Aircraft Carriers Collide and Sink!
Canadian
What an excellent bit of news that would be! Already two F-18s collided
and crashed, killing at least one pilot. I was so happy when I heard that
news. It serves them right for doing the nasty, evil things that they
went over there do in the Arabian (Persian) Gulf region. Maybe a
whirlpool or something like that in the ocean can sink those ugly
warships. It's time for the sucker troops to realize that they have no
legitimate purpose to be there (killing innocent civilians) and they are
being used as guinea pigs by their governments (remember Gulf War
Syndrome-perhaps caused by experimental drugs being used on them by the
military). And it's time that the public worldwide wakes up.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
casey
Canadian wrote in message <886881195....@dejanews.com>...
>What an excellent bit of news that would be! Already two F-18s collided
>and crashed, killing at least one pilot. I was so happy when I heard that
>news. It serves them right for doing the nasty, evil things that they
>went over there do in the Arabian (Persian) Gulf region. Maybe a
>whirlpool or something like that in the ocean can sink those ugly
>warships. It's time for the sucker troops to realize that they have no
>legitimate purpose to be there (killing innocent civilians) and they are
>being used as guinea pigs by their governments (remember Gulf War
>Syndrome-perhaps caused by experimental drugs being used on them by the
>military). And it's time that the public worldwide wakes up.
It's time you wake up to the fact that an American pilot has died. that
means nothing to you? i have been against any military intervention since
1990 but the simple fact is that the world needs to be rid of people like
you who think that when an Arab dies it's thime to end the evil exploits of
the americans but when an american dies it's time to open a bottle of
champagne and have a party. That pilot was as innocent as the civilians you
speak of, he was just flying a plane to enforce the no-fly zone. He didn't
kill anyone. And as for drug testing, you are full of shit. The Gulf War
Syndrome has at this point no cause that can be proven. Furthermore,
explain why troops would not have that reaction to chmical weapons
encountered when iraqi chemical depots were destroyed. Remeber all those
bombings on CNN? They weren't all milk factories.
When you come up with some facts instead of jumping at the chance to bash
someone else, then come back to the net. Until then get the hell off.
casey
Besq
What's wrong with you? This is the Iraqi newsgroup; they can say what
they please. Take your own advice.
Aso Ali
Muslim wrote:
> What are the damned Yanks doing in the middle of the Muslim world? This
> notion of national interest - What is it? Since when does going to the
> Persian Gulf - a sea surrounded by Arabs and Persians - make it American
> national interest? Why don't you Jew lovers go back to the Americas? You
> know very well the people on this side of the world don't welcome you!
Wait a minuet, aren't the Arabs were the one called for the Americans to
save their Ass's when Saddamn invaded Kuwait and was heading for the
Saudi's, or the hypocrite Nation of Arabia have an amnesia and can not
recall what they have done yesterday . I have not seen such hypocrisy in my
life as the one been demonstrated by Arabs and their brother Muslims in
current crises . Now Arabs Want to save poor Saddamn, a victim of his
madness , not only that but the Arabs hypocrisy goes to extend to say that "
they want to save the Iraqi people and not Saddamn " , when Saddamn killed
hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq, those pathetic Arabs
and Muslims did not even bother to condemn the criminal acts of Hussain
during the 70 's and the 80's .No, Saddamn was the good man and now he is
the victim . You Arabs butt off and go and save your own people that most of
them suffer under dictatorships similar to One that of Saddam . Good job
USA and hope to drop more bombs on Saddams head .
an Iraqi
firefly
You Ass
You need one of this bombs on your had.
George
Muslim
Muslim
Are you going to drop it on my head dickhead!
B-Nez
>went over there do in the Arabian (Persian) Gulf region.
That's funny, the 9 or 10 times I've been to Saudi, I've met loads of
Canadian "sucker troops", as well as French, Italian, and British
soldiers and aviators. Would you be singing the same tune if it had
been 2 of your pilots?
B-Nez
FC3S-NAX Driver
Sid D. Al-Omari
casey wrote:
> That pilot was as innocent as the civilians you
> speak of, he was just flying a plane to enforce the no-fly zone. He didn't
> kill anyone.
