Full Version: Is America Really a Bully?
QUOTE
I'm sorry, but trying to pretend that we want a war with Iraq for the good of their people is a malicious lie. But somehow I do think you sincerely believe it's true, if only because you can say this with a straight face:
I'm not pretending anything. I believe Saddam needs to be removed for good of the whole world. I believe Bush feels this way too.
No politics, no undercurrents, no rhetoric, just good versus evil.
QUOTE
Yes, dropping bombs on their families is so much better than living with Saddam as they have been doing for 20 years. I've seen pictures of those people and their homes and kids and lifestyles and it's obvious they are better off than some of the other Arab states we aren't trying to help from oppression.
We are not going over there with the intent to kill Iraqi citizens. The intent is to take out Saddams oppressive regime, and hopefully install a working democracy for the people.
I think we should try to help the other arabs out too. Saddam is too dangerous to be left alone though. He comes first.
QUOTE
They are still freezing to death and living in refugee camps, the women still oppressed, the Taliban still being elected to posts in nearby Pakistan, Al Quaeda and Bin Laden are still recruiting and living in the area, the drug lords are back to controlling the land, the government we put in and are supposed to be helping succeed are constant targets of assassination attempts, it's still the number one export of opium. And don't even try to say the women are so much better off because things are regressing and many are back to wearing the burhkas and needing escorts.
We are doing our best to change the conditions in Afganistan.
We have many troop units there and many are engineer units building up the country.
We have teams there fixing the damage and leftovers from our own bombs. What other nation does those things?
QUOTE
Today I'm announcing, along with the Secretary of State, that America will contribute an additional $320 million in humanitarian assistance for Afghans for more food, more medicine, to help the innocent people of Afghanistan deal with the coming winter. This is our way of saying that while we firmly and strongly oppose the Taliban regime, we are friends of the Afghan people. - President Bush, Oct '02
There is absolutely nothing we can do about the opium farming. They need the money and they are not going to get it planting corn. The burkas and the other repressive muslim rules will change as the FREE society becomes more exposed to the world.
Great change doesnt happen overnight.
QUOTE
How long until we can afford to patrol our borders and ports? Five years? Ten? How can we afford this missile defense system that is being rushed in by 2004 and costing trillions of dollars when missiles are not our problem at the moment. Please tell me how having that unproven piece of fluff in place is going to stop the next Al Quada attack when that is the least likely method they will use? They use regular bombs, cars, planes, vans, and their bodies and can take out thousands of people in a matter of hours. No nuclear or missile defense protects us from that.
ICBM's are also a problem. The Al Quaeda terrorists are not our only enemies. There are several regimes with madmen behind the trigger.
To be down right honest, we the people dont really know what this program consists of. I'm reading lots of anti-missile defense editorials and comments. Its called a "crash job", "unproven technology", "uncertain risk" and we dont know if it is or is not.
I believe that it is not so. The feds, using common sense, would not give out its true capabilities. I think that there are enough people involved to keep it legitimate (oversight comittees etc). If there is a system that works, i'm pretty sure thats the one they will try to set up.
I can not see it being very useful in anything other than all out war, or an accident. Then again this issue is for another debate. It think you are right, more needs to be done to protect us from terrorists killing people here in the USA.
QUOTE
BTW, you might want to let Korea know they are supposed to be shaking in their boots right now...because it looks to me like they are actually taunting Bush with their actions. In Germany and South Korea leaders have been elected on Anti-American platforms. More elections like that are sure to follow because the only ones we have failed to *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** off yet are the Saudi's and Isreal. We are in some pretty sad company. (But at least Tony Blair is with us even though his people aren't)
Yeah those NK spokespeople are pretty cocky for some reason. Just wondering, but which actions are Bush taunts?
(Well acually the Saudi people hate us deeply, the Royal Family is just pro-west because we buy their oil.) All the anti-american sentiment was brewing long before Bush was elected. Our president has decided not to take any crap, and now its all been brought to the forefront.
I believe Bush feels this way too.
No politics, no undercurrents, no rhetoric, just good versus evil.
I contend that there is nothing good about a president or a dictator that encourages war and conflict.There is nothing good about a president or dictator that attacks another country without being attacked first. Saddam has not attacked us nor threatened to. That is why Afgahnistan was necessary and acceptable and this is not. We are lowering ourselves to the same behavior we despise in rogue nations.
We are not going over there with the intent to kill Iraqi citizens.
When we decide to drop bombs in cities like Bahgdad we do it knowing that we will be killing citizens of all ages. If that is not our purpose than we need to find another option because that will be the result.
Saddam is too dangerous to be left alone though. He comes first.
No one is proposing he be left alone. Our continued no fly zone and sanctions and lack of proof that he is planning to do us harm make him less dangerous than Korea, Al Queada, or the Saudies. And I feel that above all Al Queada and Bin Laden should come first. We have not accomplished what we started.
There is absolutely nothing we can do about the opium farming. They need the money and they are not going to get it planting corn. Does this mean our war on drugs is finally over? Maybe we can start opium farms here to help feed the poor and get people off of welfare if that's our policy.
This is what bothers me...our values and supposed morals are picked up and thrown aside at whim. We have no integrity in any of the things we are so arrogantly preach and force on other countries.
Drugs are not ok in Guatamala and Costa Rica or anywhere else despite massive poverty but we're going to help them out and let them continue their farms and selling their drugs to countries like ours because they need money. Did all of our border patrol, DEA agents, and police that have died in the last 20 years fighting this ridiculous, bloody drug war do it so that our lazy *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** could allow opium to flow into our country so they can have an export? Subjective values, I'm so proud.
No politics, no undercurrents, no rhetoric, just good versus evil.
I contend that there is nothing good about a president or a dictator that encourages war and conflict.There is nothing good about a president or dictator that attacks another country without being attacked first. Saddam has not attacked us nor threatened to. That is why Afgahnistan was necessary and acceptable and this is not. We are lowering ourselves to the same behavior we despise in rogue nations.
We are not going over there with the intent to kill Iraqi citizens.
When we decide to drop bombs in cities like Bahgdad we do it knowing that we will be killing citizens of all ages. If that is not our purpose than we need to find another option because that will be the result.
Saddam is too dangerous to be left alone though. He comes first.
No one is proposing he be left alone. Our continued no fly zone and sanctions and lack of proof that he is planning to do us harm make him less dangerous than Korea, Al Queada, or the Saudies. And I feel that above all Al Queada and Bin Laden should come first. We have not accomplished what we started.
There is absolutely nothing we can do about the opium farming. They need the money and they are not going to get it planting corn. Does this mean our war on drugs is finally over? Maybe we can start opium farms here to help feed the poor and get people off of welfare if that's our policy.
This is what bothers me...our values and supposed morals are picked up and thrown aside at whim. We have no integrity in any of the things we are so arrogantly preach and force on other countries.
Drugs are not ok in Guatamala and Costa Rica or anywhere else despite massive poverty but we're going to help them out and let them continue their farms and selling their drugs to countries like ours because they need money. Did all of our border patrol, DEA agents, and police that have died in the last 20 years fighting this ridiculous, bloody drug war do it so that our lazy *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** could allow opium to flow into our country so they can have an export? Subjective values, I'm so proud.
I contend that there is nothing good about a president or a dictator that encourages war and conflict
I agree here. This is not the case with Bush/Iraq, he is looking at all the options.
When we decide to drop bombs in cities like Bahgdad we do it knowing that we will be killing citizens of all ages. If that is not our purpose than we need to find another option because that will be the result.
Killing innocent people is not the intent. We are not going to be bombing population centers. Military targets and installations are the ones that will be shot at.
The no fly zones dont keep him from building nukes. lack of proof that he is planning to do us harm make him less dangerous Having no proof of WMD's would be political suicide. Logically though, Saddam has had no reason to destroy his weapons programs.
Al-Queada is still enemy number one, followed by Iraq and NK. Bush is still rounding up the Al-Queada operatives, it just takes time.
I'm sorry if i came off as though i was advocating opium farms. I believe they should be treated the same way in Afganistan. I just cant see how we can change that situation. My values are not at all subjective here, i'm just at a loss for an intelligent solution. (The second sentance was a lame stab at humor -corn is worthless-)
This is what bothers me...our values and supposed morals are picked up and thrown aside at whim. We have no integrity in any of the things we are so arrogantly preach and force on other countries.
This bothers me as well. I'm not exactly sure what you are refering to here
More later, i'm being forced to go to bed....
Travis
I agree here. This is not the case with Bush/Iraq, he is looking at all the options.
When we decide to drop bombs in cities like Bahgdad we do it knowing that we will be killing citizens of all ages. If that is not our purpose than we need to find another option because that will be the result.
Killing innocent people is not the intent. We are not going to be bombing population centers. Military targets and installations are the ones that will be shot at.
QUOTE
No one is proposing he be left alone. Our continued no fly zone and sanctions and lack of proof that he is planning to do us harm make him less dangerous than Korea, Al Queada, or the Saudies. And I feel that above all Al Queada and Bin Laden should come first. We have not accomplished what we started.
The no fly zones dont keep him from building nukes. lack of proof that he is planning to do us harm make him less dangerous Having no proof of WMD's would be political suicide. Logically though, Saddam has had no reason to destroy his weapons programs.
Al-Queada is still enemy number one, followed by Iraq and NK. Bush is still rounding up the Al-Queada operatives, it just takes time.
QUOTE
Does this mean our war on drugs is finally over? Maybe we can start opium farms here to help feed the poor and get people off of welfare if that's our policy.
This is what bothers me...our values and supposed morals are picked up and thrown aside at whim. We have no integrity in any of the things we are so arrogantly preach and force on other countries.
Drugs are not ok in Guatamala and Costa Rica or anywhere else despite massive poverty but we're going to help them out and let them continue their farms and selling their drugs to countries like ours because they need money. Did all of our border patrol, DEA agents, and police that have died in the last 20 years fighting this ridiculous, bloody drug war do it so that our lazy *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** could allow opium to flow into our country so they can have an export? Subjective values, I'm so proud.
This is what bothers me...our values and supposed morals are picked up and thrown aside at whim. We have no integrity in any of the things we are so arrogantly preach and force on other countries.
Drugs are not ok in Guatamala and Costa Rica or anywhere else despite massive poverty but we're going to help them out and let them continue their farms and selling their drugs to countries like ours because they need money. Did all of our border patrol, DEA agents, and police that have died in the last 20 years fighting this ridiculous, bloody drug war do it so that our lazy *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** could allow opium to flow into our country so they can have an export? Subjective values, I'm so proud.
I'm sorry if i came off as though i was advocating opium farms. I believe they should be treated the same way in Afganistan. I just cant see how we can change that situation. My values are not at all subjective here, i'm just at a loss for an intelligent solution. (The second sentance was a lame stab at humor -corn is worthless-)
This is what bothers me...our values and supposed morals are picked up and thrown aside at whim. We have no integrity in any of the things we are so arrogantly preach and force on other countries.
This bothers me as well. I'm not exactly sure what you are refering to here
More later, i'm being forced to go to bed....
Travis
Well, I've heard a story that does lead credence to the fact that Bush may actually have the proof...and why he doesn't want to release it. According to what I've read but have not been able to verify to the extent that I would call it proof is this:
Information that was in Iraq's submitted report that we grabbed and read and edited and passed out to the U.N. Security counsil on Dec 7 or 8th was said to include the info below, which would make sense seeing how the U.S. took immediate control of report...
