Log in

View Full Version : BUSH EXPOSED! Plotted Aggression Against Iraq



redstar2000
12th January 2004, 16:02
Bush 'plotted Iraq war from start'

A top official sacked from the US Government has accused President Bush of planning for an invasion of Iraq within days of coming to office.

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said Mr Bush was looking for an excuse to oust Saddam Hussein.

Mr O'Neill gives an unflattering account of Mr Bush's leadership style, saying that at cabinet meetings the president was like a blind man in a room full of deaf people.

Officials were looking into post-war contingencies such as peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals and the future of Iraq's oil, according to the documents.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/3387941.stm

Gather around, all ye pathetic patriots, and eat this here big bucket of shit.

It came straight from your emperor.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

Intifada
12th January 2004, 16:05
i heard about this today, great stuff! :D

Danton
12th January 2004, 16:16
Will they try and write off this O'Neil guy - like Dr Kelly as another "Walter Mitty" charachter? What "differences with the administration"? Surely some kind of dirt fabricated or otherwise will soon emerge to completley discredit him... Still it's good to see someone from within biting the hand that feeds...

Sabocat
12th January 2004, 16:22
I watched 60 Minutes last night and they interviewed O'Niel. He said Bu$h in meetings, behaved like a blind man talking to a deaf group. LOL

The book that O'Neil gave the material and interview for, "The Price of Loyalty" looks pretty interesting. It's written by a Wall Street guy (Suskind).

Here's the transcript from 60 Minutes.

(CBS) A year ago, Paul O'Neill was fired from his job as George Bush's Treasury Secretary for disagreeing too many times with the president's policy on tax cuts.

Now, O'Neill - who is known for speaking his mind - talks for the first time about his two years inside the Bush administration. His story is the centerpiece of a new book being published this week about the way the Bush White House is run.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/...ain592330.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml)

Intifada
12th January 2004, 16:24
the president was like a blind man in a room full of deaf people.

that is an insult to blind and deaf people

redfront
12th January 2004, 16:25
Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 05:02 PM
Bush 'plotted Iraq war from start'

A top official sacked from the US Government has accused President Bush of planning for an invasion of Iraq within days of coming to office.

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said Mr Bush was looking for an excuse to oust Saddam Hussein.

Mr O'Neill gives an unflattering account of Mr Bush's leadership style, saying that at cabinet meetings the president was like a blind man in a room full of deaf people.

Officials were looking into post-war contingencies such as peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals and the future of Iraq's oil, according to the documents.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/3387941.stm

Gather around, all ye pathetic patriots, and eat this here big bucket of shit.

It came straight from your emperor.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
Yeah, i heard about that. It's something about bush having a ''Iraq after Saddam plan'' before he even got into the chair of power in U$A

Al Creed
12th January 2004, 16:30
I loved the part where O'Niel discusses how Donald Rumsfeld told him it was "not in his best interests" to publish this book, because of the information it provides.

On top of that, I read that Mr. Rumsfeld persuaded Time Magazine to give the "Person of the Year" title to The US Soldier. To me, this reeks of propaganda, to create the illusion the Administration values the troops they send over to die, so Rich People can get richer.

Goddam, Donald is a regular Joesph Goebbels, isn't he?

Vinny Rafarino
12th January 2004, 16:58
I can't hear the capitalists defend themselves....There seem to be too many crickets chirping....What! Speak up kiddies! I can't hear you!

canikickit
12th January 2004, 17:10
Paul O'Neill is obviously jealous of Bush's freedoms. It's the most logical conclusion.

Al Creed
12th January 2004, 17:23
Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 12 2004, 12:58 PM
I can't hear the capitalists defend themselves....There seem to be too many crickets chirping....What! Speak up kiddies! I can't hear you!
Good point...C'MON GUYS! Your Fearless Leader and his Washington Mob are down for the count! A Pict? Sam Adams? el profe? ANYONE?

I know, the TRUTH a scary thing, isn't it?

The Feral Underclass
12th January 2004, 17:27
It dosnt suprise me in the slightest. Him and his father probably masterminded the whole presidency just to get their revenge on saddam. These bastards are bastards nothing they do suprises me.

