Pride in Ameirca.

[brien]

Quote by: Milton Bradley You theory would contend that there is room for everybody who tries, and therefore if everybody tried, there is room for all to prosper. Obviously that can't be true. At least thats the flaw I see in this perspective.

My theory is that everyone who is willing and able to work will find work. It may not be the work they like, or enjoy, but it will be work. They can continue to find more meaningful work as they work these jobs. Furthermore, they can take the opportunity of education to improve their lives. Or they can improve their work skills to make themselves more valuable to employers. Hell, in California, one only has to live there for 6 months, and they can attend college at virtually no expense. There are so many opportunities to learn either by working, or through formal education, there really is no reason other than mental or physical limitations to prevent people from prospering in the US. And those people have programs available to them through government social agencies. And some people aren't just able to work at all their entire lives due to physical or mental limitations. For them, there are social programs to help them as well.

Of course there is unemployment, but it is usually a temporary situation. People who are unemployed all of their lives are proabably not capable of holding a job due to mental or physical reasons. Have you ever known anyone who has gone through their entire life unemployed?

Prosper is a relative word. If someone begins working at age 18 and learns a skill, he/she will move up through the wage scale to earn more money. They will prosper. They may never be a millionaire, but they will surely earn a wage that will support them in their lives.

The problem that I see is that some people expect something from the government when they are much more capable of providing it for themselves. And when one begins to look toward the goverment to solve personal problems in their lives, they usually have to sacrifice some of their liberty, and part of their individuality, at the altar of government authority.

This is happening all to frequently in the US society today. This is why the American goverment is slowly morphing into a socialist system. Too many people are willing to hand over their individuality and liberty to the government in order to receive something back which they perceive they are owed by society. It is evident in health care. Recent polls show that 58% of Americans want a Universal Health Care System, of which I don't disagree. My disagreement comes when they also want the government to administer it.
Universal Health Care is coming and freedom loving people who cherish their liberty would do well to realize that they should wrest control of the programs away from the government to keep the control in the private sector. Otherwise, the government will control it and another bit of our liberty and individuality will be ripped away from us to serve the ever increasing government beast.

The sooner freedom loving Americans who cherish their liberty wake up and do something to counter the increasing government takeover of people lives, the sooner we can stop the society from slipping into the socialists' hands.

[brien]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Yea, I just made that whole thing up about self-loathing. Of course, you do not know me and do not know that I did not end up letting it rule my life, but not before that very real major depressive episode that almost cost me my life because I thought that I was a horrible person who did not deserve to live (internalized hate from years of getting the social message that what I felt was evil and loathsome). That was all just me being stupid. And just because you have a brother who did not process in the same fashion does not mean I "made it up". God, you are so condesending! Give myself "permission"! Ok, I give myself permission to get the degree that would get me the better job. Shit, does permission pay the tuition? Does permission make my car payment in the meantime? Do you live in the same world as most people? When you say YOU managed to survive cancer, are you not trying to imply it is your stregnth and fortitude, in opposition to my lack thereof that has made you more successful than I? Is that not a personal attack on me, Mr. I Keep Getting Attacked On This Board? Bahhh!

Lsbskins. Look at your post(s). It finds more ways to not accomplish something rather than devoting you time and energy into solving your problems. You have made this a personal thing so this is my last post on this to you on this. It isn't fair to have this discussion here on these boards.

I mentioned my cancer because when I was diagnosed I could have merely given up. Said it was over. I wrote that but you just don't get it because you seem very good at throwing up your hands and saying, "that's it, it's over." My past has poisoned my entire life. Well, Lsbskins, so be it. it may be over for you because from what I can tell from your reasoning, you are so far entrenched in negativity, you have no positive thinking skills in your life. You even go so far as to justyify your negativity through your past life experiences. No one could ever make positive gains by dwelling upon the bad things that have happened to us in our lives and then reinforcing negative attitudes from those experiences to continue a feeling of perpetual helplessness in solving problems in the present. Therefore, to make positive gains in your life, you may want to consider developing a positive outlook when trying to solve your problems. Otherwise, if you can't do this, then perhaps you can't help yourself and you require professional help.

