[C9H13NO3 4me]

Superdave for president!!!

[BDA116]

Actually, typical of left wing democrats, SD and jaim are completely and totally full of ****.
All they are doing, as typical uneducated democrats, are being parrots to the idiotic propaganda that is typical on democraticunderground.com and on airamerica radio.
Saddam created his own chemical weapons processing capability and produced every ounce of mustard, tabun, sarin, etc gasses that he used of his own free will.
The United States did not sell him any of it. A Dutch firm sold him a dual-use chemical that can be used to produce either insecticides or mustard gas that helped him get up and running, not the United States.
Saddam used the chemicals against the Iranian army and against 100,000 Iraqi Kurds all on his own. The only "support" the United States gave was by not agreeing in the U.N. to bring any resolutions against Saddam.
By not having any international outcry, Saddam figured he could keep using the stuff.
The only reason the United States did nothing is because of the old "enemy of my enemy" thing. We did not provide anything to Saddam. He purchased military equipment and supplies from the Soviets.
We did not back him at any time, even during his war with Iran in any other way than not disagreeing with him.
As far as not wanting to overthrow him the first time, that was a call made by the U.N. after the Gulf War and Bush going along with them. We were fully ready to do it ourselves, but President Bush went along with the U.N.
Again, a case of typical democrat damned if you do, damned if you don't. They like to pick and choose what parts of history are relevant and when which way is right. So if going with the U.N. was wrong that time, why is going against the U.N. wrong this time?
And when we went against the U.N. by not sanctioning Saddam for using chemical weapons that HE produced, that was wrong as well?
Right, because it goes against the left wing nut agenda. It all depends on which way the wind blows.
At the time Rumsfeld met with Saddam, Iraq was not an enemy and Rumsfeld was not the SecDef.
Should we also show pictures of kerry shaking hands with Vietnamese leaders and other communist leaders at the time they were our enemies?

Again, typical of the left wing nuts that have no clue. Spreading misinformation and pushing it as truth. Just like CNN, the NYT, AirAmerica and everything out of kerry, jaim and sd's mouths.
**** 'em all.

[kawboy69]

Originally Posted by BDA116

Actually, typical of left wing democrats, SD and jaim are completely and totally full of ****.
All they are doing, as typical uneducated democrats, are being parrots to the idiotic propaganda that is typical on democraticunderground.com and on airamerica radio.
Saddam created his own chemical weapons processing capability and produced every ounce of mustard, tabun, sarin, etc gasses that he used of his own free will.
The United States did not sell him any of it. A Dutch firm sold him a dual-use chemical that can be used to produce either insecticides or mustard gas that helped him get up and running, not the United States.
Saddam used the chemicals against the Iranian army and against 100,000 Iraqi Kurds all on his own. The only "support" the United States gave was by not agreeing in the U.N. to bring any resolutions against Saddam.
By not having any international outcry, Saddam figured he could keep using the stuff.
The only reason the United States did nothing is because of the old "enemy of my enemy" thing. We did not provide anything to Saddam. He purchased military equipment and supplies from the Soviets.
We did not back him at any time, even during his war with Iran in any other way than not disagreeing with him.
As far as not wanting to overthrow him the first time, that was a call made by the U.N. after the Gulf War and Bush going along with them. We were fully ready to do it ourselves, but President Bush went along with the U.N.
Again, a case of typical democrat damned if you do, damned if you don't. They like to pick and choose what parts of history are relevant and when which way is right. So if going with the U.N. was wrong that time, why is going against the U.N. wrong this time?
And when we went against the U.N. by not sanctioning Saddam for using chemical weapons that HE produced, that was wrong as well?
Right, because it goes against the left wing nut agenda. It all depends on which way the wind blows.
At the time Rumsfeld met with Saddam, Iraq was not an enemy and Rumsfeld was not the SecDef.
Should we also show pictures of kerry shaking hands with Vietnamese leaders and other communist leaders at the time they were our enemies?

Again, typical of the left wing nuts that have no clue. Spreading misinformation and pushing it as truth. Just like CNN, the NYT, AirAmerica and everything out of kerry, jaim and sd's mouths.
**** 'em all.

Amen brother...

