Philippine Warship, China Ships in Standoff

pasig yankeeNY wrote:

<quoted text>
actually it was trillions not billions, gotta get that part right.
No good done? Is saddam out of power now? Sounds pretty good to me. Unless you like how he treated your fellow muslims?

Now Don is a Muslim ??? Gooooooo Don bwhahahahahahahaha.
Well i suppose you may be right -you did get rid of Saddam -Mind you -you also put him there to start with lol , so really you were only taking out your own trash.

Pasig you really should make up your mind - you either support the war in Iraq (opps was it a war ) or you dont -to me if you dont agree that the war was just how can you justify the killing of Saddam ?

kenny kills thumper wrote:

Pasig you really should make up your mind - you either support the war in Iraq (opps was it a war ) or you dont -to me if you dont agree that the war was just how can you justify the killing of Saddam ?

Why it has to be cut and dry? An opinion that is.

I think it is just fine to have views ride both sides. Yes I would rather we stayed out. Many people feel that way. Why do I feel that way? Because I would rather have not spent the money and human life.

However since it was not my call, atleast a dictator was removed and is no longer a threat. How many of his own people did he have killed and or tortured?

kenny kills thumper wrote:

<quoted text>
Now Don is a Muslim ??? Gooooooo Don bwhahahahahahahaha.
Well i suppose you may be right -you did get rid of Saddam -Mind you -you also put him there to start with lol , so really you were only taking out your own trash.

wow really? The USA controls who takes power in Iraq? That is sooo totally awesome!! We should have placed Reagan in there and created a reality show about it. Imagine what a stud Ronny would have been wearing the towel on his head and all

Don the American wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course support troops are left but combat operations by Americans have ended. All this started from the Bush Cheney years who are war criminals.
No matter they are not going to do it for the Philippines, noway. Philippines is too stupid. It will take thousands of support troops and trainers they don't understand they have to allow us a big presence here and they won't go for that and it's too dangerous for the troops.

Yeah , sorry Don my post was in reference to this one that you commented on

pasig yankeeNY wrote:

<quoted text>
wow really? The USA controls who takes power in Iraq? That is sooo totally awesome!! We should have placed Reagan in there and created a reality show about it. Imagine what a stud Ronny would have been wearing the towel on his head and all

study a little history -Saddam was aided by the good old USA , what dont know what the CIA does ?-thats how he came to power - it was ok for the USA when he keep Iran in line hehehehe - i Think (there not fact just my opinion) that more people may have been killed since the downfall of Saddam then all those before -not counting the Kurds and once again the USA walks out leaving the place a shambles with no-one really at the helm .

pasig yankeeNY wrote:

<quoted text>
actually it was trillions not billions, gotta get that part right.
No good done? Is saddam out of power now? Sounds pretty good to me. Unless you like how he treated your fellow muslims?

The bad part in those countries is if a dictator is not there the different factions war with each other in a very brutal fashion. No doubt Saddam was one crazy SOB that murdered and tortured his own but sometimes the whole thing is so convoluted with violence it's best not to go anywhere near it.

Kind of like a family can fight like crazy but an outsider comes in and they are instantly united. Infidels!!!!!! I forget but I will look it up how much money is missing but it's alot.

Man the stories my son and other soldiers told me of Halliburton subsidiaries scamming money is unbelievable.

Don the American wrote:

<quoted text>
The bad part in those countries is if a dictator is not there the different factions war with each other in a very brutal fashion. No doubt Saddam was one crazy SOB that murdered and tortured his own but sometimes the whole thing is so convoluted with violence it's best not to go anywhere near it.
Kind of like a family can fight like crazy but an outsider comes in and they are instantly united. Infidels!!!!!! I forget but I will look it up how much money is missing but it's alot.
Man the stories my son and other soldiers told me of Halliburton subsidiaries scamming money is unbelievable.

cheney & co.

kenny kills thumper wrote:

<quoted text>
study a little history -Saddam was aided by the good old USA , what dont know what the CIA does ?-thats how he came to power - it was ok for the USA when he keep Iran in line hehehehe - i Think (there not fact just my opinion) that more people may have been killed since the downfall of Saddam then all those before -not counting the Kurds and once again the USA walks out leaving the place a shambles with no-one really at the helm .

I'm all for learning something new but if that is what you care to do you must pick another topic. Yes I am aware of the support the US showed the unknown Saddam. Did their support put him in power?

was Iraq and Saddam the lesser of two evils atleast? Was Iran not a big pain in the ass at the time? are they proving to me so again?

I'm not asking your opinion about Iran though, with your contrarian style Im certain I know how that one would go down.

pasig yankeeNY wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm all for learning something new but if that is what you care to do you must pick another topic. Yes I am aware of the support the US showed the unknown Saddam. Did their support put him in power?
was Iraq and Saddam the lesser of two evils atleast? Was Iran not a big pain in the ass at the time? are they proving to me so again?
I'm not asking your opinion about Iran though, with your contrarian style Im certain I know how that one would go down.

Saddam was the lesser of two evils -"better the devil you know than the devil you dont"
I think in the near future the same may be said of the situation in libya.

pasig yankeeNY wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm all for learning something new but if that is what you care to do you must pick another topic. Yes I am aware of the support the US showed the unknown Saddam. Did their support put him in power?
was Iraq and Saddam the lesser of two evils atleast? Was Iran not a big pain in the ass at the time? are they proving to me so again?
I'm not asking your opinion about Iran though, with your contrarian style Im certain I know how that one would go down.

you didnt ask my opinion -but hey that never stopped me before right ?? My view on Iran is as follows -at this time there is absolutely no proof that they have a nuke weapon -are they tring to make one ? maybe -should they be allowed to have nukes ? maybe not -should india should pakiland ? should that silly little jew state be allow them ? shit NK has them already .of course the BIG BOYS will always think they should be the only ones allowed to have nuke weapons .
BYW i was watching an interesting Doco on History Channel last night -it was about the good old USA using bio weapons on the North koreans hehe -coz thats how much they can be trusted -of course at first the USA denied everything ,until it was PROVEN by the UN then admitted by the USA.

all I have to say about that is if you believe everything the north koreans say you are more lost then I thought. Dont follow up with the Chinese stated that because i am painfully aware of that too. Dont always believe everything you see on TV Kenny, especially if it is communist propaganda. Just a friendly tip

JECIKA wrote:

CHINA JUST USE N-BOMB. PH WILL BE FLATED ONE SEC&#12290;

In your big mouth!

Don the American wrote:

<quoted text>
Did you notice we pulled out of Iraq and now pulling out of Afghanistan? Really think the American public doesn't care? Let me tell you who does care. Those neo con Republicans that don't want to spend money on poor corrupt countries.
Do you see us pouring money and hardware in here? No, take a guess why.

Lol, the sons of Republicans did fight too in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Republicans are Americans too, d-wit. You mean to say, the Democrats love to spend money without earning it, or dig and dig even there is no more to dig??? No money pouring becuz there is no more in the coffer, lol lol lol lol !

These analysts cite evidence suggesting that some of the primary sources used by the authors were in fact deliberate lies made up by the Soviet Union as part of a propaganda campaign.
Consider this excerpt from a May 3, 1999, article in The Nation by Peter Pringle, a correspondent for the London Independent, who was sympathetic to the book:
"Endicott and Hagerman have not only raised the level of debate over the charges but also, apparently coincidentally, run headlong into the first 'official' documentary evidence from Communist sources strongly suggesting that the charges may have been Communist propaganda after all: In a total surprise last year, a dozen documents said to have been found in the Soviet presidential archives suddenly appeared in a Japanese newspaper [Yasuro Naito,'The use of bacteriological weapons by US forces during the Korean war was fabrication by China and Korea: Uncovered by classified documents of the Former Soviet Union', Sankei Shimbun, January 8, 1998]. They suggest that in 1952, Moscow was behind a plot to blame the United States for using biological weapons in Korea when the Soviet leadership was perfectly aware that the American forces were doing no such thing."
Milton Leitenberg, a senior research fellow at the University of Maryland's Center for International Security Studies, published a 1998 study "The Korean War: Biological Warfare Resolved" that contained a number of Soviet archival documents from the Stalin era demonstrating that the Soviet leadership was aware that the Chinese and North Korean charges were a hoax. This knowledge, however, did not keep the Soviets from using the charges to pressure the United States.
A detailed analysis, "New Russian Evidence on the Korean War Biological Warfare Allegations" by Leitenberg, analyzing these archival documents was also published in the Bulletin of the Cold War International History Project of the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, DC. Similarly, a book review in May/June 1999 issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, a pro-arms-control publication, noted:
"There is, however, considerable evidence in the archives that the United States did not use such weapons during the war. The authors base their conclusion on eight central arguments, each of which can be refuted by archival evidence and reasonable counter-arguments."
And a June 27, 1999, New York Times review of the Endicott and Hagerman book by Ed Regis, the author of an acclaimed book on the past US biological-weapons program, noted:
"The authors acknowledge that after 20 years of research they have failed to turn up a single document in American archives that provides direct evidence for their claim. They therefore build a circumstantial case that relies heavily on documents provided by the North Koreans and the Chinese. In fact, the authors reproduce some of the nine Chinese photographs and captions, but they make no mention of the article in The Times, even though their bibliography cites a standard reference work by Milton Leitenberg that discusses the forgeries, mentions the experts by name and summarizes their conclusions. This is appalling.
"Carl Sagan used to say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The evidence Endicott and Hagerman present for their extraordinarily dubious claim is notable only for its weakness

pasig yankeeNY wrote:

<quoted text>
wow really? The USA controls who takes power in Iraq? That is sooo totally awesome!! We should have placed Reagan in there and created a reality show about it. Imagine what a stud Ronny would have been wearing the towel on his head and all

1959


Botched assassination plot; Saddam forced into exile
(see caption)

Saddam Hussein in Cairo

Saddam is selected by the Ba'ath Party to be part of seven-man hit squad to assassinate Iraqi leader Gen. Abdel Karim Kassem. The plot fails. Although Saddam later portrays himself as the leader of the team, in reality he has a small role. He is slightly wounded in the incident and escapes the next morning in a daring swim across the Tigris River. Saddam flees to Cairo and becomes caught up in Egypt's own revolution under the charismatic Gamel Abdel Nasser, whose pan-Arabism Saddam finds appealing. Saddam also becomes a leader of the Ba'ath Party's student cell in Cairo and reportedly regularly visits the U.S. embassy to meet with CIA agents interested in sparking Gen. Kassem's overthrow.

1963


Kassem assassinated; Saddam returns to Iraq

In February, Kassem is assassinated by members of the Ba'ath Party and the CIA helps the Ba'athists by providing lists of suspected communists for the party's hit squads, who kill an estimated 800 people. Saddam returns home and rejoins the party as an interrogator, torturer and killer. Nine months later, the army overthrows the Ba'ath Party and Saddam is jailed. He is said to have studied the political tactics of Hitler and Stalin while in prison.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows...

Congressional Record: September 20, 2002 (Senate)
Page S8987-S8998


HOW SADDAM HAPPENED

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, yesterday, at a hearing of the Senate Armed
Services Committee, I asked a question of the Secretary of Defense. I
referred to a Newsweek article that will appear in the September 23,
2002, edition. That article reads as follows. It is not overly lengthy.
I shall read it. Beginning on page 35 of Newsweek, here is what the
article says:

America helped make a monster. What to do with him--and
what happens after he is gone--has haunted us for a quarter
century.

Like most foreign-policy insiders, Rumsfeld was aware that
Saddam was a murderous thug who supported terrorists and was
trying to build a nuclear weapon.(The Israelis had already
bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak.) But at the time,
America's big worry was Iran, not Iraq. The Reagan
administration feared that the Iranian revolutionaries who
had overthrown the shah (and taken hostage American diplomats
for 444 days in 1979-81) would overrun the Middle East and
its vital oilfields. On the--theory that the enemy of my
enemy is my friend, the Reaganites were seeking to support
Iraq in a long and bloody war against Iran. The meeting
between Rumsfeld and Saddam was consequential: for the next
five years, until Iran finally capitulated, the United States
backed Saddam's armies with military intelligence, economic
aid and covert supplies of munitions.
Rumsfeld is not the first American diplomat to wish for the
demise of a former ally. After all, before the cold war, the
Soviet Union was America's partner against Hitler in World
War II. In the real world, as the saying goes, nations have
no permanent friends, just permanent interests. Nonetheless,
Rumsfeld's long-ago interlude with Saddam is a reminder that
today's friend can be tomorrow's mortal threat. As President
George W. Bush and his war cabinet ponder Saddam's
successor's regime, they would do well to contemplate how and
why the last three presidents allowed the Butcher of Baghdad
to stay in power so long.
The history of America's relations with Saddam is one of
the sorrier tales in American foreign policy. Time and again,
America turned a blind eye to Saddam's predations, saw him as
the lesser evil or flinched at the chance to unseat him. No
single policymaker or administration deserves blame for
creating, or at least tolerating, a monster; many of their
decisions seemed reasonable at the time. Even so, there are
moments in this clumsy dance with the Devil that make one
cringe. It is hard to believe that, during most of the 1980s,
America knowingly permitted the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission
to import bacterial cultures that might be used to build
biological weapons.

Let me read that again:

It is hard to believe that, during most of the 1980s,
America knowingly permitted the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission
to import bacterial cultures that might be used to build
biological weapons. But it happened.
America's past stumbles, while embarrassing, are not an
argument for inaction in the future. Saddam probably is the
"grave and gathering danger" described by President Bush in
his speech to the United Nations last week.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/s0920...

pasig yankeeNY wrote:

These analysts cite evidence suggesting that some of the primary sources used by the authors were in fact deliberate lies made up by the Soviet Union as part of a propaganda campaign.
Consider this excerpt from a May 3, 1999, article in The Nation by Peter Pringle, a correspondent for the London Independent, who was sympathetic to the book:
"Endicott and Hagerman have not only raised the level of debate over the charges but also, apparently coincidentally, run headlong into the first 'official' documentary evidence from Communist sources strongly suggesting that the charges may have been Communist propaganda after all: In a total surprise last year, a dozen documents said to have been found in the Soviet presidential archives suddenly appeared in a Japanese newspaper [Yasuro Naito,'The use of bacteriological weapons by US forces during the Korean war was fabrication by China and Korea: Uncovered by classified documents of the Former Soviet Union', Sankei Shimbun, January 8, 1998]. They suggest that in 1952, Moscow was behind a plot to blame the United States for using biological weapons in Korea when the Soviet leadership was perfectly aware that the American forces were doing no such thing."
Milton Leitenberg, a senior research fellow at the University of Maryland's Center for International Security Studies, published a 1998 study "The Korean War: Biological Warfare Resolved" that contained a number of Soviet archival documents from the Stalin era demonstrating that the Soviet leadership was aware that the Chinese and North Korean charges were a hoax. This knowledge, however, did not keep the Soviets from using the charges to pressure the United States.
A detailed analysis, "New Russian Evidence on the Korean War Biological Warfare Allegations" by Leitenberg, analyzing these archival documents was also published in the Bulletin of the Cold War International History Project of the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, DC. Similarly, a book review in May/June 1999 issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, a pro-arms-control publication, noted:
"There is, however, considerable evidence in the archives that the United States did not use such weapons during the war. The authors base their conclusion on eight central arguments, each of which can be refuted by archival evidence and reasonable counter-arguments."
And a June 27, 1999, New York Times review of the Endicott and Hagerman book by Ed Regis, the author of an acclaimed book on the past US biological-weapons program, noted:
"The authors acknowledge that after 20 years of research they have failed to turn up a single document in American archives that provides direct evidence for their claim. They therefore build a circumstantial case that relies heavily on documents provided by the North Koreans and the Chinese. In fact, the authors reproduce some of the nine Chinese photographs and captions, but they make no mention of the article in The Times, even though their bibliography cites a standard reference work by Milton Leitenberg that discusses the forgeries, mentions the experts by name and summarizes their conclusions. This is appalling.
"Carl Sagan used to say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The evidence Endicott and Hagerman present for their extraordinarily dubious claim is notable only for its weakness

I really dont care if the USA us WMDs in Korea or not...when China entered the war they sent the US military running... the longest retreat in US military history...

the very fact the USA was contemplating using the Abomb... shows how badly they were losing...

which falls inline with Chinese only stopped their advancement, because of how the Chinese had over stretched their supply lines... having to bicycle, or hoof in supplies...

Obama Announces Full Support for Gay Marriage
any pretty transexuals wanna come live with me ?
61 % I can go either way.