|
Bin Laden Admits Defeat in Iraq (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by LatinLover
Clintos foreign policy was terrible! Just look at NK he gave them money in exchange for NK to allow inspectors and keep a "transparent" nuclear program. What did NK do, it injected that money to strengthen its program and military. Clinton is the one to blame for allowing a genocide to occur and Clinton is the one to blame for not assassinating OBL when we had a chance too, as Clinton even admits it HE FAILED ON THAT PART. |
Let's see if I can help break down a little more:
When Clinton noticed N. Korea was trying to make more weapons-grade plutonium, he threatened war directly with them and prepared plans to attack:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...s/dprk_nuke.htm
Consequently, the N. Koreans backed off.
By all accounts, Clinton had actually FROZE the N. Korean nuke weapons program as it were:
http://www.armscontrol.org/factshee...edframework.asp
And as a result, not one ounce of plutonium was further made by the N. Koreans.
From that part alone, can the same be said of your idiot president in charge?
In March of 2001, Sec. of State Powell said he wanted "to continue the process begun under Clinton." Bush, OTOH, essentially told him to shove it:
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron.asp
And Bush then threw them in that darn "Axis of Evil" label:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...0020129-11.html
Now here's where you might be getting a little confused. Our intelligence agencies did, in fact, detect signs in the last coupla years of Clinton that N. Korea was reneging their part of the bargain, and when confronted in 2002 N. Korea admitted it and offered to bargain a deal. I'll grant you that we had every right to be suspicious of them, but what Bush did was take it to the extreme and completely walked away from any and all negotiations. As a consequence, N. Korea told Bush to take a hike and kicked out all the inspectors and broke all agreements like the Non-Proliferation Treaty. They reprocessed plutonium in 2005 from the fuel rods that Clinton helped keep at bay with the IAEA inspectors, they tested their missiles and also tested a bomb.
All plutonium, all testing, all the bull that occurred with N. Korea was done under Bush, not Clinton.
The 1994 Agreed Framework that Clinton created with N. Korea wasn't the best in the world, and it had it's faults. But that framework DID keep N. Korea from making plutonium, testing missiles (except one to which Clinton again threatened and Kim backed down again), and testing bombs.
Neither Bush Sr. nor little Jr. have this to account for in their record. Sorry to break it to you.
Oh, and here's a little bonus for your Bush-loving heart. Guess who sat on the board of a company that sold two light-water nuclear reactors to N. Korea? That's right, son, your favorite neocon warmongering dip, Mr. Donny Rumsfeld!:
| quote: | Rumsfeld was a non-executive director of ABB, a European engineering giant based in Zurich, when it won a $200m contract to provide the design and key components for the reactors. The current defense secretary sat on the board from 1990 to 2001, earning $190,000 a year.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/art...,952289,00.html
..............
ABB spokesman Bjoern Edlund told Fortune magazine at the time that “board members were informed about this project.” … “This was a major thing for ABB,” the former director [who sat on the board with Rumsfeld] said, “and extensive political lobbying was done.” The director recalls being told that Rumsfeld was asked “to lobby in Washington” on ABB’s behalf. … Although he couldn’t provide details, Goran Lundberg, who ran ABB’s power-generation business until 1995, says he’s “pretty sure that at some point Don was involved,” since it was not unusual to seek help from board members “when we needed contacts with the U.S. government.”
http://www.prisonplanet.com/042803nkorea.html |
Well hey, who says our neocons can't have fun? Hell, we can't just arm ourselves and do it - dammit we gotta arm the enemies as well! Which, of course, neocons know very well how to do that...... |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
DAMN I WANT MY 18 MONTHS OF FREE GAS |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Shibby
DAMN I WANT MY 18 MONTHS OF FREE GAS |
Speaking of gas, this op-ed absolutely floored me this morning. I had no idea...
| quote: | November 14, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Two dates — two numbers. Read them and weep for what could have, and should have, been. On Sept. 11, 2001, the OPEC basket oil price was $25.50 a barrel. On Nov. 13, 2007, the OPEC basket price was around $90 a barrel.
In the wake of 9/11, some of us pleaded for a “patriot tax” on gasoline of $1 or more a gallon to diminish the transfers of wealth we were making to the very countries who were indirectly financing the ideologies of intolerance that were killing Americans and in order to spur innovation in energy efficiency by U.S. manufacturers.
But no, George Bush and Dick Cheney had a better idea. And the Democrats went along for the ride. They were all going to let the market work and not let our government shape that market — like OPEC does.
You’d think that one person, just one, running for Congress or the Senate would take a flier and say: “Oh, what the heck. I’m going to lose anyway. Why not tell the truth? I’ll support a gasoline tax.”
Not one. Everyone just runs away from the “T-word” and watches our wealth run away to Russia, Venezuela and Iran.
I can’t believe that someone could not win the following debate:
REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE: “My Democratic opponent, true to form, wants to raise your taxes. Yes, now he wants to raise your taxes at the gasoline pump by $1 a gallon. Another tax-and-spend liberal who wants to get into your pocket.”
DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE: “Yes, my opponent is right. I do favor a gasoline tax phased in over 12 months. But let’s get one thing straight: My opponent and I are both for a tax. I just prefer that my taxes go to the U.S. Treasury, and he’s ready to see his go to the Russian, Venezuelan, Saudi and Iranian treasuries. His tax finances people who hate us. Mine would offset some of our payroll taxes, pay down our deficit, strengthen our dollar, stimulate energy efficiency and shore up Social Security. It’s called win-win-win-win-win for America. My opponent’s strategy is sit back, let the market work and watch America lose-lose-lose-lose-lose.” If you can’t win that debate, you don’t belong in politics.
“Think about it,” says Phil Verleger, an energy economist. “We could have replaced the current payroll tax with a gasoline tax. Middle-class consumers would have seen increased take-home pay of between six and nine percent, even though they would have had to pay more at the pump. A stronger foundation for future economic growth would have been laid by keeping more oil revenue home, and we might not now be facing a recession.”
As a higher gas tax discouraged oil consumption, the Harvard University economist and former Bush adviser N. Gregory Mankiw has argued: “the price of oil would fall in world markets. As a result, the price of gas to [U.S.] consumers would rise by less than the increase in the tax. Some of the tax would in effect be paid by Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.”
But U.S. consumers would have known that, with a higher gasoline tax locked in for good, pump prices would never be going back to the old days, adds Mr. Verleger, so they would have a much stronger incentive to switch to more fuel-efficient vehicles and Detroit would have had to make more hybrids to survive. This would have put Detroit five years ahead of where it is now. “It’s called the America wins program,” said Mr. Verleger, “instead of the petro-states win program.”
We simply cannot go on being as dumb as we wanna be. If you hate the war in Iraq, then you want a gasoline tax so you can argue that we can pull out of there without remaining dependent on an even more unstable region. If you want to see us negotiate with Iran, not bomb it, you want a gasoline tax that will give us some real leverage by helping to reduce the income of the ayatollahs.
If you’re a conservative and you believed that the Iraq war was necessary to drive reform in the Middle East, but the war has failed to do that and we need “Plan B” for the same objective, you want a gasoline tax that will reduce the flow of wealth to petrolist leaders who will never change if all they have to do is drill well holes rather than educate and empower their people.
If you want to see America thrive by becoming the most energy productive economy in the world — a title that now belongs to Japan, which doesn’t have a drop of oil in its soil — you want a gasoline tax, which will only spur U.S. innovation in energy efficiency.
President Bush squandered a historic opportunity to put America on a radically different energy course after 9/11. But considering how few Democrats or Republicans are ready to tell the people the truth on this issue, maybe we have the president we deserve. I refuse to believe that, but I’m starting to doubt myself.
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/o...ion&oref=slogin |
|
|
| eROs.au |
| I doubt it would have worked so perfectly |
|
|
| erdega |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Did I ever imply that he was? |
I think you implied that the situation with Clinton would be different but he was a hard core zionist and a war industry puppet so at best things would be the same. Worse of all you may be implying that Hillary will chage things up if she get elected which is baseless assertion since she has mirrored neocons throughout.
