Political Crossfire Forums

[johnlocke]

And of course it's people like you who support Kofi Annan and his asinine actions. You are the sort of person who think America is an occupier of other nations. That which you call bulls**t is the only reason the Iraqi people are free from a dictator who murders his own people. May I suggest you start thinking and open you eyes to the truth that the world needs people like George Bush. Unless of course you condone murder as a good practice.

(Ironically, the man who's picture you use, Cardinal Richelieu, was a corrupt man who's only interest was furthering his political career.)

[Eonve]

johnlocke wrote: And of course it's people like you who support Kofi Annan and his asinine actions.

i do not support Kofi Annan personally, but i do tend to support international organization including the United Nations. the problem of America is that **** like you and other people supporting george bush and republican perty do not realize that one can accomplish much more through international multilateral insitutions without making a single shot than by sending hundreds of thousands of american soldiers into the middle-eastern desert for no reason.

Quote: You are the sort of person who think America is an occupier of other nations.

i do think that america is an occupier of other nations. that does not mean that it is always bad. i think that some occupations were rather beneficial both for the occupied and for the occupiers. like Japan and Germany, like Afganistan, like Bosnia. but Iraq is not one of them. there was no reason whatsoever why we should have gone there and it's been bad both for us and for Iraqis.

Quote: That which you call bulls**t is the only reason the Iraqi people are free from a dictator who murders his own people.

luckily, now they've got the US with george bush at the head and the terrorist with bin laden and al zarqawi to murder them. that sure should be better than one crazy dictator.

Quote: May I suggest you start thinking and open you eyes to the truth that the world needs people like George Bush.

may i in turn suggest that you get rid of all the bulls**t in your head and start thinking.

Quote: Unless of course you condone murder as a good practice.

unless you condone it, you should put GWB on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Quote: (Ironically, the man who's picture you use, Cardinal Richelieu, was a corrupt man who's only interest was furthering his political career.)

ironically, you try to speak of history while you know nothing about it. Cardinal has cared for the greatness, power and glory of France more than almost any other man in its history. he did not spare either his health or his life in the service to teh king and country. he is one of the best example of a great statesman that we can ever have.

[johnlocke]

Since you are clearly on the left, if we are talking about putting Presidents on trial, we should have put Truman on trial for war crimes. And also just out of curiosity, do you think we were right to kick Hussein out of Kuwait in the 1st Gulf War?

[Eonve]

johnlocke wrote: Since you are clearly on the left, if we are talking about putting Presidents on trial, we should have put Truman on trial for war crimes. And also just out of curiosity, do you think we were right to kick Hussein out of Kuwait in the 1st Gulf War?

well, i think that it is a little bit late to put Truman on trial - he is already dead.

but as for the first Gulf War, i think that the US was perfectly justified in liberating Kuwait from Iraqi aggression.

also i would like to not that so far you have not answered to any substantial criticism which does reveal the weakness of your position.

[johnlocke]

Ok, you want me to answer criticism, I will. I have said that we are right to liberate the Iraqi people. We aren't the ones who are trying to destroy the country from the inside. That would be groups like Islamic Jihad and men like al-Zarqawi. Also, if you think Bush should be on trial, then we may as well put every Congressman - Republican or Democrat -on trial for authorizing the war. Even further, we may as well put Kofi Annan and other world leaders on trial because they allowed Rwanda to occur in 1994 and they are allowing Darfur today.

[Eonve]

johnlocke wrote: Ok, you want me to answer criticism, I will. I have said that we are right to liberate the Iraqi people.

reiterating your point without providing substantial evidence to back it up can hardly qualify as asnwering the criticism, unless you are bush running for reelection.

Quote: We aren't the ones who are trying to destroy the country from the inside. That would be groups like Islamic Jihad and men like al-Zarqawi.

but we are the ones killing innocent Iraqi civilians along with the above mentioned organizations and individuals.

Quote: Also, if you think Bush should be on trial, then we may as well put every Congressman - Republican or Democrat -on trial for authorizing the war.

i would not particularly object to putting them on trial, not all though, only the ones who voted for the authorization. however, there is one thing - they have voted not to authorize the war, but to give GWB the opportunity to pressure UN to be more tough on the inspection issues and pressure Iraq to comply with international law and SC resolutions. but i am still for putting them on trial.

Quote: Even further, we may as well put Kof Annan and other world leaders on trial because they allowed Rwanda to occur in 1994 and they are allowing Darfu today.

now, this is something called fallacy. allowing something to happen is not the same as actively invading the country without a legitimate reason and committing all kinds of atrocities and human rights violations.

[johnlocke]

Why bother being tough on Iraq with WMD? The UN tried throughout the 90s. All they got was lies, misdirection, and finally, a boot out of Iraq. Iraq also ignored all the SC resolutions. The oil-for-food program. Ha! Thousands of dollars used from oil sales, not to buy food for the Iraqi citizens, but for armaments. We gave Hussein several opportunities to cooperate and he refused. Even after SC resolution 1441, which was unanimously signed by nations that oppose our actions, Iraq still did not cooperate. Res. 1441 specifically states "severe consequences" for violation. And yet, the UN still did nothing. Iraq wouldn't change unless forced. It's pretty much why Thomas Nast made the symbol for the Democratic Party a donkey.

[Eonve]

johnlocke wrote: Why bother being tough on Iraq with WMD? The UN tried throughout the 90s. All they got was lies, misdirection, and finally, a boot out of Iraq. Iraq also ignored all the SC resolutions. The oil-for-food program. Ha! Thousands of dollars used from oil sales, not to buy food for the Iraqi citizens, but for armaments. We gave Hussein several opportunities to cooperate and he refused. Even after SC resolution 1441, which was unanimously signed by nations that oppose our actions, Iraq still did not cooperate. Res. 1441 specifically states "severe consequences" for violation. And yet, the UN still did nothing. Iraq wouldn't change unless forced. It's pretty much why Thomas Nast made the symbol for the Democratic Party a donkey.

no WMD, even Bush acknowledged. no army capable of putting up resistance. no sign of the weapons programs. what was so dangerous about Iraq?

as the failed search for weapons clearly shows, the sanctions imposed by SC were very effective. they did not allow Hussein to rearm and create new weapons. why it was so necessary to invade and put at risk the lives of hundreds of thousands of US soldiers and Iraqi civilians?

[johnlocke]

If there were never and WMDs, why did Saddam not permit UN inspections? Seems to me if you have nothing to hide, then you should be fine. Of course, did he hide things. Obviosly yes because he refused to allow inspectors into certain locations and kicked them out later.

[Eonve]

johnlocke wrote: If there were never and WMDs, why did Saddam not permit UN inspections? Seems to me if you have nothing to hide, then you should be fine. Of course, did he hide things. Obviosly yes because he refused to allow inspectors into certain locations and kicked them out later.

things are not that simple. he had to maintain his prestige in the Arab world and he wanted to keep his neighbors scared. that is why he could not cooperate 100% with the UN inspectors. however, there were no weapons found and there won't be any found in the future cause the search is over. may be you should follow your own advice to open your eyes and see reality.

[johnlocke]

Saddam lost prestige with the Arab world when he invaded Kuwait. Cooperating with UN inspectors would have shown that he was a more reasonable man. He used terror to keep in office. Every year there ws an election, he won 100% of the vote. Why? because he made his own people fear him and promised them death if they opposed him. No one is universally liked. So how can he received 100% of the vote unless something dirty is going on? It seems a bit farfetched to "keep his neighbors scared." How could he do that without WMD? If he pulled another Kuwait, the world would stop him like they did in 1991.

[Eonve]

johnlocke wrote: Saddam lost prestige with the Arab world when he invaded Kuwait. Cooperating with UN inspectors would have shown that he was a more reasonable man. He used terror to keep in office. Every year there ws an election, he won 100% of the vote. Why? because he made his own people fear him and promised them death if they opposed him. No one is universally liked. So how can he received 100% of the vote unless something dirty is going on? It seems a bit farfetched to "keep his neighbors scared." How could he do that without WMD? If he pulled another Kuwait, the world would stop him like they did in 1991.

that he was a tyrant and a dictator, there is no doubt about it. but there was no legitimate reason for invasion. actually there was no reason at all.

to keep his neighbors scared he did not have to have WMD. all he had to do was to create an illusion of having them by not cooperating completely with weapons inspectors. it's that easy, but you still don't get it, you poor thing!

[johnlocke]

So, are you of the opinion that dictators who murde their own people should not be ousted? Hitler, Pinochet, Milosevic, Hussein. All dictators. All mass murderers. All ousted from power. Three (Hitler, Hussein, and Milosevic) by military force. So tell me, do you condone the invasion of Yugoslavia to stop Milosevic? Do you condone the invasion of Europe to stop Hitler?

[Eonve]

johnlocke wrote: So, are you of the opinion that dictators who murde their own people should not be ousted? Hitler, Pinochet, Milosevic, Hussein. All dictators. All mass murderers. All ousted from power. Three (Hitler, Hussein, and Milosevic) by military force. So tell me, do you condone the invasion of Yugoslavia to stop Milosevic? Do you condone the invasion of Europe to stop Hitler?

1. Hitler was invading other countries, including the allies of the US and was himself in the alliance with the enemy of the US (Japan).

2. Pinochet was actually supported by republican administrations (like Reagan).

3. Milosevic was a clear threat to international security and clearly has attacked Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo. he had a history of aggressive military operations and was ousted after the third one.

4. Hussein was pushed back into his country after the GW I. he did not have control over a large part of his country. his main source of revenue - oil exports - was severely undercut by the sanctions imposed by the UN SC. he did not have an army capable of resistance. he did not have WMD. he did not make any attempt to invade any of the neighboring countries since 1991. he did not cooperate with terrorists. he clearly was nothing like the other three guys.

[d_the_sandman]

johnlocke wrote: Hitler, Pinochet, Milosevic, Hussein. All dictators. All mass murderers. All ousted from power.


Pinochet? Ohhhh...you mean the Pinochet that was backed by the U.S. government, and only ousted by his own people in a rebel coup? That mass-murdering Pinochet?


edit: Eonve got to it first

[johnlocke]

Ousted by a rebel coup. i wonder why they did that? Possibly because he was killing off his own people.

[johnlocke]

And here's more info for you to examine. I saw you said some find large amts of text daunting. But try reading it all...


http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=37785

Unloading WMD Into Syria.

Where are Iraq's WMD you ask?

The answer is not "Iraq's WMD program ceased to exist after the Gulf War",no the answer is "Iraq's WMD has been moved to Syria."

Now it would be easy to write off this thread as another attack on a "radical islamic state", but the facts speak for themselves.

Why did we catch Uday and Qusay? Because they were expelled from Syria back into Iraq

If Syria is willing to transport human cargo out of Iraq what would stop them from taking on the WMD of the former regime.

This is not a crackpot theory but a well documented event.

quote:
Nizar Nayuf (Nayyouf-Nayyuf), a Syrian journalist who recently defected from Syria to Western Europe and is known for bravely challenging the Syrian regime, said in a letter Monday, January 5, to Dutch newspaper ?De Telegraaf,? that he knows the three sites where Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are kept. The storage places are:

1- Tunnels dug under the town of al-Baida near the city of Hama in northern Syria. These tunnels are an integral part of an underground factory, built by the North Koreans, for producing Syrian Scud missiles. Iraqi chemical weapons and long-range missiles are stored in these tunnels.

-2- The village of Tal Snan, north of the town of Salamija, where there is a big Syrian air force camp. Vital parts of Iraq's WMD are stored there.

-3-. The city of Sjinsjar on the Syrian border with the Lebanon, south of Homs city.

Nayouf writes that the transfer of Iraqi WMD to Syria was organized by the commanders of Saddam Hussein's Special Republican Guard, including General Shalish, with the help of Assif Shoakat , Bashar Assad's cousin. Shoakat is the CEO of Bhaha, an import/export company owned by the Assad family.

In February 2003, a month before America's invasion in Iraq, very few are aware about the efforts to bring the Weapons of Mass Destruction from Iraq to Syria, and the personal involvement of Bashar Assad and his family in the operation.
Nayouf, who has won prizes for journalistic integrity, says he wrote his letter because he has terminal cancer.

quote: WMD in Syria: Kay

Ex-inspector says Iraq sent 'lot of material'

By AP



LONDON -- David Kay, who recently resigned as leader of a U.S. weapons search team in Iraq, said part of captive president Saddam Hussein's weapons program was hidden in Syria, a report in Britain's Sunday Telegraph newspaper said today. Kay was reported to have said he had uncovered evidence unspecified materials were moved to Syria shortly before last year's U.S. invasion of Iraq.

"We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons but we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD (weapons of mass destruction) program," Kay was reported saying in the interview conducted yesterday.

"Precisely what went to Syria and what has happened to it is a major issue that needs to be resolved," he added.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/WinnipegSun/News/2004/01/25/324358.html

quote: Report: U.S suspects Iraqi WMD in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley
Monday, August 25, 2003


U.S. intelligence suspects Iraq's weapons of mass destruction have finally been located.

Unfortunately, getting to them will be nearly impossible for the United States and its allies, because the containers with the strategic materials are not in Iraq.

Instead they are located in Lebanon's heavily-fortified Bekaa Valley, swarming with Iranian and Syrian forces, and Hizbullah and ex-Iraqi agents, Geostrategy-Direct.com will report in tomorrow's new weekly edition.

U.S. intelligence first identified a stream of tractor-trailer trucks moving from Iraq to Syria to Lebaon in January 2003. The significance of this sighting did not register on the CIA at the time.

U.S. intelligence sources believe the area contains extended-range Scud-based missiles and parts for chemical and biological warheads.


Mutually-lucrative Iraqi-Syrian arms transactions are nothing new. Firas Tlas, son of Syrian Defense Minister Mustafa Tlas, has been the key to Syria's rogue alliance with Iraq. He and Assad made hundreds of millions of dollars selling weapons, oil and drugs to and from Iraq, according to the May 13, 2003 edition of Geostrategy-Direct.com.

The CIA now believes a multi-million dollar deal between Iraq and Syria provided for the hiding and safekeeping of Saddam's strategic weapons.


Also this report

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/congress/2003_h/wmd-030916-408986.htm

.S. Concerned by Syria's WMD Capabilities, Support for Terror
Bolton cites "hostile actions" toward Coalition forces in Iraq

The United States views with "serious concern" Syria's expanding weapons of mass destruction (WMD) capabilities and its continued state sponsorship of terrorism, the State Department's top arms control official says.

Testifying September 16 before a House International Relations subcommittee, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton said Syria also has taken "a series of hostile actions" toward Coalition forces in Iraq.

He said Syria allowed military equipment to flow into Iraq on the eve of and during the war, and has "permitted volunteers to pass into Iraq to attack and kill our service members during the war, and is still doing so."

"Although Damascus has increased its cooperation regarding Iraq since the fall of the Iraqi regime," the under secretary said, "its behavior during Operation Iraqi Freedom underscores the importance of taking seriously reports and information on Syria's WMD capabilities."

Before I address the specifics of Syria's WMD programs, let me first discuss press reports that Iraq covertly transferred weapons of mass destruction to Syria in an attempt to hide them from U.N. inspectors and Coalition forces. We have seen these reports, reviewed them carefully, and see them as cause for concern. Thus far, we have been unable to confirm that such transfers occurred. We are continuing with the full breadth of resources at our command to seek conclusive evidence that any such transfer has taken place. We have raised with the Syrians on numerous occasions, even before military action against Iraq, the seriousness with which we would view any transfer of Iraqi dual-use or military related items into Syria.

We have seen Syria take a series of hostile actions toward Coalition forces in Iraq. Syria allowed military equipment to flow into Iraq on the eve of and during the war. Syria permitted volunteers to pass into Iraq to attack and kill our service members during the war, and is still doing so. Syria continues to provide safe haven and political cover to Hizballah in Lebanon, which has killed hundreds of Americans in the past. Statements from many of Syria's public officials during this time vilified the Coalition's motives in seeking to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Indeed, the United States portrayed as an enemy is a consistent theme found in newspapers and public statements in Syria, as it is in other states in the region. Although Damascus has increased its cooperation regarding Iraq since the fall of the Iraqi regime, its behavior during Operation Iraqi Freedom underscores the importance of taking seriously reports and information on Syria's WMD capabilities.

[d_the_sandman]

johnlocke wrote: Ousted by a rebel coup. i wonder why they did that? Possibly because he was killing off his own people.


You used him as an example to support the US ousting of Saddam Hussein (if you could call it that). The fact that he was killing off his own people just compounds the flawed logic you used.

[Eonve]

whatever the suspicions have been, the weapons are not there. and Kay was the first one to acknowledge that. you can make up as many conspiracy theories with or without Syrian participation, but that does not change the fact that WEAPONS ARE NOT THERE. and that GWB has sent thousands of american soldiers there to die for nothing except his enourmous distorted ambition.

you know what annoyes me about you, locke? whenever you get beaten on one point, you run away and come back with more ridiculous points without ever answering the previous criticism. i don't like people who are coward like that.

[johnlocke]

Very well, since I can't get across to you and you think you can't get across to me, why bother continuing? But do answer me one last thing. Are you anti-American or anti-Bush?