Osama, Saddam, WMD's and the 2004 election

[toast]

From what I've read (and feel free to provide resources to prove me wrong), the US provided Iraq during the 80-88 Iran/Iraq war with Sarin and Mustard gas. The reasoning behind this was that Sarin and Mustard don't keep all that long, and Iraq was an ally at the time. Hindsight is always 20/20, but Reagan clearly thought hedging his bets against Iran was a good thing.

Iraq developed most of it's WMD on it's own (Anthrax, VX, Botulin Toxins). Germany has been shown to have a hand in their nuclear programs, as did France. Remember - France provided Iraq with a small nuclear reactor in the early 80's, that thankfully, Israel was able to destroy before it went online.

This is the official weapon trading you are quoting. Non-official armament may present another version of those (so-called) facts.

Mustard gas and sarin were provided as molecules. Which means Iraq has been able to synthetize it since, no matter how old the original American delivery is.

BTW producing mustard gas or sarin (or any attack gas) in forbidden by the First Geneva Convention.

 

[edX]

So which women do you think to be most qualified Ed? Surely you don't mean Hillary - do you?

God no!! that would be worse than Bush. i was never really much of a Clinton fan and actually kinda hoped he would get removed from office even though i never saw a real reason for it. I only voted for him because of Gore who is about the only politician i have been enamored with since Jimmy Carter. he's very middle of the road with a strong environmental concerns - a lot more like Teddy Roosevelt than GW will ever be. and this despite the idea that Tipper as first lady seems very scary to me. my knind of president is the kind that is capable of reaching a strong and workable compromise - which generally involves pissing both sides off.

my first inclinations would towards California's Diane Feinstien and Barbara Boxer. Both are well known here for listening to their constituients and acting accordingly. both have shown some degree of co-operation with republicans despite working towards progressive solutions to social issues. i would guess that Feinstein is more well known nationally but perhaps neither of them are any more than local icons. i haven't left the state in awhile and really don't know anymore. i have seen other women's names doing things that impressed me over the last year as well but don't recall any of their names right off the top of my head.

it is really too early for any major agreement on an oppossing candidate. ask again in late december and i'm sure a few will have emerged. i think we are going to see enough opportunities between now and then for someone to take some actions that will catch the attention of the average american. if not, then GW will likely look like Nixon did in the re-election year.

and yea, i'll cop to leaning left on a variety of issues. especially the environment, war, and social services. probably on international relations as well. but i am certainly not in favor of any kind of major shifts in basic paradigms to accomplish these things. slow changes make more sense than drastic one.

to roughly quote an old TV show (Knot's Landing) - "elections are generally a contest between dope #1 and dope #2." at this point i don't know enough about any of the contending dopes to even care. i would never go so far as to say any of them would be better than Bush, but i think there must be some more reasonable choices somewhere. maybe even among the republican party. Bush might not even be so bad if he paired up with somebody other than Cheney. i am beginning to see Cheney as being alot like Spiro Agnew - a ghost of a vp who is pulling a lot more political strings than meets the eye.

 

[adambyte]

Originally posted by serpicolugnut
Anybody remember the way in which Clinton handled Iraq? The day of his testimony in the Paula Jones case he decided to lob a few cruise missles at some non essential targets in Iraq.

Wag the dog - indeed.

Agreed. I never called Bill Clinton a saint. Granted, a little better at being president in general, but still no saint. I'm just tired of politicians pulling crap that isn't good for the human species so they can look good on paper.



I just realized how pointless this is.... hell, WE have weapons of mass destruction, right? Why should WE be trusted? Granted, we're not wholly evil, but we've been known to do dumb things, just like any other country. It's a wonder all of Europe hasn't joined forces so they could collectively kick our ass and install their own kind of government here...

This is exactly what I was worried the 9/11 attacks would do: create a knee-jerk reaction which not only sent us hunting down the guys who did it (which is just fine, I guess... an eye for an eye)... but now has sent us to Iraq because they may have harbored terrorists? Hell, if we're going to attack every country that harbors terrorists, we should attack damn near everbody.... including ourselves.