Eighty German firms and 24 US companies are reported to have supplied Iraq with equipment and know-how for its weapons programmes from 1975 onwards and in some cases support for Baghdad's conventional arms programme had continued until last year.
U.S. corporations involved...
A - nuclear K - chemical B - biological R - rockets
(missiles)
1) Honeywell (R,K)
2) Spektra Physics (K)
3) Semetex ®
4) TI Coating (A,K)
5) UNISYS (A,K)
6) Sperry Corp. (R,K)
7) Tektronix (R,A)
8) Rockwell )(K)
9) Leybold Vacuum Systems (A)
10) Finnigan-MAT-US (A)
11) Hewlett Packard (A.R,K)
12) Dupont (A)
13) Eastman Kodak ®
14) American Type Culture Collection (
15) Alcolac International ©
16) Consarc (A)
17) Carl Zeis -U.Ss (K)
18) Cerberus (LTD) (A)
19) Electronic Assiciates ®
20) International Computer Systems
21) Bechtel (K)
22) EZ Logic Data Systems,Inc. ®
23) Canberra Industries Inc. (A)
24) Axel Electronics Inc. (A)
Additionally to these 24 companies based in the US, are nearly 50
subsidiaries of foreign enterprises whose arms co-operation with Iraq seems to have been operated from the US. In addition, Ministries for defense, energy, trade, and agriculture, as well as the foremost U.S. nuclear weapons laboratories at Lawrence Livermore. Los Alamos, and Sandia, are designated as suppliers for the Iraqi arms programs for A, B, and C-weapons as well as for rockets.
Those are some pretty big names here in the U.S. and I don't know if this story is accurate. But I think it's worth looking into.
Information that was in Iraq's submitted report that we grabbed and read and edited and passed out to the U.N. Security counsil on Dec 7 or 8th was said to include the info below, which would make sense seeing how the U.S. took immediate control of report...
Eighty German firms and 24 US companies are reported to have supplied Iraq with equipment and know-how for its weapons programmes from 1975 onwards and in some cases support for Baghdad's conventional arms programme had continued until last year.
U.S. corporations involved...
A - nuclear K - chemical B - biological R - rockets
(missiles)
1) Honeywell (R,K)
2) Spektra Physics (K)
3) Semetex ®
4) TI Coating (A,K)
5) UNISYS (A,K)
6) Sperry Corp. (R,K)
7) Tektronix (R,A)
8) Rockwell )(K)
9) Leybold Vacuum Systems (A)
10) Finnigan-MAT-US (A)
11) Hewlett Packard (A.R,K)
12) Dupont (A)
13) Eastman Kodak ®
14) American Type Culture Collection (
15) Alcolac International ©
16) Consarc (A)
17) Carl Zeis -U.Ss (K)
18) Cerberus (LTD) (A)
19) Electronic Assiciates ®
20) International Computer Systems
21) Bechtel (K)
22) EZ Logic Data Systems,Inc. ®
23) Canberra Industries Inc. (A)
24) Axel Electronics Inc. (A)
Additionally to these 24 companies based in the US, are nearly 50
subsidiaries of foreign enterprises whose arms co-operation with Iraq seems to have been operated from the US. In addition, Ministries for defense, energy, trade, and agriculture, as well as the foremost U.S. nuclear weapons laboratories at Lawrence Livermore. Los Alamos, and Sandia, are designated as suppliers for the Iraqi arms programs for A, B, and C-weapons as well as for rockets.
Those are some pretty big names here in the U.S. and I don't know if this story is accurate. But I think it's worth looking into.
Fascinating, Danya; thanks for the research. Do you recall the source of that information?
I'm almost sorry I didn't see this coming. Seems obvious US companies would have been doing this in retrospect.
I'm almost sorry I didn't see this coming. Seems obvious US companies would have been doing this in retrospect.
Interesting, i would like to see the source as well.
