Saddam Hussein was NOT a threat

POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Monday, October 18, 2004 20:09
VIEWED: 12444
PAGE 1 of 1

GHOULMAN

Monday, October 4, 2004 4:54 PM

Having watched the so called "debates" from the USA about the Iraq Occupation I was shocked that not even the Democrates would admit the truth...

Saddam was simply NOT a threat to the USA.

And you won't hear that on the news either as the USA has commited itself to killing and imprisoning anyone it sees fit too. Welcome to fascism.

To qualify my statement about Saddam - As we all know, after The Gulf War we saw a defeated and isolated Saddam and his Bathist Party. Sure, there were uprisings from the Kurds and the Shiites but Bush Sr. just ignored thier plees for assistance in ousting Saddam back in 1990.

Basically, they were slaughtered while American troops looked on and No-Fly-Zones were created. The policy being that Kurds and Shia were not important to the USA. Oil is. As long as Saddam stayed in place and the oil flowed, the USA could care less about people. UN Sanctions were placed at US insistance that only succeeded in hurting the Iraqi people and giving Saddam a chance to pile up cash. This bait and switch is familiar to anyone who knows American foreign policy history (Central America gringo! Read a little history!).

That is, this is typical of the USA. Publically condemn while grabbing the cash under the table.

Now, even Kerry had said that Saddam was a threat to the USA.

How???

Let's see... no connection to the 9/11 terrorists. No that's not it.

No WMDS. No nukes or bio weapons. Certainly no ballistic capability.

No terrorist harbouring. That is, no terrorists were in Iraq.

No terrorist funding. Sure, Saddam has given money to Hamas, but that's been going on for decades and Hamas is a legitimate organisation... Zionist arguments accepted.

Worse, it's been proven that the information that sent the USA to Iraq isn't just "faulty", to quote the 9/11 Commission, but was completely cooked up by Cheney and his Wolf pack. Hell, Cheney made more visits to the CIA in the last term than every other Vice President in the history of the USA ever did.

So tell me America... why are you so willing to live with a lie?

GHOULMAN

Monday, October 4, 2004 5:22 PM

And before people start calling me crazy, I'm not the only one who agrees Saddam is no threat, never was.

The Memory Hole (great website!)
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm
Colin Powell
24 February 2001
We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...

RUXTON

Monday, October 4, 2004 6:23 PM

Ghoulie, you forgot about his big model airplane.

Surely THAT was a threat!

...........Ruxton

JIMNIGHTSHADE

Monday, October 4, 2004 6:48 PM

"First, Saddam had used WMD — against Iran in the mid-1980s, and he later used them against his own people, killing more than 5,000 civilians in the Iraqi Kurdish town of Halabja in March 1988.

Second, Saddam had possessed WMD, as he acknowledged to the United Nations after his ouster from Kuwait in February 1991. Moreover, until at least the early 1990s, U.S., British, French, German and Israeli intelligence agencies had underestimated his biological and nuclear programs. And all of them — along with the Clinton administration, the U.N. and both supporters and opponents of the war — assumed Saddam still had substantial quantities of WMD.

Third, Saddam had maintained the capability to produce WMD. In 1991, the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) discovered that Iraq possessed a workable design for an implosion-type nuclear weapon though not yet the necessary fissile material. If the material could be obtained elsewhere — from Russia, Pakistan or North Korea — Iraq was believed able to produce a bomb within a year. Iraq retained facilities as well as teams of scientists and engineers. And during the past year, the Iraq Survey Group, the U.S. inspection team, discovered a program to develop long-range missiles. The overall evidence led the team's head, David Kay, to say "Iraq was in clear violation" of a U.N. resolution demanding full accounting of WMD.

Fourth, Saddam had the intent. After the withdrawal of U.N. inspectors in 1998 and the erosion of international support for sanctions, Saddam counted on being free sooner or later to fully resume oil sales and rebuild his weapons. He continued to menace his neighbors, brutalize his people and cooperate with terrorist groups. He told Arab journalists in late 2002 that he was playing for time in the face of renewed American and coalition pressure.

In the aftermath of 9/11 and as murderously evident in Madrid, it is far better to act decisively against the most lethal threats rather than hope to deter them or to retaliate following a mass casualty attack. As British Prime Minister Tony Blair has said, 9/11 altered the balance of risk. Ultimately, the nature of Saddam's regime, his record of aggression and his capability and intent posed a major strategic threat. Despite the bitter and often partisan controversies that have erupted about the path to war, the case for the use of force remains compelling."

- www.usatoday.com

Yeah, what were we thinking. Saddam surely wasn't a threat.

GHOULMAN

Monday, October 4, 2004 7:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JimNightshade:
"First, Saddam had used WMD — against Iran in the mid-1980s, and he later used them against his own people, killing more than 5,000 civilians in the Iraqi Kurdish town of Halabja in March 1988.

Sorry, but that's all easily dismissed. And it's exactly what the Bush propoganda machine is pumping out.

First, the Kurds were gassed by American bought Sarin gas deployed fromAmerican bought helicopters. And if this was such a concern in 1988 for Americans then I even have a picture of Donald "Rummy" Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam "Sadly Insane" Hussein to show just the opposite was true.

