Fire!

"Dave Smith" wrote in message
...
Ed Jay wrote:


Please provide some verification that the US had no problem with Iraq
using
WMDs.

Perhaps the photograph of Hussein shaking hands with Rumsfeld after the
USA

http://globalpolicy.igc.org/security...sseinindex.htm

Please produce ONE quote of ANY US Official stating that the use of WMDs was
ok with the US.

John Wheaton wrote:


Please provide some verification that the US had no problem with Iraq
using
WMDs.

Perhaps the photograph of Hussein shaking hands with Rumsfeld after the
USA

http://globalpolicy.igc.org/security...sseinindex.htm

Please produce ONE quote of ANY US Official stating that the use of WMDs was
ok with the US.

It is not about American politicians having come out in public and bragging
that they had screwed their arch enemy Iran by providing intelligence to
help Iraq calibrate its chemical weapons attacks. I was asked to provide
proof that it was done, and I did that.

"Dave Smith" wrote in message
...
John Wheaton wrote:


Please provide some verification that the US had no problem with Iraq
using
WMDs.

Perhaps the photograph of Hussein shaking hands with Rumsfeld after
the
USA

http://globalpolicy.igc.org/security...sseinindex.htm

Please produce ONE quote of ANY US Official stating that the use of WMDs
was
ok with the US.

It is not about American politicians having come out in public and
bragging
that they had screwed their arch enemy Iran by providing intelligence to
help Iraq calibrate its chemical weapons attacks. I was asked to provide
proof that it was done, and I did that.

It is very known that the US and other countries aided Iraq in it's war with
Iran. You have offered ZERO proof that we ok'd or sanctioned any use of
WMDs, so your comment of " The US had no problem with WMDs being used by
Iraq in that one." remains an unproven and baseless remark.

John Wheaton scribed:


"Dave Smith" wrote in message
...
Ed Jay wrote:


Please provide some verification that the US had no problem with Iraq
using
WMDs.

Perhaps the photograph of Hussein shaking hands with Rumsfeld after the
USA

http://globalpolicy.igc.org/security...sseinindex.htm

Please produce ONE quote of ANY US Official stating that the use of WMDs was
ok with the US.

Will an invoice from the US to Hussein stamped PAID work for you?
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

Hatunen scribed:

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 12:51:50 -0700, Ed Jay
wrote:

Hatunen scribed:

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 10:54:47 -0700, Ed Jay
wrote:

I'm speaking to, and agreeing with the OP's assertion that many of the same
strategies and methods that brought the Third Reich to power drive the Bush
administration's treatment of dissenters. To my observation, Joseph
Goerbells wrote the Karl Rove playbook.

Specifics, please.

Regardless of what FDR did, it does not negate or excuse Bush...except for
those true believers who will seek any excuse (not reason) to excuse Bush.

I would also point out that FDR's actions took place while the US was
defending itself against aggressors during a world war which was begun by
the aggressors. Quite a leap from Bush's pre-emptive US attack on a small,
sovereign nation that had nothing to do with attacks against US assets.

There were some sorry events connected with US paranoia during
WW2. There usually are sorry events during war time.

But I'm on your side about Bush's invasion of Iraq,

Then, you hate America, right? You're a DFH if you disagree with what Bush
did. A traitor. Have you registered as a sex offender yet? I'll show you how
to stifle dissent! (Get my point?)

No. That was pretty dumb.

so you can quit arguing with me there.

I'm not arguing with you at all. You seem stuck with the thought that
jail/death are the only actions available to stifle dissent.

As soon as you invoke the Third Reich, Htler or Goebbles, tehy
are on the table. Otherwise it's penny ante stuff.

The masses are
easily intimidated...this administration has used vilification, ridicule, ad
hominem attacks, fear, racism, segregation of dissenters and arrest to
stifle dissent.

Please give us specifics as to how the masses of Americans are
intimidated. They don't look a bit intimidated to me.

Comparing Bush to Hitler is simply wrong, and actually detracts
from the horror that was Nazism. The Third Reich was a far, far
more terrible place than preent-day America, and Hitler was the
personification of evil. Bush is simply an idiot with only
fourteen months left to his presidency, and even if Amendment
XXII to the Constitution were repealed I seriously doubt he could
get elected to a third term.

We're in agreement. My concern, though, goes to the potential damage that
can be effected in the next 14 months.

Such as...?

I wish I had the time to play your game, but I don't. Instead, I'll invoke
Godwin's Law and declare this subthread closed.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

Dave*Smith wrote:

When you elect an idiot to the office of the President you end up
with an idiot president.

Dave*Smith

When you elect an idiot to the office of the President you end up
with an idiot president.


A few facts to interrupt the ad nauseam:

1. Graduate of Yale AND Harvard -- where he made better grades than Al
Gore AND John Kerry, incidentally;

2. Millionaire by age 40 (yes, in addition to his inheritance);

3. Elected over nationally-popular incumbent governor by age 45;
re-elected easily;

4. Elected over incumbent vice-president, who had been campaigning for
the job for 12 years and more, and who lost his own home state where his
family had been campaigning for 50 years, in a time of peace and
prosperity, by age 50; re-elected with room to spare.


Calling the man an idiot, like so many here have done, is number 1
objectively incorrect, and number 2 simply a reflection of your own
inability or refusal to address and counter the ideas he stands for.
Several here have called Bush an idiot. Not one of them has proposed an
alternate course on addressing terrorism, Saddam Hussein, the Iraq war,
reconstruction, etc, etc. Easy, isn't it?

John Wheaton wrote:

"D
Perhaps the photograph of Hussein shaking hands with Rumsfeld after the
USA

http://globalpolicy.igc.org/security...sseinindex.htm

Please produce ONE quote of ANY US Official stating that the use of WMDs was
ok with the US.


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=2
The Pentagon ''wasn't so horrified by Iraq's use of gas,'' said one veteran
of the program. ''It was just another way of killing people -- whether with
a bullet or phosgene, it didn't make any difference,'' he said.

Former Secretary of State Shultz and Vice President Bush tried to stanch
the flow of chemical precursors to Iraq and spoke out against Iraq's use of
chemical arms, but Mr. Shultz, in his memoir, also alluded to the struggle
in the administration.

''I was stunned to read an intelligence analysis being circulated within
the administration that 'we have demolished a budding relationship (with
Iraq) by taking a tough position in opposition to chemical weapons,' '' he
wrote.

Mr. Shultz also wrote that he quarreled with William J. Casey, then the
director of central intelligence, over whether the United States should
press for a new chemical weapons ban at the Geneva Disarmament Conference.
Mr. Shultz declined further comment.


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...38/ai_91210088

The Aug. 18 Times article reported that the United States provided critical
covert assistance to Iraq during its 1980-1988 war with Iran, despite U.S.
knowledge that Iraq was using chemical weapons. Frightened by the
possibility of Iran exporting its brand of radical Islam to the
oil-producing states of the Persian Gulf, the United States provided Iraq
with intelligence assistance that showed the Iraqis how Iranian forces were
deployed against them. The assistance continued at the same time that
Secretary of State George Shultz, Defense Secretary Frank C. Carlucci and
then-national security adviser Gen. Colin Powell were publicly condemning
Iraq for its use of poison gas.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._su..._Iran-Iraq_war

According to retired Colonel Walter Lang, senior defense intelligence
officer for the United States Defense Intelligence Agency at the time, "the
use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep
strategic concern" to Reagan and his aides, because they "were desperate to
make sure that Iraq did not lose." He claimed that the Defense Intelligence
Agency "would have never accepted the use of chemical weapons against
civilians, but the use against military objectives was seen as inevitable
in the Iraqi struggle for survival"[4], however, despite this allegation,
Reagan’s administration did not stop aiding Iraq after receiving reports
affirming the use of poison gas on Kurdish civilians

Nile wrote:

Dave Smith

When you elect an idiot to the office of the President you end up
with an idiot president.

A few facts to interrupt the ad nauseam:

1. Graduate of Yale AND Harvard -- where he made better grades than Al
Gore AND John Kerry, incidentally;

2. Millionaire by age 40 (yes, in addition to his inheritance);

Indeed, he is a first class capitalist. His business ventures were
failures. His investors got less than 45 cents on the dollar, but they were
all tax shelters. When his father went to war in Kuwait, Bahrain gave the
company a bog contract, but it was a loser and GW pulled out before the
losses were announced and pocketed $835,000. He sold at $4 per share and
when the losses were posted the stock fell to $2.68. He would have gained
more if he had waited because the stocks later rose to $8 a share.




http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori.../jackson.bush/

3. Elected over nationally-popular incumbent governor by age 45;
re-elected easily;

4. Elected over incumbent vice-president, who had been campaigning for
the job for 12 years and more, and who lost his own home state where his
family had been campaigning for 50 years, in a time of peace and
prosperity, by age 50; re-elected with room to spare.

Not exactly landslide victories were there. Do you think they would have
won the second one if they had admitted before the election that they had
lied about the evidence about Saddam's WMDs?


And how about his war record? Republicans paid for an organization to
belittle John Kerry's war record, a man who volunteered for service and
then volunteered for a position that was hazardous, while Bush used
connections to get into a nice safe stint with the National Guard to avoid
the war in Vietnam.


Calling the man an idiot, like so many here have done, is number 1
objectively incorrect, and number 2 simply a reflection of your own
inability or refusal to address and counter the ideas he stands for.
Several here have called Bush an idiot. Not one of them has proposed an
alternate course on addressing terrorism, Saddam Hussein, the Iraq war,
reconstruction, etc, etc. Easy, isn't it?

It is clear our nation is reliant upon big foreign oil. More and more of
our imports come from overseas.
—George W. Bush; Beaverton, Oregon, September 25, 2000.



Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?
—George W. Bush; Florence, South Carolina, January 11, 2000.


We cannot let terrorists and rogue nations hold this nation hostile or hold
our allies hostile.
—George W. Bush; Des Moines, Iowa, August 21, 2000.

I think if you know what you believe, it makes it a lot easier to answer
questions. I can’t answer your question.
—George W. Bush; Reynoldsburg, Ohio, October 4, 2000.

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 21:00:29 -0400, Dave Smith
wrote:

Nile wrote:

Dave Smith

When you elect an idiot to the office of the President you end up
with an idiot president.

A few facts to interrupt the ad nauseam:

1. Graduate of Yale AND Harvard -- where he made better grades than Al
Gore AND John Kerry, incidentally;

2. Millionaire by age 40 (yes, in addition to his inheritance);

Indeed, he is a first class capitalist. His business ventures were
failures. His investors got less than 45 cents on the dollar, but they were
all tax shelters. When his father went to war in Kuwait, Bahrain gave the
company a bog contract, but it was a loser and GW pulled out before the
losses were announced and pocketed $835,000. He sold at $4 per share and
when the losses were posted the stock fell to $2.68. He would have gained
more if he had waited because the stocks later rose to $8 a share.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori.../jackson.bush/

That's what a Harvard MBA will do for you.



--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *