The State of the Union: Lies about a Dishonest War

Thank you for turning America into a country where ethnic identity is
now paramount.

You raise an interesting point that others have raised and you do it
from an insider's perspective.

Please give some insight into how (or whether) to deal with
situations where people were being denied the right to vote based
on race, or people were put in inferior or undefunded schools based
on race or economic status, or people were denied certain jobs
because of race, religion or gender without developing a sense of
racial, economic or gender identity?

Ouch. It sounds like this is something you run into on a daily basis, and
I would suggest that you consider moving to a better neighborhood. By any
chance are you getting your news from NPR?

Interesting to see that 'voting rights' is still used as an explanation
for continued civil rights intervention. Such hogwash. The political
apparatus of today pulls voters out of their homes and drags them to the
polls. (Often times staying with them in the voting booth to make sure
that the minority voter then votes correctly). Advocate-Ministers have
had polls opened on Sunday so they could deliver their entire congregation
to vote (which I have even had the opportunity to witness - and more
than once). And you are likely aware that ethnic advocates are demanding
that the voting laws be changed so that minorities will no longer be
expected to leave their subsidized housing in order to cast their vote.
Look for front page news if the press suspects that a minority might
possibly have been denied their right to vote. But the continued antics of
voting irregularities in minority areas - the ones which maintain the
proper political identity - will never be considered newsworthy.


Minority applicants are well versed in how to scream loud and long when
they are not offered the job they believe they deserve. And the EEOC office
in every state is run by a,'this business guilty until proved innocent'
mentality. In addition, there are numerous law firms in all but the smallest
towns which do nothing but pursue such cases. And I pull their flyers from
my mailbox on an all too frequent basis.
I would agree that minority hiring was questionable in the past, but the
way to correct such is not to force businesses to overlook qualified non-
minority applicants when a minority applicant is close to having the required
education and experience. Which is still discrimination in hiring. And you
may know that minority operated businesses discriminate heavily in favor of
their own racial or ethnic group, which is also suppose to be illegal but is
ignored by those who enforce such laws. Just don't let a non-minority owned
business ever try to get away with this.


In my opinion schools reflect their communities and the values and objectives
of those in the community. When a community no longer holds education to be
important - the schools fail. And when a school fails to educate students
this is due to racism and the failure of others. And not because the Mom (and
there never was a Dad) didn't give a damn if her kids went to school or not.
Remember that the Great Society programs held that minorities are no longer
to be held accountable for their actions - or lack thereof. And any failure
is now due to racists or because of the lack of cultural sensitivity by the
school system.
I always appreciate reading of an instance where a community decided to
correct a school system which had bottomed out. Sometimes this is involved a
community enforcing student attendance, or demanding vouchers to move students
from failing schools. Sometimes it results in school uniforms and/or a zero
tolerance for those disrupting classroom learning. Regardless, it required
that a community take control and take action. Which the political left
despises because they believe such actions should only be as a direct result
of their efforts. The universal truth in minority communities is that the
political environment will always work against a cause if they believe such
might impede their control or their status. And with school reform, often
using the threat of vouchers as the means to disrupt the process. There can
be no success in a minority community which is not driven by the proper
political action.


In other words, how does a government stop people from abusing
or exploiting people based on group identity without creating or
expanding the idea of a group? Or should they try?


Government is abusing and mistreating people based on their group identity.
And in a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court said it was legal. If you learned of
a first year law school class with only three non-minority male students in
a class of 120, would you consider that to be discrimination? Guess what -
it's not.

No government will be successful when it recognizes a specific group for
preferential treatment. Because such requires discrimination against
others. And even the most ardent liberal must recognize that the color-
blind society of MLK is now one of just the opposite.


It would also appear to be the case that no society will be successful when
their basic unit, the family, is destroyed. Which Great Society programs did
in minority communities by making teenage pregnancy and single-Mom families
not only acceptable and profitable, but also fashionable.
When I attended high school, beginning in the mid-1960s, pregnant teenagers
were unheard of. Now this same high school has a nursery on-site. When I
was in high school almost every student was from a two parent home. Now this
number is around 20%. And dropping. When I was in high school parents were
involved and the building was packed during open house nights. An activity
which now attracts only a small number of parents. And when I started high
school there were no Great Society programs. And if you're still reading -
draw your own conclusions.


Are you overall glad the government did get involved?

No. I am convinced that those in my community would be better off if
the political left (what you call 'government') had not made failure -
followed by government intervention - our status quo. And taken action
to maintain this situation.