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
I disagree. Although there are instances scattered throughout Clinton's presidency along with certain foreign policies that have those undertones of neoconservatism, that doesn't even hold a candle compared to Bush's regime who's Administration and foreign policies are almost exclusively run by the neocon extremists.But if you're going to make a comparison between the two, I'm all ears. |
Clinton was a hardcore zionist and he listened only to Israeli lobby, he said he would die for Israel here in Canada among other things. That's extreme as it gets,There were plenty extremists in Clinton team , most notably Albright, Holbrooke, Cohen etc.. all hardcore zionists and imperialists. It bares to be noted that Bush only inherited most of Clinton's policies including Iraq and evidently made them worse .
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
You mean attacking by airstrikes only with the multilateral forces of NATO and the blessing from the United Nations to strike a dictator who crossed national boundaries and created genocide to ethnic Albanians in Kosovo? |
Well you show yourself to be a blubbering idiot and a neocon no less. Serbian army was on its own soil attacked by America and its allies including terrorist albanian gangs armed by cia entirely on false premises. It was American led in large part by the zionist lobby ,so America is the clear aggressor , There was never any UN approval or discussion at all , so you are just making stuff up. This is what Ron Paul had to say about it back then :
| quote: | Crisis in Kosovo, Dr. Ron Paul, April 14, 1999
"It has been said that we are in Yugoslavia to stop ethnic cleansing, but it is very clear that the goal of the NATO forces is to set up an ethnic state."
"There was a headline yesterday in the Washington Post that said: Count Corporate America Among NATO's Staunchest Allies. Very interesting article because it goes on to explain why so many corporations have an intense interest in making sure that the credibility of NATO is maintained, and they go on to explain that it is not just the arms manufacturers but the technology people who expect to sell weapons in Eastern Europe, in Yugoslavia, and they are very interested in making use of the NATO forces to make sure that their interests are protected. I think this is not (a) reason for us to go to war."
Quote:
The Big Lie: NATO's campaign of deception in Kosovo, Dr. Ron Paul, March 13, 2000
"David Ramsey Steele points out that in Kosovo we were told before the bombings that there was mass genocide occurring, the figure of '100,000 or more' was tossed around even though there was no evidence to back-up this claim ... Later after the NATO bombs began dropping, the official NATO claim was dropped to around 10,000 as it became clear no mass graves or killing fields even existed. The actual number of people found in the reported mass-graves totals slightly more than 2,000, a far cry from the hundreds of thousands that we were told originally."
"Steele points out that the stories about Kosovo came not only from NATO officers but also from officials of the United Nations, as well as from our own government ... The sad trail of lies in Kosovo merely reinforces two facts. The first is that our republic depends upon a press that will question the claims of our leaders instead of just accepting them. The second is that Congress has shirked both its Constitutional responsibility to declare war before U.S. troops are sent into battle and its oversight responsibility to closely monitor the administration in its carrying out of foreign policy."
Burning bridges: Attacks on Kosovo unjustified, shameful, Dr. Ron Paul, March 29, 1999
"This is not a proud moment for America, as the United States military has been used to invade a sovereign nation that threatened neither our security, nor even the borders of our allies or friends."
"Most importantly, though is the simple fact that meddling in the internal affairs of a nation involved in civil war is quite dangerous. Both sides believe themselves to be correct, and neither side will appreciate the other side receiving assistance."
"Sympathy and compassion for the suffering and voluntary support for the oppressed is commendable, even honorable. But as history shows, ethnic peace is not achieved by outside forces committing acts of war to pick and choose sides in fighting that dates back hundreds of years."
US military action taking place in Serbia is unconstitutional, Dr. Ron Paul, March 24, 1999
"As bad as the violence is toward the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, our ability to police and stop all ethnic fighting around the world is quite limited and the efforts are not permitted under constitutional law. We do not even pretend to solve the problems of sub-Saharan Africa, Tibet, East Timor, Kurdistan, and many other places around the world where endless tragic circumstances prevail. Our responsibility as U.S. Members of Congress is to preserve liberty here at home and uphold the rule of law. Meddling in the internal and dangerous affairs of a nation involved in civil war is illegal and dangerous. Congress has not given the President authority to wage war."
"Sympathy and compassion for the suffering and voluntary support for the oppressed is commendable. The use of force and acts of war to pick and choose between two sides fighting for hundreds of years cannot achieve peace. It can only spread the misery and suffering, weaken our defenses, and undermine our national sovereignty."
"Only when those who champion our war effort in Serbia are willing to volunteer for the front lines and offer their own lives for the cause will they gain credibility. Promoters of war never personalize it. It is always some other person or some other parent's child's life who will be sacrificed, not their own."
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/wa...oreign-policy/
We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.
Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.
Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihadists themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we’re paying the price. |
| quote: | | Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Hardly a comparison to Gulf II, which we had a hapless dictator who was contained within his own country while at the same time we drew our entire attention away from the bastard that attacked us on 9/11 in Tora Bora. It was the reason why I supported Gulf I with Bush Sr., however, in order to liberate Kuwait. |
Americans barely had any troops then and since in afghanistan. The reason why they never bothered with Osama and Al Qaida is because they never attacked nor were a threat to Israel nor had any teritory to conquer and zionists in Washington and their allies made sure to channel that energy to their enemies in Iraq as well as conquer oil fields as a booty
| quote: | | Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Now if someone is going to state that we should attack countries for what their crazy leaders and dictators are doing to their people within their own boundaries, I'd be willing to entertain that idea. However I think you would be ignoring at least a dozen or more current dictators and genocidal situations to which we've hardly even lifted a finger over the years (and that stems back to include Clinton as well). |
There are couple of psychos in Washington so you can start there if you are feeling homicidal and do us all a favour, just let me know. These people have left the stanch of death and destruction from balkans to iraq and supported all kinds of dictators and terrorists depending on how the wind blows so they know what you mean as well.
| quote: | | Originally posted by MisterOpus1 The sanctions by themselves were not a means to go to war. If you believe that, please cite those sanctions and demonstrate their deliberate intent of inciting or being an aggressor to war. They were a means, however, to contain a dictator and get him to comply with UN resolutions. There were definite negatives to those sanctions, but those were the results of what Saddam actions and his attempts to undermine them, not by the sanctions themselves. |
Sanctions are a precursor to American aggression, it's what they did in Serbia , then Iraq and in the future if they can in Iran also. Sanctions on them were unjustified and probably on Iran too but were lead up to American military aggression in order to weaken military defence and make people poor and weak to resist that aggression. And of course Saddam or Milosevic didn't do anything but defend themselves in this situation but it was Americans who were bent on war by using wicked deception as proven later.
| quote: | | Originally posted by MisterOpus1 And the very distinct point I was making to Q earlier (I've made it many times here before) is that while Clinton discussed regime change, his policies were still very much in line with Bush Sr.'s policies of containment. And to that end alone they were effective. If Clinton had decided to go to war and invade Iraq on the evidence presented to him in the manner to which it was presented in the same fashion as Bush's current Administration had done, and if Clinton had willingly taken his eye off of the bastard who's group attacked us on our own soil on 9/11 when we had his ass on the run in the hills of Tora Bora, then under no circumstances would I ever support him whatsoever. |
There was nothing to contain in Iraq as Saddam government had no real weapons let alone something to threaten America but Clinton and his zionist sponsors were bent on squeezing life out of Iraq in orrder to occupy it at the right time or so they thought. There was absolutelly no compromise on that point from Clinton or anyone associated and we do remember Albright's cruel phrase about 500 000 dead iraqi kids.
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1 As it stands, however, that was clearly not the case. But again, if the "evidence" was presented to him:
-by a newly created group created by his Vice President Al Gore and set up by one of the biggest neocons Douglas Feith (Office of Special Plans or OSP)
-that there was no yellow-cake being bought from Niger by a man sent by the CIA to investigate those claims
-that the lying sack of Chalabi and his source of information, Mr. Curveball, were all liars and their stories were not to be believed by our intelligence agencies as well as other foreign agencies (Germany)
-the aluminum tubes were not being used for centrifuge by any stretch of the imagination by our intelligence agencies and our foremost nuclear experts and scientists (for example: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/i...ast/03tube.html)
-that the al-Qaeda connections were extremely weak at best and highly likely to be non-existent
-that the IAEA chief had repeatedly stated there were no WMDs to be found
Then yes, you would have the exact same criticism from me of Clinton. As it stands, Clinton's actions have no comparison on such levels. But again if you're willing to make that comparison, I'm willing to listen.
Don't misunderstand me. I've got plenty of gripes about Clinton and some of his foreign (and domestic) policies. It's one of the biggest reasons why I don't want yet another Clinton as POTUS. But again the comparison isn't a very worthy one unless you're going to present further evidence to support your case. |
It was Clinton who decided to go into Iraq in the first place and at the right time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act, everything else about Chalabi and weapnos was made to carefully support that thesis. All these assertiong were made to fit the intent to invade and occupy on behalf of Israeli lobby and various big companies. Bush inherited that situation and went along with it , the same way another Clinton would follow Bush'w work . |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by erdega
I think you implied that the situation with Clinton would be different but he was a hard core zionist and a war industry puppet so at best things would be the same. |
Speculation is fun, but it's not terribly substantive. What is clear however, is that Clinton did not invade Iraq, but once again:
| quote: | if the "evidence" was presented to him:
-by a newly created group created by his Vice President Al Gore and set up by one of the biggest neocons Douglas Feith (Office of Special Plans or OSP)
-that there was no yellow-cake being bought from Niger by a man sent by the CIA to investigate those claims
-that the lying sack of Chalabi and his source of information, Mr. Curveball, were all liars and their stories were not to be believed by our intelligence agencies as well as other foreign agencies (Germany)
-the aluminum tubes were not being used for centrifuge by any stretch of the imagination by our intelligence agencies and our foremost nuclear experts and scientists (for example: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/i...ast/03tube.html)
-that the al-Qaeda connections were extremely weak at best and highly likely to be non-existent
-that the IAEA chief had repeatedly stated there were no WMDs to be found
Then yes, you would have the exact same criticism from me of Clinton. As it stands, Clinton's actions have no comparison on such levels. |
If we speculate that things would not have been different and Clinton would have invaded in the exact same manner like Bush, then you would have no argument from me. You do understand my argument on this, right?
| quote: | | Worse of all you may be implying that Hillary will chage things up if she get elected which is baseless assertion since she has mirrored neocons throughout. |
I'd be very interested if you can demonstrate how I implicated Hillary in this regard in any way. Can you show me where I did this, please?
| quote: | | Clinton was a hardcore zionist and he listened only to Israeli lobby, he said he would die for Israel here in Canada among other things. |
ONLY to AIPAC? That's a pretty substantive claim. Are you stating that he listened to no other lobby at all? Can you demonstrate this?
| quote: | | That's extreme as it gets,There were plenty extremists in Clinton team , most notably Albright, Holbrooke, Cohen etc.. all hardcore zionists and imperialists. It bares to be noted that Bush only inherited most of Clinton's policies including Iraq and evidently made them worse . |
Again I disagree. What's more obvious from what I demonstrated earlier in regards to Clinton's policies is that he was more involved with containment rather than some sort of zionist, global imperialism. Granted, I disagreed with a number of his policies including trade, but by and large the comparisons between Clinton and Bush are not as close as you are wanting them to be.
But again, if you're going to make that claim I'm all ears. Also keep in mind the letter from PNAC that wanted Clinton to invade Iraq:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
To which Clinton turned down and kept his focus on al Qaeda.
| quote: | | Well you show yourself to be a blubbering idiot and a neocon no less. |
You really shold take a bit more caution in your rhetoric, sir. In case you weren't aware, Lira is keeping a much more closer watch on ad hominem attacks (especially baseless ones I might add). I think up to this point I have kept a modicum of respect for you, which hopefully my tone has indicated thus far. You might also find that there are a great many issues I agree with you on, so please consider what you say for your sake as well as the sake of this current discussion.
And if you've known me as long as I've posted here, calling me a "neocon" is the silliest and most baseless name you can give.
| quote: | Serbian army was on its own soil attacked by America and its allies including terrorist albanian gangs armed by cia entirely on false premises. It was American led in large part by the zionist lobby ,so America is the clear aggressor , There was never any UN approval or discussion at all , so you are just making stuff up.]
