Question:
This message was cancelled from within Mozilla.
Response:
U.S. Helicopters Fire At Iraqi Wedding, Kill Over 40 BAGHDAD, May 20 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) – U.S. helicopters killed more than 40 people, including several children, during a wedding party in western Iraq on Wednesday, May 19, Iraqi officials and eyewitnesses said. A senior Iraqi police officer told the Associated Press that a helicopter fired at the party in Makr al-Deeb, a remote village close to the town of al-Qaim near the Syrian borders, killing between 42 and 45 people. Lieutenant Colonel Ziyad al-Jbouri, the deputy police chief for Ramadi, 80 miles west of Baghdad, told the American news agency that the dead included 15 children and 10 women. "This was a wedding and the planes came and attacked the people at a house. Is this the democracy and freedom that Bush has brought us? There was no reason," said Dahham Harraj, an Iraqi man filmed in an AP video. Local farmer Mortada Hamid, 35, said he was in his house, 600 meters (yards) from the strike, when the U.S. helicopters opened fire as wedding revelers were firing their guns in the air in a traditional celebratory manner. "More than 40 people were killed. Bodies were everywhere, most of them women and children," he told Agence France-Presse (AFP) by telephone. Commenting on the reports, U.S. officials said Thursday, May 20, that more than 40 people were killed in the U.S. raid, reported AFP. "At 3:00 am Wednesday coalition forces carried out a military operation on a house suspected of sheltering foreign fighters … A helicopter fired on the house, killing 41 people," an official told reporters. "During the operation, the coalition forces came under hostile fire, and returned fire," Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt said in an earlier statement issued in Baghdad. Scattered Bodies Arab news televisions al-Arabiya and al-Jazeera aired images of blanket-shrouded bodies loaded on trucks. They quoted witnesses as confirming most of the fatalities were women and children. Men were seen carrying the bodies wrapped in blankets from the back of the truck into deep graves in the desert on the outskirts of Ramadi. One body, carried in a white blanket, was that of a young girl aged five or six, reported the Guardian. Other bodies, laid on the ground in a line, had clearly suffered horrific injuries, said the British daily Damaging Many of the dead were children The killings are certain to further damage the U.S. military’s battered reputation in Iraq, the Guardian said. The U.S. is already reeling from its much-criticized offensive in Fallujah last month, which claimed hundreds of Iraqi lives , and now the scandal of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison. The attack had the hallmarks of a similar incident in Afghanistan two years ago in which a U.S. jet fighter fired at a wedding party in the south, killing 48 Afghan civilians and wounding more than 100. The wedding had been targeted because guests were firing Kalashnikovs in the air as a traditional sign of celebration. A U.S. military investigation had blamed the Afghanistan deaths on people on the ground. World Outcry The attack on the Iraq wedding had drawn an international outcry along with the fury among Iraqis seeking an end to a more than one-year occupation of their oil-rich country. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) condemned Thursday an "excessive" use of force by the U.S. military after the attack. "The excessive use of force violates international human rights," the ICRC spokeswoman in Baghdad, Nada Dumani, told AFP. "Even if (you came under) fire, there are rules of proportion in retaliation and the absolute need to prevent civilian casualties," she added. Turkey, a close U.S. ally, also said on Thursday that operations targeting Iraqi and Palestinian civilians have escalated to the point of "state terror". "The latest developments in the Middle East, both in Rafah and in Iraq, show how disastrous the trend has become with respect to human rights and humanity," Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan told reporters before flying to Romania. "This is unforgivable… It must be known that the bombs have come to hit peace," Erdogan said. http://islamonline.net/
Response:
Question:
Anti-Islam accusation that: In Islam, denial of human rights is OK because: a.. Is Islam is against pure democracy? b.. Is Islam tolerates slavery? As we know, Islam is a complete way of life.
All ideologies are a complete way of life. All people except you know this. How naive are you! Ideologies want to control men: it is their own nature. This is why they rule every aspect of the men’s day and of their life. Ideologies compete each other and all them want to conquer the world. They are systems of ideas which tends to the absolute. They push men to organize proselitism, conversions, to have many children so to replace other people, to do wars to conquer other people to the ideology. They organize also measures which are intended to prevent their weakening, like: prohibition of apostasy, to read books of other religions or ideologies. Your ideology is sending zombies all around in the world exploding themselves and killing as much unbelievers as possible. This is not a struggle for the freedom, but for the victory of an absurd house of cards. You seems like a little automa parroting the same commonplaces of your ideology. All the days, you repeat us the same boring things, you fill this group with islamic slogans, verses of a meaningless book, requests of conversions, etc. You are the propaganda minister of your Empire of Nothing. You are so brainwashed that we not even arrive to communicate with you. Logos
Response:
Hamid ‘Altway’ Aziz said: Most Democratic nations accept a Constitution which is regarded as inviolable and within which Laws can be made. These Laws are made by Politicians and Legal experts and not by the people.
The people elect their lawmakers, which means in a democracy the people are sovereign. In a theocracy, such as the one you dream of (the caliphate) the people are not sovereign; those who interpret the Quran are sovereign. In a democracy any law can be made if the people choose it to be made; if the constitution denies it now, it can be ammended tomorrow. In extremis, the constitution can be overthrown and rewritten (as in France, now on its fifth republic). It is usually a mark of well constructed democratic systems that change is possible without need for a new constitution – the US is a stable democracy because its constitution is ammendable; Britain is stable because its parliament is re-electable. Thus the democratic constitution, or democratic institutions in general, are *rational*, they belong to the *people* who live by the laws they make. In a theocracy there is no popular control over the ‘book of law’ (in this case, the Quran). It cannot be ammnded; all laws are derived from it, all previous laws derived from it must be taken into account before any new laws are made, and the people themselves have no control over how these laws are made. This is important because to most people, the Quran is not a fit source of law. It is regarded as a fake, and those who regard it as factual are themselves regarded as irrational. No law derived from the Quran can be considered democratic, but neither can it be regarded as fair, since it would be imposed on those who do not accept it as what it claims to be. This alone makes every attempt to create shariah law anywhere illegitimate (and should be regarded so internationally, IMO). As long as a minority of Muslims pursue this medieval dream of an Islamic state they will hinder or prevent the development of Arabic, Turkish, Pakistani, Bengali, Malay and Somali society. The victims of Islamism are in the most part, Muslims themselves. Eventually, it is because of the Islamists that Iraqis endure the humiliation of invasion, and ‘westerners’ remaking their society for them. If it wasn’t for people like you, the majority of Muslims would have a bettre chance of success in the real world.
Response:
Anti-Islam accusation that: In Islam, denial of human rights is OK because: a.. Is Islam is against pure democracy? b.. Is Islam tolerates slavery? As we know, Islam is a complete way of life. Given this, it is not surprising that the Creator is concerned with the method which we choose to govern ourselves. The preeminent rule which the Islamic state must observe is stated in the Qur’an (translation follows): [4:59] O you who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you. If you differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if you do believe in Allah and the Last Day; That is best, and most suitable for final determination. From this verse, it is clear that the state’s obligation of obedience to the Creator is as important as the obedience of the individual. Hence, the Islamic state must derive its law from the Qur’an and Sunnah. This principle excludes certain choices from the Islamic state’s options for political and economic systems, such as a pure democracy, unrestricted capitalism, communism, socialism, etc. For example, a pure democracy places the people above the Qur’an and Sunnah, and this is disobedience to the Creator. However, the best alternative to a pure democracy is a democracy that implements and enforces the Shari’ah (Islamic Law). The Creator also states in the Qur’an (translated): [42:36-38] So whatever thing you are given, that is only a provision of this world’s life, and what is with Allah is better and more lasting for those who believe and rely on their Lord, and those who shun the great sins and indecencies, and whenever they are angry they forgive, and those who respond to their Lord and keep up prayer, and their rule is to take counsel among themselves, and who spend out of what We have given them. Allah orders us in this verse to conduct our matters by taking counsel among ourselves, or by consulting each other. This is the methodology of the Islamic state, to consult one another, but to always keep the Qur’an and Sunnah paramount. Any law which contradicts the Qur’an or Sunnah is unlawful. This broad principle of consultation is certainly wide enough to encompass a form of government where all are heard – in fact, encouraged to be heard. The early Islamic states were of this form. The petty governments of many `Muslim countries’ today do not apply this principle and in fact commit many crimes against the people. As for slavery, Islam is unique among the `religions’ in its close attention to the peaceful removal of this practice. Before the advent of Islam, slavery was widespread all over the world. The Messenger of Islam taught us that freeing slaves was a great deed in the sight of Allah. From the Sunnah, specifically in the study of the Sunnah called Sahih Bukhari, we find: [3:46:693] Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "Whoever frees a Muslim slave, Allah will save all the parts of his body from the (Hell) Fire as he has freed the body-parts of the slave." Said bin Marjana said that he narrated that Hadith to `Ali bin Al-Husain and he freed his slave for whom `Abdullah bin Ja’far had offered him ten thousand Dirhams or one-thousand Dinars. Also from the Sunnah, specifically in the study of the Sunnah called Malik’s Muwatta, we find: [38:9:15] Narrated Aisha Ummul Mu’minin: The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, was asked what was the most excellent kind of slave to free. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, answered, "The most expensive and the most valuable to his master." The Creator has also made it easy for slaves to gain their freedom. From the Sunnah, specifically in the study of the Sunnah called Sahih Bukhari, we find: [3:46:704] Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "Whoever frees his portion of a common slave should free the slave completely by paying the rest of his price from his money if he has enough money; otherwise the price of the slave is to be estimated and the slave is to be helped to work without hardship till he pays the rest of his price." The condition of slavery is very different in Islam than the harsh conditions imposed by non-Muslims or disobedient Muslims. From the Sunnah, specifically in the study of the Sunnah called Sunan Abu-Dawud, we find: [41:4957] Narrated AbuHurayrah: The Prophet (saw) said: None of you must say: "My slave" (abdi) and "My slave-woman" (amati), and a slave must not say: "My lord" (rabbi or rabbati). The master (of a slave) should say: "My young man" (fataya) and "My young woman" (fatati), and a slave should say "My master" (sayyidi) and "My mistress" (sayyidati), for you are all (Allah’s) slave and the Lord is Allah, Most High. Also from the Sunnah, specifically in the study of the Sunnah called Sahih Bukhari, we find: [3:46:721] Narrated Al-Ma’rur bin Suwaid: I saw Abu Dhar Al-Ghifari wearing a cloak, and his slave, too, was wearing a cloak. We asked him about that (i.e. how both were wearing similar cloaks). He replied, "Once I abused a man and he complained of me to the Prophet. The Prophet asked me, `Did you abuse him by slighting his mother?’ He added, `Your slaves are your brethren upon whom Allah has given you authority. So, if one has one’s brethren under one’s control, one should feed them with the like of what one eats and clothe them with the like of what one wears. You should not overburden them with what they cannot bear, and if you do so, help them (in their hard job)." As a result of the teachings of Islam, slavery was almost completely eradicated from many areas of the Muslim world, peacefully and without bloodshed.
Response:
Question:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – American Workers can safely say, Bye, Bye to the Slice of the American Pie Fern was in healthcare for thirty years. She watched as nursing jobs were given to immigrant nurses rather than American graduates. Sadly, she laments observing sweet, dedicated and idealistic young women she trained become hardened and embittered. This is a crock. I have several relatives who are nurses, and others who are in the medical profession in general, and they will all tell you that there is a critical shortage of nurses in the US. The schools cannot crank them out the door fast enough to satisfy the demand. Nursing is a relatively high paying job that requires very specific technical skills. It is very demanding, with long hours, and is very physical, and wears on one emotionally as well.. Yes, many foreign nurses have received employment in the US because the demand is so high. The problem is not displacement of American workers. The problem is the loss of nurses in the countries from which the foreign nurses are originating. There is a huge drain of nurses from 2nd and 3rd world countries, and it’s costing them dearly. Its these countries who are hurting the most, not American nurses. American nurses are hurting too. They had to compete with nurses from 3rd world countries, & so have to accept less pay for the same work. The only people laughing all the way to the bank are the corporations & their CEO’s!
The people laughting are the 20 million illegal aliens that use our hospitals for free medical care.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – American Workers can safely say, Bye, Bye to the Slice of the American Pie Fern was in healthcare for thirty years. She watched as nursing jobs were given to immigrant nurses rather than American graduates. Sadly, she laments observing sweet, dedicated and idealistic young women she trained become hardened and embittered. This is a crock. I have several relatives who are nurses, and others who are in the medical profession in general, and they will all tell you that there is a critical shortage of nurses in the US. The schools cannot crank them out the door fast enough to satisfy the demand. Nursing is a relatively high paying job that requires very specific technical skills. It is very demanding, with long hours, and is very physical, and wears on one emotionally as well.. Yes, many foreign nurses have received employment in the US because the demand is so high. The problem is not displacement of American workers. The problem is the loss of nurses in the countries from which the foreign nurses are originating. There is a huge drain of nurses from 2nd and 3rd world countries, and it’s costing them dearly. Its these countries who are hurting the most, not American nurses.
Just as an example, take a look at a current search of a local newspaper at the number of nursing jobs available: http://www.careerbuilder.com/JobSeeker/Jobs/JobResults.asp?strCrit=QI… TKV%3BCTY%3DLouisville%3BSID%3DKY%3BCID%3DUS%3BENR%3DYES%3BDTP%3DALL%3BYDI% 3 DYES%3BIND%3DAll%3BPDQ%3DAll%3BJN%3DAll%3BPOY%3DNO%3BETD%3DJTFT%3BETD%3DJTP T %3BETD%3DJTCT%3BETD%3DJTIN%3BRE%3DALL%3BMGT%3DDC%3BSUP%3DDC%3BFRE%3D30%3BCH L %3DAL%3BQS%3Dsid%5Fgalcj02%3BSS%3DNO&ch=AL&lr=cbga_lcj&cbsid=da04ec28f29945 5 1a7bcbcb54a046f70%2D122210881%2Dwl%2D2
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – American Workers can safely say, Bye, Bye to the Slice of the American Pie Fern was in healthcare for thirty years. She watched as nursing jobs were given to immigrant nurses rather than American graduates. Sadly, she laments observing sweet, dedicated and idealistic young women she trained become hardened and embittered. This is a crock. I have several relatives who are nurses, and others who are in the medical profession in general, and they will all tell you that there is a critical shortage of nurses in the US. The schools cannot crank them out the door fast enough to satisfy the demand. Nursing is a relatively high paying job that requires very specific technical skills. It is very demanding, with long hours, and is very physical, and wears on one emotionally as well.. Yes, many foreign nurses have received employment in the US because the demand is so high. The problem is not displacement of American workers. The problem is the loss of nurses in the countries from which the foreign nurses are originating. There is a huge drain of nurses from 2nd and 3rd world countries, and it’s costing them dearly. Its these countries who are hurting the most, not American nurses.
The reason there is such a need for nurses is the 20 million illegal aliens in this country that use our hospitals for free medical care.
Response:
American Workers can safely say, Bye, Bye to the Slice of the American Pie Fern was in healthcare for thirty years. She watched as nursing jobs were given to immigrant nurses rather than American graduates. Sadly, she laments observing sweet, dedicated and idealistic young women she trained become hardened and embittered.
This is a crock. I have several relatives who are nurses, and others who are in the medical profession in general, and they will all tell you that there is a critical shortage of nurses in the US. The schools cannot crank them out the door fast enough to satisfy the demand. Nursing is a relatively high paying job that requires very specific technical skills. It is very demanding, with long hours, and is very physical, and wears on one emotionally as well.. Yes, many foreign nurses have received employment in the US because the demand is so high. The problem is not displacement of American workers. The problem is the loss of nurses in the countries from which the foreign nurses are originating. There is a huge drain of nurses from 2nd and 3rd world countries, and it’s costing them dearly. Its these countries who are hurting the most, not American nurses.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – American Workers can safely say, Bye, Bye to the Slice of the American Pie Fern was in healthcare for thirty years. She watched as nursing jobs were given to immigrant nurses rather than American graduates. Sadly, she laments observing sweet, dedicated and idealistic young women she trained become hardened and embittered. This is a crock. I have several relatives who are nurses, and others who are in the medical profession in general, and they will all tell you that there is a critical shortage of nurses in the US. The schools cannot crank them out the door fast enough to satisfy the demand. Nursing is a relatively high paying job that requires very specific technical skills. It is very demanding, with long hours, and is very physical, and wears on one emotionally as well.. Yes, many foreign nurses have received employment in the US because the demand is so high. The problem is not displacement of American workers. The problem is the loss of nurses in the countries from which the foreign nurses are originating. There is a huge drain of nurses from 2nd and 3rd world countries, and it’s costing them dearly. Its these countries who are hurting the most, not American nurses.
American nurses are hurting too. They had to compete with nurses from 3rd world countries, & so have to accept less pay for the same work. The only people laughing all the way to the bank are the corporations & their CEO’s! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –
Response:
American Workers can safely say, Bye, Bye to the Slice of the American Pie Norma Sherry 11/11/03: (ICH) I’m just going to blurt it out; tell it like it is. In the words of the venerable, Walter Cronkite, "that’s the way it is". Here it is folks; outsourcing is tantamount to legalized slave labor. Of course, it’s much more than that to the American worker. Ask anyone who is out of work, out of unemployment, on the verge of losing their home and all that they worked for and thought was their American dream come true. Their jobs by the multi-millions have left the shores of the U.S. for greener, cheaper labor. Slave labor. A dollar an hour versus twenty-five or fourteen, or even ten, you figure the math, big business, not-so-big business, even the little businesses are moving in droves to lands faraway. The problem with doing so, however, is multi-dimensional. For the millions of American workers who have lost their jobs, the prospects are very dim. Jody, who has worked as an IT professional for twenty years, lost her job when her company outsourced its workforce to a foreign land and foreign workers. In five months, she hasn’t been interviewed even once despite her very marketable skills. When her unemployment runs out, she fears she’ll have no recourse but to sell their home. Beverly says, "I completed my graduate degree in engineering and truly thought that I was living the American dream." That is until three years ago when she and her co-workers watched as the jobs dwindled down and were shipped first to Mexico and then elsewhere. All the years of bettering herself, securing her future in the finality were measured in her ability to instruct her replacement to do her job. Humiliation and degradation were her reward. Fern was in healthcare for thirty years. She watched as nursing jobs were given to immigrant nurses rather than American graduates. Sadly, she laments observing sweet, dedicated and idealistic young women she trained become hardened and embittered. How did this happen. Where were we? Did we have our heads buried in the sand? Or were we preoccupied with the realities of everyday life? Perhaps that’s what our policy makers counted on. But I can tell you one thing for certain. It didn’t happen overnight. In fact, it began to surface in the late 70’s championed by the very conservative Heritage Foundation. Under the auspices of President Ronald Reagan, free trade "throughout the hemisphere" was borne. But truth be known, the seeds were sown long before Ronald Reagan. Richard Milhous Nixon was the first President given authority in the 1974 Fast Track Bill. It was awarded every president thereafter through 1998. Fast Track gives the President sole authority over trade negotiations. Congress, after the fact, can accept or reject the negotiation, but it cannot amend it in any way whatsoever. In effect, Fast Track effectively removes Congress from the process of world trade negotiations. Ronald Reagan, however, was the first to propose a free trade agreement in his 1980 presidential campaign. Proudly, The Heritage Foundation boasts its role in articulating President Reagan’s vision in no less than three dozen reports. The Heritage Foundation predicted that free trade would, "over a fifteen-year time span, create the world’s largest market: some 360 million people, with an economic output of more than $6 trillion a year." Moreover, they asserted that NAFTA would guarantee that American workers would remain the most competitive in the world. That American consumers would continue to have access to the world’s finest goods and services. They also emphasized that NAFTA would assure Americans cheaper goods while increasing U.S. exports to the rest of the world. Moreover, the American workforce was told NAFTA would stimulate and create an estimated 200,000 jobs annually. Later, The Heritage Foundation wrote, "Economists are virtually unanimous in their conclusion that the NAFTA will have a strongly positive impact on job growth throughout the US, with most estimates in the hundreds of thousands." They also predicted NAFTA would effectively reduce illegal immigration from Mexico, would be instrumental in tackling drug trafficking, would strengthen Mexican democracy and human rights, and above all else, would serve as a model for the rest of the world. It all sounded so cheeky. Lofty predilections. The only aspect that has proven true for Americans is "cheaper goods." Instead of the 200,000 promised new jobs yearly for Americans, American workers are losing their jobs – to date, conservatively speaking by 2.7 million. The rate of which is growing steadily. As a matter of fact, 200,000 additional jobs were lost to American workers in September alone. However, The Heritage Foundation and the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) say the converse is true. The USTR offers, "Too often, bad news grips the imagination, while good news goes unheard. In a dynamic economy such as ours, it is not surprising to hear of some firms closing shop. However, in a typical month, our country gains a net of over 150,000 jobs." My guess is these jobs are akin to a hologram. Sarcasm aside, the numbers simply don’t jive. As to the remaining gobbily gook, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know the dire state of the American economic picture. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the forecast looks very bleak with the national deficit expected to reach $480 billion next year with unemployment continuing to rise. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported, "Long-term unemployment is at its highest in over a decade". The BLS stated, "The last time the share of long-term unemployed surpassed this level was 20 years ago, in September 1983. BLS also reported the startling decline in education employment as the largest one-month loss since July 1982. There are 1.4 million individuals stuck in the quagmire of personal bankruptcy. According to foreclosures.com, foreclosures are at record highs, especially homes in the upper six figures. Bank One in Chicago anticipates a tidal wave of foreclosures in 2004. Bleak, how about downright abject gloom? Perhaps we overlooked the loss of jobs because, well, they were just factory workers, after all-and besides, clothing was never cheaper. Cheaper is the key word, not merely less expensive, but threadbare cheap, made to literally fall apart after a few month’s of laundering. Then words such as, "child labor", "slave labor" and "abusive, horrendous working conditions", started seeping into the American psyche. Clothing designers went on the defensive, but they needn’t have concerned themselves, the uproar was short-lived. The consumer greed won out. After all, cheap is cheap-and nothing wins like saving money! The consumer then began to notice that there were fewer and fewer American-made automobiles. Advertising agencies expounded on the consumer concern and began a national advertising campaign to buy, "Made in America" automobiles, etcetera, etcetera. However, despicable as Corporate America is, the truth that nearly no part of an American car or truck, van, or SUV is made in America mattered not. NAFTA has made us partners with the countries of the world with whom we do business. It has made us culpable to the abuses and horrifying conditions workers of the world work under. And we know it. Our legislators know it. Corporate America knows it-and yet, we allow it to continue. A famous film company reportedly pays Bangladesh workers between eight and nineteen cents an hour toiling in deplorable, sub-human conditions for 14 to 15 hours a day. Corporate America knows it, so do our legislators, and yet we still buy their products. Corporate America rushes to their shore anxiously bringing their contracts and opening their factories. The World Trade Organization (WTO) protects corporations but abashedly, blatantly ignores the torturous existence of laborers. Burma, ruled by a military dictatorship since 1962 is a very poor, yet resource rich country. It is also a haven for sweatshops and many American corporations. Until 2000 and adverse publicity threatened their bottom-line, Anheuser-Busch, Apple, Estee Lauder, Hewlett-Packard, Macy’s, Ralph Lauren, Oshkosh B’Gosh, Levi-Strauss, Liz Claiborne, and many more did business with Burma. Colgate, General Electric, Ford, Halliburton, Gillette, Jordache, Lockheed, Nautica, Adidas, Chase Manhattan Corp, Proctor and Gamble, and Perry Ellis are among the businesses that continued to do business with Burma after 2000. In Burma, Unocal was named in a human rights lawsuit in the course of building its pipeline. The suit charged Unocal knowingly used forced labor. Hundreds of eyewitnesses testified that the government’s military provided Unocal with unpaid labor by forcing thousands of villagers to work at gunpoint. Reportedly, women who refused to work were raped or murdered. In 2000, a California Federal Court found Unocal blameless because they did not have direct participation in the wrongful acts. The case and the appeals are stalemated. In 2003, the Bush Administration filed a brief on behalf of Unocal arguing that allowing the case to go to trial could interfere with US foreign policy and even disrupt the war on terrorism. Eight months ago, when I called my Dell Computer Support Department to register my new laptop, my phone call was routed to India. The helpful young man on the phone and I became chatty. He was very excited about his new job, although he still had to live at home with his parents and couldn’t afford to marry. He was 34 years old. He was on his twelfth hour of a fourteen-hour day. He earned $9 a day! A day-and he was happy. Before Dell, he earned less than a dollar a day. When I hung up the telephone, I cried. Yet, in India, a country that Corporate America is actively outsourcing American jobs to in record-breaking numbers is a country that purportedly exploits and abuses children as … read more »
Response:
Question:
o We all know your super intellect will allow for no outcome save that which you fancy. You use words and more words and your against war and against Saddam but you post your hate of the US and you care nothing for those Iraqi’s who have suffered and died at the hand of Saddam, or to those he threatens with WMDs. You shreek with glee any item you can twist to be Anti American and pro Evil, while champion a Saddam victory! Yes we know what you are. And that is total bullshit packed in your self delsuioned world.
We know what you are. Because people like me are always opposed by people like you, and we will always be slandered and libeled and spit upon and demonized by people like you. But in the end, it will be people like me who will win out, because the world simply can no continue to exist in a healthy, sustanable manner so long as people like you are running things. s.w. "Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind…" — John F. Kennedy
Response:
[....] 2. Before Saddam invaded Kuwait, he checked in with his allies in the first Bush administration to ask permission. In thinly veiled terms, he got that permission — we know this now as the Glaspie incident — look it up if you don’t know what I’m talking about. Bush Sr. set up Saddam, his ally days earlier, so as to increase US presence in the Middle East and begin the campaign that we are seeing today coming to full fruition. [JD] If you actually opposed Saddam and his rule, why are you repeating his lie on this matter? Saddam has issued two contradictory accounts of the meeting, only one of which gives the green light They cannot both be true, and we have no reason to suppose that either one is true.
Apparently she denies it too. http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/durable/1999/05/27/p23s3.htm US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie Carleton Cole Eight days before his Aug. 2, 1990, invasion of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein met with April Glaspie, then America’s ambassador to Iraq. It was the last high-level contact between the two countries before Iraq went to war. GLASPIE: In March 1991, she told a Senate committee that ‘we foolishly did not realize [Saddam] was stupid.’ MARCY NIGHSWANDER/AP/FILE From a translation of Iraq’s transcript of the meeting, released that September, press and pundits concluded that Ms. Glaspie had (in effect) given Saddam a green light to invade. "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts," the transcript reports Glaspie saying, "such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary [of State James] Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction … that Kuwait is not associated with America." The Persian Gulf War began Jan. 17, 1991. But before the official end of the war (April 11), Glaspie was called to testify informally before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. She said she was the victim of "deliberate deception on a major scale," and denounced the Iraqi transcript as "a fabrication" that distorted her position, though it contained "a great deal" that was accurate. The veteran diplomat awaited her next assignment, later taking a low-profile job at the United Nations. In November 1992, Iraq’s former deputy prime minister, Tarik Aziz, gave Glaspie some vindication. He said she had not given Iraq a green light. "She just listened and made general comments," he told USA Today. "We knew the United States would have a strong reaction." Glaspie is now US consul general in Cape Town, South Africa.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [....] 2. Before Saddam invaded Kuwait, he checked in with his allies in the first Bush administration to ask permission. In thinly veiled terms, he got that permission — we know this now as the Glaspie incident — look it up if you don’t know what I’m talking about. Bush Sr. set up Saddam, his ally days earlier, so as to increase US presence in the Middle East and begin the campaign that we are seeing today coming to full fruition. [JD] If you actually opposed Saddam and his rule, why are you repeating his lie on this matter? Saddam has issued two contradictory accounts of the meeting, only one of which gives the green light They cannot both be true, and we have no reason to suppose that either one is true. Apparently she denies it too. http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/durable/1999/05/27/p23s3.htm US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie Carleton Cole Eight days before his Aug. 2, 1990, invasion of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein met with April Glaspie, then America’s ambassador to Iraq. It was the last high-level contact between the two countries before Iraq went to war. GLASPIE: In March 1991, she told a Senate committee that ‘we foolishly did not realize [Saddam] was stupid.’ MARCY NIGHSWANDER/AP/FILE From a translation of Iraq’s transcript of the meeting, released that September, press and pundits concluded that Ms. Glaspie had (in effect) given Saddam a green light to invade. "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts," the transcript reports Glaspie saying, "such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary [of State James] Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction … that Kuwait is not associated with America." The Persian Gulf War began Jan. 17, 1991. But before the official end of the war (April 11), Glaspie was called to testify informally before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. She said she was the victim of "deliberate deception on a major scale," and denounced the Iraqi transcript as "a fabrication" that distorted her position, though it contained "a great deal" that was accurate. The veteran diplomat awaited her next assignment, later taking a low-profile job at the United Nations. In November 1992, Iraq’s former deputy prime minister, Tarik Aziz, gave Glaspie some vindication. He said she had not given Iraq a green light. "She just listened and made general comments," he told USA Today. "We knew the United States would have a strong reaction." Glaspie is now US consul general in Cape Town, South Africa.
Gee, a political official denies any wrongdoing. What a shock. s.w.
Response:
This goes out to all the mind-dead Party zealots who are doing their worst for the Republican Reich who now rule America: I AM GLAD SADDAM HUSSEIN IS OUSTED.
Ho Ho Ho We all know your super intellect will allow for no outcome save that which you fancy. You use words and more words and your against war and against Saddam but you post your hate of the US and you care nothing for those Iraqi’s who have suffered and died at the hand of Saddam, or to those he threatens with WMDs. You shreek with glee any item you can twist to be Anti American and pro Evil, while champion a Saddam victory! Yes we know what you are. And that is total bullshit packed in your self delsuioned world. People like you never change the world for the better, because your too small, to work with others for the common good. You share traits with Lenin and Stalin, Trotsky and Chomsky and Saddam, like them, its your way, or no way! Eat shit and die! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I bet you just can’t believe I’m saying that, but I’ve been against Saddam Hussein all along. I have wanted him to be ousted ever since I learned about his villainy long ago, before the first Gulf War. Yes, I am more well informed than the average person, its a personal policy of mine to know what’s going on, and I have hated the man for over a decade. This by no means indicates that I supported the war. In fact, I have, as most know, considered this war an abomination against all American ideals since it first was suggested by G.W. Bush over a year and a half ago. "But, how can you hold both views, Sky Walker? They contradict one another. You hate the man, but you want to reward him by allowing him to continue ruling. You are a hypocrite." WRONG. I have supported, suggested, explained, discussed numerous other means by which to depose Saddam Hussein starting quite a while back. First of all, let’s look at what the international community did to try and get Saddam out of Iraq. 1. In an earlier time, when Saddam was fighting Iran, a mutual US/Iraq enemy, the United States, under the control of the Republican Party, armed Saddam with terrible weapons, and supported his gassing of Kurds, and his killing of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Iranians. This was something that many liberals at the time completely opposed. We saw Saddam for what he was, and tried to stop the Republicans from strengthening this dictators hold over his people, and the threat he posed to his neighbors. The Republicans in the US continued to support Saddam, regardless of the loud outcry of the liberals at the time. 2. Before Saddam invaded Kuwait, he checked in with his allies in the first Bush administration to ask permission. In thinly veiled terms, he got that permission — we know this now as the Glaspie incident — look it up if you don’t know what I’m talking about. Bush Sr. set up Saddam, his ally days earlier, so as to increase US presence in the Middle East and begin the campaign that we are seeing today coming to full fruition. 3. After the Gulf War, the US ostensibly could not get rid of Saddam Hussein, because international consensus was against us invading Iraq. What we did instead is ask the Shiites in the south, and the Kurds in the north to rise up, more or less promising them support if they did so. When the uprisings began, what did the US do? Did we gather international support to stop Saddam and aid the uprisings? Of course, we can see today that if we wanted to push a propaganda campaign to allow us to do this, we could have easily excused our support of the Shiites and Kurds to topple Saddam. We didn’t do that. We stood back, just as observers on the scene (US forces were present), and watched Saddam brutally repress and kill thousands of Shiites and Kurds. We even gave Saddam clearance to take helicopters and tanks into an area to do this. This is history. Look it up. Not only did we do nothing, we practically HELPED Saddam to kill these people. And yes, this was still under the Bush Sr. administration. 4. Believe it or not, but I consider Clinton as another part of the problem of American duplicity and hegemony. During his administration we saw a continuation of policy towards Iraq that supposedly was hurting Saddam Hussein, but indeed it was not, it was helping him. During this period we saw the imposition of the "Oil for Food" program — a horribly misnamed program that was supposed to allow food and medicine into Iraq, in exchange for dirt cheap oil. What was really happening here? It was an arrangement between the West and Saddam. Here’s how it worked. Saddam, and his ultra right elite continued to do business with the West. They in turn took the profits of this business, and used it for their own benefit, and did not uphold their side of the bargain to aid the suffering Iraqi people. Because of our attacks in the first Gulf War, the infrastructure of Iraq was devastated. Clean water, and ample food were scarce commodities. By continuing to deny his own people of the supplied they needed for survival, Saddam and his elite class were partially responsible for the deaths of almost a million women children and elderly. He blamed it on the sanctions, and on the US war that had damaged the country severely, and this was a partial truth that the people believed. At the same time, the West was telling its people (the few that were interested) that it was in fact Saddam that was causing the suffering. They were partially correct, and the masses bought it, and became disinterested. All along, I saw the sham: The West got their oil, Saddam and his wealthy elite Baathists got their money, and to hell with all the dying people. It was the perfect method for the west to weaken Iraq’s foundation while the pigs at the top continued to wallow in their wealth. Then came the inspections, really just another ruse to soften Iraq up more for a long planned invasion, orchestrated by Zionists like Wolfowitz and Perle, and by oil barons like Bush and Cheney. Now we see the results of all the planning. I’ll let you guess as to how things will turn out. * * * So, what’s the point here? First of all, my point is that the option of getting rid of Saddam Hussein was not previously pursued seriously, and that in fact, his continued presence was desired by the US gov’t, until that time came when it would be convenient to take him out. What would I have done differently? So much. What follows is my plan on how we should handle many other situations where a despotic regime threatens its own people and its neighbors. What so few here understand is that I have not been complaining that the US is doing TOO MUCH, but that it is NOT DOING NEARLY ENOUGH. What follows is a slightly modified version of a previous post: OK. ARE YOU READY TO IGNORE THIS? How to peacefully Democratize a foreign, despotic regime: After long and thorough deliberation to determine that a regime is unequivocally despotic, the UN organizes a truly international, multilateral delegation to go into the capital city. 1. A UN delegation representing the vast majority of countries sets up shop in the Capital City to oversee affairs, and to begin broadcasting objective information to the rest of the world about the true conditions there. They are escorted by a minor security apparatus for basic protection. The understanding is that if a hair is touched on any of the delegation, the world’s wrath righteously will follow. Of course, there would have to be a strong potential< fighting force available to the UN waiting in the wings. I am not unaware that force is a necessary deterrent< This delegation has a few functions, mainly: A. To ensure human rights are not being violated. B. To enable an apparatus for true Democratic elections to take place in the country, with the current leader’s ‘full cooperation and support’ (coerced or otherwise). Any resistance on the part of said leader will of course be broadcast worldwide, and new, more vigorous steps towards gaining compliance would be enacted. Elections would be funded by the countries own domestic revenues, unless outside assistance was required, in which case the UN would foot the bill, with the expectation that the country in question would eventually repay it. The elections would of course be closely regulated to ensure fairness and accuracy. C. As a possible contingency in circumstances of non-compliance, an international tribunal would be set up. This tribunal would be designed to present evidence and testimony about the officials in question, and would be protected, legislated and guarded by the international community. The genius of this proposal comes from two main factors: 1. True Credibility: The very close adherence to ideals of international law, and universally (now) accepted standards of human rights. By following these precepts, the international force gives itself the moral authority to be present, and places the burden of doubt not on the enforcers, but upon the despotic regime itself. Because the procedures would honestly be employing peaceful methods, without simply the false rhetoric of such, there would be no question of their validity. This is the basis of gaining true credibility. 2. True Multilateralism: One of the key factors towards this method succeeding is the need for the delegation to truly be multilateral — i.e. representing a vast majority of the world’s nations. Because of the credibility factor, presented above, few if any countries would want to be seen as non participatory. Each country would like to have
… read more »
Response:
Actually, Russia, France, and China supplied Saddam with more than 80% of his arsenal. USA accounted for around 2%.
Don’t forget to include the UK in the 80% there. And the percentages you give are what are ‘over the top’, ‘direct’ or ‘official’ sales and gifts to Saddam…much of the supplies Iraq got from America were ‘pass along’ operations, where a ‘middle man’ country obscured the ‘aid’ given. The US was also a major supplier of chemical and biological weapons technology<<…the science behind the stuff. The 80% you quote above refers not to ‘intelligence’, but to hardware and physical weopons themselves. We gave Saddam the ability to make lots more of the worst stuff he had. Besides, since we made the mistake of helping him once, doesn;t that make it our responsibility to bring about his end. It’s not hypocracy to clean up a mess you made, is it?
Yes, if the mess you made involved the devastation of countless people’s lives. You shouldn’t get the privilage of ‘cleaning up’ and making it all better. You should be locked up in prison, eating stale bread and drinking dirty water for the rest of your life. The men that were behind helping Saddam before are ruling the US before, and laughing all the way to the undisclosed, ultra-anonymous Swiss bank. s.w.
Response:
Your position was that the US was attacking the Iraqis, seeking to harm them, steal their oil, impose capitalism upon them. Now, confronted by scenes of jubilation, you suddenly forget the position you formerly held.
I’m for Saddam being taken out, even if I don’t support the methods used, or the actors who decided to utilize those methods. I think so many who doubt that I have always opposed the Saddam regime, do so willingly, because that is the only method they have to try and dismiss, or marginalize me. It is a tried and often true tactic. Most people simply don’t want to believe that they’ve been being lied to for so many years. If people could only know, how outraged they would become at all the time and energy that was wasted by believing in and spending life fretting over the ruler’s bugaboo of the day. Frankly, Iraq and Saddam Hussein weren’t that great a concern to me before the Bush family and all their oil baron buddies got involved. I wish I NEVER had to know or listen to or be inundated with the constant subject of Iraq in one on thousandth of the dose I’ve been getting. There are a lot of other, far more important things in the world, but the Bushes have to shove Iraq, and TERROR TERROR TERROR down our throats without cease. And yes, I do consider 9-11 was blowback against the US for our underhanded involvement throughout the region in the 80s and 90s. The way I look at it is this. If a mad scientist is constantly creating monsters and letting them loose on the community, I don’t set up a permanent army to deal with the monsters. I go after the monster maker himself. This is why we say we go after Hussein…because he will give weapons to terrorists…he will turn fanatics into monsters… But that’s exactly what we did for our own gain. We took Saddam Hussein, a very bad man and a fanatic, and we turned him into a terrible monster. s.w. "Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear — kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor — with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it…" –General Douglas MacArthur "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary" –H. L. Mencken "He who lives by fighting with an enemy has an interest in the preservation of the enemy’s life". –Friedrich Nietzsche
Response:
sorry you are a lying sack of shit. NOT one time have you EVER posted anything where you called for SH removal. Not ONE time. EVER!!!
Calm down there bucko. First of all, I have. Do you claim you have read every one of my posts? Are you certain< that I have never shown opposition to Saddam in my posts? so stop lying asshole. The rest of what you post is utter left wing stinking bullshit and half truths
Stinking bullshit because you have been pre-programmed to believe its evil, half truths because you are incapable of believing that perhaps your trusted leaders themselves may have been lying to you. Take the US support for SH in the early 80s. How does that terrible decision 20 years ago affect things NOW?
I thought that my post already covered that in brief. Do the research yourself. Doesn’t the US involvement mean that the US is far MORE responsible for SH than Most other nations?
That is a large part of my point, yes. Next the April Glaspie event is as always completely mis represented by you idiots…
It is not. I didn’t even present it, I told people to look up their own sources on it, and for them to make up thier own mind. Here response "The US has no interest in a BORDER DISPUTE". was made regarding the Iraqi claim about Kuwait slant drilling into the northern half of the Oilfield. In that regard the Iraqi claim was legit. That does NOT give SH the right to take over the whole fucking nation.
Oh, I never thought that it did, but Saddam Hussein DID have every reason to believe that was what the US’s position was on Kuwait. That is the exact point I’m trying to make regarding the deceptive tactic the US used in that instance. s.w.
Response:
1. In an earlier time, when Saddam was fighting Iran, a mutual US/Iraq enemy, the United States, under the control of the Republican Party, armed Saddam with terrible weapons, and supported his gassing of Kurds, and his killing of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Iranians. This was something that many liberals at the time completely opposed. We saw Saddam for what he was, and tried to stop the Republicans from strengthening this dictators hold over his people, and the threat he posed to his neighbors. The Republicans in the US continued to support Saddam, regardless of the loud outcry of the liberals at the time.
Actually, Russia, France, and China supplied Saddam with more than 80% of his arsenal. USA accounted for around 2%. Besides, since we made the mistake of helping him once, doesn;t that make it our responsibility to bring about his end. It’s not hypocracy to clean up a mess you made, is it?
Response:
— This goes out to all the mind-dead Party zealots who are doing their worst for the Republican Reich who now rule America: I AM GLAD SADDAM HUSSEIN IS OUSTED.
liar. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I bet you just can’t believe I’m saying that, but I’ve been against Saddam Hussein all along. I have wanted him to be ousted ever since I learned about his villainy long ago, before the first Gulf War. Yes, I am more well informed than the average person, its a personal policy of mine to know what’s going on, and I have hated the man for over a decade. This by no means indicates that I supported the war. In fact, I have, as most know, considered this war an abomination against all American ideals since it first was suggested by G.W. Bush over a year and a half ago. "But, how can you hold both views, Sky Walker? They contradict one another. You hate the man, but you want to reward him by allowing him to continue ruling. You are a hypocrite." WRONG. I have supported, suggested, explained, discussed numerous other means by which to depose Saddam Hussein starting quite a while back. First of all, let’s look at what the international community did to try and get Saddam out of Iraq. 1. In an earlier time, when Saddam was fighting Iran, a mutual US/Iraq enemy, the United States, under the control of the Republican Party, armed Saddam with terrible weapons, and supported his gassing of Kurds, and his killing of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Iranians. This was something that many liberals at the time completely opposed. We saw Saddam for what he was, and tried to stop the Republicans from strengthening this dictators hold over his people, and the threat he posed to his neighbors. The Republicans in the US continued to support Saddam, regardless of the loud outcry of the liberals at the time. 2. Before Saddam invaded Kuwait, he checked in with his allies in the first Bush administration to ask permission. In thinly veiled terms, he got that permission — we know this now as the Glaspie incident — look it up if you don’t know what I’m talking about. Bush Sr. set up Saddam, his ally days earlier, so as to increase US presence in the Middle East and begin the campaign that we are seeing today coming to full fruition.
If you actually opposed Saddam and his rule, why are you repeating his lie on this matter? Saddam has issued two contradictory accounts of the meeting, only one of which gives the green light They cannot both be true, and we have no reason to suppose that either one is true. 3. After the Gulf War, the US ostensibly could not get rid of Saddam Hussein, because international consensus was against us invading Iraq.
Was then, is now. The matter was hotly discussed at the time — same story then as now — you supposedly cannot invade without the UN etc. What we did instead is ask the Shiites in the south, and the Kurds in the north to rise up, more or less promising them support if they did
And they got support — but support well short of armed invasion. Had they received that kind of support, you would have responded with the same indignation and outrage as you just did respond in the last three weeks. I opposed the war also, but my opposition was that the US should not be using my tax dollars to help the Iraqis and reform the middle east — we should let those damned arabs stew in their own juices until they themselves come to realize the virtues of capitalism and democracy. Your position was that the US was attacking the Iraqis, seeking to harm them, steal their oil, impose capitalism upon them. Now, confronted by scenes of jubilation, you suddenly forget the position you formerly held. –digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG XJfAgRGVmNVjqJ8ES5O7gwFgbvoqTSUwULxZUam9 4DVOC7mArLsNUk9SSKxwEPtFgBlwtJofIxXeXyi6H
Response:
This goes out to all the mind-dead Party zealots who are doing their worst for the Republican Reich who now rule America: I AM GLAD SADDAM HUSSEIN IS OUSTED.
And now let’s hear what you have to say about Castro’s repression of dissention his iw "worker’s paradise." Quick before it’s too late.
Response:
This goes out to all the mind-dead Party zealots who are doing their worst for the Republican Reich who now rule America: I AM GLAD SADDAM HUSSEIN IS OUSTED.
And now let’s hear what you have to say about Castro’s repression of dissention in his "worker’s paradise." Quick before it’s too late.
Response:
This goes out to all the mind-dead Party zealots who are doing their worst for the Republican Reich who now rule America: I AM GLAD SADDAM HUSSEIN IS OUSTED. What would I have done differently? How to peacefully Democratize a foreign, despotic regime: 1. A UN delegation representing the vast majority of countries sets up shop in the Capital City to oversee affairs, and to begin
Translation: Have the UN check it out. Any questions?
Just one. How can somebody with no brains make such a long post? Ave Imperator Bush! Ave Imperator Bush! Ave Imperator Bush! Sic Semper Tyrannus. Magnum est rex esse.
Response:
This goes out to all the mind-dead Party zealots who are doing their worst for the Republican Reich who now rule America: I AM GLAD SADDAM HUSSEIN IS OUSTED.
Bullshit. Everything you have said, including the part of this post I’ve snipped has been designed to accomplish the exact opposite. — Mike Russell http://www.zocalo.net/~mgr http://geigy.2y.net
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – This goes out to all the mind-dead Party zealots who are doing their worst for the Republican Reich who now rule America: I AM GLAD SADDAM HUSSEIN IS OUSTED. I bet you just can’t believe I’m saying that, but I’ve been against Saddam Hussein all along. I have wanted him to be ousted ever since I learned about his villainy long ago, before the first Gulf War. Yes, I am more well informed than the average person, its a personal policy of mine to know what’s going on, and I have hated the man for over a decade. This by no means indicates that I supported the war. In fact, I have, as most know, considered this war an abomination against all American ideals since it first was suggested by G.W. Bush over a year and a half ago. "But, how can you hold both views, Sky Walker? They contradict one another. You hate the man, but you want to reward him by allowing him to continue ruling. You are a hypocrite." WRONG. I have supported, suggested, explained, discussed numerous other means by which to depose Saddam Hussein starting quite a while back. First of all, let’s look at what the international community did to try and get Saddam out of Iraq. 1. In an earlier time, when Saddam was fighting Iran, a mutual US/Iraq enemy, the United States, under the control of the Republican Party, armed Saddam with terrible weapons,
More nonsense. We did help arm him with some weapons, but we weren’t even the frontrunners. Between 1972 and 1990 when Saddam was in his weapons buying frenzy mode Iraq listed 40 billion dollars worth of arms sales. Russia (Soviet Union) was the largest supplier with 25 billion. The US was the smallest on that list with 200,000 dollars. European nations sold Iraq virtually all it’s equipment to make poison gas. The US sold Iraq samples of Anthrax, which Iraq said was going to be used for medical research. and supported his gassing of Kurds, and his killing of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Iranians. This was something that many liberals at the time completely opposed. We saw Saddam for what he was, and tried to stop the Republicans from strengthening this dictators hold over his people, and the threat he posed to his neighbors. The Republicans in the US continued to support Saddam, regardless of the loud outcry of the liberals at the time.
Because it was kind of hard to oppose him at a time Iran was taking US citizens hostage. 2. Before Saddam invaded Kuwait, he checked in with his allies in the first Bush administration to ask permission. In thinly veiled terms, he got that permission —
No he didn’t, but you can spin it any way you want. we know this now as the Glaspie incident — look it up if you don’t know what I’m talking about. Bush Sr. set up Saddam, his ally days earlier, so as to increase US presence in the Middle East and begin the campaign that we are seeing today coming to full fruition.
Conspiracy theory nonsense. From the first day of the war the US condemned Iraq and warned them to leave. Saddam had months to comply. He didn’t. 3. After the Gulf War, the US ostensibly could not get rid of Saddam Hussein, because international consensus was against us invading Iraq. What we did instead is ask the Shiites in the south, and the Kurds in the north to rise up, more or less promising them support if they did so. When the uprisings began, what did the US do?
The uprisings began right at the end of the war, not after it. Did we gather international support to stop Saddam and aid the uprisings? Of course, we can see today that if we wanted to push a propaganda campaign to allow us to do this, we could have easily excused our support of the Shiites and Kurds to topple Saddam.
We never could have done that. The coalition we formed would have completely shattered. Our UN mandate did not call for removing Saddam, and we assured our arab allies that we would not try to overthrow him. We didn’t do that. We stood back, just as observers on the scene (US forces were present),
No they weren’t. and watched Saddam brutally repress and kill thousands of Shiites and Kurds. We even gave Saddam clearance to take helicopters and tanks into an area to do this.
He had clearance to use Helicopters. Schwartkopf made a mistake in doing this. He didn’t think about the Iraqi’s using them as weapons against the uprising. As for Tanks we had already signed a ceasefire. Are we supposed to violate that ceasefire by blowing up their tanks? We then created the no fly zones in response to this Iraqi aggression, which you conveniently don’t mention. This is history. Look it up. Not only did we do nothing, we practically HELPED Saddam to kill these people. And yes, this was still under the Bush Sr. administration. 4. Believe it or not, but I consider Clinton as another part of the problem of American duplicity and hegemony. During his administration we saw a continuation of policy towards Iraq that supposedly was hurting Saddam Hussein, but indeed it was not, it was helping him. During this period we saw the imposition of the "Oil for Food" program — a horribly misnamed program that was supposed to allow food and medicine into Iraq, in exchange for dirt cheap oil.
Then blame the UN. The oil revenue was controlled by them. What was really happening here? It was an arrangement between the West and Saddam. Here’s how it worked. Saddam, and his ultra right elite continued to do business with the West. They in turn took the profits of this business, and used it for their own benefit, and did not uphold their side of the bargain to aid the suffering Iraqi people.
The oil for food program worked. Saddam was sabotaging it in order to use it as a political tool. That said, Saddam refused to sell oil to the US anyway. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Because of our attacks in the first Gulf War, the infrastructure of Iraq was devastated. Clean water, and ample food were scarce commodities. By continuing to deny his own people of the supplied they needed for survival, Saddam and his elite class were partially responsible for the deaths of almost a million women children and elderly. He blamed it on the sanctions, and on the US war that had damaged the country severely, and this was a partial truth that the people believed. At the same time, the West was telling its people (the few that were interested) that it was in fact Saddam that was causing the suffering. They were partially correct, and the masses bought it, and became disinterested. All along, I saw the sham: The West got their oil, Saddam and his wealthy elite Baathists got their money, and to hell with all the dying people.
And then it somehow benefitted Saddam when we bombed him two times during the Clinton Administration? Snipped the rest of the conspiracy theory babble. Jeremy Olson
Response:
I have tupper ware and dead animals that are better informed than you asshole
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yes, I am more well informed than the average person, its a personal policy of mine to know what’s going on, and I have hated the man for over a decade.
Response:
sorry you are a lying sack of shit. NOT one time have you EVER posted anything where you called for SH removal. Not ONE time. EVER!!! so stop lying asshole. The rest of what you post is utter left wing stinking bullshit and half truths Take the US support for SH in the early 80s. How does that terrible decision 20 years ago affect things NOW? Doesn’t the US involvement mean that the US is far MORE responsible for SH than Most other nations? Next the April Glaspie event is as always completely mis represented by you idiots… Here response "The US has no interest in a BORDER DISPUTE". was made regarding the Iraqi claim about Kuwait slant drilling into the northern half of the Oilfield. In that regard the Iraqi claim was legit. That does NOT give SH the right to take over the whole fucking nation.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – This goes out to all the mind-dead Party zealots who are doing their worst for the Republican Reich who now rule America: I AM GLAD SADDAM HUSSEIN IS OUSTED. I bet you just can’t believe I’m saying that, but I’ve been against Saddam Hussein all along. I have wanted him to be ousted ever since I learned about his villainy long ago, before the first Gulf War. Yes, I am more well informed than the average person, its a personal policy of mine to know what’s going on, and I have hated the man for over a decade. This by no means indicates that I supported the war. In fact, I have, as most know, considered this war an abomination against all American ideals since it first was suggested by G.W. Bush over a year and a half ago. "But, how can you hold both views, Sky Walker? They contradict one another. You hate the man, but you want to reward him by allowing him to continue ruling. You are a hypocrite." WRONG. I have supported, suggested, explained, discussed numerous other means by which to depose Saddam Hussein starting quite a while back. First of all, let’s look at what the international community did to try and get Saddam out of Iraq. 1. In an earlier time, when Saddam was fighting Iran, a mutual US/Iraq enemy, the United States, under the control of the Republican Party, armed Saddam with terrible weapons, and supported his gassing of Kurds, and his killing of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Iranians. This was something that many liberals at the time completely opposed. We saw Saddam for what he was, and tried to stop the Republicans from strengthening this dictators hold over his people, and the threat he posed to his neighbors. The Republicans in the US continued to support Saddam, regardless of the loud outcry of the liberals at the time. 2. Before Saddam invaded Kuwait, he checked in with his allies in the first Bush administration to ask permission. In thinly veiled terms, he got that permission — we know this now as the Glaspie incident — look it up if you don’t know what I’m talking about. Bush Sr. set up Saddam, his ally days earlier, so as to increase US presence in the Middle East and begin the campaign that we are seeing today coming to full fruition. 3. After the Gulf War, the US ostensibly could not get rid of Saddam Hussein, because international consensus was against us invading Iraq. What we did instead is ask the Shiites in the south, and the Kurds in the north to rise up, more or less promising them support if they did so. When the uprisings began, what did the US do? Did we gather international support to stop Saddam and aid the uprisings? Of course, we can see today that if we wanted to push a propaganda campaign to allow us to do this, we could have easily excused our support of the Shiites and Kurds to topple Saddam. We didn’t do that. We stood back, just as observers on the scene (US forces were present), and watched Saddam brutally repress and kill thousands of Shiites and Kurds. We even gave Saddam clearance to take helicopters and tanks into an area to do this. This is history. Look it up. Not only did we do nothing, we practically HELPED Saddam to kill these people. And yes, this was still under the Bush Sr. administration. 4. Believe it or not, but I consider Clinton as another part of the problem of American duplicity and hegemony. During his administration we saw a continuation of policy towards Iraq that supposedly was hurting Saddam Hussein, but indeed it was not, it was helping him. During this period we saw the imposition of the "Oil for Food" program — a horribly misnamed program that was supposed to allow food and medicine into Iraq, in exchange for dirt cheap oil. What was really happening here? It was an arrangement between the West and Saddam. Here’s how it worked. Saddam, and his ultra right elite continued to do business with the West. They in turn took the profits of this business, and used it for their own benefit, and did not uphold their side of the bargain to aid the suffering Iraqi people. Because of our attacks in the first Gulf War, the infrastructure of Iraq was devastated. Clean water, and ample food were scarce commodities. By continuing to deny his own people of the supplied they needed for survival, Saddam and his elite class were partially responsible for the deaths of almost a million women children and elderly. He blamed it on the sanctions, and on the US war that had damaged the country severely, and this was a partial truth that the people believed. At the same time, the West was telling its people (the few that were interested) that it was in fact Saddam that was causing the suffering. They were partially correct, and the masses bought it, and became disinterested. All along, I saw the sham: The West got their oil, Saddam and his wealthy elite Baathists got their money, and to hell with all the dying people. It was the perfect method for the west to weaken Iraq’s foundation while the pigs at the top continued to wallow in their wealth. Then came the inspections, really just another ruse to soften Iraq up more for a long planned invasion, orchestrated by Zionists like Wolfowitz and Perle, and by oil barons like Bush and Cheney. Now we see the results of all the planning. I’ll let you guess as to how things will turn out. * * * So, what’s the point here? First of all, my point is that the option of getting rid of Saddam Hussein was not previously pursued seriously, and that in fact, his continued presence was desired by the US gov’t, until that time came when it would be convenient to take him out. What would I have done differently? So much. What follows is my plan on how we should handle many other situations where a despotic regime threatens its own people and its neighbors. What so few here understand is that I have not been complaining that the US is doing TOO MUCH, but that it is NOT DOING NEARLY ENOUGH. What follows is a slightly modified version of a previous post: OK. ARE YOU READY TO IGNORE THIS? How to peacefully Democratize a foreign, despotic regime: After long and thorough deliberation to determine that a regime is unequivocally despotic, the UN organizes a truly international, multilateral delegation to go into the capital city. 1. A UN delegation representing the vast majority of countries sets up shop in the Capital City to oversee affairs, and to begin broadcasting objective information to the rest of the world about the true conditions there. They are escorted by a minor security apparatus for basic protection. The understanding is that if a hair is touched on any of the delegation, the world’s wrath righteously will follow. Of course, there would have to be a strong potential< fighting force available to the UN waiting in the wings. I am not unaware that force is a necessary deterrent< This delegation has a few functions, mainly: A. To ensure human rights are not being violated. B. To enable an apparatus for true Democratic elections to take place in the country, with the current leader’s ‘full cooperation and support’ (coerced or otherwise). Any resistance on the part of said leader will of course be broadcast worldwide, and new, more vigorous steps towards gaining compliance would be enacted. Elections would be funded by the countries own domestic revenues, unless outside assistance was required, in which case the UN would foot the bill, with the expectation that the country in question would eventually repay it. The elections would of course be closely regulated to ensure fairness and accuracy. C. As a possible contingency in circumstances of non-compliance, an international tribunal would be set up. This tribunal would be designed to present evidence and testimony about the officials in question, and would be protected, legislated and guarded by the international community. The genius of this proposal comes from two main factors: 1. True Credibility: The very close adherence to ideals of international law, and universally (now) accepted standards of human rights. By following these precepts, the international force gives itself the moral authority to be present, and places the burden of doubt not on the enforcers, but upon the despotic regime itself. Because the procedures would honestly be employing peaceful methods, without simply the false rhetoric of such, there would be no question of their validity. This is the basis of gaining true credibility. 2. True Multilateralism: One of the key factors towards this method succeeding is the need for the delegation to truly be multilateral — i.e. representing a vast
… read more »
Response:
I AM GLAD SADDAM HUSSEIN IS OUSTED.
<snip This by no means indicates that I supported the war. In fact, I have,
<snip Any questions?
Yes. One wonders how the people dancing in Baghdad would receive your wonderful argumentation. — Eduardo Suastegui "Test everything; Hold on to the good." (Remove 701 when replying via e-mail)
Response:
I agree with most of what you have said here. The sanctions were horrible, although I agreed with them at the time. They did keep Saddam from building another powerful army and kept him from other WMD….but it also destroyed a people. For that I regret my support of the sanctions. Bush should have encouraged the Shiites and the Kurds to finish what he started rather than betraying them. I’ll take some blame for that too. I always deplored that betrayal…but I wanted to stop the killing. I didn’t know about the promises he made until too late. So I supported him stopping the war when he did. I didn’t know about the standing by and letting Saddam killing those who had responded to our call. For that Bush earns the title SCUM. For all the good that this new freedom may be, it can not erase the evil of that betrayal….and George Jr. was as supportive of his father as any one else. You didn’t see him up on the talk shows condemning the betrayal. He and his father betrayed those people…..period. NOW! I am afraid the UN will never be able to do these democratic missions. The UN is not a democratic institution. Perhaps we should pressure it to become a democratic institution…probably not. I would be for scrapping it altogether…but if we started a new democratic international body of the willing…..well….the result would be obvious—-a brand new world war III. Today was a good day for Bush, and it looks good for all that love democracy and freedom. This war has had its ups and downs. Tomorrow is another day! There were reasons why thinking people were skeptical about this war. I hope not….but tomorrow may bring repercussions that we saw when we first formulated our position but seem to have disappeared today. It looks good now, but it has only started. Beneath the joy there is already apparent anger at Bush. He has promised things that he may not be able to deliver. He has done that before to these people so I suspect patience will be thin. Bush has built a campfire on a grassy prairie, but we still have to cook our dinner, roast the marshmallows, make the coffee, and put the fire out without burning down the prairie. Sandstorms and high winds can come up anytime in this region of the world. Randy R. Cox
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I AM GLAD SADDAM HUSSEIN IS OUSTED. <snip This by no means indicates that I supported the war. In fact, I have, <snip Any questions? Yes. One wonders how the people dancing in Baghdad would receive your wonderful argumentation. — Eduardo Suastegui "Test everything; Hold on to the good." (Remove 701 when replying via e-mail)
Response:
"You’re an idiot".
BlackWater Dave Zero Brain Death Captain Compassion Each of you has presented yourself as a conservative, with whom I have many disagreements. I don’t expect any of you will agree with me now, but I do expect that each of you is at least in large degree an independent thinker, interested in objective debate and discussion. We have held strongly opposing opinions, but I respect each of you and consider my time spent here to be more instructive through your involvement. Now that I have finished ‘massaging your egos’ (to put it in PC terms), I have a request for you. I am interested in reading your takes on my post, as I have come to expect from you a respectable and intelligent response. You are welcome to simply respond as the above poster has responded, by calling me an idiot, and have done with it. Well? What do you say? s.w.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – This goes out to all the mind-dead Party zealots who are doing their worst for the Republican Reich who now rule America: I AM GLAD SADDAM HUSSEIN IS OUSTED. I bet you just can’t believe I’m saying that, but I’ve been against Saddam Hussein all along. I have wanted him to be ousted ever since I learned about his villainy long ago, before the first Gulf War. Yes, I am more well informed than the average person, its a personal policy of mine to know what’s going on, and I have hated the man for over a decade. This by no means indicates that I supported the war. In fact, I have, as most know, considered this war an abomination against all American ideals since it first was suggested by G.W. Bush over a year and a half ago. "But, how can you hold both views, Sky Walker? They contradict one another. You hate the man, but you want to reward him by allowing him to continue ruling. You are a hypocrite." WRONG. I have supported, suggested, explained, discussed numerous other means by which to depose Saddam Hussein starting quite a while back. First of all, let’s look at what the international community did to try and get Saddam out of Iraq. 1. In an earlier time, when Saddam was fighting Iran, a mutual US/Iraq enemy, the United States, under the control of the Republican Party, armed Saddam with terrible weapons, and supported his gassing of Kurds, and his killing of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Iranians. This was something that many liberals at the time completely opposed. We saw Saddam for what he was, and tried to stop the Republicans from strengthening this dictators hold over his people, and the threat he posed to his neighbors. The Republicans in the US continued to support Saddam, regardless of the loud outcry of the liberals at the time. 2. Before Saddam invaded Kuwait, he checked in with his allies in the first Bush administration to ask permission. In thinly veiled terms, he got that permission — we know this now as the Glaspie incident — look it up if you don’t know what I’m talking about. Bush Sr. set up Saddam, his ally days earlier, so as to increase US presence in the Middle East and begin the campaign that we are seeing today coming to full fruition. 3. After the Gulf War, the US ostensibly could not get rid of Saddam Hussein, because international consensus was against us invading Iraq. What we did instead is ask the Shiites in the south, and the Kurds in the north to rise up, more or less promising them support if they did so. When the uprisings began, what did the US do? Did we gather international support to stop Saddam and aid the uprisings? Of course, we can see today that if we wanted to push a propaganda campaign to allow us to do this, we could have easily excused our support of the Shiites and Kurds to topple Saddam. We didn’t do that. We stood back, just as observers on the scene (US forces were present), and watched Saddam brutally repress and kill thousands of Shiites and Kurds. We even gave Saddam clearance to take helicopters and tanks into an area to do this. This is history. Look it up. Not only did we do nothing, we practically HELPED Saddam to kill these people. And yes, this was still under the Bush Sr. administration. 4. Believe it or not, but I consider Clinton as another part of the problem of American duplicity and hegemony. During his administration we saw a continuation of policy towards Iraq that supposedly was hurting Saddam Hussein, but indeed it was not, it was helping him. During this period we saw the imposition of the "Oil for Food" program — a horribly misnamed program that was supposed to allow food and medicine into Iraq, in exchange for dirt cheap oil. What was really happening here? It was an arrangement between the West and Saddam. Here’s how it worked. Saddam, and his ultra right elite continued to do business with the West. They in turn took the profits of this business, and used it for their own benefit, and did not uphold their side of the bargain to aid the suffering Iraqi people. Because of our attacks in the first Gulf War, the infrastructure of Iraq was devastated. Clean water, and ample food were scarce commodities. By continuing to deny his own people of the supplied they needed for survival, Saddam and his elite class were partially responsible for the deaths of almost a million women children and elderly. He blamed it on the sanctions, and on the US war that had damaged the country severely, and this was a partial truth that the people believed. At the same time, the West was telling its people (the few that were interested) that it was in fact Saddam that was causing the suffering. They were partially correct, and the masses bought it, and became disinterested. All along, I saw the sham: The West got their oil, Saddam and his wealthy elite Baathists got their money, and to hell with all the dying people. It was the perfect method for the west to weaken Iraq’s foundation while the pigs at the top continued to wallow in their wealth. Then came the inspections, really just another ruse to soften Iraq up more for a long planned invasion, orchestrated by Zionists like Wolfowitz and Perle, and by oil barons like Bush and Cheney. Now we see the results of all the planning. I’ll let you guess as to how things will turn out. * * * So, what’s the point here? First of all, my point is that the option of getting rid of Saddam Hussein was not previously pursued seriously, and that in fact, his continued presence was desired by the US gov’t, until that time came when it would be convenient to take him out. What would I have done differently? So much. What follows is my plan on how we should handle many other situations where a despotic regime threatens its own people and its neighbors. What so few here understand is that I have not been complaining that the US is doing TOO MUCH, but that it is NOT DOING NEARLY ENOUGH. What follows is a slightly modified version of a previous post: OK. ARE YOU READY TO IGNORE THIS? How to peacefully Democratize a foreign, despotic regime: After long and thorough deliberation to determine that a regime is unequivocally despotic, the UN organizes a truly international, multilateral delegation to go into the capital city. 1. A UN delegation representing the vast majority of countries sets up shop in the Capital City to oversee affairs, and to begin broadcasting objective information to the rest of the world about the true conditions there. They are escorted by a minor security apparatus for basic protection. The understanding is that if a hair is touched on any of the delegation, the world’s wrath righteously will follow. Of course, there would have to be a strong potential< fighting force available to the UN waiting in the wings. I am not unaware that force is a necessary deterrent< This delegation has a few functions, mainly: A. To ensure human rights are not being violated. B. To enable an apparatus for true Democratic elections to take place in the country, with the current leader’s ‘full cooperation and support’ (coerced or otherwise). Any resistance on the part of said leader will of course be broadcast worldwide, and new, more vigorous steps towards gaining compliance would be enacted. Elections would be funded by the countries own domestic revenues, unless outside assistance was required, in which case the UN would foot the bill, with the expectation that the country in question would eventually repay it. The elections would of course be closely regulated to ensure fairness and accuracy. C. As a possible contingency in circumstances of non-compliance, an international tribunal would be set up. This tribunal would be designed to present evidence and testimony about the officials in question, and would be protected, legislated and guarded by the international community. The genius of this proposal comes from two main factors: 1. True Credibility: The very close adherence to ideals of international law, and universally (now) accepted standards of human rights. By following these precepts, the international force gives itself the moral authority to be present, and places the burden of doubt not on the enforcers, but upon the despotic regime itself. Because the procedures would honestly be employing peaceful methods, without simply the false rhetoric of such, there would be no question of their validity. This is the basis of gaining true credibility. 2. True Multilateralism: One of the key factors towards this method succeeding is the need for the delegation to truly be multilateral — i.e. representing a vast majority of the world’s nations. Because of the credibility factor, presented above, few if any countries would want to be seen as non participatory. Each country would like to have that credibility given to itself. The necessity is not that absolutely ALL nations be represented, but that few abstain, and these should themselves not be strong democratic nations. Imagine this system were enacted to handle the Iraq crisis. Which nation in the world would not want to be part of a TRULY peaceful action with the purpose of honestly and peacefully making Iraq a better place? With an international delegation, completely and honestly dedicated to peace, which despot in their right mind would do anything to impede their progress? None, because it would be instantly and thoroughly understood than any such an action would
… read more »
Response:
This goes out to all the mind-dead Party zealots who are doing their worst for the Republican Reich who now rule America: I AM GLAD SADDAM HUSSEIN IS OUSTED. I bet you just can’t believe I’m saying that, but I’ve been against Saddam Hussein all along. I have wanted him to be ousted ever since I learned about his villainy long ago, before the first Gulf War. Yes, I am more well informed than the average person, its a personal policy of mine to know what’s going on, and I have hated the man for over a decade. This by no means indicates that I supported the war. In fact, I have, as most know, considered this war an abomination against all American ideals since it first was suggested by G.W. Bush over a year and a half ago. "But, how can you hold both views, Sky Walker? They contradict one another. You hate the man, but you want to reward him by allowing him to continue ruling. You are a hypocrite." WRONG. I have supported, suggested, explained, discussed numerous other means by which to depose Saddam Hussein starting quite a while back. First of all, let’s look at what the international community did to try and get Saddam out of Iraq. 1. In an earlier time, when Saddam was fighting Iran, a mutual US/Iraq enemy, the United States, under the control of the Republican Party, armed Saddam with terrible weapons, and supported his gassing of Kurds, and his killing of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Iranians. This was something that many liberals at the time completely opposed. We saw Saddam for what he was, and tried to stop the Republicans from strengthening this dictators hold over his people, and the threat he posed to his neighbors. The Republicans in the US continued to support Saddam, regardless of the loud outcry of the liberals at the time. 2. Before Saddam invaded Kuwait, he checked in with his allies in the first Bush administration to ask permission. In thinly veiled terms, he got that permission — we know this now as the Glaspie incident — look it up if you don’t know what I’m talking about. Bush Sr. set up Saddam, his ally days earlier, so as to increase US presence in the Middle East and begin the campaign that we are seeing today coming to full fruition. 3. After the Gulf War, the US ostensibly could not get rid of Saddam Hussein, because international consensus was against us invading Iraq. What we did instead is ask the Shiites in the south, and the Kurds in the north to rise up, more or less promising them support if they did so. When the uprisings began, what did the US do? Did we gather international support to stop Saddam and aid the uprisings? Of course, we can see today that if we wanted to push a propaganda campaign to allow us to do this, we could have easily excused our support of the Shiites and Kurds to topple Saddam. We didn’t do that. We stood back, just as observers on the scene (US forces were present), and watched Saddam brutally repress and kill thousands of Shiites and Kurds. We even gave Saddam clearance to take helicopters and tanks into an area to do this. This is history. Look it up. Not only did we do nothing, we practically HELPED Saddam to kill these people. And yes, this was still under the Bush Sr. administration. 4. Believe it or not, but I consider Clinton as another part of the problem of American duplicity and hegemony. During his administration we saw a continuation of policy towards Iraq that supposedly was hurting Saddam Hussein, but indeed it was not, it was helping him. During this period we saw the imposition of the "Oil for Food" program — a horribly misnamed program that was supposed to allow food and medicine into Iraq, in exchange for dirt cheap oil. What was really happening here? It was an arrangement between the West and Saddam. Here’s how it worked. Saddam, and his ultra right elite continued to do business with the West. They in turn took the profits of this business, and used it for their own benefit, and did not uphold their side of the bargain to aid the suffering Iraqi people. Because of our attacks in the first Gulf War, the infrastructure of Iraq was devastated. Clean water, and ample food were scarce commodities. By continuing to deny his own people of the supplied they needed for survival, Saddam and his elite class were partially responsible for the deaths of almost a million women children and elderly. He blamed it on the sanctions, and on the US war that had damaged the country severely, and this was a partial truth that the people believed. At the same time, the West was telling its people (the few that were interested) that it was in fact Saddam that was causing the suffering. They were partially correct, and the masses bought it, and became disinterested. All along, I saw the sham: The West got their oil, Saddam and his wealthy elite Baathists got their money, and to hell with all the dying people. It was the perfect method for the west to weaken Iraq’s foundation while the pigs at the top continued to wallow in their wealth. Then came the inspections, really just another ruse to soften Iraq up more for a long planned invasion, orchestrated by Zionists like Wolfowitz and Perle, and by oil barons like Bush and Cheney. Now we see the results of all the planning. I’ll let you guess as to how things will turn out. * * * So, what’s the point here? First of all, my point is that the option of getting rid of Saddam Hussein was not previously pursued seriously, and that in fact, his continued presence was desired by the US gov’t, until that time came when it would be convenient to take him out. What would I have done differently? So much. What follows is my plan on how we should handle many other situations where a despotic regime threatens its own people and its neighbors. What so few here understand is that I have not been complaining that the US is doing TOO MUCH, but that it is NOT DOING NEARLY ENOUGH. What follows is a slightly modified version of a previous post: OK. ARE YOU READY TO IGNORE THIS? How to peacefully Democratize a foreign, despotic regime: After long and thorough deliberation to determine that a regime is unequivocally despotic, the UN organizes a truly international, multilateral delegation to go into the capital city. 1. A UN delegation representing the vast majority of countries sets up shop in the Capital City to oversee affairs, and to begin broadcasting objective information to the rest of the world about the true conditions there. They are escorted by a minor security apparatus for basic protection. The understanding is that if a hair is touched on any of the delegation, the world’s wrath righteously will follow. Of course, there would have to be a strong potential< fighting force available to the UN waiting in the wings. I am not unaware that force is a necessary deterrent< This delegation has a few functions, mainly: A. To ensure human rights are not being violated. B. To enable an apparatus for true Democratic elections to take place in the country, with the current leader’s ‘full cooperation and support’ (coerced or otherwise). Any resistance on the part of said leader will of course be broadcast worldwide, and new, more vigorous steps towards gaining compliance would be enacted. Elections would be funded by the countries own domestic revenues, unless outside assistance was required, in which case the UN would foot the bill, with the expectation that the country in question would eventually repay it. The elections would of course be closely regulated to ensure fairness and accuracy. C. As a possible contingency in circumstances of non-compliance, an international tribunal would be set up. This tribunal would be designed to present evidence and testimony about the officials in question, and would be protected, legislated and guarded by the international community. The genius of this proposal comes from two main factors: 1. True Credibility: The very close adherence to ideals of international law, and universally (now) accepted standards of human rights. By following these precepts, the international force gives itself the moral authority to be present, and places the burden of doubt not on the enforcers, but upon the despotic regime itself. Because the procedures would honestly be employing peaceful methods, without simply the false rhetoric of such, there would be no question of their validity. This is the basis of gaining true credibility. 2. True Multilateralism: One of the key factors towards this method succeeding is the need for the delegation to truly be multilateral — i.e. representing a vast majority of the world’s nations. Because of the credibility factor, presented above, few if any countries would want to be seen as non participatory. Each country would like to have that credibility given to itself. The necessity is not that absolutely ALL nations be represented, but that few abstain, and these should themselves not be strong democratic nations. Imagine this system were enacted to handle the Iraq crisis. Which nation in the world would not want to be part of a TRULY peaceful action with the purpose of honestly and peacefully making Iraq a better place? With an international delegation, completely and honestly dedicated to peace, which despot in their right mind would do anything to impede their progress? None, because it would be instantly and thoroughly understood than any such an action would entail THE ENTIRE WORLD COMING DOWN ON THEM WITH A RIGHTEOUS FURY. To resist would be instant, and deserved suicide. And the added bonus: Hospitals would not be filled with innocent dead and wounded children, mothers, fathers and elderly. True Democracy would be the goal, not enforced hegemony — there would be no underhanded grab for war profits, no grab for resources such as oil etc.
… read more »
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – This goes out to all the mind-dead Party zealots who are doing their worst for the Republican Reich who now rule America: I AM GLAD SADDAM HUSSEIN IS OUSTED. I bet you just can’t believe I’m saying that, but I’ve been against Saddam Hussein all along. I have wanted him to be ousted ever since I learned about his villainy long ago, before the first Gulf War. Yes, I am more well informed than the average person, its a personal policy of mine to know what’s going on, and I have hated the man for over a decade. This by no means indicates that I supported the war. In fact, I have, as most know, considered this war an abomination against all American ideals since it first was suggested by G.W. Bush over a year and a half ago. "But, how can you hold both views, Sky Walker? They contradict one another. You hate the man, but you want to reward him by allowing him to continue ruling. You are a hypocrite." WRONG. I have supported, suggested, explained, discussed numerous other means by which to depose Saddam Hussein starting quite a while back.
Fun to observe the back peddling. First of all, let’s look at what the international community did to try and get Saddam out of Iraq. 1. In an earlier time, when Saddam was fighting Iran, a mutual US/Iraq enemy, the United States, under the control of the Republican Party, armed Saddam with terrible weapons, and supported his gassing of Kurds, and his killing of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Iranians. This was something that many liberals at the time completely opposed. We saw Saddam for what he was, and tried to stop the Republicans from strengthening this dictators hold over his people, and the threat he posed to his neighbors. The Republicans in the US continued to support Saddam, regardless of the loud outcry of the liberals at the time.
OK so it is right to continue to do so…twisted logic. 2. Before Saddam invaded Kuwait, he checked in with his allies in the first Bush administration to ask permission. In thinly veiled terms, he got that permission — we know this now as the Glaspie incident — look it up if you don’t know what I’m talking about. Bush Sr. set up Saddam, his ally days earlier, so as to increase US presence in the Middle East and begin the campaign that we are seeing today coming to full fruition.
Times change and so do allies….France has become a clear example. it’s so obvious it’s painful to even enter this discussion. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 3. After the Gulf War, the US ostensibly could not get rid of Saddam Hussein, because international consensus was against us invading Iraq. What we did instead is ask the Shiites in the south, and the Kurds in the north to rise up, more or less promising them support if they did so. When the uprisings began, what did the US do? Did we gather international support to stop Saddam and aid the uprisings? Of course, we can see today that if we wanted to push a propaganda campaign to allow us to do this, we could have easily excused our support of the Shiites and Kurds to topple Saddam. We didn’t do that. We stood back, just as observers on the scene (US forces were present), and watched Saddam brutally repress and kill thousands of Shiites and Kurds. We even gave Saddam clearance to take helicopters and tanks into an area to do this. This is history. Look it up. Not only did we do nothing, we practically HELPED Saddam to kill these people. And yes, this was still under the Bush Sr. administration.
Yes. practically. But, we did not help him, we merely turned out head in the interest of what you are now advocating. Please. don’t go away mad. Just go away. (sniped the balance of backpeddling)
Response:
I would imagine they would understand his position better than you think. I would imagine you wouldn’t have to look far to find onlookers who have a family member at home or in the hospital with a missing limb. You didn’t see any of those people out there jumping up and down did you. Because you don’t see them doesn’t mean they are not there. Those of us who seek the truth, seek to see all that we can see. Tunnel vision never rendered wisdom. Randy R. Cox
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I AM GLAD SADDAM HUSSEIN IS OUSTED. <snip This by no means indicates that I supported the war. In fact, I have, <snip Any questions? Yes. One wonders how the people dancing in Baghdad would receive your wonderful argumentation. — Eduardo Suastegui "Test everything; Hold on to the good." (Remove 701 when replying via e-mail)
Response:
With an international delegation, completely and honestly dedicated to peace, which despot in their right mind would do anything to impede their progress? None, because it would be instantly and thoroughly understood than any such an action would entail THE ENTIRE WORLD COMING DOWN ON THEM WITH A RIGHTEOUS FURY. To resist would be instant, and deserved suicide.
This is the whole problem with your argument. You are assuming that a government will support the overthrow if its own ideas. That is not the case, never has been, and never will be. You’re telling me that a small group of people from international sources going into a country with a radio tower and spouting off about how bad their government is will lead the people in that country to revolt? Ever stop to think that the government in that country already has the infrastructure in place to spread propaganda to the civilian population at large? Has the ability to organize demonstrations of people all around that radio tower, demanding it be removed? Where does world opinion go with that? seeing millions of people protesting the invasion of their homeland by people whose only goal is to bad mouth their leader? I’ll tell you where it goes. Straight back to France. Is there a better method to effect a regime change in Iraq? Probably. Is there a better way to ensure that the Iraqi regime is removed from power and not pulling the puppet strings of a new government? Probably not. Your method would result in a lengthy feud where an impotent organization is attempting to control the opinion of the masses. The masses don’t understand reason. The masses understand survival. If survival requires they oppose the delegation with the radio tower to avoid pissing off their current leader, they are not going to support it, no matter how much hope it offers them. Furthermore, what would happen if your plan started to work, and the people began to turn away from the leader? The exact same thing that is happening now. You’re assuming that everyone will change at the same time. You’re assuming that the leader cannot organize his hardliners into committing to a battle, even if the forces arrayed against them could easily defeat an army twice their size. What you are suggesting will result in a war very similar to the current one, except there will be international support (assuming you could get the UN to agree to the plan in the first place)
Response:
You don’t have to explain. It was already CRYSTAL CLEAR to us. "You’re an idiot". But at least now you want to be on the winning team.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – This goes out to all the mind-dead Party zealots who are doing their worst for the Republican Reich who now rule America: I AM GLAD SADDAM HUSSEIN IS OUSTED. I bet you just can’t believe I’m saying that, but I’ve been against Saddam Hussein all along. I have wanted him to be ousted ever since I learned about his villainy long ago, before the first Gulf War. Yes, I am more well informed than the average person, its a personal policy of mine to know what’s going on, and I have hated the man for over a decade. This by no means indicates that I supported the war. In fact, I have, as most know, considered this war an abomination against all American ideals since it first was suggested by G.W. Bush over a year and a half ago. "But, how can you hold both views, Sky Walker? They contradict one another. You hate the man, but you want to reward him by allowing him to continue ruling. You are a hypocrite." WRONG. I have supported, suggested, explained, discussed numerous other means by which to depose Saddam Hussein starting quite a while back. First of all, let’s look at what the international community did to try and get Saddam out of Iraq. 1. In an earlier time, when Saddam was fighting Iran, a mutual US/Iraq enemy, the United States, under the control of the Republican Party, armed Saddam with terrible weapons, and supported his gassing of Kurds, and his killing of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Iranians. This was something that many liberals at the time completely opposed. We saw Saddam for what he was, and tried to stop the Republicans from strengthening this dictators hold over his people, and the threat he posed to his neighbors. The Republicans in the US continued to support Saddam, regardless of the loud outcry of the liberals at the time. 2. Before Saddam invaded Kuwait, he checked in with his allies in the first Bush administration to ask permission. In thinly veiled terms, he got that permission — we know this now as the Glaspie incident — look it up if you don’t know what I’m talking about. Bush Sr. set up Saddam, his ally days earlier, so as to increase US presence in the Middle East and begin the campaign that we are seeing today coming to full fruition. 3. After the Gulf War, the US ostensibly could not get rid of Saddam Hussein, because international consensus was against us invading Iraq. What we did instead is ask the Shiites in the south, and the Kurds in the north to rise up, more or less promising them support if they did so. When the uprisings began, what did the US do? Did we gather international support to stop Saddam and aid the uprisings? Of course, we can see today that if we wanted to push a propaganda campaign to allow us to do this, we could have easily excused our support of the Shiites and Kurds to topple Saddam. We didn’t do that. We stood back, just as observers on the scene (US forces were present), and watched Saddam brutally repress and kill thousands of Shiites and Kurds. We even gave Saddam clearance to take helicopters and tanks into an area to do this. This is history. Look it up. Not only did we do nothing, we practically HELPED Saddam to kill these people. And yes, this was still under the Bush Sr. administration. 4. Believe it or not, but I consider Clinton as another part of the problem of American duplicity and hegemony. During his administration we saw a continuation of policy towards Iraq that supposedly was hurting Saddam Hussein, but indeed it was not, it was helping him. During this period we saw the imposition of the "Oil for Food" program — a horribly misnamed program that was supposed to allow food and medicine into Iraq, in exchange for dirt cheap oil. What was really happening here? It was an arrangement between the West and Saddam. Here’s how it worked. Saddam, and his ultra right elite continued to do business with the West. They in turn took the profits of this business, and used it for their own benefit, and did not uphold their side of the bargain to aid the suffering Iraqi people. Because of our attacks in the first Gulf War, the infrastructure of Iraq was devastated. Clean water, and ample food were scarce commodities. By continuing to deny his own people of the supplied they needed for survival, Saddam and his elite class were partially responsible for the deaths of almost a million women children and elderly. He blamed it on the sanctions, and on the US war that had damaged the country severely, and this was a partial truth that the people believed. At the same time, the West was telling its people (the few that were interested) that it was in fact Saddam that was causing the suffering. They were partially correct, and the masses bought it, and became disinterested. All along, I saw the sham: The West got their oil, Saddam and his wealthy elite Baathists got their money, and to hell with all the dying people. It was the perfect method for the west to weaken Iraq’s foundation while the pigs at the top continued to wallow in their wealth. Then came the inspections, really just another ruse to soften Iraq up more for a long planned invasion, orchestrated by Zionists like Wolfowitz and Perle, and by oil barons like Bush and Cheney. Now we see the results of all the planning. I’ll let you guess as to how things will turn out. * * * So, what’s the point here? First of all, my point is that the option of getting rid of Saddam Hussein was not previously pursued seriously, and that in fact, his continued presence was desired by the US gov’t, until that time came when it would be convenient to take him out. What would I have done differently? So much. What follows is my plan on how we should handle many other situations where a despotic regime threatens its own people and its neighbors. What so few here understand is that I have not been complaining that the US is doing TOO MUCH, but that it is NOT DOING NEARLY ENOUGH. What follows is a slightly modified version of a previous post: OK. ARE YOU READY TO IGNORE THIS? How to peacefully Democratize a foreign, despotic regime: After long and thorough deliberation to determine that a regime is unequivocally despotic, the UN organizes a truly international, multilateral delegation to go into the capital city. 1. A UN delegation representing the vast majority of countries sets up shop in the Capital City to oversee affairs, and to begin broadcasting objective information to the rest of the world about the true conditions there. They are escorted by a minor security apparatus for basic protection. The understanding is that if a hair is touched on any of the delegation, the world’s wrath righteously will follow. Of course, there would have to be a strong potential< fighting force available to the UN waiting in the wings. I am not unaware that force is a necessary deterrent< This delegation has a few functions, mainly: A. To ensure human rights are not being violated. B. To enable an apparatus for true Democratic elections to take place in the country, with the current leader’s ‘full cooperation and support’ (coerced or otherwise). Any resistance on the part of said leader will of course be broadcast worldwide, and new, more vigorous steps towards gaining compliance would be enacted. Elections would be funded by the countries own domestic revenues, unless outside assistance was required, in which case the UN would foot the bill, with the expectation that the country in question would eventually repay it. The elections would of course be closely regulated to ensure fairness and accuracy. C. As a possible contingency in circumstances of non-compliance, an international tribunal would be set up. This tribunal would be designed to present evidence and testimony about the officials in question, and would be protected, legislated and guarded by the international community. The genius of this proposal comes from two main factors: 1. True Credibility: The very close adherence to ideals of international law, and universally (now) accepted standards of human rights. By following these precepts, the international force gives itself the moral authority to be present, and places the burden of doubt not on the enforcers, but upon the despotic regime itself. Because the procedures would honestly be employing peaceful methods, without simply the false rhetoric of such, there would be no question of their validity. This is the basis of gaining true credibility. 2. True Multilateralism: One of the key factors towards this method succeeding is the need for the delegation to truly be multilateral — i.e. representing a vast majority of the world’s nations. Because of the credibility factor, presented above, few if any countries would want to be seen as non participatory. Each country would like to have that credibility given to itself. The necessity is not that absolutely ALL nations be represented, but that few abstain, and these should themselves not be strong democratic nations. Imagine this system were enacted to handle the Iraq crisis. Which nation in the world would not want to be part of a TRULY peaceful action with the purpose of honestly and peacefully making Iraq a better place? With an international delegation, completely and honestly dedicated to peace, which despot in their right mind
… read more »
Response:
Question:
Following International Outcry, Nigerian Woman Will Not Face Stoning 3/26/2002 – The case against Nigerian woman Safiya Hussaini Tungar Dudu, accused of adultery under newly implemented Islamic law, was overturned on Monday on procedural grounds, releasing her from a sentence of being buried up to the waist and stoned to death. At least ten Nigerian states have adopted Islamic sharia law codes that have put strict restrictions on women. Many women’s rights and human rights organizations, including the Feminist Majority Foundation, decried the sentence. More than 3300 email messages were sent to Nigerian officials by feminists via the Feminist.org Take Action Center. Dudu’s sentence is part of an alarming trend in Nigeria. In January 2001, seventeen-year-old Bariya Ibrahim Magazu of Zamfara, Nigeria was sentenced to 180 lashes for having premarital sex and making false accusations against men in her village; her sentence was later reduced to 100 lashes. And in August, a 20-year-old Zamfara woman was sentenced to a public flogging of 100 lashes with a cane after admitting to an extramarital affair. Feminist Majority Foundation President Eleanor Smeal called this latest sharia sentencing, "a symptom of Talibanization and an example of the spread of fundamentalist extremism." Media Resources: ABC News – March 26, 2002 – Science is not belief, but the will to find out.
Response:
| Following International Outcry, Nigerian Woman Will Not Face Stoning | | 3/26/2002 – The case against Nigerian woman Safiya Hussaini Tungar | Dudu, accused of adultery under newly implemented Islamic law, was | overturned on Monday on procedural grounds, releasing her from a | sentence of being buried up to the waist and stoned to death. At least | ten Nigerian states have adopted Islamic sharia law codes that have | put strict restrictions on women. Many women’s rights and human rights | organizations, including the Feminist Majority Foundation, decried the | sentence. More than 3300 email messages were sent to Nigerian | officials by feminists via the Feminist.org Take Action Center. | | Dudu’s sentence is part of an alarming trend in Nigeria. In January | 2001, seventeen-year-old Bariya Ibrahim Magazu of Zamfara, Nigeria was | sentenced to 180 lashes for having premarital sex and making false | accusations against men in her village; her sentence was later reduced | to 100 lashes. And in August, a 20-year-old Zamfara woman was | sentenced to a public flogging of 100 lashes with a cane after | admitting to an extramarital affair. Feminist Majority Foundation | President Eleanor Smeal called this latest sharia sentencing, "a | symptom of Talibanization and an example of the spread of | fundamentalist extremism." | Of course all those "humanitarians" cared NOT A JOT about the brutal punishments inflicted on MEN for sharia transgressions! Phil | Media Resources: ABC News – March 26, 2002 | – | Science is not belief, but the will to find out.
Response:
Question:
Buck, I agree with everything you wrote below. That cig boat was built for offshore racing, and it definitely has its place. And in an offshore race, with the crew wearing earplugs, open them baffles up and let er roar. Its funny though that the guy thought his rig was fast enough to want to race us. Just like I’d never even think about trying to race that drag boat. My point was that you can get performance without making a lot of noise and bothering a bunch of people. And I didn’t take it as a flame. Don W. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Don, I think the speed of your boat virsus the Cig just goes w/o saying. Look at the horsepower to weight ratio. Kinda like the Ranger and Bullet bass boat all the rednecks run in my area. Big outboard engines, and probably the fastest boats on the lake. I have yet to see one pass me in 4′-5′ water though. That Cig would walk away from you in the big stuff. My point, different boats making speed in different conditions. Put that Cig on Lake of the Ozarks on a holiday weekend next to you and my money is on the Cig. A Porsche will smoke a lifted jeep on a curvy road. Put the jeep on a pig trail and the Posche doesn’t stand a chance. Not intended to be a flame. Buck #183
Response:
Dave, Agreed. And if you are racing, that 2-5MPH is golden. If you are running a pleasure boat it may not be as important as keeping the peace with your neighbors on the lake. Basically I agree with what you said below. Don W. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Dave, You’ll get a lot more "performance" from a supercharger or turbocharger boosting your intake manifold pressure to ~10PSI above ambient than you’ll ever get from running open headers and a funky cam. Ah, but you’ll get even MORE performance iff you add tuned headers and thru-transoms on top of that blower. Any wrench-head worth his salt knows that the secret to maximizing performance is allowing the engine to breath. The more fuel/air that you pack into a cylinder, the more power it produces. Part of that formula is getting the exhaust out of the cylinder quickly so to make more room for a fresh fuel/air charge. It doesn’t do you much good to put all that "stuff" on the intake, if you can’t get the spent charge out to make room for the new charge. Also, not everyone has the kind of money to build up a full race motor (and they’re usually not very reliable for recreational useage). However, "stage 1" modifications (Intake, cam and exhaust) can net anywhere from 30 to 70 more horsepower from a big block engine. That can translate to a 2 to 5 MPH increase in speed. That may not sound like much, but it can make the difference between winning and losing. We were out testing props on the tunnel boat one day and a guy with a cig. boat running _3_ v8 powered stern drives came around and wanted to race. He looped around us a couple of times while we were changing props and then put the pedal down to show us what he could do. We put the radar gun on him and laughed. He was doing about 75 to 80 mph flat out. Our SST 120 tunnel boat did around 109 mph with a stock Mercury outboard power head, and racing lower unit. If we had raced him we would have had around a 30 mph edge. Come to think of it maybe we should have convinced him to race title for title… I wonder who would’ve won that race, if there was a 3 foot chop running? Again, anyone into performance knows that speed is a function of power vs. weight. My 17′ Hydrostream YT tunnel, would bump the 80 MPH mark with a stock Merc 175. My current 24" Checkmate is lucky to hit 70 MPH with a 425 HP 502. But I (and more importantly, my wife) would get stomach pains after hitting even small chop with the Hydrostream, but the Checkmate slices right through all but heavy cruiser wakes, with nary a bump. It all depends on your application. Oh yeah… and his boat made a _LOT_ of noise too… My point is that loud is loud, and fast is fast. The two are not necessarily equivalent. No, but the same boat, with the same engine, will jump from 1 to 3 MPH when you flip the switch on the Captain’s call and go from thru-prop, to thru-transom. But I agree that having a loud boat comes with a certain set of responsibilities. You have to be aware of the impact that your boat will have on others. If you don’t have a means (Captain’s call) to silence the engine(s), then you should respect others and NOT run the engine(s) at "quiet times". Dave
Response:
Try Teague Marine, or Livorsi Marine. They both have websites that will pull up w/ a search. Livorsi is also the maker of Gaffrig, so I’m sure their stuff is quality. Buck #183
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Thanks, who carries them? Bill Who makes good mufflers? How big are they. I run a big jet boat, so there is no through hub exhaust possible. What I did to take the edge off of the exhaust bark, was to install slide in baffles. They’re like $89 a pair, and they do make a big difference. They just slide into the 4" exhaust opening, and they’re held in by a bolt. Dave
Response:
I did a quick check on the Internet and bassettracing.com and marinemuffler.com both have 4 and 4.5 inch slide in mufflers/baffles for through hull applications. cheers — Dennis or and http://home.surewest.net/ddodd (home page)
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Who makes good mufflers? How big are they. I run a big jet boat, so there is no through hub exhaust possible. Bill I purchased an ‘88 Four Winns 211 Liberator a few years ago. It’s equipped with a Ford 460 and through hull exhaust. The previous owner had put mufflers in (sorry I don’t know which brand). I never had a boat with through hull exhaust so I wanted to put in a "captains call" type of valve that would allow me to switch over from through hull to through prop exhaust. As it turned out, my wife and I decided that the sound (while loud) didn’t really bother us that much. I think the mufflers takes the edge off the sound making it less harsh than open pipes. I also think that the sound of a big block is less annoying than a small block. Sure it’s just a 21′ wannabe offshore style boat that will barely hit 65mph but it’s our favorite boat and we’ve had several trailerable boats including a brand new 25′ SeaRay Sundancer. Then again, I just had to drive by my neighbor’s house today to lust after his 27′ Fountain…. cheers — Dennis or and http://home.surewest.net/ddodd (home page) Getting back to the original question…will putting a couple of Salsbury mufflers on the through hull quiet it down enough to keep the passengers happy or is it still a lot louder than through prop. Don, I think the speed of your boat virsus the Cig just goes w/o saying. Look at
Response:
Vetus makes mufflers. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Who makes good mufflers? How big are they. I run a big jet boat, so there is no through hub exhaust possible. What I did to take the edge off of the exhaust bark, was to install slide in baffles. They’re like $89 a pair, and they do make a big difference. They just slide into the 4" exhaust opening, and they’re held in by a bolt. Dave
Response:
Thanks, who carries them? Bill – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Who makes good mufflers? How big are they. I run a big jet boat, so there is no through hub exhaust possible. What I did to take the edge off of the exhaust bark, was to install slide in baffles. They’re like $89 a pair, and they do make a big difference. They just slide into the 4" exhaust opening, and they’re held in by a bolt. Dave
Response:
Who makes good mufflers? How big are they. I run a big jet boat, so there is no through hub exhaust possible. Bill – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I purchased an ‘88 Four Winns 211 Liberator a few years ago. It’s equipped with a Ford 460 and through hull exhaust. The previous owner had put mufflers in (sorry I don’t know which brand). I never had a boat with through hull exhaust so I wanted to put in a "captains call" type of valve that would allow me to switch over from through hull to through prop exhaust. As it turned out, my wife and I decided that the sound (while loud) didn’t really bother us that much. I think the mufflers takes the edge off the sound making it less harsh than open pipes. I also think that the sound of a big block is less annoying than a small block. Sure it’s just a 21′ wannabe offshore style boat that will barely hit 65mph but it’s our favorite boat and we’ve had several trailerable boats including a brand new 25′ SeaRay Sundancer. Then again, I just had to drive by my neighbor’s house today to lust after his 27′ Fountain…. cheers — Dennis or and http://home.surewest.net/ddodd (home page) Getting back to the original question…will putting a couple of Salsbury mufflers on the through hull quiet it down enough to keep the passengers happy or is it still a lot louder than through prop. Don, I think the speed of your boat virsus the Cig just goes w/o saying. Look at
Response:
Who makes good mufflers? How big are they. I run a big jet boat, so there is no through hub exhaust possible. What I did to take the edge off of the exhaust bark, was to install slide in baffles. They’re like $89 a pair, and they do make a big difference. They just slide into the 4" exhaust opening, and they’re held in by a bolt. Dave
CP Performance has several styles of silencers/mufflers, http://www.cpperformance.com/products/exhaust.htm I’ve always loved the sound of open exhaust on a boat, provided that it is not a 2am. As a kid I remember being at my Grandfathers lake house and hearing the inboard ChrisCrafts in the 60’s and the big block Jet Boats in the 70’s. I have my own lake house now and still love to hear the boats, it’s just a sound that I associate pleasurably with lakes and boating. I would much rather hear a healthy big block exhaust than my neighbors lawn mower/weed wacker/leaf blower, etc.
Response:
Who makes good mufflers? How big are they. I run a big jet boat, so there is no through hub exhaust possible.
What I did to take the edge off of the exhaust bark, was to install slide in baffles. They’re like $89 a pair, and they do make a big difference. They just slide into the 4" exhaust opening, and they’re held in by a bolt. Dave
Response:
Dave, You’ll get a lot more "performance" from a supercharger or turbocharger boosting your intake manifold pressure to ~10PSI above ambient than you’ll ever get from running open headers and a funky cam.
Ah, but you’ll get even MORE performance iff you add tuned headers and thru-transoms on top of that blower. Any wrench-head worth his salt knows that the secret to maximizing performance is allowing the engine to breath. The more fuel/air that you pack into a cylinder, the more power it produces. Part of that formula is getting the exhaust out of the cylinder quickly so to make more room for a fresh fuel/air charge. It doesn’t do you much good to put all that "stuff" on the intake, if you can’t get the spent charge out to make room for the new charge. Also, not everyone has the kind of money to build up a full race motor (and they’re usually not very reliable for recreational useage). However, "stage 1" modifications (Intake, cam and exhaust) can net anywhere from 30 to 70 more horsepower from a big block engine. That can translate to a 2 to 5 MPH increase in speed. That may not sound like much, but it can make the difference between winning and losing. We were out testing props on the tunnel boat one day and a guy with a cig. boat running _3_ v8 powered stern drives came around and wanted to race. He looped around us a couple of times while we were changing props and then put the pedal down to show us what he could do. We put the radar gun on him and laughed. He was doing about 75 to 80 mph flat out. Our SST 120 tunnel boat did around 109 mph with a stock Mercury outboard power head, and racing lower unit. If we had raced him we would have had around a 30 mph edge. Come to think of it maybe we should have convinced him to race title for title…
I wonder who would’ve won that race, if there was a 3 foot chop running? Again, anyone into performance knows that speed is a function of power vs. weight. My 17′ Hydrostream YT tunnel, would bump the 80 MPH mark with a stock Merc 175. My current 24" Checkmate is lucky to hit 70 MPH with a 425 HP 502. But I (and more importantly, my wife) would get stomach pains after hitting even small chop with the Hydrostream, but the Checkmate slices right through all but heavy cruiser wakes, with nary a bump. It all depends on your application. Oh yeah… and his boat made a _LOT_ of noise too… My point is that loud is loud, and fast is fast. The two are not necessarily equivalent.
No, but the same boat, with the same engine, will jump from 1 to 3 MPH when you flip the switch on the Captain’s call and go from thru-prop, to thru-transom. But I agree that having a loud boat comes with a certain set of responsibilities. You have to be aware of the impact that your boat will have on others. If you don’t have a means (Captain’s call) to silence the engine(s), then you should respect others and NOT run the engine(s) at "quiet times". Dave
Response:
Many of the creeks around here have community groups that have successfully enacted noise restrictions. doug – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I highly recommend thru the prop. It is quieter, and you don’t get the exhaust gas blowing back over the boat in a following wind when your idling. As for performance, my stock Maxum 21′ goes 55mph–quietly. I’ve often toyed with the thought of adding a supercharger to my single mercruiser V8, upping the prop pitch, adding planing trim tabs, and giving the next loud multi-engined $100K+ cig. boat that tries to blow by me a BIG surprise. 
Someone else said "If its too loud, you’re too old." That kind of thinking got a noise limit law passed here a couple of years ago, and now the water cops can write tickets to any boat that exceeds a certain dB from a certain distance. They can also pull you over, haul you in and measure the noise. (Lake Travis, Austin, TX). The people who live on the waterfront finally got fed up enough to put together a lobbying group that got the new rules passed. Its probably only a matter of time before other locales do the same. Good luck, Don W. My new boat has the option of exhausting thru the hull or I can get it thru the prop. The Mfg is asking which I prefer. My Merc engine choice comes std with thru the hull but I can opt out. I am thinking of opting out because I don’t care about the slight performance increase and prefer a quieter ride, but I don’t know if there is any compelling reason why thru the hull is better Please give me your advise as I am not familiar with the pro and cons of the choices.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Thru-hull continues to mystify me. It seems to me a testosterone thing. I’m not against testosterone – I just think we should harness all that energy and control it, not have it control us. Thru-hulls, depending on where you’ll be using them and what you’ll be doing with them, are simply unsociable, IMHO. It’s a very clear way of saying, "I have my rights – but you don’t have yours." Charles PS Yep – touched a nerve! ==== Charles T. Low www.boatdocking.com/ www.ctlow.ca/ I agree. The only reason to have through-hulls on a testosterone boat is to make sure everyone else knows you are around. The noise really is obnoxious.
Which proves once again that you know nothing about the sport of high performance boating and what makes an engine run to its fullest potential. Dave
Response:
I purchased an ‘88 Four Winns 211 Liberator a few years ago. It’s equipped with a Ford 460 and through hull exhaust. The previous owner had put mufflers in (sorry I don’t know which brand). I never had a boat with through hull exhaust so I wanted to put in a "captains call" type of valve that would allow me to switch over from through hull to through prop exhaust. As it turned out, my wife and I decided that the sound (while loud) didn’t really bother us that much. I think the mufflers takes the edge off the sound making it less harsh than open pipes. I also think that the sound of a big block is less annoying than a small block. Sure it’s just a 21′ wannabe offshore style boat that will barely hit 65mph but it’s our favorite boat and we’ve had several trailerable boats including a brand new 25′ SeaRay Sundancer. Then again, I just had to drive by my neighbor’s house today to lust after his 27′ Fountain…. cheers — Dennis or and http://home.surewest.net/ddodd (home page)
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Getting back to the original question…will putting a couple of Salsbury mufflers on the through hull quiet it down enough to keep the passengers happy or is it still a lot louder than through prop. Don, I think the speed of your boat virsus the Cig just goes w/o saying. Look at the horsepower to weight ratio. Kinda like the Ranger and Bullet bass boat all the rednecks run in my area. Big outboard engines, and probably the fastest boats on the lake. I have yet to see one pass me in 4′-5′ water though. That Cig would walk away from you in the big stuff. My point, different boats making speed in different conditions. Put that Cig on Lake of the Ozarks on a holiday weekend next to you and my money is on the Cig. A Porsche will smoke a lifted jeep on a curvy road. Put the jeep on a pig trail and the Posche doesn’t stand a chance. Not intended to be a flame. Buck #183 Dave, You’ll get a lot more "performance" from a supercharger or turbocharger boosting your intake manifold pressure to ~10PSI above ambient than you’ll ever get from running open headers and a funky cam. Yeah, we run tuned open exhausts on the stock tunnel boat classes but thats where people come pay to watch the race and listen to the noise. Oh… and turbo’s aren’t legal in stock classes either. We were out testing props on the tunnel boat one day and a guy with a cig. boat running _3_ v8 powered stern drives came around and wanted to race. He looped around us a couple of times while we were changing props and then put the pedal down to show us what he could do. We put the radar gun on him and laughed. He was doing about 75 to 80 mph flat out. Our SST 120 tunnel boat did around 109 mph with a stock Mercury outboard power head, and racing lower unit. If we had raced him we would have had around a 30 mph edge. Come to think of it maybe we should have convinced him to race title for title… Oh yeah… and his boat made a _LOT_ of noise too… My point is that loud is loud, and fast is fast. The two are not necessarily equivalent. I know a guy around here who has a drag boat that finishes a quarter mile run at over 220mph. Its fast _and_ loud. But I’ve never seen him drive it around the lake. Later, Don W. Thru-hull continues to mystify me. It seems to me a testosterone thing. I’m not against testosterone – I just think we should harness all that energy and control it, not have it control us. Thru-hulls, depending on where you’ll be using them and what you’ll be doing with them, are simply unsociable, IMHO. It’s a very clear way of saying, "I have my rights – but you don’t have yours." Charles PS Yep – touched a nerve! ==== Charles T. Low www.boatdocking.com/ www.ctlow.ca/ I agree. The only reason to have through-hulls on a testosterone boat is to make sure everyone else knows you are around. The noise really is obnoxious. Which proves once again that you know nothing about the sport of high performance boating and what makes an engine run to its fullest potential. Dave
Response:
Getting back to the original question…will putting a couple of Salsbury mufflers on the through hull quiet it down enough to keep the passengers happy or is it still a lot louder than through prop.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Don, I think the speed of your boat virsus the Cig just goes w/o saying. Look at the horsepower to weight ratio. Kinda like the Ranger and Bullet bass boat all the rednecks run in my area. Big outboard engines, and probably the fastest boats on the lake. I have yet to see one pass me in 4′-5′ water though. That Cig would walk away from you in the big stuff. My point, different boats making speed in different conditions. Put that Cig on Lake of the Ozarks on a holiday weekend next to you and my money is on the Cig. A Porsche will smoke a lifted jeep on a curvy road. Put the jeep on a pig trail and the Posche doesn’t stand a chance. Not intended to be a flame. Buck #183 Dave, You’ll get a lot more "performance" from a supercharger or turbocharger boosting your intake manifold pressure to ~10PSI above ambient than you’ll ever get from running open headers and a funky cam. Yeah, we run tuned open exhausts on the stock tunnel boat classes but thats where people come pay to watch the race and listen to the noise. Oh… and turbo’s aren’t legal in stock classes either. We were out testing props on the tunnel boat one day and a guy with a cig. boat running _3_ v8 powered stern drives came around and wanted to race. He looped around us a couple of times while we were changing props and then put the pedal down to show us what he could do. We put the radar gun on him and laughed. He was doing about 75 to 80 mph flat out. Our SST 120 tunnel boat did around 109 mph with a stock Mercury outboard power head, and racing lower unit. If we had raced him we would have had around a 30 mph edge. Come to think of it maybe we should have convinced him to race title for title… Oh yeah… and his boat made a _LOT_ of noise too… My point is that loud is loud, and fast is fast. The two are not necessarily equivalent. I know a guy around here who has a drag boat that finishes a quarter mile run at over 220mph. Its fast _and_ loud. But I’ve never seen him drive it around the lake. Later, Don W. Thru-hull continues to mystify me. It seems to me a testosterone thing. I’m not against testosterone – I just think we should harness all that energy and control it, not have it control us. Thru-hulls, depending on where you’ll be using them and what you’ll be doing with them, are simply unsociable, IMHO. It’s a very clear way of saying, "I have my rights – but you don’t have yours." Charles PS Yep – touched a nerve! ==== Charles T. Low www.boatdocking.com/ www.ctlow.ca/ I agree. The only reason to have through-hulls on a testosterone boat is to make sure everyone else knows you are around. The noise really is obnoxious. Which proves once again that you know nothing about the sport of high performance boating and what makes an engine run to its fullest potential. Dave
Response:
Dave, You’ll get a lot more "performance" from a supercharger or turbocharger boosting your intake manifold pressure to ~10PSI above ambient than you’ll ever get from running open headers and a funky cam. Yeah, we run tuned open exhausts on the stock tunnel boat classes but thats where people come pay to watch the race and listen to the noise. Oh… and turbo’s aren’t legal in stock classes either. We were out testing props on the tunnel boat one day and a guy with a cig. boat running _3_ v8 powered stern drives came around and wanted to race. He looped around us a couple of times while we were changing props and then put the pedal down to show us what he could do. We put the radar gun on him and laughed. He was doing about 75 to 80 mph flat out. Our SST 120 tunnel boat did around 109 mph with a stock Mercury outboard power head, and racing lower unit. If we had raced him we would have had around a 30 mph edge. Come to think of it maybe we should have convinced him to race title for title… Oh yeah… and his boat made a _LOT_ of noise too… My point is that loud is loud, and fast is fast. The two are not necessarily equivalent. I know a guy around here who has a drag boat that finishes a quarter mile run at over 220mph. Its fast _and_ loud. But I’ve never seen him drive it around the lake. Later, Don W. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Thru-hull continues to mystify me. It seems to me a testosterone thing. I’m not against testosterone – I just think we should harness all that energy and control it, not have it control us. Thru-hulls, depending on where you’ll be using them and what you’ll be doing with them, are simply unsociable, IMHO. It’s a very clear way of saying, "I have my rights – but you don’t have yours." Charles PS Yep – touched a nerve! ==== Charles T. Low www.boatdocking.com/ www.ctlow.ca/ I agree. The only reason to have through-hulls on a testosterone boat is to make sure everyone else knows you are around. The noise really is obnoxious. Which proves once again that you know nothing about the sport of high performance boating and what makes an engine run to its fullest potential. Dave
Response:
Don, I think the speed of your boat virsus the Cig just goes w/o saying. Look at the horsepower to weight ratio. Kinda like the Ranger and Bullet bass boat all the rednecks run in my area. Big outboard engines, and probably the fastest boats on the lake. I have yet to see one pass me in 4′-5′ water though. That Cig would walk away from you in the big stuff. My point, different boats making speed in different conditions. Put that Cig on Lake of the Ozarks on a holiday weekend next to you and my money is on the Cig. A Porsche will smoke a lifted jeep on a curvy road. Put the jeep on a pig trail and the Posche doesn’t stand a chance. Not intended to be a flame. Buck #183
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Dave, You’ll get a lot more "performance" from a supercharger or turbocharger boosting your intake manifold pressure to ~10PSI above ambient than you’ll ever get from running open headers and a funky cam. Yeah, we run tuned open exhausts on the stock tunnel boat classes but thats where people come pay to watch the race and listen to the noise. Oh… and turbo’s aren’t legal in stock classes either. We were out testing props on the tunnel boat one day and a guy with a cig. boat running _3_ v8 powered stern drives came around and wanted to race. He looped around us a couple of times while we were changing props and then put the pedal down to show us what he could do. We put the radar gun on him and laughed. He was doing about 75 to 80 mph flat out. Our SST 120 tunnel boat did around 109 mph with a stock Mercury outboard power head, and racing lower unit. If we had raced him we would have had around a 30 mph edge. Come to think of it maybe we should have convinced him to race title for title… Oh yeah… and his boat made a _LOT_ of noise too… My point is that loud is loud, and fast is fast. The two are not necessarily equivalent. I know a guy around here who has a drag boat that finishes a quarter mile run at over 220mph. Its fast _and_ loud. But I’ve never seen him drive it around the lake. Later, Don W. Thru-hull continues to mystify me. It seems to me a testosterone thing. I’m not against testosterone – I just think we should harness all that energy and control it, not have it control us. Thru-hulls, depending on where you’ll be using them and what you’ll be doing with them, are simply unsociable, IMHO. It’s a very clear way of saying, "I have my rights – but you don’t have yours." Charles PS Yep – touched a nerve! ==== Charles T. Low www.boatdocking.com/ www.ctlow.ca/ I agree. The only reason to have through-hulls on a testosterone boat is to make sure everyone else knows you are around. The noise really is obnoxious. Which proves once again that you know nothing about the sport of high performance boating and what makes an engine run to its fullest potential. Dave
Response:
Remember……If it’s too loud, you’re too old! Buck #183 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I strongly disagree! Thru hull is the only way for a proper boat. … You can and should have proper silencers… OK, I was too hot off the mark – sorry. I just remember the guy who fired up his completely unmuffled twin thru-hull exhausts to speed off at about 2 a.m. in a crowded holiday weekend marina – as an extreme example from among the many sociopaths – oh, no I didn’t mean to say that, sorry, emotions getting the better of me again… Functional mufflers would be great. As a friend pointed out to me privately, I have an above-water exhaust on my boat (www.ctlow.ca/Trojan26/)! With a muffler. I like its sound at low speeds. Wish it were quieter on plane. Charles ==== Charles T. Low www.boatdocking.com/ www.ctlow.ca/ ====
Response:
I highly recommend thru the prop. It is quieter, and you don’t get the exhaust gas blowing back over the boat in a following wind when your idling. As for performance, my stock Maxum 21′ goes 55mph–quietly. I’ve often toyed with the thought of adding a supercharger to my single mercruiser V8, upping the prop pitch, adding planing trim tabs, and giving the next loud multi-engined $100K+ cig. boat that tries to blow by me a BIG surprise. Someone else said "If its too loud, you’re too old." That kind of thinking got a noise limit law passed here a couple of years ago, and now the water cops can write tickets to any boat that exceeds a certain dB from a certain distance. They can also pull you over, haul you in and measure the noise. (Lake Travis, Austin, TX). The people who live on the waterfront finally got fed up enough to put together a lobbying group that got the new rules passed. Its probably only a matter of time before other locales do the same. Good luck, Don W. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – My new boat has the option of exhausting thru the hull or I can get it thru the prop. The Mfg is asking which I prefer. My Merc engine choice comes std with thru the hull but I can opt out. I am thinking of opting out because I don’t care about the slight performance increase and prefer a quieter ride, but I don’t know if there is any compelling reason why thru the hull is better Please give me your advise as I am not familiar with the pro and cons of the choices.
Response:
I strongly disagree! Thru hull is the only way for a proper boat. Who wants a boat that blows bubbles. You can and should have proper silencers. It took me a while to get used to trolling with 2 stoke bubble blowers after years of nice 8-V (muffled) sounds. Not to mention a much cleaner wake to run lures in. — Ron White Check out my boatbuilding website for HAMMER a 30′ open sportfisher: www.concentric.net/~knotreel/index.htm
Response:
I strongly disagree! Thru hull is the only way for a proper boat. … You
can and should have proper silencers… OK, I was too hot off the mark – sorry. I just remember the guy who fired up his completely unmuffled twin thru-hull exhausts to speed off at about 2 a.m. in a crowded holiday weekend marina – as an extreme example from among the many sociopaths – oh, no I didn’t mean to say that, sorry, emotions getting the better of me again… Functional mufflers would be great. As a friend pointed out to me privately, I have an above-water exhaust on my boat (www.ctlow.ca/Trojan26/)! With a muffler. I like its sound at low speeds. Wish it were quieter on plane. Charles ==== Charles T. Low www.boatdocking.com/ www.ctlow.ca/ ====
Response:
A few years ago Mercury had an option called "silent choice" I believe. It offers you the option of prop or thru transom and is controlled from the helm. I think it was a $1,500 or so option that may or may not still be available. Good luck. Doug. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – My new boat has the option of exhausting thru the hull or I can get it thru the prop. The Mfg is asking which I prefer. My Merc engine choice comes std with thru the hull but I can opt out. I am thinking of opting out because I don’t care about the slight performance increase and prefer a quieter ride, but I don’t know if there is any compelling reason why thru the hull is better Please give me your advise as I am not familiar with the pro and cons of the choices.
Response:
Up to you. You can get some performance with proper Propeller tuning and weight distribution. Noise is a lot more, for you, and for everyone else anywhere near — for that matter, weather permitting, you can hear those a-holes miles away, but that’s just my opinion. The really sinfull thing about through-hull exhausts is when your generator goes straight thru, sideways, pointing at me, trying to sleep, at the dock or anchorage. That’s when I really ~yearn~ to share feelings with fellow, thru-hull users. R <snip – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – My new boat has the option of exhausting thru the hull or I can get it thru the prop. The Mfg is asking which I prefer. My Merc engine choice comes std with thru the hull but I can opt out. I am thinking of opting out because I don’t care about the slight performance increase and prefer a quieter ride, but I don’t know if there is any compelling reason why thru the hull is better Please give me your advise as I am not familiar with the pro and cons of the choices.
Response:
My new boat has the option of exhausting thru the hull or I can get it thru the prop. The Mfg is asking which I prefer. My Merc engine choice comes std with thru the hull but I can opt out. I am thinking of opting out because I don’t care about the slight performance increase and prefer a quieter ride, but I don’t know if there is any compelling reason why thru the hull is better Please give me your advise as I am not familiar with the pro and cons of the choices.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Thru-hull continues to mystify me. It seems to me a testosterone thing. I’m not against testosterone – I just think we should harness all that energy and control it, not have it control us. Thru-hulls, depending on where you’ll be using them and what you’ll be doing with them, are simply unsociable, IMHO. It’s a very clear way of saying, "I have my rights – but you don’t have yours." Charles PS Yep – touched a nerve! ==== Charles T. Low www.boatdocking.com/ www.ctlow.ca/
I agree. The only reason to have through-hulls on a testosterone boat is to make sure everyone else knows you are around. The noise really is obnoxious. — Harry Krause – - If you don’t come in on Sunday, you needn’t come in on Monday. – Management sign threatening garment workers at Triangle Shirtwaist Factory, 1901.
Response:
Thru-hull continues to mystify me. It seems to me a testosterone thing. I’m not against testosterone – I just think we should harness all that energy and control it, not have it control us. Thru-hulls, depending on where you’ll be using them and what you’ll be doing with them, are simply unsociable, IMHO. It’s a very clear way of saying, "I have my rights – but you don’t have yours." Charles PS Yep – touched a nerve! ==== Charles T. Low www.boatdocking.com/ www.ctlow.ca/ ==== – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – My new boat has the option of exhausting thru the hull or I can get it thru the prop. The Mfg is asking which I prefer. My Merc engine choice comes std with thru the hull but I can opt out. I am thinking of opting out because I don’t care about the slight performance increase and prefer a quieter ride, but I don’t know if there is any compelling reason why thru the hull is better Please give me your advise as I am not familiar with the pro and cons of the choices.
Response:
Question:
I put this in another post, but since I often don’t read all the threads as I just don’t have time, I thought i’d put this on a new post so everone would have a chance at finding it if they want. I was walking past a leftist bookstore yesterday and since I had a few minutes to stop I was looking over the magazine rack outside which contained alot of mags that would never show up in other newstands no matter how large. There were magazines put out by prisoners in jail, radical environmentalists, and one that caught my eye and I had to go buy it. it’s called "DENDRITE Human Rights in Mental Health" There is a web site attached which is part of a consumer advocacy group: www.mindfreedom.org It was quite revealing. and I had no idea there has been this movement on for 30 years. There is info in there that is pretty scarry – about a political movement to force medications on patients involuntarily on an outpatient basis and how they are fighting it. How NAMI is supporting it with 11 million dollars donated by the pharmacutical industry and what those meds do to you that they don’t tell you. I urge everyone to at least familiarize themselves with these issues if not become members. They don’t speak to DID in particular but do speak to how the DSM is mostly political and very little scientific info put into how things get pathologised only for the benifit of getting insurance dollars to pay for the treatment. Gays and Lesbians lobbied hard and got themselves out of the DSM – it is no longer considered a disorder. Please look up the web site and read the info and make up your own mind. Alot of these issues especially the ones about the abuses of hosiptalization pertain to dissociatives and alot of what people here have been talking about are issues in common with this organization. There is no reason to recreate the wheel ( start a new movement) when one exists and is well organized. It is open to all and encourages people who are "survivors" ( of the mental health system) to stand up and speak out against the discriminazation that the "mental health" system and society do to people with mental disabilities. I love the picture on the front of the magazine "DENDRITE" There is a picture of 5 people and the person in front has a t-shirt that says: I Am NOT A Case And I Don’t Need TO Be Managed! ACESTAR
Response:
How NAMI is supporting it with 11 million dollars donated by the pharmacutical industry and what those meds do to you that they don’t tell you.
NAMI is a pet project in action for Tipper Gore. If her husband gets into office, we be hurting!! Of course, the other choice is not any better…. IPlural
Response:
That web site has alot to say about Tipper Gore. Even though she claims to have suffered from depression. She claims to be completely cured thus she distances herself form actually having a disability or even recognizing how people with mental disabilities are stigmatized in our society. She has come out for forced outpaitent drugging without patient consent. This is something that goes against the Constitution and is being put up by NAMI as a goal to be enforced in all 50 states by the year 2002. It has been only defeated in NY and California because of the activism of MH consumers themselves fighting against the big money of the drug companines who would make big bucks if the government were paying tax dollars to enforce involuntary drugging of anyone who was not fitting into the small window of what is conceived as "normal" There are more choices than the republicrats. Since only about 30 percent of the elegible population votes anyway it is possible if people would stop thinking in black and white terms to make an alternative reality. ACESTAR – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – How NAMI is supporting it with 11 million dollars donated by the pharmacutical industry and what those meds do to you that they don’t tell you. NAMI is a pet project in action for Tipper Gore. If her husband gets into office, we be hurting!! Of course, the other choice is not any better…. IPlural
Response:
Question:
wa…@theglobe.com wrote: > I put the newsgroups back in line. Might ring a few bells. > >> A book was just published, by Michael Joseph, which is a British branch of > >> Penguin Books, called "Psychic > >> Warrior" where a guy describes being one of these remote viewers. A lot of > >> that work was done at the Stanford Research Institute in Palo Alto, > >> California. > correction: > The author is actually David Morehouse, a former CIA "Stargate" agent.
Dr. Ross did not name the author, but rather said that Michael Joseph was the publisher (the London publisher). St. Martin’s Press is the New York publisher. David Morehouse is indeed the author. Followups back to alt.mindcontrol. — Allen L. Barker http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~alb
Response:
I put the newsgroups back in line. Might ring a few bells. >> A book was just published, by Michael Joseph, which is a British branch of >> Penguin Books, called "Psychic >> Warrior" where a guy describes being one of these remote viewers. A lot of >> that work was done at the Stanford Research Institute in Palo Alto, >> California.
correction: The author is actually David Morehouse, a former CIA "Stargate" agent. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Here is an excerpt from _The Washington Post_, Aug. 7, 1977, >"Psychic Spying? The CIA, the Pentagon and the Russians >Probe the Military Potential of Parapsychology," by John >L. Wilhelm. Note the connections to electronics research >and the team headed by a *bionics* expert. > [...] > About the same time that the second Navy contract was > given to SRI, the scientific assistant to the secretary > of the Navy, Dr. Sam Koslov, received a routine briefing > on the various research projects, including SRI’s. As > the briefer flashed his charts onto the screen and began > to speak, Koslov stormily interrupted: "What the hell is > that about?" > Among the glowing words on the projected chart, the section > describing SRI’s work was labeled: "ELF AND MIND CONTROL." > ELF stands for "extremely low frequency" electromagnetic > waves, from the very slow brain frequencies up to about 100 > cycles per second. The Navy is interested in ELF because its > Project Seafarer (formerly Project Sanguine) is a proposed > communications system using a network of ELF antennas to > broadcast to submarines underwater. Psychic researchers are > interested in ELF because many theorists believe that radiation > at the low, ELF frequencies is responsible for psychic > communications. > But the "Mind Control" label really upset Koslov. He ordered > the SRI investigations for the Navy stopped and cancelled another > $35,000 in Navy funds slated for remote viewing work. "*We* > [Koslov's emphasis] do not fund programs in this area," the > outspoken scientist states. "If you ask me, `Do you think it’s > a pile of crap?’ I do, and you can quote me." In March of this > year, Koslov again insisted that the Navy is "simply out of this > business. I don’t believe it’s the function of the military to > support parapsychology research." > Contrary to Koslov’s assertions, the Navy is still supporting > psychic research. An interdisciplinary team at the Navy’s > Electronics Laboratory Center in San Diego has been continuing > some of the research begun at SRI. Led by an expert in bionics, > the $100,000, two-year project may be cut because of tight research > money. > [...]
Allen, I’ve seen and heard of many so-called psychial attacks/hauntings. In fact, I attended classes for such for several years, just trying to acquaint myself with this stuff. Several women have claimed sexual assault, suspecting astral/psychial. I believe/seen that a person can be given a heart-attack/stroke in this manner. Well, it holds water. I ordered this book yesterday and expect to receive it later next week. The author’s name is not what Dr. Colin Ross claimed, nor the publisher; but the title and the sub-title was valid (CIA Stargate). This book may or may not shed much light on this subject, but I may take it back to "class", just to clarify any further possibilities. As far as I know, there is not much a person can do to protect himself from such. I suspect that satan plays an active role in some of these (unfounded) attacks/harrassment, where the astral-projectionist may not even be aware that he is even "out". For those that are consciously "out", I suspect that satan may be subtly leading some of these astrals into more inhumane crimes (things they wouldn’t normally do, like peeping, killing, and raping). I am most interested to see if this book might confirm/hint of astral "possession trance", causing MPD (a ddnos). Of coarse, the spirit guides/leeches of these psychials could also be causing such as this (mindcontrol). It certainly holds water. It certainly holds truth. Seeing that much of our government research along these lines originally came from the asian/african cultures, the government certainly must see/understand that we are entertaining/invoking spirits/spiritual for much of this work. It’s bad, cause you wont be able to control the final blow. Sa*an is just fine-tuning this stuff. I may try and make a few contacts, from this book. —–== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==—– http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Response:
geo wrote: > Typographical error correction: > Here is the correct info, for the "Psychic Warrior" Book: > A book was just published, by Michael Joseph, which is a British branch of > Penguin Books, called "Psychic > Warrior" where a guy describes being one of these remote viewers. A lot of > that work was done at the Stanford Research Institute in Palo Alto, > California.
I have set followups to alt.mindcontrol. Here is an excerpt from _The Washington Post_, Aug. 7, 1977, "Psychic Spying? The CIA, the Pentagon and the Russians Probe the Military Potential of Parapsychology," by John L. Wilhelm. Note the connections to electronics research and the team headed by a *bionics* expert. [...] About the same time that the second Navy contract was given to SRI, the scientific assistant to the secretary of the Navy, Dr. Sam Koslov, received a routine briefing on the various research projects, including SRI’s. As the briefer flashed his charts onto the screen and began to speak, Koslov stormily interrupted: "What the hell is that about?" Among the glowing words on the projected chart, the section describing SRI’s work was labeled: "ELF AND MIND CONTROL." ELF stands for "extremely low frequency" electromagnetic waves, from the very slow brain frequencies up to about 100 cycles per second. The Navy is interested in ELF because its Project Seafarer (formerly Project Sanguine) is a proposed communications system using a network of ELF antennas to broadcast to submarines underwater. Psychic researchers are interested in ELF because many theorists believe that radiation at the low, ELF frequencies is responsible for psychic communications. But the "Mind Control" label really upset Koslov. He ordered the SRI investigations for the Navy stopped and cancelled another $35,000 in Navy funds slated for remote viewing work. "*We* [Koslov's emphasis] do not fund programs in this area," the outspoken scientist states. "If you ask me, `Do you think it’s a pile of crap?’ I do, and you can quote me." In March of this year, Koslov again insisted that the Navy is "simply out of this business. I don’t believe it’s the function of the military to support parapsychology research." Contrary to Koslov’s assertions, the Navy is still supporting psychic research. An interdisciplinary team at the Navy’s Electronics Laboratory Center in San Diego has been continuing some of the research begun at SRI. Led by an expert in bionics, the $100,000, two-year project may be cut because of tight research money. [...] — Allen L. Barker http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~alb
Response:
This proves my theory. My claim, all along, is that part of this is remote viewing and remote harrassment, done by out-of-body psychics (astral projection). Well, your reference proved, or at least confirmed this, but it is referenced to government controlled and funded psychial remote viewing/harrassment. Jesus, this is for real, people. You can’t integrate with one of these demons. I am speaking of The Colin Ross Second Interview, and I will paste the details. I told you that some of this is this is witchcraft. Colin talks like he wants this severed, at the knees: He even speaks of lobbying against this sort of thing, though I could see where such could be useful in law inforcement and survellance. I will certainly look into this book, below. Ross Wrote: Stargate was a remote viewing project. The intelligence agencies, all in an interconnected fashion, spent millions of dollars on remote viewing which is basically having psychics lie down on a table and try and see what is going on at some location in a foreign country to gather intelligence information. called "Psychic Warrior" where a guy describes being one of these remote viewers. A lot of that work was done at the Stanford Research Institute in Palo Alto, California. I mention that partly because if you think creating Multiple Personality Disorder is too bizarre and strange to be real … again, you just have to look at the LSD, the brain implant research, some of the sensory A book was just published, by Michael Joseph, which is a British branch of Penguin Books, deprivation, the Ames Leaf Room, using millions and millions of dollars to pay psychics to spy on other countries while lying on tables in the USA. This complete article is at: http://www.mk.net/~mcf/ckln02.htm —–== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==—– http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Response:
Question:
Maintaining Military Standards By John F. McManus Kelly Flinn is now a civilian. the celebrated graduate of the Air Force Academy and the first female ever to fly a B-52 bomber accepted a general discharge rather than face a court martial over charges of adultery and fraternizing with an enlisted soldier. The honorable discharge she had initially sought was denied her and, without it, she won’t be able to continue flying for the Air Force Reserve. Feminists would have us believe that th e only charge against Flinn was that she committed adultery. But this 26 year old trail blazing female jet pilot was about to be disciplined by the Air Force for disobeying a formal order that she break off her adulterous relationship with another woman’s husband, for having another affair with an enlisted man, and for lying about her escapades when questioned by her superiors. Kelly Flinn had been told so often that she was special that she apparently felt Air Force’s rules didn’t apply to her. She was a national symbol. She had been on 60 minutes and was the subject of plenty of other media attention. Where did the Air Force get the right to interfere with her off duty life? Wasn’t she being singled out because she was female? Never mind that during the previous year the Air Force had prosecuted 67 others, 60 of them men. Never mind that the military is special and that it has to have unique rules such as barring fraternization between officers and enlisted personnel. Never mind that the wife of the man she invited into her bed is the real victim here. Air Force Chief of Staff General Ronald Fogelman put Flinn’s case into proper perspective when, during testimony before Senate Appropriations Committee, he declared, "This is an issue about an officer entrusted to fly nuclear weapons who disobeyed an order, who lied. That’s what this is all about." According to the military’s code, lying is punishable by five years in prison,Adultery can earn another year. Disobeying a formal order piles up more time behind bars. What did Kelly Flinn offer as an excuse for her admitted transgressions? "I was only 25 years old at the time and … very confused," she whined on 60 minutes. Confused about rules of conduct for officers? Wasn’t she an Air Force Academy graduate whose four years of training is built around strict obedience to rules? Should anyone confused about relatively minor policies be given the awesome responsibilities of piloting a nuclear armed plane? Flinn was considered so special she once piloted a B-52 carrying secretary of the Air Force Sheila Widnall. When her indiscretions could no longer be tolerated and the date was set for her court martial, she figured that the Air Force,rather than she,was in a terrible bind. so she offered a deal: She would resign rather than have the Air Force get a lot of bad publicity over the treatment she was receiving a long as it was an honorable discharge so he could continue to fly in the Air Force Reserve. Air Force officials confirmed that there is no precedent for someone to resign and receive an honorable discharge after the date of a court martial has been set. Nevertheless, the day before the trail was supposed to begin, Flinn formally sent her request for special treatment. The case landed before Air Force Secretary Windall. A graduate of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, She became that school’s first alumna to head the engineering faculty. In 1979, when she was named the chairwoman of the entire faculty, she described herself as "a radical feminist." It must have been painful for Windnall to conclude that the Air Force’s first female bomber pilot could no longer serve. After postponing the date for the court martial, Widnall ruled on May 22nd that an honorable discharge was "unacceptable." Was Flinn treated unfairly because she was a woman? The secretary maintained, "No I absolutely reject that." As is so often the case, the larger issue is being ignored: Women don’t belong in combat situations. If Flinn thinks she was singled out because of her gender, just imagine how she could have been singled out because as a POW in the Hanoi Hilton.The North Vietnamese brutalized our male pilots; just think what they might have done to a female. No worthwhile nation should ever put its women in such danger. Military service isn’t a right, but a privilege. The battlefield is no place for social experimentation. The need in the services is for the physically strongest and the most psychologically able to kill. Flying an airplane in peacetime may be exciting, but war is hell and women don’t belong in the middle of it. Kelly Flinn, who deserved much worse, got her general discharge and a requirement that she pay the Air Force $18,000 for failing to fulfill her five year obligation. But even if her record had been completely pure, her precedent setting career shouldn’t be viewed as a victory. Whether she knows it or not, she was used by those who are determined to weaken our military. Now the nation will likely see her used even more by sexual revolutionaries. Watch for television appearances, speaking engagements, books, and movies. Our guess is that we haven’t heard the last of Kelly Flinn.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Maintaining Military Standards By John F. McManus Kelly Flinn is now a civilian. the celebrated graduate of the Air Force Academy and the first female ever to fly a B-52 bomber accepted a general discharge rather than face a court martial over charges of adultery and fraternizing with an enlisted soldier. The honorable discharge she had initially sought was denied her and, without it, she won’t be able to continue flying for the Air Force Reserve. Feminists would have us believe that th e only charge against Flinn was that she committed adultery. But this 26 year old trail blazing female jet pilot was about to be disciplined by the Air Force for disobeying a formal order that she break off her adulterous relationship with another woman’s husband, for having another affair with an enlisted man, and for lying about her escapades when questioned by her superiors. Kelly Flinn had been told so often that she was special that she apparently felt Air Force’s rules didn’t apply to her. She was a national symbol. She had been on 60 minutes and was the subject of plenty of other media attention. Where did the Air Force get the right to interfere with her off duty life? Wasn’t she being singled out because she was female? Never mind that during the previous year the Air Force had prosecuted 67 others, 60 of them men. Never mind that the military is special and that it has to have unique rules such as barring fraternization between officers and enlisted personnel. Never mind that the wife of the man she invited into her bed is the real victim here.
Who is the "real victim" when the US military routinely set up a brothels in an area that they operate? The words "double standard" were invented for the US military’s duplicity and hypocrisy in these "adultery" cases. The net effect has been to make the military look about as foolish as it possibly can… -SJ
Response:
Who is the "real victim" when the US military routinely set up a brothels in an area that they operate?
<sound f/x: screeching brakes Excuse me? The US Military? When and where. In my studies of miltary history, the US Army has had one of the worst cases of overblown morality in history. — | http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/index.html | | "History is the vast and tangled web | | of Conspiracy." -Anon. |
Response:
The military enforces laws mandated by congress. In general, however, they attempt to ignore adultery. However, when a criminal act is brought to a commander’s attention, the first thing the commander must do is investigate. The fact that an enlisted soldier accused an officer of violating the law can not be ignored. The commander, if I read the case correctly, investigated. First he was lied to (enough to end the career of any officer). Then, when it became obvious that he was lied to, he ordered the lieutenant to stop. She disobeyed the order. Now, the commander could ignore an officer who lies and disobeys and order. However, it is unlikely. Once he decided court martial was his choice, he HAD to charge Flynn with adultery, as that is the only way that the prosecuter can talk about the "what" in the lie and the disobedience. Since it is technically illegal, you can’t talk about it in a court case unless it is charged. The sequence would go: Prosecutor asks the commander "What was the lie?" The commander would answerr "That she wasn’t having an affair with the husband of this enlisted person." The objection from the defense attorney would be "criminal behavior not charged" and the judge would sustain the objection and the case is lost. The "double standard" is that the average commander would rather NOT do this at all. Unfortunately, they are placed in the position where they don’t have many choices when the behavior is formally brought to their attention. By the way, do you have documentation which shows the military setting up brothels? Especially would like to see documentation of the "routine" part of your post, as I wouldn’t be surprised to find it has happened some time in the last two hundred years. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snipped Who is the "real victim" when the US military routinely set up a brothels in an area that they operate? The words "double standard" were invented for the US military’s duplicity and hypocrisy in these "adultery" cases. The net effect has been to make the military look about as foolish as it possibly can… -SJ
Response:
Who is the "real victim" when the US military routinely set up a brothels in an area that they operate?
Where? For that matter, what does it have to do with anything? The words "double standard" were invented for the US military’s duplicity and hypocrisy in these "adultery" cases.
And the words "lying under oath" and "conduct unbecomming a commissioned officer" and lets not forget "contracry to the good order and discipline of a military organization", while not invented by Lt Flynn, were exemplified at their worst. The net effect has been to make the military look about as foolish as it possibly can…
Bull, Flynn got caught, Flynn got busted, people whined. Later… Tim
Response:
Maintaining Military Standards By John F. McManus
<snip the Kelly Flinn story up to here, I agreed. Lt. Flynn disobeyed a direct order, then expected special treatment. Good ridance. As is so often the case, the larger issue is being ignored: Women don’t belong in combat situations. If Flinn thinks she was singled out because of her gender, just imagine how she could have been singled out because as a POW in the Hanoi Hilton.The North Vietnamese brutalized our male pilots; just think what they might have done to a female. No worthwhile nation should ever put its women in such danger.
Really? I suppose you’ve never heard of the Night Witches, Russia’s female combat pilots who flew biplanes as couriers and attack pilots. Their speciality was cutting engines and gliding into German formations, cutting loose with machine guns with no warning. Also from Russia, numerous partisans were women, as were many member of the French Marquis. One of the war’s deadliest snipers was a Russian woman who survived Stalingrad. Israel has used women as pilots and tank crewmembers. Military service isn’t a right, but a privilege. The battlefield is no place for social experimentation. The need in the services is for the physically strongest and the most psychologically able to kill. Flying an airplane in peacetime may be exciting, but war is hell and women don’t belong in the middle of it.
The same arguement was used to keep Jews and blacks out of the army. Ever see a woman defend her young? I’ll show you able to kill. In the past few years, we’ve seen that women are fully capable of doing jobs it was thought were too "manly".. police, fire,etc.. Kelly Flinn, who deserved much worse, got her general discharge and a requirement that she pay the Air Force $18,000 for failing to fulfill her five year obligation. But even if her record had been completely pure, her precedent setting career shouldn’t be viewed as a victory. Whether she knows it or not, she was used by those who are determined to weaken our military. Now the nation will likely see her used even more by sexual revolutionaries. Watch for television appearances, speaking engagements, books, and movies. Our guess is that we haven’t heard the last of Kelly Flinn.
For every Kelly Flinn, there are twenty Col. Cannmeyers (sp?), brave women who serve with pride and honor, and exceed the standards set for them. Women who understand what duty, honor, country means. You seek to make an example of Lt. Flinn. What of the 160 other female combat pilots in the Navy and Air Force? — | http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/index.html | | "History is the vast and tangled web | | of Conspiracy." -Anon. |
Response:
says… Kelly Flinn, who deserved much worse,
I hope she writes a book and really gives her side of the story. As far as I’m concerned, the military looked really bad in this whole thing, and your opinion on the matter is out of touch with reality.
Response:
Question:
Hi all, I may be overly suspicious, but something about this post struck me as off, maybe it was: <"ISAA has a low <flat rate of $20.00 a year for membership. ISAA members can be members of <any other organization, size-oriented or otherwise." To me this sounds more profit oriented than cause oriented. If I am wrong I apologize in advance to the author of the post. But I did want to express my doubts and give caution to anyone about sending money without more confirmation about this organization. Todoe — For more information about this service, send e-mail to:
Response:
Greetings! The International Size Acceptance Association (ISAA) is now beginning its first membership drive. ISAA is an activist organization with a mission to bring the message of size acceptance and self acceptance to the world. ISAA is for ALL sizes, and will focus on educating the uninformed, providing a personal touch in its care for its members and those who need ISAA. Size discrimination will no longer go unheeded. The Think Tank that has been organizing ISAA comprises a great deal of knowledge in experience, activism, politics, artistic ability, technology, and most importantly — compassion for people of all sizes. And ISAA welcomes your experience, skills, and compassion. ISAA has a low flat rate of $20.00 a year for membership. ISAA members can be members of any other organization, size-oriented or otherwise. Membership will include updates on activities in the form of a regular newsletter, opportunities to participate in size activism in your community and others, and more! ISAA has begun forming chapters all over the world. ISAA also welcomes the inclusion of new chapters (for info, e-mail me privately at At this time, ISAA has registered a domain name and will be producing an interactive webpage in the near-future. I will be upfront and say that we are still in the process of constructing our Constitution, Charter, and By-Laws, but they should be completed very, very soon and available for public viewing. In addition, it is an exisiting ISAA policy that the leadership of ISAA, on all levels, will be accountable to its membership. This will be made clear in the Constitution, Charter, and By-Laws. If you are interested in joining ISAA today, you may send your payment via check, money order, or cashier’s check to: ISAA at this snail-mail address: ISAA P.O. Box 82126 Austin, Texas 78758 Thank you for your time. Allen Steadham Director, ISAA
Response: