caputuring saddam has righted all the wrongs?

[Moi]

Originally posted by spillmind
i am not looking to convert anyone. i was challenging your outlandish claims of our threatened freedom, and rest assured, you won't have any proof of it, either.

Once again, you are wrong that it is I who have to prove my case. By the surrender agreement imposed on Saddam it was his burden to prove that he lived up to the obligations therein imposed.

 

[spillmind]

huh?

i posted what i do for my country, i didn't rub it in your face that you were wrong to assume that i was a thankless america hater. maybe i should have?


but this:

Once again, you are wrong that it is I who have to prove my case. By the surrender agreement imposed on Saddam it was his burden to prove that he lived up to the obligations therein imposed.

the surrender agreement has nothing to do with YOUR ASSERTIONS of an immenent threat.

please don't make me break down your post for you ease of defense AGAIN so you can go off on a tangent about my wrong assumptions. just defend your statement:

Are you tellling me this freedom isn't worth killing and dying for? The people of Iraq do not have this freedom. What is hypocritical is for you to exploit those very freedoms in their name.

this statement has too many inconsitencies to even try to ring true. apply this policy globally, and you've got my attention. this is just a pathetic diversion from the real priorities.

And, if Saddam and his buddies were allowed to take over the world I would have to do without those basic freedoms too, being female and all. So, the answer to what benefit the war had:

again, no evidence that this was ever going to come to pass. just more fear cooked up by the bush camp to strike fear into your heart. and it worked well. this is speculation, as best.

It put the world on notice that we don't stand for their threats and will protect our way of life above all else. If that causes me and some members of the military to lose our lives, so be it. Freedom is worth it.

our 'way of life' largely depends on many others forcibly confined to their countries, when even brilliant minds wait their whole lives for visas and oppurtunities we take for granted. how long do you think it will be before aspiring iraqi minds can freely travel to the US? don't think too long about that one...

there was never a threat to our 'way of life' -unless you are referring to the fact that iraq started trading all their oil in euros, and that that was set to tip the financial scales away from our economy in the long run. if you mean, if people dying for greedy corporations, corrupt politicians (democrat or republican) and a tainted agenda is worth it, i will obviously disagree.

 

[spillmind]

jim, i'm looking for the rule that says you can't post things from a PM? is this really true? where is it?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by spillmind
jim, i'm looking for the rule that says you can't post things from a PM? is this really true? where is it?

Ok, this will be the last thing posted on that matter. You asked politely, I'll respond politely.

If a user had sent me a PM in reply to a thread that we were discussing, I would repost it in the thread, as political discussions and on topic discussions should be left there.

You are posting a message that was sent to you in a personal nature.

And where is the rule? Did you get the PM I sent to you telling you not to do it? Did you not even reply to that message? Suffice to say you now know enough not to do it.

The forums are not the place to discuss how and why you feel the rules are unfair. For that fact, they just aren't open for discussion. If you don't like the way I run the board you are free to leave. If you can handle coming here and posting to your hearts content about your political views, then come back as often as you like.

 

[Moi]

Dear Mr. Spillmind:

I haven't accused you of being a thankless america hater. I simply stated that I find it funny that people who enjoy freedom are denying that obtaining freedom for others is important enough to kill for. By saying "you" I wasn't pointing the finger at you personally- I would have quoted you or addressed my post to you specifically if that were true.

However, you can interpret the threat in your way and I can interpret it mine. In case you forget, I live and work in NY and my partners leased and worked in the WTC. I had to go in to the city the next day and wipe ashes, people's bodies, off my desk so that I could help the city get back to order. It was I who had to endure the smoke from the WTC destruction for days. You can believe that Saddam had no credible means to threaten the US but you are the one belittling others' interpretation of the evidence at hand. You see the maybe in all this as towards "no"- I see the maybe in all this as way too close to yes. I've not attacked you personally or mislabeled you nor have I ridiculed you or your beliefs. You've every right to interpret the evidence as you wish. However, I will continue to take issue with anyone who says that George Bush is alone responsible for this war. Congress granted the power and they are not in a Matrix sequel, they don't have control chips in the back of their heads to be puppeted by Bush. Once again, I'll state that there are many in the US, UK and other countries who believed the preponderance of evidence against Saddam. I've not yet seen any proof to indicate that the information we relied upon to decide this action was fabricated as you've said rather than, perhaps, just not yet proven.

And for what reason you mention the Iraqi's who might want to travel to this country I've no idea.

 

[NightTrain]

a) who put saddam in power in the first place, and then turned around and double crossed him. of course, we are exempt from all wrong doing, because we are the good guys, right? the REAL humanitarians, right?

WAAAAahahahahahahaaa!!! Classic Spilly-With-His-Head-Up-His-Ass

Priceless!!

Dammit.

Okay, Numbnuts, let's see your historical backup.

Ooops, can't do it, can you? Idiot. Why can't you just stay in your bong and leave the internet forever??

I'm waiting. Provide your backup. You love to sidestep, so we're going to go one point per post.

 

[spillmind]

ah NT, showing maturity beyond your years once again! glad to see you remain consistent!

historical backup:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/30/sproject.irq.regime.change/

and let's hear the spin....

and Moi:

i totally respect the traumatic experiences you have endured, and am humbled by them. however, 9-11 and invading iraq have a very distant connection, at best. in fact, we could drum up the same level of 'connection' parallel (or greater) of the cozy connections with virtually any arab country...

and i don't think that freedom for people that have never experienced is a bad thing, however, why do we have a hard on for iraq? -my very point about consistency issues. you are the one that can't admit the iraq strike was very selective if you are using that reason as a leg to stand on. please don't give me, 'we've got to start somewhere', because if it were a humanitarian effort that was our main priority, why then would we spend so much on a simgle military effort, when there is no way congress would approve even half that amount in aid to 'free the oppressed people of the world'. you really don't see this point?

i don't blame bush for the war. poor dubya doesn't have a clue. you think he calls ANY of the shots? i doubt it! the man is a mere figurehead, and a testament to the dumbing down of the position of the american presidency. this is not just perception.

Once again, I'll state that there are many in the US, UK and other countries who believed the preponderance of evidence against Saddam.

and so what do the people who doubt the validity of our WMD intel have on their personal agenda? they hate the US? they are a bunch of saddam lovers? you've really got to be kidding me.

you have once again tried to make me prove something that potentially doesn't exist? if we started the war, we surely should deliver the official premise without a shadow of a doubt, ESPECIALLY when so much death is involved.

i implore you to provide evidence of the 'intelligence' we relyed upon as an official premise for war:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/07/bush.transcript/index.html

please show me something that proves this intelligence claim:

In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and is capable of killing millions.

We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, and VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September 11.

And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it has used to produce chemical and biological weapons.


off topic- iraqis travelling to the US is just one example of people who are stuck in their respective countries due to strict visa rules, and their own domestic issues, limited finances, and therein, limited futures. my point on that matter simply seeks to demonstrate how people not lucky enough to be born in the major countries (let alone america) struggle their whole lives to bear the burden of perpetuating our global capitalism domination. imagine being born somewhere hurting, poor, (by and far most of the world's population) and never being able to realise your full potential because your main concern is where your next meal is coming from. i only bring up this point not because i seek equality for all, it's unrealistic- but more to show that we americans (and europeans, etc.) are the world's elite, and simply by being lucky to be born in a good spot.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by spillmind
historical backup:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/30/sproject.irq.regime.change/

and let's hear the spin....

Call this spin if you like, but I'm just asking a serious question. Where does that article say anything about the US putting him in power? Wasn't it like 1967 when he 'literally' took over power? You article talks about support for Iraq during their war with Iran.

This man was dangerous long before the US ever got involved with him. In hindsight, it was obviously a bad thing to get involved with Saddam. I don't think that negates their right to go against him in the future. All you've proved is that the US made a mistake dealing with him in the past. Claim that if you like, but don't claim we put him in power.

 

[Moi]

i totally respect the traumatic experiences you have endured THAN SHOW A LITTLE RESPECT BY NOT CALLING ME NAMES OR LABELING MY OPINIONS AND BELIEFS IN DEROGATORY FASHION (AS I HAVE SHOWN YOU THE SAME COURTESY), and am humbled by them YOU HAVE A FUNNY WAY OF SHOWING HUMILITY WHEN YOU NAME CALL AND BELITTLE. however, 9-11 and invading iraq have a very distant connection, at best. SO, IN FACT MY CLAIMS THAT THE FEAR FROM 9-11 ARE NOT RIDICULOUS AS YOU CLAIMED PRIOR in fact, we could drum up the same level of 'connection' parallel (or greater) of the cozy connections with virtually any arab country... FIRST OF ALL, I AM UNAWARE THAT I EVER CLAIMED IRAQ WAS THE ONLY THREATENING COUNTRY OUT THERE. HOWEVER, BECAUSE MORE THAN ONE COUNTRY THREATENS US DOESN'T MEAN WE TAKE NO ACTIONS?

and i don't think that freedom for people that have never experienced is a bad thing, however, why do we have a hard on for iraq? WHY NOT?-my very point about consistency issues. I NEVER SAID WE WERE CONSISTENT NOR THAT WE WERE REQUIRED TO BE, I SIMPLY SAID I BELIEVE IRAQ POSED A THREAT you are the one that can't admit the iraq strike was very selective PLEASE SHOW ME MY POST WHERE I CLAIMED THAT if you are using that reason as a leg to stand on. please don't give me, 'we've got to start somewhere', because if it were a humanitarian effort that was our main priority, why then would we spend so much on a simgle military effort, SORRY, BUT I DON’T THINK WE SHOULD DEFEND OURSELVES BASED ON A BUDGET- IT COSTS WHAT IT COSTS. when there is no way congress would approve even half that amount in aid to 'free the oppressed people of the world'. YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW HOW MUCH CONGRESS WOULD APPROVE…THAT’S MERE SPECULATION you really don't see this point? THERE IS NO POINT.

i don't blame bush for the war NO BUT YOU CALL ALL PEOPLE WHO INTERPRETED THE EVIDENCE “BUSHIES” I DON’T THINK I’VE EVER CALLED YOU A NAME. poor dubya doesn't have a clue. you think he calls ANY of the shots? i doubt it! the man is a mere figurehead, and a testament to the dumbing down of the position of the american presidency. OH, AS OPPOSED TO THE PRESIDENT WHO COMMITS PERJURY, ADULTEROUS SEXUAL ACTS AND HAS THE NERVE TO LIE TO THE PEOPLE? this is not just perception. YES, IT IS YOUR PERCEPTION. I THINK GEORGE BUSH IS INTELLIGENT AND I DON’T THINK HE’S A MERE FIGUREHEAD.
quote:

Once again, I'll state that there are many in the US, UK and other countries who believed the preponderance of evidence against Saddam.



and so what do the people who doubt the validity of our WMD intel have on their personal agenda? I NEVER WROTE ONE WORD ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE’S OPINIONS, MERELY STATED MY OWN. IT IS YOU WHO CONSTANTLY BELITTLE THOSE WHO DON’T AGREE WITH YOU. they hate the US? HOW WOULD I KNOW? they are a bunch of saddam lovers? NEVER SAID THAT you've really got to be kidding me. NOPE, NOT A COMEDIAN.

you have once again tried to make me prove something that potentially doesn't exist? if we started the war, we surely should deliver the official premise without a shadow of a doubt , ESPECIALLY when so much death is involved. THAT’S NOT THE STANDARD THAT I HAVE EVER SAID EXISTED NOR DO I THINK IT’S THE ONLY STANDARD UPON WHICH TO RELY.

i implore you to provide evidence of the 'intelligence' we relyed upon as an official premise for war:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS...ript/index.html

please show me something that proves this intelligence claim: ONCE AGAIN, IT IS NOT I WHO MUST PROVIDE EVIDENCE. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO CLAIMED IT WAS FABRICATED AND THAT I WAS RIDICULOUS FOR BELIEVING THE INFO- YOU MUST ASSERT YOUR CLAIM. ALL I SAID IS THAT I BELIEVED THE PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE.

In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and is capable of killing millions.

We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, and VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September 11.

And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it has used to produce chemical and biological weapons.


off topic- iraqis travelling to the US is just one example of people who are stuck in their respective countries due to strict visa rules, and their own domestic issues, limited finances, and therein, limited futures. my point on that matter simply seeks to demonstrate how people not lucky enough to be born in the major countries (let alone america) struggle their whole lives to bear the burden of perpetuating our global capitalism domination. imagine being born somewhere hurting, poor, (by and far most of the world's population) and never being able to realise your full potential because your main concern is where your next meal is coming from. i only bring up this point not because i seek equality for all, it's unrealistic- but more to show that we americans (and europeans, etc.) are the world's elite, and simply by being lucky to be born in a good spot. MY ANCESTORS AND I WEREN’T BORN LUCKY. WE CHOOSE TO LIVE HERE. AND I’VE WORKED MY ASS OFF TO STAY HERE AND SUPPORT THIS COUNTRY AND ITS IDEALS. IF ANYONE’S LUCKY, IT IS THOSE WHO LIVE HERE AND DON’T SUPPORT THE COUNTRY. OR THE ONES WHO’VE DONE NOTHING TO HELP ANYONE ELSE BUT YET WE HELP THEM ACHIEVE SUCCESS.

 

[NightTrain]

Thanks for the backup, Jim. Just got home.

That's right, Spilly Boy, the USA had NOTHING to do with Saddam seizing power.

Are we learning yet?

 

[spillmind]

By Mohamoud A Shaikh

Iraqis have always suspected that the 1963 military coup that set Saddam Husain on the road to absolute power had been masterminded by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). New evidence just published reveals that the agency not only engineered the putsch but also supplied the list of people to be eliminated once power was secured - a monstrous stratagem that led to the decimation of Iraq's professional class.


The overthrow of president Abdul Karim Kassim on February 8, 1963 was not, of course, the first intervention in the region by the agency, but it was the bloodiest - far bloodier than the coup it orchestrated in 1953 to restore the shah of Iran to power. Just how gory, and how deep the CIA's involvement in it, is demonstrated in a new book by Said Aburish, a writer on Arab political affairs.


The book, A Brutal Friendship: The West and the Arab Elite (1997), sets out the details not only of how the CIA closely controlled the planning stages but also how it played a central role in the subsequent purge of suspected leftists after the coup.


The author reckons that 5,000 were killed, giving the names of 600 of them - including many doctors, lawyers, teachers and professors who formed Iraq's educated elite. The massacre was carried out on the basis of death lists provided by the CIA.


The lists were compiled in CIA stations throughout the Middle East with the assistance of Iraqi exiles like Saddam, who was based in Egypt. An Egyptian intelligence officer, who obtained a good deal of his information from Saddam, helped the Cairo CIA station draw up its list. According to Aburish, however, the American agent who produced the longest list was William McHale, who operated under the cover of a news correspondent for the Beirut bureau of Time magazine.


The butchery began as soon as the lists reached Baghdad. No-one was spared. Even pregnant women and elderly men were killed. Some were tortured in front of their children. According to the author, Saddam who 'had rushed back to Iraq from exile in Cairo to join the victors, was personally involved in the torture of leftists in the separate detention centres for fellaheen [peasants] and the Muthaqafeen or educated classes.'


King Hussain of Jordan, who maintained close links with the CIA, says the death lists were relayed by radio to Baghdad from Kuwait, the foreign base for the Iraqi coup. According to him, a secret radio broadcast was made from Kuwait on the day of the coup, February 8, 'that relayed to those carrying out the coup the names and addresses of communists there, so they could be seized and executed.'


The CIA's royal collaborator also gives an insight into how closely the Ba'athist party and American intelligence operators worked together during the planning stages. 'Many meetings were held between the Ba'ath party and American intelligence - the most critical ones in Kuwait,' he says.

At the time the Ba'ath party was a small nationalist movement with only 850 members. But the CIA decided to use it because of its close relations with the army. One of its members tried to assassinate Kassim as early as 1959. Saddam, then 22, was wounded in the leg, later fleeing the country.


According to Aburish, the Ba'ath party leaders - in return for CIA support - agreed to 'undertake a cleansing programme to get rid of the communists and their leftist allies.' Hani Fkaiki, a Ba'ath party leader, says that the party's contact man who orchestrated the coup was William Lakeland, the US assistant military attache in Baghdad.


One of the coup leaders, colonel Saleh Mahdi Ammash, former Iraqi assistant military attache in Washington, was in fact arrested for being in touch with Lakeland in Baghdad. His arrest caused the conspirators to move earlier than they had planned.


Aburish's book shows that the Ba'ath leaders did not deny plotting with the CIA ro overthrow Kassim. When Syrian Ba'ath party officials demanded to know why they were in cahoots with the US agency, the Iraqis tried to justify it in terms of ideology comparing their collusion to 'Lenin arriving in a German train to carry out his revolution.' Ali Saleh, the minister of interior of the regime which had replaced Kassim, said: 'We came to power on a CIA train.'


It should not come as a surprise that the Americans were so eager to overthrow Kassim or so willing to cause such a blood bath to achieve their objective. At the height of the cold war, they were causing similar mayhem in Latin America and Indo-China overthrowing any leaders that dared show the slighest degree of independence.


Kassim was a prime target for US aggression and arrogance. After taking power in 1958, he took Iraq out of the Baghdad Pact, the US-backed anti-Soviet alliance in the Middle East, and in 1961 he dared nationalise part of the concession of the British-controlled Iraq Petroleum company and resurrected a long-standing Iraqi claim to Kuwait ( the regime which succeeded him immediately dropped the claim to Kuwait).


But the cold war does not by itself explain Uncle Sam's propensity to violence. When president George Bush bombed Iraq to smithereens, killing thousands of civilians, the cold war was over. Clinton cannot cite the cold war for insisting that the brutal regime of sanctions imposed on the country should stay.


In fact the brutal, blood-stained nature of Uncle Sam goes back all the way to the so-called 'Founding Fathers,' who made no attempt to conceal it. As long ago as 1818, John Quincy Adams hailed the 'salutary efficacy' of terror in dealing with 'mingled hordes of lawless Indians and negroes.' He was defending Andrew Jackson's frenzied operations in Florida which virtually wiped out the indigenous population and left the Spanish province under US control. Thomas Jefferson and his colleagues were not above professing to be impressed by the wisdom of his words.


again, we had NOTHING to do with it, right?

 

[spillmind]

however, 9-11 and invading iraq have a very distant connection, at best. SO, IN FACT MY CLAIMS THAT THE FEAR FROM 9-11 ARE NOT RIDICULOUS AS YOU CLAIMED PRIOR-

don't fret, they are still reaching, at best-

in fact, we could drum up the same level of 'connection' parallel (or greater) of the cozy connections with virtually any arab country... FIRST OF ALL, I AM UNAWARE THAT I EVER CLAIMED IRAQ WAS THE ONLY THREATENING COUNTRY OUT THERE. HOWEVER, BECAUSE MORE THAN ONE COUNTRY THREATENS US DOESN'T MEAN WE TAKE NO ACTIONS?

take action against all offenders, or explain why single out iraq. i don't know how many i need to ask you this same question.

and i don't think that freedom for people that have never experienced is a bad thing, however, why do we have a hard on for iraq? WHY NOT?-my very point about consistency issues. I NEVER SAID WE WERE CONSISTENT NOR THAT WE WERE REQUIRED TO BE, I SIMPLY SAID I BELIEVE IRAQ POSED A THREAT you are the one that can't admit the iraq strike was very selective PLEASE SHOW ME MY POST WHERE I CLAIMED THAT if you are using that reason as a leg to stand on. please don't give me, 'we've got to start somewhere', because if it were a humanitarian effort that was our main priority, why then would we spend so much on a simgle military effort, SORRY, BUT I DON’T THINK WE SHOULD DEFEND OURSELVES BASED ON A BUDGET- IT COSTS WHAT IT COSTS. when there is no way congress would approve even half that amount in aid to 'free the oppressed people of the world'. YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW HOW MUCH CONGRESS WOULD APPROVE…THAT’S MERE SPECULATION you really don't see this point? THERE IS NO POINT.

i'll agree you never answer my questions, but a non answer makes me wonder- who else poses a threat of this (hyped up, in my opinion) magnitude? and you really think we can AFFORD another iraq even if we wanted to?! there is a point, and you do your damndest to miss it!

i don't blame bush for the war NO BUT YOU CALL ALL PEOPLE WHO INTERPRETED THE EVIDENCE “BUSHIES” I DON’T THINK I’VE EVER CALLED YOU A NAME. poor dubya doesn't have a clue. you think he calls ANY of the shots? i doubt it! the man is a mere figurehead, and a testament to the dumbing down of the position of the american presidency. OH, AS OPPOSED TO THE PRESIDENT WHO COMMITS PERJURY, ADULTEROUS SEXUAL ACTS AND HAS THE NERVE TO LIE TO THE PEOPLE? this is not just perception. YES, IT IS YOUR PERCEPTION. I THINK GEORGE BUSH IS INTELLIGENT AND I DON’T THINK HE’S A MERE FIGUREHEAD.

look man, you are defending bush's policies here- you are a bushie. i can sit and say don't call me a liberal! but the label means only a general standpoint- get over it.


don't get me started on lies- just because one isn't under oath doesn't give anyone the right to lie to their people. are you really saying bush has never lied to the american public? the man has the lowest IQ in presidential history by about 20 points! spare me the patronization! what kind of decisions do you think this puppet actually makes? *sniff* now THAT'S some funny shit!

and so what do the people who doubt the validity of our WMD intel have on their personal agenda? I NEVER WROTE ONE WORD ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE’S OPINIONS, MERELY STATED MY OWN. IT IS YOU WHO CONSTANTLY BELITTLE THOSE WHO DON’T AGREE WITH YOU. they hate the US? HOW WOULD I KNOW? they are a bunch of saddam lovers? NEVER SAID THAT you've really got to be kidding me. NOPE, NOT A COMEDIAN.

ok. you managed to miss the question again here let me simplify it for you: why do millions of people around the world disagree with the 'war' in iraq? i really wonder what you think the 'other perspective' is thinking- have you given it any thought?

please show me something that proves this intelligence claim: ONCE AGAIN, IT IS NOT I WHO MUST PROVIDE EVIDENCE. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO CLAIMED IT WAS FABRICATED AND THAT I WAS RIDICULOUS FOR BELIEVING THE INFO- YOU MUST ASSERT YOUR CLAIM. ALL I SAID IS THAT I BELIEVED THE PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE.

the proof already exists! nothing near these claims has been found! are you still clinging to this war hype? show me the money, man! you *wish* this was on me-

MY ANCESTORS AND I WEREN’T BORN LUCKY. WE CHOOSE TO LIVE HERE. AND I’VE WORKED MY ASS OFF TO STAY HERE AND SUPPORT THIS COUNTRY AND ITS IDEALS. IF ANYONE’S LUCKY, IT IS THOSE WHO LIVE HERE AND DON’T SUPPORT THE COUNTRY. OR THE ONES WHO’VE DONE NOTHING TO HELP ANYONE ELSE BUT YET WE HELP THEM ACHIEVE SUCCESS.

i'm sorry, i can't help but laugh. were you born here? i'm glad you see my point.

i paid 18K in taxes last year, that doesn't count? i support my country, but now our corrupt government. get it straight. anyone taking money to get elected, democratic or republican is CORRUPT. PERIOD.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by spillmind
By Mohamoud A Shaikh

The rest clipped. Is this supposed to be a reliable source? How about a link, or are you too embarassed to admit where you got it from? Sorry, commentary simply doesn't make your case.

 

[NightTrain]

Looks like he dredged this charming book review up from muslimedia.com... no mention of this guy anywhere else except a few small geocities sites.

 

[spillmind]

do a google search '8 February 1963 in a coup cia saddam'

funny how you guys deny involvement up and down. amazing, even.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by spillmind
do a google search '8 February 1963 in a coup cia saddam'

funny how you guys deny involvement up and down. amazing, even.

Did that, as you requested. #1 on the list was muslimedia.com as NT pointed out, and second on the list was a geocities site. How about you just cite your exact source? Do you have any concrete proof from reputable sites?

 

[spillmind]

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/1963cialist.htm

http://www.informationwar.org/imperialism/how_the_cia_put_the_baath_in_power.htm

http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism/2003-December/000731.html

still don't think we had ANY involvement? are all these people just making up the SAME STORY? do a search on CNN and look up the date: February 8, 1963 you won't find a thing! doesn't mean nothing happened. please don't feign being so niave.

the internet has only been around for about ten years. you thin kand official government branch is going to archive and document CIA intervention?

ok let me guess, we had nothing to do with nicaragua, either?

 

[eric]

You must be kidding again !

Hmmm, let see

A peace advocacy group.

An excerpt from a book.

A post from some board.

Your sources are just too reliable to doubt!

 

[jimnyc]

Shoot, if this is the type of evidence that is needed to support a claim, I can find similar pages that will swear Al Gore invented the internet. At least I didn't have to prove my point, Spillmind was kind enough to do it for me.

 

[Moi]

Once again, Mr. Spillmind, your post is obtuse at best and laughable throughout. You are sitting here demanding proof of things that many people believe yet you continually tell them they can't possibly believe what they do. That's an amazingly circular argument. You clearly know what I believe or you wouldn't be asking me to defend it. And I'm not alone in realizing that it is you who missed the point: I don't need to defend myself to you. I am entitled to my opinion and I'm entitled to support the actions taken by my government. Even if my opinion is not the same as a million people around the world!

You continually ridicule others because they've chosen a course different from your own and project your prejudices upon them.

No offense, but I am not a 12 year old girl waiting to meet her next father figure. I am an intelligent person who is free to interpret evidence my own way without being insulted at every turn just because you don't agree with me.

If you would just have a conversation based on mutual respect perhaps more people would be willing to hold a conversation with you. Or are you more interested in stirring up trouble?

Get it "anti-bushie, man"?