Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Help with freeper email

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
jessicazi Donating Member (458 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 02:58 AM
Original message
Help with freeper email
Edited on Thu Apr-07-05 02:59 AM by jessicazi
(edited topic type)

The following email was sent from a freeper and dittohead. I am not a big history buff, and really only know the accurate information in regards to the history with Iraq for the last 20-25 years. So, if there is anyone who can help me debunk this email, especially the parts about WWII, I would appreciate it. Rather than try to google everything, I am coming to you, my friends, so that I might reply to this email with the truth. I don't expect anyone to do any research, but I know there are some out there who could debunk some of the stuff right off the top of their head, unlike me.

Thank you so much in advance!

Jessica
(This was not directed at me, but was sent to someone else, and then the writer of this email, Brock, copied and pasted this to me).

"The main argument you have against Bush and this war is the fact that you don't like war, and you don't think war is ever a good or justified thing. Well you presented me with a whole bunch of images which were disturbing and ideas which were totally bogus and False. And I think you ended your e-mail with some thing like just go back to sleep or Wake UP AND TELL THE WHOLE WORLD! I think that is pretty close to your own words. But the fact is you wish the world would just go back to sleep and turn a blind eye to Saddam and the attrocities he committed against his own people! He has killed more than 1,000,000 of his own people! There is no disputing that! Unlike that Bogus number you presented to me of 100,000 killed by the Americans. I am so glad that people like you are a minority in the US now. I am so thankfull people like you weren't around during WWII. Remember, we were never attacked by Germany either. But we saw a threat in Adolph Hitler and we took him out. Not only that, we completely leveled Japan and built them back up and now they are one of our strongest allies. So I'll use history as my guide to dismantle your ideas. We were attacked on Sunday December 7 1941 by Japan in Pearl Harbor. And the US woke up.. they woke up a sleeping dragon. Now unlike today where we have all kinds of smart weapons which are very accurate, we just bombed the hell out of every thing, yet Japan is still one of the US's strongest allies.. Why you ask? Because the US brought them Freedom. We went in to Impearial Japan and we not only nuked the hell out of them, we brought them freedom. So what makes you think Iraq will be any different? All except for the fact that we are not Bombing the hell out of them, unlike what you presented me with. The fact is that many people think we should target Iraq as a whole, kinda like we did Japan and Germany. But the fact is that we are right now Iraq's strongest alli. WE Are! There is no disputing that fact! If any one were to invade them, who would be there to help Iraq? You got it, The good ol US of A. And we are right now rebuilding their schools and bringing them fresh water, rebuilding Hospitals, in fact here is a list of things that have happened in Iraq recently:
-Over 4.5 million people have clean drinking water for the first time ever in Iraq.
-Over 400,000 kids have up to date immunizations.
-Over 1500 schools have been renovated, and ridded of the weapons that were stored there, so education can occur.
-The port of Uhm Qasar was renovated so grain can be off loaded from ships faster.
-School attendance is up 80% from levels before the war.
-The country had it's first 2 billion barrel export of oil in August.
-The country now receives 2 times the electrical power it did before the war.
-100% of the hospitals are open and fully staffed compared to 35% before the war.
-Elections are taking place in every major city and city councils are in place.
-Sewer and water lines are installed in every major city.
-Over 60,000 police are patrolling the streets.
-Over 100,000 Iraqi civil defense police are securing the country.
-Over 80,000 Iraqi soldiers are patrolling the streets side by side with US soldiers.
-Over 400,000 people have telephones for the first time ever.
-Students are taught field sanitation and hand washing techniques to prevent the spread of germs.
-An interim constitution has been signed.
-Girls are allowed to attend school for the first time ever in Iraq.
-Text books that don't mention Saddam are in the schools for the first time in 30 years.
And you won't ever guess who is responsible for 99% of every thing on that list.. Guess...

Go on...

I am waiting for your guess..

Give up?

Okay, I'll tell you... It is Haliburton! That's right. It is the EVIL Haliburton Corporation... now I didn't even draw the comparison between Iraq and Germany. Because the fact is that if we want to go by history, we should draw the comparison between Japan and Afghanistan, Iraq and Germany. Now you of all people should be thankfull we took care of Germany. If you had your way, All of England as well as most of Europe would be speaking German.

"But Hitler was an evil dude! And he killed lots of Jews because he thought they were the inferior race!"

Yeah, so did Saddam. He offered the families of Suicide Bombers in the Palistinian-Isreali Region $25,000.

"But it is different because he was evil! And he had the capability of killing a lot of people! And Saddam didn't!"

Yes, Saddam did. He has killed more than one million of his own people! So some day when Iraq is a very strong and powerfull alli, we can all look back on this point in history and thank one man, George W. Bush! And if you think Bush did this to distract the US population from the Dire econmic situation here in the States, you can think again sister. The fact is that George Bush is a genius when it comes to fiscal policy. The current unemployment rate is in the US is 5.3% One tenth of a percentage point better then when Clinton ran for re-election in 1996. And on September 11, this country lost one million jobs. So needless to say, Bush is a genius when it comes to the economy. How else could we have come out of the recession which was created by the Clinton administration, (which started six months before Bush ever set foot into the White House) and despite Sept. 11 have a better economy than that of Clinton in 96? One man, George W. Bush.
Well that is my reply for now, although, I am going to go through your whole e-mail and 'de-bunk' it kinda like you did to mine.
So, Thank you for your time. and have a great day!
Your bestest buddy, Brock"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
adwon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 03:04 AM
Response to Original message
1. So Halliburton raised an army, eh?
Tell that moron that if they had, they'd be financing a mercenary army, which if I recall, is illegal as hell. Ask him for citations that aren't Rush, Hannity, or some other idiot. Real citations, such as government sources. Not even the twists in DC would put this crap on an official site.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vektor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 03:09 AM
Response to Original message
2. Disturbing on SO MANY LEVELS.
That is one delusional S.O.B.

Wow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jessicazi Donating Member (458 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 03:11 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. You're telling me....
he is so brainwashed. He hasn't answered my last email, so I am trying to bombard him and overwhelm him with facts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vektor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 03:25 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. What scares me about these folks -
is no matter how many facts they are given, the just invent their own warped version of the truth, repeat it to themselves and each other over and over again until they can repeat it robotically, and they believe it. Every Repuke, in every state, that I have ever talked to about this spews the same phony talking points. The sad thing is, it can be easily verified that Clinton balanced the budget, left us with a surplus, and Shrub pissed it all away. Just about everything that guy wrote can be easily disproved, yet these people conveniently TOTALLY ignore reality, and just make up their own version of how they want things to be.

It's frightening.

When I hear that zombie-speak, my head spins.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 03:19 AM
Response to Original message
4. And as far as SADDAM killing 1 million Iraquis...
Edited on Thu Apr-07-05 03:24 AM by dicksteele
That number is total BULLSHIT!

I believe the U.N. official numbers are around 17 thousand 'missing, presumed dead'

....and less than 10 thousand killed by his military (That number includes those Kurdish villagers who were actually gassed by IRAN)

So, worst-case scenario: Saddam killed maybe 30 thousand people over a few dedades.

WE killed more than 30,000 IRAQUI CIVILIANS in the first WEEK of this invasion; and we didn't stop there!

By the Military's own estimates, we have killed over a HUNDRED THOUSAND innocent Iraqui citizens, and counting!

Sure, Saddam was a brutal dictator...but he was a lightweight 'butcher' compared to B*SH!

And he was 'Dictator' of a nation with electricity and clean water...while the Iraquis now live in huts built from rubble.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlabamaYankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #4
30. How many soldiers were killed in the Iran-Iraq war?
I know that both sides took horrendous casualties. Counting soldiers might be one way to get to the "million killed" level, but it's bogus to conflate war deaths, no matter how unjust, with the tortured and murdered number.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenPoet64 Donating Member (897 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-05 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #4
48. I just had this argument with my RW mom today . . .
she stated Saddam killed over 100,000 so we were justified in killing 100,000 to "free the remaining Iraqis". Where can I get a copy of the official numbers on Saddam?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-05 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. So it would be justified in killing innocent civilians...
to kill a govt leader?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenPoet64 Donating Member (897 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-05 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. I think her point was this . . .
she mistakenly believes that Saddam was actively killing thousands of innocent people and that we had to intervene even if our bombing killed hundreds of thousands.

