Wytchocolate

/watch too many movies

I think the problem is you think the movies are true. BTW Red Cross estimates that around 90% of the prisoners the USA has in Iraq have done nothing wrong and were wrongly arrested.

2004-06-16 12:44:22 AM Wytchocolate

Remove the tinfoil, define the word "lie" and prove a lie was told.

The phrase "define the word lie" is the last refuge of a liar. See: Bill Clinton.

But if you insist on proof...



"I don't believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons."

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, at a hearing of the Senate's appropriations subcommittee on defense, May 14

"We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

Vice President Dick Cheney on NBC's Meet the Press, March 16



And, another...

"Q: Secretary Rumsfeld, when did you know that the reports about [Iraq seeking] uranium coming out of Africa were bogus?

"A: Oh, within recent days, since the information started becoming available."

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, answering a question posed by Sen. Mark Pryor, D.-Ark., at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services committee, July 10.

"The [International Atomic Energy Agency] has made progress in its investigation into reports that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger in recent years. The IAEA was able to review correspondence coming from various bodies of the Government of Niger, and to compare the form, format, contents and signatures of that correspondence with those of the alleged procurement-related documentation.

"Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documentswhich formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Nigerare in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded."

Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, in a March 7 statement to the United Nations Security Council. ElBaradei's statement was reported March 8 on the front page of the Washington Post, Rumsfeld's hometown newspaper, and was also widely reported in other TV and print outlets around the world.

(thanks to the slate for both)

In case you don't believe me I just did me some research here on this here p0rno machine.

In a report in February, the Red Cross stated that some military intelligence officers estimated that 70 percent to 90 percent of "the persons deprived of their liberty in Iraq had been arrested by mistake." Of the 43,000 Iraqis who have been imprisoned at some point during the occupation, only about 600 have been referred to Iraqi authorities for prosecution, according to U.S. officials.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15492-2004May10.html

/winning hearts and minds one Iraqi at a time.

PONTE
"Oh right. Because once the U.S. hands "sovereignty" over to the INC puppet government, Iraqis won't wonder why all the American troops are still in their country. Yep, that
"handover"'ll fix everything."

i'm more concerned that the iraqis will not accept their new government as legit, and see it as a pawn of the 'mericans. If that happens, then, well, the handover wont really accomplish anything.

like i mentioned earlier though, i'm more optimistic than iw as a few months ago. It might work inspite of everything.

(notice i didnt say "because of the steady and fair hand of the impeccably planned and executed strategy implemented by bremer")

things to up beat about:
At this point at least, according to the iraqi blogs, people are grudginly accepting the new govt.
Al Sadr didn't start the khomeni type revolution and get control of the country or even parts of the country or even significant parts of the population for any significant length of time, and since he's been condemned by his bosses, he appears to've been muzzled
the iraqi jihadi assholes are proving to be much easier to kill than, say, the Vietcong, and dont seem to have much fight in them after all, roadside bombs and kidnappings do not a general uprising or a good guerilla war make
the UN is appeared to be ready to come on board
Bush and Friends have been suitably chastened by their bloody noses thus far and seem to be finally realizing what we "america hating liberals" have been saying all along: that there does need to be some sort of good international support, and Bush appears to be ready to finally compromise and wheel and deal a bit, ie, be a politician instead of a scary unilateralist nationalist asshole.


despite the lack of planning on behalf of the administration for the after-war phase, despite bremers plethora of fark ups, despite abu gharib, despite everything, our mesopotamian circle-jerk seems to be getting better slowly.

I for one am amazed; three months ago i was waiting for outright open rebellion.

Just Ignorant
Why are you guys complaining about Bush?
Don't you all know that there were less terrorist acts in 2003 than in many years?


Are you for real? Haven't you heard the latest. The skewed those numbers. The attacks increased.

The number of significant terrorist incidents increased last year

The State Department is scrambling to revise its annual report on global terrorism to acknowledge that it understated the number of deadly attacks in 2003, amid charges that the document is inaccurate and was politically
manipulated by the Bush administration.

http://tinyurl.com/3y3b9

/what not another lie

Just Ignorant

Does that include incidents between November and the end of December, 2003?