Are you serious???....you really think that the pilots are innocent???
then how can you be against military intervention..if you know that your
pilots are just poor, nice chaps that are so considerate..!!! these
pilots where shooting iraqis and screaming on the frequency"we are
shooting fish in a barrel". these are the pilots that shot one of their
own and screamed"stick a fork in him!!!" they might be nice..but they
sure are stupid..to generate more casualties for themselves than what
the Iraqi army did.
> And as for drug testing, you are full of shit. The Gulf War
> Syndrome has at this point no cause that can be proven.
This does not mean anything...It only enforces the idea that the
government screwed up.
> Furthermore, explain why troops would not have that reaction to chmical weapons
> encountered when iraqi chemical depots were destroyed. Remember all those
> bombings on CNN? They weren't all milk factories.
Actually you are contradicting your self...you are saying that if the
troops suffered a chemical reaction then they would have encountered it
from the bombing of the so-called chemical factories..but the troops
were not even close to these factories. and these factories are situated
within residential areas.where the people would suffer sypmtoms related
to the GWS,but they didn't..so these factories did in fact produce
milk...and the UN inspection commission certified this..but I guess you
don't follow up on that. We only bombed these factories because they
are part of a (destruction package) that is designed to take down the
whole infrastructure of a country...the war was directed against the
civilians not the army...
> then come back to the net. Until then get the hell off.
> casey
I wasn't aware that we needed your permission to get on!!!
I thought you lived under a democracy????
Sid
Ashor
How did the Gulf War end?
Did Iraq agree to a cease fire terms? or surrendered? or conditionally
surendered?
As an Iraqi, I am rebuffed when it comes to this issue, I believe that
Iraq agrred to a conditional surrender, otherwise, why would all these
UNSCOM be walking freely in Iraq and suppose to search anyplace they
seem suspecious. We have seen lots of cease fires in other wars which
involved the USA, take for example the Vietnem war, and for that fact
the UN War in Korea. None of them ended the same way that the Gulf war
had, none of those countries had been humiliated as Iraq has been, that
leads me to believe that the Gulf war ended with Iraq surrendering with
conditions.
Propper discussion is encouraged..
Best of regards,
Ashor
Richard Jackson
I can only speak from what I saw and heard from the Press in the USA.
It appears that once faced with overwhelming forces, Iraqui forces
pretty much ceased fire and withdrew. Ath the same time, the allied
forces fighting Iraq stopped the systematic slaughter of Iraqui forces
once they realized an full fledged retrograde action was in progress.
Once both sides had separated and stopped shooting, a settlement of
hostilities was undertaken. To call it a conditional surrender may be
too harsh a term. From this vantage point, it appears that both sides
decided that it was time for the slaughter to stop.
I am not saying that the men of Iraq were not brave. The thousands upon
thousands of them that died fighting for their country prove otherwise.
No man can stand against overwhelming odds.
I do believe there were a couple of reasons that allied forces did not
continue to advance into Iraq and seek an unconditional surrender afrer
conquering that nation.
1. I believe that allied forces would have suffered much greater losses
had Iraq been invaded. There is much difference between attacking a man
defending someone else's territory he himself has conquered and fighting
the same man defending his native land.
2. The Qur'an teaches us we should be merciful in battle when an enemy
stops fignting. The allied forces were comprized of many nations, many
of which are Muslim. While American forces could have continued
fighting without the troups of the Muslim nations in the coalition, they
could not have continued fighting without the support of their
governments. Especially Saudi Arabia. If the American forces had
continued to advance into Iraq, there may have been a very good
possibility that they might have been cut off from their lines of
supply. That is what eventually defeated Rommel in North Africa during
WWII.
3. If the Coalition forces had conquered Iraq and deposed Sadaam
Hussen, who would have stepped forward to take his place in the power
vaccum in that region? The possibility of Iran, or ultra liberal Muslim
clergy taking over may have been more frightening than leaving Sadaam
where he was to the Americans. I think they felt that the Iranian
people would remove Hussen from within the country. More than likely
the military commanders in a coup. This did not work out. America
underestimated the strength Hussen had in his country, and the
effectiveness of the combination of his security forces and propaganda
within his own country.
Just a few thoughts .
Richard Jackson
Ashor
Richard Jackson wrote:
> 3. If the Coalition forces had conquered Iraq and deposed Sadaam
> Hussen, who would have stepped forward to take his place in the power
> vaccum in that region? The possibility of Iran, or ultra liberal Muslim
> clergy taking over may have been more frightening than leaving Sadaam
> where he was to the Americans. I think they felt that the Iranian
> people would remove Hussen from within the country. More than likely
> the military commanders in a coup. This did not work out. America
> underestimated the strength Hussen had in his country, and the
> effectiveness of the combination of his security forces and propaganda
> within his own country.
>
> Just a few thoughts .
>
> Richard Jackson
Thank you Mr. Jackson for your very informative thoughts, I really
appreciate it.
However, I still believed that there was some kind of surrender (even if
it is too harsh of a word) agreement took place. Once on one of the
Arabian stattelite TV programs, there was this individual from some
Arabian country (I forgot which country) which he represented it in the
Arabian League, he made a comment that got me more interested in knowing
the all the details of the cease hostilities agreement in the Gulf war,
this person said that if the Iraqi people knew what Saddam had agreed on
to stop hostilities, they would cut him to pieces....
Know, I don't know how much true was there in his comments, but it did
get me wondering till now, and all these free movements and access of
UNSCOM teams do lead me to believe that there was more than a cease fire
agreement.
Best of regards,
Ashor
Roger
casey wrote:
Canadian wrote:
> > >What an excellent bit of news that would be! Already two F-18s collided
> > >and crashed,.....
(big snit)
> > When you come up with some facts instead of jumping at the chance to bash
> > someone else, then come back to the net. Until then get the hell off.
> > casey
> ***********
> What's wrong with you? This is the Iraqi newsgroup; they can say what
> they please. Take your own advice.
Not only that, this newsgroup is supposed to cover the topic of
culture...
Doris
-----------------------------------------------------
PENTAGON STEPS UP DRIVE FOR
WORLD DOMINATION: WHAT FUELS WAR
ON IRAQ?
By Fred Goldstein
The Iraq crisis has brought into bold relief one of the
contradictions plaguing U.S. imperialism as it strives to
assert absolute world domination in the post-Soviet era.
It is the contradiction between its growing military
firepower and its increasing political isolation
It is against this background that the U.S. government
moves closer and closer to a new Gulf War.
When the United States led the imperialist world into the
Gulf War in 1991, it had marshaled 265,000 troops from 27
other countries in addition to its own troops.
These included the Western European imperialist powers
as well as oppressed countries, including Egypt and Syria,
dragooned into the fray.
Washington was the ringleader of a grand alliance to
"protect" the hundreds of billions of barrels of oil
reserves in Kuwait--and potentially in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain
and the United Arab Emirates.
There was no threat to the natural resources themselves.
The threat was to the control of oil extraction and
production, which is dominated by the big imperialist oil
companies in the United States and Europe. The Iraqi
government was attempting to assert some independence.
In the current crisis, Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright has gone to Europe and to the Arab states of Egypt,
Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Kuwait. United Nations
Ambassador Bill Richardson has gone to Sweden, Portugal,
Slovenia, Kenya, Gambia, Brazil, Gabon and Costa Rica--the
non-permanent members of the UN Security Council.
Secretary of Defense William Cohen was in Europe to lobby
Italy, France and Germany. President Bill Clinton made a
phone call to Saudi King Fahd.
After all the diplomacy, arm twisting, threatening and
promising was over, only the British government--the United
States' longtime junior partner--and its dependencies Canada
and Australia, plus the puppet sheikdoms of Kuwait, Bahrain
and Oman, would stand by Washington. And, except for the
British government, that support is lukewarm.
No matter how many other dependent governments the Clinton
administration coerces to pay lip service to this motley
"coalition," it will not change the utter isolation of U.S.
imperialism.
German Chancellor Helmut Kohl gave verbal support and
offered the use of German bases, which are not needed for
military operations in the Gulf, in what has been widely
characterized as a token show of support.
FEAR OF THE MASSES
Why are the former Gulf War allies reluctant?
Among the Arab governments it is clear. They fear the
masses.
Amre Moussa, Egypt's foreign minister, told a Washington
Post reporter on Feb. 6 in a diplomatic understatement: "The
whole Middle East is not comfortable with this, and I don't
think there is support for [a military strike by the U.S.
and Britain]. All of us will face the consequences of such a
military attack."
Saudi Arabian Defense Minister Prince Sultan's feudal
monarchy despises and fears the secular, modern, nationalist
regime of Saddam Hussein and its anti-imperialist posture.
Nevertheless he was compelled to openly oppose his U.S.
masters in their demands to use Saudi Arabia to stage air
attacks on Iraq.
"We do not favor striking Iraq as a people and as a
nation," the prince was widely quoted as saying in Saudi
news reports. (New York Times, Feb. 9) Such a statement
could only arise from fear of publicly giving aid to U.S.
aggression.
The French imperialists, of course, have no interest in
seeing their U.S. rivals strengthened. The United States has
been trying to sabotage French deals for oil with both Iraq
and Iran. Now Washington has the arrogance to demand that
Paris line up behind its war.
The Yeltsin regime in Russia is wary that not only will it
be shut out of the Middle East, but that the high-tech,
deep-penetration weapons the Pentagon wants to test in Iraq
could be used against Russia itself.
FIGHTING THE GULF WAR AGAIN
With the Clinton administration edging closer to a
military adventure in Iraq, anxiety and pessimism about the
plan are spreading--even as new ships, planes and troops are
ordered to the region.
Washington knows that the Iraqi people's hatred of the
United States is now so great that bombing will not bend
their will. In fact, it could set off a firestorm of protest
against U.S. imperialism throughout the Arab world. A U.S.
military strike at this time could also further deepen the
split within the NATO alliance.
So what's behind such a seemingly perilous strategy?
Washington puts the issue in terms of destroying
biological and chemical weapons. But this is strictly for
popular consumption.
Of course, the imperialists want to disarm any oppressed
country that defies them. That goes without saying. It is
fine for the United States to have enough nuclear weapons to
destroy the globe. But for Iraq--faced with not only with
the Pentagon threat but a nuclear-armed Israel--to have any
comparable weapon is strictly forbidden.
Yet with all the military means at the disposal of the
United States, fear of Iraqi weapons can only be regarded as
a secondary issue.
In fact, Clinton may have inadvertently revealed the
underlying tendency driving this crisis during his joint
news conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair. When
asked whether or not the United States intended to overthrow
Saddam Hussein, Clinton replied: "I don't believe we need to
refight the Gulf War. It's history. It happened, that's the
way it is. I don't believe we need to get into a direct war
with Iraq over the leadership of the country."
The political debates in Washington and on the editorial
pages of the capitalist press make it clear that what's
behind this crisis is the pressure to fight the Gulf War
again--only this time to destroy the regime of Saddam
Hussein.
It must never be forgotten that Iraq has 100 billion
barrels of proven oil reserves. That is just shy of one-
tenth of the world's 1.1 trillion barrels. The U.S. ruling
class and sections of the military believe they came close
to having it all during the Gulf War of 1991.
They feel that while they were poised for the kill, the
Bush administration, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. Colin
Powell and theater commander Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf pulled
up short.
This dispute broke out the day after the war was over. It
has never been put to rest.
The Pentagon and the military-industrial complex have been
preparing to refight the war for six years. "Frustrated by
their inability to fully immobilize Saddam Hussein in
Operation Desert Storm," the Feb. 1 Washington Post wrote,
"the military has spent huge amounts of money and time
developing weapons that can accomplish their task with
greater accuracy and deadliness."
The article went on to describe new "smart" bombs tied in
to a satellite-guided global positioning system, new "bunker
buster" deep-penetration bombs and other Pentagon weapons of
mass destruction.
Rep. Newt Gingrich and Sen. Trent Lott, the Republican
leaders of Congress, support the military buildup. But at
the same time they are baiting Clinton about limiting the
military objective to destroying Iraq's military capability.
They demand the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
This could be passed off as election-year demagogy--but
for a letter drawn up by Richard Perle and former Democratic
Rep. Steven Solarz, which has been circulating in Congress
since Jan. 26. Perle was an assistant secretary of defense
under Ronald Reagan and has emerged as a representative of
the tendency in the ruling class that wants to refight the
Gulf War.
"It can no longer be argued," Perle wrote in the Feb. 8
Washington Post, "that stopping half way is good enough. The
idea that we and our allies could find safety in a
`contained' Saddam Hussein encouraged the Bush
administration to halt Desert Storm before the job was
done."
The letter, directed to Clinton, has 18 signers. It calls
for "removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power."
(Washington Post, Feb. 5)
Among the signers are R. James Woolsey, Clinton's first
director of the CIA; Donald Rumsfeld, secretary of defense
under Reagan; Paula Dobriansky, head of the Washington
office of the Council on Foreign Relations; Robert Zoellick,
a key foreign-policy adviser to Bush; leading right-wing
ideologue William Bennett, secretary of education under
Reagan and "drug czar" under Bush; and Robert Kagan of the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who recently
wrote an article for the right-wing Weekly Standard calling
for ground troops in Iraq.
The signers are not agreed on a program. But the Perle
group has separately elaborated a plan to promote the CIA
puppet group called the Iraq National Congress, which is
based in northern Iraq.
The Perle plan calls for the Hussein government to be
expelled from the United Nations. Then the United States
would recognize the INC and ply it with money taken from
frozen Iraqi national assets. Washington would also supply
it with military power and air cover.
Other schemes build on this scenario and call for using
the Iranian government to bolster the effort.
RECRIMINATIONS IN THE RULING CLASS
While such scenarios are gaining currency in Washington as
an alternative to the use of U.S. ground forces, it is not
possible to tell to what degree this reflects military and
ruling-class sentiment. But there are always recriminations
within the military and the ruling class when they do not
get their way on the battlefield.
Recriminations against the Kennedy administration for not
supplying air cover and going all out militarily to
overthrow Fidel Castro in 1961 may very well have fed the
reactionary political current that carried out his
assassination.
The U.S. struggle to destroy Cuba has not
abated in 39 years.
To this day the United States has not recognized the
results of the Korean War. It has not permitted a peace
treaty with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to
this day--45 years after the Korean people, supported by the
Chinese People's Republic and the USSR, fought world
imperialism to a standstill. The United States still stands
poised with 37,000 troops and nuclear weapons to resume the
war. Washington has never surrendered the goal of
reconquering the north.
For years after the Vietnam War, the bitterest
recriminations went on within the military over how the
United States held back and did not really use its full
military potential--meaning more massive bombing and nuclear
weapons.
All these setbacks for U.S. imperialism took place
during the era of the USSR, whose military and political
strength were a deterrent to the Pentagon.
It is the greatest frustration to the military establishment
and ruling class to be unable to vanquish the Iraqi regime
and conquer the country when there is no great
military power standing in their way.
FEAR OF THE WORKERS AND OPPRESSED IN THE U.S.
What they will not admit out loud, however, is that what
stood in their way of taking Baghdad in 1991 is the same
thing that stands in their way now.
And in some ways it is more powerful than the
deterrence of the former USSR.
It is fear of the masses worldwide and here
in the United States.
What stopped them from going all the way in 1991 was fear
of a rebellion at home if they sent the soldiers to die in a
war for Big Oil.
They boast now about how their polls show support for an
attack on Iraq.
But they know how superficial that support
is--should it become a question of sending soldiers for
house-to-house combat with an armed people defending their
country against imperialist aggression.
That could cause a rapid shift from support to
militant anti-war sentiment.
All the right-wing pundits are urging Clinton to destroy
the Iraqi government.
Of course, the Clinton administration is undoubtedly trying
to figure how to do just that, but is afraid of saying so
publicly should it fail.
Only the most brazen advisers suggest sending in ground troops.
The entire capitalist news media and all the politicians
are now coming to grips with the limits of air power as the
crisis comes closer and closer.
They all realize that the aggression they are about
to unleash cannot be consummated without claiming
victory on the ground.
And the only way to accomplish that is to get the
workers and the oppressed in the United States to fight.
This has always been the imperialist bourgeoisie's problem
when they wanted to start a big war.
How do you pull in the masses, who do not want
to fight such wars?
They have to resort to manufacturing disasters that
take the masses unawares in order to herd them off to war.
That's what they did when they sank the Maine in order to
start the Spanish-American War of 1898. Or when they sank
the Lusitania during World War I.
Or when Roosevelt maneuvered the Japanese into the
Pearl Harbor attack by cutting off their oil.
Or when Lyndon Johnson stage managed the Gulf of Tonkin
attack that led to the escalation of the Vietnam War.
It may be that the ruling class is afraid of breaking up
capitalist stability at home by dragging the masses into a
military adventure abroad at this moment.
But should the Asian crisis begin to come home to the
United States, the temptation to divert attention from
an economic downturn into a military campaign will
become stronger and stronger.
As the Clinton administration moves closer and closer to a
bloody attack on the Iraqi masses, all progressives must get
into the streets and rouse anti-war protest from every
possible platform. This is the time to mobilize in
solidarity with the people of Iraq and of the Middle East.
arthur barnes
Wow which hallucenagenic products are you ingesting?
1.The pilots of the Iraqi airforce are a military organisation - not boy
scouts ( so they are as guilty as the Americans or not as your pointless
case may be)
2.The Americans were engaging in a conflict involving multi national
forces to pursue the mandate of the UN - not gassing kurds or invading
their nighbours as some local ( or Lo-cal in this case) forces are wont to
do when there is no opposition that can defend itself.
3.As for "fish in a barrel - be honest the Piolts were "pumped up on
Adrenaline" and said stupid stuff............so what? they are human after
all (this is a stupid point you have no brain - what did the Iraqis do
while they were invading another country, say " ooh Im awfully sorry do you
mind putting your hands up?" .
4. As for Stupidity - these pilots can fight and die for there country (
Iraqi Airforce take note ) Its there job. They did not run
away..........Say to Iran. So these guys were bright enough for the task at
hand.
5. As for the Other stuff re the disposal of Chem Weps / Bio Weps
5.1 Dont make them ( or your arse gets kicked)
5.2 Saddam has sufficient CW/BW stockpiled to destroy you me and everyone
else on the Planet - and hes used this stuff before on Women and Children
- so get real
5.3 You have not got a clue - get an education before I start really
kicking your thick opinionated skull...metaphorically of course.
6.0 The Only way to deal with Saddam is to remove the infrastructure and
apparatus that supports him, he is a dangerous maniac who could destroy the
whole world. Nobody with an IQ of more than 60 wants a war, but if he is
not removed from power millions may have to die to prove the simple fact
Chemical Weapons / Nuclear Weapons and Bio Weapons are stupid, dangerous
and ultimatley self defeating. Every country that has them should get rid
of them.
Art
Sid D. Al-Omari <stud...@luc.edu> wrote in article
<34DF9F...@luc.edu>...
> > then come back to the net. Until then get the hell off.
> > casey
FunkDredd Pipex
Ashor wrote in message <34DF80...@uic.edu>...
>How did the Gulf War end?
>Did Iraq agree to a cease fire terms? or surrendered? or conditionally
>surendered?
>
>As an Iraqi, I am rebuffed when it comes to this issue, I believe that
>Iraq agrred to a conditional surrender, otherwise, why would all these
>UNSCOM be walking freely in Iraq and suppose to search anyplace they
>seem suspecious. We have seen lots of cease fires in other wars which
>involved the USA, take for example the Vietnem war, and for that fact
>the UN War in Korea. None of them ended the same way that the Gulf war
>had, none of those countries had been humiliated as Iraq has been, that
>leads me to believe that the Gulf war ended with Iraq surrendering with
>conditions.
Why of course..why should the US be held responsible for
anything.....supporting pol pot the madmen...slaughtering Vietnam.......and
everything else.
The United Nations is The US........the west is good and true....and all you
Arabs are devious liars always up to no good and burning the American flag
for no reason.
White people run the world my friend.
Ashor
What does this has to do with my question?. Hey you, white person, to
your information I am not an Arab.
