Topic: Bush Knew there were no WMD
enderra's photo
Fri 05/30/08 08:40 AM
LALALALALALA, can't read either!

Jim519's photo
Fri 05/30/08 12:52 PM
My god sick sick

no photo
Fri 05/30/08 07:40 PM
we know that hussain DID USE wmds on his own people, so your point is moot. He had been known to not only posess them but to use them as well. DUH.
THIS REVISIONIST HISTORY BULL needs to stop.

mnhiker's photo
Fri 05/30/08 08:12 PM
Edited by mnhiker on Fri 05/30/08 08:13 PM

we know that hussain DID USE wmds on his own people, so your point is moot. He had been known to not only posess them but to use them as well. DUH.
THIS REVISIONIST HISTORY BULL needs to stop.


Past history.

Just because Saddam Hussein had nerve gas in the past doesn't mean he had it when Bush started the illegal war.

Unless you count the empty canisters they found.

Or the cleaning products they found that they thought were dangerous chemical weapons. laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh

warmachine's photo
Fri 05/30/08 08:18 PM

we know that hussain DID USE wmds on his own people, so your point is moot. He had been known to not only posess them but to use them as well. DUH.
THIS REVISIONIST HISTORY BULL needs to stop.



Yep, we knew Hussien had WMD's in the past, all Bush Co. had to do was go check out the bill of sale.

Fanta46's photo
Fri 05/30/08 08:39 PM


we know that hussain DID USE wmds on his own people, so your point is moot. He had been known to not only posess them but to use them as well. DUH.
THIS REVISIONIST HISTORY BULL needs to stop.



Yep, we knew Hussien had WMD's in the past, all Bush Co. had to do was go check out the bill of sale.


It would have said made in the USA!!!drinker

Fanta46's photo
Fri 05/30/08 08:48 PM
The only verified Kurdish civilian deaths from chemical weapons occurred in the Iraqi village of Halabja, near the Iran border, where at least several hundred people died from gas poisoning in mid-March, 1988. We know that Iran overran the village and its small garrison of Iraqi troops; what is contested is who was responsible for the deaths--Iran or Iraq--and how large the death toll was.

The best evidence is a 1990 report by the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College.[2] It concluded that Iran, not Iraq, was the culprit in Halabja. Lead author Stephen Pelletiere, who was the CIA's senior political analyst on Iraq throughout the Iran-Iraq war, has described his group's findings:

"The great majority of the victims seen by reporters and other observers who attended the scene were blue in their extremities. That means that they were killed by a blood agent, probably either cyanogens chloride or hydrogen cyanide. Iraq never used and lacked any capacity to produce these chemicals. But the Iranians did deploy them. Therefore the Iranians killed the Kurds."[3]

http://www.mediamonitors.net/robinmiller10.html

mnhiker's photo
Fri 05/30/08 09:02 PM
Edited by mnhiker on Fri 05/30/08 09:02 PM

The only verified Kurdish civilian deaths from chemical weapons occurred in the Iraqi village of Halabja, near the Iran border, where at least several hundred people died from gas poisoning in mid-March, 1988. We know that Iran overran the village and its small garrison of Iraqi troops; what is contested is who was responsible for the deaths--Iran or Iraq--and how large the death toll was.

The best evidence is a 1990 report by the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College.[2] It concluded that Iran, not Iraq, was the culprit in Halabja. Lead author Stephen Pelletiere, who was the CIA's senior political analyst on Iraq throughout the Iran-Iraq war, has described his group's findings:

"The great majority of the victims seen by reporters and other observers who attended the scene were blue in their extremities. That means that they were killed by a blood agent, probably either cyanogens chloride or hydrogen cyanide. Iraq never used and lacked any capacity to produce these chemicals. But the Iranians did deploy them. Therefore the Iranians killed the Kurds."[3]

http://www.mediamonitors.net/robinmiller10.html


Fanta,

That's very interesting.

Yet we kept hearing in the media about Iraq gassing the Kurds.

Check this out:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/wanniski/wanniski44.html

Sounds like just another lie of the many lies the Bush Administration's neocons have told the American people.

It's time to stop believing in these fairy tales.

I don't know about you, but I'm sick and tired of being lied to!!!

