"first off let me appologize for thinking you were pro bush. and forgive me that i do not always read the posts closely enough.
however even in this post there are a few things i don't think are correct. if i get heated it is because i feel strongly about these issues, but i do not feel threatened by the prospect of being wrong. so let us discuss with boldness our ideas and see if we can't both come up with a clearer picture?
"
I'm glad you feel that way. I was hoping not to have to end the debate and leave you to stew. I was ready to just agree to disagree because you seemed too emotionally charged over everything. My intention was not to personally attack you. I think we disagree, but can look at the facts at where we disagree, or just trade opinions. Good. I don't have time to pull out quoted facts tonight, but I have some and can come up with some hard quotes later.
For instance this:
"now here is where i start to have adverse reactions:
There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but by the time that was established, it was too late, we were already stuck in the mess.
see? now that is just a lie of the regime. plenty of people knew there were no weapons. the un inspectors all said there was no evidence that there was imminent threat and thats why we had to lead the 'coalition of the 'willing'' without the help of the un in the first place.
democracy now had interviews the whole year they were trying to get us in there with people giving varied and irrefutable evidence that there was no possible way for saddam to have developped any nuclear arms programs due to the ongoing bombing and embargos that the us was already engaging in against iraq since like 1992.
the un had been inspecting iraq that whole time to make sure, and they knew it was impossible, but bush thought it would be funny to flip off the un, and go ahead and do what his dad's friends said to do anyway.
and they wanted it to last forever so their buddies the rockafellers could sell guns to both sides, just like desert storm, just like vietnam.
so no, we didn't make a mistake and woops we're stuck there, we went in despite our knowledge for the profit of warmongers, and then, fuck you, get yourself out. thats really really different, and the difference is weather or not bush and cheney should be impeached, cause if it was an accident, then no one is to blame, but if bush is to blame, history requires his impeachment or else the reign of his regime will be our own faults."
Bush had his own reasons for pulling the trigger on the starter pistol, I'll agree with that; and he was going to have the US go in regardless of the findings of various WMD inspections. He had his own personal agenda and his mind was made up.
Irregardless, although that seems like it ends any debate right there, it really is irrelevant to whether there were WMD or not.
You are dead on right that Iraqi scientists had little oppurtunity from Desert Storm to this war to develop new WMD.
But were they sitting on old stockpiles?
There were actually inspectors that felt that there was evidence that materials had been moved or access restricted to, that might prove the current existence of WMD. Namely, ricin, a crude element used in poison gas.
Iraqi guards were pretty comical in their attempts to stop the inspectors, but they stalled them enough to let scientists and their equipment slip away. A lot of this is in the accounts of Dr. David Kay, who was with all the inspection teams, UN and coalition led. (UNSCOM -United Nations Special Commission on Disarmament, UNMOVIC - United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, and ISG - Iraq Survey Group. He also advised the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Iraq did in fact attempt nuclear programs several times, the closest they came was at Osirak nuclear facility. This alarmed Israel so much they destroyed it in an airstrike in 1981 and effectively shut the program down.
Chemical and biological wise, its believed that most of the stockpiles that were left were hastily destroyed while the inspectors were in other locations, or there is also some evidence that they were moved across the border to Syria, a fellow Ba'ath regime led nation.
Basically, by the time they had fully debriefed the inspection teams (ISG at that point), the military ball was already rolling, so to speak. Which is why it was too late. Also, final verification came about due to the actual invasion, when we could have forces in all suspect locations at once, without Iraqi interference. No more shell game, everything exposed.
" 'Yes, Saddam did do some beneficial things for Iraqi society. He did build schools, hospitals, universities. He also had torture centers, lavish palaces, chemical weapons factories and mass graves made. '
ok, so is that before or after he socialized oil in iraq? when was he building schools, when was he gassing people, because my understanding is that he gassed people when he worked for the cia, and then he rebelled from them and started building schools and hospitals. do you know where i can find a good timeline on that stuff?"
I will look for a timeline for you. That's the second time you've brought up Saddam socializing oil. Not sure where you're going with that. I guess the short answer is that he nationalized the Iraq Petroleum Company in June 1972 and kicked out the former owners - a consortium made up of BP, Shell, Esso, Mobil and CFP (French co.) That is when Iraq officially socialized their oil. These were American, British and French companies. In order to be sure he wasn't retaliated against economically or politically, he got Soviet promises of support.
Later, in the mid-80's, he would renounce the Soviets in order to get US support against Iran, which the Soviets initially refused to do. The worst trainwreck about that was that at one point in the Iran-Iraq war, the US and Soviets were both supporting BOTH sides. Remember the Iran-Contra scandal? US money, training and technology was helping both sides, while they were both fighting each other using Soviet planes, tanks and guns.)
