State of the Union

[Rude]

Originally posted by SLO
for your information.....the best country to live in IS Canada


damn was watchin tv last night....many many channels had a stupid lookin monkey talkin about stuff he doesn't even understand



here you all are talking about the speech someone wrote for him:p

that monkey(your leader)had 0.....thats ZERO experiance in international affairs...and there he is telling you to make WAR on foreign soil.....

It's not about that....it's about the character of Bush...he is a good man irregardless of what you toss our way from the great white north...you've made the common error of believing that we care what you think anyway.

[Rude]

Originally posted by weazel
It took less than a minute for chimpy to tell his 1st lie, "we will not pass on problems to future generations."

I guess the deficit isn't a problem?

On a 0-10 credibility scale he scores a goose egg.

Ya know what? The best thing about you posting is that Bush is our president and there are not enough words that you can spew to change that one iota.

It must suck to face that fact every day:)

[Rude]

Originally posted by Thrawn
Few economists outside Bush's inner circle think the tax cut is going to do anythink to stimulate the economy.  It will be on hugely expense mistake if it doesn't work.

One thing it will do is put money back where it belongs....if you can defend the record of US Congresses and their stewardship of our tax revenue, then get after it....it will at least be entertaining.

[Eagler]

Originally posted by lord dolf vader
so eagle if this tax cut goes thru you are going on record saying it will turn around the ecomomy? cause im willing to go on record that voodoo ecomomics by any other name is just horse toejam.

it can not hurt .. if it does "turn around" it aint the tax cuts fault

give me my money back or better yet, don't take it in the first place and lets see what happens ............

yep, i'm for the $1000 a child break & removing the marriage penalty - you got a problem with that too?

washington can tightened their belts - obviously they have money to burn if we can do 1/2 the crap bush stated in the speech last night .......... from aids in africa to hydro cars ... yeah - they have enough money up there....

[weazel]

The Democrats don't need to respond to the State of the Union.

  All they need to do is replay the broken promises from last year's speech.

[Dowding]

Dowding, the issue at hand is the threat posed by Iraq.

If the USA in the past has supported Iraq, it doesn't change the fact that Iraq is presently a huge threat to people all over the world. Bush has only been President for two years, and I don't lay responsibility for previous foriegn policy issues on him.

That is not what I am arguing against. I actually agree completely with what you say here. The issue is the pathetic 'I'm sick of being the World's policeman', when the issue at hand is so very strongly connected to the past actions of the US and its Allies. You can't claim complete innocence in this affair - no-one can.

And so onto the doubters.

Dowding, just because states in the West (US, UK, France, Germany) gave "parts" that could be used for weapons creation doesnt mean that the West gave him weapons.

Wow. Tell me you don't believe that, Saurdaukar. What were we giving him the parts for? Safe keeping? For a laugh?

This wasn't some reasonable Western ally we were giving chemcial weapon precursers and, in some cases, production facilities to. This was a man in a war with Iran in which there was daily use of Chemical weapons. This was a man that the CIA regarded as, and I quote, "highly dangerous". They knew what he was capable of but turned a blind eye because it was politically and strategically expedient to do so.

From US Senate proceedings on the matter last year:

"According to confidential Commerce Department export-control documents obtained by Newsweek, the shopping list included a computerized database for Saddam's Interior Ministry (presumably to help keep track of political opponents); helicopters to transport Iraqi officials; chemical-analysis equipment for the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC), and, most unsettling, numerous shipments of "bacteria/fungi/protozoa" to the IAEC. According to former officials, the bacteria cultures could be used to make
biological weapons, including anthrax. The State Department
also approved the shipment of 1.5 million atropine injectors,
for use against the effects of chemical weapons, but the
Pentagon blocked the sale. The helicopters, some American
officials later surmised, were used to spray poison gas on
the Kurds."

Smut:

Billions of dollars? Proof please.

Chemicals are not cheap. The Iraqis bought pre-cursers from the US along with precision engineered piping. They were also sold lots of stuff by the British and the Germans. The total over two decades is in the hundreds of millions, if not billions.

Your end date is clearly wrong. Are you trying to say these materials were sold after Iraq invaded Kuwait?

It is wrong - I typed a little too quickly and hit the '2' instead of '0'. The US was exporting chemicals in 1990.

You might want to research this one a bit more...

No, I suggest you research the British super-gun affair a bit more. Check my sources. The gun in question was fully capable of launching a shell loaded with WMD to Israel. It was made about 20 minutes drive from this computer and its shipment was barely halted before it left the country. I remember it well, as would you if you were British.

Iraq was seen as the lesser of two evils following the chaos in Iran. A strong Iraq was viewed as an attractive counter to Iran.

Unfortunately, hindsight is 20/20.

We're not arguing the motives, we're arguing the existance of arms sales to Iraq. AKIron denied US and Western involvement, I'm illustrating how wrong he is.

Conventional Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait, and threatened to go further south.

Without those conventional forces, it would be fairly trival to take away Iraqi WMD.

What has this got to do with you denying US involvement in Iraq's arms procurement? Keep to the discussion at hand.

You seem to think this is solely an American problem, due to past history or past weapons sales. The truth is much more complex than that. Indeed, it could be said that Saddam came to power in part due to the British.

I suggest you engage your reading comprehension skills. I mention 'Western' several times. Do you think this term relates to the US only?

My point is that the US and US companies were involved in Iraq's procurement of WMD material and delivery systems. Others deny this fact.

My sources:

US Congressional Record - How Saddam Happened

US Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup, December 2002


How Saddam Built His War Machine – With Western Help, September 1990

THE SUPPLY OF BRITISH MILITARY EQUIPMENT TO IRAQ, 1979-1990

[Smut]

Originally posted by Dowding
Chemicals are not cheap. The Iraqis bought pre-cursers from the US along with precision engineered piping. They were also sold lots of stuff by the British and the Germans. The total over two decades is in the hundreds of millions, if not billions.

Slight difference, don't you think? If the truth isn't dramatic enough for you to make your point, perhaps your point isn't as sharp as you think.

Originally posted by Dowding

No, I suggest you research the British super-gun affair a bit more. Check my sources. The gun in question was fully capable of launching a shell loaded with WMD to Israel. It was made about 20 minutes drive from this computer and its shipment was barely halted before it left the country. I remember it well, as would you if you were British.

Oh please, don't hand me that load of toejam.

"if you were British"

Grow up. The "British super gun affair" involved more than Brits.

I smell a double standard, BTW.

Originally posted by Dowding

What has this got to do with you denying US involvement in Iraq's arms procurement? Keep to the discussion at hand.

Iraqi's conventional forces are completely relevent. For example, what is stopping the U-2 overflights of Iraq?

Originally posted by Dowding

I suggest you engage your reading comprehension skills. I mention 'Western' several times. Do you think this term relates to the US only?

Maybe you should re-read what you wrote:

Originally posted by Dowding

This is the US's mess - this IS your backyard as much as anyone else's.

Hmmmm...

Originally posted by Dowding

My point is that the US and US companies were involved in Iraq's procurement of WMD material and delivery systems. Others deny this fact.

I am not denying anything. I am unclear what your point is however.

Are you in favor of Iraq having WMD, knowing now what we know about Saddam?

-Smut

[Rude]

Originally posted by Dowding
Who supplied him with the chemical/biological weapons technology the sum of which runs into billions of US dollars?

Who sold him materials such as Anthrax, VX, Nile Fever, Botulism up until 1992?

Who sold him bio-plant technical drawings, missile parts and guidance systems, long after Saddam had gassed 5000 Kurds?

Which Chamber of Commerce rubber stamped export licenses for all this stuff?

Who gave him parts for a super-gun capable of hitting Israel with huge WMD equipped shells?

Guess what? It wasn't the Russians!

If you think the origins of Saddams WMD program (which is what Bush is concerned about, not a bunch of tanks, planes and small arms) have nothing to do with the West, you are deluding yourself.

So what's your point?

[Dowding]

I'm all grown up, thank you. The 'if you were British' comment merely relates to media coverage. You seemed to be doubting the existance of a super-gun project and/or its capabilities. I was pointing out this was a huge story over here - large enough to stick in the mind of a 9 year old kid.

Iraqi's conventional forces are completely relevent. For example, what is stopping the U-2 overflights of Iraq?

I'll just repeat what I wrote in my last post: What has that got to do with denying US involvement in Iraqi procurement of WMD technology? AKIron was denying US involvement, I was responding.

Conventional weapons are not what we are discussing.

Maybe you should re-read what you wrote.

I have. Read the whole thing. I'm talking about US involvement as part of a greater Western involvement in arms sales and technology transfer. I refer to the US specifically, because it is the US involvement that is being denied. It really is as simple as that.

Are you in favor of Iraq having WMD, knowing now what we know about Saddam?

I'm not arguing anything in relation to the current situation, other than how we got to it in the first place. I'm merely showing how the US is responsible, along with many other Western democracies, in Iraq's buildup of arms. This is a situation of the US's creation because of that.

Understand?

As to the current situation - well you might guess that I'm not exactly thrilled that WMD was given to him in the first place or a blind eye was turned to the activities of Western arms companies in the 80s. So, no, I'm not in favour of Saddam having those weapons. My beef is with priority, timing, method and opportunistic hijacking of issues to support a war.

[Rude]

Originally posted by weazel
The Democrats don't need to respond to the State of the Union.

  All they need to do is replay the broken promises from last year's speech.

What he undertakes will prosper Weazel....I know that's going to drive ya nuts.

As for two more years, you meant six didn't ya?

[AKIron]

Where did I deny involvement Dowding? You made several accusations implying that the US was responsible. I only asked for proof, which btw I don't think you've provided.

And yes, the US has been the world's policeman too long. Time to stop, including pulling out of the UN. I'm sure you guys'll do just fine without our interference, or our money/trade. Of course this isn't likely to happen, but if it were up to me it would.

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

...and Hitler kept on building his mighty LuftWaffe right in front of everyone, despite the Treaty of Versailles.

I'm not saying anything... I'm just looking at some parallel issues.
-SW

[Dowding]

Okaaay AKiron. Let's recap.

You say you're tired of being 'World's Policeman' (my heart bleeds, by the way).

I point out responsibility of this situation falls on the shoulders of the US, along with the rest of the Western democracies.

You ask for proof.

I give you the proceedings of a Senate comittee that provides exactly that - have you read it by the way?

I also provide you with articles detailing US involvement as gleaned from both investigations by media and information gleaned from de-classified documents.

I also give you a highly detailed, chronological listing of weapons, including WMD, sold to by British companies etc from 1979 to 1990.

You don't deny involvement, but you are not convinced it has anything to do with Saddam and his regime? Hmmm...

The US economy, surprisingly, does a lot of business with those undesirable foreigners. A strong global military presence is vital to US economic interests.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Dowding
You don't deny involvement, but you are not convinced it has anything to do with Saddam and his regime? Hmmm...

The US economy, surprisingly, does a lot of business with those undesirable foreigners. A strong global military presence is vital to US economic interests.

You're putting words in my mouth. You said I denied involvment, I didn't deny it. You implied that Saddam is nothing more than a puppet of the US, I asked for evidence. You haven't supplied it.

Yes, the US does have many ties economically throughout the world. Could the US survive economically without international trade? I think the US would prosper greatly if we began producing all of our own consumer goods. Not to mention the  internal stimulus if we hung on to the billions we currently give away to those countries in need.

[Udie]

Originally posted by Dowding
That implies you had nothing to do with the origins of the situation you are dealing with - that you are simplying strolling along, the instrument of global consensus and doling out justice in situations that don't really have anything to do with you.

That's very naive.

Saddam is a US/NATO creation. He was a repressive monster when Donny Rumsfeld was helping Iraq gen up on Chemical/Biological weapons info and when we were giving him crate after crate of arms.

This is the US's mess - this IS your backyard as much as anyone else's.

I'm for the removal Saddam - but I'm not sure it's a priority right now and I particularly dislike the use of 'Homeland Security' as a justification.

 Well who's freakin Empire was it that diddlyed up Iraq to begin with?  AND Palistine......


shaddup and get out of the way....