Huh? Yup!

After that... USAToday only puts forth the the usual and illogical Bushite ideology. Is USAToday a propoganda rag for the Bushites?

I guess so.

Quote:

Second, Saddam had possessed WMD,

NONE of it NUCLEAR... let's be clear. The ones he bought from the USA was for the Iran War (mustard gas, sarin, etc. Iraq is famous for using this illegal tactic. The USA is famous for selling death without guilt). Right. So we know about those. And the US told the UN about them right? RIGHT?!?!??

Was that the Weapons Expo of 1988? Lots of US weaponry for sale that week I'll tell ya! Lots of deals to be had!!!

Heh, heh... come on. Bring this one up again. I dare ya.

Besides - why not get Saddam for that during the Gulf War? Why now? Huh? Get real... the USA doesn't give a rats ass about the Kurds and Bush Sr. left the Kurds to die in Turkey after the Gulf War. So don't tell me this crap, it's just not true.

America never cared about the Kurds. Never, ever. Never will.

The USA has the worst record of any industrial nation offering foreign aid, btw.

Quote:
Third, Saddam had maintained the capability to produce WMD.

Not a reason for War. Period. Try again.

Quote:
Fourth, Saddam had the intent.

Again, not a reason for WAR. Grrr.

Quote:
In the aftermath of 9/11

No connection to Saddam to 9/11. Period.

Quote:
and as murderously evident in Madrid,

That train bombing had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda.

Quote:
it is far better to act decisively against the most lethal threats rather than hope to deter them or to retaliate following a mass casualty attack.

Which GWB has absolutely no intention fo doing. His actions prove this.

Quote:
As British Prime Minister Tony Blair has said, 9/11 altered the balance of risk.

Phoney Tony? Don't even bother to quote a PM who is two steps away from being impeached.

Quote:
Ultimately, the nature of Saddam's regime, his record of aggression

lol! The he's a "bad guy" defence. That only works in 6 year old court.

Quote:
and his capability and intent posed a major strategic threat.

See, my point is that he wasn't. And hey, Powell agreed with me in Feb 2001.

Quote:
Despite the bitter and often partisan

I'm Canadian so...

Quote:
controversies that have erupted about the path to war, the case for the use of force remains compelling."

- www.usatoday.com

USAToday is a tabloid! Try to find actual writers who you like instead of quoting from pulp found in the grocery store check out.

Sorry JimNightshade, but rebutting crap from bad US newspapers is like shooting fish in a really small barrel. And if I can do it... gotta wonder why all of the USA is dumber than me.

Well, except John Stewart!

CONSCIENCE

Monday, October 4, 2004 8:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
I'm Canadian so... gotta wonder why all of the USA is dumber than me.

FUCK CANADA

http://www.negativepositive.org/fuck-canada.html

That was a real pathetic performance you canucks showed at the Athens Olympics!

GHOULMAN

Monday, October 4, 2004 8:21 PM

^^^ kept waiting for you to show up. Nice first post in the "Real World" forums.

Your Mum must be so proud.

BTW, I feel the need to point out that recently, Canada is still one of the TOP nations to live in thanks to it's EXTREEMLY high Quality of life indecator issued from the UN.

Also, our famous Peace Keepers have returned from yet another fine tour of service, this time in Kosovo.

Which just goes to show... Canada is still a great nation. The USA is still... the USA.

SIGNYM

Monday, October 4, 2004 8:23 PM

Quote:
And all of them — along with the Clinton administration, the U.N. and both supporters and opponents of the war — assumed Saddam still had substantial quantities of WMD.

Not according to Hans Blix or Scott Ritter (one of our CIA/ weapons inspectors)

Quote:
discovered a program to develop long-range missiles

In other words, they had plans, they had programs, they had designs- but no WMD and no delivery capability.

Now, if we hold Iraq to the strict letter of UN resolutions on accounting for WMD, what about Israel?? It's an open secret that Israel already posseses nuclear weapons, and there is solid evidence that at least during the early 90's was producing Sarin. (It was found out due to the unfortunate crash of one of their cargo jets carrying 3 of 4 necessary ingredients for Sarin into a tennement apartment building in Amsterdam).

JIMNIGHTSHADE

Monday, October 4, 2004 8:26 PM

you dispute the article. Thats ok. But show me evidence. You offer your opinion without backing it up. Both sides even agree Saddom was a threat. Why do you even try arguing the point?

I think it's because you hate everything about America and just find the bad in it. Why dont you turn your efforts to your own country. You yell fascism at others while you live in a very fascist country. Yes, Canada is fasicist. I dont have time to go looking for links all day but I will give you this one for now: http://weblogs.therightsociety.com/rob/archive/2004/07/25/1277.aspx

4 More Years
Vote Bush 2004

GHOULMAN

Monday, October 4, 2004 8:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JimNightshade:
you dispute the article. Thats ok. But show me evidence. You offer your opinion without backing it up. Both sides even agree Saddom was a threat. Why do you even try arguing the point?

It's obvious. Both sides are lieing. They have thier reasons.

See, there are already legal issues when WAR is threatened. The USA completely ignored it's own laws as well as any reasonable definition one must give to go to war. Such as, a direct threat... which didn't exist.

Who thinks this? EVERYONE BUT THE USA.

Quote:
I think it's because you hate everything about America and just find the bad in it. Why dont you turn your efforts to your own country. You yell fascism at others while you live in a very fascist country. Yes, Canada is fasicist. I dont have time to go looking for links all day but I will give you this one for now: http://weblogs.therightsociety.com/rob/archive/2004/07/25/1277.aspx

4 More Years
Vote Bush 2004

*Chuckle*... if so why didn't the USA attack us? Hmm?

JIMNIGHTSHADE

Monday, October 4, 2004 8:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:

*Chuckle*... if so why didn't the USA attack us? Hmm?

Oh God, please, just give us a reason. It would be nice to rid ourself the northern leach that is Canada. :) Actually I dont mean that. I hear there is some good snowboarding up there. Is that true?

GHOULMAN

Monday, October 4, 2004 8:48 PM

^^^ the campaign office getting boring?

JIMNIGHTSHADE

Monday, October 4, 2004 9:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
^^^ the campaign office getting boring?

^^^I have interests outside of politics.

RUXTON

Monday, October 4, 2004 9:33 PM

Jimnightshade:

First, Saddam did NOT use gas against his own people. The gas used was verified to have been Iranian, not Iraqi gas. Colin Powell still lies about this.

Second, Saddam HAD disarmed, as was recently reverified.

Third, he may have... he might have... he could have... he intended to.... All B/S. He DIDN'T. He did NOT pose a threat to anyone, including his own people, who were able to buy personal firearms during his administration.

It's sad to see intelligent people like you and a few others here unable or unwilling to look in the correct direction to find the agressors. The twin towers of WTC and Building Seven were PULLED, i.e., intentionally demolished. http://www.serendipity.li/wot/mslp_i.htm)

The FBI has admitted it does not know who was on those aircraft. You're buying into the "official" conspiracy theory, just like you're supposed to.

The temperature beneath the WTC rubble five days after 9/11/01 was still about 1300 degrees F, per satellite imagery and verified by on-site observers. That doesn't happen from kerosene fires. Nor does the immensely strong steel core, which made up a quarter of the towers' floor plan, collapse on itself from nothing. It was brought down intentionally. For that to have happened, the towers had to have thermite or other demolition exposives implanted BEFORE 9-11.

Please wake up before it's too late. Ghoulman knows well what he's talking about.

.........Ruxton

RUXTON

Monday, October 4, 2004 9:41 PM

JimNightShade:

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

This is the Congressional authorization for force that Bush used to launch the invasion of Iraq. However, if you read Section 3, paragraph B, Bush was required to prove to the Congress that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11. Both claims have since been disproved and discredited, the product of the Pentagon Office at the heart of the latest Israeli spy scandal.

Therefore, under United States law, the war in Iraq is illegal. And We The People are not under any legal or moral obligation to pay for it, let alone let our kids be killed in it.

.........Ruxton

RUE

Monday, October 4, 2004 10:25 PM

This seems appropriate here, and goes some way to keeping a promise I made regarding Administration lies about WMD:

Condensed from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/international/middleeast/03tube.html
?oref=login&th=&pagewanted=print&position=

How the White House Embraced Disputed Arms Intelligence

In 2002 Bush administration senior members gave a series of speeches and interviews in which they asserted Saddam Hussein was rebuilding his nuclear weapons program. Speaking in September, Vice President Dick Cheney said the United States now had "irrefutable evidence" - thousands of tubes made of high-strength aluminum, that were destined for clandestine Iraqi uranium centrifuges.

But almost a year before, Ms. Rice's staff had been told the government's foremost nuclear experts doubted the tubes were for nuclear weapons, according to four officials at the Central Intelligence Agency and two senior administration officials. The experts, at the Energy Department, believed the tubes were likely intended for small artillery rockets.

In the Beginning

The White House, embraced the theory the tubes were for nuclear centrifuges, an idea first championed in April 2001 by a junior CIA analyst. (That analysis) was the primary basis for one of the agency's first reports on the tubes, which went to senior members of the Bush administration on April 10, 2001. The report asserted (the tubes) "have little use other than for a uranium enrichment program."

This alarming assessment was immediately challenged by the Energy Department, which builds centrifuges and runs the government's nuclear weapons complex. The next day, Energy Department officials ticked off a long list of reasons why the tubes did not appear well suited for centrifuges.

On Aug. 17, 2001, the Energy Department team published a secret Technical Intelligence Note, a detailed analysis that laid out its doubts about the tubes' suitability for centrifuges. The Energy Department experts concluded that using the tubes in "rocket production is the much more likely end use for these tubes." Similar conclusions were being reached by Britain's intelligence service and experts at the International Atomic Energy Agency, a United Nations body.

In late 2001, intelligence analysts at the State Department also took issue with (the CIA analyst's) work in reports prepared for Secretary of State Colin L. Powell.

By the end of 2001, Energy Department analysts published a classified report that even more firmly rejected the theory that the tubes could work as rotors in a 1950's Zippe centrifuge.

