Neon,Mr Don,The Green Guyand the truth

~~bluelight~~ · May 13, 2003, 01:41 AM

Neon...does this link go to the CNN??

Has CNN been messing with the image?

Is the text on the page an invention?

Neons link

Bluelight

The_Neon_Cowboy · May 13, 2003, 03:08 AM

The whole point of my dispte of the picture is thus... you use picures/stories from anti us websites .. so you been surfing anti us web sites ... made for people who are anti us ...

yet you say your not anti us?

at least SH4PRISIDENT doesnt try to hide it... it seems to be very clear you are...

also the cnn artical say the info is from the new york times but yet there is no such artical in the entire mounth that info was posted .. very intersting indeed
so cnn source doest exist.. there fore i canot verify any of the info. as well as who took the pic and were is it from? no really thats my bigget problem with the image... a picture like that and no one clams any credit for takeing it? thats wierd ....... also there was no info on who wrote the artical wich again is odd...

~~bluelight~~ · May 13, 2003, 03:36 AM

Your point.....
When it comes to this image....has been denying it.Denying that Rumsfeld sold icecream to Saddam.

Well this article isnt a day old..or a week ..it is several years old as far as i know...

But then who knows maybe the terrorists rule CNN....

Bluelight

JavaFox · May 14, 2003, 10:35 AM

This is a pointless exercise, blue. So what if the US has been friends with unsavory characters in the past? By this logic, we should all hate you and Mr. Blix because, as Scandinavians, your country (and its surrounding countries) was once the land of Vikings!

Yes, the US had a good relationship with Iraq. This is because we fear Iran. But all that changed when Iraq began aggressing Kuwait. Isn't it clear, then, that our relationship with Iraq was only a strategic one? Once they started upseting the balance of power in the Middle East --and once Iran-esque fundamentalism became less of a threat-- we stopped them. We have not been friends with them since.

I'll tell you what was interesting to me. You, no doubt, know that we have found little evidence of WMDs in Iraq as of yet. But you must also know that we have found --along with our British allies-- large caches of conventional weapons. It was interesting for me to hear that among the shells manufactured in Jordan, there were also components to make landmines, produced by the French.

Isn't France one of those nations that finds landmine use simply unconscionable? But that wouldn't be the first time that nation put its economic interests before alturistic ones.

~~bluelight~~ · May 14, 2003, 11:28 AM

All i want to know is where the WMD´s that you had proof of are.

That is all that currently interests me.

If i dont see them then i want an explaination.....

Why the lies?

Why the sludge thrown at The UN?

Why the sludge thrown at Blix?

They were the reason why war must happen....at once.

They were the reason why the UN could not bge allowed to finish their job.

They were the reason why we do not have an international coalition consisting also of muslim states in Iraq today.

So where are they.

And...Rumsfeld....

Well Neon has seen the image 50 times by now...he claims it is a fake.I finally found the origin of the image....CNN....so i guess CNN is a fake to.

And ...you have found things manufactured in France....

So..im waiting for you to go official about everything you sent them in the eighties too...

But....that is not gonna happen is it?

Bluelight

JavaFox · May 14, 2003, 07:41 PM

If you were soooo for putting off the war, bluelight, why do you have a problem with giving the US military "more time," but had no problem complaining about how the United States wasn't giving the UN more time? It's pretty logicial, I think, to expect that it will take some time to find WMD in a country the size of Japan.

That said, most Americans, according to a recent CBS poll, feel that the war was worth it, even if WMD aren't found. And if you read UN documents, you'll see that finding WMD wasn't a requisite to war. The requisite to war was breach of 1441 and uncooperation on the part of the Saddam regime. Both of which we saw.

JavaFox · May 14, 2003, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bluelight
And ...you have found things manufactured in France....

Again, you are dodging my question. Simply saying "Well, the US has done bad, too!" doesn't exonerate France. That's not a good argument at all.

The United States has been widely condemned by Europeans and others for not signing on to the ban on landmines. So why is France selling parts to make landmines to Iraq?

Falstaff · May 14, 2003, 10:25 PM

make excellent weapons, aircraft, ordinance and thoughtfully make them easy to use, all very very cheap...The French export arms industry may have been plagued with failures for almost 100 years. but they have had some innovative and stunning successes. but after the cold war, the demand for their fighters has become far less, and trained technical assistance, diminished..does anyone remember their collaboration to build a fantastic fighter for Nato to fly.....a brilliant machine, but the demand is low..And their ships and tanks, very impressive, but not cheap enough for IRAQ. To maintain the niche it carved out for itself in third world countries they compete very aggresively with the communist nations, whose weapons are cheap, reliable, fairly accurate and mass produced..Interest in Frances aircraft manufacturing and ammunition production has dwindled considerably...This may be an oversimplification, but lots of wealthy French businesses depend on the French arms export industry.

But lets take this one step further..

The french were willing to assist the Hussien regime with a nuclear reactor, WMD, aircraft and training, all for concessions in oil no doubt. And we also assisted IRAQ although our degree was considerably less than French, and they informed the IRAQI government of your efforts diplomatically and militarily, even up until the last days of Hussien's regime...we knew it.

My point, we have always known about the French efforts, and they ours, and we share some collective burden of guilt, if one can apply that emotion, to the rise and the eventual fall of Hussien. It served our purposes until Hussien became unstable, intractible, and his growing dependence on the soviets and the N. Koreans became increasingly worrisome, again an oversimplification but consistent I believe..

~~bluelight~~ · May 15, 2003, 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
Again, you are dodging my question. Simply saying "Well, the US has done bad, too!" doesn't exonerate France. That's not a good argument at all.

The United States has been widely condemned by Europeans and others for not signing on to the ban on landmines. So why is France selling parts to make landmines to Iraq?

Any argumentation from any American that does not fully accept the evil role of Usa in Iraq previously about France.....and its....role is of no point at all to me.

You deal with yours....and let Freance deal with theirs...

The way you go is like kids......

"he did it too"....

If you can give me a reasonable explaination as to why Rumsfeld was licking the feet of Saddam three years after Halabja...then..we can discuss France....

But ...You cant because there is no such reason...

The one reason there is ..is oil...which is the one and only thing the Mid east is about to any country in the west.

And...Iran..no that argument does not work with me.

And.....Landmines France...are you claiming that they werte sold after the sanctions were decided in the begining of the nineties??

Or were they sold at the same time you sold intelligence and arms ??

Important question...

Bluelight

~~bluelight~~ · May 15, 2003, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
If you were soooo for putting off the war, bluelight, why do you have a problem with giving the US military "more time," but had no problem complaining about how the United States wasn't giving the UN more time? It's pretty logicial, I think, to expect that it will take some time to find WMD in a country the size of Japan.

That said, most Americans, according to a recent CBS poll, feel that the war was worth it, even if WMD aren't found. And if you read UN documents, you'll see that finding WMD wasn't a requisite to war. The requisite to war was breach of 1441 and uncooperation on the part of the Saddam regime. Both of which we saw.

Because your nation has crushed the UN.Thats why im not giving you any time.'

Because the campaign in the UN by you that used WMD´s as an argument was ONE BIG INSULT to the internbational community.

On top of that.

You dont need time.

You already have proof of WMD`s so.....just show us them...

You all sang praise to the lies....so show us..WMD´s

Bluelight

mike2h · May 15, 2003, 12:35 PM

May 15 — The United States wants a U.N. vote next week to lift sanctions against Iraq but faces resistance from France, Russia and Germany who say they haven’t even started to negotiate the U.S. plan for postwar Iraq. In an effort to speed the approval process, Secretary of State Colin Powell said Thursday that Washington will consider proposals that the United Nations initially suspend sanctions against Iraq before finally lifting them.

this from cnbc. looks like loathsome three are still trying to get whatever they can out of iraq. lift the sanctions already!