[jaim]

Originally Posted by BDA116

Actually, typical of left wing democrats, SD and jaim are completely and totally full of ****.
All they are doing, as typical uneducated democrats, are being parrots to the idiotic propaganda that is typical on democraticunderground.com and on airamerica radio.
Saddam created his own chemical weapons processing capability and produced every ounce of mustard, tabun, sarin, etc gasses that he used of his own free will.
The United States did not sell him any of it. A Dutch firm sold him a dual-use chemical that can be used to produce either insecticides or mustard gas that helped him get up and running, not the United States.
Saddam used the chemicals against the Iranian army and against 100,000 Iraqi Kurds all on his own. The only "support" the United States gave was by not agreeing in the U.N. to bring any resolutions against Saddam.
By not having any international outcry, Saddam figured he could keep using the stuff.
The only reason the United States did nothing is because of the old "enemy of my enemy" thing. We did not provide anything to Saddam. He purchased military equipment and supplies from the Soviets.
We did not back him at any time, even during his war with Iran in any other way than not disagreeing with him.
As far as not wanting to overthrow him the first time, that was a call made by the U.N. after the Gulf War and Bush going along with them. We were fully ready to do it ourselves, but President Bush went along with the U.N.
Again, a case of typical democrat damned if you do, damned if you don't. They like to pick and choose what parts of history are relevant and when which way is right. So if going with the U.N. was wrong that time, why is going against the U.N. wrong this time?
And when we went against the U.N. by not sanctioning Saddam for using chemical weapons that HE produced, that was wrong as well?
Right, because it goes against the left wing nut agenda. It all depends on which way the wind blows.
At the time Rumsfeld met with Saddam, Iraq was not an enemy and Rumsfeld was not the SecDef.
Should we also show pictures of kerry shaking hands with Vietnamese leaders and other communist leaders at the time they were our enemies?

Again, typical of the left wing nuts that have no clue. Spreading misinformation and pushing it as truth. Just like CNN, the NYT, AirAmerica and everything out of kerry, jaim and sd's mouths.
**** 'em all.

You're hilarious. You are right, seems the U.S. didn't directly sell mustard gas to the Iraqi's. But I did find the following.

14. When Saddam did in fact use chemical weapons against his own people, he did so on the afternoon of 17 March 1988, against the Kurdish city of Halabja. The United States provided diplomatic cover by initially blaming Iran for the attack. The Reagan Administration tried to prevent criticism of the atrocity. The Bush (senior) administration authorised new loans to Saddam in order to achieve the goal of increasing US exports and put us in a better position to deal with Iraq regarding its human rights record.
15. The US Department of Commerce licensed the export of biological materials—including a range of pathogenic agents—as well as plans for chemical and biological warfare production facilities and chemical-warhead filling equipment—to Iraq until December 1989, 20 months after the Halabja atrocity.

Which is from Who armed Saddam?

[BDA116]

Funny how all you democrats like to do your homework AFTER you spout non-fact.
Yes, like I said, the U.S. "ran interference" in the U.N. Which was the wrong thing to do, but it happened.
But at NO TIME did the United States give Iraq ANY arms at all.

Again, all you are is a left wing nut propaganda parrot. Nothing more.

[pmatch]

Now for me to get into some real ****. I think hanging Sadaam was a bad move. But then I come from Canada where we don't hang people. Invading Iraq was a bad move. Look at the mess your country is in. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.The situation seemed more under control before Iraq was invaded. At least your young men and women were not being killed every day. It can't be helping your economy.
But this is the message I want to bring to the table. Google Earth the British Indian Ocean Territory and look at Diego Garcia. You can see the bombers on the runway. Now google Diego Garcia Paradise Cleansed. You should come up with an article by John Pilger from Oct 4, 2004. Did the British and more so the Americans really steal this island from the inhabitants. Did the Americans evict the true owners of these islands with no regard for them or their future. And does the American government continue to deny these original peoples the right to return home in the name of national security. Did they use this island to bomb Iraq in the name of freedom and democracy so they could capture and hang Sadaam. The whole thing stinks as far as I am concerned.
But then maybe Mr. Pilger is just blowing smoke out his ass. Could there really be 2 sides to this story?
Or does hypocrisy reign supreme?

[johnnycrash]

Originally Posted by pmatch

Now for me to get into some real ****. I think hanging Sadaam was a bad move. But then I come from Canada where we don't hang people. Invading Iraq was a bad move. Look at the mess your country is in. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.The situation seemed more under control before Iraq was invaded. so they could capture and hang Sadaam. T

What? That's crazy. I thought everything was going great over there - at least according to Fox News.

[smoothrideronli]

[quote=BDA116;563752]Funny how all you democrats like to do your homework AFTER you spout non-fact...quote]

That is just stupid and doesnt contribute anything to the debate. This should go without saying but belonging to a political party does not mean that you are more or less knowledgable on any particular topic. Despite what some may think we are all part of the same country and political system...Republicans, Democrats, Independents...etc...The bottom line is we could all go through history and pick examples of the US doing good and bad and how each example may support our particular point of view, but I cant stand when threads stray from people having a debate stating facts but instead throw their own personal biases in order to insult whom they dont agree with.

[BDA116]

Facts are facts, even if they make you cry.
FACT=dems do this ALL THE TIME. It is part of their strategy. When they have a bunch of non-thinking sheeple as followers it is easy for them and they always get away with it. From their top socialist leaders like pelosi, kerry, kennedy, etc. all the way down to their minions and lapdogs in the mainstream media outlets like CNN, CBS, MSNBC, NYT, etc.
Why do you think the NYT has more retractions than any other paper? They don't care. They'd rather get out the lying, sensational headline one day and print the tiny retraction buried in the paper later.
Same with CBS and Dan Rather's BS. Why do the homework when you can run a lie-filled sensational story at the right time. The retraction can come later, after all the idiotic sheeple have already bought into the left wing hype and you have affected an election.
It is fact, deal with it.

[smoothrideronli]

The fact is your bias...thats the only fact. Politicians and politics are not perfect but you using a broad brush to categorize all people belonging to a single group. Especially when the category has nothing to do with that particular group. Also I think that the entire US has a bunch of non thinking sheep that jump on every headline without knowing or caring to do research in the matter...not just Dems. I dont dispute fact...it just bothers me when people use attacks to deride someone that they disagree with. Would you say the same thing if SD and Jaim were Republicans(Assuming that they are not)?

[jaim]

Originally Posted by BDA116

Funny how all you democrats like to do your homework AFTER you spout non-fact.
Yes, like I said, the U.S. "ran interference" in the U.N. Which was the wrong thing to do, but it happened.
But at NO TIME did the United States give Iraq ANY arms at all.

Again, all you are is a left wing nut propaganda parrot. Nothing more.

I'm rubber, your glue so keep supporting Bush and fronting a government that could care less about you or me or anyone on this board.

[steingar]

I saw a video where the Bastard got the noose and dropped, so I suspect it's a done deal. If that was a doppleganger someone did a nice job.

It wouldn't surprize me if we gave diplomatic and/or military aid to Iraq during the war with Iran, he was in a war with an avowed US adversary. We supported Manuel Noriega plenty before invading Panama. So what?

It really isn't a matter of one party doing one thing and the other something else. The government works in a much more complex fashion that isn't easily paintable in black and white. Things could be better or worse in one way or another with different people in power, but mostly things stay the same. The difference between the two political parties is as small as its ever been. Remember, the first political parties were organized around whether the US was going to have a strong central government or was going to be more predicated around states rights. The issues dividing the parties now are much more obscure and unimportant.

[soon2b954]

Originally Posted by BDA116

Facts are facts, even if they make you cry.
FACT=dems do this ALL THE TIME. It is part of their strategy. When they have a bunch of non-thinking sheeple as followers it is easy for them and they always get away with it. From their top socialist leaders like pelosi, kerry, kennedy, etc. all the way down to their minions and lapdogs in the mainstream media outlets like CNN, CBS, MSNBC, NYT, etc.
Why do you think the NYT has more retractions than any other paper? They don't care. They'd rather get out the lying, sensational headline one day and print the tiny retraction buried in the paper later.
Same with CBS and Dan Rather's BS. Why do the homework when you can run a lie-filled sensational story at the right time. The retraction can come later, after all the idiotic sheeple have already bought into the left wing hype and you have affected an election.
It is fact, deal with it.

What is the truth? What some politician told you? What you saw on CNN? What someone leaked to the media purposely weather it be true or false? Going into Iraq was a bad decision based on fiction and for the sole purpose of blood money. I truly feel sorry for the young men and woman who are being killed and maimed everyday there.