I would like to send her the actual estimates of Saddam's atrocities.

She was a little surprised when I told her our bombing killed at least 100,000 and I referred her to the article in the Lancet--I think this number is really bothering her as I compared the figure to the number of dead in the recent Tsunami. It hit home. She was silent.

Later she justified the dead with Saddam's atrocities.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
free_spirit82 Donating Member (125 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 03:30 AM
Response to Original message
6. About Clinton vs. Bush stuff
Here is a great link I found recently while debating almost those exact points on a different board recently. It comes with easy to read charts and everything (for the blonde in me). The site also lists the sources in which it pulled the information to make the charts and figures.

http://www.hunterdonfordean.com/economy.html

I can't help you too much with the WWII stuff, with the exception of pointing out that the Japanese and Germans were closely allied. Defeating the Japanese wouldn't have stopped the threat against the US, as soon as Germany could muster it, they would have attacked us too. Afganistan and Iraq were not allies, and Iraq was not a threat to us. Sorry, I don't have any facts to quote or anything like that.....but I did make a "B" in Advanced Placement World History in high school :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jessicazi Donating Member (458 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 03:36 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Thanks free
I actually just found another website with the same charts and figures and will be copying and pasting it into the email!

I have found some good stuff on Halliburton and am slowly builing the debunkment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
murielm99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 03:52 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. Germany declared war on us.
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
free_spirit82 Donating Member (125 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 04:00 AM
Response to Reply #9
14. Yep!
I just went and looked it up (before I read your post) and I was coming back here to post. Hitler declared war on the US December 11th 1941.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knight_of_the_star Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-10-05 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #6
52. Currently doing my undergrad for a BA in History
As far as I know there was no alliance between Iraq and Afghanistan, but as far as the threat from Germany, if we did nothing and didn't fight then sooner or later the Germans WOULD have come for us. As far as the Japanese go, I think having carriers and battleships flying the emblem of the rising sun steaming up and down the West Coast would have been a big enough threat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
passy Donating Member (780 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 03:43 AM
Response to Original message
8. The majority of this e-mail is BS.
Edited on Thu Apr-07-05 03:43 AM by passy
I think if you were to crosscheck all the figures mentioned you would find that most if not all of them are wrong. (girls attending school for the first time to start with).
The language leaves a lot to be desired too, my advice is to actually just forget about this person and let them live their reality challenged live.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Debs Donating Member (723 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-05 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #8
41. Absolutly
That is nonsense. Iraq was never Afghanistan, they had women doctors, women professors. In the 80's they sent a group to represent Iraq at an Arab human rights convention that was made up entirely of women. There are enough true things to say bad about the Baathists without just making shit up
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crunchy Frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 03:55 AM
Response to Original message
10. You'll never get through to a brainwashed idiot like him,
but you might point out to him that we declared war on Japan after they attacked us, which was after they had conquered and ravaged most of the Asia-Pacific region. When did Iraq attack our country? What part of the world have they conquered lately? Tiny Kuwait? We kicked them out of there more than a decade before we invaded them.

Because Japan and Germany were allies, Germany declared war on us, when we declared war on Japan. What were we supposed to do, not fight someone who had declared war on us? Did Iraq ever declare war on us?

You might point out that both Germany and Japan had massive war machines which had enabled them to take over half the world by the time we got involved. Ask him where all of Iraq's terrible weapon systems are.

As far as getting into WWII because of the Jews, that had absolutely nothing to do with it. Our country didn't care about that. We even sent Jewish refugees back to Nazi occupied Europe.

You might also point out that it was the conservative Republicans who were opposed to us getting involved in that war. That they had helped support Hitler and build his war machine, just like modern Republicans helped put Saddam in power and supplied him with arms. If you both had been around at that time, it would by your freeper friend who would have been against going to war, where you likely would have supported it.

Of course, telling him any of this will be like talking to a brick wall. These people absolutely cannot be influenced by facts or evidence. If Rush didn't say it, it isn't true. I don't really know why you would want to try to engage with someone like that.:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jessicazi Donating Member (458 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 04:02 AM
Response to Reply #10
16. Honestly, my reason for engaging with him
is pride. I know it sounds stupid, but when he first challenged my political beliefs, I ignored him, then he started saying I was ignoring him because I couldn't stand to hear any opposing viewpoints. Then he said he would beat me in any debate and that is why I was ignoring him, because I would lose. So, I didn't want him to really believe any of those things, so I have been emailing back and forth with him. My goal is no longer to win, but to shut his trap. I know it can be hard to see, but the truth always wins, it can take a while, maybe a lifetime, but the truth will prevail and Republicans will ONE day realize it-what a great day that shall be!!!
Thank you all for your help.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crunchy Frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 04:48 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. Well, I doubt you'll succeed with him, but I wish you luck.
The truth may prevail in the end, but that doesn't mean that people like him will believe it. Think of all the people who still refuse to believe in evolution.

If you want to do better at arguing with people like him, it might be a good idea to educate yourself more on some issues. For example, I would reccomend reading a really good, comprehensive history of WWII, since these types seem to want to keep making that comparison.

I can't reccomend one, not being a big WWII buff, but you could probably find a good one hunting around on Amazon.com.

Ultimately, the biggest benefit to arguing with those types is that it forces you to do alot of learning yourself, which makes you a more educated and informed person. I went through something like that back when I used to argue with creationists. I ended up doing alot of reading and learning alot about science, and evolutionary biology. It was a valuable experience for me, but I never succeeded in persuading a single creationist that they were wrong.

I expect that you will find the same thing with your freeper friend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 05:04 AM
Response to Reply #16
23. So he called you chicken
and you took the bait? Swallow your pride and cut him loose. You can't teach pigs to fly, it will just frustrate you and piss off the pig.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #16
34. Who was it that said
"Never argue with an idiot. They will bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

Why do I remember Wes Clark's name associated with that quote?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knight_of_the_star Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-10-05 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #34
53. I think he said it
Not sure when he did though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dorktv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-05 02:21 AM
Response to Reply #16
37. I totally agree with you. I love proving them wrong.
But you have to know EVERYTHING and in incredible detail...so it gets tiring.

And YOU have to have sources that are as non-partisan as possible because they will use anything they can to prove you wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maraya1969 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 03:56 AM
Response to Original message
11. The good people here helped me reply to one like that
I hope this is not too comfusing. I got an email like that an the good people here helped me out a lot. But now that I am reading yours again I realize that he is just making a bunch of shit up. Stuff that can easily be de-bunked by doing simple GOOGLE searches. For example, regarding the immunizing of children the real answer is:


UNICEF and The World Health Organization that are mostly responsible for inoculating the Iraqi children.



The 100,000 dead Iraq citizen number came initially from the British Medical Journal, "The Lancet" but now everyone is repeating it. Here is a link to ABC that verifies it: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200410/s1230305.htm






(Current number of casualties - 1,500 dead soldiers. Pentagon records of wounded in COMBAT – 7,000 – 8,000. Estimated total wounded soldiers including those not in direct combat: 17,000. Iraqi death toll including citizens and children – 100,000 (Lancet medical journal and Reuters)



Here is part of one of the emails I received. It is in plain letters and my responses are in BOLD


2. When some claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war, state the following



FDR...led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did

On December 8, 1941 FDR asked Congress for a declaration of war against Japan and only Japan.

December 11, 1941 Germany and Italy declared war on the United States. Only after Germany declared war on the U.S. did the U.S. reciprocate. Congress passed the resolution on December 8, 1941.




From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman...finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us.

The Korean War began on June 25, 1950, with a pre-dawn surprise invasion of South Korea by North Korea. Ninety-thousand North Koreans poured south, setting off a war that lasted more than three years. The United States was already in South Korea. Russia, who had been our ally in WW2, was allied at this time with North Korea. The United States went to war against North Korea to help South Korea a small country that could not defend itself. The US also feared the spread of communism.



John F. Kennedy… started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. Johnson...turned Vietnam into a quagmire.

Eisenhower started the process, Kennedy sent the troupes in. The death toll and the number of disabled Vietnam veterans is a horrific and unnecessary tragedy. Thousands of Vietnam veterans are homeless because of their war disabilities and the US government’s refusal to give them the care that they need.


