Zappa.com

The Official Frank Zappa Messageboards
It is currently Thu Dec 18, 2014 7:19 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 218 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 4:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 7:21 am
Posts: 1690
Location: SLS
With less than 6 days left in the USA for the mid-term elections , I've got a question.
The House AND Senate may once again be under Democratic control very soon. My question :

IF this happens , how will it alter life as you know it? Will it be better ? Will it be worse ?

Please don't give an answer like " It's closer to getting BUSH out " or something simplistic like that. Looking for sincere statements based on FACT. Not rhetoric .

Just trying to get a feel of the nation this close to an election. :?

Thanks


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 4:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 3:48 pm
Posts: 993
Location: Austin
I hold onto a shread of hope since FZ was a huge proponent of voting but I am always let down by what these clowns say and then "actually" do when elected to the house or the senate. Demos are just as shifty to me. No common denominator within the party so when it comes to making something stick ... well... the result dont usually speak for themselves.

Occasionally something good can be done. Clinton did some decent work for environment and foreign policy but it's been destroyed. It will take a lot of work to clean this current mess up so we'll have to see over time if new blood can pump up this shitstorm.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 3:49 pm
Posts: 1807
Location: The White Zone
More government $ will be awarded to those who gave money to Democrats. I don't think that's better or worse.

The Democratic Congress will not be commander in chief so they cannot really "bring home" the troops. I don't think that's better or worse.

They can pass proposed laws to reverse things they hated--like exempting dividend income from taxation--but the President can still veto them if he doesn't like them. Same doo doo, different day day.

One change will likely be high-profile congressional investigations about the war in Iraq and the warrantless wiretapping program. While these investigations will be chock full of BS and politics from both sides, I would like to hear something true about these issues and such investigations MAY make that possible. That possiblity makes that a good thing.

Of course, a Democratic majority in the Senate means they could block judicial nominations. But they didn't even have the courage to filibuster outrageous judicial apppointments like Janice Brown for the DC circuit.

The duty of the opposition is to oppose. Newt Gingrich was very aware of that and that helped the Reps take the House in 1994.

IMHO, the Dems failed miserably in that duty. If they win, it will be because they are perceived as less bad.

Unfortunately, the choices I had for House and Senate on my absentee ballot were all idiots, so I didn't vote either R or D.

vcf

_________________
There isn't much chance that you'll get people to like you. The best that most folks can hope for is that people will put up with their shit. MTF

Revel in your otherness. MK

STILL pissed at Tipper. VCF


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 3:49 pm
Posts: 1807
Location: The White Zone
Phlakaton wrote:
Clinton did some decent work for environment and foreign policy but it's been destroyed.


But thankfully, the Bosnian war is still over. 8)

vcf

Damnit, I meant to put this in the other one and now I can't delete. Sorry to litter up the thread, folks.

_________________
There isn't much chance that you'll get people to like you. The best that most folks can hope for is that people will put up with their shit. MTF

Revel in your otherness. MK

STILL pissed at Tipper. VCF


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 3:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 10:19 am
Posts: 5323
Location: CT coast, USA
VCF wrote:
Phlakaton wrote:
Clinton did some decent work for environment and foreign policy but it's been destroyed.


But thankfully, the Bosnian war is still over. 8)

vcf

Damnit, I meant to put this in the other one and now I can't delete. Sorry to litter up the thread, folks.


But unfortunatly the half a million Iraqi's who died under Clinton's multiple US bombings and starved under US/UK led sanctions (against unanimous world outrage at the carnage), are still dead. According to the Lancet, US troops under Bush have killed between 127, 000 and 238, 000 innocent Iraqi citizens since the occupation, so Bush II hasn't yet caught up with Clintons carnage of 500, 000, (even though it's not in the news, and thus off the radar of many Americans). The estimate of 500, 000 is a UN estimate).

_________________
Lesser-evilism is war.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 5:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 10:19 am
Posts: 5323
Location: CT coast, USA
To the point of this thread, what will be different if the Dems take congress:

In the area of Iraq, it's likely nothing will change unless the people pressure the politicians. Right now, the leader of doling out Democrat campaign money, Rahm Emanuel the chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Comittee, has worked hard to assure a pro war Congress. In short, if you toe the line for Rahm and the war, money rains down on you like manna from Heaven...but if you are anti-war, Rahm cuts off your campaign at the wallet.

As the man who doles out party money to the Dems, deciding which campaigns will get how much money says:
"We cannot achieve the end of victory and continue to sit and watch, stand pat, stay put, status quo, that is the Republican Party. Democrats are determined to take the fight to the enemy."

There it is, right from the horse's mouth, right from the man who decides if your democratic campaign will get money from the party...or not.

Of the 22 tight races where the Dems are challenging for take over, 20 of these 22 challenging Dems are pro-war. Nice work Rahm.

So with regards to the wars, the fix is already in.

Congress shall remain pro-war regardless of which party controlls, (what, you didn't think money was going to lose control of policy did you).

It's a shame too because it breaks my heart to see good but less informed Americans with hope in their eyes voting for Dems because they think they will be "opposition," will be for withdrawel. Perhaps the flip side to this is they will get fucked, and then join up with those of us who already know we get the Desenex burger either way.
______________________________________
With regards to impeachment of Bush and Cheney, as I was writing a couple of weeks ago, Nancy Pelosi the present Minority Leader would likely become the Majority Leader if the Dems take the house. Nancy has already said multiple times that there will be no impeachment, that it is "off the table." I tend to take her at her word on this because it's what the money wants.

The sad news on this is the Dems could actualy not only end the wars, but also do other good things like exit the WTO, NAFTA, and CAFTA to dramatically reverse outsourcing), cut the military budget (they want to increase it), install government Universal Health care as all the rest of the industrialized nations already have at half the price we pay the insurance company's now, 30% GDP)... If the Dems took Congress they could impeach Bush and Cheney, making Nancy Pelosi the President with a Dem Congress...they would have full control to do anything....
...unfortunatly, that's not what the money wants to do, so we ain't gettin that:
Pelosi: Impeachment 'off the table
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Pelos ... _1023.html

____________________________________
Financially, we will may see a rise in the market as investors would like to see a deadlock between a Dem Congress and Rep administration. This means basically nothing will get done, nothing will change, and investors like certainty, they like predictable things...the status quo is very favorable to the rich, so they'll do fine if the Dems take over.

Financially, I feel the same sadness when I see hope in voters eyes about the good financial things that will come from a Dem Congress. They are nearly utterly unaware that the core of the outsourcing delemmma we face now was actually caused primarilary by the Democrats. John Kerry was the leading Senator on the Senate floor pushing for NAFTA and the WTO when the Dems controlled BOTH houses of Congress AND we had a Democrat President (Clinton). They had to push very hard against voter outrage to get NAFTA and the WTO pushed through. Now we reap the benefits as jobs have been flying out of the country ever since...oh come back and save us Democrats, (forgetting that the Dems were the PRIMARY cause). Ignorance is bliss.

With regards to other countries joining the world, yes they are coming...but we don't have to make sure that the elite make as much money as possible on the entry of other nations into industry. Americans are losing ground fast, at record rates since NAFTA andthe WTO...while at the same time the elite are experiencing jumps in their profits unlike anything seen before. While the standard of living for the average worker in California dropped 3%, the standarad of living of the top 1% rich rose by 113%. This happens because unfair unfree trade agreements lead to job arbritrage. The rich can pay dirt wages and NO benefits and pocket the difference. Vote Corporate!
__________________________
I could go on about issue after issue, but most folks here already know. What I would say for the masses less in the know than those here, is that it will be good if the Dems take Congerss if only to give a good fucking to the voters that believed in the money men that they voted for. I felt the same about Kerry. Even though I morally couldn't vote for him, I wanted him to win. If he had won the Dems woulda gotten 2 more divisions of troops into Iraq to escalate the violence even faster, and Kerry I imagine would have continued his tune that he will "fight a smarter war," and "bring victory in the War on Terror." The war would still be raging, and the ABB crowd would see that they got fucked over for their short sightedness...they need a good fucking because I believe the hope of the future lies next in disillusioned (those with illusions removed), Democrats.

And that's what I think of some of that :)

Of course if this is all too depressing, one could always turn on Air America and get some feel good story's about how everything will be better when the Dems take over. It will be illusion and rhetoric, but what the hey, it's always nice to hear people attack Bush, and it's always nice to feel better. We can vote for these pro war Dems and feel good because after all, a dead Dem baby is much better than a dead Rep baby, and after all, the bombs aren't falling on us :)

I'll leave you with a good laugh, (some may have already seen this):

http://znakomi.com/zappaforum/2006/lolv ... dialup.htm


PS. Hi Pedro1, nice to see ya on here(: Lol, you KNEW I couldn't leave your thread alone :)

_________________
Lesser-evilism is war.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 6:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 10:19 am
Posts: 5323
Location: CT coast, USA
VCF wrote:

The Democratic Congress will not be commander in chief so they cannot really "bring home" the troops.
vcf


I agree with almost all you wrote above and would add that the Dems also did nothing to block John Roberts either.

The only one thing I disagree with is where you wrote that a Democratic controlled Congress "cannot bring the troops home." Absolutely the can, all they have to do is defund the war and it's over.

War is the business of Congress, they gave it to Bush illegally because they wanted to (see "Sleepwalking Through History" by Senator Byrd), and both sides of the aisle have continued to fund and fully go along with whatever Bush wanted ever since. The last Senate vote for $70 billion more for the war was 100-0, so I wouldn't be holding my breath though.

That's not how the constitution is designed, it simply says "Congress shall declare war." Bush and Rummy are supposed to be commander and chief of the armed forces and take their marching orders from Congress. Our forefathers specifically designed the Constitution that way because they were tired of Kings dragging countries off to wars.

The way it is now is illegal and should not be accepted.