Guess what: Nobody really "knows" who is right and who is wrong... Christians, Islamics, Tree-huggers, war-mongers, people who like to make whoopee with the lights on, people who like to make whoopee with the lights off.... it's all relative anyway. Respect thy neighbor and shut your trap.

Can you tell I enjoy my philosophy class?

P.S. Don't shrug off the above as mindless rhetoric. Beneath the extreme sarcastic statements lies my point.

P.P.S. Even I don't know what my point is. Dammit.

 

[Arden]

I do! Wait, no I don't. Wait, I don't care. Ah hell...

Toast: The fact that there is radiation at a nuclear-f*cking power plant means the plant is active. What possible use could Iraq have for a nuclear plant? Power? HArdly. Muhammed J. Simpson? I would never watch that show. Nuclear weapons? Bingo!

I think it's funny how France has suddenly taken a great deal of interest in Iraq, or what's left. France didn't want to fight Iraq, but they want a hand in rebuilding it... sure, here's a box of toothpicks. Have fun.

I know what's right: Allowing the greatest possible number of people to live safely and in comfort, without having to worry about wars, terrorists, or the next meal. This includes Americans (of any America—there's not just one), Europeans, Israelis, Iraqis, Kurds, Chinese, Koreans, Taiwanese... basically everyone. What's wrong: any situation not providing for this, or our current state of the world.

 

[Arden]

By the way, serpico, do you think, now that the fighting is over, maybe it's time to restore your original avatar?

 

[habilis]

Originally posted by arden
Bush must improve the economy he tore down in the first place.

The economy was already in the process of tumbling off a cliff when Bush first took office. Do you actually believe that if Gore was in office right now the economy would be shining? Gore would still have to contend with the lasting effects of market destruction rought by 9/11, consumer confidence at an all time low and scared to spend money, and a total implosion of the tech/dot-com industry (which is what drove the 90's economy to the stellar high that it was, not Clinton - although Gore did invent the internet).

 

[toast]

Originally posted by arden
Toast: The fact that there is radiation at a nuclear-f*cking power plant means the plant is active. What possible use could Iraq have for a nuclear plant? Power? HArdly. Muhammed J. Simpson? I would never watch that show. Nuclear weapons? Bingo!

The fact that there is radiation at a nuclear-f*cking power plant does not mean it is active, have a great time reading a bit about radiation on the Web and post again.

Originally posted by arden
I think it's funny how France has suddenly taken a great deal of interest in Iraq, or what's left. France didn't want to fight Iraq, but they want a hand in rebuilding it... sure, here's a box of toothpicks. Have fun.

I find it logical. I'm not President but if I were I would act just the same.

 

[serpicolugnut]

From toast:

The fact that there is radiation at a nuclear-f*cking power plant does not mean it is active, have a great time reading a bit about radiation on the Web and post again.

But it does mean that it WAS active at some point, or at the very least prepped to be active.

Hey, look - I can understand you being comfortable with Saddam being a nuclear citizen. After all, it was your pres, Chirac, who (then as mayor of France) sold his good buddy Saddam a nuclear reactor back in 1980.

Thankfully, the rest of the world community didn't feel the same way, and Israel had the cojones to take that sucker out before it went active. Just imagine if Saddam had a nuclear power plant back in 1980 to reprocess spent fuel rods in to uranium for bombs. Not only would he probably have succeeded in 1991 in invading Kuwait, he probably would have gained control over the entire Gulf region.

And toast - I'm not suggesting that France is now an enemy of the US, but the divisions are deep. And I suspect the information that will now come to light about France and Iraqs close ties will only deepen them. I don't think you have to worry about General Tommy Franks and the US military paying your country a "house call" any time soon, but I also wouldn't expect the US to do France any favors for the remainder of this administration, and probably the next. France's duplicity was more serious than the situation with Russia/Chechnya. You can whistle past the graveyard if you like, but the actions and words of the administration show that France is on the shi-ite list, and isn't getting off any time soon.

From adambyte:

Hell, if we're going to attack every country that harbors terrorists, we should attack damn near everbody.... including ourselves.

The key word is harbor. We don't "harbor" terrrorists. Terrorists may live/operate here, but we don't support them, and we don't protect them. We don't knowingly allow them to set up training camps. Once someone/some group is found to be a terrorist (organization), they are dealt with. That wasn't the case in Afghanistan. That wasn't the case in Iraq. It's not the case in Syria (although they look like they might be getting the message). It's not the case in Iran. In Pakistan, which is a hotbed of Islamic terrorist activity, the government has been active in routing them out, and assisting us in the search for Taliban/Al Qaeda. Surely you can see the difference...?

From arden:

By the way, serpico, do you think, now that the fighting is over, maybe it's time to restore your original avatar?

Probably, but I can't for the life of me remember what it was before the war. I'm trying to find a new one. Unfortunately, MACOSX.com limits the avatar to 50px, whereas all the other VB boards I post to use 100px avatars.

 

[serpicolugnut]

- Redistributive social justice suffers from tax cuts.

Ah, you mean your countrys watered down attempt at communisim/social utopia/socialism? Yeah, we don't subscribe to that philosophy (at least not the majority of americans, at least not yet). However, the social programs we do have in place are quite safe from tax cuts. I understand that being a citizen of France you probably don't pay attention to much more than the headlines about American government, but if you have looked at the figures from the budgets since Bush has taken office, you will see that not only are most of the social programs safe from any of the tax cuts already in place - but most of them have gotten increases in funding.... Even the outrageous progams like the "liberty tattoo removal" program in California have gotten bumps in funding.

- NASDAQ just lost 0.3% tonight. USD/Euro: -0,16% (1.14). I don't see any stimulus.

And the DOW has gained around 8% since before the war started - what's your point? You don't judge an economy by looking at what the stock market does in one day. If that was the measure of record - any day the DOW gains 200-250 points, we could say "Hallelujah-the economy is stong again!".

The stock market is just one area of the economy. It's not even the most important. Back in 1996-97, when we were supposed to be in the middle of this huge economic boom - the DOW was in the neighborhood of 5000/6000 points. Now it's around 8500. Does that mean this economy is better than the one in 1997? By your account it does.

You look at several factors. Inflation. Consumer Confidence. Unemployment. New housing sales. Corporate earnings. They are all tied together, and together, are all factors in what makes up the economy.

And while we are discussing economics, let's put the notion that we are in a recession to rest.

By definition, a recession is "two consecutive quarters of negative growth". Since 2001, we have only had one quarter of negative growth - the quarter in which 9-11 happened. Since then, the economy has sputtered along. Some parts have been quite strong - for example, the housing market in 2001-2002 had some of the best quarters in years. Inflation is extremely low and under control (and deflation hasn't been a concern as of yet).Coprorate earnings, while not stellar, have been pretty good as of late. Unemployment is at about 6%, which is a bit high though (although this is a lagging indidcator, and reports are that by summer, it will show about a 5% figure).

So, while it's not a blockbuster dot-com-goldrush-20-year-old-CEO-million-dollar-IPO economy, it's not as bad as some people think (if I was unemployed, I would probably have a different perspective though).

Funny though - a big part of the economys problem over the last 2 years has been companies who artificially inflated earnings during the last years of the Clinton admin. So the "boom" we experienced in the late 90's might have been more of a fake then we originally believed.

 

[ebolag4]

Originally posted by serpicolugnut
So, while it's not a blockbuster dot-com-goldrush-20-year-old-CEO-million-dollar-IPO economy, it's not as bad as some people think (if I was unemployed, I would probably have a different perspective though).

Funny though - a big part of the economys problem over the last 2 years has been companies who artificially inflated earnings during the last years of the Clinton admin. So the "boom" we experienced in the late 90's might have been more of a fake then we originally believed.

That's exactly what I was thinking as I was reading your statements serpico. Sure, there was an economic "boom" during the Clinton regime, but it was more of a "false echo" than anything else.

The dot-com boom, as we all now know, was a fleeting shadow of economic prosperity that had nothing to do with anything Clinton and his cronies did. (Unless you take into account that Gore tried to claim that he "took the initiative in creating the internet." What a crock that was!)

 

[toast]

Originally posted by serpicolugnut
Ah, you mean your countrys watered down attempt at communisim/social utopia/socialism? Yeah, we don't subscribe to that philosophy (at least not the majority of americans, at least not yet). However, the social programs we do have in place are quite safe from tax cuts.

The public financing part of health is about 40% (6% of the GDP) and seems to be increasing. Cutting taxes makes pub. fin. decrease, sic.

And I feel the same way about Saddam having nuclear power than about Sharon's Israel having 200 nuclear heads.

You wrote "It's a proven fact that cutting taxes stimulates economic growth". I am not so sure the US economy is stimulated right now, hence I posted an example of recent stock evolutions.

 

[serpicolugnut]

The public financing part of health is about 40% (6% of the GDP) and seems to be increasing. Cutting taxes makes pub. fin. decrease, sic.

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say/referring to. Please restate in a clearer sentence.

And I feel the same way about Saddam having nuclear power than about Sharon's Israel having 200 nuclear heads.

Really? Has Israel ever gassed their own people? Have any mass graves been found in Israel? Isn't Israel a democracy, while Iraq under Saddam was a dictatorship? Do you really feel that way?

You wrote "It's a proven fact that cutting taxes stimulates economic growth". I am not so sure the US economy is stimulated right now, hence I posted an example of recent stock evolutions.

Obviously, it's not stimulated... We haven't had the tax cut yet! The last tax cut was (June 2001), was small and backloaded. And of course, it was cancelled out due to the economic devastation of 9-11.

That's why a tax cut is necessary....

But wait-why the #%$* am I even trying to convince a citizen of France the benefit of a US tax cut? You don't pay taxes here in the US, and your country's taxes are quite high compared to ours, mostly due to you governments social programs.

I guess I'm just bored today....

 

[Arden]

There goes Toast, being a ******* ***, just like all French people.

But then that would be making a generalization based on a combination of stereotype and very little observation, not at all like what Toast is doing himself. Maybe I shouldn't judge him based on what he puts here, just like he shouldn't judge our economy based on only a couple indicators.

I'd rather Ariel Sharon have all the nukes in the world than Saddam have 1 and rule Iraq. Sharon rules a democratic country, the only in the Middle East, and he treats his people well, even those who hate Israel (the Palestinians). He is constantly looking out for the welfare of his country while trying to keep alive as many people (Israelis and Palestinians both) as possible.

How often did Saddam do any of that?

 

[Cat]

Isn't Israel a democracy, while Iraq under Saddam was a dictatorship? Do you really feel that way?

You are stretching the definition of democracy here, by applying it to a country living, like the US, in such a deep fear of anything outside it's own borders. While being ruled by fear, a country is hardly democratic. Peace with Palestine would be in the best interests of both, but neither seem determined to make concessions, which is a blame to them both. Israel is no inch better (or worse) than Palestine in this respect. However, Israel has a very advanced army and is an organized police-state. Palestine is hardly a country at all, more a gathering of factions and very disorganized. The terrorism inflicted by Israel on Palestine, heel even on refugee-camps, is inexcusable, because it is perpetrated by a sovereign nation, while the suicide (or homicide) bombers are individuals. If they are crazy, so is Israel as a whole.

 

[Arden]

www.honestreporting.com

Everything you need to know.

 

[serpicolugnut]

You are stretching the definition of democracy here, by applying it to a country living, like the US, in such a deep fear of anything outside it's own borders. While being ruled by fear, a country is hardly democratic.

What a load of hooey! By your definition, during WWII, we were "hardly a democracy" because we lived in fear of the Japanese and Germans.

Israels leaders are held accountable. If the public (or their cabinet) feels they aren't getting the job done - elections are held. Hence the succession of different, democratically elected Israeli leaders - Sharon, Barak, Netanyahu, Perez. Funny, every time the palestinians hold an "election", Arafat seems to win. Hmmm. I wonder how that happens. I guess Arafat learned from his buddies Casto and Saddam Hussein how to have an election and win each time.

The terrorism inflicted by Israel on Palestine, heel even on refugee-camps, is inexcusable, because it is perpetrated by a sovereign nation, while the suicide (or homicide) bombers are individuals.

Do you really want to go there?

First of all, the land that Israel now occupies that the Palestinians claim as theirs was obtained (mostly) during the 1967 6 day war, in which Israel defended itself against the Arabs who sought their destruction. Israel decimated their forces in record time, and as a result obtained all of Jerusalem, The Golan Heights, Siniai, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank.

