Is it just me ....? or would anybody else love to have Treeman & Glynch over for dinner sometime ? Now that's entertainment !
glynch: Yes, you're right. Al Qaeda is the only group that matters in the world. No one else can hurt us, so we need to just stay focused on them... And that whole "and the states who support them" business was just a joke. We're not really going to go after states who support terrorism, and Iraq is innocent anyway... That 707 fuselage they have at Salman Pak was just used to train... Mmm, flight attendants! Yeah, that's it! I've noticed that you like continually paralleling this war with Vietnam, and I understand that you would like nothing more than to see the US lose another war, but they really have nothing in common, glynch. That one's falling on deaf ears. No, Colin Powell is a somewhat dovish former military man who is still a Republican. You, however, are a communist. You once claimed to believe in social justice theory. Do you deny that? "Social justice theory" is essentially communism, glynch. You are not a tree-hugging-humanitarian-pacifist, you are a communist. There is more than one type of leftist. Another lie... Would you like me to pull up one of the many instances where I said that I think the only situations where military action will be necessary are Afghanistan and Iraq, with Iran (including Hizbollah), Yemen, and Somalia as possible areas of military action? I have repeatedly stated that I think that political, economic, diplomatic, etc measures will work in most cases, yet you continue your campaign of "treeman is an evil militarist who wants to take over the world"... Why don't you try being honest for a minute? HayesStreet pretty much said it, but I'd add that China is our long term enemy, whereas these are short term enemies. We will come to China later. Maybe decades later. "Poor guy"??? Jesus, you truly are a f*ing Saddam apologist. You apparently don't even understand what a "carrot" actually is, either. What the hell do you think we've been doing for the last 11 years??? Give up the WMD, and have sanctions lifted. What do you not understand about that? You are even more foolish than I thought you were. "Poor guy", Jeeeezus... And why do you keep posting that Buchanan link? This is like the 3rd time you've posted it. Having a hard time finding people who don't support it??? And surprise, surprise, Buchanan - a staunch isolationist - doesn't want to send troops overseas. Goo, how shocking... I repeat: Idiot. Samuari Jack: Two men enter, one man leave.
glynch- Poor Saddam...whatever The man is evil. I suppose that you'd give a carrot to Hitler too? Most Americans were against entering World War I. In fact, part of Wilson's campaign for reelection was that he "kept US out of the war." So he gets reelected and we enter the war, against what Americans wanted. And we won. Look at that, we won a war. Then let's see. I believe that FDR also ran for reelection as the "keeping the peace" candidate. And then, will you look at that...he took us into World War II and got America out of the Depression. And low and behold, we won again. Wilson and Roosevelt are two of the most well known and respected presidents in history. And they were just as self-serving as Clinton and Bush. It's called politics. That's how things work in America. He's not attacking Iraq just to serve himself. Saddam is a very bad man. And even if you don't think he's that bad, remember this...there were plenty of people who didn't think Hitler was a bad guy either. And look what he did. Saddan has given us no reason to trust him despite numerous chances. If you don't like it, I'm sure Sweden would LOVE to have you!
Princess: In glynch's mind, Saddam has been unfairly bullied by Big Bad Uncle Sam. He's tried to negotiate with us in good graces, but our evil oil interests (and probably the Jewish PACs, too) won't let him live in peace. So what if he's developing WMD? He's got a right to develop his smallpox shells and his nukes just like anyone else does. And here comes Big Bad Uncle Sam with these illegitemate sanctions that kill a million innocent Iraqi kids. What is Saddam supposed to do, cave in? No! He should stick by his principles.... And now the oil interests and the Zionists are beating the war drums, and the US defense industry is pressing to kill more Iraqis so they can sell their vehicles of death... Poor guy. I think that's pretty much glynch's thinking on Saddam. I have yet to see him say a single bad thing about the man. But this is the first time I've seen him express sympathy... Very telling, I think.
I was talking in jest about Sadam being a "poor guy". He is of course a brutal dictator like many others around the world. We have a long history of supporting such men when they are seen as being is our long or short term interests. That is why we supported Sadam for so many years till our short term interests changed, not too long before the Gulf War. Other examples, Pincochet, the Shah of Iran, Guatemalan dictators etc. Several of the leaders of our new found friends in the oil rich states of Tazikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmensitan etc fit this category. When I said employ the "carrot", most of you went beserk. How is having sanctions that have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and blowing up their water and sewerage systems for no military reason, continual bombing off and on that continues I believe to this day employing a positive or carrot approach? Some of the UN weapons inspectors have protested the whole company line that we must continually bomb and boycott, when we have essentially determined that there are little are no weapons of mass destruction. They believe the sanctions, which are not that popular outside of the US and Israel, Kuwait etc are not needed. Of course Treeman and Bush have another position. ____________________________ by Scott Ritter* Christian Science Monitor January 23, 2002 At this very moment, US intelligence personnel are poring over documents, uncovering the depth of the anti-American plotting of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda network. Al Qaeda prisoners are being interrogated in an effort to unlock past secrets and interdict future threats to the United States and the world. As this investigation proceeds, the web of terrorist networks forged by Mr. bin Laden in his struggle against the West is becoming clear. Some of the exposed links are not surprising - including Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. Notably absent is Iraq. Given the spate of post-Sept. 11 media reports linking Iraq with bin Laden, one would expect a flood of evidence coming from Afghanistan confirming such a relationship. Even the alleged meetings between Mohammed Atta - a suspected leader of the Sept. 11 hijackers - and an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague are inconclusive. The Czech government has sent conflicting reports concerning this meeting and, even if the meeting took place, the supposed topic of discussion - an attack on a Radio Free Europe radio transmitter used to broadcast anti-Hussein programming - is a far cry from the 9/11 attacks. The lack of documentation of an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection in this intelligence trove should lead to the questioning of the original source of such speculation, as well as the motivations of those who continue to peddle the "Iraqi connection" theory. Foremost among them are opposition leader Ahmed Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress and his American sponsors, in particular Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, former CIA Director James Woolsey, and former Undersecretary of State Richard Perle. During my service as a UN weapons inspector, I had responsibility for liaison with Mr. Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress to gather "intelligence information" derived from Chalabi's erstwhile network of defectors and in-country sources. This information turned out to be more flash than substance. For example, there was the "engineer" who allegedly worked on Saddam Hussein's palaces who spoke of a network of underground tunnels where crates of documents were allegedly hidden during inspections. Inspectors did find a drainage tunnel. However, despite the fact that no documents were discovered, Chalabi took the tunnel's existence as confirmation that documents also existed, and spoke as if they were an established fact. In the same manner, when Mr. Wolfowitz and company needed a link between Iraq and the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks, Chalabi dutifully trotted out a series of heretofore "undiscovered" defectors who have "information" about the training of "Arab" hijackers by Iraqi intelligence at a facility near the Iraqi town of Salman Pak. The site is reported to be fully equipped with, among other things, a commercial airliner upon which the trainees can practice their trade, conveniently enough, in "groups of five" and "armed only with knives and their bare hands." The facility at Salman Pak does exist; its use as an Al Qaeda training camp is unsubstantiated. More recently, following President Bush's demand that Iraq permit the return of UN weapons inspectors or else "suffer the consequences," Chalabi conveniently produced another "defector" who allegedly had access to Saddam's secret plans to hide underground biological and chemical weapons facilities from international detection. I spent more than six years investigating the organizations the defector claimed to work for, and although elements of his story ring true, the details used to embellish his tale on weapons of mass destruction are impossible to pin down or, in some cases, just plain wrong. The UN stopped using Chalabi's information as a basis for conducting inspections once the tenuous nature of his sources and his dubious motivations became clear. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the mainstream US media, which give prominent coverage to sources of information that, had they not been related to Hussein's Iraq, would normally be immediately dismissed. This media coverage serves policy figures gunning for a wider war. It generates a frenzy of speculation concerning Iraq in the public arena, which accepts at face value this information despite the fact that almost none of what Chalabi has purveyed to the media about Iraq has turned out to be accurate. There is a substantial lack of clarity and credible sources on the actual nature of the Iraqi threat to the US. A wider debate on US policy toward Iraq is imperative, especially in light of the increasing war talk out of Washington. Rather than relying on information from dubious sources, let's put all the facts on the table. The conclusions drawn from such a debate could pull us back from the brink of an unnecessary and costly war. *Scott Ritter is former chief of the Concealment Investigations Unit for the UN Special Commission on Iraq. Treeman is talking about "social justice theory". I don't know what he means by this exactly. I believe in social justice; I hope most of you do also. I know their is a John Rawls social justice theory, which I don't really know the details of. I guess from his comments that some right wingers view this as a code word for communist. Perhaps in another post I'll detail the distinctions between a liberal/social democrat and a communist. As an aside Treeman, I would never brand you as a fascist. words like that and communist should be used carefully. Proud to be in the 12% who are against our invading Iraq, Iran? , North Korea etc.
glynch: Wow! A first! Glynch admitted that Saddam was a bad man! Turns out he was just joking all those other times he defended Saddam... Again, you do not appear to understand what the "carrot" part of the equation really is. Now, I said before that this isn't too complicated, but... here it is again: If Saddam gives up his WMD (the desired action), then the sanctions will be lifted (this is the "carrot", glynch). It is very simple. And BTW, the sanctions do prevent him from reconstituting his army to its pre-1991 levels - that is their primary goal. In addition, they make WMD development more costly and difficult, but far from impossible... As for the Ritter garbage (and it is garbage), answer me this: if Saddam is not developing WMD, then why not let the inspectors back in, get a clean bill of health, get the sanctions lifted, and rejoin the world community? The only answer is: he will not give up his WMD programs. Scott Ritter is the only former inspector who has said that he believes Iraq is WMD-free. Every single other inspector is positive that Saddam is most certainly not WMD free. Would you, like me to find an article by Ruchard Butler, glynch? You know, Ritter's boss? There are probably fewer than 5 "experts" in the world who believe that Saddam is not developing WMD. I call these people "morons". Every other "expert" in the world is convinced that Saddam is developing WMD. Ahh, but I forgot, you need a conspiracy theory to make it all work... Aside from Ritter, this is a lie. Why can't you be honest for one entire post, glynch? The former UNSCOM people are all pretty united over this; you may be thinking of the couple of Euros who are responsible for distributing aid and are angry about the sanctions (and Saddam's unwillingness to distribute aid to his people), but to say that the inspectors believe "there are little are no weapons of mass destruction" is a flat out lie. How can I compete with someone who lies in every single post he makes? And about main point items, too? Hey dumbass, it has been the position of the past 3 administrations - it's not just "treeman and Bush's whacky idea". Quite frankly, it makes me happy to think that you could be so obviously hurt by a policy decision. Any policy decision that you disagree with has got to be a good one... In fact, I think I'll use you to test any new ideas I come up with.
