they caught hussein, this is soooooo bad

[biggins]

now there is the possibility of george bush getting re-elected. if this happens then canada here i come. like george bush even had anything to do with it. just like all the politics though his supporters are not going to do anything but say " he caught saddam hussein". Woo Hoo we caught a disempowered dictator that had been living in a hole for 9 months and was really not a threat to begin with.Yeah go America. now they are trying to figure out what they are going to do with. like the dog that chases cars, what would he do with it if he actually caught it anyway.

[fasterTHANyou]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by biggins
like george bush even had anything to do with it.

um... someone had to order the troops to get him?

Woo Hoo we caught a disempowered dictator that had been living in a hole for 9 months and was really not a threat to begin with.

not a threat? lets ask the iraqui people what they thought of him... maybe the some 60,000 at least that he killed for no reason?

[biggins]

yeah we've made it so much better for them after blowing up their homes, killing their power, their water sources have been PERMANENTLY contaminated there are no jobs, the streets still are not safe and over half the population still supports saddam. now we have even completely forgotten the people of iraq becuase we are to concerned about the money to be made rebuilding the place. yeah they wanted it let me tell you. you know the problem with america is that we think that everyone has the same ideals as us and they dont. dont get me wrong i love this country but what it all boils down to is george bucsh should burn in hell and i hope he does.

[fasterTHANyou]

well... i didnt sign up for this forum to get in to political debates... so we can leave it at this... but i think that the iraqui population is vastly better off than they were before. we are working on a rebuilding program and the people now can experience the freedom that we take for granted...

i fully respect your opinion, i just think its way off base

lets get back to riding

:thumb:

[HippieKai]

Originally posted by fasterTHANyou
well... i didnt sign up for this forum to get in to political debates...

OH MY DEAR GOD the forum is called political "debate"

are you mental

and biggins i am with you! Bush is a dumb a$$ and it doesn't take a whole lot to say "send them troops in"

Plus if anyone ever read anything about this "war" they that this solves NOTHING!

[fasterTHANyou]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mag204
OH MY DEAR GOD the forum is called political "debate"

are you mental

ok... appologies for that one, i just clicked on the link from the homepage. and no, i'm not mental... real mature....


Plus if anyone ever read anything about this "war" they that this solves NOTHING!

and i'm stealing this from someone elses signature... the policeman guy... war solves nothing? try tyranny, communism, oppresion...

[drt_jumper]

first of all why dont you ask the familys of the hundreds of thousands of iraqi's whos families have been torn apart thanks to one saddam, how about him gasing his own people, funding terrorisim (maybe not al queda) but has been linked to funding other organizations, and before you say no way, not only did bush's people find this to be true, Clinton's did also and it is partially Clinton's fault that we are in this war now, granted if Bush Sr. hadnt dropped the ball in the first gulf war then this wouldnt be happening, but it has and it has for good reason, not oil, not money, not to push our beliefs on another nation, but to rid the world of a tyrant who would have loved to see the U.S. suffer, I agree that everyone is entitled to their own opinion but make sure your facts are straight before going off at the mouth!

[biggins]

just a side note to all that i as well do find everyones opinion helpfull in deciding my own beleifs about things. without as much in put as possible we do not see all sides of the story. either way i think this is just what george bush needed to solidify his campaign for next year and i hope that the american voters look at other factors besides this when they go to the polls.

[biggins]

Originally posted by drt_jumper
first of all why dont you ask the familys of the hundreds of thousands of iraqi's whos families have been torn apart thanks to one saddam, how about him gasing his own people, funding terrorisim (maybe not al queda) but has been linked to funding other organizations, and before you say no way, not only did bush's people find this to be true, Clinton's did also and it is partially Clinton's fault that we are in this war now, granted if Bush Sr. hadnt dropped the ball in the first gulf war then this wouldnt be happening, but it has and it has for good reason, not oil, not money, not to push our beliefs on another nation, but to rid the world of a tyrant who would have loved to see the U.S. suffer, I agree that everyone is entitled to their own opinion but make sure your facts are straight before going off at the mouth!


you have got to be kidding me! do ya really think its all gonna become sunshine and flowers now that he is caught? accusing me of not knowing my facts?!? you dont know me or my back ground and i will go toe to toe with you anyday in a political debate about both the bush and the clinton administration. please refrain from passing judgement and insulting people you dont know.

[fasterTHANyou]

Originally posted by biggins
\i hope that the american voters look at other factors besides this when they go to the polls.

like how the economy is turning around? ;) :thumb:

[drt_jumper]

first of all i was not passing judgement, second of all your right I dont know you, but I was not trying to insult you nor was I even responding to what you had said. If you were insulted then apparently you have not debated too many political issues becuase if you had you wouldnt be personalizing my opinion, my point was simply that anyone can write something on here and have no idea what they are talking about....and one thing that you are mistaken about is that their water supply was temporarily tainted...not permantently, I know this because I am in contact with someone who has been and will be working on that problem specifically, true alot of work has still to be done but alot has already started, and whether or not you like bush the iraqi people themselves say that they are much better off without saddam...later

[Toshi]

i must say that it also really pisses me off that this will help bush's reelection chances. americans (and i am one of them) are a bunch of sheep, apparently, believing whatever the govt tells them to, see the opinion poll flip-flop about afghanistan behind 9/11 or iraq behind 9/11 for a prime example.

and now a bunch of drunken rednecks are going to be all proud and even more close-minded about the rest of the world, because WE :rolleyes: captured saddam.

(i think it's a good thing that he was brought in, but the media extravaganza this surely is going to be made into makes me SICK)

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by biggins
now there is the possibility of george bush getting re-elected. if this happens then canada here i come. like
I didn't read anything you said after that. Saying you'll move to Canada is the dumbest fvcking thing anyone could say and pretty much invalidates whatever you say afterwards.

[drt_jumper]

why did you put rednecks? what is that all about?

[Damn True]

Originally posted by Toshi
i must say that it also really pisses me off that this will help bush's reelection chances. americans (and i am one of them) are a bunch of sheep, apparently, believing whatever the govt tells them to, see the opinion poll flip-flop about afghanistan behind 9/11 or iraq behind 9/11 for a prime example.

and now a bunch of drunken rednecks are going to be all proud and even more close-minded about the rest of the world, because WE :rolleyes: captured saddam.

(i think it's a good thing that he was brought in, but the media extravaganza this surely is going to be made into makes me SICK)

Bush supporter = drunken redneck
Bush detractor = intelligent and erudite people like you

:rolleyes:

[Toshi]

no, not bush supporter = drunken redneck. america in general today in my warped view of the world = drunken rednecks.

truth be told, i don't see a lot of my "erudite and intelligent" compadres whooping for joy today. but my impression is that americans in general (see above definition) will be doing just that. care to contest that?


also, for a clearer-headed statement of my position, here's a post i just made to my own mailing list of fellow ivory tower geeks :rolleyes: "

" [comment about a previous quote deleted]

anyway, my two cents is that i pretty much agree with the argument's sentiment. mass hysteria, or in this case, mass jubilation, is a powerful thing. furthermore, a sense of accomplishment (whether warranted or not) is something i bet the public is grasping for now, in the face of the economy, the daily and sobering newsflashes from iraq, and the unresolved nature of the whole why-are-people-so-mad-at-us thing. so people will cling to this, they'll fly flags on their suvs, they'll put bumper stickers of saddam in jail on while they're at it. and that accomplishes no good.

that said, it's good that he was captured. that it will serve to further the above isn't."

