Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (11748)	7/18/2004 8:40:56 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 ...If the UN wanted that resolution enforced, why didn't it approve use of force against Iraq? I guess "serious consequences" meant that Chirac's and Annan's buddies would demand a bigger cut of the "oil for food" scam proceeds?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (11748)	7/19/2004 12:36:52 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 90947

<font color=blue>"I've got a question: Where are they? We have invaded and occupied the country. And we have failed to find them."<font color=black> IMO, everyone focuses on what has not been found (like all stockpiles of WMD's could not have been easily hidden or whisked away prior to the war - they do not take up that much space & Iraq is larger than California). Instead, the real issues are what Saddam utterly failed to do & precisely what has been found. Any objective review of those facts would clearly establish that his removal was the right thing to do precisely for the reasons Bush has stated. Also, what wasn't mentioned in that portion you highlighted, was that Saddam was required to dispose of everything <font color=blue>under international supervision<font color=black>. He utterly failed to do that, ET AL. Text of UN Resolution 687 (AKA the Cease Fire Agreement of the Gulf War) dalebroux.com .....Conscious of the need to take the following measures acting under Chapter VII of the Charter, 1. Affirms all thirteen resolutions noted above, except as expressly changed below to achieve the goals of this resolution, including a formal cease-fire;....... ....Invites Iraq to reaffirm unconditionally its obligations under the Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925, and to ratify the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, of 10 April 1972; (edit) What we have found in Iraq violates this requirement of the Cease Fire Agreement)...... <font size=4> .....8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, <font color=blue>under international supervision<font color=black>, of: (a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities; (b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities; (edit - Iraq was found to be egregiously in violation of this provision, including failure to dispose/destruction of its' WMD's & WMD components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities <font color=blue>under international supervision<font color=black>)........ And please note thise are among numerous egregious violations of the Cease Fire Agreement & every other UN Resolution, including Resolution 1441.

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (11748)	7/19/2004 12:55:11 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 90947

<font color=blue>"And when are we invading Israel? I think they hold the record for defying UN resolutions."<font color=black> Well, the UN does have its' share of countries that would like to see Israel destroyed. The UN has many countries that have close relationships with Arab countries that hate Israel &/or that remain anti-Semitic, so I can see why there are so many lunatic UN Resolutions passed against Israel. I'm not going to go into that as it's almost as fruitless to debate that as it is politics. (BTW, how many of those UN Resolutions were Security Council Resolutions & were binding Resolutions like those against Saddam?) However, let me point out that Israel has never used WMD's on it's neighbors or its own people as Saddam did. And Israel does not invade its neighbors or have stated intentions of ruling the ME as Saddam did. And Israel did not get its ass kicked out of a country it invaded as Saddam did. Israel was never forced to sign a Cease Fire Agreement where it agreed to totally destroy every aspect of its WMD programs of face a resumption of hostilities as Saddam did. So I see a huge difference.

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (11748)	7/19/2004 1:55:34 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

<font color=blue>Iraq and Terrorism "If you have proof Iraq was behind 911, produce it." <font color=black> There never was any attempt by the Bush Admin to connect Iraq to 9/11. That was an invention of lunatic democratic politicians, the liberal media & the lunatic left. That is a fact. Even the lunatic left cannot tie any Bush Admin Official to making a claim that Saddam was linked to 9/11. They just lie about it as though it really happened. <font color=blue> "Has Iraq supported supported terrorist attacks against Israel? Yes. When did we become Israel's big brother?" <font color=black> It was never about being Israel's Big Brother. It was always about the real threat posed by terrorists in the 21st century & the threat that rouge nations who harbor, support, train, fund & sponsor terror...... and more seriously, Dictators like Saddam who also have WMD's that they might pass on to terrorists, including Al Qaeda....... Unfortunately many democratic politicians, the liberal media & the lunatic left have revised history, lied to & misled Americans into focusing on superfluous issues like you have just stated. I'd rather stick to what the Bush Administration really said, the evidence that supports their policies & winning the WOT. Besides, I'd have to spend a week to debunk all the bullshit perpetrated by the lunatic left in their massive disinformation campaign to win back the WH. I'd rather look at what the Bush Admin really said, compare it to what they really did & evaluate their success/failures in a reality based manner. IMO, to date, the Bush Admin's policy against terror since 9/11 was the correct one & they have prosecuted it following their stated principles. Here is another starter kit on reality based facts about real links between Iraq & terrorists, including Al Qaeda - Plus what the Bush Admin really said, why it was said & what has been accomplished...... PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH ADDRESSES THE NATION ON THE SEPTEMBER 11 TERROR ATTACKS c-span.org Winning the War on Terrorism whitehouse.gov The National Security Strategy of the United States of America whitehouse.gov President Delivers State of the Union Address January 29, 2002 whitehouse.gov President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat October 7, 2002 whitehouse.gov Iraq - A Decade of Deception and Defiance whitehouse.gov Saddam Hussein's Support for International Terrorism whitehouse.gov President Discusses Foreign Policy Matters with NATO Secretary October 21, 2002 whitehouse.gov President Focuses on U.S. Economy, Iraq & N. Korea January 2, 2003 whitehouse.gov Homeland Security whitehouse.gov Links between Saddam & Al Qaeda Message 20176813 Message 19506425 Message 20172110 Message 19509006 Message 20191567 Message 20244200 Message 20273531 Message 20304721 Message 20312392 Message 19524655 Message 19534084 Message 20172730 Message 19524519 Message 19619772 Message 19687097 Message 19524653 Message 19569702 Message 19681678 Message 20201301 Message 20239242 Message 20239310 Message 20239382 Message 20239484 Message 20318974

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (11748)	7/19/2004 6:09:24 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Our Media Bias Is Better Than Yours EURSOC One 18 July, 2004 <font size=4> UK media regulator OFCOM wants to hamper access to TV channels that offer alternative points of view. Or at least classify them as ‘dodgy foreign news’ channels. Foreign news channels such as Rupert Murdoch's Fox News may be made to carry on-screen "health warnings" under proposed new guidelines published yesterday covering accuracy and impartiality on television, according to this weeks’s Telegraph.<font size=3> Most households in the UK have access to either ITV and BBC news. If they pay for satellite TV they receive Sky News, Euro News, diverse European foreign language channels and some Middle Eastern TV such as Al-Jazeera, not forgetting CNN. <font size=4> All of the above have run anti-war, anti Bush, anti-West campaigns to varying degrees. Fox News, for those who can get it, has offered a totally different perspective of events. Unlike their counterparts at the BBC and others, Fox makes great efforts to report what is really going on and refreshingly makes the distinction between opinion and reporting. Right-wing if you like, pro-American yes, but honest to their word. <font size=3> Al-Jazeera has, by the same measure, the merit of an unabashed viewpoint. You like it or you don’t, but at least you know what to expect. Not the case with our domestic TV news or the self styled ‘World News’ channels that will escape sanction by OFCOM. <font size=4> The deep-set bias that these monopolistic news channels feed Europeans, under the guise of fair and just reporting, has not only undermined the case for war but skewered the debate. The war on terror is ‘Bushes war’ and any bad news is good news for the domestic and world news channels - but we don’t get to see much of Saddam’s mass graves and torture camps, the massive reconstruction efforts going on in Iraq by allied forces and Iraqis alike: Whatever happens, they never show successes. Most Europeans don’t have any idea of the levels of popular support for a democratic future in Iraq because they never see it on the TV. In Britain it is difficult to imagine sometimes that we have been the second largest contributor to this war, it has been so universally denigrated that one is left with the surreal impression that it’s got nothing to do with us. The only time one sees British troops is when they are being shot at and it’s all apparently the fault of Uncle Sam. All we get is allied losses, prison abuse, Michael Moore, WMD reports and two years of doomsday predictions that have all turned out to be false. TV news interviews are stacked to make a point, the choice of those invited as experts are visibly brought in to reinforce a prejudice, the questions are tempered to get the right response. So often when less tame experts or witnesses say the ‘wrong’ thing when being interviewed they get unplugged. Surely if OFCOM are going to stick labels on the news channels they should start at home and point out that ninety percent of our TV news media has a left wing agenda and ‘fair and balanced reporting standards’ serve only as a mask. Is it fair to be sticking labels on foreign news channels like they were ‘adult movies’? Unencumbered access to information should be the right of a free society. Do we need some ministry of truth to tell us what to watch on TV? Everyone knows where Fox and Al-Jazera are coming from, nobody watching those channels is being duped. If we really need protection it is from our own news channels that go under the guise of sanctimonious impartiality but only give one side of the story.