Iraq war illegal, Kofi Annan - The UN by Ghoulman

On the contrary,

I actually hope ole G.W. wins

With his record the past four years what could we hope to expect the next four??

War with Iran ( I see it as likely )

A Draft ( Your country is forced to threaten troops to stay in the service now... )

Draft Riots, something similar to your civil war

Continued Alienation of former allies, Elections in Britain, Poland, Australia, Italy and Japan may well have them withdrawing their support and troops, even better NATO dissolves, you lose your European bases and they deny you access to their ports and airspace... Not surprised if Japan toss's you out as well.

Trade barriers pop into place

US economy goes into the toilet

etc, etc, etc

Kerry might slow the process, might as well make it quick...

Then you can go run your little country

" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "

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

Sunday, September 26, 2004 6:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by stilldragons:

which, it is widely known, both he and al-quaeda profitted from)

If it is so widely known, I'd think it'd be quite easy for you to provide us with a link. And please, a non-US news source.

Quote:
Originally posted by stilldragons:

I'd love for some political rocket scientist to explain how China's blocking (remember the guys behind Tianamen Square?) of resolutions and actions to stop the ethnic slaughter in Sudan is akin to the US's blocking of anti-Semitic resolutions against Israel, a country whose very children are victims to attacks by the bold and brave forces of Hamas terrorists. Please explain that to me.

What anti-semitic resolutions? You mean the resolution that stated that the "security wall" was a bad idea? How about Israel's policy of assasination? Good idea or bad? IMO, all bad.

Just to let you know, one can be against Israel and not anti-semitic.

Your comment on Israel vs Hamas (and the other groups) is rather (to put it mildly) inaccurate. This is a very complicated situation and cannot be simplified to black and white terms. It also suffers from the logical flaw refered to as an emotional appeal.

If you are going to post, try staying on topic and back up your comments. Conjecture gets us no-where.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

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

Sunday, September 26, 2004 6:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

War with Iran ( I see it as likely )

Or Syria would be likely as well, among others.

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

A Draft ( Your country is forced to threaten troops to stay in the service now... )

They are also quietly "re-activating" supposedly retired ones as well. This is happening right now.

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

US economy goes into the toilet

Hasn't this already happened?

I mean, one of the major reasons why the US market is still where it is today is because Japan needs the US dollar to be high to lower the Yen because its economy is based on exports. So, they keep the US dollar artificially high.

Japan also currently owns a good chunk of the US right now. Spending money in the US is one of the ways Japan supports the US economy.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

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

Sunday, September 26, 2004 7:08 PM

Japan is due for a big change, they may just do it at the expense of the US as this would help them in other ways

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Toronto/Eric_Margolis/2004/09
/26/643823.html

Interesting thought about UN reform, I like the if the veto is used then the General Assembly has a vote approach

As for the US economy, it can still crash further, just needs the right push.

I thought I had read something about Kofi Annan making money from UN contracts as well though... while this is wrong, does Haliburton get a free pass to do the same ? In its recent history the United States has had its politicians based their foreign policy on their health of the stock they hold. Just research the United Fruit Company and US action in central America for the past fifty years. Sort of like a modern day East India Company... boy they hate it when someone else does it

" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "

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

Monday, September 27, 2004 12:49 AM

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

Monday, September 27, 2004 2:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Wait a minute Ghoulman,
SNIP!

No you wait...

edit - I was reading more of the posts and I thought I was being a bit too knee-jerky here so I'll edit away this post. Mainly because I think we are speaking about different things, which I'm pretty sure is my fault.

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

Monday, September 27, 2004 8:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

I thought I had read something about Kofi Annan making money from UN contracts as well though...

This seems completely crazy to me. How in the hell would Kofi, who has served in politics honourably (unlike Dick Cheney or GWB for example) and distinguished himself with over 30 years of international service with the UN, have any 'contracts' at all - legal or otherwise.

So... as far as I know, people at the UN have nothing to do with contracts, trade, or business internationally. Never have. That's what Nations do. The UN just doesn't have any hand in the jar, as far as I know they can barely keep international trade law from being completely trampled upon, again by Nations.

I feel your statement really needs to be clarified here.

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

Monday, September 27, 2004 4:37 PM

As I had said, in the back of my mind I remembered reading something...

Not to say these are correct but here are some links

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Investigation/oil_for_food_ripoff_0
40420-1.html

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/Iraq/2004/08/13/pf-581650.html

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/9773250.htm?1c

While an internal UN investigation is ongoing, my opinion is that any judgement of Mr Annan will come throught the proper channels at the UN. If anything this points to the need for some reforms at the UN, but I don't think anyone denies that, Mr Annan as UN Secretary-General still has the right to render an opinion on the legality of any action ( or lack there of ) And any other issues ( which do exist, to some extent ) have no direct bearing on the position of the UN in these matters.

Blah, a mouthfull... I could hunt more links if this is still unclear, but I think its a non issue for this topic

" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "

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

Tuesday, September 28, 2004 3:10 AM

Interesting... I don't have any answers here - I'll rant a bit.

I find those articles to be very skewed towards American interests. The whole Oil for food thing was a joke to begin with. Why Saddam wasn't ousted back then is highly suspicious. It's not like the Arabs wanted him around. Think about it.

The anti-UN sentiment created in the USA (and has been a part of American propoganda for sometime... especially reved up with Americas "unsigning" of the ABM Treaty recently) is a very disturbing issue.

The USA is personally responsible for most of the UNs problems (er, that we are talkiing of). Why? Because the US doeesn't support the UN in things like... actually doing something when Rwanda madmen slaughter tens of thousands. That bitch Madeleine Albright should be hacked up with a ... well, no... But, she makes one phone call and that's it for Rwanda. Sad. At least Bubba Clinton apologised. He even stated, clearly, the American position (I'm paraphrasing) - if America has no interest, it will not interfere.

I believe that translates into - American Business Interests. That is, we only send in the CIA to kill our competators in Honduras or Guatemala... we don't care if brown people kill one another. We are only interested in the Oil.

Sick.

Meanwhile - Canadian Peace Keepers have once again left the country they have been working in for nearly a decade with yet another job well done. Bosnia is a better place for having Canadians helping.

Are their any countries that can say that about the USA? Any country at all.. anyone?

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

Tuesday, September 28, 2004 6:30 AM

Quote:
I find those articles to be very skewed towards American interests. The whole Oil for food thing was a joke to begin with.

The Food for Oil fiasco was a crisis of the UN's own making ( with the best of intent though ) Once it was established that the system did not work, the US and Britain were the only security council members who wouldn't allow changes to this program as well as the sanction regime to better provide for humanitarian aid. All the safer for our armys to push through later I suppose...

Quote:

Why Saddam wasn't ousted back then is highly suspicious. It's not like the Arabs wanted him around. Think about it.

Of the Arab countrys in the Alliance of the first Gulf War, I believe there was a condition that they were only in if the Americans stopped at running the Iraqi army from Kuwait. This was not becasue they supported Saddam, but because they didn't want the Americans to " run " Iraq either.

On the otherhand, I think the Americans didn't follow through because they A) Realized they would have Trouble installing a pro-yank government ( and they do, even after twelve years of starvation and bombing ) B) It gave them an excuse to plant troops in Saudi Arabia ensuring their continued loyalty ( Iraq = Russian Boogyman and cold war ) C. The international community would have opposed it ( as they do, even post 911 which I think they were banking on to give themselve moral credibility )

Quote:

The anti-UN sentiment created in the USA (and has been a part of American propoganda for sometime... especially reved up with Americas "unsigning" of the ABM Treaty recently) is a very disturbing issue.

Perhaps we as Canadians must consider the possibilty, we require intermediate range missles armed with nuclear weapons ourselves.

Every action the Bush regime has taken has encouraged the fact that WMD may be the only way to deter the US, if we don't secretly have them already ( as Canadian engineers help the yanks build theirs we have the capability ), and the real funny thing ( we have had weapon systems that were good for little other than nuclear delivery going back to the fiftys ( CF-104, Bomarc, etc )

Quote:

The USA is personally responsible for most of the UNs problems (er, that we are talkiing of). Why? Because the US doeesn't support the UN in things like... actually doing something when Rwanda madmen slaughter tens of thousands.

UN reform is needed, at least we can see they are trying to police their own troubles

http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2004/VolckerPressCfc.doc.htm

Quote:

That bitch Madeleine Albright should be hacked up with a ... well, no... But, she makes one phone call and that's it for Rwanda. Sad. At least Bubba Clinton apologised. He even stated, clearly, the American position (I'm paraphrasing) - if America has no interest, it will not interfere.

International Criminal Court, and not like the show trial of Milosevic. International law must be updated and enforced.

Quote:

Meanwhile - Canadian Peace Keepers have once again left the country they have been working in for nearly a decade with yet another job well done. Bosnia is a better place for having Canadians helping.

We do have our own problems in this reguard, I don't think Lew MacKenzie did much for Sarajevo, he became too political, and was ineffective in the end despite his own self promotion. If say, Dallieire had of been in the same situation I am sure thinks would have come off quite different.

Not being critical, just saying there was a lesson to be learnt, we need Military reform in our own country as much as the UN needs reform with its processes.

Mind you, unlike the Americans we tend to leave if asked. You aren't helping the people to went to help if they start trying to drive you out.

Quote:

Are their any countries that can say that about the USA? Any country at all.. anyone?

Certainly not Hawaii...

http://www.hawaii-nation.org/betrayal.html

" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "

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

Sunday, October 3, 2004 11:49 AM

ARAWAEN

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

This is also where that crazy term, compromise comes in. Nobody, ever, will be happy with everything. It is a function of the needs of the different countries and what they find important. What one must do is find a balance and all the countries involved must be mature enough to accept it. I must point out at this time that this is exactly what the US doesn't do.

To paraphrase Chesterton, compromise means a half loaf of bread is better than no loaf of bread, but many want us to believe that compromise means a half loaf is better than a full loaf.

My problem with the U.N. is that the permanent veto powers prevent the need for compromise. Why compromise when you can prevent the action you don't want to happen wth a simple veto? If China compromises on Sudan they lose oil resources they need, if they veto they don't lose anything.

Quote:
In the case of Iraq, the resolution stated that they would suffer dire consequences if they didn't, blah blah blah. Which the weapons inspectors where figuring out to what, if any degree, was said infraction.

Now at some point in time the US (among others) decided to "go it alone" and attack (illegally) Iraq because of things they thought that the rest of us knew not to be true.

WMDs were an excuse for invasion by the Bush administration, they were never the reason. Of course it is hard to sell a war if the reasons are oil and revenge.

While I doubt that France or Germany had anything but their own oil interests in mind when they threatened U.N. veto I would never deny that the U.S. violated the U.N. charter by its actions.

Quote:
Now at this point we have a member (the US and others) that have committed an major infraction against another state. So, then what consequences should befall the US (and others)? Clearly, they have done something wrong. Clearly, they have done some illegal. Clearly, something should be done to punish the US (and the others as well) for this horrible crime. So, let's fix this problem. What would your suggestions be?

Well the U.N. cannot do anything because the U.S. would simply veto it. The United Kingdom would as well.

France and Germany, as well as any nation that objects to the actions of the U.S. has the right to boycott U.S. goods, withdraw from NATO and otherwise isolate America within the scopes of their powers. It those nations acted in unison it might even make a difference.

Quote:
You wrote:
"""
The U.N. has been poorly set up from the very beginning.
"""
I think you said this before. But just because you say it, doesn't make it true. Perhaps some justification is in order, eh?

I thought my whole tirade about certain members having priviledged status and a veto power that cannot be overruled was a justification for this belief.

Quote:

You wrote:
"""
...the root of the problem that is human nature.
"""
Human nature only becomes a problem if we let our cave-man like qualities come out. So, as I stated before, humans have comes a long way. We now have the ability to control ourselves and act in the interest of the common good. To say that it is unavoidable and to say that it's only our "human nature" is to give up on order and delve into chaos.

I don't have the faith in civilization that you do. IMO Cave-men had just as much success with human nature that modern man does. I find that what had been considered vice for millenia is now considered virtue.
1. Plato, Aristotle, Cato, Cicero, Seneca, Plutarch, Aquinas, Luther, Zwingli as well as Moses, Jesus and Mohammed all condemned usury but modern civilization has embraced it.
2. Aristotle suggests that abortion should occur before the fetus obtains sensation and in the intervening 2,000+ years we have not nailed down that moment one iota.
3. Modern advertising has found no better way than appealing to and encouraging the pride, lust, gluttony and envy of people to hawk their products.
4. Physical slavery has been replaced with wage slavery, free peasantry with a servile state.