I thought your flag was the confederate flag, go rule Georgia and
Mississipi first.
arthur barnes
Hey !
the voice of political correctness speaks!
pay attention!
America does bad things, so does
Ethiopia
South Africa
France
UK
Russia
Pakistan
China
Argentina
Chile
and loads of other counties ( Except Tibet - says Hollywood)
or do people do bad things?
Im not sure, one thing is for sure, the end of the conflict was a good
thing. America did not kill Saddam for lots of reasons, mostly I guess
because of the deadly combination of turning him into a martyr and the fact
that a prolonged war would have been bad for the Presidents approval
rating.
Art
FunkDredd Pipex <jn...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in article
<6bvngr$86s$2...@plug.news.pipex.net>...
Warren Lauzon
The only place that I have seen the word "imperialist" used more often is
in the official North Korean News Agency propaganda.
--
Doris wrote in message <6bvfqc$q...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
John Stone
Warren Lauzon wrote:
>
> The only place that I have seen the word "imperialist" used more often is
> in the official North Korean News Agency propaganda.
>
> --
>
> Doris wrote in message <6bvfqc$q...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
> >PENTAGON STEPS UP DRIVE FOR
> >WORLD DOMINATION: WHAT FUELS WAR
> >ON IRAQ?
If the U.S. is "imperialist" what is North Korea? I will take living
in imperialist U.S. than North Korea anyday.
Sid Al-Omari
arthur barnes wrote:
>
> Wow which hallucenagenic products are you ingesting?
grade child!!! but I will stop the insults right here because unlike
you I have manners!
> 1.The pilots of the Iraqi airforce are a military organisation - not boy scouts ( so they are as guilty as the Americans or not as your pointless case may be)
british academy(believe it or not...I don't care)..and they do not
usually get themselves killed.
> 2.The Americans were engaging in a conflict involving multi national
> forces to pursue the mandate of the UN - not gassing kurds or invading
> their nighbours as some local ( or Lo-cal in this case) forces are wont >to do when there is no opposition that can defend itself.
it...they were double crossed by your government and by the british a
dozen times...so your people are no angels my boy. And as for Kuwait,
not only were their Oil interests and conflicts, but reasons beyond your
comprehension....(this is the decision of your government which chose
not to inform you nor the public).
> what did the Iraqis do while they were invading another country, say " > ooh Im awfully sorry do you mind putting your hands up?" .
> 4. As for Stupidity - these pilots can fight and die for there country
What is this supposed to mean.???.they did not fight and die for their
country...they fought for other people's interests, and they died
through screw ups!!!
> 5. As for the Other stuff re the disposal of Chem Weps / Bio Weps
> 5.1 Dont make them ( or your arse gets kicked)
> 5.2 Saddam has sufficient CW/BW stockpiled to destroy you me and everyone else on the Planet - and hes used this stuff before on Women and Children - so get real
> 5.3 You have not got a clue - get an education before I start really
> kicking your thick opinionated skull...metaphorically of course.
OK....I lived in iraq until 1993 as a british subject, and now I am
getting my Law degree after I finished my charter in Public Accounting.
so I think I have some form of an education. And I lived through 2 wars
and have survived your government's policies and hypocracy in the ME
region, to know the facts... So please do not lecture me about any of
this...Because you have niether the experience nor the intellect to
talk.
> Nobody with an IQ of more than 60 wants a war, but if he is
> not removed from power millions may have to die to prove the simple > fact Chemical Weapons / Nuclear Weapons and Bio Weapons are stupid, > dangerous and ultimatley self defeating. Every country that has them > should get rid of them
OK...your country wants the war, your country supplied Iraq with the
chemical and biological capability to produce what is under the
spotlight these days...and your country has more of these weapons than
Iraq will ever have.....so what were you saying???????????????????
Sid
Sid Al-Omari
Roger wrote:
> What's wrong with you? This is the Iraqi newsgroup; they can say
what
> > they please. Take your own advice.
>
> Not only that, this newsgroup is supposed to cover the topic of
> culture...
can say what we please and when it pleases us to say it...
