Knew this was coming...
topcat
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020902/ap_wo_en_po/iraq_
saddam_1
Saddam: America hates Iraq because it stops it from controlling world oil
Mon Sep 2, 2:09 PM ET
By WAIEL FALEH, Associated Press writer
BAGHDAD, Iraq - President Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites) gave his own
explanation Monday of why the United States was insisting on removing him
from power - because Iraq was preventing it from controlling Middle East
oil.
"America thinks it must control the world," he was quoted as saying to an
envoy from Belarus. "America thinks if it controls the oil of the Middle
East then it will control the world," said Saddam, whose comments were
carried by the official Iraqi News Agency.
The United States, according to Saddam, has found out that trying to control
the world through military means won't work, so it has turned to control
Middle East oil, which he said represented 65 percent of world reserves.
"By destroying Iraq, America thinks it could control the oil of the Middle
East and force the prices it wants on clients like France, China, Japan and
other countries of the world," Saddam said. One reason for the continuation
of U.N. sanctions imposed on Iraq since its 1990 invasion of Kuwait, he
added, was to "prevent former Soviet Union countries from cooperating
economically with Iraq."
U.S. President George W. Bush ( news - web sites)'s administration has been
pushing for military action to unseat Saddam, whom Washington contends is
developing weapons of mass destruction despite being prohibited from doing
so under U.N. resolutions.
U.N. weapons Inspectors left Iraq in late 1998, just before punitive
U.S.-British airstrikes, and Saddam has refused to allow them back in. Iraq
insists it has complied with the U.N. resolutions imposed following its
invasion of Kuwait, but has said it wants to continue a dialogue on the
inspectors' return, conditions of which U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan
( news - web sites) has rejected.
U.S. officials have indicated that the return of inspectors may not be
sufficient to stave off action against Iraq. Bush spokesman Scott McClellan
said Sunday that the president agrees that "unfettered inspections" are a
required first step toward solving the Iraq problem, but not necessarily
enough.
On Monday, Saddam said that by controlling world oil and its prices, the
United States would be able to determine the growth of world economy.
"Europe has found out about this fact lately, so its stand in support of
Iraq is not based on humanitarian or legal grounds but in self-defense of
its future, independence and freedom of interests," said Saddam.
"Iraq's battle is no longer a national one, but it is for humanity ..."
Harrison X. Numbugger
topcat wrote:
>
> Saddam is obviously very familiar with the left in this country.
>
saddam is obviously very familiar with the bush administration. do you
really think that that ignorant shit stain bush is right and the rest of
the world is wrong? I bet you do. your past posts have shown the extreme
width and depth of your ignorance. Bush is a treasonous bastard prepared
to murder hundreds of thousands, maybe millions for oil.
that digesting piece of shit in the offal office needs to go.
>
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That
is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and
denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Herman
Goering (second in command to Adolf Hitler) at the Nuremberg Trials
topcat
Harrison X. Numbugger wrote:
>
>
> saddam is obviously very familiar with the bush administration. do you
> really think that that ignorant shit stain bush is right and the rest of
> the world is wrong? I bet you do. your past posts have shown the extreme
> width and depth of your ignorance. Bush is a treasonous bastard prepared
> to murder hundreds of thousands, maybe millions for oil.
>
> that digesting piece of shit in the offal office needs to go.
Thanks for showing your total ignorance and total bias.
TC
Julian D.
>Saddam is obviously very familiar with the left in this country.
What a wonderfully profound statement.
How true. He's won their hearts and minds.
It'll be the left that puts our soldiers lives at risk. Not Bush.
Do you think the left still spits on soldiers returning home from
wars?
JD
"We need honest, reasoned debate, and not fear-mongering. To those . . .
who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is
this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity
and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies and
pause to America's friends. They encourage people of goodwill to remain
silent in the face of evil."
-- John Ashcroft -
Testifying before congress defending military tribunals and upholding the
Constitution of the United States of America
"Critics of the war on terrorism don’t seem to understand: someone is trying to kill them."
-Jonathan Alter
NEWSWEEK
Palestinian Children's School Is In Session!!!
http://www.serve.com/lordgovernor/children/
On Islamic extremists: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
-- Ann Coulter, National Review Online, September 2001
"100% of the successful terrorist attacks on
commercial airlines for 20 years have been committed
by Arabs. When there is a 100% chance, it ceases to
be a profile. It's called a 'description of the
suspect.'" - Ann Coulter
'All I really need to know about Islam, I learned on September 11.'
-Me
Trace
>>Saddam is obviously very familiar with the left in this country.
> What a wonderfully profound statement. How true. He's won their
> hearts and minds. It'll be the left that puts our soldiers lives at
> risk. Not Bush. Do you think the left still spits on soldiers
> returning home from wars?
Hmmm. So what you are actually saying is that Bush sending troops to
fight an illegal war for oil, is less dangerous than the "left," which
is trying to do what? Do you actually have an argument, or are you
just spewing nonesense that comes to your brain?
Just checking...
Trace
Julian D.
First off, it's not an illegal war. And it's not for oil.
He's explained why we must crush hussein quite well.
It's a moot matter. It will happen.
And I'll be there, with my bag of popcorn, sitting in front of my tv
watching the fireworks.
Burge...@beck.com
The left Buttcheek of your rightwing government headed By
CHeney/DUMBYA
**************************************************************
You're a *fucking moron*. You are the very picture of why
top-posting assholes should get thrown in the nearest river, you
completely incompetent idiot. God damn you neck-deep in a lake of
runny shit. *Fuck* you, you bullshit little punk.
Billy
VRWC Fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free
iksteh
> First off, it's not an illegal war. And it's not for oil.
> He's explained why we must crush hussein quite well.
Because Hussein has access to the same weapons the USA does?
Isn't the biggest threat at home?
> It's a moot matter. It will happen.
> And I'll be there, with my bag of popcorn, sitting in front of my tv
> watching the fireworks.
>
like I was on 9/11...only it's more fun when America
gets attacked because it's like a bully getting a good
smack in the mouth.
iksteh
Trace
<ju...@ersatz.com> wrote:
> First off, it's not an illegal war. And it's not for oil. He's
(You mean Bush? Bush has explained nothing.)
> explained why we must crush hussein quite well. It's a moot matter. It
> will happen.
> And I'll be there, with my bag of popcorn, sitting in front of my tv
> watching the fireworks.
It is not an illegal War? And it's not for oil? I suppose it is about
terrorism, then. Right?
I am so happy for you, my fellow American, that you find massive fear, death
and destruction to be a form of entertainment. Enjoy your popcorn
while men, women and children die as a result of our arrogance and
stupidy, not to mention, avarice. Do you know why "they" hate us?
Because of the attitudes of people like you. That is WHY "they" hate
us.
Enjoy your death entertainment.
Trace
Julian D.
>On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 20:27:52 -0700, "topcat" <top...@aboy.com> wrote
>like a right wing scumbag:
>>Saddam is obviously very familiar with the left in this country.
>
>The left Buttcheek of your rightwing government headed By
>CHeney/DUMBYA
I'm sure Saddam is appreciative of the looney leftists in the US.
Take a bow Rosie.
>**************************************************************
>
>You're a *fucking moron*. You are the very picture of why
>top-posting assholes should get thrown in the nearest river, you
>completely incompetent idiot. God damn you neck-deep in a lake of
>runny shit. *Fuck* you, you bullshit little punk.
>
>
>Billy
>
>VRWC Fronteer
>http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free
Julian D.
>In article <h2f8nusa3i47o24m2...@4ax.com>, "Unknown"
><ju...@ersatz.com> wrote:
>
>> First off, it's not an illegal war. And it's not for oil. He's
>(You mean Bush? Bush has explained nothing.)
>> explained why we must crush hussein quite well. It's a moot matter. It
>> will happen.
>> And I'll be there, with my bag of popcorn, sitting in front of my tv
>> watching the fireworks.
>
>It is not an illegal War? And it's not for oil? I suppose it is about
>terrorism, then. Right?
Not so much in Iraq's case. He's violated the terms of the Gulf War.
Would you rather wait until there's a nice billowing mushroom cloud
over Israel before we slap him down?
>I am so happy for you, my fellow American, that you find massive fear, death
>and destruction to be a form of entertainment. Enjoy your popcorn
>while men, women and children die as a result of our arrogance and
>stupidy, not to mention, avarice. Do you know why "they" hate us?
>Because of the attitudes of people like you. That is WHY "they" hate
>us.
>
>Enjoy your death entertainment.
You'll never understand how much I'll enjoy it.
I want 300,000 anti-American muslims dead. 100 for every American
killed September 11, 2001.
I'm not too concerned 'why' they hate us. That indicates we're to
blame or at fault for them killing our people September 11, 2001.
There's no reason for it.
That is, unless you're a member of the Blame-America crowd? Sounds
like it.
>Trace
Burge...@beck.com
like a right wing scumbag:
>On Tue, 03 Sep 2002 05:45:41 GMT, Burge...@Beck.com wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 20:27:52 -0700, "topcat" <top...@aboy.com> wrote
>>like a right wing scumbag:
>>>Saddam is obviously very familiar with the left in this country.
>>
>>The left Buttcheek of your rightwing government headed By
>>CHeney/DUMBYA
>
>I'm sure Saddam is appreciative of the looney leftists in the US.
>Take a bow Rosie.
Who has saddam helped most politically you stupid fuck
conp...@voyager.net
>
>Harrison X. Numbugger wrote:
Hairy, why is your bugger numb?
SemiScholar
wrote:
>On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 23:36:00 -0700, "Trace" <sthe...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>In article <h2f8nusa3i47o24m2...@4ax.com>, "Unknown"
>><ju...@ersatz.com> wrote:
>>
>>> First off, it's not an illegal war. And it's not for oil. He's
>>(You mean Bush? Bush has explained nothing.)
>>> explained why we must crush hussein quite well. It's a moot matter. It
>>> will happen.
>>> And I'll be there, with my bag of popcorn, sitting in front of my tv
>>> watching the fireworks.
>>
>>It is not an illegal War? And it's not for oil? I suppose it is about
>>terrorism, then. Right?
>
>Not so much in Iraq's case. He's violated the terms of the Gulf War.
>Would you rather wait until there's a nice billowing mushroom cloud
>over Israel before we slap him down?
Why is it our job to defend Israel from Saddam Hussein?
>
>>I am so happy for you, my fellow American, that you find massive fear, death
>>and destruction to be a form of entertainment. Enjoy your popcorn
>>while men, women and children die as a result of our arrogance and
>>stupidy, not to mention, avarice. Do you know why "they" hate us?
>>Because of the attitudes of people like you. That is WHY "they" hate
>>us.
>>
>>Enjoy your death entertainment.
>
>You'll never understand how much I'll enjoy it.
>I want 300,000 anti-American muslims dead. 100 for every American
>killed September 11, 2001.
>I'm not too concerned 'why' they hate us. That indicates we're to
>blame or at fault for them killing our people September 11, 2001.
>There's no reason for it.
Hmmm... how about if we had killed 30 Muslims prior to Sept 11, 2001?
Would that then have given "them" the moral authority to demand that
100 Americans be killed for each Muslim? If not, why does the death
of an American at the hands of Muslim extremists demand the death of
100 innocent Muslims, while the death of a Muslim at the hand of the
US government not demand the death of 100 innocent Americans?
And if you're not interested in finding out why "they" hate us, how
will you ever know whether or not they are using exactly the same
logic YOU are using?
SemiScholar
>On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 21:27:00 -0700, "topcat" <top...@aboy.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Harrison X. Numbugger wrote:
>Hairy, why is your bugger numb?
Ha ha ha ha ho ho ho hee hee!! Aw, jeeze, conpubco, that is SOOOOO
funny!! I just bust out laughing every time I see you post it - and
you post it a LOT. I just can't help myself - you're so funny and
that remark is SOOO witty that I just laugh out loud.
Gawd, usenet is such a great place for laughs. conpubco is so clever
- and the beautiful thing is - his remark is so clever, that there is
no need for any other jokes - we just need to read conpubco asking
"why is your bugger numb" and we can all fall down laughing.
<wheeze>
Julian D.
<semis...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 03 Sep 2002 02:52:13 -0400, Julian D. <ju...@ersatz.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 23:36:00 -0700, "Trace" <sthe...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <h2f8nusa3i47o24m2...@4ax.com>, "Unknown"
>>><ju...@ersatz.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> First off, it's not an illegal war. And it's not for oil. He's
>>>(You mean Bush? Bush has explained nothing.)
>>>> explained why we must crush hussein quite well. It's a moot matter. It
>>>> will happen.
>>>> And I'll be there, with my bag of popcorn, sitting in front of my tv
>>>> watching the fireworks.
>>>
>>>It is not an illegal War? And it's not for oil? I suppose it is about
>>>terrorism, then. Right?
>>
>>Not so much in Iraq's case. He's violated the terms of the Gulf War.
>>Would you rather wait until there's a nice billowing mushroom cloud
>>over Israel before we slap him down?
>
>
>Why is it our job to defend Israel from Saddam Hussein?
Because it's are only 'true' 'friend' in that area. Israel's the
closest thing to a democracy that's over there. And they will not
shoot their women if they arent dressed appropriately.
They're surrounded by people intent on their destruction.
>
>
>>
>>>I am so happy for you, my fellow American, that you find massive fear, death
>>>and destruction to be a form of entertainment. Enjoy your popcorn
>>>while men, women and children die as a result of our arrogance and
>>>stupidy, not to mention, avarice. Do you know why "they" hate us?
>>>Because of the attitudes of people like you. That is WHY "they" hate
>>>us.
>>>
>>>Enjoy your death entertainment.
>>
>>You'll never understand how much I'll enjoy it.
>>I want 300,000 anti-American muslims dead. 100 for every American
>>killed September 11, 2001.
>>I'm not too concerned 'why' they hate us. That indicates we're to
>>blame or at fault for them killing our people September 11, 2001.
>>There's no reason for it.
>
>Hmmm... how about if we had killed 30 Muslims prior to Sept 11, 2001?
>Would that then have given "them" the moral authority to demand that
>100 Americans be killed for each Muslim? If not, why does the death
>of an American at the hands of Muslim extremists demand the death of
>100 innocent Muslims, while the death of a Muslim at the hand of the
>US government not demand the death of 100 innocent Americans?
Because an American life is worth 1,000 of their filthy
pedophile-worshipping lives. I was being practical by only using 100,
a much more attainable figure.
They are at fault, not us. They want us dead, want you dead as well.
We must cull that herd of filth. Hopefully Bush will start that soon.
>And if you're not interested in finding out why "they" hate us, how
>will you ever know whether or not they are using exactly the same
>logic YOU are using?
