community-based, non-corporate, participatory media
STOP THE WAR IN IRAQ -- BRING HOME OUR TROOPS -- VOTE JOHN KERRY
by Dale Nusslieber
Thursday, Sep. 23, 2004 at 3:08 AM
America does not belong in Iraq. After demonstrating that we are oppressors and crusaders, the cause of democracy in the MidEast is forever damaged.
We do not belong in Iraq. Our involvement there only causes terror and makes the US more vulnerable to the wrath of Muslims throughout the world. The US' failed imperialist incursion into a sovereign Arab nation has put the US its allies and Israel at greater risk. George Bush has blood on his hands for each of the Palestinian attacks in Israel since his Crusader's fantasy got us in this mess.
John Kerry has the right plan. that is to get us out of Iraq. The US has not business causing harm around the world when we have so many issue to address here at home. All the money spent on this war of hatred and vendetta by Bush could have provided free healthcare in the US or solved the retirement problem. But instead we are off on some far fetched and far flung frat boy macho road trip to impose western democracy on a culture that does not want western democracy. Every Arab nation has eschewed western democracy (and for good cause). We need to be more understanding of the cultures we would wish to subjugate. In the Arab world, the tribal/family model of government is what they want. Even their form of democracy (if you call it that) would follow a family centric tribal model. We do not try to understand.
It is the same in Africa and elsewhere where we feel the need to meddle. We do not belong there and only infuriate these cultures with our arrogance. And this is exactly what breeds the terrorist hatred of the west.
True progressives, like Kerry-Edwards understand this. John Kerry has served his country in both war and peace and has attained the enlightenment that George Bush actively avoids. This is the basis of John Kerry's plans to bring our troops home promptly and to try to heal the wounds that the US has caused to this fragile world. 9-11 was a wake-up call to the US that it must stop its arrogance around the world. Clearly George Bush did not hear that call, just like he did not hear the hero's call to serve his country in Vietnam.
Everybody but Bush...
by Dissatisfied customer
Thursday, Sep. 23, 2004 at 4:11 AM
...or Kerry.
Kerry will do what the money says, just like Bush.
Revolution, not reform.
Protect Freeedom and Liberty -- DON'T VOTE FOR KERRY
by Yassar Datsmibebe
Tuesday, Oct. 05, 2004 at 6:19 AM
Last week, in the first presidential debate, candidate John Kerry did what most expected him to do. He presented a polished argument. He seemed confident and knowledgeable. For sure, on style alone, John Kerry has the natural political talent to score points. In the debate, Kerry skillfully wove as many words as possible into every one of his 90-second responses.
Do not for an instant, however, permit Kerry’s natural political skill – further refined over a lifetime in Washington D.C. – to fool you. It is easy to allow Kerry’s slick rhetoric to conceal his radical ideas.
When it comes to defending our nation and defeating terrorism, Kerry insists that U.S. foreign policy must pass a so-called “global test.” He repeated this at the debate, and this is consistent with what he has said throughout his entire political career. For example, in 1970, Kerry explained, “I’m an internationalist. I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.”
In the debate, Kerry also harshly criticized our President for opting against adopting particular international treaties. One such treaty that Kerry supports is the treaty that created the International Criminal Court (“the ICC”). If Kerry is elected, he will sign this treaty and in doing so, he will sign away liberties guaranteed under our Constitution. Kerry’s support of the ICC would give foreign nations leverage over our national defense. More importantly, his radical position on the ICC would deprive Americans of constitutional liberty, giving our freedom a backseat to his grand notion of a “global test.”
What is the ICC???
The ICC was established by a treaty (“the Rome Treaty”) proposed at a United Nations conference in Rome on July 17, 1998. It was created to take jurisdiction over crimes of “international concern.” The structure of the Rome Treaty is problematic, however, because it differs from our system of jurisprudence, and it would infringe on bedrock principles of the Constitution. Indeed, allowing the ICC to try U.S. citizens would deprive those citizens of constitutional due process. Equally dangerous, the ICC has nearly unlimited authority to prosecute.
The following points illustrate specific reasons why the U.S. must never ratify the Rome Treaty:
-- If adopted, the Rome Treaty would allow the ICC to prosecute our soldiers, civilian personnel who provide support and logistics to soldiers, as well as military commanders. The ICC could also put the President and Congress on trial.
-- The definitions of crimes in the Rome Treaty can be easily amended to politicized forms. Already, efforts to politicize the ICC crimes are in full swing. For example, Cuba has proposed that the ICC prosecute economic tariffs as international crimes.
--- The ICC does not allow for a jury of one’s peers, a right guaranteed in the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. Instead, in an ICC trial, a tribunal of three judges will always decide a defendant’s fate.
-- The judges who will preside over ICC trials will be citizens of nations who have adopted the treaty. These nations include Cambodia, Jordan, and Liberia.
--- An American tried before the ICC could be denied the right to a speedy and public trial, reasonable bail, and protection from cruel and unusual punishment. These due process rights and protections are found in Amendments VI and VIII of the Constitution.
--- In contrast to our system of justice, ICC prosecutors can appeal unfavorable verdicts on the basis of fact in addition to questions of law. This cedes tremendous power to ICC prosecutors and erodes finality of rulings by allowing the possibility for open-ended trials. Unlike our legal system, if an ICC prosecutor does not nail a guilty verdict the first time around, he can simply try, try and try again, forevermore until the prosecution reaches the desired result.
--- An ICC tribunal would likely permit hearsay evidence and anonymous witness testimony into the courtroom. This would be inconsistent with protections secured by the Constitution. Specifically, the Sixth Amendment protects an individual’s right to be “confronted with the witnesses against him.” Unlike our Constitution, however, the Rome Treaty lacks a specific prohibition against hearsay evidence. Furthermore, there exists international precedent that would permit the admission of hearsay evidence where there is no rule against such evidence. For example, in one of the international trials related to the tragedies in the former Yugoslavia, where there was no such prohibition in the rules, the judges permitted the admission of hearsay evidence over the defendant’s objections.
--- As a newly created court, the ICC will set its own precedent and, thereby, render over two hundred years of case law in the United States meaningless.
--- Armchair bureaucrats from around the world can use the definitions of crimes in the Rome Treaty to second-guess U.S. military tactics. As an example, since the U.S. has laser-guided bombs in its arsenal, the U.S. could be prosecuted for using regular bombs if those bombs inadvertently injure civilians unintended as targets. We are already seeing the groundwork for this type of lawsuit – the ICC is currently investigating and considering whether to prosecute Britain, which ratified the Rome Treaty, for using cluster bombs in the Iraq War.
--- The ICC can prosecute for the same conduct that a defendant was already convicted or acquitted of in a U.S. court if the ICC believes that the former trial was conducted unfairly. How is fairness decided? The answer is that fairness can be whatever the ICC wants it to be.
--- The ICC does not answer to the United Nations Security Council; it does not answer to any nation; ICC judges will not be elected by or answer to the American electorate.
Why Would Kerry Support the ICC?
No one can deny that some U.N. programs, such as humanitarian aid, are positive. But Kerry’s plan to blindly adopt everything the U.N. proposes to garner “credibility” is nothing short of sheer folly.
That Kerry supports this politicized tribunal simply to convince the world’s dictators, tyrants, and despots to like us is stunning and revealing. That Kerry would sign a treaty that would permit a U.S. citizen to be tried by a tribunal of judges from foreign nations is shocking.
Clearly, when it comes to selecting our commander-in-chief in November, Kerry is the wrong man, with the wrong ideas, who applied for the wrong job.
Straight Talk
by George W. Bush
Thursday, Oct. 07, 2004 at 6:34 AM
My opponent continues his pattern of confusing contradictions. After voting for the war, after saying my decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power was the right decision, he now says it was all a mistake. But asked, does that mean our troops are dying for a mistake? He said, no. You can't have it both ways. He can't say it's a mistake and not a mistake. He can't be for getting rid of Saddam Hussein when things look good, and against it when he's falling in the polls. He can't claim terrorists are pouring across the border into Iraq, yet at the same time try to claim that Iraq is somehow a diversion from the war on terror. The American President must speak clearly, and when he speaks, must mean what he says.
This is just one example of how my opponent's weak, vacillating views would make for a more dangerous world. In these final days of the campaign, will you make one more contribution to the Republican National Committee so they can help me and the Republican team get our message to the American people?
Americans are seeing fundamental differences between my opponent and me -- differences I believe are crucial to America's national security. First of all, there's a big difference when it comes to supporting our troops in harm's way. When America puts our troops in combat, I believe they deserve the best training, the best equipment, and the full support of our government.
Last week my opponent said our troops deserve better. They certainly deserve better than they got from my opponent and the liberals in Congress when they voted to send them to war, then voted against funding our troops in combat.
You may remember my opponent's quote when they asked him about his vote. He said: "Well, I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
During the course of this campaign when they asked him to explain the vote, he said the famous quote and then went on to say he was "proud" of his vote. He said the whole thing was a "complicated" matter. And then he gave yet another explanation of his vote. He said, well, it was a "protest" vote.
In the debate last week, he said he had made a mistake in how he talked about that vote. But the mistake wasn't what he said; the mistake was what he did. When we put American troops in harm's way, they certainly deserve better than to have a candidate for President use them as a protest.
We will never use our troops as a protest. We will give them everything they need to do the job. They deserve nothing less.
My opponent has a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of this war against terror, and he has no plan to win in Iraq. The cornerstone of my opponent's plan for Iraq is to convene a summit. I've been to a lot of summits. Since I've been your President, I've been honored to be at summits throughout the world. But I've never been to a meeting that has deposed a tyrant or brought a terrorist to justice. The way to defeat the terrorists is to stay on the offense, attacking them abroad so we do not have to fight them here at home.
My opponent last week claimed he can work with our allies, yet, he said those who are standing with us are not a part of a "genuine" coalition. He earlier called them a coalition of the "coerced" and "bribed," and dismissed their sacrifices as "window dressing."
You cannot lead by pushing away the allies who are already with us, who are sacrificing along with our soldiers. You can't expect any support for a cause you have called a "mistake," a "grand diversion," or the "wrong war" at the "wrong time."
The way to lead this coalition is not to be disdainful or dismissive. The way to lead this coalition to victory is to be clear about our thinking, grateful for their sacrifices, and resolute in our determination to achieve victory.
Attn Editors
by Everybody but bush or kerry
Thursday, Oct. 07, 2004 at 8:05 AM
Unless the preppie New England frat boy who like to dress up like a cowboy, a pilot and other members of the Village People posted the comment, it's impersonation, a clear violation of the policies and should be removed.
Dear Everybody:
by Tom Jefferson
Friday, Oct. 08, 2004 at 3:39 AM
It is a widely known fact that Dubya enjoys reading the many IMC's, the Village Voice, the Utne Reader and the Washington Blade. My guess is that he actually did write that interesting piece. Now let's see if John Kerry wants to respond. Maybe Pittsburgh's IMC can host the next candidates debate.
More editorial iconsistencies
by My Pet Goat
Friday, Oct. 08, 2004 at 4:08 AM
Once again, the collective allows the right-wing trolls to have their way...
Why Georgie Can't Read
by Everybody
Friday, Oct. 08, 2004 at 4:46 AM
The only reason I could forsee voting for Kerry is his proposal to commission two new army divisions puts us one step closer to the draft.
A draft would mean a serious reduction in the number of milquetoast frat assholes, protest warriors, and various other freeper right-wing nuts. Less SUV traffic and fewer pampered twits riding two blocks on busses through Oakland.
The draft presents an opportunity for these brave Bushmen to take the imaginary war on terror off the message boards and into the streets of Fallujah.
But isn't ...
by My Black Sheep
Friday, Oct. 08, 2004 at 4:52 AM
The Collective run by Left Wing Trolls;)
Why not just let people use IMC for what is was intended for...open discussion forum. I do not see anything on this string that looks like "Right Wing Trolling". Whomever GWB is (maybe it was the Dubya) his/her statements are coherent and valid in an open discussion. The same with Yassar and Dale above. Unless you desire to drown in the ignorance of closed debate, then you can not call the arguments of those that have a differing opinion invalid solely on the basis that the opinions do not confirm you own position.
The Collective does a very good (I might even say exceptional) job of moderating an open debate. This quality of the Collective is in striking contrast to the standard editorial censorship of most ofther IMC. This is probably why the Pittsburgh Indy draws significant readership from outside of Pittsburgh.
You delete my impersonations though
by My pet goat
Friday, Oct. 08, 2004 at 5:14 AM
Hiding posts
The Pittsburgh IMC editorial collective reserves the right to "hide" posts to the newswire that
have been posted by someone pretending to be someone else.
posts that include ONLY a link or ONLY a cut and pasted story from another website.
Unless the left wing trolls ;) of the collective have attempted to contact the sock-stuffed flight suit in chief, they are allowing impersonation.
The post is also only a copied and pasted White House Press Release and should be removed unless it is credited as such.
The anti-semite, zionazi, advocate of genocide Yassar did manage to include some original content above his copied Karl Rove AM radio talking points, which should also be credited as a source, dubious as they may be.
To the Goat
by ;)>
Friday, Oct. 08, 2004 at 6:50 AM
Dude, you have serious issues.
Silly Punctuation Face
by My Pet Goat
Friday, Oct. 08, 2004 at 7:24 AM
Which issues would they be?
John Kerry -- Foreign Policy Failure
by Your Pet Donkey
Friday, Oct. 08, 2004 at 10:25 AM
Although everybody's talking about weapons of mass destruction, the story that is more important in the campaignis the complete collapse of John Kerry's foreign policy case, and the reason for that collapse.
The weapons of mass destruction case is a bit more, shall we say, “nuanced” than a lot of the press treatment makes it sound. No weapons have been found, but the Iraq Survey Group's (ISG) report makes clear that Saddam wanted to wait out the sanctions and then start making the weapons again. The ISG, which confirmed last autumn that they had found no WMD, just presented detailed findings from interviews with Iraqi officials and documents laying out his plans to bribe foreign businessmen and politicians. Although the ISG found no evidence that Saddam had made any WMD since 1992, the ISG found documents which showed the "guiding theme" of Saddam’s regime was to be able to start making them again with as short a lead time as possible."
But wait a second… John Kerry voted for the war, so his arguments on that topic boil down to either: (1) Bush lied, and I'm gullible: or (2) Bush and I both got fooled, but I'll do better next time. Neither is very compelling.
The real centerpiece of Kerry's foreign policy stance, though, has been that he would be better than Bush at getting allies together, and at passing the "Global Test" before taking military action. And that case is in total collapse this week.
Forget missteps like his dissing of our allies in Iraq, Australia, and Poland -- which drew a stinging response from the Polish President ("It's sad that a Senator with twenty years of experience does not appreciate Polish sacrifice.") Now even Kerry is admitting that he's not going to be able to deliver on his promises. Sen. John Kerry conceded yesterday that he probably will not be able to convince France and Germany to contribute troops to Iraq if he is elected president.
The Massachusetts senator has made broadening the coalition trying to stabilize Iraq a centerpiece of his campaign, but at a town hall meeting yesterday, he said he knows other countries won't trade their soldiers' lives for those of U.S. troops.
"Does that mean allies are going to trade their young for our young in body bags? I know they are not. I know that," he said.
“Body bags.” Now this really does sound like the John Kerry of 1971. I can't help but think that, for Kerry, every war is Vietnam. And if he's President, I'm afraid that might turn out to be the case. The one thing that John Kerry has been consistent on is is disdain for the U.S. military and his lack of understanding of global conflict.
The "Global Test" bit looks kind of bad, in this light. But it looks even worse when you consider the other revelations of the ISG -- namely, that most of the opposition to the war came from people who were being bribed by Saddam. The ISG reported that Saddam Hussein believed he could avoid the Iraq war with a bribery strategy targeting Jacques Chirac, the President of France. Memos from Iraqi intelligence officials, recovered by American and British inspectors, show the dictator was told as early as May 2002 that France - having been granted oil contracts - would veto any American plans for war.
To keep America at bay, Saddam focused on Russia, France and China - three of the five UN Security Council members with the power to veto war. Politicians, journalists and diplomats were all given lavish gifts and oil-for-food vouchers. Tariq Aziz, the former Iraqi deputy prime minister, told the ISG that the "primary motive for French co-operation" was to secure lucrative oil deals when UN sanctions were lifted. French oil giant, Total, had been promised exploration rights.
The ISG further reported that Iraqi intelligence officials then "targeted a number of French individuals that Iraq thought had a close relationship to French President Chirac," including two of his "counsellors" and spokesman for his re-election campaign.
It's hard to pass the "Global Test" when the people grading it are being bribed to administer a failing grade. Perhaps Kerry should change his stance, and promise that a Kerry Administration would "outbid the bad guys." That approach is more likely to succeed than the one John Kerry has been touting, which even he has admitted is doomed.
Don't know much about anarchy
by My Pet Goat
Friday, Oct. 08, 2004 at 11:36 AM
Why do you right-wingers assume that because someone doesn't like the preppie New England frat-boy who the white, christian god appointed (he said it, not me) to ru(i)n the world, that I like the other preppie New England frat boy?
Because you are naive enough to believe that your "daddy" of choice can protect you which is silly, and that they are different, also silly. Their policies can get us killed, and I doubt the boring one will do any better than stupid one.
I just don't have the kind of imagination required to tell them apart.
It's like picking which foot kicks you in the nuts.
This two-party system is beastiality, you can get fucked by a donkey or fucked by an elephant, but either way its a crime against humanity and nature.
It's stupid to have a tyrant over you, but its even stupider to pick the tyrant.
Dude
by :{)>
Friday, Oct. 08, 2004 at 12:07 PM
Issues. Serious issues. Time to go with decaf.
Goat-ee
by [:(>
Friday, Oct. 08, 2004 at 12:52 PM
The final report from the chief U.S. weapons hunter in Iraq with the ISG concluded that Saddam Hussein had NO stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons, had no programs to make either them or nuclear bombs, and had little ability - or any immediate plans - to revive those programs.
See the Duelfur Report my sheeple friends.
John Kerry -- 20 Years of Being Wrong
by Al Tunci
Sunday, Oct. 10, 2004 at 9:06 AM
John Kerry has a 20-year record of weakening national security. John Kerry's ideas (and mysterious yet undisclosed plans) are naive and dangerous.
Kerry suggested in Friday's debates limiting the War on Terror to a hunt for Osama Bin Laden. This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the War on Terror.
Kerry said that Saddam Hussein was a threat, but said we should not have dealt with that threat.
Kerry suggested that Saddam Hussein could be contained with sanctions, in contrast to his own previous assertion that a "policy of containment" would be "disastrous."
Kerry proposed a return to failed policies of unilateral negotiations with North Korea that proved a failure during the Clinton administration.
Kerry refused to retract his proposal for a "global test."
Kerry again denigrated our allies by saying we are going it alone.
John Kerry has a 20-year record of supporting bigger government, higher taxes and higher health care costs. His running mate is a trial lawyer who has made his fortune by extracting huge claims from insurers and doctors, adding to the increases in health care costs.
President Bush exposed John Kerry's hypocrisy on health care by addressing John Kerry's $1.5 trillion health care that would take away choices without reducing the cost of health care. John Kerry blocked medical liability reform ten times.
President Bush exposed John Kerry's record of proposing $2.2 trillion in new government spending.
In Friday's debate, President Bush was in command of the issues, the facts, and the stage, and clearly won on style and substance. He exposed and dismantled Kerry's record of voting against intelligence funding, against our troops, against medical liability reform and against tax relief for working families.
This election is far too important to vote for John Kerry. Protect your economy, your country and your future. DO NOT VOTE FOR JOHN KERRY.
Dude
by My Pet Goat
Monday, Oct. 11, 2004 at 4:49 AM
You still fail to mention the issues. You'd do well in American poitics.
Decaf? That's not a luxury for those of us who work. It's probably fine for pampered frat-boys like yourself.
What are these issues?
THE TRUTH ABOUT JOHN KERRY AND TAXES
by Don't Be Fooled
Monday, Oct. 11, 2004 at 2:29 PM
Don't be fooled by John Kerry and his "Billionaire Populism." John Kerry has a unique and self-serving vision for not paying taxes as a billionaire. It goes like this. You can make a billion dollars and pay almost no taxes. As the billionaire that he is, John Kerry just hires a battallion of tax accountants and lawyers to bring his tax rate down to about HALF what many middle-income families pay.
According to the Kerrys' own tax records, and they have not released all of them, John and Airhead Heiress Wife had a combined income of $6.8 million in income last year and paid $725,000 in income taxes. That means their effective tax rate was a whopping 12.8%.
Now I'm not at all against people paying a 12.8% tax rate. Far from it. I just believe that ALL AMERICANS -- even those who can't afford to hire tax attorneys to set up complicated trusts and find legal ways to stash income in other tax-sheltered investments -- should have a shot at that kind of non-confiscatory tax rate.
Under the current tax system the middle class pays FAR MORE than the Kerry tax rate. In fact, the average federal tax rate -- combined payroll and income tax -- for a middle-class family is closer to 20% or more. George W. and Laura Bush, who had an income one-tenth of the Kerrys', paid a tax rate of 30%.
Of course, there is delicious irony in the Kerry family tax-return data. Here is the man who finds clever ways to reduce his own tax liability while VOTING FOR HIGHER TAXES ON THE MIDDLE CLASS dozens of times in his Senate career. He even voted against the BUSH TAX CUT THAT SAVES EACH MIDDLE CLASS FAMILY ABOUT $1,000.
The Kerrys have unwittingly made the case for what President Bush says he wants to do: radically simplify and flatten out the tax code. Dick Armey and Steve Forbes have persuasively argued over the years that America should have a flat tax with a rate of 17% to 19%. John Kerry has consistently opposed a flat tax, because he says it would be a tax break for the rich. But the truth is with a 19% flat tax, some rich people with lavish tax shelters, like John Kerry, would pay MORE taxes. For the Kerrys that would mean another $500,000 of taxes if we had a flat tax.
So before John Kerry is given the opportunity to raise taxes again on American workers, shouldn't he and Teresa at least pay their fair share? John Kerry is wrong for America, wrong for the American working family and wrong about just about everything.
Edwards Stem Cell Remarks Spur Mullah Omar's Surrender
by Kid Ed Words
Wednesday, Oct. 13, 2004 at 7:45 AM
Mullah Omar, the one-eyed Muslim cleric and top deputy of Usama bin Laden, announced today that he was inspired by John Edwards remarks about stem cell research and he will surrender to the United States during the Kerry administration so he can get a new eyeball.
"I'm tired of being described as 'the one-eyed' cleric," said Mr. Omar through a translator. "President Kerry will divert the billions now wasted in Iraq to fund stem cell research that will cure all diseases, make the lame to walk and the blind to see. And that's just during his first term."
The one-eyed cleric's remarks came after Democrat vice presidential candidate Edwards today promised the Kerry administration would use stem cells from human embryos to make people like the late Christopher Reeve ambulatory again.
"As an inmate in a federal penitentiary, Mr. Omar will certainly have the finest healthcare in the free world," said Mr. Edwards, who is also a U.S. Senator. "And thanks to the miracle of embryonic stem cells, he'll have two working eyeballs which he can use to study American law books as he prepares his appeal in the prison library."
Mullah Omar and the Bush Energy Team
by Reagan's bedpan
Wednesday, Oct. 13, 2004 at 7:52 AM
Osama (Usama if you are FAUX controlled) bin Laden recently revealed the role that himself, Mullah Omar, and former Enron CEO, lead Bush 2000 campaign contributor, and sponsor of the 2000 inaugural ball, Ken Lay, played in shaping the Bush energy policy.
Pampered religious fundamentalist oilmen unite, you have nothing to lose that you can't write off anyway.!
The Iraq That John Kerry and The U.N. Love
by Mullah Moolah
Wednesday, Oct. 13, 2004 at 12:16 PM
Greg Kehoe, an American working with the Iraqi Special Tribunal, stated to the Associated Press in a report about mass graves in Northern Iraq that the Iraqi Special Tribunal had "found the body of a mother still clutching her baby. The infant was shot in the back of the head and the mother in the face." He said that because of limited funds and resources, his team can excavate only one mass grave at a time.
European teams who worked on Bosnian mass graves are not helping because of their concerns that Saddam could face the death penalty.
Your tax dollars at work
by Old enough to know____
Wednesday, Oct. 13, 2004 at 1:46 PM
So was that a mass grave from the 'Highway of Death' when the US carpet bombed and then bulldozed 1000's of Iraqis?
Or were these victims of the chemical weapon attacks that used US intelligence and weapons?
Mullah Moolah
by Irving
Wednesday, Oct. 13, 2004 at 2:15 PM
Are you sure that those mas graves weren't the result of the 11 years of bombing in the "no fly" zones? Like the Ansar al Islam camp that the US had 11 years to blow up, when they were attacking what had to amount to milluions of Iraqi AA positions, since the bombed a handful of them every day for over a decade?
You frat boys need to take a break from white Dave matthews baseball caps, the beer bongs and date raping and look at the big picture instead of simply doing Karl Rove Karaoke.
The BBC Frat Boys
by Bigots
Thursday, Oct. 14, 2004 at 3:49 AM
Wow !!! This site is sure full of its share of bigots adn prejudice individuals. Just because someone posts a story or statement about the horrible human rights violations in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, and you dismiss it and label the peron a stupid fratboy? All of us should be concerned about the fact that these human rights violations took place in direct view of the UN and with the tacit acceptance of the UN adn many of our so-called allies. And now thos 'allies' in Europe are actively ignoring this genocide. This is the world's disgrace.
See this article in the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3738368.stm
Yawn
by Bigots crying bigotry
Thursday, Oct. 14, 2004 at 4:48 AM
That's what governments do, silly. They are violent organizations who rule by force and coercion, not the consent of the ruled.
Rulers kill people. It's their job. You shouldn't act so surprised. Have you looked into the history of the past 10,000 years at all?
The US enabled Hussein, as surely as it founded al Qaeda. These horrific acts could not have taken place without assistance from the US. The whole missing WMD controversy is a perfect example of this.
The Bush junta didn't invade Iraq under false pretenses. It seemed like a safe bet. No one is more surprised that WMD's have not been found than myself, and this doesn't imply some conspiracy. All governments possess as much homicide material as they can get. All leaders will ruin, starve and deprive the led to acquire more wealth and power.
Maybe these were some of the 1.5 million who died as a result of Clinton and his sanctions?
It also wouldn't surprise me if the copied stories were posted by the same anti-Semitic zionazis, who toe the "All those people are the same" line, who call out for the blood of any and all brown people, until it no longer suits their purpose or can be used to justify their agenda. The freeper types also seem to enjoy implying that Hussein and his sons were going door to door torturing and raping. Sorry to disappoint, but those kinds of things are handled at the local level, by cops and other functionaries, the same as in the US.
Was the elected Bush responsible for the beating of Rodney King or the sodomizing of Abner Luima? Yet Reagan was not responsible for arming, funding, and training al Qaeda, with his terrorist GI Bill? Based on the fuzzy logic used by the trolls, this is the case.
You are insane
by Spigotry
Thursday, Oct. 14, 2004 at 5:09 AM
What the F? Blood of all brown people? Zionazis?
Let me make sure I understand you. Because the US may have at one time a decade and a half or more ago had some diplomatice relationship with Saddam (but isnt this what the Dems adn JF'nK want(ed)), it makes all that genocide AOK. I for one was against the US involvement with despots then, I am against it now, and I beleive that we need to be honest about the genocide in Iraq. At least I can be consistent about this. Unlike the American Left apparently, who are just as willing to look the other way over genocide if it support their immediate political needs.
Good Doggy
by Delta Ooops
Thursday, Oct. 14, 2004 at 6:25 AM
I couldn't agree with you more on the subject of the American Left to ignore genocide and to oppose only the wars started by Republicans. Clinton probably killed more people than Pol Pot. Yet there was little or no outrage to speak of. Michael Moore was busy eating pizza rolls with his then friend and Hard Copy host, Bill O'Reilly, when sucking up to Hollywood was his meal ticket.
This serves to further the illusion that there is some difference between the parties in the States. Other than the Republican soft-spot for guns and the Democratic soft-spot for abortion, there is virtually none to speak of.
I condemn ALL genocide, no exceptions for Democratic Presidents or mass murders with great lobbyists like the Israelis or 'allies' like Pakistan. No exception for de facto genocide as practiced in Africa by the drug companies and fundemantalists pushing their abstinence agenda in an attempt to clear cut a continent by allowing AIDS to flourish.
Now as far as consistency goes, "our allies" the Turks have attempted to wipe out the Kurds in the past and will no doubt attempt the same, given the chance. Hussein's regieme had more than as you put it, "some diplomatice relationship"
with the US. The US admittedly supplied the Baathists with chemical weapons and sattelite photos to carry out said genocide. I imagine the Democrats were all for it. Back to consistency, the Israeli answer to "the Palestinian question" is every bit as atrocious as Hussein's actions, but like Hussein, Sharon couldn't do what he has done without US tax dollars. Yet this is fine with both sides of the aisle.
Until State and Capital are abolished these symptoms will continue to manifest themselves.
![[masthead]](/images/masthead_140.png)