_________________
Lesser-evilism is war.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 12:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5853
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
While I do agree on much of what is mentioned above, especailly the "financial teet" poiticians succle because the lack of campain finance reform, there are a couple points I see a little differently.

I agree NAFTA, CAFTA ( I call them SHAFTA) and the WTO are disasterous but I disagree that they are solely Clintons and the Democrats fault.
NAFTA was originally drafted by George HW Bush in the late 1980's and early 1990's. The bill was virtualy ignored during Clinton's first two years as president with Democrats controlling the house and senate. After 1994 when the Republicans took control of the legislative branch, the bill was reintroduced by Newt Gingrich (if memory serves me correctly). By the time the vote was passed by the Republican controlled house and senate, Clinton signed off on it as a compromise.
Of course the effects of this bill did'nt settle in until George W Bush with a Republican controlled legislative branch enacted SHAFTA after 2001.They could have easily overturned this bill.
Clinton and the (handful) of Democrats who voted in favor should never have compromised with the Republican majority and they should have let this garbage legislation die.

As far as the Iraq war is concerned versus Operation Desert Storm (enacted by G HW Bush) versus the bombings in the mid-late 1990's (enacted by Clinton), the world has never seen "real" accurate numbers of Iraqi casualties.
I don't recall the number of casualties from Desert Storm (which is when the sanctions were originally put in place) but even with the bombings ordered by Clinton (with full approval of the Republican party), 250,000-500,000 casualties may or may not be an accurate number. With the current Iraq war, the initial number of casualties that were listed somewhere in the 250,000-500,000 were downplayed by the Bush administration and the Republican controlled legislative branch as being inflated and a propaganda ploy even though they actually did'nt start counting the Iraqi casualties until two years after the war started. We may never know the real numbers for years to come if ever.

I pretty much agree on everything else stated by baddy and VCF.

Not much will change,though things may (marginaly) improve, but until the voters have the courage to elect Independent candidates we are at the mercy of the big corporations and history is doomed to repeat itself over and over again.

Anyways, Greetings baddy and VCF.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 4:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 5:18 pm
Posts: 3435
Location: Between the Badges
I'll add my 2 cents...

First, I'll say its been pretty close to forever since the Dems have had control over Congress, so it would be difficult to predict specifics. Speculation and FACTS don't much hang out together.

Also, I subscribe to the opinion that the 2 parties are so similar that overall, not much will change.

Since I'm not a major political junkie, I'll comment on the... ummm... rhetoric. Sorry, pedro, but gotta add some truthiness! ;)

I'm looking forward to a change in tenor. If I am given a choice between an idiot and an asshole, I'll choose the idiot, knowing that some well-placed smart people can make a big difference. If an asshole is in power, there is little that can be done to un-asshole the administration.
Right now, the tenor of the USA is that of the asshole. We may well all be idiots, but lets face it, on our face is the bragging, pushy, self-centered, me-first, cop-of-the-world, screw the UN, outsource the 3rd world, fearmongering, xenophobic asshole. I'd like that to change.

Maybe that was 3 cents, definately not 4!

_________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Don't Be Stupid Unless You Want To


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 4:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 2:56 pm
Posts: 4716
If the dems take the house they will give Illegal Aliens Amnesty and we will be inundated with illiterate unskilled people even more than we already are!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 4:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 7:21 am
Posts: 1690
Location: SLS
baddy wrote:
PS. Hi Pedro1, nice to see ya on here(: Lol, you KNEW I couldn't leave your thread alone :)



Chuck , I was COUNTING on you being the 1st post !!!

Great to see ya here. Your ponts are very well taken. Over here in Ohio people are swaying quite a bit to the Dem's side and you know how Rep this area is. The problem is that most of them belive that on Nov 8 , the whole world is gonna change for the better.
I have the sad feeling that the war in Iraq ( and / or the war on terror ) will drag on and on just for the fact that it won't stay in Iraq and no matter who's in power in the US , it will end as soon as the war on drugs end.
The biggest problem I see in this country is the money trail as you state , Baddy . As long as we have an economy that provides profits on WARTIME commodities , we will never stop the industrial military complex hex. Gotta have that tax base. And most people that complain about the war , actually work in a business that has a goverment military contract , either directly or indirectly. Ever notice how the economy is good when the ole war machine hits high gear?

Anyway , hope ya had a good Hell-o-ween and I just might have some xmas goodies for ya again this year . :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: mid-term jitters
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 4:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 2:53 am
Posts: 382
Location: Bolton, Massachusetts
The opposition party nearly always wins major numbers of seats in the 6th year of a two-term Presidency. Much hoopla will be made by the biased media of the Dems victory, but consider how unpopular and inept they are if the result is not a true wave ala 1994.

VCF wrote: One change will likely be high-profile congressional investigations about the war in Iraq and the warrantless wiretapping program. While these investigations will be chock full of BS and politics from both sides, I would like to hear something true about these issues and such investigations MAY make that possible. That possiblity makes that a good thing.

I agree. Truth coming to light would not be bad and I think it will ultimately benefit the Administration. There will be backlash at the Democrats for harassing a good man who took bold appropriate steps in launching the long struggle against a looming danger.

_________________
Now AIR can get through.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: mid-term jitters
PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 2:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 12:41 pm
Posts: 13894
Location: From some place in this area...
Clem wrote:
There will be backlash at the Democrats for harassing a good man who took bold appropriate steps in launching the long struggle against a looming danger.


Benjamin Franklin wrote:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

_________________
The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true Art and Science. - Albert Einstein

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 6:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 10:19 am
Posts: 5323
Location: CT coast, USA
SPACEBROTHER wrote:
Anyways, Greetings baddy and VCF

Well Greetings in return SPACEBROTHER...your eyekon reminds me of this little piece of trivia....might you recognize this?...OK, it's officially a game...anyone recognize this?
Image

I have some clairifications to your reply to my post from yesterday. The early ninety's was when I decided to quit pulling the master lever on the Democrats. I used to be a hereditary Dem voter cuz I decided they were "better" years before, and it was easier to just pull the big lever and not have to think too much about what I was doing, (lol, that was then, this is now, much has changed).

I know smarter people might disagree with me and tell me that there have been upswings in corruption in earlier times (pre twin depressions of the 1890's and 1930's, before I was born), but the "Free Trade Era." ushered in in the early ninety's marks the begining of many economic graphs heading off the scale in favor of the elite, at the expense of the American workers. In other words, if you look at many graphs that are wildly in favor of the rich now, their curves started spiking up during the early Clinton years. I don't mean only "free" trade, but also deregulation in finance and losses in benifits and pensions and such. IMHO the Clinton years are when the tide really turned against Americans Joe and Jane's in both the administration, and Congress. Lest corporations going global forget, the country and the workers they are shitting on now, are the very country and workers that enabled them to come into existance and grow in the first place.

SPACEBROTHER wrote:
After 1994 when the Republicans took control of the legislative branch, the bill was reintroduced by Newt Gingrich (if memory serves me correctly). By the time the vote was passed by the Republican controlled house and senate, Clinton signed off on it as a compromise

Clinton and the (handful) of Democrats who voted in favor should never have compromised with the Republican majority and they should have let this garbage legislation die.


lol, yeah, my memory don't always serve me correctly either, but I want to respond to your corrections to my post, because there are some discrepencies.

Do you remember the line made famous by the media beginning in 1992 by Ross Perot, "that giant sucking sound?" I liked watching Ross, for many of the same reasons I like watching Al Sharpton. Both have quick wit, and both make me laugh(: But the giant sucking sound Ross was attacking Clinton about was the sound of jobs getting sucked out of the country if we signed on to NAFTA. Although you're right that there was uneasy compromise going on, it was not between Clinton and the Republicans, but between many Democratic congressmen and Clinton. I liken it to a compromise where as someone's really hot wife comes over my house and I do her. I really didn't want to cuz she was my friensd wife, but I compromised and did what i really wanted to, but officially didn't "want" to. 'Course I wouldn't do that, but it demonstrates a principle of responsibility, the line I saw the Dems cross (and never look back), in the early ninety's...and as I mentioned before, it's when I abandoned my predecided, hereditary, loyaly to the Democrats as the "workers party."

Bill Clinton (and especially John Kerry in the Senate), wanted NAFTA so bad they could taste it. Clinton fought both his voter base, and many of the Democrats in Congress long and hard for NAFTA, it was absolutly not a begrudging "compromise with the republicans." Ross Perot also attacked Clinton with the giant sucking sound warning beginning in 1992, and through most of 1993 until November 1993 when the Democratic controlled (not Republican controlled) Congress passed NAFTA in November 1993, (and took effect Jan1, 1994).

The Republicans took Congress a full year after NAFTA's passage in the 1994 elections. Here's some sources, if you have other data, I'd love to see it.

http://www.citizen.org/trade/nafta/votes/
"In November 1993, Congress passed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), despite widespread popular opposition. ... At the time numerous press reports documented deals -- many unrelated to NAFTA -- that the Clinton Administration had made with individual Members of Congress and groups of Members to obtain their votes to pass NAFTA. ... Public Citizen has monitored the promises President Clinton made to congressional Representatives to push NAFTA passage to determine whether those promises were kept and whether the concerns underlying the deals were in fact addressed. Many of the commitments that the Clinton Administration made in 1993 in order to get NAFTA passed were never fulfilled. Many of the actions that the Clinton Administration did take proved worthless for the parties they were supposed to help."

Clinton wanted it bad, he had backers to support (he's still an A-1 corporate suck ass, and due to his involvement in the DLC, maybe he rates as the biggest corporate suck ass the Dems presently have, (with his wife and john Kerry trailing right behind, (how does one think Kerry got $42 million in a few short months in order to buy the Dem nomination in 2003).

The Economic Policy Institute describes Clinton's efforts to get NAFTA passed as "strenuous," and "all out efforts pass NAFTA."
The compromise was the sell out of the Dems in Congress to Clinton in exchange for favors from Clinton which now famously never happened, lol," I fucked your wife but I didn't want to do it so it's really ok," so to speak.

I really over-clarified this point that this was Democrat action led by Democrats because many people today continue to look at the Dems as the "workers party," but NAFTA and the WTO (wto also pushed very hard for by Clinton, but I won't go into that unless asked), are the reason the elite have gotten so rich at the expense of jobs flying out of the country. Yes republicans voted for it too, en masse, but it was primilary Clinton and Kerry, and a Democratically controlled Congress. The truth is, "job loss, fought hard for, and brought to you by the Democrats." (Lol, the interesting things that are somehow missing from Air America).
Yup, you remember right that Bush 1 started it (when Congress was also under Dem control), but he ran out of time in his term, Corporate Clinton picked up the banner when he took office, he had favors to corporate doners to repay, (that financed his TV ad's to bamboozle the inattentive Americans and get elected).
___________
Just to mention, much of NAFTA was later rolled into the WTO agreements where it can no longer be modifyed because the US is outvoted 15:1 inthe WTO, (nice going Bill). Our only choice is to completely withdraw from the WTO (and hense NAFTA), and start again.

Kerry still is trying to trick less informed voters into keeping these job exporting, money-for-the-rich unfree trade agreements, here's a diddy on Kucinich debating Kerry"
http://www.opednews.com/mccullock022704_jobs.htm

In last night's debate between the democratic candidates, Dennis Kucinich challenged both John Kerry and John Edwards to pledge to cancel NAFTA to protect jobs. Both refused, claiming they would instead "fix" NAFTA.

As Mr. Kucinich points out, that's impossible. We do not have the authority to do so, the WTO would simply overrule any such attempt. Our only option is to withdraw from this misguided treaty which has for years enslaved the poor in other countries, and now steals jobs from American workers.

Also, the original NAFTA agreement was so horrid it was later revised and rolled into the WTO, this happened later during the Clinton Presidency under a Republican congress. This might be what you were remembering?

SPACEBROTHER wrote:
As far as the Iraq war is concerned versus Operation Desert Storm (enacted by G HW Bush) versus the bombings in the mid-late 1990's (enacted by Clinton), the world has never seen "real" accurate numbers of Iraqi casualties.
I don't recall the number of casualties from Desert Storm (which is when the sanctions were originally put in place) but even with the bombings ordered by Clinton (with full approval of the Republican party), 250,000-500,000 casualties may or may not be an accurate number.


The figure I qouted above of a half a million deaths was not only due to Clintons incessant bombing of Iraq (with impunity and not much TV coverage), (even outside of December's Desert Fox), but largely due to the widespread starvation due to sanctions. The figure of 500, 000 is the UN figure, and 2/3rds of the half a million dead were women and children (it's always the people who pay in war). Sanctions actually started before Clinton, so he can't get full credit for all the death, but by far most of it happened during his 8 years of presidency. The sanctions got started 3 years before, and as time went on mass starvation set in. The world began to see what was happening inside Iraq, the genocide was beginning. The world expressed unanimous outrage against the US and UK for preventing the lifting of sanctions, and the carnage really got rolling. The US was losing control in the area, the Saudis were kicking the US military off Arab sand, (where they moved to Qatar, the only Arab country in the area that would have us). Saddam was no longer buying WMD and other weapons from the US, and he was threatening to go off the dollar and onto the Euro for oil sales. The US needs the dollar to remain the worlds reserve currence or else the US economy will collapse.The second largest oil reserve could not be tolerated going onto the Euro. Also, I$rael also controls a lot of Congress (we saw that last August as we stood by and watch genocide in Lebanon for a month), and was pushing the US to keep the screws on Iraq, (hundreds of thousands of innocent deaths are not important if the dollar is involved).

As we see time and time again, trying to exert ones wishes on other country's by killing their baby's just never works. Nothing good ever comes of that, and it should never even be considered as a possibly workable option for successfully exerting one's will on another peoples. It is always the "violence breeds violence" rule that the rich bastards never learn. You know that, I know that, and Clinton knows that, but Clinton felt he had the authority to decide about other peoples deaths...especially untru because it was not Clinton who was doing the dying.

So, that's a little more on where those numbers came from.

SPACEBROTHER wrote:
I pretty much agree on everything else stated by baddy and VCF. Not much will change,though things may (marginaly) improve, but until the voters have the courage to elect Independent candidates we are at the mercy of the big corporations[/i] and history is doomed to repeat itself over and over again.


Those are very wise words. That is exactly the wisdom that is the only way out of this mess. It is also wisdom that the majority of Americans lack, whether they be hereditary Republican voters, or hereditary Democrat voters. The rich count on thoughtless heredetary voting ("I decided 25 years ago that I'll always vote Democrat, or my parents were Democrats so I am," is the train of thought of the ignorant). People who vote for assholes think because they vote for their impression of the lesser asshole, think they are not part of the problem.The fact is they are exactly the problem, and there is no other problem. Ignorant voting is exactly the cause of so much death and suffering. These assholes wouldn't be in power if the inattentive didn't vote them there. They will not leave until people are willing to admit to their neighbow that they are no longer willing to vote for the big, shiny, TV ads.

As the corrupt party's lose their voter base they will be forced to either change, or go extinct. I think if enough people leave the Dems, the Dems will change in order to try to bring them back. We may never see an Independent majority, but it's work will be done anyway, because before majority is reached, the other party's will have to change.

Chomsky's right, the people who are goverened don't know it, but they have all the power. Right now they're too busy to investigate why their hereditary voting just seems to make things worse and worse, (we can no longer afford to advance evil at a lesser rate).

We see fear of the voter's power in both the D's and R's. For examples, take the horribly dirty multiple actions the super rich Dems took to run Nader out of money and get him off the ballots and remove the freedom from Americans to chose Ralph. The Dems had hundreds of millions of corporate dollars and ralph had 3 million and not one cent of corporate money...just the kind of guy we need, not on the take to many corporations...but the Dems didn't want Americans to be able to consider Nader: the translation: neocons wanting to remove the non-corporate choice from Americans.

It's also happening now in the house. Ther Dems have introduced a bill that will make it virtually impossible for an Independent to run for a seat in the House of Representatives. The D's and R's like this bill, they want Congress to be only for Democrats and Republicans, and fuck what Americans want, they don't deserve free choice.

Same in the Presidential debates, the D's and R's recently siezed control of the debates from the Leage of Women Voters who ran it unbiaedly for years. The D's and R's then colluded together to change the entry rules to block anyone other than a D or R from getting into the debates. I still say the debates are the best shot we have of overthrowing corporate power, Nader came within 2.5% of making the stage and if someone like him ever does, the corporate D and R are going to get themselves new assholes torn right in front of millions of Americans on the blessed TV. The way to the white house if get 15% and get on the debate stage because corporate assholes are so easy for truth to expose. They know they are vunerable, that's why they changed the rules.

It goes on and on, but I gotta run to work.

Wise words SPACEBROTHER, God bless ya:
SPACEBROTHER wrote:
[b]until the voters have the courage to elect Independent candidates we are at the mercy of the big corporations and history is doomed to repeat itself over and over again.



Oh yeah, I also wanted to respond to what Pedro wrote:
Pedro wrote:
The problem is that most of them belive that on Nov 8 , the whole world is gonna change for the better.


Yup, that's what I'm talkin' about :)

It's sad to see hope in good people's eyes, but I guess it's really a necessary thing. The more hope they have now, the more pissed they'll be later when they realize got tricked. After a person's been had enough, they'll change. I hope it's before we give the last of what we've got to the super rich. Judging by Hillary the Walmart and Corporate Hawk's wild popularity, a lot of voters have got a lot of fucking ahead of them.

Someone also mentioned something I want to respond to and that was that since the Dems hadn't controlled congress in 12 years, that it would be impossible to speculate on what they will do if they take Congress now. I respectfully disagree. The rule is that what money want's, money gets. The Democrats will not suddenly reject this rule if they take Congress, they will continue to service the elite that gave them the money to put them in power. There is no reason or indication to think that the corrupt will suddenly and dramatically change.

_________________
Lesser-evilism is war.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 8:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 5:11 pm
Posts: 2394
Location: Just N. of Boston, MA, USA
baddy wrote:
SPACEBROTHER wrote:
Anyways, Greetings baddy and VCF

Well Greetings in return SPACEBROTHER...your eyekon reminds me of this little piece of trivia....might you recognize this?...OK, it's officially a game...anyone recognize this?
Image

I have some clairifications to your reply to my post from yesterday. The early ninety's was when I decided to quit pulling the master lever on the Democrats. I used to be a hereditary Dem voter cuz I decided they were "better" years before, and it was easier to just pull the big lever and not have to think too much about what I was doing, (lol, that was then, this is now, much has changed).

I know smarter people might disagree with me and tell me that there have been upswings in corruption in earlier times (pre twin depressions of the 1890's and 1930's, before I was born), but the "Free Trade Era." ushered in in the early ninety's marks the begining of many economic graphs heading off the scale in favor of the elite, at the expense of the American workers. In other words, if you look at many graphs that are wildly in favor of the rich now, their curves started spiking up during the early Clinton years. I don't mean only "free" trade, but also deregulation in finance and losses in benifits and pensions and such. IMHO the Clinton years are when the tide really turned against Americans Joe and Jane's in both the administration, and Congress. Lest corporations going global forget, the country and the workers they are shitting on now, are the very country and workers that enabled them to come into existance and grow in the first place.

SPACEBROTHER wrote:
After 1994 when the Republicans took control of the legislative branch, the bill was reintroduced by Newt Gingrich (if memory serves me correctly). By the time the vote was passed by the Republican controlled house and senate, Clinton signed off on it as a compromise

Clinton and the (handful) of Democrats who voted in favor should never have compromised with the Republican majority and they should have let this garbage legislation die.


lol, yeah, my memory don't always serve me correctly either, but I want to respond to your corrections to my post, because there are some discrepencies.