>
I could care less what kind of logic or 'rational' they use. If any.
There was and is NO reason for them to kill 3,000 American people on
September 11.
Julian D.
wrote:
>On Tue, 03 Sep 2002 13:01:46 -0500, SemiScholar
><semis...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 03 Sep 2002 02:52:13 -0400, Julian D. <ju...@ersatz.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 23:36:00 -0700, "Trace" <sthe...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <h2f8nusa3i47o24m2...@4ax.com>, "Unknown"
>>>><ju...@ersatz.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> First off, it's not an illegal war. And it's not for oil. He's
>>>>(You mean Bush? Bush has explained nothing.)
>>>>> explained why we must crush hussein quite well. It's a moot matter. It
>>>>> will happen.
>>>>> And I'll be there, with my bag of popcorn, sitting in front of my tv
>>>>> watching the fireworks.
>>>>
>>>>It is not an illegal War? And it's not for oil? I suppose it is about
>>>>terrorism, then. Right?
>>>
>>>Not so much in Iraq's case. He's violated the terms of the Gulf War.
>>>Would you rather wait until there's a nice billowing mushroom cloud
>>>over Israel before we slap him down?
>>
>>
>>Why is it our job to defend Israel from Saddam Hussein?
>
>Because it's are only 'true' 'friend' in that area. Israel's the
>closest thing to a democracy that's over there. And they will not
>shoot their women if they arent dressed appropriately.
>They're surrounded by people intent on their destruction.
>
whoops...'our' I meant.
JimL
Burge...@Beck.com wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 20:27:52 -0700, "topcat" <top...@aboy.com> wrote
> like a right wing scumbag:
> >Saddam is obviously very familiar with the left in this country.
>
> The left Buttcheek of your rightwing government headed By
> CHeney/DUMBYA
Thanks for being everyone's retard, Gary.
Jim
SemiScholar
wrote:
But you think there IS a reason to kill 300,000 of "them"? Tell me -
which of "them" do you want to kill? By nationality, please.
Afghans? Pakistanis? Egyptians? Saudis? Iraqis? Who, exactly?
Julian D.
<semis...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Well...let's see. If they're muslim, if they hate the United States,
if they condone what happened on September 11, 2001.
Yep..that'll do.
If and when we go into Iraq and they put up a fuss, we'll close that
gap of 300,000. Maybe not completely. Maybe not most. But his army
has around 450,000 soldiers. If we kill 1/3 or 1/2, that would be a
nifty start.
Do you know what the best part is?
I stand a real good chance of having my wish come true. Bush will
help with that.
Islam must pay for its errant members.
SemiScholar
wrote:
>On Tue, 03 Sep 2002 21:18:36 -0500, SemiScholar
><semis...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 03 Sep 2002 16:29:48 -0400, Julian D. <ju...@ersatz.com>
>>wrote:
>>>>And if you're not interested in finding out why "they" hate us, how
>>>>will you ever know whether or not they are using exactly the same
>>>>logic YOU are using?
>>>>
>>>I could care less what kind of logic or 'rational' they use. If any.
>>>There was and is NO reason for them to kill 3,000 American people on
>>>September 11.
>>
>>
>>But you think there IS a reason to kill 300,000 of "them"? Tell me -
>>which of "them" do you want to kill? By nationality, please.
>>Afghans? Pakistanis? Egyptians? Saudis? Iraqis? Who, exactly?
>>
>>
>Well...let's see. If they're muslim, if they hate the United States,
>if they condone what happened on September 11, 2001.
>Yep..that'll do.
Not good enough. I want to know exactly _who_ you want to kill. What
nationalities? How will you know if they "hate the United States"?
>
>If and when we go into Iraq and they put up a fuss, we'll close that
>gap of 300,000. Maybe not completely. Maybe not most. But his army
>has around 450,000 soldiers. If we kill 1/3 or 1/2, that would be a
>nifty start.
>Do you know what the best part is?
>I stand a real good chance of having my wish come true. Bush will
>help with that.
You typing with both hands? Jeeze...
>
>
>
>
>Islam must pay for its errant members.
That's just how this shit gets started. Now go to your room!
topcat
SemiScholar wrote:
<snip>
> How will you know if they "hate the United States"?
>
They'll post statements with similar content to yours, The Little Weasals,
Gandalfs, Washingtons, Havis, SemiScholars and Garys. It will be easy to
figure out from that point.
TC - Sorry to cut in Julian...
SemiScholar
>
>SemiScholar wrote:
>
><snip>
>> How will you know if they "hate the United States"?
>>
>
>They'll post statements with similar content to yours, The Little Weasals,
>Gandalfs, Washingtons, Havis, SemiScholars and Garys. It will be easy to
>figure out from that point.
You have made my point quite eloquently. I love the United States. I
have lived elsewhere in the world and I know more than just the US way
of doing things, and I think the US is the best country in the history
of the world.
But you think I hate the US. How you came up with that is a complete
mystery - I have repeatedly written on usenet that things are better
here & now in the US than they ever have been anywhere on Earth
throughout all history. Yet somehow you think I "hate the US".
And so with such faulty judgment and inability to even tell that *I*
love the United States, you're content to judge whether various
foreigners should be murdered because they "hate the US".
Nice.
topcat
SemiScholar wrote:
>
> You have made my point quite eloquently. I love the United States. I
> have lived elsewhere in the world and I know more than just the US way
> of doing things, and I think the US is the best country in the history
> of the world.
Of course you do, the liberal agenda continues to take the country in a
direction you are certain to like.
>
> But you think I hate the US. How you came up with that is a complete
> mystery - I have repeatedly written on usenet that things are better
> here & now in the US than they ever have been anywhere on Earth
> throughout all history. Yet somehow you think I "hate the US".
You are a liberal. Yes? If so, then I'm sure that the survival of Saddam
Hussien is more important to you than that of President Bush.
>
> And so with such faulty judgment and inability to even tell that *I*
> love the United States, you're content to judge whether various
> foreigners should be murdered because they "hate the US".
>
I'm for never having another 9/11. I watched live as the towers collapse one
after the other and a huge cloud of smoke engulfed the area. I stood there
with other patriotic citizens as the coast guard patrolled the bay and
F-16's flew overhead. As I stood there, with all the chaos, one thing and
only one thing kept going through my mind, how may people are dead? How many
innocent people are dead?
I'm for never having another 9/11. If that means we have to invade every
country in the world to rid that country of terrorists, so be it. If that
means we have to kill terrorists who will use innocent people as a shield,
and potentially kill some innocents in the process, so be it. If that means
we have to overthrow the governments of countries who refuse to stop
harboring terrorists, so be it. If that means we have to get Saddam *before*
he gets us, so be it.
I'm for the US taking any action, pre-emptive or after the fact, either in
concert with our allies or unilaterally, to insure the safety of the
citizens in the United States of America.
There's your lesson in loving America.
TC
SemiScholar
>
>SemiScholar wrote:
>>
>> You have made my point quite eloquently. I love the United States. I
>> have lived elsewhere in the world and I know more than just the US way
>> of doing things, and I think the US is the best country in the history
>> of the world.
>
>Of course you do, the liberal agenda continues to take the country in a
>direction you are certain to like.
>
>>
>> But you think I hate the US. How you came up with that is a complete
>> mystery - I have repeatedly written on usenet that things are better
>> here & now in the US than they ever have been anywhere on Earth
>> throughout all history. Yet somehow you think I "hate the US".
>
>You are a liberal. Yes? If so, then I'm sure that the survival of Saddam
>Hussien is more important to you than that of President Bush.
Yet another example of why we don't put you in charge of who in the
world is to be killed. Your analytical skills are such that you think
I favor the survival of Saddam Hussein, when in fact I would just as
soon Saddam was never born.
But the pertinent point here is not Saddam Hussein, but your ability
to think critically, understand situations and make logical,
analytical judgments. You fail miserably.
>
>>
>> And so with such faulty judgment and inability to even tell that *I*
>> love the United States, you're content to judge whether various
>> foreigners should be murdered because they "hate the US".
>>
>
>I'm for never having another 9/11. I watched live as the towers collapse one
>after the other and a huge cloud of smoke engulfed the area. I stood there
>with other patriotic citizens as the coast guard patrolled the bay and
>F-16's flew overhead. As I stood there, with all the chaos, one thing and
>only one thing kept going through my mind, how may people are dead? How many
>innocent people are dead?
Did you wonder the same thing about how many innocent people in the
Afghan wedding party on July 1 were killed by a US C-130 gunship? I'm
not talking about al-Qaida or Taliban - I'm all in favor of killing
them. Twice. But I'm talking about the *innocent* people in that
wedding party. Do they count, in your world?
>
>I'm for never having another 9/11. If that means we have to invade every
>country in the world to rid that country of terrorists, so be it.
How about invading countries that had nothing to do with 9/11 and who
have not threatened the US?
> If that
>means we have to kill terrorists who will use innocent people as a shield,
>and potentially kill some innocents in the process, so be it. If that means
>we have to overthrow the governments of countries who refuse to stop
>harboring terrorists, so be it. If that means we have to get Saddam *before*
>he gets us, so be it.
>
>I'm for the US taking any action, pre-emptive or after the fact, either in
>concert with our allies or unilaterally, to insure the safety of the
>citizens in the United States of America.
>
>There's your lesson in loving America.
I don't doubt that you think you "love America" too, but I do think we
have a different view of what "America" is and should be.
topcat
SemiScholar wrote:
>
> Yet another example of why we don't put you in charge of who in the
> world is to be killed. Your analytical skills are such that you think
> I favor the survival of Saddam Hussein, when in fact I would just as
> soon Saddam was never born.
So you are for invading Iraq and doing away with him then?
>
> But the pertinent point here is not Saddam Hussein, but your ability
> to think critically, understand situations and make logical,
> analytical judgments. You fail miserably.
Who put you in charge of grading me?
>
> Did you wonder the same thing about how many innocent people in the
> Afghan wedding party on July 1 were killed by a US C-130 gunship? I'm
> not talking about al-Qaida or Taliban - I'm all in favor of killing
> them. Twice. But I'm talking about the *innocent* people in that
> wedding party. Do they count, in your world?
Ah, there's what I mean. There's the hate America first mentality. Always
seeing the other sides position first. War isn't pretty. Innocent people are
going to get killed. Using your logic we should have let Germany keep France
in WWII because innocent people got killed while we were liberating the
country.
Everyone's life counts, but as long as our goal is noble, and in the case of
preventing another 9/11, it is, what must be done, must be done. Will there
be mistakes, yes. War isn't perfect. Will people die on *both* sides, yes.
>
> How about invading countries that had nothing to do with 9/11 and who
> have not threatened the US?
Any country harboring or abetting terrorist organizations strong enough to
bring about another 9/11 or worse.
>
>
> I don't doubt that you think you "love America" too, but I do think we
> have a different view of what "America" is and should be.
>
Right.
TC
SemiScholar
>
>SemiScholar wrote:
>>
>> Yet another example of why we don't put you in charge of who in the
>> world is to be killed. Your analytical skills are such that you think
>> I favor the survival of Saddam Hussein, when in fact I would just as
>> soon Saddam was never born.
>
>So you are for invading Iraq and doing away with him then?
No. I would be happy if Charlie Manson had never been born as well,
but I wouldn't kill him.
Anyway, is that the extent of your imagination? That there are only
two states an American can be in - either frothing to kill Saddam
Hussein or being Saddam's defender? One more indication of why we're
all very lucky you're not in charge of who gets to live and who dies.
>
>>
>> But the pertinent point here is not Saddam Hussein, but your ability
>> to think critically, understand situations and make logical,
>> analytical judgments. You fail miserably.
>
>Who put you in charge of grading me?
God. Told me personally.
>
>>
>> Did you wonder the same thing about how many innocent people in the
>> Afghan wedding party on July 1 were killed by a US C-130 gunship? I'm
>> not talking about al-Qaida or Taliban - I'm all in favor of killing
>> them. Twice. But I'm talking about the *innocent* people in that
>> wedding party. Do they count, in your world?
>
>
>Ah, there's what I mean. There's the hate America first mentality.
Ah. there's what I mean. To people like you, being concerned about
the deaths of innocent foreigners at the hands of the US government is
"hating" America.
>Always
>seeing the other sides position first.
Those people weren't "the other side". They were innocent human
beings with no argument with the US. And it is incumbent upon the
citizens and government of the US to be concerned about who they are
killing. That's not more "taking the other side" than being
concerned that your driving is not killing pedestrians is "taking the
side of the pedestrian".
> War isn't pretty. Innocent people are
>going to get killed. Using your logic we should have let Germany keep France
>in WWII because innocent people got killed while we were liberating the
>country.
Not at all. In fact, I have made exactly that argument here on usenet
recently - that innocent people do get killed in war and although
innocents got killed in Europe, WWII was still justified.
The difference here is that Julian WANTS to kill innocent people. ANd
he's not particular about who those innocents are, as long as they are
muslims. He wants to kill 100 random muslims for each US citizen that
was killed on Sept. 11.
Do you agree with him? Do you think we should make a point to kill
300,000 muslims? We already know that you are, at the very least,
unconcerned by the deaths of completely innocent people.
>
>Everyone's life counts, but as long as our goal is noble, and in the case of
>preventing another 9/11, it is, what must be done, must be done. Will there
>be mistakes, yes. War isn't perfect. Will people die on *both* sides, yes.
>
>>
>> How about invading countries that had nothing to do with 9/11 and who
>> have not threatened the US?
>
>Any country harboring or abetting terrorist organizations strong enough to
>bring about another 9/11 or worse.
Add one thing: a probability that they will do so. I don't think we
should be invading Russia, China, North Korea, Britain, Israel, India,
Pakistan etc. etc. etc. And if anyone comes up with proof that Iraq
is such a country, then I'll be all in favor of invading and taking
them out. But so far, there has been no such proof. Maybe Dubya's
got some - but he hasn't shown it to us.
Julian D.
No. Stop. In my ever so humble, (and wonderfully well-thought out),
opinion, Islam is to blame for Sept. 11. The VAST majority condones
what happened on Sept.11.
Listen to their opinions on the subject. While some 'moderates' might
say, 'what happened was horrible', it's ALWAYS followed by, 'but I
understand why bin Laden did it'.
And I am particular about which muslims. First off, for convenience
sake, Sadaam's army will take quite a chunk of those 300,000 dogs
which require killing. They're certainly not innocent.
The paltry amount we've killed in Afghanistan I don't even count.
When we invade Iraq, I'm daring some of their neighboring countries to
interfere. I'm sure you'll agree that Bush has NO compunction
whatsoever on siccing some of our boom-makers on those as well.