LAMF_82's photo
Fri 05/30/08 09:25 PM
Wow... who cares about that at this point? It's way too late for that anyway... considering that since that whole WMD thing, what we need to focus on is defeating the insurgency and getting the hell out of their

Fanta46's photo
Fri 05/30/08 09:34 PM


The only verified Kurdish civilian deaths from chemical weapons occurred in the Iraqi village of Halabja, near the Iran border, where at least several hundred people died from gas poisoning in mid-March, 1988. We know that Iran overran the village and its small garrison of Iraqi troops; what is contested is who was responsible for the deaths--Iran or Iraq--and how large the death toll was.

The best evidence is a 1990 report by the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College.[2] It concluded that Iran, not Iraq, was the culprit in Halabja. Lead author Stephen Pelletiere, who was the CIA's senior political analyst on Iraq throughout the Iran-Iraq war, has described his group's findings:

"The great majority of the victims seen by reporters and other observers who attended the scene were blue in their extremities. That means that they were killed by a blood agent, probably either cyanogens chloride or hydrogen cyanide. Iraq never used and lacked any capacity to produce these chemicals. But the Iranians did deploy them. Therefore the Iranians killed the Kurds."[3]

http://www.mediamonitors.net/robinmiller10.html


Fanta,

That's very interesting.

Yet we kept hearing in the media about Iraq gassing the Kurds.

Check this out:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/wanniski/wanniski44.html

Sounds like just another lie of the many lies the Bush Administration's neocons have told the American people.

It's time to stop believing in these fairy tales.

I don't know about you, but I'm sick and tired of being lied to!!!


Ive known that since the 80's but people are so willing to believe everything Bush says its crazy. The US, as Iraqi Allies at the time, sent experts in immediately after it happened and reported the same thing you'll read in the report mentioned in that article.

Thes arent lies!!!

Fanta46's photo
Fri 05/30/08 09:36 PM
Here's something else everyone seems willing to ignored,
2004!

http://www.mg.co.za/articledirect.aspx?area=%2fbreaking_news%2fbreaking_news__international_news&articleid=132936

Downing Street has admitted to The Observer newspaper that repeated claims by British Prime Minister Tony Blair that "400 000 bodies had been found in Iraqi mass graves" is untrue, and only about 5 000 corpses have so far been uncovered.

mnhiker's photo
Fri 05/30/08 09:36 PM
Edited by mnhiker on Fri 05/30/08 09:38 PM



The only verified Kurdish civilian deaths from chemical weapons occurred in the Iraqi village of Halabja, near the Iran border, where at least several hundred people died from gas poisoning in mid-March, 1988. We know that Iran overran the village and its small garrison of Iraqi troops; what is contested is who was responsible for the deaths--Iran or Iraq--and how large the death toll was.

The best evidence is a 1990 report by the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College.[2] It concluded that Iran, not Iraq, was the culprit in Halabja. Lead author Stephen Pelletiere, who was the CIA's senior political analyst on Iraq throughout the Iran-Iraq war, has described his group's findings:

"The great majority of the victims seen by reporters and other observers who attended the scene were blue in their extremities. That means that they were killed by a blood agent, probably either cyanogens chloride or hydrogen cyanide. Iraq never used and lacked any capacity to produce these chemicals. But the Iranians did deploy them. Therefore the Iranians killed the Kurds."[3]

http://www.mediamonitors.net/robinmiller10.html


Fanta,

That's very interesting.

Yet we kept hearing in the media about Iraq gassing the Kurds.

Check this out:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/wanniski/wanniski44.html

Sounds like just another lie of the many lies the Bush Administration's neocons have told the American people.

It's time to stop believing in these fairy tales.

I don't know about you, but I'm sick and tired of being lied to!!!


Ive known that since the 80's but people are so willing to believe everything Bush says its crazy. The US, as Iraqi Allies at the time, sent experts in immediately after it happened and reported the same thing you'll read in the report mentioned in that article.

Thes arent lies!!!


Fanta,

You misunderstood.

I meant that they lied to us about Iraq gassing the Kurds.

And the lies the Bush Administration and the media have been feeding us ever since that moron became President.

I might have misstated it.

I apologize.