From April 2001 to September 2002, the agency (CIA) wrote at least 15 reports on the tubes. Many were sent only to high-level policy makers, including President Bush, and did not circulate to other intelligence agencies. Over and over, the reports restated (the CIA analyst's) main conclusions for the C.I.A.

But in interviews, C.I.A. and administration officials disclosed that the dissenting views were repeatedly discussed in meetings and telephone calls.

Four agency officials insisted that Winpac analysts repeatedly explained the contrasting assessments during briefings with senior National Security Council officials. "We think we were reasonably clear about this," a senior C.I.A. official said. And a senior administration official confirmed that Winpac was indeed candid about the differing views.

Over the summer of 2002, the White House secretly refined plans to invade Iraq and debated whether to seek more United Nations inspections.

On Aug. 26, 2002, Mr. Cheney (laid) out a rationale for pre-emptive action against Iraq. "We now know Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon. Just how soon, we cannot really gauge. Intelligence is an uncertain business, even in the best of circumstances." But "Armed with an arsenal of these weapons of terror, and seated atop 10 percent of the world's oil reserves, Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the ent

GHOULMAN

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 12:07 PM

^^^ tha'ts great guys and thanx!

Say, Did Jimnightshade fall asleep on the campaign trail?

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
... SNIP! ...

Let me condense this even further...

The Ultra Right Wing, Fundamentalist, Oil backed White House had designs on Iraq even before 9/11 happened.

9/11 happened and they simply used that tragedy as an excuse to go take Iraqs Oil fields.

They needed evidence so they went and made some up.

How's that?

GHOULMAN

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 12:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JimNightshade:
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
^^^ the campaign office getting boring?

^^^I have interests outside of politics.

So now is the time to point out that Jimnightshade is a paid liar for the Republicans (as opposed to paid lieing Democrates... see other thread).

Ever hear of ETHICS? At anytime during your education had even the concept of ethics, honesty, or integrity, been forwarded?

Did anyone ever tell you that going online to represent, sell, shill, or hawk, while posing as a "fan" or regular with an online community is called LIEING? That it's dishonest, against every rule of net etiquette, and underhanded?

IMPEACH GWB!

JIMNIGHTSHADE

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 4:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Quote:
Originally posted by JimNightshade:
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
^^^ the campaign office getting boring?

^^^I have interests outside of politics.

So now is the time to point out that Jimnightshade is a paid liar for the Republicans (as opposed to paid lieing Democrates... see other thread).

Ever hear of ETHICS? At anytime during your education had even the concept of ethics, honesty, or integrity, been forwarded?

Did anyone ever tell you that going online to represent, sell, shill, or hawk, while posing as a "fan" or regular with an online community is called LIEING? That it's dishonest, against every rule of net etiquette, and underhanded?

IMPEACH GWB!

You mean, "lying". And Who started this post? Who keeps bringing up politics on this site? I think it's you. You live in a place where the news is slanted toward liberals. Don't believe me? Do the research. The point is I debate this issue elsewhere. Not on a forum dedicated to Firefly. I think you could find a more suitable place also. Not that I don't like hearing what people have to say, but it makes you look rather, petulant to bring it up here and not in a place where people expect to see a post about politics. And you never answered my previous question.

Vote Bush 2004

GEEZER

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 4:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
So now is the time to point out that Jimnightshade is a paid liar for the Republicans (as opposed to paid lieing Democrates... see other thread).

Ever hear of ETHICS? At anytime during your education had even the concept of ethics, honesty, or integrity, been forwarded?

Did anyone ever tell you that going online to represent, sell, shill, or hawk, while posing as a "fan" or regular with an online community is called LIEING? That it's dishonest, against every rule of net etiquette, and underhanded?

IMPEACH GWB!

Hey, Ghoul! It's nice to see that any time you might approach the point of being taken seriously, you manage to jump back into "Major Foil-hat Conspiracy Theorist" status with accusations like this. Keep up the good work.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GHOULMAN

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 4:19 PM

^^^ Geezer... lol! ... Ethics Geezer... ETHICS. It's not a conspiracy. *chuckle*.

You are amazingly stupid.

GHOULMAN

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 4:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JimNightshade:
You mean, "lying".

Yes. Thank you spelling Nazi.

Quote:
And Who started this post? Who keeps bringing up politics on this site?

lol! You are rich pal.

Quote:
I think it's you. You live in a place where the news is slanted toward liberals.

Canada? So Canadians are a problem? Where are we on your list of countries to invade? Let's see... Iraq, then Iran, then Syria... THEN THE CANADIANS GET IT!

Oh brother.

Quote:
Don't believe me? Do the research.

I live here dummy!

Quote:
The point is I debate this issue elsewhere.

Um. But you post here anyway? Kettle, meet pot. Black wha?

Quote:
Not on a forum dedicated to Firefly. I think you could find a more suitable place also.

Like a "Real World Forum" dedicated to political issues? Yea.. great idea.

Quote:
Not that I don't like hearing what people have to say,

Smarmy remarks... rising... to ... surface...

Quote:
but it makes you look rather, petulant to bring it up here and not in a place where people expect to see a post about politics. And you never answered my previous question.