If you are ill with depression, you should seek medical help. If you feel you are trapped in a life where you can't make it any better, you should seek some counselling that will provide you with more opportunities in your life. My God, think positive rather than negative and you may begin to improve your life.

Now if you have anything else to write, please PM me, because this doesn't belong out on the boards. Thanks and good luck to you.

[lsbskins1]

Brien-

I think I will respond in public because we are actually using personal expierence to illustrate points we are making about what we feel should be public policy.

First of all, your concern that drips with condesention is another example of how you do not see what is right in front of your face. So, let me disabuse you of a few misconceptions.

1) I am not in need of "medical help" at this point in my life. My depression is in "remission" and has been since I was about 25. I am now 39. I was, without your guidence, able to figure out that I needed help when I actually needed it. So...

2) My attitude towards life may be slighty cynical, but it is not negitive. I do not view my life as over in any way, shape or form. What I know and what you choose not to see is that some people can work really hard all of their lives and never achieve a higher standard of living. Because, like it or not, more often than not, luck is part of the equation of moving up. Hard work and dedication are necessary without doubt, but luck matters. So, I wish you would lose a little of the cock-sure belief that you acheived all because you worked harder, or chose better than those who have less. It is unbecoming. And, if you base your ideas on public policy on those assumptions, you will create bad public policy.

3) I do not veiw the quality of my life as "poor". I, realistically, view my finicial situation as very precarious. One major illness and I'm pretty fucked. I work a full time job, and help watch my sisters kids cause she and her husband both work full time as well. I could probablty qualify for assistance, but I wouldn't take it because there are people who need it more than I do. I live with my mom in a house that was left to her by my great uncle. We do not suffer, but if I did not have that option, I might have a hard time.

4) Sharing how my life unfolded does not mean I dwell on any negitivity at all. You are simply trying to justify your own attitudes with that statement. Again, I say these things to you because I wish to illustrate how some of your assumptions are incorrect, not because I want or need pity or anything else from you. You and others who advocate for scrapping government funded programs assume that your expierence is universal. I am saying it is not. This is how the exchange unfolds:

You-Look here at this lovely grey cat! Isn't it great that all cats are grey and lovely!
Me- Look, I found a black cat that is undernourishesd!
You- You and your kind are always complaining. Always saying the majority of cats are black
and undernourished! My lovely grey cat proves that you are wrong, wrong, wrong! What is
the matter with you? Do you not have any pride?

But really, this all comes down to the fact that I just think it is a mistake to let some of these assumtions go unchallenged. I still think that, so I will keep challenging.

[Osborn F Enready]

I have much pride in America, the land.
I have much pride in America, the Republic for which it ONCE stood.
I have much pride in Americas flag, and what it USED to represent.

I have just returned from a long road trip that reinvigorated my love, for what this nation once was.

The problem is, many young people have trouble finding something in America to be PROUD OF, unless it is the digested teachings of events long past, many events before even their parents were alive.

What is there to be proud of today?

Our liberties are all but gone, in written law.
Our checks and balances are TECHNICALLY, gone, in written law.
Our free press is no longer free, and is now owned my mega-corporations, much like our government.
Our laws encroach on our civil liberties more and more each day, as our representation grows smaller in voice, number and effectiveness.
Our poisons of political party, have spread like wildfire, and bi-partisanship between two corrupt parties is all MOST people even know anymore.
Our taxes grow, our dollar is worth less, and our labor and pensions dissappear more each day, as monopolies and corporate government further disenfranchise its citizens each day.

The only thing left to be proud of, is the memory of what we ONCE were, when our CITIZENS actually had the BALLS to stand up for what is right, even if it meant possible death, injury, loss of property or plain and simple failure by the sword.

We have been sold out, and your kids are taught each day how it was "right" to do so by public schools. We have been sold out, and each day the news tries to placate you enough to go to work and keep being a good little laborer. We have been sold out, and still, each day, people look to each other for a sign that eventually things will get better, without any personal cost of their own.

It won't.






If Americans want to be proud, want to be true to their countries ideals, true to their forefathers and soldiers before them, they should reflect on the causes of the revolt, the meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and the folly of where American Fascism is taking us, TODAY in the name of security and supposed economic prosperity.


Pride comes from being earned, and we haven't earned pride through government action since before the 1900's, only shame.

