World Wants Bush Out!

Of course...the world is not seeing the good things happening in Iraq... when in actuality not everything is bad in Iraq, unless you agree with the Hollywood type of mentality that the media has made of the situation in Iraq...

But of course....printing in newspapers and showing on TV the good things that are happening in Iraq makes no money, most peope are attracted only to violence and death... so why print the good things right?.

Try the following link if you actually want to see good things happening in Iraq...of course, if you are part of the mentality that only bad things happen in Iraq ever since the coalition went to Iraq, if you have allowed yourself to be blinded by only the violence that the media shows and believe this is only what happens in Iraq...you will not gain much from reading what is on the following link...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



[edit on 30-10-2004 by Muaddib]

bad things happen in iraq = US INVOLVEMENT IN BLOWING UP THEIR COUNTRY AND BEING POLICEMEN TO PEOPLE OF A DIFFERENT CULTURE HENCE SUBJUGATING THEM TO AMERICAN AND WESTERN VALUES --- A GOOD TRAINING FOR THE NWO IN THEIR EYES

good things happen in iraq = IRAQIS TRYING TO SURVIVE AND CREATE A BETTER COUNTRY

Originally posted by SomewhereInChina
bad things happen in iraq = US INVOLVEMENT IN BLOWING UP THEIR COUNTRY AND BEING POLICEMEN TO PEOPLE OF A DIFFERENT CULTURE HENCE SUBJUGATING THEM TO AMERICAN AND WESTERN VALUES --- A GOOD TRAINING FOR THE NWO IN THEIR EYES

good things happen in iraq = IRAQIS TRYING TO SURVIVE AND CREATE A BETTER COUNTRY

Of course...you did not read what was at the link....what people in Iraq are saying... Althou not everything in Iraq is well and dandy many Iraqis love the coalition and what they, and including civilians from all over the world, are doing for Iraqis....


BTW somewhereinChina...are you talking from experience as an example to what China is doing to Taiwan and because of China's history on human rights?.....



[edit on 30-10-2004 by Muaddib]

maybe they are uncertain about a future and flock to authority, maybe the just like the free candy....if the chinese came to america and destroyed the whole goverment and infrastructure, some people would be like YES, ok take me over please...why?? because without the winners of the conflict all they have is a destroyed waste land, so maybe some are scared of the coalition haha hardy har you mean US ARMY leaving them with nothing....now that they have nothing they want what they got and are afraid of losing that too...hmmm

Good things happening in Iraq? Dude some of these folks haven't had power or clean water in two years now. Last I heard Iraq was a war zone, a year after "mission accomplished" there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 attacks a day. Some estimates of Iraqi casualties in the tens of thousands. Mortar rounds falling into our most secure area. Tons of radioactive dust... Let's be realistic here shall we?

US is becoming fascist , so dangerous as Hitler was in the past... if fact they already are... sad thing is US people are a bit blind, well , better tell misinformed... but as I allways thought, countries have the gov that people are... so happens in the US, so happens in Xina, so with those corrupted in LatAm

Originally posted by alexhit
US is becoming fascist , so dangerous as Hitler was in the past... if fact they already are... sad thing .............

the real sad thing is that you are so obtuse....the america of the 1940's was much closer to what you propose, than the america of today....it's sad you don't see how dim your theorem really is.

[edit on 30-10-2004 by keholmes]

Originally posted by keholmesI can�t believe this silliness from you ott�.so seeing as how as many French fought for the axis side should we have treated France similar to the Germans and Japanese?

That's not an apt comparison. What's happening in Iraq vs. Saudi Arabia resembles more a situation where, for example, the Allies would've invaded Spain during WWII - as a sovereign country, Spain under Franco supported Hitler.

Guess we only have ourselves to blame for the current mess with france.

I never said that, but I don't think the U.S. is blameless either. History has this funny habit of never being quite one-sided.

Originally posted by OttsYes, America does have some of the blame but as you well know not near as much as the French and British. So yet again we are stuck cleaning up after France.

There are those who say that Reagan got France and Britain to help in arming Saddam. It would've looked better for the U.S. However, the jury is still out on that.

Originally posted by Otts
Let�s see a well-defined police operation�.do you think that Iraq and Syria will let the FBI set up like they are beat cops in downtown Baghdad/Damascus�

America has enough ties with Saudi Arabia that it could've started there - put up a joint operation with the Saudis. As for Syria and Iraq... isn't infiltration what a CIA agent is supposed to do? Where there's a will, there's a way. My feeling is that George W. Bush already had it in his mind when he was sworn in that Iraq had to be the first target.

Originally posted by Otts
So after hiding behind the UNs skirt�when a little money is to be made all of a sudden they want in�.and you disingenuously claim we did it for the oil, you should be ashamed you even wrote that.

Two things. First, you see, at this game, Canada can't win. If we just stay out of Iraq, we'll be blamed for not doing what Cazmedia said we should - do it for the Iraqi people. If we do go in, even if it's us financing some private companies to help restore electricity, for example, we get told we're acting like carpetbaggers. So it's a catch-22.

And second... I'm rarely ashamed of what I write, unless I'm attacking someone gratuitously. If I ever do, I'll apologize. But in this case... your attempt to intimidate me has failed.

EDITED to fix quote code

[edit on 30-10-2004 by Otts]

Originally posted by Otts

Originally posted by keholmesI can�t believe this silliness from you ott�.so seeing as how as many French fought for the axis side should we have treated France similar to the Germans and Japanese?

That's not an apt comparison. What's happening in Iraq vs. Saudi Arabia resembles more a situation where, for example, the Allies would've invaded Spain during WWII - as a sovereign country, Spain under Franco supported Hitler.

I�m not even sure what your saying there�.I was referring to the asinine conclusion were we should look at the nationalities of the perpetrators and ignore the countries which sponsored the act and attack the birthplaces��kind of silly on the face of it.

Originally posted by Otts

Originally posted by OttsYes, America does have some of the blame but as you well know not near as much as the French and British. So yet again we are stuck cleaning up after France.

There are those who say that Reagan got France and Britain to help in arming Saddam. It would've looked better for the U.S. However, the jury is still out on that.

actually my reference was a little prior to Reagan�but I believe France was there prior to Reagan�.late 70�s and before. And Britain had been there way prior to Reagan. in fact wasn't jaques nickname of jaques iraq garnered in the late 70's

Originally posted by Otts
America has enough ties with Saudi Arabia that it could've started there - put up a joint operation with the Saudis. As for Syria and Iraq... isn't infiltration what a CIA agent is supposed to do? Where there's a will, there's a way. My feeling is that George W. Bush already had it in his mind when he was sworn in that Iraq had to be the first target.

a. cia wouldn�t be a police action so your first example is contrary to your own suggestion
b. so after we start following your advice and start organizing death squads to infiltrate other nations how will you still love us?

Originally posted by Otts
��... So it's a catch-22.

actually it would only be a catch-22 if Canada had acted in good faith�..even after the conflict no troops�.but by the way we�d like to cash in if at all possible. That�s not a catch-22 that�s called greed.

Originally posted by keholmes
I�m not even sure what your saying there�.I was referring to the asinine conclusion were we should look at the nationalities of the perpetrators and ignore the countries which sponsored the act and attack the birthplaces�

The Butler report concluded that the British Joint Intelligence Committee had found, between 2001 and 2003, no solid evidence of cooperation between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

in fact wasn't jaques nickname of jaques iraq garnered in the late 70's

Um... are you talking about Jacques Chirac? He was out of power between 1976 and 1986. Just a note. And I'll welcome any reading material you can provide concerning Britain and France's involvement with Saddam before Reagan came to power.

b.so after we start following your advice and start organizing death squads to infiltrate other nations how will you still love us?

The West infiltrates drug cartels routinely. What's the difference? Moreover, the world would've understood. Specifically targeted and pinpointed operations against Al-Qaeda would've been seen as necessary in the aftermath of 9/11, to bring the perpetrators to justice.

actually it would only be a catch-22 if Canada had acted in good faith�..even after the conflict no troops�.but by the way we�d like to cash in if at all possible. That�s not a catch-22 that�s called greed.

There are many answers to that. First of all, we readily sent troops to Afghanistan at Bush's request (1). So it wasn't as if we weren't helping the U.S. out with the war on terror. Furthermore, when the buildup to war in Iraq happened, we were sending our troops back to Afghanistan to keep the peace (2). So you'll understand when I say that implying Canada is opportunistic is a bit harsh.

Besides, when the pressure towards war began mounting, there was massive opposition to Canadian military involvement in Iraq. If we'd gone in, the Liberal government would've been voted out this year, and I personally would've helped vote them out.

(1)
cbc.ca.../news/2001/10/07/chretien_strike011007

(2) www.cbc.ca...
www.dnd.ca...
www.ctv.ca...

Originally posted by Otts

Originally posted by keholmes
I�m not even sure what your saying there�.I was referring to the asinine conclusion were we should look at the nationalities of the perpetrators and ignore the countries which sponsored the act and attack the birthplaces�

The Butler report concluded that the British Joint Intelligence Committee had found, between 2001 and 2003, no solid evidence of cooperation between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

and so what solid evidence of cooperation between Al Q and Saudi A did they find?

Originally posted by Otts

Originally posted by keholmesin fact wasn't jaques nickname of jaques iraq garnered in the late 70's

Um... are you talking about Jacques Chirac? He was out of power between 1976 and 1986. Just a note. And I'll welcome any reading material you can provide concerning Britain and France's involvement with Saddam before Reagan came to power.

France has historically been Iraq's best friend in the West. The special relationship began three decades ago, when General de Gaulle cultivated Arab countries in the wake of the 1967 war in the Middle East. This policy was seen by Paris as a way of boosting trade ties with oil-rich nations and extending French influence in an area which had been dominated by the "Anglo-Saxons".
By 1970 France was one of Iraq's main trading partners. Diplomatic and economic ties were given a crucial boost in 1974, when the then French Prime Minister, and current President, Jacques Chirac, called Saddam Hussein a personal friend; his government agreed to build an experimental nuclear reactor near Baghdad, which was later bombed by Israel. Arms sales continued apace���������.So why does Paris still prefer to view Saddam Hussein as a potential ally, rather than an enemy?news.bbc.co.uk...

Why so chummy��

Memos from Iraqi intelligence officials, recovered by American and British inspectors, show the dictator was told as early as May 2002 that France - having been granted oil contracts - would veto any American plans for war. [/url]http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1167592004[/url]

whoops

and that would have been just a tad prior to US involvement. and that would bring us back to the discussion about vichy france and colonial britian....and the war they had there during the early parts of WW2.....and prior to that british colonization.

Originally posted by Otts
The West infiltrates drug cartels routinely. What's the difference? Moreover, the world would've understood. Specifically targeted and pinpointed operations against Al-Qaeda would've been seen as necessary in the aftermath of 9/11, to bring the perpetrators to justice.

how many drug cartels has the us targeted in Syria, Libya, Lebanon, Iraq & Iran�.I haven�t seen any of these? And again according to you we somehow need to get approval from the folks above getting bribes and kickbacks�..guess we better hope that the briber isn't one of those we want to target�..whoops, too late.

Originally posted by Otts
�����..Besides, when the pressure towards war began mounting, there was massive opposition to Canadian military involvement in Iraq. If we'd gone in, the Liberal government would've been voted out this year, and I personally would've helped vote them out.

so I guess that falls on the line between politically expedient and doing what is right.



[edit on 31-10-2004 by keholmes]

Originally posted by twitchy
Good things happening in Iraq? Dude some of these folks haven't had power or clean water in two years now. Last I heard Iraq was a war zone, a year after "mission accomplished" there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 attacks a day. Some estimates of Iraqi casualties in the tens of thousands. Mortar rounds falling into our most secure area. Tons of radioactive dust... Let's be realistic here shall we?

A lot of peeple in Iraq did not have this back when Saddam was in power... and Saddam killed more Iraqis than the coalition has killed

Where do you get the "100 attacks a day" and all the other information?...let's be realistic, show me where you get these numbers...

Originally posted by SomewhereInChina
maybe they are uncertain about a future and flock to authority, maybe the just like the free candy....if the chinese came to america and destroyed the whole goverment and infrastructure, some people would be like YES, ok take me over please...why?? because without the winners of the conflict all they have is a destroyed waste land, so maybe some are scared of the coalition haha hardy har you mean US ARMY leaving them with nothing....now that they have nothing they want what they got and are afraid of losing that too...hmmm

Maybe?........ah I see....so let's not listen to what many Iraqis say and let's just believe "somewhereinChina".....

And what is it with that suit you are wearing in your avatar..... is that a Chinese military jacket?

[edit on 31-10-2004 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by keholmes
and so what solid evidence of cooperation between Al Q and Saudi A did they find?

Their mandate wasn't to evaluate cooperation between Al Qaeda and Saudi Arabia. It was to evaluate British intelligence on the threat posed by Iraq before the war started. Their conclusion: there hadn't been any significant change in that threat. It was the West's attitude that changed.

About France...

Granted about de Gaulle. It was part of his aim to try to establish a counterbalance to anglo-saxon influence in the Middle East and among the oil-rich countries - it was realpolitik. As for France under Giscard and Chirac supporting Iraq in the 70's... they were rolling with the times, it seems. The French administration may have built a nuclear reactor in Iraq, but the Reagan administration, barely 10 years later, allowed Saddam to purchase "dual use" equipment from American companies - namely "chemical-analysis equipment for the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC), and numerous shipments of "bacteria/fungi/protozoa" to the IAEC. The bacteria cultures were used to make biological weapons, including anthrax." Washington also loaned money to Iraq during those years. As a study by George Washington University points out, "The current Bush administration discusses Iraq in starkly moralistic terms to further its goal of persuading a skeptical world that a preemptive and premeditated attack on Iraq could and should be supported as a "just war." The documents included in this briefing book reflect the realpolitik that determined this country's policies during the years when Iraq was actually employing chemical weapons. Actual rather than rhetorical opposition to such use was evidently not perceived to serve U.S. interests; instead, the Reagan administration did not deviate from its determination that Iraq was to serve as the instrument to prevent an Iranian victory."

www.informationclearinghouse.info...
www2.gwu.edu...

What should also be pointed out is that at the same time Chirac was calling Saddam a "personal friend", the man who was later sent by Reagan to meet with Saddam and broker deals was Ford's defense secretary: Donald Rumsfeld. I'll have to explore that further.

Memos from Iraqi intelligence officials, recovered by American and British inspectors, show the dictator was told as early as May 2002 that France - having been granted oil contracts - would veto any American plans for war. [/url]http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1167592004[/url]

If Chirac is guilty, he'll be brought to justice. If there's a scandal, it has to be cleaned up. We're in agreement there.

and that would have been just a tad prior to US involvement. and that would bring us back to the discussion about vichy france and colonial britian

You guys have an obsession with Vichy France and colonial Britain. They had a dark moment, so what? Every country has some. Even America. It doesn't and shouldn't have any connection with the question at hand.

how many drug cartels has the us targeted in Syria, Libya, Lebanon, Iraq & Iran�.I haven�t seen any of these? And again according to you we somehow need to get approval from the folks above getting bribes and kickbacks�..guess we better hope that the briber isn't one of those we want to target�..whoops, too late.

I was talking about the cartels in South America, just to say that the CIA and other organizations do have some infiltration experience. And as for the approval part... if it had been proven that Iraq posed a grave and immediate threat, I would've supported an operation there. A lot of people would have. But claiming that France and Britain had links with Iraq in the 70's doesn't occult the fact that the U.S. government was also arming Saddam in the 80's. That is enough to make me doubt Bush's motives.

so I guess that falls on the line between politically expedient and doing what is right.

Yep, and that's the reason I'm glad Chr�tien stood up to Bush. He did the right thing.



[edit on 31-10-2004 by keholmes]

Ott,

You can make all of the impassioned defenses of French policy in the region you want�.and call it by whatever you want the fact of the matter is that France was diddling in the region before American presidents even new where on the globe it was.

Originally posted by Otts
Their mandate wasn't to evaluate cooperation between Al Qaeda and Saudi Arabia����..

Whew, for a minute there I thought you had a gotcha�..I didn�t realize you were just re-framing the argument as your prior was indefensible.

Originally posted by Otts
What should also be pointed out is that at the same time Chirac was calling Saddam a "personal friend", the man who was later sent by Reagan to meet with Saddam and broker deals was Ford's defense secretary: Donald Rumsfeld. I'll have to explore that further.

when he became Secretary of Defense in 1975www.defenselink.mil...

actually it was more than a year later. Although you will be able to find some CIA involvement all the way back to 1959�.you still will find France diddling around prior.

Originally posted by Otts
If Chirac is guilty, he'll be brought to justice. If there's a scandal, it has to be cleaned up. We're in agreement there.

hope your not holding your breath�.that would be an awful way to go.

Originally posted by Otts
You guys have an obsession with Vichy France and colonial Britain. They had a dark moment, so what? ����..

well if you don�t want to hear it, don�t ask the question with the obvious Vichy France answer�.I�m sorry that is French history�.I didn�t make it, but I�m not going to ignore it to make you feel better.

Originally posted by Otts
�����... But claiming that France and Britain had links with Iraq in the 70's doesn't occult the fact that the U.S. government was also arming Saddam in the 80's. That is enough to make me doubt Bush's motives.

I believe the largest weapon supplier to Iraq during the 80�s was France�.they were for sure through the 70�s as the prior post above shows, they were in the 90�s and 00�s. It�s kind of funny but I think that you tried to equate the US selling dual use technology to a turn key nuclear reactor�.WTF.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Where do you get the "100 attacks a day" and all the other information?...let's be realistic, show me where you get these numbers...

I just make them up Muaddib.
Your right man, Iraq is a shinning beacon of hope for the rest of the islamic world and everything is peaches there. You gonna help them clean up the Depleted Uranium?

Originally posted by keholmes
You can make all of the impassioned defenses of French policy in the region you want�.and call it by whatever you want the fact of the matter is that France was diddling in the region before American presidents even new where on the globe it was.

There's a difference between defending a policy and bringing perspective to it and the times in which it was framed. France was doing what the U.S. and the UK were doing - going for the oil-rich countries. And as for American Presidents not knowing where Iraq was on the globe, you forget what a consummate international player Richard Nixon was. But you're right to say that in those days, the U.S. wasn't interested in Iraq. Nixon was more interested in Saudi Arabia and the Shah's Iran... as well as a certain Augusto Pinochet. www.boston.com...

So maybe, when the French and the British dealt with a scoundrel like Saddam, it was because the example was being set elsewhere as well.

Whew, for a minute there I thought you had a gotcha�..I didn�t realize you were just re-framing the argument as your prior was indefensible.

How on earth was it irresponsible? The Butler commission's mandate was to evaluate British intelligence on Iraq's armaments and alleged links with Al Qaeda. You asked what the Butler commission said on the ties between Al Qaeda and Saudi Arabia, I answered your question by precising the Butler commission's mandate. I don't see where the "indefensibility" comes in.

Although you will be able to find some CIA involvement all the way back to 1959�.you still will find France diddling around prior.

France, Britain and other countries were "diddling" around buying oil, just as a lot of other countries were. Besides, Iraq was still a monarchy back then - the Baathist party wasn't in power and wouldn't be for another decade and a half.

hope your not holding your breath�.that would be an awful way to go.

Your prejudice against the French nation shouldn't bar you from realizing - look it up - that even though they agreed with his decision not to go to war with Iraq, the French have never liked Chirac and they'll like him even less should it be proven beyond a doubt that he received bribes. In fact, his party would probably plummet in the polls, and when he leaves power in 2007, he would most probably be tried. Not only do the French not like being betrayed and make to look like fools, the U.S. would probably put pressure for Chirac to be tried.

Waiting to see how you're going to spin that against the French. I know it'll happen.

well if you don�t want to hear it, don�t ask the question with the obvious Vichy France answer�.I�m sorry that is French history�.I didn�t make it, but I�m not going to ignore it to make you feel better.

And you're acting as though this is the only relevant part of French history. What if I were to say that from now on my opinion of the United States will be based on slavery, the Ku Klux Klan and the internment of Japanese during the war?

It�s kind of funny but I think that you tried to equate the US selling dual use technology to a turn key nuclear reactor�.WTF.

Biological weapons and a lot of Scud missiles aren't as bad as one nuclear reactor? Interesting.

Thread original topic ....

In South Africa an internet pole at www.news24.com...

was 66% for John Kerry and 34% for George Bush when I looked a few minutes ago -

Although a small sample, seems to be the overall feeling around here.

Originally posted by Otts
There's a difference between defending a policy and bringing perspective to it and the times in which it was framed. France was doing what the U.S. and the UK were doing - going for the oil-rich countries.

All I would say is that is a little revisionist. You must be forgetting at that time the US was an oil-rich country��politically that wasn�t a very large motivation at the time.

Originally posted by Otts
How on earth was it irresponsible?

the basis for that particular line was your silly implication that the US should have somehow held countries accountable for terrorism based upon the nation of birth for the folks involved in 911.

Originally posted by Otts
Your prejudice against the French nation shouldn't bar you from realizing - look it up - that even though they agreed with his decision not to go to war with Iraq, the French have never liked Chirac and they'll like him even less should it be proven beyond a doubt that he received bribes.

uh, just a question if they�ve never liked him why do they keep putting him in ever higher offices, that seems kind of stupid......whoops forgot we are discussing france

Originally posted by Otts
And you're acting as though this is the only relevant part of French history. What if I were to say that from now on my opinion of the United States will be based on slavery, the Ku Klux Klan and the internment of Japanese during the war?

I�d say�.damn democrats that�s what we as a nation get for letting them make decisions.

Originally posted by Otts
Biological weapons and a lot of Scud missiles aren't as bad as one nuclear reactor? Interesting.

uhhhh, scuds are Russian aren�t they?


[edit on 31-10-2004 by keholmes]

Originally posted by twitchy
I just make them up Muaddib.

Your right man, Iraq is a shinning beacon of hope for the rest of the islamic world and everything is peaches there. You gonna help them clean up the Depleted Uranium?

Yeah it does seem you made up the "100 attacks a day".....

Did i say that everything is peachy in Iraq?....

Are things peachy anywhere in the world at this moment?....