Clinton...went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us.

The troops sent by Clinton to Bosnia were part of NATO forces and were sent to prevent genocide. The intervention was far more limited than Bush's invasion of two countries. NATO never sanctioned the Iraq war as the UN did not sanction it. However NATO is now helping to re-build Iraq.

He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

By the way, where is Osama bin Laden?

And Clinton did more to pursue terrorists than ANY president before him, capturing the WTC 1 bombers among other things, and Bush IGNORED terrorism until 9/11.


3. In the two years since terrorists attacked us President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaeda, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

The United States' role in crushing the Taliban, (in Iran) was limited to air support and a few "military advisors." Most of the work on the ground was done by the Northern Alliance. That would also include Al Qaeda as they were not in Iraq. From the 9/11 commission report:

By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01

“The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.”



Furthermore, Reagan/Bush I sold the weapons that Saddam Hussein used to murder 300,000 of his own people.







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ET Awful Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 05:12 AM
Response to Reply #11
24. You forgot to mention that the whole Clinton was offered Osama
thing is complete bullshit. The only "offer" was from a non-official source who had no way of delivering and could not have possibly followed through.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maraya1969 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #24
33. Hey thanks - I recommened this for "greatest" because I think
we need to get our answers straight and correct in case anyone needs to answer these freeper emails.

We need only one more vote to get in on the Greatest Page.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dutchdoctor Donating Member (306 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 03:58 AM
Response to Original message
12. Debunking the oil output B.S.
your friend says:"-The country had it's first 2 billion barrel export of oil in August."

BBC news says:
"The government has been targeting output of 2.9 million barrels per day, roughly in line with the records hit during the Saddam Hussein era. In fact, the country will be fortunate to produce two million barrels per day.

That is partly because of insurgents, who caused damage that knocked a reported $7bn off the country's oil revenues last year."

Conclusion: After two years of occupation, Oil export is still not up to pre-war levels!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maraya1969 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 03:59 AM
Response to Original message
13. Another part of an email I sent BACK

People often question why the Middle East hates America so much.



In 1953 the US backed a coup against Iran that gave the Ayatollah Khomeini a dictatorship over a country that was a democracy and had a Prime Minister. It began a long history of a suppressive regime. We took a country that was stable and destabilized it in order to gain control of its oil.

Here is a good explanation by Dr. Donald Wilber of the CIA.

The Islamic government of Ayatollah Khomeini supported terrorist attacks against American interests largely because of the long American history of supporting the shah's suppressive regime. Even under more moderate rulers, many Iranians still resent the United States' role in the coup and its support of the shah.



The coup was a turning point in modern Iranian history and remains a persistent irritant in Tehran-Washington relations. It consolidated the power of the shah, who ruled with an iron hand for 26 more years in close contact with the United States. He was toppled by Iranian Revolution of 1979. Later that year, "Students of Imam Line" went to the American Embassy, took diplomats hostage and declared that they had unmasked a "nest of spies" who had been manipulating Iran for decades.



The Islamic government of Ayatollah Khomeini supported terrorist attacks against American interests largely because of the long American history of supporting the shah's suppressive regime. Even under more moderate rulers, many Iranians still resent the United States' role in the coup and its support of the shah.



Former US Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, in an address, acknowledged the coup's pivotal role in the troubled relationship and came closer to apologizing than any American official ever has before.



"The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons," she said. "But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs."



The history spells out the calculations to which Dr. Albright referred in her speech. Britain, it says, initiated the plot in 1952. The Truman administration rejected it, but President Eisenhower approved it shortly after taking office in 1953, because of fears about oil and Communism.





“In the deeply troubled Middle East, the United States not only protects the Saudi and other family dictatorships, it imposed the dictatorship of the Shah on Iran by a U.S.-organized coup in 1953, and in the 1980s it actively supported Saddam Hussein, even helping him obtain and use "weapons of mass destruction," as he fought Iran and attacked his own Kurds. The discovery that he was a bad man by invading Kuwait in 1990, and the subsequent war and extended boycott imposed on Iraq in the 1990s, may strike others as hypocritical and opportunistic. Similarly, the fact that the U.S. allows Israel alone to maintain a nuclear arsenal, and protects each and every one of its incursions into Lebanon, and steady dispossession of Palestinian homes, land, and water, arouses immense anger in the Middle East.

The American people are largely protected from understanding why large numbers hate us by politicians and pundits who demonize our enemies, stress the positives-and we do decent things, and support democracies, when not in conflict with business demands - and refuse to admit the elements of self-interest, opportunism, and double standards in our actions, that are so obvious to many people abroad.”



Dr. Donald Wilber – CIA



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 04:00 AM
Response to Original message
15. Hoo Boy...
Brock is just so wrong on so many levels that I can't imagine any reasonable way to argue the "points." Or even where to start.

Iraq is now a much more dangerous and unstable place than before we went in. And the big deal about the schools, hospitals, etc. that we "built" is simply wrong. Much of Iraq is living with a few hours of electricity a day. We blew them up, and haven't properly rebuilt them yet. Links? Have him find a reputable link showing what he says is true.

WWII? I love it when these pantloads bring up WWII. We did nothing about the rise of Hitler or the Japanese warlords. None of our business, we said. Roosevelt even went through hell trying to sell arms the Brits, who were dying in North Africa while we were sitting on our asses. We completely ignored the Japanese in Manchuria and their designs on owning all of Asia.

When we did go in, only because we were attacked, we were on a total war economy, with gas and meat rationing, millions and millions drafted, war bonds, weekly copper and steel collections... Walk down any street back then and count the gold stars. I can't imagine our current crop of armchair warriors putting up with the sacrifices the entire country made back then, much less actually signing up to do the war themselves.

It is beside the point, but there are far worse places in the world than Iraq was under Hussein. If we care so much about the poor people living there under that repressive regime, why aren't we in Africa where they are really suffering?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
punpirate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 04:02 AM
Response to Original message
17. The question is...
... do you really want to take the time necessary to refute all the inaccuracies in this? Probably not.

Some of this is outlandish and wrong. Some of it depends upon parsing what is meant by before and after the war, since Iraqi society generally degraded during the preceding twelve years of sanctions and intermittent bombings by US and British planes.

None of his information on Iraq is sourced, in any way, so what's the point? His main one seems to be that Hussein killed a million of his own people. Even the US Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues puts the figure at something like a tenth of that--and a significant number of that estimate were Shia in the south who were encouraged to rise up by the US at the conclusion of the Gulf War and were given no support by the US in doing so; in that sense, the US was complicit in their deaths.

Hussein is a beast, make no mistake about it, and I think it's everyone's hope that he's tried for his crimes and locked away forever.

However, suggesting that the Iraqi people are measurably better off now than they were prior to the war is a gross fabrication, based on the evidence. Prior to the Gulf War, the Iraqis were among the best-educated people in the Middle East, with a percentage of population with PhDs exceeded only by the Palestinians. Contrary to what he claims, girls did attend school in Iraq before the war--in very high numbers due to the secular nature of Iraqi society. If they did not, how did Iraq maintain a +90% literacy rate prior to the Gulf War?

Clean water was available throughout the country prior to the Gulf War. Electrical generation and water treatment plants were targeted during the Gulf War, in contravention of international law, and sanctions made repairs of those more difficult. The simple fact is that today, after the recent war, many areas of Iraq still don't have clean water and proper sewage treatment. Yes, there are continuing attempts to reconstruct those systems, but they are going slowly. Recent reports indicate that there are still places, particularly in Sadr City, where the streets are awash in raw sewage.

Electricity--many communities are still dependent upon non-governmental sources for electricity (small privately-run gas-powered generators). Government-distributed power to Baghdad still averages about six to eight hours per day.

Schools--yes, there have been lots of refurbished schools--but, relatively recent reports indicate considerable corruption in the contracting process, with shoddy work and misspent funds being the norm, rather than the exception. Many of those "refurbished" schools are still not suitable for occupation by students.

