0
   

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

 
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 04:43 pm
Quote:
I don't have disrespect for the law, as I was explaining to a policeman just the other day


Steve Laughing
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 06:11 pm
Was I the only one who was, hmmm, taken by this

Quote:
Crude Near Cuba

Spanish oil and gas company Repsol YPF (NYSE: REP) is currently facing a big risk, but it's a gamble a lot of American companies would gladly take.


A New York Times article yesterday explained that the firm is now drilling for oil off the coast of Cuba. Repsol is sinking $200,000 a day into the venture, which it launched in partnership with the Cuban government. The chances for success are slim, so for the energy concern, discovery of large energy reserves would be a major coup. But a major find would be an even bigger victory for cash-strapped Fidel Castro, which is perhaps precisely why U.S. companies are prohibited from exploring in Cuba.


Not that American corporations are not interested in the communist island nation. Halliburton (NYSE: HAL) has expressed its support for lifting the long-held sanctions that block most U.S. firms from doing business with Cuba. Despite the White House's supposed ties to the company through Vice President Dick Cheney, so far the administration has only tightened restrictions.


One wonders, though, whether this policy makes sense. No one wants to coddle dictators, but the track record of economic sanctions has not been stellar. Sanctions failed to change leadership in Iraq, and Castro continues to maintain a firm grip on Cuba, while the populace in each of these countries has suffered from lack of trade.


Meanwhile, the United States has re-opened relations with Libya, providing an opportunity for ConocoPhillips (NYSE: COP), Marathon Oil (NYSE: MRO), Amerada Hess (NYSE: AHC), and Occidental Petroleum (NYSE: OXY), among others. The thaw resulted in part from Muammar Qaddafi's change of heart on weapons of mass destruction. Nevertheless, Qaddafi is hardly completely "reformed" -- the Libyan leader remains a dictator with a poor human-rights record. At the very least, though, by re-establishing relations, the United States stands a chance of helping to lift the living standards of the Libyan people.



I heard a piece about this on CBC radio tonight - found ^^^ on Motley Fool Lots of other Google hits.

Cuba/oil. Hmmmmmm.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 06:23 pm
US citizens and companies are free to travel to and do business with almost every nation in the world except our neighbor Cuba. Just so that the politicians can satisfy and get the votes of those immigrants that this country saved from Castro's wrath. Ridiculous.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 09:27 pm
It's only a charge so far, but interesting enough to post here. Copied from another forum.
**************
As a reaction to the alleged torture of children, Norwegian authorities state they will address the US both politically and diplomatically and clearly state that it is not tolerated.

German television aired footage of American abuse of children in jails in Iraq Monday.

«Such assaults are unacceptable,» said Odd Jostein Sæter, parliamentary secretary at the Prime Minister's Office, to the Norwegian television channel NRK. «It is against international laws and it is also unacceptable from a moral point of view. This is why we react strongly, as we already have reacted to the abuse which is documented at the prisons in Iraq.»

He said that Norwegian authorities will use its first possible opportunity to respond to the Americans actions both politically and diplomatically. He stressed that jailing and assaulting children will not be tolerated.

«We are addressing this in a very severe and direct way and present concrete demands,» Sætre said. «This is damaging the struggle for democracy and human rights in Iraq.»

Norwegian authorities are going to review the report of the alleged assaults.

The Norwegian branch of Amnesty International states that Norway can not continue its military collaboration with the US in light of the alleged torture of children.
0 Replies
 
Adrian
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 10:09 pm
Quote:
Norway protests child abuse in Iraq
Norwegian authorities reacted with shock and disgust Tuesday to a documentary on German TV that American soldiers allegedly have been holding children in prisons in Iraq, and abusing them as well. The Norwegians joined the Red Cross and Amnesty International in calling for an immediate end to the abuse, and release of the underage prisoners, some of whom are as young as 12 years.

In one case, a girl around age 15 was said to have been shoved up against a wall by a group of male soldiers who proceeded to manhandle her. They then started ripping off her clothes, and she was half-naked before military police broke in.

In another case, a boy aged 15 or 16 was stripped naked and sprayed with water before being placed in an open truck and driven around in the cold night air last winter. He then was covered with mud.

"These types of attacks are absolutely unacceptable," said a spokesman for Norwegian Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik. "They violate international law and are morally indefensible."

Odd Jostein Sæter of the prime minister's office told Norwegian Broadcasting (NRK) Tuesday that Norwegian officials will react "both politically and diplomatically" to their US counterparts.

Neither the imprisonment nor abuse of children "can be tolerated," Sæter said.

"We will take this up in a very sharp and direct way and make concrete demands," he said on national radio, adding that such practices "damage the struggle for democracy and human rights in Iraq."

Norwegian authorities plan to review other reports of the abuse by both Amnesty International and Red Cross in detail.

The head of Amnesty International in Norway said Tuesday that Norway should not continue its military cooperation with the US after the reports of child "torture" were revealed.

Most of the more than 100 minors still believed to be held in American-controlled prisons in Iraq were taken into custody after US forces raided their homes.


Source.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 10:25 pm
First thought, the author needs to develop a working relationship with the word allegedly. Rolling Eyes

Second thought, if true the criminals should be punished to the maximum extent allowed by law. Evil or Very Mad

Third thought, it saddens me that idiots are going to reference this story, true or false, as if it exemplifies the brave men and women who are the United States Military. Crying or Very sad
0 Replies
 
Adrian
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 10:37 pm
Agreed on all three Bill.

Would like to know what "evidence" the German documentary makers actually presented to back up the allegation.

Films like that can be very dubious.

(No Mike Moore jokes allowed from you) Laughing
0 Replies
 
Adrian
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 10:45 pm
Quote:
U.S. accused in new terror torture claim

2004-07-08 / Associated Press /
The United States asked Pakistan to send an Australian terror suspect it had arrested to Egypt where they knew he would be tortured, according to his lawyer and a television report.

Egyptian-born Mamdouh Habib, who is an Australian citizen, was arrested near the Afghanistan border in Pakistan three weeks after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks on the United States.

U.S. authorities and Australia allege he trained with al-Qaida, a charge Habib denies. He claims he was in Pakistan looking for a school for his children.

His Australian lawyer Stephen Hopper told The Associated Press yesterday that the United States specifically requested that Habib be "sent to Egypt to be tortured."

Pakistan's Interior Minister Makhdoom Syed Faisal Saleh Hayat told SBS television's "Dateline" program due to air yesterday night that after Pakistan interrogated him, Washington asked that Habib be sent to Egypt.

"Yes, they did request it, yes," the minister said, according to a transcript of the show received by The Associated Press.

He added, "The U.S. wanted him for their own investigations."

The program also contained an interview with former Qatari Justice Minister Najeeba Al-Nauimi, who said Habib was tortured in Egypt "in a way in which a human cannot stand up."

And Tarek Dherghoul, a British man who knew Habib at Guantanamo Bay and who has since been freed, told the program Habib "said something about a dog being put on him as he was naked. Cigars put out on his body, blindfolded."

Steve Watts, a lawyer for the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York, told the program that it was U.S. government policy to send terror suspects to a third country where torture was likely for interrogation.

Human rights groups claim torture is systematic in Egypt, resulting in at least 120 deaths over the past decade, and that there is little legal recourse for its victims.

Habib was moved from Egypt after about six months to the U.S. base at Bagram in Afghanistan and then to Guantanamo Bay in April 2002 where he remains held with about 600 terror suspects, the program said.

Australian Attorney-General Philip Ruddock's spokesman said Australia had sought consular access to Habib in Egypt but the Egyptian authorities would not confirm he was in the country.

"Egypt has never acknowledged that he was ever in Egypt, so we've never been able to confirm it," the spokesman, Steve Ingram, told The AP.

Habib, who has not been charged with any offense, has told Australian Federal Police and Australian Security Intelligence Organization officers who have visited him at Guantanamo Bay of his experiences in Egypt.

