General discussion

  • Creator
  • #2297856

    OK I don’t know the exact time in the US right now


    by hal 9000 ·

    But two hours ago there was some massive TV coverage of YS forces caputering Saddam Hussain. As the actiion was then at least 20 hours old I susposed that they had timed the news realease for US Prime Time but maybe they used local time in Iraq and are waiting for everyone in the US to wake up for some good Sunday Morning news.

    Anyway at least the people involoved looked happy even though they did not seem to believe that the troubles would stop quickly and might even esclate for a short time. Finially some really good news now if only theuy could find Ben Ladden the world would be a safer place.

    All I can say to those involved IS GOOD WORK GUYS KEEP IT UP!

All Comments

  • Author
    • #2671764

      I agree

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to OK I don’t know the exact time in the US right now

      It was fantastic to wake up to some good Sunday Morning news.

      And All I can also say to those involved IS GOOD WORK GUYS KEEP IT UP!

      (It’s 8:30 AM in the mountain time zone, 9:30 AM central time zone, 10:30 AM eastern time zone. This just minutes after you asked the question.)

      • #2671761

        Well Maxwell it’s

        by hal 9000 ·

        In reply to I agree

        Exactly 1.55 AM Monday 15 12 here right now and hopefully I’ll see my wife somethime this week as rightr now she is locked up on jury service and has been since Friday morning or is that mourning.

        • #2671716

          Now I know for sure – I think

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Well Maxwell it’s

          I always did wonder how far ahead/behind/whatever I was with you guys. I never did care enough to look it up, however, but now I know.

          You are 17 hours ahead of me. You are 16 hours ahead of the U.S. central time zone, and 15 hours ahead of those in the U.S. eastern time zone. But you are 18 hours ahead of those in the U.S. pacific time zone. And if we keep going west, back in time, so to speak, pretty soon we’d be back to the future, all caught up with you.


          I guess that means, as compared to you, I’m always living in the past. Or no matter how hard I try, I’ll never catch up with you. Or you’ll always arrive to the future before me. (Okay, I’ll quit.)

        • #2671674

          Out of step …

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Now I know for sure – I think

          Ironic, don’t you think, that the most powerful nation on earth is living in the past? It is even behind other mighty nations, like Australia (the major capital cities, Sydney, Melbourne and
          Canberra are at GMT + 10).

          Now as for the great victory: destroying Hussein’s regime was top priority. And yet capturing the man, dead or alive, was not considered to be essential to victory. As SH was still evading capture when your President made his now infamous “victory” speech on May 1, Saddam was still at large, so apparently the capture of the man himself was not considered by GWB to be essential to fulfilment of the goal of liberating the people of Iraq.

          His capture may well hearten US service people in Iraq, and may make the general population of Iraq more trusting of the occupation forces. But it was never (to my knowledge) considered essential. I’m sure everyone is happy about his capture but it is about as significant as the cherry on the cake — adds a bit of colour but does not enhance the nutritional value of the cake.

        • #2671639

          Everything you said

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Out of step …

          I am in agreement with.

        • #2670782

          The news media…

          by boricua65 ·

          In reply to Everything you said

          What I see is the news media is going to have a field day with this. It’ll probably be on for about a week before to go to the next greatest thing. I, for one, am going to not see the news. All they are going to do is say the same thing over and over again.

    • #2671755


      by oz_media ·

      In reply to OK I don’t know the exact time in the US right now

      The soldiers in Iraq have successfully accepted Saddams surrender, to this I tip my hat to the American troops. This does indicate the beginning of the end even thought there is much resistance and rehabilitative work to be performed.

      Saddam was much more dedicated to his cause and his family, for this he was found very close to his family home as a result of recent intelligence.

      It is still too early at this time to start speculating as to what happens now however, as a major part of ICC’s creation, Canada has offered to assist with the prosecution and intelligence gathering required to see this man brought to justice.

      Regardless of HOW this war was justified and carried out I feel that this is the most positive result to date. I certainly hope that they find further resistance dwindles as fast as the uncommitted resistance in Afghanistan. Saddams forces were dedicated to thier cause as well as thier leader. His troops will not be toppled as easy as the unwilling Taliban because these are much more dedicated opposition forces.

      As I type this, GWB has JUST finished his address, obviously extremely brief and quite uninformative as expected in these early stages. Just minutes after the address it has just been announced that the Palistine Hotel has had an explosion from some sort of bomb.

      At this point I am simply wondering if this is the beginning of a big blow out so these men can go out with one final fight but I fear that it will be a long and drawn out process in which Saddam’s troops will stand tall until the end.

      As I said, we can only speculate as to what upcoming events will be but all in all it is somewhat relieving to see Saddam captured, even if just to see him brought to justice.

      Good capture, well done!

    • #2671754

      Now…if they can just find those WMD

      by lesdabney67 ·

      In reply to OK I don’t know the exact time in the US right now

      We might actually have a case to validate this war.

      Next up Osama?

      Doubt it.

      • #2671749


        by oz_media ·

        In reply to Now…if they can just find those WMD

        The cause of the war is irrelevant here. As much as we see the other side to the justifications, this is a monumental accomplishment that should go respected without predjudice. Some lowlife traitors ratted Sadam out as being in one of two locations, the USA effectively captured the red flag and that is that.

        This will undoubtedly be a turning point as it improves US morality while slowly draining Iraqi support.

        Here’s a really funny point I just heard, even though Iraq has been known as the horrible repressive country, they have don’t even have the death penalty that is so widely argued and deemed inhumane in the USA but still carried out in some states.

        I wonder if HBO will do a special as Saddam is fried, “Incandescent Iraqi” the lighting of Saddam Hussein, bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, thump,thump,thump….wocka, wocka, flap,flap,flap.

        • #2671747

          Your source is mistaken.

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to sshhh

          Iraq does not have the death penalty???????

          or tiny:

          (By the way, unlike many of my fellow countrymen, including our President, I’m not in favor of the death penalty.)

        • #2671744

          I don’t know who it was

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Your source is mistaken.

          While surfing around with the TV on in the background (I CAN’T BELIEVE CORONATION STREET WAS PRE-EMPTED,THOSE BASTARDS!!!!) I caught the tail end of an interview..

          Some dude in his military unifrom from the New Iraqi Government was saying that they no longer have a death penalty when questioned as to where Saddam should tried.

        • #2671743

          Maybe you haven’t heard…

          by lesdabney67 ·

          In reply to sshhh

          but the violence continues unabated today even after his capture. I’m glad they captured him but it doesn’t change the fact that this war was executed based on lies about WMD. Finding Saddam is great…not finding the WMD is criminal.

          We weren’t sold the war based on the capture of Saddam. The public was sold a war because of the weapons Saddam was alleged to have…and so far NOT ONE scrap of WMD has been found.

          Not only that but Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9/11. If you want to hear praise Bush should capture Osama.

        • #2670781

          I am with you on that one.

          by boricua65 ·

          In reply to Maybe you haven’t heard…

          It’s funny that the news media never ever showed body bags coming home. All they report is the amount of people that have died. Basically, it started with the 9/11 incident and let’s get Bin Laden. Then all of a suddent Dubya wants to go after Hussein. Now that it is all said and done, what will happen next? Who will be the next target?

        • #2670758

          Siria is next

          by lesdabney67 ·

          In reply to I am with you on that one.

          Check out for a detail list of their plans.

        • #2670671

          Syria is next

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Siria is next

          One can only hope.

        • #2670651


          by lesdabney67 ·

          In reply to Syria is next

          [sarcasm]One can only hope that we bring more death, destruction and injustice into the Middle East.[/sarcasm]

        • #2670739

          It’s funny that the news media never ever showed body bags coming home.

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I am with you on that one.

          Actually it’s not funny at all. There was a media black out applied by the White House that specifically addressed reporters and photographers were banned rom showing ANY dead returining from Iraq. THey also heavily censored against ANY wounded being shown, Iraqi OR US etc.

          THey always have done, as I’ve said before, in other countries we see the reality in our media, this is WHY we don’t happily support war unless in dire need to defend ourselves.

          We also don’t have as many homicides (in proportions to the population) deaths by hand gun, stabbings, robberies and other violent crimes. We have pretty uncensored TV and Print media, we support death less I think as a result of exposure to reality.

        • #2670722

          The corporate media is covering them up.

          by lesdabney67 ·

          In reply to It’s funny that the news media never ever showed body bags coming home.

          Bush ordered them to NOT film the caskets coming into Dover.

        • #2670689

          President Clinton signed the order. . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to The corporate media is covering them up.

          …that the caskets coming into Dover Air Force Base not be covered.

          It was done out of respect for the families of the fallen soldiers.

          It was the right thing to do.

        • #2670692

          Out of respect for the fallen soldiers

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to It’s funny that the news media never ever showed body bags coming home.

          The practice of not showing the bodies of fallen soldiers was started in the early 90s. The pentagon made the request, and President Clinton approved it and subsequently signed the order.

          It was done out of respect to the families of the fallen.

          It was the right thing to do.

        • #2670650

          It isn’t out of respect..

          by lesdabney67 ·

          In reply to Out of respect for the fallen soldiers

          The tide turned against Vietnam because of all the news coverage of the caskets returning.

    • #2671751

      “We Got Him”

      by joseph moore ·

      In reply to OK I don’t know the exact time in the US right now

      Dug out of a 6×9 foot hole, with 2 machine guns and $750,000 US dollars!
      And it is nice to know, according to the video, that Saddam does not have lice or bad teeth!
      I thank the US military for their fortitide in sticking with their mission in Iraq, for their sacrifices. The price to get this guy has been very high.
      But it is a price that has been paid, and we as US citizens must support those who are paying the price, and our leaders also. The US government made a hard decision to get Saddam. It is not a popular decision.
      But, IMHO, it was the correct one.

      • #2671750

        Well said

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to “We Got Him”

        Those of us who have been voicing full support, regardless of the criticism levied against us, are somewhat vindicated this morning. I find it quite humorous to see those who have been in opposition try to back-peddle and twist their own words trying to find a way to save face.

        The American and coalition troops have performed magnificently.

        And President Bush has shown both moral and political courage to stand firm in his convictions. The story of this President with regards to the war on terror, which included Saddam Hussein, would indeed deserve a chapter in John F. Kennedy’s Profiles in Courage. It’s been a long time indeed since we’ve had a President willing to stand firm in his convictions in the face of such political adversity.

        Well done to all involved.

        • #2671746

          Have a seat

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Well said

          Hey Max, I know that sadly enough this is one of the greatest days in your life but you hve no reason for feeling vindicated this morning, just grab your Cheerios and relax a little.

          I haven’t read ANYWHERE in these posts where anyone has SAID Saddam’s removal from power is not neccessary.

          As much as I am against the MEANS of undertaking and especially justifying the invasion in the fashion that it was conducted, at no time have I ever said that removing Saddam from power is wrong or unjustified.

          There are still the deceptions by GWB, the true goals which we will soon see come into full action and the ongoing terrorist actions against your country and others from related regimes including the undefeated Taliban.

          The good news sis that at least you managed to capture your flag this time as it was close to home and pointed out. Well done.