Just a few examples, but my point is that modern civilization has slid away from virtue.

Quote:
Maybe you have, maybe not. But clearly some have. The civilized world would disagree. We are hear to talk and to find peaceful resolutions to problems. HkCavalier has provided some excellent examples of this that have been resolved in the not so distant past. Clearly we as humans are capable of this and to expect anything less is to temp us humans to go back to the cave.

I don't disagree that we are hear to talk and find peaceful resolutions to problems. I strongly disagree that the civilized world holds this goal. This goal has been held from the moment primitive man came into existence. The earliest writings of men show their desire for peace and these same men created weapons and armies and were not unwilling to use them.

The technological progress that so characterizes 'civilization' over those cave men has not resolved our pride, greed, sloth, lust, envy, wrath or gluttony.

Quote:

To add to HkCavalier's list:
Canada got it's independence through diplomacy
Scotland is doing the same
The EU is another excellent example

Scotland's history for independence hasn't been very peaceful. There may be individuals currently seeking a peaceful solution, but the U.S. and Canada is full of secessionists as well.
It could easily be argued as well that many diplomatic victories were achieved because of a cost-effective analysis, if you cannot afford to prevent a break-away republic or if the cost to retain it is not worth the benefits by retaining it. I don't know enough about Canadian history, but many of the colonial powers gave up their colonies because they couldn't retain them, not out of any altruism.

The EU, who did they get independence from? It is an example a group of nations who have joined forces to compete economically with much larger economies.

Quote:

You wrote:
"""
Your post was hostile.
"""
My post was hostile to the US and its policies. I have opinions that *many* people around the world have (and mine are based on experiences that I had *while living in the US*). Also, to say *many* is to put it lightly. Perhaps the administration in the US should take that as a clue to change its ways.

But, if you have taken things to heart that weren't directed explicitly at you personally, that is your problem. And that is how I gather you felt my "hostility."

I didn't say it was hostile to me, I simply said it was hostile. Suggesting that people with a differing opinion are barbaric and should go off and die (become extinct in your own words) strikes me as counter to the rational discourse that perport to admire

Quote:
The civilized world would disagree. We are hear to talk and to find peaceful resolutions to problems.

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

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

Sunday, October 3, 2004 2:13 PM

" Well the U.N. cannot do anything because the U.S. would simply veto it. The United Kingdom would as well. "

Actually a resolution condemning the US action could have been put through, there is a mechanism put in place during the Suez crisis which put throw the vote to approve the resolution down to the General Assembly. I think this wasn't done simply because it would have been just another, well we don't like it but we can't stop you type exchange.

I wish I remembered more about how it worked, but if I recall right Britain and France ( two Security council members ) were on the losing end of the vote.

Edit: This refers to it, sort of. I'm sure a better reference could be found

http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/ciw-cdm/Pearson-en.asp

" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "

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

Sunday, October 3, 2004 6:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:

My problem with the U.N. is that the permanent veto powers prevent the need for compromise. Why compromise when you can prevent the action you don't want to happen wth a simple veto? If China compromises on Sudan they lose oil resources they need, if they veto they don't lose anything.

You don't make/keep any trade partners if you keep vetoing in your "best" interest. There *is* compromises now, otherwise *everything* would be veto'd. Simply put, not everything is, so there is compromise. A nations best interest *is* to compromise.

Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:

While I doubt that France or Germany had anything but their own oil interests in mind when they threatened U.N. veto I would never deny that the U.S. violated the U.N. charter by its actions.

Although I do agree that there were probably some personal (as in nation) interest involved. To say that that was the major driving point is just silly.

You are clearly looking from there point of view as though they were americans. You must look at it from there point of view through there eyes, not yours.

European countries have *very* different cultures than the US. I know this because the wife and I have had some... interesting disusions about some things. And Canada is closer to European culture than the US is... *far* closer.

Also, I might add that Europe has pleanty of oil amongst itself. There is also Russia right beside them that has a lot as well (which is where Gemany gets there's, France is primarily nuclear powered as well). To say that they needed oil from the middle east doesn't fit with the situation. There oil needs are also *far* less than that of the US.

Your argument just doesn't add up.

Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:

Quote:
Now at this point we have a member (the US and others) that have committed an major infraction against another state. So, then what consequences should befall the US (and others)? Clearly, they have done something wrong. Clearly, they have done some illegal. Clearly, something should be done to punish the US (and the others as well) for this horrible crime. So, let's fix this problem. What would your suggestions be?

Well the U.N. cannot do anything because the U.S. would simply veto it. The United Kingdom would as well.

France and Germany, as well as any nation that objects to the actions of the U.S. has the right to boycott U.S. goods, withdraw from NATO and otherwise isolate America within the scopes of their powers. It those nations acted in unison it might even make a difference.

You still haven't answered my question.

You also seem to think that it was only France and Germany that were against the war as you only mention them. Why are you mentioning the others? Why not mention Canada?

After all, we got so pissed at you guys, we decided to send down Celine Dion to torture you guys for a few years

Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:

I thought my whole tirade about certain members having priviledged status and a veto power that cannot be overruled was a justification for this belief.

Nope. That argument only holds weight at *this* point in time. Though I don't entirely agree. You must still justify the "always" qualification or remove it.

Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:

I don't have the faith in civilization that you do. IMO Cave-men had just as much success with human nature that modern man does.

Everyone has human nature and thus has success with it. The trick is to not give into the more barbaric tendancies.

Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:

I find that what had been considered vice for millenia is now considered virtue.
1. Plato, Aristotle, Cato, Cicero, Seneca, Plutarch, Aquinas, Luther, Zwingli as well as Moses, Jesus and Mohammed all condemned usury but modern civilization has embraced it.

Modern *North American* behaviour has embrased it. You should look into how other countries handle there "credit cards" before you go making this general of a statment.

I know for one, my wife's German credit card is basically just a loan till the end of month. At which time the *entire* amount owing is removed from her account.

Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:

2. Aristotle suggests that abortion should occur before the fetus obtains sensation and in the intervening 2,000+ years we have not nailed down that moment one iota.