This is what Ron Paul had to say about it back then :
|
You are quite correct that NATO never received UN approval, and I concede my mistake in making that earlier claim. I'll be the first to admit that the intricacies of the Kosovo War are not my strong point, but I have read various sources (aside of ol' Wikipedia) in the past, but nothing I have ever come across has made any claims that you are making in regards to the zionist lobby essentially pulling America's strings. Again if you have any sources to support that claim, I'd be interested to read them.
| quote: | | Americans barely had any troops then and since in afghanistan. The reason why they never bothered with Osama and Al Qaida is because they never attacked nor were a threat to Israel nor had any teritory to conquer and zionists in Washington and their allies made sure to channel that energy to their enemies in Iraq as well as conquer oil fields as a booty |
Again I would be interested in seeing you support these claims, especially in regards to zionists in Washington and the rational of why we didn't pursue Osama being the result of no threat to Israel.
| quote: | | There are couple of psychos in Washington so you can start there if you are feeling homicidal and do us all a favour, just let me know. |
Umm, yeah I know. I believe I've posted quite a few times in the past about some of these folks in my country. Again I'm not exactly sure why you are attacking me in this regard. If anything I'm agreeing with you. My whole point was the rhetoric of humanitarianism only goes so far (like with invading Iraq) considering there's a wealth of other countries we should be invading if we are to follow that given rhetoric (trumped up by Bues in their ever-changing rationalization for the Iraqi War).
| quote: | | These people have left the stanch of death and destruction from balkans to iraq and supported all kinds of dictators and terrorists depending on how the wind blows so they know what you mean as well. |
You really should tone it down with me, erdega. I really think you should understand, once again, that for the most part I'm agreeing with you. Again I won't claim on expertise regarding the run-up to the Kosovo War other than what I read in the papers at that time, so whatever claims you're going to make about Clinton being controlled by zionist lobby groups I would appreciate it if you would support them. Aside of that - I am agreeing with you, so kindly calm the down.
| quote: | | Sanctions are a precursor to American aggression, it's what they did in Serbia , then Iraq and in the future if they can in Iran also. |
Well in regards to Iraq, what would you have proposed in order to keep Saddam from building WMDs and being an aggressor? Because the Duelfer Report clearly outlines that the sanctions were doing exactly just that.
But you're creating a false scenario in claiming that the sanctions in Iraq somehow led up to a war. The sanctions were created by Bush Sr., held by Clinton whom did not invade, and then Bush Jr. invaded. If you're implying that Bush Sr. created those sanctions in hopes that someday he or another president will invade Iraq despite all his rhetoric and refusal to push all the way to Baghdad and take Saddam himself, again I'd be very interested in seeing your evidence to support your assertions.
And you are aware that we have sanctions on numerous other countries with no intentions of invading those said countries, right? It's a bit of a non sequitur of you to make such conclusions that clearly don't follow the premises of the sanctions being created.
| quote: | | Sanctions on them were unjustified and probably on Iran too but were lead up to American military aggression in order to weaken military defence and make people poor and weak to resist that aggression. And of course Saddam or Milosevic didn't do anything but defend themselves in this situation but it was Americans who were bent on war by using wicked deception as proven later. |
I'm sorry, erdega, but I don't believe you answered my question:
| quote: | | The sanctions by themselves were not a means to go to war. If you believe that, please cite those sanctions and demonstrate their deliberate intent of inciting or being an aggressor to war. They were a means, however, to contain a dictator and get him to comply with UN resolutions. There were definite negatives to those sanctions, but those were the results of what Saddam actions and his attempts to undermine them, not by the sanctions themselves. |
In regards to Saddam, he no doubt tried to bypass the sanctions and allowed his people to suffer as a consequence. Had he followed the oil-for-food program as was depicted, the atrocities to his people would have been avoided. Saddam wasn't merely "defending" himself here - he was cheating the system and his people became victims of his actions.
And, of course, not to mention a couple of oil companies willingly complying along with him.
| quote: | | There was nothing to contain in Iraq as Saddam government had no real weapons let alone something to threaten America but Clinton and his zionist sponsors were bent on squeezing life out of Iraq in orrder to occupy it at the right time or so they thought. There was absolutelly no compromise on that point from Clinton or anyone associated and we do remember Albright's cruel phrase about 500 000 dead iraqi kids. |
And we also remember that it was Saddam who refused to comply with those sanctions that Clinton was trying to get him to uphold, or are you trying to bypass that piece of information? Because had he complied, no one would have starved to death.
And yes, again as the Duelfer report points out, he was kept at bay. However it was also well known that Saddam failed to comply with the UN resolutions as well as failure to comply with UNSCOM. This is hardly a characterization of "self-defense" behavior, however once again if you are going to try and make that claim I'd like to hear your supporting evidence.
| quote: | | It was Clinton who decided to go into Iraq in the first place and at the right time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act, everything else about Chalabi and weapnos was made to carefully support that thesis. All these assertiong were made to fit the intent to invade and occupy on behalf of Israeli lobby and various big companies. Bush inherited that situation and went along with it , the same way another Clinton would follow Bush'w work . |
Again, the ILA thesis for "regime change" did not in any way mention a full-scale invasion, ESPECIALLY in lieu of another war and hunting down in Tora Bora of the bastard that actually attacked us on our soil. What the ILA did do was this (from your source:
| quote: | | . On February 4, 1999 President Clinton designated 7 groups as qualifying for assistance under the Act. (see Note to 22 U.S.C. 2151 and 64 Fed. Reg. 67810). The groups were (1) The Iraqi National Accord, (2) The Iraqi National Congress, (3) The Islamic Movement of Iraqi Kurdistan, (4) The Kurdistan Democratic Party, (5) The Movement for Constitutional Monarchy, (6) The Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, and (7) The Supreme Council for The Islamic Revolution in Iraq. The Act authorized the President to assist all such groups with: broadcasting assistance (for radio and television broadcasting), military assistance (education and training of an army), and humanitarian assistance (for individuals fleeing Saddam Hussein). The Act specifically refused to grant the President authority to use U.S. Military force to achieve its stated goals and purposes, except as authorized under the Act in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act. |
I can't necessarily say I completely support this act in of itself. But what was obvious is that it did NOT support an invasion by the U.S. under Clinton, which is certainly not comparable to what Bush decided to do.
Bush may have inherited a situation with Iraq, but he also had a major al Qaeda situation fall on his lap that he failed to pursue to it's fullest intent, which clearly superceded the hapless dictator in Iraq issue to me. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by erdega
Well you show yourself to be a blubbering idiot and a neocon no less. Serbian army was on its own soil attacked by America and its allies including terrorist albanian gangs armed by cia entirely on false premises. It was American led in large part by the zionist lobby ,so America is the clear aggressor , There was never any UN approval or discussion at all , so you are just making stuff up. This is what Ron Paul had to say about it back then :
|
A couple of things:
1. :stongue: :stongue: :stongue: @ Opus the neo-conservative
2. NATO shelling of Serbia did not begin until well after NATO forces in Kosovo came under fire - then bombing sorties were commissioned to hit bridges over the Danube and military way-stations among other, mostly military, targets.
3. I'd love to see some substantiation that the Zionist lobby had anything to do with Kosovo. It is completely counter-intuitive to me that the so-called Zionists would feel so strongly about protecting impovershed Albanians that they were willing to go to great lengths to secretly lobby the Clinton Adminstration to attack the Serbs, who among other things, opposed the fascist Nazi allies in WWII. It just doesn't make any intuitive sense to me, so I would need to see some sort of evidence.
4. UN Security Council Resolution 1160:
| quote: |
16. Decides that the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, cooperating in a constructive manner with the Contact Group, must:
(a) begun a substantive dialogue in accordance with paragraph 4 above, including the participation of an outside representative or representatives, unless any failure to do so is not because of the position of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia or Serbian authorities;
(b) withdrawn the special police units and ceased action by the security forces affecting the civilian population;
(c) allowed access to Kosovo by humanitarian organizations as well as
representatives of Contact Group and other embassies;
(d) accepted a mission by the Personal Representative of the OSCE
Chairman-in-Office for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia that would include a new and specific mandate for addressing the problems in Kosovo, as well as the return of the OSCE long-term missions;
(e) facilitated a mission to Kosovo by the United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights;
19. Emphasizes that failure to make constructive progress towards the
peaceful resolution of the situation in Kosovo will lead to the consideration of additional measures;
|
FYI: "additional measures" is UN-lingo for "force"
| quote: | | There are couple of psychos in Washington so you can start there if you are feeling homicidal and do us all a favour, just let me know. |
Whoa, let's not advocate acts of terrorism now.