Vote Bush 2004

The snowboarding question? Well, Whistler is the best spot for winter sports. The Winter Olympics were there. Take your whole family I guarantee the best time ever and cheaper than Colorado!

I'd rather be petulant than a straight out liar like you. You don't give a rats ass about Firefly, you're only here to push your propoganda on American kids. You want to be seen as "one of us" in a dishonest and, frankly, Nazi tactic designed to sway people towards your political agenda.

Sick.

Using the Nets anonymity for propoganda purposes is unethical.

JIMNIGHTSHADE

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 5:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
I'd rather be petulant than a straight out liar like you. You don't give a rats ass about Firefly, you're only here to push your propoganda on American kids. You want to be seen as "one of us" in a dishonest and, frankly, Nazi tactic designed to sway people towards your political agenda.

Sick.

Using the Nets anonymity for propoganda purposes is unethical.

You are cheerleading for a guy who supports abortion, so dont get me started on ethitcs. And I am a firefly fan. That's why I stated these post are not helping this site in any way. The question is, are you a fan? Do you even read what people are saying? I think you see what you want to see. And can you argue a point without resorting to name calling? There's that petulant attitude again.

And you mean to sway people for my political agenda, like bribing one's vote for (fake) money as some of your fellow Kerry-lovers have done on this site?

can you say, hypocrite?

GHOULMAN

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 5:48 PM

^^^ well, you missed all the discussion on Fireflyfans.net regarding that very issue so it's rather obvious you aren't a Firefly fan from this fan site.

Besides, you've admitted you do work for the Reps. If you had only stated that openly you would be free and clear to put forth your agenda as a representative of that party. Which is fine and perfectly ethical.

But you didn't...

And I have attacked Democrats for doing the same thing on this forum. Funny, they were apologetic and didn't insult me, my country, or spit hateful things like you have.

Sorry Jim, but I will not put up with someone who misrepresents themselves.

That doesn't make me the bad guy. Does it?

JIMNIGHTSHADE

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 6:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
^^^ well, you missed all the discussion on Fireflyfans.net regarding that very issue so it's rather obvious you aren't a Firefly fan from this fan site.

Besides, you've admitted you do work for the Reps. If you had only stated that openly you would be free and clear to put forth your agenda as a representative of that party. Which is fine and perfectly ethical.

But you didn't...

And I have attacked Democrats for doing the same thing on this forum. Funny, they were apologetic and didn't insult me, my country, or spit hateful things like you have.

Sorry Jim, but I will not put up with someone who misrepresents themselves.

That doesn't make me the bad guy. Does it?

What? I dont work for any politcal party. I work for a computer company. Where did you get that from?

You yet again are showing that you misread and you yourself lie about the facts. And you are the one spewing hateful words at others. Read above. I keep my personal feelings out of these discussions. How is acknowledging Canada as a premiere snowboading locale an insult?

No one here is the bad guy. Or is anyone in disagreement with you a "bad" guy?

GHOULMAN

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 6:55 PM

... oh, and it's really fun to draw these guys out from under thier rock.

Which is why I post these articles in the first place. Why? Well, the Firefly fans here are already a pretty smart crowd who are savvy to the things I say. So I don't need to tell them.

It's only to show that out there in cyberspace there are people, like Geezer and Jimnightshade, who are such vial little toads that they think it's just fine to go around lying about who they are... what they believe... and WHAT'S BEST FOR THE USA.

I might not know what's best for the USA... but I do know that LIES are NOT good for anyone.

GHOULMAN

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 7:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JimNightshade:
What? I dont work for any politcal party. I work for a computer company. Where did you get that from?

Got that from you... didn't even have to do a whois.

Quote:
You yet again are showing that you misread and you yourself lie about the facts.

Facts about you? Or facts... oh forget it.

Quote:
And you are the one spewing hateful words at others. Read above.

Read this... which is yours...

Quote:
Originally posted by JimNightshade:
you dispute the article. Thats ok. But show me evidence. You offer your opinion without backing it up. Both sides even agree Saddom was a threat. Why do you even try arguing the point?

I think it's because you hate everything about America and just find the bad in it. Why dont you turn your efforts to your own country. You yell fascism at others while you live in a very fascist country. Yes, Canada is fasicist. I dont have time to go looking for links all day but I will give you this one for now: http://weblogs.therightsociety.com/rob/archive/2004/07/25/1277.aspx

4 More Years
Vote Bush 2004

This is insulting, inflamitory, and just plain dirty.

Quote:
I keep my personal feelings out of these discussions.

Yea, calling Canada a fascist nation was an emotionless statement. lol!

Quote:
How is acknowledging Canada as a premiere snowboading locale an insult?

Yet another strawman argument. See? You show your true colours to a guy like me who can recognise someone using thier Masters degree for political purposes... you bozos are a dime a dozen and I know who you are!

Quote:
No one here is the bad guy. Or is anyone in disagreement with you a "bad" guy?

As I said, a person who misrepresents themselves is by definition a liar... and therefore - bad!

See? Ethics.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 7:13 PM

So Jim, any comments on the post by Rue and myself?

JIMNIGHTSHADE

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 7:15 PM

Quote:
Which is why I post these articles in the first place. Why? Well, the Firefly fans here are already a pretty smart crowd who are savvy to the things I say. So I don't need to tell them.

So, you post here to get verification from others? If you "don't need to tell them", then why *do* you keep telling them?

Quote:
It's only to show that out there in cyberspace there are people, like Geezer and Jimnightshade, who are such vial little toads

Wait, wait, I thought I'm the one who spits hateful things? Politicts 101; The first one to lose his/her temper in an argument, loses. Name calling is a sign of losing ones temper.

Quote:
they think it's just fine to go around lying about who they are...

I told you. You just dont want to listen. I work for a computer company. Not a political party like you want me to.

Quote:
what they believe...

I let you explain your points, and talk but now I'm not allowed to express what I believe? I think we have got to the bottom of this folks. Ghoulman believes in supressing ones beliefs and thats called, and he likes this word, fascism.

GHOULMAN

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 7:53 PM

^^^ Sorry Jimnightshade but I am rather comfortable with the belief you are sitting in a Texas campaign office and not a "computer company". lol !

And I love your twisted logic... are you related to the Bushes? Kidding...

GHOULMAN

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 7:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So Jim, any comments on the post by Rue and myself?

OK, I'll stop. *chuckle*

JIMNIGHTSHADE

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 8:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
^^^ Sorry Jimnightshade but I am rather comfortable with the belief you are sitting in a Texas campaign office and not a "computer company". lol !

And I love your twisted logic... are you related to the Bushes?

You really think I am an a campaign office? Hehe. Thats funny. I do not, nor have not worked for a campaign office. Does everyone that disagrees with you "work for the campaign office"? You have no idea how wrong you are.

This post has gone from political discussion to personal attacks by way of name calling and uninformed accusations, from you, as to what I do for a living. You are a democrat through and through. You are the one who should work for a campaign office. Go snowboarding when weather permits, it's a good way to rid yourself of that stress.

GHOULMAN

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 8:08 PM

^^^ if I'm wrong I apologize. Which is all you had to say.

And once again... you seem to have misrepresented a fact - I'm Canadian and can't possibly be a democrate.

JIMNIGHTSHADE

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 8:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JimNightshade:
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
^^^ well, you missed all the discussion on Fireflyfans.net regarding that very issue so it's rather obvious you aren't a Firefly fan from this fan site.

Besides, you've admitted you do work for the Reps. If you had only stated that openly you would be free and clear to put forth your agenda as a representative of that party. Which is fine and perfectly ethical.

But you didn't...

And I have attacked Democrats for doing the same thing on this forum. Funny, they were apologetic and didn't insult me, my country, or spit hateful things like you have.

Sorry Jim, but I will not put up with someone who misrepresents themselves.

That doesn't make me the bad guy. Does it?

What? I dont work for any politcal party. I work for a computer company. Where did you get that from?

You yet again are showing that you misread and you yourself lie about the facts. And you are the one spewing hateful words at others. Read above. I keep my personal feelings out of these discussions. How is acknowledging Canada as a premiere snowboading locale an insult?

No one here is the bad guy. Or is anyone in disagreement with you a "bad" guy?

Sigh. Read above. I did say :)

Would you not vote for Kerry if you lived here?

VILAVON

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 8:13 PM

Would you concede that a madman in power IS a weapon of mass destruction?

Vilavon AKA Claude

GHOULMAN

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 8:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JimNightshade:
You really think I am an a campaign office? Hehe. Thats funny. I do not, nor have not worked for a campaign office.

I'll take that as a none answer. Close enough for me. "... nor have not" ... really cute.

But hey, if you say you work for.. a "computer company" (snark!) that's fine.

Quote:
Originally posted by JimNightshade:
Would you not vote for Kerry if you lived here?

Nader. He's a remarkable fellow. I greatly enjoyed his speach to the Canadian University crowd recently on , er, the Canadian Cspan. However, given that Bush is a dangerous criminal I'd have to vote for Kerry even if I do think he's a status quo guy. At least Democrates aren't known for murdering people in the tens of thousands. Good enough for me.

AND - You seem to have forgotten, once again, that this very thread opposes the Democratic position.

GHOULMAN

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 8:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Vilavon:
Would you concede that a madman in power IS a weapon of mass destruction?

Vilavon AKA Claude

Who me? Well, madmen aren't a concern if they are without weapons. They can jibber to themselves all they like. Kinda like Nixon.

To quote Nixon (Re: Vietnam): "Nuke 'em! Nuke 'em all!"

GHOULMAN

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 9:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
Jimnightshade:

First, Saddam did NOT use gas against his own people. The gas used was verified to have been Iranian, not Iraqi gas. Colin Powell still lies about this.

This is an interesting point Ruxton (you always have those!) and I too have been confounded by details regarding the Kurds who were gassed to death in the streets of HALABJA back in 1988.

Does anyone really know?

I know that the current theory is that it was Iran. I believe the US Army originated this theory? Not sure.

What type of gas? Sarin gas I'm told. But the Iranians didn't have that available did they? Besides, the Iranians don't have a beef with the Kurds. But, I have heard it said it was simply an accident.

