i bet those iraqis sure are happy to be free

[Annie]

I might be missing something here, but pretty hard to be 'less safe' than the innocents on 9/11. I'm aware of numerous thwarted attempts. That's not saying something won't happen, but so far those that are appointed have been doing good.

 

[Zhukov]

i assume you are talking since the CIA made sure the Ba'ath party was installed?

So you're claiming the CIA installed to power the neo-Marxist/Stalinist Ba'ath party, which signed a treaty with the Soviet Union four years later that included provisions for buying arms? A nation next to our ally, the Shah of Iran?

That's seems like a stupid thing to do.


Can you prove it?

 

[Comrade]

So you're claiming the CIA installed to power the neo-Marxist/Stalinist Ba'ath party, which signed a treaty with the Soviet Union four years later that included provisions for buying arms? A nation next to our ally, the Shah of Iran?

That's seems like a stupid thing to do.


Can you prove it?

He can't. It's just a stupid thing to say.


I was going to explain that particular aspect among his other claims but Spilly isn't worth it, is he?

Hey Zhuk, are you a Russian Studies major? Govarite pa-Russkie?

 

[spillmind]

I was going to explain that particular aspect among his other claims but Spilly isn't worth it, is he?

boy, you've got a lot of nerve.

So you're claiming the CIA installed to power the neo-Marxist/Stalinist Ba'ath party, which signed a treaty with the Soviet Union four years later that included provisions for buying arms? A nation next to our ally, the Shah of Iran?

greetings. i trust you received my check? and i trust you'll hold up your end of the bargain?

as for 'proving' it. the truth is out there, if you want to hear it.

here's a couple links. and sorry there is nothing current, too bad the invent of the internet was only a recent development.

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=16188

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/teachers/lessonplans/iraq/saddaminterview_printout.html

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/217.html

http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/article/id1751/pg1/

read those links, will ya?

as for comrade, i'll take my time responding, you pompous ass.

 

[jimnyc]

greetings. i trust you received my check? and i trust you'll hold up your end of the bargain?

He has!

You just need to leave the WOT section of the board occassionally to read!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9491

 

[Annie]

boy, you've got a lot of nerve.



greetings. i trust you received my check? and i trust you'll hold up your end of the bargain?

as for 'proving' it. the truth is out there, if you want to hear it.

here's a couple links. and sorry there is nothing current, too bad the invent of the internet was only a recent development.

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=16188

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/teachers/lessonplans/iraq/saddaminterview_printout.html

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/217.html

http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/article/id1751/pg1/

read those links, will ya?

as for comrade, i'll take my time responding, you pompous ass.

Spilly, I don't think Comrade pompous, but in the spirit of working together, I'll let him respond on his own, without jumping in.

 

[Comrade]

boy, you've got a lot of nerve.



greetings. i trust you received my check? and i trust you'll hold up your end of the bargain?

as for 'proving' it. the truth is out there, if you want to hear it.

here's a couple links. and sorry there is nothing current, too bad the invent of the internet was only a recent development.

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=16188

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/teachers/lessonplans/iraq/saddaminterview_printout.html

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/217.html

http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/article/id1751/pg1/

read those links, will ya?

as for comrade, i'll take my time responding, you pompous ass.

I'm working on a response and guarantee everyone will enjoy it. Give me a few more minutes and I won't disappoint.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

For all of this discussion about whether or not we are safer since 9/11 why don't we ask the State Department:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122403,00.html

According to the report, terrorism is increasing. Whether or not we are winning the war on terrorism definitionally depends on whether terrorism has risen or declined. It has risen.

 

[supermarine]

Im tired of the stupid liberals saying it would've been better to go into iran instead of iraq because they fund terrorists. If Bush went into iran, we wouldn't have found that there were no wmds in iraq, and the liberals would have been blaming bush for not taking action against iraq for having wmds!!!!! :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger:

 

[Comrade]

boy, you've got a lot of nerve.



greetings. i trust you received my check? and i trust you'll hold up your end of the bargain?

as for 'proving' it. the truth is out there, if you want to hear it.

here's a couple links. and sorry there is nothing current, too bad the invent of the internet was only a recent development.

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=16188

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/teachers/lessonplans/iraq/saddaminterview_printout.html

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/217.html

http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/article/id1751/pg1/

read those links, will ya?

as for comrade, i'll take my time responding, you pompous ass.

Hey Spillmind, I love these links but you have to be with me on this before I go into detail.

The conspiracy to assasinate the Iraqi leader with a hanky, are you buying that?

The guy who was behind this, the chemist, Gottlieb, what's with him and the LSD connection? Is he credible to you?

For no reason at all he dosed some poor artist in a bar and this guy was supposed to have gone insane for weeks and never again painted.

Chomsky describes this whole thing as some kind of CIA incident, and apparently the source you depend on for the CIA-Saddam connect found himself under a criminal trial for dosing this man w/o his knowledge. Fascinating backstory but Chomsky is always full of shit. Can you tell why from this link he writes from?

http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/12/sidney.htmtell why?

The whole backstory on your source is a fun read... just checking up in between other duties. I'll do a full post soon.

 

[Comrade]

boy, you've got a lot of nerve.



greetings. i trust you received my check? and i trust you'll hold up your end of the bargain?

as for 'proving' it. the truth is out there, if you want to hear it.

here's a couple links. and sorry there is nothing current, too bad the invent of the internet was only a recent development.

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=16188

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/teachers/lessonplans/iraq/saddaminterview_printout.html

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/217.html

http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/article/id1751/pg1/

read those links, will ya?

as for comrade, i'll take my time responding, you pompous ass.

Hey Spillmind, I love these links but you have to be with me on this before I go into detail.

The conspiracy to assasinate the Iraqi leader with a hanky, are you buying that?

The guy who was behind this, the chemist, Gottlieb, what's with him and the LSD connection? Is he credible to you?

For no reason at all he dosed some poor artist in a bar and this guy was supposed to have gone insane for weeks and never again painted.

Chomsky describes this whole thing as some kind of CIA incident, and apparently the source you depend on for the CIA-Saddam connect found himself under a criminal trial for dosing this man w/o his knowledge. Fascinating backstory but Chomsky is always full of shit. In this link is his story (Chomsky) but I'm already seeing a major flaw about how long acid trips are supposed to last.

http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/12/sidney.htmtell why?


I really like the backstory on all of your links and will post a full response in between other duties.

 

[popefumanchu]

For all of this discussion about whether or not we are safer since 9/11 why don't we ask the State Department:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122403,00.html

According to the report, terrorism is increasing. Whether or not we are winning the war on terrorism definitionally depends on whether terrorism has risen or declined. It has risen.

Whether or not we are winning the war on terrorism depends on how many of the leaders we have killed or captured, how disorganized Al Qaieda and other terrorist organizations are, and how much progress we a making to change the social roots of terrorism.

We have killed or captured over two thirds of Al Qaieda's leadership and Osama is disconnected (hiding, posssibly very sick or dead). They are very disorganized, acting as individual gangs as opposed to a centralized syndicate. Rival bosses vying for promenence. Iraq is now a sovereign, fledgling democracy. Iran is reaching a point where its people will demand more freedom or overthrow the gov't. Saudi Arabia is facing terrorism of its own and will soon need to make some serious changes or completely destabilize. The terrorists are on the run and very cautious about making andy big moves.

Terrorism is increasing, yes. In war, especially decentralized, guerilla war, when the enemy is losing, they become desperate. It is very likely that the increase in attacks is a result of the enemy's desperation. There may be still some large attacks, quite likely on our soul. However the more we kill at home and persuade the peace-loving Muslims to reject their methods, the closer we come to victory.

Evil cannot be negotiated with, or ignored. It must be ground into dust. Evil must be shown no mercy, for it will show you none.

 

[Comrade]

read those links, will ya?

as for comrade, i'll take my time responding, you pompous ass.

Done.


Two things about Saddam's rise to power and the CIA.

1. No publics records exist and we won’t expect the real dirt to come out, ever. The CIA doesn’t disclose anything unless they are forced to by the highest levels of government. There’s a host of people on the web who claim the CIA did something and that’s the end of the story. The CIA neither confirms or denies anything. Who knows, really? That’s not to dispute this story offhand because I’ll get to that. It’s going to be fun.

2. Zhukov and I agreed, that Saddam indeed flirted around with the Soviet government early into his new government and certainly obtained a vast quantity of arms and support from this ally. The CIA either screwed the pooch or Saddam rose to power without American support. You want to say the CIA was responsible but that means we were royally shafted.



Let’s talk FACTS related to YOUR links, and see where this goes…

What I did was to take the last link and drilled down into it. I scanned the others but I find the last one relevant to your claims about CIA meddling.

http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/article/id1751/pg1/

This is information based upon an author unaffiliated with the CIA, a man named Seymour Hersh.

According to Seymour Hersh in The Dark Side of Camelot (Boston, MA: Back Bay Books, 1998, page 194):

He wants to sell his books. Up goes the red flag.

However, his claims are based upon an interview (undated and unquoted) of a named source:

Sidney Gottlieb
AKA: Joseph Scheider
CIA Chemist and poison expert
(1918 - ) [He died in 1999, actually]

http://www.angelfire.com/dc/1spy/Gottlieb.html

Evidence based on heresay from a dead man is kind of worthless, but I googled the hell out of his name and this got really interesting.

By the early 1950s, the CIA, fearful of LSD falling into Soviet hands, had cornered the market on the drug, which in minute doses could produce overwhelming sensations ranging from kaleidoscopic acuity to temporary insanity. The agency also started to fund research, covertly funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars to academics in prestigious institutions around the country who tried the drug themselves and reported the results to Gottlieb.

LSD, mind control, covert funding.

(Care of Naom Chomsky there’s also some kind of backstory leading to him being on trial for dosing some poor artist in a bar with LSD, just for kicks I guess.)

http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/12/sidney.htm

Any site with “truth” in the URL is always some lefty whacko. In this version it’s Chomsky himself…

It seemed Stanley Glickman had everything going for him. An American, Glickman was young, living in Paris, and busy carving out a successful career for himself as an artist.

Then one evening in late October 1952, his world crashed to an end. He
accepted an invitation from an acquaintance to join him and some fellow
Americans at the Cafe Select, a popular spot among writers and artists. There,
the conversation turned into a heated political debate lasting several hours.
When Glickman decided it was time to leave, one of the men offered to buy him a
drink to soothe any hard feelings.

I love this shit. Long story short is this guy walks into the bar and there is our guy, this CIA agent Gottlieb behind the CIA-Saddam connection, and he just fucking doses this guy (because all CIA agents overseas carry around LSD, I guess) and the poor subject goes into a two week long trip and finally is rescued by his family in the streets.

For the next two weeks he "wandered in the pain of madness, delusion and terror."

Yet nobody trips longer than 16-24 hours. You can actually bathe in a vat of pure LSD and after an intense daylong trip you will emerge sane and in touch with reality. Talk to some chemist if you want, or look it up on the net, but don’t actually try this at home, my friends!

Chomsky is always making up things like a two week trip on acid. It’s an urban legend.

Then our CIA source was indicted in court over 17 years never tried and then died. But it’s Chomsky, right?

When friends of his brother-in-law's family saw him on the street and realized the condition he was in, they contacted his family, who made arrangements for him to be brought back to the United States in July 1953.

Glickman never painted again.

OH THE HORROR!

! LOL!

Classic Chomsky hyperbole.


Anyway, I digress. The goods on the CIA-Saddam connection vis-à-vis Gottlieb and his evil acid dosing of innocent painters in the local bar is irrelevant.

The goods on Saddam:


http://www.karljones.com/history/spooks/gottlieb.asp

Gottlieb once mailed a lethal handkerchief to an Iraqi colonel and personally ferried deadly bacteria to the Congo to kill Prime Minister Patrice Lamumba. It wasn't his potions that eventually did in the two targets, but Gottlieb, once described by a colleague as the ultimate "good soldier," soldiered on.

A “lethal hankerchief” mailed to kill an Iraqi colonel! Or not.


http://www.angelfire.com/dc/1spy/Gottlieb.html

Undaunted, Gottlieb tried a poisoned wetsuit that Castro never wore. He also rigged a conch shell to explode when Castro was swimming underwater and was attracted to it, the dictator being a collector of such shells. The shell was never planted. The chemist also planned to assassinate General Kassem of Iraq by planting a poisoned handkerchief in his suit pocket but this plan also failed.

So the plan was to plant it upon the leader of Iraq, in his pocket maybe, by sleight of hand and without he or his bodyguards noticing (he is the President of Iraq, after all).

Kind of whack, I mean WTF would you think when you found some strange hankie in your pocket?

Sidney Gottlieb came up with the idea of infecting a handkerchief and mailing it to Iraq via the CIA station in New Delhi, India. 'It was not an assassination,' Gottlieb told (Hersh) in an interview. 'They [the CIA's Near East division] just wanted him to get sick for a long time. I went to (CIA Deputy Director of Plans, Richard) Bissell and he said go
ahead.'

Okay, now it’s not “hanky of death” but some diseased hanky. Gottlieb mailed it? I guess his secretaries run over and hand deliver his new hanky from the mail?

He's out of the CIA and in trial for LSD dosing and well over 60 and apparently divulging this story. Was he high?

Long story short, the whole hanky plot failed.

THE TIMELINE:

http://www.worldhistory.com/hussein.htm

1959: Saddam tries to kill the President, fails, and bails.

1960: After being tried in absentia, Saddam was sentenced to death.

1960-63: Saddam tried out law school in Cairo for a few years, flunks.

Jan 1963: The so-called Hankie gate. Fails according to the source.

1963: Kassem's moderate policies lost him the support of the Ba'ath Party and he was executed after a military coup in February 1963.

