tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10686687.post115703718203710688..comments2023-10-06T11:41:14.239-04:00Comments on POLITRIXS by bruce stasiuk: THE GOOD GERMANSquicksandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06839757517699032973noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10686687.post-43112285463335589152013-02-13T09:47:27.462-05:002013-02-13T09:47:27.462-05:00[url=http://aluejxfttk.com]KhOXICUiYVt[/url] , ssS...[url=http://aluejxfttk.com]KhOXICUiYVt[/url] , <a href="http://aaqdagae.com" rel="nofollow">ssSfAftKjqHNuZi</a> , http://iluubcb.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10686687.post-1157380825464954162006-09-04T10:40:00.000-04:002006-09-04T10:40:00.000-04:00NO!NO!I SHAN'T HEAR OF IT.I AM MERELY IGOR.NO!<BR/>NO!<BR/>I SHAN'T HEAR OF IT.<BR/><BR/>I AM MERELY IGOR.quicksandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06839757517699032973noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10686687.post-1157378523600319552006-09-04T10:02:00.000-04:002006-09-04T10:02:00.000-04:00to quicksandThis is not about you and your love fo...to quicksand<BR/>This is not about you and your love for the first amendment anymore. You, Dr. Frankenstien, have created a monster! This is bigger than you...bigger than all of us. We will slash and burn and destroy each other whether you like it or not. I also plan on cutting and pasting all of REMEMBRANCE OF THINGS PAST on my nest posting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10686687.post-1157302954546396862006-09-03T13:02:00.000-04:002006-09-03T13:02:00.000-04:00Quite an article by James Bamford posted by Blog 1...Quite an article by James Bamford posted by Blog 1. Certainly puts the war and the Bush administrations handling of the "facts" in perspective. Obviously, nothing was going to stop the Bush admin from pursuing this war; certainly they weren't going to let the truth get in the way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10686687.post-1157296469792121382006-09-03T11:14:00.000-04:002006-09-03T11:14:00.000-04:00BECAUSE I THINK THIS ADMINISTRATION IS DOING GRAVE...BECAUSE I THINK THIS ADMINISTRATION IS DOING GRAVE HARM TO OUR COUNTRY, DOES NOT MEAN THAT I'M A FAN OF NANCY OR HILLARY OR THE PRESENT STATE OF THE DEMOCRATS.<BR/><BR/>THEY ENABLED THIS DESTRUCTIVE ADMINISTRATION. THERE IS A SCARCITY OF CLEAN HANDS IN OUR GOVERNMENT.<BR/>I'M ANGRY AT THE DIRTIEST HANDS.<BR/>THE BLOODIEST HANDS.quicksandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06839757517699032973noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10686687.post-1157296031020584582006-09-03T11:07:00.000-04:002006-09-03T11:07:00.000-04:00FOOTNOTE:MY FAVORITE ADMENDMENT IS THE FIRST.I DON...FOOTNOTE:<BR/><BR/>MY FAVORITE ADMENDMENT IS THE FIRST.<BR/>I DON'T LIKE CENSORSHIP.<BR/>I DON'T WANT TO DELETE MESSAGES HERE.<BR/><BR/>SO, IT WOULD BE A GOOD PRACTICE FOR ALL OF US TO AVOID INSULTS.<BR/>WHILE THERE ARE FACTS, OPINIONS AND PERCEPTIONS ARE REASONABLE ELEMENTS.<BR/>ALSO, IF YOU WANT TO PUBLISH A LONG DOCUMENT, PERHAPS YOU MIGHT JUST ENTER THE WEB SITE WHICH WOULD PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE DOCUMENT.quicksandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06839757517699032973noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10686687.post-1157294480934960212006-09-03T10:41:00.000-04:002006-09-03T10:41:00.000-04:00I HAVEN'T WATCHED NETWORK NEWS IN DECADES.MOST OF ...I HAVEN'T WATCHED NETWORK NEWS IN DECADES.<BR/><BR/>MOST OF THE WORLD BELIEVED THAT SADDAM HAD WMD. THAT'S WHY THE WORLD CORNERED HIM INTO HAVING <BR/>INSPECTORS IN IRAQ.<BR/>THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WAS AFRAID OF INSPECTIONS.<BR/>IF WMD WERE FOUND....THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN REMOVED.....NO WAR.<BR/><BR/>IF NO WEAPONS WERE FOUND....NO WAR.<BR/><BR/>THE ADMINISTRATION WANTED A WAR.<BR/>ALLOWING INSPECTIONS TO CONTINUE WOULD HAVE REMOVED ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR THE WAR.quicksandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06839757517699032973noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10686687.post-1157253608678158542006-09-02T23:20:00.000-04:002006-09-02T23:20:00.000-04:00to anonymous:All right! I will respond even though...to anonymous:<BR/>All right! I will respond even though you seem to be avoiding the issue. Your earlier posting stated, "I refuse to debate anyone who says,'Saddam....' " I think that suggested that I was talking through my ass. When I defended myself you insisted on avoiding that issue and bringing up many others to confuse the issue. Producing all sorts of "facts" all of which ignored my claim that U.N. inspectors were operating in Iraq with the consent of Saddam at the time that the U.S. decided to attack. I even conceded that Iraq was deceptive and obstructionist throughout the inspection ordeal. Now you challenge me with the irrelevant question of whether the U.N. was lying. Lying? Lying about what? That they too thought that Iraq had WMD? Perhaps they did. I never disputed that. A large part of the world's perception of this WMD business came from the U.S. which clearly spun the evidence to make it look like these weapons existed to justify starting a war with Iraq. Since you are now putting so much trust in the U.N. why do you so conveniently overlook the fact that the U.N. did not sanction the U.S. war. The Bush administration castigated the U.N. for being cautious and not jumping to conclusions. Now when it is convenient you hold up the U.N. as a justification for our war.