response 25 of 119:

Jun 28 12:18 UTC 2003

Hmmm for someone who doesn't respond to ad hominem points you did pretty good
I also don't agree that all of your points are "easily dismantled".
You haven't been "taken apart" just corrected on your method.
Some of your arguements are quite sound. Here's a url to help you expose them
better:
http://debate.uvm.edu/
Enjoy sabre..Don't intimidate and don't be intimidated.

response 27 of 119:

Jun 28 13:53 UTC 2003

Hey Scott

                                    ||   ||
                                    |\___/|
                                    |     |
                                    |     |
                                    |     |
                                    |     |
                                    |     |
                                    |     |
                               _____|<--->|_____
                              /     |     |     \
                         /    |     |     |     | \
                         |    |     |     |     |  |
                         |    |     |     |     |  |
                         |                      |  |
                         |                      |  |
                         |                        /
                         |                       /
                          \                    /
                           \                  /
                            |                 |
                            |                 |

response 29 of 119:

Jun 28 14:39 UTC 2003

Re: #27  Thanks.  You've save me 
the time of trying to figure out 
if you're worth reading.

response 31 of 119:

Jun 28 16:25 UTC 2003

Spare me.

response 33 of 119:

Jun 28 17:11 UTC 2003

Time for sabre to put up proof, or shut up.

This ain't Fox News, and you aren't Bill O'Reilly, kid.  We're not the sort
of lame "liberal" actors he hires as punching bags.

response 35 of 119:

Jun 28 17:45 UTC 2003

Heh.  Guess I found somebody's sensitive spot, eh?

Let me clue sabre in on a bit of truth.  Ever notice how O'Reilly always has
the loudest mike and the brighest lighting?  Propaganda - and yes, they always
hire weaklings to debate him, just like Rush will never debate anybody outside
the tightly controlled confines of his own show.

Perhaps in a couple decades then the history has been written you'll
understand, although I'll admit it's still possible to find people who will
swear that Nixon was never a criminal either.

response 37 of 119:

Jun 28 19:21 UTC 2003

        Hrm, I was going to start by addressing any responses sabre had to my
points, but I don't see any.  So let's address his statements.

 If we didn't attackk Iraq Saddam would still be in power and sponsering
terrorism.

        Outside of a few payments to the families of suicide bombers, Saddam
really didn't sponsor that much terrorism to begin with.  But this is another
straw man argument;  nobody's saying that a peaceful and mature process
doesn't take more time than sending in the troops immediately.  The question
isn't which one is faster, but which one is better.

You're a hypocrite for saying you were
 glad when Afghan was freed..yet you oppose action in Iraq because it wasn't
 saction by the UN.

        It's entirely possible to think that a war was badly handled but that
the outcome had some good points, or that a war was well handled but the
outcome had bad points.  It's not all "just good" or "just bad".  The
eminently sensible resolution of World War II, for instance, had several
negative repurcussions on the American economy.  

response 39 of 119:

Jun 28 22:03 UTC 2003

This is a really long post.

In December 1983, Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the CEO of pharmaceutical 
giant Searle, paid a visit to Saddam Hussein. This was on behalf of the 
US govt. Apparently he was trying to help Betchel secure an oil 
pipeline contract

In 1980, President Reagen took Iraq off the list of terrorist nations.

In March 1984 the United Nations had a team of experts go to Iran who 
came back and reported on March 28th that indeed Iraq had used chemical 
weapons on Iranians. Around the same time, Rumsfeld was still making 
trips to Iraq. 

Post-1984 the US saw major oil deals go to the French, Russians and 
Chinese.

"While Iraq is not unique in possessing these weapons, it is the only 
country which has used them - not just against its enemies, but its own 
people as well. We must assume that Saddam is prepared to use them 
again. This poses a danger to our friends, our allies, and to our 
nation. Saddam is more wily, brutal and conspiratorial than any likely 
conspiracy the U.S. might mobilize against him. Saddam must be 
overpowered." - Donald Rumsfeld, Robert McFarland, Judge William 
Clark, "Open Letter to the President," Feb. 19, 1998"

So attacking Iraq isn't a post-9/11 policy. The plan was already laid. 
Clinton refused to consider it. Bush did. 