Prove to me that we can know this and then we can talk about it. IMO, we can't. Thus this discussion ends before it begins.

Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:

3. Modern advertising has found no better way than appealing to and encouraging the pride, lust, gluttony and envy of people to hawk their products.

Perhaps you should watch commercials outside of the US. The ones in Canada can be quite clever and funny. I agree though that the ones you guys get down in the US are (quite frankly) discusting.

Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:

4. Physical slavery has been replaced with wage slavery, free peasantry with a servile state.

Only in the 3rd world and in places like the US that place the corporation above that of the individual. Your laws in this regard are appauling. Have you seen the documentary "The Corporation?"

Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:

Just a few examples, but my point is that modern civilization has slid away from virtue.

Again, modern america has slid away from virtue. You make the mistake (constantly and consistantly thoughout this post) that the world is like (exactly or close to) the US. This is exactly wrong.

Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:

I don't disagree that we are hear to talk and find peaceful resolutions to problems. I strongly disagree that the civilized world holds this goal. This goal has been held from the moment primitive man came into existence. The earliest writings of men show their desire for peace and these same men created weapons and armies and were not unwilling to use them.

The technological progress that so characterizes 'civilization' over those cave men has not resolved our pride, greed, sloth, lust, envy, wrath or gluttony.

See above reply. And the religous tone of your post here is quite intereting.

Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:

Quote:

To add to HkCavalier's list:
Canada got it's independence through diplomacy
Scotland is doing the same
The EU is another excellent example

Scotland's history for independence hasn't been very peaceful.

I was talking currently.

Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:

There may be individuals currently seeking a peaceful solution, but the U.S. and Canada is full of secessionists as well.

Quebec is the only provence that apparently wanted to succeed from Canada and had a failed referendum. I have heard that BC and Alberta have made some statments of the like but haven't anything solid on them so I ignore such rumors.

And before you say anything about Quebec very nearly voting to succeed from Canada I would wait until you read the question that was on that ballot. I wasn't the logical "Do you wish to succeed from Canada? yes/no" It was a long confusing paragraph that didn't actually ask the question. So, that referendum was a farse to begin with.

Perhaps you could enlighten me with the other secessionists that live in my country.

Or maybe your meant historically. In that case I am only aware of one quiet uprising. Let me know if I'm wrong of course.

Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:

It could easily be argued as well that many diplomatic victories were achieved because of a cost-effective analysis, if you cannot afford to prevent a break-away republic or if the cost to retain it is not worth the benefits by retaining it. I don't know enough about Canadian history, but many of the colonial powers gave up their colonies because they couldn't retain them, not out of any altruism.

I doubt this. Could you provide me/us here with some examples of this happening?

And we wanted it and they gave it to us. It started in 1867 and we got our last rights in 1982. So, unless you can prove that it was in the economic interest of the Brits in 1867 to make Canada an independant nation over the span of 115 years, I don't think this is the case here.

Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:

The EU, who did they get independence from? It is an example a group of nations who have joined forces to compete economically with much larger economies.

It is *far* more than that. This comment just shows exactly how little you know about it.

I was mentioning this as an example of people who although once were enimies, have come together in peace for the betterment of them all.

Not that the EU parlement has any real power now. That will change in the not so distant future though.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

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

Monday, October 4, 2004 7:01 AM

{Shatner voice} Thread... too long.... eyes bleeding...

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

Monday, October 4, 2004 9:18 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Anyway, since media bias came up (briefly) in this thread, I'm posting this here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/politics/campaign/03fox.html?th=&pag
ewanted=print&position=
Fabricated Kerry Posting Leads to Apology From Fox News

Plenty of news media analysts thought Senator John Kerry looked good at Thursday night's presidential debate, but Fox News went a step further, posting a made-up news article on its Web site that quoted Mr. Kerry as gloating about his fine manicure and his "metrosexual" appearance.

Fox News quickly retracted the article, saying in an editor's note on its Web site that the article "was written in jest and should not have been posted or broadcast.'' It said, "We regret the error, which occurred because of fatigue and bad judgment, not malice." (no. really. Rue)

The article, posted on Friday on foxnews.com, was written by Carl Cameron, the chief political correspondent for Fox News, and included several bogus quotes from Mr. Kerry, supposedly assessing his performance in the debate.

"Didn't my nails and cuticles look great? What a good debate!" the article quoted Mr. Kerry, the Democratic candidate, as telling his supporters in Florida after the event.

"Women should like me! I do manicures," the story also quoted him as saying. It also had Mr. Kerry contrasting himself with President Bush: "I'm metrosexual - he's a cowboy."

Before the debate, several Fox News commentators remarked on the air about how Mr. Kerry had reportedly gotten a manicure that day.

Mr. Cameron has been reprimanded over the incident, said Paul Schur, a spokesman for the network. "This was a stupid mistake and a lapse in judgment, and Carl regrets it," Mr. Schur said.

He declined to say how Mr. Cameron had been reprimanded or whether action had been taken against others at Fox News who reviewed the article before it was posted. Mr. Cameron, who is well respected in news media circles, declined to discuss the incident when reached on Saturday. He is continuing to report from the campaign trail.

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

Monday, October 4, 2004 10:39 AM

Ho ho ho, tha's rich! FOX News faking another web article. How many has it been?

Thanx RUE! You're shiny.

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

Monday, October 4, 2004 3:33 PM

" Perhaps you could enlighten me with the other secessionists that live in my country. "

I know of a small group which wishes Canada to seperate from our constitution in order to update / modernize / generally overhaul it. Things like Senate Reform ( or elimination ) the role of the Governor General ( or elimination ) and generally re-examine confederation.

Mind you, it is not to break up one part of the country for another, it is more because of the belief that our Federal system is incapible of setting limits for itself, and thanks to Bill 33 the provinces now have the capibility to force the issue.

Its like all the provinces go, and then rejoin the new better Canada...

All in All interesting... more so than I expect the throne speech to be.

" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "

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

Sunday, October 10, 2004 9:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

I know of a small group which wishes Canada to seperate from our constitution in order to update / modernize / generally overhaul it. Things like Senate Reform ( or elimination ) the role of the Governor General ( or elimination ) and generally re-examine confederation.

Yes, but this really isn't a seperation from Canada. It's just as you say, a modernization of the current system.

I for one don't mind having a govern general as long as that person doesn't abuse the power (which our current one has) and if (s)he does then give our Prime Minister the power to fire her/him (which is a power that our PM doesn't currently have).

I think that our federal system has problems because the liberals have been in power for so bloody long. I believe that if the NDP, PC, etc had been in power for this long they would've suffered the same fate. One of the good things that came out of the last election is that the liberals have a minority government so this'll give them a needed "down to earth" check.

I do think that we do need to modernize, but that doesn't mean seperating from any of our charters or what have you. It just means getting together and hashing something out.

But this is something that I definitly *don't* want to happen when the conservatives have as must power as they do now. There love affair with the US and there policies are, IMO, anti-Canadian (ie pro privitization, anti gay marrage even though the charter of rights and freedoms allows for it, etc). I shutter at the thought that they'd have major influence over the future of my country.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

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

Sunday, October 10, 2004 9:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

I for one don't mind having a govern general as long as that person doesn't abuse the power (which our current one has) and if (s)he does then give our Prime Minister the power to fire her/him (which is a power that our PM doesn't currently have).

I think the traditional role of the Governor General, and in addition the Lieutenant-Governor roles are dated, and frankly a waste of money.
After reviewing the offical website:

http://www.gg.ca/menu_e.asp

I don't see anyrole that shouldn't already be handled by Foreign Affairs, the PM, or the Chief of Defence Staff.
As to the role of liason with the Monarchy, with the modern convience of jet travel, if say The Prince of Wales wished to address Parliment directly on a matter, I think that would been much more appropriate, for Canadians, and for the Monarchy to seen to function could tie the Commonwealth together as more of a alliance.

Quote:

I think that our federal system has problems because the liberals have been in power for so bloody long. I believe that if the NDP, PC, etc had been in power for this long they would've suffered the same fate. One of the good things that came out of the last election is that the liberals have a minority government so this'll give them a needed "down to earth" check.

Definately, but also due to patronage appointments without mandate or review, the lack of an electorial recall mechanism, and the slant of media bias, I really don't think anything will change much.

Quote:

But this is something that I definitly *don't* want to happen when the conservatives have as must power as they do now. There love affair with the US and there policies are, IMO, anti-Canadian (ie pro privitization, anti gay marrage even though the charter of rights and freedoms allows for it, etc). I shutter at the thought that they'd have major influence over the future of my country.

While the conservatives are a mass of American bum lickers who cannot be allowed into power ( thats why I voted for the Green Party, so they'd get my two bucks ) I do agree with them on several key issues in the domestic agenda.

pro privitization : Has already happened ( private clinics in Quebec, Ontario, BC, etc), we simply have to strike the correct balance. For example, if health Canada decides that in Manitoba, it costs X number of dollars to perform a medical procedure in a public facility, would it be wrong to allow a private facility ( same or better standard of service ) to perform the same procdure for X dollars paided by the healthcare system ? I don't agree with additional user fees, que jumping, etc, but if a doctor with the qualifications, could start his own clinic, regulated by Government inspection, and still make money doing it at the same cost... Why the hell not. The only ones this could effect negitively is the unions who I think have too much control in Healthcare anyway.

As for anti gay marrage, I myself don't like the courts ( a stacked Liberal appointed court at that ) making the law. I am neutral in this issue, but feel strongly that we have Parliment to debate and make law, and a judicial system to intrepret and reject laws passed which do not conform to the standards of the charter of rights and freedoms. End runs like this shouldn't be

As it is we have the provinces jumping into Federal issues, the Feds trying to dictate provincial issues...........

Thats why we need a clean sweep, the system is too self absorbed to change without a hell of a push. If we ever got our act together, we would have the Seperatists in Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, and Washington trying like hell to join up with us.. but until we do, I think most Canadians half heartedly follow this system simply not to be American.

" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "

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

Sunday, October 10, 2004 12:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

While the conservatives are a mass of American bum lickers who cannot be allowed into power ( thats why I voted for the Green Party, so they'd get my two bucks ) I do agree with them on several key issues in the domestic agenda.

And because of people like you the Green Party now has offical party status and government funding :biggring: This is needed and I for one am looking forward to see how they'll do in the next couple of elections. It'll give a much needed voice for those that actually like the enviornment and wish for Kyoto to be implemented. I would've voted for them if I wasn't so scared about the Conservatives.

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

pro privitization : Has already happened ( private clinics in Quebec, Ontario, BC, etc), we simply have to strike the correct balance. For example, if health Canada decides that in Manitoba, it costs X number of dollars to perform a medical procedure in a public facility, would it be wrong to allow a private facility ( same or better standard of service ) to perform the same procdure for X dollars paided by the healthcare system ? I don't agree with additional user fees, que jumping, etc, but if a doctor with the qualifications, could start his own clinic, regulated by Government inspection, and still make money doing it at the same cost... Why the hell not. The only ones this could effect negitively is the unions who I think have too much control in Healthcare anyway.

The problem here is that Health Canada would have to make regular checkups to make sure that these clinics aren't cutting any corners, etc. Which would cost the tax payer.... Another problem is finding that balance. I for one look down South and see the ridiculus things going on there and shutter. I, quite frankly, am pretty happy with what I have. I just believe that there needs to be some sort of reform to stream line the system (ie bloted admin.).

I for one am not "pro union" as I believe that in most cases today unions have to right to be where they are, but things like this scare me as it is a few steps closer to what the americans have. And we all know that those that get and inch will typically take a mile.

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

As for anti gay marrage, I myself don't like the courts ( a stacked Liberal appointed court at that ) making the law. I am neutral in this issue, but feel strongly that we have Parliment to debate and make law, and a judicial system to intrepret and reject laws passed which do not conform to the standards of the charter of rights and freedoms. End runs like this shouldn't be

Well, the charter prohibits denying gays the right to marrage. So wouldn't it be prudent to give them the right to do so instead of going through make a anti law and then having it struck down by an argument based on the charter? Seems to me that'd save *a lot* of time and money.

Plus many provinces (including my own) have already "legalized" it

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

As it is we have the provinces jumping into Federal issues, the Feds trying to dictate provincial issues...........

I agree that there does need to be a clearer definition of who plays what roles where.

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

Thats why we need a clean sweep, the system is too self absorbed to change without a hell of a push.

I think most Canadians half heartedly follow this system simply not to be American.

Name me a system that doesn't resist change.

I actually like the system we have here. I know it's not exactly perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than what I've seen in *a lot* of places around the world (glass half full).

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

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

Sunday, October 10, 2004 1:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

And because of people like you the Green Party now has offical party status and government funding :biggring: This is needed and I for one am looking forward to see how they'll do in the next couple of elections. It'll give a much needed voice for those that actually like the enviornment and wish for Kyoto to be implemented. I would've voted for them if I wasn't so scared about the Conservatives.

While I like the idea of Kyoto, there is many things I dislike about it. The current plan needs to be changed to protect the countrys who sign on from having to put themselves at an economic disadvantage from not signing polluter countrys. In addition I'm am not really sure of the " credits " system for developing economys, but I am at a loss to suggest anything better without doing alot more reading. Sad thing is the Conservatives have it right in many places, if our system allowed us to fire our MPs if they vote out of line with the wishes of their riding perhaps we would get actual repersentation than having to vote for party dogma.

Quote:

The problem here is that Health Canada would have to make regular checkups to make sure that these clinics aren't cutting any corners, etc. Which would cost the tax payer.... Another problem is finding that balance. I for one look down South and see the ridiculus things going on there and shutter. I, quite frankly, am pretty happy with what I have. I just believe that there needs to be some sort of reform to stream line the system (ie bloted admin.).

Our public system needs these same checkup, and they are not being done very well. What I would suggest is Health Canada sticks to
1) Inspection and Licensing of Facilitys
2) Setting Licensing Standards for Personnel
3) Drug testing and Licensing
4) Research and Development

Let the province handle the application and simply do inspections and Investigations. By having the Inspection mandate seperate from the Provinces mandate to provide service, we will have less conflicts and hopefully less politics.
Without the redundecy of Admin and other areas, this may even be revenue neutral, but ensuring safe Medicine is a priority, and from reading the news, I think a better job could be done.

Quote:

I for one am not "pro union" as I believe that in most cases today unions have to right to be where they are, but things like this scare me as it is a few steps closer to what the americans have. And we all know that those that get and inch will typically take a mile.

Limits must be set, but not at the expense of constructive change

Quote:

Well, the charter prohibits denying gays the right to marrage. So wouldn't it be prudent to give them the right to do so instead of going through make a anti law and then having it struck down by an argument based on the charter? Seems to me that'd save *a lot* of time and money.

Plus many provinces (including my own) have already "legalized" it

Because our system is suppose to have Parliment write the laws and then be accountable for them.

The way we appoint Judges, is also a concern, could Martin or anyone really bypass the system and put a law through by simply having the court do it...

Beside, that is why we have MPs. If only they would act in a timely matter to issues such as this one, or for that matter the child porn issue the courts struck down six years ago, that they still haven't addressed. Yet more reason we need reforms.....

Quote:

Name me a system that doesn't resist change.

I actually like the system we have here. I know it's not exactly perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than what I've seen in *a lot* of places around the world (glass half full).

Imagine something like this system for Canada :

http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/swiss-canton-system.html

I think Quebec... hell everyone would have few objections. Well everyone except Federal Politicians as I think they may well have reason to fear the direct Democracy section.

In a nutshell, any country who has four offical tongues, and less divison than us should be looked at to see what they are doing.

" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "

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

Monday, October 11, 2004 7:31 AM

First, under what terms of the US Constitution did President Bush embark non an illegal war? I dare say, you cant find any abuse of presidential powers, as outlined there and supplementary powers granted him by the War Powers Act.

Second, in what LEGAL manner do you say that this was an OBVIOUSLY illegal war? I am under the impression that there still existed a state of war between the UN-authorized forces from 1991, and that Iraq was in MAJOR breach of the truce terms which it signed. Please cite ANY international authority that sows the continuation of the the Gulf War was illegal, or that the US was NOT operating under the authority of UNSec Resolution 1441, since it was ENFORCING the terms and conditions of an Article 7 Binding Resolution, to which the UNSECCOUCIL unanimously agreed to. Are you saying that it's ILLEGAL to enforce the will of an Articel 7 resolution, which says BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY? I sincerely doubt that.

let's roll

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

Monday, October 11, 2004 8:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by xkxxkx:
First, under what terms of the US Constitution did President Bush embark non an illegal war? I dare say, you cant find any abuse of presidential powers, as outlined there and supplementary powers granted him by the War Powers Act.

The US Constitution is irrelavant, this discusion concerns International Law. If your President had of declared war, and not tried to use the UN as justification, we would be having a different conversation.

Quote:

Second, in what LEGAL manner do you say that this was an OBVIOUSLY illegal war? I am under the impression that there still existed a state of war between the UN-authorized forces from 1991, and that Iraq was in MAJOR breach of the truce terms which it signed. Please cite ANY international authority that sows the continuation of the the Gulf War was illegal, or that the US was NOT operating under the authority of UNSec Resolution 1441, since it was ENFORCING the terms and conditions of an Article 7 Binding Resolution, to which the UNSECCOUCIL unanimously agreed to. Are you saying that it's ILLEGAL to enforce the will of an Articel 7 resolution, which says BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY? I sincerely doubt that.

The enforcement of a United Nations resolution would have to be done by a UN force, which your Coalition is not. In Korea, after the North attacked MacArthur was appointed UN commander in the area, this gave him the authority to act in the name of the United Nations. What the US did in Iraq on its own, outside of International Law, for its own selfish purposes. Thats why I for one say, nobody should help. Even if Kerry is elected. No money, troops or support for the American occupation forces.

When a dog pisses on the floor, sometimes you have to rub their noses in it so they don't do it again !

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

Monday, October 11, 2004 9:46 AM

When you call for an impeachment, the Constitution becomes glaringly relevant.
Your ignorance to that matter is only surpassed by your ignorance of Intl. law and your ignorance of what the un resolutions say, which is that ANY member nation may enforce said resolutions by ANY means necessary. is there anything unclear about this, or must i continue to rub your nose in it?

let's roll

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

Monday, October 11, 2004 10:24 AM

Your countrymen want him impeached, I say just shoot the fucker, save the cost of the trial.

As for you other statement show me where it says one member of the UN has the authority to do anything on its own accord, against the clear wishes of a majority of the security council, on invented evidence...

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

Show me the line...

" Don't Blame Me I Voted For Kudos "

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

Monday, October 11, 2004 11:12 AM

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized member states to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

it appears the waters don't run very deep here so my stay will be brief if i'm to maintain sanity.
here boy! see? good boy! there's an entire resolution devoted to giving any member state the ability to use any means necessary to uphold 660 or any subsequent resolution. this includes 1441 and 16 others. wipe thyat piss off of your snout and go read the un charter, it also implores other member to aid any member using any means necessary.

let's roll

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

Monday, October 11, 2004 11:36 AM

You want to let me know where you live,

I would like to buy Bin Laden and his boys some airplane tickets...

And by the way, don't be pissed at me, I'm just a civilian contractor

" Don't Blame Me I Voted For Kudos "

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

Monday, October 11, 2004 3:28 PM

where do i live? obviously, to the right, and above you.

let's roll

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

Monday, October 11, 2004 4:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

Imagine something like this system for Canada :

http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/swiss-canton-system.html

Bookmarked and will be read later.

I would think that we both agree that there *is* a need to "clean up" our system and that we just have different ideas of how to go about that. Since this discussion is quite off topic let's just leave it at that.

And to Xkxxkx. Didn't 1441 just state that dire consequences would happen. At any rate I remember that the resolution was very non-specific about said consequences, no timeline was given, etc.

So then, how was the US acting under this resolution? Especially since pretty much everyone in the rest of the world disagreed with the invasion. Doesn't exactly look like an act of teh UN when the UN didn't approve.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

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

Monday, October 11, 2004 5:06 PM

So then, how was the US acting under this resolution?

res 1441 gave Saddam 30 days. he met that deadline with an incomplete (according to iraqs own numbers) declaration. But 1441 is a final chance to comply with res 687 (especially paragraphs 8-13)which Saddam was of in breach of since it was introduced in 1991. One reason resistance was met in the UN was oil for food money was being used to bribe possible vetos. This is (in terms of dollars) the largest scandal in the history of mankind. If anybody would like to earn a baby seal award on this issue, step right up.

let's roll

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

Monday, October 11, 2004 7:14 PM

JRC

I just read this, also on the Fox Network:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135101,00.html
I'm one of those people sitting on the fence, but it appears those UN resolutions are clear, and Saddam WAS jerking the world body around when he kept the weapons inspectors, for at least a decade, from performing their duties by rejecting their attempts to inspect many of his facilities. Which brings up another question: WHY delay the weapons inspectors, assuming he had nothing to hide?

Everyone dies alone.

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

Tuesday, October 12, 2004 1:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by xkxxkx:

One reason resistance was met in the UN was oil for food money was being used to bribe possible vetos. This is (in terms of dollars) the largest scandal in the history of mankind.

Heresay.

And I do find it interesting that you never commented on the non-specific consequences portion of my post.

And about your baby seal comment. Sensationalism will get you no-where. Try sticking to the facts and attempt to have a reasonable discussion. That is unless you wish to be labeled as a conspirecy nut. Which, by the way, by your above comment, you are well on your way to becoming.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

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

Wednesday, October 13, 2004 10:32 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

http://www.milnet.com/united-nations/
xkxxkx
I've read most (not quite all) of the UN Iraq resolutions so I had a pretty good idea you were BS-ing.
The above is a comprehesive link to all UN resolutions on Iraq.
PS splicing selected words and phrases from different documents on different subjects does not get you points for accuracy.

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

Thursday, October 14, 2004 6:03 PM

What a compelling argument you make for your points. Allow me to counter: "I know you are, but what am I?"

the war was clearly legal. if you have a point, please make it. in fact, given the violations of the 1991 ceasefire were unanimously accepted by the UN, the iraq war was "more legal" than afghanistan. tough sell...but true.

If you read all the resolutions, you'll conclude that we went to war over Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. We completed that war with Operation: Iraqi Freedom, in response to 12 years of Saddam violating the terms of the cease-fire agreement, terms which demanded Saddam disarm of WMD, declare and dismantle his WMD and long-range missile production capabilities, end his support for terrorism, uphold human rights for the Iraqi people, and make reparations to Kuwait. None of these Saddam complied with.

However, i Know where you're comming from, you hold our great nation to a higher standard than the UN, as you should. You may be of the variety that says "America claimed there were stockpiles, that Saddam was activley producing WMD's. they claimed he had ties to terror! lies!!"

I followed your link, you follow mine?

*Stockpiles?*

Such as the BM-21 rockets with sarin gas warheads captured by US Marines on April 7th, 2003?

http://www.acsa.net/bioterror/895392_asp.htm

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2003/04/08/stories/2003040804650100
.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F04%2F0
7%2Fweap08.xml

Or perhaps the mustard gas and cyanide found dumped in the Euphrates River the day before that?

http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/0
6/wpois06.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/06/ixnewstop.html

*Capability?*

He certainly did, with all the buried caches of sarin and tabun gas precursors:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83449,00.html

Of course, all these buried chemical weapons precursors "could be" pesticides to keep bugs from eating the binary chemical artillery shells they were stored with:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/07/sprj.irq.chemical.find/

It could very well be that the guy in charge of Iraq's nuclear weapons program was lying about working on a nuclear bomb:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFu
ll&cid=1071541095799

But then, you'd have to explain all the nuclear material that the US removed from Iraq in July:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32195-2004Jul6?language=prin
ter

Or at least, the Iraqi nuclear material that turned up in Germany:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108654,00.html

Or if you're really feeling lucky, get the IAEA to explain why none of their al-Tawaitha Nuclear Facility inspection reports mention underground tunnels which contained stored weapons-grade plutonium:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31966

*Terror ties?*

Which CNN still hasn't sanitized from their 1999 archives (paging Winston Smith...)

http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/

But really, who can deny Saddam - al-Qaeda ties with any certainty? Certainly not Qusay Hussein's own Babil newspaper:

http://tennessean.com/nation-world/archives/03/06/34908297.shtml?Eleme
nt_ID=34908297

But just because Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, is the nephew of the third-ranking Al Qaeda commander, Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, AND an Iraqi Mukabharat agent trained in bomb-making and chemical weapons doesn't necessarily mean Saddam had ties to al-Qaeda:

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm

But let's not be too hasty. It could be that Al Qaeda planted all these questionable chemical finds in Iraq in order to discredit the benevolent Saddam Hussein when they planned to blow up a huge chemical WMD in Amman, Jordan:

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/80623/1/.html

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005016

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13282

http://cshink.com/wmd_article_archive.htm

http://cshink.com/al_qaeda_goes_regional.htm

Nonetheless, whatever the truth, the "absence of WMD in Iraq" meme is sure to be a shock to these US soldiers and embedded Knight-Ridder reporters who had to be treated for nerve gas exposure:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/
5573683.htm

*Freedom?* (Yeah, right!)

Lord knows they never wanted to be free from this:

http://massgraves.info/

let's roll

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

Thursday, October 14, 2004 8:29 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I'd like to respond in detail at a later time, but just not at the moment because I am still in the middle of an all-consuming project.
In general, the resolutions apply to very specific situations. So to apply a part of one indiscriminately to another is not kosher.

I'd like to start out that there were many widely broadcast reports of CW. Every single one that I read turned out to be a false alarm, with claims later being very quietly withdrawn. So I don't put much credit in unconfirmed reports.

I went to the first 3 urls on BM-21 rockets. All of them said that conclusive tests had NOT been run on the chemicals. Chemical weapons detection is actually part of my job. I know how truly inaccurate field detection is. I tried to look up any news item that said CW had been conclusively confirmed OR disproved in that instance, but didn't run across anything in the first few minutes. Obviously a definitive response on just that one item will take some time.

So I went on to the second item, re cyanide and mustard gas in the river. You may not know it but cyanide is a common industrial chemical. And I doubt they found 'mustard gas' in water since (in water) it breaks down quickly http://www.bristol.ac.uk/Depts/Chemistry/MOTM/mustard/mustard.htm. That may be why when I tried to find different reports on the same item, many reports said 'mustard gas' but some said (probably more accurately) 'mustard agents'. That makes me wonder exactly what they tested for. It appears only one announcement was made, there was no follow up. I couldn't find in a short time information on that instance that I thought was credible.

Then you had a CNN url where you said "buried chemical weapons precursors 'could be' pesticides to keep bugs from eating the binary chemical artillery shells they were stored with" while the article said "The materials, (found at an agricultural complex and separate from the military complex that housed the artillery shells) stored in barrels and buried, had not been weaponized and might simply be pesticides. If it were weaponized, Freakly said, 'We would see it in probably an artillery projectile or in an artillery missile, or perhaps in an aircraft bomb or something that the enemy would spray troops with.'" and concluded "U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declined comment on the find, saying more tests must be conducted." But tracking down any potential follow-up will take more time than I have right now.

So, to repeat, while I would like to reply in detail, I'm too busy to spend the time looking for definitive conclusions to these allegations.

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

Tuesday, October 19, 2004 5:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by xkxxkx:

Nonetheless, whatever the truth, the "absence of WMD in Iraq" meme ...

let's roll

meme... you so give yourself away.

Wow, a whole list that shows just how much of a propoganda machine the "liberal media" is for the Nazi party... er, the Bushites.

The point is... Saddam was not a threat to the USA SINCE 1991 !!! This is the defacto fact we have learned recently. No doubt! Proof! Denieing this is simply a lie.

Now... RIGHT NOW, the only people on the entire planet who believe Saddam had any capability to do real (REAL!) damage are in the White House.

BTW, those mass graves were created by Saddam during the 80s Iraq/Iran war... you know, when the CIA gave Saddam help, money, satellite photos, Sarin gas, Anthrax, Mustard Gas. You know... all those illegal weapons of mass destruction the USA sold to Saddam for money.

Blood money. If you want to talk about who is to blame for those mass graves, you must include the USA in that crime. Truth.

Impeach the Bush Junta or America will continue to be a whore for Saudi princes.

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

Tuesday, October 19, 2004 7:03 PM

I'll go into right or wrong, point-by-point if anyone here, a site with only a tiny fraction dedicated to "real world" discussion has sense and can engage in reasonable debate.
First we must settle the legal or illegal issue. If you can't see it's legality, how will you make it through the clearly grey areas with a clear mind?
You insinuate that i have been infected by a cultural evolution of sorts just for using the word meme. How about coupling that with some info showing where these people were not exposed to weaponized nerve gas in Iraq.What of the dozen or so syrians who were busted planning to blow up the US embassy in Jordan with tons....tons of IRAQI chemical weapons. I forgot that story, I'll post a link if I think you'll give a rats ass.
How incredibly hypocritical of you to jump on the word (a fitting description for those who say there were no wmd's) and include your insidious bush/hitler MEME, your USA is resposible for 400,000 iraqi/iranian/kuwaiti murders MEME and your CIA sold NBC weapons to ANYBODY MEME. I look foward to smashing your infection with the facts about this, oil for food, french weapon sales to iraq (especially since 9/11) and whatever else. I don't want to waste my time learning how much you hate america, or bush. You say illegal. Back it up. Don't simply throw up a resolution or an article and ask me to show you where it says Bush can kill babies. it's a bogus argument. If you have an argument with legality, please, make a case. That, or concede Saddam violated sanctions, and let's move on to where the grease gets gritty.
Don't you think if we were in bed with the Sauds, with a hair-splitting election 2 weeks out and gas prices soaring, that we'd be leaning pretty heavily on them right now? Or upping output of all that "free" Iraqi oil?---Wait--- don't answer that. Let's clear up this illegal issue and then...

let's roll

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

Thursday, October 21, 2004 4:17 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I looked at some more of the links you posted, and I have to say they were weak.

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

Thursday, October 21, 2004 4:32 PM

Hell, Listening to this guy... I want to attack the US

He makes the arguements against American foreign policy quite real in an Archie Bunker sort of way

" Don't Blame Me I Voted For Kudos "

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

Thursday, October 21, 2004 4:47 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Gino, I DO appreciate your verve.

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

Thursday, October 21, 2004 4:55 PM

NEUTRINOLAD

May I just say that those of us who wish to defend the USA need to stop bringing up the Oil for Food UN voucher bribery?
Because we're implicit in it. There are US companies and individuals who took part in it, they are cravenly hiding behind US privacy laws to keep our citizens from finding out about our complicity in the commission of this crime.
Remember, the only group the CIA is keeping secrets from is the American public. Don't like it myself, but it's true.

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

Tuesday, November 9, 2004 7:17 AM