Iraq faces massive US missile barrage

[papasmerf]

WOW D out of contex

As people can see D QUOTED LuckyJackosn, well not really.

Here is D's quote:
"Originally posted by luckyjackson
Papasmerf, you did a good thing by pointing out the less than faithful reporting carried out by D,...
D, shame on you. That kind of stunt only undermines the credibility of the cause you support. "


But as you can see below I have quoted LuckJackson in contex and SUPRISE once again the question arises on the VALIDITY of D's posts.

People before you are suckered into unrest check the sources and the sites quoted. Henery MIchaels th editorial writer D wishes us to see has a link by his name (WSWS). Well this link turns out to be to the WORLDS SOCIALIST WEB SITE.


Mr. Michaels goes on in his editoral to quote many things and people (without giving refrence to the quote). Sound framiliar?????

It's a sad story.

Strange as it seems to me to write it, I actually agree with George Bush on this one. I think the world will be a better place without Mr. Hussein having an entire state's resources at his disposal.

However, I'm dismayed by the way the U.S. has decided to go about it. I don't have a weapon fetish, and so cannot argue with any authority about the U.S.'s capabilities. However, it seems to me that the U.S. MUST have other means at its disposal to get rid of Mr. Hussein and see the Iraqi government replaced with a more humane and democratic bunch.

Why is the loss of innocent life unavoidable? I don't get it.

As well, such an attack is unwise in the long term. It will only confirm American cowardice in the minds of millions - and make them all the more determined to take pot shots like Sept 11 at them in the future.

Papasmerf, you did a good thing by pointing out the less than faithful reporting carried out by D, but then you messed it up with your own inaccuracy. The World Health 'fact' D included is not in the CBS story, but most of the other quotes are. What did you mean only one quote was there?

D, shame on you. That kind of stunt only undermines the credibility of the cause you support.

 

[onthebottom]

Hulagu Khan(1258), Tamerlane(1401), Bush(2003)

Luckyjackson and Papasmerf
My post covers more than the CBS story, as do my quotes. The CBS article isn't the only report out there on the 'Shock & Awe' battle plan. And I certainly never claimed everything I said came from the one source. Instead of just trying to attack one's credibility, do some damn searching yourself and maybe you can help expand on the subject. You'll find most of the (other)quotes come from editorial writer Henry Michaels and cover the facts.
www.gvny.com/columns/schiff/

d

The Greenwich Village Gazette? Now that's impressive! LOL

You can always tell when an idiot is trying to inflame an audience, they invoke the Nazi image.

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

Two Theaters

....so I'm repeating myself.

As Dubya happily kicks the crap out of Iraq, does he expect Kim Jong Il and his nuclear warheads to just stay put. Or will Osama come calling?

And they are related how?

Two different problems (although both WMD related) in two different parts of the world at the same time. I don't get your point. Should we not invade Iraq because there is an idiot in North Korea? Is this new news?

The US can certainly handle more than one conflict at a time if that's your concern, there is a US military doctrine that requires the US to be able to wage two wars simultaneously. Which is two more than any other government.

There will certainly be no large-scale military event in the Koreans, it's in no one's interest.

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

Lucky

It's a sad story.


However, I'm dismayed by the way the U.S. has decided to go about it. I don't have a weapon fetish, and so cannot argue with any authority about the U.S.'s capabilities. However, it seems to me that the U.S. MUST have other means at its disposal to get rid of Mr. Hussein and see the Iraqi government replaced with a more humane and democratic bunch.

Why is the loss of innocent life unavoidable? I don't get it.

As well, such an attack is unwise in the long term. It will only confirm American cowardice in the minds of millions - and make them all the more determined to take pot shots like Sept 11 at them in the future.

The other approach has been tried for the last 11 years. If Sadam could be bombed, shot... it would have already happened. If you want to know why it hasn't happened read The Threatening Storm, The Case for Invading Iraq by Ken Pollack.

While I do agree the US is prime for pot shots I don't understand the cowardice comment. It takes no leadership, backbone or courage to do nothing and pursue trade with Iraq. That is what France, Germany, Russia and China have done. It requires no courage to hide behind the UN as Canada is doing. What does require courage it to lead, to take the initiative even if it's unpopular if it's the right thing to do. That is what the US is doing. It speaks to the courage of the British government to join the US in this endeavor. Almost like 60 years ago.

As for the French, one word: Vichy.

OTB

 

[luckyjackson]

Um, PPSmrf your response was as clear as mud buddy. I have no idea what you were trying to say. At any rate, I'm not sure why D's gender is of any importance to this issue?

D, I appreciate you're feeling a bit put out, but I think it's fair to say that even if you did not attempt to attribute the WHO input to CBS news, your post certainly looks like you did. At any rate, I usually find the stuff you post quite interesting, so thanks.

Thank's also to OTB for the reading suggestion. I may look it up, though I'm still very skeptical about bombing being the only solution. The side of me that enjoys mulling over the possibility of a conspiracy says that there's more to this than we, the general public, will ever know.

As to the comment about cowardice, it was not an accusation. I don't think that choosing to bomb Iraq is of itself a cowardly act. It may just be smart warfare. What I'm suggesting, is that many people will interpret this kind of attack as cowardly, citing American reluctance to risk casualties in a ground attack. This is the same point that got Bill Mahr in so much trouble, for those of you who used to watch Politically Incorrect.

 

[onthebottom]

Fair enough

Um, PPSmrf your response was as clear as mud buddy. I have no idea what you were trying to say. At any rate, I'm not sure why D's gender is of any importance to this issue?

D, I appreciate you're feeling a bit put out, but I think it's fair to say that even if you did not attempt to attribute the WHO input to CBS news, your post certainly looks like you did. At any rate, I usually find the stuff you post quite interesting, so thanks.

Thank's also to OTB for the reading suggestion. I may look it up, though I'm still very skeptical about bombing being the only solution. The side of me that enjoys mulling over the possibility of a conspiracy says that there's more to this than we, the general public, will ever know.

As to the comment about cowardice, it was not an accusation. I don't think that choosing to bomb Iraq is of itself a cowardly act. It may just be smart warfare. What I'm suggesting, is that many people will interpret this kind of attack as cowardly, citing American reluctance to risk casualties in a ground attack. This is the same point that got Bill Mahr in so much trouble, for those of you who used to watch Politically Incorrect.

Lucky,

What you need to realize is that the lack of a ground war would save lives on both sides. To not fight and get a regime change is in everyone's best interest. I can see how using cruse missiles could look cowardly given the US does not expose itself to casualties but with 2,000 tanks on the ground I don't think that's the only option that's being considered. A cowardly act would be to nuke Baghdad and take the oil to the South, or do nothing.

OTB

 

[*d*]

If you want to know why it hasn't happened read The Threatening Storm, The Case for Invading Iraq by Ken Pollack.

Ken Pollack is bias, in that he favors US foreign policies. He builds a case to invade Iraq, not for homeland security reasons, but to stablize the region for the betterment of American interests.

What does require courage it to lead, to take the initiative even if it's unpopular if it's the right thing to do. That is what the US is doing. It speaks to the courage of the British government to join the US in this endeavor. Almost like 60 years ago.

Courage? Does it take courage to flatten Baghdad with radio controlled bombs for the sake of corporate American? Does it take courage to bluff the people of the world with terrorism issues, and than offer world governments stable American controlled oil as a viable reason to join a coalition to inflict terror? I wouldn't call that courage. I'd call it hypocrisy.

As for the French, one word: Vichy.

OTB

69% of the $1.1 trillion in Iraqi oil contracts are held by French and Russian companies. Its not in their best interest to break those contracts and deal with America.

d

 

[*d*]

Re: Get Real

Nicely done Papasmerf. Just goes to show you the lengths people will go to in order to attempt to assasinate the character of the Americans.

I have nothing against the character of the American people. My beef is with their government and the policies they uphold. Papasmerf on the other hand has had nothing 'on topic' to offer this thread except a feeble attempt at assassinating the character of those opposed to a war on Iraq. My original post on this thread has no factual errors, including the remark by the WHO. It is an attempt on opening everyones eyes on the humanitarian crimes the US may attempt on Iraq.

What is interesting is that NOBODY ever presents a VIABLE alternative. Just bitch, bitch, bitch and provide nothing positive or in the alternative.

Change US foreign policy so that American corporations outside of the US are only businesses and do not have the same rights to protection as US citizens have outside the US. America would than have no reason except greed to go to war for the interests of corporate America.

d

 

[luckyjackson]

"Ken Pollack is bias, in that he favors US foreign policies. He builds a case to invade Iraq, not for homeland security reasons, but to stablize the region for the betterment of American interests."

This is laughable. Of course he brings a bias! You and I don't I suppose?

The most honest thing you can do is declare your bias up front and then proceed to build an argument that's better than the next guy's.

D, you strike me as a well meaning, but slightly naive type. What would you propose the U.S. do? Of course they're going to protect corporate interests and step in when this very important region's stability is threatened. Could the direct relationship to the U.S.'s own stability be any clearer? Money, power, lives they are all the same concern in the end.

Would you really like to see a weakened America with world predominance passed to some other country? Which one would you rather see as a superpower? Look, America IS a bully, it does act cynically in its own self interest all the time, no matter what it says. Here's the news flash though - they do it with a greater degree of responsibility and humanity than most other powers would. They stand up, (in their own fashion and with lots of slip ups), for democracy, freedom and the rest of the package. I don't mean to reduce this to a question of "you're either with them or against them", everyone should voice their concerns, but if you REALLY care about how things get done in this world you owe it to yourself to take a clear-eyed pragmatic look at history. No nation has EVER acted from altruistic sentiments, and those that allow themselves to be pushed around, GET pushed around. Not nice, but that's life.

As far as Canada is concerned, we fucked up the handling of this completely. We won't get any thanks from the U.S. because of our lukewarm support, and we won't have any credibility on the International scene for opposing the U.S., because we will of course eventually get completely on side with whatever the U.S. does. If our government had any smarts, it would have taken the Machivellian route and made Blair look wishy washy in his support.

 

[papasmerf]

Re: Re: Get Real

I have nothing against the character of the American people. My beef is with their government and the policies they uphold. Papasmerf on the other hand has had nothing 'on topic' to offer this thread except a feeble attempt at assassinating the character of those opposed to a war on Iraq. My original post on this thread has no factual errors, including the remark by the WHO. It is an attempt on opening everyones eyes on the humanitarian crimes the US may attempt on Iraq.


Change US foreign policy so that American corporations outside of the US are only businesses and do not have the same rights to protection as US citizens have outside the US. America would than have no reason except greed to go to war for the interests of corporate America.

d

DAMN.
Papasmerf on the other hand has had nothing 'on topic' to offer this thread except a feeble attempt at assassinating the character of those opposed to a war on Iraq

Now why did you go and say that??????

What have I said that infers my stance on the war. You D, gave as refrences, sites to check out. I did as I have in the past and will continue to do. You made quotes and infered them to be that of CBS news. Suprise suprise only one of these quotes was atributable to CBS.

YOu then proceeded to give us an editorial. Written by someone whos signiature is the Worlds Socialist Web Site.

Now this is the second time you accused me of assassinating your charecter.

How is it that I have done this. Was it by my PM that refrenced your post that refered to a party dedicated to eliminating all members of CONGRESS and the SENATE who voted to impeach Bill Clinton. (please feel free to check out the owners of all the sites D refrences.)

Or was it my calling you Mr. Gore????

Perhaps it is the fact that you make refrences to people who hate americans and I call you on it.

 

[*d*]

The most honest thing you can do is declare your bias up front and then proceed to build an argument that's better than the next guy's.

I'm not as bias as you might think. I'm bias in that I deplore mass human exploitation for profit, but other than that I'm fairly open. If I can be convinced that the US is not one of, if not, the world's worst exploiter of human resources outside it own country, then I'll concede. But research proves the US is one of the worst and there is huge volumes of proof. This board as seen pages of that proof.

Look, America IS a bully, it does act cynically in its own self interest all the time, no matter what it says. Here's the news flash though - they do it with a greater degree of responsibility and humanity than most other powers would. They stand up, (in their own fashion and with lots of slip ups), for democracy, freedom and the rest of the package.

America does not stand up to human responsibility outside its own country. There is proof of that, both in history and in today's events. US foreign policy is strictly in place to make the world safe for the exploits of American capitalism -period. Since 1945 the US has attempted to overthrown more than 40 foreign governments. Their pretext was to help the people of those countries and introduce a new improved democratic government. Well they introduced democracy all right but, for the benefit of local American corporations and the many puppet regimes that were put in power, not for the sake of the native people. The native people are in most cases, no better off then before the US interfered.
In 1996 the annual report of Amnesty International concluded that(another quote, papasmerf ) "It is a paradox that a nation(speaking about the US) that did so much to articulate and codify human rights in its foundation documents has so consistently resisted and undermined the effective functioning of an international framework to protect these principles and values." "...repressive torture and terror has occured disproportionately among countries in the American sphere of influence."

d

 

[papasmerf]

Abe Lincon

President Lincon said it best D

"It is better to remain slient and be thought the fool. The to speak and remove all doubt."

 

[*d*]

papasmerf
My quotes are from all over. Socialist, democratic, muslim, overseas newsmedia, small local papers, you name it. I don't stick to one group, following or party for my info. Unfortunately much of the info from mainstream newsmedia is controlled by US corporations who support US policies, so stories are usually bias and never anti-American. Anything that hurts US policies, hurts business and US corporations will have none of that. The important part for me is cutting through the profit influenced news and political propaganda and getting to the facts.
So call me what you will. The info for my next post could come from anywhere.

d

 

[papasmerf]

propaganda

papasmerf
My quotes are from all over. Socialist, democratic, muslim, overseas newsmedia, small local papers, you name it. I don't stick to one group, following or party for my info. Unfortunately much of the info from mainstream newsmedia is controlled by US corporations who support US policies, so stories are usually bias and never anti-American. Anything that hurts US policies, hurts business and US corporations will have none of that. The important part for me is cutting through the profit influenced news and political propaganda and getting to the facts.
So call me what you will. The info for my next post could come from anywhere.

d

D, I merly suggest that if you are to qoute you do it in contex and give refrence and or credit for the quote. Otherwise it seems you have just hit your qoute key and created the line(s).


Now as for American News media being pro-american????? Seems you never have seen CNN, ABC NBC or CBS. To be pro-American one would need to be un-biased when it comes to the news. All of these networks are Mouth pieces for the DNC. Not agencies who report fact.

I find your posts written well but lacking substance. When held to the light they hold no substance. The mixing of unsubstanciated quotes make your posts seem more personal then factual. Now I figure you may live in the US and I do suggest you be thankful for that. Name 3 other countries that Give their people, as a GOD given right, the freedom of speach and religion. How many Christians openly practice in Muslum countries????


Please take note that when i quote you i include the entire post. I do expect the same.

 

[*d*]

Re: propaganda

Now as for American News media being pro-american????? Seems you never have seen CNN, ABC NBC or CBS. To be pro-American one would need to be un-biased when it comes to the news. All of these networks are Mouth pieces for the DNC. Not agencies who report fact.

To me, pro-American means to favor American policies and lifestyle. That's a bias. But at least we agree the American news media only broadcasts what corporate sponsors want to hear.

Please take note that when i quote you i include the entire post. I do expect the same.

Sorry, not from me. I'm not going to use up Fred's valuable megabits just to make you happy. I quote what I deem necessary. And I respond when I deem it necessary.

d

 

[Wired For Sound]

Re: Re: propaganda

To me, pro-American means to favor American policies and lifestyle. That's a bias. But at least we agree the American news media only broadcasts what corporate sponsors want to hear.
d

Ah, yes, Chomsky's view that the American media is controlled by Corporations. Same old bromide. Yawn. Yet, again: True, you have corporate influence, but, that doesn't mean you get only one view. Many corporations are perfectly willing to push ideas that are anti-Corporate and anti-Capitalist. There's corporate advocates of Corporate Social Responsibility. We've all heard of the film: "Roger and Me", by Michael Moore, and the latest by that wacko lefty. Have you seen the T.V. commericals for that *d*? I have, and I'm sure many others have as well. Heard of Tim Robbins? I have. And where did many people hear of Noam Chomsky?

As for criticism about the war: I've come across many people who are critical. Where did they get this information? They could have got it from the mainstream media. But, suppose they didn't get it from mainstream media. Who cares? Many, like yourself *d*, are getting their information from alternative publications. You see, *d*, you can go to Chapters (read: Capitalist retailer) and purchase a copy of your favourite latest leftist magazine. In that publication is all kinds of anti-Capitalist lies and bullshit.

 

[papasmerf]

Agree??????

To me, pro-American means to favor American policies and lifestyle. That's a bias. But at least we agree the American news media only broadcasts what corporate sponsors want to hear.


Sorry, not from me. I'm not going to use up Fred's valuable megabits just to make you happy. I quote what I deem necessary. And I respond when I deem it necessary.

d

That's a bias. But at least we agree the American news media only broadcasts what corporate sponsors want to hear??????

You don't know what the DNC is???????? Democrat National Congress. Hate to break it to you. But that is the Democrat party not a shoe store in New York City.

 

[papasmerf]

Re: Did you play War yet?

Try this!!!
http://www.idleworm.com/nws/2002/11/iraq2/shtml


Link does not work.

 

[onthebottom]

Re: Re: Lucky

I was referring to WWII. I don't think Chamberlain took your view on Hitler needing to be stopped. I don't think you'd take the view that the French and British were there early if you lived in Austria or Czechoslovakia. The British and French declared war at the last possible moment FOR THEM and it cost the world over 10 million dead. If they had only fought in 38 or 37. The US did exactly the same thing; they declared war at the last possible moment FOR THEM. You need to remember that the US provided substantial material aid to Briton, with out which the British could not have continued the war, which was at that point (post battle of Britton) an effort to protect colonies in Africa.

And for the record, I'm arguing AGAINST an isolationist, head in the sand, stance for the US. I think that is the lesson of WWII, ignoring a problem doesn't make it better, usually the opposite.

And as for the per capita argument, I have to take it at face value (I have not done the math) but if your looking for a small "Dominion" that did their duty, look to Australia. I don't think you can argue that the US's 16 million men made the difference in WWII.

But yet I digress.

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

Oh D

Ken Pollack is bias, in that he favors US foreign policies. He builds a case to invade Iraq, not for homeland security reasons, but to stablize the region for the betterment of American interests.

Courage? Does it take courage to flatten Baghdad with radio controlled bombs for the sake of corporate American? Does it take courage to bluff the people of the world with terrorism issues, and than offer world governments stable American controlled oil as a viable reason to join a coalition to inflict terror? I wouldn't call that courage. I'd call it hypocrisy.


69% of the $1.1 trillion in Iraqi oil contracts are held by French and Russian companies. Its not in their best interest to break those contracts and deal with America.

d

Ken Pollack is ex CIA, MIT and NSA. I think he's a fairly qualified guy from which to draw information. Unlike say that Greenwich village rag you quoted.

If we flatten Baghdad with "radio controlled missiles" (actually GPS but why digress) I'll eat my shoe. What we will do is scare the hell out of them (mostly military) while killing as few people as possible. If the US just wanted the oil, believe me we'd already have it. We sent 2000 tanks HOME in 1991, they were very well equipped to take control of the oil fields in southern Iraq.

Bluff the world with terrorism? You have not been to Wall Street lately have you. I work in NYC and was at the World Trade Center site a week after they came down. It didn't look like a bluff to me.

The US does not control the world oil market, if we did you would be paying 25 cents a gallon, believe me. Corrupt dictators control the world oil market, one of which is dangerous to the region. He's about to loose his job.

So the French and Russians (both permanent members of the security council) two countries entrusted with world security are driven by commercial interests. And you call the US hypocritical.

D is driven by a conspiracy theory view of the world where you hold nations like the US to a different standard than everyone else. What the French, Russians and Chinese have done with Iraq is shameful. They have broken the UN resolutions for commercial interests and made the world a more dangerous place. And this from 3 of the 5 countries that are suppose to look after world security.

But then again, maybe my company just made me do it.

OTB