OT - Innocent men held as Guantanamo Bay prisoners

I suspect any such 'intelligence' was simply invented for reasons of political expediency.

Saddam would never have tolerated an alternate power base in Iraq.

Graham

But they are 'very Islamic'. Women in Basra for example now have to wear the veil under threat of punishment whereas under Saddam they didn't have to.

What a great result for 'democracy' !

Graham

You have an interesting view of history.

Do you have any references for me to read?

When did this happen?

At thhe time of the military build up ans invasion of iraq all evidence suggests that iraq was essentially wmd free.

Bye. Jasen

If it was the least bit credible, don't you think Bush & co would be actually pointing to it, instead of doing the wink wink routine - implying without actually saying, to convince the less intelligent half of the country without actually saying what the more intelligent half would immediatley prove a lie?

As a mater of stated policy and eventually law, yes.

As a matter of under the table reality, no. Ronald Reagan, Oliver North, Iran-contra....

That was before Clinton's time. Remember Bush Sr. was president during the invasion of Kuwait and Gulf War round 1.

I am thinking specifically about Iran and Kuwait. In the case of Iran, the USA (along with a number of Western European countries) backed Saddam and Iraq in escalating long-standing disputes into a war. Saddam used all sorts of nasty weapons on Iran - weapons supplied by the West, paid for by the West, and deployed by people trained by the West (not just USA alone). Oh, and the USA also provided arms to Iran at the time

- they wanted Iran to lose, but not too quickly. In the case of Kuwait, the USA encouraged Kuwait to drill for oil under Iraqi territory as a way of forcibly taking debt repayment owed them. When Saddam started threatening Kuwait, the USA told him explicitly that any Iraqi-Kuwait disagreements were a local issue that the USA would not involve itself in - i.e., invade Kuwait if you want.

With a great deal of fantasy, I can imagine them. The trouble with your argument is, those nuclear weapons are just that - imagination.

I've no doubt that Saddam would have liked to have nuclear weapons and missiles capable of delivering them. The fact is, however, that he was never even close to getting nuclear weapons, and never would be. If there had been real evidence for this, why would the USA (and allies) "intelligence" service make up evidence?

Indeed.

I didn't think the USA (the administration, that is, not the American people) felt it had any obligations regarding the global political community. That attitude, more than anything else, is what has turned its former allies steadily more against it.

Well, I'm sure it was wrapped up in nice diplomatic terms, but that's the jist of it.

International surveys have found that people around the world think the USA is the current biggest to global safety, peace and freedom. Oh, wait, it's a thugocracy - so you are right after all.

Yes, I missed all the evidence. So did everybody else - because it wasn't there. It was completely fabricated from start to finish, partly by the Bush administration, partly by tortured "terrorist suspects" (who would say anything for a single good night's sleep), and partly by "informants" who played the Americans for fools for their own political gains.

Saddam *did* have chemical weapons before - the West knows that for a fact, because they've still got the receipts. But any that might have been left (not that there is any evidence that there were chemical weapons that had not been destroyed) were out of date, and completely harmless, long before Bush (junior) invaded. That was also known for a fact, because the weapon inspections, sanctions and controls *worked*.

So does that mean that Saddam was USA's friend, since al Queda is it's enemy? Or perhaps that al Queda is the USA's friend? Your logic seems a little confused. To simplify things for you, Saddam was enemies with almost everyone (at least, after the West deserted him). al Queda is also enemies with almost everyone (at least, until the USA turned them into folk heroes in the eyes of many in the middle east). Saddam and al Queda did *not* have any meetings - it was all fabrication by people who wanted the USA to topple Saddam.

What's an Iraqi?

No, 1990 was still Bush-Daddy.

It ain't only furriners that wonder what happened to the American Dream.

This was supposed to be the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. Now we're a bunch of sniveling cowards endorsing stupid wasteful immoral wars on people who have never done _anything_ to harm "us". Or should I say, "US".

There's an infection in the spirit of Americans, but I think we can excise it, if we all clue up:

War is bad. People who make war are bad people.

You don't have to ally with the warmakers. You have the power to choose to not be a bad person.

I'll say that again: You have the power to choose to not be a bad person.

Do I have to shout it?

YOU HAVE THE POWER TO CHOOSE TO NOT BE A BAD PERSON!!!!!

Just don't support and endorse the warlovers. It's that simple.

Good Luck! Rich

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 10:19:27 +0200, David Brown wrote: ...

There are rumblings in the media that some senators and congressfolk might be cluing up here.

Thanks! Rich

But, Spehro, aren't you talking about dried leaves, loose? Like a pile of leaves, like we used to jump into?

From my memories of leaves, and compost piles, I could certainly see a windrow of leaves like yours fitting into Fred's box, if they were chopped or crushed appropriately. ;-)

When I was a kid, Dad got a "leaf mulcher" attachment for the lawnmower, that just chopped up the leaves and left the little leaf bits lying there on the ground alongside the grass. It was small bits, and the leaves were dry, so they didn't gum up the mower's chamber like fresh grass would if you didn't eject it - they just fell. Of course, this was during autumn dry leaf harvest time, so the lawn didn't need a lot of mowing anyway, since it was pretty much hibernating. Us kids were almost disappointed, since we no longer had those beautiful piles of leaves to play in, and I do really miss the aroma of burning leaves.

Thanks, Rich

Good Grief, Jim! I've got almost a half-dozen of them that I'm not really using, other than for show, as you might have noticed - just jump in that lavishly-fueled SUV of yours, pack a couple gallons of spare water and gasoline, and come on down and pick up a few! I'm in Whittier, which is closer to Arizona than San Francisco is, and heck, since you're self- employed, your time should be yours to spend as you see fit, right?

Frankly, as I contemplate the prospect of Jim Thompson showing up at my door, I'm tempted to say, "Hey, wanna see me shit my pants in real- time?"

Thanks! Rich

All I see is "reversed this, reversed that, national average, reputation," with no indication of what the substance of the reversals or decisions was.

Are you saying that the Circuit Courts are irrelevant, or that the Supreme Court is showing bias? That doesn't necessarily have to be an either-or thing - both could be taking place; I'm just not sure which you are saying, or something else, by quoting that paragraph.

What in the world is this, and from where did it come?

I personally think that that particular comparison is something that it's abysmally stupid to do in a blanket, "all A are B" type of fashion. Some educators know better than some parents, and some parents know better than some educators.

The quesion is, in whose hands should "we" put the children?

Should everybody in the world be held to the same standard, or is Freedom better?

Thanks, Rich

You're obviously joking here, albeit it's kind of a sick joke. But then again, you're kind of a sick man, so what should we expect?

You've clearly been on the side of the bullies for all of your long life, and have never empathized with the plight of your victims. You think that the power to destroy is the same as strength. You are wrong.

Guerilla war doesn't need to be taught. Self-defense is inherent in all beings who deserve Life.

Good Luck! Rich

If I was walking down the street, and encountered two men, one Irani and one Iraqi, would I be able to tell the difference?

How about if there were a Republican and a Democrat with them?

Thanks, Rich

So what? I think the reason that Dubya and his crowd don't want that to happen is becaues they'd have to acknowledge that the Shia are sitting on the last politically correct oil on the planet.

Let's just open the Seventh Seal and be done with it, let the chips fall where they may, and catch as catch can. If you choose life, go with the life light, and if you choose death, go with the death light. Howcome that's so damn confusing for so many people?

Thanks, Rich

snipped-for-privacy@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote in news:dlu2ve$cra$ snipped-for-privacy@blue.rahul.net:

Well,that's your problem;"well-discredited",only to you libDems.

David Brown wrote in news:4382e729$ snipped-for-privacy@news.wineasy.se:

Strange;Iraq's arms were Soviet weaponry.

No,we stopped selling them arms after the Shah was deposed.

What a load of horsemanure.

No,a stupid ambassador(Clinton's?) did that.

No,he had 500 tons of uranium ore,some refined,and had a weapons program.

You have no proof that they made up anything.

Actually,the US leadership realizes that what happens to other countries also affects the US.And our "former allies" were already turning before any of this began;simple jealousy.

Yeah,in your dreams.

They so quickly forget who it is that secured and continues to secure their freedom.and surveys are only as good as the questions asked,and how the people have been propagandized.(by the Old Media)

Even the UN Duelfer Report says so. You're just in denial of facts.

(Germany,France and Russia)

AlQueda was NOT Iraq's enemy.

No,you are. Of course,that happens when you discard crucial data that does not fit your concept.