<BR/><BR/>The simple answer to you question is , no I don't think that the U.N. was lying. They were probably simply wrong like others. I do believe that the Bush administration however, cynically used the WMD business to justify Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney's war. Did they lie? I suspect they did. At very least they were very selective and chose evidence which justified a war policy that was already decided.<BR/><BR/>Did you read the article that Blog 1 reproduced? Very interesting and enlightening.<BR/>Good night!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10686687.post-1157251127274316272006-09-02T22:38:00.000-04:002006-09-02T22:38:00.000-04:00to anonymous:Please answer my question first!Why a...to anonymous:<BR/>Please answer my question first!<BR/>Why are you avoiding it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10686687.post-1157250418041434062006-09-02T22:26:00.000-04:002006-09-02T22:26:00.000-04:00Was the UN lying???Was the UN lying???Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10686687.post-1157247412751595992006-09-02T21:36:00.000-04:002006-09-02T21:36:00.000-04:00to anonymousThanks! Sure I am interested in facts....to anonymous<BR/><BR/>Thanks! Sure I am interested in facts. But you never addressed the issue that you callanged me on, my claim of compliance with U.N. inspections. See my previous comments to political impaler for further thoughts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10686687.post-1157246946022199842006-09-02T21:29:00.000-04:002006-09-02T21:29:00.000-04:00to the political impaler:Read carefully. Never did...to the political impaler:<BR/><BR/>Read carefully. Never did I make a claim that I knew before anyone else that there were no weapons of mass destruction. Don't put words in my mouth. I challenge you to show me where I made that claim. I will say that the Bush administration wasn't just caught up in the misconception. They fostered the misconception. They wanted to believe WMD's existed to justify a war that they had already decided on. They "cooked" all the evidence even to a point that they sent a witting or unwitting Colin Powell to address the U.N. with dubious intel.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10686687.post-1157245707983111082006-09-02T21:08:00.000-04:002006-09-02T21:08:00.000-04:00UN Report (There's plenty more if your interested ...UN Report <BR/>(There's plenty more if your interested in facts)<BR/><BR/><BR/>Immediately following the Gulf war, the Iraqi Presidency collected reports on weapons remaining with Iraq's Armed Forces after the war, including its weapons prohibited by recently adopted resolution 687(1991). Such documents were provided to the Presidency in the spring of 1991. A decision was taken by a high-level committee (one of whose members was Deputy Prime Minister Mr. Tariq Aziz) to provide to the Commission only a portion of its proscribed weapons, their components and production capabilities and stocks. The policy, as deduced from a range of evidence available to the Commission including the initial false Iraq’s declarations, was based on the following Iraqi actions:<BR/>-- provide a portion of their extensive weapon stocks, with an emphasis on those, which were least modern. <BR/>-- retain production capability and the "know-how" documentation necessary to revive programmes when possible<BR/>-- conceal the full extent of chemical weapons programmes, including its VX project, and retain production equipment and raw materials<BR/>-- conceal the number and type of BW and CW warheads for proscribed missiles<BR/>-- conceal indigenous long-range missile production, and retain production capabilities, specifically with respect to guidance systems and missile engines<BR/>-- conceal the very existence of its offensive biological weapons programme and retain all production capabilitiesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10686687.post-1157243318793955782006-09-02T20:28:00.000-04:002006-09-02T20:28:00.000-04:00to bens friendevery intelligence agency in the wor...to bens friend<BR/><BR/>every intelligence agency in the world said he had WMD. All your great Democratic senators and congressmen said he had WMD. At Sadams trial his generals stated they thought he had gas because they wanted to use it on the coalition troops marching on bagdad. Only then did they realize he was lying, but you with your great intelligence knew there were no WMD, yea right. Stop patting yourself on the shoulder. Your a monday morning quaterback like the rest of us, no more, no less. The only person that knew if there were WMD was Sadam himself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10686687.post-1157240740460973702006-09-02T19:45:00.000-04:002006-09-02T19:45:00.000-04:00P.S. to anonymousWhy is it that what you have to s...P.S. to anonymous<BR/><BR/>Why is it that what you have to say is <BR/>an "opposing view," while what someone else has to say which you don't like or agree with is a "rant?" Come on! Isn't this venue supposed to be a forum for us to exchange views rather than dismiss other's views as rants?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10686687.post-1157239831845392492006-09-02T19:30:00.000-04:002006-09-02T19:30:00.000-04:00to anonymousHow convenient that you refuse to addr...to anonymous<BR/>How convenient that you refuse to address any of my points, because you question the historical accuracy of one parenthetical. Of course you can refuse to debate me. That is your right, but you should know what you are talking about before you closemindedly dismiss my claim. Check the facts. It is true. For a long time Saddam Hussein was playing a game of cat and mouse with the U.N. inspectors. He would let them in, then throw them out. Then he would let them in under very strict guidelines. Then he would dismiss them again and bring them back as long as they gave prior notice as to what and where they were inspecting. Of course the U.S. legitimately assumed at this point that they were getting prior notice in order to hide things before the inspection. At one point Saddam insisted that his presidential palaces were sacrosanct and off limits. However, the inconvenient truth that you choose to ignore (and was only a very small part of my argument)is that at the time that the U.S. had decided to invade Iraq, Saddam was allowing inspectors access to sites. You have fallen prey to Bush's tactic of repeating something often enough in the hope that people will just accept it as true. He repeatedly said that one of the reasons that we must invade Iraq was because Saddam was refusing access to U.N. inspectors. That is only a partial truth. Saddam had kicked U.N. inspectors out on several occassions, but at the time the U.S. had crossed the Iraqui "rubicon" Saddam was cooperating. If you check the facts you will find that I am right. Sorry to see that you fell for the Bush administrations shell game with the truth. But take comfort. You are not alone.I dare say that many U.S. citizens still think that Saddam is the same person as Ossama. I know that you are more astute than that, however.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10686687.post-1157239323792467712006-09-02T19:22:00.000-04:002006-09-02T19:22:00.000-04:00I am not sticking up for Rumsfeld, but critize him...I am not sticking up for Rumsfeld, but critize him for the way he ran this unholy and illegal war and not for something meaningless he said like fascist. If you think the democrats are going to do any better you are mistaken. All politicans are dishonest and crooks. Be careful what you wish for, you may just get it. Do you really want that incompetent,lying bitch, Nancy Pelosi two heartbeats away from the presidency. Be afraid,be very afraid. The republicans and democrats have destroyed this country. They can no longer be trusted. I have no idea what the answer is but I know its not John McCain or Hillary Clinton.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10686687.post-1157235509018593562006-09-02T18:18:00.000-04:002006-09-02T18:18:00.000-04:00I refuse to debate someone who writes,"at the time...I refuse to debate someone who writes,"at the time we invaded, Saddam was allowing the U.N. inspectors to do their work"<BR/><BR/>Enjoy!!! Bank to ranting without any opposing views. I believe that's what is truly wanted here anyway.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10686687.post-1157225696260683182006-09-02T15:34:00.000-04:002006-09-02T15:34:00.000-04:00To anonymous: I love it! You say the quicksand's a...To anonymous: <BR/>I love it! You say the quicksand's attitude will get us nowhere? Bush's foriegn policies will get us nowhere.Or maybe more accurately it will get us somwhere, more trouble. He is the one who got us into this war with at best a mistake, at worst a lie about WMD. He was the one who unilaterally launched an attack on a soveriegn nation claiming that they were defying U.N. inspections (at the time we invaded, Saddam was allowing the U.N. inspectors to do their work.) He was the one who at very least allowed and possibly encouraged the perception that somehow Iraq was involved in 9-11. He was the one who even ignored the advice of his father about attacking Iraq. He was the one who squandered the good will of the entire world after 9-11 by attaking Iraq because it was a convenient target, rather than the correct target. He was the one, or at least his administration who suggested that this would be an easy victory with the Iraquis showering us with roses as we victoriously marched through the streets. And don't suggest that I am supporting the likes of Saddam Hussien, a despicable tyrant. We have often put up with, or worse supported despicable tyrants when it was in our interests. So the idea that we did this for humanitarian reasons is clearly ludicrous. <BR/><BR/>It was clearly a strategic and moral mistake to go into Iraq. Once you believe that the next logical thing to do is admit the mistake and not continue to make the same mistake. When the captain of the Titanic realized he was headed for an iceberg he tried desperately to "cut and run." He didn't "stay the course." Too bad the current administration doesn't have the same common sense, or honesty.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10686687.post-1157215817737505782006-09-02T12:50:00.000-04:002006-09-02T12:50:00.000-04:00Quicksand,You are watching too much network news. ...Quicksand,<BR/><BR/>You are watching too much network news. <BR/><BR/>Many provinces of Iraq are not nearly as violent as we are lead to believe by the mainstream media.<BR/>I fully acknowledge we are facing extremely challenging circumstances. Read about any military battles this country has been in and you'll discover that we have been in pretty bleak positions before. <BR/><BR/>Your attitude will get us nowhere.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10686687.post-1157207542271705942006-09-02T10:32:00.000-04:002006-09-02T10:32:00.000-04:00THERE IS NO TEXTBOOK PROCEDURE WE CAN USE TO GET O...THERE IS NO TEXTBOOK PROCEDURE WE CAN USE TO GET OUT OF THIS IRAQIAN DILEMMA. <BR/>THE PEOPLE WHO CAUTIONED AGAINST THE INVASION WERE PAINFULLY CORRECT.WE HAVE DONE MUCH MORE HARM THAN GOOD. I INCLUDE OUR OWN SECURITY IN THAT EQUATION. <BR/>WE ARE NOW MIRED IN A LOSE-LOSE SITUATION.<BR/>THE BEST WE MIGHT HOPE FOR NOW IS FOR OUR GOVERNMENT TO SPEAK THE TRUTH. UNLIKELY.quicksandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06839757517699032973noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10686687.post-1157201152940827352006-09-02T08:45:00.000-04:002006-09-02T08:45:00.000-04:00"Until then vote for the democrats,end the war and..."Until then vote for the democrats,end the war and end the maddness of single party politics."<BR/><BR/>Translation: Vote for democrats, retreat, abandon a newly elected government that needs our support, and empower fanatics who already know we are weak because of people like you.<BR/><BR/>You write that the deaths of 2600 americans makes you ill. How many more americans will die in the future if we don't stay in Iraq and try to leave a government that can defend itself and her citizens? How many more americans will die if radical muslims see that they can blow themselves up and cause us to run with our tail between our legs? Beirut, Somalia, the first attack on the Twin Towers, the embassy bombings in Africa, etc. Each an example of your "concerned for american lives" policy which has empowered radical muslims into thinking they can do what they want without consequences.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10686687.post-1157164882434743342006-09-01T22:41:00.000-04:002006-09-01T22:41:00.000-04:00Hillary??? Really??? She was,and I believe still...Hillary??? Really??? <BR/>She was,and I believe still is, a Hawk I think I can count on when it comes to the war and support for Isreal, no matter what she says to appease the Liberal/Anti-war Left...If elected as our prez as you so desire, she'll have to come out swinging like a Hawk on crack cocaine to show the world she won't be weak. Don't doubt it for a second. I won't be voting for her, but I know I can count on her.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10686687.post-1157161348552613202006-09-01T21:42:00.000-04:002006-09-01T21:42:00.000-04:00Dear Anon, I am thrilled to know that you find my ...Dear Anon, <BR/>I am thrilled to know that you find my wording cute... However, I prefer poignant.. Agreeing with Bruce about the war does not make me feel good. The death of my fellow americans at 2600 plus and counting does not make me feel good.War without national committment or political will makes me ill. I love this country but am tired of mypoic ssports distracted countrymen.<BR/>A new leader needs to emerge from ..I say Hillary in 08 and Obama in 2012<BR/><BR/>Until then vote for the democrats,end the war and end the maddness of single party politics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10686687.post-1157161118904550732006-09-01T21:38:00.000-04:002006-09-01T21:38:00.000-04:00To anonymous:O.K. I suspect that your comment sugg...To anonymous:<BR/><BR/>O.K. I suspect that your comment suggesting that the postings were like sixth grade year book entries referred at least partially to me. You do have a point. Ad hominum attacks are clearly cheap shots. Yet, sometimes it is hard to resist. Do you dispute that Rumsfeld has a mean face? Or that Bush is much less than a genius? Shouldn't we demand that our president (and the most powerful man in the world) be able to string four consecutive words together to make a coherent sentence? Forgive me if my venting is immature, and mean spirited.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com