I think a seriously unstable person like Saddam would not be someone to count on.
He was also a Pan Arabist, after a single Arab states. Better a clutch of small, feuding feifdoms than a single powerful leader you might not be able to trust.
But oil plays a part. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
"By their words, some in my party threaten to send a message that they don't know a just war when they see it, and, more broadly, that they're not prepared to use our military strength to protect our security and the cause of freedom," Democratic presidential candidate Joe Lieberman.
So there's an interesting story out today about how the army found a bunch of planes buried in the sand in Iraq. Some of them even seemed brand new, yet it wasn't clear that they were still operable after having been buried. What's more though is just the idea that Saddam had this entire air force and didn't use it. I suppose that would support th WMD argument a bit in that it lends precedence to Saddam having hidden weapons that he never bothered tio use when he actually needed them. Maybe he was unstable. Maybe he cared more about his palaces in his old age and his military was just for show? I don't know, this whole thing is getting weird.
Or maybe cutting his communications links was one of the smarter things that we did.
While I'm sure it has definite strategic value, I don't think that's it. It's not like we launched a sneak attack and caught him unprepared. It was obvious for quite some time that war was likely, and then imminent. There was plenty of time before the communication was cut to take some action. Don't you think if your country is about to be invaded, that maybe, just maybe, that might be a good time to go pull some of these things out of storage and get ready to use them? Something weird is going on here.
Don't you think if your country is about to be invaded, that maybe, just maybe, that might be a good time to go pull some of these things out of storage and get ready to use them?
Not if there was people all over condemming the president and I did not wish to give the president ammunition to use against me. Also, the previous administration used to talk tough and then lob a few missile into the desert, no big deal or reason to pull stuff out of hiding.
I believe that he was hoping this would all blow over and he would still have all those things he isn't suppose to have.
Something weird is going on here.
That's what I said when they found all those gas masks for the Iraqis to use or when there was troops guarding a supposed fertilizer plant in the middle of a desert country.
Not if there was people all over condemming the president and I did not wish to give the president ammunition to use against me.
No, that still doesn't make sense. You don't let your country get invaded as a political ploy. If the U.S. takes over Iraq, that's pretty much the end of Saddam's life as he knew it. You don't make plans for anything past that point. If there is someone thinking in those kinds of terms, it wasn't Saddam. Perhaps Saddam was really a puppet of someone else, left to rule by terror, live in his palaces, and play with his toys. Maybe he didn't dig out those planes because someone else decided to sacrifice their pawn. Maybe he never showed evidence of the WMD having been eliminated because someone else didn't want him to. Maybe the WMD's had left Iraq for elsewhere long ago and thus they will neither turn up, nor will evidence of their destruction.
If you get a chance you should check the picture of the funeral of Uday, Quesay and Mustafa in today's New York Times. Didn't think anything of them in life. Now that they're dead, we don't need to think of them at all.
The military allowed as many members of the Clan of Hussein as could be crammed into 50 cars to attend the burial. I don't know how mighty they looked at one time, but they are a woebegone looking group now. Standing here and there on earth baked hard with heat looking over a couple graves. Iraqi flags held over the caskets with a few rocks.
But they were defiant to the end.
I don't know if there is anything in the Koran equivalent to "what goes around, comes around" but the prophets and the kalifs didn't do them any favors if they left that lesson out.
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Religion certainly plays a role, but so does OIL, HATRED, A SOCIOPATHIC MADMAN,(who never prayed a day in his life unless a camera was recording it for the evening propaganda-message), POLITICS, and OIL.
Geez Bill, So he's doing it because of religion but then only if a camera is around ? Which is it ? Right it's all about oil and he's a sociopathic madman. Did you have Dennis over for BBQ recently by any chance ?
"I hope the recall fails miserably, and if so, then I BET that within 1 month, a new bill will come before their legislature BANNING these senseless and wasteful recalls." - Bill Fold
Taking away the right of the people to remove an elected official...hmmm...Sounds like a popular democrat idea to me!
If the people have the right to vote him in, shouldn't they also be allowed a means to remove him if he stinks? It's not about a power grab. It is a recall vote, you vote to keep him or not to keep him. If enough people think he should go, he goes. Then a vote of who we want instead comes into play.
As fold said, if CA is so totally screwed up, what difference does it make who is elected?
They talked on the news last night of laying off teachers, police, fire, social workers...etc. The cutting of programs across the board and higher "fees".
Well, isn't that what the other states with large deficits had to do? Why is CA any different?
In California, they have more "direct-democracy" than any other state, with their "Recall" and "Propositional" rights. THAT, coupled with this Congressman's ruthless and corrupt recall effort, are the two main reasons why California is so totally screwed-up.
What is corrupt in follwing the process set out by law? California is screwed up because they have way to many liberals running things. It happens EVERY TIME!
In her response to the charges, she wrote the government that "if it comes to fines or imprisonment, "please be aware that I will not contribute money to the United States government to continue the buildup of its arsenal of weapons." Since she won't pay, she said, "perhaps the alternative should be considered."
Her travel to Iraq violated U.S. sanctions that prohibited American citizens from engaging in "virtually all direct or indirect commercial, financial or trade transactions with Iraq."
Personally I think this charge is incredibly bogus and it typifies how the Bush administration has been trying to restrict the freedom of Americans where such freedoms might be in opposition to Bush's agenda. What was her great crime? She went to Iraq and bought food and emergency supplies while she was there.
Sometimes it is, yes. But this isn't a clear cut case of breaking the law. They're not accusing her of consorting with the enemy. They're not accusing her of visiting a country when the law said she couldn't (there was no such law apparently). Instead they're stretching another law imposing economic sanctions to try and apply in this case. It's one thing if you're doing business with them. It's silly though to say that if you visit a country, and you buy food while you're there, that you're violating economic sanctions. Clearly such a charge has political motivations behind it. Clearly the intent is to intimidate and send the message not to oppose Bush or this could happen to you too.
"Also, "Impeachment" and "Regular Elections" are the ways in which most of the rest of us remove elected-officials, but not in CA. And since Republicans came away from the Clinton Impeachment FAILURE, with so much EGG on their faces, this is the way they are now trying to GRAB POWER, in CA" - Bill Fold
Bill, just for accuracy, Clinton WAS impeached. The impeachment and removal from office are two different things.
Clearly such a charge has political motivations behind it.
I'm also wondering why the government is pursuing this woman. She's already made herself look like an idiot with that Human Shield bit. If she didn't harm anyone, she should be left alone.
She's being fined becasue she broke the law. Under sanctions a US citizen had to get authorization to travel to Iraq.
Also to those who claim there was no harm done their certainly could have been. Let's say Uncle Saddamn wanted to place her at a power plant as he was doing and wanted to do with other shields. Let's say your mission calls for taking that power plant out for a mission. If she's there your mission changes or at least how you can go about it. Nobody is going to authorize a mission blowing up that plant knowing she's inside, it would be a p.r nightmare. Now you endanger your own troops lives in doing so and compromise the mission. What she saw as helping the Iraqi's was not only could have gotten her and our own troops killed but also gives Saddamn P.R, that is something that can't be overlooked either and is more valuable than you think. He was in controll of the people and therefore her movements as well. In fact he kicked many out when they wouldn't allow themselves to be posistioned in treatment plants etc.
What did some of the "human shields" say upon their return ?
They say they have 14 hours of video not censored by Iraqi government minders.
One said the trip "shocked [him] back to reality." The Rev. Kenneth Joseph, an American pastor with the Assyrian Church of the East, told the Times that some of the Iraqis he interviewed on camera told him they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start.
"They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam's bloody tyranny," Joseph said. "They convinced me that Saddam was a monster the likes of which the world had not seen since Stalin and Hitler.
Too bad some here can't figure that out. He continues.
He and his sons are sick sadists. Their tales of slow torture and killing made me ill, such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as bodies got chewed up from foot to head."
Daniel Pepper, a 23-year-old Jewish-American photographer, also admitted to the Telegraph that he had been duped by Saddam's secret police.
"Anyone with half a brain must see that Saddam has to be taken out. It is extraordinarily ironic that the anti-war protesters are marching to defend a government which stops its people exercising that freedom," Piper wrote.
"Perhaps the most crushing thing we learned was that most ordinary Iraqis thought Saddam Hussein had paid us to come to protest in Iraq," he added.
Australian Jake Nowakowski's human-shield mission with the Truth, Justice, Peace group lasted only three weeks. He told the London Telegraph he was manipulated by Iraqi authorities, and when he tried to defy them, he and five other human shields were kicked out of the country.
Nowakowski said his trip taught him that "things were a lot more complicated than they seemed in a lot of ways."
crabgrass 7/31/03 6:24pm
When did Das agree that you could speak for him?
he didn't...you just did though
If this was about oil, wouldn't it have been in our best interest to stay buddy buddy with Saddam, and let him keep rolling into Saudi Arabia?
I think a seriously unstable person like Saddam would not be someone to count on.
He was also a Pan Arabist, after a single Arab states. Better a clutch of small, feuding feifdoms than a single powerful leader you might not be able to trust.
But oil plays a part. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
"By their words, some in my party threaten to send a message that they don't know a just war when they see it, and, more broadly, that they're not prepared to use our military strength to protect our security and the cause of freedom," Democratic presidential candidate Joe Lieberman.
Gduubya better hope not...
Why's that his fault?
Actually, wouldn't any "Gulf War Syndrome" prove that Saddam does/did in fact have chemical or biological weapons?
I think a seriously unstable person like Saddam would not be someone to count on.
Are you sure he was unstable? Simply because he was sadistic and power mad doesn't necessarily make him unstable.
So there's an interesting story out today about how the army found a bunch of planes buried in the sand in Iraq. Some of them even seemed brand new, yet it wasn't clear that they were still operable after having been buried. What's more though is just the idea that Saddam had this entire air force and didn't use it. I suppose that would support th WMD argument a bit in that it lends precedence to Saddam having hidden weapons that he never bothered tio use when he actually needed them. Maybe he was unstable. Maybe he cared more about his palaces in his old age and his military was just for show? I don't know, this whole thing is getting weird.
Or maybe cutting his communications links was one of the smarter things that we did.
Or maybe cutting his communications links was one of the smarter things that we did.
While I'm sure it has definite strategic value, I don't think that's it. It's not like we launched a sneak attack and caught him unprepared. It was obvious for quite some time that war was likely, and then imminent. There was plenty of time before the communication was cut to take some action. Don't you think if your country is about to be invaded, that maybe, just maybe, that might be a good time to go pull some of these things out of storage and get ready to use them? Something weird is going on here.
Something weird is going on here.
Happens everytime a liberal opens its mouth.
Thank you for your insightful commentary jethro.
Thank you for your insightful commentary jethro.
You are quite welcome. It really is an art form!!!!
Did you observe the masses taking the bike trails to work this morning Rick?
Don't you think if your country is about to be invaded, that maybe, just maybe, that might be a good time to go pull some of these things out of storage and get ready to use them?
Not if there was people all over condemming the president and I did not wish to give the president ammunition to use against me. Also, the previous administration used to talk tough and then lob a few missile into the desert, no big deal or reason to pull stuff out of hiding.
I believe that he was hoping this would all blow over and he would still have all those things he isn't suppose to have.
Something weird is going on here.
That's what I said when they found all those gas masks for the Iraqis to use or when there was troops guarding a supposed fertilizer plant in the middle of a desert country.
Not if there was people all over condemming the president and I did not wish to give the president ammunition to use against me.
No, that still doesn't make sense. You don't let your country get invaded as a political ploy. If the U.S. takes over Iraq, that's pretty much the end of Saddam's life as he knew it. You don't make plans for anything past that point. If there is someone thinking in those kinds of terms, it wasn't Saddam. Perhaps Saddam was really a puppet of someone else, left to rule by terror, live in his palaces, and play with his toys. Maybe he didn't dig out those planes because someone else decided to sacrifice their pawn. Maybe he never showed evidence of the WMD having been eliminated because someone else didn't want him to. Maybe the WMD's had left Iraq for elsewhere long ago and thus they will neither turn up, nor will evidence of their destruction.
If you get a chance you should check the picture of the funeral of Uday, Quesay and Mustafa in today's New York Times. Didn't think anything of them in life. Now that they're dead, we don't need to think of them at all.
The military allowed as many members of the Clan of Hussein as could be crammed into 50 cars to attend the burial. I don't know how mighty they looked at one time, but they are a woebegone looking group now. Standing here and there on earth baked hard with heat looking over a couple graves. Iraqi flags held over the caskets with a few rocks.
But they were defiant to the end.
I don't know if there is anything in the Koran equivalent to "what goes around, comes around" but the prophets and the kalifs didn't do them any favors if they left that lesson out.
Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
And that my friends, is why there is war in Iraq.
Ingenious, J.T., the way you brought us full circle back to the subject of the thread! Impeccable logic, as always. :^)
LOL
I think Bill Fold posted his post in the wrong thread on accident.
And don't forget OIL :^)
Still, oil is what makes the world economy go 'round, so it's not such a bad motive, in my opinion.
Did someone mention oil?
Whom are you speaking about ?
Geez Bill, So he's doing it because of religion but then only if a camera is around ? Which is it ? Right it's all about oil and he's a sociopathic madman. Did you have Dennis over for BBQ recently by any chance ?
"I hope the recall fails miserably, and if so, then I BET that within 1 month, a new bill will come before their legislature BANNING these senseless and wasteful recalls." - Bill Fold
Taking away the right of the people to remove an elected official...hmmm...Sounds like a popular democrat idea to me!
Common Sense Conservative 8/9/03 2:32pm
I beleive it would take an amendment to the CA constitution. I think the recall right is in their constitution, but I may be mistaken.
"Taking away the right of the people to remove an elected official...hmmm...Sounds like a popular democrat idea to me! "
Gearing up the rabble to throw out an elected official in a petulant power grab...sounds like a popular Republican idea to me!
If the people have the right to vote him in, shouldn't they also be allowed a means to remove him if he stinks? It's not about a power grab. It is a recall vote, you vote to keep him or not to keep him. If enough people think he should go, he goes. Then a vote of who we want instead comes into play.
