Disturbing article on the impending war.

[Justin]

Taken from the Sunday Herald,

http://www.sundayherald.com/27735

Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President


By Neil Mackay


A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001.

The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'

The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'.

This 'American grand strategy' must be advanced for 'as far into the future as possible', the report says. It also calls for the US to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core mission'.

The report describes American armed forces abroad as 'the cavalry on the new American frontier'. The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document written by Wolfowitz and Libby that said the US must 'discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role'.

The PNAC report also:

l refers to key allies such as the UK as 'the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership';

l describes peace-keeping missions as 'demanding American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations';

l reveals worries in the administration that Europe could rival the USA;

l says 'even should Saddam pass from the scene' bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently -- despite domestic opposition in the Gulf regimes to the stationing of US troops -- as 'Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has';

l spotlights China for 'regime change' saying 'it is time to increase the presence of American forces in southeast Asia'. This, it says, may lead to 'American and allied power providing the spur to the process of democratisation in China';

l calls for the creation of 'US Space Forces', to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent 'enemies' using the internet against the US;

l hints that, despite threatening war against Iraq for developing weapons of mass destruction, the US may consider developing biological weapons -- which the nation has banned -- in decades to come. It says: 'New methods of attack -- electronic, 'non-lethal', biological -- will be more widely available ... combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes ... advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool';

l and pinpoints North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes and says their existence justifies the creation of a 'world-wide command-and-control system'.

Tam Dalyell, the Labour MP, father of the House of Commons and one of the leading rebel voices against war with Iraq, said: 'This is garbage from right-wing think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks -- men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like Cheney, who were draft-dodgers in the Vietnam war.

'This is a blueprint for US world domination -- a new world order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world. I am appalled that a British Labour Prime Minister should have got into bed with a crew which has this moral standing.'


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

Of course, it might not be true. If it is, it's not that surprising.

[Hookups]

That reminded me of the Chickenhawk Database (http://nhgazette.com/chickenhawks.html).

Why is it that people who never went to war are so excited about making others do it?

My favorite on the site was Rush Limbaugh. He ducked out on 'nam because of 'anal cysts'.

[booboo69]

*stares blankly at screen*

I hope that's just more 'leftist ranting' as mike would say, because if that's got any shread of truth to it, that's quite possibly the most disturbing thing I've ever read...

[Justin]

Before people call me on it, I'll call myself on it: the article uses really loaded language. I think they just read really deeply into a think tank's report. I think the article is best understood looking at what the report actually says, not what is said about what the report says, i.e, "global domination." That disclaimer out of the way., it's still fucked up.

Also: great article on First Gulf War propoganda and lies perpetuated by the administration to justify the war.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p01s02-wosc.html?t5

edited- - - - -

Just found the full "secret" report. It is, in fact, creepy as fuck. Death to fascists, seriously. It really is a peian to dominate the world. I'm sure it will be the Ivy League kids in the trenches, too. Similarly, I'm sure it will be the rich who end up paying the taxes for the wars to their benifit. :P

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

[originalravesta]

*yawn* couldn't you have paraphrased that??? shit.................

[Roddimus]

Originally posted by originalravesta
*yawn* couldn't you have paraphrased that??? shit.................
Yeah, reading sucks.
The only way I want my news is when its condensed into minute long Headline News blurbs or "unbiased" Fox News updates, none of this reading shit.
:rolleyes:

[HexRei]

Originally posted by Doc Mahem
Before people call me on it, I'll call myself on it: the article uses really loaded language. I think they just read really deeply into a think tank's report. I think the article is best understood looking at what the report actually says, not what is said about what the report says, i.e, "global domination." That disclaimer out of the way., it's still fucked up.

Also: great article on First Gulf War propoganda and lies perpetuated by the administration to justify the war.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p01s02-wosc.html?t5

edited- - - - -

Just found the full "secret" report. It is, in fact, creepy as fuck. Death to fascists, seriously. It really is a peian to dominate the world. I'm sure it will be the Ivy League kids in the trenches, too. Similarly, I'm sure it will be the rich who end up paying the taxes for the wars to their benifit. :P

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Ya, not exactly an unbiased article. Interesting that it's a scottish site...

[Effendi]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/letsroll.jpg

Scott!!:D

[Effendi]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/Russmo_JustifyingWar.gif

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Doc Mahem
Taken from the Sunday Herald,

http://www.sundayherald.com/27735

Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President

Well if it's sucha "secret blueprint" what the hell is it doing on a public website? Isn't that what think tanks do? Reports and opinions are released more often than you change your underwear.

I've seen reports that suggested to attack Iraq for years. So what's your point?

[Mike S]

Sorry folks but we're gonna have to put off our "impending war" for at least a few months. Iraq blinked.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25855-2002Sep16.html

Dont worry though all you paranoid and cynical progressive types. Something else will pop so you can get back to contributing truthfull, fully sourced pieces of information detailing the evils of the administration.

Remember a whining liberal is a happy liberal.

MS

[Justin]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD


Well if it's sucha "secret blueprint" what the hell is it doing on a public website? Isn't that what think tanks do? Reports and opinions are released more often than you change your underwear.

I've seen reports that suggested to attack Iraq for years. So what's your point?

Perhaps you didn't bother reading the rest of my posting(s). The article is a lot of bluster. I actually pointed that out, an act of ideological even handedness I've never seen come from anyone on the right, here or elsewhere ( why don't you post anothr article from The Sun, Mike?).

Yes, the article is full of bluster, but the report it's talking about (also posted) is outright evil. Scan it, if you will. I'ts fucked up.

[Justin]

Originally posted by Mike S

Dont worry though all you paranoid and cynical progressive types. Something else will pop so you can get back to contributing truthfull, fully sourced pieces of information detailing the evils of the administration.

Remember a whining liberal is a happy liberal.

MS

This from a man who has 1364 posts of pure bitching. :P

And, for the record, I'm overjoyed that there won't be a war. Of course, there still might be. I wouldn't be surprised if the inspections fall through due to either 1) spying on the behalf of the US*, or 2) a voluntary pullout, for some fabricated reason.

*Yes, this happened before. Call me on it if you feel like getting proven wrong.

[Effendi]

Originally posted by Mike S
Sorry folks but we're gonna have to put off our "impending war" for at least a few months. Iraq blinked.
Don't seem so depressed you war-mongering busho-foolio, I'm sure you'll get a chance to kill millions of other innocent people in some other part of the world soon!!

Remember a whining liberal is a happy liberal.
MS
Why yes indeed,
and a Murdering, double-talking, money stealing, children killing, your choice making, blowhard, is a True Republican indeed!!;)

O did I forget to mention asshole?

Scott!!

[tallcan]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/
check it out.
you might even learn something.

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Doc Mahem


Perhaps you didn't bother reading the rest of my posting(s). The article is a lot of bluster. I actually pointed that out, an act of ideological even handedness I've never seen come from anyone on the right, here or elsewhere ( why don't you post anothr article from The Sun, Mike?).

Yes, the article is full of bluster, but the report it's talking about (also posted) is outright evil. Scan it, if you will. I'ts fucked up.

Sorry bout that Doc, I just read the first post and fired away.. n ot that I didn't bother.. just didn't know you posted anything later to warn us of it's content in a matter of speaking. <G>

The US has been wanting to go in for awile, 1998 the Democrats and Bill Clinton were hawks, now there not since Bush is prez. Democrats playing politics with war again.. but about Bush even having thoughts, I would think he would be stupid to never consider it before running for office, he ever wanted to have any idea of foriegn policy the need for going after Saddam should of been one of the 1st things he needed to learn if he ever wanted to be ready for what is happening now.

-Jason

[seattle science]

Originally posted by Effendi

Don't seem so depressed you war-mongering busho-foolio, I'm sure you'll get a chance to kill millions of other innocent people in some other part of the world soon!!


I'm glad to see that you've changed your mind on the topic of killing civilians. For some odd reason I had the strange idea that you supported terrorism against civilians.

Originally posted by Effendi
it appears to be boom biddy bye time again!!

[Tasty]

http://images.webshots.com/ProThumbs/60/33060_wallpaper280.jpg

[ZupanGOD]

The Gulf War never ended, a cease fire at best.

Good grief.

[DJ Rawkus]

I should be happy that war has been forgotten...temporarily. I see 3 ends to this inspections detour UN finds something, US says it's enough to go to war UN finds something, but doesn't consider it a threat (no we use anthrax for 631 other uses in Iraq..yeah right) UN doesn't find a damn thing like last time around and Bush stomps his feet until 2004 making the country even more miserable. With all this, I'm definitely not happy. Watching David Kay this wknd just made me more sickened by all the war drum beating going on in the country. Why can't we settle down and tackle some real issues? Sure we aren't going to invade Iraq again, we're just gonna waste hella tax dollars searching for 'boogiemen' that aren't there. I wonder if Saddams' boogers on the Palace walls can be considered a chemical agent? Probably. Oh well...more inefficient gubmint! yay!

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by DJ Rawkus
I should be happy that war has been forgotten...temporarily. I see 3 ends to this inspections detour UN finds something, US says it's enough to go to war UN finds something, but doesn't consider it a threat (no we use anthrax for 631 other uses in Iraq..yeah right) UN doesn't find a damn thing like last time around and Bush stomps his feet until 2004 making the country even more miserable. With all this, I'm definitely not happy. Watching David Kay this wknd just made me more sickened by all the war drum beating going on in the country. Why can't we settle down and tackle some real issues? Sure we aren't going to invade Iraq again, we're just gonna waste hella tax dollars searching for 'boogiemen' that aren't there. I wonder if Saddams' boogers on the Palace walls can be considered a chemical agent? Probably. Oh well...more inefficient gubmint! yay!

Ohh silly me, I thought stopping a madman from killing Americans is a real issue. I'm not for a war on Iraq, but the left seems to think Suddam is as peacefull as the Dahli Lama.. [spelling]

[Justin]

Show me a single instance from any source left of the Wall Street Journal and rightward of Workers World that describes Saddam as peaceful. That is the height of straw-man arguments right there. Usually, people cite their oponents with arguments their friends have made; it's pretty rare to go so far as making shit up completely. The issue isn't whether he's a bad person, but whether he's a security threat to us.

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Doc Mahem
Show me a single instance from any source left of the Wall Street Journal and rightward of Workers World that describes Saddam as peaceful. That is the height of straw-man arguments right there. Usually, people cite their oponents with arguments their friends have made; it's pretty rare to go so far as making shit up completely. The issue isn't whether he's a bad person, but whether he's a security threat to us.

Common Doc, you know how many left of center op-ed pieces and reporters are falling over themselves to quote Scott Ritter as their key source for trying to nullify's Iraq's threat and his weapons programs. I never said anyone directly said he was peacefull, I said, "the left seems to "think" Suddam is as peacefull as the Dahli Lama" citing all the information I have gathered from left leaning sources why Iraq should be left alone to continue his weapons programs.

[HexRei]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD


Common Doc, you know how many left of center op-ed pieces and reporters are falling over themselves to quote Scott Ritter as their key source for trying to nullify's Iraq's threat and his weapons programs. I never said anyone directly said he was peacefull, I said, "the left seems to "think" Suddam is as peacefull as the Dahli Lama" citing all the information I have gathered from left leaning sources why Iraq should be left alone to continue his weapons programs.

Ironic you should mention that, since Saddam did agree to let inspectors back in, unconditionally, and all... if they don't find anything, will you shut up?

[Justin]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD


Common Doc, you know how many left of center op-ed pieces and reporters are falling over themselves to quote Scott Ritter as their key source for trying to nullify's Iraq's threat and his weapons programs. I never said anyone directly said he was peacefull, I said, "the left seems to "think" Suddam is as peacefull as the Dahli Lama" citing all the information I have gathered from left leaning sources why Iraq should be left alone to continue his weapons programs.

Backpedal harder. It's not working.

So quoting someone knowledgable on saying Iraq isn't persuing weapons of mass destruction = saying Saddam is as peaceful as the Dali Lama? I don't get it. That's the single, most massive moral equivication I've ever heard. No, scratch that. It's not even a moral equivication -- it's outright altering the basic tenets of the english language, specifically the meaning of "peaceful," in order to justify an outrageous statement.

No one, anywhere, is saying Saddam is peaceful. There's a big difference between not being peaceful and being a threat to the United States. That's what the argument is about: is Saddam so great a threat to the United States that his removal justifies carnage in Iraq, American causualties (of a number yet unknown), and an economic cost estimated at 60-100 billion.

Please stop dodging with this "You don't want to fight? You must love Saddam!" nonsense.

[DJ Rawkus]

Originally posted by Doc Mahem


Please stop dodging with this "You don't want to fight? You must love Saddam!" nonsense. LMAO Doc!! I'm surprised you haven't learned yet...in this country.."you're with us, or you're with the terrorists" hahaha! This whole fiasco is about as quixotic as it gets, folks. Enjoy the show while it lasts. Your days are numbered now that Saddam and al-qaeda have a vice grip on our collective sanity.

[Tasty]

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/SaddamIsNext/Saddamgifs/walthandelsman.JPG

[Mike S]

Originally posted by Doc Mahem


Backpedal harder. It's not working.

So quoting someone knowledgable on saying Iraq isn't persuing weapons of mass destruction = saying Saddam is as peaceful as the Dali Lama? I don't get it. That's the single, most massive moral equivication I've ever heard. No, scratch that. It's not even a moral equivication -- it's outright altering the basic tenets of the english language, specifically the meaning of "peaceful," in order to justify an outrageous statement.

No one, anywhere, is saying Saddam is peaceful. There's a big difference between not being peaceful and being a threat to the United States. That's what the argument is about: is Saddam so great a threat to the United States that his removal justifies carnage in Iraq, American causualties (of a number yet unknown), and an economic cost estimated at 60-100 billion.

Please stop dodging with this "You don't want to fight? You must love Saddam!" nonsense.

Doc the question is totally valid and unfortunately neither you nor I or anyone else on this board knows the true answer. IF Saddam allows unconditional inspection the wholoe world will find out. Unfortunately I think So-Damn-Insane is playing games like he has before and this deal is going to end up with us as well as some other countries going in and cleaning house.

MS

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Doc Mahem


Backpedal harder. It's not working.

So quoting someone knowledgable on saying Iraq isn't persuing weapons of mass destruction = saying Saddam is as peaceful as the Dali Lama? I don't get it. That's the single, most massive moral equivication I've ever heard. No, scratch that. It's not even a moral equivication -- it's outright altering the basic tenets of the english language, specifically the meaning of "peaceful," in order to justify an outrageous statement.

Doc,

The definition of threat is an indication of impending danger or harm.

The synonym for threat is harmless or non threating

Countless of press articles pressing the idea that Saddam poses "no threat" is ridiculous to down right idiotic. Scott has flip flopped all over the place like a fish out of water, making himself irrelevant. Hans Von Sponeck is another guy anti-war journalists are quoting. All this talk from the left for proof that he's a threat is beginning to make them irrelevant players in the debate, which is unfortunate becuase we need key players who have a compelling case for not going after Iraq. But so far that has not happend, and now that these jokers have made themselves and their ideas look irrelevent now. The overwhelming majority of the damn American public is gonna side with the war hawks now becuase of the ignorance of the left. They are once again blinking in the face of evil.

I'm gonna slap Robert Novak on CNN if he continues to go down the path of characterizing Saddam as not a threat and irrelevant.

I think Saddam is a threat, I think Bush is doing the right thing by keeping the pressure on so he will have nothing left but to comply, but I think Bush knows as well as I do that Saddam isn't gonna give unconditional access for the Weapons inspectors. I think Bush is counting on that. For the sake of peace I think allot of the world is counting on that. Who else is gonna be able to have the ability to use force other than the US? The UN?

No one, anywhere, is saying Saddam is peaceful. There's a big difference between not being peaceful and being a threat to the United States. That's what the argument is about: is Saddam so great a threat to the United States that his removal justifies carnage in Iraq, American causualties (of a number yet unknown), and an economic cost estimated at 60-100 billion.

Please stop dodging with this "You don't want to fight? You must love Saddam!" nonsense.

I'm not saying if you do not want to fight you must love Saddam. Some people just don't understand evil in this world, which suprises me after Hitler, Stalin, etc etc etc people still don't get it.

I'm not for a war with Iraq, but I'm not going to sit here and lie to myself that he is not a threat and military action cannot be an option. The left has done a terrible job of making a compelling case aginst the use of force against Iraq, but what else is new? The left was against Military action in Kuwait, they were for a nuclear freeze during the cold war.. in the face of evil these people are willing to allow evil a pass. I just don't get it!

-Jason

[Justin]

So wait. . .

We should fight Saddam becuase he's evil? Is that the new criterion for choosing enemies. Funny, I always though economics dictated American policy. I guess it's just a wierd coincidence that he's sitting on the second largest oil reserves in the world and we want to own his country.

Wow. We hate him because he's evil. So I suppose all those years of supplying him were a big mistake? And I suppose that now, all of a sudden, the United States will stop supporting "good" dictators. Frankly, I'm overjoyed, but I'm dismayed I missed the memo that said "fellow citizens! In the future, morality will guide our foreign policy. PS enjoy the outrageously higher oil prices." Maybe I'm just really uninformed, as I never heard that the United States suddenly stopped trying to overturn latin-American elections, overturning lawsuites against our companies even when they're clearly guilty of human rights abuses, and encouraging it's own businesses to move abroad to lower wages paid. Cool.

BTW: the left hasn't made a compelling argument to not invade? Are you nuts? I've yet to hear a single good reason to invade, and plenty of good reasons not to. And last I checked, the people who want to do something different (like say, invade someone) are the ones who need to put forth the argument. Which isn't being done very well, if, after calling on the best right-wing arguments, the best you can come up with is "Saddam is evil! Evil makes Jesus cry. Therefore, it's time to klll lots of people."

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Doc Mahem
So wait. . .

We should fight Saddam becuase he's evil?

That's not what I said and you know it. Thanks for taking everything out of context for lack of a better argument on your behalf.

Ok, ok, ok so Saddam is not evil. Then what is he? Good? Or just 40/60 Evil? or 60/40 Good? Which is it?

Is that the new criterion for choosing enemies. Funny, I always though economics dictated American policy. I guess it's just a wierd coincidence that he's sitting on the second largest oil reserves in the world and we want to own his country.

Doc, sure the world would like to see an Iraq who is peacefull and democratic willing to get involved in the world economy. And Iraq has "some" oil resources that will help them fund this purpose. But to suggest that the US is going after them for oil is short sided and ignorant of the facts.

Iraq once produced 3.5 million barrels a day at its peak in 1990 just before the Persian Gulf War, now they can pump only 2.8 million to 3 million barrels because of war damage to facilities and maintenance neglect. Iraq's oil infrasctructure is in shambles. It would take serveral years to even get Iraq to the state of pumping out the oil it had done before The Gulf War and to extend that count to 3.5 million a day and even that would be optimistic.

In 2001 The US imported 778,000 barrels a day of Iraqi oil through third parties. Saudi Arabia on the other hand supplies us with over 18% of US crude oil imports, which is about 1.6 million barrels per day of crude oil.

Saudi Arabia produces about 7.4 million barrels of oil a day and has the capacity to pump at least 10 million barrels, by 2010 Saudi capacity is expected to reach 15 million barrels a day, according to U.S. Energy Department projections. If it's all about oil than why go after Iraq? Saudi Arabia has the resources now, why not go after them? Iraq has no ability to what so ever to produce the oil that you speak of that makes war with Iraq over oil.

Russia and France have been cutting deals for oil, and that's been dictating their foriegn policy. Does that matter? Or is it only an issue with foriegn policy when America has something todo with it?

US Oil companies are barred by law not to trade with Iraq. If it was all about oil don't you think such a law would of never be in existence? If everything is always about oil common sense tells me US Oil companies would be able to directly trade for Iraqi oil instead of having to go through third parties. Wouldn't such a law effect Mr. Bush's oil buddies. Why would he allow such a thing, aren't they his buddies?

Doc, I suggest you get over this hate for oil companies and conspiracy driven lines of reasoning.

Wow. We hate him because he's evil. So I suppose all those years of supplying him were a big mistake?

Doc, France and the Soviet Union helped Iraq more than we did. The US objective at that time was not to benefit from arms trade to Iraq but to protect the US economic interests in the region.

And I suppose that now, all of a sudden, the United States will stop supporting "good" dictators. Frankly, I'm overjoyed, but I'm dismayed I missed the memo that said "fellow citizens! In the future, morality will guide our foreign policy. PS enjoy the outrageously higher oil prices." Maybe I'm just really uninformed, as I never heard that the United States suddenly stopped trying to overturn latin-American elections, overturning lawsuites against our companies even when they're clearly guilty of human rights abuses, and encouraging it's own businesses to move abroad to lower wages paid. Cool.

What is with all these moral equivactions? I don't see how this makes any difference whether or not Saddam is a threat or not. Maybe your aware of some type of Latin American - Iraq connection I don't know about. Please fill me in.

BTW: the left hasn't made a compelling argument to not invade? Are you nuts? I've yet to hear a single good reason to invade, and plenty of good reasons not to. And last I checked, the people who want to do something different (like say, invade someone) are the ones who need to put forth the argument. Which isn't being done very well, if, after calling on the best right-wing arguments, the best you can come up with is "Saddam is evil! Evil makes Jesus cry. Therefore, it's time to klll lots of people."

Like I said I'm not for a war for an Iraq. But reasons the left give are short sided.

So what are those compelling arguments? Tell me. Is it another "it's all about oil" conspiracy type of reasons?

Take care,,
Jason

[Justin]

Wait a minute. Are you trying to say the whole basis for your argument in the post two places up isn't that Saddam is evil? Are you redifining the English language again, because this is getting really confusing. Literally. Nothing makes sense.

You: Liberals say Saddam is as peaceful as the Dali Lama!

Me: No one is saying that. Liberals are saying that he's not a threat to the United States, not that he's peaceful. There is a tremendous difference.

You: Don't take my words out of context! I didn't mean peaceful as in "one who is peaceful." I meant peaceful as in. . . something with a different meaning. PS: Saddam is evil! How can you say we shouldn't invade?

Me: Since when is morality the guide for US policy? Are you saying we should, or there is, a United States policy based on morality? Because there isn't.

You: What does Saddam being evil have to do with anything? I never said that. You are once again taking my words out of context.

Really, all I have to go on is the english language. I don't think interpreting what you say as what the words mean constitutes "taking your words out of context." If you want to radically redifine what "peaceful" means, then explain that before using it in an important sentence. Similarly, if you want to want to talk a whole post about how evil Saddam is in a thread dedicated to war with Saddam, don't be shocked when I interpret your post as meaning "we should invade because he's evil." I assume you believe that given the aforementioned, but if you don't, please say so. If you do beleive that, then that's the point of my entire post above. Since when is morality the guide of US foreign policy? Those other examples have everything to do with the US not being moral. So maybe how evil Saddam is is totally fucking irrelevant, and is only a propoganda tool. I doubt you lose much sleep thinking about the atrocities in East Timor, so what's up with the sudden compassion for Iraq?

I'll agree you have a point on Iraq's oil, however, note that companies are more than capable of building the neccesary infrastructure. We built most of it in Saudi Arabia too, though by more peaceful means. So yes, invading Iraq does in fact lead to more American dollars. Sur-fucking-prise.

As to supplying Saddam, so what if other people supplied him. We did too. Which sort of shoots holes in your The-US-is-good-and-Saddam-is-bad-so-we-should-fight-Saddam-becuase-the-US-hates-evil argument.

Lastly, as to the lefts arguments: they largely boil down to there being no fucking point. If the best reason you can think of for invading Iraq is "they kill babies! They R baddddd!!," then I'm going to have to say the left is winning the argument hard.

[DJ Rawkus]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD
Saudi Arabia produces about 7.4 million barrels of oil a day and has the capacity to pump at least 10 million barrels, by 2010 Saudi capacity is expected to reach 15 million barrels a day, according to U.S. Energy Department projections. If it's all about oil than why go after Iraq? Saudi Arabia has the resources now, why not go after them? Iraq has no ability to what so ever to produce the oil that you speak of that makes war with Iraq over oil.
*blink* did you not read my post where i said Iraq has the largest untapped reserves in the world? i mean, fuck...I put them in bold capital letters for a reason. And what's with this throwing of the ball into the left's court. Saying someone' elses argument is weak doesn't make yours any stronger. The left may be hesitating and you see it as bitter posturing for politics' sake .. or sweet jesus *gasp*..they might actually have a good reason and you just don't want to accept it. I haven't heard a good pro or con for either side. I make up my own mind thanks, and i think this whole thing is a sham. It's a huge stalling trick by Iraq and we're playing right into it. The UN if they had any balls would give the US the finger and say "you want proof, do it yourself". I personally don't like the idea that we have UN inspectors tromping around Iraq, and meanwhile saddam is making dirty bombs in some remote region of timbuktu 1000's miles away. It's the same concept as having a private converation in a Denny's and shutting down a highway, or talking to the club security while your friends sneak in behind him. This country is so myopic it stuns me that nobody says anything about it. Wasn't it just yesteryear that ol Scrub was proclaiming his "hole-smoking" skills? what happened to sticking to the plan and not quitting until it's done? Sheesh. We're so spread out from Iraq to Florida and Buffalo and Afghanistan and god knows where else... i wouldn't be surprised if Bin Laden is watching the news from some underground location and having a good snicker at our expense just waiting to strike again. We're so quick to jump on the bandwagon of the latest fad of "lets kill this evil guy" ...it's just weird. What would america do in it's spare time if it didn't have evil guys to seek out and destroy? I shudder at the thought. We'd probably invent one or something!

oh..and a big fat word to Doc for mentioning East Timor. Mmmkay..enough from me. That is all. :)

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Doc Mahem
Wait a minute. Are you trying to say the whole basis for your argument in the post two places up isn't that Saddam is evil? Are you redifining the English language again, because this is getting really confusing. Literally. Nothing makes sense.

Read it again then.

You: Liberals say Saddam is as peaceful as the Dali Lama!

I said, “Ohh silly me, I thought stopping a madman from killing Americans is a real issue. I'm not for a war on Iraq, but the left seems to think Suddam is as peacefull as the Dahli Lama.. Let’s break this down for you Doc. I’m a bit surprised though that you need this help because you’ve been one of the brightest guys I’ve discussed important issues with on the board. “Ohh silly me” means what? And followed by “I thought stopping a manman from killing Americans is a real issue.” Followed by “I’m not for war on Iraq, but the left SEEMS to think Suddam is as peacefull as the Dahli Lama.” Wouldn’t you think there might just be a hint of sarcasm or irony in that statement? Now who’s trying to redefine the English language here? Last time I checked the word “seems” and “is” are quite different from each other! LMAO!

Me: No one is saying that. Liberals are saying that he's not a threat to the United States, not that he's peaceful. There is a tremendous difference.

I’ve already explained what I mean’t in the following post when you took what I said out of context.

You: Don't take my words out of context! I didn't mean peaceful as in "one who is peaceful." I meant peaceful as in. . . something with a different meaning. PS: Saddam is evil! How can you say we shouldn't invade?

[you and me stuff removed]

Really, all I have to go on is the english language. I don't think interpreting what you say as what the words mean constitutes "taking your words out of context." If you want to radically redifine what "peaceful" means, then explain that before using it in an important sentence. Similarly, if you want to want to talk a whole post about how evil Saddam is in a thread dedicated to war with Saddam, don't be shocked when I interpret your post as meaning "we should invade because he's evil." I assume you believe that given the aforementioned, but if you don't, please say so. If you do beleive that, then that's the point of my entire post above. Since when is morality the guide of US foreign policy? Those other examples have everything to do with the US not being moral. So maybe how evil Saddam is is totally fucking irrelevant, and is only a propoganda tool. I doubt you lose much sleep thinking about the atrocities in East Timor, so what's up with the sudden compassion for Iraq?

Doc, I’m sorry your interrupting these things out of context. But when I’ve said over and over I don’t support invading Iraq I thought you should take it at that. I don’t support invading Iraq, the thought of you thinking I am for “invading Iraq because he’s evil” is either a harmless mistake on your part or a blatant attempt to take what I am saying out of context for lack of a better arguemnt on your part. What about East Timor? When you want to discuss East Timor than bring it up. But I thought this thread was about Iraq. Attempt to derail?

I'll agree you have a point on Iraq's oil, however, note that companies are more than capable of building the neccesary infrastructure. We built most of it in Saudi Arabia too, though by more peaceful means. So yes, invading Iraq does in fact lead to more American dollars. Sur-fucking-prise.

Accroding to the Iraq sanctions Act:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds, credits, guarantees, or insurance appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any other Act for fiscal year 1991 or any fiscal year thereafter shall be used to support or administer any financial or commercial operation of any United States Government department, agency, or other entity, or of any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United states, for the benefit of the Government of Iraq, its agencies or Instrumentalities, or any person working on behalf of the Government of Iraq, contrary to the trade embargo and other economic sanctions imposed in accordance with this section.

Before the US can scrap these sanctions that were imposed by the US back in 1990 Iraq has to comply with everything not only in the UN Security Counsel’s resolutions 668 and etc, but within the Iraq Sanctions Act passed by Congress. The Act was passed becuase of Iraq's invation of Kuwait. If the US was more concerned about Oil don't you think the sanctions would of been lifted in a split second? Especially after the invasion? If it's all about Oil don't you think it's odd that the US forbids by law the ability of US oil companies to do business with Iraq?

The sanction states that Iraq has to prove that it’s self sustainable before the sanction is lifted. Invading Iraq doesn’t guarantee anything. And this act was passed before the Gulf war, and it wasn't lifted after the last invasion.. hmm

But it's all about oil right?

Iraq sanctions Act
http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/legal/statutes/isa.pdf

"if Saddam Hussein fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. ... If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." The stakes, he says, could not be higher. "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal." -- Bill Clinton on February 18, 1998.

1998 resolution: Congress "urges the president to take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -Congress in 1998 Resolution.

1998 resolution would "send as clear a message as possible that we are going to force, one way or another, diplomatically or militarily, Iraq to comply with international law." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"'Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?' That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily." -- Tom Daschle in 1998.

"We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century," he argued. "They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein." -- Bill Clinton

Are all these people wrong? So Saddam is not a threat like Scott Ritter says? Why is the guy quoted all over the place in the media dispight what he said in the years previously? And ahem.. excuse me, Why is the left-of-center press is hammer Scott's comments home if he's becoming irrelevant?

"Iraq today presents a threat to no one." --Scott Ritter, Los Angeles Times

"Iraq is not a threat." -FOXNews Channel

Scott Ritter before:

"Once effective inspection regimes have been terminated," ... "Iraq will be able to reconstitute the entirety of its former nuclear, chemical, and ballistic missile delivery system capabilities within a period of six months." -- Scott Ritter, Senate testimony on September 3, 1998.

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." --Scott Ritter, New Republic mag.

So which is it Scott is he a threat or not? What has changed in the last several years that changes the idea whether Saddam is not a threat anymore?

As to supplying Saddam, so what if other people supplied him. We did too. Which sort of shoots holes in your The-US-is-good-and-Saddam-is-bad-so-we-should-fight-Saddam-becuase-the-US-hates-evil argument.

Lastly, as to the lefts arguments: they largely boil down to there being no fucking point. If the best reason you can think of for invading Iraq is "they kill babies! They R baddddd!!," then I'm going to have to say the left is winning the argument hard.

You’re the one who implyed that we are the ones who supplied him with all his weapons. All I wanted was you to engage in some intellectual honesty here. Want me to tell you how much was given to other countries? Did you know the US has brought China up to speed in missile technology? We have given allot of countries shit. Giving Iraq one cent of US arms or anything at all gives Mr. Suddam Hussain an excuse?!? And stop taking the “evil” shit out of context. I never said it in that context you know it and your better than that.

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by DJ Rawkus
*blink* did you not read my post where i said Iraq has the largest untapped reserves in the world? i mean, fuck...I put them in bold capital letters for a reason.

Rawkus. It doesn't matter if there is a gazzillion gallons under their land. What good is untapped reserves if you have no way of discovering them, exploration, tapping them or even the infustrcture to support such extra reserves? I think there is allot more involved than I think your aware of than just having speculation.

-Jason

[Tasty]

http://a799.ms.akamai.net/3/799/388/191dfa5143b642/msnbc.com/comics/editorial/tt020918.gif

talk about our Foreign Policy Dichotomy...... Can we have our cake and eat it too???

[DJ Rawkus]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD


Rawkus. It doesn't matter if there is a gazzillion gallons under their land. What good is untapped reserves if you have no way of discovering them, exploration, tapping them or even the infustrcture to support such extra reserves? I think there is allot more involved than I think your aware of than just having speculation.

-Jason Jason, you appear to be the one of the myopic masses i'm talking about. The right seems to think they have a moral duty to install a new guy in Iraq, while oil prices are fluctuating about as much as Cheney's heart skips in an hour. You just don't get it and frankly i don't feel like showing it you. It reminds me of housesitting big dumb dogs..all the coercion in the world doesn't help. They do what they want, when they want, how they want. And you know what? That's fine with me..let america have another spat with Iraq if you think it's a fucking moral issue. God forbid Bush may not have a DECENT plan that benefits Iraqi's (instead of just western whim) after he installs a new puppet leader... oh no..that would never happen!! :rolleyes:

[Mike S]

Originally posted by DJ Rawkus
Jason, you appear to be the one of the myopic masses i'm talking about. The right seems to think they have a moral duty to install a new guy in Iraq, while oil prices are fluctuating about as much as Cheney's heart skips in an hour. You just don't get it and frankly i don't feel like showing it you. It reminds me of housesitting big dumb dogs..all the coercion in the world doesn't help. They do what they want, when they want, how they want. And you know what? That's fine with me..let america have another spat with Iraq if you think it's a fucking moral issue. God forbid Bush may not have a DECENT plan that benefits Iraqi's (instead of just western whim) after he installs a new puppet leader... oh no..that would never happen!! :rolleyes:

Nathan its you and people like you who are myopic. People such as your self used the same lame arguments over ten years ago when we first went into Iraq. Never mind all the arguments turned out to be baseless here you people are again repeating them ad nauseum like a bad broken record. There are legitimate questions to be asked regarding our potentially going into Iraq but you and your lame cynicism dont touch on any of them. The track record for your doom and gloom predictions coming to pass as of us going into Afghanistan is ZERO. Why you expect anybody to seriously consider your doom and gloom now is a mystery.

On a side note - Nathan - I guess you came up to talk to me sunday and in the middle of that I walked off - I dont even remember you being there I was that delerious from a lack of sleep. I'm sorry.

MS

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by DJ Rawkus
Jason, you appear to be the one of the myopic masses i'm talking about. The right seems to think they have a moral duty to install a new guy in Iraq, while oil prices are fluctuating about as much as Cheney's heart skips in an hour. You just don't get it and frankly i don't feel like showing it you. It reminds me of housesitting big dumb dogs..all the coercion in the world doesn't help. They do what they want, when they want, how they want. And you know what? That's fine with me..let america have another spat with Iraq if you think it's a fucking moral issue. God forbid Bush may not have a DECENT plan that benefits Iraqi's (instead of just western whim) after he installs a new puppet leader... oh no..that would never happen!! :rolleyes:

Fuck the right, they can take their moral duty and go fuck themselves. Protecting Americans is #1. Who's gonna make Suddam disarm? The UN? Germany? If Suddam Hussain is not diarmed soon how many American lives and Iraqi's have to suffer from a war with a stronger Suddam? The UN needs to step up and disarm Iraq, if the UN backs down than the US needs to go in. I don't support a unilateral attack on Iraq, but if the UN fails to do their job than the US is the only force left who can carry out the job of disarming Saddam. Why so many lefties want to allow Saddam to break UN resolutions and continue his WoMD program going is beyond me.

-Jason