Jayson

Joined

• started 52 topics
• posted 644 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Jayson

• 
  8

  Patriot Act - Good, Bad, & Ugly

  by Amazing in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  well, thank to a sharp poster named countrygirl, (sec.

  211) amends the communications act of 1934 to permit specified disclosures to government entities, except for records revealing cable subscriber selection of video programming from a cable operator.

  whew!!!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jayson

  Amazing post!

  So I can stop waiting for the sky to fall? whew!
• 
  203

  Poll suggests world hostile to US

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  an interesting read:.

  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2994924.stm.

  some key bits:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jayson

  The Discovery documentary "In Search of 9/11" goes into depth about the reasons that people have this feeling in the Arab and 3rd worlds about America. Did you ever take the time to watch it Simon?

  Russian TV is of it's own propaganda. No more tanks to Saddam:( It's funny that attitude where horrid policy for decades are only shouldered on this President; The only one to make real and what will be lasting change in the Middle East. Maybe some people had a vested interest in keeping the conflict alive. The US had a vested interest in it ending.

  Now, on to the Palistinian Civil war. Hamas will you be going?
• 
  30

  Why the US is great despite Bush!

  by Realist in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  all the heated debates about iraq have caused many americans here to think that several of us anti bush guys hate america and hate americans.. this is not the case!

  i want to state emphatically that the us is a great country with great people!

  i have lived in ny for 3 years and had a fantastic time there.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jayson

  We're not unlike you. We drink, eat, have shelter, and live. We want to live in peace and harmony. Our expectations, like yours or anybody else's ar the same. Our government has taken over.. and we just are too apathetic to enforce our rights. Nothing new, nothing surprising. They've been eroding our rights for the last five years, and I think everyone's too apathetic to stop it.

  Wow now that is cool. But can I say 50 years and still be in agreement with you?
• 
  865

  WoMD ... so where are they?

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  now, the war is over, the weapons were not used and of course have not been found.. how threatening could they be if they did not even use them when being invaded by a massive force (of the countries they hate)?!

  perhaps, as many suspect, they didn't use them because they didn't have them?.

  now we're being told that we'll have to be patient and give them time to find them.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jayson

  The French the Russians the Germans all said that WMD existed Simon. Blix said that WMD existed. Your grasping at your denial. And still avoiding the bigger good of the liberation of Iraq from Saddam. As Realist has pointed out so clearly this is about the left mudslinging at Bush & Blair nothing more.
• 
  865

  WoMD ... so where are they?

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  now, the war is over, the weapons were not used and of course have not been found.. how threatening could they be if they did not even use them when being invaded by a massive force (of the countries they hate)?!

  perhaps, as many suspect, they didn't use them because they didn't have them?.

  now we're being told that we'll have to be patient and give them time to find them.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jayson

  Waldos of Mass Destruction

  By Dale Franks	06/16/2003

  TCS

  Less than two months after the conclusion of the war in Iraq, President Bush's critics have begun complaining loudly about the lack of results from the search for Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) there. Many of Bush's critics argued before the war that the UN needed more time - perhaps as much as a year - for UN Inspectors to find the Iraqi WMDs. Now, after barely two months of post-war searching, these same people feel that the Bush administration has had more than enough time.
  
  Indeed, many of Bush's critics now accuse him of intentionally fabricating the excuse that Iraq had an active WMD program solely for the purpose of invading that unhappy country. To believe this is true, however, one must believe a large number of improbable things.
  
  First, one must believe that, in addition to duping the American people, President Bush also duped the intelligence services of Russia, China, France, The United Kingdom, among others, into believing that Iraq had a WMD program as well. Over the past eight months, the leaders of each of these nations, presumably informed by their own intelligence services, indicated their belief that Iraq did have an ongoing WMD program. Moreover, by their unanimous approval of UN Security Council Resolution 1441, these nations stated that Iraq had failed to meet its obligation to disarm itself of WMDs that it was known to possess in the past.
  
  As UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix put it, Iraq provided "no credible evidence" that those prior WMD arsenals had been destroyed. So, even if one argues that the intelligence regarding recent Iraqi WMD programs was too spotty to justify claims about WMD activity, one is still left with the fact that Iraq was incontrovertibly known to have had a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons, whose status and whereabouts were still unknown.
  
  Unknown, because Iraq never provided the required evidence of its destruction, other than unsupported claims it had done so. Iraq presented no documents signed by the destroying officials. It presented no films or videos of the destruction process. It did not allow inspectors to visit the supposed sites of such destruction. The plain fact is that there was simply no need for President Bush to try to create some sort of false impression that Iraq had an active WMD program. The Iraqi regime was already doing a good enough job of that for itself. So, to accept on the mere say-so of Saddam Hussein's regime that the Iraqis destroyed those WMDs, one must believe, in the face of massive evidence to the contrary, that Saddam Hussein was trustworthier than George W. Bush.
  
  Next, one must also believe contradictory things about George W. Bush. One must believe him to be, on one hand, a calculating, Machiavellian conspirator who managed to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people in order to justify starting a war. On the other hand, he must be enough of an amiable dunce to forget to arrange for WMDs to be "found" in Iraq after the war. In fact, our inability to find such weapons so far is the best evidence that Bush did not fabricate the administration's fears of Iraqi WMD. Why would he jeopardize his credibility over an issue he knew to be fabricated, knowing a) that he would not find a WMD arsenal in post-war Iraq, and b) the lack of such an arsenal would invite closer scrutiny of the administration's pre-war arguments? If Bush were smart enough to create the extraordinary conspiracy with which his critics have charged, you'd think he'd be smart enough to address that question before committing himself to pursuing it.
  
  Additionally, the large number of people who would have to be involved in such a conspiracy makes its very existence highly unlikely. In addition to requiring the silence of most senior administration officials, a large number of career intelligence and defense officials, diplomats, and civil service workers would have to be silenced. In the past, such large secret actions, such as the Nixon administration's military actions in Cambodia, or even Watergate itself - with a far smaller number of conspirators - have proven remarkably immune to secrecy for any length of time. To argue otherwise, one must believe that a legion of both political and career officials, many of whom are presumably not Republicans, have willingly signed on to such a conspiracy, rather than leak it to, say, The New York Times.
  
  In the end, we may not find any Iraqi WMDs at all. Perhaps, as some have suggested, the Iraqi regime removed the evidence prior to the start of the war, either by destroying it, or transporting the weapons to Syria. Some have hypothesized that the Iraqis may have pretended to have ample stocks of WMDs they didn't actually possess, in order to provide a deterrent effect (if true, this was a less than wise policy, as it turned out). Or perhaps, as others have suggested, Saddam Hussein's demands on the treasury for palaces and other monumental structures were too great to allow both an active WMD program and an active program of monumental architecture, so Iraqi officials pretended to keep their WMD efforts current in order to placate him.
  
  Prior to the war, no major figure in American politics and no serious world leader doubted that the Iraqi regime had something to hide, mainly because the Iraqis, at every turn, acted as if they were, in fact, hiding something. Indeed, the Clinton administration in 1998 explicitly charged that the Iraqis had an active WMD program, a charge repeated many times since then by every major Democratic Party leader. To believe that George W. Bush created a fictional Iraqi WMD program in order to justify a war there is to forget the previous 5 years of history, and to forget that the previous administration - good Democrats, all - believed it long before George W. Bush made an issue out of it.
• 
  865

  WoMD ... so where are they?

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  now, the war is over, the weapons were not used and of course have not been found.. how threatening could they be if they did not even use them when being invaded by a massive force (of the countries they hate)?!

  perhaps, as many suspect, they didn't use them because they didn't have them?.

  now we're being told that we'll have to be patient and give them time to find them.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jayson

  Well-Placed Democrats Insisted Saddam Had WMD

  by Joseph A. D'Agostino Posted Jun 16, 2003

  In the build-up to the Iraq War, President Bush was not the only U.S.
  
  
  Sen. Evan Bayh (D.-Ind.)
  Intelligence member
  Statement, Oct. 3, 2002 "I believe that Saddam Hussein rules by terror and has squirreled away stores of biological and chemical weapon." Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.)
  Intelligence member
  Floor speech, Oct. 10, 2002 "The people of the United States and the rest of the world are at risk as long as Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. Last night, the President . . . made the most effective case to date that the risk of inaction is too great to bear." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D.-W.Va.)
  Vice Chairman of Intelligence Committee
  Statement, March 18, 2003 "For the last 12 years he’s [Saddam’s] ignored U.N. resolutions and embargoes while rebuilding his illegal chemical and biological weapons. . . . He is dangerous. I believe he needs to be disarmed." Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D.-Md.)
  Intelligence member
  Floor speech, March 18, 2003 "In 1991, the world collectively made a judgment that this man should not have weapons of mass destruction. And we are here today in the year 2002 with an un-inspected four-year interval during which time we know through intelligence he not only has kept them, but he continues to grow them... .The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new." Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.)
  Foreign Relations member
  Floor speech, Oct. 9, 2002 "On Monday night, President Bush, I think spoke for all of us. I know of no one who really disagrees at all. He described Saddam Hussein as a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction. It is that addiction that demands a strong response. We all agree on that. There is no question that Iraq possesses biological and chemical weapons and that he seeks to acquire additional weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons." Sen. Chris Dodd (D.-Conn.)
  Foreign Relations member
  Floor speech, Oct. 9, 2002 "I believe if Saddam Hussein continues to refuse to meet his obligation to destroy his weapons of mass destruction and his prohibited missile delivery systems, that the United Nations should authorize member states to use military force to destroy those weapons and systems." Sen. Carl Levin (D.-Mich.)
  then-chairman of Armed Services
  and member of Intelligence
  Floor speech, Oct. 9, 2002 "He [Saddam Hussein] stockpiles biological and chemical weapons." Sen. Jon Corzine (D.-N.J.)
  Foreign Relations member
  Floor speech, Oct. 9, 2003

  Joseph D'Agostino is Associate Editor of HUMAN EVENTS.
• 
  865

  WoMD ... so where are they?

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  now, the war is over, the weapons were not used and of course have not been found.. how threatening could they be if they did not even use them when being invaded by a massive force (of the countries they hate)?!

  perhaps, as many suspect, they didn't use them because they didn't have them?.

  now we're being told that we'll have to be patient and give them time to find them.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jayson

  Dr. Strangeblix

  By Peter Brooks

  June 13, 2003

  Victory has a hundred fathers and defeat is an orphan.

  Perhaps that is why top U.N. weapons cop, Hans Blix, feels bitter and alone.

  Twice he's been denied disarmament victories by the Butcher of Baghdad, Saddam Hussein. From 1981 through 1991, Blix's watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency failed to detect Iraq's nuclear weapons program. And most recently, when the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission he led spent three and a half months combing Iraq and came up essentially empty-handed.

  But the czar of global nonproliferation plans and policy is unwilling to acknowledge the U.N. legacy of failure in reining in Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs. Instead, he's taking pot shots at Pentagon hawks and the quality of American cloak and dagger, which he believes might have denied him his rightful place in history.

  Blix told the Guardian (a London paper) this week that the Pentagon ran a smear campaign against him. On Wednesday, he told ABC News that Washington should have had better intelligence before launching a war. "I mean, if you want to start a war on this basis, then I think the intelligence should be good, not just, 'Sorry about that, it was wrong intelligence,'" Blix said.

  This whining and sniveling is unbefitting a man of Blix's stature and record of public service. He obviously didn't get the U.N. office memo about going out gracefully and diplomatically.

  The fact is that Blix himself believed that Saddam had WMD. And he wasn't alone apparently. In February, Blix reported to the U.N. Security Council that: "We are fully aware that many governmental intelligence organizations are convinced and assert that proscribed weapons, items and programs continue to exist."

  The French, Germans, British and the Russians were also believers.

  Blix had a tough job in Iraq, but his recriminations and historical revisionism are disappointing and unhelpful. Understandably, he wants to leave the U.N.'s lackluster record on Iraqi disarmament in an orphanage, but his histrionics will only tarnish his reputation and that of the U.N. and international nonproliferation regimes.
• 
  865

  WoMD ... so where are they?

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  now, the war is over, the weapons were not used and of course have not been found.. how threatening could they be if they did not even use them when being invaded by a massive force (of the countries they hate)?!

  perhaps, as many suspect, they didn't use them because they didn't have them?.

  now we're being told that we'll have to be patient and give them time to find them.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jayson

  The Nazis, again
  Mona Charen
  

  June 10, 2003

  The whole world is focused on what we've failed to find in Iraq -- to the point of neglecting what we have found. In doing so, the press is missing the significance of what the United States and Britain have achieved.

  The banned weapons will eventually be accounted for. Of that there can be no doubt. But the more important story is that the coalition overthrew a regime that can fairly be compared with Nazi Germany. Such a deed would be applauded by the world -- if we lived in a better world.

  The absolute numbers of those tortured, maimed and killed by the Ba'ath government will never be known. But some estimates say 1 million Iraqis were butchered by Saddam. American and British forces are finding mass graves throughout the country. Corpses of men, women and children were found. Even some of the children had been tortured before being executed. A columnist for a Lebanese newspaper wrote: "This barbarism, unprecedented in human history, was committed by Arab hands, by hands that found such delight in death and murder that the death squads would send the heads of the victims to Saddam Hussein's two sons in cardboard boxes. . . . These plastic bags in the mass graves contained bullet-riddled skulls, bodies wrapped in rags, tied in ropes, or dressed in worn pieces of clothing. . . . Ropes still tied a mother's bones to her infant's, and a father's to his son . . . "

  U.S. forces have reportedly captured millions of pages of meticulous documents from the files of the security forces, detailing tortures and murders by the regime. According to Insight magazine, "A single document dated August 1989 lists the names of 87 people who were executed and a summary of each case. The alleged crimes included trespassing into forbidden zones and teaching the Kurdish language." In one police station in Nasiriya, survivors showed U.S. Marines the electric shock prods, electric chair, and other torture implements, as well as tons of surveillance equipment. The station was filled with pictures of burned bodies.

  The Saddam regime apparently used photos of its torture victims to intimidate others, particularly the victims' families.

  Insight tells the story of Fatima Faraj, a Kurd whose nephews were arrested by the regime in 1986. After two years, they were executed. The Republican Guards demanded that their father pay a fee for their burial. When he demanded a receipt, the guards turned over the bodies. The father took the bodies of his sons home in boxes. "Their entire bodies other than (beneath) their underwear were places of burn," Fatima sobbed. "There were two black spots on their necks. They looked as though they were whipped and kicked throughout their bodies." Another nephew survived his torture. "He was kicked so bad," Fatima testified. "They took out all his fingernails and toenails. . . . He had a nervous breakdown."

  Writing in the London-based Arabic newspaper Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, columnist Ahmed Al-Rab'i issued a "J'accuse" at fellow Arabs: "Is there not a single man of conscience who might be brought by these sights to . . . admit that he was mistaken, that he was unaware of the truth, that he was a victim of the misleading (Arab) media?" A Jordanian journalist declared the obvious: "The dictatorship of the Iraqi Ba'ath reached the level of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia . . . "

  Any nation that marched into that torture chamber of a country and freed it deserves the world's gratitude. Instead, we have carping from all sides. Antiquities were stolen from the museum (by the way, only 47 unaccounted for out of the originally suggested 170,000), water and power supplies took more than a couple of weeks to stabilize, and we haven't yet laid hands on the well-hidden weapons of mass destruction. The weapons will be found. The rest is nonsense. The United States and Britain have done a magnificent thing. Even if nothing else follows from it -- no liberalization of the Arab world, no breakthrough between Israelis and Palestinians, no hobbling of the terror masters -- it will have been worth it.
• 
  865

  WoMD ... so where are they?

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  now, the war is over, the weapons were not used and of course have not been found.. how threatening could they be if they did not even use them when being invaded by a massive force (of the countries they hate)?!

  perhaps, as many suspect, they didn't use them because they didn't have them?.

  now we're being told that we'll have to be patient and give them time to find them.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jayson

  you do realize that the mass media in the US is controlled largely by bush and not the opposition right?

  Realist you give stats to the money to the Republicans. Are you saying that no money was given by these corps to Clinton (both elections) and Gore? Are you saying that the media only supports the Right wing? That is how you present your argument? Are you going to show the money donated to both sides or are you just presenting propaganda. (3rd parties are not relevent) You should show both sides or someone might accuse you of being a liar.

  (To add. I see you addressed this in your post above. However, you should or could you either include both sides or your souce?)

  no, the crux is that the US supported hussein when it was already clear that he is a gangster and that rumsfeld sold WMDs to him. and now rumsfeld goes to war over that same weapons. you don't see a shred of hypocrisy in that?

  I talked about that in a post not to long ago. You must not read all my posts accept to argue. Also, how did the US sell Iraq those Russian tanks? And the Migs? Those were of US origion? How about the French nuclear reactor that the now President of France sold Iraq. How do you pin that on Bush? I'm all ears.

  that leads to the core reason for the war. Economical interests. France and russia were afraid to loose their contracts while the US was planning to take over the contracts. this like 99% of all wars was a war primarily for economical reasons. bonus for the US was the establishment of a lasting stronghold in the region which allows them to attack every country that is not following US hegemony.

  I agree with you Realist. Accept for your last comment that is. However, the Middle East would be better off if we did take it over. The thing is we don't want it.

  in europe you don't do things on your own? what qualifies you to make that statement? what is the point of that statement?

  Maybe someone in the UK could phrase this better than I will because I am so polerized against the European way of (or lack of) self defense rights. Any use of force to protect [yourself] could be considered exessive as I understand it. And, Europe now is trying to work as a conglomerate. I.e. The E.U. who's true intent is to counter the US.

  well you should look at the US doctirne of establishing a US hegemony as long as there is no rival power (stems from rumsfeld, wolfowitz and a couple of other guys). the US is the only super power at the moment and it is acting accordingly.

  As I said,

  "I can't agree more with the people who say that the US is not the world's policeman. We have not the will to rule the world via empire, much less the ability."

  Amazing how everything was fine until Bush, rummie, and wolfie. Now all of a sudden America = nazism. Oh, the bellyaching of the left.
  

  History shows that this is a man who has every intention of going back to war with the world.

  ok what exactly shows that?

  History shows it Realist. As I said. I've given book sources that cover Iraqi history but you and your cohorts just mock me for it.
  

  as to the US gov. telling the truth:

  what exactly was the truth in colon powell's report to the UN? was it the faked evidence of hussein trying to buy nuclear material? was it the 12 year old student report? was it the irrelevant sattelite photographs? you have to be more specific!

  Do you want me to repost what I did in the last threads. They were specific. Maybe you should read them again. Maybe I need to do your homework for you.
• 
  30

  Hillary Clintons new book

  by freedom96 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  .

  will it be found under the fiction or non-fiction section?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jayson

  Read "The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America" by Kimball, Roger to learn about the Beat generation and the life-goals of Hilly. People would not take punches at the Clintons but they make it so easy. As I always said about Billy (WHO I VOTED FOR OVER DOLE EVERYONE) We love him in spite of him.

  I expect her book to be along Bill's at Costco for a few bucks in a short time. But if I'm wrong so be it some people really do love her. (I'm not one.)

  I'd read her book but then I'd have to read "Dereliction of Duty" by Colonel Robert Patterson. And I'd rather skip both.

  The Clintons are the politicals that will just not go away and they will not shut up. So for those who don't like them, what they say, or what they represent, the best option is just not to listen.