Bombings kill 37 in Iraq and Israel---we are all paying for Bush's criminal stupidity
connie rahim
helpless rage of a part of the world that is trying to lash out
against genocidal Zionist-Bush oppression.
We need to understand the roots of anger so that the U.S. can live in
peace once again with other members of the world community.
Captain Compassion
rahim) wrote:
"Roots of anger"? Could it be the JJJeeeeewwwwwwwwsssss?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"You must realize that at it's inception and in continual practice
marriage is simply a license to fuck. Without this and the resulting
children the institution of marriage would not be necessary nor would
it exist." -- Captain Compassion
"Giving society cheap abundant energy . . . would be the equivalent of
giving an idiot child a machine gun." -- Dr. Paul Ehrlich
"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other
is wrong, but the middle is always evil." -- Ayn Rand
"In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us,
'Make us your slaves, but feed us.'" -- Dosteovsky
Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate -- William of Occam
Joseph R. Darancette
res0...@NOSPAMverizon.net
David Hartung
"connie rahim" <connie....@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:53adafbc.0308...@posting.google.com...
We need to destroy those who would use terror as a weapon, and while we are
at it, perhaps we ought to lock up those, such as you, who give aid and
comfort to our enemies.
Devon Wells
intentionally killing innocent civilians for the express intent to
restore a vindictive, brutal and murderous megalomanic dicator
criminally stupid. Especially when they targeted the UN headquarters
in Iraq. What an incredible kick in the nuts that was to Kofi Annan
and the UN. After ignoring Iraq's transgressions for years and
passing resolutions with absolutely no serious intent to enforce them
and finally condemning the US for forming a coalition to enforce the.
This is the thanks they get? Murdering the envoy and others. And
you think these people should still be in power over there?
I understand the roots of the terror. Militant Islam wants Americans
to never step foot on Arab soil. Israel to be replaced by Palestine
and all the Jews in the region murdered. Women should be covered
from head to toe, forbidden to attend school, drive or move about in
public without an escort. Men must wear long beards. If they don't
comply government agents are allowed to beat them in the streets.
Music is outlawed Everyone should convert to Islam or face death.
Homosexuals should be hung in soccer stadiums. All TV should be
outlawed except what's sanctioned by radical right-wing Imams.
Videotaping or cameras are forbidden. Forget about free speech, the
right to convene, forget about NOW, the ACLU, the NY Times, CNN,
political newsgroups, blogs, books, et cetera....They've made it clear
they will accept no less. What don't you understand?
On 19 Aug 2003 13:44:23 -0700, connie....@spamgourmet.com (connie
rahim) wrote:
gaffo
>
> We need to understand the roots of anger so that the U.S. can live in
> peace once again with other members of the world community.
yep.
gaffo
and Sharon and Bush too?.
Barry R. Reef
Bombing civilians is terrorism too, and the IDF and the USAF are both
guilty of that. The US and Israel have Smart Bombs, but a Palestinian
with 20 pounds of explosives strapped to his/her chest is a Smart Bomb
too.
Roger
news:bhujsg$nt9$1...@sun-news.laserlink.net...
>
> "connie rahim" <connie....@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
> news:53adafbc.0308...@posting.google.com...
> > When even the UN delegate to Iraq is slaughtered, it shows you the
> > helpless rage of a part of the world that is trying to lash out
> > against genocidal Zionist-Bush oppression.
> >
> > We need to understand the roots of anger so that the U.S. can live in
> > peace once again with other members of the world community.
>
> We need to destroy those who would use terror as a weapon,
Will never happen. You probably think it will because we destroyed all those
drug dealers so successfully.
> and while we are
> at it, perhaps we ought to lock up those, such as you, who give aid and
> comfort to our enemies.
You seem to be unfamiliar with difference between words and deeds.
Barry R. Reef
wrote:
>I would call terrorists that throw their lives away in the proces of
>intentionally killing innocent civilians for the express intent to
>restore a vindictive, brutal and murderous megalomanic dicator
>criminally stupid. Especially when they targeted the UN headquarters
>in Iraq. What an incredible kick in the nuts that was to Kofi Annan
>and the UN. After ignoring Iraq's transgressions for years and
>passing resolutions with absolutely no serious intent to enforce them
>and finally condemning the US for forming a coalition to enforce the.
>This is the thanks they get? Murdering the envoy and others. And
>you think these people should still be in power over there?
>
They, the Iraqis, don't want to restore Saddam to power; just to get
the US the hell out of their country. As for why they might be just a
little pissed off at the UN too, the ten years of UN embargo of Iraq
resulted in over 200,000 Iraqi deaths, mostly of children.
Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced Conservatives,
So attacks on the UN and Israel are now Bush's fault? You do realize
that you are a kook, don't you?
gr...@internet.charitydays.co.uk
US soldiers never got killed in Saddam's Iraq.
UN staff never got killed in Saddam's Iraq.
Terrorist bombs never exploded in Saddam's Iraq.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bill J
<gr...@internet.charitydays.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3e06kvsnkbeouggfm...@4ax.com...
graves they were a fill'n.
Bill J.
ehollo
told the truth to get us into war. Crazy, ehhh?
"Bill J" <billje...@removesurfcity.net> wrote in message
news:XwD0b.382$IY5...@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com...
David Hartung
"ehollo" <eho...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:IoG0b.20312$Bo6....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
> I miss the good old days when Presidents
> told the truth to get us into war. Crazy, ehhh?
Those days returned when George W Bush entered office.
Roger
What did Bush finally settle on as the reason for going to war?
David Hartung
"Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:x9I0b.3556$vq2....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
If you do not know, it is because you do not pay attention to what is going
on around you.
Roger
His story has changed so often I haven't been able to keep track. Please
remind me.
Le Grim Reaper
Solution: Kill all Muslim extremists. They don't want world peace.
Muslims have caused problems in every part of the world. Just look at
the Middle East, Asia, Africa and Russia. But you can't do that since
take the Leftist position of blaming the Peacemaker and not the
warmonger.
The latest suicide bombing in Israel shoes the Palestinians don't want
a homeland. Israel should build a wall between them and the
Palestinian settlements, high and wide.
-
Liberals have also adopted the classic Marxist analysis
of society as a class struggle and its emphasis on
equality over liberty.
Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced Conservatives,
Since there were about a dozen good reasons to invade Iraq and do a
regime change, there isn't a the reason to settle on.
gr...@internet.charitydays.co.uk
"......... there were about a dozen good reasons to invade Iraq........."
