Should the U.S.A. attack Iraq?
Charl the Barl
Armageddon Watch <armag...@twinkie.com> wrote:
> Jesus, in his Sermon on the Mount, instructs: "If anyone hits you on
> the right cheek, offer him the other one as well," adding: "Offer the
> wicked man no resistance."
My personal view, FWIW, is that this obviously silly teaching is a
mistranslation. The original spiritual principle would have been better
put "If anyone hits you on one cheek, show the cheek which was not
slapped". In other words, don't make a fuss about it or use it to win
sympathy. While the cheek is still stinging, act as though he did
nothing to offend you. Don't let it interfere with the way you handle
the situation.
Christians generally have misinterpreted this teaching. They teach that
it means we should offer the other cheek to be slapped! How ridiculous!
That is not a spiritual principle - just a very foolish and misguided
interpretation.
Charl
Charl the Barl
<spoc...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> in article 140920022218025021%charlt...@pacific.net.au, Charl the Barl at
> charlt...@pacific.net.au wrote on 9/14/02 7:18 AM:
> Very good.
>
> Should the USA attack Iraq?
>
> Answer the question, first, should the USA wait until Iraq takes the lives
> of tens of thousands before they step in?
Yes. The main cause of war are the war-mongers (on either or both
sides) who prey upon people's fears by saying "We should attack them
before they attack us", or when either or both sides say "They've got
bigger weapons than ours, we don't stand a chance unless we attack them
first" or "We can't wait or they might take tens of thousands of
lives". Most wars have been started with people who spread fear and
innuendo like that.
> I believe it has been evidenced that Iraq has not complied to the UN and has
> been evading doing so for many years.
The UN is very reluctant to start a war against Iraq. Does Bush know
something that the entire UN doesn't know about? No, he has no more
evidence of nuclear weapons than the UN does. "Innocent until proven
guilty" applies to nations as well as individuals. If you were the head
of a small country, would *you* like being treated like a criminal on
parole or a schoolboy, and constantly have to submit to inspections to
make sure you weren't doing anything naughty?
> I believe that Iraq appears to be
> snoozing, but, they pose a danger until we (the UN) can ascertain without
> doubt that weapons of mass destruction are not within Iraq's capability.
Well let's not start killing their women and their children until we
know for sure that they *do* have those weapons. Otherwise *we* are
being the evil-doers!
> There is no way that Iraq will allow UN Officials in with open doors and
> allow them to thoroughly search and discover. That attitude and stance
> warrants grave suspicion.
When the justice system is working as it should, police cannot enter
your home and treat you like a criminal and search your home without a
warrant. And they cannot obtain a warrant unless they have sound and
convincing indication that you may be hiding something. You have rights
including your right to privacy.
If the government says to you that any police officer can enter your
home, look anywhere, and you must "allow them in with open doors and
allow them to thoroughly search and discover", as you put it, would you
be perfectly happy about it? If you wouldn't be happy about that, then
would your attitude warrant grave suspicion? America must treat other
countries with respect and not bully them into submission. Power does
not make 'right'.
> While the people of Iraq will definitely be the ones to suffer the most in
> the short term by any action, I do think the first thing that should be done
> is to "cap off" all of their oil wells and halt their oil production.
>
> That is hitting where it hurts the most. And, it is probably the only
> action that they would understand and wish to prevent. Start capping them
> off, and I believe the Iraq attitude will change.
Bully!
Charl
Patrick R. Barker
Should the USA attack Iraq?
>I believe it has been evidenced that Iraq has not complied to the UN and has
>been evading doing so for many years. I believe that Iraq appears to be
>snoozing, but, they pose a danger until we (the UN) can ascertain without
>doubt that weapons of mass destruction are not within Iraq's capability.
>
>There is no way that Iraq will allow UN Officials in with open doors and
>allow them to thoroughly search and discover. That attitude and stance
>warrants grave suspicion.
>
>While the people of Iraq will definitely be the ones to suffer the most in
>the short term by any action, I do think the first thing that should be done
>is to "cap off" all of their oil wells and halt their oil production.
+ I had almost forgotten about Kuwait and the burning oil wells.
+ You are correct in the fact that the oil wells MUST be preotected
if we go in for saddam.
+ I do believe it will be a quick war though. The Iraqui's don't like
saddam any more than we do. He has over a hundred palaces where he
hangs out at. Mostly new. We must first get some human intelligence
inside -- find out where he is -- before we act. That proved to be
very difficult 10 years ago. I don't suppose it is much easier today.
JCarew
Paula wrote:
>Should the USA attack Iraq?
>
>I believe it has been evidenced that Iraq has not complied
>to the UN and has been evading doing so for many years.
>I believe that Iraq appears to be snoozing, but, they pose a
>danger until we (the UN) can ascertain without
>doubt that weapons of mass destruction are not within
>Iraq's capability.
The last I heard Iraq is still a member in good standing
of the UN so when you say "we(the UN) I take it you
include Iraq in your statement?
Please clarify
Jim Carew sfo
Alan Ferris
wrote:
>I am not fearful that they have weapons bigger or badder than our own.
>However, the restraint exhibitied by the more stable countries is not
>something evidenced in Iraq. It boils down to who has something to lose.
>Those who really have nothing to lose are more likely to be 'unpredictable,
>unreliable, and untrustworthy'. In these times when the countries of the
>world are moving to reduce weapons of mass destruction, to have any country
>attempting to build up that capability is a variable to world peace.
So why is America still attempting to build better and bigger chemical
and biological weapons? Why unlike many in the rest of the world does
it not join the bam on selling landmines?
>So, yes, I would like to see Iraq comply with the UN and stop evading the UN
>law and regulations that they, Iraq, had agreed to. However, "I" have much
>to lose by an attack causing mass destruction of human lives and economic
>property, and that will bias my opinion, greatly. And, your stance is easy
>to take as long as one you love is not one of the tens of thousands that get
>to die first... keep that in mind.
Indeed, you are doing just that. You are accepting the loss of
another naitons people to apease peoples need for revenge.
--
Alan "the Full Monty" Ferrit
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
eligo, ergo sum Atheist #1211
Denizen of Darkness #42
EAC(UK)#252 Ironic Torture Div.
Alan Ferris
Please clarify who has claimed they are in "good standing". They are
still members.
Alan Ferris
wrote:
>in article 3d836293$0$1426$4c5e...@news.erinet.com, Patrick R. Barker at
>bark...@erinet.com wrote on 9/14/02 11:23 AM:
>It was difficult ten years ago because the UN FORBADE the US and the Gulf
>War coallition from "seeking out Sadam for the purposes of Assassination".
>If he was killed as a result of the acts of war, that was okay. So, you
>see, the USA complied with the UN law, and because we did, we are still
>dealing with this bozo and his unpredictable behavior for ten years. So,
>here we are.
>
>However, who cares if he tests chemical and biological weapons on the people
>in his own country? That is fact. And, who cares? He was just testing, no
>intention to develop the capability any further, right?
>
>If the UN does not flex its muscle and validate itself as a global entity to
>be respected, all bets are off. USA will go it, alone, if need be.
>
>I support that.
So you support joining the ramks of the terrorists. Taking actions
just because you feel they warrent action. How is this any diferent
from Saddam?
JCarew
"Alan Ferris" <al...@removespamtheplurbus.org> wrote in message
>"JCarew" <oth...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>Paula wrote:
>>>Should the USA attack Iraq?
>>>I believe it has been evidenced that Iraq has not complied
>>>to the UN and has been evading doing so for many years.
>>>I believe that Iraq appears to be snoozing, but, they pose a
>>>danger until we (the UN) can ascertain without
>>>doubt that weapons of mass destruction are not within
>>>Iraq's capability.
>>The last I heard Iraq is still a member in good standing
>>of the UN so when you say "we(the UN) I take it you
>>include Iraq in your statement?
>>Please clarify
>Please clarify who has claimed they are in "good
>standing". They are still members.
As long as they pay there UN membership dues there
members in good standing entitled to all the benefits
that other member have who have paid the dues.
BTW as I recall at one time the US was not a member
in good standing we owed almost a billion dollars
in back dues I think it was
Jim Carew sfo
Lani girl
"Charl the Barl" <charlt...@pacific.net.au> wrote in message
news:150920020139143494%charlt...@pacific.net.au...
> Yes. The main cause of war are the war-mongers (on either or both
> sides) who prey upon people's fears by saying "We should attack them
> before they attack us", or when either or both sides say "They've got
> bigger weapons than ours, we don't stand a chance unless we attack them
> first" or "We can't wait or they might take tens of thousands of
> lives". Most wars have been started with people who spread fear and
> innuendo like that.
Perhaps, but in the case of the Muslim terrorists, they have ALREADY
attacked the United States.
Or have you *already* forgotten what the Muslim terrorists did to us last
September 11, Charl?
JCarew
"Paula" <spoc...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
JCarew at oth...@prodigy.net wrote on 9/14/02 2:43 PM:
>>Paula wrote:
>>> Should the USA attack Iraq?