Slowly, but surely, we will reach that 300,000.
The point is, American lives are not taken cheaply. Ever.
When the final tally is read, countries will have to do much more to
reign in and contain their savages.
The key to stopping terrorism is to hold countries responsible, as
much as the terrorist groups themselves.
>Do you agree with him? Do you think we should make a point to kill
>300,000 muslims? We already know that you are, at the very least,
>unconcerned by the deaths of completely innocent people.
>
>
>>
>>Everyone's life counts, but as long as our goal is noble, and in the case of
>>preventing another 9/11, it is, what must be done, must be done. Will there
>>be mistakes, yes. War isn't perfect. Will people die on *both* sides, yes.
>>
>>>
>>> How about invading countries that had nothing to do with 9/11 and who
>>> have not threatened the US?
>>
>>Any country harboring or abetting terrorist organizations strong enough to
>>bring about another 9/11 or worse.
>
>Add one thing: a probability that they will do so. I don't think we
>should be invading Russia, China, North Korea, Britain, Israel, India,
>Pakistan etc. etc. etc. And if anyone comes up with proof that Iraq
>is such a country, then I'll be all in favor of invading and taking
>them out. But so far, there has been no such proof. Maybe Dubya's
>got some - but he hasn't shown it to us.
>
>
SemiScholar
wrote:
>On Wed, 04 Sep 2002 16:41:55 -0500, SemiScholar
><semis...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>> War isn't pretty. Innocent people are
>>>going to get killed. Using your logic we should have let Germany keep France
>>>in WWII because innocent people got killed while we were liberating the
>>>country.
>>
>>Not at all. In fact, I have made exactly that argument here on usenet
>>recently - that innocent people do get killed in war and although
>>innocents got killed in Europe, WWII was still justified.
>>
>>The difference here is that Julian WANTS to kill innocent people. ANd
>>he's not particular about who those innocents are, as long as they are
>>muslims. He wants to kill 100 random muslims for each US citizen that
>>was killed on Sept. 11.
>
>
>No. Stop. In my ever so humble, (and wonderfully well-thought out),
>opinion, Islam is to blame for Sept. 11. The VAST majority condones
>what happened on Sept.11.
I seriously doubt that you even know how many muslims there are in the
world, or anything about Islam, much less what the "VAST majority" of
them think. I'll bet you don't even know one muslim personally. IOW,
you're completely full of crap.
>Listen to their opinions on the subject. While some 'moderates' might
>say, 'what happened was horrible', it's ALWAYS followed by, 'but I
>understand why bin Laden did it'.
>
>And I am particular about which muslims. First off, for convenience
>sake, Sadaam's army will take quite a chunk of those 300,000 dogs
>which require killing. They're certainly not innocent.
They're not? What, exactly, did 300,000 Iraqi conscripts do to
deserve being killed?
>The paltry amount we've killed in Afghanistan I don't even count.
>When we invade Iraq, I'm daring some of their neighboring countries to
>interfere. I'm sure you'll agree that Bush has NO compunction
>whatsoever on siccing some of our boom-makers on those as well.
>Slowly, but surely, we will reach that 300,000.
>
>The point is, American lives are not taken cheaply. Ever.
That sounds exactly like the Germans during WWII. Or the Soviets.
>When the final tally is read, countries will have to do much more to
>reign in and contain their savages.
I think that would include the US reigning in people like you.
>The key to stopping terrorism is to hold countries responsible, as
>much as the terrorist groups themselves.
You speak from such ignorance that it's just comical. Like I said -
it's good that you're not actually in charge of anything other than a
broom.
topcat
SemiScholar wrote:
>
> No. I would be happy if Charlie Manson had never been born as well,
> but I wouldn't kill him.
I would.
>
> Anyway, is that the extent of your imagination? That there are only
> two states an American can be in - either frothing to kill Saddam
> Hussein or being Saddam's defender? One more indication of why we're
> all very lucky you're not in charge of who gets to live and who dies.
It seems the main use of your imagination is to put words in other people's
mouth.
>
>
> God. Told me personally.
Next time you speak with him, say a prayer for Saddam, he's going to need
it.
>
> Ah. there's what I mean. To people like you, being concerned about
> the deaths of innocent foreigners at the hands of the US government is
> "hating" America.
No, it's your concern for the death of innocent foreigners before your
concern for the death of innocent AMERICANS (like those on 9/11) which makes
you part of the "Hate America First" crowd.
>
> Those people weren't "the other side". They were innocent human
> beings with no argument with the US. And it is incumbent upon the
> citizens and government of the US to be concerned about who they are
> killing. That's not more "taking the other side" than being
> concerned that your driving is not killing pedestrians is "taking the
> side of the pedestrian".
While this may be true, so is my explanation of war. Unfortunately, some
people are in the wrong place at the wrong time.
>
> Not at all. In fact, I have made exactly that argument here on usenet
> recently - that innocent people do get killed in war and although
> innocents got killed in Europe, WWII was still justified.
Good. You are capable of making sense from time to time.
>
> The difference here is that Julian WANTS to kill innocent people. ANd
> he's not particular about who those innocents are, as long as they are
> muslims. He wants to kill 100 random muslims for each US citizen that
> was killed on Sept. 11.
My take on Julians statement is he'd prefer to see 300,000 guilty muslims
killed. He, of course, can speak for himself. I will say this, however, the
"innocents" shown dancing in the streets of these muslim countries after the
attack are fair game to me.
>
> Do you agree with him? Do you think we should make a point to kill
> 300,000 muslims? We already know that you are, at the very least,
> unconcerned by the deaths of completely innocent people.
See above. (Especially the part about putting words in other people's mouth)
>
> Add one thing: a probability that they will do so.
Can't do that. No one can measure the probability. These groups are very
erratic and could be moved to strike for any old reason. Take, for instance,
Bin Laden not liking us being on Saudi soil when we saved the Saudis ass.
> I don't think we
> should be invading Russia, China, North Korea, Britain, Israel, India,
> Pakistan etc. etc. etc. And if anyone comes up with proof that Iraq
> is such a country, then I'll be all in favor of invading and taking
> them out. But so far, there has been no such proof. Maybe Dubya's
> got some - but he hasn't shown it to us.
>
I'm sure there is more than we know, but without knowing anything else, Iraq
is in violation of the UN resolutions from after the Gulf War. I don't need
any other justification.
TC
SemiScholar
>
>SemiScholar wrote:
>>
>> No. I would be happy if Charlie Manson had never been born as well,
>> but I wouldn't kill him.
>
>I would.
>
>>
>> Anyway, is that the extent of your imagination? That there are only
>> two states an American can be in - either frothing to kill Saddam
>> Hussein or being Saddam's defender? One more indication of why we're
>> all very lucky you're not in charge of who gets to live and who dies.
>
>It seems the main use of your imagination is to put words in other people's
>mouth.
>
>>
>>
>> God. Told me personally.
>
>Next time you speak with him, say a prayer for Saddam, he's going to need
>it.
Oh - I don't talk *to* God - he just talks to me.
But then, so does my neighbor's dog.
>
>>
>> Ah. there's what I mean. To people like you, being concerned about
>> the deaths of innocent foreigners at the hands of the US government is
>> "hating" America.
>
>No, it's your concern for the death of innocent foreigners before your
>concern for the death of innocent AMERICANS (like those on 9/11) which makes
>you part of the "Hate America First" crowd.
You're, of course, wrong if you think I place "foreigners" above
"Americans" (does that count the non- Americans who were kille on
9/11, or do you put those in the "foreigners" column?). I think it's
just that I place them above where you have them on your
Human-o-Scale.
>
>>
>> Those people weren't "the other side". They were innocent human
>> beings with no argument with the US. And it is incumbent upon the
>> citizens and government of the US to be concerned about who they are
>> killing. That's not more "taking the other side" than being
>> concerned that your driving is not killing pedestrians is "taking the
>> side of the pedestrian".
>
>While this may be true, so is my explanation of war. Unfortunately, some
>people are in the wrong place at the wrong time.
You mean the people killed on 9/11? That's harsh, man. Personally, I
think they were innocent people, and I think there have been a lot of
innocent people killed in Afghanistan. Innocent, mind you, people.
These are human beings, flesh and blood, mother and daughter, uncle
and brother, and they had NOTHING to do with ANY of this. They were
just killed, that's all. Having said that, I also will state, as I
have argued publicly on usenet, that this "war" is necessary even if
there are innocent casualties. I just think each innocent casualty
should be mourned and regretted. Julian, on the other hand,
encourages killing a hell of a lot of innocent people.
>
>>
>> Not at all. In fact, I have made exactly that argument here on usenet
>> recently - that innocent people do get killed in war and although
>> innocents got killed in Europe, WWII was still justified.
>
>Good. You are capable of making sense from time to time.
>
>>
>> The difference here is that Julian WANTS to kill innocent people. ANd
>> he's not particular about who those innocents are, as long as they are
>> muslims. He wants to kill 100 random muslims for each US citizen that
>> was killed on Sept. 11.
>
>My take on Julians statement is he'd prefer to see 300,000 guilty muslims
>killed.
Well, I'm guessing there is a whole nother discussion there on the
meaning of the word "guilty".
> He, of course, can speak for himself. I will say this, however, the
>"innocents" shown dancing in the streets of these muslim countries after the
>attack are fair game to me.
So you're no proponent of Free Speech, eh? What principles, exactly,
do you seek to further with your eagerness to kill huge numbers of
people? Free Speech is out. Well, gets the Death Penalty, anyway.
Does any of the BoR matter to you? How about the one about quartering
troops in private homes?
>
>>
>> Do you agree with him? Do you think we should make a point to kill
>> 300,000 muslims? We already know that you are, at the very least,
>> unconcerned by the deaths of completely innocent people.
>
>See above. (Especially the part about putting words in other people's mouth)
>
>>
>> Add one thing: a probability that they will do so.
>
>Can't do that.
GOTTA do that. It's not an option to skip it. If the probablility is
in the same range as, say, North Korea, China, the USSR, the current
Russia, Pakistan, India, Israel, Iran, you know... the Usual Suspects
- then if we gotta get one of them we gotta get them all, eh?
Certainly we oughta start at the TOP of that threat-list, right? And
to do so, we gotta have the measurement somehow. We HAVE to estimate
the probability that they will use the weapons.
So what's the number? 90%? 25%? Whatever it is, my next question
is gonna be: "And 'ow'd you get THAT, then?"
>No one can measure the probability. These groups are very
>erratic and could be moved to strike for any old reason. Take, for instance,
>Bin Laden not liking us being on Saudi soil when we saved the Saudis ass.
Given that Saudi Arabia is the home of Islam's most holy places and
that Islam is a pretty conservative religion to begin with, it's not
that surprising that there is a high level of anti-American sentiment
amongst some of the more fanatical muslims. Contrary to your
suggestion, the negative mood regarding US troops on their soil is not
particularly surprising.
>
>> I don't think we
>> should be invading Russia, China, North Korea, Britain, Israel, India,
>> Pakistan etc. etc. etc. And if anyone comes up with proof that Iraq
>> is such a country, then I'll be all in favor of invading and taking
>> them out. But so far, there has been no such proof. Maybe Dubya's
>> got some - but he hasn't shown it to us.
>>
>
>I'm sure there is more than we know, but without knowing anything else, Iraq
>is in violation of the UN resolutions from after the Gulf War. I don't need
>any other justification.
Yeah, right. I'm sure if Clinton had even THOUGHT about invading
Iraq, you would have been busting a vein on your forehead.
Krow
"topcat" <top...@aboy.com> wrote in message
news:al8cnk$ptf$1...@news.monmouth.com...
>
> SemiScholar wrote:
> >
> > No. I would be happy if Charlie Manson had never been born as well,
> >>
> >
> > the deaths of innocent foreigners at the hands of the US government is
> > "hating" America.
>
> No, it's your concern for the death of innocent foreigners before your
> concern for the death of innocent AMERICANS (like those on 9/11) which
makes
> you part of the "Hate America First" crowd.
>
How's that? Is bombing the fuck out of Iraqis somehow going to help all
those that died 9/11? Sounds like you don't give a flying fuck about them
either, just as long as you can use their deaths and their families' misery
to score political points and make yourself feel better.
topcat
SemiScholar wrote:
>
> You're, of course, wrong if you think I place "foreigners" above
> "Americans" (does that count the non- Americans who were kille on
> 9/11, or do you put those in the "foreigners" column?). I think it's
> just that I place them above where you have them on your
> Human-o-Scale.
I never see you write anything about the 3000 dead in America, yet you pine
endlessly for the lives foreigners whos entire culture seems to be based on
hating Americans.
>
> You mean the people killed on 9/11?
No, I mean the wedding party.
> That's harsh, man. Personally, I
> think they were innocent people, and I think there have been a lot of
> innocent people killed in Afghanistan. Innocent, mind you, people.
> These are human beings, flesh and blood, mother and daughter, uncle
> and brother, and they had NOTHING to do with ANY of this. They were
> just killed, that's all. Having said that, I also will state, as I
> have argued publicly on usenet, that this "war" is necessary even if
> there are innocent casualties. I just think each innocent casualty
> should be mourned and regretted. Julian, on the other hand,
> encourages killing a hell of a lot of innocent people.
Rest assured, I don't "encourage" killing innocent people, however I think
it is obvious that the entire middle east region needs an attitude
adjustment as it relates to their thoughts on America. It's okay for us to
drop food, its okay for us to save Kuwait, its okay for us to cover Saudi
Arabias ass, but, of course, its not okay for us to back Israel.
>
> Well, I'm guessing there is a whole nother discussion there on the
> meaning of the word "guilty".
You're probably right.
>
>
> > He, of course, can speak for himself. I will say this, however, the
> >"innocents" shown dancing in the streets of these muslim countries after
the
> >attack are fair game to me.
>
>
> So you're no proponent of Free Speech, eh? What principles, exactly,
> do you seek to further with your eagerness to kill huge numbers of
> people? Free Speech is out. Well, gets the Death Penalty, anyway.
> Does any of the BoR matter to you? How about the one about quartering
> troops in private homes?
It has *nothing* to do with free speech. It has to do with a culture that
teaches it's children to hate Israelis and Americans. If they hate us so
much, then they should stop *all* dealings with us. That means if Saddam
wants Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, he gets it. If all the Arab oil shieks go
broke because no one is buying their oil, so be it. Certain parties in the
middle east want things both ways. They want us to save them, buy billions
in oil and keep peace when they need us to, but also want us to butt out
when it suits them.
