Can we deny it any longer?

[Mylezylez]

Well, America's finest are finally starting to fess up to the real motives in Iraq.

Luckily, the British press still has the balls to report the facts, even if George W. Bush doesn't like that.

www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/S...31,00.html

I mean really, what more proof do you need?

-Miles
________
Weed Vaporizers (http://weedvaporizers.org/)

[watcher]

Long Live Bush jr, Bush senior, and all the Bushes and trees
________
Toyota Motor Manufacturing Texas (http://www.toyota-wiki.com/wiki/Toyota_Motor_Manufacturing_Texas)

[DroopyA]

I fail to see the significance. A member in Bush's cabinet is against the war, claims it's for oil like everybody else, and this is proof? How? I mean, Al Gore said he invented the Internet, that doesn't make it true. The way I see it, this guy is no different then you. You're both shouting out claims, with no evidence to back it up.

I'm sorry, but I have a hard time believe that our government would go against the whims of the UN and half of the world to put money in the pockets of 3 people on Bush's cabinet and an exPresident from 12 years ago. The people crying "oil" always try to make it sound like the president is nothing more then a money grubbing capitalist but what they fail to realize is that if all Bush wanted was money, he would have stayed out of the White House. Let?s face it, there is far more money to be made in business then there is in politics.

Peace
-N473



________
Holden commodore (http://www.chevy-wiki.com/wiki/Holden_Commodore)

[Mylezylez]

Well, Paul Wolfowitz was HARDLY against the war.

The "Contract for a New American Century" document, which describes a take-over of Iraq as the first step to a permanent American influence in the middle was co-authored by Wolfowitz. Before and during the conflict, he was a leading spokesman for Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon. He is Donald Rumsfeld's top advisor, and one of the leading "Neo-Conservatives" in the Bush administration.

I really think you should read up on the people you are so blindly supporting.


________
Ipad Cases (http://accesoriesipad.com/)

[Redd Neck]

Wolfowitz is a Zionist. Enough said.

[DroopyA]

If the was was about oil, then why didn't the US drop thr policy with Iraq 12 years ago, lift the sanctions, and let Saddam Hussn keep his weapons of mass destruction?

Peace
-N473
________
LollyDolly (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/cam/LollyDolly/)

[Mylezylez]

I've wondered about that as well.

I think though that the first Iraq conflict was also motivated by US business interests in the region.

I think the US saw an opportunity to get thr hands on a large supply of oil, and have the world still think they were the good guys. It didn't exactly work out like that though, I'd say.

When you consider that hydrogen fuel cells are environmentally clean, renewable, and far more powerful and fuel efficient than oil, it really makes me sick that we're still fighting over this natural resource.

A side note: George W. Bush, who so brazenly mentioned hydrogen power in his state of the union address, has his own plan for the alternative fuel. Instead of collecting hydrogen from natural sources like water, sewage, and more, he would like the hydrogen industry to merge with the oil industry. The hydrogen will be generated by combusting refined petroleum and gasses from nuclear reactors!!!! I kid you not.
________
ZX14 VS HAYABUSA (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_bike_is_quicker_kawasaki_zx_-14_or_suzuki_hayabusa)

[DroopyA]

It seems the Guradian has been spouting bullshit (who would have thought?).

Wolfowitz's full remarks go as follows:

Quote:The difference between North Korea and Iraq, Wolfowitz said, is that the United States could not use economic pressure to strangle Hussn's regime "because the country floats on a sea of oil." North Korea, by comparison, is near economic collapse, and that offers "a major point of leverage," he said.

It seems that they have realised thr error and taken the page down

Peace
-N473
________
How to use mflb (http://www.vaporshop.com)

[Mylezylez]

I don't see the difference, actually.

I mean, for anyone who can read between the lines, it's obvious how important a factor the Iraqi oil is in this conflict. What America isn't bng told is that the Iraqi oil facilities have been under American control, not allowing anyone but "authorized personel" in.

Now, Do you honestly think America isn't doing this for it's own profit?

I recently saw a really awful video of US marines in an Iraqi oil distribution plant. They marines were talking to two Iraqi employees, who were obviously imtimidated by the marines' presence. The marine in command (sorry, they didn't print his name or rank) was asking one of the Iraqis how much oil they had shipped out today. The Iraqi man said (timidly) , "Five-hundred", in the small amount of English he knew. The marine got all condescending and shouted gleefully "Five hundred barrels!!!". He continued, "You know what I'm gonna give you for doing such a wonderful job? Some of my wife's cookies! They're from Wisconson. Can you say Wisconsin?"

So basically, I've decided that the take over and subsequent pillaging of Iraq is going quite well.

You know Baghdad is still largely without electricity and reliable utilities?

I beg you all to to trust what YOU see, now what Bill O'Rlly tells you to interpret! In fact, I don't even want anybody to agree with me, but I think there comes a time when you can't deny stuff that IS happening, versus just what rhetoric exists about it.
________
Uggs (http://uggstoreshop.com/)

[Mylezylez]

I should mention also that Donald Rumsfeld himself has said what Wolfowitz said.

What they both said (and please correct me if you think I'm wrong) is basically that in the discussions on how to present this war to the public, a high-level decision was made to focus on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction. Representatives from the pentagon and the CIA have comes forward to say that they were pressured to make the most of whatever intelligence (no matter how shaky) they had saying that Iraq was the most dangerous country on earth (which is by FAR not true).
________
Montana Dispensary (http://montana.dispensaries.org/)

[SuffolkMD]

Mylezylez

Good bit of revisionism, but it's too early for that.

Iraq just finished an ght year war with Iran as part of Saddam's plan to conquer and rule the Middle . He borrowed money from other Arab countries to finance it. When he couldn't win, he decided not to pay these countries back. But he had to. So he decided to Invade Kuwait and take control of thr oil. Keep in mind that Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait are the number 1,2,3 producers of oil in the world. So now he's got two and three. We placed troops in Saudi Arabia (Desert Shield) to protect them from his next invasion so that HE would not have control over the largest part of the world's oil (We don't like monopolies). As he committed atrocities to Kuwaitis, such as raping thr women, we had to step in and drive him back. Now, who is the bad guy here?

Hydrogen cells are so good? Prove it! If they are so good, then why hadn't a company started mass producing them for the public. Last time I knew of someone burning Hydrogen was with the Hydrogen bomb! Don't think I want it powering my car.

Burning oil produces Carbon Dioxide, good for trees. Burning Hydrogen, as clean as you expertly say it is, will produce what?

And you want to get the hydrogen from where? The world's water? Water? Drinking water? I must ask YOU, are YOU kidding?

SuffolkMD
________
Falcon (North America) (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Ford_Falcon_(North_America))

[Iraqnaphobia]

>>> Burning oil produces Carbon Dioxide, good for trees. Burning Hydrogen, as clean as you expertly say it is, will produce what? <<<

SuffolkMD,
By your logic, if we set every oilfield on Earth ablaze, the world would be a garden.


Mylezylez,
He's pulling your leg. Nobody can be THAT stupid. Especially not an MD.

[Mylezylez]

SuffolkMD,

I hate to tell you this, but Hydrogen power IS a very valid replacement for oil. It works electro-chemically (can you say that?) to produce a large amount of power for vehicles, or pretty much any engine.

But you're pretending this is some fantasy? I think you've been brainwashed more than most people. Even President Bush in his state of the union address mentioned this technology. And THAT was even ridiculous of him to mention it, seng as it's 100% ready to go right now, but the major oil and car companies would very much like to block it. This isn't a conspiracy theory, all you assayers, this is common operating procedure for a government-connected industry.

Another favorite author of mine once brought up that the government would only decide to use solar power (which DOES work abundantly) if the power companies could find a way to put a meter between the Earth and the Sun.

I mean think about it, is it in the automotive industry's interest to have a cheap, clean, and abundant power source? I would say no.

So what's the solution? Corporations hate change, and resist it with every cent they have. I think real humanitarian progress NEVER comes about through financial profit. I mean, if every person in America had a house that could power itself (solar or whatever), do you think the major energy companies would like that?

-Miles


________
Mercury Colony Park (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Mercury_Colony_Park)

[DroopyA]

A hydrogen-powered car would emit water vapor, which doesn't pollute the air.

But the problem is, it's not working like it should yet. From what I understand, it has a high fail rate. Not to mention the cars are far too expensive at this point in time, and I believe wght and size is still an issue.

[/quote]Generating hydrogen from renewable resources would make this fuel particularly attractive, but production methods are plagued with low efficiency or complex processing[/quote] - www.nature.com/nature/lin...829-4.html

Quote:Before running out to trade in the family gas-guzzler for a hydrogen-power roadster, know that the prototype's price tag was $180,000. Cheaper than a Maserati, but not cheap. - sln.fi.edu/inquirer/hydrocar.html

Quote:The wght of the cells is another issue. An internal combustion engine wghs about two to four pounds for every kilowatt of power it generates. Fuel cells wgh 15 to 30 pounds per kilowatt. But some of the wght problem is offset by the fact that the cells are more efficient than normal auto engines.

Still, problems of size, wght and power "are all amenable to engineering technology," said Ford's Bates - Same link as above

However, Bush and many automobile and oil companies are all for the development of a hydrogen system.

www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/02/....hydrogen/

Quote:"Tonight I'm proposing $1.2 billion in research funding so that America can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles," Bush said.

Quote:Oil companies are exploring the option, too. ChevronTexaco has established joint ventures with Energy Conversion Devices, a leader in hydrogen fuel cell research and production. Shell is racing to beat its competitors in the development and commercialization of large-scale, zero-emission solid oxide fuel cells driven by natural gas.

You're correct in saying it's a valid replacement for oil, but hydrogen is still a few years away from bng 100% ready.

Peace
-N473
________
Candy247 (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/cam/Candy247/)

[Mylezylez]

Well actually, the president of the company pioneering this technology (sorry, the name escapes me) was on Nachman several months ago. He said that beyond a shadow of a doubt, this technology works (at l as well as oil), and it could replace ALL combustion engines in 5 years or less.

ther way, with Bush, I'm not holding my breath, at l until the excessive pollution, which already causes cancer, motivates me to.

Anyway, why do some people work so hard to prove that George W. Bush is justified in everythign he does?
________
Chevrolet corvette c1 (http://www.chevy-wiki.com/wiki/Chevrolet_Corvette_C1)

[DroopyA]

Of course the technology works, but it's not ready for the public yet. The cars currently available are too expensive, they're only prototypes, and there is no place to get fuel or have them repaired. I'm not saying everything Bush does is correct, but I am trying to point out that Bush is trying to promote the hydrogen power as well as many car and oil companies. The only reason we're not all driving one right now, is because it's just not ready for the public. I don't make the facts, I just know them... here read some more:

Quote:The local transit authority is already experimenting with a couple of hydrogen fuel cell buses. A group of oil giants, car makers, scientists and government officials, called the Fuel Cell Partnership, have all been brought together by a state that is choking on car exhaust.

Quote:Although the car is an impressive technological achievement, with a range of 160 miles, it is not ready for the mass market.

And there's another huge barrier. Who will build fueling stations until there are lots of cars to fill? It's the classic chicken and egg argument.

Quote:But George W. Bush may have put the hydrogen economy back on the agenda when he announced a billion plus in spending. Days later the buzz in California was about car companies worried about bng left behind in the race to build a hydrogen future.

www.cbc.ca/venture/fuelcell/monster.html

Peace
-N473


________
The cigar boss (http://thecigarboss.com/)

[Mylezylez]

This is an odd point to press on with I guess, but I really think that is incorrect.

The only reason the technology is looked at as too expensive is because of the cost of transition from combustion to hydrogen. That cost will always be there.

But add to that, the fact that the automotive industry doesn't really work on fairness when it comes to profit margin.

I've decided that the only thing keeping this technology back is the corporations' unwillingness to change.

In addition, it's nice to remind yourself that air pollution is a major cause of cancer. People seem to forget that America's nation epidemic (moreso than any other nation, except maybe Russia) is Cancer.
________
Herbal vaporizer recipe (http://vaporizer.org/reviews)

[DroopyA]

Quote:The only reason the technology is looked at as too expensive is because of the cost of transition from combustion to hydrogen. That cost will always be there.

Sure, but the cost will drop to a more reasonable price. Look at flat screen TVs for example. Without knowing the exact figure, I'm sure we can all agree that they are a lot cheaper now, and more reasonably priced, then they were a couple of years ago when they first came out.

Quote:I've decided that the only thing keeping this technology back is the corporations' unwillingness to change.

How can you say that when the corporations are the ones funding the project? The way I see it, it's a race to see who's going to be richer first. The first company that can build a hydrogen based automobile that meets the same standards as most combustion based cars will be worth millions. The technology will be thrs, the engine will be thrs, and anybody who wants one (including the cities who are already using the prototypes) will have to buy from them.

But lets ignore the cost. What about the fact that these hydrogen based cars can only travel about 160 miles before you have to refuel them? People complain about gas prices now, can you imagine if they had to buy a tank every day? Roadtrips are out of the question. Can you imagine how long it would take to drive across two states if you had to stop every 160 miles? Not to mention, where do you refuel at? I don't know about you, but I've never seen a hydrogen based gas station.

I agree, hydrogen cars are the way to go but lets face it, they're just not ready yet. They cost WAY too much, they get shitty mileage, and there is no place to refuel. Why would I want to give up my $36,000 car for $180,000 car that looks like crap, has no luxury inside, and will barely get me to the nearest town and back?

Peace
-N473
________
STARCARFT 2 REPLAY (http://screplays.com/replays)

[Mylezylez]

I seem to have a different source. On PBS, there was a mini-documentary about hydrogen power, where it was revealed that it IS as fuel efficient as gasoline, plus hydrogen is one of the most renewable elements on earth, so the actual cost of hydrogen will be MUCH less than gas.

You're not confusing this with electric cars, are you? Hydrogen power doesn't require a different looking car at all, or even a smaller or lighter one.

And I think this situation is much different from plasma TVs. Air pollution in this country is a MAJOR problem, and millions upon millions of people are getting sick because of it, not to mention the effects on our ecosystem. It seems like we're going to have to wait until it's too late before people finally wake up.
________
Gang bang german (http://www.fucktube.com/categories/592/german/videos/1)

[SuffolkMD]

Mylez,

I don't appreciate the continuous insulting. I have a B.S. Degree in Biological Sciences, and a medical doctorate degree. I have studied (extensively) General Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, Biochemistry, Biology, Physics, and Calculus. I think I know a little about chemical reactions.

I am willing to listen to you "experts" and possibly learn a thing or two, but I will not listen to you if you continually insult me. This is not a way to win over people to your side. And you use insults when you can't answer a question, something an intelligent person would not do.

You still have not answered my question as to where the Hydrogen comes from? Droopy A and others have said that Hydrogen comes from "renewable sources". What are these renewable resources? Anyone who knows anything about chemical reactions knows that there is no such thing as a renewable resource. Something is lost in the process of doing work and providing energy. Droopy A also says that Hydrogen burning creates water vapor. But Water is made of Hydrogen and Oxygen. If you burn the Hydrogen for power, how is it available to make water? It cannot be!

So I ask you again: Are you planning to use the world's drinking water to drive your cars? Is this environmentally sound?

The other point is that people keep talking about cars. But Petroleum products are used for other things: Lubricants, ointments, Heating oil.

Will Hydrogen be used to heat my house? Trucks use diesel, will a hydrogen cell power a Tractor Trailer or a Bulldozer. What about Electricity? What about Jet Fuel?

All I get from you is " I watched this show and he said that it would work." That's not good enough. Any intelligent person would not listen to anecdotal reports from a handful of people, but would rely on hard studies that unmistakably prove the hypothesis.

Let me hear them. I'm sure I can do a much better evaluation than you can.

SuffolkMD
________
70 (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/Honda_70)

[Mylezylez]

I'm sorry SuffolkMD, but I was a little put-off by your denial of this technology, which I thought was common knowledge by now (it was all over the non-Fox and MSNBC news). I'm so used to recving less than open-minded and couteous responses from other people on this board, I may have been a jerk.

Here's a good article about how hydrogen power works, and how George W. Bush's plans for it would be counter productive.

www.motherjones.com/news/...75_01.html

But I also must point out that there is an awful lot of resistance to this idea coming from you, and yet it seems like you know very little about it. I think the hydrogen powered car is the most important use of this technology (since most air-pollutants come from automobiles), but it sounds like it has other applications as well.

In any case, I think it's abundantly clear that this country has to stop its dependancy on oil. The world's (known) oil supply will be depleted in less than 100 years (some say as soon as 20). Since refined oil is proven to be bad for the environment, and people too, why not end the country's dependance on it, and stop killing tens of thousands of people in an attempt to control it?

-Miles
________
Maryjane (http://maryjanes.info/)

[NYIndependence]

Baghdad liable for September 11: judge
By Patricia Hurtado in New York
May 9 2003
A United States federal judge has ruled that Iraq provided material support to Osama bin Laden and his terrorist group al-Qaeda for the September 11, 2001, attack and is liable to pay $US104 million ($163 million) in damages to two victims' families.
The ruling, by Manhattan District Judge Harold Baer, is the first court decision stemming from the September 11 terrorist attacks.
The families of George Eric Smith, 38, and Timothy Soulas, 35, filed separate lawsuits based on the theory that Iraq had helped bin Laden carry out the attack.
Similar suits have been filed relating to the attacks, but this was the first to reach the damages phase.
In March Judge Baer was the first judge to hold a hearing to determine damages after making a default judgement in January against the Taliban, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, al-Qaeda, bin Laden, Saddam Hussn and the Republic of Iraq.
He made the finding after public announcements regarding the lawsuits in newspapers in Afghanistan and Iraq failed to draw any response from any defendants.
During the two-day hearing lawyers for the two families presented evidence that established a "conclusive link" between Saddam's Iraq and bin Laden's terrorist army.
The evidence included slides and declassified interviews with Iraqi military leaders who defected. They told a television news program that Saddam had a jet parked in a remote area of Iraq that, they claimed, was used to train hijackers. Evidence also featured the testimony of a former CIA director, James Woolsey.
"I conclude that the plaintiffs have shown, albt barely, by evidence satisfactory to the court that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al-Qaeda," Judge Baer wrote.
He ruled that Mr Smith, who worked on the 97th floor of the World Trade Centre's south tower, presumably died while descending the stairs as the second hijacked aircraft hit the tower.
Mr Soulas, who worked in the north tower, survived the impact of the first aircraft's crash, Judge Baer wrote. Minutes later Mr Soulas phoned a client and told him that the exits were blocked and they were "doomed".
The plaintiffs' lawyer, James Beasley, has said he is seeking Iraqi and bin Laden assets szed by the US Government.

________
roll a joint (http://howtorollajoint.net/)

[Mylezylez]

Are these people insane? These must be the same 60% of Americans who in polls said they believed at l some of the Sept 11th hijackers were from Iraq.

First and foremost, WHO are these people suing. I think we killed just about everybody, didn't we? Isn't this adding insult to injury?

But really, there still has been NO evidence that al Qaeda worked with Iraq at all. In fact, the Bush administration sat on the two high-ranking al Qaeda men who testified that there was no such relationship.

Not to say anything negative about people who lost loved ones in the world trade center, but this lawsuit seems very frivilous, and certainly isn't keeping with the reality of the situation.

-Miles
________
Lovely Wendie (http://www.lovelywendie99.com/)

[NYURepublican]

Quote:But really, there still has been NO evidence that al Qaeda worked with Iraq at all.

www.weeklystandard.com/Co...8wqxma.asp
________
Live sex webshows (http://livesexwebshows.com/)

[Mylezylez]

Well, what we have here are two conflicting pieces of evidence.

Which one do you think is more credible? A justice department interrogation of two high-ranking al Qaeda aperatives, of a badly written story from an extremely right-wing news magazine (do you think they WOULD post evidence that Iraq was NOT linked to Osama?).

Plus, if this story is true, it represents absolutely NO evidence at all.

Would that be enough to convict someone?

I challenge you to do the following:

For every news story you read about Iraq, the war on Terrorism, try reading your right-wing newspaper, and THEN check out commondreams.org or buzzflash.com and read one of thr stories on the same subject. I think thr reporting represents more actual research, eye-witness accounts, and a certain level of reporting that I don't think the mainstream media can rival by simply quoting unnamed government officials.

Now, if you read stories from those sites, and after looking at the evidence (not your perception of left-wing vs. right-wing, or any nonsense about the personality of the author), you decide that you were still right, then we'll probably be in more of a position to debate.

What we have now though is the right's inability to even acknowledge the points made by those who oppose the Bush administration. I swear, 90% of the rebuttals to say, Bush's strong financial connections to bin Laden are "you communist!" or "anti-American" or whatever.

-Miles

________
Vaporizer wholesaler (http://vaporizerwholesaler.com)

[NYIndependence]

Where is evidence of the Holocaust?
________
magic flight (http://mflbvaporizer.com)

[Mylezylez]

I think you should find a better example
________
How to turn off iolite (http://vaporizer.org/reviews)

[TheRealThing]

For the last time:

There are stronger links between the US and Al Qaeda, than there are between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

There are stronger links between the US and Saddam, than there are between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

I've found it. The US is the link!
________
justin bieber fan (http://justinbieberfan.info/)

[NYIndependence]

Let's get some things straight:
The United States supplied the Pakistani ISI to support the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, not specifically bin Laden or Al Qaeda. Unfortunately, the CIA did not have final say as to where arms and funds went, the Pakistanis did. Sadly, in some cases this meant that a Fundamentalist recved preference over a Moderate.

The United States supported Saddam Hussn in the 1980's while he fought the Iranian regime. To date, there is no credible evidence that the United States supplied the Hussn regime with unconventional weapons.

I never liked the argument that we should not fight the Taliban, or Al Qaeda, or Saddam just because we helped them a decade ago. Does this mean that the Berlin Airlift and the Korean War were not noble operations simply because we used the Soviets to our advantage 10 years earlier?
________
volcano classic (http://www.vaporshop.com/volcano-vaporizer.html)

[Mylezylez]

The US IS the link between al Qaeda and Iraq!
________
Gt4 (http://www.ferrari-wiki.com/wiki/Ferrari_GT4)

[NYIndependence]

So far, I have submitted an article (which first appeared in the right-wing publication known as Newsday) and it was ignored. Then I made a comparison between the WMD's and the Holocaust and it was denied.

Is it so much to ask for you to explain your arguments? You can't just say "It's different because I said so" and avoid the debate. An explanation coupled with some sources would be nice.
________
GS400E (http://www.suzuki-tech.com/wiki/Suzuki_GS400E)

[Mylezylez]

I would ask you to explain what you meant by comparing the PLENTIFUL evidence of the World War 2 holocaust to the shady, and scant evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

Sources? I don't know!
________
LovelyWendie99 (http://www.lovelywendie99.com/)

[NYIndependence]

All I know about the Holocaust has been what I saw from photographs (which easily could have been doctored), the media (which is controlled by the government anyway), and US soldiers (who are agents of the pro-Zionist American regime anyway).

Do you see what happens when you go out of your way to trust the enemy over your government?
________
vaporizer (http://vaporizers.net/)

[Mylezylez]

I'm sorry, but almost ALL of the Bush administration's evidence has been PROVEN to be false.

The difference is, now people don't care about reality. It's enough that Bush says the Iraqis will be free of a madman. It's ignoring too much
________
Lovely Wendie (http://www.lovelywendie99.com/)

[NYURepublican]

Quote:I'm sorry, but almost ALL of the Bush administration's evidence has been PROVEN to be false.

Oh, has it really? Let's see the "proof". All I've heard is some hearsay from out-of-the-loop officials. To "prove" Bush is lying, you've have to ther prove, contrary to Bill Clintion and the UN, that Saddam never had WMD's (and Bush knew it), or that Saddam got rid of his WMD's (and Bush knew it). Until you can prove that to me, cut the bullshi* about "Bush lied." At worst, he acted on faulty intel.
________
MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENCARY (http://www.dispensaries.org/)

[Mylezylez]

But I've been citing these lies for months now (off and on, on this board).

Everything from Colin Powell's falsified "OFFICIAL" intelligence report to the UN, to the completely orchestrated toppling of that Saddam statue (the crowd was only 100 strong, and the cameras were in tight to obscure the larger scene, which was the few people who DID show up were completely surrounded by US tanks). By the way, the man most prominently pictured cheering the statue's toppling was Ahmed Chilabi, the head of Washington's favorite Saddam opposition group.

THEN Washington expects us to believe that two empty trailers without a microbe of bio weapons or radiation is justification for the thousands of Iraqi men women and children who died. And this is just the latest in a string of ridiculous stories coming from Washington and the Pentagon.

And please admit to yourself for once that just because Saddam killed people in Iraq (which is EXTREMELY ethnicly divided, and constantly in conflict... Especially now), that is not justification enough for the USA to go over there and kill more.

Plus, isn't it proof enough that we have to GUESS what's going on, because we can't get tht truth from the government OR the news media these days?
________
Vaporizer Wiki (http://vaporizerwiki.com)

[Mylezylez]

This is a good editorial citing some of the more ridiculous lies coming from Washington:


<<<Saddam on the Loose: The Bush Cartel Propaganda is So Cheesy, Transparent, and Opportunistic, any Legitimate Press Would Laugh It off in a Minute

A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL

BuzzFlash has reported on the most amateurish Bush propaganda creations during the last year. There were so many, we could just touch upon a few. One of our favorites, leaked by the Pentagon to help justify the Iraq attack, was that Saddam had loaded his Weapons of Mass Destruction on three ships that were circling the globe. The "unnamed" Bush Cartel source, when asked why the U.S. didn't try to stop the ships, said that we didn't attack the vessels because we didn't want to unleash the WMDs.

BuzzFlash was laughing out loud at that one. A few days after the "leak," it was revealed that the ships in question were actually registered to a legitimate shipping company and thr cargo was fully accounted for.

Another one of our favorite "sucker" scare stories was mentioned in a BuzzFlash editorial the other day. The Bush Cartel claimed that Osama bin Laden had sent out terrorists to disguise themselves as beggars. We figured that ludicrous fib was a Bush Cartel twofer. It made Al-Qaeda appear completely merciless and unprincipled -- and it allowed the Bush Cartel to give beggars a bad name. That way the Bush Cartel could justify rounding up homeless people, if push came to shove. And since homeless people are poor because God believes them unworthy of bng wealthy, they are about as bad as terrorists, right?

So that leads us to today's Bush Cartel second-grade propaganda "leak" of the day. Through the Bush Cartel's puppet government-in-waiting for Iraq -- the Iraqi National Congress -- the word is bng spread that Saddam is alive and well (he is ludicrously described as "angry" in some reports) and paying soldiers to shoot American GI's.

We kid you not. Here is part of one wire service article (that is posted on AOL):

NEW YORK (June 11) - Saddam Hussn is alive, flush with cash and bent on revenge, an Iraqi exile leader warned, saying the Iraqi ex-president is offering money to anyone who kills a U.S. soldier.

Saddam has been spotted north of Baghdad, and he has $1.3 billion in cash taken from the Central Bank on March 18, Ahmed Chalabi, head of the London-based Iraqi National Congress, said Tuesday.

''He's put a price on American soldiers. He will pay bounty for every American soldier killed in Iraq now. This has been spread around in the western part of the country,'' Chalabi told the Council on Forgn Relations, a private New York-based international advocacy organization.

Chalabi said U.S. soldiers in thr armored vehicles ''are sitting ducks for terrorists'' and urged the creation of an Iraqi security force under U.S. command.

After we fell off of our chair with laughter, we realized that this is not so funny. We noticed that it was getting major play on the AOL opening page and on mainstream Internet news sites. It was on the radio, on television, and spreading like a whorehouse bawdy joke around the world. It would be hysterical, except that people are taking it seriously.

It shows you how morally bankrupt the Bush Cartel is that they would have thr proxy government in waiting spread a story that implies that the U.S. intelligence services are so ineffective that they can't even find Saddam Hussn in a country that the U.S. occupies. Not to mention that the U.S. military claimed to have killed Saddam twice. How can the war in Iraq be over, as Bush claims, when the evil villain himself is freely roaming Iraq hiring hit men to shoot American soldiers?

So here are the implications, if you believe the Bush Cartel's own planted stories: Not only are our intelligence services so poor and shoddy that they couldn't locate the Weapons of Mass Destruction that Bush and Blair claimed could be launched against the U.S. within a half an hour, they apparently can't locate the man that Bush claims to have vanquished.

While the likes of Tom (Silent Cal) Daschle and Nancy Pelosi praise Bush for his war on terrorism, the stories Bush's propaganda machine leak contradict the appraisal of the appeasement wing of the Democratic Party. After all, Osama bin Laden is apparently alive; the anthrax terrorist is loose; the Taliban are making a resurgence in Afghanistan; Iraqis are continuing to shoot and kill American soldiers at a ghastly pace; Iraqi nuclear sites were looted of material that could be used for dirty bombs by terrorists (because the Bush Cartel didn't guard them); and now we are told, by the Bush Cartel's spokespeople, that Saddam is alive.

At the recent "Take Back America" conference in D.C., former Senator Carol Moseley Braun (now a Democratic candidate for the presidential nomination) declared the Bush war on terrorism a failure: "It's like he [Bush] bombed the crack house, but let all the murderers escape."

In the insightful book on Karl Rove, "Bush's Brain," the authors point out that Rove knew that Bush could only pull the Iraq war off by demonizing Saddam (and he certainly was an easy man to hate). Bush needed to conduct a war against a man, not a nation. But the problem, of course, is that the nation we conducted the war against has not greeted us with flowers. Instead, they are picking off our soldiers one by one.

The idea of demonizing people for partisan purposes is nothing new to the Republicans. It was at the center of thr campaign to bring down the presidency of Bill Clinton. It is at the center of the campaign bng conducted at this moment by the GOP media shills to discredit Hillary Clinton, as her biography becomes a bestseller. As we have said, again and again, the GOP can't win the hearts and votes of Americans based on the issues (because Americans don't agree with the actual Bush agenda), so they personally attack Democrats and paint them as immoral people. Now Saddam, unlike the usual GOP targets, deserves to be vilified, but so do many other tyrants that the U.S. SUPPORTS around the world.

The Bush Cartel can never take responsibility for its own mistakes. Now that we are continuing to see our soldiers die in Iraq, they are blaming the deaths on a phantom bogeyman. Until recently, they blamed every domestic setback on Bill Clinton, so there's a consistency in thr strategy to blame anyone but themselves. But, with the latest "rumor," the Bush Cartel is making our C.I.A. and other intelligence services look like fools and incompetents and it is making our army, and its ability to track down "enemies" in Iraq, look like a complete failure.

It is also making America look like a laughingstock.

The reality is that we haven't won the hearts and minds of the Iraqis. For the most part, they were glad to be rid of Saddam, but they don't want us ther.

That is why our soldiers are dying. Any Democrat who supports this tragic farce should just switch parties. We don't want them in the REAL Democratic party, the party that represents the pro-democracy, pro-Constitution, pro-truth movement.

ther you are part of helping remove the Bush administration from office, or you are part of the problem.

We urge you to take note of the last sentence of the AOL story quoted above: "Chalabi said U.S. soldiers in thr armored vehicles 'are sitting ducks for terrorists' and urged the creation of an Iraqi security force under U.S. command."

You've heard of the infamous "death squads" in Central America. Rest assured, that is what Chalabi is talking about when he refers to an "Iraqi security force."

Spread a phony rumor. Get it published in the press. Use it to legitimatize otherwise morally repugnant behavior. That's the Bush Cartel way.

A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL
>>>
________
Oxygen Vaporizer (http://oxygenvaporizer.com)

[Mylezylez]

Yes it's good that Saddam's gone.

NO, the life of the average Iraqi is MUCH worse now.

You know most of Baghdad is STILL without power, clean water, a police force, and any kind of representative government. Factions that were oppressed by Saddam are now fighting for control of the country, and tens of thousands of Iraqis have gathered on NUMEROUS occasions protesting for America to get out soon! And not only that, but America has complete control of the Iraqi oil fields.

But never mind those tens of thousands, I saw a very carefully orchestrated photo with an Iraqi child kissing an American soldier!
________
milf Webcam (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/webcam/mature-women/)

[NYURepublican]

Quote:And please admit to yourself for once that just because Saddam killed people in Iraq (which is EXTREMELY ethnicly divided, and constantly in conflict... Especially now), that is not justification enough for the USA to go over there and kill more.

Hmmm...okay, let's if you're completely delusional: Are you saying they were better off before? Edited by: NYURepublican at: 6/11/03 6:52 pm

________
LIVE SEX (http://livesexwebshows.com/)

[NYIndependence]

Actually, power has been restored to most of Baghdad. Water has not been fully restored, but you make it sound like the government has no interest in the Iraqi people. (Even if you believe that the war was about oil, then you must agree that in order to win the trust of the Iraqis and get to the oil, we must restore these necessities ASAP.)

Since you have a problem with the INC bng Washington's favorite opposition group, I would love to hear your favorite. Do you think that the US is wrong for tilting in favor of the opposition leader who preaches secularism while leading the most ethnically and politically diverse political entities within Iraq? Personally, I think that a government headed by Chalabi is a mistake, but I think he would make an excellent forgn minister.

Again, the United States has found every shred of evidence with the exception of the weapons themselves. What will be your excuse when these weapons are found?
________
how to roll blunts (http://howtorollablunt.net/)

[tsk tsk]

HE IS WAY OVER DUE.

[NYIndependence]

No, Mylezylez does not need a lobotomy. At l he uses some good arguments and sources. I strongly disagree with him, but he has legitimate points.
________
Yamaha XT600E (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/Yamaha_XT600E)

[Mylezylez]

I happen to think that the US's picking sides in the middle has led to the rise of basically the same "dictators" and religious fanatics that we're now bng told are "evil". I suppose in another 10 years, the INC will be so mad at America that they fight back, and THEY'LL be labeled terrorists. It has happened COUNTLESS times in the past 50 years.

Why in the hell do we think it'll stop now?
________
Dc Medical Marijuana Dispensaries (http://dc.dispensaries.org/)

[TheRealThing]

This just happens time and time again. The US overthrew democratically elected leader Allende in Chile and replaced him with Pinochet, the perfect example of a mass-murdering dictator.

And why did the US attack Afghanistan and Iraq? And why are Iran and Syria on the list to be next, while the home of Al Qaeda and international terrorism (which are still the things you claim to be fighting) very obviously is Saudi-Arabia? Oh, but they are an important trade partner.

Oh right, it's about helping the suffering people in those countries. Well, the people of Pakistan are suffering too, probably even more than in Iraq and Afghanstan, but thr leader, Musharraf, is an American puppet who will agree with anything Bush says, so there is no need to bring "democracy" there.

I would appreciate a little consistency in your madness.

There has always been a nation that is the strongest in the world and that has felt it had to lead the others. The US has that position right now, but my God, do they suck at it. Let's be naive and say they mean well, but this form of incompetence is just shocking.
________
marijuana strain green crack (http://trichomes.org/marijuana-strains/green-crack)

[NYIndependence]

I'm going to disagree with you on that. Chalabi is heavily touted by the media and the administration, whereas Saddam was quietly supplied with small arms. Certain members of the Mujahideen actually came to Washington to meet Reagan, but they were Moderates and never got the chance to hold power in Afghanistan.
________
iolite portable vaporizer (http://vaporizers.net/iolite-vaporizer)

[NYIndependence]

Musharraf criticized American bombing strategy in Afghanistan, nearly started a nuclear war with India, and lectures the US on hunting for bin Laden in Pakistan. A rather disobedient puppet.
________
herbal vaporizers (http://herbalvaporizers.info)

[Mylezylez]

I think the problem MAY lie in the fact that this country tends to make "allies" based on natural resources, and money in general. Oil in particular has motivated America to make friends with some reprehensible people.

I think the solution is probably to stay the hell away from these people (countries in the middle ). At l in the sense of our wanting to reshape thr lives. In case nobody noticed, there is 1000 years of Christianity attacking Islam (and vice-versa, much less often). That is still how these actions are viewed.

This country has used the middle as a political pawn (during the cold war, and NOW), has blown up cities, killed hundreds of thousands of people, stolen thr natural resources, and made business deals with ruthless tyrants.There are many alternatives to oil (electric, hydrogen, solar, wind), all of which have worked, and all they really need is a real commitment to make it ready for the masses.

So basically, why the hell are we making these people's lives worse? And yes, at the moment Iraq is a worse place to live than under Saddam's rule. You can deny that, but think about the sources you're using.


________
IPAD CASES (http://accesoriesipad.com/)

[NYIndependence]

I don't think anyone is trying to say that Iraq is better now than it was under Saddam. However, I will say that Iraq has more hope than ever before. When the US is able to carry out its objectives, it always leaves the region better than it was found. Japan, West Germany, and South Korea all prove this.
________
Nash Metropolitan (http://www.dodge-wiki.com/wiki/Nash_Metropolitan)