[eklipse]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3135747.stm

Soldiers are being killed daily.....but, we're making 'progress'
Many Baghdadis still don't have electricity and clean water.....but, we're making 'progress'
WMDs are nowhere in sight.....but, we're making 'progress'
Democracy is nowhere in sight.....but, we're making 'progress'
The Jordanian embassy has been blown up.....but, we're making 'progress'
The al-Qaeda threat is still very real (Ashcroft's words, not mine).....but, we're making 'progress'

According to Dubya anyway.

I wonder, what 'progress' is Dubya hailing?

Surely not 'progress' with regards to US designs on Iraqi oil?

[Lerkfish]

everyone should read that article in its entirety.

I especially was intrigued to read;

Working in Iraq has helped turn around Halliburton's financial performance, its second-quarter results showed. The company made a profit of $26 million, in contrast to a loss of $498 million in the period a year earlier. The company stated that 9 percent, or $324 million, of its second-quarter revenue of $3.6 billion came from its work in Iraq.

once again, the very thing people called me insane to suggest, is coming to pass.

Cronyism with Halliburton, lucrative contracts awarded without competitive bidding on an even playing field.


Good grief, wake up, people!

[shmerek]

Come on don't you guys have anything positive to say ? Just a bunch of wacko liberal conspiracy theories

Yes iraq was invaded for the good of the iraqi people Cheney is a scumbag.

[ambush]

CATCH SADDAM!@

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
everyone should read that article in its entirety.

I especially was intrigued to read;



once again, the very thing people called me insane to suggest, is coming to pass.

Cronyism with Halliburton, lucrative contracts awarded without competitive bidding on an even playing field.


Good grief, wake up, people!

That's progress, and it's in Iraq.

Bush didn't say anything that wasn't a documented fact. He's right.

GO REPUBLICANS!

Sidenote: Amazing how a president getting a sexual favor in the whitehouse is grounds for impeachment. But nothing involving all the secrecy, and alleged fraud in Iraq even turns an eye....

I think the Republicans are all secretly jelous that Clinton got more action in 1 evening that the entire Republican party gets in 10 years.

Enough digression.

[PHoynak]

I guess Clinton commiting a crime (lying under oath) is ok? If any of us did that we would be hung out to dry. It is not what he lied about that got him in to trouble. There are laws but the Democratic Party does not think that laws are made to be followed. Look at NJ, The Torch quit the campaign after the deadline for anyone to enter and the liberal NJ court allowed them to pull a near dead guy and allow him to run...for what....?? POWER, they will do ANYTHING to hold on to or gain power. Rules do not mean anything to the Dems.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by PHoynak:
I guess Clinton commiting a crime (lying under oath) is ok?

What the heck has clinton got to do with this!! Why people keep bringing Clinton up all over the place is beyond me.

Anyway, 'we're making progress'?
ROFLMAO!

[ambush]

Originally posted by PHoynak:
I guess Clinton commiting a crime (lying under oath) is ok? If any of us did that we would be hung out to dry. It is not what he lied about that got him in to trouble. There are laws but the Democratic Party does not think that laws are made to be followed. Look at NJ, The Torch quit the campaign after the deadline for anyone to enter and the liberal NJ court allowed them to pull a near dead guy and allow him to run...for what....?? POWER, they will do ANYTHING to hold on to or gain power. Rules do not mean anything to the Dems.

Best republican argument ever.

See, we're talking about Iraq, you're talking about Clinton's affair.

DUDE DID YOU KNOW BUSH WAS ARRESTED FOR DRINKING AND DRIVING OMG RULES DON'T MEAN ANYTHING TO HIM HE WANTS POWER!@!#@2221111112211221121

gimme a break, NEXT!

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by PHoynak:
I guess Clinton commiting a crime (lying under oath) is ok? If any of us did that we would be hung out to dry. It is not what he lied about that got him in to trouble. There are laws but the Democratic Party does not think that laws are made to be followed. Look at NJ, The Torch quit the campaign after the deadline for anyone to enter and the liberal NJ court allowed them to pull a near dead guy and allow him to run...for what....?? POWER, they will do ANYTHING to hold on to or gain power. Rules do not mean anything to the Dems.

There's a difference in the scope of the lies involved here.

Lying about a few bjs: at most four people had a stake in the outcome of whether or not Clinton was lying (Bill, Hillary, Monica, Jones).
Lying to start a war: many people die, extra stress on the economy, American credibility hurt abroad, etc.

If you can't see the difference, then I have to ask you what it is like living in a world with only black and white, with no shades of grey in between? Is the extra "clarity" really worth the horrendous and arbitrary rounding error?

BlackGriffen

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by PHoynak:
POWER, they will do ANYTHING to hold on to or gain power. Rules do not mean anything to the Dems.

Yeah bastards! That's why the poor Republicans have to steal the elections from them.

[WinsOBoogi]

Exactly.

Bill Clinton lies about a blowjob so his wife won't find out. He gets impeached by the House. Media blitz. Worst outcome: his wife finds out.

Bush and Co. make deals with corporate America, lie about the pretenses of going to war. Media does nothing. Worst outcome: politics is changed forever. Corporate America takes the votes away from the citizens of the US for money interests. We GO TO WAR.

Theodore Roosevelt said it best. "Every special interest is entitled to justice full, fair and complete....but not one is entitled to a vote in Congress, to a voice on the bench or to representation in any public office."

But it's become worse to that. Now it's not only that they're runnign the administration...it's that they actually took us to war.

And post people in this country aren't even turning their heads.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by WinsOBoogi:
Exactly.

Bill Clinton lies about a blowjob so his wife won't find out. He gets impeached by the House. Media blitz. Worst outcome: his wife finds out.

Bush and Co. make deals with corporate America, lie about the pretenses of going to war. Media does nothing. Worst outcome: politics is changed forever. Corporate America takes the votes away from the citizens of the US for money interests. We GO TO WAR.

