Make Love Not War

Originally posted by max401
"Heck, if we hadn't been messing things up for decades we wouldn't have half the intl problems we're facing now.

List 10 "things" the US has been "messing up."

"As for Saddam, that's just a smoke screen if ever there was one, and we're gonna be walking down that crazy path all alone."

For the oil? So we defeat Baghdad, what do you expect the US to do under this oil theory? Occupy the country and simply steal all the production and ship it directly home? It would have been easier to just take over Kuwait in '91.
More...

No, a smoke screen to detract from the huge economic problems we have at home, a smoke screen to detract from the fact that ole Junior additionally just wants some revenge for the humiliations Saddam targeted at the Bush family after he ceased being our protegé.

Nobody else, apart from Bushs poodle Blair who'd jump over any hurdle just to please, sees any need to go after Saddam, that's just total propaganda BS.

As for our messing things up for ages, well, starting with the lies that led to Vietnam, the fact that we built up Saddam and supplied him with BC weapons, the fact that we built up Bin Laden, supported the Taliban, the fact that we are again supporting an unelected military dictator in Pakistan who has ABC weapons, is the leader of a country that is a true breeding ground for terrorism, where indeed even the state is involved in terrorism vs the Kashmir region, etc etc.

Actually, resinate is also correct, and it's also been widely reported in the media, Saddam indicated his intentions to invade Kuweit pretty clearly to the then US ambassador in Iraq, and the response led him to believe that there would not be any consequences.

Another first class instance of first rate bungling and incompetence, that later led to the very costly war and the recession.

Again, no other country is stupid enough to believe Washingtons propaganda apart from Poodle Blair, and we'll be going down this road alone, and be paying the price ourselves.

And all for nothing.

Bryan Roberts posted a pretty good link in another thread:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29035


315.jpg


Uncle oSAMa Says:
I Want YOU To Invade Iraq


Go ahead. Send me a new generation of recruits. Your bombs will fuel their hatred of America and their desire for revenge. Americans won’t be safe anywhere. Please, attack Iraq. Distract yourself from fighting Al Qaeda. Divide the international community. Go ahead. Destabilize the region. Maybe Pakistan will fall -- we want its nuclear weapons. Give Saddam a reason to strike first. He might draw Israel into a fight. Perfect!

http://www.tompaine.com/op_ads/opad.cfm/ID/6438
 
We never look at the cost of going to WAR......

On last nights O'reilly Factor there was an interview with retired Army Colonel David Hackworth that stated that our munitions in the Gulf War was the ...biggest friendly fire episode in the history of war.....Over 10,000 of our Gulf War Veterans have died and over 150,000 are sick from the uranium exposure which littered the battle field from our own munitions....yes our own......

Is it worth it I ask???? please think before answering.....

if this is true and it can happen again......is it worth it???
 
Originally posted by max401


Just post some documentation for this as well as your bizarre theory that Saddam "asked permission of the US before invading Kuwait . . ."
More...

Max,

See Josh_B's post above about the US ambassador telling Saddam that the US would not intervene in a war between Iraq and Kuwait.

Are you asking for proof of the weekly bombings or Iraqi deaths? The bombings have been reported in the back pages of newspapers regularly. See the quote and article below for more details on civilian deaths.

"...What has transpired in Iraq amounts to a children's holocaust. According to a Harvard study conduced in 1991, in the first eight months of that year 47,000 excess children deaths took place. In 1996, UNICEF put a number on the children dying as a result of the United Nations sanctions regime; it found that 4,500 children were dying every month from preventable hunger and disease. Garfield, in a study of mortality among Iraqi children, found that between 1991 and 1998 at least 100,000 -- but more likely 227,000 excess deaths -- took place, of which three quarters resulted from the consequences of United Nations sanctions. In a 1999 report, requested by the UN Security Council, it was found that in "marked contrast to the prevailing situation prior to the events of 1990-1991, infant mortality rates in Iraq today are among the highest in the world, low infant birth weight [of less than 2.5kg] affects at least 23 per cent of all births." The arrested growth of children has become widespread; with the UN secretary general noting, in 1997, that chronic malnutrition has resulted in 31 per cent of children having had their growth stunted, and 26 per cent being underweight. Kofi Annan concluded his report by stating: "one- third of children under five years of age ... are malnourished."

The overall effect of sanctions has been, according to Richard Garfield: "the only instance of a sustained, large increase in mortality in a stable population of more than 2 million in the last 200 years." This should come as little surprise as a UN Development Programme field report stated that "the country has experienced a shift from relative affluence to massive poverty." The International Committee of the Red Cross, which has had people on the ground throughout the 1990s, reported in 2000 that "daily life for ordinary Iraqis was a struggle for survival. The tragic effects of the embargo were seen in the steady deterioration of the health system and the breakdown of public infrastructure. Despite the increase in availability of food, medicines and medical equipment, following a rise in oil prices and the extension of the 'oil-for-food' programme, suffering remains widespread...

Of the items which had been given the green light, less than 50 per cent have made it to Iraq. As Abbas Alnasrawi, an economy professor at the University of Vermont, has noted, of "the $20.8 billion appropriated to all of Iraq, only $8.4 billion-worth of goods for all sectors of the economy had arrived in Iraq by the end of July 2000." Compounding the misery is the fact that once items make their way to Iraq, it is not guaranteed that they will be distributed in a timely fashion. A 1999 UN Report noted that nearly half of medical supplies which had been imported to Iraq "remained in warehouses and had not been distributed to local clinics and hospitals," in part, because Iraq has not been able to rebuild the infrastructures required to distribute these items.

The effects of the UN sanctions on Iraq have been of such a magnitude that they have prompted -- not once, but twice -- the resignation of the highest-ranking UN official dealing with Iraq. The first of those two individuals, Denis Halliday, who was the United Nations assistant secretary-general and humanitarian coordinator in Iraq, would characterise, in 1999, the sanctions as "genocide." Although Halliday noted that "with or without original intent, the impact of economic sanctions constituted genocide. Whether it is de jure or de facto genocide, the semantics are irrelevant." ....

The United Nations Security Council has been aware, for more than a decade, of the effects of its sanctions regime on Iraq. And though it has attempted to mitigate the suffering of Iraqis through its "oil-for-food" programme, it has been made clear by studies carried out by the UN itself that these modifications have not reversed the humanitarian catastrophe which has beset Iraq. When the definition of extermination is considered, that is: "intentional infliction of conditions of life ... calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population" it is clear that after more than ten years of sanctions, which have killed anywhere from hundreds of thousands to nearly two million people, that the United Nations is involved in a campaign of, what can be considered, in legal terms, as "extermination;" which in turn constitutes a crime against humanity..."

from: article by Jean Allain
 
Great links Tiger0.

I love the Uncle Osama comic. It reminds me of the evil Brezinski's who was so delighted that covert US support of the future bin Ladens in Afghanistan led to a Soviet invasion which greatly weakened the USSR over the next 10 years.

Its a wise foreshadowing. All empires go broke sooner or later.
 
"Gulf War Veterans have died and over 150,000 are sick from the uranium exposure which littered the battle field from our own munitions"

This is false and completely ridiculous.
You can handle this stuff with your bare hands or carry a chunk of it around in your pocket for days and it won't hurt you. Its radioactivity is very low level. Even its counterpart, enriched uranium, the fuel used in nuclear reactors, can be handled with bare hands without any danger. It's only after it has been in the reactor that it becomes dangerous. The only danger from depleted uranium would be if you had it on your person for months you might recieve enough radiation to give you cancer in 20 or 30 years. There is no way that 150,000 veterans are sick from it. This is pure propoganda. The fact is that uranium is very dense, a lot denser than lead, so it makes an excellent and effective penetrating projectile. If we were to quit using it it would eliminate one of our most effective and feared anti-tank weapons, the A10, an airplane that we have many hundreds of whose main weapon is a rotating high fire-rate cannon. Without the mass of the uranium in the projectiles the cannon would become useless and ineffective against armored vehicles. The bad guys would sure like that. The danger from depleted uranium is so low as to be negligable. 150,000 Gulf war soldiers sick? Give me a break.
 