Suprised? Not I. This makes sense for them, as they have really no other weapon other than terror to win. They have no planes, no tanks, no "heavy" weapons. So, they are fighting in the only way that they can. I feel bad for this man, because I know that we will not release anyone under threat. He is a dead man. I just hope that when they kill him, it's quick, but I know that they will saw off his head with a knife while chanting thier stupid mantras.

Still pisses me off.

Father Jack
like i mentioned earlier though, i'm more optimistic than iw as a few months ago. It might work inspite of everything.

I hope you're right but this doesn't sound good.

Iran massing troops on Iraq border?

Iran reportedly is readying troops to move into Iraq if U.S. troops pull out,leaving a security vacuum.
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040615-055649-4707r.htm

father jack, didn't you get the memo, all us commie dupe anti-war supporters are supposed to be rooting for civil war and chaos. or didn't central send you the info?

the UN deserves a hand for allowing bush in the front door after all the sh*t he and his cronies talked

TRAD

well, we're not goin' nowheres, so there's nothing to worry about. The iranian army is a joke, it would be defeated in 5 days. Iranian money being channeled to the Clerics is potentially much more dangerous than some puny ass iranian armor division with old t72 tanks. Remember gulf war 1?

if the US and friends left, there'd be Turks and Iranians shaking hands on the Euphrates in a week. That would make for some interesting photo ops.

pontechango
You point out a very valid issue. That being that our military is only inviting terrorism and making things worse for the average Iraqi citizen. Which it is. Sure we're getting a few things fixed, but not in relation to the mayhem and chaos our military has raked in. How is it so difficult for some people to get their heads around this concept?

Borninfire
Suprised? Not I. This makes sense for them, as they have really no other weapon other than terror to win. They have no planes, no tanks, no "heavy" weapons.

You know what the scary part is? If you factor in $ spent and the damage done they're winning. Some have estimated that it cost Osama $300,000 to make 9-11 happen. Compare that to the billions that one cost ya.

Or look at the 150+ billion you guys have spent getting Saddam. Feeling any safer? I don't and I don't even live in your farking country.

***trad16***

Thanks for keeping me up with all that reading!!
Looks like someone has been doing some research, but unfortunately, it sounds like you are dealing in semantics and speculation: what Rumsfield "really" meant, still trying to pin 9-11 on Bush, he "might" have covered up his National Guard record, USA today polls, what an Australian Intelligence person had to say, and some "misleading statements" Bush said according to ultra-liberal Henry Waxman. Nothing you gave me proved anything. Some interesting reading, but nothing I haven't seen or heard on moveon.org.

SPELUNKING

heh. yeah. i got my copy. i've still got some american flags and gasoline handy just in case.

well, the UN, like all consensus-based organizations, is only as strong as its strongest member. If the US chooses to work with the UN, the UN will be effective, and they realize this as much as we do.

As much as i am a strong proponent of collaberation and cooperation with the UN and am a firm believer in it not only idealogically but also practically (because of the legitimacy it bestows in the eyse of. . well, everyone in the world but the US), i do concede there are some problems in it and the freakin' security council needs to be updated to reflect the current state of the world and not the state of the world circa 1945.

Father_Jack
I'm not saying the US couldn't kick the shiat out of the Iranian army. After all look how easy the Iraqis were.

This is just another fly in the ointment that might not be happening if Bush would of stayed in Afghanistan and actually went after the bad guys that were behind 9-11.

2004-06-15 11:17:31 PM Khaotix
This is why I think we shouldn't be *in* wars unless we are acting with the will of the U.N. which we all presume means actions that promote the stablity of the world at large.

Unless two countries (France and Germany) have illegal dealings, blessed by corrupt UN officials, with the regime another country wants to go to war with, and vetoes any resolution that might authorize war? The U.N. is made up of self-interested bureaucrats and national representatives that are looking out for *themselves* first, and each other a distant second. The Oil for Food program and the run up to the war in Iraq prove that.

Yeah, what Fulgore243 just said.

/tired of thinking for myself

Wytchocolate

Kudos for reading it. We'll work on comprehension tomorrow.

Seriously despite what you've said I've given you some good examples of this administration telling lies.

Do you know what cognitive dissonance is?

Now you give me some examples where you think Bush is actually telling the truth?

Father Jack

I'm not as optimistic as you but I do hope things are improving for the Iraqi people.

even if we lick iran in a day, it is an ominous development.

hopefully it means that they're just protecting their borders, since we aren't doing an amazing job protecting it from our side.

i fear it may be the gathering of a mighty storm...

Fulgore243

Illegal dealings? You're not refering to Cheney's business deals with Iraq are you?

So if the UN is so bad why is Bush trying to woo them back?

Just Ignorant

You should try that again in a flame war with some fire power. This one is barely smoldering.

gunmen have just assassinated one of the main players in the iraqi oil industry. major development. all the info available so far.

Just gets better day by day. Been fun. 'night.

Found this on Google Spelunking

It's keeps getting better doesn't it.


Talabani, a Kurd, served as a senior adviser to the North Oil Company, which runs Iraq's main Kirkuk oil fields. His portfolio included security for northern oil infrastructure.


http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5433110

FULGORE

germany cant veto the war, they're not on the security council.

you're thinking of russia, who along with france, threatened to veto it if it came to a vote.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/03/10/sprj.irq.france.chirac/

i think your conspiracy is a lot of american hawk allegation; the overwhelming sentiment of europeans in general was that the war should've been used as a last resort, that noone believed the case for WMDs that bush/blair were selling (and, at least up till now, have been proven right), and didnt see the war as necessary.

Yes, france and germany had their noses in Iraq, but so did we. Saying that they didnt want us to go to war beacuse they were afraid of us finding out illegal actions they were doing sounds about as good as "we're invading iraq for oil".

i'm not saying there wasnt some funny biz with the french and their oil lobby, but i seriously doubt their reasons were to cover up crimes and havent seen any evidence pointing to it subsequently that hasnt been from some newsmax frontpage mag type crap; they were being wanky french whiners who wanted to check american power, to restrain american unilateralism, this sorta thing, which if you're a believer in international cooperation is a good thing. their reasons for protesting the war were just as unfounded in morals as ours were, and i dont feel bad at al about having snubbed them, but i dont see their motivations as criminal. it was politics.

germany, i feel sorta sorry for them. they stood up for france on principle and out of european solidarity for the same reasons the brits stood up for us, and it sure got them nowhere.

also, there is the electorate to consider; the germs and the french had huge % of their populations against the war, maybe the govts were just *gasp!* listening to their electorate for once! :)

Please show evidence of this from a relatively non-biased source

If you can't do that, at least post all those quotes from the Democrats saying you should invade Iraq. That's my favourite freeper post.

I'm sure this has been said, but I tend to immediately disregard a post when the words "jihadist" or "Islamist" are used. Stop listening to so much Hannity and Limbaugh. You don't sound smart, you sound like an ignorant racist "rightist". Asshats.

I hope that this man gets out all right. Felgraf, I like your philosophy.

***trad16***

"We'll work on comprehension tomorrow."

What comprehension? I just looked at the pictures!

"Do you know what cognitive dissonance is?"

Isn't that when you keep saying Bush stole the election, Bush knew about 9-11, Bush lied, there are no WMD, he didn't serve in the Nat'l Guard, etc, etc, and keep insisting it's true when in fact you probably know it's not?

"Now you give me some examples where you think Bush is actually telling the truth?"

"As I said in my State of the Union address, liberty is not America's gift to the world. Liberty is God's gift to human -- to the human -- mankind."

"We spent a lot of time talking about Africa, and we should. Africa is a nation that suffers from incredible disease."

"This is historic times."

That was fun. Ask me more questions!

Father_Jack

also, there is the electorate to consider; the germs and the french had huge % of their populations against the war, maybe the govts were just *gasp!* listening to their electorate for once! :)

The right wingers never seem to buy that explanation for some reason. :D

***trad16***

"at least post all those quotes from the Democrats saying you should invade Iraq."

Here you go,

John Kerry's Statement on Iraq Before the War:

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

"Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information or interpretation."
http://www.dmu.ac.uk/~jamesa/learning/dissonance.htm

Lol at the quotes. Easy to tell Bush said those.

I never said Bush new about 9-11 exactly. They new something was up and chose to ignore it. I just have one question for you.

If the admin didn't know something was up the summer of 2001 why did Ashcroft stop flying commericial airlines back in June 2001?



"In response to inquiries from CBS News over why Ashcroft was traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines, the Justice Department cited what it called a "threat assessment" by the FBI, and said Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term."

Opens in new window



/I'm heading to bed, but you can still answer it if you want. I'll check in the AM..

iraqi oil guy:
i wonder if it will make a difference now that rich people are getting killed.

iran troop movement
yikes, voting for kerry looks more and more like a moral imperative, or at least a self-defense measure- this really does give me a bad gut feeling...

ooooh yikes, george noury on coast to coast am just said- as i was typing this- "the situation with the terrorists gives (him) a bad feeling in his stomach"

he says all the time that there are no coincidences

oh god, i hope i'm just being dumb...

John Kerry's Statement on Iraq Before the War:

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

That's not fair, that's his entire speech not just bits taken out of context.

Anyways thanks for posting...

Eh. Feeling 'safer' from terrorism post-9-11 is a relative thing. I actually do feel like we have significantly damaged the islamic supremacist movement, deported a lot of jihadist assholes, uprooted several of the bombing-money networks, shut down several of the charity scams, and gotten rid of a few of the squirreled away "professors" who basicly pimp terror-sympathy in the university system.

But the jihadists are stirred up and they want to attack and murder/ saw peoples heads off more now, so it's a bit of a trade-off.

As a country, we weren't really well-informed about islamic supremacists and their sympathizers after 9-11. We pretty much gave them all a pass, and struggled to 'understand' them. I know I did. Now, after three years, after Danny Pearl, after palestinians celebrating bus attacks and 9-11 itself, after the return of European anti-Jewish violence and after personally seeing 'Mein Kampf' and the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' distributed at a "peace" rally in DC, I think we know a bit about the kind of people we are dealing with.

And if there is another attack, I have a feeling that people won't be quite so forgiving.

iraqi oil guy:
i wonder if it will make a difference now that rich people are getting killed.

I don't think him being rich is that important. I think him being a rich Kurd might mean something though.

Thanks trad16. I'm off myself. You made some valid points, much better than most of the Bush haters that have been trolling this thread and others. As far as Ashcroft is concerned, maybe there was a threat to his personal safety. Anyways, I enjoyed it. BTW I know what cognitive dissonance is, I just applied my own definition. :p

I think a big part of the problem over there is that the people in Iraq and the surrounding countries have been treated like little kids for years, and this is who they are now. Poised on the edge of adolescence. They expect people to take care of them or chastise them or so something that impacts their lives in a way they can't dpo for themselves. I see this in a lot of third world countries; the system of goverment appears to work through brute force with no negotiations. So naturally there are huge pockets of assholes who were in the brute force department that are suddenly unemployed, and no one knows what to do when they are gone. There were some good arguments on FARK about what would happen when we finnally began the occupation, and everyone seemed to agree that this ain't Germany or Japan. Those places had an indigenous population that had a degree of autonomy under big man goverments, so they were able to transition. The Japanese were not as easy to transition as Germany, it amazes me they did it at all. But in Japan I think the number one thing you are taught since birth is to hold your own shiat together at all costs, so that won out over any big man concept. They kept themselves together through this wierd Aesthetic of not being a burden on anyone else at any cost, although I think it still messes with their national identity. In fact I think the majority of Japanese want to forget about the whole world war two thing and figure out the future but there it is. And yeah having two big nuke detonation sites and a bunch of enthusiastic Americans running around on permanent bases in your country kinda makes forgetting about the 1940s difficult. I have a lot of respect for them. Their whole world got turned on its arse and they kept it together.

The Iraqi's have had this wierdo with a mustache running every aspect of their lives for years. And if it wasn't that guy there was this strict religious edict which was in itself heresy to the guy with the stache. So they just drifted between one pole or the other without having a lot of control over anything. Now they do, but I think they like the nanny state thing because its familiar. They can biatch about how nasty it is out in the open and that is familiar. Even the assholes are familiar. What's weird is telling them all to go away and meaning it, and not having some guy with a stache do it for you.

Americans don't so well with occupations because we think everyone thinks like us. They don't. I mean there is a good way to do things but its not always how we do it. They have to learn to take care of themselves but it is not going to be the same way we do it here. I have no idea what bussiness as usual is for them other than it appears having other people take care of their shiat is the order of the day in the middle east. I have no idea if democracy is something they can even deal with because it involves a lot of people biatching and doing things at the same time. You have to do both at the same time and I think that's problematic for them, because whenever they have tried to do something a guy with a stache or some other asshole tells them they are doing it the wrong way. So its a cluster fark.

They definatley need to get their shiat together with dealing with assholes though. And turning off the news and making up their own minds. Life doesn;t end because some asshole tells you the end is near and I think they have issues believing that.

interesting take on C.G. from a buddhist website:

Once we get attached to an idea, we impose it on whatever we see or hear, so it's very difficult to overcome wrong ideas by our own self-power. You have always heard Scotsmen are thrrrifty. Are they? "Sure!" you say, "Look at that tightwad over there!" How do you know he's Scottish? "Well, he sure looks Scottish." What about that guy last week who was throwing money around? "Nah, he looked more Irish to me." It may have been the same guy. And he's Lithuanian. But if he fits your idea of a Scotsman, you look at him and see plaid.

Damn, looks like I missed some good stuff.

Wytchocolate

"the laundry list of strange "coincidences" that brought Bush to power"

PNAC, Jeb Bush in Florida, the vote-counting scandal, etc. Hardly damning, I admit, but interesting.

"and allowed 9/11"

Whether 9/11 happened by stupidity or plot is yet unknown. However, have some interesting facts. The CIA knew that Al Qaida agents were planning an attack. They knew that Al Qaida agents were taking flight lessons.

Golfer Payne Stewert's private jet (http://www.cnn.com/US/9910/25/wayward.jet.07/) was detected moments after it deviated from its flight path. Fighters were immediately scrambled to it. On 9/11 four commercial airliners went dead silent and changed paths, and it took 40 minutes before fighters were even in the air.

Bush saw the first plane crash into the WTC on TV, and was told about the second by an aide a short while later. Nevertheless, he sat on his presidential ass for 11 minutes. Now tell me, was this massive incompetence, or a conspiracy? I'd be happy with either, but something went seriously farking sideways.

"disasters..."

From Dictionary.com
An occurrence causing widespread destruction and distress; a catastrophe. A grave misfortune.

Informal. A total failure: The dinner party was a disaster.

So you can fark off.

Remove the tinfoil, define the word "lie" and prove a lie was told.

Lying: telling a deliberate untruth. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". This includes affirming or denying things you have no or inadequate knowledge of. "In China, they eat dirt and worship satan".

In Bush's case, trad16 has done fine work in identifying a great number of lies under any definition.

Increasing intelligence = Increasing chance you support Bush.

Really? I didn't know intelligence corresponded to a complete and blind obedience to a man of dubious intelligence and morals. A man who has lied to you. A man who has pushed his own agenda whenever possible. A man who stands for few of the values the Republican party used to have.

Tell me, unless you're rich, Christian or a gun owner, why on earth would you like Bush?

****impaler****

Since we are selectively extracting John Kerry quotes, here's one:

"It is clear that in the 4 years since the UNSCOM inspectors were forced out, Saddam Hussein has continued his quest for weapons of mass destruction. According to intelligence, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of the 150 kilometer restriction imposed by the United Nations in the ceasefire resolution."

2004-06-16 02:09:55 AM Quadriplegic

I'm a gun owner, and I don't like Bush.

I'm not rich, I'm not Christian, I'm not a gun owner, and technically I'm a minority. I voted Democrat since 1988, when I first voted, and I changed to Independent after 9-11. Bush is alright, and he's getting my vote.

er, C.D., cognitive dissonance. hee. teach me to be lazy. er, THAT'LL teach me to be lazy. no, that WILL...

i'm in grammar nazi training camp, see

I bet those bastards would cry a river if we started kidnapping their precious clerics off of the street.

better yet.. just dump 50 gallons of pigs blood on every mosque in Saudi Arabia