The estimate of 100,000 Iraqis killed by the recent war is not bogus, but it's still an estimate:

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/20352/

The problem with it, as an estimate, is that the US has steadfastly refused to keep records on Iraqi deaths attributable to the invasion, right from the start of the recent war, and the study above attempts to make decent measurements in the absence of official information. The source of the study is a group of researchers at Johns Hopkins, so it can't be said, out of hand, to be bogus, unless there's a legitimate source questioning that group's methods of investigation.

Beyond that, the numbers of Iraqi security forces and soldiers have been found, repeatedly, to be inflated, in the same way as was done in Vietnam. The security situation is frightful today. Robert Fisk consistently reports that the true state of the country is not known in the West because reporters are too fearful, and rightly so, to leave their hotels. For example, he says that aerial bombing (and the inevitable civilian deaths from such) continues in the country at a pace which is not reported, because reporters simply aren't out in the country reporting.

Hospitals--the US interim government specifically excluded US funds from being spent to replenish hospital stocks, and hospitals were not provided adequate security, in part to discourage the treatment of insurgents. Doctors, afraid for their lives, were leaving Iraq for nearby Jordan, particularly. "100%" of the hospitals can't be open, since the US military has destroyed hospitals and clinics in places such as Fallujah, to prevent the treatment of insurgents. This was about a year ago, but there's doubt that this situation has dramatically improved in the past year, given that so many NGOs have suspended or limited their efforts in Iraq due to the security situation:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0221-06.htm

All in all, the belief that life is immeasurably better in Iraq now than before the war is a profound act of self-propagandization and a reflection of the degree to which the news has been managed by our own Department of Defense. There are isolated and sincere attempts to improve the lot of Iraqis, by both the military and contractors, but, by and large, the situation there is abominable and is not improving--especially with regard to security, which, in turn, affects the delivery of services everywhere.

Cheers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jessicazi Donating Member (458 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 04:21 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. My reply to Brock
-I didn't copy and paste the charts I had emailed to Brock, that compared Bush and Clinton. I also didn't email Brock the sources.(http://www.hunterdonfordean.com/economy.html)

Thank you for your help.


"Hello,

My debunkment of your email to Maggie is below.


WWII

I asked a friend to read your email and this is his response,

"You might point out to him that we declared war on Japan after they attacked us, which was after they had conquered and ravaged most of the Asia-Pacific region. When did Iraq attack our country? What part of the world have they conquered lately? Tiny Kuwait? We kicked them out of there more than a decade before we invaded them.

Because Japan and Germany were allies, Germany declared war on us, when we declared war on Japan. What were we supposed to do, not fight someone who had declared war on us? Did Iraq ever declare war on us?

You might point out that both Germany and Japan had massive war machines which had enabled them to take over half the world by the time we got involved. Ask him where all of Iraq's terrible weapon systems are.

As far as getting into WWII because of the Jews, that had absolutely nothing to do with it. Our country didn't care about that. We even sent Jewish refugees back to Nazi occupied Europe.

You might also point out that it was the conservative Republicans who were opposed to us getting involved in that war. That they had helped support Hitler and build his war machine, just like modern Republicans helped put Saddam in power and supplied him with arms."

100,000 Dead Iraqi's?

Hardly a "bogus" figure.
"The estimate, to be published next week in The Lancet, a leading British medical journal, comes from a distinguished group of social and medical scientists at Johns Hopkins University, headed by Dr. Les Roberts of the Bloomberg School of Public Health. The team also included researchers at Columbia University and the College of Medicine at Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. They went house-to-house in 33 neighborhoods that reflect Iraq society as a whole and interviewed residents about deaths in their households since the U.S. invaded. The death rate, they found, averaged about 300 percent higher than normal, attributable to the war's violence."

What about their research methods is bogus?

Halliburton

INVESTIGATIONS


Nigeria bribery probe: The U.S. Department of Justice is conducting a criminal investigation into an alleged $180 million bribe paid by Halliburton and three other companies to the government of Nigeria. The alleged bribe was paid in exchange for awarding a contract to the companies to build a $4 billion natural gas plant in Nigeria's southern delta region. The bribes were paid during the time when Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission opened its own formal investigation on June 11, 2004. Click here for a chronology of events in the bribery case.


Nigeria bribery probe: The French government is conducting an investigation of the same Nigeria bribery allegations as the U.S. Justice Department. France is also investigating a former Halliburton executive for his role in the scheme. Investigators said $5 million of the bribes intended for Nigeria was deposited into the Swiss bank account of former KBR chairman, Jack Stanley, who retired from the company on December 31, 2003.


The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating a second bribery case involving Nigeria. Halliburton admitted that its employees paid a $2.4 million bribe to a government official of Nigeria for the purpose of receiving favorable tax treatment.


The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is investigating allegations that the Army Corp of Engineers illegally favored Halliburton for contracts by excluding competitors from bidding on war-related work. In particular, the FBI is investigating the Army's $7 billion firefighting contract for Iraqi oil wells, which was awarded to Halliburton without competition in March of 2003. An Army whistleblower told the FBI that the line between government officials and Halliburton had become so blurred that a perception of conflict of interest existed. The conduct appears to have violated specific regulations and calls into question the independence of the contracting process.


The Pentagon admitted that a $7 billion no-bid contract to extinguish oil fires in Iraq was awarded to Halliburton after a "political appointee" from the Bush administration recommended the company for the job. Government policy forbids politicians or their appointees from taking a role in awarding contracts to private corporations. But Vice President Cheney ignored this basic principle when his political appointees were directly involved in awarding a $7 billion contract to Halliburton to rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure.


The U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is investigating the legality of Halliburton's business dealings in Iran, an enemy of the United States. Halliburton sells goods and services to Iranian companies through its Cayman Islands subsidiary. The sales appear to have violated the U.S. trade embargo against trading with Iran. The OFAC referred the case to the Department of Justice, which is conducting a criminal investigation.


The Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice issued a subpoena to a former employee of Halliburton's KBR unit to determine whether the company criminally overcharged for gasoline imported into Iraq. KBR, along with its Kuwaiti subcontractor Altanmia Commercial Marketing Co., allegedly overcharged the government by $61 million, but Democrats in Congress say the overcharges were closer to $167 million. KBR charged the government $2.64 per gallon of gasoline while competitors were importing gasoline for less than half that price.


Four former employees of Halliburton filed a class action lawsuit against their former employer, alleging the company engaged in "systemic" accounting fraud from 1998 to 2001. The former employees say Halliburton overbilled for services, overstated the amounts it was owed by customers and understated amounts it owed to vendors. A former employee in the accounting department said supervisors had told her to do "whatever it took" to make profit statements appear more profitable than was actually the case.


The U.S. Department of Defense is investigating Halliburton's billing system, which it calls "inadequate." Pentagon accountants said they are uncertain as to why Halliburton's KBR unit billed the government for $1.8 billion in work that was apparently never undertaken or completed. The $1.8 billion represents 43 percent of Halliburton's expenditures in the Middle East.


Congressional auditors issued a report that criticized Halliburton for a variety of abuses associated with its troop support and military logistics (LOGCAP) contract. It also criticized the Pentagon for “a pattern of contractor management problems,” including ineffective planning, a poor materials requisition system and inadequate supervision of subcontractors.


The Pentagon's Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) completed a comprehensive review of Halliburton's system for billing the government for meals served to the troops in the Middle East. The DCAA said Halliburton billed the government for 36 percent more meals than was actually served to the troops while an internal KBR report said it had overcharged by 19 percent. In May 2004, the DCAA recommended that the Pentagon refuse to pay Halliburton for the overcharges.


An investigation by the inspector general of the now-disbanded U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) found that Halliburton lost $18.6 million worth of government property in Iraq because of mismanagement. About a third of the government items under Halliburton management in Iraq, including trucks, computers and office furniture have disappeared.


The U.S. Justice Department is investigating Halliburton for possible over billing on government services work done in the Balkans from 1996 through 2000. The charges stem from a General Accounting Office report that found in 1997 that Halliburton billed the Army for questionable expenses for work in the Balkans, including charges of $85.98 per sheet of plywood that cost $14.06. A follow-up report by the GAO in 2000 found inflated costs, including charges for cleaning some offices up to four times a day.


The Army awarded Halliburton a no-bid contract in March 2003 despite a secret Pentagon report which found the company had "significant deficiencies" that could lead to defrauding the government. The Pentagon's report was given to Hearst News Service under the Freedom of Information Act over Halliburton's objections.


The Department of Defense repeatedly warned Halliburton's subsidiary, KBR, that its food and the kitchens where it is prepared are "dirty," NBC News reported. A Pentagon report found that KBR's promises to clean up its food and kitchens "have not been followed through."


The Kuwaiti government has delayed completion of a report on its investigation of the $61 million gasoline overcharge by KBR and its subcontractor, Altanmia. The U.S. embassy in Kuwait publicly stated it will not cooperate with the Kuwaiti government's investigation. Kuwait said its investigation is delayed because the U.S. Army refuses to testify.


The inspector general for the U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) found that the United States failed to adequately control over $9 billion in international aid, including Halliburton's hotel costs in Kuwait. Halliburton charged the government $2.85 million for hotel costs, even though cheaper housing arrangements were available. For example, one CPA official lived at the Kuwaiti Hilton for almost $700 a night. The inspector general also criticized Halliburton for charging $191,000 a year for laundry services.


The auditing arm of Congress issued a report confirming that the Pentagon had violated procurement law by issuing a "task order" to Halliburton to develop plans for extinguishing oil well fires in Iraq. The report, issued by the General Accounting Office (GAO), said the task order violated the law because it was issued under Halliburton's LOGCAP contract, which is not authorized to handle oil fires. LOGCAP is a logistics contract that requires Halliburton to feed the troops, deliver supplies in a war zone and construct military buildings. But there is no authority under LOGCAP to deal with oil well fires. The GAO said Bush administration officials “overstepped the latitude provided by competition laws” when they misused the LOGCAP contract to assign the planning job to Halliburton.


Halliburton settled an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) which accused the firm of providing "materially misleading" information to investors during the period when Vice President Dick Cheney was the chief executive officer. The SEC said it settled the case after Halliburton agreed to pay a $7.5 million fine and to stop "committing or causing future securities law violations."


The International Advisory and Monitoring Board (IAMB), a watchdog established by the United Nations, is investigating the management of Iraqi finances by the now-disbanded U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). The IAMB complained that the CPA refuses to release documents on contracts awarded to private firms, including Halliburton. The Bush administration refused numerous IAMB requests for U.S. government reports about the payment of approximately $1.5 billion in Iraqi funds to Halliburton, which is the single largest private recipient of Iraqi oil proceeds.


More Halliburton

Halliburton Iraq ties more than Cheney said
NewsMax Wires
Monday, June 25, 2001
UNITED NATIONS, June 23 (UPI) -- Halliburton Co., the oil company that was headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, signed contracts with Iraq worth $73 million through two subsidiaries while he was at its helm, the Washington Post reported.

During last year's presidential campaign, Cheney said Halliburton did business with Libya and Iran through foreign subsidiaries, but maintained he had imposed a "firm policy" against trading with Iraq.

"Iraq's different," the Post quoted him as saying.

Oil industry executives and confidential U.N. records showed, however, that Halliburton held stakes in two companies that signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer, the Post reported.

Two former senior executives of the Halliburton subsidiaries said they knew of no policy against dealing with Iraq. One of them said he was certain Cheney knew about the deals, though he had never spoken about them to the vice president directly.

If he "was ever in a conversation or meeting where there was a question of pursuing a project with someone in Iraq, he said, 'No,' " Mary Matalin, Cheney's counselor, said.

"In a joint venture, he would not have reviewed all their existing contracts," Matalin told the Post. "The nature of those joint ventures was that they had a separate governing structure, so he had no control over them."

The deal was legal, the Post said, and they showed how U.S. firms use foreign subsidiaries and joint ventures to avoid doing business with Baghdad. The practice is not a violation of U.S. law and falls within the U.N.-run oil-for-food program.

The Post said U.N. records showed that the dealings were more extensive than originally reported and than Cheney had acknowledged, however.

According to the report, the Halliburton subsidiaries, Dresser-Rand and Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co., sold material to Baghdad through French affiliates. The sales lasted from the first half of 1997 to the summer of 2000. Cheney resigned from Halliburton in August.

"Halliburton and Ingersoll-Rand, as far as I know, had no official policy about that, other than we would be in compliance with applicable U.S. and international laws," said Cleive Dumas, who oversaw Ingersoll Dresser Pump's business in the Middle East, including Iraq.

Cheney's spokeswoman, Juleanna Glover Weiss, referred the Post's calls to Halliburton, which in turn, directed them back to Cheney's office.

In a July 30, 2000, interview on ABC-TV's "This Week," Cheney denied that Halliburton or its subsidiaries traded with Baghdad. Three weeks later, on the same program, he modified his response after being informed that a Halliburton spokesman had said that Dresser Rand and Ingersoll Dresser Pump traded with Iraq.

Cheney said he did not know the subsidiaries were doing business with the Iraqi regime when Halliburton purchased Dresser Industries in September 1998.

The firms traded with Iraq for more than a year under Cheney, however. They signed nearly $30 million in contracts before he sold Halliburton's 49 percent stake in Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co. in December 1999 and its 51 percent interest in Dresser Rand to Ingersoll-Rand in February 2000, the Post quoted U.N. records as saying.

Cheney has long criticized of unilateral U.S. sanctions, which he says penalize American companies. He has pushed for a review of policy toward Iraq, Iran and Libya.


Accomplishments in Iraq based on your email:


Accurate


Over 400,000 kids have up-to-date immunizations.

School attendance is up 80% from levels before the war.

Over 1,500 schools have been renovated and rid of the weapons stored there so education can occur.

The port of Uhm Qasar was renovated so grain can be off-loaded from ships faster.

100% of the hospitals are open and fully staffed, compared to 35% before the war.

An interim constitution has been signed.

Textbooks that don't mention Saddam are in the schools for the first time in 30 years.
Inaccurate


The country had its first 2 billion barrel export of oil in August.
(Oil Production hit 2 million barrells a day in April, 2004)

Over 4.5 million people have clean drinking water for the first time ever in Iraq.
(While some treatment facilities needed repair, clean drinking water is not a new thing in Iraq)

The country now receives 2 times the electrical power it did before the war.
(Electricity production is only slightly higher than pre-war levels)

Elections are taking place in every major city, and city councils are in place.
(Elections remain a point of contention and have been suspended in some cities)
Unproven or misleading


Sewer and water lines are installed in every major city.
(Work is still underway)

Over 60,000 police are patrolling the streets.
(The goal is to train and implement 35 - 50 thousand. The first class of 400 graduated in January, 2004)

Over 100,000 Iraqi civil defense police are securing the country.
(About 25,000 were hired and trained as of February 2004)

Over 80,000 Iraqi soldiers are patrolling the streets side by side with US soldiers.
(Only 2,000 were operational as of February 2004)

Over 400,000 people have telephones for the first time ever.
(Most of the post-war work on the telephone system has focused on restoring service lost or damaged during the war)

Girls are allowed to attend school.
(Girls have been allowed to attend school since 1970, more boys than girls typically enrolled)
This goes into more depth:

While the email appears to provide some truthful information, it is replete with misinformation. I don't have time to check each representation in the email, but here's an overview:

Over 400,000 kids have up-to-date immunizations
This is interesting. A lot of kids have been immunized in Iraq. In fact, last year the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) "25 million doses of vaccines to Iraq to help prevent the spread of polio, tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis, measles, and tuberculosis -- considered the main killers of children in developing countries."<*> At the time, UNICEF spokesman Gordon Weiss explained that the children of Iraq would need several stages of repeated immunizations for the immunizations to be effective:

"Iraq is in a particularly delicate stage at the moment -- postwar, with a lot of the health system having broken down and a lot of the water systems having broken down, as well. So children are more than ever this year vulnerable to water-borne diseases. Usually you don't vaccinate just once, you vaccinate a number of times in order to have the vaccinations work."<*>

Here's what the Fact Sheet says:

"USAID has partnered with UNICEF, the World Health Organization (WHO) and Abt Associates to support health program in Iraq. Since the end of the war, USAID has vaccinated three million Iraqi children under the age of five, administered tetanus vaccine to more than 700,000 pregnant women, and by April 30, 2004 the USAID mission will have provided updated vaccinations to 90 percent of pregnant women and children under five years of age."

Hmmm. UNICEF said that 3 1/2 million Iraqi children were vaccinated last year. Does this mean that the vaccination program is not being pursued as much as last year? I don't know.

I also don't know where the 400,000 number came from. Last year, Iraq had approximately 4.2 million children in Iraq under the age of five. If fewer than 10% of young Iraqi children have up-to-date immunizations out of the millions who have been on an immunization schedule and are exposed, that would seem to be a serious failure.

That being said, hundred of thousands of immunized children has got to be a good thing.

The country had its first 2 billion barrel export of oil in August.
Nonsense. First, there's nothing in the Fact Sheet about oil. Iraq is presently exporting approximately 1.9 million barrels of oil a day, or under 60 million barrels per month. And that's going to be difficult to maintain. You probably already know that insurgent attacks have been limiting the exports.<*> In August -- the supposed 2 billion barrel month -- Iraq was expecting to export fewer than 1.2 million barrels a day, about 37 million barrels for the month.<*>

Over 4.5 million people have clean drinking water for the first time
ever in Iraq.
Here's what the Fact Sheet says:

"Iraq has 13 major wastewater facilities. Baghdad's three facilities are currently inoperable and comprise three quarters of the nation's sewage treatment capacity. Raw waste flows directly into the Tigris River. In the rest of the country, most wastewater treatment facilities were only partly operational before the conflict, and a shortage of electricity, parts, and chemicals has exacerbated the situation and only a few wastewater treatment plants are operational. Iraq's 140 major water treatment facilities operate at about 65 percent of the pre-war level of three billion liters a day."

Water does appear to be getting to a lot more people. But, apparently, at a price. A witness from Basra last month claimed:

"The plant seems to be working well . . . This plant is up and going and provides water for a huge number of people. Someone is constructing a new plant to expand so that there is drinking water. I have not met anyone here yet despite the poverty who is not buying drinking water."<*>

The country now receives 2 times the electrical power it did before the war.
Not true. According to the Fact Sheet, on March 11, 2004, power peaked at approximately 92% of "the pre-conflict generating level". ABC reports that power generation is off since last October and is averaging somewhere around pre-conflict generation.<*>

100% of the hospitals are open and fully staffed, compared to 35% before the war.
Not true. The Fact Sheet provides no information about this. But, the Washington Post on March 5, 2004 reported<*>:

"Health Minister Khudair Fadhil Abbas said about 90 percent of the hospitals and clinics have been brought back to the same poor conditions as before the war but that the others will take more time to reach even that low level."

Here are the first few paragraphs from the article:

"The stout woman, covered from head to toe in a black abaya, shuffled into the crowded hospital. She went straight to the emergency room and opened her robe to reveal a tiny baby wrapped in fuzzy blankets. The boy had been born prematurely, and the family was afraid he was going to die.

Uday Abdul Ridha took a quick look and shook his head. The physician put his hands on the woman's shoulders in sympathy, but his words were blunt. "I'm sorry," he said. "We cannot help you. We don't have an incubator, and even if we did, we are short on oxygen. Please try another hospital."

Scenes like this one at the Pediatric Teaching Hospital in Baghdad's Iskan neighborhood have become common in Iraq in recent months, as the health care system has been hit by a critical shortage of basic medications and equipment. Babies die of simple infections because they can't get the proper antibiotics. Surgeries are delayed because there is no oxygen. And patients in critical condition are turned away because there isn't enough equipment."

Over 60,000 police are patrolling the streets.
I don't know how many Iraqi police are on duty, given widespread desertions.<*> But, we know how many police are in the New York Police Department -- 39,110.<*> According to the 2000 Census, NY City had a population of more than 8 million and covered an area of 320 square miles.<*> According to 1993 estimates, the population of Iraq is about 19,435,000.<*> Iraq is about the size of California, approximately 171,000 square miles.<*>

Though New York, like any other big city, can be dangerous at times, armed insurgents aren't blowing people up daily. New York has about 1 police officer for every 205 residents. Iraq -- which does have armed insurgents blowing people up daily -- has about 1 police officer for every 324 citizens.

Over 400,000 people have telephones for the first time ever.
Not true. The Fact Sheet says that before we invaded 1.2 million Iraqis had "subscribed to landline telephone service." As of March 9, 2004, "104,680 subscribers to the Iraqi landline phone network were reconnected." Repairs have reconnected some form of telephone service between Baghdad and 20 other cities.

Girls are allowed to attend school.
True, but not because of the invasion. Girls were allowed to attend school during Saddam's rule. Between 1997-2000 82% as many girls attended primary school as did boys. 62% as many girls attended high school as did boys, during the same period.<*>

-If you need more information let me know.

-Jessica

What is your source for the 1,000,000 people murdered by Saddam? Should the US take some responsibility? If so, how much?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
punpirate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 04:50 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. Pretty comprehensive...
... but not likely to change a closed mind. That's one of the great problems of public discourse today--as Reagan once declared, "facts are stupid things." There are an awful lot of people out there who would agree with him. It's so much easier on the brain to deny reality than to acknowledge it.

Hope your efforts make a difference.

Cheers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Panda1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 04:59 AM
Response to Reply #18
22. Great reply.
Please post his (non)response to your facts as it will probably be good for a laugh.

You're waaaay nicer than I could ever be with a dim bulb like him.
I admire your attempt to educate him. Good for you for taking the time and energy. Don't expect a rational response, though. He'll disappoint you. You did your best so don't take it personally when he changes the subject and twists your words. Also, it might take him a while to gather his talking points from freeperville or whatever rancid places he inhabits.

WELL DONE. :applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Panda1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 04:50 AM
Response to Reply #17
20. Exactly. A waste of your valuable time to attempt debunking.
First ask HIM to provide links and sources for all his bullshit LIES. When he fails to do that just tell him he's an intractable brainwashed ditto head and he can't handle the truth. Tell him to DO HIS OWN RESEARCH that you don't have time to educate him. Nothing you provide will change his Rush/Rover views. He's not interested in facts...obviously.
He's a waste of your time.
He's a liar and unable to even provide links....pure monkey propagandized crap. Same technique they all use.

Make him do the work rather than trying to educate his ignorant ass. No matter what proof you bring to the table he will STILL not answer your reply with any semblance of intelligence. He will only frustrate you further with his total ignorance and he'll change the subject the second he sees something legit.

A monkey is a monkey is a monkey. No changing them. No reasoning with them.
Most of us here could take that email apart line by line but to what end? He's not interested in learning anything.

I think it's really noble and nice of you to try and enlighten him but from his emails I'd say he's a lost cause.....until his job is outsourced, he loses his car and house and maybe a relative or two to the neocon war for oil he will remain broccoli brain. He's a moran!

It's the fence sitters we do the extensive work for...the uninformed who WANT to know the truth...not wingnuts like this jackass.

Send him graphics and laugh at him. They hate that.


Remind him that unless he's in the top 1% his "financial genius" cares about him this much.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emanymton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 05:50 AM
Response to Original message
25.  Lie to me so I can sleep.
This email is an example of shooting arrows, missing the targets, having the arrows land and then painting bulls-eyes around where the arrows land. Or one might put it, the ends justify the means.

The shrub lied, people died and now isn't all the rows of coffins pretty. Lets make money selling flags to cover the dead.

Lie to me so I can sleep. For many people in USA, they know they have been lied to and can't bring themselves to accept it. For those people, these lies help come to grips with the sorry state of USA policy.

You will not be loved for being correct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deutsey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 07:58 AM
Response to Reply #25
29. Good bullseye analogy
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 06:23 AM
Response to Original message
26. One thing you can tell him
The exact same stupid letter has been circulating since July 2003! Ask him why nothing has changed since then. Don't the pink fluffy bunny people believe in updated statistics?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WearyOne Donating Member (490 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 07:41 AM
Response to Original message
27. why bother..all his figures about the great things happening for
Iraqis are absolute b/s
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 07:54 AM
Response to Original message
28. Delusions do not suffer...
... when people believe them. It's the people who believe them who eventually suffer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
steelyboo Donating Member (225 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 08:36 AM
Response to Original message
31. The chickenshit copied that list out of a overtly debunked email
found here:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/reynolds.asp

I love it when the sheep try to sound quasi-intellectual, just shows their true ignorance :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jessicazi Donating Member (458 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. My original reply to him
Edited on Thu Apr-07-05 09:25 AM by jessicazi
This is the first email I sent him where I didn't address most of the points in his email (original post above). I tried to switch it up a bit and just ask him questions, I still haven't heard back and I sent this on April 5th. My comments are in parantheses. I hope that others can use these for their own freeper fights. The problem is that he finds "sources" and "facts" backing up his beliefs, and eventhough WE know his facts come from flawed sources (Rush, Hannity, etc) he believes they are not flawed, but are the real true sources-HAHAHAHA. I also ask Brock if Rush is still addicted to painkillers, it is funny because he ignores those comments/questions.

He also sent this email,

"Did you read the whole thing? Do you not get it? The war in Iraq is not a war in the traditional sense of Warfare... We aren't bombing the hell out of them, we are dropping food and medical supplies, while we drop bombs on the Enemy targets... Or we were, but we are now in Iraq stabilizing the country. Well, I've attached some other e-mails to this that you might find interesting... one of them I wrote and the other one was written by a guy named Mosiah... a Republican obviously by his warmongerring attitude."

This is my reply
"But you are making it sound like there have been no civilian casualities.

Why during the UN/US Sanctions in the 90's, did the US destroy "electricity generating plants, water treatment facilities, sewage treatment plants, communication systems and transportation networks, hospitals, schools and museums, and agricultural fields."? http://www.phmovement.org/pubs/issuepapers/hong20.html

The use of cluster bombs?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0%2C2763%2C949637%2C00.html

Depleted uranium?
http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du.htm

Are you aware of the devastating consequences of the UN Sanctions? And the no fly over zones?

Have you seen some of the birth defects related to depleted uranium?
http://aeronautics.ru/archive/du-watch/iraq_images/

Why did the US stamp, "secret" on Saddam's atrocities?
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/09.18A.neswk.us.iraq.htm

Why did Cheney say in the early 90's that removing Saddam was not worth American lives?
"And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq... All of a sudden you've got a battle you're fighting in a major built-up city, a lot of civilians are around, significant limitations on our ability to use our most effective technologies and techniques. Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq." - vice president Dick Cheney, 1992.

Why did Bush lie about WMD's?

Bush made his remarks to reporters on 7-14-03 with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan at his side, in response to a question from the Washington Post.
As quoted on the White House Web site, Bush said:

"The fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power..."

The Truth:

Everyone in the world knows that Saddam Hussein allowed a fully-equipped team of UN inspectors to comb every inch of his country - including previously off-limits Presidential palaces - for four full months."

George W. Bush knew this because he demanded that Iraq allow inspectors to return in 2002.

He knew this because millions of citizens around the world took to the streets to demand continued inspections, not war.

He knew this because he spoke about the inspections repeatedly, almost daily.

He knew this because he specifically urged the inspectors to leave Iraq when he issued his 48-hour ultimatum to Iraq on March 17, 2003."



On 9-7-02 Bush cited a satellite photograph and a report by the U.N. atomic energy agency (IAEA) as evidence of Iraq's impending rearmament. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair talked to reporters before opening about three hours of talks at Camp David, Bush's presidential retreat in Maryland.

Blair cited a newly released satellite photo of Iraq identifying new construction at several sites linked in the past to Baghdad's development of nuclear weapons. And both leaders mentioned a 1998 report by the U.N.-affiliated International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, that said Saddam could be six months away from developing nuclear weapons.

"I don't know what more evidence we need," Bush said as he greeted Blair for a brainstorming session on Iraq. "We owe it to future generations to deal with this problem."

In a joint appearance before the summit, the two leaders repeated their shared view that Saddam's ouster was the only way to stop Iraq's pursuit - and potential use - of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

The Truth:

The IAEA report Bush cited was done before the 1991 Gulf War, yes O'Reilly he lied buddy. Bush quoted a report that was done before the 1991 Gulf War, and he passed it off as a current report of intelligence in 2002. Bush quotes an 11 year old IAEA report and told the American people it was a current report. When in fact it was an 11 year old report, this is called Lying O'Reilly. Unless you believe the President of the United States did not know it was an 11 year old report, it is a documented lie.

And in fact, the white house even later admitted it was an 11 year old report. The only problem is they called it a mistake, yeah right, he accidently quoted an 11 year old report about WMD's in Iraq. If anyone believes that, contact me because I have some land to sell you.

A senior White House official acknowledged Saturday night that the 1998 report did not say what Bush claimed.

Meanwhile, Mark Gwozdecky, a spokesman for the U.N. agency, disputed Bush's and Blair's assessment of the satellite photograph, which was first publicized Friday. Contrary to news service reports, there was no specific photo or building that aroused suspicions, he told Windrem.

The photograph in question was not U.N. intelligence imaging but simply a picture from a commercial satellite imaging company, Gwozdecky said. He said that the IAEA reviewed commercial satellite imagery regularly and that, from time to time, it noticed construction at sites it had previously examined.

Gwozdecky said the new construction indicated in the photograph was no surprise and that no conclusions were drawn from it. "There is not a single building we see," he said.


Why did Christ teach us to love our enemies and to bless them that curse us? When Jesus said, "love your enemies," do you think he meant kill them?

Spencer W. Kimball: We are a warlike people...When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel--ships, planes, missiles, fortifications--and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become anti-enemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan's counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior's teaching: "Love your enemies..." (He and I are both Mormon, and this is a quote from a former Mormon President/Prophet-I am trying to use our religion to show the immorality of the war)


Did you know the LDS Church spoke out about WWII? Did you know the LDS Church spoke out about every major war, including WWII, and up until Vietnam, when every major religion shifted to the right politically? Why did Hinckley give his personal and half-hearted support to the war in Iraq when the justification given was only that it was an extension to the war on terror, not a war to "liberate" Iraqi's or remove Saddam? (Hinckley is the current President of the Mormon Church. He gave a "talk"/speech around the time we invaded and said he personally supported the war because it was basically an extension of the war on terror (buying Bush's lies like most other people).

Is Afghanistan our model for liberating a country? (This is a trap. If he says yes, I can use the failures of Afghanistan to drive home my point that wars to liberate people can cause more harm than good)

Edwin Brown Firmage: Jesus knew that no dispute is finally solved by violence. The underlying cause usually remains, simply exacerbated by the evil progeny spawned by war: hatred of our brothers and sisters, as if they were somehow fundamentally different from ourselves; the teaching and glorification of violence; lust; ignorance; propaganda; and suffering, starvation, disease, and death. (This is another quote from a Mormon and really hits hard with me-especially how removing Saddam has probably created thousands of other Saddam's-"the underlying cause usually remains")

Why didn't the US use an international coalition to remove Saddam and then try him in the ICC, rather than invading a country and killing tens of thousands of civlilans, thus creating thousands of future Saddam's and Osama's?

Do you believe war is inevitable? (Another trap. I have quotes from other Mormons, including past Mormon prophets who say that war is not inevitable and can be prevented)


-Jessica
Anyone is welcome to use anything here!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paineinthearse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 05:33 PM
Response to Original message
35. My two cents
I do not know your friends writing, but this certainly reads as non-original drivvel, probably copied from some freeper website. Ask him/her who the author is.

"I am so glad that people like you are a minority in the US now." Actual results from the 2004 election: 30% rethug, 29% dems, 40% did not vote.

"Remember, we were never attacked by Germany either. But we saw a threat in Adolph Hitler and we took him out. we saw a threat in Adolph Hitler and we took him out". December 7 - Japan attacked US fleet at Pearl Harbor. December 8 - As Japanese ally, Germany declared war on US. December 9 - US declared war on Germany.

"The fact is that George Bush is a genius when it comes to fiscal policy."
* took a $5 trillion surplus and turned it into the current deficit. Genius? Ha!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jessicazi Donating Member (458 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-05 12:40 AM
Response to Reply #35
36. UPDATE!!!
Still no reply from Brock, and it has been about 3 days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-05 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. Good try, though. GREAT thread.
MOST useful.

KICK!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jessicazi Donating Member (458 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-05 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #39
42. Brock replied back with a bunch of garbage.
So I have blocked him, but he is so pathetic, I am sure he will create new email accounts and keep harassing me. He said the whole issue with cluster bombs is not true-man republicans are so STUPID.

