http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080124/ts_nm/iraq_saddam_interrogator_dc_1.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

From his grave? How C O N V E N I E N T... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

From his grave? How C O N V E N I E N T... ;)

Did you not click the link and read the article?
Note "admitted" is past tense.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Note "admitted" is past tense.

I can only imagine the libel that will miraculously crop up after I'm dead and gone... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Note "admitted" is past tense.

I can only imagine the libel that will miraculously crop up after I'm dead and gone... ;)

I get the feeling you did not read the article.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Note "admitted" is past tense.

I can only imagine the libel that will miraculously crop up after I'm dead and gone... ;)

No need for imagination when you've already read it.

---

me@rescam.org

No need for imagination when you've already read it.

I know, the anti-ant-libel seems to be a monthly occurrence... ;)


About the article... I see an agenda:

Saddam wanted to maintain the image of a strong Iraq to deter Iran, its historic enemy, from hostile action.

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

No need for imagination when you've already read it.

I know, the anti-ant-libel seems to be a monthly occurrence... ;)


About the article... I see an agenda:

Saddam wanted to maintain the image of a strong Iraq to deter Iran, its historic enemy, from hostile action.

Every group/country/government/military/news etc has an agenda.

Every religion has an agenda.

Even you have an agenda. (And even me).

So nothing to be surprised about...

---

Never surrender and never give up. In the darkest hour there is always hope.

About the article... I see an agenda:

Saddam wanted to maintain the image of a strong Iraq to deter Iran, its historic enemy, from hostile action.

What Jeffrey is saying is that Iran and Iraq have never been enemies; that Iran was never hostile towards Iraq; and Saddam should not have been worrying so much that someday Iran would become hostile towards Iraq, since they'd always been neighborly buddies beforehand. ;-)

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

The only truth in that article is his surprise at being attacked BY HIS FRIENDS in the White House.

Hmmm - let's see, Saddam starts a war with Iran and uses nerve gas on them, can't win that one so he jumps on Kuwait, allies have to kick him out but before they withdraw they set as many oil wells on fire as he can (which at the time some folks speculated it would cause the most enviromental damage in history), while he is at it he throws a few missles at israel to see if he can get the whole region engulfed in a war, to no avail. so he has a few thousand of his own villagers killed off because they defied him.

Now after he get's his butt kicked and his military destroyed, he occasionally shoots a few missles at our planes, subverts the oil for food program so he can stuff a few tens of millions into swiss bank accounts and start rebuilding his military, lets wounded terrorists come get patched up in baghdad, allows them to build a few training camps while he is at it, meanwhile his spy service is negociating with Osama for what no one ever found out. and to top it off has a hit put out on an ex american president.

Meanwhile every spy agency in the world says he is trying to get nukes, (russian, french, british for example) and escaping scientists are swearing the nerve gas factories are up and running.

and so what do the libs say
"BUSH LIED so we could steal his oil" but just so happens, no oil.

---

Man - a creature made at the end of the week's work when God was tired. - Mark Twain

"No friend of mine! Nope, never met the man"



Had Rumsfeld gone rogue at the time? Was he acting on his own?

Secretary Albright planning demise of Israel obviously,



Or it might be interpreted as another secretary meeting someone because you have to.

---

Man - a creature made at the end of the week's work when God was tired. - Mark Twain

Secretary Albright planning demise of Israel obviously,



Or it might be interpreted as another secretary meeting someone because you have to.

Name a time period since the late 1940s that the United States was not closely allied with Israel.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Secretary Albright planning demise of Israel obviously,



Or it might be interpreted as another secretary meeting someone because you have to.

You can interpret it any way you want, but Rumsfeld was there doing "business as usual"

In spite of the Reagan administration's publically stated policy of neutrality in the Iran/Iraq war, arms sales were brisk to both sides.

In spite of the Reagan administration's publically stated policy of neutrality in the Iran/Iraq war, arms sales were brisk to both sides.

Definition of neutrality: Treating all sides equally by-

1. Not dealing/interacting with any participant.
2. Dealing with all participants the same way, either by-
2a. Acting as if a war wasn't happening (Pre-war behavior; The Switzerland Route).
2b. Supplying both sides equally for war.

I believe that "arms sales... to both sides" fits under 2b, while you seem to be implying point 1.

---

In spite of the Reagan administration's publically stated policy of neutrality in the Iran/Iraq war, arms sales were brisk to both sides.

Definition of neutrality: Treating all sides equally by-

1. Not dealing/interacting with any participant.
2. Dealing with all participants the same way, either by-
2a. Acting as if a war wasn't happening (Pre-war behavior; The Switzerland Route).
2b. Supplying both sides equally for war.

I believe that "arms sales... to both sides" fits under 2b, while you seem to be implying point 1.

Point made and taken.

...while you seem to be implying point 1.

Point made and taken.

Thanks. ;-)

As "an aside"... Saddam Miscalculated?
I had heard of that report before, and it doesn't make too much sense to me.
We attack Iraq once (on behalf of Kuwait, of course) when he- Saddam- isn't 'pushing' any WMDs, and he thinks we (or someone else out of his immediate range) wouldn't do anything when he appears to have a cache?

---