brigg

by anti-brigg Friday, Jun. 20, 2003 at 8:37 AM

"...but the rest of us see it as being so absurd as to only warrant laugher and ridicule."

And just who is "us?" The voices in your head? Get back on your medications, you psycho.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


faker/KOBE

by brigg Friday, Jun. 20, 2003 at 8:43 AM

>And just who is "us?"

Reasonable people. People you'll never meet in the circle of friends you hang out with.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


frigg admits defeat...

by Diogenes Friday, Jun. 20, 2003 at 8:44 AM

...ungraciously of course but that is to be expected.


Everything he said can be summarized as "I can't refute your points so I'll resort to bluster and hope no one notices". Perhaps you hope to get me upset and bite on your turds of wisdom?

Not gonna' happen.

BUSH LIED, CHILDREN DIED. It really is that simple.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Logical Fallacy

by debate coach Friday, Jun. 20, 2003 at 8:47 AM

"Reasonable people. People you'll never meet in the circle of friends you hang out with."

Unsubstantiated Allegation. brigg, for more on logic that is at your reading level, read "Logic for Dummies."
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Am I...

by Diogenes Friday, Jun. 20, 2003 at 9:15 AM

...supposed to be impressed?

ROFL!!!!!!!!!



BUSH LIED, CHILDREND DIED. It really is that simple.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Getting lamer and lamer.

by Diogenes Friday, Jun. 20, 2003 at 9:25 AM

My advice is read the article. Friggs "Brain" is tired.


BUSH LIED, CHILDREN DIED. It really is that simple.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


KOBE

by KOBE SBM Friday, Jun. 20, 2003 at 11:13 AM
kobehq@yahoo.com

We hate Muslims. Join us.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Dio

by daveman Friday, Jun. 20, 2003 at 4:19 PM

You are truly hilarious.

Loath as I am to laugh at mental illness, in your case I have to make an exception.

"Cast aspersions as you will as that is all you have: name calling, taunts, and twisted logic."

Can't you see? THAT'S ALL YOU DO!!

Pot...meet kettle.

Oh, by the way...you forgot your tag line on the 9:56 post: "BUSH LIED...CHILDREN, PUPPIES AND KITTENS DIED!"

"I'm laughing at the superior intellect." James Kirk, The Wrath of Khan
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Diogenes, tch tch

by Debate Coach Friday, Jun. 20, 2003 at 4:24 PM

" BUSH LIED, CHILDREN DIED. It really is that simple."

False construction Diogenes. Shame on you for trying to connect dots that don't connect.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Dio

by daveman Friday, Jun. 20, 2003 at 4:38 PM

Would you think Chomsky was such a smart guy if his twisted logic didn't parallel your own?

Doubt it.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


daveman analysis

by Logic Fulcrum Friday, Jun. 20, 2003 at 4:42 PM

if you don't agree with daveman's view of the world
you must be wrong. daveman=God
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


yeah, right

by fresca Friday, Jun. 20, 2003 at 4:59 PM

"if you don't agree with daveman's view of the world
you must be wrong. daveman=God"

Beyond the fact that he is generally correct, he hardly has a monopoly on that sort of thinking around here.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


polytheism

by your rabbi Friday, Jun. 20, 2003 at 5:09 PM

fresca=God
up in Olympus looking down on all of us besides your
other gods of war and infinite wisdom.
How convieeeeeeenent.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


wrong

by fresca Friday, Jun. 20, 2003 at 5:44 PM

"fresca=God "

I'm no God. Sandy Koufax is God.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


© 2000-2018 Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Running sf-active v0.9.4 Disclaimer | Privacy