Feb 1963: Saddam sneaks back in.

1963-1971: Saddam goes to prison, breaks out, "graduates" law, and in the late 60’s murders his way to the top.

The poisoned hanky from this LSD agent is just far out. Don’t you think?

 

[Comrade]

Whether or not we are winning the war on terrorism depends on how many of the leaders we have killed or captured, how disorganized Al Qaieda and other terrorist organizations are, and how much progress we a making to change the social roots of terrorism.

We have killed or captured over two thirds of Al Qaieda's leadership and Osama is disconnected (hiding, posssibly very sick or dead). They are very disorganized, acting as individual gangs as opposed to a centralized syndicate. Rival bosses vying for promenence. Iraq is now a sovereign, fledgling democracy. Iran is reaching a point where its people will demand more freedom or overthrow the gov't. Saudi Arabia is facing terrorism of its own and will soon need to make some serious changes or completely destabilize. The terrorists are on the run and very cautious about making andy big moves.

I agree completely, although I believe the Saudis will choose to crack some skulls and get medievil on some Queda ass. Saudis don't stand a chance in hell under a liberal regime. Their 10,000 or so princes won't get their oil money annuities, and the millions of increasingly poorer masses will get horse whipped if they try some kind of uprising. We'll see a few baby steps in a liberal direction but the time honored tradition of rich nobility ruling by birthright requires some really nasty kind of war the people of that country simply aren't equiped to fight. They're still kept in check by Islam, and their clerics. The clerics send out the edicts to the robots and the nobility grant them that right. And while the clerics understand their influence, it's all at the behest of the noble Saudi familes. This is modern day fuedalism and it pretty tight still.

Terrorism is increasing, yes. In war, especially decentralized, guerilla war, when the enemy is losing, they become desperate. It is very likely that the increase in attacks is a result of the enemy's desperation. There may be still some large attacks, quite likely on our soul. However the more we kill at home and persuade the peace-loving Muslims to reject their methods, the closer we come to victory.

I bet if you actually graphed the dead since 9-11 and especially those who have died in Iraq over the last years, you'd trend down. I'm sure someone can link us to a site tracking this toll.

Not that Americans are even among the dead given most of the dead are now Iraqi civilians or agents of the new government.

Who's got the skinny?

 

[MtnBiker]

Very well done Comrade!

 

[Comrade]

I just found a good breakdown on Iraqi casualties, which all you heartless bastards wouldn't give me. Well, I forgive you all... so here's a graph of American deaths in the field over the last several months:

And more than a quarter among those 1,000 deaths were attributed to non-hostile causes. That is, accidental deaths.

In fact, as of this month almost more US military personel are casualties of accidental circumstances than in combat.

I guarantee, though, even if there are ZERO combat deaths we'll see the count stack up based upon accidental deaths in the future.


(Edited to say: Oops. This is from 2003. Well screw it I've dug enough and welcome any graph from someone who cares. If there is anyone who cares, lol.)

 

[Gop guy]

did you think of that one all by yourself? GET REAL, MAN. i'm not stating anything that isn't true. it's amazing how you can block out the truth so that it fits your rose-colored view of iraq. debate a point or get out of the peanut gallery.

you care to explain? i thought not, and i rest my case. pretty easy to condemn something without even arguing your side. not unpredictable, however.

How old are you?

Our noble President Bush took great political risks just to protect this great country, and the world from a madman, would you have taken Saddam Hussein's word that he didn't have WMD'S and wasn't hiding them? I rest my case.

President Bush freed well over 50 MILLION PEOPLE from two of the most evil and brutal regimes in modern history.

You claim to be for freedom, yet you turn you back on the 25 million Iraqis who are screaming for it YOU SHAMELESS LIBERAL HYPOCRIT.

 

[spillmind]

I just found a good breakdown on Iraqi casualties, which all you heartless bastards wouldn't give me. Well, I forgive you all... so here's a graph of American deaths in the field over the last several months:

you're so full of crap it must be coming out of your ears.

President Bush freed well over 50 MILLION PEOPLE from two of the most evil and brutal regimes in modern history.

his IGNORING Sudan basically shoots this crap all to hell. you have the freaking nerve to call *ME* a hypocrite? and i'll bet you gloss this one over, as well. do us a favor. save it.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

you're so full of crap it must be coming out of your ears.

his IGNORING Sudan basically shoots this crap all to hell. you have the freaking nerve to call *ME* a hypocrite? and i'll bet you gloss this one over, as well. do us a favor. save it.

I see now why Spillmind's avatar keeps blinking. He has a loose connection.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

I don't get how the Sudan crisis is Bush's fault when it is the UN that is dragging ass on this. :fifty: