People Actually Listen To This Guy

[pattbateman]

Sunday, December 14th, 2003

We Finally Got Our Frankenstein... and He Was In a Spider Hole! -- by Michael Moore

Thank God Saddam is finally back in American hands! He must have really missed us. Man, he sure looked bad! But, at least he got a free dental exam today. That's something most Americans can't get.

America used to like Saddam. We LOVED Saddam. We funded him. We armed him. We helped him gas Iranian troops.

But then he screwed up. He invaded the dictatorship of Kuwait and, in doing so, did the worst thing imaginable -- he threatened an even BETTER friend of ours: the dictatorship of Saudi Arabia, and its vast oil reserves. The Bushes and the Saudi royal family were and are close business partners, and Saddam, back in 1990, committed a royal blunder by getting a little too close to their wealthy holdings. Things went downhill for Saddam from there.

But it wasn't always that way. Saddam was our good friend and ally. We supported his regime. It wasn’t the first time we had helped a murderer. We liked playing Dr. Frankenstein. We created a lot of monsters -- the Shah of Iran, Somoza of Nicaragua, Pinochet of Chile -- and then we expressed ignorance or shock when they ran amok and massacred people. We liked Saddam because he was willing to fight the Ayatollah. So we made sure that he got billions of dollars to purchase weapons. Weapons of mass destruction. That's right, he had them. We should know -- we gave them to him!

We allowed and encouraged American corporations to do business with Saddam in the 1980s. That's how he got chemical and biological agents so he could use them in chemical and biological weapons. Here's the list of some of the stuff we sent him (according to a 1994 U.S. Senate report):

* Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.

* Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.

* Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord, and heart.

* Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs.

* Clostridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness.

* Clostridium tetani, a highly toxigenic substance.

[marksimons]

but erm, for the most part he is right.

America helped saddam use chemical weapons during the iran iraq war it seems - as well as helping arm the iranians, see iran contra.

from what I understand some american organisation, I'm thinking the CIA, provided saddam with information to help him use chemical weapons, stuff like satellite photos and intelligence on troop movements.

that article there is not the worst thing I've read by michael moore, not by a long shot.

the other thing is that the CIA could have helped get saddam to power in the first place, rumours of payment, but more probably intelligence - like lists of 'subversive' types who would be delt with in saddam's own special way, which the people giving information would probably know about.

America took Saddam of the list of terroist nations or whatever in 1982, then proceeded to sell him stuff.

bush sr was head of the CIA from '76 - '79 and you'd assume he'd have some idea about it all.

remember, reagan like bush was just a puppet, even moreso perhaps.

going slightly off track.

anyway, bateman, what's wrong with that article by michael moore? if you don't believe some of his claims I'll try and find evidence if you like.

[pattbateman]

he went to war with iran we backed them not iran.

what the fuck else would we of done?

he wasnt a fuckin loon then people change

after he recieved so much power it went to his head how the fuck were we to know what he would do in the future??

[marksimons]

you ever heard of iran contra?

[igloo]

ONE BIG GIANT YAWN....

[marksimons]

well I know you don't give a shit about the duplicitous actions of the dodgy sections of your countries national security igloo.

the US and western governments have on many ocassions supported dictators like saddam, fully aware of how repressive, violent and unstable. like it or not this is the truth.

from the iranian dictator from the 50's to 70's to saddam, to pinochet, to the junta in argentina, to a military dictatorship in brazil.

all repressive regimes relying on fear, repression, torture, secret services and western support.

same with the middle east, repressive regimes aided and abetted by america and the west.

the world is fucked up.

so long as we put up with politicians and others fucking it up then it'll keep being fucked up.

here is a chance to take a long hard look at the way nations have conducted themselves, what went wrong - i.e. the fact that UN embargoes on arms sales mean near enough fuck all in real life, and how we can stop this happening again - which it won't yet, but we can try...

[pattbateman]

yes i have mr simons

here is something very interesting

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/18/archive/

[marksimons]

and a bit about iran contra, from that extremely dubious source, grolier...

notice how bush sr pardons the major players in the scandal, shows his view on the affair...

The tangled U.S. foreign-policy scandal known as the Iran-contra affair came to light in November 1986 when President Ronald REAGAN confirmed reports that the United States had secretly sold arms to Iran. He stated that the goal was to improve relations with Iran, not to obtain release of U.S. hostages held in the Middle East by terrorists (although he later acknowledged that the arrangement had in fact turned into an arms-for-hostages swap). Outcry against dealings with a hostile Iran was widespread. Later in November, Att. Gen. Edwin Meese discovered that some of the arms profits had been diverted to aid the Nicaraguan "contra" rebels--at a time when Congress had prohibited such aid. An independent special prosecutor, former federal judge Lawrence E. Walsh, was appointed to probe the activities of persons involved in the arms sale or contra aid or both, including marine Lt. Col. Oliver North of the National Security Council (NSC) staff.

Reagan appointed a review board headed by former Republican senator John Tower. The Tower Commission's report in February 1987 criticized the president's passive management style. In a nationally televised address on March 4, Reagan accepted that judgment without serious disagreement.

Select Congressional committees conducted joint televised hearings from May to August. They heard evidence that a few members of the NSC staff set Iran and Nicaragua policies and carried them out with secret private operatives, that the few officials who knew about these policies lied to CONGRESS and others, and that the contras received only a small part of the diverted money. Former national security advisor John Poindexter stated that he personally authorized the diversion of money and withheld that information from the president. William J. Casey, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, who died in May 1987, was implicated in some testimony, but the extent of his involvement remained unclear.

Special prosecutor Walsh continued his investigation. On Mar. 11, 1988, Poindexter's predecessor as national security advisor, Robert McFarlane, pleaded guilty to criminal charges of withholding information from Congress on secret aid to the contras. A year later McFarlane was fined $20,000 and given two years' probation. On Mar. 16, 1988, a federal grand jury indicted North, Poindexter, and two other persons on a number of charges including conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government. The trials were delayed by legal maneuvering that in part involved questions of releasing secret information. In May 1989 a jury convicted North of 3 of the 12 criminal counts he was ultimately tried on; in July the court fined him $150,000 and gave him a three-year suspended sentence. On Apr. 7, 1990, Poindexter was convicted on 5 counts of deceiving Congress and sentenced to 6 months in prison. Both the North and Poindexter convictions were subsequently set aside on the grounds that their immunized congressional testimony had been unfairly used against them. In July 1991, Alan D. Fiers, Jr., chief of CIA covert operations in Central America in 1984-86, admitted that he had lied to Congress concerning CIA involvement. Shortly thereafter, his CIA superior Clair E. George was indicted for perjury. George's first trial ended in a mistrial. In 1992 former defense secretary Caspar Weinberger was indicted on 5 counts of lying to Congress. On Dec. 24, 1992, President George BUSH pardoned all the principals charged in the scandal. Walsh's eventual report, released in 1994, scored Presidents Reagan and Bush for their roles in events related to the scandal but did not charge either with criminal wrongdoing.

http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/aae/side/irancont.html

[marksimons]

well iran contra is about the only time they got caught.

try a search for the Mena airbase and find out about the CIA drug flights.

ironic given that bush and reagan were fighting a 'war on drugs' at the time.

score another one to the military industrial complex, law enforcement and conservative politics...

regardless of whether people knew how saddam would turn out, it seems they could probably guess from his background, they probably didn't care...

and the point is this, if he gets too uppity, which he did, he gets slapped down, making a nice profit and allowing even more control to be exerted in the region, and interestingly I'd like to know if america implied to saddam that attacking kuwait would be a-okay with them, then go and kick his ass for it.

this is the ruthless great game being played out by disassociated emperical folks, disconnected from the real world, cusioned by wealth and playing, sometimes dirty, with the lives of ordinary people.

[igloo]

Originally posted by marksimons

well I know you don't give a shit about the duplicitous actions of the dodgy sections of your countries national security igloo.

Wrong....as usual......and again, good job avoiding threads that shove your anti-Amercian shit back up your ass, and simply moving on to the next one to continue your vomit....

You are pathetic fraud.......

Your little "101" history lessons that you post may somehow pathetically make you feel better about yourself, but again, you are nothing but a hypocritical fraud.....

To repeat, keep ranting about the imperfections of something that will always be imperfect, and keep emphasizing the mistakes of something that will always make mistakes, and keep highlighting the errors in the hope that you create the perception they outweigh the achievements, contributions, and goodwill....

Keep going....you are just another rudderless, empty fraud using an anti-American platform to soothe your own failings as an individual.......

Spare me your bullshit too about your concern about the imrpovement of U.S. conduct as the reason for your anti-American rants and evil empire vomit.....you are anti-American, case closed....

But keep avoiding threads when your are getting your ass kicked and ran out of bullshit..

Keep getting together with your "radical" young democrats in coffee houses discussing how wealth can be distributed to combat the American evil of capitalism......Keep having your circle jerks to fill your pathetic need to make the U.S. to blame for others failures.....keep wailing against the U.S for their interventions and "imperialism" but them villify them the minute there is a moment of isolationalism

The U.S. has made mistakes, and deserves honest dissent and criticism...but that is not what you are doing..

You are a fraud...a loser in the streets of London....

Nothing more, nothing less...

[pattbateman]

Originally posted by igloo

Wrong....as usual......and again, good job avoiding threads that shove your anti-Amercian shit back up your ass, and simply moving on to the next one to continue your vomit....

You are pathetic fraud.......

Your little "101" history lessons that you post may somehow pathetically make you feel better about yourself, but again, you are nothing but a hypocritical fraud.....

To repeat, keep ranting about the imperfections of something that will always be imperfect, and keep emphasizing the mistakes of something that will always make mistakes, and keep highlighting the errors in the hope that you create the perception they outweigh the achievements, contributions, and goodwill....

Keep going....you are just another rudderless, empty fraud using an anti-American platform to soothe your own failings as an individual.......

Spare me your bullshit too about your concern about the imrpovement of U.S. conduct as the reason for your anti-American rants and evil empire vomit.....you are anti-American, case closed....

But keep avoiding threads when your are getting your ass kicked and ran out of bullshit..

Keep getting together with your "radical" young democrats in coffee houses discussing how wealth can be distributed to combat the American evil of capitalism......Keep having your circle jerks to fill your pathetic need to make the U.S. to blame for others failures.....keep wailing against the U.S for their interventions and "imperialism" but them villify them the minute there is a moment of isolationalism

The U.S. has made mistakes, and deserves honest dissent and criticism...but that is not what you are doing..

You are a fraud...a loser in the streets of London....

Nothing more, nothing less...

yes another major misconception.

that people belive conservatives are rich and powerful

ill tell you who ever has been running the media for the last 50 years did a great job misleading the public

i cannot tell you how many arguments i have gotten into about people tellin me republicans are so rich and so powerful

when the majority of people with power and money are liberals

[jamiroguy1]

Originally posted by pattbateman

he went to war with iran we backed them not iran.

what the fuck else would we of done?

he wasnt a fuckin loon then people change

after he recieved so much power it went to his head how the fuck were we to know what he would do in the future??

This is bullshit.

[pattbateman]

so you think we put him into power so we can go to war now.

it was all part of the consrvative master plan

we are trying to take over the world

sorry you didnt get the invite

fuckin idiot

[normalnoises]

Igloo: The U.S. has made mistakes, and deserves honest dissent and criticism...but that is not what you are doing.

NN: It's biggest mistake was the birth of Igloo.

Igloo, why don't you admit you don't support the troops and you're in this bullshit war just because of all of the money you are making from it.... Investing in corporations with military contracts.

All you care about is money and yourself.

SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU CAPITALIST PIG!!

[marksimons]

bush has already raised over 200 million dollers for his campaign...

pretty sure more rich people are conservative in their politics than not...

be an interesting one to know for sure though, but if british conservatism is anything to go by then they see themselves as the establishment...

as for a conservative master plan?

well...

nah, I don't think their is one, well, besides the project for a new american century...

it's individuals and organisations in the right place and the right time.

but you'll see names like betchel, haliburton, kellog root and brown - who were brown brothers harman, the ones linked to the nazi stuff with prescott bush.

these companies and some individuals associated with them, and a number of the PNAC clique and others who have stuff to do with it all, have been around for a long time, working with people like the CIA in foriegn policy jaunts around the world, offing of leaders and ensuring that political - economic policy is what they want, 'cause the cold war ideological differences were, primarily, about ways of implementing economic systems. ergo american companies can get huge benefits by opening up markets in other places unchecked by much competition and or labour laws, or reforms that a govt in a country might like to do.

it's the politics of big business and the priviliged.

it's basically an elite, just look at the number of incumbants in the senate and house...

you have a class, rich for a few generations, have their seats in power, their universities that turn out the men of the right type suitable for running things.

ivy league, oxbridge, whatever.

for a great deal of the 20th century the british civil service was totally over representing the graduates from oxford and cambrige unis, go and look at the number of british pms who whent there, or went to eton school...

the ruling class in america is the rich, but it seems that you've now got a bit of a monarchy in the court of the bush's.

I'd hope that this period in american history can be equated with the english civil war, in terms of being the revolution of the bourgois in marxist terms; i.e. those who have been made comfortable by the capitalist system, but then run into a political system that is dominated by economic elites.

"A majority of President Bush's new cabinet are millionaires and several are multimillionaires.

"According to information from financial disclosure reports, released by the Office of Government Ethics, most cabinet appointees have amassed their fortunes in stock options.

"Now a Washington-based think tank is questioning whether some of the cabinet members could face a possible conflict of interest.

"It is not unusual for American politicians to be rich. For the last two decades more than half of all cabinet members have been millionaires."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1138009.stm

the average american is not represented by the people who run the country, and the lobbying system ensures that big businesses have access to politicians.

this political system, affects america domesticaly and it affects the rest of the world.

apathy and ignorance just make things worse, and the media doesn't help.

there are fundamental problems with the british poltical system as well, we've still got no f'ing constitution, our local government is a mess, media is a bit better - national daily newspapers are handy - but our electoral system needs reform, as do a number of policy things.

but on very diverse things you see elements combining.

take drugs.

made illegal in the 20's.

real push forward in the sixties, but erm, a little too much acid perhaps.

however.

80's you have politicians taking a tough line on drugs, because, well, then it allows them to offer military support for governments who took a tough line on drugs in places like colombia.

so the us govt gives military and financial support to keep repressive violent governments in place and give incentive to the very rich drug dealers to tool themselves up.

wars get faught, drug dealers shoot at armies, get bombed, and generally things are messy.

public in production country suffers.

america gets sold the 'tough on drugs' conservative message, protecting your kids. law enforcement likes it as they get money to go after dealers, gun lobby likes it as police, army, and dealers tool up, CIA likes it as they make money off drug running, prison lobby likes it as investment in new jails to house drug inmates. Naturally big tobacco likes it, and they have close contacts with government because of the fact that, well their product does nothing but get you addicted and kill you, without even getting you high...

fastfoward to today and we see the results of that, massive problems in places like brazil from well armed urban drug dealers, a massive amount of young black males, predominantely in on drug offences in jails, and yet drugs are more availiable and cheaper than ever.

and what does the US do in the face of about twenty years of being tough on drugs?

well george w bush, a reformed coke head alcoholic, who draft dodged vietnam and is a silver spooned spoiled rich boy, lets the reintroduction of shooting down suspected drug planes. despite there being one or two accidents...

oh and the media, the media, does it ever really try and look at the drug or prison problem seriously? very rarely.

things are getting better in the UK, but that's probably geographic, it's rather small and you can get good relatively cheap majiuana and ecstacy, and with the amount of pills consumed since the acid house revolution of 1988 - which nicely commemorated the english revolution of 1688 - means that, well, people must realise that it's not as dangerous as it is all made out, and that zero tolerance doesn't work and we must actually face up to this issue.

drugs is an area where conservatives, although not those liberterian conservatives will probably be very much anti-legalisation. but it is a goodish example of how various interests combine to form policy which is not the right solution, and results in, well, a bit of a f'ing mess really...

[pattbateman]

since i feel the same way as igloo i will take that personally myself.

i am in college make NO money as of now

my family is middle class

i know you wish people who support the war are rich money making thieves but they are not

now dont get me wrong i wanna make money just like the next guy but that doesnt mean i wanna go to war to make the money that is rediculious

the war is not making me a dime dude where do you come up with this shit?

[marksimons]

but you're missing the point, or almost close to getting it.

the PEOPLE WHO DECIDED TO GO TO WAR ARE MAKING MONEY.

that's the rub.

this is the point, you don't make money, most americans will not be made richer or safer from this war.

that's the point, ask yourself how did this war benefit you?

do you feel safer from terroist attack?

the war could have been handled a lot better.

I mean if bush had just said right out that he wanted to take out saddam because it was the right thing to do, offered a plan, showed the iraqi's what they were gonna do, how they were gonna set up elections etc, then perhaps they'd have more people on board and more support. but they made up all that BS about WMD and linking saddam to 9/11 and al quaeda - all of which are unproven as of yet.

and here's my last post, it got put on the last page, don't want anyone missing it... the drugs thing is coming along in my head wooo!

---

bush has already raised over 200 million dollers for his campaign...

pretty sure more rich people are conservative in their politics than not...

be an interesting one to know for sure though, but if british conservatism is anything to go by then they see themselves as the establishment...

as for a conservative master plan?

well...

nah, I don't think their is one, well, besides the project for a new american century...

it's individuals and organisations in the right place and the right time.

but you'll see names like betchel, haliburton, kellog root and brown - who were brown brothers harman, the ones linked to the nazi stuff with prescott bush.

these companies and some individuals associated with them, and a number of the PNAC clique and others who have stuff to do with it all, have been around for a long time, working with people like the CIA in foriegn policy jaunts around the world, offing of leaders and ensuring that political - economic policy is what they want, 'cause the cold war ideological differences were, primarily, about ways of implementing economic systems. ergo american companies can get huge benefits by opening up markets in other places unchecked by much competition and or labour laws, or reforms that a govt in a country might like to do.

it's the politics of big business and the priviliged.

it's basically an elite, just look at the number of incumbants in the senate and house...

you have a class, rich for a few generations, have their seats in power, their universities that turn out the men of the right type suitable for running things.

ivy league, oxbridge, whatever.

for a great deal of the 20th century the british civil service was totally over representing the graduates from oxford and cambrige unis, go and look at the number of british pms who whent there, or went to eton school...

the ruling class in america is the rich, but it seems that you've now got a bit of a monarchy in the court of the bush's.

I'd hope that this period in american history can be equated with the english civil war, in terms of being the revolution of the bourgois in marxist terms; i.e. those who have been made comfortable by the capitalist system, but then run into a political system that is dominated by economic elites.

"A majority of President Bush's new cabinet are millionaires and several are multimillionaires.

"According to information from financial disclosure reports, released by the Office of Government Ethics, most cabinet appointees have amassed their fortunes in stock options.

"Now a Washington-based think tank is questioning whether some of the cabinet members could face a possible conflict of interest.

"It is not unusual for American politicians to be rich. For the last two decades more than half of all cabinet members have been millionaires."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1138009.stm

the average american is not represented by the people who run the country, and the lobbying system ensures that big businesses have access to politicians.

this political system, affects america domesticaly and it affects the rest of the world.

apathy and ignorance just make things worse, and the media doesn't help.

there are fundamental problems with the british poltical system as well, we've still got no f'ing constitution, our local government is a mess, media is a bit better - national daily newspapers are handy - but our electoral system needs reform, as do a number of policy things.

but on very diverse things you see elements combining.

take drugs.

made illegal in the 20's.

real push forward in the sixties, but erm, a little too much acid perhaps.

however.

80's you have politicians taking a tough line on drugs, because, well, then it allows them to offer military support for governments who took a tough line on drugs in places like colombia.

so the us govt gives military and financial support to keep repressive violent governments in place and give incentive to the very rich drug dealers to tool themselves up.

wars get faught, drug dealers shoot at armies, get bombed, and generally things are messy.

public in production country suffers.

america gets sold the 'tough on drugs' conservative message, protecting your kids. law enforcement likes it as they get money to go after dealers, gun lobby likes it as police, army, and dealers tool up, CIA likes it as they make money off drug running, prison lobby likes it as investment in new jails to house drug inmates. Naturally big tobacco likes it, and they have close contacts with government because of the fact that, well their product does nothing but get you addicted and kill you, without even getting you high...

fastfoward to today and we see the results of that, massive problems in places like brazil from well armed urban drug dealers, a massive amount of young black males, predominantely in on drug offences in jails, and yet drugs are more availiable and cheaper than ever.

and what does the US do in the face of about twenty years of being tough on drugs?

well george w bush, a reformed coke head alcoholic, who draft dodged vietnam and is a silver spooned spoiled rich boy, lets the reintroduction of shooting down suspected drug planes. despite there being one or two accidents...

oh and the media, the media, does it ever really try and look at the drug or prison problem seriously? very rarely.

things are getting better in the UK, but that's probably geographic, it's rather small and you can get good relatively cheap majiuana and ecstacy, and with the amount of pills consumed since the acid house revolution of 1988 - which nicely commemorated the english revolution of 1688 - means that, well, people must realise that it's not as dangerous as it is all made out, and that zero tolerance doesn't work and we must actually face up to this issue.

drugs is an area where conservatives, although not those liberterian conservatives will probably be very much anti-legalisation. but it is a goodish example of how various interests combine to form policy which is not the right solution, and results in, well, a bit of a f'ing mess really...

[seximofo2k]

Mark I disagree with much of what you say but I commend yo for trying to prove your case rather than evolving your posts around personally bashing others on this board. This current events board is practically a drama board now thanks to a select few.