>
> Given that Saudi Arabia is the home of Islam's most holy places and
> that Islam is a pretty conservative religion to begin with, it's not
> that surprising that there is a high level of anti-American sentiment
> amongst some of the more fanatical muslims. Contrary to your
> suggestion, the negative mood regarding US troops on their soil is not
> particularly surprising.
Except when those same troops are making sure Saddam doesn't invade the
country.
>
>
> Yeah, right. I'm sure if Clinton had even THOUGHT about invading
> Iraq, you would have been busting a vein on your forehead.
>
Uh...NO! If Clinton would have done *anything*, I probably would have backed
it. Unfortunately, he chose to do *nothing* and that's why we're where we
are today.
TC
topcat
Krow wrote:
> >
>
> How's that? Is bombing the fuck out of Iraqis somehow going to help all
> those that died 9/11? Sounds like you don't give a flying fuck about them
> either, just as long as you can use their deaths and their families'
misery
> to score political points and make yourself feel better.
>
>
Please let me know when you are going to start paying attention to the
conversation. Here are my reasons (which I've previously stated) for being
behind the attack on Iraq. They are in order of priority.
1. Iraq is in violation of the UN resolutions imposed after the Gulf War. If
they continue to refuse to let weapons inspectors in, they should be
attacked and Saddam overthrown.
Let's say they let inspectors in, see #2.
2. Iraq is clearly no friend of ours. If it can be shown that Saddam is
developing chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, we need to attack the
country and overthrow Saddam not because of 9/11, but to prevent another
9/11.
Let's say weapons inspectors go in and find nothing, see #3.
3. If it can be shown that Iraq took any part in 9/11, the country should be
invaded and Saddam overthrown. The Atta meeting is still in question and a
law suit was filed against Iraq by surviving family members claiming that
even if Iraq wasn't involved on the front lines of the attack, they knew
about it and did nothing to stop it. We need to see where these
investigations go.
TC
Zepp, No Weasels in the Bush
>
>Krow wrote:
>> >
>>
>> How's that? Is bombing the fuck out of Iraqis somehow going to help all
>> those that died 9/11? Sounds like you don't give a flying fuck about them
>> either, just as long as you can use their deaths and their families'
>misery
>> to score political points and make yourself feel better.
>>
>>
>
>Please let me know when you are going to start paying attention to the
>conversation. Here are my reasons (which I've previously stated) for being
>behind the attack on Iraq. They are in order of priority.
>
>1. Iraq is in violation of the UN resolutions imposed after the Gulf War. If
>they continue to refuse to let weapons inspectors in, they should be
>attacked and Saddam overthrown.
What, in those agreements, stipulates that the United States
unilaterally attack and invade Iraq, even though arms inspectors state
that Saddam had, at the end of inspections, satified the terms of the
agreements.
>
>Let's say they let inspectors in, see #2.
>
>2. Iraq is clearly no friend of ours. If it can be shown that Saddam is
>developing chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, we need to attack the
>country and overthrow Saddam not because of 9/11, but to prevent another
>9/11.
Why aren't we bombing Russia? Or Israel? Or France? Or Britain?
>
>Let's say weapons inspectors go in and find nothing, see #3.
>
>3. If it can be shown that Iraq took any part in 9/11, the country should be
>invaded and Saddam overthrown. The Atta meeting is still in question and a
>law suit was filed against Iraq by surviving family members claiming that
>even if Iraq wasn't involved on the front lines of the attack, they knew
>about it and did nothing to stop it. We need to see where these
>investigations go.
>
Produce evidence of involvement in 9/11, and be warned that we're
already very tired of the cynical GOP game of shifting blame for the
worst crime in American history for political expediency while
blocking all efforts to find out what really happened.
>TC
>
>
>
topcat
Zepp, the weasal wrote::
>
> What, in those agreements, stipulates that the United States
> unilaterally attack and invade Iraq, even though arms inspectors state
> that Saddam had, at the end of inspections, satified the terms of the
> agreements.
That's not what Clinton, the UN or anyone else is saying. Produce the
agreements and where it says these things, or I have to believe Clinton this
time. The arms inspectors were thrown out of the country prior to completing
anything, that is the situation from all accounts I've read.
The US would not be attacking unilaterally. Britain and Kuwait are already
on board and I suspect many other nations will be when the time comes for
action.
> >
> Why aren't we bombing Russia? Or Israel? Or France? Or Britain?
Because they have no current beef with the US, unlike Saddam, who is itching
to get even for the Gulf War. They also aren't in violation of the UN
resolutions.
> >
> Produce evidence of involvement in 9/11, and be warned that we're
> already very tired of the cynical GOP game of shifting blame for the
> worst crime in American history for political expediency while
> blocking all efforts to find out what really happened.
>
It's not my job to produce evidence, its my job to decipher the information
being put out by both sides (conservative and liberal, dims and reps) and
formulate an opinion on the subject. Being an American citizen, that's what
I do. Given the information I currently have, Saddams days are clearly
numbered and should be.
TC
Zepp, No Weasels in the Bush
>
>Zepp, the weasal wrote::
>>
>> What, in those agreements, stipulates that the United States
>> unilaterally attack and invade Iraq, even though arms inspectors state
>> that Saddam had, at the end of inspections, satified the terms of the
>> agreements.
>
>That's not what Clinton, the UN or anyone else is saying. Produce the
>agreements and where it says these things, or I have to believe Clinton this
>time. The arms inspectors were thrown out of the country prior to completing
>anything, that is the situation from all accounts I've read.
But not according to the arms inspectors themselves.
>
>The US would not be attacking unilaterally. Britain and Kuwait are already
>on board and I suspect many other nations will be when the time comes for
>action.
>
Britain is far from on board. Eighty-eight members of Labour have
already signalled that they won't support Blair, which means that his
huge majority in Parliament has all but vanished.
>> >
>> Why aren't we bombing Russia? Or Israel? Or France? Or Britain?
>
>Because they have no current beef with the US, unlike Saddam, who is itching
>to get even for the Gulf War. They also aren't in violation of the UN
>resolutions.
And what, exactly, has Saddam done?
>
>> >
>> Produce evidence of involvement in 9/11, and be warned that we're
>> already very tired of the cynical GOP game of shifting blame for the
>> worst crime in American history for political expediency while
>> blocking all efforts to find out what really happened.
>>
>
>It's not my job to produce evidence, its my job to decipher the information
>being put out by both sides (conservative and liberal, dims and reps) and
>formulate an opinion on the subject. Being an American citizen, that's what
>I do. Given the information I currently have, Saddams days are clearly
>numbered and should be.
>
You're asking us to murder a bunch of people. You better have good
reasons for it.
>TC
>
>
SemiScholar
>
>SemiScholar wrote:
>>
>> You're, of course, wrong if you think I place "foreigners" above
>> "Americans" (does that count the non- Americans who were kille on
>> 9/11, or do you put those in the "foreigners" column?). I think it's
>> just that I place them above where you have them on your
>> Human-o-Scale.
>
>I never see you write anything about the 3000 dead in America,
Then you don't read everything I write. I have argued strongly with
Zepp and other weasels that the war in Afghanistan is necessary and
morally justifiable. I'm absolutely in favor of tracking down and
killing anyone connected with al Qaida.
But, as I said in the days after 9/11, we need to kill the RIGHT
people. If we go killing a bunch of innocent people, it will be
counter-productive.
>yet you pine
>endlessly for the lives foreigners whos entire culture seems to be based on
>hating Americans.
I have spent a LOT more time pining for the 3000 victims of 9/11 than
any Afghans. But that doesn't mean I still don't feel terrible about
innocent Afghans being killed. And the difference is: the al Qaida
terrorists murdered a bunch of people. But they are criminals who
have NOTHING to do with me. When the US government kills people, they
do it in my name, as my representatives, as an extension of me. That
means I have some responsibility for what they do and some
responsibility to at least express my opinion about what they should
do. And my opinion is that we should kill all the al Qaida and ONLY
the al Qaida.
>
>>
>> You mean the people killed on 9/11?
>
>No, I mean the wedding party.
>
>> That's harsh, man. Personally, I
>> think they were innocent people, and I think there have been a lot of
>> innocent people killed in Afghanistan. Innocent, mind you, people.
>> These are human beings, flesh and blood, mother and daughter, uncle
>> and brother, and they had NOTHING to do with ANY of this. They were
>> just killed, that's all. Having said that, I also will state, as I
>> have argued publicly on usenet, that this "war" is necessary even if
>> there are innocent casualties. I just think each innocent casualty
>> should be mourned and regretted. Julian, on the other hand,
>> encourages killing a hell of a lot of innocent people.
>
>Rest assured, I don't "encourage" killing innocent people,
Maybe, maybe not. You sorta butted into this conversation. Julian
DOES advocate killing a lot of innocent people, and you piped in on
his side. If you then are assumed to share his ideas, that's because
you decided to take up his arguments and defend him. If you don't
agree with him, don't defend his arguments.
> however I think
>it is obvious that the entire middle east region needs an attitude
>adjustment as it relates to their thoughts on America.
Yeah, I won't argue with that. I thgink the middle east is filled
with religious fanatics of all sorts, and I think religious fanatics
of all sorts are loony.
> It's okay for us to
>drop food, its okay for us to save Kuwait, its okay for us to cover Saudi
>Arabias ass, but, of course, its not okay for us to back Israel.
I don't think we should be doing any of that - except maybe dropping
food. I'm in favor of trying to help people. But I'm generally
opposed to trying to kill people. Except in self defense - and I
think going after al Qaida is self-defense.
So far I do not think going after Iraq is self-defense. If Bush shows
some evidence and makes a good case that we are endangered by Saddam,
then I'll be all for taking him out, too. But so far I don't buy it.
>
>>
>> Well, I'm guessing there is a whole nother discussion there on the
>> meaning of the word "guilty".
>
>You're probably right.
>
>>
>>
>> > He, of course, can speak for himself. I will say this, however, the
>> >"innocents" shown dancing in the streets of these muslim countries after
>the
>> >attack are fair game to me.
>>
>>
>> So you're no proponent of Free Speech, eh? What principles, exactly,
>> do you seek to further with your eagerness to kill huge numbers of
>> people? Free Speech is out. Well, gets the Death Penalty, anyway.
>> Does any of the BoR matter to you? How about the one about quartering
>> troops in private homes?
>
>It has *nothing* to do with free speech.
Sure it does. Free speech also includes speech that I (or you) abhor.
As long as it stays "speech", I don't think it should be punished.
> It has to do with a culture that
>teaches it's children to hate Israelis and Americans.
I'm against people hating America. But killing a bunch of them is not
the way to reverse that trend.
> If they hate us so
>much, then they should stop *all* dealings with us. That means if Saddam
>wants Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, he gets it. If all the Arab oil shieks go
>broke because no one is buying their oil, so be it.
You seem to have a tenuous grasp on the situation in the Middle East.
If Saddam took over Saudi Arabia, the sheiks wouldn't be controlling
the oil. But frankly, I don't see much difference between the US
buying oil from Saddam or the Saudi royal family. None of them are
people I would hang out with.
> Certain parties in the
>middle east want things both ways. They want us to save them, buy billions
>in oil and keep peace when they need us to, but also want us to butt out
>when it suits them.
Yeah, that's true. And we shouldn't let them manipulate us. But
again, the point of this discussion is whether we should kill 100
innocent "Arabs" for each of the 3000 people killed on Sept 11. And I
don't think that's a good idea.
>
>>
>> Given that Saudi Arabia is the home of Islam's most holy places and
>> that Islam is a pretty conservative religion to begin with, it's not
>> that surprising that there is a high level of anti-American sentiment
>> amongst some of the more fanatical muslims. Contrary to your
>> suggestion, the negative mood regarding US troops on their soil is not
>> particularly surprising.
>
>Except when those same troops are making sure Saddam doesn't invade the
>country.
Nonsense. The Saudi Royal Family likes to see our troops there -
sure. It's THEIR asses we're protecting. But they are not all that
well-liked in Saudi Arabia. And SA is holy land to all muslims,
whether they like the Saudi royal family or not. We shouldn't be
protecting the Saudi princes - they are corrupt and, IMHO, evil. They
are not our friends, and they are not Jeffersonian democrats.
>
>>
>>
>> Yeah, right. I'm sure if Clinton had even THOUGHT about invading
>> Iraq, you would have been busting a vein on your forehead.
>>
>
>Uh...NO! If Clinton would have done *anything*, I probably would have backed
>it. Unfortunately, he chose to do *nothing* and that's why we're where we
>are today.
>
Right. So you didn't complain about Clinton bombing Afghanistan and
Sudan? Do I need to go check the google archives, or will you come
clean?
SemiScholar
>
>Zepp, the weasal wrote::
>>
>> What, in those agreements, stipulates that the United States
>> unilaterally attack and invade Iraq, even though arms inspectors state
>> that Saddam had, at the end of inspections, satified the terms of the
>> agreements.
>
>That's not what Clinton, the UN or anyone else is saying. Produce the
>agreements and where it says these things, or I have to believe Clinton this
>time. The arms inspectors were thrown out of the country prior to completing
>anything, that is the situation from all accounts I've read.
>
>The US would not be attacking unilaterally. Britain and Kuwait are already
>on board and I suspect many other nations will be when the time comes for
>action.
>
>> >
>> Why aren't we bombing Russia? Or Israel? Or France? Or Britain?
>
>Because they have no current beef with the US, unlike Saddam, who is itching
>to get even for the Gulf War. They also aren't in violation of the UN
>resolutions.
That's the crux - Saddam's "beef" with the US has to do with the Gulf
War, which we shouldn't have prosecuted in the first place. So your
argument now is that because we did something wrong before, now it has
escalated and we must do even more wrong. Like - we broke into the
jewelry store and robbed it, and now that the owner is mad at us and
wants to prosecute us, we need to go kill him. Sorry, but I don't
think escalating the wrongdoing is a sensible solution.
>
>> >
>> Produce evidence of involvement in 9/11, and be warned that we're
>> already very tired of the cynical GOP game of shifting blame for the
>> worst crime in American history for political expediency while
>> blocking all efforts to find out what really happened.
>>
>
>It's not my job to produce evidence, its my job to decipher the information
>being put out by both sides (conservative and liberal, dims and reps) and
>formulate an opinion on the subject. Being an American citizen, that's what
>I do. Given the information I currently have, Saddams days are clearly
>numbered and should be.
If you have any evidence that Saddam is any threat to the US, you need
to produce it for all of us to see, because nobody else is doing so.
Julian D.
No..not murder. Kill.
Are you going to spit on our returning victorious soldiers when they
come home Zepp?
topcat
Zepp the Weasal:
>
> But not according to the arms inspectors themselves.