Jessica
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minnesota_Lib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-05 05:11 AM
Response to Original message
38. I am surprised your friend didn’t include the old “leftie appeasers”...
...canard the wackos always rehash in their pro-war rants—you know, where they compare Saddam to Hitler and claim the left appeased both. In Saddam’s case, the term appeasement hardly applies as he was never a threat to the U.S.

As for Hitler, well, a couple of years ago I got so tired of seeing the “leftie appeaser” myth repeated over-and-over on forums and in emails that I did a bit of research and put together the following facts that I just love to shove down their lying throats. If your friend falls back on the “the lefties appeased Hitler” BS, feel free to use my stock response (you can use Google to confirm all facts).
________________________________________

Who were the Leading Post-WWII Appeasers?

UNITED KINGDOM:

STANLEY BALDWIN--Conservative Party, British P.M 1935 to 1937: set the policy of appeasement that Chamberlain later followed; did nothing about German rearmament; did nothing when Hitler invaded the Rhineland; was so sympathetic to the fascists in the Spanish Civil War in 1936 that he persuaded 27 countries to sign a Non-Intervention Pact and then stood by and watched as Hitler and Mussolini ignored it by sending military support to Franco; openly said that he would not go to war with Hitler and Mussolini; allowed his appointed War Secretary, the right-wing, pro-fascist Lord Halifax, not only to consort with the Nazis but also propagandize his pro-Nazi message to the British public.

NEVILLE CHAMERLAIN--Conservative Party, British P.M. 1938-1940: supported the fascist Franco; sympathized with Nazi Germany; historically considered the major European force for appeasement; provided behind-the-scene assistance to the French right-wing, led by Henri-Philippe Petain and the French right-wing press, in the ouster of France’s leftist, antifascist, pro-intervention P.M. Leon Blum; signed the Munich Agreement with Hitler and Mussolini; appointed the infamous pro-Nazi Lord Halifax to the vitally important office of Foreign Secretary, a move that allowed Halifax a wider and more respected stage from which to propagandize for the Nazis.

LORD HALIFAX--British War Secretary and leader of the House of Lords 1935-38, Foreign Secretary, 1938-40: influential right-wing, anti-semitic, pro-fascist fan of Hitler; “He (Halifax) told me he liked all the Nazi leaders, even Goebbels, and he was much impressed, interested and amused by the visit. He thinks the regime absolutely fantastic."—Halifax confidant Henry Cannon; became the leading British advocate for appeasement after that 1937 meeting with Hitler.


FRANCE:

EDOUARD DALADIER--Radical Party (left of center moderate): French P.M. 1933, 1934, 1938-1940: Initially supported Spanish antifascists but under pressure from right-wing members of his government and British P.M. Baldwin began to advocate a policy of neutrality; returned to power after leftist P.M. Leon Blum, who advocated ending France’s non-interventionist policy, was forced out of office by a coalition led by France’s pro-fascist, right-wing press and right-wing politicians such as Henri-Philippe Petain, and aided by the behind-the-scenes support of conservative British P.M. Neville Chamberlain and the British Foreign Office; adopted a policy of full appeasement when he joined Chamberlain in signing the Munich Agreement with Hitler and Mussolini.

HENRI-PHILIPPE PETAIN—Assisted by Chamberlain and the right-wing press, Petain was a leader of the movement to bring down left-wing, anti-fascist P.M. Blum. After Germany overran France, Petain was rewarded by being named P.M of the newly formed right-wing Vichy government. After the war, Petain was found guilty of treason and died in prison in 1951.


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

• Influential right-wing industrialists and financers such as Irenee du Pont, Prescott Bush and the virulently anti-Semitic Henry Ford not only fought publicly to keep America from joining the war against Germany, they actually helped finance Hitler’s war machine.

• The conservative press--led by Henry Luce (who applauded Mussolini’s invasion of Ethiopia)--worked to influence public opinion in favor of isolationism.

• American hero and right-winger Charles Lindbergh admired the "virility" and "dictatorial direction" of Nazi Germany so much so that he used his substantial influence as a vocal Nazi propagandist.

• The Senate--led by Republican Gerald P. Nye--was determined to remain isolated from the European conflict. Nye and his colleagues spearheaded the Neutrality Act of 1935.

• William Dudley Pelley mobilized like-minded right-wing conservatives into a pro-Nazi legion he called the Silver Shirts and which others referred to as the "Christian American Patriots". By July 1938, he had mailed out 3.5 tons of pro-Nazi, anti-Semitic propaganda. After the U.S. joined the war, Pelley was jailed for sedition.

• The godfather of right-wing hate radio, Father Charles Coughlin, used his radio show and magazine to stir-up anti-Semitic, pro-Nazi sentiment in the U.S.


OK, I have outlined the major appeasement players for your edification. I highlighted their political leanings in bold mostly for my edification.

In reality, involvement in the war was inevitable, but it looks as if it weren’t for liberals like Franklin Roosevelt—and the bombing of Pearl Harbor by an ally of Germany--we may well have ended up fighting on the wrong side.

The truth is that appeasers came in all political flavors and had varied reasons for their convictions: some were indeed pacifists; some supported Hitler's right-wing policies; others merely wanted to buy time to rebuild armed forces still depleted from WWI before the inevitable confrontation with Hitler; and many others had a variety of personal reasons. Heck, Joseph Kennedy took a strict isolationist stance not because he was a pacifist or because he favored Hitler, but probably because he had an Irish-bred hatred of England. Things are never as black and white--nor as simplistic--as you right-wingers always try to paint them.

In the future you might want to reference some objective history books authored by bone fide historians instead of just cherry-picking opinion pieces from sources like NewMax that reflect the revisionist history that you and your fellow travelers wish were true. Do your homework, lad.

Alright, class is dismissed. You can go back to drinking your Kool Aid now.
___________________________________
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-05 07:04 PM
Response to Original message
40. Demand links.
And keep demanding links until the writer backs up these claims with facts.

Your friend doesn't have to debunk a thing. Make the freep do the work.

NGU.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WMliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-05 09:45 PM
Response to Original message
43. so much ignorance. Replying won't do any good
even if i nitpicked at every detail at their distorted view of history. Seriously, how do you know this sad, warped person?

The point where I was able to pick up my jaw from the floor and start laughing was when it was ALL (as a rule ) tied to the CLENIS!!!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jessicazi Donating Member (458 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-05 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. He found me on a website
And has been harassing me. I block his emails, then he creates new accounts to contact me. He is OBSESSED with Fahrenheit 9/11. I blocked his emails from my three email accounts, and I bet he finds a way to email me again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WMliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-05 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #44
46. whoa.
:freak:
Definite ignore. Blocking his emails just makes him more interested, IMO. Replying in ANY form would just throw gas on the fire
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcscajun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-10-05 08:38 AM
Response to Reply #44
55. Coming late to the 'party' but here's a couple of thoughts.
Does your ISP allow you to divert e-mail that's not from folks in your address books to a "suspect" or "spam" folder? Then no matter how many accounts he creates, you won't get it, and perhaps you can report his mails as spam. :rofl:

As to trying to educate the clueless, I've given up, as have some of the other posters here. The Kool-Aid drinkers will either deny your facts, denigrate your sources, or change the subject, sometimes all three at once, sometimes in a frequency-matching pattern to deflect incoming facts. They can be so relentless in protecting their cocooned existence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-05 10:22 PM
Response to Original message
45. I support your decision to answer this email with facts
Even if it doesn't change the mind of the emailer, it will help you to have the facts and figures at your disposal.

I also agree that we should have a "greatest" thread that contains all these points about Iraq so that we don't have to reinvent the wheel each time someone outside the reality-based community brings up propaganda.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jessicazi Donating Member (458 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-05 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #45
47. Whoever wants a thread with good material
such as the material in this thread, should email the powers that be. I will send an email, but there is strength in numbers.

Jessica
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-05 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #47
51. Which ones in particular?
I would like to see a thread like this happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jessicazi Donating Member (458 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-10-05 01:32 AM
Response to Reply #51
54. I posted in the forum
Ask the Adminis., and I am waiting for a response on if we can have a permanent type of thread with people adding good information, such as what is in this thread.

jessica
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 07:26 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC