your right, you can't debate with these people; these politicians seem to have a mind of their own, or is more like, paid for by corporations that rule the USA

Corporate government America screws its own people and tells them how good they have it (and most believe it).

Posts using inflammatory name calling phrases have been removed.

Nothing new. French told that since the first day. Then Colin Powell admitted it.

Bush is criminal, he just has to be judged.

Never happen.

Malaysia led the way, they tried and convicted Bush and Blair.

"It hasn't made our world anymore safer."

There is really no way to know that.

I suppose in the sense that there's no way to ultimately know the definitive outcome of anything. But we do know that it massively destabilized the region and that where terrorists once could not operate, now they do so freely.

Our world is safer since 911. Our government's job is to act in the best interests of the US. We have done that and I am satisfied that we are safer and things are better.

As far as ME, that place was a disaster long before 2001. Sadam slaughtered anywhere between a 1/4 to a 1/2 mullion. Shitty place before, shitty place now. Time for these people to step up and right their own ship.

Look at all of the other countries that were gutted or had restructured leadership after wars and conflicts. They restructured, rebuilt and bettered their countries. Not the ME though.

The problem in the ME is the people in the ME countries, not the US, not the Israel's, not the Russians, not the Europeans, not the Australians or anyone else potentially within their cross hairs for terrorist acts.

What a crock of shit 'the world is a safer place' .... you obviously just listen to what you're told; try doing some research. The government acts in the best interest of the corporations, the population is necessary only to consume things (people are herded just like any other animal).

The Americans have slaughtered far more than Saddam Hussein. [America was a beautiful place, but its getting shittier by the minute; what you going to do about that?]

Name one country that is 'better off' than before America came along.

Long before criminals were sent to Australia, they were sent to America; the white collar criminals (due to class structures, wasn't the done thing to put upper crust in the stocks, flog them or hang them)

Just think how much better off everybody would be, how much cheaper, if America just paid for the oil (and other resources) instead of stealing it. When Clinton was in, the USA was out of debt and now, <deleted>; and why ? because corporations own the government and all the slippery politicians and use American citizens tax paid funds to fight their wars to steal ...

America would still be 'the brave', thousands of lives not squandered protecting corporations with sleaze bags like Cheney and his neo-con mates. These arse-wipes used America's good name to dupe people, interfere in regions where they could put puppet leaders in control and strip regions of their resources ...

Since the invasions of Iraq & Afghanistan the world has become a whole more dangerous not safer, some posters need to stay off the Afghani hash IMHO

The US with its actions in Iraq & Afghanistan, have created the environment for the likes of IsIs and the increase in radical Islam world wide

Lest not forget, the Taliban where just a bunch of goat herders until the US trained them during the Afghan/Russian war, Osama bin Laden was a direct product of US training

And of course lets not forget the big oil connection via Unocal as regards pipelines across Afghanistan, co incidence that the first elected president of Afghanistan after the US invasion was an ex Unocal advisor

And of course we could also mention the good ole Texas BBQ held in honour of visiting mass murderers that are the Taliban

Bush and a few others should be in jail for crimes against humanity

I don't know that world is a lot more dangerous than it ever was, but it is a lot more confusing.

With a few notable exceptions, the conflicts are based on ideology first, and geography second. In the past it was the geography first and the ideology second.

Conflicts were more or less confined to a geographical area with spillover in neighboring areas. This is no longer primarily true.

The enemy is both here and there, to some extent. They were formerly known as spies. Now they may be relatively ordinary citizens.

Edited December 13, 201411 yr by Credo

Malaysia left out Harper (Canada) and Howard (Australia)

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

"My faith in the American public will never be restored unless Cheney and GW are actually punished for the crimes they have been convicted of."

...and we shall weep for your loss of faith.

Were you reasonably happy with Sadam's punishment ? Exactly when should we consider restoring our faith in his Republics aims?

Historically. all US intervention into foreign countries is based on false or fabricated intelligence information...the decision is made to invade...they just need to come up with a "moral" justification to keep the court of world opinion from seeing the attack for what it really is...US flexing its muscle...in the name of national interest...because it can...

The lack of support by friends and foes alike is brought about by US hubris and bullying in foreign affairs...

Are you including Pearl Harbor, North Korea invading the South, Saddam invading Kuwait and the 9/11 attack, to name only a few, on fabricated intelligence information?

A rather strange comment using an awfully wide brush.

- Pearl Harbor: genuine casus belli

- North Korea: motivation was to not let the communist bloc extend its area of influence, so the US backed South Korea, clean casus belli for a geopolitical war between East and West for the third world.

- 9/11: an attack probably made possible by an intelligence mishap, we can't yet completely exclude the scenario of an intelligence operation ending in catastrophy as an unintended consequence.

- The background of Saddam Hussein's attack on Kuwait is arguable. As far as I know, Hussein may habe been misled into thinking the US would not intervene if he annexed Kuwait.

From Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Kuwait

On 25 July 1990, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie asked the Iraqi high command to explain the military preparations in progress, including the massing of Iraqi troops near the border.

The American ambassador declared to her Iraqi interlocutor that Washington, “inspired by the friendship and not by confrontation, does not have an opinion” on the disagreement between Kuwait and Iraq, stating "we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts".

She also let Saddam Hussein know that the United States did not intend "to start an economic war against Iraq". These statements may have caused Saddam to believe he had received a diplomatic green light from the United States to invade Kuwait.^[30][31]

According to Richard E. Rubenstein, Glaspie was later asked by British journalists why she had said that, her response was "we didn't think he would go that far" meaning invade and annex the whole country. Although no follow-up question was asked, one might assume that what the U.S. government thought in July 1990 was that Saddam Hussein was only interested in pressuring Kuwait into debt forgiveness and to lower oil production.^[32]

But that, of course, is the story that is told to the public.

There seem to have been many "misunderstandings" which eventually led the US to massively extend their influence over the region.

There was also this mystification:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_%28testimony%29

One has to wonder what was really going on, since the false claims made by Nayirah were at the center of the US pro-war propaganda.

Wag the dog?

Cascasus belli, I know I have heard those words somewhere before - is that something that happens when navy seals start shooting at people in der เสื้อ ? - or is that getting too far off the post?

I'm not going to country bash although my former president and vice president were the architects of this disaster. I can't believe that he got Tony Blair to go along with what was a complete made up farce. Yes, it was apparent almost just weeks after we had boots on the ground that we were fed a line of BS to promote a war in Iraq. What good has it done the world? One dictator dead, and the whole area now in complete chaos.

I always had the impression Blair was being blackmailed, that's the way that those guys did things.

And then there were the designated clowns, like Rumsfeld, who was known to be a bumbler, which is why they put him there.

While I don't exonerate Bush, I saw him as the clueless leader who let "his people" run the show. Just listen to the things he said, such as he only reads the stuff his people tell him he needs to. His only other source of info was Sports Illustrated. Sad story of a half-wit mama's boy whose quest in life was to prove himself to his dad. The tragedy is on us all.

Edited December 13, 201411 yr by bendejo

After reading the entire thread again...

I must wonder what motivates Neversure's point of view.

Maybe he owns a lot of Halliburton stock?

Some people did make billions off of this travesty.

Very sad.

I must wonder what motivates Neversure's point of view.

Common sense. He's got oodles of it.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

"My faith in the American public will never be restored unless Cheney and GW are actually punished for the crimes they have been convicted of."

...and we shall weep for your loss of faith.

Were you reasonably happy with Sadam's punishment ? Exactly when should we consider restoring our faith in his Republics aims?

A couple of quick points.

The Iraqi government handled the trial and execution of Saddam Hussein, not the US. All the US did was dig him out of the rat hole he was hiding in.

...and...

Frankly it is no concern of mine whatsoever whether you restore your faith in the US or not. As they say...Up to you.

I must wonder what motivates Neversure's point of view.

Common sense. He's got oodles of it.

Birds of a feather Ulysses.

Raptors.

Hawks.

Kill, kill, kill.

I guess it's a good thing?

Is it why you took the name of a drunken Union General?

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

"My faith in the American public will never be restored unless Cheney and GW are actually punished for the crimes they have been convicted of."[/size]

...and we shall weep for your loss of faith.

Were you reasonably happy with Sadam's punishment ? Exactly when should we consider restoring our faith in his Republics aims?

A couple of quick points.

The Iraqi government handled the trial and execution of Saddam Hussein, not the US. All the US did was dig him out of the rat hole he was hiding in.

...and...

Frankly it is no concern of mine whatsoever whether you restore your faith in the US or not. As they say...Up to you.

just to be clear (I am not very good a flying this thing yet) my quote seems to have been added directly with someone elses (possibly "chuked" - apologies if so, also if not) instead of in its own box and miKT still has plenty of faith in the US. Only wonder why youall spend so much dam time ripping your great country apart? Also why so many US soldiers are still in Iraq dismantling chemical weapons if there was never any threats?

Is it why you took the name of a drunken Union General?

A drunken Union General who won the American Civil War.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

"My faith in the American public will never be restored unless Cheney and GW are actually punished for the crimes they have been convicted of."[/size]

...and we shall weep for your loss of faith.

Were you reasonably happy with Sadam's punishment ? Exactly when should we consider restoring our faith in his Republics aims?

A couple of quick points.

The Iraqi government handled the trial and execution of Saddam Hussein, not the US. All the US did was dig him out of the rat hole he was hiding in.

...and...

Frankly it is no concern of mine whatsoever whether you restore your faith in the US or not. As they say...Up to you.

just to be clear (I am not very good a flying this thing yet) my quote seems to have been added directly with someone elses (possibly "chuked" - apologies if so, also if not) instead of in its own box and miKT still has plenty of faith in the US. Only wonder why youall spend so much dam time ripping your great country apart? Also why so many US soldiers are still in Iraq dismantling chemical weapons if there was never any threats?

Only wonder why youall spend so much dam time ripping your great country apart?

America has been made a better country by people who disagree with what the government does in their name and voice their opinions in a loud voice.

We disagree with the government and make it known as a means to educate those who only know what they are fed on the commercially owned national media.

The best example of this in recent history was the Vietnam war.

Most Americans had no idea what a senseless war it was or even why the US was fighting it.

It started with a few informed., and questioning individuals who made their disgust knon publicy.

It took years, but eventually most people in the US knew the war was wrong and could not be won and did not support US involvement in the occupation of South Vietnam.

The government of the US thrives on popular opinion, ( votes) .

When they understood that no politician who supported the war could ever win an office, they started looking for a way to end the war.

Americans criticizing their government ( not their country ) is a way of making the country better and stronger, not a way of ripping it apart.

Freedom of speech is maybe the most precious right Americans have.

It is something worth fighting for.

Oil and corporate profits for the elite few are not worth fighting for, dying for or killing for.

Making known, even at this late date, the crimes committed in the name of the American people, just may help prevent it from ever happening again.

To answer the rest of your post in a few words:

Iraq never attacked the US...ever!

15 of the terrorist on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, a US oil supplier.

Why did the the Cheney administration attack Iraq and not Saudi Arabia?

Think about it.

Why did the the Cheney administration attack Iraq and not Saudi Arabia?

Saddam Husein.

Is it why you took the name of a drunken Union General?

A drunken Union General who won the American Civil War.

I thought his name was Sherman, the sober one who marched to the sea!

Why did the the Cheney administration attack Iraq and not Saudi Arabia?

Saddam Husein.

Yeah! Saddam Hussein, the guy the US government put into power when it was convenient.

He never attacked the US either.

Did I miss that part?

Was it only on FOX NEWS?

lol

Hey you said Fox News yet again. How clever.

Is it why you took the name of a drunken Union General?

A drunken Union General who won the American Civil War.

I thought his name was Sherman, the sober one who marched to the sea!

Just one more thing you were wrong about.

http://clevelandcivilwarroundtable.com/articles/comment/why_grant_won.htm

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

"My faith in the American public will never be restored unless Cheney and GW are actually punished for the crimes they have been convicted of."[/size]

...and we shall weep for your loss of faith.

Were you reasonably happy with Sadam's punishment ? Exactly when should we consider restoring our faith in his Republics aims?

A couple of quick points.

The Iraqi government handled the trial and execution of Saddam Hussein, not the US. All the US did was dig him out of the rat hole he was hiding in.

...and...

Frankly it is no concern of mine whatsoever whether you restore your faith in the US or not. As they say...Up to you.

just to be clear (I am not very good a flying this thing yet) my quote seems to have been added directly with someone elses (possibly "chuked" - apologies if so, also if not) instead of in its own box and miKT still has plenty of faith in the US. Only wonder why youall spend so much dam time ripping your great country apart? Also why so many US soldiers are still in Iraq dismantling chemical weapons if there was never any threats?

Only wonder why youall spend so much dam time ripping your great country apart?

America has been made a better country by people who disagree with what the government does in their name and voice their opinions in a loud voice.

We disagree with the government and make it known as a means to educate those who only know what they are fed on the commercially owned national media.

The best example of this in recent history was the Vietnam war.

Most Americans had no idea what a senseless war it was or even why the US was fighting it.

It started with a few informed., and questioning individuals who made their disgust knon publicy.

It took years, but eventually most people in the US knew the war was wrong and could not be won and did not support US involvement in the occupation of South Vietnam.

The government of the US thrives on popular opinion, ( votes) .

When they understood that no politician who supported the war could ever win an office, they started looking for a way to end the war.

Americans criticizing their government ( not their country ) is a way of making the country better and stronger, not a way of ripping it apart.

Freedom of speech is maybe the most precious right Americans have.

It is something worth fighting for.

Oil and corporate profits for the elite few are not worth fighting for, dying for or killing for.

Making known, even at this late date, the crimes committed in the name of the American people, just may help prevent it from ever happening again.

To answer the rest of your post in a few words:

Iraq never attacked the US...ever!

15 of the terrorist on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, a US oil supplier.

Why did the the Cheney administration attack Iraq and not Saudi Arabia?

Think about it.

I am a Brit, we invented freedom of speech, so I don't need any lectures on it. But a couple of quick questions maybe an expert like you can clear up for me.

If the Vietnam war was such a bad idea - why is Vietnam still such a s..t country as far as freedom is concerned. Go and make a few freedom speech's in HCM if you want to test that theory.

And please, please do not insult my intelligence by telling me that it was American bombing that made them the way they are now. Or even that Uncle Ho was a really great guy who only wanted peace on earth and goodwill to all named Jane(except the French).

Also where would you be now? sure as hell it would not be in the Southern Chinese province of Siam that would be here without the war.

Yes there were lots of bad things in the Vietnam war, but it also served a purpose that is all to often not recognised.

Many guys went there and died as did the American guys who died to free Europe from Hitler and Asia from the Japanese and many of them committed far worse atrocities than took place in Vietnam. I am not excusing this but I don't blame them and keep on bringing it up after so many years. I HATE revisionist history looking at things with todays eyes/values. If you were not of that time you don't know and you would not be able to be proud of your todays values if they had not done what they thought was necessary at the time.

To get back to the subject, do you really think that Saddam's regime was a good thing and freedom of speech would be thriving in Iraq if there had been no invasions?

Not to say it is now, but I like to think that in the long run the shake-ups in the middle East that started with the Gulf wars will eventually result in more real freedom for more people.

...and I hope you are right.

The media Is focusing on the wrong Senate torture report

While the torture report released by the Senate Intelligence Committee is very important, it doesn’t address the big scoop regarding torture.

Instead, it is the Senate Armed Services Committee’s report that dropped the big bombshell regarding the U.S. torture program.

Senator Levin, commenting on a Armed Services Committee’s report on torture in 2009 explained

The techniques are based on tactics used by Chinese Communists against American soldiers during the Korean War for the purpose of eliciting FALSE confessions for propaganda purposes. Techniques used in SERE training include stripping trainees of their clothing, placing them in stress positions, putting hoods over their heads, subjecting them to face and body slaps, depriving them of sleep, throwing them up against a wall, confining them in a small box, treating them like animals, subjecting them to loud music and flashing lights, and exposing them to extreme temperatures [and] waterboarding.

http://www.levin.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=ba6f0d71-052a-4fb0-a11d-ab12ef6a6820

Four pages of US bashing over Iraq.

What about Tony Blair and the British Parliament? Don't the Brits have their own intelligence?

The Brits provided 1/3 of the troops for the invasion of Iraq.

Some conspiracy nutters keep saying it was about oil. The US didn't take any of Iraq's oil. Neither did anyone else. It did stop Hussein from taking Kuwait's oil.

22 countries participated in the war in Iraq. Now they like to hide their heads in their butts and act like it was only the US. Hypocrites.

Someone said it was because Saddam had said he would take only Euros for oil. The US can get Euros. The US never needed oil from Iraq. It's main suppliers were Mexico, Canada and Saudi and itself.

Some hate so much they will ignore facts and go on and on for pages when in fact their own countries were in that war all the way.

It's dumbfounding and those poster make themselves look like idiots.

I am a Brit, we invented freedom of speech, so I don't need any lectures on it. But a couple of quick questions maybe an expert like you can clear up for me.

If the Vietnam war was such a bad idea - why is Vietnam still such a s..t country as far as freedom is concerned. Go and make a few freedom speech's in HCM if you want to test that theory.

And please, please do not insult my intelligence by telling me that it was American bombing that made them the way they are now. Or even that Uncle Ho was a really great guy who only wanted peace on earth and goodwill to all named Jane(except the French).

Also where would you be now? sure as hell it would not be in the Southern Chinese province of Siam that would be here without the war.

Yes there were lots of bad things in the Vietnam war, but it also served a purpose that is all to often not recognised.

Many guys went there and died as did the American guys who died to free Europe from Hitler and Asia from the Japanese and many of them committed far worse atrocities than took place in Vietnam. I am not excusing this but I don't blame them and keep on bringing it up after so many years. I HATE revisionist history looking at things with todays eyes/values. If you were not of that time you don't know and you would not be able to be proud of your todays values if they had not done what they thought was necessary at the time.

To get back to the subject, do you really think that Saddam's regime was a good thing and freedom of speech would be thriving in Iraq if there had been no invasions?

Not to say it is now, but I like to think that in the long run the shake-ups in the middle East that started with the Gulf wars will eventually result in more real freedom for more people.

I think you will find that with most things related to democratic traditions, the Ancient Greeks are the ones to take credit. Including freedom of speech (for qualified citizens of course in that context). I would probably dispute with you on the extent to which the non-elites in Britain ever had any freedom of speech until probably the era of universal suffrage.

You start with that howler and just get worse as you go on. The old Domino Theory? Really? Are there actually people still around that espouse this discredited nonsense. Intervention in Vietnam prevented Thailand from being taken over by the Red Chinese! Go look up the Sino Vietnamese War. It was in 1979. Look at the causes. Understand the complexities of the region and the impact of ignorant cold war inspired foreign policy. The Chinese took territory away from the Vietnamese in that conflict. It was pointed out to me when I walked to the border of Vietnam and China in Lang Son Province and the Vietnamese described what it was like waking up in the city to an invading Chinese army. And Vietnam was the next domino to fall unless the Americans stopped it. On the drive to that province, it was pointed out to me where the Vietnamese had stopped a similar Chinese invasion of the 1st century and the role of the Trung Sisters and of later invasions. Vietnam and China were not fellow-travellers. They may have been opportunistic allies at various points but you think they were ever going to subjugate themselves to China?

I am from that Vietnam War period. My country ignominiously participated in that affair. I had friends whose family members were killed. I was too young but my siblings were not and one faced conscription and one fought in that conflict. My memory is of the anti-war demonstrations and their demonisation by the hawks of the time.

You apply your particular and peculiar analysis of history to the issue of the invasion of Iraq. You justify it on the basis that Saddam was a bad man and Iraqis did not have freedom of speech. There was significant opposition to the US unilateral actions. I was also part of that time. There was much made of the rejection of the UN mandate process. People were bullied into acquiescence. They now see that this acquiescence was based on fabrications founded on an ideological agenda. Now that actual facts are coming out, your own attempts at revisionism look more like recidivism.

Many of us watched with horror as the case was made for war with iraq using fabrications and 'sexed up' documents. Opponents who voiced concerns and protested at these fabrications were vilified. Perhaps you remember the British UN weapons inspector, David Kelly? I think many are rightfully outraged and I support demands for accountability.

Four pages of US bashing over Iraq.

What about Tony Blair and the British Parliament? Don't the Brits have their own intelligence?

The Brits provided 1/3 of the troops for the invasion of Iraq.

Some conspiracy nutters keep saying it was about oil. The US didn't take any of Iraq's oil. Neither did anyone else. It did stop Hussein from taking Kuwait's oil.

22 countries participated in the war in Iraq. Now they like to hide their heads in their butts and act like it was only the US. Hypocrites.

Someone said it was because Saddam had said he would take only Euros for oil. The US can get Euros. The US never needed oil from Iraq. It's main suppliers were Mexico, Canada and Saudi and itself.

Some hate so much they will ignore facts and go on and on for pages when in fact their own countries were in that war all the way.

It's dumbfounding and those poster make themselves look like idiots.

" Someone said it was because Saddam had said he would take only Euros for oil. The US can get Euros. The US never needed oil from Iraq. It's main suppliers were Mexico, Canada and Saudi and itself. "

I don't expect you to acknowledge it as a former banker this was about the beginning of the end of the petrodollar.

Gaddafi in Libya did a similar thing by saying he would only accept gold for oil.

Cheney, who appeared on Fox News this week, called the report a “terrible piece of work” and said it was “full of crap.”

If you want to see who’s really “full of crap,” watch the short clip

I didn't think there was an intelligent person on the planet that thought that invasion was about anything other than lining the pockets of the Bush and Cheney families and their hangers on.

I didn't think there was an intelligent person on the planet that thought that invasion was about anything other than lining the pockets of the Bush and Cheney families and their hangers on.

Apart from you me, and at least one other poster posting on here, I wonder how many were actually there for GW1 and 2?

Personally I thought it was all about keeping the obnoxious Al Sauds in power, good little lap dogs that they are.