| quote: | | Sanctions are a precursor to American aggression, it's what they did in Serbia , then Iraq and in the future if they can in Iran also. |
Neo-cons don't want sanctions on Iran because they don't believe sanctions work, and they think that sanctions will only delay the use of a military option.
| quote: | | Milosevic didn't do anything but defend themselves in this situation |
The conflict in Kosovo had been going on for two years prior to any American involvement...
| quote: | | Clinton and his zionist sponsors were bent on squeezing life out of Iraq in orrder to occupy it at the right time or so they thought. |
Opus already illustrated this, but I will say it again: the neo-conservative movement went through a resurgence because they believed Clinton was soft on Iraq - in other words, The Project for the New American Century came into existence as an intellectual organization opposed to Clinton's "appeasement" of Saddam. Clinton didn't want to go into Iraq - the right-wing did. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
i'm not sure what interests Neocons, or any American for that matter, would have in Kosovo or the Balkans to warrant such tripe Erdega is suggesting. (does he know?)
i believe Kosovo is blowing up again. it could very well be through an almost complete disinterest on the part of the Bush Administration. who knows?
i just think someone is shoveling a load of in your ear, Erdega, and you seem to have no problem with running with it.
...but i've suspected all along MisterOpus1 is closet Neocon, totally.:haha: i thought i saw him and Wolfowitz holding hands at the mall the other day. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
...but i've suspected all along MisterOpus1 is closet Neocon, totally.:haha: i thought i saw him and Wolfowitz holding hands at the mall the other day. |
Is that Opus on the right?
 |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
...but i've suspected all along MisterOpus1 is closet Neocon, totally.:haha: i thought i saw him and Wolfowitz holding hands at the mall the other day. |
It's those ears. I loooove those huge ears....... |
|
|
| erdega |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
2. NATO shelling of Serbia did not begin until well after NATO forces in Kosovo came under fire - then bombing sorties were commissioned to hit bridges over the Danube and military way-stations among other, mostly military, targets. |
Came under fire?
Once again , you are talking non sense. It was the most brutal aggression in recent history, nothing was off limits and directly targeted on civilian targets.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
3. I'd love to see some substantiation that the Zionist lobby had anything to do with Kosovo. It is completely counter-intuitive to me that the so-called Zionists would feel so strongly about protecting impovershed Albanians that they were willing to go to great lengths to secretly lobby the Clinton Adminstration to attack the Serbs, who among other things, opposed the fascist Nazi allies in WWII. It just doesn't make any intuitive sense to me, so I would need to see some sort of evidence. |
Richard Perle and Douglas Feith act as advisors to the government of (muslim) Bosnia during the Dayton peace talks.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/...lbert_holbrooke
Neocons on serbia
http://www.newamericancentury.org/k...osevicsep98.htm
neocon guide to aggression on serbia
http://www.jinsa.org/articles/artic...y/3,653,116,201
Lantos promises to fight for albanians
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBdRNETmQhE
jewish groups speak
http://www.jewishpublicaffairs.org/...ovo_4-15-99.htm
http://www.join.org.au/media/kosovo.htm
http://www.usy.org/yourusy/reled/dt...var.asp?dvar=48
http://www.jewishpeacefellowship.or...ment_Kosovo.htm
http://www.jewishpublicaffairs.org/...ia-2-15-93.html
http://www.ou.org/public/statements/1999/betty2.htm
http://www.adl.org/presrele/DiRaB_41/3356_41.asp
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
The conflict in Kosovo had been going on for two years prior to any American involvement... |
more like a year and it was largely coordinated from Washington or nato headquarters as an external aggression.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Opus already illustrated this, but I will say it again: the neo-conservative movement went through a resurgence because they believed Clinton was soft on Iraq - in other words, The Project for the New American Century came into existence as an intellectual organization opposed to Clinton's "appeasement" of Saddam. Clinton didn't want to go into Iraq - the right-wing did. |
More like a terrorist organization, bent on aggression. I don't care about this Clinton didn't want it but Bush did, Clinton ordered unjustified bombings for gods sake and before 9/11 Bush people were saying Saddam was disarmed so there is your theory |
|
|
|
|