"Werner J. Severin" wrote in message

....
In article ,
Mike1 wrote:


Is anyone in disagreement with the basic *fact* that Saddam Hussein used
chemical weapons to murder thousands of Kurds and Iranians in the course
of slaughtering nearly a million people overall?


Is anyone in disagreement with the basic "fact" that the United States
provided the chemicals, weapons, intelligence, and tacit agreement that
allowed Saddam Hussein to murder thousands of Kurds and Iranians?

It never ceases to amaze me that the republican infidels continue to
conveniently overlook that very important fact!

None wrote:
Is anyone in disagreement with the basic "fact" that the United States
provided the chemicals, weapons, intelligence, and tacit agreement that
allowed Saddam Hussein to murder thousands of Kurds and Iranians?

It never ceases to amaze me that the republican infidels continue to
conveniently overlook that very important fact!

While it puts things in perspective to accept the fact that the USA's foreign
policy mishaps resulted in far mroe problems than they were supposed to solve,
what is at stake here is not whether Iraq had WMDs or not. There us accepted
and coumented evidence that Iraq had WMDs.

There is also documented evidence that Iraq used WMDs on both Iran and its own citizens.

That in itself should have resulted in Saddam being send an invitation to the
War Crime Trinunal or the ICC.

However, what is really at stake here is the USA fabricating evidence/stories
and knowingly lying to its citizens, knowingly insulting its allies to
discredit them even though US administration knew full well that its allies
were right.

What is really at stake here is a regime which disregarded UN resolutions and
interpreted them to mean what the regime wanted them to mean and proceeded
with an illegitimate invasion of another country which posed absolutely no
threath to the USA.

What is at stake here is the total disregard for due legal process. Both on
the international scene with the UN, as well as on the domestic scene with
police power abuses, concentration camp at Gantanamo Bay, illegal deportations
to a 3rd country when the internationally agreed procedure is to send the
passenger back to country where flight originated and the list goes on and on
and on.


The USA would not grant the UN a couple more weeks for its inspectors to do
their job. In its state of the police-state address, the Bush regime still
pretends that it will find WMDs, although this year's claims were nowehere
near as ludicrous as last year's claims (tons of saren gas for instance).
Remember the claims that Iraq was supposed to be very near to having nuclear
bombs with Condy Rice making statements that they don't want to find out about
nuclear programmes by witnessing a mushroom cloud ?

So, when will the USA admit that there are no WMDs ? If the Bush regime is
re-elected, it would still have to continue the lies otherwise admitting that
they knowingly lied might bring in impeachement proceedings. (can one impeach
a whole cabinet and force an election ?)

In the end, it will be shown that Saddam had deceptively complied with UN
resolutions and that the USA had become the belligerant regime.

France, Germany and Russia tried their best to prevent the USA from
degenerating into the belligerant regime it has become. But in the end, the
world community is also guilty of not taking strong enough actions to prevent
all the excesses that the USA has been allowed to get away with. (for instance Gantanamo).

If the UK weren't such a loyal lapdog, it would then become possible to
isolate the USA in the security council and pass resolution after resolution
condemning the USA's actions, forcing the USA to use its veto over and over
again. The difference being that by being all alone, the USA couldn't claim
some "coalition", and wouldn't be able to focus all its anger on France and
Germany since it would be the whole world against the USA.

The Bush regime would have a much harder time trying to justify its
international policies to ist media/citizens if the UK hadn't bowed to the
Bush regime demands for support.

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:08:01 GMT, devil wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:07:09 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


"devil" wrote in message
news

In recent years, record deficit has been associated mostly with
Republicans, fiscal responsibility with Democrats.


Well, the Republicans during the Bush administration have certainly taken to
traditional Democrat methods of retaining their offices, but fiscal
responsibility has not been associated with Democrats for a very long time.

In recent history, fiscal irresponsibility, profligatr spending and tax
cuts paid out of deficit financing have been the hallmark of Republicans.
From Reagan to Bush II.

Clinton increased the Federal Debt by 1.4 trillion dollars, a 31%
increase. Don't even pretend that either party is better than the
other when it comes fo fiscal responsibility.

--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft

"Jarg" wrote in message
om...

"Werner J. Severin" wrote in message


....
In article ,
Mike1 wrote:


Is anyone in disagreement with the basic *fact* that Saddam Hussein
used
chemical weapons to murder thousands of Kurds and Iranians in the
course
of slaughtering nearly a million people overall?