I've heard differing opinions from different inspectors. In the end it will
come down to what GWB and the congress, not the arms inspectors or Kofi
Annan, think about the graveness of the situation.
> >
> Britain is far from on board. Eighty-eight members of Labour have
> already signalled that they won't support Blair, which means that his
> huge majority in Parliament has all but vanished.
Do you remember when GWB started to push for the tax cut? Everyone said he
wouldn't get it. He said give me some time to make my case. He proceeded to
make his case and the tax cut passed.
He and Blair are now in the process of making their case. In the end I think
they will prevail. Blair is already on record as saying Britain will be
there when the "shooting starts". In my mind, that means they are on board.
I guess this means you agree Kuwait is on board?
>
> And what, exactly, has Saddam done?
It'd be simpler to answer the question what hasn't Saddam done?
> >
> You're asking us to murder a bunch of people. You better have good
> reasons for it.
I can think of 3000 reasons, I don't want to have to think about 3000 more.
TC
topcat
SemiScholar wrote:
>
> Then you don't read everything I write. I have argued strongly with
> Zepp and other weasels that the war in Afghanistan is necessary and
> morally justifiable. I'm absolutely in favor of tracking down and
> killing anyone connected with al Qaida.
Good. We agree on this.
>
> But, as I said in the days after 9/11, we need to kill the RIGHT
> people. If we go killing a bunch of innocent people, it will be
> counter-productive.
We also need to be pro-active instead of re-active, otherwise we end up
going after the RIGHT people AFTER 3000 more American are dead.
>
> I have spent a LOT more time pining for the 3000 victims of 9/11 than
> any Afghans. But that doesn't mean I still don't feel terrible about
> innocent Afghans being killed. And the difference is: the al Qaida
> terrorists murdered a bunch of people. But they are criminals who
> have NOTHING to do with me. When the US government kills people, they
> do it in my name, as my representatives, as an extension of me. That
> means I have some responsibility for what they do and some
> responsibility to at least express my opinion about what they should
> do. And my opinion is that we should kill all the al Qaida and ONLY
> the al Qaida.
Again, if it can be shown that a madman like Saddam has the weapons to arm
terrorists, shouldn't he be stopped?
> >
>
> Maybe, maybe not. You sorta butted into this conversation.
I apologized to Julian. The conversation looked interesting.
> Julian
> DOES advocate killing a lot of innocent people, and you piped in on
> his side. If you then are assumed to share his ideas, that's because
> you decided to take up his arguments and defend him. If you don't
> agree with him, don't defend his arguments.
Again, I don't like to put words in peoples mouths, so I won't presume to
say what Julian actually meant. I felt I was defending his premise, if not
his entire statement. The premise being Saddam has to go and if 300,000
American-hating middle easterners die because of it, I will shed no tears.
It's more important to me that we don't have another 3000 dead Americans
here.
>
>
> Yeah, I won't argue with that. I thgink the middle east is filled
> with religious fanatics of all sorts, and I think religious fanatics
> of all sorts are loony.
Good. We agree on this.
>
> > It's okay for us to
> >drop food, its okay for us to save Kuwait, its okay for us to cover Saudi
> >Arabias ass, but, of course, its not okay for us to back Israel.
>
>
> I don't think we should be doing any of that - except maybe dropping
> food. I'm in favor of trying to help people. But I'm generally
> opposed to trying to kill people. Except in self defense - and I
> think going after al Qaida is self-defense.
But stopping Saddam from getting and using weapons of mass destruction
wouldn't be considered self-defense?
>
> So far I do not think going after Iraq is self-defense. If Bush shows
> some evidence and makes a good case that we are endangered by Saddam,
> then I'll be all for taking him out, too. But so far I don't buy it.
Give him time.
>
> You seem to have a tenuous grasp on the situation in the Middle East.
Must you always go for the "you're not that intelligent" line. It comes
across as very condescending. I'm doing my best to have an intelligent
conversation with you and because you seem at least open to hearing other
views, I've continued it up to this point without calling you stupid or
ignorant. I try to contradict your points, not your intelligence. Please do
the same.
> If Saddam took over Saudi Arabia, the sheiks wouldn't be controlling
> the oil. But frankly, I don't see much difference between the US
> buying oil from Saddam or the Saudi royal family. None of them are
> people I would hang out with.
I think I'm hearing that the Gulf War was unjustified in your mind. Are you
saying we should have let Saddam keep Kuwait and then invade Saudi Arabia,
thereby giving him control of most of the world's oil?
>
>
> Nonsense. The Saudi Royal Family likes to see our troops there -
> sure. It's THEIR asses we're protecting. But they are not all that
> well-liked in Saudi Arabia. And SA is holy land to all muslims,
> whether they like the Saudi royal family or not. We shouldn't be
> protecting the Saudi princes - they are corrupt and, IMHO, evil. They
> are not our friends, and they are not Jeffersonian democrats.
See above statements about Saddam controlling oil.
>
>
> Right. So you didn't complain about Clinton bombing Afghanistan and
> Sudan? Do I need to go check the google archives, or will you come
> clean?
>
You saw me complaining about the lack of anything substantially changing
because he did those things. He truly was the master of show, no substance.
All partisanship aside, we know the Cole and the WTC bombing 93 happened on
his watch. His response was tacit at best.
TC
SemiScholar
>
>SemiScholar wrote:
>
>>
>> Then you don't read everything I write. I have argued strongly with
>> Zepp and other weasels that the war in Afghanistan is necessary and
>> morally justifiable. I'm absolutely in favor of tracking down and
>> killing anyone connected with al Qaida.
>
>Good. We agree on this.
>
>>
>> But, as I said in the days after 9/11, we need to kill the RIGHT
>> people. If we go killing a bunch of innocent people, it will be
>> counter-productive.
>
>We also need to be pro-active instead of re-active, otherwise we end up
>going after the RIGHT people AFTER 3000 more American are dead.
>
>>
>> I have spent a LOT more time pining for the 3000 victims of 9/11 than
>> any Afghans. But that doesn't mean I still don't feel terrible about
>> innocent Afghans being killed. And the difference is: the al Qaida
>> terrorists murdered a bunch of people. But they are criminals who
>> have NOTHING to do with me. When the US government kills people, they
>> do it in my name, as my representatives, as an extension of me. That
>> means I have some responsibility for what they do and some
>> responsibility to at least express my opinion about what they should
>> do. And my opinion is that we should kill all the al Qaida and ONLY
>> the al Qaida.
>
>Again, if it can be shown that a madman like Saddam has the weapons to arm
>terrorists, shouldn't he be stopped?
First you have to show that he is a "madman", and the available
evidence is to the contrary. Sure, he's an evil bastard, but he ain't
crazy. And he is not stupid enough to use WMD if he knows it will
result in his almost immediate death. That's why he didn't use them
during the Gulf War, even though he supposedly had them.
Second, you have to show that he has the weapons - and that has not
been proven.
And third, you have to show he has the willingness to give those
weapons to terrorists, which has not been proven, or will use them
himself, and as I pointed out above, that is not likely.
The best argument you can make here is that if he acquires WMD he will
blackmail the Western countries. But I don't buy that, either.
BUT - if you (or Dubya) DO manage to convince me of those things, then
I'll support going into Iraq and taking him out. But there has to be
a clear and present danger, and it has to be obvious to everyone. If
only the US intelligence folks have the evidence and they don't prove
it to the world, then invading Iraq will be a Bad Idea. Even if all
goes perfectly and we wipe out Saddam, history will look back on it
and see that the US attacked another country without provocation, and
no attack nor even a threat had come from that other country.
That's the problem with averting disaster - nobody later will believe
that the disaster would have happened.
>
>> >
>>
>> Maybe, maybe not. You sorta butted into this conversation.
>
>I apologized to Julian. The conversation looked interesting.
>
>> Julian
>> DOES advocate killing a lot of innocent people, and you piped in on
>> his side. If you then are assumed to share his ideas, that's because
>> you decided to take up his arguments and defend him. If you don't
>> agree with him, don't defend his arguments.
>
>Again, I don't like to put words in peoples mouths, so I won't presume to
>say what Julian actually meant. I felt I was defending his premise, if not
>his entire statement. The premise being Saddam has to go and if 300,000
>American-hating middle easterners die because of it, I will shed no tears.
And you will determine in advance that all 300,000 of them hate
America? Or do you support killing a lot of innocent people as well?
>It's more important to me that we don't have another 3000 dead Americans
>here.
If we kill 300,000 innocent middle easterners, the likelihood that we
will create a HELL of a lot of fanatical terrorists bent on killing a
LOT more than 3000 Americans goes WAY up. I mean, look at you &
Juilan - 3000 Americans you didn't even know are killed and you want
to kill 300,000 Arabs. So, whether you think they are right or wrong,
don't you think there might be some Arabs who see 300,000 of their
people killed and have the same reaction that you have - that is,
"let's go kill 100 of THEM for each one of US they killed."?
That sort of escalation is NOT a good answer to the problem.
>
>>
>>
>> Yeah, I won't argue with that. I thgink the middle east is filled
>> with religious fanatics of all sorts, and I think religious fanatics
>> of all sorts are loony.
>
>Good. We agree on this.
>
>>
>> > It's okay for us to
>> >drop food, its okay for us to save Kuwait, its okay for us to cover Saudi
>> >Arabias ass, but, of course, its not okay for us to back Israel.
>>
>>
>> I don't think we should be doing any of that - except maybe dropping
>> food. I'm in favor of trying to help people. But I'm generally
>> opposed to trying to kill people. Except in self defense - and I
>> think going after al Qaida is self-defense.
>
>But stopping Saddam from getting and using weapons of mass destruction
>wouldn't be considered self-defense?
Not unless you think he would use them on us. Why would you think he
would do that?
>
>>
>> So far I do not think going after Iraq is self-defense. If Bush shows
>> some evidence and makes a good case that we are endangered by Saddam,
>> then I'll be all for taking him out, too. But so far I don't buy it.
>
>Give him time.
I'm perfectly willing to give him all the time he needs. And like I
said, I'll support him in invading Iraq if he makes a good enough case
that it's necessary. But so far, no go.
>
>
>>
>> You seem to have a tenuous grasp on the situation in the Middle East.
>
>Must you always go for the "you're not that intelligent" line. It comes
>across as very condescending.
Sorry, but your remark about Saddam and the Sheiks seems to indicate
that you're unfamiliar with the workings of those countries. Not that
you're unintelligent - there is a difference between intelligence and
knowledge.
> I'm doing my best to have an intelligent
>conversation with you and because you seem at least open to hearing other
>views, I've continued it up to this point without calling you stupid or
>ignorant. I try to contradict your points, not your intelligence. Please do
>the same.
>
>
>> If Saddam took over Saudi Arabia, the sheiks wouldn't be controlling
>> the oil. But frankly, I don't see much difference between the US
>> buying oil from Saddam or the Saudi royal family. None of them are
>> people I would hang out with.
>
>I think I'm hearing that the Gulf War was unjustified in your mind. Are you
>saying we should have let Saddam keep Kuwait and then invade Saudi Arabia,
>thereby giving him control of most of the world's oil?
Sure. What do we care whether we buy oil from Saddam or the Saudi
royal family? Kuwaitis and Saudis are not our friends, they do not
share our values, they are not worth defending. And it's not our oil.
How did WE get the authority to say who is in charge of natural
resources halfway around the world in someone else's country?
>
>
>>
>>
>> Nonsense. The Saudi Royal Family likes to see our troops there -
>> sure. It's THEIR asses we're protecting. But they are not all that
>> well-liked in Saudi Arabia. And SA is holy land to all muslims,
>> whether they like the Saudi royal family or not. We shouldn't be
>> protecting the Saudi princes - they are corrupt and, IMHO, evil. They
>> are not our friends, and they are not Jeffersonian democrats.
>
>See above statements about Saddam controlling oil.
>
>>
>>
>> Right. So you didn't complain about Clinton bombing Afghanistan and
>> Sudan? Do I need to go check the google archives, or will you come
>> clean?
>>
>
>You saw me complaining about the lack of anything substantially changing
>because he did those things. He truly was the master of show, no substance.
>All partisanship aside, we know the Cole and the WTC bombing 93 happened on
>his watch. His response was tacit at best.
Actually, the WTC criminals were arrested, tried and convicted. And
the Cole investigation was ongoing. I don't know that GW Bush's
response has produced all that much better results - although I was
just reading today that it's cost us over $15Billion so far and is
continuing to cost $1Billion a month. Plus, the idiotic "Homeland
Defense" measures are taking away our way of life. Bush is letting
the terrorists win by taking away freedoms.
SemiScholar
>
>Zepp the Weasal:
>>
>> But not according to the arms inspectors themselves.
>
>I've heard differing opinions from different inspectors. In the end it will
>come down to what GWB and the congress, not the arms inspectors or Kofi
>Annan, think about the graveness of the situation.
How did the US get any authority in the Middle East to determine who
would be in power in which country?
>
>> >
>> Britain is far from on board. Eighty-eight members of Labour have
>> already signalled that they won't support Blair, which means that his
>> huge majority in Parliament has all but vanished.
>
>Do you remember when GWB started to push for the tax cut? Everyone said he
>wouldn't get it. He said give me some time to make my case. He proceeded to
>make his case and the tax cut passed.
It passed, but not because he made any such "case" and persuaded
anybody. It passed because he had the republican votes.
>
>He and Blair are now in the process of making their case. In the end I think
>they will prevail. Blair is already on record as saying Britain will be
>there when the "shooting starts". In my mind, that means they are on board.
>I guess this means you agree Kuwait is on board?
>
>>
>> And what, exactly, has Saddam done?
>
>It'd be simpler to answer the question what hasn't Saddam done?
But that would be the wrong question to ask. If you're going to go
kill a guy, you gotta have a reason. And don't give me that "3000
reasons" nonsense, because Saddam has not been linked to 9/11.
>
>> >
>> You're asking us to murder a bunch of people. You better have good
>> reasons for it.
>
>I can think of 3000 reasons, I don't want to have to think about 3000 more.
You can't think of 3000 reasons to invade Iraq. If you can show that
Iraq had something to do with 9/11, then I'll be all in favor of
taking Saddam out. But there appears to be no such connection.
SemiScholar
wrote:
>On Fri, 06 Sep 2002 12:54:56 -0700, "Zepp, No Weasels in the Bush"
No. Murder. We're talking about innocent people. I'm all in favor
of killing the guilty bad guys. But when you engage in a war, you're
going to kill a lot of innocent people, so you need a DAMNED good
reason.
topcat
SemiScholar wrote:
>
>
> First you have to show that he is a "madman", and the available
> evidence is to the contrary.
I think this is a matter of definition. To me a man who kills his own
citizens is a madman. A man who invades a neighboring country even though he
knows he is sure to incur the wrath of the US is a madman. He couldn't be
sure that his foray into Kuwait wouldn't have brought his downfall, yet he
still did it.
> Sure, he's an evil bastard, but he ain't
> crazy. And he is not stupid enough to use WMD if he knows it will
> result in his almost immediate death. That's why he didn't use them
> during the Gulf War, even though he supposedly had them.
>
> Second, you have to show that he has the weapons - and that has not
> been proven.
And can't be because of his stone-walling on inspections, his ability to use
mobile labs and such.
>
> And third, you have to show he has the willingness to give those
> weapons to terrorists, which has not been proven, or will use them
> himself, and as I pointed out above, that is not likely.
Since he knows he is a target, he would more than likely use operatives to
attain his goals, thereby leaving him free to say he wasn't involved. Sort
of like the mafia works in the US.
>
> The best argument you can make here is that if he acquires WMD he will
> blackmail the Western countries. But I don't buy that, either.
I do.
>
> BUT - if you (or Dubya) DO manage to convince me of those things, then
> I'll support going into Iraq and taking him out. But there has to be
> a clear and present danger, and it has to be obvious to everyone. If
> only the US intelligence folks have the evidence and they don't prove
> it to the world, then invading Iraq will be a Bad Idea. Even if all
> goes perfectly and we wipe out Saddam, history will look back on it
> and see that the US attacked another country without provocation, and
> no attack nor even a threat had come from that other country.
>
> That's the problem with averting disaster - nobody later will believe
> that the disaster would have happened.
Which, given the current state of the world, may well be the way things have
to be. I see the point in your sentence, though.
>
> And you will determine in advance that all 300,000 of them hate
> America? Or do you support killing a lot of innocent people as well?
At the risk of sounding cute, they'll be the ones burning and stamping on
the American flags. I don't think they'll be hard to find.
>
> If we kill 300,000 innocent middle easterners, the likelihood that we
> will create a HELL of a lot of fanatical terrorists bent on killing a
> LOT more than 3000 Americans goes WAY up. I mean, look at you &
> Juilan - 3000 Americans you didn't even know are killed and you want
> to kill 300,000 Arabs. So, whether you think they are right or wrong,
> don't you think there might be some Arabs who see 300,000 of their
> people killed and have the same reaction that you have - that is,
> "let's go kill 100 of THEM for each one of US they killed."?
>
> That sort of escalation is NOT a good answer to the problem.
>
Look, I have a feeling Julian is speaking from the tone of revenge when he
makes those statements. I can understand those feeling, as I have them too.
However, I think I'm speaking more from a tone of strength. We (you and I)
differ in our approach on how to handle the aftermath of the attack. I
believe in operating from a position of strength. You believe violence
begets more violence.
I can't recall a conflict in history that was solved through appeasement. If
we say we are not going to deal with the Iraq issue because all hell will
break loose and more people (and probably more Americans) will get killed,
in my mind we are being blackmailed into doing nothing. More than likely
another terrorist attack will take place anyway, because the enemy will view
our standing still as weakness. The enemy needs to know you mean business
and will do what is necessary to fix the problem.
Let's say Bush does nothing, or inspectors go in and find nothing but in one
year a dirty bomb with ties to Iraq goes off in NYC and 50,000 people are
dead. Could you imagine the "weasal" response in this newsgroup? "Bush did
nothing", "More people dead because of Bush". I'd rather deal with Iraq now
and not have to even think about more dead Americans.
> >
> >But stopping Saddam from getting and using weapons of mass destruction
> >wouldn't be considered self-defense?
>
> Not unless you think he would use them on us. Why would you think he
> would do that?
Explained above.
>
> I'm perfectly willing to give him all the time he needs. And like I
> said, I'll support him in invading Iraq if he makes a good enough case
> that it's necessary. But so far, no go.
>
At least you're open-minded. That's good.
>
> Sorry, but your remark about Saddam and the Sheiks seems to indicate
> that you're unfamiliar with the workings of those countries. Not that
> you're unintelligent - there is a difference between intelligence and
> knowledge.
Phrasing is always the key to finding out if someone is mis-informed or just
plain stupid. I can tell from this conversation that although you and I may
disagree on a number of subjects, you're not stupid.
I feel I have a fairly good grasp on the middle east subject, I've been
studying it since the oil embargos in the 70's (when I was a kid, btw). My
statement may not have been the best one to show that understanding.
>
> Sure. What do we care whether we buy oil from Saddam or the Saudi
> royal family? Kuwaitis and Saudis are not our friends, they do not
> share our values, they are not worth defending. And it's not our oil.
> How did WE get the authority to say who is in charge of natural
> resources halfway around the world in someone else's country?
I think a lot of it would have to do with being able to control world-wide
pricing and such. The same way we discourage monopolies in the US, we don't
need a world-wide monopoly on oil, that's for sure.
I don't like to think of anyone in the middle east as our friends. Dealing
with them is a necessary evil due to the oil situation and to a certain
extent, Israel.
You do realize American oil companies developed the oil fields in the middle
east and then the fields were nationalized? Right?
> >
> >You saw me complaining about the lack of anything substantially changing
> >because he did those things. He truly was the master of show, no
substance.
> >All partisanship aside, we know the Cole and the WTC bombing 93 happened
on
> >his watch. His response was tacit at best.
>
> Actually, the WTC criminals were arrested, tried and convicted.
That hardly serves as a deterrent to terrorism in my mind. These blood
thirsty killers don't care about sitting in a jail cell.
And
> the Cole investigation was ongoing. I don't know that GW Bush's
> response has produced all that much better results - although I was
> just reading today that it's cost us over $15Billion so far and is
> continuing to cost $1Billion a month. Plus, the idiotic "Homeland
> Defense" measures are taking away our way of life. Bush is letting
> the terrorists win by taking away freedoms.
>
>
I really want you to think about this, because you do seem to have an open
mind. Even if the government (Bush administration) did nothing after 9/11,
some freedoms are being curtailed by the people themselves. I have people in
my family who are now sworn to never get on another plane. No matter what
the government does about security, they won't do it. They are curtailing
there own freedoms. I've heard people talk about not attending ball games or
concerts or going on cruise ships because that could be the next target.
What I'm saying is it's hard to blame either the government or the people
for some forms of over-reaction to what happened. I assume you weren't alive
for Pearl Harbor and neither was I, but I would have loved to know what
people were feeling then and if there was a similar reaction.
TC
SemiScholar
>
>SemiScholar wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> First you have to show that he is a "madman", and the available
>> evidence is to the contrary.
>
>I think this is a matter of definition. To me a man who kills his own
>citizens is a madman.
So Abraham Lincoln was a madman?
>A man who invades a neighboring country even though he
>knows he is sure to incur the wrath of the US is a madman.
Actually, he did that because the day before the US Ambassador had as
much as told him that the US would not intervene.
> He couldn't be
>sure that his foray into Kuwait wouldn't have brought his downfall, yet he
>still did it.
With tacit US approval. And he did not invade Saudi Arabia when he
could have, knowing by then that it would mean his end. And he did
not use the WMD he had in his possession, knowing that it would mean
his downfall.
No - he may be evil, but he's not stupid, and he's not crazy.
>
>> Sure, he's an evil bastard, but he ain't
>> crazy. And he is not stupid enough to use WMD if he knows it will
>> result in his almost immediate death. That's why he didn't use them
>> during the Gulf War, even though he supposedly had them.
>>
>> Second, you have to show that he has the weapons - and that has not
>> been proven.
>
>And can't be because of his stone-walling on inspections, his ability to use
>mobile labs and such.
Perhaps. But the inability to prove anything is not enough to justify
an invasion.
>
>>
>> And third, you have to show he has the willingness to give those
>> weapons to terrorists, which has not been proven, or will use them
>> himself, and as I pointed out above, that is not likely.
>
>Since he knows he is a target, he would more than likely use operatives to
>attain his goals, thereby leaving him free to say he wasn't involved. Sort
>of like the mafia works in the US.
And bin Laden. But we'd know.
>
>>
>> The best argument you can make here is that if he acquires WMD he will
>> blackmail the Western countries. But I don't buy that, either.
>
>I do.
>
>>
>> BUT - if you (or Dubya) DO manage to convince me of those things, then
>> I'll support going into Iraq and taking him out. But there has to be
>> a clear and present danger, and it has to be obvious to everyone. If
>> only the US intelligence folks have the evidence and they don't prove
>> it to the world, then invading Iraq will be a Bad Idea. Even if all
>> goes perfectly and we wipe out Saddam, history will look back on it
>> and see that the US attacked another country without provocation, and
>> no attack nor even a threat had come from that other country.
>>
>> That's the problem with averting disaster - nobody later will believe
>> that the disaster would have happened.
>
>Which, given the current state of the world, may well be the way things have
>to be. I see the point in your sentence, though.
>
>>
>> And you will determine in advance that all 300,000 of them hate
>> America? Or do you support killing a lot of innocent people as well?
>
>At the risk of sounding cute, they'll be the ones burning and stamping on
>the American flags. I don't think they'll be hard to find.
If you start shooting people who burn the flag, flag burning incidents
will no doubt be diminished. But then, the number of people who hate
America will increase. Not a productive way to address the problem.
Aside from which, I seriously doubt that we're going to go to Iraq or
any Arab country and kill 300,000 flag burners. No - we do our
killing from 30,000 feet and it's hard to tell the flag burners from
the innocent women & children from up there.
>
>>
>> If we kill 300,000 innocent middle easterners, the likelihood that we
>> will create a HELL of a lot of fanatical terrorists bent on killing a
>> LOT more than 3000 Americans goes WAY up. I mean, look at you &
>> Juilan - 3000 Americans you didn't even know are killed and you want
>> to kill 300,000 Arabs. So, whether you think they are right or wrong,
>> don't you think there might be some Arabs who see 300,000 of their
>> people killed and have the same reaction that you have - that is,
>> "let's go kill 100 of THEM for each one of US they killed."?
>>
>> That sort of escalation is NOT a good answer to the problem.
>>
>
>Look, I have a feeling Julian is speaking from the tone of revenge when he
>makes those statements.
No shit. But revenge is NOT a good thing. It leads only to more
revenge.
> I can understand those feeling, as I have them too.
>However, I think I'm speaking more from a tone of strength. We (you and I)
>differ in our approach on how to handle the aftermath of the attack. I
>believe in operating from a position of strength. You believe violence
>begets more violence.
Usually, yes. But that's not to say I'm opposed to all violence, as
many of the Weasels are. I do think there is a need for war
sometimes. I think Afghanistan has been one of those times. I amd
very skeptical about Iraq, though.
>
>I can't recall a conflict in history that was solved through appeasement.
"Appeasement"? Perhaps not. I don't think we need to appease Saddam.
Try: diplomacy and negotiation. But the problem with negotiations
and diplomatic settlement of conflict is the same as the problem with
pre-emptive strikes - later in history you never know what was
averted. I would venture to say that MOST conflicts in human history
have been resolved without resorting to war, but the conflicts that
really made the history books are the ones that resulted in war.
> If
>we say we are not going to deal with the Iraq issue because all hell will
>break loose and more people (and probably more Americans) will get killed,
>in my mind we are being blackmailed into doing nothing.
That's only one reason. It is important that we not be killing a lot
of people - especially innocent people. But before you even get to
that point you have to ask "why should we even be *thinking* about
war?" I don't see the necessity in Iraq.
> More than likely
>another terrorist attack will take place anyway, because the enemy will view
>our standing still as weakness. The enemy needs to know you mean business
>and will do what is necessary to fix the problem.
Perhaps - but you're confusing Iraq with Al Qaida. That seems tobe a
common mistake these days. So many people want to attack Iraq because
of 9/11. But there is NO evidence so far that Iraq had anything to do
with 9/11. I have no problem with killing every last human being who
had anything to do with the murderous attacks on 9/11, but you can't
use 9/11 to justify killing people who had nothing to do with it.
>
>Let's say Bush does nothing, or inspectors go in and find nothing but in one
>year a dirty bomb with ties to Iraq goes off in NYC and 50,000 people are
>dead. Could you imagine the "weasal" response in this newsgroup? "Bush did
>nothing", "More people dead because of Bush". I'd rather deal with Iraq now
>and not have to even think about more dead Americans.
Political Science
No one likes us-I don't know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
But all around, even our old friends put us down
Let's drop the big one and see what happens
We give them money-but are they grateful?
No, they're spiteful and they're hateful
They don't respect us-so let's surprise them
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them
Asia's crowded and Europe's too old
Africa is far too hot
And Canada's too cold
And South America stole our name
Let's drop the big one
There'll be no one left to blame us
We'll save Australia
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo
We'll build an All American amusement park there
They got surfin', too
Boom goes London and boom Paree
More room for you and more room for me
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town
Oh, how peaceful it will be
We'll set everybody free
You'll wear a Japanese kimono
And there'll be Italian shoes for me
They all hate us anyhow
So let's drop the big one now
Let's drop the big one now
-Randy Newman
>
>
>> >
>> >But stopping Saddam from getting and using weapons of mass destruction
>> >wouldn't be considered self-defense?
>>
>> Not unless you think he would use them on us. Why would you think he
>> would do that?
>
>Explained above.
No it wasn't. The only reason he would have to attack us would be
revenge (there's that word again - see how it perpetuates itself?) for
the Gulf War. But he's not stupid - he knows that would mean his end.
You know, he's not a religious nut like bin Laden and the al Qaida
loonies. THOSE guys don't care if they die - they think they have a
better world waiting for them anyway. But Saddam is a secular guy -
he wants his power in the here & now. It would not serve his purposes
to get killed.
>
>>
>> I'm perfectly willing to give him all the time he needs. And like I
>> said, I'll support him in invading Iraq if he makes a good enough case
>> that it's necessary. But so far, no go.
>>
>
>At least you're open-minded. That's good.
Hey, I'm always amenable to logic and strong arguments. But I haven't
seen any yet.
>
>>
>> Sorry, but your remark about Saddam and the Sheiks seems to indicate
>> that you're unfamiliar with the workings of those countries. Not that
>> you're unintelligent - there is a difference between intelligence and
>> knowledge.
>
>Phrasing is always the key to finding out if someone is mis-informed or just
>plain stupid. I can tell from this conversation that although you and I may
>disagree on a number of subjects, you're not stupid.
>
>I feel I have a fairly good grasp on the middle east subject, I've been
>studying it since the oil embargos in the 70's (when I was a kid, btw). My
>statement may not have been the best one to show that understanding.
>
>>
>> Sure. What do we care whether we buy oil from Saddam or the Saudi
>> royal family? Kuwaitis and Saudis are not our friends, they do not
>> share our values, they are not worth defending. And it's not our oil.
>> How did WE get the authority to say who is in charge of natural
>> resources halfway around the world in someone else's country?
>
>I think a lot of it would have to do with being able to control world-wide
>pricing and such. The same way we discourage monopolies in the US, we don't
>need a world-wide monopoly on oil, that's for sure.
Perhaps. But - whose oild IS it? That attitude seems to say that WE
should have the power to control the price of oil. Are you a
free-market kinda guy? Do you believe that the owner of a product
should be able to set the prices he desires, and the buyers can decide
whether they want to pay it or not?
>
>I don't like to think of anyone in the middle east as our friends. Dealing
>with them is a necessary evil due to the oil situation and to a certain
>extent, Israel.
I agree 100%. But while dealing with them may be a necessity, it's a
necessity of our own making. There was no such necessity in 1820. We
have created our own dependence on oil, and while it is necessary for
our current lifestyle, it is not necessary for life. Humans spent
millions of years without petroleum power, and just because we have
addicted ourselves to it doesn't mean that now we have the right to
that oil. It's not ours, and if they just plain old don't want to
sell it to us at all, that gives us no right to go take it. If your
heroin dealer doesn't want to sell you any more heroin, you don't have
the right to kill him and take his stash.
>
>You do realize American oil companies developed the oil fields in the middle
>east and then the fields were nationalized? Right?
Yes - great book on the subject: the Prize. My dad was a Bechtel
natural gas pipeline guy - spent some time in Baghdad, Cairo, Beirut,
etc. And you also realize that the US and European oil companies
basically ripped off the Arabs for decades before they wised up and
took back the oil fields that were theirs in the first place, Right?
>
>> >
>> >You saw me complaining about the lack of anything substantially changing
>> >because he did those things. He truly was the master of show, no
>substance.
>> >All partisanship aside, we know the Cole and the WTC bombing 93 happened
>on
>> >his watch. His response was tacit at best.
>>
>> Actually, the WTC criminals were arrested, tried and convicted.
>
>That hardly serves as a deterrent to terrorism in my mind. These blood
>thirsty killers don't care about sitting in a jail cell.
I agree - that's why we need to track down all the terrorists and kill
them. But there has been no such case made against Iraq. Plus - we
need to kill the RIGHT people, because when we kill innocents, we
CREATE more terrorists. Kill a guy's whole family, like we did when
we shelled the highlands in Lebanon, and you stand a good chance of
pissing him off to the point where he would willingly die to get
revenge.
Hmmm... revenge... And then, of course, Julian would need to get
more revenge. And then some Arab would need to get revenge. etc.
etc. etc. An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. But
killing 100 people for each of YOUR people killed leads to serious
population control.
>
>And
>> the Cole investigation was ongoing. I don't know that GW Bush's
>> response has produced all that much better results - although I was
>> just reading today that it's cost us over $15Billion so far and is
>> continuing to cost $1Billion a month. Plus, the idiotic "Homeland
>> Defense" measures are taking away our way of life. Bush is letting
>> the terrorists win by taking away freedoms.
>>
>>
>
>I really want you to think about this, because you do seem to have an open
>mind. Even if the government (Bush administration) did nothing after 9/11,
>some freedoms are being curtailed by the people themselves. I have people in
>my family who are now sworn to never get on another plane. No matter what
>the government does about security, they won't do it. They are curtailing
>there own freedoms. I've heard people talk about not attending ball games or
>concerts or going on cruise ships because that could be the next target.
Sure they will. It's only been a year. Time will fade those fears.
Besides, deciding yourself not to do something is NOT curtailing your
freedom - it's YOUR decision. Having it imposed on you curtails your
freedom.
And the fact that people have irrational fears is NO basis for sound
public policy. Humans are notoriously bad ad estimating relative
risks. I remember a girl I knew in college telling me, at the grocery
store, not to buy diet soda because it caused cancer - as she took a
deep drag on her cigarrette. These people you know who won't go to a
ball game are irrational - they stand a MUCH higher chance of dying in
a car crash on the way to the ball game than they do dying AT the ball
game. People who won't fly on commercial airliners because they are
worried about terrorists or just plain old crashes, but who then pile
into a car to drive the 1000 miles to vacation are NOT behaving
rationally.
>
>What I'm saying is it's hard to blame either the government or the people
>for some forms of over-reaction to what happened. I assume you weren't alive
>for Pearl Harbor and neither was I, but I would have loved to know what
>people were feeling then and if there was a similar reaction.
It's interesting you should say that - I was listening to NPR
yesterday and they played some Smithsonian recordings made right after
Pearl Harbor and some made right after 9/11. In 1941 there was a LOT
more overt racism, and a LOT more knee-jerk "let's go kill a bunch of
them".
Anyway, I don't know if "blame" is the right word for the
over-reaction. I would just say that I "notice" it and I comment on
it and argue against it. But politically, I think Ashcroft and his
ilk would LOVE to curtail a number of freedoms - and I think the whole
9/11 thing is being used as a cover for doing some things they would
love to do anyway, but otherwise couldn't.
For example, my illustrious Governor, the Honorable Jesse the Body
Ventura is planning a trip to Cuba - and the Bush administration,
according to today's paper, has "encouraged" him not to go. The
spokesman for the administration (I don't recall offhand who it was)
said it would be bad for a US governor to visit a "hostile terrorist
nation." When was the last bit of "terrorism" attributable to Cuba?
I think "terrorism" is just the buzzword of the day for people we want
as enemies - much like "madman".
topcat
I think we've beaten the issue of whether of not to go to war to death (no
pun intended) as this point. Hopefully in the coming weeks, after Bush
speaks at the UN, etc., we can get you onboard. We'll see.
There are some other points we've brought out that I would like to address.
See below.
SemiScholar wrote:
> >
> >Since he knows he is a target, he would more than likely use operatives
to
> >attain his goals, thereby leaving him free to say he wasn't involved.
Sort
> >of like the mafia works in the US.
>
> And bin Laden. But we'd know.
I don't think so. Bin Laden is a rebel. Like a John Gotti he wants to be
known. He wants it known that he is in charge of doing these dastardly
deeds. He really doesn't have a country, so he has nothing to lose.
Saddam is just the opposite. If he acts flamboyantly, he loses his power.
>
> Perhaps. But - whose oild IS it? That attitude seems to say that WE
> should have the power to control the price of oil. Are you a
> free-market kinda guy? Do you believe that the owner of a product
> should be able to set the prices he desires, and the buyers can decide
> whether they want to pay it or not?
No, that attitude says that no *one* person, especially a despot and
dictator, should have control over the majority of what is perhaps the most
important resource in the world right now.
Normally, I'm a free-market kinda guy, but the middle eastern oil situation
has to be given an asterisk. We are currently faced with the fact that our
economy would be severly hurt if all middle-eastern sources of oil were cut
off. That, in turn, would effect the world-wide economy. Unfortunately, the
situation needs to be looked at differently than most, in my mind.
> I agree 100%. But while dealing with them may be a necessity, it's a
> necessity of our own making. There was no such necessity in 1820. We
> have created our own dependence on oil, and while it is necessary for
> our current lifestyle, it is not necessary for life. Humans spent
> millions of years without petroleum power, and just because we have
> addicted ourselves to it doesn't mean that now we have the right to
> that oil. It's not ours, and if they just plain old don't want to
> sell it to us at all, that gives us no right to go take it. If your
> heroin dealer doesn't want to sell you any more heroin, you don't have
> the right to kill him and take his stash.
I could make a few unrelated political points here, like our country
survived before Social Security and Medicare too, but people are just as
addicted to them, however, maybe I'll leave them for another day.
Your point plays into my hand. The US has the power to go over to the middle
east and take the oil fields. Yet we don't do it. I'm all for alternative
energies. I think they could be developed a hell of lot faster if there was
no oil, actually. I think that would bring immediate hardship and immediate
entrepenuralism. Keeping the price of oil as resonable as possible not only
helps the US, but the rest of the world. We don't choose to "steal" it, we
choose to pay a reasonable price almost as a form of detente at this point.
>
>
> Yes - great book on the subject: the Prize. My dad was a Bechtel
> natural gas pipeline guy - spent some time in Baghdad, Cairo, Beirut,
> etc. And you also realize that the US and European oil companies
> basically ripped off the Arabs for decades before they wised up and
> took back the oil fields that were theirs in the first place, Right?
This is another place we differ. I don't always take the cynical view of the
US first. Maybe I'll read the book you've mentioned. Up until then, I'm not
always going to assume the US is out to screw everybody. As I said
previously, if we really wanted to screw them, we'd just take the oil fields
and be done with it.
>
> It's interesting you should say that - I was listening to NPR
> yesterday and they played some Smithsonian recordings made right after
> Pearl Harbor and some made right after 9/11. In 1941 there was a LOT
> more overt racism, and a LOT more knee-jerk "let's go kill a bunch of
> them".
I hate to say this, but there's probably a lot of this now too, only you
don't hear it spoken out loud.
>
> Anyway, I don't know if "blame" is the right word for the
> over-reaction. I would just say that I "notice" it and I comment on
> it and argue against it. But politically, I think Ashcroft and his
> ilk would LOVE to curtail a number of freedoms - and I think the whole
> 9/11 thing is being used as a cover for doing some things they would
> love to do anyway, but otherwise couldn't.
Again, a very cynical view, I feel. Is it because Ashcroft is a Republican?
If, God forbid, Gore had won and his AG was taking similar steps, would you
be as upset?
I think the main reason I'm not as upset as some seem to be is twofold. One,
I expected this. I have been telling friends for years that Americans would
eventually have to give up some personal freedoms in the name of catching
criminals. Little did I know, I really meant to say terrorists.
Two, we have laws, courts and a constitution. In the end, I count on them to
protect me from over-zealous people on either side of the aisle.
>
> For example, my illustrious Governor, the Honorable Jesse the Body
> Ventura is planning a trip to Cuba - and the Bush administration,
> according to today's paper, has "encouraged" him not to go. The
> spokesman for the administration (I don't recall offhand who it was)
> said it would be bad for a US governor to visit a "hostile terrorist
> nation." When was the last bit of "terrorism" attributable to Cuba?
> I think "terrorism" is just the buzzword of the day for people we want
> as enemies - much like "madman".
>
I think we agree and disagree on this. I agree that the use of terrorism in
the case of Castro is silly. However, any American politician giving any
creedence to Castro, should be looked at as a form of appeasement.
The term madman. The problem with the term is, thank God, no one can live up
to the standard set by Hitler. So everyone else seems diminished in
comparison. I think Saddam is a madman, using the definition I use. I don't
think he's insane. I think he is like a Charles Manson, a degenerate genuis.
I've heard law enforcement call Manson "crazy like a fox". That's Saddam
Hussien to me.
While contentious at times, I've enjoyed this conversation with you SS, and
look forward to your final comments on what I've written.
TC
SemiScholar
Sorry, but I don't buy all that. First of all, we got ourselves
addicted, and it's not fair to kill the dealer if he doesn't give you
the price you want. And second, what you're saying is "I'm a free
market kinda guy, but without principle. If the free market doesn't
give me what I want, I'll make sure my own friends are in control of
whatever it is so I'll get the price I want. And if someone else
wants to butt in, I'll kill him."
>
>> I agree 100%. But while dealing with them may be a necessity, it's a
>> necessity of our own making. There was no such necessity in 1820. We
>> have created our own dependence on oil, and while it is necessary for
>> our current lifestyle, it is not necessary for life. Humans spent
>> millions of years without petroleum power, and just because we have
>> addicted ourselves to it doesn't mean that now we have the right to
>> that oil. It's not ours, and if they just plain old don't want to
>> sell it to us at all, that gives us no right to go take it. If your
>> heroin dealer doesn't want to sell you any more heroin, you don't have
>> the right to kill him and take his stash.
>
>I could make a few unrelated political points here, like our country
>survived before Social Security and Medicare too, but people are just as
>addicted to them, however, maybe I'll leave them for another day.
I understand your those points without you even having to make them.
But they're irrelevant to this discussion.
>
>Your point plays into my hand. The US has the power to go over to the middle
>east and take the oil fields. Yet we don't do it.
I HOPE we don't do it. But I have heard plenty of Americans advocate
doing exactly that. As if it's OUR oil and we have a RIGHT to it.
Maybe you're not one of them, but the sentiment certainly does exist.
Also, the US and European nations used to pretty much rule those oil
fields. It was only in the 60's and 70's that the Arabs took them
back, but before that they were virtually US and European territories.
But even though they were nationalized and the Arabs took control of
them, we made sure (as sure as we could) that it was Arabs friendly to
us who would let us still heavily influence prices. There are plenty
of factions in Saudi Arabia who, if they were in power, would produce
oil with very different priorities, including having less concern for
pleasing Americans.
> I'm all for alternative
>energies. I think they could be developed a hell of lot faster if there was
>no oil, actually. I think that would bring immediate hardship and immediate
>entrepenuralism. Keeping the price of oil as resonable as possible not only
>helps the US, but the rest of the world. We don't choose to "steal" it, we
>choose to pay a reasonable price almost as a form of detente at this point.
Oil prices are determined by a lot of interweaving forces. While the
Saudis are sort of "our buddies" - at least the ruling family is much
more pro-west than most Saudi citizens - they would still use their
oil as more of a weapon than they do if they could. But OPEC is not
even all Arab, and with the development of other oil sources in the
former USSR etc. they have lost leverage. And they have become as
addicted to the money as we have to the oil. But that's the point
with Saddam - he likes the money, too. In fact, Saddam taking over
the Saudi oil fields might be a bad thing, but a lot better than a
fundamentalist group in Saudi Arabia overthrowing the princes.
>
>>
>>
>> Yes - great book on the subject: the Prize. My dad was a Bechtel
>> natural gas pipeline guy - spent some time in Baghdad, Cairo, Beirut,
>> etc. And you also realize that the US and European oil companies
>> basically ripped off the Arabs for decades before they wised up and
>> took back the oil fields that were theirs in the first place, Right?
>
>This is another place we differ. I don't always take the cynical view of the
>US first. Maybe I'll read the book you've mentioned. Up until then, I'm not
>always going to assume the US is out to screw everybody.
Not the US, really, but US Oil companies - and European ones. The
Rockefellers, Standard Oil, Texaco, Shell, BP, etc. Think "Dynasty"
or "Dallas", but with REAL money. In the Good Old Days, the Europeans
(and the Americans, although we came into it pretty late in the game)
used to feel a divine right to colonize other countries and relieve
them of their natural resources.
