Your Bloody Soap Box · Public discussion

George Galloway

Started by Rafiki · · Last activity · 578 posts · 32,802 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Your Bloody Soap Box
Published
17 May 2005
Last activity
17 June 2005
Original author
Rafiki
Posts
578
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
32,802
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 41–60 of 578
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. zapper said:

    Lets remind ourselves what the Clinton admin said and some of his liberal buddies...
    "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
    President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

    "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
    President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

    "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
    Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

    "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
    Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

    "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
    Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

    "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
    Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

    "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
    Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

    "There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
    Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

    "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
    Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

    "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
    Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

    "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
    Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

    "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
    Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

    "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
    Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

    "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
    Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

    "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
    Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

    "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
    Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

    "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
    Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

    "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
    Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

    Now I get it - Bush invaded Iraq because Bill Clinton, Madelaine Albright, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy & Co., told him to !

    This is almost as believable as the WMD and 9/11 scare stories.

  2. MountainPro said:

    food not getting through
    medcine not getting through
    water pruification not getting through

    By the UN’s own estimates, 4,500 children under 5 die every month from starvation and illness that are a direct result of sanctions against Iraq.

    .......and US companies like Bayoil profiteering from sanctions evasion and paying kickbacks all over the place.

  3. darkboong said:

    How naive of you.

    Is it really as naive as paying a tyrant not to murder his own people?

    Turkey, Syria, Iran, Kuwait. Duh.

    Excellant examples of human rights. They should be the standard that we all strive to be. Especially Iran and Syria. Duh!

    In the *real* world you have to be pragmatic and work with what you have rather than what you would wish for.
    In the *real* world Iraqis are being killed by the "Coalition" occupation faster than Saddam ever did. You can face up to that harsh reality or carry on living in your fantasy world where violence magically solves everything.


    Or we can live in your world and hope that by being nice and giving Saddam all kinds of incentives and who knows what else that he will magically not murder his own people or invade his neighbors.

  4. Colorado Ryder said:

    Or we can live in your world and hope that by being nice and giving Saddam all kinds of incentives and who knows what else that he will magically not murder his own people or invade his neighbors.

    Bottom line is - your country had no business in invading Iraq.

  5. Colorado Ryder said:

    Or we can live in your world and hope that by being nice and giving Saddam all kinds of incentives and who knows what else that he will magically not murder his own people or invade his neighbors.

    Simply rearranging my words and spitting them back at me in technicolor won't make you look clever, win your argument or make your fantasy world become real. War and Diplomacy are not black/white easy solutions. America's relationship with Iraq over the past 20 years illustrates that hard fact of life vividly.

    Clinging onto the ideal of violence as a solution is naive.

    Back to the point...

    Incentives are just one aspect of diplomacy and they can take all kinds of forms. I am guessing that Saddam is a nationalist and that he had some pride in his country. Remember it was him who rigidly imposed a secular society that granted the right of education and employment to Women. He built hospitals and libraries, Iraqis were the healthiest and best educated in the region once upon a time. I ain't saying it was all roses, but it wasn't all bad either. I believe that it would have possible to sell the rebuilding of Iraq's infrastructure and improving living conditions to Saddam and he would have viewed that as something worth having. There is your incentive, and that gives you something to bargain with.

  6. limerickman said:

    Now I get it - Bush invaded Iraq because Bill Clinton, Madelaine Albright, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy & Co., told him to !

    This is almost as believable as the WMD and 9/11 scare stories.

    No, you don't get it. never have and probably never will.....The point being if you are going to call Bush a liar...then you had better include the others that espoused the same info.. when you single out Bush, and don't include the others then you make yourself appear to be a flaming Lib, one sided etc.....and I know that is not who you really are...is it?

  7. limerickman said:

    Bottom line is - your country had no business in invading Iraq.

    Bla bla bla ...that is your opinion..so be it...

  8. MountainPro said:

    food not getting through
    medcine not getting through
    water pruification not getting through

    By the UN’s own estimates, 4,500 children under 5 die every month from starvation and illness that are a direct result of sanctions against Iraq.

    Yeah tell me about that thingy what was it called? Yeah the food for oil program...what did saddam do to help those children you speak of?

  9. zapper said:

    Yeah tell me about that thingy what was it called? Yeah the food for oil program...what did saddam do to help those children you speak of?

    Allowed the aid workers to run clinics and distribute food. IIRC he provided logistical support and security. The aid effort was severely hampered by the indiscriminate blockade of painkillers, antibiotics, medical journals, foodstuffs and vaccines.

    By contrast under American rule, the aid agencies have mostly pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan because it is too dangerous for them to operate. Indeed, the average daily calorie intake in Iraq has just about halved since the Americans took over, and the life-expectancy has plummeted.

  10. darkboong said:

    Incentives are just one aspect of diplomacy and they can take all kinds of forms. I am guessing that Saddam is a nationalist and that he had some pride in his country. Remember it was him who rigidly imposed a secular society that granted the right of education and employment to Women. He built hospitals and libraries, Iraqis were the healthiest and best educated in the region once upon a time. I ain't saying it was all roses, but it wasn't all bad either. I believe that it would have possible to sell the rebuilding of Iraq's infrastructure and improving living conditions to Saddam and he would have viewed that as something worth having. There is your incentive, and that gives you something to bargain with.


    Why don't you call it what it is....Appeasement. Didn't work in 1938 won't work now. Wasn't all that bad? Think the Kurds agree with you? Think the Marsh Arabs in the south agree with you? Think the Kuwaitis agree with you? Yeah it wasn't all that bad.
    Rebuild the infrastructure but leave the tyrant in power. Please Saddam don't kill anyone else. Please don't invade another country. Please don't develop those weapons. Darkboong will give you whatever you want so that you'll stop being bad.

  11. darkboong said:

    Allowed the aid workers to run clinics and distribute food. IIRC he provided logistical support and security. The aid effort was severely hampered by the indiscriminate blockade of painkillers, antibiotics, medical journals, foodstuffs and vaccines.

    By contrast under American rule, the aid agencies have mostly pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan because it is too dangerous for them to operate. Indeed, the average daily calorie intake in Iraq has just about halved since the Americans took over, and the life-expectancy has plummeted.

    Booger please...Between you and Pro you've got some story there...Let's take a look at what you two claim………...

    1. Your figures..I know where you got them…would that be Lancet or Limerickman? Anyway, some of those agencies you speak of pulling from Iraq …elaborate…Secondly, there is that cell of terrorist (that really aren’t there) running around trying to sabotage democracy and freedom over there…Boy they have really succeeded haven’t they?? Free elections etc….

    2. When you use the term “plummeted” Do you really know what that word means? Like to fall straight down; plunge. i.e.. a year or two doesn’t cut it ..The life expectancy of the Female in the U.S. fell by a few years…wouldn’t define it as “plummeted” and guess what…we have NO sanctions…So your point is really well non-existent.

    3. This business as a “sanction” being responsible for starving little children…pure rubbish. We are trying to do the right thing, let’s not blame anyone from trying to prevent us from doing that… Why don’t you get off yer ass, grab Johnny depp and sean penn and go feed the lil children then…Talk is cheap my friend.

  12. zapper said:


    Booger please...

    Your mum.

    zapper said:


    1. Your figures..I know where you got them…would that be Lancet or Limerickman? Anyway, some of those agencies you speak of pulling from Iraq …elaborate…Secondly, there is that cell of terrorist (that really aren’t there) running around trying to sabotage democracy and freedom over there…Boy they have really succeeded haven’t they?? Free elections etc….

    Whereas you don't get any figures at all and you just tell the world that it's all dandy, in fact you even subconciously quote Bush while you justify the murder of civillians and torture of innocents.

    zapper said:


    2. When you use the term “plummeted” Do you really know what that word means? Like to fall straight down; plunge. i.e.. a year or two doesn’t cut it ..The life expectancy of the Female in the U.S. fell by a few years…wouldn’t define it as “plummeted” and guess what…we have NO sanctions…So your point is really well non-existent.

    Yes, plummeted. Really.

    zapper said:


    3. This business as a “sanction” being responsible for starving little children…pure rubbish.

    Pure denial on your part tbh Zapper. People who have been on the ground, who have decades of experience in the field disagree with you. What are your credentials in this area exactly ? Apologist for the Whitehouse just doesn't make the grade.

    zapper said:


    We are trying to do the right thing, let’s not blame anyone from trying to prevent us from doing that…

    Good point, especially seeing as you were deluded and wrong about what you were doing. Do you have enough balls to admit that just possibly you were wrong and learn from the mistake ?

    zapper said:


    Why don’t you get off yer ass, grab Johnny depp and sean penn and go feed the lil children then…Talk is cheap my friend.

    Your kind of talk is cheap. Going with the Whitehouse party line on a message board doesn't require much comittment, effort or thought. There are folks losing their careers, being arrested and beaten for saying the stuff I'm saying.

  13. darkboong said:

    Your mum.

    Very intelligent…But why are you fascinated with Chrysanthemums????? You like flowers do ya…

    Quoted post said:

    Whereas you don't get any figures at all and you just tell the world that it's all dandy, in fact you even subconciously quote Bush while you justify the murder of civillians and torture of innocents.

    No, I question generalized statements that one pulls off the news or out of some idiots mouth….

    Quoted post said:

    Yes, plummeted. Really.

    Prove it…

    Quoted post said:

    Pure denial on your part tbh Zapper. People who have been on the ground, who have decades of experience in the field disagree with you. What are your credentials in this area exactly ? Apologist for the Whitehouse just doesn't make the grade.

    I know people that have been on the ground…and you are talking out your nose booger…gee that flowed nicely…

    Quoted post said:

    Good point, especially seeing as you were deluded and wrong about what you were doing. Do you have enough balls to admit that just possibly you were wrong and learn from the mistake ?

    You want to talk about balls or the lack there off lets talk about you and your spineless jellyfish colleagues who think we should just bow down to these lunatic extremists…

    Quoted post said:

    Your kind of talk is cheap. Going with the Whitehouse party line on a message board doesn't require much comittment, effort or thought. There are folks losing their careers, being arrested and beaten for saying the stuff I'm saying.

    [/quote] You are quite the little drama queen aren’t you…You can’t handle the truth! I've committed 18 years to the service of my country. What have you and Depp done?

  14. zapper said:


    Very intelligent…But why are you fascinated with Chrysanthemums????? You like flowers do ya…

    Yeah, I do as it happens.

    zapper said:


    No, I question generalized statements that one pulls off the news or out of some idiots mouth….

    I wish you applied that questioning to the dross coming out of the Whitehouse.

    zapper said:


    You are quite the little drama queen aren’t you…

    I am as mad as hell and I am not taking it any more. If that makes me a drama queen, so be it.

    zapper said:


    You can’t handle the truth!

    It's you who can't handle the truth dude. You still don't have the balls to accept that the draft-dodger running the Whitehouse might be in the wrong. Here's a clue for you : Bush doesn't have a monopoly on god and he *is* a religious extremist.

    zapper said:


    I've committed 18 years to the service of my country.

    So what ? That has [censored] all to do with what is going on out in Iraq, it doesn't make it any more right or wrong. All you have come up with are distortions, distractions, dellusions and irrelevent trash-talk. Get a grip and let go of your fantasy that the Whitehouse can do no wrong.

    zapper said:


    What have you and Depp done?

    In the case of Depp, contributed a few billion to the war machine involuntarily. I have not served in the armed forces and I would not comment on the stuff I may/may not have done otherwise.

  15. darkboong said:

    Yeah, I do as it happens.

    figures...

    Quoted post said:

    I wish you applied that questioning to the dross coming out of the Whitehouse.

    No, I'm questioning the crapola you are spinning here…

    Quoted post said:

    I am as mad as hell and I am not taking it any more. If that makes me a drama queen, so be it.

    Save that tired line for your closest hi-rise window... not here man, it sounds…well, kinda wimpy…

    Quoted post said:

    It's you who can't handle the truth dude. You still don't have the balls to accept that the draft-dodger running the Whitehouse might be in the wrong. Here's a clue for you : Bush doesn't have a monopoly on god and he *is* a religious extremist.

    More fact less dribble being emitted from your posey loving fingertips…

    Quoted post said:

    So what ? That has [censored] all to do with what is going on out in Iraq, it doesn't make it any more right or wrong. All you have come up with are distortions, distractions, dellusions and irrelevent trash-talk. Get a grip and let go of your fantasy that the Whitehouse can do no wrong.

    No, I have simply asked you to back up your distortions with data…thus far you have not…Hell, even limerickman pulls some kind of figures out of his ass once in a while..Thus far, you have provided nothing…Except for the improper use of the word plummeted…

    Quoted post said:

    In the case of Depp, contributed a few billion to the war machine involuntarily. I have not served in the armed forces and I would not comment on the stuff I may/may not have done otherwise.

    Billions? Yeah goody for you…That’s your best bet…no comment.. Smartest thing you’ve said yet.

  16. zapper said:


    1. Your figures..I know where you got them…would that be Lancet or Limerickman? Anyway, some of those agencies you speak of pulling from Iraq …elaborate…

    The UN have withdrawn since May 2003.

    The Red Cross withdrew a large amount of it's workers and is only maintaining
    a skeleton service in Iraq.

    zapper said:

    3. This business as a “sanction” being responsible for starving little children…pure rubbish. We are trying to do the right thing, let’s not blame anyone from trying to prevent us from doing that… Why don’t you get off yer ass, grab Johnny depp and sean penn and go feed the lil children then…Talk is cheap my friend.

    The fact of the matter is that sanctions did not bring about the fall of SH -
    which was the purpose of UN sanctions.

    It did also lead to the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's too.
    While not apportioning blame exclusively to the USA - the entire international community ought to be indicted for a failed policy.

  17. zapper said:


    No, I have simply asked you to back up your distortions with data…thus far you have not…Hell, even limerickman pulls some kind of figures out of his ass once in a while..Thus far, you have provided nothing…Except for the improper use of the word plummeted…

    You asked for no such thing. You rabbited on about liking flowers and revealed your unquestioning obediance to the Whitehouse for 18 years.

    Get a grip and grow some balls what you are at it.

    zapper said:


    Billions?

    He has made a lot of money for America, and no doubt paid some tax on his personal income.

  18. limerickman said:

    The UN have withdrawn since May 2003.

    The Red Cross withdrew a large amount of it's workers and is only maintaining
    a skeleton service in Iraq.

    They didn't pull out due to Americans slaughtering or targeting civilians did they?

    Quoted post said:

    The fact of the matter is that sanctions did not bring about the fall of SH - which was the purpose of UN sanctions.

    I concur, sanctions were a bad idea

    Quoted post said:

    It did also lead to the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's too.
    While not apportioning blame exclusively to the USA - the entire international community ought to be indicted for a failed policy.

    I agree, the entire international community should be indicted for sticking to the silly sanctions instead of joining the invasion...Bravo Limerickman, you finally got it!

  19. Zapper - whether you have given 18 years to your country is not the issue here.

    The issue is the illegal invasion of Iraq by your country and the lies told in the runup to that invasion.

    It is immaterial whether Clinton or Albright or anyone else for that matter said
    something at a given time.

    The fact is that the case for war, as made by Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Powell and Rice, was all lies.
    The decision to go to war was taken by George Bush.
    So as you like to say in your country "the book stops there".

    SH was a tyrannt - no one here is suggesting otherwise.
    But.
    That doesn't validate the invasion of Iraq by your country.

  20. zapper said:

    I agree, the entire international community should be indicted for sticking to the silly sanctions instead of joining the invasion...Bravo Limerickman, you finally got it!

    I said that the entire international community stands indicted for putting the UN sanctions policy in place.

    I did not suggest that the entire international community join an invasion of a sovereign country.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.