Skip to main content

The President of the United Sates is a Bold Face Fraud!! Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi people are no more a threat to the United States than Castro, Communist China, the North Koreans or even the Russians. The President, without a declaration of war or provocation now wants to kill, maim and murder the Iraqi people under the guise of removing Saddam Hussein. The weak and ineffective Democratic Party has already caved in to the President, only Colin Powell remains moderate. But even worst are the hordes of dull, imprudent and badly informed white folk who believe this deceptive President. I cannot believe that based solely on the fabrications told by the Bush administration, the majority in the United States are so dense, dull and uninformed to actually believe that the Iraqi people deserve to be bombed, shot dead, or blasted to pieces by American missiles, tanks, artillery and bombs dropped from F-15 fighter jets. The President wants to kill and murder average Iraqi's who like you and I, are only trying to survive.

Now that the Iraqi government has agreed to unconditional weapons inspections, new lies told by the Bush administration appeared almost before Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz could complete his statement. Now the Bush administration says they don't believe Saddam, he's stalling; we heard this before and on and on and on. Why then did Bush even bother with the UN? If there is nothing the Iraqi government can say that would satisfy this hawkish administration, - what was the meaning of Bush's speech at the UN? Answer, GW Bush is a liar!!!War means that Bush and Cheney's friends in the defense department and corporate heads at Boeing, Lockheed and other military hardware manufactures win government contracts worth billions of dollars. It means that these corporate heads "kick back" with millions of dollars to the Bush political campaign for another four years in the White House. It means control of Iraqi crude oil and global prices per barrel, it means replacing Saddam with a puppet that will not threaten Israel thus insuring Israel's security. It also means that all the US must do is kill, murder, maim and blast the guts out of a few Iraqi's to achieve these goals. This is the real reason for war!!!
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I applaud you, well said. I'm glad the wool was removed from your eyes.

--------------------------------------

"This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion. " Quran 5:3

"In their wars of conquest however, the Muslims exhibited a degree of toleration that puts many Christian civilizations to shame"
-E. Alexander Powell

"The Muhammaden Law which is binding on all from the crowned head to the mearest subject is a law interwoven with a system of the wisest, the most learned and the most enlightened jurispudence in the world."
-Edmund Burke

"While Christianity has moved towards a social gospel in recent years, Islam has always been a social gospel"
-A. J. Toynbee

"As a religion, the Mohommadian religion, it must be confessed, is more suited to Africa than is the Christian religion, indeed, I would say it is more suited to the world as a whole."
-Lancelot Lawton

"It will thus be seen, that a final and complete text of the Qura'an was prepared within twenty years after the death (AD 632) of Muhammad, and that this has remained the same, without any change, or alteration by enthusiasts, translators, or interpolators, up to the present time. It is to be regretted that the same cannot be said of all the books of the Old and New Testaments"
-F. F. Arbuthnot

"Our religion teaches us to be intelligent. Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery. That's a good religion."
Malcolm X 1965 on Islam

"It (Qura
AH, nothing but the rantings of the uninformed and the misguided.

If Iraq is so innocent and had nothing to hide why have they for years refuse UN weapons inspectors to come into their country. You know the resolutions were part of deal after we kicked their butt in the war. It would be different if they were US resolutions, but they are UN resolutions thus it was members of the UN that voted to put these resolution on Iraq. It is well known that Saddam process chemical and biological weapons, that evidence was discovered during the Gulf war. Saddam even used chemical weapons on his own people killing men, women and children indiscriminately, where is your rage over that. This man is continually trying to get the materials to build nuclear devices, I suppose we can probably sleep better knowing that he will only use them on his own people. Why they don't believe Saddam because he has played this game before, yes you can come in and then at the last moment no do not come in. In fact in the last several weeks when it looked right he might invite the inspectors in, yeah last moment said no.

While I am not edgar for us to go into Iraq and take him out because it will lead to years of American troops sitting there keeping the peace. I am also not so naive to believe this man is not a threat. And the really scary part is that his sons are worst then him, they are really depraved with one son trying to kill the other. Runs in the family alright.
Iraq made a surprise offer late last night to provide "unconditional access" to United Nations inspectors, raising hopes of a peaceful outcome to the Gulf crisis.

But today it emerged that the offer only applied to military bases - which could let Saddam hide chemical and biological arms stockpiles elsewhere.
...
The disclosure that restrictions were, after all, attached to Saddam's offer was made by the London ambassador of the Arab League which brokered the deal in the first place.

Ali Muhsen Hamid claimed Iraq was being sincere, but he stipulated that civilian sites would not be available to the inspectors. "We support anywhere, any military site (for inspections), but not as some people have suggested for inspections against hospitals, against schools."

Hospitals are among key sites for inspections because of evidence that Saddam uses health laboratories to manufacture viruses for biological weapons.

An Arab League spokesman said only military sites were covered because it would take 10 years for inspectors to examine civilian buildings, which would divert the UN's attention from making Iraq obey its resolutions. "If the US really wants to resolve this dispute it will welcome the offer," he added.

------------------------

Saddam is up to his old tricks...

Arab/Muslim sympathizers are ecstatic over the gullibility of the West and EU...

.

------------------------------
The Liberal/Progressive mantra: "We are the champions of diversity and opinions... We tolerate all beliefs, all religions, and all customs.......... Unless they disagree with ours!"
Captain Jazzdog

"Saddam even used chemical weapons on his own people killing men, women and children indiscriminately, where is your rage over that."

Where is my rage? Wrong question sir, why didn't the US invade then? Why now over a decade removed from the crime, - sir? But that aside, according to your profile it seems you are an "Ex Air Force Officer presently working for Dept. of Army Areas of expertise: Explosive and Chemical Agent Safety." Unfortunately, your employment compromises your intellectual opinion in that those who work for the government should not criticize their employers. As a result, even if evidence of Bush administration lies were presented to you in clear black and white, you still can never bite the hand that feeds you, never!!

As a consequence, as long as you are a government employee, you are no different from Condi Rice or Colin Powell. That is, like these individuals whom can never use their positions to publicly advocate for social programs for African Americans, you in similar ways are equally constrained in what and how you see the world and moreover speak publicly about it while still associated either with the uniform or the USAF code of conduct. In similar fashion, no matter how wrong Governor Wallace may have been, any white police officer that worked in the South during the 1960s Civil Rights strife that believed that racial segregation was wrong and integration was right would not have ever lasted under the leadership of Governor George Wallace.

Thus, it is expected that you should respond in the way you did. Your present relationship with the US government unfortunately shares the same ingredients as Wallace racist police insofar as you must support the government that employees you right or wrong! So it is expected and predicable that you would respond to US military intervention in the way you did. Perhaps when you are free of the US government and can review all sources of information and need no longer worry about what you say publicly, i.e., (behavior unbecoming of a US Government employee), maybe then would be a better time to discuss global politics. You and I both know "talk" that can be misconstrued for sedition while a government employee is suicide pure and simple! So for now, anybody who thinks they are going to get a balanced opinion from individuals like you are wholly misguided. That is to say, you only have one opinion, pro government right or wrong!!! Sir.

[This message was edited by kraaal on September 17, 2002 at 04:00 PM.]
quote:
Originally posted by jazzdog:

AH, nothing but the rantings of the uninformed and the misguided.



quote:
Originally posted by kraaal:

Captain Jazzdog

So for now, anybody who thinks they are going to get a balanced opinion from individuals like you are wholly misguided.


The referee steps in and separates the boxers. He then turns and takes one point away from kraaal for hitting below the belt. smile He then also turns to Jazzdog and does the same. smile He admonishes the combatants to refrain from personal attacks (even in the boxing ring), rubs their gloves together and sends them back out to "get it on"! smile

Cool?


Onward and Upward!
Oh get real, obiviously you have no idea of what you are talking about. As a civilian employee of the government I talk about and critize whoever I please, if you don't believe it I got some COL's and even a General that will tell you I speak my mind quite freely, there is nothing in my oath to serve my country that robs me of my first admendment rights. You really need to stop reading all those conspiracy books, there starting to effect any rational throught that you might have left.

My ability to talk about and critize my country are only limited by the fact that I cannot discuss classified information, other then that I can talk about whoever I want. I take that you never served cause if you did you would realize those of us who served don't want wars because we and not puffed up intellectuals like yourself are the ones who have to do the fighting and the dying. You really think that I got up each morning hoping to go to war, "oh please god let there be a war today so I can kill something". You are an idiot.

"Behavior unbecoming of a government employee" oh yeah that's good one, I believe the behavior that might fall under that heading is theft of government property, defrauding the government, misuse of government property, selling classified information to a foreign operative; get the picture, they are all crimes!! And as far as being free to review all sources trust me little man when I tell you I see things that you will never see or hear on the news. You make it sound like because I am a government employee they can tell me what to read and what to watch on TV or listen on the radio, man you are really delusional.

The idea you are trying to project would mean that every black or brown person who works for the government is a mindless drone who cannot freely express his ideas, you must believe in the easter bunny too. Perhaps you are not familiar with some of the various associations and government unions that quite frequently express their displeasure with Uncle Sam and you know what, there ain't a damn thing Uncle Sam can do about it. Before you start making statements about government employees and our undying loyalty to George W. it would probably do you some good to actually talk to some.

[This message was edited by jazzdog on September 17, 2002 at 05:25 PM.]
You see now I am really confused. If you served then you know that only uniformed members of the military are subject to any restrictions about making negative comments about the chain of command to include the the national chain of command. Also political appointees who speak out of turn are also usaully beat over the head for questioning the leadership.

I am glad to see that you served and that we share the same thing in that I would serve again if called upon also. If I seem alittle harsh in my statements it is that fact that people automatically assume that because you are a government employee that you automatically support any political decisions made by our leadership and that is the furthest theing from the truth. My government job is my job not my life, I learned a skill in the military and used that to secure me a job that also secures my future, there aren't many jobs outside the military in private industry that use my skills.

If you but go to some of these rallies in the capital where people express their views about certain policies of the government, you will no doubt find plenty of government workers. In fact if my working for the government required me to give up my freedom of speech...well I guess I would have to find another job, cause that freedom is to previous to give up.
Captain, being a government worker is only one reason I believe speech is curtailed in the workplace. But let me just say this about myself. I am Black man who in addition to my Vietnam Veteran status, hold a bachelors degree from the University of Washington and a Masters degree from Pacific Lutheran University. I usually do not discussed issues I am not well read and written in. I will explain later in a short essay why I believe speech or as I coined it "talk" in the workplace is often times restricted and why I believe this is particular true for certain government workers. I am aware of the conditions you sited as it regards "sensitive government information." That is not what I was referring to, as I said I will explain. Oh, and by the way, for whatever its worth I happen to be married to a black women nearly 16 years with the same women. And one more thing, in December of this year I will be 50 years old, Captain I've been around!
For what its worth this past July was 22 years of marriage to the same women, Congrats to both of us.

I will not denied that they are some supervisors I think in all kinds of business both private sector and government work who are so wrapped up in the red, white and blue that any negative discussions concerning our government they treat as treason. But what they forget and people need to remind them is that the people are the government even if you work for the government. Other then people who work in sensitive areas who maybe can't talk freely I can't think of anyone who would willingly give up their freedom of expression to work for the government, I mean truth be told no one gets rich working for the government.
quote:
Originally posted by jazzdog:

Saddam even used chemical weapons on his own people killing men, women and children indiscriminately, where is your rage over that.



Thanks Jazzdog and kraaal for bringing things back to the right place! I admire both of you greatly for your long marriages. Congratulations!

Re: the question above, I am so confused about much of our international foreign policy. It seems that one day we are in bed with someone and the next they are using that formerly positive relationship against us. I just heard today, for example, that the United States supplied Iraq with chemical/biological weopons when we supported them against Iran. eek Of course, we know about the Taliban shooting at us with our own Stingers!

