Quote:

---

Have you ever been proud of something the US done? Do you see the bogus premise of questions like that? It presumes your answer before even asking.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lynchaj:
So, see, even keeping the kooky leftists around is a virtue.
PS, Canardman says "Hi".

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lynchaj:
Have you ever been proud of something the US done?

---

Quote:

---

Using SOMO and other Iraqi
records, Bayoil shipping documents, and U.S. Energy Information Administration import data,
the Subcommittee Minority Staff estimated that, during the period surcharges were collected, the
United States imported about 525 million barrels of Iraqi oil on which $118 million in illegal
-2-
surcharges were paid. That means U.S. imports financed about 52 percent of the illegal
surcharges paid to the Hussein regime. The Subcommittee Minority Staff has not seen evidence
showing that U.S. companies knowingly purchased Iraqi oil on which an illegal surcharge had
been paid; in fact, U.S. companies typically included a clause in their contracts requiring a seller
to provide a warranty that no surcharge had been paid. Countries in the rest of the world,
including Europe, Asia and Africa, imported about 475 million barrels for which about 48
percent of the illegal surcharges were paid, totaling about $110 million. Ultimately, all of the
surcharge payments went into the coffers of the Iraqi government, then under the control of
Saddam Hussein.
[\quote]

This one does go on to blast Bayoil who's CEO has now been INDICTED.

Quote:

---

The United States was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated U.N. sanctions and
provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing U.N.
sanctions. On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales, as happened in
the Khor al-Amaya incident in 2003. This incident involves the largest single illicit sale of oil
transported by ship out of Iraq during the sanctions period. Over several weeks in February and
March 2003, Iraq loaded over 7 million barrels of oil onto 7 seagoing oil tankers at the port of
Khor al-Amaya in Southern Iraq. In exchange for this oil, the government of Jordan wired over
$53 million in hard currency to bank accounts under the control of the Hussein regime on the eve
of the American invasion. Each of these massive oil tankers docked at the Khor al-Amaya port,
filled its tanks with Iraqi oil, and traveled through the Persian Gulf, with the full knowledge and
acquiescence of the Maritime Interdiction Force, then under the command of a U.S. naval
officer. When word of these oil shipments hit the press and an outcry arose about this apparent
blatant violation of U.N. sanctions, the evidence indicates that the United States continue to
allow the shipments to proceed.
The oil loaded at Khor al-Amaya, which was supposedly intended to ensure an adequate
supply for Jordan during a possible war, was sold by the Jordanian government at a significant
profit.
[\quote]

Okay, pick your side on this one. I'll agree we turned a blind eye to this shipment in an (ultimately mistaken) attempt to help out Jordan, but 'facilitated' is way too strong a word.



Fivver

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lynchaj:
OK, to illustrate my point let me ask the reverse question...

Have you ever been proud of something the US done?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lynchaj:
That President Bush refused to answer such a loaded question indicates he saw the trap and sidestepped it. Wisely so.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lynchaj:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I'm very curious, but I doubt that I'll get much of an answer, if any of y'all think the U.S. has ever done anything in our short 200 year stint on this planet for which we should be ashamed (that is other than the biggies like slavery--now I might put Hiroshima here and the genocide of the Native Americans, but there's some indication that posters here have found those actions justified). So is there anything that besmirches America's good name today, anything at all?

---

You are right about the first part, I'll doubt you'll get much of an answer either.

Why would anyone answer such a silly, self loathing, defeatist question? Talk about an loaded premise. Try "when did you stop beating your wife?" next time.

If you want to toss dirt on the US and besmirch her good name then do it yourself.

Andrew Lynch

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by fivver:

Quote:

---

Posted by Signym:

The report also found that individuals and companies in the United States accounted for 52% of all oil-voucher kickbacks paid to Saddam Hussein. The largest of theses recipients, Houston based Bayoil and its CEO, Bay Chalmers have been indicted by the US Department of Justice for their actions.

---

Let's see. This is supposed to be some sort of argument for how corrupt GWB and his administration are. So we have this report that a private company was involved in kickbacks to Saddam and the CEO has been indicted by GWB's Justice Department. Now everyone else involved, in England, France, Russia and at the UN are wandering around free. In fact these people represent the rest of the world whose lead you want us to follow. I humbly suggest that you apply for a tuition refund for any logic courses you may have taken.

Fivver

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lynchaj:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Who is to blame for that ?

Last time going into Iraq, the US and its supporter Britain had one interpretation of the resolution against Iraq, and the rest of the security council had another...

---

Oh, that is an easy one.

Clearly, the most culpable parties in undermining the UN are the French, followed closely by the Germans, the Russians, and the Chinese. Their double dealing with the Iraqis and the outright corruption with the Oil-For-Food scandal irrepairably discredited the UN. Their treachery in that institution has done more to damage it than anyone else ever could.

