Want To Keep Saddam Hussein There?
Leonardo Been
references:
- 'Definition Of Insane - Relation To Humor' (5 Feb 2003)
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3b6f518d.0302160841.7730fa14%40posting.google.com&output=gplain
- 'The First International Law' (24 Nov 2002)
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3b6f518d.0212101307.2e2e9c18%40posting.google.com&output=gplain
AD C
> Do you really want to keep Saddam Hussein in his office?
>
Not many people want to keep him, but also no one wnat to see people
blown to bits.
Leonardo Been
And what happened when individuals like Saddam Hussein were kept in
office?
references:
- 'The First International Law' (24 Nov 2002)
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3b6f518d.0212101307.2e2e9c18%40posting.google.com&output=gplain
- 'Definition Of Insane - Relation To Humor' (5 Feb 2003)
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3b6f518d.0302160841.7730fa14%40posting.google.com&output=gplain
AD C <graph...@y.a.h.o.o.co.uk> wrote
in message news:<b3i8db$n29$2...@sparta.btinternet.com>...
> Leonardo Been wrote:
> > Do you really want to keep Saddam Hussein in his office?
> >
>
> Not many people want to keep him, but also no one wants to see people
> blown to bits.
onegod
Oil price sky rocket, people get killed by equipment...and stock market
crashes since shorting rest of market in reliable way of insider trading
profit for them.
"Leonardo Been" <plato...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:989886.030226...@posting.google.com...
Chip C
<989886.030226...@posting.google.com>, Leonardo Been
allegedly wrote...
> Do you really want to keep Saddam Hussein in his office?
>
I'd love to keep him in his office. He's hard to hit with a cruise
missile when he's moving around all the time. :p
--
Chip C
Personal site: http://www.chipcom.net/
Christmas Stories: http://www.christmas-stories.com/
"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees."
-- Emiliano Zapata
Errant_Eye
Saddam security apparatus "Blown to bits" is wrong, but leaving Saddam
& Uday & Qusay in power to rape, torture & murder is ok?
Don Swayser
I agree. It's a matter of choosing between the lesser of two evils. To
leave Hussein in power is to continue the torture and execution of
many more people than will happen in a war. It's hard to be the agents
of death, but the overwhelming testimony from people in contact with
people in Iraq is that they would take the losses rather than endure
Hussein any longer.
Madhusudan Singh
held forth in soc.history
(<989886.030226...@posting.google.com>):
> Thank you for expressing your dislike of violence.
>
> And what happened when individuals like Saddam Hussein were kept in
> office?
>
Nothing wrong with getting rid of him but don't you think your humanitarian
concerns are a tad late ?
Saddam was a US ally when he gassed Iranians (and there are credible reports
that US advisors helped him in targetting). Or for that matter Halabja ?
Nothing wrong with getting rid of him, but while you are at it, what are you
going to do about daily torture of people in Saudi Arabia (suppression of
dissent, jail torture etc.), Syria, etc. ? Or are those forms of torture ok
because they are our "allies".
Lamarr Edwards
The best policy for the U.S. AT THE TIME of the Iran Iraq war was
stalemate. Iran was a declared and proven enemy, and Iraq was moving up
the list, nothing better for us than for them to continually kill one
another, and be so pre occupied and weakened by one another they
couldn't get into trouble elsewhere.
If Iran appeared as though it was going to be overrun by Iraq, we would
have helped them, just enough to keep from being defeated.
But that was then, and this is now.
You are rightfully proud of your Sikh heritage, but Were the Sikhs
immoral to ally themselves with the British after the Sikh wars ? No.
Times and situations change
We once sent billions of dollars to the greatest enemy we have ever had,
the SU, A few years after doing so, we were prepared, as the late great
Barry Goldwater said, "to lob a nuke right into the most exclusive
restroom in the kremlin".
Times and situations change, nothing stays the same. LE
Leonardo Been
http://www.christmas-stories.com
On which I found An Original Christmas Story by him, which ends:
'It might have been the tears welling up in his eyes,
but it seemed like the officer's blue eyes
twinkled at him from the photograph.'
from 'The Spirit of Raton'
http://www.christmas-stories.com/christmas-97.php
I am reciprocating with a poem of mine, which ends:
'This was on Christmas Day, when people are
more curious to see and feel who's there.
Allowed they are, encouraged even, to be,
and to express their love so natural...'
from 'Love On The Bridges Of Holland'
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3b6f518d.02091...@posting.google.com&oe=utf-8&output=gplain
__________________________________________
Chip C <ch...@chipcom.net> wrote in message news:<MPG.18c6ab8ac...@news-server.neo.rr.com>...
> On 26 Feb 2003 02:46:31 -0800, In article
> <989886.030226...@posting.google.com>, Leonardo Been
> allegedly wrote...
>
> > Do you really want to keep Saddam Hussein in his office?
> >
>
> I'd love to keep him in his office. He's hard to hit with a cruise
> missile when he's moving around all the time. :p
> Chip C
Madhusudan Singh
held forth in soc.history
(<28230-3E...@storefull-2377.public.lawson.webtv.net>):
> MS - Your one size fits all approach doesn't make much sense.
>
That is a gross oversimplification. You are ignoring the most dangerous
threat of all and focussing on a country that is on the periphery.
Ignoring Saudi Arabia and going after Iraq is a little like ignoring Germany
and going after Romania in WW II.
> The best policy for the U.S. AT THE TIME of the Iran Iraq war was
> stalemate. Iran was a declared and proven enemy, and Iraq was moving up
> the list, nothing better for us than for them to continually kill one
> another, and be so pre occupied and weakened by one another they
> couldn't get into trouble elsewhere.
Precisely the calculation that led to the policy of appeasement - UK and
France kept hoping that Hitlerite Germany and Communist USSR would kill
each other off. What happened after that ?
Today Shiite as well Sunni fundies preach killing of non-Muslims.
>
> If Iran appeared as though it was going to be overrun by Iraq, we would
> have helped them, just enough to keep from being defeated.
>
> But that was then, and this is now.
>
> You are rightfully proud of your Sikh heritage, but Were the Sikhs
> immoral to ally themselves with the British after the Sikh wars ? No.
>
The British also did not terrorise large swaths of the former Sikh empire
and kill Sikhs indiscriminately. Compare that with what Islamic fundies,
largely bankrolled by Saudi Arabia are trying to do now to democracies all
over the world.
War and terrorism are two very different things.
>
> Times and situations change, nothing stays the same. LE
If that is the case, maybe its time to stop the crap about Saddam being a
killer of his own people. If the calculations are based in realpolitik, the
attempts to dress it up as a grand liberation mission make the whole thing
look something between comic and ridiculous to the rest of the world, which
unlike large sections of American public, actually reads history (and that
is all history, not just White House doctored version of it).
Kristoff Bonne
Leonardo Been heeft geschreven:
> Do you really want to keep Saddam Hussein in his office?
At that moment, we do what is usually done in cases like this; you make
economic cooperation with a country dependant on its human rights
track-record.
But, of course, this means that politicians "in the West" will have to
put the human rights in another country before their own economic
interests; and that's usually where the problem is located.
It's much easier to "help" the people in a country and -at the same
time- take oil the natural resources of a country.
My impression is that -in the West- the interest in the human rights of
people in other country is only of interest if it doesn't cost to much
of the own economic developement.
I didn't hear anybody talk of the 'suffering of the Iraqi people' when
'we' needed Iraq to fight Iran; as less as I hear somebody talk of the
"suffering of the people" of some other countries (who's gouvernement we
need now for whatever reason).
Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.
AD C
> Thank you for expressing your dislike of violence.
>
> And what happened when individuals like Saddam Hussein were kept in
> office?
They will try and take over the world, but so far he is no threat to us.
AD C
>>
>>Not many people want to keep him, but also no one wnat to see people
>>blown to bits.
>
>
> Saddam security apparatus "Blown to bits" is wrong, but leaving Saddam
> & Uday & Qusay in power to rape, torture & murder is ok?
I think the main problem is, that we have been lied to so many time over
this, that we do not know what to believe. If we was told the truth in
the first place, then maybe Blair and Bush would have more support from us.
AD C
> I agree. It's a matter of choosing between the lesser of two evils. To
> leave Hussein in power is to continue the torture and execution of
> many more people than will happen in a war. It's hard to be the agents
> of death, but the overwhelming testimony from people in contact with
> people in Iraq is that they would take the losses rather than endure
> Hussein any longer.
If we have been told the truth to start with instead of all the crap
that Blair and Bush have come up with, they may have had more support.
It is their own fault.
Sander
> If we have been told the truth to start with instead of all the crap
> that Blair and Bush have come up with, they may have had more support.
> It is their own fault.
>
That's indeed a problem. There are so many people with hidden agendas
trying to have it their way, you really don't know who to trust anymore.
--
Sander
"There isn't anything so stupid that people won't believe in it if it's in
a book."
K 100
Eric
<graph...@y.a.h.o.o.co.uk> wrote:
> If we have been told the truth to start with instead of all the crap
> that Blair and Bush have come up with, they may have had more support.
> It is their own fault.
They have my support - I'm sure they have their hands on a lot more
information than we have access to and so we must trust them.
Hang in there friend,
Eric
--
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordian"
AD C
>
>
> They have my support - I'm sure they have their hands on a lot more
> information than we have access to and so we must trust them.
They may have your support, but Blair at least do not have much support
from the public here. after seeing him on T.V today, I think it is
getting to him. I am afraid Bush and Blair have blown their trust, in
this country anyway.
> Hang in there friend,
I am not going to support War in Iraq and there is many here who will
not. What ever happens, if we lose or win, then Blair lost my vote, not
that he really had it anyway. But how can you vote for someone that
ignores the public.
stop religious WAR.
>>------STOP NAZI CHRISTIAN CRUSADER FOR WORLD PEACE-----STOP RELIGIOUS WAR----
>>>-----STOP NAZI CHRISTIAN CRUSADER FOR WORLD PEACE-----STOP RELIGIOUS WAR----
>>>>----STOP NAZI CHRISTIAN CRUSADER FOR WORLD PEACE-----STOP RELIGIOUS WAR----
>>>>>---STOP NAZI CHRISTIAN CRUSADER FOR WORLD PEACE-----STOP RELIGIOUS WAR----
>>>>>>--STOP NAZI CHRISTIAN CRUSADER FOR WORLD PEACE-----STOP RELIGIOUS WAR----
>>>>>>>-STOP NAZI CHRISTIAN CRUSADER FOR WORLD PEACE-----STOP RELIGIOUS WAR----
>>>>>>>>STOP NAZI CHRISTIAN CRUSADER FOR WORLD PEACE-----STOP RELIGIOUS WAR----
The Dirty War against Iraq Depleted Uranium Facts for All the World to See.
http://www.benjaminforiraq.org/contaminazioneitaly.htm
>-------STOP NAZI CHRISTIAN CRUSADER FOR WORLD PEACE-----STOP RELIGIOUS WAR----
>>------STOP NAZI CHRISTIAN CRUSADER FOR WORLD PEACE-----STOP RELIGIOUS WAR----
>>>-----STOP NAZI CHRISTIAN CRUSADER FOR WORLD PEACE-----STOP RELIGIOUS WAR----
>>>>----STOP NAZI CHRISTIAN CRUSADER FOR WORLD PEACE-----STOP RELIGIOUS WAR----
>>>>>---STOP NAZI CHRISTIAN CRUSADER FOR WORLD PEACE-----STOP RELIGIOUS WAR----
>>>>>>--STOP NAZI CHRISTIAN CRUSADER FOR WORLD PEACE-----STOP RELIGIOUS WAR----
>>>>>>>-STOP NAZI CHRISTIAN CRUSADER FOR WORLD PEACE-----STOP RELIGIOUS WAR----
>>>>>>>>STOP NAZI CHRISTIAN CRUSADER FOR WORLD PEACE-----STOP RELIGIOUS WAR----
Frank Warner
starvation, the murders and the general absence of freedom for the
people of Iraq:
Whatever happened to that Iraqi man who jumped into the United Nations
vehicle a couple weeks ago, yelling, "Save me! Save me!" ?