          One battle is won, not the war yet, you know better than that, I thought.

        • #2671741

          One point

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Have a seat

          I’m not going to get into an argument with you. However, there is one point I’d like to make. (Not that I expect you or any other past naysayer to concede the point.)

          You (and others) have said that, “Saddam’s removal from power was necessary”. But there’s always a “but”.

          But you don’t like the way it was done.

          But you wanted unanimous global support.

          But you wanted the United Nations to say okee-dokee.

          But you wanted the French government’s “blessings”.

          But you didn’t agree with the timing.

          But you question the stated reasons.

          But this.

          But that.

          There’s always a “but”.

          Well I say, but nothing. I say do what needs to be done, and just let the chips fall where they may. That takes moral and political courage, something too few people have.

          GWB did what his father should have done thirteen years ago.

          GWB did what Bill Clinton should have done ten years ago (after the first WTC bombing).

          GWB did what the United Nations should have done twelve years ago, eleven years ago, ten years ago, etc.

          How much longer would all the “but people” have waited? (Too damn long is the right answer, because there would have always been a “but”.)

        • #2671739


          by oz_media ·

          In reply to One point

          Even though one MUST often take initiative and make sacrifices to get the job done (which I agree with fully), this is not asking a girl for a date or pushing for promotion. This is a political invasion of another country, a toppling and rebuilding of a government and it’s people and it can’s be taken so lightly nor does this even focus on the objective, just a token goal to make people feel good.

          I think this whole thing is being taken out of proportion a little. You’ve captured Saddam and I think that this is a great step in beginning to break down his support, keeping in mind that his troops support a cause more than a man.

          This doesn’t detract in anyway whatsoever that you have undermined the trust of your allies, who’s iterests were blantantly ignored. This is not a BUT, it is a reality. You step on toes to work your way up the corporate ladder not to gain world peace.

          You have still completely ignored the fact that remains as my true stand against the war to begin with. The President of the USA betrayed his people by deceptive actions in order to justify a war for his own benefit, not if’s, and’s or BUT’s aobut it.

        • #2671731

          Okay – a couple of more points

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to But…

          Contrary to what you claim, President Bush did not betray his people. You obviously don’t understand American politics, or you would just concede the point that the opposing party, especially in the midst of an election cycle, will always oppose something. One has to simply put politics aside and just do the right thing. And if you discount “political opposition”, a HUGE majority of Americans believe in and support the President’s very tough decisions.

          The WMD issue: One of two things is true. Either Saddam had WMDs, but they were destroyed or have yet to be found. Or everyone in the world thought he had them – everyone. If it’s the former, the facts will eventually come out. If it’s the latter, then the whole world was equally fooled. Either way, it should be a moot point, as this was only one of about a dozen reasons for the toppling of Saddam. The constant harping about the WMD issue is just grasping at straws.

          And the United States did not, as you claim, “undermine the trust of our allies”. These so-called “allies” were the ones doing the “undermining”. They undermined the thirteen year old United Nations resolutions. They undermined the cause of freedom and liberty. They undermined the future of the Iraqi people. Moreover, the French, the Germans, and the Russians, all three being the primary opponents of this action, ALL had undermined stability in the region, they undermined the UN resolutions, they undermined the war on terrorism, and they undermined the Iraqi people by dealing with Saddam Hussein “under the table”, and in violation of their very own UN resolutions. As the old saying goes, with friends like these, who needs enemies?

          As for the Canadians, you all admit to hating the USA. Okay, so anything coming from them comes from the perspective of hate, so what else could you expect? Moreover, I guess you guys are just a bunch of panty-waist pacifists, whose main focus in life is legalizing gay marriages and smoking dope.

          The USA is already at the top of the figurative corporate ladder. So there were no figurative toes to step on. There may be some grasping fingers stepped on, however. Fingers of those who want to see the USA knocked down a few rungs. But guess what? It ain’t gonna’ happen.

        • #2671727


          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Okay – a couple of more points

          Most of your post does not warrant the time for reponse, it will go nowhere a proven time and again. WMD WERE the imminent danger that must be reduced immediately and therefore the justification for war. Even those interviewed on the street are saying it’s nice to know that this threat has been taken away. What threat?

          The UN scantion breeches were supported, fuelled and ignored by the USA. I have never voiced my opinion regarding the UN’s suggestions, I don’t neccessarily buy into the UN.

          Upon rereading my last post, I assumed you would read my coporate ladder statement that way.

          What I meant to say is, ‘as the saying commonly goes many step on toes to work up the corporate ladder, and this is acceptable and although unfavored, often appropriate or neccessary. This same ‘do or die’ thought process shouldn’t apply to war.

          The US would have been more justified spending the billions on finding Bin Laden, this man IS a threat, he HAS attacked the USA,he HAS killed thousands of USA citizens. Instead, Canada and Germany are left trying to Liberate a country that still has strong opposition to occupation.

          Finish your dinner before dessert.

        • #2671724

          One last point

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Okay – a couple of more points

          I thought you strongly denied your belief in WMD. You sisn’t support that theory as justification for the conflict?

        • #2671663

          Oz – You’re such a Wanker…

          by jimhm ·

          In reply to Have a seat

          Oz your such a wanker –

          You would have something negative to say if we the US found WMD’s all over the mountains of Iraqi – you would say the US Put them there..

          Take a few Prozac – or Zanx – and go back to your “I am the Greatest Dream” – you truty are a ledgen in your own MIND…

          Wanker – Or as we say – Where you born an AssH899 or did you work at it your whole life… whatever you’re an AssH899 for life…

        • #2671570

          First of all sir

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Oz – You’re such a Wanker…

          I started by adding a positive post here. Without defaming or reducing Saddams capture in abyway, I posted simple congratulations for the soldiers efforts.

          Shortly after, I even gave someone crap for jumping on the NO WMD thery and stated that this was a small vitory for the US and to let you guys have a minute of glory.

          This was then turned into a “we knew we were right all along thread” ,as expected, at which point I felt it necessary to at least remind everyone that THIS is not a reason to see “naysayers” as wrong all along and that this was NOT why you went to war in the first place. Moreover, this is NOT what people were objecting to, so what could have been a simply moment of SOME victory for the USA, YOU guys turned it into another “we were right” thread, which your not becuase nobody contested that Saddam should be captured.

          It’s typical you all look straight ahead and forget the past, when something goes wron, you are then the first ones to turn to ancient history to justify you methods, “If so and so did this is 702AD, then it must be they way we do it now” crap. You all fail to see anything proven or suggested that goes in any direction except yours.

          I think you kindly for the AssH899 comments, I think you were trying to say Ass&*#e but I get your point. Your point is that you are unable to understand a discussion and simply read a single post, in some awkward way, misconstrue the entire meaning and then rant at the messenger. I always thought you were a little better than that, don’t reduce yourself so now.

        • #2670829


          by lesdabney67 ·

          In reply to Oz – You’re such a Wanker…

          if you are going to call someone a wanker you should at least do it correctly…

          The correct way to use it is “Bloody Wanker” or et hoc genus ohme…

      • #2670527

        My Sunday Wakeup Call :)

        by tomsal ·

        In reply to “We Got Him”

        I was up late on Saturday so around 12:25 pm Sunday I get a call from a friend in Hawaii, the moment I said “hello” she just said “we got him” (her husband is US military and he is currently overseas) and I knew.

        too cool. 🙂 Finally!

        And to see he cowered down so pathetically when he vowed he’d fight back till the death—its icing on a very tasty cake 🙂

        Getting Saddam is like your team winning the conference championship, but if we get Bin Laden in similar fashion — its like your team won the Super Bowl. 🙂

    • #2671740

      Crack Santa

      by oz_media ·

      In reply to OK I don’t know the exact time in the US right now

      Well even though DNA testing will follow, they have identified him as Saddam Hussein.

      I sat by the TV watching in horror as they shone the little light in his mouth and combed his hair for lice, could Santa be a crackhead and we aren’t getting presents anymore or is this the real Saddam on crack?

      But no, everyone can relax, Santa is fine and he’s busy checking his list twice.

      I’m watching the various celebrations across the nation and right now there are people partying in the back of a pickup as it crawls down the street. With the exception of no sun tans and burning flags it looks like a flashback of the events in Afghanistan after they attacked the WTC, very primitive, bad form for global publicity.

      It’s all fine and dandy, but no Coronation Street is pushing it!
      Oh well, thank god for DVD’s.

      • #2671574

        Didn’t he say – he would fight to the death before being captured

        by jimhm ·

        In reply to Crack Santa

        Didn’t Saddam say that he would fight to the Death and become Iraqi’s martar – before being captured?

        Gee he put up such a great fight – two AK-47’s, side arm – and $750K in US money… and yeld from the bottom of his RAT whole – I am Saddam – Don’t not Shoot … Now there is a brave leader..

        Send out hundreds of followers to martar themselfs in his name – then when he his given the chance to be come a Martar – he pussy’s out and crys that he is SADDAM –

        Now there a leader that everyone can follow – “Do what I say – Now as I do”….

        They should turn him over to the Iraqi people and Kurds – and let them put in front of the Iraqi 3 Judge war crimes commission… Then let the people have their way with him….

        • #2671569


          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Didn’t he say – he would fight to the death before being captured

          Are you making a statement against something I’ve said? I don’t think so.

        • #2670838

          Should be out one more level

          by jimhm ·

          In reply to Didn’t he say – he would fight to the death before being captured

          It should be out to the beginning level

        • #2670832

          Fair enough

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Should be out one more level

          Sorry bout that

        • #2670831


          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Didn’t he say – he would fight to the death before being captured

          If you were in a hole, with two machine guns and a pistol, 600,000 people wiith training and arms are looking for you, a few find your hidey hole and call you out. You’d start trying to fend them off?

          The best he could have done is shoot himself, you are better off that he didn’t. Now you can sift through any information he provides and hope that it it not just deception that kills more Americans. What about his spineless reporters who pointed out his whereabouts to the American troops? Secondly I hear two conflicting stories on the Capture of him, one stated that a KEEN US soldier hasd noticed his footprints in the farmhouse where he was captured. Another said after receiving intelligence from his people, a radar scan showed a tunnel in the home, when the troops didn’t find him, they were instructed to investigate the tunnel.

          Either way, he was caught but it just goes to show how hasty some are to reach conclusions and make them world news.

        • #2670518

          Live capture ….

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Jim

          It may not have been a true warrior’s way to die — to avoid firing the first shot, thus avoiding certain death — but it has proved of enormous benefit to the US and the world.

          Firstly, it has demonstrated to the people of Iraq that Saddam is a coward, but FAR more importantly it has left the captors with a mind that should prove to be a limitless source of information about many issues, including terrorism.

          At the beginning of the war it was quite obvious that straight out killing Saddam was the preference.

          So thank you, Mr Hussein, you wily old bastard, for staying on the run for nine months. Not only has this broken your spirit, but left your captors with access to a mental library of limitless usefulness.

        • #2672252


          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Live capture ….

          You’ve been somewhat quiet regarding this thread but your points speak volumes.

          Lets just hope this doesn’t turninto a repeat of Canada’s Clifford Olsen who was serial killing children. He has a private cell with a TV, DVD and stero and a MASSIVE bank account for his family at home.

          He simply holds out information until given privaledges or money ($36,000 per indentity at one point) to speak up. He should have been killed but his method makes it imperative to keep him alive and bring and end to human suffering of those wondering if he killed THIER child. He is kept alive and fed MONEY, GIFTS and PERKS because he will eventually offer peace to those he has effected. His family is quite wealthy now and has very high tech security and monitoring equipment to protect thier safety as well as a few new toys.

          The victims have nothing but loss and grieving, still even though he was caught and sentenced.

          Will Saddam do this and start offering a wealth earned by information, true or false, to support his allies and followers in Iraq?

          If not, he may as well be killed without trying to extract information, knowing that knowledge is life for him, he has no reason to tell all at once and just get it all out so he can die. I think he’s well aware that as soon as his source and knowledge is no longer important, he’s done.

    • #2671738

      456 US lives…. 10,000 Iraqis…. all for one man, no WMD…..

      by lesdabney67 ·

      In reply to OK I don’t know the exact time in the US right now

      Was it worth it?

      • #2671736

        Of course it was

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to 456 US lives…. 10,000 Iraqis…. all for one man, no WMD…..

        Black gold, Texas Tea. BUSH is probably getting suited up for a swim in it this afternoon.

        • #2671734

          What do you mean?

          by lesdabney67 ·

          In reply to Of course it was

          [sarcasm]This war wasn’t about oil, it was about terrorism [/sarcasm]

        • #2671732

          They’ve got the wrong guy afterall

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to What do you mean?

          From further inspection of this person aleedgedly Saddam Hussein, I’mm looking for GWB’s cell phone number. The guy they caught was buming change on Hastings street (BC’s skid row) last weekend. I just stepped over him,and almost slipped in his ‘mess’ on the way by.

          You know, when you really look at this powerful dictator it’s amazing that it didn’t take even more lives and bombs to get him out of his hiey hole. Well worth the money.

          We’ll see GWB’s backstroke through the ebony pools soon.

    • #2671728

      Remind us o’ leaders…

      by lesdabney67 ·

      In reply to OK I don’t know the exact time in the US right now

      • #2671725


        by oz_media ·

        In reply to Remind us o’ leaders…

        Pretty cool flash work.
        The stupid thing that takes away any credibility is the “Iraqi Lives lost” counter. This is obviously based on specualted deaths per second/minute or whatever and the projection seems very unscientific.
        Of, well can’t win em all I guess.
        Entertaining though, they should add a little cross hair cursor so you can play shoot em up to.

        • #2671706


          by lesdabney67 ·

          In reply to Neat

          I spoke with the author of this file about that but he isn’t going to change it. Oh well…

    • #2671723

      To paraphrase what Joe Lieberman said

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to OK I don’t know the exact time in the US right now

      If France, Germany, Russia, and Canada had their way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power today, not in prison, and the world would be a much more dangerous place.

      Enough said.

      • #2671720

        To paraphrase what OzMedia said

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to To paraphrase what Joe Lieberman said

        If France, Germany, Russia and Canada had their way, this mat have been a more effective and efficient campaign.

        So what?

        You say color and I say colour.

        GWB just finished his straight faced speech saying how there is still a threat to Americans in Iraq, the war is not over yet, yada yada. American lives are still in danger…

        I assume that is because you are in Iraq.
        Thanks for wasting my Sunday morning with your 3 hour covereage of the five minute physical examination of Saddam and your 10 seconds taken so graciously to share words of wisdom over and over and over and over again.


        Tube’s buggered, I’m going out to explore the scary world of reality.

        • #2671662

          Oa you anit worth the effort

          by jimhm ·

          In reply to To paraphrase what OzMedia said

          OZ – you anit even worth the effort anymore – GWB and Oil – GWB can’t find WMD – French, Canada and Germany would of done it right…

          You don’t know that – Do you have a crystal ball – or what…

          Have a good holiday …

        • #2671562

          Are you only reading MY posts?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Oa you anit worth the effort

          I’m flattered Jim, but this is a discussion. People make statements in response to other statements. You need to read the others so you understand the flow of conversation.

          GWB and Oil- YOu still deny this AFTER it being proven. No crystal ball, MANY documents.

          GWB can’t find WMD- Uh…..yeah. Unless we weren’t told about them.

          French, Canada and Germany having a positive effct on the war. Duh, let’s see. When WWII was being stretched back and forth across western europe, the USA offered to almost double the troop support and that was enough to turn the tables in the Allied favour.

          Canada has recon that the US military relies on in times of war, a tank crew was takewn out in Iraq while on a recon mission because they ‘admittedly’ didn’t have the high speed recon vehicles needed to properly comb the area prior to movement. This MAY or MAY NOT have been avoided with Canadian support.

          The sheer numbers of additional troops gained by allied cooperation would have be an MASSIVE help to the US effort, if you question that, I don’t belive you have really fought a war yet, it only makes sense.

          YOu have spouted about three points I have made and yet offered NOTHING of any substance at all, to support your defamation. You just say “No”, not “NO because of…” Just “NO”

          It’s like a little kid who simply covers his eyes when playing hide and seek, “if I can’t see you, you can’t see me”. What you don’t understand is that YOU have made MANY outrageous allegations to SUPPORT the war, when you are called to support them and are proven WRONG in your statements, you simply dosbelieve anything else written and call the messenger an AssH899 therefore making yourself correct, or so you think.

          UInfortunately that’s not the way it works, I think my friends 3year old girl could do better and be more convincing in a argument.

      • #2671702

        Ask the people of Iraq…

        by lesdabney67 ·

        In reply to To paraphrase what Joe Lieberman said

        how safe they feel now with him gone. You won’t see a lot of coverage anymore about the civilian casualties in this war and that is too bad because there is a heck of a lot more civilians getting killed than soldiers.

        Having Saddam in jail still does not justify this war which was based on the threat to America that he posed because of his WMD program. A program that has yet to be discovered despite all the resources we have on the ground.

      • #2671696

        Who is next…?

        by tr_member ·

        In reply to To paraphrase what Joe Lieberman said

        Is the war and terror just restricted to Afghanistan and Iraq?

        Should’nt it be extended to other countries too? So who is next? Syria, Jordan, Saudi, Iran, Indonesia, Pakistan, Chechnya…

        Well N.Korea would not be a candidate for spreading terror, but it suppresses its people. So does China, So does Srilanka (supresses Tamils), So does Turkey (kurds). Iraq was not the only country. What is the thing about Crete, Greece and Turkey..

        Would Tibet be liberated? N.Ireland? Kashmir?

        • #2671692

          Project for the New American Century

          by lesdabney67 ·

          In reply to Who is next…?

          This is the neo-conservative think-tank that dreamed up this war in Iraq. Siria, Jordan, Iran, and North Korea are on the short list of “regime change” that they are advocating.

          Paul Wolfowitz is the father of this movement and he even states on their website…”short of a Pearl Harbor like attack on America, it will be difficult to sell this agenda”.

          And then 9/11 happened…

      • #2671695

        World has been a dangerous place…

        by tr_member ·

        In reply to To paraphrase what Joe Lieberman said

        ….even since the first sign of life. People killed each other with stones, then knives, guns, canons, bombs, Nuclear weapons, biological weapons….So stopping one rogue country in no way makes it better.

        If we truly want to make this world better. Let us stop making nuclear weapons, biological weapons and whatever other weapons of mass destruction.

        How the heck do the terroritst, warring tribes/clans/countries get the advanced weapons? Somebody must be selling them. Why not make an effort to stop that?

        I know it is easy to say and tough act to perform. We have so much tough time in keeping firearms (both legal and illegal) off the streets. So when France or Germany ships some radioactive material to some country, why not immediately expose them and question them?

        But nature has been killing us when ever it wants…no stopping there 🙁

        • #2670805

          As if

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to World has been a dangerous place…

          You speak as if the blame is everyone elses?!

          Who armed the Taliban, who trained the Taliban?
          What arms EXACTLY were sold to Iraq by Russia?

          Why were these arms being sold and MORE importantly HOW were they being sold and for what in return?

          In answer to the last question, they were being traded for Iraq’s oil under the Oil-for-food profgam (which all of this is brought on by in the first place). Why did Saddam originally refuse to let inspectors into Iraq? Would it be because American inspectors were 18 months behind in inspecting suupoosed dual purpose goods that were traded with Iraq in order to supply US oil?

          There’s a lot more behind the reasons before we can justify the actions.

    • #2671690

      Whisky for my men…..

      by road-dog ·

      In reply to OK I don’t know the exact time in the US right now

      beer for my horses.

    • #2671610

      President Bush sends his regards

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to OK I don’t know the exact time in the US right now

      One of Saddam’s arresting officers said yesterday that the dishevelled former dictator had immediately offered to negotiate when captured on Saturday night.

      “He said: ‘I’m Saddam Hussein, I’m the president of Iraq and I’m willing to negotiate’,” recalled Major Brian Reed, operations officer for the first brigade of the Fourth Infantry Division.

      Major Reed said he responded to Saddam: “President Bush sends his regards.”

    • #2671587

      Osama, I hope you’re reading this

      by mrafrohead ·

      In reply to OK I don’t know the exact time in the US right now

      Cuz you’re next beyaaaatch!!!!!!

      wocka wocka


      • #2671573


        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Osama, I hope you’re reading this

        Special forces troops working under-cover with the CIA will drag Osama bin Laden out of Pakistan where he has been hiding. Pakistan will cry foul about US forces working within their borders, but who cares? This will happen within the next twelve months.

      • #2671568


        by lesdabney67 ·

        In reply to Osama, I hope you’re reading this

        Apparently you don’t keep up with the news very well. The Bushco gang let Osama slip out of Tora Bora unharmed. They had a golden opportunity to catch him but didn’t.

        • #2670661


          by money ·

          In reply to Riiiiiight…

          I have read with interest your comments in this post. Remember your civics lessons in jr high and high school do not use only one source for forming your opinions. I’ll use DR. Phil’s montra, (paraphrased) “You can predict a persons future actions based on his past actions”. Based on The Jerusalem Post (which seems to be more acurate than our news source, purposely left out the s)Ben Laden, last seen in Iran not Pakistan.
          Due to dear Bill Clinton cutting the Intelligence budget we did not have the on the ground intelligence in place, this comes from several retired CIA and FBI sources on the morning programs. As for the WMD, it has been reported by Al jerzer that their sources say that Sadam had ordered most of the WMD’s to Syria. Which our own intelligence has indicated may be there also because of the conveys at the begining of the war were headed into Syria. Most of the terrorists that the coalition forces fought along the border were coming out of Syria. Please do not use one source.

        • #2670632

          Where do I start?

          by lesdabney67 ·

          In reply to LesDabney67

          I don’t even know if I have time today to address all of the talking points you posted in your comment.

          I have plenty of sources of information I use. Mostly I used the Internet but I also have access to Lexus-Nexus.

          The JPost is a conservative news rag. Biased especially towards Israel and Sharon and IMO mostly un-trust-worthy.

          Bill Clinton didn’t “cut the intelligence budget” all by himself…remember Congress plays a role in this also and who controlled Congress?

          Let’s go back a little further first to the Bush 41 presidency. Know what we see? Budget cuts in the intelligence field. GASP! [sarcasm]There is no way a Republican could cut intelligence programs!?!?!?[/sarcasm]

          Oh but he did, and he was the first president to do it. The cold war was over and the CIA was being hard pressed to justify their enormous budget so this should come as a surprise unless you are some partisan Rush Limbaugh loving git.

          It was Bush 41 who initiated the cuts but it was Clinton who implemented them.

          This is enough as it is time for lunch and I’m really quite bored with this. How about doing a little research on your talking points next time or do you like outsourcing the work to me?


        • #2670608

          The Jerusalem Post

          by lesdabney67 ·

          In reply to LesDabney67

          Here is some quick back ground information I dug up for you about the JPost. More important than “using just one source” is being aware of who owns your source. These magazines and newspapers aren’t looking out for the public they are selling propaganda. That goes for almost ALL sources of information around…the trick is knowing who owns them because once you know that you can find out what their ideological cause is that they are supporting…Here is the Post’s:

          Richard Perle, the quintessential dual-allegiance Zionist and accused Israeli spy (in the Jonathan Pollard espionage case), is a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, a board member of the hawkish pro-Israel Advisors of Foundation for Defense of Democracy (Perle shares this position with the right-wing Zionists Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol, and Gary Bauer), and is the former director of the Jerusalem Post.


          The Republican National Committee declared that “Soros has purchased the Democratic party.” Amotz Asa-El, a columnist in Conrad Black’s Jerusalem Post, warned last week that Soros undermines world Jewry by “unwittingly parad(ing) the shadow of the Court Jew, the Wandering Jew, and the medieval money lender who for centuries fed anti-Semitism’s sick imagination.”

          Hollinger, a Chicago-based media company that owns the U.K.’s Telegraph Group, the Chicago Sun-Times and the Jerusalem Post, also invested $14 million in a British technology company that includes Mr. Perle and his business partner as shareholders.

          In addition, Hollinger gave $200,000 a year to the National Interest, a conservative publication that includes Mr. Perle, Mr. Kissinger and Hollinger’s former chief executive, Conrad Black, as advisers.


        • #2672258

          The Jerusalem Post

          by money ·

          In reply to The Jerusalem Post

          So you give us a litany of ownerships. I could do the same for CNN and Citigroup sharing that the Saudi’s have financial interests along with others. That still does not change my opinion it only justifies to me why they generally get it right when we cannot, they have had or may still have former or retired intelligence officers in their operations. As for accusing someone of being Zionist when they are pro-Israel and Pro-American, is like saying Hitler really loved the Jews.

        • #2672242


          by lesdabney67 ·

          In reply to The Jerusalem Post

          Your response is predictable though…stick your head in the sand and ignore the blaring truth because it doesn’t fit your world view.

          Richard Perle is a Zionist. Are you telling me that isn’t true? You should be prepared to back this up with some facts. Facts that you claim to have and disparage me for not having.

          It is no secret who owns CNN and what their agenda is…making money…selling a product…propaganda…

          It is no different that any of the other conservatively owned corporate news networks. Don’t let them fool you…think for yourself.

        • #2672153


          by money ·

          In reply to Wrong

          I take the view that when you are trying to make a point or come to a conclusion you look at all information available to you if you have access and that does not just mean American media, the internet, conservative or liberal views, but other media, such as what spin is given by other nations, though I respect media giants like Rush it does not mean I agree with every thing he says. Take yourselve for instance you have evidently made a name for yourselve in your community, but you come across as though your opinion is the only opinion that matters. You sound angry. Some of my sources are also people who actually lived through the attack in OK(he was the son of friend of mine when I lived in Henrietta, TX, shattered glass embedded in his back. It could have been his face, save the fact that his secretary called for him). So you see not all information needs to come from the media, personal contacts also play apart in my opinion. Border Guards and a Sheriff here in TX detained some Iragis prior to the bombing in OK and that they were told by the FBI to destroy their records. This was not reported on the news. However, it was CNN that first reported after the OK bombing that a couple of Iragis had fled the scene and were headed towards Dallas Airport. Their van as decribed by witnesses was found along with weapons, passports, bomb making materials and how to make a bomb, and the Koran. Several people including the person that rented the U-Haul truck to McVie was interviewed. This was quikly taken off the air. They are others of course, but for now enjoy your day.

        • #2672010

          You respect Rush Limbaugh?

          by lesdabney67 ·

          In reply to Wrong

          Before I pull out my big guns please tell me you were saying this tongue-in-cheek.

          If you respect Rush Limbaugh you are nothing more than an ill-informed partisan, an ideologue who is dis-interested in hearing the truth.

          If you are interested in reading as much as you can and reading other sources of information then you MUST take into account the owners of the information you are reading. Billionaires like Rupert Murdoch do not let liberal opinions on their networks…ever…and most of the propaganda they push is geared towards benefiting themselves NOT establishing a basis for truth about a subject.

        • #2672119

          Jerusalem Post

          by john_wills ·

          In reply to The Jerusalem Post

          The Jerusalem Post was founded as a Zionist newspaper shortly after the British conquest of Palestine in WW I.
          How do you distinguish a Zionist from a pro-Israeli? The Israeli state is the product of Zionist choice of the Palestinians and, as is written somewhere in Pirke Avoth in the Talmud “truth, justice and peace, and in that order”: If Zionism ends, i.e. if the Nakba ends, the Israeli state will have Muslims and Christians together outnumbering Rabbinical Jews and will thus cease to be the Israeli state we know. The truth is that the Zionists have done the Palestinians tremendous wrong; justice demands that that wrong be terminated (it cannot be entirely undone); peace means that the Israeli state as such ceases to exist. To be pro-Israeli, it seems to me, is to be pro-Zionist.

      • #2670834

        I applaud your enthusiasm

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to Osama, I hope you’re reading this

        I understand that this is in some way validation for US citizens, even though CAPTURING SADDAM was not mentioned as a reason for war by Bush, nor has it ended the war as the Iraqi’s are dedicated to a cause, not a man.

        I applaud your capture of Saddam, capturing his allies and having them rat him out really helped, it just doesn’t offer any justification for the effort however it is still a small victory for those involved over in Iraq. Could this not have also beeen achieved by intelligence as opposed to several hundred thousand troops? It’s hard to speculate either way, I think.

        Capturing Bin Laden is a completely different task though. He has NOT stayed near his family, he has run and is probably being harboured by his allies. His troops have no idea of his whereabouts, whereas Saddam had kept close ties to his men. We are talking about COMPLETELY different people with different intents. It is supposed and suggested that the Taliban has already come back much stronger than before and will strike harder than before.

        A question without implication: Bin Laden killed over 3000 INNOCENT Americans on American turf.
        Saddam was accused of planning an (iminent)attack on the USA with alledged WMD. Saddam SUUPOSEDLY put US citizens at risk, thus warranting billions of dollars to remove him and liberate Iraq, his capture now has been put to the forefront of the issues leading up to this war.

        Why is it that you saw it fit to leave Bin Laden running around after he KILLED citizens, yet find it neccessary to CAPTURE Saddam at all costs, in this case American troops lives and innocent Iraqi’s yet BinLaden is pretty much forgotten as you’ve moved on to more politically and media friendly operations?

        Canada and Germany have been working and dying while rebuilding the destruction left behind in Afghanistan. At this point you now feel that the USA should reenter Aghanistan and finish the first mission?

        How many half finished projects are sitting on your workbench?

        • #2670818

          That’s a ludicrous assertion

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I applaud your enthusiasm

          Just because the public hasn’t been getting a play-by-play of the efforts to locate and apprehend Osama bin Laden, doesn’t mean that the efforts have been halted. Moreover, just because an additional focus on a second front in the war on terrorism has been added, doesn’t mean that the initial hunt for Osama bin Laden has been scaled down. Changing strategies to changing situations is only to be expected.

          If you think that the hunt for bin Laden has been put on hold, you’re more naive’ than I thought.

          The FBI has its 10 most wanted list. (Actually the list is much larger than just ten.) Do you think they only have the ability to focus on one at a time? How silly is that? Just as the FBI can hunt for more than one person at a time, so can the U.S. military hunt for more than one terrorist at a time. And just because you may have trouble walking and chewing gum at the same time, doesn’t mean the U.S. military can’t have two (or more) projects (man hunts) going on simultaneously.

          Just what “inside source” do you have to suggest such a ridiculous thing?

          I’d give 1000-1 odds that Osama bin Laden has been, currently is, and will continue to be hunted until he’s either confirmed dead or apprehended (or both). We just haven’t been privy to the particulars of the efforts. Besides, Pakistan would probably frown on having a couple hundred thousand U.S. soldiers scouring their countryside looking for him. But rest assured, a couple of hundred (or more) certainly are.

        • #2670803

          Throwing stones

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to That’s a ludicrous assertion

          You prove once again that you must throw stones to enforce, or attempt to enforce, your point.

          You actualy had some worthwhile concrens and then threw credibility out the window by saying;
          “And just because you may have trouble walking and chewing gum at the same time, doesn’t mean the U.S. military can’t have two (or more) projects (man hunts) going on simultaneously.”

          I know that this is unavoidable at times when you are being punched but I have tried to be somewhat diplomatic and understanding in my resent posts toward you, then you will say that I continue to reduce myself by throwing the first stone? Don’t be hypocritical, just raise YOUR point and let it be said.

          Now, as for an Inseide source, I assume you are referring to the Taliban rebuilding and being strionger than before. It’s actually NOT an insode source but written across many source’s web pages and opposing parties statements. If you have not heard this theory yet, open your eyes to the other side and get an idea of what BOTH are saying. If you have heard this theory but doubt it, that’s fine, we will never know until it is proven.

          I never said ANYWHERE that the hunt for Osama is over. My point ws that Osama has caused more direct harm to the US and it’s people than Saddam was alledged to be in the process of.

          Someone threatening your country caused a military uproar until he was captured, HE’S done nothing to America yet.

          Bin Laden, who is yet unfound, has intelligence hunting him out.

          Would it not have been more appropriate to send this same dedicated and extended intelligence to Iraq to either confirm allegations or simply capture Saddam as opposed to launching a full scale invasion? This would then have left you the ability to further seek out Bin Laden with full military force and have allied support, everyone saw what this man and his regime were capable of, he attacked you and is yet to be found.

          It’s just a question of how to focus military effort. You knew you’d capture saddam, it is logistically more feasable. Bin Laden is a mush tougher target, therefore you pull out the manpower and let intelligence and limited army support continue looking for the needle in the haystack. I guess someone needed a trophy to try and at least justify some part of these billions spent on ????????

          There IS no justification, that’s why all the attempts at justification are simply BS.

        • #2670791

          Maybe this will help…

          by lesdabney67 ·

          In reply to That’s a ludicrous assertion

          “I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.”
          – G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

          “I am truly not that concerned about him.”
          – G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden’s whereabouts,
          3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

        • #2670668

          Speaking of quotes

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Maybe this will help…

          “We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
          -Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

          “One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
          -President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

          “If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
          -President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

          “Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
          -Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

          “He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
          -Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

          “[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
          -Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

          “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
          -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

          “Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destrution and palaces for his cronies.”
          -Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

          “There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
          -Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

          “We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
          -Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

          “Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
          -Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

          “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
          -Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

          “The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
          -Sen. Robert (KKK) Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

          “I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force ? if necessary ? to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
          -Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

          “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
          -Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

          “He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.”
          -Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

          “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
          -Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

          “We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. “[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …
          -Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

        • #2670616

          And therein lies the rub…

          by lesdabney67 ·

          In reply to Speaking of quotes

          Both parties have sold their souls out to corporations. Make war, make money, and lie about everything inbetween.

        • #2672095

          Suprise we agree

          by money ·

          In reply to And therein lies the rub…

          Economist, verteran news personality, author and former legislator – puts it best in his “New World Order”, that the Rothchilds, Rockafellors,etc cannot profit without supporting both sides of the conflict. So whoever wins they profit. One of the reasons for the creation of the US Federal Reserve and the IRS. I say “We the People” take back our right to print our own monies (US Printing Office)get back control of the gold that was given to the Federal Reserve and recreate the gold standard. By doing this we would not have to borrow billions of dollars that require us to pay interest, thus saving us billions in taxes, eliminating over three quarters of the tax code.

        • #2672009

          Excellent…a topic we agree on…

          by lesdabney67 ·

          In reply to And therein lies the rub…

          I couldn’t agree more with you. The Federal Reserve needs to be abolished and the power returned to the public rather than the private organisations who currently control it.

          The idea that corporations are people needs to be abolished also. Corporations are NOT people they are amoral creations.

        • #2670814

          Reply To: OK I don’t know the exact time in the US right now

          by mrafrohead ·

          In reply to I applaud your enthusiasm

          It’s not so much an unfinished project. Just the one that was finished first. My cousin was working in Afghanistan this whole time looking for that asshole Osama, but we have just yet to find him.

          But we will eventually. Since yesterday, I definatley have a lot more faith in that. I personally didn’t ever think we’d find either of them. But since we’ve found one. I guess that means we’re gonna find the other. And I hope that when we find the other we just skin him and leave him in the sun and film it instead of bringing him to justice. Because that’s all the justice he deserves.


        • #2670802

          Sounds nice

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Reply To: OK I don’t know the exact time in the US right now

          I just don’t think it’s reality.

          Saddam was given up by Iraqi’s not found by American soldiers. His ‘allies’ ratted him out, the soldiers invetigation of the building turned up nothing, US radar sensed a tunnel running away from the building and they found him there.

          With any luck one of the remaining Taliban will know where Bin Laden is, this is a far fetched hope though as he has supposedly removed himself from contact with his regime. Saddam was still dictating to his men, they knew he was around.

          Bin Laden could be selling sticks of gum in Tijuana, we just suspect him as being in the ME still.

          I agree with the rest of your statement though, neither should live, yet neither should receive th emercy of the death penalty.

          I say put Saddam in general population and let bubba have at him, no Vaseline available, sorry.

          30 years of that may help him understand how he treated others, death is too merciful for either of them.

        • #2670654

          This is what I find confusing

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Sounds nice

          The constant way the Bin Ladden is mixed up with the Taliban They where the Legal Government of Afganastan who had a lot of support from most countries even the US. Bin Ladden on the other hand was a person with his own little group who didn’t play nice with most people but did gain help from the Taliban and in return he trained their solders. But the main help he recieved from the Taliban was land and very little else he had use of some areas of Afaganstan where fighters could be trained better like whne they fought the Russians and eventually beat them into submission.

          While thew Taliban supported Bin Ladden they where not under his control nor did they control his actions they just provided a sanctury for him and his little group.

          This is part of the reason just why Bin Ladden has proved so hard to capture as he doesn’t Govenr a Country where as Saddam Hussain did so he didn’t have the option of running to another place to hide while still attempting to make war on all the Western World. Even what happened in Bali was a direct result of Muslim extremists who no doubt had some support from the extreme right of the Muslim World as they saw the people who holidayed in Bali as the evil people that they belived they where as they would go down to the beach in almost nothing and drink Booze almost all the time.

          These people showed themselves to be the believed “Infidels” that they where portrayed to be in the eyes of the fanical few. Unfortantly no matter how many people like Bin Ladden we get rid of there will always be more to replace them and in faster numbers than previously. What we have to do is smash the networks that they have established so as to prevent their wishes being carried out even after their deaths.

          It is no good just getting rid of the leader when the network is left in place and while the Taliban was severly damaged they are rebuilding now and will return with a vengence some time latter when it is in their best interests but I can not see just how a connection is constantly being made between the Taliban and what happened on Sept 11 as the two just do not fit together.

        • #2670552

          Sounds good Colin

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to This is what I find confusing

          Sorry I don’t have comments regarding your post, it made too much sense.

          But you did say :”…they would go down to the beach in almost nothing and drink Booze almost all the time.”

          I’ll get my swim shorts (maybe) and be along shortly, save me a cold one and rent me a deckchair!

        • #2672150

          All I was trying to point out was

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Sounds good Colin

          That different cultures see things differently and when we get the radical element involved things just end up going haywire.

          I’d love to take you up on the deck chair on the beach with a fer cold ones “How about a six pack of Darwin Stubbies?” But as I’ve had a few melonimas removed now I tend to stay out of the sun as much as possible not sso much that I afraidof the cancer but the doctor who blackmaile me when ever he removes the bloody things. He takes great pains to make me feel worried at the time by saying things like ” I hope I can keep my hand still as I so worried about my business computers and I need to find someone to fix them I’m unlikely do do a good job today!” He knows that I refuse to do Government or Medical work any longer but when you are looking at him cut bits of meat out of you it does get a bit concerning, anyway the bottom line is I now do both his home and work computers and do not charge him any labour for it either after all he might start with the shaking hand routine again and that is something that I don’t need.

          But If you’re interested I’ll gladly join you with a few six packs of Darwin Stubbies after all they are only 80 Ounces each so after a couple of those we would be good and plastered.

        • #2672085

          Thank you

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Sounds good Colin

          that’s very kind Colin, and YES I’d LOVE to tip a few ‘stubbies’ (you realize Canadian stubbies dies years ago, they were only 12oz though).

          one day I will make it to Aussie land again, when I do, I’ll hold you and Julian up to a few beers. Maybe you could help me meet Kevin Bloody Wilson, he’s a riot!


        • #2671913

          Reply To: OK I don’t know the exact time in the US right now

          by mrbill- ·

          In reply to Sounds good Colin

          I think Oz’s idea was to go down to the shore sit under a beach umbrella, drink a few and watch the scantly clad lovelies run around. Is that right Oz? If it is I’ll join ya.

        • #2671082

          What other reason do you have???

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Sounds good Colin

          I thought that was pretty self explanatory. Beach, Sun, Beer, Women. Did I miss something?
          Beach, Sun, Beer, Women….Nope, that’s definitely it.

          As long as I get to dig and make sandcastles, of cuorse. You just have to be careful not to make them too big, they might get destroyed by friendly fire in the hunt for Osama.

          Maybe that’s the answer! Send canada’s and USA’s children to Iran and let the start digging. He’ll turn up one day. As for sending people’s children to a war zone, so what, it’s done all the time and nobody’s care yet.

        • #2670793

          Osama isn’t in Afghanistan

          by lesdabney67 ·

          In reply to Reply To: OK I don’t know the exact time in the US right now

          He is probably in Pakistan or back in Saudi Arabia…his job is done.

          He was definately airlifted out of Tora Bora by Pakistan though. Right under the noses of our troops.

        • #2670568


          by dnvrtechgrrl ·

          In reply to Osama isn’t in Afghanistan

          Where did this info come from?

        • #2670495

          See here.

          by lesdabney67 ·

          In reply to Pakistan?

    • #2671584

      Facts vs. fighting

      by dnvrtechgrrl ·

      In reply to OK I don’t know the exact time in the US right now

      It is the responsibility of the US to go in and removed Saddam from power. We are the primary reason Saddam and the Baath party were in charge in the first place. How that happened, I’m not sure enough to quote it, but we were.

      Regardless of whether there “were” WMD’s or “are” WMD’s, only a blind fool would allow this man or his corrupt party to stay in power.

      Saddam killed, for what can be verified, 1000’s of people and we don’t even know for sure that there weren’t more!. For that, his only remark is “they were thieves.”

      I’m not a republican, I’m not a Bush supporter and I really wish we’d gone about the occupation with more support from the UN. However, anyone who sits there in their armchair delegate position and says that not finding WMD’s is a crime is just as guilty as the crimes against humanity itself.

      How many more people would have to die before any excuse would hold water? How many more people would have suffer under tyranny before any excuse would hold water?

      Why is it up to the US to take care of everyone and big brother everyone? Just to get backhanded later for stepping in…

      I’m glad the bulk of you are in IT and not politics.. we’d really be in trouble.

      • #2671571

        You said

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Facts vs. fighting

        “I’m glad the bulk of you are in IT and not politics.. we’d really be in trouble.”

        I agree – thanks for the chuckle.

      • #2671564

        It was around 1963 or 64

        by lesdabney67 ·

        In reply to Facts vs. fighting

        The CIA hired Saddam to carry out a hit on the democratically elected leader of Iraq. Saddam failed during his first attempt and was evacuated to Egypt. While in Egypt he trained more and was sent back to try again…this time he passed the test.

        After that he was America’s good ol’ dictator in the ME.

      • #2671557


        by oz_media ·

        In reply to Facts vs. fighting

        You have valid points but unfortunately they are not easily excused here.

        WMD were the reason sold in the media and by the president for this invasion. “We know as a FACT that Saddam has weapons of mass detruction” – GWB

        This was the reason for the haste and ignoring of allied requests for further intelligence.

        Tony Blair approached the matter with a different perspective. He confirmed he’d been LED TO BELIEVE that WMD were in Iraq, but his stand behind the invasion was that Iraqi’s NEEDED to be freed from this torturous leader.

        Bush BS’d the people of America, full stop.

        Bush then backpeddled and jumped on the more favoroured Liberation angle AFTER no WMD were found, why was this NEVER even mentioned before, not even a hint?

        BUSH is full of crap, his administration is a deceptive, BS organization.

        The ENTIRE dispute over Iraq buynig foreing arms was fue to BUSH’s want for the Oil-for -fod campaign and his failure to recognize its weaknesses. He would not have access to ANY iraqi oil whether via first or third paty as long as Saddam was in power. This goes back a LOT farther than Weapons trade due to the US implied sabctions and the UN’s OFF program. THey lit a fire and couldn’t put it out, without an invasion.

        You can’t start back[eddling and trying to say you stand all along was Liberating Iraq, because it wasn’t, you know it, I know it, and BUSH knows it, only HE won’t admit it.

        • #2670627

          Your “quotes”

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Agreed

          You “quoted” GWB as saying (exactly):

          “We know as a FACT that Saddam has weapons of mass detruction.”

          Please provide a source for that exact quote.

          Thank you.


        • #2670605

          He can’t

          by dbertsche ·

          In reply to Your “quotes”

          Provide you a direct reference because there is none! Glad you called him on this, he too frequently lists fictions as being fact.

        • #2670532

          Links are a no go

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Your “quotes”

          Your links turned up 404’s or page not found at the custom 404 from the domain.

          I was taking the quote from an audio file of various statements, it MAY have been the Defense minister, whatever HIS name is but i don’t know, I have to email the guy who sent me the disk. I was surprised myself as I also didn’t believe GWB said it, it would be unlike him to implicate himself when he has a fall guy.

          I have found a few similar and just as certain quotes elsewhere.

          ” “It’s going to take time to find them. But we know he had them. And whether he destroyed them, moved them or hid them, we’re going to find the truth,” Bush said.”

 (sources available at the bottom of the page)

          >>HE uses ‘HAD’ them and going to find the truth to reuce the impact of his statement though, room for backpeddling.


          “Officials now say they may not find hundreds of tons of mustard and nerve agents and maybe not thousands of liters of anthrax and other toxins. But U.S. forces will find some, they say. On Thursday, President Bush raised the possibility for the first time that any such Iraqi weapons were destroyed before or during the war”

          There is no question that it was GWB’s goal to have Americans BELIEVE in WMD and a planned attack on America, especially so soon after 911.

          There is NO question whatsoever that BUSH instilled fear of an imminent attack on the American citizens. He assured everyone around the globe that WMD were in Iraq and that they would be found if not destroyed.

          Even though some of you may be savvy enough to read between the lines in his speeches, MOST didnt and simply feared an attack as confirmed by thier president and his administration. Many don’t discern any difference between the secretary of defense speaking FROM the White House and what the president says himself as being different, not related to one another in any way and conlusive versus factual evidence.

        • #2670524

          You MISSED the chuckle.

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Links are a no go

          Try and try the link again. And keep trying until you “get it”.

        • #2670522

          Sorry Max

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to You MISSED the chuckle.

          Sorry man, I am squinting so bad now it’s not funny, I don’t know how your sight is but you end up looking lower and lower while raising your head higher and higher in order to focus on the screen like you’re wearing boficals. I lost a contact Thursday and my glasses are at Thrifty Foods in Victoria.

          THe page is actually pretty cool, you’re right I missed the chuckle.

          The t-shirts are kinda cool too, “My friends went to Iraq to look for Weapons of Mass Destruction and all they found was this lousy t-shirt!”

          Nice refreshing change from you. Whther for or against any party or statement, this is someone cashing in on good humor at anothers expense, I like it.

        • #2670519

          Which one are you?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Links are a no go

          Are you misinformed, or are you being disingenuous?


          SLow down, open your eyes, look at both sides, read this whole article, and don’t be so duped by the Bush critics.

          I’d be willing to bet you $1,000 U.S. dollars (or Canadian dollars, for that matter), that you will never find a quote, either in print or on film, where President Bush said that the United States was under the threat of an “imminent attack” (your words) from Iraq.

          You won’t find it because President Bush never said it. But you (and others) keep repeating the same lie over and over and over again.

          So which is it? Are you misinformed, or are you just being disingenuous?

        • #2672248

          Ok well lets look outside the box then

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Which one are you?

          American’s, in general and definitely excluding yourself, were under the impression this war was to save America because Iraq had WMD.

          THis was even reiterated AFTER nothing was found by a Military member of TR based in Texas.

          Now I ask you, HOW would an antire country’s majority feel they were under threat all at the same time?

          WHo would belive such a crazy concept?
          It would take some pretty strong political influence to create such a mass hysteria.

          Tee only person in the USA with THAT much influence on the people is GWB. Now when his retarded cabinet members start making false allegations and statements they are speaking on behalf of the president and the White House and ultimately the voice of the USA. Whether GWB agrees with what they say is irrelevant, they are representatives of America’s military and political intelligence.

          When you speak to people about your company’s business you are an employee of the company which in turn makes you a representative for the company and therefore liable for anything said, as a company.

          Regardless of the details around which person said what, they are representatives of American military and political administration, they therefore speak as one, yeah just like the Borg.

          GWB can then take a back seat and see how comments are received while choosing which to support and which to defame, thus enforcing his position as the know all, end all to situations.

          YOU may not have been duped into believing the WMD threats but MANY millions were, I just wonder how they got this information as opposed to listening to the contrary from your presidential administration.

          You would really think people would listen carefully and hear clearly when the President said there was nothing to fear really but he was going to invade now anyhow.

        • #2670492

          Here you go…

          by lesdabney67 ·

          In reply to Your “quotes”

          Spelling out the threat, he said Saddam has weapons of mass destruction he might share with terrorists, has a history of hating America and is a destabilizing force in the Middle East.


          Spelling out the threat, Bush said Saddam has weapons of mass destruction he might share with terrorists, has a history of hating America and is a destabilising force in the Middle East.

        • #2672257

          I was being nit-picky

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Here you go…

          The use of quotation marks has a very specific meaning. It means than an EXACT QUOTE was restated EXACTLY as initially stated. No more, no less, not changed or interpreted in any way. But EXACTLY.

          Neither you or Oz have provided such an EXACT initial statement.

          Oz incorrectly used quotation marks, and I was just being nit-picky.

          (But since you’re always disagreeable, I suppose you’ll find some nonsensical way to disagree with this as well.)

        • #2672241


          by lesdabney67 ·

          In reply to I was being nit-picky

          I’m always disagreeable? I’m sorry is this the 5 minute argument or the full half hour?

        • #2672217

          Sorry times up

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Heh


          Sorry, times up, come again….NEXT?

          But I haven’t even started yet?

          Well sir if you wish to complain…

          I most certainly do!

          Down the hall second door on the right.

          Fine then.

          Hello I wish to compain.

          You wish to complain! I’ve only had these shoes a week and the heels have already worn out….

          (sorry bout that, a little ‘Idle’ time that’s all)

          Now my head hurts! OHHHHHHHH!! (No it’s WAAA WAAA from the back of the throat)

        • #2672002

          In his own words…

          by lesdabney67 ·

          In reply to Your “quotes”

          Under 14 authentic quotes click on the “Saddam has WMD”


        • #2670585

          I never said…

          by dnvrtechgrrl ·

          In reply to Agreed

          Bush wasn’t full of crap. Believe me, I’m the last person you’ll see standing up for that man.

          What I don’t agree with is the idea that we shouldn’t be over there without UN support. At first, yes, I was nervous and I thought, Jeez… we’re going to get nuked!

          Then rational hit.

          The UN has had 35 years to get this idiot out of power. The UN has had more than 20 years to stop the infighting. The UN has had 15 or more years to put an end to genocide and other such govt. forced attrocities.

          Where was the UN during all of this? Sitting on it’s back-side waiting for the US to jump in and big brother the situation.

          Bush is a loser. I think even the informed, under-educated quacks who voted him in are starting to see this. His initial grudge for going after Saddam was not politically motivated towards the liberation of Iraq, not for the intricate conveniences of purchasing oil at a lower price but purely for a juvenile grudge. Saddam took a pot shot at his equally ignorant father and embarassed him. It was Jr’s turn to respond.

          All I say is thank god we’ve removed him from power and are able to hone in on which of his cronies are left.

          Let’s get back to Afghanistan where we belong and let the UN rebuild the communities they never tried to protect in the first place.

        • #2670534

          Let’s get back to Afghanistan where we belong ?????????

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I never said…

          What’s wrong with this picture?

          On one hand, there are those (the naysayers) who say that business in Afghanistan is not finished, primarily because Osama bin Laden has not been captured.

          On the other hand, they downplay the capture of Saddam Hussein, citing that it does not mean the mission in Iraq is finished.

          When it’s convenient for them to harp on ONE MAN to define finality, they will. But when it’s convenient for them to harp on ONE MAN to define insignificance, they’ll do that too.

          The “business” in Afghanistan will go on for years to come, as will the “business” in Iraq. Moreover, no one in the Bush administration suggested anything to the contrary in either case.

          Look at the past action in Afghanistan (and current and future business in Iraq) like you might see the design and construction of a 50 story building. First, there’s the design and planning stage. Second, there’s the stage for the setting of the foundation. The third phase is when you really see some activity. That’s when battalions of construction workers are scrambling all over the place building the structure. The fourth and final stage of construction is the inside finish work. But what do you have? What you have is an empty building.

          One of the first occupants of that empty building is something that could be considered the fifth phase, a maintenance crew, the folks who see to all those nagging little design and construction oversights, the problems that arise, the tweaking of the systems, the changes for the particular tenants, and so on. But what you don’t have is that initial battalion of construction workers who built the thing to begin with. You don’t need it. It’s over-kill. The building is not fully occupied, the building still has some problems (and always will), and scores of issues will still need to be addressed. But the battalions of construction workers have long been withdrawn. They went on to build the next building, even though ALL the work in the first building is not finished and is still on-going.

          The mission in Afghanistan has gone through those first three stages. It’s well into the fourth, and possibly even the fifth stage. We don’t need the battalions of soldiers to see to all those nagging little details. It’s over-kill. They’ve gone on to build the next building, in this case, the next country. (Look out Syria – you might be next. Are you now in the planning stage?)

          The bottom line is this: The business in Afghanistan IS finished, at least to the point where the hundreds of thousands of military personnel are no longer needed. Not only are they not needed, but at its current stage, it’s more effective without them. We’ve shifted gears, the strategy has changed, and a different plan of attack has been developed. To build on the construction analogy, you don’t need a ten story tall crane with a wrecking ball and a dozen construction crews to knock out a little drywall to put in a new door.

          Don’t let these naysayers sucker you into thinking otherwise.


          The results accomplished in Afghanistan up to now, and what still needs to be done:


        • #2670528


          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Let’s get back to Afghanistan where we belong ?????????

          I think the differences people are seeing is that Saddam was not the target reason for invading Iraq. Toppling his regime, finding WMD and more recently Liberating Iraq were the reasons for the occupation.

          BinLaden had organized trained and ordered attack on US sol which was effectively carried out and many innocent lives were lost, the hunt to FIND BinLaden was the goal.

          Finding Bin Laden and bringing him to justice was the focus and reson for war.

          Finding Bin Laden would indicate a Victory in an effort to find Bin Laden,

          Finding Saddam Hussein DOESN’T indicate a victory in an effort to rid Iraq of WMD OR Liberate Iraq.

          One was for the man and his regime, the other was for finding weapons and creating liberation.

          2 goals with reversed accomplishments so far, thus the double edged responses.

        • #2670526

          You won’t admit it. . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Differences

          …but you’re wrong when you imply that the ONLY goal was to hunt and find bin Laden.

          Yes, that was one of the goals, not the only goal. Moreover, the jury is still out. Rest assured, he’s being hunted as we speak.

          Yes, people and organizations and governments can work on more than one goal at the same time. Moreover, it would be negligent of a government to focus on ONLY one goal, ignoring others, until that one was reached.

          But don’t feel too bad. you’re not the only one who doesn’t fully understand the depth, the significance, the importance, and ALL of the considerations of “the war on terrorism”.

        • #2670520

          Of course I will

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to You won’t admit it. . .

          I will completely admit to my misstated point that BinLaden was the ONLY reason for war in Afghanistan and you are right there are other reasons and the war is ongoing.

          It has been completely ignored as more stories of new political interest take shape, nobody wants to hear about Afghanistan anymore because the truth is that it is a long boring and arduous task for all involved,not hardly as exciting as mini-victories, presidents with turkeys and bombs,bombs and more bombs.

          The sad part is that is what the people are trained to focus on, glamour and not reality.

          I will revoke my earlier statement and correct it with the following addenmdum.

          The MAIN PUBLICIZED goal behind the war in Afghanistan was to capture Bin Laden.
          HIS face was EVERYWHERE, not so much with Saddam’s.

        • #2672149


          by dnvrtechgrrl ·

          In reply to Let’s get back to Afghanistan where we belong ?????????

          You’ll have to explain to me why it’s better to have dwindled troops in Afghanistan.

          It could be my age, but I’m not seeing it.

          We have much rebuilding to do in each country, I never disagreed with that. We have a lot of work to do.

          We also don’t have Osama though, which is what started this current trend of US invasions. Why offer 100,000 plus troops to find Saddam and back off on the one we really need to catch? That doesn’t make sense to me.

          I think now would be the worst time to back off. Unless the purpose is to bring him back out of hiding.

        • #2672073

          You answer the question yourself

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Hmm..

          I think the difference between your perspective and mine is just that – our different perspectives. You (and others), for example, have mentioned the “invasion” of, or the war “against” Afghanistan, the “invasion” of, or the war “against” Iraq. That’s not how I see it. That’s not how President Bush sees it. Make no mistake about it. This is a war against terrorism, not any one (or more) nations. Terrorism has no boundaries; it has no borders; it has no national allegiances.

          Osama bin Laden is a terrorist. Saddam Hussein was a terrorist and/or supported terrorist organizations and/or supported the terrorist cause. Saddam Hussein has, in the past, called for all good Muslims to rise up and bring death and destruction to all American infidels. Sure, the action in Iraq is about more than just terrorism, but it shouldn’t have been ignored for the more than a dozen years the United Nations was ignoring it. To focus on only one terrorist at a time would not only be irresponsible of any administration, but be counter-productive and dangerous.

          Answer just one question. If we had waited for the capture of Osama bin Laden before we started to focus on Saddam Hussein, how many more innocent Iraqis would have been killed by his hand? Or, perhaps you think we should have ignored Saddam Hussein entirely? Which one is it?

          This is not a war against Afghanistan. This as not a war against Iraq. This is not a war against only the al-Qaida terrorist cell. There are more terrorist cells than just al-Qaida operating in the world. This is a war against world-wide terrorism. It encompasses many people, and it has infiltrated many countries (including the USA). There are more than you think. And we better focus on all of them at the same time, or else 9-11 will pale in comparison to what could be if they, the terrorists, had their way.

          Osama bin Laden
          Saddam Hussein
          Abu Muhammad
          Abdelkarim Hussein Mohamed Al-Nasser
          Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah
          Muhsin Musa Matwalli Atwah
          Anas Al-Liby
          Ahmed Ghailani
          Ahmed Mohammed Hamed Ali
          Fazul Abdullah Mohammed
          Imad Fayez Mugniyah
          Mustafa Mohamed Fadhil
          Sheikh Ahmed Salim Swedan
          Fahid Msalam
          Ahmad Ibrahim Al-Mughassil
          Muhammad Atef
          Ali Saed Bin Ali El-Hoorie
          Saif Al-Adel
          Ibrahim Salih Mohammed Al-Yacoub

          ALL of these people are included under the terrorist umbrella, and the list could go on and on. I think the United States effort in regards to snuffing out terrorism is capable of multi-tasking. Perhaps you’re suggesting we focus ONLY on one of them, Osama bin Laden, until he is found. Perhaps you would suggest an invasion of Pakistan, which is where he is thought to be hiding, in order to find him? Don’t you think there are people right now on the ground in Pakistan looking for him? Do you think it’s more effective, under those circumstances, to have a couple hundred looking for him or a couple hundred thousand? I think the former. President Bush thinks so as well.

          You said, “You’ll have to explain to me why it’s better to have dwindled troops in Afghanistan.” Turn the tables on yourself. Answer the question yourself, but ask why it is better to have MORE troops in Afghanistan. There are currently about 10,000 troops, mostly from the United States, in Afghanistan fighting the remnants of the Taliban and their al-Qaida allies. In addition, a NATO-led operation in Kabul, has a force of around 6,000 in that city alone. And about 1,000 troops from the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division are currently operating in southeastern Afghanistan. And there are more, to be sure. And guess what? We most assuradely have people in The Phillipines, in Saudi Arabia, and in Indonesia. And we probably have people in dozens of other terrorist hide-outs in Africa and other Asian countries, not to mention the western countries where terrorist cells have had roots.

          Moreover, what makes you more of a military expert than the President, his security advisors, and the military advisors who are running the show? What makes you right and President Bush wrong?

          This is bigger than the simplistic arguments you’ve convinced yourself to believe.

        • #2670531

          We shouldn’t be over there without UN support ??????

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I never said…

          You said, “we shouldn’t be over there without UN support.”

          Guess what? I fully agree.

          But therefore what?

          Does that mean we are in error and shouldn’t be there at all?


          Does it mean that the UN is in error and they should be there with us?

          I suggest that it’s the latter.

          Or perhaps these two options:

          Does it mean we should have just accepted the status quo for possibly another dozen years?


          Does anyone really think the UN would have eventually gotten around to it?

          I think not on both the former and the latter.

        • #2672146

          Chief complaint

          by dnvrtechgrrl ·

          In reply to We shouldn’t be over there without UN support ??????

          That was my chief complaint in my posting.

          The UN sat on it’s butt and did nothing.
          Then when we had to, we didn’t have backing.
          Now they want to step in and control everything like they’d been running the show the whole time. Now they want to divie out money making contracts to countries who chose not to get involved.

          The whole situation is ludicrous!

        • #2672137

          And so it will remain

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Chief complaint

          While any one country has the power of Veto on the Security Council of the UN. These countries who exercise this power always do it out of self interest and the US is equially as bad as the rest of them here.

          This was a case where the various members of the Security Council had more to loose than the US so that is why the US went it alone as they had more to lose than the rest of the Security Council combined.

        • #2670529

          informed, under-educated quacks ??????

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I never said…

          How can someone be both informed and under-educated?


          One of the “informed, under-educated quacks” who voted for Bush.


          (By the way, I respectfully suggest to you that you don’t fully understand the depth, the significance, the importance, and ALL of the considerations of “the war on terrorism”.)

        • #2672144


          by dnvrtechgrrl ·

          In reply to informed, under-educated quacks ??????

          Typo’s from typing too fast on the way to a sudden meeting. I don’t think those that voted for Bush are “mis” informed, undereducated quacks. I just didn’t have much time to clarify so I’ll do it now.

          There is a fundamental belief that once you elect your leaders into power you can sit back on your moral high horse and say “Hmm. I did my job.” No further effort on your part, your responsibility to check the balances, etc.

          There is also a level of apathy in this country that is astounding to me. Assuming you can get the majority to put the effort towards voting and having a voice, most too at some point will sit on the proverbial couch and whine about this guy or that, this policy or that, and do nothing to change the situation.

          Funnier yet, they’ll not only do nothing, they’ll deny even voting for the person they helped vote into power. Until something great happens again, and then they are the number one fan. Wishy-washy.

          I’m seeing a bit of that here.
          People who a few months ago shouted in about not supporting Bush are suddenly supporting him and vice versa. Bush’s poll points were down just a few weeks ago, down enough that had the election been held he would have been voted out.

          With the capture of Saddam, his points are expected to rally.

          Do you know what that tells me?
          I’m not the person who doesn’t fully understand the ramifications of what’s going on here. I fully understand this is not black and white. I fully understand what’s going on with our own government. What I don’t understand is the attitude of Americans about their government. I supposed that’s to be expected in a situation where there is no black and white, concrete answer to anything.

          I still don’t agree that we had to go in without UN backing. I don’t agree that now suddenly certain governments are concerned with actions that 8 months ago had them rallying against us. I don’t agree with the leaders of the anti-war movement suddenly standing up for praise, offering praise, at Saddams capture, which they were against all along.

          Okay, so I may not fully understand what’s happening over in Iraq or Afghanistan, though neither do you. Neither of us is over there and all of us are relying on word of mouth and media to inform us.

          I know full well what’s going on this country though. That I’m not blind to.

        • #2672265

          Like him or don’t like him – but be realistic

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I never said…

          I can certainly understand people who begrudge or don’t care for President Bush for any one (or more) of a number of reasons. But to call him a loser and to suggest he has a juvenile grudge is……..well, is to sound like a loser who has a juvenile grudge.

          Disagree on issues – that’s great. Disagree on strategy – okay. Disagree on desired outcomes – all well and good. But to dilute an argument with such nonsense only detracts from what’s real.

          What do you think of someone who thinks that President Bush is an honest and principled person? What do you think of Laura Bush? Would she marry a “loser” who executes “juvenile grudges”? As I said, like him or not, but be realistic. Even his harshest critics and opponents are that. Well, most of them anyway.

        • #2672244

          It’s nice to know

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Like him or don’t like him – but be realistic

          “Even his harshest critics and opponents are that. Well, most of them anyway.”

          Tome for Willy’s “You are always on my mind”

          Thanks for thinking of me, maybe I’ll say a prayer for you before I crash tonight. 🙂

          Cheap shot Max, but that’s ok.

        • #2672229

          Don’t flatter yourself, Oz

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to It’s nice to know

          By “his harshest critics”, I wasn’t even thinking about you.

          I was referring to a handful of American political commentators and/or politicians. People such as Senator Ted Kennedy, who couldn’t say a kind thing about President Bush, even if the President pretty much let him write the education bill (wait a minute, President Bush DID let him pretty much write the education bill); some (but not all) of the current Democrat presidential hopefuls, such as Howard Dean or Wesley Clark; commentators, such as Eleanor Clift, who is really a standard bearer for the Democrat party disguised as a political commentator, Molly Ivans, a true socialist who never met a Republican she didn’t despise, Walter Cronkite who…….well, that’s old news, and so on.

          I didn’t even consider any insignificant Canadians who admit to being politically naive’, but who may be posting biased nonsense on a silly Internet message board. But I apologize for overlooking you.

        • #2672213

          Dont let it happen again

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Don’t flatter yourself, Oz

          Your slag is becoming more colorful again, nice to see. Have you been sick or something?

          Very nice to also you refuse to repost without a little slap or slander to reduce yourself as usual. Just don’t be blaming me for the first punch in the future, it’s hypocritical.

          You still havent resorted to amateur psychological profiling or personal attacks on my friends and family yet so I assume you’re still getting your feet on the ground.

          Welcome back

        • #2670574

          Foreign arms??

          by dnvrtechgrrl ·

          In reply to Agreed

          I guess it depends on which country you reside in.

          Reagan gave Saddam and his military arms they never should have had for use against Iran in the 80’s. Reagan played stupid when Saddam got his hands on military grade anthrax and used it against troops in Iran. Many, many, many people and countries played stupid when Saddam then used the last of the military grade anthrax against his own people to the north.

          Those “foreign” arms came from quite a few countries, not just ours. Although a lot of them came from the US, we shouldn’t have been forced to go in to dissolve the problem unaided, we should have had Int’l backing, regardless of what Bush said or didn’t say. It’s the responsibility of the Int’l community to watch over and protect each other.

          What should be abhored here is the fact that the UN did nothing, along with many other post sitting countries who do nothing, but gripe about the fact that we have our noses in too many places while people were imprisoned, tortured and murdered for trying to stand up against Iraq’s version of the conservative right wing. What should be abhored is the level of ignorance and apathy that let Saddam into power and priveledge to become the broken man you see today. Not what Bush did or didn’t say.

          Hold the man accountable for lying? Definitely! Sit on our thrones of omnipotence because he screwed up? No. A job needed to be done and he did it. End of story.

          We can all sit here and say Bush is an idiot. (He is none the less.) We can all sit here and say the Reagan administration boosted Saddams ego to a level of dictatorship where he had just about any weapon he wanted and US backing to use them. We can sit and say a lot of things…

          …but while WE are sitting here saying a lot of things, what are WE doing about them?

          Armchair political enthusiasts are not allowed to sit and whine just because they voted. Any moron can vote, that’s why Bush is in power in the first place. Still, you wouldn’t drop your child off at daycare and not check up on the providers now and again hoping they didn’t kill your kid.

          Why do people in this country not hold their politicians accountable? Check up on them. Voice your opinions to someone other than your neighbor or your lonely mother. Maybe then those “highly rated opinions” will do some good.

        • #2670548

          Will you bear my children?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Foreign arms??

          Just kidding, too many Americans would be scared at the thought it would create a stir on TR at least. Probably enough to have BUSH convince America to attack alone based on fear of the enemy again.

          You closing statement:
          “Why do people in this country not hold their politicians accountable? Check up on them. Voice your opinions to someone other than your neighbor or your lonely mother.”

          Mirrors the EXACT reason I started posting here. The Pro-War ropaganda was rife with pro Bush admiration.

          I decided to post MY views on Americans and referred to the voters and BUSH supporters as sheep who will blindly follow without question. I then had people saying that if they voted, it is thier DUTY to back Bush no matter whether he is right or wrong. This soon turned into (I’m a Democrat, then Liberal, then Socialist etc.)which is kinda cool because I’ve never known what political view I had before, I just made my decisions based on what I saw and heard,not what I was told to believe, I now feel almost American.

          All I said was I didn’t understand how people could back someone with such questionable motives, I may have shouted and sworn a little bit but that was my message.

          Now I’ve disagreed with some of your views but you must be one of the first American people I’ve actually seen who views politics this way, congratulations for having your eyes open.

          As for Bush’s big quoted statement, stand by for more after these commercials, don’t change that channel! Coming right up. You guys just hang on with your gavels held high in waiting don’t you. As soon as I figure out how to extract audio into text, I’ll post back.

        • #2670546

          Do what you like..

          by road-dog ·

          In reply to Foreign arms??

          I agree with the war

          I agree with a high percentage of the actions in it,

          I’m glad Saddam has been deposed, and I’ll be pleased to see his execution.

          I don’t think this is about oil.

          I don’t need to do anything. We have adults in the white house, not a bunch of self indulgent and power hungry egomaniacs.

          Now the US is willing to assert itself, rather than disguising it’s leader’s cowardice behind the UN’s indicisiveness.

          As for drawing a comparison between the Baath party and the American right wing, the Baath (faascist) party is LEFT wing. An islamic theocracy would be right wing.

          Before questioning the education of those who disagree with you, at least get your own facts straight…

    • #2670686

      Early White house press release…

      by mrbill- ·

      In reply to OK I don’t know the exact time in the US right now

      Early White house press release on Sunday Morning:

      Saddam was found in a spider hole in the basement of the DNC?s headquarters in Iowa City. When found he was wearing Dean for president t-shirt and holding a sign reading ?Dean Gore in 04? `;]

    • #2672060

      A humanitarian effort??

      by oz_media ·

      In reply to OK I don’t know the exact time in the US right now

      I have seen several side tos people’s opinions here and even agree that the US should recieve the rewards but there seems to be some confusion whether this is a humanitarian effort on your behalf or not.
      It seems that you are accusing others of having their hands out while you are saying you want what’s best for Iraq.
      This raises the question, is it a matter of HOW your money is best spent (humanitarian) or WHERE your money is spent (Political).

      If the question by Americans is HOW your money is best spent to deliver the best workmanship and materials at the lowest possible cost for AMERICA AND IRAQ, then Prim Contracts must be opened for global tender.

      If the question by Americans is WHERE the money is spent, this is not a humanitarian effort AT ALL and is reduced to a simple political war that makes YOU look like liars all along for not wanting what’s best for Iraq.

      Open bid creates a fair and competetive market, even if YOUR companies win Prim bids, they will not do it as a result odf WASTING YOUR MIONEY.

      If the contract is held within the USA, this will show greed and the fact that you have not got Iraq’s interests in mind and that it is completely a moentary issue as always expected.

      Now how do you then say that your mission in Iraq was himanitarian and not commercial for Americas fat pockets?

      Hypocritical to say the VERY least.

      • #2672017

        Not Absolute,

        by road-dog ·

        In reply to A humanitarian effort??

        For instance, I need a new car. I will only buy an American car. Does that condition mean that I don’t really need a car…. no.

        There is a factor in this that hasn’t been addressed, that being that the Iraqi people hold the UN and “axis of weasles” in contempt for trading with Saddam and attempting to prevent their liberation. The link to the news was posted by my esteemed collegue Maxwell.

        Those nations refused to send troops, and now wish to send salesman. If there is a question of honor, ours or theirs, I think we’re the guys in the white hats.

        If France is concerned with the well being of the Iraqi people, they could forgive the debts owed by Saddam. All else rings hollow, their whinings on their exclusion from American tax dollars in particular.

        Besides, how is it profiteering to spend American money on American companies when Iraq is the recipient? There is NO hypocrisy in this.

        There is HUGE hypocrisy in espousing commitment to democracy and human rights while vigorously opposing the toppling of a despot….

        • #2671995

          Your missing the details

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Not Absolute,

          Spoending American money on American companies is completely fine and justified.

          If you want those American companies to bid on tender FAIRLY, they will NOT do so unless forced to compete for the share.

          As I’ve said before, I know FIRST hand how Canadian companies often are called upon to build products for the American government, because they are cheaper. The Canadian companies laugh that such a ridiculously high bid is lower than the US offerings. Your companies, just as Canadaian companies do, are RIPPING off the government blind.

          The $2000.00 toilet seats are NO joke. I managed a crew of installers who used to build and install banks of lockers in schools, country clubs and the Police stations (custom due to the need for gn lockers. Country clubs with NOTHING BUT money paid the lowest price, the government contracts were LIST PLUS 30%40%. They get soaked.

          Now explain to me how your billions are best spent in the USA? Also you can explain HOW erducing competition for a bid, lowers price.

          Now this MUST be a low price inorder for the American government to get a half decent value for money, billions go very quickly when a door frame costs $3000.00 after shipping and installing. This type of capitalist greed would cease if competetive bids were allowed, even if ALL were awarded to the US companies. I don’t care WHO gets the contracts, my ONLY concern is that Iraq gets the best value and America spends it’s money efficiently, I’m not even American and I care about YOUR money more than you do !!!!

          Thee is NO benefit to Americans by NOT opening bids, the ONLY benefit is to the corporate knobs who RUN the companies and will SOAK the government for every last cent if they KNOW they aren’t competing for price.

          It’s marketing 101 why don’t you guys see your tax money being wasted by the BILLIONS!!

          Are you ALL insane and simply can’t see anything when you are taught to feel negatively about Canada. If you remeber, WE are still in Afghanistan helping YOU with YOUR cause. What do you realy think our military population matches yours and we’ll just send another half million welfare recipients to war?

          Think again.

        • #2671977


          by lesdabney67 ·

          In reply to Not Absolute,

          Vigorously opposing the toppling of a despot we helped create and finance for 30 years.

          Please…if you want to talk about hypocrisy look at this war.

        • #2671941

          Actually Bob this is something that I would like to explore a bit more

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Not Absolute,

          Firstly Oldfar raised this very topic on another thread by asking how do you in an international market define which country a company belongs to.

          All the big MultiNationals own propewrty in many countries across the world and while they may have home bases in one country they make very little there but expect the members of that country to believe that they are that countries company and all their products are made in the best interests of that conuntry.

          I have given the example of Bell recently who used to only make their crash helmets in the USA but now have them made in Itialy and they are no where near as good as the US made ones, the chin strap on my 3 month old Bell is now fraying which is something that never happened on any of the previous Bell untis that I have ever owned and some of those are now over 20 years old and don’t have the same amount of wear that this 3 month old one does.

          While I appald you desire to only buy Americian cars just how much of these cars are made in the USA? You will find that a lot of the bits that go into making these cars are made in other countries and they are only assembled in the USA which might still be good for the company but it is hardly good for the people who used to work at the plants who made these items.

          this is just where Golibilasition starts and perhaps it is the beginning of the NWO where International Companies who owe allegience to no country didicate what they want to indivual countries and if they don’t get what they want just shut up shop and go elsewhere. Even Ford has bought Cosworth and relies on them for a lot of their new engine designs.

          I may be wrong but I’m open to suggestions here has anybody got any?

        • #2671197

          Col Luck

          by money ·

          In reply to Actually Bob this is something that I would like to explore a bit more

          Even Wal Mart gave up its “Buy America” there are not enough “America Only” products. The FTC has a percentage qaulifier for a company to use “Made in America”. Thanks to the US passing legislation like NAFTA and Free Trade Status, it allows for jobs in America to disappear to other countries. Bowie Texas and Lubbock Texas both had Levi organizations or plants that employed over 300 each. The reason they gave for closing was the rising employment costs. Both plants were non-union and the average wage at Bowie was around $5.00 an hour and here in Lubbock the average wage was $7.00 an hour the medical insurance was almost non-existant and retirement matching was one of the lowest in the industry. Our experience in Texas from reports given by the police, border patrol and media investigations is that the Mexican truckers have not needed to meet US safety standards, increasing traffic accidents. Now for American companies contracting some of these firms require them to meet US standards. Maybe Bell and other organizations should have these companies they sub-contract meet our safety standards or stop doing business with them. Unfortunately, some of these sub-contractors are subsideries. I thought I was making a point but ranted, thanks for listening.

        • #2671080

          Still read it though

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Col Luck

          You may have been off track at the end but you do have a valid point and it’s in there somewhere.

          Thanks for sharing.

Viewing 13 reply threads