Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Hussein doesn't owe Russia, Iraq owes them the money and Iraq is going to pay them regardless of who is in power. I read the long post prior to this, it's a little out of date. It is an awful lot of speculations about motives, it doens't address the question of wether Frances advice to us about Iraq was correct or not (since it seems in retrospect, their advice was good, why do you feel it was given in bad faith? )Originally posted by jimnyc
And lets not forget Russia, who has (had) oil contracts with Baghdad and 8 billion owed to Moscow by Saddam.
Originally posted by dijetlo
Hussein doesn't owe Russia, Iraq owes them the money and Iraq is going to pay them regardless of who is in power. I read the long post prior to this, it's a little out of date. It is an awful lot of speculations about motives, it doens't address the question of wether Frances advice to us about Iraq was correct or not (since it seems in retrospect, their advice was good, why do you feel it was given in bad faith? )
Originally posted by jimnyc
My point was that it was Saddam working on the deals. The law abiding citizens of Iraq shouldn't be held accountable, in my opinion.
Originally posted by dijetlo
The UN wanted inspections. They never agreed to anything else. They promised grave consequences if Iraq did not comply but in retrospect, you can't prove Iraq wasn't allready in compliance.
1: The US never declared war on Iraq in '91, so thier is no US cease fire agreement with them to violate.Originally posted by X.P. Alidocious
Doesn't matter. Once breached, the agreement is null and void.
We no longer have to adhere to it. The U.S. doesn't need
to "revoke" it.
The US never declared war on Iraq in '91, so thier is no US cease fire agreement with them to violate.
He signed as the leader of UN forces in the theater. The conflict with Iraq in '91 was UN vs. Iraq, not US vs. Iraq. It's a moot point, but useful for folks who beleive we were acting under some UN mandate or to enforce violations of a cease fire accord. It also tends to illustrate why the Administration has had such a problem with defining our motives and rationale visa vis our invasion of Iraq. The latest one, Democracy, is a allready becoming problematic for GWB. He may well come to regret that choice in the next year. If Chalabi and the old INC gain power (and they will if Cheney/Rumsfeld and the PNAC cabal in Defense have anything to say about it)I fear democratic reforms will perpetualy remain six months in Iraqs future.posted by the eric
Was I dreaming in '91 when good old Norm sat down with top Iraqi Generals in a tent in the desert signing agreements.[/b]
In the past ten years the only point I can see proof of them not abiding is missiles with a range of more than 150 kilometers, and hte UN was in the process of destroying missiles that may have had a slightly longer range than this when they were pulled out.
Mecca and the Kabah are both the center of Islam and the GATEWAY to their paradise with Mohammad.
Originally posted by ajwps
SLClemens
As reported on Debka.com months ago, the WMD were observed by satellites being moved out of Iraq, through Syria and into the Bekka Valley in southern Lebanon. Apparently our French allies had warned their partner in the oil contracts that America was about to bring the war to Saddam. The American and Israeli high tech 'eyes' were watching and recording everything.
George Bush has definitive proof of these now buried Saddam WMD weapons and under which crop areas they are buried.
The insinuation is that the Democrats are out on the stump busy claiming Pres Bush brought America into a foreign war for oil profits for himself and his Texas oil friends. The Democrats are also busy tearing each other apart while Bush sits back says nothing and laughs.
Unless I am greatly mistaken or misled, the Iraqi WMDs will be exposed sometimes late next year close to the November election. Much to late for the Democrats who are out there on that proverbial limb to create an excuse for their loud protestations against this president.
The all volunteer American army is now waging a guerrilla war against the Saddamites, Syrians and Iranians. Like in any such war a few are killed or injured but there is one thing that is missing here. Do you see any more attacks in America against our citizenry while the war against the infidels is waged far from our shores?
So we know where the WMD are and will expose them in about a year? Won't that be interesting. can see a drop of sense in your last paragraph, however. Why would anyone in the Middle East try to come here to kill Americans when they can just go to Iraq, where we seem unable to keep them out or stop them?
Originally posted by ajwps
I don't know that 'we' know where Saddam's WMD are but this not well publiciized report was barely evident earlier this year and then quickly disappeared from the radar screen.
It would be poetic justice if Bush and those who know have been holding back heretofore purportedly unknown documentation and information that can be used for political gain. These weapons are purportedly being watched from on high and are not in any danger of being used while being hidden from the special units searching here and there for these illusive weapons.
Do you really know that the American army has had any success in stopping the majority of Saddam's attempts to kill soldiers or like in Israel, those stopped are simply not reported to any extent.
If President Bush really wanted to pacify Iraq, it would take little more than acting like those that want to destabilize Iraq and bringing those Arabs (Iraqis, Saudis, Iranians, Syrians, etc) back to feeling at home with Saddam's old regime.
The army could just round the anti-coaltion fighters and their families up, put them in barbed wire enclsoures and set them ablaze. Then they would feel right back at home with Saddam.
But that isn't acting like civilized people who fight on the 'Iraqi freedome fighters' terms.
Indeed. Thanks again to Alfredo Garcia, my main Tom DeLay watchdog, for sending this to me. Despite the Texas connections of this story, I haven't seen anything about it in the Chron other than a reprint of the original AP wire story and a two-line blurb stating that Democrats were calling for an investigation. Hey, guys, this is yet another Tom DeLay tempest. When will we see some reporting on it?
By Pete Yost
Associated Press
June 5, 2003
Arrogance by Bernard Goldberg
Posted by Kevin at 3 November 2003 in Reviews
Bernard Goldberg has become famous for tackling an issue that is familiar to most residents of, and visitors to, The Blogosphere: the bias and arrogance of the media elite. He brings something to the task that most bloggers do not, however, and that is 28 years inside the business. In his first book, Bias, he tackled the issue of liberal bias head on and thereby endured the wrath of his fellow journalists. In writing a follow-up to that best seller - Arrogance: Rescuing America From the Media Elite released today - Mr. Goldberg has likely further ostracized himself from the leaders of the media establishment. Doggedly, Goldberg continues to insist that the major media elite insert a biased viewpoint in their reporting and that their failure to admit and deal with the issue threatens their relevance to mainstream America.
As a longtime journalist himself and self-described old fashioned liberal, Goldberg is not coming from a polemical perspective, aka Ann Coulter. Rather his tone is one of frustration and tired amusement at the antics of his fellow journalists. He doesnt believe there is a secret conspiracy to destroy conservatives or an orchestrated attempt to be one-sided. Rather, Arrogance paints a picture of journalists living in a cultural and political bubble and too arrogant to step outside that bubble and challenge their own assumptions. Goldberg repeats what he said in Bias:
What I and many others do believe, and what I think is fairly obvious, is that the majority of journalists in big newsrooms slant leftward in their personal politics, especially on issues like abortion, affirmative action, gay rights, and gun control; and so in their professional role they tend to assume those positions are reasonable and morally correct. Bias in the news stems from that not from some straw man conspiracy concocted by liberals in the supposedly objective mainstream media.
What continues to bug Goldberg, and what motivates Arrogance, is that no matter how may examples one points to, and no matter how many Americans believe this to be true, the media elite simply refuses to face the issue. Not only that, when confronted wit the issue they often attack the person who dares to raise this uncomfortable topic. Goldberg obviously has experienced this first hand. Despite becoming a best seller, Bias was either ignored by the media elite or vilified via personal attacks. The viciousness and cheap shot nature of these attacks surprised even some veteran journalists, and likely won a few to Goldbergs side. The most effective response, however, was to ignore the issue entirely. Goldberg was excluded from any major network news program and ignored even by the morning talk shows (with the exception of a brief and hostile slot with Katie Couric).
It's quite possible that our troops are stopping a lot of attacks, but attacks are still increasing. If they are cutting down on opportunities by some to commit attacks, they most certainly are not able to cut down on motivation to attack us. If anything they are feuling this.
I'd be very curious to see what evidence you can post of this miraculous find in Lebanon.
Now I have a seriously hard time in believing this. Even if this were proven to be true then we have a more serious problem with this countries government than we thought before. This would mean that the US intelligence agency is far more jacked up than we even speculate now or our government is trying to seriously play games with the american people.
Instead of 'jacked up' it might be better described as strategy in war time.
well thats some piss poor strategy.
Originally posted by DKSuddeth
You've obviously mistaken me for a DNC member for nowhere in any of my posts have I ever supported a democratic candidate.
On to other things though,
Am I judging strategy? Hell yes, and you should be too and if you are then I might advise you to reconsider your judgement. From just looking at your post it would almost seem that you could care less what Bush does, as long as he does something, and as long as he's doing something then thats quite alright with you, wrong or right.
Now, if its as you say and some of the prior posts indicate, that these hidden weapons are being used as political game chips for future findings to elevate Bush and the republican party then all I can say as an american is hold up a minute.
I have a far less tolerance for political BS games than the average american, maybe its from having served myself, but I fail to see the 'leadership' in using american troops as targets, occupation of a country under false pretenses, and half ignoring a hidden cache of WMD's in another country so a political party can maintain a status quo.
What a wonderful myth it is about that 'liberal media'. It never ceases to amaze me how a simple little label can solve everyones problems with news stories they don't like or agree with. We'll just label it 'liberal media' and those of you on the right can happily glide along as if its nothing but a vendetta against your commander in chief. Its also a sure sign that there are some on the right with no ability to think for themselves, that only have the ability to swallow whatever bait is placed on a hook and actually be happy about it.
