- Joined
- Apr 6, 2005
- Messages
- 300
Et cetera...
Located on Lexis/Nexis using keywords: Castro & Gitmo
Last edited:
Current Administration (be prepared-not holding anything back)
Et cetera...
Located on Lexis/Nexis using keywords: Castro & Gitmo
- Joined
- May 8, 2004
- Messages
- 2,151
Bib, the U.S. supported Iraq throughout the 80s, assisted in Iraq's plan to gas Iranians during the Iraq-Iran War. The Soviets, U.S, France among others contributed greatly to Iraq's arsenal and gave them the neccessary technology to create chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons through export licenses on the basis of dual use. It happened especially under Reagan and Bush I. Some 771 such licenses to be exact were given approval for shipment to Iraq between 1985-90. Yeah, I'm hoodwinked all right. I love facts and having foresight. I love seeing problems and pointing them out and critizing those in the government whose job it is to ensure the well being of this nation and keep peace abroad.
The one thing the sanctions did actually do was help eradicate the weapons programs that all of the aforementioned countries helped build. The UN inspections worked as well and we would have figured that out had the U.S. and other Security Council members not been so set on invading Iraq. See the Downing Street "Memo."
The one thing the sanctions did actually do was help eradicate the weapons programs that all of the aforementioned countries helped build. The UN inspections worked as well and we would have figured that out had the U.S. and other Security Council members not been so set on invading Iraq. See the Downing Street "Memo."
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2003
- Messages
- 162
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_15-7-2004_pg4_3
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp
http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200406170840.asp
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20031201-123723-4738r.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53096-2004Jun18.html
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp
http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200406170840.asp
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20031201-123723-4738r.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53096-2004Jun18.html
Priap,
>No. We've leased GTMO since 1903.<
Leasing is legal ownership for the term of the lease. The term of the lease is for the amount of time the US wishes to occupy it, and pay $2000 per year.
>And, are you being serious about Cuba asking us to leave? We've had chainlink and barbed wire fences up, and a minefield until the 1990s, around the base since Castro took over in 1959, solely to keep Cuban troops out of the base.<
The MAIN reaon for the fence is to keep Cuban nationals, attempting to leave Cuba, OUT of the base. Do you really think Cuba would EVER attack GTMO, giving the US the opportunity to invade Cuba? You cannot be that naive.
>Wouldn't you consider the threat of armed invasion of the base by Cuban troops, during the entire Cold War, an implicit request "to leave"?<
Not even a point, since Castro is not stupid enough to ever do it.
The point is, GTMO is ours, we did not invade it, and have not been requested to leave. It is governed by a legal contract, made between the US and Cuba. The US did nothing wrong in relation to occupying GTMO. To my knowledge, we have never been asked to leave.
Try again to find a country we have occupied, and not left when requested.
Bigger
>No. We've leased GTMO since 1903.<
Leasing is legal ownership for the term of the lease. The term of the lease is for the amount of time the US wishes to occupy it, and pay $2000 per year.
>And, are you being serious about Cuba asking us to leave? We've had chainlink and barbed wire fences up, and a minefield until the 1990s, around the base since Castro took over in 1959, solely to keep Cuban troops out of the base.<
The MAIN reaon for the fence is to keep Cuban nationals, attempting to leave Cuba, OUT of the base. Do you really think Cuba would EVER attack GTMO, giving the US the opportunity to invade Cuba? You cannot be that naive.
>Wouldn't you consider the threat of armed invasion of the base by Cuban troops, during the entire Cold War, an implicit request "to leave"?<
Not even a point, since Castro is not stupid enough to ever do it.
The point is, GTMO is ours, we did not invade it, and have not been requested to leave. It is governed by a legal contract, made between the US and Cuba. The US did nothing wrong in relation to occupying GTMO. To my knowledge, we have never been asked to leave.
Try again to find a country we have occupied, and not left when requested.
Bigger
Lambda,
Good sitings.
Iwant8,
>Bib, the U.S. supported Iraq throughout the 80s, assisted in Iraq's plan to gas Iranians during the Iraq-Iran War. The Soviets, U.S, France among others contributed greatly to Iraq's arsenal and gave them the neccessary technology to create chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons through export licenses on the basis of dual use. It happened especially under Reagan and Bush I. Some 771 such licenses to be exact were given approval for shipment to Iraq between 1985-90. Yeah, I'm hoodwinked all right. I love facts and having foresight. I love seeing problems and pointing them out and critizing those in the government whose job it is to ensure the well being of this nation and keep peace abroad.<
Well, above you have outlined the exact points I was making before. You wish to castigate the US and other countries, for actions before the evidence against Saddam was made clear.
Yes, we supported Saddam, especially against Iran, after Carter's fiasco with the kidnapping of our citizens working at the Iranian US embassy. So what? Saddam was much more than a thorn in the side of Iran, which is what we wanted.
Then later, Saddam did things that went against the wishes of the US, and other countries. So we opposed him. It all makes great sense, and is perfectly logical.
It is absurd to think that because the US supports someone, that that support will continue to infinity. Things change, and US policies must change to meet current conditions.
>The one thing the sanctions did actually do was help eradicate the weapons programs that all of the aforementioned countries helped build. <
As was pointed out above, the weapons programs were not "eradicated". They were fully able to be restored, after the inspectors left. David Kay made all of this absolutely clear.
>The UN inspections worked as well and we would have figured that out had the U.S. and other Security Council members not been so set on invading Iraq. See the Downing Street "Memo."<
This is not ancient history. This all occured just a few years ago, and is fresh in most people's minds. The UN inspectors were foiled at every turn. They had to give notice of times and places to be inspected, giving time for the Iraqis to hide, or move things. They were also denied access to various places. All on the Security Council, including France, Russia, and China, agreed that Saddam was not cooperating, not following previous UN resolutions, and was not following what he agreed to after the first Gulf war. Please remember that UN resolution 1441 was unanimous.
As Bush said, without some form of punisHydromaxent, the numerous UN resolutions against Iraq were a farce. The entire situation made the UN a neutered institution, little more than a bridge club.
If you wish to read all of the UN resolutions on Iraq, and see the actual context and thoughts of all countries involved, following is an excellent link:
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html
It is also interesting that, according to Colin Powell, France and Germany were onboard with the invasion of Iraq, up to the day before the invasion resolution was to be voted on. He was floored when France and Germany came out against the resolution, totally reversing their conversations with him. One must wonder what changed during this brief time.
If you wish to ponder on conspiracies, what about the finding and cataloging of the many French, German, and Russian new weapons that were found in Iraq after invasion. Where did they come from, and how did Iraq acquire them during the period of sanctions? Where does the investigation stand now? Why have we not heard anything more about it?
There does appear to be many abnormalities in the Iraq situation, both before and after the war. But the evidence points to subterfuge by countries other than those in the coalition.
Bigger
Good sitings.
Iwant8,
>Bib, the U.S. supported Iraq throughout the 80s, assisted in Iraq's plan to gas Iranians during the Iraq-Iran War. The Soviets, U.S, France among others contributed greatly to Iraq's arsenal and gave them the neccessary technology to create chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons through export licenses on the basis of dual use. It happened especially under Reagan and Bush I. Some 771 such licenses to be exact were given approval for shipment to Iraq between 1985-90. Yeah, I'm hoodwinked all right. I love facts and having foresight. I love seeing problems and pointing them out and critizing those in the government whose job it is to ensure the well being of this nation and keep peace abroad.<
Well, above you have outlined the exact points I was making before. You wish to castigate the US and other countries, for actions before the evidence against Saddam was made clear.
Yes, we supported Saddam, especially against Iran, after Carter's fiasco with the kidnapping of our citizens working at the Iranian US embassy. So what? Saddam was much more than a thorn in the side of Iran, which is what we wanted.
Then later, Saddam did things that went against the wishes of the US, and other countries. So we opposed him. It all makes great sense, and is perfectly logical.
It is absurd to think that because the US supports someone, that that support will continue to infinity. Things change, and US policies must change to meet current conditions.
>The one thing the sanctions did actually do was help eradicate the weapons programs that all of the aforementioned countries helped build. <
As was pointed out above, the weapons programs were not "eradicated". They were fully able to be restored, after the inspectors left. David Kay made all of this absolutely clear.
>The UN inspections worked as well and we would have figured that out had the U.S. and other Security Council members not been so set on invading Iraq. See the Downing Street "Memo."<
This is not ancient history. This all occured just a few years ago, and is fresh in most people's minds. The UN inspectors were foiled at every turn. They had to give notice of times and places to be inspected, giving time for the Iraqis to hide, or move things. They were also denied access to various places. All on the Security Council, including France, Russia, and China, agreed that Saddam was not cooperating, not following previous UN resolutions, and was not following what he agreed to after the first Gulf war. Please remember that UN resolution 1441 was unanimous.
As Bush said, without some form of punisHydromaxent, the numerous UN resolutions against Iraq were a farce. The entire situation made the UN a neutered institution, little more than a bridge club.
If you wish to read all of the UN resolutions on Iraq, and see the actual context and thoughts of all countries involved, following is an excellent link:
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html
It is also interesting that, according to Colin Powell, France and Germany were onboard with the invasion of Iraq, up to the day before the invasion resolution was to be voted on. He was floored when France and Germany came out against the resolution, totally reversing their conversations with him. One must wonder what changed during this brief time.
If you wish to ponder on conspiracies, what about the finding and cataloging of the many French, German, and Russian new weapons that were found in Iraq after invasion. Where did they come from, and how did Iraq acquire them during the period of sanctions? Where does the investigation stand now? Why have we not heard anything more about it?
There does appear to be many abnormalities in the Iraq situation, both before and after the war. But the evidence points to subterfuge by countries other than those in the coalition.
Bigger
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2005
- Messages
- 300
Bib said:
No, leasing is like renting. Cuba owns Guantanemo Bay, the U.S. leases it to use. The difference here is possession versus ownership. When you lease a car or an apartment, you don't own it, you just get to use it for a period of time. If you want to own it, then you buy it.
Bib said:
I assume, then, that you didn't read the partial article that I posted after my original post. Castro seems pretty unequivical in his desire to see the U.S. gone from Cuban soil.
Bib said:
Yes, it is; a contract entered into by the now defunct government, as represented by Estrada Palma, a former president of Cuba.
Bib said:
No, we didn't. However, you would have to be naive to believe that Castro wants the U.S. to stay in GTMO.