Do you remember the line made famous by the media beginning in 1992 by Ross Perot, "that giant sucking sound?" I liked watching Ross, for many of the same reasons I like watching Al Sharpton. Both have quick wit, and both make me laugh(: But the giant sucking sound Ross was attacking Clinton about was the sound of jobs getting sucked out of the country if we signed on to NAFTA. Although you're right that there was uneasy compromise going on, it was not between Clinton and the Republicans, but between many Democratic congressmen and Clinton. I liken it to a compromise where as someone's really hot wife comes over my house and I do her. I really didn't want to cuz she was my friensd wife, but I compromised and did what i really wanted to, but officially didn't "want" to. 'Course I wouldn't do that, but it demonstrates a principle of responsibility, the line I saw the Dems cross (and never look back), in the early ninety's...and as I mentioned before, it's when I abandoned my predecided, hereditary, loyaly to the Democrats as the "workers party."

Bill Clinton (and especially John Kerry in the Senate), wanted NAFTA so bad they could taste it. Clinton fought both his voter base, and many of the Democrats in Congress long and hard for NAFTA, it was absolutly not a begrudging "compromise with the republicans." Ross Perot also attacked Clinton with the giant sucking sound warning beginning in 1992, and through most of 1993 until November 1993 when the Democratic controlled (not Republican controlled) Congress passed NAFTA in November 1993, (and took effect Jan1, 1994).

The Republicans took Congress a full year after NAFTA's passage in the 1994 elections. Here's some sources, if you have other data, I'd love to see it.

http://www.citizen.org/trade/nafta/votes/
"In November 1993, Congress passed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), despite widespread popular opposition. ... At the time numerous press reports documented deals -- many unrelated to NAFTA -- that the Clinton Administration had made with individual Members of Congress and groups of Members to obtain their votes to pass NAFTA. ... Public Citizen has monitored the promises President Clinton made to congressional Representatives to push NAFTA passage to determine whether those promises were kept and whether the concerns underlying the deals were in fact addressed. Many of the commitments that the Clinton Administration made in 1993 in order to get NAFTA passed were never fulfilled. Many of the actions that the Clinton Administration did take proved worthless for the parties they were supposed to help."

Clinton wanted it bad, he had backers to support (he's still an A-1 corporate suck ass, and due to his involvement in the DLC, maybe he rates as the biggest corporate suck ass the Dems presently have, (with his wife and john Kerry trailing right behind, (how does one think Kerry got $42 million in a few short months in order to buy the Dem nomination in 2003).

The Economic Policy Institute describes Clinton's efforts to get NAFTA passed as "strenuous," and "all out efforts pass NAFTA."
The compromise was the sell out of the Dems in Congress to Clinton in exchange for favors from Clinton which now famously never happened, lol," I fucked your wife but I didn't want to do it so it's really ok," so to speak.

I really over-clarified this point that this was Democrat action led by Democrats because many people today continue to look at the Dems as the "workers party," but NAFTA and the WTO (wto also pushed very hard for by Clinton, but I won't go into that unless asked), are the reason the elite have gotten so rich at the expense of jobs flying out of the country. Yes republicans voted for it too, en masse, but it was primilary Clinton and Kerry, and a Democratically controlled Congress. The truth is, "job loss, fought hard for, and brought to you by the Democrats." (Lol, the interesting things that are somehow missing from Air America).
Yup, you remember right that Bush 1 started it (when Congress was also under Dem control), but he ran out of time in his term, Corporate Clinton picked up the banner when he took office, he had favors to corporate doners to repay, (that financed his TV ad's to bamboozle the inattentive Americans and get elected).
___________
Just to mention, much of NAFTA was later rolled into the WTO agreements where it can no longer be modifyed because the US is outvoted 15:1 inthe WTO, (nice going Bill). Our only choice is to completely withdraw from the WTO (and hense NAFTA), and start again.

Kerry still is trying to trick less informed voters into keeping these job exporting, money-for-the-rich unfree trade agreements, here's a diddy on Kucinich debating Kerry"
http://www.opednews.com/mccullock022704_jobs.htm

In last night's debate between the democratic candidates, Dennis Kucinich challenged both John Kerry and John Edwards to pledge to cancel NAFTA to protect jobs. Both refused, claiming they would instead "fix" NAFTA.

As Mr. Kucinich points out, that's impossible. We do not have the authority to do so, the WTO would simply overrule any such attempt. Our only option is to withdraw from this misguided treaty which has for years enslaved the poor in other countries, and now steals jobs from American workers.

Also, the original NAFTA agreement was so horrid it was later revised and rolled into the WTO, this happened later during the Clinton Presidency under a Republican congress. This might be what you were remembering?

SPACEBROTHER wrote:
As far as the Iraq war is concerned versus Operation Desert Storm (enacted by G HW Bush) versus the bombings in the mid-late 1990's (enacted by Clinton), the world has never seen "real" accurate numbers of Iraqi casualties.
I don't recall the number of casualties from Desert Storm (which is when the sanctions were originally put in place) but even with the bombings ordered by Clinton (with full approval of the Republican party), 250,000-500,000 casualties may or may not be an accurate number.


The figure I qouted above of a half a million deaths was not only due to Clintons incessant bombing of Iraq (with impunity and not much TV coverage), (even outside of December's Desert Fox), but largely due to the widespread starvation due to sanctions. The figure of 500, 000 is the UN figure, and 2/3rds of the half a million dead were women and children (it's always the people who pay in war). Sanctions actually started before Clinton, so he can't get full credit for all the death, but by far most of it happened during his 8 years of presidency. The sanctions got started 3 years before, and as time went on mass starvation set in. The world began to see what was happening inside Iraq, the genocide was beginning. The world expressed unanimous outrage against the US and UK for preventing the lifting of sanctions, and the carnage really got rolling. The US was losing control in the area, the Saudis were kicking the US military off Arab sand, (where they moved to Qatar, the only Arab country in the area that would have us). Saddam was no longer buying WMD and other weapons from the US, and he was threatening to go off the dollar and onto the Euro for oil sales. The US needs the dollar to remain the worlds reserve currence or else the US economy will collapse.The second largest oil reserve could not be tolerated going onto the Euro. Also, I$rael also controls a lot of Congress (we saw that last August as we stood by and watch genocide in Lebanon for a month), and was pushing the US to keep the screws on Iraq, (hundreds of thousands of innocent deaths are not important if the dollar is involved).

As we see time and time again, trying to exert ones wishes on other country's by killing their baby's just never works. Nothing good ever comes of that, and it should never even be considered as a possibly workable option for successfully exerting one's will on another peoples. It is always the "violence breeds violence" rule that the rich bastards never learn. You know that, I know that, and Clinton knows that, but Clinton felt he had the authority to decide about other peoples deaths...especially untru because it was not Clinton who was doing the dying.

So, that's a little more on where those numbers came from.

SPACEBROTHER wrote:
I pretty much agree on everything else stated by baddy and VCF. Not much will change,though things may (marginaly) improve, but [b]until the voters have the courage to elect Independent candidates we are at the mercy of the big corporations[/i] and history is doomed to repeat itself over and over again.


Those are very wise words. That is exactly the wisdom that is the only way out of this mess. It is also wisdom that the majority of Americans lack, whether they be hereditary Republican voters, or hereditary Democrat voters. The rich count on thoughtless heredetary voting ("I decided 25 years ago that I'll always vote Democrat, or my parents were Democrats so I am," is the train of thought of the ignorant). People who vote for assholes think because they vote for their impression of the lesser asshole, think they are not part of the problem.The fact is they are exactly the problem, and there is no other problem. Ignorant voting is exactly the cause of so much death and suffering. These assholes wouldn't be in power if the inattentive didn't vote them there. They will not leave until people are willing to admit to their neighbow that they are no longer willing to vote for the big, shiny, TV ads.

As the corrupt party's lose their voter base they will be forced to either change, or go extinct. I think if enough people leave the Dems, the Dems will change in order to try to bring them back. We may never see an Independent majority, but it's work will be done anyway, because before majority is reached, the other party's will have to change.

Chomsky's right, the people who are goverened don't know it, but they have all the power. Right now they're too busy to investigate why their hereditary voting just seems to make things worse and worse, (we can no longer afford to advance evil at a lesser rate).

We see fear of the voter's power in both the D's and R's. For examples, take the horribly dirty multiple actions the super rich Dems took to run Nader out of money and get him off the ballots and remove the freedom from Americans to chose Ralph. The Dems had hundreds of millions of corporate dollars and ralph had 3 million and not one cent of corporate money...just the kind of guy we need, not on the take to many corporations...but the Dems didn't want Americans to be able to consider Nader: the translation: neocons wanting to remove the non-corporate choice from Americans.

It's also happening now in the house. Ther Dems have introduced a bill that will make it virtually impossible for an Independent to run for a seat in the House of Representatives. The D's and R's like this bill, they want Congress to be only for Democrats and Republicans, and fuck what Americans want, they don't deserve free choice.

Same in the Presidential debates, the D's and R's recently siezed control of the debates from the Leage of Women Voters who ran it unbiaedly for years. The D's and R's then colluded together to change the entry rules to block anyone other than a D or R from getting into the debates. I still say the debates are the best shot we have of overthrowing corporate power, Nader came within 2.5% of making the stage and if someone like him ever does, the corporate D and R are going to get themselves new assholes torn right in front of millions of Americans on the blessed TV. The way to the white house if get 15% and get on the debate stage because corporate assholes are so easy for truth to expose. They know they are vunerable, that's why they changed the rules.

It goes on and on, but I gotta run to work.

Wise words SPACEBROTHER, God bless ya:
SPACEBROTHER wrote:
[b]until the voters have the courage to elect Independent candidates we are at the mercy of the big corporations[/i] and history is doomed to repeat itself over and over again.



Oh yeah, I also wanted to respond to what Pedro wrote:
Pedro wrote:
The problem is that most of them belive that on Nov 8 , the whole world is gonna change for the better.


Yup, that's what I'm talkin' about :)
It's sad to see hope in good people's eyes, but I guess it's really a necessary thing. The more hope they have now, the more pissed they'll be later when they realize got fucked. After a person's been had enough, they'll change. I hope it's before we give the last of what we've got tio the super rich.

baddy wrote:
Oh yeah, I also wanted to respond to what Pedro wrote:
Pedro wrote:
The problem is that most of them belive that on Nov 8 , the whole world is gonna change for the better.


Yup, that's what I'm talkin' about :)
It's sad to see hope in good people's eyes, but I guess it's really a necessary thing. The more hope they have now, the more pissed they'll be later when they realize got fucked. After a person's been had enough, they'll change. I hope it's before we give the last of what we've got to the super rich.
But didn't that actually happen a long time ago? Once Americans had become so profoundly stupid that they voted the figurehead president Ronald Wilson Reagan into office twice and actually believed the feel-good illusion that we were experiencing was The Reagan Revolution and not The Reagan Ruination ("Ruin-Nation"?) which not only allowed but made damned fucking certain that fully de-regulated Corporatism rose explosively fast and masqueraded deceitfully as a "level-playing-field" of Free-Market Capitalism for all.
Once those gates were flung open the rest was a matter of acceleration into the inevitable which is what we are seeing today.
If 20 "Rs" become "Ds" in Congress who'll even smell a faint difference? No one I know!
Think: Our two most admired presidents: One, a senile old man and next a borderline retardate with arrogance that knows no bounds. And as long as that bastard G.W. Bush can pull his "Our Troops Shield" self-identification ace-in-the-hole it makes no difference at all what number his domestic approval rating drops to. "Bash Bush and you've spat on Our Troops!" That's worked for almost three years now.

--Bat

_________________
Image<------PhotoArtWerk by debutante_daisy http://www.facebook.com/BatchainTheMovie


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Saddam
PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 10:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 2:53 am
Posts: 382
Location: Bolton, Massachusetts
baddy wrote:
The figure I qouted above of a half a million deaths was not only due to Clintons incessant bombing of Iraq (with impunity and not much TV coverage), (even outside of December's Desert Fox), but largely due to the widespread starvation due to sanctions. The figure of 500, 000 is the UN figure, and 2/3rds of the half a million dead were women and children (it's always the people who pay in war). Sanctions actually started before Clinton, so he can't get full credit for all the death, but by far most of it happened during his 8 years of presidency. The sanctions got started 3 years before, and as time went on mass starvation set in. The world began to see what was happening inside Iraq, the genocide was beginning. The world expressed unanimous outrage against the US and UK for preventing the lifting of sanctions, and the carnage really got rolling. The US was losing control in the area, the Saudis were kicking the US military off Arab sand, (where they moved to Qatar, the only Arab country in the area that would have us). Saddam was no longer buying WMD and other weapons from the US, and he was threatening to go off the dollar and onto the Euro for oil sales. The US needs the dollar to remain the worlds reserve currence or else the US economy will collapse.The second largest oil reserve could not be tolerated going onto the Euro. Also, I$rael also controls a lot of Congress (we saw that last August as we stood by and watch genocide in Lebanon for a month), and was pushing the US to keep the screws on Iraq, (hundreds of thousands of innocent deaths are not important if the dollar is involved).

As we see time and time again, trying to exert ones wishes on other country's by killing their baby's just never works. Nothing good ever comes of that, and it should never even be considered as a possibly workable option for successfully exerting one's will on another peoples. It is always the "violence breeds violence" rule that the rich bastards never learn. You know that, I know that, and Clinton knows that, but Clinton felt he had the authority to decide about other peoples deaths...especially untru because it was not Clinton who was doing the dying.


Saddam was a repeated mass murderer and will hang for it. Laughably, you decline to hold him responsible for anything.

The only thing wrong with your "trying to exert one's wishes..." argument is that it simply doesn't apply to defending against naked tyranny. The moral man or country prevents the tyrant from exerting his wishes.

Saddam tried to annex Kuwait in a credible bid to take control of much of the oil-rich Middle East. Defeated in a just war, Saddam agreed essentially to forfeit his sovereignty unless he verifiably executed the ceasefire terms, which he manifestly failed to do.

He continued to try to amass weapons, and tried to mass murder the Kurds, citizens of his own country. Only US/UK flyovers stopped him. Sanctions were pursued to try to avoid another military intervention. Still he killed and threatened destruction.

Saddam stole from and butchered his people, pocketing even humanitarian aid. He, along with a broken Middle East which had not a single nation respecting consent of the governed, with all the danger implied by that given nuclear proliferation and theocratic terrorism, is responsible for the suffering of Iraqis then and now.

_________________
Now AIR can get through.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Saddam
PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 10:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 5:01 pm
Posts: 1332
Location: the other twilight zone
Clem wrote:
Saddam was a repeated mass murderer and will hang for it. Laughably, you decline to hold him responsible for anything.


problem is US is not the world´s god
and bush started the war with the premise that
there where atomic weapons to be used
the true is that as we all know it´s not about mass murdering
(none hang the us army or president for killing hundreds of thousands
japanese)
it´s about petrol, oil, the black gold, geostrategy, and you clearly know it clem,
anyway, it´s stupid to act like a bad police tv series ¨hero¨
who go killing and crashing and murdering,
just to catch the ¨bad¨guy,
that´s for assholes

_________________
Image
i'm totally spiritual


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Saddam
PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 11:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 7:21 am
Posts: 1690
Location: SLS
googly moogly wrote:
Clem wrote:
Saddam was a repeated mass murderer and will hang for it. Laughably, you decline to hold him responsible for anything.


problem is US is not the world´s god
that´s for assholes



This is what kills me. When the US & UK went to Iraq ( with OTHER nations ) it was percieved as the US going it alone. The world cried ' The US needs to go there UNILATERALY ' which we did but no one believed that.
When Iran & North Korea thumbed their noses at the world , the world said ' WHAT is the US going to do about it ? '

Said it before and I say it again. If the world doesn't want the only superpower ( for now ) to police the world ...QUIT ASKING !!

And your right Clem , Saddam did a lot of evil. But now it's about time for the Iraqi people to step up and heal their own problems with maybe finacial aid from the US and NOT military or political help.

And Goog , you're right to. It IS about oil. Imagine a terrorist group getting a small nuke and taking over the goverment building of an oil-rich country. Then imagine this group threatens to really fuck things up unless the Mideast bows to their wishes. That MAY include control of the oil and transporting of it. Would that fuck the world up? You bet it would.
You think the US is the only one's in the world trying for control in the Mideast ? Ever wonder why Russia was there?

It's a money thing , sure you understand :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 9:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 10:19 am
Posts: 5323
Location: CT coast, USA
Clem wrote:

Saddam was a repeated mass murderer and will hang for it. Laughably, you decline to hold him responsible for anything.

The only thing wrong with your "trying to exert one's wishes..." argument is that it simply doesn't apply to defending against naked tyranny. The moral man or country prevents the tyrant from exerting his wishes.

Saddam tried to annex Kuwait in a credible bid to take control of much of the oil-rich Middle East. Defeated in a just war, Saddam agreed essentially to forfeit his sovereignty unless he verifiably executed the ceasefire terms, which he manifestly failed to do.

He continued to try to amass weapons, and tried to mass murder the Kurds, citizens of his own country. Only US/UK flyovers stopped him. Sanctions were pursued to try to avoid another military intervention. Still he killed and threatened destruction.

Saddam stole from and butchered his people, pocketing even humanitarian aid. He, along with a broken Middle East which had not a single nation respecting consent of the governed, with all the danger implied by that given nuclear proliferation and theocratic terrorism, is responsible for the suffering of Iraqis then and now.



Hello Clem,
It's interesting that among all that I wrote above, what you picked up on is that I didn't write about Saddam, and it's also interesting that you put words in my mouth that I "decline to hold Saddam responsible for anything." I'm not sure if the word "laughably" was some sort of low level dig at my credibility, but the laughability of what I (or you ), write is in the eyes of whatever reader comes along and reads it I guess. Your assertion that I decline to hold Saddam responsible for anything is not true. I would say he's right up there to about an 8 on the asshole scale, (and due to the sheer numbers of innocent lives snuffed out, Clinton and Bush up there at about 10).

But to get to the reason I didn't mention Saddam, he was not relavant to the preceeding discussion on mid term elections, nor (up to your post), relavant to any of the spin off discussions that stemmed from the topic of if there will be any change in Congress if the Dems win conbtrol next week. Saddam is long gone, he doesn't have anything to do with that.

In discussing the shiny, slogan extolling, TV politicians on both sides that aquire the votes of so many corporate media guzzling Americans, a common misconception came up about Clinton, and since hundred's of millions have been spent to get the chromium plating onto ole Bill so we'll love him, I figured it was time to talk a little about Bill and the WTO, and NAFTA, and while I was combating corporately mega-financed misinformation on those topics, I also brought up Chromium Bill's deaths in his 8 year portion of the sanctions that killed hundreds of millions of innocents in Iraq, about which Secratary of State Madeleine Allbright commented in 1996:

"Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."-60 Minutes (5/12/96)

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084

You see, the discussion in this thread was about American politicians, and how they repeatedly fool the less attentive masses, (and the second Gulf War, the No-Fly Zone War, got little attention on TV as well, many Dems don't realise it's severety). So, just as people have highly financed misinformation about the Democrats and job arbetrage to exploit third world's cheap labor, there was also misinformation about Bill Clinton's "gentleness" on humanity to dispell. That's what I was talking about.

But you brought up Saddam, and I'm perfectly willing to discuss him. If you want to know where I stand on Saddam and his relavance to Bill's or Bush II's bombing in the second of the three Gulf wars (the No Fly Zone War), Saddam is irrelavant as a justifiable cause for these attacks because the attacks broke International Law, and were therefore unconstitutional. The UN did not produce a resolution calling for any such actions as they did for the first gulf war, (the ejection of Saddam from Kuwait). It's just plain fact that the second and third Gulf wars were not only unconstitutional within the phrase "Congress shall declare war," but they also broke International Law, which is also a second, subsequent breaking of the Constitution.

I'm not willing to consider reasons or options as credible justifications for US military action that breaks International Law, so Saddams "badness" that you wrote about is out of the realm of consideration for Gulf War II or III. According to the UN Charter, another leaders "badness" is not justification for attack. We would do well to learn the lessons of WW II and not allow ourselves the arrogance of considering justifications for actions that break International Law ad valad. International Law is not only wise but it's also the supreme law of the land here in the US under the Constitution.

Perhaps I should back up and talk about where I'm coming from, so that folks will know what to expect from me in discussions of foreign policy. As you can see I am for support of International Law. That stems from the requirement of the US Constitution that International Law is the supreme law of the land, and supercedes any priorly conflicting laws. Being for International Law also means being for the Constitution...here's the relevant part of that:

Article. VI.
Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution ... ution.html

We've signed on to the UN Charter, and this treaty is, according to the Constitution, supreme binding law in the US. The UN Charter specifically defines when it is legal for a nation to attack another nation (regardless of how "bad" it's leader is), and when a nation may not attack. (Thus, in a discussion of two Iraq wars that broke International Law, how "bad" Saddam is, is irrelevant, (and therefore, not mentioned in my discussion of Bill)).

The UN Charter covers country's attacking one another, this is what it says, (and this is also supreme law of the land in the US, superceding all other law)...

Article 2 prohibits any nation from using force against another nation, (including no-fly zone wars and invasions):

Article 2(4): All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

The UN Charter provides exactly two exceptions, Article 51, and the articles of Chapter VII:

Article 51 describes that a retalitory self defence attack may be made when a nation is under armed attack, and this authorization is temporary, only until the UN is contacted and moves on the issue:

Article 51: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

The Articles of Chapter VII provide for millitary force to be used as an option if the UN decides military force is necessary to protect peace and international security. During all the years of the No Fly Zone war and the third Gulf war, the US occupation of Iraq the UN has never issued a resolution calling for, or in retrospect supporting of, either of these two incursions. They are illegal under International Law, and therefore unconstitutional. It makes little sense to use Saddams badness to justify violating the US Constitution, (hense, he was not in my discussion).
Here's Chapter VII:

Enforcement Measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter:

Article 39: The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 41: The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42: Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

________________

In closing, a couple of comments, and a question....

I would be happy to discuss Saddams badness, and how he got propped up by the US, and how we sold him WMD when we knew he was gassing Iranians. There are declassified documents that show we knew he was gassing Iranians while we were building up and supplying his regime. I'd also be willing to disccuss the declassified documents showing CIA feeding satellite targeting information to Saddam so he could conduct his gassing attacks, using howitzers to fire chemical weapons where we specified...who's the WMD attacker, the one who targets, the one who pulls the trigger...or BOTH? Tell me about our distain for gassing...we only don't like it when he gassed in places we didn't tell him to...and the Kurds "his" people? They were trying to breakaway from Saddam, they was no more "his people" than the Chechans are "Putin's people," or the Israeli's are the "Palestinean's people."

Here are a couple of documented cases of a nation using WMD on "their own people," the Untied States. In late 1993, Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary released documents about secret nuclear experiments by the US government on US citizens. Immediately after the "success" of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear researchers wanted to study the effects of plutonium on the human body. They performed two kinds of experiments: The first targeted some 800 African-American prisoners, mentally retarded children, and others who were induced, by money or by verbal subterfuge, to submit to irradiation. The second test exposed large civilian populations to intentional releases of radioactive isotopes into the atmosphere. These experiments were not a momentary lapse of reason, the declassified documents on US radiation experiments are miles long.

So a direct question to Clem, what is your opinion of International Law? What I took home from your discussion of Saddam's badness is that it's justification for breaking International Law, and that you find it laughable that others don't share this view with you. Do you find International Law (and the Constitution because it supports International Law), laughable rules to adhere by? You're support of the No Fly Zone War seems further indication of that, but I'd rather hear what you have to say about about it. How do you feel about the invasion and occupation of Iraq as they also clearly violate International Law?

And in the subject of Saddam's badness as justification for the loving and highly honerable humanitarion correction we've made in Iraq, it could have been a coup, (if one has invasion-like disregard of International Law). If Saddam had to be removed because of his badness, we didn't need all the troops, the all the expense, or all the mass massacre, (which escalated world tensions and degraded the US in world opinion). IMHO, we needed the troops on the ground because our selfless "mission of mercy" needed to top down install a US friendly client state (through Bremmers 100 orders), to protect US contractors sucking US oil out of Iraqi sand, and to establish the 14 US bases in Iraq to further secure our dominance over the area...that's why we need troops on the ground. Saddam being a bad man is just an excuse, a lame excuse at that because it doesn't even doesn't justify all the above action to remove him. If we couldn't do it legally, it could have been a coup.

Interesting that when we look at the pro and con reasons supporting this war, the con's can be counted in hundreds of thousands of human lives, counted in suffering, counted by the starkly unsuccessful results, counted by the loss of US credibility, counted by worldwide fear that the nuclear tipped WMD nation* has learned to strike first, and counted by the sheer devistation we see on the ground. Yet the pro's or the war can be all be reduced to mere slogans such as bringing democracy to them, they hate our way of life, fight them there before we fight them here, and so on. I am not so easily fooled.

Such slogans carry the false presupposition that the no fly zone war and the US occupation of Iraq have some sort of inherent chance of success. That however unpalatable the mass killing is, if we do it, we can bring success? I'd rather refer to Dr. King, or just take a look at the reality of the "success" now on the ground in Iraq.

Nice job, good thing for the No fly Zone and third war on Iraq, the 700, 000 killed sure saved a lot of misery, good thing things are about wrapped up there.

But anyways, to Clem, what do you think about International Law, and the Constitution that supports it? Is the US alone above International Law? Should we sometimes take unconstitutional measures if our leaders sometimes deem them necessary?

As you told me above, "The moral man or country prevents the tyrant from exerting his wishes." I would answer that the moral man adheres to International Law and the Constitution, a tyrant figures he's above those documents.

googly moogly wrote:
problem is US is not the world´s god

Great googly-moogly, that's what Im talkin' about... International Law :)

Image
_______________________________________
* Nuclear tipped first strike nation that has conducted 4 wars using nuclear WMD's: Japan, Iraq, Afghanastan, and Yugoslavia. The use of over a million DU shells in Iraq are WMD not only for the irradiated Iraqi population and their future malformed children, but a 1994 study showed that 67% of children conceived by Gulf war vets were born with severe illnesses and birth defects...right here in America. Tell me about Saddam and our honerable distain for WMD. 67% of US VETRAN baby's being born with birth defects and illness due to DU, tell me about a nation using nuclear WMD on their "own people."

_________________
Lesser-evilism is war.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 10:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 5:01 pm
Posts: 1332
Location: the other twilight zone
it's ridiculous when someone talks like if they do believe
what the bush goverment media department had been
washing your brains with, that the terrorists are gonna came
and kill you, just the same as the paranoia macarthur
did with the comunist thing, there had never been any comunist or
socialists goverments in the world, the ussr and china things
should be called bourocratic technocratism, if you really want to call
that dictatures by their real name, but that's not good for the US
dictature brainwash they've been doing to their citizens last 60 years,
and while besides the twin towers tragedy
there had never been any other real big event inside US
and while in the last 60 years US goverment and army had been fucking
all around the world
if you really defend the bush goverment it's because you don't wanna loose your priviledges and you don't give a shit about the other people in the world,
lets be honest, the educational system inside US lend people to care only
about their family and propertys and how much they've suffered to get
what they have (not knowledge or education that open their vision of the universe and history but only their material propertys)
and do think that's the only meaning of their miserable lifes,
to have more and more, and better if you started with nothing 'cause that's the rockefeller fantasy american way of life dream,
all that's just bullshit,
that the best technological and scientific discoverys
and knowledge should be applied to the war industry first to have more
domination power, that way of thinking is just the way the mafia thinks
'cause they know that what they have is product of stealing other people propertys and lands and ideas

_________________
Image
i'm totally spiritual


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 7:21 am
Posts: 1690
Location: SLS
googly moogly wrote:
it's ridiculous when someone talks like if they do believe
what the bush goverment media department had been
washing your brains with, that the terrorists are gonna came
and kill you,


TERRORISM is NOT only attributed to the BUSH administration and if you beleive that the world hates the US because of BUSH - the shit below might straighten you out.

1946
January 7
Three American civilian officials killed when Nazi "Werewolf" terrorists burn down their house in Passau, Germany.
September 30
One US soldier killed when ambushed by terrorists at Fort McKinley, Philippines.

1948
March 7
Two American diplomats murdered by Viet Minh terrorists in Saigon, Indochina.
April 9
A Bomb explodes near US embassy in Bogota, Colombia, during an Organisation of American States conference.
May 8
American CBS correspondent George Polk murdered by three communists in Salonika, Greece, after he was lured to a meeting on a boat in the city's harbour. His body was dumped in the sea.

1950
November 1
Puerto Rican nationalists attack Blair House in Washington DC, United States, in an unsuccessful attempt to assassinate US president Harry S Truman. One Secret Service agent and one terrorist were killed.
1954
March 1
Five US congressmen wounded when Puerto Rican nationalists opened fire in the Capitol Building, Washington DC, United States.

1958
June 27
Thirty US Marines kidnapped by Communist guerillas on Cuba, near the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay. All are eventually released unharmed.

1961
May 1
First ever United States aircraft hijacked and forced to fly to Communist Cuba. Puerto Rican-born Abntulio Ramirez Ortiz forced the National Airlines Corvair 44O to fly to Havana at gun point and was then given asylum. He was jailed for twenty years when he returned to Maimi, United States, in 1975.

1968
February 21
A Delta Airlines DC8 forced to fly to Havana, Cuba, in the first successful hijacking of a US commercial airliner since 1961. The hijacker was granted political asylum.
August 28
John Gordon Meir, US ambassador to Guatemala is murdered by a rebel faction when they force his official car off the road in Guatemala City and machine gun the vehicle. He is the first ever American ambassador to be assassinated by terrorists.

1969
September 3
U.S. Ambassador to Brazil Charles Burke Elbrick was kidnapped by the Marxist revolutionary group MR-8.

1970
July 31
In Montevideo, Uruguay, the Tupamaros terrorist group kidnapped USAID adviser Dan Mitrione; his body was found on August 10.

1972
May 11
US Army headquarters in Frankfurt, Germany, attacked by Red Army Faction car bomb killing one American officer and injuring thirteen people. Three more US servicemen injured in another Red Army Faction car bomb attack on the US Army headquarters at Heidleburg, Germany, later in the month.

1973
March 2
U.S. Ambassador to Sudan Cleo A. Noel and other diplomats were assassinated at the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Khartoum by members of the Black September organization.
May 4
U.S. Consul General in Guadalajara, Terrence Leonhardy, was kidnapped by members of the People's Revolutionary Armed Forces.

1979
November 4
Iranian radicals seize the US Embassy in Tehran, taking sixty-six American diplomats hostage. The crisis continues until 20 January 1981 when the hostages are released by diplomatic means.

1980
August 13
Air Florida flight from Key West to Miami, United States, hijacked by seven Cubans and flown to Cuba, where they released their hostages and taken into custody. Six further US airliners were hijacked to Cuba over the next month. All the passengers were freed without harm. Three passengers were killed when Cubans hijacked an aircraft in Peru and demanded to be flown to the United States.

1981
August 31
Large bomb explodes in the car park of the USAF base at Ramstein, Germany, injuring twenty people. The Red Army Faction claims responsibility.
September 15
Red Army Faction terrorists make unsuccessful rocket attacks on the car of US Army commander in West Germany, General Fred Kroesen.
December 4
Three American nuns and one lay missionary were found murdered outside San Salvador, El Salvador. They were believed to have been assassinated by a right-wing death squad.

1983
April 8
A U.S. citizen was seized by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and held for ransom.
April 18
Sixty three people, including the CIA's Middle East Director, are killed and 120 injured in a 400 lb. suicide truck bomb attack on the US Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon. The driver is killed. Responsibility is claimed by Islamic Jihad.
May 25
A U.S. Navy officer is assassinated by the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front.
October 23
Simultaneous suicide truck bombs on American and French compounds in Beirut, Lebanon. A 12,000 lb bomb destroys a US Marine Corps base killing two hundred and forty one Americans; another fifty eight Frenchmen are killed when a 400 lb device destroys one of their bases. Islamic Jihad claims responsibility.
November 15
US Naval officer shot by November 17 terrorist group in Athens, Greece, when his car stopped at traffic lights.
December 12
US Embassy in Kuwait targeted by Iraqi Shia terrorists who attempted to destroy the building with a truck bomb. The attack was foiled by guards and the device exploded in the Embassy fore-court killing five people.
December 17
US Army Brigadier General James Dozier kidnapped from his home in Verona, Italy, by Italian Red Brigades terrorists. He was held for forty five days until Italian special forces rescued him on January 26, 1982.

1984
March 16
CIA station chief in Beirut, Lebanon, William Buckley, was kidnapped by the Iranian backed Islamic Jihad. He was tortured and then executed by his captors.
April 12
Eighteen US servicemen killed and eighty three people injured in bomb attack on restaurant near USAF base in Torrejon, Spain.
September 20
Suicide bomb attack on US Embassy in East Beirut kills twenty three people and injures twenty one others. The US and British ambassadors were slightly injured in the explosion which was attributed to the Iranian backed Hezbollah group

1985
February 7
Under the orders of narcotrafficker Rafael Cero Quintero, Drug Enforcement Administration agent Enrique Camarena Salazar and his pilot were kidnapped, tortured, and executed.
March 16
US journalist Terry Anderson is kidnapped in Beirut, Lebanon, by Iranian backed Islamic radicals. He is released in December 1991.
June 9
US academic, Thomas Sutherland, at the American University, Beirut, Lebanon kidnapped by Islamic terrorists and held until November 18, 1991.
June 14
A Trans World Airlines flight was hijacked en route to Rome from Athens by two Lebanese Hizballah terrorists and forced to fly to Beirut. The eight crew members and 145 passengers were held for 17 days, during which one American hostage, a U.S. Navy diver, was murdered. After being flown twice to Algiers, the aircraft was returned to Beirut after Israel released 435 Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners.
August 8
Three US servicemen and seventeen injured in Red Army Faction bomb and gun attack on Rhein-Main airbase, Germany.
September 12
US academic at the American University in Beirut, Joseph Cicippio, seized in Beirut by Iranian backed Islamic terrorists. He is released on December 1, 1991.
October 7
Four Palestinian Liberation Front terrorists seized an Italian cruise liner in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, taking more than 700 hostages. One U.S. passenger was murdered before the Egyptian Government offered the terrorists safe haven in return for the hostages' freedom.
October 21
American businessman Edward Tracy kidnapped in Lebanon by Islamic terrorists and held for almost five years until August 11, 1991.

1986
March 30
A Palestinian splinter group detonated a bomb as TWA Flight 840 approached Athens Airport, killing four U.S. citizens.
April 5
Two U.S. soldiers were killed, and 79 American servicemen were injured in a Libyan bomb attack on a nightclub in West Berlin, West Germany.

1987
January 24
American citizens Jesse Turner and Alann Steen were seized in Beirut by Islamic terrorists. Turner was held until October 22, 1991 and Steen is released on 3 December 3, 1991.
April 14
US Navy club in Naples, Italy, bombed by Japanese Red Army killing five.
April 24
Sixteen U.S. servicemen riding in a Greek Air Force bus near Athens were injured in an apparent bombing attack, carried out by the revolutionary organization known as 17 November.

1988
February 17
US Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel W. Higgens, kidnapped and murdered by the Iranian backed Hezbollah while serving with the United Nations Truce Supervisory Organisation in southern Lebanon.
April 14
The Organization of Jihad Brigades exploded a car bomb outside a USO Club in Naples, Italy, killing one U.S. sailor.
June 28
US Naval Attache killed in Athens, Greece, by Nov 17th terrorist group.
August 8
Pakistan president Zia Al Haq and US ambassador are killed, along with thirty seven other people, when a bomb explodes on a C-130 Hercules aircraft just after take off from Bahawalpu, Pakistan. December 21
Pan Am Boeing 747 blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland, by a bomb believed to have been placed on the aircraft at Frankfurt Airport, Germany. All 259 people on the aircraft were killed by the blast.

1989
April 21
The New People's Army (NPA) assassinate Col. James Rowe in Manila. The NPA also assassinate two U.S. government defense contractors in September.

1990
January 15
The Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement bombed the U.S. Embassy in Lima, Peru.
May 13
The New People's Army (NPA) killed two U.S. Air Force personnel near Clark Air Force Base in the Philippines.

1992
January 17-21
A senior official of the corporation Philippine Geothermal was kidnapped in Manila by the Red Scorpion Group, and two U.S. businessmen were seized independently by the National Liberation Army and by Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).

1993
January 31
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) terrorists kidnapped three U.S. missionaries.
February 26
World Trade Center in New York, USA, attacked by a massive bomb planted by Islamic terrorists.
April 14
Iraqi intelligence service attempt to assassinate former US President, George Bush, during a visit to Kuwait.

1994
September 23
FARC rebels kidnapped U.S. citizen Thomas Hargrove in Colombia.

1995
March 8
Two unidentified gunmen killed two U.S. diplomats and wounded a third in Karachi, Pakistan.
July 4
In India, six foreigners, including two U.S. citizens, were taken hostage by Al-Faran, a Kashmiri separatist group. One non-U.S. hostage was later found beheaded.
August 21
Hamas claimed responsibility for the detonation of a bomb in Jerusalem that killed six and injured over 100 persons, including several U.S. citizens.
September 13
A rocket-propelled grenade was fired through the window of the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, as an apparent retaliation for U.S. strikes on Serb positions in Bosnia.
November 13
Seven foreigners, including a number of US servicemen, are killed in bomb attack on National Guard training centre at Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

1996
January 19
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) guerrillas kidnapped a U.S. citizen and demanded a $1 million ransom. The hostage was released on May 22.
February 15
Unidentified assailants fired a rocket at the U.S. embassy compound in Athens, causing minor damage to three diplomatic vehicles and some surrounding buildings. It is believed to have been carried out by the 17 November group.
February 16
Six alleged National Liberation Army (ELN) guerrillas kidnapped a U.S. citizen in Colombia. After 9 months, the hostage was released.
June 25
Islamic radical terrorists opposed to the western military presence in the Gulf region, explode a truck bomb next to a USAF housing area at Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 American servicemen and 385 injuring more.
November 1
In Sudan, a breakaway group from the Sudanese People's Liberation Army (SPLA) kidnapped three International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) workers, including a U.S. citizen, an Australian, and a Kenyan. On December 9, the rebels released the hostages in exchange for ICRC supplies and a health survey for their camp.
December 11
Five armed men claiming to be members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) kidnapped and later killed a U.S. geologist at a methane gas exploration site in La Guajira Department
December 17
Twenty-three members of the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement (MRTA) took several hundred people hostage at a party given at the Japanese Ambassador's residence in Lima, Peru. Among the hostages were several U.S. officials, foreign ambassadors and other diplomats, Peruvian Government officials, and Japanese businessmen. The group demanded the release of all MRTA members in prison and safe passage for them and the hostage takers. The terrorists released most of the hostages in December but held 81 Peruvians and Japanese citizens for several months.

1997

February 14
Six armed Colombian guerrillas kidnapped a U.S. oil engineer and his Venezuelan pilot in Apure, Venezuela. The kidnappers released the Venezuelan pilot on February 22. According to authorities, the FARC is responsible for the kidnapping.
February 23
A Palestinian gunman opened fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from the United States, Argentina, Switzerland, and France before turning the gun on himself. A handwritten note carried by the gunman claimed this was a punishment attack against the "enemies of Palestine."
February 24
National Liberation Army (ELN) guerrillas kidnapped a U.S. citizen employed by a Las Vegas gold corporation who was scouting a gold mining operation in Colombia. The ELN demanded a ransom of $2.5 million.
March 7
FARC guerrillas kidnapped a U.S. mining employee and his Colombian colleague who were searching for gold in Colombia. On November 16, the rebels released the two hostages after receiving a $50,000 ransom.
October 30
Al-Sha'if tribesmen kidnapped a U.S. businessman near Sanaa. The tribesmen sought the release of two fellow tribesmen who were arrested on smuggling charges and several public works projects they claim the government promised them. They released the hostage on November 27.
November 12
Two unidentified gunmen shot to death four U.S. auditors from Union Texas Petroleum Corporation and their Pakistani driver after they drove away from the Sheraton Hotel in Karachi. The Islami Inqilabi Council, or Islamic Revolutionary Council, claimed responsibility in a call to the U.S. Consulate in Karachi. In a letter to Pakistani newspapers, the Aimal Khufia Action Committee also claimed responsibility.

1998

March 21-23
FARC rebels kidnapped a U.S. citizen in Sabaneta, Colombia. FARC members also killed three persons, wounded 14, and kidnapped at least 27 others at a roadblock near Bogota. Four U.S. citizens and one Italian were among those kidnapped, as well as the acting president of the National Electoral Council (CNE) and his wife.
August 7
US Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar-es-Salem, Tanzania, heavily damaged by massive bomb attacks. US intelligence blames Islamic groups linked to Saudi dissident Osama Bin Laden.
November 15
Armed assailants followed a U.S. businessman and his family home in Cundinamarca Department and kidnapped his 11-year-old son after stealing money, jewelry, one automobile, and two cell phones. The kidnappers demanded $1 million in ransom. On January 21, 1999, the kidnappers released the boy.
December 28
Yemini militants kidnap a group of western tourists, including 12 Britons, 2 Americans, and 2 Australians on the main road to Aden. Four victims were killed during a rescue attempt the next day.

1999
February 25
FARC kidnapped three U.S. citizens working for the Hawaii-based Pacific Cultural Conservancy International. On March 4, the bodies of the three victims were found in Venezuela.
March 1
150 armed Hutu rebels attacked three tourist camps in Uganda, killed four Ugandans, and abducted three U.S. citizens, six Britons, three New Zealanders, two Danish citizens, one Australian, and one Canadian national. Two of the U.S. citizens and six of the other hostages were subsequently killed by their abductors.
March 23
Armed guerrillas kidnapped a U.S. citizen in Boyaca, Colombia. The National Liberation Army (ELN) claimed responsibility and demanded $400,000 ransom. On July 20, ELN rebels released the hostage unharmed following a ransom payment of $48,000.
May 30
In Cali, Colombia, armed ELN militants attacked a church in the neighborhood of Ciudad Jardin, kidnapping 160 persons, including six U.S. citizens and one French national. The rebels released approximately 80 persons, including three U.S. citizens, later that day.
June 27
In Port Harcourt, Nigeria, armed youths stormed a Shell oil platform, kidnapping one U.S. citizen, one Nigerian national, and one Australian citizen, and causing undetermined damage. A group calling itself "Enough is Enough in the Niger River" claimed responsibility.
August 4
An Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC) faction kidnapped 33 UN representatives near Occra Hills, Sierra Leone. The hostages included one U.S. citizen, five British soldiers, one Canadian citizen, one representative from Ghana, one military officer from Russia, one officer from Kyrgyzstan, one officer from Zambia, one officer from Malaysia, a local Bishop, two UN officials, two local journalists, and 16 Sierra Leonean nationals.
December 23
Colombian People's Liberation Army (PLA) forces kidnapped a U.S. citizen in an unsuccessful ransom effort.

2000
June 27
In Bogota, Colombia, ELN militants kidnapped a 5-year-old U.S. citizen and his Colombian mother, demanding an undisclosed ransom.
August 12
In the Kara-Su Valley, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan took four U.S. citizens hostage. The Americans escaped on August 12.
October 12
In Sucumbios Province, Ecuador, a group of armed kidnappers led by former members of defunct Colombian terrorist organization the Popular Liberation Army (EPL), took hostage 10 employees of Spanish energy consortium REPSOL. Those kidnapped included five U.S. citizens, one Argentine, one Chilean, one New Zealander, and two French pilots who escaped 4 days later. On January 30, 2001, the kidnappers murdered American hostage Ronald Sander. The remaining hostages were released on February 23 following the payment of $13 million in ransom by the oil companies.
October 12
In Aden, Yemen, a small dingy carrying explosives rammed the destroyer U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39 others. Supporters of Usama Bin Ladin were suspected.
December 30
A bomb exploded in a plaza across the street from the U.S. embassy in Manila, injuring nine persons. The Moro Islamic Liberation Front is allegedly responsible.

2001

September 11
Two hijacked airliners crashed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center. Soon thereafter, the Pentagon was struck by a third hijacked plane. A fourth hijacked plane, suspected to be bound for a high-profile target in Washington, crashed into a field in southern Pennsylvania. More than 3,000 U.S. citizens and other nationals were killed. President Bush and Cabinet officials indicated that Usama Bin Laden was the prime suspect and that they considered the United States in a state of war with international terrorism.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 5:01 pm
Posts: 1332
Location: the other twilight zone
thanks for the info peter the 2th
but the terrorism is a consecuence not a cause
same as drugs
burning all the drugs and killing all the narcos is not
gonna change the emptyness and pain that
lend people to use anything to calm it
not unless the system and economics that may had worked in the past
and are now in crisis and not working change, but the people in the power
in a desparate act of fear of loosing "their" propertys priviledges and power want to blame anything else but themselves and their avity
for controling even what's not theirs and the whole enviroment and
everything, tell the people that if it doesn't stays the way it is
everybody are gonna die and suffer and loose what they doesn't even have,
even when there's danger the US goverment lend people
to be paranoid instead of understanding it and taking a real responsable desition even if it mean their decadent country stop trying to control the
world by the war and weapons alternative
acting like a crying hysteric catholic girl is not gonna change the
terrorism danger
and lending the people to think that "terrorists" are just bad
persons selfgenerated whom should be exterminated is gonna be worst
for everyone in the long term,
accept it, the US era is in it's ending term (besides england all the north atlantic thread countrys whom took the cake for their own benefit after WWII) and that the rebelions and terrorisms in the
world is a natural consecuence of what they've been doing ti it last 60 years

_________________
Image
i'm totally spiritual


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 1:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 7:21 am
Posts: 1690
Location: SLS
Hmmm kinda hard to disect that one but you seem to be saying that only with the destruction of the US and it's military machine , only if that happens , all terrorism wil stop. ?????
Is that what you are saying?

I wonder if you , who appears to only view the US in a negative way , can see any of the benefits that the USA has given to MUCH of the world ?

If for the last 60 years as you state , world problems have surfaced because of the existance of the US , what would be your solution??/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 2:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 5:01 pm
Posts: 1332
Location: the other twilight zone
pedro1 wrote:
...I wonder if you , who appears to only view the US in a negative way , can see any of the benefits that the USA has given to MUCH of the world ?...


googly moogly wrote:
not unless the system and economics that may had worked in the past
and are now in crisis and not working change


there got to be outside control over US military weapons and economy
not by US who tend to say what everybody is able to have in military
weapons and who to bloke economically for their own benefit
but none is supposed to tell them anything 'cause by their sick goverment
story, it's all only for good of all the human beings...hohoho...

if i were you i'll never vote for a goverment who doesn't sign the kyoto
thread and less if you live in the east coast or don't complain when the next hurricane hits you house

_________________
Image
i'm totally spiritual


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 4:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 7:21 am
Posts: 1690
Location: SLS
googly moogly wrote:
pedro1 wrote:
...I wonder if you , who appears to only view the US in a negative way , can see any of the benefits that the USA has given to MUCH of the world ?...


googly moogly wrote:
not unless the system and economics that may had worked in the past
and are now in crisis and not working change


there got to be outside control over US military weapons and economy
not by US who tend to say what everybody is able to have in military
weapons and who to bloke economically for their own benefit
but none is supposed to tell them anything 'cause by their sick goverment
story, it's all only for good of all the human beings...hohoho...

if i were you i'll never vote for a goverment who doesn't sign the kyoto
thread and less if you live in the east coast or don't complain when the next hurricane hits you house



Interesting theory ya got there Goog. So you want an OUTSIDE source come in the US and dictate what it can or cannot do? AND the US DOLLAR??

Who would you recomend .. Mexico ? Maybe the gawd awful UN ?

You're a dreamer . And about the Kyoto treaty.... we would sign as soon as CHINA , the world's WORST polluter , signs on as well.

You seem to be a great USA basher. Where are you from???


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 218 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], wakawazooinregalia'* and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group