Hoppe
12th January 2004, 17:32
Why should I defend myself? I have never supported this war on the arguments given by the Bush administration.

Your point of view is just as pathetic. "We don&#39;t care if Saddam kills his own people, as long as these stinking imperialistic capitalists stay out of the country". It&#39;s extremely sad if you need to show your moral superioritity in this way. <_<

Intifada
12th January 2004, 18:02
Your point of view is just as pathetic. "We don&#39;t care if Saddam kills his own people, as long as these stinking imperialistic capitalists stay out of the country". It&#39;s extremely sad if you need to show your moral superioritity in this way.

yeah, so lets help the people of iraq by dropping more bombs on them&#33; then, we can occupy them and give them a taste of american "freedom".

Al Creed
12th January 2004, 18:05
American Freedom Tastes Like Pepsi (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3377213.stm)

Of course, Saddam was a tyrannt, there&#39;s no denying it, but you have to remember, He did have friends in High Places (http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html)

(*
12th January 2004, 19:35
Did you see that clip they showed on 60 minutes? Where Bush nailed o&#39;neil....LOL that was pretty funny.

Crypticchronoclasm
12th January 2004, 19:43
Of course, Saddam was a tyrannt, there&#39;s no denying it, but you have to remember, He did have friends in High Places

HAHA loved it

Anarchist Freedom
12th January 2004, 20:00
ahahahahha take that BU&#036;H&#33;


:che:

Intifada
12th January 2004, 20:07
i didnt find it funny, i found it sad :(

Indysocialist
12th January 2004, 20:12
The Whitehouse had already released a statement against O&#39;neill claiming he "thrived on conflict" or some such non sense. I don&#39;t know about the guy, on the one hand it&#39;s good to see someone inside finally come to their senses, on the other hand it seems like someone who got fired having a tantrum.

Either way, I&#39;ll still be reading the book.

lucid
12th January 2004, 20:16
Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 05:02 PM
Bush &#39;plotted Iraq war from start&#39;

A top official sacked from the US Government has accused President Bush of planning for an invasion of Iraq within days of coming to office.

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O&#39;Neill said Mr Bush was looking for an excuse to oust Saddam Hussein.

Mr O&#39;Neill gives an unflattering account of Mr Bush&#39;s leadership style, saying that at cabinet meetings the president was like a blind man in a room full of deaf people.

Officials were looking into post-war contingencies such as peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals and the future of Iraq&#39;s oil, according to the documents.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/3387941.stm

Gather around, all ye pathetic patriots, and eat this here big bucket of shit.

It came straight from your emperor.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
-
Ok so someone that was fired by the Bush administration is talking bad about him. Oh gawd. It must be time for a revolution :rolleyes:

And whats the big deal about Bush making the decision to oust Saddam within days of entering office? Is there a certain length of time that the president must be in office before making decissions? If so what is it.
Saddam was a Brutal dictator that was making a mockery of the UN, USA, and all of the other freedom seeking countries. And don&#39;t give me this shit about Bush misleading the citizens of the US. None of us know all the facts about Saddam. What we do know is that he was a ruthless terrorist supporting POS that had used WMD on his own people. Why don&#39;t you take off your red blinders and understand that the people of Iraq, If they take the innetiative, will come out better than they were. Damn Saddam sympothizers are almost as bad to the Iraqy people as Saddam himself.

STI
12th January 2004, 20:27
"And whats the big deal about Bush making the decision to oust Saddam within days of entering office? Is there a certain length of time that the president must be in office before making decissions?"

Well, if he DID decide to do go to war right away, he lied to the public about his reasons for going to war (namely, intellegence reports regarding WMD in Iraq), which makes the war wrong. It&#39;s not rocket surgury.

And it&#39;s "Iraqi", not "Iraqy"

Gawd, time for a revolution.

(*
12th January 2004, 20:49
Lucid,

You start by saying this...

None of us know all the facts about Saddam


But then go on to make these claims....


What we do know is that he was a ruthless terrorist supporting POS
that had used WMD on his own people.

lucid
12th January 2004, 20:53
Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 09:27 PM
"And whats the big deal about Bush making the decision to oust Saddam within days of entering office? Is there a certain length of time that the president must be in office before making decissions?"

Well, if he DID decide to do go to war right away, he lied to the public about his reasons for going to war (namely, intellegence reports regarding WMD in Iraq), which makes the war wrong. It&#39;s not rocket surgury.

And it&#39;s "Iraqi", not "Iraqy"

Gawd, time for a revolution.
First off. Thanks for the spelling lesson. Its appreciated =]

Second, I don&#39;t remember Bush ever saying that the only reason he was going to war was because of weapons of mass destruction. I remember reading about many reasons that Bush wanted to oust Saddam.

Here is a snippet of his speech from 10-7-03:


The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime&#39;s own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq&#39;s eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

So in order for the Gulf War to end Saddam agreed to destroy his WMD, cease the development of WMD, and stop supporting terrorist groups. To me that means that the war isn&#39;t over until he complies. Which he didn&#39;t. So this is the same war from before.

So posession of WMD wasn&#39;t the only reason Bush wanted War. He also said he wanted the dictator to stop development of WMD and quit supporting terrorist groups. Let me ask you this. Do you believe that Saddam has used WMD in the past? If yes, would you conclude that in order to use WMD he would have to have possed the weapons? Why didn&#39;t he open his arms to the weapon inspectors? Why did he play the cat and mouse game for 11 years? Why did we see satelite pictures of convoys of trucks leaving through the back gates of military compounds while UN vans waited in front for entry? If we would have waited until we were attacked by WMD that could be tracked back to Saddam would you be ok with the war? I am starting to believe that you would be against Bush and the US under any circumstanses.

How can someone debate a person that obviously is filled with blind hate towards the US.

STI
12th January 2004, 21:00
Well, we couldn&#39;t prove Saddam&#39;s connection to Terrorist groups, so we tried to prove the existence of WMD, which we couldn&#39;t do. Trucks leave places all the time, it does&#39;t mean we get to bomb the crap out of Baghdad. No WMD have yet to be found for a reason (namely, they don&#39;t exist). Really. Even the former leader (i don&#39;t know the exact titles) of the weapons inspectors throughout the 90s has written a book about how Bush&#39;s claims are horsecrap. Is HE a lying, liberal commie fag vegan art- teacher too?

And it has NOTHING to do with &#39;blind hate&#39; toward the US. That&#39;s nothing but an argumentum ad hominem. There&#39;s nothing solid there, it&#39;s just a defence used by those who can&#39;t defend their positions.

lucid
12th January 2004, 21:09
Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 10:00 PM
Well, we couldn&#39;t prove Saddam&#39;s connection to Terrorist groups, so we tried to prove the existence of WMD, which we couldn&#39;t do. Trucks leave places all the time, it does&#39;t mean we get to bomb the crap out of Baghdad. No WMD have yet to be found for a reason (namely, they don&#39;t exist). Really. Even the former leader (i don&#39;t know the exact titles) of the weapons inspectors throughout the 90s has written a book about how Bush&#39;s claims are horsecrap. Is HE a lying, liberal commie fag vegan art- teacher too?

And it has NOTHING to do with &#39;blind hate&#39; toward the US. That&#39;s nothing but an argumentum ad hominem. There&#39;s nothing solid there, it&#39;s just a defence used by those who can&#39;t defend their positions.
-
Well there are reports that WMD were found over the weekend. Nothing solid though. I seem to remember reading about several Al Queda members being caught in Iraq. And if Saddam did destroy all of his WMD why didn&#39;t he offer proof? Why did he beat around the bush (No pun intended :D ) and act like a guilty asshole. It&#39;s not like you can just send WMD out with the trash or flush everything down the toilet. Saddam pulls the &#39;we destroyed them. Just trust us.&#39; and people are suprised that the US doesn&#39;t believe him.

It comes down to the self responsibility thing again. Saddam acted like a deceitful pos and got bent over for it. We are talking about the leader of a country that is capable of making WMD. You can&#39;t just sit around and wait for these fucktards to strike first.

lucid
12th January 2004, 21:11
Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 10:00 PM
Even the former leader (i don&#39;t know the exact titles) of the weapons inspectors throughout the 90s has written a book about how Bush&#39;s claims are horsecrap.
You do know that Bush has been in office for less than 4 years don&#39;t you.

STI
12th January 2004, 23:26
Originally posted by lucid+Jan 12 2004, 10:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lucid @ Jan 12 2004, 10:09 PM)
[email protected] 12 2004, 10:00 PM
Well, we couldn&#39;t prove Saddam&#39;s connection to Terrorist groups, so we tried to prove the existence of WMD, which we couldn&#39;t do. Trucks leave places all the time, it does&#39;t mean we get to bomb the crap out of Baghdad. No WMD have yet to be found for a reason (namely, they don&#39;t exist). Really. Even the former leader (i don&#39;t know the exact titles) of the weapons inspectors throughout the 90s has written a book about how Bush&#39;s claims are horsecrap. Is HE a lying, liberal commie fag vegan art- teacher too?

And it has NOTHING to do with &#39;blind hate&#39; toward the US. That&#39;s nothing but an argumentum ad hominem. There&#39;s nothing solid there, it&#39;s just a defence used by those who can&#39;t defend their positions.
-
Well there are reports that WMD were found over the weekend. Nothing solid though. I seem to remember reading about several Al Queda members being caught in Iraq. And if Saddam did destroy all of his WMD why didn&#39;t he offer proof? Why did he beat around the bush (No pun intended :D ) and act like a guilty asshole. It&#39;s not like you can just send WMD out with the trash or flush everything down the toilet. Saddam pulls the &#39;we destroyed them. Just trust us.&#39; and people are suprised that the US doesn&#39;t believe him.

It comes down to the self responsibility thing again. Saddam acted like a deceitful pos and got bent over for it. We are talking about the leader of a country that is capable of making WMD. You can&#39;t just sit around and wait for these fucktards to strike first. [/b]
I&#39;d heard the opposite report. Some fellow from the Washington Post was on CBC Radio One on Friday saying, among other things, that there were no WMD found. Al Queda members are all over the place. Somehting like 16 of the 19 alledged 9-11 hijackers were Saudi. We&#39;re not bombing the crap out of Saudi Arabia. Why?

It&#39;s very bad practice to bomb the crap out of a country on a hunch. You need solid, undeniable proof. Iraq had no WMD capability. Sorry, pal. It&#39;s all speculation. I could speculate that you have the capability to produce chemical and biological weapons. Does that mean that I get to bomb you? OF COURSE NOT&#33; Bush made up lies about Iraq&#39;s buying uranium from &#39;an African nation&#39;. Why are we still trusting HIM? THAT is what&#39;s surprising.

They can&#39;t strike first. There is no way Iraq could have WMD capable of hitting the west (which includes Europe).

HankMorgan
13th January 2004, 05:12
Journey with me as we travel back to a time before 9/11/2001 when a US President plotted to attack Iraq for not coming clean on weapons of mass destruction.

From National Public Radio (http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/archives/1998/980218.atc.html)

From USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/iraq/iraq172.htm)

From the archives of CNN (http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/18/town.meeting.folo/)

The history of relations between the United States and Hussein&#39;s Iraq did not start when President Bush took office. There was a first Gulf war with an agreement to end the war followed by UN resolution after resolution. Then there was that man, Bill Clinton, who tried to sell the idea of bombing Iraq until it complied with the agreement ending the Gulf war. Any time you think President Bush lied about WMD in Iraq to start a war, type "Ohio State Albright Berger" into Google and remind yourself of who else was saying the same things years before anyone cast a vote for the current President.

If President Bush did NOT have plans to attack Iraq shortly after taking office, he would be incompetent given the 12 years of history preceding his taking office. Right now, there is probably a chalk board somewhere in Washington with plans for dealing with The Exploding Mr. Kim of North Korea. I expect nothing less, don&#39;t you?

The only astounding thing to me is the reaction of people to Paul O&#39;Neill&#39;s book. The correct response is a yawn.

el_profe
13th January 2004, 05:23
Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 05:02 PM
Bush &#39;plotted Iraq war from start&#39;

A top official sacked from the US Government has accused President Bush of planning for an invasion of Iraq within days of coming to office.

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O&#39;Neill said Mr Bush was looking for an excuse to oust Saddam Hussein.

Mr O&#39;Neill gives an unflattering account of Mr Bush&#39;s leadership style, saying that at cabinet meetings the president was like a blind man in a room full of deaf people.

Officials were looking into post-war contingencies such as peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals and the future of Iraq&#39;s oil, according to the documents.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/3387941.stm

Gather around, all ye pathetic patriots, and eat this here big bucket of shit.

It came straight from your emperor.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
OH no, THAT IS ALL EASTERN PROPAGANDA, Oneill was paid by cuba and north korea to say that, bush has never done anything wrong, he is my hero, I have him on my avatar, he is a great man, and a fantastic leader.

That is how stupid everyone that defends stalin sounds. :lol: :lol: :lol:

redstar2000
13th January 2004, 05:35
The only astounding thing to me is the reaction of people to Paul O&#39;Neill&#39;s book. The correct response is a yawn.

Ignoring the advice of the sleepy Mr. Morgan, the Emperor has this response...

US Treasury to probe O&#39;Neill book

The US Treasury Department has called for an investigation into whether its former head leaked secret documents in a new book.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/3391239.stm

Disloyalty to the Emperor is not taken "lightly" these days.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

el_profe
13th January 2004, 05:41
Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 06:12 AM
Journey with me as we travel back to a time before 9/11/2001 when a US President plotted to attack Iraq for not coming clean on weapons of mass destruction.

From National Public Radio (http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/archives/1998/980218.atc.html)

From USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/iraq/iraq172.htm)

From the archives of CNN (http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/18/town.meeting.folo/)

The history of relations between the United States and Hussein&#39;s Iraq did not start when President Bush took office. There was a first Gulf war with an agreement to end the war followed by UN resolution after resolution. Then there was that man, Bill Clinton, who tried to sell the idea of bombing Iraq until it complied with the agreement ending the Gulf war. Any time you think President Bush lied about WMD in Iraq to start a war, type "Ohio State Albright Berger" into Google and remind yourself of who else was saying the same things years before anyone cast a vote for the current President.

If President Bush did NOT have plans to attack Iraq shortly after taking office, he would be incompetent given the 12 years of history preceding his taking office. Right now, there is probably a chalk board somewhere in Washington with plans for dealing with The Exploding Mr. Kim of North Korea. I expect nothing less, don&#39;t you?

The only astounding thing to me is the reaction of people to Paul O&#39;Neill&#39;s book. The correct response is a yawn.
yes. I cant believe how stupid people are getting mad at bush for invading Iraq, but none of them actually said something when their beloved Clinton was bombing the shit out of Iraq.

This was not Bush&#39; war, it was the military&#39;s war(I mean they are the only constant thorugh all of this).

The terrorism, although partly tur, I would of rather seen them go after countries that really support and harbor terrorism.

el_profe
13th January 2004, 05:42
Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 06:35 AM

The only astounding thing to me is the reaction of people to Paul O&#39;Neill&#39;s book. The correct response is a yawn.

Ignoring the advice of the sleepy Mr. Morgan, the Emperor has this response...

US Treasury to probe O&#39;Neill book

The US Treasury Department has called for an investigation into whether its former head leaked secret documents in a new book.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/3391239.stm

Disloyalty to the Emperor is not taken "lightly" these days.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
Yes in the great nation of China, North korea, USSR, cuba .... he would of been executed by now. JAJAJA, the thing is all of you would of justified that execution by calling the whistle blower a traitor. :lol: :lol:

Exploited Class
13th January 2004, 08:13
Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 11:41 PM
yes. I cant believe how stupid people are getting mad at bush for invading Iraq, but none of them actually said something when their beloved Clinton was bombing the shit out of Iraq.

This was not Bush&#39; war, it was the military&#39;s war(I mean they are the only constant thorugh all of this).


I was against it, I just wasn&#39;t on a message board at the time to argue against Clinton&#39;s actions. You really must stop thinking we are democrats.

Also, when Clinton did it, he didn&#39;t have a giant build up soldiers in the region over a month long period. It was an overnight bombing then it was over, we didn&#39;t even know it was going to happen. Everybody was caught off guard, but the press did whip him for doing so. I am assuming that you are speaking of the bombing he did while going through the impeachment process.

I don&#39;t understand you saying that it is the military&#39;s war and not Bush&#39;s. He made the speeches to bolster support for this, he made the direct remarks at axis of evil, he ordered the troops, he asked for the senate&#39;s support. I think this is very much his war and he is the one that flew in onto a war ship to claim "Mission Accomplished" his mission.


Yes in the great nation of China, North korea, USSR, cuba .... he would of been executed by now. JAJAJA, the thing is all of you would of justified that execution by calling the whistle blower a traitor.

You really need to drop this all communists are evil shit, it is getting really old. A lot of us believe in a transparent government and that whistle blowers bad thing only because they are needed when a government is withholding truths from the public. I don&#39;t like whistle blowers because them existing means that something is wrong with the correct information flow from the powers that be, to the people below.

There is a big difference between whistler blowers and traitors. Traitors do something in an effort to do harm to a nation, now what dictates harm is blurry and definable by whatever group would be harmed.

In fact, anybody still even using old terms like traitor, is still set in that belief system that there are clear definitions of evil and bad people. Traitor terms are used by the upperclass and passed down to the lowerclass, for protection. Label somebody a traitor, the next worse thing to the devil, and there will be a witch burning at noon by all die hard patriots.

It isn&#39;t just other nations don&#39;t just throw around that word lightly, America uses it a lot and all the time to label people it feels are a threat or poses a threat or even dislike.

Another question for you El_Profe, do you set the bar of the United States by what other countries do? So long as America doesn&#39;t do something &#39;as bad&#39; as another nation you dislike, then it is okay?

If you think N. Korea would label this person a traitor and kill them, why would they do that? Do you think they are doing it to get back at a traitor or to use fear as a weapon to keep others from repeating the same step.

Now if America is using its Treasury Dept to investigate and cause fear and in the end intimidates others from doing the same (whistle blow, tell the truth, transparent government) isn&#39;t it just as bad N. Korea? Perhaps not killing the person, but achieving the same desirable level of fear and intimidation through different means.

iloveatomickitten
13th January 2004, 09:51
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 12 2004, 06:27 PM
It dosnt suprise me in the slightest. Him and his father probably masterminded the whole presidency just to get their revenge on saddam. These bastards are bastards nothing they do suprises me.
"masterminded" yor giving them too much credit

Intifada
13th January 2004, 15:28
Well there are reports that WMD were found over the weekend.

they never were a threat to the west though.

there are NO WMDs in iraq. its simple. colin powell and condaleeza rice admitted before sept 2001 that iraq did not have WMDs and was not a threat to the u&#036;.


I seem to remember reading about several Al Queda members being caught in Iraq.

they are there to fight the americans. they werent there when saddam was still in power. bin laden has got what he wanted. he has american troops in arab ground. it is easy for al quaida to target americans in iraq.


people are suprised that the US doesn&#39;t believe him.

are you surprised that the people dont believe the white house?


We are talking about the leader of a country that is capable of making WMD.

no we are not. he didnt have the capability to build wmds, like colin powell said.


I would of rather seen them go after countries that really support and harbor terrorism.

like themselves perhaps?

STI
13th January 2004, 16:56
Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 06:41 AM
yes. I cant believe how stupid people are getting mad at bush for invading Iraq, but none of them actually said something when their beloved Clinton was bombing the shit out of Iraq.
Oh, sorry, I was eleven when that happened. I really should have been out there protesting, though. Anyway, I didn&#39;t even know about it until the next day when I saw it on a CTV news update or something. If I was then who I am now, I would have opposed it, though.

el_profe
13th January 2004, 18:04
Originally posted by Exploited [email protected] 13 2004, 09:13 AM
I was against it, I just wasn&#39;t on a message board at the time to argue against Clinton&#39;s actions. You really must stop thinking we are democrats.

Also, when Clinton did it, he didn&#39;t have a giant build up soldiers in the region over a month long period. It was an overnight bombing then it was over, we didn&#39;t even know it was going to happen. Everybody was caught off guard, but the press did whip him for doing so. I am assuming that you are speaking of the bombing he did while going through the impeachment process.

I don&#39;t understand you saying that it is the military&#39;s war and not Bush&#39;s. He made the speeches to bolster support for this, he made the direct remarks at axis of evil, he ordered the troops, he asked for the senate&#39;s support. I think this is very much his war and he is the one that flew in onto a war ship to claim "Mission Accomplished" his mission.


I was talking about democrats and people on this board. I did not make the assumption that everyone here is a democrat, I was just pointing out hwo stupid democrats are, when they dont do shit when clintion bombed an aspirin factory in sudan and bombing iraq 2 times, but protest about bush&#39; war.

I remember he did 2 bombings of iraq, and on a separate occasion they bombed an aspirin fatory in Sudan. That is an outrage, an aspirin factory??? :o

About the war being the militaries war, I mean the plans to invade Iraq where probably already their before Bush took office, why would they bomb iraq 2 times during the clinton era?. Bout bush did give the order to attack, si i guess we can say its his war.



Yes in the great nation of China, North korea, USSR, cuba .... he would of been executed by now. JAJAJA, the thing is all of you would of justified that execution by calling the whistle blower a traitor.

You really need to drop this all communists are evil shit, it is getting really old. A lot of us believe in a transparent government and that whistle blowers bad thing only because they are needed when a government is withholding truths from the public. I don&#39;t like whistle blowers because them existing means that something is wrong with the correct information flow from the powers that be, to the people below.

There is a big difference between whistler blowers and traitors. Traitors do something in an effort to do harm to a nation, now what dictates harm is blurry and definable by whatever group would be harmed.

In fact, anybody still even using old terms like traitor, is still set in that belief system that there are clear definitions of evil and bad people. Traitor terms are used by the upperclass and passed down to the lowerclass, for protection. Label somebody a traitor, the next worse thing to the devil, and there will be a witch burning at noon by all die hard patriots.

It isn&#39;t just other nations don&#39;t just throw around that word lightly, America uses it a lot and all the time to label people it feels are a threat or poses a threat or even dislike.

Another question for you El_Profe, do you set the bar of the United States by what other countries do? So long as America doesn&#39;t do something &#39;as bad&#39; as another nation you dislike, then it is okay?

If you think N. Korea would label this person a traitor and kill them, why would they do that? Do you think they are doing it to get back at a traitor or to use fear as a weapon to keep others from repeating the same step.

Now if America is using its Treasury Dept to investigate and cause fear and in the end intimidates others from doing the same (whistle blow, tell the truth, transparent government) isn&#39;t it just as bad N. Korea? Perhaps not killing the person, but achieving the same desirable level of fear and intimidation through different means.
I dont ser a bar with the USA, I actually look at the facts and see that human rights have been violated by the USA, but the USSR, China, North , Korea, have also done it, and more than the USA. They have oppresive dictators, that kill or throw in jail anyone who has different political views and wants to talk about his different political views.

STI
13th January 2004, 21:04
Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 07:04 PM
I was talking about democrats and people on this board. I did not make the assumption that everyone here is a democrat, I was just pointing out hwo stupid democrats are, when they dont do shit when clintion bombed an aspirin factory in sudan and bombing iraq 2 times, but protest about bush&#39; war.

I remember he did 2 bombings of iraq, and on a separate occasion they bombed an aspirin fatory in Sudan. That is an outrage, an aspirin factory??? :o


I dont ser a bar with the USA, I actually look at the facts and see that human rights have been violated by the USA, but the USSR, China, North , Korea, have also done it, and more than the USA. They have oppresive dictators, that kill or throw in jail anyone who has different political views and wants to talk about his different political views.
Well, nobody on the board is talking about Clinton&#39;s wars because, duh, they aren&#39;t going on right now (not that complicated). What Democrats do on their own time has nothing to do with most of the people on this board, especially the ones who are against the war (and capitalism). If Clinton was off trying to start wars in the third world right now, I bet my ass there&#39;d be a bunch of opposition to it here and elsewhere.


Another thing, if we look at the governments supported by the U&#036; government and Amerikkkan corporations, we&#39;d see a much worse human rights record than China, N. Korea, or the USSR (who, by the way, most of the people here don&#39;t support, as they weren&#39;t really &#39;communist&#39; or &#39;socialist&#39; in any real senses of the words).

Lardlad95
13th January 2004, 21:52
Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 06:32 PM
Why should I defend myself? I have never supported this war on the arguments given by the Bush administration.

Your point of view is just as pathetic. "We don&#39;t care if Saddam kills his own people, as long as these stinking imperialistic capitalists stay out of the country". It&#39;s extremely sad if you need to show your moral superioritity in this way. <_<
No one is arguing that Saddam is a good guy or that his actions were justified.

What we are arguing is that the US goverment fought in a war they sold to the American people wrapped in lies, and didn&#39;t do it for the moral reasons the bush administration talked about.

THe Bush administration tried to make saddam look like an immenant threat to the American people, which he simply wasn&#39;t.

The US had alterior motives in fighting this war, "liberating" iraq is just a biproduct that the Govt. can use to convince everyone that the war was justified.

The ends don&#39;t justify the means.

lucid
13th January 2004, 22:33
Originally posted by (*@Jan 12 2004, 09:49 PM
Lucid,

You start by saying this...

None of us know all the facts about Saddam


But then go on to make these claims....


What we do know is that he was a ruthless terrorist supporting POS
that had used WMD on his own people.
Your point is? I said we don&#39;t know all the facts but we do no blah blah blah. Go dig some more troll.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/13/...bush/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/13/oneill.bush/index.html)

Guess the Bush haters will need to start looking for something else <_<

STI
14th January 2004, 19:58
Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 11:33 PM
Your point is? I said we don&#39;t know all the facts but we do no blah blah blah. Go dig some more troll.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/13/...bush/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/13/oneill.bush/index.html)

Guess the Bush haters will need to start looking for something else <_<
Wow, one of the most biased news networks in the world reported that a member of the Bush administration is disagreeing with a book criticizing the Bush administration. Shocker.

lucid
14th January 2004, 20:10
Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 08:58 PM
Wow, one of the most biased news networks in the world reported that a member of the Bush administration is disagreeing with a book criticizing the Bush administration. Shocker.
My bad. I keep forgetting that if the news Isn&#39;t from Red Dictators Daily it couldn&#39;t be true. :rolleyes:

Could you give me some links to news sites that you, with your amazing intelligence, have deemed worthy? Just so I don&#39;t make this mistake again.

Thanks in advance&#33;


ps: Go read it again. O&#39;niell is saying that the media is distorting what he said.

LuZhiming
14th January 2004, 21:26
This isn&#39;t even new information. Bush had all rhetoric about removing Saddam during his elections.

And this arguement I see is a mockery. Where did those WMD&#39;s Saddam was using on his own people come from? The U.S. and Britain. It&#39;s time to face reality, Saddam was a friend of the West for a long time, the Reagan administration is just as "evil" as Saddam is.

lucid
15th January 2004, 01:27
Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 10:26 PM
This isn&#39;t even new information. Bush had all rhetoric about removing Saddam during his elections.

And this arguement I see is a mockery. Where did those WMD&#39;s Saddam was using on his own people come from? The U.S. and Britain. It&#39;s time to face reality, Saddam was a friend of the West for a long time, the Reagan administration is just as "evil" as Saddam is.
Reagan is on his death bed. We are talking about a different person here.

LuZhiming
15th January 2004, 20:34
Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 02:27 AM
Reagan is on his death bed. We are talking about a different person here.
:lol: Please, tell me, name some officers in the current Bush administration. Here, I&#39;ll start for you:

Donald Rumsfeld
John Negroponte
Elliott Abrams
Otto Reich
Roger Noriega
Colin Powell
John Pointdexter

Hmm, I wonder what all of these guys have in common... :rolleyes:

STI
15th January 2004, 20:36
Originally posted by lucid+Jan 15 2004, 02:27 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lucid @ Jan 15 2004, 02:27 AM)
[email protected] 14 2004, 10:26 PM
This isn&#39;t even new information. Bush had all rhetoric about removing Saddam during his elections.

And this arguement I see is a mockery. Where did those WMD&#39;s Saddam was using on his own people come from? The U.S. and Britain. It&#39;s time to face reality, Saddam was a friend of the West for a long time, the Reagan administration is just as "evil" as Saddam is.
Reagan is on his death bed. We are talking about a different person here. [/b]
New guy, same party, same goals.


Another thing, i know "Red Dictator Daily" was a joke, but, for god sakes, it gets really old. Anyway, I usually watch CBC NewsWorld, or I&#39;ll go to an Independant Media Centre (www.indymedia.org).