Is anyone in disagreement with the basic "fact" that the United States
provided the chemicals, weapons, intelligence, and tacit agreement that
allowed Saddam Hussein to murder thousands of Kurds and Iranians?

Even if this were true, what is your point? Are you suggesting that past
support for Iraq means the US should not have removed the Saddam regime?

Jarg

Of course not, but neither should anyone have to put up with the bull****
lies about who built up Iraq's chemical weapons in the first place, whether
we did it directly or through the cloak of another country. We paid to
build him up, and again, we paid to tear it down, now we get to pay to
rebuild what we tore down.

It's a pathetic and vicious circle we keep jerking in.

"None" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Jarg" wrote in message
om...

"Werner J. Severin" wrote in message



...
In article
,
Mike1 wrote:


Is anyone in disagreement with the basic *fact* that Saddam Hussein
used
chemical weapons to murder thousands of Kurds and Iranians in the
course
of slaughtering nearly a million people overall?


Is anyone in disagreement with the basic "fact" that the United States
provided the chemicals, weapons, intelligence, and tacit agreement
that
allowed Saddam Hussein to murder thousands of Kurds and Iranians?

Even if this were true, what is your point? Are you suggesting that
past
support for Iraq means the US should not have removed the Saddam
regime?

Jarg

Of course not, but neither should anyone have to put up with the bull****
lies about who built up Iraq's chemical weapons in the first place,
whether
we did it directly or through the cloak of another country. We paid to
build him up, and again, we paid to tear it down, now we get to pay to
rebuild what we tore down.

It's a pathetic and vicious circle we keep jerking in.



But perhaps this will end it.

Jarg

"Jarg" wrote in message
om...

"None" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Jarg" wrote in message
om...

"Werner J. Severin" wrote in message




...
In article
,
Mike1 wrote:


Is anyone in disagreement with the basic *fact* that Saddam
Hussein
used
chemical weapons to murder thousands of Kurds and Iranians in the
course
of slaughtering nearly a million people overall?


Is anyone in disagreement with the basic "fact" that the United
States
provided the chemicals, weapons, intelligence, and tacit agreement
that
allowed Saddam Hussein to murder thousands of Kurds and Iranians?

Even if this were true, what is your point? Are you suggesting that
past
support for Iraq means the US should not have removed the Saddam
regime?

Jarg

Of course not, but neither should anyone have to put up with the
bull****
lies about who built up Iraq's chemical weapons in the first place,
whether
we did it directly or through the cloak of another country. We paid to
build him up, and again, we paid to tear it down, now we get to pay to
rebuild what we tore down.

It's a pathetic and vicious circle we keep jerking in.



But perhaps this will end it.


It depends. If, once the new government is "installed" they decide to sell
their oil to someone other than Uncle Sam, we'll just swoop in and blow the
place up again.

"None" wrote in message
ink.net...


But perhaps this will end it.


It depends. If, once the new government is "installed" they decide to
sell
their oil to someone other than Uncle Sam, we'll just swoop in and blow
the
place up again.



I don't believe oil was a factor in Iraq. For one thing that isn't the way
markets work. Whether or not the oil is available to the US, it's sale on
the world market affects the entire supply which lowers prices - basic
economics. Now if Iraq refused to sell any oil to anyone, then you might be
able to make the case. But that wasn't what happened.

The better question would be what would happen if another despot took power
and began sponsoring terrorist, shooting at US aircraft, building weapons
that threatened the region, invaded his neighbors, mass murdered his own
citizens, etc. Then it is likely the US would respond the same way again.

Jarg

Jarg

In article , Eagle Eye
] wrote:


Iraq did obtain anthrax from a US company.

A general comment: the smoking guns for a BW program are not the
cultures themselves. Anthrax is endemic to the area and it would be
trivial to get cultures. I was looking at one of the Riegle Committee's
list of imported microorganisms -- with the implication that these were
all going into BW -- and one order was headed by something very potent
-- Saccharomyces cervesiae -- if you plan to brew Belgian-style ale.

Equipment, and large quantities of certain supplies, are more the key.
The Australia Group and the Militarily Critical Technology Lists point
to some of these, such as large-capacity (e.g., 200 liter plus)
fermenters, low-temperature centrifuges, dryers and mills, etc.

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Eagle Eye
blurted out:

Why would Ted Kopple call George H. W. Bush, "George Bush Sr." in 1992?

Perhaps the quote meant to have George Bush [Sr] as a reference to the
elder, albeit not Senior per se.

The History Channel this evening was running an episode on Sadam
Hussein, it covered Reagan's support in Iraq's war with Iran.

Juvat