jamiroguy1

Read the book "And the band played on" By Randy Shilts (or watch the movie) or do a few google searches on the Reagan Administration and the Aids Epidemic in the 80's and see for yourself.

Oldie but still a goodie.

Saddam’s Capture Means Trouble for U.S. Officials (click here)

You scare me, kid.

How bout black people and jews? Can we trust them too?

LET'S BOMB THE VATICAN!!!!

Conservatives argue that Reagan was one of the greatest Presidents in American history—the man who won the Cold War, rekindled the American dream, and revitalized the worst economy since the Great Depression. Liberals counter that Reagan was a soft-minded dunce who ran up staggering debts, allowed AIDS to devour the gay community, and pushed us all dangerously close to World War III. Liberals presumably hoped to advance this vantage point of Reagan in this miniseries; conservatives flexed their might to convince CBS not to air what they considered unbalanced liberal propaganda. It’s remarkable how polarizing a figure Ronald Reagan still can be, even in the twilight of his life. FICTION: Ronald Reagan won the Cold War Just as Neil Armstrong didn’t single-handedly land on the moon, Ronald Reagan didn’t single-handedly win the Cold War. Nor did Reagan’s policies single-handedly win the Cold War. Thousands of Americans for over three-quarters of a century played important roles in combating communism—including Democrats Jack Kennedy and Harry Truman. Different policies at different junctures were required to stem the tide of Soviet aggression. Reagan’s philosophy certainly wouldn’t have worked in the early 1940s, when America needed an intimate alliance with the Soviets to battle the Nazis, so one could even argue that flexible restraint deserves as much credit as Ronald Reagan. The Cold War was ultimately won through an amorphous American foreign policy that included Reagan’s hard-line approach, but also included pragmatism and softer diplomatic measures.

New world order.

What exactly makes him great? The fact that he had supported several failed proxy wars in South America and the Middle East that caused thousands of innocent people to die?

Disturbing.

For telling the truth... By Norman Solomon Originally published December 14, 2003 FEW AMERICANS have heard of Katharine Gun, a former British intelligence employee facing charges that she violated the Official Secrets Act. So far, the American press has ignored her. But the case raises profound questions about democracy and the public's right to know on both sides of the Atlantic. Ms. Gun's legal peril began in Britain on March 2, when the Observer newspaper exposed a highly secret memorandum by a top U.S. National Security Agency official. Dated Jan. 31, the memo outlined surveillance of a half-dozen delegations with swing votes on the U.N. Security Council, noting a focus on "the whole gamut of information that could give U.S. policy-makers an edge in obtaining results favorable to U.S. goals" - support for war on Iraq. The NSA memo said that the agency had started a "surge" of spying on diplomats at the United Nations in New York, including wiretaps of home and office telephones along with reading of e-mails. The targets were delegations from six countries considered to be pivotal - Mexico, Chile, Angola, Cameroon, Guinea and Pakistan - for the war resolution being promoted by the United States and Britain. The scoop caused headlines in much of the world, and sparked a furor in the "Middle Six" countries. The U.S. government and its British ally - revealed to be colluding in the U.N. surveillance caper - were put on the defensive. A few days after the story broke, I contacted the man responsible for leaking the huge trove of secret documents about the Vietnam War known as the Pentagon Papers more than three decades ago. What was his assessment of the U.N. spying memo? "This leak," Daniel Ellsberg replied, "is more timely and potentially more important than the Pentagon Papers." The exposure of the memo, he said, had the potential to block the invasion of Iraq before it began: "Truth-telling like this can stop a war." Full Article

Take that shit to the drama forum.

Saddam Was Already Irrelevant Seeing a captive, disheveled Saddam on television this morning released a cascade of memories for me. I remembered the innocent Jews brutally hung in downtown Baghdad when the Baath came to power in 1968; the fencing with the Shah and the Kurds in the early 1970s; the vicious repression of the Shiites of East Baghdad, Najaf and Karbala in 1977-1980; the internal Baath putsch of 1979, when perhaps a third of the party's high officials were taken out and shot, so that Saddam could become president; the bloody invasion of Iran in 1980 and the destruction of a whole generation of Iraqi and Iranian young men in the 1980s (at least 500,000 dead, perhaps even more); the Anfal poison gas campaign against the Kurds in 1987-88; Halabja, a city of 70,000 where 5,000 died where they stood, their blood boiling with toxic gases, little children lying in heaps in the street; the rape of Kuwait in 1990-91; the genocide against the Shiites that began in spring of 1991 and continued intermittently thereafter; the destruction of the Marsh Arabs; the assassinations, the black marias, the Fedayee Saddam. Yes, the United States was not innocent in some of this. Perhaps they cooperated in bringing the Baath to power in the first place, as an anti-Communist force. They certainly allied with Saddam against Iran in the 1980s, and authorized the purchase of chemical and biological precursors. But the Baath was an indigenous Iraqi phenomenon, and local forces kept Saddam in place, despite dozens of attempts to overthrow him. A nightmare has ended. He will be tried, and two nations' dirty laundry will be exposed, the only basis on which all can go forward towards a new Persian Gulf and a new relationship with the West. What is the significance of the capture of Saddam for contemporary Iraqi politics? He was probably already irrelevant. The Sunni Arab resisters to US occupation in the country's heartland had long since jettisoned Saddam and the Baath as symbols. (See "Sunnis gear up" below.) They are fighting for local reasons. Some are Sunni fundamentalists, who despised the Baath. Others are Arab nationalists who weep at the idea of their country being occupied. Some had relatives killed or humiliated by US troops and are pursuing a clan vendetta. Some fear a Shiite and Kurdish-dominated Iraq will reduce them to second class citizens. They will fight on, as Mr. Bush admitted today. My wife, Shahin Cole, suggested to me an ironic possibility with regard to the Shiites. She said that many Shiites in East Baghdad, Basra, and elsewhere may have been timid about opposing the US presence, because they feared the return of Saddam. Saddam was in their nightmares, and the reprisals of the Fedayeen Saddam are still a factor in Iraqi politics. Now that it is perfectly clear that he is finished, she suggested, the Shiites may be emboldened. Those who dislike US policies or who are opposed to the idea of occupation no longer need be apprehensive that the US will suddenly leave and allow Saddam to come back to power. They may therefore now gradually throw off their political timidity, and come out more forcefully into the streets when they disagree with the US. As with many of her insights, this one seems to me likely correct. Link to article Related Links Saddam's Capture: A Pyrrhic Victory in the Making? Saddam Talks: No WMD, No US POWs in Iraq

I think the original post shows some important events that people still don't get it so I don't mind the repost. Although, I tend to agree with mrmatas about trance. *blech* Welcome!

Here's another question for us all to ponder now that we have Saddam. Is it harder to find thousands of pounds of hidden botulenium toxin, anthax, mustard gas, etc... then it is to find one human being in Iraq?

Bravo!

I think now is the time we should begin asking the question again..."WHERE THE FUCK ARE THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!!!!????" now that we got Saddam.

"They"?? The pentagon is doing the investigation. They are the most overcharging part our gov't. It wasn't like it was some watchdog group that caught them so let's see how this investigation plays out.

I'm more worried about facism in our media and society than France.

Smoke pot much? Wrong forum,dude. Mods move this, please.

This def. is Good news. http://www.local6.com/news/2704446/detail.html I wonder if they'll put him to death after his trial? Can they legally?

What's the reason why?

The concern people have had since they got the contracts through no bidding was that this very thing would happend. That's why everyone is all over this. On a related note: (after) A KBR sign adorns the Halliburton corporate headquarters near downtown Houston, December 12, 2003. The company has removed the Halliburton name from the building and renamed it KBR (Kellogg, Brown and Root) amid controversy that surrounds the company's White House links and overbilling the government for military contracts in Iraq (news - web sites). REUTERS/Tim Johnson (before)

Who needs bidding for contracts.

Orders to kill adopted puppy leave Florida soldiers mourning (full article) By Roger Roy Sentinel Staff Writer Posted December 11 2003 It's against the rules for U.S. soldiers in Iraq to have pets, but the skinny black puppy that wandered up to the Florida National Guard soldiers at a base in northern Iraq wouldn't go away. So the soldiers from Alpha Co. of the 2nd Battalion of the 124th Infantry Regiment adopted the mutt and named her Apache after their radio call sign. But Army regulations finally caught up with Alpha Co. and Apache. Family members said Wednesday that the soldiers were eventually forced to obey orders and have the dog killed. "My husband was devastated," said Maggie Ford of Melbourne, whose husband, Sgt. 1st Class Bill Ford, had hoped to bring the dog back to Florida. "We all cried when we found out." Many wild and stray dogs, often unfriendly and even dangerous, roam the Iraq countryside. But soldiers said Apache was always friendly. At first, the men tried to ignore the eager pup, who kept sidling up to them begging for food while they kept guard at a checkpoint leading into Camp Anaconda, a huge American base outside Balad, about an hour north of Baghdad. But finally the soldiers gave in and took the dog back to their camp. While affectionate with the 130 or so soldiers in the company, Apache could spot a stranger instantly and would bark and growl menacingly. She seemed to especially dislike officers, and in September nipped at a captain from another company who got too close. But Apache would happily greet the soldiers when they returned from patrols, then roll over to have her belly rubbed and chew playfully on their arms. (full article)