So, Saddam never directly worked for the CIA, but he took their money, or any US Government money that he could get his hands on.
The schools and good hospitals were built in the Sunni homelands, near Tikrit, for HIS people - he never considered the Kurds or Shi'ites his people, even though they lived within Iraqi borders. As far as he and many from his tribe were concerned, the rest could fend for themselves. Any who disagreed were dealt with harshly, even Sunnis, if they showed political dissent.
He was gassing and killing from the moment he took power in the 70's, even when he was second or third in charge.
"see? now that is just regime thinking, thats a total fallacy, they aren't dying so you or i don't have to, they are dying so that a few men will be made richer and given more lenience to kill and make slaves of anyone they choose.
we are told to feel guilty for not being soldiers ourselves, thats the larger message in that statement.
but it is not us who should feel guilty, it is the people who sent them to war in the first place. i am not pro - military, in the same way that i am not anti - life by being pro - choice, i am anti - brainwashing, and the military endorses brainwashing its soldiers so that they dont feel empowered to say, 'no!! i will not do that!!! it's wrong!!, i will not do that to another human being!!' and it is for not saying that that we all criticize the nazi soldiers.
our soldiers should be treated differently, but now they need to resist, they need to drop out of the military, defect, revolt, there is a time for that, and it must be honored and encorporated into military culture for just these times, when the ruler is a liar and madman!
those soldiers aren't dying so i won't have to, they are dying at his whim, and so will i if i don't do something about him! we all will!"
This is where I do get emotional, because I've been there. I signed up for economic reasons, some ideological reasons. Others just have no choice beyond the military.
Ultimately, though, they are volunteers, they knew what they were getting into and they know from the start that once the paper is signed there is no going back. They have a sense of duty and there are serious repurcussions for going AWOL, which is why most don't just say 'no'. Politics aside, which you'll find that many servicemen and women don't really care or follow politics that much.
So, they volunteered, you didn't - how is that your problem?, you may ask:
If no one volunteers, how would they fill the US Military?
with A DRAFT!!!
Would they draft women? Who knows in this day and age.
Hence, that is why I say that they die so you don't have to. Not because Iraq would come and invade here, if we didn't go over there, or some stupid shit like that. Simply and harshly put, they're warm bodies that volunteered, putting off a possible draft for the next few years.
"thats very interesting. i don't want to read al jazeera because i am not sure i want the cia to crack into my computer and i am just a little too scared they will. but if u say its safe i will check it out. i would like to see the link.
it makes me sick to think bush goes on national tv and tells everyone al jazeera is a terrorist newspaper when i think it is considered mainstream in the middle east. is it?
as far as what i do and do not beleive i pay not enough attention i am sure. but what i see on npr through fox i take with a grain of salt, and i try to pay extra attention to amy on democracy now. i am not yet convinced we went to the moon. i am fairly well convinced that the original thanksgiving scenario is pure fiction, why we decided to have a culture that lied about its genocide, who can tell, but i think its important that we change that. i saw the towers go down on tv, and i watched that day as all those people got in front of all those cameras and talked about planes and explotions, i remember the dust and the people that went on tv talking about how that kind of dust was only a result of explosive devices, not burning airplane fuel and collapsing buildings. i trust their testimonies, i do not trust the following broadcasts of official information that said there were no explosives. i beleive the testimonies of the people who saw the hurricane heading to new orleans and called for evacuations. i watched day after day as no help was sent by the military or private sector. i watched as shortly after the hurricane those lands were auctioned off to the highest bidder as all those areas were declared destroyed and given to the federal gov't to dole out to the same few men who profit from the war in iraq. i did not beleive the pathetic statements from the aftermath that claimed that there was nothing anyone could do. it seems clear to me that something was done, those people lost their city.
There are certain facts of what has transpired that they can't deny and will faithfully report. Facts like that, and first hand experience, are what I base my knowledge on.
Still scratching my head on how you read into me being pro-Bush. Please go back and read my earlier post in this thread about benefits denied to vets."
sorry, i must have misunderstood.
i do like to debate, and i sound heated, but i am sorry, i respect you, i hope that is clear.
alia"
It is clear, and I respect you. If anyone should be worried about the Government, its me. I was a part of it once and now I'm pretty against it. I've said some things earlier that might get me in trouble. You? You're just one of millions - small fish to fry. Exercise your rights. Here's those links:
www.aljazeera.com or
http://english.aljazeera.net/EnglishDon't be a victim of the very hype machine you rail against - They don't call out for Americans to be beheaded or anything, they just report the news from an Arab perspective.
New Orleans is a whole 'nother ball of wax.
I might have more to say later, but now its time for bed. Good Talk. Break!