> As I said
>previously, if we really wanted to screw them, we'd just take the oil fields
>and be done with it.
We already did that. They kicked us out, eventually. Maybe now we've
progressed militarily to the point where we could do what you say,
although I doubt it, but certainly back then we couldn't have held
onto them forever. The Brits tried to rule the world, but I think
they found it troublesome. I think it would require genocide, and I
don't think we're willing to do that.
>
>>
>> It's interesting you should say that - I was listening to NPR
>> yesterday and they played some Smithsonian recordings made right after
>> Pearl Harbor and some made right after 9/11. In 1941 there was a LOT
>> more overt racism, and a LOT more knee-jerk "let's go kill a bunch of
>> them".
>
>I hate to say this, but there's probably a lot of this now too, only you
>don't hear it spoken out loud.
That's why I used the word "overt" - back then they just came out and
said it. But I'd like to think we have progressed and there is less
racism today. Not all of us, of course, but most of us.
>
>>
>> Anyway, I don't know if "blame" is the right word for the
>> over-reaction. I would just say that I "notice" it and I comment on
>> it and argue against it. But politically, I think Ashcroft and his
>> ilk would LOVE to curtail a number of freedoms - and I think the whole
>> 9/11 thing is being used as a cover for doing some things they would
>> love to do anyway, but otherwise couldn't.
>
>Again, a very cynical view, I feel. Is it because Ashcroft is a Republican?
No, it's because he's a religious nutcase who is convinced that he
knows the will of God.
>If, God forbid, Gore had won and his AG was taking similar steps, would you
>be as upset?
I don't think Gore would be taking all the same steps in terms of the
Homeland Defense Department and holding US citizens against the
constitution, but if he did, then I would complain similarly. But the
democrats don't seem to be as eager to do that sort of thing as the
repubs.
>
>I think the main reason I'm not as upset as some seem to be is twofold. One,
>I expected this. I have been telling friends for years that Americans would
>eventually have to give up some personal freedoms in the name of catching
>criminals. Little did I know, I really meant to say terrorists.
>
>Two, we have laws, courts and a constitution. In the end, I count on them to
>protect me from over-zealous people on either side of the aisle.
Your name isn't Jose Padilla, is it?
Besides - you just said you're willing to give up some freedoms (am I
wrong to read: weaken the constitution, laws and courts?) and then in
the next paragraph you say you count on the protection of the very
things you just said you want to weaken.
>
>>
>> For example, my illustrious Governor, the Honorable Jesse the Body
>> Ventura is planning a trip to Cuba - and the Bush administration,
>> according to today's paper, has "encouraged" him not to go. The
>> spokesman for the administration (I don't recall offhand who it was)
>> said it would be bad for a US governor to visit a "hostile terrorist
>> nation." When was the last bit of "terrorism" attributable to Cuba?
>> I think "terrorism" is just the buzzword of the day for people we want
>> as enemies - much like "madman".
>>
>
>I think we agree and disagree on this. I agree that the use of terrorism in
>the case of Castro is silly. However, any American politician giving any
>creedence to Castro, should be looked at as a form of appeasement.
I think Jesse's right on. If we can deal with China, we can deal with
Cuba. This fetish about Castro is just so 20th Century.
>
>The term madman. The problem with the term is, thank God, no one can live up
>to the standard set by Hitler. So everyone else seems diminished in
>comparison. I think Saddam is a madman, using the definition I use.
You're a big Lewis Carroll fan? 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty
said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to
mean, neither more nor less.'
Okay, write your own dictionary. But don't be surprised when nobody
knows what the hell you're talking about. Well, perhaps that's a bit
harsh in this case, because the majority of Americans probably would
agree with your usage and I'm probably in the minority - but I stick
to my position anyway. They guy's not nuts - except inasmuchas he has
an inordinate desire to be in control and doesn't mind murdering
people who get in his way. But I don't think we ought to count on him
being crazy or stupid when we deal with him. I think we ought to
treat him like a wily snake.
> I don't
>think he's insane. I think he is like a Charles Manson, a degenerate genuis.
>I've heard law enforcement call Manson "crazy like a fox". That's Saddam
>Hussien to me.
Well, okay - I can't argue TOO much with that. He's certainly not
someone I would invite to a dinner party. But I think it's a mistake
to consider your enemy "stupid" or "crazy". I think that's a form of
underestimating the enemy, and it can have bad consequences.
>
>While contentious at times, I've enjoyed this conversation with you SS, and
>look forward to your final comments on what I've written.
>
It has been a pleasant divergence from the usual usenet "discussion
which degenrates into a scatalogical description of each other's
family trees. I sometimes just avoid usenet for months at a time just
because it seems pointless. But I come back from time to time in the
hopes of having such a discussion with those who disagree with me -
that's how I hear opposing views and soemtimes I actually learn
things.
But I mainly see wack-jobs like Julian, who make wild statements about
killing 100 of "them" for every one of "ours". Then I can go into the
typical usenet confrontational mode, too. When I came back to usenet
this time, after a several month absence, I decided to try it with
most of the wack-jobs killfiled and see if the quality of the threads
seemed to rise. It is better, but I still see way too much "yer a
poopy-head" stuff. In the future, if we meet again on another thread
and I start getting too "usenet" on you, please remind me of this
exchange - remind me that I pledged to keep it on a higher level - I
think we can conduct a better exchange than the usual discussions
around here, and that's what makes usenet worthwhile.
topcat
SemiScholar wrote:
>
> Your name isn't Jose Padilla, is it?
No
>
> Besides - you just said you're willing to give up some freedoms (am I
> wrong to read: weaken the constitution, laws and courts?) and then in
> the next paragraph you say you count on the protection of the very
> things you just said you want to weaken.
No, I said (again maybe not too clearly), that in my mind the we have to be
somewhat flexible on our rights issue in the name of security. I count on
laws, courts and the constitution to not allow the loss of rights to go too
far.
> >
> >The term madman. The problem with the term is, thank God, no one can live
up
> >to the standard set by Hitler. So everyone else seems diminished in
> >comparison. I think Saddam is a madman, using the definition I use.
>
> You're a big Lewis Carroll fan? 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty
> said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to
> mean, neither more nor less.'
>
> Okay, write your own dictionary. But don't be surprised when nobody
> knows what the hell you're talking about. Well, perhaps that's a bit
> harsh in this case, because the majority of Americans probably would
> agree with your usage and I'm probably in the minority - but I stick
> to my position anyway.
Yes, I think it is a little harsh. In theory I have my perception of a
madman, in practice there are obviously degrees of just how much of a madman
someone is. Hitler and Stalin strike me as total madmen, while someone like
Saddam either doesn't have the power or inclination to reach their level.
> But I mainly see wack-jobs like Julian, who make wild statements about
> killing 100 of "them" for every one of "ours". Then I can go into the
> typical usenet confrontational mode, too. When I came back to usenet
> this time, after a several month absence, I decided to try it with
> most of the wack-jobs killfiled and see if the quality of the threads
> seemed to rise. It is better, but I still see way too much "yer a
> poopy-head" stuff. In the future, if we meet again on another thread
> and I start getting too "usenet" on you, please remind me of this
> exchange - remind me that I pledged to keep it on a higher level - I
> think we can conduct a better exchange than the usual discussions
> around here, and that's what makes usenet worthwhile.
>
I'll be sure to remind you, if necessary. I suffer from the same issues as
you've described here. From time to time, I just take a few days off because
I don't feel like arguing or I'm not in the mood to be called a "stupid,
racist, greedy, conservative republican". It gets old sometimes. Catch up to
you in another thread hopefully.
TC
Milt
>
> SemiScholar wrote:
>
> >
> > Your name isn't Jose Padilla, is it?
>
> No
>
> >
> > Besides - you just said you're willing to give up some freedoms (am I
> > wrong to read: weaken the constitution, laws and courts?) and then in
> > the next paragraph you say you count on the protection of the very
> > things you just said you want to weaken.
>
> No, I said (again maybe not too clearly), that in my mind the we have to
be
> somewhat flexible on our rights issue in the name of security. I count on
> laws, courts and the constitution to not allow the loss of rights to go
too
> far.
You do? Why? Lawmakers and judges are the most likely to become powerful and
abuse our rights and compromise our security. We can't count on them; we
have to be vigilant ourselves. Besides; what's "too far"? If there is one
thing our government has done quite a bit in our history is to "go too
far"...
>
> > >
> > >The term madman. The problem with the term is, thank God, no one can
live
> up
> > >to the standard set by Hitler. So everyone else seems diminished in
> > >comparison. I think Saddam is a madman, using the definition I use.
> >
> > You're a big Lewis Carroll fan? 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty
> > said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to
> > mean, neither more nor less.'
> >
> > Okay, write your own dictionary. But don't be surprised when nobody
> > knows what the hell you're talking about. Well, perhaps that's a bit
> > harsh in this case, because the majority of Americans probably would
> > agree with your usage and I'm probably in the minority - but I stick
> > to my position anyway.
>
> Yes, I think it is a little harsh. In theory I have my perception of a
> madman, in practice there are obviously degrees of just how much of a
madman
> someone is. Hitler and Stalin strike me as total madmen, while someone
like
> Saddam either doesn't have the power or inclination to reach their level.
>
I agree with that, but really; would you have thought Hitler a madman as a
German in 1933? Very few people saw him that way. And most of the shit
Stalin did through most of his career he did so secretly that people didn't
know it until very late. Even with Saddam Hussein; was he a madman when we
installed him in power in Iraq?
Jefferson said "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance." The reason we
have to be vigilant is because you don't have any way of knowing who's going
to take away your rights or when. Who's more likely to get away with taking
them away, really? Someone who is obviously a nut and outwardly trying to
take them away, or someone smiling and calm and taking them away because
he's your daddy and knows better? I'm a skeptic, and I dont' trust anyone
with protecting rights, and I look at any situation for a potential
undermining of those rights. There is a balance, and no rights are absolute,
but while the balance between safety and rights is sometimes delicate, we
have to make sure the aim isn't the effect of throwing out the baby with the
bath water. I have no problem with waiting in line at the airport. But the
right to due process should be absolute in all cases; there is never a
safety reason for denying that.
--
Milt
The Daily Weasel -- The Official Web Site of the group that's been kicking
right wing ass since 1995
The latest News! Original Columns! Humor! And even a free MP3 download about
"Dubya!"
http://www.lyingsocialistweasels.com
SemiScholar
>
>"topcat" <top...@aboy.com> wrote in message
>news:aliv0h$4cm$1...@news.monmouth.com...
>>
>> SemiScholar wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Okay, write your own dictionary. But don't be surprised when nobody
>> > knows what the hell you're talking about. Well, perhaps that's a bit
>> > harsh in this case, because the majority of Americans probably would
>> > agree with your usage and I'm probably in the minority - but I stick
>> > to my position anyway.
>>
>> Yes, I think it is a little harsh. In theory I have my perception of a
>> madman, in practice there are obviously degrees of just how much of a
>madman
>> someone is. Hitler and Stalin strike me as total madmen, while someone
>like
>> Saddam either doesn't have the power or inclination to reach their level.
>>
>I agree with that, but really; would you have thought Hitler a madman as a
>German in 1933? Very few people saw him that way. And most of the shit
>Stalin did through most of his career he did so secretly that people didn't
>know it until very late. Even with Saddam Hussein; was he a madman when we
>installed him in power in Iraq?
Huh? We didn't install Saddam in power in Iraq. Wherever did you get
that idea? He was mostly a Soviet-sphere guy, although even they
didn't "install" him - he installed himself. He was only a marginal
"friend" of the US during the Iran-Iraq war, and that was only because
he was fighting Iran, whom we hated even more than Saddam. But he was
never a US puppet.
Havi Nagila
If you believe that, then I have some swampland you might like to build your
dream home on.
Iraq is almost 2/3 Shiite Muslim. After the Iranian revolution, the CIA was
seriously worried about haveing two Muslim theocracies in the area, and the
danger to oil supplies. While they didn't exactly install him, per se, they
made sure that HE took over the government and then propped him up to make
sure Muslim fundamentalists didnt take over the country. They also pumped
him up, in the hope that Iran would destabilize. Not only were the United
States and the Soviet Union selling him anything he needed, so were the
Israelis.
And don't discount the possibility that Soviet and US influence were
involved, because that was the case, although ours was more covert.
Publicly, during the Iranian war, we were "neutral." In reality, that simply
is not the case.
SemiScholar
Excuse me, milt, but Iraq was primarily in the sphere of Soviet
influence. Their weapons and support came from the USSR. That's why
they had all those SCUD missiles.
>They also pumped
>him up, in the hope that Iran would destabilize. Not only were the United
>States and the Soviet Union selling him anything he needed, so were the
>Israelis.
>
>And don't discount the possibility that Soviet and US influence were
>involved, because that was the case, although ours was more covert.
>Publicly, during the Iranian war, we were "neutral." In reality, that simply
>is not the case.
>
Interesting fantasies on your part - you make them up out of thin air,
or did someone tell you this stuff? Because you surely don't know any
of it from personal experience.
Milt
"SemiScholar" <semis...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9hbsnu0mmta6beft0...@4ax.com...
During the late 70s, early 80s? Not hardly. They were bogged down in
Afghanistan and their economy was collapsing. WE were selling them arms the
entire time, as was every country with an interest in putting down another
extrmist Muslim revolution.
> Their weapons and support came from the USSR. That's why
> they had all those SCUD missiles.
A lot of their weapons did come from the USSR. So what? Our CIA and their
KGB made sure that Saddam gained enough power to keep the fundamentalists
out of power. Like I said, even Israel was selling him weapons in the war
with Iran.
>
>
> >They also pumped
> >him up, in the hope that Iran would destabilize. Not only were the United
> >States and the Soviet Union selling him anything he needed, so were the
> >Israelis.
> >
> >And don't discount the possibility that Soviet and US influence were
> >involved, because that was the case, although ours was more covert.
> >Publicly, during the Iranian war, we were "neutral." In reality, that
simply
> >is not the case.
> >
>
> Interesting fantasies on your part - you make them up out of thin air,
> or did someone tell you this stuff? Because you surely don't know any
> of it from personal experience.
>
Fantasies? Yours is the fantasy. The fantasy is that any country could have
survived a difficult war during the 80s while depending mainly on Soviet
aid.
BTW, a few weeks before the Gulf "War", Bush sent a delegation with gifts to
Saddam to celebrate his birthday. Ask yourself why.
--
Milt
The Daily Weasel
Check out our new sections.
http://www.lyingsocialistweasels.com