Theodore Roosevelt said it best. "Every special interest is entitled to justice full, fair and complete....but not one is entitled to a vote in Congress, to a voice on the bench or to representation in any public office."

But it's become worse to that. Now it's not only that they're runnign the administration...it's that they actually took us to war.

And post people in this country aren't even turning their heads.

I just find it so funny.

And there are individuals who say "Jews run the media"... BS! "Republicans run the media". And I have proof, unlike the others.


Funny, how a BJ is considered a threat to national security and well being....

But nothing so far is remotely a concern.

Even if nothing has been done wrong. An investigation is certainly warranted at this time.

See what political parties do? George Washington was right.

[ambush]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
I just find it so funny.

And there are individuals who say "Jews run the media"... BS! "Republicans run the media". And I have proof, unlike the others.

Like CNN is not republican.

CNN is Bush's Bich.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
I just find it so funny.

And there are individuals who say "Jews run the media"... BS! "Republicans run the media". And I have proof, unlike the others.


Funny, how a BJ is considered a threat to national security and well being....

What people never bring up when mentioning Mr. Clinton's peccadilloes is this:

Mr. Clinton was an alleged rapist on trial. When asked a question that went to illustrate his character about events he did while in office, he lied under oath.

What's amazing is that you find his alleged crime and his lie to cover up the truth of his character somehow "funny."

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ambush:
Like CNN is not republican.

CNN is Bush's Bich.

actually, I think CNN is fairly balanced in news reporting, except for their talking heads shows, which are overly stacked conservative.

But I have no problem with their straight news.

Fox, on the other hand.....

as a side note: I've noticed whenever a republican has no defense on a topic or doesn't want to admit there MIGHT be something fishy, they have to bring up the non sequitor Clinton thing.

Its a pavlovian thing, you wouldn 't understand.

[vmarks]

Actually, I never bring it up. I always respond when people wish to revise history, whether it concerns Mr. Clinton or any other part of our past.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by vmarks:
What people never bring up when mentioning Mr. Clinton's peccadilloes is this:

Mr. Clinton was an alleged rapist on trial. When asked a question that went to illustrate his character about events he did while in office, he lied under oath.

What's amazing is that you find his alleged crime and his lie to cover up the truth of his character somehow "funny."

Again, you intentionally turn a blind eye to the point.

Even though this was wrong. It never had a real impact on our country. It never effected anyone, until Republicans, *and Independants* conspired to stall the government.


Currently, Bush has failed to back any of the claims he made for the invasion of Iraq. And still hasn't shown the evidence that he said he would show regarding Bin Laden's location once we were in Afganistan.... there was never evidence that he was in Afganistan on 9/11... much less evidence he was there after 9/11. Perhaps Pakistan (based on some speculation and "informants"), perhaps elsewhere (again speculation, and random hints). But nobody has evidence that he was in Afganistan. Still don't know where Bin Laden is. The Whitehouse won't even discuss the topic.

2 countries, never any *promised* evidence shown.

Bush changed foreign policy, and removed the UN from the picture.

Nobody questioned.


But Clinton's personal life was a "threat to national security" according to the Republicans in Congress at the time. Like his semen contained the launch codes for our nuclear weapons, and Lewinsky was going to swap spit with terrorists.



MY point is that they could have waited until Clintons term was done, then went through the legal circus. He did nothing to intefere with his presidency.

Bush, according to what he *has and hasn't said*, is a fraud. The question is to what extent. No matter what, he isn't taking responcibility for *his* state of the union address.


And the irony of it:

In business, even if you don't prepare a document, but sign it. Your bound to it. Every CEO has recently signed a document that it's financial records are sound. That's all thanks to George W. Bush (and the Enron scandal). These are records that are literally impossible for any 1 person to review, and certify as accurate. Just reading these documents would be more than 1 person could keep up with. Forget about checking the accuracy.

YET...

He can't take responcibility for a few minute speach, that he gives 1 time a year.

Now how can CEO's ethically be bound to sign such documents... when our own president can't take responcibility for a speack that you can print using an old Apple ImageWriter II in under 2 minutes?

Clearly there was either a lie or gross neglegence in office on his behalf.

Yet we can't even question it. There is no investigation. Despite his pushing that CEO's take accountability for every number in their corporate office.

Is this the bleach endorced by the Republican party for brain washing?


I want to make sure I don't buy an immitation brand.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Again, you intentionally turn a blind eye to the point.

It isn't "again" because I never turned a blind eye before- and I'm not now.

Your point was evident. I had nothing to argue with it. I only clarified that you were revising history by leaving out choice details. Revisionist history is as bad when you do it as when others leave out choice details discussing Mr. Bush's presidency thus far and the war-mongering that they allege, rightly or wrongly.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by vmarks:
It isn't "again" because I never turned a blind eye before- and I'm not now.

Your point was evident. I had nothing to argue with it. I only clarified that you were revising history by leaving out choice details. Revisionist history is as bad when you do it as when others leave out choice details discussing Mr. Bush's presidency thus far and the war-mongering that they allege, rightly or wrongly.

It's definately again... but that's a whole other topic, and I won't go into that, no need, not worth the effort.

No information was left out, since it's considered "Common Knowledge". Just like Explaining who is George W. Bush, might not be necessary.

Explanations and details in a conversation should be when it is not common knowledge, and first hand experience/accounts are sources...
for example, the AIDS rate in Netherlands is 0.19% (1999 est.)


Someone who doesn't know the history of the Clinton Scandal most likely isn't on this board... and shouldn't be (since you have to be 13 thanks to COPPA to signup... or have a parent...[i digress]).

[spacefreak]

10 Signs of Better Security
The Coalition is working with Iraqis to improve internal security throughout the country. While the security situation is improving, dangerous remnants of the former regime and others continue to target progress and success.

1. New Iraqi army and police forces are being recruited, trained, and equipped. Some 1,200 Iraqis will be trained this year for the new Iraqi army, and in two years, 40,000 army recruits will be trained.

2. Fifty-eight of 89 Iraqi cities have hired police forces. In total, 34,000 Iraqis are employed in patrolling the streets of their country, and of these, 30,000 Iraqis are currently patrolling with coalition forces.

3. More than 8,200 tons of ammunition, thousands of AK-47s, grenades, and other weapons have been seized throughout Iraq -- much of which was stored by the Hussein regime in hospitals, schools, and mosques.

4. The CPA has hired more than 11,000 Iraqis to guard key facilities around the country.

5. Coalition forces, with information from an Iraqi, conducted operations that lead to the deaths of Uday and Qusay Hussein following their refusal to surrender. To date, 37 of the top 55 most wanted Iraqis have been captured or killed. With the deaths of Uday and Qusay, more and more Iraqis are freed from their fear and are volunteering their services and information.

6. Coalition forces continue to take the offensive against the remnants of the Ba'athist regime who are targeting the sites and symbols of reconstruction and stabilization successes.

7. An Iraqi Civil Defense Force will help U.S. and Coalition forces in rooting out Saddam loyalists and criminal gangs who have been attacking military forces and obstructing reconstruction efforts. Four thousand Iraqi militiamen will be trained by U.S. troops over the next eight weeks.

8. In Basra, 500 river police have been patrolling since June 19.

9. Some 148,000 U.S. service members and more than 13,000 Coalition troops from 19 countries are serving in Iraq.

10. Most of Iraq is calm and progress on the road to democracy and freedom not experienced in decades continues. Only in isolated areas are there still attacks.


10 Signs of Better Infrastructure and Basic Services
1. Electricity: Electricity is now more equitably distributed and more stable, instead of, as during Saddam Hussein's rule, being supplied to Baghdad at the expense of the rest of the country. For the rest of 2003, $294 million is budgeted to improve electrical systems.

2. Water Systems: Water supply in many areas is now at pre-conflict levels. Over 2000 repairs have been made to 143 water networks, and water quality sampling has restarted. There are plans to add 450 million liters of capacity to Baghdad's system.

3. Healthcare: Iraqi hospitals are up and running, and healthcare, previously available only for Ba'athist elite, is now available to all Iraqis. Drugs are being supplied to hospitals and clinics, and medical worker salaries are being paid regularly, ensuring employees attend work. Vaccinations are available across the country, and anti-malarial spraying will take place this autumn.

4. Returning Refugees: Refugees began returning from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. UNHCR and the Coalition are working together to ensure that groups of refugees in Jordan and Iran can return to Iraq safely and comfortably in the near future.

5. Revitalizing Oil Production and Distribution: Repairs and modernizations are being made to the antiquated and neglected oil production and distribution systems. Oil will provide the future wealth of the country but was severely misappropriated by the former regime.

6. Police: There are 6,000 police on the streets of Baghdad and 34 out of 60 police stations are currently operational. Throughout Iraq, there are some 30,000 police patrolling the streets.

7. Road Repairs: Emergency road repairs, underway throughout Iraq now, will employ even more Iraqis in the coming weeks.

8. Airports: The Baghdad and Basra airports are ready to open, and the airport in Basra is expected to begin commercial operations in August. Several airlines are likely to start regular air service to Iraq.

9. Major Bridges: $4.3 million has been provided to repair the Tikrit Bridge; $4.4 million to rebuild the Al Mat Bridge; and $3.2 million to rebuild the Khazir Bridge.

10. Port at Umm Qasr: The port at Umm Qasr is open and functioning again, and customs and port authority agents are being trained.


10 Examples of International Support for the Renewal of Iraq
1. The United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan said of the Iraqi Governing Council: "[The Council's] formation is an important first step towards the full restoration of Iraqi sovereignty." The UN is supporting the renewal of Iraq through the Oil for Food program, and by providing humanitarian assistance, promoting human rights, and assisting the Iraqi Governing Council in rejoining the international community.

2. The United Nations Security Council passed, without opposition, Resolution 1483, lifting sanctions against the Iraqi regime.

3. The top 12 financial supporters for the renewal of Iraq are (in descending order): the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, Australia, Germany, Norway, Denmark, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Spain, and Kuwait.

4. The UN reports that its total humanitarian assistance for the people of Iraq is $2.2 billion, of which $1.2 billion is pledged or contributed from the international community and $1 billion is funded through the Oil for Food program.

5. In addition, several countries have pledged $800 million to UN programs. Nearly three dozen countries have made pledges or contributions to the renewal of Iraq.

6. There are now 34 foreign missions in Baghdad. Kuwait has reestablished relations with Iraq.

7. International pledges for reconstruction assistance are almost $3 billion, and an international conference to discuss additional funding for Iraq is scheduled for the fall.

8. More than 45 countries have offered military forces. The United Kingdom and Poland are each leading multinational divisions.

9. Numerous countries have contributed to the Coalition by providing basing and fly-over rights, as well as logistical support.

10. A total of 19 countries providing more than 13,000 troops in Iraq are supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom, and 14 countries are committed to deploying additional troops.

[spacefreak]

10 Signs of Democracy
1. A 25-member national Governing Council includes three women and Kurdish, Sunni, Christian, Turkmen, and Shi'ia representatives. The establishment of this body is a first and important move toward Iraqi self-government.

2. The Governing Council is creating a Preparatory Commission to write a constitution. After a constitution is approved, elections will lead to a fully sovereign Iraqi government.

3. There are municipal councils in all major cities and 85 percent of towns, enabling Iraqis to take responsibility for management of local matters like healthcare, water, and electricity.

4. Provisional councils have been formed in Najaf, Al Anbar, and Basra.

5. The Baghdad City Advisory Council was inaugurated on July 7, 2003. Its 37 members were selected by members of the city's nine district councils, who themselves were selected by Baghdad citizens in 88 neighborhoods throughout the city.