~~bluelight~~ · May 15, 2003, 01:24 PM

What they are trying to do is see to it that YOU dont take full control over Iraqs oil before you hand over the power to a new requime.

That is a very very good thing and i sincerely hope that both Russia France and Germnany will lay a veto against your plans and that the UN is put in charge of Iraq as it should have been from the start ...before your government lied about the WDM´s and thus sidestepped the whole UN and kickstarted a war planned since more than a year by you without discussing it in the UN first.

You even started sending troops before ypou brought it to the UN.

Whats more....Iraq should have its sanctions lifted....when it is perfectly clear there are no WDM´s.(the reason for the sanctions are the WDM´s that you have proof off right?).so the UN inspectors MUST be allowed back into Iraq to finish their job.

Simple.

The world does not want to be run by an American republican government....did you really believe that would be the case??So..they are gonna whine a bit ......iun the UN the next weeks....

However...dont worry....you will probably have it your way in the end...since your economical power is so strong that none...of these nations can afford continuing saying what they think.....It woulfd cost them to much.

They will have to adapt to the empire....

The loathsome three???

Well ill restrain myself from having any similar comments about your nation.

Bluelight

mike2h · May 15, 2003, 01:37 PM

no thay are denying iraq food, money & commodities to wich they are entiteled. what is with you and this thing you have about the us & israel.

Ryo-Ohki · May 15, 2003, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mike2h
no thay are denying iraq food, money & commodities to wich they are entiteled. what is with you and this thing you have about the us & israel.

I don't quite agree. Here's what the French official position really is.

http://www.rediff.com/us/2003/apr/23iraq1.htm

Does it serves France's interests? Maybe, in a way it doesn't turn the whole Iraq and its resources over to the US for the time being. Just as Russia, France had contracts there before the war and the UN sanctions. The US aren't quite OK with that? Whoah, suprise here.

So will you please stop considering us as the root of all Evil and stop seeing evil french intentions everywhere -- although I have no doubt that's what a number of people in the US would want to happen.

mike2h · May 15, 2003, 02:22 PM

media strikes again. the continuation of the post i made says the us put that foward. the thing is i do not think it should matter. instead of arguing over who controls it just give iraq what is theirs. now. & if anybody wanted a say in anything they should have showed up for the fight. this crap of, "okay us, uk, spain, poland, etc. you guys spent the lives & resources to get hussein out of power no go away & let the organisation that cant make a descion about anything & stick to it take over is ludicrous". the last thing iraq needs is a bunch of cheifs stirring the pot. instead of assuming the coalition forces are going to detroy iraq as a nation why dont you let the people that had the heart & resolve to remove that tyrant do what they went in to do. remove hussein, help the citizens rebuild, & leave iraq for iraqis. please dont waste our time digging up past issues. every country on this planet has & is making bad political/moral calls. i think bush will do the right thing. he has not given any indication that he wont.

Ryo-Ohki · May 15, 2003, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mike2h
just give iraq what is theirs. now.

I 100% agree with that. Unfortunately we know this ain't gonna happen. Not right now, anyway.

~~bluelight~~ · May 15, 2003, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mike2h
no thay are denying iraq food, money & commodities to wich they are entiteled. what is with you and this thing you have about the us & israel.

Well its simple.

You allow the UN in....and the you fire send laser guided banana loaded missiles all day long on Iraq...

Your choice.

The world doesnt want to live under your empire

Simple

The sooner you realise the better

Bluelight

raid517 · May 15, 2003, 03:52 PM

Are you people still arguing about this stuff...?