Please list a dozen good reasons.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
William David Thweatt
: When even the UN delegate to Iraq is slaughtered, it shows you the
: helpless rage of a part of the world that is trying to lash out
: against genocidal Zionist-Bush oppression.
No, it shows that the evil jihadist pigf*ckers don't care about the UN's
touchy-feely peacekeeping crap. They just want to kill people.
--
--
William "Dave" Thweatt
Robert E. Welsh Postdoctoral Fellow
Chemistry Department
Rice University
Houston, TX
thw...@ruf.rice.edu
dave.t...@us.army.mil
DDB
> told the truth to get us into war. Crazy, ehhh?
And Just which President was that I believe the date was 193? and perhaps
194? and even then the lead up to war is qustionable.
DDB
"connie rahim" <connie....@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:53adafbc.0308...@posting.google.com...
Since we don't know why the UN was targeted I'll share my equally ridiculous
conjecture. I think the Iraqi people targeted the UN headquarters after
finding out that nations like France were making a fortune by insuring they
remained enslaved to Saddam. Since the UN are now lead around by the nose by
France they decided to take their frustrations out on the organization
itself and it clearly worked, just like in Somalia they tucked tail and ran.
This is yet another piece of evidence that the UN has become a guts debating
society and all one needs to do to force them out is attack them directly.
This is good news to me since now we know what to do should the Blue hats
turn up on our shores.
Le Grim Reaper
destroyed which is like giving aid and comfort to the murderous drug
cartels. Drug abusers should be locked up as well.
Devon Wells
attacking the UN headquarters? The reporting has been to the
contrary. It's Mujahadeen (brainwashed Bathist extremists)) and
foreign (to Iraq) terrorists attempting to sabatoge normalization.
And you notice all the violence is in Bagdhad or other Bathist
strongholds. True some normal Iraqis have grumbled but but many are
glad to have the Americans around to provide security. Here's an
excerpt from a Marine in yesterdays Wall St. Journal op ed page:
FROM THE FRONT
'Bush Good, Saddam Bad!'
A Marine reports from Iraq, where things are far better than the media
let on.
BY JOHN R. GUARDIANO
Tuesday, August 19, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT
AL HILLAH, Iraq--There's more to America than New York, Washington and
Los Angeles. The same is true for Iraq; there's a vast country outside
Baghdad and the "Sunni triangle" that's now the center of a guerrilla
campaign. It's understandable that Western press reports are fixated
on attacks that kill American soldiers. But that focus is obscuring
what's actually happening in the rest of the country--and it misleads
the public into thinking that Iraqis are growing angry and impatient
with their liberators.
In fact, there is another Iraq that the media virtually ignore. It is
guarded by the First Marine Division, and, unlike Baghdad, it has been
a model of success. The streets are safe, petty and violent crime are
low, water and electrical services are almost universally available
(albeit rationed), and ordinary Iraqis are beginning to clean up and
rebuild their neighborhoods and communities. Equally important, a deep
level of mutual trust and respect has developed between the Marines
and the populace here in central and southern Iraq.
I know because I'm one of those Marines. My reserve unit was activated
before the war, and in April my team arrived in this small city
roughly 60 miles south of Baghdad. The negative media portrait of the
situation in Iraq doesn't correspond with what I've seen. Indeed, we
were treated as liberating heroes when we arrived four months ago, and
we continue to enjoy amicable relations with the local populace.
The "Arab Street" I've meet in Iraq loves--that's not too strong of a
word--America and is deeply grateful for our presence. Far from
resenting the American military, most Iraqis seem to fear that we will
leave too soon and that in our absence the Baath Party tyranny will
resume. This sentiment is readily apparent whenever we venture into
the city. We don't make it far outside of our camp before throngs of
happy, smiling children greet us.
"Good, good!" they yell, as they run into the street, often oblivious
to oncoming traffic. They give us a hearty thumbs-up and vigorously
wave and pump their hands. They are eager to see us and to talk with
us. To them, it is clear, we are heroes who liberated them from Saddam
Hussein.
"Bush good, Saddam bad!" many Iraqis tell us emphatically--and
repeatedly. I'm not sure how George W. Bush is faring with the
American public, but he's got a lock on Al Hillah.
Iraqis routinely ask me to "thank Mr. Bush for freeing us of Saddam"
and tell me, "We are very grateful, because you have freed us of our
worst nightmare, Saddam Hussein." (A lot of Iraqis speak surprisingly
good English because most studied it in primary and secondary school.)
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 04:11:49 GMT, Barry R. Reef <vze1...@verizon.net>
wrote:
Devon Wells
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 06:13:51 +0100, gr...@internet.charitydays.co.uk
wrote:
>>
>>connie rahim wrote:
>US soldiers never got killed in Saddam's Iraq.
Only because we kept taking out their radar and anti-aircraft sites
did they not shoot down our jets patrolling the no-fly zone. They
sure kept trying though day after day.
>
>UN staff never got killed in Saddam's Iraq.
Because the UN always sung the right tune. That's why I'm surprised
they would attack the UN headquarter after the UN were so adamantly
against enforcing their own resolutions (except US and Britain, of
course)
>
>Terrorist bombs never exploded in Saddam's Iraq.
True but my sense is Saddam and co. weren't going to yield power to
ANYONE. Even the terrorists knew when it comes to mass murder you
don't mess with the king. He'd already wiped out whole villages with
chemical weapons. He backed his threats up unlike the UN which is
presumably why he thought they were such an impotent joke.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
Devon Wells
>>Roger wrote:
>
>
>Please list a dozen good reasons.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
These were all in the regular media news so i don't know why you don't
know about it but here they are in no particular order. Bush and
Blair listed all of these and more too....
-had and used chemical weapons
-waged unjust war on their neighbors
-attempted to build a nuclear processing plant (didn't thanks to the
Israeli airforce)
-attempted to assasinate a former US presidient
-perpetrated one of the largest environmental crimes of the world by
lighting hundreds of Kuwaiti oil wells on fire simply out of spite for
being ejected from a country they illegally invaded (American's put
the fires out not that they get any thanks from the international
community for that)
-shot the Kuwaiti zoo animals on their way out of town. Some of them
were killed, others limping around half-starved when the US army
rolled in.
-brutalized and raped the Kuwaitis while they occupied
-the worst kind of terror and brutality to his own people including
"rape rooms" , faclities designed to torture people, torturing and
raping children in front of their parents and wives in front of their
husbands, coercing Iraqi doctors to amputate ears as punishment,
running a prison for children,....et cetera. You know, you've heard
all this. But not from CNN because they traded hiding the truth for
access according to Eason Jordon and the NYT.
-publicly made it a policy to pay suicide bombers family's $25,000 as
reward for the bombers killing civilians in Israeli cafes, pizza
parlors, discos, etc.
-flouted multiple UN resolutions demanding that they cooperatively
disarm.
-Mocked and tricked UN inspectors who were there to supervise their
disarmament, not play hide & seek.
Iraq was hostile to the US and ruled by a madman
The madman befriends and supports terrorists in Palestine
Al Qaeda cites the Palestinian/Israeli conflict as one reason to kill
any American(including my 4 year old twin daughters if they could get
at them)
Iraq, being hostile to the US and belligerent toward the UN is opaque
but we (and the entire international community, not some right-wing
cabal)) know she has the infrastructure, know-how and inclination to
build chemical, biological and nuclear weapons
Sadam woud have been in power for a long time to come and then Qusay
would have taken over and he's just as crazy and mean. This potential
threat would have continued on for many years to come constantly
reminding us another 9/11 could be around the corner.
Since there were 16 UN resolutions demanding cooperation and
disarmament that had been flagrantly ignored, why not use that as
justification to get in there and remove the threat before it's on our
friggin' doorstep?
David Hartung
Actually, the only thing that has changed is the way that the anti-Bush
people have characterized the war.
cRaZeE_sAcK_hEaD
"Devon Wells" <dwel...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:45e8kvkkmt7v09e8v...@4ax.com...
Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced Conservatives,
1) Dealing with Saddam who has been endless tying up US resources in the
region since 1990.
2) A reformed Iraq means that the US can leave Saudi Arabia, a key
harping on point of bin Laden's.
3) Iraqi oil flowing into the world markets makes Saudi Arabia's oil
trump card much less valuable thus allowing the US more freedom to put
more pressure on them and their funding of terrorism.
4) By showing that the US is willing to expend its resources to help
Arabs, a new and better view of America from the Arab Street is
possible.
5) After Afghanistan and Iraq, America is not seen so much as a big
talking paper tiger.
6) An Iraq with a broad based and democratic form of government could
give other Arab countries, which today uniformly are dictatorships,
something to aspire to.
7) Saddam supported international terrorism, and post 9/11 we decided to
go after all those who support international terrorism.
8) By showing that we were willing to even go to Baghdad, other
terrorist supporting countries such as Iran and Syria will need to think
long and hard about whether they want to continue in their evil ways.
9) We are running out of time to make the sort of sea change that is
needed desperately in the Middle East and elsewhere before nuclear
weapons and other WMDs proliferate. North Korea has already sold long
range missiles to pretty much every country in the Middle East and North
Africa with access to the cash to buy them. Bold action is required due
to this limited window of opportunity.
10) US access to Iraq puts our troops on both sides of Iran and right
next to Syria thus further increasing the pressure on these two major
international supporters of terrorism.
11) Ending Saddam's terrorism of his people whom he has murdered or
starved to the tune of several millions.
12) Ending Saddam's threat to his neighbours, three of which he has
senselessly invaded, and on one he used WMDs.
OK, there are 12 good reasons for our invasion of Iraq. I'm sure there
are more if I took more time to think about it.
Barry R. Reef
16 UN resolutions, why haven't we invaded Israel?
Here's a list of 65 UN Resolutions against Israel. None were complied
with.
UN Resolutions Against Israel, 1955-1992
1. Resolution 106: "... 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid"
2. Resolution 111: "...'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed
fifty-six people"
3. Resolution 127: "...'recommends' Israel suspend its 'no-man's zone'
in Jerusalem"
4. Resolution 162: "...'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions"
5. Resolution 171: "...determines flagrant violations' by Israel in
its attack on Syria"
6. Resolution 228: "...'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the
West Bank, then under Jordanian control"
7. Resolution 237: "...'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967
Palestinian refugees"
8. Resolution 248: "...'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on
Karameh in Jordan"
9. Resolution 250: "... 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding
military parade in Jerusalem"
10. Resolution 251: "... 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in
Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250"
11. Resolution 252: "...'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify
Jerusalem as Jewish capital"
12. Resolution 256: "... 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as
'flagrant violation"
13. Resolution 259: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN
mission to probe occupation"
14. Resolution 262: "...'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut
airport"
15. Resolution 265: "... 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in
Jordan"
16. Resolution 267: "...'censures' Israel for administrative acts to
change the status of Jerusalem"
17. Resolution 270: "...'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages
in southern Lebanon"
18. Resolution 271: "...'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN
resolutions on Jerusalem"
19. Resolution 279: "...'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from
Lebanon"
20. Resolution 280: "....'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon"
21. Resolution 285: "...'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form
Lebanon"
22. Resolution 298: "...'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of
Jerusalem"
23. Resolution 313: "...'demands' that Israel stop attacks against
Lebanon"
24. Resolution 316: "...'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on
Lebanon"
25. Resolution 317: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs
abducted in Lebanon"
26. Resolution 332: "...'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against
Lebanon"
27. Resolution 337: "...'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's
sovereignty"
28. Resolution 347: "...'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon"
29. Resolution 425: "...'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from
Lebanon"
30. Resolution 427: "...'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal
from Lebanon'
31. Resolution 444: "...'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with
UN peacekeeping forces"
32. Resolution 446: "...'determines' that Israeli settlements are a
'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the
Fourth Geneva Convention"
33. Resolution 450: "...'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon"
34. Resolution 452: "...'calls' on Israel to cease building
settlements in occupied territories"
35. Resolution 465: "...'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all
member states not to assist Israel's settlements program"
36. Resolution 467: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's military
intervention in Lebanon"
37. Resolution 468: "...'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal
expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate
their return"
38. Resolution 469: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to
observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians"
39. Resolution 471: "... 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure
to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention"
40. Resolution 476: "... 'reiterates' that Israel's claims to
Jerusalem are 'null and void'
41. Resolution 478: "...'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for
its claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'
42. Resolution 484: "...'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit
two deported Palestinian mayors"
43. Resolution 487: "...'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on
Iraq's nuclear facility"
44. Resolution 497: "...'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's
Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescind its
decision forthwith"
45. Resolution 498: "...'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon"
46. Resolution 501: "...'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against
Lebanon and withdraw its troops"
47. Resolution 509: "...'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces
forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon"
48. Resolution 515: "...'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut
and allow food supplies to be brought in"
49. Resolution 517: "...'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN
resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon"
50. Resolution 518: "...'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN
forces in Lebanon"
51. Resolution 520: "...'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut"
52. Resolution 573: "...'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing
Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters
53. Resolution 587: "...'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to
withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw"
54. Resolution 592: "...'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian
students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops"
55. Resolution 605: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and
practices denying the human rights of Palestinians
56. Resolution 607: "...'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians
and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention
57. Resolution 608: "...'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the
United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians"
58. Resolution 636: "...'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of
Palestinian civilians
59. Resolution 641: "...'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of
Palestinians
60. Resolution 672: "...'condemns' Israel for violence against
Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount
61. Resolution 673: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with
the United Nations
62. Resolution 681: "...'deplores' Israel's resumption of the
deportation of Palestinians
63. Resolution 694: "...'deplores' Israel's deportation of
Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return
64. Resolution 726: "...'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of
Palestinians
65. Resolution 799: "...'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of
413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.