Bib said:
That is not what you originally said. You originally asked:
Bib said:
The U.S. military is currently stationed at GTMO, Cuba, and is not welcomed by the current government of Cuba.
I correctly answered your original question. Why are you making such a big deal over it?
- Joined
- May 8, 2004
- Messages
- 2,151
Bib said:
It's sounding like you believe the U.S. should not be measured by the same standards as every other country, which sounds imperialistic. It is all right for the U.S. to aid or assist in any way with massive human rights violations because it is the U.S? You can't even take simple criticism of the U.S.'s foreign policy, which has been about on par in terms of tactics and political aim with old time British imperialism. We 've just taken the reigns.
Recall if you can that there were a few countries that wished to give more time for inspections. It seems that only other countries, which violate international treaties or violate human rights will be dealt with. The things shipped or moved out of the country would most likely include materials and technology the U.S. gave Iraq.
As for the dual use claim, it should not hold up if the U.S knowingly helped in the planning to gas Iranians. Why else would a diplomatic, military assisting ally country as the U.S. was to Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war give such technology and materials capable of creating bio, chem, and nuclear weapons if it wasn't for the purpose of using as a weapon. That has to be recognized as a violation of the 1972 Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention. I mean less than a decade after its enforcement in 75 the U.S. is giving all this material to a country at war and that particular country is now long been known to have gassed its opposition using said materials. And Bib, don't get crazy on me and assume I don't realize what was going on on the Soviet side among other countries that has violated the Convention also.
From the Al Hakam Factory to Battelle, Porton International and Biopreparat...I know. although I won't say anything about the U.K. as I don't know much about Porton International except for some of their experiments in the 60s one of which involved LSD and soldiers to see if any tactical battlefield usefuleness could be found....it was freaky time apparently everyone wanted to be Nazi eugenicists or something..and that they caused the deaths of between 45 to 70 soldiers from testing nerve gas onto patched taped arms of the soldiers. The point though is as I said I've lived in Ohio for about 13 years of my short 20 year life and five of those years I've lived a few minutes away from Battelle operations here in Columbus. So I know what kind of evil lurks with such places. I understand there is from time to time "useful purposes", but the way they go about things even still to this day is frightening as is their utter presence. The use of such bio, chem, or nuclear weapons is nuts and irresponsible as is the weaponizing of such materials. It's completely unforgiveable when the Army's Product Development Division works with other countries to assist in such heinous acts. I'm only looking for some standards here for ALL countries.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2003
- Messages
- 162
you should read one of the seven articles I've posted above. The connections between Iraq and terrorist organizations is clear and present. Who do you think we are figting over there? Molar the pizza delivery guy? I guess those guys kidnapping and beheading hostages are just your average Arab. I honestly have to say that people believing the anti-american tripe that has been presented in this thread are thoroughly brainwashed.
Originally posted by LambdaCalc:
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claimed there was "bullet-proof" evidence of close ties. None was ever put forward, except: a report of a meeting in Prague between an Iraqi diplomat and Mohammed Atta, which was denied by US intelligence; the fact that an al-Qaeda operative received medical treatment in Baghdad; and the presence of a few hundred al-Qaeda-like extremeists (actually backed by Iran) in a region of Iraq not controlled by Saddam. The 2 top al-Qaeda planners in custody told US interrogators Osama Bin Laden had rejected the idea of working with Saddam. Of course W failed to tell us. A tape of Bin Laden calling on all Muslims to oppose US agression against Iraq, while disliking the "godless" Iraqi leaders, was cited by Secretary Of State Colin Powell as proof of an Iraq-al Qaeda "partnership".
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claimed there was "bullet-proof" evidence of close ties. None was ever put forward, except: a report of a meeting in Prague between an Iraqi diplomat and Mohammed Atta, which was denied by US intelligence; the fact that an al-Qaeda operative received medical treatment in Baghdad; and the presence of a few hundred al-Qaeda-like extremeists (actually backed by Iran) in a region of Iraq not controlled by Saddam. The 2 top al-Qaeda planners in custody told US interrogators Osama Bin Laden had rejected the idea of working with Saddam. Of course W failed to tell us. A tape of Bin Laden calling on all Muslims to oppose US agression against Iraq, while disliking the "godless" Iraqi leaders, was cited by Secretary Of State Colin Powell as proof of an Iraq-al Qaeda "partnership".
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2003
- Messages
- 668
Yeah, the Iraq-Terrorist business is total shit. Look, in any Arab country there is likely to be some element of that, but Iraq probably had one of the lowest levels of terrorist activity of any nation in the region. Hussien was a hard-liner and didn't tolerate any presences not directly under his control or that could potentially destabalize his regime. We're talking about a control freak/psychopath power-mad dictator here - he had no use for religious extremists and guerilla movements. If there was some really, credible, totally solid evidence of any significant link then the Bush people would have publicized it like it was the fucking olympics. The fact that you don't hear much about from them is because they know they've got nothing, and the few straws they grasp at aren't brought up much because they know any real scrutiny would punch holes through them a mile wide (as Kal-El pretty much just did). Besides, didn't we go in there for the WMD's? Oh shit, no nukes or nerve gas, uh, wait, we're fighting terrorism now! Well, guess what, the number of terrorist in Iraq increased exponentially after we invaded. What's mroe, many from our own intelligence community have become worried that Iraq is now the world's #1 terrporist training ground, with thousands of young, angry Muslims flocking to the area to learn how to fight using covert methods, make bombs, and generally awful terrorist shit.
I don't bother to argue this much now anymore, because in ten years if will be clear we shot ourselves in the foot and wasted an enormous amount of resources, good will, and most importantly human lives over there. I'm satisfied knowing that the folks who think that a useless and stupid war was a real great move for America will eventually be forced to ackowledge they were way off base.
I don't bother to argue this much now anymore, because in ten years if will be clear we shot ourselves in the foot and wasted an enormous amount of resources, good will, and most importantly human lives over there. I'm satisfied knowing that the folks who think that a useless and stupid war was a real great move for America will eventually be forced to ackowledge they were way off base.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2003
- Messages
- 162
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp
The Clinton View of Iraq-al Qaeda Ties
From the December 29, 2003 / January 5, 2004 issue: Connecting the dots in 1998, but not in 2003.
by Stephen F. Hayes
12/29/2003, Volume 009, Issue 16
Larger type view
Increase Font Size
Printer-Friendly
Email a Friend
Respond to this article
ARE AL QAEDA'S links to Saddam Hussein's Iraq just a fantasy of the Bush administration? Hardly. The Clinton administration also warned the American public about those ties and defended its response to al Qaeda terror by citing an Iraqi connection.
For nearly two years, starting in 1996, the CIA monitored the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan. The plant was known to have deep connections to Sudan's Military Industrial Corporation, and the CIA had gathered intelligence on the budding relationship between Iraqi chemical weapons experts and the plant's top officials. The intelligence included information that several top chemical weapons specialists from Iraq had attended ceremonies to celebrate the plant's opening in 1996. And, more compelling, the National Security Agency had intercepted telephone calls between Iraqi scientists and the plant's general manager.
Iraq also admitted to having a $199,000 contract with al Shifa for goods under the oil-for-food program. Those goods were never delivered. While it's hard to know what significance, if any, to ascribe to this information, it fits a pattern described in recent CIA reporting on the overlap in the mid-1990s between al Qaeda-financed groups and firms that violated U.N. sanctions on behalf of Iraq.
The clincher, however, came later in the spring of 1998, when the CIA secretly gathered a soil sample from 60 feet outside of the plant's main gate. The sample showed high levels of O-ethylmethylphosphonothioic acid, known as EMPTA, which is a key ingredient for the deadly nerve agent VX. A senior intelligence official who briefed
reporters at the time was asked which countries make VX using EMPTA. "Iraq is the only country we're aware of," the official said. "There are a variety of ways of making VX, a variety of recipes, and EMPTA is fairly unique."
That briefing came on August 24, 1998, four days after the Clinton administration launched cruise-missile strikes against al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Sudan (Osama bin Laden's headquarters from 1992-96), including the al Shifa plant. The missile strikes came 13 days after bombings at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killed 257 people--including 12 Americans--and injured nearly 5,000. Clinton administration officials said that the attacks were in part retaliatory and in part preemptive. U.S. intelligence agencies had picked up "chatter" among bin Laden's deputies indicating that more attacks against American interests were imminent.
The al Shifa plant in Sudan was largely destroyed after being hit by six Tomahawk missiles. John McWethy, national security correspondent for ABC News, reported the story on August 25, 1998:
Before the pharmaceutical plant was reduced to rubble by American cruise missiles, the CIA was secretly gathering evidence that ended up putting the facility on America's target list. Intelligence sources say their agents clandestinely gathered soil samples outside the plant and found, quote, "strong evidence" of a chemical compound called EMPTA, a compound that has only one known purpose, to make VX nerve gas.
Then, the connection:
The U.S. had been suspicious for months, partly because of Osama bin Laden's financial ties, but also because of strong connections to Iraq. Sources say the U.S. had intercepted phone calls from the plant to a man in Iraq who runs that country's chemical weapons program...
The Clinton View of Iraq-al Qaeda Ties
From the December 29, 2003 / January 5, 2004 issue: Connecting the dots in 1998, but not in 2003.
by Stephen F. Hayes
12/29/2003, Volume 009, Issue 16
Larger type view
Increase Font Size
Printer-Friendly
Email a Friend
Respond to this article
ARE AL QAEDA'S links to Saddam Hussein's Iraq just a fantasy of the Bush administration? Hardly. The Clinton administration also warned the American public about those ties and defended its response to al Qaeda terror by citing an Iraqi connection.
For nearly two years, starting in 1996, the CIA monitored the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan. The plant was known to have deep connections to Sudan's Military Industrial Corporation, and the CIA had gathered intelligence on the budding relationship between Iraqi chemical weapons experts and the plant's top officials. The intelligence included information that several top chemical weapons specialists from Iraq had attended ceremonies to celebrate the plant's opening in 1996. And, more compelling, the National Security Agency had intercepted telephone calls between Iraqi scientists and the plant's general manager.
Iraq also admitted to having a $199,000 contract with al Shifa for goods under the oil-for-food program. Those goods were never delivered. While it's hard to know what significance, if any, to ascribe to this information, it fits a pattern described in recent CIA reporting on the overlap in the mid-1990s between al Qaeda-financed groups and firms that violated U.N. sanctions on behalf of Iraq.
The clincher, however, came later in the spring of 1998, when the CIA secretly gathered a soil sample from 60 feet outside of the plant's main gate. The sample showed high levels of O-ethylmethylphosphonothioic acid, known as EMPTA, which is a key ingredient for the deadly nerve agent VX. A senior intelligence official who briefed
reporters at the time was asked which countries make VX using EMPTA. "Iraq is the only country we're aware of," the official said. "There are a variety of ways of making VX, a variety of recipes, and EMPTA is fairly unique."
That briefing came on August 24, 1998, four days after the Clinton administration launched cruise-missile strikes against al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Sudan (Osama bin Laden's headquarters from 1992-96), including the al Shifa plant. The missile strikes came 13 days after bombings at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killed 257 people--including 12 Americans--and injured nearly 5,000. Clinton administration officials said that the attacks were in part retaliatory and in part preemptive. U.S. intelligence agencies had picked up "chatter" among bin Laden's deputies indicating that more attacks against American interests were imminent.
The al Shifa plant in Sudan was largely destroyed after being hit by six Tomahawk missiles. John McWethy, national security correspondent for ABC News, reported the story on August 25, 1998:
Before the pharmaceutical plant was reduced to rubble by American cruise missiles, the CIA was secretly gathering evidence that ended up putting the facility on America's target list. Intelligence sources say their agents clandestinely gathered soil samples outside the plant and found, quote, "strong evidence" of a chemical compound called EMPTA, a compound that has only one known purpose, to make VX nerve gas.
Then, the connection:
The U.S. had been suspicious for months, partly because of Osama bin Laden's financial ties, but also because of strong connections to Iraq. Sources say the U.S. had intercepted phone calls from the plant to a man in Iraq who runs that country's chemical weapons program...
Originally posted by Swank:
I agree 100%, its almost useless to impose one's view, because they're will always be a conflicting viewpoint. I'm not saying I'm right or wrong here, I'll just let what's happening speak for itself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree 100%, its almost useless to impose one's view, because they're will always be a conflicting viewpoint. I'm not saying I'm right or wrong here, I'll just let what's happening speak for itself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2003
- Messages
- 668
Sure thing. First off, the weekly standard is an openly conservative publication that exclusively pushes that agenda, just so we're clear on that. It's not a terrible publication, but all the articles it publishes exist within that editorial voice are not an unbiased or balanced source. Basically anything you get from there is about one half of the story or otherwise written in such a way as to marginalize the opposite perspective.
That being said, that article describes some loose intelligence used by the Clinton adminstration (which was way more aggressive about anti-terrorist policies and Al Queda than Bush was before 9/11, a platform that Al Gore had pledged to continue, too bad he didn't get the chance) in the late 90s, not currently useful information. Talk about a fucking double standard: the Bush people ignore a memo from teh government's top terrorism man (Clarke) titled: "Bin-Laden Attack Imminent" because it contained information of a "mostly historical nature" (Condi Rice's exact words) which was actually just a few months old, and then you guys turn around and claim that some alleged CIA reports about cash funneling through the defunct Iraqi weapons program five years ago is solid evidence that Iraq is an Al Queda stronghold? Give me a break. Like I said, grasping at straws. This one is almost funny to me.
If you want to trace remote and speculative ties to Bin Laden and terrorist networks, you can find them in corporations and governments all over the globe, including the USA. Just about every single Arab nation has more Bin-Laden paper trails and financial ties and terrorist activity than Iraq did. If you check out some non-biased sources or read some books about terrorism and the middle east, you'll find qualified experts repeating this claim. However, if Rush Limbaugh and openly conservative news magazines are the only sources of information people are going to turn to, then it seems unlikely you'll ever come across anything contradicting what you'd like to believe. But then again, that's the overwhelming trend I sense from most hardcore conservatives I speak with - they don't want a varied and balanced source of information, they don't want to hear both sides and evaluate the facts - they just want to hear over and over again that their opinions are correct and everybody else is stupid. Hence the success of Limbaugh and the rest . . .
That being said, that article describes some loose intelligence used by the Clinton adminstration (which was way more aggressive about anti-terrorist policies and Al Queda than Bush was before 9/11, a platform that Al Gore had pledged to continue, too bad he didn't get the chance) in the late 90s, not currently useful information. Talk about a fucking double standard: the Bush people ignore a memo from teh government's top terrorism man (Clarke) titled: "Bin-Laden Attack Imminent" because it contained information of a "mostly historical nature" (Condi Rice's exact words) which was actually just a few months old, and then you guys turn around and claim that some alleged CIA reports about cash funneling through the defunct Iraqi weapons program five years ago is solid evidence that Iraq is an Al Queda stronghold? Give me a break. Like I said, grasping at straws. This one is almost funny to me.
If you want to trace remote and speculative ties to Bin Laden and terrorist networks, you can find them in corporations and governments all over the globe, including the USA. Just about every single Arab nation has more Bin-Laden paper trails and financial ties and terrorist activity than Iraq did. If you check out some non-biased sources or read some books about terrorism and the middle east, you'll find qualified experts repeating this claim. However, if Rush Limbaugh and openly conservative news magazines are the only sources of information people are going to turn to, then it seems unlikely you'll ever come across anything contradicting what you'd like to believe. But then again, that's the overwhelming trend I sense from most hardcore conservatives I speak with - they don't want a varied and balanced source of information, they don't want to hear both sides and evaluate the facts - they just want to hear over and over again that their opinions are correct and everybody else is stupid. Hence the success of Limbaugh and the rest . . .
Under the Bush Administration, American credibility suffers even more as the world notes the hipocracy of our president. We, as a so-called world leader in human rights imprison more people per capita than any other country on earth- all in the name of freedom. The real question is this "freedom" we are supposedly enjoying- is it really freedom, or opression on a scale that is concerning not just Americans- but the world in general as our president's policies seem to bring fear throughout the entire civilized world?
Priap,
We are picking over semantics. Leasing is LEGAL ownership. IOW, the leasee has the rights of holding the property, and doing what he wishes, as long as it does not violate the lease agreement. A lease is every bit as valid legal ownership as a deed. With a lease, usually the term of the lease is known. With ownership, the term is until the owner sells the property. In this case, GTMO is an open term lease. The US 'owns' it, can do what it wishes with the property, under the lease agreement, until the US wishes to end the lease.
A lease and a deed are no different concerning legal ownership of a property, except as outlined in the deed, or lease agreement. They are both legal titles to the property. Both may or may not have encumbrances attached to the property.
That a previous Cuban administration made the lease makes no difference. It is still a legal, valid title holding under international law. The US is NOT an occupier, invader, whatever. The US is there totally legally. GTMO is a legal holding of property.
Haiti and The Dominican Republic also legally share an island. They are both sovereign nations. Because Cuba holds the majority of it's island, does not mean there cannot legally be other sovereign nations imbedded there.
>I assume, then, that you didn't read the partial article that I posted after my original post. Castro seems pretty unequivical in his desire to see the U.S. gone from Cuban soil.<
It does not matter what Castro wants or thinks. We legally hold the land. We were not invited, nor did we invade, nor did we take the land by force. We can stay there as long as the lease is in effect. GTMO is Cuban soil, ONLY in the fact that it is attached to Cuba. It is legally US soil.
By the same token, the US purchased Alaska from Russia under a legal contract. What you are saying concerning Cuba would be the same as Russia coming back and saying they still own Alaska, and we must leave. There is no legal foundation in either case. There is no difference in one being an exchange of 'deed', and the other being a lease.
The Cuban situation does not in any way refer to the question I asked. Cuba is not applicable. Look at the situation from the perspective of Cuba. LEGALLY, GTMO is a US posession. Cuba does NOT have any rights in GTMO. Land being attached to a country does NOT essentially give that country sovereignty over that land, when a legal document precludes that countries sovereignty.
Cuba CANNOT ask us, or demand that we leave, because they have NO international legal standing. Legally, it would be the same as if Castro asked us to leave Montana. Both are US legal possessions. Period.
Now, isn't it odd that you can only come up with this one country which has any problem (however invalid) with US occupation of land? Someone wrote that the US is in a bunch of countries, inserting our will, implying that the US is imperialistic. And yet, in every case, we either have the legal right to be there, or have been invited by the government. In other cases, we have left countries of our own volition, or when asked, have left. Not very imperialistic.
Iwant8,
I have no idea what you are referring to. The US went into Iraq in response to the continued, and multiple breaking of Iraq's previously outlined and agreed to responsibilities, and as a direct response to a perceived threat. That is the right of any country. Secondarily, there were humanitarian concerns.
Once again, the US, UK, or any other countrie's previous support of Saddam is of no consequence, given new and significant evidence of his thoughts and actions. To ignore his crimes would be folly. Internationally speaking, just his support for suicide bomber families ($25,00 per incident) should have been cause for the entire international community to remove him. But then, he had many more sins.
If you believe Iraq was not a threat, then either you are ill informed, or simply have extremely strong preconceived notions. I cannot help you.
And that is essentially what this entire debate returns to: Whether the coalition forces had the "required" impetus to invade another country. Whether the evidence of the last 20 years of Saddam's actions were of significant enough affront, internationally, and locally, to do something about him. An honest assesment of his actions can only find that his regime had to be removed. If one does not believe he should have been removed. Then, one should call for his reinstallation to power.
Bigger
We are picking over semantics. Leasing is LEGAL ownership. IOW, the leasee has the rights of holding the property, and doing what he wishes, as long as it does not violate the lease agreement. A lease is every bit as valid legal ownership as a deed. With a lease, usually the term of the lease is known. With ownership, the term is until the owner sells the property. In this case, GTMO is an open term lease. The US 'owns' it, can do what it wishes with the property, under the lease agreement, until the US wishes to end the lease.
A lease and a deed are no different concerning legal ownership of a property, except as outlined in the deed, or lease agreement. They are both legal titles to the property. Both may or may not have encumbrances attached to the property.
That a previous Cuban administration made the lease makes no difference. It is still a legal, valid title holding under international law. The US is NOT an occupier, invader, whatever. The US is there totally legally. GTMO is a legal holding of property.
Haiti and The Dominican Republic also legally share an island. They are both sovereign nations. Because Cuba holds the majority of it's island, does not mean there cannot legally be other sovereign nations imbedded there.
>I assume, then, that you didn't read the partial article that I posted after my original post. Castro seems pretty unequivical in his desire to see the U.S. gone from Cuban soil.<
It does not matter what Castro wants or thinks. We legally hold the land. We were not invited, nor did we invade, nor did we take the land by force. We can stay there as long as the lease is in effect. GTMO is Cuban soil, ONLY in the fact that it is attached to Cuba. It is legally US soil.
By the same token, the US purchased Alaska from Russia under a legal contract. What you are saying concerning Cuba would be the same as Russia coming back and saying they still own Alaska, and we must leave. There is no legal foundation in either case. There is no difference in one being an exchange of 'deed', and the other being a lease.
The Cuban situation does not in any way refer to the question I asked. Cuba is not applicable. Look at the situation from the perspective of Cuba. LEGALLY, GTMO is a US posession. Cuba does NOT have any rights in GTMO. Land being attached to a country does NOT essentially give that country sovereignty over that land, when a legal document precludes that countries sovereignty.
Cuba CANNOT ask us, or demand that we leave, because they have NO international legal standing. Legally, it would be the same as if Castro asked us to leave Montana. Both are US legal possessions. Period.
Now, isn't it odd that you can only come up with this one country which has any problem (however invalid) with US occupation of land? Someone wrote that the US is in a bunch of countries, inserting our will, implying that the US is imperialistic. And yet, in every case, we either have the legal right to be there, or have been invited by the government. In other cases, we have left countries of our own volition, or when asked, have left. Not very imperialistic.
Iwant8,
I have no idea what you are referring to. The US went into Iraq in response to the continued, and multiple breaking of Iraq's previously outlined and agreed to responsibilities, and as a direct response to a perceived threat. That is the right of any country. Secondarily, there were humanitarian concerns.
Once again, the US, UK, or any other countrie's previous support of Saddam is of no consequence, given new and significant evidence of his thoughts and actions. To ignore his crimes would be folly. Internationally speaking, just his support for suicide bomber families ($25,00 per incident) should have been cause for the entire international community to remove him. But then, he had many more sins.
If you believe Iraq was not a threat, then either you are ill informed, or simply have extremely strong preconceived notions. I cannot help you.
And that is essentially what this entire debate returns to: Whether the coalition forces had the "required" impetus to invade another country. Whether the evidence of the last 20 years of Saddam's actions were of significant enough affront, internationally, and locally, to do something about him. An honest assesment of his actions can only find that his regime had to be removed. If one does not believe he should have been removed. Then, one should call for his reinstallation to power.
Bigger
Originally posted by Bib:
If thats the case, how come the leaders of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and just about every other country in the region asked the US NOT to go to war? Anyway, he was dramitically weakened as a result of Gulf War 1 and UN sanctions through the '90s.
If thats the case, how come the leaders of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and just about every other country in the region asked the US NOT to go to war? Anyway, he was dramitically weakened as a result of Gulf War 1 and UN sanctions through the '90s.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2005
- Messages
- 300
Bib,
You're the one who started all the extraneous discussion. This is what you originally asked:
This was my answer:
The U.S. military is currently stationed at GTMO, Cuba, and is not welcomed by the current government of Cuba.
These are FACTS. You can try to refute them all day with your specious arguments, but in the end they are still FACTS.
I used to respect your opinion, but after your whole misrepresentation of leasing, international law, and that laughably absurd comparison of the legal status of Alaska and GTMO, I think that I may have been too generous.
You're the one who started all the extraneous discussion. This is what you originally asked:
Bib said:
This was my answer:
The U.S. military is currently stationed at GTMO, Cuba, and is not welcomed by the current government of Cuba.
These are FACTS. You can try to refute them all day with your specious arguments, but in the end they are still FACTS.
I used to respect your opinion, but after your whole misrepresentation of leasing, international law, and that laughably absurd comparison of the legal status of Alaska and GTMO, I think that I may have been too generous.
- Joined
- May 8, 2004
- Messages
- 2,151
Kal-el said:
This whole Saddam/Usama relationship...
It really sounds like what was going on with Ayatollah Khomeini back when he was in An Najaf. Saddam hated that man as well and probably more than he did Usama because of Khomeini's influence over the Shiites in Iraq. Saddam expelled him in 1978 at the Iranian shah's request. 1979 of course we know the shah was overthrown and the majority of the people particularly the students were fed up SAVAK and religious zealots. The Iranians were at odds with the shah's meekness when it came to the U.S. and other countries and oil revenues. So the "hometown" hero comes to save the day in Iran and all hell breaks loose after that for Iran and U.S. relations as if it couldn't have gotten shakier. We know of the hostages and all that. Iran and Iraq both have just been played and preyed upon over and over internally and externally. Saddam was a secularist and that hasn't sat well ever since the Islamist fundamentalists and extremists that were allowed to gain influence and flourish. There was so much animosity from such groups aimed at any secular regimes, but particularly Iraq and Saudi Arabia. The house of Saud has had a noteworthy history of supporting these extremists and fundamentalists so as to keep from being attacked by them. The history of the Middle East since the British and Ottoman empires is nearly unbelievable.
And Bib, UN Res. 1441 was based on all the other UN resolutions from the early 90s. None of them certainly mentioned ANYTHING about war as a consequence of noncompliance.
Bush was following up on his fellow buddies' 2000 plan from PNAC(who just happen to be imperical themselves and hate the UN). The Bush doctrine is all but a means for committing war crimes in addition to just going around the UN. It could lead to the invasion of a country that is only "suspected" of harboring terrorists. It's insane and Hitler like. Terrorists are in virtually EVERY country. One of the major points that Rumsfeld gave as justifications for the invasion of Iraq was self defense. The British aren't denying the Downing Street Memo and in it it clearly states that even though it was known by the President that Iraq posed no threat to its neighbors and had less WMD capability than Iran, Libya, and North Korea the intel was to be fit around policy. Not even UN resolution 1205 was believed by the perpetrators to be solid enough for preemptive war.
Extending Democracy to the whole world. That's a load of garbage. When did it become Non-Imperial to invade, set up shop military wise, and "extend" your government on a country? War is never the answer for any side and when it becomes the only answer heard that means nothing was done right on either side. The justifications for the 2003 invasion just weren't true.
Priap,
Sorry you do not respect me anymore.
But your link made my point exactly, better than I did. Quoting from your link, "A lease is a contract for the possession and profits of lands". The US is leasing GTMO, and is therefore a US POSSESSION. Not a Cuban possession. Therefore, it is NOT an example relevant to my original question, "Where is the US stationed in the world, at present, that we are not welcomed by the government". The US is the government in possession of GTMO. The US obviouly welcomes the US in GTMO. That is as simple as it gets.
The US has been there for over 100 years. The Cubans have NOT been there for over 100 years.
The Russia/Alaska analogy is correct, and applies to the discussion, in that both Alaska and GTMO are governed by contracts, one a sale and the other a lease. Both are valid instruments to convey possession. Cuba has no say in the US possession of GTMO, unless and until the US breaks or dissolves the lease.
This is simple fact, and I am done with it. You may twist the facts as you wish.
Kal,
>If thats the case, how come the leaders of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and just about every other country in the region asked the US NOT to go to war? <
There were many reasons the countries listed above, that border Iraq, did not want war. Most of them very obvious. One was the fear of masses of refugees, another was fear of what WMDs Saddam had, and the spillover effect. Some were paid off by Saddam for their support. Some perhaps feared the precedent of removal of a dictator. Obviously, Kuwait and Iran were in favor of regime change.
Most, including Turkey and SA, feared Saddam, and actually wanted his removal. But they feared the consequences more.
All in all, they probably feared the unknown, vs the known sins of Saddam. On the other hand, the coalition countries feared what might happen, even considering a weakened Saddam. A wounded animal is generally more dangerous. His active support of terrorism was a major concern, but obviously not to the countries you listed.
But as you correctly pointed out, other countries in the region were in favor of invasion and removal of Saddam. It all depends on who's bull is being gored.
Iwant8,
Believe as you wish. But looking back over the last 15 years or so of Saddam's reign, there is simply no doubt as to the validity and legality of the war. He did not abide by his promises after the 1st war, or the UN resolutions. He was a threat, a risk, to the US, the region, and the world as a whole.
Once again, if the war was illegal, do you call for his reinstallation?
Bigger
Sorry you do not respect me anymore.
But your link made my point exactly, better than I did. Quoting from your link, "A lease is a contract for the possession and profits of lands". The US is leasing GTMO, and is therefore a US POSSESSION. Not a Cuban possession. Therefore, it is NOT an example relevant to my original question, "Where is the US stationed in the world, at present, that we are not welcomed by the government". The US is the government in possession of GTMO. The US obviouly welcomes the US in GTMO. That is as simple as it gets.
The US has been there for over 100 years. The Cubans have NOT been there for over 100 years.
The Russia/Alaska analogy is correct, and applies to the discussion, in that both Alaska and GTMO are governed by contracts, one a sale and the other a lease. Both are valid instruments to convey possession. Cuba has no say in the US possession of GTMO, unless and until the US breaks or dissolves the lease.
This is simple fact, and I am done with it. You may twist the facts as you wish.
Kal,
>If thats the case, how come the leaders of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and just about every other country in the region asked the US NOT to go to war? <
There were many reasons the countries listed above, that border Iraq, did not want war. Most of them very obvious. One was the fear of masses of refugees, another was fear of what WMDs Saddam had, and the spillover effect. Some were paid off by Saddam for their support. Some perhaps feared the precedent of removal of a dictator. Obviously, Kuwait and Iran were in favor of regime change.
Most, including Turkey and SA, feared Saddam, and actually wanted his removal. But they feared the consequences more.
All in all, they probably feared the unknown, vs the known sins of Saddam. On the other hand, the coalition countries feared what might happen, even considering a weakened Saddam. A wounded animal is generally more dangerous. His active support of terrorism was a major concern, but obviously not to the countries you listed.
But as you correctly pointed out, other countries in the region were in favor of invasion and removal of Saddam. It all depends on who's bull is being gored.
Iwant8,
Believe as you wish. But looking back over the last 15 years or so of Saddam's reign, there is simply no doubt as to the validity and legality of the war. He did not abide by his promises after the 1st war, or the UN resolutions. He was a threat, a risk, to the US, the region, and the world as a whole.
Once again, if the war was illegal, do you call for his reinstallation?
Bigger