I wish we could create weopons that self destructed after a certain period of time, or that we had some secret shield against it being turned back against us. smile

BTW - I also understand that Iraq used nerve gas against the kurds under our direction/approval.


Onward and Upward!
I am active and we are "advised" not to say anything against the president and we are "advised" not to say anything negative against the govt.
That said there are quite a few leaders that we need to keep our eyes on and Saddam is one of them. I personally felt that while we were over there that we should have cleaned house and got some payback from some past incidents. In that I mean Iran, Syria and a few others should have got some house calls.
{{{Of course ArabianQueen being 15 years old 'yeah right' roll eyes would know nothing about those incidents}}}!!!
Is there a double standard on who and what countries we target? I'll answer that when I retire, but until said time I will honor the obligation and oath I took.
The Bush administration has just added four more conditions Iraq must meet to avoid US missiles and 2000 pound bombs America wants to drop on Baghdad. Would you believe that the Bush administration is demanding Iraq pay reparations to Kuwait? This is designed policy intended for Saddam to renege on as much as only one condition that would then justify war. Clearly, too much money is now at risk of being lost if America allows Saddam to wiggle out of War. Additionally, GW Bush's second term in the White House may be in jeopardy if Bush fails to extend the war on terrorism to Iraq. A recipe for Iraqi death!

Is Saddam a butcher? Perhaps, but is he any different from the standard butchers created and propped up by the US government like the Shah of Iran Mohammad Reza, Chile's Allende, South Africa's P.W. Botha, Augusto Pinochet, Pol Pot in Cambodia, Ariel Sharon and all the repressive black leaders in Africa and Central America. So how would these repressive governments receive Americans? These monstrous leaders would receive Americans favorably as long as Americans are there to reap the benefits of their repression. But the very minute Americans start supporting the oppressed masses, then they will disappear like those Nuns and the Catholic Priest did in Central America with no American military forthcomming.

[This message was edited by kraaal on September 17, 2002 at 08:34 PM.]
As I stated a couple post ago, I am an Honorably discharged Vietnam Veteran service dates: 1971-73 US 8th Army Korscom. I understand the oath you took, you must honor it! Therefore, because you are charged with the responsibility of defending this nation, I have only few things to say to you. First, like you if the situation dictates I will serve again honorably. Secondly, I will admit that after my discharge I attended college and studied the country and people I was sent to kill. To this day I admire Ho Chi Mein, communist or otherwise. The main reason for my admiration for men like him is not found in his race or politics, it is his profound belief in his people and his nation. The exact same principals that you and I defend America!!

Oh by the way, I was stationed at Camp Carroll Depot.
Kraal,
The respect for different leaders is something I can get with you on. I am a history major and plan to teach when I get out. I also study "our adversaries" past and present. Yes some of them are really interesting characters, and some are complete bums. I have ;earned how some felt betrayed by our government and how some were no different from you, I or anyone else on this board with their beliefs for homeland and people.
IMO - there are financial/economic considerations behind everything that our country does. It is often couched in political or "freedom" language, but it's all about opening markets to U.S. business or some other economic rationale.

Clearly, there is some ulterior motive in place with Iraq. With the hawks in the administration, and their ties to corporate America, it's not hard to build a case for oil and defense interests driving our Iraq policy.
Maybe, but don't you think that we could just as easily build a case that the effort is based on a need to assure ourselves that we have done all that we can to eliminate the threat of future terrorist attacks? After all, we now know, and will never be able to forget, that Arabs can attack us within our own borders, and we also know that Saddam has used weapons of mass destruction previously. It seems to me that irrespective of other interests a strong case for war can be made.
john doe

I would agree that we could make an assumption that it is in our best interest to hit them first but the problem is what about the other "rogue nations". Saddam is not the only idiot with nukes or chemicals in his arsenal. There are crimes committed all over in different countries so who and what is the deciding factor in who we get? Unknown to most there is a fire fight on the DMZ almost everynight. nK breaks the cease fire on a regular basis so why do we not slap them around?

As I love discussing with my comrades in the 82nd, Grenada, Panama and Haiti were threats to who? Where did their armies rank with the true world powers? Those were examples of stopping what kind of threat? confused

[This message was edited by ocatchings on September 19, 2002 at 05:27 AM.]
Even if Iraq violated all of the UN resolutions as they are accused, there is no proof or evidence by either the CIA or any other American or British monitoring agency that clearly links the violations to new Iraqi aggression towards another sovereign nation. Nor is their any CIA or British evidence that Iraq either financed or was an accessory to 9/11. None of the participants who committed the 9/11 crimes were Iraqi. Since the Gulf War ended, neither Britain nor the US has any evidence that Iraqi UN violations resulted in or lead to the continuation of atrocities against the Kurds or any other anti-Saddam group within Iraq. And even if Iraq has WMD, since the end of the Gulf War, Iraq has not used, sold or gassed any country anywhere in the world.

Based solely on supposed UN violations and nothing more, the American and British governments want to kill and murder Iraqi's under the guise of removing Saddam Hussein, - this is purely INSANE!!!
quote:
Originally posted by LibDem:
IMO - there are financial/economic considerations behind _everything_ that our country does. It is often couched in political or "freedom" language, but it's all about opening markets to U.S. business or some other economic rationale.

Clearly, there is some ulterior motive in place with Iraq. With the hawks in the administration, and their ties to corporate America, it's not hard to build a case for oil and defense interests driving our Iraq policy.


I agreed with you completely, for instance all these people who believe that we were liberating a demorcatic country during the Gulf War. Please it was about the oil, but Bush couldn't get on TV and tell the american people that we were going to fight and die for oil and oil companies. It was a joke Kuwait was not and is still not a democratic society in which the people freely elect the leaders. It's amazing the number of people today who still think that we were liberating a democratic society.
quote:
Originally posted by ocatchings:
john doe

I would agree that we could make an assumption that it is in our best interest to hit them first but the problem is what about the other "rogue nations". Saddam is not the only idiot with nukes or chemicals in his arsenal. There are crimes committed all over in different countries so who and what is the deciding factor in who we get? Unknown to most there is a fire fight on the DMZ almost everynight. nK breaks the cease fire on a regular basis so why do we not slap them around?

As I love discussing with my comrades in the 82nd, Grenada, Panama and Haiti were threats to who? Where did their armies rank with the true world powers? Those were examples of stopping what kind of threat? confused

[This message was edited by ocatchings on September 19, 2002 at 05:27 AM.]


In fact almost twenty years ago if my memory serves me right, two american officers in charge of a tree branch clearing operation in the DMZ (it was blocking their view of the north) were savagely attacked and hacked to death by a group of North Koreans. It was captured on camera for the whole world to see. Two american military officers killed would seem perfect justification for military strikes but as far as I can remember just words were tossed back and forth.
Jazzdog
Yes it was in "76" and the tree was cut down but no retaliation was ever taken. A few months ago there was a naval battle between S Korean and n Korean ships a clear breaking of the truce and here we sit. But we want to justify actions against someone else. If I am correct wasn't n Korea part of the axis of evil that needed to be destroyed? I will say this, our govt is sending a confusing message and it is causing confusion in the ranks.
Ocatchings,
I agree that there are too many threats around the world right now, and not enough bullets to deal with them all. But it seems to me that after September 11, we should take threats from the Middle East more seriously than we do those from Central America and the Carribean. I wonder, though, if we spend all our time looking for threats from the Arabs, will we miss others that are closer to home?
For what it's worth, on September 10, 2001, Afghanistan seemed like no more of a worry to the US than Panama, Grenada, or Haiti.
John Doe
I'm sure we could get enough bullets but who should get them is the question. True Afghanistan was not a threat on Sept 10th, but in a sense I blame our politics for the "next day".
Everyone wants protection and safety, but noone is willing to sacrifice for it. We look to stop all the evil before it gets to us, but that failed. After the attacks everyone was all for increased security, national ID checks and so on; look at it now and everyone wants the old ways back. It can never go back to the way it was and as long as people think that way we will always be looking over our shoulders. To get some sense of security some feelings have to be hurt. With that I mean that some groups in the states need a house call as well.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×