In short, Israel didn't ask for the fight, but when push came to shove, they dealt the Arabs a humiliating defeat.

The citizens of this land were denied admittance to the countries that lost it, and were left as refugees by them - not Israel. Many have integrated themselves peacefully in to Israeli society and are productive citizens.

Now imagine, if some Mexicans living in Texas demanded that Texas become an independent, sovereign state of Mexicans. It was their land before it was ours, right? Shouldn't we give it back? What about most of the US? The indians were here first. We should return it to them, so they can have their own sovereign country.

Yes, the Homicide bombers are individuals, but they are nothing more than tools of the Arab nations that seek nothing less than the total destruction of Israel. They are taught to hate Israelis without question, and they are taught to kill without question. These leaders do not want peace with Israel. They have been offered deals time and time again (Camp David, Oslow, etc), the last of which (under Clintons tuteledge), had Barak giving Arafat 95% of the land that the Palestinians claim as theirs - and they turned it down. Why? Because they are not interested in peace. Their only desire for a Palestinian state is so they will have a base to which better inflict casualties on Israel.

 

[serpicolugnut]

I'd rather Ariel Sharon have all the nukes in the world than Saddam have 1 and rule Iraq. Sharon rules a democratic country, the only in the Middle East, and he treats his people well, even those who hate Israel (the Palestinians). He is constantly looking out for the welfare of his country while trying to keep alive as many people (Israelis and Palestinians both) as possible.

Amen, brother!

Well said!

 

[edX]

What a load of hooey! By your definition, during WWII, we were "hardly a democracy" because we lived in fear of the Japanese and Germans.

well, at least in the case of our fear of the Japanese this is true. We rounded up our own citizens of Japanese descent and put them in concentration camps and stripped them of all their property and rights. perhaps you forgot this part of american history.

 

[serpicolugnut]

well, at least in the case of our fear of the Japanese this is true. We rounded up our own citizens of Japanese descent and put them in concentration camps and stripped them of all their property and rights. perhaps you forgot this part of american history.

Now how could I forget that - my family is of Asian descent.

We were still a democracy though...

And, as distasteful as the internment of the American Japanese was, I shudder to think what would have happened if they weren't protected and removed from the rampant bigotry and anti-Japanese sentiment that was so pervasive during that period. Hindsight is 20/20, and I'm sure that in our world of openess and diversity, we can't fathom how this happened. But it wasn't to punish them, it was to protect them. They were returned to their homes after the war, and in most cases, were compensated. It hardly excuses it, but in a less-civilized era it was a less-civilized solution.

 

[toast]

Originally posted by serpicolugnut
I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say/referring to. Please restate in a clearer sentence.

Yor health system is largely depending on public budget. If you cut taxes the public budget goes down and the depending budgets too, unless you rebuild spending indexes. 'Sic' may have worried you, sorry - that's Latin for 'thus'. I'm not sure you use it in English.

Originally posted by serpicolugnut
Really? Has Israel ever gassed their own people? Have any mass graves been found in Israel? Isn't Israel a democracy, while Iraq under Saddam was a dictatorship? Do you really feel that way?

No. But that wasn't my point. You're speaking of Iraqi and Israeli national politics while nuclear weapons were/are a weapon of international balances of power. I think that possession of nuclear weapons by Israel is just the same as (hypothetic) possession of nuclear weapons by Iraq. And anyway, all the Geiger counters in the world are not sufficient evidence to prove this. I personnally think that, if Iraq had had nuclear power, he would have used it already against Ame. troops, and he hasn't so he didn't have any nukes, but this is a very personal reasoning.

Originally posted by serpicolugnut
But wait-why the #%$* am I even trying to convince a citizen of France the benefit of a US tax cut? You don't pay taxes here in the US, and your country's taxes are quite high compared to ours, mostly due to you governments social programs.

Can anyone from Denmark post here their average income tax percentage as well as their HDI ? Thank you. Highest taxes are to be found in countries with the highest standards of living, but this conversation could go very very far. Plus, I'm playing devil's advocate as my own opinion is too ambiguous to come and spoil this thread