"Worse than Watergate?"

Or maybe idiots that grasp for straws. LOL..... too fucking funny!!!

you can just pick up Sid Blumenthal's new book 'The Clinton Wars' if you're one of the last few sluggards who still think there was any scandal there or who believe that Republicans have any character whatsoever or interest in anything other than their own power. Least of all the public welfare.

a gen-u-wine, completely documented and proven conspiracy.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846

Damn! What an incitefull political post yours was!
And be careful of who you call "porn wanna-be's". Have you looked in the mirror lately?

Originally posted by woodman

"hey dig, I have wore the uniform and fought for these so-called rights you seem to know so fucking much about. Rights that you think are your innate privledge and not something that people actually have to fight for and die for. My point in the thread earlier is that I get tired of seeing King being maligned because of his injury."

What the FUCK are you talking about? I'm not making fun of King's injury. Didn't even know he had one. So don't pull that crap!
-----------

" Most of you have zero respect for those people who have served. What the fuck have you done or accomplished that deserves and demands respect like serving your country? Put up a few porn sites?"

Again, wtf are you talking about? Talk about someone that has NO idea of what this thread has been about!! DOOD, I know of not ONE post in here that said "We hate the troops of America!"
ALL of us have been dead centered on the DECISION makers (The Bush Gang et al) and the VERY bad decisions that they have made sending troops to war in Iraq! So STRIKE 2 on missing the point of this thread!

"You can fool some of the people all of the time..but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."

This thread is long.

To see it ANY way but YOUR way would be hearsay! But of course if President Bush is told something by Rumsfeld, that's not heresay, that's documented in the concrete proof in your world!

Oh damn..that's right..I forgot that facts & history don't weigh in at all here..ONLY your opinion on what you THINK happened.

FYI...I was injured on the second day of the ground war in the 1st Gulf War and in '92 I was medically discharged from the Army after having served 12 years with the 82nd Airborne Division.

I think GutterBoy is correct Tony Blair has the most to loose. The Americans will also loose if their so called coalition is disrupted.

The bottom line now is two fold one is international politics and the single most important factor is oil and money.

I'm sorry you got injured. But I have to be honest with you..
I also don't really care!
It has absolutely NO bearing whatsoever on what we've been talking about in this thread.

yeah. and I was a SEAL for 25 yrs until they moved me to Force Recon, but I was too mean for the Marines so I got transferred to Delta Force. I also went to Vietnam with Ross Perot and freed some MIA's.

but then I got run over by a jeep when I was drunk and lost it all

Colin is correct and it is not his opinion...it is backed by the facts. You do not comprehend what you read and do not have insight to the significance of what you read...an IQ of at least 90 would be of use to you.

You...well you are just Danny boy...nothing more...well I do give credit where credit is due...you were almost in the military.

I'll give you this..YOU'RE HYSTERICAL! Man..the stuff you write is ripe for a standup show!

To disprove that Colin is not JUST giving his opinion, but facts, you give us YOUR OPINION!

Well..geez! In light of that..You MUST be right! (NOT!)

Do your little insult things (iq of at least 90, blah blah blah).
It's very boring and its what people like you usually resort to when they've been proven oh so wrong!

The only thing that you have proven is that you do not comprehend what you read and do not have any insight into the significance of what you read. All of your BS in this thread is old and has been gone over time and time again and has been rebutted time and time again...and not just by me. Do a fucking search dumb ass.

Like I said, when you're in trouble, the only thing left for you is to repeat your same insults.

I am just stating fact and if you find it to be insulting...to quote you "I also don't really care!"

threads this long suck

Quotes and "contributions" by the King of Denial:

You still talking shit yet? And what's this "defence" by attacking IQ's? I notice you don't actually say *anything* but ramble on "rebutting" blah... sheesh!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will not have intercourse with pricks, drugged out kids, or the plumb dumb Webbys of the world.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course! Excuse me for being so dumb!

It's not that your blinkers are showing too much but....

And.. sure as hell I have no raving desire to have "intercourse" with you either! Hell knows what I might catch

Merriam Websters Deluxe Dictionary Copyright 1998

Intercourse

1: connection or dealings between persons or groups
2: exchange of thoughts or feelings: Communion
3: physical sexual contact that involves the genitilia of at least one person

Like I said...the plumb dumb Webbys of the world.

Pedantic as well???

Sheesh.. get a life man!

No, what I stated was history as presented by ALL major participants and analysis. The Iraqis say they bought Soviet weapons and the Soviets say they sold Iraq weapons. If you watched TV during the war you would have seen T-series tanks but never any Abrams tanks. ;-) If you are old enough to remember Gulf War I, you would remember Iraq flew Migs to Iran because their pilots knew they would get shot down. For many years, Iraq has asked for their Soviet made Migs back and Iran has refused.

Iraq doesn't say they have any American tanks, personnel carriers, fighters, bombers, or automatic weapons. America doesn't say they sold Iraq any tanks, personnel carriers, fighters, bombers, or automatic weapons.

So who does? You? All major participants and all major military analysts agree with the above. If you want to join Mule in your denial of what anyone besides the www.im_brainwashed_and_america_sucks.com website says go ahead. Despite mule's protests, heresy meets the mark in it's according to Hoyle usage. Presentation of material from websites written by some guy that worked in the mail room at the CIA for 38 days before he got fired for jacking off in the men's room on his 10am break while ignoring what is really quite common knowledge should be presented as such.

You think it's my opinion that Iraq puchased Soviet made weapons and not fact? T-62s, T-72s, Mig 21's, and Mig 25's?

The Iraqis say it happened, The Soviets say it happened, The Americans say it happened, Jane's Guide says it happened. Soviet exports of weapons and weapons systems to Iraq were completely out in the open. Never secretive.

It was a source of pride for the Soviets to sell weapons to other countries. They weren't hiding it. It meant to the Soviets, in fact, that their weapons and systems were wanted more than American ones. It wasn't called the Cold WAR for nothing, you know?

The US wanted to sell weapons to Middle Eastern countries all throughout the Cold War. Most of the Arab Middle Eastern countries were too enamored with (or too close to) the Soviet system to do so. Finally countries like Egypt (1970s), Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia began to purchase weapons systems from the US, partly in response to the overwhelming success of
the Israelis in utilizing those weapons and training and more recently with the collapse of the Soviet System and the partnership of Arab countries against Iraq in 1991.

This is precisely correct. All rather well-known information. How does this contradict anything I've said?

You said "Credible evidence? A a copy-and-paste of two articles with such irrefutable evidence as "Donald Rumsfeld visited Iraq" and the US "provided satellite photography" to Iraq during the Iran war. What next? Technical drawings of pesticide production facilities."

I said "No..the U.S. did not put him in power, but they certainly did prop him up for quite a while. There are a shit load of declassified documents showing the relationship between the U.S. and Iraq during the 1980's and it was a TAD bit more than providing sattelite photography."


"Click here if you want to read about the entire happy go lucky relationship between the U.S. and Iraq throughout the 1980's INCLUDING copies of the declassified documents detailing the extent of U.S. involvement with Iraq. There's just too much shit to post here."

Sure the Soviets provided Iraq with most of it's Arsenal, but we gave them a whole hell of a lot too:

During the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq received the lion's share of American support because at the time Iran was regarded as the greater threat to U.S. interests. According to a 1994 Senate report, private American suppliers, licensed by the U.S. Department of Commerce, exported a witch's brew of biological and chemical materials to Iraq from 1985 through 1989. Among the biological materials, which often produce slow, agonizing death, were:

* Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.

* Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.

* Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord, and heart.

* Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs.

* Clostridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness.

* Clostridium tetani, a highly toxigenic substance.


Also on the list: Escherichia coli (E. coli), genetic materials, human and bacterial DNA, and dozens of other pathogenic biological agents. "These biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction," the Senate report stated. "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and removed from the Iraqi biological warfare program."

The report noted further that U.S. exports to Iraq included the precursors to chemical-warfare agents, plans for chemical and biological warfare production facilities, and chemical-warhead filling equipment.

The exports continued to at least November 28, 1989, despite evidence that Iraq was engaging in chemical and biological warfare against Iranians and Kurds since as early as 1984.

The American company that provided the most biological materials to Iraq in the 1980s was American Type Culture Collection of Maryland and Virginia, which made seventy shipments of the anthrax-causing germ and other pathogenic agents, according to a 1996 Newsday story.

Other American companies also provided Iraq with the chemical or biological compounds, or the facilities and equipment used to create the compounds for chemical and biological warfare. Among these suppliers were the following:

* Alcolac International, a Baltimore chemical manufacturer already linked to the illegal shipment of chemicals to Iran, shipped large quantities of thiodiglycol (used to make mustard gas) as well as other chemical and biological ingredients, according to a 1989 story in The New York Times.

* Nu Kraft Mercantile Corp. of Brooklyn (affiliated with the United Steel and Strip Corporation) also supplied Iraq with huge amounts of thiodiglycol, the Times reported.

* Celery Corp., Charlotte, NC

* Matrix-Churchill Corp., Cleveland, OH (regarded as a front for the Iraqi government, according to Representative Henry Gonzalez, Democrat of Texas, who quoted U.S. intelligence documents to this effect in a 1992 speech on the House floor).


The following companies were also named as chemical and biological materials suppliers in the 1992 Senate hearings on "United States export policy toward Iraq prior to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait":

* Mouse Master, Lilburn, GA

* Sullaire Corp., Charlotte, NC

* Pure Aire, Charlotte, NC

* Posi Seal, Inc., N. Stonington, CT

* Union Carbide, Danbury, CT

* Evapco, Taneytown, MD

* Gorman-Rupp, Mansfield, OH


Additionally, several other companies were sued in connection with their activities providing Iraq with chemical or biological supplies: subsidiaries or branches of Fisher Controls International, Inc., St. Louis; Rhone-Poulenc, Inc., Princeton, NJ; Bechtel Group, Inc., San Francisco; and Lummus Crest, Inc., Bloomfield, NJ, which built one chemical plant in Iraq and, before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, was building an ethylene facility. Ethylene is a necessary ingredient for thiodiglycol

In 1994, a group of twenty-six veterans, suffering from what has come to be known as Gulf War Syndrome, filed a billion-dollar lawsuit in Houston against Fisher, Rhone-Poulenc, Bechtel Group, and Lummus Crest, as well as American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) and six other firms, for helping Iraq to obtain or produce the compounds which the veterans blamed for their illnesses. By 1998, the number of plaintiffs has risen to more than 4,000 and the suit is still pending in Texas.

A Pentagon study in 1994 dismissed links between chemical and biological weapons and Gulf War Syndrome. Newsday later disclosed, however, that the man who headed the study, Nobel laureate Joshua Lederberg, was a director of ATCC. Moreover, at the time of ATCC's shipments to Iraq, which the Commerce Department approved, the firm's CEO was a member of the Commerce Department's Technical Advisory Committee, the paper found.

A larger number of American firms supplied Iraq with the specialized computers, lasers, testing and analyzing equipment, and other instruments and hardware vital to the manufacture of nuclear weapons, missiles, and delivery systems. Computers, in particular, play a key role in nuclear weapons development. Advanced computers make it feasible to avoid carrying out nuclear test explosions, thus preserving the program's secrecy. The 1992 Senate hearings implicated the following firms:

* Kennametal, Latrobe, PA

* Hewlett Packard, Palo Alto, CA

* International Computer Systems, CA, SC, and TX

* Perkins-Elmer, Norwalk, CT

* BDM Corp., McLean, VA

* Leybold Vacuum Systems, Export, PA

* Spectra Physics, Mountain View, CA

* Unisys Corp., Blue Bell, PA

* Finnigan MAT, San Jose, CA

* Scientific Atlanta, Atlanta, GA

* Spectral Data Corp., Champaign, IL

* Tektronix, Wilsonville, OR

* Veeco Instruments, Inc., Plainview, NY

* Wiltron Company, Morgan Hill, CA

The House report also singled out: TI Coating, Inc., Axel Electronics, Data General Corp., Gerber Systems, Honeywell, Inc., Digital Equipment Corp., Sackman Associates, Rockwell Collins International, Wild Magnavox Satellite Survey, Zeta Laboratories, Carl Schenck, EZ Logic Data, International Imaging Systems, Semetex Corp., and Thermo Jarrell Ash Corporation.

Some of the companies said later that they had no idea Iraq might ever put their products to military use. A spokesperson for Hewlett Packard said the company believed that the Iraqi recipient of its shipments, Saad 16, was an institution of higher learning. In fact, in 1990 The Wall Street Journal described Saad 16 as "a heavily fortified, state-of-the-art complex for aircraft construction, missile design, and, almost certainly, nuclear-weapons research."

http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/03/119547.php

Oh...and frankly..I'd much rather we had sold them tanks and guns instead of this crap..it's the epitome of what "W" is talking about when he talks about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

-joe

Me too. The bottom line is none of this stuff, even in the worst case scenario, put or kept Saddam in power which is the conversation with Centurion you are referring to.

Security organization and tactics borrowed heavily from Stalin kept Saddam in power. Saddam's military machine has been a Soviet one. The training of his troops, pilots and special forces and the Iraqi military doctrine was Soviet.

I think that's a very western-centric way of looking at the world; that Saddam couldn't and didn't attain and hold power by himself.

Has the US been involved in supporting or at least looking the other way regarding WMD proliferation? I'd say absolutely so, yes, and that should change.

I think the US was much too timid in enforcement of agreements pertaining to proliferation of chemical and nuclear weapons in the post world-war II era. It becomes continually costlier both in terms of human, political and economic capital to enforce such measures as time passes. The UN has been terribly timid, the US has been terribly timid, and certainly the other nuclear powers have been much too timid in enforcing international agreements regarding such weapons.

The overall theme is turn your back when your allies obtain them and scream and shout when your enemies do.

This has been true of Russia/USSR, China, France, and the US. (Not sure about Britain).

My hope is this will change but maintaining such a policy across administration and even within administrations is very difficult. It doesn't seem likely however a doctine such as "containment" did become official policy and held across a number of decades. It is possible.

I said that:

No..the U.S. did not put him in power, but they certainly did prop him up for quite a while. There are a shit load of declassified documents showing the relationship between the U.S. and Iraq during the 1980's and it was a TAD bit more than providing sattelite photography

..and quite a bit less significant than "kept him in power".

Of course...but I never said "kept him in power". I said they propped him up. You are an intelligent guy. You know how world politics work.

Anytime an official representing the president visits or meets with an official of a foreign power in a diplomatic setting they are lending legitimacy to that government.

That single hand shake with Rumsfeld, who was special envoy to President Ronald Reagan at the time as well as a former defense secretary, probably did more to legitimize Sadaam in the eyes of the rest of the world than all the weapons he bought from the Soviet Union.

This thread is just fucking playing with words....

- The US appreciated Sadaam in power at one point, then they didn't.

- The US appreciated Noriega in power at one point, then they didn't.

- The US appreciated Somoza in power at one point, then they didn't.

- The US appreciated Papa Doc in power at one point, then they didn't.

- The US appreciated Pinochet in power at one point, then they didn't.

- The US appreciated Marcos in power at one point, then they didn't.

Getting tired... Got the picture....

No, Centurion did and that is a direct quote. This is why I went through all the trouble to state "which is the conversation with Centurion you are referring to".

I think you crossed-pollinated the conversations. ;-)

This is correct. And your point is?

I don't know about that. It's probably had a much greater effect twenty years after it happened than when it did. Like most other events on the world stage it was a response to other events in the world.

In the context of the events, ideologies and the policies of the time though it makes complete sense. In 1982, the Soviet Union resumed weapons sales to Iraq. This prompted the United States to re-establish diplomatic ties with Iraq in 1983/84. Hence, Rumsfeld goes to Iraq.

The Soviet "sphere of influence" had to be met with an American
influence in order to preserve and fight for balance of power both in the region and the world.

I tend to do that a lot

-joe

I have responded to this article in previous threads...and while I have stated that I am tired of rehashing the same shit over and over again...I will very briefly do it one more time.

"According to a 1994 Senate report, private American suppliers, licensed by the U.S. Department of Commerce, exported a witch's brew of biological and chemical materials to Iraq from 1985 through 1989."


Note...the US government did not supply any of the items listed in this article...it was "private American suppliers"...which were licensed by the U.S. Department of Commerce to legally export x type goods and materials.

Did the administration in power at the time regulate on a daily basis what American companies were exporting to other countries...no...that is not SOP. When the administration in power at the time learned of the type and the extent of the sales of materials to Iraq that had possible "dual use" and also learned that Iraq was in fact applying the "dual use" of some of the materials being supplied to them...the administration ordered the Department of Commerce not to license the sale of certain materials. Even then because of the greed of some companies certain proscribed materials were still sold and some companies had consequences to pay.

To say that the US government supplied Iraq with WMD materials...simply put...is not correct. To say that American Companies knowingly sold Iraq materials for the specific purpose of producing WMD's...simply put...is not correct.

The United States Government did not put Saddam in power...did not supply Saddam with WMD's/materials...did not supply Saddam with weapons of war. During the Iraq/Iran war the United States Government did actually assist both combatants...primarily with intel...as the Government did not want there to be a victory for either of the sides.