Fanta46's photo
Fri 05/30/08 09:42 PM

Wow... who cares about that at this point? It's way too late for that anyway... considering that since that whole WMD thing, what we need to focus on is defeating the insurgency and getting the hell out of their


Iraq currently has a standing, Trained and Ready Army (according to US military figures) of 180,000 men.
When are they going to take responsibility for their own security, and why are we still there?

Fanta46's photo
Fri 05/30/08 09:48 PM
Edited by Fanta46 on Fri 05/30/08 09:49 PM




The only verified Kurdish civilian deaths from chemical weapons occurred in the Iraqi village of Halabja, near the Iran border, where at least several hundred people died from gas poisoning in mid-March, 1988. We know that Iran overran the village and its small garrison of Iraqi troops; what is contested is who was responsible for the deaths--Iran or Iraq--and how large the death toll was.

The best evidence is a 1990 report by the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College.[2] It concluded that Iran, not Iraq, was the culprit in Halabja. Lead author Stephen Pelletiere, who was the CIA's senior political analyst on Iraq throughout the Iran-Iraq war, has described his group's findings:

"The great majority of the victims seen by reporters and other observers who attended the scene were blue in their extremities. That means that they were killed by a blood agent, probably either cyanogens chloride or hydrogen cyanide. Iraq never used and lacked any capacity to produce these chemicals. But the Iranians did deploy them. Therefore the Iranians killed the Kurds."[3]

http://www.mediamonitors.net/robinmiller10.html


Fanta,

That's very interesting.

Yet we kept hearing in the media about Iraq gassing the Kurds.

Check this out:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/wanniski/wanniski44.html

Sounds like just another lie of the many lies the Bush Administration's neocons have told the American people.

It's time to stop believing in these fairy tales.

I don't know about you, but I'm sick and tired of being lied to!!!


Ive known that since the 80's but people are so willing to believe everything Bush says its crazy. The US, as Iraqi Allies at the time, sent experts in immediately after it happened and reported the same thing you'll read in the report mentioned in that article.

Thes arent lies!!!


Fanta,

You misunderstood.

I meant that they lied to us about Iraq gassing the Kurds.

And the lies the Bush Administration and the media have been feeding us ever since that moron became President.

I might have misstated it.

I apologize.


Thats cool!
I have another article, if I can find it, in which a man has exposed the US government of intentionally counting shiites killed during combat in the Iran/Iraq war, and buried in mass graves for expedience, as people killed by saddam as genocide!

mnhiker's photo
Fri 05/30/08 10:26 PM


Wow... who cares about that at this point? It's way too late for that anyway... considering that since that whole WMD thing, what we need to focus on is defeating the insurgency and getting the hell out of their


Iraq currently has a standing, Trained and Ready Army (according to US military figures) of 180,000 men.
When are they going to take responsibility for their own security, and why are we still there?


Exactly.

Do you think Bush will pull a November surprise, bring all the troops home and declare victory just to catapult McCain into the Oval Office?

no photo
Fri 05/30/08 11:07 PM
hussein admitted to it geeez he said he had no choice but to to do it


u guys jump on the train immmediatly after new propaganda is presented....anything to blame all this on bush...i'm no great fan of bush but this landed in his lap when he took office...we were right to take hussein out and to go after bin ladin but we shoulda done so and left and spent all those billions on health care here. now ladies n gents go search the web for more crap to post here...i'm quite sure you'll find plenty

enderra's photo
Sat 05/31/08 05:19 AM
What Bush was perhaps handed was those would were responsible for 9/11, what Bush also had were guys like Chenney whispering in his ear. Why not expand the war and make a few billion dollars at the same time. Luckily there are people that question and don't believe everything that is fed to them. I don't see how people believe that "only" American government sources are creditable, when even our allies have said that the state dept. has fed us lies. Clearly human nature to blind themselves is alive and well.

* * * * * *

[Socrates] And now, I said, let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened or unenlightened: --Behold! human beings living in a underground cave, which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the cave; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets.
[Glaucon] I see.
[Socrates] And do you see, I said, men passing along the wall carrying all sorts of vessels, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various materials, which appear over the wall? Some of them are talking, others silent.
[Glaucon] You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange prisoners.
[Socrates] Like ourselves, I replied; and they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave?
[Glaucon] True, he said; how could they see anything but the shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads?
[Socrates] And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would only see the shadows?
[Glaucon] Yes, he said.
[Socrates] And if they were able to converse with one another, would they not suppose that they were naming what was actually before them?
[Glaucon] Very true.
[Socrates] And suppose further that the prison had an echo which came from the other side, would they not be sure to fancy when one of the passers-by spoke that the voice which they heard came from the passing shadow?
[Glaucon] No question, he replied.
[Socrates] To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images.
[Glaucon] That is certain.
[Socrates] And now look again, and see what will naturally follow if the prisoners are released and disabused of their error. At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive some one saying to him, that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he has a clearer vision, -what will be his reply? And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them, -will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him?
[Glaucon] Far truer.
[Socrates] And if he is compelled to look straight at the light, will he not have a pain in his eyes which will make him turn away to take and take in the objects of vision which he can see, and which he will conceive to be in reality clearer than the things which are now being shown to him?
[Glaucon] True, he now.
[Socrates] And suppose once more, that he is reluctantly dragged up a steep and rugged ascent, and held fast until he 's forced into the presence of the sun himself, is he not likely to be pained and irritated? When he approaches the light his eyes will be dazzled, and he will not be able to see anything at all of what are now called realities.
[Glaucon] Not all in a moment, he said.
[Socrates] He will require to grow accustomed to the sight of the upper world. And first he will see the shadows best, next the reflections of men and other objects in the water, and then the objects themselves; then he will gaze upon the light of the moon and the stars and the spangled heaven; and he will see the sky and the stars by night better than the sun or the light of the sun by day?
[Glaucon] Certainly.
[Socrates] Last of he will be able to see the sun, and not mere reflections of him in the water, but he will see him in his own proper place, and not in another; and he will contemplate him as he is.
[Glaucon] Certainly.
[Socrates] He will then proceed to argue that this is he who gives the season and the years, and is the guardian of all that is in the visible world, and in a certain way the cause of all things which he and his fellows have been accustomed to behold?
[Glaucon] Clearly, he said, he would first see the sun and then reason about him.
[Socrates] And when he remembered his old habitation, and the wisdom of the cave and his fellow-prisoners, do you not suppose that he would felicitate himself on the change, and pity them?
[Glaucon] Certainly, he would.
[Socrates] And if they were in the habit of conferring honors among themselves on those who were quickest to observe the passing shadows and to remark which of them went before, and which followed after, and which were together; and who were therefore best able to draw conclusions as to the future, do you think that he would care for such honors and glories, or envy the possessors of them? Would he not say with Homer,