I did not see any culture on soc.culture.usa. or any newsgroup for that
matter...in case you want culture..check out many of the iraqi websites
that explains how we created the concept of culture for you 2000 years
ago...
Sid
NECS
Everybody, don't listen to this moron. This in no American. He's a NAZI.
Burn any crosses lately, you high and mighty member of the master race?
You're slime.
FunkDredd Pipex wrote in message >
da...@thewizardstower.demon.co.uk
On Thu, 12 Feb 1998 16:41:28 -0600, Ashor <u52...@uic.edu> wrote:
>FunkDredd Pipex wrote:
>>
>> Ashor wrote in message <34DF80...@uic.edu>...
>> >How did the Gulf War end?
>> >Did Iraq agree to a cease fire terms? or surrendered? or conditionally
>> >surendered?
>> >
>> >As an Iraqi, I am rebuffed when it comes to this issue, I believe that
>> >Iraq agrred to a conditional surrender, otherwise, why would all these
>> >UNSCOM be walking freely in Iraq and suppose to search anyplace they
>> >seem suspecious.
Well I have not seen the document but it would seem like a
condiotional surrender.
We have seen lots of cease fires in other wars which
>> >involved the USA, take for example the Vietnem war, and for that fact
>> >the UN War in Korea. None of them ended the same way that the Gulf war
>> >had, none of those countries had been humiliated as Iraq has been,
Iraq has not been humiliated in anyone's eyes but Iraq's. Iraq has
been defeated, but has still defied the surrender terms. Not much
humiliation in that.
that
>> >leads me to believe that the Gulf war ended with Iraq surrendering with
>> >conditions.
>>
>> Why of course..why should the US be held responsible for
>> anything.....supporting pol pot the madmen..
?
.slaughtering Vietnam...
?....and
>> everything else.
Let's hear about everything else. Did you forget to mention the latest
attack by crazed minnows against the Kingdom of Neptune?
>> The United Nations is The US
So why won't the US pay its bills? Why is the head of the UN not an
American. It is because the UN refuses to play along with America's
foreign policy dictac that American congresmen and Senator's keep
blocking payment of the overdue monies to the UN.
So try using the UN instead of misrepresenting it.
........the west is good and true....and all you
>> Arabs are devious liars
Polticians come in all nationalities!
always up to no good and burning the American flag
>> for no reason.
>>
>> White people run the world my friend.
>
So how many key department holders at the UN are white?
Money runs the world, along with greed, envy, and sex.
politicall...@usa.net
I agree with you completely. We have no interest in the Middle East
other than to protect our rulers in Israel. What the problem is my
friend, is that my people are enslaved mentally to the Jews. Our media
is totally in their hands and they mold the minds of my people.
With all the money the Arabic people have you could beat the Jews at
their own game, but you have never understood this. Your people could
buy up our media or better yet, fund your enemies enemy to do the
same. If the National Alliance had the economic support, we could
destroy the Jews power base in America and Europe. We know our people
and know how to reach them but are limited by money.
Keep this in mind the next time you get angry at us Europeans. We are
as much a pawn as your people are but we can beat them if we work
together.
Let me know what you think.
Best regards,
Vincent
http://www.natall.com
http://www.natvan.com
To Subscribe to American Dissident Voices weekly transcripts
(the printed version of our weekly radio program),
mail: ADV...@ListServe.com which contains the word
subscribe as the subject of your message.
bfisher7
Doris, Doris fanatics using your socialist-bull-speech disappeared like
dinosaurus in the dead USSR. Have you gotten stuck in a time-limbo, or ...
worse ???
M. Goldsmith
hey paki!
get back up ur tree where u belong
Andrew
Hi!
I agree that the US really does not have any business in the Gulf. Since
when did we become the world police. I am sure that there are plenty of
people who do not want our soldiers in their cities and towns. While it may
be accurate that the US has Jewish ties that make it difficult to take anyone
else's side, I do not see this most recent conflict having anything to do
with the US being a bunch of "Jew lovers." I think there needs to be more
love and less war, but love is tough and it hurts. I am probably just as
confused as anyone else when it comes to the Middle East, but name-calling
and skirting the issues that are deeper than economic interest and world
policing is not going to solve anything.
Andrew