Top Five Untrue Conspiracy Theories by chrisisall

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
5) Cheney shot his pal on purpose as per a gun lobby request to promote hunting, and show how safe it is-even if you're a moron.

Thats ones just silly. It true he shot his friend. Its true he shot on purpose. Anything else is just speculation.

Quote:

4) Black helecopters have a 'whisper mode' they can switch to. (That's just stupid. They're made to be quiet like that ALL the time.)

Its true that the military has black helicopters that are nearly silent which are used for special forces and covert operations. But there's nothing sinister about it. They paid a consulting firm several hundred million dollars (back when Clinton was in office) and discovered that the brightly colored really loud helicopters were more likely to be seen at night then black quiet ones. So the special forces got the quiet ones and the Coast Guard got the loud ones.

Quote:

3) "They Live" is really a documentary.

Not true. The movie is an artistic film documenting professional wrestlings struggle for acceptence as a legitimate business in mainstream America.

Quote:

2) A lot of oil comes from the Middle East. (It's actually piped in from wells in Africa, and made to look like it comes from the Middle East. This gives us a reason to mess with those towel-heads.)

This plot began during the Crusades when the Jews and the Knights Templar convinced Da Vinci to hide the secret of Middle Eastern oil inside his greatest works of art and continues today with Tom Hanks' plan to eliminate the Shiite sect of Islam by exposing the Da Vinci Code which is really an internet virus that will bring about the long dreaded third sequal to 'The Net', which will NOT star Sandra Bullock.

Quote:

1) The Bush administration is ruining world co-operation and trust, and bringing on the next world depression through extended war in an attempt to get us all to the Apocalypse because they want God to 'sort us out', like it is described in the scriptures. (That's dopey. Religious nuts don't even read the Bible or Koran. They're doing it cause they don't know any better, that's all.)

Bush is really trying to save us all from the crazy Iranians and their plan to bring about the Apocalypse and in turn cause the 'Hidden Imam' to reveal himself on next season's 'The Apprentice' which will come from Los Angelous and bring about an end to all things.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 28, 2006 1:49 PM

KHYRON

Hero, you're beginning to sound a bit like Piratenews these days

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 28, 2006 2:42 PM

WIX

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

Gads, me too.

"Sir, I think you have a problem with your brain being missing."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 28, 2006 6:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

3) "They Live" is really a documentary.

Not true. The movie is an artistic film documenting professional wrestlings struggle for acceptence as a legitimate business in mainstream America.

LOLROTF!!!!!
You is funny, H.

Chrisisallhahahahaha

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 28, 2006 6:39 PM

SASSALICIOUS

Quote:
This plot began during the Crusades when the Jews and the Knights Templar convinced Da Vinci to hide the secret of Middle Eastern oil inside his greatest works of art and continues today with Tom Hanks' plan to eliminate the Shiite sect of Islam by exposing the Da Vinci Code which is really an internet virus that will bring about the long dreaded third sequal to 'The Net', which will NOT star Sandra Bullock.

Hahahahahhahah!!!! I laughed my ass off.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 28, 2006 7:32 PM

#1: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." -- President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.

#2: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.

#3: "We believe Saddam has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." -- Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003 on "Meet the Press."

#4: "[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." -- CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening's speech by President Bush.

#5: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.

#6: "We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.

#7: "We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established." -- President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003, in a national radio address.

#8: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." -- Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5 2003, in remarks to the UN Security Council.

#9: "We know where [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003, in statements to the press.

#10: "Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited." -- President Bush in remarks in Poland, published internationally June 1, 2003.

Couldn't pick just five...

" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 29, 2006 4:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Couldn't pick just five...

Everything you listed is either true, thought to be true at the time but later shown to be incorrect, or part of an Iraqi deception to make it appear true.

I don't see the problem. Saddam had a massive program to conceal and distort its WMD capability. He was seeking materials to reconstitute a nuclear program. He did develop missiles capable of hitting Isreal. Those documents and audio recordings just released indicate operational planning that was underway between Iraq and Al Queda and there was a large Al Queda base in northern Iraq and other AQ operatives living or visiting for treatment in Baghdad. Saddam orchestrated the largest fraud in human history by using the 'Oil for Food' program to undermine the UN and bribe officials in large countries such as France, Germany, and Russia...all in an effort to weaken the resolve of the world coalition that was standing in the way of Iraq's continued beligerance.