Snippets from:
http://www.arachnia.com/adc'images/livejournal/Behind%20the%20Invasion%
20of%20Iraq.doc

The US administration provided  crop-spraying  helicopters (to be used 
for chemical attacks in 1988), let Dow Chemicals ship it chemicals for 
use on humans, seconded its air force officers to work with their Iraqi 
counterparts (from 1986), approved technological exports to Iraq s 
missile procurement agency to extend the missiles  range (1988). In 
October 1987 and April 1988 US forces themselves attacked Iranian ships 
and oil platforms.

Militarily, the US not only provided to Iraq satellite data and 
information about Iranian military movements, but, as former US Defence 
Intelligence Agency (DIA) officers have recently revealed to the New 
York Times (18/8/02), prepared detailed battle planning for Iraqi 
forces in this period even as Iraq drew worldwide public condemnation 
for its repeated use of chemical weapons against Iran. According to a 
senior DIA official,  if Iraq had gone down it would have had a 
catastrophic effect on Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and the whole region 
might have gone down [ie, slipped from US control Aspects]  that was 
the backdrop of the policy. 

 As part of the Anfal campaign against the Kurds (February to September 
1988), the Iraqi regime used chemical weapons extensively against its 
own civilian population. Between 50,000 and 186,000 Kurds were killed 
in these attacks, over 1,200 Kurdish villages were destroyed, and 
300,000 Kurds were displaced.... The Anfal campaign was carried out 
with the acquiescence of the West. Rather than condemn the massacres of 
Kurds, the US escalated its support for Iraq. It joined in Iraq s 
attacks on Iranian facilities, blowing up two Iranian oil rigs and 
destroying an Iranian frigate a month after the Halabja attack. Within 
two months, senior US officials were encouraging corporate coordination 
through an Iraqi state-sponsored forum. The US administration opposed, 
and eventually blocked, a US Senate bill that cut off loans to Iraq. 
The US approved exports to Iraq of items with dual civilian and 
military use at double the rate in the aftermath of Halabja as it did 
before 1988. Iraqi written guarantees about civilian use were accepted 
by the US commerce department, which did not request licenses and 
reviews (as it did for many other countries). The Bush Administration 
approved $695,000 worth of advanced data transmission devices the day 
before Iraq invaded Kuwait.  ( The dishonest case for war on Iraq  by 
Alan Simpson, MP, and Dr Glen Rangwala, Labour Against the War Counter-
Dossier, 17/9/02)

The full extent of US complicity in Iraq s  weapons of mass 
destruction  programmes became clear in December 2002, when Iraq 
submitted an 11,800 page report on these programmes to the UN Security 
Council. The US insisted on examining the report before anyone else, 
even before the weapons inspectors, and promptly insisted on removing 
8,000 pages from it before allowing the non-permanent members of the 
Security Council to look at it. 

The US was the sole country to vote against a 1986 Security Council 
statement condemning Iraq s use of mustard gas against Iranian troops.

More interesting stuff at:
http://www.guerrillanews.com/war_on_terrorism/doc1510.html

I am not saying that you hang on to every word in those documents but 
read it with an open mind and argue with yourself.

The above are not my opinions. They are copied and pasted here from 
research done by other people.

However, having been in the gulf for sometime now, I do have a few 
opinions. 

First it was interesting to see France, Germany and Russia oppose the 
US. Why?? Bcoz the US had already made its position very clear. Either 
Saddam surrenders or they would invade Iraq. Now this meant one thing, 
that having publicly said this, there was no way US could back down 
now. Doing so would be humiliation not only for US govt but the Bush 
administration too. So the french, germans and russians knew that the 
attack was coming and their opposition wouldn't matter. So what did 
they achieve by opposing the US is still an interesting question to me. 
Making the US look bad might win a few brownie points with Arabs but 
that won't count when their local populations go to vote in their 
respective national elections.

To the arab on the street the US is evil. And its not bcoz the arabs 
envy americans or disapprove of the lifestyle of the west. The 
propoganda that the arabs want the entire world to chant allah is 
hogwash. Any expat in the gulf would tell you that. Its just a bunch of 
fundamentalists who get the media's attention and create the 
impression. 

The hatred is bcoz, one the US is seen as the bully behind Israel and 
two, the US is seen supporting unpopular governments in the region that 
suppress people. 

There is no denying that Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator and he was 
EVIL. But having said that, the intentions of the US government aren't 
what they had been stated to at the beginning of the war. Hans Blix has 
publicly discredited US/UK claims about WMDs in Iraq. British 
government's report on WMD was sourced from an outdated report by a 
student???!!!! 

As for helping the Iraqis. After the war, the little food and medicine 
the Iraqis used to get under Saddam is also not available now. While 
the US was very swift in awarding a contract to Halliburton for 
rebuilding oil wells , no such swiftness has been shown in restoring 
food supplies and medicines to the people. The case of Halliburton 
itself is shrouded with controversy.

After the war, one ministry was singled out by the coalition for 
protection. It was the Ministry for Oil. The rest were left for looters 
to ransack.

As for the US/UK armies, their governments cheered them a lot while the 
war was on. But now they seem to have been deserted by the lack of a 
proper handover plan. The promised rebuilding isn't happening and the 
local population is getting restless. So whom do they shoot? The troops 
are left in Iraq facing the bullets of various guerilla groups bcoz 
there governments no longer care what happens to Iraq. Well, except for 
the oil. Regions like Basra, that were strongly anti-Saddam, have 
witnessed brutal attacks on British forces after the war. Wonder why?? 
The army is supposed to fight an enemy force. Making it do the job of  
civic administration in the face of local unrest is dangerous.

What am I trying to point out??

The politicians hatched a plan for their interest only, fed the people 
with lies and inaccurate reports and have now abandoned the people of 
Iraq, their own armies and their own people (by lying to them).


 

response 41 of 119:

Jun 29 05:01 UTC 2003

From various media reports:

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Condoleezza Rice was a Chevron Director from 1991 until January 15, 
2001 when she was transferred by President George Bush Jr. to National 
Security Adviser. Previously she was Senior Director, Soviet Affairs, 
National Security Council, and Special Assistant to President George 
Bush Sr. from 1989 to 1991. 

Another Chevron Corporation giant in the Bush administration is Vice 
President Dick Cheney. Vice President Cheney was Chairman and Chief 
Executive of Dallas based Halliburton Corporation, the world s largest 
oil field services company with multi-billion dollar contracts with 
oil corporations including Chevron. Lawrence Eagleburger, a seasoned 
Bush counselor who held top State Department posts under George Bush 
Sr., is a director of Halliburton Corporation. 

Halliburton's global network of investments includes projects in 
politically volatile areas including the Caspian Sea region. Dick 
Cheney was instrumental in negotiating a Caspian Sea pipeline for 
Chevron. The crude oil pipeline is a 900-mile project stretching from 
western Kazakhstan to the Black Sea that will primarily benefit 
Chevron by connecting the Tengiz oil field to the Black Sea port of 
Novorossiysk in Russia. Chevron, the largest oil company member of the 
Caspian Pipeline Consortium, holds a 55 percent ownership interest 
with the Republic of Kazakhstan in Tengizchevroil. The 40-year, $20 
billion joint-venture company was formed in 1993 to develop the Tengiz 
field. Tengiz is one of the world s largest oil fields with 6 to 9 
billion barrels of recoverable oil.

Also, there are allegations that the Bush Administration declared war 
in Afghanistan, not necessarily to combat terrorism, but to make it 
possible for U.S. oil interests to construct gas and oil pipelines 
from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan to Pakistani harbors on the 
Indian Ocean. The first phase, now accomplish, was to install a 
friendly "puppet" regime in Kabul.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Back in 1986 Bush's oil company, Spectrum, was teetering on the brink 
of bankruptcy. As tends to happen in the Bush clan, a group of 
businessmen close to his father absorbed Spectrum into their company, 
Harken Energy. George W. Bush was facing bankruptcy one day and the 
next day he had $600,000 worth of Harken stock in hand, a $80,000-a-
year salary and a stock option arrangement that allowed him to buy 
Harken stock at 40% below market value. In all, the deal put well over 
$1 million in his pocket over the next few years -- even though Harken 
itself lost millions. 

Bush also borrowed $180,375 from the company - a loan that was 
later "forgiven." (In 1989 and 1990 alone - according to the company's 
Securities and Exchange Commission filing - Harken's board "forgave" 
$341,000 in loans to its executives.)