Originally posted by resinate


"...What has transpired in Iraq amounts to a children's holocaust. According to a Harvard study conduced in 1991, in the first eight months of that year 47,000 excess children deaths . . . etc., etc.
More...


The fallacy with this line of thinking is that it ignores who the real culprit is. Iraq wants the sanctions lifted to save its civilian population from suffering, what's the solution? Who has the power to effect this? Saddam.

How you can blame the UN or the West or the US fails any test of logic. You seem to be saying, let Saddam keep is WMD stockpile and his threat against mankind because the children of Iraq are dying. And that's just what Saddam intends, the sacrifice of his own people to get bleeding heart liberals to react as you do.
 
still not one viable solution from any of you.

You are either part of the solution or you are part of the problem, and none of you has a solution or is supporting the solution of the U.S. government.

Candletrader, if you think all these horrible things about america, you tell me one country that is better than america, and then please go there and don't come back.

TigerO --"the fact that we built up Bin Laden, supported the Taliban"

lol, ok TigerO, you are a LIAR. There, how do you like it ? Telling people that we supported Bin Laden and the Taliban is pretty damn low and ignorant. Lean some history or shut your mouth.
 
Originally posted by Rigel
"Gulf War Veterans have died and over 150,000 are sick from the uranium exposure which littered the battle field from our own munitions"

This is false and completely ridiculous.
You can handle this stuff with your bare hands or carry a chunk of it around in your pocket for days and it won't hurt you. Its radioactivity is very low level. The only danger from it would be if you had it on your person for weeks you might recieve enough radiation to give you cancer in 20 years. There is no way that 150,000 veterans are sick from it. This is pure propoganda. The fact is that uranium is very dense, a lot denser than lead, so it makes an excellent and effective penetrating projectile. If we were to quit using it it would eliminate one of our most effective and feared anti-tank weapons, the A10, an airplane that we have many hundreds of whose main weapon is a rotating high fire-rate cannon. Without the mass of the uranium in the projectiles the cannon would become useless and ineffective against armored vehicles. The bad guys would sure like that. The danger from depleted uranium is so low as to almost be negligable. 150,000 Gulf war soldiers sick? Give me a break.
More...


According to Retired Army Colonel David Hackworth...you are incorrect.....He was On The Factor last night and stated these facts.......If you want to take it up with him by all means do so...he has done extensive studies and published a book....why dont you show us some reasearch that proves him wrong...

I have no idea if it is true or not or if it is propoganda; but if it is in fact true...I would like to see u go and fight...it is easy to send some kids to fight our wars while we sit back and blow smoke up our asses......show me the proof...
 
"Go ahead. Send me a new generation of recruits. Your bombs will fuel their hatred of America and their desire for revenge. Americans won’t be safe anywhere. Please, attack Iraq. Distract yourself from fighting Al Qaeda. Divide the international community. Go ahead. Destabilize the region. Maybe Pakistan will fall -- we want its nuclear weapons. Give Saddam a reason to strike first. He might draw Israel into a fight. Perfect!"

I can't tell you how stupid you look parading this fiction about as if it was a banner for a viable cause. It's not. This is the same line of crap that the left whined about prior to the liberation of Kuwait, the Afghan invasion and hell, I would imagine Hastings and every other conflict since man walked the earth.

The perfect counter to this ridiculous propaganda piece is an article by Ann Coulter:

"WHY WE HATE THEM Thu Sep 26,10:02 PM ET By Ann Coulter

I've been too busy fretting about "why they hate us" to follow the Democrats' latest objections to the war on terrorism. So it was nice to have Al Gore lay out their full traitorous case this week. To show we really mean business, Gore said we should not get sidetracked by a madman developing weapons of mass destruction who longs for our annihilation.

Rather, Gore thinks the U.S. military should spend the next 20 years sifting through rubble in Tora Bora until they produce Osama bin Laden's DNA. "I do not believe that we should allow ourselves to be distracted from this urgent task," he said, "simply because it is proving to be more difficult and lengthy than predicted."

Al Bore wants to put the war on terrorism in a lockbox.

Gore also complained that Bush has made the "rest of the world" angry at us. Boo hoo hoo. He said foreigners are not worried about "what the terrorist networks are going to do, but about what we're going to do."

Good. They should be worried. They hate us? We hate them. Americans don't want to make Islamic fanatics love us. We want to make them die. There's nothing like horrendous physical pain to quell angry fanatics. So sorry they're angry -- wait until they see American anger. Japanese kamikaze pilots hated us once too. A couple of well-aimed nuclear weapons, and now they are gentle little lambs. That got their attention.

Stewing over the "profound and troubling change in the attitude of the German electorate toward the United States," Gore ruefully noted that the German-American relationship is in "a dire crisis." Alas, the Germans hate us.

That's not all. According to Gore, the British hate us, too. Gore said Prime Minister Tony Blair is getting into "what they describe as serious trouble with the British electorate" because of his alliance with the U.S. ("Serious trouble" is British for "serious trouble.")

That same night, James Carville -- the heart and soul of the Democratic Party -- read from the identical talking points on "Crossfire": "The Koreans hate us. Now the Germans -- you know that's one against Germany. You know what? You know what? If we had a foreign policy that tried to get people to like us, as opposed to irritating everybody in the damn world, it would be a lot better thing." (Hillary Clinton on James Carville: "Great human being.")

Perhaps we could get Djibouti to like us if we legalized clitorectomies for little girls. America is fighting for its survival and the Democrats are obsessing over why barbarians hate us.

The Democrats' scrolling series of objections to the war is utterly contradictory. On one hand, liberals say Bush is trying to build an "empire." But on the other hand, they are cross that we haven't turned Afghanistan into the 51st state yet. This follows their earlier argument that Afghanistan would be another Vietnam "quagmire."

The "empire" argument is wildly popular among the anti-American set. Maureen Dowd said Dick Cheney and "Rummy" were seeking "the perks of empire," hoping to install "lemon fizzes, cribbage and cricket by the Tower of Babel." She warned that invading Iraq would make them hate us: "How long can it be before the empire strikes back?"

Ah yes -- we must mollify angry fanatics who seek our destruction because otherwise they might get mad and seek our destruction.

Gore, too, says America will only create more enemies if "what we represent to the world is an empire." But then he complained that we have "abandoned almost all of Afghanistan" -- rather than colonizing it, evidently. He seems to think it is our responsibility to "stabilize the nation of Afghanistan" and recommends that we "assemble a peacekeeping force large enough to pacify the countryside."

And then we bring in the lemon fizzes, cribbage and cricket?

After tiring themselves out all summer yapping about how Bush can't invade Iraq without first consulting Congress, now the Democrats are huffy that they might actually have to vote. On "Meet the Press" a few weeks ago, Sen. Hillary Clinton objected to having to vote on a war resolution before the November elections, saying, "I don't know that we want to put it in a political context."

Yes, it would be outrageous for politicians to have to inform the voters how they stand on important national security issues before an election.

Minority Whip Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said the Democrats would not have enough information to make an informed decision on Iraq -- until January. The war will have to take a back seat to urgent issues like prescription drugs and classroom size until then. The Democratic Party simply cannot rouse itself to battle.

Instead of obsessing over why angry primitives hate Americans, a more fruitful area for Democrats to examine might be why Americans are beginning to hate Democrats."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top