Is he still alive? Has his head or tongue been cut off?
Has he been forced to watch the tortures of his wife and
children? Is Saddam sitting at home watching the torture
videotapes on TV?
Frank Warner
plato...@yahoo.com (Leonardo Been) wrote in message news:<989886.030226...@posting.google.com>...
Silentotto
I think you're missing his point.
MS noted that we are acting in our own self interest just as you so
noted below.
That's why when people, or our government for that matter, try to sell
the invasion of Iraq in terms of bringing the Iraqi people freedom
from a brutal dictator, most of us roll our eyes.
That line sounds like BS because it is BS. The freedom of the Iraqi
people is very low on our list of priorities.
Acting in our own self interest isn't necessarly wrong, but let's at
least be honest about it.
TonyaK911
Recent intelligence intercept, just today from Iraq:
"Hello, Allstate?"
-- Hussein, Saadam, Iraqi dictator
;-)
TK9
Lamarr Edwards
country, under the very kindly queen Victoria, just terrorized the hell
out of the Boers, and took the American invention of the concentration
camp to new heights of cruelty and brutality unmatched till the nazi's
came along.
There is alot of bullshit that has gone on in the past that sticks to
all of us, no matter our race or national origin.
Your points about Saudi Arabia, and N. Korea, and the murderous
islamists, and Iran, and all the rest are all true.
However, how many wars shall we start at once, how many people out of
the billions should we try and liberate at once, how many entrenched
cultures should we try and change at once, how much treasure and blood
should we lose in these pursuits ?
Priorities are the issue. As one cosmologist said, "time exists so
everything doesn't happen at once", time is required, and the priorities
must be taken one at a time.
I have been alive long enought to have believed that Democracy might
lose out to communism, that few latin American countries could be
democratic, that Russia and America would be locked in an eternal death
struggle very possibly ending in the destruction of humanity, and on
and on, but things change, and regardless of what anyone thinks, the US
had a tremendous effect on these beliefs being wrong.
Give the governments of the US, since WW2, both Democratic and
Republican credit for working toward worthy goals.
Did they blunder?, yes Were mistakes made ? yes, but, after all, they
were and are humans.
I am willing to trust Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld and Rice to do what
is right now, and I have faith that they are working toward doing what
is right in the future.
They know best how to prioritize our actions, and they know a whole hell
of a lot more about what is going on in the world driving the priorities
than you or I will ever know. LE
Lamarr Edwards
elephant with acromegly. LE
Lamarr Edwards
Did Iraq invade Kuwait ? T F
Were they told to get out ? T F
Did we go to war to expel them? T F
Did the war end a cease fire agreement? T F
Has Iraq keit any of the terms of that agreement?
T F
Has the UN tried, for 12 years and by seventeen resolutions to try and
achieve compliance?
T F
Did Iraq have tons of bio and chemical weapons agents ?
Y N
Does anyone, outside of the Iraqi government have any idea what happened
to this stuff? YN
Are you stupid enough to think Iraq will tell the UN, or anyone else the
truth on these matters ?
Y N
Do you think there is no risk to your people or mine from just
ignoring the whole thing ? YN
So whats your score ?
Do you really think that Blair or Bush has "lied" to anyone on this
issue ?
Why don't you just get real, stop your gutless shivering, and let the
two real men just do what they have to do.
After all, they would be the first you would blame if they "lied" to
you, and said all was well, as the mad muslims blanket your neighborhood
with botulism, anthrax, or God knows what else Iraq might give them . LE
Lamarr Edwards
Why not just vote on everything ?
Blair has lost your vote, huh ?
Figures.
Maybe you can come op with a party that has a dude named Quisling
running it, sounds just perfect for you. LE
David Lo
Can you tell us why it would be ok to unleash a war of mass
destruction on this planet just so these three men would be killed?
Don't we as a civilized society have a better way of dealing with
(alleged or proven) rapists, torturers, and murderers? Do we bomb a
whole section of Chicago, killing many innocent people along, just so
that we could capture a mafia gang?
One thing the war enthusiasts are most inclined to miss recognizing is
that the scale of ferocity envisioned for this next war could really
hurt, on a statistical basis, everyone of us to a large extent, even
as they (the war enthusiasts) pretend that large numbers of civilians
in Iraq would not be harmed.
Modern technology and wars do not mix, if we are to survive! In other
words, modern technology makes wars obsolete. We must choose.
Peace,
lo yeeOn
P.S., Nobody is trying ``to keep Saddam in office''. It's really not
our business to either keep him or overthrow him, even though our
government did keep him (by propping him up) for a couple of decades
and now want to overthrow him. Most importantly, however, we are not
in a position to kill A and B and C and D just because you want to
kill X.
David Lo
Sounds like you have been fooled by a piece of propaganda.
Sincerely,
lo yeeOn
Eric
<acou...@panix.com> wrote:
> Can you tell us why it would be ok to unleash a war of mass
> destruction on this planet just so these three men would be killed?
Day after day, time after time, for YEARS we have asked Saddam to
disarm. It will not happen.
> Don't we as a civilized society have a better way of dealing with
> (alleged or proven) rapists, torturers, and murderers? Do we bomb a
> whole section of Chicago, killing many innocent people along, just so
> that we could capture a mafia gang?
In this case we can't afford to wait around for Saddam to disarm - he
is a threat to the United States and his people. So this is the way it
has to happen.
> One thing the war enthusiasts are most inclined to miss recognizing is
> that the scale of ferocity envisioned for this next war could really
> hurt, on a statistical basis, everyone of us to a large extent, even
> as they (the war enthusiasts) pretend that large numbers of civilians
> in Iraq would not be harmed.
I don't pretend - I'm sad to say that there WILL be civilians killed
in Iraq. I'm sorry about that. Let's hope that Saddam doesn't ASSIST
them in dying - he's been known to use them as shields and he may this
time too.
> Modern technology and wars do not mix, if we are to survive! In other
> words, modern technology makes wars obsolete. We must choose.
>
> Peace,
> lo yeeOn
>
> P.S., Nobody is trying ``to keep Saddam in office''. It's really not
> our business to either keep him or overthrow him, even though our
WHOA!!!! It IS our BUSINESS to overthrow him - where'd you get that
idea!?
Take care and good luck,
David Lo
Eric <coolha...@verizon.net> wrote:
>In article <b3ja7e$lqg$9...@helle.btinternet.com>, AD C
><graph...@y.a.h.o.o.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> If we have been told the truth to start with instead of all the crap
>> that Blair and Bush have come up with, they may have had more support.
>> It is their own fault.
>
> They have my support - I'm sure they have their hands on a lot more
>information than we have access to and so we must trust them.
Yep, our blood-lusting, ``This is getting SO old - the guy's gotta be
killed, his army has to be killed'' Eric is sure about something the
whole world has already known to be a farce---we've got info but we
can't reveal any.
The next war against Iraq will be a War of Mass Destruction, fellas!
lo yeeOn
Sajo Markecz
"AD C" <graph...@y.a.h.o.o.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b3i8db$n29$2...@sparta.btinternet.com...
> Leonardo Been wrote:
> > Do you really want to keep Saddam Hussein in his office?
> >
>
> Not many people want to keep him, but also no one wnat to see people
> blown to bits.
>
>
There are many similarities between Osama - bin - Laden , Hasan - bin -
Sabah , Charles Manson , and Joseph Smith . Charles Manson believed that the
blacks , or very dark brown Africans , were the sons of Ham , one of Noah's
sons , whom Noah cursed to be the ancestor of slaves [ Genesis 9 : 18 - 29 ]
. Charles Manson was also a statutory "polygamist"/concubinist/rapist , as
some post - 1890 Mormon splinter groups still are to this day. A statutory
"polygamist"/concubinist/rapist is someone who marries or has as a concubine
more than one female under the age of 16 at the same time . The Prophet
Muhammad , the founder of Islam , allowed the Muslims to own slaves and to
have a maximum of four wives at the same time . To this day , many southern
Sudanese Christians and polytheists are sold into slavery to Saudi Arabian
sheiks by the northern Sudanese Muslims . Hasan - bin - Sabah was the leader
of a Muslim terrorist group called the " Assassins ," or " hashashins ,"
Persian or Iranian for " hemp - eaters . " These Assassins belonged to the
Ismaili denomination of the Shiite division of Islam . These Muslim
terrorists killed their enemies while under the influence of hashish , a
drug made from the hemp plant . Hasan - bin - Sabah was alleged by both his
Muslim and Christian Crusader enemies to use hashish and belly - dancing
concubines and wives from his harem who performed sexual favours in order to
gain recruits for his terrorist organization . Hasan - bin - Sabah was
called " The Old Man of the Mountain " because he had as his base a mountain
castle - fortress called " Alamut ," meaning " eagle's nest ," located in
what is today the nation - state of Iran .
The reason why the mainstream Mormon Church , officially known as The Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter - Day Saints , abolished polygamy in 1890 , was
because that was one of the requirements that had to be met in order to
allow Utah to gain the status of a state , even though freedom of religious
expression is protected by the U.S. Constitution . Joseph Smith , the
founder of the Mormon church , based his favourable views on polygamy on the
fact that many famous Jews mentioned in the Old Testament practiced polygamy
, and if memory serves , they also practiced concubinage [ see 1 Kings 11 :
1 - 13 , Galatians chapter 4 ] . Joseph Smith also claimed that Jesus Christ
had three wives at the same time , and that they were Mary of Bethany ,
Martha , and Mary Magdalene , also known as Mary of Magdala . There have
been several Christian groups and cults throughout history who have claimed
that sexual intercourse is some kind of mystical , religious , and
emotionally as well as physically ecstatic experience . They have included
the Puritan sects and cults called the Ranters and Antinomians [
"antinomos," Greek for "anti - law." ] . I personally do not believe that
the Apostle St. Paul's teaching in Romans 10 : 13 , " that whomsoever calls
on the name of the LORD will be saved ," is a justification to shout the
word " God " when having a sexual orgasm , and then claim that it is an
action done in the faith . I also do not believe that the Apostle St. Paul's
teaching in Romans 4 : 15 , " that where there is no law , there is no sin ,
" is a justification to walk around nakedly because Adam and Eve once did so
unashamedly before Satan , the fallen angel , disguised as a snake [
Revelation 12 : 7 - 9 ] , tricked them into eating the fruit of forbidden
knowledge , thereby causing Adam and Eve to lose their innocence and
immortality [ Romans chapter 7 , and Song of Songs ] .
Charles Manson , who sometimes believed that he was the Son of Man , the
Second Coming of Jesus Christ opening the seven seals mentioned in the New
Testament book of Revelation , the Parousia , was also a strong admirer of
Adolf Hitler , and one of the possible reasons why Charles Manson carved a
swastika in his forehead , was because he was angry with those Jews who
refused to believe that he was the Second Coming of Jesus Christ . Charles
Manson was of Scotch - Irish Baptist ancestry . Charles Manson was a Nazi
who decided to use the Hippies because they were so easy to mislead , being
for the most part usually unwise and easily bought with drugs and sexual
favours .The real reason why Charles Manson was angry with the police was
because they refused to make him the Chief of the Gestapo , with the power
to send to the gas chambers those Jews who refused to believe that he was
the Second Coming of Jesus Christ . Jesus Christ said in Matthew 23 : 37 -
39 the following : " O Jerusalem , Jerusalem , the one who kills the
prophets and stones those who are sent to her ! How often I wanted to gather
your children together , as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings , but
you were not willing ! " See ! Your house is left to you desolate ; " For I
say to you , you shall see Me no more till you say , ' Blessed is He who
comes in the name of the LORD ! ' " For Charles Manson , the true "pigs"
were any one who opposed his views , especially the politically correct ,
although to some extent Manson was justified in his hostility towards the
politically correct .
During the Second World War , many Iraqi military officers were pro - Axis
[ Germany , Italy , and Japan ] in their sympathies , and the British Army
in 1941 overthrew the pro - Hitler Iraqi military dictatorship . Many Muslim
Arab Palestinians were also understandably pro - Hitler during the Second
World War , opposed to the large - scale Jewish immigration to Palestine
that had been going on during the British League of Nations mandate of
Palestine from 1918 - 1948 , since many Zionist Jews wished to reestablish
the ancient nation of Israel , which had declined after the then pagan or
polytheist Romans destroyed the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem in A.D. 70, a
revolt that had largely been begun by those Jews who refused to convert to
Christianity or Greco - Roman paganism . After Reza Shah Pahlavi of Iran
refused in 1941 to allow the British to use the Trans - Iranian Railway to
bring supplies to their war - time ally , the Soviet Union , the British and
Soviets sent their military to occupy Iran for the remainder of the war
until . Reza Shah Pahlavi was forced to abdicate in favour of his son Shah
Mohammed Reza Pahlavi , who signed a war - time treaty with the British and
Soviets . Mohammed Reza Pahlavi was the last Shah of Iran , overthrown in
1979 by the fundamentalist , fanatical Islamist revolution led by the
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini . The presence of these troops in Iran during
the Second World War heightened strongly nationalistic and pro - Axis
sympathy among many Iranians , made worse by the fact that both Russia and
Britain had long held colonial ambitions towards Iran . Ironically enough ,
the Cold War superpower rivals , the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. , both backed
Iraq in its war against Iran from 1980 - 1988 .
The great split within the Muslim world is between the Sunni and Shiite and
divisions of Islam . The Sunnis are the " Protestant " equivalent of Islam ,
as they believe that any suitably qualified Muslim adult male can succeed
the Prophet Muhammad as Qaliph or supreme spiritual leader of the Islamic
world , whereas the Shiites believe that only the direct descendants of
Muhammad can qualify for this role . Most Muslims are Sunnis , including
Osama - bin - Laden , his Arabian peninsula Al - Qaida or Al - Qaeda
supporters , and their Afghan Taliban protectors . The Shiites form the
majority of the Muslim population in Iran , Iraq , and a large minority of
the population in Lebanon . However , only in Iran are the Shiites in
control of the government . In Iraq , a Sunni Arab Muslim minority , located
mainly in central Iraq around and within Baghdad , controls the Iraqi
government . The wealthy Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein , with his many
palaces , is a Sunni Arab Muslim . The Shiite Marsh Arabs of southern Iraq
and the Sunni Kurdish [ Kurdish is an Iranian dialect with many Arab and
Turkish loan words ] of northern Iraq are bitterly opposed to the rule of
Saddam Hussein and the ruling clique of the Sunni Muslim Arab Iraqis based
in Baghdad . During the Iraq - Iran War of 1980 - 1988 , most Shiite Marsh
Arabs of Iraq stayed relatively loyal to Saddam Hussein , but the Sunni
Kurds of Iraq allied themselves with the Shiite Iranians , leading to the
terrible reprisal by the Iraqi central government with chemical weapons .
Personally , I believe that neither the Iraqis or the Iranians can be
trusted with nuclear , chemical , and biological weapons , which , if they
were ever allowed to develop , they would probably use against Israel ,
which itself has a large nuclear arsenal , thereby leading to a Middle
Eastern nuclear war that would pollute the oil wells of the Middle East ,
and the result would be serious world inflation that would hit the poor
nations of the world especially hard . Should a nuclear armed missile hit an
oil well , clouds of radioactive contaminated black smoke from that oil well
would travel far into the atmosphere , and would return to earth as
radioactive contaminated acid rain .
However , the Islamic world does not have a monopoly on ultimately
religiously inspired anti - Jewish sentiment , even though the Prophet
Muhammad turned against the Jews after his hopes for their conversion to
Islam on a large scale failed to eventuate . The Prophet Muhammad also had
the same hopes towards the Christians . Martin Luther the German published
in 1543 an essay called " On the Jews and Their Lies ," in which Luther
urged that Jewish synagogues be burnt , because most of the Jews refused to
convert to Christianity on a large scale , which Martin Luther hoped would
be a sign of the return of Jesus Christ in the near future .
In 1938 , in Nazi Germany , on Kristallnacht [ Crystalnight , or The Night
of Broken Glass ] , many Jewish synagogues were burnt , as Martin Luther had
urged in his often reprinted and preached 1543 essay called " On the Jews
and Their Lies ," as this essay was often preached by most German Lutheran
pastors , with a few exceptions , until 1945 . After the German federal
election of the 5th of March , 1933 , Alfred von Hugenberg , the leader of
the mainly Lutheran laypersons' [ non - pastors ] " German National Peoples'
Party ," along with Baron Franz von Papen , leader of the mainly Catholic
laypersons' " Center Party ," formed a coalition with the Nazis , in order
to outvote the Communists and Social Democrats . The Nazis gained about 44%
of the seats in the lower house of the German federal parliament , the
Reichstag , in the German federal election of the 5th of March , 1933 . From
1929 - 1933 , the Nazis gained the largest votes in German state elections
where the Lutherans formed the majority of the states' population . Between
1929 - 1933 , these following German states , all of them with a mainly
Lutheran population , had state governments where the Nazis were either
coalition leaders or partners : Braunschweig [ Brunswick in English ] ,
Mecklenburg , Mecklenburg - Strelitz , Lubeck , Thuringia , Saxony - Anhalt
, Harzburg , Oldenburg , and Lippe . Only the German state of Schleswig -
Holstein , another mainly Lutheran state , had a state legislature between
1929 - 1933 , where the Nazis had a majority of the seats between 1929 -
1933 . Schleswig - Holstein had been taken from Denmark by Germany in a war
that had broken out in 1864 , and in 1920 , the northern third of Schleswig
was returned to Denmark after a referendum had been held on the issue .One
of the reasons why Germany , out of all other nations , had the Nazis come
to power , was because Germany lacked a strong democratic tradition .
Between 1850 - 1919 , the German state of Brandenburg - Prussia had a three
class electoral law , although the state of Bavaria had introduced universal
adult male suffrage in 1904 , followed by Baden - Wurttemberg [ formerly
Swabia ] , in 1906 .The German state governments nominated the members of
the German federal upper house , the Bundesrat , which , along with the
German Chancellor and Kaiser had final veto powers over the German federal
lower house , the Bundestag .
Most of the Japanese are Mahayana Buddhists and Shintoists at the same time
. The Mahayana Buddhists are the Protestants of Buddhism , as opposed to the
Theravada Buddhists , who are the Catholics of Buddhism . The Mahayana
Buddhists believe that members of the Buddhist laity , as well as members of
the Buddhist monk - hood , can achieve nirvana more quickly . The Mahayana
Buddhists also tend to place greater emphasis on the sincerity of a
believer's faith , the relationship between motives and methods , and the
role of divine grace , then Theravada Buddhists do . Since 1909 , the
martial art of judo , which traces its ancestry to the samurai martial art
of jujitsu , has been a compulsory subject in Japanese schools , although it
was banned as a compulsory subject in Japanese schools from 1945 - 1950 .
After 1945 , the requirement of all able - bodied Japanese males over the
age of 21 to do three years of compulsory military service , was abolished ,
although the martial arts still figure prominently in the training of the
members of Japan's voluntary Self - Defense Forces and police force to this
day . The three techniques of judo are nagewaza [ throwing ] , katamewaza
[ wrestling ] , and atemiwaza [ punching and kicking ] . Atemiwaza may only
be taught to judokas above the rank of white belt , and may only be used by
them in training and self - defense , but never in judo sporting contests .
During the Second World War , when low on bullets and food , the Japanese
soldiers would often launch a banzai bayonet charge , preferring a heroic
death to humiliating surrender .
Heinrich Himmler , the leader of the Gestapo , once ridiculously tried to
prove that the Japanese are undercover Aryans , since the Japanese racially
mixed with the indigenous peoples of the Japanese Home Islands , the Ainu ,
who once had some Caucasian - like physical features . Today , there are few
or no Ainu without some Japanese ancestry . The Japanese themselves are a
mixture of Altaic people [ speakers of the closely related Korean ,
Manchurian , Tungus , Inner Mongolian [ Chinese province ] , and Outer
Mongolian [ Russian occupied from 1916 - 1991 ] languages , and the Malay
people , including the Indonesians and Filipinos . The southern Chinese ,
Taiwanese Chinese , and Vietnamese , Laotian , Cambodian and Thai languages
show a heavy Malay substratum , a result of racial mixing between indigenous
or earlier arrived people and foreign invaders . Since albinos are the only
true whites , ultra - nationalist Japanese political and religious groups ,
especially those that try to combine Buddhist and Shintoist teachings with
Christianity , should try to hire genetic engineers to invent albino skinned
Ainus who are immune to sunburn , because of the Transfiguration of Jesus
Christ , when " His clothes turned became as white as the light ," [ Matthew
17 : 2 ] , and with slanted eye folds retained , because of the miracle of
the eye of the needle mentioned in Mark 10 : 25 - 27. I am being sarcastic
here . Shoko Asahara and the Aum Shinrikyo or Aum Supreme Truth sect comes
to mind .
As much as I hate Nazism , I also hate Communism . Proverbs 4 : 27 in the
Old Testament says that we should not turn to the right or the left , but
that we should remove our feet from evil . Proverbs 19 : 10 in the Old
Testament says that it is not fitting for a fool to enjoy luxury , much less
for a servant to rule over princes . With the long - term economic legacy of
Joseph Stalin and Pol Pot , I can see why . Jesus Christ said in Mark 10 :
17 - 27 that nothing is impossible with God , and that God can save a rich
person who follows the Ten Commandments . According to Proverbs 30 : 8 - 9 ,
it is morally safest to be neither rich nor poor , because the rich might be
tempted to deny God and the poor might be tempted to steal . An excess of
material possessions can lead to spiritual and moral complacency , and
hunger can lead to theft . Usury is the sin of lending money on interest to
the poor according to Proverbs 22 : 7 and Proverbs 22 : 26 - 27 , but what
about lending money on interest to the middle class and the rich for
business expansion purposes ? According to 2 Timothy 3 : 16 - 17 , all of
the Bible is inspired by God [ see also Ephesians 2 : 8 - 10 , 1 Timothy 2 :
1 - 4 , 2 Peter 3 : 9 , John 5 : 24 , John 3 : 16 , Mark 9 : 23 - 24 ,
Romans 10 : 9 , Luke chapter 15 , Luke 19 : 1 - 10 , Proverbs 13 : 13 ,
Proverbs 14 : 26 - 27 , Proverbs 19 : 23 , 1 Corinthians 12 : 3 , and the
Acts of the Apostles 9 : 1 - 18 ] .
In the U.S.A. , the voters have the constitutional right under the Second
Bill of Rights to bear arms as members of well regulated state militia , for
example , the U.S. National Guard , which the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted
as being a safeguard intended by the American law makers of the 1780's to
protect the states from any likelihood that the U.S. federal government
would become dictatorial , although the state , county , and municipal
governments are just as likely to become dictatorial , as the southern U.S.
states often treated their black minorities in a dictatorial manner . St .
Paul the Apostle wrote in his epistle to the Romans , chapter 13 : 1 - 7
that all authorities who wield the sword are appointed by God to enforce the
law . The word "authorities" is a plural word . However , I still believe
that rioters should be dispersed by firing rubber coated metal bullets into
their legs , stomachs , and chests , with the use of scopes for accurate
aiming and semi - automatic rifles to control the rate of fire .
Sajo Markecz
"Leonardo Been" <plato...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:989886.030226...@posting.google.com...
> Thank you for expressing your dislike of violence.
>
> And what happened when individuals like Saddam Hussein were kept in
> office?
>
>
>
> - 'The First International Law' (24 Nov 2002)
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3b6f518d.0212101307.2e2e9c18%40posting.
google.com&output=gplain
>
> - 'Definition Of Insane - Relation To Humor' (5 Feb 2003)
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3b6f518d.0302160841.7730fa14%40posting.
google.com&output=gplain
>
>
>
> in message news:<b3i8db$n29$2...@sparta.btinternet.com>...
> > Leonardo Been wrote:
> > > Do you really want to keep Saddam Hussein in his office?
> > >
> >
Sajo Markecz
"Kristoff Bonne" <kristof...@compaqnet.nospam.be> wrote in message
news:ra8j3b...@frigg.belbone.net...
Sajo Markecz
"Chip C" <ch...@chipcom.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.18c6ab8ac...@news-server.neo.rr.com...
> On 26 Feb 2003 02:46:31 -0800, In article
> <989886.030226...@posting.google.com>, Leonardo Been
> allegedly wrote...
>
> >
>
> missile when he's moving around all the time. :p
>
> Chip C
> Personal site: http://www.chipcom.net/
> Christmas Stories: http://www.christmas-stories.com/
>
> "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees."
> -- Emiliano Zapata
>
>
LB
> And what happens when you elect oil/war merchant cronies to us presidency?
> Oil price sky rocket, people get killed by equipment...and stock market
> crashes since shorting rest of market in reliable way of insider trading
> profit for them.
>
So, if you're so right, why don't you answer him?
Lamarr Edwards
Unfortunately, the strong will inherit the meek.
You will either be strong, or ruled by the strong.
A failure to destroy a threat like Iraq, places the US in the camp of
the meek, with the clock ticking. LE
LB
So you're saying then that you're not against the war, just the
reasons put forth by President Bush. And you also just stated that
you're not anti-war, but anti-Bush. No need to be so petty, it's
doubtful Bush will win a second term, then you will have what you
want. Just because you don't like the messenger, don't attack the
message. Be honest and just say you're against the war because you
hate President Bush. If you would tell the truth, then maybe you would
have more support from us.
Good day.
Madhusudan Singh
soc.history (<149b2190.03022...@posting.google.com>):
> AD C <graph...@y.a.h.o.o.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<b3ja5i$lqg$8...@helle.btinternet.com>...
>> Errant_Eye wrote:
>> >>
>> >>Not many people want to keep him, but also no one wnat to see people
>> >>blown to bits.
>> >
>> >
>> > Saddam security apparatus "Blown to bits" is wrong, but leaving Saddam
>> > & Uday & Qusay in power to rape, torture & murder is ok?
>>
>>
>> I think the main problem is, that we have been lied to so many time over
>> this, that we do not know what to believe. If we was told the truth in
>> the first place, then maybe Blair and Bush would have more support from
>> us.
>
> So you're saying then that you're not against the war, just the
> reasons put forth by President Bush. And you also just stated that
So anti-reason-put-forth = anti-Bush ?
:)
TonyaK911
> Greetings,
>
> Leonardo Been heeft geschreven:
> economic cooperation with a country dependant on its human rights
> track-record.
>
>
> But, of course, this means that politicians "in the West" will have to
> put the human rights in another country before their own economic
> interests; and that's usually where the problem is located.
>
> It's much easier to "help" the people in a country and -at the same
> time- take oil the natural resources of a country.
>
>
> My impression is that -in the West- the interest in the human rights of
> people in other country is only of interest if it doesn't cost to much
> of the own economic developement.
> I didn't hear anybody talk of the 'suffering of the Iraqi people' when
> 'we' needed Iraq to fight Iran; as less as I hear somebody talk of the
> "suffering of the people" of some other countries (who's gouvernement we
> need now for whatever reason).
>
> Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.
Congratulations, Kristoff!
You've just discovered that the world is not uni-dimensional.
Those who seek simplistic solutions, based on a single principle (be
that "human rights" or "environment concerns" or religious belief),
may be good people, but I'd say very primitive thinkers.
Thenk G-d, they usually have little influence on international events!
TK9
Leonardo Been
Very moving pictures those were.
- 'How Do You Face Evil? - A Questionnaire'
(1 February 2002 - issued 20 Feb 2003)
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3b6f518d.0302201625.6fc0448f%40posting.google.com&output=gplain
- 'Tolerance Defined In Holland (The Netherlands)' (25 Dec 2002)
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3b6f518d.0301011116.402c5aaa%40posting.google.com&output=gplain
________________________________________________
waki...@ptd.net (Frank Warner) wrote in message news:<c4cba10b.03022...@posting.google.com>...
Silentotto
Do you have to be an asshole to everyone who disagrees with you?
AD C
>>I think the main problem is, that we have been lied to so many time over
>>this, that we do not know what to believe. If we was told the truth in
>>the first place, then maybe Blair and Bush would have more support from us.
>
>
> So you're saying then that you're not against the war, just the
I am against the war, 100%, with or without a UN resolution
> reasons put forth by President Bush. And you also just stated that
> you're not anti-war, but anti-Bush. No need to be so petty, it's
I do not like Bush, I do not trust him, I think he is a very dangerous
man. I trust the Germans more than Bush and that is saying something.
But, that is not the reason, I am against the war.
> doubtful Bush will win a second term, then you will have what you
If he does, he does, after all, that is up to the Americans, hopefully
the next time, you will not make a mess of the election.
> want. Just because you don't like the messenger, don't attack the
> message. Be honest and just say you're against the war because you
> hate President Bush. If you would tell the truth, then maybe you would
> have more support from us.
Most people here hate Bush, he have not done himself any favours. to be
honest nor have your radio presenters.
I was listneing to Radio Five live here and they had a link up with WBZ
NewsRadio 1030 in Boston, and some presenter called David Brudnoy.
Everytime, someone critisised the U.S all he could come out with is that
we would be talking German if it was not for the U.S. If he was trying
to get people here on your side, he certainly did not help. As I alsways
said, the U.S came into the war, when it was attacked. It not that we do
not appreciate the help.
You will not support us, I think that if it was the other way round and
we decided to go and attack Iraq, I do not think you would give us any
support and yet you expect us to support you.
sorry mate, but you got very little on this side of the Atlantic. If
that will change, I got no idea.
onegod
waste my typing since i have no idea who is "him" you referinging to since
thread i replied to did not ask questions.
"LB" <lbi...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:149b2190.03022...@posting.google.com...
David Lo
Eric <coolha...@verizon.net> wrote:
>In article <b3jqkq$euh$1...@panix1.panix.com>, David Lo
><acou...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> Can you tell us why it would be ok to unleash a war of mass
>> destruction on this planet just so these three men would be killed?
>
> Day after day, time after time, for YEARS we have asked Saddam to
>disarm. It will not happen.
It has indeed happened, at least to a large extent! It's just that
you're constantly moving the goalpost.
Even if the Iraqi response has been less than perfect, I was asking
the original poster [see * below for context] whether it would be ok
to unleash a war of mass destruction on this planet just so as to be
sure that these three (father and sons) in Iraq are killed.
*Errant_Eye <Erran...@yahoo.com> wrote:
*>AD C <graph...@y.a.h.o.o.co.uk> wrote in message news:<b3i8db$n29$2...@sparta.bt
*internet.com>...
*>> Leonardo Been wrote:
*>> > Do you really want to keep Saddam Hussein in his office?
*>> >
*>>
*>> Not many people want to keep him, but also no one wnat to see people
*>> blown to bits.
*>
*>Saddam security apparatus "Blown to bits" is wrong, but leaving Saddam
*>& Uday & Qusay in power to rape, torture & murder is ok?
And I would not be so concerned as to make a response to you, Eric, if
it weren't for the fact that the Bush administration is holding this
exactly similar disregard for human life and for the planet earth as
they shrilly beep the line of a War of Mass Destruction.
We're talking about human lives and we're talking about a planet which
is going to be bombed to smithereens and its air fouled and poisoned
around the globe.
>
>> Don't we as a civilized society have a better way of dealing with
>> (alleged or proven) rapists, torturers, and murderers? Do we bomb a
>> whole section of Chicago, killing many innocent people along, just so
>> that we could capture a mafia gang?
>
> In this case we can't afford to wait around for Saddam to disarm - he
>is a threat to the United States and his people. So this is the way it
>has to happen.
What makes this case so different from those of the mafias? We have
had mafia family after mafia family hailing from our big cities: New
York, Chicago, Philadephia, etc. In each case, they had typically
gunned down opponents, threatened little guys, tortured those they
considered traitors, and refused to disarm despite decades of pleas
from the law enforcements. And that's what makes them notorious. But
if they were treated the same way Bush wants to treat Saddam, our big
cities would all be leveled without the help of terrorists.
lo yeeOn
<snip>
Kristoff Bonne
Eric heeft geschreven:
>>Can you tell us why it would be ok to unleash a war of mass
>>destruction on this planet just so these three men would be killed?
> Day after day, time after time, for YEARS we have asked Saddam to
> disarm. It will not happen.
Says who?
The UN inspectors who where in the Iraq in the 90s destroyed more then
90 % of the offensive capability of Iraq. The UN inspectors did a better
job then every militairy action against Iraq; including the 2nd gulf-war.
This is the basic reason why the french diplomats accepted 1441 in the
beginning. Together with the threath of militairy action of the US; this
COULD work; and any action that could prevent a war with potential
hunderds of thousands of victims (the direct effects of the war; plus
the so-many years of 'aftermath'; based on estimates of the UN) is worth
giving it a try.
The US planners seams to work with figures of some 10 % of the Iraqi
population on the run. Can you image 30 to 40 million people in the US
(10 % of the total population) being forced to flee your home; having to
live in a UN camp for a couple of years; and then be able to come
'home' to find that your home and home-town is completely destroyed;
everything your saved for has gone up in smoke; and that -as your
employer's building have also been destroyed- your out of a job.
(without any social wellfare-system to fall back to).
Compair that to the number of people who got killed at 9/11; and you'll
get a nice idea of the scale of the human cost of war.
The last couple of days; there have been all kind of calculation of the
'cost' of this war on the American economy; resulting in a conclussion
that this will be the 'cheapest war ever'.
So why not hold your soldiers in the dessert of the time necessairy to
"sit things out" while the UN-inspectors finish their job.
If that is done; the economic sanctions on Iraq can be lifted and this
would much more help them then bombing them.
> In this case we can't afford to wait around for Saddam to disarm - he
> is a threat to the United States and his people. So this is the way it
> has to happen.
You know what I never understand.
Besides Kouwait, every neighbour of Iraq is completely against this war:
Turkey, Iran, Jordania, S.A.
So it THEY (who are located just NEXT to Iraq) do not find the situation
in Iraq to be sufficiant dangerous enough; why can you say that you (at
almost the other side of the globe) are threated by Iraq.
Get real!
> Eric
Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.
Kristoff Bonne
Eric heeft geschreven:
>>If we have been told the truth to start with instead of all the crap
>>that Blair and Bush have come up with, they may have had more support.
>>It is their own fault.
> They have my support - I'm sure they have their hands on a lot more
> information than we have access to and so we must trust them.
???
Come-on. After the great job of the CIA not seeing 9/11 coming and the
great job they did in "containing" Bin-Laden and the Taliban warriers in
Afghanistan; do you really believe this?
If they would have had a 'smoking gun' against anybody; they would have
used it already; and not come up with satellite-images of a ULV "able to
carry biological agents to its neigbours" which later turn out to be
dated from before the 2nd gulf war.
If the UK gouvernement DOES anydeed know that much; why did they just
use a thesis found on the internet in its "rapport on Iraq which will
proof it all".
> Hang in there friend,
> Eric
Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.
Kristoff Bonne
TonyaK911 heeft geschreven:
>>But, of course, this means that politicians "in the West" will have to
>>put the human rights in another country before their own economic
>>interests; and that's usually where the problem is located.
>>It's much easier to "help" the people in a country and -at the same
>>time- take oil the natural resources of a country.
>>My impression is that -in the West- the interest in the human rights of
>>people in other country is only of interest if it doesn't cost to much
>>of the own economic developement.
>>I didn't hear anybody talk of the 'suffering of the Iraqi people' when
>>'we' needed Iraq to fight Iran; as less as I hear somebody talk of the
>>"suffering of the people" of some other countries (who's gouvernement we
>>need now for whatever reason).
> Congratulations, Kristoff!
> You've just discovered that the world is not uni-dimensional.
> Those who seek simplistic solutions, based on a single principle (be
> that "human rights" or "environment concerns" or religious belief),
> may be good people, but I'd say very primitive thinkers.
Well; there are some attempts by some countries to "try to do their
bit". I read some time ago that Iran is trying to do some of its part
for its human-right record because of the pressure of the EU.
Turkey is also 'cleaning up' because of their whish to join the EU.
(Something that will probably now be undermined; as the war in Iraq
means that Turkey is forced to invade Northern-Iraq with all the
concequeces -e.g. new problems with the Kurdish population- that come
with it.
This just at the moment when the Turkish parlement had just re-instated
the rights of the Turkish people as a official minority).
There are some people out-there who REALLY think human-rights are a real
issue; not just something you use as 'excuse' to invade a country when
you don't get support from the UN.
> TK9
Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.
rosignol
acou...@panix.com (David Lo) wrote:
> In article <260220032012561298%coolha...@verizon.net>,
> Eric <coolha...@verizon.net> wrote:
[zap]
> > Day after day, time after time, for YEARS we have asked Saddam to
> >disarm. It will not happen.
>
> It has indeed happened, at least to a large extent! It's just that
> you're constantly moving the goalpost.
Eh? The goalpost has always been at "destroy 100% of iraqi WMDs and end
WMD programs". It's certain Europeans who want to move the goalposts to
"destroy 90% of WMDs, and ignore the nuclear weapons program".
> Even if the Iraqi response has been less than perfect,
...thank you for making my point.
[zap]
--
al Qaeda delenda est
rosignol
Kristoff Bonne <kristof...@compaqnet.nospam.be> wrote:
> Greetings,
>
>
> Eric heeft geschreven:
> >>Can you tell us why it would be ok to unleash a war of mass
> >>destruction on this planet just so these three men would be killed?
>
> > Day after day, time after time, for YEARS we have asked Saddam to
> > disarm. It will not happen.
>
> Says who?
>
> The UN inspectors who where in the Iraq in the 90s destroyed more then
> 90 % of the offensive capability of Iraq. The UN inspectors did a better
> job then every militairy action against Iraq; including the 2nd gulf-war.
>
> This is the basic reason why the french diplomats accepted 1441 in the
> beginning. Together with the threath of militairy action of the US; this
> COULD work;
...it could have, *if* France and Germany hadn't immediately started
undermining it. In order for the threat of force to be effective, it has
to be credible, and Germany declaring that it wouldn't take part even
with UN authorization and France saying that "for us, war always means
failure", who is going to consider it a credible threat?
[zap]
> The US planners seams to work with figures of some 10 % of the Iraqi
> population on the run. Can you image 30 to 40 million people in the US
> (10 % of the total population) being forced to flee your home;
Iraq's a relatively small country (around a third of the population of
France, I think), with few large population centers.
> having to
> live in a UN camp for a couple of years; and then be able to come
> 'home' to find that your home and home-town is completely destroyed;
> everything your saved for has gone up in smoke; and that -as your
> employer's building have also been destroyed- your out of a job.
> (without any social wellfare-system to fall back to).
What? They don't have welfare? Oh, the suffering! Oh, the humanity!
Get a grip, Kristoff.
> Compair that to the number of people who got killed at 9/11; and you'll
> get a nice idea of the scale of the human cost of war.
Eh?
> You know what I never understand.
> Besides Kouwait, every neighbour of Iraq is completely against this war:
> Turkey, Iran, Jordania, S.A.
>
> So it THEY (who are located just NEXT to Iraq) do not find the situation
> in Iraq to be sufficiant dangerous enough; why can you say that you (at
> almost the other side of the globe) are threated by Iraq.
Turkey's unhappy about the possibility of an independent Kurdistan. The
rest are repressive autocracies worried about a having a democracy on
their border.
hognoxious
> Leonardo Been wrote:
> > Do you really want to keep Saddam Hussein in his office?
> >
>
The words 'omelette' and 'eggs' spring to mind.
Kristoff Bonne
rosignol heeft geschreven:
>>>>Can you tell us why it would be ok to unleash a war of mass
>>>>destruction on this planet just so these three men would be killed?
>>> Day after day, time after time, for YEARS we have asked Saddam to
>>>disarm. It will not happen.
>>Says who?
>>The UN inspectors who where in the Iraq in the 90s destroyed more then
>>90 % of the offensive capability of Iraq. The UN inspectors did a better
>>job then every militairy action against Iraq; including the 2nd gulf-war.
>>
>>This is the basic reason why the french diplomats accepted 1441 in the
>>beginning. Together with the threath of militairy action of the US; this
>>COULD work;
> ...it could have, *if* France and Germany hadn't immediately started
> undermining it. In order for the threat of force to be effective, it has
> to be credible, and Germany declaring that it wouldn't take part even
> with UN authorization and France saying that "for us, war always means
> failure", who is going to consider it a credible threat?
???
Are you saying that the fact that Germany doesn't participate in a war
means that the threat is -all of a sudden- that less effective.
I didn't know thet German army is so 'unmissable".
>>The US planners seams to work with figures of some 10 % of the Iraqi
>>population on the run. Can you image 30 to 40 million people in the US
>>(10 % of the total population) being forced to flee your home;
> Iraq's a relatively small country (around a third of the population of
> France, I think), with few large population centers.
Sure; but it's a dessert and (in the North) a mountain region.
I propose you sent (say) 100000 people from some large American city for
a two year stay in one of the desserts or a mountain region of the US.
You don't even need to travel that far. Just a couple of hunderds of
kilometers away from your home.
But no food, no money; only a minimal amount of cloths, just your car
(but with no petrol-stations working anyway) and no change to return to
your home-town for the next two years.
Good luck!
(That's the kind of reality of war that's not shown when the militairy
show their nice videos of smart bombs blowing up empty gouvernement
buildings).
>>having to
>> live in a UN camp for a couple of years; and then be able to come
>>'home' to find that your home and home-town is completely destroyed;
>>everything your saved for has gone up in smoke; and that -as your
>>employer's building have also been destroyed- your out of a job.
>>(without any social wellfare-system to fall back to).
> What? They don't have welfare? Oh, the suffering! Oh, the humanity!
> Get a grip, Kristoff.
You laugh; but when you've got your wive and (say) 3 kids to feed; lost
all you lives savings (and therefor the possibility to sent your kids to
high-school), no house and no work (hence, no money coming in) that's
not a joke!
(That's is as long as your lucky enough not to step on a landmine
somebody forgot, die of one of the many illnesses that seam to follow
after any war or something like that).
I propose; if you would ever happen to pass along this side of the
oceon; you do a little chat with some of the people who lived throu the
2nd world war. (I've have some family who lived throu that periode).
>>Compair that to the number of people who got killed at 9/11; and you'll
>>get a nice idea of the scale of the human cost of war.
> Eh?
Well, everything nowdays seams to be linked to "the war on terrorism"
and "making sure something like 9/11 will never happen again".
But, at the same time, the US administation seams to be preparing to
start a war which will probably cost as much as 10 times innocent
civilian casualities then 9/11 did.
>>You know what I never understand.
>>Besides Kouwait, every neighbour of Iraq is completely against this war:
>>Turkey, Iran, Jordania, S.A.
>>So it THEY (who are located just NEXT to Iraq) do not find the situation
>>in Iraq to be sufficiant dangerous enough; why can you say that you (at
>>almost the other side of the globe) are threated by Iraq.
> Turkey's unhappy about the possibility of an independent Kurdistan. ...
Nope. Turkey is unhappy of being dragged into a war it doesn't want. The
population doesn't want it, the gouvernement doesn't want it, the
parlement doesn't want it, the army doesn't want it. Nobody wants it!
But; the thing where where discussion in the perceived 'thread' of Iraq
on Turkey.
Why has Turkey only NOW asked for these "patriots" missisles to defend
itself against the threath of Iraqi missiles; and not earlier?
Very simply. It didn't feel threatend. by Iraq. There is the Northern
"no fly" zone; and the fact that Turkey is a NATO country.
Iraq was simply no threath to Turkey.
It are actually the actions of the US who made them a more lickely
target for missile attacks.
If the US president wouldn't have needed a 'success' (after having
failed to capture Bin-Laden in Afghanistan) to get re-elected; Turkey
would still feel very happy with the situation as it was then.
> ... The
> rest are repressive autocracies worried about a having a democracy on
> their border.
OK, Let's look at the case of Turkey.
Turkey now has a gouvernement and a parlement which -more or less-
represents the people. Look at the problems the US administration now
has to get its troops into the country.
Image the 'voice of the people' being spoken out in Saoudi Arabia,
Egypt, Jordan, Bahrein, ...
Result: out go the pro-American gouvernement; in come the islamists.
That is surely what the US administration wants, isn't it?
Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.
TonyaK911
Kristoff,
Sorry I seem to have overestimated your ability to percieve the real
world in all its awesome complexity.
But then again, maybe you're still pretty young... Then there's hope.
To better understand reality try reading this, if you have time:
http://www.infoisrael.net/cgi-local/text.pl?source=4/b/iv/1/250220032
To give you a basic idea about human rights in the Arab world, let me
suggest for your attention this brief:
Senior Iraq Defector May Not Have Made It
From DEBKA-Net-Weekly Feb. 21
February 25, 2003, 2:21 PM (GMT+02:00)
Iraqi mystery defector also held Syrian ruler`s secrets...
All may not be well for Adib Shaaban, senior aide to Saddam's powerful
son Uday and Iraq's highest-ranking would-be defector. His attempt to
flee to the United States, first revealed exclusively in
DEBKA-Net-Weekly 97 (February 14), may not have come off.
First a recap: Shaaban -- charged with Uday's most sensitive missions
-- traveled to Jeddah in early February, saying he needed to put
through some gold transactions ahead of the war.
From Jeddah, he flew to Beirut and disappeared.
But he never really went to the Lebanese capital. Instead, he made his
way undercover to Damascus Monday and was picked up by an unmarked
plane that flew him out of the Middle East.
At least, that's how Shaaban scripted his plan. But like so many
things in the murky world of intelligence, the plan went awry - as is
strongly indicated by the fresh information reaching DEBKA-Net-Weekly.
Our sources suggest that upon landing at Damascus on Saturday,
February 8, he walked straight into the arms of waiting Syrian
military intelligence officers who took him to their isolated
headquarters in the capital. He is probably still there under heavy
guard, as Syrian leader Bashar Assad fights off conflicting demands
from the White House and Saddam Hussein's presidential office for his
handover.
Further discoveries by our intelligence sources of the defector's
secret duties would further enhance his value for Washington and make
Saddam more anxious to keep him and the secrets in his head out of his
enemies' hands.
---Shaaban was the senior go-between for Baghdad's business with
Damascus.
--- He was privy to the clandestine movements of al Qaeda operatives
from Iraq to Lebanon via Syrian sea and air ports.
--- His hand was on the contraband route along which smuggled Iraqi
oil reached world markets through Syria's Mediterranean terminals.
Saddam and Assad share a stake in keeping this intelligence bomb out
of Western hands les he lay bare the full extent of Syria's
operational support for al Qaeda or the degree to which Assad violated
UN sanctions against Iraq. So why did Shaaban take the chance of
heading for Damascus?
He may have had no choice in the matter.
In Jeddah, the Saudis may have decided that this potato was too hot
for them to hold and hustled him aboard the first flight out, which
was bound for Damascus. Alternatively, the defector may have flown
directly to Damascus - a kosher destination given his job as
go-between - intending to continue from there in secret to Jeddah to
knock at the door of a US consulate or make his way to the West under
his own steam.
He was last seen on February 15 in Damascus telling reporters that the
"Iraqi opposition fabricated the tale" of his disappearance and
defection to a western embassy in Beirut "while I was still in
Baghdad." This indicates that he was betrayed to Uday by someone close
after he had taken off from Baghdad and was still in the air. He may
therefore no longer be alive.
For the time being, Assad is holding this high card close - handing
him over neither to America nor Iraq. He is biding his time until he
sees how the first round of the US military offensive against Iraq
turns out. If Saddam, his sons and army weather the American assault,
Shaaban's value will rocket, an ace in the hands of the Syrian
president for sale to the highest bidder, Washington or Baghdad.
For the moment, DEBKA-Net-Weekly's intelligence sources say, the
chances of Shaaban making it to the West are nil. Saddam was too quick
for him - or else Assad was faster than both.
Henry Cotter
>>Saddam security apparatus "Blown to bits" is
>> wrong, but leaving Saddam & Uday & Qusay
>> in power to rape, torture & murder is ok?
>Can you tell us why it would be ok to unleash
> a war of mass destruction on this planet just
> so these three men would be killed?
Can you prove that this war will kill thousands of innocent Iraqis? I
didn't think so either.
>Don't we as a civilized society have a better
> way of dealing with (alleged or proven)
> rapists, torturers, and murderers?
So why don't *you* propose a solution? Shall we talk to your hero
Saddam? Done that. Shall we simply click our heels and hope he stops
repressing his people? What is this "better" way? Keep in mind this
way has to be *feasable* for anyone to take it seriously.
>Do we bomb a whole section of Chicago,
> killing many innocent people along, just so
> that we could capture a mafia gang?
Strawman. And a stupid one at that.
>One thing the war enthusiasts
"War enthusiasts"? Nothing like labelling anyone who thinks you're
misguided a "war enthusiast." Moron.
>are most inclined to miss recognizing is that
> the scale of ferocity envisioned for this next
> war could really hurt, on a statistical basis,
> everyone of us to a large extent, even as they
> (the war enthusiasts) pretend that large
> numbers of civilians in Iraq would not be
> harmed.
Can you prove otherwise? Didn't think so either. Save your hot air for
those who aren't capable of thinking.
>Modern technology and wars do not mix, if we
> are to survive! In other words, modern
> technology makes wars obsolete. We must
> choose.
Indeed. Removing aggressors like Saddam Hussien is the *only* way peace
can be acheived in this world.
>P.S., Nobody is trying ``to keep Saddam in
> office´´.
Except for you, of course.
> It´s really not our business to either keep him
> or overthrow him, even though our
> government did keep him (by propping him
> up) for a couple of decades and now want to
> overthrow him.
Nice try. Lie has been spotted. If anyone has propped up your hero,
it's been the USSR.
--
Henry Cotter
"My Kharma ran over your Dogma."
Henry Cotter
>>I agree. It's a matter of choosing between the
>> lesser of two evils. To leave Hussein in
>> power is to continue the torture and
>> execution of many more people than will
>> happen in a war. It's hard to be the agents of
>> death, but the overwhelming testimony from
>> people in contact with people in Iraq is that
>> they would take the losses rather than
>> endure Hussein any longer.
>Sounds like you have been fooled by a piece
> of propaganda.
Propaganda which happens to be coroborated by the UN, International Red
Cross, Amnesty International, Doctors Without Borders, BBC, Human Rights
Watch, CNN, Foxnews.......
Come back with some *intelligence* in your "retorts" before you play
with the adults, kiddo.
David Lo
Henry Cotter <mano...@webtv.net> wrote:
>acou...@panix.com (David=A0Lo) wrote:
>
>>>Saddam security apparatus "Blown to bits" is
>>> wrong, but leaving Saddam & Uday & Qusay
>>> in power to rape, torture & murder is ok?
>
>>Can you tell us why it would be ok to unleash
>> a war of mass destruction on this planet just
>> so these three men would be killed?
What kind of proof do you want? Here:
The crux of the problem with attacking Iraq under the current plan is
the devastation such an attack would entail. The plan calls for, on
the average, a bomb every 5 minutes for about 3000 bombs every 48
hours, or 300-400 cruise-missiles everyday, day after day, until
either Saddam's government surrenders or we run out of bombs.
Our military gives the battle plan the name ``shock and awe''. It is
a thermo-psychological warfare of unprecedented proportions. The
idea, simply put, is to unleash such a fearsome force that it breaks
your adversary's will and make him surrender.
In the old days, when you wanted your captive to break and sign a
confession or tell you where his comrades were, you would tie him up
and punch him in the stomach with so many hard blows, he would pass
out and you would then pour a bucket of cold water over him and give
him another round if he remained steadfast, until he finally broke.
But now the same age-old technique would be amplified at least a few
billion-fold and affect tens of thousands if not millions of people.
Now the bombs will be more powerful than those ever used before (in
Afghanistan and certainly in Iraq during Gulf War I). But for the
sake of illustrating, we assume that a bomb to be dropped in the next
war will be simply a BLU-82, an earlier and inferior version of these
oft-mentioned daisy-cutters (BLU-82B) used in Afghanistan.
Notice that the explosive energy of these 3000 bombs together amounts
to that of a Hiroshima atom bomb, or 3000x25*10^9 joules energy
equivalent of heat, in every 48 hours, all confined to a locality of
probably the size of Baghdad.
If this amount of energy explodes or is released in a second, then the
energy is 75 billion times as intense as a 1000 watt device or close
to one trillion (750 billion to be exact) times as intense as a 100
watt light bulb. On the other hand, the energy released by applying a
horsepower for 1 second is only about 7.5 times more powerful than
burning a 100 watt light bulb for 1 second. So these 3000 BLU-82-type
bombs which explode in a second is more than 90 billion times more
powerful than something that can provide a horsepower in the same 1
second duration. (I use a 100-watt burning light bulb for comparison
so that we have a sense of how hot it can be when one trillion times
that amount of energy is unleashed in a short time. And I use
horsepower for comparison because that is the kind of force people
were used to fighting with throughout the history of human civilization.
And what kind of civilization, one might ask, is it, even without
thinking about this unthinkable thermo-psychological type of
devastation?)
(Just for your reference: According to Linus Pauling's General
Chemistry, an authoritative and accessible account by a foremost
scientist of the 20th century, each of the atomic bombs exploded in
August 1945 is .02 megatons or 20 kilotons. By comparison, a BLU82 we
have seen dropped in Afghanistan on a regular basis in 2000-1 is 6
tons. Tons are tons of TNT explosive of energy the bomb is capable of
releasing. In units of energy, 1 ton of TNT = 4x10^16 ergs = 4x10^9
joules.)
(And from the Federation of American Scientists: BLU-82 Commando Vault
- about the BLU-82B/C-130 weapon system, nicknamed the Daisy
Cutter. www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/blu-82.htm
BLU-82B
The BLU-82B/C-130 weapon system, nicknamed Commando Vault in Vietnam
and Daisy Cutter in Afghanistan, is a high altitude delivery of 15,000
pound conventional bomb, delivered from an MC-130 since it is far too
heavy for the bomb racks on any bomber or attack aircraft. Originally
designed to create an instant clearing in the jungle, it has been used
in Afghanistan as an anti-personnel weapon and as an intimidation
weapon because of its very large lethal radius (variously reported as
300-900 feet) combined with flash and sound visible at long distances.
It is the largest conventional bomb in existence but is less than one
thousandth the power of the Hiroshima nuclear bomb.
Frequent press reports to the contrary, the Daisy Cutter is not a
fuel-air explosive (FAE). It is a conventional explosive incorporating
both agent and oxidizer. In contrast, an FAE consists only of agent
and a dispersing mechanism, and takes its oxidizer from the oxygen in
the air. FAEs generally run between 500 and 2000 pounds; it would be
difficult to make an FAE the size of Daisy Cutter because the correct
uniform mixture of agent with ambient air would be difficult to
maintain if the agent were so widely dispersed. Thus, the conventional
explosive technique of Daisy Cutter is more reliable than that of an
FAE, particularly if there is significant wind or thermal gradient.
This system depends upon the accurate positioning of the aircraft by
either a fixed ground radar or onboard navigation equipment. The
ground radar controller, or aircrew navigator as applicable, is
responsible for positioning the aircraft prior to final countdown and
release. Primary aircrew considerations include accurate ballistic and
wind computations provided by the navigator, and precision instrument
flying with strict adherence to controller instructions. The minimum
altitude for release due to blast effects of the weapon is 6,000 feet
AGL. The BLU-82 was originally designed to clear helicopter landing
zones and artillery emplacements in Vietnam. The warhead contains
12,600 pounds of low-cost GSX slurry (ammonium nitrate, aluminum
powder, and polystyrene) and is detonated just above ground level by a
38-inch fuze extender, optimized for destruction and ground level
without digging a crater. The weapon produces an overpressure of 1000
psi [pounds per square inch] near ground zero, tapering off as
distance increases.
Eleven BLU-82s were dropped during Desert Storm, all from Special
Operations C-130s. The initial drops were intended to test the ability
of the bomb to clear mines; no reliable bomb damage assessment exists
on mine clearing effectiveness. Later, bombs were dropped as much for
their psychological effect as for their antipersonnel effects.)
This unprecedented amount of thermal energy unleashed in such a short
time creates longterm climate instability over the entire globe. And
another longterm disaster of the bombing stems from the tons of toxic
waste and pollutants generated by the explosions. Chemical reactions
of the kinds not found in usual laboratory conditions can simply take
place in the battlefield due to the high temperature and high pressure
the reactants find themselves in. The fine solid or liquid particles
suspended in air can both travel far and be extremely hazardous to the
health of human and animals alike.
The dust-like particles will spread through the process of diffusion.
Although the amount of these toxic hazardous materials falls off with
distance, people in Greece or Bulgaria, or in Italy and France, must
have gotten some from their deployment in the Wars of Bosnia (1995)
and Kosova (1999).
Likewise, the people of Kuwait, Turkey, Iran and Israel will get a
fair amount of the dose when Bush and company decide to attack Iraq.
And it will be much worse than what humanity has ever experienced.
Now a major factor which motivates such an unprecedentedly devastating
plan of action against Iraq is domestic political support. It has
been mentioned that victory has to be quick and decisive lest the
American people lose patience. Now, if we are going to fight a
defensive war, a patriotic war, a just war, there is no reason while
we, the people, would not persevere.
Other posters in this group has repeatedly debunked many of the
assertions made by Jeffrey B. These are simply lies fed him and the
rest of us by the war propaganda machine like the Kuwaiti incubator
baby story was a lie which was told on TV to millions to sway public
opinion to support Gulf War I.
In fact, the evidence the war machine provided us and the world is so
unconvincing that it has to throw in the liberation of the people of
Iraqi as an added incentive, even though the ``material breach''
language of UN resolutions which could trigger the use of force does
not mention it.
(Of course, it would not be possible to introduce such a rationale
because Iraq is a sovereign nation and a body of sovereign nations
isn't about to attack a sovereign member nation in the name of
liberating her people from their own government, however repressive
that government might be. For example, we've all heard about how
repressive the North Korean government is to its people; yet no one
has ever talked about attacking N. Korea so as to liberate her people.
The UN certainly did not take on the job of attacking the former
Yugoslavia, even though liberating the Kosovar Muslims from the Serbs
were the stated reason for the NATO attack.)
Iraq clearly does not have a viable nuclear weapon program. And she
clearly does not have the delivery capability to loantic
Ocean to land on our soil.
While Saddam Hussein is a dictator and probably a ruthless one when
dealing with his domestic adversaries, it is by no means clear that he
was a madman in the sense that he would do anything that would amount
to attacking the United States of America.
While Saddam's missiles could conceivably reach Israel, it is well
known that current Israeli military leadership does not consider them
a threat because of a lack of a testing program and a lack of actually
workable delivery systems. In any case, the bombing of the Osirak
nuclear reactor in 1981 shows Israel knows how to take care of her
neighbors and has excellent intelligence. She always has superior
intelligence and military power; just look at the 6-day war (since
then no other country has dared to challenge her. Israel knows it.
And our government also knows it.)
It would be clearly suicidal for Saddam to send terrorists to our soil
to unleash a million germs and kill thousands of us.
In fact Saddam never showed any aggressive intention towards nations
outside of his immediate region and there is no reason to believe he
has any intention to do so in the future.
The real reason our government wants to attack Iraq is not Saddam.
Saddam is only an excuse. The real reason our government wants to
attack Iraq is:
1) Iraq is weak and we know her defense capability inside out; and
2) gaining control of Iraq is of strategic interest to us, at least
according to some government policy thinkers. (There have been
all kinds of things written about the real motives for wanting
to attack Iraq; but our government has not been forthright with
us. And what it has said does not make sense.)
For us, the real question is:
In light of the vast destruction such a war would unleash and in
light of the preponderant question of human survival, can we
support any war on such a petty excuse as to rid a weakened dictator
who is equated with threats couched in terms of conceivability and
unquantified probabilities, in the name of regime change, of
elimination of weapons of mass destruction, or of liberating Iraq?
In other words, how much innocent Iraqi blood are we willing to spill
in order to attain our national strategic objective, whether it is to
remove Saddam or gain control of Iraq and whatever strategic advantage
she is standing on?
In light of what modern technology can do to our environment, I must
submit that we must choose, mutually exclusively, between the
possession of modern technology and the desire to wage wars.
In other words, if we want to have cell phones and satellite dishes
and CD and DVD players, we can't afford to harbor a desire to wage
wars.
For wars fought by means of weapons based on these same technologies
will lead to our own inevitable annihilation. Put another way, modern
technology and wars do not mix, if we are to survive. Nothing Saddam
did in the past or could do in the future warrant the kind of
destruction the Pentagon envisions to be unleashed in Iraq. Period.
Clearly, the perception of a lack of any evidence of substance to
support the war option is apparently shared almost universally, as
shown by UN inspector-in-chief Hans Blix's refutation of Secretary of
State Colin Powell's assessment and the overwhelming peace sentiment
expressed at the UN meetings on the 14th of February, 2003, which the
The Sydney Morning Herald refers to as ``Doves Ascending''. Can 6
billions of God's children on this planet be all wrong except those
like Jeffrey B.?
We may have to ``do something''. But war is emphatically not the
answer. Saddam has been contained (at the expense of the deaths of
many Iraqi children through the punishing sanction regimes imposed by
the UN over the past 12 years). Just keep him contained. It is an
infinitely superior option over killing many more children or leaving
them orphaned by a war.
Just ask an Iraqi mother; ask any mother. Would they prefer a war,
the kind of war being contemplated, whatever the reward? I think we
all know the answer.
Peace,
lo yeeOn
P.S., In reference to your personal accusations below, I would simply
say that I don't need to resort to lying because I am posting as part
of my Christian duty and I know my Savior Jesus of Nazareth wouldn't
like me to lie for him and that there are plenty of sources out there
to support my claims in these posts I made.
========
"Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall
be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers
be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is
the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the
champion and vindicator only of her own."
John Quincy Adams, 1821
-----
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children
of God.
Jesus of Nazareth, according to Matthews 5:9
>> office=B4=B4.
>
>Except for you, of course.
>
>> It=B4s really not our business to either keep him
David Lo
Henry Cotter <mano...@webtv.net> wrote:
>
>>>Saddam security apparatus "Blown to bits" is
>>> wrong, but leaving Saddam & Uday & Qusay
>>> in power to rape, torture & murder is ok?
>
>>Can you tell us why it would be ok to unleash
>> a war of mass destruction on this planet just
>> so these three men would be killed?
>
>Can you prove that this war will kill thousands of innocent Iraqis? I
>didn't think so either.
What kind of proof do you want? Here:
have seen dropped in Afghanistan on a regularf TNT explosive of energy the bomb is capable of
BLU-82B
Ocean to land on ourile Saddam Hussein is a dictator and probably a ruthless one when
Peace,
lo yeeOn
P.S., In response to your personal accusations below, I would simply
say that I don't need to resort to lying because I am posting as part
of my Christian duty and I know my Savior Jesus of Nazareth wouldn't
like me to lie for Him and that there are plenty of sources out there
to support my claims in these posts I made.
========
"Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall
be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers
be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is
the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the
champion and vindicator only of her own."
John Quincy Adams, 1821
-----
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children
of God.
Jesus of Nazareth, according to Matthews 5:9
>
>> office=B4=B4.
>
>Except for you, of course.
>
>> It=B4s really not our business to either keep him
rosignol
acou...@panix.com (David Lo) wrote:
[zap]
> Now the bombs will be more powerful than those ever used before (in
> Afghanistan and certainly in Iraq during Gulf War I). But for the
> sake of illustrating, we assume that a bomb to be dropped in the next
> war will be simply a BLU-82, an earlier and inferior version of these
> oft-mentioned daisy-cutters (BLU-82B) used in Afghanistan.
>
> Notice that the explosive energy of these 3000 bombs together amounts
> to that of a Hiroshima atom bomb, or 3000x25*10^9 joules energy
> equivalent of heat, in every 48 hours, all confined to a locality of
> probably the size of Baghdad.
Gee, don't you think that assuming the typical bomb dropped will be the
largest conventional weapon the US has in the inventory might queer the
numbers a little?
I doubt the US has more than a few hundred of the things.
[zap]
David Lo
Actually, I used the earlier, less powerful version (BLU82) so as to be
conservative.
Sincerely,
lo yeeOn
Henry Cotter
>Henry Cotter <mano...@webtv.net>
> wrote:
>>acou...@panix.com (David=A0Lo) wrote:
>>>>Saddam security apparatus "Blown to bits"
>>>> is wrong, but leaving Saddam & Uday &
>>>> Qusay in power to rape, torture & murder
>>>> is ok?
>>>Can you tell us why it would be ok t unleash
>>> a war of mass destruction on this planet
>>> just so these three men would be killed?
>>Do you have any proof this is going to
>> happen?
>What kind of proof do you want? Here: [snip
> weapons specs]
This is *not* proof of your premise. It's only valid if the weapons are
used on Iraqi civilians. In other words, I'll still be waiting for your
*evidence* that the attack on Iraq will be a "war of mass destruction."
But you'll never produce it because it doesn't exist. The only way you
can make your argument is to revise history, cite Bible passages, and
insist your predictions should be accepted as fact.
In other words, you're all smoke and mirrors, son.
David Lo
Henry Cotter <mano...@webtv.net> wrote:
>acou...@panix.com (David=A0Lo) wrote:
>
>>Henry Cotter <mano...@webtv.net>
>> wrote:
>
>
>>>>>Saddam security apparatus "Blown to bits"
>>>>> is wrong, but leaving Saddam & Uday &
>>>>> Qusay in power to rape, torture & murder
>>>>> is ok?
>
>>>>Can you tell us why it would be ok t unleash
>>>> a war of mass destruction on this planet
>>>> just so these three men would be killed?
>
>>>Do you have any proof this is going to
>>> happen?
>
>>What kind of proof do you want? Here: [snip
>> weapons specs]
>
>This is *not* proof of your premise. It's only valid if the weapons are
>used on Iraqi civilians. In other words, I'll still be waiting for your
>*evidence* that the attack on Iraq will be a "war of mass destruction."
>
I never said anywhere in my response that it was a ``proof''. And if you
read my post carefully, you would gather that it wouldn't matter if you
didn't aim these 30000 bombs every 48 hours at the civilians.
But look at what your original follow-up was asking! You said in context:
>>>Saddam security apparatus "Blown to bits" is
>>> wrong, but leaving Saddam & Uday & Qusay
>>> in power to rape, torture & murder is ok? [First Poster]
>
>>Can you tell us why it would be ok to unleash
>> a war of mass destruction on this planet just
>> so these three men would be killed? [lo yeeOn]
>
>Can you prove that this war will kill thousands of innocent Iraqis? I
>didn't think so either. [Henry Cotter]
Of course, you were not asking for a mathematical proof. The kind of
proof you were asking for is only causally available after it has been
written into the soil of our planet earth with blood and then echoed
in history books like the acts of devastation Hitler's Nazi Germany
and the Imperial Japan are now recorded in the history books.
When you say:
>Can you prove that this war will kill thousands of innocent Iraqis?
>I didn't think so either.
What you meant to say is something like: ``You would need to invent
some kind of anti-causality machine in order to fetch the evidence and
prove your point.'' So, you gloated: ``I didn't think so either.'',
answering for yourself.
I tried to do my part to provide you and others with the information;
but you dismissed it as weapon-specific. The only weapon-specific
aspect of my report was in regard to how this war on Iraq as
envisioned by our war planners at the Pentagon will compare with the
dropping of the Hiroshima Atom Bomb.
There is nothing weapon-specific about the devastation we're expected
to see. There is nothing weapon-specific about calculating the amount
of heat suddenly released into the atmosphere by these thousands of
bombs every 24 hours in terms of joules. We use electricity and its
consumption is computed in units of joules. And there is nothing
weapon-specific about how the physics of diffusion is going to affect
not only Iraq, but also Turkey, Kuwait, Iran, Israel, and other
countries in the neighborhood of this war of mass destruction, and
eventually you and me on our American soil. This war is going to have
a global and lasting effect, as you can see from the mathmatics and
the physics.
And unless you want to deny that the Hiroshima Atom Bomb caused
massive destruction, you can no more deny that this war on Iraq as
planned will also cause massive destruction, because of the naked
truth the numbers the computations of my report provide. In fact,
these computations tell me that the destruction would be more horrific
and its long term global effects less predictable.
The crux of the problem with attacking Iraq under the current plan is
the devastation such an attack would entail. The plan calls for, on
the average, a bomb every 5 minutes for about 3000 bombs every 48
hours, or 300-400 cruise-missiles everyday, day after day, until
either Saddam's government surrenders or we run out of bombs.
Our military gives the battle plan the name ``shock and awe''. It is
a thermo-psychological warfare of unprecedented proportions. The
idea, simply put, is to unleash such a fearsome force that it breaks
your adversary's will and make him surrender.
In the old days, when you wanted your captive to break and sign a
confession or tell you where his comrades were, you would tie him up
and punch him in the stomach with so many hard blows, he would pass
out and you would then pour a bucket of cold water over him and give
him another round if he remained steadfast, until he finally broke.
But now the same age-old technique would be amplified at least a few
billion-fold and affect tens of thousands if not millions of people.
In fact, Tom Crowley in another thread actually presented a very
similar line of argument for why a war on Iraq as planned simply
should not be fought. I am quoting a little of what is in his post:
http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/local/5260846.htm
U.S. Plan for Saddam: Shock and Awe
By WILLIAM BUNCH
bun...@phillynews.com
IT STARTS on a pitch-black, moonless night - quite possibly in two weeks or
less - over the sands of the Iraqi desert.
Suddenly, Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from warships in the Persian
Gulf pierce the cool Arabian night, joined in a matter of minutes by
precision satellite-guided bombs fired by B-2 Stealth bombers at high
altitude.
In the pre-dawn darkness, Baghdad reels from one bomb blast, then another -
one just about every four minutes. As the sun rises, the missile assault
continues at the same brutal pace, wiping out not only military units but
also power plants and water supplies.
By the end of 48 hours, as many as 800 Tomahawks will have fallen on
Baghdad - more than during the entire 1991 Gulf War. At the same time,
Stealth bombers will strike as many as 3,000 military targets across Iraq.
The Pentagon calls the proposed pyrotechnic display "Shock and Awe" - a new
kind of psychological warfare technique aimed at forcing a confused and
shellshocked Iraqi military to collapse within two days, thus achieving
quick victory.
But a growing chorus of antiwar critics calls the new strategy a blueprint
for killing thousands of civilians in Baghdad. They were particularly
alarmed when the military strategist who came up with "Shock and Awe"
compared it last month to the 1945 nuclear attack on Hiroshima.
Even some former military men are dubious about "Shock and Awe."
"One very probable response is to trigger the nationalistic impulse to
defend the motherland," said Wayne Lee, a University of Louisville history
professor who served in the Army in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. But Lee said
"air-power theorists and 'alternative thinkers' believe this is the wave of
the future."
CBS News reported late last month that the current Pentagon war plans call
for a "Shock and Awe" bombardment of Baghdad if and when a war in Iraq
begins. If the report is true, the likely war in Iraq could mark a turning
point in modern warfare. It would be the most intense non-nuclear bombing
campaign ever - potentially making the aerial assault depicted in Picasso's
"Guernica" look like a Monet watercolor.
. . .
Now Iraq clearly does not have a viable nuclear weapon program. And she
clearly does not have the delivery capability to lob a chemical or
biological warhead across the Mediterranean and then the Atlantic
Peace,
lo yeeOn
> [snip]
Kristoff Bonne
TonyaK911 heeft geschreven:
>>>>My impression is that -in the West- the interest in the human rights of
>>>>people in other country is only of interest if it doesn't cost to much
>>>>of the own economic developement.
>>>>I didn't hear anybody talk of the 'suffering of the Iraqi people' when
>>>>'we' needed Iraq to fight Iran; as less as I hear somebody talk of the
>>>>"suffering of the people" of some other countries (who's gouvernement we
>>>>need now for whatever reason).
>>>Congratulations, Kristoff!
>>>You've just discovered that the world is not uni-dimensional.
>>>Those who seek simplistic solutions, based on a single principle (be
>>>that "human rights" or "environment concerns" or religious belief),
>>>may be good people, but I'd say very primitive thinkers.
>>Well; there are some attempts by some countries to "try to do their
>>bit". I read some time ago that Iran is trying to do some of its part
>>for its human-right record because of the pressure of the EU.
>>Turkey is also 'cleaning up' because of their whish to join the EU.
> Sorry I seem to have overestimated your ability to percieve the real
> world in all its awesome complexity.
> But then again, maybe you're still pretty young...
That's a hasty conclussion ;-)
> ... Then there's hope.
> To better understand reality try reading this, if you have time:
> http://www.infoisrael.net/cgi-local/text.pl?source=4/b/iv/1/250220032
> To give you a basic idea about human rights in the Arab world, let me
> suggest for your attention this brief:
I posted this in t.p.e-u; so I looked at this from the point-of-view of
the "western countries".
I was just trying to point out that there are some "Western countries"
which are trying to "do their bit"; do try to use their economic and
political power to "help" the human-rights position in other countries.
The two examples I have (Iran and Turkey) are examples of where the EU
is using its economic power to "help out".
I don"t want to say the EU is perfect and/or that there aren't any outer
countries who try/do this too); but I have those examples as I posted in
a EU-related NG.
Anycase; if you look the history of the human rights in the west, or (to
take another example) labor-related rights; these things didn't happen
"by themself" neither.
It wasn't just the employers saying "OK, let's be nice for a change and
lets allow and promote trade-unions".
No, these kind of events happened because the employers where forced to
do this (forced by the internal forces of a changing society).
But, the end result is, that -in the end- it has created a situation
where it is for the employer better to have a certain level of
labour-rights for the employees so that they are "happy in their job",,
stay in your companies and provide good work at a descent quality.
I think the same thing applies in the middle-east. (I'm speaking very
broadly now;; so this might apply less or not at all for certain countries).
At this time; there is a very "odd" situation as the gouvernement of
most of the countries in the region are faced with a situation where -on
the one side- the economic advantage for the country is to be
"pro-western" (and -at these times where the US is the only superpower-
"Pro-American") and -on the other side- a population which is (for
whatever reason) "not that pro-western" (hum ;-) ).
So, either you're pro-western and against your own population; or "not
so pro-western" and follow more the voice of your population.
If you look at the whole issue now in Turkey about the deal for allowing
US troops on its territory; I think this is a nice example of a
gouvernement and a parlement who are forced to choice between being
pro-american (with the possitive economic effects that come with it) or
following the "voice of the population" (which is +80% against this war).
So; what's the solution for this?
I don't know; but -IMHO- one of things that CAN have a possitive effect;
is that the EU would use its economic "power" (or, let's call it the
economic "opportunities" ;-)) it has to try to influence the economic
"dynamics" in the societies of some middle-east countries.
It would need to propuse a solution by saying "If you allow more
democracy in your country; you have more access to the European market
and -hence- have a economic advantage by being more democratic".
So; that for a gouvernement in the middle-east; it is not a choice of
being "pro-western, against your population, not democratic" or
"anti-western, democratic".
This choice should be "pro-western AND democratic".
E.g. the very simple fact that membership of the EU by Turkey IS
dependent on its human-right record.
And, once it is member of the EU; that its human rights record can
continuesly be 'checked' by the European Parlement which can -if it
descided that Turkey does not adhere to the principle of the European
Threaty on human rights- block payments of the EU to the country and
even tempory revoke the voting-right of the turkish gouvernement on the
council.
So; this means that Turkish MEPs can -via the EP- have very large
inluence on their own gouvernement (perhaps even more then their own
parlement).
But, I see two problems with that:
1/ Again, as I said when I started this discussion, that it can -in a
time of "change-over"- create situation where "the populus" can descide
in certain things "not the way the west want them to descide" (as the
Americans are now finding out in Turkey).
BTW. If the Turkish parlement would descide a second time (on the 4th or
the 5th of March) not to allow US troops on its territory for an
invasion of Iraq and that the Americans descide to 'find another
solution' not involving Turkey; it would probably be the only country
where "the democratic process" has meant that the gouvernement is forced
to "come back" on a descision based on the "public opinion" in this
issue of Iraq
This is something that can -at this time- not be said of some the
"democratic countries of the EU", like the UK, Spain or Italy.
2/ This doesn't work in a country which is ruled by a dictatorship (like
Iraq); where other solutions are needed.
The problem (for the west) is that it needs to make sure that this
"other solution" does not alliate itself for the public opinion in other
countries in the middle east.
But, I do know this is all a very "academic discussion" at this time;
and that the reality "on the ground" still is very different.
But, IMHO, this shouldn't be a reason not discusse the 'broader' state
of things.
Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.