Author Topic: speaking of stating the obvious.  (Read 30290 times)

Offline jester

  • Here be dragons...
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 2416
  • If you fail, fail gloriously.
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #125 on: August 07, 2004, 12:09:57 PM »
Interesting news collage. Especially after min 8:00. Windows Media Player. long stuff. Picture quality sometimes pretty bad. :D

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/video/redux.php

Disclaimer: If you feel this as to be off-topic. I post it somewhere else.
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

Why spend all your day surfing for porn?




Balance in all things
I haven't had this much fun since... the last time.

Offline Kish

  • HEROISM OK
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 790
    • Oversight mod.
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #126 on: August 08, 2004, 09:40:18 AM »
In the interests of keeping this thread to its original purpose--citation of sources--I've started another thread for political debates.
Beauty standing amidst fiery destruction.

Offline Cybersquirt

  • Socialist Evil-Doer
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
  • Gender: Female
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #127 on: August 08, 2004, 12:13:16 PM »
In the summer of 2003, the Bush administration passed a bill that added a $400-per-child tax credit to middle- and upper-income families. However, in a last-minute change to the bill, the tax break was denied to families who earn just above minimum wage.

Over 6.5 million families, and 12 million children in households earning less than $26,625 a year, did not benefit from the administration's increased tax refunds.

(Sources: David Firestone, "Tax Law Omits Child Credit in Low-Income Brackets," New York Times, May 29, 2003. "Dems, GOP Spar Over Tax Cut Provision," CNN, May 30, 2003.)

Stupid is as stupid does.

Offline neriana

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Gender: Female
    • Darien NPC for BG2
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #128 on: August 08, 2004, 01:52:29 PM »
Not directly about Bush, but this floored me:

"If we do not suppress the Detroit vote, we're going to have a tough time in this election."

-- Michigan State Rep. John Pappageorge (Republican [duh]-Troy), quoted in the July 16 Detroit Free Press
The color of infinity inside an empty glass.

Offline seanas

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 131
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #129 on: August 08, 2004, 02:05:49 PM »
"If we do not suppress the Detroit vote, we're going to have a tough time in this election."

-- Michigan State Rep. John Pappageorge (Republican [duh]-Troy), quoted in the July 16 Detroit Free Press

ahh - this gives me fond memories of dick morris' (ultimately futile) campaign in '92 to persuade the pastors of black parishes in new york to exhort their congregations (via sermons) not to vote. makes me long for the compuslory voting laws of australia: if everyone *has* to vote, there's no point spending time convincing them *not* to.
"those who like TDD are already busy giving install advice to newbies" - the bigg

Offline Cybersquirt

  • Socialist Evil-Doer
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
  • Gender: Female
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #130 on: August 09, 2004, 09:16:31 AM »
Not directly about Bush, but this floored me:
It is a direct result of this administration.
Stupid is as stupid does.

Offline Cybersquirt

  • Socialist Evil-Doer
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
  • Gender: Female
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #131 on: August 09, 2004, 10:50:01 AM »
Washington, D.C., 25 February 2003 - The National Security Archive at George Washington University today published on the Web a series of declassified U.S. documents detailing the U.S. embrace of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980's, including the renewal of diplomatic relations that had been suspended since 1967. The documents show that during this period of renewed U.S. support for Saddam, he had invaded his neighbor (Iran), had long-range nuclear aspirations that would "probably" include "an eventual nuclear weapon capability," harbored known terrorists in Baghdad, abused the human rights of his citizens, and possessed and used chemical weapons on Iranians and his own people. The U.S. response was to renew ties, to provide intelligence and aid to ensure Iraq would not be defeated by Iran, and to send a high-level presidential envoy named Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands with Saddam (20 December 1983).