6. Local governance councils are robust in Basra and Umm Qasr, helping to identify areas for immediate humanitarian and reconstruction assistance.

7. The Office of Human Rights and Transitional Justice is working to locate missing persons, investigate, analyze, and exhume mass graves, archive past human rights abuses and promote civic education/public awareness about human rights.

8. To facilitate voluntary resolutions of property claims, the Property Reconciliation Facility is being created.

9. The Coalition is helping fund and train Iraqis wanting to create their own non-governmental organizations. These new NGOs include public policy think tanks and an association of former political prisoners.

10. More than 150 newspapers are now published in Iraq offering Iraqis access to many different kinds of information. Foreign publications, radio, and television broadcasts are also available.


10 Improvements in the Lives of Iraqi Children
1. A "back to school" campaign delivered 1,500 kits with book bags, notebooks, pens and pencils that helped 120,000 students in Baghdad return to their classrooms in May 2003. In preparation for the new school year, 1.2 million kits for secondary school students and 4,000 kits for their schools including desks, chairs, blackboards, and bookshelves are arriving in Iraq.

2. Malnutrition contributed to high mortality rates in Iraq during Saddam's rule. The food aid for Iraq has continued to supply the public distribution system and has allowed the majority of Iraqis access to food rations. On July 15, the World Food Program reported that nearly 1.5 million metric tons of food, or more than the three months supply required to keep the distribution system operating, have been dispatched to Iraq. An additional 2.2 million metric tons of food will arrive by the end of October. These steps will contribute to reversing malnutrition.

3. To date, 22.3 million doses of measles, tuberculosis, hepatitis B, diphtheria, whooping cough, tetanus, and polio vaccines have been provided, enough to vaccinate 4.2 million children.

4. Nearly all Iraqi children have finished their exams from last year and are ready to start a new school year in the fall. All universities are reopened.

5. A $53 million program to rehabilitate more than 100 schools and clinics is underway. In the southern region, more than 50 schools are in various stages of rehabilitation. More than 600 schools will be in "like new" condition in time for the beginning of classes.

6. Five million revised math and science textbooks will be ready before the start of the school year.

7. Saddam Hussein's rhetoric is being removed from Iraqi schoolchildren's textbooks. In the words of Dunia Nabel, a teacher in Baghdad: "We want flowers and springtime in the texts, not rifles and tanks." (The Chicago Tribune, July 31, 2003).

8. Ten delivery rooms in hospitals and primary healthcare centers in Basra have been rehabilitated and stocked with essential drugs and medical supplies.

9. The juvenile institution for children that was the subject of reports of abuse and appalling conditions under Saddam Hussein has been replaced by a project run by UNICEF and NGOs. Seven orphanages have undergone major building renovations and training for staff.

10. Nearly 3,000 soccer balls were shipped on May 30 and another 60,000 balls on their way to Iraq through a private/public partnership and the U.S. soccer community.


10 Signs of Economic Renewal
1. A New Economy: A new Iraqi economy is being built on the principles of market economics, respect for the rule of law, and transparency.

2. Salaries: The CPA regularly pays salaries to those teachers, healthcare workers, soldiers, police, and other public sector employees who have returned to work. Payments of pensions and other emergency payments have also helped to avert a humanitarian crisis. Teachers' salaries, and other key employees' salaries, have increased four-fold over their pay under Saddam Hussein. Some 39,000 electrical workers are back at work. Other sectors show similar encouraging signs.

3. Commerce: The marketplace in Baghdad has many goods that were previously unavailable because of sanctions or because they were forbidden under the previous regime. Items such as satellite dishes are now readily available to Iraqis.

4. Banks: Banks are open in Baghdad. The CPA is working with Iraqis outside of Baghdad to open banks across the country as soon as possible. In addition, international interest in establishing an Iraqi trade bank has been strong, and proposals from foreign banks are under review for creating this trade facility.

5. Food: The CPA has purchased the upcoming wheat and barley crops, helping to meet the country's food needs while supporting farmers. These crops include over 600,000 metric tons of Iraqi wheat and more than 300,000 metric tons of Iraqi barley.

6. Loans for Entrepreneurs: A micro-credit facility is now being set up in the South. Credit facilities for the rest of the country are also planned. Iraq's two major banks will start making small and medium sized business loans to help Iraqi entrepreneurs restart their businesses.

7. Currency: A unified currency for Iraq has been announced. The exchange of old banknotes for new ones is set to begin October 15.

8. Iraqis' Savings: The dinar has maintained its value against the dollar, preserving the dinar-dominated savings of Iraqi citizens.

9. Natural Resources: Oil production is increasing, with daily production of crude averaging 1 million barrels in recent days.

[spacefreak]

10 Signs of Cultural Rebirth
1. Iraqi Olympic Committee is reconstituted without fear from Uday Hussein: The new President of the Free Iraq Olympic group said, "The Iraqi teams used to produce the champions of Asia in many sports. They have declined since the arrival of Uday. Now we want to rebuild them with the help of the international community." -- Sharar Haydar, one of Uday Hussein's former torture victims, The Guardian (London), May 15, 2003.

2. The Baghdad symphony is performing, and their concerts are also being televised. The conductor of the symphony said, "We're trying to show the world that Iraqis have a great culture." -- Hisham Sharaf, at a performance of the Baghdad Symphony, Agence France Presse, June 12, 2003.
3. Theaters are quickly reopening. In the words of one filmmaker: "You cannot imagine what it means for us to be here on this national stage, where everything we stand for was forbidden. Now it is ours."-- Oday Rashid, Los Angeles Times, May 5, 2003.

4. Religious rites are being reestablished. As one Iraqi said: "I can't express my feelings. All I feel is joy. This is the first time I've seen this (Shiite celebrations) for 30 years. Saddam forbade everything. He forced us underground." -- Sami Abbas, a Shia at the holy shrine of Kadhimiy, The Washington Post, April 16, 2003.

5. 150 newspapers on the streets of Baghdad help get out the news of a free Iraq. Ali Jabar is quoted as saying, "Every day I buy a different paper. I like them all." Says a newspaper editor: "We can't train staff fast enough. People are desperate here for a neutral free press after 30 years of a totalitarian state." -- Saad al-Bazzaz, editor of the Azzaman Daily in Baghdad, The Independent (London), July 8, 2003.

6. Satellite dishes are the most popular items for sale in Baghdad. "I want to watch all of the world, all channels in the world. I want to watch freedom." -- Mohammed al-Khayat, an Iraqi who just purchased his first satellite dish, The Baltimore Sun, April 26, 2003.

7. Banned books are now available in the market. A teacher selling books in Baghdad said: "Before, so many books were forbidden -- anything that didn't agree with the regime. Which means practically everything that was ever printed!" -- Imad Saad, Los Angeles Times, May 3, 2003.

8. Artists are free to display their works and poets are free to write. As one poet said: "For decades, we were used to watching ourselves. Now you can think with words. But to talk loudly and to think loudly takes time. Freedom needs practice, and it takes practice to be free." -- Mohammed Thamer, The Washington Post, April 22, 2003.

9. Education is being revitalized. As a member of Baghdad's city council pointed out, "We want to have a real education, to be a progressive country. Education is very important to the reconstruction of our society. If you want to civilize society, you must care about education." -- Al Sa'ad Majid al Musowi, The Chicago Tribune, July 31, 2003.

10. The Marshlands are being rehabilitated. In the words of one Iraqi, "We broke the dams when the Iraqi army left. We want to teach our children how to fish, how to move on the water again." -- Qasim Shalgan Lafta, a former fisherman who helped restore the water to the Iraqi wetlands that Saddam had destroyed, The Chicago Tribune, June 13, 2003.


10 Steps to Improve the Lives of Iraqi Women
1. The Coalition is working to ensure that women play an important role in all parts of the government.

2. Three Iraqi women who are members of the new Governing Council are fully engaged in promoting the involvement of women in Iraq's future.

3. An esteemed former female Iraqi judge in the Ministry of Justice is undertaking a review of laws, legal practices, and the legal profession in Iraq for ways to increase equality and participation of women.

4. The Ministry of Interior conducted an assessment of the former Iraqi Police Force in early April. This resulted in a requirement to target recruitment of women and their inclusion in training offered at all academies. The program will become a reality August 15 when the recruiting drive begins with women as one of the groups targeted for selection.

5. The Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs has adopted a policy of equal access to services and benefits for all those eligible, and this policy will ultimately expand services as well as quality to larger numbers of Iraqis including women.

6. Iraqi women will have a role in the development of democracy and civil society. A senior administration official from the CPA Democracy and Governance team is conducting outreach activities to involve Iraqi women.

7. The Coalition team has held numerous meetings with Iraqi women from all walks of life to hear their concerns and to listen to their ideas for the future development of democracy in their country. In addition, the CPA has met with various women's groups and with international organizations regarding their ideas and efforts to meet the needs of Iraqi women.

8. The Coalition helped a group of Iraqi women conduct a conference July 9 that included workshops on the constitution and democracy, legal reform, education, health and social affairs, and economic and employment issues. More than 70 women attended, the majority of whom were Iraqi women experts in such fields as law, academia, medicine, and business.

9. Quotas restricting the entry of women into certain university courses have been raised or lifted altogether.

10. Iraqi women's organizations are being created to expand opportunities for women to improve their lives and those of their families.


All from here

[vmarks]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
It's definately again... but that's a whole other topic, and I won't go into that, no need, not worth the effort.

Then don't raise it. Say what you mean, be clear. You challenge my integrity when I don't let you get away with revisionist history.

Sure, you attempt to excuse yourself by saying "oh, everyone knows that part, I didn't have to say it" - but that's not on, not when you're using it as an example to disparage current administration practices -in this manner.-

Sure, disparage them - but doing so by revising history through omission is intellectually dishonest.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Revisionist history is as bad when you do it as when others leave out choice details discussing Mr. Bush's presidency thus far and the war-mongering that they allege, rightly or wrongly.

I am having trouble with anyone who could NOT allege war-mongering to the Bush presidency. Its self-evident. When the president invades two countries and threatens several more with quotes like "bring it on"...I don't know how you can characterize his presidency as anything other than war-mongering.

A lot of other points are arguable, but the fact that Bush is looking for war, has declared war on "terror", has made it clear there's more invasions at the ready if necessary, has a list of enemies, and a carte blanche to invade any country that "aids and abets" terrorism....

I really don't see how even the staunchest Bush apologist can honestly characterize him as anything other than a war-monger.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Then don't raise it. Say what you mean, be clear. You challenge my integrity when I don't let you get away with revisionist history.

Sure, you attempt to excuse yourself by saying "oh, everyone knows that part, I didn't have to say it" - but that's not on, not when you're using it as an example to disparage current administration practices -in this manner.-

Sure, disparage them - but doing so by revising history through omission is intellectually dishonest.

Who revised history?

I would like to know how many people don't know exactly what the Clinton Scandal was, and all the details behind it.

I would bet there are *maybe* 1 or 2 (being generous) who don't. And odds are they aren't even in this thread, since it would be irelevent, and not of interest to them anyway.

And when you say "administration"... your refering to these people right:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/

Would be nice if you listed names, so that we know you you are talking about.

No data was left out. It was mentioned, and infered.

In the spirit of linkage:
http://thomas.loc.gov/icreport/

Now where is the investigation on Iraq's weapons of mass distruction, Bin Laden's Afganistan residency during Sept-Dec 2001, etc.?