"He thinks he might have gone to Egypt, but Egypt's never confirmed that he was there," Ingram said. "As to whether the Americans know, I wouldn't know that."

But Hopper said Australian and U.S. officials had liaised before Habib was sent to Egypt.

"The Australian government knew exactly what was happening to Mamdouh Habib and they're trying to cover up their complicity in crimes against humanity," Hopper told The AP in a telephone interview.

Australia, a close ally in the U.S.-led war on terror, has never asked the United States to return either Habib or David Hicks, his fellow Australian at Guantanamo Bay.


Source.

Can't find a transcript of the show to link yet.
0 Replies
 
the reincarnation of suzy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jul, 2004 05:59 am
Jesus!
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jul, 2004 07:11 am
My thoughts on Iraq now boil down to this:

The US deemed it unacceptable for Iraq to become a nuclear armed regional superpower hostile to Israel and in part of the world vital for US oil and gas supplies. This was exacerbated by the shaky grip on power of the monarchy in Saudi Arabia .

The first attempt to get rid of Saddam failed when he was allowed to remain in power after the invasion of Kuwait, due mainly to the incompetence of George I.

William I recognised the problem, but didn't want or could not face up to doing anything meaningful about it. So he continued a policy of containment through sanctions and weapons inspections.

Saddam meanwhile, having been tricked over Kuwait, was convinced that his Ba'athist regime would never be acceptable to the US which only had regime change in mind, given the opportunity. Furthermore he knew his illegal possession of wmd could provide a reason for intervention.

So his strategy changed from longer term regional strong man to medium term survival. Whilst giving every appearance of defiance, he shelved plans for the aquisition of nuclear weapons and allowed existing stocks of chemical and biological weapons material to be destroyed by the UN or to become obsolete.

George II came to power with a plan in his back pocket to invade Iraq. All that was necessary was a valid reason, moreover a reason that the public would buy. [Even he realised that given the choice war/no war, most people would chose no war].

The only possible legal justification for the invasion of Iraq was that Saddam was in possession of wmd in defiance of Chapater 7 UN resolutions. And no matter how hard USUK demanded Saddam prove he had none, as we all know, (or should do) it is not possible to prove a negative. So the legal basis for the invasion was that Saddam had failed, to the satisfaction of USUK, to do the impossible.

All the other stuff about Iraq's involvement with 9/11, the War on Terror, Saddam being a very naughty person etc etc was just an excercise in manipulating public opinion into backing the war plan.

Of course, thanks to the incompetency of George II, no doubt inherited, the plan has not worked out as he hoped, and he will probably join his father (please) in being a one-term failure.

But I suspect that more intelligent figures behind the scenes realise that from America's point of view, the situation in Iraq is about what could be expected and will not be disappointed with the outcome thus far of their geopolitical gaming.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jul, 2004 08:58 am
Dick Cheney is mentioned in the middle of this Enron piece, as he plotted the fate of Iraq:


Kenny-Boy and George
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Wednesday 07 July 2004

You have to love the irony: Since Kerry announced his VP choice of John Edwards, the Bush campaign has broadbanded the anti-Edwards slam that he is nothing more than your basic gutter-dwelling trial lawyer. This comes blithely on the heels of Bush hiring his own trial lawyer to protect him during the 70-minute Oval Office interrogation he endured regarding the Valerie Plame CIA-outing case some weeks ago. Everyone hates lawyers until they need one, it seems.

Perhaps Bush doesn't like trial lawyers because a team of them failed to keep his long-time friend and financial backer, Kenneth Lay, from getting his hide nailed to the shed in Houston. According to CNN, Lay was indicted by a Texas grand jury today for crimes relating to the apocalyptic Enron scandal. The indictment is sealed until further notice, so no determination of the exact criminal charges can be made.

Damn lawyers.

For those who cannot quite recall the specifics of Ken Lay and Enron, a bit of background is in order. Lay, along with Andrew Fastow, Jeffrey Skilling and some dozens of other high-flying bosses from Enron, are accused of insider trading, securities fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy, manipulation of earnings reports to hide the fact that Enron was hemorrhaging cash from every pore while they reaped massive salaries and bonuses, and finally, manipulation of the California energy market for no other reason than to wring pin money out of grandmothers who were forced to live in the dark because they couldn't afford to pay their Enron-inflated energy bills.

Tape recordings of Enron energy traders were recently aired by CBS News. In one segment, the traders can be heard discussing the ins and outs of manipulating the California energy market. "They're ******* taking all the money back from you guys?" complains one Enron employee. "All the money you guys stole from those poor grandmothers in California?" The response: "Yeah, grandma Millie, man." Another response: "Yeah, now she wants her ******* money back for all the power you've charged right up, jammed right up her asshole for ******* $250 a megawatt hour."

Charming.

In filing the largest bankruptcy claim in the history of the universe, Lay and his merry men cost investors somewhere in the neighborhood of $30 billion. This wiped out retirement benefits not just for the Enron employees who were forbidden from selling their stock (while Lay et al. happily shucked theirs off to the tune of a $1.1 billion profit), but also wiped out the retirement portfolios of millions of Americans who had put their savings into Enron stock. The resulting carnage on Wall Street, which erased the accounting giant Arthur Andersen, did even more financial damage.

Martha Stewart was convicted of crimes that seem quaint by comparison, and meanwhile Mr. Lay has been walking free and happy. How did the priorities of the Justice Department get so far out of whack on this one? The Enron debacle happened in December of 2001, and it has taken them almost a thousand days to get an indictment returned on Lay.

Hm.

Enron made campaign contributions totaling more than $5.7 million between 1989 and 2001. Republicans received 73% of this money. Ken Lay was an ardent supporter of George W. Bush during Bush's time as Governor of Texas. During the 2000 campaign, Lay allowed Bush to use Enron corporate jets to fly from stump speech to stump speech. So close were these men that Bush granted Lay a nickname: 'Kenny-Boy.'

Some 15 high-ranking Bush administration officials owned Enron stock in 2002. The stockholders included Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld, political advisor Karl Rove, deputy EPA administrator Linda Fisher, Treasury Undersecretary Peter Fisher and U.S. Trade Rep. Robert Zoellick. Army Secretary Thomas White was a vice-chairman for Enron before assuming his post, and owned between $50 million and $100 million in Enron stock.

Two other officials had professional connections to Enron. Former White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey was a consultant for Enron while serving as managing director of Economic Strategies Inc., a consulting firm. Zoellick also served on the Enron advisory council, earning $50,000 a year.

Enron, in many respects, set about to write the Bush administration's energy policy. Ken Lay gave the White House a list of his personal recommendations for key federal energy posts. Lay pushed his list of suggested members of the federal energy regulatory commission in the spring of 2001. Two of the people he suggested - Pat Wood and Nora Brownell - were appointed by Bush to positions that would directly affect the fate and fortunes of Enron.

Lay himself was on the short list of potential appointees for the position of Energy Secretary. The CBS Enron tapes reveal one trader looking forward to a Bush win during the 2000 campaign. "It'd be great," says one. "I'd love to see Ken Lay Secretary of Energy." Another trader responded by saying, "When this election comes, Bush will ******* whack this ****, man. He won't play this price-cap bullshit."

The infamous secret energy policy meetings run by Vice President Dick Cheney, the substance of which he still refuses to reveal, were riddled with Enron officials and Enron priorities. It has been speculated that one of the reasons Cheney refuses to divulge the elements of those meetings is that Enron was wielding the drafting pen as Bush's energy policy was created. It has also been speculated that the secrecy surrounding these meetings is due to the fact that the not-yet-begun Iraq war, and the resulting petroleum/pipeline profits to be reaped, played a large role in the discussions.

The beat goes on and on in this fashion, leading to an inescapable conclusion. Enron was certainly among the most crooked, corrupt, twisted companies ever to hang a sign in the American marketplace. Enron was, simultaneously, umbilically tied to George W. Bush and vast swaths of his administration.

Now that Lay has been indicted, those Enron stockholders still experiencing the length, breadth and depth of the shaft can hope for a measure of justice. For the rest of us, we citizens who have to live in a country whose energy policy was essentially written by Lay and his pals, we citizens who have to wonder if our current adventure in Iraq somehow plays a central role in that Enron-birthed policy, we can perhaps hope that a thousand days is enough time to wait before we hear the truth about Kenny-Boy and George.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jul, 2004 09:28 am
This may go down in history as the year when an attempt to win an election, at all costs, led to longer run disasters that make any election pale into insignificance. The biggest and loudest political rhetoric of this year is that President Bush "lied" about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

What are the known facts about Saddam Hussein's chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons?

We know that, at one time or other, he was either developing or producing or using such weapons. Back in 1981, the Israelis bombed an Iraqi nuclear facility, to the loud condemnation of many nations. But, without that pre-emptive strike, the outcome of both Gulf wars could have been tragically different.

Saddam Hussein not only had, but used, chemical and biological weapons against his enemies, foreign and domestic. With the help of the French, he was rebuilding nuclear facilities, ostensibly for civilian energy purposes, but oil-rich countries do not need nuclear power plants to generate electricity.

More than a decade of playing cat-and-mouse with international weapons inspectors raised more and more suspicions about Iraq's weapons programs, and various nations' intelligence services reported that in fact he was back to his old tricks and developing weapons of mass destruction that could pose a major threat.

Who said so? The Russians said so. The British said so. Bill Clinton said so. Leaders of both political parties said so. George W. Bush was one of the last to say so. Yet he alone is accused of lying.

Were all these people wrong? While that is possible, it is also possible that Saddam Hussein used the long months between the time when the threat of invasion was debated at the United Nations and the time when it actually occurred to dismantle his weapons facilities and disperse them, perhaps to some neighboring country.

There is already photographic evidence of a massive dismantling of a facility of some sort before last year's invasion. These photos were published on the front page of the New York Times. Whether or not that particular building was producing weapons of mass destruction, it shows that Saddam Hussein saw the need to get rid of some things before they got captured.

Nations do not wait for iron-clad proof when there are lethal threats. The massive Manhattan Project that produced the first atomic bomb was begun when the United States was at peace because of reports that Hitler's scientists were working on such a weapon.

We had no proof -- and, after Germany surrendered, it turned out that Hitler's atomic bomb project was nowhere near the stage that we feared. But we couldn't take that chance.

People who talk glibly about "intelligence failure" act as if intelligence agencies that are doing their job right would know everything. But intelligence-gathering has always been a chancy business. In a nuclear age, the only thing that makes sense is to fail safe -- and strike pre-emptively, if necessary. If that offends people who think and talk in abstract terms about international law, then it is better that they be offended than that we wake up some morning and find New York or Chicago in radioactive ruins.

It was Saddam Hussein who chose to play cat-and-mouse with the weapons inspectors whom he had agreed to let monitor Iraqi facilities as part of the peace treaty ending the first Gulf War. It was his intelligence failure to think that he could keep on doing that indefinitely.

Iran and North Korea -- the other nations identified as part of the "axis of evil" -- are now playing the same cat-and-mouse game, and North Korea is openly threatening to produce nuclear bombs. Either or both these countries are potential suppliers of such weapons to international terrorists.

Libya backed out of the nuclear weapons game after Qadaffi saw what happened to Saddam Hussein in Iraq. What would have emboldened Iran and North Korea? Only a disunited America, full of loud irresponsible election-year talk about "lies" on weapons of mass destruction, making it unlikely that the United States can muster the political will to strike Iran or North Korea.

An election-year frenzy has let the longer run fate of this country fade away into the background.

source
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jul, 2004 10:37 am
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/12/opinion/12KRIS.html?th
The Art of War
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Published: June 12, 2004

Generals and presidents approach war as a vast struggle. But war, at its most achingly real, happens not to armies, but to individuals.

In my contest for Iraq war poetry, the most moving focused on individual tiles rather than the larger mosaic. Here are the grand winners ( www.nytimes.com/kristofresponds has more poems):

Alexander Nemser of New Haven wrote about the death of a pilot:

His mother sent him pictures of his truck,
A pickup, hubcaps polished every time
He stopped to fill the tank, as clear as mirrors;
The dog, who'd lost an eye last spring; his town,
Apollo, Pennsylvania, near the falls
On Roaring Run; the watch his uncle won
From playing cards; his empty chair at dinner,
Audacious as the space left by a tooth.
We traded rifles, scripted final letters
And promised their delivery home. At night,
We planned escapes to Istanbul to join
The dervishes. Eleven miles from Baghdad,
I stood, dumb as a cow, and watched two choppers
Collide like fists and spin across the sky.

Jim Brown, a former U.S. marine now in Sydney, Australia, wrote from a soldier's point of view:

It's only a short dash, from this dusty wall to that one;
But you try it:
When someone you can't see is sending hot, cracking thunderbolts your way,
And you're clutching your young wife's sweat-faded photo so tight,
Your legs don't work properly.
Or try to tell the good Iraqis from the bad ones;
Make a mistake:
The good ones become bad ones, and you make the evening news.
The answer is to get from this dusty wall to that one, and get home.

Frank Sandoval of Louisville, Colo., thought of children:

A young girl in a pretty dress;
Her first kiss, her dried lips pressed
Into the dirt of a road. . . .
She's now a horrid little carcass,
Flies, tears dried to gelatin in her eyes,
Hair dirtier than a woman's hair should ever be.
She's free.
I look now at my little girl,
Blue eyes prettier than a flower,
Laughter more joyous than a bird song.
My heart swells in my chest and while I laugh,
I feel fear, smell a faint stench of insanity.

David Keppel of Bloomington, Ind., responded to the Abu Ghraib torture:

Did I hold a dog
To your terrified nakedness
Or perch you on a box,
Your outstretched arms wired
To the current of fear? . . .
Tell me what I have done,
I beg you, as you begged me,
Tell me what I can do
To make you forget
That my people never remember.

My favorite poem, from James Yeck of Boulder, Colo., focused on those left behind:

A tiny piece of metal hangs upon a frame,
That has "father" written below the name.
The tiny piece of metal hangs in glory there,
Never left to tarnish by neglecting care.
The tiny piece of metal brings fame to the home,
Glory for its man who crossed the ocean's foam.
Politicians send praises into the peaceful air;
Others smile now who once would only stare.
People from all around come especially to see
The tiny piece of metal, a symbol of the free.
A country's grateful token to the bravest of its land. . . .
Proud of their famous town the village people say,
"Do you know what this means?" with pride most every day,
To the little boy whose father went to war.
"Yes," softly he replies, "I have no daddy any more."

* * * * * * * * * *

So poignant these poems of the latest experience of poet-soldiers that I cried and cried, dry-heavingly sobbed and sobbed, for a long while to the point of never-ending exhaustion again. I read them and remember the terrible waste and searing images of my war 36 years ago, so vastly different, so horribly the same. I barely scratch a very deep surface of what I experienced during 67-68 in the Central Highlands of Vietnam in some war poetry of my own.

Much of my writing, as I'm sure much of the writing of this new batch of poet laureates from the bottomless trenches shall be, has been a repetition compulsion to try and exorcise the demons of my war experience from my consciousness. I don't disrespect it, I am exceedingly grateful for it, it has kept me more or less sane and pretending the semblance of "normal" functioning in a mainstream mostly emerged in amnesia or Alzheimer's, who having failed to remember are doomed to repeat the tinsel call to arms by mostly old, wannabe, armchair warriors.

On the other hand, as one of my recent new blog pals, Denny, observes elsewhere on these blog-pages:

The funny thing about life is that there is so much to be outraged and disappointed about, while at the same time, so much to be awed by and thankful for. If it weren't so, I think I'd check out.