>>>
>>> I believe it has been evidenced that Iraq has not complied
>>> to the UN and has been evading doing so for many years.
>>> I believe that Iraq appears to be snoozing, but, they pose a
>>> danger until we (the UN) can ascertain without
>>> doubt that weapons of mass destruction are not within
>>> Iraq's capability.
OK so I'll restate my question :)
The last I heard Iraq is still a member of the UN
Charl the Barl
<spoc...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> in article 150920020139143494%charlt...@pacific.net.au, Charl the Barl at
> charlt...@pacific.net.au wrote on 9/14/02 10:39 AM:
> >> Should the USA attack Iraq?
> >>
> >> Answer the question, first, should the USA wait until Iraq takes the lives
> >> of tens of thousands before they step in?
> >
> > Yes. The main cause of war are the war-mongers (on either or both
> > sides) who prey upon people's fears by saying "We should attack them
> > before they attack us", or when either or both sides say "They've got
> > bigger weapons than ours, we don't stand a chance unless we attack them
> > first" or "We can't wait or they might take tens of thousands of
> > lives". Most wars have been started with people who spread fear and
> > innuendo like that.
>
> I am not fearful that they have weapons bigger or badder than our own.
> However, the restraint exhibitied by the more stable countries is not
> something evidenced in Iraq.
I hope you're not thinking of the USA - The USA hasn't shown much sign
of restraint, yet.
> It boils down to who has something to lose.
> Those who really have nothing to lose are more likely to be 'unpredictable,
> unreliable, and untrustworthy'.
Like the USA?
>In these times when the countries of the
> world are moving to reduce weapons of mass destruction, to have any country
> attempting to build up that capability is a variable to world peace.
Especially the USA.
> So, yes, I would like to see Iraq comply with the UN and stop evading the UN
> law and regulations that they, Iraq, had agreed to.
"Agreed" to? If I hold a gun at your head and ask you to sign
something, are you really "agreeing" to it? The USA won the Gulf War,
brought Iraq to a postion from which they could no longer fight back,
then they said to Iraq "Either your signature or your blood will be on
this document in ten seconds time". Saddam Hussein doesn't like it one
bit and has been alternating between defying the "agreement" and
reluctantly obeying it ever since!
> However, "I" have much
> to lose by an attack causing mass destruction of human lives and economic
> property, and that will bias my opinion, greatly.
Me too! That's why I don't want the USA to attack causing mass
destruction of human lives and economic property, as they're
threatening to do now!
> And, your stance is easy
> to take as long as one you love is not one of the tens of thousands that get
> to die first... keep that in mind.
Have you seen the horror and panic in the eyes of an Iraqi woman who
realises her husband or her children were standing where the bullets or
bombs went off? They're among the tens of thousands who get to die
first, when the USA attacks. Have you heard their uncontrollable
screams when they found the pieces of their mother lying all over the
street? They're among the tens of thousands who get to die first, when
the USA attacks. Have you heard their prayers to any God who might be
listening for the USA to back off and let them live in peace? They're
among the tens of thousands who get to die first, when the USA attacks.
They love, they hurt, they bleed just as we do. They have hopes and
fears for their children that are greater than we could ever imagine.
The fears that people have of Saddam Hussein are nothing compared to
the fears that people have of George W. Bush. Hussein's country is very
very small compared to the big bullies of the world, the USA. If they
do have several nuclear warheads, that's also very small compared to
the USA. The USA has enough nuclear bombs to wipe out every man woman
and child in the world thousands of times over.
> >> I believe it has been evidenced that Iraq has not complied to the UN and
> >> has
> >> been evading doing so for many years.
> >
> > The UN is very reluctant to start a war against Iraq. Does Bush know
> > something that the entire UN doesn't know about? No, he has no more
> > evidence of nuclear weapons than the UN does. "Innocent until proven
> > guilty" applies to nations as well as individuals. If you were the head
> > of a small country, would *you* like being treated like a criminal on
> > parole or a schoolboy, and constantly have to submit to inspections to
> > make sure you weren't doing anything naughty?
>
> Why? Is the UN legit or not? If Iraq does not have to comply to the UN why
> does anyone else have to?
Well they don't have to, do they! They weren't forced to sign a nuclear
non-proliferation treaty, and Iraq was.
Charl
Charl the Barl
<8uOg9.28963$jG2.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Lani girl
<:-o}docw挈偽淪is_a_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Perhaps you've already forgotten what the USA did during the Gulf War?
Charl
JCarew
"Paula" <spoc...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>snip<
>While the people of Iraq will definitely be the ones to
>suffer the most in the short term by any action,
>I do think the first thing that should be done is to
>"cap off" all of their oil wells and halt their oil
>production.
In as much as you want to "cap off" all of Iraq's
oil wells and halt their oil production first thing
as you state above. How could this be done
before someone invades Iraq first?
Please clarify :)
Jim Carew sfo
JCarew
War Could Unshackle Oil in Iraq
U.S. Drillers Eye Huge Petroleum Pool
By Dan Morgan and David B. Ottaway
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, September 15, 2002; Page A01
A U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could
open a bonanza for American oil companies long banished
from Iraq, scuttling oil deals between Baghdad and Russia,
France and other countries, and reshuffling world petroleum
markets, according to industry officials and leaders of the
Iraqi opposition.
Although senior Bush administration officials say they have
not begun to focus on the issues involving oil and Iraq,
American and foreign oil companies have already begun
maneuvering for a stake in the country's huge proven reserves
of 112 billion barrels of crude oil, the largest in the world
outside Saudi Arabia.
The importance of Iraq's oil has made it potentially one of
the administration's biggest bargaining chips in negotiations
to win backing from the U.N. Security Council and Western
allies for President Bush's call for tough international action
against Hussein. All five permanent members of the Security
Council --the United States, Britain, France, Russia and
China -- have international oil companies with major stakes
in a change of leadership in Baghdad.
"It's pretty straightforward," said former CIA director R.
James Woolsey, who has been one of the leading advocates
of forcing Hussein from power. "France and Russia have oil
companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if
they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent government,
we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new government
and American companies work closely with them."
But he added: "If they throw in their lot with Saddam, it will
be difficult to the point of impossible to persuade the new
Iraqi government to work with them." Indeed, the mere prospect
of a new Iraqi government has fanned concerns by non-American
oil companies that they will be excluded by the United States,
which almost certainly would be the dominant foreign power
in Iraq in the aftermath of Hussein's fall. Representatives of
many foreign oil concerns have been meeting with leaders
of the Iraqi opposition to make their case for a future stake
and to sound them out about their intentions.
Since the Persian Gulf War in 1991, companies from more
than a dozen nations, including France, Russia, China, India,
Italy, Vietnam and Algeria, have either reached or sought to
reach agreements in principle to develop Iraqi oil fields, refurbish
existing facilities or explore undeveloped tracts. Most of the
deals are on hold until the lifting of U.N. sanctions.
But Iraqi opposition officials made clear in interviews last
week that they will not be bound by any of the deals.
"We will review all these agreements, definitely," said Faisal
Qaragholi, a petroleum engineer who directs the London office
of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an umbrella organization
of opposition groups that is backed by the United States.
"Our oil policies should be decided by a government in Iraq
elected by the people."
Ahmed Chalabi, the INC leader, went even further, saying he
favored the creation of a U.S.-led consortium to develop Iraq's
oil fields, which have deteriorated under more than a decade
of sanctions. "American companies will have a big shot at
Iraqi oil," Chalabi said.
The INC, however, said it has not taken a formal position
on the structure of Iraq's oil industry in event of a change
of leadership.
While the Bush administration's campaign against Hussein
is presenting vast possibilities for multinational oil giants,
it poses major risks and uncertainties for the global oil market,
according to industry analysts.
Access to Iraqi oil and profits will depend on the nature and
intentions of a new government. Whether Iraq remains a member
of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, for
example, or seeks an independent role, free of the OPEC
cartel's quotas, will have an impact on oil prices and the flow
of investments to competitors such as Russia, Venezuela
and Angola.
While Russian oil companies such as Lukoil have a major
financial interest in developing Iraqi fields, the low prices that
could result from a flood of Iraqi oil into world markets could
set back Russian government efforts to attract foreign investment
in its untapped domestic fields. That is because low
world oil prices could make costly ventures to unlock Siberia's
oil treasures far less appealing.
Bush and Vice President Cheney have worked in the oil business
and have long-standing ties to the industry. But despite the buzz
about the future of Iraqi oil among oil companies, the administration,
preoccupied with military planning and making the case about
Hussein's potential threat, has yet to take up the issue in a
substantive way, according to U.S. officials.
The Future of Iraq Group, a task force set up at the State
Department, does not have oil on its list of issues, a department
spokesman said last week. An official with the National
Security Council declined to say whether oil had been discussed
during consultations on Iraq that Bush has had over the past
several weeks with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Western
leaders.
On Friday, a State Department delegation concluded a
three-day visit to Moscow in connection with Iraq. In early
October, U.S. and Russian officials are to hold an energy
summit in Houston, at which more than 100 Russian and
American energy companies are expected.
Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) said Bush is keenly aware of
Russia's economic interests in Iraq, stemming from a $7
billion to $8 billion debt that Iraq ran up with Moscow
before the Gulf War. Weldon, who has cultivated close
ties to Putin and Russian parliamentarians, said he believed
the Russian leader will support U.S. action in Iraq if he can
get private assurances from Bush that Russia "will be
made whole" financially.
Officials of the Iraqi National Congress said last week that
the INC's Washington director, Entifadh K. Qanbar, met
with Russian Embassy officials here last month and urged
Moscow to begin a dialogue with opponents of Hussein's
government.
But even with such groundwork, the chances of a tidy
transition in the oil sector appear highly problematic. Rival
ethnic groups in Iraq's north are already squabbling over
the the giant Kirkuk oil field, which Arabs, Kurds and
minority Turkmen tribesmen are eyeing in the event of
Hussein's fall.
Although the volumes have dwindled in recent months, the
United States was importing nearly 1 million barrels of Iraqi
oil a day at the start of the year.
Even so, American oil companies have been banished from
direct involvement in Iraq since the late 1980s, when relations
soured between Washington and Baghdad. Hussein in the
1990s turned to non-American companies to repair fields
damaged in the Gulf War and Iraq's earlier war against Iran,
and to tap undeveloped reserves, but U.S. government studies
say the results have been disappointing.
While Russia's Lukoil negotiated a $4 billion deal in 1997
to develop the 15-billion-barrel West Qurna field in southern
Iraq, Lukoil had not commenced work because of U.N.
sanctions. Iraq has threatened to void the agreement unless
work began immediately.
Last October, the Russian oil services company Slavneft
reportedly signed a $52 million service contract to drill at
the Tuba field, also in southern Iraq.
A proposed $40 billion Iraqi-Russian economic agreement
also reportedly includes opportunities for Russian companies
to explore for oil in Iraq's western desert. The French company
Total Fina Elf has negotiated for rights to develop the huge
Majnoon field, near the Iranian border, which may contain
up to 30 billion barrels of oil. But in July 2001, Iraq announced
it would no longer give French firms priority in the award of
such contracts because of its decision to abide by the
sanctions.
Officials of several major firms said they were taking care to
avoiding playing any role in the debate in Washington over
how to proceed on Iraq. "There's no real upside for American
oil companies to take a very aggressive stance at this stage.
There'll be plenty of time in the future," said James Lucier,
an oil analyst with Prudential Securities.
But with the end of sanctions that likely would come with Hussein's
ouster, companies such as ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco
would almost assuredly play a role, industry officials said.
"There's not an oil company out there that wouldn't be interested
in Iraq," one analyst said.
2002 The Washington Post Company
Unquote
Jim Carew sfo
Alan Ferris
wrote:
>in article A0Qg9.181$z73.9...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com, JCarew at
>oth...@prodigy.net wrote on 9/14/02 6:56 PM:
>You clarify for me why Iraq, a member of the UN, has failed to comply with
>UN Resolutions? Since Iraq had not complied with UN Resolutions Iraq is not
>a country in good standing with the UN. They have disobeyed their own
>rules.
>
>The UN has their chance. They will either flex some muscle, or they will
>dissolve.
>
>If the UN doesn't do its job, the USA will do its job.
>
>I think once we cap off a couple of their oil wells... they'll comply...and
>quickly.
You mean the UN will do what the USA wants or the USA will act like
terrorists and attack illegaly just because it thinks it is right.
I am sorry but until such time as I see evidence not the "Ifs" that
are currently used then I doubt America will get the support it wants.
Alan Ferris
wrote:
>in article e477oucs1g0esrqfo...@4ax.com, Alan Ferris at
>al...@removespamtheplurbus.org wrote on 9/14/02 3:31 PM:
>The USA complies with UN law.
>Iraq does not.
>That is the difference.
If USA attacks without UN support which Bush has said he will do then
explain to me how that is within UN law.
Alan Ferris
wrote:
>in article 0np6ouo3id9vl2d4l...@4ax.com, Alan Ferris at
>al...@removespamtheplurbus.org wrote on 9/14/02 3:20 PM:
>
>> On Sat, 14 Sep 2002 11:43:54 -0500, Paula <spoc...@bellsouth.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I am not fearful that they have weapons bigger or badder than our own.
>>> However, the restraint exhibitied by the more stable countries is not
>>> something evidenced in Iraq. It boils down to who has something to lose.
>>> Those who really have nothing to lose are more likely to be 'unpredictable,
>>> unreliable, and untrustworthy'. In these times when the countries of the
>>> world are moving to reduce weapons of mass destruction, to have any country
>>> attempting to build up that capability is a variable to world peace.
>>
>> So why is America still attempting to build better and bigger chemical
>> and biological weapons? Why unlike many in the rest of the world does
>> it not join the bam on selling landmines?
>
>Alan, you are a lot closer to Iraq's reach than we are here.
>
>>
>>> So, yes, I would like to see Iraq comply with the UN and stop evading the UN
>>> law and regulations that they, Iraq, had agreed to. However, "I" have much
>>> to lose by an attack causing mass destruction of human lives and economic
>>> property, and that will bias my opinion, greatly. And, your stance is easy
>>> to take as long as one you love is not one of the tens of thousands that get
>>> to die first... keep that in mind.
>>
>> Indeed, you are doing just that. You are accepting the loss of
>> another naitons people to apease peoples need for revenge.
>
>Revenge?
>This has nothing to do with revenge.
>You are more on Iraq's back steps than I am here.
>So, if you wish to not check to ensure that his horror can not reach you,
>fine by me, however, a man who uses these weapons on residents in his own
>yard has no qualms about using them in other people's yards.
>So, okay, you are okay with him and his capabilities. So, I insist that the
>UN ensures that Iraq can not send any weapons of mass destruction to the
>continent on which I live.
>
>Thank you kindly.
So you now accept this is down to the UN and not unilateral action by
America. Thank you.
So if Bush tries to take unilateral action you will no doubt support
UN action against him.
Alan Ferris
So why do you wish to punish those who are not muslim terrists and did
not attack you last september?
Where do you draw the line in seeking revenge?
DistrictBoy
How about agression and appeasment in the face of agression.
Democracies dont start wars, dictators or small oligargies
do. If you give the bully on the play ground you lunch money
you will end up giving it every day. You fight back each
time, even if you lose, he will stop.
Do you think saddam is aquiring Nukes, and bio and chemicial
weapons? Do you think he wants them to win the peace prize?
He wants to kill your and mine mother, brother, sister and child.
If he had a nuke during the gulf war, when he took over
his neighbor, and was raping thier wives, would we still
have freed kuwait? I am not so sure.
Sometimes you have to do what is right, even if your
freinds and 'allies' dont support you. I dont wanna
wake up one day, find saddam back in kuwait, and this
time in saudi arabia, while NY burns, chicago is infected
with small pox and california's drinking water is poisoned.
And if you can seriously say you dont think saddam dreams
of this senerio every night, then I am wrong.
Patrick R. Barker
>So you support joining the ramks of the terrorists. Taking actions
>just because you feel they warrent action. How is this any diferent
>from Saddam?
+ Much different.
+ Saddam shows hatred for Israel and America.
+ He exports terrorism for his own megalomaniac purposes.
+ Our purpose will be to end his regime, allow the Iraqui's to set up
a government more suitable for them, more representative for them, and
then we will step back out. As we have on hundreds and hundreds of
occasions. (Unlkike GB who took, killed, kept, built an empire and
never let go of anything until forced to.)
+ For example: Bombing Lybia in 1986 -- we achieved our goals.
+ For example in Europe after WW2, we own no lands in Europe.
+ For example in Granada, Bosnia, Panama, etc. etc.
+ For example - the Philippines - we gave them independence in 46.
+ For example - Puerto Rico - they have choices to join, leave, stay.
+ Great Britain is still fighting to keep a scrappy island in the
South Atlantic. They were forced to give up India, Pakistan,
Singapore, Malaysia, etc. etc.
Patrick R. Barker
>As long as they pay there UN membership dues there
>members in good standing entitled to all the benefits
>that other member have who have paid the dues.
>BTW as I recall at one time the US was not a member
>in good standing we owed almost a billion dollars
>in back dues I think it was
+ It is closer to 250 Million.
+ And, since we pay the largest percentage of dues, and since the UN
is notorious in wasting money, the US has correctly forced the UN to
be better managers of the monies sent to them. They have asked for
and will receive legislation within the UN which will force them to be
more accountable with the monies received.
+ And that is a pretty lame excuse.....
+ The UN supposedly has a charter. They aren't performing the
function that they were set up for. They have proven to be a paper
tiger, posting more resolutions and wringing their hands.....
Patrick R. Barker
>If USA attacks without UN support which Bush has said he will do then
>explain to me how that is within UN law.
+ Two things.
+ 1. Read the mandate and UN resolutions that they put out. You will
find that the US is merely attempting to force Iraq to follow those
resolutions that the UN has mandated.
+ And 2. Tell me that England sent troops to Bosnia with UN blessing!
+ If you recall, it was YOUR leader who had the foresight to see that
something needed to be done, and he used NATO when unable to get the
UN to act.
+ GW Bush has put the UN on notice.
+ Either they become relevant in this world by doing something, or
they can stand back and watch the US do the UN's job. And they wonder
why we refuse to pay OUR FAIR SHARE of the dues to the UN. We are the
only one who pays that much. We are the only one to participate in
all mandates. We are the only one to show the guts to do what is
right.
Patrick R. Barker
>You mean the UN will do what the USA wants or the USA will act like
>terrorists and attack illegaly just because it thinks it is right.
>
>I am sorry but until such time as I see evidence not the "Ifs" that
>are currently used then I doubt America will get the support it wants.
+ We don't ask for support. We ask the UN does its job. Or fold.
Someone has to be the adult at the table. Someone has to determine
what is right and wrong for humanity. If you and your ilk are too
afraid to make a decision, if you wish to stand back and let things
always go from bad to wrose, then get out of the way. Anb... we won't
expect any thanks from you when the world is a safer place to be.
+ You've already shown us how you and Ireland take care of business
and discussions. If it hadn't been for our interference, you'd be
fighting on the streets in front of Harrods.
Alan Ferris
wrote:
Yet again these are all "Ifs", we can play the if game till the end of
eternity. If you can show that he is making these weapons then the
world will certainly act.
But the question remains, why are well informed countries not agreeing
with the claims america is making. Could it possibly be be that all
these "Ifs" that the american spokesmen are making are just that,
"ifs"
Alan Ferris
Keep going Patrick, it is always fun watching you trying to describe
the world. You do such an excellant job of proving my points.
Alan Ferris
wrote:
>I prefer that the UN do its job.
>if not,
>I am willing for the USA to go it alone.
>For your sake as well as mine.
So havwe you always supported the UN? Do you support the ban on
landmines? Do you support the ban on biologival weapons? Do you
support the court to judge on war crimes? Your country so far has
not, yet now you suddenly think it should support you or you will yet
again ingore the world and try to go alone.
Alan Ferris
wrote:
>in article pmr8ouo0ip8ce0a3k...@4ax.com, Alan Ferris at
>al...@removespamtheplurbus.org wrote on 9/15/02 6:29 AM:
>
>> On Sat, 14 Sep 2002 22:11:16 GMT, "Lani girl"
>> <"©<:-o}docw®²°°²_is_a_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Charl the Barl" <charlt...@pacific.net.au> wrote in message
>>> news:150920020139143494%charlt...@pacific.net.au...
>>>> Yes. The main cause of war are the war-mongers (on either or both
>>>> sides) who prey upon people's fears by saying "We should attack them
>>>> before they attack us", or when either or both sides say "They've got
>>>> bigger weapons than ours, we don't stand a chance unless we attack them
>>>> first" or "We can't wait or they might take tens of thousands of
>>>> lives". Most wars have been started with people who spread fear and
>>>> innuendo like that.
>>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps, but in the case of the Muslim terrorists, they have ALREADY
>>> attacked the United States.
>>>
>>> Or have you *already* forgotten what the Muslim terrorists did to us last
>>> September 11, Charl?
>>
>> So why do you wish to punish those who are not muslim terrists and did
>> not attack you last september?
>>
>> Where do you draw the line in seeking revenge?
>>
>
>It's cold where you are, eh?
>How do you propose to heat your home if Iraq succeeds in intimidating
>neighboring countries with weapons of mass destruction and cuts off the flow
>of fuel from that region?
>
>Remember, even the loaf of bread you buy is priced according to the
>availability and affordabilty of fuel from the mid-east.
So you fear for the oil and the fact the USA has not currently got a
piece of Iraqi oil. At least you follow your president more closely.
Alan Ferris
wrote:
>Alan,
>
>Check out the Arab Coallition statements.
Check out the rest of the worlds thoughts on americas unilateral
action.
Alan Ferris
The UN is relevant. The shame is America has often ignored the UN.
By the way, do you know how many UN resolutions america is currently
breaking, shall it also attack itself to see them enforced?
Alan Ferris
wrote:
>
>If the UN fails itself, it will have proven itself to be unworthy.
So America will instantly be complying with the UN resolutions against
it? Do not make me laugh. The USA has always tried to ignore the UN
and tried to go it alone when it suits it.
Alan Ferris
wrote:
>in article 3d849e71$0$1428$4c5e...@news.erinet.com, Patrick R. Barker at
>bark...@erinet.com wrote on 9/15/02 9:51 AM:
>That's why we are Americans.
>Many sit back and let us do the dirty jobs.
>That's okay. We can.
No many watch you as usual try to ingore the world.
Alan Ferris
ROFLMAO
Patrick, you really are lost when it comes to anything beyond the
shores of america.
By the way, have you yet photocopied those passport stamps for
Scotland yet.....still waiting :)
Alan Ferris
wrote:
>in article qqr8ou06aljqmu0oc...@4ax.com, Alan Ferris at
>al...@removespamtheplurbus.org wrote on 9/15/02 6:31 AM:
>Alan, alan, alan.
>
>Have you not been paying attention to world events?
>
>The UN has set resolutions that apply to Iraq and its military and weapon
>capabilities. Iraq has failed to comply with the resolutions set forth by
>the UN. Iraq is in violation of UN resolutions.
>
>The USA has stated that if the UN does not step up to the plate and enforce
>the resolutions set forth for Iraq to follow, then the USA will do so,
>alone.
>
>However, we are gaining support, dear alan.
>
>Watch your news.
So America is going to step up to the plate and act on its own
resolutions that it has ignored? Do you want the UN a\ttacking
America to enforce them?
Agreed something has to be done. But unilateral action by america is
not the answer
JCarew
"Alan Ferris" <al...@removespamtheplurbus.org> wrote:
>On Sun, 15 Sep 2002 10:00:50 -0500, Paula wrote:
>
>>Alan Ferris a al...@removespamtheplurbus.org wrote
> >
> >> On Sat, 14 Sep 2002 22:11:16 GMT, "Lani girl"
> >> <"©<:-o}docw®²°°²_is_a_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>"Charl the Barl" <charlt...@pacific.net.au> wrote in message
>>>>>Yes. The main cause of war are the war-mongers (on either or both
According the Washington Post article below
we are/were getting 1 million gallons of oil per
day from Iraq
quote
Therion Ware
Sun, 15 Sep 2002 16:53:26 -0500, Paula <spoc...@bellsouth.net>
brought the total lines of text written about "Re: Should the U.S.A.
attack Iraq?" to 113. I decided to observe the following about them:
[snip]
>Well, alan, pardon my french, but...
>
>If the chicken shits of this world are so chicken shit they can not
>recognize a country full of political bullshit, the USA will do what is best
>for the globe.
>
>We'll protect the little shits from their own inaction and ignorance
>regarding the dangers of any one entity having coercive control over the oil
>producing lands of the mid-east.
>
>ahhhh... I look forward to selling our allies fuel oil at extremely high
>prices, but, still cheaper than the middle eastern brand....
>
>
>Wake up and smell the coffee, Alan.
>
>Can your country accomodiate its own fuel needs without buying out of
>country?
>Yes or No?
The UK is a net oil exporter but IIRC it's a bit more complicated
than.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
There is no EAC, so delete it from the email, if you want to communicate.
JCarew
"Paula" <spoc...@bellsouth.net> wrote
> in article Alan Ferris at
>>Paula <spoc...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>>I prefer that the UN do its job.
>>>if not,
>>>I am willing for the USA to go it alone.
>>>For your sake as well as mine.
>>So have you always supported the UN? Do you support the ban on
>>landmines? Do you support the ban on biologival weapons? Do you
>>support the court to judge on war crimes? Your country so far has
>>not, yet now you suddenly think it should support you or you will yet
>>again ingore the world and try to go alone.
>And when we go it alone, we will be successful.
>Again, if the UN does not want to live up to its charter
>it is no skin off of my nose. I don't really care.
>
>If the world does not wish to participate in protecting
>their own lives and futures, again, that's fine by me,
>I don't really care.
I do care! For every dumb ass Brit or European we
have or will have fighting with and taking causalities
with us that means one less American service man
that will *not* get killed or wounded in Iraq or where
ever this idiot(Bush) in Washington takes us. Its real
easy to set at home in the US on your dead ass and
tell others how to do or not do your fighting for you.
Jim Carew sfo
Alan Ferris
wrote:
>in article rnc9ou8t734958g3o...@4ax.com, Alan Ferris at
>al...@removespamtheplurbus.org wrote on 9/15/02 11:22 AM:
>I don't need or want a piece of iraqi oil, Alan. As I said, the state i
>reside in has more than enough oil and natural gas begging to be drilled and
>processed, a clamp down in the opec world would be a great financial gain
>for my state and my nation.
>
>Is the same true for yours?
Yes, but I do not wish to use that as an excuse to kill innocent
people in war. Shame on you for such low moral standards
Alan Ferris
wrote:
>in article cqc9ouspfiupomfsi...@4ax.com, Alan Ferris at
>al...@removespamtheplurbus.org wrote on 9/15/02 11:22 AM:
>
>> On 15 Sep 2002 07:22:16 -0700, john...@hotmail.com (DistrictBoy)
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Yes. The main cause of war are the war-mongers
>>>
>>> How about agression and appeasment in the face of agression.
>>> Democracies dont start wars, dictators or small oligargies
>>> do. If you give the bully on the play ground you lunch money
>>> you will end up giving it every day. You fight back each
>>> time, even if you lose, he will stop.
>>>
>>> Do you think saddam is aquiring Nukes, and bio and chemicial
>>> weapons? Do you think he wants them to win the peace prize?
>>> He wants to kill your and mine mother, brother, sister and child.
>>>
>>> If he had a nuke during the gulf war, when he took over
>>> his neighbor, and was raping thier wives, would we still
>>> have freed kuwait? I am not so sure.
>>>
>>> Sometimes you have to do what is right, even if your
>>> freinds and 'allies' dont support you. I dont wanna
>>> wake up one day, find saddam back in kuwait, and this
>>> time in saudi arabia, while NY burns, chicago is infected
>>> with small pox and california's drinking water is poisoned.
>>>
>>> And if you can seriously say you dont think saddam dreams
>>> of this senerio every night, then I am wrong.
>>
>> Yet again these are all "Ifs", we can play the if game till the end of
>> eternity. If you can show that he is making these weapons then the
>> world will certainly act.
>
>Ass, Alan, we can not ascerntain whether he is or isn't because Sadam and
>Iraq are DISOBEYING UN Sanctions and Resolutions.
>So, if you are comfy cozy with Sadam and Iraq as your near neighbor, coool.
>Like I said, no skin off my nose.
So has Israel with USA support. Hypocrisy again.
So the truth is it is not over ignoring UN resolutions as america has
previously had no problem with this.
>> But the question remains, why are well informed countries not agreeing
>> with the claims america is making. Could it possibly be be that all
>> these "Ifs" that the american spokesmen are making are just that,
>> "ifs"
>
>Alan, it's called "politics".
>I don't think you comprehend what is going on with the vast majority of UN
>members, do you?
I do.
Alan Ferris
wrote:
>in article 41d9ougsvatv0po2a...@4ax.com, Alan Ferris at
>al...@removespamtheplurbus.org wrote on 9/15/02 11:25 AM:
>
>> On Sun, 15 Sep 2002 10:03:26 -0500, Paula <spoc...@bellsouth.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> If the UN fails itself, it will have proven itself to be unworthy.
>>
>> So America will instantly be complying with the UN resolutions against
>> it? Do not make me laugh. The USA has always tried to ignore the UN
>> and tried to go it alone when it suits it.
>
>Alan, just state you do not understand what the UN is, what it is intended
>to be, how it works, etc.
>
>Save yourself... now.
I seem to know far better than you. One minute you use resolutions as
an excuse for war. The next you claim they are all irelevant.
Alan Ferris
wrote:
>in article rjc9ouo771131gbd9...@4ax.com, Alan Ferris at
>al...@removespamtheplurbus.org wrote on 9/15/02 11:22 AM:
>
>> On Sun, 15 Sep 2002 09:59:11 -0500, Paula <spoc...@bellsouth.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I prefer that the UN do its job.
>>> if not,
>>> I am willing for the USA to go it alone.
>>> For your sake as well as mine.
>>
>> So havwe you always supported the UN? Do you support the ban on
>> landmines? Do you support the ban on biologival weapons? Do you
>> support the court to judge on war crimes? Your country so far has
>> not, yet now you suddenly think it should support you or you will yet
>> again ingore the world and try to go alone.
>>
>
>And when we go it alone, we will be successful.
>
>Again, if the UN does not want to live up to its charter it is no skin off
>of my nose. I don't really care.
So I will ask again, will you now support all UN resolutions? Will
america now attack Israel who has ingored more of them than Iraq?
That has ignored them longer? We know Israel will has nuclear
weapons.
>If the world does not wish to participate in protecting their own lives and
>futures, again, that's fine by me, I don't really care.
Fine to protect, but you have to show true risks, not empty ifs and
what ifs
>I have a life, my children have lives. If I believe that any country poses
>a real threat to my life, childrens lives or our way of life, I will insist
>that measures are taken to ensure the safety of our lives and security of
>our way of life.
So please tell me which nations you fear. Which shall you be next
asking bush to attack to defend your paranoia
>If you care not to do so, fine, Alan.
>You can have the target drawn for the first weapon of mass destruction used
>by Iraq or any other country on your forehead. You can be the victim of the
>first use.
<Shakes head>
>My children will NOT be.
>
>The un can put up or shut up.
>We fund lots of monies world wide.
>We do the dirty jobs world wide.
>That is nothing new.
<cough> try again. I ask again, will america now be supporting all
UN resolutions? Or just those it sees a business interest in?
>So, the un for or against itself is of none of my concern.
>If they do not make real deadlines and real resolutions that are complied
>with, then, I see no reason for the USA to be a member.
Withdraw then.
Alan Ferris
wrote:
>in article g9d9oucior7nckhqa...@4ax.com, Alan Ferris at
>al...@removespamtheplurbus.org wrote on 9/15/02 11:28 AM:
>
>> On Sun, 15 Sep 2002 10:09:08 -0500, Paula <spoc...@bellsouth.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Alan,
>>>
>>> Check out the Arab Coallition statements.
>>
>> Check out the rest of the worlds thoughts on americas unilateral
>> action.
>>
>
>Square One: USA wants the UN to enforce its resolutions.
Lie, it has constantly opposed resolutions against America and Israel.
>Square Two: If the UN does not, that is fine.
Indeed, it keeps ignoring many.
>Square Three: USA will move to protect itself (and by default, its allies
>from the threat of weapons of mass destruction)
Mass destruction from who? With what? Not those ifs again
>Square Four: Most Nations prefer that the UN enforce its resolutions.
Not America though, unless they see something in it for themselves.
Else why are they not attacking Israel? They have more resolutions
against them than Iraq. America in fact supports Israel in ignoring
those resolutions.
>Square Five: Most nations have stated that if the UN does not enforce its
>resolutions it will not vote 'against' USA going it alone.
Care to state the source of that information. Current news is still
saying the exact opposite.
>(meaning, they will abstain from voting...which.. makes them 'appear to be
>non-violent, however, by abstaining they actually state they support USA
>independant action).
Indeed China will not vote. But France and Russia have said the
opposite.
Saudi has said it will not let the US use its bases if the USA tries
to go it alone.
If you believe your government is only trying to force compliance to
resolutions, when do you expect it to comply itself and when do you
expect it to call for an Invasion of Israel?
Alan Ferris
wrote:
>
>Well, alan, pardon my french, but...
>
>If the chicken shits of this world are so chicken shit they can not
>recognize a country full of political bullshit, the USA will do what is best
>for the globe.
>
>We'll protect the little shits from their own inaction and ignorance
>regarding the dangers of any one entity having coercive control over the oil
>producing lands of the mid-east.
>
>ahhhh... I look forward to selling our allies fuel oil at extremely high
>prices, but, still cheaper than the middle eastern brand....
>
>
>Wake up and smell the coffee, Alan.
>
>Can your country accomodiate its own fuel needs without buying out of
>country?
>Yes or No?
I have smelt the coffee, and the crap. I forget how many times
America has tried to claim to be saving the world when it attacks
other nations for less than truly moral reasons.
As to oil, why do you think we need to buy yours?
Patrick R. Barker
>
>Saudi has said it will not let the US use its bases if the USA tries
>to go it alone.
>
+ You embarrass yerself one more time.
Patrick R. Barker
>
>So you support joining the ramks of the terrorists. Taking actions
>just because you feel they warrent action. How is this any diferent
>from Saddam?
+ Saddam goes after civilians.
+ We only want one military target.
JCarew
"Patrick R. Barker" <bark...@erinet.com> wrote:
>alan Ferris <
>>Saudi has said it will not let the US use its bases
>>if the USA tries to go it alone.
>+Please turn on yer telly, alan.
>+You embarrass yerself one more time.
A quote from "The New York Times" on the subject
Saudis Indicating U.S. Can Use Bases if U.N. Backs War
Mon Sep 16, 3:50 PM ET
By TODD S. PURDUM The New York Times
WASHINGTON, Sept. 15 The Saudi foreign minister indicated this
weekend that his country would let the United States use its
military bases in a United Nations backed attack on Iraq, a
sign that Arab nations may be dropping their resistance
to an attack on Saddam Hussein.
The Saudi minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, said that if there was a
Security Council resolution backing military action, all United
Nations members would have to honor it. In a CNN interview from New
York, first broadcast late Saturday, the prince was asked if the
Saudis would make bases available to the Americans, and answered
that if the United Nations warranted action, "everybody is obliged
to follow through."
Prince Saud said he remained opposed in principle to the use of
military force or a unilateral attack by the United States, but his
remarks seemed to indicate an important shift in Saudi Arabia's
posture.
>snip<
U.S. and friendly nation laws prohibit fully reproducing
copyrighted material. In abidance with our laws this report
cannot be provided in its entirety.
Unquote
??
Jim Carew sfo
Stanley Bostich
What excuse DO you want to use?
DistrictBoy
> with the claims america is making. Could it possibly be be that all
> these "Ifs" that the american spokesmen are making are just that,
> "ifs"
Their history of acting with strenght to head off conflict is
recorded in history. Appeasement of dictators never works.
also the are not the target. And they all have nice lucrative
contracts with Iraq.
Me
"Alan Ferris" <al...@removespamtheplurbus.org> wrote in message
news:r27couot1sve92ulm...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 15 Sep 2002 16:44:25 -0500, Paula <spoc...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
> >in article rjc9ouo771131gbd9...@4ax.com, Alan Ferris at
> >al...@removespamtheplurbus.org wrote on 9/15/02 11:22 AM:
> >
> >> On Sun, 15 Sep 2002 09:59:11 -0500, Paula <spoc...@bellsouth.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I prefer that the UN do its job.
> >>> if not,
> >>> I am willing for the USA to go it alone.
> >>> For your sake as well as mine.
> >>
> >> So havwe you always supported the UN? Do you support the ban on
> >> landmines? Do you support the ban on biologival weapons? Do you
> >> support the court to judge on war crimes? Your country so far has
> >> not, yet now you suddenly think it should support you or you will yet
> >> again ingore the world and try to go alone.
> >>
> >
> >And when we go it alone, we will be successful.
> >
> >Again, if the UN does not want to live up to its charter it is no skin
off
> >of my nose. I don't really care.
>
> So I will ask again, will you now support all UN resolutions?
No... there is no obligation to support ALL UN resolutions.
> Will america now attack Israel who has ingored more of them than Iraq?
The difference is so have the Palestinians. Israel, in many cases responds
to Palestinian attacks... (at this point, it's so muddled it's hard to say
who responds to who)... but one important point. Israel was given land as
part of a UN decision from the late 40s. The Palestinians and other Arab
Nations have never been satisfied with that and want Israel removed. Israel
wouldn't mind living in peace with it's neighbors. It's neighbors have to
stop suicide bombings and threatening Israel's security. Israel, at least,
generally TRIES to not kill civilians... the Palestian suicide bombers
aren't as concerned. They TARGET innocent civilians. But, from what I've
read from you in the past, it doesn't matter that a country TRIES not to
target civilians in a military response. You don't care... you don't go on
about those that TARGET civilians and condemn them, but you are VERY quick
to condemn the accidental death of innocent civilians that occur.
Now before you rant and rave Alan... pay attention. I don't believe Israel
is innocent of all wrongdoing. I am just not blaming Israel for ALL that's
occurred.
> That has ignored them longer?
Actually, Israel hasn't IGNORED them... Israel has tried withdrawls... only
for suicide bombings and sniper fire to occur because the withdrawl wasn't
happening FAST enough, or in the order that the Palestinians want. If
Palestinians would just STOP targeting Israeli Civilians. (Yeah, groups like
Hezbollah & Hamas for example)... THEN see how Israel complies to UN
Resolutions.
But typical of you Alan, you ignore Israel's legitimate concerns for their
civilians.
> We know Israel will has nuclear weapons.
>
But no UN Resolution has ever been given requiring Israel to disarm, as the
UN Resolutions regarding Iraq have required. The UN Resolutions that Iraq
agreed to to stop the 1991 war.
> >If the world does not wish to participate in protecting their own lives
and
> >futures, again, that's fine by me, I don't really care.
>
> Fine to protect, but you have to show true risks, not empty ifs and what
ifs
>
10 years of ignoring UN Resolutions... 10 years of open defiance.
DUH - Alan - if Iraq would allow the inspectors in, we could SEE the proof.
People like you are so typical... you can't comprehend that Iraq has a
history of developing weapons of mass destruction. Has a history of USING
such weapons (Iran-Iraq war, Kurds, etc...) Has a history of NOT complying
with UN Weapons Inspections. Has a history of LYING about weapons of mass
destruction (first they didn't have any Anthrax, then when someone defected
and pointed the UN to it, admitted - oh yeah, those... just a few - which
the inspectors were unable to account for all of). Evidence of
reconstruction occuring at sites that historically HAVE been used for
development of such weapons. Has still not accounted for all weapons and
material. ... Do you really need that much of a map drawn? Your head must
be really deep in the sand.
> >I have a life, my children have lives. If I believe that any country
poses
> >a real threat to my life, childrens lives or our way of life, I will
insist
> >that measures are taken to ensure the safety of our lives and security of
> >our way of life.
>
> So please tell me which nations you fear. Which shall you be next
> asking bush to attack to defend your paranoia
>
Those show a willingness to use weapons of mass destruction. Those that
support terrorism, either financially, or with more material support. Those
that show an irrational hatred for western countries...
> >If you care not to do so, fine, Alan.
> >You can have the target drawn for the first weapon of mass destruction
used
> >by Iraq or any other country on your forehead. You can be the victim of
the
> >first use.
>
> <Shakes head>
>
> >My children will NOT be.
> >
> >The un can put up or shut up.
> >We fund lots of monies world wide.
> >We do the dirty jobs world wide.
> >That is nothing new.
>
> <cough> try again. I ask again, will america now be supporting all
> UN resolutions? Or just those it sees a business interest in?
>
No country supports ALL UN resolutions Alan... nice strawman.
> >So, the un for or against itself is of none of my concern.
> >If they do not make real deadlines and real resolutions that are complied
> >with, then, I see no reason for the USA to be a member.
>
> Withdraw then.
>
Why, the UN does SOME good... but like it or not, we are a nation that will
also protect our own interests, even if the UN doesn't agree with our
interests.
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Alan Ferris
<Donteventhink...@my.email.net> wrote:
>> That has ignored them longer?
>Actually, Israel hasn't IGNORED them... Israel has tried withdrawls... only
>for suicide bombings and sniper fire to occur because the withdrawl wasn't
>happening FAST enough, or in the order that the Palestinians want. If
>Palestinians would just STOP targeting Israeli Civilians. (Yeah, groups like
>Hezbollah & Hamas for example)... THEN see how Israel complies to UN
>Resolutions.
http://www.johnpilger.com/palestine
Alan Ferris
<Donteventhink...@my.email.net> wrote:
I think you need to look more closely at Israel. If you do not
consider snipers targeting civilians to be wrong then fine, israel is
not all bad. But clearly this has occured more than once and in front
of national press.
Still Israel claims the shooting of a 80 year old woman going to the
doctors to be the shooting of a terrorist, even though film clearly
shows the opposite.
Lani girl
> I think you need to look more closely at Israel. If you do not
> consider snipers targeting civilians to be wrong then fine, israel is
> not all bad. But clearly this has occured more than once and in front
> of national press.
Nope, there is no trustworthy evidence that such a thing was done by Israeli
soldiers.
If you disagree, please cite your supposed evidence.
Me
> >Now before you rant and rave Alan... pay attention. I don't believe
Israel
> >is innocent of all wrongdoing. I am just not blaming Israel for ALL
that's
> >occurred.
> >
<SNIP>
> I think you need to look more closely at Israel. If you do not
> consider snipers targeting civilians to be wrong then fine, israel is
> not all bad.
Nice spin attempt. Enough said.
Me
> On 17 Sep 2002 14:21:51 +0100, "Me"
> <Donteventhink...@my.email.net> wrote:
>
> >> That has ignored them longer?
> >Actually, Israel hasn't IGNORED them... Israel has tried withdrawls...
only
> >for suicide bombings and sniper fire to occur because the withdrawl
wasn't
> >happening FAST enough, or in the order that the Palestinians want. If
> >Palestinians would just STOP targeting Israeli Civilians. (Yeah, groups
like
> >Hezbollah & Hamas for example)... THEN see how Israel complies to UN
> >Resolutions.
>
> http://www.johnpilger.com/palestine
>
focuses on Israel's problems.
"Twenty-five years ago, I made a film called Palestine Is Still The Issue.
It was about a nation of people - the Palestinians - forced off their land
and later subjected to a military occupation by Israel. An occupation
condemned by the United Nations and almost every country in the world,
including Britain. "
Forced off their land by the UN's decision to establish the NATION of
Israel. Out of land that was NOT a Nation called Palestine. Subjected to a
military occupation by the Arabs who would not take them in, and who
attacked Israel, who then took land to further secure their borders.
BACKGROUND TO THE CONFLICT
1947 The British refer the 'Palestine problem' to the United Nations, which
passes a resolution for the partition of Palestine.
1948 The state of Israel is declared. The result is the first Arab-Israeli
war, which lasts from May until January 1949.
1964 Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) is founded with the aim of
liberating the whole of Palestine.
Convenient that this "journalist" neglects to mention that the state of
Israel is declared BY THE UN. And the Arabs immediately attack.
Also convenient that the PLO's aim of wiping Israel totally off the map is
not mentioned.
OCCUPATION
In April 2002, the troops and tanks of the Israeli army attacked Ramallah
and other towns in occupied Palestine. This was reported as an incursion to
stop terrorism. In fact it was also an attack on civilian life: on schools,
offices, clinics, theatres, radio stations. This systematic vandalism is
typical of one of the longest military occupations in modern times.
Convenient that this "journalist" COMPLETELY ignores the years of PLO,
Hezbollah, & Hamas sponsored suicide bombings that specifically target
Israeli civilians.
The "suicide bombers" link doesn't go to a page like the others ... it goes
to "hidden agendas"
Enough reading of Palestinian propoganda.
Thanks for showing your bias Alan. Just as you have in the past - side with
the terrorists and blame the people who TRY not to hurt civilians.
Alan Ferris
<Donteventhink...@my.email.net> wrote:
I do love the way Catholics keep trying to tell me what I am and
beleive. Truly takes my breath away how often they are wrong.
But if you cannot see that it is terrorism itself to target civilians,
prevent people reaching medical aid, then I am sorry, but you will
never win your war on terrorism. You will only create more.
M.J.John
Let me now present the whole issue from a WHOLISTIC angle:
Should America attack Iraq--Should X attack Y ?
Should America attack Iraq? Should Iraq attack America? Should India
attack Pakistan or should Pakistan attack India? Should Hutus attack
Tutsi or should Tutsi attack Hutus? Should Catholics attack
Protestants or should Shias attack Sunnis and vice
versa?…………….. Should X attack Y?
These are the sorts of frequently asked questions topmost in the minds
of extreme fundamentalists of all hues, including Christian, Muslim
and Hindu fundamentalists the world over today.
Well, my own answer to all these questions is a big ‘yes’
if, and only if, the winner, in the process, can at least solve their
own problems even by one percent other than aggravating them. Look at
America, the sole winner of the long protracted cold war. America
today has more problems -- many of them more serious – than when
she was the challenger. Worse still is the mortal fact that America is
finding unable to solve these serious problems even after roping in
almost all her allies and also her erstwhile foes of the cold war,
namely the former communist nations, including Russia and China. Iraq
and Iran are, otherwise, grappling with more serious problems, which
they have inherited as a result of the long Iran-Iraq war. Are not the
Rhuwandan tribes of Hutus and Tutsis much more disillusioned lots
today?
Then what is the main cause for this sudden and widespread rise of
extreme fundamentalism and zero tolerance the world over so as to
ignite a thousand battles which are being waged both outside and
inside nations, and the war filtering down to feuds within even
families?
And this question has become crucial for the first time in human
history, not only when weapons of mass destruction have reached the
hands of private individuals, but also when more potential dangers
from pollutions, of both material and spiritual varieties, have indeed
paled into insignificance the dangers from the weapons of mass
destruction. Actually the most catastrophic dangers from pollutions
stare menacingly right on the face of every thinking man today.
The answer, therefore, for the above question of course is FEAR.
Fear stricken cowards have come to the fore everywhere today. When
cowards ranting revenges and rescue have all become leaders – be
he the leader of a nation or a terrorist organization – the
crises ridden modern society looks like an ill-fated ship in mid-sea
badly caught in fierce whirlwinds and the crews and passengers all
being engaged in petty brawls in their bid for individual
escape--resulting in escape for none.
Fear grips America
With the passage of the controversial ‘Patriotic
Bill’ and other recent censorship laws on personal mails and
telephones which are being imposed in America the much hidden
‘iron curtain’ of scientific capitalism is proving to be
no less than the much maligned and now dismantled communist
‘iron curtain’ of the erstwhile Soviet Union. Today
anybody can point a finger of suspicion towards anybody in America and
the victim can be kept in custody for any duration with no question
asked. That one in a thousand does not turn out to be any real culprit
is another matter altogether. But once a suspect in the police
computer dossiers is always a suspect in a computer regulated
mechanical society, that exactly is what America is today. Thus
today’s America looks more like a Stalinist Russia or a
Hitler’s Germany which killed millions of Jews just for the fear
of being over run by them. ( I am quoting this development only as an
example of hundreds of similar developments going on unabated as the
ongoing civilization decay goes on feeding one another which is
inevitable in any such invisible revolutions at the initial stage.)
To me, all these look merely suicidal escapism. But how long can
we survive frightening people? How long can you defend truth when you
cannot even cry loudly?
Conspiracies of Fear
Why and how does the modern science – the linear shortcut
methodology – succeed as man, nature and truth fail? Because, in
a highly competitive society, where expediency, opportunism and
shortcuts rule the roost, there is no provision for a second thought,
a thought for humanity and human values, a thought for the greater and
nobler manifestations of life. And this happens because of fear, fear
towards realities and truth which are multidimensional unlike science
which is only a fragile, linear and single dimensional process.
Fear was non-extinct in nature for millions of years and man roamed
about fearlessly when nights were as fearless as days. But today,
modern man, though he may claim to walk the distant Moon or the highly
inhabitable Antartica terrain, cannot, however, walk the American
streets – or any street any where over the planet – at
night.
It was the upholders of man-made social techniques – laws
– who fearing realities and truth, once poisoned Socretes,
crucified Jesus Christ, ignored Rousseau and Nietzche and shot dead
Abraham Lincon, Mahatma Gandhi and millions of Jews.
This conspiracy of fear is today waging a thousand battles –
among them the 2001 September 11 terrorist strike and the possible
(would be) strike on Iraq by America, for, what is lavishly fed by the
conspiracy of fear on the rumor mill as fodder is the conspiracy of
ignorance and fear.
And this has led to the new reality that man today finds another man
as his real enemy. But is that the reality? The real enemy is
actually within him. It is the superficial he, the apparent he, the
expedient, opportunist and the vested interest he, and the ignorant he
who is unable to realize the real he. Or plainly, his inability or
unwillingness to look at the ground realities and truth is his real
enemy.
The fast shrinking of all provisions for a second thought – or
even the first -- is the most dangerous problem blocking even the
escape route of the mankind today. And fear and ignorance thus first
shoot the messenger. For what the owners and operators of the
competitive and mechanical society fears are the possible questions on
their fundamental and their very legitimacy.
Contradictions go such haywire that most of the modern wars are being
fiercely fought more within the nation than outside it, more within
the same group, party, sect, caste, creed and even within the same
family than outside it, between the parents and the children, husband
and wife, among the sane village governing board members, among the
Mullahs, among the Bishops and Priests, between the Prime minister
and the President of the same Nation etc.
All these confusions and turmoil become the great windfall for the
market and the middlemen who are out fishing in troubled waters, which
exactly is what is going on throughout the modern society today. Here,
the waning power of the parents are not gained by the children but by
the market and the middlemen; the waning power of the teacher is not
gained by the students but by the market, the middleman; the waning
power of the man is not gained by the woman(let alone their much hyped
women’s right’s movements) but by the market and by the
middleman. It is the market or the middleman who gains the power and
“values” lost as a result of the growing contradictions,
competitions and wars going on among leaders, religious hierarchies,
intellectuals, politicians, academicians etc., within the same
establishment/institution. And market or the middleman instantly
converts the newly gained power and values into money and thus the
creation of the synthetic or artificial wealth as a result of the loss
or destruction of the natural and traditional wealth of man and
nature.
Soulless scientism and the unbridled mechanization, undertaken by the
market forces or middlemen, have equated to everything, including
evils, as--‘relative’, thanks to the theory of
relativity--mobile and interchangeabl, even remotely today. And made
them available at the press of a button as packaged products to anyone
who is willing to pay back in cash. So today, money rules or middleman
rules, who, in the process, has destroyed all human values and natural
wealth by bartering them for the abstract wealth called money, and
today, e-money, which we use today to buy the newly
machine-made synthetic wealth most of which polluting and filling the
Earth surface as, for example, plastics.
The evolution of the competitive society and the suicidal one-up
games.
Why is it that America needs today to buy the services of only the
brain and not the service of the mind? The growing brain-drain of the
world is due to their convergence in America, which suggests just
that. Why does America today increasingly shun and snub all feedback
on the philosophical front although she is welcoming and absorbing all
feedback on the intelligent and other technically market front as the
beelines of top professionals and experts marketmen towards America
suggests? What keeps the modern world going the way it does today?
It is all because of a new type of French courage, a super mechanical
market courage, that, for example, America, of late, has come to
exhibit due to an addiction of continued success stories having gone
to her head, an addiction due to the repeated bouts of technical and
market success that America is reaping over and over again ever since
Mr. Calvin Coolidge, the 30th President of America (1923 – 29)
came out with a new slogan and a password for the
“success” of America: “ The business of America is
business”, he said in a speech.
Gone are the days when great minds and world statesmen from, within
and without, enriched American intellectual society and made it a
great Nation during the 18th and 19th Century. It was when great
thinkers made America their home away from their original home
Nations. Later, during the 20th Century we could see only great
thinkers and philosophers like Will Durant and Betrand Russel
lamenting over the fast erosion of the long cherished American values
– human values – from the fast mechanizing American
society, which is today fostering only technical (synthetic) values
– market values.
Consequences: America on trial
Repeatedly being tried by both the friends and foes alike the world
over for their own selfish ends or for other purposes, today’s
America is in close focus in almost every private and public forum,
often ending as the eye of storm in many groups of diverse interest
the world over. Directly targeted by over half a dozen rouge nations
and being the target of almost 50 percent of terrorist attack the
world over, America is today facing its moment of truth in history
even at the ‘height of its glory’ as the undisputed global
leader today.
Today, it is as futile for America to eliminate terrorism by force as
it is for terrorists to strike at America and teach “her
lessons”. For both are only targeting and responding at the
symptoms and not at the basic virus which go on producing and
multiplying symptoms in one form after another and at a time when any
act of violence is certainly proving suicidal for both the parties in
a world filled with powder kegs all over. If the American people loose
the faith in the American leadership, no technical military might, FBI
or CIA,however world class they may be, can save America.
But what worries me most is another fact altogether: that America
getting drained faster than it drains the world, though it may claim
to be growing by leaps and bounds, that the wealth which America
accumulates in the process is only of the synthetic variety, or the
abstract wealth – money which only helps to destroy the real
wealth, the natural wealth the world over.
And being the unique super power leader of the world, America’s
moment of truth is automatically the moment of truth for the whole
world – and, therefore, of the whole mankind today.
Is there a way out?
Well, let us give truth a chance!
But what is truth?
Truth was there everywhere when ‘God’ or, as modern
science puts it, the ‘Big Bang’ created nature, and when
nature created man in its “shape” and
“imaginations”—man to be the crown of all creations.
And this long evolving truth began to face music – the moment of
truth – when suddenly man started to interfere with the
nature’s logic and to make copies and models of truth or natural
materials and phenomena using what he called hypothesis or what has
come to evolve as modern sciences, which went on creating artificial
models or copies of nature or natural phenomena which looks
“smarter” than originals. Facts replaced truth and
fictions began to look more friendly than realities and truth which
then started to look stranger than fictions – untruth. Today we
have a man-made nature or world – he calls it by many names
like, post industrial society, wired globe, information age, global
village etc. Today it looks a giant social machine or man-made
mechanical system, which has hooked man to serve it, rather than to
control it. And thus man became a “tool of his own tool”
In controlling nature and truth we indeed made a sudden 180-degree
turn from the millions of years old nature-controlled or
truth-controlled-natural evolutionary process. Now facing dead ends at
the peak of every modern development, modern man is all set to be
heading towards not progress but regress -- towards a synthetic world
of fictions and untruth, for he has simply reversed its millions of
years old direction of true progress.
Disillusioned and facing crisis and dead ends everywhere, modern man
sometimes makes an outcry for going back to nature – truth.
Using such catchy slogans like environmentalism, naturalism, ecology
movements and what not. But it has not yet donned on him that today
there is today no such real nature or truth left to go back. All we
have today is a big “republic of pollution”, bereft of
even drinkable water or breathable air, which too are vitiated to the
brim apart from the all-round vitiation of even the spiritual
faculties as well.
Here it is pertinent to ask whether modern man has any idea of the
real shape, taste, texture, color and power of real nature or truth?
Truth has indeed become a perfect baffle to all modern human
understanding. And that is why we say that truth has today become
stranger than fictions. Or that why Harry Truman wrote: “I never
give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it is
hell”.
Thus, can now anybody afford to uphold truth?
Does anyone today want truth?
Why has truth become the number one enemy of modern society?
Why does modern man drop truth like a hot potato?
Unless we are able to answer these questions truly and unambiguously,
all our discussions, all these social summits – ‘the earth
submits’ included – are going to be futile exercises, just
another sort of ‘politics’, which we seem to have had
enough. And the time is running out.
For these are the questions still evolving answer-less for centuries.
Despite all our effort to unfold and uphold truth we only end up in
making truth murkier and murkier, by rendering the methodology more
and more ‘technical’, ambiguous and sophisticated –
synthetic. For there is more money, and more charm(being sophisicated)
in evading truth, in camouflaging truth, in showing and showcasing
‘truth’ bit by bit, as ‘compartmentalized’ and
‘specialized’ than in permitting truth fully exposed,
naked and raw.
Truth is like a naked young woman wandering on the public as an orphan
whom every body wants to stone in public branding her as prostitute
although most of them want to exploit her in private, leaving her more
and more fragile.
Those great souls and humans who dared to help her in public –
“ let the un-sinned stone her,” said Jesus Christ –
only got their hands burned. And thus Socretes was poisoned, Christ
was crucified and Gandhiji was shot dead for their boldness in helping
the hapless and the exploited.
For there is no money in being a Christ other than being his Judas, by
revealing truth -- ‘technically’, by courting truth in
private and in part, through a ‘technical’ (mechanical,
‘scientific’) kiss, a kiss without passion, humanity or
love. So in this highly mechanized, technical society, we all live on,
by brokering truth, by courting truth through techniques. We have all
ended up cheating and fooling truth using our ‘pure’
logic, or hypothesis called the modernism – a sophisticated mix
of science, art and market.
For our market mandarins and the present world movers know that there
is more clout and cash only in presenting truth part by part, a bit
here and a bit there, like a high profile and provocative show girl
making a revolt of her body and sex part by part and the craving and
ravening rich men coughing bundles of money then and there.
Owners and operators of modern technology and market play no different
roles by making the modern social process highly technical,
sophisticated, compartmentalized and specialized. A single modern
consumer product or package is made in over a dozen different nations
as different parts only to be finally assembled in another country.
After having ensured its sale as a solution to the problems which they
may create in the first place, and they go on reaping continued
“success stories” by continuously perpetuating the
problematic situations, and themselves posing as the ‘good
Samaritans’ and as the much published
“philanthropists”.
It is thus futile for man to expect and rely on the present
mechanical society that it will realize its catastrophic follies,
accept realities and truths, and come to the side of the real truth
seekers and truth upholders, even at this eleventh hour. For it has
only the record of persecuting all its true messengers, real prophets
and truth seekers, from Socretes to Mahatma Gandhi.
The world will, of course, accept truth and realities when it has made
them toothless – marketable. That is, when it has made sure that
it has an effective control on truths and can easily duplicate and
exploit them, and also when the real upholders of truths and realities
are no more in a position to resist effectively – when they are
either dead or senile. The world may even bestow upon them such
prestigious awards like Nobel Prizes; most of the live recipients are
either fake or their causes themselves fakes (highly marketable) like
the modern technologies and arts which are fakes or artificial of the
highest order by being born out of fictitious (hypothetical)
approaches.
Thus we have all modern Christian leaders doing the real roles of
modern-day Judases; communist leaders betraying true communism; Muslim
leaders betraying true Islam; Hindu leaders as enemies of real
Hinduism, capitalists deceiving a true Adam Smith; democratic leaders
as traitors of true democracy; scientists, experts and middlemen as
the real enemies of layman – mankind. The sole culprit for the
vitiation of all these otherwise benign humanist sectors of social
life is professionalism.
Today, we have all professionals, careerists, experts and thieves,
thanks to their patronage of modern science, art and market, who can
dominantly function as the modern-day leaders as upholders of pseudo
values pseudo truths. And they go the whole hog to exhort others to
uphold such (synthetic) values and truth--democracy, religion, science
etc.. No exploiter or thief can survive without the common man, the
mass and the gullible as the base and as the buffer – as the
true upholders of values and truths that, alas, we are all today.
Note
May be this is a highly inadequate statement/message to understand
the highly complex, wheels within wheels process called modernism
which has started flinging such suicidal gambling trends too
frequently, of late. Well, as for my part let me invite your precious
attention to some of my own analysis and diagnosis of this monolith
called modernism which, while remaining itself as a paradise for the
mechanical and the fake, nevertheless, is a mortal paradox for the
real and the human, as I find it today. To know what it is, why it is,
and how it is – please ‘click’ on to GREEN BULLETIN
BOARDCALIFORNIA/PACIFICA/GREEN BLLETIN BOARD messages: Right
and Wrong; Should X attack Y; Shrinking Diversity Diminishing
Understanding Zeroing Tolerance; Sick Man Sick Society Sick Planet;
Let nature a chance let man live; Induction versus Deduction;
Professionalism the greatest threat to all life forms; (by this author
'M.J.John').
John