http://www.jerusalemites.org/facts_documents/un/22.htm
A History of U.S. Vetoes
There is another major area, largely ignored, that at some point must
be faced. It involves the serious distortion of the official Security
Council record by the profligate use by the United States of its veto
power. In 29 separate cases between 1972 and 1991, the United States
has vetoed resolutions critical of Israel. Except for the U.S. veto,
these resolutions would have passed and the total number of
resolutions against Israel would now equal 95 instead of 66.
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0393/9303040.htm
The following are the resolutions vetoed by the United States during
the period of September, 1972, to May, 1990 to protect Israel from
council criticism:
1. ....condemned Israel's attack against Southern against southern
Lebanon and Syria..."
2. ....affirmed the rights of the Palestinian people to
self-determination, statehood and equal protections..."
3. ...condemned Israel's air strikes and attacks in southern
Lebanon and its murder of innocent civilians..."
4. ....called for self-determination of Palestinian people..."
5. ....deplored Israel's altering of the status of Jerusalem, which
is recognized as an international city by most world nations and the
United Nations..."
6. ....affirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian
people..."
7. ....endorsed self-determination for the Palestinian people..."
8. ....demanded Israel's withdrawal from the Golan Heights..."
9. ....condemned Israel's mistreatment of Palestinians in the
occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip and its refusal to abide by the
Geneva convention protocols of civilized nations..."
10. ....condemned an Israeli soldier who shot eleven Moslem
worshippers at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount near Al-Aqsa Mosque in
the Old City of Jerusalem..."
11. ....urged sanctions against Israel if it did not withdraw from
its invasion of Lebanon..."
12. ....urged sanctions against Israel if it did not
13. .withdraw from its invasion of Beirut..."
14. ....urged cutoff of economic aid to Israel if it refused to
withdraw from its occupation of Lebanon..."
15. ....condemned continued Israeli settlements in occupied
territories in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, denouncing them as an
obstacle to peace..."
16. ....deplores Israel's brutal massacre of Arabs in Lebanon and
urges its withdrawal..."
17. ....condemned Israeli brutality in southern Lebanon and
denounced the Israeli 'Iron Fist' policy of repression...."
18. ....denounced Israel's violation of human rights in the occupied
territories..."
19. ....deplored Israel's violence in southern Lebanon..."
20. ....deplored Israel's activities in occupied Arab East Jerusalem
that threatened the sanctity of Muslim holy sites..."
21. ....condemned Israel's hijacking of a Libyan passenger
airplane..."
22. ....deplored Israel's attacks against Lebanon and its measures
and practices against the civilian population of Lebanon..."
23. ....called on Israel to abandon its policies against the
Palestinian intifada that violated the rights of occupied
Palestinians, to abide by the Fourth Geneva Conventions, and to
formalize a leading role for the United Nations in future peace
negotiations..."
24. ....urged Israel to accept back deported Palestinians, condemned
Israel's shooting of civilians, called on Israel to uphold the Fourth
Geneva Convention, and called for a peace settlement under UN
auspices..."
25. ....condemned Israel's... incursion into Lebanon..."
26. ....deplored Israel's... commando raids on Lebanon..."
27. ....deplored Israel's repression of the Palestinian intifada and
called on Israel to respect the human rights of the Palestinians..."
28. ....deplored Israel's violation of the human rights of the
Palestinians..."
29. ....demanded that Israel return property confiscated from
Palestinians during a tax protest and allow a fact-finding mission to
observe Israel's crackdown on the Palestinian intifada..."
30. ...called for a fact-finding mission on abuses against
Palestinians in Israeli-occupied lands..."
(Findley's Deliberate Deceptions, 1998 pages 192 - 194)
http://www.mideastfacts.com/resolutions.html
gr...@internet.charitydays.co.uk
>
>
>gr...@internet.charitydays.co.uk wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Roger wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "David Hartung" <dhar...@quixnet.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:bhvh8g$qrv$1...@sun-news.laserlink.net...
>> >> >
>> >> > "ehollo" <eho...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> >> > news:IoG0b.20312$Bo6....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
>> >> > > I miss the good old days when Presidents
>> >> > > told the truth to get us into war. Crazy, ehhh?
>> >> >
>> >> > Those days returned when George W Bush entered office.
>> >>
>> >> What did Bush finally settle on as the reason for going to war?
>> >>
>> >Since there were about a dozen good reasons to invade Iraq and do a
>> >regime change, there isn't a the reason to settle on.
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> "......... there were about a dozen good reasons to invade Iraq........."
>>
>> Please list a dozen good reasons.
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>1)
>Dealing with Saddam who has been endless tying up US resources in the
>region since 1990.
".........tying up US resources in the region since 1990........."
What resources are tied up in the region NOW ?
What was the $ cost of the war ?
What does it $ cost per month to continue the current situation ?
My guess is that it's more expensive now than it was before.
Both in money and in body bags.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>2)
>A reformed Iraq means that the US can leave Saudi Arabia,
>a key harping on point of bin Laden's.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The US could have left Saudi Arabia anytime.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>3)
>Iraqi oil flowing into the world markets makes Saudi Arabia's oil
>trump card much less valuable
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Iraqi oil is somebody else's property.
One thing is for sure --- It's not George W's property.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>thus allowing the US more freedom to put more pressure on them and their funding of terrorism.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If Saudi Arabia is funding terrorism, close their bank accounts.
If regime change is OK for Iraq, regime change is OK for Saudi Arabia.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>4)
>By showing that the US is willing to expend its resources to help
>Arabs, a new and better view of America from the Arab Street is
>possible.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If they want US help, they will ask for it.
If you want a better view of America from the Arab Street, sort out Israel first.
Keep pseudo-Christians well away from Iraq.
That includes any soldier who is a pseudo-Christian.
Send those particular soldiers to some other part of the world.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>5)
>After Afghanistan and Iraq, America is not seen so much as a big
>talking paper tiger.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
America never was seen as talking paper tiger.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>6)
>An Iraq with a broad based and democratic form of government could
>give other Arab countries, which today uniformly are dictatorships,
>something to aspire to.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
".........a broad based and democratic form of government........."
If Saudi Arabia is funding terrorism, why didn't you start with them ?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>7)
>Saddam supported international terrorism,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No he did not.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>and post 9/11 we decided to go after all those who support international terrorism.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If Saudi Arabia is funding terrorism, why didn't you start with them ?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>8)
>By showing that we were willing to even go to Baghdad, other
>terrorist supporting countries such as Iran and Syria will need to think
>long and hard about whether they want to continue in their evil ways.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That isn't the way people have reacted to the invasion of Iraq.
America is now seen as the land where the invaders come from.
It has not made the world frightened --- It's made the world angry.
".........will need to think long and hard........."
The world is thinking long and hard.
They are thinking about defense changes, in preparation for the day when the
American invaders come to their country.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>9)
>We are running out of time to make the sort of sea change that is
>needed desperately in the Middle East and elsewhere before nuclear
>weapons and other WMDs proliferate.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There are no WMD in Iraq.
What is desperately needed in the Middle East, is for Israel to be sorted out.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>North Korea has already sold long range missiles to pretty much every
>country in the Middle East and North
>Africa with access to the cash to buy them. Bold action is required due
>to this limited window of opportunity.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Then deal with the problem where it is happening.
Iraq was nothing to do with any of this.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>10)
>US access to Iraq puts our troops on both sides of Iran and right
>next to Syria thus further increasing the pressure on these two major
>international supporters of terrorism.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You cannot invade "A" to be alongside "B".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>11)
>Ending Saddam's terrorism of his people whom he has murdered or
>starved to the tune of several millions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This argument is a non-runner.
The US never invaded Pol Pot's Cambodia where 1.7 million were murdered.
If you are going to support "Human Rights Wars", follow this policy it all the way down the line.
You can start with all the right-wing dictators.
There's plenty of those around.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>12)
>Ending Saddam's threat to his neighbours, three of which he has
>senselessly invaded, and on one he used WMDs.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Saddam was not a threat.
He has not invaded anyone for over 10 years.
There are no WMD in Iraq.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>OK, there are 12 good reasons for our invasion of Iraq. I'm sure there
>are more if I took more time to think about it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
They are not good enough reasons to justify an invasion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Roger
news:qm08kvs2koikqq34f...@4ax.com...
> "Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >"David Hartung" <dhar...@quixnet.net> wrote in message
> >news:bhujsg$nt9$1...@sun-news.laserlink.net...
> >>
> >> "connie rahim" <connie....@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
> >> news:53adafbc.0308...@posting.google.com...
> >> > When even the UN delegate to Iraq is slaughtered, it shows you the
> >> > helpless rage of a part of the world that is trying to lash out
> >> > against genocidal Zionist-Bush oppression.
> >> >
> >> > We need to understand the roots of anger so that the U.S. can live in
> >> > peace once again with other members of the world community.
> >>
> >> We need to destroy those who would use terror as a weapon,
> >
> >Will never happen. You probably think it will because we destroyed all
those
> >drug dealers so successfully.
> >
> >> and while we are
> >> at it, perhaps we ought to lock up those, such as you, who give aid and
> >> comfort to our enemies.
> >
> >You seem to be unfamiliar with difference between words and deeds.
> >
> The ones who use drugs make sure the drug dealers aren't completely
> destroyed which is like giving aid and comfort to the murderous drug
> cartels. Drug abusers should be locked up as well.
Don't worry. There are tens of thousands of pot users in prision for
decades, if not for the rest of their lives.
Who are we protecting the drug dealers from if not the drug users? We should
lock up both the perpetrators and their victims?
Roger
Roger
<std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
news:3F44392D...@backpacker.com...
All of these reasons apply to North Korea and Cuba. When are we invading
them? They applied to the USSR and much more. Why didn't we invade them?
Barry R. Reef
<jakov...@aol.com> wrote:
>The ones who use drugs make sure the drug dealers aren't completely
>destroyed which is like giving aid and comfort to the murderous drug
>cartels. Drug abusers should be locked up as well.
>
It would be more realistic to say that Law Enforcement makes sure the
drug dealers aren't completely destroyed, so they can continue
receiving a couple of billion dollars a year to fight the problem they
never seem to win. An added bonus for them is the millions they make
by selling off seized drug dealers property. With incentives like
that, why should they ever want to win the War on Drugs?
Roger
>
> >
> >
> >Please list a dozen good reasons.
> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> These were all in the regular media news so i don't know why you don't
> know about it but here they are in no particular order. Bush and
> Blair listed all of these and more too....
>
> -had and used chemical weapons
Before GW I
>
> -waged unjust war on their neighbors
Before GW I
>
> -attempted to build a nuclear processing plant (didn't thanks to the
> Israeli airforce)
Before GW I
>
> -attempted to assasinate a former US presidient
Clinton bombed them for that one.
>
> -perpetrated one of the largest environmental crimes of the world by
> lighting hundreds of Kuwaiti oil wells on fire simply out of spite for
> being ejected from a country they illegally invaded (American's put
> the fires out not that they get any thanks from the international
> community for that)
Before GW I
>
> -shot the Kuwaiti zoo animals on their way out of town. Some of them
> were killed, others limping around half-starved when the US army
> rolled in.
Before GW I
>
> -brutalized and raped the Kuwaitis while they occupied
Before GW I
>
> -the worst kind of terror and brutality to his own people including
> "rape rooms" , faclities designed to torture people, torturing and
> raping children in front of their parents and wives in front of their
> husbands, coercing Iraqi doctors to amputate ears as punishment,
> running a prison for children,....et cetera. You know, you've heard
> all this. But not from CNN because they traded hiding the truth for
> access according to Eason Jordon and the NYT.