I don't buy any of that myself. Mainly because I can remember when all that happend, having been alive and in college in 1988. Ok, Art school.. shut up!

Anyho', it's difficult to say but the incident was always reported as a crime of the Saddam Regime.

As far as I know, this information is "new". And let's face it, any info out of Iraq in 1988 was specious at best.

What do you think?

Oh, for those who don't know the importance - GWB used this horrible incident in his speach to justify his invasion of Iraq. Rather like he does everything... *chuckle*

SIGNYM

Wednesday, October 6, 2004 12:31 AM

Jim- any comments on my post or Rue's? Just curious.

And Ghoulman...

SHUSH! You're frightening the cows and chickens! We won't get any milk or eggs for a week!

GHOULMAN

Wednesday, October 6, 2004 12:25 PM

^^^ Ok, I'll stop. Promise.

VILAVON

Wednesday, October 6, 2004 3:04 PM

Yeah. Nixon WAS evil. Remember when he destroyed the earth and then we moved to THIS planet? Only they decided not to tell all the stupid people?
(Thanks Steve Martin!)
Tell the Kurds that Saddam was NOT a threat. Oh? What's that you say? It was a misprint? You meant that Saddam was not a TREAT? Well, ya got me, Ghoulie!
What a kidder. You and Margot!

Vilavon AKA Claude

GHOULMAN

Wednesday, October 6, 2004 3:41 PM

^^^ not a threat to the USA.

Edit - In 1983, during Ronald Reagan's first term, the US was supporting Saddam in his war against Iran. Donald Rumsfeld, then the CEO of the pharmaceutical Serle, was appointed Special Envoy to the Middle East. It was his job to go to Bagdad and reassure Saddam that we would continue to support him. During 1983 Saddam began to use poison gas against the Iranian Army and on his own population. The US Administration knew this, but, chose to ignore it. Apparently, Saddam's use of chemical weapons became so extensive that it leaked to the media and the White House was forced to make a public statement condemning it. In early 1984 Mr. Rumsfeld was, again, sent back to Bagdad to tell Saddam that that statement was only for public consumption and would not affect the US relationship with Iraq.

HARDAN

Wednesday, October 6, 2004 8:07 PM

Ok I'll butt in into this discussion...

Quote:
Tell the Kurds that Saddam was NOT a threat.

I think noone denies that the kurds had a tough time under sadam. But the also have one in Turkey and so do the North Korean under Kim Jong...

The Point is the Kurds didn't aks for help.....
Oh wait. They did in 1991 after the US dropped flyers over Iraq and told them to rise against Sadamm and that the US will help them.....

-----------------------------
Yes there are Fireflyfans all over the world. Even in little switzerland.

GHOULMAN

Thursday, October 7, 2004 12:15 PM

^^^ Well, as far as I know, after the dust settled with the Persian Gulf War the Kurds, and the Shia, asked the USA for help in a campaign to overthrow Saddam Hussien.

The USA told them: "We don't care". That is, George Bush Sr.

So Saddam, seeing that his ole' American pals have given him the OK to be a tyrant once again, started slaughtering all the Kurds, who fled into Southern Turkey. Where the Turks slaughtered more of them.

Pretty much... the Kurds have more reason to kill Americans than Saddam ever did. The Shiites too (thier story is just as horrific).

VILAVON

Thursday, October 7, 2004 8:21 PM

Let me put this in perspective so that even a baby eating American like myself can understand.
If I said to you, "Hey, Ghoulie! Go out and throw feces at every blonde you see!" and you go out and actually brownify some old yellas, it's my fault.
Put down that turd you Kurd!!
Hey, man. If it were that easy, everyone not on the North American continent would be living in thatch huts, huddled around the local manifesto, speaking the language of the invaders and sending their first born off to the state for indoctrination.
Pal, I'll slap the guy next to you if he tells you to shut up with your bilge, because you have every right to appear stupid.
As Harlan Ellison once said, "You don't have a right to your opinion. You have a right to your INFORMED opinion."
I don't know every tin dictator we've propped up over the years, but maybe we need a new policy that states..."If we gave you a billion dollars to overthrow your enemies, and you did it, GAME OVER,MAN!"
America isn't perfect. (Is that news to you?) We are a little better than second place, though.
Of my two nephews that went to Iraq, one is still there. One is in Germany. Sausage and frauleins everywhere, I bet.
Let's get along, baby. If I made policy over here, foreign aid would mean tourists eat free breakfast at the Holiday Inn.
P.S. Saddam WAS a threat. Just my informed opinion.

Vilavon AKA Claude

GHOULMAN

Thursday, October 7, 2004 8:55 PM

^^^ I... don't know what to say to that. Are ya on the crack? You sound, by your text, completely insane. Which is fine, better than being an out and out liar.

Well, Saddam wasn't a threat, it's in the paper. It's on the news. Everyone had to admit this... but GWB still hasn't and he won't in the coming "debate". Neither will Kerry. Scary.

You don't have to believe me.

The position of yourself and Geezer, etc. is opposed by THE REST OF THE WORLD.

You don't have to believe me.