[ummbikes]

All one has to to do is spend some time with some drunken rednecks and they will know exactly what Toshi was saying.

I live in the redneck capitol of the Pacific Northwest and despite my education, acceptance of gays, blacks and a desire for America to stop a march towards imperialism I am a Copenhagen chewing, cheap beer drinking, offroad mudding, gun owning, church going, deer killing redneck.

Most of my friends and neighbors are drunk with hate and a desire to kick some "towelhead" ass. They are so drunk they don't seem to care that their government is becoming fascist and the companies they work for are killing the environment and stealing there retirement funds.

So, woo-who they captured Hussein.

I just hope there is some remenent of America left to fight for when Bush gets done running us into the pockets of corporate America.

[N8]

What is our alternative to Pres Bush?

What if the Dem's canidate..ummm... say, Dean, wins the election? What will be different? Will the muslim fundamentalists suddenly LOVE America? Remember that under the lib's fav president, Bill Clinton, the terrorists saw fit to bomb the WTC the first time, plan the second WTC strike, bomb the US embassys in Africa, etc... They sensed that the US was weak under Clinton and they were right. Clinton didn't do anything to activily hunt down those plotting against the US nor did he do much to hold terrorist supporting nation's feet to the fire. Clinton drew down our military strength in order to make govenment 'appear' smaller and Clinton gutted our intelligence community.

I shudder to think where we'd be today if Algore was president. We'd probably be in a full retreat, Jimmy Carter, style from the middle east, Saddam would still be in control of Iraq, and the Taliban in control if Afganistan and the terrorists would be openly supported/supplied/financed by all the governments that resent the US and our way of life. And Algore and company would be 'enguaged in active dialogue' the entire way.... solving nothing, doing nothing...

No, it takes a President like Bush who doesn't care what direction the political wind is blowing at the moment to stick to the mission... something his dad didn't do during the Gulf War I.

In short, if we'd have listened to all the nay sayers and pulled our troops out of Iraq following the Saddam's fall, it wouldn't have take long for him to regroup and reinstate himself in power... perhaps strong than before.

[Toshi]

ok nate, so you object to it on the grander scale. and, assuming your thoughts on what would have happened under a different president are correct, this would be the correct thing to do. however, i think that the pansy "active dialogue" or however you portrayed it IS the right thing to do. we can't fight the whole world. therefore we must figure out what we're doing that's pissing them off so (supporting israel in all of their actions both acceptable and outrageous, like the wall) and change. i would rather compromise and not have a fascist-leaning govt than live in a secure state where true freedom of speech (since when has dissent become illegal? oh wait.) is nowhere to be found.

[rbx]

Capturing saddam has a certain symbolism and iraq IS starting a new chapter BUT as powerful as a "symbol of power saddam was" hes only a part of a bigger terrorist machine and that machine will continue running without him...The real blow to the terrosrist would be to raise the poverty line thus cutting there supplies and reason for being

No one is born with a hatred towards america it is taught and will continue to be taught until fundamental changes are made.

But for now the people of iraq are breathing a little better and for that the coalition forces have to be praised.

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by biggins
yeah we've made it so much better for them after blowing up their homes, killing their power, their water sources have been PERMANENTLY contaminated there are no jobs, the streets still are not safe and over half the population still supports saddam.

Well, first off, Id like to know where you got the facts about Saddam supporters being half the population. Please cite a source for that one.
Second, even you must admit that a brief war is infinitely better than having Saddam hussein in power right? I mean, combatants and civilian casualites combined didnt even come close to the number Saddam has murdered over a bad weekend. You gotta be sick if you cant agree with that. So your problem really only lies with Bush's reelection...which would have happened regardless due to the mess that is the democratic party...and for someone who can "go toe to toe in any political debate" its pretty funny you dont see that to begin with.

[Westy]

Originally posted by N8
What is our alternative to Pres Bush?

What if the Dem's canidate..ummm... say, Dean, wins the election? What will be different? Will the muslim fundamentalists suddenly LOVE America? Remember that under the lib's fav president, Bill Clinton, the terrorists saw fit to bomb the WTC the first time, plan the second WTC strike, bomb the US embassys in Africa, etc... They sensed that the US was weak under Clinton and they were right. Clinton didn't do anything to activily hunt down those plotting against the US nor did he do much to hold terrorist supporting nation's feet to the fire. Clinton drew down our military strength in order to make govenment 'appear' smaller and Clinton gutted our intelligence community.

I shudder to think where we'd be today if Algore was president. We'd probably be in a full retreat, Jimmy Carter, style from the middle east, Saddam would still be in control of Iraq, and the Taliban in control if Afganistan and the terrorists would be openly supported/supplied/financed by all the governments that resent the US and our way of life. And Algore and company would be 'enguaged in active dialogue' the entire way.... solving nothing, doing nothing...


You do realize that there was more than two presidential candidate who ran in the last election. There were even other Republicans who wanted to be president. Try to imagine a world where the Republican party nominated an intelligent candidate who was concerned with the wellbeing of the American people and not his little corporate buddies.

[N8]

Originally posted by Toshi
ok nate, so you object to it on the grander scale. and, assuming your thoughts on what would have happened under a different president are correct, this would be the correct thing to do. however, i think that the pansy "active dialogue" or however you portrayed it IS the right thing to do. we can't fight the whole world. therefore we must figure out what we're doing that's pissing them off so (supporting israel in all of their actions both acceptable and outrageous, like the wall) and change. i would rather compromise and not have a fascist-leaning govt than live in a secure state where true freedom of speech (since when has dissent become illegal? oh wait.) is nowhere to be found.

And thanks to what we have done recently in the Middle East and Kosovo we don't have to fight the entire world.

The good thing about standing up to a bully like Saddam/The Taliban is that all the other lil' would be Saddam's take notice. We haven't been hearing much out of N Korea since we sent cruise missiles into Baghdad now have we? Especially since the Bush administration indicated that it would not be any more difficult to send them into downtown Pyongyang. These types of people do not respect nor do they have any interest in "active dialogue"... heck a decade of that didn't get us anywhere with Saddam now did it. Nope... took puttin' the smackdown on him to get his attention.

The best thing we can do is bring good ol' American capitolism to the middle east where a man can earn a good wage and have the opportunity to build a business and to profit from it if he is so motivated.

What's all this about Evil Corporate America?
Aside from an effort to promote class envy? Corporate America is what make us the country we are. It is what funds our way of life (keeps disgruntled Gen X'ers in Whoppers and Old Navy jeans). Every American has the opportunity to become a business owner. And it is possible in the US to make that business hugely sucessful. There less than a handful of countries where you can start off with 10-cents in your pocket and through hard work and determination, become a multi-millionaire...

[N8]

Originally posted by Westy
You do realize that there was more than two presidential candidate who ran in the last election. There were even other Republicans who wanted to be president. Try to imagine a world where the Republican party nominated an intelligent candidate who was concerned with the wellbeing of the American people and not his little corporate buddies.


As long as the Left potrays Pres Bush as an unintelligent bafoon they will never beat him...

Nope.

Never.

[Damn True]

Since it would be political suicide for the Dem. candidates to attack Bush today they have taken to going after each other.

Joe Leibermann went after Dean today basicly saying that if Dean had his way Hussein would not have been captured today and would still be in power and the world would be in a much more dangerous position than it is today.