The voters of CA want Davis out, not just Republicans.
Maybe we'll know who wanted Davis out of office when we see who ends up in power.
Maybe we'll know who wanted Davis out of office when we see who ends up in power.
It will be Arnold, and he had nothing to do with the recall.
I don't think Schwarzenegger is going to win.
As fold said, if CA is so totally screwed up, what difference does it make who is elected?
They talked on the news last night of laying off teachers, police, fire, social workers...etc. The cutting of programs across the board and higher "fees".
Well, isn't that what the other states with large deficits had to do? Why is CA any different?
In California, they have more "direct-democracy" than any other state, with their "Recall" and "Propositional" rights. THAT, coupled with this Congressman's ruthless and corrupt recall effort, are the two main reasons why California is so totally screwed-up.
What is corrupt in follwing the process set out by law? California is screwed up because they have way to many liberals running things. It happens EVERY TIME!
Not like that old bag, hypocrite Feinstein.
Former Human Shield Faces Thousands in Fines
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,94366,00.html
In her response to the charges, she wrote the government that "if it comes to fines or imprisonment, "please be aware that I will not contribute money to the United States government to continue the buildup of its arsenal of weapons." Since she won't pay, she said, "perhaps the alternative should be considered."
Her travel to Iraq violated U.S. sanctions that prohibited American citizens from engaging in "virtually all direct or indirect commercial, financial or trade transactions with Iraq."
Personally I think this charge is incredibly bogus and it typifies how the Bush administration has been trying to restrict the freedom of Americans where such freedoms might be in opposition to Bush's agenda. What was her great crime? She went to Iraq and bought food and emergency supplies while she was there.
She was consorting with the enemy.
Allison Wonderland 8/11/03 1:17pm
So you think it's ok to break the law when it suits your agenda/biases?
Sometimes it is, yes. But this isn't a clear cut case of breaking the law. They're not accusing her of consorting with the enemy. They're not accusing her of visiting a country when the law said she couldn't (there was no such law apparently). Instead they're stretching another law imposing economic sanctions to try and apply in this case. It's one thing if you're doing business with them. It's silly though to say that if you visit a country, and you buy food while you're there, that you're violating economic sanctions. Clearly such a charge has political motivations behind it. Clearly the intent is to intimidate and send the message not to oppose Bush or this could happen to you too.
The sanctions were in place a decade ago. Why are you blameing GW Allison?
Not a clear cut case? Nothing is clear cut when the liberals spin it.
If it's proper in your mind to break a law to fit your agenda, then be prepared to pay the price.
They're not accusing her of consorting with the enemy.
They should. There'd be no reason to be a human shield, if she wasn't consorting with the enemy.
It's silly though to say that if you visit a country, and you buy food while you're there, that you're violating economic sanctions.
They've been doing that with Cuba for decades.
"Also, "Impeachment" and "Regular Elections" are the ways in which most of the rest of us remove elected-officials, but not in CA. And since Republicans came away from the Clinton Impeachment FAILURE, with so much EGG on their faces, this is the way they are now trying to GRAB POWER, in CA" - Bill Fold
Bill, just for accuracy, Clinton WAS impeached. The impeachment and removal from office are two different things.
Not a clear cut case? Nothing is clear cut when the liberals spin it.
Very little is clear to liberals since they do not have or reject moral imperatives.
Clearly such a charge has political motivations behind it.
I'm also wondering why the government is pursuing this woman. She's already made herself look like an idiot with that Human Shield bit. If she didn't harm anyone, she should be left alone.
Well Muskwa, if I run a stop sign at 3 a.m. and get caught, should I be left alone because I didn't harm anyone?
No, I would expect to pay a price as should she.
But it wouldn't make sense for them to charge you with attempted murder either.
if she had just worked for Halliburton, this wouldn't be an issue.
She's being fined becasue she broke the law. Under sanctions a US citizen had to get authorization to travel to Iraq.
Also to those who claim there was no harm done their certainly could have been. Let's say Uncle Saddamn wanted to place her at a power plant as he was doing and wanted to do with other shields. Let's say your mission calls for taking that power plant out for a mission. If she's there your mission changes or at least how you can go about it. Nobody is going to authorize a mission blowing up that plant knowing she's inside, it would be a p.r nightmare. Now you endanger your own troops lives in doing so and compromise the mission. What she saw as helping the Iraqi's was not only could have gotten her and our own troops killed but also gives Saddamn P.R, that is something that can't be overlooked either and is more valuable than you think. He was in controll of the people and therefore her movements as well. In fact he kicked many out when they wouldn't allow themselves to be posistioned in treatment plants etc.
What did some of the "human shields" say upon their return ?
Too bad some here can't figure that out.
He continues.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31710
Apparently it's too complicated for others to figure out as well.
Just too complicated for liberals.