Impeach Bush

[lynx]

Quick, freebie's on offer at grendelsfire's house - tv, stereo, computer, just take what you want, he won't mind, he doesn't understand the concept of theft.

[grendelsfire]

lol... well I don't see what the big deal is when most people who talk on this forum STEAL from the entertainment, and software companys... Plus are we really using the oil yet? I don't know... Anywho... there is millions of dollars that WE found there and what did we do with it? hmmm... hmm... WE GAVE IT TO THOSE UNGREATFUL PEOPLE.. well a lot of them are ungreatful

[Rat Faced]

You mean you gave it BACK to those ungrateful people that have had their husbands, siblings and children dying for the last decade due to allied blockades of medical supplies, and then finally war.

Wonder why they're "ungrateful".......?

[clocker]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@15 August 2003 - 05:14
You mean you gave it BACK to those ungrateful people that have had their husbands, siblings and children dying for the last decade due to allied blockades of medical supplies, and then finally war.

Wonder why they're "ungrateful".......?

Those "husbands, siblings and children" died not as a result of an allied blockade, but rather, due to their leader's propensity to build lavish palaces, maintain and expand his military forces, and hoard billions of diverted dollars into foreign bank accounts for his personal use.
That hardly seems to be the fault of the allies, does it?

[grendelsfire]

i concur

[grendelsfire]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@15 August 2003 - 11:14
You mean you gave it BACK to those ungrateful people that have had their husbands, siblings and children dying for the last decade due to allied blockades of medical supplies, and then finally war.

Wonder why they're "ungrateful".......?

the point was that if we were greedy and money hungry like a lot of people say we would have easily taken that money.. No, we gave it back to them.. We are trying to help them. We have helped them a lot.. and they decide to kill our men every day.. Burn our flags every day .. YES MOST OF THEM ARE UNGREATFUL

[myfiles3000]

Originally posted by clocker@16 August 2003 - 04:31
Those "husbands, siblings and children" died not as a result of an allied blockade, but rather, due to their leader's propensity to build lavish palaces, maintain and expand his military forces, and hoard billions of diverted dollars into foreign bank accounts for his personal use.That hardly seems to be the fault of the allies, does it?

clocker, sorry but that's just not accurate. There was a time when Iraqi infrastructure was among the best in the middle east, but the blockades crippled civilians FAR more than could possibly be accounted for by Hussein and his kleptocracy. This is not an either/or issue, both American and Iraqi governments caused the starvation of civilians. I don't know the hard numbers, but its hard to believe that the Hussein did more damage than the effect of the trade restrictions.

Do I need to bring up the famous madeline albright comment, about the starvation of thousands of children and adults per month, cause by the UN restrictions, being "a price we're willing to pay"? the US was a primary actor in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. it really is that simple if you leave the biases behind.

Another great harm is the massive spikes in cancer caused by the American use of depleted-uranium shells in the first gulf war.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/europe...ium/default.stm

[hobbes]

Originally posted by myfiles3000@16 August 2003 - 17:27

clocker, sorry but that's just not accurate. There was a time when Iraqi infrastructure was among the best in the middle east, but the blockades crippled civilians FAR more than could possibly be accounted for by Hussein and his kleptocracy. This is not an either/or issue, both American and Iraqi governments caused the starvation of civilians. I don't know the hard numbers, but its hard to believe that the Hussein did more damage than the effect of the trade restrictions.

Do I need to bring up the famous madeline albright comment, about the starvation of thousands of children and adults per month, cause by the UN restrictions, being "a price we're willing to pay"? the US was a primary actor in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. it really is that simple if you leave the biases behind.

Another great harm is the massive spikes in cancer caused by the American use of depleted-uranium shells in the first gulf war.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/europe...ium/default.stm

But why were there trade restrictions? Kuwait a minute, now I remember. Who could had them lifted by cooperating? Seems Saddam killed his own, both directly and indirectly, but damn he built some sweet palaces.


How did UN restrictions suddenly become US causing these deaths? This would imply that we solely control it. We are merely a member. So why do we take full blame for UN decisions? Shouldn't all countries involved bear the burden. After all, it seems that we are blamed whether we follow UN decisions (the trade restrictions) or we ignore them (invading Iraq).

Seems ironic that if we control the UN, then how the hell did it occur that the UN opposed our invasion of Iraq. It would seem then that the UN resolutions are, at least to some degree, a concensus of the participating nations.


I certainly feel that you make valid points about culpability, but to tell Clocker that he is lead by his biases and the answer is simple makes me wonder if you are blind to your own? The answers are not black and white.


As for the DU, I would expect Kuwait to also show spikes in cancer incidence, as DU weapons were used there as well. If we are only seeing problems in Iraq, then perhaps something else is to blame. The issue does merit further investigation, to say the least. America has a history of using "items" before they understand the long-term consequences.

[lynx]

By and large, I tend to agree with Hobbes on this, it was a UN restriction, not just a US one.

However, attempts were made to lift the restrictions, but these were blocked by the security council, primarily the US and UK, so they must bear a larger (but not exclusive) share of the responsibility for the suffering caused by the sanctions.

Sadly, I fear that time will show that the primary reason for the invasion of Iraq was that the US needed the sanctions to be lifted, but politically could not allow this while Saddam Hussain was in power.

Why did the US need the sanctions lifted ?

With Iraqi oil sanctioned, the US was being squeezed on oil prices, and had no way of leveraging the market without tapping further into its own reserves. The US was in danger of being extremely vulnerable to disruption in supplies from relatively small producers such as Venezuela (which sells almost all of it's oil to the US). It needed another big player in the market, and one over which it could exercise a large amount of control.

So the possibility that the weapons inspectors would say that Iraq had complied with UN requirements would have been disastrous for the US, this would have put another big player on the market, but it would have been another one which could squeeze the US.

And so we go full circle, were we all lied to about the reasons for going to war ?

Hindsight is tending to show us that there are no WMD, and probably no programs for WMD. A public inquiry in the UK seems to be heading towards the conclusion that the dossier presented both in the UK and the US was manipulated to highlight calims that could not be corroborated.

Whether you support your country or not, do you really feel you should support a leader who has deliberately lied to you over matters which has and is still causing the deaths of your own countries servicemen ? I include my own country in this.

[Rat Faced]

Open Letter at Congree.org.

September 19, 2003

Representative Matheson,
The Bush Administration has lied to Congress and the American people. Isn't this a crime? If I were to rob a bank and then six months later say, "Yes, I did it but it was justified at the time". Does this mean that I am innocent and that I cannot be charged with criminal activity. Congress needs to step up to the plate and play hard ball. The United States government is not a corporation! These individual men must be held accountable for there actions.

Below is an example of their deception:

Bush Administration Spends Week Retracting Assertions about Saddam's Threat to the U.S.

The Bush administration this week backed away from three major rationales for going to war in Iraq last March, undermining its assertions that Hussein's Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States and its allies.

September 11th
As recently as Sunday, Vice President Cheney, claimed that on the question of Saddam Hussein's involvement in September 11th, "We just don't know."[1] But within days, both President Bush and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld each admitted there was no evidence that Hussein had any connection. On Wednesday, Bush maintained there was "no evidence" that Hussein was involved.[2] Two days later, Rumsfeld, said, "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that."[3]

Yet in March, Hussein's possible involvement in the terrorist attacks garnered support for the war from many Americans. At the time, the widely reported meeting between 9/11 planner Mohammed Atta and Iraq's security chief in Prague a few months before the attack was found by the CIA not to be credible.[4]

'Reconstituted Nuclear Weapons Program'
Recently, Cheney backed away from the assertion he made three days before the war began, that the strongest reason for going to war was that "we believe [Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."[5] But the International Atomic Energy Agency reported two weeks before that , "There
was no indication of resumed nuclear activities."[6] And six months later on
Meet the Press, Cheney said simply, "I misspoke."[7]

Weapons of Mass Destruction
This week, Rumsfeld reversed earlier statements claiming that the U.S. knew
where Iraq's weapons of destruction were located. When asked why the
weapons hadn't been found, this past Tuesday Rumsfeld said, "What do you mean? You're talking about a country the size of California."[8] Yet months ago, just two weeks into the war, Rumsfeld said, "We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."[9]


Sources:
1. Meet the Press, NBC, 9/14/03.
2. Remarks by the President After Meeting with Members of the Congressional Conference Committee on Energy Legislation, 9/17/03, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1204597&l=5426
3. Defense Department News Briefing, Secretary Rumsfeld and General Pace, 9/16/03, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1204597&l=5427
4. "Bush Team Stands Firm on Iraq," Washington Post, 9/15/03, p. A1. 5. Meet the Press, NBC, 3/16/03. 6. The Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq: An Update, 3/7/03, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1204597&l=5428
7. Meet the Press, NBC, 9/14/03.
8. Defense Department News Briefing, Secretary Rumsfeld and General Pace, 9/16/03, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1204597&l=5427
9. This Week with George Stephanopolous, ABC, 3/30/03.

And another one.....

September 19, 2003

Dear Senator Akaka,
If I understand this correctly, one of the conditions of Iraq's sovereignty is the sale of its oil fields to foreign investors. Aside from the more sinister implications of this, does this not mean that we are spending taxpayer money to repair and develop oil fields for the major oil companies? Will the taxpayer be reimbursed with other than vacuous promises of cheaper oil? Will Major Oil or its investors pay any tax on profits they import?


Eugene , OR

Ok, it was just an excuse to bump the topic up, as evidence is emerging in USA, UK and Australia as to the scale of the lies etc.

Which means the I may start a new poll soon