The postion you, Jimnightshade, and Geezer hold is only acceptable in evangelical tents and corporate greed cubes. The rest of the world, not invested in a right wing ideology based on "pro-life" and racism, simply sees that the USA has illegally invaded a soveriegn nation. Bombed it's cities. Tortured it's citizens. And when people complained the USA declared everyone in Iraq a terrorist and has begun a murderous campaign across northern Iraq... it's a slaughter.

Really... how can you defend a postion that advocates murder, torture, death, and disease?

Well, if you ask Jim I'm sure some crappy web link will come up accompanied by more illogical logic. Really, buy a fuckin' clue morons.

GHOULMAN

Thursday, October 7, 2004 9:04 PM

OH! ... and Harlan Ellison is a moron! Jesus, don't quote that load mouthed dwarf.

GHOULMAN

Friday, October 8, 2004 4:19 PM

WHAT PLANET ARE THEY ON?
Oct 7 2004
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/
allnews/tm_objectid=14726622%26
method=full%26siteid=50143%26headline=what%2dplanet%2dare%2dthey%2don%2d-name_page.html
IRAQ SURVEY GROUP: Saddam had no WMD BLAIR & STRAW: That means we were right
By Gary Jones And Bob Roberts In Addis Ababa

... But former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook said the case for war had been destroyed.

He said: "Saddam was no threat to us and had no weapons of mass destruction to pass to terrorists.

"Brushing the UN inspectors aside in order to go to war on false intelligence was a colossal blunder."

He said it also raised a "troubling question" over the legality of the war.

And Lib Dems spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell said: "Brick by brick, the Government's case for going to war is being demolished."

Labour backbencher and anti-war campaigner Peter Kilfoyle said: "The Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary are in deep denial of reality." Reg Keys, whose son was one of six Red Caps killed by a mob of Iraqis last year, said: "Blair fed us a pack of lies."

COBBOFCANTON

Saturday, October 9, 2004 5:06 PM

Seems the Ghoul has an exposed nerve and I ran some lemon juice over it.
Yer right, pal. You and your kind are alway right. I will never convince you otherwise. (Did you read the part where I wrote "..let's get along..."?
NO politician can ever be trusted. Saddam WAS a threat. You like that?
WAS.
Not anymore.
By the way, my crack merchant wants your address. He needs all the word of mouth biz he can get.

Blah, blah, blah......Kiss me you fool. I'm insane AND on crack!!!

GINOBIFFARONI

Saturday, October 9, 2004 5:43 PM

Seems to me that ole Saddam was as much a threat as Bush presently is, and Kerry may well become...

So this only justifys the position, " Well the Americans seems threatening so lets go kill some "

And perhaps you'll be a threat no more

Where as in reality by action Americans really are the greater threat to everyone who doesn't live inside the US.....

It seems to me the only choice is which Terrorists do you side with

BTW

Did anyone see the season opener for Enterprise ???

The White House covered in Swastikas didn't really seem at all un-natural did it ?

" If you ever go to Washington, its buildings clean and nice. Bring a pack of matches and we'll burn their White House twice "

The Arrogant Worms

RUE

Saturday, October 9, 2004 6:32 PM

Quote:
Saddam WAS a threat.

PROVE IT.

TRAGICSTORY

Saturday, October 9, 2004 10:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Quote:
Saddam WAS a threat.

PROVE IT.

Can you honestly say "Given the opportunity to attack or aid those who would attack the US or US intrests abroad without being caught, Saddam would not have done so."

Sadam was a threat. Just by no means the greatest nor the most urgent.

If the US were being thrown into a pit of vipers, worrying about Sadam would be the equivilant of worrying about breaking your arm on the floor of the pit.

-----------
"Societies are supported by human activity, therefore they are constantly threatened by the human facts of self-intrest and stupidity." --Peter Berger

GINOBIFFARONI

Saturday, October 9, 2004 10:53 PM

The UN sactions which most countrys other than the US wanted to drop was killing Iraqis by the millions...

US warplanes bombed Iraqi installations on a ongoing basis...

If I were an Iraqi, hell I would be a threat to you. But I would be a threat of your own making.

If you abuse the dog that you keep chained in your yard for years, then it bites you...
It that really the dogs fault ?

Any of the threats to the United States is of a direct result of the United States trying to screw somebody over for something.....

Except possibly Korea, but mind you that situtation have been made worse by Bush

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

RUE

Sunday, October 10, 2004 3:53 AM

Quote:
Given the opportunity

This addresses intent (though I suspect he was much more concerned with Iran). It's not directed at ability.
So pretend I'm from outer space. How exactly was Hussein a threat? (Actual capability.)

VILAVON

Monday, October 18, 2004 3:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
OH! ... and Harlan Ellison is a moron! Jesus, don't quote that load mouthed dwarf.

It seems, by your postings, that anyone without the pseudonym "Ghoulman", is a moron. Enjoy your dystopia, kiddo!

Vilavon AKA Claude

GHOULMAN

Monday, October 18, 2004 3:24 PM

^^^ no, it's that I'm smarter than Harlen Ellison.

Really.

VILAVON

Monday, October 18, 2004 8:09 PM

HA, I bet your shit smells like roses, too!!

Vilavon AKA Claude