Someone said it came from a 12/20/02 news report By Tony Paterson of The Independent (UK) The article was supposed to be Leaked Report Says German and US Firms Supplied Arms to Saddam.
I started to look for it but quit before I found it which is why I said I wasn't able to verify. If you find it I would like the link too.
I started to look for it but quit before I found it which is why I said I wasn't able to verify. If you find it I would like the link too.
Lets look at a hypothetical situation. What if these US/German companies are involved? What are the legal consequences of this? There is going to be political heck to pay for breaking the embargo. This would really complicate the already tangled mess.
I doubt US defense contractors are in bed with Saddam, but i wont rule it out.
I'm wondering about how this info could have gotten out. The report was circulated only by the higher ups and analysts of the big five.
Speculation....
Travis
I doubt US defense contractors are in bed with Saddam, but i wont rule it out.
I'm wondering about how this info could have gotten out. The report was circulated only by the higher ups and analysts of the big five.
Speculation....
Travis
Well, I've been wondering all along how they would get through the sanctions and I guess that was a good question. If they got through it's because the government knew all along and let it happen. Now that the money has been made let's go in and attack since we know they have the stuff, we gave it to them so there is no way to deny it. Let's just hope no one wants to know HOW we know or hope that the weapons are found somehow so we don't have to tell how we know. 
Oh yeah, and how many companies on the list would make even more from government contracts during wartime. Money from Iraq and then more money from tax payers. Woot. 
Hmmm....interesting point you brought up. IF these companies are involved with Saddam, its important to know when they started this and which officials closed their eyes.
I read somewhere that Clinton sold weapons technology to the Chinese, i think, and i know for a fact that he sold fighter jets and missiles to Egypt. Maybe Iraq and/or others were given some goodies under the table as well.
Bush and the rest of us are still sorting this foreign policy mess...
I read somewhere that Clinton sold weapons technology to the Chinese, i think, and i know for a fact that he sold fighter jets and missiles to Egypt. Maybe Iraq and/or others were given some goodies under the table as well.
Bush and the rest of us are still sorting this foreign policy mess...
Right. And Bush just rehired all of those Iran Contra criminals that sold arms during the Reagan days to what? Help figure out what Clinton was up to?
QUOTE
Right. And Bush just rehired all of those Iran Contra criminals that sold arms during the Reagan days to what? Help figure out what Clinton was up to?
Hah ha
, should have known you would bring up Poindexter....he hasnt rehired any crimminals just some officials that have been in high posts and done excellent jobs, for how many years(Since the Iran/Contra)?Also, we know what Clinton was up to when he wasnt selling us out...
QUOTE
Oh yeah, and how many companies on the list would make even more from government contracts during wartime. Money from Iraq and then more money from tax payers. Woot.
A lot of them would. To me they are highly suspect as well. Corprate conspiracy? Ah...the wild, wild world of capitalism. The almighty dollar seems to have beat morals again.
Time will tell. We will just have to wait and see what comes of this.
I still stand by the moral justification of a war with Iraq. I think i know what you are trying to imply here though. A Bush/Corprate conspiracy to profit off the deaths of Iraqi/American soldiers. NO Way! (To be honest, bush is no businessman, correct me if i'm wrong, but didnt he run his oil business into the ground?) I believe, that Bush has retained his moral and ethical perspective into his presidency. I understand you believe him to be a warmonger, but please also understand the reasoning. This not a oil grab or corporate conspiracy. It is a question of liberty and freedom for the oppressed, it is a question of the safety of Americans in the near future.
Travis
Actually I just think it's morally repugnant no matter who allowed it to happen that we would now go in point fingers at him as if we're the innocent ones.
And Poindexter isn't the only Iran/Contra guy in this admin. We shouldn't be surprised Iraq has weapons with all of the dealers we have working in the Whitehouse. I'm not saying Bush Sr. or Clinton are innocent. I'm just saying that knowing as little as we do how can anyone support an attack? The guy has NEVER threatened us.
