ThinkFast: September 14, 2007
ThinkFast: September 14, 2007
The mother of Sgt. Omar Mora, the soldier who co-authored a New York Times op-ed critical of the Bush administration’s policies in Iraq, is calling on the Army to explain her son’s death. “I want to know all the details of how he died. I want to know the truth,” said Olga Capetillo.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is “leaving office quietly today with a low-key farewell address to Justice Department employees in Washington.” One former senior official said that Gonzales had been “just sort of drifting off” and “minimizing his activity” for some time.
A new survey by a British polling agency suggests that the Iraqi civilian death toll from the war could be more than 1.2 million. The agency said it drew its conclusion from responses to the question about those living under one roof: “How many members of your household, if any, have died as a result of the conflict in Iraq since 2003?”
Bill Allen, the former head of Alaskan oil company VECO Corp., “admitted yesterday in court that he bribed three Alska legislators,” including Ben Stevens, the son of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK). The elder Stevens is currently the target of a federal investigation also involving VECO.
Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said that, while he was aware of “subprime” lending practices, he failed to see early on that “an explosion of mortgages to people with questionable credit histories could pose a danger to the economy.” “I didn’t get it” until later on, said Greenspan.
Consumer confidence dropped from 89.3 in August to 71.1 in September, its “lowest point in nearly 1 1/2 years as a deep housing slump and a credit crunch made people more worried about the country’s economic health as well as their own.”
Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee announced Thursday that they will meet on Sept. 20 to consider “a bill to provide for limitations in certain communications between the Department of Justice and the White House.”
The cost of health insurance in the United States climbed nearly twice as fast as wages in the first half of 2007. Kaiser vice-president Gary Claxton said, “In 2007, the increase in health insurance premiums was about twice the rate of inflation and not quite twice the increase in workers’ pay.”
And finally: At the White House remembrance ceremony for 9/11 victims on Monday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s outfit was “almost perfect — except for that pesky leaf stuck in her hair. Fortunately, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Steve Johnson was there to clean up Condi’s hair. After all, any EPA employee is supposed to be good at cleaning things up.” See picture HERE.
What did we miss? Let us know in the comments section.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
A new survey by a British polling agency suggests that the Iraqi civilian death toll from the war could be more than 1.2 million
This number should be headlining every MSM channel in the Nation.
Between the invasion, sectarian fighting & ethnic cleansing this death toll is not only alarming, it's sickening.
Can any Troll out there claim these tolls are justified?
I didn't think so.
September 14th, 2007 at 9:13 am“I didn’t get it†until later on, said Greenspan."
And when he did "get it", he did nothing to stop the practice. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that making sub-prime loans to people who can't afford them is going to one day affect the economy. Greenspan is solely responsible for the mess our economy is in today.
September 14th, 2007 at 9:14 amFormer Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said that, while he was aware of “subprime†lending practices, he failed to see early on that “an explosion of mortgages to people with questionable credit histories could pose a danger to the economy.†“I didn’t get it†until later on, said Greenspan.
Just like he kept NOT seeing a coming recession, until one day he suddenly announced that he saw it, but that it had ended two months previously and we were now in a recovery.
September 14th, 2007 at 9:14 amSo who's worse, Greenspan or bush? They're both pretty bad aren't they?
September 14th, 2007 at 9:16 amThis number should be headlining every MSM channel in the Nation.
Don't hold your breath. The MSM isn't going to change its ways until it is forced to change them. And the internet may just be what we need to force them to start really reporting the news. I don't frequent any main stream media and many people I know do the same. I get all my news from blogs. Except there is a bit of a quandary. The blogs get the news from the MSM.
September 14th, 2007 at 9:17 amThank you for your service to our country, Gonzales. At least SOME people appreciate the significance of our current war.
September 14th, 2007 at 9:19 amNew sign on Oval Office door:
Will Kill For Oil
September 14th, 2007 at 9:19 amMore than 12 million civilians were killed during WWII.
September 14th, 2007 at 9:21 amAttorney General Alberto Gonzales is “leaving office quietly today with a low-key farewell address to Justice Department employees in Washington.â€
will there be no good-bye cake?
September 14th, 2007 at 9:23 am#
More than 12 million civilians were killed during WWII.
Comment by Jake D. — September 14, 2007 @ 9:21 am
That doesn't justify the killing in Iraq, just because it's less.
September 14th, 2007 at 9:24 amLast year, a study in the medical journal Lancet put the number at 654,965, which Iraq's government has dismissed as "ridiculous."
September 14th, 2007 at 9:25 amBank-run, UK style...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/09/14/bcnnorth414.xml
September 14th, 2007 at 9:25 amThe cost of health insurance in the United States climbed nearly twice as fast as wages in the first half of 2007.
Here's what Dennis Kucinich has to say about health care in our country:
And he is right. We are paying more so that the for profit health care companies can pay higher dividends to their stock holders and better compensation packages to their executives. Is that where we want our health care dollars to go? I heard Kucinich on the radio the other day talking about "Medicare for all", a single payer system. He has hired experts to study this and he says that if we extended Medicare to all Americans, our health care costs would be 1/3 what they are now under our for profit system. And this includes increasing the fees we are paying now to doctors. Bush has been trying to starve Medicare to death since he has been in office by lowering fees to doctors to the point where they won't take Medicare patients.
The United States is the only industrialized nation who thinks that health is a privilege and not a right. And that is so wrong.
Kucinich is the only candidate for President who supports a single payer system. The other Democratic candidates are too afraid of the Health Care lobby to propose putting them out of business.
September 14th, 2007 at 9:26 amIraqbodycount.org (not sure who's behind this site) has the civilian deaths at between 72,000-79,000 Iraqis.
September 14th, 2007 at 9:27 amThis number should be headlining every MSM channel in the Nation.
The way I see it, the MSM is at least 1% at fault for this war. At 1.2 million deaths the MSM is indirectly responsible for 120,000 of those dead.
September 14th, 2007 at 9:27 amJake D. sez:
And about 1.5 million civilians died during the Khymer Rouge massacre.
My statistic is at least as relevant as yours, Shakey.
September 14th, 2007 at 9:27 amThank you for your service to our country, Gonzales. At least SOME people appreciate the significance of our current war.
Comment by Jake D. — September 14, 2007 @ 9:19 am
Gonzales has nothing to do with our occupation of Iraq. Talk about your oxymorons.
September 14th, 2007 at 9:28 amFormer Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said that, while he was aware of “subprime†lending practices, he failed to see early on that “an explosion of mortgages to people with questionable credit histories could pose a danger to the economy.†“I didn’t get it†until later on, said Greenspan.
Curiously, is exactly the same that happened with the .COM bubble: greedy lenders giving happily, without all the legal checks and balances, willing to have a quick and enormous kickback. Of course, bubbles tend to explode, but by then, the peskier of the lenders have milked the system, made the big bucks, and changed bussiness.
The cost of health insurance in the United States climbed nearly twice as fast as wages in the first half of 2007. Kaiser vice-president Gary Claxton said, “In 2007, the increase in health insurance premiums was about twice the rate of inflation and not quite twice the increase in workers’ pay.â€
Again, too many greedy middle men (read private insurance).
And finally: At the White House remembrance ceremony for 9/11 victims on Monday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s outfit was “almost perfect — except for that pesky leaf stuck in her hair. Fortunately, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Steve Johnson was there to clean up Condi’s hair. After all, any EPA employee is supposed to be good at cleaning things up.â€
Time for the EPA to visit the WH and do a deep cleaning.
September 14th, 2007 at 9:29 amMore than 12 million civilians were killed during WWII.
Comment by Jake D.
Jake the Flake, the broken record and master of the straw man argument.
September 14th, 2007 at 9:29 amJake D. sez:
More than 12 million civilians were killed during WWII.
Don't worry jake, bush will get there if he has his way.
September 14th, 2007 at 9:31 amThe way I see it, the MSM is at least 1% at fault for this war. At 1.2 million deaths the MSM is indirectly responsible for 120,000 of those dead.
Comment by dim wit — September 14, 2007 @ 9:27 am
1% would be 12,000 of the dead. Unless you meant 10% at fault.
September 14th, 2007 at 9:32 amHe “admitted yesterday in court that he bribed three Al[a]ska legislators.â€
September 14th, 2007 at 9:34 amDEPORT ALL DIRTY FILTHY MEXICANS!!!!!!!!
September 14th, 2007 at 9:36 ambig bad bush:
In some ways, our fight in Iraq is MORE important than defeating Germany and Japan were.
ann:
Perhaps you've never heard of the Office of Legal Counsel at DoJ?
September 14th, 2007 at 9:38 amwow! 1.2 MILLION DEAD IRAQIS? goddamn you motherfu*kers!
September 14th, 2007 at 9:39 amjake, you need some help enlisting?
September 14th, 2007 at 9:39 amJake D. sez:
In what ways, Shakey? Be specific.
September 14th, 2007 at 9:41 amDon't worry Jake, bush will beat that record, he just needs more time.
September 14th, 2007 at 9:41 amLast year, a study in the medical journal Lancet put the number at 654,965, which Iraq’s government has dismissed as “ridiculous.â€
Comment by r — September 14, 2007 @ 9:25 am
No kidding? And why would a government run by people connected with Shi'ite death squads want to downplay the number of deaths in their country?
September 14th, 2007 at 9:41 amNo kidding? And why would a government run by people connected with Shi’ite death squads want to downplay the number of deaths in their country?
Comment by toasterhead — September 14, 2007 @ 9:41 am
Maybe it was ridiculously low, the article doesn’t say.
September 14th, 2007 at 9:44 amIn some ways, our fight in Iraq is MORE important than defeating Germany and Japan were.
Comment by Jake D. — September 14, 2007 @ 9:38 am
Yes. In World War II we were fighting expansionist empires that invaded sovereign nations. In this war, war are the expansionist empire invading sovereign nations.
September 14th, 2007 at 9:44 amComment by toasterhead — September 14, 2007 @ 9:32 am
Thanks for the correction. Such is what happens when my dim wit brain attempts to multi-task. Never-the-less, my point remains the MSM helped get us into this mess, they share the blame for the results.
September 14th, 2007 at 9:46 amStill waiting for those specifics, Shakey...
September 14th, 2007 at 9:48 amI've been reading for some time and it's been very enjoyable.
I'm a bit taken back by Jake D.'s comment "In some ways, our fight in Iraq is MORE important than defeating Germany and Japan were."
Could you please explain to me why you believe this Jake D.? I don't see how it is more important but am interested in your answer.
Thank you.
September 14th, 2007 at 9:54 amIraqbodycount.org.... Who is this run by? Is it legit?
September 14th, 2007 at 9:54 amIt hard to believe that greenspan "just didn't get it". Or maybe he just never had a mortgage.
Now, Mr bohner's remarks about the small price to pay (possibly 1.2 million lives lost, and untold numbers of families ruined) for protecting his very family "values" takes on some addtional meaning. And by the time he desides we should leave Iraq he will be able to boast about how much more "value" his offspring have taken on.
September 14th, 2007 at 9:56 amIn this war, [we] are the expansionist empire invading sovereign nations.
Comment by toasterhead — September 14, 2007 @ 9:44 am
expansionist empire?
The US hasn’t expanded in over a hundred years.
September 14th, 2007 at 9:57 amUncle John sez:
Uh oh, Shakey...I don't think Uncle John is on The List â„¢ yet...looks like you have no excuse not to provide those specifics now...
September 14th, 2007 at 9:58 amActually Jake, there were over 47 million civilian deaths during World War II, including nearly 6 million Jews via the Holocaust. The total population of the (PLEASE NOTE) 57 countries involved in that war was nearly 2 billion people. Civilian deaths accounted for 2.4 % of all war-related deaths from 1939 through 1945. Conversely...the total estimated population of Iraq in July of 2007 was 27 million people. If this recent study is correct, with 1.2 million deaths in ONE COUNTRY, that is 4.4% of the total population in
4-1/2 years. That's nearly twice as many civilian deaths (percentage-wise) as during WWII.
Unlike you, I don't just pull numbers out of the air. Here's the link (which you also never provide).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Casualties_by_country
September 14th, 2007 at 9:58 amNice catch, ICTB. ^_^
September 14th, 2007 at 10:00 amBush looked tired and burned out last night.
He should be.
America is tired of Bush and his lack of any new approach to this invasion.
His Exit Stratergery is January, 2009.
With leaders like Bush, who needs enemas?
September 14th, 2007 at 10:00 amI have a facsimile of Jake in my backyard everyday after cleaning up after my dog:
A LYING SACK OF SH*T.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:00 amexpansionist empire?
The US hasn’t expanded in over a hundred years.
Comment by r — September 14, 2007 @ 9:57 am
In land area, yes. But you don't need to conquer land to build an empire. All you need to do is tax other nations, which we've been doing since the Bretton Woods agreement. The Iraq war is just one aspect.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:01 amIt doesn't matter how many died in WWII in relation to Iraq.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:03 amBush&Co are giving credit to Petraeus as the right man who can get the job done (the implication I draw is that everyone who preceded him was wrong and incompetent). Yet, Petraeus was in charge of a failed strategy (?) in late 2006-2007 wasn't he? After that, he was awarded his 4th star.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:05 amGood riddance, Gonzo! Consider yourself lucky that you can leave without an escort taking you to jail.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:06 amAre Tony Snow, Karl Rove & Alberto Gonzales throwing a going away party tonight?
Is it an open gig, or Neoturds only?
Do you think they all feel 'victorious'?
September 14th, 2007 at 10:07 amIt doesn’t matter how many died in WWII in relation to Iraq.
Comment by big bad bush — September 14, 2007 @ 10:03 am
Right. It was an irrational comparison in the first place.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:07 amAnd why isn't Sec. of State Rice traveling around the middle east in an attempt to reconcile the Iraqi disaster in the region?
September 14th, 2007 at 10:10 amShe is a failure as a diplomat - a failure in her responsibility to the country.
Uncle John:
Our enemies never obtained WMD during WWII.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:11 ambig bad bush:
It "matters" at least in the sense that it's not as tragic as WWII. See my comments to Uncle John if you don't understand the historical comparison.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:13 amWith leaders like Bush, who needs enemas?
Comment by Zimzone — September 14, 2007 @ 10:00 am
If you had an enema you would shrink down to the size of an acorn.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:15 amWhy would the British poll numbers be so much higher than iraqbodycount.org numbers? It is a significantly higher number.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:15 amFrom the other thread, here are the official, non-classified casualties of other Coalition Countries -- our Allied casulaties are far less than in WWII as well:
Australia 2
Bulgaria 13
Czech Republic 1
Denmark 7
El Salvador 5
Estonia 2
Hungary 1
Italy 33
Kazakhstan 1
Latvia 3
Netherlands 2
Poland 21
Romania 2
Slovakia 4
South Korea 1
Spain 11
Thailand 2
Ukraine 18
United Kingdom 169
http://icasualties.org/oif/default.aspx
September 14th, 2007 at 10:15 amOur enemies never obtained WMD during WWII.
Comment by Jake D. — September 14, 2007 @ 10:11 am
Nor have they in this war - what's your point?
September 14th, 2007 at 10:16 amJake,
Please provide some basis for your opinion regarding the importance of The Invasion and Occupation of Iraq with our role in WWII.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:17 amComment by Jake D. — September 14, 2007 @ 10:15 am
Insignificant.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:17 amAnd why isn’t Sec. of State Rice traveling around the middle east in an attempt to reconcile the Iraqi disaster in the region?
Because the nation has Kucinich doing it for us. Reference: Kucinich; Syrian tv; denigrating America; hobnobbing with dictators.
You can also use "Pelosi" instead of "Kucinich" and get the same result.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:18 amThe US hasn’t expanded in over a hundred years.
Comment by r — September 14, 2007 @ 9:57 am
The US is estimated to have over 700 military installations in over 130 countries.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:19 amOur enemies never obtained WMD during WWII.
Comment by Jake D. — September 14, 2007 @ 10:11 am
There's an amazingly ignorant lie, and another straw man. jake is the master of lies and straw men, the master of ignorance, the master of gullibility. Only bigfoot is stupider and more insane than you, Jake, on this blog.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:19 amThe US is estimated to have over 700 military installations in over 130 countries.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity
Don't forget EuroDisney...{shiver}
September 14th, 2007 at 10:20 amYou can also use “Pelosi†instead of “Kucinich†and get the same result.
Comment by LibTeenie — September 14, 2007 @ 10:18 am
or, you could use "Bush" and get the true result, littleteeniedick. still stupid after all these years.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:20 amGreenspan, the guy who advised during the Clinton admn, not to pay down the national debt too quickly, is nothing more than a tool of right wing money interests. He knew full well that lending practices were out of control and the boom would eventually go bust, but fed criticism of admn policies is limited to Democratic regimes.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:21 amLooks like TP forgot to delete all you posts again
September 14th, 2007 at 10:21 amkeep trying, p. neither your brain nor your posts work. all too fitting that you are banned.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:22 amHistorical comparisons to WWII are simply ludicrous. This is a nice meme, but, for the record, simply a weak attempt to justify a continuing failed policy.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:22 amOur enemies never obtained WMD during WWII.
Comment by Jake D. — September 14, 2007 @ 10:11 am
Ummm... so Hitler was never that much of a threat?
September 14th, 2007 at 10:22 amoops
September 14th, 2007 at 10:22 amthey went and deleted them
TP really doesn't like Mr. P
Why would the British poll numbers be so much higher than iraqbodycount.org numbers? It is a significantly higher number.
Comment by big bad bush — September 14, 2007 @ 10:15 am
Different methodologies. IBC relies solely on media reports and hospitals, and they only count "non-combatant" deaths. The Lancet study and the new British study polled households and asked "how many people do you know who have died in violent deaths since 2003?" Based on these results, they extrapolated for the country as a whole.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:24 amYou can also use “Pelosi†instead of “Kucinich†and get the same result.
Comment by LibTeenie — September 14, 2007 @ 10:18 am
What an irrational, silly comment.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:25 amThe US is estimated to have over 700 military installations in over 130 countries.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — September 14, 2007 @ 10:19 am
At the invitation of those countries, which contribute greatly to the economies of those countries.
God Bless America.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:25 amUmmm… so Hitler was never that much of a threat?
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — September 14, 2007 @ 10:22 am
hey, jake and the chickenhawk rightards will fear whomever the runaway Coward-In-Chief tells them to fear through his treasonous mouthpieces. The right is populated exclusively by cowards and anti-American scum, so it's no surprise that Jake thinks that the dead saddam is still more dangerous than Hitler, when in fact Bush is today's Hitler.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:25 am"Our enemies never obtained WMD during WWII."
Just how did the Nazi's kill all those Jews again? They were gas chambers Jake D. They not only obtained WMD's, they perfected how to administer them.
I'm all for hearing opposing viewpoints but to use a flippant statement such as that and to push it off as a fact is not the manner in which an educated discussion can be founded on.
Please raise your bar to promote your views.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:26 amJake D. sez:
This statement is either blatantly false or completely irrelevant, depending on how "WMD" is defined.
Provide a definition of "WMD", Shakey, along with some examples, so we can determine exactly why your latest statement need not be taken seriously. Kthx.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:26 amhobnobbing with dictators.
Comment by LibTeenie — September 14, 2007 @ 10:18 am
Would that be like that famous picture of Rummy shaking hands w/ Saddam?
September 14th, 2007 at 10:26 amkeep trying, p. neither your brain nor your posts work. all too fitting that you are banned.
or, you could use “Bush†and get the true result, littleteeniedick. still stupid after all these years.
Yes Virginia, these are from the same person.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:26 amronjazz, why are you so hateful? It is necessary to use insults and call people names to make your points?
September 14th, 2007 at 10:27 amAt the invitation of those countries, which contribute greatly to the economies of those countries.
God Bless America.
Comment by r — September 14, 2007 @ 10:25 am
Your ignorance of geopolitics is catching up to your cowardice and hypocrisy.
god has long ago damned and abandoned America.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:27 amWhy would the British poll numbers be so much higher than iraqbodycount.org numbers? It is a significantly higher number.
Comment by big bad bush — September 14, 2007 @ 10:15 am
The British poll asked: “How many members of your household, if any, have died as a result of the conflict in Iraq since 2003?â€
From a later TP thread: “even though most of the daily attacks are carried out by Iraqi Sunni insurgents.â€
The British poll counts insurgents as civilians.
Nice.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:28 amThe British poll counts insurgents as civilians.
Nice.
Comment by r — September 14, 2007 @ 10:28 am
They are not members of a uniformed militia. Therefore they are civilians. As are many of their victims.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:29 amYes Virginia, these are from the same person.
Comment by LibTeenie — September 14, 2007 @ 10:26 am
your point, besides what's on the top of your head?
p is banned, and you are stupid. seems pretty clear to everyone but you.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:29 amThey were gas chambers Jake D. They not only obtained WMD’s, they perfected how to administer them.
They used a version of an industrial pesticide (Zyklon B), so technically Saddam did have WMD and Bush was right.
Case closed, libs lose again.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:30 amUncle John sez:
Careful, Uncle John...if you push Shakey Jake too hard to justify his ridiculous screeds with objective facts, he'll judge you too dangerous to talk to and put you on his "ignore list".
September 14th, 2007 at 10:30 amThe British poll counts insurgents as civilians.
Nice.
Comment by r — September 14, 2007 @ 10:28 am
They are civilians. are you on a crusade to display your stupidity today? or every day?
September 14th, 2007 at 10:31 amWere the American patriots who fought the invading British insurgents or patriots - or both?
September 14th, 2007 at 10:31 amyour point, besides what’s on the top of your head?
My point is that Im surprised your peurile rants, and you along with them, arent banned from this site.
Then again this is TP, 'nuff said.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:31 amThey used a version of an industrial pesticide (Zyklon B), so technically Saddam did have WMD and Bush was right.
Case closed, libs lose again.
Comment by Clammer of the Shells — September 14, 2007 @ 10:30 am
proof?
I make myself laugh. As if clammer has anything but what he pu;;s out his ass. I own a can of Raid, so now I possess WMD, right, tool?
September 14th, 2007 at 10:32 amPlease raise your bar to promote your views.
Comment by Uncle John — September 14, 2007 @ 10:26 am
Give Jake some time -- he's nuckin' futs.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:34 amJake, weren't chemical and biological weapons employed in WWII?
Those are considered a form of WMD.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:34 amMy point is that Im surprised your peurile rants, and you along with them, arent banned from this site.
Then again this is TP, ’nuff said.
Comment by LibTeenie — September 14, 2007 @ 10:31 am
You, of course, would ban the truth, being a Bush suckup and anti-American righturd. No surprise, Hitler recruited morons just like you.
And lost.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:34 amClammer of the Shells sez:
Sorry, but Iraq destroyed all its chemical weapon stockpiles after 1991. NO functional WMDs have ever been found in Iraq since.
Case closed, mouthbreathing neocon apologists lose again.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:34 amUncle John:
Saddam gassed his own people too. Look, I'm not saying that Hitler was not a threat to the U.S. What I am saying is that Saddam was more of a threat in certain ways -- the Duelfer Report lays that out in detail -- do you need a link to that Report?
Also, as long as you don't resport to personal attacks and answer my questions, I will always return the same courtesy.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:35 amJake, weren’t chemical and biological weapons employed in WWII?
Those are considered a form of WMD.
Comment by Tweedster — September 14, 2007 @ 10:34 am
Jake is on a truth avoidance campaign, he won't understand your facts.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:35 amIt doesn't seem fair to count insurgents as civilians. They are actively fighting and engaging in combat, and therefore have can reasonably assume they could be killed any day in combat (of some kind) and continue to be violent. Civilians are noncombatants and, although living in Iraq could be reason enough to reasonably assume you could be killed, do not have that same self-inflicted danger.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:35 amAt the invitation of those countries, which contribute greatly to the economies of those countries.
God Bless America.
Comment by r
r, could you please attempt to provide a basis in reality for your assertion that our military installations greatly contribute to foreign economies? How has the presence of Guantanamo uplifted Cuba's economy?
September 14th, 2007 at 10:36 amGod Bless America.
Comment by r — September 14, 2007 @ 10:25 am
And somehow, you don't think this is a form of colonizing...
The new global repositioning plan comes with a huge price tag. The Overseas Basing Commission estimates it at $20 billion and would be much higher but for the Pentagon's standard practice getting host countries to pay their share of the tab allowing us basing rights on their territory. It's called "burden sharing" or our notion of a country we occupy helping pay the cost of deterring potential common enemies.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:36 amComment by TripMaster Monkey — September 14, 2007 @ 10:30 am
Thank you for that advice. I'm just trying to undersatnd his viewpoints.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:37 amSorry, but Iraq destroyed all its chemical weapon stockpiles after 1991. NO functional WMDs have ever been found in Iraq since.
Case closed, mouthbreathing neocon apologists lose again.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — September 14, 2007 @ 10:34 am
Saddam gassed his own people too. Look, I’m not saying that Hitler was not a threat to the U.S. What I am saying is that Saddam was more of a threat in certain ways — the Duelfer Report lays that out in detail — do you need a link to that Report?
Comment by Jake D. — September 14, 2007 @ 10:35 am
Interesting, jake that you place so much import on manners, when all you do is lie. That's very bad manners. Saddam is dead and gone, therefore no danger, but you want to stay and kill more innocent families, because you haven't a mind of your own. There were no WMD found, to this day. that means you are a liar and fear-peddler, also known historicaly as a Republican or Nazi.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:38 ambig bad bush:
Are you as critical of Truman dropping TWO nukes on Japanese civilians?
September 14th, 2007 at 10:38 amI’m not saying that Hitler was not a threat to the U.S. What I am saying is that Saddam was more of a threat in certain ways
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh my a** is on the floor again.
And Jake expects us to believe he was a teenager during world war 2?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Damn, there is goes again.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:39 amUncle John:
If you have any further questions, please let me know.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:39 amCase closed, mouthbreathing neocon apologists lose again.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — September 14, 2007 @ 10:34 am
You could always ask Clammer who Saddam got his chemical weapons from in the first place, when he did have them.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:39 amCivilians are noncombatants and, although living in Iraq could be reason enough to reasonably assume you could be killed, do not have that same self-inflicted danger.
Comment by big bad bush — September 14, 2007 @ 10:35 am
civilians are noncombatants? not in this type of battle. they are defending their country, but not allied with an organized military, therefore still civilians.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:40 amWhat I am saying is that Saddam was more of a threat in certain ways — the Duelfer Report lays that out in detail — do you need a link to that Report?
Comment by Jake D. — September 14, 2007 @ 10:35 am
I've read the Duelfer Report and it says nothing of the sort. It says that Iraq had no functioning nuclear program, no functioning biological program, an extremely feeble chemical program, and no functioning weapons of any type. How does that make our ex-friend Saddam an "imminent threat?"
The only weapon of mass destruction Saddam had at his disposal was economic, and he used it in 2000 when he started selling oil in Euros instead of Dollars.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:40 amWe're not talking about WWII here Jake.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:40 amAre you as critical of Truman dropping TWO nukes on Japanese civilians?
Comment by Jake D. — September 14, 2007 @ 10:38 am
Whether the US needed to drop nukes on Japan has been debated for yrs. What's yer point?
September 14th, 2007 at 10:41 amUncle John:
If you have any further questions, please let me know.
Comment by Jake D. — September 14, 2007 @ 10:39 am
why, is your stockpile of lies and propaganda infinite? It seems so.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:41 amIt doesn’t seem fair to count insurgents as civilians. They are actively fighting and engaging in combat, and therefore have can reasonably assume they could be killed any day in combat (of some kind) and continue to be violent.
Comment by big bad bush — September 14, 2007 @ 10:35 am
They wouldn't have been "insurgents" had the U.S. not invaded.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:42 amI am. Of course, big bad bush, you are under no obligation to answer my question aimed at exploring the basis for your opinions.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:42 amWe’re not talking about WWII here Jake.
Comment by big bad bush — September 14, 2007 @ 10:40 am
jake has to go back to the last war we won, which was the last war we entered legally.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:42 amThey wouldn’t have been “insurgents†had the U.S. not invaded.
Comment by toasterhead — September 14, 2007 @ 10:42 am
That's very true, but they are now combatants.
ronjazz,
September 14th, 2007 at 10:46 amAnd there is a difference between a civilian (noncombatant) and an insurgent (a person, once a civilian, who is now a combatant who may or may not be aligned with any formal or informal group)
It's always a point of great amusement for me when these idiotic neocon apologists try to push the WMD lie, despite the fact that it couldn't be debunked more comprehensively.
They madly conflate chemical warfare weapons with nuclear weapons in a desperate attempt to confuse the issue. This might work, if they could produce evidence of even the chemical warfare flavor of WMD being found in Iraq. But they can't even do that.
But the neocon apologists never let silly things like facts and evidence stand in their way....they continue to bray as loudly as they can about WMD in Iraq, secure in the knowledge that about 1 in four of American citizens are stupid and ignorant enough to accept their ridiculous claims at face value.
Back in 2002, when Colon Powell was waving his vial of anthrax around and Condi was waxing poetic about smoking guns and mushroom clouds, I was one of the few who stood up and loudly dissented. Many of my friends were convinced of Iraq's danger to us...to them I said"just show me one WMD. Just one. Show it to me, or admit they aren't there".
5 years later, no one has been able to take me up on my challenge.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:46 amThe Axis Powres didn't have WMDs?
So, the Nazis didn't stockpile 300,000 tons of chemical agents during the war?
And the Japanese didn't have a biological warfare unit operating in Manchuria?
Damn liberal-biased facts.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:46 amJake,
Duelfer's report contradicted a number of specific claims administration officials made before the war.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12115-2004Oct6_2.html
September 14th, 2007 at 10:47 amAnd there is a difference between a civilian (noncombatant) and an insurgent (a person, once a civilian, who is now a combatant who may or may not be aligned with any formal or informal group)
Comment by big bad bush — September 14, 2007 @ 10:46 am
I disagree, and wonder where you are getting your definitions. Insurgencies are almost always civilian-based.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:48 amMy point is that Im surprised your peurile rants, and you along with them, arent banned from this site.
Then again this is TP, ’nuff said.
Comment by LibTeenie — September 14, 2007 @ 10:31 am
Unfortunately, this is TP, and hate filled trolls who flame other members day in and day out (lie hughjazz) are tolerated… Um.. As long as they follow TP's line of thinking.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:49 amThe real fact of the matter is, Saddam complied completely with the UN sanctions, so Bush is simply a mass-murderering monkey-liar. That's a fact for your wingnuts.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:50 amThe only reason Hitler didn't get nuclear weapons, is Norwegian resistance stopped shipments of "Heavy Water". The war ended before German Scientists were able to complete the project. At least they didn't complete the project for Germany. I also read somewhere, that Hitler as a foot soldier in WWI, was subject to a mustard gas attack. He was loath to use chemical weapons.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:50 amFor the record, the Duelfer Report categorized WMD that was found and, more importantly, it could not rule out that WMD was transferred out of Iraq before the invasion.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:51 amJake D. I've not found in the Duelfer report the same veracity that Hitler, Japan and Italy posed against us as you suggest Saddam did. Iraq had been kept in check for years with the no fly zones and his army was just a shell of what it once was. Before the Gulf War Iraq had been fighting with Iran for 7 or 8 years. His army was in tatters. He didn't trust his own people. He didn't spread any of the wealth he was illegally obtaining.
Hitler amased a fine tuned and well equipment military with his entire country standing shoulder to shoulder with him bursting with German pride. He had a master plan of world domination and was attempting to achieve it.
There is really no comparison and you haven't proven your point. Are you going to still stand by your words?
September 14th, 2007 at 10:51 amFrançois sez:
Pure comedy gold, considering who you're addressing...
But be all means, stay "concerned". François.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:51 amUnfortunately, this is TP, and hate filled trolls who flame other members day in and day out (lie hughjazz) are tolerated… Um.. As long as they follow TP’s line of thinking.
Comment by François — September 14, 2007 @ 10:49 am
Members? why are you talking about our members? are you a Larry Craig fan?
There are no members here. Don't you ever engage your brain before spewing?
September 14th, 2007 at 10:52 amHitler "censored" his opponents as well.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:52 amYou can't be a civilian if you're firing a weapon at someone, or setting a bomb to kill people.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:52 amFor the record, the Duelfer Report categorized WMD that was found and, more importantly, it could not rule out that WMD was transferred out of Iraq before the invasion.
Comment by Jake D. — September 14, 2007 @ 10:51 am
No, but the lack of any evidence, satellite photos, reconnaissance photos, or credible witnesses certainly is no reason to not cling to your idiotic fantasies so you can continue to cheer the deaths of our soldiers and Marines.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:54 amUncle John:
I stand by my words. If you really read the Duelfer Report, then you know what Saddam's intent was and the FACT that we could not rule out WMD being transferred out of Iraq before the invasion.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:54 amMembers, posters, whatever. You get the point. Stop playing with my words hughey.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:54 amYou can’t be a civilian if you’re firing a weapon at someone, or setting a bomb to kill people.
Comment by big bad bush — September 14, 2007 @ 10:52 am
so gang members are military? they should get pensions and medals, then.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:55 ambig bad bush:
Thank you -- we at least agree on one thing : )
September 14th, 2007 at 10:55 amHitler “censored†his opponents as well.
Comment by Jake D. — September 14, 2007 @ 10:52 am
another excellent comparison to Bush. Thanks, Jake, a useful fact, for a change.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:55 amPerhaps you’ve never heard of the Office of Legal Counsel at DoJ?
Comment by Jake D. — September 14, 2007 @ 9:38 am
Gonzales wasn't appointed until 2005. All he's done on the Iraq occupation is attempt to justify torture. He's a political hack, nothing more, and a disgrace to our justice system.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:56 amYou can’t be a civilian if you’re firing a weapon at someone, or setting a bomb to kill people.
Comment by big bad bush — September 14, 2007 @ 10:52 am
When there's 60% unemployment and the only job available is with the local militia, yes you can.
Needless deaths are needless deaths, and we are responsible for 1.2 million of them in Iraq.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:56 amMembers, posters, whatever. You get the point. Stop playing with my words hughey.
Comment by François — September 14, 2007 @ 10:54 am
Stop playing with your member, frenchy.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:56 amJake D. sez:
For the record, that's a lie.
Folks, read the Duelfer Report for yourselves. Don't let Shakey lie about its contents.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:56 amNo, I never said the insurgents are military. They're combatants and shouldn't be counted as civilian deaths. The point of a civilian death count is to show the number of innocent people killed. Insurgents are not innocent in this war.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:56 amthe FACT that we could not rule out WMD being transferred out of Iraq before the invasion.
Comment by Jake D. — September 14, 2007 @ 10:54 am
It's a FACT that I can't rule out the possibility that I am the reincarnation of Marilyn Monroe...... what a joke.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:58 amAnn:
We'll have to agree to disagree about Gonzales.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:58 amComment by ronjazz — September 14, 2007 @ 10:50 am
You are mistaken. Saddam sidestepped the official UN mandates and found some unhonorable characters within the UN to continue supporting his terrible reign with the "Oil for food" program.
The UN had largely kept the correct tabs on Saddam and with more scrutiny and adjustment within the international community.
It was a grievous mistake for Bush to push thru what he did and the facts have proven that Bush was not correct on any of his key reasons for invading Iraq.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:58 amI stand by my words. If you really read the Duelfer Report, then you know what Saddam’s intent was and the FACT that we could not rule out WMD being transferred out of Iraq before the invasion.
Comment by Jake D. — September 14, 2007 @ 10:54 am
We can't rule out that the WMDs were stolen by aliens, either. Or that Saddam covered them all with an invisibility cloak. This doesn't prove that he had weapons.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:59 amYou know I'm right, so you resorted to insults hughey.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:59 amIt’s a FACT that I can’t rule out the possibility that I am the reincarnation of Marilyn Monroe…… what a joke.
Comment by TerrytheTurtle — September 14, 2007 @ 10:58 am
Right, hard to prove a negative.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:59 amComment by Jake D. — September 14, 2007 @ 10:54 am
Jake you state Saddam's intent (ie. potential) is worse than Hitler's actions (i.e actual).
You do understand that actual is always greater than potential.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:00 amWe can’t rule out that the WMDs were stolen by aliens, either
No Toaster, I've got them in my shed. Jack Kennedy is that you? Come on over sugar!
September 14th, 2007 at 11:02 amUncle John, if Saddam found UN folks to side with, he was hardly sidestepping the UN. Corruption is everywhere there is big money to be made, but Saddam was contained and controlled to the extent that most of the civilian deaths in his country were as the result of UN and US sanctions. Like it or not, we are the bad guys here. Oil, oil, oil. The 3 reasons we're in this horroble place now. The US could have weaned itself off oil decades ago, but the war machine needed that lubricant, so here we are.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:03 amSorry for your personal lose Mrs. Mora, but this administration will never, ever tell the truth about anything, it would expose them as the war criminals that they really are.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:03 amUncle John:
Was that a question? While Japs attacked the mainland U.S. (not to mention Pearl Harbor), Hitler let us take that fight to him.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:04 amYou know I’m right, so you resorted to insults hughey.
Comment by François — September 14, 2007 @ 10:59 am
well, now I know you have nothing. what a weak response. give up, like your Vichy buddies.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:05 amWas that a question? While Japs attacked the mainland U.S. (not to mention Pearl Harbor), Hitler let us take that fight to him.
Comment by Jake D. — September 14, 2007 @ 11:04 am
WTF is this IDIOT talking about?
September 14th, 2007 at 11:05 amNo, I never said the insurgents are military. They’re combatants and shouldn’t be counted as civilian deaths. The point of a civilian death count is to show the number of innocent people killed. Insurgents are not innocent in this war.
Comment by big bad bush — September 14, 2007 @ 10:56 am
No. The point of a civilian death count is to count the number of dead civilians. "Innocence" is a subjective and irrelevant term in a multiethnic civil war.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:05 amWas that a question? While Japs attacked the mainland U.S. (not to mention Pearl Harbor), Hitler let us take that fight to him.
Comment by Jake D. — September 14, 2007 @ 11:04 am
When did they attack the mainland United States? (We call them "Japanese" now.) And you're right not to mention Pearl Harbor - Hawaii was not part of the United States.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:07 amYou do understand that actual is always greater than potential.
Comment by Uncle John — September 14, 2007 @ 11:00 am
don't assume jake understands anything. Look at his response; another lie and strawman.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:08 amWhat a weak response? What, did you want me to reduce myself to your level and come back with some insults about your mother?
September 14th, 2007 at 11:08 amIf anyone NOT on the "Ignore List" for resorting to personal attacks and/or refusing to answer my questions wants to discuss when the “Japanese†attacked the mainland United States, let me know.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:11 amHmm, if you say so. So essentially it's all politics, and who really cares how many die? Just as long as it's enough to further our cause, right?
Black or white, you're either an official military member, or you're a civilian. That's weak.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:12 amIf anyone NOT on the “Ignore List†for resorting to personal attacks and/or refusing to answer my questions wants to discuss when the “Japanese†attacked the mainland United States, let me know.
Comment by Jake D. — September 14, 2007 @ 11:11 am
When did the Japanese attack the mainland United States?
September 14th, 2007 at 11:12 amAnyone else?
September 14th, 2007 at 11:13 amYes, I'm interested in learning when the Japanese attacked the mainland US
September 14th, 2007 at 11:13 am#126 - "If you really read the Duelfer Report, then you know what Saddam’s intent was and the FACT that we could not rule out WMD being transferred out of Iraq before the invasion." Comment by Jake D. — September 14, 2007 @ 10:54 am
By that same token, we cannot confirm that WMD's were transfereed out of iraq before the invasion.
Why don't we attack and invade Saudi Arabia just in case they took the mysterious WMD's there? Why not Sudan? Why not North Korea? Why not every country in the world, just in case?
September 14th, 2007 at 11:13 amJake D. sez:
You're disagreeing that Gonzo was appointed in 2005?
Please elaborate, Shakey.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:13 amAnyone else?
Comment by Jake D. — September 14, 2007 @ 11:13 am
Ooo - does this mean I'm on the list?
September 14th, 2007 at 11:14 amI will get you the links, big bad bush.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:15 amWhen did they attack the mainland United States?
The Japanese stuck a few bombs under balloons and floated them over the Pacific. I think they started some forest fires in Oregon....
September 14th, 2007 at 11:17 amhttp://www.portorfordlifeboatstation.org/article1.html
http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist9/aaf1.html
September 14th, 2007 at 11:17 amtoasterhead sez:
toasterhead, Shakey is probably making reference to the Japanese incendiary balloon scheme.
Oh, by the way...total casualties as a result of this "attack": six.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:18 amIf you really read the Duelfer Report, then you know what Saddam’s intent was
Then whoah, we should have sent in some weapons inspectors and had them tool about the country destroying any evidence of that 'intent'..... oh wait there were some there in 2003.... until Chimpy decided to be a War President.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:18 amMy question Jake D. is how can you stand behind saying that the potential threat from Saddam was greated than the actual threat of Hitler.
Germany declared war against us just after Pearl Harbor. The German Navy was attacking our supply ships to Europe even before we entered the war.
There is no evidence you have provided that comes close to support your original statement.
I get the impression you just believe it so it has to be true instead of reexamining what you said and admiting you are wrong.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:18 amThe German Navy was attacking our supply ships to Europe even before we entered the war.
Maybe Joke is going to produce a photograph of Saddam looking at the lights of New York harbor..... oh wait, that was a German U-Boat in 1942.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:21 amUncle John:
Because the "potential" of losing a couple million Americans on U.S. soil is greater than the six killed by Japan during WWII or the NONE killed by Germany.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:21 amDoe's it matter how many die in this evil demonstration called war on another country just because they have what the evil war monger's want.? Oil....
Doe's it matter how many ordinary citizen's loose their home's because of lending practices.?
Does it matter to any healthy middle aged people that thousand's of ill in our country are dieing because they can't get medical care.?
Does it matter our air, soil, water, wild life and populace are becoming so polluted by corporation's it may be accelerating the distruction of our earth.?
You think as you choose, I will pick just one, my time is short on this earth and I will say the most of what I am sadly famalier...
For the parent of the one or the 1 million the grief is staggering...People that have not experienced it can not imagine the pain...No surgery or medication can heal the loss of your child, there is no fixing of this broken heart, ever..One is reminded daily of what could of been..The promise of future is gone, passing on family love and tradition must be shifted to friend's instead of that loved one....Speaking as a parent that lost her only child I can tell you I would never wish this loss on any parent, ever....Now compound that loss by nearly 3,800 here and maybe a million over there.....What the hell are we becoming,? I'll tell you what we are becoming...A nation devided by mad men, money changer's, warmonger's and totaly insane that want to dictate and create more war's to inflate their bulging ego's and bank account's....The parent's there and here grieve just the same as I do and yes often along with the grief we are outraged at this madness...Answer the question's of that one parent mr. bush and then answer the question's of the million for you have a lot to answer to....We need ton's of Blessings and a strong leader to remove all the evil in our country...
September 14th, 2007 at 11:22 amthere was a pretty nasty series of battles around the Alutien Islands during WWII. I think the Japanese did manage to capture and hold a few of them. Other then that, I think a Japanese plane landed in Washington State during the war, and they did release bombs on balloons, which proved to be pretty ineffective.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:24 amSo your point, Jake, is that it's worse for Americans to die on American soil than overseas?
September 14th, 2007 at 11:24 amBecause the “potential†of losing a couple million Americans on U.S. soil is greater than the six killed by Japan during WWII or the NONE killed by Germany.
So how was Saddam going to do that? No nuclear bombs, no ICBMs, no weaponized chem or bio capable of reaching the US. Was he going to appear on TV during American Idol and yell 'BOO'?
Most survivors of the 'Greatest generation' are not gutless gobsh*tes like you. Ergo, you are probably Mighty Aphrodite's soulmate, fantasizing about the life you wished you had while jerking off to Chuck Norris films.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:25 amUncle John:
You still around?
September 14th, 2007 at 11:26 amJake D. sez:
No, Shakey, I think he finally realized that you're incapable of carrying on an honest discussion, became bored with your droning idiocy, and left.
Looks like once again, the only people around are the ones on The List â„¢...who you can't talk to.
It's lonely at the bottom, isn't it? ^_^
September 14th, 2007 at 11:31 amThere's always Chuck Norris, Joke.....
September 14th, 2007 at 11:37 amYes Jake D. I'm still here. what is this list that TripMaster Monkey talks about?
The "potential" threat from Saddam in no way shape or form compares to the horrific actual tragedies that encompassed the globe during WWII.
The "WMD's" weren't there in Iraq. But our soldiers are sent to die. There were no operational ties between Saddam and Al Qeada. But we have spent billions in Iraq.
There is no comparison Jake D. You haven't supported your argument. You may want to believe what you say but your points don't hold up to scrutiny.
So I'll ask a different question. What justifies the death of our soldiers in Iraq?
September 14th, 2007 at 11:38 amHow about big bad bush, Ann, MIchael Patriot, Clammer of the Shells, Lib Teenie, onocola, or François?
September 14th, 2007 at 11:39 amUncle John:
If someone refuses to answer my questions when I've answered all of their questions and/or resorts to personal attack when I don't, I refuse to waste my time on them.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:40 amAnd what justifies the killing of any in Iraq.?.....
September 14th, 2007 at 11:43 amP.S. -- if you think that Japan killing SIX Americans on U.S. soil (we lose more than that every day in traffic accidents) is quantitatively worse than the potential of MILLIONS being killed, no, I don't think I can convince you otherwise. Let me know if you have any other questions.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:43 amOh, thanks. But what if a person (we are all human) may have insulted you at one time but later had an important question that is honest and not defamatory?
Could you please answer my earlier question as well? What justies the deaths of our soldiers in Iraq?
September 14th, 2007 at 11:44 amWe weren't going to wait until the smoking gun was a mushroom cloud -- I whole-heartedly agree with Bush on that one.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:44 amJake D. using your logic, North Korea , Russia and China pose a much greater threat to our country. North Korea is run by a lunatic, Russia is reverting back to the days of the USSR and China is slowly bankrupting this country. All have nuclear weapons and two of them have the ability to deliver them to the mainland of the US.
So, if we take your view, potential threats have to be dealt with severely and swiftly. Why haven't we preemptively attacked any of them. Particularly North Korea.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:48 amWe weren’t going to wait until the smoking gun was a mushroom cloud — I whole-heartedly agree with Bush on that one.
Comment by Jake D.
From Iraq? A country that had absolutely no nuclear capability at all?
September 14th, 2007 at 11:48 amOnce someone gets on the "Ignore List" they are ignored. I answered your other question too.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:48 amThe increasingly bittter issue of who controls Iraq’s oil shows no sign of abating. The Kurdistan Regional Government has now demanded Baghdad’s oil minister be sacked, following his remarks that oil contracts signed by the regional government are “illegalâ€
Oil Minister Hussein al-Shahristani should quit rather than “interfere in the internal affairs†of the Kurdish region, KRG spokesman Khalid Saleh has said. In a separate statement, the KRG said the minister was “strongly advised to stay out of issues over which he has no authority
http://www.priceofoil.org/
September 14th, 2007 at 11:50 amBecause there are still less-invasive options available as to North Korea, Russia (although Putin basically dissolving the democratic government there is a growing concern) and China. Next question.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:50 amThe chances of terrorists using a nuclear war head supplied by Saddam to destroy a US city: Zero. The chances of terrorists using a nuclear war head supplied by a Break away Russian republic: low.
give it up Jake, Saddam did not present any sort of threat to the US. Intentions mean nothing. If we jailed people on intentions, then most of the population would be in prison.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:50 amJake D. do you believe that Iraq posed a nuclear threat to the US?
September 14th, 2007 at 11:50 amJake D. do you believe that the deaths of over 3,700 of our military has been justified by what has been proven to be false?
September 14th, 2007 at 11:52 amJake D., North Korea has nuclear weapons. Iraq doesn't and never did. You have very large leaps of faith in your views.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:53 amUncle John:
If someone refuses to answer my questions when I’ve answered all of their questions and/or resorts to personal attack when I don’t, I refuse to waste my time on them.
Comment by Jake D. — September 14, 2007 @ 11:40 am
Uncle John, what you will not appreciate from Joke's post here is that Joke almost never answers questions posted to him, will never admit when his facts are plain wrong and uses his 'list' to avoid any serious attempt at honest debate. He has been caught lying about his service record and yet still claims to be a 75-year-old Korean War veteran...
He has earned the disdain of posters here and on TPM where he trolled until recently, before being banned.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:53 amTobey,
September 14th, 2007 at 11:53 amCan you explain this in a little more detail? You seem to be on top of these things. The Kurds signed oil contracts for their region....but who are these contracts with?
Comment by Krazny — September 14, 2007 @ 11:50 am
Since we are in hypothetical, Fantasy Island world..... where Saddam is the devil & Chuck Norris is porn....
Before 9-11, IF Saddam had intent (motive) and had means (WMD, supposedly moved to Syria) and had opportunity (supposed link to Al Qaeda)..... then why didn't he attack America before 9-11 after the UN inspectors left in 1998?
Hmmm, some threat, eh? Saddam contented himself with showing the Arabs he was strong by lobbing the odd missile at the allied aircraft and currying favor by paying Palenstinian familes money for their relatives after they blew themselves up.....
Saddam was no viable threat to the US after the inspectors left in 98. Colin Powell and Condi Rice said so:
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm
September 14th, 2007 at 11:59 amUncle John:
"Jake D. do you believe that Iraq posed a nuclear threat to the US?"
I don't think so, but the ISG was not able to rule out the transfer of WMD to Syria either.
"Jake D. do you believe that the deaths of over 3,700 of our military has been justified by what has been proven to be false?"
We found WMD in Iraq, just not stockpiles -- it was justified based on what every intelligence agency in the world thought Saddam possessed -- what else do you think what "proven to be false"?
September 14th, 2007 at 11:59 amP.S. -- I think I've answered every question you've posed to me -- I will certainly admit if I am plain wrong about something and adjust my opinions accordingly -- I have posted my service record and I am 75-year-old. I also have not been banned on TPM.
September 14th, 2007 at 12:04 pmAnyone else?
Comment by Jake D.
Nobody cares one iota what you think.
F*CK OFF, PLEASE YOU COWARDLY IDIOT.
September 14th, 2007 at 12:04 pmUncle John:
If you have any more questions about the "Ignore List" that last post should do it . . .
September 14th, 2007 at 12:05 pmFlake,
You could just die, you stupid old piece of sh*t.
You're a proven liar and coward.
WHAT'S YOUR POINT, IDIOT?
September 14th, 2007 at 12:06 pmJake D. any WMD's found inside Iraq were from pre 1991 and had depleted so much in the potency that it was compared to a watered down solvent and posed no threat.
Jake. There was never a sufficient reason to invest so much blood and treasure into Iraq. There has also not been a solidified plan from Bush. He has made it up as he goes along.
De-Baathification and the releasing of the military has been acknowledged as two of the biggest blunders. These are two of the benchmarks that have yet to be now met. Your tacit approval of Bush is allowing the deaths of our fighting forces to correct a mistake that was made after a mistake was made.
Your last answer now points a finger at Syria for the the missing WMD's but yet you don't advocate going into Syria.
Do you value the lives of our soldiers?
September 14th, 2007 at 12:07 pmSeriously,
If every cowardly old fart would just die,
September 14th, 2007 at 12:07 pmComment by Jake D. — September 14, 2007 @ 12:04 pm
Looks like the Ignore List is optional today...
September 14th, 2007 at 12:08 pmJake D. Don't you think the president should acknowledge that he has made numerous mistakes that have directly resulted in the needless deaths of civilians and our soldiers?
September 14th, 2007 at 12:09 pmUncle John:
"Do you value the lives of our soldiers?"
Yes -- we lost quite a few more in Korea, and that war was a "failure" too, right?
September 14th, 2007 at 12:09 pmSo we learned nothing from past failures. That's what I'm reading now. That it happened before so lets just send more troops to die even though we can't justify it.
Very cold Jake D. I value the american fighting forces more than that.
September 14th, 2007 at 12:11 pmJake D. I had asked another question.
Don’t you think the president should acknowledge that he has made numerous mistakes that have directly resulted in the needless deaths of civilians and our soldiers?
September 14th, 2007 at 12:20 pmThe definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result - attributed to Einstein, applies to Joke.
September 14th, 2007 at 12:25 pmOf course, there were WMDs in Iraq...
just ask the 5th degree burned people in Fallujah.
September 14th, 2007 at 12:27 pmJuan, Please exand on what you state. When did this happen in Fallujah and has there been any documentation to support your claim?
September 14th, 2007 at 12:30 pmUncle John:
Here
September 14th, 2007 at 12:33 pmUncle John,
Look here for Juan's assertion.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1108-01.htm
September 14th, 2007 at 12:38 pmBecause there are still less-invasive options available as to North Korea, Russia (although Putin basically dissolving the democratic government there is a growing concern) and China. Next question.
Comment by Jake D. — September 14, 2007 @ 11:50 am
What are they, and why weren't they pursued in Iraq? Your answers just raise more questions, because your answers seem never to be based on fact.
September 14th, 2007 at 12:44 pmThanks for showing this. I had forgotten that willypee's were used by us.
Has Jake D. gone away? I haven't gotten a response to my question yet.
September 14th, 2007 at 12:45 pmJake D. did you read the reports supplied by Juan C and dlet? The only WMD's that were used in Iraq were from our own hand.
How do you justify the use of WMD's when it was the threat of WMD's that started the invasion of Iraq?
Jake D. I would like a response. Please show that you are a man of your word.
September 14th, 2007 at 12:47 pmJake D. did you read the reports supplied by Juan C and dlet? The only WMD’s that were used in Iraq were from our own hand.
How do you justify the use of WMD’s when it was the threat of WMD’s that started the invasion of Iraq?
Jake D. I would like a response. Please show that you are a man of your word.
Comment by Uncle John — September 14, 2007 @ 12:47 pm
Jake's another cut 'n' runner, like Bush on 9/11. Or Reagan in Lebanon. Or any republican right now, still here instead of in the sand.
September 14th, 2007 at 12:49 pmComment by Uncle John — September 14, 2007 @ 12:47 pm
Don't forget about the use of depleted uranium...the weapon that keeps on killing. Even our own servicemen have been exposed to this stuff.
September 14th, 2007 at 12:51 pmDo you think it's time to let Jake know that he's been played like a banjo?
Uncle John=Hellinabucket
That was fun.
September 14th, 2007 at 12:53 pmJake couldn't justify anything.
Thanks Jake for providing all who read what little substance you have.
September 14th, 2007 at 12:54 pmhellinabucket, well done.
September 14th, 2007 at 1:07 pmAnyone else NOT on the "Ignore List"?
September 14th, 2007 at 1:14 pmUncle John (hellinabucket) sez:
I had my suspicions...suspicions that started with "Uncle John" showing up and asking Shakey questions while bending over backwards to give him the civility and respect he seems to so desperately crave.
Of course, "Uncle John" will be on The List â„¢ at this point, but it's clear that Shakey cut and ran from "Uncle John"'s questions before/strong> his identity as hellinabucket was confirmed.
Nice job, hellinabucket. You ought to save this thread for future use. ^_^
September 14th, 2007 at 1:14 pmJake D. sez:
Sorry, Shakey...waaaay too late for that dodge.
Thanks for playing.
September 14th, 2007 at 1:15 pmthank you Juan. And thanks for the reminder of the phosphorous use. The irony is sickening.
Care to still answer Jake. I was very curtious to you and waited patiently for your "answers"
I have yet to see an answer to the last one though.
Don’t you think the president should acknowledge that he has made numerous mistakes that have directly resulted in the needless deaths of civilians and our soldiers?
September 14th, 2007 at 1:15 pmTPM, I am now proudly on the list twice.
Who knows, maybe the next time someone asks Jake a question it might be me. It might not be me though. But it could.
I guess we'll never know.
September 14th, 2007 at 1:22 pmhellinabucket sez:
That's impressive. I am jealous. :P
Geeez....now Shakey has to wonder whether of not a hitherto unknown poster asking him the difficult questions he so hates to answer is really a new arrival, or a "list-crasher". ^_^
That's cruel. (heh heh). I guess the lack of user registration here at TP cuts both ways, doesn't it?
September 14th, 2007 at 1:28 pmIf he could make a logical point and back it up with factual evidence then I could agree to disagree with him. But supporting obstinence for the sake of being stubborn is something I'll attempt to expose.
Jake, a mind is a terrible thing to waste. It's worse when the lives of our bravest are in the balance.
I hope I leave him guessing. But more, I hope it leads him to rethink his myopic unfactual beliefs. Maybe he would start questioning instead of blindly accepting what this adminstration has been attempting to feed us all.
September 14th, 2007 at 1:45 pmAre you still around big bad bush, Ann, MIchael Patriot, Clammer of the Shells, Lib Teenie, onoclea, or François (obviously, if any of you are on the "Ignore List" under a different name, this post is not intended to be directed toward you and there's no need to respond)?
September 14th, 2007 at 2:10 pmI'm here, Jake. What would you like to talk at me about?
September 14th, 2007 at 2:47 pmJake, let me give you a hint - crack a book (read) and don't just rely on the 'internets' for information. Oh, another thing - people on these threads know you are not 75 years old because you rely too heavily on the 'internets'. 'Older' people, like me, have read, do read and also rely on our past experiences so are able to expound and expand on subjects. The telling of your age (I'd guess mid teens - mid 20's) never quoting from nor indicating your thoughts derive from books (that you may have read) nor relaying 'your experiences'. Life is not one dimensional as your 'flat affectation' indicate. Step away from the keyboard and expand your mind by reading.
September 14th, 2007 at 2:49 pmI continue to crack up books all the time, thank you very much.
September 14th, 2007 at 3:57 pmDo you think it’s time to let Jake know that he’s been played like a banjo?
Uncle John=Hellinabucket
That was fun.
Comment by Uncle John — September 14, 2007 @ 12:53 pm
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Outstanding performance. Joke is pantsed.
September 14th, 2007 at 4:31 pmWow...Juan is breaking out that tired old discredited white
September 14th, 2007 at 4:55 pmphosphorous myth again???? How many times have I debunked that argument, Juan? 3, 4 times?
Ex, you might wanna talk with the US military:
"It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants," spokesman Lt Col Barry Venable told the BBC - though not against civilians, he said.
The US had earlier said the substance - which can cause burning of the flesh - had been used only for illumination.
BBC defence correspondent Paul Wood says having to retract its denial is a public relations disaster for the US.
Link
September 14th, 2007 at 4:59 pmOh, don't misunderstand me, Juan. I am not saying WP was not used during the Battle of Fallujah. What I am saying is that WP is not a prohibited weapon under the international law of war. There is no treaty banning its use. To condemn the use of WP in war is akin condemining the use of bullets.
September 14th, 2007 at 5:31 pmRight Exley - just like bullets. Except there isn't a Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, 1980, whose 3rd protocol bans the use of bullets against civilians. Because there is one that bans the use of 'Willy Pete' as an offensive weapon in civilian, or built up areas - because the 'rapid oxidation of human skin' is, shall we say a bit indiscriminate. That's why the US lied to the British about using it offensively.
But then you will also know that the US didn't sign up to that.
Same as the US didn't sign up to the land mine ban efforts
Same as the US didn't sign up to the small arms limitations efforts
.... need I go on?
September 14th, 2007 at 6:04 pmExley sez:
Hmm...the U.S. Army seems to disagree with you, Exley...
From The Battle Book/ST 100-3, Chapter 5, Section 3:
September 14th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
"How many times have I debunked that argument, Juan? 3, 4 times?"
Comment by Exley
"It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets."
That one's going to leave a mark - on Exley's already-red ass!
September 14th, 2007 at 10:38 pmHow many times have I debunked that argument, Juan? 3, 4 times?
Comment by Exley — September 14, 2007 @ 4:55 pm
Says the man who doesn't tire of repeating the already debunked lie that AlQaeda In Iraq is the same AlQaeda that planned the 9/11 attacks. You fancy yourself the debunker, Exley, but you should clean up your act first.
When it comes to the White Phosphorus used in Iraq, first came the angry, furious denials from the White House and its minions that WP was ever used in Fallujah or anywhere else, until the revelations of the "shake and bake" missions were made public. Then the US claimed White Phosphorus had only been used for illumination. Then that it had been used against "enemy combatants" exclusively.
The spinmeisters have settled for their final line of defence: White Phosphorus is not an illegal weapon. The problem with that argument is that, if true, Hussein's use of the same chemical against the Kurds was also legal -putting a dent in one of the rationales for the invasion.
Although BUsh supporters, like Exley, are perfectly happy to condemn the use of chemical weapons by anyone who is not the Bush administration because, you know, it's ok if you are a Republican.
September 15th, 2007 at 1:53 am