Andrew Lynch

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni

So, what do you have to say about the US violating its NAFTA commitments...

by your previous arguement, are sanctions pending ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by fivver:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni

So, what do you have to say about the US violating its NAFTA commitments...

by your previous arguement, are sanctions pending ?

---

If you are talking about UN sanctions, then no. The UN is not a signatory to the NAFTA treaty. It doesn't have a dog in this fight. If the US is violating a provision of the NAFTA treaty, then it depends on what dispute resolution / sanction procedures are written into the treaty. If any country in NAFTA finds that unsatifcatory, they can always pull out.

I guess to the other part of your post it would be impolite of me to point out that the reason the other countries wanted to lift sanctions is that Saddam had bought their vote...


Fivver

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by fivver:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni

So, what do you have to say about the US violating its NAFTA commitments...

by your previous arguement, are sanctions pending ?

---

If you are talking about UN sanctions, then no. The UN is not a signatory to the NAFTA treaty. It doesn't have a dog in this fight. If the US is violating a provision of the NAFTA treaty, then it depends on what dispute resolution / sanction procedures are written into the treaty. If any country in NAFTA finds that unsatifcatory, they can always pull out.

I guess to the other part of your post it would be impolite of me to point out that the reason the other countries wanted to lift sanctions is that Saddam had bought their vote...


Fivver

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lynchaj:
Oh, I can answer the question, I just won't. HK's question is based on a bogus premise and I won't play his game.

Please bring the thread back on topic. How about this: What hard evidence do you have to support the implication that President Bush has some plan to attack Iran?

Andrew Lynch

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Bush is always right...
Anyone who says different is a crazy lefty...
The europeans deserve to have Iranian nuclear weapons dropped on them...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Lynch, I'm going to repeat a previous poster and I hope you take this advice seriously: Your inability to admit (USA) mistakes invalidates everything you might have to say because you're literally incapable of handling a whole category of facts. You're like a mathematician who can't go past zero on a number line... it blows such big, basic chunks out of your capabilities that I frankly see no point in parsing your distorted POV.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
Anyone who disagrees with him is not a crazy lefty. Thats just here on this board. You guys are crazy leftys, most other people are just plain old Democrats, work hard vote blue kinda folk who don't take to Michael Moore's preachy movies and find James Carvill downright creepifyin.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
The Europeans do not deserve to have Iranian nuclear weapons dropped on them. The French...maybe, but all of Europe, no way. Besides everybody knows that Iranian nukes are reserved for the Isreal, the US, Isreal, maybe Russia, and...hmmm...Isreal.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Funny, I doubt any Americans were saying that about the French when they were fighting the war of independence for you .

---

Quote:

---

But hey they don't have a word for entrepreneur right...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lynchaj:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I'm very curious, but I doubt that I'll get much of an answer, if any of y'all think the U.S. has ever done anything in our short 200 year stint on this planet for which we should be ashamed (that is other than the biggies like slavery--now I might put Hiroshima here and the genocide of the Native Americans, but there's some indication that posters here have found those actions justified). So is there anything that besmirches America's good name today, anything at all?

---

You are right about the first part, I'll doubt you'll get much of an answer either.

---

Quote:

---

Why would anyone answer such a silly, self loathing, defeatist question?

---

Quote:

---

Talk about an loaded premise. Try "when did you stop beating your wife?" next time.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
Sure, they waited till we'd won, then jumped in with both pinky toes. Lets face it the French haven't had a pair of ball between them since Napoleon and he was a Corsican.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
Yes we do. We have several. There's American, Republican, and my favorite "Trump".

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
He is unable to follow a logical progression past certain strong defenses... his mind just veers sideways like a phonograph needle that skips a whole bunch of tracks.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
He is unable to follow a logical progression past certain strong defenses... his mind just veers sideways like a phonograph needle that skips a whole bunch of tracks.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Without the French I'd say its almost a certainty that you guys would have lost the war of independence...

---

Quote:

---

Defeat at Saratoga was not necessarily a military cataclysm for the British, but it encouraged the French, anxious to obtain revenge for the humiliations of the Seven Years War, to go beyond the covert support they had offered the patriots thus far, and join the war. Spain and Holland were to follow suit, and in 1780 a wider League of Armed Neutrality was formed, to resist British attempts to stop and search merchant shipping. The American war was now a world war, which meant that British resources could no longer be concentrated on North America alone.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
So to France I say "thanks for the nice statue"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I'm very curious, but I doubt that I'll get much of an answer, if any of y'all think the U.S. has ever done anything in our short 200 year stint on this planet for which we should be ashamed (that is other than the biggies like slavery--now I might put Hiroshima here and the genocide of the Native Americans, but there's some indication that posters here have found those actions justified). So is there anything that besmirches America's good name today, anything at all?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
So to France I say "thanks for the nice statue"

---

So that's why she looks so...French-ish...
Uh, you mean the Statue of Liberty, right?

Thought it was designed here and made in China...Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I'm very curious, but I doubt that I'll get much of an answer, if any of y'all think the U.S. has ever done anything in our short 200 year stint on this planet for which we should be ashamed (that is other than the biggies like slavery--now I might put Hiroshima here and the genocide of the Native Americans, but there's some indication that posters here have found those actions justified). So is there anything that besmirches America's good name today, anything at all?

---

I think its a perectly reasonable question. It follows the one where we ask if you believe whether the US, in its 200 year history, has been a positive influence in the world?

To answer your question takes far too much time. The obvious answer is yes, we elected Clinton didn't we...twice.

But that is the easy way out. Starting at the begining we failed to properly fund Washington's Army, failed to implement a sound system of finance and taxation, and failed to properly manage land and indian affairs. We can list those under the heading "Articles of Confederation".

Moving on I find American history filled with one shameful act after another. The Alien and Sedition Act, the Yazoo Scandal, the Fugitive Slave Act, Plessy v. Fergusson, Richard Nixon. On and on and on and then some. Yet I find that these things help define the greatness of our land. We strive to be "more perfect", often falling short on our human legs, yet ever have our eyes on the dream of what could be.

I note that Hiroshima (and Nagasaki) is nothing to be ashamed of. Last night I wathed the History Channel's documentary on the military's Invasion of Japan scheduled for November 1st, 1945. Many more would have died civilian, military, American, ally and enemy alike and we would not have known the real horror that became the nuclear bomb. It saved lives and taught a valuable lesson. I suggest it served greater humanitarian purpose then any bomb ever dropped. Just look at the effect on the Japanese. Sure there is fallout and radiotion sicknesses even today, but they were not a nation of embittered survivors, but warriors bowed to the greater power and thus welcomed and welcoming as friend and ally.

H

---

Quote:

---

SIGNYM: Lynch, I'm going to repeat a previous poster and I hope you take this advice seriously: Your inability to admit (USA) mistakes invalidates everything you might have to say because you're literally incapable of handling a whole category of facts. You're like a mathematician who can't go past zero on a number line... it blows such big, basic chunks out of your capabilities that I frankly see no point in parsing your distorted POV.

HERO: Wow, thats impressive. Let me try.
Signy, I'm going to use your political views to justify my dismissal of your political views because you are literally incapable of handling a whole catagory of facts defined by me for me to support my point of view. Your like a mathematician who chooses the answer he wants and works backwards to make the numbers fit. Thus 5=2+2 and if you can't accept that its because you don't understand what "2" really is. So this response is to inform you that I cannot respond to your "distorted POV".

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Citizen- What's a "bint"? (I assume it's nothing flattering!)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lynchaj:
(LtCol North, et al).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lynchaj:
LtCol North was a rogue NSC officer conducting illegal trade with Iran (F-14 & Hawk air defense parts) in exchange for help with US hostages held in Lebanon. Used the proceeds to fund the Contras in Nicaragua.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fivver:
As an example, I've noticed some folks sniffing disdainfully (a very French thing to do) about our use of the atomic bomb. Estimates are that to invade the home islands we would have taken over 1,000,000 casualties. Japanese losses would have been higher. For me personally, my future father-in-law was in a Marine division that would have been in the spearhead. In the allied invasion plan, his unit, by D+3, is no longer mentioned. It was assumed to have been destroyed.

---

Quote:

---

Regarding claims that the atomic bombings saved lives, Gar Alperovitz has noted, "It has been argued in this connection that using the atomic bomb was less costly in human life than the continuation of conventional bombing would have been. Apart from the fact that accounts which urge such a view commonly leave aside questions concerning [modifying the unconditional] surrender formula and the impact of the Russian attack, by early August 1945 very few significant Japanese civilian targets remained to be bombed. Moreover, on July 25 a new targeting directive had been issued which altered bombing priorities." "Attacks on urban centers became only the fourth priority, after railway targets, aircraft production, and ammunition depots." "...the new directive (as the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey noted) 'was about to be implemented when the war ended.'". (Gar Alperovitz, The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 342).

It didn't take long after the atomic bombings for questions to arise as to their necessity for ending the war and Japan's threat to peace. One of the earliest dissents came from a panel that had been requested by President Truman to study the Pacific war. Their report, The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, was issued in July 1946. It declared, "Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." (Bernstein, ed., The Atomic Bomb, pg. 52-56).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lynchaj:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lynchaj:
(LtCol North, et al).

---

???

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

---

I take it that you are joking that you do not remember the 1980's. In case you are not.

---