[doubledeckerbus]

Remember to use the word "terror". Use it about Saddam Hussein, use it about Osama bin Laden, use it about Yasser Arafat, use it about anyone who opposes Israel or America. Bush uses it in his speechs about 30 times in half an hour - that's one "terrorism" a minute.

But now let's list exactly what we really must forget if we are to support this madness. Most important of all, we absolutely must forget that President Ronald Reagan dispatched a special envoy to meet Saddam Hussein in December 1983. It's essential to forget this for three reasons. Firstly, because the awful Saddam was already using gas against the Iranians - which is one of the reasons we are now supposed to go to war with him.

Secondly, because the envoy was sent to Iraq to arrange the re-opening of the US embassy - in order to secure better trade and economic relations with the Butcher of Baghdad. Thirdly, because the envoy was - wait for it - Donald Rumsfeld. Now you might think it strange that Mr Rumsfeld, in the course of one of his folksy press conferences, hasn't chatted to us about this interesting tit-bit. You might think he would have wished to enlighten us about the evil nature of the criminal with whom he so warmly shook hands. But no.

Strangely, Mr Rumsfeld is silent about this. As he is about his subsequent and equally friendly meeting with Tariq Aziz - which just happened to take place on the day in March, 1984, that the UN released its damning report on Saddam's use of poison gas against Iran. The American media are silent about this too, of course. Because we must forget.

We must forget, too, that in 1988, as Saddam destroyed the people of Halabja with gas, along with tens of thousands of other Kurds - when he "used gas against his own people" in the words of Messrs Bush/Cheney/Blair/Cook/Straw et al - President Bush senior provided him with $500m in US government subsidies to buy American farm products. We must forget that in the following year, after Saddam's genocide was complete, President Bush senior doubled this subsidy to $1bn, along with germ seed for anthrax, helicopters, and the notorious "dual-use" material that could be used for chemical and biological weapons.

And when President Bush junior promises the Iraqi people "an era of new hope" and democracy after the destruction of Saddam, we must forget how the Americans promised Pakistan and Afghanistan a new era of hope after the defeat of the Soviet army in 1980 - and did nothing.

We must forget how President Bush senior urged the Iraqis to rise up against Saddam in 1991 and - when they obeyed - did nothing. We must forget how America promised a new era of hope to Somalia in 1993 and then, after "Black Hawk Down", abandoned the country.

We must forget how President Bush junior promised to "stand by" Afghanistan before he began his bombings last year - and has left it now an economic shambles of drug barons, warlords, anarchy and fear. He boasted yesterday that the people of Afghanistan have been "liberated" - this after he has failed to catch bin Laden, failed to catch Mullah Omar, and while his troops are coming under daily attack. We must forget, as we listen to the need to reinsert arms inspectors, that the CIA covertly used UN weapons inspectors to spy on Iraq.

And of course, we must forget about oil. Indeed, oil is the one commodity - and one of the few things which George Bush junior knows something about, along with his ex-oil cronies Cheney and Rice and countless others in the administration - which is never mentioned.

In all of Bush's dribble there isn't a single reference to the fact that Iraq may hold oil reserves larger than those of Saudi Arabia, that American oil companies stand to gain billions of dollars in the event of a US invasion, that, once out of power, Bush and his friends could become multi-billionaires on the spoils of this war. We must ignore all this before we go to war. We must forget.

Going further back into history, how about the marvellous foreign policy blunders such as Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh, Time's the man of the year 1951, in 1953 was to nationalise oil fields, CIA overthrew Mossadegh in an illegitimate and bloody coup d'état, and installed the Shah of Iran. The Iranian people never forgave the Shah for the 1953 illegitimate and bloody coup d'état against the Iranian national hero, Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh, the Prime Minister of Iran who was elected by the parliament, the Iranian legend who enforced the Oil Nationalization Bill to terminate the British ownership and influence on the Iran's oil industry in 1951. The 1953 coup d'état was designed by the CIA and fulfilled by the Shah’s military forces and supported by a large number of bribed hooligans (Saltanat-Talabs). Thereafter, the Iranian people deeply suffered under the Shah's dictatorship, corruption, phony elections, heavy censorship on the public media, torture and execution of thousands of dissenters until the 1979 Revolution.

1954 covert operations that overthrew Jacobo Arbenz Guzman, the second legally elected president in Guatemalan history. he started a land reform program, 3% of land owners held 70% of the land, nationalised 1.5 million acres, even his own land but much of that land was owned by the United Fruit Company (USA company). CIA bombed Guatamala and Arbenz fled, and have been led by US puppet governments, repressive military dictatorships ever since over 100,000 citizens dead.

In 1960, Patrice Lumumba, Congo’s first prime minister was captured by the troops of CIA-backed General Joseph Mobutu held for over a month, tortured and killed. Mobutu's brutality eventually alarmed even the CIA, who backed a
1977 uprising against him. When it failed, the CIA and Mobutu kissed and made up. US government support for Roberto D'Aubuisson in El Salvador, Holden Roberto in Angola & Reagan's Contra Terrorists in Nicaragua in the 80’s yet more examples of US involvement in regime change.

Then there's Iraq. Pop Quiz, which country has the most nuclear weapons in the middle east? Answer, it's the 51st state of America.... Israel. The Israeli government is the largest recipient of US financial aid in the world. Despite the Israeli population size is ranked as the 100th largest out of 238 countries in the world, it receives at least 30% of US financial aid.

Israel is clearly a funded state: despite its own healthy economy, it continues to receive funds from the US, in disproportion to both the country's population and needs. When it is not possible for the Israeli government to use the funds directly on military expenditure, its use elsewhere frees up other Israeli government funds to pay for military salaries, services and facilities.

Military power is required for Israel to maintain occupation implemented through settlements, checkpoints and closure. It is therefore no exaggeration to state that the US is funding and supplying the Israeli government's occupation of the Palestinian territories. Without the financial subsidies of the United States, the Israeli government would have found it considerably harder to sustain its military occupation of the Palestinian territories for the past thirty four years.

do you get zotted for having a differing opinion to the mainstream, maybe I will get banned too especially for bring up the taboo subject of Israel. I must be an anti semite then, that's the simplistic, tabloid, fast food all you can eat fox news channel answer

[Admin Moderator]

You only get zotted when you have liberal ideas that don't advance conservativism. Bye-bye!

[dinasour]

do you get zotted for having a differing opinion to the mainstream

You get zotted for being a troll.

Bye, bye.

[FourPeas]

Oh, Skippy, Skippy, Skippy....you forgot to take your medication this morning again, didn't you?

[Snerfling]

we absolutely must forget that President Ronald Reagan dispatched a special envoy to meet Saddam Hussein in December 1983.

While many FReepers like to critisize liberals for lacking a mean IQ, this post demonstrates that many times they are capable of stringing a fact pattern together. That being said, there is a certain point where one's approach towards these facts determines whether they are conservative or liberal.

The liberal cites these facts as a damning indictment of Amercica. The conservative realizes that certain decisions are made at certain times to advance US interests. However, the one thing libs don't seem to realize is that conservatives are willing to admit that situations have changed, and two, are willing to recify them.

I posit that the majority of FReepers where libs or toyed with lib ideas when they were younger. Blaming some deep conspiracy is simply an extension of one's life up until that point: parents, teachers, school admins, etc. It's only after you get a little older, oftentimes when you are now one of those 'authority' figures, that you discover it's all very much like Oz: there's no one behind the curtain.

Humans stumble from one situation to another - no one is really in control. It's a testament to our system that we have the checks & balances in place to help preserve our basic liberties. This is why, at it's foundation, libs live in a fantasy world: there entire wordview is based on a fallacy, that is, that someone or something is in ultimate control.

[null and void]

Shortbus:

So the proper thing to do, once you recognize a mistake is to keep doing it???

[ez]

Strangely, Mr Rumsfeld is silent about this. As he is about his subsequent and equally friendly meeting with Tariq Aziz

Surely, your mind is capable of entertaining a scenario in which an envoy of the US nay be friendly with an individual with whom he will be unfriendly 18 YEARS later? In that light, your intimation here, along with the rest of your "smear by innuendo" campaign, is seen as just that...Facts without a point.

If you made the point you try to insinuate, that "Rumsfield is in league with the Iraqi government", it would be laughed away.

You must conceal your points in innuendo because they are demonstrably false.

Another common leftist technique is to string so many of these "smears" together that the opposition is never able to address them all...even if they contadict each other. You have used this technique also. Rather than attack each argument, it is easier to show a single falsehood and recognize the entire screed is similarly constructed...

[ez]

In all of Bush's dribble there isn't a single reference to the fact that Iraq may hold oil reserves larger than those of Saudi Arabia, that American oil companies stand to gain billions of dollars in the event of a US invasion,

Really? We should figure out a way to get control of that oil before it falls into the hands of China. OOOPS, I guess we did...

[ez]

Then there's Iraq. Pop Quiz, which country has the most nuclear weapons in the middle east? Answer, it's the 51st state of America.... Israel.

Right Israel has nukes...and they have used them how many times? They have proved, in the face of their own destuction, that they can be trusted with them. Saddam proved he can be trusted with poison gas...oh, wait, no, he used it. Well, he showed he can be trusted with Scuds...oh wait, he fired those into Tel Aviv. Well, anyway, he proved he could be trusted with bio weapons...oh wait, it appears he used those too (see Gulf war Syndrome).

In fact, while the US and Israel, with one exception, have never used their bio weapons, chem weapons, or nukes on human beings, Saddam has used every weapon he has ever gotten his hands on.

[r9etb]

You know, it's a serious rollover hazard when your doubledeckerbus is also short and yellow.

AM: It's a mercy that you zotted him before he could have a really terrible accident.....

[redhead]