>
> -publicly made it a policy to pay suicide bombers family's $25,000 as
> reward for the bombers killing civilians in Israeli cafes, pizza
> parlors, discos, etc.
>
> -flouted multiple UN resolutions demanding that they cooperatively
> disarm.
Because the US never does that.
>
> -Mocked and tricked UN inspectors who were there to supervise their
> disarmament, not play hide & seek.
Clinton bombed them for that.
>
> Iraq was hostile to the US and ruled by a madman
Perhaps we shouldn't have supported him then.
>
> The madman befriends and supports terrorists in Palestine
>
> Al Qaeda cites the Palestinian/Israeli conflict as one reason to kill
> any American(including my 4 year old twin daughters if they could get
> at them)
Which has nothing to do with Iraq.
Al Qaeda also complained about the US occupation in Saudi Arabia. Should the
US invade the US?
>
> Iraq, being hostile to the US and belligerent toward the UN is opaque
> but we (and the entire international community, not some right-wing
> cabal)) know she has the infrastructure, know-how and inclination to
> build chemical, biological and nuclear weapons
Which infrastructure? How long has been the US looking for this in vain?
>
> Sadam woud have been in power for a long time to come and then Qusay
> would have taken over and he's just as crazy and mean. This potential
> threat would have continued on for many years to come constantly
> reminding us another 9/11 could be around the corner.
GB I was in power for 4 years and then his son took over.
Iraq had nothing to do with 911. We couldn't have another 911 because
there's no WTC left.
>
> Since there were 16 UN resolutions demanding cooperation and
> disarmament that had been flagrantly ignored, why not use that as
> justification to get in there and remove the threat before it's on our
> friggin' doorstep?
What threat was on our doorstep? Their tanks? The fighters they buried? The
AK47s? The colorfully painted SUVs? Car bombs in Iraq?
Happy Camper
> Ever see the movie "The Exorcist"? That's what this occupation
> looks like to me (without us really knowing what we are doing in Iraq).
I was just thinking about what Linda Blair might be up to these days.
Naturally that led to discussion about The Exorcist. One review says:
>The opening scene of The Exorcist takes place in Iraq
Coincidence or trivia, you decide.
I am not sure what the significance of that to the movie was.
Then there is Linda Blair's character "Regan." The film was made well
before former president Ronald Reagan took office.
Whatever :o)
I would still compare the two. Seems to me our occupation of Iraq is at
least in part an attempt to exorcise it. Although I would put more
emphasis on the role of psychologists and less on the priest.
Drawing those conclusions after hearing press reports about how Iraqi
prisoners are interrogated.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3042907.stm
"Heavy metal music and popular American children's songs are being used by
US interrogators to break the will of their captives in Iraq."
And more recently, there is the attempt to provoke attacks by Saddam
loyalists.
Having "posters of Saddam Hussein dressed as celebrities such as Elvis
Presley and Zsa Zsa Gabor" ... "slapped up on walls around Tikrit."
http://www.msnbc.com/news/953618.asp?0cv=CB20&cp1=1
Nothing unusual about psychological warfare I guess but seems to me they
are pushing it. Then there is the fact many Iraqis tend to hurt
themselves. And, well, why else did we go there? Your guess is good as
mine.
Barry R. Reef
wrote:
>So you contend it's ordinary civilian Iraqis sniping our soldiers and
>attacking the UN headquarters? The reporting has been to the
>contrary. It's Mujahadeen (brainwashed Bathist extremists)) and
>foreign (to Iraq) terrorists attempting to sabatoge normalization.
>And you notice all the violence is in Bagdhad or other Bathist
>strongholds. True some normal Iraqis have grumbled but but many are
>glad to have the Americans around to provide security. Here's an
>excerpt from a Marine in yesterdays Wall St. Journal op ed page:
( Wall Street Journal article deleted)
I don't know what an ordinary Iraqi is, but I have little faith in the
Administration's statements that our continuing casualties are just
from the dead-ender Bathists entirely, aided my foreign terrorists.
The country is loaded with weapons. Almost everyone, it seems, has an
AK47. Lots and lots of "ordinary Iraqis" are veterans of either the
war with Iran, the first Gulf War, or this Iraq War. Lots and lots of
Iraqis who belonged to the Bathist Party in name only were fired from
their jobs when we took over, like the entire Iraqi Civil Service and
the entire national police force, and I'm sure they are not happy
about that. As former Bathist's, they have little chance of
employment as long as the US is calling the shots. We bombed the
shit out of the country twice now, destroying their infrastructure
each time, killing many thousands of their civilians, and many
thousands of their soldiers too, and every one of those dead Iraqis
have family that has reason for seeking revenge, in a culture where
revenge is a duty. Add to that, the 10 years of the UN Embargo
resulted is several hundred thousand more Iraqi deaths, mostly
children, so they have ample reason to target Americans and UN people.
In Viet Nam, the smiling peasant farmer by day often became the Viet
Cong guerrilla by night. Why should Iraq be any different today?
Even in the south of Iraq, where the marine in the article is
stationed, is a powder keg waiting for a match. All it would take
would be for the Shiite religious leadership to get fed up enough to
declare a holy war, and then it wouldn't be just the Sunni Triangle
but the whole country that would give us grief.
The FBI guy in Iraq says the truck bomb used in the UN attack was
home-grown, he thinks, not the work of foreign terrorists. Our
leaders have finally admitted that what they are facing in Iraq is a
well organized guerilla war that is increasing in sophistication. If
we continue to putter around without restoring normalcy for the
"ordinary Iraqis," that guerilla war will only get worse, and spread
throughout the country.
Peter Vos
> > >Roger wrote:
> > >>
> > >> "David Hartung" <dhar...@quixnet.net> wrote in message
> > >> news:bhvh8g$qrv$1...@sun-news.laserlink.net...
> > >> >
> > >> > "ehollo" <eho...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > >> > news:IoG0b.20312$Bo6....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
> > >> > > I miss the good old days when Presidents
> > >> > > told the truth to get us into war. Crazy, ehhh?
> > >> >
> > >> > Those days returned when George W Bush entered office.
> > >>
> > >> What did Bush finally settle on as the reason for going to war?
> > >>
> > >Since there were about a dozen good reasons to invade Iraq and do a
> > >regime change, there isn't a the reason to settle on.