Damn, much too much to read. Why don't you rather sing me another little song? It was so sweet last night

The US govt assisted Saddam climb the ladder to "dictator". The US govt supplied various bio and chem agents. If "weapons of war" includes guns, - the US govt supplied these as well.

As an aside, Saddam was one of the few "US dictators/genicide experts" who, as far as is known, did not attend the "School of Americas". (Though I can't see an admission of that being forthcoming if he actually did).

While on the subject - and more current, can you ask your idiot friend in the Whitehouse to quit sending chem weapons and "US aid" to South America in support of another rogue regime which indescriminately arrests people without trial? (Kinda like the US I suppose). It is pissing some people off there - another sure way to make friends.

So... to use your parrot term - I rebutt this!


For a guy that was in the US military, you sure as hell seen little during your term of service. I can intro ya to about ten of your fellow countrymen who "did things" for the US govt.. a couple still do, but the majority would not trust the US govt with 25 cents. They have been involved with em and know better.

Hell.. I can't be bothered wasting time with blinkered pea brain trash.

As I see it, the problem starts as soon as the USA government chooses to back a certain leader - Go over recent history and you will find many cases of USA cash being turned against American citizens -

In this instance, Usa and Uk were correct to dislodge the Iraq leader - Just look what the bastard had done to hundreds of thousands of their own people -

Every human born deserves a chance at life - Like everybody using GFY.

If Iraq comes out of this a better place for its people to live - Then the war did a good job.

There are many undemacratic countries still all over the World - I hope they are all looking over their shoulders right now.

No - I am not a supporter of any American policy - I loathe the American dream as it breeds extremely unhealthy business ethics - But your President stood up and so did Blair - That takes guts. - I hope they take it many stages further.

Why didn't the USA then do that presentation to the UN or the world, instead of the Weapons of Mass Delusion???

And how about your own record:

The US did.

Good for the USA. If you want our money...play in our ballpark...not in anothers ballpark.

As tired as you might be, I never stated the United States government put him in power...as I stated earlier..I said they propped him up. I never said that the government gave him the WMD's either.

There was a major difference between the Soviet Union and the United States. We are capitalists...they were communists. Of course corporations would always be the main supplier. That is the way our system works, private corporations make money off of government contracts as well as , like above, by supplying foreign governments with certain things they would like to aquire.

You cannot compare the system of the former soviet union to that of the United States - the government of the former soviet union would almost always be the main supplier because that is the way their government worked.

Our government props up and supports, or at least looks the other way when business supplies articles to other countries if it is in the best interest for them to do so. That was the case here.

-joe

No...U.S. companies supplied them, not the government...as I said earlier..the U.S. government allowed it to happen, but they did not supply the material.

So weak argument....

Oh, I was under the impression the president had made himself the package and delivered it in person...

That only would qualify as " the gov did it" ?

if fact not even; you could then say it wasn't the government it was the president....

Stop jerking off, there is nothing more to drain...

This thread has gotten so "polluted" by non-topical crap that the main point has all but been forgotten/ignored (and successfully so by Colin & King who decide "let's take this whole discussion on a sidetrack about Russian tanks & I've rebutted this all before!").


The TWO major issues (which as we "speak" are now being investigated by congress) was that:

1)The first and OVER RIDING issue given by G.W. Bush for attacking Iraq was the dismantling/disarming of Iraq's WMDs! Yeah, he changed his song AFTER they knew and couldn't find any of these WMDs! But it was his BASIC premise that he repeated over and over again for months for going to war in Iraq!

2)So that brings us to the 2nd issue: Where are these hiddeous weapons of mass destruction that were such an immediate threat to United States that we had to invade Iraq to rid them?
Not finding any (and saying.."it's only been 2 months" doesn't cut it as the U.S. claimed MASSIVE intelligence on how much/when and most importantly WHERE!) of these weapons really destroys Bush's credibility for attacking Iraq as well as his doctrine of "first strike" to protect the United States.

THESE are the 2 issues that neither King or Colin have ever really addressed (while they have gone off on many othe tangents).

And to say "Well, that's not the reason we went to war in Iraq" completely re-writes history as it was this "threat" that began the march to war. To say otherwise is out and out lying! Just pick up any newspaper, magazine or government publication in the months leading up to the war and they all screamed:

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ!!!!!!!!

Those are just the facts. You can take them any way you want.

If you somehow think I agree with these actions you are gravely mistaken. But I'm not going to distort things to somehow gratify my own beliefs.

XY Cash is being precise and correct. Horribly aggravating, huh?