[N8]

Originally posted by Damn True
Since it would be political suicide for the Dem. candidates to attack Bush today they have taken to going after each other.

Joe Leibermann went after Dean today basicly saying that if Dean had his way Hussein would not have been captured today and would still be in power and the world would be in a much more dangerous position than it is today.

..now that's the pot calling the kettle black...

:p:p:p

[Jeremy R]

I do not think there is one other subject out there that can make an otherwise intelligent person sound more retarded than politics.
The way most people pick a side and then blindly follow it is downright mind-boggling. The only thing I know for sure is that if EITHER of our two parties had total control of our country we would all be screwed.
And for anybody to see the capture of Saddam as a bad thing is blind devotion as its very worst. This man is one of the most despicable to ever walk the earth.
Even the democratic candidates (John Kerry in particular) said this should not be a political issue, and that it is a great thing for the world. He also voted to go get him.
Yeah it is true that his capture to us is mostly just symbolic, but think about the Iraqi people. They have had to live in a CONSTANT fear of him for 30 years. That fear has been ingrained into them for so long and his status to them was so great that many of them truely feared that he would return to power. Those smiles you saw on their faces today were relief that none of us have ever known. We are allowed to sit on the internet here and b1tch about our leaders, where in Iraq, you would be tortured and killed.
So some of you hate Bush so much that you wish Saddam was still on the loose because it benefited Bush? I never have understood the hatred people have for the "other" party's president. People hated Clinton the exact same way, and they sounded just as ridiculous.
The government is not out to get you. Their job is actually to work to protect you.
You may not agree with his methods, but Bush is doing what HE THINKS is best to protect us, the same way any dem. in power would be doing. I am not saying these guys don't make alot of mistakes, but it should not make you so bitter that you care less about humanity than you do for a setback to the political party
that you vote against. That other party is still in your country after all.

[Silver]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by N8

The good thing about standing up to a bully like Saddam/The Taliban is that all the other lil' would be Saddam's take notice. We haven't been hearing much out of N Korea since we sent cruise missiles into Baghdad now have we?

Yeah like the leaders of Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Saudi Aradia all come to mind...

Oh wait, we're cozying up to those guys as we speak. Maybe human rights aren't as important to politicians as they claim they are?

North Korea got the message allright. Get nuclear weapons. Get them fast, because you never know where a cowboy with an itchy trigger finger is going to look next.

[N8]

Originally posted by Silver
[QUOTE]Originally posted by N8


Yeah like the leaders of Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Saudi Aradia all come to mind...

Oh wait, we're cozying up to those guys as we speak. Maybe human rights aren't as important to politicians as they claim they are?

North Korea got the message allright. Get nuclear weapons. Get them fast, because you never know where a cowboy with an itchy trigger finger is going to look next.

Like Pres Bush had anything to with the N Korea's nuke weapons program... :rolleyes:

I think the Saudi's are getting the message... we'll have to see how that plays out. The US is now the power broker in the Middle East a role the Saudi's want for themselves. Look for some changes in the Saudi government over the next few years.

Human rights are important but, in my opinion, not as important as the security of the US. We'll deal with those countries as they come. You seem to imply that 21st century US represses human rights... what have you been smoking?

[DRB]

Originally posted by biggins
now there is the possibility of george bush getting re-elected. if this happens then canada here i come. like george bush even had anything to do with it. just like all the politics though his supporters are not going to do anything but say " he caught saddam hussein". Woo Hoo we caught a disempowered dictator that had been living in a hole for 9 months and was really not a threat to begin with.Yeah go America. now they are trying to figure out what they are going to do with. like the dog that chases cases, what would he do with it if he actually caught it anyway.

I bet you a $100, you'll still be in US if Bush was elected president.

[biggins]

Originally posted by LordOpie
I didn't read anything you said after that. Saying you'll move to Canada is the dumbest fvcking thing anyone could say and pretty much invalidates whatever you say afterwards.

well hell then you are not allowed to ever enter this thread again cause you are just way to open minded for it:rolleyes:


as for fasterthanyou yeah if you look at every year except for major depressions the economy always jumps around christmas and no matter who is president they always take the credit for it. or were you joking with that comment.

i am just saying that before we deal with all this other bs i think maybe for just a split friggin second it would be nice if the president would watch out for the very country he is supposed to guide and lead.

now i would also appreciate it if people did not try to insult me either i am an adult and can be talked to without bashing. you dont like my opinion then dont listen to it

[biggins]

i am also very disappointed in saddam after all the money,support, and weapons and tanks we gave him and he turns out to be a horrible dictator. guess ya cant buy love can ya.

[Jorvik]

Originally posted by biggins

as for fasterthanyou yeah if you look at every year except for major depressions the economy always jumps around christmas and no matter who is president they always take the credit for it. or were you joking with that comment.

Ummm, the economy isn't a "jump" right now. There's been a steady upward trend for the last couple months.

And don't give me any crap about former President Clinton being good for the economy, he rode the tech boom. Our current President was left with the wake of it.

EDIT:

Economy link:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2003-12/12/content_1228280.htm

[Silver]

Originally posted by N8
Like Pres Bush had anything to with the N Korea's nuke weapons program... :rolleyes:

I think the Saudi's are getting the message... we'll have to see how that plays out. The US is now the power broker in the Middle East a role the Saudi's want for themselves. Look for some changes in the Saudi government over the next few years.

Human rights are important but, in my opinion, not as important as the security of the US. We'll deal with those countries as they come. You seem to imply that 21st century US represses human rights... what have you been smoking?

Bush didn't have anything to do with the origination of North Korea's nuclear program, but if we look back 10 years from now, I'll bet the consensus is that Bush had a lot to do with accelerating the pace and urgency of it.

The Saudis didn't get a message at all. 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, and when the INS started their special registration program last year, the Saudis weren't even on the original list. As long as the oil keeps flowing and the Saudis are generating enough revenue to keep thier princes in luxury, nothing will change. The princes will skip around the globe acting like the degenerates that they are, and the common Saudi will suffer for it, and continue to be educated in the Wahhabist tradition. I think your trust in the sincerity of the Saudis is greatly misplaced.

I did not mean to imply that the US represses human rights. I do think that human rights as a priority have suffered since Bush has become president, for a variety of reasons. I really doubt the sincerity of his convictions when he slams Saddam for the torture chambers but cuddles up to Uzbekistan because they happen to be in a strategically important place. Much like hearing Clinton profess his devotion to his wife, it wears thin quickly. We spent a lot of time cozying up to Saddam in the 80's, and that didn't work out that well, did it?

[Jorvik]

Originally posted by Silver
Bush didn't have anything to do with the origination of North Korea's nuclear program, but if we look back 10 years from now, I'll bet the consensus is that Bush had a lot to do with accelerating the pace and urgency of it.

The Saudis didn't get a message at all. 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, and when the INS started their special registration program last year, the Saudis weren't even on the original list. As long as the oil keeps flowing and the Saudis are generating enough revenue to keep thier princes in luxury, nothing will change. The princes will skip around the globe acting like the degenerates that they are, and the common Saudi will suffer for it, and continue to be educated in the Wahhabist tradition. I think your trust in the sincerity of the Saudis is greatly misplaced.