Harken also owed more than $150 million to banks and other creditors. 
But, Harken wasn't producing anything - unless of course you count the 
rich flow of fees, stock options, and salaries for its top executives, 
including George W. Bush. 

Harken also owed more than $150 million to banks and other creditors. 
But, Harken wasn't producing anything - unless of course you count the 
rich flow of fees, stock options, and salaries for its top executives, 
including George W. Bush. 

It was spring 1990 and Iraq was threatening Kuwait thereby also 
threatening Harken Energy's only pending contract, a drilling project 
in Bahrain. And, Harken's Smith Barney financial advisors had just 
delivered a hand wringing report voicing alarm at the company's 
rapidly deteriorating financial condition and mounting debts. The 
company established a restructuring board to which Bush was appointed. 
But, the only restructuring Bush did involved his own finances.

In June 1990 Bush pulled a Skilling. Claiming ignorance of the 
Harken's financial difficulties or the Smith Barney report, he sold 
his 212,140 shares of Harken Energy banking $848,560.00. 

Even though the sale fell squarely under the SEC's insider stock sale 
rule requiring almost immediate formal notice, Bush did not report the 
sale until seven months later - after US troops had finished fighting 
Desert Storm. At the time the SEC was headed by George H. Bush 
appointee, Richard Breeden and no action was taken against the 
President's son for his tardiness in reporting his insider trades.

Of course, reporting such a sale at the time it occurred could have 
been both revealing and embarrassing. Bush sold his Harken stock less 
than thirty days after his father's National Security Advisor, Brent 
Scowcroft sent the President a secret memo warning that hostilities 
between Iraq and Kuwait were likely. Did dad share this information 
with his son? If so, W. Bush traded on "non-public" information of an 
extraordinary nature indeed.

Less than two months after Bush sold his shares hostilities broke out 
in Gulf and Harken's stock dropped like a stone. The shares lost 25% 
of their value alone on the day Iraq invaded Kuwait. Had Bush held his 
shares until then he would have lost nearly a quarter of million 
dollars. Harken's stock fell to as low as .25 a share. Today it trades 
under a dollar.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gp
o.gov/2003/03-13412.htm

I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find 
that the threat of attachment or other judicial process against the 
Development Fund for Iraq, Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and 
interests therein, and proceeds, obligations, or any financial 
instruments of any nature whatsoever arising from or related to the 
sale or marketing thereof, and interests therein, obstructs the 
orderly reconstruction of Iraq, the restoration and maintenance of 
peace and security in the country, and the development of political, 
administrative, and economic institutions in Iraq. This situation 
constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national 
security and foreign policy of the United States and I hereby declare 
a national emergency to deal with that threat.
I hereby order:

Section 1. Unless licensed or otherwise authorized pursuant to this 
order, any attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, 
or other judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and 
void, with respect to the following:

(a) the Development Fund for Iraq, and

(b) all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products [...]
-------------------------------------
The executive order is cleverly worded to make it seem as though all 
Iraqi oil revenues are going into the Development Fund for Iraq. But 
that's not what it says. (a) and (b) are independent above. If any oil 
company goes in to pump Iraqi oil, no organization can sue to have the 
revenues go to a just cause. The executive order says that oil 
companies may pump Iraqi oil without fear of lawsuits.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Enough oil for a day!!!!

response 43 of 119:

Jun 30 01:50 UTC 2003

Thinking about America's military invasions since Vietnam, it seem to me
that being an evil dictator, practicing genocide, bankrolling & arming
terrorists, developing nukes, etc. are okay with America.  Sure, you may
get some flack, and preferential trade status is more iffy (unless you 
know who to pay off in Washington), but America really doesn't mind such 
things.

There is, however, one thing that America won't forgive - persisting with
defiance (vs. bow/scrape/boot-lick) when Washington's in a macho mood.
Try that strategy, and you'd better be really ready (vs. in-your-dreams
ready) to inflict "utterly unacceptable losses" when they unleash the
Pentagon to show you who's really Alpha Thug on this planet.

As far as i can see, our invasion of Iraq fits this pattern perfectly.
Sure, Washington made lots of nice noises about evil, WMD's, wanting to
fix Iraq, etc.  But out in the actions-speak-louder-than-words real
world, there's almost nothing to back it up.  They fantasized that it'd
be "and all the liberated good Iraqi's made a nice democratic goverment,
took over all the hard/boring/expensive details that aren't macho to
think about, and gave us a giant going-away victory parade a month later", 
while ignoring or canning folks with real knowledge and experience who
told 'em that "hell won't turn into paradise just 'cause you chased off 
the current top devil & his lieutenents - it'll take huge quantities of 
troops, time, and money to even get it up to purgatory status".  The
historically-tiny modern military force they sent in was plenty big to
show Saddam & his followers who's really the Top Thug, but it clearly
was far too small or couldn't be bothered (per priorities & orders from
the top) with grabbing & guarding any number of targets that would have
been awesomely valuable if they Washington actually gave a crap about
finding WMD, rounding up Saddam's hard-core loyalists, etc. - sites like
Ba'ath Party HQ, military & weapons production HQ, and key nuclear &
biological facilities were ignored as resistance collapsed.  Did looters
smash & steal computers full of Party membership lists, while Saddam's
bodyguard carted off the nuclear blueprints & where-the-plutonium-is
buried-in-the-desert maps, and Osama's sleeper cell wheeled away the
freezer full of smallpox, ebola, & anthrax "starters"?  No one really
knows, and no one can find out now, because Washington didn't really
care about anything beyond playing macho. 

response 45 of 119:

Jul 2 15:22 UTC 2003

        We're not dealing with incorrigable children here, we're dealing with
nations.  The analogy is pretty weak.  America doesn't send other nations to
college, and doesn't beam with parental pride at their accomplishments.

        It's interesting that you note that Saddam used gas on the Iranians.
Because we provided chemical weapons and funding for chemical weapons programs
to Saddam and his regime in the eighties, and downplayed the fact that they
used chemical weapons on Iran and on Khurdish nationalists (well, and any
villagers who happened to get in the way), because the Saddam was one of the
"good guys".

        Furthermore, I'm not "piss[ing] and moan[ing]", I'm pointing out that
our actions are not motivated by abstract notions of keeping nations from
acquiring dangerous weapons and keeping the world safe, but by simple
political self-interest.  I'm also pointing out that our government, and
England's, has chosen to represent their actions as being motivated by
abstract notions.  Unfortunately, some people have believed the line. 
However, I've provided ample evidence, none of which you have refuted, though
you have thrown in some dandy rhetoric.

response 47 of 119:

Jul 2 19:02 UTC 2003

Yeah, well, the other difference is that N. Korea actually *has* "such
weapons".  

response 49 of 119:

Jul 2 20:40 UTC 2003

I didn't compare to Saddam to a baby. I compared him to a child. he has acted
as such with with tantrums and lies.If you want to discuss conspiracy let's
discuss his.You also haven't responded to some of my points without apparent
appeal to your comrades here. Your premise to this whole discussion is that
we will not find WMDs in Iraq and that is an assumption that is too early to
make. You are also jumping the gun in your retort about NK's WMD's. The very
fact that they DO have nuclear warheads should preclude caution.We cannot risk
such weapons being used against Japan or the South in a revenge attack. Also
your response in NK not responding to diplomacy isn't entirely true. There
economic position will force them to the table very soon. We aren't sitting
on our butts and just waiting for this to happen. We are hosting three way
talks with SK and Japan discussing just what action to take.
http://famulus.msnbc.com/FamulusIntl/reuters07-02-091930.asp?reg=PACRIM
Even if the North's WMD status is a bluff they still have enough conventional
artillary aimed at SK's capitol to level it within hours.This inspires
caution.North Korea is ready to deal Bush just doesn't like thier terms.We
have already held talks with them in China and couldn't reach an
agreement.They simply want a non-agression pact with us.We however disagree
on the timing of such an agreement.I believe as Bush does that diplomatic and
economic pressure will result in NK's compliance. If it doesn't then will will
have to decide if we want to risk a NUCLEAR war or not.It's your position on
NK that defies logic. You are usuing it as analogy to Iraq and that is
comparing apples to oranges. That, for the record, is a rhetorical tool also.
Now the above link does say that the talks are just to compare views and they
don't think any earth shattering decissions to be made. That is due to simply
the nature of what a war with NK would involve. Think about THAT for a minute.