[PHoynak]

Did you forgot that the terrorists who attacked us were backed by Bin Ladin who was in Afganistan. We gave them a chance to hand him over but they chose not to and unlike Mr Clinton who could have had Bin Ladin when he was in Sudan but refused Bush took action against people who ATTACKED OUR COUNTRY! That is not war mongering. I guess you would just let these terroists attack us at will and the UN will save us by sanctioning their gov'ts while Americans are killed. It is a different world today. These people are trained to kill, they do not hold the value of life that we do in the USA. I for one thank God that Bush is in office and not a wimpy Democrat who loaths the military.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by PHoynak:
Did you forgot that the terrorists who attacked us were backed by Bin Ladin who was in Afganistan. We gave them a chance to hand him over but they chose not to and unlike Mr Clinton who could have had Bin Ladin when he was in Sudan but refused Bush took action against people who ATTACKED OUR COUNTRY! That is not war mongering. I guess you would just let these terroists attack us at will and the UN will save us by sanctioning their gov'ts while Americans are killed. It is a different world today. These people are trained to kill, they do not hold the value of life that we do in the USA. I for one thank God that Bush is in office and not a wimpy Democrat who loaths the military.

Pssst there is no evidence of a link between iraq and al Queada

[PHoynak]

Iraq was in violation of the terms of the cease fire that ended the first Gulf War. That should be enough but you can never convince some people that there are "just" wars. So what you are saying is that finding the torture chambers, mass graves, hiding weapons in hospitals...the list goes on means nothing? Is it because there is a Republican in the White House that many Dems and Liberals are upset now with the war? Clinton said the SAME things about Iraq in 1998 and not one Democrat came out against him. Of course they knew that Bill never had any intention of backing up his words with action so they were safe.

[Troll]

Originally posted by PHoynak:
Iraq was in violation of the terms of the cease fire that ended the first Gulf War.

Could you expand on that thought a little please? Which term of the ceasefire did Iraq violate?

Resolution 687 required Iraq to:
1) end all military action;
2) rescind its annexation of Kuwait;
3) disclose information about any stored chemical and biological weapons;
4) release all international prisoners and accept responsibility for the casualties and damage done during its occupation of Kuwait.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by PHoynak:
Did you forgot that the terrorists who attacked us were backed by Bin Ladin who was in Afganistan. We gave them a chance to hand him over but they chose not to and unlike Mr Clinton who could have had Bin Ladin when he was in Sudan but refused Bush took action against people who ATTACKED OUR COUNTRY! That is not war mongering. I guess you would just let these terroists attack us at will and the UN will save us by sanctioning their gov'ts while Americans are killed. It is a different world today. These people are trained to kill, they do not hold the value of life that we do in the USA. I for one thank God that Bush is in office and not a wimpy Democrat who loaths the military.

There is no evidence as of yet that Bin Laden was in Afganistan on or after Sept 11, 2001.

Most people in the region who sighted him say he was in Pakistan already. Hence the motive "get Bin Laden" was a false pretense.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by shmerek:
Pssst there is no evidence of a link between iraq and al Queada

Thanks for reminding me...i almost forgot:

10 Ways the Liberation of Iraq Supports the War on Terror
1. With the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, Iraq is no longer a state sponsor of terror. According to State Department reports on terrorism, before the removal of Saddam's regime, Iraq was one of seven state sponsors of terror.

2. Saddam Hussein's regime posed a threat to the security of the United States and the world. With the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime, a leader who pursued, used, and possessed weapons of mass destruction is no longer in power.

3. Saddam Hussein would not uphold his international commitments, and now that he is no longer in power, the world is safe from this tyrant. The old Iraqi regime defied the international community and seventeen UN resolutions for twelve years and gave every indication that it would never disarm and never comply with the just demands of the world.

4. A senior al Qaida terrorist, now detained, who had been responsible for al Qaida training camps in Afghanistan, reports that al Qaida was intent on obtaining WMD assistance from Iraq. According to a credible, high-level al Qaida source, Usama Bin Laden and deceased al Qaida leader Muhammad Atif did not believe that al Qaida labs in Afghanistan were capable of manufacturing chemical and biological weapons, so they turned to Iraq for assistance. Iraq agreed to provide chemical and biological weapons training for two al Qaida associates starting in December 2000.

5. Senior al Qaida associate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi came to Baghdad in May 2002 for medical treatment along with approximately two dozen al Qaida terrorist associates. This group stayed in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq and plotted terrorist attacks around the world.

6. A safe haven in Iraq belonging to Ansar al-Islam -- a terrorist group closely associated with Zarqawi and al Qaida -- was destroyed during Operation Iraqi Freedom. In March 2003, during a raid on the compound controlled by the terrorists in northeastern Iraq, a cache of documents was discovered, including computer discs and foreign passports belonging to fighters from various Middle East nationalities.

7. The al Qaida affiliate Ansar al-Islam is known to still be present in Iraq. Such terrorist groups are now plotting against U.S. forces in Iraq.

8. Law enforcement and intelligence operations have disrupted al Qaida associate Abu Musab Zarqawi's poison plotting in France, Britain, Spain, Italy, Germany, and Russia. The facilities in Northern Iraq, set up by Zarqawi and Ansar al-Islam were, before the war, an al Qaida's poisons/toxins laboratory.

9. Abu Musa Zarqawi, the al Qaida associate with direct links to Iraq, oversaw those responsible for the assassination of USAID officer Laurence Foley in Amman, Jordan last October.

]10. Saddam Hussein's Iraq provided material assistance to Palestinian terrorist groups, including the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, HAMAS, and the Palestine Islamic Jihad, according to a State Department report. This included paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, according to testimonials from Palestinians and cancelled checks. Also, according to State Department reports, terrorist groups the Iranian Mujahedin-e-Khalq and the Abu Nidal organization were protected by the Iraqi regime protected by the Iraqi regime.

[shmerek]

So we don't believe Iraqi scientists when they say the WMDs caches were destroyed but we believe the testimony of a known terrorist who says that Saddam was supporting Al Quaeda?

The 9/11 bombers planned their attack while in the US so is the US a state that supports terrorism?

The safe haven in the north east wasn't that in a Kurdish controlled area?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by shmerek:
So we don't believe Iraqi scientists when they say the WMDs caches were destroyed but we believe the testimony of a known terrorist who says that Saddam was supporting Al Quaeda?

A scientist who claims weapons were destoyed in San Diego does not mean that all the weapons in San Francisco were destroyed. Iraq's quite big.

You're the one who said "there is no evidence of a link between iraq and al Quaeda". I at least provided some evidence and documentation. What can your provide to the contrary?

[BDiddy]

Originally posted by Troll:
Could you expand on that thought a little please? Which term of the ceasefire did Iraq violate?

Resolution 687 required Iraq to:
1) end all military action;
2) rescind its annexation of Kuwait;
3) disclose information about any stored chemical and biological weapons;
4) release all international prisoners and accept responsibility for the casualties and damage done during its occupation of Kuwait.

Resolution 1441 explicitly states that Iraq had been in violation of 687 (your rule #3):

Resolution 1441:
Deploring the fact that Iraq had not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by Resolution 687...

[shmerek]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
A scientist who claims weapons were destoyed in San Diego does not mean that all the weapons in San Francisco were destroyed. Iraq's quite big.

You're the one who said "there is no evidence of a link between iraq and al Quaeda". I at least provided some evidence and documentation. What can your provide to the contrary?

All I am saying is that the intell is based on what one known terrorist in custody is claiming that is hardly rock solid evidence. Seems a bit hypocritical to believe in the terrorist but not the scientists, I guess it all depends on what you want to hear.

The top science adviser to Saddam Hussein, Lt. Gen. Amir Saadi, turned himself over to US forces in Baghdad April 12, after negotiating his own surrender through the German television network ZDF, which filmed the event. Saadi was the principal liaison with UN weapons inspectors after the resumption of inspections last November. He told ZDF that Iraq no longer possessed any weapons of mass destruction, declaring, �I was telling the truth, always telling the truth, never told anything but the truth, and time will bear me out, you will see.�

Shortly after Saadi�s detention, the principal architect of Iraq�s nuclear weapons program, Jafar Jafar, surrendered to the government of a Mideast country which made him available to US officials. Press reports again cited US intelligence sources declaring that Jafar would have detailed knowledge of the location of stockpiles of banned weapons, as well as how they had been produced.

Former UN weapons inspector David Albright, now president of the Institute for Science and International Security, told the Washington Post that Saadi and Jafar �know, between the two of them, everything about the country�s nuclear, biological, chemical and missile programs.� But no such revelations emerged, and Albright himself told the press that he was now skeptical of US claims of a huge Iraqi arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. �I will feel taken,� he said, �because they asserted these things with such assurance.�

A third top scientist, Emad Husayn Abdullah Ani, formerly in charge of Iraqi efforts to manufacture VX nerve gas, turned himself in to American authorities on April 18. Again, there have been no revelations of secret programs or huge stockpiles.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by shmerek:
Seems a bit hypocritical to believe in the terrorist but not the scientists, I guess it all depends on what you want to hear.

The fact of the matter is that this is NOT what you want to hear.

It's well past April 18th, the last date listed in your "quotes". Do you have any quotes from them during the last 4 months since the main fighting has ended?

I do. July 12th...and it involves Iraqi scientists:

The U.S. is moving ahead with comprehensive questioning of Iraqi scientists and former officials, according to The Australian.

Some of those people will be offered full immunity from prosecution in exchange for their testimony, he said.

The Australian said some sources believe the new material combined with that testimony will enable the U.S. to present a comprehensive story of the state Iraq's WMD programs had reached and how the weapons had been subsequently concealed, dispersed, hidden and destroyed.

Tony Blair's statement this week to a British House of Commons committee that evidence of Saddam Hussein's WMD programs would turn up might be related to this recent find, The Australian said.

Here's some more Al Qaeda stuff:

Mansoor Ijaz, in an article in the National Review, furthermore outlines the ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida:

The Iraqis were intimately involved in helping al-Qaida develop chemical-weapons capabilities � and this continues to have consequences. In early June, 10 letters laced with toxic powders were found in Belgium addressed to � among other targets � Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt and the American, Saudi and British embassies ... Documents found in the rubble of Iraq's Mukhabarat intelligence headquarters by reporters for London's Daily Telegraph show that Iraqi military and intelligence officials sought out al-Qaida leaders much earlier than previously thought, and met with [Osama] bin Laden on at least two occasions.

In addition to previously reported meetings between Farouk Hijazi, a senior Iraqi intelligence officer, and bin Laden in Sudan in 1994, the Mukhabarat documents show that on Feb. 19, 1998, about six months prior to the attacks in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi, Iraqi intelligence officials made plans to bring a senior bin Laden aide to Baghdad from Khartoum ... Even the most diehard opponent of the war can no longer deny the physical evidence of the ties that bound Saddam to al-Qaida and other terrorists, the scientific linkages that made them lethal, and the rationale for having to put an end to it all.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
.......

All from here

That's quite the unbiased, agenda-less source you have there.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by eklipse:
That's quite the unbiased, agenda-less source you have there.

It's the only source with an all access pass. And it's quite obvious that you can't provide evidence to the contrary of the points made.

This thread is finished, as are most of your anti-US reconstruction arguments.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
It's the only source with an all access pass. And it's quite obvious that you can't provide evidence to the contrary of the points made.

ahhh...but that's exactly the problem, isn't it? The only source with an all access pass, who have a vested interest in the population coming to one conclusion rather than the other.

If you control the information, you control the situation.

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by spacefreak:

quote:


The U.S. is moving ahead with comprehensive questioning of Iraqi scientists and former officials, according to The Australian.

Some of those people will be offered full immunity from prosecution in exchange for their testimony, he said.

The Australian said some sources believe the new material combined with that testimony will enable the U.S. to present a comprehensive story of the state Iraq's WMD programs had reached and how the weapons had been subsequently concealed, dispersed, hidden and destroyed.

Tony Blair's statement this week to a British House of Commons committee that evidence of Saddam Hussein's WMD programs would turn up might be related to this recent find, The Australian said.

This really gets my goat. Where did you get this info from? A US source?

You see US "sources" release "information" to an Australian newspaper. The Australian newspaper reports it using terms like "sources claim" and "the White House said". This in turn gets run in the US media with quotes like "The Australian said..."

They do it with the BBC too.

It makes the US domestic audience feel less alone.

[Troll]

Originally posted by BDiddy:
Resolution 1441 explicitly states that Iraq had been in violation of 687 (your rule #3):

Precisely the specifics I was looking for. It sounds a lot better for the pro-war lot to say that the Coalition invaded because Iraq failed to comply with UN resolutions. When you get into specifics:

1) The Coalition killed 7,000 innocent people because Iraqi military officers are bad accountants.

2) The UN never sanctioned the use of force because it specifically recognised that bad accounting does not a just war make. Instead the UN felt that auditors needed to go and check the accounting.

Your allegation that Gulf War II was a just war would make Augustine turn in his grave! 2 aspects of basic just war theory for you:

* A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.

* A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
It's the only source with an all access pass.

See Lerfish's post above - it's right on the money.

And it's quite obvious that you can't provide evidence to the contrary of the points made.

Well, aside from a handful of selected, supportive, media quotes I see no evidence to back up the statements made in your series of White House Top 10 charts.

This thread is finished, as are most of your anti-US reconstruction arguments.

I haven't seen any concrete refutations of any 'anti-US reconstruction arguments' - not mine nor anyone else's.


P.S. The thread ain't over till Fat Barry sings.

[BDiddy]

Originally posted by Troll:
Your allegation that Gulf War II was a just war would make Augustine turn in his grave!

Do you actually believe anything that you say, or do you just like to argue? The reason I ask is not because I disagree with your thoughts on a "just war" because I do agree with you to a point. The reason I ask is because you said it was my allegation that Gulf War 2 was a just war. I never said anything of the kind. I believe you are confusing me with PHoynak, who you were originally arguing with. The only thing I posted, with relation to this topic in this thread is:

Resolution 1441 explicitly states that Iraq had been in violation of 687 (your rule #3)

[Troll]

Originally posted by BDiddy:
Do you actually believe anything that you say, or do you just like to argue?

Why do you think the two are mutually exclusive?

Originally posted by BDiddy:
I believe you are confusing me with PHoynak, who you were originally arguing with.

You're right, I am confusing you with PHoynak. And since you worked that out all by yourself, you probably could have avoided calling me dishonest . Oh well, point to BDiddy for catching me out.

[BDiddy]

Originally posted by Troll:
Why do you think the two are mutually exclusive?

good point

[spacefreak]

So typical of some of the hypocrite liberals here. First, they post links to their 'sources', usually traditional, left-leaning sources with obvious agendea. Then, when refuted, they turn their energies towards discrediting the opposing source, and not the arguments, facts, or points offered.

So only liberals are allowed to use 'sources' to support their arguments? What a joke.

There's about 60-70 factually accurate points I posted above. How about giving a try at discrediting the points - you know, proving they're false.

Only then will you be able to claim that no 'progress' has been made. Until then, any and all attempts at discrediting the source will be further proof of your obvious agenda and inability to refute said claims.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
So typical of hypocrite liberals. First, they post links to their 'sources', usually traditional, left-leaning sources with obvious agendea. Then, when refuted, they turn their energies towards discrediting the opposing source, and not the arguments, facts, or points offered.

So only liberals are allowed to use 'sources' to support their arguments? What a joke.

There's about 60-70 factually accurate points I posted above. How about giving a try at discrediting the points - you know, proving they're false.

Only then will you be able to claim that no 'progress' has been made. Until then, any and all attempts at discrediting the source will be further proof of your obvious agenda and inability to refute said claims.

Gee, now that you put it that way, you're right. there's no way the Bush administration would grossly mischaracter gathered intelligence in order to sway public opinion...that's never happened before....er...oh...never mind.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
So typical of some of the hypocrite liberals here. First, they post links to their 'sources', usually traditional, left-leaning sources with obvious agendea. Then, when refuted, they turn their energies towards discrediting the opposing source, and not the arguments, facts, or points offered.

So only liberals are allowed to use 'sources' to support their arguments? What a joke.

There's about 60-70 factually accurate points I posted above. How about giving a try at discrediting the points - you know, proving they're false.

Only then will you be able to claim that no 'progress' has been made. Until then, any and all attempts at discrediting the source will be further proof of your obvious agenda and inability to refute said claims.

You're missing the point, there is a huge difference between (reasonably) impartial, objective and unbiassed sources and sources like the offices of the US president.

The points I opened this thread with are widely acknowledged and accepted facts. My point was whether it was right to claim 'progress' in light of these circumstances.

With regards again to the White House's Iraqi Top 10s: obvious bias aside, they are lacking in proof - they are merely statements - much like the justification for the war in the first place - so you can see why some might be skeptical.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
So typical of some of the hypocrite liberals here. First, they post links to their 'sources', usually traditional, left-leaning sources with obvious agendea. Then, when refuted, they turn their energies towards discrediting the opposing source, and not the arguments, facts, or points offered.

So only liberals are allowed to use 'sources' to support their arguments? What a joke.

There's about 60-70 factually accurate points I posted above. How about giving a try at discrediting the points - you know, proving they're false.

Only then will you be able to claim that no 'progress' has been made. Until then, any and all attempts at discrediting the source will be further proof of your obvious agenda and inability to refute said claims.

word.