I am proud of what we once were, and what we still could be. I am not proud of where we are now, and what we are slowly becoming, NO SIR, not at all!

I will be proud to die as an American though, in the fight against the NWO tyranny, the bi-partisan conspiracy, the final struggle for American freedom when the need arises. And it WILL arise, sooner or later.

http://www.freedomtofascism.com/

[GodBlessAmerica]

Yes, our President is standing up to terrorists (from behind his desk). After avoiding going to Nam when it was his chance to "stand up" for America. What a whimp! France - they have nothing to do with why or why not people take pride in American. Is that why Mexicans still wave the flags of their own country during that last protest about Bush policy making? And we have no "drug lords" in America, no political corruption? Or do Mexicans come here because unemployment is at "4" and they want to work at our inflated wages. However that is nothing new, they were coming here for ages and ages no matter what political party was in office, so that is the point? None! Is "Pride in America" a republican thing or for everyone. Are Democrats void of having pride in this country, is that their real "platform"? How did you come up with such an idea? President Bush sleeps with his own wife... now what has that got to do with people being proud to be an American. I betcha Bin Laden sleeps with one of his wives (if he is not too old to cut the mustard anymore). What is your point relative to this topic? Me no combrendie your logic. You are claiming that Pride in America is abundant today because we have a great economy - this I cannot debate because it might be true. But not sure, with only one poster responding to the question. Are you still proud to be an American during tuff times? Or when a Democrat is in office? Or is your opinon more a less a promotional for the Republican party, Why not just say you are proud to be a Republican instead and forget about the concept of being an American? Jimmy was a highly educated President as well as an award winning peace maker. He did a fine job of representing Ameirca while in office and continued to do so after leaving office.

What peace did Jimmy make in leaving our hostages in Iran for over a year?
What good came from Jimmy removing the Shaw of Iran?
What good did any of his economic things do when he caused us to have a saving and loan crisis and a misery index?
Jimmy was so bad, that the country was paying for the saving and loan crisis clear though the Presidency of Bush #1.
I think Jimmy got the Nobel prize for mostly going around the world for saying anti-America stuff.

President Clinton is a sociopath who attempted to deny Paula Jones her constitutional rights to a fair trial after he had used his office as President to slander her.
Clinton did not fight against terrorist acts against America or it's embassies at all for the most part.
I also did not like President Clinton and Al Gore giving China technical help to make their missiles launch well and to enable them to target every city in the United States. That was treason.
Though Clinton was the worst President ever (Carter #2), I think that has nothing to do with the greatness of our nation.

I'm saying we have great people, a great economy and are among the few ethical nations of the world.

Mexicans refuse to say what a hell hole they have, but the evidence of all the Mexicans fleeing here should verify for you that the nation is a pit.
The remedy IMO is for them to assassinate their drug lords. The drug lords have total control of that country. There is no such similar situation in the United States despite our Libertarians.

Every President conducts the war from behind the desk.
There were other good war time Presidents who never even served at all.

[GodBlessAmerica]

Stick with Republicans and you will be fine. Will we? Because let's see what happened, we can do a comparison: Bush: Nation at war. Carter: Nation at peace Bush: Deficit in the hundreds of billions Carter: deficit in the $60 billion range Bush: Oil $75 a barrel Carter: oil $15-$30 a barrel Bush: "Bring it on", i've never made any mistakes, damn the torpedos full speed ahead. Carter: Admits we have problems, admitted his mistakes. Yep, stick with Republicans.

You really think Bush started this war? That is insane to me.
Carter help start the cult of Islam thinking they could mess with us by doing nothing with hostages in Iran for 400+ days. Carter was stupid, we were at war and he never did anything. Took Reagan to get them back.
Carter caused the savings and loan crisis that went clear through Bush #1's Presidency, so your 60 billion number is incorrect.
The cost of oil is what it is for us because environmental wackos don't allow us to drill for oil and have not even allowed a refinery for over 30 years.
Bush said it would be a long war that would go way past his Administration from the beginning and Carter was the problem we had.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: GodBlessAmerica You really think Bush started this war? That is insane to me.

Excuse me? Who started the present war in Iraq, if not President Bush?

Carter help start the cult of Islam thinking they could mess with us by doing nothing with hostages in Iran for 400+ days. Carter was stupid, we were at war and he never did anything. Took Reagan to get them back.

You need a history lesson, dude. The hostages were released on January 20, 1981 - the same day Reagan took office. They were released under an agreement that had been brokered by Carter. It had nothing to do with Reagan. Try reading a little and then come back to me once you've gotten past 4th grade social studies.

Carter caused the savings and loan crisis that went clear through Bush #1's Presidency, so your 60 billion number is incorrect.

Got any proof for this? I didn't think so.

Bush said it would be a long war that would go way past his Administration from the beginning and Carter was the problem we had.

Any proof of this? Of course not, because you're lying out of your ass. Isn't this the President who stood on the deck of an aircraft carrier a few YEARS ago and said "Mission Accomplished"?

[grandpa]

Quote by: brien Sure Gramps, Thomas Sowell who is a African American Economist and syndicated Columnist was born black poor and in the ghetto. He managed to achieve success in America.

I never said some people cannot achieve success in America, but that there is a system in existence which makes even basic progress on the individual level seem unrealistic.
So I'm not focusing on the negative, but the realistic.
Some people, as I've said, lack opportunities.

And I do not think social programs cause these problems. They don't SOLVE them, but the main cause is government protection of the interests of the wealthy. The law is for rent in this world, which is why certain people dominate the resources and others merely work to pay off instituted debt (if they can find a job, that is--which is not always the case, regardless of what you say).

And, of course, you misrepresent my views. I would LOVE if social programs were able to disappear, but the fact that joblessness and the cost of living will exist makes them more practical than just creating more homeless, jobless men and women.
I believe if we are to have a government it should not exist only to serve the interests of people th money. I apparently must remind you that
I am more of an anarchist than I am a state socialist.

Grandpa h.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Technosoul Come on now, some bow their backs so you can have cheap strawberries, they work harded for the money they get then most Ameircans would even dream of attempting.

Which is why 90% of the agriculture industry is made up of Americans, right?

And they do not send it to their country of orgins but to their families at home, for their kids, and even for their parents.

Which is spent in their country of origin so is fundamentally the same thing.

They are honest, hardworking, and family oriented. They set an example some people here in the USA might want to admire and even take heed of.

Which is why upwards of 30% of our prisons are clogged with these "honest, hardworking and family oriented" people, right?

[Cephus]

Quote by: grandpa I never said some people cannot achieve success in America, but that there is a system in existence which makes even basic progress on the individual level seem unrealistic. So I'm not focusing on the negative, but the realistic. Some people, as I've said, lack opportunities.

What are you talking about? Every single person out there has opportunities if they choose to avail themselves to them. Everyone can get an education. It is available if they work at it. If they don't, then it isn't a failure of an opportunity, but a failure of themselves. Everyone can get a job. If they work hard, they can get experience to get a better job or advance in their current job. No one is denied this. I find it funny that most people who whine about not getting opportunities are the ones who squandered them when they had them handed to them on a silver platter.

[GodBlessAmerica]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Excuse me? Who started the present war in Iraq, if not President Bush? You need a history lesson, dude. The hostages were released on January 20, 1981 - the same day Reagan took office. They were released under an agreement that had been brokered by Carter. It had nothing to do with Reagan. Try reading a little and then come back to me once you've gotten past 4th grade social studies. Got any proof for this? I didn't think so. (Carter and the S & L Crisis) Any proof of this? Of course not, because you're lying out of your ass. Isn't this the President who stood on the deck of an aircraft carrier a few YEARS ago and said "Mission Accomplished"?

We are in Iraq not only because of the 500 WMD that were found, but because Saddam while under sanctions attempted to kill and American President and was actually paying for terrorism against Israel at 25k to the family of every homicide bomber.
The hundreds of thousands dead in mass graves aside in Iraq, Saddam had to go.

History DUDE began before yesterday and you should indeed read up on it. Reagan told Iran he was coming with the military if the hostages were not released by the time he hit office.
Here is a nice summary for you:
Reagan's Early Victory in the War on Terror



On the day he hit office they were released and Carter got zero done in hundreds of days. He is still as inept today.

Under financial institution regulation which had its roots in the Depression era, federally-chartered S&Ls were only allowed to make a narrowly limited range of types of loans. Late in the administration of president Jimmy Carter, this range was expanded when the Federal Home Loan Bank Board eased up on some of its restrictions pertaining to S&Ls.
Carter signed the whole deal with Depository Institutions Deregulation And Monetary Control Act of 1980.

And the original mission of the invasion of Iraq by that Navy vessel was a mission accomplished, it never said the war was accomplished.
What is a mission? It is the the single attempt to do something that is part of a much larger effort and even those that made it to forth grade should get that one IMO.
Plus 500 WMD were found. :-)

[RickSp]

We invaded and occupied Iraq because it was part of the longstanding neo-con agenda. Everything else is blather and lies. Our longtime ally, Saddam, supported by Ronald Reagan, Dick Cheney and Donnie Rumsfeld, became the monster Saddam, too dangerous to live. With 9/11 as an excuse and prepackaged lies about WMD, Bush launched us into the current disastrous occupation and into a guerilla war that we are losing.

[GodBlessAmerica]

Quote by: RickSp We invaded and occupied Iraq because it was part of the longstanding neo-con agenda. Everything else is blather and lies. Our longtime ally, Saddam, supported by Ronald Reagan, Dick Cheney and Donnie Rumsfeld, became the monster Saddam, too dangerous to live. With 9/11 as an excuse and prepackaged lies about WMD, Bush launched us into the current disastrous occupation and into a guerilla war that we are losing.

You needed a gag alert with that extreme left view.

#1 Saddam tried to kill a President of the United States while under sanctions.

#2 He was paying terrorist in Israel to make trouble and paid the families of those who killed themselves as homicide bombers 25k each family.

#3 He defied sanctions for 11 years and it ended up the French had their hands behind the backs of the world in the Iranian oil fields in exchange for a large percentage of those fields profits.
Russia and Germany also had lots of illegal back door deals going on with Saddam, which is why France, Germany and Russia were blocking everything to stop Iran earlier, they were getting paid by Saddam.

#4 Recent UN reports show they have found more than 500 WMD shells and the mass graves were to die for with hundreds of thousands dead in pits by Saddam.

Saddam was known to use chemical weapons before, and even the UN and 9/11 commission did not rule out that with all the time Saddam had before the invasion, that he didn't move additional weapons to other places like Syria.

As an example, lets say you own an illegal gun and you have a year long warning of when the Feds are going to search your home.
Do you
A# Leave them there and get caught?
B# Move them?

That was an advantage France, Germany, Russia and the UN gave Saddam.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Cephus What are you talking about? Every single person out there has opportunities if they choose to avail themselves to them. .

In theory.

Quote by: Cephus Everyone can get an education. It is available if they work at it. .

It is available if the society offers it.

Quote by: Cephus If they don't, then it isn't a failure of an opportunity, but a failure of themselves. Everyone can get a job. .

In theory. Reality eflects soemthing quite different. A single individul doe snot shape the entire world he/she lives in. To my knowledge, I don't possess such magical powers.

Quote by: Cephus If they work hard, they can get experience to get a better job or advance in their current job. No one is denied this. .

Or they can get screwed over and ripped off repeatedly by the scam that is perpetuate by shrewd individualism.

Quote by: Cephus I find it funny that most people who whine about not getting opportunities are the ones who squandered them when they had them handed to them on a silver platter.

There is a difference between having opportunities in fact and having them in theory. You have opportunities if circumstances allow them to exist. That's simply the way it is. Circumsances, as I've seen them, force people into a degrading existence where they are ultimately just machines serving the government and those who rent its authority. If people serve these interests well, they will be rewarded on some level--but they are always expendable, always subservient, etc. Our entire lives are converted into abstraction based on constant fear and humiliation.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: GodBlessAmerica You needed a gag alert with that extreme left view. #1 Saddam tried to kill a President of the United States while under sanctions.

That has not actually been proven, to my knowledge. It's probably just another Hill & Knowlton-type scam.

Quote by: GodBlessAmerica #2 He was paying terrorist in Israel to make trouble and paid the families of those who killed themselves as homicide bombers 25k each family.

The United States suppoted Saddam Hussein, Israeli's terrorist actions, three genocidal wars involving Iraq, Turkey's violence against Kurds, etc.

Quote by: GodBlessAmerica #3 He defied sanctions for 11 years and it ended up the French had their hands behind the backs of the world in the Iranian oil fields in exchange for a large percentage of those fields profits. Russia and Germany also had lots of illegal back door deals going on with Saddam, which is why France, Germany and Russia were blocking everything to stop Iran earlier, they were getting paid by Saddam.

The US supported Saddam before, during and after his Anfal campagn against Kurds. All kind sof governments are involve in Mid-Eastern oil money. That's one things governments and corporations do well.

Quote by: GodBlessAmerica #4 Recent UN reports show they have found more than 500 WMD shells and the mass graves were to die for with hundreds of thousands dead in pits by Saddam.

Atrocities which the US supported. We also spearheaded the UN's sanctions which crippled Iraq.

Quote by: GodBlessAmerica As an example, lets say you own an illegal gun and you have a year long warning of when the Feds are going to search your home. Do you A# Leave them there and get caught? B# Move them?

Only a moron would move them. You have such weapons to use them...you don't just move them somewhere else and then find a hole in the ground where Kurds can find you (a reminder--Kurds found Saddam first). You use WMD's if you are being invaded.

Grandpa h.

[GodBlessAmerica]

Quote by: grandpa Quote by: GodBlessAmerica You needed a gag alert with that extreme left view. #1 Saddam tried to kill a President of the United States while under sanctions. That has not actually been proven, to my knowledge. It's probably just another Hill & Knowlton-type scam. Bill Clinton lobbed a cruise missile into an Iraqi aspirin factory over it, REMEMBER? Quote by: GodBlessAmerica #2 He was paying terrorist in Israel to make trouble and paid the families of those who killed themselves as homicide bombers 25k each family. The United States suppoted Saddam Hussein, Israeli's terrorist actions, three genocidal wars involving Iraq, Turkey's violence against Kurds, etc. The United States gave Saddam movements spotted by satelite of the Iranian army to fight against Iran since we hated them more, that is about it. Quote by: GodBlessAmerica #3 He defied sanctions for 11 years and it ended up the French had their hands behind the backs of the world in the Iranian oil fields in exchange for a large percentage of those fields profits. Russia and Germany also had lots of illegal back door deals going on with Saddam, which is why France, Germany and Russia were blocking everything to stop Iran earlier, they were getting paid by Saddam. The US supported Saddam before, during and after his Anfal campagn against Kurds. All kind sof governments are involve in Mid-Eastern oil money. That's one things governments and corporations do well. We never told Saddam to do that. We also did not follow his every move until he left his boarders to take over Kuwait. Quote by: GodBlessAmerica #4 Recent UN reports show they have found more than 500 WMD shells and the mass graves were to die for with hundreds of thousands dead in pits by Saddam. Atrocities which the US supported. We also spearheaded the UN's sanctions which crippled Iraq. Where is your evidence the United States was SUPPORTING knowingly any atrocities beyond us giving information of movements in Iran we picked up by satelite? When was the meeting when the US told Saddam we were behind him in killing Kurds? Where is the link to that gem? Quote by: GodBlessAmerica As an example, lets say you own an illegal gun and you have a year long warning of when the Feds are going to search your home. Do you A# Leave them there and get caught? B# Move them? Only a moron would move them. You have such weapons to use them...you don't just move them somewhere else and then find a hole in the ground where Kurds can find you (a reminder--Kurds found Saddam first). You use WMD's if you are being invaded. Grandpa h. They moved them believing they could run out sactions and go at it again.

Thanks

[grandpa]

Quote by: GodBlessAmerica Bill Clinton lobbed a cruise missile into an Iraqi aspirin factory over it, REMEMBER?

That does not mean it happened. Ever hear of war propaganda? That's what the Hill & Knowlton reference was about:
"In 1990, on behalf of the US-funded and US-directed Citizens for a Free Kuwait, H&K researched and then created stories and “eye-witness” testimonies that described Iraqi atrocities that would build public support for Desert Storm. These "eye-witnesses" were presented to the Congressional Human Rights Caucus and included the fraudulent "Nayirah" testimony that played a major role in involving the US in the Gulf War. She testified that she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers killing hundreds of premature babies at the al-Addan hospital in Kuwait City. "They took the babies out of the incubators, took the incubators, and left the babies on the cold floor to die," she said. Congressmen were stunned. It was only after Desert Storm had officially ended that ABC reporter John Martin discovered that the none of these tales of atrocities were true. "Nayirah" was actually the daughter of the royal family member Saud Nasir al-Sabaah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. Without Hill & Knowlton's PR, the Gulf War would not have been as favorable to Americans. Much is made that at this time H&K's Washington office was headed by Craig Fuller, the former chief of staff and good friend of George Bush, Sr."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_&_Knowlton

Quote by: GodBlessAmerica The United States gave Saddam movements spotted by satelite of the Iranian army to fight against Iran since we hated them more, that is about it.

Iraq was a favored ally and trading partner. And that is not "about it." You're forgetting such a key alliance in the Iran/Iraq war contributed significantly to the millions of deaths in the war itself and strengthened Sadam's position in Iraq.

Quote by: GodBlessAmerica Russia and Germany also had lots of illegal back door deals going on with Saddam, which is why France, Germany and Russia were blocking everything to stop Iran earlier, they were getting paid by Saddam.

The whole oil-for-food program was a scam, and we know that now if we look at all the people involved---not just France, Germany and Russia. The whole thing was supported on the backs of the Iraqi people because there was money to be made in an incredibly dishonest fashion, for all the wrong reasons.

Quote by: GodBlessAmerica We never told Saddam to do that. We also did not follow his every move until he left his boarders to take over Kuwait.

The US government was aware of this campaign against Kurds. We still supplied Iraq with weapons technology, along with German and British corporations.

Quote by: GodBlessAmerica Where is your evidence the United States was SUPPORTING knowingly any atrocities beyond us giving information of movements in Iran we picked up by satelite? When was the meeting when the US told Saddam we were behind him in killing Kurds? Where is the link to that gem?

We didn't have to have a meeting. It is implied when we maintained support of his tyrannical reign aftr Anfal. We supported Saddam right up until the Gulf War was launched. In your blind patriotism you fail to ask a simple question: If another country engaged in this type of behavior, would you support it?

Quote by: GodBlessAmerica They moved them believing they could run out sactions and go at it again.

"Go at" what again? Getting invaded? It was quite clear that the United States was hellbent on invasion. Hell, our attack against Iraqis never completely abated.
It makes no sense to hide weapons when they could be used for defense.

Grandpa h.

[Cephus]

Quote by: GodBlessAmerica #4 Recent UN reports show they have found more than 500 WMD shells and the mass graves were to die for with hundreds of thousands dead in pits by Saddam.

Give it a break. The shells that were found were seriously degraded sarin and nerve gas canisters that were pre-'91 in origin and were utterly harmless now. They couldn't have been used today if they had wanted to. The whole reason it took them so long to even say they had found some is because US weapons experts had completely dismissed them as garbage from before the first Gulf War. It's only the desperate grasping at straws by the White House that had them try to claim they were a threat.

Let's not forget that Bush and Cheney claimed, as justification for going into Iraq, that Saddam had viable WMDs and was ready to use them on us, and Cheney claimed he knew EXACTLY WHERE THEY WERE, yet four years later, they haven't found a single viable shell.

Bush and Cheney lied. Deal with it.

[Nihsnek]

Quote by: Cephus Quote by: GodBlessAmerica #4 Recent UN reports show they have found more than 500 WMD shells and the mass graves were to die for with hundreds of thousands dead in pits by Saddam. Give it a break. The shells that were found were seriously degraded sarin and nerve gas canisters that were pre-'91 in origin and were utterly harmless now. They couldn't have been used today if they had wanted to. The whole reason it took them so long to even say they had found some is because US weapons experts had completely dismissed them as garbage from before the first Gulf War. It's only the desperate grasping at straws by the White House that had them try to claim they were a threat. Let's not forget that Bush and Cheney claimed, as justification for going into Iraq, that Saddam had viable WMDs and was ready to use them on us, and Cheney claimed he knew EXACTLY WHERE THEY WERE, yet four years later, they haven't found a single viable shell. Bush and Cheney lied. Deal with it.

So your telling me, that when we entered Iraq there was not ONE USABLE WMD. Ok, well, deny it all you want.