An Open Letter to Condi

[EvilMonkey]

 

I don't care about any of those people. 

 

It's obvious that the point he's making is that Powell resigned because he dissented/disagreed and he's slamming Condi for not acting at all independently of her "master".

 

So if her views happen to match that of her boss, NOT MASTER, why is that a bad thing? You act like because she agrees with him, that she is somehow betraying her own personal beliefs, when you know nothing of the sort.

[KipWellsFan]

So if her views happen to match that of her boss, NOT MASTER, why is that a bad thing?  You act like because she agrees with him, that she is somehow betraying her own personal beliefs, when you know nothing of the sort.

 

Well my point was not to make a point, but to explain Axworthy's point. But now that you bring it up I'd hope the top levels of my government have members with differing views on issues(debate is a good thing), but agreeing on things is also not a problem. I'm sure you could agree there.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

I don't think it is fishing too much.  Imagine the situation if Condi was working for a Democratic president, and the letter was written by someone like Tony Blair.  Jessie Jackson would be creamin his jeans at all the anticipated airtime he would be getting, demanding resignations, reparations and appropriations!  Al Sharpton would be knocking Jessie over to get to the cameras first.  Dorothy Tillman would be demanding that we stop importing British television on any cable system broadcast in Chicago, and want to investigate the British's ties to slavery before we could watch Monty Python again. Julian Bond,  would decry the secret cabal of neocons working with outside influences to keep the black man down.  All over something as 'slight' as this.

Evil,

And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.

 

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/EL05Aa04.html -- BigHurt, making strides from authoritarianism, my ass. The House of Saud has tons of blood on its hands. There is just no huge anti-Saud PR effort like there was to build up the Iraq war showing off what the House of Saud has done.

[KipWellsFan]

The president of a US manufacturer of electro-shock riot shields told Amnesty, "It's possible to use anything for torture," adding, "But it's a little easier to use our devices."

 

Umm, next time just say 'no comment'

 

Very interesting article

[TheBigHurt35]

BigHurt, making strides from authoritarianism, my ass. The House of Saud has tons of blood on its hands.  There is just no huge anti-Saud PR effort like there was to build up the Iraq war showing off what the House of Saud has done.

 

Agreed that the powers that be in Saudi Arabia are corrupt and evil and that the recent elections may be nothing more than a fascade. But, PR compaign or not, they're still no match for Saddam in terms of ruthlessness. Saudi Arabia didn't murder tens of thousands of its own people with chemical weapons. Saudi Arabia didn't kill millions of its own waging on unprovoked war on Iran. Saudi Arabia didn't invade Kuwait (again, unprovoked). King Fahad didn't terrorize and murder his own citizens with his secret police (at least, not to the extent that Saddam did). Crown Prince Abdullah doesn't torture Saudi olympians for not winning gold metals and rape women for sport.

 

I'll accept the argument that Kim Jong Il's government may be as bad as Saddam's was, but the House of Saud isn't quite there yet.

[KipWellsFan]

Saudi Arabia didn't invade Kuwait (again, unprovoked).

 

Wasn't Saddam provoked by Kuwait when they started drilling in Iraqi territory oil? A la that Simpsons episode where Mr.Burns drills on a slant?

[TheBigHurt35]

Wasn't Saddam provoked by Kuwait when they started drilling in Iraqi territory oil?  A la that Simpsons episode where Mr.Burns drills on a slant?

 

Saddam was "provoked" by a combination of all the money he squandered on his idiotic war with Iran and his oil-rich, defenseless neighbor.

Edited March 9, 2005 by TheBigHurt35

[kapkomet]

Wasn't Saddam provoked by Kuwait when they started drilling in Iraqi territory oil?  A la that Simpsons episode where Mr.Burns drills on a slant?

 

Wow. Just wow. Now Saddam has a reason to do what he did?

 

Dude. Just stop, please. You're killing me.

[TheBigHurt35]

Wow.  Just wow.  Now Saddam has a reason to do what he did?

 

Dude.  Just stop, please.  You're killing me.

 

That's what happens when you get your news from the CBC and cartoons.

[KipWellsFan]

Wow.  Just wow.  Now Saddam has a reason to do what he did?

 

Dude.  Just stop, please.  You're killing me.

 

You guys jump on me so quick it's ridiculous, I was just clearing things up.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Actually the historical record shows that the 1991 Gulf War was started by Kuwaiti companies slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields and depressing the price of oil by overproducing over the OPEC quotas. This made it impossible to get out from the Iraq-Iran war debt. Not saying it justifies the invasion -- but there was a reason he did what he did.

 

Not to mention that April Glaspie (US ambassador to Iraq) told Hussein that the US (via Baker's command) had "no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts" like the Kuwait border dispute, and Hussein understood this to mean US non-involvement should Iraq pursue military resolution of conflict. (This was stated in the summer of 1990 -- 5 days before the invasion, FYI)

 

And much of the case for the Iraq war (part 1 in 1990-1991) was debunked BS. Take, for example, the claims that Iraqi armies were throwing babies out of incubators. It was found out that the Kuwaitis had purchased a PR firm to promote these claims -- yet they did not have one iota of evidence to back them up:

 

In fact, the most emotionally moving testimony on October 10 came from a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl, known only by her first name of Nayirah. According to the Caucus, Nayirah's full name was being kept confidential to prevent Iraqi reprisals against her family in occupied Kuwait. Sobbing, she described what she had seen with her own eyes in a hospital in Kuwait City. Her written testimony was passed out in a media kit prepared by Citizens for a Free Kuwait. "I volunteered at the al-Addan hospital," Nayirah said. "While I was there, I saw the Iraqi soldiers come into the hospital with guns, and go into the room where . . . babies were in incubators. They took the babies out of the incubators, took the incubators, and left the babies on the cold floor to die."83

 

Three months passed between Nayirah's testimony and the start of the war. During those months, the story of babies torn from their incubators was repeated over and over again. President Bush told the story. It was recited as fact in Congressional testimony, on TV and radio talk shows, and at the UN Security Council. "Of all the accusations made against the dictator," MacArthur observed, "none had more impact on American public opinion than the one about Iraqi soldiers removing 312 babies from their incubators and leaving them to die on the cold hospital floors of Kuwait City."84

 

At the Human Rights Caucus, however, Hill & Knowlton and Congressman Lantos had failed to reveal that Nayirah was a member of the Kuwaiti Royal Family. Her father, in fact, was Saud Nasir al-Sabah, Kuwait's Ambassador to the US, who sat listening in the hearing room during her testimony. The Caucus also failed to reveal that H&K vice-president Lauri Fitz-Pegado had coached Nayirah in what even the Kuwaitis' own investigators later confirmed was false testimony.

 

http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html

[TheBigHurt35]

Actually the historical record shows that the 1991 Gulf War was started by Kuwaiti companies slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields and depressing the price of oil by overproducing over the OPEC quotas.  This made it impossible to get out from the Iraq-Iran war debt.  Not saying it justifies the invasion -- but there was a reason he did what he did.

http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html

 

Yeah, and that reason was that Saddam was broke because of the war with Iran. No sane person would use "slant drilling on our land" as a reason for invasion.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Yeah, and that reason was that Saddam was broke because of the war with Iran.  No sane person would use "slant drilling on our land" as a reason for invasion.

 

No sane person would use "WMD" as a reason for an ivasion either saying they knew where they were (had satellite images and everything tracking the movements) -- and then not be able to find them.

 

And what country got Iraq into the Iraq-Iran war in the first place, intensified the fighting & armed the Hell out of a bloodthirsty dictator? Oh yeah -- the Reaganistas in the US. If a country can't get out of debt -- war solves problems. It worked for FDR to get out of the Great Depression (the historical record shows fairly certain now that we knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor) & the war economy in Germany got it out of the Depression.

 

And btw, nice job cherry picking the post instead of going after the fact that much of the "facts" behind the justification for Gulf War I were complete and total BS.

[TheBigHurt35]

No sane person would use "WMD" as a reason for an ivasion either saying they knew where they were (had satellite images and everything tracking the movements) -- and then not be able to find them.

 

OK, then how about Saddam's rap sheet of human rights violations, his repeated violations of UN resolutions, etc.?

 

And btw, nice job cherry picking the post instead of going after the fact that much of the "facts" behind the justification for Gulf War I were complete and total BS.

 

Sticking up for Saddam, eh? Boy, you really have gone off the deep end!

Edited March 9, 2005 by TheBigHurt35

[LowerCaseRepublican]

OK, then how about Saddam's rap sheet of human rights violations, his repeated violations of UN resolutions, etc.?

Sticking up for Saddam, eh?  Boy, you really have gone off the deep end!

 

What country has the most UN resolutons passed against it? (Hint hint: It's flag is blue and white and has a Star of David on it) When are we invading them? Oh I forgot, we arm them with billions in aid. And remember, with the invasion of Iraq by the US/UK -- the rationale seems to be this: it will take complete ignoring of the UN to show Saddam that he must comply with the UN.

 

And I'm not defending Saddam's regime. I am simply saying that I don't like a person in authority that he didn't earn lies to me. I don't like people of any political party pissing on my leg & telling me its raining. There was no threat to US national interest that necessitated an invasion of Iraq.

[southsider2k5]

Actually the historical record shows that the 1991 Gulf War was started by Kuwaiti companies slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields and depressing the price of oil by overproducing over the OPEC quotas.  This made it impossible to get out from the Iraq-Iran war debt.  Not saying it justifies the invasion -- but there was a reason he did what he did.

 

Not to mention that April Glaspie (US ambassador to Iraq) told Hussein that the US (via Baker's command) had "no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts" like the Kuwait border dispute, and Hussein understood this to mean US non-involvement should Iraq pursue military resolution of conflict. (This was stated in the summer of 1990 -- 5 days before the invasion, FYI)

 

And much of the case for the Iraq war (part 1 in 1990-1991) was debunked BS.  Take, for example, the claims that Iraqi armies were throwing babies out of incubators.  It was found out that the Kuwaitis had purchased a PR firm to promote these claims -- yet they did not have one iota of evidence to back them up:

http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html

 

So if I say I have no opinion on KipWellsFan, I am giving you permission to kick his ass? Just because someone wants to stay out of a problem, that doesn't mean they would sit by when someone attacks them. To me that means fix the problems yourselfs, not start a war.

 

And I always thought the reason for Iraq war one was because Iraq invaded Kuwait. The rest of that stuff was secondary.

[Pale Hose Jon]

OK, then how about Saddam's rap sheet of human rights violations, his repeated violations of UN resolutions, etc.?

 

As far as human rights violations go, Sadam isn't even top 20 in the world. Nearly half of the countries in Africa have far worse human rights violations. But we sit here on our "morals and ethics" and watch MILLIONS die. Insted of intervening in the Sudan, we sat here and talked about how Sadam was such a bad man.

 

As for UN resolutions, america is in no place to talk considering that we allow Israel to continue to violate dozens of UN resolutions.

 

 

Sure Sadam was bad, but i mean come on, we can't fight one war based on this premise while ignoring all the other attrocities going on around the world.

Edited March 9, 2005 by Pale Hose Jon

[TheBigHurt35]

Sure Sadam was bad, but i mean come on, we can't fight one war based on this premise  while ignoring all the other attrocities going on around the world.

 

You're right. We should go to war with ALL of the countries that abuse human rights.

[kapkomet]

If that's the standard, yes, we should.

 

But then again the standard changes every five minutes depending on your political affiliation.

[Pale Hose Jon]

You're right.  We should go to war with ALL of the countries that abuse human rights.

 

Yeah, or we could use the thing that is above our shoulders and realize that their are other means of inducing change than WAR. WAR should always be the last resort, and it clearly was not in this case

[YASNY]

Oh hell people. Iraq is a strategically important country in this day and time. The British and the Americans have a history of placing themselves in strategically important locations. In this case, you have both oil and proximity to Isreal involved. We are also putting ourselves between China-Russia and Isreal. This is a repeat of the history of the English speaking peoples.

[TheBigHurt35]

WAR should always be the last resort, and it clearly was not in this case

 

That's right. The Oil For Food Program and the weapons inspections were incredibly effective.

Edited March 9, 2005 by TheBigHurt35

[KipWellsFan]

That's right.  The Oil For Food Program and the weapons inspections were incredibly effective.

 

Just because one group's doing a s***ty job doesn't me you have to do the same.

 

I think Yasny has the right idea.

[KipWellsFan]

So if I say I have no opinion on KipWellsFan, I am giving you permission to kick his ass?  Just because someone wants to stay out of a problem, that doesn't mean they would sit by when someone attacks them.  To me that means fix the problems yourselfs, not start a war.

 

And I always thought the reason for Iraq war one was because Iraq invaded Kuwait.  The rest of that stuff was secondary.

 

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Oh hell people.  Iraq is a strategically important country in this day and time.  The British and the Americans have a history of placing themselves in strategically important locations.  In this case, you have both oil and proximity to Isreal involved.  We are also putting ourselves between China-Russia and Isreal.  This is a repeat of the history of the English speaking peoples.

 

Look at the big brain on YASNY!

 

 

From Justin Raimondo (Libertarian writer...)

They were in the saddle in the entire period leading up to the invasion and conquest of Iraq, a period that reached a weird climax with the famous Power Point presentation sponsored by the Defense Policy Board formerly chaired by uber-hawk Richard Perle, at which Laurent Murawiec, a former longtime associate of Lyndon LaRouche, declared:

 

* Iraq is the tactical pivot

* Saudi Arabia the strategic pivot

* Egypt the prize

 

Murawiec urged that we threaten to incinerate Medina and Mecca, eventually take over Saudi Arabia, and move to subjugate the entire Middle East. Slate columnist Jack Shafer scoffed, at the time, that "it sounds a tad loopy, even by Dr. Strangelove standards," but today, as a concerted propaganda campaign by elements within the U.S. government targeting the Saudis, the Syrians, and the Iranians is well underway, it looks like Dr. Strangelove is still riding high in this administration – even if he hasn't quite yet won the day.

 

Since the American "victory" unraveled, along with the case for war, the neocons have run for cover – but they haven't retreated. Far from it. American policy in the Middle East is running on two tracks, the official administration track of implementing an orderly exit strategy, and the neocon track, which is rapidly propelling us into an armed conflict with Iran, Syria, and Lebanon; in short, with Israel's remaining enemies in the region.