[SuperDave]

Originally Posted by BDA116

Actually, typical of left wing democrats, SD and jaim are completely and totally full of ****.
All they are doing, as typical uneducated democrats, are being parrots to the idiotic propaganda that is typical on democraticunderground.com and on airamerica radio.
Saddam created his own chemical weapons processing capability and produced every ounce of mustard, tabun, sarin, etc gasses that he used of his own free will.
The United States did not sell him any of it. A Dutch firm sold him a dual-use chemical that can be used to produce either insecticides or mustard gas that helped him get up and running, not the United States.
Saddam used the chemicals against the Iranian army and against 100,000 Iraqi Kurds all on his own. The only "support" the United States gave was by not agreeing in the U.N. to bring any resolutions against Saddam.
By not having any international outcry, Saddam figured he could keep using the stuff.
The only reason the United States did nothing is because of the old "enemy of my enemy" thing. We did not provide anything to Saddam. He purchased military equipment and supplies from the Soviets.
We did not back him at any time, even during his war with Iran in any other way than not disagreeing with him.
As far as not wanting to overthrow him the first time, that was a call made by the U.N. after the Gulf War and Bush going along with them. We were fully ready to do it ourselves, but President Bush went along with the U.N.
Again, a case of typical democrat damned if you do, damned if you don't. They like to pick and choose what parts of history are relevant and when which way is right. So if going with the U.N. was wrong that time, why is going against the U.N. wrong this time?
And when we went against the U.N. by not sanctioning Saddam for using chemical weapons that HE produced, that was wrong as well?
Right, because it goes against the left wing nut agenda. It all depends on which way the wind blows.
At the time Rumsfeld met with Saddam, Iraq was not an enemy and Rumsfeld was not the SecDef.
Should we also show pictures of kerry shaking hands with Vietnamese leaders and other communist leaders at the time they were our enemies?

Again, typical of the left wing nuts that have no clue. Spreading misinformation and pushing it as truth. Just like CNN, the NYT, AirAmerica and everything out of kerry, jaim and sd's mouths.
**** 'em all.

You are a fool. I stopped after the "we didn't back him at anytime".

You are an idiot for posting that. An idiot.

I've respected your opinions before even if they contrasted with mine, but your Republican filter/surf control or schooling has severely affected your opinions, and your so called "fact".

What a moron.

Are you sure you don't want to edit your reply for future references? What a history buff!!!!

[analogbear]

To honor history, let us admit that, with TE Lawrence's input and Beduin support, the US and Great Britain drew the geographic border-lines for ALL of the Arabian peninsula "countries" after the middle-eastern theater of WWI was brought into cease-fire status. So, to look at first causes: We are responsible for all of the foreseeable consequences of our actions as a nation; the rise of both a dick-tator and a religiously-fanatical insurgent sentiment in the population (of all of those externally-determined "nations" )is foreseeable, so we are responsible for all of it. OK. Before you all hunt me down and kick me in the balls, I do not mean to say we really are responsible in any meaningful sense.

I am just trying to indicate that both beedy-a's correct opinion that "dems" are selective in their appeal to history, and superdave's and jaim's (not really smooth's) opinions of the US' degree of actual influence, neither paints an accurate historical picture of the region, nor offers any solutions to the asshole-itis exhibited by ALL sides on the issue.

Look, nobody goes ad hominem any quicker than (me, or) the person with the crappier argument; but doing so disrespects everyone involved, and reduces any credibility the offender might have built in the argument or even over time.

Killing Saddam was, like the whole war in Iraq, a colossal waste of time and money (and in the case of the war: lives). Who thinks saddam is dead?

Better question: why does anyone freaking care?

[MR_TiGGer]

What's the count in Iraq right now? Around 600'000+ Iraqis dead and gone? In a clearly illegal war that allowed the US to drag my country into this farce like a puppy on a lead.
I say illegal because the United Nations who set the rules clearly said until PROOF is found on the WMDs then there is no legal cause to invade a sovereign country.
The Bush admin can twist and swerve the rules all they like with fancy lawyers and crooked CIA intel, but this was always about Oil and finishing the job Daddy bush started, he left a few Iraqis alive and never felt good about it afterwards.
If this was honestly about *cough* freedom from a dictator and protecting the innocent, then what of Sudan, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Chechnya etc etc??
There was a reason ...... what was it?? ........ oh yes NO OIL!!!

I know I know I'm a limp wristed Democrat in a world where 'might is right' but War on Terror?? What a joke, as how much safer is America and it's people now than BEFORE he decided to make Iraq the 51st State. And we're f##ked in the UK now as a viable target as well.

And before you all go mental, I hope and pray that every solider gets back alive and well, but legally they should never have touched down in the desert in the 1st place. And the rest should have left Saudi Arabia (what's considered holy ground) after Saddam was kicked back into his own country. I really hope there's a Hell then I'll know with certainty that Bush and his whole admin will be going somewhere very very hot for a very very long time.

If the UN said get in to Iraq and sort this out, then me and many many others would be strong supporters of a proper coalition, not just US and UK.

Final thought: Does the Hanging of Saddam make up for the thousands of dead US and British troops? And somehow make the whole thing worthwhile? If one of my family had died over there I want my government to answer for it.

Really pisses me off when people jump in with the 'Bush was right', against all the actual evidence available at the time ... that the UN took the time to study.

Politics: Discussion of Politics. Heated discussions are expected with this subject matter. If you don't have a thick skin, stay away.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by MR_TiGGer

What's the count in Iraq right now? Around 600'000+ Iraqis dead and gone? In a clearly illegal war that allowed the US to drag my country into this farce like a puppy on a lead.
I say illegal because the United Nations who set the rules clearly said until PROOF is found on the WMDs then there is no legal cause to invade a sovereign country.
The Bush admin can twist and swerve the rules all they like with fancy lawyers and crooked CIA intel, but this was always about Oil and finishing the job Daddy bush started, he left a few Iraqis alive and never felt good about it afterwards.
If this was honestly about *cough* freedom from a dictator and protecting the innocent, then what of Sudan, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Chechnya etc etc??
There was a reason ...... what was it?? ........ oh yes NO OIL!!!

I know I know I'm a limp wristed Democrat in a world where 'might is right' but War on Terror?? What a joke, as how much safer is America and it's people now than BEFORE he decided to make Iraq the 51st State. And we're f##ked in the UK now as a viable target as well.

And before you all go mental, I hope and pray that every solider gets back alive and well, but legally they should never have touched down in the desert in the 1st place. And the rest should have left Saudi Arabia (what's considered holy ground) after Saddam was kicked back into his own country. I really hope there's a Hell then I'll know with certainty that Bush and his whole admin will be going somewhere very very hot for a very very long time.

If the UN said get in to Iraq and sort this out, then me and many many others would be strong supporters of a proper coalition, not just US and UK.

Final thought: Does the Hanging of Saddam make up for the thousands of dead US and British troops? And somehow make the whole thing worthwhile? If one of my family had died over there I want my government to answer for it.

Really pisses me off when people jump in with the 'Bush was right', against all the actual evidence available at the time ... that the UN took the time to study.

There is an interesting perspective by a friend of a friend of mine...He is on the radio. Jay Severin. He likened the situation to a search warrant...We had a warrant to go in and look for wmd...We went in, didn't really find any, so should have left. Instead, we converted the effort into "regime change."

[MR_TiGGer]

Excellent analogy, one small point about the search warrant, they firebombed the house from the end of the street first, then went inside and refused to leave

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by MR_TiGGer

Excellent analogy, one small point about the search warrant, they firebombed the house from the end of the street first, then went inside and refused to leave

That is standard procedure here in New York...

[MR_TiGGer]

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by MR_TiGGer

Funny, yeah, but really...Look at Amadou, Sean Bell, and a host of other transgressions...

[MR_TiGGer]

Originally Posted by analogbear

Funny, yeah, but really...Look at Amadou, Sean Bell, and a host of other transgressions...

Holy ****!!! Just done a Google search on both those names, not heard about this in UK, unbelievable!
One policeman in London shoots a guy running away in theory after the July 7th bombings with some kind of rucksack, and is ordered to shoot him, the fallout about this went on for ages, yet

Undercover cops fired at least 50 rounds of bullets into a car carrying Sean Bell and two of his friends as they left Bell's bachelor party in the Jamaica section of Queens

and not a squeak about it over here.

Totally different worlds with 3'000 miles of water between, sometimes I wonder if it's 3'000 light years

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by MR_TiGGer

Holy ****!!! Just done a Google search on both those names, not heard about this in UK, unbelievable!
One policeman in London shoots a guy running away in theory after the July 7th bombings with some kind of rucksack, and is ordered to shoot him, the fallout about this went on for ages, yet and not a squeak about it over here.

Totally different worlds with 3'000 miles of water between, sometimes I wonder if it's 3'000 light years

I didn't hear about the rucksack man here. You're right...Light years.