That, Denny, is absatively, posolutely gospel truth for me as well, friend, so let me end this dark entry with some always breaking Light by sharing this poem written a couple of months ago in my service as a Peace Warrior in Sri Lanka, which also barely scratches the very deep surface of this incredibly splendid moment:

minuet

the big-ship ferry
plies smoothly
across the shimmering sea
of Trinco Bay towards Mutur
as i casually day-dream
mostly oblivious to the grandeur
of the passing scene
until I am dream-stopped, fully captured
by two eagles delicately grasping
each other's pair of talons
and with a swift unison flap
of wide-stretched wings
make a centrifugal encirclement
of each other, a delicate minuet
around and around and around

not once, but twice am I graced
by their daisy-wheel spinning together
then deftly releasing each other
to fly off side by side into the misty horizon
while high overhead a great flock
of current-gliding sea terns
head for the opposite shore
like a grand corps de ballet of the gods

January 4, 2004
Trincomalee, Sri Lanka
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jul, 2004 02:34 pm
The Society for Manchurian Regime Change (SFMRC) has alleged today that John Kerry is the current "Manchurian Candidate" and John Edwards is his American based "Control." The SFMRC further alleges that the sole objective of the Kerry-Edwards candidacies is to prevent the SFMRC from achieving its historic and noble goal of a free Manchuria. The SFMRC went on to allege that it was close to breaking the "triggering code" which activates John Kerry's subordination of his own self-control to the control of his Control's control.

July 8, 2004
For more information contact Bunkaria Slopzaria at www.snoopbigtime.org

\^^/
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jul, 2004 03:01 pm
Quote:
During the 2000 campaign, Lay allowed Bush to use Enron corporate jets to fly from stump speech to stump speech.


'nuff said right there.

Man, you people are blind.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jul, 2004 03:30 pm
c.i., thank you. Crying or Very sad
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jul, 2004 03:45 pm
Kara, You're welcome. Glad somebody 'enjoyed' the poems.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jul, 2004 04:08 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
During the 2000 campaign, Lay allowed Bush to use Enron corporate jets to fly from stump speech to stump speech.

'nuff said right there.
Man, you people are blind.


Bush, that ungrateful dummy, behind the scenes he had Lay arrested today for corporate fraud. Is that any way to treat a campaign contributor for whom one has so far done nothing? The least Bush could do is sell Lay a share of some river front property in Arkansas or buy some commodity futures for the poor bastard. Maybe Bush will go so far as to grant a presidential pardon to Lay if Lay contributes enough to the Republican election campaign. How about Lay having his ex-wife go out and buy some NY votes directly? Hell, if Lay doesn't have an ex-wife, he can ask Bush to buy one for him cheap. Come to think of it, Bush should ask the Chinese if they can help Lay in return for some minor technical information. Cool

Yeah, some people are as blind as a bat with total hearing loss. :wink:
0 Replies
 
the reincarnation of suzy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jul, 2004 05:18 pm
McGentrix wrote:
This may go down in history as the year when an attempt to win an election, at all costs, led to longer run disasters that make any election pale into insignificance. The biggest and loudest political rhetoric of this year is that President Bush "lied" about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

What are the known facts about Saddam Hussein's chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons?

We know that, at one time or other, he was either developing or producing or using such weapons. Back in 1981, the Israelis bombed an Iraqi nuclear facility, to the loud condemnation of many nations. But, without that pre-emptive strike, the outcome of both Gulf wars could have been tragically different.

Saddam Hussein not only had, but used, chemical and biological weapons against his enemies, foreign and domestic. With the help of the French, he was rebuilding nuclear facilities, ostensibly for civilian energy purposes, but oil-rich countries do not need nuclear power plants to generate electricity.

More than a decade of playing cat-and-mouse with international weapons inspectors raised more and more suspicions about Iraq's weapons programs, and various nations' intelligence services reported that in fact he was back to his old tricks and developing weapons of mass destruction that could pose a major threat.

Who said so? The Russians said so. The British said so. Bill Clinton said so. Leaders of both political parties said so. George W. Bush was one of the last to say so. Yet he alone is accused of lying.

And do you know why? Because by that point, he had already established himself as a LIAR, and because the nation knew Saddam had nothing to do with AlQuada, which the rest of us wanted to focus on!
Were all these people wrong? While that is possible, it is also possible that Saddam Hussein used the long months between the time when the threat of invasion was debated at the United Nations and the time when it actually occurred to dismantle his weapons facilities and disperse them, perhaps to some neighboring country.
Right, McG, he had all the time in the world to do that! Since he knew we were coming, why not use them against us? The dismantling story has previously been debunked. Get with the program.
There is already photographic evidence of a massive dismantling of a facility of some sort before last year's invasion. These photos were published on the front page of the New York Times. Whether or not that particular building was producing weapons of mass destruction, it shows that Saddam Hussein saw the need to get rid of some things before they got captured.
Right, Whether or not. No, it doesn't show that at all, and gee, I doubt they'd be that easy to move or hide. Of course, we know he had them, and we know he used them, a long time ago. If anything is left, it's rotting to the point of uselessness.
Nations do not wait for iron-clad proof when there are lethal threats. The massive Manhattan Project that produced the first atomic bomb was begun when the United States was at peace because of reports that Hitler's scientists were working on such a weapon.

We had no proof -- and, after Germany surrendered, it turned out that Hitler's atomic bomb project was nowhere near the stage that we feared. But we couldn't take that chance.

You believe that, do you? Smile

People who talk glibly about "intelligence failure" act as if intelligence agencies that are doing their job right would know everything. But intelligence-gathering has always been a chancy business. In a nuclear age, the only thing that makes sense is to fail safe -- and strike pre-emptively, if necessary. If that offends people who think and talk in abstract terms about international law, then it is better that they be offended than that we wake up some morning and find New York or Chicago in radioactive ruins. Ooh, the fear factor! Protect us, Father Bush!

It was Saddam Hussein who chose to play cat-and-mouse with the weapons inspectors whom he had agreed to let monitor Iraqi facilities as part of the peace treaty ending the first Gulf War. It was his intelligence failure to think that he could keep on doing that indefinitely.

It was the USA who was caught spying on Hussein during the "inspections". Would the US have put up with that, or done as saddam did and said 'enough of that"? I think you know the answer. He was allowing inspections, but we weren't playing fair. Not like the country we thought we were. And less and less like it each day.

Iran and North Korea -- the other nations identified as part of the "axis of evil" -- are now playing the same cat-and-mouse game, and North Korea is openly threatening to produce nuclear bombs. Either or both these countries are potential suppliers of such weapons to international terrorists.

Libya backed out of the nuclear weapons game after Qadaffi saw what happened to Saddam Hussein in Iraq. What would have emboldened Iran and North Korea? Only a disunited America, full of loud irresponsible election-year talk about "lies" on weapons of mass destruction, making it unlikely that the United States can muster the political will to strike Iran or North Korea.
You are truly a jackass for blaming patriotic Americans doing their duty to uphold democracy as being the cause of this. Even for you, McG, that's pretty low. And need I add, wrong, wrong, wrong! Enough with the "In a time of war" excuse. It doesn't fly in a democracy.

An election-year frenzy has let the longer run fate of this country fade away into the background.

Bullshit. That's all bush's doing, along with yours and all his other disciples.
source

or, pardon me, whatever jerk actually wrote this drivel.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jul, 2004 06:00 pm
Quote:
Bush, that ungrateful dummy, behind the scenes he had Lay arrested today for corporate fraud. Is that any way to treat a campaign contributor for whom one has so far done nothing?


Yeah. It is. When that contributor is found out to be perpetrating major corporate crimes (by the public) you tend to distance yourself from them.

And then, what were they supposed to do? Let it go? They never would have heard the end of it.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 07:11:13