And Poindexter isn't the only Iran/Contra guy in this admin. We shouldn't be surprised Iraq has weapons with all of the dealers we have working in the Whitehouse. I'm not saying Bush Sr. or Clinton are innocent. I'm just saying that knowing as little as we do how can anyone support an attack? The guy has NEVER threatened us.
. And Bush just rehired all of those Iran Contra criminals that sold arms during the Reagan days to what?
And Poindexter isn't the only Iran/Contra guy in this admin.
It would be a long debate on Iran/Contra and North/Poindexter/etc's ability to run a important government post. Hows and whys...
Here are the Official Iran/Contra documents and court junk. www.fas.org
Good reading.
They sure were not innocent.
I support an attack on Saddam. He is a threat to the international community, he is a threat to the Iraqi citizens, he is a threat to the kurds, he is a threat to the Shiites, he is a threat to the Iranians, he is a threat to the Kuwaitis, he is a threat to the Israelis, he is a threat to the international oil market, he will be a threat to the USA in the near future.
I hate war Danya, i really do. Can you give a reasonable alternative? It has progressed too far. WMD's are ok in reasonable hands, unlike NK, Saddam has the intent to use them on another nation. Israel or secondly the USA.
Aside from WMD's he runs a terrible despotic regime oppressing a lot of people. Heck, have you ever heard the fella speak? (translated lol) He has been pretty nasty toward the west.
Does he have to directly threaten us or attack us to get a reaction? Would we have attacked the Al-Quada if we had known about 9/11?
This wait Clintonian wait until a few more embassys are blown up, then maybe do something, is not cutting it.
He has the intent, he has or will have the means. When should we not do something?
Travis
"Dont tell me about the law. The law is anything I write on a scrap of paper."
-Saddam Hussein
And Poindexter isn't the only Iran/Contra guy in this admin.
It would be a long debate on Iran/Contra and North/Poindexter/etc's ability to run a important government post. Hows and whys...
Here are the Official Iran/Contra documents and court junk. www.fas.org
Good reading.
QUOTE
Actually I just think it's morally repugnant no matter who allowed it to happen that we would now go in point fingers at him as if we're the innocent ones.
And Poindexter isn't the only Iran/Contra guy in this admin. We shouldn't be surprised Iraq has weapons with all of the dealers we have working in the Whitehouse. I'm not saying Bush Sr. or Clinton are innocent. I'm just saying that knowing as little as we do how can anyone support an attack? The guy has NEVER threatened us.
And Poindexter isn't the only Iran/Contra guy in this admin. We shouldn't be surprised Iraq has weapons with all of the dealers we have working in the Whitehouse. I'm not saying Bush Sr. or Clinton are innocent. I'm just saying that knowing as little as we do how can anyone support an attack? The guy has NEVER threatened us.
They sure were not innocent.
I support an attack on Saddam. He is a threat to the international community, he is a threat to the Iraqi citizens, he is a threat to the kurds, he is a threat to the Shiites, he is a threat to the Iranians, he is a threat to the Kuwaitis, he is a threat to the Israelis, he is a threat to the international oil market, he will be a threat to the USA in the near future.
I hate war Danya, i really do. Can you give a reasonable alternative? It has progressed too far. WMD's are ok in reasonable hands, unlike NK, Saddam has the intent to use them on another nation. Israel or secondly the USA.
Aside from WMD's he runs a terrible despotic regime oppressing a lot of people. Heck, have you ever heard the fella speak? (translated lol) He has been pretty nasty toward the west.
Does he have to directly threaten us or attack us to get a reaction? Would we have attacked the Al-Quada if we had known about 9/11?
This wait Clintonian wait until a few more embassys are blown up, then maybe do something, is not cutting it.
He has the intent, he has or will have the means. When should we not do something?
Travis
"Dont tell me about the law. The law is anything I write on a scrap of paper."
-Saddam Hussein
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.