An interesting read on the Middle East and OIL - Page 12 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

RichC · #**166** 03-14-2008, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Ah, another cherry-picking biased source.

B

That is president baby bush in that video.
How can that be a biased source.

You wanted proof of lies, well there he is on camera, saying the opposite
of what he usually says.

I tell you that guy is cracked.
Glad he is outa office soon.

.

Botnst · #**167** 03-14-2008, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichC

That is president baby bush in that video.
How can that be a biased source.

You wanted proof of lies, well there he is on camera, saying the opposite
of what he usually says.

I tell you that guy is cracked.
Glad he is outa office soon.

.

, you see only what you want to see with no ability to suffer an alternative explanation. Attempt at rational discourse is therefore a waste of effort.

B

Botnst · #**168** 03-14-2008, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichC

.

I never said never.
I know Ronnie Regan gave him some.

.

Prove it.

aklim · #**169** 03-14-2008, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

If it's OK to judge entire societies by a few hooligans demonstrating on the streets, then you better hope that muslim countries are not looking when anarchists in the West are breaking windows and burning tires around G8 meetings or when we have KKK gatherings here in the US.

So you're saying going to Iraq was something we shouldn't have done. I agree.

No I'm not saying that at all. In fact no one here is denying that Saddam had chemical weapons in the 80's and early 90's. The lies were the reasons for the need to invade Iraq that we were repeatedly told in 2002 and 2003.

I'm not sure I follow your argument. Supposedly, to the muslim, their religion is pretty important to them. So much so that it is more than a lifestyle and they get mad, howl and scream when somebody does something that is insulting or even poking fun at their religion. Ok. So, if OBL has done something to bring shame and disgrace to their religion, why aren't they up in arms about it? They have shown that they can scream and yell when someone insults their religion. Why haven't they said much about OBL's action? Unless they agree with it and tacitly support it, that is.

No. I'm saying that I don't care why the Dems supported the war. Fact is they did at the time. You can say it was public pressure, peer pressure, drugs, alcohol, etc, etc. It doesn't matter to me. All I know is they supported it. If they shouldn't have done it but they caved in to pressure, they are weak and shouldn't be in that position.

Now, lets roll back to the end of the Gulf War. What if he had obediently carried out what he was supposed to do?

aklim · #**170** 03-14-2008, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichC

Lets play blame the Democrat.
Wow !

RichC

.

Lets blame the person who brought it upon himself. The one that didn't honor his contract he had his emissaries sign.

DieselAddict · #**171** 03-15-2008, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

I'm not sure I follow your argument. Supposedly, to the muslim, their religion is pretty important to them. So much so that it is more than a lifestyle and they get mad, howl and scream when somebody does something that is insulting or even poking fun at their religion. Ok. So, if OBL has done something to bring shame and disgrace to their religion, why aren't they up in arms about it? They have shown that they can scream and yell when someone insults their religion. Why haven't they said much about OBL's action? Unless they agree with it and tacitly support it, that is.

No. I'm saying that I don't care why the Dems supported the war. Fact is they did at the time. You can say it was public pressure, peer pressure, drugs, alcohol, etc, etc. It doesn't matter to me. All I know is they supported it. If they shouldn't have done it but they caved in to pressure, they are weak and shouldn't be in that position.

Now, lets roll back to the end of the Gulf War. What if he had obediently carried out what he was supposed to do?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to defend muslims, I'm just defending objectivity. Sometimes they piss me off too, like when I read about the anti-cartoon protests or some woman getting stoned to death for adultery while the man who was involved walks free. However I try to look at things objectively and I know not all muslims are the same. I lived in a muslim country long enough to know that. So putting everyone in the same bag is just plain wrong. Re. 9/11 I think there were some protests against it and OBL even in muslim regions like Gaza. Even Iran was outpouring with support & sympathy for us shortly after 9/11. In fact just about every country in the world short of a few enemies publicly condemned the attacks. Too bad Bush had to squander all that good will with the Iraq fiasco.

I was certainly disappointed with the dems that voted for the Iraq war. They were either fooled like most people or too weak to resist the pressure. I have much more respect for those who didn't vote for the war or at least admitted and apologized for their mistake if they did.

I'm not really sure where you're going with the last statement.

tankdriver · #**172** 03-15-2008, 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

I know not all muslims are the same.

What?! They are too!

RichC · #**173** 03-15-2008, 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

, you see only what you want to see with no ability to suffer an alternative explanation. Attempt at rational discourse is therefore a waste of effort.

B

What ?

I see only what I want to see ?

Your the one trying to say that president bush has never lied about
the precursors to this war.

Are you saying I am not rational ?
Just because our opinions on subjects are different,
does not mean one of us is not rational.

If you don't want to "waste" your time with me,
so be it.

RichC

.

RichC · #**174** 03-15-2008, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Prove it.

You want me to prove that president Reagan gave weapons to Saddam ?

OK.

Here you go.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/shakinghands_high.wmv

Shaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983.

And here is a link to the story.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Since you think my links are mostly to biased sources ....
This story's references are given at the end.
Each one is a downloadable pdf.
Most are US, or other government documents.
No biased sources.

And

Here is a link to guy who wrote a book about how Reagan
gave Saddam chemical weapons.

http://www.counterpunch.org/dixon06172004.html

I really thought all this stuff was common knowledge now.

You say I cannot suffer someone else's side of the story.

Thanks

RichC

.

Medmech · #**175** 03-15-2008, 07:50 AM

Did they pass the material in the secret handshake or something? I can show pictures of presidents shaking hands with many bad guys, also the link you provided says nothing about the US providing material to Iraq it merely states that we know they were using it and chose..along with the UN to stay out of it.

aklim · #**176** 03-15-2008, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

Re. 9/11 I think there were some protests against it and OBL even in muslim regions like Gaza. Even Iran was outpouring with support & sympathy for us shortly after 9/11. In fact just about every country in the world short of a few enemies publicly condemned the attacks. Too bad Bush had to squander all that good will with the Iraq fiasco.

I'm not really sure where you're going with the last statement.

IIRC, they were cheering for OBL on 911 in Gaza. I'm not interested in what the country leaders say though. I could care less. Why? Leaders say many things, believe in few of them and do even fewer. I am interested in looking at the population and what they say. Take our own leaders. Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush, etc, etc. They do say much don't they? How much of it do they really carry out? Look at Saudi Arabia. On the one hand they tell us how much they support us but OTOH, they give the terrorists money. So yes, they can tell me how they condemn the attacks and what OBL is doing till they are blue in the face but I don't believe it. I am looking for the same types of protests like they had over the cartoon, for example. Why don't they boycott Saudi Arabia for their support of OBL behind the scenes? Why don't they scream and yell at the beheading and what not? Is that what their religion stands for? If not, isn't OBL insulting their religion by doing these acts in the name of the religion? Certainly they have shown that they can mobilize and kick up a ruckus at any perceived slight of their religion. Hell, for all the noise they made over a cartoon, you'd certainly think that over what OBL did and is doing, there would be such an uproar that we'd hear about it.

Think about this. Note, I'm not insulting you. However, if someone said your wife wasn't really good looking to him and you yelled at him, what sort of reaction could I expect from you if I spat in your wife's face?

In that statement, what I was saying was that if Saddam had done as he was supposed to do, would we be even having this discussion? Instead, he had to play games with the inspectors, kick them out, hinder them, make them give notice, etc, etc. What part of the word "unfettered" escaped him?

aklim · #**177** 03-15-2008, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichC

This story's references are given at the end. Each one is a downloadable pdf. Most are US, or other government documents. No biased sources.

OK. So you do admit he had stuff there that were either precursors or the actual stuff. Do you think the USA was the only supplier too? Weren't there others that also supplied him? If so, wasn't that what he was supposed to account for based on US and other countries logs from their supplying companies to their shipping companies to the Iraqi receiving clerks? If those are not all a pack of concocted lies then we can assume that the UN got a mostly truthful list and they asked him to account for it all. That was part of the terms of the ceasefire, was it not? UNFETTERED inspections were also a term of the ceasefire, was it not?

Before you come back with "nothing is nothing", lets explore this question. If we know he received what he was supposed to, does the fact that it isn't there now mean he didn't receive it?

aklim · #**178** 03-15-2008, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

So you're saying going to Iraq was something we shouldn't have done. I agree.

Here is a better response to your statement: Knowing what we know now, going into Iraq is something we should not have done. However, hindsight is 20/20 or better. Why do I say that? Well, if we KNEW there was nothing there and it was already moved off, going in would be pointless.

However, there were other things in the picture at the time. We just came off 911 and still cleaning up the mess. We were on high alert. He was strapped for cash to continue his lifestyle. We had enemies who would love to get their hands on the stuff he had. He had been playing shell games. Was it a chance we could have taken? Probably not. Now if 911 hadn't happened, we could have played wait and see a little more.

Here is a tale of 2 customers. One has been faithfully paying his bill when it was presented in a timely manner. The other has been bouncing checks every now and then for the last 10 years. I need the money to pay my taxes, bills, etc, etc and it is a bad time of the year. They both present me with a check. My employee calls the bank. Both accounts don't have the funds. They both swear they have money. I believe the first customer and give him the goods. For the second customer, I turn down his check. Why the difference? Well, the first has been a good customer. The second has done this to me before. Well, come Monday, we find a mistake was made either by my employee or the bank. Why do you think I should have believed the 2nd customer? Because it was a different check than the ones he had been bouncing over the last 10 years?

Botnst · #**179** 03-15-2008, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichC

You want me to prove that president Reagan gave weapons to Saddam ?

OK.

Here you go.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/shakinghands_high.wmv

Shaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983.

And here is a link to the story.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Since you think my links are mostly to biased sources ....
This story's references are given at the end.
Each one is a downloadable pdf.
Most are US, or other government documents.
No biased sources.

And

Here is a link to guy who wrote a book about how Reagan
gave Saddam chemical weapons.

http://www.counterpunch.org/dixon06172004.html

I really thought all this stuff was common knowledge now.

You say I cannot suffer someone else's side of the story.

Thanks

RichC

.

If you actually read the stories to which you link and remove the hyperbole, you might notice that the USA supplied intelligence information and communication gear and agricultural credits and some agricultural supplies & equipment.

B

RichC · #**180** 03-15-2008, 10:19 AM

.

Here is more links to stuff about Ronald and Saddam and weapons.

This is a transcript of what our congress said.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/s092002.html

Here is something from a UK paper.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/dec/31/iraq.politics

The US provided less conventional military equipment than British or German companies but it did allow the export of biological agents, including anthrax; vital ingredients for chemical weapons; and cluster bombs sold by a CIA front organisation in Chile, the report says.

And this is a source that you will deem biased,
but here it is anyway.

http://www.altnews.com.au/drop/node/129

RichC

.