I did not mean to imply that the US represses human rights. I do think that human rights as a priority have suffered since Bush has become president, for a variety of reasons. I really doubt the sincerity of his convictions when he slams Saddam for the torture chambers but cuddles up to Uzbekistan because they happen to be in a strategically important place. Much like hearing Clinton profess his devotion to his wife, it wears thin quickly. We spent a lot of time cozying up to Saddam in the 80's, and that didn't work out that well, did it?

I don't agree at all with having cordial relations with dictators and nations who oppress human rights, but there is no possible way we can deal with them all at the same time. We don't want to get them all pissed off at us all at once either. Thats why being PotUS is hard.

[N8]

Originally posted by biggins
i am also very disappointed in saddam after all the money,support, and weapons and tanks we gave him and he turns out to be a horrible dictator. guess ya cant buy love can ya.

Humm... Iraq was fully armed with Russian military technology... tanks, aircarft etc... what weapons and tanks are you talking about?

We did back him in his war against Iran twenty five years ago. That was the doings of good ol' President Jimmy Carter (D-Ga). At the time Iran was holding US citizens as hostages and we had a horribily failed rescue attempt smoldering the the middle of the desert Iranian.... or did you forget that fact?

[N8]

Originally posted by Silver
Bush didn't have anything to do with the origination of North Korea's nuclear program, but if we look back 10 years from now, I'll bet the consensus is that Bush had a lot to do with accelerating the pace and urgency of it.

The Saudis didn't get a message at all. 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, and when the INS started their special registration program last year, the Saudis weren't even on the original list. As long as the oil keeps flowing and the Saudis are generating enough revenue to keep thier princes in luxury, nothing will change. The princes will skip around the globe acting like the degenerates that they are, and the common Saudi will suffer for it, and continue to be educated in the Wahhabist tradition. I think your trust in the sincerity of the Saudis is greatly misplaced.

I did not mean to imply that the US represses human rights. I do think that human rights as a priority have suffered since Bush has become president, for a variety of reasons. I really doubt the sincerity of his convictions when he slams Saddam for the torture chambers but cuddles up to Uzbekistan because they happen to be in a strategically important place. Much like hearing Clinton profess his devotion to his wife, it wears thin quickly. We spent a lot of time cozying up to Saddam in the 80's, and that didn't work out that well, did it?

Our relationship with the Saudis pre 9/11 is far different than post 9/11. I think they are getting the message... slowly.

[Silver]

Originally posted by N8
Humm... Iraq was fully armed with Russian military technology... tanks, aircarft etc... what weapons and tanks are you talking about?

We did back him in his war against Iran twenty five years ago. That was the doings of good ol' President Jimmy Carter (D-Ga). At the time Iran was holding US citizens as hostages and we had a horribily failed rescue attempt smoldering the the middle of the desert Iranian.... or did you forget that fact?

The Iran-Iraq war was 1980-1988.

I never knew Carter was a two term president, especially during the years Reagan was president.

The fact that we aided Saddam for many years is common knowledge (although I'm not sure what common knowledge is worth nowadays, look how many Americans believe that Saddam was behind 9/11.)


Recognize the Guy on the Left? (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm)

[Silver]

Originally posted by N8
Our relationship with the Saudis pre 9/11 is far different than post 9/11. I think they are getting the message... slowly.

How? Have they started to embrace democracy? Stopped exporting Wahibbism? Stopped funding fundamentalist muslim schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan? What exactly are they doing different right now?

[biggins]

well then how did we support iraq? well get ready!
1994 us senate report
bacillus anthracis: Anthrax
Botulinum
histoplasma capsulatem:much like tuberculosis
clostridium perfringens
these are somke chemical agents sold to iraq between 1985 and 1990
oh dont let us forget E coli either.

some little know companies that sold a few things to help with nuclear ( or as bush would say nuculer) facilities and well, war. hewlett-packard lots of computers and radar equipment, at&t , caterpillar, dupont ( which guess what they sold them, oil for their nuclear program), kodak and hughes helicopters. 60 helicopters that were then modified for military use.
i know that right now your saying that i said the government did it as well. well here comes that part:
1985-1990- Department of commerce approves 1.5 billion in sales to iraq of wah tthey call dual use technologies. these technologies could be used for good things, or warfare.
1985-1990 -$308 million dollars ( thats this many zeros ,000,000.00) worth of aircraft and helicopters and parts were transfered to iraq.

theres one more thing that may help clarify

[Drunken_Ninja]

i just have one question...why didn't they interrogate saddam hussein before they told the world?

afterall, there are ways of extracting intelligence without torture that are chemically effective. They must want direct answers.

First question: where the hell is bin laden?

we all need some answers fast to that one...

answer prolly like: he is in his own damn mountain. what you want me to take you to it? never been there, really.

[biggins]

" Cia Director Casey personally spearheaded the effort to ensure that Iraq had sufficient military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to avoid losing the Iran -Iraq war..... the united states actively supported the iraqi war effort by supplying the iraqis wit h billions of dollars of credits, by providing US military intelligence and advice to the iraqis, and by closely monitoring third-country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that I raq had the military weaponry required"
Howard Teicher
memebr of Reagans National
security council in a sworn
affidavit in 1995

to monitor the sale of weapons from third country arms which basically means we sold them or gave them to our ally at the time happened to be Saudi Arabia and they sold or gave them to Irag. its like a big happy giving tree.basically they were the pusher we were the supplier.

[biggins]

and finally to sum it all up, in 2001 the US consumed more than 40% of iraqi oil and gave him the key to the city of detroit in the 70"s.
proving once and for all that it is all about oil. What really happened to cause the war? Saddam was beginning to cut george off on the lube.

[Toshi]

nonono, it's not just about the oil. it's about overthrowing the whole middle east, one country at a time. that's nastier than the oil explanation, at least to me.

[HippieKai]

Originally posted by drt_jumper
first of all why dont you ask the familys of the hundreds of thousands of iraqi's whos families have been torn apart thanks to one saddam, how about him gasing his own people, funding terrorisim (maybe not al queda) but has been linked to funding other organizations....

No your right he did not fund Al Queda......WE DID we funded them and another group called Hummas! We paid for them to be trained and we gave them guns!
So don't you spout off without knowing the facts...





I hate when people watch Fox or take rumors as facts! I STUDY THIS STUFF!!!!

"So please don't talk if you don't know what your saying"
some smart dude-



i'm out i can't stand this!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by Mag204
...we funded them ...
What's one thing got to do with another :confused:

So what, we funded the enemy... big deal. At the time, they weren't, things change.

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by LordOpie
What's one thing got to do with another :confused:

So what, we funded the enemy... big deal. At the time, they weren't, things change.

Didnt we really fund "the taliban" not Al Queda anyway? In which case, who else were we supposed to fund....the RUSSIANS:confused:

[N8]

Don't you know that we (America) funded the terrorists... through our lavish use of petrolem products such as gasoline and plastics to maintain our lifestyle we demand as our birth right. That's the source for the $'s used against us.

[looseunit]

ok nate, so you object to it on the grander scale. and, assuming your thoughts on what would have happened under a different president are correct, this would be the correct thing to do. however, i think that the pansy "active dialogue" or however you portrayed it IS the right thing to do. we can't fight the whole world. therefore we must figure out what we're doing that's pissing them off so (supporting israel in all of their actions both acceptable and outrageous, like the wall) and change. i would rather compromise and not have a fascist-leaning govt than live in a secure state where true freedom of speech (since when has dissent become illegal? oh wait.) is nowhere to be found.

Cant agree more, American need to work out why there are pissing everboy off. Even the Americas Allies are not always sure how to support America and often only do because of finatual reasons. One of the main reasons for Australia involment in the illiagle war was to try and sucurre a free trade agreement with USA after 50 years of trying, we still dont have one.

As for taking action against Irqui do you not think it was all set up to help Bush win the next election. This has been done by many governments to take the interest off local politics and with the war on terror why not a arab nation. Any one rember the fuakland war. Not going thru the UN is the stupids think ever, what was the UN put in place to do, talk about pissing many countries off and then finding no WMD the main point of going to war. The end of Sadams rein is a good thing, but they way to do it was wrong way.

What are the most important things in Western Democaties are free speach, free press, right to a fare trial and free trade. Dont let me start on the suposted terrorist in cuba. This is what America should be pushing on the world and not showing the world a bad example of it.

If people dont try and understand other peoples and other countries culture the world is doomed. The same thing worked for Hitler with the jews. Cant tell me now with the war on terror people are not scared of arabs and Muslims and is helping Dubya Bush stay in power.

The world is becming alot more like 1984.

[N8]

Originally posted by looseunit
Cant agree more, American need to work out why there are pissing everboy off. Even the Americas Allies are not always sure how to support America and often only do because of finatual reasons. One of the main reasons for Australia involment in the illiagle war was to try and sucurre a free trade agreement with USA after 50 years of trying, we still dont have one.

As for taking action against Irqui do you not think it was all set up to help Bush win the next election. This has been done by many governments to take the interest off local politics and with the war on terror why not a arab nation. Any one rember the fuakland war. Not going thru the UN is the stupids think ever, what was the UN put in place to do, talk about pissing many countries off and then finding no WMD the main point of going to war. The end of Sadams rein is a good thing, but they way to do it was wrong way.

What are the most important things in Western Democaties are free speach, free press, right to a fare trial and free trade. Dont let me start on the suposted terrorist in cuba. This is what America should be pushing on the world and not showing the world a bad example of it.

If people dont try and understand other peoples and other countries culture the world is doomed. The same thing worked for Hitler with the jews. Cant tell me now with the war on terror people are not scared of arabs and Muslims and is helping Dubya Bush stay in power.

The world is becming alot more like 1984.


:confused:
:scratching head:

[Jorvik]

Originally posted by looseunit
Cant agree more, American need to work out why there are pissing everboy off. Even the Americas Allies are not always sure how to support America and often only do because of finatual reasons. One of the main reasons for Australia involment in the illiagle war was to try and sucurre a free trade agreement with USA after 50 years of trying, we still dont have one.

As for taking action against Irqui do you not think it was all set up to help Bush win the next election. This has been done by many governments to take the interest off local politics and with the war on terror why not a arab nation. Any one rember the fuakland war. Not going thru the UN is the stupids think ever, what was the UN put in place to do, talk about pissing many countries off and then finding no WMD the main point of going to war. The end of Sadams rein is a good thing, but they way to do it was wrong way.

What are the most important things in Western Democaties are free speach, free press, right to a fare trial and free trade. Dont let me start on the suposted terrorist in cuba. This is what America should be pushing on the world and not showing the world a bad example of it.

If people dont try and understand other peoples and other countries culture the world is doomed. The same thing worked for Hitler with the jews. Cant tell me now with the war on terror people are not scared of arabs and Muslims and is helping Dubya Bush stay in power.

The world is becming alot more like 1984.

Was that a drunk post? If so, sober up and get your thoughts into a cohesive argument.

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by looseunit
Cant agree more, American need to work out why there are pissing everboy off. Even the Americas Allies are not always sure how to support America and often only do because of finatual reasons. One of the main reasons for Australia involment in the illiagle war was to try and sucurre a free trade agreement with USA after 50 years of trying, we still dont have one.

As for taking action against Irqui do you not think it was all set up to help Bush win the next election. This has been done by many governments to take the interest off local politics and with the war on terror why not a arab nation. Any one rember the fuakland war. Not going thru the UN is the stupids think ever, what was the UN put in place to do, talk about pissing many countries off and then finding no WMD the main point of going to war. The end of Sadams rein is a good thing, but they way to do it was wrong way.

What are the most important things in Western Democaties are free speach, free press, right to a fare trial and free trade. Dont let me start on the suposted terrorist in cuba. This is what America should be pushing on the world and not showing the world a bad example of it.

If people dont try and understand other peoples and other countries culture the world is doomed. The same thing worked for Hitler with the jews. Cant tell me now with the war on terror people are not scared of arabs and Muslims and is helping Dubya Bush stay in power.

The world is becming alot more like 1984.

Did that come from a random generator? ;) :D

[-BB-]

Originally posted by biggins
the streets still are not safe and over half the population still supports saddam.

Did you fo over there and take a poll or something?
:rolleyes:

[MMike]

Originally posted by Toshi
[B]i must say that it also really pisses me off that this will help bush's reelection chances.

Well I'm trying o put a positive spin on it. Maybe people will think that now that Hussein is captured, dubyah has served his purpose and now they can get someone else. He was the guy to make sure stuff done got blowed up good. He accomplished the task of getting Hussein. Great. Suivant/next.....

[llkoolkeg]

I was hoping for some decent debate this morning, but I'll not find it in this thread. No matter which party controls the White House or Congress, any good that occurs is immediately taken credit for and any ill that occurs is automatically blamed on the other guy. Such horse$hit. We are so polarized to extremes that we only see good when we can claim credit for it ourselves.

Dubya has thus far successfully piloted our nation through a very perilous time. Is he not at least as deserving of a second term as Bill Clinton, whose mettle was never really tested(though his wood was)? I'm no big fan of JFK, but for God's sake- I give the man his due for guiding us through the Cuban Missile Crisis. People who only see the world through the eyes of an elephant or a donkey are the biggest fools of all.

Whether it be the Republicans or the Democrats running things, wars occur, taxes are levied, business cycles run their course, pets die, the gulf between rich and poor grows, spouses cheat, seasons change and the stupid-assed politicians continue to bicker amongst themselves over how best to fleece the middle class and distribute the spoils.

[mrbigisbudgood]

Bob Dylan for President, Bob Weir as VP. Call it the Psychadelic Party.

[MMike]

Originally posted by -BB-
Did you fo over there and take a poll or something?
:rolleyes:

Actually if you (not YOU, you...I mean you in general terms), watch news other than Fox/CNN/MSNBC not everyone was dancing in the streets. I watched CBC news again last and they showed a VERY different picture than the US news networks.... They interviewed a bunch of Iraqis, Jordanians, palestinians, and there are still MANY people who support Saddam and they saw yesterday as a very sad day for the arab world.

....and then there's even more who are fighting the US because even though they were against Saddam, they are against the US even more....but I digress a little....

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
No matter which party controls the White House or Congress, any good that occurs is immediately taken credit for and any ill that occurs is automatically blamed on the other guy.
That's partisan politics for you and it won't change. The only "solution" is disbanding the two parties or getting a third or fourth to a similar level of power.

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
Dubya has thus far successfully piloted our nation through a very perilous time.
No offense, but many could argue just as successfully that it was very perilous *because* of his actions... going into Iraq. If you're refering to 9/11, there was much to navigate.

[N8]

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
I was hoping for some decent debate this morning, but I'll not find it in this thread.

Well, come up with a new one LL... we'll play!

This one is dying.

:)

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by MMike
Actually if you (not YOU, you...I mean you in general terms), watch news other than Fox/CNN/MSNBC not everyone was dancing in the streets. I watched CBC news again last and they showed a VERY different picture than the US news networks.... They interviewed a bunch of Iraqis, Jordanians, palestinians, and there are still MANY people who support Saddam and they saw yesterday as a very sad day for the arab world.

....and then there's even more who are fighting the US because even though they were against Saddam, they are against the US even more....but I digress a little....

I had a chance to be in Downtown Everett, WA working a temp job when we went into Iraq. The Iraqi people living in Everett were happy and organized a parade by themselves to show their appreciation of what the US was doing there. I was able to talk to many of the Iraqi's on the street that day. They said theycouldn't go back to Iraq for fear of Saddam and his loyalists and the harm that would come to them if they returned.

Yesterday......On the local news, I saw many of the same Everett locals rejoycing in the streets and in their homes. In interviews they now feel that it will be safe for them to travel back to see family and friends. This very micro view (Everett, WA of all places) of life for Iraqi people has helped shape my views that I hold today.

I know my experience locally means little to most but it gave me a look, I wouldn't normally have had, at the people directly effected. Saddam's capture is a good thing, but not the end of drama in Iraq unfortunately. The fact he gave up with little fight and didn't go down in a blaze of glory is better in teh long run for the US. Hopefully the young men ready to commit suicide for Saddam will see him less worthy......because he didn't make himself a maurter(sp?) The strong leader was found hiding and without strength to fight back.

I hope he is tried and at the minimum sentenced to the equivalent of a hard life sentence. I don't know if killing him humanely is fitting of him. These are my personal views and I have to say Saddam is lucky I am not on the jury.

As far as politics...his capture should cross over all parties as a good moment. Worry about the presidential race tomarrow. I saw plenty of side stepping from the hopefulls as they attempted spin control...I would have done the same.

12/13/03 what many Everett WA Iraqi's call, "Iraq's Independance Day."

Rhino

[fluff]

Originally posted by N8
:confused:
:scratching head:

Yeah!

For possibly the first time ever, I'm with you!

This thread must contain the worst collection of poor english in any thread I have seen on this site. With a few honourable exceptions most of the posts have verged on unintelligible.

I know it's bad form to criticise people's postings on the basis of spelling and grammar but it began to be easier to find mistakes than correctly spelt words! If people want others to even consider their arguments, opinions and points, they'd do well to make them comprehensible.

Was there anything worthwhile here? The pain of trying to work out what people were trying to say got too much for me..

[llkoolkeg]

Originally posted by fluff
This thread must contain the worst collection of poor english in any thread I have seen on this site. With a few honourable exceptions most of the posts have verged on unintelligible.

I know it's bad form to criticise people's postings on the basis of spelling and grammar but it began to be easier to find mistakes than correctly spelt words! If people want others to even consider their arguments, opinions and points, they'd do well to make them comprehensible.

Was there anything worthwhile here? The pain of trying to work out what people were trying to say got too much for me..

Hahaha. Some of the posters write like Birminghammers.

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by fluff
Yeah!

For possibly the first time ever, I'm with you!

This thread must contain the worst collection of poor english in any thread I have seen on this site. With a few honourable exceptions most of the posts have verged on unintelligible.

I know it's bad form to criticise people's postings on the basis of spelling and grammar but it began to be easier to find mistakes than correctly spelt words! If people want others to even consider their arguments, opinions and points, they'd do well to make them comprehensible.

Was there anything worthwhile here? The pain of trying to work out what people were trying to say got too much for me.. a close 2nd to this is alarmist rhetoric -- from all political persuasions. For me, this has been one of the hardest threads to read.

[DRB]

Originally posted by Mag204
No your right he did not fund Al Queda......WE DID we funded them and another group called Hummas! We paid for them to be trained and we gave them guns!
So don't you spout off without knowing the facts...

I hate when people watch Fox or take rumors as facts! I STUDY THIS STUFF!!!!

"So please don't talk if you don't know what your saying"
some smart dude-
i'm out i can't stand this!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nothing like a good pile on. This thread is utter crap. Its like a monkey f'ing a football.

BUT this post has to be my favorite.

Notice I STUDY THIS STUFF, but starts with HUMMAS. Is that some sort of hybrid vegan terrorist group? Or is that the group that Burly Surly started to instigate his war between PETA and Greenpeace.

[MMike]

Nothing to do with anything really, but watching CBC last night they showed footage from 1982, with Donald Rumsfeld meeting and being all chummy with saddam.... back when the common enemy was Iran....

[N8]

Originally posted by MMike
Nothing to do with anything really, but watching CBC last night they showed footage from 1982, with Donald Rumsfeld meeting and being all chummy with saddam.... back when the common enemy was Iran....


...and Saddam had yet to use chemical weapons on his internal enemys, invade his neighbor to the south, feverishly work to get WMD's, yadda, yadda, yadda... nope, he hadn't done any of that yet...

[MMike]

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

[tgaines72]

"we got him."

That wasn't Saddam Hussein, its Santa Claus:confused:

Now what are we gonna tell the children:eek:

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by MMike
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ it meant little then, and it doesn't mean squat now. keep bangin' that drum, & all you'll find is the like-minded ilk around you. This is called "the minority", and there ain't no affirmative action plan i know of to "reinstate your rights".

Funny how the anti-bush crowd plays down his capture, touting "he wasn't in control / he was no longer a threat", but yet embrace this infamous pic as the most "damning evidence" of how hipocritical our administration is. Is this now issue #1? Are they breathing their last breath? There are other more relevant & recent events you could use to further your cause against this administration (yes, i've pigeon-holed you), like fiscally irresponsible foreign aide, energy policy, etc.

[Toshi]

i'm not anti-bush. i'm anti-idiot.

to clarify: i didn't like clinton, i don't like bush, and i don't like either party. i voted for nader, for instance (but libertarian in every other race). why i don't like these two people in particular isn't because of party loyalty, but because i think they're defective to the point that they shouldn't be in office.

[ummbikes]

I have a couple of questions for the pro-Bush crowd.

Is it wrong, in your opinion, to dissent from the mainstream views on a topic?

Does it make you less of a patriot than someone supporting the Bush regime and it's policies?

Is it possible to be happy Saddam is captured and still be concerned about how the next 20-30 years will be played out as result of our occupation of Iraq?

Our nation is very divided over this issue and others like the environment, corporate ethics and healthcare.

Is there common ground between conservatives and progressives?

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by ummbikes


Is there common ground between conservatives and progressives?

I think in actuality there is, but in instances like now, the Democrats arent playing that card. They're trying to be the anti-bush, and while that might be fine for a certain part of the population...its certainly not going to win an election. However, agreeing with Bush is also not going to win an election...and that brings me to my current stance...he obviously must be doing ok if you cant really find something wrong to attack.
Sure, its fine to disagree with anything, and you're still a patriot so long as you love your country.

[N8]

Originally posted by ummbikes
I have a couple of questions for the pro-Bush crowd.

Is it wrong, in your opinion, to dissent from the mainstream views on a topic?

Does it make you less of a patriot than someone supporting the Bush regime and it's policies?

Is it possible to be happy Saddam is captured and still be concerned about how the next 20-30 years will be played out as result of our occupation of Iraq?

Our nation is very divided over this issue and others like the environment, corporate ethics and healthcare.

Is there common ground between conservatives and progressives?

Yes to all your questions.

There is a lot of hardcore partisanship on this Forum. To balance the extremeist views quite often posted here (i.e. corporate America is the devil, Pres Bush is a drunken moron, N8 smoked the Magic 8 Ball :p, etc...) I tend to post a bit more partisian than I normally am in everyday life.

I have a lot of disagreement with the current administration but it's the best choice we have at the moment (in my opinion).

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by ummbikes
I have a couple of questions for the pro-Bush crowd.

Is it wrong, in your opinion, to dissent from the mainstream views on a topic? since it's an opinion, it can't be wrong, but can be properly (or poorly) defended.

Originally posted by ummbikes
Does it make you less of a patriot than someone supporting the Bush regime and it's policies? certainly not (as related in the prev response)

Originally posted by ummbikes
Is it possible to be happy Saddam is captured and still be concerned about how the next 20-30 years will be played out as result of our occupation of Iraq? not just possible, but intellectually honest and consistent.

Originally posted by ummbikes
Our nation is very divided over this issue and others like the environment, corporate ethics and healthcare.

Is there common ground between conservatives and progressives? duh! mnt biking! sorry roadies...

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by N8
N8 smoked the Magic 8 Ball :p

That is a great tag line...

[N8]

Originally posted by ummbikes
That is a great tag line...

It's classic Lord O' Pie that 4 sho'!


:p:p:p

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by ummbikes
I have a couple of questions for the pro-Bush crowd.

Is it wrong, in your opinion, to dissent from the mainstream views on a topic?

Does it make you less of a patriot than someone supporting the Bush regime and it's policies?

Is it possible to be happy Saddam is captured and still be concerned about how the next 20-30 years will be played out as result of our occupation of Iraq?

Our nation is very divided over this issue and others like the environment, corporate ethics and healthcare.

Is there common ground between conservatives and progressives?

Everyone can have an opinion, but I find it amazing people think they are safe from people questioning their own opinions. I think jsut about everyone is defensive when another questions their beliefs. I think this happens on all sides It has nothing to do with pro/anti-Bush. It happens regardless of whether it is main stream or not. It is more of an "I don't agree with you" mentality everyone has, and especially in this forum can express.

Patriot is what people lable someone with their own beleifs. Patriots are different for every side and traders to the others. It is a lable.....kind of like Freeride. ;)

We should be concerned about the future especially how it will now be after Saddam has been removed from the gene pool.

Common ground? Yes and they are labled fence sitters by everyone. There are reasons (varied) why people lean to different degrees to their own side. The existence of two major parties is good an bad. Many times nothing gets done (good or bad? depends on the subject and what side you are on I guess) The end results normally is a compramise that both sides will have to live with.....if either side had 100% ultimate power I think the US would go into the sh!tter faster than anyone can imagine.

Did I miss anything :confused: other than spell check ;)

[MMike]

http://msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3708757&p1=0

another interesting article....Iraqis questioning just how much better off they are now....

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by MMike
http://msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3708757&p1=0

another interesting article....Iraqis questioning just how much better off they are now.... yes, one Iraqi in particular - the erstwhile leader - is certainly not fairing as well as he was the previous 35 years.

do i really have to trot out the gains realized by the avg iraqi citizen since we've started occupying? Let's just pretend i did instead, & i'll keep my pom-poms under my desk.

[Toshi]

and how much of their previous misery was due to saddam? and how much due to the US? (hint: before saddam life wasn't all that bad. hint 2: sanctions don't increase quality of life)

[N8]

Originally posted by Toshi
and how much of their previous misery was due to saddam? and how much due to the US? (hint: before saddam life wasn't all that bad. hint 2: sanctions don't increase quality of life)

**GAG**

:dead:


Damn USA... alwasy trying to screw over other countries...what with our hamburgers and American style french fries...

[Toshi]

i don't think hamburgers or any of our cultural traits we've exported are bad. however, we have done a lot of damage with sanctions. this is undeniable.

[manimal]

Originally posted by Damn True
Bush supporter = drunken redneck
Bush detractor = intelligent and erudite people like you

:rolleyes:

that's what i was thinking. wow, it must be super to be an enlightened non-redneck.

apparently the silent majority of america are just drunken-rednecks, none of which can form any non-media biased opinion on their own. is that what they teach you up there in oregon?

[N8]

Originally posted by Toshi
i don't think hamburgers or any of our cultural traits we've exported are bad. however, we have done a lot of damage with sanctions. this is undeniable.


Sanctions are what the wet noodle spined UN likes to call decisive action.

Sanctions are what resulted when we listen to them.

The UN is broke and needs to be fixed.

[Toshi]

Originally posted by manimal
that's what i was thinking. wow, it must be super to be an enlightened non-redneck.

apparently the silent majority of america are just drunken-rednecks, none of which can form any non-media biased opinion on their own. is that what they teach you up there in oregon?
heh. no, i didn't pick up my attitude in oregon. :monkey:

[fluff]

Originally posted by N8
Sanctions are what the wet noodle spined UN likes to call decisive action.

Sanctions are what resulted when we listen to them.

The UN is broke and needs to be fixed.

What aboot Cuba? Would you blame the UN for that?

The thing with sanctions is that they might have some effect on a democracy where the people can influence government but in a dictatorship they're simply oppressive. If you (non-specific you btw) reduce the wealth of a nation that is run by a small elite you further polarise the distribution of wealth. Hence the ordinary citizen suffers whilst the dictators do not.

[DRB]

Originally posted by fluff
What aboot Cuba? Would you blame the UN for that?

The thing with sanctions is that they might have some effect on a democracy where the people can influence government but in a dictatorship they're simply oppressive. If you (non-specific you btw) reduce the wealth of a nation that is run by a small elite you further polarise the distribution of wealth. Hence the ordinary citizen suffers whilst the dictators do not.

Cuba is an excellent place to talk about in regards to sanctions and the effect on the people. The best thing the US could do is lift the sanctions completely. The overwhelming amount of trade that would happen almost instantaneously would make it exceptionally difficult for the government to stay in control of the people. Especially with Castro getting on in years.

The sanctions served their purposes in regards to Cuba. BUT here is the kicker to the whole mess. The President who does it can virtually assure his party losing Florida in the next presidential election because of the Cuban population there. So it is unlikely that any president is going to be willing to pull that trigger anytime soon.

[CRUM]

Originally posted by DRB
Cuba is an excellent place to talk about in regards to sanctions and the effect on the people. The best thing the US could do is lift the sanctions completely. The overwhelming amount of trade that would happen almost instantaneously would make it exceptionally difficult for the government to stay in control of the people. Especially with Castro getting on in years.

The sanctions served their purposes in regards to Cuba. BUT here is the kicker to the whole mess. The President who does it can virtually assure his party losing Florida in the next presidential election because of the Cuban population there. So it is unlikely that any president is going to be willing to pull that trigger anytime soon.

I agree that the sanctions should be lifted. They should have been lifted years ago. But, the memory of the backstabbing Castro pulled in the 50's, combined with the loud voices of exiled Cubans keeps this stupid policy in place. I question whether the form of government will fall simply because we stop the embargo. Cuba has been open to everyone else for years and Castro has had basically a lifetime to install and firm up a government that looks to have some staying power. I think our influence in this matter is overstated.

And you are probably right that Florida will pay back any president who opens up Cuba to US trade. And that is a shame. Another example of how American politicians play the crowds and not the issues. We have no one willing to risk anymore in American Politics.

[DRB]

Originally posted by CRUM
I agree that the sanctions should be lifted. They should have been lifted years ago. But, the memory of the backstabbing Castro pulled in the 50's, combined with the loud voices of exiled Cubans keeps this stupid policy in place. I question whether the form of government will fall simply because we stop the embargo. Cuba has been open to everyone else for years and Castro has had basically a lifetime to install and firm up a government that looks to have some staying power. I think our influence in this matter is overstated.

And you are probably right that Florida will pay back any president who opens up Cuba to US trade. And that is a shame. Another example of how American politicians play the crowds and not the issues. We have no one willing to risk anymore in American Politics.

I think you misinterpreted what I said about the government. When that sort of money comes pouring into a poor economy and folks start to get a taste of the "good" life, they push for more and more. Which forces the government to modify itself. The samething has been seen in China and Vietnam. Already with foreign investments from countries other than the US, the Cuban market has made a marked shift from a strict centrally planned one to more market driven one. US dollars are legal in Cuba and within in the next 3 to 5 years will be the based of 50 to 70 percent of the economy. Competition amongest companies exists in markets that could never have been imagined just a few years ago.

No the amount of influence that I am talking about is not overstated. If the embargo on just US tourism alone was lifted you are talking an estimated $1 billion in money (annually) that would go flowing into the Cuban economy. Take the entire embargo off and the amount of US money, goods and services being talked about is HUGE well in excess of $20 billion annually. There is simply no way that the Cuba can digest that investment and inflow without further changes in its governmental ecomonic structure.

[Drunken_Ninja]

Originally posted by MMike
Nothing to do with anything really, but watching CBC last night they showed footage from 1982, with Donald Rumsfeld meeting and being all chummy with saddam.... back when the common enemy was Iran....

that was the whole reason Chretien and Canada stayed out of the war on iraq and why they only sent peacekeepers to afghanistan. Ever since 9.11 they been rerunning that video on canadian television. just to make sure everyone has seen it.

as for saddam a-go-go...

i don't care anymore, as long as he doesn't escape, i ain't about to care anytime soon.

[Silver]

Crum's right though. Politics is pandering to the groups that scream the loudest, and the Cuban exiles in Florida are a shrill group to say the least.

[fluff]

But what was the back-stabbing that Castro pulled in the 50s?

[CRUM]

Originally posted by DRB
I think you misinterpreted what I said about the government. When that sort of money comes pouring into a poor economy and folks start to get a taste of the "good" life, they push for more and more. Which forces the government to modify itself. The samething has been seen in China and Vietnam. Already with foreign investments from countries other than the US, the Cuban market has made a marked shift from a strict centrally planned one to more market driven one. US dollars are legal in Cuba and within in the next 3 to 5 years will be the based of 50 to 70 percent of the economy. Competition amongest companies exists in markets that could never have been imagined just a few years ago.

No the amount of influence that I am talking about is not overstated. If the embargo on just US tourism alone was lifted you are talking an estimated $1 billion in money (annually) that would go flowing into the Cuban economy. Take the entire embargo off and the amount of US money, goods and services being talked about is HUGE well in excess of $20 billion annually. There is simply no way that the Cuba can digest that investment and inflow without further changes in its governmental ecomonic structure.

Maybe our influence would be as you claim should the embargo be lifted in the near future. But that is not likely. With the Cuban economy already starting to gain ground, and foreign investment other than US dollars streaming in, by the time we lift the Embargo, our influence will not be as big a deal. Certainly what happened in China and Viet Nam will happen in Cuba. But the longer we wait to open that market, the less inclined Cuba will be to play ball. Like the elephant, the US is not likely to forgive or forget the flip flop Castro pulled on us in the 50's. And frankly, I don't get it. We do business with China and they are certainly a scarier partner than Cuba could ever hope to be. So, I can only point to the heavy handed influence of the exiled Cubans in Florida and our sulky attitude over past history.

[CRUM]

Originally posted by fluff
But what was the back-stabbing that Castro pulled in the 50s?

We supported Castro in his early stages of getting the revolution together. As it turned out, he was accepting aid form Russia and in the 11th hour declared his allegiance to them. That really made the US mad. Then add in the Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missle Crisis, and his continuous nose thumbing, and that really made us mad. He honestly has no use for us. That may indeed be the real problem.

[fluff]

Originally posted by CRUM
We supported Castro in his early stages of getting the revolution together. As it turned out, he was accepting aid form Russia and in the 11th hour declared his allegiance to them. That really made the US mad. Then add in the Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missle Crisis, and his continuous nose thumbing, and that really made us mad. He honestly has no use for us. That may indeed be the real problem.

Didn't the US snub Castro? I seem to remember that when he came on a visit that he was given a bit of a runaround.

And you surely can't blame him for the Bay of Pigs, what would you have had him done?

Maybe it's me but the US perspective on Castro seems more than a little wonky.

The missile thing was a but nuts on his part for sure but in some ways it was just an earlier version of the paranoia currently at work in North Korea (and the USSR for many years).

[Ridemonkey]

Originally posted by fluff
Didn't the US snub Castro? I seem to remember that when he came on a visit that he was given a bit of a runaround.


Yes, actually this is true. You are still full of **** on the horse **** issue though.

:monkey:

[fluff]

Originally posted by Ridemonkey
Yes, actually this is true. You are still full of **** on the horse **** issue though.

:monkey:

You were really irked by that weren't you?

I've just sold my horse so I can return to being a two-wheeled trail reactionary and come back onto the fold. ;)

Unless you're considering sanctions for the next fifty years...

[Ridemonkey]

Originally posted by fluff
You were really irked by that weren't you?

I've just sold my horse so I can return to being a two-wheeled trail reactionary and come back onto the fold. ;)

Unless you're considering sanctions for the next fifty years...

Fifty years should do it.

Every time I get a horse poo nug in my mouth, I think of you. Thanks.

:dead:

[CRUM]

Originally posted by fluff
Didn't the US snub Castro? I seem to remember that when he came on a visit that he was given a bit of a runaround.

And you surely can't blame him for the Bay of Pigs, what would you have had him done?

Maybe it's me but the US perspective on Castro seems more than a little wonky.

The missile thing was a but nuts on his part for sure but in some ways it was just an earlier version of the paranoia currently at work in North Korea (and the USSR for many years).

First of all, I am not blaming Castro for anything. The incidents I described are but some of the possible reasons there are hard feelings between my government and his. The Bay of Pigs was Kennedy's fault. Castro just responded like anyone would when faced with a barrel full of ducks. The missile thing was where Castro showed how smart he was. By agreeing to nukes on his land, he scored huge aid and then sat back while the US and Russia played around the edge of nuclear catastrophe. My guess is he was laughing at both of us. And maybe what really pissed the US off was the fact that Castro has bettered us on most of the encounters we have had with him.

And you are right, the US perspective on Cuba is most definitely "wonky". I am not sure what that means, but I can guess.

As far as the paranoia regarding N. Korea. We should be paranoid.

[fluff]

Originally posted by Ridemonkey
Fifty years should do it.

Every time I get a horse poo nug in my mouth, I think of you. Thanks.

:dead:

I thought about mentioning collateral damage.

But then I decided that I didn't want to antagonise you so it wouldn't be wise.