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > "......... there were about a dozen good reasons to invade Iraq........."
> >
> > Please list a dozen good reasons.
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> 1) Dealing with Saddam who has been endless tying up US resources in the
> region since 1990.
Actually not just US - that burden was being shared by the other
countries. Now of course we are paying the freight alone. So it is
costing more per month than the inspectors cost in a year.
>
> 2) A reformed Iraq means that the US can leave Saudi Arabia, a key
> harping on point of bin Laden's.
Unfortunately, a power vacuum is not the sort of place on gets a
"reformed" country. That is the quick road to "failed state" and a new
magnet for piratical terrorists - they thrive in the chaos. Cost of
"draining the swamp" will be MUCH greater - oh and don't count on
Saudi money to help.
>
> 3) Iraqi oil flowing into the world markets makes Saudi Arabia's oil
> trump card much less valuable thus allowing the US more freedom to put
> more pressure on them and their funding of terrorism.
Even on a good day that would bring in about $15 Billion a year. And
of course you have to first fix the infrastructure - which is going to
be paid for by ... US - while we watch our own infrastructure crumble.
Stunning to see Lou Dobbs sounds more like a liberal every day - this
whole week has been spent on focusing on this very problem - electric,
roads, water, dams, ...
>
> 4) By showing that the US is willing to expend its resources to help
> Arabs, a new and better view of America from the Arab Street is
> possible.
Actually, by showing it is an occupying force that will stomp on
allies how don't toe the line we have alienated even moderates in the
region. Fact is that Syria - not a moderate state - was a big help
prior to this in getting our hands on international terrorists because
they recognized the common threat. Well kiss that goodbye.
>
> 5) After Afghanistan and Iraq, America is not seen so much as a big
> talking paper tiger.
>
No now we are seen as a bully with no regard for international law.
Wait until Pakistan, India, North Korea, Iran and [your favorite
despot] decides to follow that lead.
> 6) An Iraq with a broad based and democratic form of government could
> give other Arab countries, which today uniformly are dictatorships,
> something to aspire to.
>
Could - now that is a stretch. I would rather focus on Qatar as the
catalyst for that sort of change. And guess what? We don't have to
occupy them to motivate the ruling clan to do what the Kuwaitis
*promised* they would do in '91.
> 7) Saddam supported international terrorism, and post 9/11 we decided to
> go after all those who support international terrorism.
>
So I guess that means we will be invading Pakistan and Saudi Arabia?
> 8) By showing that we were willing to even go to Baghdad, other
> terrorist supporting countries such as Iran and Syria will need to think
> long and hard about whether they want to continue in their evil ways.
>
No they will simply take the North Korea lesson - get nukes or get
nuked.
> 9) We are running out of time to make the sort of sea change that is
> needed desperately in the Middle East and elsewhere before nuclear
> weapons and other WMDs proliferate. North Korea has already sold long
> range missiles to pretty much every country in the Middle East and North
> Africa with access to the cash to buy them. Bold action is required due
> to this limited window of opportunity.
It will require international cooperation - the story of a lone Texas
Ranger riding in to town and quelling a riot is a myth. It didn't work
in Texas and it won't work anywhere else.
>
> 10) US access to Iraq puts our troops on both sides of Iran and right
> next to Syria thus further increasing the pressure on these two major
> international supporters of terrorism.
Definitely puts our boots in the sand. And of course requires us to
figure out how to maintain the supply lines. Great - now all we have
to do is sit it out and see who blinks first. Of course, they
wouldn't dream of using guerilla tactics to harrass and attrit - it
would be unmanly right?
>
> 11) Ending Saddam's terrorism of his people whom he has murdered or
> starved to the tune of several millions.
Actually more like a few hundred thousand. True, a million or so were
killed in the war with Iran, but that is not the same old "evil
bastard killing his own people" sort of propaganda. If you want to go
with the numbers though - best start packing for the Congo. Oh and
North Korea while you are at it.
>
> 12) Ending Saddam's threat to his neighbours, three of which he has
> senselessly invaded, and on one he used WMDs.
Yeah - Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. Great - so now Iran and Saudi
Arabia don't have to worry. Kuwait is not rushing to cut any checks
either. Well done you just released the major threat from Iran and
took the heat off Saudi Arabia.
>
> OK, there are 12 good reasons for our invasion of Iraq. I'm sure there
> are more if I took more time to think about it.
None of those are good reasons. Try again.
Devon Wells
realize it:
http://www.inc.org.uk/English/rights/Invasion_of_Kuwait_War.htm
http://www.crsk.org/contents.htm
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 04:41:53 GMT, Happy Camper <I...@love.Usnet> wrote:
>Devon Wells <dwel...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>> <snipped lots of other stories>
>
>> -brutalized and raped the Kuwaitis while they occupied
>
>Maybe you weren't there. As I recall, there wasn't time enough to occupy
>anything except tanks which quickly did an about face. We weren't
>premeditating/concocting a war like this recent one. We swiftly reacted to
>the Iraqis crossing the Kuwaiti border. That mission was purposeful and
>clearly defined. Our current occupation of Iraq bares no resemblance to
>that 1991 war.
>
>You have a scary ability to make up stories in order to justify violating
>the soverienty of nations. I guess you feel OK about a police officer
>strip/cavity searching you when he imagines you are hurting yourself with
>some unknown weapon.
I can see your a troll, but just in case someone else doesn't realize
it: http://www.inc.org.uk/English/rights/Invasion_of_Kuwait_War.htm
>Besides, it's not like the Iraqi people are western style wimps, as if you
>didn't already know, they are used to self abuse. Stop pretending
>otherwise and playing dumb when they continue to blow their own stuff up
>and continue to die in suicide attacks on our soldiers.
Devon Wells
threat to the US or our allies. Plus this is a bit of propaganda since
those aren't all current violations. The only point you've made is
that Israel AND Iraq are frequent violators.
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 04:31:04 GMT, Barry R. Reef <vze1...@verizon.net>
wrote:
>If the justification for invading Iraq is their refusal to comply with
Devon Wells
>".........tying up US resources in the region since 1990........."
>
>
>What resources are tied up in the region NOW ?
>
>What was the $ cost of the war ?
>What does it $ cost per month to continue the current situation ?
>
>My guess is that it's more expensive now than it was before.