The declassified documents posted today include the briefing materials and diplomatic reporting on two Rumsfeld trips to Baghdad, reports on Iraqi chemical weapons use concurrent with the Reagan administration's decision to support Iraq, and decision directives signed by President Reagan that reveal the specific U.S. priorities for the region: preserving access to oil, expanding U.S. ability to project military power in the region, and protecting local allies from internal and external threats. The documents include:


  • A U.S. cable recording the December 20, 1983 conversation between Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein. Although Rumsfeld said during a September 21, 2002 CNN interview, "In that visit, I cautioned him about the use of chemical weapons, as a matter of fact, and discussed a host of other things," the document indicates there was no mention of chemical weapons. Rumsfeld did raise the issue in his subsequent meeting with Iraqi official Tariq Aziz.
  • National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114 of November 26, 1983, "U.S. Policy toward the Iran-Iraq War," delineating U.S. priorities: the ability to project military force in the Persian Gulf and to protect oil supplies, without reference to chemical weapons or human rights concerns.
  • National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 139 of April 5, 1984, "Measures to Improve U.S. Posture and Readiness to Respond to Developments in the Iran-Iraq War," focusing again on increased access for U.S. military forces in the Persian Gulf and enhanced intelligence-gathering capabilities. The directive calls for "unambiguous" condemnation of chemical weapons use, without naming Iraq, but places "equal stress" on protecting Iraq from Iran's "ruthless and inhumane tactics." The directive orders preparation of "a plan of action designed to avert an Iraqi collapse."
  • U.S. and Iraqi consultations about Iran's 1984 draft resolution seeking United Nations Security Council condemnation of Iraq's chemical weapons use. Iraq conveyed several requests to the U.S. about the resolution, including its preference for a lower-level response and one that did not name any country in connection with chemical warfare; the final result complied with Iraq's requests.
  • The 1984 public U.S. condemnation of chemical weapons use in the Iran-Iraq war, which said, referring to the Ayatollah Khomeini's refusal to agree to end hostilities until Saddam Hussein was ejected from power, "The United States finds the present Iranian regime's intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq to be inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations and the moral and religious basis which it claims."


http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm


edited to add:
United States District Court (Florida: Southern District) Affidavit. "United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Carlos Cardoen [et al.]" [Charge that Teledyne Wah Chang Albany Illegally Provided a Proscribed Substance, Zirconium, to Cardoen Industries and to Iraq], January 31, 1995.

Former Reagan administration National Security Council staff member Howard Teicher says that after Ronald Reagan signed a national security decision directive calling for the U.S. to do whatever was necessary to prevent Iraq's defeat in the Iran-Iraq war, Director of Central Intelligence William Casey personally led efforts to ensure that Iraq had sufficient weapons, including cluster bombs, and that the U.S. provided Iraq with financial credits, intelligence, and strategic military advice. The CIA also provided Iraq, through third parties that included Israel and Egypt, with military hardware compatible with its Soviet-origin weaponry.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2004, 11:54:31 AM by Cybersquirt »
Stupid is as stupid does.

Offline neriana

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Gender: Female
    • Darien NPC for BG2
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #132 on: August 09, 2004, 01:51:40 PM »
Not directly about Bush, but this floored me:
It is a direct result of this administration.

Is that attitude the result of this administration, or is this administration the result of that attitude? I'd argue for the latter, personally, though this administration has certainly made it worse.
The color of infinity inside an empty glass.

Offline jester

  • Here be dragons...
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 2416
  • If you fail, fail gloriously.
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #133 on: August 10, 2004, 05:00:07 AM »
Rumsfeld is a dyed-in-the-wool liar. Not that that is particularily outstanding in this admministration, but some journalists keep records which these people don't seem to realize. It is quite alright to hold grudges about the Iranians that they ousted the US puppet, but Germany and the US made sure that Saddam had every illegal substance under the sun to play with.
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

Why spend all your day surfing for porn?




Balance in all things
I haven't had this much fun since... the last time.

Offline Joe

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 582
  • Gender: Male
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #134 on: August 10, 2004, 05:41:55 AM »
It's actually more accurate to say that Russia, France, and China made sure of that, because those are the top three on a list which places Germany and the United states at about 10th and 11th place.

Offline Cybersquirt

  • Socialist Evil-Doer
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
  • Gender: Female
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #135 on: August 10, 2004, 08:01:35 AM »
(ahem) Source, Joe?
Stupid is as stupid does.

Saddam Smelly

  • Guest
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #136 on: August 10, 2004, 08:22:34 AM »
How on Earth Bush became President, I'll never know. Who the hell would vote for that guy? I can't believe he would win, still. If he can get to be president then I can rule the world with an iron fist.

Offline Cybersquirt

  • Socialist Evil-Doer
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
  • Gender: Female
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #137 on: August 10, 2004, 10:26:28 AM »
Miscellaneous tidbits from www.bushlies.net.

"I don't believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons."
—Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, at a hearing of the Senate's appropriations subcommittee on defense, May 14, 2003

"We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
—Vice President Dick Cheney on NBC's Meet the Press, March 16, 2003

When interviewed by Tim Russert, Vice President Cheney asserted that Iraq was "the heart of the base" for the 9/11 terrorists.


KRAKOW, Poland, May 30 -- President Bush, citing two trailers that U.S. intelligence agencies have said were probably used as mobile biological weapons labs, said U.S. forces in Iraq have "found the weapons of mass destruction" that were the United States' primary justification for going to war.
"And we'll find more weapons as time goes on," Bush said. "But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them."

"Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary...told ABC's This Week that banned weapons were not in areas controlled by allied forces. 'We know where they are, they are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north of that,' he said." --Guardian, March 31, 2003

"No one ever said that we knew precisely where all of these agents were, where they were stored," [Condoleezza] Rice told on NBC's "Meet the Press." --Sunday, June 8, 2003, AP


Rhetoric:
In response to Richard Clarke’s book, Dr. Rice asserted, “the fact of the matter is [that] the administration focused on this before 9/11.”  (03.22.04)

Press Secretary McClellan claims that fighting terrorism was a top priority before 9-11.

Facts:
Cheney: Bush “wanted a far more effective policy for trying to deal with [terrorism] and that process was in motion throughout the spring.”

Number of meetings held by Vice President Cheney’s counterterrorism task force (which was created in May 2001)? 0

References to Al Qaeda in Dr. Rice’s 2000 Foreign Affairs article listing Bush’s top foreign affairs priorities? 0

References to Al Qaeda in Secretary Rumsfeld 2001 memo outlining national security priorities? 0

References to terrorism is Justice Department's top seven goals for 2001? 0

Number of National Security Council meetings held by Bush administration before invasion of Iraq was discussed (i.e., it was discussed at the very first meeting)? 0

Number of times the Bush administration mentioned al Qaeda prior to 9-11? 1.  This was in a notice continuing an executive order issued by President Clinton.

Minimum number of Al Qaeda millennium attacks thwarted by the Clinton administration (only plots to bomb Seattle, Los Angeles, Brooklyn and Jordan have been specifically identified) - 4

Months into Bush administration when aid to the Taliban was restored? 4

Months that it would take for Vice President Cheney to respond to draft counterterrorism and homeland security legislation sent to him on July 20, 2001 by Senators Feinstein and Kyl, as stated by his top aid. - 6

Number of public statements by the President Bush on Saddam Hussein from January 21 to September 10, 2001? 104

150  – Number in thousands of US troops in Iraq Winter 2004

700 – Millions of dollars Bush administration diverted from war against Al Qaeda to prepare for Iraq war.

President Bush admitted to Bob Woodward that “I didn’t feel the sense of urgency,” about terrorism before 9/11

In April 2001 the administration released the government’s annual terrorism report with no extensive mention of Osama bin Laden as in prior years.  A State Department official told CNN that "the Clinton administration had made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden.”

Similarly, at an April meeting of deputies Clarke urged a focus on Al Qaeda.  Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz responded, “No, no, no.  We don’t have to deal with al-Qaeda.  Why are we talking about that little guy?  We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.”


The Bush administration terminated a highly classified program to monitor Al Qaeda suspects in the U.S. and even provided aid to the Taliban in 2001.*

*(Sources) Scheer – Los Angeles Times 05-22-01, Allen - Washington Post 08.07.01, Progress Report 03.10.04, CAP Fact Sheet 03.22.04, Yglesias – The American Prospect 03.23.04, Progress Report 03.25.04, CAP Fact Sheet 03.26.04, The Daily Mis-Lead 03.26.04, CAP Fact Sheet 04.05.04; AP – Los  Angeles Times 04.30.04, Center for American Progress 04.20, 04

edited to add:
(where "CAP" is the Center for American Progress)

And from www.bushwatch.org:

President Bush, speaking to the nation this month about the need to challenge Saddam Hussein, warned that Iraq has a growing fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used "for missions targeting the United States."

[A]sked if there were new and conclusive evidence of Hussein's nuclear weapons capabilities, Bush cited a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency saying the Iraqis were "six months away from developing a weapon." And last week, the president said objections by a labor union to having customs officials wear radiation detectors has the potential to delay the policy "for a long period of time."

All three assertions were powerful arguments for the actions Bush sought. And all three statements were dubious, if not wrong. Further information revealed that the aircraft lack the range to reach the United States; there was no such report by the IAEA; and the customs dispute over the detectors was resolved long ago. --10.22.02, Washington Post


An agitated Vice President Cheney, in a tête- -tête with NBC's Tim Russert on Sunday, said it was "reprehensible" that people would think the administration had "saved" its ammunition on Iraq to bring it out now, 60 days before an election. "So the suggestion that somehow, you know, we husbanded this and we waited is just not true," Cheney said. Now where would people get such a cockamamie idea? Well, maybe from White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. and Bush political adviser Karl Rove, who made the case to the New York Times's Elisabeth Bumiller last week that they pretty much did what Cheney said they didn't do -- waited patiently and deliberately to launch a long-planned rollout. "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August," Card said. Added Rove: "The thought was that in August the president is sort of on vacation." --Washington Post, Sept. 10, 2002 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58985-2002Sep9.html - maybe it'll work for you)


When George H. W. Bush ordered American forces to the Persian Gulf – to reverse Iraq's August 1990 invasion of Kuwait – part of the administration case was that an Iraqi juggernaut was also threatening to roll into Saudi Arabia.

Citing top-secret satellite images, Pentagon officials estimated in mid–September that up to 250,000 Iraqi troops and 1,500 tanks stood on the border, threatening the key US oil supplier.

But when the St. Petersburg Times in Florida acquired two commercial Soviet satellite images of the same area, taken at the same time, no Iraqi troops were visible near the Saudi border – just empty desert.

That [Iraqi buildup] was the whole justification for Bush sending troops in there, and it just didn't exist," says Heller. Three times Heller contacted the office of Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney (now vice president) for evidence refuting the Times photos or analysis – offering to hold the story if proven wrong. The official response: "Trust us." To this day, the Pentagon's photographs of the Iraqi troop buildup remain classified.


[When we don't learn from our history . . .]
« Last Edit: August 10, 2004, 11:10:03 AM by Cybersquirt »
Stupid is as stupid does.

Offline Quitch

  • Perfection
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 270
  • Making the world a better place for evil
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #138 on: August 10, 2004, 11:04:43 AM »
It's actually more accurate to say that Russia, France, and China made sure of that, because those are the top three on a list which places Germany and the United states at about 10th and 11th place.

The order being Russia, China and then France, with Russia providing over 50%.  I got those figures from The Times, but I don't recall where they got them from.
Past: Ascension
Present: Return to Windspear
Future: Imoen Relationship
"Perfection has no deadline"

Offline neriana

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Gender: Female
    • Darien NPC for BG2
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #139 on: August 10, 2004, 02:23:14 PM »
It's actually more accurate to say that Russia, France, and China made sure of that, because those are the top three on a list which places Germany and the United states at about 10th and 11th place.

The order being Russia, China and then France, with Russia providing over 50%.  I got those figures from The Times, but I don't recall where they got them from.

What years though? The U.S. supplied him with weapons while he was gassing the Kurds. That's when he was our "good dictator". In any case, what place the U.S. has on the list is beside the point: the fact is, we're on it.

To pretend that the United States does anything militarily for the good of the people they're doing it to is worse than silly. Why didn't we go into the Sudan, then? Why do we support Saudi Arabia? And why does this administration suddenly pretend they want to be the world's police? (That last one's easy: to fool people.)
The color of infinity inside an empty glass.

Offline seanas

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 131
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #140 on: August 10, 2004, 06:18:12 PM »
i'm hoping i beat cybersquirt to posting this one:

from today's Sydney Morning Herald

'Washington: There is no point taxing the rich because they just dodge their tax bill anyway, President George Bush said.
"Real rich people figure out how to dodge taxes," Mr Bush said on Monday during a campaign stop in suburban Washington.'
"those who like TDD are already busy giving install advice to newbies" - the bigg

Offline Quitch

  • Perfection
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 270
  • Making the world a better place for evil
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #141 on: August 11, 2004, 03:15:27 AM »
It's actually more accurate to say that Russia, France, and China made sure of that, because those are the top three on a list which places Germany and the United states at about 10th and 11th place.

The order being Russia, China and then France, with Russia providing over 50%.  I got those figures from The Times, but I don't recall where they got them from.

What years though? The U.S. supplied him with weapons while he was gassing the Kurds. That's when he was our "good dictator". In any case, what place the U.S. has on the list is beside the point: the fact is, we're on it.

To pretend that the United States does anything militarily for the good of the people they're doing it to is worse than silly. Why didn't we go into the Sudan, then? Why do we support Saudi Arabia? And why does this administration suddenly pretend they want to be the world's police? (That last one's easy: to fool people.)

So your argument would be, if you can't do good everywhere, don't do good anywhere?
Past: Ascension
Present: Return to Windspear
Future: Imoen Relationship
"Perfection has no deadline"

Offline jester

  • Here be dragons...
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 2416
  • If you fail, fail gloriously.
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #142 on: August 11, 2004, 04:00:25 AM »
Often good intentions are the opposite of good. In some cases like Iraq even the 'intentions' were questionable. 'Carry a big stick' doesn't actually mean to use it. I wonder why everytime someone f***s up people are calling for UN troops. The US said they (and their smallprint allies) would go it alone, because they have evidence, are with God or just know. Now what?
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

Why spend all your day surfing for porn?




Balance in all things
I haven't had this much fun since... the last time.

Offline Quitch

  • Perfection
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 270
  • Making the world a better place for evil
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #143 on: August 11, 2004, 09:23:12 AM »
Often good intentions are the opposite of good. In some cases like Iraq even the 'intentions' were questionable. 'Carry a big stick' doesn't actually mean to use it. I wonder why everytime someone f***s up people are calling for UN troops. The US said they (and their smallprint allies) would go it alone, because they have evidence, are with God or just know. Now what?

Often?  So not always then?
Past: Ascension
Present: Return to Windspear
Future: Imoen Relationship
"Perfection has no deadline"

Offline Cybersquirt

  • Socialist Evil-Doer
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
  • Gender: Female
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #144 on: August 11, 2004, 09:38:49 AM »
(Why was that other post split off again?  Oh yeah.  ::))
Stupid is as stupid does.

Offline jester

  • Here be dragons...
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 2416
  • If you fail, fail gloriously.
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #145 on: August 11, 2004, 11:48:30 AM »
Often good intentions are the opposite of good. In some cases like Iraq even the 'intentions' were questionable. 'Carry a big stick' doesn't actually mean to use it. I wonder why everytime someone f***s up people are calling for UN troops. The US said they (and their smallprint allies) would go it alone, because they have evidence, are with God or just know. Now what?

Often?  So not always then?

I know of several nature conservation projects that worked quite well, I have yet to see the case in world politics. There are not that many that qualify for good intentions in the first place.

Sorry, Cybersquirt. You are right as always  ;D
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

Why spend all your day surfing for porn?




Balance in all things
I haven't had this much fun since... the last time.

Offline Ghreyfain

  • PPG
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 4705
  • Gender: Male
    • Pocket Plane Group
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #146 on: August 11, 2004, 09:04:13 PM »
...UN troops. The US said they (and their smallprint allies) would go it alone...

Hey, leave the UN out of this. :)  The occupation of Oil Iraq, last I heard, wasn't sanctioned by the UN.
Earn Money Sleeping.

Offline Regullus

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 526
  • Gender: Female
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #147 on: August 11, 2004, 09:53:08 PM »
The below links is a basic overview of the Sudan and other aspects of the Sudan situation:

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/sdtoc.html

http://www.africaaction.org/newsroom/index.php?op=read&documentid=629&type=15

The below links is an aspect of the "war on terror" and insight into the struggle of powers for resources. The main media we get tends to focus on the UN (unsanctioned and illegal war) Iraq, Gitmo, and the Patriot Act, we often are uninformed about the huge amount of diplomacy that has been done in last three years, much has been done in Africa, among other continents and countries. It is truly extraordinary what has been going on, and undereported.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2001771849_sudan22.html

http://allafrica.com/stories/200408110821.html

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/sudan98/index.htm

 The above link is interesting for a variety of reasons including aspects of humanatarian aid to a country and the problems and corruption that may arise.

 Fascinating but only the barest overview of the Sudan tragedy.  If anyone is interested in further reading there is an interesting book by Stephanie Beswick, "Sudan's Blood Memory," that could be informative.

 Months into Bush administration when aid to the Taliban was restored? 4 - This was an attempt to bribe the Taliban to reduce poppy production.

http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/01_columns/052201.htm - Unflattering towards Bush but confirms the above statement and interesting details of OBL.

When George H. W. Bush ordered American forces to the Persian Gulf – to reverse Iraq's August 1990 invasion of Kuwait – part of the administration case was that an Iraqi juggernaut was also threatening to roll into Saudi Arabia.

Citing top-secret satellite images, Pentagon officials estimated in mid–September that up to 250,000 Iraqi troops and 1,500 tanks stood on the border, threatening the key US oil supplier.


 This is an interesting aspect of GW1 but it does not interest me for the obvious reason. What interests me is that Saudi Arabia went along with the "alleged" deception. It is not particularly likely that SA would not know about troop build up on their borders of 250,000 troops. Easily verifiable, No? It interest me as an example of two governments working together at a deception for political reasons.

modified to add GW1 and Taliban comments.

 



 


« Last Edit: August 11, 2004, 10:34:23 PM by Regullus »

Offline seanas

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 131
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #148 on: August 12, 2004, 06:23:49 AM »
on Darfur:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v26/n15/waal01_.html
http://mondediplo.com/2004/05/09darfur
http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2711116
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2668200
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2338820

(the economist, for all its manifest faults, has been trying to publicise the crisis in Darfur since the start of the year. the LRB article is a good overview of the history of the current Darfur crisis)

and then, back on topic, the Great Game in Africa:

http://mondediplo.com/2004/07/07usinafrica

with a handy map:
http://mondediplo.com/maps/IMG/artoff3939.jpg
« Last Edit: August 12, 2004, 09:36:55 AM by seanas »
"those who like TDD are already busy giving install advice to newbies" - the bigg

Offline Joe

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 582
  • Gender: Male
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #149 on: August 13, 2004, 03:21:19 AM »
The former Soviet Union was the premier supplier of Iraqi arms. From 1981 to 2001, Russia supplied Iraq with 50 percent of its arms.[25]

According to a report from SIPRI, from 1981 to 2001, China was the second largest supplier of weapons and arms to Iraq, supplying over 18 percent of Iraq’s weapons imports.[31]

From 1981 to 2001, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), France was responsible for over 13 percent of Iraq’s arms imports.[9]

According to the SIPRI arms transfers database, from 1981 to 2001, the United States was the 11th largest supplier of weapons and arms to Iraq, supplying approximately $200 million of Iraq’s weapons imports. The top three suppliers, from 1981 to 2001, were Russia, China and France respectively.[34]


This, of course, leaves out the mention of French and Russian oil interests in Iraq.