Lol I probably would have too, but I toasted my last mobo and took a bit to get things back up and running. Anyway its over, I'm not sure ultimately what was achieved, nor that the end result will be anything near what was expected. But it is over - and its time for everyone, not least the Iraqi people to move on. I still don't think the best way to solve the worlds problems is by always resorting to military force first, but hey, we can all think and say what we want here as at the end of the day I doubt it makes any difference. Not unsurprisingly to some here I remain a sceptic regarding the motivations behind this entire episode. If this realy was about terrorism and WMD, why just stop at Iraq (indeed why Iraq at all?), why not just do the whole of the Mid East? Strangely for an alleged peacenik, I would have found this approach far more credible. But as I said, its all over now anyway. Saudi Arabia is safe; Syria is safe too, at least until after the next presidential election. I think the conservatives in America at the moment are afraid that the American people will soon tire of too many wars, especially if they come immediately after each other. G. W. Bush junior remembers how his daddy lost sight of the home agenda and as a result lost the election. I doubt his son is all that keen to repeat this mistake.

Q

UberLord · May 15, 2003, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by raid517
If this realy was about terrorism and WMD, why just stop at Iraq (indeed why Iraq at all?), why not just do the whole of the Mid East?

My guess is that Saddam was easily the most visible target and that the US economy needed a good war to bolster the many employees working in the "defence" industry.

~~bluelight~~ · May 16, 2003, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by raid517
Are you people still arguing about this stuff...? Lol I probably would have too, but I toasted my last mobo and took a bit to get things back up and running. Anyway its over, I'm not sure ultimately what was achieved, nor that the end result will be anything near what was expected. But it is over - and its time for everyone, not least the Iraqi people to move on. I still don't think the best way to solve the worlds problems is by always resorting to military force first, but hey, we can all think and say what we want here as at the end of the day I doubt it makes any difference. Not unsurprisingly to some here I remain a sceptic regarding the motivations behind this entire episode. If this realy was about terrorism and WMD, why just stop at Iraq (indeed why Iraq at all?), why not just do the whole of the Mid East? Strangely for an alleged peacenik, I would have found this approach far more credible. But as I said, its all over now anyway. Saudi Arabia is safe; Syria is safe too, at least until after the next presidential election. I think the conservatives in America at the moment are afraid that the American people will soon tire of too many wars, especially if they come immediately after each other. G. W. Bush junior remembers how his daddy lost sight of the home agenda and as a result lost the election. I doubt his son is all that keen to repeat this mistake.

Q

Welcome back Raid :-)

I was wondering were you were!

Bluelight

JavaFox · May 16, 2003, 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by UberLord
My guess is that Saddam was easily the most visible target and that the US economy needed a good war to bolster the many employees working in the "defence" industry.

Pretty silly thesis, really. The biggest industry in American isn't defense; in fact, our biggest government program isn't defense either. Defense workers don't form some sort of voting power block that I'm aware of. Defense stocks didn't react very positively to the Bush administration's tough talk leading up to the war (near the end of February, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics and Boeing all set or came close to setting their year lows), and now that it is over, a leading indicator of defense performance is WAY down since its 2002 high.

IF you want to argue that this war was initiated for economic gain, you might as well make that tired oil argument, because the "you did it to appease defense workers" case is a little weak.

Falstaff · May 16, 2003, 08:07 AM

economic dynamic for war? I agree, this does not apply....if anyone is going to benefit from the overthrow of Hussien it is the IRAQI people, who must learn to embrace freedom, and former allies of Hussien, Russia and China and even France...greater access to oil, now that is an economic advanatage that can be realized...but not by us. We have already replaced Gen. Garner because he was insenstivie, and heavy handed. America must finish the repolarization of the IRAQI economy and government by giving them all the tools they need to survive, watching the growth of their government, and vigilalence, without that, IRAQ might plummet back into a dictatorial state, or worse yet, a fundamentalist theocracy. IRAQ is vulnerable now, more than it has ever been, and it still holds many secrets...

mike2h · May 16, 2003, 10:51 AM

because the un is so good at expiditing? i have now idea what the missile thing was.the us does not have an empire. i am sorry that the us is so sucessful. for some reason this seems to piss you off. becuase we are so big & our press is allowed to print every little mistake we make(&the mistakes they think we made) our underware is out for the world to see. for whatever reasons we are judged in a different light than any oyher country on this planet. take a real good look at what is going on the other backyards before throwing all your trash into ours.