Its also clear that Iraq is a major part of the broader War on Terror. In the short term we have created a means for thousands of Al Queda and their sympathizers to rush to the sounds of the guns and die in combat. It brings the enemy to us, to fight on ground of our choosing (as opposed to fighting in Boston or LA or anywhere you can cross the undefended Mexican border and kill some gringos). In the long terms the creation of two stable democracies in the region will provide for long term stability and social change in a culture that seems mired outdated thinking (in much the same fashion we accomplished with Japan and South Korea).

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 29, 2006 4:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

#6: "We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.

Of all of them, this is the stupidest piece of nonsense I've ever heard. This is a straight out LIE from the administration (How a lie and not a mistake? Nobody, repeat, NOBODY is THAT stupid in Washington. Sure, they're not brilliant mostly, but they're not actual morons. The voters on the other hand...Particle Beam defense in orbit, anyone?...War of the Worlds on radio was taken as true, also).
Yeah, they have lousy scuds, but highly advanced UAV's to deliver their WMD's to U-N-ME.

Thanks Gino, for the reality check.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 29, 2006 4:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Everything you listed is either true, thought to be true at the time but later shown to be incorrect, or part of an Iraqi deception to make it appear true.

H

In other words our intelligence isn'nt ever accurate, and always lacking (in coloquial terms, it sucks), yet we continue to make major decisions based on it. That seem right to you?
Of course it does. America never makes a mistake that is her fault.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 29, 2006 5:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
In other words our intelligence isn'nt ever accurate, and always lacking (in coloquial terms, it sucks), yet we continue to make major decisions based on it. That seem right to you?
Of course it does. America never makes a mistake that is her fault.

I think Rumsfeld said it best. You make the best decisions you can based upon what you know at the time.

Could intellegence have been better? Yes. But we gutted the human intellegence wing of the CIA in the '90s and cut their budget over and over again.

Could the military have been larger and better prepared? Yes. But we slashed troop level and defense budgets in the '90s.

None of this changes the fact that Saddam was a continuing threat to the United States. He just was very, very good at hiding the nature of his threat. His actions to undermine the UN and America's strategic alliances were a threat. His missile program was a threat. His increasing contact, support, and coordination with terrorists, including Al Queda, but more substantially with the various Palestinian groups...not to mention his efforts to restart his gutted WMD program. All of these things were a threat...now removed.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 29, 2006 5:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

His actions to undermine the UN and America's strategic alliances were a threat. His missile program was a threat. His increasing contact, support, and coordination with terrorists, including Al Queda, but more substantially with the various Palestinian groups...not to mention his efforts to restart his gutted WMD program.
H

And...this all went on without our knowledge (we're stupid?)?
Or, we knew it was going on and did nothing (we're stupid)?
Or, we waited until after something like 911 to act on it (we're stupid)?

Hero, are you calling the American Government stupid???!

Or do you not understand the bigger picture Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 29, 2006 5:59 AM

ERIC

Saddam: Dictator of a SECULAR government.
Al Qaeda: ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALIST terrorists.

Oh yeah, definitely natural allies. Coordination and support all the way.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 29, 2006 7:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
And...this all went on without our knowledge (we're stupid?)?
Or, we knew it was going on and did nothing (we're stupid)?
Or, we waited until after something like 911 to act on it (we're stupid)?

Hero, are you calling the American Government stupid???!

Just President Clinton's foriegn policy, military spending, and his dismantaling of the CIA. Stupid is harsh. I'd call it short-sighted...which is the hallmark of his administration and his personal choices.

But would I blame Bush for waiting until after 9/11 (which is your third point)? No. Bush took office in January and immediatly began a review of the military and intellegence communities (it was a 2000 campaign issue after all). The reason is you can't fix problems till you know what's broke and comprenhisive analysis of the problems cannot occur overnight.

The original plan was to spend the first year assessing the situation, then come back in 2002 with a large increase in defense spending (and more tax cuts). 9/11 occurred several months before the review could be completed. Also before 9/11 we were laboring under severe political restraints imposed by Clinton and it would take either time or disaster to understand the what was really happening. We ran out of time on that Tuesday morning when we faced disaster.

So. Clinton, Clinton, Clinton. He slashed the military, the intellegence, botched his own responses to escalating terror attacks, missed Bin Ladden, backed down from Saddam, had sex with an intern, used the power of his office to obstruct justice in an unrelated civil case, had no energy policy, and could play the saxophone.

I wonder if a President Dole would have handled Bin Ladden differently in 1998 and if 9/11 would have been avoided coming after his term (I doubt he'd have served longer then one term).

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 29, 2006 7:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

So. Clinton, Clinton, Clinton. He slashed the military, the intellegence, botched his own responses to escalating terror attacks, missed Bin Ladden, backed down from Saddam, had sex with an intern, used the power of his office to obstruct justice in an unrelated civil case, had no energy policy, and could play the saxophone.

All true. We agree on this, at least (except the Sax part).
What you seem unable or unwilling to see is that the Bush administration is as bad, for slightly different reasons. At least Clinton wasn't crabbed as a result of sexual frustration.

Chrisisall, atomizing that deceased equis

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 29, 2006 9:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
At least Clinton wasn't crabbed as a result of sexual frustration.

I think that's what's wrong with Hillary.

Hey, I was just watching the President's talk at Freedom House. Man's a fracking genius. Everything he's done, the whole foundation of his foriegn policy comes down to the fundamental notion that freedom is the birthright of everyone: man, woman, Jew, Muslim...everyone and that all peoples regardless of race, creed, color, religion, or economic stratus is capable of self-government. It's a Reaganesque or Linconian vision worthy of our first 21st Century American President.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 29, 2006 11:43 AM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
Sort of posted by Hero:
Clinton's Stupid
But would I blame Bush

Yeah, figures. But not to be too partisan about it, but, Bush *is* Clinton. Clearly Bush's membership in the republican party grants him immunity to any attacks.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 29, 2006 2:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

His actions to undermine the UN and America's strategic alliances were a threat. His missile program was a threat. His increasing contact, support, and coordination with terrorists, including Al Queda, but more substantially with the various Palestinian groups...not to mention his efforts to restart his gutted WMD program.
H
And...this all went on without our knowledge (we're stupid?)?
Or, we knew it was going on and did nothing (we're stupid)?
Or, we waited until after something like 911 to act on it (we're stupid)?

Hero, are you calling the American Government stupid???!

Or do you not understand the bigger picture Chrisisall

I think the US was more of a force in undermining the UN than Iraq ever was....

Every member of the security council excluding the US and Britain was willing to accept the work of the weapons inspectors working in Iraq and start to phase out the embargo for humanitarian reasons.

The US ( under Clinton admittedly, but would Bush had done any different ) said they would veto any such plan, so it didn't even get debated.....

Three UN high commissioners resigned saying they didn't want to be a party to genocide, and thousand of dead Iraqis as a result.

Hero keeps saying Iraq was a threat to the US, If I lived in a country that suffered this bullshit driven through by the US, I would personally be a threat to the US. Would US citizens act any different if the roles were reversed?

The results still hamstring the UN to this day, any action against Sudan for example has to be considered to how to get out of it if the US trys to use it towards their own agenda again.....

" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 29, 2006 2:45 PM

Hummm, wonder how many starving Iraqi's could be fed for the cost of just one gold plated AK? Wonder why the millions found in Saddam's palaces were not being spent on food for the Iraqi people. Obviously the American's fault.

You need to wise up. Saddam was still making millions through legal and illegal oil sales, he chose to spend it on his millitary, the Sunni elite that kept him in power and on an excessive lifestyle. I'm sure had he actually cared enough for the Iraqi people he could have used that money to save them. Instead he let them starve because dead Iraqi's plays good on foreign TV and improves the chances that the UN would loose the support it needed to maintain sanctions.

It's clear to me who the villian is here and just one look at the Iran/Iraq war will tell you that he was more than happy to sacrifice millions of lives for his own agenda.

Makes you wonder though. How many folks starved in Tikrit compared to Shite areas like Basra?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 29, 2006 4:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Hummm, wonder how many starving Iraqi's could be fed for the cost of just one gold plated AK? Wonder why the millions found in Saddam's palaces were not being spent on food for the Iraqi people. Obviously the American's fault.

You need to wise up. Saddam was still making millions through legal and illegal oil sales, he chose to spend it on his millitary, the Sunni elite that kept him in power and on an excessive lifestyle. I'm sure had he actually cared enough for the Iraqi people he could have used that money to save them. Instead he let them starve because dead Iraqi's plays good on foreign TV and improves the chances that the UN would loose the support it needed to maintain sanctions.

It's clear to me who the villian is here and just one look at the Iran/Iraq war will tell you that he was more than happy to sacrifice millions of lives for his own agenda.

Makes you wonder though. How many folks starved in Tikrit compared to Shite areas like Basra?

It was not just a matter of food, the embargo prohibited the sale of chemicals involved in water purification, as well as equipment to clean up the depleted uranium munitions which caused a 300 % increase in cancer related disease in affected areas, etc, etc.

Besides if the rest of the security council wanted to change this policy, who is the US to dictate to
the UN what their policys can and cannot be. I think until the veto power is eliminated the UN is useless.

BTW, with all the money and power the US has, how come there is still people living in wreckage in New Orleans ? I'm sure had he actually cared enough for the [ people of New Orleans and area ] , I mean Bush could have used that money to [ help ] them. Instead he let them starve [ and go homeless ] because he is running the US economy into the ground and needs the cash to help prop up his appointed elected officals in the countrys he currently occupys.

http://www.fromthelaketotheriver.org/legal-aid-1097083.html
Congressional Testimony

REMARKS
ON THE STATUS OF HOUSING
FOR KATRINA EVACUEES
FROM NEW ORLEANS
to
The House Democratic Caucus
of the United States Congress
by
P. Bryan Mauldin
President
From the Lake to the River:
The New Orleans Coalition for Legal Aid and Disaster Relief

This bit stands out to me

" People are buying shovels at Ace Hardware and finding their own relatives in the rubble. "

5 months later.....

I'll admit Saddam was a prick, will you do the same for your prick Bush ?

" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 29, 2006 4:45 PM

He's not *my* prick, I'm a foreign national, I can't vote for him even if I wanted to.

I have a question for you, because I'm curious to see how naive you are. Assume we could get into the wayback machine and party like it's 1999. Let's assume we just give up on sanctions and hand Saddam several billion in oil revenue. Do you really think he would go "great Allah I must help the Iraqi people!" and make his first priority clean water and cleaning up the depleted Uranium you seem so concerned by? Or do you think a few new tank divisions, a palace or two and maybe a chem weapons lab would be on that shopping list before them?

The fact is that there are a lot of things that were not covered by the embargo that he could have spent his money on and would have improved the life of the iraqi people, power infrastructure, food and medical supplies to name a few. Instead he bought dubious pornographic art, gold plated assault rifles and other weird stuff. He's shown where his priorities were by his actions, having more money to play with is unlikely to change them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 29, 2006 5:42 PM

One, I think Saddam should have been given the opportunity to not do this, if the embargo lifted and there was no reinvestment in infrastructure, water plants, transport, etc. If he did not, then

A) the resultant blood whould be on his hands and not the west ( an important factor when you consider the reaction in other Muslim countrys to how this played out ) perhaps 911 might not have happened

B) Most agree, even US intellegence that the embargo was not accomplishing it objectives, so the resultant loss of live was pretty much pointless from the point of decision on.

C) Mass arms purchases could still be blocked as unless the major arms producers tried to ship through Iran, the borders were under control.

D) The credibilty of the UN would have been maintained, instead of having one security council member driving the agenda against the will of the rest... I think the veto power must go

E) The international community would then be free to try other approachs, even threatning to put the embargo back in. If someone has something to lose you have more room in negotiation. Weapons inspection teams should have had more freedom to look, but also an end date, say five years then their teams would withdraw.

F) With no reinvestment in infrastructure, domestic pressures might have built up to the point of a coup or a civil war resulting in an internal regime change, which I would say would be better than one forced at the point of a foreign invasion.

I think any or all of these would have been better than what did, if Saddam had of as you say used the cash to build a palace or two, I think that would have provided an opening to use Islam to the advantage of the situation, overtures to Sunni and
Shi'a Imams across the Muslim world would have brought addition pressures to bear towards F), futher isolating Iraq, including the muslim world in the solution... and somehow along the way accomplishing a complete US troop withdraw from the region further decreasing tensions.

" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 29, 2006 5:56 PM

BTW

Where are you from ?

How do you respond to my comparing Saddam ignoring his people to Bush ignoring his,

I really cannot believe they still haven't got their shit together down there yet,... the next hurricane season is coming up soon, maybe they are hoping the whole mess will be washed out to sea.....

" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 29, 2006 10:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
One, I think Saddam should have been given the opportunity to not do this, if the embargo lifted and there was no reinvestment in infrastructure, water plants, transport, etc. If he did not, then

A) the resultant blood whould be on his hands and not the west ( an important factor when you consider the reaction in other Muslim countrys to how this played out ) perhaps 911 might not have happened

It's on his hands anyway. You speak as if it's some unilateral decision made just by the US to put the sanctions in place. It wasn't they were set up by the whole UN and there was a way in which Saddam could have had them lifted at any time, just comply with the UN resolutions. The fact that he didn't means one of two things. Either he did have WMD's or his ego was such that he'd rather starve his own people than admit that he didn't. In either case he doesn't sound like santa claus to me.

Quote:

B) Most agree, even US intellegence that the embargo was not accomplishing it objectives, so the resultant loss of live was pretty much pointless from the point of decision on.

I love this one. The same people that say "you shouldn't have gone to war, we had him contained, sanctions were working" then say "sanctions were a failure the west MURDERED all those people!" So which was it? Sanctions were either failing in which case we had to intervene before he rebuilt his military or they weren't.

Quote:

C) Mass arms purchases could still be blocked as unless the major arms producers tried to ship through Iran, the borders were under control.

How? I'm curious. Iraq was a large complex economy that under normal circumstances pulls in a lot of material legitimate or otherwise from a lot of places. With sanctions in place theoretically Saddam had to show his shopping list to the UN before they let him buy anything. It appears that he managed to sneak things through even with most things blocked. The US isn't able to adiquately screen all containers coming into US ports want to try that on the other side of the world. Could you tell just by looking at a set of gears if they fit a tractor or a T52?

Quote:

D) The credibilty of the UN would have been maintained, instead of having one security council member driving the agenda against the will of the rest... I think the veto power must go

The whole of the UN put sanctions in place. Had Saddam managed to get them lifted without bowing to the UN demands then it actually makes the UN look even weaker than it looks anyway. It says the international community can be bribed to look the other way as long as you have oil.

Quote:

F) With no reinvestment in infrastructure, domestic pressures might have built up to the point of a coup or a civil war resulting in an internal regime change, which I would say would be better than one forced at the point of a foreign invasion.

The Shia in the south rebelled after the Gulf war expecting the US to help them and they didn't. The people behind the uprising were brutally put down. It was so bad that even when the US was invading few Shia's showed any support because they didn't trust the US to stay. The time to have supported an uprising was in 1991 not 2003. The money that Saddam was skimming out of oil for food made sure that the Repubican guard, party loyalists and the internal security apparatus remained at optimum strength even as the rest were starving.

Would you stand up to Saddam and watch your daughter's raped and your sons disappear into Abu Graib? Seriously? The Arab street will riot if you publish the wrong cartoon but if you are a muslim hard man with a good secret police, they are not stupid enough to riot no matter what you do.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 29, 2006 10:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
BTW

Where are you from ?

How do you respond to my comparing Saddam ignoring his people to Bush ignoring his,

I really cannot believe they still haven't got their shit together down there yet,... the next hurricane season is coming up soon, maybe they are hoping the whole mess will be washed out to sea.....

Bush will be gone in 2008. The idiots that ran FEMA have already gone, any politico that can be shown to have screwed up are likely to be gone this year. Even if Bush were a corrupt idiot he could be voted out, impeached or at the very worse the most that anyone would have to put up with would be 8 years.

Given the choice between that and a never ending dictator with two sadistic sons waiting in the wings I know which I'd prefer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 30, 2006 2:04 AM

It is not your perception that matters, the feeling in most Islamic countrys put the blame of the sanction deaths at the wests hands, and that has caused alot of problems...

Your next point, by 1998 at least, ALL the security council members except the US and Britain wanted to lift the sanctions, Albright publicly stated that the US would veto any such move.... and Saddam always claimed the WMD programs were shut down, and the UN weapons inspectors concurred... it was the US who didn't believe it ( without any proof )

Engine parts... so what You can't ship in Tanks, Artillery pieces Aircraft without the controls that were in place on those borders realizing it. A crate of rifles, sure but so what

Once again the majority was held hostage by the veto of the US, in a vote the sanctions were gone anyway

and the last, well I won't bother... history would disagree with you... there has been many coups and attempts that follow just such a pattern... usually against US backed tyrannts, trying to use that in this situation would have been preferable

Unless you think what is going on now is the better solution ?\

" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 30, 2006 3:01 AM

SIXSHOOTER

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

3) "They Live" is really a documentary.

Mama don't like tattletales!

BOOM-WAH!

No, They Live isn't a documentary, but Hell comes to Frogtown is.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 30, 2006 3:38 AM

Ahh, you're just here to chew bubblegum...

Nada Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 30, 2006 9:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
It is not your perception that matters, the feeling in most Islamic countrys put the blame of the sanction deaths at the wests hands, and that has caused alot of problems...

If the "Arab Street" actually got off of its ass and overthrew one of these nutjobs then I would respect their opinion. As it is they use the West as an outlet for other frustrations. Know why so many of them riot over cartoons they have never even seen?

1) Because some Iman told them too
2) Because rioting against El Presedente would get them shot. There are frustrated little farties out there sure but they are smart enough to know you don't riot against the Man.

Quote:

Your next point, by 1998 at least, ALL the security council members except the US and Britain wanted to lift the sanctions, Albright publicly stated that the US would veto any such move....

Let's say that the first part is true. By 1998 we has had nearly 8 years of sanctions, Saddam has still allowed countless Iraqi's to starve for public relations reasons. He was undermining sanctions by playing the poor starving Iraqi card on international TV and by promising French and Russian oil companies contracts once sanctions were lifted. Let's say that he succeeded.

1) The "Arab Street" would still have blamed the West for 8 years of sanctions because we're the only folks they can blame for anything. So we would have been no better off.

2) Saddam would have reconstituted his military as a priority, so while life wouldnt have got immediately better for the Iraqi people their chance of overthrowing the nutjob just got worse.

3) The US could not have pulled troops from the region and left Kuwait and Saudi oilfields vulnerable. It is that protective force on Saudi soil that pissed of Bin Laden, not anything that happened to mainly Sh'ite muslims in Iraq.

Quote:

......and Saddam always claimed the WMD programs were shut down, and the UN weapons inspectors concurred... it was the US who didn't believe it ( without any proof )

No they didn't. They said they couldn't find anything they believed that there were still extensive stocks of chemical and biological agents. Read Hans Blix's 2003 report. Blix and his people were just as surprised as anyone else that the US never found anything. The sanctions were not going away because everyone but the US really thought he'd complied. Public opinion in the west had shifted because of reports of starving Iraqis and at least 2 security council members had economic deals with Iraq signed and just waiting sanctions being lifted.

Quote:

Engine parts... so what You can't ship in Tanks, Artillery pieces Aircraft without the controls that were in place on those borders realizing it. A crate of rifles, sure but so what

Well I would argue that you could ship in anything if you wanted it badly enough. In 2003 Iraq still had one of the world's biggest armies it's just that a lot of their hardware was out of action because of lack of spares. You don't need to smuggle in tanks, they had plenty, gear box parts and engine parts were what they were lacking. So no, those boxes of gears you just shrugged off would be important. Then there is the issue of dual use. The chlorine that you said we wouldn't let him import, the "water purification" stuff that we withheld just to kill Iraqi's. Guess what? It's the basis for all kinds of nasty chemical weapons. Would you know at the border if a tanker of chlorine was going to help the poor people of Basra get clean water or gas another Kurdish villiage? Guess not.

Quote:

and the last, well I won't bother... history would disagree with you... there has been many coups and attempts that follow just such a pattern... usually against US backed tyrannts, trying to use that in this situation would have been preferable

Like I said the US let the Shia in the south down in 1991. The people that stood up were picked off. That's the "lesson of history" we chose to teach them. Eastern European "velvet revolutions" happened because the Soviet puppet governments had their strings cut by their Soviet puppetmasters, not because people power was so great they were garenteed to succeed. In the heyday of the Soviet empire the Czechs and the Hungarians tried it and failed given Saddams brutal methods I doubt any internal uprising would succeed.

Quote:

Unless you think what is going on now is the better solution ?\

I see it as the lesser of two evils. Sanctions had to go because Saddam was content to starve Iraqi's for PR rather than comply. If they went while he was in charge he would have rebuilt his military and that meant he could continue to oppress his people and threaten his neighbours. The only safe way to lift sanctions is to do it after removing him from office.

Now I would think you could see the logic of that. The problem lies in the implemenation of that policy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 30, 2006 3:43 PM