at last...dawning realism over iraq......
abelard
http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz083002.asp
waiting is not a sane option....
'appeasement is feeding the crocodile in the hope
that it will eat you last'....churchill....
regards....
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
politics, ethics, education, etc >400,000 document calls yearly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for I walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that I a big stick.
good people do nothing I trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Sunil
but what has saddam done to you?
i think the us is a bigger threat to iraq than vice versa....
(hint...who has aircraft carriers stationed in the gulf?)
regards.
sunil
--
abelard
typed:
>but what has saddam done to you?
>
>i think the us is a bigger threat to iraq than vice versa....
who to....india or britain?
>(hint...who has aircraft carriers stationed in the gulf?)
try biochemistry...
regards.
Dr. Sunil
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 16:47:50 +0100, "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk>
>
> typed:
>
> >but what has saddam done to you?
bliar is a bigger threat to you or me i fancy!
> >i think the us is a bigger threat to iraq than vice versa....
>
> who to....india or britain?
this is a set of articles that may interest you...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2115930.stm
Monday, 8 July, 2002, 11:23 GMT 12:23 UK
Iraq and India ties warmed by oil deals
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2226519.stm
Friday, 30 August, 2002, 20:35 GMT 21:35 UK
Silent response to US war plans
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1047332.stm
Wednesday, 29 November, 2000, 22:03 GMT
Iraq and India move closer
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1521030.stm
Sunday, 2 September, 2001, 00:32 GMT 01:32 UK
Indian delegation meet Iraqi president
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1015186.stm
Thursday, 9 November, 2000, 14:11 GMT
Indian MPs attack Iraq embargo
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/357626.stm
Monday, May 31, 1999 Published at 20:58 GMT 21:58 UK
World: South Asia
India to repair Iraqi oil facilities
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/407595.stm
Friday, July 30, 1999 Published at 09:02 GMT 10:02 UK
World: South Asia
India 'appears to flout Iraq embargo'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/236839.stm
Thursday, December 17, 1998 Published at 10:00 GMT
World: South Asia
India slams Iraq bombing
it seems that the world's largest democracy simply does not see
muslim iraq as a threat...despite the gulf being much closer to that
country than to the us...
compare india's attitude with that of the world's most 'merkin'
democracy.....
> >(hint...who has aircraft carriers stationed in the gulf?)
>
> try biochemistry...
[sigh] i know....i'm only a biochemist.....
regards.
sunil
--
Alan G
wrote:
>
>http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz083002.asp
>waiting is not a sane option....
>
>'appeasement is feeding the crocodile in the hope
> that it will eat you last'....churchill....
I take it you mean Iraq is the crocodile.
What if the lion you have allied yourself with decides to eat you
afterwards?
>
>regards....
Alan G
abelard
typed:
>
>
>On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 16:47:50 +0100, "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk>
>>
>> typed:
>>
>> >but what has saddam done to you?
>
>bliar is a bigger threat to you or me i fancy!
devil & deep blue seas....
>> >i think the us is a bigger threat to iraq than vice versa....
>>
>> who to....india or britain?
>
>this is a set of articles that may interest you...
more bluddy work!
why the 'despite'?
>compare india's attitude with that of the world's most 'merkin'
>democracy.....
doesn't it make you pause and wonder why?
>> >(hint...who has aircraft carriers stationed in the gulf?)
>>
>> try biochemistry...
>
>[sigh] i know....i'm only a biochemist.....
not 'only'...
abelard
typed:
such is the jungle...
have you alternate bets to propose?
if you had a great big gun....what would you do?
Alan G
wrote:
>On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 18:34:12 +0100, Alan G <al...@ntlworld.com>
>
> typed:
>
>>On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 16:27:31 +0200, abelard <abe...@abelard.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz083002.asp
>>>waiting is not a sane option....
>>>
>>>'appeasement is feeding the crocodile in the hope
>>> that it will eat you last'....churchill....
>>
>>I take it you mean Iraq is the crocodile.
>>What if the lion you have allied yourself with decides to eat you
>>afterwards?
>
>such is the jungle...
>have you alternate bets to propose?
>if you had a great big gun....what would you do?
>
We have a great big gun and have done for ffity years.
How would you use it?
--
Alan G
The rule of law 'excludes the idea of any exemption
of officials or others from the duty of obedience to
the law which governs other citizens or from the
jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals'
(Dicey)
abelard
typed:
>On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 22:07:32 +0200, abelard <abe...@abelard.org>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 18:34:12 +0100, Alan G <al...@ntlworld.com>
>>
>> typed:
>>
>>>On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 16:27:31 +0200, abelard <abe...@abelard.org>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz083002.asp
>>>>waiting is not a sane option....
>>>>
>>>>'appeasement is feeding the crocodile in the hope
>>>> that it will eat you last'....churchill....
>>>
>>>I take it you mean Iraq is the crocodile.
>>>What if the lion you have allied yourself with decides to eat you
>>>afterwards?
>>
>>such is the jungle...
>>have you alternate bets to propose?
>>if you had a great big gun....what would you do?
>We have a great big gun and have done for ffity years.
>
>How would you use it?
thus far i am content...
regards.
Dr. Sunil
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 18:06:30 +0100, "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk>
>
> typed:
>
> >
> >
> >On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 16:47:50 +0100, "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk>
> >>
> >> typed:
> >>
> >> >but what has saddam done to you?
> >
> >bliar is a bigger threat to you or me i fancy!
>
> devil & deep blue seas....
>
> >> >i think the us is a bigger threat to iraq than vice versa....
> >>
> >> who to....india or britain?
> >
> >this is a set of articles that may interest you...
>
> more bluddy work!
i pride myself on my 'research'....
proximity to alleged iraqi 'threat'? the gulf is effectively india's
backyard....
also a million or more indians work in the region....
> >compare india's attitude with that of the world's most 'merkin'
> >democracy.....
>
> doesn't it make you pause and wonder why?
'merkin' paranoia....or sheer bloodlust?
> >> >(hint...who has aircraft carriers stationed in the gulf?)
> >>
> >> try biochemistry...
> >
> >[sigh] i know....i'm only a biochemist.....
>
> not 'only'...
like i says above....i pride myself on my 'research'...
regards.
sunil
--
abelard
typed:
>On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 18:06:30 +0100, "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk>
>> >it seems that the world's largest democracy simply does not see
>> >muslim iraq as a threat...despite the gulf being much closer to that
>> >country than to the us...
>>
>> why the 'despite'?
>
>proximity to alleged iraqi 'threat'? the gulf is effectively india's
>backyard....
>
>also a million or more indians work in the region....
how is any of that a 'despite'?
>> >compare india's attitude with that of the world's most 'merkin'
>> >democracy.....
>>
>> doesn't it make you pause and wonder why?
>
>'merkin' paranoia....or sheer bloodlust?
you can't be seriouuuuuussssssss.....
>> >> >(hint...who has aircraft carriers stationed in the gulf?)
>> >>
>> >> try biochemistry...
>> >
>> >[sigh] i know....i'm only a biochemist.....
>>
>> not 'only'...
>
>like i says above....i pride myself on my 'research'...
ok...so you can look things up...
now come up with sommat better than 'sheer bloodlust'......
i repeat...are you indian or british?
regards...
Dr. Sunil
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 13:10:58 +0100, "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk>
>
> typed:
>
> >On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 18:06:30 +0100, "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk>
>
> >> >it seems that the world's largest democracy simply does not see
> >> >muslim iraq as a threat...despite the gulf being much closer to that
> >> >country than to the us...
> >>
> >> why the 'despite'?
> >
> >proximity to alleged iraqi 'threat'? the gulf is effectively india's
> >backyard....
> >
> >also a million or more indians work in the region....
>
> how is any of that a 'despite'?
where is merkia relative to iraq?
where is india relative to iraq?
> >> >compare india's attitude with that of the world's most 'merkin'
> >> >democracy.....
> >>
> >> doesn't it make you pause and wonder why?
> >
> >'merkin' paranoia....or sheer bloodlust?
>
> you can't be seriouuuuuussssssss.....
unless bliar and shrub wish to divert attention from pressing domestic
matters....
> >> >> >(hint...who has aircraft carriers stationed in the gulf?)
> >> >>
> >> >> try biochemistry...
> >> >
> >> >[sigh] i know....i'm only a biochemist.....
> >>
> >> not 'only'...
> >
> >like i says above....i pride myself on my 'research'...
>
> ok...so you can look things up...
why thank you....
> now come up with sommat better than 'sheer bloodlust'......
now come up with something other than an alleged iraqi 'threat'....
remember saddam's god-awful attempt to invade iran in 1980....
in eight years his forces barely advanced a hundred miles!
and kuwait? he only held it for six months! (compare with israel's
continued occupation...with merkia's blessing...of land captured in
'67....)
even his 'scud' attacks on israel caused superficial damage and
minimal casualties....apart from the poor jewish lady who suffocated
after putting her gas mask on incorrectly....
he could have used gas then....but didn't!
and who was the first to authorise gassing the rebellious kurds?
it was winston churchill in his capacity as war secretary during the
'20s....
> i repeat...are you indian or british?
i do not speak for the govt. of india...
i can only give you the results of my 'research'...
at least i'm not 'merkin'...i assure you....
regards.
sunil
--
abelard
typed:
>where is merkia relative to iraq?
>where is india relative to iraq?
don't be naive....
>> >> >compare india's attitude with that of the world's most 'merkin'
>> >> >democracy.....
>> >>
>> >> doesn't it make you pause and wonder why?
>> >
>> >'merkin' paranoia....or sheer bloodlust?
>>
>> you can't be seriouuuuuussssssss.....
>
>unless bliar and shrub wish to divert attention from pressing domestic
>matters....
don't be naive.....
>> now come up with sommat better than 'sheer bloodlust'......
>
>now come up with something other than an alleged iraqi 'threat'....
>remember saddam's god-awful attempt to invade iran in 1980....
>in eight years his forces barely advanced a hundred miles!
>
>and kuwait? he only held it for six months! (compare with israel's
>continued occupation...with merkia's blessing...of land captured in
>'67....)
>
>even his 'scud' attacks on israel caused superficial damage and
>minimal casualties....apart from the poor jewish lady who suffocated
>after putting her gas mask on incorrectly....
>
>he could have used gas then....but didn't!
>
>and who was the first to authorise gassing the rebellious kurds?
>
>it was winston churchill in his capacity as war secretary during the
>'20s....
don't be naive....
>> i repeat...are you indian or british?
>
>i do not speak for the govt. of india...
who can you 'speak for'?
what is your agenda?
>i can only give you the results of my 'research'...
you are also capable of thought.....
>at least i'm not 'merkin'...i assure you....
very possibly....but what are you?
regards.
Dr. Sunil
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 14:01:36 +0100, "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk>
>
> typed:
>
> >where is merkia relative to iraq?
> >where is india relative to iraq?
>
> don't be naive....
define 'naive'...
> >> >> >compare india's attitude with that of the world's most 'merkin'
> >> >> >democracy.....
> >> >>
> >> >> doesn't it make you pause and wonder why?
> >> >
> >> >'merkin' paranoia....or sheer bloodlust?
> >>
> >> you can't be seriouuuuuussssssss.....
> >
> >unless bliar and shrub wish to divert attention from pressing domestic
> >matters....
>
> don't be naive.....
i think you are....please dispel my fears...
> >> now come up with sommat better than 'sheer bloodlust'......
> >
> >now come up with something other than an alleged iraqi 'threat'....
> >remember saddam's god-awful attempt to invade iran in 1980....
> >in eight years his forces barely advanced a hundred miles!
> >
> >and kuwait? he only held it for six months! (compare with israel's
> >continued occupation...with merkia's blessing...of land captured in
> >'67....)
> >
> >even his 'scud' attacks on israel caused superficial damage and
> >minimal casualties....apart from the poor jewish lady who suffocated
> >after putting her gas mask on incorrectly....
> >
> >he could have used gas then....but didn't!
> >
> >and who was the first to authorise gassing the rebellious kurds?
> >
> >it was winston churchill in his capacity as war secretary during the
> >'20s....
>
> don't be naive....
truth hurts sometimes....
> >> i repeat...are you indian or british?
> >
> >i do not speak for the govt. of india...
>
> who can you 'speak for'?
meself?
> what is your agenda?
male....i think....
> >i can only give you the results of my 'research'...
>
> you are also capable of thought.....
as are you....as is bliar....as is shrub....
> >at least i'm not 'merkin'...i assure you....
>
> very possibly....but what are you?
sunil?
regards.
sunil
--
abelard
typed:
>
>
>On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 14:01:36 +0100, "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk>
>>
>> typed:
>>
>> >where is merkia relative to iraq?
>> >where is india relative to iraq?
>>
>> don't be naive....
>
>define 'naive'...
naīve adj. (also naive)
1artless; innocent; unaffected.
2foolishly credulous; simple.
>> >> >> >compare india's attitude with that of the world's most 'merkin'
>> >> >> >democracy.....
>> >> >>
>> >> >> doesn't it make you pause and wonder why?
>> >> >
>> >> >'merkin' paranoia....or sheer bloodlust?
>> >>
>> >> you can't be seriouuuuuussssssss.....
>> >
>> >unless bliar and shrub wish to divert attention from pressing domestic
>> >matters....
>>
>> don't be naive.....
>
>i think you are....please dispel my fears...
what are you frightened of?
>> >> now come up with sommat better than 'sheer bloodlust'......
>> >
>> >now come up with something other than an alleged iraqi 'threat'....
>> >remember saddam's god-awful attempt to invade iran in 1980....
>> >in eight years his forces barely advanced a hundred miles!
>> >
>> >and kuwait? he only held it for six months! (compare with israel's
>> >continued occupation...with merkia's blessing...of land captured in
>> >'67....)
>> >
>> >even his 'scud' attacks on israel caused superficial damage and
>> >minimal casualties....apart from the poor jewish lady who suffocated
>> >after putting her gas mask on incorrectly....
>> >
>> >he could have used gas then....but didn't!
>> >
>> >and who was the first to authorise gassing the rebellious kurds?
>> >
>> >it was winston churchill in his capacity as war secretary during the
>> >'20s....
>>
>> don't be naive....
>
>truth hurts sometimes....
i haven't the slightest evidence of that.....
>> >> i repeat...are you indian or british?
>> >
>> >i do not speak for the govt. of india...
>>
>> who can you 'speak for'?
>
>meself?
>
>> what is your agenda?
>
>male....i think....
evasive....
>> >i can only give you the results of my 'research'...
>>
>> you are also capable of thought.....
>
>as are you....as is bliar....as is shrub....
so you have reached that far....
>> >at least i'm not 'merkin'...i assure you....
>>
>> very possibly....but what are you?
>
>sunil?
i still wish to know your agenda....
Dr. Sunil
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 15:50:42 +0100, "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk>
>
> typed:
>
> >
> >
> >On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 14:01:36 +0100, "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk>
> >>
> >> typed:
> >>
> >> >where is merkia relative to iraq?
> >> >where is india relative to iraq?
> >>
> >> don't be naive....
> >
> >define 'naive'...
>
> naïve adj. (also naive)
> 1artless; innocent; unaffected.
> 2foolishly credulous; simple.
a good description of shrub and bliar then....
> >> >> >> >compare india's attitude with that of the world's most 'merkin'
> >> >> >> >democracy.....
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> doesn't it make you pause and wonder why?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >'merkin' paranoia....or sheer bloodlust?
> >> >>
> >> >> you can't be seriouuuuuussssssss.....
> >> >
> >> >unless bliar and shrub wish to divert attention from pressing domestic
> >> >matters....
> >>
> >> don't be naive.....
> >
> >i think you are....please dispel my fears...
>
> what are you frightened of?
i fear you have fallen for shrub's propaganda....as has bliar....
> >> >> now come up with sommat better than 'sheer bloodlust'......
> >> >
> >> >now come up with something other than an alleged iraqi 'threat'....
> >> >remember saddam's god-awful attempt to invade iran in 1980....
> >> >in eight years his forces barely advanced a hundred miles!
> >> >
> >> >and kuwait? he only held it for six months! (compare with israel's
> >> >continued occupation...with merkia's blessing...of land captured in
> >> >'67....)
> >> >
> >> >even his 'scud' attacks on israel caused superficial damage and
> >> >minimal casualties....apart from the poor jewish lady who suffocated
> >> >after putting her gas mask on incorrectly....
> >> >
> >> >he could have used gas then....but didn't!
> >> >
> >> >and who was the first to authorise gassing the rebellious kurds?
> >> >
> >> >it was winston churchill in his capacity as war secretary during the
> >> >'20s....
> >>
> >> don't be naive....
> >
> >truth hurts sometimes....
>
> i haven't the slightest evidence of that.....
if you do your 'research' you will find the 'truth'....
> >> >> i repeat...are you indian or british?
> >> >
> >> >i do not speak for the govt. of india...
> >>
> >> who can you 'speak for'?
> >
> >meself?
> >
> >> what is your agenda?
> >
> >male....i think....
>
> evasive....
last time i checked.....
> >> >i can only give you the results of my 'research'...
> >>
> >> you are also capable of thought.....
> >
> >as are you....as is bliar....as is shrub....
>
> so you have reached that far....
but shrub and bliar seem not to be *willing* to 'think'....
> >> >at least i'm not 'merkin'...i assure you....
> >>
> >> very possibly....but what are you?
> >
> >sunil?
>
> i still wish to know your agenda....
i only wish to point out....as i said above....that bliar in all
probability is a greater threat to your and me than saddam...
think of our 'health' 'service'...our railways...law and 'order'....
regards.
sunil
--
Barton Whoops
How to succeed in the 20th Century....
Start war with USA
Lose and get invaded by same
Have political system imposed by same
Forget about war, get on with life and building a world beating
economy in just a few decades.
Perhaps its just what Iraq needs?
abelard
typed:
>On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 15:50:42 +0100, "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk>
>> >> don't be naive....
>> >
>> >define 'naive'...
>>
>> naīve adj. (also naive)
>> 1artless; innocent; unaffected.
>> 2foolishly credulous; simple.
>
>a good description of shrub and bliar then....
you just might apply it to bliar.....it certainly seems to apply to you...
>> >> don't be naive.....
>> >
>> >i think you are....please dispel my fears...
>>
>> what are you frightened of?
>
>i fear you have fallen for shrub's propaganda....as has bliar....
that you think i have fallen for 'shrub's propaganda' frightens you....
then you need not be frightened.....
>> >> don't be naive....
>> >
>> >truth hurts sometimes....
>>
>> i haven't the slightest evidence of that.....
>
>if you do your 'research' you will find the 'truth'....
which truth...about what?
>> >> >> i repeat...are you indian or british?
>> >> >
>> >> >i do not speak for the govt. of india...
>> >>
>> >> who can you 'speak for'?
>> >
>> >meself?
>> >
>> >> what is your agenda?
>> >
>> >male....i think....
>>
>> evasive....
>
>last time i checked.....
still evasive....
>> >> >i can only give you the results of my 'research'...
>> >>
>> >> you are also capable of thought.....
>> >
>> >as are you....as is bliar....as is shrub....
>>
>> so you have reached that far....
>
>but shrub and bliar seem not to be *willing* to 'think'....
that suggests your real meaning is they don't appear to
be willing to think what you wish them to think.....
however....it remains difficult as you don't state just what
you do think.....
so far you are merely making suggestions that you *may* be
dis-satisfied with something you never can bring yourself
to quite voice or commit yourself to......
>> >> >at least i'm not 'merkin'...i assure you....
>> >>
>> >> very possibly....but what are you?
>> >
>> >sunil?
>>
>> i still wish to know your agenda....
>
>i only wish to point out....as i said above....that bliar in all
>probability is a greater threat to your and me than saddam...
that is not my judgement......
but my concern goes beyond myself....
you are still not stating your agenda....
>think of our 'health' 'service'...our railways...law and 'order'....
why?
Dr. Sunil
On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 18:05:48 +0100, "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk>
>
> typed:
>
> >On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 15:50:42 +0100, "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk>
>
> >> >> don't be naive....
> >> >
> >> >define 'naive'...
> >>
> >> naïve adj. (also naive)
> >> 1artless; innocent; unaffected.
> >> 2foolishly credulous; simple.
> >
> >a good description of shrub and bliar then....
>
> you just might apply it to bliar.....it certainly seems to apply to you...
why spend the last five years calling our 'great leader' bliar...the
public liar....and now suddenly believe him?
> >> >> don't be naive.....
> >> >
> >> >i think you are....please dispel my fears...
> >>
> >> what are you frightened of?
> >
> >i fear you have fallen for shrub's propaganda....as has bliar....
>
> that you think i have fallen for 'shrub's propaganda' frightens you....
> then you need not be frightened.....
then why take his line on iraq hook line and sinker?
> >> >> don't be naive....
> >> >
> >> >truth hurts sometimes....
> >>
> >> i haven't the slightest evidence of that.....
> >
> >if you do your 'research' you will find the 'truth'....
>
> which truth...about what?
a general observation....
> >> >> >> i repeat...are you indian or british?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >i do not speak for the govt. of india...
> >> >>
> >> >> who can you 'speak for'?
> >> >
> >> >meself?
> >> >
> >> >> what is your agenda?
> >> >
> >> >male....i think....
> >>
> >> evasive....
> >
> >last time i checked.....
>
> still evasive....
still male it seems....
> >> >> >i can only give you the results of my 'research'...
> >> >>
> >> >> you are also capable of thought.....
> >> >
> >> >as are you....as is bliar....as is shrub....
> >>
> >> so you have reached that far....
> >
> >but shrub and bliar seem not to be *willing* to 'think'....
>
> that suggests your real meaning is they don't appear to
> be willing to think what you wish them to think.....
in bliar's case...he is merely parroting shrub....
> however....it remains difficult as you don't state just what
> you do think.....
i don't want to see needless destruction or loss of life...
here or in the gulf....
> so far you are merely making suggestions that you *may* be
> dis-satisfied with something you never can bring yourself
> to quite voice or commit yourself to......
my loyalty is to common sense....i do no owe blind allegiance to any
'govt'....
> >> >> >at least i'm not 'merkin'...i assure you....
> >> >>
> >> >> very possibly....but what are you?
> >> >
> >> >sunil?
> >>
> >> i still wish to know your agenda....
> >
> >i only wish to point out....as i said above....that bliar in all
> >probability is a greater threat to your and me than saddam...
>
> that is not my judgement......
> but my concern goes beyond myself....
a threat to everyone in britain....not just to you and me...
> you are still not stating your agenda....
i have told....i am male :)
> >think of our 'health' 'service'...our railways...law and 'order'....
>
> why?
see? bliar the public liar has deflected even your attention from
pressing domestic concerns!
he has lied before....he is in all probability still lying to us!
regards.
sunil
--
abelard
typed:
>On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
>why spend the last five years calling our 'great leader' bliar...the
>public liar....and now suddenly believe him?
oh dear my naive friend...not at all....i merely agree with
his actions thus far on this matter.....
i am not responsible if he does sommat right or well.....
>> that you think i have fallen for 'shrub's propaganda' frightens you....
>> then you need not be frightened.....
>
>then why take his line on iraq hook line and sinker?
because i fully and whole-heartedly agree with it....see above...
>> >> >> what is your agenda?
>> >> >
>> >> >male....i think....
>> >>
>> >> evasive....
>> >
>> >last time i checked.....
>>
>> still evasive....
>
>still male it seems....
a secret agenda...intriguing.....
>> >> >> >i can only give you the results of my 'research'...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> you are also capable of thought.....
>> >> >
>> >> >as are you....as is bliar....as is shrub....
>> >>
>> >> so you have reached that far....
>> >
>> >but shrub and bliar seem not to be *willing* to 'think'....
>>
>> that suggests your real meaning is they don't appear to
>> be willing to think what you wish them to think.....
>
>in bliar's case...he is merely parroting shrub....
1)it's possible....it is also possible those pulling his strings
in the uk are those being 'parroted'.....
2)it is also possible he goes with the logic....which ain't difficult
logic....
3)it is also possible he sees it as his patriotic duty.....
strangely, 'patriotism' is a strong thread in the british labour
party....very anomalous for a heavily internationalist socialist
party....i've never really understood how that dynamic works
but it is very evident over a long history.....
perhaps the nationalism and old empire is deeper than the daft
theories...even if the daft theories have damaged britain greatly....
4)britain's ties with the commonwealth still have strong emotional
roots....
5)the ties with america run very deep.....
this is immensely complex....and emotional judgements should
not be ignored....they influence a great deal of the thinking of
'normal' people......
all the above and more will influence bliar, his advisors (to whom
he gives strong indications of listening to more than most people
in positions of power defer to advisors), his upbringing...
if i were to guess to rate the items above in priority order....
i would place no 3 first....
he is a man who functions primarily by emotion....
and despite his problems with veracity he appears to be a
'good boy'.....i think of him as a boy scout....a rather eager and
well meaning good boy.....
>> however....it remains difficult as you don't state just what
>> you do think.....
>
>i don't want to see needless destruction or loss of life...
>here or in the gulf....
you will have to make some considerable effort working out
and defining 'needless'.....
>> so far you are merely making suggestions that you *may* be
>> dis-satisfied with something you never can bring yourself
>> to quite voice or commit yourself to......
>
>my loyalty is to common sense....i do no owe blind allegiance to any
>'govt'....
but you are also a human and you have survival drives.....
>> >i only wish to point out....as i said above....that bliar in all
>> >probability is a greater threat to your and me than saddam...
>>
>> that is not my judgement......
>> but my concern goes beyond myself....
>
>a threat to everyone in britain....not just to you and me...
there is truth in that.....
>> >think of our 'health' 'service'...our railways...law and 'order'....
>>
>> why?
>
>see? bliar the public liar has deflected even your attention from
>pressing domestic concerns!
i don't regard most of them as 'pressing'......
the main pressing issue is education.....
not the three above....the railways are probably the most important
of the three you quote for similar reasons that taking down madsam
is important....
as for law and 'order'....it is not clear what you mean by that phrase....
>he has lied before....he is in all probability still lying to us!
very possibly....
but what do you think there is to lie about on this issue?
(pray respond to that as a question)
and why do you think it would matter seriously if he was lying
about it.....unless he doesn't intend to go in *with* america....
Dr. Sunil
On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Sep 2002 14:47:01 +0100, "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk>
>
> typed:
>
> >On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
>
> >why spend the last five years calling our 'great leader' bliar...the
> >public liar....and now suddenly believe him?
>
> oh dear my naive friend...not at all....i merely agree with
> his actions thus far on this matter.....
> i am not responsible if he does sommat right or well.....
how do you know he isn't lying to us yet again?
> >> that you think i have fallen for 'shrub's propaganda' frightens you....
> >> then you need not be frightened.....
> >
> >then why take his line on iraq hook line and sinker?
>
> because i fully and whole-heartedly agree with it....see above...
ditto...
> >> >> >> what is your agenda?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >male....i think....
> >> >>
> >> >> evasive....
> >> >
> >> >last time i checked.....
> >>
> >> still evasive....
> >
> >still male it seems....
>
> a secret agenda...intriguing.....
why this obsession with my gender?
> >> >> >> >i can only give you the results of my 'research'...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> you are also capable of thought.....
> >> >> >
> >> >> >as are you....as is bliar....as is shrub....
> >> >>
> >> >> so you have reached that far....
> >> >
> >> >but shrub and bliar seem not to be *willing* to 'think'....
> >>
> >> that suggests your real meaning is they don't appear to
> >> be willing to think what you wish them to think.....
> >
> >in bliar's case...he is merely parroting shrub....
>
> 1)it's possible....it is also possible those pulling his strings
> in the uk are those being 'parroted'.....
who might be pulling bliar's strings in *this* country?
> 2)it is also possible he goes with the logic....which ain't difficult
> logic....
flawed logic imho...
> 3)it is also possible he sees it as his patriotic duty.....
> strangely, 'patriotism' is a strong thread in the british labour
> party....very anomalous for a heavily internationalist socialist
> party....i've never really understood how that dynamic works
> but it is very evident over a long history.....
> perhaps the nationalism and old empire is deeper than the daft
> theories...even if the daft theories have damaged britain greatly....
an old-fashioned gun-boat diplomat....iow?
> 4)britain's ties with the commonwealth still have strong emotional
> roots....
> 5)the ties with america run very deep.....
i refuse to be led by a country with the death penalty!
> this is immensely complex....and emotional judgements should
> not be ignored....they influence a great deal of the thinking of
> 'normal' people......
but surely they shouldn't be at the expense of rationality?
> all the above and more will influence bliar, his advisors (to whom
> he gives strong indications of listening to more than most people
> in positions of power defer to advisors), his upbringing...
goddam son of a tory!
> if i were to guess to rate the items above in priority order....
> i would place no 3 first....
plausible....i guess...
> he is a man who functions primarily by emotion....
> and despite his problems with veracity he appears to be a
> 'good boy'.....i think of him as a boy scout....a rather eager and
> well meaning good boy.....
now who's naive!
> >> however....it remains difficult as you don't state just what
> >> you do think.....
> >
> >i don't want to see needless destruction or loss of life...
> >here or in the gulf....
>
> you will have to make some considerable effort working out
> and defining 'needless'.....
i repeat....what 'threat' do you see in saddam? he hasn't invaded a
single country since the gulf 'war'....
'containment' as worked fine in that respect....
> >> so far you are merely making suggestions that you *may* be
> >> dis-satisfied with something you never can bring yourself
> >> to quite voice or commit yourself to......
> >
> >my loyalty is to common sense....i do no owe blind allegiance to any
> >'govt'....
>
> but you are also a human and you have survival drives.....
an attack on iraq will even further sour relations between the west
and the arab world....i do not want avenging muslims crashing things
into london tower blocks!
> >> >i only wish to point out....as i said above....that bliar in all
> >> >probability is a greater threat to your and me than saddam...
> >>
> >> that is not my judgement......
> >> but my concern goes beyond myself....
> >
> >a threat to everyone in britain....not just to you and me...
>
> there is truth in that.....
fine...thank you for reassuring me that you see this too...
> >> >think of our 'health' 'service'...our railways...law and 'order'....
> >>
> >> why?
> >
> >see? bliar the public liar has deflected even your attention from
> >pressing domestic concerns!
>
> i don't regard most of them as 'pressing'......
'i'm alright jack'...
> the main pressing issue is education.....
> not the three above....the railways are probably the most important
> of the three you quote for similar reasons that taking down madsam
> is important....
> as for law and 'order'....it is not clear what you mean by that phrase....
street crime....you suggesting saddam is to blame? gi'over!
> >he has lied before....he is in all probability still lying to us!
>
> very possibly....
> but what do you think there is to lie about on this issue?
> (pray respond to that as a question)
> and why do you think it would matter seriously if he was lying
> about it.....unless he doesn't intend to go in *with* america....
to fool us into thinking we ''need'' to attack iraq?
regards.
sunil
--
abelard
typed:
>
>
>On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 4 Sep 2002 14:47:01 +0100, "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk>
>>
>> typed:
>>
>> >On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
>>
>> >why spend the last five years calling our 'great leader' bliar...the
>> >public liar....and now suddenly believe him?
>>
>> oh dear my naive friend...not at all....i merely agree with
>> his actions thus far on this matter.....
>> i am not responsible if he does sommat right or well.....
>
>how do you know he isn't lying to us yet again?
to repeat myself slowcoach....what about and why does it matter?
>> >> that you think i have fallen for 'shrub's propaganda' frightens you....
>> >> then you need not be frightened.....
>> >
>> >then why take his line on iraq hook line and sinker?
>>
>> because i fully and whole-heartedly agree with it....see above...
>
>ditto...
the two items are not logically linked....
>> a secret agenda...intriguing.....
>
>why this obsession with my gender?
as a machine humans are often impenetrable.....
>> 1)it's possible....it is also possible those pulling his strings
>> in the uk are those being 'parroted'.....
>
>who might be pulling bliar's strings in *this* country?
the military....the treasury....those in the labour party who want to
stay at the trough.....
>> 2)it is also possible he goes with the logic....which ain't difficult
>> logic....
>
>flawed logic imho...
you would need to give cogent reasons.....
>> 3)it is also possible he sees it as his patriotic duty.....
>> strangely, 'patriotism' is a strong thread in the british labour
>> party....very anomalous for a heavily internationalist socialist
>> party....i've never really understood how that dynamic works
>> but it is very evident over a long history.....
>> perhaps the nationalism and old empire is deeper than the daft
>> theories...even if the daft theories have damaged britain greatly....
>
>an old-fashioned gun-boat diplomat....iow?
you could verse it thus....though much (for many) is instinct rather than
calculation.....
>> 4)britain's ties with the commonwealth still have strong emotional
>> roots....
>> 5)the ties with america run very deep.....
>
>i refuse to be led by a country with the death penalty!
common interests does not equate to being led.....
>> this is immensely complex....and emotional judgements should
>> not be ignored....they influence a great deal of the thinking of
>> 'normal' people......
>
>but surely they shouldn't be at the expense of rationality?
that is my view.....
>> all the above and more will influence bliar, his advisors (to whom
>> he gives strong indications of listening to more than most people
>> in positions of power defer to advisors), his upbringing...
>
>goddam son of a tory!
imv you worry overmuch about the why of their acts.....
>> if i were to guess to rate the items above in priority order....
>> i would place no 3 first....
>
>plausible....i guess...
i am flattered that you take that much account of my assessment!
>> he is a man who functions primarily by emotion....
>> and despite his problems with veracity he appears to be a
>> 'good boy'.....i think of him as a boy scout....a rather eager and
>> well meaning good boy.....
>
>now who's naive!
what is naive about an assessment?
have you a contrasting assessment that fit sufficient facts?
>> >i don't want to see needless destruction or loss of life...
>> >here or in the gulf....
>>
>> you will have to make some considerable effort working out
>> and defining 'needless'.....
>
>i repeat....what 'threat' do you see in saddam? he hasn't invaded a
>single country since the gulf 'war'....
>'containment' as worked fine in that respect....
:-) next you'll be telling me about twat!
he is a nasty bad man....let the iraki people free.....
>> but you are also a human and you have survival drives.....
>
>an attack on iraq will even further sour relations between the west
>and the arab world....i do not want avenging muslims crashing things
>into london tower blocks!
that is a cost you may well have to risk/tolerate....
>> >a threat to everyone in britain....not just to you and me...
>>
>> there is truth in that.....
>
>fine...thank you for reassuring me that you see this too...
a pleasure to be of use....
>> >> >think of our 'health' 'service'...our railways...law and 'order'....
>> >>
>> >> why?
>> >
>> >see? bliar the public liar has deflected even your attention from
>> >pressing domestic concerns!
>>
>> i don't regard most of them as 'pressing'......
>
>'i'm alright jack'...
no....priorities....
>> the main pressing issue is education.....
>> not the three above....the railways are probably the most important
>> of the three you quote for similar reasons that taking down madsam
>> is important....
>> as for law and 'order'....it is not clear what you mean by that phrase....
>
>street crime....you suggesting saddam is to blame? gi'over!
your comment seems to float independently of context.....
>> >he has lied before....he is in all probability still lying to us!
>>
>> very possibly....
>> but what do you think there is to lie about on this issue?
>> (pray respond to that as a question)
>> and why do you think it would matter seriously if he was lying
>> about it.....unless he doesn't intend to go in *with* america....
>
>to fool us into thinking we ''need'' to attack iraq?
we do 'need' to 'attack' 'irak'.....
note the quotes.....
regards...
Dr. Sunil
On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Sep 2002 17:16:06 +0100, "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk>
>
> typed:
>
> >
> >
> >On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 4 Sep 2002 14:47:01 +0100, "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk>
> >>
> >> typed:
> >>
> >> >On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
> >>
> >> >why spend the last five years calling our 'great leader' bliar...the
> >> >public liar....and now suddenly believe him?
> >>
> >> oh dear my naive friend...not at all....i merely agree with
> >> his actions thus far on this matter.....
> >> i am not responsible if he does sommat right or well.....
> >
> >how do you know he isn't lying to us yet again?
>
> to repeat myself slowcoach....what about and why does it matter?
so everything bliar and shrub say we have to believe?
> >> >> that you think i have fallen for 'shrub's propaganda' frightens you....
> >> >> then you need not be frightened.....
> >> >
> >> >then why take his line on iraq hook line and sinker?
> >>
> >> because i fully and whole-heartedly agree with it....see above...
> >
> >ditto...
>
> the two items are not logically linked....
bliar and shrub spout the same baloney!
> >> a secret agenda...intriguing.....
> >
> >why this obsession with my gender?
>
> as a machine humans are often impenetrable.....
i wish not to be penetrated....for now...
> >> 1)it's possible....it is also possible those pulling his strings
> >> in the uk are those being 'parroted'.....
> >
> >who might be pulling bliar's strings in *this* country?
>
> the military....the treasury....those in the labour party who want to
> stay at the trough.....
evidence?
> >> 2)it is also possible he goes with the logic....which ain't difficult
> >> logic....
> >
> >flawed logic imho...
>
> you would need to give cogent reasons.....
iraq is not a threat? how many iraqi planes have bombed london over
the last ten years?
> >> 3)it is also possible he sees it as his patriotic duty.....
> >> strangely, 'patriotism' is a strong thread in the british labour
> >> party....very anomalous for a heavily internationalist socialist
> >> party....i've never really understood how that dynamic works
> >> but it is very evident over a long history.....
> >> perhaps the nationalism and old empire is deeper than the daft
> >> theories...even if the daft theories have damaged britain greatly....
> >
> >an old-fashioned gun-boat diplomat....iow?
>
> you could verse it thus....though much (for many) is instinct rather than
> calculation.....
of course now it's aircraft carrier diplomacy...
> >> 4)britain's ties with the commonwealth still have strong emotional
> >> roots....
> >> 5)the ties with america run very deep.....
> >
> >i refuse to be led by a country with the death penalty!
>
> common interests does not equate to being led.....
i see no common interest with bloodthirsty warmongerers like bliar and
shrub...
> >> this is immensely complex....and emotional judgements should
> >> not be ignored....they influence a great deal of the thinking of
> >> 'normal' people......
> >
> >but surely they shouldn't be at the expense of rationality?
>
> that is my view.....
ok...agreed...
> >> all the above and more will influence bliar, his advisors (to whom
> >> he gives strong indications of listening to more than most people
> >> in positions of power defer to advisors), his upbringing...
> >
> >goddam son of a tory!
>
> imv you worry overmuch about the why of their acts.....
paranoia? bloodlust? in shrub's case...congressional polls?
> >> if i were to guess to rate the items above in priority order....
> >> i would place no 3 first....
> >
> >plausible....i guess...
>
> i am flattered that you take that much account of my assessment!
i guess after five years i've come to expect that from bliar!
> >> he is a man who functions primarily by emotion....
> >> and despite his problems with veracity he appears to be a
> >> 'good boy'.....i think of him as a boy scout....a rather eager and
> >> well meaning good boy.....
> >
> >now who's naive!
>
> what is naive about an assessment?
> have you a contrasting assessment that fit sufficient facts?
bliar is a public liar?
> >> >i don't want to see needless destruction or loss of life...
> >> >here or in the gulf....
> >>
> >> you will have to make some considerable effort working out
> >> and defining 'needless'.....
> >
> >i repeat....what 'threat' do you see in saddam? he hasn't invaded a
> >single country since the gulf 'war'....
> >'containment' as worked fine in that respect....
>
> :-) next you'll be telling me about twat!
> he is a nasty bad man....
churchill gassed the kurds too y'know!
> let the iraki people free.....
wot about all the others in the region....eg...the saudis....
why pick on iraq?
> >> but you are also a human and you have survival drives.....
> >
> >an attack on iraq will even further sour relations between the west
> >and the arab world....i do not want avenging muslims crashing things
> >into london tower blocks!
>
> that is a cost you may well have to risk/tolerate....
this can be avoided if we use common sense....instead of basic
militaristic urges....
> >> >a threat to everyone in britain....not just to you and me...
> >>
> >> there is truth in that.....
> >
> >fine...thank you for reassuring me that you see this too...
>
> a pleasure to be of use....
then see sense and concentrate on bliar instead of saddam!
> >> >> >think of our 'health' 'service'...our railways...law and 'order'....
> >> >>
> >> >> why?
> >> >
> >> >see? bliar the public liar has deflected even your attention from
> >> >pressing domestic concerns!
> >>
> >> i don't regard most of them as 'pressing'......
> >
> >'i'm alright jack'...
>
> no....priorities....
'health' is not a priority?
> >> the main pressing issue is education.....
> >> not the three above....the railways are probably the most important
> >> of the three you quote for similar reasons that taking down madsam
> >> is important....
> >> as for law and 'order'....it is not clear what you mean by that phrase....
> >
> >street crime....you suggesting saddam is to blame? gi'over!
>
> your comment seems to float independently of context.....
the cost of a damn-fool idealistic crusade against saddam would be
better spent on public services....imho...
> >> >he has lied before....he is in all probability still lying to us!
> >>
> >> very possibly....
> >> but what do you think there is to lie about on this issue?
> >> (pray respond to that as a question)
> >> and why do you think it would matter seriously if he was lying
> >> about it.....unless he doesn't intend to go in *with* america....
> >
> >to fool us into thinking we ''need'' to attack iraq?
>
> we do 'need' to 'attack' 'irak'.....
> note the quotes.....
why? i ask again....wot's he done to upset you so?
regards.
sunil
--
abelard
typed:
>
>
>On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 4 Sep 2002 17:16:06 +0100, "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk>
>>
>> typed:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
>> >> oh dear my naive friend...not at all....i merely agree with
>> >> his actions thus far on this matter.....
>> >> i am not responsible if he does sommat right or well.....
>> >
>> >how do you know he isn't lying to us yet again?
>>
>> to repeat myself slowcoach....what about and why does it matter?
>
>so everything bliar and shrub say we have to believe?
what on earth are you babbling about...you ain't
dumb....why you acting dumb?
>> >> >> that you think i have fallen for 'shrub's propaganda' frightens you....
>> >> >> then you need not be frightened.....
>> >> >
>> >> >then why take his line on iraq hook line and sinker?
>> >>
>> >> because i fully and whole-heartedly agree with it....see above...
>> >
>> >ditto...
>>
>> the two items are not logically linked....
>
>bliar and shrub spout the same baloney!
not a particularly unreasonable comment....
>> >> a secret agenda...intriguing.....
>> >
>> >why this obsession with my gender?
>>
>> as a machine humans are often impenetrable.....
>
>i wish not to be penetrated....for now...
i can well imagine....
>> >> 1)it's possible....it is also possible those pulling his strings
>> >> in the uk are those being 'parroted'.....
>> >
>> >who might be pulling bliar's strings in *this* country?
>>
>> the military....the treasury....those in the labour party who want to
>> stay at the trough.....
>
>evidence?
1)because they are some of the departments that will
have good reasons for guiding him in that direction....
2)i don't believe he has the ability to think his way out
of a wet paper bag.....
3)i think he does have the wit to 'take advice'.....
4)i did not say these were those pulling his strings...only
that they 'might' (your question) may well be....
bliar's job is primarily to get the votes in....
government in a modern state is not one person.....
bliar's job is to feel the mood swings...to be the face
on the packet.....
every person has limitations....bliar has limitations....
for myself...i think he is better aware of his limitations
than most people.....
a great deal of ability is about knowing what you don't
know...and knowing what you ain't good at.....
and knowing what you are good at....
it is self knowledge......
>> >> 2)it is also possible he goes with the logic....which ain't difficult
>> >> logic....
>> >
>> >flawed logic imho...
>>
>> you would need to give cogent reasons.....
>
>iraq is not a threat? how many iraqi planes have bombed london over
>the last ten years?
you want an answer? in public?
get out your maps....
read this earlier posted by mel r....
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/campbell/commons.htm
>> >> 3)it is also possible he sees it as his patriotic duty.....
>> >> strangely, 'patriotism' is a strong thread in the british labour
>> >> party....very anomalous for a heavily internationalist socialist
>> >> party....i've never really understood how that dynamic works
>> >> but it is very evident over a long history.....
>> >> perhaps the nationalism and old empire is deeper than the daft
>> >> theories...even if the daft theories have damaged britain greatly....
>> >
>> >an old-fashioned gun-boat diplomat....iow?
>>
>> you could verse it thus....though much (for many) is instinct rather than
>> calculation.....
>
>of course now it's aircraft carrier diplomacy...
same response....
>> >> 4)britain's ties with the commonwealth still have strong emotional
>> >> roots....
>> >> 5)the ties with america run very deep.....
>> >
>> >i refuse to be led by a country with the death penalty!
>>
>> common interests does not equate to being led.....
>
>i see no common interest with bloodthirsty warmongerers like bliar and
>shrub...
and exactly what is 'a bloodthirsty warmonger'.....is it like
dracula?
i have asked you several times what your agenda is....you
evade.....
>> >> all the above and more will influence bliar, his advisors (to whom
>> >> he gives strong indications of listening to more than most people
>> >> in positions of power defer to advisors), his upbringing...
>> >
>> >goddam son of a tory!
>>
>> imv you worry overmuch about the why of their acts.....
>
>paranoia? bloodlust? in shrub's case...congressional polls?
read the above link....
this is too serious for just this weeks polls...far far too serious....
here is a sub plot for you
http://www.nationalreview.com/jos/jos090302.asp
>> >> if i were to guess to rate the items above in priority order....
>> >> i would place no 3 first....
>> >
>> >plausible....i guess...
>>
>> i am flattered that you take that much account of my assessment!
>
>i guess after five years i've come to expect that from bliar!
which bit precisely....?
>> >> he is a man who functions primarily by emotion....
>> >> and despite his problems with veracity he appears to be a
>> >> 'good boy'.....i think of him as a boy scout....a rather eager and
>> >> well meaning good boy.....
>> >
>> >now who's naive!
>>
>> what is naive about an assessment?
>> have you a contrasting assessment that fit sufficient facts?
>
>bliar is a public liar?
that is not necessarily relevant....
>> >> >i don't want to see needless destruction or loss of life...
>> >> >here or in the gulf....
>> >>
>> >> you will have to make some considerable effort working out
>> >> and defining 'needless'.....
>> >
>> >i repeat....what 'threat' do you see in saddam? he hasn't invaded a
>> >single country since the gulf 'war'....
>> >'containment' as worked fine in that respect....
>>
>> :-) next you'll be telling me about twat!
>> he is a nasty bad man....
>
>churchill gassed the kurds too y'know!
even if true....
that has exactly what to do with what....?
>> let the iraki people free.....
>
>wot about all the others in the region....eg...the saudis....
>why pick on iraq?
ah....the right sort of question....
1)because they are there....
2)get a good map of the whole area and put it on your
wall....then keep looking at it....let it seep into your being.....
let the map stretch to china in the east.....to the med in the west....
to southern russia in the north...to the indian ocean in the south....
(it needs go no further atm.....)
frame it and glass it if you wish....you will need it for a long time
to come.....if you really wish to follow.....
>> >> but you are also a human and you have survival drives.....
>> >
>> >an attack on iraq will even further sour relations between the west
>> >and the arab world....i do not want avenging muslims crashing things
>> >into london tower blocks!
>>
>> that is a cost you may well have to risk/tolerate....
>
>this can be avoided if we use common sense....instead of basic
>militaristic urges....
i don't believe that....i think that is dangerously naive.....
it is the dream of a young idealist man....it is not realism....
>> >> >a threat to everyone in britain....not just to you and me...
>> >>
>> >> there is truth in that.....
>> >
>> >fine...thank you for reassuring me that you see this too...
>>
>> a pleasure to be of use....
>
>then see sense and concentrate on bliar instead of saddam!
no sale....they are both problems....
more homework just in case you have not yet read it....
http://www.abelard.org/iqedfran/iqedfran.htm
these pieces are all strongly linked.....
>> >> >> >think of our 'health' 'service'...our railways...law and 'order'....
>> >> >>
>> >> >> why?
>> >> >
>> >> >see? bliar the public liar has deflected even your attention from
>> >> >pressing domestic concerns!
>> >>
>> >> i don't regard most of them as 'pressing'......
>> >
>> >'i'm alright jack'...
>>
>> no....priorities....
>
>'health' is not a priority?
no....it is a luxury....
>> >> the main pressing issue is education.....
>> >> not the three above....the railways are probably the most important
>> >> of the three you quote for similar reasons that taking down madsam
>> >> is important....
>> >> as for law and 'order'....it is not clear what you mean by that phrase....
>> >
>> >street crime....you suggesting saddam is to blame? gi'over!
>>
>> your comment seems to float independently of context.....
>
>the cost of a damn-fool idealistic crusade against saddam would be
>better spent on public services....imho...
i can see your pov....do your homework and see if you still
think that way.....
very likely you may a bit....it takes time for facts to adjust brains....
if you still have problems...iterate.....
>> >> >he has lied before....he is in all probability still lying to us!
>> >>
>> >> very possibly....
>> >> but what do you think there is to lie about on this issue?
>> >> (pray respond to that as a question)
>> >> and why do you think it would matter seriously if he was lying
>> >> about it.....unless he doesn't intend to go in *with* america....
>> >
>> >to fool us into thinking we ''need'' to attack iraq?
>>
>> we do 'need' to 'attack' 'irak'.....
>> note the quotes.....
>
>why? i ask again....wot's he done to upset you so?
after you have done your homework :-)
sorry to smile about such a serious matter....
but i have come somewhat to terms with our sad planet.....
i am not particularly 'upset' by him.....i am very glad not
to be living in his madhouse....
i think the world would be improved by his presence in the hague....
regards.
James Hammerton
"Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<Pine.OSF.3.95q.1020904170354.15969B-100000@biochem>...
> On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 4 Sep 2002 14:47:01 +0100, "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk>
> >
> > typed:
> >
> > >On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
>
> > >why spend the last five years calling our 'great leader' bliar...the
> > >public liar....and now suddenly believe him?
> >
> > oh dear my naive friend...not at all....i merely agree with
> > his actions thus far on this matter.....
> > i am not responsible if he does sommat right or well.....
>
> how do you know he isn't lying to us yet again?
Here it is as plain as can be:
abelard believes Iraq poses a serious threat *independently* of the
fact that Tony Blair is claiming they do. It's not down to abelard
believing it because Blair said it, but because abelard arrived at the
conclusion himself.
Now if you're concerned as to why abelard believes it, ask him about
that...
> > >> >> >> what is your agenda?
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >male....i think....
> > >> >>
> > >> >> evasive....
> > >> >
> > >> >last time i checked.....
> > >>
> > >> still evasive....
> > >
> > >still male it seems....
> >
> > a secret agenda...intriguing.....
>
> why this obsession with my gender?
From www.webster.com:
"Main Entry: agen搞a
Pronunciation: &-'jen-d&
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, neuter plural of agendum, gerundive of agere
Date: 1871
1 : a list or outline of things to be considered or done <agendas of
faculty meetings>
2 : an underlying often ideological plan or program <a political
agenda>"
ISTM *you* are obsessed with your gender since you raised the issue
and keep referring to it when abelard is talking about something quite
different. I initially thought you were simply making a joke but the
persistence of this suggests otherwise or that you don't know when a
joke starts wearing thin...
[snip]
> > this is immensely complex....and emotional judgements should
> > not be ignored....they influence a great deal of the thinking of
> > 'normal' people......
>
> but surely they shouldn't be at the expense of rationality?
That's what abelard would prefer certainly -- but is that how it
occurs in reality?
> > all the above and more will influence bliar, his advisors (to whom
> > he gives strong indications of listening to more than most people
> > in positions of power defer to advisors), his upbringing...
>
> goddam son of a tory!
>
> > if i were to guess to rate the items above in priority order....
> > i would place no 3 first....
>
> plausible....i guess...
>
> > he is a man who functions primarily by emotion....
> > and despite his problems with veracity he appears to be a
> > 'good boy'.....i think of him as a boy scout....a rather eager and
> > well meaning good boy.....
>
> now who's naive!
public liar and boyscout are rather conflicting roles, but it's just
possible that Bliar lies through his teeth through a sense of duty to
protect the things that would be harmed by the truth...
> > >> however....it remains difficult as you don't state just what
> > >> you do think.....
> > >
> > >i don't want to see needless destruction or loss of life...
> > >here or in the gulf....
> >
> > you will have to make some considerable effort working out
> > and defining 'needless'.....
>
> i repeat....what 'threat' do you see in saddam? he hasn't invaded a
> single country since the gulf 'war'....
> 'containment' as worked fine in that respect....
He refused to cooperate with UNSCOM, forcing them to withdraw and has
since had 4 years in which to rebuild his stocks of WMDs. And it has
recently been demonstrated that one need not mobilise your armed
forces to attack another country. You might have missed it. I'll refer
you to the date of this attack -- namely 11/9/2001.
If he has or obtains these weapons, do you seriously think he won't be
tempted to (a) strike out at the countries who evicted him from Kuwait
and subsequently have enforced no-fly zones, sanctions etc? (b) use
them to gain more control over the Mid East and the oil?
> > >> so far you are merely making suggestions that you *may* be
> > >> dis-satisfied with something you never can bring yourself
> > >> to quite voice or commit yourself to......
> > >
> > >my loyalty is to common sense....i do no owe blind allegiance to any
> > >'govt'....
> >
> > but you are also a human and you have survival drives.....
>
> an attack on iraq will even further sour relations between the west
> and the arab world....
A distinct possibility, which is why broad international support
should be built up for any military action against Iraq. But equally,
we cannot ignore the threat he poses -- it will grow with time.
> i do not want avenging muslims crashing things
> into london tower blocks!
Indeed, no-one does apart from some complete nutters. But what do you
believe the choices are here? Do we let the threat grow for fear of
the trouble caused in trying to deal with it?
> > >> >i only wish to point out....as i said above....that bliar in all
> > >> >probability is a greater threat to your and me than saddam...
> > >>
> > >> that is not my judgement......
> > >> but my concern goes beyond myself....
> > >
> > >a threat to everyone in britain....not just to you and me...
> >
> > there is truth in that.....
>
> fine...thank you for reassuring me that you see this too...
Blair is a threat, but that doesn't mean Saddam isn't...
> > >> >think of our 'health' 'service'...our railways...law and 'order'....
> > >>
> > >> why?
> > >
> > >see? bliar the public liar has deflected even your attention from
> > >pressing domestic concerns!
> >
> > i don't regard most of them as 'pressing'......
>
> 'i'm alright jack'...
Doesn't following from abelard's comment...
> > the main pressing issue is education.....
> > not the three above....the railways are probably the most important
> > of the three you quote for similar reasons that taking down madsam
> > is important....
> > as for law and 'order'....it is not clear what you mean by that phrase....
>
> street crime....you suggesting saddam is to blame? gi'over!
Where did he suggest that?!
> > >he has lied before....he is in all probability still lying to us!
> >
> > very possibly....
> > but what do you think there is to lie about on this issue?
> > (pray respond to that as a question)
> > and why do you think it would matter seriously if he was lying
> > about it.....unless he doesn't intend to go in *with* america....
>
> to fool us into thinking we ''need'' to attack iraq?
You obviously think there is no such need. abelard obviously thinks
there is. Perhaps your questioning and research skills would better
aimed at exploring that discrepancy...
James
James Hammerton
> On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 4 Sep 2002 17:16:06 +0100, "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk>
> >
> > typed:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Wed, 4 Sep 2002 14:47:01 +0100, "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk>
> > >>
> > >> typed:
> > >>
> > >> >On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
>
> > >> >why spend the last five years calling our 'great leader' bliar...the
> > >> >public liar....and now suddenly believe him?
> > >>
> > >> oh dear my naive friend...not at all....i merely agree with
> > >> his actions thus far on this matter.....
> > >> i am not responsible if he does sommat right or well.....
> > >
> > >how do you know he isn't lying to us yet again?
> >
> > to repeat myself slowcoach....what about and why does it matter?
>
> so everything bliar and shrub say we have to believe?
abelard did not say that.
> > >> >> that you think i have fallen for 'shrub's propaganda' frightens you....
> > >> >> then you need not be frightened.....
> > >> >
> > >> >then why take his line on iraq hook line and sinker?
> > >>
> > >> because i fully and whole-heartedly agree with it....see above...
> > >
> > >ditto...
> >
> > the two items are not logically linked....
>
> bliar and shrub spout the same baloney!
Why do you think it's baloney?
> > >> a secret agenda...intriguing.....
> > >
> > >why this obsession with my gender?
> >
> > as a machine humans are often impenetrable.....
>
> i wish not to be penetrated....for now...
:)
> > >> 1)it's possible....it is also possible those pulling his strings
> > >> in the uk are those being 'parroted'.....
> > >
> > >who might be pulling bliar's strings in *this* country?
> >
> > the military....the treasury....those in the labour party who want to
> > stay at the trough.....
>
> evidence?
They're the sorts of people who have that sort of power?
> > >> 2)it is also possible he goes with the logic....which ain't difficult
> > >> logic....
> > >
> > >flawed logic imho...
> >
> > you would need to give cogent reasons.....
>
> iraq is not a threat?
So you claim. Why did Iraq stop cooperating with UNSCOM? Why won't
they let inspectors back in?
Why did they try to obtain WMDs in the first place?
Do you think Saddam has forgiven the US/UK/UN (probably in that order)
for evicting him from Kuwait, imposing sanctions, requiring
inspections, enforcing no-fly zones and bombing bagdhad?
Do you think he's given up on trying to control the mid-east? If he
hasn't who do you think he regards as the biggest obstacle to that
control?
> how many iraqi planes have bombed london over
> the last ten years?
Do you think a country really needs to deploy it's military to attack
another country?
Have you learned nothing from 11/9/2001?
> > >> 3)it is also possible he sees it as his patriotic duty.....
> > >> strangely, 'patriotism' is a strong thread in the british labour
> > >> party....very anomalous for a heavily internationalist socialist
> > >> party....i've never really understood how that dynamic works
> > >> but it is very evident over a long history.....
> > >> perhaps the nationalism and old empire is deeper than the daft
> > >> theories...even if the daft theories have damaged britain greatly....
> > >
> > >an old-fashioned gun-boat diplomat....iow?
> >
> > you could verse it thus....though much (for many) is instinct rather than
> > calculation.....
>
> of course now it's aircraft carrier diplomacy...
>
> > >> 4)britain's ties with the commonwealth still have strong emotional
> > >> roots....
> > >> 5)the ties with america run very deep.....
> > >
> > >i refuse to be led by a country with the death penalty!
> >
> > common interests does not equate to being led.....
>
> i see no common interest with bloodthirsty warmongerers like bliar and
> shrub...
But shrub and bliar may have common interests. And if Iraq really does
pose a threat to the US/UK, then *you* have a common interest with
both of them (namely dealing with that threat)...
[snip]
> > >> >i don't want to see needless destruction or loss of life...
> > >> >here or in the gulf....
> > >>
> > >> you will have to make some considerable effort working out
> > >> and defining 'needless'.....
> > >
> > >i repeat....what 'threat' do you see in saddam? he hasn't invaded a
> > >single country since the gulf 'war'....
> > >'containment' as worked fine in that respect....
>
> > :-) next you'll be telling me about twat!
> > he is a nasty bad man....
>
> churchill gassed the kurds too y'know!
>
> > let the iraki people free.....
>
> wot about all the others in the region....eg...the saudis....
Who knows, they might be the next in line, especially if they're still
giving al-Qaeda support...
> why pick on iraq?
Biggest obstacle to progress in the area?
> > >> but you are also a human and you have survival drives.....
> > >
> > >an attack on iraq will even further sour relations between the west
> > >and the arab world....i do not want avenging muslims crashing things
> > >into london tower blocks!
> >
> > that is a cost you may well have to risk/tolerate....
>
> this can be avoided if we use common sense....
What do you propose? Pretending Iraq is no threat?
> instead of basic
> militaristic urges....
>
> > >> >a threat to everyone in britain....not just to you and me...
> > >>
> > >> there is truth in that.....
> > >
> > >fine...thank you for reassuring me that you see this too...
> >
> > a pleasure to be of use....
>
> then see sense and concentrate on bliar instead of saddam!
If that is seeing sense then it implies bliar is the bigger immediate
threat. An interesting question. Bliar's building a police state,
whilst Saddam is building WMDs, is most probably seriously pissed off
with the US/UK for thwarting his plans in the mid east and wants
control of the oil on which our prosperity sadly depends. Perhaps we
should act on both threats.
James
Dr. Sunil
On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Sep 2002 18:46:05 +0100, "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk>
>
> typed:
>
> >
> >
> >On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
> >
> >> >
>
> what on earth are you babbling about...you ain't
> dumb....why you acting dumb?
why are you swallowing their lies abelard? after all you that you know
about these public liars....
> >bliar and shrub spout the same baloney!
>
> not a particularly unreasonable comment....
then why believe 'em?!
> >i wish not to be penetrated....for now...
>
> i can well imagine....
i wish not to lose my 'disease-free' status...
> >iraq is not a threat? how many iraqi planes have bombed london over
> >the last ten years?
>
> you want an answer? in public?
> get out your maps....
iraq is too far away to be a threat! even her closest neighbours
(most at threat one would think...) are skeptical of an attack on
saddam.....
iran reckons so...turkey....even the gulf monarchies....
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow.asp?art_id=21078403
> read this earlier posted by mel r....
> http://www.hubbertpeak.com/campbell/commons.htm
what has this to do with my question re. iraqi attacks on london?
> >i see no common interest with bloodthirsty warmongerers like bliar and
> >shrub...
>
> and exactly what is 'a bloodthirsty warmonger'.....is it like
> dracula?
think of all the countries bombed by merkia over the last 100 years...
> i have asked you several times what your agenda is....you
> evade.....
i speak only for myself...you otoh seem to blindly follow bliar and
shrub...
> >> imv you worry overmuch about the why of their acts.....
> >
> >paranoia? bloodlust? in shrub's case...congressional polls?
>
> read the above link....
> this is too serious for just this weeks polls...far far too serious....
my you are slow...i meant the mid-term congressional polls in
november...
> here is a sub plot for you
> http://www.nationalreview.com/jos/jos090302.asp
in what way is saddam a hitler? the article is typical merkin paranoia
and black propaganda!
> >> i am flattered that you take that much account of my assessment!
> >
> >i guess after five years i've come to expect that from bliar!
>
> which bit precisely....?
his public lying....his saint tony image....
> >> what is naive about an assessment?
> >> have you a contrasting assessment that fit sufficient facts?
> >
> >bliar is a public liar?
>
> that is not necessarily relevant....
why?
> >churchill gassed the kurds too y'know!
>
> even if true....
http://www.iraqwar.org/chemical.htm
"I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am
strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes"
> that has exactly what to do with what....?
british...in this case...hypocrisy?
in any case abelard....are we sure it was iraq that gassed the town
of halabja in '88?
http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/12-14-00.html
> >> let the iraki people free.....
> >
> >wot about all the others in the region....eg...the saudis....
> >why pick on iraq?
>
> ah....the right sort of question....
> 1)because they are there....
that's a reason to bomb and kill people? my you are a
warmongerererer...
> 2)get a good map of the whole area and put it on your
> wall....then keep looking at it....let it seep into your being.....
> let the map stretch to china in the east.....to the med in the west....
> to southern russia in the north...to the indian ocean in the south....
> (it needs go no further atm.....)
russia...india...china...all see no threat from iraq....
> >> that is a cost you may well have to risk/tolerate....
> >
> >this can be avoided if we use common sense....instead of basic
> >militaristic urges....
>
> i don't believe that....i think that is dangerously naive.....
> it is the dream of a young idealist man....it is not realism....
i think you share bliar and shrub's paranoia and warmongerererer
tendencies my friend....
> >> a pleasure to be of use....
> >
> >then see sense and concentrate on bliar instead of saddam!
>
> no sale....they are both problems....
but saddam isn't eroding our civil liberties..bliar is!
> more homework just in case you have not yet read it....
> http://www.abelard.org/iqedfran/iqedfran.htm
> these pieces are all strongly linked.....
who gets to set the 'examination'? who 'examines' them? and do you
mean rectal...oral....any other weird and wonderful method of
'examination'?
> >'health' is not a priority?
>
> no....it is a luxury....
so the nhs should be run down?
> >the cost of a damn-fool idealistic crusade against saddam would be
> >better spent on public services....imho...
>
> i can see your pov....do your homework and see if you still
> think that way.....
if you do your research you will find that all this is
speculation...and more than a dash of black propaganda....
saddam is no worse....or better....than his chums in the region...
moreover...merkia has attacked way more countries than saddam ever
did...
> >why? i ask again....wot's he done to upset you so?
>
> after you have done your homework :-)
oi! you need to do your own research y'know....
> sorry to smile about such a serious matter....
> but i have come somewhat to terms with our sad planet.....
like i said....be mindful of black propaganda....
> i am not particularly 'upset' by him.....i am very glad not
> to be living in his madhouse....
so why the urge to bomb his people?
> i think the world would be improved by his presence in the hague....
why? was churchill charged with using gas against civilians?
i do not see this as a 'black and white' issue....far from it....
many have been the time when the 'morality' of merkin foreign policy
has verged into the grey...or even the pitch black....
for instance...who nuked hiroshima and nagasaki?
who used chemical agents in vietnam....affecting people there even
today?
who was behind the assassination of the democratically elected allende
of chile?
who gives carte blanche to the continued israeli occupation of land
captured in '67?
like i said....do your research and you will always find the truth...
regards.
sunil
--
Dr. Sunil
On 5 Sep 2002, James Hammerton wrote:
> > how many iraqi planes have bombed london over
> > the last ten years?
>
> Do you think a country really needs to deploy it's military to attack
> another country?
>
> Have you learned nothing from 11/9/2001?
Pardon my French, but for fuck's sake, James!
Al Q is not a 'country', just a terrorist organisation! They were
almost all Saudis, not Iraqis, besides! I don't think any of the
hijackers was Iraqi (BICBW).
Being a Saudi himself (not an Iraqi), one of Bin Liner's key demands
was the pull-out of US forces from Saudi. Maybe he would actually
*welcome* an attack on Iraq, because said US forces would no longer be
needed to 'protect' Saudi!
regards,
Sunil
--
Dr. Sunil
On 5 Sep 2002, James Hammerton wrote:
>
> If that is seeing sense then it implies bliar is the bigger immediate
> threat. An interesting question. Bliar's building a police state,
> whilst Saddam is building WMDs, is most probably seriously pissed off
> with the US/UK for thwarting his plans in the mid east and wants
> control of the oil on which our prosperity sadly depends. Perhaps we
> should act on both threats.
Sorry - missed this earlier!
He's hardly going to withold oil from us if we're going to pay the
going rate for it, no?
Also, I refuse to believe he's dumb enough to launch a first strike,
geven that there is (or soon will be) NMD in operation, and our
massive nuclear arsenal(s). Remember, we have four Vanguard Subs in
operation, each with 96 Trident warheads (thereby giving us the
capability of nuking 384 cities in an instant).
regards,
Sunil
--
abelard
typed:
>On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
>> not a particularly unreasonable comment....
>
>then why believe 'em?!
i have answered this more than once...i see james has also answered you...
in view of the clear fact that you are no fool.....
i can but assume you to be acting deliberately obtuse......
perhaps you have a hidden agenda.....perhaps you are attempting
to rationalise what you wish to believe in order that you do not
have to face the nasty realities that those who lead you must face....
>> >iraq is not a threat? how many iraqi planes have bombed london over
>> >the last ten years?
>>
>> you want an answer? in public?
>> get out your maps....
>
>iraq is too far away to be a threat! even her closest neighbours
>(most at threat one would think...) are skeptical of an attack on
>saddam.....
>
>iran reckons so...turkey....even the gulf monarchies....
you need some maps and to study rocket development....
let alone loons with suitcases or even pocket knives.....
or juggernauts and small ships.....
methinks you are struggling hard to find reasons to calm
your fears by holding to illusions....
that is the guess i will make.....
as already stated....there are other options.....you may not see your
interests laying primarily with britain.....or even europe....
that is the cost of a secret agenda.....
>> read this earlier posted by mel r....
>> http://www.hubbertpeak.com/campbell/commons.htm
>
>what has this to do with my question re. iraqi attacks on london?
your whole western way of life is heavily and critically dependent on
oil.....
>> >i see no common interest with bloodthirsty warmongerers like bliar and
>> >shrub...
>>
>> and exactly what is 'a bloodthirsty warmonger'.....is it like
>> dracula?
>
>think of all the countries bombed by merkia over the last 100 years...
what about them?
>> i have asked you several times what your agenda is....you
>> evade.....
>
>i speak only for myself...you otoh seem to blindly follow bliar and
>shrub...
you have been answered on that sufficient times....
you may not like the answer....but the answer will not change
because it does not suit your wishes....
>> >> imv you worry overmuch about the why of their acts.....
>> >
>> >paranoia? bloodlust? in shrub's case...congressional polls?
>>
>> read the above link....
>> this is too serious for just this weeks polls...far far too serious....
>
>my you are slow...i meant the mid-term congressional polls in
>november...
i don't care which polls you meant.....the point remains....
>> here is a sub plot for you
>> http://www.nationalreview.com/jos/jos090302.asp
>
>in what way is saddam a hitler? the article is typical merkin paranoia
>and black propaganda!
you know full well that he attacks his neighbours and oppresses
irak.....
>> >> i am flattered that you take that much account of my assessment!
>> >
>> >i guess after five years i've come to expect that from bliar!
>>
>> which bit precisely....?
>
>his public lying....his saint tony image....
which has just what to do with just what?
>> >> what is naive about an assessment?
>> >> have you a contrasting assessment that fit sufficient facts?
>> >
>> >bliar is a public liar?
>>
>> that is not necessarily relevant....
>
>why?
because my views are not formed by whatever bliar may say....
in fact....as he is a known public liar i scarcely concern myself
with anything whatsoever he may say.....
his words are entirely without meaningful content....
i only note what he does.....
>> >churchill gassed the kurds too y'know!
>>
>> even if true....
>
>http://www.iraqwar.org/chemical.htm
>"I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am
>strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes"
you are still not making any cogent point which i can see......
merely repeating a possible statement by a long ded statesman.....
>> that has exactly what to do with what....?
>
>british...in this case...hypocrisy?
i am not responsible for the words of churchill....
only for my own words.....
'british' is not a person.....only persons can possibly
exhibit 'hypocrisy'.....
>in any case abelard....are we sure it was iraq that gassed the town
>of halabja in '88?
>http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/12-14-00.html
imv yes....i have not read your article.....but then i also don't
tend to read the bulk of conspiracy theory links posted here
abouts.....
>> >> let the iraki people free.....
>> >
>> >wot about all the others in the region....eg...the saudis....
>> >why pick on iraq?
>>
>> ah....the right sort of question....
>> 1)because they are there....
>
>that's a reason to bomb and kill people? my you are a
>warmongerererer...
you must of course come to your own conclusions and judgements....
>> 2)get a good map of the whole area and put it on your
>> wall....then keep looking at it....let it seep into your being.....
>> let the map stretch to china in the east.....to the med in the west....
>> to southern russia in the north...to the indian ocean in the south....
>> (it needs go no further atm.....)
>
>russia...india...china...all see no threat from iraq....
that is extremely naive.....
all these countries have problems with islamics.....
>> >> that is a cost you may well have to risk/tolerate....
>> >
>> >this can be avoided if we use common sense....instead of basic
>> >militaristic urges....
>>
>> i don't believe that....i think that is dangerously naive.....
>> it is the dream of a young idealist man....it is not realism....
>
>i think you share bliar and shrub's paranoia and warmongerererer
>tendencies my friend....
you are merely telling me your state of mind....you are giving no
support to such an assertion.....
>> >> a pleasure to be of use....
>> >
>> >then see sense and concentrate on bliar instead of saddam!
>>
>> no sale....they are both problems....
>
>but saddam isn't eroding our civil liberties..bliar is!
far too simplistic.....
it depends first on what you imagine to be 'us'.......
it then depends on which particular civil liberties you refer.....
eg....the civil liberty to fly to india and back......
the civil liberty of driving to work.....
the civil liberty of being capable of defending yourself
from loons with stanley knives....
>> >'health' is not a priority?
>>
>> no....it is a luxury....
>
>so the nhs should be run down?
that does not follow....
>> >the cost of a damn-fool idealistic crusade against saddam would be
>> >better spent on public services....imho...
>>
>> i can see your pov....do your homework and see if you still
>> think that way.....
>
>if you do your research you will find that all this is
>speculation...and more than a dash of black propaganda....
>saddam is no worse....or better....than his chums in the region...
not so...but so what if it were?
>moreover...merkia has attacked way more countries than saddam ever
>did...
what has that to do with the price of eggs?
>> i am not particularly 'upset' by him.....i am very glad not
>> to be living in his madhouse....
>
>so why the urge to bomb his people?
i have no such 'urge'.....
>> i think the world would be improved by his presence in the hague....
>
>why? was churchill charged with using gas against civilians?
again....what is this to do with the price of rhubarb?
>i do not see this as a 'black and white' issue....far from it....
and your point if any is?
you are merely telling me what you do not.......
>many have been the time when the 'morality' of merkin foreign policy
>has verged into the grey...or even the pitch black....
that may be your belief....
>for instance...who nuked hiroshima and nagasaki?
and your point is?
>who used chemical agents in vietnam....affecting people there even
>today?
yes....that was both foolish and excessive....
>who was behind the assassination of the democratically elected allende
>of chile?
that is not the way everyone tells it....
>who gives carte blanche to the continued israeli occupation of land
>captured in '67?
your suggestion? they are 'driven into the sea'?
>like i said....do your research and you will always find the truth...
you will come to realise the world is not so simple....or even nice...
as you might wish...
Dr. Sunil
On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Sep 2002 14:04:11 +0100, "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk>
>
> typed:
>
> >On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
>
> >> not a particularly unreasonable comment....
> >
> >then why believe 'em?!
>
> i have answered this more than once...i see james has also answered you...
> in view of the clear fact that you are no fool.....
> i can but assume you to be acting deliberately obtuse......
> perhaps you have a hidden agenda.....perhaps you are attempting
> to rationalise what you wish to believe in order that you do not
> have to face the nasty realities that those who lead you must face....
what *real* threat does iraq pose? not imagined....*real*....
> >> >iraq is not a threat? how many iraqi planes have bombed london over
> >> >the last ten years?
> >>
> >> you want an answer? in public?
> >> get out your maps....
> >
> >iraq is too far away to be a threat! even her closest neighbours
> >(most at threat one would think...) are skeptical of an attack on
> >saddam.....
> >
> >iran reckons so...turkey....even the gulf monarchies....
>
> you need some maps and to study rocket development....
you didn't read the article i see...
> let alone loons with suitcases or even pocket knives.....
> or juggernauts and small ships.....
>
> methinks you are struggling hard to find reasons to calm
> your fears by holding to illusions....
> that is the guess i will make.....
>
> as already stated....there are other options.....you may not see your
> interests laying primarily with britain.....or even europe....
>
> that is the cost of a secret agenda.....
more paranoia i see....i have already told you i owe no allegiance to
any 'nation'....
> >> read this earlier posted by mel r....
> >> http://www.hubbertpeak.com/campbell/commons.htm
> >
> >what has this to do with my question re. iraqi attacks on london?
>
> your whole western way of life is heavily and critically dependent on
> oil.....
why would saddam withold oil....if we pay the going rate?
> >> >i see no common interest with bloodthirsty warmongerers like bliar and
> >> >shrub...
> >>
> >> and exactly what is 'a bloodthirsty warmonger'.....is it like
> >> dracula?
> >
> >think of all the countries bombed by merkia over the last 100 years...
>
> what about them?
merkia has bombed more people than saddam has....merkia are the real
threat to world peace....
> >> i have asked you several times what your agenda is....you
> >> evade.....
> >
> >i speak only for myself...you otoh seem to blindly follow bliar and
> >shrub...
>
> you have been answered on that sufficient times....
> you may not like the answer....but the answer will not change
> because it does not suit your wishes....
firmly brainwashed i see...i hope you're not...
> >> >> imv you worry overmuch about the why of their acts.....
> >> >
> >> >paranoia? bloodlust? in shrub's case...congressional polls?
> >>
> >> read the above link....
> >> this is too serious for just this weeks polls...far far too serious....
> >
> >my you are slow...i meant the mid-term congressional polls in
> >november...
>
> i don't care which polls you meant.....the point remains....
i think it not coincidental....
> >> here is a sub plot for you
> >> http://www.nationalreview.com/jos/jos090302.asp
> >
> >in what way is saddam a hitler? the article is typical merkin paranoia
> >and black propaganda!
>
> you know full well that he attacks his neighbours and oppresses
> irak.....
when was the last time he 'attacked' his neighbours?
his neighbours don't want miltary action...they know it will make a
mess of things....they'll be next....
and he is certainly not the only dictator in the world....when were
there free and fair elections in saudi....for example....
> >> >> i am flattered that you take that much account of my assessment!
> >> >
> >> >i guess after five years i've come to expect that from bliar!
> >>
> >> which bit precisely....?
> >
> >his public lying....his saint tony image....
>
> which has just what to do with just what?
you seem to have fallen for his fake 'righteousness'....
> >> >> what is naive about an assessment?
> >> >> have you a contrasting assessment that fit sufficient facts?
> >> >
> >> >bliar is a public liar?
> >>
> >> that is not necessarily relevant....
> >
> >why?
>
> because my views are not formed by whatever bliar may say....
don't gimme that!
> in fact....as he is a known public liar i scarcely concern myself
> with anything whatsoever he may say.....
'course you don't mister!
> his words are entirely without meaningful content....
> i only note what he does.....
what guarantee is there that the war will be a success?
what happened to bin liner? is he in custody? nope!
> >> >churchill gassed the kurds too y'know!
> >>
> >> even if true....
> >
> >http://www.iraqwar.org/chemical.htm
> >"I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am
> >strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes"
>
> you are still not making any cogent point which i can see......
> merely repeating a possible statement by a long ded statesman.....
did gassing the kurds make churchill a 'bad guy'?
> >> that has exactly what to do with what....?
> >
> >british...in this case...hypocrisy?
>
> i am not responsible for the words of churchill....
> only for my own words.....
> 'british' is not a person.....only persons can possibly
> exhibit 'hypocrisy'.....
ok then...britons who support the 'war'....britons who claim shrub is
the 'new churchill'...
> >in any case abelard....are we sure it was iraq that gassed the town
> >of halabja in '88?
> >http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/12-14-00.html
>
> imv yes....
evidence?
> i have not read your article.....but then i also don't
> tend to read the bulk of conspiracy theory links posted here
> abouts.....
i see...you haven't done your 'research'....
> >> >> let the iraki people free.....
> >> >
> >> >wot about all the others in the region....eg...the saudis....
> >> >why pick on iraq?
> >>
> >> ah....the right sort of question....
> >> 1)because they are there....
> >
> >that's a reason to bomb and kill people? my you are a
> >warmongerererer...
>
> you must of course come to your own conclusions and judgements....
rather than blindly follow the blind?
> >> 2)get a good map of the whole area and put it on your
> >> wall....then keep looking at it....let it seep into your being.....
> >> let the map stretch to china in the east.....to the med in the west....
> >> to southern russia in the north...to the indian ocean in the south....
> >> (it needs go no further atm.....)
> >
> >russia...india...china...all see no threat from iraq....
>
> that is extremely naive.....
> all these countries have problems with islamics.....
but no problem with iraq...see news of recent oil deals such as that
with russia...and india...
if you'd done your 'research' you will note that aziz...saddam's
deputy...is not a mad mullah but in fact a christian....
> >> >> that is a cost you may well have to risk/tolerate....
> >> >
> >> >this can be avoided if we use common sense....instead of basic
> >> >militaristic urges....
> >>
> >> i don't believe that....i think that is dangerously naive.....
> >> it is the dream of a young idealist man....it is not realism....
> >
> >i think you share bliar and shrub's paranoia and warmongerererer
> >tendencies my friend....
>
> you are merely telling me your state of mind....you are giving no
> support to such an assertion.....
as are you with your paranoia re. iraq's alleged 'threat'....
> >> >> a pleasure to be of use....
> >> >
> >> >then see sense and concentrate on bliar instead of saddam!
> >>
> >> no sale....they are both problems....
> >
> >but saddam isn't eroding our civil liberties..bliar is!
>
> far too simplistic.....
> it depends first on what you imagine to be 'us'.......
why? do you take bonehead and biddy's line that *anyone* with lower
light reflectivity is a potential threat?
> it then depends on which particular civil liberties you refer.....
> eg....the civil liberty to fly to india and back......
is saddam witholding oil from india? no....
from anybody us in the west? no...
> the civil liberty of driving to work.....
the sooner hydrogen cars become available the better...for the
environment's sake...
> the civil liberty of being capable of defending yourself
> from loons with stanley knives....
none of whom were iraqi....
> >> >'health' is not a priority?
> >>
> >> no....it is a luxury....
> >
> >so the nhs should be run down?
>
> that does not follow....
so it is a necessity....not a luxury?
> >> >the cost of a damn-fool idealistic crusade against saddam would be
> >> >better spent on public services....imho...
> >>
> >> i can see your pov....do your homework and see if you still
> >> think that way.....
> >
> >if you do your research you will find that all this is
> >speculation...and more than a dash of black propaganda....
> >saddam is no worse....or better....than his chums in the region...
>
> not so...but so what if it were?
no reason to bomb a sovereign nation....
> >moreover...merkia has attacked way more countries than saddam ever
> >did...
>
> what has that to do with the price of eggs?
merkia has behaved far worse...and you blindly follow...
> >> i am not particularly 'upset' by him.....i am very glad not
> >> to be living in his madhouse....
> >
> >so why the urge to bomb his people?
>
> i have no such 'urge'.....
so you've suddenly become anti-war? gimme a break!
> >> i think the world would be improved by his presence in the hague....
> >
> >why? was churchill charged with using gas against civilians?
>
> again....what is this to do with the price of rhubarb?
churchill wasn't tried...why should saddam be?
> >i do not see this as a 'black and white' issue....far from it....
>
> and your point if any is?
> you are merely telling me what you do not.......
i see this as old fashioned gun-boat diplomacy...with aircraft
carriers instead of gunboats....
> >many have been the time when the 'morality' of merkin foreign policy
> >has verged into the grey...or even the pitch black....
>
> that may be your belief....
no...it speaks for itself...
> >for instance...who nuked hiroshima and nagasaki?
>
> and your point is?
needless incineration of civilians...
and...
saddam has never used nukes....
> >who used chemical agents in vietnam....affecting people there even
> >today?
>
> yes....that was both foolish and excessive....
ok...so you freely admit merkins haven't always been angels...
> >who was behind the assassination of the democratically elected allende
> >of chile?
>
> that is not the way everyone tells it....
cia was fully involved...
> >who gives carte blanche to the continued israeli occupation of land
> >captured in '67?
>
> your suggestion? they are 'driven into the sea'?
no...they go back to the '67 border....obeying un resolutions 242 and
338...
saddam otoh isn't occupying a needle-point of his neighbour's land...
> >like i said....do your research and you will always find the truth...
>
> you will come to realise the world is not so simple....or even nice...
> as you might wish...
so when are you volunteering for active duty in the gulf? get that
kit-bag sorted lad....
regards.
sunil
--
abelard
typed:
>On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
>> i have answered this more than once...i see james has also answered you...
>> in view of the clear fact that you are no fool.....
>> i can but assume you to be acting deliberately obtuse......
>> perhaps you have a hidden agenda.....perhaps you are attempting
>> to rationalise what you wish to believe in order that you do not
>> have to face the nasty realities that those who lead you must face....
>
>what *real* threat does iraq pose? not imagined....*real*....
irak remains to be not a person....
from your post it now becomes increasingly clear that you don't
understand the world *as it is*.....
the world is currently made up of herds that stampede hither
and thither.....
throughout history these herds have tended to compete one
with another....
it will not help you to ignore this reality....
>> you need some maps and to study rocket development....
>
>you didn't read the article i see...
i have heard every which conspiracy theory and rationalisation....
there is no mileage in reading more....it will not make the above
reality go away....
therefore you still need some maps and to study rocket development....
>> that is the cost of a secret agenda.....
>
>more paranoia i see....i have already told you i owe no allegiance to
>any 'nation'....
a reasonable position for an intelligent person......
and then the herd starts to run.....
will you choose the herd of madsam or the herd on the british
islands?
and when they come to ask your help with the biochemical
knowledge they have expensively paid for......what will you do?
>why would saddam withold oil....if we pay the going rate?
oh my naive fellow....why should we pay the rate he demands?
the west developed the oil.....he is lucky that we pay anything.....
meanwhile set his people free you humanitarian you......
>merkia has bombed more people than saddam has....merkia are the real
>threat to world peace....
ah, and what my child is 'peace'?
as long as madsam allows us to collect our oil in peace.....
as long as he lets his slaves go about their business in peace.......
as long as you can fly around the world in peace......
>firmly brainwashed i see...i hope you're not...
no....i am realistic.....
>> >my you are slow...i meant the mid-term congressional polls in
>> >november...
>>
>> i don't care which polls you meant.....the point remains....
>
>i think it not coincidental....
you are becoming a real sucker for conspiracy theories....
there are pressing human realities beyond polls.....
the fortunes of great dynasties are linked to political power
and the protection that affords....
the 'american government' is the source of that power....
not which bums are on which seats....
bush is caught up by the herds......
you apparently are travelling light atm......
>> you know full well that he attacks his neighbours and oppresses
>> irak.....
>
>when was the last time he 'attacked' his neighbours?
>his neighbours don't want miltary action...they know it will make a
>mess of things....they'll be next....
excuse me while i get out the onion....
>and he is certainly not the only dictator in the world....when were
>there free and fair elections in saudi....for example....
one thing at a time....you really are a little absolutist aren't you!
>> because my views are not formed by whatever bliar may say....
>
>don't gimme that!
you are stuck with it.....
>> his words are entirely without meaningful content....
>> i only note what he does.....
>
>what guarantee is there that the war will be a success?
yes...the absolutist again.....
it is enuf that it improves the situation......
>what happened to bin liner? is he in custody? nope!
irrelevant to the nth degree.....
>> you are still not making any cogent point which i can see......
>> merely repeating a possible statement by a long ded statesman.....
>
>did gassing the kurds make churchill a 'bad guy'?
just another human being....if an unusually able one.....
born into a different time than yourself.....
>ok then...britons who support the 'war'....britons who claim shrub is
>the 'new churchill'...
shrub has a duty to 'his' herd.....how well he carries out that duty
will determine how he is treated in a few history books.....
>> >in any case abelard....are we sure it was iraq that gassed the town
>> >of halabja in '88?
>> >http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/12-14-00.html
>>
>> imv yes....
>
>evidence?
it is as le pen oafishly stated in more outrageous contect.....a detail
of history.....
it does not effect the calculations of politicians.....or even
wise entities....
>> i have not read your article.....but then i also don't
>> tend to read the bulk of conspiracy theory links posted here
>> abouts.....
>
>i see...you haven't done your 'research'....
when assessing the interests and the current directions of herds
i pay little attention to missis simpkins of 14 acacia avenue....
no human has that span of attention.....
>> >that's a reason to bomb and kill people? my you are a
>> >warmongerererer...
>>
>> you must of course come to your own conclusions and judgements....
>
>rather than blindly follow the blind?
they are less blind that yourself....they do not wear blinkers.....
they do not believe what they would wish were so.....
i wish madsam were a nice friendly sane man...he is not....
>> >russia...india...china...all see no threat from iraq....
>>
>> that is extremely naive.....
>> all these countries have problems with islamics.....
>
>but no problem with iraq...see news of recent oil deals such as that
>with russia...and india...
rotfl.....
>if you'd done your 'research' you will note that aziz...saddam's
>deputy...is not a mad mullah but in fact a christian....
i could hardly care less if he were a martian.....
i imagine madsam would chop his family to bits and serve them
up as a stew if he defected......
>> you are merely telling me your state of mind....you are giving no
>> support to such an assertion.....
>
>as are you with your paranoia re. iraq's alleged 'threat'....
i have not said 'irak is a threat'......perhaps you do not read with
sufficient attention....
>why? do you take bonehead and biddy's line that *anyone* with lower
>light reflectivity is a potential threat?
why on earth should you imagine that....however, you are showing more
naivete here than those two usually manage.......
you cannot understand them because they are herd animals....
they cannot understand you because apparently you are not.....
one of the very greatest errors of human reason is 'projection'.....
>> it then depends on which particular civil liberties you refer.....
>> eg....the civil liberty to fly to india and back......
>
>is saddam witholding oil from india? no....
>
>from anybody us in the west? no...
you really can't be this naive....he seeks allies...he seeks to
play 'a' off against 'b'......
he seeks to give india a reason to support him.....
>> the civil liberty of driving to work.....
>
>the sooner hydrogen cars become available the better...for the
>environment's sake...
if it is viable....yes, certainly....
>> the civil liberty of being capable of defending yourself
>> from loons with stanley knives....
>
>none of whom were iraqi....
again, i care not whether they were from mars....
>> >> >'health' is not a priority?
>> >>
>> >> no....it is a luxury....
>> >
>> >so the nhs should be run down?
>>
>> that does not follow....
>
>so it is a necessity....not a luxury?
no....it is a luxury...a very desirable luxury....
but a luxury none the less....and army is not a luxury....it
is a necessity....if you intend to survive....
if you intend to eat....if you intend to have your nhs....
>> >> >the cost of a damn-fool idealistic crusade against saddam would be
>> >> >better spent on public services....imho...
>> >>
>> >> i can see your pov....do your homework and see if you still
>> >> think that way.....
>> >
>> >if you do your research you will find that all this is
>> >speculation...and more than a dash of black propaganda....
>> >saddam is no worse....or better....than his chums in the region...
>>
>> not so...but so what if it were?
>
>no reason to bomb a sovereign nation....
the prime intent is to remove madsam....
not 'to bomb a sovereign nation'.....
>> >moreover...merkia has attacked way more countries than saddam ever
>> >did...
>>
>> what has that to do with the price of eggs?
>
>merkia has behaved far worse...and you blindly follow...
cotton wool kid....
>> >> i am not particularly 'upset' by him.....i am very glad not
>> >> to be living in his madhouse....
>> >
>> >so why the urge to bomb his people?
>>
>> i have no such 'urge'.....
>
>so you've suddenly become anti-war? gimme a break!
i am neither for nor against 'war'......i am a pragmatist....
it would be neat to get humanity beyond war....but that isn't
going to happen this week....
these problems are here and now....
only a child cries for the unobtainable.....
>> >> i think the world would be improved by his presence in the hague....
>> >
>> >why? was churchill charged with using gas against civilians?
>>
>> again....what is this to do with the price of rhubarb?
>
>churchill wasn't tried...why should saddam be?
to encourage the others....
>> >i do not see this as a 'black and white' issue....far from it....
>>
>> and your point if any is?
>> you are merely telling me what you do not.......
>
>i see this as old fashioned gun-boat diplomacy...with aircraft
>carriers instead of gunboats....
i have already said that is a reasonable characterisation.....
but it is simplistic to some degree.....
>> >many have been the time when the 'morality' of merkin foreign policy
>> >has verged into the grey...or even the pitch black....
>>
>> that may be your belief....
>
>no...it speaks for itself...
it does not speak.....you do....
>> >for instance...who nuked hiroshima and nagasaki?
>>
>> and your point is?
>
>needless incineration of civilians...
your judgement.....
>and...
>saddam has never used nukes....
so what? he has yet to get hold of them....
get through your head this fellow has a screw loose....
who else would set fire the kuwait.....
>> >who used chemical agents in vietnam....affecting people there even
>> >today?
>>
>> yes....that was both foolish and excessive....
>
>ok...so you freely admit merkins haven't always been angels...
i would never attempt to make the case that any human
or group of humans were angels.....
they are mostly monkeys attempting to climb out of the swamps
>> >who was behind the assassination of the democratically elected allende
>> >of chile?
>>
>> that is not the way everyone tells it....
>
>cia was fully involved...
i have no reason to doubt that....so what?
>> >who gives carte blanche to the continued israeli occupation of land
>> >captured in '67?
>>
>> your suggestion? they are 'driven into the sea'?
>
>no...they go back to the '67 border....obeying un resolutions 242 and
>338...
not likely to happen until they trust that they have secure borders.....
and even then i'm not betting....
perhaps you would wish that americans would withdraw from
(red) indian lands....perhaps you would like a un 'resolution'
number to quote.....
>saddam otoh isn't occupying a needle-point of his neighbour's land...
that is not by his choice dough brain!
>> >like i said....do your research and you will always find the truth...
>>
>> you will come to realise the world is not so simple....or even nice...
>> as you might wish...
>
>so when are you volunteering for active duty in the gulf? get that
>kit-bag sorted lad....
your comment is the shallow impertinence of a child....
Dr. Sunil
On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Sep 2002 18:46:40 +0100, "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk>
> >
> >as are you with your paranoia re. iraq's alleged 'threat'....
>
> i have not said 'irak is a threat'......perhaps you do not read with
> sufficient attention....
then why the urge to bomb the country?
> >> from loons with stanley knives....
> >
> >none of whom were iraqi....
>
> again, i care not whether they were from mars....
so what has saddam to do with them?
> >so it is a necessity....not a luxury?
>
> no....it is a luxury...a very desirable luxury....
> but a luxury none the less....and army is not a luxury....it
> is a necessity....if you intend to survive....
> if you intend to eat....if you intend to have your nhs....
money wasted on the 'attack' would be better spent on the nhs and
'education'...
> >no reason to bomb a sovereign nation....
>
> the prime intent is to remove madsam....
> not 'to bomb a sovereign nation'.....
so how will you achieve this?
> >> >moreover...merkia has attacked way more countries than saddam ever
> >> >did...
> >>
> >> what has that to do with the price of eggs?
> >
> >merkia has behaved far worse...and you blindly follow...
>
> cotton wool kid....
you still haven't convinced me you don't blindly follow...
> >> and your point is?
> >
> >needless incineration of civilians...
>
> your judgement.....
japan was pretty much defeated by august '45...
> >and...
> >saddam has never used nukes....
>
> so what? he has yet to get hold of them....
which is the only country ever to have used nukes against civilian
targets?
> get through your head this fellow has a screw loose....
> who else would set fire the kuwait.....
but merkia bombed his country to rubble!
and is kuwait a beacon of 'democracy'?
well?
> >> >who used chemical agents in vietnam....affecting people there even
> >> >today?
> >>
> >> yes....that was both foolish and excessive....
> >
> >ok...so you freely admit merkins haven't always been angels...
>
> i would never attempt to make the case that any human
> or group of humans were angels.....
> they are mostly monkeys attempting to climb out of the swamps
so why blindly follow?
> >> >who was behind the assassination of the democratically elected allende
> >> >of chile?
> >>
> >> that is not the way everyone tells it....
> >
> >cia was fully involved...
>
> i have no reason to doubt that....so what?
merkia haven't always acted like 'good guys'....
> >> >who gives carte blanche to the continued israeli occupation of land
> >> >captured in '67?
> >>
> >> your suggestion? they are 'driven into the sea'?
> >
> >no...they go back to the '67 border....obeying un resolutions 242 and
> >338...
>
> not likely to happen until they trust that they have secure borders.....
> and even then i'm not betting....
their present 'borders' are 'secure'? how can they expect to have
peace....if they won't brook palestinian independence?
> perhaps you would wish that americans would withdraw from
> (red) indian lands....perhaps you would like a un 'resolution'
> number to quote.....
no such resolutions pertain however...
> >saddam otoh isn't occupying a needle-point of his neighbour's land...
>
> that is not by his choice dough brain!
he is just minding his own business in iraq....but israel *is*
occupying her neighbour's land!
> >so when are you volunteering for active duty in the gulf? get that
> >kit-bag sorted lad....
>
> your comment is the shallow impertinence of a child....
why don't you volunteer your services to the 'struggle'... if you so
much want to 'remove' saddam? if you really believe in this 'war'!
you haven't taken into account what happens if this all goes wrong...
and your paranoia is still pretty much self-evident...
regards....i hope....
sunil
--
James Hammerton
> On 5 Sep 2002, James Hammerton wrote:
>
> > > how many iraqi planes have bombed london over
> > > the last ten years?
> >
> > Do you think a country really needs to deploy it's military to attack
> > another country?
> >
> > Have you learned nothing from 11/9/2001?
>
> Pardon my French, but for fuck's sake, James!
>
> Al Q is not a 'country', just a terrorist organisation!
And a fucking dangerous one (as 9/11 proved) until they're put out of
action (Afghanistan was a first necessary step). And they were in hock
with the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Indeed their main base of
operations was there. They had the support of a country to help them
do what they did...
Hussein already provides support for suicide bombing (i.e. dosh for
the families of the bombers) in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
What's to stop him giving another terrorist group the support (e.g.
money, materials, designs, weapons) they need to carry out acts in
Europe or the US? It need not be AQ, but I wouldn't be surprised if
Hussein were to do that (it depends on how pragmatic he is about
cooperating with Muslims in order to attack US/UK/Western interests).
> They were
> almost all Saudis, not Iraqis, besides! I don't think any of the
> hijackers was Iraqi (BICBW).
I'm not aware any were, but this is not about the nationality of the
hijackers but about the funding and other support of the terrorists'
activities. Besides it is only one of many points I made regarding the
threat Iraq poses. And Saudi Arabia (amongst others) needs to be shown
in no uncertain terms that we will not tolerate the support of such
groups.
> Being a Saudi himself (not an Iraqi), one of Bin Liner's key demands
> was the pull-out of US forces from Saudi.
I am well aware of that. Odd that it would play into Iraq's hands by
leaving Saudi less well protected from an Iraqi invasion isn't it.
> Maybe he would actually *welcome* an attack on Iraq, because said US forces would no longer be
> needed to 'protect' Saudi!
He might be foolish enough to think that, who knows. The bigger
picture is that Saudi will get a message that they'd better stop
supporting AQ and start cracking down on them (and other terrorists
acting against US interests) or they might face similar action from
the US. So long as the US is serious about this.
James
Dr. Sunil
On 6 Sep 2002, James Hammerton wrote:
> "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<Pine.OSF.3.95q.1020905141309.17694J-100000@biochem>...
> > On 5 Sep 2002, James Hammerton wrote:
> >
> > > > how many iraqi planes have bombed london over
> > > > the last ten years?
> > >
> > > Do you think a country really needs to deploy it's military to attack
> > > another country?
> > >
> > > Have you learned nothing from 11/9/2001?
> >
> > Pardon my French, but for fuck's sake, James!
> >
> > Al Q is not a 'country', just a terrorist organisation!
>
> And a fucking dangerous one (as 9/11 proved) until they're put out of
> action (Afghanistan was a first necessary step). And they were in hock
> with the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Indeed their main base of
> operations was there. They had the support of a country to help them
> do what they did...
>
> Hussein already provides support for suicide bombing (i.e. dosh for
> the families of the bombers) in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
> What's to stop him giving another terrorist group the support (e.g.
> money, materials, designs, weapons) they need to carry out acts in
> Europe or the US? It need not be AQ, but I wouldn't be surprised if
> Hussein were to do that (it depends on how pragmatic he is about
> cooperating with Muslims in order to attack US/UK/Western interests).
What firm evidence links him with Bin Liner?
James Hammerton
> On 5 Sep 2002, James Hammerton wrote:
> >
> > If that is seeing sense then it implies bliar is the bigger immediate
> > threat. An interesting question. Bliar's building a police state,
> > whilst Saddam is building WMDs, is most probably seriously pissed off
> > with the US/UK for thwarting his plans in the mid east and wants
> > control of the oil on which our prosperity sadly depends. Perhaps we
> > should act on both threats.
>
> Sorry - missed this earlier!
>
> He's hardly going to withold oil from us if we're going to pay the
> going rate for it, no?
If he controls the oil in the mid east, he can set the "going rate"
high enough to be of serious consequence to us. If he controls the oil
then he can threaten the prosperity of much of the world. Do you want
an oppressive dictator in the middle east dictating terms to the world
economy?
> Also, I refuse to believe he's dumb enough to launch a first strike,
Do you believe bin-Lid was dumb? But I grant Hussein won't launch
direct missile attacks unless he becomes much more powerful, but that
is precisely what he wants to do. Control the mid-east and the oil and
he will be much more dangerous than he is now. And if he has WMDs he
could allow terrorist proxies to employ them against his enemies. He
has form -- he provides funds to the suicide bombers.
> geven that there is (or soon will be) NMD in operation,
That is quite some time off and WMD will do little to deal with
terrorist attacks and may not even be effective against missile
attacks.
> and our
> massive nuclear arsenal(s). Remember, we have four Vanguard Subs in
> operation, each with 96 Trident warheads (thereby giving us the
> capability of nuking 384 cities in an instant).
Which is why terrorism is a much more likely avenue of attack.
Especially if he can ensure that the is little clarity as to who
exactly carried the attacks out and who bankrolled them, and thus keep
the ROW split as to whether to attack Iraq over it or not.
James
James Hammerton
> On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 5 Sep 2002 14:04:11 +0100, "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk>
> >
> > typed:
> >
> > >On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
>
> > >> not a particularly unreasonable comment....
> > >
> > >then why believe 'em?!
> >
> > i have answered this more than once...i see james has also answered you...
> > in view of the clear fact that you are no fool.....
> > i can but assume you to be acting deliberately obtuse......
> > perhaps you have a hidden agenda.....perhaps you are attempting
> > to rationalise what you wish to believe in order that you do not
> > have to face the nasty realities that those who lead you must face....
>
> what *real* threat does iraq pose? not imagined....*real*....
He wants to control the middle east, and the oil. We depend on the
oil, the middle east is in firing range of Europe, Africa, China,
Russia, India with the right missiles. If he controls this area and
acquires WMDs he becomes a major player on the world stage, able to
dictate terms on oil, and with powerful enough weaponry to deter
attacks even from other major powers. The power and dominance and
prosperity of the West will decline. That's if we let him get what he
wants. He acquires WMDs before controlling the mid east, and he will
be in a position to start trying to get that control, and removing him
will *definitely* involve use of those WMDs. If we're lucky he hasn't
yet got them.
To flex his muscles, to gain power over us. And the "going rate" might
be high enough for him to do that if he controls the mid east.
> > >> >i see no common interest with bloodthirsty warmongerers like bliar and
> > >> >shrub...
> > >>
> > >> and exactly what is 'a bloodthirsty warmonger'.....is it like
> > >> dracula?
> > >
> > >think of all the countries bombed by merkia over the last 100 years...
> >
> > what about them?
>
> merkia has bombed more people than saddam has....
Mostly in the service of fighting the USSR (and preserving the Western
democracies in doing so) and the Nazis before that, and warding off
threats to itself. I agree there are occasions where America has done
things without such justifications.
> merkia are the real
> threat to world peace....
>
> > >> i have asked you several times what your agenda is....you
> > >> evade.....
> > >
> > >i speak only for myself...you otoh seem to blindly follow bliar and
> > >shrub...
> >
> > you have been answered on that sufficient times....
> > you may not like the answer....but the answer will not change
> > because it does not suit your wishes....
>
> firmly brainwashed i see...i hope you're not...
Why are you so set on the conclusion abelard is brainwashed, rather
than having studied the situation and formed his own conclusion?
> > >> >> imv you worry overmuch about the why of their acts.....
> > >> >
> > >> >paranoia? bloodlust? in shrub's case...congressional polls?
> > >>
> > >> read the above link....
> > >> this is too serious for just this weeks polls...far far too serious....
> > >
> > >my you are slow...i meant the mid-term congressional polls in
> > >november...
> >
> > i don't care which polls you meant.....the point remains....
>
> i think it not coincidental....
>
> > >> here is a sub plot for you
> > >> http://www.nationalreview.com/jos/jos090302.asp
> > >
> > >in what way is saddam a hitler? the article is typical merkin paranoia
> > >and black propaganda!
> >
> > you know full well that he attacks his neighbours and oppresses
> > irak.....
>
> when was the last time he 'attacked' his neighbours?
> his neighbours don't want miltary action...they know it will make a
> mess of things....they'll be next....
>
> and he is certainly not the only dictator in the world....
Nope. But this is beside the point. He poses a threat.
> when were
> there free and fair elections in saudi....for example....
>
> > >> >> i am flattered that you take that much account of my assessment!
> > >> >
> > >> >i guess after five years i've come to expect that from bliar!
> > >>
> > >> which bit precisely....?
> > >
> > >his public lying....his saint tony image....
> >
> > which has just what to do with just what?
>
> you seem to have fallen for his fake 'righteousness'....
You claim that because abelard happens to agree with Tony on this
particular issue?
> > >> >> what is naive about an assessment?
> > >> >> have you a contrasting assessment that fit sufficient facts?
> > >> >
> > >> >bliar is a public liar?
> > >>
> > >> that is not necessarily relevant....
> > >
> > >why?
> >
> > because my views are not formed by whatever bliar may say....
>
> don't gimme that!
Why shouldn't he?
> > in fact....as he is a known public liar i scarcely concern myself
> > with anything whatsoever he may say.....
>
> 'course you don't mister!
>
> > his words are entirely without meaningful content....
> > i only note what he does.....
>
> what guarantee is there that the war will be a success?
No absolute guarantee. Odds are it will get rid of Saddam and improve
the situation. However it won't necessarily be a bed of roses
afterwards...
> what happened to bin liner? is he in custody? nope!
But his organisation has lots its main base of operations, has many of
its members arrested or under surveillance and will find it much more
difficult to carry out attacks like 9/11 than it did before
Afghanistan. Capturing bin Lid himself would be icing on that cake.
Afghanistan was a success and led to an improved situation, but it
didn't achieve everything that one might hope to achieve, but then
this was never going to be an easy, quick ride and then the world's
safe again...
> > >> >churchill gassed the kurds too y'know!
> > >>
> > >> even if true....
> > >
> > >http://www.iraqwar.org/chemical.htm
> > >"I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am
> > >strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes"
> >
> > you are still not making any cogent point which i can see......
> > merely repeating a possible statement by a long ded statesman.....
>
> did gassing the kurds make churchill a 'bad guy'?
Does Churchill threaten world peace?
> > >> that has exactly what to do with what....?
> > >
> > >british...in this case...hypocrisy?
> >
> > i am not responsible for the words of churchill....
> > only for my own words.....
> > 'british' is not a person.....only persons can possibly
> > exhibit 'hypocrisy'.....
>
> ok then...britons who support the 'war'....britons who claim shrub is
> the 'new churchill'...
I don't claim that. I'd be suprised if abelard did.
> > >in any case abelard....are we sure it was iraq that gassed the town
> > >of halabja in '88?
> > >http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/12-14-00.html
> >
> > imv yes....
>
> evidence?
>
> > i have not read your article.....but then i also don't
> > tend to read the bulk of conspiracy theory links posted here
> > abouts.....
>
> i see...you haven't done your 'research'....
Or perhaps he has and knows enough to dismiss the above article?
> > >> >> let the iraki people free.....
> > >> >
> > >> >wot about all the others in the region....eg...the saudis....
> > >> >why pick on iraq?
> > >>
> > >> ah....the right sort of question....
> > >> 1)because they are there....
> > >
> > >that's a reason to bomb and kill people? my you are a
> > >warmongerererer...
> >
> > you must of course come to your own conclusions and judgements....
>
> rather than blindly follow the blind?
Indeed.
> > >> 2)get a good map of the whole area and put it on your
> > >> wall....then keep looking at it....let it seep into your being.....
> > >> let the map stretch to china in the east.....to the med in the west....
> > >> to southern russia in the north...to the indian ocean in the south....
> > >> (it needs go no further atm.....)
> > >
> > >russia...india...china...all see no threat from iraq....
> >
> > that is extremely naive.....
> > all these countries have problems with islamics.....
>
> but no problem with iraq...
You sure about that?
> see news of recent oil deals such as that
> with russia...and india...
Iraq wants to divide the opposition...
> if you'd done your 'research' you will note that aziz...saddam's
> deputy...is not a mad mullah but in fact a christian....
So what?
> > >> >> that is a cost you may well have to risk/tolerate....
> > >> >
> > >> >this can be avoided if we use common sense....instead of basic
> > >> >militaristic urges....
> > >>
> > >> i don't believe that....i think that is dangerously naive.....
> > >> it is the dream of a young idealist man....it is not realism....
> > >
> > >i think you share bliar and shrub's paranoia and warmongerererer
> > >tendencies my friend....
> >
> > you are merely telling me your state of mind....you are giving no
> > support to such an assertion.....
>
> as are you with your paranoia re. iraq's alleged 'threat'....
Is it really just paranoia?
> > >> >> a pleasure to be of use....
> > >> >
> > >> >then see sense and concentrate on bliar instead of saddam!
> > >>
> > >> no sale....they are both problems....
> > >
> > >but saddam isn't eroding our civil liberties..bliar is!
> >
> > far too simplistic.....
> > it depends first on what you imagine to be 'us'.......
>
> why? do you take bonehead and biddy's line that *anyone* with lower
> light reflectivity is a potential threat?
Non-sequiteur.
> > it then depends on which particular civil liberties you refer.....
> > eg....the civil liberty to fly to india and back......
>
> is saddam witholding oil from india? no....
>
> from anybody us in the west? no...
But that's because we've been containing him, putting sanctions on
him, etc since Gulf war 1.
> > the civil liberty of driving to work.....
>
> the sooner hydrogen cars become available the better...for the
> environment's sake...
Agreed, especially if they find a way of not emitting the water vapour
into the atmosphere (a powerful greenhouse gas is water vapour).
James
Greg Hennessy
>money wasted on the 'attack' would be better spent on the nhs and
>'education'...
You really are grabbing for straws Dr S. Using emotionally worthy red
herrings such as NHS spending really is desperation on your part.
>
>japan was pretty much defeated by august '45...
You've promulgated this lie before. It doesn't change the reality. Alleged
Japanese *defeat* didn't stop the general in charge of defence from
Singapore to Taiwan from issuing the order to mass murder approx 1 million
allied prisoners and civilians in his charge if so much as a *single*
allied soldier entered his operational area.
UK forces were due to invade Malaya and Singapore on 1st Sept 45....
>which is the only country ever to have used nukes against civilian
>targets?
Neither the of the two cities were *civilian* targets. They contained
docks, warehouses, factories & supplies all actively contributing to the
Japanese war effort. The bomb on Hiroshima destroyed nearly 2 divisions of
soldiers that would have been used against any invasion.
If the bombs *hadnt* a been dropped, One can pretty much guarantee the
death of 20 million Japanese minimum. This wouldnt have come before they
had treated the territories they occupied in SE asia to the exact same hell
inflicted on China. The magic intercepts clearly document in the Japanese
own words the plans for genocide in territories they held.
The *documented* UK/US response upon hearing of allied POWs/civilians being
slaughtered would have been delivery of 60000+ tonnes of chemical and
biological weapons on Japanese cities per *week*.
May I suggest doing some research on Ketsu-Go before making yourself look
even more foolish with this rather sub par revisionism.
greg
--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#NOSPAM\.##;
bück dich - befehl ich dir
wende dein Antlitz ab von mir
Pax Mundis
In the past I have often criticised some of your public pronouncements
about a fairer world, racial harmony and democracy. However, on
further reflection I realise those empty words were merely a ploy to
appeal to wishful thinking traditional Labour voters.
I think history has given us, the genetically superior Anglo-American
and Jewish peoples, the sancrosanct right to exploit the world's
resources for our exclusive benefit. We should never trust Arabs and
Africans to control the supply of raw materials essential to our
civilised way of life. It is absolutely right to set these monsters up
against each other, if we can secure our legitimate right to resources
which we or our forebears discovered. I know it's hard to sell radical
depopulation solutions to the masses, who naively believe that
everyone in the world can look forward to a brighter future if only
they copy us, but to maintain our living standard we need to restore
population density to its 1960 level fast. If that means arming black
or brown dictators and then declaring war against them, then so be it.
Looking forward to cheaper petrol prices.
A. Racist
Chairman of the Judeo-Christian White Supremacist League
abelard
typed:
>
>
>On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 5 Sep 2002 18:46:40 +0100, "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk>
>> >
>> >as are you with your paranoia re. iraq's alleged 'threat'....
>>
>> i have not said 'irak is a threat'......perhaps you do not read with
>> sufficient attention....
>
>then why the urge to bomb the country?
i've answered this already....
>> >> from loons with stanley knives....
>> >
>> >none of whom were iraqi....
>>
>> again, i care not whether they were from mars....
>
>so what has saddam to do with them?
he's on the same planet.....
>> >so it is a necessity....not a luxury?
>>
>> no....it is a luxury...a very desirable luxury....
>> but a luxury none the less....and army is not a luxury....it
>> is a necessity....if you intend to survive....
>> if you intend to eat....if you intend to have your nhs....
>
>money wasted on the 'attack' would be better spent on the nhs and
>'education'...
if you don't deal with him now.....roughly....
1)it'll cost you more next week....
2)it will reduce your future position.....
3)this is the way the world is.....
4)we are rich enuf to do both....
>> >no reason to bomb a sovereign nation....
>>
>> the prime intent is to remove madsam....
>> not 'to bomb a sovereign nation'.....
>
>so how will you achieve this?
i will remain silent on this....
>> >> >moreover...merkia has attacked way more countries than saddam ever
>> >> >did...
>> >>
>> >> what has that to do with the price of eggs?
>> >
>> >merkia has behaved far worse...and you blindly follow...
>>
>> cotton wool kid....
>
>you still haven't convinced me you don't blindly follow...
i have no such need or drive...you are welcome to believe
whatever bollox you choose....
>> >> and your point is?
>> >
>> >needless incineration of civilians...
>>
>> your judgement.....
>
>japan was pretty much defeated by august '45...
consult the historians who say different....
not that it is particularly relevant....
>> >and...
>> >saddam has never used nukes....
>>
>> so what? he has yet to get hold of them....
>
>which is the only country ever to have used nukes against civilian
>targets?
>
>> get through your head this fellow has a screw loose....
>> who else would set fire the kuwait.....
>
>but merkia bombed his country to rubble!
they certainly disturbed the furniture....what has that to do with
such ecological petulance.....
>and is kuwait a beacon of 'democracy'?
>
>well?
well what?
>> >> >who used chemical agents in vietnam....affecting people there even
>> >> >today?
>> >>
>> >> yes....that was both foolish and excessive....
>> >
>> >ok...so you freely admit merkins haven't always been angels...
>>
>> i would never attempt to make the case that any human
>> or group of humans were angels.....
>> they are mostly monkeys attempting to climb out of the swamps
>
>so why blindly follow?
why do you assume one must be 'blind' to take rational actions....
go look at the stuff on flocks at my site links page....search
for the word 'boids'......
>> >> >who was behind the assassination of the democratically elected allende
>> >> >of chile?
>> >>
>> >> that is not the way everyone tells it....
>> >
>> >cia was fully involved...
>>
>> i have no reason to doubt that....so what?
>
>merkia haven't always acted like 'good guys'....
i'm gutted....and amazed....
>> >> >who gives carte blanche to the continued israeli occupation of land
>> >> >captured in '67?
>> >>
>> >> your suggestion? they are 'driven into the sea'?
>> >
>> >no...they go back to the '67 border....obeying un resolutions 242 and
>> >338...
>>
>> not likely to happen until they trust that they have secure borders.....
>> and even then i'm not betting....
>
>their present 'borders' are 'secure'? how can they expect to have
>peace....if they won't brook palestinian independence?
1)they almost certainly will not regard them as safe
2)why do you assume they want what you call 'peace'?
>> perhaps you would wish that americans would withdraw from
>> (red) indian lands....perhaps you would like a un 'resolution'
>> number to quote.....
>
>no such resolutions pertain however...
earth shattering news....so bluddy what?
i hereby resolve that pigs can fly....
>> >saddam otoh isn't occupying a needle-point of his neighbour's land...
>>
>> that is not by his choice dough brain!
>
>he is just minding his own business in iraq....but israel *is*
>occupying her neighbour's land!
you really do seem to have a problem concentrating....
next you'll be telling me the world production figures for
cheddar cheese....
>> >so when are you volunteering for active duty in the gulf? get that
>> >kit-bag sorted lad....
>>
>> your comment is the shallow impertinence of a child....
>
>why don't you volunteer your services to the 'struggle'... if you so
>much want to 'remove' saddam? if you really believe in this 'war'!
what do you imagine this is....you are a pain in the neck....
at times you are hard work....
at others you are immature and boring.....
i am very highly intolerant of 'boring'....yet here i am donating
my services....
>you haven't taken into account what happens if this all goes wrong...
don't be so paranoid....
be aware that often on this benighted planet the choice is between
evils....
removing madsam will *probably* have some annoying side effects...
leaving him is much worse.....
often the differences are less clear cut...but judgements are still made..
the real world is not your safe little laboratory...get used to that.....
>and your paranoia is still pretty much self-evident...
you don't understand the differences between paranoia, fear
and self interested judgement....
Dr. Sunil
On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, Greg Hennessy wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Sep 2002 13:02:06 +0100, "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >money wasted on the 'attack' would be better spent on the nhs and
> >'education'...
>
> You really are grabbing for straws Dr S. Using emotionally worthy red
> herrings such as NHS spending really is desperation on your part.
Who's getting emotional re. the 'threat' posed by Saddam?
> >japan was pretty much defeated by august '45...
>
> You've promulgated this lie before. It doesn't change the reality. Alleged
> Japanese *defeat* didn't stop the general in charge of defence from
> Singapore to Taiwan from issuing the order to mass murder approx 1 million
> allied prisoners and civilians in his charge if so much as a *single*
> allied soldier entered his operational area.
>
> UK forces were due to invade Malaya and Singapore on 1st Sept 45....
And that justifies using wepaons of mass destruction against innocent
civilians?
> >which is the only country ever to have used nukes against civilian
> >targets?
>
> Neither the of the two cities were *civilian* targets. They contained
> docks, warehouses, factories & supplies all actively contributing to the
> Japanese war effort. The bomb on Hiroshima destroyed nearly 2 divisions of
> soldiers that would have been used against any invasion.
You deny almost all the victims were civilians? Not to mention those
that subsequently died from radiation sickness.
Dr. Sunil
On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
> >so what has saddam to do with them?
>
> he's on the same planet.....
you have no evidence linking him with the 11/9 hijackers....
yet more paranoid delusion i see....
regards....still...
sunil
--
Dr. Sunil
On 6 Sep 2002, James Hammerton wrote:
>
> He wants to control the middle east, and the oil.
Yes, one could very well say that re. President Shrub.
Greg Hennessy
>
>Who's getting emotional re. the 'threat' posed by Saddam?
The only one getting emotional here is you Dr S.
>> UK forces were due to invade Malaya and Singapore on 1st Sept 45....
>
>And that justifies using wepaons of mass destruction against innocent
>civilians?
What *innocent* civilians Sunil ? You never answered the question I posed
before as to what made Hiroshima/Nagasaki any different when compared to
what happened to Tokyo on the night of 16 March 45 when ~130000 died and 16
square miles burned to ashes.
>You deny almost all the victims were civilians?
They *werent* civilians Sunil. They were active participants in a *total*
war effort by the Japanese against the *civilian* populations of SE Asia.
Any *rights* the mainland Japanese population had to be treated as
*civilians* disappeared at Nanking in December 1937.
http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/nanking.htm
Your anti americanism cares naught for what happened on the 6th and 9th of
August, its just another convenient measure of faux concern.
> Not to mention those
>that subsequently died from radiation sickness.
When compared to the > 250000 killed by Unit 731 it wasn't half enough.
Greg Hennessy
wrote:
> and removing him
>will *definitely* involve use of those WMDs. If we're lucky he hasn't
>yet got them.
>
The exact same voices will then be loudly whinging about how immoral it is,
having to butcher several million iraqi civilians so that the root cause of
their death can be excised.
Orwell wasn't kidding when he said pacifism is objectively pro fascist.
Dr. Sunil
On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, Greg Hennessy wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Sep 2002 15:53:32 +0100, "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >Who's getting emotional re. the 'threat' posed by Saddam?
>
> The only one getting emotional here is you Dr S.
'Course I am, Greg, course I am!
> >> UK forces were due to invade Malaya and Singapore on 1st Sept 45....
> >
> >And that justifies using wepaons of mass destruction against innocent
> >civilians?
>
> What *innocent* civilians Sunil ? You never answered the question I posed
> before as to what made Hiroshima/Nagasaki any different when compared to
> what happened to Tokyo on the night of 16 March 45 when ~130000 died and 16
> square miles burned to ashes.
So you're justifying the use of WMDs?
Marc Living
wrote:
>i think the us is a bigger threat to iraq than vice versa
One would bloody well hope so.
--
Marc Living (replace "bounceback" with "ntlworld" to reply)
"The first objective of any tyrant in Whitehall would be to make
Parliament utterly subservient to his will; and the next to overturn or
diminish trial by jury ..." Lord Devlin
Dr. Sunil
On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, Marc Living wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 16:47:50 +0100, "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >i think the us is a bigger threat to iraq than vice versa
>
> One would bloody well hope so.
oh dear....another warmonger....
abelard
typed:
>On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
>
>> >so what has saddam to do with them?
>>
>> he's on the same planet.....
>
>you have no evidence linking him with the 11/9 hijackers....
i have never made any such claim....
>yet more paranoid delusion i see....
no.
sorry to see that as you run out of reason you increasingly
resort to emotion and worse....
Dr. Sunil
On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Sep 2002 15:57:40 +0100, "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk>
>
> typed:
>
> >On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
> >
> >> >so what has saddam to do with them?
> >>
> >> he's on the same planet.....
> >
> >you have no evidence linking him with the 11/9 hijackers....
>
> i have never made any such claim....
why mention 'loons with boxcutters' then?
> >yet more paranoid delusion i see....
>
> no.
> sorry to see that as you run out of reason you increasingly
> resort to emotion and worse....
i think you tend to overuse emotion in your hatred of saddam...
you still haven't given firm evidence of his alleged 'threat'....apart
from hearsay and speculation....
regards....still....
sunil
--
Greg Hennessy
>So you're justifying the use of WMDs?
Answer the damn question Sunil. No prevarication please. One does not give
quarter to an enemy that had murdered several million across asia and the
western pacific for the previous decade. To do so invites ones own
destruction. No justification was necessary seeing it saved the lives of
those who would have died by the million on both sides given the *only*
alternative.
No justification will be necessary if our friend in Baghdad commits
involuntary suicide by sanctioning the use of chemical/biological weapons
against allied forces.
The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki turned out to be very much the
lesser of two evils. The Americans didn't expect the Japanese to surrender
any more than they had after tokyo was obliterated 5 months previously. The
facilities @ Hanford and Oak Ridge were already producing enough pu-239 to
make a bomb every 8-10 days. Process improvements and in using less fissile
material in bomb making were expected to halve that by the end of the year.
e.g the amount of u235 used in the gun type Hiroshima weapon design was
IIRC over twice the amount necessary for an implosion weapon.
But of course if you actual researched your history rather than posting
revisionist point scoring nonsense you would already know that.
To claim otherwise is rather mindless and puts you in the company of swivel
eyed holocaust deniers, japanese ultra nationalists and other assorted wing
nuts.
greg
>
--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#NOSPAM\.##;
Hush little baby don't say a word
And never mind that noise you heard
Dr. Sunil
On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, Greg Hennessy wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Sep 2002 17:43:18 +0100, "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >So you're justifying the use of WMDs?
>
> Answer the damn question Sunil. No prevarication please. One does not give
> quarter to an enemy that had murdered several million across asia and the
> western pacific for the previous decade. To do so invites ones own
> destruction. No justification was necessary seeing it saved the lives of
> those who would have died by the million on both sides given the *only*
> alternative.
So you're saying the use of WMDs *can* be justified?
Tamas Gyursanszky
> Do you want an oppressive dictator in the middle east
> dictating terms to the world economy?
There are two questions in that sentence..
They each need addressing individually:
1) Do you want an oppressive dictator in the Middle East?
Most of the regimes in the area, including Israel, the
so-called 'beacon democracy' are totalitarian states
where political dissidents are regularly tortured
and summarily executed.
If you believe that the Iraqi regime has to be deposed
because of its appalling human rights record, then so
too must the West overthrow the regimes of Syria, Iran,
Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait etc..
What is good for the goose...
2) Do you want [Hussein] dictating terms to the world economy?
Again, have regard for the world view..
What trade embargos have been imposed on the
export of goods _from_ Western states?
It wasn't long ago that modern PCs could not
be exported to states such as India, for example.
What was that embargo, if not a dictating
to the world economy?
Greg Hennessy
>
>So you're saying the use of WMDs *can* be justified?
What part of the paragraph you quoted did you have problems understanding ?
Letting the fascist japanese regime survive in *any* form was a far worse
alternative. To say otherwise wilfully ignores what caused the conflict in
the 1st place.
abelard
typed:
>
>
>On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 6 Sep 2002 15:57:40 +0100, "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk>
>>
>> typed:
>>
>> >On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
>> >
>> >> >so what has saddam to do with them?
>> >>
>> >> he's on the same planet.....
>> >
>> >you have no evidence linking him with the 11/9 hijackers....
>>
>> i have never made any such claim....
>
>why mention 'loons with boxcutters' then?
can't remember the context...you have dodged so many
times i have lost track....and i'm not going to search on back.....
>> >yet more paranoid delusion i see....
>>
>> no.
>> sorry to see that as you run out of reason you increasingly
>> resort to emotion and worse....
>
>i think you tend to overuse emotion in your hatred of saddam...
i don't hate him...i feel rather sorry for him.....
i am however more concerned for the nuisance he
is causing...including to iraqis........
as for him....he should be in a high security prison psychiatric ward....
and treated with humanity....
if he had been better treated as a child the world would probably
be a better place and him a happier bunny.....
your attribution of emotion to me is clearly projection.....
>you still haven't given firm evidence of his alleged 'threat'....apart
>from hearsay and speculation....
you have been given plenty....
that it doesn't suit you is neither here nor there.....
Marc Living
wrote:
>On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, Marc Living wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 16:47:50 +0100, "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk>
>> wrote:
>> >i think the us is a bigger threat to iraq than vice versa
>> One would bloody well hope so.
>oh dear....another warmonger....
Merely somebody who would not like a state of affairs in which Iraq
was Saddam Hussein's Iraq was militarily stronger than the USA.
Dr. Sunil
On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Marc Living wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Sep 2002 18:46:53 +0100, "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
> >On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, Marc Living wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 16:47:50 +0100, "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >i think the us is a bigger threat to iraq than vice versa
>
> >> One would bloody well hope so.
>
> >oh dear....another warmonger....
>
> Merely somebody who would not like a state of affairs in which Iraq
> was Saddam Hussein's Iraq was militarily stronger than the USA.
hardly likely given the inordinant number of nukes in the Merkin
arsenal.
Dr. Sunil
On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Sep 2002 19:31:29 +0100, "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk>
>
> typed:
>
> >
> >
> >On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 6 Sep 2002 15:57:40 +0100, "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk>
> >>
> >> typed:
> >>
> >> >On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >so what has saddam to do with them?
> >> >>
> >> >> he's on the same planet.....
> >> >
> >> >you have no evidence linking him with the 11/9 hijackers....
> >>
> >> i have never made any such claim....
> >
> >why mention 'loons with boxcutters' then?
>
> can't remember the context...you have dodged so many
> times i have lost track....and i'm not going to search on back.....
you might have associated saddam with bin liner in your 'threat
analysis'...i am not so convinced...
> >> >yet more paranoid delusion i see....
> >>
> >> no.
> >> sorry to see that as you run out of reason you increasingly
> >> resort to emotion and worse....
> >
> >i think you tend to overuse emotion in your hatred of saddam...
>
> i don't hate him...i feel rather sorry for him.....
> i am however more concerned for the nuisance he
> is causing...including to iraqis.....
then why not support an attack on china...far worse regime imv...
> as for him....he should be in a high security prison psychiatric ward....
> and treated with humanity....
reserve that for bliar and shrub!
> if he had been better treated as a child the world would probably
> be a better place and him a happier bunny.....
he is minding his own bsuiness within his own borders....it is the us
and uk who periodically bomb *him*....like the other day...
> your attribution of emotion to me is clearly projection.....
you are free to think that...if you wish....
> >you still haven't given firm evidence of his alleged 'threat'....apart
> >from hearsay and speculation....
>
> you have been given plenty....
> that it doesn't suit you is neither here nor there.....
that is merely idle speculation...
and snippets from assorted right-wing merkin comic books...
even if he were *able to*...i want actual evidence that he expressly
*wants* to nuke london....or swindon....
then i might be convinced....
regards....as ever....
sunil
--
Dr. Sunil
On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, Greg Hennessy wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Sep 2002 20:19:56 +0100, "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >So you're saying the use of WMDs *can* be justified?
>
> What part of the paragraph you quoted did you have problems understanding ?
> Letting the fascist japanese regime survive in *any* form was a far worse
> alternative. To say otherwise wilfully ignores what caused the conflict in
> the 1st place.
American oli embargo on Japan in Fall, 1941?
[ducks]
Greg Hennessy
>
>American oli embargo on Japan in Fall, 1941?
Imposed in response to *what* Sunil ?
greg
>
>[ducks]
abelard
typed:
>
>
>On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 6 Sep 2002 19:31:29 +0100, "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk>
>>
>> typed:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 6 Sep 2002 15:57:40 +0100, "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk>
>> >>
>> >> typed:
>> >>
>> >> >On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> >so what has saddam to do with them?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> he's on the same planet.....
>> >> >
>> >> >you have no evidence linking him with the 11/9 hijackers....
>> >>
>> >> i have never made any such claim....
>> >
>> >why mention 'loons with boxcutters' then?
>>
>> can't remember the context...you have dodged so many
>> times i have lost track....and i'm not going to search on back.....
>
>you might have associated saddam with bin liner in your 'threat
>analysis'...i am not so convinced...
the main association i can see is they are both benighted primitives....
i doubt i have made such a generalisation....
and i have mostly refrained from any detailed 'threat analysis'.....
preferring to deal with thoughts raised by individuals.....
but to give you sommat to bite upon....
bin liner no longer (even if he is still of this world) has the resources
of a state (albeit a backward and poor state) available to him....
he is at most merely another terrorist on the run to join the
many over the last few decades....
>> >> >yet more paranoid delusion i see....
>> >>
>> >> no.
>> >> sorry to see that as you run out of reason you increasingly
>> >> resort to emotion and worse....
>> >
>> >i think you tend to overuse emotion in your hatred of saddam...
>>
>> i don't hate him...i feel rather sorry for him.....
>> i am however more concerned for the nuisance he
>> is causing...including to iraqis.....
>
>then why not support an attack on china...far worse regime imv...
1)it is not practical atm
2)it is steadily moving forward.....
china is not (apparently) ruled by a primitive maniac either.....
>> as for him....he should be in a high security prison psychiatric ward....
>> and treated with humanity....
you do not go straight for the king....
>reserve that for bliar and shrub!
you attribute too much power to them....at present....
>> if he had been better treated as a child the world would probably
>> be a better place and him a happier bunny.....
>
>he is minding his own business within his own borders....
naive...
he is seeking to improve his position.....
>it is the us
>and uk who periodically bomb *him*....like the other day...
good work....
>> your attribution of emotion to me is clearly projection.....
>
>you are free to think that...if you wish....
true...however...as it is not in my head....it is reasonable
to assume it is yours....+
all my experience leads me to the probability that if a
person claims i have a reaction which i do not have....
such thinking is highly likely to reside in their skull......
>> >you still haven't given firm evidence of his alleged 'threat'....apart
>> >from hearsay and speculation....
>>
>> you have been given plenty....
>> that it doesn't suit you is neither here nor there.....
>
>that is merely idle speculation...
what is?
>and snippets from assorted right-wing merkin comic books...
>
>even if he were *able to*...i want actual evidence that he expressly
>*wants* to nuke london....or swindon....
it is entirely impossible to read the mind of another...
you are asking for the impossible...
to ask for the impossible is irrational.....highly irrational....
>then i might be convinced....
i don't believe you intend to be convinced.....
i have a strong impression that you are seeking to believe what
you want to believe....
you're a nice fellow living in a nasty world......
it is my guess that you have yet to adjust to that....
Dr. Sunil
> On Sat, 7 Sep 2002 16:56:14 +0100, "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk>
>
> typed:
>
> >
> >
> >On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 6 Sep 2002 19:31:29 +0100, "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk>
> >>
> >> typed:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Fri, 6 Sep 2002 15:57:40 +0100, "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk>
> >> >>
> >> >> typed:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >so what has saddam to do with them?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> he's on the same planet.....
> >> >> >
> >> >> >you have no evidence linking him with the 11/9 hijackers....
> >> >>
> >> >> i have never made any such claim....
> >> >
> >> >why mention 'loons with boxcutters' then?
> >>
> >> can't remember the context...you have dodged so many
> >> times i have lost track....and i'm not going to search on back.....
> >
> >you might have associated saddam with bin liner in your 'threat
> >analysis'...i am not so convinced...
>
> the main association i can see is they are both benighted primitives....
> i doubt i have made such a generalisation....
> and i have mostly refrained from any detailed 'threat analysis'.....
> preferring to deal with thoughts raised by individuals.....
'thoughts' that are mere speculation my friend...
> but to give you sommat to bite upon....
> bin liner no longer (even if he is still of this world) has the resources
> of a state (albeit a backward and poor state) available to him....
try pakistan? speaking of whom...who is the other muslimist dictator
with a *known* nucular arsenal...who sends terrorists into his
democratic neighbour's territory to cause mayhem....and is
incongruously deemed an 'ally' in the war against 'terror'?
> he is at most merely another terrorist on the run to join the
> many over the last few decades....
>
> >> >> >yet more paranoid delusion i see....
> >> >>
> >> >> no.
> >> >> sorry to see that as you run out of reason you increasingly
> >> >> resort to emotion and worse....
> >> >
> >> >i think you tend to overuse emotion in your hatred of saddam...
> >>
> >> i don't hate him...i feel rather sorry for him.....
> >> i am however more concerned for the nuisance he
> >> is causing...including to iraqis.....
> >
> >then why not support an attack on china...far worse regime imv...
>
> 1)it is not practical atm
iow...they'll kick our ass?
> 2)it is steadily moving forward.....
> china is not (apparently) ruled by a primitive maniac either.....
they do oppress their people...try the ban on google....and yahoo
iirc...
> >> as for him....he should be in a high security prison psychiatric ward....
> >> and treated with humanity....
>
> you do not go straight for the king....
i thought the upcoming 'war' would be against the iraqi 'king'....
> >reserve that for bliar and shrub!
>
> you attribute too much power to them....at present....
they're the ones controlling all that kit sitting in the persian
gulf....
> >> if he had been better treated as a child the world would probably
> >> be a better place and him a happier bunny.....
> >
> >he is minding his own business within his own borders....
>
> naive...
> he is seeking to improve his position.....
he has not invaded anybody since '91.....i think he has learnt the
lesson of the first gulf war...
> >it is the us
> >and uk who periodically bomb *him*....like the other day...
>
> good work....
so who's a threat to whom?
who is making threats....'do this - or we will bomb you'?
> >> your attribution of emotion to me is clearly projection.....
> >
> >you are free to think that...if you wish....
>
> true...however...as it is not in my head....it is reasonable
> to assume it is yours....+
> all my experience leads me to the probability that if a
> person claims i have a reaction which i do not have....
> such thinking is highly likely to reside in their skull......
you still believe the public liar....don't you?
> >> >you still haven't given firm evidence of his alleged 'threat'....apart
> >> >from hearsay and speculation....
> >>
> >> you have been given plenty....
> >> that it doesn't suit you is neither here nor there.....
> >
> >that is merely idle speculation...
>
> what is?
the supposed 'threat'...
> >and snippets from assorted right-wing merkin comic books...
> >
> >even if he were *able to*...i want actual evidence that he expressly
> >*wants* to nuke london....or swindon....
>
> it is entirely impossible to read the mind of another...
> you are asking for the impossible...
> to ask for the impossible is irrational.....highly irrational....
then you have no evidence saddam wants to take us out....
i'm sure he's not dumm enuf to go for a first strike....especially
with all the western kit out in the gulf....
i do not mind it being there....whether it's used in an unprovoked
attack is of course another matter....
> >then i might be convinced....
>
> i don't believe you intend to be convinced.....
> i have a strong impression that you are seeking to believe what
> you want to believe....
as are all you 'threat analysts'....the 'dossier' is just another
exercise in nulab 'spin' no doubt....
> you're a nice fellow living in a nasty world......
> it is my guess that you have yet to adjust to that....
all that will change if you can provide evidence that he actually
wants to nuke swindon....he's been shrewd enuf to stay in power for
the last 11 years....i do not 'believe' he would risk anything that
would provoke his own nuking....
regards my friend....
sunil
--
Dr. Sunil
> On Sat, 7 Sep 2002 16:58:20 +0100, "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >American oli embargo on Japan in Fall, 1941?
>
> Imposed in response to *what* Sunil ?
Not an attack on Merkin interests - merely Vichy French Indo-China -
and who was Vichy supporting at the time?
James Hammerton
> On 6 Sep 2002, James Hammerton wrote:
> >
> > He wants to control the middle east, and the oil.
>
> Yes, one could very well say that re. President Shrub.
Neat that you snipped the remainder of what I wrote...
Control of the oil is a factor, but not the sole factor.
Suppose that Saddam is not a threat. Then, considering the likely
upheavals and cost of such a war, why would the US consider invading
Iraq when simply buying up his oil and playing him off against the
Saudis would do the job?
James
James Hammerton
> On 6 Sep 2002, James Hammerton wrote:
>
> > > On 5 Sep 2002, James Hammerton wrote:
> > >
> > > > > how many iraqi planes have bombed london over
> > > > > the last ten years?
> > > >
> > > > Do you think a country really needs to deploy it's military to attack
> > > > another country?
> > > >
> > > > Have you learned nothing from 11/9/2001?
> > >
> > > Pardon my French, but for fuck's sake, James!
> > >
> > > Al Q is not a 'country', just a terrorist organisation!
> >
> > And a fucking dangerous one (as 9/11 proved) until they're put out of
> > action (Afghanistan was a first necessary step). And they were in hock
> > with the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Indeed their main base of
> > operations was there. They had the support of a country to help them
> > do what they did...
> >
> > Hussein already provides support for suicide bombing (i.e. dosh for
> > the families of the bombers) in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
> > What's to stop him giving another terrorist group the support (e.g.
> > money, materials, designs, weapons) they need to carry out acts in
> > Europe or the US? It need not be AQ, but I wouldn't be surprised if
> > Hussein were to do that (it depends on how pragmatic he is about
> > cooperating with Muslims in order to attack US/UK/Western interests).
>
> What firm evidence links him with Bin Liner?
As far as I'm aware there's some circumstantial evidence but not much
more. But that's beside the point. The threat Hussein poses is (in
part) in the willingness and ability to employ such people for his
purposes. Once he has WMDs that threat will grow by orders of
magnitude. Are you content to let him get WMDs before we act to
address this threat?
James
James Hammerton
> James Hammerton <ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > Do you want an oppressive dictator in the middle east
> > dictating terms to the world economy?
>
> There are two questions in that sentence..
>
> They each need addressing individually:
No they don't.
> 1) Do you want an oppressive dictator in the Middle East?
>
> Most of the regimes in the area, including Israel, the
> so-called 'beacon democracy' are totalitarian states
> where political dissidents are regularly tortured
> and summarily executed.
Agreed.
> If you believe that the Iraqi regime has to be deposed
> because of its appalling human rights record,
Which is not my contention, but it would be an improvement if such a
regime were to be replaced by a less appalling one.
> then so
> too must the West overthrow the regimes of Syria, Iran,
> Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait etc..
>
> What is good for the goose...
>
> 2) Do you want [Hussein] dictating terms to the world economy?
>
> Again, have regard for the world view..
Yup. Much of the world is critically dependent on that oil...
> What trade embargos have been imposed on the
> export of goods _from_ Western states?
What's that got to do with it?
> It wasn't long ago that modern PCs could not
> be exported to states such as India, for example.
I don't support such embargoes.
> What was that embargo, if not a dictating
> to the world economy?
Did it threaten the whole world economy in the way giving Saddam
control of the mid east and its oil would?
James
James Hammerton
Is he hell. He's funding suicide bombings. If we hadn't contained him
he'd have taken over or at least attempted to take over the middle
east by now.
> it is the us
> and uk who periodically bomb *him*....like the other day...
>
> > your attribution of emotion to me is clearly projection.....
>
> you are free to think that...if you wish....
>
> > >you still haven't given firm evidence of his alleged 'threat'....apart
> > >from hearsay and speculation....
> >
> > you have been given plenty....
> > that it doesn't suit you is neither here nor there.....
>
> that is merely idle speculation...
> and snippets from assorted right-wing merkin comic books...
>
> even if he were *able to*...i want actual evidence that he expressly
> *wants* to nuke london....or swindon....
Would you have demanded solid evidence that Hitler *wanted* to take
over Britain before going to war with him? At the time war broke out,
did such evidence exist? All that could be said was that Hitler broke
a treaty, but the threat he posed was clear enough...
And at that point, Germany had not even been attacked by Britain,
whereas Iraq has...
James
Greg Hennessy
>> Imposed in response to *what* Sunil ?
>
>Not an attack on Merkin interests - merely Vichy French Indo-China -
>and who was Vichy supporting at the time?
Sigh. You are being deliberately obtuse and are ignoring the documentary
evidence.
greg
Dirk Bruere
"James Hammerton" <ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:ac9b705c.02090...@posting.google.com...
Because:
(a) Baby Bush's 'Daddy complex'
(b) The US needs to dictate production of oil in order to maintain price
stability now that the Saudis are showing a reluctance to keep kissing US
arse.
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
"James Hammerton" <ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:ac9b705c.02090...@posting.google.com...
>
> As far as I'm aware there's some circumstantial evidence but not much
> more. But that's beside the point. The threat Hussein poses is (in
> part) in the willingness and ability to employ such people for his
> purposes. Once he has WMDs that threat will grow by orders of
> magnitude. Are you content to let him get WMDs before we act to
> address this threat?
He had WMDs when he was our good pal.
He was clearly not a danger since he only used them on ragheads Uncle Sam
didn't like, and his own people.
In fact, even if he gets a whole slew of nukes he would still only be a
danger to his neighbours.
Not us.
[Of course, for 'neighbours' read 'Israel']
Dirk
James Hammerton
> "James Hammerton" <ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:ac9b705c.02090...@posting.google.com...
> > > What firm evidence links him with Bin Liner?
> >
> > As far as I'm aware there's some circumstantial evidence but not much
> > more. But that's beside the point. The threat Hussein poses is (in
> > part) in the willingness and ability to employ such people for his
> > purposes. Once he has WMDs that threat will grow by orders of
> > magnitude. Are you content to let him get WMDs before we act to
> > address this threat?
>
> He had WMDs when he was our good pal.
If you're referring to the US support for Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war,
that was when Iran was a greater threat and before it was clear how
much of a threat Saddam himself was.
> In fact, even if he gets a whole slew of nukes he would still only be a
> danger to his neighbours.
(1) If he controls that region he controls an area of the world within
striking distance of Europe, Russia, China and India.
(2) If the controls the oil he controls a resource that the world
economy is still heavily dependent on so he can dictate terms to us.
(3) He might just be a tad pissed off with the US/UK/UN (in that
order) for thwarting his ambitions earlier and imposing sanctions, the
weapons inspections, the no-fly zones, etc.
James
James Hammerton
> "James Hammerton" <ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:ac9b705c.02090...@posting.google.com...
> > "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:<Pine.OSF.3.95q.1020906155406.19739D-100000@biochem>...
> > > On 6 Sep 2002, James Hammerton wrote:
> > > >
> > > > He wants to control the middle east, and the oil.
> > >
> > > Yes, one could very well say that re. President Shrub.
> >
> > Neat that you snipped the remainder of what I wrote...
> >
> > Control of the oil is a factor, but not the sole factor.
> >
> > Suppose that Saddam is not a threat. Then, considering the likely
> > upheavals and cost of such a war, why would the US consider invading
> > Iraq when simply buying up his oil and playing him off against the
> > Saudis would do the job?
>
> Because:
> (a) Baby Bush's 'Daddy complex'
Yes dear.
> (b) The US needs to dictate production of oil in order to maintain price
> stability now that the Saudis are showing a reluctance to keep kissing US
> arse.
But point (b) can be achieved by making a deal with Iraq to get Iraq's
oil flowing freely at a lower cost than making war on Iraq (assuming
Iraq isn't a threat) so why do it? There are plenty of incentives to
offer Iraq -- lifting of sanctions, removal of no-fly zones, trade
deals, etc. Why not just buy him off if all you want to do is get at
the oil? That way you become less dependent on the Saudis and all
without the costs and upheavals associated with a war. It makes no
sense to go to war for this purpose.
James
Dr. Sunil
> Would you have demanded solid evidence that Hitler *wanted* to take
> over Britain before going to war with him?
i take it you not read his mein kampf.....nor do you seem to be aware
of the anglo-german naval agreement of '35....
the last thing he wanted was war with gb....
> At the time war broke out,
> did such evidence exist? All that could be said was that Hitler broke
> a treaty, but the threat he posed was clear enough...
phoney war don't forget....why wasn't he attacked with his forces
fully occupied in the east...in poland?
> And at that point, Germany had not even been attacked by Britain,
> whereas Iraq has...
well...if 'we' made peace with him...rather than bomb his country
every other day....he might well not decide to use wmds against
'us'....
regards.
sunil
--
Dr. Sunil
> >
>
> As far as I'm aware there's some circumstantial evidence but not much
> more. But that's beside the point. The threat Hussein poses is (in
> part) in the willingness and ability to employ such people for his
> purposes. Once he has WMDs that threat will grow by orders of
> magnitude. Are you content to let him get WMDs before we act to
> address this threat?
You simply have no evidence that he actually WANTS to use them against
us!
I don't think that he's dumb enough that (after having kept his
powerbase intact for so long) he would do anything that would provoke
his own nuking!
Dirk Bruere
> > > > > He wants to control the middle east, and the oil.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, one could very well say that re. President Shrub.
> > >
> > > Neat that you snipped the remainder of what I wrote...
> > >
> > > Control of the oil is a factor, but not the sole factor.
> > >
> > > Suppose that Saddam is not a threat. Then, considering the likely
> > > upheavals and cost of such a war, why would the US consider invading
> > > Iraq when simply buying up his oil and playing him off against the
> > > Saudis would do the job?
> >
> > Because:
> > (a) Baby Bush's 'Daddy complex'
>
> Yes dear.
>
> > (b) The US needs to dictate production of oil in order to maintain price
> > stability now that the Saudis are showing a reluctance to keep kissing
US
> > arse.
>
> But point (b) can be achieved by making a deal with Iraq to get Iraq's
> oil flowing freely at a lower cost than making war on Iraq (assuming
> Iraq isn't a threat) so why do it? There are plenty of incentives to
> offer Iraq -- lifting of sanctions, removal of no-fly zones, trade
> deals, etc. Why not just buy him off if all you want to do is get at
> the oil? That way you become less dependent on the Saudis and all
> without the costs and upheavals associated with a war. It makes no
> sense to go to war for this purpose.
It's not just *cheap* oil.
Bush's domestic producer pals in the oil business do not want cheap oil that
undercuts them.
It's a balancing act that depends on precise production to keep the oil
price stable - not too expensive but not too cheap either.
Dirk
James Hammerton
And that does not change things very much. The situation is simple in
this scenario. America only wants a certain amount of oil produced,
they want to control the oil. Then why not buy off Iraq to produce
however much oil they specify at any time? If Saddam poses no threat,
then a deal will be cheaper and far less risky than going to war to
take the country over and install a friendly regime. There are plenty
of bargaining chips to use for this and the option of playing Saddam
off the other oil producers in the region is always there should he be
being awkward.
As I say, it makes no sense to go to war with Iraq simply to control
the oil, there are less costly means of achieving that same end via
bargaining and playing the producers off against each other.
James
James Hammerton
> ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton) wrote in message news:<ac9b705c.02090...@posting.google.com>...
> > Would you have demanded solid evidence that Hitler *wanted* to take
> > over Britain before going to war with him?
>
> i take it you not read his mein kampf.....
I haven't as it turns out, though I probably should, what exactly are
you referring to?
> nor do you seem to be aware
> of the anglo-german naval agreement of '35....
The agreement that allowed Germany to rebuild her naval forces at full
tilt? That was a costly mistake...
> the last thing he wanted was war with gb....
What makes you say that? And if he said such a thing (I am aware that
he had some respect for Britain because such a small geographically
insginficant country nevertheless built a huge empire), surely by the
time war was declared it was abundantly clear (a) Germany was becoming
a powerful expansionist totalitarian state, (b) Hitler could not be
trusted and therefore (c) Germany posed a serious threat to the whole
of Europe since if Hitler decided that a country stood in his way
(opposed Nazism) he would be quite capable of attacking such a country
militarily.
Consider what would have happened had Britain and Germany created a
non-aggression pact. Hitler would have taken over all of Europe --
driving the Jews (and others) out and establishing a totalitarian
state that brooks no dissent from its philosophy 20 miles across the
sea from us. To the extent that we continued to be a free country and
welcomed the refugees, Britain would stand in ideological opposition
to Nazism. Only by maintaining sufficient military might to fight off
an attack could Britain hope to stave such an attack off -- we would
have an arms race, but Britain would have been economically weak
against such a large country and Germany could cut off supplies by
blockading us... If you really believe Germany was no threat to
Britain by the time WWII started you really are on cloud cuckoo
land...
> > At the time war broke out,
> > did such evidence exist? All that could be said was that Hitler broke
> > a treaty, but the threat he posed was clear enough...
>
> phoney war don't forget....why wasn't he attacked with his forces
> fully occupied in the east...in poland?
Britain ran her armed forces down during the 1920s and early 1930s,
and only started rearming in the mid 30s. At the time war was declared
she was militarily far weaker than e.g. in 1914, and it was not clear
whether Germany or Britain had the superior armed forces. Britain was
also economically weak at the time having suffered during the
depression, and Germany had been rearming as quickly as she could
manage. Britain and France were not in a strong position to
immediately go on the offensive, France and the rest of Europe having
pursued similar policies regarding armaments and appeasement of
Germany.
WWII was a close run thing -- had the US not supported us, or had
Hitler not decided to fight the USSR too, things might have gone very
differently.
> > And at that point, Germany had not even been attacked by Britain,
> > whereas Iraq has...
>
> well...if 'we' made peace with him...rather than bomb his country
> every other day....he might well not decide to use wmds against
> 'us'....
We have no reason to believe that. He has shown often enough he cannot
be trusted. Moreover, the threat posed lies not merely in his ability
to directly attack us, but to attack/gain control of vital interests
of ours -- I remind you we are critically dependent on oil, and should
Israel fall then the Islamo/Arab-fascism that exists in the mid-east
will become a lot stronger and that will threaten us. At the moment,
the leaders of the Islamic theocracies and Saddam are like Hitler vs
Mussolini -- the differences between them are no guarantee.
In between WWI and WWII, Britain and the rest of Europe continually
appeased Germany, pursuing a policy of addressing legitimate
grievances in the hope that this would placate her after the defeat in
WWI. This merely allowed Germany to grow more powerful, making more
and more demands, until finally she decided to go for broke.
There is a lesson to be learned there.
BTW: Without US protection, Europe is currently vulnerable to external
attack, with the possible exception of Britain and France due to their
nuclear arsenal...
James
James Hammerton
> > "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<Pine.OSF.3.95q.1020906133235.6746A-100000@biochem>...
> > >
> > > What firm evidence links him with Bin Liner?
> >
> > As far as I'm aware there's some circumstantial evidence but not much
> > more. But that's beside the point. The threat Hussein poses is (in
> > part) in the willingness and ability to employ such people for his
> > purposes. Once he has WMDs that threat will grow by orders of
> > magnitude. Are you content to let him get WMDs before we act to
> > address this threat?
>
> You simply have no evidence that he actually WANTS to use them against
> us!
We know the following:
1 he'd like to control the mid east and the oil
2 he hates Israel
3 he'd like the West to stop meddling in the mid east
If he believes it will help loosen the West's grip in the area, he has
a strong motive to attack us. If the West does loose its grip, then a
vital resource will no longer be under our control and we will be
weakened. We cannot let Saddam (a baathist fascist) pursue even
regional domination or become a member of the nuclear club since we'll
end up with a nuclear armed totalitarian dictatorship on our doorstep
(again), that is actively hostile to the values we espouse. Nor can we
let the Islamofascists do the same for the same reason.
That's the long term picture. The shorter term picture is that we are
his enemies and support his main enemy in the region, and will be so
long as we try to contain him and/or support Israel. He therefore has
a motive to attack us in any way he can and when he thinks he can get
away with it and weaken our position or strengthen his (e.g. by
gaining support of his neighbours thus making life more difficult for
us there). Add to that any resentment he will feel for our efforts
thus far to contain him.
In short, ISTM abundantly clear he has the motive to attack us, though
of course he may be wary about provoking a strong response.
> I don't think that he's dumb enough that (after having kept his
> powerbase intact for so long) he would do anything that would provoke
> his own nuking!
Nor do I, but he is unstable and if he thinks he can get away with it
and it will serve his own purposes he has strong motives to attack us.
He might decide that if it can be arranged without a clear trail
leading back to him, then sending terrorists into Europe/the US to
carry out acts of terrorism would be a risk worth taking, given the
lack of an appetite for war shown by many in the west even for the war
against the Taliban let alone for war now against Iraq, and the lack
of responses to terrorist outrages in the past. It would enhance his
standing in the region, and may even lead to more calls in the West
for the West to withdraw from the area.
Consider that it appears he's noticed that Europe has become very
squeamish about backing Israel, and thus stokes the
Palestinian/Israeli conflict to exploit this (funding the families of
suicide bombers) and weaken support for Israel. If he starts to feel
that Europe is squeamish about the efforts needed to contain him, he
might start funding terrorist outrages in Europe on the premiss that
this will lead to growing support for leaving him alone and thus make
it more difficult for the US/UK to continue containing him.
Now, I have questions for you: Why did Saddam stop cooperating with
the weapons inspections? We has he not let them resume despite the
bombings?
James
Pax Mundis
wrote:
>dr_suni...@yahoo.co.uk (Dr. Sunil) wrote in message news:<9bab4539.02091...@posting.google.com>...
>> ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton) wrote in message news:<ac9b705c.02090...@posting.google.com>...
>> > "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<Pine.OSF.3.95q.1020906133235.6746A-100000@biochem>...
>> > >
>> > > What firm evidence links him with Bin Liner?
>> >
>> > As far as I'm aware there's some circumstantial evidence but not much
>> > more. But that's beside the point. The threat Hussein poses is (in
>> > part) in the willingness and ability to employ such people for his
>> > purposes. Once he has WMDs that threat will grow by orders of
>> > magnitude. Are you content to let him get WMDs before we act to
>> > address this threat?
>>
>> You simply have no evidence that he actually WANTS to use them against
>> us!
>
>We know the following:
>
>1 he'd like to control the mid east and the oil
The sentence would also make sense if the subject were "the US-baed
Big Oil Mafia"
>2 he hates Israel
Does Israel love its Arab neighbours?
>3 he'd like the West to stop meddling in the mid east
Interestingly if the West had never meddled in the Middle East, Saddam
Hussein would not be in power nor would any other Middle East leaders
have received billions of dollars worth of subsidised weapons.
The war is not between Saddam and the democratic West, but between big
corporate interests in the west and anyone who challenged their
hegemony. If Saddam Hussein did not exist, they'd just have to invent
another one to justify their interminably wars.
Peace
Visit Labour's new Web site at
http://www.infotrad.clara.co.uk/worldview/nulab.html
Dr. Sunil
[snip alleged 'threat' from Iraq]
More paranoid delusion, James, you'll get over it in time :)
regards,
Sunil
--
Tamas Gyursanszky
Dr. Sunil <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> wrote:
> [snip alleged 'threat' from Iraq]
>
> More paranoid delusion, James, you'll get over it in time :)
Overwhelmed by his abelard-induced delusions, James
also side-stepped your most pertinent point, Sunil..
>> [A] phoney war don't forget....wasn't [Hitler]
>> attacked with his forces fully occupied in the
>> east...in poland?
"Hitler intended to make it appear as though
he had no choice but to invade Poland. In
order to make Poland seem like the aggressor,
Hitler once again turned to Reich security
chief Reinhard Heydrich. Heydrich did not let
his Fuehrer down and he cooked up a scheme.
SS officers dressed up in Polish army uniforms
and burst into a German radio station in
Gleiwicz. They staged a phony attack while the
station was on the air and they announced that
Poland was invading Germany. Bodies were
brought from concentration camps and they were
dressed in Polish army uniforms and strewn
about the station in order to appear that they
were killed during the "attack."
In "retaliation", Hitler invaded Poland on
September 1st 1939.
Dr. Sunil
> Dr. Sunil <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > [snip alleged 'threat' from Iraq]
> >
> > More paranoid delusion, James, you'll get over it in time :)
>
>
> Overwhelmed by his abelard-induced delusions, James
> also side-stepped your most pertinent point, Sunil..
>
> >> [A] phoney war don't forget....wasn't [Hitler]
> >> attacked with his forces fully occupied in the
> >> east...in poland?
Actually I asked "Why wasn't Hitler attacked with his forces fully
occupied in Poland"?
James Hammerton
> [snip alleged 'threat' from Iraq]
>
> More paranoid delusion, James, you'll get over it in time :)
I.e. you do not have an answer for the points I raised...
James
James Hammerton
>
> > [snip alleged 'threat' from Iraq]
> >
> > More paranoid delusion, James, you'll get over it in time :)
>
>
> Overwhelmed by his abelard-induced delusions, James
> also side-stepped your most pertinent point, Sunil..
>
> >> [A] phoney war don't forget....wasn't [Hitler]
> >> attacked with his forces fully occupied in the
> >> east...in poland?
In what way did I "side-step" this point? I gave a reason why the
Allies may have been unable/unwilling to go on the offensive during
the phoney war (they'd have been stretching their forces to send them
across to either Germany or Poland). I'm also not sure quite what
Sunil's point was in raising this. It may have been that Hitler wasn't
attacking Britain at that time, that does not mean he wouldn't have.
>
> "Hitler intended to make it appear as though
> he had no choice but to invade Poland. In
> order to make Poland seem like the aggressor,
So what?
> Hitler once again turned to Reich security
> chief Reinhard Heydrich. Heydrich did not let
> his Fuehrer down and he cooked up a scheme.
>
> SS officers dressed up in Polish army uniforms
> and burst into a German radio station in
> Gleiwicz. They staged a phony attack while the
> station was on the air and they announced that
> Poland was invading Germany. Bodies were
> brought from concentration camps and they were
> dressed in Polish army uniforms and strewn
> about the station in order to appear that they
> were killed during the "attack."
So what?
All this shows is that Hitler was prepared to call Britain's bluff
over Poland and see whether Britain would fall for a ruse.
Nothing more.
James
Dr. Sunil
You have no evidence that Saddam would provoke his own nuking by using
WMDs in any 'first strike' against us.
abelard
typed:
>On 12 Sep 2002, James Hammerton wrote:
i am surprised to see you assuming that the *only* problem
with madsam obtaining nukes would be the possibility
of a first strike.....
this is an entirely foolish notion.....
a likely hope would be that other nations would be inhibited
from stopping him attacking (or otherwise pressurising) his
neighbours.....
your use of 'paranoid' in the context of a madman armed with
rocket mounted nukes is quite bizarre.....
this is the lunatic who ordered the firing of large numbers of oil
wells (in the apparent belief they could not be doused) and
the visiting of massive pollution and waste......
this is the lunatic reported as having shot a colleague out of
hand during a meeting......
i have come to the tentative conclusion that your agenda is
a sympathy for indian interests.....
you have effectively accepted that irak's (madsam's)
current posture favours india.....
further.....
i cannot see any sane person not welcoming an opportunity
to get this loon off the backs of the iraki people....
those arguing against removing madsam seem to me to be
...let's be kind and say...somewhat 'strange'......
quite apart from the obvious reality that they appear to
have no adequate rational argument for their support
of this dictator and his odious regime....
Dr. Sunil
> On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 13:49:45 +0100, "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk>
> typed:
>
> >On 12 Sep 2002, James Hammerton wrote:
> >
> >> "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<Pine.OSF.3.95q.1020911165901.27908C-100000@biochem>...
> >> > [snip alleged 'threat' from Iraq]
> >> >
> >> > More paranoid delusion, James, you'll get over it in time :)
> >>
> >> I.e. you do not have an answer for the points I raised...
> >
> >You have no evidence that Saddam would provoke his own nuking by using
> >WMDs in any 'first strike' against us.
>
> i am surprised to see you assuming that the *only* problem
> with madsam obtaining nukes would be the possibility
> of a first strike.....
> this is an entirely foolish notion.....
only the 'possibility'?
> a likely hope would be that other nations would be inhibited
> from stopping him attacking (or otherwise pressurising) his
> neighbours.....
suppose iran also acquires nukes? also it is israel occupying her
neighbours' land in contravention of un resolutions....would you
favour an attack on israel to force her to comply?
> your use of 'paranoid' in the context of a madman armed with
> rocket mounted nukes is quite bizarre.....
shrub and bliar have far more nukes....and which country actually used
nukes against unsuspecting civilians?
> this is the lunatic who ordered the firing of large numbers of oil
> wells (in the apparent belief they could not be doused) and
> the visiting of massive pollution and waste......
> this is the lunatic reported as having shot a colleague out of
> hand during a meeting......
merkin loons dumped a whole lot of 'agent orange' on vietnamese
forest...the population in those areas are still affected....
> i have come to the tentative conclusion that your agenda is
> a sympathy for indian interests.....
evidence?
> you have effectively accepted that irak's (madsam's)
> current posture favours india.....
you must have missed my post 'us ups arms sales to india'....
and where is al q...in pakistan i think...and what if al q gets nukes
from pakistan?
more likely since that is an islamist dictatorship *already* in
possession of nukes.....would you favour an attack on pakistan my
friend?
> further.....
> i cannot see any sane person not welcoming an opportunity
> to get this loon off the backs of the iraki people....
why not the loons in charge of iran...of saudi...of kuwait...of
syria...of the other gulf autocracies?
> those arguing against removing madsam seem to me to be
> ...let's be kind and say...somewhat 'strange'......
> quite apart from the obvious reality that they appear to
> have no adequate rational argument for their support
> of this dictator and his odious regime....
of course i would like to see 'democracy' in the islamic world....it's
just that i don't don't think we can win hearts and minds in the
region by bombing the proverbial crap out of them....
in all probability saddam will kick the bucket long before he can
develop a nucular device...he is getting on a bit you know!
if you want to take out saddam alone....i suppose a covert operation
against his palace or wherever he's holed up would be in order...
like i said...al q is more likely to get their kit...if they're
wanting it...from general mushy in pakistan....
mushy professes his support for the war on 'terror'....but officially
gives 'moral support' to islamist terrorists operating in india (which
after all is a parliamentary democracy!)....unofficially a lot else
besides...
aside from his country knowingly...or otherwise...harbouring the
remnants of
al q...
regards....as ever...
sunil
--
abelard
typed:
>abelard <abe...@abelard.org> wrote in message news:<8uq1ou46139ubrhka...@4ax.com>...
>> i am surprised to see you assuming that the *only* problem
>> with madsam obtaining nukes would be the possibility
>> of a first strike.....
>> this is an entirely foolish notion.....
>
>only the 'possibility'?
not understood.....
much of your post i am finding next to incoherent.....
my impression is that is because of a combination of 2 interacting
factors...
1) you haven't fully worked out your position
2) your position is complex and a post is generally rather a
short form to express complexity....
i am therefore going to find it somewhere between difficult
an impossible to respond to adequately.....
>> a likely hope would be that other nations would be inhibited
>> from stopping him attacking (or otherwise pressurising) his
>> neighbours.....
>
>suppose iran also acquires nukes?
for what current purpose?
>also it is israel occupying her
>neighbours' land in contravention of un resolutions....would you
>favour an attack on israel to force her to comply?
for what current purpose?
>> your use of 'paranoid' in the context of a madman armed with
>> rocket mounted nukes is quite bizarre.....
>
>shrub and bliar have far more nukes....and which country actually used
>nukes against unsuspecting civilians?
again, i see no point in this statement....
>> this is the lunatic who ordered the firing of large numbers of oil
>> wells (in the apparent belief they could not be doused) and
>> the visiting of massive pollution and waste......
>> this is the lunatic reported as having shot a colleague out of
>> hand during a meeting......
>
>merkin loons dumped a whole lot of 'agent orange' on vietnamese
>forest...the population in those areas are still affected....
again...you don't seem to have an organised point.....
>> i have come to the tentative conclusion that your agenda is
>> a sympathy for indian interests.....
>
>evidence?
that your interests and your emotions *seem* to lean in such a
direction....
i don't mind btw....
>> you have effectively accepted that irak's (madsam's)
>> current posture favours india.....
>
>you must have missed my post 'us ups arms sales to india'....
probably...again i can't see where you are headed.....
>and where is al q...in pakistan i think...
aq is an apparently loose network of nuisances operating
in many countries and residing widely.....
it isn't a 'thing' in pakistan.....
for myself...my guess is the leadership has been decimated.....
>and what if al q gets nukes
>from pakistan?
i think that highly unlikely at present.....
(did you follow statements of mush a few months back?)
you...and the media take aq *far more* seriously than myself.....
>more likely since that is an islamist dictatorship *already* in
>possession of nukes.....would you favour an attack on pakistan my
>friend?
it would not be profitable.....
>> further.....
>> i cannot see any sane person not welcoming an opportunity
>> to get this loon off the backs of the iraki people....
>
>why not the loons in charge of iran...of saudi...of kuwait...of
>syria...of the other gulf autocracies?
1)you may say that.....i would rather withhold comment this week......
as clausewitz says....first secure your base......
2)none of the rulers of these states show clear signs of
irrationality....
saudi....an important piece in the puzzle....appear to be
adjusting rapidly......
>> those arguing against removing madsam seem to me to be
>> ...let's be kind and say...somewhat 'strange'......
>> quite apart from the obvious reality that they appear to
>> have no adequate rational argument for their support
>> of this dictator and his odious regime....
>
>of course i would like to see 'democracy' in the islamic world....it's
>just that i don't don't think we can win hearts and minds in the
>region by bombing the proverbial crap out of them....
your statement shows a 'dangerous' confusion between the
rulers and the ruled.....
>in all probability saddam will kick the bucket long before he can
>develop a nucular device...he is getting on a bit you know!
the iraki gang appears to extend beyond him.....
meanwhile the oppression continues.....
an you have a loose cannon.....
optimistic hopes of 'before long' is not good enuf.....
>if you want to take out saddam alone....i suppose a covert operation
>against his palace or wherever he's holed up would be in order...
again...i would prefer not to comment at this time....
>like i said...al q is more likely to get their kit...if they're
>wanting it...from general mushy in pakistan....
it is my expectation that the whole of the arab world hates aq
more than the western leaders could ever manage......
>mushy professes his support for the war on 'terror'....but officially
>gives 'moral support' to islamist terrorists operating in india
he is a politician.....
you must learn to take *everything* said by politicians with a very
large sackful of salt.....
politicians speak in public to the mob.....
there is sometimes more in their public words (not directed to the
mob) which you may learn to read in time.....
what they say in closed rooms has little bearing on what you are fed..
the mob is a wild animal....
it is guided....it is led....but it is always dangerous......
> (which
>after all is a parliamentary democracy!)....unofficially a lot else
>besides...
>aside from his country knowingly...or otherwise...harbouring the
>remnants of
>al q...
he must deal with the reality he has 'inherited'....
take things more slowly and calmly....it is complex....
there are several constituencies.....
regards....
Dr. Sunil
On Fri, 13 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
> On 13 Sep 2002 05:07:30 -0700, dr_suni...@yahoo.co.uk (Dr. Sunil)
> typed:
>
> >abelard <abe...@abelard.org> wrote in message news:<8uq1ou46139ubrhka...@4ax.com>...
>
> >> i am surprised to see you assuming that the *only* problem
> >> with madsam obtaining nukes would be the possibility
> >> of a first strike.....
> >> this is an entirely foolish notion.....
> >
> >only the 'possibility'?
>
> not understood.....
>
> much of your post i am finding next to incoherent.....
> my impression is that is because of a combination of 2 interacting
> factors...
> 1) you haven't fully worked out your position
> 2) your position is complex and a post is generally rather a
> short form to express complexity....
>
> i am therefore going to find it somewhere between difficult
> an impossible to respond to adequately.....
what is a 'possibility'? is it 'possible' the moon's made of blue
cheese?
> >> a likely hope would be that other nations would be inhibited
> >> from stopping him attacking (or otherwise pressurising) his
> >> neighbours.....
> >
> >suppose iran also acquires nukes?
>
> for what current purpose?
deterring saddam?
> >also it is israel occupying her
> >neighbours' land in contravention of un resolutions....would you
> >favour an attack on israel to force her to comply?
>
> for what current purpose?
to encourage her to comply with un resolutions? to stop her occupation
of her neighbours' land?
> >> your use of 'paranoid' in the context of a madman armed with
> >> rocket mounted nukes is quite bizarre.....
> >
> >shrub and bliar have far more nukes....and which country actually used
> >nukes against unsuspecting civilians?
>
> again, i see no point in this statement....
why should the only country to have nuked another be allowed to keep
nucular weapons?
> >> this is the lunatic who ordered the firing of large numbers of oil
> >> wells (in the apparent belief they could not be doused) and
> >> the visiting of massive pollution and waste......
> >> this is the lunatic reported as having shot a colleague out of
> >> hand during a meeting......
> >
> >merkin loons dumped a whole lot of 'agent orange' on vietnamese
> >forest...the population in those areas are still affected....
>
> again...you don't seem to have an organised point.....
merkia has done all the things it accuses iraq of doing...
(chemical weapons...nukes....invasions....)
> >> i have come to the tentative conclusion that your agenda is
> >> a sympathy for indian interests.....
> >
> >evidence?
>
> that your interests and your emotions *seem* to lean in such a
> direction....
now you're invoking biddy/bonehead/hatstand's arguments!
> i don't mind btw....
yes...well....in the article i posted the merkins regard india as a
key regional ally....i do wish they disown pakistan until there's a
democratic govt. there.....
> >> you have effectively accepted that irak's (madsam's)
> >> current posture favours india.....
> >
> >you must have missed my post 'us ups arms sales to india'....
>
> probably...again i can't see where you are headed.....
see previous line...
> >and where is al q...in pakistan i think...
>
> aq is an apparently loose network of nuisances operating
> in many countries and residing widely.....
> it isn't a 'thing' in pakistan.....
which country is closest the 'tora bora' caves where bin liner was
supposedly 'holed up'?
> for myself...my guess is the leadership has been decimated.....
wishful thinking i would guess....until we see them captured dead or
alive....
> >and what if al q gets nukes
> >from pakistan?
>
> i think that highly unlikely at present.....
> (did you follow statements of mush a few months back?)
he is the one supposedly an ally in the 'war against terror' who
sends armed terrorists into indian territory!
> you...and the media take aq *far more* seriously than myself.....
well they were the perps of 11/9....were they not?
> >more likely since that is an islamist dictatorship *already* in
> >possession of nukes.....would you favour an attack on pakistan my
> >friend?
>
> it would not be profitable.....
but they could use nukes....they could give their plutonium to al
q....
> >> further.....
> >> i cannot see any sane person not welcoming an opportunity
> >> to get this loon off the backs of the iraki people....
> >
> >why not the loons in charge of iran...of saudi...of kuwait...of
> >syria...of the other gulf autocracies?
>
> 1)you may say that.....i would rather withhold comment this week......
> as clausewitz says....first secure your base......
granted....if you're in for a 'long war'....
> 2)none of the rulers of these states show clear signs of
> irrationality....
they're all 'bad' rulers...are they not?
> saudi....an important piece in the puzzle....appear to be
> adjusting rapidly......
but wimmin can't drive!
> >> those arguing against removing madsam seem to me to be
> >> ...let's be kind and say...somewhat 'strange'......
> >> quite apart from the obvious reality that they appear to
> >> have no adequate rational argument for their support
> >> of this dictator and his odious regime....
> >
> >of course i would like to see 'democracy' in the islamic world....it's
> >just that i don't don't think we can win hearts and minds in the
> >region by bombing the proverbial crap out of them....
>
> your statement shows a 'dangerous' confusion between the
> rulers and the ruled.....
the bombs will likely not fall on saddam and his cabinet....
> >in all probability saddam will kick the bucket long before he can
> >develop a nucular device...he is getting on a bit you know!
>
> the iraki gang appears to extend beyond him.....
> meanwhile the oppression continues.....
> an you have a loose cannon.....
what if saddam's 'democratic' successor wants iraq to have a nucular
deterrent....vis a vis iran perhaps? would you want to bomb him too?
> optimistic hopes of 'before long' is not good enuf.....
al q...if they really want nukes *now*...can get them from pakistan...
> >if you want to take out saddam alone....i suppose a covert operation
> >against his palace or wherever he's holed up would be in order...
>
> again...i would prefer not to comment at this time....
surely the preferred 'method'?
> >like i said...al q is more likely to get their kit...if they're
> >wanting it...from general mushy in pakistan....
>
> it is my expectation that the whole of the arab world hates aq
> more than the western leaders could ever manage......
i don't think so....judging from all the street protests....baybees
named in honour of bin liner...etc....
> >mushy professes his support for the war on 'terror'....but officially
> >gives 'moral support' to islamist terrorists operating in india
>
> he is a politician.....
> you must learn to take *everything* said by politicians with a very
> large sackful of salt.....
> politicians speak in public to the mob.....
> there is sometimes more in their public words (not directed to the
> mob) which you may learn to read in time.....
> what they say in closed rooms has little bearing on what you are fed..
>
> the mob is a wild animal....
> it is guided....it is led....but it is always dangerous......
he says he is only giving 'moral' support....but he providing the
terrorists with much more besides....
> > (which
> >after all is a parliamentary democracy!)....unofficially a lot else
> >besides...
> >aside from his country knowingly...or otherwise...harbouring the
> >remnants of
> >al q...
>
> he must deal with the reality he has 'inherited'....
his country once openly supported the taliban don't forget...it was
their baybee...so to speak....
and his country has the longest land border with afghanistan....
> take things more slowly and calmly....it is complex....
> there are several constituencies.....
just don't concentrate solely on iraq my friend....
regards.
sunil
--
abelard
typed:
>
>
>On Fri, 13 Sep 2002, abelard wrote:
>
>> On 13 Sep 2002 05:07:30 -0700, dr_suni...@yahoo.co.uk (Dr. Sunil)
>> typed:
>>
>> >abelard <abe...@abelard.org> wrote in message news:<8uq1ou46139ubrhka...@4ax.com>...
>>
>> >> i am surprised to see you assuming that the *only* problem
>> >> with madsam obtaining nukes would be the possibility
>> >> of a first strike.....
>> >> this is an entirely foolish notion.....
>> >
>> >only the 'possibility'?
>>
>> not understood.....
>>
>> much of your post i am finding next to incoherent.....
>> my impression is that is because of a combination of 2 interacting
>> factors...
>> 1) you haven't fully worked out your position
>> 2) your position is complex and a post is generally rather a
>> short form to express complexity....
>>
>> i am therefore going to find it somewhere between difficult
>> an impossible to respond to adequately.....
>
>what is a 'possibility'? is it 'possible' the moon's made of blue
>cheese?
sadly....i still have no idea of wot you are on at....
(please chop this post down where ever you can)
>> >> a likely hope would be that other nations would be inhibited
>> >> from stopping him attacking (or otherwise pressurising) his
>> >> neighbours.....
>> >
>> >suppose iran also acquires nukes?
>>
>> for what current purpose?
>
>deterring saddam?
i think that would be unwise....
>> >also it is israel occupying her
>> >neighbours' land in contravention of un resolutions....would you
>> >favour an attack on israel to force her to comply?
>>
>> for what current purpose?
>
>to encourage her to comply with un resolutions? to stop her occupation
>of her neighbours' land?
not for such reasons...no....
imv israel/palestine is cooling.....
>> >> your use of 'paranoid' in the context of a madman armed with
>> >> rocket mounted nukes is quite bizarre.....
>> >
>> >shrub and bliar have far more nukes....and which country actually used
>> >nukes against unsuspecting civilians?
>>
>> again, i see no point in this statement....
>
>why should the only country to have nuked another be allowed to keep
>nucular weapons?
1)imv that is history...and requires context....
2)such power is better in the hands of america than in the hands of
primitives....
3)they are not the only country with nukes....
>> >> this is the lunatic who ordered the firing of large numbers of oil
>> >> wells (in the apparent belief they could not be doused) and
>> >> the visiting of massive pollution and waste......
>> >> this is the lunatic reported as having shot a colleague out of
>> >> hand during a meeting......
>> >
>> >merkin loons dumped a whole lot of 'agent orange' on vietnamese
>> >forest...the population in those areas are still affected....
>>
>> again...you don't seem to have an organised point.....
>
>merkia has done all the things it accuses iraq of doing...
>(chemical weapons...nukes....invasions....)
so doubtless did the roman empire....with the exception of nukes....
these are primarily tools for the imposition of force....
so is a hand which smacks a child....
there is a prime difference with nukes....they make war impossible
for rational people.....that is a fundamental change in the human
environment....
>> >> i have come to the tentative conclusion that your agenda is
>> >> a sympathy for indian interests.....
>> >
>> >evidence?
>>
>> that your interests and your emotions *seem* to lean in such a
>> direction....
>
>now you're invoking biddy/bonehead/hatstand's arguments!
no....though they may see some shade of such a motive.....
let us look at your next few replies eg....
>> i don't mind btw....
>
>yes...well....in the article i posted the merkins regard india as a
>key regional ally....i do wish they disown pakistan until there's a
>democratic govt. there.....
they can't atm......look at your map.....(i hope it is now on your
wall!)
>> >> you have effectively accepted that irak's (madsam's)
>> >> current posture favours india.....
>> >
>> >you must have missed my post 'us ups arms sales to india'....
>>
>> probably...again i can't see where you are headed.....
>
>see previous line...
>
>> >and where is al q...in pakistan i think...
>>
>> aq is an apparently loose network of nuisances operating
>> in many countries and residing widely.....
>> it isn't a 'thing' in pakistan.....
>
>which country is closest the 'tora bora' caves where bin liner was
>supposedly 'holed up'?
>
>> for myself...my guess is the leadership has been decimated.....
>
>wishful thinking i would guess....until we see them captured dead or
>alive....
you are not perceiving my view of aq clearly.....
>> >and what if al q gets nukes
>> >from pakistan?
>>
>> i think that highly unlikely at present.....
>> (did you follow statements of mush a few months back?)
>
>he is the one supposedly an ally in the 'war against terror' who
>sends armed terrorists into indian territory!
note your constant concern with india's neighbour....
>> you...and the media take aq *far more* seriously than myself.....
>
>well they were the perps of 11/9....were they not?
i am happy to stipulate that.....
>> >more likely since that is an islamist dictatorship *already* in
>> >possession of nukes.....would you favour an attack on pakistan my
>> >friend?
>>
>> it would not be profitable.....
>
>but they could use nukes....they could give their plutonium to al
>q....
again, that would be most unwise.....
i am getting the impression you don't appreciate how powerful the west
is....or even how powerful america is for that matter.....
>> >> further.....
>> >> i cannot see any sane person not welcoming an opportunity
>> >> to get this loon off the backs of the iraki people....
>> >
>> >why not the loons in charge of iran...of saudi...of kuwait...of
>> >syria...of the other gulf autocracies?
>>
>> 1)you may say that.....i would rather withhold comment this week......
>> as clausewitz says....first secure your base......
>
>granted....if you're in for a 'long war'....
uh hum.....
>> 2)none of the rulers of these states show clear signs of
>> irrationality....
>
>they're all 'bad' rulers...are they not?
i am prepared to accept that *at this point* as a basis of progressing
this interchange.....
>> saudi....an important piece in the puzzle....appear to be
>> adjusting rapidly......
>
>but wimmin can't drive!
a tempting comment!
however, a serious response......it is much worse than that....
>> >> those arguing against removing madsam seem to me to be
>> >> ...let's be kind and say...somewhat 'strange'......
>> >> quite apart from the obvious reality that they appear to
>> >> have no adequate rational argument for their support
>> >> of this dictator and his odious regime....
>> >
>> >of course i would like to see 'democracy' in the islamic world....it's
>> >just that i don't don't think we can win hearts and minds in the
>> >region by bombing the proverbial crap out of them....
>>
>> your statement shows a 'dangerous' confusion between the
>> rulers and the ruled.....
>
>the bombs will likely not fall on saddam and his cabinet....
very likely some won't....
no...it is not nice....
>> >in all probability saddam will kick the bucket long before he can
>> >develop a nucular device...he is getting on a bit you know!
>>
>> the iraki gang appears to extend beyond him.....
>> meanwhile the oppression continues.....
>> an you have a loose cannon.....
>
>what if saddam's 'democratic' successor wants iraq to have a nucular
>deterrent....
that would not be wise.....
they have much more pressing problems.....
giving them protectorate status would deter any adventurism from
iran....
that would be a lot easier to do with a nascent democracy.....
>vis a vis iran perhaps? would you want to bomb him too?
see last....
>> optimistic hopes of 'before long' is not good enuf.....
>
>al q...if they really want nukes *now*...can get them from pakistan...
i doubt that rather a lot.....
again however...it would not be wise for either party.....
imv aq is shot to pieces.....and a pariah......
911 was a seriously near fatal mistake.....for them.....
as long as the west is sane...it will prove entirely fatal.....
>> >if you want to take out saddam alone....i suppose a covert operation
>> >against his palace or wherever he's holed up would be in order...
>>
>> again...i would prefer not to comment at this time....
>
>surely the preferred 'method'?
you may say that.....
>> >like i said...al q is more likely to get their kit...if they're
>> >wanting it...from general mushy in pakistan....
>>
>> it is my expectation that the whole of the arab world hates aq
>> more than the western leaders could ever manage......
>
>i don't think so....judging from all the street protests....baybees
>named in honour of bin liner...etc....
the mob are irrelevant......
>> >mushy professes his support for the war on 'terror'....but officially
>> >gives 'moral support' to islamist terrorists operating in india
>>
>> he is a politician.....
>> you must learn to take *everything* said by politicians with a very
>> large sackful of salt.....
>> politicians speak in public to the mob.....
>> there is sometimes more in their public words (not directed to the
>> mob) which you may learn to read in time.....
>> what they say in closed rooms has little bearing on what you are fed..
>>
>> the mob is a wild animal....
>> it is guided....it is led....but it is always dangerous......
>
>he says he is only giving 'moral' support....but he providing the
>terrorists with much more besides....
politics....
you over rate it.....
he must tighten his grip by degrees.....
>> > (which
>> >after all is a parliamentary democracy!)....unofficially a lot else
>> >besides...
>> >aside from his country knowingly...or otherwise...harbouring the
>> >remnants of
>> >al q...
>>
>> he must deal with the reality he has 'inherited'....
>
>his country once openly supported the taliban don't forget...it was
>their baybee...so to speak....
no....you might as well join the fools who rabbit about america
supporting the taliban or its predecessor......
>and his country has the longest land border with afghanistan....
settle down the situation in afghanistan......
britain cannot control irish nationalism....
spain cannot control basque nationalism.....
large areas of 'pakistan' are no man's land for the pakistani
government....you put too much faith in the ability of governments
to control....
and sometimes too little....
>> take things more slowly and calmly....it is complex....
>> there are several constituencies.....
>
>just don't concentrate solely on iraq my friend....
as if i would....
consider the nature of timing in politics......
note eg new freds....
patience!
politics is the art of the possible......1867...bismarck
regards...
ma...@public-record.co.uk
wrote:
>>You have no evidence that Saddam would provoke his own nuking by using
>>WMDs in any 'first strike' against us.
>
>i am surprised to see you assuming that the *only* problem
> with madsam obtaining nukes would be the possibility
> of a first strike.....
>this is an entirely foolish notion.....
>
>a likely hope would be that other nations would be inhibited
> from stopping him attacking (or otherwise pressurising) his
> neighbours.....
>
>your use of 'paranoid' in the context of a madman armed with
> rocket mounted nukes is quite bizarre.....
>this is the lunatic who ordered the firing of large numbers of oil
> wells (in the apparent belief they could not be doused) and
> the visiting of massive pollution and waste......
>this is the lunatic reported as having shot a colleague out of
> hand during a meeting......
So he's a bad man. We have lots of bad friends. Why is Saddam
considered such a singular threat?
>i have come to the tentative conclusion that your agenda is
> a sympathy for indian interests.....
> you have effectively accepted that irak's (madsam's)
> current posture favours india.....
>
>further.....
>i cannot see any sane person not welcoming an opportunity
> to get this loon off the backs of the iraki people....
Sure. Same applies to many regimes. Why don't we have a pop at Mugabe
on the same grounds? Why do we support others that burden their
people?
>those arguing against removing madsam seem to me to be
> ...let's be kind and say...somewhat 'strange'......
> quite apart from the obvious reality that they appear to
> have no adequate rational argument for their support
> of this dictator and his odious regime....
Two sources of apparent 'support'.
1) A desire not to create a precedent that the US or any other group
can unilaterally determine who is and who is not 'acceptable'. The
history of this is not proud.
2) A total lack of clarity why this guy, who we've supported in the
past, suddently becomes the worst guy on the block.
Make no mistake - taking Saddam out is better than bleeding the
country to death as currently. But teh rationale has to be better than
presented.
Internatoinal law and precedent was hard-won. 45 million died last
time... I wouldn't want it lobbed out
cheers
matt
ma...@public-record.co.uk
wrote:
>And a fucking dangerous one (as 9/11 proved) until they're put out of
>action (Afghanistan was a first necessary step). And they were in hock
>with the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Indeed their main base of
>operations was there. They had the support of a country to help them
>do what they did...
>
>Hussein already provides support for suicide bombing (i.e. dosh for
>the families of the bombers) in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
>What's to stop him giving another terrorist group the support (e.g.
>money, materials, designs, weapons) they need to carry out acts in
>Europe or the US? It need not be AQ, but I wouldn't be surprised if
>Hussein were to do that (it depends on how pragmatic he is about
>cooperating with Muslims in order to attack US/UK/Western interests).
Because you've got a category error IMO with the word 'terrorist'.
Just like 'communist', it's too wide a bucket to think with. For
example, the US opposed the Soviet Union, but also gave the South
Africans information that helped them capture the 'communist' Mandela.
There are 'terrorists' like Bin Laden, that are not the same as
'terrorists' like Palestinian suicide bombers, or the IRA, or the
Stern gang, or the Tamil Tigers etc.
cheers
matt
ma...@public-record.co.uk
wrote:
>> > i have answered this more than once...i see james has also answered you...
>> > in view of the clear fact that you are no fool.....
>> > i can but assume you to be acting deliberately obtuse......
>> > perhaps you have a hidden agenda.....perhaps you are attempting
>> > to rationalise what you wish to believe in order that you do not
>> > have to face the nasty realities that those who lead you must face....
>>
>> what *real* threat does iraq pose? not imagined....*real*....
>
>He wants to control the middle east, and the oil. We depend on the
>oil, the middle east is in firing range of Europe, Africa, China,
>Russia, India with the right missiles. If he controls this area and
>acquires WMDs he becomes a major player on the world stage, able to
>dictate terms on oil, and with powerful enough weaponry to deter
>attacks even from other major powers.
I think this is fantasy. Kuwait was a hostoric claim for Iraq, and he
went for it (with western knowledge - see April Glaspie's last
comments to Hussein). He lost a war of expansion. End.
>The power and dominance and
>prosperity of the West will decline. That's if we let him get what he
>wants. He acquires WMDs before controlling the mid east, and he will
>be in a position to start trying to get that control, and removing him
>will *definitely* involve use of those WMDs. If we're lucky he hasn't
>yet got them.
So you're arguing Hussein is a uniquely powerful threat in the world?
>> when was the last time he 'attacked' his neighbours?
>> his neighbours don't want miltary action...they know it will make a
>> mess of things....they'll be next....
>>
>> and he is certainly not the only dictator in the world....
>
>Nope. But this is beside the point. He poses a threat.
So the argument for removing Hussein is solely that he presents a
threat to the west's security of oil supply? Security generally?
Nothing per se to do with terrorism?
cheers
matt
ma...@public-record.co.uk
wrote:
>> He had WMDs when he was our good pal.
>
>If you're referring to the US support for Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war,
>that was when Iran was a greater threat
Maybe. But even that's not clear. The US has a history of mistaking
nationalist and self-determination movements for 'enemy action'
(Vietnam, Nicaragua, South Africa)
>and before it was clear how
>much of a threat Saddam himself was.
After he'd used gas on his own Kurdish population...
>> In fact, even if he gets a whole slew of nukes he would still only be a
>> danger to his neighbours.
>
>(1) If he controls that region he controls an area of the world within
>striking distance of Europe, Russia, China and India.
Sure, but what realistic chance is there of him controlling the
region? None.
>(2) If the controls the oil he controls a resource that the world
>economy is still heavily dependent on so he can dictate terms to us.
Which he won't do.
>(3) He might just be a tad pissed off with the US/UK/UN (in that
>order) for thwarting his ambitions earlier and imposing sanctions, the
>weapons inspections, the no-fly zones, etc.
At the moment, Iraq is not a threat as a state. If you have evidence
of him backing terror, post it...
cheers
matt
ma...@public-record.co.uk
wrote:
>> You simply have no evidence that he actually WANTS to use them against
>> us!
>
>We know the following:
>
>1 he'd like to control the mid east and the oil
>
>2 he hates Israel
>
>3 he'd like the West to stop meddling in the mid east
That's true of about 50% of the posters to this newsgroup!
>If he believes it will help loosen the West's grip in the area, he has
>a strong motive to attack us. If the West does loose its grip, then a
>vital resource will no longer be under our control and we will be
>weakened. We cannot let Saddam (a baathist fascist) pursue even
>regional domination or become a member of the nuclear club since we'll
>end up with a nuclear armed totalitarian dictatorship on our doorstep
>(again), that is actively hostile to the values we espouse. Nor can we
>let the Islamofascists do the same for the same reason.
Fine. We do what we did last time. When he tries to invade another
country, we smack him.
>That's the long term picture. The shorter term picture is that we are
>his enemies and support his main enemy in the region, and will be so
>long as we try to contain him and/or support Israel. He therefore has
>a motive to attack us in any way he can and when he thinks he can get
>away with it and weaken our position or strengthen his (e.g. by
>gaining support of his neighbours thus making life more difficult for
>us there). Add to that any resentment he will feel for our efforts
>thus far to contain him.
He's presumabnly not an idiot. He won't attack state-state
>In short, ISTM abundantly clear he has the motive to attack us, though
>of course he may be wary about provoking a strong response.
No shit!
>Consider that it appears he's noticed that Europe has become very
>squeamish about backing Israel, and thus stokes the
>Palestinian/Israeli conflict to exploit this (funding the families of
>suicide bombers) and weaken support for Israel.
Or he just believes that teh Palestinian's have just cause... Why try
to guess what goes on in his head?
>If he starts to feel
>that Europe is squeamish about the efforts needed to contain him, he
>might start funding terrorist outrages in Europe on the premiss that
>this will lead to growing support for leaving him alone and thus make
>it more difficult for the US/UK to continue containing him.
Might do. All kinds of things might happen. International law suggests
hanging on until real threat exists
>Now, I have questions for you: Why did Saddam stop cooperating with
>the weapons inspections? We has he not let them resume despite the
>bombings?
No doubt he does have all kinds of illicit weapons-making activity. Is
he the only one?
cheers
matt
abelard
>On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 22:56:42 +0200, abelard <abe...@abelard.org>
>wrote:
>
>>>You have no evidence that Saddam would provoke his own nuking by using
>>>WMDs in any 'first strike' against us.
>>
>>i am surprised to see you assuming that the *only* problem
>> with madsam obtaining nukes would be the possibility
>> of a first strike.....
>>this is an entirely foolish notion.....
>>
>>a likely hope would be that other nations would be inhibited
>> from stopping him attacking (or otherwise pressurising) his
>> neighbours.....
>>
>>your use of 'paranoid' in the context of a madman armed with
>> rocket mounted nukes is quite bizarre.....
>>this is the lunatic who ordered the firing of large numbers of oil
>> wells (in the apparent belief they could not be doused) and
>> the visiting of massive pollution and waste......
>>this is the lunatic reported as having shot a colleague out of
>> hand during a meeting......
>
>So he's a bad man. We have lots of bad friends. Why is Saddam
>considered such a singular threat?
i have not claimed that he is.....
good to see you posting again....be aware that people (as usual)
tend to read more into my posts that i post.......
i tend to let them...and then allow them to gradually fight their
way out of their own confusions and misconceptions....
>>i have come to the tentative conclusion that your agenda is
>> a sympathy for indian interests.....
>> you have effectively accepted that irak's (madsam's)
>> current posture favours india.....
>>
>>further.....
>>i cannot see any sane person not welcoming an opportunity
>> to get this loon off the backs of the iraki people....
>
>Sure. Same applies to many regimes. Why don't we have a pop at Mugabe
>on the same grounds?
because he is in the middle of africa....possibly because the area is
currently more tribalised....
> Why do we support others that burden their
>people?
support?
>>those arguing against removing madsam seem to me to be
>> ...let's be kind and say...somewhat 'strange'......
>> quite apart from the obvious reality that they appear to
>> have no adequate rational argument for their support
>> of this dictator and his odious regime....
>
>Two sources of apparent 'support'.
yeah, well i wasn't answering such a sharpie :-)
>1) A desire not to create a precedent that the US or any other group
>can unilaterally determine who is and who is not 'acceptable'.
i want such mechanisms in place at this time.....
> The
>history of this is not proud.
bugger that bit....
>2) A total lack of clarity why this guy, who we've supported in the
>past,
irrelevant.....
>suddently becomes the worst guy on the block.
not my characterisation.....but he is certainly good for a place in
the finals.....
>Make no mistake - taking Saddam out is better than bleeding the
>country to death as currently. But teh rationale has to be better than
>presented.
i tend to prefer that....
this is what i am attempting to nurture....
>Internatoinal law and precedent was hard-won. 45 million died last
>time... I wouldn't want it lobbed out
i can see your issue....
but i am unprepared to sit still for the combined club of
pusillanimity
and dictators unlimited...
abelard
>On 10 Sep 2002 04:24:23 -0700, ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton)
>wrote:
>
>>> He had WMDs when he was our good pal.
>>
>>If you're referring to the US support for Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war,
>>that was when Iran was a greater threat
>
>Maybe. But even that's not clear. The US has a history of mistaking
>nationalist and self-determination movements for 'enemy action'
>(Vietnam, Nicaragua, South Africa)
i don't accept that re vietnam......
russia tried it on with cuba....why not nic.....
>>and before it was clear how
>>much of a threat Saddam himself was.
>
>After he'd used gas on his own Kurdish population...
>
>>> In fact, even if he gets a whole slew of nukes he would still only be a
>>> danger to his neighbours.
>>
>>(1) If he controls that region he controls an area of the world within
>>striking distance of Europe, Russia, China and India.
>
>Sure, but what realistic chance is there of him controlling the
>region? None.
let x equal....
>>(2) If the controls the oil he controls a resource that the world
>>economy is still heavily dependent on so he can dictate terms to us.
>
>Which he won't do.
let x equal....
in both cases completely unacceptable this year.....
Bill Willis
>
> On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 22:56:42 +0200, abelard <abe...@abelard.org>
> wrote:
>
> So he's a bad man. We have lots of bad friends. Why is Saddam
> considered such a singular threat?
I'm not sure that he is a "singular" threat although he does seem to
stand out. He is not merely evil, he is spectacularly evil. Don't you
think? Oops I forgot you reject evil as a concept.
>
> >i have come to the tentative conclusion that your agenda is
> > a sympathy for indian interests.....
> > you have effectively accepted that irak's (madsam's)
> > current posture favours india.....
> >
> >further.....
> >i cannot see any sane person not welcoming an opportunity
> > to get this loon off the backs of the iraki people....
>
> Sure. Same applies to many regimes. Why don't we have a pop at Mugabe
> on the same grounds? Why do we support others that burden their
> people?
Is your argument therefore that if we don't do good everywhere we should
not do good anywhere? Mind you I am not claiming that we are in this
primarily to do good. We are doing this primarily to protect our
asses. Of course that is a good thing too. Nevertheless I do think
much good is likely to evolve from action in Iraq.
What do you say about abelard's Indian supposition? Although I frankly
don't see the connection he is making, you two seem to understand each
other so well...?
>
> >those arguing against removing madsam seem to me to be
> > ...let's be kind and say...somewhat 'strange'......
> > quite apart from the obvious reality that they appear to
> > have no adequate rational argument for their support
> > of this dictator and his odious regime....
>
> Two sources of apparent 'support'.
>
> 1) A desire not to create a precedent that the US or any other group
> can unilaterally determine who is and who is not 'acceptable'. The
> history of this is not proud.
Would such be a precedent?
"Acceptable" to whom?
>
> 2) A total lack of clarity why this guy, who we've supported in the
> past, suddently becomes the worst guy on the block.
Suddenly?
What of the past? Times change.
>
> Make no mistake - taking Saddam out is better than bleeding the
> country to death as currently. But teh rationale has to be better than
> presented.
What do you think we should do. Should we stop the sanctions? Should
we not invade. I am asking what you think not what the UN thinks etc.?
>
> Internatoinal law and precedent was hard-won. 45 million died last
> time... I wouldn't want it lobbed out
But it wasn't won at all. You are living in an illusion. You are
pretending you live in a world as you like it rather than the one that
is.
Bill
ma...@public-record.co.uk
wrote:
>>>your use of 'paranoid' in the context of a madman armed with
>>> rocket mounted nukes is quite bizarre.....
>>>this is the lunatic who ordered the firing of large numbers of oil
>>> wells (in the apparent belief they could not be doused) and
>>> the visiting of massive pollution and waste......
>>>this is the lunatic reported as having shot a colleague out of
>>> hand during a meeting......
>>
>>So he's a bad man. We have lots of bad friends. Why is Saddam
>>considered such a singular threat?
>
>i have not claimed that he is.....
So why?
I really fail to see why Hussein is such an issue. Don't get me wrong,
I couldn't give a flying about him. I have concersn that a minor
dictator is being used as a rationale for breaking a bunch of very
useful elements of international 'case law' or precedent
>good to see you posting again....be aware that people (as usual)
> tend to read more into my posts that i post.......
>i tend to let them...and then allow them to gradually fight their
> way out of their own confusions and misconceptions....
Sure. And I've seen such a huge volume of posts over the last two days
that I may well be missing important subtleties. No doubt you'll put
me right...
>>>further.....
>>>i cannot see any sane person not welcoming an opportunity
>>> to get this loon off the backs of the iraki people....
>>
>>Sure. Same applies to many regimes. Why don't we have a pop at Mugabe
>>on the same grounds?
>
>because he is in the middle of africa....possibly because the area is
> currently more tribalised....
Sure. But is this really about oil?
>> Why do we support others that burden their
>>people?
>
>support?
Plenty of examples, from UNITA in Angola to the Saudis themselves
>>>those arguing against removing madsam seem to me to be
>>> ...let's be kind and say...somewhat 'strange'......
>>> quite apart from the obvious reality that they appear to
>>> have no adequate rational argument for their support
>>> of this dictator and his odious regime....
>>
>>Two sources of apparent 'support'.
>
>yeah, well i wasn't answering such a sharpie :-)
Time to raise the game here. The several hundred posts I've skimmed
lack any real conclusion, which is rare on usenet (amongst reaonsable
people). I think that the Yanks have lost it in large measure
>>1) A desire not to create a precedent that the US or any other group
>>can unilaterally determine who is and who is not 'acceptable'.
>
>i want such mechanisms in place at this time.....
Don't follow this. Are you saying you want the US to be constrained to
act in a multilateral context?
>> The history of this is not proud.
>
>bugger that bit....
Not unless you can show what's changed to improve the likelihood of
success (on any reasonable definniton) in future
>>2) A total lack of clarity why this guy, who we've supported in the
>>past,
>
>irrelevant.....
Not really. It's relevant largely because the argument is that he is
being taken out because he is *EVIL* (with as much punctuation as
possible). But he was just as 'evil' when we backed him. So it's
relevant for that argument
>>suddently becomes the worst guy on the block.
>
>not my characterisation.....but he is certainly good for a place in
> the finals.....
Agreed. But why *now*?
>>Make no mistake - taking Saddam out is better than bleeding the
>>country to death as currently. But teh rationale has to be better than
>>presented.
>
>i tend to prefer that....
>this is what i am attempting to nurture....
So what is the rationale?
>>Internatoinal law and precedent was hard-won. 45 million died last
>>time... I wouldn't want it lobbed out
>
>i can see your issue....
>but i am unprepared to sit still for the combined club of
>pusillanimity and dictators unlimited...
Me too. But Hussein is too small an issue to lob out hard-won
precedent. And the RoW will not forget that 'international law' meant
nothing when the US got frightened
cheers
matt
ma...@public-record.co.uk
wrote:
>> So he's a bad man. We have lots of bad friends. Why is Saddam
>> considered such a singular threat?
>
>I'm not sure that he is a "singular" threat although he does seem to
>stand out. He is not merely evil, he is spectacularly evil. Don't you
>think? Oops I forgot you reject evil as a concept.
Why did we back him so heavily when he was so 'spectacularly evil'?
>> >further.....
>> >i cannot see any sane person not welcoming an opportunity
>> > to get this loon off the backs of the iraki people....
>>
>> Sure. Same applies to many regimes. Why don't we have a pop at Mugabe
>> on the same grounds? Why do we support others that burden their
>> people?
>
>Is your argument therefore that if we don't do good everywhere we should
>not do good anywhere?
No. But why are we choosing to 'do good' here?
>Mind you I am not claiming that we are in this
>primarily to do good. We are doing this primarily to protect our
>asses. Of course that is a good thing too. Nevertheless I do think
>much good is likely to evolve from action in Iraq.
>
>What do you say about abelard's Indian supposition? Although I frankly
>don't see the connection he is making, you two seem to understand each
>other so well...?
Ab's Indian supposition was a challenge to Dr Sunil. I've no ideas
what Sunil's position is...
>> >those arguing against removing madsam seem to me to be
>> > ...let's be kind and say...somewhat 'strange'......
>> > quite apart from the obvious reality that they appear to
>> > have no adequate rational argument for their support
>> > of this dictator and his odious regime....
>>
>> Two sources of apparent 'support'.
>>
>> 1) A desire not to create a precedent that the US or any other group
>> can unilaterally determine who is and who is not 'acceptable'. The
>> history of this is not proud.
>
>Would such be a precedent?
I don't understand this sentence. My paragraph meant to say that I did
not want to create a precedent for unilateralism. Military
unilateralism by powerful nations does not have a proud history, hence
the long trek from westphalia
>"Acceptable" to whom?
Acceptable to the unilateralist
>> 2) A total lack of clarity why this guy, who we've supported in the
>> past, suddently becomes the worst guy on the block.
>
>Suddenly?
>
>What of the past? Times change.
So what has changed that this man, who whilst gassing his own peple
was 'not evil' and now is 'spectacularly evil'? Or is 'evil' only used
as a reason for attack when emotion is required?
>> Make no mistake - taking Saddam out is better than bleeding the
>> country to death as currently. But teh rationale has to be better than
>> presented.
>
>What do you think we should do. Should we stop the sanctions? Should
>we not invade. I am asking what you think not what the UN thinks etc.?
Given the mess the situation is in, I think that the rationale for the
attack should be made much clearer. I can see a rationale that says:
"At the end of the Gulf War, the UN placed constraints on Iraq. These
had the support of the international community. We've tried to make
Hussein comply. We tried economic sanctions, and they've failed. We're
now going to give him a deadline. If he doesn't make it, we'll attack
when we're ready. The aim of the attack is replace Hussein and the
ruling Baath party with a democratic regime.
Becasue we consider the UN resolutions to be a legitimate, even
binding constraint on the behaviour of nations, we also undertake to
apply equivalent pressure on other outstanding UN resolution breaches"
>> Internatoinal law and precedent was hard-won. 45 million died last
>> time... I wouldn't want it lobbed out
>
>But it wasn't won at all. You are living in an illusion. You are
>pretending you live in a world as you like it rather than the one that
>is.
It was won in large part. Hence, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, a large
multinational force went after Hussein. In Yugoslavia, additional
precedents were won. Same (after a while) in Rwanda, even, finally in
Timor
Provide a few material counter examples where a unlateral act of
aggression was accepted by the international community... Not even
Tibet, though there is understandable reluctance to fight China
cheers
matt