Better to be the poor servant of a poor master,

and to endure anything, rather than think as they do and live after their manner?
[Glaucon] Yes, he said, I think that he would rather suffer anything than entertain these false notions and live in this miserable manner.
[Socrates] Imagine once more, I said, such an one coming suddenly out of the sun to be replaced in his old situation; would he not be certain to have his eyes full of darkness?
[Glaucon] To be sure, he said.
[Socrates] And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the cave, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable) would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.
[Glaucon] No question, he said.
[Socrates] This entire allegory, I said, you may now append, dear Glaucon, to the previous argument; the prison-house is the world of sight, the light of the fire is the sun, and you will not misapprehend me if you interpret the journey upwards to be the ascent of the soul into the intellectual world according to my poor belief, which, at your desire, I have expressed whether rightly or wrongly God knows. But, whether true or false, my opinion is that in the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world, and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he who would act rationally, either in public or private life must have his eye fixed.
[Glaucon] I agree, he said, as far as I am able to understand you.
[Socrates] Moreover, I said, you must not wonder that those who attain to this beatific vision are unwilling to descend to human affairs; for their souls are ever hastening into the upper world where they desire to dwell; which desire of theirs is very natural, if our allegory may be trusted.
[Glaucon] Yes, very natural.
[Socrates] And is there anything surprising in one who passes from divine contemplations to the evil state of man, misbehaving himself in a ridiculous manner; if, while his eyes are blinking and before he has become accustomed to the surrounding darkness, he is compelled to fight in courts of law, or in other places, about the images or the shadows of images of justice, and is endeavoring to meet the conceptions of those who have never yet seen absolute justice?
[Glaucon] Anything but surprising, he replied.
[Socrates] Any one who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments of the eyes are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true of the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye; and he who remembers this when he sees any one whose vision is perplexed and weak, will not be too ready to laugh; he will first ask whether that soul of man has come out of the brighter light, and is unable to see because unaccustomed to the dark, or having turned from darkness to the day is dazzled by excess of light. And he will count the one happy in his condition and state of being, and he will pity the other; or, if he have a mind to laugh at the soul which comes from below into the light, there will be more reason in this than in the laugh which greets him who returns from above out of the light into the cave.
[Glaucon] That, he said, is a very just distinction.
[Socrates] But then, if I am right, certain professors of education must be wrong when they say that they can put a knowledge into the soul which was not there before, like sight into blind eyes.
[Glaucon] They undoubtedly say this, he replied.
[Socrates] Whereas, our argument shows that the power and capacity of learning exists in the soul already; and that just as the eye was unable to turn from darkness to light without the whole body, so too the instrument of knowledge can only by the movement of the whole soul be turned from the world of becoming into that of being, and learn by degrees to endure the sight of being, and of the brightest and best of being, or in other words, of the good.
[Glaucon] Very true.
[Socrates] And must there not be some art which will effect conversion in the easiest and quickest manner; not implanting the faculty of sight, for that exists already, but has been turned in the wrong direction, and is looking away from the truth?
[Glaucon] Yes, he said, such an art may be presumed.
[Socrates] And whereas the other so-called virtues of the soul seem to be akin to bodily qualities, for even when they are not originally innate they can be implanted later by habit and exercise, the of wisdom more than anything else contains a divine element which always remains, and by this conversion is rendered useful and profitable; or, on the other hand, hurtful and useless. Did you never observe the narrow intelligence flashing from the keen eye of a clever rogue --how eager he is, how clearly his paltry soul sees the way to his end; he is the reverse of blind, but his keen eyesight is forced into the service of evil, and he is mischievous in proportion to his cleverness.
[Glaucon] Very true, he said.
[Socrates] But what if there had been a circumcision of such natures in the days of their youth; and they had been severed from those sensual pleasures, such as eating and drinking, which, like leaden weights, were attached to them at their birth, and which drag them down and turn the vision of their souls upon the things that are below --if, I say, they had been released from these impediments and turned in the opposite direction, the very same faculty in them would have seen the truth as keenly as they see what their eyes are turned to now.
[Glaucon] Very likely.
[Socrates] Yes, I said; and there is another thing which is likely. or rather a necessary inference from what has preceded, that neither the uneducated and uninformed of the truth, nor yet those who never make an end of their education, will be able ministers of State; not the former, because they have no single aim of duty which is the rule of all their actions, private as well as public; nor the latter, because they will not act at all except upon compulsion, fancying that they are already dwelling apart in the islands of the blest.
[Glaucon] Very true, he replied.
[Socrates] Then, I said, the business of us who are the founders of the State will be to compel the best minds to attain that knowledge which we have already shown to be the greatest of all-they must continue to ascend until they arrive at the good; but when they have ascended and seen enough we must not allow them to do as they do now.
[Glaucon] What do you mean?
[Socrates] I mean that they remain in the upper world: but this must not be allowed; they must be made to descend again among the prisoners in the cave, and partake of their labors and honors, whether they are worth having or not.
[Glaucon] But is not this unjust? he said; ought we to give them a worse life, when they might have a better?
[Socrates] You have again forgotten, my friend, I said, the intention of the legislator, who did not aim at making any one class in the State happy above the rest; the happiness was to be in the whole State, and he held the citizens together by persuasion and necessity, making them benefactors of the State, and therefore benefactors of one another; to this end he created them, not to please themselves, but to be his instruments in binding up the State.
[Glaucon] True, he said, I had forgotten.
[Socrates] Observe, Glaucon, that there will be no injustice in compelling our philosophers to have a care and providence of others; we shall explain to them that in other States, men of their class are not obliged to share in the toils of politics: and this is reasonable, for they grow up at their own sweet will, and the government would rather not have them. Being self-taught, they cannot be expected to show any gratitude for a culture which they have never received. But we have brought you into the world to be rulers of the hive, kings of yourselves and of the other citizens, and have educated you far better and more perfectly than they have been educated, and you are better able to share in the double duty. Wherefore each of you, when his turn comes, must go down to the general underground abode, and get the habit of seeing in the dark. When you have acquired the habit, you will see ten thousand times better than the inhabitants of the cave, and you will know what the several images are, and what they represent, because you have seen the beautiful and just and good in their truth. And thus our State which is also yours will be a reality, and not a dream only, and will be administered in a spirit unlike that of other States, in which men fight with one another about shadows only and are distracted in the struggle for power, which in their eyes is a great good. Whereas the truth is that the State in which the rulers are most reluctant to govern is always the best and most quietly governed, and the State in which they are most eager, the worst.
[Glaucon] Quite true, he replied.
[Socrates] And will our pupils, when they hear this, refuse to take their turn at the toils of State, when they are allowed to spend the greater part of their time with one another in the heavenly light?
[Glaucon] Impossible, he answered; for they are just men, and the commands which we impose upon them are just; there can be no doubt that every one of them will take office as a stern necessity, and not after the fashion of our present rulers of State.
[Socrates] Yes, my friend, I said; and there lies the point. You must contrive for your future rulers another and a better life than that of a ruler, and then you may have a well-ordered State; for only in the State which offers this, will they rule who are truly rich, not in silver and gold, but in virtue and wisdom, which are the true blessings of life. Whereas if they go to the administration of public affairs, poor and hungering after the' own private advantage, thinking that hence they are to snatch the chief good, order there can never be; for they will be fighting about office, and the civil and domestic broils which thus arise will be the ruin of the rulers themselves and of the whole State.
[Glaucon] Most true, he replied.
[Socrates] And the only life which looks down upon the life of political ambition is that of true philosophy. Do you know of any other?
[Glaucon] Indeed, I do not, he said.
[Socrates] And those who govern ought not to be lovers of the task? For, if they are, there will be rival lovers, and they will fight.
[Glaucon] No question.
[Socrates] Who then are those whom we shall compel to be guardians? Surely they will be the men who are wisest about affairs of State, and by whom the State is best administered, and who at the same time have other honors and another and a better life than that of politics?
[Glaucon] They are the men, and I will choose them, he replied.
[Socrates] And now shall we consider in what way such guardians will be produced, and how they are to be brought from darkness to light, -- as some are said to have ascended from the world below to the gods?
[Glaucon] By all means, he replied.
[Socrates] The process, I said, is not the turning over of an oyster-shell, but the turning round of a soul passing from a day which is little better than night to the true day of being, that is, the ascent from below, which we affirm to be true philosophy?
[Glaucon] Quite so.

Chazster's photo
Sat 05/31/08 05:33 AM
I also don't see how people can take the media for a credible source of info either. Politicians are gonna say what they need to to get what they want. Media is gonna say what they need to to get ratings.

I still think getting rid of Saddam was a good thing. Again I am gonna ask, if this whole thing is about money/oil, why are we hurting so bad at the pump?

enderra's photo
Sat 05/31/08 05:49 AM
speculators, ain't capitalism grand

no photo
Sat 05/31/08 06:06 AM


Wow... who cares about that at this point? It's way too late for that anyway... considering that since that whole WMD thing, what we need to focus on is defeating the insurgency and getting the hell out of their


Iraq currently has a standing, Trained and Ready Army (according to US military figures) of 180,000 men.
When are they going to take responsibility for their own security, and why are we still there?


They have, for much of the country. However, there are some segments of the country which they can't fully provide security for yet. 9 out of 18 provinces in Iraq thus far are under full Iraqi security control and have no or very limited US forces present.

The Iraqi Security Forces are expected to take over full control of all 18 provinces by the end of this year. Petraeus has said that isn't going to happen, but that many more provinces will be under complete Iraqi control and maintenance. What I've seen is it is more likely that 14 out of 18 of Iraq's provinces will be under full Iraqi control by the end of the year.

They've have always stated that 14-15 of the Provinces were always stable or much much less prone to violence, but the full control of those (if 9 under Iraq full control now) means that the 5-6 more are likely dealing with management or other underlying issues possibly of more remoteness, less population to fill security roles, or whatnot.

If they were to get 14 by the end of the year, that means only 4 more to go till full Iraqi control.

Oh yeah, there are Iraqi elections coming up in November as well.