[CLUE-Talk] Charlie Daniels comments, article about Saddam's sons.

[Sean LeBlanc]

On 03-25 22:33, G. Richard Raab wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 2003 March 25 Tuesday 09:39 pm, Sean LeBlanc wrote:
> > On 03-23 23:30, Matt Gushee wrote:
> 
> > I remember that debacle over Desert Storm and that propaganda about babies
> > - that was shameful. But I think some of these other reports - gassing of
> > Kurds, the attempted kidnapping of one of the inspectors (Scott ???), etc.,
> > hasn't a lot of that been corroborated?
> 
> The kidnapping did not happen.  As to the gassing, IIRC, there was a lot of 
> words about it and no real evidence (even though I suspect that sadem did do 
> something).
> 
> >
> > Also: where was the outcry over Bosnia? 
> 
> Actually, the right wing was all up in arms over it. The republicans were dead 
> opposed to it. One of their complaints was sending over troops to stand guard 
> (shades of nam/korea). 
> 
> 
> >I'm just asking, because it doesn't seem like different situations.
> 
> It was and is a very different situation. Clinton and his buddies had nothing 
> personally to gain by it. It did get rid of a dictator though. Of course, for 
> every dictator that we get rid of, it seems that we install 2 or more brutal 
> ones.

I'm still not convinced it's all that different, and I'm still not convinced
that Bush and his buddies will be gaining by invading Iraq. I don't remember
too many right-wingers out on the streets - maybe it didn't get any
coverage. I'm sure I *do* remember a talk show or two where conservatives
did express their doubts.

> > Lastly: there are allegations that the two countries most adamant about not
> > going to war (Germany and France) have something to fear about what we
> > might find after a regime change and who is involved with Iraq's WMD
> > program, and who supplied what.
> 
> I doubt that germany and france are any more responsible for WMD's than we  
> and Russia are. Back in the early 80's, we had Iraqi's at ColoState doing 
> Microbio, who then went on to receive xtra training by our Uncle Sam prioir 
> to going back home.  I was told then, that it was biological/chemical 
> training. No big deal, they were allies. After all we have provided all sorts 
> of useful training (Sadam Huesin, Manual Noriega by head of CIA GB, Bin Laden 
> by VP GB). We will find WMD in Iraq. Wether they were there before we got 
> there is another matter. I will say though, that nearly all nations today 
> possess Biological weapons. This includes N. Korea, Pakistan, Syria, Lybia, 
> and Iran. They are extremely easy and extremely cheap. I would be surprised 
> if most nations do not possess chemicals. Sarin is very easy to manufacture 
> and very effective. I have heard that Vx is also easy to make. Finally, I am 
> quite certain that there are a number of nuclear engineers inside of Iraq who 
> have had training at various countries. Some fom the early 80's got it here. 
> The newer ones went on to france or germany.

Okay, that could be true. What about these Iraq-France oil allegations -
there are some that say the opposition from France over this war has a lot
to do with oil as well as their alleged involvement in the creation of WMD.
 
> > HOWEVER, and I can't believe I'm saying this, because I hate to come down
> > on the same side as the Marxists (WWP), but I have doubts about this war,
> > too. I fully support the military; once we are there we have to execute
> > this war to win it, but I just can't say anything beyond that I am firmly
> > on the fence on why we are there and what this about.
> 
> It is ok to be against W. It is ok to be agains tthe war. That does not make 
> you unamerican in spite of what this admin says. IRL, it is rarely that you 
> are with us or you are against us. Unfortunatly, many ppl are wrapping 
> themselves in the flag and calling others unpatriotic for sticking up for the 
> constition over a president/DOJ.

Of course not. I never thought that disagreeing with your government is
anything but the right thing to do if that's where your conscience leads
you. But I think many who ARE against the war are folks who are either: 1.
Marxists who aren't really Americans, anyway (sorry: I think the two are
mutually exclusive, regardless what the citizenship status is - if you are
Marxist, your positions are at direct odds with what the American experiment
is about.) and 2. "useful idiots", i.e. dupes for Marxists. Note that I said
many: it might not even be most, and certainly not all.  I think the ones
shouting and displaying the slogans that can't back up their opinions with
rational thought are the dupes...and I don't want to be associated with
either of these groups. 

Either way, the whole discussion over war or not is moot at this point - we
are there, and I'm sure this will play out until the end, regardless of what
people are saying on the street in the U.S., Europe, or wherever. In the
meantime, I'm going to support the men and women of our military.

> > Maybe the
> > administration has hard evidence of al-Qaeda ties that they are keeping
> > close to their chest, I don't know. 
> 
> Zero chance. Remember the gassed puppies from al-qaeda? They were done with 
> the kurds. Al-Qaeda hates Husein as much, if not more then they hate us. It 
> drives me batty the large number of lies that are coming from this admin and 
> ppl totally ignore it. The nuke papers, the al-qaeda ties, the ties to russia 
> mility, etc...

Yes, well al-Qaeda hates the Saudi leadership, too, correct? But the Saudis
paid them off. I think part of this is about trying to deter the deterables
- the whacko Wahibis we can't do anything about - the people who may give
them aid and comfort who don't want to give up their lives, we can. That's
how I understand the argument, anyway.
 
> >Maybe the OK bombing conspiracy
> > theories are true. If either is the case, I wish these were presented to
> > the American people, rather than the somewhat nebulous reasons we have been
> > given. 
> 
> ????? huh????

A quick Google search turned up this:
http://www.okcbombing.org/News%20Articles/Insightmag_042202.htm

I'm sure there are more and better links, but this was towards the top.

There has been conspiracy theories floating around about the Iraqi ties to
OKC since day one. Originally, an APB went out for a Middle-eastern looking
man, which was retracted later, IIRC. Now I don't give these much credence,
because conspiracy theories abound on every topic, and I'd wager 99% are
bunk without even a kernel of truth to them, but there is a stink about that
whole case. I recall the Sami al-arian (sp?) case, and how much flak
O'Reilly got over that. Well, they arrested him and seven others over a year
later. O'Reilly also interviewed a woman about a year ago who said there
is/was a mountain of documentation dealing with OKC she knows of that the
FBI said it was not interested in. I can't remember much, as I was engaged
in something else at the time, but I'm sure you can google up references to
her on the show, too. Again, it proves nothing, but it's one of those things
that makes you wonder what exactly was the deal with that. 

<snip> 

-- 
Sean LeBlanc:seanleblanc at americanisp.net  
http://users.americanisp.net/~seanleblanc/
Get MLAC at: http://sourceforge.net/projects/mlac/
The one good thing about repeating your mistakes is that you know when to 
cringe.