<p>
Just curious where this comes from. Mini’s theory in #34 reminds me of those who say that the US government bombed the WTC so they could blame it on Iraq, start a war, and steal their oil. Crazy.</p>
<p>Seeds of Democracy:</p>
<p>baghdad mayor ousted by relgious militia
Women are being forced to wear the viels
Women rights will be less with the new constitution</p>
<p>Lets talk 9-11 attackers
the majority were Saudi</p>
<p>dstark and others, what was your plan?</p>
<p>Basic services in Iraq are worse this summer than last.</p>
<p>Rumsfield says insurgency is rising, especially because of election, Rice says the opposite</p>
<p>From ABC:
For the moment the 15,000 Iraqis at Taji are glad they rarely have to venture outside in military attire</p>
<p>So, we can only wonder how long this is going to take</p>
<p>My plan… do not sell them any weapons in the first place. That gets rid of the weapons of mass destruction problem.</p>
<p>Do not train people to fight. No more Osama Bin Ladens. Do not support people like Saddam Hussein.</p>
<p>Stop meddling in their political affairs. If they want Islamic states, they are going to have Islamic states.</p>
<p>Do not expect them to become anything but what they are… which is Muslim. We are not going to change the culture in the middle east unlless we flatten the place. Is that what you want to do?</p>
<p>Make peace more profitable than war. We are spending over 100 billion a year in Iraq. I would take a small fraction of that and spend it in ways so that the people in the middle east will like us and see us as friends. Try to increase trade. None of this sanction nonsense.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t coddle to Saudi Arabia.</p>
<p>I would support a Palestinian state with lots of money. Make peace more profitable than war.</p>
<p>Everything takes time. Time in the middle east is different than time in America. We look at years, they look at centuries.</p>
<p>The following is the most important.
I would spend a majority of that 100 billion we are spending on war and spend it on on energy research, especially nuclear fusion. Nothing will end the middle east bs like a little nuclear fusion. Kennedy got us to the moon. I would get us nuclear fusion.</p>
<p>“Just curious where this comes from. Mini’s theory in #34 reminds me of those who say that the US government bombed the WTC so they could blame it on Iraq, start a war, and steal their oil.”</p>
<p>The “act”, and admission to it, on national television, comes from Madeline Albright, not from me, though I personally know eyewitnesses to it. As to why they would choose to kill half a million children rather than Saddam Hussein, well it’s hard to get inside the heads of those who aim at genocide.</p>
<p>Has anyone seen the tv show Over There? Did you think it was non.political??? What’s your review…2 thumbs up???</p>
<p>If you choose targets in residential areas, if you use deadly force at checkpoints manned by people unable to speak the language of those being occupied, if you destroy entire cities, it is no accident when innocent men, women and children are killed. It may not have been your primary purpose, but it is still no accident.</p>
<p>dstark, how’s the weather in the land of naivete?</p>
<p>fundingfather, how’s the weather in the land of “Iraq: A Neocon’s Paradise”</p>
<p>What with all the war, profiteering, Halliburton, and getting somebody else(ie, poorer people) to fight your “War on Terror” and thus fulfilling your Orwellian dream of having a perpetual war, I think neocons must be having a blast!</p>
<p>I do not live in the 40’s. How would you have stopped the Soviets sooner?</p>
<p>And, currently, with the war, there are more terrorists, not less. With the way we are treating the Iraqs, letting in Saudi terrorists, leaving the borders vulnerable, not catching Bin Ladin, doing horrific things to our prisoners, using depleted uranium bullets with total disregard to the harm to our own soldiers, allowing for fewer rights for women in the Iraqi consitution, not being able to even protect the Iraqi mayor from religious Iraqi extremists, where women are having to go back into the veil, not supporting our troops fully, not giving the generals what they needed-proper equipment, not stopping the war profiteering, not accounting for the hundreds of millions of dollars that are unaccounted for, not taking proper care of our tens of thousands of wounded vets when they come back, not being honest with the American people and the world about how things are really going over there, not allowing international aid groups to check on our prisoners, our relationship with Saudi Arabia, a breeding ground for terrorists needs to be examined, the companies involved making incredible profits in this war with no accountability…</p>
<p>We have many issues to address. We will be in the “war” for years. We will lose more young people. </p>
<p>During WWI and WWII, the American people sacrificed and felt the war experience. This war, what have you been asked to give up in the name of freedom, beside the lives of our courageous soldiers.</p>
<p>Those that do need heed their history are destined to repeat it. Fortunately, the majority will vote to keep you free as well.</p>
<p>It’s true. Democrats (big D) always seem to think it would be better (different) if they were in charge, forgetting that the last U.S.-initiated genocide attempt was on the Clinton-Gore watch. </p>
<p>Wish the former had found a way to spend more time with interns.</p>
<p>The majority likely won’t vote at all…</p>
<p>I am just loving what I am hearing from Crawford- well, the insurgency is losing steam (Rice), the Insurgency is getting worse (Rumsfield), we can leave sooner than later (the Pentagon), we can’t leave anytime soon (Bush), Democracy is on the March (Bush) while women are losing rights and we can’t even protect the Mayor.</p>
<p>I am feeling real confident now</p>
<p>mini, you have been claiming genocide by the Clinton administration ad infinitum, but other than a casual reference to an Albright TV interview with no specifics, you have provided no proof. I certainly am no fan of the Clintons or Al Gore, but unlike many here who allow political differences to blind them to reality, I think I need proof of what you are claiming. Can you provide such proof by means of actual links to impartial news sources (i.e., not web sites of anti-war groups or Quakers).</p>
<p>Funding Father …(ands other DP’s) are you going to the march in washington to support het troop on september 11? (egegehhh this computre has sticky keys…)</p>
<p>You can yourself connect to the UNICEF and related reports on child deaths in Iraq (pre-Oil for Food) for 1997, 1998, and the work of Denis Halliday (who, by the way, resigned from Oil for Food, so he’s clean.)</p>
<p>If I provide you the links, you’ll dismiss them. I didn’t provide a "casual reference to Albright’s interview, but in prior posts, the actual text. </p>
<p>During that period “anti-war Quakers” (there was no “a-hem” war at the time), were in Iraq, breaking the law by bringing in portable water purification equipment; and I proudly (and openly) raised funds to do so. But it was like throwing the beached starfish back into the sea, when 6-7,000 child were dying per month in 1996.</p>
<p>So, in effect you are saying that there are no links from unbiased sources? Remember, your claim was not just that there were damaged water treatment plants but that it was both deliberate **as well as **designed to cause civillian deaths. I would like to see proof of that.</p>
<p>Like all genocides, you don’t do well to listen to the “stated intentions” of those who do the killing. First look at the result, and then work backwards. In this particular case, UNICEF is a VERY unbiased source, as the UN officially supported the U.S. action. Halliday was employed by the same U.N. (pre-Oil for Food) that supported the U.S. actions.</p>
<p>But you’ll find plenty of sources yourself. What you won’t find is an American official standing up and saying, “We designed our action in order to kill the largest number of children, without hitting Saddam Hussein’s headquarters, palace, or military infrastructure.” So what is the “proof” you are looking for? Secretary Albright, when asked about the killing of half a million children’s “Its a hard choice, but I think, we, think, its worth it,” isn’t enough for you? Can you find me a comparable by Pol Pot ? Or the Indonesian military against the Timorese? or the Turks against the Armenians? Find me one from Hitler that talks this way about the killing of children. I’m sure, of course, they all had their reasons. Folks who commit genocide always do.</p>
<p>You’re a smart guy. I’m sure you are quite capable of doing your own research. I’ve got a stack that fills an entire desk drawer - but if I give them to you, you’ll dismiss them anyway, so I think it much better for you to live with it for awhile, and come to your own conclusions.</p>
<p>I would love to find the following on line:</p>
<ul>
<li>Newspaper Reporter: “Is it really necessary to be killing half a million Jewish children?”</li>
<li>Herman Goering: “Its a hard choice, but I think, we, think, its worth it.”</li>
</ul>
<p>Is this the kind of proof you are looking for?</p>