>Both in money and in body bags.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
According to a 1999 PBS Newshour discussion, Ret Gen. Richard Hawley
said it cost approx. $2 billion the previous year to enforce the
no-fly zone. Then I guess we could have chosen not to enforce it and
let Saddam attack the Kurds. Sure the current costs are higher per
day but at least there's an end in sight.
>>2)
>>A reformed Iraq means that the US can leave Saudi Arabia,
>>a key harping on point of bin Laden's.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>The US could have left Saudi Arabia anytime.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And let Iraq invade Saudi Arabia
>>3)
>>Iraqi oil flowing into the world markets makes Saudi Arabia's oil
>>trump card much less valuable
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Iraqi oil is somebody else's property.
>
>One thing is for sure --- It's not George W's property.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Up until recently, only to fill Saddam Hussein and family's personal
coffers
>>thus allowing the US more freedom to put more pressure on them and their funding of terrorism.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>If Saudi Arabia is funding terrorism, close their bank accounts.
>
>If regime change is OK for Iraq, regime change is OK for Saudi Arabia.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
When push comes to shove the Saudi's play ball. Saddam didn't.
>>4)
>>By showing that the US is willing to expend its resources to help
>>Arabs, a new and better view of America from the Arab Street is
>>possible.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>If they want US help, they will ask for it.
>
>If you want a better view of America from the Arab Street, sort out Israel first.
>
>Keep pseudo-Christians well away from Iraq.
>That includes any soldier who is a pseudo-Christian.
>Send those particular soldiers to some other part of the world.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
psuedo-Christians? Wouldn't real Christians be more irritating to
Muslims?
>>5)
>>After Afghanistan and Iraq, America is not seen so much as a big
>>talking paper tiger.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>America never was seen as talking paper tiger.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>6)
>>An Iraq with a broad based and democratic form of government could
>>give other Arab countries, which today uniformly are dictatorships,
>>something to aspire to.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>".........a broad based and democratic form of government........."
>
>
>If Saudi Arabia is funding terrorism, why didn't you start with them ?
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Because at least they have the sense to deny it.
Then why didn't they simply prove it to the UN 12 years ago and be
done with it. If there are no WMDs then they foolishly wanted the
world to believe there were.
>
>What is desperately needed in the Middle East, is for Israel to be sorted out.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>North Korea has already sold long range missiles to pretty much every
>>country in the Middle East and North
>>Africa with access to the cash to buy them. Bold action is required due
>>to this limited window of opportunity.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Then deal with the problem where it is happening.
The situation in NKorea is much more dicey. They actually have nukes
and are making wild threats to use them against our troops and allies
on a regular a basis. Too, they have quite a lot of brainwashed
people that wouldn't throw their guns down and run. You could
potentially have a serious fight on your hands and not done anything
to improve the situation. It's bang for buck. Iraq was doable.
>
>Iraq was nothing to do with any of this.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>10)
>>US access to Iraq puts our troops on both sides of Iran and right
>>next to Syria thus further increasing the pressure on these two major
>>international supporters of terrorism.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>You cannot invade "A" to be alongside "B".
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you can put a democracy between a Bathist dicatorship and a
fundamentalist theocracy the populations of those countries will
notice and their gov'ts will feel the pressure to voluntarily reform
toward more freedom.
>>11)
>>Ending Saddam's terrorism of his people whom he has murdered or
>>starved to the tune of several millions.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>This argument is a non-runner.
>The US never invaded Pol Pot's Cambodia where 1.7 million were murdered.
>
>If you are going to support "Human Rights Wars", follow this policy it all the way down the line.
>You can start with all the right-wing dictators.
>There's plenty of those around.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But you can't do 'em all at once and you gotta start somewhere.
>>12)
>>Ending Saddam's threat to his neighbours, three of which he has
>>senselessly invaded, and on one he used WMDs.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Saddam was not a threat.
>He has not invaded anyone for over 10 years.
>There are no WMD in Iraq.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We're part of the reason he was not a threat. Might as well make it
permanent by removing him from power.
Happy Camper
> I can see you're a troll,
I can see you top post.
> but just in case someone else doesn't realize ...
... there are lots of varying opinions here.
> http://www.inc.org.uk/English/rights/Invasion_of_Kuwait_War.htm
That from the Iraqi National Congress.
So how long did the so-called occupation last?
> http://www.crsk.org/contents.htm
That from the "Center for Research and Studies on Kuwait." Is that
supposed to be an authoritative body?
They wrote:
...Under "Kuwaiti Resistance" ... "Kuwaitis' refusal to enroll their
children in schools run by occupiers"
They have to be kidding. Seriously. That looks like silly people trying
to revise history.
Our United States (and allies) responded almost immediately to Iraqis
crossing the Kuwaiti border.
Apparently you and they weren't around then.
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 04:41:53 GMT, Happy Camper <I...@love.Usnet> wrote:
>
>>Devon Wells <dwel...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>
>>> <snipped lots of other stories>
>>
>>> -brutalized and raped the Kuwaitis while they occupied
>>
>>Maybe you weren't there. As I recall, there wasn't time enough to occupy
>>anything except tanks which quickly did an about face. We weren't
>>premeditating/concocting a war like this recent one. We swiftly reacted
to
>>the Iraqis crossing the Kuwaiti border. That mission was purposeful and
>>clearly defined. Our current occupation of Iraq bares no resemblance to
>>that 1991 war.
>>
>>You have a scary ability to make up stories in order to justify violating
>>the soverienty of nations. I guess you feel OK about a police officer
>>strip/cavity searching you when he imagines you are hurting yourself with
>>some unknown weapon.
>>Besides, it's not like the Iraqi people are western style wimps, as if
Barry R. Reef
wrote:
>Granted but that was only one of my points and Israel doesn't pose a
>threat to the US or our allies. Plus this is a bit of propaganda since
>those aren't all current violations. The only point you've made is
>that Israel AND Iraq are frequent violators.
>
Granted, but it was 2AM, and I was getting kinda tired, so I left your
other points to be refuted by someone fresher. It can be said that
Iraq's UN resolutions aren't all current either, and our support for
Israel does pose a threat to our security, because it makes us a
target for Islamic extremists.
Besides, I wanted to counterbalance the propaganda of a couple of
other posts that listed the names and ages of the recent bus bombing
victims in Israel, with the names and ages of the 226 Palestinian
children under age 15 that have been killed "accidentally" by the IDF
or settlers, and that took some time to reformat the data into plain
text.
Please forgive me for not giving your post the time and attention it
deserved.
Khalid Rahim
stuff. They seem to be packing and bailing